DonkeyKongerko

Not really, I think he was giving a best case scenario. Opposition will slow down these changes and trust me there will be opposition. There is always fierce opposition when jobs are at stake. Here is a case where more jobs than ever will be at stake and things will get pretty sticky.

I support the fuel cell project because the technology is there. A number of cities already have buses running on them. I think the only problem is the facilities required for maintenance. This country has a large automotive industry that branches into areas of fueling cars, fixing cars, and developing parts for cars. Think of the many companies that will be forced to make a dramatic paradigm shift or face bankruptcy. I can't say I have pity for the oil industry but there are others to think of. There are millions who are certified under the ASE in the diagnosis and servicing of internal combustion engines and the safeguarding of the environment in dealing with contaminants produced by such engines. A massive overhaul of the ASE and a retraining of a large working force will have to begin quickly. Daimler-Chrysler and others can pump out cars alot faster than we can retrain automotive technicians. Then there is the fuel industry. We take our gasoline stations for granted. The transportation of fuel around this country by trucks and trains is a vast network meant to provide refined gasoline at a service station near you. What happens when we shift over to methyl alcohol to power our fuel cells. Well we can't just revamp all the gas stations because people will still be driving gas cars for a while. Somehow a second network and new or expanded stations will have to provide this new source of fuel. This is going to cost your average service station quite a bit of training as well. Methyl alcohol will eliminate pollution concerns but it is still volatile in transport and containment. We will have to be just as careful with our methanol as with our gasoline. The end results are favorable but this is not going to happen overnight. The technology is ready and we can build the cars, but there is alot more to be done before we see clear skies ahead. I'm not against fuel cells, but I'm not gonna get all giddy about them until all is said and done.

I agree. I think people who work more should get more back. The only problem is dividends are kind of a tricky issue. Alot of people in the working class don't receive any dividends and this is one of the biggest parts of the taxcut. So I like the idea of the taxcut (cuz i receive some dividends $$) but I think people should just understand exactly what is being cut. My taxcut is going to be something like $4,000. Then again I lost quite a bit of money on paper thanks to a tumbling stock market. I think two companies I invest in are up for the year. I'm also in (not too much) on the sinking ship known as Lucent Technologies.

sideshow you aren't leaving are you? You provide something to this board that no one else can come close to giving. The left needs a strong voice to support its views and you make the strongest cases I have ever seen. You must understand having extreme views is not in the norm and will force you to eat "untold buckets of s***" as said by Nick Nolte. Do not interpret them as hate directed towards you. It is a direct result of your points hitting so hard to some people that the only response they can come up with is a resort to violence. See these as a sign that you are doing your job and doing it well. Sideshow is the man of the hour. Here here.

I liked the speech strictly as a comparison to other speeches. In general I don't really think Bush is a great speaker. Still, he did "tone down the rhetoric" as many pundits pointed out and did a good job of making a case for an international coalition regarding the Iraq issue. Hopefully this new approach is genuine and not simply a ploy to satisfy some of the critics calling for justification in Bush's war. Colin Powell is going to make his big case that we have all been waiting for next week to the UN. I can only hope the US can be in agreement with the UN's decision no matter what the outcome. Some of the Medicare stuff sounded good since it will probably affect my parents sometime in the future. Money for prescription drugs is a big plus if it does not require people to join the HMO's which I really have no trust for at all. Other things I liked were the AIDS plan for Africa and the money for hydrogen cell research in the automobile industry. Certainly Bush is showing favor for the auto industry over the oil industry in the latter. Governor Gary Locke gave some good remarks too. I can't imagine the pressure on one man to give a response from a closed room to the thundering applause of the most-watched presidential speech of the year. It was very contentious and I think the Democrats are trying very hard to differentiate themselves on a number of issues from the Republicans. This can only help to boost their platform after a very disappointing election. He pointed out some definite problems in the proposed taxcut; mainly that the benefits of the cut to the wealthiest 5% of the country outweigh those of the other 95%. I think there was some confusion over the healthcare issue as it wasn't really clear what requirements Bush is pushing for his prescription drug benefits. Unemployment is up 2 million since 2000 and the budget deficit is a glaring red mark on our president's record. Deficit spending can be good in moderation, but we must be careful we do not shoot ourselves in the foot. I think the most serious domestic issue is the fact that something like 48 of the states of our country are in a severe budget crisis including the good old Land of Lincoln. Cutting taxes and spending in deficit seem only to fuel this crisis. I don't know how education can be helped when states are being forced to cut corners at every line. I feel bad for Blagojevich, I think his administration will be seriously handcuffed in the upcoming years unless a significant change is made to the problems in our states.

I support the country that allows people to voice their opinions. I am all for the first amendment. In the end it was shown how ridiculous a number of his claims really were and offered some responses to them. So no I cannot say I support the "not in our name" group because it seems they use far too many appeals to emotion and pity which are the most common logical fallacies and usually a sign of a lack of a solid case.

Weapons were sold to Iraq yes. Are you to say that because we sold them these weapons, we should not stop them from using them? I think the fact that we provided these weapons should increase our responsibility in this situation. How does blaming ourselves for selling Iraq weapons justify us letting them use them? Also it is Saddam's chemical and biological programs that scared us more than any possibility he has nuclear weapons (which is seriously doubtful). The Geneva Convention outlawed use of chemical and biological agents long ago. The use of these in attacks by either Iran or Iraq (we really don't know who) against the Kurds is what worries us. All we know is that Saddam has had programs to develop them and has done so under strict scrutiny despite the UN mandate. And why are you faulting us for not preparing to attack Korea? We built their nuclear reactors to provide this destitute nation with some frickin heat for god's sake. They made some noise on the international stage but they and our ally South Korea have reportedly come to an agreement. Basically this agreement is more food and oil from us in the good faith that they will shut down uranium reprocessing facilities. I don't understand what you want. You say Korea deserves to be attacked more because they mediate with the 3rd party of South Korea and their sunshine policy. Iraq meanwhile shows little demand for anything, even food in an arid country with starving people. That just goes to show how much Saddam cares about his people (maybe he did gas some of em, so what?).

Actually I support the fact this guy had his opinion voiced. If not for the sole reason that he got to go on the air and have a discussion with Bill O'Reilly who actually asked him to back up some of his ridiculous claims like the Gulf War resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children etc. Maybe people will think twice before swallowing everything they hear whether it be pro or anti-war.

I don't know. Talk out of the Minnesota boards has been pretty negative regarding their "standing pat" offseason. They lost Ortiz and added Fetters. Their staff was not as good as it was the first half of 2001. Mientkiewicz had a severe downturn also which should have raised some more worries in the front office than it did. I look for their bullpen to be strong again and their Twinkie Dome record to be pretty dominant again. Still I can't think that several players on the roster have had their career years in the past 2 seasons.

Now there is an upbeat thought. Maybe we can trade him to Gord Ash for some talent!

I think you said what all of us were thinking but was just hoping upon hope wasn't true. I have no faith in these guys. They are most likely doing this to fatten their All-Star Game pocketbooks for one glorious season that should allow them to operate poorly the next few years and use 2003 as a reminder to all of us who would complain.

Also Nell, I'm gonna have to watch O'Reilly Factor with you as much as possible. It's just too much damn fun watching you curse and cavort.

In an attempt to counter my roomate's flood of listing poignant questions and attempting to use them as argument, I will attempt to address some of these issues. The threat of Iraq: Their standing army is about 375,000 with about 400,000 more in reserve: 1/3 the size of the army of Gulf War I in 1991. The army is expected to be highly untrained with questionable loyalties. With the rest of their forces still recovering from the war, they have only about 2200 tanks and 200 operational aircraft, many of which are outdated or don't have enough experienced people to operate them. In essence they are wounded, bitter yet still the largest threat by far in the Middle East. They have also shown to be resilient and able to resort to outlawed tactics to gain an advantage like in the Iran-Iraq War. Used canisters of mustard and Tabun gas were found in the battlefields not to mention the scores of Iranian soldiers afflicted by severe chemical traumas. For those who don't know, Tabun gas is quite similar to the sarin gas used in the Tokyo subways not too many years ago. It is just much more lethal. About 1/100 of a grain (of sand size) is all that is necessary to result in severe convulsions, frothing at the mouth, and death in about 10 minutes. The inspections: So they basically have found nothing. What reason is there to proceed? Well Iraqi disarmament had gone well throughout most of the mid 90's until 1998 when Iraq put an abrupt stop to the inspections. The inspectors were accused of espionage by the Iraqi's and left still in good faith that disarmament was about 95% completed. The problem is whether or not Iraq stopped manufacturing the agents used in these weapons. About 20 years ago, Iraq was producing 2,000 tons of mustard agents per year while more plants were being constructed. They were also capable of producing about 1,000 tons of the deadlier nerve agents. Nerve agents like the Nazis' sarin or its more easily mass-producable brothers. The numerous plants have since been built but since been converted to producing agents permissable by the UN. This was the last word as of four years ago when the inspections stopped. The switching of chemical processes in a plant is alot easier than say a manufacturing plant. A chemical weapons facility can be converted in about a week if enough people are involved. As far as the Kurds go, they are broadly referred to as our allies but there are dissidents in every such group. There are British and American people that definitely do not support our belligerence and there are Kurds that do not support the rebellious nature of their group. Saddam has financed a good number of them to go and assassinate Kurdish leadership to further secure his own dictatorship. By no means can we rely on the solidarity of Kurdistan, especially against such a formidable foe. The question of the gassing of the Kurds has not been proven and there is not enough substantial evidence pointing to Iraq or Iran. Both countries had used the chemicals in question during the Iran-Iraq War earlier in the decade. I will concede this point. Saddam is no Hitler but can we really let this man dictate terms on all nations of the Middle East for the rest of his years. He sends his own people to the torture chamber where nitric acid drips out of randomly placed spouts on the ceiling til the person either pledges his loyalty or dissolves in a rather painful death I can only imagine. By the way it seems Saddam has a large surplus of HNO3 if he can go around dumping this rather expensive chemical on people. It is not a great leap of logic to suppose he is mass producing this in large quantities possibly as a missile propellant. Are we prepared to deal with the casualties? People who claim war has its casualties are right. There are casualties in war. There are also casualties in peace. Sanctions on Iraq that have decimated their domestic population combined with rather poor medical facilities have killed an estimated 1.4 million Iraqi's. This number comes from Iraq herself as an argument to repeal the sanctions. I can do the math and say that casualties in the here and now can make up for a many hundreds of times more casualties in the future. Let's look at Afghanistan which is right now a mess yes but their future looks much brighter than it did 2 years ago. Nurturing their democracy and safeguarding it will allow the billions that we plan to spend there to not go to waste. The Iraqi National Congress and Iraqi National Accord are two large opposition groups that have already accepted American support. If anything I say build with these guys: they have some leftist ideals and I think that will go well hand-in-hand with the developing Iraqi democracy. I am willing to spend a little money if it will only save this country from becoming a terrorist stomping ground. No amount of added security protocols will every fully protect this country and I don't think that this is the best line of defense. If anything such protection will simply encourage more terrorists to try the challenge of attacking this nation. We learn from history (whether it is a liberally-slanted education or not ) that it has been a mistake in the past to appease the tyrants. We allowed Hitler to take parts of Europe piecemeal whilst he was also arming himself with one of the largest and the most mechanized army on the continent. The point is who really gets hurt if we take Saddam away and bring him to The Hague for international crimes where he belongs. Iraqi children are already dying, shall we stop it or allow it to continue? I still do not support immediate war on Iraq if anyone thinks so. I can only hope that the military buildup: the multiple carrier groups, the AEGIS destroyers, and the nearly 100,000 US troops are first being used as a deterrent. Maybe this is wishful thinking but I do know that there are people like Saddam everywhere who will not comply unless a proverbial gun is held to their head. I support the International Community and hope it will act together when the need arises. All Bush has done, since he has not yet gone to war, is attempt to expedite the process of the Iraqi matter because time is not just money, it is people continuing to starve and die in Iraq. Heh and well here is a note about the rest. I know sideshow you are a history major and you will have tons of information and history to back up your claims but the Treaty of Westphalia? I think we can all agree times have changed since the days of the Holy Roman Empire and Gustavus Adolphus. Also how many "undeclared wars" have we lost? Well technically we are still at war with North Korea. It did start as a UN Police Action but it never ended as no cessation of hostilities has ever been signed, only the longest cease-fire agreement in the history of our planet. We did not declare war on North Vietnam but then again Congress did its best to do so at the outset. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution did give LBJ carte blanche to settle the issue in Vietnam as it was "vital to (our) national interest and to world peace". Many people also claim we did not win in the Gulf War as Saddam Hussein remained in power. That was a different case as we had initially gone in to defend the sovereignty of Kuwait who could by no means defend itself ala Poland vs. Nazi Germany 1939. The joint resolution of Congress has set a precedent that set the tone for much of the past fifty years. Do not be surprised if the US does not ever declare war again. Declaring war gives a sense of total warfare and not a gradual buildup/police action that we have seen. We are talking about drafts and wartime rationing if we want to be true to history. The short history of this country has shown the Constitution to be a living document whose interpretation gives the branches of our government the power to set precedents and allow things to be done that are not specifically mentioned in it. The flexibility of our nation is one of the main factors contributing to its longevity. I only hope we can be more flexible in the future and allow others to be flexible too without having to see so much killing. We have not reached that point today, perhaps something can be said about it at the turn of the next century. PS Sorry this is so long, this probably belongs on a newsgroup and certainly not on a baseball message board. It's just that certain feelings and a certain inspiration sometimes strikes at the oddest of times and places.

Zach I think you emobdy everything that every man feels. We can talk a big talk about the other people in this country but when it comes down to it, we are all self-interested. The very reason are economy is broad and diverse is that people are self-interested. Companies wouldn't sell SUV's if people didn't buy them, I don't care how good your advertising is (Remember Crystal Pepsi?). Restaurants wouldn't sell steak if godammit, steak didn't taste so damn good. Let's say I turn 21 and I choose to buy a rifle. This is my right. It is not to say that I will do this, only that I embrace the freedom that allows me to do so. Now let's say twenty years later I go and shoot my neighbor with that gun because his lawn looks like s***. Who is to blame? Certainly not the store that sold me the gun those twenty years ago. This is to say we cannot keep up with the rest of the world if we are constantly second guessing ourselves. Now suppose I threatened to kill my neighbor a week before. Is this not a form of harrassment/assault? Is this not punishable in our country? I say we hold the nations of this to world to similar to standards before being so quick to find an American to blame for the problem. If I die tomorrow, I will die satisfied having lived my life the way I wanted to and not the way that least offended others.

Daubach has always been solid since I can remember in his years with the Red Sox. I think he is definitely an upgrade over Jeff Liefer and will be a great bat either off the bench or spliced into the middle of our right-handed lineup. He should make the team barring injury and provide just some more good solid veteran leadership in the clubhouse. This is a good pickup IMO.

Well when your team is built around a precision passing game like Raiders, you can expect 5 INTs against the best defense in the NFL. Especially when its the 2nd half and your team is trailing by the double digits.

haha a force out (which is a very tough call to make considering no one really knows how someone's feet are going to land) on a two point conversion was not going to change the outcome of this game. This game was decided about halfway through the 3rd quarter when the Buc's defense showed Gannon he couldn't pass to anyone against their zone. Even the most accurate passer in the NFL can't throw the ball into receivers covered both high and low.

Rich Gannon actually had 5 TD passes and is my MVP: 1 Jerry Porter 1 Jerry Rice 2 Dwight Smith 1 Derrick Brooks

Tampa Bay 24 - 14. MVP Brad Johnson.

Very nice I almost forgot the postseason. Put me down for 11 W's as well.

I do not expect Guardado to perform at the levels of 2002. However we can probably expect more of the same from the likes of Romero and Santana. LaTroy Hawkins is somewhat of an enigma to me. I still don't see consistency out of him and think 2002 could have been one of his "career" years.

A Gary and Daryle Ward tandem could have been nice but I don't think Daryle has much of a future in baseball as anything more than a pinch-hitter/power hitter who doesn't start every day. He was pretty disappointing in Houston as far as improvement goes. I would love for him to prove me wrong along with some other players (i.e. Carlos Lee) and develop a Major League hitter's eye.

Yeah I don't buy batting practice jerseys. I would spend my money on the jerseys our players wear on the field because I think those best represent the meaningful part of the game. Batting practice is basically a show. It seems when I go to the stadium that people wearing the batting practice jerseys are less knowledgable than your average baseball fan.

I have to agree that Buehrle is the man. He is the proven ace on the South Side and I believe it should be the ace's job to lose. Also remember that JM is a tinkerer but our rotation remained pretty consistent for all of last year with the exception of Ritchie (who needed to be pulled) and the number 5 spot. Buehrle, Wright, and Garland stayed in the rotation for the entire season. I think keeping these guys, especially the latter 2 was a big commitment by JM and shows he is expecting more out of these guys in the future.

I say we can pull off a solid 95 thanks to a regular pounding of our Central Division foes.