Controlled Chaos

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater Jun 27, 2006 by David Limbaugh ( bio | archive | contact ) Would the New York Times pubish our nuclear launch codes if it acquired access to them because it "may be … a matter of public interest"? The Bush administration pleaded with the New York Times not to publish its story revealing the existence of a secret government program to track the financial transactions of international terrorists. The program, headed by the CIA and overseen by the Treasury Department, is known as the "Terrorist Finance Tracking Program" (TFTP) and was begun shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Under it, government officials trace the international financial transactions of those with suspected ties to Al Qaeda by examing data -- only after obtaining an administrative subpoena -- of the Society of Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT). SWIFT is not a financial institution but a Belgian cooperative owned by more than 2,200 organizations that oversees the routing of funds between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The CIA, under the TFTP, examines mainly wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Under the program, for example, the CIA could track funds from a personal bank account of a suspected terrorist in Jordan to a mosque in Philadelphia. It does not examine most routine financial transactions confined to the United States. The government uses the data for terrorism investigations only, not such things as tax fraud or drug trafficking investigations. According to legal experts, TFTP is not remotely illegal. The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that the right to privacy does not extend to protect information in the hands of third parties, such as SWIFT, involving financial transactions. Nor do the provisions of the 1978 Right to Financial Privacy Act apply, because SWIFT is not a financial institution. TFTP has been a very successful tool in the war on terror and has been an important part of the administration's promise, shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, to include a financial component among its "weapons" to fight terrorists. TFTP led to the capture of the al Qaeda operative known as "Hambali," who is believed to have planned the bombing of a Bali resort in 2002. It also led to the prosecution and conviction of Uzair Paracha, a Brooklyn man, on terrorism-related charges, for laundering $200,000 through a Karachi bank to assist an al Qaeda terrorist in Pakistan. The Times admitted that administration officials asked it not to disclose the existence of TFTP and even "enlisted several current and former officials, both Democrat and Republican, to vouch for its value." (The White House had briefed officials from both parties on the program.) The government warned that disclosing the program would alert terrorists to its existence and severely compromise it. But the Times, in its omniscience and omnipotence, wasn't impressed and published the article anyway. The paper's exective editor, Bill Keller, said, "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial date, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest." So what might be a matter of public interest is sufficient to outweigh what will certainly be a detriment to the public interest? Under Keller's definition, would any classified information coming into the press's hands ever be off-limits from public disclosure no matter how damaging to the national interest or dangerous to American lives? If the mainstream media truly has this attitude toward the publication of highly classified government secrets, we have no choice but to tighten existing laws -- assuming they're not sufficiently tight now -- to criminalize such disclosures by the press. The First Amendment is not absolute. Everyone is well aware of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' admonition in Schenck v. United States that "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic." Well, this is a case where the Times has done worse than yelling "fire." It has given al Qaeda a book of matches with ignition fuel. It is no exaggeration to say that under the false pretense that the public is entitled to this information, the Times has aided and abetted our terrorist enemies in the war on terror. Its actions in exposing this program might very well result in the loss of American lives through attacks that could have been prevented had the existence of the program not been disclosed to the enemy. If so, blood will be on the Times's vainglorious hands.

Since it seems so cool to nominate some arcane movie to show your sophistication, here ya go... Then again if you just want to have some fun

Congrats, NorthSide!!

Here's some. http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb...006_outdoor.jsp And I just found this. haha you know we've hit the big time now!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grinder_Rules

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 11:36 AM) 1st in AL in HR 2nd in AL in R 8th in AL in OBP 4th in AL in OPS 4th in AL in RBI 4th in AL in BB 2nd in AL in SLG Yes, he needs your advice. Yep, Looks like the pitchers have him all figured out.

QUOTE(drowninginflame @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 11:53 AM) If I ever go to a white sox game and someone tells me to sit down when it's "time" to cheer for the sox, I swear to god, I'll be leaving the game in handcuffs. If you don't honor who we do things in our park, there is a whole other side of town where people just love fairweather fans and accept anyone with dollars in thier fists. "time" is the most important word there. There are definitely people who don't understand that and I have no problem with someone telling them to sit the f*** down and stop ruing the game for everyone behind them.

QUOTE(zygoat @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 11:18 AM) it wasnt necessarily ozzie who brought them back into the game, it was more of what ozzie has been teaching the last 2 years. I mean it wasnt ozzie on their butts telling them to go all out when down 9-1, but its the "win or die trying" slogan ah yes...the slogan did it!!

I'd like to know if he was right or not. Did the ump blow the call?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 07:07 AM) I heard Jon Miller ask last night during telecast, but I never heard any answer... Has anyone ever hit two homers in the last two innings for that many RBIs to rally a team back single handedly? I'm not sure if you're question has been answered yet. Yes Tatis had two grannys in the third inning, but has any players single-handedly brought his team back the way Gooch did in the last two innings of a game. 3run bomb in the 8th and granny in the 9th to erase a 7 run deficit by yourself. Crazy....

We have 4 guys with 8 wins or more and Javy is one of those guys. Guess how many other teams can claim that?? ZERO. I know his era isn't where I want it and I know he has beaten up on KC, but he has beaten some pretty good hitting teams too in Clev, Sea, and Texas. I think the more time Coop has with him, the better he'll be. I'm hardly ready to trade him or write him off as a bad trade. Only on our team do we consider an 8-4 starter a liability.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 08:37 AM) I guess I don't consider eating up 6 innings in a game while giving up 9 runs to be a plus. Yes, that's what I said.

Javy is 8-4 and has eaten up 95.1 innings. If he gets to 14-15 wins and continues to eat up innings at his current pace, then we pretty much got what I expected. He's frustrating at times no doubt, but Javy has some wicked stuff as well. I have no doubt he can put together a nice little streak. He has made some hitters look just silly at the plate. Did everyone here think we were getting a #1 starter for El Duque??

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 03:30 PM) Exactamundo Fonzarelli. I don't know guys, hands are like that on each other all the time it's a basketball game. I can see pushing someone on the street unprovoked...then you better be ready for that guy to start swinging...but in a basketball game...how can you expect the guy to swing at you just for pushing him back? haha funny how all these posts started talking about fightin on the street.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 03:16 PM) It does look like he just pushed him for no reason. Sometimes you'll see someone push off a bit to try and seperate from the defender but that right there seemed like a blatant push with out any reason for it. There's a lot of contact in basketball....especially under the boards boxing out and such...I agree that push wasn't basketball related. but it soudns like it went back to the play before and was just typical shoving that goes on in basketball. A clothes line and a fury of punches that would make any hockey inforcer proud, was way out of bounds. Once again we can't look at the result and say oh the kid is fine now. We have to look at what if he wasn't fine. What if his jaw was busted or his head got cracked open on the floor or any other number of SERIOUS things that could have occured. This kid needs to be made an example of so next time there's the typical pushing on a court one of the kids can say "oh dam remember what happened to so and so...he was put on probation and banned from basketball for the rest of high school or whatever.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 03:07 PM) Uh, there was a shove from that kid before he got his ass kicked. I'm not saying he deserved it, but he did provoke it. The other kid needs to put a pair of gloves on, he's got raw skillz. yeah if you listen to the whol interview the kid says they were fighting for a rebound on play before and the one kid shoved him as they were running down the court and he shoved him back and then BAM clothes line!! Punk ass kid is what he is and he should be brought on charges.

I haven't seen this anywhere Former Sox starter admits steroid use Crawford says it was 'everywhere' in baseball By Chris Snow and Gordon Edes, Globe Staff | June 22, 2006 Paxton Crawford, reached by phone last night, offered no more than a minute to explain himself, despite the fact that in the ESPN The Magazine issue that hit newsstands yesterday he detailed his steroid use beginning in 1999 in minor league camp with the Red Sox and continuing in the majors with the team in 2000 and 2001. ``I thought it was a one-time story deal, bro," said Crawford, who at 28 is out of baseball and working on his family's farm in Arkansas. ``If any other reporter called, I was not interested." The reporter mentioned that he'd covered the Sox for about a decade, including Crawford's time with the club, and didn't know for sure who'd used steroids. ``You didn't know?" Crawford asked, surprise in his voice. No, the reporter said. How widespread was it? Were there a lot of players? ``Yup," he said. Five, 10, 20, 50, how many? ``It was just everywhere," he said. Did this begin in minor league camp, in big league camp? ``So, anyway," Crawford said, ``it's kind of a sore subject, bro. That's it." And he hung up. You may remember a 22-year-old version of Paxton Crawford, who in July 2000 with Triple A Pawtucket tossed a seven-inning no-hitter. The next night he fell out of bed in a hotel room in Ottawa and landed on a water glass (that's what he claimed, at least). The rumors that made the rounds suggest a different cause of the gash that cost him 2 pints of blood and a chance to be recalled by the Sox later that month. In 2002, at Pawtucket, he was reprimanded by the team for an incident that took place in the stadium parking lot while the game was in progress. Crawford, who made 15 big league appearances, all with the Sox in 2000 and 2001, had his share of missteps as a pro baseball player. In ESPN The Magazine he documents yet another: steroid use. Until this, no big league player who has been suspended for steroids or who willfully acknowledged using steroids was a member of the Sox organization at the time he used. Crawford, in a first-person story, told ESPN The Magazine's Amy Nelson, ``I always envied the guys with rubber arms. I was the type who was always in pain. During minor league spring training with the Red Sox in 1999, some of the other guys saw I was hurting. They told me that if I took this stuff, it would make the pain go away and cut my recovery time in half. Shoot, why not? I'm just a country boy. I didn't even think twice. ``It seemed like everybody else was doing it, so it wasn't a big deal, right?" Crawford, who stood 6 foot 3 inches tall and weighed about 205 pounds, said he began by injecting himself with 1 cc of Deca Durabolin each week, ``a lot less than some guys were taking." He also began taking Winstrol . ``That was the big thing with pitchers -- a combo of Winny and Deca," he told ESPN The Magazine. ``Winny would improve your fast-twitch muscles and help you gain velocity. Deca, which is oil-based, would keep your tendons and joints lubed up and make you feel better the next morning. ``When I started using, I noticed my fastball jumped from 92-93 to 95-96 m.p.h. But the biggest change for me was consistency. My breaking pitches had more velocity and sharper break. I was probably using the most back in 2001, when I made the Red Sox' rotation out of spring training. About that time I was getting pretty big, and another player introduced me to human growth hormone (HGH), which had started to make the rounds in the majors." Crawford, however, said he didn't like HGH and stopped using it ``because it cut me up. It's a fat burner, and it made my muscles really lean and tight." One of Crawford's surprises amid steroid use: instead of experiencing ``roid rage," he felt the opposite. ``I was so sure the Deca would feed my aggression that I actually let up; I was going to the mound less pissed off than before," he told ESPN The Magazine. ``That's when some of my teammates introduced me to greenies [amphetamines]. The whole thing is a cycle. That's why I think steroids are a gateway drug. One time I took this pill called speckled trout. It was pink with red flecks in it, and it made my heart almost jump out of my chest. ``Back in 2001, I thought I was the man. I had no shame, and I thought nobody could touch me. One time, I walked right into the Red Sox clubhouse with a bunch of needles wrapped in a towel and left them on my chair. A few minutes later, one of my teammates came running over, saying, `Paxton, someone knocked your chair over and your freaking needles are all over the floor!' Man, we just died about that. He said it was the funniest thing he'd ever seen, told me I was nuts. But that's the way it was back then." Only three members of the current Sox were teammates with Crawford in Boston in 2001: captain Jason Varitek, Tim Wakefield, and Trot Nixon (Doug Mirabelli was dealt to the Sox in June 2001 but wasn't teammates with Crawford). Both Varitek and Wakefield, when informed of Crawford's account, said the scene with needles on the clubhouse carpet sounds difficult to believe. Wakefield called ``ridiculous" the suggestion that a member of the Sox one of those years introduced him to steroids. But, Wakefield added, ``I didn't see him in spring training that much. I really don't know him. He was up here, what, two months?" Indeed, Crawford's major league career was a brief one. He debuted July 1, 2000, pitching 5 1/3 innings at Chicago and allowing two earned runs in a 7-2 loss. He made 15 total appearances over that season and the next, 11 of them starts, going 5-1 with a 4.15 ERA. Varitek remembers that debut. ``I caught him," Varitek said. ``That one sticks out. It was a pretty phenomenal start. He had a pretty explosive fastball. We were looking to utilize him." His major league career, though, lasted less than a full calendar year. He was in the rotation to begin 2001 but made just seven starts. He suffered a stress fracture in his lower back in June 2001 and had shoulder surgery in February 2002. He never got out of Pawtucket in 2002, going 2-3 with a 5.55 ERA in just nine games. In October 2002, the Sox released him. ``That was quite something," Mike Port, who released Crawford, said yesterday, after reading the ESPN account. ``I remember he wasn't throwing the ball well. But I never had any reason to suspect anything. Nor do I expect any of us did. He was a big strong fellow to begin with. ``Unfortunately, I would say it's a story I hope -- not at Paxton's expense -- but a story I hope a lot of people should read now. And be advised, knowing the things we know now. ``As I knew him, his personality, I never had a problem. He was cooperative enough. I think he was just trying to make his own way. I'm sorry to read about it, but if any good can come out of it hopefully others will read it this week." Port was interim GM for just one season, 2002, and was an assistant GM the years Crawford acknowledged using steroids (1999-2001). But Port said there were no indications Crawford was using steroids. The same notion was voiced by Varitek and Wakefield. ``There's so much we don't know about what other guys are doing," Varitek said. ``We know on the field, where we all compete. Granted, this team over the years has gotten to where guys hang out more, go to dinner, and I still don't think you're necessarily going to know, no matter what it is." Crawford's career just recently came to an end, though not without another forgettable incident. In August 2004 with Chattanooga, the Double A affiliate of the Cincinnati Reds, he was suspended 15 days for violating the league's alcohol and drug abuse policy. His last destination, last summer, was with the Long Island Ducks of the independent Atlantic League, home of those with nowhere left to turn. His teammates included John Rocker, Pete Rose Jr., and former Cardinals prospect Donovan Osborne. He was off to an 8-2 start with a 1.92 ERA but went into a tailspin and called it a career in August. Now, he's home in Arkansas, helping his parents, Carl and Marilyn, on the family farm. ``Sometimes I feel like it's my fault, like I brought this on baseball," Crawford told ESPN The Magazine. ``I'll never name names, but I know it wasn't just me. Steroids had a hold on the game. Guys were walking around like zombies. Baseball is mostly mental, and all these things you're putting into your body are going to affect how you think. ``In 2001, that started happening to me. I was taking way too much stuff, and I'd get rattled. You can't get rattled in the big leagues. And then I messed up my back. I think the steroids had something to do with that, too. ``It's like playing with fire."

QUOTE(chiguy79 @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 12:14 PM) This is by far the most overblown story of the year. Everyone needs to get overthemselves. Marriotti is a tool (oh wait, can we not say that either)... I think Dave Chappelle should be censored also while they are at it. Carpenters everywhere are up in arms!!!!!!!!!

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 11:12 AM) Thx for puttin a f***in' jinx on the game 7 hours before 1st pitch. I have such a good streak going too...

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jun 23, 2006 -> 10:31 AM) It's 7:35. Title has been changed. D'oh!! just so you don't all think I'm nuts... Sox set for World Series rematch Houston (37-36) at Chicago (47-25), 7:05 p.m. CT They do have 7:35 on the front page though.

Let's get that 16th straight Count!! Goin for 8 in a row!!

I'm sure they thought we were stealing cause I did notice Molina running through different signs last night. Sometimes you go through all those with runners on base, but the bases were empty all night and molina was still going thorugh signs like a third base coach.

I wonder if anyone every went up to Ozzie and said he you know how you hear us say f.a.g all the time....that really menas a gay person. I mean think about it...f.a.g isn't taught to anyone when learning English. You just hear other people use it. I'm sure "f***in f.a.g" has been uttered a s*** load of times in front of ozzie and it probably never was used to reference a "gay" person. It was just used as a swear. I'm just saying maybe he's telling the truth when he said he thought it meant somethign different. Ah whatever..he'll go to his training and learn in our PC world there are things you don't say. Hopefully he'll be the same guy, but just learn some new words to use.

No raves for Ozzie's rantsBy Mark Kreidler ESPN.com Archive Can we all agree that certain words are so potentially hurtful they should be used either rarely or never? Good. Then let's not call it a suspension. Let's call it an intervention. C'mon, White Sox, rescue your guy before he goes Archie Bunker on the rest of the world. Ozzie Guillen has already mocked the likes of A-Rod for not being Dominican enough, equated homosexuals with child molesters, ripped into a rookie for not intentionally hitting an opposing player, declared that if any pitcher hit him twice, "I'd be in the hospital or I'd be dead -- but I will fight, I will fight." With that as the subtext, Guillen's homosexual slur of Chicago Sun-Times columnist Jay Mariotti on Tuesday is less shocking than it is a continuation of a trend that has been gathering momentum -- virtually unchecked -- by the week. It is the story of a man who became so lionized for speaking his mind that he forgot the part about having one. At some point, Guillen as a refreshing alternative to canned managerial quotes (Hey, no other managers talk like this!) morphed into the bile-spewing elephant in the living room. It isn't as though the White Sox didn't see it coming -- everybody in baseball has seen Guillen on the rage for months, even as no one lifted a hand to check him. So now's the time. Stop this man before he runs off the rails. Save Guillen from himself by yanking him off the field long enough to get his attention. This guy just referred to a local writer thusly: "What a piece of [expletive] he is, [expletive] ***." Any questions? This has nothing to do with Guillen's feud with Mariotti, and everything to do with Guillen's rapidly shrinking view of the world around him. Suspend him in order to preserve him. It's your move, White Sox. This is Chicago's guy, after all. He's the one the Sox want. They backed him up even through that ridiculous exercise last week, in which Guillen clearly went off on Sean Tracey after the rookie failed to drill Hank Blalock with a retaliatory beanball. When Tracey was subsequently shipped back to the minors, the Sox went along with the story that the move was to make room for David Riske, who'd just been acquired in a trade. (In one of those delicious story twists, both Riske and Guillen got booted from Tuesday night's rout of the Cardinals after Riske plunked Chris Duncan in retaliation for Sidney Ponson's two hit batters. Hey, at least Ozzie got his man in Riske.) This is the White Sox's story to handle. It's the Sox being embarrassed first, Major League Baseball second. And, no disrespect, does anyone really expect MLB to step in and take an exact measure that actually improves things? Handle it, Chicago, before someone else (cough, cough -- Selig -- cough, cough) tries to. It's easy to see how Guillen could have been given this much rope. The man just led a team to the World Series and won it. He had the White Sox at 20 games over .500 after Tuesday night's 20-6 drubbing of the Cards. They love a winner in every baseball town in North America, and there is an awful lot of latitude that accompanies that attitude. But, look, the track record lately ain't so hot. There is Guillen in February, telling Sports Illustrated that Alex Rodriguez is nothing but a "hypocrite" for even insinuating he might play for the Dominican team in the World Baseball Classic and adding, "It's the same with [Nomar] Garciaparra playing for Mexico. Garciaparra only knows Cancun because he went to visit." There is Guillen this spring, commenting on a situation by noting, "In Venezuela, we don't care. We take care of [stuff] by hitting people." There is Guillen last year in New York, equating a homosexual with a child molester and igniting a brief firestorm, emphasis on brief. Good thing Ozzie's team was running in first place, or it could have been an actual, you know … issue. We could fill the rest of this column with stuff Guillen has said over just the past year; the man is a veritable font of incendiary invective. He loves to talk. For a while, there, people seemed to be very happy -- or entertained enough -- to listen. But it is probably worth remembering, at some point, that Guillen is part of a larger show in which people play by slightly more restrictive rules. Put it another way: Ozzie might just talk himself out of baseball and into Marge Schott/John Rocker territory. And as much as that might satisfy some of the aggrieved parties just now, it doesn't have to happen. Go get him, Chicago. Drag him out of the dugout if you have to. Call it an intervention if it makes you feel better. But get it done.

QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Jun 22, 2006 -> 03:48 PM) Was he really off the record? First time I've heard this. Giangreco and Blanzy were adament about that when they reported the story. They said it's been blown way out of proportion and Ozzie always has these little off the record rants where he basically talks politics and other stuff with the guys and that's when he was asked this question about Mariotti.

QUOTE(whitesoxin @ Jun 22, 2006 -> 03:44 PM) He wasn't on the podium after a game or anything. I just hate the press, they are blood-sucking creatures who just want to stir the pot. The press is to blame just as much as Ozzie is. He should have kept his words under control, but there was no need to provoke him. Not only not on a podium...he was off the record.