southsider2k5

QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 12, 2009 -> 09:05 PM) it was mccain who cried out against earmarks and pork on the campaign trail - not obama. and i'm sick of you people who think washington can be changed in a day. how many senators would have voted for this bill WITHOUT the pork? it's about getting SOMETHING done and not quibbling over the bulls***. What a great, unintentional, statement of how flawed the system really is. Its not about what is best for the country, or the district. Its about what is best for getting re-elected. It doesn't matter what the future effects of actions are, just make sure you can stand up in front of the voters and say you brought them lots of stuff. Even if the dollar amount isn't huge, it adds up over time, and we pay interest that multiplies up over time. Saying that it doesn't amount to much only justifies the waste built into the system as a necesary evil. If this stuff is really needed, make it stand up on its own merits, instead of hiding in something that either can't be voted against, or as a bribery technique to get something passed. The whole idea that "transparency" will make everything OK is counterintuitive as well, as we can see how well that worked with CEO pay being published. Far from discouraging things, it only led to an explosion. Now instead of no one really knowing, each district will be able to see what their Sen/Rep is doing, and to be able to ask why they are underperforming the Sen/Rep next door, and give an opening for someone else to say I WILL BRING YOU MORE FREE STUFF. This isn't going to solve the problem, it is only going to exsaserbate it. If you really want to save money and "fix" government, why does it matter what the dollar amount is? Fix the damned problems. There is nothing that saids if you go after earmarks, you can't go after waste in other sectors of government.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 07:45 AM) Also thought the way it was handled was very good as well. Wasnt cheesy IMO. I've watched ER since the beginning and even tho the show has declined in recent seasons I've still watched. I've liked how they've brought characters back this final season, it's been fun. Only three more to go. Totally. I was afraid of the whole Carter dying and everyone doing the cheesey goodbyes which is why they would the cast would all be coming back. Having Ross and Hathaway doing their jobs while not knowing who they were saving was a great angle. It made it feel more authentic. We got to see each of the Docs in their own element. It was great writing, which is something we haven't really seen for a while from ER.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 04:04 AM) Guillen also said Brent Lillibridge will get a look in center field. The natural shortstop has the speed suited for the leadoff spot. What about giving Beckham a shot in center? "I'm not going to say no comment, it's not my style," Guillen said. "I will keep plugging him out there and we will try and play him in different positions. I want to make this clear - I'm going to play this kid at shortstop, third base and second base, not because I want him to be the utility guy. He's too good. "I just want him to get at-bats and keep having the opportunity to open eyes. No matter where this kid plays he's got to play every day."[/i www.dailyherald.com (Gregor) But the other teams are messed up, too. Take the Nationals — please. They've been shut out 18 times; are spending more money on guys on the disabled list or released than those on the active roster; failed Friday to sign their No. 1 draft pick (No. 9 overall) and lost his rights; have the lowest television ratings in the majors, by far — reportedly, a mere 9,000 households a night are watching; and their GM, Jim Bowden, is reported to be under investigation by MLB and federal authorities in the Dominican money-skimming case. Other than that, a 44-78 record, and the .242 team batting average, things are going swimmingly in D.C. Now on to the Padres, described thusly this week by CBS Sportsline's Scott Miller: "The '08 Padres have been sabotaged by poor personnel decisions, underperforming players, injuries, a string of disastrous drafts and, most noticeably, a change in philosophy as general manager Kevin Towers' autonomy has eroded with CEO Sandy Alderson and special assistant Paul DePodesta taking more control of baseball decisions." Other than that, and the ugly divorce that owner John Moores is going through that might lead to a mass reduction in player payroll next year, and an offense that rivals Washington's for ineffectiveness, things are going swimmingly in San Diego. from Seattle Times Yeah for Lilli in CF. If he can play there, the leadoff spot might be a short jump away.

Clean out your cache. Your computer is grabbing an old version.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 03:01 PM) I'd love to see Valpo product Scott Drew and Baylor manage a second round upset and beat Kansas. hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 12, 2009 -> 02:21 PM) Was going to note this here yesterday just as the site went down...the guest tonight on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart? One James Cramer. But that blows up the whole NBC media conspiracy theory!

This is one of the things I have been all about seeing done in Obama's platforms, and that is the turning of medical records and perscriptions to electronic format. I don't know what I think now. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123681586452302125.html

We really miss Sharp. I don't think it is any coincidence that the PK has been way down since he has been hurt. Is there any rumors out there on what is wrong and how long until he is back? It'll be nice to have Havlat back and Khabi between the pipes too, and that sounds like it will be this weekend.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Mar 12, 2009 -> 12:12 PM) I don't know about that. How many of us still refer to the Aon Center as the Standard Oil Building? I never hear that. I still hear the IBM building referred to. I know there are others I can't think of off of the top of my head. BOA is still called, LaSalle Bank building.

http://www.boston.com/sports/schools/baseb...10/teen_bopper/

Straight from the man himself... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123672965066989281.html

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 12, 2009 -> 11:31 AM) Unfortunately, just like when a ballpark changes its name, the media will all be required to refer to it by its official name, and eventually it'll get stuck. Maybe to the outside, but not here. Even after 6 years, most of the city Sox fans refer to our ballpark as Comiskey Park. It is that way with a couple of the towers that changed hands as well.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Mar 12, 2009 -> 11:26 AM) That's fine. I'll still refer to it as Sears Tower. So will the entire city. f*** Willis.

I want to see Lillibridge in CF leading off, for about a week of ST to see what happens.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=277874

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-1...0,6694088.story

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/...1883785,00.html

Grady Sizemore would be the guy who I believe would be the biggest incremental improvement to the Sox. He would solve our weakest two spots, CF and the leadoff spot. There are guys out there that are better, but Grady would do more to finish the Sox team than anyone else.

An autographed 1983 style jersey from the Chisox charities auction. Last bid I saw was $885. http://whitesox.auction.mlb.com/cgi-bin/nc...222677-55416567

Its amazing that in two months time is has gone from being OK he is a tax evader, because he is the best man for the job, to he isn't ready. http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/10/saturday-...l?feed=rss_news

QUOTE (rangercal @ Mar 11, 2009 -> 01:51 AM) I am not getting my hopes up this time. Great strategy, because it won't happen. The Bears will not pay a franchise QB. They never have, and they never will under this management.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 11, 2009 -> 08:16 AM) That's due to the way the finance industry works. If any of these guys ever got lucky in their past for being in the right place at the right time, it's really easy for them to spin it and show how much of an expert they are via becoming millionaires off of their luck of being in the right place at the right time. Like I said in a previous post, Cramer did a majority of his investing in the 80's, and anyone who had some cash and sunk it into almost any stock in the 80's would have ended up with massive gains if they had left it there. He took that success and spun a career of expertise on it, when in fact you didn't need much expertise to make money if you invested in the 80's and waited until the 90's when the market whet through a split/split/split/rocket phase. For example, if you picked just about ANY pharmaceutical company in the 80's or even in 1990 and bought just 500 shares you'd have been rich. Take Pfizer for instance, the stock cost about 2.50$ a share in 1990. From 1991 to 1999 it split 3 times 2 to 1, and then split another time 3 to 1 for good measure. You're 500 shares were now 12000 shares. At it's peak after all of those splits it hit 45$, let's just say for this example you didn't sell at the top, but sold at 38$. You just sold 456,000$ worth of stock...and that was from 1 single 500 share investment. That's the era Cramer was in. The success some of these guys had wasn't about expertise, it was about being in the right place at the right time. If it was that easy, how many people did it? You make it sound like it was the most obvious thing in the world. In hindsight it is. In hindsight I would have sold any financial I could think of as of about Dec 31, 2007. It would have been being in the right place at the right time. How many people actually did that? A large part of being in the right place is having some expertease to know that this situation you are being presented with is actually an opportunity of a lifetime.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 11, 2009 -> 07:33 AM) The Obama administration has f***ed up by allowing themselves to be drawn into "discussions" with some people that don't merit the attention. That was a mistake. But I also think that bmags' post here is right on... Cramer is worthless, he is just a blowhard who isn't good at his job. And while the exact quote was taken out of context, he did indeed recommend buying Bear stock even when there were concerns out there. I really am stunned that people here with the financial knowledge they have are actually defending Jim f***ing Cramer. Three things. #1 Its not just about Jim Cramer. He's just an easy target because of what he does. It's about a stated strategy by the White House to target individuals and make them into scapegoats. Its about taking a conceptual false pretense and using it to further your cause, like the Bush's (well and it appears the Obama's) did with "patriotism". #2 Turning one person into a reason to demonize an entire sector is BS. It would be akin to taking one guy who predicted the exact date an asteroid would hit the earth, who ended up being wrong, and using that to discredit all of work of an entire field. #3 Taking things out of context and turning them into something they aren't is cheap.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2009 -> 07:53 AM) I edited the previous point to further my point. They market themselves and sell the idea that they know these things for certain and that they can make you more money. Science (in general, every field has big egos) does not do this. Balta isn't posting here every day about where the next big earthquake is going to happen and selling you some product as a result. When I can do better than the "experts" by flipping a coin or parking my money in an index fund, it that shows that they are not, in fact, experts in anything but selling the idea that they are experts. All that proves is that the finace field has its quacks just like any other field. There are plenty of scientists in specialty fields out there who are saying that they know best and that we should change our lives accordingly. Many of them have way less evidence than what these stock pickers use.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2009 -> 07:42 AM) I have to take issue with this. No "expert" in any given field is perfect, but I can't think of worse "experts" than stock-pickers. When index funds or coin flips consistently out-perform you, no one should pay attention to a single word you say. That is different from imperfect-but-usually-accurate weather forecasts and not-fully-understood cosmology (BTW, WMAP gave us a good estimate: 156 Billion Lightyears). Stephen Hawking isn't telling you wildly different things about black holes on a week-to-week basis. You can't think of any worse ones, because the others aren't getting demonized on a daily basis. Has anyone gone back and found out how wrong that any other groups of experts are? You can talk about Steven Hawking, but the universe also isn't changing on the same lurching instant to instant dynamic basis that corporate valuations are, and yet scientists still disagree on many of the fundementals of the universe. Should I not trust science because of that? Should I never trust a weather man again because he screwed up my forecast last week? Should I not trust the theory of plate techtonics because no one has been able to predict a single earthquake with any real accuracy? I would hope not. The standards that are being held up here are just ridiculous when looked at under any reasonable light. Its all a part of the concerted effort to portray these people as evil and incompetent so that they can be punished. Stimulus and jobs be damned if it involves a bank or Wall Street.