Balta1701

I've always wanted to do this to SS2k5... Cubano beat you to the punch by several days. Closed and Merged!

Wasn't Bartolo supposed to pitch also?

Link

To prove once again that the AIG bailouts were the BEST DECISION EVA!, AIG is awarding what started as reportedly $100 to $170 million, and if you believe the WSJ, $450 million, in another batch of the seemingly never-ending series of retention bonuses for its executives and in particular the financial products division that sold off those trillions of dollars worth of credit default swaps that brought the company down. The beauty of this round is that Geithner realized it was going to be a problem, so he told AIG to come up with some way to not pay them. After all, right now the banks are hemorrhaging jobs, if anyone there quits because they don't get their retention bonus, first of all they still are the same folks who brought the company down so the taxpayer shouldn't care if they leave, and second, there's plenty of better people to take their place. The problem is...these performance-bonuses are in their employment contracts. Normally, a company like AIG wouldn't have any problem breaking and rewriting employment contracts because it would be in bankruptcy. But despite a trillion dollar hole in their books, AIG isn't in bankruptcy, because the Federal government keeps giving them money to light on fire. So, we bail out AIG, save them from bankrutpcy, and thus, we have no means to rewrite any of the disastrous pre-collapse contracts they wrote with anyone. So we just keep paying and paying and lighting more and more money on fire. Watching money burn is cool

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 14, 2009 -> 05:29 PM) So their editorial page is playing "fair and balanced"? Ok. I honestly don't know them enough to say - so they've evidently changed. I will alter your statement one bit...the list I gave you is their Op-ed staff, the people who write on the opposite side of the editorial page. The editorial staff is a different group, they write the official paper editorials/endorsements/etc. (In my paper those are the unsigned editorials). Those are a different group of people, but I will add, I'm not a fan of that group and especially its work of the last 8 years (Drink!) either.

Here is a great example. The Post decided to give its op-ed page tomorrow to a discussion of earmarks. The writers who discuss this issue: Basically...not a Democrat among them.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 14, 2009 -> 04:22 PM) Oh the hypocracy. I'm trying to figure out what that means. Did I lie to Congress at some point? Did someone I support? Did the President lie to Congress? Do you think I'm Roger Clemens? I'm not.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 14, 2009 -> 04:24 PM) No, the WaPO doesn't. Not very often. Washington Post Op-ed writers: Anne Applebaum, Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute David Broder, who wrote of Bill Clinton "He (Bill Clinton) came in here and he trashed the place and it wasn't his place". Dean of the Washington Press corps, represents to my eyes pretty much everything wrong with the press of the sort that Stewart keeps ranting about. Richard Cohen, one of the supposed liberals, who was of course strongly in favor of the Iraq war. EJ Dionne Jr., genuinely on my side. Former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, the man who wrote the "Axis of evil" speech. Jim Hoagland, pulitzer prize winning reporter. Richard Holbrooke, legit democrat, negotiated the Bosnian peace accords. David Ignatius, left-leaning. Robert Kagan, co-founder of the conservative PNAC (Project for the New American Century) that laid the groundwork for the entire Bush administration's foreign policy Colbert King, probably counts as a Democrat. Charles Krauthammer, strong Republican, regular Fox News guy, etc., already mentioned him. Harold Meyerson, whom I've met. Robert Novak was there until last fall when he took some time off writing due to a brain tumor. Democrat Eugene Robinson Economics columnist Robert J. Samuelson God of the right wing and Cub fans George F. Will And recent hire Bill Kristol, who's columns at the NY Times were an absolute debacle (almost every one seemed to provoke several corrections) and who's as big of a Bush apologist as there is out there. So, for a paper that never puts in anything conservative, we have Bill Kristol, George Will, Charles Kruathammer, Robert Kagan, Michael Gerson, Anne Applebaum. Not counting either Novak or Broder that gives 6 solid hugely conservative writers. I count 5 solid left-leaning writers, maybe 6, depending on the day. I didn't classify Samuelson or Hoaglund, argue with me on that if you want. David Broder is considered a centrist, but he's a centrist only if centrists still like George W. Bush. By my count, strong Republicans outnumber the strong democrats by at least a couple on the Washington Post op-ed staff. There's at least a Republican per day given that several of them have multi-day columns. So, by "not very often" one can only conclude you mean that every column must be anti-Obama or the paper is a socialist rag (/kaperbole). Seriously, this is the game the media has played for years. They hire more and more Republicans while absolutely nothing is enough to convince people who don't bother to read the paper that they're no longer that evil liberal media, and so it just keeps getting played up.

Hey, Anderson's over the Mendoza line? Sweet.

The Bush attorney replacement scandal was not a scandal because of the fact that the attorneys were replaced. I went through this a couple years ago and I'll go through it again. The scandal was a scandal because of why the attorneys were replaced...because the people at the top wanted them to bring phony voter fraud prosecutions as a way to intimidate/keep minorities and poor people from voting. And the scandal was a particular scandal because they tried to cover it up. The President of course is fully within his rights to replace the attorneys for any reason. Bush could have even fired Fitzgerald to try to stop the Libby investigation. He had the power to do so and no one could have stopped him. The only reason they didn't was the PR hit they'd take (documents have shown that they considered it at the highest levels). The underlying crimes weren't replacing the attorneys. They were the efforts at voter disenfranchisement (specifically illegal caging lists and illegal purging of voter lists), the fact that after it was discovered, they were called before Congress and Gonzalez in particular lied about why he'd arranged for those attorneys to be replaced (lying to Congress under oath is still a crime whether you're lying to cover up another crime or just lying to cover your boss's political arse). Oh, and making all of the documents that were supposed to be preserved disappear...that's a crime also. The underlying crime in the DOJ politicization case was violations of the Hatch Act, which is intended to prohibit federal employees from being hired/fired based on their political leanings (and we have more than a few cases where political position was inappropriately used as a qualification for employment) and use of federal employees directly for campaign related activities. The President does have the power to go quite far politicizing the DOJ. And he has the right to replace the U.S. attorneys at his whim for whatever reason, including shutting down investigations of himself or people within his party. The President has the right to fire U.S. attorneys who are unwilling to use their position to intimidate the political opposition. The President and his minions do not have the right to lie about that under oath. And finally, I'd argue that the whole case makes a very compelling argument that the DOJ in particular needs to be significantly more independent of the White House than it currently is...a matter for Congress to take up. Unfortunately, had the Dems put together a package to fix that problem last Congress it would have been filibustered, and unfortunately now the Democratic Congress isn't likely to take on the President in that way. There are multiple things that need fixed here, I'll be the first to agree to that. This is one of many areas where the executive branch's power has grown too far.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 14, 2009 -> 11:04 AM) I just found it interesting that a WaPO (aka the Washington Compost) writer went out and blasted Obama. It doesn't happen very often. WHAT? Really, Charles Krauthammer doesn't blast Obama? What? Isn't it a little early to be that toasted? And the Washington Post op-ed page, which recently also hired that wonderful (Godawful) writer Bill Kristol, doesn't blast Obama? Really, I haven't the words for a quality response.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 08:30 PM) Where'd you get 17 from? Maryland was 7 in 2003 unless I'm looking at the wrong data. Our taxes have gone up since then so now we're 4. Sounds about right. Maryland's state motto should be "If you can dream it, we can tax it." Check my post, I always include links to data.

QUOTE (forrestg @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 08:04 PM) I"ve agonized watching Owens play the last 3 days. he fields adequetly but jerry just can't hit. Weis has played well going 2 for 6 today with a homer. Anderson hit one today. i can't find one criteria to play owens over Anderson and Weis. unless Ozzie wants the tallest centerfielder if that would be the criteria he'd be in there. Owens also cost Gavin a run today with a bonehead play in CF.

QUOTE (whitesoxbrian @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 07:40 PM) If Alexei hits 2, who hits 1? Getz and Owens are both question marks. Frankly I still go with Getz. Alexei's problem with the #1 slot is he has no patience whatsoever. Taking extra pitches is especially important for a leadoff man because it lets the other guys behind him see what he's throwing early in the game. Getz can at least take a walk, based on his minor league #'s.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 07:55 PM) Here in MD it seems like our taxes are right behind federal in the percentage. It's ridiculous. IL's tax rates are really nothing compared to ours. I don't feel sorry for you guys, lol. This data is from 2005 so slightly out of date but it's illustrative. It does not take in to account cost of living or the amount paid by the federal government (i.e. you kind of expect CA to have a higher tax burden than some other states because simply running a school out here costs more, and places like MI get more tax dollars back from the Feds than us) but it is illustrative. The %age given is an attempt to average out over everything, not just income taxes but income, sales, property, hotel, fuel, etc. Ah, here's the new data. In 2008 Illinois was still 30th.

Wonder what happened between those 2 days.

QUOTE (beck72 @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 04:51 PM) I have no problem with Kenny talking about looking for leadoff type hitters. The Sox need guys who can hit for a high avg., get on base, and run. If the guys they draft can hit leadoff or #2, they can also hit near the bottom of the order. The sox don't have any sure fire stud leadoff type hitters in their system. Might as well look to add a few who could hit near the top of the order. As long as they don't neglect the pitching

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 04:20 PM) That's understandable, but that doesn't always apply, especially with this organization. The "screw you job" in spring training (IE Masset winning over the better Wassermann last season, BA losing the CF job despite hitting like .500, Josh Fields going back to AAA after outperforming Crede in spring training/suppose to be traded etc..) has been if effect for a while with us and IMO, I can honestly say that I can see the same thing again this time around also with our guys. That was my point not to mention the consistant Wise hating. I understand Owens, but DeWeezy doesn't need this much of it. So far this spring seems to be the closest we've come to not having any screw-jobs happening. Anderson and Owens are getting their fair shot to earn the CF job. They're each getting a lot of ab's. They're each sucking. Dwayne Wise, Chris Getz, Brent Lillibridge are all massively outplaying them right now. Which is the whole reason we're having this discussion. If Anderson and Owens were actually hitting and giving this team what we were hoping they'd do in the best-case scenario, the discussion would already be over.

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 02:48 PM) Are you accusing him of being unclutch in spring training? I wouldn't care about the unclutch part, I care more about the quality of pitcher he's able to hit against. His swing is so far out of whack that he can only hit AA quality pitching.

Owens Grounds to short, Lillibridge out at 2nd, Bad throw airmailed to 1b, goes in to the seats, Owens goes to 2nd on E-4.

Lillibridge grounds to 1b, 1b boots in, Lillibridge reaches on E-3.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 02:45 PM) He won't be going down. BA has the best OF glove on the team so defense will keep him at the big league level while they wait for the bat to catch up this spring His bat will not "catch up" if he's sitting on the bench. He's proven that before.

Anderson homers deep to LF. Sox up 12-2. I'm going to start threatening him more often.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 02:43 PM) So who are the 2 major league centerfielders on the roster? Wise and who? Can't be Owens, even if Brian's swing is pure s*** he still brings more to the table than Owens. Lillibridge? The infielder who's proven nothing above A ball and hasn't played CF in regular season game in 4 years? At least to start the season, yes, if the season started right now I'd take Wise and Lillibridge and start it as a platoon. They are simply playing better than the other options. Fields singles to start the inning. 3/4 for Joshua today. Anderson up again. Someone slap him and tell him to wake up.

Quick 123 inning for MMac against the padres.