Balta1701

God I miss that skyline...spent some time walking around downtown L.A. for the first time this week...and it's just not even close.

QUOTE(GoRowand33 @ Sep 9, 2006 -> 09:08 PM) tomorrow is f***ing huge now 3/4 would be a big boost after the embarrassment we took thursday, and it'd be payback for a similar 4 game set in cleveland last year if we can pull it together A win tomorrow and we are either 2.5 behind Detroit with 3 games left against Detroit, or we're .5 games up in the Wild Card. Yeah, Tomorrow is freaking Gigantic. Jopefully Javy can keep on the roll he's been on lately.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 9, 2006 -> 10:27 AM) It amazes me how the Democrats are all in a panty-wad tight uproar about this. From what I hear, there's plenty of blame to go around, on all accounts, but the 20 miuutes of "Clinton blame" is JUST too much!!! OMG!!@#$!%!!!!! At least based on every one of the reviews I've read, it sure seems like there's well more than jsut 20 minutes of Clinton Blame, not to mention the "making Bush look slightly better" that I mentionned earlier. For example, the "Berger hanging up on CIA guys wanting to kill Bin Laden" happens at only about 2 hours into the movie, so it's not like it's just stuck in there at the end, it's the end of a whole segment. And the film goes to a lot of effort to link the Lewinsky scandal to 9/11 afterwards, and so on. LA Times Review Washington Post Review The film was focused enough to even convince the NYT's reviewer (damn liberal media!) of a complete falsehood. This is not just a side 20 minutes in the film. This is a significant fraction of it. And again, you ask why Democrats have their panties in a wad about this? I'll respond again...how would you like it if on the anniversary of 9/11, CBS decided to show a 2 day, commercial free marathon of Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11, in the middle of an election season? And then marketed this marathon by giving advance warning of weeks, and advance previews of some sort, only to left leaning columnists, radio personalities, and bloggers? And then marketed it as the truth about gun control and 9/11?

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 11:03 PM) Lance Broadway would likely disappear in a deal like that. If it could be done in any sort of deal involving Broadway and not McCarthy or Anderson...it's worth doing.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2006 -> 09:21 AM) The common claim among doubters of 9/11 is that there is no way that the towers should have collapsed because the burning jet fuel wouldn't have been hot enough to melt steel, so therefore sinister forces must be at work. While technically true (steel will not be melted by burning kerosene), there are many factors this theory ignores. First, kerosene wasn't the only thing burning. Everything in that office building would have went up. Second, buring kerosene will seriously weaken the steel, as you said. This guy also claimed to have produced nuclear cold fusion before. He's completely full of crap. He should rightfully be fired if this is the material he researches and publishes. I wouldn't want my University associated with this man's 'work' I saw a beautiful demonstration last night on the Discovery Channel of the actual physics involved. They spent a while talking about the pre-911 status of the fireproofing, and how it had been found to be very, very poor in both buildings well before the attacks, to the point that they were re-doing floors 1 at a time. Literally, gaps in the fireproofing all over the place before the retrofits. Their little Feynman-esque experiment was to put weight on a metal truss, and light a flame underneath it with a gas stove. On a piece that was fully fire-proofed, it was able to hold a lot of weight. They then moved the same weights and fire onto a truss that had exactly 1 small segment, about an inch long, that was un-coated with fire-proofing. That point began to bend, and it totally failed right there because it couldn't hold the weight. In tower 1, which stood several hours longer, most of the floors that were hit had been re-coated with new fireproofing. In tower 2, none of the floors had been redone, and it only lasted about 28 minutes, IIRC.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 9, 2006 -> 11:39 AM) You don't actually think that is what is upsetting, do you? I could give two craps about Clinton's legacy. The point is that it is being marketed as a documentary, with some connotation of truth, when it is apparently nothing more than a political scheme. Its slimy as hell. That is what bothers me. Put commercials with it, and change "based on the 9/11 Commission Report" to something like "suggested by...", and I'm fine with it. Its still slimey, but at least it isn't an out and out use of public broadcast time to gain a political end. "The Story of Exactly What happened" = Disney's marketing slogan for this overseas.

Come on Ryan, stay out of Brian territory

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 06:46 PM) Great 2 strike swings this inning so far. This team really needs that big gapper/slam to break it open. Hi Mr. Farmer. (Slam, slam slam slam!)

QUOTE(Dam8610 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 06:45 PM) Because, like you said, he's a FORMER White Sox player. I'd rather not hear about him helping the A's to the playoffs, but I suppose I'm in the minority on that. If we don't start playing better, I'll be rooting for Frank.

When's the next time the Mickey Mouse copyright law comes up for renewal? I'm hoping it's soon enough that the Democrats remember this. 2 FBI guys resign because of the historical problems...so when they find a 3rd, they don't ask him to pay any attention to that part.

I donate all the time, usually shoot for at least 5 times per year...I haven't had problems with being asked to sit and read things or to repeat my name and SSN repeatedly. QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 05:32 PM) I trust the Red Cross to spend that 4 mil better than the US Government. I think society loses when we take money from a good charity and give it to the government. I also don't like the government having a profit motive in collecting these fines. The Red Cross hasn't exactly had a stellar record of dispersing funds and other donations given to it in the past few years either...not even counting this matter.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 06:29 PM) Howard Pujols if the Phils don't make the playoffs and Howard doesn't reach 60.

David Sirota had a bit of a snit with that same Dan Gerstein. Seems that a lot of people don't like that guy.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 02:50 PM) I would like to point out that Brian Anderson has raised his batting average 60 points in the last two months, and although he is currently in a 3-16 slump, he has been hitting .285 over the last ten games. WORST BASEBALL PLAYER EVER.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 01:58 PM) well, there have been entire series (aka, west wing) that portray demcrats in a very positive light. i would think they would be fairly happy with the ratio of pro-democrat television to criticism of democrats shown on network television. did you think the Reagan miniseries should have been moved to showtime? or did you think it was censorship. I think it belonged on Showtime. Seriously, who thinks it's a good idea to put Barbara Streisand's husband in a picture about Ronald Reagan while he's suffering from Alzheimer's? That sure didn't belong on network/free TV.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 01:45 PM) haha, this is great one miniseries that might make the democrats look bad might actually sneak on TV and all the left wingers are going nuts. Because the political right wing would never do such a thing... Oh wait.

Is it considered one of Indiana's terror targets? (Edit: By the way, I like the choice of Simpsons quotes as the subject)

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 01:14 PM) Wow. So lets assume that a prof teaches economics for 10 years, gains tenure, and then decides he wants to express his opinions about the wonderful economic benefits of slavery and how we were wrong for abolishing it. Is that something that should be protected under 'academic freedom?' Yes. I believe it is. There's a reason tenured faculty positions exist...because they give professors a right to come forwards with unpopular views which are often incorrect but sometimes do wind up advancing the field they're in. I'll give you geology as an example, because I know it fairly well for some reason. There's a guy down the hall from me who about 10 years ago started pushing the idea that the Earth froze over completely, all the way down to the equator, at various positions in history. At the time, it was considered quite ludicrous. Now, it's become quite accepted. On the other hand, there are still people who refuse to believe in plate tectonics, for whatever reason. Both of those points of view might seem to the majority of people to be wrong, and significantly so, but in the end, more evidence comes out, and it looks like one of them turned out to be right. That a person advocates a theory, no matter how unpopular, should not on its own be a reason for firing a professor. If the professor you're talking about decides to purchase a couple slaves to prove his theory right...then you should be able to fire that prof. Or if the Nazi prof goes out and starts organizing violence against Jews, then of course you can fire them. But the principle of tenure/academic freedom has so many benefits that the few problems and hypotheticals people come up with against it simply aren't strong arguments. It's sort of the same way I view free speech. We might be better off if there were no Nazis or hate groups out espousing their ideology. But we wouldn't be better off if the government told them they couldn't say that.

QUOTE(BobDylan @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 01:00 PM) It should be Country Demolition Night or Paris Hilton Demolition Night. How about "Cleveland Indians demolition night"? I think I'd prefer that. A few times in a row.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 12:57 PM) After the partitian the wars were basically over and in the Kashmir region. There really hasn't been a full scale attack or invasion of the countries outside of the disputed regions. The 1971 war was more over Bengledesh, and trying to secure their freedom from Pakistan than anything else, more to free up one of its borders from a mortal enemy. This war only lasted about two weeks. That doesn't mean it wasn't a large scale conflict, that involved a massive defeat of the Pakistani armed forces. Via the Wikipedia entry Edit: anyway, that's just a side point, so i'll stop derailing any actual discussion here.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 12:37 PM) The stories of the flights from/to Pakistan after the partitician and the history of the immediately after are amazing. Lots of their history paralells the history of Israel, as a country was just carved out of somewhere that wasn't there before, and then the human flight of people trying to get where they wanted to be. Much of the history of violence, hatred and nearly perpetual war also seems to follow the history of the middle east. I think the one difference is that in this case the big difference is that India just has more human power and sheer size than Israel, which doesn't allow for full scale wars that we routinely see in the middle east. I also believe that India has been much luckier in the peaceful leaders they have seen over the years, all though I think part of that goes back to the ability to overwealm an enemy that India naturally posesses. I don't know if the facts truly back that up. India and Pakistan first went to war right after partition, in the late 40's, just like the Middle East, and that was followed up by another full scale war between India and Pakistan in 1965 and another one in 1971. There was also a war in 1962 between India and China. The thing that has prevented a lot of the "full scale wars" we've seen in the Middle East from happening since the 70s is, IMO, the bomb, which India first developed in the 70's (they tested a "Peaceful nuclear device, whatever the Hell that is) and Pakistan developed sometime afterwards. Unlike Israel, which has no one who can counter them if they strike, India and Pakistan can only go so far militarily any more without tens of millions of people vaporizing. Israel for 25 years has been able to strike at anyone with impunity, because no one can strike back and defeat them.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 12:31 PM) I've seen the scene where they falsely protray that Clinton put a stop to killing Osama who was in their sights. 9/11 commission called BS on that story. The one time they could have gotten him, they tried - and failed. BTW, I do actually agree that the Clinton admin should take some blame for 9/11. not a lot, but some. I just hate to see this sort of drama being marketed as fact. Oh, his administration definately takes some blame. They could have acted on the Cole faster (the CIA was almost convinced by Dec 00 that Bin Laden's group was responsible, but they were nervous about another Sudan-type strike, especially right before Bush's people took over). They could have put significantly more effort at disrupting or attacking Bin Laden's organization in the late 90's. They could have accepted higher rates of civilian casualties than they were willing to risk to get UBL. The President could have used more of the bully pulpit to put the focus on UBL's group, no matter how many times the Republicans cried "Wag the Dog." They could have conducted more thorough analyses of airport security, especially after the McVeigh attack...i mean, for crying out loud, knives were freaking legal on planes then! They could have put resources and money into trying to build a stable state in Afghanistan before the Taliban took over. And so on, and so on, and so on. In a disaster as big as 9/11, there's an absolute ton of blame that can be put around. The Clinton's get plenty. The Bush's get plenty. The problem of course is this movie takes all of the blame that the Clinton administration gets, tries to find every way possible to multiply that blame, and then excuses the Bush's.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 12:17 PM) Are we in 'big game' territory yet for Freddy or what? When do his spidey senses start tingling? 2007.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 12:14 PM) Mackowiak at 3B tonight Yay! We get a guy to back up Crede, and finally he gets to back up Crede! And he doesn't play CF!

QUOTE(Goldmember @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 11:51 AM) it should be held to the same standard as other historical event movies, all of such genre should definitely be held to a higher standard then all the scott peterson-esque movies. all are still movies, however, and people know (at least they should) liberties will be taken. haven't heard that (all i've seen are the commercials--'based on 9-11 commision report') and frankly don't care, because 1) i won't be watching, no matter what and 2) like a pointed out above, it is a dramatization and liberties will be (and in some instances, have to be) taken... Yes, I'm willing to admit that a film such as this is a dramatization and liberties can and will be taken just to put something like this on film. But the scenes that are causing so much controversy are ones which are clearly beyond the bounds of what anyone would consider to be liberties taken to put the story on film...they are liberties taken to clearly make the story seem worse for the Clintons and better for the Bushes. The most infamous is a scene where CIA operatives are on the phone with Sandy Berger saying that they have Bin Laden targeted and asking permission to take him out, where Berger says no and slams down the phone. ABC responded by explaining that the slamming down of the phone was a liberty they took. Only problem was...according to all sources, that entire event never happened. The U.S. never was even able to get people within Afghanistan, let alone have Bin Laden directly targeted as is predicted. Angrily slamming the phone down, yeah that's a liberty I can understand. Inventing an entire scene like that one? Some of the other stuff they've invented, according to people who have seen the film, involve Dr. Rice going around and telling everyone how concerned Mr. Bush was about the August 6th PDB, the "Bin Laden determined to attack inside U.S." one. Even according to Dr. Rice's own testimony before the 911 commission, the memo was supposed to be "Purely historical", and thus it provoked almost no response from the Bush administration. Heck, an FBI Agent who reportedly was working with the production of the film quit half-way throguh it because they were "Making stuff up". This is not taking liberties to get the thing to look better on film. This is deliberately retelling the story in such a way as to make one party look as good as possible and the other look as bad as possible.