spiderman

What's the point of trading for Hallday, and making a run for it this season, if it's going to cost you Gavin Floyd and Alexi Ramirez? Yes, Halladay would be a great addition, but unless we're going with a 4 man rotation for the last month or two of the season, we're still a starter short, and with a hole at SS? It's got to be top prospects, should something happen.

Bartolo Colon, if he is healthy enough. If not, Poreda. The Sox are already hoping that Colon can pitch on July 24th in the DH against the Tigers. I had read a while ago that Richards had very bad stats in the minors when hitters saw him a 2nd time through the lineup, and that has been a problem as a starter (although not today when he got rocked from the beginning) so he needs to go back to the bullpen or to the minors, and work on his issues. Earlier in the season, he was ok as a 5-6th inning guy. Colon, if healthy, was actually ok earlier this season. He's not going to give you more than 5-6 innings, but we're talking about a 5th starter here. I'm a bit nervous about using Poreda in that role, when he is so raw, and don't want to ruin what has to be high level of confidence, but, Colon may not be healthy enough, and Poreda may be our best option to fill that spot.

Pretty stupid comment comment by Van Dyke - they don't want to trade their young core.....but were willing to do so 6 weeks ago for Peavy. Has he been in a cave when it comes to Kenny Williams aggressive style?

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jul 7, 2009 -> 07:34 PM) This is absolute bulls***. I am so f***ing pissed, right now. I thought Allen had a bright future as early as next season, but I'm not upset about the Sox trying to make a run for it this season.

A few things: 1) If there was any doubt, Williams is buying barring a July collapse. 2) Pena probably replaces Dotel's role on the roster next season. 3) He's a power arm, 27 years old, and under the team's control until 2013. I'm sure Williams sees untapped potential here. I'm not excited about acquiring him, but the Sox have a good track record in getting the best out of some of these type guys.

At 42-40, the Sox have clearly made a run after being under .500 by several games. Now, they need to finish the half strong at home. Assuming the White Sox continue to stay close to Detroit, I don't think the Sox sell, especially considering that Contreras, Dotel, Thome and Dye (with the option) are off the books after the season which is much different than having to pay for another year. I'm not sure I necessarily see the White Sox buying either though. Carlos Quentin coming back will hopefully be as good an offensive addition that can be made, and a healthy Contreras seems to have stabilized the backend of the starting rotation. Maybe he adds another bullpen arm to replace Gobble, but there doesn't seem to be any impact players available whom Williams can land.

QUOTE (sin city sox fan @ Jun 29, 2009 -> 11:24 PM) How bout a 10-4 stretch? Would that work? Time to make a trade for Pujols! Do you think the cards might want Gobble? I don't think I ever suggested the Sox would be able to trade for Gobble for Pujols. I'm not sure what you're talking about. I only said the Sox need to go on a roll so that Kenny Williams would have a reason to become a buyer, not a seller. Keep fishing though.

I wouldn't give him that kind of money, but if he stays healthy, he's going to get a massive contract from some big market club.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 22, 2009 -> 12:33 PM) Poll: Overwhelming Majority Of Americans Support Public Insurance Option from that same poll: It is not clear how fully the public understands the complexities of the government plan proposal, and the poll results indicate that those who said they were following the debate were somewhat less supportive. Half to two-thirds of respondents said they worried that if the government guaranteed health coverage, they would see declines in the quality of their own care and in their ability to choose doctors and get needed treatment.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 21, 2009 -> 12:58 PM) Not really. The number is "a lot," we already know that. The fact that something has to be done is pretty obvious. We can argue about what needs to be done exactly all day though, since anybody that thinks everything is fine and dandy right now is delusional. ok, then what needs to be done in your view? Let's assume that Obama won't get a single payer system. How do we improve health care through cutting costs, insuring everyone (like those with pre-existing conditions)?

QUOTE (thedoctor @ Jun 21, 2009 -> 10:28 AM) this is probably the key. it's hard to justify a deal when you are sub-.500 as we've been for most of the year. if you get over .500 and stay there for a week or two, i can see a deal. but every time we've been close to that mark this year we've swooned. It's probably even more difficult to justify a trade to bring in a veteran or two if we aren't talking about impact type players. Williams tried for Jake Peavy, sniffed around Oswalt, but there doens't seem to be any clear difference makers out there, and Williams is in the process of creating a good minor league system that would take a hit possibly for some ok, but not difference making, veterans.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Jun 20, 2009 -> 08:55 PM) Kudos to Jose for pitching well during his last three starts, but we've seen this before. Jose hasn't pitched well for even half half of a season since 2006. If somebody wants to ignore this and take him off our hands, that would be great. But I don't see it happening. I don't believe that any GM is going to give us anything substantial in return. Agreed. He'd have to be very good for the next month or so. Chances are that won't happen, and he'll revert back to the guy who gives up 7 ER in 4 IP in every other start. Not to mention he is making good coin, and so a team will have to pay for the rest of the season. Even if the Sox were able to trade him, that would probably mean that the White Sox haven't made a run, and the return for him would be small.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 20, 2009 -> 10:23 PM) Also how many games do we have to play at Minnesota? We aren't going to suddenly win series in the dome. True., chances are we will continue to struggle there. The White Sox need to go on a run where they win 10 of 12, 11 of 14, something to give Williams a reason to make a move.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jun 20, 2009 -> 08:25 PM) Texas can send us a huuuuuge pile of cash and Michael Young for Dotel. Explain this one to me. He's batting about .315 with 10 HR for Texas, and they are playing well. I understand that they can use more pitching, but why would they make a move like this?

This is pretty simple to me. The Sox are a below .500 team, and don't appear to be making progress on getting over that hump. That's sort of a barameter. None of these teams are very good, the Sox will probably continue to stay anywhere from 3 - 6 GB most of the season, but, they have to give Kenny Williams a reason to believe that they can make a run espeically considering there's probably no impact player that they can acquire who's going to lead this team out of the hole it's digging.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 08:14 PM) Yeah, cause a single payer system has worked in so many countries, and England was a great example! Why am i wrong? explain please. what would be a better system? do you not realize how inefficent the current system is?

I want a single payer system similar to England. Healthcare is bankrupting us right now. You can't solve the economy without solving heathcare. Bush was wrong to not bother with it. Republicans are wrong to oppose it. Healthcare is currently rationed, 46 million can't get it, another 10s of millions are under insured, so that's how we ration it. Overhead is 30-35% on average which means that's how much less we should be spending per cappa. We spend 15% of our GDP on healthcare where Germany and Canada spend 10% and cover everyone. We won't get single payer because the health industry / pharmaceutical industries buy Republicans and most Democrats. Our health and economic well-being are bought off. It's bull####. The most we'll get is a watered down public plan because Democrats are ####### and because Obama is not flexing his political muscle. He's backing off and primary Democrats are selling out. Everyone will loose this way, I hope I'm wrong. I like my healthcare except that I'm on an HMO and have restrictions as to who I can see. That sucks. I want to see whoever without having to pay 10% of the bill. I have an HMO so I don't pay 10% but my options are limited which isn't always easy. Some people with serious health issues can't get insurance because of his heart, no one will touch them. Some people have to lie to get theirs. If it weren't for some people's jobs, I'm sure they wouldn't be able to afford it (for people with more serious issues like diabetes). Did you know that we are the only industrialized country in the world without single payer or a competitive public option? That means we are wrong and the rest of the world is right. Canadians, Germans, the English etc.etc. all live longer than us and their healthcare costs less to them and their country, how is that?

QUOTE (easyw @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 06:49 PM) To North's credit, I heard he wrote Webio employees checks from his personal account. Knowing North, I can tell you he may have missed on Hernandez shady background, but it would be very out of character for North to be the source of the fraud. People may not like him, but he's an honest, hard working guy who deserves what he's earned. Apparently, he knew this guy since 1996, and he claims he did a background search on Hernandez through Google, which, according to him, uncovered nothing. Hopefully, for his sake, just incompetent. If I were him, I'd stop talking. Whether he knew what was going on or not, he was the GM, his wife the COO, and his buddy (Schwartz) was also involved in the business. They were probably just ill-informed, but they were pushing bad money, and selling advertising for a ponzi scheme.

Chicago Tribune - Sports Demo's White Sox fans have the lowest graduation rate, but should Cub fans be arguing that since they continue to continuously support a losing tradition?

QUOTE (zenryan @ Jun 3, 2009 -> 05:27 PM) I know Delaware is in the process of legalizing it but I dont know if its a done deal. I'm sure in the next few years more states will start to legalize it in attempts to bring in more money for the state. I'm sure most gamblers would rather deal with paying a tax on winnings in states where its legal than having to go to offshore sportsbooks and deal with the sometimes shady characters that runs those sites. The third party thing is funny when looking at a credit card statement and you see a charge to a "shoe" company based in the United Kingdom. Or a "bridal shop" in south Florida. I believe it's a done deal, will be allowed starting in August, and I'm pretty sure it allows full sports betting except for sports in that state.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jun 15, 2009 -> 10:20 AM) This is definitely interesting... Do people even listen to Mike North anymore? He was consistently topped in the ratings by Mike and Mike on ESPN1000, and this was a guy who was "undeniably chicago", making a million a year to get beat by a national show. I doubt his comcast show, which is pretty brutal, is much of a hit either, and since he's financing the deal, I'm sure Comcast doesn't as much steak.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Jun 13, 2009 -> 05:52 PM) Per Cowley twitter- "Smell that? 3 more weeks until we read the first "Blizzard of Oz" mention. Hope B.A. at the trip enjoys selling his soul to the devil." Interesting. I know there were rumors of him going there right after he quit the Sun-Times, I wonder if it will happen this time. Did Mariotti approve the Tribune's Internet Site? That was supposedly the big reason he left the Suntimes, and then he told everyone who would listen that his new website, I believe aol/fanhouse, would be the future of his profession. I don't disagree with that, but, if he is moving back to the Chicago media, why the quick change?

Cato Institutes claim on global warming disputed by most experts A recent full-page newspaper ad from the libertarian Cato Institute takes issue with President Barack Obama's convictions about global warming. The ad cites then-President-elect Obama's Nov. 19 statement: "Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear." "With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true," the ad states in bold letters. Below that is a statement they say was signed off on by more than 100 named scientists. "We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events. The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior. Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect." Global warming is a complicated subject, and we're not going to flesh it all out here. But we did want to address the underpinning of this ad, the claim that "there has been no net global warming for over a decade now." First off, we should note that while there are some who disagree about the existence of global warming, the overwhelming consensus among scientists who study the climate is that it does, and that humans are worsening it. The definitive statement on global warming comes from a 2007 study by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of scientists from more than 130 nations. They concluded that the "warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level." The group also concluded that there is "very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming." The problem with the assertion in the Cato statement is that it is impossible to make meaningful conclusions about climate trends based on looking at a 10-year window, said Richard Heim, a meteorologist at the NOAA National Climatic Data Center Climate Monitoring Branch. People tend to think of global warming as a steady trend upward, Heim said, but that's not how it works. if you were to look at long-term trends, like a century, it looks more like steps. Temperatures will rise for a few years, then level off or even go down a little bit, then go back up. That's why you've got to look at temperatures over many decades, he said. And if you look at the trends over the last 100 years, Heim said, "the overall linear trend shows clear, unequivocal, unmistakable warming over that period." Take a look for yourself at the NOAA graph of 100 years of global temperatures" Now, over the last dozen years, he said, global temperatures have largely plateaued. That's consistent with the trends. Typically, he said, climates will go up, then plateau until they reach a tipping point, and then rise again. "What you are seeing in the last eight or 10 years is kind of like one of those steps," Heim said. "The fact that it's not getting warmer doesn't mean we are not experiencing global warming. You can't talk about global warming over a 10 year period. The time scale is too short." When you grab short time frames, say 10 years, it's easy to cherry-pick starting points that are particularly high or low to make your argument one way or the other. But even if you did select a 10-year frame — as cited by Cato — it would show a slight warming over time, Heim said. If you looked at just the last eight years, it would look flat. In fact, if you looked at the last four years, it would seem to be cooling. "But this is crazy," Heim said. "You have to look at the big picture." Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate scientist who was a reviewer on the IPCC study, called the Cato argument that there has been no global warming over the last 10 years "fatuous and false." "What if I said that there had been no global warming for an hour? You would rightly tell me that this was too short a period for it to be meaningful," Schmidt said. "The same is true for a 'decade'. But even so, it is false." Schmidt directed us to a graph showing the 10-year climate trends using the four main temperature indices. The line bounces up and down like a lie detector graph, but the overall lines all trend upward. "To be clear, the globe has warmed for the last decade," Schmidt said. "You can get different results if you pick out your start dates carefully, a practice known as cherry-picking since it is trying to use the data to say something other than what it generally shows, but you are much better off looking at the longest time scales you have (such as these from NASA )." Cato cited a study on the internal variability of the climate system to support its claim. But the paper, from Kyle Swanson and Anastasios Tsonis, doesn't dispute the long-term trend of climate change, Schmidt said. He cited this conclusion from the paper: "If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability." Said Schmidt: "Quoting this paper to support a claim that global warming has stopped is like quoting Ronald McDonald in support of vegetarianism." In conclusion, most scientists who study climate say that cherry-picking a 10-year window is inappropriate. But in this case, cherry picking exactly 10 years (Cato said a decade) still doesn't support their claim. We rate this claim False.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 9, 2009 -> 01:43 PM) Dye, Thome, Contreras and Dotel have expiring contracts. The youth movement will start soon enough. Detroit is in first place. The Sox should have swept them yesterday as awful as they played the first game. There is no reason to give up on this season. The division is woefully weak. If Quentin can get healthy, and maybe an astute addition or two, there's no reason to think they can't win it. Teams don't give up top prospects for 3 months of play anymore, unless you are a guaranteed difference maker, and the Sox aren't loaded with those. If it looked like a couple of teams in the division were really stacked, I could understand the Sox going under some sort of re-build, but this division is and will be terrible unless teams add players. There is no team in better position to add better players the next couple years than the White Sox. I think it's too early too decide for certain which way the Sox should go. The more and more I watch from this team though tells me that this team just isn't more than average, and that may be somewhat kind. I'm willing to wait a bit longer though, and hope they prove me wrong. Come July though, should this team continue to play sub .500 baseball, I do start to look at next season, specifically for anyone who I don't think will be part of next year's team. I don't think we're going to get any 5 star minor leaguers for Dye, Thome, etc, but if we are going to move on without them, I'm not adverse to acquiring a decent prospect or two. Again, though, this is all based on the team not improviing it's play. The Sox are lucky to be in this division, but soon enough, they have to begin to make their own luck.

From politifact.com Bill O'Reilly called George Tiller "a baby killer" without attribution Liberals are criticizing conservative talk show host Bill O'Reilly for his harsh comments about Dr. George Tiller, who was shot to death while attending church on May 31, 2009, in Wichita, Kan. Their argument is that O'Reilly repeatedly named Tiller as a late-term abortion provider and called him a "baby killer." That publicity contributed to Tiller's death, they say. Antiabortion activist Scott Roeder, 51, has been charged with Tiller's murder. To be clear, we haven't found anyone saying that Roeder watched O'Reilly's show or was influenced by him directly. And we aren't attempting to check any claims or suggestions that O'Reilly's words incited violence. O'Reilly responded to his critics in an opinion article posted on BillOReilly.com and in the conservative journal Human Events . He began by saying that Tiller "did not deserve his fate" and was "an American citizen entitled to protection." "No matter what you think about abortion, it is a sad day for the country when vigilantism takes a life," O'Reilly wrote. O'Reilly said that liberal groups were targeting him unfairly. "Even though I reported on the doctor honestly, the loons asserted that my analysis of him was 'hateful,'" O'Reilly wrote. "Chief of among the complaints was the doctor's nickname, 'Tiller the baby killer.' Some prolifers branded him with that, and I reported it. So did hundreds of other news sources." O'Reilly went on to criticize media outlets for glorifying Tiller in order to silence those who oppose abortion, especially late-term abortion. We wanted to see what O'Reilly had said about Tiller, to see if O'Reilly was indeed being criticized for his reporting on other groups' characterization of Tiller as he said. We searched transcripts of The O'Reilly Factor , his show that appears on the Fox News Channel. We found at least 42 instances of O'Reilly mentioning Tiller by name, going back to 2005. In 24 instances, we found that O'Reilly referred to Tiller specifically as a "baby killer." Most of the time, O'Reilly would simply refer to the Tiller as "Tiller the baby killer" or as "Dr. George Tiller, known as Tiller the baby killer" without attributing it to anyone. We found four times when O'Reilly said that "some" called him Tiller the baby killer. We did not find any instance where O'Reilly named an individual or a particular antiabortion group that referred to Tiller that way. Here is how O'Reilly has discussed Tiller in 2009, prior to Tiller's death: • May 15: O'Reilly discussed President Barack Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame University, saying he was troubled that a Catholic school would allow Obama to speak. "Barack Obama throughout his political career has enabled abortion. There's no doubt that he has. All right? He has recently appointed Gov. (Kathleen) Sebelius to (Secretary of) Health and Human Services. Gov. Sebelius is the most proabortion governor in the United States. Based upon Dr. Tiller, the baby killer in her state and all of that, all right." • May 11: O'Reilly wondered whom Obama would nominate to the Supreme Court, saying that he thought Obama was "callous" when it came to abortion. "I mean, the guy puts Sebelius in as the health — you can't get a more fanatically — and that woman is proabortion," O'Reilly said. "She wants the babies done for. She supported Tiller the Baby Killer out there. So, enough with her." • April 27: O'Reilly discussed Sebelius' nomination as secretary of Health and Human Services. O'Reilly said that Sebelius "recently vetoed a bill that placed restrictions on late-term abortions in Kansas. The bill was introduced because of the notorious Tiller the Baby Killer case, where Dr. George Tiller destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000. There's no question Ms. Sebelius is one of the most proabortion politicians in America." • March 27: Tiller was charged with misdemeanor offenses for violating Kansas law on late-term abortions. Tiller was acquitted. O'Reilly said, "Now, we have bad news to report that Tiller the baby killer out in Kansas, acquitted. Acquitted today of murdering babies. I wasn't in the courtroom. I didn't sit on the jury. But this, there's got to be a special place in hell for this guy." • March 26: O'Reilly talked about the ongoing trial: "Another revolting situation is Dr. George Tiller in Kansas, known as Tiller the Baby Killer, who's on trial for killing babies who are about to be born, late-term abortions." O'Reilly also said, "If you want to kill a baby, you hire Tiller, you've got to pay him 5,000 up front, and he'll kill the baby. ... You should know, his best friend is the governor of Kansas, Sebelius. ... She has taken specific steps to carve out the law so that it will protect Tiller the baby killer." • March 17: Still on the Tiller trial, O'Reilly said, "You know this George Tiller, called Tiller the baby killer, is charged with 19 misdemeanors. And what this guy does, and we have proven it beyond a reasonable doubt, Kelly, is that he kills babies in late term. He aborts them in late term. They're no longer fetuses. They're viable babies. He aborts them for any and all reasons if you pay him $5,000." • March 2: O'Reilly said Sebelius took "campaign money from George Tiller, known as Tiller, the baby killer. He's currently charged with a variety of crimes centering on his abortion practice. He aborts babies at any time for just about any reason if you pay him $5,000." • Jan. 26: O'Reilly discussed an executive order Obama signed allowing federal money to go to international family planning groups that provide abortions. O'Reilly complained that Obama quietly signed the order rather than publicizing it. "I wanted George Tiller the baby killer going, 'Yeah, can I make more money killing babies now,'" O'Reilly said. That's just from 2009. There were many other examples in previous years. These instances and others we reviewed clearly show that O'Reilly was not reporting the views of others, but was expressing his own views on the doctor. O'Reilly said in his column that "Some prolifers branded" Tiller a baby killer, "and I reported it," as if he were reporting the views of others. But the transcripts show O'Reilly repeatedly referred to Tiller as a baby killer without attribution. So we find his statement that liberal groups are targeting him for his reporting of what others said to be False.