JUGGERNAUT

Very little in this world is B&W. There is no such thing as sexual orientation. It's all about behavior. No law should be allowed that limits or prohibits criticism of another's behavior whether it be sexual, political, emotional, on the job, off the job, or any other context. In general I see no purpose for hate crime legislation. As a society we should not place higher values & greater consequences because the context of a crime involves the subject of race, sex, creed, political affiliation, union vs non-unionized, or any other group affiliation. Doing so creates a more judgemental society. You might believe that sodomy is moral & acceptable behavior but others do not. In fact based on the latest statistics on the issue the majority does not. So why then should someone suffer a greater consequence for their crime because they vocally express their opposition to your beliefs? They should not. Their crime should be judged in it's more generalized sense void of any special context adhering to one ideology over another.

Even though they are both Catholic & the Catholic Church has become even more vocal against capital punishment of late I am not surprised by the split of Roberts & Alito. Roberts is a hard core conservative. Alito is a much softer one. He's driven more by his spiritual upbringing than any hard core conservative ideals.

I left out Japan. I am sure to hear someone say Japan's VG industry is even bigger than ours. How come they aren't suffering low scores among their men? Simple answer: a much more disciplined society. Cram school is normal in Japan & the family structure is such that both parents & students by & large care more about achieving success than playing games. Can the same be said about America's youth? Based on Telander's numbers, no.

I looked at this before & there are some surprising numbers with respect to public schools. Telander published a column on this in the Sun-Times Sunday that broke it down in terms of a major disparity of the sexes. His headline stat was that there are more young black men in jail today then going to college. I've seen some public school drop out rates as high as 50% in IL. There's a site that publishes that stuff (though I've forgotten it since) & the ST does a good job & publishing the numbers once a year as well. But Telander's column broke down many national numbers & they are not good at all. Boys in general are falling way behind girls in education & there doesn't seem to be any hope in breaking the trend. Telander has offered reasons but he doesn't go as far as I am willing to go probably because he loves capitalism more than I do. It's pretty simple to understand why boys have fallen way behind girls & why there maybe a high trend of boys dropping out in the near future. The answer is video games. Video-games now exceed the traditional toy industry & approach $60 Billion in world-wide sales annually. The vast majority of those sales are coming from boys & young adult males. Recent surveys have indicated more Americans are now spending more time on the internet than they do watching TV & the biggest growth in attracting those eyeballs has come from the gaming industry. Not just video games either. Boys & males in general again make up a large majority of that interest. Now Telander choose to look at feminism in America as a root cause but that's completely ignorant of what these boys are doing with their time today. They aren't' lagging in grade school & high school because they are thinking about all the female managers in America. They lag because their time, dedication, effort, & interest is geared toward video games & the peer communication resulting from it. Now that vg's have spread to the cellular & wireless industry en-masse we can expect things to get worse. Oddly enough there will be some Dem voters who read this that immediately think "blame the parents". That's always the easy out isn't it? Tell me something. Now that our state & local governments are now outsourcing work overseas because they 1) don't want to budget costs for American workers, 2) don't have confidence in American workers should we blame are ever-decreasing capacity to produce on the parents as well? When does the problem become big enough to where "blame the parents" is no longer considered a worthy response?

Here I am on the fence again. The Libertarian in me trumps the Republican. I'm against expanding such surveilance on American citizens without court approval. I simply do not see any evidence that suggests to me a need to compromise our freedoms which include privacy rights. Now I do not extend the rights of American citizens to foreigners so by all means do what you must to them. I don't believe America has any obligation to uphold freedoms for foreigners & illegals. They aren't natural born, don't have social security numbers, & only in rare cases file taxes. They constitute a significant risk. I can even accept extending the argument to people who hold dual citizenship. They constitute a risk higher than that of single citizenship Americans. Now I understand they have narrowed the scope to overseas calls but politicians minds rarely work in a narrow scope. If they can prove their success with this aggregious defilement of privacy rights then they will be that much more likely to extend it to local calls making up some excuse like they have to protect against cells operating in the US. I always fall back to the general premise, for all it's good government is essentially an entity that exists to do you harm. Never trust & never expect anything from it. It's a neccessary evil you have to put up with. Do your best to limit it's scope & it's desire to intrude on your personal life. When you vote always think in terms of the people who will do you the least harm.

Your poll doesn't make sense with the title. The title pits them against each other but the poll simply asks whether secular should have any involvement. As the poll is written the correct answer is obvious yes. The Church's zero-tolerance policy was a good first step but it didn't go far enough. They should look to Internal police investigations as a prime example of how to handle the situation. When a cop comes under review for a questionable shooting or other action the police conduct their own internal investigation using specialists who do nothing but internal investigations. While the investigation is being conducted the cop is either suspended or has his duties serverely compromised to where he can't create further suspicion or commit further harm for the case. The Church needs to follow a similar path. They can not just allow that person to go about their actiivities as if all is well while a person is under investigation. That person's liberties need to be severely compromised to where nearly all of their duties are performed in the presence of a group. No isolated or private conduct of any kind with any persons should be allowed. There are plenty of lay persons the Church can tap do insure this is the case at just about any parish setting. In this particular case the problem the Church ran into was that the police got involved but the family & the victim never notified the Church. So without a direct complaint from either the Church had it's hands-cuffed. Adopting a zero-tolerance no-chance policy would change that. Either direct notification or police involvement would warrant an internal investigation by the Church. During at which the priest would be under continual supervision of a Church appointed internal investigator. The preist would have no chance to further due harm to any one.

Why did I think this would be a serious thead? Stupid, stupid, stupid. Nader! Nader! Nader!

I think he nailed it. Sex, Lies, & Politics. Maybe we should dump the e & go with Sx.

I don't recall KW mentioning those sentiments about Contra at the time of the trade. He did talk him up of course but I don't recall him referring to him as a dominant pitcher. As for Vazquez you have to look past the season avg numbers. The guy threw 23 games where he pitched 6+ in & gave up 3 runs or less. Those are considered quality starts & would have amounted to many more wins playing for the White Sox. His NYY numbers were good enough for all-star consideration in the 1st half of that year but fell apart the 2nd half of the year. Such a dramatic change nearly always indicates an injury of some kind. His 2005 AZD numbers showed a major improvement over those 2nd half NYY numbers. To sum up his career: One of the most dominant K-out arms in the NL during his days with the Expos. 1/2 a year of being dominant with the NYY's & 1/2 a year of being a bust. A much improved year for a team that struggled mightily for offense in AZ.

I know KW many times says one thing & does another but I believe him this time when he says he won't trade Contra unless he gets a BMac- player back in return. Not someone with BMac's ML success but someone who has BMac's ML promise. That might require the Mets & Phils to seek a 3rd team because Kenny won't settle for a player like Garland-2004 in return.

I'll make this real simple for you. Kenny has been hot after Vazquez since he became GM of the White Sox. He pursued him when in was at MTL, then when he became a NYY & finally as an AZD. Kenny's love for Vazquez has never waivered. Kenny got Contreras not because he felt that he would capable of carrying the team in the 2nd half of 2005 but because he felt he would produce more than Loaiza at the time. When they NYY's threw in the dough the trade was a no-brainer. E-LO had lost his cutter that year. Now Contreras & his agent are asking for 36/3. Why would Kenny give up his love for Vazquez to pay a much higher price for Contreras? That makes no sense. Especially when they gained an arbitration yr on Vazquez with his trade demand. They don't have to think about re-signing Vazquez for at least 2 yrs. Contreras prior to the 2nd half of 2005 has not been known for throwing strikes in the ML's. Vazquez is & Vazquez is the much younger arm. What shocks me about your suggestion is you're not even factoring the impact Cooper is going to have on Vazquez. Just look at what he did for Garland Contra. There's no reason to believe he can't make Vazquez a MUCH better pitcher as well.

I don't like it. Crede is more deserving of 8th than Anderson. He really came on in Sept & Oct. I think ST should decide who hits 8th & 9th. As for the rest I'm cool with it. Pods, Uribe, Thome, Kong, Dye, Iguchi, AJ, Crede, Anderson Uribe did very well at #2 in 2004. With Pods in front & Thome in back he is sure to see much better pitches. Where Ozzie sacrificed Iguchi to get Pods over a LOT last year I see a LOT more hit & run in store for Pods-Uribe. Overall the move is sure to make Uribe a more disciplined hitter. You need reasonable speed in front of Iguchi to maximize his double potential. So Dye-Iguchi makes the most sense. I think Iguchi is going to surprise a lot of people with a SLG % > 500 in 2006. I think you want to try to put good speed aboard when Pods comes to bat & that isn't Crede. Anderson's a much better fit there.

The Cubs? Give me a break! They are losers! They finished 4th & will likely do it again! What a joke! CSN doesn't have to cater to that joke of a franchise & it's fans this year. They will watch despite the losing & they will show up at the gate as well. That's why they will always be called loveable losers. It should be all White Sox. Best of White Sox. Let the Cub fans sulk until the start of ST.

It's just a difference of opinion. Frank believes he can play another 5 yrs. Kenny doesn't. Frank's a proud man who isn't going to let any one rain on his dreams. The White Sox could have handled it better. I think we can all agree on that. But it wouldn't have changed anything. Frank is visibily upset he did not get a chance to finish his career with the White Sox. Especially after they had just won the World Series. Try to put yourself in his shoes (though we are all likely to float in them). The team you played for you whole life just won the World Series. You feel good about yourself. You think you can play another 5 yrs. You get a v-mail just shortly before the Winter meetings from Kenny which amounts to "you're history Frank." How would you react? You would be crushed, hurt, angry, & everything else that comes to mind. Hell you might just bust the phone & the machine you heard the message on. Then you would calm down a bit & say to yourself, "I'll show them who's history!" You're going to narrow down your options to contenders because you want to play in the World Series before it's over. You hit it off with the famous A's GM Billy Beane & bingo .. the wheels are in motion. Now you have an opportunity to show up Kenny in the biggest way possible. Maybe it's petty to let a personal grudge get in the way of your love for a franchise but in Frank's case I don't think you can say that. He really believes that he has 5 good yrs left in him & there was no way imaginable Kenny was going to keep him on that long. This separation was inevitable. With the White Sox playing fewer games vs the A's than any other ALC opponent this year it's probably better it had happened this year.

I agree completely with the AA & AAA comments. The can't miss talent is moving from AA to the majors because the overall talent in the MLs these days is weak. Consider that a mediocre starter like Fogg has 3 teams vying for his services. Unreal. With respect to the White Sox I think the Barons have produced winning teams in recent yrs whereas the Knights have not. If that's true then a move to Charlotte for Owns means going from a winning atmosphere to a losing one. Though 2006 holds much more promise for the Knights this year.

Being both a White Sox fan & Astros fan ( I've spent several yrs of my life living in that hotbed city ) both of these famed & popular stars represent sad stories. Astros have indeed filed the insurance claim on Bagwell. Doctors have stated hist shoudler was still damaged to the degree the team could not expect a productive season from him. Yet Bagwell intends to show up at ST & compete for a job. Bagwell have spent all of his 15 ML seasons with the Astro's & might be the franchise's most popular player over that time. Recently Bagwell was quoted as saying the situation has caused a rift that may be beyond repair. Both Bagwell & Frank will be HOF candidates when they do decide to retire. But this is not what you would have hoped for either of them. Bagwell has always been considered the consumate team player. Always said & did the right thing with the press & was for the most part a darling of the media. It sort of puts Frank's comments in perspective. Both of them love the game too much to admit it might be time to say goodbye to it. I heard Frank say 5 more yrs. He's not just posturing with that notion. He really believes it. Against All Odds is the perfect theme song for both.

Not only will it be Borchard but I think he's going to add on to his 2005 success. In 2005 he led the Knights in TB & broke the Knight's all-time hit record. When called up in 2005 he made the most of his AB's & didn't choke. He represents insurance along with Mack against a Thome injury. Bench: Widger, Ozuna, Mack, Gload, & Borchy. As a SH Borchy's the only power RH option off the bench. If he survives ST in good health he's a lock for that spot.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports...ce/3621494.html Sounds similar to what I wrote about Frank. Him & Bagwell. To be or not to be .. lifers. Frank's out & it looks like Bagwell is next. I forgot about Rob Mackowiak. I think Kenny had this deal pegged the whole time. He's accomplished too much & is being paid too well to simply be a bench warmer. It is clear that Kenny had grown cold on Everett & was intend on replacing his ability to be a lefty bat. Mack is the insurance against Thome. If Kong had not signed I believe the White Sox would have retained Thomas. But with both Kong & Thome & Mack expected to spell both there is just no room for Thomas. LH bats used to be rare on the White Sox. Now we have an abundance: AJP, SPods, Jim Thome, Rob Mack, Ross Gload, & yes Borchy. Borchy will turn 28 this year. It's not common for players to make it to the big leagues after they hit that age but Borchy's raw talent & lack of baseball experience prior to being drafted makes him an exception. http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/app/new..._milb&fext=.jsp http://minorleaguebaseball.com/app/milb/st...id=milb&cid=494 Not only did he break the Knight's all-time hit record but he led the team in TB. For a power LH bat off the bench Joe fit's the bill. He'll never hit much for average but you can't be anything but encouraged by his 12AB with the White Sox in 2005.

I don't know how you can say that. Rowand has proven to be a web-gem player in the majors. Anderson has not. Minor league stats did not suggest that Rowands instincts would improve as they have. The Cubs thought they had the next Wille Mays in Corey Patterson & he turned out to be a bust as a CFer. His raw talent can barely overcome his horrible instincts to where he's considered better than average. Anderson/Owens represent an unknown defensively at the position. There's no way around that. But there are two facts that might make their life easier: 1) Uribe + Iguchi have a year of play together. If we thought these two were great last year .. knock on wood .. they should be even a better tandem this year. I expect more DP's out of them. 2) Vazquez is a strike out pitcher. His 30+ starts vs El Duque's & BMac's last year should result in far less balls hit in CF. I think Vazquez will be the biggest surprise in 2006 & it will again have the Yankeee's scratching their head as to why they can't get the same production out of these guys that the White Sox do.

The biggest loss is Rowand's glove in CF. Without Rowand in CF last year the Tribe wins the division & the White Sox miss the WC. There were that many games where Rowand's defensive play made the difference between winning & losing. You need only ask the Yankees how rare it is to find a center fielder like Rowand. We can only hope the pitchers are not as demanding of Anderson as they were of Rowand. They need to pitch that much better.

I think we all saw from the games they played against the White Sox last year what the A's staff is capable of. They've owned us for a long time now. Maybe a healthy Thome will give us an edge but I don't see any other reason to believe we can take the season series from them. If we can't beat them in the regular season will need a LOT of luck to beat them in the post season. The A's last yr finished with 88 wins after a horrible start. They were nearly as good as the Tribe. As much as the White Sox have improved on paper they've improved more.

No one is suggesting Frank is a saint. But his play has never suggested anything but a player who rises to the occasion with run scoring & producing situations. He has exhibited anything but selfish play on the field. Outside of the field of play Thomas' has an ego bigger than most athletes. That leads him to say & do things where he is clearly putting his own self-interests ahead of the team. The HOF is full of guys like that. What amazes me about all of this is how Thomas' words shake up the media. As off as this sounds, It might have been the best gift he could have delivered to the White Sox. Both Kenny & Ozzie were looking for something that would knock the chip off the organization's shoudlers. Thomas has delivered that. Suddenly in newspapers across the country associated with Thomas' comments are columns of the White Sox being vulnerable. Apparently the media believes the White Sox will sink of swim with the Thome for Rowand trade. They don't have the confidence that KW has in Anderson to be anything close to the spectacular play man that Rowand was. They feel the loss of Rowand will weaken the pitching staff significantly. They don't even mention whether Thome's offense will make up the difference. What's overshadowed in all this is that an even uglier situation is brewing in Houston with Jeff Bagwell. What some consider the greatest player the Astros have ever produced might very well find himself being pushed out of the organization. They intend to file the insurance claim despite Bagwell's intention of going to ST. The Thomas split from the White Sox pales in comparison with that.

The Dems should really look at the recent Canadian elections as a wake up call. Voters care more about money (making it, keeping it, investing it) then anything else. The Dems need to push aside the bulls*** issues & attack the conservatives where they are weakest: global economy. Get it back into the heads of American voters that a nation trending towards a severe decline in the production of goods & services can not sustain itself. Perot didn't understand you just need 1 CHART: Buying power. Show the American people a single chart of buying power & how it trends over the next 20 yrs. Even those poor in math will be able to understand a downward trend. Making buying power the main slogan of the Dem campaign & shift all public debate towards it. I can't believe the Dems can't figure this out. Which is why I believe both parties are sleeping in the same global economy bed. That's why bulls*** issues continue to determine our electorate.

What Dems & liberals can't seem to grasp is that the conservatives have branched out from their tradional strongholds to areas where liberal thought used to reign: science & media. For the first time in a long time conservative-speak is leading in just about every source of media today. It's outreach has been so profound that even the internet is seeing more growth of conservative-speak & that's beginning to affect major new sources there as well. That's why suddenly the liberal bastion of science is facing it's most severe level of scrutiny in more than a decade. Conservatives essentially want science taught that leads to a more profitable world. Which makes for a more profitable world: man viewed as an animal or man viewed as a child of God? It's pretty easy to make an economic argument for the child of God side. The hollywood/Dem homosexual agenda will end in failure. Why? Because science will close in on the question of what genetic, biological, & chemical factors have the greatest influence. When that happens a conservative marketplace will quickly turn the tide of public sentiment by marketing prevention. A decade after prevention is selling they'll go after behavior. All things considered when America's population bubbles past 350 million on the strength of traditionally conservative hispanic & asian families getting busy the %'s of gay's in the population will be even smaller.

I agree that the Nazi comparison was WAY out of line. A perfect example of the hollywood homosexual agenda is the movie Hitch. It actually insults gay people but for whatever reason they can't comprehend that. It suggests that any guy who is overly nice to another guy by default must be gay. That whole kiss scene was just a waste of time & thanks to DVDs you can just FF right thru it. But the agenda is clearly evident & with the exception of say Wedding Crashers it's pretty predictable: the nicer a male character is written in a movie the more likely he is a gay character. That has nothing to do with equal protection under the law & everything to do with an agenda aimed at beautifying gay people. When whas the last time you say a movie that beutified a lesbian person? Another strong sign it's an agenda. Since you love to get into hissy-fights over syntax I'll make this as clear as day for you: Only 2-7% of the people of the world wake up thinking the person they love or lust over the most in the same sex as they are. That makes them rare. Which is the opposite of common.