NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 5, 2010 -> 05:15 PM) Not the cops personally. The municipalities and the state. It's the manner in which they handle the vehicle. Handle the vehicle? That's a new twist I haven't heard. How is it you think that vehicle "handling" from DUI's is a cash cow for the government?

QUOTE (flavum @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 07:42 PM) Terry Doyle--this year's Hudson? Maybe Birmingham, at least. Let's not get carried away, but he is looking damn good. QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 07:44 PM) Serafin got lit up; 4.1 IP, 12 H, 6 ER, 2 BB, 1 SO 2 of his last 3 outings in fact. QUOTE (scenario @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 08:19 PM) 3rd game in a row he's struggled. Sandwiching his DL trip. Something changed, not sure what. QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jun 5, 2010 -> 08:45 AM) No one has ever said he's the answer there. The thought process is this: we suck, A.J. should be traded, Flowers is too bad to give the job too at the moment, and we'd all rather continue to suck with Lucy instead of Ramon Castro. I don't think anyone has been arguing that he's anything more then a guy trying to be the backup catcher on a decent roster. Thank you. This is what I was getting at with Lucy in PHT, and hopefully no one thinks this is about sample size. He's been my AAP for years now.

I agree with the Corps here. Closing the locks does definite and clear damage economically. Then there's the fact that they cannot keep them closed all the time, or they will cause periodic and massive flooding damage. The carp, based on the two most recent tests, aren't even near the locks yet. And here's something people seem to forget (or are too young to remember) - Lake Michigan had an ENTIRELY different ecosystem as little as 20 years ago. There isn't much natural in there now, in terms of fish species, anyway. That all said, I agree they need to do whatever they reasonably can to keep the carp out - but that doesn't include putting the entire river basin at flood risk and destroying an economic engine. Instead, do the electronic barriers, do some occasional cleanups, and declare some wall zones to keep things tracked constantly. Does the same thing, except without all the economic and home damage.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 5, 2010 -> 08:41 AM) Unfortunately, it's not. This is exactly the sort of horses*** that flies when the system is protecting one of its own as opposed to looking to f*** a regular citizen because drunk driving is a cash cow for individual municipalities as well as the state. On the bolded... this is one of the most popular falsehoods I see repeated about cops. Cops do not make extra money by making more DUI arrests, and neither do police departments. There is no "cash cow" here. Where do you think this cash magically comes from, that isn't sucked up by the courts or jails or police resourcing? Now, I WILL say, that the red light cameras are that. but that's a whole different matter.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 03:25 PM) And the only reason I'm in favor of it is to help the maturity level of some of the people in the force. Four years of dedicating yourself to school helps build you as a person. IN case you were curious, the current MINIMUM requirements to become a CPD officer...

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 03:25 PM) And the only reason I'm in favor of it is to help the maturity level of some of the people in the force. Four years of dedicating yourself to school helps build you as a person. I'd actually agree that a college degree is at least favorable. If not required, then maybe use the rule Denver does that I noted earlier, or have a degree give you a points-advantage in being chosen to be hired. Something like that. I don't think its NECESSARY to have a degree to be a good cop. But I think you'll have an overall better force by having more degreed people on it.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 03:20 PM) I know requirements change depending on where you are but I feel that all police officers should be required to have a 4 year college degree. Some departments require that now. Mostly its the rich suburbs that do it - they pay more to fewer officers and can afford the higher standards. The only major metro department I know of that does is Denver, which I think requires either any 4 year degree, or a 2-year associates if its in a related disciplince (CrimJ, LE). On the other hand, I know when I lived in Memphis, that department required only high school diploma or GED. Chicago I am not sure of right now - I'd have to check.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 03:01 PM) Pierre lf Vizquel 3b Rios cf Jones dh Kotsay 1b Quentin rf AJ c Ramirez ss Beckham 2b Danks p Didn't Paulie just get a day off a few days ago? Why again tonight?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 02:57 PM) If there's 10% unemployment long-term, then he's right, because the workers that are hired will have lost all of their bargaining power; there's always someone equally qualified out there who is currently unemployed. You are exaggerating the swing in bargaining power here. You are telling me that at 6% UE the employees are mighty and control all, but at 10% have nothing? Its not nearly that wild of a swing. Companies still need staff to function, and there is not unlimited supply of most skill sets. Most employees still have plenty of leverage, it doesn't all just disappear. Sure, in this ecomony they have LESS of it. but you make it sound like by going from 6% to 10% that employers can all pay minimum wage and no benefits to anyone.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 02:58 PM) And there is zero perfect method of doing so. Of course. Judgment by nature is subjective, and since we won't have personally seen anyone juicing, we can't know for sure.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 02:37 PM) It will, it's another way for companies to skirt around having to invest in 401k's and avoid healthcare costs, as if you are a contractor, you are paid X$, but you're responsible for health insurance, 401k, etc., on your own. Also, this way, they can cancel the contract whenever they want, and also don't have to give you vacation time. I think its that flexibility that is the biggest reason for it. Companies will still be willing to give those benefits for some people they know they want long-term, but they will use the contractors to be part of the ebb and flow segment of the work when they can.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 02:48 PM) Is Flowers even a good catcher or are we just hoping as usual that a good hitter will also just happen to become a decent catcher? IIRC, he's not even a real catcher, but was able to hit HR's...and he's not even doing that much anymore. Meh. His catching skills were in question when we traded for him. Since then however, he's won accolades for his improvement. I believe he was even named best defensive catcher in his league, in the Southern League last year.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 02:28 PM) So how do we judge which player hit 50 home runs in a season fair and square? Case by case.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 02:23 PM) Take a look at the graph. Compared to previous months, temp hiring has dropped from 60,000 temp jobs to 30,000 temp jobs. If by slowed you mean the gains are declining, but still rising, than sure. They were going up ridiculously fast for a while there, that wasn't going to continue. But when you say "hiring has slowed", that's not really true. This, by the way, looks like a trend of the future to me. Not just as a result of this recession. I think temporary and contract work will be increasing as a % of the workforce generally for some time. JMHO.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 02:01 PM) Just curious, but did you (or anyone else using this incident as evidence) actually see what he did? Because it was hardly cause for ejection in that situation. It was dumb and juvenile and something that you'd expect out of a high schooler (shocking!) but in the grand scheme of things that incident would mean absolutely nothing to me when judging him. I'm saying, if you can't get through a short JUCO season without getting ejected twice, you may have an attitude problem.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 02:02 PM) Hiring of temporary workers has also slowed considerably. Um no, did you read the article? temp help has sped up significantly. 31,000 last month in fact. So it says the opposite of what you are saying here. The article is in fact stating that it did grow a lot since the bottom, but that contrary to the belief some held, it didn't result in similar gains in permanent jobs. Which is not surprising given the very slow recovery, so naturally, that will cause a balloon and extension of temporary help, as companies move more cautiously.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Jun 3, 2010 -> 07:30 PM) Harper was ejected from a game at the JUCO world series yesterday for arguing a strike call. Juco rules state that if a player is ejected twice during a season, he's suspended for two games. Since Harper was ejected earlier this year, he sits two games, and his juco career might be over. Yet another piece of evidence that this kid is going to have problems. I realize the talent level is ridiculous, but everything I've read about his head and his makeup is that he's going to hit some serious walls. He's still young enough to adjust and improve from there, but when I think of high talent draft picks and failure risk, this guy seems to have a high level of it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 01:48 PM) The collapse of the Euro is going to hurt that. A lot. Eh, we don't export a whole lot to Europe anymore anyway, so I don't think so. Euro makes me worry, but the manufacturing losses from it (along with tourism losses) are not by biggest concerns. I'm more worried about the European debt that is held globally, and the effect of that on the financial sector here.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 01:13 PM) The dotted path could easily be the start of the 2nd dip. Especially when we fire a couple hundred thousand teachers this year. Over an extended period - say, since January - the great majority of leading indicators have shown a solid, though slow, recovery is likely. Only in the past couple weeks have we seen some disturbing numbers. I haven't thought at any point that a 2nd dip is likely, even though people have been calling for one being about to happen since early 2009. I still don't see it as being a likelihood. Possible though. I still like WHERE the private jobs are stronger. Its weaker in home construction, where a lot of job losses are still going on, and I actually like to see that at this point. Manufacturing is still surging, maybe almost too much. Let's see how the next month or so shakes out. If that little tail keeps tailing, instead of being a blip, then I'll worry more about a 2nd dip.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 01:12 PM) I don't believe it happens plenty at all. It happens. But it doesn't happen plenty. Unless of course, you are counting very minor stuff like taking a pen and then lying about taking a pen. But to say that in highly illegal situations cops cover up for other cops all the time...that's just not true. Like I said, most of these cops depend on their paychecks, and will depend on their pensions, and aren't going to risk them to save an idiot from being an idiot. I know you want to believe they will...but nay, they will not. Most cops don't even know other cops outside of their districts, they sure as hell don't know the judges and wouldn't go out of their way to cover for them in any such illegal dealings. Those days are like 1965, and they're over. Hell, most cops don't know of cops IN their districts unless they happen to work the same shifts. And for the record, I'm not defending that this guy is getting off, as he appears guilty as hell, but it's not my job to presume someones guilty no matter how bad it looks. This appears that he's getting off on a lot of technicals, which means he would be guilty if things were done properly, so in this case I hope this guy gets his someday. That said, the judge cannot just pretend things were done properly, that's NOT his job as a judge, his job WAS to toss this case even if we don't like it. You keep turning my statements into extremes I didn't say. I didn't say all the time, I didn't say always, I didn't say highly illegal situations solely, and I certainly never said I blamed the judge for throwing the case out. I think the judge's decision to put aside the LT's testimony is questionable, but the ultimate decision pretty much had to be what it was. Most cops are good. I say this a lot, and a lot of people don't believe me. Some are bad apples. The rate of bad apples varies from department to department. But even the good ones are human, and sometimes get caught up in the pressure of a situation. I think you are looking at this job protection thing the wrong way. If anything, they probably felt like they needed to let the guy off to protect their jobs, because of the backlash if they didn't. You just cannot possibly say that there is ZERO chance this happens, as you stated earlier, because even if 99.9% of cops are good ones (which is too high a number), its still not 100%, nor does it account for the realities of the protective mindset. That mindset has its roots in good things - cops need to trust that their fellow officers will protect them when they need it. But it becomes perverted in situations like this.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 12:57 PM) I know a lot of police, and exactly ZERO of them have ever helped another cop cover illegal happenings in their careers, and exactly ZERO of them said they would ever do such a thing. The bolded is the only part you can know. The earlier part, you could not possibly know. I only worked in law enforcement for a couple years, and even in that short time, I saw numerous instances of cops covering for other cops who did something stupid. It happens plenty.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 12:56 PM) I honestly doubt they are. Contrary to you're false belief, but cops don't go out of their way to break the law to defend other cops, as they know if/when they get caught, they'd get the axe, too. So call b.s. all you want, these accusations of police covering up for other police just aren't true, and in the cases this does happen, it's VERY rare, as once again, most normal police don't stick their own necks on the chopping block to cover up for a fellow officer knowing that their family relies on that income. I'm not talking all cases, I am talking this case. In this case, you have a guy who gets in a wreck at 1am and kills a couple people, and miraculously, the guy is never given a breathylizer or blood test until 8 hours later when an LT asks for it (despite not only the seriousness of the wreck, but the fact that the LT said he could smell alcohol hours after the fact). An accident like that, you almost always see the screenings done. Here, with the officers knowing the offender, they didn't do it. Sorry, but the facts here don't jive with your interperetation. Its pretty obvious they were protecting the guy, and as a result, no prosecution can be successful. And since there is not a PER SE RULE stating that drivers in injury accidents need to be tested automatically, its left up to the officer's judgment. So they didn't even have to stick their necks out. All they had to do was say "he didn't seem drunk to me". Personally, I think the rule should change. I think police should be mandated, in cases of injury or fatality accidents, to administer a breath test. If that is refused, take them into custody and get a BAC. This is the way DUI is done anyway, so it fits in fine with existing law. That would take any question out of the equation.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 12:51 PM) Kind of how the street scum all do the same, only against the police, all the time. So it's of no surprise the police are like this to me...when you have scumbags crying foul and making false accusations against cops on a daily basis, you'd begin to understand. And while them doing what they do will cause a few bad apples to get away with some bad stuff, it also prevents those bs false accusations from costing a lot of good police officers their jobs/livelihoods. I call B.S. here. There is no excusing these guys protecting an officer who killed a couple people because he was drunk.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 10:53 AM) Well done. I couldn't read a better summary. BTW this season was over long before it started. Could anyone really think back in Feb. this would be a World Series caliber team? Posts like this make me laugh. The things people complained most about in February - lack of power, rotating DH, bullpen, Teahen's bat, Pierre's all-around game... are not the main reasons why this team has sucked. So don't give me this crap that you were somehow preternatural in knowing how this season would go, and smarter than everyone else. This team is 7.5 games back because the vaunted starting pitching has an ERA north of 5, and many of the key offensive players have sucked (Quentin, Beckham, Ramirez, Pierzynski). These were things that were not anticipated. Sure, some people had conerns about Quentin specifically, or about Peavy's recovery. But I would like someone to show me any poster who predicted the starting staff would be 4/5 bad, and that all four of those guys would be hitting 50-100 points below normal for the first two months. Good luck.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 11:41 AM) The thing is, it's the misconception about the way we won it that's hurt more than anything. Sure, Pods was great the first 2 months or so, but we still hit a ton of home runs and the entire team thrived due to its strong starting pitching and once-in-a-lifetime bullpen. It drives me batty to see people who think the 2005 team won because of small ball. However, its equally annoying when people think small ball didn't have SOME impact. The 2005 team was great primarily due to pitching, but it wouldn't have been nearly as good if it wasn't also quite good at (in order of importance): defense, home runs, situational hitting, and yes, small ball/manufacturing runs when the offense had a down day. All those things needed to be there for 2005 to have happened. Not some - all.