Texsox

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Dec 18, 2005 -> 09:47 AM) Which one? The National ID card or the Devil's advocate post? (I'm 100% serious about National ID cards!) Devil's advocate. I'm still concerned about potential abuses of the national ID card, but leaning towards believing they are a good thing, or at least necessary. What worries me is the potential for abuse. As long as it isn't much more than combining a Social Security card, with a driver's license, and a Passport, I'm ok with it.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Dec 18, 2005 -> 09:12 AM) I agree with you. But I do agree that we need a National ID Card, though. I don't see that as an invasion of privacy, (as does the ACLU). I assumed your post should have been in green for sarcasm.

Politicians are getting elected by spending more and taxing less. Imagine our joy in learning we can cut our taxes, spend at record levels, and someone else will pay the deficit, with interest, instead of us. :headshake

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Dec 18, 2005 -> 07:48 AM) I guess the only argument (to play Devil's advocate) is...if you have nothing to hide, why worry about your phone being tapped? :banghead And if you have nothing to hide, you wouldn't mind the police dropping in at 2:30 am to search your house, to listen and record your every move, to follow behind you and track what movies you watch and what books you read. You wouldn't mind not speaking your mind. All the rights we could give up because we are innocent and want to prove it. Guilty until proven innocent? What a crock in these dangerous times. We all are guilty, now prove your innocence if you have nothing to hide. When we voluntarily give up our freedoms and rights, then the terrorists can't win

I have a new love for Little Drummer Boy. And While perhaps not a true Christmas song, Greensleeves is a favorite. And Mary's Song by Amy Grant feels great late at night gazing at the Christmas tree.

QUOTE(Felix @ Dec 18, 2005 -> 08:06 AM) I said in that quote that he proved that he was a starter rather than a reliever. I didn't say he was a proven starter. As I've said before, since trading Garland would likely be for prospects, we would get prospects which a team would give up for a #1 or #2 pitcher, which Garland is not IMO (until he does what he did last season consistantly). According to various quotes, KW has been asking for a lot in exchange for Garland, which is very encouraging. Would that help or hurt the teams chances in 2006 to repeat?

QUOTE(Felix @ Dec 17, 2005 -> 07:03 AM) Brandon McCarthy proved that he's a starter last year, and if he starts this year off in the bullpen, its a real shame. Yes, you said he was proven. At what level? Above or below Garland? And if we trade Garland now, would we get a player who is also at an All-time high, or someone whose value has dropped off?

A&E Breakfast with the Arts. East Village Opera Company just played the most incredible rendition of Ave Maria

Earth, Wind, and Fire Tribute on Ice Somewhere a while back someone got the idea to do an EW&F tribute. But someone else thought it was missing something, maybe we could get figure skater Brian Boitano and some others to skate to the tunes. They got SC Johnson involved and viola, a McCormich spice logo under the ice, EW&F on a stage, and the most bizarre TV special ever was born. I can't believe I actually watched three or four songs. Which brings me to another thing. One song, commercial, another song, commercial, song, commercial. Amazing.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Dec 18, 2005 -> 05:31 AM) I didn't go to the Work XMas Party because I hadn't been at the company long enough. So I missed the Scottish guy wearing a kilt. There is a Scout from a Troop near here that plays the bag pipes. I can't believe I'm writing this, but they are sooooo cool. When he gets it going in the dining hall it is truly an amazing instrument.

So if we traded him now, would we be getting someone whose value is also at an all-time high, or would we trade him for someone whose value isn't at an all-time high for some reason? And why is that better for repeating in 2006?

QUOTE(Felix @ Dec 17, 2005 -> 06:50 PM) Did you just ignore everything I said about wins being team dependant? Pitchers can win games because they get tons of run support, but will still be average pitchers. Garland is an average pitcher unless he proves that last year was not a fluke. How many starts does Bmac need until his starts aren't a fluke? Or has he already reached that level? You claim BMac is proven, proven at what level above Garland? Are you stating Garland is less likely to win 12-15 games than BMac next season? And finally, how much influence does the pitcher have on his win/loss record?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2005 -> 10:15 PM) If Clinton had done this, he would have just lied about it anyway... A conservatives would have applauded because he was protecting America

Some people will give up any rights, freely, if the government asks them to. How sad and dangerous. Search and seizure? If the cops started knocking on doors in the middle of the night, without search warrants, and demanding entrance to search, would you be in favor? Probable cause is an important right we have and to give that away, is a terrible loss to our freedom. What the government is saying, by these illegal wiretaps, is you, I, and every American are terrorists unless proven innocent. That is not the America we brag about and not the America I want to live in.

yes, to preserve our rights, we need to give them up. Let's give up search and seizure, privacy, due process, probable cause, and anything else. At least if it is a conservative doing it.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2005 -> 12:34 PM) That only works if you make election day a holiday. There are enough people in this country who genuinely can't vote because their employers say that they must work, or they simply cannot afford to take the time off of work (even with a $25 fine), that this fine would be too harsh otherwise. Texas has early voting in addition to absentee voting. For several weeks leading up to the election you can stop by and vote. I see the benefits and the possible problems with early voting. I've only used it twice, and both times I votes the last day of early incase of some last minute information.

QUOTE(Felix @ Dec 17, 2005 -> 07:31 AM) Well, you are looking at record, which is team dependant. Look at Garland's other numbers. Last year, Garland had an ERA ~1.00 less than his career average, a WHIP .2 less than his career average, 30 less walks, 5 more strikeouts, 20 more innings, 2 more complete games, 3 more shutouts, etc. etc. All of that shouts one year wonder, and he'd have to do it again to prove to me that he's that great of a starter. Is he a good #4 or #5 guy? Yea, but right now, if we traded him, we could get something teams give up for a #1 or #2 guy. McCarthy was 21 last year in his first major league season (I guess you can call it a season, even though he only threw 67 innings). He had a rough first stint in the majors, but when he came back, he dominated the Rangers (in Texas IIRC) and the Red Sox (in Boston). He showed that he could dominate in the majors, and this was in his first major league starts. Yea, he hasn't proven anything, but if I'm going to trade someone out of this rotation, am I going to trade the second year starter who just showed that he could dominate, or am I going to trade the 5th year starter who has dominated one season, and been average the rest? Or would you rather see McCarthy's talent go to waste in the bullpen? Its a no brainer in my book. Starting pitchers who can pitch 6 seasons in the majors and compile a winning record, are well above average. And yes, I will take a guy who has proven over six seasons he can win more games than he loses, over a guy who has started 10 games in his life at the mlb level when I want to win now. If you want to build a team for 2007 or 2008, then we can look at potential and other variables, and BMac may be the smarter choice. But for 2006 and the opportunity to repeat, I'll take a guy who was close to to a Cy Young award over a guy with 10 starts. And that is why Garland is at an "all time high in value". The rest of MLB thinks the same way.

QUOTE(Felix @ Dec 17, 2005 -> 07:03 AM) Yes, but since Garland's performance is a question mark (to me at least), and since we have 6 starters, trading Garland, who is just as likely to go back to pre-2005 form as he is to repeat his 2005 performance, makes the most sense. Brandon McCarthy proved that he's a starter last year, and if he starts this year off in the bullpen, its a real shame. This is where some people have confused me. Question marks about a young guy that has 4 seasons of .500 or better baseball vs. a guy with a handful of starts. One is a question mark and one has "proven" it. Sorry, in my book, Garland has proven it, BMac is more of a question mark.

Once again we witness a society where thousands of people have died to allow self choice in their government. One report I heard was 80% of eligible voters did. We cheer their good news and many believe the US lives lost were "worth it" to give them the opportunity to choose their own leaders. (Maybe they choose their equivalent of De Lay and Hillary) Then we have local elections in this country, no threats of violence, no long travels, we make it as easy and convenient as possible, and 20% show up to vote. If we think it is "worth" an American death to give others the opportunity to elect their government, should we then make the effort to vote in our own elections?

OMG. I couldn't imagine dropping one of my kids from a third story window. I am glad the baby survived.

QUOTE(Felix @ Dec 17, 2005 -> 06:20 AM) My problem with doing this is that Garland's stock is at an all-time high right now. If he has a bad first half, we might not be able to get nearly as much as we can if we just trade him now. I'm not worried about stamina with the WBC.. I think its a silly thing to worry about. Don't you win Championships with guys playing well and "at their all-time high"?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 07:52 AM) Grass? What grass? We won't see that until April They want to keep it all for themselves and their glaucoma

For the past 10 years or so, I've been taking kids into the woods and streams, giving them knives, guns, sharp hooks, fire tools, and all sorts of dangerous objects. Along the way, they have hiked up mountains, waded steams, cared for themselves and others, been pushed to their limits physically and mentally, and I have never needed to resort to corporal punishment to keep them behaving. Actually within the Boy Scout program that would make me an ex-leader in about 30 seconds. Resorting to hazing would make me an ex leader in about a minute and a half.

Roses are reddish Violets are blueish If it wasn't for Jesus We'd all be Jewish What we did when our kids were younger was traced the roots of Christianity and "celebrated", to use that word, the similarities in the faiths. I remember the first time I was at the service for a Jewish friend who had passed away. As the readings began, I realized they were Old Testament. That more than anything woke me up to the common beliefs we share. Remember the major difference is that Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah, Jews are still waiting. We share the Old Testament. Or to put another way, for most mainstream Christians, looking at Bibles, one would say, The Jewish is tooooooo short, and the Mormon is tooooooooo long, mine is juuuuust right. Old Testament, Jews, Christians, Mormons New Testament, Christians, Mormons Book of Mormon, Mormons So celebrate the roots, explore the differences, and expand the knowledge of the world. It can only help. Maybe a Jewish friend could come over and discuss not being Christian during the biggest marketing push the planet has ever seen for Christians.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 12:13 PM) I was a child that his mouth taped shut, in a public school no less. I'm just stating that for the record. However, as a parent, I ran into a situation. When one of my boys was in grade school, I was told that if he acted up again he would receive corporal punishment. I proceeded to tell the principal that was not acceptable. All they had to do was call me and I would handle any situation. I was told that if they felt the situation called for immediate corporal punishment they would administer it. I then proceeded to inform the principle that if my child was given corporal punshment that I would administer corpaoral punishment to the person who took it upon theirself to assualt my child. In other words, I'd beat the hell out of whoever it was. I was told that if I took such action, that I would be thrown in jail and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I responded that may the case, but I'll still get my pound of flesh and whatever happens to me, happens. The issue never came up again. I had the same conversation with the school. When their response was about the same, I asked why it was ok for them to hit my kid, but it wasn't ok for me to hit them? No one is hitting my kids, taping their mouth shut, etc. As far as respectng authority, it teached the kids when you have the power, get physical, that the only way to maintain respect is by force. There are better ways.