Everlong204

article from florida marlins home page...interesting or noteworthy items highlighted. MIAMI -- Before the World Series even started, the wheels were in motion for the first trade in the Hot Stove season. For about a week and a half, the Marlins had been in ongoing discussions with the Royals regarding a deal of first baseman Mike Jacobs for a relief pitcher. In their first step in remolding their roster, the Marlins on Thursday afternoon traded off power for pitching. Jacobs, who hit 32 home runs and drove in 93 runs this past season, was dealt to the Royals for right-handed reliever Leo Nunez, a 25-year-old who has a mid-90s fastball. "Really, we were trading from an area of depth to an area that we wanted to create more depth in," Marlins president of baseball operations Admin Beinfest said. Eligible for arbitration for the first time, Jacobs' salary projects to rise from $395,000 to about $3.5 million. The left-handed-hitting first baseman was celebrating his 28th birthday on the day he was traded for the second time in his career. "It's been one of those hectic days," Jacobs said in an interview from his home in San Diego. "Not only is it my birthday, but I'm getting calls for that, and people hearing the news." The Marlins acquired Jacobs from the Mets on Thanksgiving night of 2005 as part of the Carlos Delgado trade. Power was the staple for the Marlins the past few years. In 2008, the club set a franchise record with 208 home runs. Yet, with the power came strikeouts. Jacobs, who batted .247 with a .299 on-base percentage in '08, struck out 119 times in 477 at-bats. "I still truly believe that I'm not a .240 hitter in the big leagues," Jacobs said. "I think the power numbers are going to stay there. I think the RBI numbers will stay there, if not be higher. The biggest thing I need to work on this [upcoming] year is being more of a complete hitter. Being able to go the other way more. Being able to not stay in a slump quite as long." As a team, the Marlins struck out a Major League most 1,371 times. "Ultimately, with the new look, whoever it is at first base, you might have to trade off a little bit of the power, but you may be looking at fewer strikeouts and possibly a higher on-base [percentage], which could lead to more run production in a different way than the home run," said Beinfest, who praised Jacobs for his production and hard work in three seasons in Florida. Dealing Jacobs removes a left-handed power bat from the roster. The Marlins' options at first base now are to either switch Jorge Cantu to first base or go with Double-A first baseman Gaby Sanchez, a 25-year-old who batted .314 with 17 home runs and 92 RBIs with the Carolina Mudcats. Sanchez, a Miami native who attended the University of Miami, appeared in five games for the Marlins as a September callup. He had three hits in eight at-bats. If Cantu, who played first base as a defensive replacement for Jacobs in the late innings, is moved to first base, veteran Wes Helms and Dallas McPherson could split time at third base. McPherson also can play first base. McPherson, who broke in with the Angels before experiencing back problems, enjoyed a healthy season at Triple-A Albuquerque. He batted .275, and his 42 home runs were the most in the Minor Leagues -- at any level -- this past season. Because all four third base options also can play first base, Beinfest noted the organization has depth at that position. The organization also is high on prospect Logan Morrison, who projects to move up to Double-A Jacksonville next season. Morrison is currently playing in the Arizona Fall League. While Cantu, McPherson and versatile Alfredo Amezaga all are arbitration-eligible, the team is expected to sign all three. Jacobs appreciated his time with the Marlins, and he welcomes a new start in Kansas City. "We grew up together, me and those guys," said Jacobs, who in 2006 was one of more than 20 rookies to see action for the Marlins that year. "I think that is something you are not going to see, maybe ever again, the amount of young guys who came in and played right away. We were able to play together for three years. I wish them nothing but luck. I'm going to miss all the boys over there. We were like a brotherhood over there." Jacobs also thinks he will see time as a designated hitter in the American League. "I've got to assume that is going to be part of the plan too, to DH," Jacobs said. "I'm looking forward to that. Playing in the Minor Leagues, you obviously DH a lot. It's something I'm comfortable with. I think it is something that suits me just well. I still haven't gotten my 600 plate appearances yet. Hopefully, I'll get them this year." Money also played a part in Thursday's trade. The Marlins are expected to have a payroll between $30-35 million. "We wanted to make sure our allocation of our payroll is distributed correctly in the areas that it needs to be in order to be as competitive as possible," Beinfest said. As for the makeup of the ballclub, the Marlins are hoping to return to more of a pitching, defense and speed formula -- the trademark of their 2003 World Series championship squad. "We want to get back to our pitching and defense model," Beinfest said. "We want to improve the defense. We think the pitching is, right now, on paper, a strength of this team. The starting pitching ... it's a lot different than it was a year ago. We will enter '09 with a much different feel and confidence in our starting pitching. We want to make sure our bullpen is strong. We just need to catch the ball better." Jacobs was part of history for Florida this season. The Marlins became the first team in Major League history to have four infielders each connect on 25 or more home runs. Shortstop Hanley Ramirez had 33, while Jacobs and second baseman Dan Uggla each finished with 32. Cantu delivered 29. It's been the team's philosophy in any trade to try to return pitching. This deal was no exception. For their power-hitting first baseman, the Marlins are bringing in Nunez, who would factor into the back end of the bullpen. The 25-year-old Nunez, not yet in his arbitration years, finished with a 4-1 record and a 2.98 ERA in 45 games for the Royals this past season. He threw 48 1/3 innings, striking out 26 while walking 15. Beinfest said the Marlins have had interest in Nunez for a couple of seasons. "We weren't able to get our hands on him," Beinfest said of previous attempts to acquire the right-hander. "We think he can pitch later in the game for us. The seventh inning or later." Nunez broke in with the Royals in 2005, and he has appeared in 106 games. His career record is 9-7 with a 4.92 ERA. A native of the Dominican Republic, he adds big league experience to the bullpen. Some feel he could eventually get a chance to close. The past two seasons, Kevin Gregg has handled Florida's closing role, compiling 29 saves in 38 chances in '08. In '07, he converted 32 of 36 opportunities. But Gregg, who is eligible for free agency after the 2009 season, made $2.5 million this past year. The Marlins, according to sources, are actively shopping him. Gregg was bothered by a left knee injury late in the year, and Matt Lindstrom took over, going 5-for-5 in save chances in September. Lindstrom, barring any moves for an established closer, will head into Spring Training as the front-runner to secure the job. Lindstrom is the hardest-throwing pitcher on the staff, boasting a fastball that ranges from 96-100 mph. Nunez has reached 96 mph. Asked if closing could be in Nunez's future, Beinfest added: "We feel the velocity is there. You never really know anybody until you are with him every day. In terms of the velocity and the stuff, I don't see why that couldn't be an option. We'll get him into camp, get him into a Marlins uniform and go from there." http://florida.marlins.mlb.com/news/articl...sp&c_id=fla

I think a select amount of replies have missed one of my points in the original post - I asked for the sake of argument what would happen under a libertarian president who (NOTE: THIS IS THE HYPOTHETICAL PART) has absolute power. Not trying to be a devils advocate but it is hard to imagine a libertarian president merely based on the fact that this country has never had one. If elected without many libertarians in congress would leave that president almost powerless since both republicans and democrats would still control all the taxpayer money in congress. How a president would lead has as much to do with the person him or herself as it does with the party they represent. This would be easier maybe if they libertarians had a certain person in mind that they would like to see as president and "given congressional support" what they would hypothetically do with the country might give a better response.

At the right price, I would love to have him back. When he is on the mound he can pitch with the best of them. Worst case scenario, IF we can get him cheap is he pitches half the year and if he gets injured it allows us a little more time to evaluate Tucker, Miller, Sanchez to see which one or two is really ready for the big leagues. A healthy Penny the whole year gives us a rotation that can go against any other rotation in the league.

Here's the thing... Yes, McCain did a good job by saying that he is NOT Bush. What he failed to do was explain why he is not. That's my take, at least. Anybody can say they're this or that, but if you don't explain why...then it's useless. I cant remember the specifics of the examples he brought up, but he brought up his experience working with democrats ( finegold, lieberman and another i cant remember) on bills that the republicans have almost kicked him out of the party for and how he differed from Bush on immigration, conduct of the war, spending and torture. He SHOULD have spent more time on it though.

the first two debates were snoozers...but some of this is good stuff...more then just the same campaign trail speech garbage.

Notable Minor Leagues AAA - Coghlan, Raynor, Mobley, Cruz, Vanden Hurk, Trahern, Doolittle, J. Delgado, Rabelo AA - Morrison, West, Thompson, Sinkbiel, Wood, Leroux, Cousins, Petersen, Winters, G. Taylor A+ - Stanton, Dominguez, Skipworth A - Hand, Correa Do you think with the AAA organization moving to New Orleans that some of the AA studs might get called up to AAA now that the team is out of the launch pads of Albuquerque?

I would pay off my college debt. Plan a weekend to go down to florida and watch a marlins series. Get tickets to a Bengals game (not to hard now a days) and put the rest in a savings account.

The concept of the government creating jobs is funny to me. Exactly, instead of creating programs to find these people jobs or atleast temp jobs lets just spend more and more on increasing welfare and food stamps. Soon a person can make more money being jobless just living off the middle class then actually having a job.

AIG execs' retreat after bailout angers lawmakers By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer Tue Oct 7, 11:15 PM ET WASHINGTON - Days after it got a federal bailout, American International Group Inc. spent $440,000 on a posh California retreat for its executives, complete with spa treatments, banquets and golf outings, according to lawmakers investigating the company's meltdown. AIG sent its executives to the coastal St. Regis resort south of Los Angeles even as the company tapped into an $85 billion loan from the government it needed to stave off bankruptcy. The resort tab included $23,380 worth of spa treatments for AIG employees, according to invoices the resort turned over to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The retreat didn't include anyone from the financial products division that nearly drove AIG under, but lawmakers still were enraged over thousands of dollars spent on outing for executives of AIG's main U.S. life insurance subsidiary. "Average Americans are suffering economically. They're losing their jobs, their homes and their health insurance," the committee's chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., scolded the company during a lengthy opening statement at a hearing Tuesday. "Yet less than one week after the taxpayers rescued AIG, company executives could be found wining and dining at one of the most exclusive resorts in the nation." Former AIG CEO Robert Willumstad, who lost his job a day after the Federal Reserve put up the $85 billion on Sept. 16, said he was not familiar with the conference and would not have gone along with it. "It seems very inappropriate," Willumstad said in response to questioning from Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md. "Those executives should be fired," Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said at a debate with Sen. John McCain on Tuesday, referring to the retreat participants. Obama also said AIG should give the Treasury $440,000 to cover the costs of the retreat. But Eric Dinallo, superintendent of the New York State Insurance Department, said he could see the value of such a retreat under the circumstances. "Having been at large global companies and knowing what condition AIG was in ... the absolute worst thing that could have happened" would have been for employees and underwriters in its life insurance subsidiary to flee the company. "I do agree there is some profligate spending there, but the concept of bringing all the major employees together ... to ensure that the $85 billion could be as greatly as possible paid back would have been not a crazy corporate decision," Dinallo told the House committee. The hearing disclosed that AIG executives hid the full range of its risky financial products from auditors as losses mounted, according to documents released by the committee, which is examining the chain of events that forced the government to bail out the conglomerate. The panel sharply criticized AIG's former top executives, who cast blame on each other for the company's financial woes. "You have cost my constituents and the taxpayers of this country $85 billion and run into the ground one of the most respected insurance companies in the history of our country," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. "You were just gambling billions, possibly trillions of dollars." AIG, crippled by huge losses linked to mortgage defaults, was forced last month to accept the $85 billion government loan that gives the U.S. the right to an 80 percent stake in the company. Waxman unveiled documents showing AIG executives hid the full extent of the firm's risky financial products from auditors, both outside and inside the firm, as losses mounted. For instance, federal regulators at the Office of Thrift Supervision warned in March that "corporate oversight of AIG Financial Products ... lack critical elements of independence." At the same time, PricewaterhouseCoopers confidentially warned the company that the "root cause" of its mounting problems was denying internal overseers in charge of limiting AIG's exposure access to what was going on in its highly leveraged financial products branch. Waxman also released testimony from former AIG auditor Joseph St. Denis, who resigned after being blocked from giving his input on how the firm estimated its liabilities. Three former AIG executives were summoned to appear before the hearing. One of them, Maurice "Hank" Greenberg ? who ran AIG for 38 years until 2005 ? canceled his appearance citing illness but submitted prepared testimony. In it, he blamed the company's financial woes on his successors, former CEOs Martin Sullivan and Willumstad. "When I left AIG, the company operated in 130 countries and employed approximately 92,000 people," Greenberg said. "Today, the company we built up over almost four decades has been virtually destroyed." Sullivan and Willumstad, in turn, cast much of the blame on accounting rules that forced AIG to take tens of billions of dollars in losses stemming from exposure to toxic mortgage-related securities. Lawmakers also upbraided Sullivan, who ran the firm from 2005 until June of this year, for urging AIG's board of directors to waive pay guidelines to win a $5 million bonus for 2007 ? even as the company lost $5 billion in the 4th quarter of that year. Sullivan countered that he was mainly concerned with helping other senior executives. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_bi_ge/meltdown_aig

I was more afraid of this statement more then anything. I agree in cutting the missile defense shield funding based on our current economic situation, but slowing down the progress of improving military technologies ??? many of the things we take for granted and use everyday are based off products of military technologies (GPS for example). Not to mention our military is behind the curve too much as it is. Other countries are not only trying to advance there own military, but always trying to counter our technologies. They are just now retiring the F-117 Stealth Fighter, but it should have been replaced years ago by the F-22. Other countries had found how to detect the F-117 radar signature and during the Clinton lead Bombing and intervention in Bosnia, one was shot down. Unless systems consistently improve our military superiority will be lost. If you have to fight a war, you don't want a fair fight, or just enough forces to get the job done (gulf war 2) you want to have such superiority that there hardly is a "fight" or best yet, to have the enemy come to the peace table under your terms. I disagreed with about 80% of what Obama said about defense funding, but he wants to fund this "National Security Force" whatever the hell that might be :confused While I'm for a reduction in Nuclear weapons, a Nuclear free world after 1945 is unattainable. IF the U.S. and Russia, dismantle all there nukes, Israel sure as hell is still going to keep theres, Iran will allways want one, I doubt China will give there's up, and even if they do, North Korea is sure to keep theres, even if they say they won't. Just because the U.S. plays "nice" dosent mean that Iran and North Korea are just going to say "o look, the U.S is playing nice , so should we" because they blab on and on about how they need nukes to protect themselves from America but it's not really about that, they have been saying the same thing since Ayatollah took over. The real reason is they want power, more and more power, and whats the most powerful thing they can have ? a nuclear weapon. I'm on the fence about our continued war in Iraqi so I reserve judgment on that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuVUrRCzgeg

Nolasco for sure, and i'm excited to see what he can do if he is healthy from day one next year. Not taking anything away from Cantu, who was sensational as well.

I really hope the front office invests in Rhodes for atleast a few more years. Given the amount of lefty power bats in our division having Rhodes is a must to compete with the Mets and Phillies. Especially in late, tight games that seemed to get away from us this year. To answer the original question, yes, I think Nelson will be back.He should be cheap and fairly reliable next year IMO.

You know what amazes me about the conservative movement? It can't be wrong. Ever. Nothing is ever ever ever its fault or goes wrong. If something goes wrong, people just weren't conservative enough or its the fault of liberals. It's pretty much a self-fullfiling vision. I give them credit. When I know I f*** something up, I can't look someone in the eyes with a straight face and then actually say it was their fault. :blink: actually after reading the bullpen forum you would think that conservatives were to blame for everything and that democrats are just innocent little bystanders :whistle

I'm In !!!!!!!!!!!!!! :BananaLlama

My candidate, myself Even when faced with new facts and insights, most voters don't change their minds about their favorite candidates. A neurologist explains how they might. Sept. 22, 2008 | "Let's make sure that there is certainty during uncertain times" -- George W. Bush, 2008 Last week, I jokingly asked a health club acquaintance whether he would change his mind about his choice for president if presented with sufficient facts that contradicted his present beliefs. He responded with utter confidence. "Absolutely not," he said. "No new facts will change my mind because I know that these facts are correct." I was floored. In his brief rebuttal, he blindly demonstrated overconfidence in his own ideas and the inability to consider how new facts might alter a presently cherished opinion. Worse, he seemed unaware of how irrational his response might appear to others. It's clear, I thought, that carefully constructed arguments and presentation of irrefutable evidence will not change this man's mind. In the current presidential election, a major percentage of voters are already committed to "their candidate"; new arguments and evidence fall on deaf ears. And yet, if we, as a country, truly want change, we must be open-minded, flexible and willing to revise our opinions when new evidence warrants it. Most important, we must be able to recognize and acknowledge when we are wrong. Unfortunately, cognitive science offers some fairly sobering observations about our ability to judge ourselves and others. Perhaps the single academic study most germane to the present election is the 1999 psychology paper by David Dunning and Justin Kruger, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments." The two Cornell psychologists began with the following assumptions. # Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill. # Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others. # Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy. To put their theories to the test, the psychologists asked a group of Cornell undergraduates to undergo a series of self-assessments, including tests of logical reasoning taken from a Law School Admissions Test preparation guide. Prior to being shown their test scores, the subjects were asked to estimate how they thought they would fare in comparison with the others taking the tests. On average, participants placed themselves in the 66th percentile, revealing that most of us tend to overestimate our skills somewhat. But those in the bottom 25 percent consistently overestimated their ability to the greatest extent. For example, in the logical reasoning section, individuals that scored in the 12th percentile believed that their general reasoning abilities fell at the 68th percentile, and that their overall scores would be in the 62nd percentile. The authors point out that the problem was not primarily underestimating how others had done; those in the bottom quartile overestimated the number of their correct answers by nearly 50 percent. Similarly, after seeing the answers of the best performers -- those in the top quartile -- those in the bottom quartile continued to believe that they had performed well. The article's conclusion should be posted as a caveat under every political speech of those seeking office. And it should serve as the epitaph for the Bush administration: "People who lack the knowledge or wisdom to perform well are often unaware of this fact. That is, the same incompetence that leads them to make wrong choices also deprives them of the savvy necessary to recognize competence, be it their own or anyone else's." Site Pass Presented by The converse also bears repeating. Despite the fact that students in the top quartile fairly accurately estimated how well they did, they also tended to overestimate the performance of others. In short, smart people tend to believe that everyone else "gets it." Incompetent people display both an increasing tendency to overestimate their cognitive abilities and a belief that they are smarter than the majority of those demonstrably sharper. Closely allied with this unshakable self-confidence in one's decisions is a second separate aspect of meta-cognition, the feeling of being right. As I have pointed out in my recent book, "On Being Certain," feelings of conviction, certainty and other similar states of "knowing what we know" may feel like logical conclusions, but are in fact involuntary mental sensations that function independently of reason. At their most extreme, these are the spontaneous "aha" or "Eureka" sensations that tell you that you have made a major discovery. Lesser forms include gut feelings, hunches and vague intuitions of knowing something, as well as the standard "yes, that's right" feeling that you get when you solve a problem. The evidence is substantial that these feelings do not correlate with the accuracy or quality of the thought. Indeed, these feelings can occur in the absence of any specific thought, such as with electrical and chemical brain stimulation. They can also occur spontaneously during so-called mystical or spiritual epiphanies in which the affected person senses an immediate "understanding of the meaning or purpose of the universe." William James described this phenomenon as "felt knowledge." Feelings of absolute certainty and utter conviction are not rational deliberate conclusions; they are involuntary mental sensations generated by the brain. Like other powerful mental states such as love, anger and fear, they are extraordinarily difficult to dislodge through rational arguments. Just as it's nearly impossible to reason with someone who's enraged and combative, refuting or diminishing one's sense of certainty is extraordinarily difficult. Certainty is neither created by nor dispelled by reason. Similarly, without access to objective evidence, we are terrible at determining whether a candidate is telling us the truth. Most large-scale psychological studies suggest that the average person is incapable of accurately predicting whether someone is lying. In most studies, our abilities to make such predictions, based on facial expressions and body language, are no greater than by chance alone -- hardly a recommendation for choosing a presidential candidate based upon a gut feeling that he or she is honest. Worse, our ability to assess political candidates is particularly questionable when we have any strong feeling about them. An oft-quoted fMRI study by Emory psychologist Drew Westen illustrates how little conscious reason is involved in political decision-making. Westen asked staunch party members from both sides to evaluate negative (defamatory) information about their 2004 presidential choice. Areas of the brain (prefrontal cortex) normally engaged during reasoning failed to show increased activation. Instead, the limbic system -- the center for emotional processing -- lit up dramatically. According to Westen, both Republicans and Democrats "reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted" (cognitive dissonance). In other words, we are as bad at judging ourselves as we are at judging others. Most cognitive scientists now believe that the majority of our thoughts originate in the areas of the brain inaccessible to conscious introspection. These beginnings of thoughts arrive in consciousness already colored with inherent bias. No two people see the world alike. Each of our perceptions is filtered through our genetic predispositions, inherent biologic differences and idiosyncratic life experiences. Your red is not my red. These differences extend to the very building blocks of thoughts; each of us will look at any given question from his own predispositions. Thinking may be as idiosyncratic as fingerprints. As a result, we are all plagued by bias, self-deceit and poor character judgment. So, is there a better approach, a better methodology for assessing important personal qualities when the chips are down? After all, when that 3 a.m. emergency call comes, we won't care about a president's charm, church, oratorical abilities, cuteness of children, whether he or she wears designer glasses, is the world's greatest war hero, has an Arabic-sounding middle name or "feels like one of us." Would we choose a neurosurgeon for those reasons? I would choose a neurosurgeon for his or her dexterity and decision-making. So I want a president aware of how his mind works, as well as what he suspects are his inborn biases and intellectual limitations. Ironically, the acknowledgment of intellectual limitations may be the best evidence for superior decision-making skills. Contrary to George Bush's belief, we do not want certainty in the White House. We want flexibility and an acknowledgment that certainty is often a sign of ignorance. Unfortunately, sound bites, TV interviews and presidential debates often fail to reveal the candidates' real thought processes -- how each would approach a new or complex problem for which he or she doesn't already have a pat answer. Ideally, I would like to put the candidates through a series of tests similar to those given to the Cornell undergraduates. The candidates would be given questions, including a variety of "thought experiments" for which they could not be prepared in advance. Then we could see their thought processes in action. We would have a better idea of how they reasoned and whether they rely on gut feelings and instincts. We could see their ability to step back from their own answers to judge their quality and accuracy. As many of the most pressing issues of the day have a large science component, I would particularly want to focus on each candidate's intellectual grasp of scientific method, from choosing and evaluating evidence to seeing how they would respond to a well-constructed contrary line of reasoning. I would want them to answer difficult, complex questions about aspects of science such as global warming, stem-cell research or alternative energy sources for which they may not have adequate knowledge. I want to see how the candidates respond when stumped. Are they evasive, flustered or straightforward in admitting what they don't know or understand? Equally important, I would like to see how each responds when presented with evidence that his answers are wrong. Is he or she capable of admitting to having made an error? Would he or she be flexible enough to change an opinion? Site Pass Presented by And, when answers seem to conflict with traditional reasoning and scientific method, I would want the candidate to explain why he or she continues to hold such beliefs. For example, give me a reason-based, scientific explanation of speaking in tongues, or how one can objectively determine that one has "heard the voice of God," or that the Earth is 7,000 years old. This is not meant as a challenge to one's faith -- each of us is entitled to our beliefs. But as a public servant, each candidate has the obligation to explain how non-scientific beliefs are justified. If a candidate insists on a faith-based decision, such as "knowing" that the Earth is only as old as written in the Bible, I want to hear how that is justified in the face of contrary evidence. Each of the candidates has repeatedly emphasized that this is a pivotal moment in American history. They are all experienced in interviewing potential co-workers, running partners and job applicants. I doubt that they would stop at allowing an applicant to simply recite his qualifications. So the candidates should be willing, even eager to submit to the most difficult personal interrogations themselves. After all, this is an opportunity to demonstrate their intellectual prowess and skills with decision-making. Conversely, no candidate should be allowed to retreat into canned speeches or evasive comments. Many of the failures of post-9/11 American policy were caused by or aggravated by the inability of our president to recognize his intellectual limitations (including his choice of advisors), keep an open mind, evaluate evidence such as the presence or absence of weapons of mass destruction, and listen to all sides of a complex issue. Perhaps this could have been avoided if Bush had been forced to publicly answer serious multifaceted questions prior to the election. Let's not make the same mistake again. The next six weeks are our only chance to elect the most qualified candidate. This is not a time for interviewer politeness and gentle repartee that sidesteps controversial or delicate issues. It is not enough to hear each candidate regurgitate memorized and rehearsed policy statements; we must know what they will do and how they will act in situations for which they have not been adequately prepared. Leadership is measured by the best decisions during the worst times. Robert Burton, M.D., is the former chief of neurology at Mount Zion-UCSF Hospital and the author of "On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not." His column, "Mind Reader," appears regularly in Salon. http://www.salon.com/env/mind_reader/2008/...oice/index.html Kind of long but a great article. I know alot of times I am very guilty of this when I'm debating issues with someone, the emotion part of the mind takes over rather then the logical part and nothing is learned on either side at this point.

I got a kick out of these cartoons when I got furloughed. Enjoy, they are freakin' hilarious. http://www.oddtodd.com/cartoons.html

not updated for todays games: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/ps_odds.php 0.13257% at the divison, 0.05410% at the wild card, so a total of 0.18667% chance of making the playoffs.

Crap, May and June are pretty hard months. Every month looks like a hard month. THATS WHAT SHE SAID !!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA .....sorry I couldn't resist :mischief :mischief

I hear scrubs will be a mid-season replacement for ABC... mid-season cant come soon enough, eh? i'm itching for some new scrubs!!!!

To be fair, I think a 30% consumption tax, flat tax, or fair tax are all terrible ideas. Just cut spending and we won't even need to have this discussion. exactly

OPEC on Wednesday deepened its links with major non-OPEC producer Russia and said it was cutting back output by around half a million barrels per day. Analysts said the group was seeking to support prices at around $100 after prices have plunged from a record of more than $147 in July to a five-month low below $102 on Tuesday. AP Ministers of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) had been widely expected to stick to existing production allocations, which have been in place all year and are still theoretically unchanged. There had been expectations real supply above targets would be discreetly pared back, although few had expected any change to be made public. OPEC President Chakib Khelil said Wednesday's decision amounted to a cut from the group's actual July output. "I think if you do your own calculation properly, it will be a lowering of production by about 520,000 barrels per day," Khelil said. U.S. crude prices initially rose by around a dollar, but later slipped to around $103 a barrel, almost unchanged from the previous close. Russia Moves Closer The other surprise was that major energy producer Russia, which attends OPEC conferences as an observer, sent a very senior official, the influential deputy prime minister Igor Sechin. Analysts linked his attendance to tension between Russia and the West over Moscow's conflict with Georgia. Investor Need to Know * A Primer on Peak Oil Theory * Overview of Energy ETFs * Slideshow: World's Largest Oil Reserves Russia's energy ministry said Russia wanted to hold regular dialogue with OPEC and had invited representatives to Moscow for a meeting in October. In the past, Russia has agreed to trim production in line with OPEC output cuts to support prices. Khelil's estimation of how much output will be removed from the market derived from amounts OPEC members were really producing, rather than agreed limits. OPEC's new production ceiling is 28.8 million bpd, compared with its earlier target of 29.67 million bpd, ministers said. But because Indonesia's membership is suspended from Jan. 1, its allocation has been subtracted, meaning the output ceiling is essentially unchanged. "The communique is much as expected," said Paul Horsnell of Barclays Capital. "However, it also talks of strictly adhering to quotas, when we might have expected the trimming back in coming months to be done more discreetly." Others agreed the only surprise element was that OPEC has made public its intention to remove supply above agreed limits. "The statement is clear as mud, but really what it says is members should keep to quota, which basically means Saudi Arabia should stop the additional barrels that it has provided over the summer, which was somehow expected," said Olivier Jakob of Petromatrix. "I would say it's only half of a surprise because they have made a formal announcement." Targets vs. Actual Production OPEC was estimated to be pumping roughly 790,000 bpd above its agreed target, the bulk of which came from Saudi Arabia. R At a specially convened meeting in Jeddah in June, the leading exporter announced unilaterally that it would pump 9.7 million bpd, around 750,000 bpd above its agreed ceiling. The kingdom said it was responding to strong consumption and a senior Gulf source said on Tuesday he expected it to continue producing at around 9.7 million bpd if demand held steady. "The market is fairly well-balanced and we have worked very hard since the June meeting to bring prices to where they are now. I think we have been very successful," Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi told reporters on arrival in Vienna on Tuesday. He has yet to comment following OPEC's output decision, which was announced at around 3 a.m. New York time on Wednesday morning following a meeting that did not begin until after 10 p.m. on Tuesday because of Ramadan fasting. Ahead of the conference, most OPEC ministers had seemed broadly happy with the oil price and had indicated there was probably no need for urgent action, although some -- including Iran, Libya, Venezuela and Algeria?said there was a risk the market could become oversupplied. "While we believe that Saudi Arabia would be perfectly happy with prices in the $90 to $100 range, it seems that other OPEC members wished to give a slightly stronger signal. For those members, it appears that the $100 level is shaping up as a sort of soft floor," Horsnell said. OPEC will further review its production policy at a meeting in Algeria on Dec. 17. http://www.cnbc.com/id/26632977 looks like some OPEC nations want to keep there stranglehold on our economy, we need to bump up the alternative energies pronto.

We probably would have won 3-4 more games with Manny then without him, the offense has been dismal, and the defense even worse down the stretch... if 3-4 games dosent make a difference come the end of the year, then we by far made the right move. IMO

Regardless of what person holds the highest office in the land and which party they're affiliated with, it will be a challenging time with at least some unsolvable problems, the blame for which will inevitably be placed at their feet. The previous two elections provided me with these choices - Bush/Cheney, Gore/Lieberman, Kerry/Edwards - that did not inspire me in the least. In a complete 180 this time around, I find both presidential candidates and both vice presidential candidates give me hope for the future. As Obama addressed in his speech at the DNC last week, there are clearly issues on which the two sides differ, but there are also core ideas within each that they can all agree upon. It is for that reason that, while my views may skew towards the Republican party, given my conservative leanings and my belief in small government (which Bush did not promote to my chagrin) I would not be so averse to a Obama/Biden victory in November (at least as much as democrats in the past). I sincerely believe the four people on the major party tickets this election are truly good people with good intentions. I can handle differences in opinion from someone who sincerely seems to care about the common good, something I'm not convinced about in the current administration.