Balta1701

Spend 5 minutes on the phone, Buehrles is through the first. That's the Mark I remember.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 05:13 PM) I'm hoping that this years starting pitching comes out in the 2nd half. I've consistently said that I expect our pitching to really pick things up and I see a pretty hefty streak of winning baseball in our near to immediate future. Well, the one good thing I will say is that it's hard to see how the starting pitching can be any worse than it has been over the first half given the amount of talent we have in there, so even if they manage the same performance in the 2nd half, we're still in good shape for the Wild Card. And they're all capable of being significantly better. And if they're not, Brandon is.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 03:54 PM) If we had last years offense with this years pitching staff we'd be horrible and lucky to be at .500. If we had last year's starting pitching and this year's offense...we'd be winning at an .800 clip.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 03:45 PM) I checked that and I'm not positive it's right. According to his Career stats he made his debut in 2004. 2010 would be 6-7 years later, which is the usual indentured servitude period in MLB (just depends on exactly what date he was first brought up, he pitched in 19 games in 04).

QUOTE(DonkeyKongerko @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 03:29 PM) Is there a such thing as an introductory rewards card with no annual fee? I haven't found any yet. My card has no annual fee, gets rewards, and is probably considered an introductory card I'd guess.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 03:23 PM) Yeah, Cabrera gave up 4 in the first, and then shut us down for either 5 or 6 innings after that. However, Peter Angelos is ridiculously difficult to deal with. He is also PARANOID when it comes to players and possible injuries. I don't think Freddy would pass his smell test the way he is throwing. Additionally, while the O's may eventually get fed up with Cabrera, they have a pretty deep stable of young pitchers, so I doubt they would really want Garcia back. I wonder if we inquired about Tejada when we asked about Cabrera... Supposedly Baltimore is asking for something like 3 major league players for Tejada. I don't even know if we have guys that could pull off their request.

Anyone else really want to see Thome try to lay one down to the 3rd base side when he's up with no one on against a left-handed pitcher?

From "The Jewish Week"

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 01:30 PM) I think a certain detective needs to make an appearance today . . . I think Mark could use some. Just hope it still is allowed.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 01:22 PM) Don't mess with Texas. Don't Mess with Mark Buehrle.

Wait a second, so does that mean that the Immigration Crisis is over?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 10:10 AM) Was Jerusalem part of the Saudi proposal? I don't recall that part. I think that a deal similar to the Saudi one, combined with in some way turning Jerusalem and a couple nearby holy sites into some sort of de-nationalized heritage sites is probably the only way for it to work. But as you said, Israel is highly unlikely to give them up. Jerusalem was not a full part of Israel until the 1967 war. So, any calls for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders automatically are calls for Israel to give up significant chunks of Jerusalem, including the Western Wall. In other words, they are non-starters. The Proposal Arafat turned down basically offered up everything in the west bank except for a few settlement strips and Jerusalem.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 01:14 PM) Congrats we are all biased economists now. Woo-Hoo! (Does the biased economist dance!)

Current Federal Law: The White House's Reply? I'm sure Congress doesn't really mean it when they pass laws, right? They still haven't presented that report.

QUOTE(Balance @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 11:08 AM) Do the budget numbers include what we're spending in Iraq? As I recall, those expenses were conveniently kept separate from the overall budget picture. Just a little wave of the Magic Accounting Wand. Once the supplemental appropriations have passed, yes the budgetary numbers will include them.

Couple random quibbles with that block, and then I'll get to my real question: First, just to point out, that's an average of 160,000 jobs per month created is somewhere around a few tens of thousand more jobs a month than is needed to keep up with the estimated population growth (somewhere in the 130,000 range, plus or minus 30k, depending on who you read). Which means to me that job creation still hasn't really taken a big bite out of the unemployment generated in the last recession. It's also still significantly worse than the job creation record of the Clinton Administration (a time during which the growth in income inequality was, IIRC, quite a bit slower than it is now). And on top of that, it's happening at a time when wages have failed to keep up with inflation in those jobs, such that the average worker is earning less in real dollars. So I would quibble quite strongly with your "The rich are doing better, so now so is everyone" statement, based on the fact that compared to the previous administration's record, the rich are doing much better now, but that tide is not lifting everyone else up nearly as much. Anyway, here's my actual question for you, and you can attack that paragraph as you wish, but this is the answer I really care about: Do you totally disagree with the premise of that WSJ piece, and you're saying that rising inequality has nothing to do with rising tax receipts, or are you just quibbling with their actual numbers? Is this a case of them being partially right but you don't like how they went about showing it, or are they simply wrong, and do you have alternate numbers you could present to prove them wrong if their case did not satisfy you?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 09:32 AM) Israel turned it down. Neither side is giving up Jerusalem. Aside from the fact that Arafat wanted to be a wartime leader and not a peacetime leader, there's your big dividing line. The Israelis will not give up the Western Wall. The Islamic countries will not be interested in peace without controlling Jerusalem either. And as far as I know, Israel has given up all of its territory within the Sinai. The Camp David Accords with Carter pulled that one off.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 09:03 AM) No, we're screwed. Time to trade Buehrle, Vazquez, and Jenks to the Giants for prospects. Given what prospects the Giants gave up last time they dealt with an AL Central team...that might not be a bad idea.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 07:06 AM) Padres, Twins, and Angels. Those are the teams I assume will be looking into him. The LAT already has Stonemann interested as of this morning.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 08:16 AM) Didn't the UN mandate that Hezbollah disarm after Israel pulled out six years ago? Great job of enforcing that, guys. Sadly, that's typical of the UN these days. Did you see Lebanon's PM on Larry King last night? According to him, Hezbollah is merely a "resistance group", while the Israelis are "occupiers." That was a great opportunity for him to call out both sides and ask the international community to pressure both sides for peace (and possibly ridding his country of Hezbollah). Instead, he chose to blame Israel, despite the fact that his own country is harboring a terrorist army. Thanks to the elections though, Hezbollah is a major part of the government in that country. They also provided some non-trivial amount of the country's public services. At some level, doesn't that fact wind up almost requiring him to take their side, because without their support, his government may very well fall? And once again, this just proves my point; you can't bomb people enough to make them like you. QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 09:05 AM) Agreed, but it would be even worse for the U.S. military to get directly involved in this. This is a great time for the U.N. to show that it's still capable of something more than delivering food and medicine. The only way a U.N. force would work is if the U.N. force went in with teeth. Literally tens of thousands of soldiers, with heavy equipment, armor, etc., and a direct mandate to force Hezbollah to disarm. Thus far, there's been no where near a large enough U.N. presence in that country to even make a dent in Hezbollah's arms supply. The U.N. literally would have to go in as if it were going to war, because that's what it would be if it wanted to do an effective job.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 06:07 AM) In writing this the author misleads the public. What is not mentioned is the fact that GDP growth was 5.6% in Q1 2006 and is expected to remain strong for the forseeable future. When you have strong economic growth you get greater tax revenues. The author also failed to cite declining unemployment and the few million jobs that have been created since this latest expansion started taking hold in 2002/2003. In spite of all those failings, I wasn't referring to the author as a douche but the class-warfare playing blogger who Balta cited. What you're missing in that stat is that the GDP number is included, as when the original federal deficit projection was made, a 4.5% growth or so was expected (a higher number than they're predicting this year.) So the 1% number would come from the fact that growth went roughly 1% beyond that amount, which is not nearly enough to account for the difference between the estimates and the reality.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jul 20, 2006 -> 11:58 PM) Does this deficit number have the supplemental bills involved in it by the way? I believe it includes the ones that have already passed.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Jul 20, 2006 -> 09:49 PM) So Ozzie enters into this equation where? Not having Widger bunt early in the game with a runner on 1st and no outs. Anderson came up next and singled...had Widger tried and succeeded at bunting him to 2nd, that turns into a run. Oh, and there was also a real opportunity for Ozzie to be brave that same inning...Thome came up, they put the Shift on, no one was holding Anderson on at all, the 3rd baseman was playing short...he could have gambled and sent Anderson and I'll bet he could have waltzed home.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jul 20, 2006 -> 11:31 PM) I still don't think the Dodgers are about to deal Baez unless they get some help in return. They are in the race and while they have some solid young arms in the pen, they are going to need a vet like Baez to get things straightened out down the stretch. The Dodgers could really use a starting pitcher. The only question thus far has been whether Coletti would give up any of the kids to get one. Maddux has been mentionned repeatedly out here. That said, Baez is not worth either Garcia or Vazquez.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jul 20, 2006 -> 11:07 PM) "this douche" = the WSJ??? Cool, now the WSJ is part of the vast left-wing conspiracy. It gets better and better. Can we add it to the axis of evil too? I was able to find the article free here. It's listed as "today's free feature" -- hopefully they just mean, from "today's" paper, and continue to have it up. Thanks a bunch for finding that! (I knew I'd gain some benefit if I posted it here)