Texsox

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 02:20 PM) He started a fight with a kid and wound up shooting him. It isn't farfetched to believe that this guy deserves to be in jail for first degree murder, or at the very least manslaughter. Being a social pariah for the majority of the country and a hero to the part of the country happy a black kid is off the streets (See the images on his website) seems kinda paltry compared to that, wouldn't you say? I agree. Would you agree that ultimately his punishment will be a couple notches worse because of the public outcry? If this had happened in a state where he was charged immediately, was prosecuted fairly and quickly, he may have pled to some reduced sentence, perhaps involuntary manslaughter, etc. But with the publicity and adding all of our societies burdens on him, he'll receive a harsher sentence. Perhaps it is the correct sentence and everyone else is treated too lightly. But I do believe he will be punished a few notches more than had this not blown up.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 02:11 PM) Yeah... the dog's closest cousin hasn't been domesticated for centuries, either. The dog's closest cousin doesn't have a bowl full of food at all time's and just "decide" to eat when it wants. It f***ing hunts and then eats. Apples/oranges. Correct. The lifestyle isn't the same but the animal isn't much different, at least that seems to be the opinion here. Although with new breeds created out of seemingly nowhere, I am inclined to agree more with your point.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 02:34 PM) Ok, you're going to stack tens of thousands of years against 80 years and expect to see some sort of evolutionary change? Come on, Tex... We would also have to look at the knowledge that humans have and our ability to manufacturer pet foods. If we wish to continue to compare a dog in the wild, is modern pet food better or worse than scaveging old carcasses? Is the variety of nutrients we can pack into a single serving better or worse than the variety that a dog would have in the wild? As you mentioned, food is sometimes scarce and the animal will eat what it can. I have a hard time believing that we cannot manufacture a pet food that is equal or better than what a dog would receive in the wild. Is what you are feeding your dogs close to what they would receive in the wild? The entire animal? Would they receive that bounty every day of their lives? Wouldn't feeding them an entire animal twice a week be more aligned with the wild experience? Just some thougths I found interesting.

A fine dining restaurant on South Padre is putting together a Titanic dinner for this weekend. I am looking foprward to it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 9, 2012 -> 11:59 AM) It depends on what traits we are breeding for. You can accelerate things but only so much. Is "ability to digest grain based foods easily" a trait we're breeding for or is that just something impacting evolution on the outskirts? I don't think of breeders pushing dogs based on what they eat very often. There might well be some species who can process grains and processed foods better than others...but you can say that about humans too. It could certainly happen but you need to be directly selecting for that trait. I feel like they are selecting for things like "Quality of coat" "Behavior" "appearance" more than diet. I am going to assume that the majority of those dogs are eating processed foods. Doesn't it follow then that breeders are selecting for things like "Quality of coat" "Behavior" "appearance" while on this processed diet? Wouldn't they go hand in hand? Bottom line it seems as if these pets are far removed from their wild ancestors. I'm not certain how appropriate this wild model really is.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 01:14 PM) FYI dismissing people using this to highlight institutional injustice as "sins of our fathers" is defending institutional injustice. I'm not dismissing the people or the instiutional injustice. I'm pointing out that Zimmerman is now the person who will pay a penalty for more than what he did. He will also pay the penalty for the instiutional injustices. In other words, he will pay a penalty beyond just what he did. He will pay the penalty for those who should have paid but got off.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 10:03 AM) Of course Tex is right. Because blaming it on the sins of our fathers is a great way to ignore the fact that the injustices still happen regularly today, are built in to this society, and have very powerful defenders. I wasn't thinking necessarily the blame, but a sum pile of everything that happened before. I've heard quotes this weekend about this is a world wide problem, etc. Zimmerman has become a poster boy for every injustice and he must be punished for all of them. People want him charged not only for what he did, but for everything that happened before and is still happening.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Apr 9, 2012 -> 01:59 PM) Out of curiosity, what is your suggestion to correct these problems? What should the parents be doing to make sure they turn in their assignments, do their homework, pay attention in class and care about school? For those with internet access and the skills to use them, go to the parent portal and look. Call the school if there is a question. Check their progress reports and report cards. I can't tell you how many parents believe we stopped issuing report cards. Believe the teacher most of the time. If four teachers tell you your kid is disrupting class, believe us. And don't give us the well everyone else is doing it. Well we have to stop someone first.

Zimmerman and Martin are larger than life and are bearing the hopes, dreams, expectations, faults, and everything else for a country. It stopped being about what happened and now the centuries of injustice, the sins of our fathers, are taking over.

If he could throw out runners he'd get some votes for the HoF. Not enough to get in, but he'd get some votes. Thank you SF

He's a guy we'll appreciate even more after he retires and the team tries to replace him. He has a better than most chance at retiring in a Sox uniform.

Balta, how does selective breeding factor into this? Aren't we breeding dogs that thrive in an artificial environment? Wouldn't that speed up the evolution?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 9, 2012 -> 09:43 AM) This is simply not true. Domesticated dogs have been eating kibble for roughly 80 years. Evolution simply does not work this quickly, Tex. As to your second statement, you are doing exactly what most humans do...you are making judgments from your perspective rather than that of a dog's perspective. I know you qualified it with your next statement, but I'm not sure it is easier, to be honest. From a dog's perspective does it want to be locked up in a crate or house, or running free?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 9, 2012 -> 09:38 AM) Think about how evolution works though Tex. It's selection based on die-off rates. half a dozen generations may have been raised on Kibbles and Bits, but the question then is whether there's a big enough difference in die-off rates between groups eating processed food and groups eating the kind of meal Shack is advising. For it to happen in 6 generations would require a huge selective advantage towards eating processed grain based food and an appropriate mutation already existing within the population. They can't just "Get used to it" if it isn't in the gene pool already. The extra food availability may be a big advantage...but it's not like dog owners are killing off dogs who don't eat that sort of diet, or deliberately attempting to breed it out. I believe we are looking at dozens and dozens of generations. (Although I'm not certain the number of generations makes that big of a difference) Plus we would also have to examine the evolution of processed dog foods as a suitable food for dogs. I suspect that we will find that a wild diet is better, I'm just not certain by how much. Looking at a wild dog who has a wild diet and a wild environment. We assume we can improve the dog's life by switching it to a domestic environment. On the surface it makes sense and based on my belief that a dog does not have a very complex psyche, one I believe could be true. The dog grows up in an environment and does not have the capacity to understand the concept of wild or any other life. As far as quality of life, I am looking at what is "natural" for a wild animal. Shack is preaching a "wild" diet while keeping the dog in a distinctly non wild environment. I find that a very interesting contrast. This whole concepts of humans keeping pets is fascinating to me and I am looking into what research has been done to understand why we do that. Of course there are all the symbiotic reasons that are usually mentioned, and the various psychological reasons.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 9, 2012 -> 08:51 AM) Tex, the problem occurs when people ignore what a dog is. Dogs are not children. They are not human. As you point out indirectly, they did not evolve on couches or eating Kibbles and Bits. They evolved IN THE WILD for thousands of years, and then humans domesticated them. They are still adjusting to this domestication now. Your common house dog evolved from wolves. They share many of the same biology and evolutionary experience as wolves. Their instincts are very similar. Wolves are hunters and for the most part, carnivores. They will eat other things, such as berries or grains, but their teeth have evolved to tear meat from bones. In the wild, many times, meat is scarce. Any type of food is. Therefore, when wolves kill their prey, they will often feast on every part of it except for the fur. They will eat it over the course of a day or a few days, and then rest. Their stomach does nearly all of the digesting in their gastrointestinal system, and this requires as much as 24 hours if they eat until they are full. They can then go days without food, as their bodies have evolved to process stored fat much more efficiently than humans. In fact, it is at this time when their bodies operate most efficiently...better than when they are eating on a regular basis. This is basically how a dog's biology works. Now think about they manner in which most people treat their dog and feed their dog. Will this domestication lead them to kibbles and bits, or primal cuts of animal? We are at the stage where dozens and dozens of generations have been raised on kibbles and bits, seems like that part of their evolution is complete. Of course if we start comparing the very worst of the human processed foods compared to the best our conclusions will be vastly different. Are they domesticated enough that we need to regulate their food intake or are they wild enough where we can leave them a bounty of food and allow them to eat what they will? Bottom line, compared to living in the wild, our domesticated dogs have a far easier life. I'm not certain if it is better. It is easier and longer. But we've taken a wild animal and locked them up in crates and houses (basically a bigger crate). We take them to the doctor and dentist, clip their nails and cut their hair. Is it better for them? I'm not certain it is.

It is interesting how far some people wish to elevate their dog's life from what it would be in the wild. The dogs closest wild cousins do not have someone cleaning their teeth, carefully deciding what, and how much, they can eat. Yet they seem to survive. I don't have a problem with someone that wishes to treat their animal as close as possible to a human, I also do not have a problem with someone who treats a dog like an animal. It is really just how high you want to elevate the dog's life from what it would be without a human to care for it.

It's #1 with unemployed alcoholics. Not hating on the state, Alaska in summer is about as close to perfect as I can think of. But it is a tough life in some respects.

Hmm, Kay Bailey Hutchinson would be an interesting pick if they are looking at women.

Rios yeah, why not?

Dunn

Konerko

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Apr 8, 2012 -> 04:22 PM) lol. I'm not even gonna respond to that clown. But what's the criteria for creating a thread these days? We've got "Da Manager" thread and "Cowley summing up the season" after one game thread and this trash? Terrible. Looking past the titles there have been some interesting comments in each of those threads. You never know which thread will spark something.

I was surprised to read Mike Wallace was 93.

Blood Meridian is starting to grow on me.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Apr 8, 2012 -> 08:47 AM) Best case scenario is that Dunn, Rios and Peavy are the top 3 in the vote, regardless of who wins it. And they don't even have to have career years to win the award. A pre 2011 average year would get them votes. And why 90 wins is probably more reasonable than 90 losses.