NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 5, 2009 -> 11:39 PM) nonetheless, it's not like Richardson was unqualified. Qualifications were never the issue with him. Heck, resume-wise, he was the most qualified man for President. The biggest question was more about character (specifically, at that time, the ladies). Seems now like maybe he was also slimy on the job, but, we'll see. Doesn't look nearly as bad as the Blago thing, but there does seems to be some fire in there.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 5, 2009 -> 09:11 PM) I think the logic is pretty simple. The fact is, the last 8 years (Drink!), the CIA has corrupted itself to the core by supporting Bush's torture program and his illegal warrantless wiretapping program, not to mention the fact that they took the blame for Bush's Iraq debacle. If you basically say that you need someone who comes in with a clean slate to rebuild, you're not left with many options. It's probably worth pointing out that there is a history of CIA directors not being appointees from within the agency. Stansfield M. Turner, John M. Deutch, John McCone and George H.W. Bush serve as some examples. On the other hand...I agree with you on a different level, because we saw in 2003 exactly what happens when you allow facts to be "Fixed" around a policy by intelligence directors willing to sell their souls on behalf of a politician who's support they want. In this case, I think that given the war crimes that have occurred on the watch of the people running that organization in the last 8 years (Drink!), I'm willing to risk some political interference in the intelligence agency if it gives them a fresh start and puts an end to Bush's torture programs. But on this...yes, we must be cautious. I've done quite a bit of reading, and speaking with a few insiders, in the last few years, regarding CIA. My impression is that the single biggest problem there, in terms of their assesment results, isn't necessarily political influence. Certainly that plays a big part in some areas, and it can amplify other problems in a big way. But the biggest flaw appears to be philosophical. Specifically, the intelligence analysts and low/mid-level decision makers SHOULD be questioning EVERYTHING they see. Instead, the culture (in some sections at least) embraces the opposite - some data comes across, a theory is built, its exciting, and its propelled up the line with great enthusiasm. People who say "wait, what is really going on here" are bullied to quiet, and the sexy theories bubble to the top, whether or not they are strong. Curveball was a perfect example of this. CIA needs a culture shift. That has to start from the top of course, but it also has to fliter down through the ranks. You need a very good manager of bureaucrats to do that, but also someone who understands the nature of the intelligence community. Seems like Panetta is the former, but not the latter.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 5, 2009 -> 03:09 PM) So why did you appoint him again if you couldn't get an answer out of him? Says an unnamed source. I liked Richardson for the Prez job, but if I had to guess who holds the blame here, I go with Richardson. I really doubt this source's story. But, we'll see as time goes on.

What's the over/under on how many games into the season when Bradley and Zambrano get into a fight in that clubhouse/dugout?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 5, 2009 -> 02:27 PM) The couple of points worth noting on here. 1. Richardson should have known well before January 3rd whether or not this was going to be a problem. It reflects poorly on him that he waited this long. 2. More importantly to my eyes...it reflects even more poorly on the Obama transition team that they did not realize this was going to be a problem during their vetting processes. This case suggests that they put a lot more emphasis on vetting the lower level guys (remember the gigantic form they had to fill out as qualification) but they were disturbingly lax in investigating their top level guys. This is very troublesome. 3. Even if Richardson did nothing wrong, there is strong suggestion of impropriety on the part of people in his administration so far, and it's hard to believe he could be clean here. 4. Maybe we can now get a better progressive somewhere on Obama's top economic team? On 2, I have a hard time believing that Obama's team would have missed that. I think its simple - its a federal investigation, and Obama's team couldn't have found out unless they got lucky. That's not information that is out there, unless the feds want it out there, usually. On 4, I don't think a "progressive" is a good idea for commerce. I think someone like Richardson, who is pro-business with overseas experience, would be a better choice.

Rosenthal says close, not a done deal yet. What source says its done?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 5, 2009 -> 12:32 PM) With the way the mess is right now, letting them fail does not let the economy heal, it pushes it down further and makes coming back even harder. I don't necessarily agree. Letting them limp along only means they will go bankrupt later, which will stall the recovery, and cost money that will never get back into the economy. Fruthermore, the longer they limp along, the longer they are pummelled by their foreign competition, the weaker market position they will have, which makes the even worse case scenario that much more likely - shutting operations entirely. And that would be far more disastrous than a bankruptcy. Bankruptcy gives them a chance to truly re-tool and start as a stronger business set.

Well clearly this doesn't state that Iraq is safer than Chicago. The iraq number doesn't include the large majority of people killed in violence - only US soldiers. I assume the point that SS was trying to make, was just to point how how far down the violence has gone in Iraq, which is a very good thing.

Pedro Martinez???? What's his health status right now?

QUOTE (SouthsideDon48 @ Jan 5, 2009 -> 02:31 AM) Catch Bobby Jenks' 100mph Fastball Night. A random fan will be chosen to put on catching gear and catch a 100mph fastball thrown by Bobby Jenks for a free autographed Jenks jersey. Pablo Ozuna tried that once. It didn't go well.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jan 4, 2009 -> 07:04 PM) From what I understand, after hearing some stuff on the BBC about it is that Richardson is expected to be fully cleared of any wrongdoing or unethical behavior. The reason for the withdrawal is that they don't think that the grand jury will make that announcement until after Jan 20 and Richardson did not want a scandal to hang around the neck of Obama at the start of the administration. That being said, I'm kinda glad he bowed out because I didn't like him in any position except State. I'd like to know your thinking on the bolded. Why would he have been good for State, but bad for Commerce? One thing Richardson has done well in NM is bring new business and jobs. Plus he has foreign policy experience. Seems to me like either would have been a good fit, resume-wise.

LOL at the idea that corruption has a party. On Richardson, this sucks big time. I liked him for Prez. On the one hand, if the Feds are investigating and talking grand jury, you are probably guilty of something. On the other hand, doesn't seem as bad as Blago's s***, but that may just be because Richardson isn't quite as stupid. In any case, I certainly hope its nothing. Probably though, its something. Crap, indeed.

QUOTE (WilliamTell @ Jan 4, 2009 -> 10:03 AM) Are you sure it's not a friend that's sending you this stuff? Because the last part just screams a friend messing with you. Well, since my credit card number was also stolen, that would be a really s***ty thing for a friend to do. Having to cancel your credit card is a giant pain in the ass. If it is a friend, they won't be a friend much longer.

QUOTE (MHizzle85 @ Jan 3, 2009 -> 11:11 PM) Hmmm. You know you can restart them correct? Sometimes it helps to read the instruction manual...or even use google.... I've had the iPod awhile, don't have the manual anymore. Looked online and the algorithm of keys didn't work for me. My search may not have been very good. QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 3, 2009 -> 11:30 PM) I think you're supposed to press Menu + Center Button at the same time, and hold it for a while. Keep doing that for like 10 seconds at a time. If it doesn't work the first time, flip the safety switch on top so that the buttons don't work, and press the buttons really hard for a few seconds, turn off the safety switch, and do the 10 second thing again. Should work eventually. I did eventually get a message from someone on how to reboot it, and this worked: Slide the lock switch to locked, then unlocked. hold the play button and the center button at the same time for about 2 seconds. Hold the menu button and the center button at the same time for about 10 seconds. I still wonder why Apple couldn't just have a power button.

I'm not sure my iPod was designed by engineers. Seems like maybe it was designed by sales or marketing people. Or maybe retarded mountain goats. Why on earth did they decide to design the iPod without the ability to restart it? Or shut it down? I cannot think of another piece of electronic equipment made by ANYONE that you cannot shut down/restart. Seriously. Seems basic, doesn't it? So, my iPod is frozen, sort of. If I hit a button, the screen is just solid white. After a while, it fades to black, like it normally would. I plug it into my computer, and it says everything is normal. Sees all the files. Just the display is f***ed. So, you'd think I'd want to restart thing. But, alas, in all their wisdom, the engineers at Apple didn't feel that anyone should need to restart their iPods. And since its not frozen with the screen on, its going to take for f***ing ever for this thing to wear down the battery, so that I can restart it. It will take days, or weeks. Drives me up a wall.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 3, 2009 -> 08:59 PM) Haha, yeah, I did think this was a serious thread when I saw it in the mod forum at first, I thought he was too embarrassed to put it in SLaM. Right there with ya. My hat's off to shipps.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 3, 2009 -> 08:45 PM) I also just watched Michael Clayton for the first time. That was a very solid movie. A little boring at times, but I like how it ended. I'm not sure why Tilda Swinton won an Oscar for that movie, as she was in it for all of 15 minutes. Tom Wilkinson really deserved that Oscar. I loved No Country For Old Men, and I believe that Javier Bardem did a hell of a job, but I think Wilkinson bested him. I agree on Wilkinson, I thought he got shafted on that. Should have won.

List updated again. Things seem to have gotten moving again in the FA market. Looks to me like Crede should sign soon.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jan 3, 2009 -> 05:41 PM) Mike MacDougal could totally go to LA. I'd do that trade.

Just watched First Snow on DVD. Kind of a weird movie. Tried too hard to be artsy, comes off too foamy. Brooding, interesting symbolism, but you're never able to like the lead character (Guy Pearce) enough to care what happens. JK Simmons is his usual excellent character actor self, and Piper Perabo is nice to look at. But overall, a disappointment - 2 stars (of 4).

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 3, 2009 -> 11:16 AM) I'm for stopping it as it stands right now. What you contributed/earned up to now is yours, but not one dime more goes in. So nobody new gets any type of pension at all. People still working who have contributed to it get what they put in back to put in their own 401k or whatever. Also, I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong on this, but I thought I heard that the governemtn employees who contributed to whatever pensin plan it was they had didn't have to pay social security. if that is true, then they would have the choice to take the pensionmoney and apply it to social security, or put it in a 401k and start their social security from now forward. But however they do it, it needs to stop now, on all levels. That's fair enough. Better than just taking the money and running, as I thought you were suggesting.

I think there is a lot of flexibility in the definition of "young pitching". Looking at the system as a whole, the Sox do have some talented pitching to deal. The Sox do not have any future aces in the making or anything - Poreda being the closest thing. But there are guys in the system like Cassel, Shirek, Carter, etc. that could draw interest. Unfortunately, the ones closest to the majors (Broadway, Egbert, Marquez, Richard) aren't thought to have as high a ceiling.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 09:26 PM) The local and state governments could get better right away if they were able to get rid of pensions. Why do a majority of taxpayers have to deal with social security while the people we pay our taxes to get a pension? Especially one that is woefully underfunded and over extended? There is no need to any of them to be getting anything more than the average worker, especially the 6 figure paycheck people. Declare a bankrupcy reorganizatin and eliminate the pensions now. teachers, police, sanitation workers, state reps, all of them on social security. maybe then they might actually give a damn about keeping THAT solvent as well. I am all for the elimination of pension plans. However, I assume you are saying you go off the pension plans with new employees, right? Or stop contributing to them going forward? I hope you aren't suggesting that its a good idea to walk up to teachers, cops and firefighters, who have been out there for us for 20 years, and say "sorry, that whole chunk of money we've said is there for you, and that you contributed to? Yeah, that's gone. Have a nice retirement." Because that would be so beyond s***ty, its indescribable. That is the last thing I'd want to see the government do.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 09:39 PM) Well, there was also a rumor they were trying to dump Jones on the Mets and were willing to give up a huge chunk of his salary for 2009. Of course, the Mets already have this dude named Beltran for that position. The problem, once again, is who is the leadoff man if we get Jones? Getz/Lillibridge? Ramirez with his low OBP? Having a good leadoff guy isn't terribly important. I wouldn't go so far as to call it 100% irrelevant, but, its not a good reason in itself to change your tactics in building a roster. You build the best roster you can, then sort out who among those is best fit to lead off.

QUOTE (RibbieRubarb @ Jan 2, 2009 -> 07:42 PM) The only way this happens is if Kenny already had another deal in place...like getting Santana from LA. I thought about that too - get Roberts for Floyd, get an SP elsewhere. But that is the anti-Kenny - trading cheap talent for expensive talent.