NorthSideSox72

Cool article on a neat idea that is just starting to bloom. The idea is simple - people with solar panels can not only generate electricity to cover part or all of their usage, but if they generate more than they use, the energy can be netted back to the utility. So, people can not only be relatively energy independent, and green, they can also save even more money AND take some burden off the grid. There are of course some potential problems to work through, but think about how cool this could be. Its sort of like distributed computing. One of the major disadvantages to solar power is that, at current efficiencies, you'd need to take up space the size of Nevada with panels to power the U.S. But, if you could have these panels on houses all over the country, you can really make headway.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2007 -> 05:49 PM) I just sort of picked the most convenient source on that today. If you google around, there's more than a few places where people have Casually alluded to those rumors. And all it takes is a little bit of speculation on Fox News to turn idle rumors into major stories (remember Drudge's attempted Kerry-mistress smear?) Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at. Looks to me like nothing substantial, but even that "air" of not carrying himself properly could potentially cause problems.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2007 -> 05:35 PM) By the way, since this is just the dark dungeons of the internets, it's ok to do some rumor mongering...it seems that Gov. Richardson has been dogged for years by, let's call them, Clintoninan rumors regarding his personal life. Hm. On the one hand, looking at this and the linked articles, I don't see a whole lot to be concerned about. The only reported news I see, from the Free New Mexican, talks about "poking" or wrestling around that doesn't really concern me. On the other hand, that is not "Presidential" behavior. Kind of like Obama's smoking. Not something you want to linger. If, as Richardson shows up more often in the national media, he continues to show those little less-than-Presidential behaviors, that could be all that is needed to knock him out of the race.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 20, 2007 -> 10:07 AM) I think it is time to pass a law that requires each and every congressman to read every bill that comes before them , and have to sign a form saying that they did so. Not only would that prevent them from 'suddenly discovering' something in a bill they already passed, it would keep them busy enough so that they wouldn't have time to pass stupid stuff just to try and justify their jobs. even better, let's have a truth-in-legislation bill, requiring one bill to cover one subject matter. None of this adding FBI terror funding to the transportation bill crap. That simplification alone would allow more clarity. But I do like your idea. If they vote for it, they own it, and all its consequences.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 20, 2007 -> 10:09 AM) Just a thought, if the money is going to fun alternative energy research, wouldn't that be like shifting the money from your left pocket to your right pocket? Some of the biggest players in alternative energy are the oil companies themselves. Excellent point. And I am OK with that, as long as the result is the new, alternative product. Plus, there are all sorts of little startups out there that are doing things differently, which could be supported.

Instead of replying to all the posts, I'll just say... 1. I'm glad those of you dismissing Pelosi's committee are at least cognizant of the fact that we as humans do have SOME effect on the climate, and that then effects us back. And its true, the only argument really is to what extent that occurs. 2. It should seem pretty logical that the changes are so severe - it correlates nicely with the population of the earth. And the changes in temperature and CO2 levels are indeed much more dramatic than we have seen elsewhere in the long path of human history. 3. Go Balta! I pretty much agree with whatever he is saying on this topic. Oh wait, forgot one... 4. I don't get the argument that its important, but we'll deride Pelosi's committee. I mean, will it actually achieve anything? Maybe, maybe not. But I don't see how you can say you are in favor of doing something about it, but aren't in favor of the House starting work on it.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 03:00 PM) The problem is, if there are people out there saying that global warming will end the world, they're not the ones you should be listening to. The earth and the human race in particular are remarkably adaptable systems, and anything less than a Venus-type greenhouse (highly unlikely, I can explain why if you'd like) won't put an end to civilization/life as we know it. On the other hand though, the fact that mankind will live through it does not mean that dramatically changing the climate won't be very very very very very bad, and that doesn't mean that it won't potentially kill or displace billions of people. Pretty much you name the feature of human existence, it is in some way tied to the climate. Shifting the climate shifts growing regions, shifts water resources, shifts shorelines, moves diseases, changes erosional patterns, and changes patterns of natural disasters. All it takes is a small shift to make many places where hundreds of millions of people live suddenly become uninhabitable. I'm glad to see someone else have this kind of perspective. Climate effects everything, and we effect climate. Ridiculous press from movies like The Day After (or whatever that was called), and crackpots saying the world is ending, just make it worse, because they marginalize the validity and importance of the topic.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 01:51 PM) Considering I think for a large part global warming is more a natural issue than it is a polluting issue (Ie just globa temperature changes are cyclical as the history of the world has shown). Now I'm not saying pollution doesn't have an impact and I'm always for less pollution, but at the same time I don't buy into this end of the world global warming crap that a lot of people spew. Still I do think we can always do things better, I just think a panel for global warming would just be political in nature and absolutely useless as opposed to something that was actually just there to try and reduce pollution, increase new ways of recycling things and using less minerals and all that jazz (without debating on how if we don't the world will end, but rather using the common sense that it keeps things cleaner and that has to be better for the planet we live on). QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 02:19 PM) I bet global warming contributed to the end of the ice age. What do you think about that? In all the studies, articles and published research in the past decade or two, not a SINGLE article that appeared in a peer-reviewed journal claimed that global warming was not tied to human impact. On the other hand, a hundreds of them made the connection. Scientists: 1000 to none. I'll go with the scientists over political talking heads, especially when they are that overwhelmingly sure. Do either of you have even one shred of evidence to suppot your theories? Because there is a gigantic pile of evidence as to the reality of the situation. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 01:10 PM) Well they are serious about the first part as they are already ensuring price increases down the line by eliminating subsidies, increasing taxes, and stopping drilling projects. The quickest way to change behavior is to increase the price on it. And I agree with the subsidy elimination and stopping the ANWR drilling. Taxes, though, I do not want to see raised in the overall burden. If you want to shift taxes OUT of income tax or other areas TO gas tax increases, that I would be in favor of.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 11:08 AM) House passes bill cutting subsidies to oil companies and fixing a $10 billion error in the original writing of the leases for several Gulf of Mexico drilling regions. That makes 6/6 in the House if I'm counting correctly. And in about 42 hours of time-on-the-floor. I have to say, overall (a few embarrasing shortfalls aside), I am impressed. They are doing pretty much exactly what the promised. I forgot that politicians were capable of that.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 11:04 AM) I could see it in reference to non-citizens (illegals), but that is about it. His quote said citizen. In any case, now with context, it reads to me like the AG is (as usual) more interested in arguing on behalf of political policy than actually interpereting and enforcing the law. The AG should not be a shill for the President.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 09:55 AM) What is this in reference too? What is the context of the quote? While I'd be curious about that too, I am having trouble seeing what possible context could make that quote acceptable. Its a little scary to me, in fact. This AG and our previous one have both been pretty off their rockers.

For anyone curious... Following up on the earlier discussion in this thread about buying oil, and entering the commodities market, there are now some interesting options out there not previously available. Deutsche Bank and Powershares have teamed up on some commodity-based ETF's for specific commodities (oil, gold, silver) and sectors (agriculture, energies, etc.). Here is a list of the funds: PowerShares DB Agriculture Fund (DBA) PowerShares DB Base Metals Fund (DBB) PowerShares DB Energy Fund (DBE) PowerShares DB Oil Fund (DBO) PowerShares DB Precious Metals Fund (DBP) PowerShares DB Silver Fund (DBS) PowerShares DB Gold Fund (DGL) This gives a way for people to dip their toes into the commodities markets if they want to try that, without as much risk as actually trading futures. Other fund houses may already have similar ETF's, or may be planning them for the near future. Just something to consider. Here is an article explaining briefly how they work, including how they manage continuous positions over multiple contract periods, etc.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 18, 2007 -> 10:46 AM) "My owner is so American, he carries a Mexican stereotype around in his jacket pocket." -Chihuahua ***if that is not a Chihuahua, then nevermind.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 18, 2007 -> 09:34 AM) You're right. I meant it as a joke, but it's tasteless. I won't say it again. I'll just call her "Her Highness". She's arrogant as all get out, and that's my point. It wasn't to be tasteless. Cool. Thanks for that. And "Her Highness" is a term I can definitely agree with.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 18, 2007 -> 10:02 AM) Just being a Senator is a huge switch from all the previous winners. But its not a switch from previous fields of candidates, many of which have been Senators, who lost.

QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Jan 18, 2007 -> 08:39 AM) I don't think we realize what an historic election this might be in America. Combine the factors of no incumbent running, the possibility of a female or African-American Presidential frontrunner, the state of the world and America's image to the rest of the planet...This has all the markings of one for the ages. I hope it lives up to the hype I am starting. Plus a Prez election amidst a failing war. And add a potentially viable Hispanic candidate to the female and african american ones. I must say, I'm looking forward to it. QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 18, 2007 -> 08:11 AM) Something different could be any Senator. Perhaps a war hero type, a Republican. Someone like McCain. What I am going to enjoy is the heavyweight primary battles for both parties. There are some studs running. People who can campaign hard with great oratory skills. I believe this cycle will be remembered for generations. On the Dem side you will have a couple people who could tear down barriers. Obama and Hillary are electable. Rudy and McCain to start the GOP would be an epic party battle. I wish there was a candidate in all this that I could really jump behind. Someone I would want to pound the pavement for. I don't want to be on the sidelines watching the body bags. McCain, like Edwards-Kerry-Clinton-Gore, is I think seen as old news. Not something different. As for hitting the pavement, I am already looking into doing that very thing for Richardson. I've been involved in politics at various levels, but I've never hit the bricks for a Prez candidate, and I want to see how that works.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2007 -> 07:46 AM) He didn't actually write it, but the author sure seems to imply that is what he is supporting. Even if he is remotely in that camp, I want zero part of him. Agree.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 10:55 PM) I heard someone make a comment about Her Thighness going after Obama today, and I have to agree. He's going to get ran over, big-time. That's why Evan Bayh got out... he got a VP offer from Her Thighness because he's "moderate". She'll be the liberal queen during the primary and then all of a sudden go "moderate" after she locks it up, if you believe conventional wisdom. BTW, did you all notice that those two just took a trip to Iraq together? OK, so, I don't like Hillary. Of the Dem candidates, I think she may actually be my least favorite. I'd rather have Obama, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich or almost anyone else. But... "Her Thighness"? I'm having a hard time not finding that a little offensive. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2007 -> 07:37 AM) John Edwards has just proven to me he has no idea how an economy/economics works, and there is zero chance I now would EVER vote for him, if he appears on any part of a Presidential ballot. http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/1/6/104531/0287 Did Edwards actually write that piece?! I'll just reiterate what I have said before in here about Edwards. He is a likeable candidate who has as good a shot as anyone, because he is seen as a charming southern family man who looks out for the poor. Unfortunately, in reality, I don't think there is enough going on behind that pretty facade of his. I don't think he's bright enough, or has the right leadership skills, to be even remotely effective as an executive. I won't be voting for him.

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 03:44 PM) Believe it or not, it's possible, just possible, that the entire 2006 season may have changed expectations for some of us regarding certain players potential. I know that's hard to believe, but bear with me on this one. Assuming for a second that your projection of a "disaster" 5th starter is correct, then we get a 5.25 ERA instead of 4.54 from Freddy. That would be a step down, no question. So you take that negative, and go down to 83-87 wins? From 90? Doubtful (assuming we are relatively healthy). But then, that's not even taking into account the positives we got in the offseason, including a much improved bullpen, a competent backup C, and a manager who won't be playing Mack in CF. Nothing huge, but a few games in the positive column anyway. Probably the same as the difference between Garcia and the 5th starter. Then there is the fact that many more KEY players had down years last year (the entire starting staff, AJ, Uribe, Pods, Anderson*, the entire bullpen other than Thornton) than up years (Dye, Crede, Thornton). I'd say that Iguchi, Thome and PK all had years on par with their last few healthy ones. Add to that the extra month of rest, and I'd say you are looking at a few more games there too, probably. So overall, the team looks BETTER than last year to me, not worse. Probaly 90-95 wins, and that's assuming the 5th starter sucks, and players are around RECENT career averages. Anything beyond that, and the team gets even better. The only reason I see for this team to be less than 90 wins is if injuries play a major factor. Plus, KW put us in a much better position for 2008 and beyond, loading up on young pitching. A very nice bonus. Oh, and, I wouldn't say the offseason is done just yet.

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 10:53 AM) when did I ever compare 2005 to 2006 pitching wise? I said that this season wasn't going to be as good as 2005 or 2006 You said "as strong as either 2005 or 2006". Except, they were strong in 2005, and weak in 2006. QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 10:53 AM) yes, 300 TOTAL innings. As in career. As in that means something. Garcia had over 1000 innings at that point. Buerhle had 800+. Garland had 800 or so. Hernandez had about 500. In other words, they were experienced pitchers - all five. You are just not correct.

QUOTE(Jeff Liefer @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 10:48 AM) I honestly think there's nothing to worry about with the current roster. The lineup is incredibly overpowering and our rotation still has a core of pitchers that have proven they can be dominant at the major league level. The young pitching that was added to the bullpen will allow our starters to rest more than last year and things should be OK. I don't think this team is a thing different than the one you saw at the beginning of last year. Last year's team was stacked, but ran out of gas. This time around I think everyone's being a little wiser, including Ozzie. They're going to be fine for the long run and win over 90 games and capture the division. And for all of the Buehrle doubters, be ready for a career year. He's too much of a leader to just slip off the face of the earth again. Be more optimistic...we're not going to win the World Series every year. Welcome to Soxtalk!

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 10:28 AM) People need to stop pretending like just because some people were down on the 05 team that being down on the 07 team is similar. For one thing, we did not have a single starter who had not pitched at least 300 innings of major league ball as a starter going into 2005. Our fifth starter situation more closely resembles 04 than 05. If you think we will be as strong as either 2005 or 2006 at starting pitcher, that is seriously delusional, and starting pitching is the most important component to long term success at the major league level. Our fourth and fifth slots are going to be disaster areas for portions of the year. This is an 83-87 game winner without any more moves being made. WTF are you talking about? 300 innings? If you mean 300 total, then much of the staff had that in 2005, if not all. If you meant one season, then no one in baseball has that. If you meant 200, what about Freddy? Or Buerhle? You just are completely wrong on this one. And how are 2005 and 2006 performances, which were night and day, comparable in your eyes? And who is this supposed "disaster" in the fourth slot?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 10:12 AM) It doesn't matter how you or I view it, its all about the guy with the hate, and what it motivates him to do. I think any Prez candidate takes a chance of getting killed, and one like Obama who is maybe more controversial will be even more at risk (so would Clinton, BTW). But of course, even for the most mundane candidate, there is still risk. I have to say, having dealt with professionally, and knowing people employed at, virtually all of the federal law enforcement/security agencies... the USSS is the most impressive to me. They are the most professional, most well-trained, and most focused group in my experience. Given how many wackos there are out there, and how few ever even get a shot off, says a lot I think.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 10:09 AM) If anyone wants a true moderate, best to be voting for Obama out of the current crop of candidates. Unlike McCain, Romney, or Guiliani, he's not a moderate when convenient. He's moderate enough to piss off a lot of base Democrats all the time. Whether or not he peters out is left to be seen, but Obama is no crazy liberal, that's for sure. I need to see more on Obama's views, but, I'd characterize Richardson as a moderate.

Sounds a little like the predictions 2 years ago at this time. I'd be surprised if we don't contend for or win a playoff spot (assuming we are relatively healthy).