NorthSideSox72

If things go well (and assuming no trades are imminent), Pods will be ready for opening day, Anderson will start in CF, and Erstad with be the 4th OF. I may be the only one who feels this way, so I'll say it. I have a feeling that, if he does indeed get to start in LF, Pods will have the best year of his career all-around. OBP of .350-.360 with another increase in his walk total, 75-80% SB% by not forcing as often, decent situational hitting, and defense in LF getting a bit closer to average (though as usual his speed has to offset his weak arm and not-great judgement).

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 04:48 PM) I am still very happy he has finally continued to admit his guilt. And that is what makes him such a poor excuse for a professional, right there. "Finally continued to admit his guilt"???? He's been lying over, and over, and over, and over again, to all of baseball and its fans, for years. He denied it all, then admited a little but said never on baseball, then he bet on baseball but not his own team, then his own team only rarely, not almost every night. I mean come on. No way a guy who disgraces the game that gave him everything should be enshrined in its Hall of Fame. The Hall and its selections may not be what we all think is perfect, but I'm quite proud of the fact that unlike other sports, votes for the Hall are in part judged on total impact on the game, beyond just in-play performance. Ultimately, if you love baseball, its not just the stats that matter.

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 11:01 PM) He said "MLB potential" which probably means the prospects who have a chance to make impacts even though I understand your reasoning. I didn't agree with some of his bolding eigher. MLB "potential" includes most of those, as maybes. The likelihood of them becoming MLB starters, the list is much smaller of course.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 07:17 AM) It was funny when the Dems were ducking the Presidental debates because they were moderated/on Fox. Now the Dems are being told to avoid Colbert too, who doesn't carry the scarlet "R" that Fox does. Ah. Well... its fairly chicken s*** on both counts if you ask me. The Dems should be out there facing their constituents of all stripes right now, if they want to be seen as something different than the GOP and the lame, pre-scripted, invite-only "town hall" meetings.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 07:02 AM) So is it as humorous now that it isn't Fox news? http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/emanue...2007-03-14.html More at link... What does this have to do with Fox News? I guess I missed something. QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 04:32 PM) So in other words, he kisses the MSM's ass to get the sound bites, and then does the opposite. He's a hypocritical f***tard jackass. That's all. Or... the only times he gets a lot of press is when he disagrees with Bush on the war, which is news because he's a Republican and the press loves the conflict. I see nothing to indicate the say one thing do another problem is an issue with him.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 12:49 PM) Link. Here are some vote highlights And a Huffington Post bit. Altogether, Chuck Hagel has voted with the White House position about 95% of the time since Bush 2 came into office. This information is misleading to say the least... One, if you want to quote those highlights form the article, let's show them all from that section you chose: Two, the one-sentence quote you used about his conservative credentials is not reflective of that article as a whole. I advise people to read the whole thing and take it in. As the rest of the article makes clear, he is certainly a conservative, but he is not even in the vicinity of a party hard-liner. And here is a nifty image that Issues 2000 site (the one you got the quotes and votes from) uses to portray political leanings, by way of economic and social axis'. He's 80% right-wing on economic issues and only 40% right-wing on social issues. Now... all that said, I am not saying Chuck Hagel is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I don't agree with him on a number of issues, such as his environmental votes and the flag burning amendment. What I am saying is that he occurs to me to have a lot more integrity than most of the other candidates in either party, is more open and direct about his views, and has more moderate social tendencies than most of the GOP field. The votes prove it out. You may not like his views, but he's been pretty consistent in those views from day one.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 11:50 AM) If Mrs. Bill Clinton gets elected, though, her policies and "cover-ups" (unless it sells more papers, i.e. Monica!!!) will definitely not be as widely reported, though. I cannot disagree with this strongly enough. Its the opposite of what will happen. The next Prez, regardless of party, will be the most scrutinized yet. And if its Hilary, she'll be even more scrutinized than most of the other candidates, except possibly Obama.

Lucy reassigned to minor league camp on March 14th. Its unclear still what affiliate he'll be assigned to for the season. His final spring stats in the big league camp: G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG 6 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 .250 .143 .143

QUOTE(knightni @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 01:37 PM) Spivey didn't make it, eh? Phillips sent down means that he could be dealt. Him, Rogo and Tracey all seem like likely trade bait.

It seems the UN could be such a great entity for a number of causes. But they continually trip over their own two feet. Anyone have any suggestions as to what could be done to make them more effective, more trustworthy, and more respected?

I think a comparative world religions class, as an elective and probably at the secondary level (maybe junior high or early high school), is an excellent idea. Religion is such an important piece to understanding history, politics, etc. I'd even be OK with it being mandatory, as long as it was a truly comparative class, not one particular religious agenda (or an anti-religion agenda, equally bad).

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 10:32 AM) Bull s***. Stop it. You know damn well everyone would have gone nuts, just like everyone always does with anything the Bush Administration does that doesn't fit the liberal agenda. My point is what southsider's point was above. They all do it, and yes, it's wrong, but Reno gets a free pass because it was "everyone". Please. I agree with you that the only significant differences between Clinton/Reno's firings and these news ones are timing, and that the current administration is lousy at being smooth. But the bias we are seeing, I think, is less about a "liberal agenda" and more about increasing levels of media exposure generally, and the soundbyte style of journalism. Whomever our next President is, I will guarantee right now, will be scrutinized even more than Bush was. Bet on it. And as our society gets more and more into the flash and dash style of information ingestion, the media will more and more being trying to create shock waves where none (or very few) should exist. Here is a thought to ponder. All sorts of polls and studies indicated during the last 10 years a significant movement to the right of the country as a whole. And this was both the already-right-leaning folks, and the moderate or "swing" voters. That trend seems to be be reversing a bit now, but only just starting to. So... if you are a media business (paper, TV, radio, whatever) who is trying to make money by reporting to the broadest possible audience (in other words, I am not talking about the fringe ones here)... why on earth would you promote a "liberal agenda"? It makes no sense at all. Sure, there are always individual reporters and such that show some bias in their presentation, intentionally and unintentionally. But there is no "agenda" there other than to make money, generally through loyalty. And the way to do that is capture more audience, not less.

Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel has decided not to decide... yet. Of all the Republican candidates and possible candidates, I actually like Hagel best, at this point.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 01:56 PM) Biden is really a nonstarter IMO. Richardson has the potential to jump to the top tier easily actually, but it seems like his campaign is more about saving his push for within say six months of the first vote cast. Agreed on all counts. I don't like Biden, though I do appreciate that he signed on to a British-India type plan for Iraq and the split, which Richardson has indicated interest in as well.

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 12:29 PM) Make some baseball-minded posts regarding the reacquisition of a former White Sox center-fielder and sure enough, the always witty Rowand cheerleader posts come out in full force. This place is insufferable at times. You know how this works, man. Its a message board, and one full of sometimes angst-ridden Sox fans (ourselves included). By nature, people will tend to make things out to the extreme. A player either sucks and is worthless, or is the best thing since sliced bread. Just ignore the extremists and engage in thoughtful conversations with the other posters willing to do so. Rowand may be a better option than Anderson this year for a number of reasons, but he's a soon-to-be free agent and more expensive than BA (and, probably, has a lower ceiling than BA). As a few others have said, if the price is reasonable, its worth considering. If it means giving up important pieces for the team's future, then its not.

Latest Rasmussen report on the Dem candidates. Nothing new in the order of things really - Clinton first, Obama 2nd, then Edwards, and Richardson a distant 4th. Biden didn't even rate a mention as to his percentage, if any. What is more interesting is the latter part of the article, about how "known" various candidates are, and within that, what the favorable/unfavorable percentages are. Looks to me like Hilary is most likely to fall off, given the 48% unfavorable. Richardson and Biden are still only even recognized by a minority of respondants, so they have a lot of movement left in them, if they stick it out. But there is still a lot of time left.

QUOTE(hi8is @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 11:00 AM) how has he looked with the cubs? Lousy. In 5 IP, given up 14 hits, 8 runs (4 earned), and only K'd 1. ERA 7.20.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 12, 2007 -> 02:24 PM) That's really an ironic statement if you think about it. ironic? I'm not seeing it I guess. I just think you can't have your judge and jury for this be people who have such a CYA stake in the outcome.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 12, 2007 -> 08:03 AM) Yeah, I know. I'm done here. I actually agree with you on this one. While Fox is a bad joke as a news channel, the reality is a certain portion of the population sees them as a significant news source. Therefore, despite their bias, I think for the Dems to back out of this agreement is fairly cowardly. Better to confront them then run away, if you want to show those in the middle (which is who you are trying to win over with something like this) just how bad Fox is, then call their bluff.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Mar 12, 2007 -> 08:51 AM) It is good to know that testifying under oath to the Senate means nothing. Why didn't the CIA have Wilson sign a non disclosure agreement? Its not any specific testimony I'm questioning. What makes their investigation and resulting analysis worthless is that the Senate had too much of a personal stake in the outcome regarding pre-war intelligence.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 03:20 PM) Well when we found a keylogger on one of our main developers machines, we checked and it wasnt the FBI listening in on the conversation. It was the payload of some trojan that he picked up, when visiting a website. The device was sending things back to mainland china to some ISP. Remember, its not just the big bad boogyman FBI agent trying to spy on you. Everyone is so worried about this, when I would be more worried about other countries and individuals that will impact your privacy more than the government ever will. People with nefarious intent are doing it, so we shouldn't worry about the FBI doing it? I guess I'm concerned with both. One doesn't make the other OK for me. I am sure ultimately that the great majority of spying on data and calls is not governmental, as you point out. But its illegal for NGO's to do it. Why is it OK for the FBI to do it illegally, improperly and/or without just cause?

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 04:04 PM) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7030602020.html this deals with 1 and 3. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007135.php An editorial that draws its own conclusions without dealing with the case evidence, and a blog entry that relies on the Senate investigation? The Senate thing was a joke - they were covering their own butts after they voted for the war and wanted the evidence to match. The fact that a CIA employee countered Wilson's claim is a good piece of evidence, but if that's the most damning thing they have (which it appears to be), then I see no case.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 01:13 PM) Who cares. Just assume that everything you do electronically is an open book and you are fine. I spend my time assuming that once the traffic leaves my firewall, unless its encrypted its open season. The minute the phone call leaves my PBX the same thing. If you think that your phone conversations are private and privy only to you, then I suggest you never experienced crosstalk where another conversation appears on your line, or you can hear another conversation. The minute you experience spyware such as a trojan or keylogger, you are experiencing the same level of information leakage, infact more than if the FBI is tapping your upstream connection. If you really want to keep something secret, use military grade encryption and memorizes the cipher. OMG THE GOVERNMENT CAN HEAR ME GETTING THE GROCERY LIST FROM THE WIFE. WHERE ARE MY FREEDOMS. Ah yes, the "I have nothing to hide" argument. Whenever I see that, I always think of: When they came for the Communists...

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 01:49 PM) Well he lied about the uranium part. He lied about the forged Italian documents. They were not released until 8 months after he supposedly saw them. He lied about his wife sending him to Niger. My background on this is from Bob Woodward's writings, as well as new articles in the mainstream press. Can you direct me to where there is evidence showing any of those three things you say actually happened? Because I have seen no such data.

Hilarious. Love it. Also, the commercials are on YouTube. "What's a parking space?"