Balta1701

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 23, 2008 -> 05:18 PM) hahahaha infield single for Thome, how often does that happen? I constantly wonder why guys like Ortiz and Thome who are so badly overshifted don't try laying down a bunt up the 3rd base line. If the pitcher doesn't field it then they're hitting 1.000.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 23, 2008 -> 03:39 PM) Early reports are that Obama outspent Clinton something like 3-1 in PA, and STILL lost by almost 10 points. Another side of that token is that when Obama is on the ticket in November...he's already spent $10 million or so in a key swing state. He has voter rolls, ads already run, donors, organization, etc. It's all active already. McCain has to start from scratch in this state (And despite being the nominee, he only took 72% of the vote in that state, FWIW). And the fact that Obama has run so much advertising there already may well mute the effect of whatever ad some outside group runs that McCain half denounces in the fall. The Dem Primary turnout yesterday was something like 80% of Kerry's General election turnout in 04.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 23, 2008 -> 02:47 PM) Exactly. I don't favor any sort of "windfall tax", because you should never penalize businesses for succeeding. But, the government sure as hell doesn't need to be giving them more money, when they have tens of billions in profits they could plow back into infrastructure if they so desired. Just randomly thinking off the top of my head here...would it be possible to structure a windfall tax such that a company had to either choose to invest some of its profits in a particular sector of the economy (i.e. renewable energy) or give it to the government?

Yoko sues Expelled filmmakers over unauthorized use of "Imagine".

QUOTE (G&T @ Apr 23, 2008 -> 01:29 PM) I saw the video today on the Today show. I don't know why he would pull this stunt in what appeared to be very heavy clouds and without any form of tethering. As Peter Griffin once so eloquently put it..."Christians don't believe in gravity"

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 23, 2008 -> 01:22 PM) I'm typically the last person to stick up for GWB but what power does a president really have with regards to the price of oil? Isn't it all about supply and demand? Well, first of all, there's almost certainly a non-trivial "Middle East continues to be an absolute disaster" premium being paid, especially with all the pipeline bombings in Iraq. That does certainly hit GWB. Beyond that though, one could certainly argue that the current energy prices are fundamentally related to the position of this administration (and, frankly, the last administration) in their early years where they argued that "Conservation is a great personal virtue but can not be the basis of a sound national energy policy". Because they were so adamantly opposed to conservation or to any efforts to lessen our dependence on foreign oil in their early years, we missed the last opportunity, of the late 90's and early 2000's, where energy was still cheap, for the nation to actually put itself on a crash course to try to develop and put in to use renewable fuel sources. At that level, the energy policies certainly do relate to public policy. On the other hand though, thanks to the skyrocketing oil prices, demand has actually stayed flat or even declined a little in the U.S., while demand has continued to surge in China and India, and except through the complicated process of currency valuation and its relationship to shipping and manufacturing, the U.S. government has very little control over that part. The U.S. government also can't just make more energy appear in the ground, and if oil production is peaking, then there's very little any government could do to stop it.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Apr 23, 2008 -> 01:38 PM) Um, you did notice that article was what started this thread right? The person didn't see this thread, started a new one, so I closed the other thread and used the first post to bump up this one so that the poster could see the discussion.

QUOTE (CWSGuy406 @ Apr 23, 2008 -> 12:24 PM) Guilty until proven innocent -- isn't that the motto? U-S-A! U-S-A! In MLB, I think you have to consider it with every single person. Certainly can't prove a thing, but I defy anyone to prove to me he's clean. You can't, because the bastards weren't testing and won't release the results of the first round of testing. Earth-S-A! Earth-S-A!

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 23, 2008 -> 12:12 PM) I'll admit it, I almost walked in front of a hybrid in my apartment complexes parking lot. Never heard it and I was looking the other way. Maybe I just hear it more, but I actually tend to recognize the noise hybrids make more than the noise other cars make, because hybrid cars have a distinct hum, even when on the electronics. I can have a Highlander or an Escape drive past me while biking and I can tell its a hybrid by the noise because it's different from other cars.

I guess I'll be the one to bring this up also....I also find it interesting that his peak years were in Oakland shortly after the time that Jason Giambi's peak years happened, and his last really great years were 2002-2003. Right before the start of PED Suspensions. Maybe it's not fair to bring that up with every guy who falls off a cliff after 2003, but that's the bed the owners and MLBPA made when they let the problem fester for so long.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 23, 2008 -> 09:59 AM) Not that it matters, but with Clinton's recent question about, "Why can't Obama win the big states?", I have her answer... I have a different answer. When you define big states as "Large states that Hillary Clinton has won", then you come up with a definition that fits that statement. If you define large states as states with large numbers of electoral votes, then that definition fails, because it then excludes quite a few states with >10 electoral votes that Obama has won, including Illinois, Virginia, Washington, Georgia, 1/2 of Texas.

Aw hell, for completeness, I hit up the 2nd datasource in there. The Hadley one, Britain. Their data is only slightly different from NASA's, and certainly does not show the trend alleged in 2k5's linked piece. In this scale, a -.7 degree C change would show up as a blue bar going down to -.3. Here is what they write: So, 2 of the 4 sources they cite simply do not show what they say they show.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 23, 2008 -> 10:50 AM) But I do agree that Uribe needs a day off here and there, whether it's Richar or Ramirez filling in for him at 2B. And on those days, I'd like to see Juan used as a defensive sub late in games. On that I think we both agree, I just like arguing semantics. Personally I'd probably be putting Alexei out at 2nd base about 2x a week right now if I were manager. But as you can see from my Sig, I'm not.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 23, 2008 -> 09:33 AM) Again with scientists trying to interpolate a trend from one friggin' year. Where did these people get their degrees? I see this from both sides of the debate, and it adds nothing to the discussion. You can't look at 2007 and call it global cooling any more than you can look at 2005 and call it global warming. Its a ridiculous idea. Heck, even a decade is a very, very short timespan to try to determine anything from. I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this one...because frankly, I'm not sure where exactly the people in this article are getting their data. To quote them directly: Except...I can go to the NASA Goddard Space studies data with a simple Google search (frankly I'm too lazy to do all 4) and it shows no such thing. Here's the temperature graph they include for the global picture (there are others at the link, none of which show a .7 degree C Drop.) If you look at the graph on the left, we are .6 degrees C above the zero line. The article 2k5 links to says that the temperature last year dropped by .7 degrees C. In other words, they're saying that the 2007 point on that graph should come in at -.1, not at .6. I have no idea where they come up with that claim.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 23, 2008 -> 10:22 AM) Not if the entire point is to get Uribe's bat out of the lineup to see what Alexi can do. You don't need a righty/lefty situation to give somebody else at-bats. Then it's not a platoon

QUOTE (thedoctor @ Apr 23, 2008 -> 08:38 AM) reds fire wayne krivsky, hire walt jocketty Kinda sad actually, IMO. Krivsky hasn't been the greatest, you can question a few of his decisions over the years (i.e. the Kearns trade, etc.), but it looks like in the last year or so he's finally got that ship righted, and between Harang, Arroyo, Cueto, Volquez, and Bailey, they've got a pitching staff that within a year or two ought to be putting them at the top of the Central out there.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 23, 2008 -> 09:56 AM) While it's certainly true that Uribe hasn't hit worth a lick over the past 2+ seasons, he could've hit a slam off Chamberlain last night and people here would still rip him today. Uribe needs to be used in a platoon with Richar or Ramirez. But since he's far and away the best defensive 2nd baseman at our disposal, running him out of town is probably not the best course of action. And since it's very hard to pull off a platoon with 2 righties, we don't have a ton of options until Danny comes back from the DL.

Give em Jell, Javy.

Sometimes, I think it's pretty much impossible to come up with better headlines.

QUOTE (G&T @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 06:46 PM) Why is Nick Masset warming? To get some work in?

What's the point of saying it's too close to call at 8:15 but then calling it when 1% of the votes are in?

Fox calls it for Clinton.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 05:13 PM) ESPECIALLY if he ties or wins more delegates. Her whole "press to the end" is based on delegates. If she cant take away at LEAST 7 here, she as a real hard road to climb even WITH superdelegate support. She needs an AWFUL lot more than 7. She needed a big score here to close the gap. Obama can simply split races through the end of June, and by then he'd have it in the bag. She needed double digits to at least make some of the metrics start going her way, especially with North Carolina likely to offset a chunk of this one and Indiana and Oregon looking like decent Obama territory.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 05:02 PM) Ohio exit polls showed her winning 54-44 and she won 54-44 Today they show her winning 51.64-47.78. That's Clinton plus almost 4. And as I said earlier, exit polls have been typically within 1.5%. Well, I'm not trying to Jinx it, but I think that everyone would read a 52-48 result as essentially playing Taps.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Apr 22, 2008 -> 04:59 PM) Wow, too close to call basically everywhere. This has to be seen as a major blow to Clinton's campaign They didn't call Ohio until about 10-20% of the votes were counted. Too close to call can be a relative thing.