southsider2k5

I think in cross country we would call that a nice pack.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 11:48 AM) The electorate doesn't decide the candidates, the parties do. I believe the polarity will continue. If either party puts out a polarizing canditiate out there for this election, they will get TROUNCED at the polls. I think that's why a Hillary Clinton or Newt Gingrich don't have a snowballs shot in hell at being elected. There is too much venom right now, and unless it really abates in the next two years, which I don't see how, the canditate who can appeal to the middle of the road wins this.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 10:46 AM) I think we need to look at it differently. Even countries that hate each other will cooperate for financial survival (Iran) or financial gain (Saudi Arabia). The leaders in that part of the world talk a lot of political smack, but they all know that oil is everything. They are business leaders first. What would Saudi Arabia gain by helping Iran produce more oil, and keeping them in power? If Iran's production collapses, the price of energies on the open market skyrockets, while the Saudis are the only country in OPEC with excess capacity.

I saw this on another site, and thought it could be fun... 5. I have four cats 4. My first car was a 1988 Chevy Cavilier 3. I gained over 40 pounds since college 2. My mom passed out in the upper deck of Comiskey Park while pregnant with me in August of 73 1. I had four offers to go into radio after college, and none in the financial fields.

I got bored with it after a while (didn't have much time here) and googled the answers. I got to either 25 or 26.

Jack Murtha, humanitarian, and a little bit more

An interesting side note I just found on CNN.com I wonder if this means we will see the release of more of the classified info soon?

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 09:57 AM) OH! Good call. I really liked John Edwards last time around. However, if Edwards is smart, he should bring in Obama as VP. That gives Obama time to really learn the ropes and prep himself to run for President once Edwards is done. There is not a chance Obama thinks about VP at this point of the election cycle.

I know someone mentioned this the other day, but here is an interesting write up about the state of Iran's oil industry. I think the nuclear power play, is a straight up Kim Jung Il move to try to get concessions out of the rest of the world before Iran's economy circles the drain. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...1&cset=true

Looks like John Edwards is going to officially announce his run for President from the 9th ward in New Orleans.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/27/0...8.b06l9tc6.html

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 08:48 AM) boss was very excited the SOX found a guy like this ............. You know Bruce Springstein? wow.

Done and done.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 08:42 AM) Huckabee? Really? Interesting. I know virtually nothing about the man. Now I need to go do some research. Which mainstream? With the Bush administration losing its grip on the party, we are seeing a continued fracturing there - the GOP is becoming two parties. The religious/social crusaders (further right), and the small government business-focused conservatives (more moderate socially). And I am not convinced about which one will win out for the voice of the party in 2008. The crusaders are still very powerful, but as strong as their rise was in the last decade, their fall looks like it is going to be even faster. Good analysis. The fiscal conservatives have been all but squeezed out during the Bush admin. The tax cuts were about the last real thing he did that was what we were looking for... He hasn't even made an attempt to rein in spending, even if you excuse the extra spending in the couple of years after the Clinton recession.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 08:20 AM) I got 20 in about 10 minutes. I am up to 23 now throwing in a few around work... 5 T on a F 15 P in a R T 3 W on a T 11 P in a F (S) T 8 T on an O 13 L in a B D 9 L of a C 23 P of C in the H B 9 P in S A 6 B to an O in C Those are the ones I am still working on...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/12/2...m.ap/index.html

I got 20 in about 10 minutes.

The quake is cauing a lot of communications problems, I know they had a lot of problems with their stock and futures markets over there. Phones and internet are down to about half of Japan and SE Asia.

sec159row2(36), Allsox(32), qwerty(20), DePloderer(43), SoxFan76(21), Steve Biffle(32)

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 11:01 PM) So perhaps now we can all quit complimenting this "safe" draft philosophy. Williams finally realizes this cycle of trading prospects for proven veterans no longer applies to the current market. We need production from within, and what we currently had prior to the recent flux of trades wouldn't have been enough for the Royals. New approaches to sustaining success are necessary. Maybe he'll finally recognize the areas of land which exist south of Mexico, as well. Lord knows we've ignored it for over a decade. That's what I don't get. The Sox get crap for drafting "safe" guys who are years away from the majors, over "stuff" guys who are even further away, and much less sure, yet when we trade for the same kind of guys, who are on the cusp of the majors, instead of just out of college, HS, or the barrio, they get crap about that too. Pretty much every guy Kenny Williams has brought in in the last few months has been a high risk, high potential reward, "stuff" guy.

RIP

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 02:20 PM) Well, here's the 3rd side to that coin (this is going to turn into a pretty wierd shape when you reply to it), the employment situation is not necessarily a simple economic system. In a purely simple system, yes, if you increase wages artificially, you will reduce employment. However, that neglects the potential feedbacks; because you've increased wages, you may also force a company to distribute its profits in some small extent to people who will actually spend the money, and thus you may drive up the demand for goods and services and in fact provide an economic stimulus. As far as the evidence I've seen goes, raising the minimum wage is in fact a mixed bag when it comes to employment percentages. There were several minimum wage increases in the 90's, and during the late 90's, the employment situation improved vastly, to the point that if there was a negative impact due to the minimum wage increase, it was swamped out by everything else that was happening in the economy. On the state level, the data is also at least to some extent mixed...Oregon pushed its minimum wage through the roof ($7.50) about 4 years ago, to predictions of economic ruin, and the state is seeing very strong growth now in employment, so much so that they're about to increase the minimum wage again (just grabbed that one because it's recent, as I said, there is a lot of data out there on both sides) Naturally, like any multivariate system, if you push one variable too far, you're going to cause problems. If you push up a minimum wage too far, say a $25 an hour wage right now, yes, you will murder employers. And yes, there are always specific parts of society that are affected by any decision like this; you can always point to some portion of farm labor or teenage-employment and say yes, those types can be specifically hurt by a minimum wage increase, but with the feedbacks in the system, it can and in fact is a much more mixed story than the simple model of "wages go up, prices go up, sales go down, unemployment goes up". Siting Oregon as an example of raising the minimum wage is actually sort of covered your last full paragraph accidentally. Certian states are going to be a lot more affected by a raise of the min wage, and those are obviously states that have a low prevailing wage. Most of those states are either one of, or a combination of two things, either a state with large urban/poor areas, or states on the Mexican border. Oregon is pretty much in the middle of the wage pack according to the BLS, a little above median, and a little below average nationally, which means that half of Ore are above what is a national average of $14.15 an hour, which also means they probably don't have as many people that would fall between 5.15 and 7.50. I would like to see that same comparison done in a state with a huge poor poplulation, like say Mississippi, which comes in with a median wage of $11.19 an hour.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 02:05 PM) Keep the minimum wage, increase the rate as proposed, build in a COLA, and then we don't have to mess with it ever again. I do agree with this. If we are going to have a minimum wage, we need to take the political aspect out of it, and take the pricing power away from the government with a COLA ingredient.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 01:53 PM) Here's one of those places where you and I are going to fundamentally disagree. The problem I see is that the market will support things that are actually worse for people than they should be, because the market is an abstract thing. The market has a different goal from what the government does; the market's goal is to turn a profit. The government on the other hand has the goal of, or at least should have the goal of doing what is best for the American people. Luckily for us, in a decent number of cases, those 2 goals line up. But in this case, I contend that they simply do not, and the American people and the American system are better off if there is some sort of wage floor. There are two sides to that coin though. The flip side of artificially higher wages are many fold... Higher wages mean higher prices, less total employment, less effecient companies, just to name a few things. How do any of those things benefit American citizens? The biggest problem is that the governments goal isn't really what's best for the people, its goal is what is best for reelection. If they were really worried about what was best for the American people the govenment wouldn't be worried as much about minimum wage, they would be worried about much more pressing needs such as social security, immigration, and health care, which affect many more American's adversely than does the min wage.