Balta1701

Ok, I gave this another hour of so of thought while preparing for my complex analysis final... Let's imagine for a moment that the guy never said anything about a bomb. Neither in the tunnel nor in the airline. The guy causes a disturbance on an airline. The guy forces his way off the airline. The guy is confronted by air marshalls in the tunnel with guns. They order him to drop his bag and get down on the floor. They repeat the order. He disobeys that order...and starts to reach into his bag. At this point, should the air marshalls shoot? I think the answer is absolutely yes. They haven't a clue what he's reaching for in that bag...it could be a gun, it could be a knife, it could be the trigger on a bomb. With that many lives at risk, their instructions would be to not take a chance of him doing something concealed in a bag. So even if the air marshalls completely invented any reference to a bomb...they were almost certainly right in still shooting. That would beg the question as to where the "the guy said he had a bomb" portion of the story came from, but that still would justify the shooting. My point here with this part I think is this...why the Hell does CNN think that the question of whether or not he actually had a bomb is so important as to make it their banner headline today? Ditto Drudge, Time Magazine, etc. Unless there's some legitimate reason to think that the marshalls acted improperly, why is this a story? Given that the guy caused a disruption on the plane, about the only thing that would make the Marshalls' actions improper was if the guy dropped his bag, lay down on the floor, and then was shot while already down and not moving. Any other action would be considered disobeying the orders of one of the marshalls and grounds for them opening fire. So why the Hell is this news?

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 02:39 PM) It's harder still to expect Air Marshals to know he has that problem. Very true, even though his wife claims she was yelling it.

How old would he be at the end of that deal?

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 02:31 PM) Not sure myself but my thing is if a police officer or federal agent has his gun out and is telling me to do something Im damn sure going to follow his instructions to the letter. So would I, but it's hard to expect a person with a genuine disease to behave rationally like that.

Ok, I'm loathe to even bring this up, but if CNN.com can run it as their banner headline, I guess it at least deserves notice...Currently, CNN is reporting that none of the passengers on the plane have come forward to corroborate the story of the air marshalls who opened fire - that the deceased said he had a bomb. The air marshalls reportedly stated that the guy had run up and down the plane saying that he had a bomb...a scenario which would have almost certainly made it so that at least a couple other passengers would have heard him. I'm at least curious to figure out the difference between the 2 stories. Is it possible that the press just hasn't gotten to all of the people on the plane, and the dozen that heard him are still not talking/still being interviewed by the police? Is it possible he said it outside the plane? Or could the air marshall have heard something wrong?

QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 02:15 PM) Yeah Gammons said 11 and he gets the Sawx scoop so the 8 and 3 makes a lot of sense. Why is their a buyout? Is there a 5th year option I forgot about? According to the ESPN.com piece linked above, 5th year option @ $11 million or $3 million buyout.

QUOTE(redandwhite @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 02:13 PM) considering the red sox apparently never called back when they were denied of rincon, i think lowell might be a "touchy subject" so to speak where if they part ways with him, it will be for a real solid player. Could you elaborate a lil' bit on that story? I'm afraid I haven't heard it. Btw, when is that team going to find a GM? Who in the world is making these trades?

QUOTE(redandwhite @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 02:10 PM) no reports on the money being swapped are final. most say 11 million total, but i've also heard 8. we'll see. $8 million plus the $3 million buyout at the end of the deal if Renteria's final year option is not picked up. 2nd to last paragraph here.

QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 02:07 PM) Renteria for five million a year is pretty nice, even if it cost them a good prospect. I am surprised they wouldn't live with Wilson Betemit as their SS. THey know their system better than I do though Actually according to ESPN.com, Renteria has $26 million left on his deal, the Red Sox are responsible for $8 million of it, plus his $3 million buyout at the end of the deal, so it's basically $6 million a year. Either way, it's a lot better for the Braves than Renteria for Marte straight up.

QUOTE(redandwhite @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 02:04 PM) i take it back, rotoworld speculated that nathan should be traded before rincon whom the red sox asked for. the twins actually offered jc romero and kyle lohse according to star tribune.. my apologies tony. Well, that makes a little more sense than Rincon or Nathan...still a little bit of a high price for Lowell IMO though. I thought the Red Sox were talking about something involving Mueller for Romero last year, and based on recent performance Mueller was clearly playing better than Lowell for a lower price. Again, that's a deal that makes sense if Lowell can put up his 2002-2004 numbers, and 2005 is only an aberration. At this point, I don't think anyone could say that for sure. Of course, the Red sox might be willing to pay almost Lowell's entire deal to clear space for Marte, which could make it worth the deal for the Twins.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 01:43 PM) Willie helped us win a WS title. He's golden in my books. If he's gone, I'll remember him fondly for that. That idea about Villone might actually be realistic. They probably can use a cheap, speedster 2B now that Castillo is gone. What are Villone's splits against lefties? Last year: AVG OBP Slug OPS .222 .324 .256 .580

QUOTE(Sox Hustler @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 01:38 PM) Kelly Wunsch? He was actually doing a decent job out of the bullpen for the Dodgers last year... (before he hurt himself coming down the stairs in the bullpen)

QUOTE(redandwhite @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 01:35 PM) thats what has reportedly been offered, my freind. Ok, Minny would have to be either out of their minds or expecting Nathan's contract to rapidly balloon to make a deal like that. With BJ Ryan getting $55 million, Nathan, who's a significantly better closer, had sure better be able to fetch a lot more than Lowell. Wow.

QUOTE(redandwhite @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 01:32 PM) it will be interesting to see if lowell is shipped off to minnesota for romero or nathan. That would be absolutely insane on the part of Minnesota...until they see for certain that Lowell is going to be the hitter of a few years ago and not the hitter from last year. He comes out hitting .300 with 10 home runs in April, you might be able to pull that off. But I can't imagine the Twins weakening that bullpen for such a huge question mark. Unless the Red Sox gave them something else to go along with it.

QUOTE(Yoda @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 01:14 PM) Wow. Now I’m pretty much speechless. Hopefully KW knows who to go to since Marte is no longer with us. The piece @ Whitesox.com alleges that KW has his eye on some other young lefty somewhere. No idea who.

QUOTE(bulokis @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 01:20 PM) Its pretty tough to lose Gio. I thought PTBNL usually are not prospects? They called him a PTBNL until after the Rule 5 draft...the White Sox held onto him so that the Phillies wouldn't have to find other people to remove from their list of "protected" folks, or however that works. (The Phils got 3 players while the Sox only got 1, so that would have required the Phils to have 2 open slots for those 2 players or they'd be at risk from the draft).

Man, I get the feeling I'm being told to shut my mouth.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 12:44 PM) Maybe he should be called Dr. Detroit? Wasn't Kevorkian from Michigan?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 12:17 PM) Perhaps you are projecting onto me as someone who subscribes blindly to one line of political thought, but I never said the US was innocent here, or should be standing on the sidelines in this. I think Bush is wrong for letting the Sudanese be slaughtered in 2005, just like I think Clinton was wrong for letting Rwandans be slaughtered in 1994. Genocide is bigger than Democrat or Republician to me. IIRC, there was more than one country that was holding up the original UN resolutions back when the US was pusing for them. I'd have to go back and look, but it seems like at least China, and maybe a European Country or two was also involved. Of course there were other countries (China, Russia, and Algeria), siding with us to block that last set of resolutions. But you know as well as I do that if the U.S. decides it is going to block a resolution, it gives other countries cover to block it as well, just as before the Iraq war China and Russia didn't want to say they'd veto the final resolution, but when France said they would use their Veto China and Russia supported them. But even though the genocide is clearly not as bad as the one in Rwanda in temrs of scale, I think it's different now in that the U.S. is almost actively encouraging the regime in the Sudan. Did you, for example, know that we just Re-established diplomatic ties with their government, ties which were pulled in protest of their work in Darfur? There is also 1 key point which is being missed...it's been estimated that if the international community wanted to stop what was happening in Darfur, it would take something like 15,000 troops, if the Sudanese government didn't resist. If they did resist, it would take more. Would you care to guess why so many nations in the western world don't have the troops available to pull that off?

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 12:02 PM) I'd bet my kidney that Timo is here next year. I know a few dealers who'll take you up on that.

So can anyone tell me what the rules are on this part as compared to the Major league phase? Do we have to keep these guys at a certain level or anything?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 11:31 AM) Supposedly that is what we pay the UN tons of money in dues for, but they were too worried about the wording of a resolution being "too harsh". I doubt that is much consolation to the dead people in the Sudan though. Dude, who exactly do you think is slowing the U.N. Down on any action against Sudan? The most recent attempt to hold any sort of hearings on new activity over there was blocked in part by, you guessed it, Ambassador Bolton. Yes, the U.N. has been inactive, but some of that inactivity finds its root not just in the U.N., but in this country as well. Furthermore, there are bills that have been sitting before Congress untouched for months which would place sanctions on the Sudanese government if it continues its actions in Darfur...those bills have done nothing. Meanwhile, our government is actually softening some of its criticisms at the same time. And the reason Congress isn't acting? The White House told them not to.

All of our broadcast staff are now in jeopardy every time we go to Detroit....

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 11:27 AM) Yes.....we got rid of a mental midget for one of the best super subs in the game, and a guy we needed with Blum gone (and Rob is WAY better than Blum). When we get a lefty, either Villone in a trade or sign Myers....this will look even better. Where is Villone even playing at these days? Any chance he'd be available in a trade? (Maybe for a former top draft pick with a lot of power but a lot of strikeouts?)

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 11:11 AM) I guess I tend to think that human life is priceless, especially when you times that times millions of people, but that is just me. I understand the need to quantify and detail everything for some, but for me millions of people dead simply because of a race, ethnicity, religion etc, is just screaming for someone to help them out. It becomes bigger than dollar signs and lost GDP. I would agree with you on principle, but then there comes in that nasty question...what happens when there are 4-5 "genocides" of equal size happening everywhere on the planet at once, like there is at almost any given time (what was happening in Iraq in 2002 was no different from what is happening in probably a couple dozen other countries around the world.) If you choose to intervene, how do you decide where to intervene? It seems clear to me that you just can't intervene everywhere...there's simply not enough troops available to do it, nor is there enough money. I pointed out one case earlier...if we took all of the money spent on Iraq, you could probably save 30 million or more human lives in the next 10 years just by providing the entire world with clean, disease-free drinking water. That's the equivalent of the entire population of Iraq. If I have to choose between overthrowing Saddam and providing clean drinking water for the rest of mankind, clearly overthrowing Saddam would save a few lives, but it would also cost a huge number of lives, and it would come no where close to saving as many lives as providing clean drinking water would. So how do you decide which place to intervene?