NorthSideSox72

Issued by the National Weather Service at 11:00 am CDT on September 10, 2006 Light rain and rain showers will continue to move northeastward across the area through 1 PM CDT. The most widespread rain will occur generally of Interstate 80...with widely scattered light showers to the south of this area. Looks like it should subside around gametime and become on-and-off after that. Should get it in.

QUOTE(Iwritecode @ Sep 10, 2006 -> 09:44 AM) Anyone think they'll actually get the game in today? It's been raining all day and doesn't look to let up anytime soon. How soon would they call it? I have a long way to travel to go the game and hate to have to turn around and come right back home. Issued by the National Weather Service at 11:00 am CDT on September 10, 2006 Light rain and rain showers will continue to move northeastward across the area through 1 PM CDT. The most widespread rain will occur generally of Interstate 80...with widely scattered light showers to the south of this area. Looks like it should subside around gametime and become on-and-off after that. Should get it in.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 9, 2006 -> 11:58 PM) I love these guys. They've hurt the United States of America so much...we'll be regretting their idiocy for decades. I'm as mad as anyone with the way the war was handled - and the fact that it happened at all. But I have a hard time believing that Rumsfeld would issue an edict preventing any sort of post-war planning. That is just so assinine, and Rumsfeld may be many things, but he's not that stupid. I'd venture a guess that this is contextual. For example: during the planning sessions for the invasion and securing phases, which the transportation guy would have been in, Rumsfeld wants THOSE answers. Some generals, rightly fearing what will happen afterwards, start spending too much time for Rummy's liking on those subjects. Rummy tells them to stick to the job they are assiged. That, to me, sounds like him. But I must admit, this is just conjecture and a strong gut feeling. Maybe Rumsfeld was that stupid. I just kind of doubt it.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 10, 2006 -> 10:10 AM) Given the choice between Hillary! and Al, I would vote for Gore in a second. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And I'd vote for Gore over Kerry, Feingold or Reid, and possibly over Edwards. I'd also vote for Gore over many, but not all, of the current crop of GOP figures in the field.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 9, 2006 -> 12:27 PM) It amazes me how the Democrats are all in a panty-wad tight uproar about this. From what I hear, there's plenty of blame to go around, on all accounts, but the 20 miuutes of "Clinton blame" is JUST too much!!! OMG!!@#$!%!!!!! You don't actually think that is what is upsetting, do you? I could give two craps about Clinton's legacy. The point is that it is being marketed as a documentary, with some connotation of truth, when it is apparently nothing more than a political scheme. Its slimy as hell. That is what bothers me. Put commercials with it, and change "based on the 9/11 Commission Report" to something like "suggested by...", and I'm fine with it. Its still slimey, but at least it isn't an out and out use of public broadcast time to gain a political end.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 9, 2006 -> 10:51 AM) Actually, his points are based upon materials discovered in the wreckage of 9/11 that may not jibe with the idea of a jet crash. I think he's full of s***, but so is half of academe. Just because its controversial or wrong doesn't mean it's fireable. He works for a private institution. Anything is fireable (unless he claims he was fired because he was a member of a protected group). Two different things here, though. Is the University allowed to fire him? Absolutely. Would I run a University that way if it were up to me? No.

QUOTE(greg775 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 11:03 PM) I wonder if any were dumb enough to leave early. I bet most stayed to watch the dramatics. I was there. Actually, yes, many people were dumb enough to leave. Actually, it seemed a lot of people left before the 9th. Which was weird, since it was such a good, tight game. QUOTE(greg775 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 11:03 PM) Did AJ really toss the bat toward the Tribe dugout? Awesome. I didn't see that, but I DID see him toss his helmet in the air.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 02:49 PM) I don't know if the facts truly back that up. India and Pakistan first went to war right after partition, in the late 40's, just like the Middle East, and that was followed up by another full scale war between India and Pakistan in 1965 and another one in 1971. There was also a war in 1962 between India and China. The thing that has prevented a lot of the "full scale wars" we've seen in the Middle East from happening since the 70s is, IMO, the bomb, which India first developed in the 70's (they tested a "Peaceful nuclear device, whatever the Hell that is) and Pakistan developed sometime afterwards. Unlike Israel, which has no one who can counter them if they strike, India and Pakistan can only go so far militarily any more without tens of millions of people vaporizing. Israel for 25 years has been able to strike at anyone with impunity, because no one can strike back and defeat them. The nukes are definitely part of the puzzle. There hasn't been much worse than border skirmishes between the two since the 70's, and that is not coincidental. But I am also impressed with India's ability in the last 30 years to marginalize violence. The stuff in Sri Lanka once effected the mainland a lot, but they extracted themselves from that battle. The Naxalites are just a shell of their former force. The Kashmir has had a semi-stable line for some time. Its not just the Nukes - there is more they have accomplished than that. One of the ways they have curbed violence internally is a huge emphasis on education and business. And I think the successes of that are apparent now. Aside from the new "Help Desk" Class, it is interesting to note that even the poorest of poor India usually have a basic education and can read.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 02:37 PM) The stories of the flights from/to Pakistan after the partitician and the history of the immediately after are amazing. Lots of their history paralells the history of Israel, as a country was just carved out of somewhere that wasn't there before, and then the human flight of people trying to get where they wanted to be. Much of the history of violence, hatred and nearly perpetual war also seems to follow the history of the middle east. I think the one difference is that in this case the big difference is that India just has more human power and sheer size than Israel, which doesn't allow for full scale wars that we routinely see in the middle east. I also believe that India has been much luckier in the peaceful leaders they have seen over the years, all though I think part of that goes back to the ability to overwealm an enemy that India naturally posesses. The problem in my eyes is that the underlaying cause of violence is religious and not purely political in my eyes, which means it will never truely go away. I think it is each countries best long term interests to simply ignore each other, but fringe groups, mostly from the fundementalist Islamic side, won't allow this to happen. I agree with much of this. India's sheer size, military and industrial strength are major deterrents. Peaceful democratic leaders have helped too. The history of the split of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh is indeed frought with war, but also amazing stories of how much worse it could have gone. I think the underlying cause of violence between India and Pakistan started as religious, then morphed into much more of a pure political thing. But, after 9/11, the pendulum may be swinging back. And that is the way the fundamentalists want it. Another factor I failed to mention, which is part of the puzzle, is the influence of Hinduism. As a religion, it is profoundly opposed to violence for any reason. Being the largest religion in the country, I think that carries some weight.

I've seen the scene where they falsely protray that Clinton put a stop to killing Osama who was in their sights. 9/11 commission called BS on that story. The one time they could have gotten him, they tried - and failed. BTW, I do actually agree that the Clinton admin should take some blame for 9/11. not a lot, but some. I just hate to see this sort of drama being marketed as fact.

India is, to me, presents a fascinating juxtaposition to the current worldwide trend towards further cleaving of the major religions. India has more than one hundred million each of Muslims, Hindu and Christians. There are also tens of millions of Buddhists, and wide variety of exotic religious and political fiefdoms. And yet, despite the seemingly intractable path the world is on towards a cage match between Jesus and Muhammad, India has remained generally peaceful. Of course, as most of you know, India is in a constant low-level war with Pakistan over the Kashmir. But this battle has zero to do with religion and everything to do with resources, geography and power. Violent crime in India is among the lowest of any nation in the world, despite its overcrowded cities, proximity to the Middle East and deep pockets of poverty. Having travelled in India, one could find religious symbols, ceremonies and places of worship for all the major religions very near to one another. And when one asks about this, for the most part, they shrug their shoulders or give the patented Indian head roll in nonchalant response. There are some small pockets of occasional unrest near Bangladesh - Naxalites and Communist seperatists - but there is usual little in the way of deadly violence involved. But in the last year, there has been a sudden rash of terror. From September 11 through 2005, I can recall just one significant act of terror in India - the Parliament bombing, in late 2001. This year, though, there was the mass train bombing in Mumbai that killed hundreds of people. Today, another bombing in a central Indian city (the article incorrectly refers to Maharashtra as a Western state) killed dozens. And there was another bombing in Delhi just weeks ago. Here is my discussion point - is India's long lasting but fragile peace in jeapordy? We are talking here about a country of more than a billion people, at the nexus of the Middle East, China and Southeast Asia. One of the major economic powerhouses in the world at this point, and the world's largest democracy. What does it mean to the world picture of its 2nd largest growing economy falls into religious infighting? What about all the western outsourcing business in India - what if it cannot continue to operate safely? My take on India is that its people are among the most peaceful I have met. But they are also passionate and strong-willed. It would be a shame to see such a strong model of religious tolerance and economic growth pulled back a few decades by violence. Perhaps this is a country the US should be keeping a close eye on politically, not just in business. On that note, I have to say I was glad to see Bush's visit - a strong connection there is, I think, crucial for us in the region. Any thoughts? Or is this just too obscure?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 01:52 PM) The team is distracted, bar none. And tired and in pain, IMO.

Eh, private university, private business. I don't really care what they do with him. They can fire him for having a bad hair cut if they want to.

QUOTE(Goldmember @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 01:11 PM) so when some of you see a movie that says 'based on a true story,' do you think that is exactly how those events happened? 1. There is a difference between what an educated, analytical, politically savvy person takes from that, and what most other people take from it. I realize that sounds harsh, but it is true. 2. When its presented as "based on a government report of 9/11" and is run commercial-free in Prime Time, its projected as news. I may know it to contain falsehoods, so may others. But many will take it as fact. That is not the same as some Lifetime movie.

Wow. Amazing the amount of slime coming off people involved with this movie. To run a drama series commercial free and marketed in every way as fact, well, that's just spineless and negligent. To try to use the government to prevent them from running it isn't much better, even if it were in response. If this thing were running as a normal commercial program, and wasn't being called "based on the 9/11 commision report", I'd be perfectly fine with it. Fiction and all. You know, the more and more this sits with me, the timing with the elections and running it commercial-free... this is really, really slimy. WAY worse than running a possibly disparaging documentary about a President from the 80's. I have to say this is absolutely an in-kind contribution, and it is making me really angry. Damn liberal MSM.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 09:01 AM) Some of the conspiracy BS actually goes as far as to say that a plane didn't even hit the WTC... Oh that. OK. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 07:39 AM) Kinky doesn't want 1500 border patrol troops, he wants 10,000 Texas national guard troops guarding the border Sounds great. Too bad a big chunk our National Guard is off guarding a different nation. I really think that the Guard units ought to be controlled by the states, as they were originally intended. It should be up to the states whether or not to provide the Guard to the national military for any FOREIGN war. The only time the US government should have total control over the Guard is for a war fought on our own soil. At the very least, the base requirement should be a declared war of some kind.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 07:45 AM) I wonder how the CIA got Bin Laden to cooperate so well? OK so, you have to be more direct here. What are you implying? I can think of a few different possibilities, and I am curious which you mean.

QUOTE(beck72 @ Sep 7, 2006 -> 04:45 PM) A good start by Mark will get the sox a win. The offense needs to keep up the timely hitting from Wed. Beck- I am curious what the "Playoffs of Bust" are. Is that like a topless show or something? If so, sign me up.

QUOTE(longshot7 @ Sep 7, 2006 -> 02:11 PM) Which goes to prove why the government should be working with poor communities to educate them in ways of contraception, sex education, and make varieties of contraception more available and easy to obtain, like the morning after pill. But we're so hung up on not promoting recreational sex & not to mention the stupid religions that encourage poor people to have tons of kids.... QUOTE(longshot7 @ Sep 7, 2006 -> 04:01 PM) Catholicism totally does. Natural Contraception? You mean nothing? What's the harm in letting all those third world countries (and portions of this one) dominated by catholic dogma use artifical contraception, when it will bring down the birth rate, creating more food and resources for the people already living? I see this in LA every day. Until religions try to encourage poor people to have LESS children, they are not helping. "Leaving it up to God" is a bad idea. Clearly, you haven't had to attend mucus class. It ain't nothing, my friend. (all the Catholics in here know what I mean)

QUOTE(BHAMBARONS @ Sep 7, 2006 -> 02:20 PM) No this is serial killer #2 the other was the serial shooter both were terrorizing Phoenix and now both are caught. This guy I think is the worst of the killers. Yeah I remeber that, this guy started out as the baseline rapist then started killing his victim's. The other guys (Serial Shooters) picked out random people and shot at them. They were a lot less organized than this guy was. OK. I was thinking of the serial shooters. Thanks.

QUOTE(BHAMBARONS @ Sep 7, 2006 -> 01:56 PM) Suspect held in Baseline killings Didn't this happen weeks ago? We had a whole thread on this, didn't we?

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Sep 7, 2006 -> 01:56 PM) If Ozzie was the reason Garland was better, how come Garland had better numbers his last year with Manuel than his first year with Ozzie? Garland just matured. Actually, I think that proves the point exactly. Garland was babied by Manuel. Ozzie leaves him out there, so at first, naturally he struggles. Then he learned. Garland would not have learned those skills under Manuel.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 7, 2006 -> 01:53 PM) It's even scarier because a lot of Bears fans STILL think Ditka was a great coach, when in reality he was a pretty bad one. That's actually a really good analogy. There are a lot of parallels between Ditka and Ozzie, both good and bad.

Mathematically, I'd say the best way to represent how "all or nothing" a team is, is to use standard deviation from their scoring mean.