NorthSideSox72

NPB, a site about Japanese baseball, translates an article that had this from KW about Japanese free agents: So, in case anyone wondered, it looks like the Sox are likely to steer clear of that market. I am sort of surprised KW was that detailed with names, though.

QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 12:03 PM) ITUNES QUESTION! I got my new laptop and was hoping that when I signed into iTunes, it would have all the songs I bought, but don't see them. Do I have to pay for them again? The songs you have in iTunes are on your old laptop. You have to import them over. Then, you have to hope and pray that iTunes doesn't delete your purchased songs, saying you can't play them because you don't own them. I hate Apple.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 11:46 AM) A person in a cabinet position has discretionary spending authority that no Senator has. That IMO is the key. As a Senator, you can't allocate funds or change policy directly, you need to pass something through the Congress. A cabinet post has the ability to do that. Earmarks. Yes, they get a tacit vote, but really some little earmark almost never holds up a bill. And some of those are for relatively big chunks of money.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 11:44 AM) The key on the nuclear issue has to be to control the old Soviet fissile material stockpiles, something that Obama has already been highly active on, working on the old Nunn/Lugar program. No matter what people say about Iran, North Korea, Libya, etc., it is nearly impossible to produce the material needed for a weapon on your own without having access to huge facilities, an awful lot of time, some darn good scientists, and a lot of money. Barring nuclear reactors suddenly becoming vastly cheaper, the already-processed material, mainly from the Soviets, are your main threat. In terms of bio-weapons...same deal. For them to be effective, they have to be something worse than the common cold. You could conduct a 2001 anthrax attack level assault without significant skill, but to do anything more than that, the best way to pull it off is to get access to some of the material that the Soviets weaponized and mass produced late in the cold war. They made some really, really nasty stuff. The 2001 Anthrax attacks were, lets say, annoying, but they didn't have the ability to spread themselves like a true bioweapon, where each person you infect becomes a carrier who can infect others. The Soviet stockpiles can do that. It's also probably worth stockpiling the smallpox vaccine, because frankly, if I wanted to pick a bio weapon to use to truly harm a country, some variant of that would be my choice. I tend to agree with you on nukes, I think that risk is mostly about existing weapons and materials. That's a key area to address. On bio-weapons, stockpiling vaccines and antedotes for the most likely, most easily weaponizeable (is that a word?) stuff like small pox is a good idea. But if I had to choose something like that, I'd actually go with something hotter and faster that has no vaccine - a hemorragic fever like Ebola, Marburg or Hanta, for example. In a densely populated urban center, if it got a good enough seeding, it could move a lot faster than it could be contained.

QUOTE (Steff @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 11:00 AM) Maybe W or Vogue which are more fashion geared, but not Cosmo. Thankfully they became very responsible about weight issues when they launched Cosmo Girl years ago. I confess its been a few years since I looked. But I recall having these discussions with some women in my life a number of years ago, and Cosmo was pretty bad. Anyway, just an example.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 10:18 AM) Well, considering the very successful plus size modeling going on in advertising right now, I have a hard time believing she is getting shut out just because she is fat. A few agencies may have told her that that have no jobs for her size, but maybe she just isn't that great. I know a lot of pretty girls, most aren't models. I'm sure there is some rhyme or reason to what makes a good one. She probably sent this stuff out to get good will on her side. It's a nice ploy to get a job, but I'm not going to get up in arms and fight for her. I'm having a hard time getting a job too. I think you are missing what is getting people up in arms here. Its not that we care terribly much about whether or not Miss England gets some modeling job - I could care less. Its how this information is further proof of an overall societal problem.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 10:23 AM) Stuff like this I kind of feel like Congress is just covering their bases. I'm not saying we are invincible by any means, obviously, but what the hell do you do with this info. Within the next 4 years, there will be an attack with bio or nukes on US soil. That is the most generalized crap I've ever heard. What, if anything, do you think can be done to minimize the risk?

According to a panel convened by Congress, we are likely to see a biological or nuclear terrorist attack in the US by 2013. This is a scary propsect obviously, but here is the discussion I'd like to start... 1. What can Obama's administration and the new Congress do that will actually mitigate the risk? 2. If it happens, will it end up helping, or hurting, the sitting President?

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 09:26 AM) but basically no one will also end up really wearing their clothes, they serve as influence and art. And considering it's their product and piece they should be able to fit it to someone who gives it the best look. Well let's be clear, I am not saying they shouldn't be allowed to do it. They can do what they want - I just feel its damaging and unhealthy for a lot of girls. Also, people will definitely wear their clothes. Again, not just talking about runway models here - talking about advertisements for clothing that women definitely go out and buy.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 08:59 AM) I'm glad you brought this up because this thread was so fist pumpy I thought I'd get jumped. Fashion modeling isn't really about looks at all. It really doesn't matter whether 100% of us would say she looks beautiful, because when they are on the runway it isn't about them, it's the way they make the clothes look on them. I'm not saying that the movement towards a -2 size is perfectly fine, but not everyone can be a fashion model, and further I don't think girls are as influenced by runway models as say, SI models or Victoria secrets models, of whom they have a variety more sizes. This reality doesn't change to fundamental facts. One, by using these human hangers to model clothes, you are creating a false body impression for people, since basically no one will look like that in the clothes. And second, this isn't just going on with runway models - you see it a lot in womens' magazines. Next time you are in a woman's home, see if you can find a Cosmo or something like that laying around. Most of the women in there will be absurdly skinny.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 08:16 AM) Three. Didn't play the field for most of his career, NL media bias Four. Slowed by injury 20 years. Yeah, I forgot about that one, but definitely his DH-ness will be a hinderence.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 08:10 AM) Basically the argument seems to be, that players with less hits and RBIs, but who played fewer seasons, should be in. That just doesn't make sense to me. It is called "fame" not Hall of Great Seasons. Not Hall of Stats. Playing 22 years is no small feat in itself. With guys literally half his age trying to earn that roster spot. I do agree that longevity should be somewhat of a factor (though not a huge one). If you can be among the league's best overall hitters for 22 years, as Harold was, that is an accomplishment in itself. He probably won't get in, and it will be for two general reasons. One, he wasn't associated with many post-season teams. Two, he isn't decorated enough - no season titles, not high MVP votes, etc.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 08:04 AM) So that I may understand, you are saying the potential ethical issues are the same, except the President has a greater need to CYA? Are her husband's business interests a valid concern? Basically, and to a limited extent.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 07:44 AM) Harold is a career .289 hitter, witha a career .356 OBP and 384 homers in 22 seasons. Never hit 30 homers in a season. Never hit 40 doubles in a season. Stole as many as 10 bases once in his career. Never walked 80 times in a season. 9th place is the highest he ever finished in MVP voting. Didn't play the field the last half of his career. A sweet, steady career, no doubt. A great clutch player? Of course. A HOFer? If you put him in, you better get the blueprints ready for a huge expansion project. Some don't think Jim Thome is HOF worthy. He's going to finish with over 550 homers and an OBP over .400. Harold is definitely the weakest candidate on the list I posted earlier, with Dale Murphy close by. Baines is the perfect picture of great career numbers, but without the single-season accolades. No MVP, not leading in any single category, etc. But I think he makes the grade. I suppose its all a matter of where people choose to draw the line. I saw someone earlier posted some sarcasm about "The Hall of Very Good". Well, I suppose that anyone who lets in more players than you, might seem to be doing that. Fame is kind of a subjective word. And BTW, I don't see any way Thome doesn't get in at this point, barring a steroid revelation.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 07:56 AM) I was just thinking, why should there have been additional scrutiny with Hillary Clinton's husband's interests because she would be Sec of State? If we accept that her husband's interests are a valid concern, why should in change as she moves from the Senate to the Cabinet? The importance didn't change at all. Its a simple matter of stakeholdership. Who hires them, and who takes the blame? In the Senate, the people hired her, by popular vote. In the cabinet, the President hires her. The President, and your average voter, will certainly have different data access and different decisionmaking styles.

This is the right move, and he'll turn it down. QUOTE (bighurt4life @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 11:37 PM) People can't really be arguing that draft picks don't have value. That is just arguing for argument's sake. That never happens here.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 04:19 PM) I still dont understand the uproar about Jim Rice, if he didnt play for Boston, he would be an afterthought. He played 15 years and only had 382 HR's. He was very good, but doesn belong in the HOF IMO. I think you need to look at it with some time-period perspective. Find another player during roughly his career period that was as productive as he was in power numbers - I am not sure you can find any. Actually, one of them is also on the list - Dale Murphy.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 05:34 PM) Not to crap on this joyous occasion, but I'm about to. I thought this was real news when I opened Soxtalk. Damn it. Must you whine in every single thread on the board? You're bored and have nothing better to do than sit and wait on Soxtalk. We get it. Thanks.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 05:03 PM) http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2008...es-too-fat.html In related news, heterosexual men continue being blamed for pushing impossible standards of beauty upon women, causing them shame and anguish and eating disorders, despite the fact the rail-thin-is-in fashion industry is dominated by women and gay men, with the occasional one-in-five straight photographer who thanks Jesus every day that he ignored his parents' suggestion he go into accounting or dentistry. . This kind of s*** drives me nuts. There is nothing "healthy" about a woman built like a skinny 12 year old boy, being 5'9" and having trouble weighing a buck even. I'm not a woman, so I am sure I will never quite understand this topic. But I do find it puzzling that most men I know would prefer a woman to have some curves, and yet, there are some many young girls wanting to turn themselves into stick figures. I mean, I'm sure there are some guys who like that - but they are the minority, and they probably are using it as a way to control people anyway. Where does this come from? Who finds Kate Moss attractive, or even pretty?

As I posted in the other thread... • Harold Baines • Bert Blyleven • Andre Dawson • Rickey Henderson • Tommy John • Jack Morris • Dale Murphy • Tim Raines • Jim Rice Would be my votes. I see you didn't include Baines or Morris or Murphy in your finalists list - they should be there.

That is definitely a tough list. My yes' would be: • Harold Baines • Bert Blyleven • Andre Dawson • Rickey Henderson • Tommy John • Jack Morris • Dale Murphy • Tim Raines • Jim Rice I tend to want more guys to get in than most - just my perspective.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 03:21 PM) I hadn't looked at the markets all day until just now. Bit of a shocker. Not really. After 5 days straight of technical rallying, this was bound to happen.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 09:48 AM) I love that he's a Sox fan, but f*** if that wasn't a waste of time splitting reporters up to their fanhood. Spend those hours doing something important. Actually, that's not what he did. The press are split up in any case, he just chose to call one group Cubs, and one group Sox. They didn't ask anyone who they were a fan of, they just assigned them, as they normally would do. The areas were just named differently.

This was discussed a few months back in here, the thread is gone now. I think one of the names being considered was the Wall Bangers.

Well, according to the footer on the site, mr genius is 33 years old. But I don't believe that for a second. Clearly, the MSM has inflated his age to make the Dems look better. Anyone who doesn't see this is blind. Happy Birthday, mr g.