Balta1701

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 18, 2006 -> 09:26 AM) Is that Iraq or Lebanon? That's Lebanon.

There are other pictures out there of people hanging "Made in the USA" signs on the rubble.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 18, 2006 -> 08:52 AM) I am sure we are, and that is good. And I do understand what you are saying. I just think a few thousand US troops, as a minority of a UN-led force, would not cause such a ruckus, and in the long run would make us actually look better. The U.S. marines were only a portion of the UN force that arrived in the early 80's. But because they were the U.S., and they were marines, even though they didn't try to take sides in the conflict then, they wound up being direct targets.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 18, 2006 -> 08:37 AM) I think that is more of a smart move than anything. How well would it go over to have US troops on the ground in another Arab country, especially one that just got done fighting with Israel. I don't think there would be any winners in that scenario. Beyond that, what troops exactly does the U.S. have that it could actually contribute to this? I think ours are a bit busy. And yeah, given that the U.S. basically backed and negotiated as Israel's proxy, putting U.S. soldiers in there would basically look like a proxy for Israeli soldiers coming in. That'd be a terrible idea, unless someone actually wanted a war between the U.S. and Hezbollah (which of course, is the only way they'll be disarmed by anyone outside of Lebanon) The reason France was so important to this U.N. mission is that they're basically the only western nation left with a sizeable military who actually has well equipped troops that could be deployed over there. That, combined with the fact that they're already in command of the small UNIFIL force, and the fact that they were one of the 2 key parties negotiating the cease fire (alongside the U.S., with the U.S. advocating for Israel's position), makes them absolutely a necessity in any enlarged peacekeeping force. QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 18, 2006 -> 08:42 AM) That's a good point, but I am not so sure that would be a problem. My only concern in that way is that our troops might be specifically targeted by some groups. But overall, if we were one twentieth of some 100,000 person force over there, that might work pretty well, even in terms of PR. The U.N. resolution calls for enlarging the force up to a maximum of 15,000. And there really aren't 100,000 troops available anywhere except China to be committed to that sort of peacekeeping mission.

France throws U.N. Peacekeeping force into disarray, declines to contribute significant additional troops to the region.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 18, 2006 -> 07:53 AM) Funny how last year when we were killing everyone, our speed was one of the most important reason why we were so good. It was so important that we all voted PODS on to the All-star team. Now everyone wants to play the 3 run homer game. Hilarious to me. Speed is something you need, and helps you win the games that are 1-0, 2-0 etc. If your lead off hitter can steal bases, when he gets on, its almost an automatic double, which leads to a higher possibility of you gettting an early run for your pitching staff. Its better to be balanced that be bombers. IN the playoffs-speed wins games. If Scott Podsednik was stealing bases at an 80% clip or better (and had half as many errors as he did right now), I wouldn't mind his batting average or his OBP nearly as much. But he's barely moving out on the basepaths right now. So, if we can't get the speed at the top, we need a guy with a higher OBP. We need one or the other, a decent leadoff hitter doesn't have neither.

Link. Additional Link...USA Today correction.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 09:09 PM) Am I missing something with all of this? If I understand alleles correctly, I would not think the change in a ratio of these is what I am looking for (one gene becoming more dominant if I am correct?). To me those are abilities that an organism already has. I would be looking more towards the mutations that add new genes that are useful for the organism's survival. Well, again, just from looking at the genetics, you're not totally missing something, because the issue really becomes the rate at which these things happen. When you're dealing with moderately large populations, as you are with many species out in the wilderness, you just don't have small groups very often where they are isolated long enough for new traits to both emerge and become dominant. Especially now that humanity is there and is moving much more rapidly than any other species ever really has. If you let me go back to the fossil record, there are absolutely tons of examples of new traits appearing over time. Bone structures changing, shells changing, you name it. We can do similar things with biological tools to some extent, and by isolating specific genes that are related to specific changes in species and to reasonable margins of error figure out when those genes first appeared. This is done all of the time in my building...they have a bunch of bacteria they like to play with to do so. Here's a prime example from plants. Let's go right back to wheat, because it is a good example of both. Wheat is not just how we see it today due to the replication of chromosomes, but after these replications, wheat has been acted on by various other mutations and selective pressures to bring it where it is today. Here is a recent paper (not sure if you can actually get to that abstract, I can) that discusses how the wheat genes weren't just replciated, but after they were replicated, due to random mutations, some of the genes shut off, others began to work in different ways, so right now, the chromosomes that were replicated in those events are no longer identical. That, IMO, can only be judged as a gain in information, by any standard. Here's an excerpt in case you can't see that. Basically, what it is giving there is a summary of the things happening other than the allopolyploidy event, shutting off of genes on certain chromosomes or changes in genes on other spots. This happens more rapidly because of the shear number of new genes that mutation gets to play with. So in other words, you start off with x number of genes, you triple that number, but they start off identical, but then they rapidly diverge, so that you wind up with significant numbers of new non-matching genes between the chromosomes. There are other examples, but again we're limited in what we can really conceive of because of the time span. Another prime example is the development of resistence to certain drugs in viruses and bacteria. You start off with an antibiotic which actually does cure a disease, but eventually a random mutation arises in some of those bugs that allows them to resist the antibiotic. Suddenly, when the antibiotic is used, it kills off all the non-resistant bugs, allowing the bugs with the new mutation to grow more rapidly.

Not a rumor, just something I'm gonna throw out there. Garcia + Podsednik in a deal centered around David Eckstein?

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 02:40 PM) A win's a win. I wasn't able to watch it, but I felt a sense of relief when DeJesus went to 2nd on his hit. I would much rather face Sweeney than Grudz in that situation. This is the first time in a long time that we've faced the royals and you'd rather pitch to sweeney than anyone.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 01:54 PM) Bobby made a big pitch, of course he gets credit. As does BA for keeping that runner at 3rd on the gapper that gave them the first run. But that was still inexcuseable managing, and since we won, I'm an idiot for saying it. There you go. You don't notice it as much, and it shows up almost nowhere in the stats, but Brian Anderson also saved the game right there.

Well, we salvaged a split. At least we did that.

5 double plays. The win goes to Buehrle and our defense.

Please just throw strikes Bobby...

WALK GRUDZ TO FACE SWEENEY? OH NO! Slam.

Well, now we officially need to cinch it up and hunker down.

FWIW, here's bobby's numbers as his outings go on: By Inning / Pitches AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB HBP SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS Pitches 1-15 163 9 39 6 0 4 14 10 1 47 2 2 .239 .284 .350 .634 Pitches 16-30 35 11 8 1 0 1 7 10 0 13 5 0 .229 .383 .343 .726 Pitches 31-45 6 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 4 1 0 .167 .286 .167 .452 He gives up more runs in pitches 16-30, but that could well be an effect of people being on base from pitches 1-15. People's BA's against him actually go down the more of a groove he gets into.

M.F. Leadoff walks bringing the tying run to the plate. No offense to Bobby, but Thornton should be up in the bullpen...just in case.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 01:35 PM) BTW, Ozzie just got us a run with his managing... Are you sure Ozzie sent him? If Pods just had the green light, that was 100% the perfect time to run. I said wait for 2 balls before the first pitch was thrown in that count.

Schweet. Pods listened to me on when to run, and it turned into a run.

THAT is why Podsednik should have waited for 2 balls to run. You knew a pitchout was coming. He should be off here.

Is the air show going on this week?

QUOTE(CYGarland @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 01:31 PM) If he's not stealing here................. At least he's annoying the Hell out of Peralta. He gets 2 balls on Konerko and he needs to be off.

Pods in to run for Thome...if he's in there, he better be running, IMO.

QUOTE(CYGarland @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 01:28 PM) No, BA needs a day off or 2 every week Gotta rest up for Winter Ball