Controlled Chaos

give him the heat ricky!!!!!!!!!!!

WHOA...I have tee times for saturday and sunday. Last night the wether was fine for the weekend....DAMMIT

Weigal was on Abc and Cbs, but not NBC. I think he's thinking of Darrian Chapman. As for Giangreco...he's alright in my book...He does pretty balanced coverage and he's a paisan. I also like Blanzy. I don't mind a reporter asking Paulie what up? Paulie answered that he had a soar neck yesterday, but he was healthy today and he'd have to ask Oz why he isn't starting. That's it. no big deal... IMHO, Oz didn't need to pop off, but I don't mind that he did...he was just establishing his ground with the reporters.

http://www.thebru.com/media.php?srcfile=bmx.mpg

I agree with what you're saying. I'm not setting any expectations for Diaz right now. However, I think his numbers are solid and he deserves more recognition on his call up than "someone named Felix Diaz"

Harrassed for what? People don't just randomly harrass people....now if those idioits were wearing cubs gear than that's what probably did it. I never understood that. If the sox aren't playing the cubs...why come to the cell wearing cubs jersey's and cubs hats....I saw that every single game I went to last year. It's just looking for trouble and then when you get it...you complain about it. MORONS!!!!

Yeah, Diaz is the other thing I wanted to talk about. Diaz is playing unbelievable. Instead of saying we are bringing up a starter who has been lights out...he says "someone named Felix Diaz will fly in from the minors and fill the role Thursday afternoon" In my opinion, that is just bad reporting or it is just trying to make the sox look bad. We are bringing up a pitcher that is 5-0 with a 1.83 ERA. 5 walks and 32 K's in 39 1/3 innings. That should at least be noted in the article.

Even after a kick ass 15-0 shalacking and a great performance from Buehrle, this article still comes off as negative. Oh and I love how he points out that there were some punches thrown in the outfield. Had to put that in there huh Jay?? Those mean white sox fans...gimmie a break....there is some kind of scuffle at every game I have ever been to in my entire life..but leave it to Moron to have to point it out That's the Buehrle Sox need to contend May 12, 2004 BY JAY MARIOTTI SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST It's a good thing Donald Trump wasn't standing near home plate Tuesday when Bill Rancic threw out the ceremonial first ball. His errant pitch, which bounced through the batter's box, might have mussed up The Donald's comb-over and meant a sure pink slip for ''The Apprentice'' winner. Fortunately, Rancic could leave U.S. Cellular Field and not have to worry about his ERA. The same can't always be said for the professional pitchers who normally inhabit the mound, men whose outings have been more erratic this season than Omarosa's moods on the program. If the White Sox have any chance of capturing a winnable division, much less contending with powerhouse ballclubs in the American League playoffs, they'll need more muscle and consistency from their starters. When the front office chose not to offer Bartolo Colon a four-year contract and let him slip away to Anaheim, it put more pressure on the incumbent starters and bumped up each pitcher's level of responsibility. Meaning, Mark Buehrle and Esteban Loaiza have to stop performing like Rancic. If the Sox don't know what they're getting from their two top starters, it's going to be a lonely, disappointing season at The Cell. At least The Good Buehrle emerged on a pleasant, breezy night on the South Side, where 8,945 fans walked up to the gates on Half-Price Night to pump a respectable turnstile figure of 20,400 fans. Coming off various stumbles and entering the game with a 1-1 record and 5.27 ERA, Buehrle shut out the improved, payroll-buttressed Baltimore Orioles on four hits over seven innings. Not that he needed all the zeros in a rocking 15-0 rout, which resembled batting practice and matched the franchise's largest home-park run differential, a record dating to 1907. The hitters are noticeably relaxed when Buehrle is in command like the old days, smacking around overpriced Sidney Ponson in an outburst that kept the Sox atop the AL Central just days before the first litmus test of the season, this weekend against the Minnesota Twins. Too bad some fans in the outfield concourse also were in the mood for action, with a few of them throwing punches in the ninth inning. Fortunately, the game-winning fireworks exploded a few minutes later, returning our thoughts to a rousing game and a splendid night for the Hurly Buehrle Man. ''I was kind of joking around before the game. I came in and told the guys, 'I need eight [runs] today,''' Buehrle said. ''In the bullpen, I didn't feel too good. Sometimes you don't do that well in the pen, but you go out and have a great game. I asked for eight, and they doubled it. I kind of needed one of these games where I didn't give up a lot of hits out there.'' ''A great performance,'' Sox manager Ozzie Guillen said of his pitcher. ''I really think he has been throwing the ball pretty well, except for the New York game. He can go out tonight and, you know, not relax, but not make a pitch that can get you beat. When you get that kind of run support, he can go out and perform. When you play behind Buehrle, it's fun. He keeps us in the game and he keeps us alert.'' Still, questions linger about Buehrle, Loaiza and the maddening Jon Garland, none of whom has been as good as No. 4 starter Scott Schoeneweis. What the Sox lack is a classic, power-throwing ace who can dominate long stretches of a season and carry the team on his arm. In direct contrast to the North Side ballclub, the Sox' rotation is a strikeout-challenged group that tries to get by on guile. In truth, Buehrle is a No. 2 starter who's required to be a No. 1. And Loaiza, despite his 21 victories last season, isn't nearly as effective with his cut fastball in his encore season and is pitching like a No. 3 who's asked to be a No. 2. No one doubts the Sox are going to mash the baseball, as observed on a 19-hit night. ''We're going to do a lot of damage,'' Guillen said. ''A lot of people are worried about my offense. I know my offense is going to be there.'' But they don't want to waste a potent lineup with uncertainty in the rotation, which is further complicated by the ongoing bullpen follies. After the flop of fifth starter Dan Wright, someone named Felix Diaz will fly in from the minors and fill the role Thursday afternoon. Maybe the Sox could withstand the unknown if they were getting lights-out stuff from their best starters. But until we see a better rhythm, every game could be an adventure. This begs the issue of whether general manager Ken Williams, who has done a nice job so far weaving through the obstacles of a middle-of-the-road payroll, already should be eyeing another starting pitcher. In this era of blatant salary-dumping, a contending team never can do homework too early on potential July acquisitions. Naturally, the New York Yankees are contemplating how to solve the rotation hole left by the demoted Jose Contreras, which means the archrival Boston Red Sox won't be far behind. The options are enticing, some more expensive than others. Forget about chairman Jerry Reinsdorf approving a trade for Randy Johnson, who might be on the block this summer if the payroll-slashing Arizona Diamondbacks continue their losing ways. The Big Unit is due $33 million through next season, and going on 41 with a tricky knee, he isn't worth the whopping investment. A smarter option, one Williams is said to be considering, is Seattle right-hander Freddy Garcia, who beat the Sox in the 2000 AL playoffs. In his last season before free agency, the 28-year-old Garcia has become one of the hottest starters in the game, sporting a 1.55 ERA in 10 starts dating to last September. With the Mariners stumbling for the first time in years, the club isn't expected to make him a major offer in the next few months. Therefore, he will be the best pitcher on the market -- and the Sox should make a bid. If not Garcia, there are other pitching options: Al Leiter, Kirk Rueter, old man Jamie Moyer, Kris Benson. For a change, the Sox weren't worrying about much after their crispest night of the season. Why do they hit so well at home? ''Maybe guys miss their girlfriends and their wives,'' said Willie Harris, who had four hits. Whatever the case, Buehrle appreciates the support very much. Now he can return the favor by producing similar nights all season long.

Great Article!!!

That's why I got myself a nice Italian girl. Her Parents are from the old country. They are built to last.

I do love hearing someone order like a Big Mac, super size Fries and then a diet coke. It just always makes me laugh. I know some peeps just like diet better, but it's still funny.

I was just curious cause some posts sounded like they were from teens and I was wondering their perspective. Since it isn't as far back a stretch in the memory for them.

It's the girls. They have to be stronger then the boys. We have no fricken will power... How old are some of you posting on this topic? For the record im 30.

It comes too soon and too easy for kids now. Girls used to make you earn it. You learned to respect them and be nice if you wanted them to be "nice" back. s*** now all you have to do is turn 13!!!!!!!!!!

It won't be long before it's here. My Aunt had a meeting at a school in Naperville last year. The teachers told the parents that the new thing for the girls was to give guys blow jobs for their birthday's. I'm not talking like a girlfriend blowin her boyfriend. I'm talkin like friends doing it to friends. The girls will take turns doing it. What grade you ask?? 6th!!! MY aunt asked if this was a common occurence or if it happened once and the teacher said it happened on 4 different occasions that she is aware of. The most I got in 7th grade was goin up a girls shirt and that's only because I was one charming SOB... I only know of 2 other guys that did that in 7th grade. So I guess you can say times have definitely changed. I graduated grammer school in 1987. I think at that point in my life the furtherst I got with my girlfriend was pretty much restricted to touching each other all over with our hands. I'm pretty sure that's as far as anyone in my class got, cause I was voted class romeo and nobody was gonna out do me. Anyway, things have definitely changed. Blowjobs for your birthday?? I worked my ass off just to feel some tit.

I can care less what fan is what. What I want to know is why did that paper SPECIFICALLY say that the victim was a SOX FAN. That has no relevance whatsoever!!!!!! someone was killed....whether the suspects or the victims are fans of a certain team shouldn't matter....so WHY was it pointed out then? Someone explain it to me.......

http://poststuff.entensity.net/050704/medi...?media=duhh.asf hahaha...one dumb girl

Not sure if anyone here copies DVD movies, but here's a good site to get the covers if you do. http://www.cdcovers.cc/dvd_0.php

_ _ d _s_ o _ _ p_

Michael Moore, smear specialist Brent Bozell May 7, 2004 It was awarded the status of top news, the front page of The New York Times. Disney was telling its Miramax subsidiary that it could not distribute radical, Bush-loathing Michael Moore's new "mockumentary," titled "Fahrenheit 9-11." This report, like virtually all the news accounts surrounding Moore's upcoming film, seem to glide right around Moore's very obvious hatred of conservatives and his very checkered history of cinematic fact-mangling. The first act of fact-mangling on this film may be this story of Disney censorship. In paragraph six of the Times story, we were given a Disney spokesman declaring they "advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax." Stop right there. May of 2003? This was not news to Michael Moore. This was not a story for page one ... or page 30. It's simply not "news," period. How to make it news? It appears the scoop was that Moore flack Ari Emanuel claimed he had a conversation with Disney chairman Michael Eisner, who said he feared all the Bush-bashing might endanger the company's tax breaks in Florida, since the state is led by Gov. Jeb Bush. Big news, right? Except Disney denies Eisner said this. Gov. Bush's office proclaimed the conspiracy theory "ludicrous." And Moore has a history of nutty accusations. So why on earth is the Times tooting Moore's horn? The timing and theme of this story reek of Cheap Promotionalism. Why does this publicity debut match the eve of the film's debut at the Cannes Film Festival, where the European pseudo-sophisticates will no doubt laud all the butchered Bush-bashing? The title of Moore's film invites immediate comparison to "Fahrenheit 451," the 1953 Ray Bradbury science-fiction tale of firemen who don't fight fires but start fires burning books. The endlessly self-impressed Moore is no doubt suggesting that courageous leftist men of ideas are being censored by the ignorant and malignant post-9-11 trauma-exploiting Dubya Dynasty. Moore needs this movie to be censored somehow, or else his tale of American oppression is empty. Some concocted conspiracy of censorship is now part of its marketing plan. Is this Moore mudbath really in danger of not hitting theaters? Think again. In 1995, Miramax prepared to distribute Larry Clark's unrated, unpretty teen sex film "Kids," but Disney would not release an unrated film. So the Miramax brass released it through a separate company, Shining Excalibur Films. There's nothing stopping them from doing it again, and they will. The other obvious fact-mangling involves the allegation that somehow, the Bush Dynasty secretly loves the Saudi Dynasty, which spawned the 9-11 terrorists. Moore laid his conspiracy theory out on HBO to Bob Costas a year ago. In Moore's fever swamp, the Bush team knows that Osama bin Laden is hiding out in Saudi Arabia, and they're hiding him so they can exploit the terror trauma. "He's back living with his sponsors, his benefactors ... I think the United States, I think our government knows where he is, and I don't think we're going to be capturing him or killing him any time soon." Cue the "Twilight Zone" music. We're off to Cuckoo-land. The film reportedly contains an interview with author Craig Unger, who has a new book out on the supposedly ironclad relationship between the "House of Bush" and the House of Saud. But Unger's history of anti-Bush bunk goes back to the first Bush presidency, when he wrote a long "investigative" piece for Esquire magazine claiming that only an idiot couldn't see the "October Surprise" conspiracy. Remember that fairy tale, about how the treasonous Reagan-Bush campaign in 1980 nefariously plotted to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran so that Ronald Reagan could be elected president? Even the liberal Columbia Journalism Review blasted Unger's politicized sloppiness, suggesting they would give his work a C-minus for slim evidence. But that only makes him a perfect foil for Michael Moore, the master of fictional "nonfiction" documentaries. Politically, the worst thing about this is that the media elite can't seem to call Michael Moore even a "liberal," let alone a radical nutcase. (Here's a guy fired from Mother Jones magazine for being too far left! In addition to being personally unbearable, he refused to run an article that criticized the Sandinista communists then oppressing Nicaragua.) But reporters have actually allowed Moore to claim that his upcoming film, designed for a fall release, is not partisan. Moore is so full of beans that he even claimed, "This is not an anti-Bush diatribe." If you buy that, buy a ticket to the film. And remember: Bush is hiding Osama. Pass it on.

The images of Iraq Oliver North May 7, 2004 WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Just days ago, I was in Iraq with Marines and soldiers who have left their families to defeat terrorists. They are defending America's interests and safety, building a democracy and befriending the Iraqi people. It's a difficult job, no doubt about it. These young men and women -- America's finest -- work long hours of tough, physical labor in the hot sun, sometimes for days at a time before they get to shower or sleep. Most of these young Americans are in their early 20s. They are responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment and the lives of their fellow soldiers and Marines. If that weren't enough, they also carry on their shoulders the hopes and dreams of Iraqi citizens who yearn for freedom and safety after years of torture and oppression under Saddam Hussein. It's a lot of responsibility for them. After all, the biggest decision of their peers back home is what movie to see on Friday night. Yet they accept this responsibility willingly and carry out their difficult mission with a positive attitude and an optimism that has always embodied the American spirit. Back home, there is nothing but a relentless stream of pessimism and criticism from the media and Congress, who have put their indignation into high gear after seeing photographs of U.S. soldiers mistreating Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The media's "compassion" for these imprisoned miscreants and suspected terrorists is a front for their journalistic jihad against the administration. Administration officials have rightly condemned the repugnant behavior at Abu Ghraib prison. President Bush called it "abhorrent." Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld said it was "totally unacceptable and un-American." White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said, "The president is sorry for what occurred." Yet that is not enough. The piranhas in the press are calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. Liberal senators on the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees -- eager for the same media attention given to the 9-11 Commission -- rushed to the nearest television camera and demanded full-scale investigations. But their outrage seems directed more to score political points than to find the "truth." Let's face it, they have politicized the War in Iraq. John Kerry made sure of that when he manipulated First Lt. Paul Rieckhoff into delivering the Democrat response to the President's Radio Address last weekend. Rieckhoff, a guardsman who spent 12 months in Iraq with the 3rd Battalion, 124th Infantry, criticized President Bush and his civilian leaders, saying: "When we got to Baghdad, we soon found out that the people who planned this war were not ready for us. There were not enough vehicles, not enough ammunition, not enough medical supplies, not enough water. There was not enough body armor, leaving my men to dodge bullets with Vietnam-era flak vests." "Mr. President, our mission is not accomplished," Rieckhoff accused in a war protest that was the modern day equivalent of tossing your medals, er, uh, ribbons -- (what's the difference, really?) -- over a fence. Rieckhoff's address was planned, facilitated and promoted by John Kerry's presidential campaign. I don't know what Rieckhoff's experience was or wasn't in Iraq, but in all the time that I was there, I did not see what he saw. To the contrary, I saw armor save the lives of American soldiers and Marines. Morale was high, supplies were sufficient. And when Kerry was finished exploiting Rieckhoff, he climbed into the echo chamber and said he was "disturbed and troubled" by the "disgraceful" abuses committed at Abu Ghraib prison and insisted that the president immediately "owed the world an explanation," since the response of the administration has been "slow and inappropriate." Give Kerry this much -- he's got chutzpah. It's an interesting demand from a man who said he committed "atrocities" in Vietnam; knew of others who committed atrocities; and 30 years later has never explained himself, or explained why, as an officer, he failed to hold those accountable for crimes they supposedly committed. The media's feeding frenzy around the Abu Ghraib prison photos and Kerry's exploitation of Rieckhoff are creating a false impression of what is really happening on a wide scale in Iraq. Over the past two years, I have spent nearly six months with U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and throughout the Middle East. During the march to Baghdad last year, I saw hundreds of Iraqis taken prisoner -- many of whom turned themselves in to American forces knowing they would fare better in U.S. custody than in Saddam's army. They were all treated humanely. In battle, I watched a Marine risk his life to rescue a wounded Iraqi woman. Troops in the units with which I was embedded treated the Iraqi people with dignity and respect. U.S. forces have played soccer with the kids, befriended the Iraqi people and built schools with supplies sent by the American public. I've seen Marines give their last MREs to hungry Iraqi children. I've also seen why these troops are in Iraq. I've looked into Saddam's mass graves -- a site that makes you sick to your stomach. I saw the videotaped evidence of atrocities committed by Saddam, Uday and Qusay -- tapes showing innocent Iraqis having their tongues cut out, or being blindfolded, bound and marched off the edge of two and three story buildings. I saw Iraqi schools turned into ammunition depots and mosques used as bunkers. After Sept.11, I visited the Pentagon and Ground Zero. I've met some of the families whose lives were changed forever that day. Yes, some soldiers made mistakes at Abu Ghraib prison. They will be held accountable, and rightfully so. But those mistakes are an aberration of the highest order compared to the thousands of acts of kindness that U.S. troops are showing to the Iraqi people daily. Let's keep it in perspective, and remember who the real enemy is.

I think if an artist said something like "my cd tells a story and is meant to be listened to in this order" Then it would end up being a huge marketing tool and everyone would be saying did you hear what so and so is doing. Then all the people with MP3's would organize their songs in that order, not too mention downloading all the songs instead of a select few. Then after hearing the songs in order...and being like "um cool" they can organize it back to have their two favorite songs from the cd play and the other ones taken off. It would probably also help with CD sales. But one of the benefit's of the MP3's and digital music is, you can do what you want.

I find it funny that whenever something happens that people want to happen it is called predictable.

Nuke what's your opinion on it?

Welcome smokey!!