Balta1701

QUOTE(Damen @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 12:05 PM) I can't believe people are piling on Garland after last night. The fact is, he pitched pretty damn well but again was a victim of Ozzie giving him a s*** defense. How many times have Garland's blowup innings been aided by Pablo Ozuna or Rob Mackowiak flailing around like idiots in the outfield. Garland relies on defense as much as anyone on our staff, yet for reasons unknown, he continually goes out there with the Ozzie lineup. If Mackowiak wasn't in center last night, people would be praising Garland for starting to turn it around, and putting us back in first place. The thing is...if Garland was pitching well, the ball wouldn't even be going to the outfield, it'd be on the ground in the infield.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 10:13 AM) It is taken directly from the title of the article. Why wouldn't you quote it? I read the whole thing, plus read the lib rant, and of course missing in the rant, is that the guy quoted said it was a stunt, without actually saying it was a stunt. What part of doesn't infer this was a stunt? I mean I guess we could break out the dictionaries and thesauruses and pick a million different words, but the congressman was pretty damned clear in what he was saying IMO. I guess it all depends on what your definition of "stunt" is... First of all, the headline of the article said "Democrats" not "Democrat". But I guess you'll just accuse me of playing semantics games there when they only have one. Secondly, you're quoting the article, not actually quoting any representative. Yes, that is important. Thirdly, I'd still like to see exactly what Rep. Stark said. There's 1/2 of 1 sentence there, with the interpretation of the rest supplied by the Washington Times. I'm not a big fan of Rep. Stark, but first of all the word "Stunt" in the headline is the whole reason why people noticed that article, and since I don't have the full line that he said, I don't doubt he crossed some sort of line, but I really can't prove it. That seems like an awfully stupid thing to say, and it'd be nice if there was just a little bit of context with it just to prove that he is in fact that stupid. Edit: I should probably add that I have as low of an opinion of the Washington Times as you probably have of the NYT, maybe even lower. Why? Because I've seen them running with completely made-up quotes before, like back in 2004 when they ran with a purported quote from Kerry on Crossfire (on CNN), and when people denied Kerry ever said the quote, the Times responded by saying that transcripts weren't available, when a simple Lexis search turned it up, and yeah, the quote was completely fabricated.

One of the big reasons the Padres are even still in the NL West race is defense. They have excellent defense up the middle, and Cameron keys that.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 11:34 AM) Actually, its totally constitutional because the conferenced bill goes back up for approval to both houses. Yup, this is one of those nasty procedural tricks the Republican Congress has used to get everything they want. They pass bills in both houses first, the bill goes to conference to iron out the differences, and the Republicans then strip out things that are identical in both bills if they don't like them. They then send the bill back to both houses and expect that no one can vote against a compromise bill to fund the troops, which, considering the war effort is basically out of money until this bill is signed, is basically the truth.

Oh, Jolly. Remember that home run against the Braves? You gotta wonder.

Arlen Specter proposes blanket amnesty for anyone who violated the law through the current NSA program. Funny, I thought it was 100% legal.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 09:55 AM) Didn't you mean union bosses? They work too. I'd be happy for my party to give up all union support if the other party would give up all corporate support.

So I think the message there would be "Satan hates America"? Sorry to hear it man. Hopefully nothing else was damaged.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 09:44 AM) I get it. So now headlines can't include anything but direct quotes from the people involved? Should I start hitting the lib blogs and start proving the point that this gets done everyday in the media, or should I just not bother? You placed the words "A stunt" in quotes. That says bluntly that it is a direct quote, which it was not. Yes, this gets done everyday by the media, and everyday, people are taken to task for paying attention to those sorts of articles. As should happen here. You want to take issue with what that Congressman said? Fine. At least take the time to read his words and see if he actually said what they're saying he said.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 09:25 AM) What would people say are the actual chances that Garland goes to the pen? I really never even thought of it as an option, but it seems to be becoming more and more believable. With McCarthy out there...it has to be considered. But the one problem right now is that BMac is the only guy I think we have any confidence in as a Righty setup man. If Politte were to return healthy and actually start getting people out, or if Tracy could make his performance last night the sort of thing we see from him every time out, we might have to make that move, at least for a while. If either of those 2 criteria are met within a month, and Garland still has an ERA of 6.2 and going up, hten you've got to consider it.

So, back when the House and the Senate were debating the most recent funding bill for the Iraq debacle, both the House and Senate overwhelmingly passed amendments to the bills which would prevent the Administration from spending any of the money to build "Permanent military bases" in Iraq. So in other words, that amendment had the support of majorities of both houses of Congress. And then...the 2 bills went to a Republican controlled conference committee to reconcile the differences between the 2 bills. If you can't figure out where this story is going...You haven't paid attention to these Republicans. Yeah, we don't want permanent bases...but no, you can't have that in writing. Edit, by the way, both of those amendments were passed unanimously.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 08:53 AM) That's too much from the Sox side and still don't think the Dodgers would make the trade simply because Lofton is thier leadoff hitter and they are currently a game out in the west. I could have swore that Little was going Furcal first, then Lofton 2nd. Did he make some changes recently? I haven't watched a Dodger game in a week or two.

QUOTE(Balance @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 08:46 AM) And, of course, we get to see Cliff Lee and CC Sabathia again. Personally, I'm not looking forward to more lefty troubles for the Sox. It really is time for Mark to beat that f***er.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 05:08 AM) Killing Zarqawi "a stunt" I guess it was only a matter of time before this started to come out... Linky

O'Reilly hosts coulter, defends her. Other Republicans' rise to Coulter's defense. (You can usually just skip down to the bottom of those articles, they put the full text in the lower parts.)

Here's an LATimes update on that little school. There's an investigation started into KABC's allegations, but honestly, it may not be able to go anywhere...according to the charter, that school is basically allowed to run itself as its own school district, so unless the KABC person can actually prove assault charges (which you'll note, they have not filed), there may be nothing anyone can do, since by definition, charter schools are outside the government and therefore the government only has limited oversight ability. However, the school's charter is up for review next year.

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 8, 2006 -> 11:18 PM) Yes I do. Just like I wish Cindy Sheehan would do the same but neither will. Cindy Sheehan gets more publicity these days from the right wing attacking her than from anything else she does. A lot of us stopped caring about her a long time ago.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 8, 2006 -> 11:35 PM) We have someone in the White House who doesn't flip flop? Really? Who is that? Our current wonderful leader. Thank God he's standing by his campaign promise to not speak to Iran.

Well, first of all, we'd have a problem on the face of it of trying to find 2 different spots on the 25 man roster, when right now Anderson is the only logical candidate to go down unless someone else winds up on the DL. Anywho, couple other things. One...the Dodgers right now are in a pennant race. You'd be asking them to give up 2 of their players, one of whom who is currently a starter and the other of whom they hope can back up their Middle Infielders at some point, for a prospect. I just don't think that makes sense for them. Not with Coletti as their GM. And I still say Fields is untradeable until we know Crede's long term status better.

QUOTE(henry wiggins @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 08:20 AM) That, and there has to be a test developed that can detect HGH. Is it banned by the IOC, and if so, how do they test for it, I wonder. Edit: Googled a bit, found this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5538709/ Little update beyond what that Google search told you about the HGH Test. As a test program, the HGH test was administered to roughly 300 athletes at the 2004 games. It didn't turn up any positive tests amongst those who were tested. But the IOC still doesn't have enough confidence in it to make it a mandatory test for everyone, and that says something. MLB's executives take that and roll with it and simply say that there is no reliable test for HGH, and they're basically correct.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Jun 8, 2006 -> 11:49 PM) Yeah they would. They should ship Jeff Weaver and Adam Kennedy out to Toronto and get some uber prospects back. That way, when Colon comes back Jered Weaver can stay in the rotation, and Howie Kendrick can start at 2B, because he's obviously ready at AAA. Stuff wise Santana is definitely better than B-Mac, but he hasn't really had the same kind of success at B-Mac did in the 2nd half of 2005. It's an interesting comparison especially when we've been having a lot of discussions over the past few days about drafting pitching prospects with not "electric" stuff. Anaheim isn't confident enough yet in the ability of Bartolo to stay healthy to deal Jeff Weaver. He'll wind up in the bullpen.

The good news? The bullpen surrendered a whopping 0 runs against Detroit.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jun 8, 2006 -> 09:21 PM) Jon Garlands ERA is now at 6.19. He has given up 21 homers already. People are batting .311 against him. He is at the same levels as the 5th starter monster was in 2004. Someone needs to give him a come to jesus talk, or send his ass to the pen. Incorrect. The 5th starter for a good chunk of 2004 was Mr. "Off day". He never gave up a run.

The Comcast gun was a disaster all series. My personal favorite was the Verlander game. The fastest pitch thrown that day topped out at 94 on that gun...and it was thrown by Jenks. And, um, "The Eagle"?

QUOTE(SoxHawk1980 @ Jun 8, 2006 -> 06:57 PM) "For whatever reason"??? I have a reason for you: his career. Look at the various years of his career. He has a bunch of mediocre years, ONE GOOD YEAR and then this crappy year. How does one good year make him a good pitcher? On the contrary, he has proven that he is at best a mediocre pitcher. See, now logically this is just stupid. Garland hasn't proven anything, good or bad. He's proven he's having an awfully s***ty start to this season, and he proved that he had a great start to last season. I'm certainly not going to be dumb enough to sit here and say Garland will have an ERA over 6 the rest of his life.