Texsox

I know a number of posters here use gmail, are you noticing a lot of spam not getting blocked?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 12:47 AM) The Dodgers trading for Maddux is an indication of the value of veteran starting pitchers. Freddy also has that rep of being a big game pitcher. If you think he has little or no value on the trade market, you are mistaken. Right as always . . .

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 12:38 AM) No liquids are permitted into the sterile zone (secure) of an airport at this time in the US. The only exceptions are formula, breastmilk, insulin and prescription medication. Taste tests are required for these exceptions. Stay in school kids or this could be your next job . . .

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 08:42 PM) First off, avoid sprays. I like Arm&Hammer stick, actually. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 11:34 PM) The Sox game is being aired on ESPN so we'll have to wait until around 1 o'clock or so just to see the damned thing. Hey, I get to see a game. quit complaining

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 07:25 PM) So the first drug your friend(s) did before the "hard" stuff was pot? They didn't drink alcohol (which is illegal if you are under 21,) or smoke a cigarette (Illegal if you are 18?) Weird. Your friend(s) make up 1% of anyone who has ever smoked pot. (From P&T Bulls***.) Personally I feel if people really wanted to mess with their bodies and alcohol and pot were legal, they wouldn't need the harder, illegal stuff. I believe the gateway comes into play more on the method of purchase. What is the hardest drug the local convinience store sells? The one he bought the cigarettes from? What is the hardest drug the liquor store sells? Now what is the hardest drug that the guy who is supplying his pot sells? If you legalize pot, I don't think it will cause more people to try harder drugs. In fact. I think it would cause less people to. But I do agree it is a gateway. The user accepts illegal activity, they now have access to illegal drugs, the user now has everything necessary for harder drug use.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 01:19 PM) Stadiums, owned by private interests or government entities, always have the right to conduct security, charge for entrance and admit/reject anyone. So yeah. Private property - their call. But probably won't happen, for financial reasons. Grey area, given its public transit. Up to the cab company, which again, is private. Public street, so no, no searches. Private property, so if they choose, yes. Of these, only walking down Michigan Avenue could really be construed as a right. So after being searched at the office building, the retail store, the stadium, the train, plane, and taxi, does it really matter if the government isn't allowed to search you? That's the point I am making. We are on a path were all freedoms will be meaningless. If it is unsafe to travel via a plane next to someone, why allow anyone to walk in a crowd on Michigan Avenue without being searched? Think about this for a minute. You get on a plane with dozens on up to a couple hundred people. Count how many people will be at a busy street corner in Chicago tomorrow at lunch time. Why should we be more concerned about being in a plane or on a bus than walking? When searches becomes routine we then give up that right and allow the police to have you empty your pockets and open your purse when they ask. Is that better or worse for society? It is easy to give a "if you have nothing to hide" or "if it saves one life" argument. And perhaps those are valid positions.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 01:00 PM) Hypothetically it depends... If it is criminal in nature, then obviously the government steps in to handle the problems. If it is just something that happens, the company would have to face up to the scrutiny and investigations that any other company/industry would be subject to if their equiptment failed and caused harm, or if the court determines what the reasonable level of security that an airline would have to provide. Now the government interest in making sure things go smoothly is a completely different beast. Of course it is in the best interest for the airlines to move smoothly and safely, but it could be argued that it isn't the place of government to legislate and decide how airlines have to do business. Great points to ponder. But then, who should provide air traffic control? Could a case be built that air travel is so important to our economy that it is in the national interest for everyone to have a voice in how it is run, and therefore we should be involved via our government? Isn't this comparable to food safety and law enforcement?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:59 PM) Yea, cause this is exactly what's happening - why the story broke and when it did. Sometimes I hate ignorance. sometimes?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:32 PM) I did that one just for you. Pioneering journalist but lousy as a sex symbol

So everyone, myself included, accepts that to ride on a plane, one has to consent to a search. How about to attend a sporting event? Shop in a mall? Ride a bus or taxi? Walk down Michigan Avenue? Enter an office building? My point again, is what difference will our rights make if we voluntarily give them away at every turn?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:22 PM) But Tex...here's the counterpoint...no one needs to go on a plane. Going on a plane is not a right. Going on a plane is something you purchase a ticket to do, it's a choice. It's more of a contract between you and the flight provider than it is between you and the government or anythign like that. The governnment has restrictions on what freedoms it can take away. Those we have to defend against people like Bush. But airlines are a different beast entirely...they are private corporations. If the rules for the contract people purchase with thsoe airlines were to be significantly changed, I'm not sure I see the problem with it in the same way I see the problem with the government changing its rules. I would contend that our economy depends on travel. While it isn't a right, it is necessary for many individuals. So those individuals would be in a position to have to subject themselves to a search that would normally be against our rights. Same with employers that want our bodily fluids. My best point here is what difference will it make if the government can't do something, like search and seizure, if we allow everyone else to search?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:14 PM) I briefly thought this was about Art Buchwald.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:09 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:05 PM) SLACKER! It's almost to that "I need to suspend myself moment"

damn great discussion, but I have to leave. Threads lke this are why I enjoy the buster.

QUOTE(Felix @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 11:51 AM) Iguchi's play was good, but unnecessary. He could have fallen down, gotten up, tied his shoe, and still thrown out Molina at first. Watch the replay. He didn't have that much time. He had time, but not that much. And from his angle, he couldn't have known he had that much time. Thanks Cheat. Here's a link. http://www.southsidesox.com/story/2006/4/15/181943/580

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 11:51 AM) I guess this means that Isreal is getting ready to kick some serious ass, huh? Get freakin' real, people. I thought I was a conspiracy nut... guess not. Timing is everything. At some point, someone in the chain of command is going to, for example, pick 9/11 as the date. I don't believe the timing is random. Do you?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 11:42 AM) That doesn't mean that they couldn't have ordered it to spin up now in response to that mess. Exactly. I can believe they are wating for a perfect opportunity before some attacks. Whether an Anniversary date, in response to American agression, real or not.

To dismiss Guchi's play as luck would mean that any of use could also get "lucky" and make that same play. The luck was the ball was hit in the most perfect position to give him an opportunity for a "web gem". Not every infielder could have made that play. Hell, he couldn't make that play 99 times out of a 100. There may be better web gems, but I'd be careful labeling anyone "lucky".

QUOTE(WCSox @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 11:07 AM) 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. 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.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:50 AM) I love the in-depth, highly detailed replies and point-by-point refutations I'm getting today. Anyway, here's a summary of an FBI report on the actual psychological state of the 2 kids involved in Columbine. If we're going to bring that mess up, I think it's important. With all due respect, any point-counterpoint on a subject this complex, in this type of forum, would be a mile wide and an inch deep. This is far to complex a subject to do anything beyond skimming. America is a far more violent society than a generation or two ago. Our kids see way more real violence, with real actors, than before. They see violence "solving" problems daily on TV. When they can not solve a problem though other means, they go with what they learned. Possibly not specific to Columbine, but I believe YASNY is correct, but not allowing kids to suffer small defeats and make mistakes, they are unprepared for the bigger problems that will happen in life.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:52 AM) Not a chance. People have the "I'm not hurting anything with my ...." mentality, and they won't stand for a 4 hour wait to get through security like there is in Israel. If American said we have a 4 hour wait, and United said they could get you on a plane in 30 minutes, American would be in bankruptcy before you can blink. What if American's wait was also 30 minutes because you couldn't carry anything on, you had to wear AA slippers, and all coats would be sealed in a container before boarding the plane? 100% searches?No belts, no hats, etc? I agree if the wait was longer, they would be toast, but I wonder how restricted we would accept.

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.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:40 AM) It's all about the "worst news possible" sells. That's the agenda. agreed.