NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 12:30 PM) So you're saying ever grant ever handed out was spot on, no waste, and absolutely beneficial to our advancement and knowledge? Edit: I should say that by "excess" I don't mean spending over and above what's been allocated. I'm saying it's money that never should have been allocated to begin with. OK, that's different. Of the money allocated, what is "spot on" isn't black and white. I think what you are getting at is, who determines what "wins" the grants? What value is being added in each case? I don't know those details.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 12:23 PM) So scientists reviewing other scientists to determine if their research is warranted is the perfect system. No excess spending could possibly happen there! Look, in general I agree with you. A complete waste of money isn't going to slip by. BUT, it's a bunch of scientists, who by their nature are going to approve projects that otherwise might not be so....resourceful. Their ideology is that learning X about Y is ALWAYS beneficial, almost regardless of cost. So the process is having scientists determining not whether it's worth ANY money, but HOW MUCH money. That's better left to, you know, representatives and legislators. I agree that if there's some downright lies about projects then it's something to complain about. But i'm sorry, using a phrase to generalize a study or project using federal dollars is the only way that average people can get a grasp of where their money is going. Of course a GOP member is going to overstate its waste. Just like a liberal environmentalist is going to overstate how important it is. My point is that i'd rather have people question spending, even if irrationally so, than to just accept that every grant the government hands out is warranted. EVERYTHING is a waste unless proven otherwise IMO. Actually, it can't, by nature. The funding level for NSF grants is not determined by these scientists, its a set number that Congress has to pass.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 12:08 PM) Why do you think what you say is logic and reason? You've watched TV and read articles. I have lived it. If I were to say that everyone who lives in Las Vegas is a whore-mongering, gambling-addicted coke head, then I would expect you would have more knowledge of the situation than anyone else on this site. Just because I watched CSI or Casino a few times and read an article in the newspaper about Las Vegas, doesn't mean I know the place. This little side battle needs to end, now, from both of you. Take it outside, buy each other a beer, kiss and make up, or just walk away.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 11:59 AM) Which is exactly how the scientists want it as well. Go science!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 11:56 AM) The phrase "Most economists believe..." is actually quite black and white. "The ACA will lower the deficit" and "Most economists say the ACA will lower the deficit" are 2 different questions. The latter is how it was phrased. Ah, I see what you are getting at. In that case, 2 of those 3 are indeed quantifiable. But the question of whether or not the economy is getting better is very much subjective at this point. So I guess its really just one line item I take issue with. And is anyone really shocked that the chosen-ignorance crowd is more likely to be Fox News followers than other news?

I see no problem at all with questioning whether or not federal funds should be going to these things. Its our money. However, I do see a problem with people relying on a partisan political party's false descriptions of these studies, and I also have a problem with the general public having up/down vote power on these things, when frankly most people reading about them won't understand their value. To me, the funding levels at the overall (NSF) level or even the general subject matter level (i.e. meteorology, volcanism, etc.), should be handled top-down in Congress. However, what individual projects then get that money should not be legislated at all - it should be decided by, ya know, scientists.

QUOTE (dpd9189 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 11:09 AM) I have two concerns about this year's team as constructed today. First is the bullpen, we lost Jenks and Putz who were for the most part pretty solid for us. Assuming Thronton will be the closer, the other guys that get us from the SP to Thornton have to step up (Pena, Crain, maybe Sale). I think the success or failure of those guys will determine our fate as far as getting to the postseason. Second concern is we have some guys that are up there in age (PK, AJ, Pierre) and I just hope they don't start to drop off significantly. I think our starting pitching will be fine. I generally agree with this, except the idea that Jenks was pretty solid. He was far from that, and his overall performance is pretty easy to replace.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 10:13 AM) Fox News viewers are much more likely than others to believe false information about American politics, a new study concludes. The study, conducted by the University of Maryland, judged how likely consumers of various news outlets and publications were to believe misinformation about a wide range of political issues. Overall, 90% of respondents said they felt they had heard false information being given to them during the 2010 election campaign. However, while consumers of just about every news outlet believed some information that was false, the study found that Fox News viewers, regardless of political information, were "significantly more likely" to believe that: --Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely) --Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points) --The economy is getting worse (26 points) --Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points) --The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points) --Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points) --The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points) --When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) --And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points) In addition, the study said, increased viewership of Fox News led to increased belief in these false stories. While some of those things are indeed outright false (income taxes have gone up, auto bailout under Obama, TARP support, Obama's birth, scientists about climate change), the three top items about the economy and health care reform are NOT black and white, so I don't consider those falsehoods or truths in any absolute way.

So, there are these polls posted regularly that talk about Obama vs Palin in 2012, with Obama leading even in the doldrums of the economy. Not really all that telling though, its so far out right now. But I did think this poll was a little more interesting, as it showed me in a more meaningful way that not only is Palin not electable, but that Obama is going to have a very hard time as well: 59% of potential voters say they "wouldn't even consider" voting for Palin. Only 8% said they would vote for her, the other 32% or so would consider it. That's almost 6 in 10 would have already decided in an apparently dead-set manner to not vote for her. Obama's number though, wasn't much better, at 43%. Poll results.

First, we really don't know if other teams actually had offers on the table for that much more. These are just rumors. Second, I fail to see why its a bad thing that a player signed for (maybe) less to play on a team he has some loyalty towards. I don't think that's a bad thing at all.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 09:18 AM) That's sort of exactly what NSS said. The Dems COULD have played hardball but they didn't. At the same time, I have to say - in terms of the other business this Congress will get to acheive in the lame duck as a result of this compromise is also pretty good. Looks like we'll get START ratified, DADT repealed, and the DREAM act will get a vote in the Senate (even though it will fail.) Two weeks ago, none of these things (which I generally find to be important) were even on track to get a vote in the broken Senate. Yes, I think Balta was agreeing with me and not realizing it. And I agree that it looks like the lame duck Congress is actually going to get a few things done.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 09:25 AM) Quizno's because of those horrible singing rat-like things they had a few years ago. Whatever insurance company that "Flo" works for. She's incredibly annoying. I kind of like Flo. Not sure why, I can't explain it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 08:46 AM) Link Interesting article, but the only thing I think it got right is the GOP desire to have more tax cuts for the rich. First of all, the Republican line of thinking that businesses are waiting because of what would or would not happen with the marginal tax rates is just stupid. Most businesses aren't waiting for anything at all, they are just doing what they need to to be effective and/or survive. Those in specific industries subject to a lot of regulatory or other issues in the forefront, like health care or finance, certainly are in a partial waiting mode, and that will have some effect on hiring. But overall, the lack of hiring is NOT about waiting for legilsation. If they are waiting, its because of the general state of the economy - not Congress. Second, the direct spending thing was not meant to be part of this bill anyway - so accusing it of being a failure is like saying the White Sox have failed at hockey. And the UE benefits portion is, to a high degree, directly stimulative, so it has that positive effect. Third, the fact is that the Dems could have decided to play hardball. They could have sent all these items individually to the floor, but did not - and Obama was forced to come to a reconciliation with the GOP directly instead. The Dems failed because they did a bad job trying to make this work (along with the fact that the 60 vote fake-buster is still an issue, which is out of their control). Finally, much as I detest the estate tax changes and the tax break for the uber-rich who simply don't need it, the bill overall is a good, compromise measure - the first that I've really seen from Congress in a long time. I think its the right move.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 08:15 AM) The President could in fact sign an executive order saying that the policy could not be enforced, just as the military was desegregated by executive order. However, it's more complicated than that. How it works currently is that the blanket ban on homosexuals serving in the military in fact remains on the books as a law passed by Congress. DADT is an executive order level policy that the Clinton administration put on top of that trying to limit how the military enforced that ban; the military was not supposed to ask, and so people in the closet were not supposed to be discharged (which is of course not how it has worked, it has remained a de facto ban in many cases). So, right now we have a fully bigoted "Homosexuals are not allowed to serve in the military" law on the books, with an executive order saying how to enforce that law. Another executive order could be issued to change further how that rule is enforced, but the gays-are-evil law itself would remain on the books, leaving the executive order able to be challenged in court or overturned by President Palin. OK, so there IS a legislated law underneath DADT. In that case, an XO wouldn't do anything but make it worse.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 08:09 AM) Huh? He's saying it seems wrong to him that the government should be taking money without some purpose for it in mind, and he apparently finds is sad and societally reflective that some people don't agree. Thing is, this isn't a tax, its a punitive penalty. You don't decide punitive penalties based on your need for money, because if you do, then that is far, far worse.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 16, 2010 -> 09:12 PM) igpae atinlae? esyae.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 03:12 AM) I think jewelry commercials in general suck. Agreed, they are on par with local car dealer ads, except without the kitsch factor.

This was last night, or tonight? If last night, did anyone get to watch it?

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Dec 16, 2010 -> 05:07 PM) What are the odds the President just signs some kind of executive order to end DADT? The House and Senate supports repeal, and polls seem to show the people do. That's a good question. Its a mattery of internal military policy and military code, so its not necessarily a previously legislated regulation. Its also not a financial line item. Therefore, I believe, it may indeed be eligible for an executive order, which Congress would then need to override. But someone more knowledgeable than me would need to confirm all of this, I am not 100% sure.

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Dec 16, 2010 -> 03:19 PM) I don't know if I feel that much more confident about Crain than I would Jenks. The third year on Crain's deal is what I don't like. I think I'd rather see Jenks back for two. I'd feel a lot better either one of them if they were for a year less (and $$$ adjusted accordingly). If its the third year that makes the difference to you, then think of it this way - its $1M for that extra year.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 16, 2010 -> 03:40 PM) I'd borrow until people stopped lending me free money. Yeah, if the country literally had zero debt, with the economy the way it is, I'd be all in on like $5T of stimulative spending AND tax cuts.

You decide.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Dec 16, 2010 -> 12:46 PM) Book of Eli was just flat out boring, also the twist or whatever was pretty obvious early on in the movie as well. I guess I just disagree, I thought it was very well done. Its not meant to be an action movie, even though that's how the marketed it.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 16, 2010 -> 07:55 AM) Yeah, what LH is available? I know Feliciano is. But that's probably another 3-year deal. There's Joe Beimel (however you spell it). Ron Mahay is old and sucks now. I just can't see another multi-year deal handed out to another reliever. It's gonna have to be a trade. I'm guessing we pick up 2-3 guys off the heap and try them out in ST for the LOOGY job. Or, if they are really, truly all in, there is always this... QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 16, 2010 -> 08:39 AM) There's still that Tim Byrdak whose name keeps cropping up here.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 15, 2010 -> 07:10 PM) I was going to take a picture of my car themometer saying 81 at 7:00 at night on December 15th, but my cell phone battery died. uckfae ouyae.