NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 1, 2007 -> 10:13 AM) inefficiencies = private profit. If we are spending the same and receiving the same service, we have not netted anything. I have not read an unbiased report where it has been privatized and the public received more bang for the buck. We net a benefit when we pay less and receive the same or pay the same and receive more. We don't net a benefit when we pay the same and receive the same or less service. I've read reports of "$500 coffee makers" that appear as inefficiencies until you learn the coffee maker is on a U2 spy plane with special shielding so it avoids detection. So which is better for the US and the economy? Thousands of workers earning higher wages via the government or fewer workers, earning less, and a private owner earning more? The same private owner who will pay his suppliers less, etc. If we need government debt to fuel our economy, how does this reconcile with that? Tex, what kind of profit do most companies make? I'd be that for most corporations, they are happy with making, say, 10% or 20%, depending on the industry. Some more, some less, some none at all. How many make 90%? Not too many I'd guess. How about charities even? Charities that only get 10% of the money to the target audience are usually considered substandard and can't get certified or approved by their various watchdog groups.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 1, 2007 -> 09:54 AM) links? The Bureau of Indian Affairs, to take an extreme example, is so inefficient that only about 10% of its funds actually make it to the people they supposedly serve. It would actually be far more effective at this point to just send each tribe a head-count check and call it a day. At least then SOME of the money would be put to good use. 10 freakin' percent?!

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 1, 2007 -> 08:39 AM) The effect was there, I guarentee it. All you have to do is look back into history and look at instances when action wasn't taken to prevent this, or worse, in times when the money supply was tightened. Like I said to Tex, read back through the economic history of the great depression, and look at the monetary supply actions taken and not taken. You don't have to believe me, but I really think history is on my side here. I agree the effect was there. What makes you think I didn't believe you? I said in my post I wouldn't argue against that. What I said is that it was not nearly the influence the other factos were, in the specific economic period we were discussing (which I thought was the 90's and this decade).

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 1, 2007 -> 08:20 AM) You are missing a step when you give credit to the housing market rally. The housing market only happened because people had jobs. If there was 10% unemployment, there wouldn't have been any housing market rally. I guess I don't believe that the tax cuts kept unemployment at 6%- versus 10%. I just don't think it had that large an influence. Also, the housing market boom was at least in part a delayed effect from 10 years of strong job and salary growth for the 10 years prior to 9/11. Then the sudden market crashes caused by the tech wreck in 2000, and then 9/11, caused a fear jump into real estate and gold (the ultimate safe harbor investments). All those things created the strong housing market much more so than the relatively small tax cuts, in my view.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ May 1, 2007 -> 07:30 AM) It's a FACT that revenues coming in to treasury right now is at an all time high, and it's a FACT that it wouldn't have happened if the tax cuts didn't stimulate the economy. Part A is fact, Part B is partially fact and partially fiction. The single strongest influence on the resurgent economy after 2002 was the housing market - not tax cuts. If you look at the huge amount of money infused into the economy by way of huge real estate increases, that put a lot more cash in the system than the tax cuts did. Tax cuts probably helped too, I wouldn't argue otherwise. But they weren't the reason it happened, or even the single biggest reason.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 06:30 PM) What are you smoking? Carlson, Scarborough and Buchanan are not liberals. And why would any of them jump into the Dem primary? I am sure he was joking and forgot the green. He had to be. Buchanan a liberal? If he sees that post, he's going to have a conniption.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 04:23 PM) Couple of points...what exactly makes anyone out there think that fiscal conservatism is actually a popular political point of view? In some circles it gets brought up a lot, and there are a few people who get elected running genuinely on it, but just look at the performance of the supposedly fiscally conservative party. Massive expansion of government spending up and down the board, and still people keep supporting it. It took a lost war for people to genuinely start turning against that party. The simple fact is this...if I'm a voter...it's in my best interest to vote for the candidate who promises me the most while making me spend the least. In other words, we won't raise your taxes, we'll run deficits to cover these tax cuts, we'll give you all these new medicare benefits without worrying about how they'll be paid for (and we'll lie about the cost while we're at it) and you will love us! I think you've missed the difference here between the perception of the average voter, and the reality. A lot of voters like the idea of a fiscally disciplined government, and will vote for someone who claims they will balance a budget. The fact that this would mean taking away pork and, potentially, taking money or services out of their pockets, doesn't occur to most voters. The politicians then deal with the reality by spending non-stop, and getting those fatty pork programs through Congress (all the while screaming that they are against all this wasteful spending!). So in the end, because the average voter doesn't see the dichotomy there and further that they don't see the indirect negative impact that deficits have on them, they will just keep on voting for people who claim fiscal restraint but still deliver for their state/locality. This goes a long way towards explaining why the GOP and Bush managed to survive 2002 and 2004 elections. They spent like drunken sailors, created huge deficits, but were still able to get their message across as the party of fiscal restraint. Heck, look at Bush's 2004 campaign. How many times did he and his cronies label Kerry a "tax and spend liberal" - and that worked! It didn't occur to most people that tax-and-spend is a heck of a lot better for the country than spend-and-spend, which is what the incumbent administration and Congress had been doing.

Since we've now completed April play, it seems a good time for an update. I'll try to do monthly updates on Donny... Through the first month of the season, Lucy has put up some impressive offensive numbers. He was already considered a strong defensive catcher and game caller, so having a hot start at the plate was just what he needed. Some highlights (ranks in parens)... .317 AVG (8th in league, 1st on team) .397 OBP (10th in league, 1st on team) .889 OPS (12th in league, 1st on team) 8 Doubles (4th in league, 2nd on team) 8 Walks (T-3rd on team) 3 SB (T-4th on team), and no CS. Defensive stats are hard to come by. The only official stat I found on Lucy's MILB page is errors, of which he has one. Not much value in that stat. But I was able to find something else interesting... Lucy started the season terribly against would-be base stealers - he allowed the first 14 straight to reach safely, culminating in 4 SB against him on April 20th. He was given the day off on 4/21, and since that awful game, he has now thrown out 4 of 6 attempting to steal. I am not sure if someone helped him out in some way, or maybe just gave him a talking to, but his throw-out rate has changed dramatically. Let's hope that keeps up. Overall, great month for D Lucy!

I went to one of these last year, it was fun. But I haven't heard anything about this one yet. Is this just for full season holders? Because last year, it was also for lowly split-seasons like me. Anyone know?

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 01:45 PM) If you go after someone, you go after an outfielder that could play a couple positions that way he fits in with Thome out as well as once he gets back. I miss Ross.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 01:38 PM) I could see a third party wiping out the Dems or Reps, probably the Dems. At election time, both parties dive to the left and right, leaving the middle wide open for a viable upstart. Well, during the primaries they typically run for the gutter, but come time to run against the other party, they wander back towards the middle. And I think a third party may become viable, if as I said, its not starting at the top. It can't be a party about a person.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 11:24 AM) If we think there is gridlock and pork in Washington with two parties, toss in a third. Nothing would happen unless two of the three aligned. I think having three parties will actually create less gridlock, not more. Because you will have issue-specific majorities, when a third party aligns with the Dems on one issue, and the GOP on another. The third party folk wouldn't be as concerned over the consequences of going outside their party, unless they suddenly became bigger than the others. So more things will get passed, not less.

I think that's great, especially if they can put together a ticket that represents that moderate crowd, but also have the name on the front be someone with a lot of name recognition. Otherwise, won't work. Plus with both parties fielding wide teams this year, its a tougher year to try to start in. I think maybe the best way to get something like this started is not at the Presidency, but at the state level, then up to Congress, etc. Build up support. Shooting the moon may doom the idea.

QUOTE(caulfield12 @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 08:56 AM) But Sweeney in no way, shape or form is an adequate everyday replacement for Thome's bat long-term. KW and OG, hopefully, feel the same way, but we can't be so sure. Last I knew, the Thome thing was indeed short-term. 15 Day DL, yes? Did I miss something? I don't think anyone is suggesting that Sweeney is the "answer" at DH if Thome is suddenly out all year. Besides, Sweeney is better defensively than some of the OF's we have now, so I'd rather see some of them DH'd and Sweeney in the field.

I haven't seen anyone post this tidbit yet... Sweeney (who can play some CF) has far better numbers so far this year against LHP than he does against RHP. Here are his splits... Entire Season AVG G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS OBP SLG OPS vs Left .316 19 2 6 1 0 0 0 4 4 1 0 .435 .368 .803 vs Right .237 59 4 14 2 1 2 6 6 15 0 0 .308 .407 .714 Sorry for the columns. Anyway, if we had a manager who actually knew what pitchers his hitters were best against, this would be good news - Sweeney could be a guy to hit against LHP. Unfortunately, Ozzie doesn't seem to know what a split is (see: Gooch). Anyone have his splits for previous years? Just curious if this is a freak occurance, or if he really does hit LHP well.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 08:25 AM) Does Joe Sixpack watch the news at all? Just a general question: but does anyone know what percentage of people watch the news daily? Related... how many people READ the news daily? And I don't mean People magazine, I mean a reputable newspaper or a similar online version? Because that to me is a lot more informative than TV news.

Still in, +1.

Just watched the debate videos. Quick impressions of each candidate, in order of current standing... Clinton: She comes off like a robot to me. Mechanical, political and polished. She seems to be trying hard to be cold and tough. Not sure how that will go over, we'll see I guess. On the issues, she seems pretty focused and determined on health care, which is good. She had solid answers to some other things too. Her Iraq stance continues to be wishy-washy, though. I think she fell a bit short. Obama: Didn't come off with the same sort of charisma I've seen from him before, at least in part because of the format (too many candidates, not enough time). He was direct on some issues, vague on others. But I think he really did well when he got into it with Kucinich over Iran. I think right there, we saw a glimpse of Obama's gift - open forum discussion. I think that in a town hall type atmosphere or something similar, he'll make every other candidate look silly. Overall, for his first big debate on TV, he did OK. Edwards: Like Obama, he needs more breathing room to be at his best. He has some specific plans, but his speeches still seem far to campy and preachy to me. He comes off as very paternal. I think that will work well some people, but it reveals to me a lack of real fortitude. Overall, I think he did OK as well. Richardson: pretty much like I had said to Sqwert beforehand. On the issues, I think he is very solid, has some good ideas and some unique ones too, and has a good executive quality. But, he doesn't look so good. He looked as if he was struggling to hear the questions a bit, and was a little mechanical in his delivery. Overall, I think he probably helped himself a little by putting himself out there with his stances, but his delivery was lacking. Biden: Biden comes off pretty well, albeit a bit dry. His Iraq plan is solid, and he tried hard to emphasize that. But he, like Dodd, has Senator written all over him. That means he didn't slip up badly or anything (this time), but, he didn't do anything to make him vote-worthy either. Dodd: Like Biden, didn't do anything bad, but also didn't make much effect. He's just sort of there. Kucinich: I've gotta say, I have a lot of personal respect for the guy. He doesn't play games, he doesn't pander. He has actual moral courage. I was surprised to see he even said he's had a gun in his house. But, sadly, his issue stances are pretty far left, and he's not seen as viable. But overall, I think he may have helped himself a bit, even though its likely a lost cause. Gravel: Wow. That is one fiery dude. He really tried to stick it to some people, and he made no apoligies for his stances. Like Kucinich, he isn't electable. And he's a little nuts. But he did add some spice to the debate. OVERALL: Too many candidates, not enough time, and still very early. I didn't see anyone make any big leaps forward or backward either.

Update from the Trib. The cop is of course charged with Ag Battery, as predicted. Now they are also adding all the charges for the attempted post-act intimidation, etc. And in fact, the prosecuters had to upgrade the charge to Ag Batt, because the PD had tried to file first as simple battery. Good. This guy is getting what he deserves. And the cops who tried the under-charge should be disciplined. How embarrassing.

I saw Steve Lyons yesterday, and he told me I had a nice belt.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Apr 27, 2007 -> 12:02 PM) Michael Hirsh's (Newsweek) commentary on Biden's plan on Iraq: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18339254/site/newsweek/ Worth a read. Biden is the only one in either party to have any sort of plan at all, really. Glad to see that Richardson aligned himself with it as well.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 27, 2007 -> 11:46 AM) What is the body count in most action thrillers? This seems so unreal. Based on this, how can we allow Stephen King to be walking free? Check the kids video games as well. The student specifically referring the threat to his teacher, and wondered aloud about it. Much more specific than an action movie full of fictional characters. Not really comparable. QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Apr 27, 2007 -> 12:00 PM) This kid is a straight A student. He isn't an idiot...how could he write anything about inspiring a shooting in a high school. WTF kind of creating writing is this? I can see the teacher saying write me an essay..be creative...don't censor yourself and exagerrate. So from that the kid writes this stuff?? I don't know if he should be charged with anything, but I definitely think the teacher did the right thing. He knew what he was doing - trying to be shocking. Well, congrats kid, you got the attention you wanted.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Apr 27, 2007 -> 08:17 AM) If you missed the debate MSNBC will let you watch the entire video from their website: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/ Damn, have to watch online. No way to download that I can see. Anyone know a way/place to download the videos to be watched later?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Apr 27, 2007 -> 08:17 AM) If you missed the debate MSNBC will let you watch the entire video from their website: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/ Thanks Sqwert! I'll download that and watch on the plane ride home tonight.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 27, 2007 -> 08:07 AM) They were selling false documents. Why would you think they were dangerous? Especially to the level that the police responded? I must be missing something in here. Were any of them already convicted for violent crimes? It looked like to me they were entering a Gang Headquarters not a shopping mall. Did you not read the follow up article about who those ID sellers were? The death threats?