jackie hayes

Ultimate pitcher's duel going on now. Cliff Lee and Shaun Marcum, of course. Didn't expect to see those two sentences together this year. And now the triple play. Nice.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 12, 2008 -> 01:54 PM) But here's the counterpoint. Wage growth in China is almost certain to drive more consumption of energy, not less. While fewer factories may be shipped over there from the U.S. as the dollar continues its collapse, if the income of the average Chinese citizen goes up by some percentage, then that allows them to demand more automobiles and more energy and better housing. They're in that enviable position where their economy can sustain itself to some extent as it grows, so as the people earn more money, they're able to buy more things, and who's the country manufacturing everything right now? China. And food. Agriculture consumes a not insignificant part of a country's energy expenditure, and when a country shifts to eating more meat (as China's doing), that part gets more inefficient.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 12, 2008 -> 12:55 PM) I thought I knew where every country in the world was but I probably can't even point to it on a map. I'm guessing from looking at how the people look that it's somewhere near Cambodia or Thailand? East of India, borders China on the north and Thailand on the east.

More on the military's corruption: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/world/asia/12myanmar.html

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 12, 2008 -> 08:01 AM) I'm not going to start placing comparative values on the lives saved. I frankly had never heard of the country before. People are people. Losing the supplies was a terrible event, no matter which starving person was going to benefit or who was going to get credit from the citizens. The earlier comment was the loss of this shipment was infinitesimal compared to the government's actions. The loss of what amounted to about 20% of the aid that was currently in the country is huge. I believe the argument on who gets credit for the food is dangerous on both sides. If the government wants their labels on this stuff, label it here in the US with their label and start shipping. What matters is whether they are starving or merely struggling. That said, it seems that this was going to the delta, so that, yes, it is a loss. But it absolutely pales in comparison to the waste in terms of lives caused by the government's refusal to accept assistance. What's truly sad in all this is a government willing to kill tens of thousands of people, at least, to maintain its public image. I can't find anything suggesting that this boat contained 20% of the aid in the country. The boat carried about 2.5 tons of rice -- besides other rice stocks, we know they have close to 40 tons of these UN "biscuits" that they confiscated, so I find that figure hard to believe.

A woman who had her computer stolen was able to log on remotely and use the built-in camera to photograph the two thieves. http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national...ticleid=1092987

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 11, 2008 -> 05:35 PM) I think the nurishment in the rice would be the same, no matter whose name was on the outside of the box. That's cute -- but it would be nice if it actually got to the areas that need it the most, instead of being diverted to politically sensitive areas, and quickly, instead of being delivered using the tiny, ancient fleet of planes and helicopters the junta has available. They're going to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people, and they're worrying about the labels on the boxes so they'll look great on state-run tv. I'd say what they're doing matters.

It's not clear how much good would be done by those supplies, anyway. The junta is relabeling relief boxes (to say they came from General X or Y) and distributing them for political, not humanitarian, effect. The damage caused by the loss of this one ship is infinitesimal compared to the damage being done by the government.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ May 10, 2008 -> 10:42 PM) He is number 1. That article -- I do not think it means what you think it means. Obama was not ranked the most liberal senator for 2006 (the article only says he was more liberal than the other Dem pres candidates). He was ranked most liberal (by the NJ, not all rankings) for 2007. And just for the Senate, not in the entire Congress.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 10, 2008 -> 05:32 PM) Honestly though...D'Antoni could easily be worth $10 million a year plus to that franchise. As much as they take in on ticket sales and ad revenue...they need to make sure people keep watching and people stay in the seats. The players on that team are garbage, but now, at least until it gets stale, there'll be some excitement. New coach, new style of play, fast paced, lots of offense, lots of reasons to stay tuned in. He's clearly a worse fit for their roster than almost any in the league (Come on Eddy, Run, Run! I can't!), but even losing while scoring more points for a year or two makes sense for that team. I have a tough time seeing either Eddy or Randolph in that system. They were talking about trading one, but it wouldn't surprise me if they dump 'em both now.

Nothing official, but rotoworld reporting that D'Antoni is going to the Knicks: Edit: NY Post is now confirming that D'Antoni will coach the Knicks.

Those don't sound quite as bad as the ones I got. Yeah, so I countered with Longoria and Votto for Carlos Lee, then Figgins for Carlos Lee. Surprisingly, he doesn't seem to be offering me trades anymore...

Not sure if these have been posted, but I hadn't seen them yet. The whites are mine!, says Clinton. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/elec...interview_N.htm I was kind of hoping that Balta was right when he suggested that Clinton is staying in the race for strategic reasons, but I can't believe that any more. Let me add, I understand that rhetoric like this comes out of a campaign. That's fine, and everyone does it. But it shouldn't come from the candidate herself. She's disappointing me more every day.

Ugh... This guy is convinced that everyone wants desperately to sell low. He needs a third baseman, so he keeps asking for Braun, offering guys like Francoeur and Pedro. And he just keeps bombarding me with trade offers -- five this morning, not one decent player in the bunch. I'm getting really annoyed by his s***.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ May 7, 2008 -> 03:11 PM) Obama's spending some time in Washington to rassle up superdelegates. But then he should go to Kentucky and West Virginia, and try to win this thing once and for all. It's not like he doesn't have the kind of money to do it. I hope he spends time there, but not much money. All he's really got to do there is gain a little ground to look good, and yesterday should accomplish some of that on its own. If he matches Clinton in spending, which won't be difficult, he'll be fine. He's got to start sounding and spending like the Dem nominee, meaning the money will be better spent in Ohio, Florida, Washington, etc.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ May 7, 2008 -> 02:58 PM) Who wants to eat something that tastes like pot? And are we talking the smoke or the leaves. Neither of which I'd say I want to eat. Maybe like the brownies? Mmm mmm MMM!

QUOTE (Soxy @ May 7, 2008 -> 03:22 PM) It's an odd suggestion, and wouldn't ever cover the peer pressure and other "human" elements--but from a pure Skinnerian standpoint it should work. Yeah, I understand what you're saying, I was just trying to be flippant. Though those "human elements" are certainly more important than the conditioning, here.

QUOTE (Soxy @ May 7, 2008 -> 01:53 PM) Actually, this candy might be a good way to make kids NOT smoke pot. If they come to associate the taste of pot with no reinforcement (no high), it may be more difficult for the subsequent taste of pot to be appetitively conditioned if paired with a high. Absolutely. And school cafeterias should start serving non-alcoholic beer, too, dammit! That said, the Flintstones chewable pot-flavored vitamins still have to go. (Just messing with you, Soxy... )

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 7, 2008 -> 12:55 PM) At this point...there's some elements of strategy that might actually be helpful though. Obama is probably going to lose West Virginia and Kentucky quite badly, and might well lose them even if Hillary drops out of the race. Over in the Dems thread people are saying that it's worth noting that McCain is only pulling in 75% or so of the Republican vote despite being the nominee, how do you rationalize the nominee losing states when a race is no longer even competitive? And furthermore...although we're limping across the finish line now...I still contend it's not going to be a bad thing to get the organizations even in these last few states up and primed for a run with the candidates. In terms of a 50 state strategy for building the party long term, and in terms of OBama's 50 state voter registration initiative, running the ads, running up the turnout machines, putting in the early money in those last set of states over the next 2 weeks is probably only going to help in November. Oregon especially was recently considered quite swingy, running through there and having the Obama ads hit the air early can't be a bad thing. Gp.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 7, 2008 -> 07:41 AM) The position change doesn't bother me as the methodology behind it. Having your little proxy attack dogs dig up quotes from 16 years ago is a page straight out of the James Carville/Karl Rove playbook. It tells me that for all of the "change" that is being talked about, we are already seeing the Obama camp desend into "more of the same". No, it's more like something Tim Russert would do. It's not even in the ballpark of Swift Boat ads. Terrible comparison.

QUOTE (Brian @ May 7, 2008 -> 12:19 AM) Anderson Cooper grilling this Clinton-ite on CNN. Get her, Coop! If the Obamaites don't accept the Clintonites wholeheartedly from this point on, it's gonna be a long next 4 years.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 6, 2008 -> 10:55 PM) Hillary won Hammond and a few other towns in Lake County, according to the mayor. They say the turnout was tremendous. The line of voters stretched all the way to Terre Haute...

QUOTE (Brian @ May 6, 2008 -> 10:33 PM) I can't go to bed without knowing the outcome. The only important outcome is the one you know. Clinton isn't close enough. It's done. It's been done for months, but people like drama. Go to sleep, it's more important.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 6, 2008 -> 05:24 PM) Just out of curiosity...D'Antoni hasn't really had a chance to coach more than 1 team since the NBA's rules opened up the game a bit, while it may be hard to see a couple defense oriented guys fitting in beautifully next to Steve Nash and Amare, how do we know that it can't be made to work with the Bulls roster? Every one of the guys they have is young and has fairly fresh legs under them, especially the big guys, etc. I've been wanting to see the Bulls push the tempo since they moved Wallace and Skiles, as it seemed like their roster, especially their frontcourt, could fit that style of play well. Do we know that D'Antoni will stubbornly refuse to adapt his playing style to the players we have? If I were Skiles, that'd have been my first and most decisive interview question...how would he fit his style of game to our roster where we've been drafting for defense for several years. If he had a bad answer to that question, I wouldn't even have made an offer. I'm not saying I know, I'm just skeptical. Not even so much that it could work as that D'Antoni would try to make it work. From the articles I read when the talk came up about him looking elsewhere, one of his points of contention with Suns management is that he's not even eager to give much practice time or attention to defense. One quote -- Link. I know, I know, it's just "sources", who knows if it's true. It just doesn't sound good, and the results with the Suns aren't encouraging.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 6, 2008 -> 05:02 PM) This really is the perfect personnel. I have my doubts on whether Hinrich can run the system, but aside from that the Bulls have the athletes in pace to successfully run an up-tempo style of offense. I also have to believe that the team when interviewing Mike would have asked him about whether the proper players are there and what he thought of Kirk and whomever and my guess is if the Bulls hire D'Antoni they either believe Kirk can be that guy or have someone in mind that they believe they can get. I'm freaking excited though if they hire him. They have some. Hinrich might be okay, Deng should be fine, Gordon can certainly play a role. But it's hard to see Noah, Thomas, and Sefalosha in that system. I like them as players, and they're fine athletes, but they seem a lot less valuable under a no-defense philosophy. We still don't have that underneath scorer to fill a Stoudamire-type role. (Only the role, not the production -- I'm not trying to set ridiculous expectations.) It'll be interesting, I just don't see how it'll work.