NorthSideSox72

I just want to add something about the game last night, having been there. I don't know if this showed up on TV, but what I saw last night was a team that seemed to wake up in that 6th inning. Not sure what caused it - the bad calls, or Crede's HR, or what. But I saw the dugout go from lounging to very active, and stay that way the rest of the game. And they almost pulled it out - AJ's 9th inning out was literally inches from dropping in. Just my observation. I think the team may be waking up. I hope that's the case. Add that to starting pitching that is improving across the rotation and a now very strong bullpen, and I think things may start to look up.

On my list of worries for the Sox, long relief falls somewhere around #22.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jul 25, 2006 -> 01:54 PM) That's well enough, but ultimately, when George Bush says we have to preserve life -- preserve the human life of embryos! -- he is saying that those who don't oppose stem cell research are killers. Which is sort of ironic, coming from the man most responsible for starting an unjustifiable and massively botched war.

CLARIFICATION OF POLICY - PLEASE READ... When the admin staff here at SoxTalk refers to "personal attacks", that doesn't just mean individual posters. It also means ANY individual at all, including, for example, the President of the United States. And, it includes disparaging references to people's race, gender, religion or sexuality. So... feel free to criticize, analyze and tear apart the policies, actions, behaviors, words and politics of anyone you'd like. But be careful, and never say anything violent, threatening, or offensive towards anyone else, even if they are voluntarily in the spotlight. Some examples... It is OK to say things like... "Dubya is acting like an ass" or "Kerry can just shut the hell up" or "Cheney isn't much of a shot, is he?" or "Nancy Pelosi's voice is like nails on a chalk board" On the other hand, it is NOT OK to say... "(insert politician's name here) is a no-good SOB. He's so full of s--- his eyes are leaking feces." or "(insert poster's name here), you are full of s---, and your posts reflect that. STFU." or "(insert politician's name here) is a pussy (or whoo whoo or other inappropriate anatomical reference)." (These, by the way, were paraphrased from posts deleted or removed from this forum at some point) Hopefully that makes things a little more clear. If it doesn't, please feel free to speak with Rex, myself, or any other moderator or admin for further information. Thank you for your support.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 24, 2006 -> 01:17 PM) I am actually applying to fill in to finish a term with the schoolboard, but my interests are at the city level somewhere. I have had a basic idea for a three point plan rolling in my head for sometime now, but haven't been able to figure out how to get it off of the chalkboard, and into reality. Talk to everyone. Talk to every person on the school board, and every person on that city council. Get all the perspectives. And when you find some folks you like, and they are willing to talk, then start plying them for information. Many politicians love the idea of helping someone start a new career in the field (which surprises me every time).

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 24, 2006 -> 01:11 PM) I know a couple of people have done some stuff in the past, or at least been involved with campaigns, but I am contemplated kicking off my own personal reign of terror campaign and was thinking about putting together a website with my own plans for reviving my hometown. The question is, how do you get the word out about something like this with less than zero funds to put into it? I'm no expert, but I can provide you with one particular piece of information about money... It doesn't need to be yours. I am not sure what level of office you are planning to run at, but even at as low a level as a city council (and certainly for anything higher than that), you need to get in contact with two people - a party representative, and a fundraiser. The party rep can help you find the latter. This is all, unless, you are running as an independent. Then, things get a little more interesting. And if you are talking like school board or something, then its just plain old sweat equity. I'll PM you a couple names.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 24, 2006 -> 12:04 PM) The problem is that too many people believe that because the law gives them a legal right to do something, they have some sort of moral justification for exercising that right. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 24, 2006 -> 12:06 PM) But the contrary problem is that too many people believe that because they find something to be morally wrong, the law should make sure that no one has the right to do whatever action is being considered. And right there, we have in essence the defining polarity on which the current political parties are being sent to the extremes. The religious conservatives trying to exert their moral high ground on the nation by way of law; and the liberal democrats trying to protect everyone from themselves. The interesting turn here, to me, is that the Dems seem to me to not be moving much further left. But the conservative Christian movement is tearing the GOP in two, trying to drag it even further right (having already gone pretty far that way). And while on the surface, and in the short term, that duality (between traditional small government Republicans and religious extremists) would seem to favor the Dems... in the long run, that remaining NON-extremist element of the GOP seems to be the closest sub-group to the middle. And that may end up helping them, if either the Christian Coalition folks break off into a new party, or it goes the other way around.

So, many of you are probably familiar with the practice of Presidential "Signing Statements". Its akin to tacking on a contract as you endorese a check, or in this case, putting a stamp with your signature that says you can interperet the law in its execution. Now, a task force (non-partisan, BTW) set up by the American Bar Association has concluded that such statements, at least in the use of this particular administration, are dangerous and possibly Unconstitutional: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/24/law...h.ap/index.html Bush has done it over 800 times now. All other Presidents combined in history: 600. This particular slap in the face of due process by BushCo makes me more angry than most. Its as if he is saying he can interperet any law in any way he likes, based on his needs. And he puts that stamp on pretty much everything he signs. Not a few specific ones that he takes issue with. How do others feel about this? Do you agree that there is a seperation of powers conflict here?

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Jul 24, 2006 -> 11:09 AM) Why say that if it is not true? I don't know why they would spin it that way. What is the purpose of doing that? How does it send a better message to the club? The entire team can see if he is preparing or not. If he is prepared and ready and the team can see and know this, yet he is being called out by the GM and coaches for not being prepared and for being lazy, what kind of message does that send to the team? I think it sends a very poor message. It just doesn't make any sense for it to be spun that way to send a message to the team. If anything, it sends a terrible message and could turn the team against the coaches and staff. However, there is no information to state that they did this. Yet, you are Please, let us hear your information and why you think this is the case. Because it sure doesn't seem to be the case to me. I have no idea why they'd do that. Maybe they didn't want to admit it was really about going and getting Alomar. Or maybe they were trying to tell the team to not get too comfortable. I have no idea, and neither do any of us.

How bad it was for the Sox to tell Widger what they did depends entirely on whether or not it was true. if it was, and his prep and schedule wasn't acceptable, then they did the right thing. If it was actually his play that was the reason, and they chose to spin it otherwise to send a message to the club... then that was just crappy. And here is the thing - we have no idea which is the case. Without that information, its hard to judge.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 24, 2006 -> 10:33 AM) John Kerry: He's really not helping himself at all. While I agree that Kerry would have been a far sight better as President than our current C-in-C, to simply say that this wouldn't have happened on his watch is kind of laughable. It is possible he could have prevented it, but unlikely. And even if it is possible, its the sort of thing you either don't say at all, or you put it in different terms. Just saying "it wouldn't have happened" makes him look like a whiner.

The next reference to any group of people (Christians, liberals, biologists) or individual poster that is clearly insulting, and the thread gets closed. Please try to keep the insulting adjectives away from the categorical references. If someone's post bothers you, go after the material and the data - not the individual. Thank you for your support.

I can't think of a reason why we'd need a big trade. Honestly, aside from a few small pieces, I don't see this team needing anything. The starters that are struggling (Vazquez, Garcia) can't easily be replaced, since their trade value is low right now. And what would we get back that we need? What weak spots do we have, really, outside of one or two bullpen spots and a backup C?

I guess I would rather have called up Stewart. But this is certainly better at this point than standing pat. And maybe Alomar can shake things up a bit. From a purely results viewpoint, it seems Alomar can't be worse than a 5+ CERA and 0 for 25 at the plate.

I understand the move, of course. But that reasoning surprises me. Perhaps that explains why his CERA was so low last year, and so high this year. It would explain that particular trend. If he was indeed doing tons of extra work last year pre-game, and wasn't doing enough this year, then one has to ask... what would make that change? I almost wonder if there is something personal going on for Chris. But then, this is one of those things where we will likely never know the details. Either way, good luck Widge in your future endeavors.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jul 23, 2006 -> 04:39 PM) One more snarky comment and this thread is locked. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That goes for leftists, rightists and centrists. Personal attacks may result in suspensions. Lets all play nice, shall we?

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 03:11 PM) ?!?!? You didn't even know who Jay Z was? Dude, where you been? Avoiding rap music. And country.

QUOTE(minors @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 01:57 PM) No Ford has no chance here in Tennessee he is holding steady now but when the Republicans vote in mayor Cooker and he can focus on Ford's record which is shaky at best. I thought you lived in Tennessee? I think maybe you are confusing hope with reality. If you do indeed live in TN, you know that pretty much every Ford who runs for office, no matter how "shaky", wins. Its a reality of life for them. And Harold Jr is considered the chosen son of the family, so you can bet he'll win again.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 01:26 PM) Arafat turned down Barak's offer to turn something like 80% of the West Bank and Gaza into a Palestinian state the year before. Just to be clear... I in no way was defending Arafat, who was at best a thug with a lot less influence than he claimed to have, and at worst was a barbarous fiend.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 02:59 PM) It's a major part of American Pop culture. Yes, but not everyone here is. I, for example, had no idea that Jay-Z was the name of a famous musician until yesterday. I still wouldn't know his music if he was playing right in front of me.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 11:44 AM) Neither side is giving up Jerusalem. Aside from the fact that Arafat wanted to be a wartime leader and not a peacetime leader, there's your big dividing line. The Israelis will not give up the Western Wall. The Islamic countries will not be interested in peace without controlling Jerusalem either. And as far as I know, Israel has given up all of its territory within the Sinai. The Camp David Accords with Carter pulled that one off. Was Jerusalem part of the Saudi proposal? I don't recall that part. I think that a deal similar to the Saudi one, combined with in some way turning Jerusalem and a couple nearby holy sites into some sort of de-nationalized heritage sites is probably the only way for it to work. But as you said, Israel is highly unlikely to give them up.

I've brought this up before, but I think it again bears mentioning... In late 2001, Saudi Arabia, after conferring with nations of the Arab League, made a simple offer to Israel - give back the lands taken in the wars of 1968 and 1973 (Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, part of the Sinai I think, and some other areas), for the Palestinians to occupy, and all nations of the Arab League will recognize your existence AND open up to economic relations. Now, obviously, the underlying issues are much more complex. But the offer appeared genuine, and if all those nations acknowledged Israel, then things would at least have a framework for dramatic improvement. Israel turned it down.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 11:12 AM) The only way a U.N. force would work is if the U.N. force went in with teeth. Literally tens of thousands of soldiers, with heavy equipment, armor, etc., and a direct mandate to force Hezbollah to disarm. Thus far, there's been no where near a large enough U.N. presence in that country to even make a dent in Hezbollah's arms supply. The U.N. literally would have to go in as if it were going to war, because that's what it would be if it wanted to do an effective job. I think this is a very important point. UN peacekeeping will only work in HUGE force - like, UN comes in like gangbusters, takes control of Lebanon, and polices it for a long time. And as Balta says, that would take thousands or tens of thousands of troops. Anything half ass, and its pointless.

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 09:18 AM) Why don't we meet halfway? Obviously pitching is the major element this year, and if you had to go for #2.... smallball. Deal? I think last year, pitching was #1, then timely homeruns, THEN a combination of small ball and great defense. We've kept the homeruns going this year, so that isn't really a problem area. I'd agree that small ball and defense are the number 2 and 3 areas that are biting us in the a** right now, yeah. Behind pitching, starters particularly.

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Jul 21, 2006 -> 09:10 AM) I will concede that "smallball" is negated when pitching's not there (pitching and defense, pitching and defense) but to suggest that this had nothing to do with our 2005 success is freakin absurd. It is no more or less 'freakin absurd' than you saying it won us a championship last year. It was a PART of the puzzle last year, and certainly not the biggest part. Most people here won't dispute that we are poor at executing bunts and steals and what-not this year, and indeed that has caused us a few problems. But to say that is the key difference between this year and last is just manifestly untrue. Pitching, pitching, pitching...