NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 11:00 PM) Because people like you want no part of it. I think people are mostly willing to be a part of it, if their elected officials were willing to go about it in a responsible manner.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 09:09 PM) To anyone who watched or read the speech. I skimmed it when I got home from work today. I couldn't get past this second line. September 11th was horrible. Definitely one of the most challenging days in the last 65 years of US history. But it was more barbarous than the Holocaust? Rwanda? Trench Warfare in WW1? Maybe its terror fatigue, but I'm sick of seeing this tragedy amplified so out of proportion. Well, he did say OUR history, so none of those examples really apply. That said, its still an absurd overstatement.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 04:33 PM) Okay... Imo, you're too optimistic about Israel's fortunes. The regional powers who want Israel gone balance 2 things -- How much do we want them gone? and How likely is it that we can accomplish that? The answer to the second is, Not very, because Israel is so far superior technologically. Taking away that deterrent sounds like very, very bad policy to me. It's easy to say that if Israel would just "play nice", everything would be better. But Israel has not historically initiated many of its conflicts (although I would agree that they've often been guilty of escalating them beyond any reasonable limit). It took the Palestinian lands in response to an attack. And I think Israel was right to go after Hezbollah in Lebanon, given that the Lebanese government is too weak to rein it in. That doesn't mean that I agree with their tactics (FAR from it), but the answer isn't to make them incapable of meaningful response. Then there's the practical side. Suppose this policy were already in effect. With our troops already overextended in Afghanistan and Iraq, and tension with Iran to boot, do we want to be responsible for going into Lebanon to neutralize Hezbollah (really, a pretty formidable organization)? Certainly, it's not acceptable that rockets are fired into Israeli cities, something has to be done. And if we were to always 'have Israel's back', why would anyone perceive us as neutral? It seems that you are working off the assumption that Israel always creates its own problems. Given that, sure, I can understand the argument -- take away their weapons and they won't be such bullies. But I don't believe that's been true, that history has been so one-sided. I don't want this to explode as per usual. I'm done. QUOTE(longshot7 @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 05:06 PM) Really? Do you really believe that? If the Palestinians disarmed, there would be no more violence over there. But if the Israelis disarmed, there would be no Israel. We have to support the "right" over the "wrong" in this conflict. It's that simple. Judging by your responses, I think you are misunderstanding what I am getting at on this particular point. Probably my fault for not describing it better. Plus, what I am getting at may seem counter-intuitive. So I'll try it a different way... Israel is far, far superior to anyone else in the region militarily. And they are being supported in that regard by the U.S. I think we all agree on that. The result is a stilted power struggle. Do I think that the Palestinians will suddenly give up violence because Israel is less well-armed? Of course not, that is ridiculous. Do I think either side should completely disarm? No, and they don't need to. Do I think Israel creates all its own problems? Not at all. In fact, as I've stated previously, the biggest blame for all of this can be placed squarely at the feet of those who created Israel in its current location. So what do I mean then? Think of this analogy - a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians (if it is even possible) requires a foundation on either end (like a bridge). But as it stands now, one end of the bridge is well-fortified concrete and steel, and the other is a pathetic mess of mud thatch and wood. It won't support the weight. And further, it is the U.S. that keep re-fortifying the stronger side, which in turn keeps weakening the already weak side. We, therefore, are part of the reason why peace will not work. By discontinuing our military support of Israel, and putting people in the region off their stilts, we can start the whole foundation over from the bottom. As a neutral presence, we can stengthen both sides. Now, clearly, we will not achieve an immediate understanding from the Palestinians. But if we SHOW them our hand in the region, and make a real attempt and being a broker of peace, then we have a chance. And further, by doing this, we will get overwhelming support from the UN towards a peacekeeping force with some actual teeth. Does this make it a little more clear? The playing field needs to be level, and we need to put down the shovel. Its the only way I see it working.

QUOTE(Steff @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 04:13 PM) That did not surprise me at all. They may live in squalor.. but they see happy as clams. Its funny, I think part of it is stress. Most people living out there in the backcountry of NM, AZ, etc., have very simple lives. Less stress of many sorts (though more stress to survive). Note that many counties in Colorado are among the highest life spans, and many states are out west in general as well. Better weather, more recreation opportunities, and a more relaxed lifestyle. And, for example, why would New Mexico (low income levels, highest incidence of alcoholism) be ranked above Illinois with its strong healthcare and high income levels? Lifestyle? Weather? Chile peppers (helps the heart)? I think use city folk are burning ourselves out.

QUOTE(Steff @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 04:08 PM) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060911/ap_on_...rican_longevity Some examples from the article... Asian-Americans, average per capita income of $21,566, have a life expectancy of 84.9 years. _Northland low-income rural whites, $17,758, 79 years. _Middle America (mostly white), $24,640, 77.9 years. _Low income whites in Appalachia, Mississippi Valley, $16,390, 75 years. _Western American Indians, $10,029, 72.7 years. _Black Middle America, $15,412, 72.9 years. _Southern low-income rural blacks, $10,463, 71.2 years. _High-risk urban blacks, $14,800, 71.1 years. Wow. American Indians in the west, many of whom live on reservations in squalor and who tend to drink and smoke a lot, outlive many black subgroups. That's pretty amazing.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 03:58 PM) Not the question. Once we withdraw military support/supplies, Israel's military will begin to degrade (lack of munitions, parts). I think it's obvious that it will take quite a while after the withdrawal of support for the US to gain legitimacy in the eyes of Palestinians. If Israel falls under heavy attack, perhaps by other nations, perhaps by pseudo-independent militias like Hezbollah, perhaps by more amorphous enemies, what do we do? Or is there 0% chance that any such attack happens? OK, that's a different question. But my answer is unchanged. Stop supplying them. They will still get munitions and supplies elsewhere, mind you. Just not high-end stuff. As for Palestinian respect, there are two elements of importance here. One, it has to be made public that we have stopped arming Israel. Two, there will be more pressure elsewhere on the Globe put on the Palestinians TO trust us if we do this as well. As for Israel's fortunes, well, I guess they'll have to learn how to play nice. Now, if they DO play nice, and they get attacked... different story. But that is where the U.S. needs to step in a broker, and enforce, a deal. And it needs to be enforced equally against ANYONE who breaks the rules, Isreal or otherwise.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 03:46 PM) I think it's a lot of growth in communities like Decorah and along the US 20 corridor from Waterloo east. It's nice near me, dammit. I just noticed this....what the heck does that mean? Jeez, I don't know what I meant by compounds - I don't think that is what I meant to type. Communes, yes. But I think I meant co-ops or something. Feel free to ignore that part. QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 03:49 PM) New Zogby polls. They are all over the place. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/doc...778&hasAd=1 The NJ one is about right. The others, no clue. Zobgy Polls = Miss Cleo

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 03:32 PM) So which option? Prop up Israel with our own military, or leave it to its own devices? Leave Israel, and the Palestinians, alone (in terms of military support of any kind). Then hopefully, get a chance to broker a deal which will be seen as fair.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 03:21 PM) I hear this so often, and the logic behind it just baffles me. I guess the point is to take away what links us to Israel, so noone will be mad at us. But Israel is our ally -- if it is attacked, and we've withdrawn military support, we will have two choices. Either go in ourselves to restore its sovereignty, or let things fall where they may. The first alternative seems a lot bloodier and more chaotic than allowing the Israelis to defend themselves (which they've proven very capable of doing). The second alternative could be the worst situation of all -- Israel doesn't have nukes for nothing. Usually this is followed by the argument that times have changed, Israel won't be attacked, etc. How anyone can look at the Midddle East -- with national leaders like Ahmadinejad, with much popular support for the elimination of Israel, and with attacks actually happening through fronts like Hezbollah -- and believe that a nation as tiny and as hated as Israel is in no danger of being attacked, I'll never understand. My logic isn't to make people less mad at us, or that Israel can defend itself. Neither are the main point to me. There are two main problemsx I have with us staying involved is that I don't see Israel as being any more right or wrong than the Palestinians at this point. And I think that's been true for some time. Secondarily, if we want to be seen as a real broker of peace, then we cannot possily be credible in that role if we heavily support one side of the conflict and not the other.

Our office evacuated shortly after the 2nd tower was hit. Partially for safety reasons (we are right by Sears Tower), partially out of respect and general welfare. We also put our DR plans into play for the 2nd time that I could remember (the other was the Loop blackout in I think 1999 or 2000), so a lot of people began working from home or our DR site. The next few days my team and I spent feverishly putting plans into place to get the NY exchanges back up and running. This was a work-related event for us. People who died were people we were in regular contact with, particularly at Cantor Fitz (the company that lost a third of its workforce that day). There was a conference going on in Cantor's tower that I almost attended myself. Turned out 3 people from my company were in fact in the Towers, and died that day. For me at least, the eeriest part was that for 3 days there were no jet planes (except for the CAPS). I distinctly remember stopping as I walked the next day, and realizing that was missing. No sound of aircraft.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 02:16 PM) I think the war on terror is like the war on drugs. Is it going to solve the problem completely? No. Is it doing something to solve the problem? Yes. I just don't buy the argument that the more we fight terrorists, the more terrorists we make (both in our actual fighting against them and collateral damage done while fighting). First, you can't make someone hate you more when they are ready to strap a bomb on themselves in the name of jihad. That's the peak of hatred. Second, any collateral damage done pales in comparison to what they do to their own people on a daily basis. Do we make mistakes? Absolutely, see the whole prison fiasco. But you can't tell me something like that makes every middle eastern person want to become jihadists when they have to hear about the same jihadists killing women and children on a daily basis. We create as many enemies as we gain supporters, you just never hear about the supporters. Also, I think that automatically writing off a military campaign to rid the world of a hatred ideology is wrong. Although terrorism is more complex in many ways, there have been other hateful ideologies throughout history that have been eradicated by war. Most recently WWII defeated nazism and fascism. Obviously many distinctions can be made between the two, but I still think they are very similar: lots of poor people pissed off at their lot in life, some rich elite, some crazy spokespeople for an ideology and an enemy to blame it on. Just my two cents. Some responses... 1. Naziism was present in a grand total of one country - Germany. Its presence elsewhere was at the margins. Islamic extremists, while not a majority of the population anywhere (as you note), are present in force throughout that entire region. And the fact that they are so spread out, and not the majority anywhere, makes the WWII or any other nation-state war model useless. 2. By fighting in Iraq, and by fighting terror in other places, we do not make people hate us more. We make more people hate us. There is a distinction there. Its that middle ground of folks in those countries who were tolerant previously, and now no longer are, that make this scary.

Its progress of a sort. A very small bit of progress. I just think we aren't ready for that transition yet. I don't think Iraq is stable enough at this point for any sort of withdrawal - in fact I think we need to bolster our levels there, and do more than we are doing. This is where I diverge from the Dems on this issue.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 12:37 PM) Daley now needs to convince two people who voted for this to change their votes in order for the veto to stand, otherwise this will become law in Chicago. This is going to be really interesting. Its the first time since basically the 80's that Rich has been really challenged on anything here. I'll put money down right now that he's already got those 2 votes and more in his back pocket. I've been reading over the last few weeks about various alderman airing their "hints" at maybe switching over. Now that Daley has greased those palms, his veto will stand. Book it. He wouldn't veto it if it was going to fail.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 11:15 AM) In the middle part of WWII, the Japanese deployed thousands of "Balloon bombs", air balloons launched from Japan carrying explosives and inciendiary bombs, with the hopes of starting forest fires in the west. They failed, in part because they were launched outside of the fire season. They did wind up killing one family in Oregon though. In addition to at least one attempted-kamikaze plane. A pilot managed to reach the West Coast and drop one incindiery bomb, before ditching in the ocean and surviving. That pilot is now a US citizen. I love that story. But not to derail the topic. No holiday needed. What we are doing now, as with 12/7, is appropriate I think.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 10:37 AM) Yup, I just saw the poll showing Braley ahead of Whalen 54-41....meaning the Eastern part of Iowa will switch from red to blue should everything hold. From what I have been reading lately, northeastern Iowa has found itself moving that way anyway. The northeastern corner of IA, particularly in the driftless area, has become a popular spot for exurbanites to build homes, communes and various compounds. Also a very popular place for organic farmers. The rest of Iowa on the other hand (aside from Des Moines), with the loss of the Farm Democrats, has trended right. Sort of an interesting duality going on there.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 10:29 AM) That was one of the interesting points people made both pro and con. Even Dec 7, 1941 was an attack on a military instalation. IIRC, the last time civilian interests were targeted in the US on this scale (obviously WTC93 happened, but was no where near this size) was the Civil War, and the War of 1812 if you look for a truely forgein enemy. General Pancho Villa and a renegade band of the Mexican Army raided and briefly laid siege to a town in New Mexico in 1916. 1944, Japanese forces occupied 4 Aleutian Islands in Alaska, but they were virtually uninhabited. I don't believe that either resulted in civilian deaths on the scale of 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, though.

Flash, you asked me what we could be doing about the hate factors I mentioned, and about our position of weakness at this point. I didn't respond to those right away, as I didn't have time to write a cogent response. Well, I still don't have much time, but here is a brief list of things that could be done to make things trend better, other than simply killing terrorists. Some are already being done, others are not. Some are more likely to happen than others. Some will probably never happen... --Dramatically increase funding and prioritization of alternative energy research and design (this is talked about, but never really followed up on by Congress), and set hard deadlines for certain technologies to be available. How do you do this when the oil companies own all the patents, you ask? Simple. The U.S. government has the authority, if it chooses, to loosen patent protections if it is needed for national defense. This occurred during WWII. Give the oil companies an ultimatum - build this stuff now and reap the benefits, or we remove the patent protections and open it up to anyone who wants to have at it. Their choice. --Stop funding the Israeli military (directly and indirectly) --Strange as this sounds... send MORE troops to Iraq, so we have some hope of actually stabilizing that country in the short term. Less crime and more stability in that country can buy us a lot of good will, potentially. And that whole military control to Iraq ceremony was a bit of a farce - it was just one infantry division, not the whole military. Things over there are not stable enough to start to withdraw. --Allow for an independent Kurdistan (this was discussed in another thread - others disagree with me) --Express a willingness to broker any peace deal where Israel and the Palestinians are willing to come to the table --Key any peace deal as above on a neutral jerusalem (if neither will accept that, then we can't help them) --Structure economic deals so that when Iraq stabilizes a bit more, companies from all over the globe will source some manufacturing and other plants in Iraq for cheap. This allows for a working middle class, and draws people from all over the region in a positive manner. --This same economic plan, which could be modeled after countries like India, can be "encouraged" in countries like Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Jordan and other already-stable nations in the region. Money is a powerful tool, more so than our military in many ways, and I think it wouldn't take much to get that done. The U.S. is already working towards this in Turkey. --Engage in a war of information, particularly via the internet, in countries like Iran and Syria. Be better at marketing than the extremists are. Those countries find it difficult to keep people off the net, much as they try. That could be our "in". Its an ideal spot for CIA, who is recruiting a ton of intelligent, tech savvy college grads nowadays, who could be enticed to work oversease just part time and still achieve this end. --Northern Iraq (Kurdistan) has many valuable natural resources, including natural gas and certain metals. Financially encourage American companies to set up shop there, by investing the initial capital for them, and assuring them that first purchases will be made by our own military there. --To combat corrupt officials and governments, it depends on our relationship with them. This is complicated. Jordan is already helping us this way, though its not well-publicized. Unlike Pakistan, Jordan maintains a relationship with us AND tries to market the positives of US presence to its own people. In Iraq, the key is selective bargaining. Make it an edict, up and down the coalition, that business will be given to bidding parties based primarily on their conduct. This is not easy to do, but can be attempted at least, and would encourage local business middle men treat their folks a little better. This sort of good will is tough to track, but ultimately might do some good. U.S. companies do this all the time - suppliers must meet certain criteria for quality, environmental impact, etc. --Another avenue that I don't think has been attempted is to try to open up a better dialogue with Islam, but here in the States. If that relationship could improve (perhaps by meeting some of their requests here), then that good will could flow back to the Middle East. Islam, like all religions, sees its clerics and high officials do a lot of moving around internationally. Plus there is the pilgrimage. If Muslims in the U.S. think more highly of us, then that effect could bleed over to others. Its a back door way of building a bridge to peace. Time consuming yes, and no guarantee, but it will probably be a positive in the long run. --One thing they are already doing in Iraq which is a positive is CCC-like situations, where locals are given jobs in cleaning up and setting up new facilities and resources for Iraq. This was a major success in Japan and Germany. This can be furthered by giving those plants contracts to build things to be sent back to the U.S. --Here is a final one - and I am probably going to get flamed for suggesting it. But I think it would be very helpful in the long run if we increased the immigrant limits for most Middle Eastern countries. Keep the security requirements the same - but allow many, many more who pass to come over, especially those with education and the ability to find work. I think many people in those countries know at heart how much better things are here. If they see more and more of their friends and family going to the U.S. and enjoying life there, that will be of great benefit. So, there are some of my ideas. Many are politically difficult because they either appear to be somehow fraternizing with the enemy (complete B.S. to me, but for many, stubbornness is seen as courage), or because their effect cannot be easily measured. But the effect would occur nonetheless.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 07:40 AM) No this is pretty much a double standard. I remember when Moore's movie came out, all of the stuff we heard about his being stifled, theaters didn't want to carry the movie, people were too busy tearing the movie apart to actually see it, there was too much spin control, they were trying to stifle this before an election... all of that stuff. The basic theme was that the evil neo-cons were trying to keep this poor individual from getting the truth out. Kap was referring to this thread, and the responses in it. There simply was no double standard present therein. And as for comparing the two, not only were people here not using a double standard, they were in fact trying to be fair and use just one. Moore's films were not shown commercial free, sandwiched around a Presidential address, and marketed by a public network as truth. The double standard, if one exists, lies with ABC. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 07:40 AM) Now the Clinton administration has an equivilant movie come out (and I use the word on purpose because they both seem to be able to be challenged factually depending on who you talk to. For every link that swears the conversation to not kill Bin Laden didn't happen, there are others who swear it did. In this situation we are taking the word of the people who looks the worst if it did indeed happen, so take that FWIW) Its always "different" when something like this kicks your idiology in the teeth. Republicians were outrages when Moore got away with it, and did everything to stop it, now the Dems are doing the exact samething. Yet somehow now it is different, even though all of the same basic arguements are being used (it isn't the "truth", what if people believe it, this is a politicial ploy, we are only trying to show how it "really happened" etc) I have never understood that either. Of all of the stuff you can hang on HIllary!, there are much better things than what her husband did. The insider trading stuff is more interesting than anything, and before all of the links get posted declaring everything under the sun actually did or didn't happen, let me just say having worked where I have worked, I have a little more intimate knowledge than most. And in self-interest, that's about all I am going to say about that. I'll say again, I don't give a damn about Clinton's legacy, or Hillary's candidacy. What I do care about is the way the film was presented, as I noted above. It was just scummy and improper, in my opinion, and may constitute an in-kind contribution.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 10, 2006 -> 03:01 PM) Southsider hit it on the head, though... Michael Moore is a f***ing celebrity, but now ABC is nothing short of political hacks. Amazing the double standard. Look through the thread. You'll see people EQUATING Moore with ABC. That is the opposite of a double standard.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Sep 10, 2006 -> 03:17 PM) Hold on-- We're somehow supposed to "eliminate root causes of hate" by devoting resources to address problems such as corrupt governments and officials? How exactly does this occur? Sure, sounds idealistic, but explain how we address the issue? I find it's a problem beyond our control. When a sizable portion of the 19 hijackers were educated individuals from well-off families, you realize issues such as poverty and dispair -- which many associate with terrorism -- have no bearing on this issue. Honestly, I'm tired of hearing about the Middle East and their issues. Why should we ultimately care how their citizens regard us? Don't tell me, "because it's the right thing to do," or "these people are oppressed!!111." If that were the case, Darfur wouldn't nearly be the slaughterhouse it has become. Yes, we've certaintly created discontent because of our war efforts. No denying that fact. But if it were up to me, I'd remove our presence from that region of the world. Atone for our mistakes. This would ultimately cure terrorism quicker than grand visions of institutional change. Essentially kills two birds -- distance ourselves from connections with Israel, and remove the rally-cry of terrorist organizations whom criticize American presence in Saudi Arabia, among other countries. Finish what we need to finish with Iraq and their government and then leave.....them....alone. What you are hitting on here is an important point - why do we care? I answered that, but maybe I need to be more direct. We care because we NEED that region. Thus, are position of weakness. We need their natural resources. And by the way, if the Administration made a priority of getting us off of oil (which is what I was getting at as one of the things we need to do), and if we stopped supplying Israel with arms... instead of starting a war in Iraq, arming Israel and then trying to feign neutrality... then I could have respected that position. Because then there would at least be SOME chance that they would leave us alone as well. But there is no guarantee in that. None. We could leave Iraq and Afghanistan, stop supplying Israel with arms, and even reduce our need for their oil dramatically. But will that work at this point? Or will the hatred follow us across the globe anyway? Also, you are seriously mistaken if you think poverty and despair have no bearing on terrorism. They are absolutely key pieces to the puzzle. Osama came from a rich family too, you know. But who are the people who support him bodily? Who are the suicide bombers? Who is the public that now sides with those who would oppose the U.S.? They are the masses. And they are not rich.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 10, 2006 -> 12:29 PM) In my opinion, there are too many politicians who use the existence of a terror to fight against as a plus rather than a minus. Also an excellent point. But if ot goes on for too long, that will cease to work for them.

So I looked at some of the batter matchups against Vazquez for Cleveland. There is only one player on the CLE roster with a career average better than .273 against Vaz. And that person is... Starting pitcher Paul Byrd. He's 1 for 2 against Vazquez. Anyone think we'll see him at DH?

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Sep 10, 2006 -> 11:44 AM) Ozuna, LF Iguchi, 2B MVP, RF Thome, DH PK, 1B Crede, 3B AJ, C Uribe, SS BA, CF Vaz, SP Interesting. Crede and AJ are flipped from their normal positions. I guess since AJ's average has gone below .300 and Crede's is over, Ozzie decided there wasn't much reason to put AJ 6th anymore - no more second leadoff hitter.

So Condi Rice echoed W's statements that we are safer, but not safe, from terror. And that more attacks are still possible. Duh. Here is my question: How can these very smart people be so dumb as to think they can defeat terror in this manner? Its as if they don't understand the very nature of the beast. They could kill thousands of them, kill off three quarters of those capable of serious attacks, and guess what? The other quarter would STILL be a threat, and that group would easily add to their ranks by using the renewed hatred against the U.S. Newsflash for the Administration: You cannot defeat terror as if it were a nation-state. Not possible. Your attempt to create a cage match in Iraq will not allow you to conveniently attract and defeat all terrorists in this manner. And most importantly, if you do nothing to address the core causes of the hate which creates these animals, then the "war" will be fought in perpetuity. To borrow from a great film quote... these are the dumbest smart people I have ever seen in the political arena. Of course, here is the wildcard, and the reason why the next administration may end up making all the same mistakes (regardless of party). To actually unwind our current position in Middle East affairs (that being one of weakness - overextended militarily, needing local resources to survive, and horrific PR), and to make some inroads into eliminating the root causes of hate (poverty, corrupt governments, interference by global powers, and the rise of control-hungry religious crusaders in all the major religions of the region), would take a LOT of time and a LOT of money. It will take more than 4 or 8 years. And further, it will take a kind of courage that American politicians seem to have become allergic to - the kind that doesn't involve using violence as a tool. Courage means putting yourself at risk to help another. By that definition, it takes a lot more courage to stand up and address these concerns, than it does to just point a finger and say "you are wrong, and we will destroy you for it."

QUOTE(G&T @ Sep 10, 2006 -> 11:26 AM) Is that because he's been good or because he's been pulled at the right time? He's looked pretty good. A lot better than previously. His last 4 or 5 starts, he's been a solid starting pitcher.