Balta1701

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 01:56 PM) of course. but aren't you against embargo's? remember, they are inhumane tools of the white male oppressor. like the ones cuba has to endure. it's not castro's fault cuba is poor, it's america's. Actually, I'm opposed to the Cuban embargo for one simple reason; I'm sick to death of having to drink soft drinks that substitute corn syrup for real sugar because that embargo has made real sugar more expensive than corn syrup in this country, but that's a different story. So let me ask this, do you think that if the U.S. started using its economic power as a negotiating tool to force developing nations to enforce Carbon limits as they develop, or set up a cap-and-trade system such that countries which clean up their act even more are further rewarded, it would be an inhumane thing? We're not talking about preventing people from getting medical supplies, or at least I hope not, all it would involve would be some establishment of a reward-based system for compliance with rules. THen the only remaining question is how stringent we want the rules to be.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 01:48 PM) I think you're ignoring the fact that you have 1,000,000 years worth of data out of how many millions? Isn't it possible that CO2 levels have fluctuated due to natural events that are beyond a 150, hell, a 1000 year window? Imagine the fear of the world if we went through a mini-ice age like what happend in the 1620's-1630's, the same time the Pilgrims were coming over here. People think it was strange that it was 60 in Dec, what would they think of blizzard/sub-freezing conditions going on into April like they experienced? Fixed that for you. Yes, it is entirely possible that CO2 levels have fluctuated due to natural events. But you know the other remarkable thing? By taking measurements of the CO2 concentration in oceanic surface waters, measuring the amount in the atmosphere, and doing some simple calculations, it can actually be shown quite readily that there is close to a 1 to 1 correlation within error between the amount of CO2 released by human burning of fossil fuels and the CO2 increase in the environment. The current rise in CO2 by 50% within 100 years is not only unprecedented within the last million years (in both the rapidity of the rise and the absolute value of the atmospheric CO2), it is also nearly entirely due to human consumption of fossil fuels. And the little ice age is in fact another good example of the real issue here; how tied humanity actually is to the climate. The little ice age killed quite a few humans, simply by disturbing crops. That's seriously all it takes. QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 01:51 PM) ah, so thats the excuse the left will use to let china off the hook for pollution. i was wondering what it would be. of course, it's america's fault. Did I not also suggest a solution that the U.S. could use to make Countries like China comply with new regulations?

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 01:41 PM) The main problem is, while we do this (and while the US could do better, it still does a better job than anyone else, imo) we have no ability to force other nations to do this and many 3rd world countries (and 2nd world/developing nations) are polutting like mad as they are essentially industrialist doing anything they can to make a buck (and yes, I'm sure many of those factories do in fact involve products us Americans are buying). Still, what body is going to truly enforce the entire world to clean up its act. Its great for the US to do so, but the US is far from the problem (even though we are obviously vast consumers). I want our country to strive to be leaders in the world (both economically, politically, environmentally and so on) but we also must find ways to force the hand of other countries (and thats going to be tricky). 2 points. 1. The U.S. is actually a HUGE part of the problem. In terms of energy consumption, the U.S., with something like 1/20th of the world's population, consumes over 25% of the world's resources, and therefore is producing over 25% of the world's CO2 outputs (and yes, it will be more if you consider the fact that many places in Europe are moving rapidly to cleaner sources of energy and the fact that a large chunk of the non-U.S. pollution is created to send products to the U.S.) If we ignore the U.S., we are quite literally ignoring the elephant in the room. 2. The U.S. itself can actually find ways of enforcing these sorts of measures if it really wants to. The nation simply doesn't have to take imports from every country that wants to send stuff here; we already embargo nations for other political reasons, there is absolutely nothing from stopping the U.S. from using its economic power to motivate nations to clean up their act.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 01:19 PM) And we will see climate changes regardless of what humans do. No one is going to tell me the first ice age was created by humans. Who do we blame for the dinosaurs dying off (and the climate being ridiculously hot at that time). We've had ice ages and times where the earth is much hotter and its been very cyclical. Sure humans may have some impact, but the long history of the earth shows many different time periods with drastic climate changes (that take place over a period of time). So yes, I think we should help the environment and do things as such, but maybe we should also realize we aren't necessarily the cause of global warming since the earth has had climate changes its entire history (and not all of them could have possibly changed by humans). Ok, this is simply wrong. Yes, the earth has had climate changes in the past, and yes, the earth will do so again. But The fact that the climate of the earth has changed in the past is in no way an argument that humanity can't change the climate of the earth, nor is it an argument that the current climate changes are not due to human activities. Right now, we believe we have a very solid understanding of the underlying principle here. A certain amount of light is radiated away from the earth. Gases in the atmosphere can absorb this light and prevent it from leaving. Water has done this for billions of years. But CO2 has been kept artificially low in the Earth's atmosphere by the fact that life takes up CO2 and stores it. Because CO2 is so low, when you add more CO2 to the atmosphere, you can significantly increase the amount of heat absorbed by that CO2, and therefore you can force the earth's surface temperature to rise so that it will emit heat at a different wavelength where CO2 does not absorb as much light. Simply saying "There are climate changes in the past and there will be again" is totally ignoring the reality of what we're doing. We've increased atmospheric CO2 by something like 50% in the past 150 years. Simplyt saying "oh the climate will change" ignores the abruptness of what we've done, and totally ignores the interdependence of humanity on the climate systems. Oh, and who do we blame for the dinosaurs dying off? Well first, evolution; they took a major hit with the development of angiosperms, the leaves of which their stomachs were not able to digest. Then, they were finished off by a very large impact event which killed large numbers instantly and left the rest to starve in a nuclear winter (they may very well have survived though had it not been for the development of flowering plants). Which I think is interesting because it is a nice illustration of how inter-dependent many of the systems on earth are; one thing changes, then a species moves to the brink, then a catastrophe happens and they're wiped out, but without the first change, they may well have survived.

QUOTE(knightni @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 01:04 PM) QB and WR are totally different in the learning curve. Very true. I'm just saying I think he'll be back trying out for an NFL team in a couple years.

Drew Henson says hi.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 12:19 PM) I bet global warming contributed to the end of the ice age. What do you think about that? Actually it did. In fact, humanity may even have played a part in the ending of that ice age...there are studies out there that do suggest that the climate cycle for the earth for the last 10,000 years or more may be strongly tied to human activity through such practices as deforestation or domestication and harvesting of crops. QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 11:51 AM) Considering I think for a large part global warming is more a natural issue than it is a polluting issue (Ie just globa temperature changes are cyclical as the history of the world has shown). Now I'm not saying pollution doesn't have an impact and I'm always for less pollution, but at the same time I don't buy into this end of the world global warming crap that a lot of people spew. The problem is, if there are people out there saying that global warming will end the world, they're not the ones you should be listening to. The earth and the human race in particular are remarkably adaptable systems, and anything less than a Venus-type greenhouse (highly unlikely, I can explain why if you'd like) won't put an end to civilization/life as we know it. On the other hand though, the fact that mankind will live through it does not mean that dramatically changing the climate won't be very very very very very bad, and that doesn't mean that it won't potentially kill or displace billions of people. Pretty much you name the feature of human existence, it is in some way tied to the climate. Shifting the climate shifts growing regions, shifts water resources, shifts shorelines, moves diseases, changes erosional patterns, and changes patterns of natural disasters. All it takes is a small shift to make many places where hundreds of millions of people live suddenly become uninhabitable.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 11:21 AM) From the Irish to the Cubs... well at least I get to keep my irrational hatred of the guy. And as a former Portage Indian, I'm happy to throw Valparaiso onto that list too.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 11:01 AM) It's most. All except Elbert were above AA. And Elbert was #55, while Danks was #59. So in other words, of the class of lefties who should be starting around AAA this season, Danks was ranked as the 2nd best by BA last year. And Elbert didn't exactly murder folks at AA last season (1.35 WHIP, 11 home runs in 11 games), so it's at worst a wash.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 11:05 AM) Samardzija decides on baseball. So much for all that 2-sport stuff. With the money the Cubs threw at him, that's hard to disagree with. But anyway, does anyone else have a feeling he'll be in the NFL within a few years anyway? (Drew Henson)

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 09:33 AM) You're getting the shirt, aren't you? If they sold those they'd make a fortune.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 09:48 AM) I think you got the first link wrong there tigre. Fixed.

Colbert on O'Reilly O'Reilly on Colbert

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 09:15 AM) Very first part of this He is not the best left handed pitching prospect in baseball. And best left handed is sorta similar to tallest midget, only slightly more meaningful. I mean, how much would it matter if he was in fact the best left handed pitching prospect if there were 40 other right handed pitching prospects better than him? FWIW, he was ranked 59th on BA's top 100 prospects last year. LH pitchers in front of him were Francisco Liriano, Jon Lester, Scott Olson, Adam Loewen, Jeremy Sowers, and Scott Elbert. When BA is evaluating their prospects, they also take into account which level of the minor leagues a player should be starting at, because people can sometimes hit a level and then plateau out or struggel. To my eyes, either most or all of that list of pitchers you just gave were expected to start last season at AAA or above, while Danks hadn't even pitched a full season at AA when the 06 rankings came out.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 09:15 AM) His quote said citizen. In any case, now with context, it reads to me like the AG is (as usual) more interested in arguing on behalf of political policy than actually interpereting and enforcing the law. The AG should not be a shill for the President. The AG shouldn't be one, but just running through my head, I'm having difficulty remembering any AG in recent years who hasn't gone out of their way to try to protect the President. Am I wrong in that?

House passes bill cutting subsidies to oil companies and fixing a $10 billion error in the original writing of the leases for several Gulf of Mexico drilling regions. That makes 6/6 in the House if I'm counting correctly. And in about 42 hours of time-on-the-floor.

QUOTE(dmbjeff @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 08:59 AM) Actually they are all still in MLB, maybe not Grilli though. Just because they didn't flourish here, doesn't mean they didn't become productiv somewhere else. That was sarcasm. Grilli is in the bullpen and having a ton of success with the Tigers. Someone used Scott Ruffcorn to argue that liek 90% of our prospects don't pan out and we should just consider giving up on them, so I fired back that list of guys who started struggling and who the White Sox shipped out, only to have them become successful in other locals.

Ah, Here we go, with video.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jan 18, 2007 -> 08:58 PM) Now, i should clarify at this point, that he is not saying enron didn't do anything wrong, what Malcolm Gladwell, who wrote the article, is saying is that business deals are getting so complicated that we need to change the way we look at companies to prevent such a failure. As he pointed out, if we were to look at their tax returns we saw that they weren't paying any income tax, because they weren't making any money. it was really fascinating, i encourage you all to try and find it. Just because I think it's important to point out...Enron did a hell of a lot of things wrong in California back in 2001. They took advantage of lax regulations and lax enforcement of the laws to cause an energy crisis in California by shuttering power plants, then ran rates through the ceiling, bilking the state out of billions.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 07:55 AM) What is this in reference too? What is the context of the quote? From an unofficial transcript, so the text could be slightly off:

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Jan 18, 2007 -> 09:40 PM) Only one guy out of like 6 is picking us over at CNNSI.com. Everywhere I look people are taking the Saints. It's quite sad. This is how it ALWAYS happens when you put a dominant defense up against a dominant offense. The sportwriter people jump at the offense; it's just damn sexy. Then, just as with every other playoff game, it will wind up being won by whichever defense plays better. My favorite example of this was the Tampa Bay/Oakland Super Bowl a few years ago. Every freaking sportwriter, along with most of the gambling world, was in love with Oakland's # 1 offense. How could Brad freaking Johnson win a Super Bowl right? Well, then Tampa bay's #1 defense came out and destroyed them. At the end of that game they told us that a top 5 offense had met a top 5 defense in the Super Bowl something like 7 times, and the top defense had won 6 of those. Offense seduces sportwriters. Defense wins championships. The only question is whether or not the Bears will remember that they have some Balls on defense.

This signing is probably the least important of any of the signings Cleveland has made this offseason, but once again, it doesn't exactly hurt them. The Tribe just keeps looking better and better on paper. Now they have a backup in case Choo struggles for part of the year. God this team scares me.

QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 06:44 AM) For every one "Joe Crede" there are ten "Scott Ruffcorns" Yeah. Jon Rauch Jason Grilli Gary Majewski Kip Wells Keith Foulke Bobby Howry Scott Eyre All of them washed up former White Sox prospects, and, while I'm too lazy to look, I'm just going to assume that none of them are in the big leagues any more.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jan 18, 2007 -> 10:55 AM) In other news the Prosecutor in the Balco case has been asked to step down. It doesnt mean that it is over, but it does mean that the Prosecutor did something to tick some one really important off. For those who haven't been watching, this is actually not an isolated case. It seems that in the USA Patriot Act, power was given to the White House to appoint prosecutors to fill vacancies that appear without Senate approval, and within the last couple weeks, by some counts 7-10 different Prosecutors have resigned their posts or been casually pushed aside, including quite a few who had spent time prosecuting government corruption cases. So, it wasn't necessarily related to this case, and there appears to be some heavy backroom maneuvering going on involving this whole matter that we don't yet understand.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 18, 2007 -> 10:12 AM) You know what, though? I think the Democrats WANT this to be tabled. But that's just me. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a bunch on both sides who wanted it to just disappear, but it's certainly worth noting which group decided to make it happen.