Balta1701

Linkity The full text of the letter is at the link.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Sep 9, 2006 -> 09:35 PM) I was at tonights game. My thoughts are I loved how our offense approached it tonight. Hitting the ball where it was pitched If it was center in or middle of the plate they pulled it and sent it out, if it was away they hit it to right center. Very sweet looking O tonight. it is games like tonight that have taken me from despising Greg Walker last year back to praising him somewhat like I was doing in 2004 (before I was at this board). Our hitters went up there with a plan on how to beat these guys, and they acted on it step by step. There have been quite a few games this season where you could see that they had plans, and had success doing it. The prime example is still our beating up on Halladay. Yeah, some of our guys have struggled at times or gotten pull-happy of late, but I've been much happier with Walker this season than last.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Sep 9, 2006 -> 09:19 PM) Even though Boone Logan didn't do so well tonight, he has good stuff. A nice breaking ball, and a fastball that can reach 96 at times. So, what I am getting at, do any of you think Kenny might trade Cotts, and use Logan in the pen? I am a bit hesitant to trade Cotts, because he is still cheap, young, and did have a 2 era a year ago. And, he hasn't looked right this second half, either he is injured, or has to work out some mental issues. No offense to Neal....who we'll all still love for 2005, and who will spend decades telling his family tales of what its like to pitch in the ALCS...I am more and more thinking that this is exactly what we should do this offseason. My reasoning: 1. Thor's hammer. If we only had 1 left in the pen, this would be a terrible idea, because I honeslty don't want Logan pitching into the 8th inning in a tie game against Hafner yet. But we have a freaking NASTY lefty sitting down there in the pen to come in otherwise. So Logan's innings would be more limited, and less high-pressure than Thor's, and he'd have time to develop in that role. 2. Marte. Marte was the best lefty reliever in baseball in 2003 IMO (outside of closers). In 2004, he was a step worse, and in 2005, he was even worse. If we'd traded him after 2004, we'd have gotten a lot more than Mackowiak. If Cotts were to stay with us in 2007 and then we decide to give the Legend his role...his trade value would decline significantly if he were 2 years away from a good season instead of 1. 3. Our minor leagues. Seriously...the value of a Loogy who put up a 2.00 ERA and a 4.xx ERA in 2 years is vastly higher than it should be for most contending teams. We might be able to get people to overpay for Cotts more than anyone else in our lineup. 4. Logan. I really like what I've seen from the kid, he has a very tricky motion, and I think he really will be a good LOOGY very soon. I really want him to go to winterball this season, and hopefully he'll come back next season even more acclimated to his delivery. 5. $. Logan will hit arbitration several years after Cotts. That's a difference of 5-10 million dollars, depending on how Cotts performs the next year or two. Whether or not this team hits the playoffs, and especially if they don't, I think penciling in Logan into the #2 Lefty role next year is probably the smart move, if we can find the right trade partner.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Sep 9, 2006 -> 09:16 PM) Bring back the Whimpster. Whimpy and Hawk were the best. I miss Whimpy. He's the color guy for the Nationals now. QUOTE(whitesox1976 @ Sep 9, 2006 -> 09:20 PM) Black Jack did pretty good as an announcer. It was different without Hawk. Harrellson and DJ are good announcers. Black Jack is nice as long as he has new things/perspectives to talk about that we don't hear a lot of times...since our usual 2 announcers aren't Cy Young winners. Honestly though...sometimes I enjoy the homerism, the hawkisms, and the back & forth between Hawk & DJ. It gives a real spice to conversations that could really get repetitive over the course of a couple seasons.

Will Matthew Broderick and Sally Field be in Wargames 2? Will Jessica Alba acutally wind up nude in "Into the Blue 2"? Those are my only questions. Thank you.

God I miss that skyline...spent some time walking around downtown L.A. for the first time this week...and it's just not even close.

QUOTE(GoRowand33 @ Sep 9, 2006 -> 09:08 PM) tomorrow is f***ing huge now 3/4 would be a big boost after the embarrassment we took thursday, and it'd be payback for a similar 4 game set in cleveland last year if we can pull it together A win tomorrow and we are either 2.5 behind Detroit with 3 games left against Detroit, or we're .5 games up in the Wild Card. Yeah, Tomorrow is freaking Gigantic. Jopefully Javy can keep on the roll he's been on lately.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 9, 2006 -> 10:27 AM) It amazes me how the Democrats are all in a panty-wad tight uproar about this. From what I hear, there's plenty of blame to go around, on all accounts, but the 20 miuutes of "Clinton blame" is JUST too much!!! OMG!!@#$!%!!!!! At least based on every one of the reviews I've read, it sure seems like there's well more than jsut 20 minutes of Clinton Blame, not to mention the "making Bush look slightly better" that I mentionned earlier. For example, the "Berger hanging up on CIA guys wanting to kill Bin Laden" happens at only about 2 hours into the movie, so it's not like it's just stuck in there at the end, it's the end of a whole segment. And the film goes to a lot of effort to link the Lewinsky scandal to 9/11 afterwards, and so on. LA Times Review Washington Post Review The film was focused enough to even convince the NYT's reviewer (damn liberal media!) of a complete falsehood. This is not just a side 20 minutes in the film. This is a significant fraction of it. And again, you ask why Democrats have their panties in a wad about this? I'll respond again...how would you like it if on the anniversary of 9/11, CBS decided to show a 2 day, commercial free marathon of Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11, in the middle of an election season? And then marketed this marathon by giving advance warning of weeks, and advance previews of some sort, only to left leaning columnists, radio personalities, and bloggers? And then marketed it as the truth about gun control and 9/11?

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 11:03 PM) Lance Broadway would likely disappear in a deal like that. If it could be done in any sort of deal involving Broadway and not McCarthy or Anderson...it's worth doing.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Sep 9, 2006 -> 09:21 AM) The common claim among doubters of 9/11 is that there is no way that the towers should have collapsed because the burning jet fuel wouldn't have been hot enough to melt steel, so therefore sinister forces must be at work. While technically true (steel will not be melted by burning kerosene), there are many factors this theory ignores. First, kerosene wasn't the only thing burning. Everything in that office building would have went up. Second, buring kerosene will seriously weaken the steel, as you said. This guy also claimed to have produced nuclear cold fusion before. He's completely full of crap. He should rightfully be fired if this is the material he researches and publishes. I wouldn't want my University associated with this man's 'work' I saw a beautiful demonstration last night on the Discovery Channel of the actual physics involved. They spent a while talking about the pre-911 status of the fireproofing, and how it had been found to be very, very poor in both buildings well before the attacks, to the point that they were re-doing floors 1 at a time. Literally, gaps in the fireproofing all over the place before the retrofits. Their little Feynman-esque experiment was to put weight on a metal truss, and light a flame underneath it with a gas stove. On a piece that was fully fire-proofed, it was able to hold a lot of weight. They then moved the same weights and fire onto a truss that had exactly 1 small segment, about an inch long, that was un-coated with fire-proofing. That point began to bend, and it totally failed right there because it couldn't hold the weight. In tower 1, which stood several hours longer, most of the floors that were hit had been re-coated with new fireproofing. In tower 2, none of the floors had been redone, and it only lasted about 28 minutes, IIRC.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 9, 2006 -> 11:39 AM) You don't actually think that is what is upsetting, do you? I could give two craps about Clinton's legacy. The point is that it is being marketed as a documentary, with some connotation of truth, when it is apparently nothing more than a political scheme. Its slimy as hell. That is what bothers me. Put commercials with it, and change "based on the 9/11 Commission Report" to something like "suggested by...", and I'm fine with it. Its still slimey, but at least it isn't an out and out use of public broadcast time to gain a political end. "The Story of Exactly What happened" = Disney's marketing slogan for this overseas.

Come on Ryan, stay out of Brian territory

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 06:46 PM) Great 2 strike swings this inning so far. This team really needs that big gapper/slam to break it open. Hi Mr. Farmer. (Slam, slam slam slam!)

QUOTE(Dam8610 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 06:45 PM) Because, like you said, he's a FORMER White Sox player. I'd rather not hear about him helping the A's to the playoffs, but I suppose I'm in the minority on that. If we don't start playing better, I'll be rooting for Frank.

When's the next time the Mickey Mouse copyright law comes up for renewal? I'm hoping it's soon enough that the Democrats remember this. 2 FBI guys resign because of the historical problems...so when they find a 3rd, they don't ask him to pay any attention to that part.

I donate all the time, usually shoot for at least 5 times per year...I haven't had problems with being asked to sit and read things or to repeat my name and SSN repeatedly. QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 05:32 PM) I trust the Red Cross to spend that 4 mil better than the US Government. I think society loses when we take money from a good charity and give it to the government. I also don't like the government having a profit motive in collecting these fines. The Red Cross hasn't exactly had a stellar record of dispersing funds and other donations given to it in the past few years either...not even counting this matter.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 06:29 PM) Howard Pujols if the Phils don't make the playoffs and Howard doesn't reach 60.

David Sirota had a bit of a snit with that same Dan Gerstein. Seems that a lot of people don't like that guy.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 02:50 PM) I would like to point out that Brian Anderson has raised his batting average 60 points in the last two months, and although he is currently in a 3-16 slump, he has been hitting .285 over the last ten games. WORST BASEBALL PLAYER EVER.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 01:58 PM) well, there have been entire series (aka, west wing) that portray demcrats in a very positive light. i would think they would be fairly happy with the ratio of pro-democrat television to criticism of democrats shown on network television. did you think the Reagan miniseries should have been moved to showtime? or did you think it was censorship. I think it belonged on Showtime. Seriously, who thinks it's a good idea to put Barbara Streisand's husband in a picture about Ronald Reagan while he's suffering from Alzheimer's? That sure didn't belong on network/free TV.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 01:45 PM) haha, this is great one miniseries that might make the democrats look bad might actually sneak on TV and all the left wingers are going nuts. Because the political right wing would never do such a thing... Oh wait.

Is it considered one of Indiana's terror targets? (Edit: By the way, I like the choice of Simpsons quotes as the subject)

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 01:14 PM) Wow. So lets assume that a prof teaches economics for 10 years, gains tenure, and then decides he wants to express his opinions about the wonderful economic benefits of slavery and how we were wrong for abolishing it. Is that something that should be protected under 'academic freedom?' Yes. I believe it is. There's a reason tenured faculty positions exist...because they give professors a right to come forwards with unpopular views which are often incorrect but sometimes do wind up advancing the field they're in. I'll give you geology as an example, because I know it fairly well for some reason. There's a guy down the hall from me who about 10 years ago started pushing the idea that the Earth froze over completely, all the way down to the equator, at various positions in history. At the time, it was considered quite ludicrous. Now, it's become quite accepted. On the other hand, there are still people who refuse to believe in plate tectonics, for whatever reason. Both of those points of view might seem to the majority of people to be wrong, and significantly so, but in the end, more evidence comes out, and it looks like one of them turned out to be right. That a person advocates a theory, no matter how unpopular, should not on its own be a reason for firing a professor. If the professor you're talking about decides to purchase a couple slaves to prove his theory right...then you should be able to fire that prof. Or if the Nazi prof goes out and starts organizing violence against Jews, then of course you can fire them. But the principle of tenure/academic freedom has so many benefits that the few problems and hypotheticals people come up with against it simply aren't strong arguments. It's sort of the same way I view free speech. We might be better off if there were no Nazis or hate groups out espousing their ideology. But we wouldn't be better off if the government told them they couldn't say that.

QUOTE(BobDylan @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 01:00 PM) It should be Country Demolition Night or Paris Hilton Demolition Night. How about "Cleveland Indians demolition night"? I think I'd prefer that. A few times in a row.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 12:57 PM) After the partitian the wars were basically over and in the Kashmir region. There really hasn't been a full scale attack or invasion of the countries outside of the disputed regions. The 1971 war was more over Bengledesh, and trying to secure their freedom from Pakistan than anything else, more to free up one of its borders from a mortal enemy. This war only lasted about two weeks. That doesn't mean it wasn't a large scale conflict, that involved a massive defeat of the Pakistani armed forces. Via the Wikipedia entry Edit: anyway, that's just a side point, so i'll stop derailing any actual discussion here.