cwsox

ya gotta sell what ya got and that is all they got

I am praying that he will be -

As far as Lowe goes, I thought he was on the long slow road to where he is and didn't care that we traded him away - and the same goes for Baldwin, didn't mind losing him at all. Not at all. I don't want either of them back. No way. The countdown begins: how long will it take baggio to post that we should sign the rejected by Sox-Dodgers-Mariners-Royal Baldwin --

Just want you to know I caught that and that it was damn funny! Naturally I have the 50¢ cd and it is pretty good! 50¢ calls Em his favorite white boy, but he should talk sweet to the guy who produces his stuff, huh?

we did a couple of AL west division titles!

let me be clear - when i said I ahven't been able to load everything onto my palm sucessfully, I meant stuff from palm and dataviz and elsewhere - this schedule loaded so easily, one hot sync move and there it was all beautiful and everything - again my deepest thanks Soxheads, you did real good getting this available - and I thank you - and if you have costs involved, let me know -

from Sox MLB page

knowing how the Chicago Tribune is nothing but a mouthpiece for Saddam Hussein, and being the official newspaper of the Democtraic far left, I was not at all surprised to read in the 20 March 2003 edition, on page 5 of the front section, a lengthy article by Iraqi synchophant Cam Simpson called "Al Queda allegation is the weakest link in justifying war." Speaking of the forged documents and other things, the article says "little if any of the evidence supporting that argument has held up." Why is this antiAmerican filth allowed to be sold in the United States? Or more pertinent, who doesn't anyone read the papers now and again and take a break from unreality to get a little reality check?

The only west coast series that we need to win in 2003 is that one we're playing at Arizona in October. And our Arizona eras right now say, we win!

Did I read "Barcelo (HOF material)"?????? Whatever I am smoking doesn't pack that kind of a punch!

I am not very adept with my palm yet and have not been able to download (upload?) everything successfully but wow, this schedule is beautiful and I cannot express my thanks to Alex enough. Kid, you rock!

Rauch had every chance this spring. It is a shame. What really concerned me were the two innings in a row against KC where it was 2 outs and no one on and 0-2 on the batters and he was scored on each time. Lets hope he gets it together in AAA.

So ha ha ha boycotts against the US ha ha ha. I find it sad that anyone thinks that is funny and will not affect this nation. This nation is a very small part of the world. We need international trade to keep our economy going. Jobs depend on that. If the 1 billion people of the Islamic world, and the one billion plus of China, and Russia, with all of its needs, decide to boycott us, plenty of American jobs will be lost. Add to that any other reduction in US exports because of lagging sales of American goods in Europe and Africa, and the question will be how fast we replace the ha ha ha’s with the word depression. We are not alone in this world, not are we this world’s masters. Thus add to the cost of war the numbers of jobs that will be lost if US exports significantly decrease. There were many other ways of dealing with what needs to be dealt with. I doubt you will be more safe in a world where other nations feel free to follow our lead and invade for the sake of regime change for whatever reasons, all of them "good," that they will have. I doubt you will be more safe in a world where we have have alienated our allies who stood with us after September 11th. I doubt you will be more safe in a world where our actions have reinforced the image of America acting is Imperial Rome. We have blown off the Kyoto Accords, the ABM treaty (will you be more safe when other nations decide just to shred treaties they have made with us?), the War Crimes court in the Hague. Now again we have blown off our allies. People in other countries are enraged at us. What happens when next time we need cooperation on something vital to us? Are we more safe because as a PR spin move we have gotten Eritrea and Palau to sign a good luck card to show they are nations who supports us? Had we had real support, why didn't we go for a vote of the General Assembly? Why didn't Bush keep his promise of going for a vote for a 2nd resolution "up or down." This administration promised us dancing in the streets and rose petals. Have you seen that yet? Maybe they miscalculated by forgetting that people don't like their country being invaded. I doubt this nation is more safe when the same people who served the two administrations that gave aid and comfort to Saddam Hussein are the ones whose corporations will now profit in its destruction. When Bob Dole went to Iraq to praise Saddam as "someone we can work with" in 1990, Saddam had already done most of the crimes charged against him now. I wonder if America would have been more safe had the peace and justice community been listened to when we objected to US dalliances with Saddam in the late 70s and all through the 80s and half way through 1990. I wonder if we are safe when our president "looks into the soul" of Putin and thinks all is ok - what a misreading of Putin has this president committed. And you trust these people to make us safe? I tremble at the history and current policies of these people. Saddam has been safely contained for many years outside his borders. We had many other options for bringing him down. We had many other options in this situation. Will you feel more safe when the inevitable response comes? Are we more safe because we have angered a large part of the world? Are we more safe because we have fueled the fires of terrorism? I wonder how many of the pro-war posters here can find our big allies Eritrea or Palau on a map. I see the polls which show that 45% of the US believes that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for September 11th - which he had nothing to do with. Are we more secure when the promise to get bin Laden dead or alive has not been kept but we go after a nation that did not attack us, was contained, and was supported in power by the same people who sit in our government now? Are we more secure when the nation has a $350 billion annual deficit for this fiscal year, and in the news coverage of war tries to force a budget through Congress that has huge tax cuts and does not address the cost of the war? Will you be more secure when we hit a $1 trillion annual deficit? Do you feel more secure when a Wag the Dog is raised to disguise economic failure and the failure to have adequate intelligence and the failure to destroy al Queda? If so - feel secure. The al Queda response to the Gulf War came 11 years later. Whether it comes sooner or later, it will come for this, and if anything, we have strengthened the recruiting base for al Queda. There were other ways. The first time that I personally myself spoke in a public forum about the tyrant Saddam Hussein was the late 70s. I was not alone in the Christian peace and justice community, I was just one of many. He was a wacko then as he is now. And the powers that be dismissed us as being naive. And because Saddam was the enemy of our enemy, US administrations kissed his butt and gave him support even as he gassed the Kurds. Rumsfeld decries that now but when it was happening, he sold more weapons to Iraq so they would fight Iran. These weapons were turned on Iraq's own people and still Dole goes to Iraq to shake Saddam's hand and say we can work with him. Who are the naive ones? The administration is filled with those. Policy is made by the chief of all naiveté right now. I would suggest that anyone interested find Sojourners on the internet, or Jim Wallis of Sojourners, and see what we have been testifying to for decades and the solutions and responses that we have been proposing for decades. But as it happens due to PR spin, those who aided Saddam and acted with short sided naiveté make up this administration and those of us who decried Saddam and pointed to the evil he represented, we who offer ways other than violence and war, we are derided when we protest this unneeded and un necessary war. It makes no sense, but rationalizations for war never do. Is it possible to win this war? The overwhelming superiority of American personnel and material makes the final outcome certain. The only question is to length and number of casualties and amount of devastation that will occur. No one wishes their country to be on the losing side but the questions are what do we win - what will happen when the actual battlefield/bombing hostilities cease. We will be left with a major rebuilding job for which cost may have to be borne by this country and England in that we did not have UN sanction - and then we'll see how much the so-called "coalition of the willing" are actually willing to put up in real money. We will be left with a lot of increased hostility on the world towards this nation. Unnoticed in all the hoopla is that our own neighbors Canada and Mexico are conspicuously opposed to this war and many nations in the world are angered with what has happened without UN sanction. The struggle for who will control Iraqi oil assets and other assets when this war is over may cause further breech amongst the nations of the world against Britain and the US. The line to speak in the open sessions of the General Assembly today may reveal the potentials for whole new chasms over what is being termed the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Iraq. The anger of Russia and China - and their attitude, you fought it without approval, you pay for it but don't try to claim oil money for your use, pay for your war out of your own pocket - is something that we will have to reckon with, especially in that they are not alone in the world but with France comprise 3 of the 5 permanent Security Council seats. We may or may not be left with continued guerilla actions inside occupied Iraq. If Afghanistan is any indication, where only Kabul is concerned and the warlords continue to militarily vie for control of the rest of the country, occupation is going to be a real headache and require intensive military occupation (which has its own dangers) and the world may make us pay attention to the aftermath of this action unlike the way the situation in Afghanistan long ago disappeared from our concerns. We will be at far greater risk for terrorism from those who will feel al Queda's view of the US has been vindicated. The the Turkish-Kurd situation has not played out. If we have to militarily intervene, or if territory is lost to Turkey, we will either be fighting against a NATO ally or publicly reneging on our guarantee of Iraqi liberation. The potential is awesome in its problematic nature. This is not WW2 where Admiral Karl Doenitz or the Imperial Japanese government will sign a surrender. There will no flag raising end to hostilities. This is unlike any other military situation in which we have been involved. When the end to hostilities happens, al Queda will still be out there. N Korea is threatening to withdraw from the armistice. India and Pakistan are test firing nuclear missiles. And Iran - the third member of the so-called axis of evil - will have the nation that called it an axis of evil occupying Iran's hated rival Iraq on its border - no guessing what may happen there. There will be no victories here. This will not be like the determining game of the World Series or the Super Bowl with winner and loser and all is peaceful afterwards. There will be a cessation of active hostilities with the government of Saddam Hussein. That will not be "victory" and anyone who claims that as such is delusional. We will have huge problems if we even capture Saddam alive - it is this nation under this president that withdrew from the World Court - what do we do with a captured Saddam? The whole world will be watching and not very kindly disposed towards our acting unilaterally or with Anglo-Saxon action when we have rejected the World Court under Bush. I have no concept of the US "winning" or "losing." I have only the concept that we are entering into one of the most treacherous periods of our and world history with WOMD on all sides and terrorists everywhere out there in a hostile environment to the US which will suffer tremendous financial strain as huge budget deficits grow closer to the 1 trillion annual mark. And I greatly fear that the current administration, having gotten us to this place, lacks the skills and attitudes to work us out with abilities whatsoever that will have good outcomes for the US and the world. If this were the Olympics I'd be all for the US to win. This not being a game; this being this situation, there is no winning. There is only what is next. The US will prevail against Saddam's government. Then what? That is the period that I very greatly fear and I have real fears that the country that I love will look back at this episode and harshly judge the Bush administration for creating this particular war situation and the morass we have made that we may emerge from safely with only the greatest of care, that I totally feel this administration is not up to. The time of diplomacy is over, Colin Powell said, and I fear his words are more prescient than he intended.

I resent that. My immaturity has nothing to do with age.

you mean that you are not so impressed by their spring training results?

cubs suck. all cubs are is pr. Sox rock. Security precautions have been taken to keep CK from reading this. That was about the gist of it all.

Stewart as starter from MLB

nice to see someone likes us

I didn't know renting Ryder trucks and using fertilizer and ammonia to create a bomb was something taught to privates in the US Military the reference was not to the US military but all the militia compunds here and there around the nationwhere McVeigh got his trainging - much of that property is tax exempt as religious institutional land and thus could be considered in a special status, and then you have these ex military people running around on them (all of McVeigh's cohorts also ex-military) - so the parallel to a camp on Iraqi soil that is allowed to exist is right on - take out the camp but you don't go to war with the whole country -

Peter, Paul & Mary put on a heck of show and overall probably have the widest range of best music - an essential part of life - Kingston Trio ouevre is less than PP&M but were very good and fun - Woody Guthrie is one of the saints - Dylan ceased being folk a long time ago - certainly a rock legend - the best Dylan stuff was covered by everyone, and PP&M do the best cover of Blowin in the Wind - the Weavers were legendary - Phil Ochs certanly has has place in the ones who should be remembered - but I have seen PP&M in concert and their music is so mcuh a part of the memory ill always rank at the top there for me Judy Collins and Joan Baez are also very much worth listening to and early Joni Mitchell although she like Dylan left folk a long time ago

Navarro Luis ALvardo and Bee Bee Richard worst non free agents

exactly my thinking

The oloy thing thing that would worry me is if SI picked us to win - they are so wrong year in and year out on all their predictions.

I'll be there all weekend too

MrEye is a well respected albeit far too seldom poster from the past several years on the MLB WS boards and I welcome him here - he has generally wise things to say, and he says ir well -