NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(fathom @ May 11, 2007 -> 05:21 PM) Aren't the Red Sox the only team in NBA or MLB history to come back from a 3-0 deficit? Yeah, I was going to say, that particular event having a very slim chance actually makes sense to me. If it was .3% or something, I might agree with that.

Using a "hands-free" set for your cell phone doesn't make you any safer a driver. That law in Chicago is pretty much worthless. Studies are indicating that talking on a headset is no less dangerous than on a hand-held cellphone. From those studies:

QUOTE(Damen @ May 11, 2007 -> 04:01 PM) Which makes it kind of tough to campaign on how important the estate tax is for farmers in Iowa. Well, you hit on something important there, though. Estate is assets, millionaire is net worth. Farmers in Iowa are kind of in the worst possible spot with regards to the estate tax. On a net basis, I'm betting that most of them are not millionaires. But, if they farm on any significant scale, they may indeed have over a million in assets, which if transfered to their children (as I am sure still happens quite a bit), will get hit with the estate tax based on the value of those assets. Rudy G had a chance to make some friends in Iowa if he was against a federal "death" tax, and apparently blew that chance.

QUOTE(BearSox @ May 10, 2007 -> 06:04 PM) Out of those 3, Borbon would be ideal for future leadoff man. The only thing I don't like as mentioned in that tid-bit is his arm. Russell looks to be the type of prospect the Sox love though. Big power guy, but also K's a ton. Could be a decent RF, but he is left-handed, and I'd prefer to have a right handed thrower in RF. Here is a link for one of his homers... http://www.bevosports.com/2006/02/12/kyle-...mer-beats-rice/ But out of the three you mentioned, I would want Burgess the most, but it doesn't look like he will sign with any team, but rather play college ball. I also wouldn't mind Matt LaPorta. Russell sounds like Joe Borchard part deux to me.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ May 11, 2007 -> 03:41 PM) Now I'm curious to see how many people have alcohol at their job readily available every day... Start a poll. My last company used to, occasionally. That stopped at some point though, when HR decided it was too much risk.

So, I can't remember the last time a Presidential candidate tried the humor route in advertising (speeches yes, but not ads). Mr. Richardson has decided to do just that in two new ads. Seems a bit campy, but I have to say, I chuckled a bit. Anyone think that any other candidates will try that angle? Anyone see any other interesting ads yet?

Instead of penalizing everyone and doing nothing to stop DUI's (which is what this would do), maybe the league should have more stringent penalties for criminal behavior off the field. DUI arrest = 50 game suspension, or something like that. I think that would be a lot more effective.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ May 11, 2007 -> 12:02 PM) Not true. I think BP had us at like 93 percent after we clinched the division in 05. And that right there should tell you all you need to know about the measures they are using.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 11, 2007 -> 11:58 AM) Graphic via the LA Times. This is another one of those news articles that makes you say... "Ask the question!" The obvious question I have when I see articles like this is... what about online retailers? Those online outlets (Amazon, Buy.com, Peapod, etc.) are making huge gains every year, and I am sure that is cutting into the business of the brick and mortar stores. The bad weather will only exacerbate that effect. So, frankly, I don't put much stock in numbers coming from the "International Council of Shopping Centers". I am guessing that group also discludes mom-and-pop local shops, which are making a comeback in a backlash against the Walmarts of the world. The article's conclusion that this is automatically a reaction to gas prices is narrow and incomplete, in my view. QUOTE(kapkomet @ May 11, 2007 -> 12:11 PM) Some of these are business stupidities (Gap, Sharper Image, Hot Topic), some of these are a little surprising. It's pretty much a proven fact, though, that when gas goes up, (other) discretionary spending goes down. Yes, but there are other forces at work here that the article failed to address as well.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 10, 2007 -> 06:25 PM) It seems like today is "Bad press for Rudy" day. Hm. Not a good way to befriend the voters of Jones County, Iowa. I'm guessing that most people there are not millionaires.

I wonder if Jesse is aware that most Dominicans and Cubans are at least partly descended from Africans. He is such a joke. Use racism to fight racism? Brilliant.

QUOTE(TitoMB345 @ May 10, 2007 -> 12:44 PM) If Sweeney goes back to AAA when Thome comes back, Kenny REALLY needs to consider firing Ozzie. KW and Ozzie make the roster decisions together, I believe, and KW being the GM has the biggest say-so. So if that does happen, then I guess KW would need to fire himself.

QUOTE(jheath160 @ May 10, 2007 -> 12:19 PM) At this point, I'm really not sure anymore. I'll most likely stay a dem...but on a very local level, the party is rotten. I once had someone tell me that the Democratic party is more corrupt the lower you go, and the Republican party is more corrupt the higher you go. I'm not sure if its true, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Whether or not your candidate won probably should have nothing to do with whether or not you stay with a certain party. Also, if you were working for a candidate, maybe you need to ask yourself two other questions... 1. If you are looking into politics as a career, is it perhaps best to not align with a party at all? Be a tradesman in the field? 2. If your ideological and political views are present on both sides of the spectrum, should you perhaps seek out candidates who are more moderate? And not necessarily in the center of their party?

What was it I said a while back, that candidates for this race will be more scrutinized than any ever before? Sheesh. Anyway, Obama is more likely to suffer for this kind of thing than many other candidates, for a few reasons. One, since he is seen by many as lacking substantive experience, if his charisma and charm fade, that's a big problem for him. Two, there will be a segment of the population that will think of these verbal gaffes as somehow related to race (that's B.S. of course, but some will think it the case). Third, after having a President in office who is by far the worst public speaker of the TV era, the American public is now maybe a little leary of what those gaffes say about the person behind them.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ May 10, 2007 -> 08:44 AM) Why would he lose ABs when Thome comes back? Because Ozzie wants Mackowiak or Ozuna in LF? A lineup with Thome and Sweeney would seem to be the best lineup all year: Erstad Iguchi Thome Konerko Dye AJ Crede Sweeney Uribe That lineup is pretty. If we can have that as the starting lineup, and get Hall back healthy... I'll feel pretty good about this offense going forward.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 10, 2007 -> 07:53 AM) Really? I was under the impression Erstad has been doing quite well since being moved to the leadoff spot. Hey, long time no see. Nice to see you around. QUOTE(BigSqwert @ May 10, 2007 -> 09:33 AM) When Pods comes back I don't want him leading off. Here's a stat I just plucked from the Sox Machine blog: I have to admit, Erstad is doing far better than I would have thought possible. If he is still playing similar baseball in a month or two, then I'll take my crow fried, thank you.

I'm guessing that Ozzie sees a left handed bat with Sweeney, and one with Thome, whereas Terrero is rightie. Therefore, must replace lefty with lefty. The fact that they never play the same positions, and the fact that Sweeney has been better against lefties than righties in AAA and MLB this year is apparently irrelevant to appendage man. Sweeney is obviously getting plenty of time in the OF. Give the man a chance.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ May 10, 2007 -> 07:31 AM) ok, so what's the point? I assume the Syria link was what was considered notable. Like maybe a hint at things to come.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ May 9, 2007 -> 06:36 PM) The White Sox haven't been particularly good outside of 05. What? The Sox are one of the most winning ballclubs in baseball this decade.

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ May 9, 2007 -> 06:34 PM) If that was the reason, then shouldn't the study also have concluded that kids conceived in Sep/Oct/Nov are the smartest and kids in the other six months are in the middle? Well, actually, I think then it would be the other way around. But in any case, if one side of the class in terms of birthdates is not as smart, which appears to be the case here... then yes, they should have seen the other side as well. But I don't see them acknowledging that factor at all.

I think I'm bad mojo for D Lucy. A few weeks ago I updated his AAP thread with his ridiculous 400+ AVG, and he came back to earth. I posted yesterday he had thrown out 10 of 14, then today 3 guys steal on him.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ May 9, 2007 -> 05:55 PM) How come insurance companies don't offer different rates for those who wear their seatbelt or helmet and those who don't? Health insurance companies do it with non-smokers and smokers. well, the rate thing is unenforceable, so I can see why you wouldn't. Unless a person gets a ticket for a seat belt or helmet violation, there is never anyway to tell. EXCEPT, if there is an accident with injuries, and a police report. That's why I was thinking it would be more practical to do it as a threat against payment.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ May 9, 2007 -> 05:15 PM) One argument for safety belt and motorcycle helmet laws is that when someone gets injured more because of not using one, insurances companies have to pay out more and it increases everyone's premiums overall. Which has always made me wonder... if you are an insurance company, why not consider NOT paying out for life and limb if someone breaks the law? In other words, if some dumbass on a donor bike is maimed in a wreck and wasn't wearing his helmet... then don't pay the bills. You could write it into the policy - no helmet, no insurance money for medical. That would reduce everyone's rates. You could do the same for seat belts - if the police reports show that seat belts were not worn, then no payout.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 9, 2007 -> 04:35 PM) Their child will never be able to make decisions for herself. The parents made a decision that would improve her quality of life. She will never know the difference. I have a difficult time criticizing and seconde guessing her parents or the Doctors who performed the operation. It was probably the kindest thing they could have done for her. Yet, I am uncomfortable with this and can not figure out why. I wasn't sure why either at first, but I'm pretty sure now that I hate the idea of a person being turned into a doll. That's what happened, as far as I can tell. This makes the parents' lives easier. But at the cost of robbing someone of their identity in so many crucial ways. I just can't see it being justified. But this is obviously a very personal choice and decision, and luckily, this sort of thing is obviously very rare. I can see the other side of this, and the pain the parents would go through. Tough place to be.