NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 7, 2007 -> 01:28 PM) Ah once again the three types of lies... lies, damned lies, and statistics... So they used 25% more Dems vs Repubs.... Huh, I wonder why they came up with the worst results ever? Their was a nice little sample bias for the people who don't like Bush the most! It says right above your quote, in the article, that the results were weighted. How the weighting was done exactly for that particular list, I do not know. Also, you are making the assumption that the country is 50/50 on Dem/GOP leaning. That may or may not be the case, again, I don't know. But given the way things have been the last few years, and the fickle nature of voters (mentioned earlier today), it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find that there are more Dem leaners than GOP leaners nowadays. If you really wanted to look for bias here, I'd want to know three things. One, how did they randomize their calls/contacts. Two, in larger scale polls or multi-poll results, what is the current percentage leaning for each party in the country. And three, if they leaner precentage doesn't match the current national percentages, then how did they weight the results of the non-party-specific polls.

New poll from Newsweek shows that all three major Dem candidates beat their Rep counterparts in theoretical races. Also, Bush's approval rating now at 28%, the lowest since Carter in 1978. Plus some other interesting stats on the poll, see link. Hillary still leading the Dem group, so her high negs still haven't caught up yet.

I think it can be truly said that neither party has any sort of moral high ground. The GOP is messed up in part because of BushCo, yes. But in the last few months, the Dem Congress is doing no better than the GOP did. If you read the article, you also see hints of what I think the real reason for the defections is - the GOP has shifted its focus as a party. The small government, fiscal discipline and individual freedoms themes that once dominated the party line have fallen by the wayside, in favor of a conservative social agenda (budgets and freedoms be damned). That I think, more than any scandals, has been the reason for flight for politicians from the Republican party. Voters are fickle, so they are more effected by the current administration and its blunders. But these people more at the core of politics, when they consider jumping the aisle, its for more thematic reasons.

ESPN and Yankee fans drool. Red Sox fans are annoyed. The rest of the world yawns.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ May 5, 2007 -> 10:32 PM) That's true. However, the majority of the people don't get the WSJ for the op/ed page. Andif you think about it, "conservatives" and the type of people who get the WSJ actually sort of fit together. Pro-business and democrats aren't usually in the same sentance. I have subscribed to the WSJ on and off over the years, and I don't think I've ever read the op-ed stuff. The business news and related stories are all I read in there.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ May 4, 2007 -> 02:57 PM) There's the Wall Street Journal - circulation 1.7 million. The New York Post. The Washington Times. MSNBC has Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson, CNN has Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck. USA Today leans conservative enough that it was the newspaper that got the most access to the White House in the first term of the Bush administration. USA Today is a poor excuse for a newspaper, and bias is the least of its worries. Its like a newspaper directed at 4th graders, with little or no substance, pretty graphics showing nonsensical statistics, and an eye-catching layout.

So, I don't see it mentioned yet... Hilary has apparently decided that she doesn't look good avoiding responsiblity for her vote on the Iraq war, and is trying to counter the bad press by stealing and idea from her fellow candidates and trying to revoke the Iraq War authorization. I've heard at least two Prez candidates endorse this idea previously - Edwards and Richardson. Apparently she now wants to shift from being the tough, conservative candidate to be more with the popular anti-war trend. Clinton continues to be my least favorite Dem candidate.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 2, 2007 -> 05:35 PM) Long term though, there is still another major issue; is there actually enough arable land to produce the supplies energy consumption will demand as oil prices keep going up? If more and more food supplies keep being required for energy, then it's quite possible that the market won't be able to keep up with the demand. That's where tech advancements are necessary, and corn of course is not the ideal fuel. I didn't mention this in the first post, but someone else did - there are far better fuel grains than corn. Corn ethanol should be a stepping stone, not the solution. More energy production from the grain in use means less grain needed.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ May 2, 2007 -> 04:55 PM) i don't like smoking bans. if you own a bar and want to have it be "smoke-free" than good. i would probably go to that bar. if own a bar and want it to be "smoking". than that sould be your decision. if cigarettes are so dangerous why are they legal? because they are a HUGE tax source. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If its legal, then these smoking bans are the worst kind of paternalistic political posturing. This is the opposite of letting the market decide.

Interesting, but this sort of demand wave shouldn't keep us from moving forward. Its a natural progression. Demand creates an increase in prices, then the increase in prices will result in an increase in supply. This will occur over time. How you ask? For one thing, many people who have land in states like Iowa and Missouri own the land and get paid by our government to NOT plant corn. Its a price prop. Remove the prop, and people will sell the land or use it. The flexibility is there in the market, and if the prices rise enough to overcome the non-planting money, then it will happen on its own.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ May 2, 2007 -> 04:58 PM) I'm sure they have performance clauses and probably a lot of stock, but that all comes with a HUGE responsibility. Responsibility denotes some sort of consequence for failing. That is where the problem exists. CEO's get paid a ton of money to lead a company, but even if the company does miserably, there are simply no negative consequences at all. In fact, they often get paid a big chunk of change when they leave or even for years after. Therefore, no, they do not have HUGE responsibility. They should, but do not.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ May 2, 2007 -> 08:16 AM) From the same system that produced the Brian Anderson long looping swing. Do not pick anyone from within our system, they need to go out. And hopefully find someone that can work on fundamentals, and a solid clean swing. Level, and can preach strikezone awareness. So... who outside the organization seems good? Anyone have any info on hitting coaches with good reputations, or who turned teams around?

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 2, 2007 -> 08:13 AM) Serious as can be. If drew a line in the sand and said he would veto the bill. As you mentioned, everyone screwed this up. The line of defense is a Presidential veto and he did. I love it when our system works. And if Congress can muster the over ride, then so be it. That is exciting also. But I applaud Bush for his back bone in the matter. And again, that bill is almost a poster child for what is wrong in American politics. Take all the b.s., pork, and stuff that has nothing to do with the main bill out and start from there. I agree the bill is crap. But you are saying the line of defense is the President, and he was a big part of the mess in the first place, so... he vetoed himself?!

I really wish Walt Hriniak was willing to get back with one team. Do we have any hitting coaches in the minor league system that may be good? I know we've discussed the poor approach system-wide, and I agree, but you'd think maybe one of them was an exception.

34, 6'3" I was 6'4" until my knees caved in on me.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 2, 2007 -> 07:05 AM) And the one person that could stop it, did. This may be his best moment of 2007. You can't be serious. In case you didn't notice, he's the one who bought the pooch in the first place.

QUOTE(specmotors @ May 1, 2007 -> 01:38 PM) I think he's probably already reached the point where, if he is going to make it in the majors, it won't be with the Sox. The best thing for the team to do would probably be to let him go to AAA, hope he hits there, and then trade him when the stock goes up a bit. I tend to agree, though I don't at all like how the Sox arrived at that point. By the way, welcome to Soxtalk!

What a bunch of cowards. All of them - Congress, BushCo, all of them. Congress doesn't have the guts to stand up and say no to further funding of the war, and Bush doesn't have the guts to admit when he's driving his truck on 3 flat tires and its time to change course. And this pork barrell crap, and the unrelated but important minimum wage bill being attached is just politcal B.S. Everyone screwed the pooch on this one.

Just in inject a little fun, the AP got to ask seven candidates from each party about some of their personal side. Favorite foods, alternate career path, etc. This is part 1 of the series, and apparently there will be follow-up articles. My favorites... --Dennis Kucinich's alternate career choice: Astronaut --Duncan Hunter's alternate career choice: Outdoor writer

Just in inject a little fun, the AP got to ask seven candidates from each party about some of their personal side. Favorite foods, alternate career path, etc. This is part 1 of the series, and apparently there will be follow-up articles. My favorites... --Dennis Kucinich's alternate career choice: Astronaut --Duncan Hunter's alternate career choice: Outdoor writer

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 1, 2007 -> 01:38 PM) How do you think a private company would do to fulfill all these treaties, provide services from school to police to monitoring leases? And if a treaty is not followed who gets sued? No one at BIA is fulfilling any treaties. For that matter, I'm pretty sure most of those treaties have been ground into dirt by now. And any treaty should have the effect of law, so I don't see how they change. The representation might change - the individuals or tribes would be complainants, instead of being represented by BIA (which was a joke anyway, so again, better off without). And those treaties and laws pertaining to reservations would, for the most part, go away. I am sure there are some vestigal protections that may have to be grandfathered in to individuals currently on reservations, but those are the exceptions. Public services like schools and police would become like everyone else's - state, local or private. Like I said, you may need a descending payout of some kind to those communities to phase that into existence, but it can be done. Another method to use here is something akin to block funding from fed to state - the money the FBI spends on law enforcement on Indian grounds each year, that cash can instead be routed to the local and state authorities to handle the influx. Then at some point, they can take over revenue generation for it as well, and have full control.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 1, 2007 -> 12:56 PM) On one hand I was surprised we have this huge agency for 1.2 million people, but our nation made a lot of promises through the years. Has there been any discussions with dissolving the agency and place the Tribes in the same systems we are duplicating? HUD, etc.? From everything I've just read, we could have the greatest people in the world working for that agency and it wouldn't work. Time to figure out a way to get them off the reservations or make the reservations economically viable. Its been time for that for a long time, but since the American Indian community is not considered the slightest bit important politically, no one wants to step up and make any changes. Its kind of a shame. Circling back to the topic of government waste, the BIA is but one example. they are an extreme case, but there are plenty of other agencies that are just piss poor at doing their jobs. They just eat money.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 1, 2007 -> 12:10 PM) BTW, NSS72, the government has already taken your advice, The Trices already have an option to accept direct fundign and provide the services themselves, at least in some areas. Linked Good article. I'm not certain how this reconciles to your 10% reach the tribe's number. Are you counting the police forces in the 10% or the 90%? Schools? Weather forecasting? Lease management fees? Required Weed Control? I am amazed at all the BIA is tasked with. Every treaty and agreement going back 150 years must be observed? I thoght it just handed out checks like Public Aid. BIA is tasked with a lot. Too much, even if they were good at it. But they aren't.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ May 1, 2007 -> 10:02 AM) Hackney's /thread ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No contest. I actually hate eating onions, but I'll eat that loaf at Hackney's any day of the week.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 1, 2007 -> 10:30 AM) Great example. You are the private company taking over. Should the government have any oversight on how you spend the money? Or do we just hand over the tax dollars and trust you? The public has demanded more and more accountability on how our money is spent. We demand multiple bids on all purchases. We demand meticulous record keeping from these agencies. If we turn this over to a private contractor, should we also drop those requirements? The level of record keeping we demand of our government is beyond what private industry requires. Perhaps we need to put in place policies and procedures more in line with private industry. Earlier someone mentioned 10% waste, if that is the same profit a private company wants, which is fair, we evened out. IIRC Indian Affairs has seen their budget cut while the demands for record keeping etc. have stayed the same. Doing all the paperwork, etc, is required, sending them aid is not. Perhaps that is the problem. The legal requirements cost $X and those have to be funded first. I agree that there are inefficiencies in out government, but there are also inefficiencies in private businesses. How many people in this conversation are working for private companies and getting paid to post? In the case of BIA and other agencies that are so far gone (if I recall, their last director quit and said there was no fixing it), I think you literally abolish it. It's actually not doing ANY good for ANYONE, including the Indians. They get a small sliver of the money they were intended to get, and then get all kinds of buearacracy, corruption and administrative B.S. to deal with just to get that. What I would do - take an amount of money equal to about 3 years' of the BIA's budget. Allocate it to the various tribal authorities on a per capita basis, and tell them to do whatever they see fit. Further, give all the Indians on the reservations the option to either own their land on it outright, or join their tribe's community if that's what they desire. Either way, they get some sort of land equity, and a chunk of cash. Then abolish the reservation system, and they are now part of society. The transition may be harsh, but it would be far better than the current nightmare they live in. Some of the BIA money may also have to go to the States and localities to deal with the burst influx on services, then veil it down over a number of years until it's nothing.