southsider2k5

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 05:23 PM) The media folk are a notoriously defensive group, and I'm not just talking about sports. I can totally see them clinging to their spite, even though they clearly shouldn't. Not everybody's personality is well-suited to spewing PR lines, and that has nothing to do with their baseball abilities or even their community relations. Stupid media... Two words for those thinking Frank Thomas's media demeanor will hold him up. Eddie Murray

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 03:06 PM) I didn't mind the first Gio trade because he helped net us a HOF. But when we got him back I thought for sure he was here to stay. That first Swisher trade will forever be a black mark on Kenny's resume. Thank you Brian Anderson

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 04:26 PM) And stubhub prices are crashing. SRO is down to $30.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 08:20 PM) What is wrong with these people. It's not a pep rally.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 04:28 PM) Being worried is entirely different than having an enemy to unite people. Being worried about money, etc, creates partisanship. Being worried about the USSR nuking the US off the face of the earth, creates unity. In the first example I can get more money by screwing the other party. In the second example screwing the other party wont get me anywhere. So America has nothing to fear, which creates partisanship. Wait so we didn't have partisanship while guys like Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan etc were Presidents? That is just flat out not true.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:54 PM) No, it's still a terrible comparison. Al Gore wasn't calling for environmentalists to arm themselves and reload and painting targets on Discovery. It was a movie to raise awareness of the consequences of action/inaction. It wasn't political rhetoric draped in guns and combat. The crosshairs were known months before. That was the first thing in my mind when I heard Giffords was shot. It is all contexted in the potential deaths of millions to billions of people. How is that not the same? The message is clearly if you don't act you will cause people to die. How is that not violent rhetoric to tell people they will be responsible for the deaths of practically everyone if no action is taken? Even if guns aren't involved, it is still the same idea. People will die.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:25 PM) Again, at $3 million per year, with incentives based on PA's, versus $14 million per year, yes. If money were infinite, obviously not. But assuming we would then invest that other $9-11 million in other players, yes. that is an assumption I don't believe you can make in the case of the Chicago White Sox. The history between Jerry and Kenny tells me otherwise.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:04 PM) There isn't a leap from an image with crosshairs on Giffords and violent rhetoric directed specifically at her. There's no jumping to conclusions to put those things together with Giffords being shot. I don't know how you could possibly not put those things together if you were aware of them. And, once again, it's not about assigning blame to Palin or anyone else. I don't. It's a matter of saying "hey, maybe those sorts of imagery and allusions and statements are in bad taste and don't really serve to better anything." That's quite a bit different from a movie of a presentation to raise awareness of an environmental problem. It's a terrible comparison. You know this, and you're arguing in bad faith. If it is all about violent and hateful imagery potentially causing people to do crazy things, it isn't in bad faith at all. It actually happened. People are dead at the Discovery Channel HQ because of the words and imagery used by the environmental left. And lets not pretend the accusations started once the crosshairs and crap where known about. The accusations started as soon as people heard about the shootings, with zero knowledge of the situation.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 01:07 PM) I'll claim ignorance here....so women still can't be in combat?? I'll even link NPR for you. http://www.npr.org/2011/01/13/132882277/Pa...Women-In-Combat

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:57 PM) But no one has proven this yet. Everyone is assuming. Just because he didn't write it in his journal or facebook page doesn't mean he didn't plan on doing it. EDIT: And you could be 100% correct. I just don't think we have the answers yet but many people are behaving as if we have all of the answers already. If the burden of proof is really that low, why didn't anyone latch onto someone like Al Gore as responsible for causing the Discovery Channel shootings? Why wasn't there the same indictment of left wing environmentalism going too far as to cause someone to kill people for not sounding big enough warnings? In case involving far left wing nutjobs, that leap was never made. Why is now the appropriate one to make here? There was never anyone made to apologize for the suggestions that set this guy off. What is the difference here? If the burden is really that one side uses violence and scary words and images, you can pick lots of stuff out of Gore's movie, and say that maybe, just maybe, if Al doesn't make his movie, this idiot doesn't shoot up the Discovery Channel, so therefore Al Gore should apologize and be quiet. I mean after all he is talking about things like massive human extinctions right? What is more hateful than causing massive die-offs? Do you see how absurd that is now? This is all political witch hunt. The fact that it is being justified as needing to be done tells me more than anything.

How come the aim to get women into combat hasn't taken on as big of a media event as DADT?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:46 PM) Kovalchuk has always been one of the worst two-way players in hockey, but people used to just blame it on his playing on a bad Thrashers team. He gives zero effort back there. New Jersey is f***ed with that contract if Kovalchuk contributes nothing on offense like he has this season. Yeah, he is a guy who should never get a long term deal. He was lazy even without it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 10:15 AM) Unless you are in dire financial circumstances, I would avoid taking a loan from your 401k. You are mortgaging your financial future, literally. You are correct in that you are paying interest to youself, so on a purely cost comparison, its better than a car loan. But... That money now cannot gain with the market, cannot earn dividends, cannot be part of the multipliers, etc. Each dollar that isn't in a 401k now and for the next few years, is 10's of dollars you miss out on later. I'd avoid doing it. Not to mention if you lose your job for some reason, you owe that money back instantly. That applies even if you go to another job.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 06:37 AM) you don't claim any kids on your taxes? Why? That's just basically giving away money to the IRS. I think he is referring to his paycheck deductions, not his actual filing.

So I waited a few days to see if this would pass, but finally I decided that I should speak up. At least in the beginning I don't think I have made any secrets about how I felt the coverage of this event went. I found the accusations and the beliefs that somehow certain people and politics were somehow responsible, and then still somehow included in this event disgusting. It really disturbs me that so many people could point a finger before the bullets had hardly finished echoing in this event, and then feel no remorse for doing so. In fact instead of recognizing their judgments to be in error, have gone even further to continue to justify those beliefs, all of the way to the national stage. Despite all of the seeming hope, there has been no connections made to the Palin's, Limbaugh's, and Beck's of the world. In fact the opposite has been true, as all who have spoken with links to the shooter have said very clearly that he paid attention to none of them. Yet this finger pointing has continued en masse. It honestly scares me that so many people are willing to indict an entire political party, with clear evidence to exonerate them. This whole story keeps being told with the full belief that somehow the Republicans are a part of this, without having had any connection what-so-ever to this case. At the end of the the attempt at justifying the Republicans to this is because somehow their behaviors and deeds could be taken and interpreted as hateful rhetoric and be used as a reason to commit violence. I am going to say today, that I have felt more hate, more anger, and more threatened by the way this story has been treated, from the national level, all of the way down to many of the individuals right here on Soxtalk, than anything I have ever gotten from the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, or anyone else on the right fringes. I have felt like pure hatred has flowed out here in the open, and been excused for no real reason, other than the same political hatred. I feel like these fringes have been held up as the same sorts of stereotypical figures that have been used to dehumanize large groups of people throughout history. Add to that the repeated tying of anyone who sees themselves as Republicans to those figures, and I feel like people here are pointing the finger directly at me, at others here, and at the entire Republican Party for acts that we had, as has been well reported, nothing to do with. And again, remember, the whole reason people like Palin get mentioned here is how people could interpret them, and how they could react from that. Well this post is here today to tell you that I personally feel more hate being created from the reaction to the senseless killing spree. That is how I interpret the media, and the talk from people about this case. It has made my angry to the point of not even wanting to talk about it, because of the insinuations that have gone on with this. Associating an entire party with murder isn't helpful, its hateful. Its as bad as any of the other -Isms that have negative connotations associated with them, for no good reason, other than to subhumanize them. If people really want to stop building the culture of hateful rhetoric, and us versus them, forget the national level, start looking in your own glass house. I know the howls of protest will follow, but at the end of the day, this is how I feel, and I doubt I am alone in this, judging by the posts from people who associate themselves with the Republicans.

Wow, I can't believe the Yankees caved in that big, that quick.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 04:46 PM) Uhm. Actually, I'd say every female in my family the last three generations is a teacher. Yeah, they take some "enrichment courses" that come with a nice bump in pay (you should see these people flock to get their 5th masters in some totally unrelated field as well to get that bump in pay too, oh boy!). The clean-up process for the room (and it cannot be worse than my mother's room, since she teaches kindergarten) is one week of going in at 10 and leaving at 2. Lesson plans are not thought about until two weeks prior to school starting, and are often recycled. You seem to be very ill-informed on the amount of work a teacher does during the summer. Not to mention lots of that summer stuff is paid on top of their annual contract salary.

Thanks for the article. Any chance at getting a layman's summary? That was way over my paidgrade!

Why that is nothing that a doublicious can't cure.

Unfortunate for you.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 12:53 PM) The Yankees probably had the worst off-season of all the big market teams. They overspent for a league average shortstop, overpaid a lot for their closer (even though I would say most of it is deserved), and their only real addition is Pedro Feliciano. Not to mention, they lost on every single FA they went after of any significance.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 12:50 PM) That is correct. In a negotiation though, if you give me an offer, and I reject and counteroffer, and you reject my counteroffer, than that counteroffer is no longer valid. Secondly, when you're negotiating, a party is basically allowed to bluff once. If you call their bluff and they get caught, they lose and usually have to make a good faith effort to meet your request. However, if a party gets caught twice bluffing, that is an extreme show of bad faith and that is when the other party will usually walk away or actually increase their demands. It's the only manner in which to cause a detriment to bad faith in negotiations. I know you guys are saying that's all well and great, but a job is a job and you have to make a living. And I can understand that position. It's just not going to cause me to accept a position where the pros and cons come in around even. All I ( and I think everyone else) is saying is that you don't control the deck. I know they haven't been honest, but they control the work environment. Be careful.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 12:56 PM) Thanks! And it's a girl. Congrats M!

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 12:06 PM) I would not characterize refusal to accept a job offer as "being difficult." You guys have to understand, I have been trained to be a trader. I make transactions all day, every day. I negotiate every single one of those transactions. That is my job. They trained me to evaluate all available information and make the best decision possible based upon a certain level of possible outcomes and risks involved. I don't see how this is any different, and they even admitted that they expected this from me. So simply because I am not willing to accept their initial offer, I am somehow the bad guy in this thing? If they actually had the stones to fire me, now THAT would be perfect cause for unlawful termination. Secondly, just to answer the question, because it has been asked, yes, I do have other options available to me. That isn't the extent of what you indicated you were going to do.

Quiche should be served at KFC.