NorthSideSox72

For all the things we said in the rant thread that we hated, someone is the target of that ire. And I am sure everyone does at least one thing that qualifies. So what do you do, that seems to annoy people? I'll open with one... When driving, and someone wants to get in front of me (i.e. pulling out of a parking lot), I only let them in if they are using their turn signal. If they can't be bothered to tell me where they are going, then I can't be bothered to let them in.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 09:36 AM) Ugh. I realize that "BAILOUT" is the word of the day, and that it's taxpayer funded... but they have no right to tell them how to do business. I disagree in this case. You take 10's of billions of taxpayer dollars, then guess what? You have a new boss, a new plurality stockholder, some new members of the board. So you better believe you now answer to them to some extent. If this was a company going about its business without the government propping it up, then I would agree with you 100%.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 09:53 AM) So what kind of odds will I get for a TARP III and TARP IV this year. Also, Sen. Ensign was on CNBC this morning and said the Repubs would like to put a plan in place that would allow every homeowner to re-finance for 4%. Every homeowner would qualify. On avg., he said it would save the homeowner $400/mo. Now THAT seems like a good use of TARP/bailout/stimulus money. ETA: One danger though, this would temporarily slow down people buying new homes. If they refinance at 4%, they are less likely to move into new homes when they won't get that rate. Just somethign to consider.

QUOTE (Disco72 @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 09:08 AM) Regardless of the leadoff hitter debate, the team still lacks that OBP before the big boppers. Getz might be able to be one of them, who is the other? The Sox were 17th in MLB in OBP (.332) last season and 18th in average (.263). The team has not really improved on either of those two areas this offseason, depending on the production of the unproven guys that will likely be in the lineup. The Sox can slug the heck out of the ball (#2 in MLB), and that will continue to be the main thrust of this offense. It is going to be an interesting spring training with so many guys competing for jobs on offense (2B, 3B, CF). I hope some of the young guys can step up and provide .350+ OBP. I certainly agree, that outside some of the big boppers, the team OBP is pretty atrocious. Obviously, I'd love to see the Sox find themselves a CF who can put up a high OBP, but I think that is unlikely at this point. Getz should add OBP at 2B, but neither Fields nor Viciedo look like high OBP guys at the major league level to me (but I hope I'm pleasantly surprised).

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 08:51 AM) I think that having a good 1 and 2 hitter is important though. You need someone to get on base for the big dogs of the lineup. Right now we don't have a clear 1 or 2 hitter. Although I think Getz could be a good number 2 hitter. There are 9 (or more) innings where you need table setters, and after the first one, its all a crapshoot as to who leads off. You are talking about a single event in any given game, then its just as likely as all other combinations after that. Yes, you should structure your lineup to get the first inning set in a good way, and also set your lineup to get high numbers of at bats for your best hitters. But its such a small thing (who leads off int he first inning), that I think if you try to dictate your talent search based on that, and trying to fit them into a position on the field as well, you end up causing yourself problems. Now, once in a while, you have the opportunity to pick up someone for a position you need filled AND one that isn't a table-clearing position AND that person is an ideal leadoff hitter (high OBP, some speed). That certainly has value. But if you look at the Sox now, the only leadoff-like hitter available to them is Jerry Owens. Do you choose Owens over a better player because Owens has speed? That's the constraints you are working under. So no, a leadoff hitter isn't important enough to effect your talent search in a big way. Its a nice-to-have.

Fascinating. For the record, I am Catholic, nominally. But I've always been more attached to the church as a community, and a place of learning, not the dogma and tradition.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 08:09 AM) We still need a lead off hitter. I think that is a big question. I don't think the question of who leads off should dictate how you build your team. It only happens once a game, and its more important to field the most talented team you can. THEN you decide who among those are the best table-setters for the 1 and 2 spots. In order, the concerns for this team should be: 1. 4th and 5th starting pitchers (partially answered) 2. CF 3. 2B 4. Backup C 5. Final couple bullpen spots

So, Obama makes his first formal TV interview tonight, and he chose to do it for Al Arabiya (Saudi-owned) TV. Interesting choice. This article has snippets of what he will be saying or had already said (I'm not clear if it was already delivered). Thoughts?

3B (Fields, Betemit, Viciedo) and 2B (Getz, Lillibridge) don't scare me as much as CF does. That is the biggest hole in the lineup, IMO. The two holes this team needs to be concerned about are CF and the 5th starter.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 26, 2009 -> 04:31 PM) The Vice President's estate is no longer pixelated out on Google earth. You know, I am no fan of Dick Cheney (in case that wasn't obvious), but I personally think that this was not a good idea. His and Bush's properties should really be permanently obscured. Just my opinion.

Don't be surprised if, just before the criminal trial starts, we see Blago's defense move towards some sort of mental insufficiency defense.

QUOTE (Hawkfan @ Jan 26, 2009 -> 02:31 PM) Bikers on the side of the road who think they are actually riding in a legitimate vehicle. The law says they are. Same right to the road that you have in a car. And as I am someone who has ridden back and forth to work many, many times, here are some related hates from me: --Drivers who refuse to acknowledge bike lanes --Drivers to scream at bikers to "get on the sidewalk", when in fact, bikes legally cannot do that and have to stay on the road --Drivers who open their car doors on the street without looking first - and this is dangerous for bikers AND other cars

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 26, 2009 -> 01:22 PM) If they were allowed to say "We're not giving money if Blago is gov.," what prevents them from saying "We're not giving money if a (Rep or Dem) is gov.?" I don't know that there is anything preventing that, as awful as that could get. Because again, these discretionary federal funds are not obligated to the states. I think there would obviously be HUGE public backlash against something like what you suggest of course, which in itself probably keeps US Congress from doing it. I suppose that because this singles out a specific state (55 did not), one could make a legal argument that this unfairly treats one state differently than the rest - particularly since the people of that state have no control over it. But I am not sure what part of the Constitution you would use for that case. Its not 10A, so, what part of the Constitution (if there is one) specifically states anything about equal treatment of the states? I don't think any of this funding can easily be tied to specific 1A protections, though, maybe it could be used as a broad equality issue for 1A?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 26, 2009 -> 01:02 PM) The speed limit thing also popped into my mind. I would imagine (hope) that there's a legal distinction between requiring certain statues/ rules governing what the money is intended for (I think they were only withholding Federal highway money) vs. the Federal government not giving a state money because it doesn't like who's in charge. I'm not sure there is a difference. Its not dictating law, because its not dictating anything - it is a condition of receiving federal block funds, which are not obligated to the states. The federal government can decide on discretionary funding in pretty much any way they choose, as long as they don't run afoul of existing federal law or the Constitution. And there is nothing in the Constitution (I don't believe) that dictates the conditions under which the federal government can dole out those discretionary funds. Now, if the funds were about something obligated to the states - i.e. military assistance, like if Illinois was invaded by Canada - then it would be unconstitutional.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 26, 2009 -> 12:06 PM) Wow. That's pretty much unconstitutional. Here is the thing. This is a trick used long ago, and the guy who really made it play big was Reagan, under the guise of his favored Block Grants. See, the US government cannot make a state government change things not falling under direct purview of the feds. However, this is not a true forcing of the issue. Its using federal funding to blackmail them. Its slimy, but, its common. This was done all over the place to force the 55 mph speed limit decades ago, and it stood up in court. This will stand up too, I'd imagine. It seems unconstitutional, and maybe it should be illegal, but precedent shows it is neither.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jan 26, 2009 -> 11:28 AM) I've mentioned this before. IMHO, the replacement should be from the same party. I'm cool with the Gov nominating and the assembly confirming, but replace with someone from the same party. When the House or Senate are equally, or closely divided, it just adds another layer of b.s. in the replacement choice. I don't agree, but I'm not much of a party-centric person either.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 25, 2009 -> 10:10 AM) Watched Deep Cover last night on cable. That movie held up pretty well. That was shot back when he was still calling himself Larry Fishburne. Spoils of war, John. Spoils of war.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 26, 2009 -> 07:55 AM) Feingold says he wants to introduce an amendment to take the power of appointing replacement senators away from governors. Sounds like a good idea on paper but it seems reactionary to me. What do people think about the people not electing senators anymore and having the state legislatures elect them instead, the old way (repealing the 17th amendment)? I've seen people say it would curb special interests, but I don't see how. I prefer the direct vote. And as for replacements, each state should have its method of choice, though for my state I'd prefer a special election over all this nomination nonsense.

QUOTE (LosMediasBlancas @ Jan 24, 2009 -> 05:20 PM) Exactly. I'm waiting to see or hear all this hard evidence. I keep hearing it's there, ok let's have it. That quote by the way can be interpreted in so many ways, if that's the heart of the evidence, good luck. Its a federal case, which means two important things here... 1. They don't release the catalog of their strongest evidence. They only released some tasty snippets, just enough to deflect what little controversy there might be about the arrest. So don't hold your breath waiting for any more than that before the trial begins. 2. The feds rarely arrest someone that they don't convict. If it was a weak case, they may just leak the investigation and then work with the person they are chasing on some sort of deal (i.e. Richardson's current situation). If they arrest someone, that means they are going to trial or cutting a plea. And the feds have some astronomically high conviction rate. I'd say the chances of Blago getting off scott free are about 5% at best, just based on this fact alone. Add in that he is clearly delusional and went off saying all sorts of bizarre things even when he knew he was being recorded, and it drops to about 2%. Blago is going to jail. I'd bet on it.

This is awesome.

One of the many reasons why I prefer baseball to other sports is that its HOF has character clauses. I don't expect players to be saints, but, if you illegally stilt the playing field or do things to ruin the game (i.e. Bonds, Rose), then you have no place in the Hall of Fame. That's how it worked for Rose, that's how its working for McGwire, and I hope that is how it works for Bonds.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 24, 2009 -> 10:49 AM) This is a bulls*** article. The "plan" changes every day. Kind of like a bulls*** CBO report?

With that much hitting talent, worth a shot. He may have sort of figured things out, and can be coached. If not, I'm sure it was a very low money deal, no big loss.

I'm starting to think he is clinically narcissistic. He needs mental help.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 23, 2009 -> 03:43 PM) He was the most dominant player in any sport I've seen during my lifetime. Of course he was on steroids....but he still was a man amongst boys who also were taking PEDs. He's also the only player of the last 10 years that I'd go out of my way to watch bat when flipping channels. Were you not around for MJ or something? I'm no NBA fan, but, zero doubt in my mind that Jordan was more dominant in his sport than any, in any other major sport, in the past few decades. Simply put, Bonds didn't change the game of baseball. Jordan sure as hell did.