Balta1701

Found this intriguing, CNBC floats Timmeh as a potential post-election Fall guy.

Shoulda thought of that before you had those drinks, dear.

We had a close spacecraft flyby of a comet this morning.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 11:11 AM) And what ideas was that based on? "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." That would be the Declaration of Independence...not the Constitution.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 11:08 AM) SOME thought that. And paradoxically, the issues they raised and the Constitution they wrote is what ultimately freed slaves, gave them rights, gave women rights, etc. Really? I thought the emancipation proclamation freed the slaves?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:30 AM) That he doesn't like DHing or he didn't adjust to playing in the AL. Or that he was suffering from a number of nagging injuries despite playing DH.

Quit hitting on me.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 09:59 AM) I mean, think about it. What prominent lawyer/politician in today's time would volunteer to represent terrorists in court (Adams). A whole lot of lawyers do that. The right wing has decided that they are committing treason for doing so. If you'll recall, one of Dick Cheney's daughters ran one of those outside-ads calling a set of lawyers who had done exactly that the "Al Qaeda Seven" and calling the DOJ the "Department of Jihad".

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:41 AM) I think you missed this in your skimming... The actual guy that they tried to cite was taken horribly out of context and personally ripped the book in interviews.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:04 AM) Here is an excerpt from Super Freakonomics which describes the position taken by Intellectual Ventures: Excerpt from Super Freakonomics It's a long excerpt, but I promise you, it is definitely worth reading... When "Superfreakonomics" came out, the climate community groaned that they had another poorly-informed piece that they had to deal with. As SS noted beforehand...things like "global temperature has actually decreased" are statements that people familiar with basic statistics should flat out scoff at, and those guys really ought to have known better. For another example, they raise the issue of the heat generated by burning carbon and what that does to the planet...not the heat that is trapped by CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, the actual heat of the exothermic reaction burning carbon. The problem is, they didn't bother to do the math; if you estimate a reasonable lifetime for a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere, the amount of incoming solar radiation, the amount of heat generated by CO2 absorbing that light, and also calculate the energy released by a carbon-combustion reaction, the heat trapped by 1 molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere is something on the order of 10^6 times greater than the heat released by the combustion reaction. They didn't bother to do the most basic math to check their conclusions. Basic errors like that riddle their climate chapter. Now...if you want to deal with their actual proposals...they're big fans of types of geoengineering. For example, they cite the fact that aerosol particles in the atmosphere wind up reflecting out sunlight and causing cooling, and consider that as a method of dealing with the problem permanently; just inject particles into the atmosphere. Problem is...there are reasons why very few scientists think that these proposals are viable (although I will grant that some do and I think continued research in them is a very worthy goal)...the politics and the science both make it hard. I'll start with the science. The basic problem with CO2 in the first place is the side effects. No one would care about increasing atmospheric CO2 if it didn't cause warming. The geoengineering solution, such as adding aerosol to the atmosphere, produces 1 side effect; counteracting the CO2 warming, but that isn't the only side-effect. Adding CO2 changes circulation patterns and heating patterns in a certain way; adding aerosols can produce overall cooling, but it produces a different set of side effects. In some regions, you make things excessively dry and you compound the problem. Or, you wind up with other side-effects like the production of acid rain or ozone damage. On top of that...we have some idea of the side-effects of massive jumps in CO2 both because we've already done it and because we've spent a lot of effort analyzing that problem geologically; massive increases in aerosol emissions have been investigated some, but there are very likely to be other side effects we haven't researched at all. Furthermore, there's the fact that it's only at best a temporary solution. If we continue on the current CO2 emission trend, we're going to triple atmospheric CO2 concentrations within the next 100 years. From 300 ppm pre-industrial to over 1000 ppm by 2100. Going the aerosol emission route, that will require an enormous amount of sulfate aerosols to be pumped into the atmosphere. If you want to counteract that, you're pretty much going to have to create a Venusian haze that blots out a substantial portion of the sun worldwide. You'd literally have to have a global, permanent, smog layer. Think the air in Beijing, except global. That is going to have massive impacts on plant life, crop growing, and hell, even Vacations. That of course doesn't take into account the politics, and in this case the politics are as bad or worse than in cutting emissions as your solution. Let's say you want the sulfate aerosol solution; who is going to pay for that? Is the U.S. going to pay for the whole thing? What happens if China decides not to pay their fair share? Will the U.S. do so anyway? What happens if China winds up being pushed into a decades long drought because the U.S. has decided to pump out sulfate aerosols? Who pays for that? Or other options, like putting a big mirror in solar orbit to block out a portion of the sun...who pays to launch the thing, who pays for the loss of crops associated with cutting the incoming sunlight? And how would China and Russia feel if the U.S., for example, controlled a large scale geoengineering system that the U.S. could use as a negotiating tool or a weapon? If you were Russia, would you want the U.S. controlling a system that the U.S. could turn off, causing rapid melting in parts of Russia? In general, I think Geoengineering solutions seem easy because of the fact that no one has actually put forwards a genuine, seriously thought out proposal that can be actually discussed. The politics of carbon mitigation seem challenging because they are. There is every reason to think that the politics of geoengineering are just as complicated, if not more complicated, but we haven't had reason to actually deal with them. So, to summarize, I haven't seen a geoengineering solution that I think would actually work. It is an interesting idea and I have no issues with continued research on a variety of topics. However, it can not and should not be treated as a feasible solution until a unified plan can be put forwards, and frankly, most of the people who float geoengineering solutions are doing so not out of a belief that they might actually work, but instead as a means of further confusing the politics of carbon mitigation and making it so that we delay rather than taking steps to deal with the problem.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 09:56 AM) I know the freakonomics guys support "geoengineering" over carbon pricing/taxing/limiting policies. I'm aware of that but I didn't see either of the actual 2 guys on the list of names highlighted either, so I didn't want to assume that's what the group he cited wanted.

Obviously, we shouldn't expect decorum on an internet message board.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 01:42 AM) Think the Rangers would want AJ? I wouldn't discount it. It'd be a new challenge for him with decent pitchers to work with. I think if the Rangers were smart they'd go after AJP. Yes his intangibles are important IMO. I wonder if deep down AJ wants to stay or wants that "change of scenery" to fire him up. Didn't thome admit it really helped him this year, wanting to prove he wasn't done? The thing that AJ's going to run into as a major problem is convincing other teams that he won't be a clubhouse cancer. The Sox at least know that they can deal with him personality wise for the most part, but every other team's players and often managers have had him get under their skin already. Plus, they know he has a history of having pitchers and coaches he doesn't get along with (i.e. S.F.) and there were probably a couple incidents in Chicago that filtered out that might make other GM's wary as well (the whole college football on every TV in the locker room thing from 09). I'd expect some team, maybe the Rangers, maybe others, will wind up making AJ an offer, but I really doubt that any team is going to go that aggressively after him. It'll probably be a situation like when he originally signed with the Sox...unless the Sox extend him, he'll be out there until January, some team will give up and realize their catching position stinks, they'll sit down with him repeatedly to make sure that they think they can live with him, and they'll put together an incentive-rich deal of some sort.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 09:00 AM) What do you guys think about the thinktank mentioned Super Freakonomics, Intellectual Ventures, and their position on climate change? Intellectual Ventures I have no information on their position on climate change and I can't seem to find any at that page. Can you fill in the blanks?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 09:35 AM) I would love to see Congress deal with the tax cut question by submitting two bills - one for extension of tax cuts for all but the top 2 brackets, and a seperate one for extension or modification for the top tiers. The lower one will pass in a hurry from both sides, and that will allow those to continue, while the higher tier ones are debated. Seems like a win for everyone, since everyone can point to tax cuts for 99% of the country. The reality is...the Republicans and a good chunk of Democrats are dead-set against this move because it's a political loser for them. They want to be able to vote for the tax cuts on the top brackets but they know that "Person X voted for a budget busting, $3 trillion tax cut for millionaires and billionaires" is a political loser, so just like with the original Bush tax cuts, if they want to cut the top rate, the only way they're going to get it through is to tie it to smaller tax cuts on the lower rates.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:50 PM) Williams was also impressed with Jeff Marquez in the AFL. I think his track record for acquiring AFL players is actually pretty bad overall at this point. Marquez got hurt.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 11:19 PM) uh, Pat Burrell has atleast 437 plate appearances in every year he's played. Nick Johnson's done that 4 times in his entire career. And the numbers he put up in Tampa...the Kotsay-like .221 average and sub .700 OPS in 2009...kinda suggest some issues don't you think?

QUOTE (gatnom @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 01:47 AM) He may be in the long run, but I feel like he's going to struggle quite a bit coming out of the gates. There's a pretty substantial jump between minor league pitching and major league pitching. And this move will be an experiment in their technique of aggressively pushing people upwards. The Twins had Danny Valencia basically where Morel is now as a 23 year old, upper minor league levels, and they kept him in the minors for another year and a half for seasoning. The Sox are going to push Morel hard and see what he does in the bigs. I can live with that...kid ripped every type of pitching he saw last year...but it's a contrast I'm going to spend the offseason highlighting because I think it's important to watch.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 08:37 AM) Are you serious? I see absolutely no reason why he would accept that deal. This is the guy who has seriously discussed retiring when this contract is up. Unless he is going to STL, I doubt he accepts any other trade. If he is traded, his $15M option for 2012 kicks in, so he would play for that team for another season, which is another reason to think he would block it. Well, he could always retire if he didn't want to play that 2012 season.

QUOTE (J.Reedfan8 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 07:07 AM) I might have to ask people to predict the game where Rajon Rondo actually gets less than 10 assists. Hell he hasn't even gotten less than 15 yet in a game early on. He has the record for most assists in the first (however many games they've played) of the season so far.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:43 PM) The Gores got rich off of oil. It is what put his dad into the Senate and put Al Gore in the position that anyone gave a s*** what he thought in the first place. It is also an undeniable fact that he has gotten massively rich by pushing green companies. It depends on how you define "Rich". He was a wealthy person based off of oil, but he multiplied that probably by 100 thanks to the Google.

Am I missing something?

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:10 PM) I think they should make a plan to phase out the filibuster at a date set in the future where they won't know what party's in power. (10 years.) I still actually don't mind the Senate having a gigantic that must be overcome for the biggest of the biggest of legislation on principle...I'd actually say that is somewhat consistent with the originalist idea of the Senate as a place where things go to slow down...but I despise the current version of the filibuster...where everything other than naming a post office is subject to it, the Senate can't get anything done, and there is zero effort required from the minority to use it.

A few of these are laughably WTF...but there's a serious point in this one that has come up again and again in the media. We heard over and over that Obama should have "focused more on jobs" or something along those lines. What exactly does giving a press conference saying "I want to create jobs" actually do? No one is going to create jobs based on a press conference. You can argue specific policies that might be job creators...I'd go for additional infrastructure spending and a huge investment in clean energy, others might go for an upper class tax cut...but you don't get any of those by going out every day and saying "I want to create jobs". You want to win an election? Actually create some.

The Rangers declined a $9 million mutual option on Vlad Guerrero, making him a Free Agent. I'm honestly a bit shocked. I thought they'd have picked that up for sure after the season he had. Maybe this is either a symptom of their financial issues from last year or a sign that they're going to go full-bore after Cliff Lee.