Texsox

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 26, 2009 -> 05:07 PM) Campaign funding Energize their base, etc etc etc Same for the other side

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 26, 2009 -> 05:01 PM) What's the alternative? Keep telling them no while we watch them build and test and then eventually obtain a nuke? We've tried economic sanctions, they agreed to stop, but they lied (same response twice now right?) I think strategic missile strikes and ousting Kim Krazy would be sufficient to send the message. I dont think it would be easy, or without a cost, but what's the purpose of obtaining a nuke? To use it right? So whose going to be the victim and is it in our best interest to protect them? And who comes to their aid? I really dont think either China or Russia would stand in the way if Europe, Asia and the US give it the green light. How many years have we been at war with Iraq? Now sit back and think for a little while what war with North Korea will be like. If that doesn't scare the shipps out of you, think harder.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ May 26, 2009 -> 04:49 PM) everyones racist except you impossible to pull that out. Especially when it is a "first".

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 26, 2009 -> 04:43 PM) Well since sanctions don't appear to be working, I would think that soon there needs to be a military option on the table. This isn't a US-NK thing, it's a world-NK thing. The only two parties in opposition are China and Russia (most likely), but I can't imagine they're excited about NK getting to the point of actually having a bomb. IMO there needs to be some serious coalition forces style intervention, lead by Asian countries. Scary if it comes to that. An invasion force on that peninsula will get ugly in a hurry. WW III level stuff.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ May 26, 2009 -> 01:12 PM) Nope, just love the name Van Reidhead! And the only people I know in the Valley (besides you) have LEFT the Valley. I'm not certain to give it a hard German pronunciation, or a surfer dude

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ May 26, 2009 -> 11:33 AM) Reidhead?!?! Friend of yours?

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ May 26, 2009 -> 10:30 AM) Which is why Reinsdorf is right in not signing pitchers to long-term deals. I usually dislike hard and fast rules without flexibility, but here it has served us well. I could see, and it would also depend on the total money, relaxing the rule for Mark B.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 26, 2009 -> 12:06 PM) Yes, as bad as Alito is (and he is by far the worst on that court IMO), Gonzalez would have been like making Andy Gonzalez your everyday leadoff hitter. a tip of the cap to that analogy

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 26, 2009 -> 11:51 AM) Actually you suggested the UN is lying at the very beginning of this about the NK nuclear program actually being shutdown. Personally I really doubt it, but if it were true, it would explain the culture of corruption that goes on there. Perhaps I gave the wrong impression with that. If they were lying, and doing nothing, as I posted, that is wrong. If they were lying, with some justification behind it, *and* doing something, I have no problem with that. I wish I had a better example, but if the US went to the UN and requested, make this statement because we expect NK to do X so we can discover Y, and stop Z, I'm cool with that. Overall, I agree with what your thoughts were, I'm just not expressing mine very well. I disagree that groups like the UN or US have a culture of corruption because they disseminate some forms of misinformation. Again, along the lines of "we are not planning an attack". I would agree that there is some corruption in the UN, as there is in every human endeavor. My God only a fool would argue the UN does not suffer from some forms of corruption.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 26, 2009 -> 11:47 AM) Sounds like the sanctification process started at about the same time. great point . Nothing like watching our two biggest brands, and no that is not Coke and Pepsi or McDonalds and Burger King square off. As Kap would say /popping some corn, watching the show.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 26, 2009 -> 11:34 AM) The lie here is exactly what I am talking about. If the UN is saying there is no nuclear program, while there is, they are doing a diservice to the billions of people within thousands of miles of NK that could be hit by their current missiles tipped with nukes. You are correct that most of the time, in fact the overwhelming majority of the time, that honesty is the best policy. But, there are times when I find lying acceptable. Examples include "We are not planning an invasion", "We do not negotiate with terrorists". etc. I would guess we agree on that. The best outcome of this is for NK to be disarmed. The disservice would be to do nothing. On that we all can agree. That is especially beneficial to the billions of people within range of their missiles. If in the process of achieving that agenda item, the disarming of a nuclear Korea, lies are told, I'm comfortable. If, as you seem to be suggesting, and also sadly within the realm of possibility, the UN response is to lie and say there is no threat, *and* do nothing, then again, we will agree 100%. That is beyond wrong.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 26, 2009 -> 11:13 AM) The appellate court judge who ruled against the MLB owners and helped bring an end to the strike of 1995? Sonia Sotomayer. The best And the worse of our political system. But it is still the greatest on earth.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 26, 2009 -> 11:07 AM) And the billions of people within range of their balastic nuclear missiles be damned. Nope. I don't buy that the UN should be purposefully lying to the world. I really believe that when you start to blur that line, it is when you open yourself up for being no better than the countries you are trying to stop from destroying each other. Look no further than the oil for food program. I am sure they had a great reason for that little white lie, but it does no good for the people murdered in Iraq by the enabling of Hussein for decades. As I suspected, we are thinking about two different things. I do agree with your example. But I'm not certain where you get the bolded. That was not my intent. The lives of those billions should be an agenda item for the US, and the UN. So much so that in the process of protecting those billions of people a lie needs to be told, so be it. I'd rather have the lie, than a nuclear armed North Korea. And I am not in favor of all lying, and certainly not for the corruption in the oil for food program. I will agree with most all of your examples, and there are many. However, there is a time and the place. Talk like 'we're not planning an invasion" while planning the invasion, is a perfect example of what I mean. It is acceptable for the US military and should be acceptable for a UN peace keeping force made up, in part, of US troops. Yes they are lying, but I believe it is acceptable.

Linked

Ex-con advised Cowboys on structure that collapsed Comments 0 | Recommend 0 May 26, 2009 - 11:07 AM The Associated Press IRVING, Texas (AP) -- The Dallas Cowboys used advice from a man who falsified his educational credentials and served federal prison time for drug trafficking to make major structural reinforcements to a practice facility whose collapse injured a dozen people. The Dallas Morning News reported Sunday that the consultant, Jeffrey Lawrence Galland, was engineering director of a Las Vegas company called JCI even though he had no engineering license. Galland acknowledged the newspaper's findings, but said his background had no bearing on his ability to help clients. Galland, 42, said JCI president Scott Jacobs, who is a licensed engineer, supervised his Cowboys work. Jacobs did not immediately return a call seeking comment Sunday by The Associated Press. His company has teamed up extensively in recent years with Canada-based Summit Structures, which built the Cowboys facility in 2003 and oversaw last year's reinforcements. "It is Summit's belief that all employees who worked on this project were qualified to perform the task he or she performed" and were properly licensed, Summit president Nathan Stobbe said in a statement Saturday, the newspaper reported. The Cowboys declined to comment. Galland provided a written summary of his credentials that says he has a bachelor's degree in physics from Eastern Washington University. The school said he pursued that degree but never graduated. The summary also says he has been working toward a master's degree in structural engineering at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. School records show no sign he ever attended, officials said. Galland said Saturday that he completed all required credits for the physics degree but did not receive it after Eastern Washington officials wanted him to take a class that "I felt was unnecessary." An aide said Saturday that the summary was being corrected. Galland was arrested in 1994 after breaking into a home and pointing a gun at a woman in Great Falls, Mont., police there said. Charges included burglary and assault. The following year, Galland was convicted of burglary in state court and sentenced to probation. Then he pleaded guilty in federal court to using a firearm during a violent crime and conspiring to distribute cocaine and marijuana, court records show. The tentlike practice facility came crashing down in fierce winds May 2, permanently paralyzing scouting assistant Rich Behm.

QUOTE (Reddy @ May 26, 2009 -> 10:23 AM) maybe i was just ignoring it Some people are very good at that, I wish I was.

Better yet, allow me a concrete example. I believe it is our best interest that North Korea does not possess a nuclear bomb. That makes it an agenda item for the US. I believe it is in the world's best interest that North Korea not possess a nuclear bomb. That should make it an agenda item for the UN. If for example, the US announcing that they believe NK has stopped research, in order to perhaps flush them out, or make them careless, a little diplomatic lie is acceptable. I give the UN the same opportunity to use that strategy.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 26, 2009 -> 10:29 AM) That only backs up my claim that the UN is not functioning how it is supposed to if it has agendas like countries do. I have always considered the UN made up of countries, and has the accumulation, combination, and summation of all those countries agendas. If a strategy works for the US, England, Brazil, and Norway individually, why would those countries abandon that strategy when they are working collectively? I believe we do agree that the UN has a long ways to go to reach its full potential. It brings out the worse in all nations, and I guess, occasionally, the best. I've always respected and enjoyed reading your UN thoughts, so I am trying to understand your point. Could you give me an example of something the UN should be doing that would not be part of some country's agenda? I guess that is where I am lost and perhaps we have a definition discord here.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 26, 2009 -> 10:13 AM) Well if the UN is willing to lie to billions of people under the guise of "diplomacy" that really says all you need to know about that particular organization. It probably goes a long way towards explaining the corruption that has racked it recently as well. Isn't that what the US does as well? It seems every country makes announcements while doing something else. The first examples that comes to mind are moldy oldie, but we denied ever targeting Castro for execution. We denied having operations in Cambodia during Viet Nam. You do not tip your hand fully to the other side.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 26, 2009 -> 10:10 AM) I can't wait for the swift UN response - "hey stop! seriously this time. or else...we might do something..." What would you suggest is the proper response for the UN and how would they back it up?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 26, 2009 -> 09:00 AM) Many are, the UN being the biggest one. I always assumed it was more a diplomatic front, than an actual belief.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ May 26, 2009 -> 09:50 AM) The Republicans have never had the fight that the Dems do or did over Justices. Which is interesting when you factor in their campaign strategy of "activist judges". You would think the group that complains the most about judges, would focus more efforts on the conformation process.

Quality post SS. There are so many games in the season, and they seem to pass by so quickly, it is great when when someone catches a moment like that.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 26, 2009 -> 08:58 AM) This is exactly what I was trying to say in another argument, I mean thread. The pick's political idealogy should have NOTHING to do with it. But of course, it does. I guess I should say, unless the pick is a Communist or something crazy like that. But Bush should have been allowed to nominate, and have approved, a true, dyed in the wool, conservative, if that is what he wanted and Obama should have his choice as well. I'd rather focus on tough to know stuff like integrity, citizenship, honor, and character.