Balta1701

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 23, 2006 -> 09:02 PM) It wouldn't take that many troops. It would take a lot of air support, a lot of technologies that you (or I) don't know about, and some other methods. I'm not going to sit here and waste my time - any military victory can be achieved by this country - but most people wouldn't or couldn't stand for it. And no, I'm not talking nuclear weapons or anything like that, but the type of warfare that would be needed to 'win' is no picnic. We would need more troops, but not 500,000 more. That's a bogus number only used to hype your point. Our country has wussified 'war' to keep casualties down. That's ok, but it leaves the political climate such as we see now, and people in our country (in general) don't think war with a price is necessary. So, I for one would like to hear exactly what it is we can do to "win" this war? You're clearly advocating some application of airpower, to what purpose exactly? And who is the target? Taking it as you say and totally ignoring how bloody things could be, what do we do? Do we target and attempt to ethnically cleanse Iraq of its Sunni population to put an end to the insurgency because we can't tell which Sunnis are fighting us and which aren't? If so, we wind up finally finishing off the process of handing another strong ally in the region to Iran and Syria. Do we attempt to go after the Mahdi army, which forms the bulk of the support in Parliament for the current prime minister, and thus bring the entire government down? What exactly do we do? Anyone we target, at least to my eyes, makes things worse. Taking sides in this civil war won't work, either we'll be helping out the Iranians or we'll be tearing apart Iraq's government. Just attempting to attack indiscriminatly any place that violence outcrops won't work; it doesn't do much to hit an already exploded car bomb with a JDAM. We can't enforce a curfew on the entire country, because a.) it wouldn't work (those Sunnis burned to death today happened under a full curfew), b.) we don't have nearly the manpower to pull it off, and c.) it sort of shuts down the entire country. So, what is it exactly that we can do?

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 24, 2006 -> 11:43 AM) People WANT this guy back? What the... Do any of these people who want him back remember how detrimental he was to the offense in the second half? I don't think they do. Jim Thome was a disaster to the Philadelphia Phillies offense in 2005. He hit .207 and put up a .712 OPS. You'd have to be out of your mind to trade 3 people for him, right? There is a reasonable possibilty that the reason Podsednik was so very very bad last year was that he was hurt all year. We would not necessarily know this where we are sitting, but the man making the decisions might. If KW were convinced that all of Podsednik's struggles were due to injury and he would be healthy again in 2007, then that is not the worst gamble I can imagine (Especially if Fields spends the first month or two of the season playing LF in the minor leagues as a backup option). But yea, I'd still prefer an outside solution.

Needed to get myself a 1 gb flash drive for quite some time, got one this mornin' @ Staples for $8.

Now it's J.D. Drew or the trade market for teams that want a bat.

QUOTE(beck72 @ Nov 24, 2006 -> 09:48 AM) I guess it depends on how hurt Pods was. Only the sox and he know how badly he was dinged up. If he was hurt and it kept him from going all out--which it seemed like both at bat and in the field--keeping Pods might not be bad. Esp. if the prognosis for Pods is that he'll be 100% for 2007, and very aggressive in the field, at bat and on the bases. There's the real key...how badly hurt Podsednik was last year. He had basically no offseason and no spring training at all because he was recovering from surgery, so his body never got a chance to get into playing shape. There is at least a remote cahnce that he'll come back out at the start of next season healthy and will put up 70/80 in stolen bases and a .300 average again. That said, I still think there are better options, maybe within our own system. I like the kids we do have, but Fields will k to much to lead off for anyone except the Cubs, and Sweeney needs another year in the minors just to grow up a little. Personally, unless someone were interested in moving a leadoff hitter to get their hands on Dye, one of my favorite options would be to have an outfield of Milledge/Anderson/Dye next year.

Well, this certainly isn't good.

The LA Times this morning ran a piece on how some of the deals the Cubs are making right now might serve to cut into the price the Tribune Company would get if they did sell the team (and remember the damn Tribune company still owns that paper)

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 22, 2006 -> 11:23 AM) We also have 18,000 voters who didn't cast a ballot for Congress but did for Agricultural Commisioner in an urban area of Florida. It's possible that happened. I just doubt that would be very likely. And beyond that, there was also a much, much higher percentage of undervotes on the electronic machines than there were on the absentee ballots from those same areas.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Nov 22, 2006 -> 02:00 PM) And, I don't understand why he would strike out more in the AL. Johan Santana says hi.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Nov 22, 2006 -> 09:35 AM) The O's offered 5 and 65 iirc. Still, we got quite the deal with Paul considering todays market. I believe the tax rate is higher in Maryland, which makes up for some of the difference between the 2 numbers. But PK also didn't want to go to B-More...the Angels basically offered the same thing as the White Sox.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Nov 22, 2006 -> 07:55 AM) The White Sox generally don't go more than 3 years with pitchers. I think they gave Navarro 4 years and were prepared to give Alex Fernandez 4 years. I can't see them giving Buerhle more than 4 years, maybe if he returns to form there's a slight chance at 5, so chances are after 2007 if not before the end of 2007-he gone. I have a real feeling that if the Sox aren't willing to go into Oswalt territory (5 years), then there's no shot at resigning Buehrle.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 06:10 PM) Wow. You're equating prayer to neo-nazi chants? Muslim prayer. Update: so today it seems, one of the clerics attempted to purchase another set of tickets so that the group could go back home, and US Air refused to sell them tickets. (There are a lot more details at that article, encourage you to read.)

Please never say that one of our players is "in the clear" again.

A lot more details in the article, I encourage you to read.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 12:02 PM) It seems pretty simple to me, as PA said earlier. If they violated FAA regs on when and where to stand or sit, then fine, remove them. If not, and this was just some nervous, small-minded boob giving in to irrational fear, then these people were indeed treated disrespectfully. I'll toss out a ditto on that. Without exact details, it's hard to know exactly what they did, but until the plane starts to Taxi and the flight attendents give the safety presentation, usually it's perfectly ok for people to stand up.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 09:19 AM) The Thomas signing was also awful. Nomar at 3rd base is gonna be a joke and he'll be hurt in no time. I don't give that much money to guys that have proven over a relatively long period that they can't stay healthy. What exactly is it that suggests Nomah will be playing 3rd? Did somethign happen to Betemit?

YAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAY! Never thought I'd be so happy for a Twinkie.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 10:51 AM) My question here is why should we bend so far backwards to accomodate Islamic Law? This is another example of how these people think their religon is the be all / end all of existence and that nothing else matters. What was stopping these guys from doing their prayers before takeoff? Before they came to the airport? They totally should have been bounced from that flight cause they thumbed their nose at the rules. Maybe if Muslims were more tolerant and accomodating of American Culture ( which still is for the most part tolerant of their culture being a guest in our country ) they would find less hostility to them. When exactly did either standing while on a plane or praying while on a plane (both of them before takeoff) become against the rules?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 10:32 AM) I don't think this particular incident is a set up. At the same time, I don't know that the Imams were particularly friendly or personable during this situation. It was most likely a little bit of inappropriate behavior on both sides. Would you be particularly friendly if someone asked you to remove yourself from a plane?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 08:51 AM) I see what you are getting at, but I have to disagree. If some company found a vaccine for AIDS, they'd be set for income for eons. No way they don't try to do that. Yes, they ALSO go after the simpler, annoying things that they can treat for life. They do both. Yes, but the key question is the one of funding priorities. The drug companies do spend some $ on trying to develop cures, but it's not nearly what a government institution would spend on the same task. I'm not arguing that private companies fail to fund them entirely, I'm arguing a position of priorities. It is so much more profitable to treat the symptoms rather than develop a cure that a company who's goal is maximizing profit will focus the majority of its research dollars on developing treatments, not cures. PR value, undercutting other companies, yes, those are nice things, but drug companies focus on one thing above all else, profit, and you all know that. Here's a piece from the RAND corp. making the same point.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 08:57 AM) wouldn't passing a note to a flight attendant be suspicious activity? Seemingly, not if it accuses a Muslim person of anything.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 08:45 AM) I've also found a couple articles that said they were praying during boarding. I also see no problem with praying during boarding of the plane as long as they're not interfering with the process of getting people on or disobeying the instructions of a flight attendent.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 08:27 AM) Given the nature of Richards controversy right now, and where the Letterman Show is taped, it may have been strategy to try and keep the audience in the dark. If they did know full well what it was all about, the reaction may have been a bit more vocal and Richards may not have gotten a word in. It was obvious that the audience had no idea what was going on. Letternan isn't live, right? Letterman is filmed in the late afternoon in NY. The video and news reports were available online earlier in the morning, so it's probable that some of them had seen it. The majority probably hadn't though

QUOTE(juddling @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 08:30 AM) ***note: the news story i heard on the radio was that they stood up in the aisle of the plane. That was not in the story posted so if anyone is wondering.that's where i got that fact from. So, there are 2 fundamentally different versions here to react to. If the version you're presenting is the true one, then yes, there was cause for removal - getting up and taking up space in a plane aisle and refusing to be seated The version in the article above suggests that there was no disturbance on the plane, including no prayers, until a passenger passed a note to a flight attendent. It also suggests that they conducted their evening prayers in the terminal before boarding the plane.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 06:52 AM) I'd pretty much agree with Tex. For most purposes, the drug companies are motivated to spend a lot (and do) on R&D anyway - and the patent laws are there to protect that cause. Unless something comes along that is a national epidemic (read: national health/security threat), then the only funding I see needed from the government in that way is high-threat pathogen stuff they do at CDC (hemorragic fevers like Ebola and Marburg, or weaponized bio-weapons like Anthrax, or other such nasty beasties). I'd also be OK with the profit-sharing to help the poor if the government happened upon something valuable as Tex suggested, since everyone would benefit. Excellent idea, sir. For most cases, this is fundamentally incorrect. The Drug companies have virtually no interest in actually finding a cure for most diseases; it's the least profitable way to treat a sick patient. By far a more profitable action is to treat the symptom, or to find a way to treat the patient's symptoms and keep them alive without curing them, because then the patient is dependent on the drug company for the long-term. There is a reason that a huge slice of the products we're seeing produced by drug companies in the past few years treat things like Acid Reflux disease, erectile dysfunction, and so on; it's much, much, much more profitable to create a drug that a patient has to take several hundred times than it is to create a new cure for something that a patient takes to become fully healthy. Drug company research has a fundamentally different goal than that of research done by the government. Drug company research is done with its priority as: what would be the most profitable, government research is done as: what is the most useful, most high potential research. A drug company will not turn away money of course if a cure is developed, but developing cures is not their business.