JUGGERNAUT

You went WAY BEYOND the EXXON explanation at EPCOT's World of Energy! Which I have to say heavily pushes the Dino connection. http://www.american.edu/ted/kazakh.htm Back in 1997, according to petroleum scientists, the Caspian Sea region contains the third largest reserve of oil and natural gas in the world, behind the Gulf region and Siberia. Chevron's the region's biggest player at the time invested $40B over 40 yrs. China's not even mentioned in that report. The world sure has changed a lot in 8 yrs. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspian.html 12/2004 It is still believed to be the world's 3rd largest reserve. Siberia is a much harsher environment to work in so that places the Caspian Sea region ahead of it. It's important to understand that OPEC is at the top of it's game in oil production & everyone else is a distant 2nd or worse. They are the NYY's in that game. To get an idea of the difference, by 2015 the Caspian region is expected to reach 4M bbl/day & OPEC 45M bbl/day. In 1997 the world's demand was estimated at 70M bbl/day. Today it's approaching 85M bbl/day w China becoming a markets rapidly gaining on the US. Because of the lack of productivity in exploration & workers in the area estimates have been changed to between 17 (Qata) & 33 (USA) bbl. By 2010 the region should be producing more than Venezuela. On the Natural Gas front it could be equal to that of Saudia Arabia or 232 trillion cu ft. Your welcome to read the rest but since this is a China thread the export potential to the East is of greatest importance here. Over the next 10 - 15 yrs demand in Europe is expected to grow by 1M bbl/day & demand in east Asia by 10M bbl/day. To meet this demand China commissioned about $1B for a Kazakhstan-China pipeline scheduled to be completed by 12/2005. This pipeline would span 1800 miles. At the same time a pipeline from Iraq to Pakistan-India is being considered as well. Needless to say they are looking for this region to supply the demand of the worlds two most populus nations. It's not hard to see that this region is likely to become a near exclusive doman for China & India. Why I will never sell my oil stocks until demand dips: http://www.energybulletin.net/333.html In 2011 Saudia Arabia expects production capacity to be at about 11B bbl/day. The USDE says they will have to produce 14M bbl/day by 2010 & 20 bbl/day by 2020 to keep up with expected world demand. That certainly puts a whole new spin on the war in Iraq. Is this really a war to pressure the Saudia's to give greater management control of their oil feeds to US based oil companies? http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0622/p25s02-wogi.html Good article on production itself. Could the war in Iraq & Afghanistan really be more about the US securing their share? It sure seems likely.

That's why I think your body would be placed in a frozen state before being scanned. So that when you are replicated on the other side it won't hurt. You'll be replicated in that same state & then some kind of incubator for that body would revive you painlessly. It also makes it easier to destroy the old version of your body so we don't proliferate the planet or the universe with garbage. Though I think the rich people would get a pass on that. Imagine a world universe where Gates in the richest man on every planet. Uggh.

No. I never said that. You do not need to take something apart. You only need to scan it with a scope that is at least molecular level. After you have collected that information you just need energy to matter technology to replicate that thing on the other side. Realistically speaking teleportation is a meaningless thing. Molecular or sub-atomic scanning technology is probable. That will definitely be available by 2050. Energy to matter conversion is still an unknown. Theoretically it's possible but whether it's feasible in a realistic time frame remains unknown. Let's say somehow energy to matter conversion becomes a reality. There is still a major complex problem to deal with: energy being converted to matter which contains energy. In theory replicating a car is reasonable, As is the gasoline to run it, but what about the charge in the battery? Or consider a human. Jumpstarting a human being occurs in the womb via the umbilical cord. How do you jumpstart an adult-sized replicant? These are things that remain beyond the theoretical stage. There is another possibility though. Freezing. What if we put you in frozen sleep before replicating you? If that is possible then in theory we can put you in that state, scan all we need, & then replicate you in a kind of incubator designed to revive you from that state. Even though energy to matter conversion in a universe with a seemingly endless supply of energy makes all resource issues obsolete there is still a spacial limit to contend with. My guess is that the rich people would have the opportunity to basically replicate themselves any where they want but the common person would be transformed into a renewable energy source once their replicant was confirmed to be alive & kickign on the destination planet. Real estate will still have considerable value in the future

There are 6 numbers you have to look at to assess a player's defensive talent. IP - How often has the player played TC - How many plays has the player made F% - Success rate of making those plays ZR - How great is the range of the player in it's zone's position DP - Double plays A - Assists F% - ((PO + A) divided by (PO + A + E)) RF - ((PO + A) divided by innings) ZR - The percentage of balls fielded by a player in his typical defensive "zone," as measured by STATS, Inc. The only stat in there that tells you anything about a player's range (N, S, E, W) to make a play is ZR. The ideal 3B is one who ranks near the top in all 6 because that is a measure of both durability & talent. Crede's ranking: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fieldi...llInningsPlayed IP - 10th in MLB (-49 IP from leader Wright) TC - 15th in MLB (-85 from leader Inge) F% - 5th in MLB (-.015 from leader Blaylock) ZR - 2nd in MLB (-.038 from leader McPherson but Dallas is 24th in TC's) DP - 6th in MLB (-6 from leader Inge) A - 11th in MLB (-58 from leader Inge) His back spasms dropped him from top 10 to top 15 on what you would call a durability & talent ranking. That can not be said for Dallas. Is Inge better than Crede? IP 1st, TC 1st, F% 14th, ZR 8th, DP 1st, A 1st Yes. His great bat makes him more durable in the field. Inge: VS. LEFT: .349 / 1.062 VS. RIGHT: .271 / .751 HOME: .299 / .863 AWAY: .274 / .762

I took a look at SFG minor league's & they have nothing ready to play at SS. We might be able to get him for as low as Ozuna/Harris & Gonzalez. Gonzalez is a our highly touted 23 yr old fast-tracking .300 hitting SS for the Barons. Gonzalez has a chance with a solid AFL & ST for SFG to earn the SS position for 2006. He'll be 24 by then. Ozuna/Harris give them a guy to compete with Dievi Cruz for the rest of 2005. Realistically the Giants are done for 2005. Heading into the break they are 9 gb in the NLW & 12 gb in the NLWC. It's over for them. By trading Vizquel they can free up about $10M & get a solid SS prospect for 2006. This seems like a no-brainer trade for both teams. As for the White Sox Uribe becomes #2 in the depth chart for all middle IF positions & will play some SS vs LHers. Since Pods has proven to be as capable in CF as Harris that negates the need to keep Harris or Ozuna. The Sox would still be in position to add Randa or another strong bat vs RH to beef up the bench. Timo is staying. It's pretty simple why: RIGHT: .261 / .697 That's much better than Harris (this yr) or Ozuna & beat's the team average. His past 3 yrs vs RH: .290/ .739 likewise our better than Harris or Ozuna. So with Vizquel our bench becomes: Widger, Gload, Uribe, Perez, Everett Gload: vs RH: .299/.802, 20R, 5HR, 38RBI : 2004 numbers Perez: vs RH: .290/.739, 36R, 5HR, 40RBI : (His 3 yr avg) Evert: vs RH: .235/.732, 19R, 9HR, 28RBI Vizquel makes the bench even stronger vs RH on days when Uribe plays vs a LH. He'll be an added asset in CL&L against RH in the pen.

For those thinking Rollins I think he's going to cost a fortune in talent to get. He led the Phils last year in win share & he's very balanced vs LH & vs RH in his career. That's not easy to find in any player especially a SS. I don't see why Cincy would trade him which makes me believe you would have to overpay big time to get him.

Here's what you have to ask. What is the achille's heal if you will on this White Sox team? A .261 team batting average. 11th in AL. The team's strengths are pitching, defense, speed, & power hitting (yes believe it or not it's true). This team ranks in the upper half in the AL in all 4. So any midseason trade needs to address that big weakness. When you look at the lineup you have to consider the impact on defense & speed with a change. Uribe though he is slumping is still signed to reasonable $ for 3 yrs. He can play 2B, SS, & 3B. He arguably has one the best arms for a middle IF in the game today. You don't trade that talent. Especially when Crede is suffering back spasms for an unknown reason. Ozuna may have been there for the White Sox all year but never day in & day out. What we've seen this week with Crede out is that he is a defensive liability when he's asked to be an everyday player. 3B options: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/battin...in=17&ageMax=51 Randa, Hillenbrand Randa: VS. LEFT: .289 / .842 VS. RIGHT: .306 / .886 HOME: .298 / .892 AWAY: .304 / .853 (a near .300 or better hitter in the Pos since 03) Hillenbrand: VS. LEFT: .314 / .824 VS. RIGHT: .293 / .798 HOME: .283 / .789 AWAY: .311 / .816 (A consistent drop in the Pos 3 yrs straight) SS options: Lopez (cheap SH - no way they trade him), Vizquel, Lugo, Rollins Vizquel: VS. LEFT: .247 / .670 VS. RIGHT: .323 / .783 HOME: .267 / .684 AWAY: .336 / .821 - Too good to pass up. Lugo: VS. LEFT: .275 / .668 VS. RIGHT: .285 / .714 HOME: .274 / .692 AWAY: .289 / .707 - more balanced but less upside. Rollins: VS. LEFT: .267 / .608 VS. RIGHT: .270 / .739 HOME: .275 / .735 AWAY: .263 / .667 - the best is yet to come (04 Pre .710 OPS, Pos .905 OPS, Jun .801 OPS) The White Sox as a team: VS. LH: .296/.831, VS. RH: .247/.707 Randa & Vizquel are far & away the best options to what ails the White Sox. But Randa is going to cost much more in talent than Vizquel will. Randa is cheap for his production & it makes no sense for Cincy to move him unless a team is willing to overpay. Vizquel is expensive in money terms & will command less in talent. Uribe 05: VS. LEFT: .348 / .976 VS. RIGHT: .212 / .545 HOME: .213 / .590 AWAY: .281 / .730 Crede 05: VS. LEFT: .281 / .801 VS. RIGHT: .232 / .703 HOME: .188 / .612 AWAY: .295 / .836 I'd prefer Vizquel because 1) the cost in talent will be much lower, 2) his weakness is Uribe's strength, 3) Crede is playing such great defense that I think he could make any SS shine right now. It will be much easier for Ozzie to make an argument for benching Vizquel vs LHers than for him to bench Randa in any matchup. Uribe's in the dog house now which means psychologically it's the right time to move him into a matchup role. I think we need a solid bat vs RH more than another arm.

I don't want to put any pressure on the White Sox but needless to say this is the biggest game of the 1st half. Lose today & you take a 3 gm losing streak against a team that now looks like it will both contend for the WC & the ALW into the break. You will not see this team again until the post season. This team has done nothing but dominate you for 4 yrs straight & if they win today 2005 will rank as one of their most dominating performances against you. And this in a year where they said goodbye to their aces Hudson & Mudler. I recall all the SOXTALK fans counting the A's out but I never lost faith in Beane. The guy is flat out the best GM in MLB. He works with a lower payroll than the Twins & just take a look at his W & L record while GM of the A's. It's phenomenal. So when he traded Mulder & Hudson you had to assume he was getting good talent in return. The A's fans are now seeing evidence of that. What the team has shown me in the season series in that unless you can outpitch them (like Toronto recently did) you can't beat them. They have a even better balance in the lineup than the White Sox. Did you happen to notice just how many LHB's they have? They look like they have equal strength from both sides. That's a nightmare for opposing bullpens. Even more impressive is that it looks like 1-9 everybody can run on this A's teams. Even with Hudson & Mulder in years past the A's always slumped & dropped way past .500 before finding themselves & going on a tear. Looking at their 2nd half they have 22 games vs ALC teams, 8 vs LAA, 8 vs TEX, & 7 vs BAL. They clearly own their own destiny. They match up well vs ALC teams. Just like we do. So we better start thinking about playing them in the first round of the playoffs. That's why this game is as must win as any game can be in the 1st half. We must end the season series on a high note against the A's. We must shrink that overwhelming confidence we have against them. Otherwise we are looking for a 100 win season that will end quickly in the first round.

Assuming the SFG will not continue to think they can still contend I think Uribe may have given Ozzie & Kenny a new incentive for getting Vizquel from the Giants. Ozzie was most displeased with Uribe's failure to run it out last night. Of course any trade for Vizquel is likely linked to Schmidt as well.

Your out of your league. You should stick to what you know. Design has/does occur in places where patents have never existed. Your statement that research would not exist w/out a reason to profit monetarily is as dumb as it comes. History is packed with inventors who choose not to patent their inventions so as to progress society further. Shareware & freeware are perfect examples of this today. Probably the most notable one is Benjamin Franklin. He had several inventions he essentially gave away. The most notable being the lightning rod. Without it skyscrapers would never have been possible.

Darling surprises me. Teleportation might look & sound cool but it's essentially useless & wasteful. I surprise he doesn't say this. Teleportation is a 2 phase process: disintegration & replication. You step on, it records all information it needs to replicate you at the other end, & then it disintegrates you. At the other end it replicates you. So a real scientist would ask the question why bother with the expense of disintegrating you in the first place? There's no reason to. There is no value in converting matter into energy. The value lies in converting energy into matter. That's where the ability to replicate is driven by the ability to create energy & the universe is filled with vast & seemingly endless supply's of energy. So forget about teleportation. When you read about it think replication. Of course that will radically change everything we know today. Our economics is still essentially based on supply & demand. Replication technology will give us an endless supply so design will be what drives demand. But the ability to profit from that design will be next to impossible as there will be little means to prevent unauthorized replication. Hence technology is destined to drive us to a communistic form of economics whether we like it or not.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." A strict constitutionalists interprets the establishment of religion as an entity officially recognized as a religious institution by the state. A church, a group, a charity, etc. Something that is officially registered as a religion for tax free status. Everything ever said or written by the authors pertaining to this clause supports that interpretation. A liberal constitutionalist interprets the establishment of religion to mean spirituality in general. The establishment clause basically means separation of spirituality & state. Organizations like the AU, & ACLU have spent vast amount of time & money in deliberating cases that essentially prohibit the free exercise of spirituality on public grounds. Though they masquerade in the guise of supporting religious freedoms they have little history in deliberating such cases. Nothing has really changed since the Lemon Test. The standard still remains that symbols, customs, & traditions suporting spirituality on government or public grounds is forbidden & the burden of proof lies on the local governments to prove they don't violate the establishment clause. The most recent cases pertaining to vouchers are: 02/25/2004 USSC Locke v Davey - Washington State is allowed to deny scholarship funds to students on the basis of disciminating against those studying theology. 2000 USSC ruled that the US Cons allows religious schools to participate in "neutral" voucher programs that offer a "genuine choice among options, public and private, secular and religious." The impact of the Locke v Davey decision is that on the matters of vouchers state law is the law of the land. Renhquist wrote: "There are some state actions permitted by the Establishment Clause but not required by the Free Exercise Clause." This is a liberal interpretation as it favors the establishment clause over the free exercise clause. Scalia wrote: "One can concede the Framers' hostility to funding the clergy specifically, but that says nothing about whether the clergy had to be excluded from benefits the State made available to all. No one would seriously contend, for example, that the Framers would have barred ministers from using public roads on their way to church." This is a conservative interpretation as it favors the free exercise clause over the establishment clause. However the court did narrow the scope of it's decision: Rehnquist: "Since the founding of our country, there have been popular uprisings against procuring taxpayer funds to support church leaders, which was one of the hallmarks of an 'established' religion." What this suggests is that the court favored Washington State on the basis that tuition in support of theology equated to taxpayer funds supporting church leaders. Perhaps they found evidence in which part of the tuition funded a clergy member. That seems to open the door that if can be proven that voucher funds do not support members of the clergy the USSC would consider any such law denying such funds unconstitutional. That could be easily managed by theological based universities declaring that all members of clegy working/teaching in such schools are unpaid volunteers. The funding of such church workers would be isolated to donations. On issues relating to the Establishment Clause & Free Exercise Clause it appears the USSC breaks down as follows: pro-spirituality: Scalia, Thomas moderate-spirituality: Rehnquist, O'Connor, Breyer moderate-atheism: Kennedy pro-atheism: Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens The odd's are in Bush's favor to stack the court towards favoring the Free Exercise Clause over the Establishment Clause.

It's ironic that conservatives bash O'Connor because of her opinions on abortion but they all but ignore her opinions on church & state. Religion in the Public Schools 6/14/04 - The USSC ruled 5-3 that Newdow lacked prudential standing to pursue his claim because his claim is inextricably intertwined with a family law matter. Justices Rehnquist, O’Connor and Thomas issued dissenting opinions arguing among other things that Newdow had standing and that his claim fails on the merits because recitation of the Pledge is not coercive, is nonsectarian, and acknowledges the religious aspects of our history without advancing or endorsing religion. Newdow filed a request for reconsideration, but it was promptly denied. If their dissenting opinion had been the majority opinion it would have replaced the Lemon Test. Good News Club v. Milford Central School District (New York) USSC ruled 6-3 against the districts attempt to stop the adult-run bible group meeting after school. Justices Rehnquist, O’Connor, Thomas, Scalia, & Breyer ruled in support of Good News Club. Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg dissented. Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (Texas) USSC 6-3 struck down a policy allowing student-led prayer at high school football game. Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissented. Child Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey v. Stafford Township School District (New Jersey) 10/15/04 - 3rd Circuit upheld the right for a parent led evangelical group to advertise on school grounds. VMI students forbidden to pray before dinner. 04/04/03 4th Circuit ruled VMI prayer violated Establishmetn clause because of the coercive nature of VMI's operatiosn & that March did not provide relevant analysis. VA Atty Genl filed a petition with the USSC but the Court denied certiorari in April 2004. School forbidden to engage in clergy only led mentoring program Doe v. Beaumont Independent School District (Texas) A divided court of appeals sent the case back to the district court for further factual findings, ruling that whether the program is constitutional depends on whether the totality of the school district's mentoring and counseling programs constitute an endorsement of religion. After trial, the district court held in August 2002 that the program was unconstitutional because there were no comparable secular programs. Chandler v. James (Alabama) Wide range of officially sponsored religious activities challenged including student & clergy prayer in the classrooms, school assemblies, graduations, & sporting events. 7/13/99 - 11th Circ on remand from the USSC reaffirmed it's earlier holding that the entire injunction severely restricted student free speech rights. The USSC denied the plaintiff's petition for certiorari. When reviewing the Appelate decisions the Sante Fe ruling seems to be the one that is referred to the most. Rehnquist, Scalia, & Thomas dissented. It's very possible that O'Connor's replacement would side with them & that could sway Breyer to give them the majority in these school prayer related cases. O'Connor's replacement could tip the scale in favor of school prayer.

You are correct sir which is why I mentioned the 1-10 scale. It's a good exercise for any legal scholar to look at past USSC decisions & decide where on the scale they fall. Strict constitutionalists would probably demand a decision be no less than 8. These people are rare. Judicial conservatives probably seek a decision be no less than 6. Judical liberals probably seek a decision be no less than 4. And anything below 4 would be considered an activist decision. Rating the decisions you mentioned: Griswold v. Connecticut: 9. Arguably the most liberal co-signer Benjamin Franklin believed that the US Constitution & subsequent Bill of Rights where a great impingement on personal liberty. Privacy would be considered nearly beyond reproach. As the right to personhood, some believe it begins at conception, others believe it begins after full birth, & the rest of us are somewhere in the middle. When you consider which pov impinges on liberty the most it's clear that the founders will fall someone in the middle. Roe v. Wade: 3. In keeping with the belief that most of us believe personhood begins at some point between conception & full birth the court should have rendered a decision that supported a woman's right to an abortion prior to the establishment of personhood & that the establishment of personhood should be defined in lieu of an act of Congress to state laws. Such a decision would have rendered an 8. Thus Roe v Wade would still have established a woman's right to an abortion but left the regulation of that right to congress & the states. Blackmun did not do that. Instead he defined regulation that would establish from court's perspective when personhood begins. He did leave open the possibility that progress could redefine that point but he did not provide a procedure by which that point could be challenged. That is why it's considered a grossly activist decision. Congressional law is expected to be fluid & an adaptable to change as a result of progress. Judicial decisions are not. When any decision approaches that possibility the matter should be deferred to Congress & the states. It is likely that if the USSC at the time had rendered a proper decision Congress would have soon thereafter passed a law outlawing abortion beyond the establishment of personhood. Congress would further have defined the establishment of personhood based on debating the findings from medical research at the time. I further believe any challenge to such a law brought before the USSC would have been ignored. Simply put, abortion would not be anywhere near the divisive issue it is today. On the issue today the latest USSC ruling declared the partial birth abortion ban law unconstitutional on the grounds that it placed the life of the baby above the health of the woman. Upon close observation of the law there are exceptions relating to the personal health of a woman but little in reference to her psychological health. This latest decision basically approved abortion on demand as it exists in the nation today. The next decision pending before the court deals with parental notification rights & the right for states to outlaw abortion until notification has been given. Obviously this issue deals with abortion rights of minors. Lemon v. Kurtzman: 3. Benjamin Franklin advocated the need for their to be a separation of church & state on the basis that in his opinion morality was not only relative but extremely difficult to live up to. His virtues are well known as is his attempt to live by them. Yet Benjamin Franklin not only recognized religion in his own life but it's important in politics in general. Indeed he would join a congregation outside of his own faith to gain political clout amongst the voters & politicians. If not for Benjamin Franklin we would likely not have a separation of church & state clause in the first amendment. Considering that Franklin himself did not trust the US Cons in terms of how it impinged on personal liberty it's both rational & logical to believe that he did not feel it should go as far as to suggest a mandate of atheism or agnosticism in the state. Again the court should have rendered a decision that supported the separation of church & state but that the demarcation for the two should be defined in lieu of an act of Congress to state laws. Such a decision would have rendered an 10. When the USSC defers a matter to Congress & the states they are expecting Congress to debate the issue & come to a consensus asap. Such a decision would have likely led to a congressional act establishing something like the Lemon Test but reaching well beyond the classroom. Such an act would have governed the court rooms, nativity scenes, etc. Once again the separation of Church & State would not be anywhere near the divisive issue it is today. The most recent USSC does not impinge on the Lemon Test because it has no relation to school prayer, religious instruction, or a voucher system including private parochial schools as an education choice. The most recent ruling deals strictly with matter pertaining to religious symbols/displays as they relate to traditions. There are three parts to the decision: 1) Declared that a test is not possible & that each case must be deliberated separately. Essentially it deferred the matter to Congress & the states. That rates a 10. 2) KC decision - overturned an appelate courts decision that ruled the courtroom display was constitutional. This rates a 4. 3) Austin decision - supported an appelate courts decision that ruled the Austin display was constitutional. This rates a 3. The irony is that the Austin display went much further than the KC display because it included actual scriptual references from the Bible. As for the much bigger issues of separation of church & state more recent cases have more do to with Muslim traditionists, discrimination of workers on the basis or their moral values, & vouchers. http://www.infidels.org/activist/state/florida.shtml http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=legal_litigation

Those that have reasonably good reading comprehension know I make pain-staking efforts to back up my arguments in my posts. Whether they agree or not they at least agree with the effort I put in. No where in your highlight does it advocate that the purpose of a patent is to create a monopoly in the sense they exist today. In fact you will not find that claim any where in the book. As for the general assertion that one should profit from one's invention I don't recall any post in which I disputed that. The issue was never about the importance of patents. The issue we are debating is the factors that come into play in determining the length of the patent. By what you have written you believe that since their purpose is mainly to create monopolies then their length should be defined by what is best for the monopoly. I disagree with that assertion. I believe the length should be defined by what is best for both competition & the inventor whether it be an individual or a company. Our anti-trust laws have acknowledged that the state has an avid interest in maintaining competition so the foundation is there for applying that concern to patent terms. Furthermore the state's interest in competition is relevant to economic stability of the nation. That includes any & all attempts to control inflation. Common sense would tell you that if fed rates have such a dramatic impact on our economy then the state takes an active role in maintaining competition. Adjusting terms of patents would be no worse than fed rate adjustments.

How many other professionals in other professions are expected to work greater than 40 hr weeks for 70K/yr? This is nothing new. In America working overtime has always been considered the norm & not the exception. If they really are unhappy with the number of hours they work then they should negotiate for hourly pay instead of salary pay & let Walgreens go out & hire more pharmacists to work smaller shifts. Of course in doing so since these workers would be classified as part-time Walgreens shouldn't have to provide benefits. These hourly paid workers can shop for their own benefit package.

Read & learn: http://www.myoutbox.net/pohome.htm I'm not going to engage in personal sparing since my political views clash with most of the mods & admins at this site. I don't care to risk being banned. I would say though that if said persons have any integrity you should be temporarily banned for your blatant personal attack above.

I thought I weighed in on this in another thread. I think the biggest thing to surface from the autopsy report is the fact he did not validate the claim that she brought this on herself through bulemia. He said there was no evidence to support that claim & that it remained a mystery to him as to why she suffered the attack she did.

The Southtown has no love for Uribe & I'm not sure if I have that much either. Though I would give Juan til the deadline to prove to us why we shouldn't make this trade. It doesn't say anything about Uribe being part of the deal but I didn't real were SF has any other option at SS that would be better than Juan. Money wise they are saving several million. Assists, DP, F%, ZR all factor in comparing middle IFers. Uribe 192A 39DP .974F% .840ZR Omar 213A 40DP .991F% .871ZR If Uribe was a better D player I could see the love. But he's not. Omar is getting to more balls, making less errors, & executing as many DP's. Uribe has a gun but I think Omar does as well. Offensively Omar would become the best hitter for average on the White Sox. Omar 43R, 90H, 20DB, 3TP, 1HR, 30RBI, 26FP, 14SB, .303A, .357O, .401S, 3.86#P/PA, 1.23GB/FB Uribe 25R, 57H, 12DB, 1TP, 6HR, 37RBI, 13FP, 2SB, .249A, .280O, .389S, 3.39#P/PA, 0.86GB/FB Of all the talk being batted about our Chicago White Sox this one makes the most sense. Pods, Omar, Iguchi, Thomas, Koney, Dye, Rowand, AJ, Crede Tad's comment recently implied he thinks he's a #3 hitter. Most of his life he hit #3/#4 in Japan. He referred to #2 as a bunter's role in Japan & here it's RF hitter. Tad's numbers suggest he may be right: 40R, 76H, 14D, 3T, 5HR, 33RBI, 25FP, 60K, 9SB, .280A, .337O, .410S RON .314A .346O .488S .834OPS The only serious fault there is the 60K. But being slotted between Vizquel & Thomas should improve that. The same can be said of his 22 extra base hits. He should see more fastballs with Pods &/or Omar on base. Omar at #2 will improve the pitch selection to Pods as well. If you are concerned over the roughly $9M/2yr left on his contract the White Sox do have insurance at both the major & minor leagues. Ozuna has proven to be a strong armed backup & Angel Gonzalez on the Barons. Gonzalez has been on the fast track & continues to hit at every level. His 21E though are suspect.

I read history books. Something you should try. Wikipedia does not give you the perspective of how patent laws came into being. Likewise your argument lacks a complete understanding of which companies in America were granted patents & how many of them were monopolies at the time. You really should try doing some in depth research before debating. Wikipedia does not quality for that. Try googling "the history of patents in America" if you are too lazy to read books. History was not meant to be studied by looking up a term in Wikipedia. It was meant to be studied in depth. The word depth seems to escape most of your arguments. Try looking up "history of patents in America" & then come back & tell me how many of the patent holders were pre-existing monopolies. You'll see then your point of view is nonsensical. As for your reading skills I will repeat it so maybe you'll understand it .. again. The original intention of patents was so that the patent holder would have a protection against mass-producers for a fixed amount of time so that they could mass-produce their invention. They requires accumulation of capital & it does not occur overnight. He must secure investment funds to buy that capital & then he must work that capital so that it can mass-produce his invention. Even if you don't want to study the history of America in depth you could both reading the transcripts from CSPAN on the issue to attempt to understand a point of view different than your own. More often than not the debate will entertain your mind with a historical perspective.

I am confused. A 40-hr wk pharmacist makes over $100K/yr yet during the strike managers & technicians will pick up the slack? Are all managers at Walgreens qualified to fill prescriptions? The hardest part of the job is reading the doctor's handwriting. That's worth $100K/yr? And they are striking?

He is wrong. Activism is not a measure of how often a justice declares a congressional law unconstitutional. Interpreting the law is what a justices job is & that applies at all levels. Laws are a by-product of special interest groups who may or may not care about the constitutionality of something they lobby Congress for. As we have matured as a nation these SPIG's have grown more wealthy & more influential so it's not unrealistic to expect more unconstitutional laws as we go forward. Judicial activism occurs when justices transform their job from interpreters to regulators. As such they legislate judicial guidelines to be used as a form of regulating judicial cases. Roe v Wade & the establishment of the Lemon Test are perfect examples of what judicial activism is. Both essentially established guidelines to govern all such judicial cases that had a weakly defined at best link to actual constitutional law. They would be anything but strict interpretations. Whether a justice is liberal or conservative has little to do with the quantity of his/her decisions. It has everything to do with the quality of those decisions. You essentially rate each justices decision on a scale of 1-10 in terms of how it's associate to constitutional law: 10 represents a direct reference to constitution law in supporting an interpretation & 1 represents the weakest inference to constitutional law in supporting an interpretation. Where most of the justice's decisions lie on that scale determines whether they are a conservative or liberal justice. I suspect these two men know this & a failure to articulate means they are hiding the truth to make a biased point.

It is not just the Caspian Sea itself. There are rich oil deposits surrounding the sea. My guess is it was a Dinosaur haven at one time (even though Everett refuses to believe that. Has any one ever asked him where he thinks oil came from?). In any case I've read reports it might be the richest oil region on the planet. China is investing billions in refineries & pipelines for that entire region. Including the -stan republics in between. On the S American front China is greasing the palms of politicians & industry there to get their hooks into that oil supply as well. On paper it looks like game over. But just like in baseball world power is not played on paper. The US could still revive itself by revolutionizing it's infrastructure with technology. Just as it has for the past 200 yrs. Likewise, America's capitalism is still rooted in Judeo-Christian values. It still has something of a conscience. China's doesn't. That usually means that has China's GDP continues to grow 3x as much as the US so will it's corruption. Does a value system even exist in China? The people I know who live & work there say no. The value system is rooted in the traditions of the localitites. There is a sense of national pride but there is no value system aligned with it. In another thread I mentioned that nearly all of China's wealth lies in the pockets of communists leaders or american capitalists. Very little has trickled down to the common man. The poverty levels in China are still amongst the highest in the world. That will change some but not without a change in values. If it continues as it has China will be a nation of 300M consumers & 1100M living in poverty before 2050. Despite the severe measures to control population it's still growing. With triple digit growth it's impossible to prevent population growth. The US might be worse off than 50 yrs ago but it's still got a better ratio of consumers / poverty than that.

Personally speaking, the good news is our distant relatives are fine. They were no where near the attacks at the time. We all should think about that when these things break over the news. The chances are that people here at SOXTALK could be personally involved in some way. We can't stop these attacks any more than we could stop the kamikaze attacks in WW2. When the aggressor is willing to give up their life to harm you there is only so much you can do. They are not good at what they do. Do not look in awe of what they accomplish. They are nothing more than cowards to attack innocent civilians that are powerless to make decisions. They are simply preying on the weak in hopes to break the resolve of the strong. They are good at PR though. They effectively make use of the media by blaming the attacks on America's Judeo-Christian value system. Taken by itself it's not all that effective but when you align that value system with America's greed it's very effective. It makes us look like hyprocrits & every mis-step (WMD report, Abu prison scandal, Haliburton Iraq contracts) only serves further to drive the point home. Though the Madrid bombing impacted Spain's election this was a surprise. The world had become lulled into a belief that Iraq & Afghanistan had drawn terrorists like fly's on s*** & the rest of the world was safe. The world even seemed to be getting numb to the death & dying in these hotbeds. Now that feeling of numbness has been removed. The terrorists have not forgotten what they do best. What they feel their real purpose is : weaken the resolve of America's allies & make her go it alone. The traditional stance is "we don't negotiate with terrorists". That's inheriant in the belief that you should never recognize their position of strength as they use human lives for bullets in their war against you. Well maybe it's time we change that stance. You simply can not prevent these attacks without greatly sacficing liberty. That is the only realistic cost base d means towards prevention. I don't want to sacrifice liberty. I think it is time the G8 sits down with the leaders of the Muslim & Islamic world (not the militants) & open diplomatic talks with them. They are the only hope in winning the war on terror. They carry much greater influence than any political or economic leader in the West. More importantly they are still respected by the militants. If that means less exploitation of their people & economies by global mega corps then that should be on the table. Find out what is really driving the people to demonize us & wish for our deaths. They view Coca Cola & Mc Donald's as symbols of America's aggression. You might not understand that but they don't separate economics from war like we do. Many nations don't. Are profits worth more than human lives?

That was so F'g exciting! Nothing fires up a White Sox fan like the high heat. 99 again & again & again. I think his slowest pitch was 97. Unreal! This season is so unbelievably incredible. We got him off waivers from the Angels. Unreal.