Jenksismyhero

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 09:17 AM) But your exaggeration actually helps to prove my point. 3,000 people died on 9/11. Yet many times more, over 16,000 will die from alcohol related traffic accidents. Which is going to save more lives, stopping shampoo from getting on an airplane or stopping alcohol? We accept the risk of alcohol. Why wouldn't we accept the risk of someone taking a nail clipper on a flight? I sort of agree with you. But if you're going to be a strict utilitarian about it and just look at the number of lives lost than practically nothing should be banned because only a small amount of people are affected by crime. Plus there has to be an ecomonic impact to consider. Another attack on a plane and the airline industry goes under, again. That has a huge effect on the entire country. 16k people dead won't come close to that in terms of economic impact. And we haven't factored in the lobbying aspect. The terrorism lobby has nothing on the alcohol industry lobby... QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 09:32 AM) Ziiiiiiiiing Nicely played. I knew I shouldn't have written that.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 08:44 AM) We call it terror, but what does that really mean? There are street gangs in cities that have been terrorizing residents for decades. It's all crime, we've just allowed the government to erode our freedoms and liberties in the name of a foreign criminal. But we do the same thing in response to criminals within our borders. We've already placed bans and limits on the right to carry/own weapons in this country. The main reason? To restrict access of those weapons to criminals. There are tons of examples of this. I can't smoke pot because of cross-fire that might ensue on the streets (I guess that's the argument?). And i'm too lazy to think of more, but i'm confident there are many aspects of our lives that have been 'controlled' out of the response from criminal actions. Terrorism is no different.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 08:45 AM) Source please. Ok, you got me. I exaggerated a little. But you understand my point.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 08:21 AM) I've read his posts also and I can tell you he wouldn't blame Bush. The erosion of our freedoms does come at a price, as we are reminded on Veteran's Day, that price is often the lives of Americans. Civilians lose there lives to drunk drivers everyday, but that is the price we pay for the freedom to drink alcohol. No one would blame Bush for that. That's a different situation. 95% of Americans drink. 1 person has been dubbed the leader with sole responsibility for the war on terror.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 10:38 PM) Being free means a certain degree of vulnerability exists. It's the price you pay for freedom - and not understanding that - and giving that freedom up to your government cheapens the loss of 3000 lives on September 11th. Please. I've read enough of your posts on Bush and war on terror to know that if ANYTHING would ever happen again you'd be ALL OVER him for his failure to protect us. You can't have your cake and eat it to. You either expect and accept some mistakes (unavoidable consequences more likely) or you don't. QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 07:47 AM) So you actually think that 9/11 was more barbaric against our people than all the following... All the atrocities of WWII commited against us and our allies Same for WWI Pearl Harbor Villa's Siege The War of 1812 The Civil War (being internal, this is admittedly questionable) Genocide of the American Indians, and their violent responses If not, then it is an overstatement. Two things: First, 9/11 was unprovoked. Except for the genocide of American Indians, we voluntarily entered the wars listed above. As for carpet bombing and like while at war, well, there's your distinction, we were 'at war.' Second, 9/11 was the murder of 3,000 civilians, not military. American Indians issue I'll give you. That was pretty barbaric.

I think the war on terror is like the war on drugs. Is it going to solve the problem completely? No. Is it doing something to solve the problem? Yes. I just don't buy the argument that the more we fight terrorists, the more terrorists we make (both in our actual fighting against them and collateral damage done while fighting). First, you can't make someone hate you more when they are ready to strap a bomb on themselves in the name of jihad. That's the peak of hatred. Second, any collateral damage done pales in comparison to what they do to their own people on a daily basis. Do we make mistakes? Absolutely, see the whole prison fiasco. But you can't tell me something like that makes every middle eastern person want to become jihadists when they have to hear about the same jihadists killing women and children on a daily basis. We create as many enemies as we gain supporters, you just never hear about the supporters. Also, I think that automatically writing off a military campaign to rid the world of a hatred ideology is wrong. Although terrorism is more complex in many ways, there have been other hateful ideologies throughout history that have been eradicated by war. Most recently WWII defeated nazism and fascism. Obviously many distinctions can be made between the two, but I still think they are very similar: lots of poor people pissed off at their lot in life, some rich elite, some crazy spokespeople for an ideology and an enemy to blame it on. Just my two cents.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Sep 10, 2006 -> 10:19 AM) The Tigers will lose 2 to KC. Like a few have said, not only is KC a different team right now, but the Tigers are as well. I really dont know what I want to happen today. I guess im rooting for a White Sox Winner. The Royals lost their best player in Teahan (sp?) for the rest of the year...that's a big bat that's no longer around.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 01:30 PM) If he was tenured and did not violate any university policies otherwise, yes. Presumably there would be quite a few obstacles for such a man earning tenure however...universities do have the rights to choose who they hire, whether the work being done by people they hire is good work, and whether the people they hire deserve tenure. If a professor earns tenure from a university, he should not be fired for his views no matter what his views become. That is the heart of academic freedom. If he were to violate other university policy, i.e. having covered up parts of his beliefs to get tenure or something like that, then the university might have cause, but that's a specific case. Wow. So lets assume that a prof teaches economics for 10 years, gains tenure, and then decides he wants to express his opinions about the wonderful economic benefits of slavery and how we were wrong for abolishing it. Is that something that should be protected under 'academic freedom?'

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 01:18 PM) I don't think I like him being put on suspension for it...but it is a paid suspension...and the university has had trouble with him before. If it were a publically funded university I'd be pretty darn angry. It'd be real disappointing though, and say a lot about that particular university, if it dismissed a professor permanently for holding views that were unpopular...no matter how unpopular those views are. So you'd be cool with a prof who was a Nazi? "The State Department has released a rebuttal to Jones' theory in a 10-thousand page report. " That's a whole lotta rebuttal.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 7, 2006 -> 09:01 AM) Let me give you a family of four scenario EM. One that I saw personally. I have a friend of mine who has two kids - both autistic, one severely the other mildly. She gave birth to them while serving in the military with her husband - also in the military. When they were discharged, they didn't make enough money in the military to stay in Colorado near where they were stationed so they moved back to Michigan to be closer to family so that childcare would become affordable. Despite being trained as an engine mechanic, the only job he could find was stocking shelves at a grocery store for 6 dollars an hour. With her years as an Administrative Assistant in the military, she got a job at the radio station I worked at as an Administrative Assistant. She was making about 9 dollars an hour. That's prevailing wage in that area at the time. She went two years without a raise, despite being one of the most important employees in the sales department. He was laid off when the supermarket cut back its workforce. The resulting problems from the lack of money eventually ended their marriage. So now its just a family of three, living off 9 dollars an hour. She was able to get some limited state assistance, but when youre making 18 grand a year, which is about where 9 dollars puts you, the state assistance you can get is limited. It took her months of searching before she was able to find another AA job that paid her better and gave her the kind of hours she needed so that she could look after her kids the way she needed to as a responsible parent. Not everyone who works on the low rungs of the wage ladder planned to be or stay there, they just get there and find it difficult to get off that rung. Not everyone who has a family of four was making minimum wage (or in this case slightly more) when they had their kids, and unfortunately not everyone who gets pregnant plans on getting pregnant. Sometimes, despite precautionary measures, pregnancy happens. Now we can't ban sex, its one of the few affordable forms of entertainment low wage workers have. And more seriously, you just can't. So unless you think minimum wage earners should be forced into giving up their baby either through abortion or adoption unless they find a better paying job during their pregnancy - we still have to take their needs into account. We belong to a society that believes in protecting all its members and letting them and their children have an equal opportunity to a life that meets basic needs. Our current minimum wage laws don't provide for that at the moment in most places in the US. Obviously this is a really sad situation and I hope that she and her children can find a way to get out of the bad situation there in. That said... Life's not fair. As you say, the goal of society is to present to every citizen an equal opportunity to 'succeed,' however one defines that. The goal isn't to put everyone in an equal position throughout their lives. It's no ones fault that she had children with extreme difficulties, but she still made the choice not to attend college, marry into the military, and to have kids without being financially stable enough to afford it. Should the rest of us bare the burden for other people's poor choices? Eh, to a point. I agree we have a responsibility to protect our own, so to speak. But I don't see how raising the minimum wage will help anyone get out of that rut. If anything it will simply raise the level of the lifestyle people are living in. With an increase in minimum wage she wont be able to finance an education, open a business, or anything else that would allow her to rise the salary ladder. She's still going to be stuck in a situation that she can't really climb out of. Government needs to concentrate and invest in education and communities rather than worry about a short-term fix for a long-term problem.

And the Tigers are now tied with Seattle. I spoke too soon.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 6, 2006 -> 01:15 PM) God lord this might take the cake for the biggest load of crap ever laid in filibuster. In reality-land, the great majority of this isn't even possible. #1-Illegals can't collect benefits #2-in most states illegals aren't able to get benefits such as subsidized housing #3-most illegals do pay something in taxes as they either steal or use false SS numbers to pass to employers looking to cover their backsides #4-I'd love to meet an illegal living comfortably. Most live in incredibly cramped housing with way more people than they should in order to keep housing costs to a minimum. The sad thing is that I might be the one leading the charge for tough immigration laws here, and even I can recognize the odiferousness of this pile of s***. Isn't Illinois one of many states that provides free education and health care to children of illegals, even if they are illegal themselves? Me thinks this would be a gigantic cost savor as compared to the avg American family. I agree that the previous poster made it seem as though illegals found a way to cheat the system for a gigantic reward. That's wrong. But so are you for making it seem like they work 24/7 and live in the alleys of Chicago with nothing to show for it. I could have sworn I also read stories about illegals who were able to obtain drivers licenses' and apply for financial aid at state universities and colleges (I believe Colorado was involved with that). A lot of the illegals in my neighborhood (Wrigleyville) whom I've talked to on occasion are hard working laborers (painters, construction, landscape, etc) making more than minimum wage, and not paying a dime on taxes.

The Sox and Twins win the division/WC and Detroit stays home for the playoffs? I think it could happen pretty easily. Tigers are losing today 4-1 to Seattle and then travel to Minny for 4 games. If the Twins win tonight (likely against the Rays) they'll be sitting 3 games back. By next Monday we could have a new leader/co-leader in the standings. Assuming the Sox take care of business (I know, a big assumption), they could be sitting within 1-2 games of the division lead come next week. These last three weeks are going to be stressful for all three teams...

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 6, 2006 -> 10:31 AM) And it was really obvious last night... All the "quit" garbage is just that, garbage. These guys are beat up, exhausted, and tight. All of these guys are trying to take it all on their own backs, and baseball games just aren't won that way. You have to be relaxed and staying within your abilities, and the only guy that seemed to be there last night was Ryan Sweeney. I don't understand why Sweeney, Anderson, Dye are not in the outfield EVERY game.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Sep 5, 2006 -> 08:41 PM) I really find it laughable that PK has became everyone's whipping boy as of late. Maybe because he's been sucking as of late. Look, I know he brings a lot to the table (see Last Year). But that doesn't mean he can't be responsible for a part of the Sox suckedness. The entire team has played terribly the last month (or more) and one reason is the anti-clutch hits: failing to move the runner, failing to execute a bunt and double plays. Considering PK leads the team in GDP and is damned near the leader in the majors, I think he deserves some blame. One of the main reasons he got the big money was that he was the MVP of the team and clutch in the postseason. He's probably 5th best on our team right now and hasn't showed any signs of being clutch. He's become Sammy Sosa of late, hitting a home run in the 8th inning when the team is down 8-1. Great numbers yeah, but...

Paul Konerko. He can hit into a double play with the best of them. Now 5th in all of the majors with 22. I'm willing to bet if you analyzed them, they were all at critical points in a game where we had a great chance to either take a big lead or put a game away. Once my favorite player, I'd like to say you are worth every penny that the Sox are wasting...err...spending on you.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 29, 2006 -> 04:32 PM) OMG the government got to them also . . .

All I gotta say is: Howard Dean YEAAAAAAAOOOOOO! But back to the topic: it's sad that all he does is blame those damn-dirty-Republicans for everything that happened. The fact is both Nagin and Blanco happen to be Democrats (boo, wiss, boo) and both had the most important role in determing how Katrina would play out. I'm still not sure why the overwhelming majority of people in this country believe that the federal government AND the president should be in charge of EVERYTHING that occurs both at the local and state level. (And why is everything bad that happens Bush's fault, yet anything good is not his doing?) Yes, FEMA was created for a good reason: for the federal government to playA ROLE in disaster relief. But that doesn't take away the responsibility of the local and state administrations from performing their jobs (preparing their city for a natural disaster that might or might not strike the city). Dean's a moron if he thinks the ONLY blame should go to Republicans, either before Katrina (where was Clinton and Gore?) or after. I'm all for him raising money though. God knows those people need help. It's too bad he's gotta be a point-the-finger-douche-bag to get it. Good luck in '08 Dems! He's your leader...

$3.29 in Wrigleyville....down from $3.49 last week. Still a ridiculous amount.

CANON 5 A JUDGE SHOULD REGULATE EXTRA-JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH JUDICIAL DUTIES B. Civic and Charitable Activities. A judge may participate in civic and charitable activities that do not reflect adversely upon the judge's impartiality or interfere with the performance of judicial duties. A judge may serve as an officer, director, trustee, or non-legal advisor of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization not conducted for the economic or political advantage of its members, subject to the following limitations: (1) A judge should not serve if it is likely that the organization will be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge or will be regularly engaged in adversary proceedings in any court. It's not likely that she voilated b(1), however, like I said earlier, she should have told the parties in the case about it. That's the standard of conduct she signed up for when she became a judge.

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 25, 2006 -> 09:53 AM) What happened with Katrina has been hashed and rehashed. Would you mind keeping this thread on the topic above. TIA. I'm just saying he's an inept leader and his words should be construed as such

We'll she's definitely smoking crack, but at least she has this part right

This guy is a piece of work. He reminds me of that other racist black wanna-be-politician, Jesse Jackson. "I'm not responsible, blame the white folks." While I reserve my angelic view of FEMA and it's response to the Katrina debacle, the majority of the blame should go to the crooked New Orleans politicians, whom Nagin is a part of. The guy had hundreds and hundreds of school buses sitting in a big parking lot and decided not to use them. A day after the hurricane he shrugged his shoulders and said "we did all we could." A week after that, the fact that people were stranded in the city was the federal governments fault. GMAFB

I don't understand why people are counting Boston out of it. If they can go on a roll they're right back in the thick of things. They host both the Sox and the Twins at Fenway where they've played extremely well. Yes they've lost key players and yes they've got some pitching issues. But it did take us 19 innings to beat them just one time this year. And I believe they took 2 of 3 from the Twins earlier this year as well. Don't count out the Red Sox just yet...

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 24, 2006 -> 10:20 AM) I don't think throwing a rookie into a line-up and having him play a position he doesn't usually play is a good idea in a playoff push. The Sox have some bench guys who would outperform Fields anyway at this point. Oops, I meant DH. I agree it'd be tough for a rookie, but you don't think he'd have just as good of a chance as Gload who's only seen ~100 at bats this year? QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 24, 2006 -> 01:34 PM) Dye is by far our MVP. So long as we agree it's not Jenks!