Controlled Chaos

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 11:15 AM) I like the 2nd article. But the 1st one is more appropriately aimed at the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Alan Keyes. The first one is by Thomas Sowell. He has one of the most brilliant minds, I have ever come across.

The Rev. Wright Just Can't Help Himself By David Limbaugh Tuesday, April 29, 2008 When it comes to the connection between Barack Obama and his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright -- or to John McCain's various positions on whether criticizing Obama for his relationship with Wright is fair game -- my head is spinning. At first, the Obama defenders said Jeremiah Wright doesn't speak for Obama. Not only have Obama's ill-wishers taken Wright's statements out of context but they have unfairly imputed those statements to Obama. Next, we witnessed the beginning of the Jeremiah Wright rehabilitation tour. He appeared on Bill Moyers' show, endeavoring to present himself as a calm, reasonable person whose statements had been twisted against him. Then he spoke at the Detroit NAACP dinner. Forgive me if I have a different take than most Wright critics, but I read the transcript of the Detroit speech in its entirety and did not detect too much, if any, incendiary language. Wright presented a rather innocuous talk about the differences in human beings and how our differences do not mean certain groups are deficient -- "just different." His theme seemed to be that we should strive to overlook people's differences and work toward reconciliation because we are all made in God's image. Bravo. Who could object to that? In his speech the next morning at the National Press Club, Wright continued with that theme, which was fine as far as it went. But alas, he couldn't help dipping his foot a little further into the waters of controversy. He touched on black liberation theology, revealing, inadvertently or not, that his religious views are formed through a racially tinted prism. He strategically characterized the recent scrutiny of his sermons as "not an attack on Jeremiah Wright," but "an attack on the black church." And he huffed that his congregation has sent dozens of kids to fight in this nation's wars, while those who have called him unpatriotic have sent "4,000 American boys and girls of every race to die over a lie." But these subjects were tame compared to his responses to the moderator's questions following the speech, where Wright reverted -- full bore -- to the offensive themes to which we've been exposed recently. In so doing, he undid the undoing of the damage he tried to undo with his two "reconciliation" speeches. In front of a large audience, he fatally undermined his recent protest that Obama's opponents have taken his sermon utterances grossly out of context. Among the highlights, Wright said, "In biblical history, there's not one word written in the Bible between Genesis and Revelations that was not written under one of six different kinds of oppression." This, I suppose, is part of his justification for black liberation theology's presumed reading of the Bible through the lens of race and oppression. He also clarified his thoughts on reconciliation, plainly articulating that our "country's leaders have refused to apologize" for slavery and "until racism and slavery are confessed and asked for forgiveness," there can't be reconciliation. He mentioned nothing, of course, about the Civil War. He also indignantly stood by his statement "God damn America," saying, "God damns some practices." When given an opportunity to retract or soften his statement that the government lied about inventing HIV as a means of genocide against African-Americans, he said, "I believe our government is capable of doing anything." And he strongly refused to denounce Louis Farrakhan, saying, "Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains." In view of Wright's elucidations, I find it difficult to understand how the candidacy of Barack Obama cannot be mortally wounded by his longtime, voluntary and intimate association with this man. How can Obama possibly preach national harmony, reconciliation and bipartisanship coming from this type of church culture -- which Wright appears to say harbors an unforgiving spirit? Where else, if not from his church, are we to assume Obama gets his ideas on reconciliation? But in the interest of that spirit of bipartisanship to which Obama claims to aspire, let me also confess that I can't begin to comprehend John McCain's regrettable condemnation of North Carolina Republicans for reasonably raising the Wright issue -- which, by the way, is bigger than John McCain or his candidacy. Nor can I understand McCain's belated halfhearted about-face on this subject. The Rev. Wright is certainly entitled to his opinions, and he is certainly entitled to deliver them from his pulpit -- tax questions aside. And John McCain is certainly entitled to continually bite the hand that feeds him. But voters also have rights -- and duties. Among them is their duty to decide whether they want to elevate to the presidency a man who can't plausibly separate himself from the disturbing, toxic views of his own pastor. David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party.

An Old Newness By Thomas Sowell April 29, 2008 Many years ago, a great hitter named Paul Waner was nearing the end of his long career. He entered a ballgame with 2,999 hits -- one hit away from the landmark total of 3,000, which so many hitters want to reach, but which relatively few actually do reach. Waner hit a ball that the fielder did not handle cleanly but the official scorer called it a hit, making it Waner's 3,000th. Paul Waner then sent word to the official scorer that he did not want that questionable hit to be the one that put him over the top. The official scorer reversed himself and called it an error. Later Paul Waner got a clean hit for number 3,000. What reminded me of this is the great fervor that many seem to feel over the prospect of the first black President of the United States. No doubt it is only a matter of time before there is a black president, just as it was only a matter of time before Paul Waner got his 3,000th hit. The issue is whether we want to reach that landmark so badly that we are willing to overlook how questionably that landmark is reached. Paul Waner had too much pride to accept a scratch hit. Choosing a President of the United States is a lot more momentous than a baseball record. We the voters need to have far more concern about who we put in that office that holds the destiny of a nation and of generations yet unborn. There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president -- especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans. Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions, like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a Homecoming Queen. The three leading candidates for their party's nomination are being discussed in terms of their demographics -- race, sex and age -- as if that is what the job is about. One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom. The demographics of the presidency are far less important than the momentous weight of responsibility that office carries. Just the power to nominate federal judges to trial courts and appellate courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, can have an enormous impact for decades to come. There is no point feeling outraged by things done by federal judges, if you vote on the basis of emotion for those who appoint them. Barack Obama has already indicated that he wants judges who make social policy instead of just applying the law. He has already tried to stop young violent criminals from being tried as adults. Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things -- using the mantra of "change" endlessly -- the cold fact is that virtually everything has says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s. Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not -- all this is a re-run of the 1960s. We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day. The violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances and hamstringing the police. Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes -- including the media magic of meetings between heads of state -- was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history. Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it. --- Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com. COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Am I the only one that hated that squeeze call?? I mean ok..bottom line he should get down the bunt, but Brian hasn't had much chance to bat this year let alone lay down a bunt. I'm sure the only practice he's had with a bat in his hand has been swinging. So let him swing. I know the worse possible outcome happened, but I just didn't like the call to begin with. Oh well...pretty f***ed up game all around.

QUOTE (SoxWS05 @ Apr 28, 2008 -> 03:44 PM) I love the outfield with BA in CF and Swish in RF. Plus, BA is really improved at the plate. We should trade JD and bring up Owens. I'm as big a BA backer as there is...but lets just settle down a bit.

pfft

Come on now Alexei make em pay!!

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Apr 27, 2008 -> 07:52 PM) I love Joe Dirt, of the list I made after this started, I snuck it into my top 20. I thought I was the only one that really liked Joe Dirt. I like to pronounce it Joe Dirté, I added an e to the end, cause it sounds cool.

WTF

Nice...Im glad they didn't give him that call...never touched the base

Come on lexei....make him pay.

swish looked like he tweaked somethin there

Nice read by swish there.

Quick Update....for those who care...Jerry Angelo in all of his wisdom just drafted Kellen David TE out of MSU. Cause what that team really needs is a mutha f***in TIGHT END!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOOK OUT FOR THE NAPKIN!!!!

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 26, 2008 -> 01:15 PM) That's a play that Uribe should have made. went right under his glove.

mutha f***er

BA woulda snagged it.

Cabrera continues to underwhelm me in the field

haha made him look just silly

Alright Danksy!!

Dam..nobody had 5-3

At least Danks is looking solid once again.

QUOTE (TitoMB345 @ Apr 26, 2008 -> 12:29 PM) Okay, I call it now. First pitch pop out next inning by Uribe. Maybe to second base. I'm going with a K.

So will Ozze let Anderson get in the lineup tonight?