NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jul 7, 2006 -> 11:59 AM) I think the future lies in smaller, lighter vehicles (you're never going to get a Cadillac Escalade to get decent MPG unless you build the entire thing out of carbon fiber), alternate fuel sources, and improved engine technology. I agree that all of the above are a major chunk of the future picture, along with hybrid and alternate fuel technologies.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jul 7, 2006 -> 11:38 AM) The accord hybrid uses a new, more powerful GAS motor; not exactly a fair comparison to say the hybrids perform better. And, on the Accord, you're looking at a 10k difference in price. Over two decades to make that up. The Lexus SUV performs about equally with its gasoline counterpart. Here, there's a $6k price difference and you're looking at over a decade to make up the difference. And this STILL doesn't address substiantially more expensive maintainance costs, especially if you're keeping the car 7+ years to make it worthwhile. The Accord is not 10k more across the line - there are added features on that model. Compare it to a similarly loaded regular Accord.. Lexus? No idea on price, but it doesnt surprise me that Lexus would have the biggest differential. Maintenance is a non-issue on a new car going forward. Again, most comparisons put the timeline to save on a full hybrid at 5 to 7 years IF gas prices stay the same (which they won't). And that is at CURRENT PRICES for hybrids, which also won't stay the same. AND it ignores the tax rebates. In 2 years, many full hybrids (not the Lexus, probably) will have their savings threshold at 3 to 4 years, less if tax rebates are better in your state. All the numbers are moving that direction. And at 3-4 years, you are still under warranty. Does a full hybrid make sense right now, if you are in a state with no rebates and you only care about the money saved? Of course not. But a light hybrid might. And the environmental angle makes a difference. And in some states, total rebates fed and state might push it over. And that is TODAY. In 2 years, when the units are cheaper (which they already are - the difference in manifacturing costs used to be over 10k), and gas prices are similar or higher, the full hybrid solution will become viable for a lot more people.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jul 7, 2006 -> 11:29 AM) I love my hybrid. Bianchi hybrid bycycle that is. Costs me nada to get to work. My Gary Fisher is a full MTB, with knobbies, and it gets me to work a few days a week. I get passed like a grandma on the Autobahn by road bikers, but I don't care. I get a workout in, and it takes about the same time as my train/walk commute.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jul 7, 2006 -> 11:18 AM) I based my math on this forbes.com article, http://www.forbes.com/2002/06/03/0603flint.html, and several other reports indicating that people aren't seem nearly as good of mileage as the automakers are claiming for hybrids, especially if they are putting on a bunch of highway miles. Lets look at the Honda Civic. The Sedan LX (highest trim level) is 18500, Hybrid is 22000. That's a difference of 3500. Average combined MPG is 35 and 50, respectively. At $3/gallon, that leaves a $41/month difference. That would take over 7 years to make up the difference. Even at $4 a gallon, it still takes over 5 years to make up that initial difference. Again, there's much more to make up than the initial purchase price differences. Hybrids are going to be much more expensive to maintain and more prone to failure; there's no way around this. Anytime you make a system a lot more complex than it was, failures WILL increase, and will usually be expensive. Control circuits, sensors, starters electric motors, charging systems, batteries, etc. can all fail and need to be replaced. Yes, the costs will declince, but I still do not see it as economically advantageous for quite a while. Lets look at the Honda Civic. The Sedan LX (highest trim level) is 18500, Hybrid is 22000. That's a difference of 3500. Average combined MPG is 35 and 50, respectively. At $3/gallon, that leaves a $41/month difference. That would take over 7 years to make up the difference. Even at $4 a gallon, it still takes over 5 years to make up that initial difference. Also, the performance isn't up to par on "true" hybrids. That may not be important to an average Civic driver, but a hybrid truck or SUV doesn't have near the towing capabilities as a similar gas or deisel model. I'm more than willing to accept new technologies when they show proven benefits. Environmental effects aside, a hybrid isn't going to help my pocket book any time soon, especially since an overwhelming majority of my miles are highway, where the gas engine is used. If I really want to save on gas, I'll buy a smaller, lighter car or a motorcycle, not a hybrid. Performance isn't up to par on true hybrids? I think you have been misled. Go look up the numbers on the Accord hybrid, versus its predecessor. Its quicker, substantially. Lexus hybrid SUV? Same. Performance is actually better for most hybrids, not worse. They did that intentionally, in part because they figured people would THINK the hybrids would be slower, and they wanted to counter the negative view. It was a marketing decision, leading to engineering improvements. And the Civic is pretty much as I thought - 6 or 7 years to save right now. So, assuming the unit decreases in expense by a quarter or a third in a couple years (which would seem logical for such technologies, as they grow in market), that period is 4-5 years. Add in higher gas prices, like $3.50, and its 3-4 years or so. Suddenly, worthwhile. Voila. And the gap keeps decreasing. And as stated, the light hybrid is already a money saver within 2 years. AND, none of this includes the tax rebates you get for buying a hybrid - what is it, $1000 federal now? And some states add more? Do you what you want. But it sounds to me like you have a this idea that hybrids are a stagnant, underperforming technology that will never be worthwhile. Evidence suggests otherwise.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Jul 7, 2006 -> 07:45 AM) That is great news. The pen would look a whole lot better with Hermanson in there: McCarthy Thornton Riske Cotts Hermanson Jenks Ya know, if Hermy is actually healthy (like 93-94 healthy), that is a damn fine bullpen.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 7, 2006 -> 09:43 AM) Let me throw this in the mix. NK doesn't take a s*** without China's blessing. Think about it. NK is a China puppet state. Period. /carry on I'd say NK is more like a wild dog on China's farm. The dog will do all kinds of crazy s***, but is still scared to death of China. I don't think China wags NK as a puppet state, though. At most, China probably smirks at NK's act, when it suits them in some way.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Jul 7, 2006 -> 08:38 AM) i almost wish the communist had won...then we would perhaps have done more on the border than we are now If the communists had won, there would likely be a lot fewer Mexicans running for the border, but a lot of U.S. businesses losing their business in Mexico. Me thinks you are confusing communism with Soviet communism, which wasn't communism at all.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jul 7, 2006 -> 08:16 AM) I just don't see a 10-15% increase in MPG (to a whopping 17MPG in your example) as being able to offset the additional costs, both upfront and in the long run. Even having to go 100 miles RT a day, you'd only save ~.8 gallons of gas, or $2.50 a day with gas at $3.20 per gallon (that doesn't take into account that MPG increases are typically much less for highway driving, which, if you're going 100 RT is probably going to be the majority of it). That adds up to less than $600 a year in savings on gas. Just the initial difference in price alone would take several years and and probably 100k miles to make up, and then you're into higher maintainance costs. Leasing might provide some savings because you avoid maintainance costs. But then again, you've got limited mileage on a lease so your gas savings aren't going to be nearly as much. When I look for a car next year, I'll certainly consider a deisel, but I won't give a hybrid a second thought. You lumped two technologies together, so your math isn't correct. The 10-15% is the light hybrid, with a differential cost of only about $500 in retail price. At 80 miles RT per work day, 20 work days a month, that is 1600 miles. If the hybrid gets 23 MPG, versus a previous 20 (for example), that is a ten gallon difference, give or take. At $3.00 a gallon (its more than that here), that is $30 a month. You make up the cost differential in a little over a year. And I used more conservative use numbers than you did. The full hybrid is of course much more pricey - a few thousand dollars more than the normal car. I don't have the differential numbers there, but the crossover threshold on those is still quite a few years - more than 5, I think. But as stated, that won't stay that way. Technology is not stagnant. Gas will go up, hybrids will go down. There will be some people, aparrently you included, who simply will not be willing to accept new technologies until they are more proven. Fair enough. But I think you are missing out on an opportunity, potentially (if a hybrid car is even available in what you are looking for). Similarly, there are people who jumped on the very first hybrids at huge expense, because they had other reasons for it. Your choice. If you look at the trends, its pretty obvious that hybrids will continue to gain market share and more models will come equiped with it.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Jul 6, 2006 -> 04:53 PM) RALLY DOUGLY!!!!! RALLY DOUGLY!!!!!11 Um... who is that?

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jul 6, 2006 -> 04:42 PM) My non-hybrid Jeep Cherokee gets 21 MPG on the highway ( about 95% of my driving is highway ) so where is my incentive to buy a hybrid? For you, barely driving and with a not-bad car anyway? None. Except maybe the environmental angle. For someone who commutes 50-100 miles RT every day, and has a 15-MPG gas-guzzler? Maybe. In a year or two? Heck yeah, in that case. Remember too, for many consumers, it doesn't need to be cheaper than regular gas engines. If it is similar, or even just a bit more, then that will cause a big tilt on the environmental and global/war angles. Plus the techie factor. Otherwise, no one would be buying them now - and yet, they are, in numbers that double every year. QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Jul 6, 2006 -> 04:42 PM) BLAH! VOTE FOR AJ!

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 6, 2006 -> 06:57 AM) I can't see it happening, except maybe on a temporary basis. There is just way too much growth on the demand side in places like China and India, not to mention we are fighting two wars right now, plus our own growth. Granted the whole $75 bbp thing is just stupid economically, but $50 is pretty legitimate given just the pure demand that exsists. I realize that certain economic indicators may show that $75 is too high, but there are factors not in there. The market for oil, even though it is traded on spot and futures markets with great fluidity, is still stilted in a few places. Too few countries, who exercise power via a cartel, control the bulk of the supply. Plus, there is currently no reasonable alternative for many of its uses. In desperation, certain demands can be cut - people use mass transit, buy more efficient vehicles, and use less heat in winter, companies do less with plastic and do different things with their pollution credits, etc. But there are definite bottoms to those flexibilities, and those bottoms aren't much lower than current levels. Therefore, I think the only real ceiling I see is closer to the $80-$100 range, in long range residence. If the prices stay in that range for a good while, then many of the less-efficiently refined oil sources become viable and will start pumping again. But O think the $75-$80 range is probably likely to be the center point, technically, for some time to come.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jul 6, 2006 -> 10:28 AM) Look at Amy Sullivan's writings during the 2004 election campaign. She wrote article after article trying to convince people that Kerry's religion is real, at least as real as Bush's. (Not that I disagree, or know one way or another, just stating the fact.) She sees this as a major obstacle to the Democrats, and I believe this article was another attempt to build up the Dem's religious (maybe, Christian) bonafides. But, jmho, in doing so she took two minor points entirely out of context and out of perspective. Obama is a very, very good politician. But I have no idea whatsoever about his personality. Deciphering persona from public speech is a pretty sketchy proposition. I don't believe the person you'd limn after reading the Lincoln-Douglas debates is much like the Lincoln that we know of from a more full knowledge of his life. She took more than his speeches into account. I do agree that she certainly does seem to have a theme in her writing - and I guess I don't care. What she drilled down to, correctly I believe, is something worth noting. And, for that matter, something worth applauding. This reminds me a bit of that Onion article, lauding some NBA player (I forget which one) for being a decent human being. Is that so laudable? Maybe not - maybe it should be a basic expectation. But in the current environment, the behaviors we can see and hear are often less than honest. Obama's behaviors (as you said, we cannot see into his inner workings) seems closer to admirable. That is, I think, her main point. Religion seemed secondary to me.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 04:13 PM) DLEE finally f***ing wakes up for my fantasy team. BTW, when the season started everyone raved about how great of a closer Dempter was, I said I didnt agree because his stuff isnt that impressive. But they continued to talk about his 1 blown save blah blah blah. 1-4 4.46 ERA I suggested Wood would eventually take Dempster's role. Dempster struggled sure enough, but now Wood may not be healthy enough to even pitch in relief. I still think Wood, if he survives in the MLB at all, will end up a reliever, probably a closer.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jul 6, 2006 -> 10:01 AM) Even if that's true (and I don't agree that minor humility is so rare), it's like calling someone a saint because he's the only one on the block who's not kicking his dog. I want to see real humility, not relative humility, before I give a politician any credit for it. Nor do I understand why the first mistake (the response to Keyes) is any different than Kerry stating that his 'I voted against before I voted for' was a poor choice of words. And that was taken (correctly) as politics, not self-humbling. Look, it's a fine speech, I just think that Sullivan's interpretation of it as some form of public confession is one of the silliest misreadings in a long time. Personally, I don't think Obama meant the speech to be taken that way, at all. But she seemed determined to write a hagiography, and wrestled the material to fit her goal. I think I took the article differently than you did. Its not that any one act of humility or apology is somehow earth-shattering. Its that there is a string of little ones, indicating a persona. That persona, as a whole, represents something that I (and she) would cotend is novel among his cohorts. And I think she is right.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Jul 6, 2006 -> 09:48 AM) im just trying to say that people who keep insisting that saddam did not support terrorism directed towards the US are going to find it harder and harder to defend that position if more circumstantial evidence keeps coming out like this. little inferences add up. I'm sure Saddam loved the idea of terror against the U.S., and would have supported it to the extent he could. But I am equally confident that, aside from sending a couple bodies and signing some mutual goal-type agreements, he wasn't able to do anything about it. All accounts are that he was stagnated militarily and technologically, and in fact Iraq had significantly regressed in many areas. He didn't have the money or the equipment to do anything. The UN sanctions were working, in their ultimate purpose (corruption aside).

QUOTE(samclemens @ Jul 6, 2006 -> 09:22 AM) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202277,00.html i must say, this is another strange coincidence. first, its revealed that there were WMDs in iraq. lib's response? "well, yes, there were WMDs, but not the kind that we should have gone to war over" and now this: "Fox News and Robison last week revealed the contents of a 1999 notebook kept by an Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) operative. That notebook detailed how Saddam's agents aggressively pursued and entered into a diplomatic, intelligence, and security arrangement with the Taliban and Islamist extremists operating in Afghanistan — years before the 9/11 attacks. While the training manual revealed today by Fox News does not mention the IIS agent's notebook, the manual does suggest an Arab regime, most likely Saddam, may have provided the military help requested by the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The manual, declassified and recently released by the Foreign Military Studies Office, advises its Arab readers never to show your "military ID." That strongly suggests that Iraq was sending professional military assistance to Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks" again, not entirely conclusive, as with the WMD article i posted on here a few weeks ago (i think it was a few weeks ago), but the manual was taken from the IIS. it is pretty clear to me that saddam WAS aiding terrorists prior to 9/11. i think the time is soon approaching that a totality of the circumstances will make many critics have to reconsider their position on saddam hussien. then they can eat some crow and like it too. Do you really think that we went to war with Iraq because of WMD's, or 9/11 ties? I'm pretty sure the majority of people on both sides of the aisle in this forum would agree that those were diversionary marketing schemes for the real purposes of the war. Iraq = anchorhead It was a regional influence and power play, above anything else.

Another option out there, which GM is premiering in the Saturn VUE this year, is the "Light Hybrid"... http://www.hybridcars.com/saturn-vue-hybrid.html It costs a lot less than a true hybrid engine (differential cost is only a few hundred dollars), but saves a significant amount on gas (15% or so).

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jul 6, 2006 -> 08:04 AM) I don't think those figures factor in excessivly expensive future maintainance costs, just initial manufacturing. Those costs will go down as well. Just like with any other technology, as it matures. And I am not sure what you mean by "excessively expensive", but from what I have read, things have gone pretty well so far for those hybrids on the market. Of course, the real test will be in the next couple years, when the first gens all get a little older. But aside from a few recalls (which are free of charge) on some of the very early models, the articles I've read here and there (Motor Trend, regular newspapers) seem to indicate that hybrids have had a decent track record.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jul 5, 2006 -> 09:54 PM) Out here in the corn belt ( Kansas ) gas is holding around 2.80-2.85 depending on where you go. I only fill up my Cherokee twice a month though so Im still not feeling much in the way of pain. Yeah, I don't drive much either. I live in a part of the city where I can get around to most places on foot, train or bus. We drive to get out to the 'burbs on occasion, and a few other things, but I bet we put less than 500 miles a month on the car.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jul 5, 2006 -> 05:19 PM) I just paid 3.19 for gas today up in Morton Grove, same prices down in Downers Grove. I take the train to work usually, but its somewhat of a pain because I have to go into Union Station on the BSNF line and then take the Mil-N line out to Morton Grove. Luckily, the train station is less than a mile from my work, but I can see how it isn't an option for most people. And Hybrids aren't the answer to save money for yourself. Short-term you're looking at several thousand dollars more than a normal car to get one, and long term you've got $7k battery packs, electric motors, starters, etc. to replace. One thing that is really helping is the new technology that many companies are coming out with that shuts down half the engine while cruising at highway speeds. Hybrids will be an answer, at some point soon. The price differential for manufacturing over a regular engine is going down (as with all new technologies), and the price of gas is going up. By some calculations (depending on what cars you compare, etc.), some changeovers are already down to 3 years for net savings. For others, its still 6 or 8. Give it a year or two, and it will be a viable option by all accounts.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jul 5, 2006 -> 12:50 PM) Yeah, well, those are pretty minor mistakes he's admitting to. John Edwards admitted to being flat wrong on the Iraq vote. Obama admits to a tactical mistake against a joke candidate and a pretty minor overstatement. Oh, what heart-rending humility. I'm not trying to take anything away from Obama, just saying, that article is blowing this WAY out of proportion. Given how rare any sort of humility at all is at that level, at least in the public eye, I'd say that it IS a big difference. It makes him a far sight from a lot of his cohorts, which I believe was the point.

This is a Slate article, about something Barack Obama has chosen to do differently than other politicians. He admits when he has been wrong... http://www.slate.com/id/2144983/ My point in posting this isn't to say that I think Obama is the greatest, or to bash any particular politician. It is to point out that this is something almost all politicians have lost sight of - embracing errant humanity. The current tendency in marketing politicians by not just showing their best side, but actually trying to make them appear perfect, is IMHO ridiculous. It has no good end, and the electorate is smart enough to know better. So its nice to see a politician who certainly markets himself as best as he can, but also acknowledges that sometimes, mature people need to acknowledge mistakes and move forward on a new road.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jun 30, 2006 -> 03:32 PM) I just saw some nutjob from humanevents blaming this on the Supreme Court because it is stacked with 5 liberals. What an a-hole. Also did anyone see what Clarence Thomas had to say? I thought these justices were supposed to be level-headed. He sounded like a two-bit spinner. I've generally thought of Thomas as the weakest in that bunch (with my admittedly limited knowledge). I think Alito took his place in that way, but still, Thomas is not my fav.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Jun 30, 2006 -> 01:01 PM) I'm not saying optimism is bad at all. In fact, I promote optimism. I get mad though when people just brush off our real team problems. Our pitching is not looking good at all. Oh I don't dispute we have some problems, just like all teams do. Some more than others. But to say we HAVE to sweep any series at all is just not realistic. If we do, great. But it won't happen most of the time, even against lousy teams.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 30, 2006 -> 09:56 AM) And who is going to teach them NOT to? A five year old is going to do what mommy and daddy do. That's how kids learn this stuff. They don't just 'decide' to not utter the words "under God". Which is exactly why those 2 words should never have been crammed in there by Congress.