Balta1701

Our Ramirez is better than yours!

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Jun 28, 2008 -> 01:04 PM) that run costing single to center field is why I'll take BA over Wise any day. BA makes that catch. And add in a double by Lee a few moments ago that scored 2.

QUOTE (FranktheTank35 @ Jun 28, 2008 -> 01:20 PM) 4 IP... 8 H, 3BB... not good. Masset in? If we think Thornton or Logan can give us 2 innings, 3 of the next 5 guys in their order are leftys. Edmonds, Fontenot, and the guy who swears at domes.

QUOTE (Jimbo's Drinker @ Jun 28, 2008 -> 01:17 PM) Id walk ramirez!! To get to Edmonds, the lefty with an OPS this month over 1.100?

F*** you too Javy.

Masset time.

59 pitches for Javy through 3.

I like runs.

Half surprised Wise isn't bunting here.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 28, 2008 -> 12:08 PM) Wassermann's numbers since returning to AAA, in 20 IP... 0.45 ERA 1.00 WHIP 19 K .191 AvgA How many walks is that? Seems like it would have to be a lot with a .191 average.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jun 28, 2008 -> 11:45 AM) Watching the Cards/Royals game yesterday, the Cards announcers were saying they have one of the best minor league systems in baseball. I have trouble believing that but if true, GO GET SABATHIA!!! If they have one of the best minors in the baseball then it came out of nowhere last year. They have a classic ability to find good players that other people wouldn't trade for. They do have the advantage of potentially a carpenter appearance later this year.

QUOTE (Benchwarmerjim @ Jun 27, 2008 -> 06:49 PM) Mauer just crushed a HR to take the lead in the 8th sorry guys

QUOTE (Benchwarmerjim @ Jun 27, 2008 -> 07:25 PM) but, when the Sox and Twins are competitive with each other, it makes for great baseball all summer Doesn't mean we have to like it.

WTG Danny, took you long enough.

LOL. After all the hubbub about how we need to open more public lands for oil drilling that's lasted for the last 8 years, the Bush Administration has imposed a 2 year moratorium on new solar plants on BLM land while they study the environmental impact.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 27, 2008 -> 01:27 PM) What precedent did it overturn? This is the first time the Court has ever squarely addressed the issue of the true meaning of the 2nd amendment and whether it affords an individual the right to carry a gun. Any previous decision that's come before they Court has been tossed aside on technicalities or other non-issues or the Court has basically said "uhhh, no thanks we don't want to rule on that now, let the states decide." If anything this is the exact opposite of judicial activism and precisely what judicial interpretation should be. Scalia started by analzying the words in the Constitution, ruled on what they meant both individually as words, as clauses and then as a complete phrase, and then used that ruling to analyze the DC law. Judicial activism = Lochnerism Simple question then...where is the "Right to self defense" (and that's a quote from Scalia's opinion) in the 2nd amendment? That is the specific right that Scalia stated in his opinion he was protecting with that ruling.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jun 27, 2008 -> 02:31 PM) get this, i didn't pick john edwards. went with wes clark. i'd love that VP ticket - foreign policy experience, veteran to counter mccain, and he's presidential as hell. Out of the options on the Dem Side, I think he makes by far the most sense. Excellent speaker, deals with the media very well. Solid background...perhaps equally importantly a virtually unimpeachable background compared to some of the other obvious candidates (Clinton, Webb). He's about the only one I look at and say "Yeah, this sort of makes sense all around". Hillary's dragging along her and her husband and her campaign as baggage. Jim Webb has a ton of baggage from back in the 80's, and some of his more anti-female remarks would really come under fire given how McCain would love to eat in to that demographic. Edwards, he ran in 04 and the Kerry Camp supposedly still has a bunch of problems with the way he worked as a VP candidate and how he failed to mesh with the ticket. Richardson and especially Biden have that bat s**t crazy streak going, and Biden also has the "voted for the war" thing still on him. Since there was no "Vote for none" option on the Republican side, I went for Holy Joe, just to get him out of our caucus permanently. Although I'd love to see them go for Jindal because I want a debate question about what its like performing an exorcism.

OK, the Mets have put up 11 on the Yankees today. That's our next goal.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 27, 2008 -> 02:09 PM) Come on Swishy...knock Dempster out of contention for the AS Team. I think that's pretty much what I asked for.

Come on Swishy...knock Dempster out of contention for the AS Team.

God, it's nice coming back in from an hour of lab work where you discovered that an experiment you did seemingly DID NOT FAIL for once, and finding a 4 run lead.

Oh no, they re-did the Gameday interface again. My lord they managed to make it look exactly like an original nintendo game.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 27, 2008 -> 12:46 PM) I really hate the term "judicial activism" because probably 80% of the time you hear it used, all it means is "I hated the judge's decision, I'm right and he's wrong therefore he is making the law up" and it has nothing to do with the actual definition. What it's supposed to mean is a judge exceeding his authority and effectively creating a new law or changing the meaning of an old one. It doesn't happen that way nearly as often as people like to pretend it does. I totally agree that you're right on the usage of the phrace "Judicial Activism". The thing I find interesting is that by overturning precedent and creating a new right, I think this ruling is just about as "Activist" as you could get using any definition other than "left-leaning". I don't really care that it is, because I view the constitution as a living document that doesn't have static meanings (That's part of its strength) and thus, as society changes, the courts should allow their interpretations of it to change also. But if you're going to define judicial activism as a problem, then here's a classic example of it.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 27, 2008 -> 11:27 AM) Part 87 of I don't understand why the oil shock is fundamentally based. Oil is expensive to store and oil stockpiles remain relatively static historically. If as I read in Slate yesterday, we can really only store about 55 days worth of oil, and the supply of oil hasn't diminished, why is there a fundamental reason for such a large shock in oil? Because the demand for oil has gone up while the supply hasn't. Think of it this way...if the supply of oil hasn't diminished, but the price of oil has gone up, then if demand had been holding constant, you'd expect demand to drop as the price goes up. In other words, as the price goes up, you'd be able to sell less, but if supply remained constant, then stockpiles would have to go up with the price increase. The fact that supplies haven't increased concomitant with this price increase suggests that the price increase is being driven by the necessity of slowing demand growth.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 27, 2008 -> 10:57 AM) Lots of underwater volcanic activity there could be a big factor for that, not just 'global warming'. I really am going to have to try to hold back on this one...because I just want to scream at this. Thanks to federal science funding, we actually have in the last few years learned an absolute ton about the ridge that sits underneath the northern polar region. It's called the Gakkel Ridge, it's the northernmost extent of the mid Atlantic rift system. There was a cruise up there a couple years ago and it has produced some absolutely amazing samples including some of the freshest mantle peridotites we've ever found on the bottom of the ocean. It's very slow spreading, and over a lot of it is strangely missing magmatism, which is quite cool because it tells us something about the mantle flow directions in this area which we only have to infer across most of the rift system. You can see a good picture of the bathymetry here. First, let me say...we've actually been there in recent years. Although it's very cool, there's simply nothing you'd call freakishly anomalous going on there in terms of ridiculous amounts of new magmatism. Secondly, let's hypothesize that there was a freakish amount of magmatism there. Would it directly affect the ice sitting on top of it? The answer is probably no, because there are currents that would carry the water away. But this should be a fun mathematical exercise...here is where I get my data for the volume of the arctic ocean. I get a total volume of 16937480 cubic kilometers. I can calculate the energy needed to raise the temperature of this amount of water by 1 degree. Making the assumption that the basalt's heat capacity is constant as it cools and neglecting the important input of the heat of freezing of the basalt, both of which are bad but the first shouldn't hurt me by more than a factor of 2 and neither should the second, and also neglecting the heat input of melting ice, i come up with a number of about 20,000 cubic kilometers of basalt would be required to raise the ocean's temperature by about 1 degree. For reference, the volume of the Kilauea Volcano, which has existed for 100,000 or so years on the south flank of Mauna Loa, is about 25,000 cubic kilometers right now. So basically your claim is that a mass of magma the size of Kilauea suddenly appeared on one of the least active rift areas in the world and it happened so fast that it was able to heat up the entire arctic ocean to the point that the surface ocean, 1.2 kilometers above the rift, actually began to warm to the point that it was able to melt ice (note, this would require more than 1 degree of heating for the bottom part of the ocean because you'd have to move the hot water up through the entire ocean and it would really, really want to convectively mix away if you did that). And no geologist or seismologist or oceanographer anywhere in the world noticed. Furthermore, I can throw one more piece of data at you...through heat flow simulations created for the snowball earth scenarios, we actually have an estimate for how thick an ice cap needs to be before the heat flow coming out of the earth actually begins to melt the bottom of it. The answer is roughly 1 kilometer, which is why the snowball earth models for the hard snowball have the entire earth covered by a 1 kilometer thick ice sheet. Above that point, the earth's heat flow isn't enough for ice to really care. So on a thin sheet of ice that a submarine can punch through, there's no chance. Thanks, once I got in to the math, this was actually kind of fun. Desire to scream averted by math, once again. Edit: should probably note this in case people didn't get it. Even if I'm off by an order of magnitude with that math, for a volcanic eruption to warm the Arctic ocean at the levels we're talking about, we'd literally be talking about an eruption that is somewhere between the biggest eruption on earth in the last 4 billion years and the biggest eruption in galactic history.