Brock Beauchamp

It's about damned time. I'd say it's more like "20 years late" but whatever, I'll take it. A US embassy is going to open in Havana this summer. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/01/419165774/u-s-cuba-agree-to-formally-resume-diplomatic-relations

Brian Dozier is really good at baseball.

Say what you will about Herrmann's offense but at least he brings it with the glove. Brings it where, I don't know.

Semantics. Both are technically correct in a manner of speaking. Brian Dozier was not under contract with the Twins. He was under team control but the contract is year-to-year through arbitration years. So, technically both are correct. Maybe not the most perfect terminology but everybody understands what we're talking about.

While I don't agree with your opinion here, it's a reasonable counterpoint. Non-essential vaccines aren't at the core of my argument, though. I'm far more concerned with the return of previously eradicated diseases that can cause serious damage to us as a society. If anti-vaxxers were protesting the chicken pox vaccine, they'd catch far less flak for it... But that isn't reality. There's a loud segment of parents that are refusing to vaccinate their children against anything and the overwhelming reasons for their decision are based in bad science that has been debunked a multitude of times. That's reckless, misguided, and when you get right down to it, stupid. They're not only putting their own children at risk, they're putting other children at risk in the process. Again, I'm not advocating compulsory vaccination. I merely wish people were less idiotic about their decisions.

Like you, I was skeptical of the necessity of the extension but I liked the message it sent to other players: perform and the Twins will take care of you. I'm glad it's working out for everyone involved.

I don't disagree but I hold cautious optimism for Meyer due to his height and the difficulty those players have in controlling their delivery. Meyer is the type of player who could figure it out overnight and become absolutely dominant. Of course, he could also implode spectacularly. He's a risky player but one with an incredibly high ceiling if he manages to figure it out. Given that he's 25 years old, there's still time for the ship to right itself. The more I think about it, the more I agree with the decision to move him to the bullpen. If he can stabilize himself from the pen, he could return to starting at some point, even if it takes him a year or more to do it.

Yep. He's wild. I'll let him pitch a few more innings before declaring that he's in serious trouble.

I was also wary of the White Sox's chances of success. I never fully bought into the Indians either but thought they'd be slightly better than they are right now. Like most people, I didn't see the Twins coming at all.

Too often, this thread isn't fun at all so here are some really fun stats we can all enjoy. The White Sox are a miserable 33-42. Their Pythag record is even worse at 29-46. Their BaseRuns record is even worse than that at 27-48. The White Sox are a really bad baseball team.

America's best hope for improvement rides on our support of familial dynasties! 17th century England was AWESOME. Let's do it again, America!

Win 41. Game #: 2015: 77 2014: 90 2013: 94 2012: 99 2011: 89 Yikes, 2012. It took 100 games to reach the 42 win mark.

I also think it's funny. In a somewhat sad, ridiculous way but still funny.

I shouldn't have said "nearly all" but a significant portion of Protestant churches didn't display outrage over Roe v Wade for many years after the ruling. Many church officials actually came out in favor of it. Here are a few articles I've found on the subject, though I wish I could find the really in-depth one I discovered a few years back. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/01/23/roe-v-wade-backlash-myth-clouds-real-history-of-states-rights-and-segregated-schools/ http://spectator.org/articles/33997/protestants-and-abortion The second article flatly states that the second and third largest religions in America - Southern Baptist and Methodist - embraced or tolerated Roe v Wade for many years after the ruling.

While I agree that violent video games should be played only by children mature enough to understand the consequences of violence (or an adult), you're confusing causation with correlation. There have been many studies that attempt to link violent behavior to video games. The link is tenuous at best and likely to be non-existent. Do kids who feel isolated (the kids who are more prone to acting out violently) play video games in greater numbers? Yeah, maybe... But that's because video games offer escapism for that isolation (one of real reasons kids act out so violently and inappropriately), the same way books, comic books, movies, and television did in the past. The isolation is the problem (the causation), not the video games (the correlation) they play to ease that feeling of isolation. Do you know how many copies the last Grand Theft Auto game sold in the world? 55 million copies. Over half those sales came outside of the United States, yet we hear nary a murmur of a crazed Australian teenager shooting up his local grocery store. I haven't seen any stories about Canadian teens lighting up a Canucks game with an AR-15. This is a uniquely American occurrence... or at least the insane frequency is uniquely American. With that said, let's flip this argument around a bit. Since the invention of realistic violence in video games in the early 90s, violent crime in America has been on the decline. Not just a little bit, but a whole lot on the decline. Do violent video games actually cure real-world violence? Of course not, that's a silly argument. It's confusing correlation with causation again. And, like so many other things in America, it's time we stop confusing correlation with causation and start having real conversations about problems so we can actually fix something.

And let's not forget that those immune-deficient kids grow into immune-deficient adults. My wife works with one.

Lots of misinformation here. Babies aren't magically immune to measles but they cannot be vaccinated for a year or more after birth. Many vaccines aren't given until early to mid childhood. There are also many kids who have weakened immune systems and can never be vaccinated. It requires one to plant their head deeply into the sand to say "this only effects me". It clearly doesn't. We're a society of people and those people interact. Some of those people cannot be vaccinated against specific diseases and every one of them risks their health when they step out the door to their home, all thanks to the horribly misguided anti-vaxxer movement.

While I agree that we must always consider individual liberty, this transcends the rights of the individual and the repercussions must be considered. By refusing to vaccinate their kid, a parent is risking the health of another child who cannot be vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons. That is a real thing. It exists. It's not uncommon. While I'm not a fan of forcing vaccination, I think schools refusing to admit non-vaccinated kids is a reasonable solution. The school should make a decision in the interest of all its students, especially when the unvaccinated kid's parents made a reckless and selfish decision based on misinformation.

There are hundreds of thousands American children who cannot be vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons (weak immune systems, too young to vaccinate, etc.). Every anti-vaccine parent who denies the science, refuses to vaccinate their kid, and sends him/her off to school puts every single one of those kids at risk. I'm not a fan of legislating forced vaccination but I am a fan of people not being stupid. Last year, California and New York had measles outbreaks. MEASLES. How stupid are we? *shakes head in disbelief*

Yeah, pretty much this.

Yeah, this. Let us take a moment to remember Scott Baker; a pitcher who was pretty good when healthy but looked absolutely terrified every moment of his career.

Ah, but it is a mental breakdown on some level because the fungus convinces the ant to change its behavior and travel to specific locations so the fungus can reproduce and spread more effectively.

That's not necessary (I'm having a lot of fun with this conversation). Is a zombie alive? Well, that depends on whether you're looking at the host organism (what we usually refer to as a "zombie") or the infectious agent that caused zombie-like traits (in this case, let's call it a virus). The infectious agent almost certainly meets the characteristics of "life" and can be found in nature. I read about this fungus long ago and it's absolutely terrifying because "OMG AAAHHHHHH ZOMBIE FUNGUS". http://kdshives.com/2014/01/07/mind-controlling-fungus-turns-insects-into-zombies/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuKjBIBBAL8

It's not tweaking the definition, it's two different uses of the word. In a scientific manner, "life" means one thing. In a legal sense of the word, it means something different... One that we, as a society, define based on our own set of principles and the world around us. It's not terribly different then a "scientific theory" versus the colloquial use of "theory". They're not the same thing. They're not supposed to be the same thing. You have one definition of the legal use of "life". I define it differently... Which brings us back around to the problem of "what is life?" When dealing with matters that involve philosophy and/or faith, there is never going to be a consensus on the definition.

I love this thought experiment and I chuckle every time I think of it. If God created the universe, then take a step further back in time and ask "When was God created?" If nothing created God and he always existed, why couldn't the universe do the same? And if the universe created itself from nothing and/or always existed, is it God?