NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 08:14 AM) It's still a tad early. I want to see some guys actually pitch before I make any predictions. While people always say ST doesn't really matter, I called Freddy having a bad season all the way back in ST last season. Just didn't look interested at all in ST, and that look carried over into the season. BTW, I'm lazy and the search feature is off. Anyone got the 06 prediction thread? Definitely need to see ST before taking a stab. I also think its not outside the realm of possibility that the Sox 25 man roster isn't as set as people think - might be a surprise or two, maybe even a trade. I'm hoping no one can find the 06 thread...

New Orleans was a corrupt, crime-ridden city even before Katrina. It had some of the poorest of the poor in the country, some of the worst schools, and government that makes Daley's office look like St. Peter's gatekeepers. Katrina just opened all the festering wounds. I'd think a prosecutor might take this opportunity to make a point. Charge the mom with manslaughter or homicide in some degree, being the legal guardian and arming the kid. Throw in charges for reckless endangerment of a child, drug charges, and everything else they can apply. Make sure it gets in the paper. Publicly humiliate her. And then follow that up with picking some other high profile disgusting cases like that of awful parenting, and slap them down too. Make it clear what behavior won't be tolerated, and maybe some of the parents who aren't quite that bad yet will think twice about their responsibilities.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 07:21 AM) I was just reading one article that pointed out that both companies are losing money. that should work in there favor. That's the cost reduction factor I mentioned earlier, and it will undoubtedly be a major argument they will make to get it done. QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 19, 2007 -> 09:40 PM) The only difference is delivery method, plus the consumer still has the option to pay zero and receive over the air content. Add in Podcasts, etc. and I could see it passing Delivery is not the only difference. Its a whole different product, different content, different hardware. Its paid service for one, not free. For two, its hundreds of channels of audio, not 15. There are other differences as well. The closest analogy is cable and regular TV (though that is still not a perfect comparison for a few key reasons). Sure, people turn on a TV in any case, and yeah, its AV signals they are receiving. But look what happened with cable TV, and satelite. In both cases, the government is forcing competition, because markets with one cable company are getting screwed on rates. The same thing will happen here. Once SiriuXM gets their market to where 50%+ of people have it (like cable/satelite TV), the rates will start to skyrocket. That's the nature of a monopoly. And in the case of radio, since you need different devices and have entirely different content, I'd suggest that satelite radio is much more seperate as a market from conventional radio, than cable TV is from network TV. Therefore, again, more argument that its a monopoly. Seems hard to believe that the FCC would want to create a monster like that, which they would have to break apart later anyway.

Prediciton: Pablo's HR total > Konerko's SB total I'll have more detailed predictions on record and place at the end of ST. I'm sure you are all excited about that, coming from the guy who thought KC would actually make it out of the basement last year.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 06:40 AM) And in a nutshell, this thread is exactly why I don't want to see a retread canditate on the ballot for President. We have gone God knows how long with the same stupid cycle of the party out of power digging for dirt and scandal, while the other party goes as far as they can to defend them. Agreed. No one named Kerry, Edwards, Biden or McCain, please.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Feb 19, 2007 -> 04:57 PM) It's plenty of competition because Sat radio doesn't exist in a void. If it did, terrestrial radio wouldn't have fought its existence for a decade. In a market like Chicago for example there are 40+ options before XM or Sirius ever launched. I just don't agree that regular radio is in the same market, really, as conventional radio. But then, this argument right here is exactly the one likely in DOJ board rooms, and then possibly in court. What makes up the market, exactly?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Feb 19, 2007 -> 04:27 PM) Here's what you'll see I bet. Both systems will work at least for 24 months after the merger... at which point, an upgrade will become necessary, or they'll send a signal that's backwards compatible with both. Commercial free music radio will end on most frequencies. It will clear DOJ approval because there is plenty of sat radio competition. It's main focus is in the car, honestly. Not only are there regular radio stations, there also will be HD radio coming up in the next three to four years... this means that in larger markets, like Chicago, the number of local broadcast stations will double or triple. Within five years of the merger, pricing will have creeped up to 19.99 a month. I doubt there's a lot more room than that where they could raise their rates without having killer attrition. I agree with what most this, but can you elaborate on the part in bold? How is 1 company "plenty of competition"?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Feb 19, 2007 -> 04:30 PM) Exactly what has been done that's so far left as center in the new Congress? I said the elections, not their actions. Their actions thus far are pretty reasonable, to me, and I'd say there are some typically lefty things they are doing, and some less so. But in the elections, they were able to ride the wave of not-Bush, and it seemed to me anyway like many candidates were still pretty entrenched. I do think, however, that during this last decade and the increase in divisiveness, the GOP went much farther from center than the Democrats did. Just my take. I've always been independent, but 10 years ago, I felt like a Republican with some Democrat leanings. Now, its the opposite. And I don't think my views have changed much. The removal of that center, in Congress, was caused by a number of factors. One, the GOP lost many of those New England GOP'ers, who tended to be more centrist. Two, a lot of southern Blue Dog Dems lost out in the 90's with the combination of the family values crusade from the GOP, and because many blue dogs elected to not support the first Gulf War (and were summarily crushed in the elections after).

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 19, 2007 -> 03:17 PM) Those last comments are not mine. They are the authors. ooooooooohhhhhhhh. So "and we really need unity behind the boots on the ground" was part of the article? If so, then my comments are for the author and not you.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 16, 2007 -> 11:21 AM) My bottom line is I think we need less senationalism and politicing and more focus on clear objectives and goals. Less use of cliches and more plain talk. And we really need unity behind the boots on the ground. I agree with your first two sentences here. And the article does attempt that, to an extent, before eventually devolving into bashing of the liberals. But your last line is the same old trap that BushCo has been using to polarize the scene and neutralize any sort of discussion of the issue. It says "you are with us or against us", and further, says that if you don't support the war, you don't support our troops. That is political B.S., and playing chicken with American lives. This is why I am tired of seeing the Democrats in Congress pass these silly resolutions, and now this re-casting of the war authorization bill to exempt civil war interdiction (a bill many of those same Dems passed in its original form), just as much as I'm tired of hearing the GOP as noted above and their politically convenient argument. The best thing I've seen so far to address this mess of a war was Murtha's suggestion that a bill be passed, stating that no troops can go to war without being properly and fully equiped. This would force all new deployments to actually have the right gear, as well as force Congress to see the REAL costs of the way, as they sky-rocket to meet that requirement. Sunlight is a great disinfectant.

QUOTE(knightni @ Feb 19, 2007 -> 12:28 PM) As a monopoly, they'll raise rates faster than your local cable provider. And turning into a monopolized market is bad for quality as well. Seems hard to believe this will pass muster when reviewed for trust concerns. I'd be surprised if this doesn't end up in court. The argument Sirius and XM will make of course is that regular radio, and cable/satelite provided music channels, are natural competitors, so its not a true monopoly. That's B.S. though. And they'll argue that they can create a more profitable entity by cutting advertising needs and decreasing some administrative costs, and supposedly pass that onto the consumer. Don't believe that for a second.

QUOTE(djcollie03 @ Feb 19, 2007 -> 01:19 PM) They're horrible - the only saving grace about them is they aren't two toned on the side like the Cubs. Actually, they are. Not as noticeable as the Cubs one, but there is a different color there. And I like them!

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Feb 19, 2007 -> 11:42 AM) NSS: I'm sorry but if you think once they swing to the fringe, they're gonna come back - I wanna point out one person we thought would do that in 2000. He's currently the President. George Bush basically said I'm a Social Conservative *wink!*. Turns out it wasn't a "you know better" wink, it was just an eye twitch. Assume the position they take on the campaign trail is the position they take in office, because for the last few Presidents, that's been entirely true. Bush 41 was pro-choice too.... right up until he got the VP nod. There are certainly examples of those who did not. And those who did. That is kind of my point though - I think this year will be different than many others past, specifically in that the National election will see candidates act/speak much closer to center than what we are seeing of the recent Congressional elections (2006) or even some recent Prez elections (like 2004).

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Feb 19, 2007 -> 09:48 AM) Who exactly is migrating to the center? McCain and Guiliani are falling all over themselves to say that they would only appoint "strict constitutionalist" judges and McCain reversed his long time position today and says he supports overturning Roe v Wade. The only two top tier candidates playing to the center right now are Hillary and Obama. Obama because he's speaking merely in generalities and Hillary, especially over the Iraq issue - but for her being in the center just means playing both sides. Every top tier candidate is finding away to shift to the edge of his or her ideological side already and its a year before the first primary. Primary time of course means playing to the heart of the party, so its all relative. But I think the "heart of the party" is done shifting away from the other party so dramatically now, and may even be swinging back to the middle. The national election is where I was saying you will see the bigger run to the middle, though, even more so than previous elections. As for specific candidates, let's look at the 4 Dem candidates who have a shot. Obama, Hillary and Richardson are all pretty centrist, by Dem standards. The only one who seems to be playing to the middle of left of Democract center (who has any kind of shot) is Edwards. I think that tells a story right there. On the GOP side, Romney is trying to downplay religious conservatism in the articles I've seen, and trying to look more positive and open. McCain is going the hawk route on Iraq, but he tends to be seen already as centrist in comparison to a lot of the GOP, and I see him riding that (Iraq and defense aside) all the way through. And Giuliani is on similar ground, with a record of centrism going in, from his time as mayor (that he is as you said trying to spin a little bit). Two caveats. One, there are lots of fringe candidates who have zero chance that are going the opposite direction (Kucinich doing his usual far left stuff, and Brownback playing the far right, as two good examples). I am not including those in the discussion, since they aren't really viable candidates. Two, the landscape is still shifting of course, so this could all change a lot depending on who drops off when.

Its funny, because of the fact that both parties seemed to migrate away from the center in the last decade or so, I think we'll have Prez candidates this year finally moving back towards the middle. But that doesn't mean its going to be congenial - just the opposite, in fact. It certainly appears were going to see the nastiest fight yet, both in each party internally and in the national. In the national particularly, I think it will be an ugly brawl to scratch out the votes in the middle. It may just come down to who has the fewest skeletons and fewest unexplainable votes on Iraq. Which I think is where Obama is pointing himself - no need to take specific stands on the issues, just stay out of trouble, be positive and rely on the fact that he can say anything he wants about his Iraq stand.

QUOTE(Soxfest @ Feb 19, 2007 -> 07:44 AM) I know i will get blasted but it looking like JR is not going to spend the money! Its all part of the game he plays. Its an annoying game, but the results have generally been good. I don't think you can read much into KW's words - more his actions. And let's put the reality out there again. The team's payroll this year will likely be slightly higher than last year, not less. That means the Sox will probably have a Top 5 payroll again (or close to it). To say they aren't spending the money is just wrong on its face. Now, if we fail to resign all three of those key guys mentioned (Iguchi, Dye, Buerhle), and some others like Crede, after the 2007 season... and if we fail to replace those players with real talent... then I'll be as upset as anyone at that point. For now, though, that doesn't seem likely to me, despite what is being said. If the Sox draw well this year and are competitive for the whole season, I think you'll see some of those guys re-signed for 2008 and beyond (though not all of them I am sure). If the team looks terrible in July, then you'll likely see one or two of them traded for other talent.

QUOTE(Linnwood @ Feb 19, 2007 -> 02:14 AM) Since they went digital. The new digtal signal is really broad, as I understand it. So a station can do a full on HDTV 1080i feed on like 7.1, or They can do something that takes up less bandwidth like EDTV 480p on 7.1 and then run another channel on 7.2. So, for example, 7.1 could be the regular ABC feed and 7.2 could be a 24 hour weather channel. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subchannel This mostly has to do with OTA Digital TV, cable systems, if they carry the subchannel, will just put it on a diffrent numbered channel. (That is to say, that 90% of the public will never deal with Digital Subchannels as they use cable or satellite) Weird. Thanks for the info. I just see the regular channel numbers (Comcast), and I was a little disturbed to think I had to figure out how to put decimals into my remote.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Feb 18, 2007 -> 08:02 PM) Without going into details on her blog, she has catagories called 'Impeache the f***er' and'censure the f***er', surely not the type of language needed for someone representing a Presidential candidate. She is also being accused of 'cleaning' her archives by some of the very bloggers who first noted her history. Oh I agree she deserved to be fired, and that it was newsworthy. And she was fired, and it was in the news. QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 18, 2007 -> 08:05 PM) first, where are drawing the line to whats offensive and news? How about slurs against the muslim religion? homophobic slurs? the MSM is more often than not in support of Democrats and their policies. if you do not wish to acknowledge this, than thats fine with me. this argument has already been gone over way too many times on this board. i doubt anyone will be changing their mind on the issue. you think our views on this are ridiculous, and i think the same of yours. I wasn't referencing the whole discussion of media bias - just this specific issue. In this specific case, I don't see how the issue was over-reported or under-reported in any significant way. And you are correct, we've been over the ground before, about the issue in general. One clarification though - I do agree that the MSM in general has a slight port list, which I am sure effects the journalism to varying degrees (the worse the journalist is, the more their own bias leaks into their writing of course). I just don't think its nearly as dramatic as its made out to be.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 18, 2007 -> 07:52 PM) i sure many Christains would find the blog just as offensive as the N word. yea, ok. if you say so it must be true. I don't put the words of those bloggers on the same scale as the N-word. But I think ridiculous is a perfect word to describe the supposed mediea aspect to this. I link to an article in the mainstream press, one of a series of them following the story over a week or two, all on AP wire via Yahoo, and listed among the 3 lead national political stories on Yahoo news. And then there are cries of I can't believe this wasn't more highlighted in the press. Even when evidence clearly states otherwise. Its true because of the evidence, not because I say so.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 18, 2007 -> 06:13 PM) it was on a Presidental candidates officail blog website. you think if McCain had blogs on his site calling black people the N word it wouldn't have been the MAIN news storty for atleast a week? it would have been. N-word? Perhaps I missed something here. What are you talking about? I don't think the bloggers mentioned anything on that scale. QUOTE(spiderman @ Feb 18, 2007 -> 07:01 PM) If that was McCain, Clinton or Guiliani, that would have been more widely reported. Sure you could find it if you if you're into politics, but it wasn't a top story. Maybe it shouldn't have been a top story, I'll agree, but when the race for '08 is beginning so early, I was surprised it wasn't more easily found. My link as you see is from Yahoo, off AP, in the national political news. sounds pretty mainstream to me. This media conspiracy thing is ridiculous.

QUOTE(spiderman @ Feb 18, 2007 -> 04:33 PM) The bloggers were scumbags, and it does goes back to what Edwards was thinking when he hired them, and then, at first, refused to fire them when this story came out. Not surprisingly, this story wasn't widely reported by mainstream media. Wasn't reported? It was out there for me to find in multiple locations. Considering it was just a couple employees of a campaign staff, I'd say it was overreported for what it was.

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 17, 2007 -> 12:16 PM) Gonzales is so disgusting. Is he the one seated, in the vest? Or the one standing up against the wall?

Thome is in. I don't see how he's not, unless he gets caught up in some sort of controversy, particularly with roids (which I highly doubt would happen). Buerhle and to a lesser extent Konerko have shots, but not great ones, as others have pointed out. They both need to do at or better recent career averages until they are 40 or so. I would say there are some younger guys that are theoretically possible, even if they are very long shots. Crede comes to mind, if we truly are seeing the real Joe now. I might even throw AJ's name in there, if he can be a .300 guy or close to it, stay healthy and play 8 to 10 more years. Adding some power would help him. Jenks also is in that outside shot category.

Mmmmmm... baseball....

QUOTE(barnes @ Feb 13, 2007 -> 03:26 PM) According to the WCIU FAQ: http://www.wciu.com/about/about_faq.aspx Their HD feed is supposedly perfect, but requires an OTA antenna. Anyone familiar with this? Channel 26.1? Since when do channels have decimals?!