NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 06:52 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 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.

Apparently Sweeney read the Trib this morning, which pointed out that all his hits in the AFL had been singles. Not anymore. Today's action... Sweeney: 1-4, HR, 3 RBI, 2 R, BB Getz: 0-3, 2 BB, RBI, R Russell: 1.0 IP, 3 H, 1 ER, 1 BB, 1 K

QUOTE(BobDylan @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 05:03 PM) Name it with spoiler alerts around. I've seen it, I want to see what you're talking about. DO IT IN PM'S!!!!!!!!!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 04:49 PM) A high level Romney Supporter is alleging in the Washington Times that the Thompson campaign paid off the National Right to Life committee in exchange for its endorsement. Sour grapes if I've ever heard it. 100% speculation. Thompson has a record well-aligned with that organization - this should be no surprise to anyone.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 02:42 PM) It never does say if he is paying for all of that usage. As I understand it in Chicago, people don't actually pay for their usage, just the service, so there is no incentive to cut back. Oh no, us Chicagoans pay for usage levels. It just happens to be that water is dirt cheap in the city, thanks to the lake.

Update on the discussion of the drought in Georgia and the south... Anyone else see this guy? He was using... wait for it... 440,000 gallons of water a month for his residence. That's 14,667 gallons per day, 611 gallons per hour, just over 10 gallons per minute or a gallon for every 7 seconds or so, every second of every day. This is what I was getting at with people lacking an undertanding that natural resources are not unlimited. I mean, is he running two showers 24/7 or something? WTF is this guy doing with all that water? Anyway, good news is, county authorities have dropped the hammer, and this guy now has his consumption down to 121,000 on the last monthly bill - still more than 4,000 gallons per day. Unreal.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 01:59 PM) http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110010855 That is very encouraging, and its definitely one of the major reasons why this country is such a great place to be. One "but" though: income mobility income equality Mobility staying high is a good sign, but it doesn't cover all the bases. Income mobility can be high and there can still be a widening gap between given relative points on the income scale beyond the factor of inflation.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 01:14 PM) I dunno, Romney v Hillary might be even worse IMO. As much as I dislike Mitt Romney, I'd rather have him over Giuliani. Romney is less repulsive to me personally, and I think he's got a much better experience profile. He managed to, as a Republican in a very blue state, do some positive things. Giuliani is, as far as I can see, living off 9/11. NY's crime rate drops and other positive changes were well underway before him, and they weren't as tied to police changes as he and Kerik would lead you to believe. In that matchup, right now, I'd be hard-pressed to decide who to vote for.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 11:58 AM) I'd be all for the move, Tucson is a lame ass dust bowl. Phoenix is not exactly NYC, but it beats the hell out of Tucson. Tucson has a few nice areas - not near the park though. And its really an overgrown college town. Phoenix is an actual city.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 12:30 PM) Although I'm no Hillary fan, as it stands right now, this year I vote for the person with the D attached - hands down. It has nothing to do with party loyalty, but rather with the choices that our country has to make right now in foreign policy (and by that I mean everywhere but Iraq.) I honestly find most GOP candidates foreign policy ideas to be really myopic and too quick to eschew diplomacy for the gunboat. The only exception to that is McCain, but the man is just as much a panderer as Hillary is, so why change horses midstream? What about Mr. Paul?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 12:27 PM) We'd need a much bigger military. There are really only two ways to accomplish that. One is politically unacceptable and will never happen. The other is so expensive as to probably wipe out any savings over using these private companies - though at least we'd have more control.

Magnitude is one of a few factors that dictate the amount of damage caused. Another key one is depth. This earthquake occured 37 miles beneath the surface - which seems awfully deep to me. But maybe one of our resident scientists can say just how deep that is, relatively. Another factor is terrain. Mountainous areas can often mean the damage dissipates in a much shorter distance around the epicenter. Like transferring force through a pile of bricks, as opposed to a bucket of sand. Because of the gaps and cracks, it dissipates quicker in the bricks, so the damage radius is smaller.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 11:16 AM) First enforce the laws that exist. That would pretty much "strengthen our borders" by cutting off the demand for illegals alone. That would be good.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 11:17 AM) Didn't the military sieze like 20k tons of weapons and ammo just in the last month or so? Aren't they more effective in their pursuit of the cells of insurgents that are still terrorizing parts of the country? My thinking is that the leaders of the insurgency are finally at a point where they understand that if they continue as they were they'd be finished in the short-term. However if they scale back and regroup they'll be more effective in the long term. This means not only entering the political arena, but also restrategizing their hope to take over the country. I was a pro-war guy in the beginning who has watched this admnistration continually f*ck up to the point it's almost laughable how they handled this war. But I'm also convinced that by leaving now we'd lose any long-term benefit of going there in the first place. That being said, I think this reduction in attacks is only temporary. I really see it as the insurgent leadership getting smart and realizing they can do more harm later if the relax their efforts a bit. That is my fear - and why I am hoping that political leaders, both Iraqi and American, seize this opportunity and try to build on it. If they don't, I think we'll see exactly what you are talking about.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 11:05 AM) Note that I said FIRST, secure the borders. I'd think you could do both at the same time. But, if you had to pick one or the other, I think you'll get much more bang for your buck by addressing the demand first. Think about the math. You want to REALLY secure the border with Mexico? A wall as some have discussed, or heck even the virtual wall I have proposed, you are talking tens of billions of dollars (or for the wall, hundreds of billions). For a tiny fraction of that, you can enact tougher laws, and hire a few hundred people whose job it is to find, clean out, fine and collect from businesses who hire illegals. As demand plummets, people will stop being in such a hurry to come across.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 10:57 AM) No illegals, no issues. If there is business demand, no matter hwo much you spend trying to secure the border, illegals will still come in. You need to both secure the borders AND do a lot more to stem demand for illegal labor. You can't do just one of the two and expect to make a significant dent.

Much of the discussions we had about Blackwater, DynCorp and other private security firms in Iraq was in other Iraq threads, but there is a lot of discussion, so here is a new thread. Update: FBI says at least 14 Blackwater shooting cases unjustified.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 10:22 AM) Sadly, I think a lot of people that will point to the character flaws would be attacked as religious whack jobs. I have done my best to separate her actions from her husbands. I truly believe she would not take a backseat to him, and would be her own person as president. But looking at the kinds of problems with her campaign, and the questionable ethics, I have to say no thanks to her. Its not often I get labeled a religious whack job. Anyway, they are both just as scummy as can be, and one doesn't have to be a devout, hard core Christian to see that in either case.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 10:11 AM) Here is one crazy little circle we have going, and why this is going to be ugly for a long time. We're losing this war, let's get the hell out and let the chips fall where they may. We're winning this war, hurray let's get out. Mission Accomplished. We're losing this war, we need to stay the course and get the job done. We're winning this war with the surge, we need to stay the course and get the job done. If someone is of the opinion we should leave, it doesn't matter if we are winning or lose, and same for staying. Plus, we have no way to knowing what an acceptable level of violence is for Iraq. It's like we're starting with the street crime in Washington D.C. and trying to turn it into Andy Griffin's Mayberry. It ain't going to happen. That is an impossible reduction of violence. If we reported gang crime in NY, LA, Houston, or Chicago like the Iraq War, many days it will look pretty similar. You were fine until that last sentence. Not even close. You can combine the deaths and assaults from gang violence in those cities together and they'd still be a small fraction of what happens daily in Baghdad alone, even with the drop in violence there.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 09:58 AM) I honestly would not vote in a Rudy v. Hillary contest. I'm taking character pretty seriously this go around, which is why I'm sitting on McCain right now. I'd vote - but I'd vote for a different party or candidate.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 09:25 AM) You don't get anywhere politically until there is a law and order in a country. That isn't just Iraq, that's anywhere. The surge put a cramp into plans of the organizations who were terrorizing Iraq to the point where a political solution started to sound much more attractive then when they had free reign in large swaths of the country. But the other side of the coin is that there isn't a lasting peace until there is a political solution. You might be able to take control of a sitution short-term, which is what I believe happened, but then you need the people to work it out from there, which seems to be happening as we speak. Will it last, who knows? But I do believe its not a one sided thing, (military or political)as much as each side would have you believe. These are mutually dependant. That mutually dependent thing is important, and the fact that it isn't one side or the other is what I was getting at. But I think it was more like neither, than both - if that makes sense. The idea of them stepping back is indeed prompted by, among a number of things, military pressure - but is that the surge, or the fact that they've been chased around for 4 or 5 years now? There is also an apparent groundswell of public support in Iraq for peace as well, and that also plays a part. Point is this - I've seen definitive connections made for certain causes to this shift. The chieftains or whatever and their actions are one. The public support for the political process is another. In both cases, you see action and consequence, but you also see causality. For the surge, I see no causality. The surge happened, increasing troop levels by like 10%, and changing tactics. Did that cause anything specific? Is something more under control? This is similar to the global warming debate. If I simply point to a graph and say "look, temperatures are up this decade/century", and assume its global warming, you should rightly laugh me out of the room. I have action (pollution) and result (warming), but fail to make a connection between the two. Now, if I then show you that CO levels are well above those at any time in hundreds of millenia, that glaciers that have stood for millenia are melting, and that the ice caps are receding to less than they've ever been... I can at least make an argument of connection there (even if its still arguable). What is the connection in the case of the surge? What did the surge DO, other than put more boots on the ground, that made the locals change their minds? Also, the drop being so precipitous, to me, makes it pretty clear this isn't the surge causing subjigation of the enemy. If it was, the drop would be gradual. Not a sudden fall after a few years of consistent rise. Something dramatic has changed.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 09:20 AM) I just watched 2001 last night for the first time in several years on Hi-Def Blue Ray at a friend's house. I think Kubrick's film interpretation is exponentially better than Arthur Clarke's original short story or his novel adapttation, although the screenplay is of course done by both of them. Damn, that film is still absolutely gorgeous. Related, sort of... Rendezvous with Rama is in pre-production last I checked on IMDB, directed by David Fincher, and apparently starring Morgan Freeman.

Holy crap did this get ugly. Thread closed.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 08:18 AM) oh, no NSS, the military shouldn't get ANY credit. Come on. You're better then that. I know, I'm parsing words, but the root of your post is just not true. I think they go hand in hand. Read Nuke's posts, and I've read some others that are very similiar, and I don't think it's propaganda bull s***, either. These people have the proverbial foot upside their head and are now being asked to be a part of the process. It doesn't happen unless the military changed tactics - which they did. I am sure it came off as such, but I am not saying the military doesn't deserve some credit for it. The pressure I am sure helped a lot. But the situation itself, the turn of events if you will, was prompted outside of what anyone expected, myself included. I don't think anyone here predicted or anticipated that these chieftains or whatever you want to call them would suddenly, somewhat en masse, decide to step back, and reach out to the Iraqi government. That was not a militarily driven event. And just to be clear on this too... I am not saying these things because I think the military is incapable. I think they are very capable at the things they are meant to do. But they are stretched way too thin, even with the surge. And they are, still, the military - they don't reach out to political leaders to make compromises or increase involvement (usually). So the fact that this isn't a militarily driven shift is in no way a reflection of military failure - its a reflection of a change in the non-military situation, which resulted in some military-related consequences. Is that more clear?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 07:52 PM) Even if you want to say the progress has come because of political manuevering, I believe it was made possible by the military getting control and forcing people's hands. The military doesn't control anything now more than they did. Heck, even these articles that think its about the surge... have you seen any that made any sort of point as to anything the military has done to "take more control"? They haven't. Heck, when the surge started, that wasn't even a goal - the goals were about more penetration, saturation of chosen areas, etc. Deaths are down because the bringers of that death are on voluntary hiatus. I sincerely hope that hiatus can become something more.