southsider2k5

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 08:30 AM) Really? I haven't checked the news sites yet this morning, so I hadn't heard that. Which video question was a plant? Was it the gay General? It had to do with gays in the military, and I think the story is even up on drudge now. Bill Bennet busted CNN out on the after part of the debate where they were talking to the six critics about what they thought of the debate.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 08:17 AM) What, no mention of the fact that CNN let a Hillary operative ask one of the video questions, and be in the audience for a followup question? And CNN claims they didn't know who he was? 5 minutes on Google could have told them that. Anderson Coopers reaction to Bennent saying that was hilarious. "uh, uh, well, uh, if we would have known.."

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 07:27 PM) Someone explain to me why the WRITERS would be striking a DEBATE. I simply do not see them as related. Do you think the candidates think or talk for THEMSELVES? Of course they need their writers

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 08:04 AM) Rudy's method for cutting spending - simply cutting all agency budgets by 5 to 10% - is counter-productive. That's why businesses don't do that unless they are going bankrupt or something. Think about what doing that would mean... for lousy agencies, they are STILL lousy, but with 10% less money to spend. For agencies that are providing critical services in a solid way, you just ensured that the people using those services will get 10% less of it. Its not exactly lose-lose, but I'd call it break even-lose. Instead, I'd rather see what Thompson recommended - via the OMB or consulting firms or whomever, target the agencies that are most wasteful. If they are SO wasteful that they fail entirely, just axe them (and, I'd add, perhaps re-think and re-implement the intended service via other methods). If they are somewhat wasteful, then clean house or cut budget. Don't penalize everyone for some people's failures. I know some people on here aren't going to like to hear this, but governments, but their very nature, are the most wasteful form of commerce out there. There is absolutely no incentive to be effecient, because they answer to no one. Knock the private sector all you like, but they have stockholders and investers to answer to, and if a company isn't preforming to par, they will remove those problems. In government it is the opposite, the longer someone has been working, the more entrenched they become, and the easier it is for them to do a bad job. Without a profit motivation, there is simply no way to force employees to work hard, because they don't fear losing their jobs. Now say if you came up with a system that fired the bottom preforming 5% of employees in an agency annually, and gave bonuses to the top 5%, maybe that would change, because at least there would be a carrot and a stick involved. The candidates can talk all they want, but without involving the private sector, or some other real world incentive/decentive, the preformance of government is going to be ineffecient.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 10:07 PM) NSS will tell you that things are just rosey. At this point, I'd say it's better then a 50-50 shot at a recession. I would say the odds are way worse than you think. I would say there is about a 10% chance of a recession, simply because the export #'s are almost exactly replacing the losses in the housing market. The economy will suffer, but I don't think we will ever hit the technical definition of a "recession".

http://www.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...sp&c_id=cws

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 07:12 PM) I was surprised by something I just heard on ESPN news, it was just a lead-in to a Tim Kurkjian piece but the anchor says "the usual big spenders are taken a look at Santana with the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox, White Sox and Angels are reportedly putting together packages for the 29 year old left hander." I know it means absolutely nothing at all and the Sox really don't make much sense as a possible suitor for Johan (in the same division, lacking a big time pitching prospect, starting pitcher looking for a 6+ year deal) but it was just odd to hear the White Sox mentioned. Interesting. I wonder if a 3 way deal is in the works?

QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 09:25 PM) Ok, great. And what does that have to do with it being November vs. April? Does anyone remember all their proclamations from around the time Buehrle re-signed? After just about everyone here was sure he wouldn't? Not to mention all of the sources who said Hunter was signing with Texas...

Ah classic Kenny. In other words we will have our CF by this time next week.

QUOTE(WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 03:29 PM) I've always been a Raines supporter. Kalapse pretty much gave his case. I also voted for Blyleven and Gossage. I don't get the love for Morris or John. I'm guessing the 1986 in your name is your birthyear correct? It is much harder to judge players just based on their stats, versus seeing the way they functioned against their peers when they played. John and Morris were both dominant players. John had more longevity than Morris did, which is why I would put in John and not Morris.

When I called Guiliani the Republican version of Bill Clinton, there was a reason. There was always the stench of corruption that hung around him in NY.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 02:35 PM) The noise coming out of the organization says Richar is probably it. But, you (or he) may be right - maybe they aren't so confident in Richar. They might just be hedging their bets too, having learned a lesson from one Brian Anderson.

Roster stands at 39 now, so we have room for our CF.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 02:08 PM) If Raines were playing today he'd be the best leadoff hitter in baseball. His numbers are just insane. Very high OBP, tons of SB, incredibly high SB% and a little pop. He's the prototypical leadoff hitter. I'd vote for him. Playing in Montreal all of those years did more to kill his and Andre Dawson's chances at the HOF than anything. If they had played in even a mediocre US city, they would have been first ballot guys.

The bigger implication for the Sox? It probably takes Crawford off of the trading block. It also makes a Twins deal of Santana a must to get back a young quality pitcher.

I saw Knocked up and Ratatouille over the weekend, both were good movies in their own rights. KU was one of the funniest movies I have seen in a while. I could see that group ending up in a Kevin Smith type situation where the same basic castmembers make a bunch of loosely, but not really, conntected movies with the successes of Superbad and KU. Ratatouille was a classic Pixar/Disney movie. Worth a view, especially with kids.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 01:48 PM) So with all the IA and NH talk, we haven't seen many polls in SC, which is the third state in order of those states the candidates and the party are actually considering (they have planned to ignore MI). In most previous polls, Clinton held a substantial lead over Obama, consistently double digits, sometimes 20+ points. Not only has Obama not spent much time there yet, but it is thought by many that Obama's racial heritage would not play well in the south, and further, that southern blacks doubted his chances of winning a national election because of his race. But a few weeks ago, a new poll showed the lead at only 10 points. Now a new poll shows this (change from their previous poll in August in parens): Clinton: 19% (-7) Obama: 17% (+1) Edwards: 12% (+2) Biden: 2% (-1) Richardson: 1% (-1) UNDECIDED: 49% (+14) Really interesting. Clinton loses ground and is now in a virtual tie with Obama. And more importantly, it looks like she has lost votes to UNDECIDED. People aren't so sure about her now, it appears. SC sure does look seriously in play. Wow, that UNDECIDED guy is KILLING everyone!

This could mean the Dodgers are NOT in the running for Rowand? Does any of the left coasters know if Coletti has a Kenny Williams type history of truth telling? http://www.latimes.com/sports/printedition...lines-pe-sports

Mike Huckabee a social conservative and an economic liberal. Where is that puking smilie when I need it?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 11:35 AM) Well, here's what a guy with a vote is saying. The problem is that banks don't want to do they overnight lending when they know the fed keeps making cash injections into the system, thereby eliminating the lending risk, and keeping the overnight rates artificially low, by not allowing them to float up to where they would be willing to lend at. Once again it is the law of unintended consequences at work.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 11:25 AM) In a speech at the University of Rochester, Plosser said the Fed cannot resolve the cause of the tension in financial markets, uncertainty over the value of complex securities tied to subprime and other mortgages and who holds these derivatives. "It is important to recognize that the Fed cannot resolve this price discovery problem. The markets will have to figure this out," Plosser said in his prepared remarks. "Arbitrarily lowering interest rates or providing liquidity to the market does not provide the answers the market seeks," Plosser said. Indeed, rate cuts might only delay the painful process, he said. Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser strongly suggested that he is not in favor of an additional rate cut at the next policy meeting on Dec. 11. The only problem is: Plosser does not have a vote for the meeting. SO why lower rates??? Answer: They shouldn't. Its inflationary.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 11:01 AM) 50 BP? 25 beeps

Lee Smith and Goose Gossage deserve some love. Recognize the closers! I also put Blyleven and Tommy John down, along with Tim Raines.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 10:15 AM) The Fed better not lower rates by that. Not again. I think they were wrong to do it in the first place, let alone three times. They will. Its already priced in and anticipated. Start thinking about the Feb meeting, because this one is fin.

QUOTE(SnB @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 10:12 AM) Well, they weren't just hiring for one position. There are over 100 locations I could have gotten hired at. I also don't know where he works. He met me at one of their branches for the interview. Ah, I didn't realize you were talking about a corporate HR versus a branch hiring. That changes things. Call or email is the best method, but definately contact them to keep on their list.