Soxbadger

I actually feel bad for that guy because at least he understood that he f***ed up. But if your sitting on the field you gotta pay more attention.

You dont want Rios batting 2nd in Ozzie's line up. Ozzie will have him bunting and taking pitches for Pierre to steal on. You want some one like Vizquel in that spot because its not so bad when the bat gets taken out of his hand. The most logical spot (imo) is batting Manny 5th. If he is on fire maybe move him to 3rd, but Id rather have Rios/Konerko in front of Manny, so that he can drive them in.

I think you bat Manny behind Konerko because it protects Konerko and puts a legitimate hitter lower in the order. I dont love the idea of Manny 3rd just because Id prefer Rios in front of Ramirez so that Ramirez can drive him in. I think Ramirez would get the most rbi chances at the 5th spot.

Manny would bat 5th (imo)

Ill kill you with one of Ramirez's needles. MANNY MANNY

How can you not mention me Soxace, I defended Bonds more than anyone on this board. I truly am offended. What youve done here is far worse than using steroids. You didnt give me proper credit.

Now I cant remember if Im confusing Belle and Ramirez, so Ill edit this post.

I dont mind when people cheat to win. I think its hypocritical how baseball treats cheating. If Manny comes to the Sox, great. If not, oh well. But I have no problem with a player trying to get the most out of their abilities.

They wont need extra roster spots come Tuesday when rosters expand. But I expect you see Vizquel resting a little more with Teahen at 3b and Manny DH.

MANNY MANNY ROAR

This sucks for all of baseball.

How many people even consider themselves actually a member of the party. Just because I vote for candidates of one party, doesnt mean I have any affiliation with the party. It just means that some one has to be the shortest midget.

Id have to look at the splits to make that decision. But I think youre in good shape no matter how you throw out Danks, Jackson, Floyd, Buerhle

I agree completely, the only difference is Ive hated Lovie from day 1. I hate his philosophy, I hate his demeanor and I hate the fact that the Bears didnt consider one of their own. Ill bring up any chance I can to say I hate Lovie.

Jackson is just a pleasure to watch. Its a shame that Boras is his agent otherwise id be pretty confident that we would sign him for a few years.

I considered Singletary a HC candidate in 2004. Just because the Bears didnt, doesnt mean that I didnt. There may even be posts from 2004 on this board where I say it makes no sense to hire Lovie over Singletary and that id prefer a Ryan disciple to a Tampa 2 disciple.

I love watching Edwin. He can just be insane.

Its not best versus best, which is another reason US tends to do a little worse on these things. Not enough that wed catch up to the Japan's of the world, but enough that wed probably be ahead of England. They dont test History, etc. If they tested History China would probably be one of the worst, as its illegal to even speak of things like the Tiananmen Square protest, let alone have them be part of a curriculum.

England scored 541 and 513 USA scored 529 and 508 I dont consider that "so much" better. Furthermore there are reasons why they score differently, for example, (This is from 2003 stats) http://nces.ed.gov/timss/table07_1.asp England Children must begin school at the start of the term following their 5th birthday 5 Automatic Year 9 9 14.3 That means that English students have had 9 years of schooling at the time of the test, average age 14.3 Conversely: United States Varies by state; 6 or 7, depending on birth date 6 or 7 Automatic Grade 8 8 14.2 That means US students had 8 years of schooling at the time of test, average age 14.2 Japan Children must be 6 years old 6 Automatic 2nd grade at the lower secondary school 8 14.4 So yes England does score better, but English students have had a 1 more year of schooling at the same point. Those factors being included, I dont think England's scores are that far out of line with the US. Only a few countries score far better, and most of them focus on science/math.

This is part of the reason why the US will never compete against certain countries when it comes to test scores. I dont need to do it because I never said that it was the only reason, nor did I make it a general statement about all countries. I made a specific statement about certain countries. Furthermore, youd have to give me "typical scores", the tests, the subjects and the countries in order for me to make a comprehensive argument. I just was going on the normal, US students do worse in math/science. (Edit) Here is the link the international scores in Math/Science. http://nces.ed.gov/timss/table07_1.asp There are 5 countries that score significantly higher, and to the best of my knowledge, all of those countries have an educational system that puts math/science ahead of social science.

It may not be a core "conservative" belief, but it seems to be a core "Republican" belief. And Im not saying Republican's are conservative, that depends on how you define conservative.

I only have anecdotal evidence, but my Japanese neighbors used to tell my family that back in Japan they would test students and then have them take after school programs based on their abilities. That at very young ages children were basically put in different paths towards different goals. That students went to school upwards of 12+ hours a day if they wanted to be on the best track and that a very limited number of them would ever get into Tokyo University. Furthermore, they used the tests to put them on track for different areas, and that science/math were preferred to social sciences. That they would try and push the more talented students to science/math instead of social science. They were some what shocked by our system, and sent their kids to additional school on the weekend. Im pretty sure that China does similar pre-selection as well.

This is part of the reason why the US will never compete against certain countries when it comes to test scores. We give kids and people a choice on their profession and life. (I dont believe this is a bad thing btw, and agree that kids should have more freedom). Its hard to tell when the right time to let kids branch out is. The safest system is to have them all take most of the core classes until college, but for some that is a waste of a year or so. US is just never going to compete against certain countries because we dont create a system where we force kids to do what they are best at.

History is not objective. In most cases history is written by those who had power or those who were victorious. There are many different versions of "history" depending on what side of the fence you are on. Modern history (post 20th century) is far more accurate as we have many more resources and first hand accounts. But the farther you go back the more and more "history" becomes subjective.

Its just speculation. The word on Wisconsin boards is that Iowa/Wisconsin are definitely split. Which is why people are starting to guess that if OSU/UM are split, then Nebraska/PSU will be split. I think there are different ways that this can pan out, but for the sake of parity I think the top 3 need to be split. Thus youve got ideas like OSU/PSU/Wisconsin but I think thats far tougher than UM/Nebraska/Iowa The only remotely fair way to split them would involve OSU/Nebraska/v UM/PSU/, then put Wisconsin and Iowa into one of the 2. In those scenarios there is not a dominant division. OSU/PSU/Wisconsin is putting 3 of the top 4 Big 10 schools in 1 conference. On the idea that Nebraska and UM will be as good as they once were.