southsider2k5

Oscar Gamble cut in front of me at the barber shop, then the bastard took up two chairs!

Interesting. I wonder if that slips Peterson down a bit... The Bears are infamous for taking chances on these kind of guys...

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 01:06 PM) Wow, I'd hate to hear your opinion on the list of crap nominees on the other side of the aisle. I know most people won't consider anyone who doesn't have their preferred letter after the candidates name, but I do. Personally I am not excited about anyone on the Republician side of the slate at this time either. To be honest, I haven't been that excited about a Presidential candidate, post primaries, since about 1992.

And in the continuing kicking of Mark Prior, because he was on the minor league DL when he had his surgery, this season will NOT count towards his major league service time. He will now have to wait until after the 2009 season to be a major league free agent.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 12:47 PM) Maybe I should have better emphasized the EPA's role I was referring to. ALL companies would have limits for emissions. ALL companies, if they stay within those, can choose to participate or not. If they don't, they are fined at whatever the set price per unit is, and the credits are purchased for them on the market. Perhaps that is what you meant by required participation? If you think about it, EPA is already supposed to fine for various emissions violations anyway, so the fines/market creation is already sort of in place. And they are a complete joke. They aren't nearly disincentive to stop behavior. I know for a fact that one of the main steel mills pays over $1 million A DAY in fines to the EPA, because it is cheaper than actually changing and fixing the problem.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 12:41 PM) I'm guessing we'll see 3.50 nationwide by Memorial Day, a lot of places pushing 4. The futures haven't pushed that hard, but all it takes is one big, bad thing happening. More realistically, I could see $4 around Labor Day.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 12:33 PM) Bill Richardson is the guy poised to jump out of the second tier IMO. He went to North Korea and fixed Bush's six year problem in six days. This guy has executive experience and the foreign policy smarts to do well for us. Richardson is one of the few Dems that intreagues me. I am sick of Hillary and Barack already, and everytime I have seen something from John Edwards, it makes me wonder why I thought so highly of him in 2004. The rest of the Dems around don't seem viable at all to even consider at this time.

QUOTE(Damen @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 12:21 PM) Because it foreshadows how they plan on framing each candidate through the rest of the campaign. And it's always interesting to see Chris Matthews' and friends giggle over the trivial crap sent out in these press releases. Do you seriously believe that only the RNC does this to its opposition?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 12:22 PM) I don't agree. I was envisioning an open market, treating carbon emissions like a commodity (well, a reverse value commodity as it happens). Business A produced 500 units of emissions last year, and that is their limit per the EPA. This year, they use only 400. They sell the 100 to another business who thinks they are going to go over theirs. Thusly, companies are incentivized to reduce emissions. In that scenario, the US government can buy emissions off the table as well, if they choose to reduce overall emissions dynamically. Now, as I am sure you can see, there are potential pitfalls in such a market. The rules need to be specific in some key areas. But as a voluntary market, inclusive of the US government as a buy-side player, I think there can be a lot of liquidity there, along with the opportunity to reduce overall emissions without over-regulating. There is one gigantic inherant flaw in this. Carbon is not a commodity. You can't create a market force when you are trading a non-exsistant product. Let me explain it this way. Corn is a commodity. It is traded at the Chicago Board of Trade and the price that it trades at affects the price of corn in every corner of the USA and the world. Because of the exsisting marketplace, the only way around the price of corn, is to plant your own. For emissions there is no such physical presence. If I want to say f*** the enviornmentalists and use up 10 times as much carbon as anyone else, I don't have to pay a price to get that carbon. I just have to do whatever it is that I want do, and keep on emitting. There is no disincentive for me to change my behavior. If I want to eat 10 times as much corn as anyone, I would literally have to plant, grow, harvest etc, the stuff myself, or I would have to walk down to the store and pay for it. There is a disincentive for me to be a corn-feind. To make a carbon emissions program effective, there has to be a disincentive for non-participation. Until their is, the program will fail.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 12:11 PM) OK, I see what you are getting at. But as I understand it, in an open exchange market for emissions to be traded (assuming, again, it is properly regulated), no one is ever forced to reduce. They reduce by choice, and get paid for it. I fail to see how that negatively impacts poor people. They too can reduce their energy use, if they want to. If not, they still lose nothing. If they don't participate, their lives don't change, except that maybe their energy costs are actually cheaper than those who buy offsets. So how again do they lose out? If anything, I see this as a luxury tax sort of scenario. People with more money, very likely with more cars and bigger houses and more travel, use more energy. They pay more to offset the overage, while businesses who choose to reduce energy get the money. Money moves from rich consumers to cost reductions for companies that make products, and thereby pass savings on to consumers. Now, if it goes another step, and individual consumers start wanting to SELL offsets to other individual consumers, you still don't have a negative effect on poorer people. Why would you? Are you assuming that at some point, people with lower income would somehow be forced to buy offsets? Because I'm assuming that nothing like that would happen. If you are saying they would, please explain why, since I must not be getting it. That is based on the assumption that a real carbon offset program is instituted where people actually have to make choices, instead of only if they want to. Anything other than a system that makes people comply is a waste of time, because all but the most concerned, and the most image concerned will leave it up to their neighbors to comply, which won't happen, and the system will fail.

I know what will get everyone posting... You will see $3.00 gas nationwide on average within two weeks. Probably more like $3.50 in Chicago.

QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 12:01 PM) I thought you were just happy to see me. [blushes and hides]

So this means he is Rogoneski?

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 11:59 AM) so what, authorities knew this was going on and were supposed to ignore it? So when someone with a fake I.D. committed a major crime using the fake they would have gotten flack for that? They knew of illegal activity and they acted on it All it would have taken is one terrorist to buy an ID out of this ring and the outrage would have been on why we didn't do anything about it.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 11:22 AM) I'd guess the reductions would happen to businesses who are dealing in much larger numbers, and always by choice (in a properly equated market). What makes you think that those who can't afford it would somehow be forced to reduce? I am still missing your line of logic here. Its just like anything. The people with the means buy out of their obligations instead of making real change. They pass on the problem to the people who can least afford to change their life styles to adapt to reducing carbon output. Look no further than healthy eating for an example. The poorest people can't afford the higher prices to eat healthy, so they eat crap, and die younger. Healthcare falls under the same idea, as does the flat tax.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 11:37 AM) Am I the only one who heard Juliet talking about Sun and that Kate would be next? Is Kate preggers? I said that a while back. I think that is why we are seeing the sex stories lines...

Pft, I had a pocket full of Kryptonite years ago

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 11:01 AM) Great point. But isn't money a factor in any problem? Does that mean we shift more burden to them?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 10:27 AM) I think the last two are best for now, but even the offsets will be better as time goes on. As you point out, there needs to be regulation, though. That is not to say they are all worthless, however. And I guess I have no problem with the financial end. If I have a little extra cash to pay more to buy carbon emissions off the market (assuming a working market, here), then why is that bad? Am I missing something? Because it forces the actual reductions onto the people who can least afford it.

QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 10:47 AM) It makes you think there is a real reason why all these people with connections were on the same plane. That it is not just a coincidence. That this was an elaborate set-up from the start. Yeah you really start going back in your head at all of the chance meetings before the island and start to wonder where the set up began, and where the coincidence ended... if that is even the case here. Heck them "finding" the other plane could have been dharma covering their asses so the island doesn't get found.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 10:10 AM) Didn't look good, never turned it on. Must have missed something. ^^^

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 10:08 AM) No kidding. That and the (spoiler alert!!!) parachute girl saying that they found the plane and they were all dead, made me scream at the top of my lungs. Yeah, that was incredible. Now we have to figure out who would set that up, and why. Damn. I know people get frustrated at times by this show, but if you look at it from a big picture standpoint, I fully believe there is nothing better on TV now, well except the White Sox.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 10:12 AM) Ha ha, touche. But that's not what I'm saying.... I'm saying do like you would with anything else you invest in: research first. Check with your utility, see what it really is doing with the offsets, check around and see what *insert your power company here* is doing. Check the news, internet, whatever. Look into not just carbon offsets, but alt-power buys and other methods of reducing your use of fossil fuels. If they are on the up-and-up, do it. If not, don't, until they fix it. That will reward the companies doing it right, and force the others to get up to speed. So, really, I'm saying we should be willing to admit (and even search for) our mistakes, adjust our tactics, and have a realistic view of things. Much better than staying the course, no? I fully believe until we have a carbon offset system that has everyone involved in setting market prices, and involved disincentive to not follow the offset system, that it is pretty much worthless. I do also believe that all it does it discriminate against people who do not have the financial ability to offset their carbon emissions, and it is just an excuse for those with the financial means to sleep guilt free at night. If you do believe that emissions are the problem, reduce them. Don't tell me that *you* are too important to reduce your emissions, and instead are just buying your way out of actually making sacrifices. You can't tell me that someone like Cheryl Crow buying carbon offsets from an unregulated market is the same as her reducing her traveling party to save the enviornment. The system is inherantly flawed, and probably isn't a realistic solution as I see things. I bolded your three suggestions, and I fully believe that only the last two are realistic solutions.

Hoosiers will be all over that...

Yeah, the end really left you with a different feeling, once again. Now we see Juliet's true feelings for Ben, and that makes it seem like her trying to get Jack to kill Ben on the operating table was for real. The scene with the Russian showing back up was awesome. That was the last guy I ever expected to see come running out of the jungle. I wonder what the deal with the security gate really was now?