NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 30, 2007 -> 10:40 PM) Well, I have to share a quick story. My wife and I are in iowa with her family for a late christmas, and the phone wont stop ringing. There seems to be a trend. It's either a "poll" (could be legit, or a push, we don;t know, we hang up) or a call from the Hillary campaign. We were gettng calls at her grandma's as well. We just got home and had 3 voice mail messages from the Hillary campaign. The clinton campaign must REALLY be worried. She should be. She has two candidates right there with her, both of which having some positive momentum. Then there was this little incident - another Clinton lacky making a boneheaded statement. She's really not doing well.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 07:43 AM) Whoa there, sparky. Don't let all the glorification of his 'poor, humble roots' rot your brain. Dad was a manager at a textile place, and mom had her own business, then worked for the post office. Now I know that textile mills are not exactally flowing with money, but the managers are sure nor 'poor'. And I know postal workers are well paid, even back then. My parents lived in my grandparents basement for a year because they had no money. Boo f***ing hoo. Mill housing wasn't like a mansion, but they didn't live there his whole life, they soon graduated to a ranch-style brick home on a tree-lined street. Somehow he afforded college, without scholarships. Not cheap, even when he transfered to NSCU, so I guess they weren't too dirt poor by then. He even had a union job with UPS! $10 per hour in the 70's was pretty damn good! I worked 10 hour days on the weekends and 2, 4 hour shifts during the week at $7 per hour to pay for mine college education. And stories about the family leaving restaurants because the prices were too high? Been there. I am not saying they are ONLY in it for the non-altruistic things, just that they are the main reason. The fact that they may be able to help someone in the process is what helps them sleep at night. You, however, seem to think his s*** don't stink. They all stink to some degree. I have met several politicians in person, Jim Edgar, Jessie White, Gary Hart, Paul Simon and even Bill Clinton. (I only got to shake his hand and say hi, but listened to him talk to a friend's dad for about 10 minutes. Now there was a guy who could talk when he wanted to.) The only guy I have met whom I think was more into it for the good than the bad was Paul Simon. But boy did he look funny in those bow ties. As for "you're saying that any altruistic behavior from a rich person means LESS than if it comes from a middle class citizen?" I am saying it costs them less, as they are in a position to afford it more. It is easy to care when you have millions. Try caring when you only have thousands, or hundreds. I agree about Edwards' old sob story, its not really useful. But I still don't get your thought process that rich people giving back doesn't "impress" you. I fail to see why they shouldn't get some credit for doing so. Its not as much of a sacrifice as the others you mention of course - but that doesn't make it a bad thing. And even though I think Edwards is the king of fake among these candidates, I do think that most politicians probably went into it for the right reasons. And some have even managed to maintain some degree of real desire to help people, and have put their efforts to it. Its not as simple as "they are all evil" as you seem to think, nor is it as simple as Reddy is saying that he is completely in it for the little guy.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Dec 30, 2007 -> 10:47 PM) Not sure where you have been hibernating, but he has just about been the only candidate to state actual positions on things so far. And he didn't say he WASN'T campaigning, just that he didn't like it. Actual honesty from a candidate, how refreshing. Show me one that says they DO like it, and I'll show you someone unfit for office. And you did read the whole story you linked, right? OK that's just incorrect. There are plenty of other candidates who have taken clear positions on issues. Just not Hillary or Rudy or Mitt.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 12:53 AM) Here is a new camera angle. Looks like the reports of the head injuries, or the shrapnel wounds are bulls***. The slow mo at the end is pretty interesting. MSNBC.com video of the Bhutto murder. Yikes. So really, the next question becomes... was this incompetence while being rushed in a decision, or are they trying to cover something up. And what are they trying to cover up, exactly? Two things stand out to me. One, the car is bomb-proof - so the fact that there was a shooter to assure the death seems to indicate they knew that ahead of time. That sounds like maybe someone on the inside was involved. Two, the shooter - clean-shaven, sunglasses, suit... doesn't seem like the average Paki on the street, nor does it what suicide bombers tend to where (pure white cotton). I don't know, maybe I'm just paranoid, but his appearance - and his ability to calmly approach the vehicle and kill Bhutto accurately with a pistol - give it the air of him being a pro.

3 new polls out in the last few days. One is Zogby which is of course useless, one is ARG who we seem to have established is almost as useless. That leaves Mason Dixon, who says... Edwards: 24% Clinton: 23% Obama: 22% Richardson: 12% Yowza. Not only are the big 3 still neck-and-neck, but this poll indicates a surge from Richardson. That's 3 candidates within 2%, and 4 within 12% - which is shooting distance, with as weird as the Iowa caucus tends to be.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 30, 2007 -> 06:35 PM) You would also have to take into consideration the possible "improvement" of teams they will face 19 times. Detroit, Cleveland, KC, and perhaps even Minnesota could say they have also "improved." DET and KC definitely. CLE I think stayed the same, if that. MIN has, in my view, gotten worse, and if they trade Santana then who knows. But yes you have to consider that.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Dec 30, 2007 -> 05:51 PM) Right. I'm just saying potential is not the same as improvement. Just don't right in pen when you list the improvements on this club. Improvement is there - the potential of the newer players is pretty clearly higher than who they replaced, in my view. But you never know what they will actually do. I never said otherwise. You can't write any of it in pen anyway - its all guesswork.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Dec 30, 2007 -> 05:00 PM) Margin of error calculation isn't too complicated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error Yup.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Dec 30, 2007 -> 05:03 PM) Your "improvements" are merely based on potential and not performance. I'm not saying they won't be improvements, but don't react so emphatically when someone thinks they won't be. Quentin could remain injury prone, Richar could continue to hit like he currently is, Fields could experience the proverbial sophomore slump (he doesn't even have a position yet). Not to mention this team's depth is non-existent. Plus, the potential holes in the rotation could negate any improvement to the regular lineup. We've seen what just one hole can do to a team (2001-2004). Double or triple that effect. It could be absolutely crippling. You are using potential to state what could go wrong, and you are right. But then you said the "improvements" are based on potential. Well, which way is it? There is no knowing for sure what this team will do. I agree that its very volatile. And the offseason isn't over yet - I don't think we have the full 25 man roster at this point. But looking at the "potential" of the players at each position and who they replaced, I think its pretty clear the new guys out-potential the old guys in all those cases.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Dec 30, 2007 -> 04:30 PM) Let's be honest here. This team could go either way. There are a whole host of question marks (Quentin, Richar, Owens, Floyd, Danks, the rest of the bullpen). None of them are good bets to be upgrades over what we had last year. They could, but it's just as likely that they won't be. Right now, I see two upgrades at SS and SU, and one large downgrade at SP. I don't find it insane for people to think this could be either a 90 win team or 100 loss team. This team is that volatile to me. It COULD be a 100 loss team or a 100 win team - but neither are anywhere near likely. LF looks like it improved quite a bit (Quentin over Pods), CF is a little better (Ramirez/Owens over Erstad or just Ownes), Linebrink adds a big boost to the pen, 2B has a big question mark but should be at least as good as what Iguchi was doing in the first half of 2007, and O-Cab is a farily large upgrade over Uribe at SS. That's 5 positions. Not to mention that Fields and Owens should improve in their second years, and the potential that Ramirez could be more than a platoon guy in CF and 2B. Plus the team still has Uribe and Crede to trade. All that, and one negative (admittedly, a big one) - Jon Garland being replaced by Danks/Floyd. Unless something else is done later this offseason, that's a big downgrade, probably. This team is significantly improved. But as I said, its still no division woinner, because DET and CLE look amazing.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 29, 2007 -> 08:47 PM) Evidently Mark Gonzalez doesn't agree with KW's analysis of the current roster. Here's his prediction from the Tribune's list of predictions from its writers in 2008 A demanding schedule that features 15 of their first 22 games against American League postseason contenders Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota and the New York Yankees will put heat on the franchise to get off to a fast start, and avoid the slow start that crippled them in 2007. An aging roster will force Ken Williams to make one of his most controversial trades in his tenure as general manager. Otherwise, they could be looking at a 100-loss season. —Mark Gonzales, White Sox reporter So let me get this straight... a 90-loss team that improves at, so far, 4 or 5 slots - and falls back at 1 (JG)... and who had significant injury problems in 2007 at 3B, C, LF and CF... becomes a 100-loss team in 2008? What a joke. This is no division winning team, but Mr. Gonzalez needs to get a clue.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Dec 30, 2007 -> 02:20 AM) I don't really like Edwards either but wouldn't any pollster tell you that sample size isn't really the issue, but whether its a good representation of that population. Any good statistician would tell you it is both. Obviously the sample size value does tend to go down after some certain point of ridicolousness - the error margin is a boundary condition at zero. But if the typical 500-700 respondants are used and generate an error margin of 3 to 4 percent, then the 300 people in some other poll will probably have a much higher margin of error - one that makes the poll a lot less valid.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 29, 2007 -> 10:34 AM) I think that global warming is a political boondoggle. The fact is that other planets in the our Solar System is also experiencing global warming. It's cyclical. That's what I've tried to point out to you by refering to the mini-ice-age of the 70's. There are no humans on Mars, Saturn and Uranus to contribute to global warming. The Sun is doing it. Global warming, as presented by the southpaws (since leftists is not acceptable, I thought I'd try this term) is pure and utter bulls***. Here is another thought too. If its a political boondoggle, that means that politicians have something to gain from it. Does that make any sense here? I mean, they are all so heavily influenced by big oil, not to mention trying to get money for projects in their districts, that the last thing they want is to spend money on something that doesn't have a reward for their peeps. I just don't see the motivation they supposedly have. Quite the contrary I think.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 29, 2007 -> 10:34 AM) I think that global warming is a political boondoggle. The fact is that other planets in the our Solar System is also experiencing global warming. It's cyclical. That's what I've tried to point out to you by refering to the mini-ice-age of the 70's. There are no humans on Mars, Saturn and Uranus to contribute to global warming. The Sun is doing it. Global warming, as presented by the southpaws (since leftists is not acceptable, I thought I'd try this term) is pure and utter bulls***. You're free to see things that way. But to me, since the great, great majority of climatological scientists see at least some degree of anthropomorphic climate change, I'll go with their view. And before you go into the "they have an interest in it" thing, keep in mind two things. One, scientists make their name by showing something new or different than others have done - so at this point, the motivation is for them to find against it. Two, look at some of the groups of people who would rather this was not the case. For example... I know someone who does a lot of gardening - she consults with people and helps them do landscaping, etc. All the trade books and data that people in that field use are now, at great cost, being updated and changed because the climate zones they use for planting have changed quite dramatically. What do they get out of it? How is it political for them? It just means their product is more likely to fail and be difficult to maintain.

QUOTE(shipps @ Dec 29, 2007 -> 10:31 AM) Reading the ball off the bat is completely diffrent then seeing it out of a pitchers hand.And it isnt something you can teach,you either have that ability or you dont.It is a matter of inches and mila seconds at 3rd base and that ability is very important. This is just not correct. You cannot teach the REFLEX involved... but you can certainly teach all the things a 3B does defensively to react to a batted ball - including knowing the likely hop and possible turns by reading things like the swing, the pitch, the hitter, the trajectory of the ball in air, the way a batter's stance looks in swing, etc. Those things are learned, and have to be, by every major league 3B as they mature through their careers.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 29, 2007 -> 10:23 AM) So you are saying 18 years is definitive and 10 is a small sample size. Keep in mind that prior to '80 the Great Lakes were going to freeze. 1. No, I do not think 18 years is definitive. 2. Yes, I think 20 years is more useful than 10, though it isn't some magical "now its OK" number. Its a sliding scale of reliability. 3. I was referring more to the trends over most of this century. 4. You keep bringing up the idiots who were in a panic during that "mini-ice-age", as if I somehow agreed with those people. There were at the time a handful of scientists, using tiny periods of data, that came to those silly conclusions. If you think that is the same as the thousands of scientists who now in chorus read similar patterns from CENTURIES of data, than you must think the curb on your street is similar to the Great Wall of China.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 28, 2007 -> 10:51 PM) Gio DLS No one else has a chance. Yeah, that's right. All those other prospects, none has even a chance of making it. Thank you for that in-depth analysis.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 29, 2007 -> 10:12 AM) 10 years? Go back 20 more and you are in the era of worrying about the next ice age coming. Sure, for those who were short-sighted. You want to look at a few years, either for or against climate change arguments, you can make anything you want to fit it. You have to look over longer periods, like decades at a time. And those trends are, to me, pretty clear.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Dec 28, 2007 -> 10:25 PM) the RCP Average now reads: Clinton 29.3% Edwards 27.3% Obama 27% Feel the surge baby! was just helping run an Edwards event tonight in Tipton, IA. small place, 30 or so people were invited and we crammed 80 people into a tiny back room in a restaurant. it was pretty great. John's really connecting to voters one on one here and it's pretty incredible. what i'm not a fan of is this Obama spin - there were about 450 people at his event in Coralville and now they're touting that 900 people were there. This was my old middle school, 900 people wouldnt FIT in that freaking gym... talk about lame. And again, that running average includes an ARG poll that is worthless, and an LA Times poll that is using half the normal pool size. You have to throw those out to feel any sort of confidence in the numbers. Run the average without them and tell me what you see. I know that since you are working for Edwards, you are getting all that positive hype from the camp... but take a look at the real numbers. Clinton is not that high. Edwards is surging no doubt, but, I think you're delusional if you choose to focus on polls that are clearly flawed.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 29, 2007 -> 03:09 AM) Has Global Warming Stopped? Maybe. But that very, very short period the article is using as an argument sure as heck doesn't mean anything.

BE, I actually do appreciate some of Ron Paul's ideas on reducing the size and reach of the federal government. Some of that is needed. But to go as far as you suggest would be highly counterproductive. We cannot simply trade with other countries and interact with them without having a real foreign policy, nor can we allow businesses to run roughshod over the people in this country. Either one would result in exactly the kind of disasters you are saying are likely under current trends (which is, I think, a massive exagerration).

Things couldn't get much tighter in Iowa. There are two polls out post-Christmas. Here are the results: Strategic Vision (12/26-27, 500 LV): Obama: 30% Clinton: 29% Edwards: 28% Research 2000 (12/26-27, 600 LV): Obama and Edwards: 29% Clinton: 28% No one else in double digits in either case. Undecided is 4% in SV, 2% in R2000, so those numbers are dropping quick. Its going to be very close.

QUOTE(shipps @ Dec 28, 2007 -> 11:23 AM) Aramis was considered lazy,not lacking the natural ability to be good 3rd basemen. And what about Fields tells you he is "lacking the natural ability" to be a good 3B?

QUOTE(shipps @ Dec 28, 2007 -> 11:08 AM) Why all the drama?I have seen enough of him at third to form an opinion and realize he doesnt have the natural ability at third.Thirdbase is not a position where you can put someone over there and hope that they become good enough to be mediocre.In left he is already equal to Pods with a better arm.But hey as long as he gets the correct glove over there at third he may be decent. Aramis Ramirez says hello. Players can, and do, improve defensively.

OK so, first, she was shot. Then, the Paks said no, she tied of shrapnel wounds. Now the are saying she died when she fell and hit her head on a lever in the car. Ugh. That last one just doesn't even seem believable to me.