Balta1701

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 02:50 PM) I love the idea, I hope they implement something like this -- it'll be a wonderful system to have in place, after all is said and done. However, for me, no thanks -- I like my Jeep. I'll continue to drive my Jeep to work every day...I dislike mass transit as I dislike people. If it were convenient for me, and faster for me, I'd probably take the train, but as it stands, although it would save me money, it would cost me time, and a lot of it. My current commute by Jeep from Des Plaines to downtown Chicago is 30-35 minutes, as I leave by 6:30am every morning. It would take over an hour to get to the train, park, take the train, get off the train and walk. And since I get off work at 3pm, it's still only a 35 minute commute home by Jeep (yes, it's not a regular car so I won't call it one), so although I do hope they implement a system like this, I don't even use the ones we currently have in place, so I wouldn't care to use this one either...but I'm sure it'll be good for everyone else! See, what you've illustrated here is a key part of the problem...our system has built itself up around the car because there's been no other option. A true, solid mass transit system takes time to develop, you need to have a starting point around which development can occur at density levels that are high enough to make the transit worth while. People won't give up their jeeps because it's so inconvenient to get there, but then people never take the train and then there's no reason to fund it! If you want a working rail system, you need a large scale investment to get it started, and then you need time.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 01:40 PM) I honestly don't watch much Cub baseball but is he that much worse than what we have? Not necessarily worse than what we have, but was given what, 4/$48 just 1 year ago? Hell, in a good economy where we weren't cutting salary I thought that was way more than I'd want to pay.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 01:31 PM) Anybody care to trade for Fukudome to play CF? ARGH

Damaso Marte has given up 5 runs to the Indians, the Yankees bullpen has given up an 8 spot in 1 inning. Swisher pitching time again.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 12:50 PM) sounds like every political protest i've ever seen Didn't you just claim that these were different?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 12:40 PM) And that is where the arguement against free trade is faulty, because it ignores the increase in consumer purchasing power from the decrease in prices. That increase in purchasing power leads to more spending in various industries and creates jobs to make up for the ones that are lost. Increase in purchasing power has been the single biggest factor in the expansion of the middle class after the trade agreements. But no one wants to talk about that. Start taking away that purchasing power, through say higher energy costs, and watch the middle class disappear. That is what happened during our last energy price spike, and that is exactly what will happen if Obama causes an artificial energy price spike with his green energy, cap and trade, and carbon tax plans. Its not the rich who will suffer, its the poor. Its not the rich who will lose their jobs, its the poor and middle class who work on oil derricks and in gas stations. The very idea that people's livelihoods don't matter is laughable. If Barack Obama really believed that, he would walk right into the Big Three and tell them to go out of existance because they are the chief destructor of the enviornment on this planet. But in this case, of course, they won't. So why is a union autoworkers job more important than someone working in a coal mine or on an oil rig, when in the end, they are having the exact same effect on the planet? I've highlighted the key point here...you have made EXACTLY the 2 assumptions I just said were required. First, you assumed that the price of fossil fuel energy will never increase, that fossil fuels will stay plentiful and will at no point in the near future have their cost exceed that of other options. You have implied this by assuming that switching to a greener economy directly translates to higher energy costs. And second, you once again assumed no negative consequences to their continued use. No climate change, no loss of economic productivity due to air pollution, none of it. Your very argument undercuts your assumptions as well. You note that the last energy price spike caused a lot of pain. Does this not imply that fossil fuel based energy is totally vulnerable to exactly the sort of energy price spikes in the future that your argument implies we'll never have to worry about unless we switch to green power? Your entire point assumes that the switch to green power is the only one that will produce either higher prices or job losses. I don't know which way wins in the short term, whether having a greener system will cost jobs or will create jobs. But over the medium term, and especially over the longer term (10 years and 20+ years) there is absolutely no question which one is going to produce a stronger economy over all. It won't even be close.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 12:34 PM) The Seattle Round had the best protests that I remember. 1998?

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 12:13 PM) Has anyone heard the term tea-bagging on ABC NBC CBS or FOX? Only CNN and MSDNC. Why is that? OLbermann Maddow Shuster and Anderson Cooper have all referenced the term on their respective shows. Pretty childish, IMO. Probably because the network TV channels would wind up with an FCC fine, while on Cable you can get away with it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 12:08 PM) The point was the study did nothing to debunk the study, all it did was justify the ends of the enviornmentalists side. That was my point. Fine, you want me to agree with you I can totally agree with you. If I make these assumptions: 1. Fossil Fuels are infinite 2. Use of fossil fuels produces no negative consequences Then yes, in all cases, moving to a green economy is wasteful and will cost quite a few jobs. Basically, the argument that I posted is saying..."no, you can't make those 2 assumptions." The reason I went with the free trade one is that it actually is a perfect example. A bill removing trade restrictions between 2 countries should allow the economies of both countries to function more efficiently by allowing items to be purchased at their lowest cost. But in certain sectors, removing those restrictions will always cost jobs. If Brazil and Minnesota both produce iron ore, but Brazil produces it more cheaply, allowing iron ore to be imported from Brazil will cut the cost of iron, but all your iron miners in Minnesota lose their jobs. If fossil fuel use has significant negative consequences, switching away from fossil fuels will remove those consequences, but the people who currently depend on fossil fuel production will lose their jobs. If you assume fossil fuels are infinite and that there are no negative consequences to their use, then eliminating those jobs produces a net loss for the economy. The question about exactly where the balance of job losses versus job gains comes in depends in all cases on how exactly you model the total amount of fossil fuels available, the environmental consequences of their use, and the other external consequences of their use (i.e. support for an uncountable number of dictatorships, terrorism, etc.) If you assume that fossil fuels will remain cheap and plentiful, then you're going to lose a lot of jobs in your model. If you assume that the price of fossil fuels will spike again because we can't draw much more oil out of the ground, then you're going to gain a ton of jobs in your model. That is, for example, the difference between this Spanish model and the UCS model cited in the post I linked to. Taking issue with the exact details of their model is the only appropriate, non-smear way to respond to their argument.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 10:16 AM) If JR and KW had that conversation, it SHOULD have been in the offseason. It would have been simple to add Juan Cruz and CoCo Crisp...yes, we would have lost a draft pick for Cruz, but that would have been the best possible solution...and avoided the mess we are in right now, where we might have to give up some prospects from our Top 10 in order to remedy the situation. Abreu, Penny, Orlando Hudson, Baldelli, etc., were available for pennies (not 50 cents or even 75 KW) on the dollar. We wouldn't have even had to save on electricity to make it work. Heck, even Josh Anderson would seem like a better solution right now. Couple notes in reply. First...for Juan Cruz, the Royals had to give up their 2nd round pick. We'd have had to give up our first round pick. It's like giving up #50 versus giving up #20. Juan Cruz simply wasn't worth that pick even if he was signing for the League Minimum. Second, in terms of Coco Crisp, the Royals gave up a 27 year old, pre-arbitration reliever who had an ERA under 3.00 last year to get him. The Sox simply have no one who fits that bill. Jenks was our only pre-arb reliever last year who had an ERA under 3.00. Poreda might have worked but he's never pitched in the big leagues, and I'm not sure I'd have done Poreda for Crisp. Orlando Hudson...also costs our first round pick, may not have wanted to play CF, might have been willing to do that deal though even with the draft pick. Baldelli...decent option except he can't play more than 1/2 games even if he's 100% healthy. Bobby Abreu is not a CF. Pretending these facts don't exist is not an option. Note - not once did I say we couldn't afford any of these guys. That may have played a part in it, but it's not the only reason.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 10:29 AM) That's what I got out of the link he posted. Most of the arguements centered around, yeah it hurts now, but things will be better in the long run. Its the samething that is being used to justify all of the bailouts, universal health plans, carbon taxes, massive spending plans, etc. So, I assume you're strongly opposed to all "Free-trade" agreements on the same grounds?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 09:56 AM) I just came across this... I don't know if there is a rebuttal to it, but it is interesting. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=new...id=a2PHwqAs7BS0 Could have swore I saw a better rebuttal a couple days ago, but can't find it now, so here's one version of the reply if you want some decent details. If you want a simpler version, I can just point out that the group that did that study is funded in part by Exxon.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 09:34 AM) It was a joke. Actually I thought it was an interesting point, and I had to check to make sure there weren't any missile silos located there before responding. If Texas did secede, getting its hands on a nuke is about the only way they could survive it. When the Soviets collapsed for example, there was a lot of their nuclear arsenal left behind in their formerly occupied states, and it took them nearly a decade to supposedly transfer the weapons back to russia.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:27 AM) A question for anyone who has an answer...yesterday's rally was promoted in part by a significant surge in new housing starts. My question is...why was there a surge in housing starts? There's still a fairly large glut of housing on the market, prices are still falling significantly, credit is still tight. It seems like a surge in housing starts now is way ahead of the game even given that it takes a while to construct housing. We're sitting on an 11 month or so supply of housing at the last numbers I found, where a 6 month supply is typically normal. The only reason I can figure for why there would be a surge in housing starts is if there was anomalously good weather throughout much of the country. Can anyone explain to me how else that makes sense? It seems like another pulse of construction will just wind up increasing the over-supply unless there's a huge surge in buying. Remember this discussion we had a couple weeks ago? The one where CK and I actually agreed on something? Here's the data to prove that when we agree, we might actually be right on things.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 09:13 AM) Texas is the only state to have a clause in their acceptance into the US that would allow them succession rights if they were chosen to be enacted upon. At the time, Texas was much bigger then it is now, the agreement allowed Texas to be broken into four states and those four states would become the Republic of Texas. It's not going to happen, but it makes me laugh that the real underlying issue of all of this is just dismissed and now, of course, anyone who disagrees with the Almighty Obama is a nutjob. Furthermore, it is funny seeing the coverage of all of this. The demonstrations are "nutjob, racists, homophobes, extreme ideology... ... ... ... ..." It's not the disagreeing with Obama that makes you a nutjob any more than disagreeing with Bush made you an America-hating terrorist hugging nutjob. It's the fact that there's a lot of nutjobs actually doing it. They're doing things like, threatening secession if the tax rate climbs 4 percentage points. In terms of the demonstrations being labeled as crazy people...well, there's a reason why. It's the same reason why a lot of the 2003 demonstrations were labeled as crazy people...because there's a hell of a lot of crazy people who show up at these things!

Maybe we can get Zito too

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 09:05 AM) I don't recall the exact verbiage but they were an independent republic before joining the Union and some legal document somewhere says they are a state, but only as long as they consent. Which is why you hear them talking about secession all the time but no other states do. But, they were a state prior to the Civil War. Lincoln used some fairly tortured logic as a method of justifying the fact that he could use the military to prevent states from secession, and that logic has yet to be overturned. Hell, Texas Seceded once and was brought back in to the union by use of force.

Also, worth noting is the fact that the 8th seed Atlanta Hawks last year, who frankly I think the Bulls are a better team than them...took the Celtics to 7 games by holding home court.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 08:51 AM) Texas is a different situation though. Do tell?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 08:57 AM) All they would have to do is hold the nukes they have hostage, make some outrageous demands, and they are all set! First of all, does Texas actually hold any nuclear weapons? Yes, the U.S. has a lot of them, but only the ICBM's are stuck in fixed positions, and I'm fairly certain none of the remaining active sites are in Texas (Not the best location for launching against Russia, in particular). Second, any mobile ones would be held by the military, and if things came to a head, they're going to move them out before anything like that can happen. And third, if they don't move them out, then the Texans would have to take them off of the military base by force and then activate them (think Fort Sumter except the U.S. side is slightly better armed).

So, basically the argument there on health care is that it's simply cheaper to let people die earlier, so once their health care costs start rising, we ought to just let them go. And the argument on retirement age is...if it was good enough for the gilded age, it's good enough for us. Presumably you've got your toddler set up with a job for when he turns 5 already, right? They're dressed up in nicer language, but those are the arguments presented there. It's expensive to keep people alive, so health care reform should involve letting people die. And it's expensive to have people retiring, so people ought to never stop working.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 08:23 AM) OK, just tell them if they do the U.S. doesn't give them an ounce of military help if a Mexican drug cartel or the Mexican government itself decides to attack. Based on previous standards, I don't think the issue is the U.S. helping the newly independent Texas Republic against Mexico...I think Texas will be having enough problems with that pesky U.S. army when it follows the logic that President Lincoln used. They may be asking the Mexicans for some help in that defense.

The NYT is running tomorrow a story saying that one of the targets of the illegal wiretapping scheme George Bush implemented was an unnamed member of Congress who had the misfortune to travel to the Middle East on official business.

And like I said...it's not Howard putting up 20/10 that worries me. It's him putting up games like what Bosh just did.

QUOTE (rangercal @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 07:09 PM) damn Canadians I don't blame them for playing better than the really, really crappy playing Bulls.