dc.

Excess stock-piles tend to cause prices to go down... not up. And for prices to top 2.10 a gallon, you would have to see a dramatic increase in the per-barrel price... at least to $60. So long as demand stays low and barrel prices stay between 30 and 60 bucks, we won't see gallons over 2.10-2.15. Even with routine maintenance and whatever intangibles you want to throw in. Hell, OPEC has already 'slashed production' by 3.5m barrels over the last 4 months in efforts to keep prices up... and it continues to fail. Oil went up $4 today. I bet you it will go down 30c tomorrow, then up $1 Monday... then down $6 Tuesday. Welcome to 2009. Because of the massive fluctuations, pumps will stay between 1.75 and 1.95, but won't go up excessively.

That's funny, Ken. Everytime oil gets anywhere near $50 a barrel these days, it topples all the way back down to $35 on fears of lack of demand... and the lack of demand isn't changing anytime soon. To be close to $3 again the price of a barrel would have to be close to or over $100. Meanwhile... I get as pissy about oil companies as the next guy. But some things we ask for. We are not freaking entitled to cheap prices and high wages. We just aren't. And we're paying for that unreasonable expectation. We all want to make 100,000 bucks, pay no taxes, have perfect roads and safety, and have everything be cheap. And now we pay for it. You want it cheaper? In food that means unhealthy substitutes (high fructose corn syrup for plain sugar). In other items that means outsourcing of jobs and production. And eventually, with all that outsourcing of production to keep prices low, you are going to see job loss in this country. We all want cheap oil and lots of it and no environmental ramifications. If 30 years ago companies had bumped gas prices by 10c a gallon to accommodate new pipeline costs and investment in other energy options, everyone would have laughed and whined about the 10c hike. Now we pay for it. Oil's the only legitimate option at the moment and we are stuck paying what we demand for. There's enough cars, enough boats, enough everything eating oil all day long that we have to deal with our choices. WE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO CHEAP OIL. WE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY OIL. Get used to it. You have to either choose quality or price. You don't get both.

The pitching is here... it's just another year or two away. And I'm fine with that. Again, Matusz, Tillman, Arrietta, Patton, Hernandez, Bergeson, Erbe... the list goes on and on... not to mention those we have already seen in the bigs (Ray, Sarfate, Johnson, Cormier, Albers) Andy's philosophy is to buy bats and raise arms. So far we're raising both, which is hard to be unhappy about. The bats are here now... and still coming (Wieters, Montanez, Pie, Jones, Snyder), the arms are on their way. We just need to hold on to them and get them to the bigs.

Right. But the 99c gas is equated with barrels under $20. Not with $36 barrels.

That's the same chart I was looking at and article when I said you were making it up. In 1978-1981, in the midst of a few wars and conflicts, prices jumped. But by 1983-1987, prices were UNDER $10 a barrel at some times. THAT is when you saw gas at 99c. When prices per barrel were higher, that's when we had that big ol' gas shortage that I'm sure you remember. The point remains... prices in he 80s were much lower than they are now. And that's why your per-gallon cost was so much lower. And even as recently as 2000, we had VERY VERY low per barrel and per gallon costs. You asserted that the last time we had seen $35/barrel was in the 80's and that the price per gallon then was 99c. I'm saying we last saw $35/barrel was just four year ago. And that before that, for most of the 2000's and 1990's, we were well UNDER that price. I remember gas prices being between 1.00 and 1.25 for most of my childhood and my time in high school. And look at the graphs... that's when barrel prices were lowest. In 03/04/05 when we see the spike begin, that's when you see prices pushing $2 a gallon. The price we're seeing now is perhaps 10c higher per gallon than in 03/04 when we last saw this barrel price and that is because of a grossly unstable market. Yes, I know this is OPEC countries only... but their prices tend to be higher than non-OPEC, with the exception of the American oil we don't consume.

Rolle has been a real weak link on this defense for the last two seasons. He cannot play up on his man, he always gives a 10-15 yard cushion to avoid getting beat deep, and thus he gets his ass beat over the middle. He can't tackle. He can't run. He can't hit. And he found himself turned around multiple times in big plays this year that really, really hurt the Ravens (running AWAY from Chris Johnson on his big 40 yard catch in the playoffs, falling over his own feet in the final drive by the Steelers in week 15, etc). I think it's time he went.

4 years for 40 pending physical... WOOOOOOOOOO. Alright, so between Roberts and Markakis resigning, trading for a pair of top-notch young players (Hill and Pie), picking up a few other little pieces, and have a solid draft... We have to give this off-season a grade of A. Even if we didn't get any of the big names that may have been on the radar. And I almost forgot ditching the likes of Daniel Cabrera and Ramon Hernandez! And Jay Payton! (He wasn't too bad... just never a fan) Roberts for 10 a year is a bargain. Not quite the bargain of Markakis for 11 a year, but still a bargain. And when Markakis is 31, he'll be asking for 15 a year... so yeah, it's a bargain.

Except that the article explains it clearly. The $40 a barrel is for Texas oil right now. Overseas oil costs more. Your gas station and most oil companies buy from overseas. Why? Because the infrastructure is set up that way and American oil generally costs more. Can we expect them to suddenly change every last structure of the oil market because prices in the US dropped sharply? International oil prices are going to fall as well; they are falling. It will take time for local prices to reflect that, but they will as well. Also - quit making things up. Oil prices were as low as $30 (or less) as recently as 1999/2000. It hasn't been forever. Prices shot up in the last 5 years and have been unstable ever since. But in the late 90s and early 00s, we were under 30 many a day. In the 1980's prices were BELOW $20 a barrel at times. That's where 99c comes from.

There's usually a delay between the market and the pump. You'll see local prices fall soon enough, I think. So long as the prices stay down. Go look at the crude index... it was as high as 45 bucks two weeks ago. And only got under 40 a week ago. It certainly has to do with whose oil is being bought... if we're not buying our own reserves from Texas then stupid us. But the purchasers will shift when they have a chance... soon enough.

Ocean City's my town, man.

So then.... it is still in Boston? Someone needs to make up their mind. Is your school on wheels? Next you're going to tell me it is in Chapel Hill.

It already has to some extent. I mean, is Ocean City going to be underwater in our lifetime? Probably not. Are the ice caps going to be gone? Probably not. But think of the exceptional size and strength of hurricanes in recent years - Katrina, Rita, whichever one hit Houston (forget its name)... talk to people in the northern US who are getting more snow than ever before, and earlier... and the other side, think about the volatility of our own climate... how many major droughts have we been talking about in this area in recent years? How many screwy corn crops? Those are symptoms of global warming. Warmer weather, warmer waters, gives more strength to weather systems which feed off of that kind of moisture. And simply general volatility.

Ugh. I feel like I do this everyday, Crav. Wrong on two fronts. First, a single cold month means nothing in the long run. The odds of rolling snake eyes are 1 in 36. If you roll snake eyes 5 times in a row, the odds of rolling snakes the next time are still 1 in 6. A brief aberration doesn't mean something isn't true. Secondly, and more importantly, everyone should realize by now that global warming is a misnomer. Yes, the world is getting warmer. But the effects of the world getting warmer are not restricted (in quantity or importance) to you simply seeing more warm days here and there. Global warming will cause (is already causing, perhaps?) massive disruptions to global climates that manifest as massive instability. In other words: a hotter earth is not just about heat, it's about unpredictability... bigger storms (because there is more moisture in the air - see Katrina, blizzards, etc), extra hot or extra cold fronts (it's suddenly 60 in January? 70 even? shit... that's gonna mess with every animal and plant out there, and new and changing currents and tides... Now... whether you care about global warming or not... that's your own choice. I don't even know how much I care. I go back and forth between a Nietchze-minded "this world is for me" and a humanitarian "this world is greater than me" argument. But whether you give two shits or not, you should at least realize that global warming is not just about a few more days on the beach every summer or a degree or two here and there. It WILL affect your life in one way or another.

I thought the school was in Chestnut Hill?

And how about this angle... Global warming causes ice to melt in arctic caps. Between more ice melting and more global warming, the overall ocean temperature changes slightly (up or down). The slight change in temperature disrupts major ocean systems... like the Gulf Stream, which with little explanation, delivers warmer water and therefore warmer climate to areas from the east coast of the US (us, the north east) to the west of Europe (Portugal, England, etc)... The dissolution of the Gulf Stream changes the climate of most northern countries and land masses, and the water surrounding them... ... thus lowering overall global temperatures and ocean temperatures... and resulting in more ice? (head spinning yet?) That's the basis of The Day After Tomorrow... though the movie clearly stretched it... but still, quite funky.

I think we keep him. Still not sure about Pryce. Douglas and McKinney are okay, but I'd rather Gregg. And, as with all big lineman like that, someone's going to go down. Also, I think Gregg's ability to rush the passer/break down blockers is underrated and WAS missed last year. Between Gregg and Ngata, if they get a good push, that's four lineman already accounted for. Leaving one lineman and a fullback or running back to handle Pryce, Suggs, Bannan and/or whoever else we send to the line. Finally, assuming that one of our three linebackers is gone, I think we're going to see this unit return to a 4-3 defense. Bannan-Gregg-Ngata-Pryce along the front with Suggs, Lewis, Johnson in the box. And then we'll see Suggs move onto the line occasionally (in place of Bannan or Gregg) and Barnes/McClain pick up the outside LB spot. All this, of course, assuming we don't sign Julius Peppers. Which, assuming we sign Ray and Suggs, we won't. UNLESS Rolle, McAlister, Pryce or some other expense retires or is cut. Phew. Got that?

ALl very true, Yager. I think what she (and most) are upset about is that Roberto apparently knew he had HIV, did not tell her, and then proceeded to have UNprotected sex. That's irresponsible and putting your partner at risk without letting them know. I would say it's similar to driving someone around all day and not telling them you don't have a license, or not telling them your car doesn't have brakes... But I think the point remains that unless she contracts the virus, there's not much to sue for. Just like unless the guy driving you around crashes the car, there's nothing to sue for. You are supposed to be "made whole." She is whole.

I can't decide yet if I think it's a joke or not. It has some pieces that make me think it is, and others that make me think it's not. The fact that a week ago, every news source in the country was running a "Phoenix's career change NOT a hoax" has me just as curious. His rapping sucks, though, that's for sure. I do have a friend who has been around Phoenix a lot - he works in LA these days writing for indie films. He said that Joaquin is still VERY messed up by his brother's death.

Personally, this whole conversation is a joke. First, Ray is PLENTY endorsed. UnderArmour, Adidas, Madden, etc... He may not have commercials everywhere, but only the top 3-4 names in the league get that kind of attention at any given time. But he does have his endorsements and plenty of money coming in from them. Second, an speculation about his family is just insane. Yes, he has a lot of kids with a lot of women. But if he's not married to them and never was, they don't get alimony or any other money... they only get child support. And even at a ridiculously high rate, it that would hardly scratch the surface of his annual salary. As for legal incidents? Legal fees might be costing him a bit. And so might a payout to the Atlanta families... but we don't know any details there and it's silly to try to guess. Even if there was some kind of payout, he would be given the right to pay in increments like anyone else and it wouldn't be killing his current income. Bottom line: Ray is going hard for his money because he thinks he deserves it. He has always played his hand close and always been tough to bargain with - maybe not Terrell Suggs tough at times, but still tough. He thinks he knows his value to this team and to any team and he wants that value matched. Hell, we're hearing that the Pats may franchise Matt Cassel for 14.5m... 14.5m for a back-up quarterback. How much do great defensive leaders make? Half that? He wants his pay and, even if I think it's greedy, I can't blame him for it.

If you saw the rap video recently and thought it was weird and, well, bad... try this one out... http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainm...erman_ston.html Goes on Letterman last night and well... is either stoned off his rocker or just doesn't care that he's there. After repeated attempts to get him to act like a guest, Letterman just starts making fun of him... until Joaquin gets mad... and then its just funny.

Headline News (HLN) is a joke. During the day, it's no better than just regular CNN or MSNBC to get headlines. So I don't know why it is even needed. Then around 6pm it turns into a cheap version of Entertainment Tonight. And then Nancy Grace comes on and you get to watch them talk about Caylee Anthony for 3 hours. Seriously, I don't think Grace has talked about anything but Anthony and Blagovich on her show for the last four months. Nothing else. Ever.

Brett Dennen www.brettdennen.net Yes, he's 29 and looks like a 13 year old girl... and occasionally sounds like one too... but his music is amazing. Saw him at the Recher this weekend. Stellar.

I just watched clips from each newscast on their websites and I stand by my opinions earlier. Fox45 and WJZ are both gimmicky to me. Overly dramatic and hyped-up graphics. WBAL is by far the best. WMAR is just... poor (financially). The graphics are a little gimmicky, but okay. They've tried so many different plans (teaming up with The Sun, teaming up with InsideBaltimore, etc etc), they are just all over the place. But I still like the people there more than WJZ and Fox

Why is it being called AIDS Phobia? Does he have AIDS Phobia? If he were scared (phobic) of AIDS, wouldn't he wear protection and avoid all sexual contact with people? Or is it that the girlfriend is AIDS-phobic? Or is it just a misprint and Alomar is really an AIDS-philiac?

I HATE Fox and CBS (WBFF and WJZ). They are both SOOOO gimmicky and ridiculous. I feel like their graphics are designed to attract the attention of older and/or less intelligent people. Just like FoxNews channel. WJZ's overly-bright and glaring red-yellow-blue graphics KILL me. I prefer to watch WBAL when I watch and have occasionally enjoyed WMAR (Channel 2). That is more because it is so local, since I live in Towson. Many of WMAR's personalities live nearby. Overall, however, I don't watch local news. I flip to CNN long before local news. I catch maybe 10 minutes of an 11pm news broadcast a week... I never watch the midday, 5pm or early morning news.