NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 29, 2009 -> 01:37 PM) I don't think anyone says anything about climate change being a myth. Very few do now because its ridiculous, but some are still hanging onto that. And a few years ago, a lot more were.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 29, 2009 -> 01:36 PM) "Conservative" viewpoints are always wrong. Always. And "liberal" viewpoints by judges always makes them Activists. Always.

6 of 9 on the road puts us 2 over .500 at the break, and probably at worst in a near-tie for 2nd, with TCQ coming back. That would put me solidly in the Buyer camp.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 29, 2009 -> 11:21 AM) Dan Hudson, get used to that name. And who knows if someone gets hurt or whether Richard/Poreda both pan out, etc. Plenty can happen. Expect the Sox to make a run at a corner OF though. Who arrives first - Hudson or Shirek?

I had my left knee scoped for starburst Chondromalacia (I am probably horribly misspelling that). 3 months recovery to normal, only a couple days off my feet, wasn't bad at all. But that isn't an injury per se, it was a chronic build up. If it was just a mild sprain or something, my only advice is, avoid the surgery like the Doc says, do the PT, and make sure you really stretch out before being active on it for a while.

Anyone and anything. Seriously, we have some people who get a good look at B-Ham and GF, but Charlotte sometimes not. Any info you can provide beyond what we see in the box score is great!

Heard this morning on some news program, excerpts from the 911 call his Doc made. Doc said, on tape, that he was giving Michael "gentle" chest compressions on the bed first, before later putting him on the floor. May have done suposedly because of Jackson's frail state. Doc just bought himself a ticket to lose-big-money-in-court. CPR is never done "gently", or on a soft surface, if it can be avoided. Even in a healthy person, CPR usually results in some tissue damage, possibly some cracked ribs even. But that is acceptable when the person doesn't even have a pulse. Any medical professional knows this. Oops.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 29, 2009 -> 12:23 AM) Check out this boxscore: http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/st...ox&did=milb The losing team lost by 15 runs..... and they scored 18!!!! LOL, High Desert used 8 pitchers, one of whom now has an ERA of 135.00.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 28, 2009 -> 07:18 PM) I hope there are no braille computers out there.... There are indeed computers for blind people, in fact it may make some things, like shopping, easier. QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 28, 2009 -> 07:19 PM) Okay, how many blind people do you see go shopping by themselves on a regular basis? The fact that they can't tell the difference between a 1 and a 5 is the least of their problems. I see blind people walking around downtown every day. Chances are they purchase things at some point.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 28, 2009 -> 05:05 PM) bmags compliments BearSox on a post? Wait, where am I? I am 99.9999% sure that bmags' post was sacrastic. I think BearSox's, unfortunately, was not.

Shirek seems to be handling AA pretty well. K's are a little low, but his overall results are quite good.

I'm with Balta, the name is too overloaded with big names.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 04:10 PM) I just hate all politicians... I get upset at every stupid thing even the lowest politician does now. Do you know any? I always find these blanket statements sort of funny. I hate all politicians/cub fans/insert religion or whatever. No one who has ever really known more than one or two of that group would say that, which should tell you its a silly statement. Just like not ALL ballplayers did roids, not ALL politicians are losers.

Here's a thought. You have to braille them anyway, adding some texture. If its cheap enough, you could hide mini-RFID tags in the bills too. They would be small enough, and you could encode them in such a way that you could virtually eliminate fake currency in cash. Only issue is, I don't know what that would cost. May not be worth it.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 02:26 PM) So, all 1300 pages of the bill is just that? Also, can anyone deny that this bill wasn't rushed and poorly put together. If the bill was basically those 2 points, than why in hell did it take the length of Les Miserables to explain it? I actually agree with your point here. The length makes it impossible that anyone really understood the DETAILS of what they were voting for, and its in those details that this government will likely make a good idea poorly executed.

I was hoping for 2/3 in this series. MB needs to get us the win today to have a shot. I think he gets it done.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 01:31 PM) Can someone explain to me how this bill will change anything except making everyone's financial situations tougher? I really don't care if you believe in man-made global climate change or not. Quite simply, this subject is far from settled, and to shove a bill like this down our throats, a bill in which no one has read or understands, is bogus. If you have common sense, you know this bill was forced through in a poor manner, even if you want these things to pass. There really needs to be a limit on how many pages a bill can be and that everyone has time to read and get a full understanding of the bill before voting occurs. This is ridiculous. Billions of tax payer dollars are at sake, and we are forcing this thing down everyone's throat when there still is plenty of time to be a lot more logical about this. Lets continue the research and be smart about this. Good, back to the point. Let's talk about the bill. Here again is what I posted a few pages ago, about the bill, but no one seemed interested in the bill at that time... So, about the bill itself, a few points for discussion... 1. CBO and EPA say this will cost households on average $100 or $200 a year, somewhere in that range. Spread that out over 80 million households, that is $8B to $16B, and is effectively a tax increase. That's an increase in cost that will be put directly on families, and that seems less than ideal. However... why is it that some people are OK with spending 100 times that amount of money fighting wars in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries, but they aren't OK with this amount of money spent on getting us out of their grip and-oh-by-the-way maybe making all our lives healthier? Seems like screwed up priorities to me. 2. GOP'ers are claiming the real costs will be much higher when you factor in passed-down costs. Probably true. But then, the CBO and EPA numbers also don't reflect the creation and sustaining of a lot of high-paying jobs that this will result in, with money going to that instead of out the door for oil. So, you need to really look at both sets of indirect cost/benefit pieces, not just the one that fits your views.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 11:33 AM) Really, no science saying it's not happening... here's a list of some of the global warming skeptics who so happen to be scientists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming Oh, how about this one: http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462 Also, what about more and more scientists standing up against global warming in Europe? But yeah, I'm sure you're right... there is absolutely no science against global warming. OK, did you read the Wiki entry you posted here? Because right in the first paragraph... Its not what you think it is. And further, the 2nd graf... The very article you quote says science agrees with what I have been saying - climate change is occurring and its real and its significant. And while a large majority feel it has at least some human causation, there are SOME who disagree with certain specific posits made, and as to the extent of it. Your article supports my argument exactly. Read it and see. As for the other piece... The Tulsa Beacon? Seriously? Who is then citing World Net Daily? And its a petition that amounts to printing a form online, signing it, and sending it in. No research necessary. So, again, NO SCIENCE HERE. No research. No evidence. No one saying it isn't happening. Just a small list of scientists who feel, for example, that it is mostly natural, or has some unknown factors contributing. Like I said.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 11:21 AM) Absolutely. Count me in the "I'm not 100% sure, but better safe than sorry" category. it pisses me off to no end as well, we were willing to spend $1T, kill a few thousand American soldiers and a few tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of civilians to go to war in Iraq on this evidence: reports by a single lying informant (Curveball), and satelite images of trucks moving around. An yet, when thousands of scientists all over the world in near-unison say, hey, maybe we should do something to protect ourselves... well, we can't spend money on that, can we? f***ed up priorities.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 10:47 AM) lol, what? The e-mails came from his personal e-mail account. Either someone hacked into his account or he left the computer on and someone jumped on. And the newspaper got it from an annoynmos source over 2 months ago. Michael Savage's theory of the DHS or NSA accessing his e-mails isn't that crazy. Why wouldn't Obama want to eliminate his opponents one by one. I'm not saying that's the case, but the conspiracy theorist inside me kinda believes it. If you were to assume that this theory has even the remotest possibility of being true (which is a huge leap anyway)... wouldn't the smart political thing be to hold onto that until after Sanford is already nominated for Prez or VP, or is a major competitor for it? Eliminating him now HURTS Obama, doesn't help him, because it opens the door for someone else who might be clean. So the silly conspiracy theories on this make no sense, even if you look at it as being something he'd do.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 11:08 AM) :facepalm: It's not about Gore. Forget about Gore. He does not matter. Personally, I think he's a jackass. Doesn't matter one bit. Pay attention to peer-reviewed science, not political figures or editorials. That's what matters. As for the 90%, here's a link. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf The tide isn't turning. There's no global conspiracy to suppress evidence or data showing otherwise. It's not an insidious liberal agenda and its not about greedy scientists. Put away the tin foil hats and pick up a copy of Science, or at least Scientific American. It wasn't that I've read a lot of the science or that "hmm, they mostly agree" that convinced me; it was the completely vacuousness of the counter-arguments. There will always be doubters and contrarians. There's still fringe scientists out there who deny evolution or relativity. You'll find that they have the same global conspriracy, suppressing the truth, in-it-for-the-money, but the tide is turning! rhetoric. Thank you. Could 99% of these climatologists be wrong? Sure. But to hang onto that 1% as if its likely is like waiting for DeWayne Wise to go on a 30 game hitting streak. The counter-science just isn't there. Its non-existent or a very, very small minority. the only tide that is changing is purely politicians and op-ed writers.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 10:23 AM) Unless the CBO guarantees to pay any additional costs on top of their estimations, I call bunk. Notice there is no such guarantee, because they don't actually care one way or the other. Even Warren Buffett is saying it's going to be a tax passed right onto the consumer -- to think for one second the utilities are just going to suck it up and pay it is laughable. When it comes to money, I tend to trust Buffett more than the government -- he actually makes profits more often than swimming in red. As for the "science" of climate change -- regardless of what you think, there IS valid science on both sides. To simply ignore one side just because it doesn't agree with you is ignorant. Again, there *is* counter science. This is another case of "our science is prooven, 100% real, your science is fake trash!". Yea, ok, because that's how it works. In the 1970's, the science of global cooling was "90%" prooven fact, too. Funny how that changed the second the money started flowing toward warming. It's bulls***, it's about money, it's always about money. QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 10:42 AM) Your the arrogant one if you completely ignore the science against it. Global Climate Change or whatever the hell it is called now is FAR from a fact. In Europe you are seeing more and more scientists stepping up against Global Warming. But yeah, you're right... we're just all deniers if we don't accept the crap Al Gore has been feeding us over the past several years. I should get my head checked because I don't agree with "90% of science." As has been posted in this forum on multiple occasions... 1. The whole 1970's cooling thing is a joke. One article by one scientist says there is a cooling trend, and now all people looking for any crack in climate change grab onto the MEDIA panic FROM that article to say "SCIENCE WAS WRONG THEN". That is of course not at all the case. There was not some huge trend or wave of science talking of global cooling - there was nothing of the sort. You have been fooled into thinking there was. If there was anything more than one pseudo-science piece and a bunch of media tripe, please do show me. 2. What counterscience? Last I looked, just a few months ago in here I think (I need to go look), they scraped up thousands of peer-reviewed scientific pieces that studied global climate change, and nary a one made an argument that it wasn't happening. Most said it had at least a partial human causation (how much is of course very much up for debate). So again, what counterscience? Can you cite a single scientific research piece (not some writer pulling together bits and pieces of other articles) that shows its not happening? Because I have yet to see such a thing. You guys are really grasping at straws here. Its not that one science is good and the other is trash - its that there IS NO SCIENCE saying its not happening. Some dude looking at 5 years of data and saying "SEE, NO WARMING!!!" is not science. Its not a peer-reviewed, academic or research piece. Show me an example of where I am wrong.

So, again like in 2008, after Ehren was demoted to Charlotte this year, he struggled a few games at first, but has been lights-out since. In 7 June games, he has a 0.69 ERA, 0.77 WHIP, 11 K vs 2 BB in 11 IP. His season numbers to date now look pretty good (he is being used as a setup guy right now): 24 G 39 IP 36 H 15 ER 9 BB 40 K 3.46 ERA 1.15 WHIP 1.53 GO/AO .242 AvgA 2.07 BB/9 9.23 K/9 If he keeps this up, depending on the team's needs, don't be surprised if he gets a September call-up. He's not on the 40-man roster though, so he may be behind some other righties like Link, Marquez and Russell, who are all on the 40. Its possible the best thing for Ehren might be to go to another organization, where they have more glaring bullpen needs. It seems his disappointing 2008 campaign has made the likelihood of his getting another real chance with the Sox very small.

Per FutureSox.com, Cassel has been demoted back to AA Birmingham after struggling in Charlotte. Lucas Harrell was promoted to take his place.

So, about the bill itself, a few points for discussion... 1. CBO and EPA say this will cost households on average $100 or $200 a year, somewhere in that range. Spread that out over 80 million households, that is $8B to $16B, and is effectively a tax increase. That's an increase in cost that will be put directly on families, and that seems less than ideal. However... why is it that some people are OK with spending 100 times that amount of money fighting wars in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries, but they aren't OK with this amount of money spent on getting us out of their grip and-oh-by-the-way maybe making all our lives healthier? Seems like screwed up priorities to me. 2. GOP'ers are claiming the real costs will be much higher when you factor in passed-down costs. Probably true. But then, the CBO and EPA numbers also don't reflect the creation and sustaining of a lot of high-paying jobs that this will result in, with money going to that instead of out the door for oil. So, you need to really look at both sets of indirect cost/benefit pieces, not just the one that fits your views.