NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 04:42 PM) Despite all the blustery language, Iran is more likely to use nuclear weaponry as a form of self defense rather than a form of aggression. If Iran fears invasion from a larger, hostile force - say the U.S. for example, having a nuclear weapon on the table makes the likelihood of invasion from that foreign force considerably less likely because they don't want to deal with the collateral damage that would occur from a nuclear attack. This may be Iran's thinking, and that was scenario #3 that I mentioned. But frankly, I don't think Israel will tolerate that. Looking at the people who are running the Likud and the people likely to move more into power there, I think their level of paranoia (justified or not) is on the increase. If they can destroy Iran's nuclear program before the weapons are complete, I believe they will do so.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 04:06 PM) What will most likely happen will be some sort of air strike against suspected iranian nuclear facilities. The only nukes that will be used in this will be bunker busters with low yield weapons. The only way this becomes Tehran glowing in the dark is if a response happens from Iran where a WMD hits Israel(chemical, biological, or nuclear). At that point all bets are off. Now as for iran taking out israel. Sure that could happen. But with the large assortment of tactical and large scale nuclear weapons that the israelies have. They could literally take out the entire middle east and then some. MAD will not work in this scenario. The Russians didnt openly talk about the destruction of Washington. They didnt say they wanted Idaho wiped off the face of the earth. I am convinced that the minute Iran gets a workable weapon it detonates in some manner over some part of Israel. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like you just reiterated my points. You are just more convinced of the last scenario I mentioned than the other possible ones. I guess we agree.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 04:00 PM) This is why Hollywood sucks.....it takes good look women and turns them into coke snorting skeletons. I'll take women that you know....eat their food and don't throw it up, have real boobs, make good decisions involving their health and life in general. Call me what you will, but the thing that depresses me isn't that good looking, properly curvy women get turned into walking sticks. OK, well, that depresses me a little. But what bothers me more is that any person feels the need to be that concerned about their weight or their looks to begin with. Honestly, I wish people wouldn't make such a big deal about 10 pounds here or that curve there. Want to change your body? Great, have at it. Should someone else feel like a loser if they aren't magazine material? Uh, no.

I think that Israel cannot and would not decimate Tehran or any large population centers in Iran. If you think about the consequences of that, there is no good end for Israel. What I think is very likely to happen, though, is that Israel will probably destroy any and all sites of possible production of said weapons, and they'll do it very soon, before they are completed. Because once they are out there, there would be no way to reliably destroy them. Any attack to do so, once there are a few complete weapons roaming around the Iranian desert, is a crapshoot. You miss, and they'll fire. And it would only take 3 or 4 nukes to turn all of Israel into a big glass parking lot. Israel will strike the production facilities and vehicle (aka LR missle) facilities, once they have the intel to do so as completely as possible. If they can't make that happen before the weapons are completed, they won't attack at all. If they fail to pre-empt, they will re-assert their own nuclear presence in public and make sure Iran knows any missle attack would result in Tehran being destroyed. So in short, I'd say the only three possible outcomes of this are: 1. Isreal destroys Iran's programs the mid-east boils over even further conventionally, 2. Iran backs down, or 3. Iran gets the weapons before Israel can get to them, and the mid-east becomes a cold nuclear war. I suppose an argument could be made for one other scenario - Iran moves further to the political right, thinks they can get the nukes onto Israeli soil without detectable methods like missles or planes, and literally tries to wipe them off the map in one stroke. If that happens... I don't even want to think about it.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jan 4, 2006 -> 03:24 PM) Unless he's an awfully slow typer... I'd say he wasn't posting when Mike locked it. And the post right before it specifically stated it was locked, even if he didn't see the little X.

I have to agree. Whether or not you agree with LCR's stance or words, it's not exactly classy to post in a closed thread as an Admin, just to get in the last word. For shame.

I got the below email from a friend who lives in California, where recent storms have wreaked havoc on utilities. This is not a forward from who-knows-where; my friend wrote it. It contains no political or religious message, and is not intended to spur any action. It just made me think about what things we have in our lives that we call "necessities", and "basic services". It reminds us they aren't so basic, and maybe aren't necessities at all. Enjoy...

It is true, there are a few individual states in the south or midwest that are ripe for the Dems, such as AR, TN, WI and WV, as you two pointed out. But the west is a broader area that should be a priority.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 3, 2006 -> 05:54 PM) I understand that, but it's the same party. People in Small Town America are less likely to vote for their state and local Democratic candidates if Howard Dean is on the evening news saying that, "some of them [Republicans] have never worked an honest day in their lives." Actually, I'd contend that would work for some moderates. But you do get at a very important weakness in the Democratic party, which is the lack of thought leadership and the building of positive messages.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 3, 2006 -> 05:19 PM) IMO, Dean does more damange to the Dems than good. Energizing young voters is important, but (1) most young people don't vote and (2) his rhetoric alienates moderates. The Dems have to appeal to all of those dumb, pickup-driving hicks in the flyover states and Howard Dean isn't going to accomplish that. Where did you get young voters? Who said anything about them? Grassroots does not mean getting young voters - it means building campaigns, money and motivation from the local level, and from individual voters. And for the record, I don't think those "flyover" states in the south or the plains you refer to are the best target for the Dems. If they are smart, they are looking at the West (CO, NM, AZ, MT, OR, WA, and even TX) as their new horizon, especially for congressional seats.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 3, 2006 -> 04:35 PM) This isn't relating to political success as much as general feeling throughout the year. Oh. Hm. So you mean they asked a question about how they felt about 2006 independently, then asked later what their party affiliation was? Sorry, I must have misinterpereted the question. I didn't get that impression from the article. Heh. Sorry, posted a bit off the trail there. Please continue with your regularly scheduled posting.

QUOTE(whitesoxin' @ Jan 3, 2006 -> 04:24 PM) Why would you jump on somebody for saying 23K. That's only 15% off. She wasn't jumping on the number, she was responding to my point about how the base is calculated. Just clarifying. If Steff is right, and there are at least 20k each game, then put this in perspective: 20k for the 1/3 of the season NOT in the split plans, and there are probably thousands of split plans sold. So the other 2/3, the 23k number is probably actually low. This makes things look pretty good for a huge 2006.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jan 3, 2006 -> 04:08 PM) At this point there are approx 20K seats sold for every game via full holders, 27 gamers, ozzie plan, etc.. Really?! Wow. Still doesn't really make sense, since the split plans only cover 2/3 of the games (the other third was left off split plans). But that aside, if there are at least 20k sold for ALL games somehow, that is really impressive. More so than I thought. Go Sox fans!

Being sort of in the middle, I don't see why the Dems are so depressed. Frankly, I see a lot of signs that 2006 will see many things swing more to the left. I think the midterm elections look like a potential success for the Dems, and I think that Dean's grass roots initiatives are causing things to change from the bottom up. Combine that with the continued fracturing of the Repuplican party and the Bush administration's continuing tendency to step right into the big piles of it, and I think things will be better for the Dems this time next year. All that said, however, the Dems still have a serious lack of leadership to spearhead their initiatives. Dean is a great engineer but a lousy voice, and Kerry just looks like a complainer-at-large. They need a few new faces and voices to take the lead. Without that, success will only be a small step forward in 2006. Further, the GOP is still FAR better at marketing and campaigning at the higher levels. These are the two areas that will keep the GOP from backsliding very far.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 3, 2006 -> 03:52 PM) That's wha the season ticket base means... If you have a season ticket base of a fixed number, you have that many tickets sold for every game... That's why them having a supposed base of 20,000 is so important because it guarentees 20k tickets are sold for even the s***ty April games. We aren't going to see any crowds of 10-15k this year. This is not really true. A FULL season base gets you that, yes. But the season ticket base includes split/partial plans as well. In other words, if there are 15k actual full season holders, and 12k split season (27 game) holders worth 1/3 season each, you have a "seaosn ticket base" of 19k. But in reality, a third of those games have only 15k sold. Others may have up to 19k or more, depending on which plans people bought. I am not sure if Ozzies go in there too, at about 1/6 season value, since they are not referred to in the marketing materials as season tickets. But the split plans are. These aren't necessarily the current numbers BTW, just showing an example.

I know people here who know more than I do about this guy say he has a great work ethic, and he is a positive clubhouse guy. But my answer to the question/thread title is still the combination of steroids and the back-and-forth trade request thing. Just a few too many clouds. He is a spectacular player, and would probably be a huge upgrade at SS overall. But I can't get past the baggage he might have. Plus the money he'd cost long-run might preclude re-signing some of the picthing talent like Buerhle, as Rock pointed out. But I am not 100% against it either, for the right deal. His abilities make it really tempting.

It's amazing to me, but very few people outside that region (and many people inside it) forget about New Madrid. That fault (runs SSW to NNE from NE Arkansas thru to southern IL) is highly likely to produce significant quakes sometime in the next fifty years. Last time it had a big break, it was such a huge quake that it re-directed the Mississippi River and shook bells in Boston (happened around 1811). It was probably the most powerful quake in U.S. history. I lived in Memphis for a few years, and I made sure to have an earthquake rider on my homeowner's policy. That city is completely unprepared for such a thing, and I'm glad I left before it happened (there is only one large building in Memphis built to withstand any sort of tremors: Autozone HQ). If a quake anything close to 1811 happened today, the disaster in Memphis and STL would make Katrina look like child's play.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jan 3, 2006 -> 07:12 AM) Just buy the Sox Pride dvd. Though I have heard that it doesn't have the same music.

QUOTE(THEWOOD @ Jan 2, 2006 -> 09:56 PM) This is boomer! What's really funny about this picture is that, because only the left third of the picture shows up if you don't scroll left, it looks like you are saying your pet is that remote control sitting on a blanket.

Regarding the "business" of government... I'd like to see the Republicans go back to one of their mantras of the 80's (and other periods in their history), of saying that government should indeed run like business. And mean it, of course. That does NOT mean just making broad funding cuts across all areas at once, with no follow up on implementation. It would probably mean bringing in professional consulting firms, many of them, to analyze each department for efficiency and methodology. Contracts to all major firms, for protection and balance. No pay for play in the contract, just analysis and proposal for direction. Then make the agencies reach the target efficiences set in the analysis and strategies, and have the consultancy firms monitor the implementation for actual usefulness. Not just cuts that are easy, but cuts and re-engineering of processes that actually make the agencies leaner in the long run. Lots more detail needed here, but you get the picture. No more agencies that run at 90% to self-feeding administrative costs (see: BIA). That's in my ideal world. When I've voted Republican before (which I have for many offices in many elections), one of the major drivers was fiscal responsibility. I'd like to see them get back on track with that priority, which I think they've thrown out the window in recent years (at least at the Federal level anyway). I totally went off-thread there, didn't I? Sorry. Tex's post sent me in that direction. Plus I can't sleep.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 2, 2006 -> 10:15 PM) To play devils advocate, would it have been? What about the legal fees they'd have to mount to make it happen? For the record, the renovation is stupid. Is a construction company going to spend the extravagant legal fees to sue for a sum much larger than the project itself, which won't win? No. Will they maybe try to sue for some precentage of it? Maybe, but then they'd also pay lots of fees, possibly more than the payoff. I just doubt either side would want to mess with it, given the circumstances. But you never know for sure, I suppose. I just think Blanco's office made the poor choice here.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 2, 2006 -> 08:35 PM) Are you questioning the original budgeting of remodeling the offices, or continuing the project after the hurricane? I am questioning the continuation of the work. I doubt the threat of a lawsuit was a reality here, but even if it was, with all the other concerns they have, they shouldn't have spent the money on that. The project should have been shelved. Even if they got sued for some percentage of that money, that still would have been better for the state if less money was spent. Now the project itself may have been over-spending in the first place too - I have no idea. Hard to evaluate without a lot more info.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 2, 2006 -> 06:41 PM) I don't think it is corruption to spend half a million on remodeling. It is stupid. Corruption and lack of fiscal discipline tend to go hand in hand. That's why this is no surprise. That's what I was getting at.

Why isn't this thread in Trade Winds?

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 2, 2006 -> 12:51 PM) To be fair, all three levels of government (federal, state, and local) were equally unprepared to deal with this mess. All of the political finger-pointing is ridiculous. I'm not sure if Blanco's an idiot, but this news suggests that she may be corrupt as hell. Exactly - FEMA, the state of Lousiana and all the local cities and counties/parishes were equally unprepared for a disaster that they KNEW was coming (in the short AND long term). And since New Orleans is known for having the most corruput local government in this country (exhibit one: NOPD), I guess we shouldn't be surprised to see the governor of LA is right there with them.