Y2HH

I wouldn't last there more than a day. I push the boundaries of acceptable policy here as it is...what's accepted (tolerated) here vs there is a galaxy of difference.

Shoeless Joe's in 2005. It was a wonderful summer.

What's happening to our public school system in the City is just scary. Even schools me and my friends grew up attending are already ruined. I went to Bogan -- at the time it was one of the most advanced computer tech schools in the City. They had a multi room network and internet access before just about any other public school in the City. I went back there a few years ago to check it out...and it's just amazing how bad things have become from where they were. The computers are often broken, there is no money to fix them, there is nobody with the know how to fix them even if they had the money. I really don't know what to think of the people raising these kids these days. And I know not all kids are like this...but the majority of these kids are becoming a cancer in our schools, ruining them, making them less safe, destroying public property for who knows what reason...and our solution will end up being "throw money at it", only it won't fix anything. Teachers need to take their jobs more seriously. Parents need to start being parents and STOP trying to be friends. Administrators need to make sure their teachers are doing their jobs properly. The government needs to step in and review everything top to bottom at EACH individual school and begin fixing the problems instead of applying a blanket "fix up" plan to every school, despite every school having different problems.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 09:43 AM) Yup. One with math. Math? Really?! You mean projections, AKA estimates. Because our government is VERY good at estimating things. Math is fact. Estimates are not, especially when they come from the Government. I've already seen numerous stories/studies come out that show how much more expensive this will end up being -- but there is no point in posting them because those too, are estimates. I'm simply saying, from where I stand, working in the industry, things aren't quite as they seem, nor are these guesses the government projected nearly in line with reality. And in 6 to 8 years you and everyone else will begin to see that. Edit: Allow me to add that I honestly hope you are correct and I'm very wrong in this. It would be nice if all of our problems were solved.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 09:38 AM) I don't completely understand how the Natural Guard would help. Are they gonna be marching every single street 24-7? A lot of the killings going on aren't fierce firefights in the street. A kid runs up to someone's car, shoots some bullets at him, then runs away. How are soldiers in the street gonna stop that? He's right when he said it's a bad idea. And Daley can forget his gun laws...the supreme court is going to kill those. Besides, criminals tend to not follow the law anyway, so they don't work. The problem I'd see with the national guard here is it would look like a police/military state -- it'd spread fear, if anything. People would feel a lot less "free" if the NG was walking around the streets.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 09:33 AM) I don't think the crime rate is about to get a whole lot worse. I'd guess its near a level at this point. Interesting related topic - have you seen the recent debate about what to do about the rising crime (which I agree is a serious problem)? You've got some state reps wanting to bring in the National Guard. Then Daley wants more gun laws. I think they're both stupid ideas that will only cause more problems. Being that we are now 1100 police officers short of what is considered "fully staffed", and that number is growing -- it's about to get a LOT worse. Oh, and they're not hiring more in 2010 or 2011, either.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 09:35 AM) Civilized? That's an odd way to put it. It is. But I don't think civilized people pillage, loot and riot. LA seems to have one every decade or so...just cuz.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 09:32 AM) I'm amazed how effective including the phrase "you'd just repeat the word nothing" was at getting you to repeat the word "nothing". No, what's really amazing is how you live in a fantasy world about the health care system.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 09:29 AM) I could go down the list again, but you'd just repeat the word "nothing". You can go down your fake list all you want. I work in the profession. And I can tell you, from an insiders perspective, NOTHING was done to curb costs. I'll repeat one final time...since you can't seem to wrap your mind around it. Nothing was done to change how doctors/hospitals charge patients and set pricing. Nothing was done to change how pharma charges patients and sets pricing. Buy pharm stock now. Buy healthcare stock now. You'll be happy you did. Just as you know quite a bit about what you know...so do I. I see it, everyday. I work here. I know what's going on and what it means and how it applies to us. You show via your graphs and what you're saying that you really only know what you've read...and have no idea how true any of it is. Well I do, so take it for what it's worth. You will be paying MORE than you expected in the end.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 09:27 AM) Temporary? You really don't seem to have much historical perspective here. Chicago was a broken down, declining steel city, with major urban flight problems, as recently as the early 80's. In the 20 years after that, Chicago rose to the level of being a major global business center, to the point where many global publications called it one of the world's great cities. I realize it fits your narrative nicely to think that Daley's Chicago is some sort of disaster, but that is just not remotely the case. Daley's Chicago is corrupt, just as Chicago has been corrupt since forever. But that doesn't change the fact that Daley's Chicago has been a huge success that saw a 20 year renaissance that rivaled any that any city in the US has seen in modern times. That's isn't entirely Daley, but he helped a lot. No, you see, I didn't say that Chicago was a disaster under Daley. You created that and attempted to apply it to me. Now allow me to retort. I said, from the start, that while Daley did many good things for this City, he's also done some VERY bad things. Ignoring corruption just because we've always been corrupt -- also unacceptable to me. So is the ever rising crime rate, which is about to get a whole lost worse.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 09:18 AM) Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we found out that some of the cost control measures included in the bill worked a lot better than the projections. There are no true cost controls. All they do is offset the money to taxes/government spending. Nothing was done to control the costs of drugs or medical services. Nothing.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 09:23 AM) Just a note...wait until we wind up seeing the end result of what the housing bust does to L.A. That's the scary part -- I tend to think that most of Chicago is more civilized than LA is. I point to the riots in the 90's for example. How in the world we have a higher murder rate than they do is just unacceptable.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 08:23 AM) Not even close. The crime rates even this year, are well below what they were in the 70's and 80's. Look at the homicides per year for Chicago. Its gone back up a bit in the past couple years, due to the same factors you see everywhere right now (economy), but we are still well below where we were at one time. And what Daley has done for the city isn't really about crime anyway, or about beautification. Its about bringing business and jobs to the city, which he has excelled at. While true, in comparison, the murder rate had dropped to an all time low around 2004 -- and has risen precipitously since. But you have to keep in mind that the murder rate has fallen everywhere (US wide), so those numbers aren't quite reflective of where we were and where we are. We WERE behind New York and LA. Both cities with larger populations, no less. We are now #1. As for him bringing jobs -- too bad they ended up being temporary. His tax break for Boeing was nice, too. And to be fair, while these types of deals create jobs, there are many hidden costs in doing so. If we were so well off, we wouldn't be selling off City assets. While these gains seem huge now, they're short sighted and small minded.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 08:29 AM) I like it when I can take other graphs from the same study. Overall, you cover 25 million+ people, and you increase overall spending by less than 1%/year, and that amount goes down with time. While that's all well and good in a theoretical projection...how much would you like to bet that it will be FAR more than 1%? I don't mean to actually bet, either...I'm just saying, if you believe that figure, I have some oceanfront property to sell you in Arizona. I'm telling you right now, that the costs of this law are going to spiral out of control in the years to come. Medical care will get more expensive, and your premiums will rise along with it. The Government will end up spending WAY more on this than they 1) envisioned, or 2) admitted they would have too (lied).

While I'm definatly NOT the Lovie Smoth of Soxtalk.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 08:03 AM) Some guys it works for. Jones, thome, etc. You know as well as anyone though that Nix is really hampered by trying to kill every ball he sees. Josh Fields had it kill his career. Konerko, AJ...when they're trying to swing for the fences rather than going straight up the middle, they fall into slumps and K or pop up every time. (See: AJ right now). Yes, but at least I get it when Kong tries to swing for the fences and falls into slumps. Why AJ is doing it is beyond me. He's not a home run hitter.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 08:14 AM) Link I absolutely understand the number of uninsured people will fall because of this law. But that's ALL this law accomplishes. It did nothing to curb the rising costs of medical care or prescription drugs. NOTHING. Also, insurance companies can STILL raise their premiums whenever and however they want. They simply cannot raise them excessively without justification. However, it's easy to justify that you need to raise them BECAUSE THE COST OF MEDICAL CARE AND DRUGS CONTINUED TO SKYROCKET. It's pretty simple. In the end, nothing was done.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 08:05 AM) So, you're saying that if we were to provide insurance coverage for everyone...this problem might go away? I wonder why no one's held a 14 month debate on doing that recently. No, you see...once again I'll repeat this for you since you can't seem to grasp it. I've gone over this a million times, and somehow you've ignored it every f***ing time. One more time. NOTHING WILL CHANGE. We've done NOTHING to stop the cost factor. N O T H I N G. Let that sink in before you reply now. Everyone will be insured at way higher costs. Nothing was done to curb the rising rates (NOTHING), and nothing was done to curb the costs of the care you receive (NOTHING). Doctors and Hospitals can STILL charge you (your insurance company) whatever they want. Insurance rates CAN and WILL rise. If you thought the government was spending a lot of money on health care before, give it about 8 years and you'll see some REAL spending. Let me recap: 1) Everyone will now have a choice to buy insurance. 2) Hospitals/Doctors can still charge you whatever they want. 3) Drug companies can still charge you whatever they want. 4) Premiums can STILL be raised whatever the insurance companies feel like raising them too. Summary: Nothing was done.

It's debatable how good Daley was for Chicago. While the city is pretty -- it's crime rate has never been so high -- including a skyrocketing murder rate. So while in one regard he succeeded, in another, he failed on a massive scale.

And why? Because hospitals/doctors can charge anything they want, anytime they want...and nothing was done to prevent this from happening now or in the future. Personally, I wouldn't go elsewhere for such a procedure, but then again, I'm insured...and since I was born, I've been insured.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 11:40 AM) A good first step before buying any place is having an "energy audit" done, at the same time you have a building inspector go through. You can have the basic things checked, like the insulation, windows, what sort of water storage/processing you might be able to set up, learn what the local laws are, see what kind of tax breaks you might qualify for, etc. While these steps are nice to talk about, the costs of said services are hundreds of dollars per pop. So if you aren't 99% sure you want to make the buy, having to hire such people every time you want to take a serious look at a house will cost you a lot of extra money. Inspections cost hundreds of dollars. Energy audits cost hundreds more. Add in the cost of the appraisal and you are near 1K. Now if any of these "audits" fails, or doesn't live up to your expectations, and you no longer want the home, you don't get a refund for said services. You just lost that money, and get to look forward to spending it all over again when you find another possible buy.

The difference between now and then (as I recently purchased a home and have seen many examples of this while looking for a home to buy), is that a home that cost 300k in 2003-2007 would only go for 300k in that era, not because it was actually worth 300k in terms of size/location/materials/workmanship. These homes that were selling for 300k during the boom, would cost another 50-70k in necessary repairs/upgrades/updates in order to make it worth what that asking price. In other words, you were buying a 220k home and paying 300k, simply because the market dictated that premium, but for no other legitimate reason. After which you would have had to put in another sum of money to bring it up to 'spec'. Fast forward to the present. That same home they were asking 300k for during the boom, which was only worth 220k is now going for 220k during the bust. It still requires those upgrades/updates, but now your total cost ends up being 300k, rather than 300k + repairs/updates. Housing prices haven't really "fallen", they've just come back in line with reality and their actual worth in terms of location, size, and materials. Sanity has returned to what was a totally insane market.

OSX is very secure, so is Windows. Windows has been secure for a LONG time, despite what people say. What matters most is the thing between the keyboard and the chair. Are you running a bunch of unnecessary services? If so, I don't care WHAT OS you are using. Are you browsing random websites from "email" links? See above. Are you logged in as administrator or root 24/7 even though you don't need to be? See above. Is your firewall enabled and configured PROPERLY? Furthermore, is it a two way firewall or a useless one way firewall? I can go on and on. I don't care what OS you put in front of me, I can harden it to be as secure as possible, it will be virus/malware free, and it will remain that way so long as the users that use it follow some basic instructions.

I hope that most who post on these boards are not stupid enough to lump everyone into a stereotype like that, whether they believe in a cause or not. I hate to use the word stupid in this regard, but I cannot think of a better word to use in it's place. Anyone that believes all tea-party members are racists are pretty stupid people, the same goes for everyone who think every environmentalist is for bombing car dealerships. Though I do get what he was trying to convey, because quite often I see these types of examples in the media today.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 07:50 AM) That was an impressive rant. There wasn't one shred of reality in it after the first graf, but, big points for style! I think it was fine. I hope you are still here in 10 years -- when you are no longer talking about this movement but have latched onto another one. I'm confident this will happen. And when it does, I will surely remind you of this post.