southsider2k5

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 12:46 PM) That's not what I meant, I was referring more to companies investing more into alternative energy, because at some unknown point in the future that will be the next big thing, and you want to be the one holding the cards as opposed to the one trying to deal to get them. Or you would think. In the meantime, they have their shareholders to worry about.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 12:41 PM) Because there's very little incentive for these companies to think about their long term viability in that way. Here's the way they look at the system. They control substantial oil reserves. If global oil production peaks and oil production drops by say, 5% over the next 5 years, then over that same time, the value of their oil holdings will probably double or more...if they can keep selling it. They are plenty viable even in the middle to long term as oil production declines, because the decline in oil production is going to continue forcing a skyrocketing of their profit ability. Here's a more detailed summary/case study. The only thing that would short-circuit this effect, where the value of their holdings continues to go up and forces their profits higher and higher is a genuine transition in the energy markets to some other source of energy or to an economy that rapidly is cutting its consumption of oil. Like I said, if there is REALLY money in this, someone will invest in it. There are private equity companies that exist just for finding investments. They don't care about what they make money on, as long as they make it.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 12:35 PM) Sort of a catch-22, because in a perfect world the businesses would take these initiatives on their own. My thinking is this though, if the companies are thinking ahead about their long-term viability, why WOULDN'T they? The answer is obvious to me, there isn't enough money in it. Forcing them to do so would be akin to me saying to you that you have to quit your $100k a year job doing what you want to do, to a minimum wage job working at the soup kitchen, with the possibility of being able to make money later if it is profitable.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 12:17 PM) No new technology is profitable straight away. Its always an investment for future profits. But in this case, with these companies making gobs of money on oil, why should they bother investing for a good future when they have an excellent present? This is why the gov't need to incentivize the smaller and non-oil companies into taking the leap. I have a lot less of a problem with this. I just have never really agreed with forcing people and companies to do things for moral reasons. Using that same kind of logic, I could make an arguement for compulsory military service. Does anyone really want to see that? I know I don't, and it is for the same consitutional reasons that we can't force it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 11:30 AM) But the problem with that concept is...why then do they not, um...act like energy companies and start investing in alternative energy technologies, research, construction, etc. so that they can survive for the future? If they want to invest that money in something, spend $20 billion building solar thermal energy plants out in the Mojave. The technology is already there, dumping significant amounts of money in to it will only drive the cost per watt down, and suddenly they'll have a competitive industry for the next 20 years instead of holding out as the valueof their oil reserves screams upwards. The other side of that coin is, why should they have to? Its their profits, they can spend it how they want. If this other stuff really is this profitable, there will be plenty of private equity dollars flying at these projects. No one is forcing any other groups to do specific things when they have record profits. In the end, they will do what is most profitable, which is exactly how business should behave in the United States.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 11:08 AM) Agree, and there is a big reason why that I don't even see GOP opponents getting into yet. Think this through. The tax law goes to be signed. I can guaran-damn-tee you that the oil companies will do the only smart thing in response - lower profits. How, you might ask? Simple - put the cash in places where it isn't profit... pay down debt, invest in hard assets and infrastructure, hold inventories longer... anything they can to keep the value outside of true profits from a balance sheet perspective. So guess what happens then? The net tax revenue received from these companies doesn't go up at all. The tax is thus rendered pointless. I posted an article a while back about how this sounds good in theory, but in practice it doesn't really work. Oil companies are having a hard time finding things to invest in. Its not like there are a ton of oil fields to go explore anymore. There isn't the incentive to build things like new refinaries, because of the costs of legal fights and alternative energies making the investments possibly obsolete. All a windfall profits tax will do is result in higher prices to consumers. Even if they try to hit them, they will pass it on another way.

http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/0...er-second-term/

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 10:18 AM) But on the other hand...how do we know it won't work for him long-term? If he was struggling with some particular type of pitch, this little change might help him get that, but it might just take him a little while longer to adapt to the new positioning. If they did. Fine. If they didn't, that's fine too. The silly idea that keeps getting repeated here that Greg Walker is telling these guys to hit like this is insane. If you ever listen to Walk talk, all he talks about is up the middle and the other way. I have yet to see a single player or Walker ever come out and say that they are told to "lift and pull" or any variation there of. The assumption that the Sox staff is a bunch of idiots whose fans are smarter than they are is ridiculous. There is a reason they get paid what they do, and we watch the games on TV.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M...DY5NzQ0MzJlY2U=

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 09:24 AM) In 2004 I co-hosted election night coverage on a radio station in Chicago. I went OUT OF MY WAY to stay fair and look at all the angles on all the stories. As a journalist, it was my responsibility to be fair and report all sides. Of course I was pulling for Kerry in my private life, but publicly it was fair. So, dont judge unless you know the full story. I am judging by what I see here, and I have seen zero effort, at all, to be fair and balanced, let alone consistant. I see everything that is disagreed with mocked and dismissed, all of the while expressing outrage when the samethings are done to someone you support. Maybe if you posted like that, it wouldn't be so easy to judge. If you really don't like that, there isn't much that I can do about it. Its kinda hard to take that post seriously when you post stuff mocking McCain and Hillary all of the time.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 09:05 AM) I'm not a member of the national media claiming to be fair and balanced. And I shouldn't be singled out with regards to going to the other party's "only" threads. You do it yourself quite often. Ah, its different for me... I see. I picked up posting in the other threads when the mutal respect when out the window. See, it's different.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 08:37 AM) I don't understand your point. You are condoning their behavior because "perhaps" a liberal called Michelle Obama "Obama's baby mama"? How can you condone "terrorist fist jab" with a straight face? I think it is ironic to look at yours and AHB's avys, while expressing outrage over this with a straight face. The least you guys could do is show a little consistancy. Just like when you all talk about the negative reports about other candidates not working, yet spend half of your time on here posting negative stories about McCain and prior to that Hillary Clinton. Then to top it off, going into the other parties "only" threads to do it. That is pretty gutsy to call other people on the stuff you are doing IMO.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 07:23 AM) Lets say that Q changed it himself. Wouldnt someone say, hey Q you have started to struggle since you moved away from the plate. Maybe you should move closer to the plate. His early success was the ability to cover the plate, his hands are quick enough to get around on pitches inside. Now it seems that he can't get solid wood on away pitching. Which is odd, because throughout the minors he was known as a good away hitter who takes a lot of pitches. In fact Kenny himself said that you can tell when Carlos was healthy because he would start to drive the ball to right field with authority. Also it seems he is not taking as many pitches, and is putting earlier pitches into play. These two changes are large enough. His early success was all about working the count to a hitters count, and then using plate coverage to put the ball in play. Over the last week I see a guy pulling off the ball, and swinging early in the count. It doesnt matter who made the change, its time that they rectify it by getting him back to what he was doing with early success. Tinkering with success is stupid. Who has said that the team DIDN'T tell him that?

QUOTE (VAfan @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 07:07 AM) From the Trib today: Konerko rests Manager Ozzie Guillen said Paul Konerko needed a break, so he didn't start his first baseman Wednesday night and will have him fulfill the designated-hitter duties in Thursday's series finale at Detroit. "Besides that, the last couple of weeks he has maxed out mentally about hitting and needs to shut it down for a couple days," Guillen said of Konerko, who is 8-for-21 but still is batting only .217. Guillen downplayed the fact that Konerko is 3-for-24 lifetime against Detroit starter Justin Verlander. "I just look at how the player feels," Guillen said. "Right now it starts warming up and it gets hot and humid. You'll see bench players get more playing time." **************** I just want one of those bench players to be Josh Fields instead of Pablo Ozuna. With Fields, instead of a step down, we might even get some stepped up production on those rest days. He certainly hits lefties better than Joe Crede is doing this year, and better than Jim Thome has done over the last three years. Konerko, meanwhile, is still hurt. The team is better with Brian Anderson in CF and Swish at 1B than with a Fields variation in the line up.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 07:32 AM) There's a nice Crowne Plaza in Greektown. Maybe you could get a hotel deal at Priceline. I couldn't believe they are converting two buildings to hotels in the west loop, one of them is a luxury Mariott.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 12, 2008 -> 07:42 AM) His ENTIRE base? If you count the many lefty blogs as part of his base, you had the kids over at Koz making fun of McCain's teeth. Teeth which were knocked out while a prisoner. There were similar posts up at Huffpo, but those got pulled off. This whole political cycle is getting to be too much. Heck, there is similar stuff being done here...

Next time you are up here, remind me to take you to Greek town, its just the other side of the Kennedy from downtown.

37-28 +5.5 games

With Alexei getting a 5 million dollar major league contract, and Conteras getting $32 million a long time ago, what should we expect from this kid? $10 million and a trip to the minors?

QUOTE (knightni @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 10:22 PM) I know, but it just strikes me as ballsy that he has the gall to use a whole section of the White Sox topic on a crosstown rival, simply because he's a fan. They wouldn't take 2 minutes out of a 5 minute Yankee topic to ask about the Mets. To be fair, the guy worked in the Cubs organization for a really long time. Its not like he is asking Hawk about the Cubs chances.

What a great quote, not only for young pitchers, but hitters as well. They have to learn how to be major leaguers, and how to be successful.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 02:15 PM) I really doubt it. Blago is a tool. He doesn't get along with either the state Democrats OR Republicans. My impression is that people don't really like Rich, they deal with him because they don't have a choice.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 01:42 PM) Say what you want about Daley, and there is plenty to say, but he gets things done. Like I said, if Blago has a rubberstamp legislature, he would get stuff done too.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 01:17 PM) There is a key difference there... Daley = corrupt but effective Blago = corrupt and ineffective That's the Chicago way, nowadays. You can be crooked, if things get done. Daley did a ton to put Chicago where it is today, as a world class city. That said, now that the city is seeing such major problems with infrastructure, the Block 37 debacle again, etc., I think Daley starts to become less invincible. Maybe it is being an outsider, but the big difference I see between the two of them is one of them has a puppet legistlature. I think if Blago got to do half of the stuff that Daley gets to do, he'd be more "effective". The other difference is that Richie has no powerful enemies like Mads.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 01:18 PM) OK, but there have been increases in inventories in gasoline and distillate fuels. Where is the lower inventories coming from? Is it coming from the refiners themselves - seeing slackening demand? Or is it because refining production shrank over the last month marginally? Or is it because of genuine usage increases and less supply? Crude is the big number they go off of, because that is where the distillates come from. Inventories in general have been shrinking for a while now, not to mention the secondary factors like demand not slacking off as much as has been expected, especially in the far east.