NorthSideSox72

Fun article where theater critics from the Trib review the "performances" of the Dem candidates in the latest debate from their perspective. I hope they do this with the GOP as well.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 11:39 AM) http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002566387.html. Bi-partisan enough for you. That certainly does make it clearer. And further, it doesn't look like either party was doing anything intentionally illegal. The text you pasted in earlier made it seem like the vote ended 215-213, and that the gaveller (is that a word?) somehow did something underhanded to take it off the floor. That clearly was not the case. In reality, the vote fluctuated all over the place, and at one point even went 215-213 in favor. Most of the rest of the time though, including after the vote changes, the measure failed. So I can understand investigating, but to make this out like the Dems were out trying to rob a vote is just not accurate. I believe I've heard plenty of people use the phrase "manufactured rage" - and that is what this looks like to me. The article even states that when the gavel was falling, it was in fact 214-214.

QUOTE(WhiteSoxFan1 @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 11:47 AM) eh I dont think so man. I know this comes off as insecure and needy, but ive got my mind set on this girl. Its uncharacteristic, but im not settling for anything else until I know where I stand with this girl. Have you tried... I don't know... asking her?

QUOTE(Soxy @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 11:00 AM) Thanks! I will try that as soon as I get home. You can just cut a lemon open and put it against the sting for a minute - easier than trying to put juice on it directly. This works well for mosquito or other bites too. Plus the ice on and off is good. And you only need the ice for like 15 minutes at a time, tops.

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 10:45 AM) Well now... that clears up how much I have been paying attention to the Sox these days. He's picthed maybe a handful of times. Not doing great, but not being pummelled either (except 1 outing). Considering he's so new, he's doing well. I was psyched to see him called up - I have a soft spot for players who make their way up the chain the hard way (he got in via an open tryout), and who succeed despite not having the as high a level of natural tools as many others.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 09:37 AM) I got stung by a couple of bees on the top of my foot on Saturday, and it still hurts like a mofo, and is swollen. Bleh. Stupid bees. Lemon juice and ice.

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 10:36 AM) Anyone have any current info on him? I know he's with B'Ham, but is he "stick a fork in him" done? He's on the White Sox. ??? I have an AAP page on him in that forum as well. but he's been with the big club a few weeks now, doing reasonably well.

I'd really like to see them try Fields in LF. It just makes so much sense. Fields is a sub-par defensive 3B, whereas Crede is well above average. The team has an obvious need for outfielders. Fields is young, cheap and developing fairly well. If Crede isn't healthy or is traded, Fields can move back to 3B with no harm done. And maybe the Sox can get an OF out of a deal for Crede.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 09:52 AM) Faced with a clear example of vote fraud, the House has agreed to investigate .. itself. The day after Democratic leadership in the House attempted to nullify a completed floor vote, the Majority Leader had to issue an apology and agree to an extraordinary bipartisan panel to probe the actions of House leadership: The House last night unanimously agreed to create a special select committee, with subpoena powers, to investigate Republican allegations that Democratic leaders had stolen a victory from the House GOP on a parliamentary vote late Thursday night. The move capped a remarkable day that started with Republicans marching out of the House in protest near midnight Thursday, was punctuated by partisan bickering, and ended with Democratic hopes for a final legislative rush fading. Even a temporary blackout of the House chamber's vote tally board led to suspicions and accusations of skullduggery. While Democratic leaders hoped to leave for their August recess on a wave of legislative successes, the House instead slowed to an acrimonious crawl that threatened to stretch the legislative session into next week. The agreement to form a special committee was extraordinary. Such powerful investigative committees are usually reserved for issues such as the Watergate scandal and the funneling of profits from Iranian arms sales to the Nicaraguan contras in the 1980s. "I don't know when something like this has happened before," said House deputy historian Fred W. Beuttler. He called the decision "incredible." It started when Democrats gaveled a vote to a close on a bill that would have prevented federal aid going to illegal immigrants. The Democrats insisted that the vote had been a tie, 214-214, but C-SPAN showed the vote as 215-213 for the Republicans. The Democrats tried to keep the vote from the record, and then belatedly reported it as a 216-212 loss for the GOP. Republicans erupted in outrage. Democrats had earlier in this session changed the previous rules allowing votes to remain open at the discretion of the president of the session, a practice they called unfair while in the minority. Instead, Republicans charged, they simply disregarded the result of a vote and replaced it with their own desires -- a highly dangerous precedent that creates dictatorial rule by the majority leadership. If allowed to stand, the incident would eliminate any requirement to actually vote at all in the House. The panel will consist of three Republicans and three Democrats. They have a deadline for an interim report of September 30th of this year, with the final report due a year later -- just before the next elections. In the meantime, the GOP wants the vote to return to its gavelled result. If they do not get that, the Republicans will likely embark on a series of parliamentary manuevers that will keep House leadership from accomplishing any of their top agenda items. After all, the Republicans have nothing to lose as long as Nancy Pelosi disregards the results of legitimate votes and rules by decree instead. Source? Was this from an actual news organization? I'm guessing not, given the snarky last sentence. If indeed they pulled that kind of crap, frankly, whomever did the closure on the vote should lose their parliamentary position.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 09:28 AM) Het how about the Dems committing vote fraud in the House on Thurs. night. I'm glad they are upholding their pledge for a new way to do business, i.e. ehtics. What are you talking about?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 08:56 AM) 12600 is the 10% official Bear market. We have to get down there and test that area first before you can really tell if this selloff has legs, or is just looking for the technical correction to get it out of the way. I so dislike the DJIA as a measure of the markets. I really wish they'd focus more on the 500, as well as the Russell.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 02:43 AM) Even if Bonds is a steroid user, cheater, liar, racist, a-hole, he is still a husband and a father. Part of being a man is to respect that about other men. So, when his wife and kids are at a game to celebrate his accomplishment and some f***ball is booing and giving him the finger, yeah I think that's disrespectful. Obviously, his family is not thin skinned or they wouldn't continue to go to the games. That's not the point. Disagree if you like. Well, there is a difference between booing, and then going further and yelling obscenities or threats. Those are probably too far. And certainly, there is no need to direct anything AT his family. That's just classless.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 11:28 PM) Yes, it is, as far as idealogy, and that is what I meant. QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 11:29 PM) Again, who gives a s***? They are all cut from the same political cloth, and that is what I mean when I say we don't have real choices. Look. This is a semantic argument, so I'll try one more time and then give up. I was illustrating in my post that this crowd is NOT the same old people we see every time. I pointed out religion/race/gender, but ALSO pointed out differences in approach, background and stances. I am not saying these are all great candidates - I am saying that for the first time in my memory, the crowd has gotten more political diverse and more broad in spectrum of background, instead of the previous trend of being more and more tired and plastic. You apparently both disagree. I think what this comes down to is, we're all disillusioned with the candidates we see for high offices. I'm right with you. But when the negative trend abates, even temporarily or slightly, I think its important to recognize that and grasp onto it. If you just look at it as slightly less but still evil (which it is), and let that dominate your view, then no progress can be made. Its like rewarding a child for going from a C- to a C. Yeah, still not what you want, but if you don't reinforce that, you can forget about B's or A's.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 10:44 PM) Found an aikido dojo in downtown Urbana. They offer two month introductory adult classes basic techniques, etiquette and safety for $50. If the instructor consents after the two month session, then you can join the dojo as a member ($45 a month and $20 a year to the US Aikido Foundation). After I complete my move, I am going to go see if I can sit in on a class to see if I'd like it and then if I do, go for the introductory classes. (And damn, I am tired. I spent all day loading and unloading boxes and then cleaning my apartment a little bit. I've got more to do tomorrow too, haha.) Everything Gleason said. Plus, Aikido is where many of Hapkido's forms originate from. Hapkido (Royal Korean martial art) is a hybrid of sorts. If you are looking for the sparring aspect, Aikido might not be the best choice. But for the building of physical and mental stamina and balance, and some cool stuff, its a great choice.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 06:06 PM) f*** that. I'd boo him walking down the street with his wife and kids. I'll shoot between. At the park, its about the way he has disrespected the fans and the game - so you betcha I'd boo him. But on the street? No. Out of bounds. Off the field, I don't know him from Adam. My dislike for him is about baseball. So that's the only place I'd boo him.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 06:01 PM) So, Kalapse and I are the only two who didn't think the Simpsons movie was hilarious? I thought it was "meh" at best. I agree it was, for the most part, nothing special. It had a few very funny moments, but most of it was blah.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 06:32 PM) The Pakistani military. Musharraf has lost power. The military has not. Musharraf was the one who lead the military coup. Are you saying that he has now lost control of that same military?

Charlotte @ Durham, underway. Currently 3-3. Sisco v Howell. B-Ham @ Mobile, 6:05 CT start, Wing v Vasquez W-S is off. Kanny @ Lakewood, underway, Lakewood up 5-4 through 4. Rice v Monasterios Bristol @ Kingsport, 6:00 CT start Great Falls @ Missoula, 6:00 CT start

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 05:30 PM) So what other group has enough organization, backing, military might, and power to step into a vaccuum in Pakistan? Unfortunately, we really do not. If we had stayed focused on Afghanistan and kept things going there, we'd be in a position to do that now in Paki if it were necessary. India has the resources, if they had US and UK assistance... but the animosity there is too much. Anything they tried to do would immediately be doomed. Honestly, we're not going to make that sweep in Pakistan. Won't happen. What is a strong possibility is that Pakistan will destabilize no matter what we do. And my point has been mostly that I'd rather have Al Qaeda out than in, given that scenario. People are focused on Iraq, Iran and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but if Musharaff is overthrown violently, then we are looking at a major regional upheaval. Not good.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 05:29 PM) Just because someone is a difference race or gender, doesn't mean they are a different candidate or politician. I still want to know what kind of President they would be. I could care less if the first Martian were running. Yes I know. And I am in agreement. I was responding to a specific point about them being the same, when they are not. But because I agree with your point here, you will see I also discussed each candidate's unique characteristics as a candidate - political background, style, etc. Regardless of race or gender, this is the most diverse field I can ever remember seeing... governors, senators, house reps, mayors, actors and talking heads... people from all over the spectrum on both sides of the aisle (though no true middle-of-the-road candidate)... people from all over the country... people of different generations. There really is a huge variety.

Very cool. FYI, Miranda is a switch hitter. And you have John Lujan double-listed in W-S.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 05:17 PM) I know it is popular to look at things like that, but I could care less. I would really like to hear more about them and what they want to do, than to look at them by race/gender etc. I agree with you 100%. I was responding to the idea that this was the "same old crowd", which it really isn't. The fact that both fields are so big still, is making it difficult for messages to get through. And the ones we DO get are the top 2 or 3 in each party, because the media gets lazy. What would be great is if both parties' leadership would go in about find a way to get their fields narrowed - like down to maybe 5 in each party. Some of these candidates could be talked down with promises of contingent future government positions, etc. These debates would be a lot more interesting with 5 instead of 10. Or, even better but not in the vicinity of realistic... we go to 100% public funding of campaigning, AND the press gets in the habit of trying to balance coverage of all the candidates regardless of pedigree.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 05:07 PM) They are both of those things and more. Jesus going into Pakistan in any form would guarentee the downfall of a friendly government and it would lose any help at all in that region. It would also put WMD into the hands of an enemy Islamic state. Well see, I don't think that is seeing the long run. In the short run, yes, a military action might destabilize Musharaff's government. Maybe. But going past that point, where are things in 5 or 10 years? Because the way it is now, regardless of us being involved or not, Musharaff won't last forever. And the question you do need to ask is, who do you want at the table when he walks away from it? You sure don't want Al Qaeda around as any kind of force.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 04:59 PM) @ Salon.com, you can get free access by watching an ad (it's sort of their way of making money from people without having them subscribe). Very interesting piece with Gingrich basically going totally off message during a speech. If you're using adblock or something like that on Firefox you might have difficulty viewing it. Just read it. Very interesting. Funny thing about candidates who don't toe the party line. On the GOP side, you have two candidates who aren't good little soldiers - Giuliani and Gingrich*. Which normally should make me a supporter, but, as it turns out, they are both unbelievable assholes. On the Dem side, there are only two candidates I'd call politically moderate - Clinton and Richardson. And Clinton is just such a terrible leader for so many reasons, I can't support her. I like Richardson, but he does have a habit of making bizarre statements, and I don't think he has much of a shot. Its too bad that the few candidates who seem like people genuinely honest in their views and conduct - the Kucinich's and Hunters of the world - are just so politically out of line with the American public. And the ones closest to middle are such jerks.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 04:27 PM) It might sound good to some, but we are talking about a pre-emptive military invasion of an ally. At least Iraq was our enemy and thumbing their nose at the entire world, what has Pakistan done to us? You can bet if this was said by someone like Mitt or McCain, the spin would be vicious and entirely different. From some, yes, of course there would be negative spin. Not from me, though. I said years ago we took our eye of the ball, we should have stayed where we were and actually finished the job. And Pakistan is our ally only because Musharaff is masterful at standing on that razor's edge - balancing the extremist elements in his country against the pro-western moderates. They are an ally like Saudi Arabia is an ally. And if Al Qaeda was based in Saudi, I'd say the same thing. The fact that Pakistan is an "ally" isn't really relevant in this case. What IS relevant though, and what we'd need to be very careful about, is if Musharaff lost control. If more extremist elements of Pakistan took control, and thereby had nukes... well, that would be very, very bad. Which on its face seems to indicate that Obama's view isn't logical - why put Musharaff in an even worse position? In the longer view though, if more extremist elements did in fact take control of Pakistan, and if we DIDN'T get Al Qaeda out of there... that is even worse. Pakistan, at this point, scares me more than almost any other country. I sincerely hope that we have a plan ready to intercede at a moment's notice should Musharaff's government collapse - one which would need a lot of help from India to succeed. We'd need to prop Musharaff back up into power. We don't have the resources to control yet another country, and the Pakis would never allow India to do so. End game is that we want the nukes controlled by a moderate government, and for the likes of Al Qaeda to NOT be in the country during the transition. Anyway, that line of reasoning could go on and on. Pakistan is not only a big mystery, but they are a huge danger as well. I think we'd be well off to do everything we can to protect Musharaff or any other moderate successor (if we aren't already).