Balta1701

QUOTE(Soxy @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 11:27 AM) So, my sister and I are thinking of going on vacation to a cool state park this summer. Do you guys have any recommendations for a beautiful park to visit? I'm trying to remember the name of this one park with lots of caverns and caves and pretty rock formations and stuff. I think it is in KY or TN? Maybe? Or AK? If you're looking for a cave complex in that area, the biggest and most well known one is the Mammoth Cave National Park in KY. Biggest known cave complex in the world i believe. Here is the website for State Parks in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ark-Kansas.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 11:10 AM) To be honest, I don't know how Fitzgerald is still around. This guy has been so far up everyone's ass in Chicago, its amazing he is still alive. He has hunted down Daley guys, and Ryan guys equally. If he survives the 09 inevitable purge, I wouldn't be surprised to seem him indict King Richard himself. Does the White House have the authority to remove a "Special prosecutor" once one has been appointed? Beats me. Would sure look bad if they did, I'd say.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 10:43 AM) Southsider: am I wrong in thinking that the billions and billions locked up in subprime lending going south will be a huge catalyst to a possible recession? Personally, I've thought for a while that the housing market bursting in general, not just the subprime market, might well be a catalyst for such an event. That market just went crazy the last 6 years or so with the excessively low interest rates, to the point where people being able to take money out of the increased value of their homes was a significant driving force for the growth out there. The fact that housing prices have stopped growing in general for now will remove that stimulus, and it will probably only get worse with time as all of the fancy new "Interest-only" or similar mortgages start hitting the ballooning payments that were supposed to trigger people to sell.

QUOTE(spiderman @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 10:35 AM) Does Hagel vote with Bush on Iraq often ? Link. Here are some vote highlights And a Huffington Post bit. Altogether, Chuck Hagel has voted with the White House position about 95% of the time since Bush 2 came into office.

QUOTE(HeGone33 @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 10:25 AM) Ok, I'll stop, I didn't know he was the next Robin Ventura. Does anyone here realize that what Robin did is rare? In other words, not the common. I don't think that coming up from the minors and struggling with the bat in the big leagues, especially for a few initial months or the first year, is all that uncommon at all.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 09:59 AM) This guy is an assclown, too. How many focus groups and how many messups will it take before he becomes the hero and enters the race? Hagel is like the Republican's version of Lieberman...he bashes the Bush Administration constantly, especially on the Iraq war, but then has one of the most reliably pro-Bush voting records in the Senate. The only difference between him and Lieberman is that Lieberman on a few issues does actually vote with the Republicans, where Hagel simply doesn't

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 09:53 AM) If you poop in your back yard, does it effect your environment? Why, yes! It gets stinky! I think it goes without saying that humans are effecting the environment - and to some extent, the climate. The question is, how much, and does the earth "correct" things on its own, so to speak? Only generations of studies will be able to prove that, not just our generation. But we do have the ability to examine generations of data on the climate. We have at this point many different proxies that tell us what sort of CO2 and temperature changes have been seen in the geologic record, what sort of changes we've had in the Pleistocene, what sort of changes we've had in the recent, and so on. We have plenty of ability to study what happens to the climate when there are large shifts in the atmosphere. And beyond that, we have a pretty good understanding of how the atmosphere reacts to different inputs. To my eyes, what you're doing here is just giving the argument of ignorance...saying that we can't know anything for certain until we wait and see what happens every single time, and that's simply not a valid way of making an argument. We have plenty of ways to get information on things you're saying we can't know.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 11:36 AM) Dow had the air taken out of it again today. It was down about 200 at its low point, and has bounced back a little bit with around an hour and a half to go. They are still bouncing off of the 12100 level, so it seems that is a pretty solid support number unless something else happens. The interesting thing is that energy prices are pretty well down, which usually creates a little bit more for the bulls, but not today. So, we're not nearly @ the end of the day yet, but following up on yesterday's down trend, the market gave back some early attempts at gains today...and has broken through the 12000 level. Right now it's at about 11950.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 09:56 AM) Actually, that's why I'm curious to see what his numbers were post AS break in 'clutch' situations because even though he was batting about .250 (I think?), I'm having trouble recalling if he had any relevant hits (and I have bad memory). Even though I can't sort by that data as far as I can tell...it's worth asking whether or not in a clutch situation, close and late, Ozzie would have even let Anderson hit. He generally stuck Mackowiak in for those spots, especially if there was a righty on the mound. Anyway, I think either way, whoever winds up as our "Starting CF", we're going to wind up having to completely throw last year's results out the window. Erstad played a few games in CF for Anaheim and got hurt, hasn't produced much offensively in years, and was moved to 1b to try to keep him healthier. Terrero had a good year in the minors but has sucked in the big leagues. Anderson sucked in the big leagues last year. Basically, pick your poison. 2 guys who were good in the minors and sucked in the show or a guy who doesn't hit very much who spent the last couple years on the DL after being moved to 1b to keep him healthy. QUOTE(HeGone33 @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 10:02 AM) Which is probably then offset by the times Mack helped us with his bat. Not in the 2nd half of the year. Mack was a disaster with the bat in July and August. Anderson was quite a bit better.

Was I the only one here who had a "Social Studies" class in I think 6th grade that spent at least a month or so actually going through the beliefs & practices of something like 7 major religions?

QUOTE(ptatc @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 09:32 AM) These players were not rookies but were all young unproven players when Guillen took over. So why the Hell can't he give Brian Anderson the same treatment, and actually use Erstad as the backup OF he should be used as.

So, I think the salient points of this matter are being lost in the semantics here. 1. The Bush Administration was fully within its rights to remove the U.S. Attorneys. There is absolutely nothing illegal about Presidents removing U.S. Attorneys. The Clinton Administration removed all of them, but coming in after 12 years of Republican rule, that is not at all Surprising to me. The Bush Administration removed almost all of them when they took over in 01, IIRC. 2. The U.S. Attorneys serve at the discretion of the President. Therefore, if the President wants to replace any U.S. Attorneys who are not taking enough steps to politicize their office to support the election of people of the President's party, that is also 100% legal and no one could be charged at all for that. 3. However, if it were to be known that the White House decided to fire a bunch of U.S. attorneys because they weren't sufficiently aggressive in bringing trumped-up voter fraud charges against Democrats or weren't leaking enough stories about Dems being investigated, or were simply being removed because they followed threads on an investigation of a prominent Republican (i.e. Duke Cunningham) this would be fully legal, but it would not paint the White House in a good light. It would probably look even worse if the removed U.S. attorneys were given positive performance reviews before they were fired, and it would look even worse if they were replaced by totally inexperienced people who are just there to "fill out a resume" and who are close associates of Karl Rove. 4. Because these sorts of firings and replacements by political hacks would look bad, the Bush Administration, in an effort to avoid looking bad, had motivation to try to cover things up. This is a classic "Cover up is worse than the crime" case, in that the removal of the attorneys is not a crime, but lying to Congress is. AG Gonzalez, along with several other people, were called to testify on this matter before Congress under oath a few weeks ago. The AG said plainly that there was no political motivation behind the firings, they were all removed for performance issues. The emails and other documents obtained by Congress through subpoenas clearly show that this was a lie. There were a few other whoppers in his testimony, but that is the big one to my eyes. 5. There is another potential violation here, but not by anyone in the White House. It is a clear and plain ethical violation for members of Congress or the Senate to have contact with a U.S. Attorney and pressure them to act or not act on specific cases. There is testimony and evidence that several Republican Congressmen and Senators, most notably Senator Domenici, did exactly that; they called and spoke to the Attorneys to pressure them to move on specific investigations of Democrats before the election. This has led to CREW filing ethics complaints against 3 members of Congress, including Domenici and the ranking Republican on the House Ethics committee. 6. There is a legislative issue here which is also new and which has motivated many of these hearings. When a new President takes office and removes attorneys, those Attorneys must be confirmed by the Senate. However, in the Patriot Act, Arlen Specter slipped a little-noticed provision in allowing a White House to appoint a temporary replacement Attorney with no Senate approval. This is exactly what the White House did, and under the law it is perfectly legal. Now that it has been done and used to replace qualified attorneys with political soldiers for no obvious reason, the Congress and White House appear to have struck an agreement to remove that provision from the Patriot Act. 7. Last and finally, there is one other issue here; the politicization of the U.S. attorney's office. A study cited a few times in the last few days, including on the Colbert Report by one of the authors (guys @ University of Missouri I believe) shows that under the Bush Administration thus far, investigations of Democratic politicians have outnumbered investigations of Republicans by a factor of 5 overall, and a factor of 7 below the national level. While I do not have the data from the Clinton administration or earleir for comparison, this suggests a potential new problem in the U.S. Attorney's office; the politicization of those attorneys to the point where they use the presence of an investigation and leaks from the investigation to influence elections. (That guy's under investigation? Don't vote for him!) It is also possible that the targeting of these investigations towards one side, if undeserved (it could well be that Democrats are just 7 times more corrupt, although I have trouble buying that without a lot of evidence) is allowing actual crimes by the other side to slip through unpunished because the Attorneys are too busy investigating political opponents to actually solve anything. This potential problem suggests a new need for some level of reform in the system to try to decrease the politicization of that office in the future. To decide what is needed, Congressional hearings are certainly appropriate, to determine whether there is truly an abberration here and whether or not steps can be taken to rectify it. So, that's my summary of the issues here. There was nothing illegal about the firing and replacement of the attorneys. However, you can't just go before Congress and lie about it. And, certain practices that have been illuminated by this controversy suggest that there is a need for further cleaning up of the Attorneys beyond just fixing the Patriot Act loophole Specter slipped in.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 08:34 AM) That's a good point. It is probably something you don't want to make mandatory. That line starts to blur right there, probably. If they were done correctly as fact-based courses and not as "this is the right faith and all the other ones are going to Hell", then I could understand either of them being made mandatory in some districts and wouldn't object except in those cases where the teacher decided to be a preacher (which you just know would happen all over the place). Of course, that would probably take away some of the time spent on other subjects, but Hell, I spent most of that government course I took in high school reading through an expansive history of the first World War anyway.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 08:59 AM) Kinda random but related, I guess... What were anderson's numbers for RISP and in "clutch" situations, before and after the AS break, or where can I find them? After the AS Break with RISP: 32 ab, 9 RBI, 8/32 with 2 walks and 8 strikeouts. The only place I know of that does double situational splits (i.e. both with RISP and Post all-star) is MLB.com's stats, although i'll bet there's someone else I don't know about. Link.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 04:11 AM) Actually I have a better idea, since the flux capacitor got destroyed by a train in 1985, and Doc hasn't come up with a new way to break the time/space continium yet, the Sox should really play out the season, and then if they have a profit just roll the money back into the team. I think that is a great idea. Huh? What's that? They have been doing exactly that forever now? No way! Dude, didn't you see the 3rd part of that documentary? They built another time machine on a locomotive.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 08:23 AM) Its easy to pick apart a comparision them with Contreras as a finished product, and Floyd still in progress, but there are plenty of similarities there. And don't forget with Contreras he had 13 starts in 2004 with the Sox in which he still didnt do too much positive. It wasn't until after those starts, plus a spring, plus some rough April outings that he started to get "it". Floyd might well not get it for another year or two. I'm not sure at all that I believe those gun readings...but if he still has a 95-96 mph fastball somewhere in his arm, as opposed to the 91 I was expecting...then there's still something salvageable there. Even if it just winds up being a bullpen pitcher...you come in with a 95 mph fastball and a good curve for an inning, throw strikes, and you're a closer.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 06:57 PM) I was only saying that IF the Bears franchised him again in 2008, that contract would be guaranteed, not that they will. And you are absolutely right, if Lance doesn't play, the Bears get nothing, except $7.2 million that they won't have to pay and whatever fines they get from him not showing. Plus, they can get either Jamar Williams or Rod Wilson some playing time. Or some free agent. Plus, if Lance wants to get paid like he thinks he should be, he HAS to play this season. Not because teams will be upset by him sitting out, but because he sat out a year. And as someone said before, even if he trains all year, it's not game play. So wait one second. If the Bears franchise Briggs, and he doesn't show up to play, the Bears don't have to pay him. So, the whole motivation behind making sure that teams don't franchise people 2 years in a row is that their salary goes up 20% each successive year they're franchised. So, if Mr. Briggs refuses to suit up and Rosenhaus can't find a suitable trade partner...if he's sitting out the whole season, that means that the Bears can franchise him again and have it not cost them a dime because he won't bother to show up, right?

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 07:04 PM) Unrealistic, yes, but those should be the conditions. What good are more #5 starters or bullpen arms within this organization? Either Florida provides their top pitching talent for Anderson or they don't get him. I don't feel trading him, and taking our chances with Rowand, is worth marginal talent. Especially with the possibility Williams looks ridiculous if Anderson actually develops into something. It has to be worthwhile. Does anyone other than me realize that the whole reason some other team might want Anderson right now is that they're hoping to get a potential gold-glove CF who can develop into a good hitter and who costs them the MLB minimum for the next several years at a bare-minimum price because of Anderson's poor last season? You guys remember how the Yankees had Contreras for like 2 years, then traded him for Loaiza? The Yankees made 2 mistakes, they traded for Loaiza before his value went completely through the floor, and they traded Contreras without giving him any realistic chance to hit his ceiling. The White Sox got some nice shiny rings out of that. If Anderson fails, Anderson fails. But he should fail as a part of our team...because right now, its absolutely impossible for us to get value in a trade back equal to what it should be given his talent.

The folks over at Realclimate chime in on the NYT Gore piece. Unsurprisingly, the qualifications of a lot of the people quoted in the article seem to leave a lot to be desired, which for some reason seems par for the course in those sort of articles. Here's an alternate commentary with some other good details, albiet from a less distingushed source. Link.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 06:38 PM) I think Evan Bayh has already been promised that job, which is why he bowed out really, really early. By which candidate?

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 05:21 PM) And what are the odds on BA out performing Rowand this season? Of course if BA moved to a pitchers park, it'd be harder for him to do so. The last 2 season offensively wise are the norm for Rowand I'd say, I don't think there's a that big of a chance he goes back to his 2004 numbers. I would say that given BA's age, minor league performance, raw talent, and defense, there's a significant chance BA will outperform ARow this season. Others have pointed out that in the 2nd half last year, they basically were pretty much equal with the bat in the time they played.

QUOTE(whitesox61382 @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 05:29 PM) Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't a team have to offer a FA player arbitration in order to get compensation via draft picks if that player signs with a different team? Everyone assumes that the Sox are guaranteed to get draft picks if they lose their players via FA opposed to trades, but that isn't always the case. In fact, based on the Sox track record, I would say it is 50/50 that they offer arbitration so please be careful in assuming that the Sox would automatically get draft picks for FA they lose. Unless Mark Buehrle's arm falls off this season, Kenny Williams should be fired if he doesn't offer either of those guys arbitration. There is absolutely no loss. If they accept...we get them back at similar costs. If they don't, then we have more time to negotiate with them. If they walk, we get back draft picks. The only time you don't offer someone arbitration if you have the option is if you think they'll accept and they made more the previous year than you think they were worth.

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 03:35 PM) I still like Haeger winning it. I haven't said much on who should be the starter but that was my pick and I'm sticking to it. I think Aardsma is pitching Haeger into the Bullpen.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 02:51 PM) Thats changed then from the info we received.. In the original game day, and the original lineups they had Erstad playing LF, Terrero in RF, and Mack in CF. Thats more like it then. Climbing back up onto the bridge after jumping off....