NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 12:35 PM) Of course, some would counter by saying that there's enormous incentives for energy companies to invest their own dollars in "research"; the profits of those companies in the future. But you and I and others here all know that won't happen, because big profits now are better than big profits later. Oil = now, alternative energy = later.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 09:27 AM) That all sounds reasonable. Not a huge help, but a help nonetheless, in the short run.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 08:35 AM) I heard on the news this morning that the gov't is suggesting reducing tax breaks on "research" - as a 'penalty' for the high profits. WAKE UP, GOVERNMENT IDIOTS! THEY WILL NOT SPEND THEIR OWN MONEY IF THEY DON'T HAVE INCENTIVE TO DO SO!!!! Well I'd have to agree, that is pretty idiotic.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 08:40 PM) 1.34 trillion dollars over 20 years. pretty staggering. I have the source at work. Will post it tomorrow. That makes a little more sense. 1.34T over 20 years is roughly 67B per year, which is still bigger than I thought it would be. But you stated 2T as if it were for a single year, which didn't make sense to me. 67B a year is indeed quite a bit. Maybe the feds should use some of that 67 billion a year to incentivize energy companies to develop alternative sources of energy, as Kap suggested.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 06:13 AM) I agree with both of you. If I had a way to commute via mass transit, I would be all over that option. But I don't, especially in Dallas where EVERYTHING is 30 miles from where you are. How does that happen? That happens because urban planners in the mid to late 20th century were all of the mind that cars were the way to go EVERYWHERE. Turns out maybe they were wrong. Sprawl is killing us. And cities like Dallas, LA, and others that are basically just endless suburbs, have no incentive to increase density. Even if you put in mass transit, everything is too spread out, so it will take decades (if it ever happens) for the city to mature enough to condense around transit locations. There is no easy solution, but one thing that can work is to put in mass transit options and push businesses to build near them (via tax incentives or TIF zones or whatever). Denver has been doing that, and their light rail has been wildly succesful, even though Denver has some sprawl issues as well.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 09:55 PM) Doesn't make it right. There's a reason why those things are inadmissable in court. But hey, I guess if you're the federal government, you're big enough that if you fire the correct person 75% of the time, you're getting enough of the bad guys. I wasn't justifying it. Just adding some important information to the discussion.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 06:36 PM) You can't bring a person up on charges because they fail a polygraph. But you CAN be fired or suspended from a federal job based on it. Or not hired at all.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 03:01 PM) Yes, that may be true - but as a percentage of "profits" they are not getting anymore then other industries. And furthermore, THEY (oil companies) DO NOT SET THE PRICES! I'll tell you who is setting the price. That assbag from Iran. Every time he opens his mouth, oil goes up AGAIN. Saudi Arabia ain't saying anything. Iran is loving it. And the Democrats LOVE this because it gives them another talking point about how bad Bush is... even though their party is largely responsible for blocking any new refineries, etc. Kap- I think you have seen my posts enough to know that I was not saying the oil companies are evil for making profits, even huge ones. I was trying to put some perpective on things in response to Chuck's post. What does frustrate me about the oil companies is, for one, their strangle hold on patents for alternative energy technologies. Usually I could care less about protectionist business and patents, but in this case, it becomes a national security and national economic issue. They need to s**t or get off the pot. I also hate that they have Congress in their back pocket and get all kinds of subsidies, but that is more the fault of Congress and this (and former) presidential administrations.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 01:55 PM) Fed state and local taxes from gasoline is over 1 trillion dollars and I believe closer to 2 Trillion dollars over the same time span. I will try to find a source. Please do. Since the entire federal budget is between one and two trillion dollars, I find it very hard to believe that gas tax receipts alone are that much.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 01:10 PM) Speaking of gas taxes. Guess who has made the most from high oil prices???? Gov't.... Fed State and Local... Don't hear any b****ing about this. They have made a lot, but nothing compared to the oil company profits. Add up the profits of the big energy giants in this country alone and you get close to $100 Billion in profits. Are you telling me the state and local governments are getting that kind of money out of just gas tax? Even if that is the case, that just bolsters the argument for spending more on alternate energy sources with the extra revenue.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 01:15 PM) How do you think the unions will respond to the results of these audits. My guess is they will use the reports for toilet paper. I honestly could give less of a damn what the unions would think of it. Unions are important presences, but not because businesses have to cave to them. They are just a check against poor standards and treatment. The unions representing many of the gov't workers are dealing in jobs that are REALLY easy to fill with someone new. We aren't talking about highly specialized skilled labor here.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 10:16 AM) The problem is...on paper, a balanced budget amendment is just an absolutely awful idea. Both this country and the world's economies are stronger because of the fact that the U.S. government can run deficits at a time of heavy need, such as during a war or to rebuild something after a crisis (i.e. Katrina). But practically, I could even find a way to support one right now, because thanks to the recent administrations whose names I will not utter, suddenly instead of using deficit spending to finance things which are short-term high expenditure events, we've gone and decided to fund regular portions of the budget using deficit spending. I don't agree that it is an awful idea. Its not that I am naive to the fact that government spending can represent an enormous boost to the economy - its that the long run factors are more important to me than the short run. Our increasing debt, our unwillingness to address waste in any real way, a desire by recent administrations to overspend... its going to be a repeating pattern, unless something changes. In my view, a balanced budget requirement of some sort is the best solution. Here are two other ideas: 1. Want to stop waste? Want government agencies to perform at private industry standards? Then why not do what companies do? Have private consulting firms (Accenture and the like) do a real and complete audit for ALL government agencies, to see where the money goes. Set the budgetary AND performance goals based on the reports. Reward agencies for efficiency, fire manager at agencies still being wasteful. 2. Want to eliminate pork? Time for a Truth in Legislation Act. One bill = one subject. Every bill sent to the floor for a vote gets an OMB/GAO (or private firm again) review of the text. Anything in the bill not directly related to the subject matter of the bill is shaved off, and would have to be passed seperately. Exception would be made, of course, for annual budgets.

Anyone other than me think that a balanced budget amendment is a good idea? As for overspending and undertaxing versus overspending and taxing for it, I'll take the latter, thank you. I am tired of this administration, and this Congress, indebting us into oblivion. Balanced budget should be the model, but between the two evils, better we cover our bills than increas our debt.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Apr 23, 2006 -> 10:52 PM) If the Democrats REALLY wanted to win big this fall they would do the following. They would simply promise to take away every last dollar of subsidies from the oil industry and split the proceeds to fund research into alternative fuels and lowering the federal gasoline tax. I might even vote for a Democrat who ran on such a campaign theme. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Except maybe the Fed Gas Tax. That would be good politically, but I think its a mistake economically.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Apr 23, 2006 -> 08:05 AM) Rebuilding our national rail infrastructure would be a great way to help reduce consumption of national resources, both for freight and for passenger traffic. The great thing about New Jersey, is most people in the state live just a few miles from a rail connection to take them into New York or Philadelphia. The rail system, for freight purposes, is already in renaissance. The rail companies have been growing like wildfire. But they aren't profitable enough to stake huge amounts of money in adding tons of new rail, or major upgrades to high speed stuff. So does the gov't foot that bill? It might not be a bad investment. But it is a lot of money. I still think this country can have a successful passenger rail system at a national level. Amtrak puzzles me, always has.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 22, 2006 -> 01:53 PM) Cell phones + GPS + "survival" shows + SUVs + Male egos = disasters I watch some of those survival shows, and listen to what people are impressed with and realize the 11 year olds in my Troop have a better grasp of how to enjoy the outdoors and stay alive then 99% of the population. Everyone of my Scouts laughs when they here that someone survived four days without food. Oooooh, that's hard. Try four days without a reliable water supply . . . And the thing is, only 1 of the 5 things you listed there (GPS) will actually function properly in a real wilderness. And even that requires some skill to use properly.

QUOTE(fathom @ Apr 22, 2006 -> 01:53 PM) With all due repect to Mr. Gload....he's worthless on this team. I wouldn't go that far. If Thome or PK go down, with Rogowski and Fields not ready yet, that would be a pretty big hole. Not many teams have the luxury of a proven .300 hitter as a backup in that scenario. He is a decent insurance policy, and a cheap one. But as I said, much as I think he's underappreciated here, if we could get the right person in a trade, I'd be up for it. It would probably be better for him anyway to get more time on another team.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 22, 2006 -> 01:43 PM) Well, there are always virtual caches which bring people to an interesting spot. The only trace is the internet logs. For some locations, that is much more appropriate. In doing some research I am finding dozens near my home. I finally broke down and bought a GPS and will be spending the afternoon learning. I will not use it for most wilderness navigating, I prefer to use and teach map and compass navigation. Once someone has mastered that, perhaps relying in batteries and electronics may make sense. GPS is great stuff. Adventuring will never be the same. I agree on map and compass, we generally use those for most things. But, there have been few times where we have been cutting new trail and path, through rugged terrain, and would have likely become hopelessly mired without the GPS. Sure, we would have eventually made it out OK, but having lost a day or two. With the GPS, you can be much more confident. GPS, along with Google Earth, have opened up brave new worlds for many people, and made trip planning a snap for those of us who already spend time venturing into the wilds. My concern is that many rookies will start wandering out there into the wilderness on their own, thinking that a GPS and their Google Earth flyover track will make them mountain men. Look for a rise in backcountry rescue calls in remote areas in the next few years.

QUOTE(OldSox2 @ Apr 22, 2006 -> 12:20 PM) Gload can hit. He proved it in 2004 when he hit over .300 and he proved it in 2005 when he did so well at Charlotte. He got off to a bad start in early '05 and never got enough AB's to make up for it, but I remember a huge hit he got for us in early September when we were really struggling -- a double in the gap late in game that was a huge win at the time. I say we keep him all year. I agree on his talent level - I think he has been derided in here with no basis in reality. However, with PK and Thome in front of him (and Rogowski and Fields behind him), I wouldn't mind letting him go for the right deal. He is handy to have around, but not a necessity by any means.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 22, 2006 -> 09:11 AM) Any geocaching fans here? I like the idea of the GEO part. Sending someone to a great spot to see something cool is great. Put I am not a fan of the CACHING aspect. Too much like littering to me.

-- I think my next car will be a hybrid (won't need a car for a couple years, and by then the cost of hybrid engine differential will be under 3k and gas will be over $3/gallon, maybe more like $4 or $5 a gallon) -- I think the oil companies that hold the patents for a lot of the alternate fuel technologies will need to be forced to s**t or get off the pot by the US government in the next couple years (anyone else see those kids in CA who built a soy-run car in high school shop class?) -- I am really, really glad that my commute is walk/train (winter) or bike (summer), and that I rarely have to drive anywhere. Gotta love Chicago. -- I am amazed at how many people I still see, particularly in the 'burbs, who troll around in giant SUV's all by themselves to get groceries. I'd be embarrassed. I mean, does North Shore soccer mom really need a full size Ford Excursion with a brush guard and fog lamps on the front, just to get around Winnetka? Hey, buy whatever car/truck/SUV you want, but you look like a fool. -- I love that I can take my choice of two different CTA lines (red, green), a number of different bus routes, and in 2007 the Metra, to go see my Sox play!!!

I'd say Buerhle is the best pitcher in recent or modern times for the sox - not the best ever. And I'd further add a condition that we are referring to long term career performance, not one or two year shots. But yeah, Buerhle = awesome. One of the best pitchers in the league. Great guy to have on the team.

So, I was at the game tonight, and I couldn't really see Anderson's swing very well. He did seem to be driving the ball a bit more. Did anyone notice if he got rid of the hitch/hesitation at the end of his stride?

QUOTE(South Side Fireworks Man @ Apr 21, 2006 -> 03:35 PM) Most of the posters on WSI have also said they feel badly about DLee's injury. White Sox fans have class. I believe it. In truth, I haven't been over there lately. What I was saying was that the anti-cub fervor is much greater over there than in here, for the most part. I am sure that very few people on either board are revelling in this or any player's injury (except for Bonds, I guess).

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Apr 21, 2006 -> 03:05 PM) I thought the last 4-5 were in the suck category, to be honest with you. Right now it seems like starting fresh is their best hope, because the plots for their past ventures all seemed to blur together. Hm. I didn't watch the show much, except for Next Gen, which I watched some in college when it came out. But as far as the movies go, I liked #6 (The Undiscovered Country, the last one with just the old cast) better than any other than Khan (#2). The eight one, I think, was First Contact, which was passable. I didn't see any after that (9 or 10), so I have no idea on those.