NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 02:52 PM) I do think there's a failure in the process when a deal can't be worked out to fix a non-negotiable issue like massive public transit in the third biggest city in America. That being said though, CTA is to blame just as much as the state or the city. Even their new guy, who they try to paint as a perfect manager who inherited a problem, has made some BS mistakes. Why couldn't the CTA forecast this gigantic budget problem? It's not like they were 5 or 10 million off. Yet they decide to roll out an entire new transit line? Why now? We've lived without it for how long? I don't know the numbers, but I can't imagine that branch of the L is actually making money - not enough people use it. And really I don't think cuts are all that bad. I primarily ride the train, so I can't speak to the bus service, but there's no reason to run trains every 7 min in the middle of the day. Send one every 15 (except for rush hour)and cut half the costs. To clarify a few points... The "new" pink line was just a different coupling of existing stops and lines - it usse already-existing routes in a new way. Overhead was miniscule. The CTA did predict this problem, and they have been yelling about it for a few years. The cuts are really bad for some people. There are entire bus lines being removed by CTA and Pace in the plan, dozens of them, and not everyone works M-F 9-5. By the way, I agree the CTA deserves some of the blame, no question. But those two things above, I don't think I put on their shoulders. And I think, similar to the situation with the county and city asking for tons of money, an option that should be explored along with taxes and other revenues, is increased fares and costs to the users. I'd rather see them run different routes at their true costs based on ridership, and see what happens, then just being lazy and cutting them. If people are willing to pay the extra dollar here and there to ride, then everyone wins - the riders get to keep their transit, and the agency doesn't have to underwrite them as heavily.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 02:43 PM) Not with Brandon Inge coming off a 80 OPS+ Detroit is still very high on Inge. Obviously A-Rod would be a gigantic upgrade, but, I really think they want to stick with Inge for a few more years. He is really very good defender over there, better than he seems to get recognition for - so its unlikely they'd want to move him to the OF or anything. I really think this is the end of DET in the A-Rod game, especially with the money now involved, and their payroll for what is still a small market team.

QUOTE(fathom @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 02:37 PM) Ugh....the first move, and the AL Central already becomes tougher. It's ok though, this time of the year is fun. I still believe Tejada and Furcal are more likely options than Renteria was. yeah, that to me is the worry. Not that the Sox weren't in on some specific trade, but that Detroit just improved significantly, by basically replacing Sean Casey with Renteria in the lineup.

The offseason is one day old, one trade has been done, and already we're crucifying KW? I need the biggest set of rolly eyes ever. Once we get to April 1, let's see where the roster is at.

I think this takes DET out of the A-Rod race.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 02:14 PM) The troubles here are now being highlighted on a national level. It really has turned into a mess. The Trib ran a headline a few days ago I saw that actually asked if G-Rod should be removed from office. What a debacle. What kills me is, of all the things to cut, transit is a huge mistake. Money going to transit isn't some black hole - it saves a ton of money in other areas of transportation, keeps businesses in the area, puts more spending money in people's wallets, etc. Not to mention that one of the big things touted about Chicago for the Olympics, and for recruiting new businesses to come to town, is a wide-ranging transit system. Last I read, G-Rod was willing to sign for big transit money if the state legislature was willing to allow both a Chicago casinos plan, and also enact a bunch of G-Rods tax "loophole" closures (some of which, as have been discussed, are key to keeping businesses in Chicago). The state legislature doesn't want to rely on casino gambling for revenue, nor do they want to send businesses packing. Thing is, we've all been spoiled. For a couple decades, Illinois government ran better than most because of compromise. The almost-always Democratic Congress, under Madigan, tended to work very well with governors, even when they were Republican, which they often were (Thompson, Edgar). Now, there is a Democrat governor in office, but he doesn't know his ass from a rathole, so we get gridlock to an extreme. Most of the blame belongs with G-Rod, who is even less of a negotiator and uniter than Bush is. But the state Congress deserves some too, for not at least proposing to allow SOME change to the tax loopholes. There are also 2 larger issue at play here, which are shadows of what is happening on the national stage. One is the transit infrastructure issue - the nation is facing the fact that it will take large amounts of cash to maintain a huge, aging system of roads and rails. Two, the power of the executive versus the legislative. G-Rod wants to make the Governor's job all-powerful, much like Bush is trying to do with the Presidency. At the national level, Congress from both parties has allowed that to happen by laying down and being cowards. In Illinois, although its painful right now, maybe Madigan has it right - he has refused to be bullied. He has held onto power that was really equal to the Governor for some time now, and doesn't want to see that dwindle. It may be selfishly motivated, but I think its not a bad battle to fight, in the long run. Meantime, I hope this can get worked out quick, because the city of Chicago is taking some serious lumps right now (transit, the missing boxers, marathon mess, etc.).

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 12:50 PM) Beating a dead horse.........priceless. Get over it already.. Maybe it wasn't clear, but I was actually poking fun at myself there.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 12:38 PM) Guillen moves to 1st in that scenario. They've been wanting to do that anyway. That makes sense. Damn, I was hoping that might have a silver lining.

QUOTE(fathom @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 11:01 AM) Scary rumor I just heard that ARod to the Tigers might be the most likely situation of all. Boras and Leyland are very close friends. So who do they move? Inge or Guillen? or DH one of them or A-Rod? 'Cause I'd love to see Guillen for the Sox at SS. ........ Seperate thought... I'm giving the Sox about a 5% chance of landing A-Rod. Everyone else seems to think its zero percent.

That last sentence is interesting. So, if Girardi gets the job, Mattingly leaves. There sure are a lot of bridges burning in the Bronx, regardless of who is at fault.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 11:02 AM) There's a lot more to being a congressperson than voting. There's a lot of field work that the office handles, and the Congressperson can be an important part of that. I'm fine with them working four days a week in session, if that fifth day is spend working with their constituents. You know what, that is a good point, and it occurs to me I wasn't really looking at this exactly right. If they are indeed spending that time out in the field doing their work, in ADDITION to spending 40+ in the capitol proper, then that is a very important point to make. I wouldn't begrudge these folks a 5 hour difference if they are, say, actually working 70 hours a week. If that's the case.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 11:13 AM) So, here I can present today the first study I've seen of the performance of the media during this campaign. There's enough in it for each side to get annoyed at, so I'll probably post it in both the Dem and GOP threads, and I'm going to highlight one little bit in this one. So, the Public literally seems to be begging for the Press to spend more time covering the actual candidate positions, backgrounds, and where their money comes from. The Press responds by telling more about how much money each one has and which one is winning today. (available in graph format at link). I think this is actually a remarkable demonstration of how out of touch the media has gotten with its market; the people actually want a bit of substance, but substance is hard and sometimes expensive, so we don't get any of it. Wow. That's huge. Not a giant surprise maybe, but to see it in those stark numbers... that is an embarrasment.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 10:28 AM) Tell the Goracle that. Katrina, Global Warming I am also not Al Gore. But, here is his quote on Katrina from that speech... And this... In the first section, he makes no connection whatsoever between Katrina and CCGW. In fact, he is talking about the failed disaster response. In the second, he talks about a study of hurricane frequency since the 1970's - a much better attempt at real analysis over an appropriate time span. He then cites Katrina's path being dictated by ocean warmth, which is true. So, again, he says nothing about CCGW being responsible for Katrina. What he says, rightly I believe, is that warmer oceans seem to dictate more frequent and stronger hurricanes. Unless there is some other text in the article I am missing referring to Katrina? If there is, please do point it out.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 10:21 AM) So exactly why did we get the barrage of GLOBAL WARMING stories after the 2005 hurricane season? It seems to me the loudness factor of that bit of data was just a wee bit higher on the decibel level then the lack of hurricanes the last two years. I wonder why that is? Because it was a sensational thing. Its the media. What did you expect? I am not the media.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 09:11 AM) So the longer workweek is already biting the dust amidst bi-partisian b****ing. Apparently making 5 times the median wage doesn't mean they feel they need to put in 40 hour work weeks. The whining about family stuff also bothers me. This is a choice you make. If you choose to run for political office, you know that you will not be around your family nearly as much as you want to. Its not like you were held at gunpoint and force to work in Washington. If your kids are that important, do like the rest of the 300 million people in America do, and find another job. Meanwhile for $165k plus incredible benefits, I expect some work to actually get done. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/washingt...agewanted=print I agree, that is awfully frustrating to see. If we have turned being a house rep into a full time, job, that is fine - so I expect them to work their butts off for it. They should be honored to have such a privileged position. This reminds me a lot of how a feel about overpaid professional athletes who don't work hard at it - its insulting to those of us who pay their salaries.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Oct 28, 2007 -> 08:56 PM) Go ahead, rant if it makes you feel better. Do you think I LIKE contractors running off with untold $$$? Do you think that that would only happen if a Republican was in the WHite House? if yuor answer is yes to either one of those, you are a bigger ass than I sometimes think you are. How about comnig up with a plan to end the war, instead of just 'leaving'? Oh wait, that would make it seem like the eeevil Republicans did something good if we actually won somethng, so we can't have that. This is one of the classic argumentative styles I keep seeing from the GOP hardliners... ask what the alternative is to the current plan (on Iraq or anything else), but add a caveat - the only valid answer is a plan OTHER THAN the one I know you are most likely to choose.... then, no matter what their answer is, they are wrong. If they choose the one that was excepted out, then its "see, you have no answer!". This is exactly the same as a Democrat asking you, "What is your plan for Iraq, other than staying there?" Its an accusatory statement disguised as a question.

And just like the people who pick an active hurricane year and shout "global warming!", this is an utterly useless argument for or against CCGW. CCGW may cause more hurricanes, but we won't know it until there have been a few decades' worth of data to analyze. I mean, unless we suddenly start getting 40 or 50 named storms a year, then maybe it will take just a few years. But barring that, you cannot look at something with such a small N value as hurricanes in a given year, and take anything from it.

QUOTE(fathom @ Oct 28, 2007 -> 06:37 PM) It's a shame Sweeney is continuing to suck, as I know the Sox were hoping he'd play well this offseason so they could trade him. That would be pointless. Trade him for what? Why trade him at a low point? Don't get me wrong, if he could get something of value, or help to do so, great. But do you think that was likely?

There is obviously some difference between folks here in the value of defense. Crede is a well above average defender, top 10 in baseball, and maybe top 5 if he can be at 2005 health after this surgery. But with the bat, 2006 looks like the aberration - which means he is not even an average hitter. The only question there is, was 2006 an aberration? Or had he "figured it out"? That question, along with the back issue, are huge if's. IF he is 100% healthy and IF 2006 was an indication he had really figured it out, then he is an above league average 3B. But if he is only 80 or 90% his defense and hitting will suffer, and if 2006 was an aberration, then suddenly Joe is not even an average league 3B overall. If he could be signed to an extension or new semi-long term contract for 6 or 8 million a year, I think he is worth the risk. Above that, I think he can take a walk after 2008. And this is coming from one of Joe's biggest fans.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Oct 28, 2007 -> 03:29 PM) He is a good, well above average, gold glove caliber defender, but he ain't special. This sentence makes me dizzy.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2007 -> 03:07 PM) I guess faking a press confrence is better than faking being a real disaster relief agency... Zing! Nice.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Oct 27, 2007 -> 11:56 AM) J.D. Drew a nice picture, but Stephen Drew a better one. Awesome.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 26, 2007 -> 03:30 PM) Given that waterboarding is a simulated drowning. And drowning results in death, I think the point you and I are arguing is one of semantics. The way the question was asked, there was a description of the procedure. And Mukasey failed to say if that meets the definition of torture. I don't agree that its semantics. I think its important legal context. Dealing with the law sometimes means big differences in what appear to be small variances in language.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Oct 26, 2007 -> 03:14 PM) Ryan Bukvich.......................................he gone. Not a surprise, but... details? Source? Was he released from the 40, or picked up by someone else via waivers, or traded (for a bag of balls) or what? ETA: NVM, found it. Bukvich outrighted to Charlotte by the Sox, elects free agency instead of taking the assignment. Also, Crede and Ozuna added to the 40-man roster, which now stands at 39.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 26, 2007 -> 02:52 PM) Does anyone think that question wasn't going to come up? This has been an issue regarding the Attorney General's office and regarding the Secretary of Defense's office for several years. And this specific technique is the most controversial of them all. To say that this guy didn't see it coming is either incredibly naive or that the administration isn't exactly trolling Mensa when they're looking for nominees. I think its entirely acceptable to ask of an Attorney General nominee who will be dealing with the issue of what consists of torture to ask if simulating someone's death is considered torture. I would actually say that you hit the nail on the head in that last sentence - that would have been a better question. That is the right one to ask. It still leaves one open question (is waterboarding the simulation of death), but at least it doesn't leave 2 (that plus, what is torture). Did that question get asked?