iamshack

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 11:33 AM) You know the interesting thing here? I think that while Bureau may have an interpretation of the constitution and the commerce clause that is as valid as mine, but I think his interpretation shows the flaw in it through the example he's trying to defend. Specifically, in that last clause, Bureau says "slavery was NEEDED in the south to maintain their economy". Whether or not that may have been correct, if the South judged that to be the case, then that institution was going to continue until either the south judged that it needed to change or until something was changed to force it to happen. Considering that I judge slavery to have been a crime against humanity, I consider the fact that the federal government was able to stop that crime through whatever means necessary to be a solid argument as to why the federal government should have that level of power over commerce. I can take that example farther, to things like simple workplace protections, environmental protections, and so forth, but the key element I find here is that if defending that particular interpretation of the commerce clause requires one to defend the institution of slavery and find it to be a problem that the federal government could act to get rid of slavery, then I have a clear problem with that interpretation of the commerce clause. I'm not sure I understand the connection here. If there is one thing that Bureau has been correct about here, it's that the Union did not originally seek to abolish slavery in fighting the Civil War. I think one can fairly reasonably argue that had the South come to Lincoln in 1862 and said, "we'll come back to the Union, but we're keeping slavery in all the states where it currently resides, however, we will not seek to expand it", Lincoln would have accepted that proposition. The Commerce Clause has been interpreted in so many different lights since it's creation that it has really failed to mean much of anything other than that it can be twisted to mean whatever whomever wants it to mean at the time...

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 11:24 AM) No, but such was the time of the era. I'm not defending slavery - I'm defending a state to have the RIGHT to do as they choose - and the citizens of that state to do as they choose (while obiding by the state's laws). For the Federal government to rule over a state, and therefore the citizens of that state, is taking away civil liberties. As long as a citizen is living by the state's laws, he should not be prosecuted by the Federal government - which is Paul's view - and a view I agree with. You should trust in your "state" to make fair, logical, and sound decisions that aid and protect your life. And if you don't feel they are doing so, then you need to go to a state that you feel does. The Federal government does not need to tell each state "this is the law, and this is why" in most - if not all - cases. At the time (1850s-1860s), slavery was NEEDED in the south to maintain their economy. And as a state, they wanted to keep slavery to maintain any state economy at all. Eventually slavery would have been phased out due to technological reasons and costs (and not the death of 600,000 Americans), but at the time, slavery to the south was needed. For the north to tell the southern states, "No, this is not happening anymore", was not any business of the Federal government - it was a state matter solely. Especially when the North was not exactly 'interested in freeing the slaves' - they still wanted to impose horrific laws upon them and basically did thru the 1950s. Ron Paul is simply saying - it was a state matter - not a Federal government matter, and based upon that, he is both right and I agree. States should be able to rule as they please - because a citizen can MUCH more easily move to a different state than they can move to a different nation, and because of this - all states would "compete" with each other to give the best life possible to attract more citizens and therefore, more production, income, etc. Sandra Day O'Connor often referred to the states as a "laboratory for novel social and economic experiments." But answer this for me, Bureau: The individual states avail themselves of all kinds of benefits and protections of the Federal Gov't. Be it the laws of the US, the protections of the US (both federal law enforcement as well as national military branches), advantages and benefits via interstate commerce, etc. Why should the Federal Gov't provide all those benefits and protections to the states' but receive nothing in return from them?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 11:00 AM) I have not seen you be any more specific than I have been about this. Less so, really, from my point of view. You refer to various land grabs like Oregon, Louisiana, etc., as example of American power in the region. I countered that they were more often than no exit strategies by the parties involved, usually because the nation holding the land didn't have the finances or desire to hold it. How are you being more detailed than I? But if you want to really get down to details I suppose I could do that. I am not 100% sure what you are looking for. Here are a few examples in the latter half of the 19th Century that, to me, show a nation that was still struggling to attain dominant power in the region... --The Oregon Territory you cited earlier was, for a period during the middle of the 19th Century, hotly disputed and even dually occupied by British and US forces. Neither felt they had the stuff to knock each other out, nor the desire to do so over such territory. The Brits were still, at this point, controlling more land than the US, and at the very least were still capable of holding their own against the US and France and Spain and even Russia all at once - just as the US was doing in the region. The Brits eventually slid back in those conflicts, but they were by no means token players. --The Civil War was, itself, very clearly a sign that the nation was not yet ready to be more than a regional player. I mean, they couldn't even come to common stance on some very major issues by themselves. How was this not a clear statement that the US was not yet ready to be the biggest, baddest kid on the North American block? --In the 1880's and 1890's, the US was still unable militarily or otherwise to finish off their job of subjugating the American Indians - numerous bands of Apache and other tribes were still raiding with impugnity in parts of the southwest until the 1890's. There were a lot of factors involved here of course, but it goes to show that the US still had only marginal control of its own territory and borders at the time. --In my view, the international event that truly gave the US regional superpower status was the Spanish American War - just before the turn of the century. That decisive victory over a declining Spanish armada was tantamount to a death nail for any European or Latin American powers bringing serious trouble to the doorstep of the US. Is that specific enough for you? By the way, have you read Hampton Sides' Blood and Thunder? No, I have not read that. I will try to take a look at it. I still think you are misinterpreting what I am arguing. Now you've shifted gears to comparing the US position in the region to that of other European powers, as opposed to the other nations residing in the actual region. First off, my original statement was that the US was a "monster" in the New World region. And by the mid 19th century, the European powers still holding on were doing so as mere formalities, while Mexico and Latin American nations were basically so busy with their own domestic affairs that any notion of heavy foreign involvement in anything would have been overwhelming. By the mid-19th century, the the notion that European nations could have any real hold in the region is pretty difficult to argue. The US had won its Independence from the British in 1783. Argentina and Chile won their Independence from Spain in 1816 and 1818, respectively. The Mexicans won their Independence from Spain in 1821. The Peruvians in 1824. It's simply inaccurate to suggest that European countries had any real staying military power in the region after the beginning of the 19th century. Certainly they had economic influence in the region (this was largely money from private hands, not government money), and still do in Latin America, but they were no force to be reckoned with. The fact that the Civil War occurred, for a period of 5 years, without any other regional, or European power making any attempt to grab land in the region says volumes to me. I think it actually makes the opposite point that you make. In fact, nearly every other nation in the region outside of Canada was experiencing civil wars throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. The fact that the US Civil War happened on a far more grand scale only proves that it's might both economically and militarily far exceeded that of the Latin American nations. As for the Indian skirmishes you refer to, the level of expansion by the US in such a short period of time is the reason for that. That point really doesn't tell me anything about the position of the US at the time. And if you are looking for a nation that was in the same stratosphere as the US in the Americas, it might have been Argentina, which was a far more European-influenced nation than the other Latin American nations. However, Argentina didn't meddle in the affairs of North America in any fashion during this period. One can compare the US to the position it would eventually reach, or to the position of some European powers at the time, and be correct in stating the US was still "developing" into what it would become- a global Superpower. But that isn't the argument. The argument was that the US was the overwhelming power in the region in the mid-19th century, and I have still not seen an example given of another nation in the region flexing it's muscles, economically or militarily. Or some accurate assertion that US policy in the region didn't reign supreme during the mid-19th century.

QUOTE(Pants Rowland @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 10:47 AM) Sorry to have started a war of words. Here is a question for you. What were the primary reasons for the United States' status as a developing (if not established) power in the mid-19th century? Was it the agrarian system of the south or the industrialization of the north? Not a war of words at all...more an intelligent debate. Personally, I'm done lecturing and don't want to write another thesis paper, but I'm sure others will feel free to engage you in answering your question...

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 09:52 AM) Dude, that's hilarious. You are basically saying because you don't agree, that my conclusions are unfounded and obviously not what "we now know occurred". Its kind of difficult to have a discussion with you if that's how you will approach it. I find your conclusions inaccurate to my understanding of what was going on back then. My education and knowledge tell me differently than what yours apparently does. Those are the kinds of phrases that work well when trying to have an intelligent discussion. But I do agree, Paul's idea of avoidance of the Civil War is mostly (but not entirely) nonsense. No, not at all. I'm not trying to say that you are, "by default," wrong, because I am right. I'm trying to coax some more specific information or examples out of you as I feel I have proven my point to a far greater degree than you have. I have a BA in History, with a concentration in US History and Mexico and Latin American History. I studied the region for the better part of two and a half years, and at no point in my studies or education did I ever get the impression (or was I given the impression) that ANY nation in Latin America, including Mexico, could hold a candle to the US either militarily or economically. I've listed for you a general description of the economic, political, and military plights of nearly all of Latin America, including specific examples. I've also listed for you the great expansion that took place during the period by the US, as part of its' philosophy of Manifest Destiny, basically in the face of Mexico and any other regional "power." I've explained to you that I am not arguing that the US was a "world" superpower by any means in the mid-19th century, but that indeed it was a regional power- the only regional power- and yet you've continued to allude to the US's power on a world level as opposed to what this argument was originally about, the New World region. If you're claiming that it's difficult to have a discussion with me, I think, likewise, it is difficult to have a discussion on this topic with you. You're countering my points with vagaries about "Spanish-backed nations" that could challenge the US both militarily and economically at the time, and point the the fact that the Mexican- American War was a "bloody mess," that that somehow shows equality between the US and Mexico militarily or economically. I simply don't think there is ample (or any, for that matter) proof that such an assertion is accurate. And you continuing to repeat it, but offering little in the way of actual examples doesn't make it any more accurate.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 08:07 AM) I can and do advocate it because its what I've learned. I've studied these subjects, in college and after, just as it appears you have. The US was the scrappy young kid on the block in the early 19th Century, and just started to really become a major player in the region (and was starting to flex its muscles in a big way in the 1840's and 50's) when the Civil War came along and wrecked much of its economy. The nation recovered nicely of course, but not instantly. Terms like 'superpower' or 'monster', even regionally, really did not apply to the U.S. until the end of the 19th Century, in my view. Fair enough, if you want to keep arguing a conclusion that is in no way buttressed by the facts at the time, or what we now know occurred for obvious reasons, than so be it. I can't convince you otherwise. Back to the topic, the point is that Paul's "what I would have done to avoid the Civil War" is a bunch of nonsense.

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 10:52 PM) The "Moneyball" philosophy was not buying "patient" hitters who developed power. The "Moneyball" philosophy was acquiring players that were undervalued on the market that had something of value. And at that time, the "undervalue" was on-base-percentage and patient hitters. This past season, since MANY teams tried to now acquire the on-base hitters, Beane went for defense-first players - who had been undervalued since the on-base frenzy. Don't think Moneyball was about acquiring simply "on-base" hitters who developed power. It was about acquiring players that were "highly undervalued" on the market because they were cheap and fit his budget. No, I understand that. And he is now selling-off solid young players that are cost-controlled for a commodity that is perhaps more overvalued now than in any time in recent history- prospects with upside. Since the Marlins turned their 03' World Series winning-team inside-out by dealing anyone of value for prospects and actually came out ok doing so, combined with the runaway FA market, the cost of acquiring well-regarded prospects has skyrocketed. So what does Beane do? He goes and buys that commodity, which is exactly what the "Moneyball" concept was NOT about. I guess he has reached the point with the franchise though where there were few other commodities to sell off other than the ones he did, but I am a little surprised he didn't do something a bit more innovative....

QUOTE(almagest @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 09:35 PM) Agreed. Colon is just as much of a risk as any of our young pitchers (perhaps more so, given his health issues), but doesn't have the future upside that they do. And for those trumpeting our "ability" to find "diamonds in the rough" -- how many of said diamonds had a serious injury to recover from? Colon's been in the league for longer. Prior had 2 good years, and 2 good half-years, throwing over 200 innings once. Colon has had 7 good years, throwing over 200 innings 7 times. Colon's going to get more. I truly believe Prior could have gotten more, but chose to go somewhere he'd feel comfortable, and could rebuild his numbers for a much bigger payday in the future...

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 10:05 PM) She was hot, AND awesome. She's my favorite thus far. I liked the karate teacher woman who got her butt kicked by the gymnastics teacher last week....

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 09:40 PM) I simply disagree with you here. Mexico in particular and some of the other Spanish-backed countries in North and Central America still gave the US a run for their money militarily and economically. At the time of the Louisiana Purchase, the European powers in the region were taken aback, and realized the US was going to be a player in the game, most certainly. But they weren't what I would call the superpower in the region until, give or take, just before the turn of the 20th Century. The expansion you mention did not occur because those powers were cowering before American superiority. Quite the contrary. In some cases (Oregon is a good example), it was simply a matter of "hey, its a pain in our asses - if you want it, take it". The Louisiana Purchase was more or less a way for a European power to get money for something they couldn't control. The various wars in Texas and the west with Mexico were bloody messes and in many cases, they US had plenty of struggles to get it done. Heck, even the last contiguous land deal, the Gadsden Purchase, was purely about a railroad and was a money deal to Mexico. First of all, there is absolutely no way one could argue that Mexico and "some of the other Spanish-backed countries" gave the US a run for their money in anything. Mexico and nearly all of the economies of other nations in Latin and Central America were in absolute shambles because of the enormous amounts of gold, silver, and copper taken from them by the Spaniards over a period of three centuries. Bankrupt with no credit, these countries were often forced to sell their most valuable industries for next to nothing to US/English/German interests in exchange for cash to pay the operating expenses of their governments. There were some extremely short-lived success stories, such as Chile (rebuilt its economy through the exportation of copper- one of the few sources of wealth NOT stolen from the region yet), Peru (exporting "guapo"- bird s*** high in nitrogen), but for the vast majority of the 19th and 20th centuries Mexico and other Latin American nations have been in a depressing cycle of absolute poverty, followed by brief periods of what I suppose one could call "wealth" through the monetization of their natural resources, followed quickly by corruption, then political upheaval, revolution, and on and on and on. Secondly, never did I claim that all land expansion was the result of American might (the Louisiana Purchase was offered because Napolean found himself in a real spot, financially), but the fact that the US was able to expand so quickly is absolutely a testament to its influence in the region. The Mexican-American war is just one example of another of the region's "major" players attempting to resist the will of the US at the time and getting absolutely slaughtered for it. I think you are trying to argue that because the US was not the world power it was to become at the turn of the 20th Century that it somehow was not the "only" real power in the region in the mid-19th Century. I don't believe there is any possible way in which to accurately advocate such a position. The evidence is stacked and stacked against the notion that Mexico or some "other," yet undetermined, power could seriously challenge the US militarily or economically at the time.

So I wonder just how much of this was intentional, and how much of it coming to light has forced Beane to rethink his philosophies? 1) Did he know acquiring good hitters could "buy" their power; or 2) Did he honestly believe that good hitters "developed" their power? Is he now unsure whether that theory will hold true once we reach the post-PED era (if we ever in fact reach one)? He seems to now be espousing the "Marlins" philosophy more so than his "Moneyball" philosophy...

QUOTE(South Side Fireworks Man @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 08:36 PM) I wonder if the Sox can get Kendry Morales back in a package for Konerko and Crede. Something like Figgins, Santana and Morales for Konerko, Crede and Shelby..... I just don't see the point of doing that....Santana and Morales are really no sure thing....and Figgins doesn't do enough for me to deal Konerko and another of our decent prospects.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 08:43 PM) No. In fact, look at the history of the period from said purchase through to about 1890-ish. They were growing quickly INTO a power during that period, but were not the overwhelming "monster" in the region until nearly the turn of the 20th century. Yes. By the 1860's the United States was the overwhelming power in the region. The reason the US did not emerge as a World SuperPower until after WWI was because of a general policy of isolationism. However, in the region, Manifest Destiny was the prevailing philosophy and was used as justification for expansion throughout North America, including the Oregon Territory, the Texas Annexation, and the territory ceded from Mexico after the Mexican-American War in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The fact that much of this land was simply "taken" is a reflection of US power in the mid-19th century. The US became a world power during and following the Industrial Revolution, and cemented that power after entering and ending WWI. In the mid-19th century, Mexico and nearly all of Latin America was in turmoil, still seeking to recover from centuries of European Imperialism, and to be more blunt, European looting. None of the other countries in the region had any business challenging US Policy at the time.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 08:39 PM) That isn't really true. They were not anything like a "monster" in any sphere at that point in time. Compared to Mexico and other Latin American nations? They absolutely were a monster. They were a monster in the region from the moment the Louisiana Purchase was made.

QUOTE(Pants Rowland @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 08:29 PM) You may be right, but in 1863, I am no so sure that the U.S. was that much more civilized than many of our new world neighbors. There were some very educated, slave-owning nobles all over latin america who operated their nations in a fashion similar to the south. Like you said, we have the benefit of hindsight but really can never know how things would have played out. The US was an absolute monster in the New World by 1863 compared to Mexico and their Latin American neighbors. Anyways, in my view, Paul's 20/20 revisionist ideas really don't point out anything worthwhile. One could argue, with great accuracy, that the US would have won its freedom from England "eventually" without having to fight the Revolutionary War as well. Does Paul argue that?

QUOTE(Pants Rowland @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 05:40 PM) Something to note is that in 1888, Brazil became the last nation to abolish slavery. If the U.S. allowed the south the secede and form its own country, it would only have been a matter of time before they were forced to face the reality that their system was on the decline and they were destined to become a third world nation facing the same problems of Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and countless others that exhausted a one-dimensional economy based on agriculture and slavery. I am under no illusion to believe that slavery did not exist legally throughout the world under other titles during this time (including sharecropping and the virtually enslavement of the continent of Africa through much of the 20th century). However, the trend in the civilized world has generally been in the opposite direction of institutionally sponsored slavery. Whether via a slave revolt or a gradual breakdown of the institution, slavery would have ended one way or another and the seceding states would have been forced to come to terms with reality on their own. I have heard Dr. Paul's arguments against the civil war and they are fairly compelling. His stance is it would have been cheaper for the federal government to buy the freedom of all slaves rather than fight a long protracted war. Futher, the war and reconstruction deepened southern animosity against the north while simultaneously sowing (and fertilizing) the seeds for legislated segregation and discrimination. Perhaps the largest reason that slavery met such a quick formal decline is because of it ending in the last "civilized" nation in 1863. Had the South been allowed to secede without opposition, there is a very reasonable chance that slavery would have continued to exist for far longer than it did. In the mid-19th century, the US Southern economy was very much a leader in exports of cotton (and other cash crops). Had England and other European nations had the option to continue importing cotton from slave plantations at then-market prices there is no telling how things would have turned out. There is no doubt that slavery became an inefficient and antiquated economic system, but that had more to do with technological advances in farming machinery than anything else. However, looking back and stating that this would have happened "eventually" and that it would have been cheaper for the Union to "purchase" the freedom of slaves is hindsight vision, and not even part of the argument- notwithstanding the fact that to suggest the Union could have purchased slavery out of existence is absolutely inaccurate bs. Taking into account the actual history, and not using the benefit of hindsight, the reality of the situation is that all compromises and options other than war were exhausted. The issue was a ticking time bomb and reached the point where there was nothing left to do but fight. No one thought the war would last as long as it did, but in the end, it was probably the only course of events that could have occurred that would have both kept the country together and ended the formal institution of slavery.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 04:30 PM) I'll just go with some of A and some of B. So, our global warming will actually help us avoid the issue of lack of sun spots. That may have actually been happening a bit with all our pollution due to the use aerosols, etc. I think this was addressed elsewhere in the thread, but we may have been "dimming" the sun before, therefore cancelling out part of the "greenhouse effect" and global warming. Now that we have for the most part ceased using these aerolsols and other pollutants, the global warming doomsday schedule may be far more advanced than we previously suspected.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 03:07 PM) What experience she does have is one of the reasons I dislike her as a candidate. She was not elected, yet she boasts proudly of having policy-discussion access (not just circumstantial) to the highest level people, not to mention saying she was privy to a lot of sensitive information, WITHOUT a security clearance of any kind. Yeah, that's certainly something that can go either way with voters. It turns me off too- I was never a Clinton supporter. But it's a card she has to play given her otherwise limited experience. And it's probably a safe card to play since her husband has come up smelling like roses because of the events which occurred after he left the White House. I just worry about who or what I am really voting for with her. Not that I have ever particularly liked her. But who is really going to be running the show if she does get elected? What will Bill really be doing? Chasing interns around or dominating Hilary's policy determinations?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 02:35 PM) Ok, so here's the less likely but possible alternative...a late season injury. Gets enough PA's, but things look bad for 09. Yeah, that's probably the worst-case scenario. However, I wouldn't put it past Jim to restructure something with more flexibility for the club if that were to happen. I also have quite a bit of confidence in his ability to work his way back from injury- he's a hard worker. All in all, I don't think Jim would do anything to this club that would hinder it's chances of competing because of him failing to hold up his end of the bargain...

When I brought up her experience I stated exactly what I meant- her experience dealing with the pressures, the limelight, etc. She has real-world experience which allows her to understand what to expect when you are the leader of the free world. That, in and of itself, is valuable. Talk about how other candidates have experience as Senators, and as Reps, but many of them can't run an effective Presidential campaign, let alone run the country. I'm no Hilary supporter- I am an Obama supporter- but I don't think you can take away the very unique real-world experience that Hilary has. And that is not even counting whatever involvement she had in policy-making. I know I can't prove that, so I won't buoy my argument with it. But to compare her to Barbara or Laura in regards to her involvement as First Lady is really not an accurate analogy.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 02:29 PM) I definitely agree on Obama's 2 years in the Senate and a couple terms as a State Senator. Hillary too, for that matter. And Dennis Kucinich I think, though he's close. There are a few. Something to be said for Hilary's experience in the White House though, whether she was just First Lady or not. She has real-world experience regarding the pressures, the heat of the spotlight, etc. She has more experience than any of the other candidates, in some light.

Not only that, but in this current landscape, there is virtually no way of commenting on or discussing players without mentioning their salaries, because their on-field play and off-field paycheck is absolutely intertwined. There "is" no intelligent discussion of them without bringing up both.

All I know is I really like the fact that BA mentioned Poreda was hitting 98 and touched 100 a few times...

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 10:57 AM) Couple potential issues. First, if he gets injured again this year...on the scale of his 05 injured season, where he misses much of the year. It's hard to think risking $13 mil for 7 home runs is a good idea. Second, if this team were to fall flat on its face again and actually reach the point of selling off Vazquez, or Konerko, or guys like that...if we were to attempt to save money in 09, then Thome wouldn't make much sense. Otherwise, we get another 40 dingers from him this year, there's no reason not to hold onto him next year. I'm assuming he won't reach the PA's he needs if he gets injured as he did in 05'.

And why would we NOT want Jimmy back at $13 million if he has a similar season to his first two here? I think it's something we should be happy about.