NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 10:19 PM) They do not belong in the civil court system. Period. The only reason they are doing this is politics. LOL, so you are saying that your belief is right because its right, but any other perspective HAS to be politics.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 08:14 AM) Here is the problem with protectionism. Say we protect these American companies, or companies doing business here in America...fine. I agree this sounds great on the surface. But let's fast forward 10 years. Let's pretend its 2019...and everything is going well, everything is recovered. Now what? I'm glad you asked...so I'll tell you what... The same companies we protected during a crisis will begin to raise their prices to increase their profit margins...because they can...I mean, after all...people have money again! Oh, and if that's not enough, they start shipping the jobs overseas for cheaper labor, kinda like they've been doing, because Americans get paid too much. This is the problem with protectionism in regard to privately owned businesses. This is the exact kind of crap that happens in the long term. We protect them now when they need us, but when they don't need us, BELIEVE ME, they'll do whatever they can to make more money off of you/save themselves money. f*** protecting private companies. Where do you get this idea that it is being done as a favor to them? Its not. Its a favor to Americans, because it creates jobs. Of course they will make a profit wherever they can - I WANT them to do that. Doing a domestically-oriented cash for clunkers program isn't corporate charity, its an economic safety net for the country. And its temporary, not 10 years long.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 08:03 AM) Yea, I have to say, the longer you guys drone on about this environment bulls*** the more I yawn. It's the most hypocritical stupid crap I've EVER had to listen too. Especially since it's all self-reassuring, "I'm better than you" and "I care more than you" bulls*** so many of you love to talk about but not actually do jack s*** about. Look around your desk right now -- that computer you're typing on -- you can't even imagine the amount of pollution that was caused just to get to where that computer is now in terms of speed, etc. And I'll guess it wasn't your first computer/cell phone/other crazy pollution causing device, either. That pen/paper/water bottle -- tons more. 99% of the garbage you don't need in your houses, but have and use every day...that's right...tons more. You b**** about it, you think we should do more about it...yet you set ZERO example of saving the trees and continue to consume the very things you supposedly hate, you continue to buy them, and you continue to fund this pollution crazy economy/world. Ohhhhh, I'm so f***ing proud of you, you bought a hybrid car -- too bad the batteries in them are worse for the environment than the gas you saved. Oh, and those batteries HAVE TO BE REPLACED someday. That's an unfortunate side effect of batteries...someday, they will go into a landfill. Good job. Ohhh, you installed mercury filled light bulbs in your houses to save energy...too bad when those do burn out you added a bunch of mercury content to the earth. Good job. My point is, the small changes you think you've made have done nothing, because honestly, you don't really care...it's just another thing you can hang your hats on because you have nothing else to do. Either shut off your computers, go live in the middle of no where in Alaska in a rustic shack without electricity or heat...or shut the f*** up and get off your high horses. The real sacrifices we would have to make to TRULY make a dent...no American is going to make them. And that's a fact. Every water bottle you guys don't use, I'm going to use 3 of from now on. Just to erase any difference you tried to make. That was an almost Kap-worthy rant - both in its grandeur, and its departure from reality. First, what is really "self-reassuring" as you put it, is the people who choose to believe they have no impact on their environment. They are then further reassured by politicians who make up all manner of ridiculous things to bolster this belief, because its the easier, lazier one to take. Its the one that says "no really, you can do whatever you want, without consequences". Its idiotic on its face to believe that humans don't effect their environment in a signficant way. And you cited a whole bunch of reasons for it in your own post. Now, some people do actually live under an illusion of greendom, because they are misinformed - but they are at least aware of reality, and trying (though often failing) to act affirmatively to help things. And your idea that little things don't help is patently absurd. Of course they help. This sort of absolutist, dismissive attitude you take on things like polls, or scientific data, is right out of the GOP playbook - lay waste to all data as subjective, thus allowing you to believe whatever you want, regardless of fact. Everything that is an action of CONSERVATION, helps (note: not the same as ENVIRONMENTALISM, though related). Keeping lights on less of the time, using a timed thermostat, recycling, using less plastic whenever possible, using CFL's (which have less and less mercury, and new ones have NONE)... all these things make a difference, and if everyone did them, it would make a HUGE difference. But, it makes everyone feel better to say, eh, since you cannot save the world youself, you might as well not bother trying. Instead, what is true here, is that people don't necessarily see the full consequences of their actions. They see that a hybrid car uses less gas and pollutes less - which it does - but are blissfully unaware of the fact that the batteries in that car are more environmentally costly than normal ones. Now, I have read articles on this, and your statement that the batteries require more pollution than what you save in output from the car is bunk. For one thing, you cannot make a true apples-to-apples comparison anyway, since mining consequences are different than gaseous air pollution. But it also focuses on only one aspect of the positives of hybrid use - pollution. Using less gas, which means less oil, has additional positives - LOTS of them. You want to make everything black and white. You have this odd belief that if you can't go all the way and save the world, then don't bother trying. That is utterly absurd logic. I'll keep doing the little things, because I know it makes a difference. You want to call that being on a high horse, fine, whatever makes you feel better. If you want to give up, that saddens me, but I can't stop you.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 07:50 AM) That's called protectionism, and it's not a very good idea. If we did that the world would cry foul -- as a matter of fact, they did when they started talking about the stimulus a long time ago. I think in that case, it would have been. Its no different that the tax incentives that every country, including this one, give to businesses to set up shop there. Japanese and Korean car companies got tax incentives to set up those plants, which create jobs. This is just on the consumer side instead of the supplier side. Its also not permanent, and it would ALSO benefit those car companies from Japan, Korea, Germany and others who make cars here. No one would get overly upset about that, there wouldn't be some huge tariff war because of it, and the other countries would do the same thing anyway (and are). In general, I'd agree that protectionism, can be bad. But I think you need a bit of it, at times, to protect your country from big harm.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 05:34 PM) LOL Japans cash for clunkers program: Japanese cars only. CNN reporting. Would have been nice if the US would actually have stimulus programs that, you know, got US citizens employed. I guess that's asking too much. I would have been happy with, car models manufactured in the US. Goes to jobs, but still allows some consumer flexibility. Seems like a good compromise.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 02:11 PM) IIRC the only one that really shows up in the climatic signal at all was Pinatubo. Were you old enough for St Helen's, to remember it? Because I do. It effected the weather in Chicago for weeks. I have no doubt that it effected the weather beyond just what I perceived as well.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 12:57 PM) At this point, I absolutely don't want the Sox to acquire AGon. It would cost way too much with regards to prospects (our farm is thin enough as it is), and then he'd get a monster deal after two seasons. Let Boston get him...they have the money and prospects to make it happen and not have to turn the organization upside-down. I'd like the farm system to be strong too, but its plain old silly to not see that one of the reasons you want a strong farm, is for this sort of acquisition to be possible. I'll take two years of that guy over a handful of very good prospects almost any day, and I don't see any Sox propsects I wouldn't give up in the deal.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 12:55 PM) Just read a couple of pages back and you'll see that I'm fully aware of what defines a leadoff hitter. The overstatement that is often made is that a team can't win with so-and-so as a leadoff hitter. Having a good productive hitter at the top of the order can and does certainly help, but it is often not the difference between a winner or a loser. It comes down to the whole, not the sum of the parts. Some people seem to think the leadoff hitter is everything (based on the feedback I get)...that simply isn't true. (That being said, I think about 70% of those I've heard from have a favorable opinion of the Pierre pickup.) Now, you can't afford to have an abyss at the top. Like I said earlier, if he hits .200 and has a .300 OBP, that could be a killer. But if he's mediocre as a leadoff hitter, that's absolutely good enough to have a winning lineup. Of course, the rest of the lineup has to do its job, as well. The leadoff hitter is no more important than someone, say, in the middle of the order. For example, Fangraphs examined that very topic and determined that replacing a leadoff hitter with the 5th hitter in the order with a wOBA 20 points better amounted to about one team run for the season. That is, one team run in the extra 70 ABs a leadoff hitter gets over a guy that bats 5th and is more productive. Of course, those numbers are still dependent on the rest of the order and you can debate that assertion, too. But whether or not you believe that number to be accurate, I think the underlying point is solid: the leadoff hitter isn't everything The other problem with overstating the importance of a leadoff hitter, is that it narrows your field of potential players. I'd rather find the 9 best guys available, and then make the lineup from there, than specifically seek out a leadoff hitter and limit the pool of players I can choose from. Its simple math. The bigger pool of players I have to choose from, to make each position better, the more successful I'd be as a GM. Find the best players within your budgetary and resource constraints, then let your manager make the lineup card.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 11:58 AM) Surtsey and St. Helens were not major volcanic events. Pinatubo really wasn't that big either. On a geological time scale? No. But for any given decade or two? Yes. And they all three effected the weather in a big way.

I remember the uproar when Bush won this. I think (could be wrong) that this isn't intended to be necessarily a good thing - just that the person had the biggest or most interesting world effect. For that description, I think Bernanke is in the discussion at least.

QUOTE (The Baconator @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 09:27 AM) I think people keep glossing over this quote. To me this means that he IS actively pursuing people right now, just trying to balance it with someone Ozzie likes ie Ozzie is pissed that KW wants Bradley. Just a suggestion. agreed. It may or may not materialize, but I don't believe for one second that KW sees the roster as done for Opening Day.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 11:18 AM) Along the lines of enforcing the regulations that have been in existence, is there a reason we can't enact criminal penalties for the heads of these gigantic financial institutions who take tens of millions of dollars a year as bonuses/salaries, yet manage to lose billions in the process? Why hasn't the government gone after these people at least on the theory of breaching their fiduciary duty to their shareholders? I mean, clearly you can't go around indicting people for poor management, but over leveraging so much that everyone and their mother thinks "wtf are you doing?!" Wouldn't the threat of criminal penalties be enough to at least make these institutions think twice about what they do? At this point what's the check on them? They can completly f*** up again in 5 years and they know the government will be there with a blank check. Also, does it sicken anyone else that Obama (and McCain....everyone really) promised a gigantic change of how Wall Street does business in order to protect "main street," yet not a damned thing has been done in this regard? There's absolutely nothing stopping financial institutions from doing exactly what they did 3-4 years ago. With regard to criminal liability for business conduct, this is a difference between the US and Europe that has always existed. Corporations insulate individual employees, including executives, from losses of the firm, or bad conduct, unless it is a per se law violation on the part of that individual. Some have suggested we move to the European model, where executives have a lot more at stake if their company acts badly. Its complex. Also, a lot has changed in the financial world already, and a lot more will. Not sure where you get the idea that everything is the same.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 11:07 AM) It was lost. Nicely played!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 11:03 AM) Sorry if I count enforcement as a part of regulation. What is the part of having rules, if you aren't going to enforce them. It is the same as the parent who repeats the same idol threat 50 times to their kid. After about the 3rd or 4th time, the kid figures out the parent isn't serious. As for the second part, people aren't thinking at all of the liquidity of stocks, and the massive stock sell that it will take to get banks out of stocks. But hey, what is a 401K anyway, right? I am sure the government will come out with another bailout to cover up for their failures, again... First part - of course I agree, I was just pointing out that the difference is critical in how you address it. More laws may not be the answer. Second part - that is part of what I was getting at. But I am less concerned about a mass sell-off (which I do not think would occur, there would just be a lot of EFP's and bulk transfers going on between entities), than I am about the inability to handle risk across asset types. That would force units to use less capital in the markets, as well as be at more market risk, thus resulting in a bad combination of higher volatility and lower volumes. That, indeed, would hurt everyone.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 09:15 AM) While you may be right, it's apparent you are only right about a minority of them, which is whats truly sad. I'm sure there are a few of the 100 senators that aren't. And I'm sure there are a few of the 435 house reps that aren't. That doesn't change the fact that the other 90% of them play politics and care about saving their jobs more than they care about doing whats right for the people/nation. The problem is, a overwhelming majority of them ARE scum-sucking fleabags, and in the case of such majorities -- a few GOOD apples cannot UNSPOIL the bunch. I don't think you can say 90% bad, 10% good. I think its a curve all the way down. A few truly clean, believers, in it for all the right reasons. The next bunch are mostly that, but compromise their constituents needs to often to stay in office. Then there are some who get into grey areas, legally and morally, to varying extents. Then there are the purely self-interested ones who may avoid true lawbreaking, but overall are just sucking the life out of the system to keep their jobs. Then there are the truly useless scumbags. What % of each? Who knows. And there are subtle differences in those groups as well. Its just not as simple as some of you are making it, because these are people. People are shades of grey, not black and white.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 10:21 AM) We are wasting billions of dollars a year on it, it would be nice to get SOMETHING out of it. Well let's not get over the top here. Also, the problem isn't so much the regulations themselves, as the enforcement or lack thereof, due to problems of scope, departmental competition, etc. You know this. As for Glass-Steagall, I am actually on the fence. Not sure what I think. I mean, part of the reason you WANT banks to be in multiple lines, is that it helps their stability. That is, as long as they are using reasonably risk management practices, and properly showing risk when valuing their books. If they are doing that, then being in multiple lines is actually better for everyone involved. The problem is if they aren't doing risk management correctly, then when they fail, its a much bigger impact with these enormous firms than it otherwise would be.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 09:24 AM) I have a question that may or may not be related to this topic: So I'm engaged, soon to be married (next October). I currently have no health insurance, but my future wife does. She asked her employer (a pretty progressive, very large hospital near the loop) if I could be added on her health insurance. They said no, not until they recieved a marriage certificate or license (whichever you get after the ceremony). She pressed the issue, and said that we'd been living together for a number of years. The HR person asked if she was getting married to another woman (apparently my gender was never brought up). My fiance said no. The HR person says, "oh well that's too bad. If you were gay we could sign you up today as a domestic partner, but since you're not, we can't do anything until you're married." Discrimination? And/or just a f***ed up policy? Well, to me, anything that treats one couple differently than another (gay or straight) is f***ed up policy. I am pretty sure common law marriages should apply to you anyway, but I don't know the details of common law marriage in Illinois. It may be their policy, or it may be an oddity in the law. But I agree its f***ed up in any case.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 08:57 AM) That's like saying signing Bonds would give us the best power team in baseball. bwuh? I made no judgmental statement at all - just pointed out the interesting statistic. So no, it would be more like saying, if the Sox acquired both Bonds and Griffey, that they'd have the #1 and #1 active players in HR. Which they would.

Can't find the article now, but saw yesterday... by having Pierre and Vizquel on the team, the 2010 White Sox will have the #1 and #2 among active players in baseball, in both stolen bases, and bunt hits.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 01:06 AM) Actually, yes. And I say that with honesty, integrity, and no ego whatsoever. Now, "all" is a blanket. But I do feel like I have a s***load more ethical morality then these politicians. I'm really, honestly, sad, that you feel this way. You are way too smart to honestly believe that all 100 Senators and all 435 House Reps are these scum-sucking fleabags you characterize them as. Its ridiculous. You can take any 535 people on earth, and you get a variety pack of morality. Same goes for these guys. You seem to forget these are people, not robots programmed by evil coders at the RNC and DNC. Its easier to think that way, but I can tell you without any doubt whatsoever, that these people are not all evil. A few are evil, many are just bad, some are good.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 02:35 AM) Blue line = Herbert Hoover and the proposal of the 2009 Republican party. /discussion That might be useful if I had any idea what the Y axis was.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 07:05 AM) You're linking to a page dated October 2, 1997. How about some more recent data and analysis? That doesn't bother me as much as them looking at a very short time frame, and oh-by-the-way one which included major volcanic events like Pinatubo, Surtsey and St. Helen's. So, duh, the lower level atmosphere didn't warm. Further, what the temperatures are doing at 30,000' or 60,000' or 100,000' may be interesting, but even if those altitudes are NOT warming, that doesn't undo what damage is being done closer to the surface. It may, possibly, help slow the warming process - that might be worth studying. But its the temps near the surface that effect us the most. That is where ice melts, where freezes change, etc.

I find it bizarre that with each move the Sox make, they get a little better, and yet the posts in PHT get more and more over-the-top mad. I'd think it would be the reverse. Weird. We do still need one more bat upgrade, at DH or elsewhere, though. And a backup C, though I think we have options in house for that which I'd be fine with. What happens with that extra bat, though, I think will give us the best picture of the offseason overall.

I can't make it through a thread with a b-rye post in it now, without laughing out loud at work. That avatar is killing me.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 12:54 PM) Then why was Pods playing CF after the Rios trade? That should never have occurred and which proves my point that Ozzie will throw guys out of position in the OF. Proof? Rios played 34 games in CF for the Sox in 2009, versus only 7 in RF. And that was after being an RF in TOR and making the transition back to CF. So what is proven is that Rios is the CF.