NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 30, 2006 -> 10:10 AM) True. But other things, like stating whether or not you will push for legislation that recognizes CO2 as a pollutant regulatable within the framework of the Clean Air Act, push for US ratification of the Convention on Biodiversity, etc., are stark position-defining statements that my vision of a bold Environmental President would run on. I'll give you an honest answer on those points - I do not know enough about them to decide right now whether or not I'd endorse them. But if I have time between now and Sunday to research them a little bit, I'll get back to you on them.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 11:13 PM) Color me impressed by all of the first three candidate responses to the environmental stewardship debate. Some broad strokes lacking details but of course with the word count that is unavoidable. I'm looking forward to seeing Mr. Kicka**'s response and then a little interchange between you all on this topic. The Editorial Board of the prestigeous FlaSoxx Times has yet to officially endorse a candidate. So. . . who's gonna' be THE Environmental President of SoxTalk Nation? Thanks FlaxxJim! I tried to be concrete - my 7 point plan for energy, increases in EPA staff, pollution credit markets. But some things, like wilderness and open space protections, are hard to make into detailed plans.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 10:45 PM) .300 hitters don't grow on trees. They also usually don't sign a new contract for 6 figures. It's clear the Sox have no spot for him, so why he not been traded? GM's know alot more about the game than us, so wouldn't you think there would be teams beating down the door of Williams for a cheap, .300 hitter??? As Tex pointed out... he may have been signed for the purpose of trading him later. Still a possibility.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 08:55 PM) I am, for the most part, staying out of the debates. I'll jump in here and there, maybe, but I've got my own campaign plan and debating isn't high on my list.

Mr. FlaxxJim, I thank you for this question. You have hit upon one of my passions in the world of politics – the natural environment. I will confess now that I’d like to write much more than 500 words. But as I cannot, I will try to keep my answers focused and direct. My environmental policy can be split into three categories: public health, enviro-economic concerns, and the conservation mandate… Protecting our environment by reducing pollution, acting to stave off disastrous climate change and funding expert scientific agencies like NOAA, EPA and NASA are not about saving an owl. They are about saving us. We aren’t going to “destroy the Earth”, but it may indeed destroy many of us if we keep treating it as we are. If we want to protect the public health, we need to have a heck of a lot more than 40 or so EPA enforcers (what Bush reduced them to), and we need to be working to make the restrictions on pollution more stringent – not less. We need a national trading venue for pollution credits, which will ease the economic burden on companies due to these restrictions, allow for government massaging of output by acting in said market, and create a new space for market makers. And we need to fund, and listen to, the experts. Protecting our environment by moving quickly towards renewable and lower polluting energy sources is not about looking cool in a new Prius. Its about the best possible scenario for the country’s long term economic health – with the nice side effects of further protecting the environment, and getting is out of our position of weakness in the Middle East. For further detail on this one, please see my 7 Point Plan for getting off Fossil Fuels. Finally, Protecting our environment by keeping a conservation mindset isn’t about wearing a cool North Face jacket and Birkenstocks. Its about the simplest of principles. History has shown with absolute clarity that the earth acts like a living system – the way you treat it is the way it will treat you back. Overpopulation in Africa? Mother Nature says, “Here – have AIDS”. Overgrazing and trying to overgrow crops in a dry terrain? “Here – have a Dust Bowl”. Build a city below sea level? “Here – have Katrina”. And then there are some basic facts, like, trees make most of the oxygen we breath. To me, that means we need to be very concerned when we keep losing forests. If we are to survive and be healthy on earth, we need to treat it with respect. That means sustainable agriculture, protecting open spaces and wilderness, careful urban planning, and knowing as much as possible about our planet. We all must share the burden. I am all for more in the way of use taxes, like fees for recreationalists in wilderness areas. But we do all need to share some of the cost of keeping our land healthy.

Excellent question, LCR. I cannot stress enough how important education is to the future of this nation. I doubt there is much disagreement among all of us here on the ballot on the fact that our current system is less than ideal, and that improving the level of preparedness of our children for the adult work is high on the list of priorities. The only question, really, is how we go about making positive changes… I’ll first echo the general statements made by my esteemed colleague Texsox, that parents need to take a vested interest in the process. Unfortunately, with the current world of two parents working more than full time, and with the ease of access to alternatives to face time with the parents… we are seeing movement in the opposite direction. On a personal level, this is upsetting, and I expect more. But ultimately, it is not the government’s place to force that issue. So what can we do? I will respond to your question about standards and testing, and suggest some paths we can take. Regarding standardized testing, I must confess I am no expert. What I do think is that standardized test, like grades, are flawed – one is objective but too narrow or skewed, the other is more all-encompassing but ultimately subjective. So, like any good evaluation should be at our jobs, the ultimate view should look at a combination to be effective. A series of smaller standardized tests (instead of one giant annual one), created by multiple different companies, would represent that objective, statistical information. The grades students receive from the teachers they see every day would be the subjective, broader data. What do we do with that data? Form paths and plans for each student’s education individually, using all that information and more. There is no such thing as the perfect curriculum for all students. As they get older and more varied in their directions, so should their options. Programs like AP and IB (accelerated) and Special Education (remedial) should still be part of the puzzle, as they give students the right challenges. We just need to make sure we are putting people in the right track. High levels of specialization, as suggested by other candidates, is good as part of the curriculum – but not the entire core. The basics – math, reading/writing, science, etc. – still need to make up that main course of study. Which brings up a last, very complicated question – should there be a national standard curriculum? The answer, to me is a limited yes. But, that curriculum should cover that regular core solely, and leave plenty of room for local flexibility. As to where that set of standards should come from, I think the answer is – elite educators. From all over the country and at all levels of education, those teachers recognized as truly excellent should be brought into a special committee to determine that core curriculum. I wish I could speak more, but I am at my word limit!

This is indeed an important topic, and I'd like to offer a concrete, affirmative plan... Ideally, a national sales tax (along with state and local) is the way to go. Sales tax, versus income tax, allows for numerous advantages. One big one is that the IRS can be substantially reduced in size and scale, since we no longer would need as many of the archaic, labyrinthine tax codes and exemptions in the present books, or as much government overhead. Enforcement mechanisms can be focused on businesses alone, not both businesses and individuals, making the agency more effective and less costly. In terms of the effect on the economy generally, there is another positive – giving the working public more cash in hand and facing larger costs for non-essential items, they will tend to save and invest more money. This ultimately leads to lower costs to government in the way of welfare, and lower costs to financial firms in the way of defaults and bankruptcies. There is one major negative shift that would occur in the economy, however – in the short run, people’s purchases of non-essential items would drop. This would of course have a negative effect on many businesses. This effect is cancelled out in the long run though, as people are later able to pull more money out due to returns from savings and investments, and lower payments of interest against revolving debt. So what do we do to address the short term problem? The billions of dollars saved by reducing the IRS to a fraction of its current size, along with differential gains in any drops seen in welfare costs, can be used as temporary sales tax relief to businesses in those markets. This makes a neat transition economically. One other note – with sales tax, we do still have the opportunity to make the tax structure progressive (rather than flat, or in some people’s view of sales tax, regressive). Like some states already do (MN and CO come to mind), the tax rates on clothing, store-bought food and other essentials can be lower than that of other items. This means that the relative tax burden is lowered for lower income families. Costs like rent/mortgages, utilities, and other non-taxed items will remain non-taxed and, because the income needed to pay those costs is now not taxed in their paychecks, the effective tax on those is reduced. This is of course an ideal scenario, and any transition to a national sales tax and away from income tax would take decades in the current political environment (if it ever worked at all). But it is absolutely key that any increase in sales tax be met with an at least equal decrease in income tax – this is where Congress would need to be pressured and exposed to public scrutiny. Such a change cannot be used as a way to increase the overall tax burden.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 03:54 PM) Just to toss a log on the fire, why would the KGB assassinate him in a manner that would almost certainly bring attention back to them? If he had been a victim of "a random robbery" gone wrong, he wouldn't be any less dead *and* the KGB would have plausible deny-ability. This way it reads too much like a James Bond plot. The KGB and GRU do not want deniability. This is no longer the Cold War. They wanted to send a message, loud and clear, to other would-be enemies of the state (but still not allow for a successful prosecution of anyone). And they did a pretty effective job of it.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 03:09 PM) aside from referring to Israel as Zionist, what was wrong with what he had to say? I'll say this. If that is his letter, after either surviving translation or from his own hand in a non-native language... then he is a lot more eloquent than our current leader. Unfortunately, I am thinking its more window dressing than anything substantial. And I hope sincerely that I am wrong, and that he really is of those opinions (the ridiculous "Zionist" parts aside).

As qwerty has said before... one big reason Ross Gload hasn't started yet is that he has had the spectacularly bad luck of playing behind some of the best firstbasemen in baseball (Thomas, Konerko, Thome come to mind), and they all remained healthy enough that at least one of them was playing regularly. He also got injured in 2005, when he was coming off a 400+ AB, .300+ season (2004) and had his best shot to break out. Add to that the fact that he was older when he came up, and that he's been a sub for too long to be called a "prospect". So, his value to other teams is lower, because those last two things are sort of red flags to scouts. Its not like the guy had one good season. He has been a consistently very strong hitter in the last 3 seasons, has some speed, plays great D at 1B, hustles all the time, and seems to have a head for the game. He's also done better against lefties than righties. All this indicates to me he's the type that would probably succeed if allowed to start. But the only place he has that shot on this team is left field, where he is not a native player and, at best, would be an average defender. I say start him in LF (where, unlike Pods, he might learn and improve), and use the trade bait and money for a great shortstop. But that won't happen. What might happen, though, is he gets traded to a team with a real need at first base or DH. Or, he rides the pines again for the Sox, which as a Sox fan makes me feel pretty good about our bench.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 12:34 PM) So where is all the indignation about this racism, along the lines of that which Richards inspired? I'd guess it goes without saying, when it is that blatant. Do we need to register said indignation with every example of idiocy we can find? Its really only worth debating when it falls in the grey area.

QUOTE(bmags @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 10:04 AM) quick question, when you guys are saying gload hits two hole, who leads off? I haven't been able to catch up too much. If Gload did indeed start in LF, one option would be to have a Uribe replacement leadoff, if we get an SS. Or, if Uribe stays, you could maybe leadoff with Gload.

QUOTE(BHAMBARONS @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 08:55 AM) I am offically supporting Northside for President. Thank you for your support, BHam. I think after the debates, you will feel even more strongly that you have made the right choice.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 10:18 AM) Frist is OUT. So for the GOP now (with Frist and Warner out), your top tier is McCain, Giuliani and Romney. Plus Brownback has announced. Who do you GOP folks like from that group?

QUOTE(longshot7 @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 05:30 PM) I think I missed something. Is there a thread explaining why there's an election going on in the first place? Check out the Official Soxtalk Election thread, pinned at the top of the forum, for details. Its just for fun, really. Its the offseason and we are all bored.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 01:01 PM) When are our answers le due? As stated in the debate format post above, the threads will be closed late Sunday night, in whatever state they are in. There are no specific deadlines or dates for any of the individual items in the threads.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 02:27 PM) Looks like Kearns has decided to give peace a chance. Nice lobster. It wasn't a rock... It was a Rock... LOBSTAAAAAAAARRRRR!!!!

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 02:18 PM) Yet many will say that Sosa and Big Mac arguably saved baseball from disaster after the strike. I dont like either of them, but you have to give credit where credit is due. The home run chase between Big Mac and Sosa brought people back at a time when baseball was in trouble. Now baseball is fine again, but you cant just forget the people who got you to this point. They never hurt anyone, so i really just cant paint them as villians. Regardless of the fact im not a personal fan. There is a whole list of people they hurt, if you ask me. Kids idolize ballplayers, and bay a lot of money to see them play - the least they can do is obey criminal laws. Then there is the contribution to inflated salaries, that make baseball more and more about money. And how about the game itself? Some of us see a lot more than an X-Box screen and stats when we go to the ballpark. I don't expect angels out there, but if I am going to pay your a** a lot of money so I can see you play a game, the least you can do is respect me enough to show some dignity. I've said it before. If Bonds is on the opening day roster, I won't be there in 2007.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 01:54 PM) Dramatic is how people act like Barry Bonds is the worst thing to hit baseball. I don't think its a stretch to say that Barry, along with the other losers like Sosa, McGwire and Palmeiro, are in fact the worst thing to hit baseball in some time. For lots of reasons.

I prefer some of the lower-cost carriers other than Southwest - Frontier, AirTran, Jet Blue. Those three all do assigned seating, all have either Direct TV or XM Radio or both in all the seats, leg room is decent, and Frontier and AirTran fly out of the less-congested Midway. But you don't have the cattle car, wait in line aspect of Southwest. So I recommend those three when possible for domestic travel. Unfortunately, you can only go direct to a few cities on each of them. Which brings up another thing - never take a connection you don't have to.

Looks like someone has a fan.

NOTE: I moved the NO rebuilding discussion posts to the general discussion thread. Per requests, I wanted to keep this devoted to endorsements and discussions thereof.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 27, 2006 -> 08:20 PM) Actually, I'm completely changing my approach to the SoxTalk elections. I need to see pics of everybody to see who is the best celebrity lookalike, and I'll cast my vote based on how much I like/dislik the people y'all look like. Fair enough... I'm either on the right or the left. I'm not saying which.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 08:54 AM) I think the place is a death trap and accident waiting to happen and have no desire to spend billions building houses and/or businesses that are below the damn sealevel. They should make the place a park, or a monument or something. but putting poor people back below the level of the ocean is just plain wrong, foolish, pigheaded and shortsighted. If the state wants to spend its own tax dollars to rebuild, oh well. I would have a different opinion if the place wasn't a ready-made flood zone, but it is, and has been sinking as well, even before the hurricane. But lets argue/discuss that elsewhere. When this subject came up a while back, I stated my opinion, and it was much like yours - anything rebuilt in the areas of NO that were heavily flooded should be parks, open space, natural marshlands, amusement parks, or other types of non-residential and non-permanent business reserves. That is the only responsible, smart thing to do. It means we don't go through this again, and really, will probably make NO a much better city to live in anyway. But it also means that for those areas not in flood zones, or at the margins, that were damaged or abandonded, that we money we DO spend can be concentrated and well-thought out. And I do think that the federal government bears some of the burden, if for no other reason than the fact that it was the US Army Corps who built and maintains the levees. Even the open space aspect will still require some work to get to a semi-open state. So I don't think there is any avoiding spending SOME money on it.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Nov 27, 2006 -> 11:03 PM) After reviewing the platforms several times, I am suprised at the many places I agree in part or whole with the lot of you. Especially Rex. However, in the areas I disagree, there is a wide gap. And I disagree with the whole group of you on rebuilding NO. Not going to get into thathere, justI don't think the government should be doing it. At the moment I am torm between Tex and Northside.If I can come up with something to differentiate between you two for me, I'llbe sure to let you know. If only our real elections were this 'clean', eh? Well, EM, I suppose the politician thing to do here is to shower you with compliments, tell you all the reasons why I'm the best candidate, sling some mud at Tex, and make flowery promises I don't intend to keep. Instead, I'll just say... enjoy the debates. I think you will know what Tex and I are both all about by the time they are done. Thank you, though, for considering me. I hope you feel even more strongly about what we have in common, come election day!