NorthSideSox72

Third and final Q3 GDP revision posted at 2.6% growth - just above the previous 2.5% reading. Price index gain was slightly lower though. Still seeing divergence of retail sales traffic (up) and price trends (down), which never lasts terribly long. One or the other will give.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 07:33 AM) kap, please justify the existence of DADT. Explain why it's necessary or useful, what purpose it serves. If you can't justify the policy's existence, your whole point is moot. Also, btw, DADT was originally enacted by Congress in the first place, so of course it had to be repealed by them. Which makes your rant against Harry Reid and "social f***s in Washington" all the more hilariously wrong. Actually, as I recall, DADT was an XO (from Clinton) that was then confirmed by Congress. I should probably go look that up, but that was my memory of it.

QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 07:18 AM) Going to see "True Grit" today with pops. Loved the original but have never read the book. All the reviews say it is better than the Wayne version so I am excited. Better than the original? That happens so very rarely. I planned to see it anyway, since I love Coen Brothers movies (usually) and I'm curious about them doing a remake... but if there are people saying its better than the original, well, I'll believe that when I see it.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 01:06 AM) YES! Beat the Devil, god I loved that. James Brown was out of his mind and Gary Oldamn as the wild, wheel-chaired Satan. What is there not to love? I'd also add Romeo is Bleeding, it's not a very good movie but Oldman is so f***ing good as the piece a of s*** cop. The man has such incredible range and has been in the business for so damn long it's hard to find much of anything to dislike. Prick up Your Ears is another very good role and movie for that matter that he did early in his career along side Alfred Molina, I recommend that one. And yes, Rosencrantz and Gildenstern is probably my favorite role of his as it's one of my all time favorite movies largely because of his part and the incredible plot device that is the gold coin. This kind of goes hand and hand with State of Grace in a way: he plays the dimwit well. I like to pretend The Fifth Element never happened. The Fifth Element was, by the very words of its creator and director, a 12-year-old boy scifi-action extravaganza. That's what it was meant to be - silly beyond belief, but oh so cool looking (and sounding). I think that was nicely achieved. Oldman is interesting to me in that he seems at his best when he plays the most subdued characters (opposite of Zorg). He's got this intensity that just radiates off of him, and its much more involving to see him where its potential energy, not explosions of it. So he plays these over the top roles in Fifth Element, Harry Potter, etc., where he just seems almost awkward. Like a dark side Jim Carrey, when he actually lets loose he has so much energy that it overwhelms the scene. That level of energy needs to be kept in reserve most of the time for it to be effective (and to further to analogy, Carrey's best role IMO was in Truman Show, where he was usually not as expressive as his usual crap).

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 06:50 AM) Tell me how that's wrong. And tell me exactly how DADT is bigoted. Tell me why a gay soldier has to scream I AM GAY in the military and not just serve. Why is all this necessary? Equal rights? Equal rights for what? They already had equal rights in the sense that they had a choice to sign on that dotted line - equal for all. I guess we need to have a DADT for heterosexuals now, right? I mean, they should have equal opportunity to scream I AM HETERO and not have anyone care, right? Oh, except gay people because they'll be pissed that someone can express themselves that way... OH and it gets better... I bet gay people didn't even care (with those rare exceptions who wanted to make it a point - which are nothing but attention whores anyway) - people who want to serve shouldn't have to check the box of male/female/lesbian/gay/transgender when they sign up... equal rights for what, exactly? The only reason (again) this is forced on the military is because some social f***s in Washington wanted to prove that they can dictate how the military runs things. Do you think Harry f***ing Reid gives a s*** about gay people or gay rights IN THE MILITARY other then perhaps a voting block? Seriously? I want to know why this matters. And I don't want to hear (oh, this is the first step in equal rights and marriage and blah blah blah... this had NOTHING to do with that). They could have passed a real law about the issue and not mess with DADT, which was something that was (generally) working... oh, but wait, it's "bigoted". Fail. Serious fail. Oh and one more point... I'm seriously not some lunatic that thinks all gay people are bad, or wrong, or will burn in hell, it's not for me to judge. In fact, I wish the government would stay out of the issue altogether, including and ESPECIALLY the gay marriage ban people. It's not their place - just in the same parallel that it's not the government's place to deal with the military policy of DADT, in my opinion. No one is asking to scream out their orientation. They are asking to not be kicked out of the military for it. Pretty simple to me, and no, its not working right now.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 06:10 PM) No, he said 3-4 win pitcher, not 3-4 wins pitcher. There is a difference, and in that context, it's to be understood that he means WAR. One can truly tell at this point that the offseason has gotten boring again. We're really arguing this?

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 02:33 PM) Yea but you don't count on him hitting it the other way. Defenses don't respect his ability to hit it the other way at all. My point was that only with "shift" guys would you ever even consider defending foul territory. I could only think of Thome as an example of a hitter who defense's completely disrespect like clockwork. Ortiz gets a shift too, right? This is only true on the infield. Thome is in fact a guy who reliably goes to all fields when the balls is in the outfield. And even then, a few times a season, he does smack one towards where the SS usually stands for righties, just for funsies. He's also usually good for exactly 1 bunt attempt a year.

Vikings owner now says he wants a new OUTDOOR stadium for the team.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 01:00 PM) The New Representative Apportionment Table So... Gained 4 seats: TX (red) Gained 2 seats: FL (swing) Gained 1 seat: AZ (red), GA (red), NV (blue/swing), SC (red), UT (red), WA (blue/swing) Lost 1 seat: IL (blue), IA (swing), LA (red), MA (blue), MI (red/swing), MO (red/swing), NJ (blue), PA (swing) Lost 2 seats: NY (blue), OH (swing) I count the broken down change generally as: Red states: +7 Red/swing states: -2 Swing states: -2 Blue/swing states: +2 Blue states: -5 In other words, probably a 7-ish seat swing to the GOP. However, I think some of the deep red states like TX and AZ, are trending towards a more swing designation.

Some overview points: So the states losing seats include 4 swings (Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania), 2 typically red (Louisiana, Missouri) and 2 typically blue (New Jersey, New York). A bulletin from Crain's also says that IL is going to lose a seat.

Not a lot of details yet on which states gain and lose exactly how many seats, but here is the ticker article from CNN. Discuss and add updates.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 08:47 AM) No, I'm against privatization of social security, no where did I make a point that shows otherwise. I think a 401k is better than a pension, but I do NOT think a 401k implementation on social security is a good idea in ANY way. This is an interesting discussion topic - how money in Social Security should be invested. I've always been on the fence on this topic, because I see really good arguments for any number of methodologies, ranging from the current status quo, all the way to full-on privitization. Probably something in between is a good idea. I actually supported W's general idea on this, to allow for elective choice in investment of social security money.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 08:18 AM) Outsourcing the job to the private sector consistently proves more expensive as well in terms of actual budgeting. It's another of those political games...you get to be nice to a contributor and you get to take the salary officially off your books, but when you do the real math, the price goes up significantly. The price goes up in the recurring cost, because that's the REAL cost of doing that job. But you then don't have the pension overhead issues. QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 08:34 AM) I somewhat agree with Balta on this one, but have a few observations (don't I always?) in regard to a few things mentioned here. One of the historic benefits of government jobs (public works, etc.), was two fold. 1) Job security. 2) Pensions. Speaking on the latter, we see what they've done with Pensions, how they've abused them, stolen from them, or bastardized them to the point they're paying out far more than they've made back via poor investments or otherwise. Example, due to very poor investments, the Chicago Police pension has made less money in the past decade then your Social Security did. This is one of the BIG reasons I'm against privatization of Social Security, and should serve as a warning to those who think it's a good idea. At the very least, with a 401K, you get to decide which funds to put your money into from a variety of choices. Those who pay into pensions do not get to decide...their money is invested as someone else sees fit, and whether that works out in the long run depends on that performance. In the case of the Chicago Police, their investments LOST money...and now they have no way to make up for the loss aside from cutting new officers off of the pension system. Social Security needs some work, however, it should never EVER be privatized for this very reason. On outsourcing. If done properly, it can be a benefit to cost savings in many ways, from training to insurance to pay level, however, more often than not, it's not done properly. The only thing they care is the immediate short term cost savings, but never considered the possible future implications. See examples, Microsoft, Dell, HP, etc. Done improperly, it can become cumbersome, more expensive and devastating to your companies reputation. As a non business user, having to speak to someone from China/India named "Chad", who barely speaks English (communication barrier), and is clearly reading simple instructions off of a script that may help Grandma, but do nothing but waste my time makes me look for alternatives the next time I'm ready for purchase. This also falls over into business decisions where I happen to work...having a bad Dell experience has caused me to move two different companies away from anything Dell related. Their poor decision to outsource actually cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars due to my repeated bad experiences. Seems like your argument makes a case FOR privitization of social security, not against it. Your concerns are about mismanagement of a future cash flow scenario - if the money is invested in the markets, you don't have that risk. Instead, your risk and reward is tied to the success of the businesses in this country (or whatever investment assets you choose). And when I say outsourcing, I don't mean help desks in India. I mean, generally, private business taking over operations where they can and should.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 08:00 AM) There's a reason why the system has grown up this way though...the top line "average salary" number is the easy one to politick on. That's why you hear so often that "Government employees are overpaid!" as a general slam for why government employees are lazy and should all be fired. You even get the silly political game of "I'm going to freeze all government employee salaries and save $60 billion" thrown in there. The reality is that raising the top line salary number to the point where it is competitive with the private sector offering for an equally educated worker is an impractical option politically. Once you get to that point, you'd need to offer better retirement plans than the private sector in order to stay competitive. So, it has to be a 401k with a better match than you could get from a private sector company, and on top of it, you can't offer benefits like cheap purchases of your own stock, since there's no such thing. Then offer a really solid 401k match. This isn't that tough to solve. If you can't offer competitive salary, then you have multiple other options - better benefits, better working conditions or schedule, 401k match level, performance incentives, special pay enhancements (hazard, OT, etc.), outsource the job to private sector, etc. You do not have to saddle your taxpayers with a pension system that is bound to cause major financial headaches.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 07:44 AM) If Adam Dunn isn't Adam Dunn and Paul Konerko shows his age, the White Sox offense will be pretty mediocre at best. Well hell, if you take ANY team's two best offensive weapons and say they have bad seasons, then their offenses will be mediocre. Kind of goes without saying.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 07:40 AM) The problem with that concept is actually attracting skilled and competitive workers for the positions you have available. A big reason to go into any sort of government job is the benefits, because compared to a worker with equal education, you're taking a 20% pay cut on average to go into government work. The Pension and healthcare are your equalizers. Well, the benefits in general are the equalizers, along with knowing you will have a job with minimal extra-schedule demands, etc. Pension is certainly one of those. But a 401k with a good match can also look pretty darn good. And frankly, this is a great opportunity for government agencies to hire more like the rest of the world. If they can hire for a job below market, then do it. If they need to go higher, do it. Be competitive with private business in either case. That is of course a challenge when you have a fixed budget to deal with, but its not THAT much different than private business has to address.

There is now one JFP status thread. This is that thread.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 06:58 PM) Good piece by 60 Minutes exposing the absolute trainwreck the states are in right now, especially Illinois. Key lines: (1) Illinois spends TWICE as much money as it brings in. (2) Our Comptroller calls us the "Deadbeat State," and acknowledges we're the worst in the Union. State reps getting kicked out of office spaces for not paying bills, gas stations refusing to honor state credit cards...It's time for public pensions and benefits to take a major hit, just like the rest of us. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7166293n As far as I'm concerned, Illinois and all other government agencies need to get out of the Pension business entirely. Go to 401k with match. That said, even if that's the long term goal, its hard to reach that point when you don't even have the money to pay out current balances due.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 05:27 PM) But this is kind of my point when it comes to finance/economics. It affects you differently, regardless of some national study, just as it affects everyone differently. If I were buying all my goods and services on a nationalized "average price", maybe then the graph would mean something to me, but I'm not. I'm buying where I live, around where I live, and where I live prices are up, across the board, for everything I do. I simply cannot apply that graph to MY life, nor my area, because my experience isn't matching up with it. So really, all you are saying is, inflation for Y2HH appears to be going up, in his/her experience.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 04:53 PM) The general public that doesn't serve and won't have to "deal" with the changes? Does their opinion matter in this debate? I mean, i'm fine with DADT being repealed, but at the same time I think the opinions of military personnel matter a lot more than you or I. Civil rights issues - and yes that is what I would call this - cannot be and should not be a function of majority rule OR home rule. The federal government, in regards to people in its employ, need to provide equal protections, regardless of what their cohorts may think or feel.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 03:27 PM) Hopefully this 'chance to close some games' is just a pr move trying to convince him to sign here. Don't want no part of closing by committee, after the DH committee fiasco we went through last year. 1. DH by committee wasn't a failure, the players IN IT were the failure. 2. Closer by committee is not the same animal, at all. They really are not comparable situations.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 02:02 PM) Ho hum. If it were that simple, you wouldn't have people claiming that inflation is going to run wild "soon", as they've been saying for a few years now, and this is coming from financial "experts" in the field with plenty of "data". But you fail to realize that, I guess. So let's pretend as if none of these things occur or have been occurring, because it makes explaining it away easier...even though it's not. If it were this simple as posting some simple data, the ENTIRE economic world would agree on whether inflation will rise, fall or remain exactly the same. But I've read many DIFFERENT opinions on what is happening and what will happen. I'll try this one more time. You make claims of something happening. The data provided by other people contradict it. Your response so far: data is bulls***. Now... will you show any data or explanation whatsoever to counter it? Doesn't need to be a graph or a study, even just a financial or economic description of examples or reasons. Something. Anything other than "its there, you're all blind".

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 01:15 PM) And this is the part that makes no sense. I'd love to be able to make sense of inflation data right now, but I simply cannot. What tied inflation to reality has completely become unwound and makes NO sense anymore. They've borrowed so much and printed so much paper money in the last few years that inflation should have skyrocketed, but it hasn't. Why? It makes no sense. Then I see charts showing it's at almost 0%, but across the board, in every way, prices have gone up while wages have mostly remained flat or even gone down (and forget about including the people who lost their jobs). While I'd love to make sense of it all, I just cannot do so...so when I see charts showing one thing, but have experienced the exact opposite...it's impossible for me to agree with. It makes perfect sense, as Balta said and for other reasons. But yet again, you fail to show any data at all to back up a claim that flies in the face of all the data that is provided.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 01:05 PM) I've been seeing this for 3+ years now. Eh? Inflation has been pretty tame in the past three years. Or, if you mean people have been saying it will happen for 3+ years, that's still correct. No one is saying it was going to happen while still deep in the recession, they are saying it will happen during the recovery, which is only just now starting to take some baby steps.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 01:01 PM) Ok, fair enough. But I'm not throwing up my hands and giving up on making a positive change because it's not complete and total. I think it's ridiculous that such a thing exists or has to exist at all. But then again, by saying that I'm actually agreeing with you in hoping for people to "get over it and grow up". I just don't see it working, even with a law...they'll be allowed, but they still won't be accepted. Again, this was said when units were racially integrated. And see what happened? There was still racism, there were bad things, but as time went on, the bad things slowly abated. Now, the problems from it are much more rare. I see no reason why this won't be the same.