Y2HH

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 09:47 AM) I think the point the author was trying to make was that Chicago uses the affluent suburbs to fund it's pet projects and corruption. No, I get this, I was being sarcastic about what the person before me said. And I understand that the suburbs wouldn't exist without the City, but we call that growth and expansion, it's a natural thing.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 09:54 AM) Right, my thoughts exactly. The population trend is the exact reverse of what he says, people are moving back INTO the city, not out. Yes, because they realized how stupid they were being. Driving 2 hours each way, spending time/gas money and having the new found necessity of owning a working car 365 days a year didn't add up to anything but less time with your family/loved ones and more expenses for a bigger home which you were never at.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 09:40 AM) Right. People from all over the world come to visit the suburbs to spend their money and avoid the city itself. Right. But what does that have to do with the suburbs? Oh, that's right, absolutely nothing. If people from all over the world were visiting the city and spending all of this money, why does the city need to suck even more money out of the suburban areas surrounding it?! It doesn't add up to anything more than corruption. My complaint from the beginning of this is again, spending money we don't have, running deficits we cannot afford and running up debt that someone else will undoubtedly have to repay.

QUOTE (RibbieRubarb @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 09:18 AM) I love Joe and I hope he does well. I just wonder how his back will hold up playing on carpeted concrete all season. I will forever remember Joe, and I thank him for his contributions as a White Sox player and a 2005 hero. That said, Crede can go f*** himself, I hope he does terrible from here on out, he's now the enemy. I don't know why any Sox fan would hope he does well, as that would help our nemesis do well. f*** Crede and f*** the Twins.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 09:11 AM) I commend the Bears for doing this, regardless of how it works out, because Jay Cutler is the most talented QB this franchise has had in about 60 years. That's what's so sad about it and why it appears to be such a blockbuster deal. In comparison to what Chicago normally has to deal with, Cutler is heads and tails better, but he's still far from great (so far, but he at least has the tools to become great). I think this is somewhat an absolved feeling for Bears fans who were secretly envious of the Favre type gunslinger all these years, that they now, too, finally have themselves a gunslinger!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 08:55 AM) He has said before that he wants to stay in Cali (or wherever he is) until his kid(s) is/are off to college. I'd bet, after that, the Sox try to bring him in as some sort of coach. The audacity of Ventura to think his family/kids are more important than our beloved White Sox#@$!@#$@!

What a sad state of affairs the 'gold glove' awards has become. A defensive award being awarded for flashy idiocy combined with offensive statistics is just so ridiculous.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 07:40 AM) Pace is not the same player he once was, but we're talking about a future Hall of Famer, possibly first ballot. He's still capable, not dominating, but decent, the Rams just had to move on. Well, I defiantly agree with that. I don't mean to undermine the caliber of player Pace was/is, but he's not nearly on the same level as he once was. I only mentioned this because I think the days of aging O-Linemen is coming to a close due to the shift in how D-Lines are constructed now.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 07:02 AM) are you kidding me with this? while 34 is not young, if there is one place in football that you see guys playing into their mid to late 30s its o-line...its not nearly the short shelf life position that RB and WR are...its why you see 32 year olds like Faneca get huge multi year deals No, I'm not kidding you with that. D-Lines were commonly fat and slow until recently, there was a major shift in agility/speed across the board, D-linemen have gotten smaller and faster, so these older O-lines don't cut it anymore. The game changed, but I see you think it hasn't.

I won't be holding my breath on this prediction.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 08:26 PM) 3 good years? No. One very good year and one decent year? Yes. In the NFL, a 3-year deal is probably at best a 2-year deal. That's how it works. This signing was one to simply bridge the gap until we can have some draft picks fill that role... and do not tell me we just traded all our picks, because we still have 8 this year and all but one next year. Pace doesn't even have a "very good" year left in him. One or two good/decent years, yes. But he's going on 34 years old, and 34 in O-line years is 95. He's no where near the player he used to be. The Bears replaced Tait with...a new Tait. Which is good, since it negates the loss of Tait, but it doesn't really improve them any. And no, we didn't trade all of our picks, just the ones that usually mean anything.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 05:43 PM) I paid whatever it costs because I wanted the booklet and the diet book as an outline. I'm not too far in, but basically feel sore in very strange places at this point and consistently see my muscles give out during workouts. This almost never happened to me with the frequency it is in the gym. That's only because you are following a guide so your workouts are more intense/orderly -- you could get the same results in the gym if you were equally intense or had someone to push you (such as the guide pushes you now). But this is a good thing, without someone to push, some people lose focus and "take sets off"/"get lazy" and quit sooner than they normally should have. With a properly designed workout, no matter where it's performed, home/gym, etc...your muscles should fatigue (but ONLY after you're pre-shocked), if they aren't, you aren't doing it right. Also, you should wean your way into any new workout (pre-shocking) -- don't go full blast, because the new muscles you "shock" will feel more sore than they really are the first few times and that's usually how a lot of these gimmick/fad workouts get people to think they work better than just doing things the old and prooven methods. Just remember the first few weeks you started in the gym, you were a lot more sore than after your body adapted to using those muscles in that fashion. I know the workout you are doing, my friend does it. As for the Yoga part of it, I've never been a fan of Yoga, it's gimmicky to me, I've tried it, and I wasn't impressed. Stretching and holding does something, I'm sure, but nowhere near what the spiritual Yoga nuts believe. Yoga is just so post-y2k upper middle class suburban white house wife crap, it makes me want to puke. All of these variations in that workout are what make you sore, using a multitude of different muscles in different ways, but in the end, everything gets old...especially gimmicks. After the few few times through this workout and your muscles are pre-shocked, you won't feel it as much as you used too. I also have this thing against home workouts, so I'm biased...as homes are designed for comfort, not for intense training. I've never yet met a person that's worked out at home consistently over the years -- sure they do it for a few months on end, or even a year, but then it fades away. Meanwhile, I'm going on over a decade in the gym. Winter just ended, so I'm back at it again, after getting married, moving, etc...my time was short this winter, so I had to fore go the gym for a while...feels great to be back.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 03:25 AM) Cutler did that in his 2nd full season as a starting QB, and in his 3rd year in the league. I don't think it's far-fetched to think that he will improve, even if his raw numbers (notably touchdowns and yards) don't increase. In regards to the QB rating, 86 is still pretty damn good, and it is 2 points away from being 11th in the league. Keep in mind too that 4 of those players ahead of him - Matt Schaub, Jeff Garcia, Shaun Hill, and Seneca Wallace - all put up those numbers in 12 games or fewer, whereas Cutler played the full 16 game season. You can throw Romo in there too if you want, as he missed 3 games too, which is still significant (and probably one of the reasons the Cowboys missed the playoffs). I also think his QB rating is a little flawed simply because of how much Denver threw the ball. The only quarterback to throw the ball more was Drew Brees, and that's a testament to how poor Denver's running game really was (even if they averaged 4.8 yards a carry). They had 6 backs (including Cutler himself) carry the ball 35 or more times last year, and none of them carried it more than 76 times. If you don't have a consistent back, you shouldn't expect a consistent running game, and thus you'll have to pass. So long as Forte stays healthy and Cutler doesn't have to throw the ball 615 times, I think his QB rating will come up, probably to around the 90 range. It's really hard to gauge how good Cutler actually is, and I think this season will be a test of that. Cutler is still one of the most talented quarterbacks in the league and he is going to make the Bears receiving corps better simply because of his presence. He's a hell of an upgrade from anything they've had in the past 20 years. 1) 86 is NOT a "pretty good" QB rating for a guy that cost you a serviceable QB, 2 first round picks and a 3rd round pick. Yes, Cutler is better than Orton, but for what you gave up, you got robbed as far as I'm concerned. 2) Cutler is going to make the Bears receiving corps better?! What receiving corps? This made me laugh. The Bears receivers are OK at best, and Cutler isn't going to make them much better, if at all. Receiving corps? More like receiving CORPSE. 3) Judging a QB with or without a running game is a tricky situation -- Favre had no running for the first six+ games two years ago (his final season on the Packers), and posted INSANE statistics despite opposing defenses knowing he was passing. That has a lot to do with your o-line and your receivers, and again, I fall back on the Bears receivers being an absolute joke...all of them. Bottom line, IMO, Cutler is an upgrade for the Bears -- he's just not nearly as much of an upgrade as Bear nation is trying to make it out to be. You can tell how QB starved this town is when people rejoice about the greatness that is Cutler, when he's not even near being great. As for his "pro-bowl" season, also a joke...with statistics like that, it means he made the pro-bowl because of lack of QB talent in his conference, not because he actually belonged there.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 05:12 PM) I'm sure you've heard of the Second City Blog. http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/ For anyone who hasn't, there is a section on the right side of the page under "problems facing the department." Take a look at that. Of course I've heard of that site...lol

This is a very subjective thing -- diets in general have to be catered to each individual, as every metabolism and body is different so different things work different ways for each individual in question. The obvious usual's will be the first things people say to avoid, such as no fast foods, no greasy/fried foods, etc. This list includes ice cream, sugar, cream, etc...I say bah to that -- I love ice cream, and I love fast food from time to time, too. Oh, and I also love me some hot dogs/polish at the Sox games (with beer, of course)...so for that reason alone these types of diets are out of the question. I've found in my time, which is years and years of working out, experimenting with high calorie, low calorie, high fat/low fat, fast food no fast food, you name it I've tried it over the years -- what I've found is boring strict diets are just that -- boring and strict and almost impossible to stick with. It's good to eat healthy, obviously, so what I tend to do is no matter where I go try to do things on the healthier side without being insanely strict about it. Just little changes here and there can make all the difference in the world. If you usually eat a lot of cheese, switch it to 2% cheese, rather than outright not eating it. If you drink soda a lot, try a diet soda here and there, rather than trying the bound to fail cold-turkey method of crash dieting. Small gradual changes without outright changing everything you eat can be the key to a successful and sustainable diet. If you find yourself hungry, nuts, fruit, etc can be a nice tide-me-over snack. There are many potato chip varieties that aren't full of saturated fats, but poly and mono unsaturated cooked in peanut oils or even baked, eat those instead, especially for you chip lovers that just will not keep off of them forever. All that said, depending on how I feel I'll eat whatever I want -- I just wont overdo it. If I could offer any advice on this subject, do NOT crash diet. Do NOT adopt any diet that makes massive unsustainable changes, either. Find something in the middle, something you can stick with and something that is EASY to do. If everything you eat takes too long to prepare, you will fall off of that diet the moment things get hectic in your life, so don't bother starting something like that. Keep it simple, and don't make it drastic. The key is small changes that cut corners without chopping off the entire block. Also, avoid tasteless crap like no-fat products, they're chemical garbage, stick with low-fat alternatives in place of the things you normally eat and you'll find it makes a world of difference.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 12:17 PM) Well I certainly don't know the whole force, but the ones I have spoken with tend to rail on Weis, and I hear nothing about Daley. Could be because Weis is just a newer topic of discussion. Ask them about Daley, too. Most police believe if Daley had his way they wouldn't even be able to carry guns anymore. But yes, Weis isn't their favorite guy, either. He came in without a clue as to how police departments even worked and started making nonsensical changes so it would look like he was fixing everything. I think what's important is we keep in mind it was Daley who choose Weis, and under his newest choices watch, crime has skyrocketed in Chicago, yet Daley hasn't done anything to reverse this trend. Of course, in the end, our untouchable/infallible Mayor *will* blame Weis...which is to be expected. I just hope people remember who put Weis where he is.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 09:57 AM) You just aren't right on this. The addition of J-Fed was a huge blow, city cops hate the idea of Daley bringing in a Fed to run the department on multiple levels. And J-Fed has done some things to make that worse. I'm sure there is some Daley hate too, but its tempered, and not at nearly the level of disdain for Weis. Coming from a family of police officers, they all disagree with you, but whatever. They dislike Daley, they dislike Weis, they dislike the entire leadership team they both constructed. Police see Weis as Daley's scapegoat, but that's not to say they don't dislike Weis, too. And allow me to correct you, there isn't "some" Daley hate, there is "all the way" Daley hate on the police force.

QUOTE (Disco72 @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 08:49 AM) I don't believe that Rio can overcome it's problems enough to impress the Olympic Committee. Therefore, I think Chicago is the de facto front runner. In fact, I'd argue that Rio as a finalist is really just a practice run in the Committee's collective mind for a future games. Bah, I hope you're all wrong. I don't want them.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 09:09 AM) It is ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as the current situation. I've disliked Pods as much as anyone, and probably longer than everyone here, but Dewayne Wise? Look at his baseball card. I agree, he's better than what we currently have, and no worse. He's defiantly not the best in CF I've seen, but I've also seen way worse. And I disagree with whoever thinks Swisher is a better CF'er than Pods...maybe if the ball is/was hit RIGHT AT Swisher, but he has no range...bah, Swisher sucks...bad. Besides, Pods helped us win a WS, so he has a lot more leeway with me than any of these others...a LOT more.

QUOTE (LosMediasBlancas @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 12:48 AM) Your diagrams are the right idea, except that mine are even narrower and pointier at the bottom, so when they get bulky, they kinda look like,...gulp... boobs. I'll try decline presses again, they put a lot of stress and pain on my shoulders, so I've never really done them and you're right, most people say they're a waste of time. Dumbells or barbell? If you are going to do them, alternate barbell one week, dumbbells the next...you should be doing this now with all of your exercises to keep the muscles in shock -- if you repeat the same exercises every week you will plateau. I did think of an alternative you could try last night, but it will require a cable machine. Does you're gym have one (I'm blanking on the gym name for this thing right now), you'd stand in the middle, usually there is a pullbar above, then 2 cable pulls on either side of you. If you have one of these available, what you can do is set the cable pulls to their low setting, grab one in each hand and take a step with one foot forward (for balance), and then left from underneath (keep your palms pointed at an angle upward like / \ when doing this), it should focus on the lower chest area. Do these slowly so you feel both positive and negative. Hopefully you know what exercise I'm talking about.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 02:43 PM) your pectoralis major muscle is divided into two sections: a sternal component and a clavicular portion. The exercises you are doing work the clavicular portion as it goes straight side to side (medial to lateral). To get to the lower portion or the sternal posrtion you need to lift weight up out in front of you. This is usually done with incline or decline bench presses. In my experience, decline presses have never been prooven to do much of anything. Incline presses only work the pec-minors (top half of the pectoralis), as their major target area, which he's not talking about. Not to dispute what you say, as you got the medial/lateral portion correct, but if I understood him correctly, what he's trying to do cannot be done because his muscles do not connect in that location in the proper fashion to give the look he's looking for. If I could edit this down to text pictures, he has something like this: |_/\_| and he's looking for |_|_| -- correct me if I'm wrong here, but that's what I think he's looking to do. If I'm right, he has the |_/\_| shape simply because of how his pectorals are connected to the center of his breastplate, and there isn't anything he can do about that.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 08:56 PM) I know from my standpoint, as a prospective police officer, I'm welcoming the Olympics to Chicago. I've heard two reliable sources suggest that Chicago will be offering exams for the first time in two years sometime around Fall. I'm sure it's Daley's way of assuring the committee members that his police department isn't in disarray despite internal problems involving lack of staffing, no contract, and poor morale under J-Fed. It's strange, though. I feel completely confident Chicago will host the 2016 Olympics. I'm sure the people behind this city will devote all the available resources (both officially and not) to securing the bid. J-Fed is merely a scapegoat, it's Daley they hate, he's been sinking their moral slowly over the years, it's merely come to a tipping point. One of Daley's biggest uphill battles on the Olympic bid will be explaining his skyrocketing murder/crime rate -- and a police force with absolutely zero moral. Giving them their contract at the last second and hiring additional officers after years of under staffing and f***ing them over when it comes to contract negotiations won't be forgotten even after he gives in. The police know the game he plays, and he will never have them on his side again.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 08:33 PM) It doesn't look good if you don't contract out with the lowest bidder. Well, to that all I can say is well said. But I ask, why is that ok? Why do we accept it?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 06:54 PM) You're assuming it makes them last longer, and does so by an amount that would offset the cost. The biggest benefit right now is that it gets rid of giant piles of rubber tires. And you're assuming it doesn't make them last longer. Well, I can tell you...it does. This all goes back to re-budgeting issues...nobody in streets and san (and I have people in my directly family IN that dept, so I do know), don't want to use a one time only budget which they will not get refreshed because other projects could use the money -- I.E. the water dept, the police dept or otherwise. No, streets and san wants to KEEP that budget, refreshed yearly, and not do the job once and pass the money along to another department...that's not how it works. They do have more expensive (higher quality) asphalt and underlying skeleton/cement they can use, but they won't, because if they do they won't get the same budget refresh to fix the same streets over and over, such as they currently do. In the Chicago political machine, spending 1M once every 5 years doesn't add up, when you can spend 650K every 1.5 years. And as much as you think I'm sounding like a sarcastic joker, I really wish I was trying to be one this time. I know we all wish it didn't work this way, but that's the way it works. One time budgets/spend once/move along doesn't work in politics. What we do, politically, is search for inefficient ways to do something which needs to be redone on a constant basis so we can keep requesting the same budget (or more) over and over...and these requests continue to get approved, over and over. And why? Because, everyone that works in that department, their family, etc...all guaranteed votes for the next election. It's just how we do things. And why not...nobody's paying for it anyway...at least not in this generation. f*** our children's generation or our children's children generation...after all, they'll have to be the ones that worry about repaying that money we keep wasting.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 02:36 PM) If it increases jobs, increases tourist dollars and development, I'm all for two weeks of "hell". Honestly, the best example is the Atlanta games. That city was nothing like it is today. Atlanta was a dump...and it still is...it's just a slightly better looking dump. :/ I'm all for the creation of jobs, and improving the infrastructure in Chicago, but this exactly sort of thing coming to a head on the global, U.S. and local economic scale -- where is the money for all of these projects coming from? Where is the money to pay for this "job creation" coming from? And where does it all end?! Because it's obvious that the money/resources for these events/projects doesn't/don't exist, and we're just creating them out of thin air. We're doing it for this reason or that, Olympics or otherwise, but in the end it comes down to the fact that we're spending money we don't have, we're paying people with money that doesn't exist -- and somewhere, somehow, it's going to need to be repaid. If it isn't the Olympics, it's some other excuse -- such as the creation of a multi-million dollar "bean", or some other such thing. The Olympics is just another (latest) excuse to raise taxes (which they promised wouldn't happen, and believe me it will happen), and to spend even more money that we simply do not have. Yes, to everyone reading this, I realize I'm being waayyyyyy over the top in my previous 50 posts on this subject matter, but it has to stop somewhere. I'm being over the top on purpose to a point, this spending spending spending is WAY out of hand, and it just seems like everyones ok with it, as long as it helps them/their area. This is just another instance in where the more that things change, the more they stay the same.