NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 04:28 PM) people don't want objective news. Not true for all.

QUOTE (tommy @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 04:07 PM) I posted a FACT which is just a statistic, have I ever blamed Paulie for loosing any of these games? I thought it would be interesting to see. And, as this is a message board, facts provoke discussion. I posted my OPINION, that aligning that record with Paulie's return is similar to some of the correlations between Super Bowl winners and Presidential election winners. Correlation is not causation.

Call me crazy, but it looks to me like Konerko is getting into a groove his last couple games at the plate. Swings look better. I'll go out and predict he's about to get hot.

QUOTE (tommy @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 02:55 PM) We are 4-6 since Paulie's return to the starting lineup. And the bullpen or starting pitching were responsible for most of those losses. Only a couple games in there did the offense not show up, and are you going to seriously blame PK for the entire offense in those instances? Or was Paulie on the mound and I missed it?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 03:13 PM) The New York Times isn't a respectable news source, and that is obvious. There really is no point arguing with people who are determined to argue that the NYT is unbiased, kind of like a FOX news defender who claims their broadcasts aren't biased. Neither knows what they are talking about. Note that I didn't say the NYT was unbiased. I said that, specifically, their news journalism (not editorial or anything else) is good, and I will say they are far less biased than what you get on Fox. If you read the actual news items in the NYT, compared to most other papers, they are simply better and less biased than others. That gets overshadowed by other aspects of the paper. But I would not call the NYT unbiased. Just less biased, and only in the news room.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 03:11 PM) I don't buy that for a second. The NYT is every bit to the left as Fox News is to the right. As a matter of a fact, its why I pretty much ignore both of them when it comes to anything connected to politics. I'll just have to disagree.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 03:07 PM) Because I never hear anything about bias at Fox News or anything... Please. Key difference there, though. NYT's editorial board and content are biased, their news is generally not. Fox News doesn't have an unbiased element anywhere in its content.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 03:06 PM) Which is, I think, Tex's point in a nutshell. If the NYT Does anything that might remotely anger the right, it gets accused of bias, regardless of the reasoning behind it. In this case, they did something that outright screamed bias. This is not just "angering" the right, like say, posting an article that the right doesn't like. This is the NYT posting an Op-Ed piece by Obama stating his war stance, and then rejecting McCain's response.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 02:26 PM) I don't fault the government for the decesions that I and the general public make. I blame them for a lot, but this isn't one of those things. While I mostly agree, I do believe that this is a situation (not market speculation, but more generally, reliance on oil) that the government could and should have acted. Sometimes, market forces can push the economy in bad directions. Reliance on a fossil fuel that was dwindling in supply is a pretty good example. The federal government should have acted, earlier and more vehemently, to push the energy infrastructure in a different direction. But if you mean the markets themselves, then I 100% agree with you.

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 12:47 PM) That's a terrible summary of what I said. There does not, again, have to be any change of opinion. In can simply be an opinion that hasn't yet been featured by the campaign. And still, they are rejecting his current opinion. Given that they allowed Obama to express his, I'd suggest, the only way to look anything like a fair and impartial news publication, is to let McCain have the same allowance. Anything less is a clear indictment of their bias, IMO. By the way, when I say "they" or "their", I don't mean the entire NYT and all its journalists. In fact, I think the actual newsies at NYT are possibly the best in the world. I am speaking specifically about whomever is making this decision.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 12:25 PM) You guys are too smart for me. This forum has 3 or 4 regular posters who work in some area of the financial markets. We actually have some real expertise here.

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 12:36 PM) bmags's point is that the NYT did not say, Change your opinion. They said, Give us a new opinion. They gave no guidelines about what that opinion should be. That's pretty lame. "We didn't say change your opinion to a specific thing, we just said, change your opinion".

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 12:29 PM) I hope, but don't expect it. Congress is hellbent on finding someone to blame, and instead of having the testicles to say "This is your own damned fault for not conserving energy at all!", they go looking for an easy target. I think it will end up pretty much like that, because this is (as one of the energy market experts quoted in the article said) a smokescreen. Congress wants people to think they are doing something. They don't care about the actual result, because that would be down the line anyway. They just want to look like they are acting on it. And by the way, I'd like it to be noted that the test vote was 94-0 in favor. That means this is a bi-partisan debacle.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 01:18 PM) No doubt about that. Yet another example of why oversight of the finanical markets is best served by people who actually understand financial markets. That's my one thread of hope here. Congress gives the CFTC a bunch of money and manpower (which they do actually need), and says, GO GET THE BAD GUYS! CFTC, understanding the markets, says, "um... OK". And goes and catches bad guys. They leave the "people who don't intend to take delivery", otherwise known as MARKET MAKERS, alone. I hope that's what happens.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 12:06 PM) The draft of McCain's op-ed was pretty controversial IMO. I can summarize it as follows: "Obama sucks and he is dumb. He doesn't know s*** about foreign policy, specifically Iraq." All the more reason to publish it, as long as it doesn't break any rules or laws. Let McCain state his peace. If he hangs himself with his own words, then so be it. If he looks good, so be it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 12:04 PM) Yup. No speculators=No liquidity, which means the markets get left up to a very few people who are willing to take delivery. This goes into the monumentally stupid pile along with Sarbines Oxley. I think this would dwarf SarbOx if it goes into law. SOX is costly and accomplishes little, other than creating extra overhead. But this would actually do the exact opposite of what they are trying to accomplish.

QUOTE (Jimbo's Drinker @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 11:47 AM) Konerko is about as good as a AAA hitter. Actually, he sucks. And the winner of the over-the-top award is...

What happens when a bunch of Congressmen, who apparently know nothing about the financial markets, decide they need to lower the price of oil? You get this: the "Stop Excessive Speculation Act". Main points of the bill: Ugh. Now, I am all for more CFTC market surveillance. They are shorthanded. And transparency could be good. But look at the two bolded parts. This is idiotic. Do they know what a futures contract is? Do they know anything about how the markets work? Without speculators, THERE IS NO MARKET. With no market, two very bad things can happen. One, the buyers of oil can't hedge anymore, so they will be subject to even wilder price fluctuations than the already are. Two, the oil producers have much more control over the sale of their product, and now THEY can game the system, which is far worse than the current scenario. Hang on to your wallets, folks. If these laws actually go into effect, and if the CFTC actually tries to do these things, the price of gas and oil will go wild, and mostly wildly up. Idiots.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 21, 2008 -> 03:11 PM) -- Wow, he's 6-foot-6. Hope he has command. Sometimes these tall guys are wild. Should be an interesting start against the hot hitting Rangers (except last weekend). Those minor leaguers in the clip are aggressive at the plate. They come out swingin. The guy has only 20 walks in 121 innings. That's a very low rate. But you think his height might make him wild?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 10:42 AM) A CF who is their leadoff guy or #3 hitter and is under control for the next 3 seasons at a very reasonable rate, isn't going to be traded to the White Sox, unless you greatly overpay for him. Considering Fields is the main chip, the Royals have Gordon. Most of the other minor leaguers are either not ready or still questionable as to what they can be projected to become. Its one thing to trade an often injured MacDougal, but to trade a cheap, effective player to a division rival and face him 18 or 19 games a year, its a different story. Not that I'm necessarily endorsing the move, but, I'd suspect that the Royals would be perfectly happy putting Fields at first and benching or trading Gload. Or maybe Gordon at 1B with Fields at 3B. I really doubt they see Gload as their future at 1B (being a fan, I watch Ross, and I think he's starting to lose bat speed, and hsis numbers show it).

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 10:53 AM) It was not a letter, it was an Op-Ed piece. Big difference. That's sort of irrelevant to the fact that Obama ran a piece, on the same subject, and McCain's was rejected. Unless McCain's letter clearly violated some rules of the paper (like it was full of expletives, or revealed state secrets, or whatever), then this is B.S. journalism. The editorial board should be ashamed.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2008 -> 08:12 PM) First, the editorials are a different staff than the hard news portions of papers. And two, in my opinion, this was the NY Times wanting to out Scoop everyone. They got Obama's definitive Middle East positions before his speech exclusively, and got mucho coverage for it. They wanted the same from McCain. McCain's editorial wasn't much different from what he says on TV, so it wouldn't have been big news, and when I say this, I'm saying it's not much different because of the way it is structured/the way it is said. The Times is looking for the "Why we are going to win Iraq by: John McCain". Big, Bold, huge talking point for every media, and they'll all have to say : McCain's editorial in the NY Times today. I come to these conclusions due to the editor clearly wanting another draft from McCain. I understand the perceiving this as favoritism, from the ill-worded "what are your troop withdrawel timetables", but I can also see how the Times just wants to sell some papers by outscooping everyone. They are one of the big news outlets who are doing well with their web site, and out scooping everyone at a national level helps immensely. And further, I'd love for the responses to my query letters to editors to come back so polite and explained. Perks of being a Presidential candidate. Bolded is a key point, and very true. That's why I referred specifically to the editorial board.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 21, 2008 -> 02:32 PM) all valid, and all true. he would have to at least admit they are crappy journalists. Rejecting the letter is definitely crappy journalism. And whomever on the editorial board made the call, I'd have to guess, has a port list.

QUOTE (watchtower41 @ Jul 21, 2008 -> 01:54 PM) Very surpised by all the hate Maggie Gylenhall is getting here for her performance of Rachel Dawes. Acting wise, I thought she ran circles around Katie Holmes in "Begins" and as long as Maggie doesn't have the crooked awful looking smile that Holmes loves to flaunt, I don't see how you could think of this as a downgrade. I thouhgt she did a very admirable job, and judging by most of the reviews, I'd say most tend to agree. I havent seen more Maggie Gylenhall bashing anywhere more but here?? You'll note that most of the bashing has nothing to do with acting. Some folks are more focused on the "looks" aspect. I personally don't care that much, as I didn't go to this movie to watch hot chicks. But to each their own.

One of Chicago's best sports writers ever, Jerome Hotlzman, died today at the age of 82. He was my favorite baseball writer.