Balta1701

Thanks for the work again, as always.

One of the real things that would suffer as a result of eliminating the penny is actually charitable donations. You know those boxes say at the counter at a grocery store, or at a fast food place, where you drop in some of your extra change? Getting rid of the penny would actually significantly hurt those numbers, IIRC.

One other option I've been considering personally is trying to get a decent deal on leasing a new car, maybe along the lines of a Corolla even. Why? Couple of reasons...yeah it's not hugely smart financially if you want a car for long term, but if you're sort of thinking that either your financial situation might improve within a few years (mine should do so significantly) or the quality of vehicles could improve significantly within a few years, it could be a way to have a vehicle now and be able to upgrade in a few years. I for one have heard some rumors about the next generation of hybrid vehicles being significantly better than this generation, to the tune of maybe an additional 30 MPG over the current hybrids. Those might be on the road as early as 08, if not, probably by 09.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 09:47 AM) Wakefield might miss time due to back problems. Garcia/Vazquez for Papelbon?

Dioner Navarro is not a good catching prospect, IMO.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Jul 18, 2006 -> 04:29 AM) Well it seems one day ita pitching the next its hitting When we lose 6-4 and leave what, 20 guys on base or something like that...on the surface it seems like the hitting might be a problem...but then you realize, we still scored 4 runs, and last year, our team would have drooled over that.

Just like last time we faced the Tigers, game 1 is the biggest game of the series. We win game 1, and for games 2 and 3, if anything goes bad, the Tigers go into "aw s***, not again, what is it about this team" mode...the same mode the Sox were in for about 4 years every time we went to Oakland. We win game 1, and either we go into game 3 looking to win the series with Contreras on the mound, or we get a good perfomance out of Javy and the Tigers are trying to avoid a sweep against Contreras. We lose game 1, and the Tigers feel a little bit more confidence, while the White Sox maybe start thinking "here we go again" after losing 6 of 7. Then if Javy doesn't come out and outpitch the Tigers' stud, suddenly we're looking at having to beat Rogers to stay out of the sweep. Game 1 is the key to this series. Jon Garland is the key to this series. It'd also be nice to get an early lead in game 1, but Jon must do his job. He's had plenty o' rest.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 01:48 PM) Why he didnt learn after getting fired from his radio gig... some people dont change for the better or the worse. In Jay's case... its the worse. Actually, I'd say he did learn the proper lesson, and learned it well. As long as he was able to keep pissing people off, people would keep reading his work, he'd keep appearing on ESPN, and people would keep starting threads about him on mesasge boards. In other words, if he doesn't change, people still care about him, and he keeps his job.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 01:16 PM) I really didn't think the Tigers pitching would hold up this long. I still don't see it lasting the rest of the year. Rogers seems to be starting his slide, I still don't know how Robertson's ERA is as low as it is with that WHIP, and Maroth and Miner don't really scare me. That said, I think we can stop expecting Verlander to fall off, and Bonderman looks legit. Verlander i still think is something of a question mark, simply because he's never thrown anywhere near as many innings as you throw in a ML season. Especially if the playoffs hit.

QUOTE(ViperPilot @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 01:16 PM) I'm pretty sure I know when the season ends....that still doesn't answer the question about your starting pitching......are you or are you not happy with your starting pitching? Do you think they can turn it around and be as good as they were last year, or do you need to trade for a starter to end the year.... We are clearly not happy with our starters. At this point, they'd need to get on the mother of all rolls to get their numbers back down where they were last year. I'd be happy if they turned it around and made this a non-terrible season for most of them. But it really looks like we need to do some dealing and get McCarthy into the rotation.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 12:56 PM) My problem is how many open rotation spots will these teams have? Only so many pitchers can go to those three teams, and Boston might not even be in the market for a starter with Beckett and Schilling potentially back and Lester and Papelbon developing. The other two might have holes, but they might also fill them this off-season. Those teams can't sign everyone. On paper, the Yankees should have plenty of starting pitching. Mussina, Johnson, Wang, Pavano, Wright, Chacon, etc. They shouldn't be in the market for a starting pitcher at all. But when you sign expensive guys who are in their 30's...things happen.

I love the sexy slither of a lady snake...

QUOTE(Goldmember @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 12:13 PM) corolla was my first car. thing was my baby and ran forever. of course that was years ago and it was even older still ('91) so don't know how well those have evolved. i really haven't heard anything bad about any of the japanese imports. with your limit you will almost definitely be looking at a used. and i would try to get something with a good warranty--possibly something with some of the factory warranty left... Depending on how good of a dealer you are you might be able to pull off a new corolla for $15k, also depending on how loaded you want the vehicle. It's worth noting that something like 90% of the Corollas sold in the last 20 years are still on the road, and you're probably talking about 35 mpg highway. I'm considering that as one of the options I might buy/lease here in a few months, but I'm waiting to make sure no one bombs Iran first.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 09:20 AM) I have pink eye. Wtf? I haven't had that since elementary school. It sucks. Boo.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 10:51 AM) Has there ever been a Palestinian nation? What are their national holidays, customs, etc? Do they have any distinct cuisines or anything? I am curious as to what makes them a distinct nationality? I hope this does not sound confrontational (I do not mean for it to be), because this is something I am curious about. One could make the same argument about the whole of the Middle East. Prior to the British drawing lines, there was no Syrian nation, or Iraqi nation, or Lebanese nation. One could say the same thing about many nations in Europe too.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 10:10 AM) Why, would you guess, that is? Because they are afraid of the movement of certain individuals? That might explain some of the road hits, but it doesn't explain things like targeting factories, targeting coastal areas, etc. This fits the pattern of softening up the whole of Lebanon either to punish the whole country or to prepare it for an invasion.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 10:21 AM) Balta, that is a good point that you make. If someone came and wiped us out, then gave the Native Americans their mostly uninhabited land back, then I think there is a good correlation. I think that I needed to add that the land was conquered and mostly uninhabited at the time. From what I have read, the 'Palestinians' were recent Arab immigrants to that area. This is something that I have not gone too deep into, but this book seems like a good reading to take a look at. There were not a bunch of 'Palestinians' living there who have been there for generations and are being displayed. There was not much there. Of course, I for one might think it worth noting that the reason much of the native American lands were uninhabited in the 17th century was that contacts between Europe and North America in the 1500's brought over diseases that killed over 90% of the population of North America within a century or so.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 09:47 AM) If I understand it right, this is all still on the same plate that ruptured the day after Christmas in 04, right? Either way the amount of activity down there is just CRAZY, there have been tons of earthquakes and volcanic activity throughout that whole region. It'd be more accurate to call it the same collision zone/subduction zone that ruptured in 04 and 05. But that is a very long subduction zone, it stretches from the point that India hits Asia all the way to somewhere around New Guinea. This one to my eyes looks to be outside the range where it would have anything to do with the 04-05 events. In fact, along that zone, this would actually be a fairly small quake overall.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Jul 16, 2006 -> 04:01 PM) Balta, the hate crime analogy doesn't quite fit. In the hate crime scenereo, the perp set out to kill (or hurt, whatever) someone. The fact that their intention was harming the victim, whether racially motivated or not, is the crime. In the Israeli/terrorist mix, the Israelis shoot at an intended, legitimate target. They are not aiming at 'civilians'. The suicide bombers, however, are aiming for the most casualties that they can inflict. similar, but not the same. Any target for them is the desired target. Yes, if the jets were just firing off missles willy nilly into the city, that would be a very bad thing, likely no different than a suicide bomber. But they don't do that. But here's one counterpoint...a lot of the targets Israel has hit are not genuine Hezbollah or military targets. They've hit bridges around Beirut. They've hit the Beirut airport. They've hit factories in the northern part of lebanon, in areas outside of Hezbollah control. They've reportedly killed something like 20 Lebanese soldiers, but killed something like 150 Lebanese civilians, which is an abjectly bad ratio with the technology available to the Israelis. Yes, they have gone after legit Hezbolla targets, like their leadership compounds, or TV stations, but they're also going after targets which have no relationship to Hezbollah, but are key parts of Lebanese infrastructure.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jul 16, 2006 -> 02:49 PM) That's certainly the most bloodless solution but it is the least permanent and probably the least effective. What you're laying out here, basically, is no different than what has been happening ever since Isreal was created. This is basically the cycle that has been repeating itself since Isreal was created. -Period of war. -Incomplete resolution to the conflict. -Buildup of the same old tensions ( this involves both sides taking potshots at each other ) -Event that acts as a spark -Period of war. Now that Iraq is out of the terrorism sponsoring game it's the twin ugly heads of Iran and Syria that are behind everything IMO. The level of patent hypocrisy displayed by those 2 is just mind blowing. They claim that the Isreal/Palestine situation is the whole driving factor behind tension in the region, yet they do everything in their power to derail the peace process even though it would mean the creation of a Palestinian state. Fact is that Iran and Syria do not want peace. Well they do but it involves wiping Isreal off the map in a new holocaust and replacing it with a like minded Islamo-fascist state first. Throw Iranian nukes into the mix and this has the potential to really come to a really ugly head here soon. Personally I think war with Iran and Syria is inevitable. If thats true then the question now becomes what is the cost of going to war now as opposed to going to war later. Personally, I don't think war with either of those countries is inevitable. The events of the last week which weren't noticed because of the mess in Lebanon actually gave me quite a bit of hope...Iran was successfully referred to the Security Council under the threat of sanctions, with neither China nor Russia expressing willingness to use their veto to stop those sanctions. Over the weekend then, Iran started making noises about being willing to negotiate on the basis of those offers put on the table a few weeks ago. The key thing in my eyes in these situations is that the leaders of those countries, no matter how crazy they are, still enjoy being the leaders of those countries. They aren't going to risk having themself overthrown for nothing. Nations have proven this again and again, if someone is really serious about removing them from power, they'll do what it takes to hold onto it, whether it is cracking down on dissidents or capitulating to every demand for inspections from the U.S. The problem with Iran and Syria right now is that both of them feel pretty secure in that the U.S. is totally bogged down in Iraq and won't be invading them any time soon, so they feel some willingness to act out.

The bad news for Minnesota Fans? Hunter's trade value just plummetted.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 07:11 AM) ... of being traded? Hah, just kidding. Then again ... maybe not. I don't think he should be considered to be kidding...Haeger'd probably be starting somewhere right now on about 1/2 of the teams in the big leagues.

Here's the question we're all answering without actually saying so: We've been willing to take chances on guys with rumored behavior issues before. Is there a line we're not willing to cross in terms of bad behavior?

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 06:07 AM) Rented and watched Syriana on Saturday. Another let down. The movie never really developed the plot. It was broad, but shallow. The "vast conspiracy" and such was barely played out, and instead we got pointless scenes with Clooney's kid or the lawyer's alcoholic father. I don't see what all of the acclaim was for that movie, either. Saw the same movie this weekend, had a similar response. I found the story line to be fairly well thought out and quite deep, but it was not presented in a way that allowed any of the threads to fully develop. I came out of it wishing they'd have tried to do the film pulp-fiction style, giving each storyline a chance to fully run its course before flopping off onto the next one. It bounced around way too fast to develop anything. Anyway, at least Dr. Bashir's finding work.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Jul 17, 2006 -> 08:22 AM) I think that Israel's claim to the land is much older than the Palestinian's claim is. That is the key difference that I see in the comparison. In one case, it is a group of people returning to their land that they had thousands of years ago. In the other case, it is a group of people taking over land that they never had a claim to before. That is a good point. There is no such thing as a recognized 'state of Palestine' from what I have read. So, based on this argument, you would admit that since the Native American claim on much of U.S. territory is far older than the claims of the current American inhabitants, they should have the right to reclaim as much of that land as they see fit? Their claim is far older than ours is, for example.