NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 10:15 PM) I can't believe people fall for McCain's act. He's hard Right with a good PR staff. He's Barry Goldwater, if he gets nominated. I'd suggest the opposite. He's soft right, with PR helping him reach the far right. He's far right on certain issues, not others.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 09:43 PM) You don't think policemen are essentially historians? I got that from one of the most Conservative men I know. Says we need guns because the police can't help you out if you're being robbed or raped or your house is broken into or anything like that. All police officers do is interview and take down the paperwork and pull people over for drinking and driving and arrest minorities. I think it's a gross exaggeration but any good hyperbole has basis in reality. GP, part of the reason for this trend towards police "historians" is that people are less and less willing to communicate with the police except after they have been victimized. This is a problem on both sides of course - people seem to just accept things around them now, and cops are becoming more focused on traffic and showing the flag. In any case, its not like the cops like this role. And comparing this to VT is a joke. For that matter, while an argument can be made that the VT cops could have done more after the first shooting, to say they did "nothing" is just not in reality. QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 27, 2007 -> 06:22 AM) The killer thing has me confused. If they knew a killer may have been there, and hence the weapons drawn and large show of force, why not take him separate and in an area with less innocent people? If they didn't know he was there, we are back to the why all this show of force for a white color crime? See Flash's posts. Having to nab an entire ring of people, getting them individually is highly problematic, more dangerous, and less likely to succeed.

QUOTE(pierard @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 07:39 PM) It could be that the economy is not as strong as it appears. If the dollar had the same value it had from 95-00 then yes this would be an economic milestone. However, the dollar has lost 50% of its value during Bush's Presidency so in reality the DOW closed at 6,500 in 99 dollars. Not impressive at all, don't buy the hype. I think you are making a direct financial relationship that does not exist. Even if the dollar has lost 50% of its value (which seems high) on an FX basis, that is not the same as saying the value of the dollar to the average American is cut in half. Inflation even when compounded since 99 has been very, very low. Yes, the lowered value of the dollar because of poor fiscal policy is a serious problem. No, the DJIA is not the equivalent of 6500.

Well, I missed the debate. Anyone see it? Thoughts? Any good stuff? I don't even know what channel it was on.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 04:06 PM) personal attack!!! i like Giuliani. why do you think he is a slime-ball? Hm. You're right, that was a personal attack. I'm giving myself a 30 second suspension. ... OK, so I think he's a wee bit slimey because of his rampant affairs, the way he has treated spouses, the way he handled fire, EMS and police after (and even before) 9/11, and his business dealings. The things that aren't out there and heavily exposed yet (outside of NY). But they will be. He has, I believe, the far and away lead among candidates in both parties in skeletons in the closet.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 04:29 PM) The economy is really strong right now. It should be getting more press. When does any kind of good news ever get enough press? The media focuses on the bad, because that's what sells.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 01:16 PM) No, no he did not. hmmmm....

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 01:08 PM) This race will only be interesting if Fred Thompson gets invovled. Outside of McCain and Guiliani, no one else really has a chance. Romney still does, but, he's already flip-flopped more than his Massachusetts buddy John Kerry ever did. Plus Giuliani is a slime-ball. And Brownback is scary-social-conservative. McCain still my fave too, despite his poorly reasoned Iraq stance.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 01:02 PM) I for one look forward to tonight's debate. It will be my first time hearing Richardson speak. Will have to follow the Sox on Gameday. Then you will see the 2nd of his big disadvantages (1st being lack of name recognition). Richardson speaks alright, his speeches are solid. But he doesn't have anything like the charisma or affect that Obama or Edwards have. He's nothing to write home about as a public speaker - he just kind of says what needs to be said.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 12:59 PM) At this point, it is pretty hard to be worse than Anderson. I was actually hoping they were freeing up a spot for Eduardo Perez. Especially with Thome hurting and Hall on the DL. He would be able to fill that need for a RH bat that can hit LHP. Didn't Perez sign somewhere?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 12:41 PM) Part of the problem with this whole discussion about stances on issues is that we're still what, a year and a half from the general, and at least 9 months from even the first primaries? This process has become so bloody drawn-out that things which take time, like developing detailed policy reccomendations that go beyond the simple "Get out of Iraq" or "Universal health care" sentiments just haven't had time to be fully developed and vetted...by almost any of the candidates. And even if they have developed full plans, its entirely possible things will change from the details currently written down before the votes start coming in. So right now, all we really have to evaluate most of these guys is the way they carry themselves, their speaking abilities, and roughly one or two moderate policy differences (i.e. do we withdraw totally from Iraq or do we keep a rapid-action force of some sort nearby, etc.). You are leaving out the biggest thing we have at this point - their histories (resumes if you will).

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 11:52 AM) And they are a complete joke. They aren't nearly disincentive to stop behavior. I know for a fact that one of the main steel mills pays over $1 million A DAY in fines to the EPA, because it is cheaper than actually changing and fixing the problem. Then the market setup could be a chance to establish market prices for these reverse commodities that is actually in line with cost. I think its a great chance to make environmental progress but in a business-dynamic way, but the exchange needs some very specific regs and rules, as previously noted. I don't know a ton about existing offset programs, but I have seen some bogus ones, and others that seem to actually work.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 11:37 AM) There is one gigantic inherant flaw in this. Carbon is not a commodity. You can't create a market force when you are trading a non-exsistant product. Let me explain it this way. Corn is a commodity. It is traded at the Chicago Board of Trade and the price that it trades at affects the price of corn in every corner of the USA and the world. Because of the exsisting marketplace, the only way around the price of corn, is to plant your own. For emissions there is no such physical presence. If I want to say f*** the enviornmentalists and use up 10 times as much carbon as anyone else, I don't have to pay a price to get that carbon. I just have to do whatever it is that I want do, and keep on emitting. There is no disincentive for me to change my behavior. If I want to eat 10 times as much corn as anyone, I would literally have to plant, grow, harvest etc, the stuff myself, or I would have to walk down to the store and pay for it. There is a disincentive for me to be a corn-feind. To make a carbon emissions program effective, there has to be a disincentive for non-participation. Until their is, the program will fail. Maybe I should have better emphasized the EPA's role I was referring to. ALL companies would have limits for emissions. ALL companies, if they stay within those, can choose to participate or not. If they don't, they are fined at whatever the set price per unit is, and the credits are purchased for them on the market. Perhaps that is what you meant by required participation? If you think about it, EPA is already supposed to fine for various emissions violations anyway, so the fines/market creation is already sort of in place.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 11:16 AM) I know what will get everyone posting... You will see $3.00 gas nationwide on average within two weeks. Probably more like $3.50 in Chicago. I'll insert my usual line here... Good. Pain in the short run, but big benefit in the long run.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 11:18 AM) That is based on the assumption that a real carbon offset program is instituted where people actually have to make choices, instead of only if they want to. Anything other than a system that makes people comply is a waste of time, because all but the most concerned, and the most image concerned will leave it up to their neighbors to comply, which won't happen, and the system will fail. I don't agree. I was envisioning an open market, treating carbon emissions like a commodity (well, a reverse value commodity as it happens). Business A produced 500 units of emissions last year, and that is their limit per the EPA. This year, they use only 400. They sell the 100 to another business who thinks they are going to go over theirs. Thusly, companies are incentivized to reduce emissions. In that scenario, the US government can buy emissions off the table as well, if they choose to reduce overall emissions dynamically. Now, as I am sure you can see, there are potential pitfalls in such a market. The rules need to be specific in some key areas. But as a voluntary market, inclusive of the US government as a buy-side player, I think there can be a lot of liquidity there, along with the opportunity to reduce overall emissions without over-regulating.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 11:10 AM) So this means he is Rogoneski? Maybe he will rejuvenate his career by changing his name to Casey Rogowski2k7.

QUOTE(Damen @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 11:10 AM) The RNC must know the only way they can win this is to get our vain, dumb-as-f*** media stars to focus on the trivial. This is the entirety of the press release sent out about the debate tonight. Any guesses on how many of these topics Maureen Dowd writes about in her next column? Why do you care what the RNC thinks of the Dem debate? Why would you or anyone care what Howard Dean said about a GOP debate?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 11:00 AM) Its just like anything. The people with the means buy out of their obligations instead of making real change. They pass on the problem to the people who can least afford to change their life styles to adapt to reducing carbon output. Look no further than healthy eating for an example. The poorest people can't afford the higher prices to eat healthy, so they eat crap, and die younger. Healthcare falls under the same idea, as does the flat tax. OK, I see what you are getting at. But as I understand it, in an open exchange market for emissions to be traded (assuming, again, it is properly regulated), no one is ever forced to reduce. They reduce by choice, and get paid for it. I fail to see how that negatively impacts poor people. They too can reduce their energy use, if they want to. If not, they still lose nothing. If they don't participate, their lives don't change, except that maybe their energy costs are actually cheaper than those who buy offsets. So how again do they lose out? If anything, I see this as a luxury tax sort of scenario. People with more money, very likely with more cars and bigger houses and more travel, use more energy. They pay more to offset the overage, while businesses who choose to reduce energy get the money. Money moves from rich consumers to cost reductions for companies that make products, and thereby pass savings on to consumers. Now, if it goes another step, and individual consumers start wanting to SELL offsets to other individual consumers, you still don't have a negative effect on poorer people. Why would you? Are you assuming that at some point, people with lower income would somehow be forced to buy offsets? Because I'm assuming that nothing like that would happen. If you are saying they would, please explain why, since I must not be getting it.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 10:54 AM) Link. His statements about his walk in the market (which were wholly unbelievable) bother me a lot more than the joke on the Daily Show.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 10:46 AM) Yeah it does. There's just not much value in 1Bman with no power. Which always seemed odd to me, about Rogo. He hits for solid average, so he can make good contact. And he is built like a friggin grizzly bear. I really expected he'd develop more power.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 10:43 AM) Condi Rice to defy a subpoena. You know...if I were to do that...defy a subpoena (hopefully none are issued for me any time soon) I can imagine I'd wind up spending quite some time in jail. Yeah but unlike you, she is too pretty to go to jail.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 10:14 AM) In other big news today, Michael Jordan was a good basketball player, Bill Wirtz is a bad owner, and the Cubs suck. Come on, EVERYBODY knew that thing was fake, it couldn't have been more obvious it was fake when they zoomed in on the sock during the playoff game at Yankee Stadium. Just glad somebody is pointing it out, and nobody should be surprised a dickhead, attention whore like Schilling would fake it to get more attention. It's not enough he pitched great in the playoffs for 2 World Champs, he needs more. Honestly, I had no idea. What made you think it was fake? Just curious what the evidence is.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 10:03 AM) Terrero is coming up. I can forsee it. Or... with Pods out until at least June, Ozzie's obsession with speed and stats so far in AAA... don't count out the possibility of Owens coming up. He's already on the 40-man, though, so there could be something else at play here.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 10:04 AM) I'm still leaning in Obama's direction, but honestly, Edwards has run a much better and much smarter campaign the last 2 months. Just look at their 2 statements...Obama comes off whining about Rudy being mean, and Edwards just comes out and calls B.S. on a B.S. statement. The correct response to this sort of impugning of the Dems is exactly what Edwards did; call B.S. on it and actually come out looking strong. Edwards seems to be setting the curve on everything...trying to control carbon emissions as part of his campaign, being the first to pull out of the Fox News hosted debates, getting policy positions out there that make sense. Obama's a hell of a speaker, but in terms of running the campaign, Edwards seems a step ahead of him at every point. And we've seen in the past 2 elections that no matter what you do, if you run a crappy, disorganized campaign, the Republicans are going to win. I agree Edwards is an excellent campaigner. But that's not the same as an excellent candidate. I realize that part of the thought process needs to be about winning the national, but for now, most of my focus is still on the best candidate in each party on merit. But maybe that's because I'm not heavily invested in either party.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 09:53 AM) Because it forces the actual reductions onto the people who can least afford it. I'd guess the reductions would happen to businesses who are dealing in much larger numbers, and always by choice (in a properly equated market). What makes you think that those who can't afford it would somehow be forced to reduce? I am still missing your line of logic here.