Balta1701

So, here's a giant shocker...you know how we've suddenly starting having much more common outbreaks of food-borne pathogens, like the E-Coli spinach outbreak or the contaminated food @ Taco bell a few weeks ago? Guess what...it just so happens that we've also been slashing the budget at the FDA that goes to inspecting for those sorts of problems. Link. Don't worry, I'm sure the Free Market will take care of things, right? After all, people clearly have the ability to evaluate on their own whether or not their food is safe to eat, right?

QUOTE(fathom @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 07:55 AM) The more I watch the shows back-to-back, the more I realize how much better Prison Break is than 24. The twists and turns on Prison Break actually make sense, while the 24 stuff is so recycled. I tried prison break for a couple seasons and got sick of it...it just moved along too slow, and so ardently refused to actually settle any of the topic threads that it opened that i just couldn't take it any moer.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 05:50 AM) There is a big difference between pot and, say, cocaine. Cocaine creates a dangerous person to society, is highly addictive, and as a general rule tends to ruin people's lives. Pot does none of those things, except for maybe a very small percentage of the time. I'm OK with legalizing pot, but I wouldn't go so far as all drugs. Well, then here's the other side of the token...what is more effective with a person who winds up addicted to cocaine, meth, etc., (pick your drug); locking them up as punishment, or finding a way to treat that person? In some cases, yeah, locking them up is the best option. But I can't imagine anyone here would argue that it's the best option in every single case; that we wouldn't be better off getting some people treatment instead of tossing them into prison.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 06:12 AM) No he's not at all. By purchasing carbon credits all he is doing is reducing the amount available IN AN OPTIONAL PROGRAM. For everyone else who doesn't follow those rules, it doesn't make a damned bit of difference. If they man were actually practicing what he preached he wouldn't own a gigantic energy wasting house. He would bulldose that house, plant a forest preserve, and live in a tiny little place that used as little energy as possible. But hey, he bought Carbon credits so everything is cool, right? Yeah I touched that boy, but hey, I prayed for forgiveness so its all cool. Just like people who rightfully look at people who want to stand up as authority figures on a subject, and preach to people how they should live their lives, people are going to be really interested to see that those people are more than accountable for their actions. Buying your pennance doesn't make a difference. Just because Al was lucky enough to have a grandpa who got rich in the oil business, so he can afford to make movies about things, doesn't mean he can buy his guiltfree sleep. At least not in my eyes. Ok, so I'm going to chime in here, try to stay out of some of the sniping, totally avoid commenting on the child molester comparison, and just say that the way you present the carbon trading programs is not at all how any of them work. I'm not exactly certain which version of the carbon trading program Mr. Gore is involved in (different countries have different rules), but the key point to make is that it isn't how you present it; an optional program that makes no difference. For the system currently operating in Europe, if you buy some of those credits, you are actually removing carbon from the Earth as a whole. That is because the system in Europe is actually a cap and trade system; there are a specific number of credits allocated to each country. If a country does not use up its credits, by cutting emissions more rapidly than the protocols require through the implementation of greener technology, then they are able to sell those credits. Or, to put it another way; if someone purchases credits that are for sale, then those gases can not be emitted by some other industry. While the U.S. has been unwilling to even acknowledge the existence of these programs, to pretend that they are voluntary when they are in fact becoming mandatory over much of the world is simply wrong. Al Gore is participating in a voluntary way in a mandatory program overseas, according to those press reports. In other words, he is taking an extra step to remove what C his family emits from the system. That is an important step...and in all honesty, you'd think it would be something the free-marketers would support...because if you strongly support the development of renewable energy, one big way to encourage renewable energy would be to buy up carbon credits, and thus pump up the demand for renewable energy overseas (Because there would be less room for carbon emission). And one point I would like to make beyond that. The reality of Global warming is that it is a major problem, but it is not a major problem that is going to kill us tomorrow. The one nice thing is; if we take some steps now, we actually have time. Those of us who beleive it is a major problem that requires a major solution are also usually going to say that the solution doesn't require us to move back to the stone age. It doesn't require us to bulldoze all of America and plant trees, it doesn't require us to kill 5 billion people. What we need most right now is time. We need time for additional technologies to come on line for energy generation and carbon sequestration. Even if we bulldozed all of civilization and planted trees, it still would not be nearly enough to make up for what we have already released (although the drop in emissions would have a major impact). What we need to do is give ourselves more time. We are not asking for people to give up their livelihoods. If you're a millionaire now, global climate change does not mean you can't be one tomorrow (unless your money is tied up in real estate in Florida). What we need to do right now is begin a process of slowing down the release of emissions and increasing the use of renewable energy (which is exactly what purchasing carbon credits do). If we do that, and combine it with a large scale effort on the part of both government and industry to find alternative sources of energy (which is also something strongly encouraged by a carbon trading system), then we can find ourselves the time we need to actually solve this problem. No one, at least no reasonable person, is asking everyone to give up their livelihood, no matter what condition it may be in. That is not needed to solve this problem. All that is needed is the will to make a few small changes. That's it.

As long as Brian Anderson is considered the "Starter" and earns most of the playing time (key word; earns), I will like Erstad fine enough.

Someone can point the GOP only side over here, I'm just tired of having to post updates there for now. Link. Of course, Mr. Drudge doesn't bother to check whether or not Mr. Gore is purchasing CO2 credits from the international markets to offset what carbon he does generate by cutting into other outputs.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 12:35 AM) How is this situation any different from mothers who leave childern in abusive homes becaues they're too afraid to leave or parents who abuse drugs with children in the home? Society has decided that we have the right to take children out of those situations and place them in a 'better' one (obviously we can argue whether a foster agency/adoption center is indeed better). Not necessarily disagreeing with you on the merits of your proposal just yet, but here's why this situation is different. 2 reasons. In general, it is a very, very, very bad thing to pull a child away from its parents, especially at a young age. It can damage the child for life. Even in a bad situation, such as a family in deep poverty, it can and often is more damaging to the child to pull them away from their parents, even if placed into an ideal home, than it is to leave the child in the care of the parents. And on top of that, not to insult foster families in any way, but it's not like the child would be moved into the care of Bill Gates here, where they'd have all of the attention, schooling, and benefits that one could ever dream of; the foster system does a good job where it can, but in many cases, the improvement may only be marginal. In the case of a family where one parent is gone and the other is abusive and on drugs, yes, the improvement is worth splitting the child from the parents, but outside of that scenario, you're taking, forceably, children away from the people to whom those children are the most deeply attached and installing them in either a foster system or the boarding-house system you suggest, where the conditions are not going to be those of luxury either. That is a lot of damage you risk doing to a child, even a child whos parents are not in good shape.

Here's a fairly unexpected and decidedly positive IMO bit of Obamania; after that little flap with the Clintons last week, Obama is publicly repudiating the little flap, saying that his staff got into it with the Clinton campaign and saying that their actions were against his stated marching orders to avoid getting negative. I can't recall the last time I saw a candidate publically take his staff to task for going negative. I think that's a positive thing to see as well.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 04:05 PM) I don't want to root against Floyd, but I just have a strong feeling that if he's given an important role on this team, he's going to screw the pooch. I've said it before and I'll say it again; Even if Floyd screws the pooch this season...he gets 1-2 months of a shot before in June Charlie starts taking over his spot, and if Charlie doesn't do the job, by July we see Danks or Broadway up. That's all I want out of those guys if they can't give us good performances; keep the slot warm while Danks and Broadway (and maybe Sisco) have some time to work in AAA. QUOTE(Heads22 @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 02:46 PM) Also nice to see BA get out to a decent start. Nothing I read sounded better than BA going 2/2. He can make such a huge difference to this team just by earning a starting spot and holding onto it all year.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 03:43 PM) I don't think the GOP would have problems with this. Why would they? It's in the best interest of the child to get out of that situation. $$$$$. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to leave the kids with their parents on Public housing than to actually go through all of the legal matters to take kids away from parents, set up systems to take care of them, provide for their education, health, and future, etc. What we do now is we throw money at these sorts of problems, but we're really stingy about it, we get angry when we throw the money at it, we fail to make the long-term commitments, the money winds up being sucked up by the avoidable, short-term emergencies, and then people start saying "Oh, what we're doing now clearly isn't working, it's time to cut the funding". That is the cycle that we get thrown into here...and it will take money to break it. It costs a lot of money to start up a firm plan with a solid foundation and potential for success. The long term benefits may be huge, but the government in a huge number of cases such as dealing with those in poverty is unwilling to invest the large assets in the short-term to develop and implement a plan that may not show benefits until 20, 30 years down the road when that generation grows up. Edit: and this is not a GOP only problem, so don't take it that way.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 05:46 AM) I wouldnt be too surprised to see a few changes during the year at the 5 spot. WIth so many viable options it is hard to say whos gonna break out and who isnt totally ready. I agree with you that I wouldn't be surprised to see a change a few times...but maybe for a different reason...I think that there's a good chance that our 2-3 best young starting pitchers spent most of last year at AA ball (Danks, Gio, Broadway, Phillips, Sisco also although for a different reason), so I'd like them to spend some time at AAA before making the final jump to the big leagues. Even if one of them dominates in the spring, I hope they start at AAA just to make sure we don't rush them...and if they succeed for a couple months, then consider who the best option is. I want it to be either Haegar or Floyd to start the season...just so we don't screw with a kid too early. Even if they're not the best pitcher from the group of youngin's, they're in the best position to not cost us more in the long-term.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 05:12 AM) Is the intersquad game today? According to the Sun Times, yes.

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 05:33 AM) i wonder if the families will start spending the holidays together. that would be fun. The question is...who does the cooking?

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 04:52 AM) But it's not the short term. This experiment has failed over and over again across the country. Every major public housing development, from Robert Taylor or Cabrini to Columbia Point in Boston has failed miserably. To me it's the same faulty logic with our welfare system. The theory goes that if we give it to them now they'll be working towards getting off the system later. But that just doesn't happen. People get money or get a home and then want more or accept what they get and continue to live off of it. These services are meant to help people get back on their feet, not be a permanent crutch. I think a harder line is needed. Kick some people in the ass to do something with their lives instead of living off the government from week to week. Make people accountable for their REPEATED poor decisions in life. Now let's pause here for a second...your advice here is to make people accountable for their poor decisions. What exactly are you suggesting when you say we should make them accountable? So we have in the example we've been running with a family with 10 kids, they've clearly made poor decisions, they're living in subsidized housing while both parents work and still in pretty bad shape. What exactly is considered making this family accountable? Taking away their public housing, and tossing their family out on the streets? They've put themselves into a position where they simply can not get through the day without help. They can not find better jobs because they have no education or training and probably have health care issues as well, the state can't just seize all their children, and tossing a family of 12 out on the street puts them in even more hopeless of a situation than they're in now? How exactly can they be made accountable? What would you advise taking away from them if they don't meet whatever standard of improvement you set?

Flaws admitted in a 2002 study which has been commonly used by anti-embryonic stem cell research advocates to suggest that adult stem cells are as useful as embryonic ones.

If we're discussing how to fix the prison system, is it also worth noting how big of a problem prison rape has become in this country? If one were to try to find ways to actually rehab an inmate for doing something wrong, having another inmate violate and rape that inmate seems to be a terrible way to do things. However, despite that, the numbers of how many prisoners are believed to be raped each year are in the tens to hundreds of thousands according to some NGO's, and it seems to just be something that is tolerated by Americans. "Ha, it's part of your punishment!". And on top of the negative situation it creates in terms of the prison environment, it has also helped rapidly fuel the spread of AIDS within prisons, especially among the African American communities. Just something I wanted to toss into the mix. Do people here genuinely think this is something we should just turn a blind eye to?

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 03:52 AM) In general I think the big problem with poverty in the country is how we attack it. We think giving people things, like homes, is the way to go, but that doesn't solve the problem. It gets people of the streets, yes. It probably saves lives. But something like 85% of the people that grow up in public housing stay in public housing. On the other hand, I would add that the issues are probably more complex than what either of us would see if we were to take a walk through those types of areas. Yes, for some people, simply giving them things is a mistake. Yes, it has the ability to build dependence on things that are being given, and lead to them just asking for more and more. But on the other hand, ask yourself...how much opportunity is there available in this country for those same people? Growing up in situations where their families can barely squeak by sometimes, where there's no health care at all for anything that crops up, where there's no hope of going to college or building up a better life no matter how hard you work because the odds are almost entirely stacked against you? There's just not a simple solution to any problem like this. For some people, yes, giving them housing is a mistake, but just a few weeks ago here if I recall correctly someone posted an article on how one of the newest ways of dealing with chronic homelessness was to set the people up with actual housing and monitor them, instead of leaving them on the streets, where they wound up constantly going to the Emergency room and costing literally millions of dollars. In that case, simply giving away housing seemed to be a much better option; it's cheaper, it allows for more management of the people, and it gives them a small chance to do something positive with their lives. I'm afraid I don't have a specific solution to offer (aside from pointing out that this is the first economic expansion in history where the povery rate has increased every year and this is a specific issue that can be solved through government action), but I will say that anyone who tries to suggest that one method works or one method doesn't work in all cases is going to wind up proven wrong. Giving away housing and utilities may be a terrible idea for some, and it may be the only way to give hope to others. The only way to find that balance is to have people who's job it is to figure out how to deal with the problem, and that costs money. It's a lot cheaper in the short-term to just throw up a housing project than it is to hire and train people and make long-term monetary commitments to improving impoverished communities, but it's also a lot less effective, IMO.

Bartolo Colon will not pitch until May at the earliest. Bobby Crosby may be ready to face live pitching again.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Feb 26, 2007 -> 03:34 AM) SHE WAS NOT COVERT PEOPLE. The CIA requested the DOJ initiate an investigation into her outing by Novak. In other words, as far as the CIA was concerned, until her identity was leaked by Armitage, yes, she was covert in the eyes of the CIA.

QUOTE(bmags @ Feb 16, 2007 -> 02:03 PM) i'm estimating that a pretty badass piece by seymour hersh is gonna come out in the next couple of months. Yeah Yeah, like that was such a hard prediction to make. Hersh has been on this topic for what, 3 years now?

Then we have them build windmills. Gigantic windmills. And no I'm not joking. Those places I believe receive more wind more regularly than anywhere else in the country.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Feb 24, 2007 -> 03:42 PM) Wow, that looks like a guy I went to high school with. I thought it looked like Kirk Hinrich...

Chicago Tribune today.

QUOTE(WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Feb 23, 2007 -> 10:21 PM) Yep, Titans knew what they could be getting into when they drafted him. Still, it really is time for the NFL to enact stronger penalties for off-the-field behavior. The stuff we've seen in the last year is really getting excessive, especially when you start piling it in with the Ray Lewis, Jamal Lewis, and other guys' that we've seen in the years beforehand. A few games suspension from the team just doesnt' seem to cut it.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 23, 2007 -> 09:10 PM) Well there are TWO options A. STAY forever B. GET the hell OUT Which one do you like? If you pick B, then you agree with about everyone here. The disagreement becomes when. I think the first option is more like "Stay until even more people agree we should get the Hell out".