JUGGERNAUT

Let me repeat this so there are no mis-understandings: Representing the techno-religious-conservative group I can tell you that there is NO scientific basis (polls, survey, research, statistics, or otherwise) that suggests that pedophiles stems predominantly from homosexuality. There is absolutely none. I realize the media loves the Church scandal but the reality as found in the FBI investigations on the matter is that the % of this behavior in the Church is actually lower than any other individual group of an equal or greater size. So try to look beyond the media & realize that there simply is no link to suggest homosexuality leads to pedophile behavior. Even if you make an argument that the numbers support such a link in sex-segregated schools (all boy or all girl) there are other psychological factors associated with these schools to make them an exception case. Factors that should be studied if the democrats beginning moving in this direction as suggested by Hillary's recent comments on the subject. In any case, there is simply no basis so let's stick to the topic at hand. Hopefully you can accept the facts that the %'s w/in the heterosexual group greatly overshadow those of the homosexual one. The largest classification of pedophiles are the lolita cases which are much more prevalent overseas than they are here. It's important to note that America's standards are not the world's on this topic.

Again I will remain nice & objective & ignore another's offensive remarks. My last post clearly refutes your understanding of "dawn of man" as well as your understanding of what religion is. Therefore if you belief that you have refuted the link between religion & marriage dating back to the "dawn of man" than that is simply a statement of the level of which you understand that relationship. As to whether your level of understanding represents the best level of understanding on the subject well I think the facts speak for themselves. Thank you for weighing in & enjoy your day

The issue of majority opinion/rights vs minority opinion/rights is popping up in just about any domestic thread so rather than debating it again & again in each of those threads let's just do it in this one. America is reaching unprecedented levels of both highly educated & legally degreed citizens. Roughly speaking for every elected official there are at least 10000 more persons in the US that are as good or better educated than the elected official. Clearly the system of government put in place over 200 yrs ago has short-comings in repesentation today. As America moves further ahead with electronic voting, the question pops up as to whether that voting should be extended to bills & measures as well. Essentially that moves the country towards one that the majority opinion defines. Today the media is moving in that direction as it seems every week there are at least 3 polls/surveys taken on issues in America. We know during the Clinton admn these were used instrumentally to run the country. We also know that Bush is facing trouble in re-election because he has decided to defy those results on issues in his own admn. Moving from poll/surveys to actual votes is not a process that can be taken lightly. First off the votes must be classified in terms of education. Rooney on 60 minutes suggested a chamber in govt for Professors. Well I think that's a bit aristocratic for most Americans taste. But I can't see how they would object to votes classified in terms of education: non-college, college, masters, & Phds. Now these votes won't directly affect policy but they will create a strong basis for an argument on how our representatives should vote on issues. As Rooney suggested it would be most difficult for a representative to create an argument justifying a vote that opposed the educated majority. Now inevitably this is going to cause conflict with the traditional basis for minority/individual rights. I have argued repeatedly that the only true individual rights that exist are those agreed upon by the majority. Others believe that there are certain rights that exist beyond the opinion of the majority. Perhaps in a God-based country that argument holds water, but when God is removed from the equation it does not. When God is removed from the equation than so to is the concept of universal morality. What remains is relative morality. Morality relative to majority opinion. Believe it or not, I a patron of the God-based country theme who believes in relative morality. Because I do not believe that God ever intended for us to legislate morality to begin with. What he intended was for man to act upon a developed conscience. To that effect morality should never have been legislated but rather taught. In that regards the only rights that I feel are unalienable are those of free-speech & access to free-speech. The later one was never incorporated in American society. It was determined by wealth & the means to produce wealth (capitalism). The most important individual right is that every voice nor matter how small as the ability to be heard. In an ideal world every opinion would be made available to the general public & in a round robin fashion so that each had equal access time. And albeit this is not a minor point to this debate it is a tangental one. Now some of you will argue that if we moved in the direction of a government much more reflective of the citizenry that we would open the door to the ills of majority rule such as slavery, hangings, etc. But such a viewpoint ignores the fact that by classifying the votes between college-degreed & non-degreed persons the likelihood of a majority of college-degreed persons supporting such a decision is less than the likelihood of a constitutional amendment to repeal such a right. Equally as important the data will provide us the separation between degreed & non--degreed citizens so that we will understand the short-comings of our elementary & high school levels. I believe that it should be in our best interest as an evolving nation who believes in the spirit of & ideals of democracy to move in the direction in which the country is driven by majority opinion. I believe this issue is more important than the debate between which business sectors should be privately or publicly owned as this direction would undoubtedly weigh heavily on those issues. I believe that fear of the majority opinion is unfounded in this day & age. For every one of us who think we are God's gift to the world in intelligence I assure you there are many more who are as good of better in that area than you or I.

Cause & Effect of Pedophiles: http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=18993 Applying logic to facts- WMDs in Iraq: http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=19021

This thread is in response to The ghost of Wayne Tolleson assertion that it is not. He has provided 3 links to support his argument that child-porn is not a primary factor in the creation of pedophiles around the world. http://cms.psychologytoday.com/conditions/pedophilia.html http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?d...efid=ency_botnm http://www.mhamic.org/causes/causesbiblio.htm I will of course be analyzing these links over time & will weigh in on their value. Until then there are some facts that I wish to share to aid in this debate: 1) Pedophiles are more prevalent in regions where age of consent is as low as 12. Now in that region it is not considered as such, but by American standards it would be. In such regions child-porn (by American standards) is rampant. 2) Pedophiles are more prevalent where child-porn is more easily distributed. If you compare metropolitan areas of equal sizes from Europe & America this is a fact. 3) Lolita cases are more prevalent in areas of the world where nudity of children (again as measured by American standards) is permissible. 4) Child-prostitution is more prevalent in such areas as well. Again measured by American standards there are far more child prostitutes in most of the G7 than in the US. Child-prostitution & child-porn are synonymous. One is simply the inevitable evolution of the other.

In the spirit of encouraging nice debate I will ignore your remarks & simply address your points. Not one link you provided refuted the basis of marriage existing since the dawn of man. Nor do any of the link you provide refer to the religious context of marriage since the dawn of man. Now why is that? Because you apparently believe the dawn of man begins with the Greeks. When that is clearly not the case. Likewise you must believe that the origin of religion implies the origin of established religion on a grand scale & that is not true either. The origin of religion dates to the first time man pondered anything grander than himself. The moon, the stars, his place in the universe. At that time there was no distintion between philosophy & religion & that any sign of worship towards something constituted religion. Well we have history of such things on cave writings dating back millions of years before the Greeks. Now if you believe finding links that support the basis of another person's argument somehow increases the pompous nature of that argument well I question your logic. When you strengthen the basis of an opposing viewpoint it only weakens your own As for the child porn reference, this is a gay marriage debate. My response clearly indicates that I feel it has no relevance in this debate. Now if you feel that strongly about it, create your own thread & I will gladly debate it there.

What a conflicting war. Now that a WMD link is being established to the radical shiite cleric how will the nation perceive this war? If more is found in months to come does this suddenly legitimize Bush's WMD argument? If that's the case does this created a bigger blank check for the war? I pray that's not the case. It's clear to me this is a war of liberation that we can not win. The warlords in Iraq are no less powerful than the ones in Afghanistan & surgical bombing runs have proven most ineffective against them. The only way to weaken them is to use the traditional methods of slaughter that have weaken them in past centuries. But that's not even a thinkable option in the modern world. So we have no means of weakening them. Period. Which means both of these military actions will go on indefinitely. We need allies in these causes & I'm not talking about the French, Germans, or any other European aristocrats. I'm talking about Muslim allies. We need to choose sides on both these fronts & back the lesser of two evils that is more inclined to allow democracy & capitalism to take hold. In Iraq it's clearly the Kurds & in Afghan .. wel I'm not really sure but there must have been some rebel faction there as well. Nothing makes for better friendships than a shared enemy.

It helps to read your own links 1a: discusses a union of a man & woman. http://www.richeast.org/htwm/Greeks/marriage/marriage.html The average age difference between husband and wife was fifteen years. Hesoid's advice was that "A man should marry at about thirty, choosing for his wife, a girl of sixteen" (quoted in Flacelière 59). Although there were no formal laws governing a specific age to marry, Flacelière (59) also mentioned that girls could marry as soon as puberty hit. As Powers notes, 1b: discusses a union of a man & woman. http://ks.essortment.com/historyofmarri_rimr.htm The oldest male relative was the caretaker of the girls and the prospective husband would ask the father for the girl after first bringing him gifts to win his approval. 1c: discusses a union of a man & woman. http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistor...iagehistory.htm The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32). 1d: discusses mostly the union of a man & woman. http://www.theweekmagazine.com/briefing.asp?a_id=567 Gay marriage is RARE in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives Oh Yes. Nero is the prime example of an ideal citizen to follow. In 342 A.D. after his rule came to an end, Rome outlawed gay marriages. After reading those 4 links I definitely would have to say ... 1)The fact remains that YOU are trying to re-define the traditional/original definition of what marriage is & has represented since the dawn of man. It was not created out of a civil context but rather a religious one. is definitely RIGHT! ============================================ TEXSOX, I am inclined to agree with her. It is the government's say on these issues that is legitimizing the causes. Not just wrt to gay marriage but abortion as well. It is one thing to say the abortion procedure is not a criminal offense & quite another for the government to subsidize the abortion industry. Yet in a recent case in Texas where a girl lied about her age to get an abortion the truth of that industry was made open to the public. She is suing the doctor on the basis that he didn't bother to follow procedure as the law states to check for proper identification. She had a pretty lousy fake id at the time. During the case, it was made known that he has performed 30000 abortions in his professional tenure & at an avg pop of $600.00 per that's a pretty nice chunk of change. Especially when the govt is financing about 1/2 of it. But that's another issue entirely. I agree with that pov that the government should try to distance itself from having to legislate moral issues but I think it's in a catch-22 right now. Just like striking down the sodomy laws last year, each one of these actions by the US SC has the effect of legitimizing an act when it repeals an antiquated law. In other words once you make something illegal & then later on declare it legal it has a psychological effect of the government sanctioning & supporting the now legal act. There lies the biggest problem as we go forward as a nation. Most of us agree that there are antiquated laws in the states that should be struck down. The problem is that when striking them down the US SC should be clearly defining their summaries in such a way that it does not condone the act. Taken to the extreme & referring to the infamous billy goat curse on the cub, one day the US SC might strike down some laws referring to sleeping with horse or goats. These laws do exist on the books in some states. If they carelessly strike down these laws like they have abortion & sodomy & possibly marriage, then that decision will in effect legitamize sex with beasts. Now some of you moral relavists might argue that's acceptable but I think by & large the majority still feel it to be offensive. And the list goes on when you dig up the illiterate past that created laws based on the moral majority opinion of the community at that time. Legal scholars always emphasize the importance of defining the law in as general the terms as possible to avoid the psychological effect of legitimizing an overturned decision. That's why it's doubly important for the US SC when striking down these laws to firmly indicate that the majority opinion of Americans believes such acts to be heinous & immoral in nature & that by striking down such a law the court does not believe such acts should be recommended or encouraged. In otherwords the morality of the act should be addressed by the court in their opinion & not necc the law itself. Unfortunately this nations past 40 years has shown members of the bench who either have forgotten that importance or have used it to encourage their own agendas irrespective of how the majority of Americans feel on an issue. ============================================ How did you change the poll options? Is that something only an admin can do? In any case, thank you.

http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?showtopic...15entry342876 +/- over 2003: A 2 Thomas, Frank CHW R 9.63 = +1.85! (He's the man!) A 11 Uribe, Juan CHW R 7.93 = +3.43! (making up for Maggs) A 30 Ordonez, Magglio CHW R 6.54 = -0.80 (making up for Koney) A 58 Harris, Willie CHW L 4.94 = +0.30 (close to Val 2003) A 59 Lee, Carlos CHW R 4.93 = -0.85 (close to Val 2003) A 60 Konerko, Paul CHW R 4.89 = +0.67 (2003 was that bad) A 82 Crede, Joe CHW R 3.96 = -0.68 (a big gap) B 14 Olivo, Miguel CHW R 6.05 (should be playing more) B 15 Valentin, Jose CHW B 5.88 = +0.83 (making up for Lee) So when you look at it like the two biggest holes in the lineup are Rowand & Crede. The rest is pretty close to 2003.

He should resign. He deserves the benefit of the doubt on whether he made a well-informed decision to approve prisoner abuse. But there is no doubt that he did not make any public statements to prevent it. Knowing that there are over 18000 cases of abuse filed in the US military yearly he can't claim ignorance for not making those public statements to prevent it. Any one who doesn't believe that such statements before the prisons were open for business would not have had an impact simply doesn't understand the power of modern media. Such statements would have created fear of consequence in the leadership of the Pentagon & soldiers in Iraq to put them on high alert & watchdog against it.

Would you please just stop the NUKE talk? It's not an option! Do you understand that? Just stop it already. Some of you really are radical! But since we are on the issue I hope you realize that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki did more harm than good. They may have saved American lives fighting the war in the pacific but they also led Stalin to quickly create the arms race. We would have been better off letting Japan occupy the Pacific & gone after Stalin as Patton suggested. This would have kept the German rocket scientists from falling into Soviet hands & eliminated the need for a wasteful arms race. The US remains the only country to ever use nukes to end a war. Over 100K Japanese were either killed or injured in those attacks. They provide the world with a valid cause to always look upon us with dis-trust. The truth is that prior to the nucs being dropped the Japanese ability to make war was weakening quickly. It is truth they would have fought to the death to end the war, but it wasn't necc to end it on those terms. Containment would have eventually bleed them dry for supplies. Nothing weakens a soldiers reserve better than hunger & isolation. The cost in dollars to fund the arms race overshadows the cost to fund continued bombing of military installations in Japan's empire. So please, just stop the NUKE nonsense. It's not an option, should never have been an option, & should never be an option again.

Are you an extremist? What is your point in making OT references when there are clearly NT ones that refute them? Is it hard for you to understand that though God inspired the words of the Bible that mankind corrupted them? Is it hard for you to understand that the reason Jesus came into the world was to set things right? The NT references to Jesus himself clearly define marriage as the union between a man & a woman. One man & one woman. He goes on to say that anything else be it a thought or an act with another outside of that union is adultery. On the issue of divorce Jesus makes several references to the distinction between God & state. Clearly he indicates there is a much higher standard with God than the state. So even though the state might recognize your no-fault divorce God will not. Your references to St Paul are misunderstood as well. Paul simply makes the argument that a union between a non-believer & a believer will make things very hard on the believer to devote his/her life to God. That is why he says it is not a good idea. He does not define it as being forbidden as you suggest & furthermore since belief is both in word & deed this very passage is sometimes use to suggest that Paul is defining a grounds for separation. There are other passages as well. The fact remains that YOU are trying to re-define the traditional/original definition of what marriage is & has represented since the dawn of man. It was not created out of a civil context but rather a religious one. It is only later when it took on a civil definition. There is simply no basis for expanded it to homosexuals. This is not about minority rights. This is about a small minority (< 10% of voters) trying to force the majority to recognize their existence. The establishment of civil unions allow gays to be treated the same as married persons when it comes to matters of health & money. Those are the only rights that are unjust at this time. Just because you don't like the tradition of marriage doesn't give you the right to both ignore it & re-define it. Over 66% of Americans are against being forced to recognize the union of gays in the same venue as the union o f straights. That's enough to establish a constitutional amendment on the issue. The majority is an overwhelming voice on this one & because it remains headline news might just tip the scales of the Nov election. ============================ As for pedophilism it's a disease that is rooted in child-porn. There have been very few cases documented where child-porn has not been involved. Child-porn is not illegal in all countries & the age for defining a child is equally unequal. Some civilized countries define consent as early as 12. The French try to push the envelope every year with controversial ads. This is an entirely different issue & has no real point to the debate. By & large the majority of gays seeking marriage recognition are not active members of socieity's underworld. And since you mentioned it I will complete the thought: marriage that produces an off-spring is valued greater in our society than one that doesn't. That's a plain simple fact. It's valued greater than one that adopts as well. Most infertile couples do not get married knowing that such an abnormality exists between them. A marriage union between a man & woman always leaves the possibility open for producing an off-spring. Both science & nature have a say in that outcome. Same sex unions do not have that possibility. Invitro requires another adult entering into the union. Not to mention the psychology of invitro babies has yet to be studied as to whether it is benefit or harm to society in general.

Daily reminder of my typo.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/alp04.htm ALC NPERA: A 5 Sabathia, C.C. CLE L 2.81 A 8 Schoeneweis, Scott CHW L 3.04 A 13 Silva, Carlos MIN R 3.28 A 16 Lee, Cliff CLE L 3.49 A 21 Loaiza, Esteban CHW R 3.62 A 22 Maroth, Mike DET L 3.68 A 23 Radke, Brad MIN R 3.75 A 24 Santana, Johan MIN L 3.76 A 25 Gobble, Jimmy KC L 3.80 A 27 Garland, Jon CHW R 3.88 A 28 Robertson, Nate DET L 3.89 A 32 Buehrle, Mark CHW L 4.02 A 33 Bonderman, Jeremy DET R 4.03 A 39 Davis, Jason CLE R 4.66 A 44 Affeldt, Jeremy KC L 5.15 A 46 Johnson, Jason DET R 5.28 A 48 Lohse, Kyle MIN R 5.63 A 50 Anderson, Brian KC L 6.60 ROTATION arms: CLE > CHW > MIN > DET > KC B 8 Fultz, Aaron MIN L 1.41 B 11 Walker, Jamie DET L 1.64 B 14 Field, Nate KC R 1.77 B 16 Takatsu, Shingo CHW R 1.80 B 20 Cotts, Neal CHW L 2.00 B 23 Nathan, Joe MIN R 2.25 B 25 Westbrook, Jake CLE R 2.38 B 29 Miller, Justin TOR R 2.76 B 30 Urbina, Ugueth DET R 2.79 B 31 Grimsley, Jason KC R 2.79 B 36 Jackson, Mike CHW R 2.95 B 38 Reyes, Dennys KC L 3.05 B 40 Rincon, Juan MIN R 3.04 B 43 Koch, Billy CHW R 3.15 B 44 Mulholland, Terry MIN L 3.18 B 45 Camp, Shawn KC R 3.24 B 49 Romero, J.C. MIN L 3.32 B 53 Sullivan, Scott KC R 3.62 B 54 Stanford, Jason CLE L 3.62 B 56 Marte, Damaso CHW L 3.73 B 60 Adkins, Jon CHW R 3.86 B 61 Knotts, Gary DET R 3.93 B 68 Roa, Joe MIN R 4.18 B 70 Betancourt, Rafael CLE R 4.31 B 71 Yan, Esteban DET R 4.34 B 72 Patterson, Danny DET R 4.65 B 78 Colyer, Steve DET L 5.12 B 82 Pulido, Carlos MIN L 5.39 B 83 D'Amico, Jeff C. CLE R 5.42 B 84 May, Darrell KC L 5.73 B 85 Greisinger, Seth MIN R 5.78 B 86 Stewart, Scott CLE L 5.89 B 87 Levine, Al DET R 6.19 B 89 Cressend, Jack CLE R 6.24 B 90 Wright, Dan CHW R 6.65 B 96 Durbin, Chad CLE R 7.20 B 97 Cornejo, Nate DET R 7.28 B 99 Riske, David CLE R 8.38 RELIEF arms: MIN > CHW > KC > DET > CLE (incl failed starters) C 1 Huisman, Justin KC R .27 C 9 Cerda, Jaime KC L 3.35 C 10 Jimenez, Jose CLE R 3.38 C 15 White, Rick CLE R 3.89 C 16 Carrasco, D.J. KC R 4.45 C 19 Robertson, Jeriome CLE L 4.74 C 24 Politte, Cliff CHW R 5.90 C 26 Lee, Dave CLE R 6.97 C 27 Appier, Kevin KC R 7.02 C 28 Leskanic, Curtis KC R 7.25 C 32 Laker, Tim CLE R 7.53 C 34 Tadano, Kazuhito CLE R 8.16 C 36 Diaz, Felix CHW R 8.46 C 39 Villacis, Eduardo KC R 9.46 C 43 MacDougal, Mike KC R 12.07 C 44 Dingman, Craig DET R 12.49 C 47 Anderson, Jason CLE R 16.42 SHORT RELIEF arms: KC > CLE > CHW > DET > MIN (incl arms on DL) oVERALL arms: CHW > MIN > CLE > KC > DET

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/alb04.htm ALC RPG & NPERA : A 2 Thomas, Frank CHW R 9.63 A 4 Belliard, Ron CLE R 9.14 A 8 Beltran, Carlos KC B 8.55 A 11 Uribe, Juan CHW R 7.93 A 12 Rodriguez, Ivan DET R 7.93 A 14 White, Rondell DET R 7.76 A 18 Guillen, Carlos DET B 7.36 A 19 Ford, Lew MIN R 7.34 A 26 Gerut, Jody CLE L 6.84 A 28 Jones, Jacque MIN L 6.78 A 30 Ordonez, Magglio CHW R 6.54 A 33 Stewart, Shannon MIN R 6.25 A 34 Hafner, Travis CLE L 6.24 A 35 Harvey, Ken KC R 6.21 A 36 Lawton, Matt CLE L 6.16 A 44 Sweeney, Mike KC R 5.61 A 45 Martinez, Victor CLE B 5.65 A 48 Vizquel, Omar CLE B 5.52 A 51 Koskie, Corey MIN L 5.33 A 54 Guzman, Cristian MIN B 5.19 A 56 Sanchez, Alex DET L 5.02 A 58 Harris, Willie CHW L 4.94 A 59 Lee, Carlos CHW R 4.93 A 60 Konerko, Paul CHW R 4.89 A 64 Blake, Casey CLE R 4.76 A 65 Randa, Joe KC R 4.71 A 67 Gonzalez, Juan KC R 4.61 A 68 Higginson, Bobby DET L 4.61 A 71 Mientkiewicz, Doug MIN L 4.59 A 73 Pena, Carlos DET L 4.44 A 82 Crede, Joe CHW R 3.96 A 92 Vina, Fernando DET L 3.07 A 93 Monroe, Craig DET R 2.86 EVERYDAY bats: MIN > CLE > CHW > DET > KC B 10 Inge, Brandon DET R 6.33 B 13 Stairs, Matt KC L 6.07 B 14 Olivo, Miguel CHW R 6.05 B 15 Valentin, Jose CHW B 5.88 B 17 Broussard, Ben CLE L 5.63 B 19 Infante, Omar DET R 5.60 B 21 Offerman, Jose MIN B 5.48 B 26 Ryan, Michael MIN L 5.25 B 28 Graffanino, Tony KC R 5.07 B 30 Punto, Nick MIN B 4.89 B 32 Hunter, Torii MIN R 4.85 B 36 Escobar, Alex CLE R 4.35 B 38 Rowand, Aaron CHW R 4.17 B 40 Laker, Tim CLE R 3.98 B 41 Alomar, Sandy Jr. CHW R 3.97 B 42 Guiel, Aaron KC L 3.85 B 45 Blanco, Henry MIN R 3.79 B 46 Cuddyer, Michael MIN R 3.75 B 47 Rivas, Luis MIN R 3.59 B 48 Gload, Ross CHW L 3.58 B 49 Munson, Eric DET L 3.57 B 52 Santiago, Benito KC R 3.43 B 55 Perez, Timo CHW L 3.35 B 57 Merloni, Lou CLE R 3.15 B 61 Crisp, Coco CLE B 2.51 B 63 Relaford, Desi KC B 2.39 B 67 Berroa, Angel KC R 2.01 B 68 Norton, Greg DET B 2.00 RESERVE bats: MIN > DET > CHW > CLE > KC (incl short-term DL players) C 1 Mauer, Joe MIN L 94.28 C 2 Young, Dmitri DET B 19.56 C 6 Stinnett, Kelly KC R 9.04 C 7 Burke, Jamie CHW R 8.22 C 11 Bowen, Rob MIN B 4.82 C 13 Blanco, Andres KC B 3.85 C 16 Dransfeldt, Kelly CHW R 3.51 C 19 LeCroy, Matthew MIN R 2.88 C 21 Shelton, Chris DET R 2.84 C 24 McDonald, John CLE R 2.22 C 25 Lopez, Mendy KC R 2.09 C 36 DeJesus, David KC L .53 PINCH bats: MIN > KC > CHW > DET > CLE (incl long-term DL players) OVERALL bats: MIN > CHW > CLE > DET > KC

The temp is 52 deg & the low is expected in the 40's. Low 20's crowd at best. God favors the cub with better weather.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0420/p03s01-usec.html And instead of outsourcing the jobs to India, Siemens ICN had a plan that was every bit as controversial - importing Indians to do the work here. The Americans even had to train their Indian replacements in order to receive severance pay. "They told us this is the wave of the future, and we just have to go with the flow," Mr. Emmons says. Paula Davis, a Siemens spokeswoman, describes the company's decision to hire Tata Consultancy Services in India as "part of a global restructuring effort." She says it is "more economical to outsource this particular function." Referring to the company's requirement that laid-off employees train their foreign replacements, she adds, "It's industry standard when you're outsourcing work to any firm that you're going to have to train the new consulting firm." ================================================= With respect to experienced professionals like Mr. Emmons I believe the US has an obligation to limit outsourcing because if we don't we will lose the majority of our back office jobs over time. When that happens the US economy will be based on distributors & service jobs which require a local presence. But then again the L-1 visa threatens the local service jobs as well. With respect to America's next generation of workers this area because more gray because it brings up questions of which work force is better qualified to do the work. The foreign workers or the american college graduates who more than likely cheated their way to a degree. The cheating is definitely a problem when it comes to back office service sector jobs.

A game time temperature in the 40's is not going to help tonight. I salute those who show up tonight. I've been there in the past when it's been cold & turned rainy near the end & it's a horrible experience. Especially when the SOX lose. Last year it was the DET series that was yechh! We both lost & it was freezing drizzle. Stupid Wright.

Doh! I wish we could edit polls. That should read ... YES YES - but allow for civil unions outside of marriage NO OTHER Hopefully it was obvious for those who have already voted.

Quote: Unless there's strict leadership, unless there's clear leadership that prevents the abuse of power, that power will seep out. That power, that sadistic impulse will dominate. That's what we saw in our prison. That's what you see in Abu Ghraib. And there lies the reason why this is a culture issue. We no longer live in a society that cheerishes respect for life like we once did. Abortion, Vietnam, Watergate, & Monica & several other events have eroded America's ability to believe in an leadership stemming from individuals. Name the number of people whose leadership you respect at a near 100% level in your life? Most of us can't even name a few. Which means that endoctrination is the only form left for leadership in our society. Unless the guards are endoctrinated to respect life then majority rule will take over. And by majority rule it will be the natural born leaders whose agenda in a mob will always dictate mob rule. Natural born leaders are very charasmatic & compelling for the majority of persons to comply. That kind of endoctrination isn't going to come from a basic training class or two. It needs to become endoctrinated early on during the school years & re-inforced over & over again during the development of the child to an adult. Having reached adulthood it shouldn't stop there either. That's why it needs to be endoctrinated into the culture of our society. Students should arrive had adult hood with such strong moral consciences that such immoral acts become unthinkable.

When in Chicago, I live w/in 50 mi of the ball park so I go to about 7-10 gms a year. If I lived w/in 5 mi of the ball park, I would probably go to about 21-30 gms a year. Wrigley draws 66% more fans than the Cell because the local area residents frequent the ballpark 2 to 1 over the SOX. That means the long distance fan base is a lot closer in proportion than the media suggests. The SOX need to build a local area fan base.

The weather was pretty bad to where the long distance fan is not going to go. The SOX need some local area fan promotions to pull the fans in on these days. If you live more than 20 miles from the ball park & confront Fri's weather you're not likely to go. But if you live w/in say 5 miles from the ball park if you could afford it you might go. If SOX make it affordable to these fans they would definitely increase attendance. Local area promotions would have no affect on the long distance fan which pretty much decides to go to the games when they feel like with indifference to price. The better the weather the more likely the LD fan will go.

I'm not so sure about that. What's the history of any player invoking such a clause against the NYY's? I think the media power that George possesses makes that a living hell in NY for any player who tries to invoke it.

Since I'm still logged in I'll answer. There is nothing today that prevents two homosexuals from declaring their love for one another & getting married in vegas or otherwise. At a private level they can indeed marry one another & they can even create the legal framework to make the union binding. Granting marriage licenses to gays is not about their private lives but rather recognition of that union by society as a whole. And not just recognition but recognition equated to that of traditional married persons. Marriage is founded upon a traditional standard of being a union of a man & a woman for the primary purpose of bringing creating a family & bringing life into this world. A minority of individuals representing less than 10% of the population do not have the right to re-define what that definition means to the greater of society. If their numbers were ever to grow to 40-50% then you could make the argument but not at less than 10%. Introducing civil union legislation is the right way to go because it provides equality on money & heath matters for people who wish to help one another through life. That's the only public recognition that is warranted.

NYY could use the SOX on this as well. NYY -> Giambi+prospect+cash to SOX SOX -> Buerhle, Koney to NYY NYY -> Buerhle to KC KC -> Beltran to the NYY And there are many others. The fact is that NYY has Giambi+cash to waive at any team with a good starting pitcher to use to get Beltran. Giambi at a discount is enough for most teams to think about it.