southsider2k5

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 17, 2009 -> 12:23 PM) Really? MacDougal has had success in the major leagues. In fact, quite a bit. The majority of his career, he's been pretty good. The majority, really? It looks to me like 2003 was passible (he still had a WHIP of 1.5, K/BB of 1.88, and 4.5 BB/9 which are not good peripherals by any stretch), 2005 was solid, and 2006 was good for the half of the year he pitched. 2007 was just horrible, and 2008 got him sent to Charlotte. 2004 was bad and he was injured, and his cup of coffees in 2001 and 2 looked pretty scary as well. That doesn't really look like pretty good over a majority of his career to me, especially when you look at his career numbers. It would be a mediocre career at best.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Apr 17, 2009 -> 11:10 AM) So I guess you'd be just as annoyed if Carlos Lee was rumored to return? If they can help the team, who cares if they're former White Sox players? Rowand for practically nothing would bother you? It sure as hell wouldn't bother me. Especially considering what the current alternatives are. I'd be annoyed if they wanted to put him in CF and hit him leadoff

QUOTE (mreye @ Apr 17, 2009 -> 08:34 AM) I didn't think I was too bad until I stubbed my toe one day and said, "God damn motherf***ing f***ing s*** f***!" I try to tone it down more now. Why would you say asterick so many times? That is an odd thing to say...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 17, 2009 -> 11:11 AM) State department listing of the 16 countries visited by Hillary Clinton since she took her seat, at least until someone noticed last night and the page was scrubbed: Well there you go, the US government has recognized Texas a nation... Now they have precidence!

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Apr 17, 2009 -> 11:06 AM) Only the Beatles can claim that. I was hoping a Lennon fan would come along

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 17, 2009 -> 10:53 AM) He is Jesus. At least he isn't bigger than Jesus...

QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 17, 2009 -> 10:48 AM) And if that's the case, I imagine that he would've been traded by now. It's not like Ozzie has been a huge BA supporter. This is why I call BS on this rumor. The biggest problem is there are no CFs out there to be had according to Ozzie.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 17, 2009 -> 10:27 AM) What, no votes for the Ballpark in Arlington, the nearly world famous launching pad and sign stealing? The life outside of it sucks, though, although it will rapidly get better because of the new Boss Hawg Bowl opening up a mile away. Actually in all seriousness if they can get everything in like they want to, this will be a very nice place to catch a game in the next 5 years. There is NOTHING within walking distance though. If you drive around a bit, there is some cool stuff.

QUOTE (mreye @ Apr 17, 2009 -> 10:20 AM) We stayed in Windsor and I like to gamble. Ah the Casino Windsor. We stayed up there the second night of our honeymoon on the way to Toronto. Great time indeed.

QUOTE (mreye @ Apr 17, 2009 -> 10:09 AM) We enjoyed Miller and Comerica. I may have an in for a Miller Beer suite for the Friday game this year. (Keeping fingers crossed) I can't imagine the city experience is very good at Comerica... I know it wasn't for us!

For those who have gone to away venues to see the White Sox, what is the best combination of stadium, stadium experience, and city experience that you have been too? For those who have not done so, what is the one place you want to see the Sox play besides USCF?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 17, 2009 -> 08:42 AM) The games streak was awesome, but there are a lot of people who thought his numbers, which I agree are first ballot HOF numbers without the streak, would have been even better if he took an occassional day off. I could buy that arguement. Sometimes your body needs a day off to recharge.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 05:40 PM) I found this an interesting read. Thinking about it a little bit, the funniest part of this is the article is built around all of these premises that Obama isn't doing with the rest of the world. Embargo? Doesn't work. Invade a sovergein nation? Won't do it. Drug trade? Send military aid and money. The article sounds a lot more like Bush policy than Obama. But don't let that get in the way...

I know this was in the AL Central thread, but it deserves it own thread IMO. This is a HUGE loss for KC. http://www.kansascity.com/164/story/1146781.html

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 17, 2009 -> 08:03 AM) Well, he made contact on the hit-and-run...for once a ball didn't go in the direction of a fielder, because the SS was covering the bag. The other thing Harrelson has been picking on early this season is dipping the back shoulder, which is causing an upward plane swing and causing the likes of Lillibridge and Getz to hit the ball more into the air. Chris was looking much better in ST...but hopefully he'll come out of it. Ozzie seems satisfied with him at leadoff for now, as long as the team's winning and he's getting walks or making things happen with his hustle. I imagine it would be acceptable (to Ozzie) as long as he had a 320-330 OBP, although that's not ideal. Thome and Ramirez are more of a concern right now. As far as bigger SS's go...well, would Ripken even make the Hall of Fame if it weren't for the consecutive games played streak??? Maybe not. There was that point about 10-12 years ago when you had Garciaparra, Jeter, Tejada, A-Rod, Carlos Guillen, etc. and a couple of others all coming into the league and dominating as offense-first SS's. Vizquel is the last of the breed...until the cycle/trend turns around. But even Omar was a very pesky/dangerous hitter in his prime, much more like Placido Polanco than Ozzie Guillen. Cal Ripken's offensive numbers were more than enough to put him into the Hall of Fame. He would have been a first ballot guy regardless because he was the first huge offensive SS in baseball. The guy hit .276 with 413 homers and 1695 RBIs in his career. He won 2 MVPs and ROY, not to mention all of his GGs and All Star games. He also won a World Championship. He had the complete HOF resume without the games streak.

This from the man known as the ATM of the DNC. http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=915030&SMap=1

This was the first year since 1997 that both the Bulls and Hawks made it in the same year...

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 10:35 PM) I'm sure that many of these people who have chosen to protest have valid reasons to do it. But to say it was full of phony politics when the organizers are talking about how decentralized it was and yet there seemed to be a prominent Fox News personality at every major one seems a bit disingenous to say that phony politics aren't in play. Sounds exactly like the immigration rallies that were played up to be so noble and patriotic to me.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 05:18 PM) So I just read something on the way home, and its related. Pace (Chicago's suburban bus service) is going to start special express bus services using dedicated lanes, for suburbs - to - city transit. The first pilot will be a bus along I-55, that gets exclusive access to a lane on the left shoulder. It would cut an hour off round trip commutes, and is much cheaper and faster to implement than a new train line. I was psyched when I first read the article, and still sort of am. Great idea. But then I saw this: Because Daley couldn't get the city council to pass congestion charging for the city in time to meet a deadline, the area lost $150M that could have gotten all these and more in place right away. That pissed me off a bit. Still though, the idea is solid, and I can see it being very successful with a very small investment. Link to article. This kind of thing, little efforts at making mass transit better for more people, are just great. Yeah, I am not too upset about that loss. They wanted Daley to institute London like taxes to be able to drive a vehicle downtown. That's not a good thing, especially for a city that depends so much on tourism.

Good god I can't believe the machine has gone into overdrive with "what if's" about Texas leaving

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 03:12 PM) yea there's no way anyone was expecting 250,000 for this protest If you haven't been in the Federal Plaza before, go back and look at the picture I posted earlier in this thread. If you filled the entire plaza, you might be able to get 10,000 to 15,000 people there. Let me put it this way. 250,000 is a slow day at Taste of Chicago, and that many people still cover about 4 city blocks using the streets and grassy areas of Grant Park.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 02:42 PM) Cumulatively across the country? No. I was hearing we'd get 250K in Chicago alone. Where in the heck did you get those numbers from? Being downtown I can tell you that no one in charge anticpated anything close to that because there was zero crowd preparations done anywhere but at the post office. Anything approaching that number couldn't have taken place where it did. If there were going to be a quarter of a million people, it would have HAD to take place in Grant Park. The city couldn't have been expecting 10% of that number.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 02:45 PM) I've highlighted the key point here...you have made EXACTLY the 2 assumptions I just said were required. First, you assumed that the price of fossil fuel energy will never increase, that fossil fuels will stay plentiful and will at no point in the near future have their cost exceed that of other options. You have implied this by assuming that switching to a greener economy directly translates to higher energy costs. And second, you once again assumed no negative consequences to their continued use. No climate change, no loss of economic productivity due to air pollution, none of it. Your very argument undercuts your assumptions as well. You note that the last energy price spike caused a lot of pain. Does this not imply that fossil fuel based energy is totally vulnerable to exactly the sort of energy price spikes in the future that your argument implies we'll never have to worry about unless we switch to green power? Your entire point assumes that the switch to green power is the only one that will produce either higher prices or job losses. I don't know which way wins in the short term, whether having a greener system will cost jobs or will create jobs. But over the medium term, and especially over the longer term (10 years and 20+ years) there is absolutely no question which one is going to produce a stronger economy over all. It won't even be close. Its been pretty well demonstrated that it is going to take a huge new infrastructure to support our new energy grid. Are you really trying to tell me that you think compeletely rebuilding our entire energy system is going to be cheaper than the existing system? That is crazy. We are talking about trillions of dollars from the conservative estimates. Plus I have never said NONE of the negatives would happen under fossil fuel. The arguement was that there will be MORE costs with a completely new system. Those are two very different arguements. Your arguement would actually create a double impact. It would cause the instant end of all fossil fuel exploration, expansion and maintenance. There would be zero reason to continue it. Who is going to pay to improve or maintain those system when they know that by the time their major capital project is done, it will be worthless. Plus we still have to pay for a new system. I will guarentee you that the "green" transistion will cost more than staying on the system we have.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 02:18 PM) Fine, you want me to agree with you I can totally agree with you. If I make these assumptions: 1. Fossil Fuels are infinite 2. Use of fossil fuels produces no negative consequences Then yes, in all cases, moving to a green economy is wasteful and will cost quite a few jobs. Basically, the argument that I posted is saying..."no, you can't make those 2 assumptions." The reason I went with the free trade one is that it actually is a perfect example. A bill removing trade restrictions between 2 countries should allow the economies of both countries to function more efficiently by allowing items to be purchased at their lowest cost. But in certain sectors, removing those restrictions will always cost jobs. If Brazil and Minnesota both produce iron ore, but Brazil produces it more cheaply, allowing iron ore to be imported from Brazil will cut the cost of iron, but all your iron miners in Minnesota lose their jobs. If fossil fuel use has significant negative consequences, switching away from fossil fuels will remove those consequences, but the people who currently depend on fossil fuel production will lose their jobs. If you assume fossil fuels are infinite and that there are no negative consequences to their use, then eliminating those jobs produces a net loss for the economy. The question about exactly where the balance of job losses versus job gains comes in depends in all cases on how exactly you model the total amount of fossil fuels available, the environmental consequences of their use, and the other external consequences of their use (i.e. support for an uncountable number of dictatorships, terrorism, etc.) If you assume that fossil fuels will remain cheap and plentiful, then you're going to lose a lot of jobs in your model. If you assume that the price of fossil fuels will spike again because we can't draw much more oil out of the ground, then you're going to gain a ton of jobs in your model. That is, for example, the difference between this Spanish model and the UCS model cited in the post I linked to. Taking issue with the exact details of their model is the only appropriate, non-smear way to respond to their argument. And that is where the arguement against free trade is faulty, because it ignores the increase in consumer purchasing power from the decrease in prices. That increase in purchasing power leads to more spending in various industries and creates jobs to make up for the ones that are lost. Increase in purchasing power has been the single biggest factor in the expansion of the middle class after the trade agreements. But no one wants to talk about that. Start taking away that purchasing power, through say higher energy costs, and watch the middle class disappear. That is what happened during our last energy price spike, and that is exactly what will happen if Obama causes an artificial energy price spike with his green energy, cap and trade, and carbon tax plans. Its not the rich who will suffer, its the poor. Its not the rich who will lose their jobs, its the poor and middle class who work on oil derricks and in gas stations. The very idea that people's livelihoods don't matter is laughable. If Barack Obama really believed that, he would walk right into the Big Three and tell them to go out of existance because they are the chief destructor of the enviornment on this planet. But in this case, of course, they won't. So why is a union autoworkers job more important than someone working in a coal mine or on an oil rig, when in the end, they are having the exact same effect on the planet?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 16, 2009 -> 02:00 PM) So, I assume you're strongly opposed to all "Free-trade" agreements on the same grounds? Are we seriously going to do this? Are you against the enviornmental movement because the leader of it is one of the biggest energy users in his home state? Are you against taxes because this administration keeps trying to hire people who refused to pay theirs until they were in the public spotlight? Are you against abortion because killing innocent people is wrong, or are you for the death penalty because it is OK to kill people with a justification? Are you against the GM bailout because eventually they are going to have to go away because their product is harmful to the enviornment, and they are going to have to be replaced anyway? Do you live in nature because the use and building of homes requires fossil fuels which harm the enviorment? Or are you against the enviornment. We can go around in circles all day. The point was the study did nothing to debunk the study, all it did was justify the ends of the enviornmentalists side. That was my point.