Balta1701

Anyone remember what the count was on that 3 run homer? (Just wondering if he fell behind the guy and had to throw him a fastball when he was expecting it.)

QUOTE(samclemens @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 03:00 PM) wait- are you seriously contending that saddam complied with UN inspectors?! huh??! i refer you to my post on the pipes blog. saddam did MUCH more than what you are saying. you are leaving out a ton of s***. im not even going to give you a link to anything to back my claim up. just google "saddam" and let me know what comes up. With the UNSCOM team, Saddam was not only trying to give the impression that he was hiding things, prior to Operation Desert Fox, he certainly was trying to hide things. The Pipes blog you link to in fact was written before the UNMOVIC team even was created. It was written before Resolution 1441, and before the U.S. declared Iraq to be in non-compliance with 1441. It is also very worth noting that several of the claims in that Pipes blog have been proven to be the exact falsehoods which were the problem. Specifically, he cites information from defectors which say that Iraq had WMD. Well, the problem is, as we've all seen in reports since the invasion, the defectors that he and the administration were building their case on were absolute garbage (Curveball), and this was known by the CIA, but ignored by people higher up the chain of command.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 03:22 PM) sorry i just dont trust north korean official statements. its all pure propaganda. i dont think they can reach the US with missiles. if someone can prove me wrong, i will tip my hat to them. It is believed that either now or within a very short number of years (i.e. before Iran even gets the bomb) North Korea will have missiles with the capability to strike the west coast of the United States. They also are likely very close to having submarine-based launch capability through submarines and equipment purchased from Russia (with intermediary help of Rev. Moon), which could also launch nuclear strikes on the U.S. Reuters and Janes' reported that a few years ago.

Ok, I've reviewed not only Byron York's piece, but I went and actually read the 56 page decision decided by the "Court of Review" in this case (man, the concept of the "Court of Review, now there's an interesting one too), and I think I have a little bit to contribute to this discussion. I think it is worth noting something which is not pointed out in Byron York's piece...the actual issue which was being brought up before the "Court of Review (COR)" and how it dealt with the "Wall", which he does not explain well IMO. The issue which was brought up before the COR was based on a reading of FISA which had predominated since the 80's. That reading had held that there was a dichotomy in when FISA could be used and when it could not...that FISA was inapplicable in cases where the "Primary Purpose" of the search was a criminal prosecution. The COR determined in this case that they feel that such a designation was not a correct reading of the original FISA act, the Patriot Act had changed the law such that instead of following a "Primary Purpose" standard, FISA now became applicable in the cases where there Foreign Intelligence gathering was a "Significant Purpose" of the investigation. This is a much looser standard, and basically removes any requirement that FISA suspects cannot be subject to criminal prosecution (the incorrect worry of the Moussaoui folks). Now, this case before the COR was basically searching for an interpretation of this clause and how strict it was. The FISA Court's denial in the case before the COR had been on the basis which was interpreted before the Patriot Act, the "Primary Purpose" one. Basically, if I read this correctly, they were seeing if they could deny a warrant because it was going to be used for prosecution of a potential foreign agent of some sort. The COR decided that the intent of changing the language from "Primary" to "Significant" allowed for the warrant to be issued in the latter case. Now, as to the question of the warrantless surveillance...that is something which is dealt with only as a tangent in this COR opinion, but it is interesting to note the ways in which it is dealt with. Specifically, the COR addresses the relationship of the Truong case to FISA, by including this phrase describing a key part of the Truong decision It was interpretations of this phrase combined with FISA which builds up the "Wall" which Mr. York refers to, and even more so, it is this phrase which is the basis for the COR opinion. It finds itself in disagreement with this statement, based on the updated provisions of the Patriot Act. So, how does this apply to FISA? Well, the interesting thing is, as far as I can tell, this COR decision does not in any way deal with whether or not searches can be conducted of U.S. citizens outside of FISA. Why? Because the COR decision specifically states that FISA warrants do not meet the standard set out by the 4th Amendment. Let me repeat that, because it is key to this whole discussion: the COR opinion states that the FISA warrants do not meet the 4th amendment standard. Therefore, the entire discussion Mr. York refers to is done in the context of whether or not searches outside the 4th amendment, but INSIDE FISA, fit with the definitions of the Patriot Act. In fact, the case law which the COR opinion cites specifically does not answer the question as to whether or not searches outside of FISA authority are constitutional. These paragraphs I feel are key in this question. First this one: This paragraph outlines exactly what the decision they're dealing with here says, and comes immediately after the part Mr. York excerpts. The question the COR is dealing with is not whether or not surveillance can be done outside of FISA, but whether or not FISA searches can be done under the constitution at all. When it refers to warrantless surveillance, it is only making a distinction between searches with a FISA warrant and searches with a criminal warrant, only the latter of which would meet the 4th amendment standard. The second key paragraph is this one which occurs towards the end of the Truong discussion, which concludes this argument. This is actually the conclusion of their opinion, and it basically avoids taking any opinion on exactly the sort of search Mr. Bush has ordered outside of FISA. In fact, its entire thrust is designed at justifying searches within FISA which are outside of the 4th amendment standard. Now, there are a few key points here which do hit matters that we have discussed before. The first is that while this opinion is important, it is not pertinent to the discussion of warrantless domestic surveillance outside of FISA. It simply doesn't take a stand on that subject, it's only interest is surveillance through FISA which does not meet the 4th amendment standard. It also notes that the law it is citing has not yet taken a stand as to whether or not those sorts of searches can be done outside of FISA. Therefore, this COR opinion would have no bearing at all about whether or not Mr. Bush's actions in defiance of the exact wording of FISA have legal footing through the opinion that those parts of FISA are unable to limit the President. This COR review only states that the courts have not yet dealt with the claim that the President cannot conduct searches outside of FISA because FISA cannot limit the President's power in that way, and leaves that for another day. Secondly, and here's the real kicker for some of the stuff we've said before, it judges that FISA searches DO NOT meet the 4th amendment standard. The searches are applicable only when there is a foreign intelligence basis for the search, but it is not a 4th amendment search. There, I think I've gone through this issue, and man I need a break.

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 02:28 PM) I still wish Borchard would have made the team. I trust him in the outfield more than I do Gload. I trust Mack out there more than either of them, and I think Ozuna can still play some corner outfield as well, can he not?

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 02:12 PM) This dude is pathetic. What a waste of a good fastball.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 09:09 AM) Yeah, I'm blanking on the female agent's name, but I remember her saying her requests to search his laptop were repeatedly denied. Interestingly, given our renewed FISA discussion one thread over, I recall that agent laying a some of the blame on being hamstrunng by FISA. The FBI claimed that they didn't have the evidence to go to FISA and get a warrant to search Moussaoui's stuff. However, the 9/11 commission examined the evidence and determined that without a doubt the stuff they had met the "probable cause" standard in FISA. And Given that in 2001, the FISA court had only blocked a handful of requests in 15 years, the FBI agents who made that decision were just plainly wrong.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 01:51 PM) I would like to see those rates, and I am also curious as to how they were arrived at before and after the regime change. Would incidences have been reported more or less often under the old regime? I would tend to think that there is more freedom to report (and someone to report to) things that are happening within their country. There would almost certainly have been less reporting during the previous regime, because given the nature of the regime it was simply impossible to do any sort of reporting in most areas about the actual nature of the people. The only thing we really can do to get a good comparison is to talk to the people who have jobs at the morgue and ask them whether the amount of bodies they've seen has gone up or down since the war, and in at least Baghdad's case they've gone up dramatically. But then again, that doesn't cut it by any standard, because someone who's killed in one of Saddam's torture chambers and then thrown in a mass grave doesn't wind up in the morgue, just like someone who's blown apart by a U.S. bomb. And even beyond that, Iraqi society is such that the local communities/clans are often some of the strongest organs in the society, so even if there was a death, it's possible it wouldn't be reported under either case, and the family would just deal with it. And beyond that, even before the U.S., all of the casualties in Iraq weren't due solely to Saddam...the U.N. sanctions killed a ton before the oil for food program was instituted (despite the corruption it saved a TON of lives), and then there was almost constant U.S. and British bombing on top of that. The best bit of data we have since the war, the one which is actually done in the way most conflict casualties are estimated, was the Lancet study in late 2004, which gave you an estimate of about 100,000 additional deaths due to war or violence between the launch of the U.S. invasion and the time of that survey. Other numbers, like the numbers from the Baghdad Morgue, are at least in rough agreement with what those numbers would project to these days. Beyond that, there really is no way to do a good comparison. All we can really say with certainty is that a lot of people died under Saddam, a lot of people are dying now, and in both cases, it's a terrible thing.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 09:36 AM) Saddam's defiance supported our WMD claims. I'm going to bounce back to this post and just point out that Saddam's "Defiance" consisted of not having WMD's, destroying a bunch of his missiles under the watch of UNMOVIC ("These are not toothpicks, this is real disarmament - Hans Blix) and allowing the UN teams unfettered access to every single one of the facilities they wanted in 02-03.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 05:10 AM) I saw one of his CS attempts and it looked like he got a bad jump and also picked the wrong pitch. He definitely has some speed, he just needs to use it better. Might be a confidence problem, because he has the speed to steal some bases. The good news is...in terms of Anderson stealing bases...you couldn't possibly be put in a better situation to learn that skill than the one he's in. Pods and Rock? Nice.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 01:21 PM) Not sure why him in a picture with two women is impressive at all. For all we know, it's family. Given what we've heard about his family...probably not. Anywho...I'm taking bets...which will we see more, pictures of Jenks with blondes this year, or pictures of AJ?

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 01:29 PM) He's not god. Why did Danny Wright suck? Scot Schoeneweis? What happened to Marte? It took 12 months, and almost 200IP to get Contreras on track. Can we wait that long for Thornton? How come Vizcaino didn't improve? El Duque sure looked sorry for most of the season. How come Loaiza couldn't come anywhere near matching 2003 in '04? Shouldn't Coop get the blame there too? Vizcaino still wasn't terrible last year, and El Duque and Marte spent much of the year fighting injuries. Schoeneweis was actually non terrible before he got hurt given the position he was put in. And Danny Wright...well...he just wasn't that good in the first place. Cooper doesn't have a perfect record, I understand what you're saying, but let's at least give him a shot with this guy. Think of it this way...we gave up a guy who we were going to lose in 12 days to the waiver wire, and at least we got something for it. If Cooper teaches him to throw strikes, then suddenly we have 2-3 of the best left handed relievers in baseball. If not, then he chews up some junk innings when we're already down by 10 or after Thome and Konerko combine for 7 home runs to put us up by 15.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 05:18 PM) Tell me again how "Wag the Dog" (released in 1997) was written about Clinton's bombing of Baghdad during his impeachment hearings (1999) Actually, the book that film was based on was basically done on the idea that GWBush 1 had "Wagged the Dog" with the Persian Gulf war, basically done the whole thing for approval ratings. Fiction to be sure, but entertaining fiction. For the movie version, they took the plot line from the book, flipped it to the Balkans, and made it because the President was embroiled in a sex scandal. Given how long the accusations against Clinton had been going on, and the fact that the Balkans had been destabilized since the early 90's (The Dayton Accords on Bosnia were signed in 1996) it sure looks like it was adapted from the book to be more applicable to the environment into which it was being released.

QUOTE(bmags @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 03:06 PM) you know what you want to believe...i'm saying they are comments on our times not malicious attacks to turn the nation on bush, he's done that well on his own. Social commentary pieces aren't time specific to the dumbass policies of the current president. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_dog "The film drew attention at the time for similarities to the Clinton sex scandal, although the movie also makes reference to the Persian Gulf War as an example of war used as an electoral tactic" The movie was based on a ficticious war in the Balkans, btw.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 02:37 PM) Yeah How? Any runs score?

So did Bobby get out of it?

Well, at least it's someone KW and Coop have a plan for. That's something. I'm amazed that people are actually outraged by this deal. We're seriously talking about whether Borchard or Gload will be the 25th man...so we're talking like maybe 50 or 100 at bats during the season at the very most, behind every other guy on our bench, and showing up mostly in games that are already completely over...I find it nearly impossible to believe making the wrong decision would cost us more than 1 game during an entire season.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 02:28 PM) Most ridiculous thing you've ever heard? Sounds like a statement someone makes when they know they may be wrong, yet don't want to admit it. Man is it hard not to insult O'Reilly after that one....

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 02:25 PM) I can't speak about the shoulder, but speed is a non-issue. Gload actually has at least one SB this spring, and I think he's faster than Borch. You know what the scary thing is? We're actually talking about who's faster, Ross Gload or Joe Borchard...as if it makes any difference WHATSOEVER.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 12:47 PM) Theres the real value question. If Thornton pitched to Borchard, would he strike out or walk? Borchard would swing and miss. The ball would bounce off of the catcher's mitt, allowing Borchard to go to first. It would count as a strikeout and a wild pitch, with the runner still reaching first.

Who would have thought there were still people around that Nomo could outpitch?

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 12:26 PM) I agree. Throws to second and home could have been closer plays if they were behind some power. The one from mid LF, where Sweeney attempted to prevent Alphabet Boy from scoring, looked pathetic considering it bounced before even reaching the infield. Wasn't he supposed to have a solid arm?

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 11:18 AM) I think a condition for our aid and support should be making sure being a specific religion isn't punishable by death by the government. Um, what exactly is the alternative? Pull aid out of Afghanistan, let the warlords spend another 2-3 years building up money (and weapons) from the opium crop, and then watch the Central Government fall, followed by more years of civil war or a return of the Taliban?

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 11:49 AM) Arroyo was better than Clement last season, he's 3 years younger than Clement, and he has a much cheaper contract than Clement. Factoring in salary, I would rather have Arroyo than Clement who definately didn't seem like the same guy after being hit in the head by that linedrive. If Arroyo was "figured out" so was Clement. By the way, Spring Training stats mean next to nothing. Meanwhile, Pena has a lot of upside. This definately wasn't a steal for the Red Sox though. This was a good trade for both teams. It looks like the Reds will keep Dunn in LF and start Hatteberg at 1B now. The part in bold is exactly why only Arroyo was going to get traded. If the Red Sox wanted to part with Clement in a deal like this, they'd have to agree that they'd be paying almost all of Clement's contract. They'd be shipping like $25 million to the Reds, because there's no way in Hell the Reds want part of that deal. No one does. The Red Sox traded the guy who was actually tradeable.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 12:02 PM) Man, Singleton just made it sound like Thornton will get the second lefty job over Logan due to his major league experience if he shows anything this spring. Maybe he is just throwing out his own opinion though. It all depends on what Hawk thinks. If Hawk starts blowing this Thornton guy on TV, he will likely have the job. I'm going to ignore the needless Hawk bashing and say that Singleton is probably right. They will almost certainly break camp with Thornton on the big league squad, simply because you don't trade for a guy and then 13 days later let him onto the waiver wires. Neither Seattle nor the Sox would have made that deal if they didn't want to at least give the guy a try on the big league roster. Logan will, IMO, either start at AA-AAA and come up if Thornton can't improve on his control after a month or two, or he'll break camp as a 3rd lefty if Hermanson can't go at all (less likely IMO). They'll give Cooper a couple weeks/month or two to work with Thornton and then make a decision about whether to try to see if he'll clear waivers or hold onto him & keep working.