Balta1701

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 08:57 AM) wouldn't passing a note to a flight attendant be suspicious activity? Seemingly, not if it accuses a Muslim person of anything.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 08:45 AM) I've also found a couple articles that said they were praying during boarding. I also see no problem with praying during boarding of the plane as long as they're not interfering with the process of getting people on or disobeying the instructions of a flight attendent.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 08:27 AM) Given the nature of Richards controversy right now, and where the Letterman Show is taped, it may have been strategy to try and keep the audience in the dark. If they did know full well what it was all about, the reaction may have been a bit more vocal and Richards may not have gotten a word in. It was obvious that the audience had no idea what was going on. Letternan isn't live, right? Letterman is filmed in the late afternoon in NY. The video and news reports were available online earlier in the morning, so it's probable that some of them had seen it. The majority probably hadn't though

QUOTE(juddling @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 08:30 AM) ***note: the news story i heard on the radio was that they stood up in the aisle of the plane. That was not in the story posted so if anyone is wondering.that's where i got that fact from. So, there are 2 fundamentally different versions here to react to. If the version you're presenting is the true one, then yes, there was cause for removal - getting up and taking up space in a plane aisle and refusing to be seated The version in the article above suggests that there was no disturbance on the plane, including no prayers, until a passenger passed a note to a flight attendent. It also suggests that they conducted their evening prayers in the terminal before boarding the plane.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 06:52 AM) I'd pretty much agree with Tex. For most purposes, the drug companies are motivated to spend a lot (and do) on R&D anyway - and the patent laws are there to protect that cause. Unless something comes along that is a national epidemic (read: national health/security threat), then the only funding I see needed from the government in that way is high-threat pathogen stuff they do at CDC (hemorragic fevers like Ebola and Marburg, or weaponized bio-weapons like Anthrax, or other such nasty beasties). I'd also be OK with the profit-sharing to help the poor if the government happened upon something valuable as Tex suggested, since everyone would benefit. Excellent idea, sir. For most cases, this is fundamentally incorrect. The Drug companies have virtually no interest in actually finding a cure for most diseases; it's the least profitable way to treat a sick patient. By far a more profitable action is to treat the symptom, or to find a way to treat the patient's symptoms and keep them alive without curing them, because then the patient is dependent on the drug company for the long-term. There is a reason that a huge slice of the products we're seeing produced by drug companies in the past few years treat things like Acid Reflux disease, erectile dysfunction, and so on; it's much, much, much more profitable to create a drug that a patient has to take several hundred times than it is to create a new cure for something that a patient takes to become fully healthy. Drug company research has a fundamentally different goal than that of research done by the government. Drug company research is done with its priority as: what would be the most profitable, government research is done as: what is the most useful, most high potential research. A drug company will not turn away money of course if a cure is developed, but developing cures is not their business.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 07:55 AM) This is incredibly short-sighted, imo. The death of this student would have been tragic, no doubt, however, the abuse, rape, or death of a student or students because the campus cops weren't doing their jobs and a student infiltrated the library would be horrific. Which is why you escort the person out. You're acting like there was no other option here other than tasing the person, which at least based on the info we have so far, doesn't appear true at all. (If there was video that proved the kid had charged at one of the police officers in a violent manner, I think either we'd have seen tha video by now or at least had it described to us, but instead, we're hearing about how UCLA policy is that its ok to tase passive resisters, which suggests that yes, the kid was not being aggressive).

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 06:13 AM) This is the worst contract of the entire off season, the Soriano deal included. I have a feeling baseball fans will be able to argue about what the worst contract of the 2006 offseason is for many years to come.

So the big question: is there anyone of note that this leaves unprotected?

QUOTE(klaus kinski @ Nov 20, 2006 -> 09:00 PM) I wonder what the plan is though, because with all the signings, we apparently are not involved in anything . It bugs me that we have to trade for similar players other teams get without losing players. We gain by losing-and that costs depth. So our choice right now is between expending depth from our minor league organization (and the majors to some extent) to bring in talent from other teams or getting into spending matches with teams that have almost completely opened the checkbook? I see no problem at all with standing pat in this market. In the late 90's, probably culminating in 2000 with ARod and Manny, there was a huge surge in spending, much of it questionable, by baseball's owners as they realized they had more money than they were paying out in salary and decided to use it to try to win games and bring in more fans. Then, for a couple of years, suddenly a lot of those insane contracts dried up, and you just didn't see people matching $180 million or $250 million deals like you'd expect if contracts would keep going up. Teams overspent to bring in talent when they had money, and suddenly the teams who had bided their time a little bit were able to find some potential bargains, like right fielders for $5-$6 million a year and so on. Now suddenly, baseball's revenue stream has expanded again, there are more teams with more money, and there is a lack of people on the market to take advantage of that money, and therefore, we're running into another insane surge of spending, $17 million a year deals for guys in their 30's, weak hitting leadoff guys who rely on speed pushing $10 million a year, $51 million just for the right to negotiate with a pitcher, etc. The smart money is not being spent in the FA Market this year, the desperate money is. The smart money is realizing it's only a matter of time before the teams dumping out these contracts find themselves having overspent their new revenues, leaving themselves hamstrung in the future and creating the opportunity for more intelligent deals for the smart teams down the road.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 20, 2006 -> 09:39 PM) Yea, it's always different, and somehow it always comes back to something caused by Bush. Thanks for making my point for me. I seem to recall that Clinton, Kerry, and others in the Democratic Party voted FOR the war... oh, but Bush lied. /ROLLY They had the same damn evidence shoved under all of their noses, and chose to commit to war. OH WAIT, it's different. It always is. Man, that's one hell of a flipping of topics. You complain that Rangel is bringing this out as a way of giving the finger to Bush. I don't really dispute that, whether or not the merits of the proposal are worthy or not, he's certainly bringing this up exactly right now because it's 2 weeks after the election, Iraq's still a mess, and Rangel's using the specter of a draft to make a political point before the new Congress comes into session, and probably piss Bush off a little bit. Yet on the other hand, when Bush renominates guys like Bolten, Tomlinson, and half a dozen judges, all of whom the Senate has already rejected, right after the election, and I try to point out to you that basically the day the Senate was called for the Dems Bush was already flipping the Dems the middle finger, suddenly you jump onto bashing Kerry and Clinton and others for being almost as ungodly wrong as Bush was about the war. Let me make this simple; there is no great military reason for Charlie Rangel to be calling for a draft right now. The draft is only needed if we decide to put more troops into Iraq. It is done entirely to score political points and to give a big "FU". If you have a problem with that, then you must have a problem with Mr. Bush giving repeated FU's to the new majority in terms of firing off every possible nominee he could to the Senate before the Dems take power, most of whom were already rejected by the current Senate.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 20, 2006 -> 07:18 PM) I think that Rangel issuing this is a hypocritical thumb it in your nose move. That's why this bothers me. So much for the "new tone" and "work together" bulls*** that was spewed a day after the election. And Bush hasn't spent the last 2 weeks flipping the bird to the new majority?

Stealing from a blog, here's the text of his appearance on Letterman.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 20, 2006 -> 05:23 PM) I think that will be a real nice 1-2 punch for the Dodgers and in the NL that will really be nice for them. A bit too many years/money but he's a good player who is vastly under-rated and appreciated on this board. Again, another team that can afford to spend an extra couple million a year as they work to restore there fan base now that a 2nd team has stole there thunder (see Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim). Well, yes, that is a good 1-2 punch at the top of their order, but it still leaves them with a major potential weakness, in that they really don't have a ton of punch in their lineup to drive those guys in, especially if Kent/Nomar constantly struggle with Injuries as they seem like they will.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Nov 20, 2006 -> 05:14 PM) Danks/Masset isn't overpaying, as I would hope for -- but about equal value. Trading for 'equal value' shouldn't be our objective. That's all I'm suggesintg. If we only move 1 guy, moving him for "equal value" is acceptable if that is the best we can do. We simply don't know how desperate these teams are for pitching yet, and they may be a lot more willing to part with money than with prospects. McCarthy must get into the rotation, and we must get something for one of those guys, and we must free up some money to re-up with Buehrle this offseason if he's the one not traded. Those must happen, no matter what our offers are. The rest all depends on what others offer us.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 20, 2006 -> 04:35 PM) But, he didn't say he wanted to blow the f***ing thing up, which is what trading Dye would be. So, based on that statement, can we all agree that KW is going to blow the F***ing thing up? Seriously though, you may go into an offseason not planning on blowing the whole thing up, and then run into a team or two who are desperate enough for your guys that they're willing to turn your team into a title contender for the next 10 years, and the only cost is you have to part with a couple guys who are a year from Free Agency? Given what teams are spending for veterans on the FA Market this offseason, you can't rule out the possibility of some team giving up the farm for a couple of our guys, and if that happens, I wouldn't be too mad.

QUOTE(R.Sweeney @ Nov 20, 2006 -> 04:43 PM) The starting pitching market is a bit different this year with sky-rocketing prices and the free-agent market being so thin if KW holds out he will get good returns for one of the starters. ...or more than one of them (given the same market conditions you refer to, it does sort of make sense to sell when the bids might be the highest)

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Nov 20, 2006 -> 04:05 PM) I have a really, really hard time justifying trading Dye, for almost anything. However, Furcal makes alot of f***ing sense right now. Yeah, I know, I don't like the idea of trading our WS MVP either, but as a business decision alone, looking towards the future, that has the potential to be a really, really good deal for both sides. The Dodgers need power. JD has power. JD has one year left on his contract, and another year like last year and he'll be looking at more money per year than Konerko got. JD also is coming off a career year, so his trade value could be its highest. JD also plays at a position where the Dodgers just lost one of their better bats. And the Dodgers have an awfully large pool of talent waiting in the winds over there. The Dodgers might not mind Uribe and his big number of strikeouts if he gave them a few more home runs as well. The cost to LA would have to be through the roof given what JD did last year, but they're in a position where they could pay through the roof and still be stocked for quite some time.

At least he didn't wind up with the Twins.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Nov 20, 2006 -> 03:50 PM) But that top of the order...whew...Pierre and Furcal. That's some major speed up there. Unless the Dodgers would want to part with Furcal? You know...with the surplus of power bats that the White Sox have, and the combination of Furcal and young talent the Dodgers have, there might be something that could be done there. If the Sox were open to trading Jermaine Dye...that would be an incredibly perfect match.

So, in one of those things they probably didn't mean for the folks on the internet to catch, Kaiser did a study of what cancer tends to do to the economic situation of those unfortunate enough to be struck with it. Here's a summary pulled from a blog, the full data is at that page if you're willing to wade into it.

Thank you Jesus. Thank you. Man did I not want this guy. This fills in Kenny Lofton's spot for the Dodgers, which helps them some. Trouble is of course that offensively, the Dodgers biggest problem last year was their total lack of power, and with the loss of J.D. Drew, the only way it's going to get better is for guys like Betemit, Martin, Ethier, and maybe Kemp to step up their power hitting a lot more. Especially as Nomah and Kent get older.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Nov 20, 2006 -> 03:38 PM) Anyone else think that J.D Drew would have been a much better fit for the Cubs for CF, due to the better OBP? Would have been cheaper than Soriano as well. If I were to look only at the OBP number, I'd say yes. But I am really, really, really not a fan of J.D. Drew, as a person, or as a ballplayer. I don't think he can stay healthy at all, I think he hurts his team by holding himself out of games that other ballplayers would play in with injuries as an excuse, I think he's more interested in his own numbers and unwilling to change his approach to hitting at all depending on the situation, and I think he hurts any clubhouse he gets put in (not as much as Barry Bonds for example, but he's not an asset in that way). QUOTE(The Critic @ Nov 20, 2006 -> 03:42 PM) As it stands, they're still going to strike out a lot, but they have a lot of bangers too. But the worry with the Cubs is that they really don't have anyone who can get on base in front of those bangers. So they'll hit a lot of home runs, and almost all of their runs will come on home runs, but they may score the fewest runs on those home runs you could imagine.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Nov 20, 2006 -> 01:54 PM) It's quite remarkable to me that a network with no shame could be shamed into cancelling this show. $$$$$.

Putin 08.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 20, 2006 -> 03:14 PM) the average person doesn't yell that out during this altercation....they say "damn that really hurts...okay I'll start listening to you" You seriously think that a person wouldn't scream out if they were hit with a Taser for no aggressive action in the middle of a crowd? If I was hit with one of those in a crowded room for what I felt was nothing, I'd start screaming like a madman just to get more witnesses.