WCSox

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 01:00 PM) So you think that the Tigers will have a problem sweeping them this weekend. Minny was able to sweep them in PNC. They never scored more than 3 runs against the Twins in any game. It's unrealistic to EXPECT the Sox to sweep series... even against bad teams. They won 2/3 and that's more than reasonable. And I wish that people would stop comparing the Sox to the Tigers. The Sox can't control what the Tigers do when they're not playing them. The Sox still have the second-best record in baseball and it's not even July yet. Get off the ledge, people. The only thing that concerns me about this game is Count. He said that he back and legs were hurting in his last start, where he gave up too many runs as well. I hope that isn't the case here.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 11:28 AM) Since the President himself did the exact same thing, I guess he isn't aware either. Better write him a letter. The President undermined the authority of his own administration by leaking classified information to a reporter and then published it on the front page of three of the most popular newspapers in the nation? That's news to me. Bush didn't do "the exact same thing." He spoke in GENERALIZATIONS. The Times (and the two others) printed DETAILS.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 10:11 AM) Im no supreme court justice but Geneva establishes a lot of parameters for falling under its protection and terrorist groups do not qualify. Not a huge deal really. At the end of the day all this ruling is saying is that we can't create tribunals for these people without legislatiion to back it up. Look for Bush and the Congress to fast track legislation to deal with this issue here soon. I pretty much agree with this.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 10:03 AM) Again, that information was nothing materially different from what the President said. Therefore, the NYT/LAT/WSJ did no more harm than our own fearless leader did. Again, the press reporting classified counter-terrorism information gives other nations the impression that our government is incapable of working covertly. This will damage our ability to collaborate with them.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 08:49 AM) Very amusing. But entirely unlikely, unless Musharaff was just looking for any excuse to hang onto. The stretch being put on this by the GOP is ridiculous. And, again SWIFT isn't a program. Its an industry standards organization. Saying SWIFT is involved in tracking financial transactions is like saying pipelines are involved in moving oil. Its either obvious or pointless to bother pointing out. Yes, I know what SWIFT is. :rolly If you don't think that the press featuring classified anti-terrorism information on the front pages of their papers is going to make foreign governments think twice about working with us, you're living in a dream world.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 04:14 PM) Nothing was undermined. I strongly disagree. I can imagine a conversation like this happening in the future... [ring, ring] Pervez Musharaff: Hello? George W. Bush: Mr. Musharaff, this is George W. Bush. How's it going? PM: Not bad, George... considering that my country is infested with terrorists who have tried to kill me twice already. How about yourself? GWB: Good. Listen, I would like you to help us located suspected al Qaeda in Pakistan. PM: [pauses] I'd love to help you, George, but... GWB: What I have in mind is a collaboration where our CIA will help your govnerment track phone and e-mail records of suspected terrorists in your country. Your government will supply the information and our government will supply the equipment. PM: Well, um... GWB: The beauty of this is that it's perfectly legal in your country. So, what do you say? PM: I'd love to help you, George, but al Qaeda sympathy is so strong over here that I would likely be targeted for assassination again... GWB: Oh, don't worry about that. The program will be classified - nobody will know about it. PM: Oh, kind of like the "covert" SWIFT program that ended up on the f***ing front page of the New York Times? GWB: Excuse me? PM: Your press is so out of control that your government can't keep a secret anymore. People over here read the New York Times as well, you know. Islamic militants have tried to kill me twice already. Given that they riot over RUMORS of your people flushing pages of the Koran down the tiolet, I'd be surely targeted for death if this program were ever leaked. I'm sorry, George, but I can't help you. Give my best to Mrs. Bush. [hangs up]

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 01:36 PM) In the exact same sense as when Bush said it. No new material is here. The only way to "mask" their transactions is to not make them, which was the message before anyway. When Bush mentioned it, there was no description of how the program worked and no indication of whether or not it was successful. BTW, it was the NYT who called for the strict monitoring of financial transactions to combat terrorism right after 9/11. So, why write the article that casts the Administration as secretive and in favor of destroying civil rights? :rolly What you saw was a leak of classified information and the undermining of our government's ability to operate in a clandestie-but-legal manner to foil terrorists. You may not have a problem with that, but I sure as hell do.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 01:25 PM) To add insult to injury, the institution does not withhold taxes on postdoc salaries for some reason, so at the end of each year after I had to scrape by on about @24K, I got screwed because I couldn't sock away anything for taxes during the year. Not to mention that postdocs have to start repaying their student loans.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 12:23 PM) Please point out where in the NYT, LAT or WSJ articles that they gave any sort of useful details at all in so far as our tracking of transactions. What piece of information is contained in there that gives away anything that wasn't given away by Bush himself? The only piece of specific information I see there is a reference to SWIFT. SWIFT is just an information standard - USED BY INSTITUTIONS. To an account holder, terrorist or not, this information is irrelevant. There is no difference to them functionally, between saying "we're tracking your money" and "we're tracking your transactions via protocols like SWIFT", because the account holder has no f***ing clue how information is moved around. And further, they have no control over it. So again, what information was conveyed in those articles which is actionable for a terrorist? Name one thing they would or could change now that they wouldn't have before. From the LA Times article... In other words, the leaked info lets terrorists know that their transactions have a much better chance of being tracked down by the U.S. government than they did back in the '90s because our government can more-easily access international banking records. It's a "heads-up" for them to make alternate plans to further disguise their actions. I laugh at the "this was already common knowledge" argument. The information was classified for a reason. Also consider how this leaked information could cripple our government's ability to work with other nations in the fight against terrorism. The public in many Muslim nations such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are overwhelmingly anti-American and their leaders have to work behind close doors with our government to foil terror plots. Do you think that Pervez Musharaff wants to work with the Bush Administration to oust al Qaeda after he knows that our press will leak their plans? Such information being released to the public here will inevitably reach Pakistan and very may result in another assassination attempt.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 11:42 AM) I'm just stymied by the fact that Bush, even in 2001, came out and gave press conferences telling everybody we were tracking terrorist finances and actually said to financial institutions that you're either with us or the terrorists. I'm having trouble mustering up the outrage for what the NYT printed, especially since the program was pretty widely known not just through the fact that it had been used for years against drug cartels...but moreso because of the administration press conferences discussing that it was a tool in our arsenal. And I suppose that this program was known to, say, the seven idiots who were recently arrested in Florida? For every savvy al Qaeda operative who is aware of this program, there is a low-level idiot who is just as dangerous. Bush can come out and say "we're tracking terrorist finances" (duh) without giving the details. Apparently the NYT cannot. Obviously, if the details were already known, the NYT wouldn't have had to publish it on the front page and go through the trouble of obtaining classified information.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 11:12 AM) My comment was mostly in reference to evil's post not yours. But congrats on, presumably finishing the dissertation. Thanks, but the life of a postdoc isn't much better. You get paid more, but still not really enough to justify working 60 hours/week. Guess that's why I screw around on the Internet so much.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 05:29 PM) Worry about something important please Unless you live in America and pay federal taxes, you're in no position to tell me what to worry about. I decide which issues are important to me in my country.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 10:49 AM) And, FWIW, my work has nothing to do with the earth/atmospheric sciences either; nonetheless it's a hard field filled with dedicated professionals who work their ass off in the pursuit of knowledge and I hate to see them slimed without hard facts supporting an opinion. But I guess, that's why I'm a good scientist. Never said that it was... and I disagree with the slime thrown your way. Working in academia is tough. My boss (and I'm sure yours as well) have very difficult jobs.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 10:40 AM) The outrage is because I know how hard grants are to get (I'm in the process of applying for a competetive NSF pre-doc grant, and in renewing, with my mentor, an equally competitive NIH grant). And I assure my outrage is genuine, not manufactured. FWIW, I was recently denied a competitive NIH postdoctoral fellowship (grant)... and the research had nothing to do with earth and atmospheric sciences. QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 10:44 AM) My point was not that the Bush Administration is selectively "picking" on people in any one field, merely that the White House is not at all divorced from setting policy for federal science funding. I agree with that, as long as it's acknowledge that ALL sectors of science have taken a hit.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 10:03 AM) If I had to guess... It would be because Indiana is about as Repub of a state as you will ever see, and he knew he pretty much HAD to do so if he ever wanted to get reelected here. Interestingly, the exact opposite is happening to Lieberman in CT. His conservative (for a Dem) platform may cause him to lose the nomination to a more liberal Dem, so he has to vote against it. On the other hand, Indiana is such a red state that even a moderate Dem would have trouble getting elected to Congress.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 09:21 AM) I was watching the news last night on WGN and they were comparing the vote based on who could possibly run in 2008. Of course, all of the GOP candidates voted for the amendment and all the Dem candidates voted against. How about voting what you THINK?!?! The vote didn't go straight down party lines. Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid, for example, dissented with their respective parties. I really don't think that this will be a rallying issue for either party in '08. The border, terrorism, and Iraq/Iran/N. Korea are much more important issues to voters.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 09:05 AM) All I have to say is partisanship sucks and I, for one, am sick of it. I'm shocked that this idiotic proposed Ammendment came so close to passing. And I'm ashamed that so many Republicans voted in favor of it.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 05:56 PM) An important point you are neglecting to consider is that the Administration and Congress DO set the research agenda for the nation by approving federal funding. Science funding by NSF, DOE, and NOAA (three of the bigggies for climate shange research dollars) has already fallen precipitously since 9/11 and the Iraq War. NOAA funding for my fields (ocean sciences) has all but disappeared these last few funding cycles. Science funding by NSF has fallen across the board since 9/11 and NIH funding has stagnated significantly. Grant applications from research programs that have nothing to do with environmental or atmospheric sciences are getting thrown into the trash can (despite excellent reviews in many cases) because the money isn't there. This isn't a case of the Bush Administration selectively "picking" on people in your field. PIs in structural biology and materials science are having the same problems.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 05:02 PM) You seemed to be suggesting that if the Dems take the WH, these scientists will stand to benefit. Now you're saying that the administration ("Cheney and Rice") doesn't affect grant applications, that it only depends on peers -- who obviously can't change with a change of administration. So right now I'm just confused about what point you're trying make. I'm trying to make a few points... (1) Environmental scientists stand to benefit from Gore's movie regardless of who's in office. The main point of Gore's movie (which I agree with, BTW) legitimizes the concept of global warming and the research programs that revolve around it. Gore's movie could affect public opinion, which could affect elections, which could affect overall federal funding for environmental research. (2) A Dem in the WH (or Dem control of Congress) would also tend to benefit proponents of global warming, given that many of them run on environmentalist platforms. It's possible (even probable, if somebody with Gore's agenda occupies the WH in '09) that they could increase funding for environmental sciences. (3) The Bush Administration has little control over scientists not directly employed by the federal government. They can't "silence" their results and they don't control whose grants get funded.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 04:53 PM) Is it common for new hires to be less than a PhD? No. But then again, there was a time where the degree wasn't necessarily a prerequisite for hiring. Is it also common for an assistant professor to be granted tenure after only ONE year? The earliest I've ever seen is three.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 04:26 PM) Actually, it has been shown multiple times in this very forum that scientists with agencies like NASA and NOAA have been told to reign in certain pieces of information, by the Administration. I was talking about professors (like the ones cited in the article), not government employees. Their applications for federal grants are reviewed by their peers... not Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice. The Administration does not attempt to stop them from publishing their results in independent, peer-reviewed journals.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 04:37 PM) The other thing that conveniently gets ignored is that the LA Times was also asked by the administration weeks ago and also chose to ignore their request. Wow, another liberal newspaper trying to undermine the Bush Administration. What a shocker!

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 04:17 PM) Which means that you Do know of Some. So what are you arguing about?. :banghead

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 03:34 PM) The LA Times printed the same information on the same day. The Wall Street Journal did as well. The NYT had the information weeks before either and told the White House to go to hell when asked not to print it. Way to ignore my point.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 03:43 PM) It's not that uncommon for non PhD's to become tenured at major universities. I've attended school/worked at four of them and can't say that I don't know of any. And I'll bet that those that do only have Master's degrees didn't get them from third-rate institutions.