Balta1701

Damnit, there goes my neck again. That's like the 3rd or 4th time I've tweaked one of those muscles in the past 2 months. I'm not, as far as I can tell, doing a ridiculous amount of weight on anything that's working that part, I'm stretching it before and after exercise, wtf?

I'm not sure there's any way Ozzie deciding to start tweeting on political matters will end well.

I would feel it a dereliction of my duties not to post this here.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 01:52 PM) They're in there, but not entirely like the republicans wanted. The lawsuit reform for example, isn't quite like what the republicans were talking about. It's a massively dumbed down version of it just so they can do what you just tried to do -- say it's in there. Same with the rest of those...they're in there, but not quite what the republicans were talking about. Should I give you a similar list of things the Dems wanted but which are dumbed down or gone rather than in there 100%? Or does only 1 side get that priveledge?

QUOTE (ROC Sox Fan @ Mar 11, 2010 -> 10:47 PM) We won't talk about the fact I was within earshot of home plate in Cleveland in 2008 trying to start an "MVP" chant as Quentin fouled off a pitch from Cliff Lee and fractured his wrist in the 9th inning... like the New Yankee Stadium incident; we just won't talk about it. Quentin didn't break his wrist on a foul ball, he broke it by hitting it up against the bat after making an out, so the reports went.

The NBA doesn't have a 50 game suspension for a first offense. You got me at first then I thought about it.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 01:33 PM) No, I really don't feel the need. You should already know the many examples by now, and if you don't, I don't need to bother. Because the remarkable thing is how many of the things in the bill the Republicans supported until they were in the bill. An individual purchase mandate? That was a proposal from Grassley last spring. Allowing small businesses to band together to use combined purchasing power to negotiate rates with insurance companies? Republican idea, in there. Allowing states a ton of leeway in finding cheaper ways to implement things? Section 1302 of the Senate bill, they can literally junk the entire bill if they think they can do better. Republican idea. Allowing selling of insurance across state lines? It's in there. Lawsuit reform? In there. Additional private investigations of medicare spending abuses? That's Senator Coburn's idea. Capping the value of the tax break you can get on more expensive insurance plans? Hell, Senator McCain's campaign plan was to eliminate the tax break entirely. Of course...each one of them makes it longer.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 01:15 PM) On the flip side, any suggestions the republicans do have are largely ignored by the democrats and or simplified to almost a meaningless state when they are included. Care to give a few examples?

The examiner's report also seems to argue that the NY Fed (aka one Timothy Geithner) was at the very least also complicit in Lehman's shenanigoats. Here's a blog-reading summary of that portion.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 10:01 AM) Some FEDEX workers are union. You mean the entire workforce should be able to unionize, no? I didn't figure the Health Care thread deserved a full paragraph explanation of a bill involving Fedex, Specifically their drivers are forbidden from unionizing by a quirk in the law, which gives them a competitive advantage over other companies (UPS, USPS, DHL) and allows Fedex to classify their drivers as independent contractors so that they don't have to pay benefits or anything. There's a bill in Congress that would remove this special protection and move the governance of Fedex's drivers to the NLRB, like the other companies, that Sen. Corker has a hold on and is working hard to stop.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 09:47 AM) A couple of years back, when we were talking about the long relief spot and Nick Massett, some people said we didn't need a long reliever. I countered with something like, "what if buehrle goes out on opening day, puts up 2 2/3 innings with 7ER and someone needs to eat the rest of the innings?" Then, Buehrle proceeded to put up the exact stats I suggested and Massett came in for long relief and actually did quite well. Now, clearly, I lucked into the stats and Massett didn't end up being anything special, but the point remains the same: we NEED someone in the pen that can go 3-5 innings if necessary. Without someone like that, you could very well shoot the entire bullpen in the foot. I'm starting to think we should just give up on the love affair with Santos, no matter how live his fastball is, and stick with Mr. Pedestrian, Torres. My counter-example is going to be 2005. For most of that season we got by with a 6 man bullpen and no one who could go more than 2.1 innings. Hermanson, Politte, Cotts, Marte, Vizcaino, and a rotating spot that went between Takatsu, Jenks, Adkins, etc. We lost exactly 1 game that season because we ran out of arms and Viz's arm turned to jelly after 2.1 innings in extras, and that was with a 6 man pen. A 7 man pen can manage broken-up games as long as your starters don't regularly give those games to the pen. The White Sox starting pitching has been in the top 5 in baseball in innings pitched every single year since 2003, and they're literally 6 deep this year (After checking,t that's a fairly remarkable feat, I can't find another team that has been in the top 5 more than 2 years in a row). If Santos can come in and give us 1 solid inning a lot of times this year, he's worth more to us than carrying Torres as a reliever for now, unless there's a huge issue with someone.

This is good and hopefully this settlement isn't reduced by a later court.

The FT says Ernst & Young may have some answering to do as well.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 09:43 AM) Yes. How many of those guys have any kind of history of going more than an inning with any regularity? Who is going to eat innings when a starter falters? As good as the Sox starting staff is, those situations will still come up on occasion. If we had a 6 man bullpen, I'd be more concerned about that. A 7 man pen can last longer. Guys are going to be used less often anyway.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 09:37 AM) If republicans pulled that crap in this bill, you'd see me talking about it equally as much. So, where then are your complaints about the efforts by my current Senators to make sure that payday loans are exempted from any new financial regulation bill because Senator Corker happens to have the billionaire "Check into Cash" guy in his state? Or the complaints about how that same Senator is fighting to make sure that Fedex keeps a special designation in the law that prevents their workforce from unionizing? Those are the 2 I happen to know because I get to vote against that guy now. There are 532 different versions of that happening right now.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 09:33 AM) I also love the dismissal of it because "it will be killed by reconciliation". That makes it ok to be in there now. I love how much anger you guys show over any deal-making in a Dem bill compared to how little you show when a Republican does the same thing.

LEH postmortem

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 09:26 AM) I'm not pretending it's unique. It's bad practice, it's bad policy. What's worse is we are forced to 'accept that that's the way it is'. A lot of people here seem to think I'm a republican, and I dislike them as much as I dislike the democrats...they're all bastards and both parties CONSTANTLY play these games. So...therefore you have a problem with the way the Constitution sets up Congress such that local interests can wind up dominating certain debates. Perhaps if the Constitution was longer, we could have found a way around this. (/rimshot)

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 09:19 AM) It shouldn't even come to reconciling it out -- it shouldn't have EVER been put in there. The fact it was is a slap in the face of everything congress/senate is supposed to stand for. A slap in the face for everything Congress is supposed to stand for? This type of horse-trading for local issues has been done for centuries. It makes for some bad policy, but let's not pretend that this is somehow unique. If you set up a system where a politician is going to be beholden to local voters, then you can't be surprised when that politician acts in the interest of his local voters. The only way around that would be to hold a proportional election system where there is no connection between local issues and their representative.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 09:10 AM) Anyone else notice what's missing here? Are you thinking of long relief?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 09:13 AM) It can be shorter AND fix how bills are created and also regulate the insurance industry at the same time. Really, if you got rid of things like the Nebraska deal (which will be killed on reconciliation), you could probably cut out about 10% of the pages, but there's no way to reform this system in the way that it needs to be reformed in a length that will make you happy other than starting from scratch.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 09:02 AM) How do you plan on fixing the "engine" without tacking on an additional several thousand pages? Throw it all out and establish a fully government run universal system. You kill off 90% of the pages because you don't have to have different regulations at different levels, you don't have different groups lobbying for special deals, you don't have to worry about making sure your language is so tight that lobbyists can't find their way around. It's the only solution.

2 important AL Central vesting options to watch.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 08:34 AM) Except we haven't even started the regular season yet. This is all media trying to create stories to fill inches at this point. And with other teams, those stories are "Should we trade Mauer"..."Does McGwire really believe the steroids didn't help him"..."someone stop Torii Hunter/Milton Bradley/Carl Everett (i'm just assuming) from talking to the press".

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 08:25 AM) Pretty much. If you are going to play that little defense, you are going to have to outscore someone. The Bulls haven't shown that ability. This team could end up smack into the middle of the lottery with the way things are going. Sadly...it's just not going to happen. We're going to finish in the 11th spot.