bmags

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 09:01 AM) I mean, I don't think people are really giving Trevor Noah his due. He's doing a solid job, but people are ignoring him, and any praise people give for him is muted with "but I really miss Stewart..." They won't let him be his own guy. I don't know man. He's just not good, and I think 80% of that is writing (daily show itself started to fall off after 2010 imo when Stewart started believing his own hype that he was uniquely wise and the true reasonable american), but they also don't have the correspondent pipeline they used to have. But then there is Noah. His cadence is strange, comedically, he tends to swallow the punch lines instead of emphasize them... but also it just feels like the daily show just doesn't have a point of view anymore. It started out with Kilbourn skewing the news, stewart skewed politicians and news, but now it just seems to peddle nowthis meme outrage fodder. Back in my day.

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 08:56 AM) The Sox when most of us were kids had Frank Thomas, a very rare type of player that made it easy to love the team regardless of wins and losses. I really think it's that simple. If you have charismatic teams that compete, it's easy to be a fan. But even when you don't, having a guy like Frank Thomas makes it easy. The Big Hurt wasn't a media darling, didn't have great things to say in interviews, but was a fabulous player and person and his at bats were appointment TV. yeah, although tbh when I was a kid frank was often booed and people shouted "more money" at him. Wasn't until 2000 when it turned back around for him that I remember. His holdouts really hurt him, in the eyes of the fans back when athletes should not get a million dollars.

Sounds like the new look knicks didn't look that good.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 04:39 PM) Mirotic has to get his s*** together if this team wants a shot of being a playoff contender. He and McDermott are the only floor spacing options we have that will get significant minutes. Certainly don't want hockey shifts as the thing that mainly sucks about this is doug and niko on floor together is ... problematic defensively. but Taj has earned starting, niko has not. But man. Defensively you can sag like crazy against the bulls, and I fear that will just lead to the dribbles from Rondo and a late shot. Pace will be slow. Defensively, guards getting beat off dribble not as bad with Lopez/Gibson behind them, but they have been remarkably prone to open looks in 3 point land in preseason so that needs to change. Weird, weird team. Complete opposite of how anyone is building. It's like building a power run game in the NFL right now.

Bulls starting 5: Rondo Wade Butler Gibson Lopez no comment.

Yeah, the weirdest thing to me forever as a sox fan, is why the red sox and cubs droughts were so embedded into the lore of the sport, and then the white sox made it and ended their 88 year drought and ... it wasn't that interesting. No demons slayed. I took it as a badge of honor that we didn't care about that s*** but they hyperventilating about how "historic" this is that the cubs are in does push the buttons that middle school me would have died over.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 11:24 AM) I think you are missing a couple things. First, I don't agree with that school of thought - I was simply pointing out that there are plenty of economists who do, to certain degrees, and dismissing it as fringe misses the mark. Also that it's something that has a political bent, just as other thought processes around this, but that doesn't make it any less valid as part of the discussion. One, I don't think it's fair to say "to certain degrees". I don't think it's helpful to act like strictly laissez-faire views on economics put one in the Austrian school of thought. It is a specific strain that refuses mathematical modeling or any real quantified justification for their philosophy or views. And it shows in the intellectual decay that has occurred in that group. No, Hayek and Friedman are not fringe economists, but the group that has pushed the austrian school on politicians like Ron Paul certainly have earned the label of fringe school of thought. And good for them! When you so remove yourselves from actual policy and action you can then just claim to be right when anything goes wrong.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 10:56 AM) Sure, but where on the south side would you build a stadium like that? You can't actually build on the lakefront. Let's say Hyde Park, or Kenwood, those neighborhoods would be much more like Wrigleyville. How we gonna do that? I think the ship has sailed, frankly. The cool stadiums were built: - In new cities that did use a stadium as a form of urban planning - 100 years ago as a city was built around it The sox just need to hope it gets more dense around them. But think about how far you have to walk to get anywhere around the stadium. The White Sox should do its best to help IIT get back to glory and bridgeview and bronzeville build into it. It has 3 train lines that should be prime for dense housing/business but the highway causes a lot of weird issues with it.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 11:00 AM) In the 70s, the whole theory of trickle-down/supply side economics was considered crackpot s***, but Reagan made it mainstream. I don't know if that's considered "Austrian economics" or if it's just something that gets rolled into that for convenience's sake. It's Hayek who gets rolled into Austrian economics but that's just them trying to get legitimacy.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 11:00 AM) In the 70s, the whole theory of trickle-down/supply side economics was considered crackpot s***, but Reagan made it mainstream. I don't know if that's considered "Austrian economics" or if it's just something that gets rolled into that for convenience's sake. it's not, that's Friedman. Austrians are the hard money cranks that at it's most charitable don't believe central banks work, but in its actual practice is against allowing banks to loan out money at all, that lowering of interest rates or stimulus lead to bad investment that cause recessions, and that despite all of the evidence their views are false, they can say it over and over again and because it's complicated they can get a following to believe it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 10:36 AM) I do not agree with your characterization of the schools of thought, at all, but that's fine. I think your dismissal of the Austrian school as fringe is not founded in reality. Regardless of whether or not you agree with it (and for the record, generally, I don't either), you've made it into some odd cartoon thing when in fact it's one of the primary schools of thought. And your statements about it being that hard-line are no more accurate than saying all Republicans are raging bigots. Eh, come on. The Austrians are cranks. I can't believe you of all people could listen to their ideas on banking. It's an emotional and political movement that acts like an economics school of thought.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 10:45 AM) Why does everyone always say 35th and the Dan Ryan is a "terrible part of town?" Maybe this was true in the 90s. The projects over on Federal are all gone now, just empty lots. Bridgeport is still Bridgeport, it's not really that bad, just an ordinary neighborhood. Bronzeville on the other side of the expressway is halfway gentrified now, and the only way it's not fully gentrified is because the 2008 recession slowed everything down. Is the White Sox in a neighborhood like Wrigleyville? No, and it never will be, that ship sailed 20-something years ago. Really the only thing that irks me about the current stadium is that it faces southeast instead of northeast, so the skyline isn't visible in center field like it should be. I don't know that he meant crime-wise as much as ... footprint wise. I go to bridgeport sometimes but because of the parking around it and it mostly being residential, you are going to comiskey to go to comiskey. That said with rising rents and idiot policy I definitely think bridgeport will start to see more and more moving there.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 09:58 AM) Greg has expressed frustration towards Brownback and bafflement that he was reelected before. Remember, the same guys who helped run Kansas into the ground are also the senior economic advisers to Trump! I know that's why I posted it. I am concerned that this is a reflection of the growing distrust of "numbers" and how any bad ones are rigged or should be discarded. But we should trust Chinese GDP numbers, thou

Poor Greg https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/201...ot-reporting-it

QUOTE (Nokona @ Oct 24, 2016 -> 08:29 PM) I wonder if this is not in large part due to the decrease in baseball as a whole. I think this is in large part due to the growth of the NFL and the economic collapse. Most people aren't like you and I. They think they don't really have the time to invest into baseball that we do. Even the Cubs success for much of the season hasn't been the cultural magnet previous seasons seemed to be. And anyway, the vast majority of people just want to hop on a bandwagon and have fun. This city seems to have been taken over by transplants and finance/marketing people in the last 10 years. They've spent their 20s in dumb bars in Wrigley, of course they're on the bandwagon. Thanks, this was more on point to the kind of decline I was talking about, not just "why are there no sox fans" but the why do sox fans feel different. Part of that probably is that while the north and northwest neighborhoods have been swelling the southside has been drained. But yeah, I guess baseball just tends to be different. And for my friends that follow it and I'd talk to about it, it's all die hards now talking about best players and the like. Not really the casual group that would come up with a chant or like a player just because they look cool (though I like Tim Anderson even more because he looks like an 80s ball player)

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 09:01 AM) This is just nonsense. Up until the '90s when the Cubs started taking over it was a pretty even split. From 1901 to 1989 the Cubs won the attendance battle 46 times, the Sox won it 43 times. Total Cubs draw: 82,475,823 for an average of 926,694 per season. Total Sox draw: 75,212,098 for an average of 845,079 per season. A difference of roughly a whopping 1000 people per game. The Sox dominated them until the '20s. The '20s were pretty split. The Cubs took over through the '30s and '40s. Then the Sox dominated them through the '50s and '60s. Cubs got em in the '70s and the '80s were pretty much split. The Cubs have lost 100+ games three times in their history. The Sox outdrew them in two of those seasons. The notion that the city has been and always will be a Cubs town is just blatantly false. If the Sox start winning consistently the fans will come out. Whether it's true or not, for people not old enough to remember, it certainly seems like the sox were ALWAYS also-rans. Ferris Bueller didn't go to Comiskey Park. Frank Sinatra didn't mention the sox, he had to be told not to forget about them.

I quite enjoyed the last 15 minutes of that westworld ep

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Oct 24, 2016 -> 04:40 PM) Nothing wrong with rooting for a team...but being open about it? When you are working?? There was a time when the Chicago newspaper baseball beat reporters would switch teams at the All-Star break EXACTLY to prevent the individuals from getting to close to a player or players and not be truthful in their work. Plus newspapers used to hire people who rooted for teams but not the teams they were covering. Reporters were hired for example from Cleveland or the Bay Area to cover Chicago teams. They grew up rooting for the Indians or the Giants...not the Sox or Cubs. To say "that's the way it is" doesn't make it "right" in my opinion. I want to vomit and am embarrassed when I see reporters parading around in the gear of the team they are covering or openly rooting for them on the job as the example Gonzo told me about. Here some respect for yourself and your position. And the fact that fans seem to "condone" such behavior is mind-blowing to me. Just my opinion. Mark This is going to send thread in a crazy direction. but my response is the fact that I knew Peter Gammons was a red sox fan didn't ruin my enjoyment of him when he was good. Marc Stein is a mavs fan, still enjoy him. Is giving a fist pump annoying in a media room? yeah I'm sure people want to do their jobs. but I don't find it commendable or interesting or professional to act like someone covering sports doesn't have a team they root for.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Oct 24, 2016 -> 04:26 PM) Its not about getting old. Those Cubs fans have gotten just as old as we are, and they aren't caught in the same trap. I think a big piece is that you have a generation of fans that grew up with an icon like Harry Caray, who while more incoherent than Hawk, was also a lot more relatable and adored. The Cubs fans partied at the park, Sox fans punched out umpires. There was a subculture that grew from the losing, Wrigley, Caray, Wrigleyville, and curses that created a huge contingency of fans for the Cubs. Even where I am, 400 miles away from Wrigley, it is sickening the amount of Cubbie blue you see here. The Sox in the same time frame have made their TV announcer their GM, which likely set the franchise back five years in the personnel that was purged. The bright spot was that ensuing terribleness led to the best teams the Sox have fielded in my lifetime. The White Sox of the early 90's were great, except against the A's. Depth of talent and a fun brand of baseball to watch. The lost WS still devastates me as a Sox fan. That team was stacked, and it turns out that JR was the primary force behind the Sox losing their chance that season. Then came White Flag, where a lot of people jumped off the bandwagon as most of what remained of the core of those very good Sox teams was dismantled. The prospects in the white flag deals almost universally failed, showing some of the issues in the Sox scouting. Then came years of poor player development and poor scouting which led to poor product on the field. A GM change was made, the Sox struck it rich on a couple of Latin prospects in Magglio and Carlos Lee. The Sox began their long run of mediocrity which continues to this day. Usually finishing 2-4 in the division. They caught lightning in a bottle in 2005, and a lot of those bandwagons filled up again, but the lack of any sustained success emptied it back out. The Sox just have never been able really to develop that strong connection with those casual fans to pull them into the fold the way the Cubs have. I am almost 40 now, and became a Sox fan in 91. As far as I can tell the Sox have never had the sense of community that Cubs and Cardinals fans have. Sox fans are a lot more like Twins and Brewers fans to me, a small core group that grows with success, but not the ingrained diehard culture. There's good stuff here but you kind of yadda yadda away the 2000-20005 years which were the bulk of the "good" years I mentioned to be a sox fan. It was fun then.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 24, 2016 -> 04:10 PM) When it comes to people of the other party, I still have this base interest to see them and meet them. I love to see how they work a room, a crowd, or just an individual. If Obama were coming to my hometown, I would do whatever I needed to do to see him speak. I did the same for Bill Clinton when he was here in 2008, and damn can that dude still work a room. Even with knowing the guy is full of s*** most of the time when he speaks, I still had a reaction to watching him speak. I was blown away. I imagine Barack being the same way, except more visceral. I get the feeling that seeing Hillary would be more like meeting Mike Pence where everything came off as fake and forced. Both times I saw/met Pence it felt like he was trying to sell me a used car at above sticker price. My eyes hurt from rolling them so hard. Take it or leave it, but Clinton's main campaign tools are small low key town forums. I think you'd be surprised.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Oct 24, 2016 -> 03:41 PM) She was rattling off the zingers pretty well at the Al Smith dinner. Trump was straight up reading. Which was really out of character...except for the fact that he can't make fun of himself. But that's a different dinner, that's a roast. It's when she tries to bring in humor in mid speech that it's usually weak and contrived. ^^ Yes, like Dangerous Donald.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Oct 24, 2016 -> 02:04 PM) I think everyone more or less agrees that Obama is a funny guy, but he delivers lines like that sometimes too and they fall flat. He grins, as if to say "I said that, so it's funny, right?" Usually it is, but sometimes it seems like he's trying too hard. Clinton's sense of humor is a lot more dry or sarcastic, she's not like those three at all. When she is candid on plane that's her sense of humor but her prepared remarks are safe and OBVIOUS as hell. And it works well for non-comedy settings, she was able to lay traps over and over for Trump in debates. But, she has had legitimately funny people work for her, so it seems to be the cautious nature of the candidate. I mean, I can visualize the meeting where someone says "what about trumped up trickle down" and it makes me CRINGE.

I'm not sure I would trust a sports reporter that claims they don't root for a team. How on earth did you get into sports then?

You would think scrooge mcduck would be the better duck to use. Starting to gather that what the Clinton team looks for in a slogan/zinger is similar to what my mom looks for in a birthday card.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Oct 24, 2016 -> 01:01 PM) There goes a top 3 pick.. Not sure about that. A line of Eric Kush and Ted Larsen, and a defensive line in shambles. Plus, we do need to see more of what cam meredith is, what jordan howard is. Matt Barkley at QB is terrible for development.