StrangeSox

ME (hard choice between that and Iraq), Energy, Economic, Tax, Homeland Security. Ideally, I'd like to see Obama and a Republican Congress (to help curb spending), but that isn't happening.

It's hard to pick five because some go hand in hand IMO. I'd lump trade policy and national debt (and maybe even tax rates and government spending) all under economic policy. I'd also put Mid-East policy and border control under homeland/ national security policy.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Jun 10, 2008 -> 01:24 PM) haha some of my best friends are apple lovers so by no means do i really care, but the maddox thing about apple is absolutely hilarious... http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant btw language probably NSFW I saw someone with a big apple sticker on their car the other day. I got me wondering about how many Dell PC or Sony TV owners feel the need to advertise what electronics they buy.

QUOTE (Shadows @ Jun 9, 2008 -> 11:33 PM) um, no one managers don't really do s*** IMO Generals don't fire machine guns or fly planes, but you still need someone to set the strategy.

He can't be run out of town soon enough. I know he was calling out Mark Silverman recently, too. Jay Mariotti, a legend in his own mind.

First four-game sweep of the Twins since 1977.

Yeah, we'll just trade Danks and hope Coop can work his magic on a washed up Loiaza. What a moron.

How quick did that ball leave the park?

Stoney and Farmio are both laying into the ump a little bit.

QUOTE (The Beast @ Jun 9, 2008 -> 01:57 PM) How about you put on the pads and helmet, go behind that plate and umpire? They're paid to get the calls correct. Stop making excuses for your "brethren" when they call terrible games.

He seemed to be talking about his baseball-intelligence a lot as well. Along the lines of knowing how to read and react to defensive setups, excellent base-running decisions, knowing what a pitcher/ defense is trying to do at the plate, etc.

This team is the textbook definition of "firing on all cylinders." Leading the league in ERA and scoring 10+ runs in three straight games. Twins are going to go home completely demoralized and the Sox will come away with a sizable lead in the division. What a great weekend for baseball.

Best Sox game I've ever been to in my life (I didn't get the chance for any 2005 playoffs games).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2008 -> 01:54 PM) Seriously when did I say anything otherwise? A small price bump I could see being built in due to speculation, because the price would go up and that wouldn't be enough to really put a hurt on demand, but we're talking about a $10 bump today and like $60 in the last 6 months. If this was a speculatory bump, then it won't be long before there's a gigantic glut of oil sitting around somewhere that people can't sell at those prices. My question is has demand or supply really changed enough to cause a $10 price bump in the last 24 hours? Or is it people speculating that demand or supply will change enough?

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 6, 2008 -> 01:32 PM) This pretty much makes it official: Edwards again rules out VP job D*** IT! Thank god. I can still consider voting for Obama. Edwards brings absolutely nothing to the ticket anyway.

We still want to say that this isn't being driven up on speculation?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 08:19 PM) The counterpoint is...if you raise taxes, the only way those companies are going to be forced out of the country is if the raising of those taxes reduces the amount of energy they're able to sell...aka reduces the demand for that energy (especially the high carbon energy). You can't just move a power plant to China because the government instituted a fee on high carbon energy here. The only way that the case you propose happens is if we cut our non-renewable energy consumption, which I think we'd all agree is a good thing. I'm not talking about moving power plants. Obviously those have to stay near their customers. I'm talking about killing off what manufacturing we have left because they can't afford some BS carbon tax (either on their products or passed on from ComEd in the form of higher energy rates). They'll pack up and head off to China and continue to pollute, which in the end does nothing to counter CO2 emissions. In fact, because China has lower emissions standards than the US, they'll probably pollute more than they are now. Corporations don't pay taxes. They collect taxes from consumers in the form of higher prices and then give that money to the government. Introducing a carbon tax would be disastrous for the economy. Again, people and corporations are moving towards higher efficiency/ lower energy and renewables without the need for big government to get bigger. How many billions did T. Boone Pickens just spend on windmills? I can't believe I'm posting a quote from Gingrich, but he basically sums up my feelings on this particular issue:

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 07:07 PM) Except...maybe, just maybe...we finally get out ahead on renewable energy, instead of behind, and we wind up in a much more solid position long-term economically by getting ourselves away from shipping $300 billion to the middle east every year. Like it or not, energy costs are going to keep going up if we do nothing, so the economic hit you're talking about is going to happen. I think we should benefit from this if we can. People are already turning towards higher efficiency and green energy. I'm not debating the need for that. I'm saying that bringing the government in to it via taxes is not the best way to get on top of the alternative energy game because the government is almost always horribly inefficient with money. We have a lot of private ventures investing money into alternative energies right now. Yes, we still have a lot going into oil and coal, but we still need those right now and will need them for a while to come. I think adding more taxes will just force more companies out of the country, hurting the economy and lessening our ability to invest in alternative energy.

QUOTE (tommy @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 07:00 PM) Gathright steals third, Toby overthrows Ozuna, Gathright takes home. That ball was right at Ozuna, he just didn't catch it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 06:53 PM) See, if you design the tax right and have it based on units of carbon actually emitted...then things like that won't happen, because it'll cost too much to use the gas to fuel the helicopter. But again, I'll be the first to admit...Europe screwed their system up...because they didn't do it like a tax. The big problem was that they simply handed out the permits for free to the companies that were already polluting. While this is better than nothing because it rewards them if they cut their production, it also removes any penalty for having a high carbon emission system like a 40 year old coal fired power plant. The better way to do it is to auction off the emissions permits to the companies producing the fossil fuels. The price for the permits gets absorbed in to the price of the fuel that way, and the price of high carbon energy (like coal) goes up relative to the cost of lower carbon energy (Natural gas or renewables). ...and government gets bigger, everyone's energy costs soar, and the economy drops. Yipee!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 06:38 PM) How many times do I have to point out that burning wood products is actually carbon-neutral as long as you're replanting trees in the process? It's carbon-neutral either way. That carbon will be emitted by whatever digests the wood or by burning it. Will that stop all-knowing government from taxing it? Probably not. Belgium passed a BBQ tax. They fly around in helicopters with IR cameras to make sure people have their permits. I think they repealed it because they realized how stupid it was, but I put no level of stupidity past misinformed and politically opportunistic politicians. I car pool to work to save me about $450/ month in gas (plus mileage on my car). I make sure my lights are shut off at work. We keep the heat set low and the A/C high. I replaced almost all of my lights with CFL's. My power bill is below $30/ month in the winter. I managed to do all that without needing big government to come in and tax me.

Tax incentives for energy-efficient and environmentally-friendly technology and construction is a great idea. Adding more taxes for carbon is an extremely bad idea. Even if we were to agree that we need to reduce "Joe Sixpack's" carbon output so that he stops grilling, driving, having bonfires, etc., why the hell should government be the one getting all that money? Government tends to be horribly inefficient at most things, and I don't see this being any different. I think the idea of carbon pricing and trading is pretty ridiculous anyway, but growing the government through environmentalism is even worse. And like Alpha pointed out, the rich will just pay to cover their carbon outputs on their yatchs, Leer jets, mansions, etc. Those who would be hit the most would be the middle class. With energy prices increasing the way they are, natural market forces will curb carbon output. No need to grow government to do it.

I'm supposed to go to the game tomorrow night, but apparently the weather doesn't want me to see a good Sox game this year. My first game was postponed due to rain against Baltimore, my second was a near-2 hour rain delay again Minnesota (and then Buerhle got hit around a bunch), and now its supposed to storm tomorrow night.

Funny, no matter who the Dems are running, its always the "most liberal person eVER!"

Unless Ozzie is saying more behind the scenes and trashing him to the players, Walker looks like a HUGE cry baby to me who went way over Guillen's head instead of dealing with it face-to-face.