Balta1701

Reeds been filthy this inning

Apparently Reed needs a chance to start.

“@CST_soxvan: The Sox' first pick in tomorrow's draft is warming up in the bullpen”

QUOTE (mike89128 @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 09:02 PM) Anybody got a pitch count for Reed? Anyone in the minors they can bring up for the Oakland series? 44

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 09:00 PM) WGN ditched the game For "Rules of Engagement"?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 08:37 PM) I have to imagine that both teams scoring exactly five runs in extra innings is extremely rare. Someone will get called up to replace Peavy and eat innings tomorrow.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 08:35 PM) My DVR cut off. I missed Hawk's call. How funny? Fairly quiet.

QUOTE (bbilek1 @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 08:32 PM) I am only 19 but I can't remember a worse moment than this. You just made me remember that game in 2011 Jenks blew in Minnesota. Blast.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 06:46 PM) So I take it we will continue to f*** with Santiago then? At least now he gets 6 weeks!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 05:17 PM) It is going to happen. Why do you think Daley is running for gov? Daley is running for Governor? Which one?

Personal curiosity, how many innings/pitches did Axelrod throw? Can someone add that stat for me?

QUOTE (flavum @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 04:53 PM) I have nothing to base this on, but maybe with the long spring training, they got lazy from the get go and never came out of it. And I'm still hanging that on the manager. I'll give Robin all the credit in the world for how focused these guys were on defense in 2012. You could actually see the difference between people who went through his training camp and people who came in later. They hit the cutoff man and did rundowns correctly because they knew what to do. But that means that every once of credit I give for last year is matched by an ounce of blame for this year.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 04:46 PM) Yep, this disaster clearly isn't his fault, but there's something clearly wrong that started at the end of last year and has continued. I'm still blaming him more than most for how completely unprepared this version of the team has been on defense.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 04:32 PM) I know the Olympics reserve the right use CIR, but does MLB even keep unflagged samples? Again, I think they started this year.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 03:55 PM) No, but the DNA would tell you if I had 1 drop of x blood. The DNA would tell you if I had some sort of recessive trait that they govt deemed unworthy of living/reproducing. Or maybe I figure out some sort of disease/virus/weapon that attacks only people with certain DNA. Or I genetically engineer something to go after those people. I dont like my name on lists, history suggests that I am correct in that thinking. I should also note that the Maryland law in question and the database in use there only use non-coded sections of DNA to match. In other words, the Maryland database contains none of this information and none of it is collected or recorded. You could not get any of that information from what Maryland puts into their database.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 04:27 PM) AFAIK both MLB and the Olympics use T/E ratio as basis for further testing. And they also do long-term monitoring so that it's not just the ratio but also the abundances that could trigger a more detailed look.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 03:57 PM) What if the government is your insurance company? If the Department of Justice is running Medicare, we have bigger problems than this ruling.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 03:58 PM) You can't really ignore the slippery slope because that's how our system is designed. Day 1 there was no justification for unreasonable searches and seizures. 200 years later there are a number of them, some of which are pretty bogus IMO. Our rights keep getting chipped away. And I think you're thinking too short term here. DNA testing will eventually become instantaneous, so having the government collect a database of everyone just means they can track you anywhere and everywhere you go. Why on earth would we want that? The government already has the ability to track where virtually anyone is. Ever use a credit card or a cell phone?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 03:40 PM) He was a great player, and like Bonds, probably would have been an all time great HOFer without PEDs, but if this thing is accurate, he, IMO has zero shot at the HOF. He was supposedly a physical freak back in high school. Which leaves me wondering whether him being a physical freak is an accident of genetics or a miracle of modern chemistry. High schoolers in the 90's had plenty of things available to them to turn them into athletic freaks.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 03:37 PM) Because ultimately you either trust the govt or you do not. Historically govts have never been kind to my people. How much easier would it have been for the Nazi's to catch Jews if they had a DNA database and could search for "Jew genes." Its not obviously a bad thing. I think most people like the idea that DNA will catch criminals. I think people like that fingerprints catch criminals. But what happens when the govt uses those tools against us? Like I said, I'm the big government person here, so I'll say again..."to do what?" What would the government do with this information that is so inappropriate? You could obviously come up with some answers, but DNA doesn't tell who you are, it doesn't tell what I'm thinking right now, it doesn't tell when I'm going to decide to go home. The government already is probably collecting this post and having it combed through for keywords at the NSA facilities and that tells a helluva lot more about me than my DNA. The thing that I would really oppose is having the results of DNA tests available to health insurance companies. I'll grant that one, but you're not necessarily going to sequence an entire person's genome to do a criminal test match (in fact that ought to be really unnecessary).

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 03:17 PM) That way we do not get a DNA search based on a parking ticket conviction. I'm still unconvinced about why this is obviously a bad thing.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 03:13 PM) I think it's not only that we're relying on the government to keeps their promise for the use of the database, but also the potential for this sort of warrantless collection in other areas of society. As Scalia points out, if identification is an acceptable justification, why not take the DNA of all airplane passengers so that we can identify who is traveling? Why not take DNA of kids in school to keep track of who is in the public school system? Think of what the dirty, immoral republicans could do if immigrants were forced to submit to DNA collection before entering the country! Based on my reading so far, the response would be that in the case of someone arrested for something you have a higher level of suspicion...but really, my other response is that I've stopped buying slippery-slope arguments. It seems much more reasonable to collect DNA samples for testing in the case of someone currently in custody than it does to test schoolchildren because it seems highly unlikely that there's a reasonable suspicion a schoolchild would be in that database. I'm not sure that a DNA test for a criminal match prior to citizenship would be the worst idea either. Again, it depends on what its being used for, if the law says you want to keep people with a certain background out of the country that's not a very good use, but hell, our immigration quota system already does that without the DNA test.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 5, 2013 -> 03:05 PM) So they could use a big lefty with a history of hitting lots of HRs in the National League???? Their 1b right now is Gaby Sanchez, who has given them a >.800 OPS So far on the year.

So I guess my question(s) as the big government guy here are... If the only thing this database is used for is "matching up the DNA of people arrested for crimes with people who are being hunted by authorities" (not used for other research or anything like that...) And having such a database winds up being an effective law enforcement tool to help solve unsolved serious crimes like the 400,000 rapes with untested kits sitting around... Why should I get up in arms about this? The reasons to get angry about it seem to me to be based upon the database being used for something else other than its intended purpose. I'll grant that ain't good, but spell out the downside for me if that doesn't happen?