jackie hayes

Yeah, the Braves suck. I've been saying that for years now. Turns out I was right.

I do NOT ignore hockey. Frankly, I never played it as a kid, and I think it's sad that kids do it so often now. But if you mean to start some big debate on education policy and no-child-left-behind, I don't see why you'd put it here instead of Filib. This is supposed to be about sports.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 03:42 PM) True but by the way they where leaning, especially Konerko, I got the sense that they were trying to shoot it the other way. Impossible. If the rh hitters go to rf and the lefties to lf, the team can never lose. That's a baseball fact.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 02:18 PM) However, it's not all bad. Actually, it is. That's why it's going bust. Air America is proof that two wrongs really don't make a...correct.

So, my first thought is, What is "my own mud"? What does that mean? I can't empathize, as I've never had any sort of leg injury. So I'll limit myself to, I wish you good luck and some good s*** to help you sleep.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 02:23 AM) So honestly with being back at school and not being able to watch a ton of games, the one thing I find myself missing the most is DJ. God, that's sad on so many levels.

Chad Bradford has not faded!!! He has a sub-3 era this year!!!!!!! And Scott Hatteberg is on a playoff contender~!!!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111 Faded my ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!1 Btw, is the role of Jeremy Giambi already taken?

Am I the only poster who likes sabremetrics and dislikes that book? I read a few chapters, and I just thought it was dull. It is a hagiography of someone who is good at his job but not all that interesting otherwise. I mean, I thought I would like it. I'd see the movie just to see if I come away with a better impression.

QUOTE(Cuck the Fubs @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 03:35 PM) What?? That they're doing it w/ a roster who's total payroll is less than the salaries of 20 players?? I think he means that both NY teams are on top.

Dunno if this has been mentioned before. Just in case... MLB's online video feed has its own commercials, including, in one, a word scramble; name the pitcher who...has been in the postseason twice...is now in the AL West...some hint besides I think... Why, could that be Estaban Loaiza? The WHOLE POINT OF THE GAME is getting the letters right.

QUOTE(SoxHawk1980 @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 01:36 AM) Blame Owens??? That has to be a joke. There is some blame to go around in this game...but none of it goes to Owens. That's the only way I can figure it. QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 01:37 AM) Dustin Hermanson? In a tie game? WTF? I kept asking myself, What am I missing here? But he did get out of it. Lol at Tyner. I did think Crede should have been swinging on the first pitch, but still, who knows. O/w, I can't say much on what I saw (only started watching in the 6th).

I guess that's an attempt at levity?

QUOTE(greg775 @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 01:24 AM) I didn't mean it to be trite; I guess I've been thinking about that documentary all day and inserted it in my Sox comments. That's fine, it's just out of place. If I get fired from my job and dumped by my girl and evicted by my apartment and someone tells me that, hey, it's not the end of the world, why, look at all those Holocaust victims, I think he should get punched in the face. It could almost always be worse, and yeah it's just a game, but this still sucks.

QUOTE(greg775 @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 01:19 AM) I knew somebody woudl take my 9-11 comment the wrong way. Seriously watch that documentary. Best piece of TV I've ever seen. It was so sad. Not really the wrong way, just that the original comment was so absurd and trite that it actually was funny. That's all.

QUOTE(Friend of Nordhagen @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 01:18 AM) We should let Haeger pitch every remaining inning of the season, just to see if a knuckleballer can really do it.

QUOTE(greg775 @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 01:14 AM) Not trying to be insensitive but it is just a game. I was reminded of that last night watching the incredibly sad and interesting documentary on 9-11 on public TV. Sports ain't life and death like that. Funniest thing I've heard all night. Thanks, greg.

Just to clarify my previous posts then, and not to add, I'm not only thinking about Palestine. And then to add a little, yes, contrary to what I said, I think that's essential. Hezbollah, for example, is much better armed than any group in Palestine. The bridge analogy -- two sides only -- is misleading.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 05:03 PM) OK, that's a different question. But my answer is unchanged. Stop supplying them. They will still get munitions and supplies elsewhere, mind you. Just not high-end stuff. As for Palestinian respect, there are two elements of importance here. One, it has to be made public that we have stopped arming Israel. Two, there will be more pressure elsewhere on the Globe put on the Palestinians TO trust us if we do this as well. As for Israel's fortunes, well, I guess they'll have to learn how to play nice. Now, if they DO play nice, and they get attacked... different story. But that is where the U.S. needs to step in a broker, and enforce, a deal. And it needs to be enforced equally against ANYONE who breaks the rules, Isreal or otherwise. Okay... Imo, you're too optimistic about Israel's fortunes. The regional powers who want Israel gone balance 2 things -- How much do we want them gone? and How likely is it that we can accomplish that? The answer to the second is, Not very, because Israel is so far superior technologically. Taking away that deterrent sounds like very, very bad policy to me. It's easy to say that if Israel would just "play nice", everything would be better. But Israel has not historically initiated many of its conflicts (although I would agree that they've often been guilty of escalating them beyond any reasonable limit). It took the Palestinian lands in response to an attack. And I think Israel was right to go after Hezbollah in Lebanon, given that the Lebanese government is too weak to rein it in. That doesn't mean that I agree with their tactics (FAR from it), but the answer isn't to make them incapable of meaningful response. Then there's the practical side. Suppose this policy were already in effect. With our troops already overextended in Afghanistan and Iraq, and tension with Iran to boot, do we want to be responsible for going into Lebanon to neutralize Hezbollah (really, a pretty formidable organization)? Certainly, it's not acceptable that rockets are fired into Israeli cities, something has to be done. And if we were to always 'have Israel's back', why would anyone perceive us as neutral? It seems that you are working off the assumption that Israel always creates its own problems. Given that, sure, I can understand the argument -- take away their weapons and they won't be such bullies. But I don't believe that's been true, that history has been so one-sided. I don't want this to explode as per usual. I'm done.

I've never once eaten at Sonic, but I've heard so many people talk about it that it's become the Charlie Trotter's of fast food in my head.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 04:52 PM) Leave Israel, and the Palestinians, alone (in terms of military support of any kind). Then hopefully, get a chance to broker a deal which will be seen as fair. Not the question. Once we withdraw military support/supplies, Israel's military will begin to degrade (lack of munitions, parts). I think it's obvious that it will take quite a while after the withdrawal of support for the US to gain legitimacy in the eyes of Palestinians. If Israel falls under heavy attack, perhaps by other nations, perhaps by pseudo-independent militias like Hezbollah, perhaps by more amorphous enemies, what do we do? Or is there 0% chance that any such attack happens?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 04:34 PM) Well if we leave them to its own devices, they should be fine. Unless the devices we sold them don't work. Funny guy...

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 04:28 PM) My logic isn't to make people less mad at us, or that Israel can defend itself. Neither are the main point to me. There are two main problemsx I have with us staying involved is that I don't see Israel as being any more right or wrong than the Palestinians at this point. And I think that's been true for some time. Secondarily, if we want to be seen as a real broker of peace, then we cannot possily be credible in that role if we heavily support one side of the conflict and not the other. So which option? Prop up Israel with our own military, or leave it to its own devices?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 10:35 AM) --Stop funding the Israeli military (directly and indirectly) I hear this so often, and the logic behind it just baffles me. I guess the point is to take away what links us to Israel, so noone will be mad at us. But Israel is our ally -- if it is attacked, and we've withdrawn military support, we will have two choices. Either go in ourselves to restore its sovereignty, or let things fall where they may. The first alternative seems a lot bloodier and more chaotic than allowing the Israelis to defend themselves (which they've proven very capable of doing). The second alternative could be the worst situation of all -- Israel doesn't have nukes for nothing. Usually this is followed by the argument that times have changed, Israel won't be attacked, etc. How anyone can look at the Midddle East -- with national leaders like Ahmadinejad, with much popular support for the elimination of Israel, and with attacks actually happening through fronts like Hezbollah -- and believe that a nation as tiny and as hated as Israel is in no danger of being attacked, I'll never understand.

Bump'n'update. Link.

QUOTE(beautox @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 02:43 AM) you forgot freel. The Sox equivalent of 'Don't forget Poland.'