Balta1701

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Apr 28, 2006 -> 11:39 AM) Good to hear as one of the few golf fans on here. Good to hear from one of the non-golf fans here as well.

QUOTE(Cuck the Fubs @ Apr 28, 2006 -> 11:37 AM) You'd think teams would learn not to give long contracts to pitchers after seeing Mike Hampton and Kevin Brown's injury problems and big contracts. Sometimes you don't have a choice. Think about what we're about to give to Mark Buehrle, for example.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Apr 28, 2006 -> 11:47 AM) What exactly are you implying here? It would have been intelligent of the United States to sell missle-defense systems to Iran to ensure a MAD scenario between themselves and Israel? Not if the U.S. wanted to keep the option of attacking Iran open. But if a country wanted to set up that sort of system because they were friends with Iran and wanted to maintain trade agreements with Iran, that's exactly what they would do.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 28, 2006 -> 11:41 AM) I totally disagree with your premise that Russia would support Israel in that scenario. Therefore, on balance, the rest of your post I have issues with. Maybe I'm missing something, though. I think there's a difference between not supporting Iran and supporting Israel. Russia would merely have to stay neutral in that case. It may well also try to use its leverage to bring any conflict to an end, solely to try to ensure oil and commerce supplies from Iran. Then again, I for one don't buy that Iran would actually launch a first strike against Israel, because that would mean the end of the Iranian regime, even if they had the bomb. (the U.S. would instantly get involved, etc.) However, if they wait and let Israel attack first, then that makes Iran the victim, no matter how much they provoked Israel. In that case, they'd be fairly certain to have a lot of friends, probably including China and Russia.

Jose Mesa got himself a 4 game suspension for throwing at Vizquel. Baseball may choose an owner for the Nats soon. Mets pitcher Brian Bannister is day to day (aren't we all) with a hamstring sprain. The Giants traded right-handed reliever Tyler Walker to the Tampa Bay Devil Rays for righty pitcher Carlos Hines.

If it's not a tree, it ain't for me.

Link Now that's some good work by that photographer.

QUOTE(Cuck the Fubs @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 09:20 PM) Good. As long as the Bears still win the division, that just means a lower draft pick for the Packers. I'll be real happy if they suck, since in addition to the pleasure of seeing them suck, Aaron Rodgers will have been blocked another year So does anyone here seriously think that Aaron Rogers would put the Packers in a better position to win at any time in his career if he were to start all 16 games next year?

So this morning, there was This moderately interesting column in my LA Times by Rosa Brooks, one of their columnists that you probably wouldn't call a major hawk. Her prediction? There will be a war with Iran by September. So, I did a bit of reading into these Tor missiles, and They do actually appear to be quite formidable. They can operate in radar-jamming environments, so traditional anti-radar missiles won't necessarily work well against them. They have a very high kill rate, hitting somewhere between 92 to 95% of airplane targets. They also have the ability to hit cruise missiles, hitting between 60 and 90% of those. It can engage multiple targets simultaneously. Basically we're talking about a missile that is approaching the quality of the current Patriot system. As far as I can tell, once Iran gets these operational, there will be exactly 2 weapons systems in the world (that we know about) which are capable of actually doing damage to the Iranian nuclear program without extreme casualties; the F117 and B2 stealth bombers, which these missiles still cannot detect. So therefore, if Israel genuinely were planning a strike, this author is correct, as of September of this year, the cost of such a strike to the IDF would go up massively. Unless Iran installed more of these missiles, they wouldn't have enough to totally defeat the IDF with just those devices, but it is now officially safe to say that beyond Iran's fortifications on the ground, Iran is prepared to make any attempt to shut down their nuclear programs into a major conflict in the air over their country, involving heavy casualties on both sides.

So, it turns out there's another $4 billion in U.S. dollars that have been spent in Iraq that the Congressional Research Service just can't find. Presumably this is on top of the $10 billion or so in old Iraqi funds (largely from the oil for food program) that disappeared in 2003. And oh yeah, the Executive branch diverted funds in 2001 and 2002 to prepare for the Iraq war without authorization from Congress, to the tune of $2.5 billion. (end of the article) Just another day in the park, right?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 28, 2006 -> 09:43 AM) I realize this will make me sound harsh, but I firmly believe that many of those who claim that medical expenses pushed them into bankruptcy were also spending a lot of money on things they consider "needs" that simply are not. I am NOT saying ALL of them, mind you - but a big chunk. I don't have statistics to share because, well, there are none (has anyone ever studied people's actual spending habits for the years prior to bankruptcies?). I think what usually happens is that in the years prior to bankruptcies, people are living like most Americans these days, paycheck to paycheck. Then an unexpected expense arises, usually either the loss of a job or a large health care issue. So yes, they were probably using things like satellite TV beforehand, and oftentimes had contracts with companies which would cost more to break, and then suddenly they're no longer able to afford to go paycheck to paycheck. Of course, at the upper income levels, yeah there are a decent number of companies and businesses who take advantage of the bankruptcy laws in order to protect their assets, but I probably have as little concern for them as you do. When you're making $100k or more per year (just picking a random number) then a health expense shouldn't knock you into bankruptcy.

5 U.S. Congressmen got themselves deliberately arrested during a Protest at the Sudanese Embassy today.

So a few weeks ago, President Bush signed a version of a budget bill which was different from the ones passed by the House and Senate. The differences were slight, but they existed. The Democrats Have filed a lawsuit in the case, as that bill should as far as I can see be invalid.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 28, 2006 -> 09:28 AM) I'm afraid I don't agree. I think the personal bankruptcy laws in this country were too lax then, and probably still too lax now. People get in trouble financially, often times, because they spend more than they can. Yes, there are families who cannot afford their needs, but many of them make that complaint while watching their satellite TVs. Americans, in general, have lost the concept of "need". You NEED food, clothing, water and shelter, and you might be able to add health care and a few other things to that. Bot nowadays, things like cell phones and cable TV and a car are looked as as needs, when they truly are not. I realize this makes me sound insensitive, but it is my feeling on the matter. A significant majority of the low-income bankruptcy filers wind up doing so because of medical expenses, not because of satellite TV.

So, this story is in a couple of places today, including the San Diego Union Tribune and Last night's Scarborough Country. It seems that as part of the Duke Cunningham case, the Feds discovered that Defense Contractor Brent Wilkes, one of the bribers-in-chief in that case, had also rented a bunch of limos and hotel rooms for Mr. Cunningham, and potentially other Congresspeople as well. Of course, the real meat is what they may have been doing with those hotel rooms. According to Scarborough last night, the rumor they've heard is that there were up to 6 Congressmen who may have found themselves having an extra good night at the Watergate thanks to the lobbyists. This should be a fun one to follow.

Freddy...the Angels are leading the west. This is our first trip there since the ALCS. They're going to be booing. It's going to be a big crowd. This is what we in the fan-biz call "A big game". Oh, and you're also pitching on the road. (I feel like we have to convince him of these things now a days.) Go get em Freddo. And Bats...you're facing Jeff Weaver...it's time to re-awaken!

Damn I should have taken a hike through the Santa Monica mtns. yesterday...I could have put on a ton of Sox Merch and watched the bus drive by.

You know what I discovered last week? Tom Paciorek is now the color guy for the Nats TV broadcast.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Apr 27, 2006 -> 08:19 PM) Provided he's not declining when his contract's over, I'd seriously consider resigning him. His current contract has 3 years left on it including this one, and a $14 million option for a 4th year. What I might consider doing if Thome gets through this season completely healthy? Pull a Chipper Jones. In exchange for giving Jones the option year of his contract as a guaranteed year, the Braves got him to agree to cut his salary by a couple million in the couple years beforehand. The Sox might be able to save themselves a million or two for each of the next 2 years if they tried something similar with Thome. Jim's making a total of $14,166,667 this year and I think the next 2 years also...say we go to him and ask him if he'll take a cut to $12-$13 million for each of the next 2 years if we guarantee him the 09 season at $12 million. We'd cut the amount we're spending on him the next 2 years and lock him up for another year at a cheaper rate than we would by picking up the option that year.

You know another thing I've been wondering about? The ban on amphetimines ("greenies"). A lot of people speculated that one of the big groups that might have popped those things would have been the pitchers, and relief pitchers in particular, since they wind up exerting a lot more during each game than the position players, who only have to react quickly. I've been wondering for a while if some of the power surge could come from pitchers losign a little bit of that upper that they had. Especially with some of the relievers we've seen struggling (Izzy, Lidge, etc.)

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 28, 2006 -> 08:49 AM) No, I said 'status quo' combined with reductions in spending. Hehe, just messing with you. Seriously though, since we're on this discussion, what exactly is it you would like to cut? Right now, the U.S. yearly deficit is something in the $300-$400 billion range depending on when exactly you account for Bush's war. Discretionary spending (not Social Security, Medicare, or interest on the debt) in 2005 was about $1 trillion dollars. A little over 1/2 of that went to defense spending/Homeland security. Which basically means that you would have to do away with the entire federal government in order to balance the budget through spending cuts. So, basically, we'd be talking about no highways, no funding for research, no health care infrastructure, no federal court system, no prisons, no airport security, no national park system, no FBI, no border security whatsoever, no EPA...well you get the idea. Your only other options are some combination of ending the Iraq war and dramatically reducing defense spending, raising the retirement age, eliminating Medicare entirely, and raising taxes to pay down some of the debt (thus reducing the yearly interest payments).

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 28, 2006 -> 06:42 AM) Status quo is fine by me on current tax levels, as our current 'state' wouldn't allow for further cuts. The talk of "make wealthy people pay their fair share" from the Democrats today will effect a lot of the middle class (a household income of somewhere about $70K and above is 'rich' from what I've seen) by raising their taxes. I never in the world would think I (well my family) would qualify for "rich" by today's Democratic Party, but I do, and my taxes would go up. And that's sad, because I sure as hell ain't 'rich'. So in other words, you'd be in favor of much higher taxes on the folks who make 2x as much as your family in order to end the current period of deficit spending?

I'm surprised food aid can even get in there any more. In fact, I doubt it actually is.

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Apr 28, 2006 -> 08:18 AM) Yeah, for a paltry 215 days. The amount of oil that could be recovered from ANWR would be so negligible on oil and gas prices that it'd be a complete waste. If you want massive amount of oil, it's in our own backyard in the form of Candaian oil sand and shale, anyways. But, wait, a few days ago everyone hopped aboard the alternative fuels bandwagon and now is up for drilling in ANWR. SHOCKING. See, this is why I hate the entire ANWR debate. I don't know if I've ever, in my brief life, seen a more pointless debate. The 215 day number is just a stupid number. Seriously, it's nonsense. That's the number you get if you take the estimates for every barrel in ANWR and pump them out at exactly the rate at which the U.S. consumes oil. Not at the maximum rate at which oil could be extracted, but at some artificially high rate that would never happen, which is done entirely to make it seem like the oil wouldn't last very long. In reality, you'd probably be able to pump a million barrels or so per day for about 25 years, give or take the exact amount in there (The maximum is about 15 billion barrels, the minimum could be vastly less than that, as happened in Central Asia.) (the right has an equal number of falsehoods they spout about ANWR, I'll shoot those down when someone brings them up) And while Canadian Oil Shale does have a ton of oil in it, it's not an easy process to extract it. The stuff is incredibly polluting, first of all, because you're using energy to do the work the earth does in turning oil shale into oil. It's also a gigantic operation, on the scale of some of the largest mining operations on earth already, and that's for only a few million BPD. It's also vastly more expensive than the Saudi LSC that we've been so addicted to, to the point that it's only become profitable in the last few years. So yes, it's there, but if you want it to completely supply America's demand for oil, well first of all we're going to never see snow again, but secondly, it's going to take an absolutely massive investment in infrastructure in order to pull enough out. On the scale of tens to hundreds of billions of dollars, and probably a lot of time too. We just aren't anywhere close to being able to use that as our primary fuel source yet.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Apr 27, 2006 -> 08:37 PM) Balta and Kap. There are laws on the books which prevent persons entrusted with classified information from disclosing said information for a very long period of time. Something like 10 years or so if memory serves. Well, I think the big question in all this is what happens when the disclosure is of a program which violates the law. Can it be illegal to disclose an illegal program?