NorthSideSox72

1. Bring it On - Seal 2. Ol' Man River - Count Basie Orchestra 3. Eleanor Plunkett - Clannad 4. Only the Good Die Yound - Billy Joel 5. Don Quixote Op. 35, Richard Strauss - Chicago/Barenboim 6. Prime Audio Soup - Meat Beat Manifesto 7. Funeral/Rebuilding Serenity - Newman, Serenity Sdtrk 8. St. Elmo's Fire - John Parr 9. The Driving of the Year Nail - Leo Kottke 10. Mr. Self Destruct - Nine Inch Nails

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 05:52 PM) While we're on the subject. The Democrats are passing a $50 billion Iraq budget supplement to "bridge fund" the efforts. The bill has some "strings" attached. 1. The US must begin limited troop withdrawals by the end of the year. (Something which the White House has already announced it will do.) 2. The US must state a goal of withdrawing the majority of combat forces from Iraq by the end of 2008. (There is no timetable for withdrawal, nor any absolute directive to do so - just to state that goal.) The bill also requires all government interrogators must follow procedures for interrogation prescribed in the Army field manual (i.e. specifically outlaws waterboarding), and the White House to certify all units being sent to theater as "mission capable" 15 days prior to deployment (although this could be waived in times of emergency.) The Bush administration says it will veto the bill, should it reach his desk. It looks certain for easy passage in the House. In the Senate, prospects are less certain - because the GOP leadership opposes the bill's "strings" (which - again - are already basically met) Harry Reid, in a rare show of balls, has said this is the only funding bill he'll allow for a vote... i.e. if this doesn't become law, bridge funding won't happen until 2008. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ll_N.htm?csp=34 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 08:26 AM) Passes 218-203. Not enough for a veto override, even if it does pass the Senate. But given his history, I doubt Reid sticks to his guns about funding. We'll see. Update... Funding bill blocked in the Senate, fails 53-45. GOP proposed a funding bill with no strings, and it failed by the exact same vote count. So the showdown continues. Reid says no funding without the promise of troop pullouts. GOP says give them a blank check. Dems will say the GOP just loves war, wants to keep fighting even though 70% of the country is against it. GOP will say the Dems don't support the troops and are cowards. How far will it go this time?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 09:54 AM) Not to be trite, NSS, but do you? Not a trite question at all, its a fair one. I don't think I know it nearly as well as people on the ground there. Or people who live there. I take my information from them more than I do our government though. So I like to think, at the least, I'm informed. The candidates in the debate, frankly, seemed to be varying degrees of uninformed.

So, this question, basically, was put to the Democrats in the debate last night. I saw answers from Kucinich, Richardson and Obama. Kucinich was predictable - no it isn't working, and get out now. Richardson said no also, but added his usual spiel about engaging regional partners, finding a political solution, and then leaving. Obama echoed the regional partners and political solution thing, but he actually acknowledged that the surge was undoubtedly working in some neighborhoods. Just interesting to see the differentiation there, for those who care about the Dem nominee. I am glad, I suppse, that Richardson and Obama are talking about the political situation. But I still think none of them really know what's going on over there.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 08:33 PM) Why? If people are willing to pay them that, that's the owners' fault. The MLB is absolutely loaded with cash too, BTW -- I thought I remember reading that the percentage of money that is paid to athletes in MLB is least when compared to the NFL and the NBA. Actually, I'd suggest it isn't the fault of the owners or the players. Well, maybe the owners a little bit. You want to blame someone for high salaries? Most of that blame falls on... us. The fans. The money is there to spend because we spend it.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 06:36 PM) http://www.ellison-law.com/answers.html You can see what they tout a 95% rate, because that includes plea bargains. Most indictments come out in less than a year, the fact it took 4 years raises suspicion. And Barry Bonds is not anyone, he is like OJ. Which means those stats mean nothing, you are looking at 50/50 odds on a conviction if it goes to trial. No matter what the evidence, he will get up there and say he didnt know they were steriods. His trainer will get up there and say that Bonds knew they were steroids. Bonds lawyers will shred the trainer, and it will be a "who does the jury believe most". Some of those people are going to be Giants fans and feel hes a victim. /shrugs Thats just the reality, Bonds is not a normal defendant, all those convictions are not coming against attorneys like Bonds has. Lets see who is attorneys are, and what type of acquital rates they have. Im sure it wont be 5% OJ was not indicted by a federal grand jury, as I recall. Completely different. Bonds may take a plea deal - wouldn't surprise me at all. But he's still going to be guilty, one way (plead guilty) or the other (trial).

QUOTE(Linnwood @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 06:23 PM) I direct your attention to Lines 2 through 4 of page 3 of Barry Bond's indictment. Exhibits alpha and omega. *waits for someone to claim this was a plant*

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 05:31 PM) This really means nothing, and indictment is no big deal and the fact it took this long to get one shows that the case is pretty weak. You have to remember that an indictment just means that a grand jury found probable cause to charge Bonds. Bonds was not able to present a defense, he was not able to cross examine witnesses, evidence that will not be available at trial can be used there. It took 4 years to get the indictment, if that is any indication of the speed of the process, Bonds will be retired before this ever gets to court. Its not like an indictment means Bonds is in jail, it just means that the Fed can actually charge Bonds with perjury and obstruction of justice, and then start the proceedings in a real court, where the rules of evidence will apply, and where Bonds will most likely be found not guilty, or receive some sort of slap on the wrist penalty. So this really proves nothing as they most likely used tons of evidence that will not be able to be used in the real trial. (Edit) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12289760/ Now remember the prosecutor in this case was eventually disbarred and all charges thrown out. But they still were able to get a grand jury indictment. Indictments are just procedural, its almost impossible to screw them up. So the fact that the feds' conviction rates on indictments are over 95% doesn't mean anything to you, huh? Indictment is nothing. Ha!

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 03:50 PM) I think if you take into account the money we got from Philly for Thome and Iguchi, Arizona for Javy, and SD for Mack we had like the 8th highest payroll Oh I don't think so. Besides we also picked up a bunch of contracts during the year, including Myers, that cost a few million and made up for Gooch and Mack. Its still a $100M team or close to it. And this is nitpicking anyway, you're missing the point.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 03:37 PM) For now it's still an outlier, but it's also following the recent trends, so it's worth noting this ARG poll showing Huckabee and Romney statistically tied in Iowa. And Giuliani falling like a rock: 21% in September, 16% in October, 11% in November.

QUOTE(greg775 @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 03:15 PM) This money thing has always baffled me with the White Sox. Didn't somebody price the Sox as one of the most profitable organizations in baseball? If the Sox were sold today wouldn't Jerry make about 50 times the amount he bought the team for? If the Sox shelled out the money, they'd obviously go from near last to first in a year. The Yankees make the playoffs every year because of money, nothing else. Ugh. I can't resist... --Profitable in baseball is relative. Even the Sox don't make more than a few percentage points of net profit. --The net worth of the franchise has nothing to do with its cash position. Those are seperate things. Do you want Jerry to sell some part of the team for more money in payroll? --If money is the only reason the Yankees are so good, and they spend 30% more than any other team, why haven't they won a championship in 7 years? --The Sox had the 4th highest payroll in baseball last year, and had the 7th worst record. The Colorado Rockies made the world series and were 25th in payroll. Just because a team has money to spend that does not automatically make them better. The talent has to be available, the talent has to perform, and there is no predicting that to any precise degree.

QUOTE(longshot7 @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 02:49 PM) we should pull out tomorrow - who cares if the Iraqis exlode into sectarian violence and kill each other? Apparently BushCo thinks that's a great idea, since they are the ones who plunged Iraq into a civil war to begin with. And they've been killing each other for years now.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 01:05 PM) No idea exactly what it will mean, but politically, it's probably worth noting that the 3 states currently hardest hit by the surge in foreclosures happen to be 1. the state with the most people and, 2-3: the 2 states that have decided the last 2 Presidential elections. California, Ohio, and Florida right now are out in front leading the country in the foreclosure mess. That's an interesting set of states, to be sure. Also interesting is that they are not on that list for the same reasons. FL and CA had housing markets that were laughably hyper-inflated, and are now crashing out. OH is a victim for the same reasons its been an economic victim for a few decades - decaying manufacturing sector, high unemployment and an apparent inability to effectively recover and adapt to new job markets. Therefore, any campaign approach taken using that subject needs to take different approaches in the different states.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 12:56 PM) So he would be 39 years old after playing all of that time on the brutal turf in MN? Yeesh. No thanks. Texas can have him, and probably will. Just because Torii asks for it, doesn't mean he is getting it, from Texas or anyone else.

QUOTE(Markbilliards @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 12:43 PM) Rowand is way overpriced too, its not like he just put his stats up in the American league, it was AAAA, I'd expect from him what he gave us when he was on the Sox, is that worth 13 mill? Lets keep JO in Center. You know, I realize there is a difference between the leagues at the moment, but let's not get out of hand.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 12:08 PM) You are a very trusting soul. I for one don't believe that most organic ingestibles are as organic as you are lead to believe. Also, from what I have read is most bottled water is ... you ready? ... tap water. Then you get the plastic bottles that are being sold by the billions because they can sell tap water for $1.29 a bottle filling our landfills. When will those biodegrade? Oh yeah, the bottles also happen to be a petroleum based product. So, what is being pumped into the air as those plastic bottles are being produced? That's why I don't drink bottled water - the bottle itself. And I knew some of them were just tap water. But the organic farms, I have it on good source in some cases, not to mention I watch them work. I have no doubt that some "organic" stuff isn't as organic as we are led to believe. But there are people who have a mind as yours or mine for these things, and are farmers, so there are some people who do produce real organic. And the more push there is for it, the more market there is, the more of that there will be.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 11:46 AM) I note your point, but mine was what we are tossing into our bodies. And it has to be by design as it's damn near everything we ingest. When you sit back and look at it, what choices do we have? Can we avoid drinking flouridated water? Can we avoid eating fruits and vegetables that aren't laced with pesticides and/or preservative chemicals? Can we avoid eating meat that hasn't been fed with pesticide laced corn or whatever. There is something sinister going on, and it goes well beyond the Bush administration. Also, it's been building for about 40 years, at least. Actually, I'd suggest you can avoid all of those things you list if you so choose. And that's where the power of the consumer comes in... You can choose to buy fruits and vegatbles from organic markets (or organic brands). I've actually been on organic farms - we have some land in Wisconsin very near one of the farms run for the Organic Valley brand you may have seen in the store, and we've bought from them directly on occasion. You can choose to eat meats that are organic and given organic feed. This all gets back to the food source thing I mentioned here previously - that's going to be a bigger and bigger thing. You can choose to drink bottled water that is not flouridated too - but then, to be honest, I think you are shortchanging yourself a bit. That flouride isn't a bad thing, from everything I've read. This also, to me, ties into people coming up with ways to provide their home's energy independently by way of solar cells, small wind turbines, etc. Living off the grid, or less on the grid in any case, will be a growing trend.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 11:31 AM) We are toxifying ourselves, for sure. Flourine in our water. Pesticides on our crops. Mind altering drugs being prescribed by our physicians left and right. Who knows what they are putting in the skies with chemtrails. It isn't just CO2, my friend. It's damn near everything we eat, drink or breathe. That's pretty much my point. The CO2 is emblamatic of the larger, overall issue. Just a single indicator, if you will, that gives us a clue as to how much other crap we're tossing into out environment.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 11:07 AM) And looking at the polls is what made me question how important it has become in the GOP. The polls contain clues, but its not as simple as the numbers look. Giuliani is the only pro-choice candidate, and he has 20-something percent support. The other 70-something percent are against him. They don't want a social moderate. Also, look at the trends. Huckabee, Romney and McCain are all on the rise to some extent. Giuliani is really the only one falling significantly. And Thompson's weak numbers are pretty clearly not a result of his issue stands - its his campaign. Finally, note that Giuliani leads national polls, but in states he has actually campaigned in - states where they have gotten an actual look at the candidates - he's way behind. That's a key stat. He's less liked the more people see of him. His standing in the national polls is name recognition, 9/11 and not much else. The religious conservatives have been sitting on the sidelines or spread out over other candidates. When the field thins, and Giuliani doesn't win IA or NH, the couple or three candidates who do well in those states will pick up the votes of the drop-outs as well as some from Giuliani, and he's done.

QUOTE(chisox2334 @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 11:05 AM) http://www.star-telegram.com/284/story/304298.html Hunter wants 7 yr deal More negotiating. All part of the game.

According to a study published by the US Climate Change Science Program - that's the Bush Administration's climate research arm, by the way - says that North America only has the ecological capacity to absorb about 27% of the CO2 that is produced here. The rest is left available to contribute to warming and other problems. Now, for those in the unsure or outright denial of CCGW, take a look at that number in a completely different light. Forget CCGW. Where is a lot of that CO2? Its contained in various sorts of pollution generated by human activities. So what does this number tell us? It says that the continent is probably also only absorbing 27% of the pollution being pumped into the air and water. This is what I have been harping on for a while - forget just climate change, and look at how bad pollution can be. This is the air we breathe, the water we drink, the plants and animals we eat... this is us. We're toxifying ourselves. We need more green spaces and green matter (the demand side if you will), and we need to reduce our use of highly polluting products (the supply side). Not doing so will cost us untold amounts of money and pain in health problems alone.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 10:38 AM) Is Pro-Life that important of an endorsement anymore? For a certain slice of the Republican base, I'd say it is. That slice may be a bit smaller nowadays, but its still a big chunk.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 10:32 AM) So what if he does a hop? As long as he still catches the ball. He's averaging at fielding the balls, but pretty great at throwing runners out. Hell, Rowand misplays balls but he's thought of as a great defensive CF. Every outfielder does. Its a question of frequency. And Soriano does it far more often than, say, Rowand. Or Hunter, or heck Jerry Owens. Actually, I'd say Soriano is the perfect defensive alter-ego of Owens, who has a weak arm but takes much better lines to batted balls and has better hands.

Another random thread from our friend Tex Add him to the list of folks a few cards short of full decks

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 09:44 AM) In this case, the slander may bite Romney more than it bites Thompson. And it only highlights the endorsement further for Thompson anyway. Makes the story linger.