NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 11:49 AM) Ok, here's a counter-point on sanctions on Iran...why exactly would we expect that Sanctions would work at all in this case? For the last century, economic sanctions have an ungodly bad record of actually accomplishing any political goals. They don't turn a population against it's leadership, they often strengthen it, and the people who wind up suffering are the people themselves. Sanctions against Iraq just killed a lot of people, 40 years of sanctions on Cuba has done nothing except increase the cost of sugar and make Coke taste worse, and so on. Virtually all the data out there show this is true. And specifically in this case, I find it highly doubtful that sanctions would do anything at all, because of the oil issue. Seriously, how important is the threat of sanctions against Iran if Iran still finds itself able to sell oil at >$50 a barrel? Someone is going to buy that oil, whether it be China, India, Pakistan, Iraq, or someone else. And that is going to render whatever sanctions regime we come up with quite ineffective. I agree with part of what you are saying, and disagree on another. The oil part of the picture does indeed muddy the waters. Even if the whole western world, and Russia, respect the sanctions (which would be difficult to achieve), someone else will try to dive in. As you said. But all that causes really is a shift in alignment of economic channels - some countries buy more from Iran, we buy more from other countries. So yes, oil complicates things, but I don't believe it causes problems for sanctions. As for the history of trade sanctions, I do not agree on their ineffectiveness. I'll give you two reasons. One, look at Iraq. Even though Saddam was still holding on to power, and his inner circle still grew fat... his military continued to weaken, civil strife increased, and the effect was felt even for him. Second reason, and much more important, is... the internet. Why you may ask? Here is what is very different now from 10, 20, or 50 years ago. Information can flow freely into Iran, and does. Iran's population is growing more and more attached to western culture every day - products they cannot easily get elsewhere. And further, they see what is actually going on in the world. This cuts the legs out from under dictators and controlling governments. For this reason, I feel strongly that economic sanctions are much more likely to succeed than they have previously.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 11:18 AM) Ok, so would you prefer a Lexus and a Ford Pinto, or a pair of new Toyotas? Besides... a Lexus is basically a Toyota anyway, with some added refinements and accoutrements. Same frames, engines, made at the same facilities, etc. Just a little more bling.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 10:29 AM) And then move Crede to SS and see if he can win a GG there. I am wondering if that is something to seriously consider. Since he obviously has the reflexes and the arm for it... do we think he has the range? You could then consider Fields, who has a little speed, at 3B. I just worry about Fields' defense - anyone know if that has improved this year?

QUOTE(Soxy @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 09:04 AM) They do appear to be meeting their recruitment targets. But I remember lots of press last year about declining numbers--your thought about lower goals is an interesting one. . . 2005 targets, with the notable exception of the Marines it looks like they did decrease goals. So their FY 2006 goal total was 288,497 accessions (whatever that means). For the year before, FY 2005, it was a total of 299,333. They decreased their goals by about 4% YOY.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Sep 18, 2006 -> 09:39 PM) What do you guys think about Jim Webb? I thought he did a good job on Meet The Press So, I've done a little reading now on Mr. Webb. I think I like him. His statements from a few decades ago about women in the military are a little disturbing, though he has apologized for them. Other than that, I like what I see.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 08:57 AM) Poor recruiting levels? Where do you get that from? According to their little tracker thing they print in the Army Times, they are running ahead of plan for this years recruiting and reenlistment is at an all time high despite the war and lots of deployments. There will be no draft......NEVER AGAIN.........NOT EVER. The military doesn't want it, the government doesn't want it, the people dont want it. About the only person that DOES want it is Charles Rangel. You may be right about the draft - and I hope you are. But honestly, I am not sure about the Army Times and how it might be spinning the recruiting picture. Honestly, I know nothing about that publication. I'll see if I can dig up the last thing I read on this. The picture painted was fairly bleak - fewer recruits incoming each year since 2003, and the need for more troops growing. But then, if the Army Times is talking about actual versus target, they may be right - maybe the Army has set declining targets. I do not know. I'll see what I can find.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 08:43 AM) and i fail to see how france's shameless appeasement policy is a good thing. iran is a country who is developing nuclear weapons while openly calling for the destruction of israel, and openly supports hezbollah (a terrorist organization- yes, they are). remember, this is about UN sanctions, not an invasion of iran. france doesnt even think we should sanction iran. apparently, you agree: would you mind explaining your support of france on this issue? this should be interesting. I don't agree with France's take on this. Sorry if that wasn't clear. If for the moment we push aside all the mistakes that led us to this moment, and think entirely forward... I do think sanctions are a good idea right now. I think that the best incentive we can lay out for Iran and its people is economics - do they want to be a part of the world community, with all its perks, or not? Sanctions should not be the end of our strategy, but they need to be part of it at this point. The point I was trying to make was more about the labels and the way we look at France's actions. Being the "dove" in their case, saying they want to leave sanctions off as a way to entice Iran to the table, isn't being a "pussy" or lacking in courage. France is standing up and loudly saying that it thinks the U.S. is wrong, that its better to offer a chance than to threaten to take it away. But, I agree with you, that is just not the right approach right now. Do you see the distinction I am trying to make?

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 07:29 PM) It's a shame that Bush has lost any persuasive power in the world by being the scapegoat for our own intelligence debacle and the media writing revisionist history. I don't support all of Bush's decisions (a lot actually), but the guy has been blamed for everything (hurricanes for god sake) and is now practically useless on the world stage. He's made mistakes, I know, so I'm not going to defend him totally, but still I refuse to become so anti-Bush that I fault him for anything bad that happens in the world. Perhaps Bush is useless on the world stage because he comes off like frat boy and he led the effort into a disaster of a war in Iraq. And who blamed him for a hurricane? The only blame I saw people put on him for Katrina was a) his nomination of Brownie, with no related credentials, to head up FEMA and B) the late (and weak) start of the national-level response to it. And those do indeed fall in his lap. QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 07:29 PM) But what he says is true. There's some f'd up people in the world who are trying to start an ideological/religious war. The pope says muslim people are violent, and then they kill a nurse, bomb buildings and burn down churches in response. Hmmmmmm....no, they aren't violent. The problem needs to be addressed by the world and not just the US, because ultimately other countries are going to be affected (as some European countries already have and will again). Of course he is right - no one denies that religious extremists in the Middle East are a major problem. And for at least the hundredth time... this isn't about Islam. If you make it about Islam, it becomes a crusade, and you unfaily punish 90% of the 1 billion Muslims on earth. Its about extremism and anger, brought on by a variety of problems including but not limited to corruption, poverty, western "tinkering" in Middle Eastern affairs, the creation and location of Israel, historical conflicts that date back centuries, natural resources particularly oil, and dictators in many of those countries. Islam, being a religion, is used simply as an excuse and a social shield for violent idiots. There are plenty of examples of this same thing happening throughout history with other idiots using Chrisitianity, Judaism, and any number of other religions for that same purpose. Its a recurring theme in world history. Our aim, in my opinion, should be to ignore it entirely and focus on the real problems (as noted above). QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 07:29 PM) As an aside, are people as tired of the extremist muslims as I am? PR wise I mean. These people can stand up and say 'death to all jews' or 'death to the west' and it's cool, not one cares, rarely is there a word about it. But the minute any western person says anything bad about Islam they revert to violence. It makes me sick we don't stand up for ourselves. The arguments have been rehashed, I'm sure, but the Denmark political cartoon situation comes to mind. We as a country refuse to piss these people off, for what? Respect? Or fear? Modernity rarrived when were civilized enough to laugh at Jesus beating the crap out of Santa Clause on South Park (much earlier I'm sure, but I'm young and that's the biggest media moment for me with that). These f'ckers are stuck in the middle ages and should be treated like it. No one cares? Not a day passes when the front page of cnn.com or msnbc.com doesn't have multiple new items related to violence in the middle east. What news are you watching where that doesn't come up? Because I'd love to see that happy news network. "Those f'ckers are stuck in the middle ages and should be treated like it" - that sounds like good policy to you? How do you expect anyone in the world to take a country seriously that has that attitude? It rings of the kind of arrogance of failed empires and genocidal maniacs. Actually, it sounds very much like the way many people saw the American Indians centuries ago. QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 07:29 PM) The Chirac thing doesn't surprise me. The French are the biggest p'ssies in the world and I really hope the next time they're attacked we ignore them. Lets decipher their logic: we'll remove sanctions that will protect us in the future because we fear them attacking our troops. What nonsense is that? Why don't they just roll over and beg for mercy now? Yeah. Because standing up to the U.S., the most powerful country on earth, requires a pussy. Makes sense, actually. I mean, it explains why women are smarter than men. Not to mention a lot less violent. Courage is about putting yourself in danger to help someone else. That is NOT the same as being stubborn or narrow-minded or "sticking to your guns" even when you are obviously, painfully wrong. I therefore fail to see how current US policy in the Middle East is any more (or less, to be fair) courageous than France's.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 10:08 PM) When is Obama going to tour the ancestrial homeo fhis mother? I guess there is no political capital to be had touring Kansas and letting black voters know you are half white. What was the point of this post? I'm pretty sure most people are aware he is multiracial. QUOTE(GaelicSoxFan @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 11:53 PM) I actually think that flag-burning is very American. It says that you have the fortitude to speak out against those in power, one of the tenets that America was founded on. I agree that the freedom to do so is very American (though I don't know that I'd go so far as to say actually burning it is). That's why I disliked the amendment.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 03:26 PM) You dont have to blow up s***. Ditch Prancer, put someone in LF who has a pulse. Ditch Uribe, get someone who has a pulse. Ditch Garcia and his 86mph fastball. Invite Cora and Walker to a conference, when they show up, its just HR with some forms for them to fill out. Hire a hitting coach that preaches OBP and line drive swings, and being a tough out. Hire a 3rd base coach that isnt a pinwheel. Agreed on all counts but Walker. He isn't perfect by any means, but he did take an offense that was bottom half last year and is top 5 this year. And that was not just the addition of Thome. Walker deserves SOME of the credit for that.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 03:54 PM) Pods Blak™ should fill that role nicely in CF next year. I'm embarrased that I found that really funny.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 03:50 PM) We need a lead off man from somewhere. *cough* Pablo *cough* Or a new shortstop.

Well, I think this is actually a good thing, in terms of achieving the goals we now have set for Iraq. I think any troop reduction would be a mistake. But that said, one danger lurking on the horizon is that we cannot just keep sending the same troops over and over again, and keep implementing these stop-loss programs. After a while, that system will break down. And with the poor recruiting levels the military is seeing despite all sorts of incentives, the inflow won't be enough. Then it will be time to start discussing the "D" word.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 02:10 PM) So, I'm sure I'm not the only one who's followed the case of Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen who was grabbed by U.S. authorities at an airport in 2002, held without charges, and shipped to Syria to be tortured as an ally of terrorists. So, the Canadian government conducted an investigation into whether any charges or holding of him was appropriate, and here are the results. So, based on an unconfirmed report that didn't even come from our own intelligence serivices, the U.S. used a "rendition" to send a man abroad for beatings and torture of all sorts. Clearly, the President needs more of this power, otherwise, there may still be innocent people who aren't tortured. That is really disturbing.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 02:01 PM) How can you say the offense hasnt had anything to do with our failure, especially in the 2nd half. Great 816 runs scored, 520 of those scored in the first half. We are 13th in the majors in runs scored in the 2nd half. We are behind legendary scoring offenses like the Chicago Cubs and the Florida Marlins. In the second half we have scored a whole 296 runs while giving up 307 runs 4.68ERA. In the first half we scored 520 runs, and gave up 415. 4.44 ERA So our pitching was slightly worse in the 2nd half, but our run production dropped quite a bit. So we went from being a top 5 offense in MLB in the first half to being a top 15 (aka top half) in the second half. Either one is a step up from last year. We've had some offensive issues, but pitching has been the biggest negative change from last year. And that is the #1 problem.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 01:59 PM) None at all. I guess his constituants can't say he hasn't done everything to bring home everything he can for them... And that would be about all that I can say for the guy. Also it was no surprise to me that Robert Byrd is the other scumbag holding up this bill. I don't know as much about Byrd to be honest. I'll take your word for it. Plus, if he was secretly holding this bill back, he is pretty much automatically scummy in my book.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 01:26 PM) And even more interestingly, there was a bipartisan movement on both the left and right sides of the Blogosphere to find out who was trying to stop that Bill in the Senate by putting "Secret Holds" on the bill (turned out to be Byrd and Stevens, who both dropped their holds once they were exposed.) Stevens is the king of pork. No surprise he was one of them.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 01:03 PM) This I disagree with. Kenny made borderline radical changes after a World Title, so you know he'll be busy this offseason. I just hope he doesn't go overboard, because I honestly think as much as the players and Ozzie have been awful, part of the problem has been bad luck this year. You would characterize changing 2 of 9 lineup positions, and 1 of 5 starting pitchers as borderline radical? I'd say otherwise. I think we will see similarly small changes this year. In fact, I'd say 2 of 9 in the lineup and 1 of 5 SP's will probably be just about right.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 12:50 PM) Is there a reason why Cintron can't play SS and Gload can't play LF? I personally think that may be something to consider in 2007, in both cases. Save money on the payroll - give Gload and/or Pablo a shot in LF, at least for 2007 (Sweeney or Owens might be ready in 2008). Use the money for a SS who gets on base and can lead off. Bat Gload/Ozuna 2nd, move Gooch down the order. Other than that (SS and LF), I say leave the offense as is.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 11:47 AM) So funny that the sox lead the league in BA with runners in scoring position, and many of you are still trying to debate that the offense is the real issue here. Heres a clue to why we wont make the playoffs Detroit 745 RS 605 RA Minn 741 RS 636 RA Sox 816 RS 722 RA Get out of here with your logic and your facts! Everyone know the reason the Sox suck this year is Jim Thome and his BARELY over 1.000 OPS, and the fact that it took the Sox until August to put Dye in the 3-hole. I mean jeez, where is the 1000 run mark? 1. Starting Pitching 2. Lack of hustle/energy (could also be pain and being tired) 3. Ozzie's bizarro position placement 4. Ozzie's bizarro pitcher treatment 5. Bullpen inconsistency Somewhere after those 5, you get into some offensive problems, like having a crappy leadoff hitter, poor execution on the basepaths and with bunting, etc. But our offense, in general, was NOT the big problem this year.

I think their primary fear is that it is a piece of the shuttle.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 09:50 AM) Out of curiousity why do you think it would hurt them? They pretty much have just been a sitting duck for everyone with a labor agenda for the longest time. WMT has been made to be the face of all that is corporate and evil in this country, and pretty much not said a word to counter all of the negative PR, even with states, unions, and congressmen lead a personal charge to try to take them down. How could it get worse? I mean you would pretty much need to catch Sam Walton with plans for his puppy killing/slave making machine to get WMT any worse of an image than people are portraying them with now. I think the PR effort might work internally, though as all spin efforts are at the corporate level, they will also cause some backlash among others. The net effect, if the program is done right, could be positive. But here is the thing with politicization of corporations. Ultimately, it usually ends up hurting them. Why? The same reason why a company would be stupid to hire only from a pool of a certain political party, or race, or any other classification. The net effect is negative in two ways. One, you repel a certain segment of the population from giving you their business (admitedly, this is already underway against Walmart, but it can always get worse). Two, you limit your pool of potential employees, thus guaranteeing that on a large scale, their staff will be less skilled. Now, in Walmart's case, both those effects are less than they might be for other companies. As you said, their image is already tarnished for many. And as for the skill pool, well... most jobs at Walmart require little in the way of skills anyway. But even if each of those dynamics results in a small negative effect, then you have defeated the purpose you are trying to serve. This is the business me talking here, not the political one. For most corporations, its just best to stay as far away from political affiliation as possible. It can only hurt. If you can get away with making some relatively small donations, then those can probably be neatly covered up. But anything beyong that, and it reaches your public profile, and that is when the negatives begin.

QUOTE(Cuck the Fubs @ Sep 18, 2006 -> 09:24 PM) Michigan-Ohio State has been declared the biggest rivalry in this country by Congress. I will provide a link w/ a copy of the bill when I get the chance And if CONGRESS says it is, then it must be. And it is good. Congress is never wrong. Why is Congress even bothering with crap like that anyway? Sorry, that's for another forum.

OK by me. I think the long run, this will only hurt Walmart, for a number of reasons. But they are welcome to do so.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 07:59 AM) After watching Bayh's assension to the top of Indiana with the big D attached to his name, I think he is a guy worth watching during this cycle. I could really see him ended up as the VP nomination from his party in an attempt to balance out the ticket with a little midwestern flavor. I do like Bayh, though he did something that bothered me recently. He voted in favor of the flag desecration amendment. Just my opinion, but I found the amendment to be distinctly Unamerican. Of course, Bayh was probably following the wishes of his constituency - Indiana probably favors such an amendment. It just is antithetical to my beliefs.