Controlled Chaos

No but I would love to know what he says when he's pumped up like that. A lot of pitchers just scream yeah or hell yeah...what does shingo say in japenese?

Here's kinda what I see with Rowand and please correct me if i'm wrong(not like I have to tell anyone here that ) Rowand always plays good when he's not the "man" so to speak. Ever since he's been around..he would come in the game and be solid. I remember saying...we need to give this kid a shot...Everytime they give him a chance to make a play he does it. I loved how he played. Then when we do give him a shot and make him the starter...he kinda stumbles...then we take him out.....then he plays good again....It seems like kind of a pattern to me. Any thoughts?

Don't they know they can get shot in some of our hoods depending on which way it's tilted. Maybe they are representin... They could be Kings and Disciples disgusied as baseball players. Still look like total idiots....grow up...

WHOA....great minds think alike I guess.

I chose "I absolutely mind", but fact is I don't care if they win. I can care less and you should have that as an option in your poll. There should be three options... 1) you'd be happy for them 2) they can rot in hell 3) you can careless I'm #3. The Cubs are like the fricken Padres to me. I don't give a s*** about them. If they win..so what....it ain't my team. It would piss me off because I would have to see more and more coverage and listen to more and more cub fans s***, but other than that...I don't care. I hate the line "It would be great for the city of Chicago" Gimmie a break. What the f*** does that mean? Are you a hotel owner or something? Do you somehow stand to benefit by something being great for the city. It would be great for Chicago CUB fans. Unless you are in the hotel/tourism/restaurant business the cubs winning does s*** for you personally. How is it great for a sox fan or a non baseball fan if the cubs win. It isn't....so don't use the "good for the city" line as a reason to be happy if the cubs win. If you want a reason to be happy then just say I ride the fence and root for whatever team is winning.

No it's on FSN. I thought it was this(http://www.fsnchicago.com/soxopenmic.php), but apparently it wasn't since they didn't even have the audtions yet. They did say something yesterday like Sandy will be mic'd the whole game and Ozzie will be mic'd for an inning and I thought that was part of the "alternate" format.

I can't find a post on this so if it's somewhere else please merge. Did anybody check this thing out? What was it like? I tried using my SAP button and it said not available. Was it on a different channel? I had to leave right at the beginning of the game when they were kinda talking about it...and then when I got home, it was bottom of the 8th and I couldn't figure out what to do. Just wondering what people thought about it....

I have no problem about what he did with Garland....Garland didn't show signs that he was tired or ready to toss a cookie up there. Oz was giving him shot for the win....and he deserved the shot. Regarding the Friday game. It was tied with one out when Frank got a hit. Willie Harris is on the bench. I saw NO reason to not pinch run willie and then bring Konerko in for next inning. Fine I understand Frank is hitting well, but the drop off from Frank to Pauly is minimal right now, not too mentino Pauly would be in there for defensive purposes late in the game. The way I saw it was....with willie running....a base hit gets him to third and a sac fly scores him. If it didn't work then fine Pauly is in...not that much of a drop off. I argued with my friend for like an hour about this...cause he kept saying Frank should have stayed in the game cause it was tied. I just don't understand it...If you're trying to win, then take advantage of that baserunner by putting someone with speed on. The bat drop off was not that significant Ozzie did this one other time when Konerko led off the bottom of the 8th with no outs and a 4-2 lead. Why not pinch run for Pauly and have a better chance to get that insurance run in. Pauly was forced out with next batter on what would have definitely been a hit with anyone else running from 1st to 2nd. Ozzie has done alright...he has made some small mistakes. A lot of things I question are not mistakes, but more or less my opinions( which I can admit aren't always right). Either way, I wonder about some of these decisions and if they would have been made under Nossek. I hope Harold is giving some input. I only saw him once in the dugout and he looked almost half asleep when everyone else was high fiving.

I was originally headed to Jimbo's. I didn't even have tix and Steff said I might be able to score some there. Then I was greeted by what I can only assume was an angel masked in the form of my friends aunt, who just happens to be in charge of her company's tickets. She had put that game aside at the beginning of the year so she could go, but now she can't make it and I'm reaping the benefits. So I'm not sure if a big group will be tailgating. Unlike Cubs fans most of us work on Friday's. However, if you're taking a vacation day...like me...then might as well put it to good use.

Anybody tailgating for the Friday game??

Anybody know who is getting the start tonight..>Thomas or Konerko?

It is also a city full of terrorists. Like I said I disagree with that comment, but I am not as sensitive to the civilians there as you. You see that comment and are immediatley appalled. I am more sensitive to my fellow Americans there who receive no respect from many of the Arab people that they are trying to help. Which are you more concerned with? An author showing the Iraqi's respect in an article or our men and women receving respect while fighting over there to give the Iraqi's freedom. His comments are just written....our soldiers are living the disrespect. SO if you want to get all up in arms over something....maybe you should make it that. You think if we sit back and do nothing we will be safer. As long as we don't anger the big bad terrorists..then they will leave us alone. They have already struck at us and our fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, cousins, etc. We are at risk. They will continue to strike unless we take a stand. Do you remember 1993?? What do you think their intention was back then?? To just kill 6 people? Hell No...their plan was to topple one tower into the other and knock them both down killing everyone. Since there weren't a lot of casulaties military action wasn't a big deal. Well it was a big deal and as you can see they came back to finish the job. Perhaps if we were this aggressive in 93 then 01 would have never happened. Don't think for a second that sitting back and talking diplomatically is gonna save American lives, cause you're dead wrong. 1983 April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead. Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shi'ite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut. 1993 Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected. 1996 June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. Thirteen Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001. 1998 Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. Four men, two of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large. 2000 Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole was heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. Seventeen sailors were killed in a deliberate terrorist attack. Osama bin Laden, or members of his al-Qaeda terrorist network suspected. 2001 Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed two commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; two more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9951: 2,752 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.) 2003 May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including eight Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

Nope...I posted the link earlier...Sorry... http://www.dradams.org/latest.html

Adult Content, but no nudity...Good for a laugh...we don't have promotions like this http://poststuff2.entensity.net/061104/med...edia=orgasm.wmv

I'm not disagreeing that you're a moderate...I'm just telling you how you come off. The majority, if not all, of your posts are liberal. What reactoinary point of view?? He said one thing in that whole article that could be considered reactionary and that was reguarding Fallujah. I have a right mind and I know Fallujah is a city that prospered under Saddam and they would benefit most if a regime similar to his was to regain power. The regime built chemical and other factories that generated jobs for Fallujah's workers and wealth for its businessmen. Many of Fallujah's young men joined elite regime forces such as the Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard. This war has been fought with the utmost care and respect with regard to civilians, even to the detriment of our own troops. While dropping daisy cutters on the town would not be my course of action I can see his point of view. He is sick of seeing our troops die and I think he chose the phrase drop a "couple hundred daisy cutters" as effect to make his point. Just as you used "100 of the most horrific bombs in our arsenal on a city full of civilians " as effect. Hanging their corpses...come on now 1549, you have the wrong side. I truly hope you never are confronted with that situation, but if so, please don't lay down your weapon and try to talk it out. I can give a s*** about enraging the enemy...They are there trying to KILL you and you are worried about how they will react if YOU win. As for more citizens dying...like I said we treat their civilians with greater respect then they treat themselves. Our soldeiers care about their lives more than they care about their own. Diplomoacy doesn't always work....

This is sweet...my inbox is 100mb now.

http://www.dradams.org/latest.html First if you're a moderate why do you only list the points you disagree with?? I mean you call the guy an asshole and then say you agree and disagree with some things, but you only state the things you disagree with. You're learning from media well... Second if you're a moderate you come off pretty liberal with this "This is when I realized this guy is totally inane and shouldn't even be allowed to speak his mind." That's perfect leftist speak...Everyone that doesn't think like me shouldn't be allowed to speak. and finally you come with this ridiculous accusation and let your rage show through "This guy probably loves the fact that the Twin Towers were destroyed. Now he has a bloody towel to wave at the Arabs. Well this guy can go f*** himself, because he is part of the reason terror attacks will continue. " Maybe you should turn some of that anger towards our enemies....You DO know who who they are...right???

I figured it would....

My apology to the Arab world Mike S. Adams June 14, 2004 Author’s Note: the following editorial contains mildly offensive language. Given the subject matter, the author is sorry that it does not contain highly offensive language. Lately, I’ve been hearing a lot about the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal. The pictures of those “abused” prisoners have been plastered all over the front pages of papers around the country. Some of my conservative friends have interpreted the excessive coverage as proof that papers like the New York Times are actually rooting against America in its current war on terror. Even those who aren’t willing to go that far say that such coverage is helping the enemy to recruit a new generation of terrorists to inflict harm upon our troops. Despite these views, I have decided to make a formal public apology to the entire Arab world in the aftermath of Abu Ghraib. It is my hope that the following apology will help bring some clarity to the situation and, who knows, maybe even lasting world peace: Dear Arabs, I am truly sorry that Americans decided to take up arms and sacrifice their own youth in the defense of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, and the first Gulf War. After we clear up this mess in Iraq, we will refrain from any such activity in the future. I am truly sorry that I did not hear any of you call for an apology from Muslim extremists after 911. After all, the hijackers were all Arabs. I am truly sorry that Arabs have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships throughout the Middle East. I am also sorry that the “leaders” of these nations drive their citizens into poverty by keeping all of the wealth in the hands of a select few. I am also sorry that these governments intentionally breed hate for the U.S. in their religious schools while American schools do the exact opposite. I am sorry that Yasir Arafat has been kicked out of every Arab country and has attached his name to the Palestinian “cause.” I am also sorry that no other Arab country will offer nearly as much support to Arafat as we offer to them. I am sorry that the U.S. has continued to serve as the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arab nations while wealthy Arab leaders blame the U.S. for all of their problems. I am sorry that left-wing media elites would Rather (pun intended) not talk about any of this, thereby perpetuating your anger towards us. It’s probably really bad for your blood pressure. I am also sorry that most of you lack the medical resources to measure your blood pressure. And, of course, I’m sorry that few of you have indoor plumbing. That’s bad for your health, too. I am sorry that the U.N. cheated so many poor people in Iraq out of their “food for oil” money so they could get rich while the tortured, raped, and poverty-stricken citizens of Iraq suffered under Saddam Hussein. I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers after their children are blown to pieces in pursuit of Arafat’s “cause.” I am sorry that these homicide bombers have as little regard for babies as the local office of Planned Parenthood. I am sorry that so many people are unable to differentiate between the gang rape rooms and mass graves of Saddam Hussein on the one hand, and the conditions of Abu Ghraib on the other. I am sorry that our prison guards do not show the same restraint that Arabs show when their brothers in arms are killed. By the way, you shouldn’t be sorry about that. I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state. I am sorry we have not yet dropped at least 100 Daisy cutters on Fallujah in order to stop that effort. I am also sorry that cleaning up the mess in Iraq is taking so long. It only took Saddam Hussein about 30 years to accomplish all he did in the realm of human rights. Come to think of it, that’s about ten years less than the duration of our War on Poverty in the U.S. Come to think of it, I’m sorry we haven’t sent all of our gang bangers from South Central Los Angeles to Fallujah. I am sorry that every time the terrorists hide, it just happens to be inside a “Holy Site.” I am sorry that Muslim extremists have not yet apologized for the U.S.S. Cole, the embassy bombings, and for flying a plane into the World Trade Center, which collapsed in part on Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which is one of our Holy Sites. I am sorry that we have not taken a portion of the diet of Michael Moore and shipped it to one of your starving villages in the Middle East. You need it Moore (pun intended) than he does. I am sorry that your only supporters are professors, journalists, and other assorted Leftists who also support homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, partial birth abortion, and everything that you abhor in this world. I am sorry that everyone else in America is against you. Finally, I am sorry that I am going to have to end this apology by asking you to kiss the right side of my conservative butt. I’m probably just having a bad day. For that I am truly sorry.

Can someone provide a little more info?? What game changed? June 27th or July 4th?

haha..Thanks Steff. I thought I remembered hearing that the sox new mascot will be part of the all star festivities and then it never happened. Maybe they changed the look or something

I remember the sox talking about a mascot last year around all star time and then they never unveiled it....but I thought someone did post a picture once and it had brown fur. Does anyone else remember this or am I going nuts?? Either way....Mascots are good for the kids....I have no problem...hell I think we should have like 4 mascots....have 2 roam the lower bowl and 2 the upper bowl....

I need stats, examples and opinions. I been arguning with my friend about Frank being an all star. He says he doesn't play 1b so he shouldn't go. Anyway we been going at it back and forth. He says there are no other DH's that go to the allstar game. I mentioned Martinez, but that's all I can think of. Anyone know any others? Basically his argument is Frank is a great hitter, but he doesn't play the field...so he shouldn't get the call for 1B allstar. He said if they had a DH on the ballot then fine, but right now it is 1B all star and Frank has played one game at first. I say bulls***...first baseman do not get voted in for their fielding...hell most players aren't voted in for their fielding...they are voted for their hitting. If he is hitting well he should get in. Help me make my case

Ronald Reagan (1911-2004) Thomas Sowell (back to web version) | Send June 8, 2004 There are many ways to judge a President or anyone else. One old-fashioned way is by results. A more popular way in recent years has been by how well someone fits the preconceptions of the intelligentsia or the media. By the first test, Ronald Reagan was the most successful President of the United States in the 20th century. By the second test, he was a complete failure. Time and time again President Reagan went against what the smug smarties inside the beltway and on the TV tube said. And time and again he got results. It started even before Ronald Reagan was elected. When the Republicans nominated Governor Reagan in 1980, according to the late Washington Post editor Meg Greenfield, "people I knew in the Carter White House were ecstatic." They considered Reagan "not nearly smart enough" -- as liberals measured smart. The fact that Ronald Reagan beat President Jimmy Carter by a landslide did not cause any re-evaluation of his intelligence. It was luck or malaise or something else, liberals thought. Now the media line was that this cowboy from California would be taught a lesson when he got to Washington and had to play in the big leagues against the savvy guys on Capitol Hill. The new President succeeded in putting through Congress big changes that were called "the Reagan revolution." And he did it without ever having his party in control of both houses of Congress. But these results caused no re-evaluation of Ronald Reagan. One of his first acts as President was to end price controls on petroleum. The New York Times condescendingly dismissed Reagan's reliance on the free market and repeated widespread predictions of "declining domestic oil production" and skyrocketing gasoline prices. Within four months the price of gasoline fell by more than 60 cents a gallon. More luck, apparently. Where the new President would really get his comeuppance, the smart money said, was in foreign affairs, where a former governor had no experience. Not only were President Reagan's ideas about foreign policy considered naive and dangerously reckless, he would be going up against the wily Soviet rulers who were old hands at this stuff. When Ronald Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as an "evil empire," there were howls of disapproval in the media. When he proposed meeting a Soviet nuclear buildup in Eastern Europe with an American nuclear buildup in Western Europe, there were alarms that he was going to get us into a war. The result? President Reagan's policies not only did not get us into a war, they put an end to the Cold War that had been going on for decades. Meanwhile, Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, who was the media's idea of a brilliant and sophisticated man, had a whole Communist empire collapse under him when his policies were put into effect. Eastern Europe broke free and Gorbachev woke up one morning to find that the Soviet Union that he was head of no longer existed -- and that he was now a nobody in the new Russian state. But that was just bad luck, apparently. For decades it had been considered the height of political wisdom to accept as given that the Soviet bloc was here to stay -- and its expansion was so inevitable that it would be foolhardy to try to stop it. The Soviet bloc had in fact expanded through seven consecutive administrations of both Republicans and Democrats. The first territory the Communists ever lost was Grenada, when Ronald Reagan sent in American troops. But, once again, results carried no weight with the intelligentsia and the media. Reagan was considered to be completely out of touch when he said that Communism was "another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written." But how many "smart" people saw the end of the Soviet Union coming? Ronald Reagan left this country -- and the world -- a far better place than he found it. And he smiled while he did it. That's greatness -- if you judge by results.

yeah he did.....I thought it was pretty funny. Marsh that was well thought out and very interesting.