Balta1701

QUOTE(maggsmaggs @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 04:43 AM) I think Vince may have moved to the top of many draft borads yesterdau ahead of Bush and Leinart. Bush still looked great against a great team, but not amazing. While, Young seemed on another level than anyone against a great team. I think Reggie Bush won the Heisman in that Fresno State game, which happened the same week Vince Young had a bad week. But I also think that if the Heisman voting happened today, Vince Young would get himself a nice trophy - he saved his best game ofr when it counted the most. And yes, Vince Young even said last night that he's comign back.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 09:41 AM) You are talking about New Orleans, which is in the state of Louisiana. The odds of being able to pull this off without the local politicians getting their grubby little hands in the pot are almost nonexistant. Well, compared with the alternatives, a federally managed program with strict rules written by the feds about how it's to be pulled off certainly seems to be both less able to be defrauded and vastly more fair than either simply dumping money into contractors in the area or throwing caution to the wind and just not doing anything.

The one thing I've learned about January and December is that the "Seasonally adjusted" part of that number is the real key. The DOL attempts to "Seasonally adjust" for economic conditions in those 2 months by expecting significant amounts of hiring in October-December, and significant amounts of layoffs in January. So, they factor those numbers out in order to try to get at the "Core job growth" to coin a phrase. The odd part about those seasonal adjustments is that it only takes a slight variance in the Christmas hiring and layoff patterns to produce something that looks really wierd. For example, if your Christmas hiring season doesn't go as well as usual, you wind up with poor job growth numbers before christmas, but in January there wind up being fewer layoffs reported, so the January numbers wind up looking spectacular. There's a reason this is happening in early January...for all we know this is the effect of the growth of gift cards over the past few years - businesses holding onto temporary employees 1 week longer than before so that they have staff to handle those shoppers. Those numbers are probably not a bad sign, but they're not a good sign either, in fact I'm not sure if they tell us anything of value given how volatile the christmas season numbers get. The January monthly job report will probably tell us more simply by filtering out some of the high frequency stuff, but again it suffers from the same seasonal adjustment imperfections, albiet to a smaller degree than the weekly numbers.

That would be an absolutely massive improvement over the "you're on your own" that we've given that area thus far, or the original floated ideas, such as putting either Karl Rove or FEMA in charge of the rebuilding efforts. The rules would have to be pretty darn stringent so as to make sure that the land wasn't being sold on the cheap or bought at incredibly high prices in order to enrich some politician's cronies, but it could work very well if done fairly.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 07:49 PM) While you can quote statistics all day long about hom many people cannot afford insurance, how many of them 'can't afford it' because they are only in their mid 20's, and they would rather have that $600 a month going to a new BMW instead of insurance? 'Can't afford it' is often simply a choice of what do you want more. Yeah, if the choice is food or insurance, I think you take the mac n cheese. But if your choice is a fancier apratment downtown, or vacations, etc, well then, you don't belong in that catagory. As for a 'right to healt care', when the taxpayers start paying for med school, maybe they can get free med care. As bad as the current system is, it is still better than socialized medicine. But you see, for an insurance system to actually work and be affordable for everyone, those are precisely the people that need to be in the insurance pool, because without them, insurance really falls apart. You need the 20 year old healthy person in the insurance pool for it to work properly. Without that, you're left with an inexorable climb in insurance costs, as higher insurance costs push more of those who are at limited risk out of the insurance pool, which pushes the insurance cost higher because the pool is smaller, which pushes even more people out of the insurance pool, and eventually you wind up with the system we're starting to approach...where only the sick have insurance. Unions and health care through work have delayed the approach to that state, but now that those systems are breaking down rapidly, that's what we're really closing in on.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 09:28 AM) I think a double cheeseburger tastes different than the single cheeseburger for some reason. I don't know why. The ratio of beef to bread is vastly increased in a double cheeseburger. Ditto the ratio of grease to bread.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jan 5, 2006 -> 08:57 AM) Here's something interesting to toss around. If a gay couple adopts a baby boy. Will he grow up to be gay, because of the acceptance of it? Can two gay guys raise a heterosexual boy? See I think it has to do with genes. When that kid hits 11 or 12 he is gonna see some girl and be like whoa!! It doesn't matter that his dads are gay...I think his body will tell him what he likes to see and what he doesn't. edit: BTW, I was trying to take this away from a s*** starting thread, into a legitimate discussion. I'm not awake enough to do more than a cursory google search for the actual studies, and it's a bit of a bear to wade through all the crap put out by places like AFA, but I think the general consensus about homosexual parenting, as it stands now, is that homosexual parents are in most cases just as likely to give a child a good home as heterosexual ones. Given that in all cases they have to go through the adoption process, which weeds out many of the unfit parents we so often swear at over in SLaP, the ones who wind up with children often actually put them in better conditions than the average couple who just has a child regardless of whether or not they're in a position to take care of one. In terms of whether or not the child will be homosexual, I believe (couldn't find the exact studies on this so I'm just working from memory) that there may be some slight increase in the percentage of children raised by homosexual parents who turn out to be homosexual when compared to the population as a whole, but the difference is not huge, and may very well also be related to the fact that many heterosexual families would be totally intolerant of their children being homosexual, while homosexual families would find such intolerance of homosexuality impossible. One decent summary can be found here.

Piece from my LAT this morning on the type of stroke he suffered...

I find myself agreeing with a lot of the previous post, and I have 1 thing to add to it... If Brandon McCarthy can be as dominating of a pitcher as I think he can be, and as good as he looked at the end of last season...think about this. Out of the Bullpen and working spot-start duty, he might be able to work in 60-90 innings depending on everyone's exact health. If he's in the starting rotatino, he'd probably pitch around 200 innings. By placing him in the bullpen, we're losing a lot of potentially very good innings from the kid. We would get some valuable innings out of him to be sure, but compared with what he could do as a starter, he'd be spending a lot of time on the bench. If BMac could do waht he did at the end of last year, the more innings he pitches the better off we are.

And Jon Garland's people have broken off all negotiations with the White Sox. He wants to play on the West Coast 2 years from now.

The Mets have almost certainly the best team on paper in the NL East. The only problem is...the Marlins probably had the best team on paper in the NL East last year, and that wasn't good enough for them to stop the Braves run. If Bobby Cox can manage a team of mostly rookies, an injured star, and a battered pitching staff to the playoffs, what can he do when he gets a new shortstop and a bunch of 2nd year players? If that Braves pitching staff stays healthy, they'll be right there, the question remains their bullpen (and their pitching staff without Mazzone of course)

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 03:46 PM) one of the best SNL jokes in years was about Madonna's and Spears' kiss on some award show. Fallon said "That was hot, if you find sad desperation for attention hot" Couldn't agree more with that crack! No, the best joke about that was when Halle Berry hosted later that season with Britney Spears as the musical guest...in late October of 03, and Lorne et. al spent the monologue trying to convince Halle and Britney to do another kiss, and Lorne's last desperate attempt was "If not me, then do it for those poor Cub fans." Man, I was on the floor for the first 20 minutes of the show. I still watch when that one is replayed.

QUOTE(Drew @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 12:51 PM) And he'll probably strike out or get caught stealing in the clutch anyway, so who cares? Dude, don't you remember? It's a GIDP in the clutch. I.e. game 5 against the Angels, where ARod single-handedly killed a rally that could have won the game.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 02:13 PM) What I thought was great about this story was that Lorne Michaels told her she had a problem. When the guy that shepherded John Belushi and Chris Farley tells you that you have an issue, get thee to rehab fast! I'm not sure if this was implied by the word "Shepherded" or not, but Michaels actually worked incredibly hard to try to force Farley to clean himself up, suspensions, active interventions, etc. Farley was actually sober and clean coming off of SNL, but he really fell apart after "Beverly Hills Ninja" again.

The real question in Israeli politics, if the worst happens here, is: can Simon Peres hold together that new party?

Here's a question...how does a "Serious stroke" on the part of the Israeli leader change any potential strike?

2 down...Joe to go.

QUOTE(Adam G @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 12:08 PM) Since he pitches in the NL Mark Prior gets a free inning a game and still allowed more hits in '03 than Contreras did in '05 (entire season). That's some interesting cherry-picking of statistics. Contreras allowed more walks in 05 than Prior did in 03. Should I care? Beats the hell out of me.

Can't he just shut up? How exactly is saying you'll play for one, then saying you won't play, then saying you'll play for the other not dishonoring both heritages?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 11:50 AM) So you're saying we shouldn't believe anyone's intelligence anymore because it was wrong with Iraq? I thought that there was tons of evidence out there to back up what you have been saying about that intelligence being wrong anyways, does that exsist in this case? Or is there just conjecture at this point? All I have seen is reports saying they are running a covert program, and Iran denying it. I haven't seen anything actually disputing any of the reports yet. If there is actual evidence, the IAEA has not seen it. The best evidence seemed to come a few years ago when the IAEA found 1 trace of highly enriched uranium on a centrifuge, but upon detailed examination they determined that the trace came from Pakistan, where the centrifuges were made. The IAEA has expressed concern about Iran's activities, but at least as of basically last year, all of the facilities the IAEA knew about and inspected showed no signs of uranium enriched to weaponized levels. North Korea, for example, is a different story...when you reprocess fuel rods to extract plutonium, there are distinct signals - radiogenic gases which are released (I believe the key one was Xenon, but I could be mistaken). Those signals were clearly detected in samples taken along the DMZ right after th ey removed the IAEA cameras a few years ago. They clearly reprocessed the stuff, and are in possession of enriched plutonium. The reality with Iran is this...they've taken some of the actions they would have taken had they been trying to develop a bomb - i.e. building nuclear facilities, getting agreements to produce others. But they've also done some things you wouldn't do - i.e. allowing IAEA inspections of uranium enriching sites, and placing multi-monthlong holds on uranium enrichment to allow for time for negotiations. The U.S. continues to insist that Iran's fossil fuel resources mean that Iran has no need of a nuclear power program, since nuclear power would cost them more than their fossil fuels. But aside from that, the U.S. has never presented any concrete evidence of a uranium bomb program, nor has the IAEA ever found any. Without that, I think the only logical choice is to maintain a rational amount of skepticism of the claims of both sides until one of them comes forward with some firm evidence.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 11:39 AM) I don't know who will win, but I get the feeling it will be a blow out too. I thought last year's title game was going to be a great game to watch. I didn't need to watch more than a quarter. I thought last year's title game was one of the best talent matchups in history. ESPN kept telling me so. Now they're telling me the exact same thing about this game. Right now, I'm just hopiong it is a decent game.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 10:28 AM) Are you seriously trying to tell me that you don't believe that Iran is pursuing a nuclear bomb? There is no doubt in my mind at all that they are just continuing something they have been doing since the 1960's in trying to find a way into the atomic club. What evidence does anyone have that they have all of the sudden changed their behavior and are now only looking for something for energy purposes? Heck having the "Great Satan" next door in Iraq only serves to convince me more that Iran is full of s*** when it saids it is only looking for more energy sources with its nuclear program. Personally, I do believe Iran is looking to build an atomic bomb, because it only makes sense that they should be trying like gangbusters to do so while the U.S. forces are completely tied down and worn out from fighting Iraq, and a bomb totally prevents them from being the next target (they could fund Hezbollah to their hearts content if they were protected by a few of those.) But on the other hand...my intuition is not proof. No document ever presented thus far has given any proof. This document does not give proof - it specifies no sources or methods, there was clearly no danger in its release, and its release serves a clearly political purpose for those out there who advocate strikes against Iran. While Iran having a bomb program makes logical sense to me, I don't feel you can jump to the conclusion that they have one based solely on the evidence we have been presented. All I'm saying with that post is that just because some leak says so doesn't mean that there isn't some motivation behind why we got that particular leak. We should have learned that lesson well with Iraq.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 11:05 AM) I can't wait to see how Matthews, Hume and Snow spin this, though. I don't mind them as much being involved, if they genuinely thought they were working for a charity, then they're really not at fault. However, none of them as far as I know disclosed this fact on their own despite the fact that the name of the charity involved should have come across their eyes several times. Nor did they disclose the fact that they should have known Abramoff did the inviting, and that is an important fact. And furthermore...they've actually commented on the Abramoff case several times without telling that they had this connection. Matthews, for example, just a few days ago, said of the abramoff case, Now seriously, why should we believe his opinion is non-biased, when if Abramoff did become a large part of the story this year, it would add some tarnish to his reputation through his connection to this case? He has reason to not want it to become part of this year's story, and he didn't disclose that.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 11:08 AM) Balta, I'm guessing you know more than I do, but what part of the San Andreas is due. I remember in one of my geology classes my professor was talking to us about how they can semi predict where the quakes are going to occur since they kind of happen in a certain pattern (after a quake the stress is relieved from one area and I guess it starts pushing more on another area which needs to be relieved). That sound about right? That can happen, but it doesn't always happen. Sometimes a quake on one fault could put stress on another local fault, but that same motion could relieve stress on another fault which was closer to breaking. When a fault ruptures, there are always areas relative to that fault which are put under compression, and others that are put under extension. There is a ton of geometry and rock mechanics involved in determining what exactly will be the results of a quake of a particular strength and direction on a particular fault. We're just now starting to get the computing power where we can take intelligent looks at such questions. There are plenty of examples of 1 earthquake setting off another - the Dec. 26th Sumatran quake clearly was a triggering event for the 2nd quake a few months later, for example. But if a quake happened and relieved stress on a fault, thus delaying a quake, we'd never really know about it for sure, because you can't really quantify a non-event, so I can't give you an example of that. Let's just say that both are possible, and the actual result will depend on the exact circumstances. Edit, oh and to answer your "What part of the san andreas is due" question which I didn't read the first time through...the 1857 rupture along that fault was an absolute monster for that fault. It started off up near Parkfield and ruptured the fault to some degree all the way through the Mojave. However, the displacements were not constant along the entire rupture - roughly 3 m. in the Mojave and as much as 9 m up north of the Transverse ranges. In general, I think the recurrence interval of that whole section south of the Parkfield section is something in the neighborhood of 150-200 years, which is why some people are starting to worry about it - because technically it is due, and there's probably a 50/50 chance it'll undergo a major rupture sometime in our lifetimes, and probably a 98% chance that one will happen before your grand children pass away, barring things like nuclear war. The section north of that, the Parkfield section, is a really interesting one, in that it actually seems to have one of the most accurate recurrence intervals of any fault in the world. A few decades ago, geologist predicted that by the year 2010, there would be a magnitude 6+ quake along that fault. They actually heavily instrumented that section of the fault in order to observe it. The rupture happened about a year ago. That section of the SA has kept to a much tighter recurrence interval than any other section of the SA. The sections north of there ruptured in 1906 in a moderately famous event, but the SA north of Parkfield is not the only fault line to be worried about up there. They Heyward fault, which interestingly enough runs right across the Bay Bridge and right through the football stadium @ UC Berkeley (you can actually see it in the walls I'm told) is probably roughly due. This is the one which has caused them to rapidly try to retrofit the golden gate bridge, and why they are spending a ton of money on a seismically survivable Bay Bridge. So...the Sections of the SA south of Parkfield are starting to approach the time when you'd call them "Due". Most estimates give numbers like 20-30% probability of a quake in the next 20-30 years somewhere along that section. The problem of course is that we don't know which part of that section will rupture, or how big the rupture will be. 1857 was a monster in that it ruptured sections all along the fault which normally don't move together. There is the possibility for a number of quakes along different parts of that fault, most of which will probably experience 1 event during the next 100-200 years.

No matter how old he is...I can't say I'll complain about seeing that Twins bullpen lose a long reliever.