Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Dec 4, 2010 -> 07:16 PM) Tough to do when he is always guarding the worst player on the other team and Illinois did better with him on the bench in the first half. for a 5 min stretch where brandon paul threw up some luck threes.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 4, 2010 -> 05:43 PM) This is the political forum. That said, BP is a large, multinational-but-foreign company who created a huge environmental and economic disaster. Why shouldn't they be demonized? Why should they be protected? I'm sick and tired of people excusing gross corporate negligence and a select few enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else, such as the gulf coast community. I dread the day the people who want no accountability and no oversight over corporations take back over the government. eta: there's a good reason for the anti-corporate bias here; it's pro-people, pro-environment bias. BP, a foreign company, caused significant harm to US resources and citizens. Do I need to provide links to dozens of similar reports of how badly this has impacted gulf coast communities, areas that aren't high on the economic food chain to begin with? What country do you live in? You know we have a justice system right? That people have to prove damages to be able to receive them? I demonized the crap out of BP for this. But i'm not going to throw out their right to a day in court just because I don't like them.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 4, 2010 -> 04:44 PM) But y'all told me that Bp was the good guys and they weren't going to fight anything. That's the whole point. BP was going to make everything better. Remember, just because Exxon defended itself for 20 years doesn't mean that BP is going to challenge things every step of the way. Of course BP was going to defend its rights at every step of the way. Which is exactly what people scoffed at when I said they'd do that in May. And which is exactly why the government needed to be fighting them as hard as possible for access and money from day 1. Like when the evil Obama forced them at gunpoint to escrow all that money. I don't think anyone here said that. You're just making this up to support your view. They have rights, and they're fully within them to call bulls*** on bulls*** government numbers if they think they are bulls***.

Best way to beat Illinois: get McCamey out of the game. They are a very, very average team without him running the show.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 4, 2010 -> 12:16 PM) You know, I'm still annoyed at the fact that people in this thread ridiculed how we couldn't get an accurate, public estimate of the leak rate, while ignoring the fact that one side had something of a strong, multi-billion dollar motivation to making sure that there was no accurate estimate, and then said argued that I had no basis to believe that BP would fight tooth and nail to cut back the fines and payouts as soon as the press heat was off. Yes, how dare a company defend its rights. They should just take the government at its word. It's ALWAYS accurate.

Wow, so many reasons: (1) it's not enough that thousands of government employees were able to keep the inside job of 9/11 secret, but now we have probably tens or hundreds of thousands who work in oncology who are simply wasting research money to better of their career? Too complicated to be a conspiracy. (2) any medical professional (or group) that finds a cure would be an instant billionaire. (3) as Balta said, way too many variants = complex solution (4) my mother is a nurse practitioner who works in oncology at NW and is a melanoma survivor. I'm guessing she wouldn't continue to work in that field if it was all for show.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 3, 2010 -> 10:58 AM) Stimulus Bill, TARP, and QE efforts almost assuredly staved off a depression that would have seen far, far worse UE and deflation. So in that sense, they worked - they did create jobs, they did save jobs, they did protect assets. Problem is that the Stim Bill was far too short-term, TARP was not followed up by appropriate regulatory changes (enough of them I mean), and QE puts us in a cycle that will result in serious inflation later. Basically, in all three cases, they worked, but needed to be parts of long term adjustments after the fact which aren't happening yet. OK, so at the end of the day (now) it still didn't (doesn't) work, which is my point.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 3, 2010 -> 10:55 AM) Completely agree. Now what does that have to do with TARP? Wasn't that the vehicle used by the government to say "you have a bunch of s***ty assets that you negligently purchased/held onto, so now we're going to pay you for them so that you don't go out of business?" If so, that's f***ed. "You're a crack addict that's self destructing? Here's more crack so you don't have to go through withdrawal."

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 3, 2010 -> 08:08 AM) I didn't bother to post anywhere that I was taking the under in the official job numbers? Damn. That was an easy one, they were projecting like 150,000, which would have required 57,000 public sector jobs on top of the private sector jobs report there. Well, anyway, small private sector job growth, small public sector job decreases, down quite a bit from the October pace, with Sept. and Oct. revised upwards slightly. It's a good thing the job stimulus created all those jobs.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 3, 2010 -> 07:49 AM) That wasn't TARP. People seem to not understand this - what needed to happen (which I am sure we both agree with) is for TARP to go out, and quickly, then follow it up with more considered, deep rebuilding of the regulatory environment. The former was necessary no matter what, and the US ended up paying nearly net-zero dollars for it. The failure was not TARP - the failure was in the weak overhaul attempts that came after. Call it whatever you want. Gigantic companies that f***ed up the country royally for a decade probably received zero penalty. That's just not right.

QUOTE (kev211 @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 04:51 PM) Because Ozzie Ball has worked so many wonders. Comparing 1 year versus what, like 9 now since the KW era? And take away the awful 1.5 months to start the season last year and they win the division.

Am I really the only one who doesn't care for this move? Great, we're building the team to be station to station, hit home runs or get shut out. Haven't we gone through this all before?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 11:34 AM) One could certainly argue that a big reason why the internet has "Grown up" in the sense that it has, to become such an important part of so many people's lives, is the fact that prior to now, companies haven't been able to do that. Give you an example...if there are only a handful of companies that control the infrastructure, and building new infrastructure is prohibitively expensive, what's to stop those companies from setting up partnerships with certain search engines or e-commerce sites, such that it becomes nearly impossible to do business with anyone who isn't a partner with your service provider? What's to stop a company from disadvantaging certain websites because they don't like their political content? This argument can be extended into any sector of the economy, but it doesn't happen (all the time anyway) because there's always a buck to be made, so other companies will find a niche and exploit it. Where was netflix 10 years ago? Why didn't blockbuster sign deals with all the movie studios? I think there are two reasons: (1) the creator of the content doesn't want to limit it's market (in this case a cable network or studio getting an exclusivity deal with comcast limits potential viewers. why would they want to do that? that hurts their own bottom line), and (2) i'm not sure that comcast would want to pay the cost to be able to do that. At the end of the day it's all about money. The creator of the content we're talking about here doesn't depend on the revenue of the service provider. It depends on ad dollars that are brought in by an audience (or site traffic, or ticket sales, etc).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 11:00 AM) I'd love to do what you are doing. That's why Comcast wants to charge more for certain content. They're primarily a cable company still, and Netflix, Hulu and other online video sites are a very real threat to their business model. If they have their way, it will be significantly more expensive to rely on Netflix, Hulu, etc. Did you check at&t? At the very least you can get DSL at like 3 or 5mb, which should be enough for streaming content. I still think it would be advantageous for other ISP's to come out and basically parlay their internet service into becoming a small time cable provider. "Tired of paying Comcast/DirectTV prices? Get the majority of your tv over the internet through our service at 1/3 the cost." Since U-verse isn't exactly lighting the world on fire, I could see AT&T using that to grab more of the market. And really, I think companies like Comcast are in a bind. They can't very well charge the piss out of people for their services, because then people will prioritize - internet or cable, but I can't afford both. If consumers are smart, they'd pick the internet and save money. Comcast just lost that customers cable business, which is what, 2/3rd's normally? Then they'd have to raise prices on their internet, and get out priced by the competition.

QUOTE (G&T @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 09:32 AM) Yeah, they could give unlimited plans, but in the end, they won't or they will charge something ridiculous for it. Look at cell phone companies, are there really any major differences in pricing? Cable companies are about to turn the internet into the crappy cable packages because they can make more money that way. And we don't know what impact that will have in the long run. What happens when a new businesses that starts up with little more than a website is not accessible to everyone because it isn't part of the correct "tier" of service? Are you going to be happy when you have to pay extra for a social networking tier? In other words, it's easy to justify requiring people to pay more for large volume content, but we don't know where this will go. But "I don't like having limits" is different from "they can't do that."

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 09:00 AM) I can't speak to Comcast...but I'd also add that AT&T thoroughly sucks as well. What are your issues? I only subscribe to the U-Verse internet. It's been about 8 months and I've never had a slow down, cap or a random outage. My router went bad one night, they were there at 9am the next morning to replace it. Maybe I'm just in a good area though. On a slightly different topic, anyone else a Hulu Plus subscriber? Basically my wife and I ditched cable when we moved to our new house in the spring. Decided to get a decent internet package (12mb) and rely on Netflix and over-the-air stuff. While I miss the occasional Food network porn, I really can't say that I've missed anything big. All of our favorite shows we either watch on Hulu, the network's website, or we buy through my PS3. 90% of my sporting events are on major networks or espn3.com. I do have to rely on the radio for most Bulls/Sox games, but at least WGN and WCIU carries them occasionally. Bt anyways we just signed up for Hulu Plus so we don't have to keep connecting the laptop to the TV. So far so good, especially for 7.99 a month. Anyone else have opinions on it? The idea that i'm paying for the content WITH ads kind of annoys me.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 2, 2010 -> 08:09 AM) For those who don't watch the politics...the FCC is currently deciding regulations regarding high-speed internet content. Yesterday, they released a draft report of their proposed regulations. They're incredibly "business-friendly", in the sense that your average small consumer gets screwed. Quite literally, it would make what everyone is complaining about Comcast doing above 100% legal; charging fees for different types of content moving over their network. The public comment period on this ends in a couple weeks. It's a s***ty practice, but I don't see why this should be illegal. They're providing the service, they can charge what they want for it. That just means other companies (AT&T U-Verse for example, which I have and which is great) can give you unlimited/unrestricted plans. Comcast sucks anyway. Why anyone uses them is beyond me.

So, what are people's thoughts on foreign entities taking some of the Feds emergency funds? On the one hand, they paid it back with interest, so no loss. But on the other, there was potential for losing hundreds of billions if those banks closed. I didn't care for the original bank bailout, and I don't really like the idea that the Fed is becoming a world bank. Edit: here's the link: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4dd95e42-fd6d-11...l#axzz16xwmUz4S

QUOTE (farmteam @ Dec 1, 2010 -> 02:58 PM) I was about to disagree with this, but then I remembered I live in essentially the only liberal stronghold in the state (Bloomington...you could also make a case for the areas near Chicago, but that's about it). If you get caught with a small amount or less (basically anything under an ounce, I think), it's more or less the same as an underage drinking ticket. You know, I got the state wrong. It's Alabama. http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97apr/reef.htm Lol, it appears he was paroled in 2006 (three or four years after I read that book). Still 15 years in a maximum security prison for a pound of a f***ing weed. Our society is beyond messed up. http://www.november.org/thewall/cases/gray-d/gray-d.html

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 1, 2010 -> 02:59 PM) Again, I'm going to call BS on this until you back it up. We heard this over and over on Iraq...the problem was that they were just counting "Total murders" and not adjusting for per capita. Got my cities mixed up, though he did say western cities. And it's safer from violent crime, not necessarily life in general, which i should have clarified earlier. http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/2916220...nKids23.article

I have to believe that our demographic makeup and geography (i.e., very segregated communities) has to account for a lot of this. Do other countries have the gang problems we have, with territorial wars being a major problem? I also read a statistic the other day that children in Afghanistan are safer than children in the City of Chicago. Pretty insane.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 1, 2010 -> 12:36 AM) That's a fair point...but I also don't think there will be a republican in the White House for another 6 years at least, and by then maybe the legalization has achieved enough success that it doesn't really get picked off. Another point, they have made it so easy to get medical marijuana in California, I have no idea why they even bother to make recreational use illegal anymore. The majority of states now basically ignore recreational use. If you're caught, you're given a ticket. They're after the big growers, not the small time users. The problem is that some states (Indiana I believe is one) go crazy. If you carry anything more than dust you're considered a drug kingpin. = And I don't think this is a republican-democrat issue. I think it's an over 65 - under 65 issue. Once the "Greatest Generation" dies off, the rules against drugs like pot will go away. Just a matter of time.

Whelp, come on Wisconsin, Michigan State, Purdue, Penn State and Indiana. Hopefully we can get two out of those games.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 30, 2010 -> 09:45 PM) Yes, I will be mad, but I will also look for the outrage from the Tea Party crowd over further increasing our deficit with tax cuts for the extremely wealthy. I am sure it will be seen. I will. I've never understood that faulty logic of not taxing the rich at a much higher rate.

UNC is clearly lacking a floor general. Tons of athletes, but not many basketball players that can move without the ball.