NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 11:23 AM) Ugh. Too early in the season? I assume he meant too early in the game, which is a bizarre reason. I would have at least understood if he said "because Kotsay was crushing the ball so far in that game" or something.

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 10:56 AM) I still don't understand why this thread is in Pale Hose Talk. Can we please relocate it to the Diamond Club? Are you serious? This is about what happened in last nights Sox game. Why would it be anywhere other than PHT?

I still don't like the trade, but Jackson is making be hesitate with his solid pitching. We'll have a better idea in the next couple years, but right now, this trade still looks like a loser to me. Not often you can say that about KW's moves.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 09:15 AM) I'll give you a live example of why people are struggling with a refinance of mortages today. My wife and I bought our home in Dec 2006. We put 20% down so we could avoid having to pay PMI and wouldn't have to escrow our taxes. From then until today, rates have dropped nearly 2%. According to Zillow (which seems to be the site that all banks use along with appraisals to assess your value) my homes value has dropped by $70,000. And quite frankly, we're lucky with that number. Many other areas in Chicagoland value has dropped by a far greater percentage. Thus, with the way the amortization schedule works, the loss in home value exceeds the principal paid in each month. So for me to re-finance today, again without having to pay PMI or Escrow my taxes, I would need to come to closing with nearly $19,000. Plus, I would have to pay closing costs, fees, titles, assessments, etc. So I'd estimate that the total cost would be around $21-22,000. That would be to save $200 per month in payments. So it would take me 100+ months, to break even on what I'd have to bring to closing. Now, I could re-finance, pay the $3,000 in costs/fees but now have to pay PMI to save the $200, however PMI alone would be $150 per month. So where's the savings? So I'm forced to sit on the sidelines until either (1) My property value starts to recover or (2) I continue to pay down the principal to get me back to 20% of the value... all while keeping my fingers crossed that rates don't go back up. Just as a note... when I bought my first home, I put 10% down, and did not pay PMI nor pay taxes into escrow. I got an 80% mortgage and a 10% equity line at the start. And I simply told the primary mortgage holder I didn't want any tax escrow taken, and they said "OK". I put the money in savings each month to pocket the interest instead.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 08:57 AM) It's almost as if Ozzie is treating Kotsay as if he were Thome and hoping to prove everyone wrong somehow. There is just no reason for Kotsay to be out there so much and batting so high up in the order. And sorry for beating a dead horse but not a single member of the media has asked him this and it's driving me insane. You could send a note to Cowley and Gonzales for their mailbags. It would be a lot more intelligent than most of the drivel they have to answer.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 08:57 AM) It can't stay "This" bad because it's once again resumed its plummet and continuing this trend would within a year or two make all housing free everywhere...but it doesn't have to get any better once things level off. The housing market is still massively overbuilt and, combined with a Japan style lost decade and a tolerance of 10% unemployment at the national level, it could easily be depressed for well over 10 years. I don't see it. New construction has dropped off massively (which is good for the overall market), population increase hasn't abated that I have seen. I'd assume that some time in the next year or two, we see it go back to more or less being similar increases to before 2000 - just a little over inflation. Hard to say where the EXACT bottom is - I was thinking we were in the territory late last year, but it looks now like its late this year or early next, from what most experts are saying. Overall, the current period is good for buyers, if you have the capital. You can't win trying to find the exact bottom of the market. Looking back in a few years, it will be somewhere in the 2009-2011 period, more or less.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 10:18 PM) You know, not all fishing is cast and reel...? I assume for the guy who doesn't fish often, and is fishing off a pier, that would usually be the case. Possible he was using some combo of bobber and/or sinker, I don't know. But he specifically mentioned casting.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 08:54 AM) The sole reason why the President needed to be involved in this one is the specific circumstances. This case has rapidly become a statement on who we are as a people and whether or not we have any willingness to live up to our own ideals. I agree on the bolded. Its sad to see the sort of bigotry and fear that some people display. But I disagree that it was the President's place to wade in and take a side on a local issue.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 08:53 AM) Why exactly do he have a left handed hitter sitting on our bench yesterday who is signed for a couple more years while starting a guy making practically the league minimum with terrible stats for the year? Yeah I know his first 2 ABs were great and he produced but over the long haul he should rarely be playing especially since Teahen is better and we extended the guy. I am dumbfounded why Ozzie is treating Kotsay as if he's some future hall of fame candidate and fan favorite. God forbid we used him as a rare spot starter and left handed pinch hitter like most teams would at this stage in his career. I agree that Teahen should have been starting there over Kotsay.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 08:50 AM) In this case..absolutely not. Calling out the people opposing this site for being bigoted ************* (pick your profane words) was 100% the right move and it's the kind of move we've rarely seen from this man since he took office. Playing it safe politically is not always the honorable move. Not the point I was making. I don't care whether or not it was the safe move. Obama was doing what he thought was right, and as I said, I agree with his overall view. But the President needs to be above getting into fights over private land issues like this. Its not his place to intrude.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 08:49 AM) I'd guess that in the next 20 years, the trends from the last 10 years would probably be more dominant. There's really little that can be done to make the average worker's job situation more insecure than it currently is, in a way that would drive additional mobility, but the trends from the last decade (soaring energy/moving costs, deteriorating worker conditions, lack of other job options, severely disturbed housing market, strongly anti-worker government policy) will escalate. Among the bolded, the last one is just not true. You are right about the others, but only one of them makes people less mobile - the housing market. The others make people MORE likely to move for better jobs, lower cost of living, lower taxes, lower energy costs. And the housing market simply will not and cannot stay this bad for 10 years, there is just no way. The population in this country is still increasing, existing homes are aging, and mortgage rates will stay relatively low for at least another few years.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 08:30 AM) That's a bit disingenuous. Obama only mentioned the controversy last week, after a month of browbeating from potential GOP Presidential wannabes and political hacks like members of the AFA, Newt and Palin - called for "peaceful" muslims to rise up against the building of a community center, Newt so much as said that we should only allow the building of mosques when Mecca allows the building of churches, and the American Families Association has come out and said that we should only allow mosques to be built once they have denounced the Koran. And, truth be told, he didn't even talk about whether or not it was a good idea to build anything there - he merely said that all religions have the right to build houses of worship as long as they comply with local regulations and laws. The truth is, say whatever you want about W, he probably would have said the same thing - especially if the controversy was happening during an Iftar that he was hosting at the White House, which he did annually as well. The Presidential thing to have done there, IMO, is to not take the bait. He should have said nothing, or simply said, this is a local issue. On a personal level, IF I was a resident in the area, I'd be perfectly fine with the mosque, BTW.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 08:32 AM) Hearing what the jurors have to say, they were pretty close (11-1) on some counts. But it sounds like the jurors were confused with the evidence and time line the government presented. I'm confident on retrial they'll tighten things up, maybe present fewer witnesses, and try to be more clear in what they're presenting. One thing seems pretty clear - they all didn't buy the "Blago is just a loud moron" defense. I agree they will narrow and clarify the case, but I think they may actually call more witnesses. They will just have fewer counts to focus them on.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 07:06 AM) I for one saw something in those late innings that makes me think we've turned a corner against them. Aside from a gassed Thornton, the rest of the team didn't quit and even showed some balls by throwing at Hardy. I have a sneaking suspicion that we take these next two and rather easily. Wow, kind if surprised to see you post this. I agree on the fact that this team does have more fight in them than some previous years, I said it yesterday before the game. I hope you are right, but this will be a tough battle.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 08:23 AM) Despite the fact that I jumped off the Ozzie bandwagon, I will actually partially defend Ozzie on the Kotsay thing last night (even though I am going to get ripped for it). Kotsay crushed the ball twice already in that game - and that does mean something. When a guy has two shots like that in a game, its hard to justify pulling him. Yes, I realize Kotsay sucks against lefties this year - in 21 at bats. Yes, Kotsay overall is a bad hitter who should not be starting. I'm just saying, I don't think that decision was as awful as its being made out to be. I think that's a tough call in that situation, and I wouldn't have been pissed at Ozzie either way. But goddamn did that game piss me off overall. I will add this though - having Kotsay as a starter at all is mostly on Ozzie, and batting him 5th or 6th all the time like a buffoon is also on Ozzie. Those are both terrible calls.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 08:21 AM) Just out of curiosity, do you know if there's a way to quantify that effect? I can't figure out where I'd look for this one, and I think you're going to wind up being right when you compare to 40 years ago (when people would leave school, get a job, and then keep that job), but perhaps down from 10 years ago (thanks to government policies encouraging homeownership, rising energy costs, wage stagnation, and now the housing bubble). I'd agree that its well up from 40, and down a bit over 10, which is what I was getting at with trends. I have no solid data for you, this is just knowing that, in general, certain things keep increasing - jobs that can be done from anywhere, people willing to move for jobs, and populations shifting west and south. I don't see any of those things abating, and the recession itself will exacerbate some aspects of it (because people are desperate for jobs, anywhere). And then of course the people who can do so, are re-financing at a fast pace. That's why I think, long run, the typical mortgage life will be more year 2000-ish than 1960-ish or 1980-ish.

Despite the fact that I jumped off the Ozzie bandwagon, I will actually partially defend Ozzie on the Kotsay thing last night (even though I am going to get ripped for it). Kotsay crushed the ball twice already in that game - and that does mean something. When a guy has two shots like that in a game, its hard to justify pulling him. Yes, I realize Kotsay sucks against lefties this year - in 21 at bats. Yes, Kotsay overall is a bad hitter who should not be starting. I'm just saying, I don't think that decision was as awful as its being made out to be. I think that's a tough call in that situation, and I wouldn't have been pissed at Ozzie either way. But goddamn did that game piss me off overall.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 08:11 AM) I wouldn't be surprised if that has changed since 2007...that the people who still have their houses have actually been there a lot longer...because it's difficult to sell a $400k house when you have a $500k mortgage on it. There is good reason to think that this effect, housing-lock, has been a substantial contributor to the persistence of unemployment and the rise in long-term unemployment concentrated in areas of heavy housing declines...because normally, in a free society like this one, you expect that if one area is depressed while another is growing, there will be population flow to balance that out. Oh of course its a phenomenon right now. But the overall trend will still be people moving more often, because people are moving to other cities for jobs more often as well. Society is more mobile. I don't see a recession stopping that trend entirely, in the long haul.

QUOTE (Springfield SoxFan @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 08:10 PM) If the Sox were willing to trade T-Flow and Jackson for Dunn they must think Phegley is close to being major league ready. I'd say that's a stretch. The guy has spent most of the year on the DL with a potentially debilitating illness, and just now got back going. He's also just reaching AA now.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 09:17 PM) The only people making a national case out of this happen to be Republicans. Locally, this group passed every hurdle. The community center doesn't even have a view of Ground Zero. It did, however, used to be a Burlington Coat Factory. Well that's not really true - Obama has talked about it twice now.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 11:36 PM) The biggest problem with the refi scam is that you set up an 80's S&L collapse when interest rates recover. You can't be making 3% on your mortgages when you are paying 6% on your savings. No one is going to be paying 6% on savings any time soon, unless inflation gets out of control later. And if that happens, the markets will be rising quickly too. Keep in mind also, people don't stay in their homes nearly as long nowadays, so mortgage life is much shorter.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 05:35 PM) Ugh...more urine. You have no way of knowing he would perform equally as well for the Sox. That's like the same dopes who thought Cutler would bring the Bears a Super Bowl. What in the hell are you talking about?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 05:05 PM) yep. should have waited to bust him. They were in a bind, both due to information that was about to get out (Trib) and due to the pending action on the Senate seat. Well, at least he's a convicted felon now facing prison. And the Feds will of course re-try on the other counts, at least some of them.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 04:06 PM) Thats not my argument at all. My argument is that morals are nothing more than a quasi-legal idea of how to control population. I have no argument on things being codified or morality. I dont believe there is such a thing as "universal morality", I believe in utility, which would have no basis in morality. Morality tries to modify behavior (good or bad) based on preset ideas of right v wrong. In my opinion this is nothing more than quasi-legal, in that it tries to modify behavior, but there is no actual punishment for wrong doing (unless it is also illegal). I was making the inverse argument. These werent "morals" until they were codified by rule. If there were these "inherent" morals, why would they need to be created? Its not an empty argument. Countries have unlimited legal right to do what they want on their own soil, its called "sovereignty". Most nations have agreements that recognize the other countries "sovereignty". Most countries recognize the other countries "sovereignty". It is only in rare cases (nuclear weapons) where sovereignty is questioned for the better good of humanity. Because most people agree that each country could have nukes if they wanted, they made an agreement whereby offering countries an incentive not to create nukes. Why did they do this? Because absent the agreement, each country would have the right (under their own sovereignty) to have a nuclear weapon program. Now sovereignty is subject to "might makes right". If country A does something and is to small to protect itself, country B can take away its sovereignty. But that is an act of war. No one denies the US could declare war on Iran and end its nuclear program. But I believe the context of the argument is, how can we prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons without warfare. The answer is, was and will be the NPT. As for "tryanny", I didnt create the theory, that was De Tocquevill, Mill and Madison, etc. I just am applying their insight to this fact pattern. Yet still to this day (over 30 years later) no one has verifiable proof of its existence. Not to mention, the evidence for Israel nuke uses the year 1975. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/ which show that the United States by 1975 was convinced that Israel had nuclear weapons. The last time Israel was invaded was 1973. This would suggest that as soon as the other Middle Eastern nations were convinced that Israel had a nuclear bomb, they did not invade Israel again. Once again, since no one has definitive proof when Israel had a nuclear weapon, or what the Arab states that attacked Israel knew or believed at the time of the attack, its impossible to use Israel in the argument. And even then, Israel would be the only nation to have ever been invaded while in possession of a nuclear weapon. That doesnt really disprove the idea that countries are less willing to attack other countries with nuclear capabilities. Again, proof is irrelevant, because the countries knew it in their own minds to be true. Therefore, the deterrent effect was in place. Furthermore, the US waiting until 1975 to say they believed it is sort of funny, since Israel got the technology FROM The US. This is one of those really poorly kept secrets.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:49 PM) What I am arguing is that it is BS and a matter of convenience that the US, under the guise of protecting the interests of the rest of the world, decides for the world who gets the bomb and who does not. I'm sorry, but it doesn't mean a whole lot to me when the country that has 4,000 bombs lectures other nations why they cannot have 1 bomb. You can argue I am naive and uninformed all you want, but it rings quite hollow coming from the position that our government is in. The bottom line is that we want to have the ultimate deterrent and trump card, and we want a few of our allies to have it, and no one else. And quite frankly, there is very little anyone else can do about it. Now if that is how the issue was presented, then it would be a lot more realistic and even trustworthy. But it isn't. And frankly, I don't blame other governments and citizens of those governments for seeing right through it as a giant hill of horses***. OK. If you want to fight for the little guy who also happens to like spitting on the other little guys, so that he can have a machine gun, in order to make a point that the big kid is just a big kid... go ahead. It doesn't buy you anything though, unless you are a radical cleric living in Iran.