WCSox

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Aug 27, 2006 -> 12:29 AM) I'm a Colts fan, a Cyclone fan, and a White Sox fan. If I wanted a perennial winner, I would have made better choices. Couldn't have said it better myself. I'm a Colts (and Peyton) fan as well and don't plan on jumping off of that boat anytime soon either. I mentally-prepared myself for the Sox to come short of repeating back in November. As long as they're competitive, I'm excited and I'm paying attention. And it's not like I was considering jumping ship back in the late '80s and late '90s either.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Aug 28, 2006 -> 12:05 PM) I guess that's one way to look at it. Or you can look at it that at the beginning of the year this rotation was being billed as one of the best ever. I suppose another way to look at it is that the "best ever" rotation consists of a guy who is way past his prime and whose arm took a ton of abuse in Cuba, two guys who have thrown 200+ innings for the past five straight seasons, and a guy who has never lived up to the hype after leaving Montreal and getting run out of the Bronx. When also considering the fact that four of our five current starters also threw a ton of innings last Fall, is it really such a shocker that Garland is our only consistent pitcher right now? Talent doesn't produce wins - execution does. Garland, Buehrle, Cotts, Hermanson, and Politte all had career years last season. Freddy had his second- or third-best season. Contreras was unhittable down the stretch. Jenks, who was acquired off of the scrap heap, turned Hermanson's back injury from a serious concern to a non-factor. Crede turned into Brooks Robinson in mid-August and was Jeter-esque in the clutch in the playoffs. Paulie, A.J., Dye, Pods, El Duque, and some guy named Geoff Blum also came up huge at times in the post-season. The Sox won last season because they made few mistakes and because a number of them got hot at the right time. A number of other circumstances were also at play: Injuries to Clemens and Colon and poor pitching from Johnson and Mussina helped them out tremendously. Brad Lidge and Chad Qualls literally lost Game 2 of the WS all by themselves. Tony Graffanino's Little League error took Boston out of Game 2 of the ALDS. A few questionable calls in the post-season helped them as well. I'm not going to take away from what they did by calling them "lucky", but they were certainly put in the best possible position to win... and responded by doing a tremendous job of capitalizing on it. That's not going to happen every season and I'm fine with that. There's always going to be a certain degree of disappointment if they don't go all the way again. But as long as they're highly-competitive through September, I have little to complain about.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Aug 28, 2006 -> 12:02 PM) I guess many of us didn't forsee him hitting about 5 total homers in the second half. FWIW, I predicted something like 46 or 47, so I was way off as well. There was no way he'd stay on that pace for the entire season. Even without the minor injury problems, 50 was still a lot to expect. That said, he's already surpasses my expectations, so God bless him.

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 26, 2006 -> 09:04 PM) This week on the radio, Don Cooper said that anything but another World Series championship this year is a disappointment. True. Then again, I find it difficult to feel that disappointed in a team that's been marred with mediocre/inconsistent starting pitching and stuck in third place in an ultra-competitive division, yet is still on pace to win 95 games and is only a half game out of the Wild Card lead.

QUOTE(mu mu @ Aug 28, 2006 -> 11:05 AM) That doesn't mean a thing if we don't finish ahead of Minnesota. If the Twins win 96 games, and we win 95, we're out. Well, yes. I was just giving some historical perspective.

IIRC, it's been a long time since a team with 94 wins didn't get into the playoffs.

Definitely under. Mid-30's. BTW, I believe that I was one of the few people who predicted that Thome wouldn't reach 50 this year.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 15, 2006 -> 10:33 AM) The additions KW has made to it this year are just beautiful. Agreed. If the Sox fall short this season, it won't be because KW didn't put them in the best possible position to win.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:59 AM) Actually, the paper that you're so quick to bash happens to be Lieberman's hometown paper, and it endorsed Lieberman over Lamont in the primary. That's nice, but it doesn't mean anything. Did the AUTHOR of the article endorse Lieberman? Did he change his mind and decide to toe the party line after Joe lost the primary? I find it absolutely laughable that people are actually asking Joe to quit because they think that he's too much of a "threat" to their agenda. That would be like the Sox asking the Twins and Red Sox to tank the rest of the season because they're all serious threats to their Wild Card aspirations.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:15 AM) It is applicable in an abstract way. How does our society change if we allow invasive searches to get on an airplane (for example). We are accepting that we can not have the freedoms our parents had. I don't see any turning back. We can't eliminate terrorism. Our freedoms are not just about the government and what they can do, but also about what we will allow each other to do. It doesn't matter of the government can't search your person 24/7 if we allow employers, airlines, buses, retail stores, etc. to make the same searches. That's a good point. I agree that we're not going to have the freedoms that our parents did because we don't live in the same world that they did. Like I said, we can't have it both ways. The challenge ahead of us will be balancing security with "unprotected" freedoms and not infriging on Constitutionally-protected freedoms. It's going to be difficult, but we're going to have to face it. QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:44 AM) Neither driving, nor flying (whether as pilot or passenger) has ever been legally recognized as any sort of right. They are priviledges. You have the RIGHT to move about by whatever methods you have access to. Walking, biking, riding public transit, etc. are free access. You have a right to choose to travel, but if you choose flying or driving, you can only do so under certain restrictions. IMO, you give up your right to complete privacy whenever you elect to take any form of public- or private-sector transportation (bus, train, plane, taxi, etc.) and your privacy is somewhat limited while driving a vehicle (subject to police searches if probable cause applies).

I find it funny that Lamont's liberal supporters are getting so bent out of shape about this. Lamont wins the Democratic primary, but they're so frightened of Lieberman's popularity among moderates and conservatives that they're actually asking him to quit. LOL! And his party have left themselves open to the charge that they've gone from the party of FDR to the party of Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi. Joe shouldn't be expected to rubber-stamp that shift and toe the party line. I think that he can do both of these things. There are A LOT of moderates/independents/conservatives in CT that have voted for Lieberman in the past. On the flip side of that, Joe may actually split the conservative/independent/moderate vote and help Lamont win. It should be interesting to see what happens.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 09:39 AM) I love how people are discounting record turnout in an August primary. 40% is an amazing turnout number for a primary. The Virginia Primary turnout number was something like one-tenth that. Yep, the twenty-something bloggers sure did a great job of mobilizing their party in the primary. But that doesn't translate into winning an election against a popular incumbent who still has a lot of support... not even close. In fact, it's fathomable that Lieberman may end up splitting the Democratic vote.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:02 AM) Most of the people in the US don't like Bush. They don't like Bush or they disagree with one or two of his policies? There's a big difference.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 09:41 AM) I was thinking more along the lines of search and seizure, probable cause, wiretapping, due process, freedom of speech, stuff like that. The "if you have nothing to hide, why would you want that freedom" stuff. Well, that's a different story... and really isn't applicable to the airline/airport security. I generally agree with you, although I wouldn't mind the wiretapping if there were some SERIOUS legal restrictions regarding how the information could be used.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 08:46 AM) Without those freedoms, we're just another country. Our military fought to give us those freedoms, and now we want to fold them lke a bunch of wimps. I hate the "we have to give up our freedoms to save our freedoms" situation. I don't believe a laptop is any safer in the cargo hold as it is as carry on. Same for much of this stuff. I'd rather "fold like a wimp" than allow terrorist to kill hundreds or thousands of Americans because a small sect of people believe that having their cell phone in their carry-on bag is their Constitutional "right." You can't have it both ways. In the case of airline security, I'll happily accept new restrictions if it means that more lives are saved.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 05:49 AM) See, I don't know. Out of the Dems eligible to vote, about 40% showed up in CT, and 51% of those voted for Lamont. So, that means 16% (or however the math works out, whatever, you'll get my point) voted to remove Joementum from office. It was a smaller percentage then anyone wants us to see, let's put it that way. This is *HUGE* to all the Dems and liberal media because it's a "referendum on George Bush". GET THE f*** OFF OF THAT. It is NOT. But they sure want us to believe it. My (mostly Republican) wife's family lives in CT and most of them have historically voted for Lieberman. It'll be interesting to see how many Republicans (and conservative Dems) vote for him as an Independent in the general election. While the primary results clearly show strong support for Lamont among Dems, 51% of 40% of that party's (registered) opinion doesn't really mean much in the big picture.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Aug 7, 2006 -> 01:22 PM) From everything I've seen, they loved Landis. If they really had all this power to screw someone over, it would've been Armstrong. I'm sure that a lot of them dislike Landis. Perhaps not as much as Lance, but I don't think that the French like when "their" sport is dominated by Americans for eight straight years. And I wouldn't put misconduct past the French officials and/or French lab who tested Landis. That said, I'd guess that Landis took an illegal cortisone shot or something after the hip problem to keep the pain down. That type of a sudden spike in testosterone isn't going to happen naturally... and I'll give the testers the benefit of the doubt for now.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Aug 6, 2006 -> 11:05 AM) This is so frustrating. I'm not blaming anyone. I'm simply trying to say this. Within 48 hours, there was definitely an opportunity in the beginning stages of this conflict to not only keep this situation from spiralling out of control as well as acheiving Israel's goal of disarming Hezbollah. But world powers chose not to exercise diplomatic leadership. This doesn't involve military forces. This doesn't involve assigning blame, or yelling at one country to do something. This simply involves powerful governments in the world to be aware of the goings on within certain hotspots of the world. And that's something that powerful governments in the world chose not to do. It involves talking to both the Lebanese and Israeli governments immediately following the start of such a conflict and working quickly toward a resolution for both sides. Only one government stood up to lead any kind of diplomacy in the region. That was France. However, they don't have the influence in the region that a Russia, US, UK or even China would have. So their initiative ends up in a broadly worded call for a ceasefire that isn't really a ceasefire to begin with because the language is so broad and loose that it basically binds Israel to no terms of ceasefire whatsoever as long as they claim it to be a "defensive action." With that kind of language, its no wonder why Lebanon rejects it out of hand. I think that we can all agree with this. And, unfortunately, France's actions were too little, too late. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 7, 2006 -> 08:56 AM) But the other side of that token is that it's not necessarily possible for Israel to do so. Their attacks have barely made a dent in that organization, they're still firing as many missiles into Israel as they were on day one of this campaign, the Israelis have been unable to push very far at all into Lebanon, and the added support gained by Hezbollah through this campaign, the damage its done to Lebanon's infrastructure, and the added prestige it has brought Hezbollah throughout the Muslim world is going to far offset the loss of a few hundred fighters. And if Israel sat there with their thumbs up their asses, nobody would even be talking about Iran and Syria supplying weapons to Hezbollah. I don't think that anybody knew the extent to which Hezbollah has been armed, not even the Israeli intelligence that watches this region like hawks. The more popular support in the Arab world for Hezbollah is being offset by increased scrutiny towards Iran and Syria in the rest of the world.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Aug 5, 2006 -> 08:38 PM) I really think that this is a situation where most major powers didn't step up fast enough to create a small avenue of opportunity that existed within the first 48 hours of the conflict. I think had a country with enough worldwide clout like the US stepped up quickly and met with Lebanese government officials and Israeli government officials soon enough, a temporary cease fire could have taken place that would have brought the Lebanese government on the side of the Israelis. I'm more and more convinced about that based on what I have heard from analysts in Lebanon. The sentiment seemed to be "we're becoming a democracy, the US will help us." That didn't happen. I agree. The U.N. proclaimed that Hezbollah disarm, yet did nothing to enforce it. And the other major democratic powers of the world looked the other way while Iran and Syria armed Hezbollah to the teeth. But of course, the radicals in the region would be calling for the death of the "white devil imperialist pigs" if the U.S. would actively work with the Lebanese government to banish Hezbollah. And outside of the British, nobody in Europe would raise a finger until the situation became an all-out crisis (like now). QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Aug 6, 2006 -> 08:40 AM) You know something. Im getting really tired of hearing about the poor Lebanese government. This "fledgling democracy" sat on its hands and allowed the southern part of its country to become a Hezbollah cesspool and a staging point for attacks on Isreal. If they didn't know then they are incompetent. If they did know purposefully did nothing to stop it then they are complicit. If they did know, couldn't handle the situation themselves and didn't ask for help then they are incompetent. Agreed as well. And this is why I'm sick and tired of people blaming Israel for this situation. The Lebanese government is responsible for what goes on inside their borders. If a militia group based in Nuevo Leon began kidnapping American soldiers in southern Texas, our military would (justifiably) go nuts on them. And anybody who tried to bring use the "but the poor Mexican government can't control what's going on there" argument would look downright foolish.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 5, 2006 -> 02:03 PM) Considering that the Israeli attack has basically turned that government into a pawn of Hezbollah, probably about 15 seconds. The liberal propaganda machine continues... Yep, because of those evil, Zionist pigs, Lebanon will be controlled by Hezbollah. The Lebanese government was obviously in full control of their nation before the Israeli attacks, as Iran and Syria pushed thousands of rockets and other weapons through their border to arm the illegal Hezbollah militia in the south.

(1) Yank Javy after 80 pitches and insert B-Mac (2) Demote Gload to AAA (Mack can sub for Paulie) and bring up Tracey (3) Bench Pods in the 8th inning and insert Mack whenever we have a lead

And speaking of the Cubs and Bears, they're (unfortunately) beginning to look a lot like the same organization.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 08:45 PM) Open Letter to WCSox: My response to you regarding the seventeen-year-old crack would get me suspended from SoxTalk, and so I'm simply going to say that I don't feel you add anything worth responding to, I think your points are usually bogus, and I don't particularly care what you have to say, considering. I am officially putting you on my ignore list because I don't like you and never have. Respectfully submitted, -Gregory Pratt If you don't want people calling you out for your childish behavior, perhaps you need to stop making condescending remarks in your posts. This isn't the first time you've done this. The fact that you have a "habit" of making condescending comments doesn't justify them. And if you're that sensitive about your age, perhaps listing your birthday in your signature isn't such a good idea. It's not like anybody cares anyway.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 05:55 PM) So, given that Israel has launched surprise attacks on Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt in the past, would your argument then grant that those countries are allowed to ship weapons to organizations fighting Israel? (I sure don't believe this, but I'm just trying to show you the hole in your argument here). Speaking of holes in arguments, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq attacked Israel unprovoked in 1948, long before these retalitory surprise attacks that you speak of. The Middle East launched a war on Israel, not the other way around.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 05:18 PM) So there's no difference between say, sending in food and medical supplies after a tsunami and selling Israel a bunch of F-16's that they pay for with money we gave them, or rushing up orders of guided munitions to ship to Israel as soon as this campaign started? Given that Israel has fallen under attack from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, etc. over the years, I think that our support is more than justified. How many nations have instigated attacks against those Arab states, or Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Hamas, or the Islamic Jihad for that matter? Again, Israel has its own economy and its own interests. They're not a tool of America. If they didn't get the weapons from the U.S., they could've easily purchased them from Russia or China. Or, hell, they could've manufactured them themselves. Israel is no slouch when it comes to technology. They've been rumored to have manufactured a nuclear weapon for quite some time.