NorthSideSox72

Greinke is good, but he isn't going to be this good all season. Not possible. Let's hope he regresses to the mean tonight.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 4, 2009 -> 07:36 AM) Elston is an excellent biking street. Should be a piece of cake to get down there timely. Mostly it is, yeah, especially since I am just south of (and can avoid) the Elston/Damen/Fullerton vortex. There are a couple interesections that are bad on the way out in afternoon rush (Armitage/Ashland/Elston, Milwaukee/Chicago), but mostly the Elston/Milwaukee corridor is great and direct. I do have to ride up Clinton/Canal from 800 S to get to Milwaukee, which has a lot of traffic downtown - but its great riding home on Milwaukee/Elston and passing all the cars sitting there waiting.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 4, 2009 -> 07:27 AM) I think Konerko was in the lineup as the DH last night right? And Betemit was playing 1B... that doesn't make much sense to me. Why couldn't Betemit DH if Thome was sitting (whether Thome should have been sitting is another discussion entirely)? Ozzie's thought process was probably something like... give Konerko a little more rest, and keep Betemit from getting rusty. Problem is, Konerko is just a better 1B on defense (and he is better than he is often given credit for as well).

Started the bike-to-work plan today. Elston/Damen to 800-ish S. State in 31 minutes (about 6 miles). Not bad for a first ride, since I have to wait at some lights, slow down at a couple stop signs, etc. Once I get in biking shape, that will be about 25 minutes. Plenty of light in the sky now, even leaving at 6am like I did. This should work great.

I mentioned this in the Economy thread, but, I suppose a new thread will do.

Obama proposing business tax changes, specifically regarding international profits and operations. He calls is closing loopholes, businesses call it a tax increase. They are both correct, really. So this means companies are less likely to shelter profits overseas, since that would risk possible tax evasion prosecution. But will some companies just pick up shop and leave entirely? That is unlikely, as these companies are generally owned and managed by Americans who don't want to leave. But will it work as intended, to keep more profits and more operations (read: jobs) here?

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 4, 2009 -> 06:32 AM) Which is impractical in today's society. The framers of the Constitution could not foresee plane travel, the internet, telephones, etc. and the need for a cohesive national plan. We should be doing what is in our best interest, not Jefferson's. I do not think it is in our best interest to run a country in 2009 based entirely on a 200+ year old document. It has to be a living document that adapts to our needs. However, conservatives would prefer rolling back the past 50 years and reverse Roe v. Wade, restrict pornographic materials, have prayer back in schools, define marriage as one man and one woman, decency on TV, less social programs. So I guess it isn't a stretch to go back another 150+ years Wait, you are saying 10A is impractical? Its the 2nd most important amendment in the bill of rights by most accounts. It is by far the most important limit on the federal government. It declares affirmative control over the scope of federal jurisdiction. Now, certainly, some new challenges need to be addressed (technology for example). But because the current law, the Constitution, makes it so... you have to prove why the federal government NEEDS to control something - not the other way around. Your suggestion earlier, saying that because something isn't in there that means the feds can do it, is the opposite of the intended purpose of 10A.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 4, 2009 -> 06:28 AM) The bench strategy would have looked a whole lot better last night if the guys who are paid to hit when it matters, had hit when it mattered. The four guys (Pods, Lilli, Miller, and Nix) that were being slammed here as minor leaguers went 4-15 with a sac fly. The problem was Fields, Q, and PK went 1-11 with 5 Ks, a GIDP, and 10 LOB. That is a good point. I still think Ozzie shouldn't run them all out there at once like that though - better to spread them out a bit more, IMO.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ May 3, 2009 -> 10:02 AM) I disagree here. I honestly don't like "football weather" simply because i'd rather see more football games played in neutral type conditions (cold and/or some wind is fine, just rain and snow aren't good) since in those conditions, the truly best team is going to win the game. As for a Super Bowl in London though, what a stupid idea, just like putting the UEFA Champions League Final in America would be a stupid idea. Football is a winter sport. If you can't win in winter weather, then you are not the best team.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ May 4, 2009 -> 06:21 AM) It was the smell of the razor(you know, that electric/burnt hair smell) and the pulled hairs out of my face that made me a permanent user of regular razors That too. And I found they sent whiskers all over the place, so I had to stand in the shower to use it anyway.

Also, I have defended Ozzie (and will continue to do so) for playing his bench. But I really do wish he wouldn't have a "bench day" like last night. I thought he had finally learned to get away from that, based on last year (he did it a lot less last season). But now its back - run the whole bench out there in one game. Not a good strategy.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 3, 2009 -> 09:47 PM) Absolutely, going 80-82 this season would be the worst possible outcome for this organization. That makes zero sense. we actually have a number of good young players this year AND some more getting ready for 2010 and 2011. If you are the Sox, and you need to be competitive to draw crowds (which is the case), then why on earth would you want to lose WORSE this season? If the Sox don't draw crowds and retain season ticket holders (and sponsors), that is less money they can spend next year. The worst possible outcome for the organization is winning 70 games, finishing last. Going 81-81 and competing all the way to the end is the 2nd best case scenario, behind actually winning the division.

I'm good with this. Nix looked pretty good last night, tore up spring training, and tore it up in AAA. And he sure did look like an above average defender at 2B. Fields needs a day off occasionally, why not keep the hot hand in the lineup? I have not been impressed by Betemit, defensively, at any position I have seen him play (and I've seen at least 3).

D Lucy: 2-3, BB, 3 R, threw out 2 of 3 attempted basestealers. Are we done with Corky yet?

QUOTE (G&T @ May 4, 2009 -> 05:28 AM) I use a Norelco Arcitec. I used some other Norelco for years before this one. I have never used a razor, so I don't know what I'm missing. About a quarter inch of your whiskers.

The only way to shave: in the shower. If you haven't tried it, do it for a week. You'll thank me later. Which of course means, no electrics, thank you very much.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 3, 2009 -> 10:51 AM) And that should be the goal of law enforcement. They should have the freedom to pick and choose which laws they uphold and which laws they ignore. They shouldn't, but in reality, they have to. There will always be a lot more crime than can be enforced by the police, which means prioritization decisions will always have to be made.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ May 3, 2009 -> 09:35 AM) i would For marijuana, I'd like to stop them too - by legalizing it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 3, 2009 -> 04:16 PM) The sad thing is though, it's going to be another bump that hits soon. It's still people trying to reinflate the bubble. Add together Congress chipping in $8000 with the fact that people are looking at how much housing prices have dropped rather than whether or not the housing prices are actually affordable, and the reason those inventories are dropping is that people are still doing exactly the behavior they were doing at the peak; figuring that the housing prices have to go up from here and they can't possibly drop more so now it's a great investment. The Alt-A resets are just going to hammer this thing. I'd wager that a majority of them are underwater. Resets worry me, but the drops in inventory don't so much. Yes there is a technically unsustainably cash flow resulting from that, but really, we're getting to a point where prices are somewhere near what will be their lows. Might be a little lower, might not, but its close enough. So people buying here is a good thing for many. There will always be some % of people out there who get themselves in to deep - either they just don't understand finance at all, or they take risks too large, or they hit some perfect storm of income loss and debt gain... some will falter. But I reall don't think this current wave of buyers will cause nearly the scale of bubble we saw before. By the way, on housing, here is an interesting thing to think about in terms of impact. In Chicago, the "typical" yuppie-type lifeline usually involves buying a condo in the city, living there with a spouse for a few years, having a first kid, and often then moving to the burbs for the better schools (and a yard and garage). This is not everyone of course, but, its a very common course. Well now, because it is so hard to sell in order to move, combined with new incoming money and tax incentives for first time buyers (young)... you are seeing a swell of urban 20- and 30-something populations in certain parts of the city. Condo sales are actually recovering faster than homes in the suburbs. And here is the kicker - they are staying in the city when the kids reach school age. What this will undoubtedly result in is a large surge of new kids going into city schools (both private and public), and from higher income families who will tend to demand more from their schools. All this with falling property tax revenue for this schools. Look for city schools to come under huge pressure of dropping spending levels per student in the next couple years. Likely will set up some big fights, politically.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 3, 2009 -> 04:05 PM) Interesting things out there in the world of data. If you paid attention to the GDP numbers last quarter, you probably noticed that the stock market jumped when it saw a couple of things, like a decrease in inventories and a slight uptick in certain types of spending. The Markets reacted wonderfully...inventories are going down, that's a great step towards recovery. There's something odd about that data...it happened at the same time as the savings rate went up. So somehow, people were still saving more but yet they were also spending more without making more money and without being able to take on more debt? How do you do that? Turns out, the answer is actually Social Security. Social Security payments took a big shot upwards last year compared to the year before...because of the ridiculously high inflation numbers driven by the gigantic spike in energy prices that ended last year. Thus, the elderly got more money to spend, and they spent it (which is of course exactly what we keep saying about how to target stimulus dollars, but that's another debate). The problem with that increase in spending is...it's unsustainable. Social Security is expected to cut back on outlays for the next 2 years, with virtually no cost of living increase for 2010 or 2011 because of the big spike in 2009 and the possibility of deflation replacing the inflation of last summer. There is another factor you are missing - housing. Prices were still dropping, but home inventories started dropping too in recent months. People are dropping prices and selling their homes. That puts cash in some people's hands, and equity in other people's hands - which creates some cash to spend, for SOME of them. A way, way, way, way more blown up example of this is, as I pointed out on this very board, the 2004-2006 economic boom was unsustainably drive by phantom home equity.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 3, 2009 -> 01:45 PM) Gload dropped a fly ball in RF prior to that slam. That's the 6th dropped fly ball against the Cubs this year, and it hasn't even been that windy at Wrigley so far. Wasn't it against the Cubs at Wrigley that Gload made that awful play in RF for the Sox back in 2004? Which sentenced him to never play RF for the Sox again? He must really not like playing the Cubs.

QUOTE (wilmot825 @ May 3, 2009 -> 11:46 AM) I think that guy can throw a strike tho Did you watch the game last night? Jose threw lots of strikes. And they were hit, hard and often.

QUOTE (tommy @ May 3, 2009 -> 01:34 PM) How is Poreda doing in the minors? You should keep an eye on the Future Sox area of the board - lots going on with interesting prospects (which we have a lot more of know), you can even see how they are doing game by game.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 3, 2009 -> 01:46 PM) The way the confirmation process has evolved over the last 20 years thanks to 2 events, it probably will almost have to be a judge. The 2 events: 1. The nomination of Souter. A guy nominated by a Republican president, who turned out to be a vote in favor of keeping Roe v. Wade in tact. Because of that guy, Presidents are now going to be vastly more careful to make sure they understand exactly how their nominee is going to vote on an issue before it ever comes up, because the President can't afford a surprise pick that turns out to be towards the other side. This requires a long record of their decision making on legal issues...hence, they almost need to have a judicial record, unless you're nominating someone who's already served in Congress or ran for high level office. 2. Harriet Miers. Bush nominated a complete moron to the position who didn't even survive to the confirmation hearings because she was totally unqualified for anything other than utter subservience to the President. What this has done has made it difficult to nominate someone who doesn't have an extensive record of work in the actual field of law, because if it's a surprise pick, they're going to be compared to her, and no comparison to her can possibly be positive. You can probably add in the defeat of Bork as a 3rd reason if you want, although I think that those 2 are the key changes. For #2 you could easily insert the name Alito and it would fit the same, except he was confirmed. That guy is nothing more than a conservative politcal windsock, which is the opposite of what you want for a SCOTUS justice.

Jerry Owens re-signs with White Sox, to start in CF