southsider2k5

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 06:24 PM) as far as offseason goes, it would be delightful for us to draft the great Jimmer Fredette. There is a whole lot of doubt to the NBA-ness of Jimmer. He could very well be a second round pick from the sounds of it.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 11:53 AM) I'll be rooting for Sale the whole year. It's not his fault the organization has no idea how to handle his situation. Eh, I prefer this option to the usual first round pick at high A ball at this point of his career.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 02:13 PM) Probably would be best to just go to a local tax guy who can go over everything in detail. I can give you the name of the guy my dad handed his clients over to when he went to the IRS a couple of years ago, if you want. Eh, there are at least two d-bag CPA's on here...

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 01:43 PM) I came in here thinking this thread was about Charlie Sheen's last house party. John Landeckers line this morning was something about hearing how much snow was supposed to be here that Charlie Sheen asked to move his rehab here...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 02:17 PM) I think in this situation its highly appropriate. I can make the moon=the earth if i just choose to ignore the meaning of words and fundamental aspects of the two systems we're talking about. Well technically they are the same if you believe the latest theories on the origin of the moon...

The Snowpocalypse Tsunami? Blizzard Could Send 18-Foot Waves Into Downtown Chicago Tonight By: Nick Carbone (41 mins ago) Topics: blizzard, Chicago, Epic, lake shore drive, life threatening, nation, Snow, tsunami, us, waves Meteorologists fear a blizzard will send 18-foot waves over the shores of Lake Michigan. Tonight's massive impending snowfall is no surprise - it's been forecast for the past week. But as the storm swirls closer to Chicago, the headlines just keep getting worse. The crushing clipper is expected to sweep through the Chicago area beginning 3 p.m. Tuesday and will linger until Wednesday afternoon. It's been called a blizzard of “epic” proportions, a “potentially life-threatening” system featuring thundersnow, multiple feet of accumulation, and gale-force winds. And now, tack on the potential for waves cresting over the shores of Lake Michigan, threatening homes and roads. (More on TIME.com: See photos of snowstorms hitting the east coast – again.) The National Weather Service has issued a “Lakeshore Flood Warning”, stating that “strong winds will likely result in waves building to 14 to 18 feet,” which could cause flooding on Chicago's streets. One of the city's main downtown arteries, Lake Shore Drive, runs – you guessed it – right along the lakeshore and could face a washout of water and ice. Add that to 60 mph winds, lightning, and a predicted accumulation of 2 to 3 inches per hour, according to meteorologist Richard Castro, and it's no surprise, then, that the NWS is deeming the storm “dangerous, multifaceted and life-threatening.” Illinois Governor Pat Quinn issued a statewide disaster declaration Monday so cities and towns could prepare for the impending mess of at least a foot of snow across the Chicagoland area, with as much as 18 inches expected along the lakefront. (More on TIME.com: See video of Obama's Chicago roots.) Chicagoans are accustomed to disappointment in the weather department, with panic over dangerous storms often giving way to tame systems. It could be that fabled lake effect or just overhype – but the Chicago Tribune casts off the naysayers this time, saying the impending blizzard (yes, it's already being called a blizzard) “appears anything but gentle.” And New Yorkers, who've faced nearly 5 feet of snow this winter, can commiserate – until the same system rolls eastward for a messy Wednesday morning in the Big Apple. (via Chicago Sun-Times) Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/02/01/the-sn.../#ixzz1CjcbSFlt

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 11:32 AM) I was actually waiting for someone to say this...because the law actually takes care of this. First of all, that 40% doesn't pay "Federal income taxes", however, they do file tax returns and they do pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, which are non-exempt. But you are correct, there is a non-zero number of people who do not have to file a tax return. The mandate itself is structured such that it is an $800(ish) tax on everyone who files a tax return. If you are exempt from filing a tax return, for example in the case that you earned no income, you are also exempt from that tax, and therefore exempt from the mandate. If you then purchase qualifying insurance, you can then claim that deduction. But, that's where the rest of the bill comes in. The bill includes a large expansion of community health centers and Medicaid, funded by the federal government, specifically to catch as many of these people as possible. There are a good number of them who are missed, (~10 million in the final version), but that's how we come up to the ~32 million in additional covered individuals when there are currently ~50 million uninsured at any given time. Which means your mandate is flawed anyway.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 11:08 AM) Let me spell out the law in more detail here and why either the mandate itself is constitutional or Congress's ability to give tax advantages on anything is unconstitutional. The "Mandate" is set up as a tax increase on every taxpayer. That tax increase is then rebated to every taxpayer that purchases an insurance contract which meets certain standards. That is how the law is written, which is why it had to go through the House and Senate budget committees; it includes a tax increase. First step...is it Constitutional for Congress to pass a bill which raises taxes by $1000 on every taxpayer? I think the constitutionality here is clear. Secondly, is it constitutional for Congress to give targeted tax credits to specific groups of taxpayers? This is of course the basis for our tax structure where different groups pay different rates. If you proposed a bill which raised taxes on everyone by $100 and used that money to cut the tax rate paid by hedge fund managers to 1/3 the rate everyone else pays, that would be a targeted tax credit, and it'd be constitutional (side note; this is actually on the books right now). Hopefully I've established that it's constitutional for Congress to raise taxes by different groups. Also worth noting, its constitutional for Congress to do more than 1 constitutional thing in the same bill; bundling 3 constitutional actions together doesn't make them unconstitutional. Finally, the only remaining part is that the tax credit is only qualified for if you purchase a product from a private company. This is the part I'm focusing on in this thread, because Congress's ability to levy income taxes is clear. If you want to find the bill unconstitutional, this is the only part you can legitimately attack. I would argue that Congress does exactly this all the time. It gives tax credits for all kinds of purchases. It gives tax credits for purchasing of private mortgages, for purchasing shares in certain kinds of retirement accounts, for purchasing fuel efficient vehicles, for insulating your home, etc. If targeted tax rebates based on private sector purchases of health insurance are unconstitutional, then all of these other tax credits are equally unconstitutional. Hence, my focus on them. This part happens all the time. If you want to find the individual mandate unconstitutional, you have to find 1 of those 3 parts unconstitutional. These judges have played games with these parts, trying to say "Oh Harry Reid said it's not a tax, therefore it's not a tax" or things to that effect, but that's not how the law works, the text of the law doesn't care about what focus-group tested slogan you use to describe things in public. It's worth pointing out again that this description is actually how the mandate works; if you choose not to purchase health insurance, you are unable to claim that deduction, just as I am unable to claim the mortgage-interest deduction or the electric car deduction this year. With how the law is written, providing an $8000 tax credit for electric cars is effectively an "Electric car purchase mandate" based on how this language is being applied. The CBO in fact estimates that a non-zero percentage of Americans will choose this route once the bill is fully in force. In the Massachusetts example this is exactly what happened, some 98% of the population had insurance, but 2% or so chose to forego claiming that deduction and remained uninsured. A massive hole in your argument is that about 40% of the country doesn't pay federal income taxes. That means the circular logic here is missing a big arc, because then about 40% of the country isn't "penalized" at all, if you buy this line of rationale.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 03:20 AM) Danks would be selling himself short if he took that contract. Something like 4/$56 or 4/$60 is quite a bit more likely, similar to Buehrle's. Assuming a $15 million open market value (and it could be higher than that) and using the 40/60/80 rule, it'd be like $12, $14, $15, $15. Or perhaps $12, $15, $15, $15 with a $3 million club option with a value of $15-18 mill for the option at the end of the deal. If I am his agent, I would use a $16-18 million opening market value, and go no lower than $15 mill, and I would try to get him signed for 5 years. I think I would probably be happy with 4/$60. If the Sox are using 4/$40 as a starting point, it'd be very easy to see why the two sides are far apart. If John Lackey can get $16.5 mill on the open market, Danks can get that or more as well, considering he has (thus far) proven to be more durable than Lackey, is (arguably) better, and inflationary reasons as well. On top of that, he will be entering his age 28 season when he hits free agency as well, so it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility that he could get 6 years with an option at the end of it at about $17-18 mill a year. That's getting into $100-$110 million range. Personally, I think that's the high end, but if he signs an extension with the Sox, it's going to be because he really wants to stay with the Sox, because he could make quite a bit more money from someone else on the free agent market. I have no doubts that Danks would get a nine figure contract on the open market.

http://weblogs.wgntv.com/chicago-weather/t...-the-bigge.html By wgnweather on January 26, 2010 9:56 PM | Permalink Dear Tom, All the recent heavy lake-effect snow in northern Indiana reminded me of a huge storm that paralyzed Michigan City, Ind., in the 1950s or '60s. Can you provide details? --Larry Robinson Dear Larry, On Feb. 15 and 16, 1958, one of the biggest Lake Michigan snow events on record buried Michigan City with more than 40 inches of snow during a period of about 36 hours. The strong winds blowing arctic air down the full length of the lake piled the snow into huge drifts, some as high as 15 feet. The snow was so deep that bulldozers were needed to help the town dig out. The area of the exceptionally heavy snow was small and neighboring communities thought the snowstorm was a hoax because skies as close as Gary were clear. Nearby LaPorte received 5 feet of snow in February 1958, much of it falling during that storm.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 04:16 PM) Feddy is going to get tattooed in that division. An ERA over 5 is pretty much a given. And in that ballpark as a righty? Damn.

QUOTE (quickman @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 09:02 PM) Hey I know this is unrelated but remember when I told you freddie would sign for 1.5 mill? I am pretty sure I was in your corner on that one too.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 05:31 PM) A few possible examples. In the 1790's, George Washington signed the Militia Act, which required all males age 18-45 to purchase a firearm so that they could be prepared in the event of calling up of the militia. Along those same lines...the Secret Service Act is a regulation of non-activity. It is not a regulation of economic non-activity, but instead, a regulation of non-activity in the sense of actions necessary and proper to a well-regulated militia. It might not pass the Supreme Court test, but I think you could easily see a lower court striking down Selective Service based on that ruling. The Civil Rights acts have in essence regulated non-economic activity, because turning away a person from my establishment on the grounds that they're black/handicapped/NSS72 is not actively engaging in commerce; it's affecting someone else's ability to engage in commerce. Congress at the Federal Level has also mandated insurance purchases in several cases, such as flood insurance at certain locations or insurance against catastrophe for nuclear power plants. Here, you'd be pushing up a definition of exactly what counts as regulatable economic activity; if the fact that some people do not participate in the health care system at some times means that health care inactivity cannot be regulated, then the fact that people in floodplains or nuclear power plants do not actively need help with floods or meltdowns at all times means that those requirements are regulations against inactivity. You could potentially re-write the nuclear power one as a requirement if they choose to sell power from a certain type of plant, such that it is regulating the sale of the power and not the generation of the power, but the law is not likely written that way right now. Finally, the way Congress wrote the bill, the individual mandate and fine is written as a tax requirement (although wasn't called that), which is required to be paid as part of taxes. You would definitely get a challenge on Congress's ability to require people to file tax returns, because the Court would be stripping Congress of its power to require payment based on responses to tax returns. I'd pay to see the reaction if this were proposed today.

For once it looks like I get to laugh at Chicago's misfortune.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 07:19 PM) It will almost undoubtedly be back-loaded but nothing crazy, something like: $6M, $8M, $9M, $9M, $500K buyout. By the 3rd year of Alexei's deal the Sox will only have Rios ($12.5M) and Dunn ($15M) under contract and Alexei's all alone in year 4, Rios has a $13.5M team option that season. That is a steal if he produces like he has to this point. Especially when you think of the teams that could be looking for SS's in the coming years.

Apparently some ORD and airline employees are getting emails and calls saying that the airport is closing 4pm tuesday and reopening 5pm on thursday in anticipation of the storm. I've never heard of that being done ahead of time.

QUOTE (joeynach @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 03:35 PM) This prediction thing is easy. Thanks to a 162 game schedule things tend to even out and the better teams win the most games in the end. 2010 Tigers won 81 games and got marginally better. Probably to the tune of about 84-85 win team. 2010 Twins won 94 games, they got marginally worse. Probably to the tune of about 90-02 win team. 2010 White sox won 88 games, they got much better. Probably to the tune of 90-93 wins. There you go it aint hard. Will be a 3 team race until eventually the Tigers fall out of it, the Sox/Twins will battle for the division till the end. PRINT IT! I'm not sure the Tigers really are any better than they were last year. I'm guessing the fall below .500

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 01:49 PM) Lindy's also picked the Sox to win the Central. I'm pretty much half optimist, half pessimist with this team. I see upside and downside up and down the roster, especially with the every day lineup. I will say I don't think we can win the division without a healthy Peavy, even if it's for half a season, and without big-time bounce-back seasons from Beckham and CQ. Of all of them, you could survive with a vintage Peavy, and not Gordo or TCQ. But all three are important. You have to expect some regression from Konerko, which I expect to be made up for by the Dunn vs 2010 DH difference. The bullpen is the wild card in all of this. No one really knows what anyone's roles will be for sure until maybe April.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 01:20 PM) The lake just dumps snow on you. Alot of people dont understand how much SW Mich and NE indiana gets crapped on by snow. Yeah, it happens to us usually two to three times a year. Not once every 20 to 25 years like in Chicago.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 11:00 AM) '98 was the worst I went through during my 20+ years in that area. I vaguely remember the 1977/8 run. I was just turned 4 years old, and I remember the snow being WAY taller than me. Walking down the side way was a dark tunnel almost. 1998, I remember well as I still worked at Lighthouse Place and those bastards stayed open despite a snow emergency and risk of being arrested if out on the streets for non-essential travel.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 12:17 PM) via Conor Friedersdorf (filling in for Sullivan) The easy solution is just steal the information instead.

The difference between us and Chicago? We have two of those 16"+already in the last month and a half.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 11:39 AM) How long until Oney Guillen airs out Freddy Garcia's dirty laundry for "betraying" his father's friendship to play for the yanks? I asked Oney that, and he called me "a delusional". I'm sure he would if Freddy talked about how bad of a manager Ozzie was.

http://www.freep.com/article/20110131/SPOR...ext|FRONTPAGE|s

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 09:44 AM) I have sort of the same feeling and I don't think it's about the indestructibility. I think you could basically say the same thing about almost any superhero film. Regardless of whether the character is indestructible or not, you know going into a hero click that the marquee characters are going to survive and triumph regardless what stumbling blocks are encountered during the film. Fans of the hero genre accept that and others see something else. For me the problem is sticking with a believable portrayal of a character that is so cut-and-dried "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" in an era that is very far removed from the 4-color one-dimensional world Siegel and Shuster created in 1938. Yeah, so tell us more about that 1938 world