NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 09:21 AM) Didn't they do the same thing with that NASA guy a while back with regards to CCGW? Yeah, its not new. This administration really dislikes letting the public actually hear scientific evidence of anything that doesn't fit their view. Everyone spins, but this admin takes that and just goes straight to good old fashioned censorship.

Trib reports that Hahn was kept out of many discussions at the organizational meetings because of his being recruited for other jobs. Secrecy and all. Sounds to me like they think he is likely to leave.

This is great news, but I sure as heck hope that BushCo realizes WHY its happening. It has zero to do with the surge. Its about a different, positive thing going on - US and Iraqi military officers striking new relationships with tribal leader-types (sometimes insurgents), trying to get them involved. The insurgents are waiting that out, seeing a possibility for getting things right. Its a great thing, and I hope it sticks. But remember that those same people have made it clear that if the US doesn't fulfill its promises in those discussions, we're going straight back to hell in a handbasket over there.

Just a little reminder, in case any of you out there were under the false impression that the mainline Republican party or the administration have any interest at all in smaller or more efficient government. At this point, neither major party can lay claim to being fiscal conservatives, and haven't been able to during this decade. Your choices are now tax-and-spend (costing you money now), or spend-and-spend (costing you lots more money later).

Not to be forgotten, there are major health impacts on all of us related to climate change. Unfortunately the administration has decided that we shouldn't hear from those silly scientists and their facts.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Oct 23, 2007 -> 11:55 PM) I think it's time to at least start paying attention to Bourgeois. Its weird though, he's a minor league free agent come spring, and the team hasn't added him to the 40. It seems like they aren't interested. I just don't get why.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Oct 23, 2007 -> 08:54 PM) Original quote from the Washington Post quote Original site I found this on Clinton House Report quoted Danka. I'll add this to the stuff YASNY gave me and have plenty of reading material for the plane ride back to the states.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 23, 2007 -> 07:16 PM) If you misspeak, you accidentally call Osama, Obama. When you continue with another sentence about what the Democrats want to do when you're talking about what Bin Laden said, it's not misspeaking. Romney is running for the nomination, not for President right now. This helps him. I guess I think that sort of thing helps Giulaini or McCain (who are trying to prove their conservative credentials) more than it does Romney or Thompson (who are looked at that way anyway). Then again, Romney has been flip-flopping pretty wildly, so maybe he does indeed need to solidify that a bit. I think I'll retract my statement.

This is scary stuff. It brings up the spector of a reality that the country has been sort of in denial of - the population, particularly in the mountainous west, is moving more and more into areas that by nature do this very thing periodically. What is the solution? QUOTE(bmags @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 02:48 PM) i bet it was a firefighter that started it. As I recall, that huge Show Low fire in Arizona a couple years back was started by a backcountry firefighter who was at the time out of work. That fire burned tens of thousands of acres and killed people. Then there was the one started by a park ranger in Colorado, as she tried to burn a goodbye letter from a man who had left her. That one was huge too.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Oct 23, 2007 -> 10:01 AM) per Rotoworld. Possible destinations??? * Somewhere in California, San Jose??? * Las Vegas * Portland * San Antonio (7th largest US city!!!!) * Indianapolis (13th largest US city) * Memphis * Charlotte other ideas??? The cities that come up in MLB location discussions that seem to have the best supporting factors are Vegas, Portland, San Antonio/McAllen, Charlotte or somewhere in the Carolinas, Albuquerque/Santa Fe, Nashville, and San Juan, PR. Memphis has zero chance - no money in that town (a huge key factor people forget), their AAA team doesn't draw well, they are very close to STL... If its Tennessee, then its Nashville, which is like Memphis except with money and the location to draw from a much larger baseball dead space. But even Nashville is probably last on that list - baseball just doesn't draw in that part of the country like it does in others. All that said, the A's seem likely to stay in Cali. On the other hand, one of those Florida teams WILL leave in the next decade, I'd bet on it.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Oct 23, 2007 -> 02:48 PM) The problem is Cook county is extremely wasteful. These massive tax increases will continue until people have had enough and demand a more efficient local government. Don't blame me, I voted for Peraica. And I would have liked Claypool even better, but since he's not machine, he wasn't going to get the Dem nod. I think Stroger will be out the next election. This is just too far. The suburban Cook voters will come out in droves after this stunt, after skipping the last election.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 23, 2007 -> 06:13 PM) Misspoke my ass. Stupid tactic, if it was intentional. What is accomplished? Fire up the Christian base? Already going to happen or not happen regardless. Romney isn't going to draw many Dem votes. That leaves the middle of the pack, and I'm guessing they aren't likely to start thinking that Obama is related to Osama.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 23, 2007 -> 04:54 PM) he picked one, that's ballsy I'd call it more just plain bad decision-making than ballsy. He should have known that would get out, and NY is not a given for Giuliani in a national election. Not real smart. Besides, I think choosing Colorado would have been smarter for him politically, if he was going to choose at all. It keeps him in NY's good graces, Massachusetts is a lost cause for him anyway (though I suppose NH isn't in the primary), and Colorado is a heavily contested state.

First, I agree with Mr. G that when something that seems important is buried in the outer reaches of media, missed by the "MSM" or other popular outlets, it is the duty of strong-minded people to bring it to the world's attention. That sort of thing will, in my opinion, help the mainstream media stay a little closer to on-target for real news. Otherwise, it will continue to be dominated by stories of nooses, Britney Spears and other assorted nonsense. Second, I am not sure that this rises to the level of national headline-type attention. Not to diminish how insensitive and degrading the act was, but on the scale of things, it doesn't get anywhere near the thousands of other bad things that happen every day. Third... this war looks more and more like Vietnam every damn day.

SSI - could I have the link for that article/piece? I just want to read the report details. Not questioning it at all, I don't doubt the number in theory. I am just curious about some other aspects.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 23, 2007 -> 09:58 AM) Sure, there's opportunities with every business "shift". I'm not that stupid, but thanks for insinuating that I am. (I'm kidding on the last part). Irish linked one such "cost" report on cleaning up our environment. It would kill the steel industry, put us in a situation where the power grid (which is already on thin ice) would completely fail, etc. I think OVER TIME it can be done, but to listen to the Goracle, we're going to die in 10 years if we don't fix it NOW. In all seriousness, there has to be a shift in thinking, and I'm all for that. I think we can work towards cleaning things up but it has to be done in a way that will not disrupt the economy... AND Asian countries (read: China and India) need to be on board as well. I haven't seen anyone ask for the kind of massive shifts that would wreck the steel industry (though, honestly, that industry is 75% wrecked anyway for entirely non-environmental reasons). Now, I am sure there are some crazies out there calling for unrealistic changes. But looking, for example, at energy independence, a stronger push for green space and putting a REAL pollution credit market out there... you could do those things in a way that wouldn't wreck any industries at all, and in fact probably make the overall economy much more robust.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 23, 2007 -> 09:26 AM) The costs of "cleaning up our environment" such that the Goracle proposes would pretty much shut down capitalism as we know it. But that's ok, socialism is really what most of them are after anyway. Quite the opposite - its a huge business opportunity. In fact, continuing your parallel... the cost to have gotten this country COMPELTELY energy independent, as an example, would cost less than the over 1 trillion dollar cost so far of the Iraq War, have resulted in a ton of new jobs, cleaned up our environment substantially and done a lot more to make us safer than this debacle of a war. But hey, hyperbole seems to work better than fact, yeah?

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 09:48 PM) Currently watching Egbert implode, walking three straight. Up until that he was stout. Egbert: 2.1 IP, 3 H, 2 ER, 4 BB, 4 K (I wouldn't call that an implosion, but a sloppy outing anyway) Hernandez: 1.0 IP, 1 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 0 K (still no runs given up in AFL play) Getz: 1-4, SB, R (.278) Sweeney: 0-4, SF RBI, BB, 3 K (average dropped to .241) Lucy: 0-2, BB, SB, K, E (throwing), 1 SB and 1 CS against (Lucy struggling badly at the plate, hitting .059 - not good)

What is worst about these tax proposals out there for Chicago, Cook and IL, is that there ARE some things in there that DO need more funding. Mass transit particularly (which the county has nothing to do with). I hope if doesn't get battered again because a bunch of other B.S. is being proposed with it.

By the way, I want to address two particular arguments I am seeing about the whole climate change / global warming thing (hereafter called CCGW) - one from each side... --I see posters who feel that CCGW is a given doing exactly what jenksismyb**** pointing out - lumping together those who are in denial of climate change and its consequences in their entirety, and those who acknowledge he reality and possible consequences but are not decided yet on how much (if any) human effect is there. I personally feel there is a ton of solid scientific evidence (not just leaps of faith) indicating such - but I have plenty of respect for those choosing to be undecided at this time. I have similar feelings about other larger issues beyond my understanding, including those surrounding my faith. --I also see a lot of people who are skeptical of CCGW using as one of their base claims the argument that scientists are more likely to find in favor of CCGW because it will get them more (or continuing) grant money. This argument, to me, makes no sense. Getting a grant is about, more than anything, adding something NEW to the discussion. If you propose a doctoral thesis based on a theory that has already been tested numerous times, then you'd better either have some new/unique methodology, or go in with a different causation, or expect a different outcome... SOMETHING different than anyone else. I therefore think that this argument is actually quite the opposite - if a scientist with a real scientific background proposed a sound study saying "I think there is something else at work here", that would automatically give them an advantage in many forums for getting support. Yes, I am sure there are isntances where a professor or review board is SO biased that they won't hear the other side - but this would be true in both cases. The fact that there is such overwhelming conclusions in the community, using any thousands of different methodologies and stats, that show there is at least some human effect, are enough to make me feel highly confident that there is some truth there.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 07:48 PM) Beyond that I have no further comment. Not once have you ever had no further comment.

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Oct 21, 2007 -> 09:29 PM) I can't say specifically what if anything Nieves had to do with Jenks and his curveball. But considering Jenkins always had problems with control, it would not be out of the realm of possibility that Nieves helped him locate it better to make it an effective pitch and gave him the confidence to not stress of he bounced one or two. Those are common issues with young pitchers who have big breaking balls. There is very little margin between bouncing one in the dirt and hanging one. So it is possible that Nieves could have helped him with the pitch, yet did not show him how to throw it. So lots not get too tangled over words, shall we? That seems likely. I think when you see the word "develop", its not clear if that means create or enhance/improve. Probably the latter in this case.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Oct 21, 2007 -> 01:46 PM) Just curious. What do you think aboutt the term 'neocon'? Eh, I am not even 100% sure what that refers to. Seems like its used to talk about the current power base within the GOP - the religiously-motivated social conservatives. But since it just means "new conservatives", it seems like it would change over time. Its really not worth all this fuss, I just don't like some of the terms used. I think we've beaten this horse pretty thoroughly at this point.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Oct 21, 2007 -> 12:23 PM) Here's an article from LiveScience that presents both sides. Thanks for all the links YAS, I have some reading now. I'm looking forward to it.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Oct 21, 2007 -> 12:28 PM) I don't use it as an insult and have never considered it as so. Leftist, to me, describes a person's political outlook, like conservationalist describes a person's view on the environment. It has never crossed my mind that the term could be considered an insult and I don't really understand why it is. You probably don't use it that way. Others here do. I just think its a poor term. But maybe that's because I have never fit well in either category.