bmags

i think this is fascinating but more in the legal aspects. I don't really care for Clemens either way.

we need James k. Polk to come in office, take care of business, then leave.

come on, they are both in her party, it's not like she's choosing which presidential candidate of both parties she'll choose so she'll be in special favor. referring to pelosi : edit

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 04:52 AM) Steve Krofft had an insightful and engaging interview with Obama...Couric seemed like she was still on the Today Show. She won't make it past the May sweeps. I wish Carol Marin was still doing stories for 60 Minutes. I think that was the killer, juxtaposing it with Krofts interview made it that much worse.

i can't believe this.

reddy! You missed when Katie asked her on the third question whether she takes vitamins or coffee to stay energized. That's what was on everybody's mind.

So, regardless of the hate for Hillary Clinton, and the inevitable grimaces over her cackles, I think all of us can scratch our heads over the TeenBeat/Ladies Home Journal-esque questions Couric starts with over the first 3 minutes. This interview would scream sexist to me if it wasn't done by a woman. I can't imagine Couric being.. well, you watch the video...I tried to embed but their embed didn't work. If a noble soul could do that for me I'd be obliged. http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/ma...tml?id=3814250n As I was saying, I can't imagine this line of questioning for a presidential candidate if they were male from Couric. She is so shocked that Hillary has so much energy! And what if she doesn't win??!?!?! Like, man I thought you'd say that, but I mean, I'M tired from my job and I don't do anything! SURELY you must be exhausted right? Either this was a great job by 60 minutes to sabotage Clinton, or just proof at how awful katie couric is at her job. Because Obama's interview was great, and this had nothing to do with obama v. clinton.

QUOTE(SEALgep @ Feb 12, 2008 -> 12:26 AM) Thank you, it needed to be said. in this thread? ha

so like, is this the 2008 version of jenks losing his velocity

this is all so very American.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 10, 2008 -> 12:34 AM) The Cleveland Plain Dealer has endorsed Obama. Although, CA proved pretty conclusively to me that endorsements by newspapers don't matter much these days. The Clinton Campaign is saying that a temporary suspension for Shuster is not enough. The Chicago Tribune backed bush in '04, the only papers that I think really would matter are niche papers with strong connections to their audience.

I saw this on tuesday. Hilarious. People like that got a job.

QUOTE(BobDylan @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 09:36 PM) Have you read the book? It's easy to say that without reading the book. If there's no obligation to the source of inspiration, why credit the book at all? It's obvious Anderson pulled moments from the book and smacked them on screen. He did a poor job of it. because then it's plagiarism. I'm saying he has no obligation to stick to the book. Hitchcock's average work, Rebecca, he was forced to stick to the book too much. His fantastic works were inspired by not-well known novels he didn't have to pander to the hysterical fanbases of "BUT THAT WASN'T IN THE BOOK"

QUOTE(BobDylan @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 10:10 PM) Saw "There Will Be Blood" last night. Having read the book as well, "Oil!," the two stories aren't even remotely close. There Will Be Blood has very little substance compared to the book. P.T. Anderson seemed to have more interest in Daniel Plainfield than what actually made the story work for Upton Sinclair's novel--the oil business is corrupt and thereforre it makes the businessman corrupt. The movie made it seem as Daniel Plainfield is corrupt, therefore the business is corrupt. The movie also gave very little attention to the religious aspects of the novel. Only in the ending scene do we get even a glimpse of what the church is, but Sinclair follows Eli and his brother Paul quite closely throughout the novel. P.T. Anderson also gives us a very different take of the father/son relationship than Sinclair did. H.W. isn't necissarily a tool for Daniel by Sinclair's storytelling. I'm a big P.T. Anderson fan, but he screwed this one up. There was a lot of good stuff in the novel that Anderson left out and he took good characters and made them into his own, essentially 1D characters. Daniel Day Lewis gave a great acting performance, but Anderson put together a limiting story and one that didn't have much to say. I can't say how much I disagree with this. For one, any director with any brain should not ever feel an obligation to his source of inspiration, if he wanted to recreate the novel he would've named it Oil. This wasn't meant to be made in the same way as atonement. There's really little point to a movie about the corrupt oil industry of the turn of the 20th century, but this movie about humanity isolation and greed is forever potent. The dinner scene where he says 'I'm finished' was one of the best scenes I've seen in a long time.

was that directed at me?

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 02:57 AM) Brits are better writers, better actors, and better comedians. They are the best. British newspapers write with more wit and passionate prose, however it's shallow, arrogant coverage that goes around in circles without ever really saying anything.

he gawn has entered my lexicon and is an effective punch line at opportune moments.

QUOTE(knightni @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 11:52 PM) You could almost say that he's been extinct. I laughed.

i think people would be surprised how much casual fans love the home run calls and catch phrases of Hawk. More than that, I know division rivals hate hawk when they have to listen to his broadcasts, but here at Mizzou, people I've met that have listened to sox games love hawk. And he's been the announcer since I was a kid. Good or bad it's part of the experience.

JT Tiller can look good one play then just awful the next. And i get so pissed watching us just taking awful jump shots before our offense is set up. (butterfield)

i have to copy edit at the newspaper tomorrow night, which means...i'll be there WAY past midnight

QUOTE(Misplaced_Sox @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 09:15 PM) What? Just because I have grown up in the ghetto on the South side and have heard Obama's promise of change before I cant post a thought? soxtalk doesn't like when people from the south side post here.

QUOTE(heirdog @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 08:29 PM) I think he was challenging batters early on (and in spring training) by throwing strikes early in the count. With that, you will give up the homers but he was effective in that a lot of them were solo shots. He tried to be too finesse after the ASB and tried to nip corners, etc. and he fell behind a lot. Then he was forced to challenge batters with hitter's counts and when that happens, you struggle. Yes, he might have been fatigued but I think the bigger change in the performance pre and post ASB was his approach early in counts...throwing strikes vs. falling behind. thanks. I was out of state after the allstar break and this was what I heard from poster's here. What I liked about early danks was he wasn't afraid to challenge hitters inside, which was what encouraged me so much. I'd hate to see the homers have scared him.

ron karkovice's inside the park home run.

i thought danks was pitching very well for his experience and age and then it was clear he just got fatigued. Home runs were getting hit on him, but early in the season they were a lot of solo shots that happened because he was challenging batters when no one was on base. I liked what I saw early on. I think he can be a reliable #4 this year.