NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 11:51 AM) People who are allowed to retire at fifty, do not contribute anywhere near enough to cover what they take out of the system. If you do not pay into ss, why are you able to retire and collect? Regular folks cannot do that. They have to wait until 62 minimum, for the most part to receive a partial benefit. Why should public employees be allowed to retire before the SS retirement age and collect? Insolvency solved. Why should citizens cover the losses in public employees pensions? Who covered everyone's 401k losses? The system is antiquated and should be fixed, and retirees and current employees should feel some pain. I actually agree with some of your points, but think for a second about part of the long term impact here. If you make the pension system a lot less "special" for teachers, firefighters, cops, etc., you will have a much harder time recruiting for those jobs. You will either get lower quality, or have to increase pay or other benefits (401k match is a good start), or both. That means higher costs of public service and/or lower quality results. I'm actually OK with paying a little more in taxes for those folks to be of higher quality, but many people won't be. A choice has to be made.

I spent the night unpacking boxes upon moving to a new house. Yeah, I'd rather have been drinking. BS, I thought I told you a few days back I was out, sorry if I was unclear. Hope to make it next time.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 10:50 AM) But look at one of the specific examples called out in that article--Health Care. If the Democrats stay put for two decades while the Republicans hop, skip and jump to the right, then the "middle ground" also shifts to the right. People get rewarded for increasingly outlandish and extreme positions since it shifts the window in their favor. You are still not a tall getting my point - you are lumping two very different concepts in together.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 10:27 AM) But's it's still a fallacy to assume that because B lies between A and C, B is a good compromise. It could be that A is terrible, B is bad, C is good, so compromising from C to B would be a bad idea. Basically it assumes that the current political window represents the true range with extremes on each end and good, pragmatic solutions in the middle. edit: here's a blog post I found expanding on the idea a little more. http://www.raisethehammer.org/blog/1718/pu..._ground_fallacy It is not a fallacy, unless you take it as your philosophy that for all issues, you take the middle point, and that must be right. That is the Argument to Moderation stance, which I disagree with. When someone says APPEAL to moderation, that is entirely different. It is saying the polarity of the two parties has gotten out of hand, and we need to get SOME things done via compromise. Not only is that not a fallacy, its something I wholeheartedly agree with.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 09:15 AM) Look, I been posting here since July of '03. I know my join date says February '04 but that's only because I forgot the password to my original name and had to create another one. I was just like Rowand44, Soxace and jphat before he went crazy. Just optimistic about EVERYTHING. Then you got somebody like fathom, who I think is one of the best posters around, who's been a 'pessimist' since day one, but that's OK because it's expected from him. 2005 changed the game for me. I cherish that year like no other. But I was never one of those 'I don't care what happens from this point on because we finally won it all' guys. It's like getting your first piece of ass. You want it over and over and over again. Imo, this franchise deserves a lot of criticism for not being able to build off that amazing 2005 season. The city was ours for the taking. And we have not taken advantage. That doesn't mean I hate EVERY move we make. I loved the Peavy trade and the Dunn signing. And there's a lot of moves we've made that I've despised. Do I go a little overboard at times? Maybe. But so what? What's the big deal? Ranger makes me want to kill small animals at times with his homerism. But I respect his opinion and don't go apes*** when I don't agree with him. This all started when I gave the Sox off-season grade a B minus and I got anally violated. That's what made me mad. Its quite simple. When your posts are mostly over the top, hyper-sensitive, profanity-laced tirades... you are going to get some negative reaction to them. No need to turn it into some giant conspiracy, or that everyone is after you. You post like you do, and you will get these reactions. If you don't like that, then don't post like that. Can't have it both ways.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 09:39 AM) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation Appeal to moderation and Argument to moderation are not the same - grammatically or othewise. Appeal to moderation has helped any number of politicians, and its something that will probably become more prevalent. Argument to moderation is the assignment of righteousness. Maybe lostfan meant the latter, I can't tell for sure.

QUOTE (PlunketChris @ Jan 6, 2011 -> 12:28 PM) Being a first ballot Hall Of Famer is rare and seems reserved for those "perfect" players. Guys like Cal Ripken Jr., and Tony Gwynn were the obvious first ballot hall of famers of recent memory. They had sparkling personalities and truly represented the game during their time with no connection to any PED, drugs or cheating. I was a little surprised that a strange personality who played for nine different teams like Rickey Henderson got in on his first ballot in 2009, but his skill set was beyond what anyone had ever seen. Frank's numbers and dominance are staggering, he carried teams all throughout the 90's and into the 2000's. But he was never a media darling which could hold him back from getting that first ballot call. The 2014 ballot will also be the first for Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine who seem to be clearer "first ballot" personalities. 1999 is the only time that three players were voted in on their first ballot (George Brett, Robin Yount, Nolan Ryan) so it's not unprecedented, but also unlikely. 2014 will also be the second ballot for potential HOFers Mike Piazza, Roger Clemens, and Barry Bonds if none get in on their first vote. If Clemens and Bonds get in, that opens the door for a lot of the steroid era guys (McGwire, Sosa, Palmero, etc.) to get in the way of Frank, who appears to have a cleaner record. 2015 is a little softer on the new additions to the ballot, with only Randy Johnson really being a shoe in. John Smoltz, Gary Sheffield and Pedro Martinez are really the only other realistic candidates who come up for vote in 2015. It wouldn't shock me if Frank had to wait until his second year to get in. I wouldn't be surprised to see him make it on the first ballot, but part of me expects him to have to wait a year or two. Great post. Maddux is in first ballot period, and I think Glavine and Thomas will battle just below that level. And with the general questions out there about big hitters in that era, I think that's enough to get Glavine in but Thomas out in their first ballots. Then Thomas goes in 2nd year.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 08:58 AM) Clearly therefore, the answer is massive cuts in pensions, since those people are overpaid and greedy and lazy. Who said that?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 09:27 PM) slate had an article about this not too long ago that said the whole "no labels" thing was well-meaning, but stupid. There is no such thing as "no labels" and "appeal to moderation" is a logical fallacy (reference to logical fallacies - where's StrangeSox) 100% disagree with the bold part. What it REALLY means isn't going to be overly popular, but it is still definitely a real political dynamic.

Well, Carol Mosely-Braun is making quite the fool of herself. I mean, she seemed like kind of a dim bulb anyway, but this tax business is just hilarious. The other candidates reveal their taxes, Braun is asked, and she says (direct quote) "I don't want to". She's hammered for it, so releases... part of her taxes. Its revealed she was late on taxes many times. When further questions are asked, she says these two things, one right after another, and doesn't seem to understand how funny it sounds: "I am all about transparency", and "There will be no more drilling down". She's done for any chance of actually winning, but will still take some of the vote.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 08:46 AM) You write that as though you think that there isn't a little questioning and probing being done as a matter of course, not only by the FDA but by independent scientists. No, you interpereted my comment that way. That is not at all what I said or meant. Of course that questioning is going on - that's why I said a "little" questioning by the public is a good thing.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 08:40 AM) Here's the problem with fixing the pension system. A lot of people paid into that pension system, my mom included, and didn't pay into Social Security because you used to be encouraged to do it that way. My mother worked as a college professor for the state for nearly 35 years, and dealt with a lot of s*** because of it. She earned every penny of her pension as part of the promise the state made for her service to the state. Reforming the pension system would have been simple back then, it was called funding it properly. Politicians chose not to, and its a mistake to think that the people who should sacrifice because of political malfeasance are the people who paid into that pension to begin with. I certainly agree that you cannot just cut the system off. You'd ruin a lot of people financially. But then if you are able to properly fund it, people will ask why get rid of it? Then there is the lag problem - if you decide to fix it but also phase it out, in the short term, it actually costs you more money to save money later. For all those reasons, politicians are averse to facing reality and dealing with the problem.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 11:49 AM) illinois needs the $. No way around it. Plus we've got one of the lowest income tax rates in the country. First, no, Illinois does NOT have one of the lowest. They have one of the lowest non-zero - there are something like 10 states with no income tax at all. Second, yes they need the money - but they ALSO need to cut a lot of spending, cut a lot of waste, and fix the 238957208956723590682 pound gorrilla of pension systems. QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 11:51 AM) It's still a p**** move to completely contradict a campaign promise within weeks of your election. Especially when you are already the Governor and knew the score when you made the promise to begin with. Yes. QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 05:26 PM) The corporate tax in Illinois is also going to nearly double from what I've read. Very bad move, as well as the other new taxes. Time for a recall. That, to me, is actually worse than the personal income tax increase. Impact will be far worse.

This reminds me a bit of the airbag debate, back when they were a new fangled thing in cars. Yes, its definitely OK and probably good to have a running undercurrent of questioning from the public. It tends to help dig up problems, and it keeps the providers more honest. But remember the idiots, back in the early 90's or so, who pointed out the dozen or so deaths in a few years' time from airbags? And then the panic-driven frenzy that air bags were deadly? Nevermind that for every person that died because of air bag impact, another thousand or so would be saved... there were people for YEARS, who always had them disabled because of that panic, and no amount of sense or logic would deter them. Some people feel the same way about seat belts. Vaccinations are demonstrably, obviously a good thing. But a little questioning and probing doesn't hurt either. Air bags did indeed get safer after all of that mess.

Interesting his little bit on Rienzo - our FS Top 25 had him similarly high. System is pretty bad, but with all the injuries last year (Mitchell, Thompson, Phegley, Royse, Remenowsky), I think we'll see some improvement in 2011. Bad draft position makes things bad again though.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 5, 2011 -> 02:37 PM) I smell 93 wins... These are park adjusted and the PAs and innings all add up correctly. 93 offensively/defensively, 94 pitching. In recent years in the ALC, 93/94 wins you the division. Do people think the 2011 Twins or Tigers are 93/94 win teams on paper?

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Jan 5, 2011 -> 01:55 PM) Mark Teahen, Ramon Castro, Omar Vizquel already under contract for 2011. Leaves one spot on the bench. Actually the more I think about it, there really isn't no place on this team for Andruw Jones, and possibly Brent Lillibridge makes more sense than De Aza. Jones would take the place of De Aza/Lillibridge if he signed, and he makes perfect sense there. Also, I am not 100% sure Teahen is with the team on Opening Day.

OK ESPN has the list up now... Baines got 28 votes, which I believe is 4.82%. So, he now drops off the list. The players who got sustaining level votes: Roberto Alomar 523 90.0 Bert Blyleven 463 79.7 Barry Larkin 361 62.1 Jack Morris 311 53.5 Lee Smith 263 45.3 Jeff Bagwell 242 41.7 Tim Raines 218 37.5 Edgar Martinez 191 32.9 Alan Trammell 141 24.3 Larry Walker 118 20.3 Mark McGwire 115 19.8 Fred McGriff 104 17.9 Dave Parker 89 15.3 Don Mattingly 79 13.6 Dale Murphy 73 12.6 Rafael Palmeiro 64 11.0

I can't find the full ballot result anywhere yet - if anyone spots it, a link would be awesome. I would like to have seen Morris and Murphy get in, but definitely agree on the two that did. Also, I looked at the ESPN ballot - the 18 ESPN staff who get to vote. Barry Stanton, a news editor on the site, did not vote for either who got in. Who he did vote for: Morris, Edgar Martinez, Tino Martinez, and BJ Surhoff. Buh?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 5, 2011 -> 11:45 AM) Didn't you say earlier this morning that this was 100% not true? And he apologized and posted the article he found as a result.

Seems like it was a bad trade, but I think its hilarious that some people are ready to call KW an idiot, or that the trade was a fireable offense, before we really know what Jackson and Hudson will turn out to be in their roles. Seems way, way premature and overreactive.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 5, 2011 -> 08:25 AM) I just read that the consensus is 140k jobs added, not 100k? Is that the BB, Briefing, or some other concensus? I saw 100k, but keep in mind these things vary, depending on who compiles said concensus numbers.

Official government numbers for jobs added don't come out until Friday, with expectations of 100k jobs added in December. But ADP releases their own report typically a few days earlier, and tends to be a good general predictor. Their number came in today, with a pretty huge 297k jobs added, almost triple expectations.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 5, 2011 -> 07:39 AM) I'd be the Sox too. Anyway...Jones ought to get $3-4 million from someone. I still think he's a perfect fit for the Twins, but I'm becoming more convinced every day that they just have no money to spend. I think a lot of money has dried up period, across baseball. That's why I think Andruw signs for substantially less than that, and it may indeed be with the Sox.

If Andruw was willing to come back for fairly cheap again, like a million or less and one year, I'd be the Sox would jump at the chance.