Controlled Chaos

I personally wouldn't have went with the hit and run there. Like an earlier poster stated the first pitch was a good call, but IMO it should have been called off after that. HOWEVER, This is in NO way Gloads fault or Willie's fault. It was bad fricken luck. The dam ball was a foot of the plate on a hit and run...ya can't blame willie for not getttin a piece and you sure as hell can't blame Gload for running on a hit and run.... It just sucked...and then Willie hit's a double so it just burns more....but still....the only thing to blame here is bad luck!

I have always seen top 5% pay 20% of taxes, and the top 20% pay 80% of taxes.

I don't see him stating $200,000 as the dividing line... That is the line where he is repealing the tax cuts from....but he doesn't say where he will be helping the majority of America. When he talks of middle class he talks about: A tax credit on up to $4,000 of college tuition - [Does a student get that if his parents are making 50,000/yr??] A tax credit on $5,000 of child care expenses [Does a family get that if their income is more than 50,000/yr??] Raising minimum wage [This doesn't really apply to middle class] Affordable housing [This doesn't really apply to middle class] These aren't things really geared toward middle America....it's is geared towards the lower class... Which is why Im asking...when he says tax cuts for middle class...where does that fall??

Just curious if anyone knows what Kerry considers middle class? What's the range? What's the cap?? I think a reason for a lot of long standing Democrats turning Republican. Because Democrats have been saying for years they're about middle class, but they're not.....They're all about lower class. Helping the poor and not letting them help themselves. My dad was poor as a kid. The family didn't have a car. They had one little tv. My grandpa worked at a factory and my grandma at an ice cream parlor and still made nothing. Everything in my grandmas house was rigged up. All the electric..plumbing..etc...they did themselves cause they couldn't afford to do it any other way. My dad worked all through high school...worked three jobs after high school. Finally was able to buy a car when he was 23. He became a Chicago Cop...then a Chicago Fireman. Ny mom was cutting coupons all the time. We rarely EVER went out to eat.(thank god my mom is a good cook) We lived middle class. I always had pro wings, not Nikes. He invested soem money in mutual funds....After having to take disability from the fire department...he went and worked for Com Ed....Now he is retired and playing the market. He retired making a salary of 65,000. He ain't rich....he has saved a lot...and made some money in the market here and there....but he ain't rich...and he started out poor. I'd say most people that are middle class...worked their way up....and it's hard to expect them to give their hard earned money to people that aren't willing to work like they did. and I'm sorry that's what the deomcrats want to do. If you have an income of 50-75000 and you are married with a couple kids....I'm sorry that is not rich.....you are as middle class as they come....but will the democrats help you with a tax cut Nope. cause to them...you are RICH. You worked your ass off your whole life to better yourself and your family and you have to give more and more to help the people that WONT help themselves. The more we keep giving the more they'll keep taking. Very few RICH people are just rich cause they inherited millions...most people worked their ass off to get there...

The 'working poor' scam BusinessWeek magazine has joined the chorus of misleading rhetoric about "the working poor." Why is this misleading? Let me count the ways. First of all, Census data show that most people who are working are not poor and most people who are poor are not working. The front-page headline on the May 31st issue of BusinessWeek says: "One in four workers earns $18,800 a year or less, with few if any benefits. What can be done?" Buried inside is an admission that about a third of these are part-time workers and another third are no more than 25 years old. So we are really talking about one-third of one fourth -- or fewer than 10 percent of the workers -- who are "working poor" in any full-time, long-run sense. Nevertheless, the personal human interest stories and the photographs in the article are about people in this one-twelfth, even though the statistics are about the one-fourth. As for "What can be done?" that is a misleading question because the article is about what other people can do for the "working poor," not what they can do for themselves, much less what they did in the past -- or failed to do -- that led to their having such low earning capacity. The theme is that these are people trapped by external circumstances, and words like "moxie" and "gumption" are mentioned only sarcastically to be dismissed, along with "Horatio Alger." But the cold fact is that what the intelligentsia call the American Dream is no dream. An absolute majority of the people who were in the bottom 20 percent in income in 1975 have since then also been in the top 20 percent. This inconvenient fact has been out there for years -- and has been ignored for years by those who want more government programs to relieve individuals from responsibility for making themselves more productive and therefore higher income earners. While the economy is "rewarding the growing ranks of educated knowledge workers," BusinessWeek says, this is not so for "workers who lack skills and training." In a country with free education available through high school and heavily subsidized state colleges and universities, why do some people lack skills and training? More important, what is likely to cause them to get skills and training -- pay differentials or largess in money or in kind from the taxpayers as "entitlements"? This is an agenda article and facts that get in the way of the welfare state agenda get little attention, if any. Meanwhile, notions that have no factual basis are asserted boldly. For example: "Working one's way up the ladder is becoming harder, not easier." Evidence? Wage rates for people in the bottom 20 percent have not risen much over the past 30 years. The fallacy here is that it is not the same people in the bottom 20 percent over the past 30 years. Most people in the bottom 20 percent do not stay there even one decade, much less three. Young, inexperienced beginners do not remain young or inexperienced or beginners their whole lives. Some people, of course, never learn -- and never rise. Creating entitlements for them reduces any need to learn. But that is the way BusinessWeek urges us to go. They want higher minimum wages imposed, despite evidence that minimum wage laws reduce employment. Why would anyone think that making labor more costly would not affect employment, when higher prices reduce the amount of anything else that is bought? BusinessWeek wants "better day-care options" -- "especially for single moms." In other words, unmarried girls should have babies and expect the taxpayers to pick up the tab for taking care of them. And if we subsidize such irresponsible decisions, will that not have the same effects as subsidizing other things? Another liberal notion promoted by BusinessWeek is making it "easier to form unions." Workers can get unionized right now just by voting for a union in a government-supervised election. How much easier should it be? The problem is not a difficulty in forming unions. What has happened is that workers themselves increasingly vote against unions because they have learned the hard way that unions cost jobs, even if BusinessWeek is unwilling to learn that lesson. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomass...s20040601.shtml

I am over it....but if people want to keep telling me it was good baseball...I'm gonna keep saying it was a punk ass move by a punk ass player.

It was a CHEAP SHOT!! Plain and simple. Hunter tags up on a pop up that distance and beats the play 99-100 times. He can see he was beating it this time too. I'm sorry I don't see why some insist on defending him. Maybe it's hard for you to visualize a player wanting to just label someone, but thats what it is. The play had nothing to do with him scoring a run. I can't even visualize what Justice is saying Girardi did. How do you just stick a leg out? I have seen a million plays at the plate. I have never seen a catcher stick his leg out. Cathers are normally standing up kinda crouched down waiting to receive the ball. Stand in that postion and try just lifting a leg up to block someone...If anything you'll get your leg torn off. Not to mention if Girardi was close enought to do somethin liek that then he wasn't giving Justice the plate. Burke was GIVING the runner the plate...he was in front and closer to the first base side of the plate.... Hunter ran past the plate to hit Burke and then got up turned around and stepped on the plate. Cheap shot...

Don't blame me for having bad news By Mike Seate TRIBUNE-REVIEW Tuesday, July 27, 2004 Until recently, a comparison to Bill Cosby was something to be proud of. He's a brilliant comedian, successful businessman and role model for millions. For certain members of the black activist class, however, Cool Cos is a king-sized sellout. This stems mostly from comments Cosby made recently at an NAACP convention in Washington about America's black urban underclass. He simply reiterated what generations of responsible black families have been saying for years: Pull up your jeans, put away the guns and drugs and get an education. Cosby complained about the nation's black high school drop-out rate, teen pregnancy, crime, and our people's lack of business initiative. Most of all, he insisted that most of these problems no longer can be blamed on discrimination by white people. From the reactions Cosby's comments generated, you'd think he'd nominated Fat Albert for president or advocated mandatory skin-bleaching for black folks. Cosby has been renounced by some as an Uncle Tom of the first degree, a self-hating, bourgeois black elitist. Offering even constructive criticism of one's own people is considered a major mistake these days, a lesson this columnist is starting to learn. Last week's column addressing recent black-on-black shootings Downtown attracted a stream of negative commentary from black Pittsburghers. Most were angry not about the recent shootings, but about the "audacity of a columnist to blame black men for the crimes they commit," as one female caller put it. Who, I wonder, should shoulder the blame when black men are shooting each other on crowded city streets and robbing our few remaining Downtown stores? Some say successful black people are to blame. We don't do enough to help steer the downtrodden from lives of depravity and crime, several readers said, pausing to accuse me of "making Bryant Gumbel look like Malcolm X." Other readers, accused me of a being a "lackey and porch-n***** for (my) blue-eyed masters." I was told to seek psychiatric help for "wishing I was white." People, don't blame the messenger. Neither Bill Cosby nor I ever shot anyone Downtown. While I can't speak for Mr. Cosby, I have not intentionally influenced black kids to drop out of school, dress like gangsters, carry guns or hang out on street corners instead of educating themselves and seeking jobs. According to our critics, any crime or anti-social act committed by a black man is not his responsibility: "Africans were a peaceful people until the evil white man came and stole us away and remade our minds in his savage image," one reader railed. "If we kill or rob, it's not our fault. We're only reacting to what the white man has taught us." If black people are this uncomfortable about staring our problems in the face or even discussing them, we're in big trouble. Excuses and scapegoats will always be easier than painful self-examination. Even Fat Albert could tell you that. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-re...s/s_205258.html

so typical uribe

I think Damaso needed that as much as we did!!

I'm at work!!!

Explain the play....was the third baseman playing back? It's hard for me to visualize a timo perez bunt with 2 outs down a run. I'll take it...I just don't get it

Ugghhh this was our big inning and we ran ourselves out of it!!!!!!!!!!!!

rowand hittin

That just might be the worst inning I have seen. Jose always runs the bases well. He gets better jumps on hits than anyone on the team...he is almost a lock to score from second on a base hit...So with 0 outs...WHY IN GODS NAME DOES HE TRY TO STEAL THIRD????????? FUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCK

WTF happened?

That hit was NOT part of baseball. If the catcher is blocking the plate then it is part of baseball....and the catcher knows it's coming, but if he is nowhere near it...then it is malicious attack. This is akin to the Todd Bertuzzi hit on Steve Moore. A lot worse things happen in hockey than sucker punching a guy....but because that sucker punch knocked the guy out, his head went head first into the ice and he suffered vertebre damage....it's assault. So instead of Moore rolling over and fighting back.....it's bad news for Bertuzzi. If Burke had neck injuries...there would be a lot more talk of suspension, fines, and maybe even assalut, but since he's not hurt...you call it part of the game. It ain't part of the game....and it's a shame that someone needs to get seriously hurt for some people to see that.

Fine you don't want a bean ball then here's my suggestion. Next time Burke is catching and Hunter grounds out. When Torii is trouting back to the dugout Burke can come out of nowhere and blindside him... Is that fair? I know one of the main reasons this isn't a bigger deal to most of you is that Burke isn't a star catcher AND he didn't get seriously injured, but a hit like that could have ended his career or worse given him brain damage.

Sorry I haven't been here for two days so i't smy first chance to discuss it....and the fact that Ozzietheairedale continues to spew his opinion gives other people the right to respond. Ozzietheairedale hasn't had a good thing to say about the manager , the palyers or the organization in a long time. Everytime theres a post it's you b****ing about something. Do you want them to win....have they done anything good lately?? I'm not dwelling on it....and I don't think JimH is either. I personally just think we needed to swing back when we got popped in the face. You think winning is pay back....yeah that works too....but there's nothing wrong with getting your shots in if ya lose the fight.

It was a cheap shot....plain and simple. I wanted retaliation right away. This is the first time I diasagreed with Ozzie this year. I don't want to take out a catcher or a shortstop on a hard slide the next opportunity. They didn't do anything dirty to us. We slide hard anyway...we play good baseball. Torii went out of his way to lay a malicious hit on a guy looking the other way. I can't believe the people here that are dismissing it is playing hard. f*** THAT! It was dirty...he turned left and blindsided him....the plate was wide open. It's easy to hit a guy when he's defenseless. Just like cheap shotting a guy with a punch....it's a cowardly move. You can't even hit a quarterback like that in football without getting penalized. I wanted to bean Hunter in the ribs during his next at bat. In no way does this compare us to the cubs. Cubs bithced about calls...hit guys who hit homeruns...complained about guys watching homeruns...all while getting their ass kicked. Us reatliating for a cheap shot hit on our catcher is not even comparable to the sore loser attitude the cubs displayed in their series. Minny hasn't been beating us all year...we have been beating them....we were 7-3 goin into this series. Yeah they have handed it to us these last couple games but we have handed it to them 7 games this year as well...to say we don't have a right to retaliate cause they beat us on the field is BULLs***. We need a win today and a message needs to be sent saying.."Can't wait to see ya September 14th!!"

I'll stick with Crede. Jesus people he has been a second half player for us every year. He'll come around at the plate and he is solid defensively. Like I said some of you just want to replace every position if the guy ain't batting .300 and driving in runs. Crede and our catcher will be servicable guys and that's all we need them to be. We have Konerko, Maggs, C-Lee, Everett, Valentin for Power...we have Willie and Rowand to get on base and Rowand has pop in his bat as well. If Uribe comes out of his slump, he will be the perfect Utility/pinch hit guy. Stop worrying about replacing Crede... he does his job.

Apr18 - 9IP - 2 hits - 0 runs Apr23 - 7IP - 8 hits - 2 runs May15 - 8IP - 6 hits - 3 runs May26th - 8IP - 2hits - 0 runs Jun17th - 8ip - 5hits - 1 run He CAN be dominate when his confidence his there. I'm not saying he always is...but he can do it. In 16 starts this year Loaiza has given up more than 5 runs only 3 times. Sox should score 5 runs a game.

I want to win it all. When our bats are on....there isn't a team in the league I wouldn't battle with. We have three starters that can be very dominant. The yankees pitching isn't as solid as it once was. I'm not afraid of Brown Vasquez or Mussina....and last time I loooked Randy isn't as dominating as he used to be. The cardinals??? They'll come down to earth...and yeah it will be a struggle without the DH, but we can do it if our guys are hitting on all cylinders. Once in anything can happen. Hey if the sox get there, it should be a battle. It just depends on what team shows up.

What a bunch of babies. LaTroy you loser. At least Billy Koch blew saves with class. This is Baker's fault. Didn't knock Wood for flipping on the ump....Didn't knock Zambrano, and now Hawkins. This is the great manager that the Cubs went out and got that everyone was strokin two years ago?? He can't even control his players. The guy that kept saying "WHY NOT US??" and now that it is them, can't handle the pressure. Baker is as overrated as they come. Good Luck Flubbies.