NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 10:56 AM) There are a bunch of these so called public islamic schools around the US. I get a kick out of how they get around the whole religion in the school bit. I wonder, if there are Muslim ones, how many Christian or Jewish ones are there? Or other religions? Must be some. In any case, I wouldn't be comfortable with funding that with tax dollars, as I said earlier.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 10:48 AM) You want an honest answer? Always. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 10:48 AM) If it would have been done right, it would have been worth it. I believe that we should be trying to save people from persecution and genocide all over the world. Its a cause I believe in. The Bush admin was stupid and was too worried about trying to make the war seem as small as possible, that they didn't fight the war the way they should have. They didn't send enough troops, equiptment, or anything of that nature. If they actually take control of the country from the beginning, instead of hoping that nothing would happen, things would have been different. Instead the Bush admin was too worried public opinion, and it cost them in the end. If that were the case, then we should probably have picked one of at least a dozen places in the world that were much worse off than Iraq. Starting with Darfur. Iraq was never about helping Iraqis - I wish it was. But that was way, way down the list of concerns for the administration. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 10:48 AM) Also we aren't going to achieve energy independence until the crude oil and other stocks run out. We as American's don't have the care to change our lifestyles enough for it to actually matter. We have gone from $1 to $3 gas in shorttime, and we STILL have had an increase in demand. Our behavior tells me that we don't care enough to change. I don't necessarily agree - I think two factors will push us that direction (albeit slowly) well before we see oil start to really dwindle in supply. First, people are starting to do energy-reducing things on their own because it saves them money. And that is the key - money will drive people. Many technologies, such as solar, are now getting to the point where (for individuals and families) they pay for themselves in a pretty short timeframe, and then start saving people money. As that continues, the power companies will employ net energy programs that then save them money too, and pretty soon, you have a distributed model of alternative energy. There are other examples too, but the point is, we are headed that direction. The second thing is environmental. In the coming decade or two, as we see ocean levels rise, air quality decline, etc., there will be more and more interest in being more responsible with our environment. That will push the government to invest more in systems that are not yet cost-efficient, but will be eventually. I don't think these two things will happen quickly, or get us off oil entirely - but they will push us the right direction.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 10:35 AM) We luuuuuv it when you analyze. On the surface, I think this is a good "guide" to at least get a measuring stick of how a player produces offensively. I wonder, though, if some way to incorporate runs scored would matter here? Ultimately, that's what matters - if a guy walks, did he get home? Does it matter, or does it make it so convoluded that it doesn't matter? I was thinking about that. Problem with runs scored is its too dependent, I think, on other players. A player can only control getting on base, and how many bases they take on steals or extra bases hits. Beyond that, they are kind of at the mercy of the rest of the team.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 10:31 AM) Defeatist attitude? Are we talking about Iraq or Iceland? Out of curiousity, how much of a tax hike are you willing to pay for right now to fund this? We can't afford the infrastructure that we have in this country right now, and you want to change all of our energy transportation and utilization? Its not ingenuity, its ability to pay for it. Personally I am not really in favor of forcing every person in the country to pay an incredible amount of money to do this, which is exactly what it would take. Well, it would be a heck of a lot better thing to spend money on than Iraq. Numerous articles have pointed out that for all the money we've spent on Iraq, we could have made so many strides in alternative energy and energy reduction that we would be on the brink of being energy-independent. Not off oil entirely of course, but off it enough to go on just the US and Canadian resources we have access to. Can you really say that wouldn't have been a better idea?

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 10:31 AM) Its a Public School Thanks for the link. That is very interesting. So its definitely a public school, and supposedly it will be emphasizing Muslim curricula? No way that should be funded by taxpayer dollars. If they want to go have that school that is fine, but you cannot choose a specific religion to emphasize or put in a pole position like that if its public. I am not OK with that.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 10:28 AM) This sorta points out what others were talking about in another thread. In our culture today muslim=terrorist. It's sad that he's so anti-Muslim, but at the same time I'm in complete agreement that the government should stop funding schools that teach jihad and employ administrators with ties to terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. And I also agree that, in general, the liberal push for complete neutrality in anything and everything is leading us down a path that we don't want to go down. I agree, by the way, that this or any other school pushing a religious agenda should not be getting public funding. But I don't see any evidence in the article about that. As for neutrality, I think calling the "liberal" view as neutrality is a vast over-simplification, just as it would be if I said that "conservatives" are all interested in another crusade in the Middle East. Neither are accurate.

1. I followed all the various links to their ends, and see nothing whatsoever about where he gets the idea that this private school is somehow publically-funded. It may be - but he shows nothing to indicate that. Its a private school, therefore, I assume its not taxpayer funded. That being the case, the whole premise of the article is flawed. 2. This author might actually be taken seriously if he didn't take the supposed actions of a few people, and then make the leap to all "liberals". The title of the article embraces two of the key tenets of extremist conservative marketing - fearmongering and the use of the straw man argument. 3. If you follow the links, you eventually reach the NY Post article talking about the "Jihad" class, and find that the whole purpose of that lecture is to tell students that struggle is good, but holy war is not. Nevermind that, though - its much more effective to get everyone riled up thinking this school is teaching kids that holy war is good. Makes for better news. This article is about as valuable as the rantings of Hannity or Olbermann.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 03:47 PM) It wouldn't because that foul ball wasn't worth $$$$$. How often does this happen? Parents giving their children big gifts. Lottery prizes. Game shows. Flea Market finds. I do know that there is an exemption for gift money, which says up to something like $10,000 in value can be given as a gift without being taxed. Here is a possible go-around - sell it to a family member for $1, then keep it in the house. You have now established the value at $1. Which brings up problem number one with this tax scheme - how do you establish value for tax purposes?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 09:14 AM) I said that already. And I specifically said not to this point in particular. But it was a serious question. There seems like there's "evil" intentions all over the place - never noble - always has some politicized steaming pile of poo attached to it - and I would like to know why. Well, you are the one who usually posts something like "THEY ALL SUCK" in regards to politicians. And that is often right, but I'd say, not always. Even in that slimey world, I think there is the occasional good deed. In my view, politicians almost all start their political careers with the idea of doing some good. Then they realize that 99% of what they do is compromise, pandering or re-election protection. But that 1% of the time, they actually get to stand up for something.

There has been a lot of discussion here about Owens' nearly complete lack of power, and how important that is or isn't for a leadoff hitter. I do think that OBP is a better measure than AVG or SLG or even OPS when looking at a leadoff guy, because their purpose is to get on base for the heart of the order (and maybe get on base and steal). So that got me thinking... How about a measurement that really does account for the bases provided by power AND those provided by speed, in addition to reaching base? Maybe something like this: (TB + BB + HBP + SB) - (CS + GIDP) / Total PA Look familiar? Its somewhat akin to Total Average, which was sort of in vogue for a while some years ago. Its a real measure of the total bases contributable to a player per plate appearance. I would like to have also included XBOH in the numerator as a positive related to speed, but, I can't find those numbers. Here are the 2007 values for the players on the Sox currently with a significant number of plate appearances, in order from best to worst: Thome: .595 Konerko: .518 Dye: .496 Terrero: .474 Fields: .468 Richar: .448 Owens: .435 Uribe: .409 Pierzynski: .393 Podsednik: .384 Erstad: .379 Cintron: .338 Gonzalez: .301 Hall: .248 A few surprises here. Terrero did surprisingly well - he's been hit by pitch 9 times in 133 PA's though, so that's probably not sustainable. AJ was killed by 21 GIDP and a lack of walks - he actually falls below Uribe. Fields doing well, helped out by power and a recent surge in walks. Thome is amazing, but no surprise there. Owens is not spectacular, but he is actually pretty close to Richar, and certainly well above his CF/LF cohorts Erstad and Pods. And here are some of the players people have discussed bringing in as potential leadoff hitters and/or CF's instead of Owens: Rowand: .545 Hunter: .542 Renteria: .516 DeJesus: .448 Furcal: .420 Eckstein: .407 Now those are interesting. Rowand and Hunter would both be the second best performers on the current team. Renteria is very appealing at SS. DeJesus isn't bad, but he is only a sliver better than Owens. Furcal is way lower than I would have thought - I am now starting to think he may not be worth the $13M for one year. And then there is Eckstein, who is below Uribe with worse defense - no thank you. I am sure some people will poke holes and say this or that number should or should not be part of the calculation. You can certainly tweak it and re-compute as you'd like. But I think this measure gets a lot closer to total offensive contribution than OPS, OBP or AVG do.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 08:45 AM) For the first time since 1976, the Canadian Dollar reached parity with the US Dollar yesterday. Holy crappola. I remember a time in the early 90's where it was like 1.75 to 1 (CAD to USD). Ugh.

That's good to hear, glad they did it, but I have to agree that for the U.S. to do it is a much, much, much larger and more complex undertaking. Not impossible mind you, but even with considerate effort, it would take a long time. I'd be happy if we just made significant reductions each year. QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 12:30 AM) Sure fancy hydrogen fuel sources, pretty impressive. Yet those supposed scientists can't stop a real threat to the world. Wake me when they solve the Bjork problem they are responsible for. She is a weird one. I heard an interview once years ago, where she came in wearing a big battery on her belt, with wires leading into her clothing. They asked what it was, and she said she was feeling a little down and needed the energy boost.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 09:29 PM) Not specifically this, because there's a pretty stinky rat here, but I do have to ask: Why is everything so "conspiracatorial" (yes, I made that up) in nature? And it's a serious question. Because if its a conspiracy, its more evil. And more Hollywood. I hope you weren't referring to my point about Blackwater - there is nothing at all conspiratorial about that. Its out there for everyone to see.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 08:53 PM) And it goes beyond that even. As pointed out on the Colbert Report last night...when a U.S. city found itself under water recently...and the government decided it was totally inept...who did they call? Blackwater. Blackwater and other similar firms were scrutinized a little, particularly after the awful incident in Fallujah in '04. But then they fell off the radar. I think we're about to see these arrangements really get the spotlight in the coming weeks, and I think it may be the straw that breaks the "stay the course" back. We may even actually see Congress do something real, or, Bush might actually start implementing an exit. I wouldn't bet on it just yet, but I could see this getting that ugly, maybe.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 08:42 PM) Since this "Ban"...all state department employees, in fact basically every government employee other than the U.S. soldiers...have been issued orders not to leave the Green Zone. Supposedly this even includes people working for the CIA. That's because they decided to rely very, very heavily on Blackwater (and other privates) for security. It was, in essence, their way of avoiding a draft. And now they are adrift, because they elected to put their security in the hands of private firms not under their direct control.

Best.Thread.Ever.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 06:10 PM) I'm uneasy about State Department employees being protected by a private security firm. In fact the whole private security firm thing leaves me worried. You should read the book Blackwater. Try to cut through the editorial B.S., but the actual factual information and accounts in there, alone, make it worth the read.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 11:30 AM) His home run rate has decreased in Sept. I believe. If Gavin Floyd was a White Sox prospect in 2004 and he had the Sept. he had, he would be called at worst a #3 next year by many here. I don't know how you cannot compare Gavin Floyd to Gavin Floyd, or come to the conclusion he is a better pitcher now as opposed to then. Its very possible he's worse. My argument is against those who base this month's results as indication of what next year he will be. I have no problem with the White Sox giving him a shot next spring. How he throws then is far more important than how he throws now. That part there is what makes no sense. You think that ST games, where no one cares if they win or lose and teams have few starters in the lineup all game, are MORE important than actual games in-season during August and September? I fail to see how that is possible. I do think he needs to show up in ST and look good. But that is just one part of his evaluation - this part now is just as important if not more.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 10:54 AM) The gift tax does suck. But it was abused, and the loop holes were closed. There should be a difference between an asset that is being used immediately like a home, cars, or cash, and one that really only has value when sold. But, as I type this I thought of a situation, How would your opinion change if he took out a loan and used the ball as collateral? "Leased" the ball? Also, if I give you stock, wouldn't you owe taxes? That is the difference between this and stocks you've bought. If you give me stock, no, I would not owe taxes, until I sold it. I don't think. Because how could one determine the gains? With the ball, if you use it as collateral, you are essentially realizing some sort of gain from it, so I'd then think that it would be taxable at the value which was collateralized.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 10:41 AM) But Democrats don't. They equate it being one and the same (those poor people who's lives we totally f'ed up!!!). (yes, BIG difference between "extermination" and "making it difficult because of the totalitarian ways of a former government, and now people are trying to find their way). If this forum were an actual room, I think we'd need to put a scarecrow in the corner, dress him up and put "DEM" on his chest. That way, every time someone gives some ridiculous hyperbole and assigns it to a non-existant, fictional caricature of a Democrat, we can all just point at the straw man and say, "Look at the silly straw man!" And of course, we'd need to do the same for the GOP, so that Sqwert would have someone to pin stuff on.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 10:11 AM) Regardless, there will never be a nuclear armed Iran. Either Isreal, or the U.S. or both will bomb the ever living daylights out of them if it's found that their nukes are close to becoming operational. I definitely agree there - I think its highly likely that if they get close, someone (maybe us, maybe Israel, maybe even Europe) will end up turning the facility into a glass parking lot. That is, as long as someone has intelligence sources good enough to know it when they see it.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 10:07 AM) He represents a large fraction of the base of the Democrat party, black people, or at least he claims he does so it's not that much of a stretch at all. So he "claims" to represent one race in the Democratic party's following (a fraction as it is), and of course only some of them (a dwindling number too) would consider him a leader. So, he's a shill for a fraction of a fraction of the Democrats. That would be more accurate.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 10:05 AM) I'll take the meat heads over a bunch of flower tossing leftist pussies who sing Koom Bah Ya and "Give peace a chance!" while a country that is on record as saying it wants to wipe nations off the map implements a crash program to develop nuclear weapons. /rolly Then you'd best move to France, because right now, Europe is doing more to stop Iran than we are.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 09:59 AM) Basically he was given an asset and needed to pay the taxes due. If I gave you and item worth $100,000, you would be responsible for any taxes owed. Just like on a game show, the contestants have to pay taxes. Perhaps thinking about a stock gain. Or if an employer decided to give you a house instead of paying you? Except if it was a stock or other similar investment, you don't pay taxes for owning it. You pay taxes when you sell it. Which is why I find this tax thing pretty stupid - its not cash, nor is it real estate - so I really don't think it should be taxed.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 09:58 AM) Narrow minded bulls*** that is OH so typical of these so called black "leaders" who are nothing more than a bunch of leftist shills for the Democrat party. It doesn't matter how heinous the crime, there is no such thing as a guilty black person in their eyes. You are really stretching here. I don't think most Dems would want to be associated with Jesse or those comments, so he certainly isn't a shill for them.