NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 9, 2007 -> 03:39 PM) http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/05/08/ashle...ling/index.html • Sterilization of profoundly disabled Washington girl violated law, investigation finds • "Ashley's treatment" removed girl's uterus, breast buds, at parents' request • Treatment has raised ethical questions, angered disability advocacy groups I don't like it. Makes my skin crawl, in fact. I am sure the parents' lives must be very, very trying, having this person in their care. But that should never justify the actions they took.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ May 9, 2007 -> 02:23 PM) Take the question metaphorically and 'fire' him from his unofficial spokesperson for all things black, quit putting him on talk shows and quit shoving microphones in front of his mouth. Turn your literal filters off for a moment and you may actually get a clue. I agree, but who are you pointing your ire at? As far as I can tell, like Balta said earlier, blame the idiots in the TV media for putting other idiots like Sharpton and Coulter on the tube. I don't think I know a single person who would consider either of them a spokesperson for anything.

QUOTE(Y2HH @ May 9, 2007 -> 01:49 PM) Since you asked how I respond to studies that show a significant health risk, I answer by researching it for myself, checking for counter studies that show little to no heath risk and then questioning both sides. Blindly following the one side that makes our life more convienent is NOT the answer, because it may be a decided inconvienence to others, even if you disagree with their stance. I don't smoke, but I still don't believe some cherry-picked data study that shows a clear agenda to ban smoking, researched and funded by people who hate smoke/smokers. A few questions you need to start asking are why were these studies made? Who made them? And is it possible that these "health risks" are only going to affect people who have a family history or faulty gene that allows it to affect them?! And furthermore, to get the data to support the arguement, did they flood the pool of people with those that show such a family history?! I bet you believed every word Michael Moore said in his movies, too...because you never bothered to see if there was another side to the story. You see, I can do that to you too...you know, just make totally ignorant assumptions like you keep doing in response to me? I'd appreciate it if you'd stop if you want to have an intelligent conversation, whether we agree or not. Because our government has nothing better to do than inspect the multitude of bars and other public places 24/7, nevermind the endless amounts of crime in the streets that they already don't have time for -- we have to make sure people are leaving the bars on time and not getting happy hour prices@!#$@!@! Yea...right. We all want to live in a utopian society, but that's not reality, nor will it ever be in our lifetimes. There you go again, taking personal, and quite ignorant shots at "my convoluted logic" and "my world". Not the best way to argue a point. Moving on. When it comes to complex issues, it often takes multiple GOOD solutions working together to solve them, not just multiple solutions, even if those "solutions" aren't good ones. Yes, in my world eliminating restrictions on alcohol wouldn't make a difference...and why?! Because it HAS NOT. Since this was your second "shot" at me, time to return fire by prooving you wrong on this once again, just so you stop trying to lean on this WEAK arguement over and over. Tex (the law) limits alcohol content in beer to 5%. Fine. Y2HH (the drunk) drinks 4 beers instead of 2. So much for your 5% limit. Y2HH (the drunk) drinks 4 shots of Everclear, completely EVADING your stupid beer law. So much for your 5% limit...again. Now, do you see where YOUR convoluted, and frankly, short-sighted logic fails?! First, the limit on alcohol content is only for imported and MACRO brew beer. Second, you can't limit how much a person can or will drink. PERIOD. For further proof, go to any brewhouse and you can get beer with 8+% alcohol content, so again...stop making up "facts" to support your bias, and frankly condescending method of argument, because you are simply WRONG in this case. These are not "good" solutions, they are stupid government mandated "bad" solutions so a bean-counter can sit behind a desk and say "we are doing all we can" when a mother asks WHY her son was killed by a drunk driver. Also, you seem to be forgetting there is much more available in terms of alcohol than beer. Tell me, since you seem so good at making up statistics on the spot -- whats the U.S. alcohol limit on Everclear? And since we all know the answer is NONE, because it's 100% pure grain alcohol...what stops me or someone else from going to a bar and drinking 5 shots of that, and then driving? Answer? Nothing, other than my own self control to NOT. Takes that same self control to not walk into a privatly owned business where smoking is permitted. Cool it, please. The ad hominem is pushing the limits here. You are both pretty.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ May 9, 2007 -> 01:26 PM) You know, this isn't a particularly good organization. There are a couple of things we excel at but on the whole, it's not even top fifteen, IMO, or if it is it's barely. I disagree. I'd say the opposite. The White Sox as an entire organization do most things well, but suck at a few specific things.

Source?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 9, 2007 -> 10:06 AM) They said the samething about Kennedy in 1960. That's a good point. At that time, having a Catholic in the White House seemed like a huge ideological shift. Nowadays, I suppose we are a little more open-minded as a nation, so we don't give a ton of thought to Protestant vs Catholic, or the like. We had a Jewish candidate in 2000, and his faith was not considered by most to be a huge factor.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 9, 2007 -> 09:56 AM) Interesting. I wouldn't agree with you, but it is interesting none the less. I did go to school in the heart of the memonite/amish areas of Indiana, and I can say that those people are 100% about their religion, and take a very literal interpretation of it. I also know many practicing Muslims and Jews, and they are as literal as anyone else I have ever seen. I think that Judaism, Islam and Christianity all have certain minority sects that are very literalist, and/or very strict followers. But I think that Mormons lack that range of involvement. It seems as if they are all very, very involved, invested, and stringent to their faith. But I certainly wouldn't doubt that Amish or Menonites are also similarly invested - I just have no experience or knowledge in that area. I guess what I am saying is this... Most of the candidates are Christian of one type or another. But I think that for most of them, while their level of faith or belief varies, their religion is not as strong an influence on their lives as it is likely to be for Romney.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ May 9, 2007 -> 09:04 AM) Capital is pretty awesome, I also love Rock Bottom for the pretzels. Down the street is the real prizes IMO, like Champps, and Hacienda. Champps' food is awful.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 9, 2007 -> 09:15 AM) I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying there? I am saying that, in my experience and my readings, my strong impression is this: Being Mormon has a much greater effect on a person's behavior and character than does being any other religion I have had significant experience with. That is not an assessment of good or bad - just strength of influence across the spectrum. Now, I can't say I've known many Menonites, or Amish, or Hasidic Jews (apologies if I misspelled that one), or other very stringent sects. But of the more mainline religious, Mormonism seems to have the greatest effect on its followers. Just my experience.

Donny Lucy has thrown out 10 of the last 14 would-be base stealers against him, and picked one off as well.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ May 9, 2007 -> 08:52 AM) He played CF most of last year, due to BA being on the watch list. He played CF up last year a few times. QUOTE(RockRaines @ May 9, 2007 -> 08:53 AM) He can play CF, but most likely it will not be his position in the future. Terrero probably is a little better. That is good enough for me. If he can play reasonably well (just needs to play once a week or so), then he should stay. Terrero having slightly better D playing once a week isn't enough to outweigh Sweeney's being better in every other way. Only way it makes sense to keep Terrero over Sweeney is if no one other than Terrero can field the position at least semi-competently.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ May 8, 2007 -> 07:25 AM) And they all pretty much had to leave or be pushed out for their beliefs. The republican party does the same thing, but it's not nearly as dramatic most of the time. Anyone remember the Blue Dog Democrats, from the south? Or the Farm Democrats of the midwest? Or the Northeast Republicans? These were smallish but powerful mini-lobbies in Congress for decades. Moderates of their own parties. They were a key ingredient to making compromise work, and getting legislation passed. They crossed party lines on some issues, which helped grease the wheels and keep things moving. Now those small groups are dead or dying. That, to me, is a huge indicator of what Congress is becoming - irreconcilably divided. The reaction may be a third party, or a resurgence of moderate candidates, maybe from the mountain west or pacific northwest. But right now, the result is stagnation. It sucks.

Does Sharpton have a job to be fired from? Anyway, I will say that the Mormon Church has definitely been known to have serious problems with racism. Its grounded in their beliefs from the Book of Mormon (read about the 13th tribe, or whatever it was called, I forget now). Those with darker skin are seen in that text as being aligned with evil. For people wondering if Romney being Mormon is relevant or not, I'd suggest doing some some research on the LDS. Lots of great things have come out of that organization, but also, some very scary things. For the scary, read Under the Banner of Heaven. Make your own call. I will say this - I think being a Mormon is much, much more important in itself in terms of expectations of that person, then if Romney was a Christian of some sort, a Jew, or even a Muslim. Not necessarily in terms of good or bad - just very prescient as a view into his psyche.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 9, 2007 -> 08:34 AM) If Sweeney was going to play everyday, I would want Sweeney up here. If he is not going to play, send him down. Yes. If he can play 5 out of 7, then I say keep him up here. Send Terrero down, and let Mack and Ozuna be the 4th and 5th OF's. Although, one caveat - can Sweeney play CF defensively? I didn't see his one game out there so far, and haven't watched him play there in AAA. Is he soild enough to be a backup there once a week?

QUOTE(caulfield12 @ May 9, 2007 -> 08:16 AM) I'm sure some will blame Iguchi (from both sides of the field, offensively and defensively)... And Aardsma looked really shaky out there as well. Not sure that he's closer material. I know MacDougal isn't, not for the White Sox. It's just like Kip Wells in 2002 and 2003. He wouldn't have put up those same stats with the White Sox...MacDougal might have saved 21/24, but it was Doug Jones/Joe Borowski-esque. Always a high-wire act on the precipice of disaster, and many of those saves were 2-3 run leads where he would give up a run or two but still get the save. I'm sure Iguchi, Aardsma, Sisco, Masset and yes even Guillen contributed. But it was 4-1 bottom of 8 when MMac was on the mound, and when his batters were done, it was 4-4. That's the ballgame right there.

How anyone can blame this loss (primarily) on anyone other than MMac is beyond me.

I saw a Claim Jumper the other day out in the NW burbs. Hadn't heard of it before. I assumed it was an insurance attorney's office.

I guess I'll be the one to point out the question that should have been asked in regards to this study. What is the grade-level cut-off date for these schools? Think about it. Many schools, the date is 9/1 - that date determines which grade children are placed in (with, of course, a few exceptions). So, the kids whose birthdays are closer to 9/1 on the early side are older than the ones at the end of the year-period. A kid born on 10/1 is older than one born on 6/1. Since school starts with kindergarten at age 3-ish, that year difference in development is enormous, and kids who start behind are likely to stay behind. So even though in the third grade the age difference is lesser, the trend has been established. So, let's apply that logic here. If the conception period in question is May through August, and a pregnancy lasts 9 months or so (its actually a little more than that, but there are some premies too, so let's use 9 months), then they are typically born in the February through May period - not surprisingly, in the back end of the period. These kids are in the younger half. This is a significant influence on the statistic, and since they are using grade-level for the study, I call B.S. If they were serious about neutralizing that factor, they should have used a test given may times during the year to children all around the same actual age. Then do the comparisons. That would be more valid.

QUOTE(Y2HH @ May 8, 2007 -> 08:20 AM) Oh, and before you say something insane to counterpoint me like, "Ok then, should I have the right to shoot people randomly on the streets", let me clear something up. I have no problem with them banning smoking outdoors or in publically owned places...but telling a privatly owned establishment, like a bar, that smoking is banned is, IMO, unconstituational. Tobacco is a LEGAL product. You don't have to go there if you don't like smoke...but passing by this establishment, say to get from point A to point B, on public property, that is absolutly your right, and in that right you shouldn't have to deal with smoke. If that is the case, I agree with you. There is a time and a place for certain things. Drinking in bars, not on the streets. Smoking in bars, not on the streets. I can deal with that. But when the government begins to tell us, yes, although this product is LEGAL, it's ILLEGAL for you to use it in your own private establishment...then I have to question freedom as a whole. This pretty much hits it on the head, I think. I am not sure its unconstitutional, but I definitely agree that this sort of encroachment goes against the principles of personal freedoms.

I searched the site (via Google) and could not find a previous thread on this, but there may be one. Anyone out there have Dish Network for satellite TV in Chicago? I am considering going with them, but I want to make sure I'll be able to see the games. Will I be able to see CSN, CSN+ and WCIU? Thanks!

What, are you all doing research reports or something? 42 states down, 8 to go. I am missing ME, VT, NH, DE, HI, ID, ND, SD

4 IL, IA, CO, TN (currently IL)

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 7, 2007 -> 02:01 PM) Its not evil, its just do as I say, not as I do. Its always easier to point the finger at someone else, than to make the adjustments yourself. People have no problems pointing it out when our President contradicts himself, but god forbid it happen to one of the golden boys. Where are you getting this? Whose golden boy? And its not a double standard. If you look at 100 things you do that aren't environmentally friendly, and seek to change 50% of those, are you a hypocrite? Absolutely not. In fact, anyone who says they have done 100% of what they can in ANY effort (environmental impact, or even just trying to be a better person) is full of crap. Not possible. I don't see Obama going around telling people they are evil for owning older cars that aren't fuel efficient. If he did say that, and he owned, one, THEN its a double standard. In which case, fire away. But as it is, he says his campaign is using flex fuel cars (not sure the %), and he asks his USSS detail to do the same, but he hasn't replaced his own beater yet. No double standard there.

The amazing thing is, I primarly posted this because of the non-Bush stats. The 1 on 1 matchups, which are broken down by party, so there is no party bias. I guess I should have just not even mentioned the Bush 28% part. Rasmussen, which uses a daily fold-over and a lot larger sampling, has Bush at 37% approval. In case anyone cares.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 7, 2007 -> 01:24 PM) I just came accross this... Not only does he want the secret service to use them, he does not own one himself. I guess its cool to be green as long as someone else is paying for it. http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/374028,...tside07.article I read that article, and I like what I see. Why the crucifiction? He asks for them to use flex fuel, his campaign car uses flex fuel too. It just amazes me how fear-driven and petty this anti-environmental wave among the GOP is. Gore, Obama, anyone else... if they aren't 100% perfect in their own "green" behavior, then how dare they actually try to make the world better. It would sure be nice if people were willing to deal with the issue, instead of picking on petty little crap in order to destroy firgureheads. John McCain has been a supporter of the current Iraq War policies (for the most part), but, he also pushed for an anti-torture bill. So is his anti-torture effort trash because he endorses Bush's policy that results in torture itself? No. Similarly, when Obama says he'd like the USSS to use slightly greener vehicles, do we throw away that effort by pointing out that his old, personal car (which he probably rarely drives) isn't environmentally ideal? Its all driven by fear. Democrats fear supporting McCain's effort against torture because god forbid they align with someone who supports the war. Republicans fear supporting him because god forbid that makes them seem weak (nevermind that torture is itself an act of cowardice). Here, Republicans fear embracing any efforts at environmental improvements lest they look like they may have been wrong before, or that they look bad for supporting a typically Democratic ideal. Amazing. People posted after the Dem debate that none of the candidates flew green. Now, a candidate tries to go a little more green, and he is evil. Clearly, for some people, individuals in the "other" party (whichever one that might be) can't win no matter what they do.