NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 29, 2009 -> 04:40 PM) If anything it created a very small and temporary sugar high. The basics of the economy are still messed up. The stimulus spending wasn't worth it IMO, didn't get real results. Still hard to say on the stimulus money at this point. If by fundamentals you mean employment, and credit position among consumers and businesses, then I agree that things are still very messed up. I think the bounce we've seen in some areas - housing, consumer spending, consumer confidence (though that corrected down recently), GDP - are indicative of things stabilizing. SS2K5 might call that a dead cat bounce, though that may not be the most accurate description here. I'm sticking with what I've said in recent months. The key is employment and housing. If the UE numbers stay near where they are or rise a little more, then I think we'll keep our footing, and see real growth in 2010, though slowly. And while housing will probably fall back a bit off the temporary bump we've seen, as long as it doesn't dip significantly below where it was in August-ish, I think that's an OK sign as well. Those would indicate to me that we're not likely to see a double-dip. My biggest LONG term concern remains that we are spending a ton of tax money in the wrong places. These are not good long term investments.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 30, 2009 -> 09:40 AM) The "stimulus" spending is not "stimulus" because it doesn't go to the right places. Well, I agree it went to a lot of the wrong places, but that doesn't make it less of a "stimulus", it just makes it less sustainable, and less valuable in the long run.

Most universities fall into the category of having some areas/departments/facilities that are world class, and others not. There are a very few - Ivy League, MIT, Cal Tech, and maybe a few others - that are truly what I'd call "world class" across the whole school. And I'm not even sure that's fully true with those schools. Then of course there are some that are just not there, at all, in any department. Basically, it all depends on what you want to get out of a school - your department, your facilities, etc. To be honest, I didn't think UIC was top tier in much of anything, but then I also admit I know very little about the school. Reputation-wise, nationally, UIC isn't exactly a name people banter around. In Chicago, they'd usually think of U of C, or Northwestern, as the elite schools. Then UIC, IIT and DePaul among the next "tier".

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 29, 2009 -> 03:28 PM) From what I understand, Mitch Daniels is a f***up of epic proportions. He's simply shifted the tax burden from the state to the local municipalities and therefore has cooked the books on the so called surplus. I was wondering how it would be possible to make that dramatic a shift in such a short period of time. Even with a cooperative legislature, that level of fiscal turnaround success would be unheard of.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 29, 2009 -> 03:11 PM) Businessweek has a really intersting article about the GDP 'increase'. Seems compaines are selling out their future for a quick buck. Not a good sign. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...54034724383.htm This is what 90% of American businesses do, and have done for a few decades. It is, unfortunately, the common model, and its part and parcel with the way executives are compensated.

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 02:50 PM) Whose to say those perks weren't contractually included in the gig? I'm pretty sure the marriage gig didn't contractually obligate $331-$448k per MONTH for the rest of her life.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 29, 2009 -> 11:57 AM) He's been pretty full of s*** on the "transparency" thing too. yes he's made a few token steps but nothing really meaningful. He did a few good things in that realm very early on, then just stopped cold.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Oct 29, 2009 -> 11:53 AM) That was my thinking also. Too many people propose moving Alexei to 2nd and Beckham to short/ 2nd . We saw improvements in Becks and Alexei toward the end of the year . They WILL be playing 3rd and SS end of story. Better D improves an already very good starting staff and could lower a team ERA by .50 to 1.00 as evidenced by the improvement the Rangers made. Think of all the doubles and triples run down by a Rios and Morgan in the outfield together instead of Pods and Dye. Suddenly Linebrink , Pena and other members of the bullpen get better without making a trade. Defense is vastly under rated when talking about improving a team. Am I the only one who was HOPING for Alexei to improve defensively but saw him just be the same? I must be nuts or something. I saw no improvement.

QUOTE (qwerty @ Oct 29, 2009 -> 11:27 AM) As i said, we need arms in the pen one way or another, i don't care how they are acquired. I would also say relievers in general are a crapshoot, bullpens as a whole do not have to be. There are many relievers around the majors that you know pretty well what you are gonna get year in year out. That is not to say those relievers cannot have a down season here or there. The key is finding those consistent relievers. A team cannot go into a season having almost everyone in the pen a question mark, and hoping they live up to their potential. It rarely works, and if and when it does, it doesn't last exceptionally long. A good bullpen is a key, making a game practically over after 6-7 innings compared to 9 innings is a nice luxury to have. The angels and twins have been doing it for years, among others. I'm not saying it's easy, but it can be done. I agree that a solid bullpen is key, I was really jsut trying to make the point that going out and spending money/prospects on big name relievers isn't necessarily the way to do that. There are some consistent, successful relievers to be had, but they are rare and expensive. Of course, I also think that Jenks will recover nicely in 2010, but I think I'm in the minority there. Linebrink almost has to be better. Pena I am not sold on though. I think we try to go get one, consistent, lefty specialist. Jenks to close, Thornton and Linebrink* to set up, and fill the rest with Hudson, Carrasco, Pena/Nunez and the acquired left. I don't see the lefty as a big time acquisition, just a specialist. Linebrink is likely to have a solid first half IMO, at least, and then you can think about other moves if he falls off. Mind you, if we can get a solid setup guy to replace Linebrink this offseason and offload Liney's salary somehow, I am all for that. I just think its going to be really hard to do. My priorities for this offseason, if I'm KW: --DH --1 OF --Lefty reliever --Setup guy The first two being most important, the bottom two being lesser priorities.

QUOTE (whitesoxbrian @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 09:13 PM) What teams have the best helmets in the NCAA? Here are my nominees, in no order: Texas USC Penn State Ohio State Florida State Notre Dame Miami Oklahoma Notre Dame has to win this one easy. Hard to argue with the classic. Maybe Penn State could make a contest of it.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 29, 2009 -> 11:16 AM) No but you're making up your own definition of what that means and going with your own expectations of what could be reasonably accomplished (which, somewhat predictably, is an impossible standard). There is absolutely no way possible for any politician to completely ignore their donors, and example the article I mentioned brought up is 100% legal. As long as we're not talking about a flat-out quid pro quo, which is probably illegal, there really isn't a problem. I'm not going to waste my time getting indignant about it and I'll save that for when Obama actually does f*** up or tell a bald-faced lie and in the meantime I'm going mock people who contribute to irrelevant arguments. An example of him truly breaking a promise is on the "no lobbyists in the administration" thing. Another one was the telecom immunity.

QUOTE (qwerty @ Oct 29, 2009 -> 10:31 AM) Our starting rotation is clearly set, something that not many teams, if any, can match, as it stands at this point. A good dh is absolutely vital to the white sox success. I would argue we need to above average bats to come in this off-season plus at least two arms down in the pen. Konerko will likely never hit much more than 30 in a season again. As far as i am concerned quentin is nothing more a question mark, we cannot bank on his 2008 numbers, as much as everyone here wants to. A happy medium of his 2008 and 2009 season is much more realistic. We lack any legit thunder in the line-up at this point. Replacing dye and thome's production is gonna be quite the task, what they have done while playing in chicago has been taken for granted. How many people in the pen is anyone exactly confident to get outs on a consistent basis? If you add them all up, you may come to about two and a half. Very big problem we have in regards to the bullpen as it stands. There is a reason there is a strong correlation to a good bullpen and in season + post season success. Unless the sox starters go 7+ all season long while limiting the opposition to 3 or less, we would be in just fine and dandy shape. Too bad that is just not gonna happen. Kw has a lot of work to do this off-season to field a championship caliber team, which i cannot see done without four players brought in one way or another (hudson in the pen would drastically help... potentially that is). Bullpens are such a crapshoot though, I would be loathe to spend big bucks on 2 bullpen arms. I'd be more likely to want one new one, and work within what we have in-system for the rest. But I agree fully on the bats. DH needs to be high priority, probably higher than any other single thing. We need to add power in the OF as well. The IF will provide an above average amount, I think.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 29, 2009 -> 10:18 AM) They are awesome. From auto insurance to banking. I was fortunate to marry the daughter of a marine, so we have USAA and they are indeed awesome.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 29, 2009 -> 09:40 AM) Again, then don't promise differently when you are running for President. Everyone who dared question these type of statements was mocked during the election cycle. Now that these stupid promises are getting broken, we get mocked for mentioning them. This is not a broken promise of any kind. You are directing your ire in the wrong place. Now, Obama HAS broken promises - but he's not doing that here.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 03:22 PM) honestly all jokes aside, I really believe something like that was going on. If their laptops were confiscated, they could probably piece together some idea if they are being honest about working on them at that time. I personally think they fell asleep.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 02:14 PM) I brought my friends out to Colorado for a trip a few years ago and some got sick because of this altitude myth you speak of -- I call it a myth, because I did not experience it. I'm a seasoned hiker/camper/fisherman, however, and when we arrived in Colorado and drove up into the mountains, we parked and proceeded to walk a switchback 2 miles deep/up the mountain, which ended up being 2100 feet of climb. I was careless and I'm glad nothing bad happened, because I forgot those unaccustomed to it are not supposed to ascend more than 500 feet PER DAY on foot. Here I am having them go 2200. :/ The key to acclimating to altitude is sleep. I've seen different numbers, but what I go with is, do not sleep more than 1500 feet higher than the night before. And, make sure before going on a serious hike, that people sleep at some degree of altitude beforehand - in other words, don't fly from Chicago, get off the plane, drive to the trail, and hike up to 12k. Probably not a good idea. Sleep is when the body acclimates. If you ever wake up in the middle of the night in a tent with other hikers, especially the first few nights at high altitude, you may hear them going through periods of apnea, and Cheynes-Stokes (sp?) respirations. That is the body adjusting. And altitude illness is an odd bird, in that it doesn't effect people more or less often based on anything you'd think, like physical conditioning. Its seemingly random (as far as we can tell without chemical study). Its also made more complex because it dovetails in far too well with other common conditions you'd suffer in that environment, like hypothermia, hyperthermia, exhaustion, dehydration, etc. Its almost never one of those things, its some combination, which makes it harder to work with.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 01:29 PM) Oh yea. The place I worked at has the molecule for the paste stuff horses were given for deworming. A little dripped down the side of the horse one time and it cleared up a skin condition. So, the company bought it, and now they're releasing a psoriasis/rosacea drug next year and the clinicals are pretty good on it (as of last year anyway). There are some other molecules that were for eye drops and it also cured skin conditions around the eyes that they are looking at as well. The primary medication to address altitude illness, Diamox, was originally created to treat cataracts. I once went to a doctor to ask for a prescription for it (spending 2 weeks at high altitude), and she looked at me like I was nuts, before asking if I have eye problems. Fortunately, I brought with me some write-ups from NOLS and the Wilderness Medical Institute, then she grabbed another doc and did some interwebbing, and then came back to OK it. I actually taught the docs something that day (admittedly, these were doctors in Memphis, TN, so I doubt they got many patients who were concerned about altitude illness).

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 12:21 PM) FYI, the stuff now marketed for the eyelashes is just a glaucoma medice that has been repackaged since the eyelash thing was discovered to have been a side efeect of the glaucoma fighting abilities of that medicine. So no, they didn't invent that just for eyelashes. Its amazing how often that happens - invent a drug for one purpose, find it works as well or even better for some other purpose.

QUOTE (Wanne @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 12:10 PM) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4601465 Also noticed at the bottom it said the Dodge have the most potential FAs with 16. Why on earth would you appoint your wife as an executive in the first place. Did McCourt get his money from her? What a mess this is gonna turn out to be? The eye-popper: Seriously?!?!

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 11:54 AM) L o o k A t I t C l o s e r OMG that is awesome

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 11:48 AM) http://gov.ca.gov/pdf/press/2009bills/AB11...eto_Message.pdf I see nothing in any left column. What did I miss?

QUOTE (G&T @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 11:43 AM) That's uncalled for. I'm not attacking you. And based on Gage's comment, I'm not going to continue the conversation. I really wasn't attacking you, I am saying you won't get it - meaning, you won't see my perspective. Which is fine. I was just stating an opinion on this topic, but not everyone understands or agrees with my viewpoint. That's all.

QUOTE (G&T @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 09:09 AM) Yes and all you are doing is calling people unclassy for making comments about a girl's appearance. And all I'm asking is, why is she owed class from anyone? QUOTE (G&T @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 10:25 AM) I'm not saying the comments are "classy." But there are circumstances where a person deserves better, and others where I have no real sympathy. Look, when SNL ripped David Paterson for being blind no one here, besides me, seemed to care. I thought it was wrong. Classless comments have a tendency to be funny. To me, and to most, there is a line where such comments are just aren't funny and are just wrong. That line can vary for everyone. That's why I ask, why does she deserve something better? What line has been crossed? If people have reasons, then let me know. So far, all I know is that by comparing her to Meg Griffin, I'm classless, and insecure. No, I just thought it was funny. Still missing the point. If you read my post, you'll see why. I specifically said, I don't feel bad for this particular woman, at all. I also specifically said she acted stupidly. Further, I said I don't care if people comment on appearance in the general sense. So, knowing all that, which I have stated again, let's see if you can figure out what I said I did NOT find OK, and felt the need to point out. If you can't see it, then the conversation is over, because you aren't going to get it.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 08:22 AM) Ahh, boys will be boys...I don't think we're going to stop a bunch of guys from talking about whether she is attractive or not...men have been having these sort of discussions since speech began. I think what NSS posted is true, but I think it is also convenient to sleep with a woman like he did because he can do it without having to wine and dine her out in public. It's pretty difficult to cheat on your wife when so many people recognize you out in public. Either way, I am disappointed this happened, as I am a big fan of Phillips...but hey, who am I to judge... Oh I don't care about guys posting about such-and-such is hot, or someone else is hotter, etc. That's human nature. But there is a difference between that and what has been said here. That's all I'm saying, on that topic.

QUOTE (G&T @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 07:47 AM) Why is girl owed classy comments? She knowingly had an affair with a married man. Joined Facebook and secretly talked to his kids to find out intimate details about his family. Went to his house to leave the infamous note to tell his wife how unhappy he is in his marriage, etc. She's bats*** crazy and is not innocent in this. If people were making negative comments about Phillips' wife then I'd understand. But frankly, I don't understand why people have to be "classy." And by the way, he is now going to rehab for "sex-addiction." Did you actually read my post?