NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 01:51 PM) That depends on what the programmer's stated objective is. If his employer wants him to write code, then he should write code. If his employer wants to him serve the company's interests, he should do the following -- write code when it will actually help the company, but when it is a piece of code that won't be improved by his working on it, he should spend the time doing something else that will help the company (eg, recruiting good young programmers). Yes, but why recruit programmers? To code. Programmers often spend most of their time not programming, but the actual programming and resulting software are still without question the key deliverable. If recruiting was their key deliverable, they'd be recruiters.

Look, here is an analogy. Being a Senator is a job - they do it full time (at the national level anyway). They probably only spend 10% of their time in voting activities, maybe less. So does that make voting less important than the other 90% of their work? Consider this. Your average computer programmer, working at a software company, may spend 10 to 20% of their time actually coding software. The other 80 to 90% of their time is spent on documention, testing, communications, project management, training, and all sorts of other activities. But what if we used bmags' line of thinking here? That voting doesn't matter? For a programmer, if they aren't coding, they are accomplishing very little for the company. They are failing. And all that other stuff is lead up. Its done FOR the coding to occur. Same with a Senator. All the other stuff they do is the dance before mating. Its setting the table for the real show, the real event, which is passing legislation. That is their primary job, just as producing software is for a programmer. You can't program 60% of the expected code and be successful. And you can't vote 60% of the time and be a successful Senator.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 12:37 PM) What, then, is a realistic alternative to "failure" for someone running for higher office? Stepping down while they run. I'd actually have more respect for someone if they acknowledged that, hey, if I can't do my current job and run for President, then maybe I should choose one or the other. That would be a decision with a little courage behind it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 12:29 PM) First off, no it's not the same argument. Correct, and for the vast majority of McCain's senatorial career and majority of Obama's, they were there to vote, and draft legislation. BUt during campaigns, it has been accepted that candidates can spend prior months to a big election (say, a presidential one) on campaigning. This is due to the logic that with 98 other senators, the majority of housekeeping will still be getting done, and the importance of the future of the congress, country, party is dependent on the ability of the new candidate to run. If they need the candidate, then the candidate will come back, and make an informed decision on that bill that was probably a staple of their campaign anyways. So, in conclusion, whether or not a senator running for president is there whether to hang a flag over the capitol for Secretary's day will not affect congress. So no, your government, your senators are not failing you by campaigning for higher office. It doesn't matter, no matter how much that might shock. Much like how when your governor could be running for president, the state doesn't fall into a quagmire with legislation all piled up on the executives desk without anyone to pass it. I never said they were. I said when the don't vote, they are failing me (or their constituents). And that is so clearly the case, I find it bizarre that anyone could argue otherwise. Right now, Barack Obama is failing me (as an Illinoisan) about 30% of the time. That's not a great record. McCain's is even worse, which I might care about if I was in Arizona. We elect officials, to represent our interests. Our interests are represented by way of votes in a legislature. Therefore, the single most important way for them to do their job is to vote. There are ALSO other factors of course - voting is not the ONLY thing. But it is far and away the most important thing they do. All the other stuff is really just window dressing and side shows before the main event.

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 01:22 PM) That bolded part isn't necessarily true. One could argue that they are not there to "represent" the state's interests, they are there to accomplish things that are in the state's interests. If there is virtually no chance that a senator's individual vote accomplishes those things, it may be better for the state that he raises the probability that he is elected president. Of course, once he is elected president, he no longer serves the interests of just one state. If, however, he was elected because his basic beliefs are supported by the state, that state may prefer that he is campaigning in an effort to enact those beliefs, rather than casting a vote that will accomplish nothing. Just saying, it's not that clear that his state would oppose campaigning over casting votes. bmags does have a point. I made no point about what these constituents may feel, as I have no way of knowing. bmags didn't either. He was saying that it doesn't matter, I am saying it does. I also said, earlier, that I don't entirely blame the candidates for it in this case, because of the absurd nature of a modern Presidential campaign. As a Senator, your #1 job is to represent the interests of your state (which, often, is by way of accomplishing things that are in their interests, as you re-stated for me).

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 01:20 PM) For all the literalists, it doesn't matter DURING CAMPAIGNS, especially for higher office, clearly during their tenure they need to be there so they can have credit claiming and bills to their name. But during a presidential campaign, Washington is not failing us because of the campaigns of two senators. Again, you are off on the wrong track here. That is not why they need to vote. They need to vote to represent the interests of their constituents.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 01:19 PM) Few votes will be close enough to need every senator. If they can't get enough senators for cloture, then it signals to come back, which they most always will. But during campaigning it doesn't matter if they are in Washington for voting, because, as said, most bills will pass overwhelmingly. Hence, it doesn't matter. This is the same argument I hear people make who don't care enough to vote for elected officials. They say their vote doesn't matter. Well, if everyone took that stance, then we wouldn't have a democracy anymore. And in the case of a Senator, the argument is much, much more hollow. There are only 100 of them, and they are PAID and ELECTED to vote on issues. If they don't do that the great majority of the time, then they are quite simply failing their constituents. It absolutely matters, more than any other single thing they do.

I think I might choose a picture from the softball game tomorrow, if there is a good one (or a funny one).

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 12:07 PM) From a political scientist perspective, it really doesn't matter whether they are there or not. And it can be argued that they are serving their constituents by running for higher office because their interests are better represented there. Buh? How can you possibly say, from any perspective, that "it really doesn't matter whether they are there or not". You might say that some votes on some issues are a little silly, or that you understand they can't be there 100% of the time while running for President. But I have to say your statement here is off base. A Senator is there to represent the interests of their state. And if they don't vote, they aren't doing that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 11:46 AM) FWIW, they are both below average when compared with their peers. And to me, they are all important votes. If they weren't important, they wouldn't get to the level where they are being voted on in the first place. I actually agree that its a problem, but I don't fully blame McCain or Obama for that. The reason its happening is the current, overly long format of a Presidential run.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 12:25 PM) By the way: John Stossel had the quote of the year last night on Larry King Live. When trying to discredit and poo-poo Gores idea, he said this, and I am quoting "wind and solar energy pollute too!" His first reason was a little odd: wind turbines kill birds. how does that pollute? His second was a little more reasonable, but sill silly: Well, you have to transport solar panels and the requires polluting trucks. He once said Oil Companies are Heroes: Why would anyone be listening to John Stossel anyway? Might as well get your new from Jesse Jackson or Ann Coulter.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 12:03 PM) One word: Blago Yeah, I saw the cover of the Sun Times yesterday had a picture of G-Rod in a cowboy outfit (story about his offer of national guard to the city), but I can't find that image online. That would be perfect.

OK, so here is the rare instance where I have to disagree with some environmentalists. There has been a groundswell, lately, of people wanting to try to save endangered species, by moving them. I can't find the article now, but someone was proposing an area of eastern AZ and western NM as a sort of 2nd African savannah, where they wanted to transplant a bunch of species that are being killed off overseas, to the US. Now, I am strongly in favor of taking actions to save species that are endangered... in place (and for a lot of reasons - well beyond just wanting not to kill certain animals). I am also a proponent of reintroduction, as long as its into an ecosystem that the species in question was present in the recent past. But to take species and move them to an entirely different ecosystem to save them is, I think, dangerous and stupid. You try to save one species, but you put at risk every species in that ecosystem, including humans. Look at the record we've had of doing this sort of thing. Lake Michigan is a great example - the huge failures of programs ranging from alewifes to salmon, have created a situation that took a huge negative toll on the lake in many ways. Better to try to protect ecosystems as they are, or as they recently were, then to try to introduce invaders.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 10:14 AM) I didnt think Batman Forever was that bad because I thought that Jim Carrey was more or less the perfect Riddler, but it was the start of Schumacher driving the franchise into the ground. And after Batman and Robin, you can look back and see where he was going with it. The first 4 Batman movies were a steady progression downwards. The first movie was excellent. The second had the right feel, but just didn't get it done on story line. Batman Forever (3) had some good elements (Riddler as you said, a few other bits), but mostly it was the wrong vision, wrong look and feel, some wrong actors, and tried to do too much (Two Face). The Clooney one was just absolute garbage, through and through. Batman Begins really did save the franchise, and was on par with the original.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 10:04 AM) The fuel economy thing has been a big democratic issue forever. The GOP is just now jumping on it with them needing look like they are doing something about gas prices. You set up my next question, if he isn't working with the GOP on anything of importance, how can you argue when someone calls him a liberal? That would be like me arguing GW Bush hasn't been a conservative. Heck if he is such a leader, why isn't he getting an issue out there that he agrees with the GOP on? God knows he has the whole worlds attention. Reading back the article you posted the thing that really stands out to me the most is that is really doesn't argue the point of how liberal Obama is too much, it just argues that the methodology used to determine it in this one instance was wrong, so therefore it can't be true. Those two things aren't mutally exclusive. The system could be flawed, and Barack is still a left-winger regardless. I don't think there is any doubt about Obama's liberalness. One can find a few, very few, issues where he isn't lock-step with the Dems. But they are the small minority. McCain is conservative on 95% of issues as well. But there is an important thing to look at here, with regards to centrism, that isn't about the specific issue views of the candidates. Its about their willingness, and ability, to work with people outside their views. This is something that has fallen by the wayside in the last decade, and that's a real shame. Fortunately, both these candidates have better records of doing that than Bush or most of the current Congressional leaders do. UNfortunately, neither of them have that ability as much as they say they do. I see both candidates as making efforts in that direction. We'll see how successful they are at it, when its time to ante up.

I think I need a new avy. I'm taking suggestions. Have at it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 08:40 AM) Maybe we can get Bush to be in the next "signs" commerical now? I could see it now. Alexei digging into the batters box and looks down to 3B for the sign. GW Bush is there holding a sign that says "strategery". Lex shrugs confusedly and holds up a sign that says "Que?" He looks down to Bush again who is now holding a sign that says "Evil Empire" Lex shrugs again and looks out at the pitcher. The pitch comes and Lex cranks a homer. As he is rounding first he holds up a sign that says "Muy Bueno", to which Bush's sign reply is "Mission Accomplished"

And in his first game with the Barons, he smacks 2 homeruns.

North Side resident, past and present. Sox fan. 72 has a double meaning - my birth year, and the number of my fave Sox player of all time.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 12:12 AM) A sequel and/or prequel to 300 is in the works. I'm pumped. 300 was awful. Terrible of epic proportions. It was like a cartoon of itself, without knowing how silly it was. Why would you want another one?

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jul 17, 2008 -> 06:30 PM) Then you were never a true Iowan. I'll take that.

Anyone know what the deal is with Freddie Thon? MiLB.com lists him as on Bakersfield, but the W-S box score from tonight's game shows him playing for the Warthogs. ???

um... did we make a trade that hasn't been announced? Because some guy named Freddie Thon, a firstbaseman who MiLB says is on Bakersfield, supposedly played today for Winston-Salem. And is that Dickie Thon's kid?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2008 -> 08:41 PM) "Louisville Bats designated hitter Rob Mackowiak ejected by HP umpire Damien Beal" There is a lot of awesomeness in that one sentence.

...Keep an eye open for some roster moves today... Charlotte @ Louisville, 6:05pm CT, the recently hot Egbert (2.81 ERA in last 8 starts, 2 straight scoreless starts of 7 innings each) gets the start Birmingham @ Montgommery, 7:05pm CT, Estaban Loaiza gets a rehab start Myrtle Beach @ Winston-Salem, 6:00pm CT, no starter announced yet Charleston @ Kannapolis, 6:05pm CT, Socolovich (who has been solid lately - 2.79 ERA in last 6 appearances) starting for Kanny Johnson City @ Bristol, 6:00pm CT, no starter announced yet Orem @ Great Falls, 8:00pm CT, Allen starting