jackie hayes

Voting is not the "ultimate" expression of what you believe. Think about it -- you're given a fixed number of choices and you have to pick one. But you may not like any of them, even though you have clear ideas. If everyone wanted the ultimate expression of their beliefs, they'd just vote for themselves. To express yourself, write an op-ed or a letter to the editor. The ballot box is a poor substitute.

Lysobey is working from the videotapes alone, while Kay was in charge of examining Iraq's weapons. Kay is therefore in a good position to know what supplies Al-Qaqaa possessed. And, according to him, the depot had nothing but HMX or RDX that resembled the explosives seen in the video. It may not be definitive, but that's a pretty good argument. Even the soldiers in the video claim that these are powerful explosives. So we have the military finding a weapons depot packed with explosives they believe to be quite dangerous, then leaving it unguarded. (The news team reports that soldiers were camped a couple miles south of these facilities, even when they were there.) I don't see how anyone can not be uncomfortable with that outline, which is indisputable.

Giuliani blamed the troops before the video came out, but he blamed them for not searching well enough, so it doesn't look like he had much extra info. A USA Today story w/ the quote. Where has Kerry blamed the troops for this? EDIT: I've read through the articles on this issue on NYT, CNN, and ChiTrib, and all I can find is Kerry saying the troops were "magnificent". So unless you can show me something else, I'm convinced that "Kerry blamed the troops" is baseless.

ROTFLMFAO! This just made my day.

If this is the best Page 2 could come up w/ today, then wtf were the ESPN people smoking when they decided they had enough material for a Page 3?

I think this is a little too negative. In the short term, solidifying the pitching staff will help the Sox dramatically. Not only was that the #1 reason we missed the playoffs this year, but I think our starting pitching could hold its own in the playoffs. It's not as good as Boston's, but add a good starter (Perez or Lowe, hopefully, not necessarily pipedreams RJ or Pavano) and I think we're better than NY's end-of-the-year staff, as well as the Cardinals'. That still leaves a bullpen deficit, which might take some work. I'm not saying the Sox would be a better team, but I think we could compete. And in a 7 game series, that's enough to give you a good chance at winning. In the long run, the key is developing players better than we've done in the last few years. Obviously money gives you a better shot at winning, but smart low-cost pickups can go a long way: Think how important Bellhorn, Ortiz, and Mueller have been to the Red Sox, and consider how well the smaller-market Twins competed w/ the Yanks (they lost, but it wouldn't have taken much for it to go the other way). Managing, it's an issue, but if it turns out to be a problem next year, it'll only be a short-term one. Chemistry has been an issue w/ the Sox for a long time. It's funny that you mention both managing and chemistry as problems, since the new manager was brought in largely to fix the chemistry problem, but it's not clear that we're much better on either count. I don't know how it can be fixed -- I've read that the Twins' players believe it helps when players progressed through the minors together. Maybe it'd help. Although, lack of it didn't hurt the Red Sox.

Do Twins fans really dislike the Sox? It's not an old rivalry, like Bears-Packers. Just 10 years ago it was all Sox-Indians, after all. I don't know, maybe they do. I just don't feel like rooting strongly against a team unless there's a longstanding history.

Was Poland affected?

LMAO! It only says searches have gone down, not usage. Maybe we've all learned where to look, so there's less need for searches. Practice makes perfect...

IMO he's just posturing, I'm sure he realizes that he's not Vlad-good. Before his injury he could always say that, even if his numbers weren't as good, he was less risky b/c of Vlad's back, and that made him just as valuable. I'm not arguing that position myself, I'm just saying, there are ways it could be 'justified'.

I would ask that Protestants do not criticize Catholicism from the standpoint of their own theory. It's long been believed by the RCC that people can only imperfectly perceive God, and that displays (grandeur of cathedrals, ceremony, images) are therefore helpful in developing a relationship to Him. Theatricality was thought to be a way of leading people towards a right understanding. Protestants have violently disagreed, and have in general hated the idea of intercession (whether in this manner, or through other figures, saints and the Virgin, eg). But one shouldn't ignore the fact that Catholic displays have a well-developed reasoning behind them. It's not hypocrisy. Frankly, there are very few people of any faith who keep it foremost. How many people are there who truly keep the Sabbath sacred (spend the day primarily resting and reflecting on God, not on football), how many Catholics believe (or even understand) that they are literally cannibals when taking mass, how many Protestants believe that they do not have free will? This is a very general phenomenon, not limited to charity or opulence -- more centrally, religious practice/belief does not match religious feeling. (I should say, I'm referring mostly to Christians, and I don't know enough about other religions to comment.)

Well, I think it's $6 mil this season, but that doesn't really change your point. He's definitely worth that much. I meant that before this season, I thought signing him to an $8 mil per year deal (on average) over 3 years was risky -- especially w/ Angel Guzman and Juan Cruz waiting in the wings. But Maddux has shown that he's probably worth even that much after his strong season (and Guzman's injury). So you're probably right.

We already were more underachieving in the AL than Boston, 1917 vs 1918. So there's nothing new there. Lots of those years were pre-Reinsdorf. Obviously a team that spends more money will have an advantage. But I'm not going to hold my breath until JR doubles payroll to match the Red Sox. And we have had chances -- any team in the playoffs has some realistic hope of winning the WS, and we've been in the playoffs a few times in my lifetime.

Still regretful that Mario Valenzuela didn't play up to his big st, but it's not a big loss.

If this is the most depressed you've ever been, I have to think you've had a pretty good life. They won not just b/c of Schilling and Foulke, but just as much b/c they picked up undervalued players -- Ortiz, Mueller, and Bellhorn -- and practiced restraint, eg in the ARod deal. And b/c they got lucky. Remember, the Yankees could well have been in this series, if they just got that one well-timed hit. Or maybe the Red Sox win earlier, last season or after Bucky Dent strikes out. There's a lot of luck involved. So maybe the Sox will win in our lifetimes, maybe not. I don't think it'd be as much fun if we knew.

Early to mid-1990s, we had an awfully good shot. The Sox just haven't produced the same calibre players since. Can we not use this "Why not us?" phrase? We don't want the site getting too dusty.

One thing I have to say -- good for the Red Sox, yeah. But as someone with only weak affinities for either team, this series sucked to watch. This is just about as unexciting as baseball can get. Don't get me wrong, I love to watch good pitching, as long as it's happening on both sides. But St Louis finally proved all their critics right.

Who's the MVP? Manny, Cabrera, Mueller, Ortiz, Pedro, Schilling, Lowe, Foulke? I don't know, this series was so fast, so one-sided, noone really stood out. (Noone had to.) Larry Walker may have been the best player. Do you go w/ a starter, even though they each only appeared in one game? The Red Sox starters have been the real story, but it's hard to pick (Schilling may have been 'most courageous', but I don't think he was actually more valuable than Pedro). I'll go w/ Manny, but my mind could change in the next minute or two. Any one of Manny, Cabrera, Pedro, or Foulke could be the guy.

Finally! Marquis stops trying to paint the corner on Derek Lowe. What is w/ these St Louis pitchers being cute w/ Red Sox pitchers at the plate?

Yup. Thanks for pointing this out, I hadn't looked at these stats. But it is a little worrisome that our 2 best prospects were only in Rookie leagues this season. I'm not saying that the RJ trade would work this way, I think that's pure fantasy. I just meant, he's not a bad fit if he is available and didn't require any big sacrifice. As for being overhyped, I don't know -- I've heard so many times that the Yankees were overselling him, that my first impression was that the guy must be really marginal. I mean, I never heard anywhere, "Navarro's a really good prospect." I only heard "Navarro's not a really good prospect, but the Yankees want everyone to think he is." My impression from his stats is that he's middle-of-the-road, overhyped by the Yankees, no doubt, but perhaps underhyped by sportswriters.

I wouldn't give up much for him, but we don't have many catching prospects. Lucy is the only one that comes to mind. Just looking at Navarro's stats, he draws walks and doesn't strike out very often. He doesn't look like a star, but I don't see why he couldn't be a good major leaguer. Not a big deal either way, but I wonder why you wouldn't want him as part of a package.

IIRC it's Dioner Navarro. I think he was w/ the AA team this year, hit well, but nothing remarkable.

Calling someone a Cubs fan just for being honest is uncalled for. And why is it you know all these Cubs links? They really did have one hell of a rotation this year. Wood will never throw a full year, and he's inconsistent even when healthy, but on a good day he's almost unhittable. Not an ace, but a great player to have. But they have 2 ace-quality pitchers in Zambrano and Prior, both very cheap. Granted, Prior wasn't very good after returning from the injury, but I just can't discount what I saw 2 seasons ago. Maddux is overpaid, but he still gives you a lot of innings w/ pinpoint control. And I don't know what to say about Clement -- he's not often dominant, but he's been remarkably consistent over the last few years. What staff doesn't have the risk of injury? Florida's certainly struggled the last couple years (Burnett, Beckett, Penny), and the Diamondbacks last season. A team has to be talented and lucky. Anyway, a healthy RJ would put the Sox into the top class, I think, a notch below the Cubs and Oakland, about even with Florida and Boston (depending on fa pickups). Houston could be even or just better, depending on Clemens and Backe.

I would have a lot less respect for a player who said a club did the right thing by trading him. Foulke is just saying he's always had confidence in himself. This is a form answer in a human-interest story. Everything in the article is as generic as it comes. Good for him, no cause for hubbub.

Those munitions are not wmd. I mean, they're powerful, but we already knew that the insurgents have rockets and grenades, which are fairly powerful. But we haven't called grenades wmd. I think what you're saying is that you put enough small explosives together and you've got an arbitrarily big weapon, like in Oklahoma City. That's true enough, but I don't think anyone ever denied the possibility of constructing a bomb like that. And that's certainly not what the Bush admin was referring to when it said wmd (think of Bush's list of chem/bio/atomic agents). Taken that way, which is I think the most common interpretation, those who say Bush 1) didn't secure these weapons (whatever the chain of events), and 2) was wrong in his claims about wmd, are right.