NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Aug 18, 2011 -> 11:40 AM) Justin Masterson is going down!! Well yeah, he's a sinker-baller.

Bumping this thread to throw out a discussion topic. I'm curious what people think about this... I just saw an article on CNN, quoting federal law enforcement people who are more and more concerned with "lone wolf" type attacks, similar to the shooting in Norway. My first gut reaction was, well, this isn't Norway, and a main reason it was so bad there is that it took 90 minutes for armed law enforcement to get onto that island. Similar problem occurred with the shootings in Mumbai a while back - the Indian police force was not trained or equipped for that sort of thing, and it took hours for the military to assemble and react. Here in the US, that shouldn't be an issue - 95% of law enforcement officers here are armed, and they are found in significant numbers even in relatively rural areas. But then, a thought occurred to me. I just got back from a backpacking trip - we had a group of 8 people out in a lonesome wilderness in New Mexico. Didn't see another soul for days. Now, there are other backcountry areas in national parks, forests, etc., that may have hundreds of people in the backcountry at any given time. What if some person or group just hiked in, and started shooting at people as they went, like this guy in Norway did? There are very few armed USFS or NPS or BLM Rangers anymore, and also very few of them are backcountry types anymore. Used to be, most Rangers spent most of their time in-country. Now most work out of offices or at campgrounds/trailheads/park offices. This gunman could wander around freely, pretty easily. Not only that, but in those remote areas (anything, say, a few miles' hard hike in), there is no easy way to signal for help. Cell phones likely won't get service, most people don't carry radios (and in the US, there is no reliable monitoring of mountain radio GMRS frequencies anyway), and a PLB would only get you rescue personnel, and that would take hours or days. Even when/if authorities found out about it, it would take hours at least to get armed personnel into those areas. So in reality, you actually could have a Norway-like attack here. And how do you address that? You could have more Rangers working the backcountry, instead of doing administrative work in offices. You could arm more of them, and train more of them as LER's. But where does that money come from? You could set up a system where GMRS radio frequencies, at least one certain emergency band, was monitored regularly - but again, that take infrastructure, manpower and money. Is this a risk that is even worth addressing? In reality, this scenario will probably never be addressed unless it happens. But I am curious how people would feel about trying to prevent it, if it is even worth it.

QUOTE (robinventura23 @ Aug 18, 2011 -> 09:20 AM) Tigers are off, so its either 3 out or 4 out after the game. Oops, didn't realize that - thanks. I'll edit the OP.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 18, 2011 -> 09:13 AM) <!--quoteo(post=2463094:date=Aug 18, 2011 -> 08:38 AM:name=NorthSideSox72)-->QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 18, 2011 -> 08:38 AM) <!--quotec-->OK so, I am not usually one of the people who posts random quotes and statements from people, showing their verbal slip-ups or other stupid statements. But this one, I really feel like I have to.... Michelle Bachmann, having won the Ames Straw Poll, is having her moment to shine - this is her best chance to get into people's view. As such, she decided to make her first big attention-grabbing campaign promise. She says that is she is made President, she promises to deliver $2/gallon gas. I mean... it is difficult for me to describe how mind-numbingly stupid this is, for so, so many reasons. All these candidates make promises they can't meet. true for either party. But I think this one takes the cake for the most absurd, unbelieveable one. Couldn't she at least pick something attainable, and that she, you know, would have some control over? I think if I run, I am going to promise to end all tornadoes. She must have been playing to this audience: (can someone remind me how to embed videos?) That is another possibility (other than global economic depression) - massive government subsidies, to the tune of say, $1-$1.50/gallon. I'm sure the liberals would love that, right? The only definite way to insulate American companies and citizens from the shocks of oil and gas prices, is to use a lot less of it. Failing to address that would be a mistake of epic proportions.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Aug 18, 2011 -> 08:46 AM) There are some things you can control, such as the taxes on the gasoline, but even then it won't be near enough for $2 a gallon, unless she can really strengthen the dollar that much which is pretty damn hard to do. Of course you can control some aspects of it. Stronger dollar is good, though we are going to be running deficits for so long that it won't appreciate much anyway, so that's pennies. More drilling and extracting domestically? Pennies again, and not until after Obama and the next President have left office. Taxes? Lower taxes is lower effective pricing, but federal tax on gas is only 18 cents per gallon, and that money is used for road projects. So even if you do ALL of that, maybe in 10 years you shave off 50 cents - and in the meantime let the interstates go to s***. All else beyond that is NOT in government control, it is global demand and supply. The best way to shield the US from gas price issues is to get off gas as much as possible.

OK so, I am not usually one of the people who posts random quotes and statements from people, showing their verbal slip-ups or other stupid statements. But this one, I really feel like I have to.... Michelle Bachmann, having won the Ames Straw Poll, is having her moment to shine - this is her best chance to get into people's view. As such, she decided to make her first big attention-grabbing campaign promise. She says that is she is made President, she promises to deliver $2/gallon gas. I mean... it is difficult for me to describe how mind-numbingly stupid this is, for so, so many reasons. All these candidates make promises they can't meet. true for either party. But I think this one takes the cake for the most absurd, unbelieveable one. Couldn't she at least pick something attainable, and that she, you know, would have some control over? I think if I run, I am going to promise to end all tornadoes.

Rubber game. Win the game, win the series. Win the series, get within a half game of 2nd, and 3 out of 1st. Do you hear me, boys? GO YOU WHITE SOX!!!

Salgado has been a disappointment so far - repeating Bristol after putting up pretty bad numbers last year, and he is actually worse this year.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 17, 2011 -> 11:51 PM) He would get destroyed in the general election. He'd do better than anyone but Romney I'd bet. You have to keep in mind that, by the time any candidate gets the nomination, they are a known commodity. That playing field is level at that point. So then, it really comes down to two things - getting your base to show up in big numbers, and enticing moderates and independents. On the former, as much as some of the ultra-conservatives may not like a moderate candidate, they hate Obama more, so they will show up. On the latter, only someone like Huntsman or Romney will be able to pull any significant number of swing voters - the others are just too extreme.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Aug 17, 2011 -> 05:31 PM) you do know that you cannot lever up on options, right? You actually have to pay for what you purchase, except for leaps. And they are not as liquid as the monthlies. Especially since the largest trader of these options had his position taken over by Goldman about a month ago. He was responsible for over 60 percent of the volume. Traded mostly with institutional desks. So unless a person is already wealthy your nonsense about someone should be able to 225 million is silly. This isn't really true, though it may be for you specifically. First, if you are using any sort of equity or SSF strategy with your options, you can absolutely lever up on the hedge treatment and go in bigger. Second, if you are trading within a firm's money, and if they are on portfolio margining, you can effectively lever using internal accounts rolling into a single broker or clearing account. So it is indeed possible - just depends on your situation, how directional you are, etc.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 17, 2011 -> 04:57 PM) I'm going to actually give some props here. Its really too bad he has near-zero chance to win the nomination. He'd probably have a better shot in the general than most of the other GOP candidates.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2011 -> 03:03 PM) I don't think it's some giant conspiracy. I think it's what they did to play to their liberal base. "Listen to these uneducated whack jobs! No government? Stop government spending? What are they thinking?! And they spit on black people. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" I guess I didn't see anything like that, especially not at first. Perhaps you can show me. I remember seeing some embarrassing videos, but they were YouTube pieces. I don't recall any of the mass media treating them like that, in fact I saw them being treated like stars, which is what the MSM tends to do with shiny new things.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Aug 17, 2011 -> 02:14 PM) plz - AJ would wear it. He's young. Ozzie usually sits AJ in situations like this as well. And Flowers doesn't have a choice anyway, Ozzie makes the lineups, as he is fond of pointing out.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 17, 2011 -> 01:14 PM) But we do know what we get out of these guys. That is mediocrity. A change in management is necessary. Again, the rebuild may not be necessary at this point. I've backed off of that several times already (I still wouldn't be opposed to one, though). But we need to change something in management. It is possible, by the way, that the Sox win the division, AND Ozzie is gone in the offseason. Not likely, but possible. That is my ideal scenario.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2011 -> 01:16 PM) Because of the bandwagon people. When it started, and I mean when tea party rallies were just starting, it was not just the fringe, extremist republicans that it had become. It was essentially a bunch of libertarians, which of course would be predominantly conservative-minded. As to NSS' point about the perception of the tea party, i'm guessing that has to do with how the media portrayed the group as a bunch of dumb racist rednecks. Most people don't like to associate with that kind of thing. The mass media, at first, portrayed the Tea Party in a pretty favorable light. I think the prevalence of extreme right-wingers being the representatives of the movement is what repelled people from it, not some giant conspiracy against them. A lot of talking heads on the far right saw the movement, and decided to co-opt it to their own gains. That then drew in the far-right GOP wing, thus overwhelming the more libertarian streak that originally fostered the movement. So if you want to blame someone for their perception in the public eye, instead of pulling the unsubstantiated poor victim card, I'd blame those talking heads and politicians if I were you. They basically stole the concept and contorted it to their desires.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 17, 2011 -> 01:05 PM) So, it's fair and now well supported statistically to say that the Tea Party is now overwhelmingly the activist, nativist Republican base, not some independent movement of outsiders, and no one will challenge me if I repeat that? Just my viewpoint, but I think it is fair to say that is the majority of that self-labeled group at this point, yes. I saw an interesting article the other day too, that was another iterance of a poll they've taken periodically that included a question about how people feel about the Tea Party movement. Favorable numbers have started to decline, now in the 30's percentage-wise, which is interesting... but far more interesting is that the number of people unaware of the movement has fallen off a cliff, and apparently the great majority of those people went to the unfavorable side. Basically, as people learn more about it, they have less and less support. If a far-right crazy like Bachmann wins the nomination, she will be completely unable to draw any moderates, swing voters or non-gutter independents. And she will therefore lose, and lose badly, in the general. Romney is the most spineless of the GOP bunch, but he probably has the best chance in the general election.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Aug 17, 2011 -> 12:48 PM) My #1 hope, obviously, is the Sox make the playoffs. But, if we miss the playoffs and it leads to changes, I'd also be happy. The only scenario that would truly make me completely unhappy is missing the playoffs and no changes being made. That sums up my feelings as well.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 17, 2011 -> 12:33 PM) Now wait just a second though. On here, I've argued quite consistently that the current "Tea Party" is nothing more than the activist, Fox-News led Republican base. How it started, whether the first "Tea Party" was Ron Paul's 2008 campaign, Americans for Prosperity, whatever, if its supporters are overwhelmingly Republican, if the only people who consider themselves Tea Party supporters were activist Republicans in 2006, then that means that the "rise" of the Tea Party fits the narrative I've been writing...that the current "Tea Party" is nothing more than an activist Republican response to having a Democrat in the White House. Current, yes. The people who jumped on the boat, yes. The origins - not at all supported by the numbers in this study.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Aug 17, 2011 -> 12:25 PM) I think the thought is that they could have still spent that money on the draft. Why? You only spend the extra money when it gets you something. The Sox signed a remarkable percentage of their first 30+ picks (30 of 33), leaving only a couple notable ones out - one in the Top 10 (Gardeck at 8) and two in the next 10 (Krist, Ginther). So, the question really is, would the extra money have landed any of those? Has anyone seen any indication as such? Further, is the money better used on one of them, or on a player we acquired for this year on the major league roster? the fact that they signed 30 of their top 33 says they probably DID spread some extra money around. Someone tell me about Gardeck or Krist, for example. Are they high potential, tough-sign guys that anyone has heard might have signed for a few more dollars?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 17, 2011 -> 12:02 PM) Fascinating poli-sci work that happened to interview its people in 2006, before the rise of the Tea Party, and just this year, after its rise, allowing it to see the makeup of the people who now call themselves Tea Partiers. One part of this is indeed fascinating - a very accurate look at what people who currently call themselves Tea Partiers (or those sympathetic to their causes), and what makes them different. But the article also makes a completely bogus leap from the numbers to an obviously false conclusion. They can, and do, show what Tea Partiers ARE, but they make the laughable claim to say that means they know how the movement STARTED. They show zero evidence or research about the origins of the movement - only able to show what it has become, via the hop-on people. Any statistician worth their salt could see this as being an improper use of the numbers to support an argument not represented in fact.

With both bullpens tired, it would be huge for the Sox to pound Carmona early as they have previously, and get into the CLE bullpen quick. Not only increases the odds of a win here, but exhausts their pen with another game to go. Score early, score big.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 17, 2011 -> 11:29 AM) Unfortunately, yup. Seriously? Ignoring for the moment the whole "what kind of fan are you" thing, look at this team. They've tended to do better against higher levels of competition. They are very good on the pitching side. These are both things that would make them more dangerous in the playoffs than their record would indicate. They may get whomped in the playoffs, but I'll happily take those chances over staying home.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Aug 17, 2011 -> 10:23 AM) If there is anyone who knows about editing to makes things the way you want them it's Andrew Breitbart. Definitely pot calling the kettle black, but that doesn't excuse either one of them.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 17, 2011 -> 10:37 AM) IE - Jerry's telling KW to f*** off. Not likely. I think KW wants Flowers in there, he wants to show the trade he made to get him was a good one. I doubt Kenny even wants to go get someone else at this point.

First, the Sox spending the least money is meaningless. Cut out the other teams' first round picks and then compare - then it actually tells you something. Second, as in articles I have seen, I agree the Sox draft looks pretty decent on first glance. The last few seasons the Sox have been improving in their drafting, in my view. And good to see they signed so many of their picks this year as well. Of course we won't really know how the draft was for another year or two.