jackie hayes

QUOTE(G&T @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 10:40 PM) What is this supposed to be? Political posturing doesn't have to be done just for one person. The whole thing is clearly a chance for the Dems to take shots at the White House. That's just nonsense. Joking about Hillary running is a shot at Republicans? How?

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 08:29 PM) I like the size comparison Addison, but Lewis had ridiculous speed for his size. I think he ran something like a 4.37 in his 40 time, where I think Lendale will run closer to 4.52-4.55 or so. Taking nothing away from Lendale though, as I think he will be a very good one. If that's what he ran at the combine, then it sure didn't translate very well. I'm not saying he's slow, he's not, but he's much slower than other guys who run about that time. Tomlinson ran a 4.38, and they aren't even close. I think the Lewis comparison is the best one, better than these overworked Bettis comparisons. With all of Lewis's troubles, and the Ravens desire for a power back, it wouldn't surprise me to see him end up in Baltimore.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 10:28 PM) This is simply political posturing at the worst opportunity. These politicians figure everyone is watching, so why not take the opportunity to criticize Bush? Unless she dedicated her life to opposing Iraq--as she once did the Civil Rights movement--then it doesn't warrant mentioning. Not even one word. Wait until you're on a cable news channel to begin such debate. Politicians? Lowery is 85 or so. He's not running for office anytime soon, which means any time at all. Carter used to be a politician, but what the hell would he have to "posture" for now? She took a strong stand against the Iraq war. I don't think it should be ignored just because she wasn't concerned with that alone.

She did speak out against the Iraq war. And Carter's comments seem pretty mild. But motioning towards the Prez is too much, I'll agree there.

At first I thought this was just for the pick, as bad as Toronto's doing. But it's Denver's pick, and protected for the top 10 spots. How long before Brown's head explodes?

It still surprised me. As much that Roberts is voting w/ the far right clique of the court -- I thought he would be moderate. That's just going off their answers to the Senate. You're right, though, it doesn't mean much at this point.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 04:54 PM) I'm not sure where Kerry got this fact but 85.9% does not accurately reflect the percentage of all people who graduate from high school. QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 05:07 PM) Each state report their numbers differently. Texas for example lies to themselves in their numbers. If a kid stops attending and says he plans on getting a GED, he hasn't dropped out. If he fails to ever take the GED test, he has dropped out of GED, not High School. Down here in these school districts, we have a large migrant population. If they say they are heading north to a new school, there is no follow up if they ever do register with another school. I was working with the school administration on an Apprenticship Program and the estimates I heard, for what common sense tells us is the drop out rate, was 50-60%. That is figured by taking all incoming Freshman then looking at those getting a high school diploma. In one racially and economically profiled population, it was estimated at 75% drop out rate. I am going to assume that other areas have the same problem. How this balances with New Trier or Conant numbers and becomes I national average, I don't know. But if we can't agree on a definition of what it is to drop out, how can anyone accurately quote a number? The data are self-reported. As part of the CPS, they ask the respondents if they graduated from high school. (Maybe including GED, I'm not sure what the wording is.) So it avoids the problem of different districts, states, etc w/ different definitions. It should be pretty consistent. I imagine the migrants are probably, at least mostly, excluded (CPS = current population survey -- I don't know if they'd count migrants as part of the "population", and I think they'd have a hard time finding them to interview, if they did). Of course, there're probably some lies in there, but I doubt it's very many. Imho, that's about the best estimate you could make.

It was actually the Sunday Post. It takes a lot to offend me with a cartoon, and this one doesn't cross that line. But it wasn't very funny. That did piss me off. I don't mind what either side did. I just wish they'd be more clever.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 02:58 PM) Applause lines annoy me anyway. This isn't a freakin rock concert. It's supposed to be a policy speech and assessment of the direction of this country. It's turned into a farce. Ford and Carter were relatively honest about where our country was in their SOTU speeches, but since then its been nothing but apple pie and sunshine. Because its all about the memorable one liner, its all about the applause meters and the focus groups and the other crap. It oughta be about making good government and being honest and open and accountable. You know what I'd love to see? A State of the Union where the President doesn't stop for applause every 15 seconds. Where he comes out from behind the rostrum rather than criss-crossing the hall and shaking hands with every Congressman, Senator and hack in the place. Where rather than announce 15 new programs that won't even see a bill, focus on a couple of goals and plans, illustrate a couple of challenges - finish the damn thing up in a half an hour - which is how long it would take without all the applause and everyone can go to Denny's for a nice Moon over My Hammy. Honestly, It's Time For A Change. All through the 1800s, the speech was delivered on a piece of paper. It's such bad theater now, I really wouldn't mind a return to that.

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 04:17 AM) I hate getting into political discussions but I am going to jump in and ask for opinions. Let me preface this by saying I have a basic understanding of economics and government, but I am not one to debate its finer points. So I will up front say, please do not try to call me out, rather help educate me. My question to you Tex is this... Why does it matter? The federal government is not like an individual's household budget. Why should I or anyone else care if the government is billions in "debt"? Does that debet actually ever get paid off? If the budget is balanced, does it really have any effect on my life or yours? Do you really think a government like ours carrying a large debt will actually cause its economy to fail? We have thrived in times with huge debts. I had an economics professor in college that stated matter of factly that the National Debt didn't mean a hill of beans. I can't argue that he is correct, but I can ask the questions. I'd be interested in yours and others thoughts. Gracias amigo! There is this idea that deficits don't matter, basically using the following argument: the government spends by selling bonds to people who get taxed later to pay for the bonds. The bonds (wealth) and the taxes (liabilities) cancel each other out, so the debt's irrelevant. Noone takes this literally, though. First of all, a lot of the debt is being financed overseas, by those who won't get taxed. So the government spending is truly making individual Americans poorer. Also, increasing the debt (many believe) increases the interest rate (by "crowding out" private investment). Which leads to lower investment, leading to lower production in the long term. Whether or not the government will actually pay it back -- If the government didn't, why would anyone buy it? Not that we'll pay it off, but we'll pay off each bond issued. (I really hope, anyway.)

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 03:09 AM) There are a few ways you can look at this, especially on the OL. For the most part, the guys that are OL's in the NFL are giant men, regardless if they played football or not. You can look at the fact that playing football actually puts them in better shape then they might be if they didn't play. Would these guys live longer if they didn't play in the NFL? I'm not talking about the guys that abuse their bodies like Bill Romanowski, but instead your average OL in the NFL at 6'5 300 pounds. Are they comparing these rates to other men that don't play in the NFL, yet are big guys? Otherwise, its not really a fair comparison. If you are 6'6 360 pounds, you likely aren't living past 60, no matter what you do. No, they aren't, and that's a good point. It may be that guys who are naturally big are more likely to be good football players (think?) and have these health problems. BUT, there is the fact that players of any height and build are bulking up more and more. Weight in the NFL keeps going up and up, at all positions. In as much as weight leads to these problems, it's a bad trend.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 12:10 AM) People voting Brokeback Moutain for "Best Cinematography" probably don't understand it's definition. Cinematography, as I understand it's meaning, relates to selecting the best frames/etc. which help illustrate the storyline. Every film nominated in the category deserves it more. You can't exactly be very creative or inventive in the manner in which you portray two gay cowboys. This is an example of a film's reputation preceding it's actual ability. I don't need to see the film to know there's only so many ways to film a still scene between Gyllenhal and Ledger. I know zilch about cinematography, but... By your definition, I think Brokeback did pretty well on that. There aren't very many love scenes between the two of them -- most scenes show the outdoors, or small, rural towns. And I thought the way they shot the setting was very well done. It does help illustrate the story and the characters.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 11:48 PM) Google. Giggle.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 09:48 PM) some of those obesity ratings are misleading. If a running back is 5-10, 220 pounds they would be considered obese. Thomas Jones would be considered obese on a lot of charts. A lot of the time they don't take heavy muscle mass into consideration. but yea, a lot of NFL lineman are totally fat. Some people quoted in the article argue that it doesn't really matter, that your heart has to work hard to support 30 extra pounds of muscle, too. Which makes sense. I imagine it's somewhere in between. If you're somewhat overweight, but mostly muscle, not a big deal. If you're very overweight, muscle or not, it's not good for you.

Link. Almost 20% die from murder or suicide? Isn't that REALLY high? Just interesting. I don't know what the NFL could really do about the weight problem.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 08:03 PM) Wow. :rolly I'm just saying, I think someone might need a nap. If after that your attention span will be more than one post, I can wait.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 07:23 PM) Dude. Chill. Who said Exxon should ever be expected to do great things for mankind? I mean, if they do a little of that, great. I would applaud it. But I don't expect it. It's not their place. Their mission is to make money, and they are doing that. If you really want to bring down oil and gas prices, then we need to get less dependant on it. That's the only long term solution. Did you read the whole exchange? Nuke quoted an oil executive, and then said "Thats 86 billion dollars invested by the industry as a whole to keep oil and gas flowing and keep America moving." As if Exxon executives are up there saying, 'How do we keep America working?' instead of 'Where should we put a refinery so as to make the most money we can?' He also said "I also dont remember anyone doing anything to help these guys out 10 years ago when oil was 9 dollars a barrel and they were losing money hand over fist." I pointed out that they never were "losing money hand over fist". Not that we owe them "help" anyway. And then you jump all over me, announcing that I said all oil companies should not be allowed to make any profits. Where the f*** did you get that from? All I said was that what the oil companies are saying is bulls*** ('it's all input prices & competitive market'), and that investments are self serving. Nowhere did I say profit is wrong. I'll chill when you learn to read.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 05:04 PM) Am I the only person not blown away by 'Crash"? No. Kind of like American Beauty to me. I liked it right after I saw it, but I'll never want to watch it again.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 04:41 PM) So in your view, because Exxon produces gasoline, they aren't allowed to make a profit? Not sure I get that. And their infrastructure investments mean a lot more than "jack s***". Seriously though, we need to be focusing on getting out from under oil in general. That's the key. Wtf are you talking about? Nuke said they were losing tons of money. They weren't. Ever. Miss that? They can make money. But they claim that the high prices are b/c their input prices are higher. Well, apparently it's not all input prices if they're reporting record profits. They can yell "market" all they want -- this is not some ideal free market. Their investments aren't charity work. What that investment "means" is that they'll make more money later, not that they're wonderful people doing a service to anyone but themselves.

So instead of losing money "hand over fist", they just weren't making enough money. Only $5 billion or so in profits. Exxon officials got families to feed!

I think the senators cared, but there's really only one issue that was controversial in his nomination -- inflation targeting. Once they asked him about that and he answered uncontroversially enough, there wasn't much to object to. You could hardly imagine anyone more qualified.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 06:40 AM) Did any of the people complaining about Oil Industry profits read this part of the article? Thats 86 billion dollars invested by the industry as a whole to keep oil and gas flowing and keep America moving. Thats before paying out dividends to the shareholders. Its not as though the industry is taking these profits and stuffing them in the mattress. I also dont remember anyone doing anything to help these guys out 10 years ago when oil was 9 dollars a barrel and they were losing money hand over fist. You seem to confuse "investment" (money spent to keep the big bucks rolling in) and "charity". Yup, they invest a lot of money. That means jack s***. And I've tried to find the year when Exxon lost money, and I can't seem to find it. Their SEC filings seem to show solid profits every single year of the mid-1990s. Got a link?

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 04:29 AM) The Twins signed Batista because he can play 3B and he was cheap... mainly because he was cheap. The Twins needed to add some power and Batista can hit homers but he is still a terrible hitter (AVG and OBP-wise). But they don't have too much to work with in Minnesota with such a low payroll. And because he's better than Cuddyer. Even though he sucks and Cuddyer doesn't. Hey, thanks Minny.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 03:52 AM) Well, the Twins signed Rondell White to be their DH. He's probably a better bet than Durazo at this point. If Durazo was healthy, I'd take him over White though. They already have Cuddyer. The odds Durazo is better than White (and they're both question marks) are better than the odds Batista is better than Cuddyer. Anyway, this has gotten offtrack. I wasn't initially saying the Twins should have signed Durazo (although...), just that I can't believe a free agent market that would quickly sign Tony Batista and leave Durazo as a last thought fill-in.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 03:05 AM) Durazo is a good hitter but he's pretty much a DH only (he sucks at 1B) and he's still recovering from Tommy John surgery. So he'd be a good fit in at least one spot in the Twins lineup, which is more than you can say for Batista. A bit of a risk, but at least an upgrade in some sense.