Balta1701

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 12:37 PM) The stories of the flights from/to Pakistan after the partitician and the history of the immediately after are amazing. Lots of their history paralells the history of Israel, as a country was just carved out of somewhere that wasn't there before, and then the human flight of people trying to get where they wanted to be. Much of the history of violence, hatred and nearly perpetual war also seems to follow the history of the middle east. I think the one difference is that in this case the big difference is that India just has more human power and sheer size than Israel, which doesn't allow for full scale wars that we routinely see in the middle east. I also believe that India has been much luckier in the peaceful leaders they have seen over the years, all though I think part of that goes back to the ability to overwealm an enemy that India naturally posesses. I don't know if the facts truly back that up. India and Pakistan first went to war right after partition, in the late 40's, just like the Middle East, and that was followed up by another full scale war between India and Pakistan in 1965 and another one in 1971. There was also a war in 1962 between India and China. The thing that has prevented a lot of the "full scale wars" we've seen in the Middle East from happening since the 70s is, IMO, the bomb, which India first developed in the 70's (they tested a "Peaceful nuclear device, whatever the Hell that is) and Pakistan developed sometime afterwards. Unlike Israel, which has no one who can counter them if they strike, India and Pakistan can only go so far militarily any more without tens of millions of people vaporizing. Israel for 25 years has been able to strike at anyone with impunity, because no one can strike back and defeat them.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 12:31 PM) I've seen the scene where they falsely protray that Clinton put a stop to killing Osama who was in their sights. 9/11 commission called BS on that story. The one time they could have gotten him, they tried - and failed. BTW, I do actually agree that the Clinton admin should take some blame for 9/11. not a lot, but some. I just hate to see this sort of drama being marketed as fact. Oh, his administration definately takes some blame. They could have acted on the Cole faster (the CIA was almost convinced by Dec 00 that Bin Laden's group was responsible, but they were nervous about another Sudan-type strike, especially right before Bush's people took over). They could have put significantly more effort at disrupting or attacking Bin Laden's organization in the late 90's. They could have accepted higher rates of civilian casualties than they were willing to risk to get UBL. The President could have used more of the bully pulpit to put the focus on UBL's group, no matter how many times the Republicans cried "Wag the Dog." They could have conducted more thorough analyses of airport security, especially after the McVeigh attack...i mean, for crying out loud, knives were freaking legal on planes then! They could have put resources and money into trying to build a stable state in Afghanistan before the Taliban took over. And so on, and so on, and so on. In a disaster as big as 9/11, there's an absolute ton of blame that can be put around. The Clinton's get plenty. The Bush's get plenty. The problem of course is this movie takes all of the blame that the Clinton administration gets, tries to find every way possible to multiply that blame, and then excuses the Bush's.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 12:17 PM) Are we in 'big game' territory yet for Freddy or what? When do his spidey senses start tingling? 2007.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 12:14 PM) Mackowiak at 3B tonight Yay! We get a guy to back up Crede, and finally he gets to back up Crede! And he doesn't play CF!

QUOTE(Goldmember @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 11:51 AM) it should be held to the same standard as other historical event movies, all of such genre should definitely be held to a higher standard then all the scott peterson-esque movies. all are still movies, however, and people know (at least they should) liberties will be taken. haven't heard that (all i've seen are the commercials--'based on 9-11 commision report') and frankly don't care, because 1) i won't be watching, no matter what and 2) like a pointed out above, it is a dramatization and liberties will be (and in some instances, have to be) taken... Yes, I'm willing to admit that a film such as this is a dramatization and liberties can and will be taken just to put something like this on film. But the scenes that are causing so much controversy are ones which are clearly beyond the bounds of what anyone would consider to be liberties taken to put the story on film...they are liberties taken to clearly make the story seem worse for the Clintons and better for the Bushes. The most infamous is a scene where CIA operatives are on the phone with Sandy Berger saying that they have Bin Laden targeted and asking permission to take him out, where Berger says no and slams down the phone. ABC responded by explaining that the slamming down of the phone was a liberty they took. Only problem was...according to all sources, that entire event never happened. The U.S. never was even able to get people within Afghanistan, let alone have Bin Laden directly targeted as is predicted. Angrily slamming the phone down, yeah that's a liberty I can understand. Inventing an entire scene like that one? Some of the other stuff they've invented, according to people who have seen the film, involve Dr. Rice going around and telling everyone how concerned Mr. Bush was about the August 6th PDB, the "Bin Laden determined to attack inside U.S." one. Even according to Dr. Rice's own testimony before the 911 commission, the memo was supposed to be "Purely historical", and thus it provoked almost no response from the Bush administration. Heck, an FBI Agent who reportedly was working with the production of the film quit half-way throguh it because they were "Making stuff up". This is not taking liberties to get the thing to look better on film. This is deliberately retelling the story in such a way as to make one party look as good as possible and the other look as bad as possible.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 11:48 AM) Why do people think Sweeney is a natural CF? He's passable out there, and better than Rob, but he's much better suited for the corners. BECAUSE BRIAN ANDERSON IS THE WORST THING EVER TO HAPPEN TO BASEBALL AND SHOULD NEVER PLAY AGAIN!!!!

QUOTE(WCSox @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 11:43 AM) I don't think that Gload's upside is high enough to keep him around if it's absolutely necessary to obtain a right-handed backup outfielder. Mackowiak could play 1B if need be. If somebody needs to be dropped to make space for a right-handed 4th OF, I'd rather it be Gload than Mackowiak, Cintron, or Ozuna. Personally, I'd make it one of Cintron/Ozuna if I was dumping someone for a 5th outfielder. Why? First, because Cintron and Ozuna can cover most of the same positions. Second, because Mackowiak can cover some of those same positions (3b, 2b) as well (if he's not locked into CF), thus giving us 3 backups at each of those positions, which is more than I think we need.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 11:27 AM) So you'd be cool with a prof who was a Nazi? If he was tenured and did not violate any university policies otherwise, yes. Presumably there would be quite a few obstacles for such a man earning tenure however...universities do have the rights to choose who they hire, whether the work being done by people they hire is good work, and whether the people they hire deserve tenure. If a professor earns tenure from a university, he should not be fired for his views no matter what his views become. That is the heart of academic freedom. If he were to violate other university policy, i.e. having covered up parts of his beliefs to get tenure or something like that, then the university might have cause, but that's a specific case.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 11:19 AM) Then release him. Or would that be a bad move as well? :rolleyes With Jim Thome still on this team...I believe it would be a bad one. Gload gives us a backup plan at 1st base if either Konerko or Thome are hurting...and I don't want Jim Thome playing first to be the backup option when Konerko needs time off.

QUOTE(Goldmember @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 11:11 AM) so when some of you see a movie that says 'based on a true story,' do you think that is exactly how those events happened? Is "Based on a true story" the same thing as saying "Based on the 9/11 commission report"? I think the latter convey far more weight in terms of saying it follows specific details, because of what it is claiming to be based on. Secondly, do you think that a film about 9/11 should be held to a higher standard than your usual movie of the week? Is 9/11 more important than Scott Peterson, for example? Furthermore, Fox News reported that the producers of the movie told them it was based "solely and completely on the 9/11 Commission Report.”, which is some pretty specific language being peddled by that network.

I don't think I like him being put on suspension for it...but it is a paid suspension...and the university has had trouble with him before. If it were a publically funded university I'd be pretty darn angry. It'd be real disappointing though, and say a lot about that particular university, if it dismissed a professor permanently for holding views that were unpopular...no matter how unpopular those views are.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 11:10 AM) Given that Pods is pretty much an automatic out against ANYBODY right now and is a below-average left-fielder, platooning lefties who can hit SOMEBODY and play LF competently is a step forward. I'd have no problem sending Gload down and either bringing up or trading for a right-handed backup corner-outfielder. That can be done easily. But I'm not convinced that Sweeney is going to hit major-league pitching right away and it might be better to platoon him with Mackowiak at first. Nobody wants another sub-Mendoza Line rookie in the outfield again next year, especially given that Anderson still has a lot to prove at the plate. Gload is out of options and can not be sent down.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 11:04 AM) Right now I think Chuckie Haegar has moved quietly ahead of one Sean Tracey on the depth chart. I think the team likes his vercitility and the fact that he gives a great contrast to all of the hard throwers in the pen. Can you imagine trying to hit that knuckleball then trying to hit Mike McDougall, Matt Thornton, and/or Bobby Jenks after that? Brrrr. I can imagine that...but I just can't imagine that a kid throwing a knuckler would be a reliable option out of the bullpen. Nothing against him no matter how good he is, but I just think that with a pitch like that, he's bound to struggle more often than necessary coming out of the pen, solely because it'll take him several batters to get the feel for the pitch, and that could lead to a bunch of walks or him falling behind in counts and having to throw his fastball right when he comes in (and that would be exceptionally bad if there were already runners on base)

QUOTE(WCSox @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 11:00 AM) Well, I obviously don't have all of the positions covered. The Sox could certainly use a leadoff hitter, but there isn't a guy currently in the organization (besides Pods) who would fit that role. Iguchi would be the closest, IMO. Platooning Sweeney with Mackowiak would ease Sweeney into role and take pressure off of him, although it's not necessary. I don't see the problem with platooning two lefties as long as Gload is still on the bench. Um, Gload is also a lefty. So in other words...all 3 of your players who could back up the outfield are lefties.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 10:56 AM) Frankly, I think alot of people dont realize that the offense doesnt really seem to be the problem. Pitching is our need. If we get rid of FG and insert BMAC, we need some more bullpen help. Do people think Sean Tracey has any chance of taking over BMac's role next year? (We'd still need a righty to replace Riske...but we might be able to pull that off by dealing Cotts)

QUOTE(WCSox @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 10:53 AM) 2. Dump Pods and give Sweeney a shot in LF, possibly platooning with Mackowiak. It's pretty difficult to platoon 2 lefties.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 10:48 AM) Becomes a perfect 4th outfielder who can provide a righty bat off the bench and terrific defense at all three positions. And wastes a ton of talent in the process.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 10:41 AM) How I would react is not the point. Stay on point and quit trying to bring in stray arguments. The point is that the Democrats are trying to extort ABC into changing or nor releasing the movie with the threat of removing thier license. That is just wrong, any way you look at it. So are you suggesting that if they took commercial breaks that it would be ok? It would certianly be better if there were commercial breaks. It would also be better if they were not saying it was "Based on the 9/11 commission report" when it is based on the 9/11 commission report and a bunch of things were inserted that were not part of the 9/11 commission report. It would also be better if there was some means by which the things bashing Democrats and praising Bush in the movie were balanced (hell, they run Fahrenheit 9/11 commercial free also and I shut up). It would certainly be better if they weren't distributing it freely to students through the internet as though it was a 100% factual movie and should be treated as educational material. There's no reason to prevent people from seeing the film. It shouldn't just disappear. The ideal thing would be for it to get the same treatment that "The Reagans" got. It should appear on Cable. Disney is a part owner of A&E...I think that'd be an excellent place for it to run, maybe even a couple times. And put out the DVD's so that people can rent it, buy it, etc. But don't run a one-sided "Mockumentary" on a major network for free right before the election. And especially don't pretend it's educational and historical when its not. And especially don't do so without any balance. And especially don't run it commercial free, to the point where it is literally a campaign contribution.

TN-SEN Rasmussen Sept 7 Corker ® 45%, Ford (D) 44%

QUOTE(TaylorStSox @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 10:03 AM) I'm still not convinced McCarthy will be any better than an average 5th starter next year. We have to find some speed somewhere. The only 2 viable positions are LF and SS. I wouldn't mind seeing Pierre in left. He does get on base, steal bases and cover alot of ground. He's better than Pods. If we fill SS with a speed guy and start Sweeney in left, we might have a shortage of guys who can drive the ball. The top 3 offenses in the AL are the Yankees (#1), the White Sox (#2), and the Indians (#3). The White Sox have 79 stolen bases this year, the Indians 43, the Yankees 119. Here are the offensive rankings of the teams with at least 100 Stolen Bases: New York Yankees (1) NY Mets (5) LA Dodgers (11) Cincinnatti (13) LA Angels (14) Baltimore (17) San Diego (28) Chicago Cubs (29) Tampa Bay D Rays (30) You can build a very successful offense without a ton of speed if you have the players, and a ton of speed clearly does not guarantee a good offense. We don't NEED to find speed somewhere. It would be nice...but it would not justify spending the money on bringing in a guy like Pierre when Sweeney is sitting right there for a lot less green. It could justify bringing in a Carl Crawford if that was possible, but Crawford brings so much more to the table that the speed is just one of hte many reasons to like him.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 09:44 AM) The amount of people who would rather keep Garcia over Vazquez is appalling. The only argument I might see for trading Vaz and keeping Garcia is that Vaz might have higher trade value if he closes out this season well. Well, and Vaz is a little more expensive. With both of them, basically if you keep either of them, you're hoping for the best next season. You're hoping that a longer offseason and it being a contract year gives Garcia reason to find his fastball again, or you're hoping that Vaz has actually turned a corner and can at least give you 6 quality innings in most games next year if you're careful with him. I'm not sure I'm confident in either of those statements. So if someone's willing to throw a top 20 prospect at me for Vazquez but not Garcia, I jump on the deal.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 09:07 AM) I don' thtink I ever really paid any attention to how Daunte looks in the pocket til last nite. I don't know if it was just Pittsburgh, but he looked crappy while dropping back. I didn't watch a ton of the Vikes last year before he got hurt...but that's pretty much a fair description of how he was throwing before he got hurt as well.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 09:36 AM) What? No mention of the fact that the Democrats have issued a vieled threat against ABC's broadcast liscense if they didn't change it? http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/se...-threatens.html And before you get started, yes, Republicans were outraged against CBS for unfair portrayals in “The Reagans” and lobbied to get it quashed. Still, they didn’t use the threat of government sanction against a broadcaster exercising its 1st Amendment rights. If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it. They can organize protests and boycotts, letter-writing campaigns and so on. What they cannot do is to threaten a broadcast license for political differences, regardless of the situation. It violates the spirit of free speech and makes the Democrats look like Big Brother. I'll fire this back at you then...CBS could always run "the Reagans" under the excuse that they were running it not as a part of a public interest, but were doing so for profit. The 9/11 thing on ABC is being broadcast commercial-free. With no sponsor. And given away freely online. That's over $40 million going into a pre-election political statement with almost no means for ABC/Disney to recoup its expenses. How would you react if a major network decided to run Fahrenheit 9/11 commercial free 2 months before an Election, offered to distribute the movie freely online, and billed it as based on the facts surrounding 9/11?

"And the American People are safer."

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 8, 2006 -> 07:08 AM) History is always being rewritten as new information becomes available, there are always multiple points of view. Each part should be looked at within a specific context of when it was produced and by whom. Sorry Bill, the right wingers get to write some history also.