NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(3E8 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 04:48 PM) This doesn't address the issue that although many CEO's earned the title that they hold, their annual income is outrageous and all trends reflect this. I pretty sure that's what W&O is upset about. There is a new law somewhere in committee at the federal level right now to more fully disclose executive pay to the public. Real compensation, non-cash included, is to be given out in plain language terms. This could help give the markets more complete information on just how much profit companies are throwing away at a small handful of people. Stocks will suffer for it. Boards will force companies to tighten up on that. At least, thats the theory anyway. Not sure where the law/reg is right now. Anyone got more on that?

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 04:44 PM) Something along those lines might be appropriate. I'm all for the oil companies making money as the law allows them, but reasonably-priced energy is absolutely essential to all areas of our economy. And oil is never again going to be reasonably-priced energy. It won't go down in price significantly. It's a limited resource that we are slowly exhausting, and the region we get most of it from won't be peaceful for some time (if ever). Maybe the solution here is to incentivize the energy companies to invest more in alternative sources, by way of tax breaks of some kind. Or mandate a certain percentage of net income be reinvested into non-fossil fuel energy development. Its in those companies' best interests in the long run anyway, if they want to be in business in 50 years. Unfortunately, most current executives could care less about 50 years from now.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 04:12 PM) That's why I'm initiating my "Waterwings for Kids" program. To be followed immediately by... Republicans screaming "social welfare BAD!" Democrats suing the waterwing manufacturers for the .000001% of the products that become punctured. And the OMB finding that most of the money for waterwings actually went to a Halliburton subsidiary who used it to build part of the Israeli wall.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 03:32 PM) You sir, are a pain in the ass, I mean, a pleasure to argue with. Are you making fun of my post? Or saying that I am a pain the in the ass? Either way:

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 03:20 PM) LAT Thanks for the info. I'm all for it, if its done right (like the researchers said).

QUOTE(G&T @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 02:04 PM) I recommend that everyone read "Bush at War" and "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward. Both do a good job of showing how a cabinet runs during pressure moments. Nobody will deny that what happened to Powell was pretty rough. I'm sure there were plenty of presidents that were the same way. I agree completely. Must reads for anyone into politics enough to post in here regularly. Powell wasn't so much bullied out of speaking around Bush. He was bullied by the few others closest to Bush, who kow-tow to him, but shut others out. I personally believe that is one of the reasons that Bush is so good on campaigning, but so bad on in-office PR. Rove (while scary) is really good at connecting Bush with people. But when it comes to policy decisions, I don't think Bush is getting the sort of input he needs to make the best decisions. His biggest influences are all hawks and/or old-time DC types, and some of them are a bit off their rocker.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 02:47 PM) Did you read the whole exchange? Nuke quoted an oil executive, and then said "Thats 86 billion dollars invested by the industry as a whole to keep oil and gas flowing and keep America moving." As if Exxon executives are up there saying, 'How do we keep America working?' instead of 'Where should we put a refinery so as to make the most money we can?' He also said "I also dont remember anyone doing anything to help these guys out 10 years ago when oil was 9 dollars a barrel and they were losing money hand over fist." I pointed out that they never were "losing money hand over fist". Not that we owe them "help" anyway. And then you jump all over me, announcing that I said all oil companies should not be allowed to make any profits. Where the f*** did you get that from? All I said was that what the oil companies are saying is bulls*** ('it's all input prices & competitive market'), and that investments are self serving. Nowhere did I say profit is wrong. I'll chill when you learn to read. Wow. :rolly I'm just saying, I think someone might need a nap.

Flaxx and I have completed our debate. I just wanted to say thank you to Jim for an excellent debate. You sir are very well read, and a pleasure to argue with.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 12:27 PM) Wtf are you talking about? Nuke said they were losing tons of money. They weren't. Ever. Miss that? They can make money. But they claim that the high prices are b/c their input prices are higher. Well, apparently it's not all input prices if they're reporting record profits. They can yell "market" all they want -- this is not some ideal free market. Their investments aren't charity work. What that investment "means" is that they'll make more money later, not that they're wonderful people doing a service to anyone but themselves. Dude. Chill. Who said Exxon should ever be expected to do great things for mankind? I mean, if they do a little of that, great. I would applaud it. But I don't expect it. It's not their place. Their mission is to make money, and they are doing that. If you really want to bring down oil and gas prices, then we need to get less dependant on it. That's the only long term solution.

QUOTE(G&T @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 01:57 PM) Supposedly it has to do with ethanol. It'll be interesting to see what he actually says about it. Ugh. I hope not. Ethanol still requires oil, not just in substance but to produce it. And the prices are still naturally higher than regular gas - they are propped up with subsidies. Or at least they were a few years ago. Maybe that's changed with the higher gas prices. If so, it does make a nice bridge. So do hybrid cars. I hope we are doing more long-term stuff: a combination of Hydrogen, water, wind, solar, nuclear and other ideas out there. Try them out, work out the kinks (they all have flaws), adapt the ones that work best to the right circumstances.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 11:39 AM) It was Stephen Gaghan, the screenwriter for Traffic. That's right. I knew it was the same guy, just couldn't pull the name. Too lazy to check IMDB.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 10:40 AM) So instead of losing money "hand over fist", they just weren't making enough money. Only $5 billion or so in profits. Exxon officials got families to feed! So in your view, because Exxon produces gasoline, they aren't allowed to make a profit? Not sure I get that. And their infrastructure investments mean a lot more than "jack s***". Seriously though, we need to be focusing on getting out from under oil in general. That's the key.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 11:37 AM) Clooney didn't direct Syriana. Didn't Soderbergh direct Syriana? Same guy who did Traffic?

Two thoughts: 1. Syriana as an original screenplay? Uh no, its an adaptation. Why do they do this every year? Do they not know what an adaptation is? I remember seeing Thirteen Days nominated a few years ago as an original screenplay. Huh? I read the book, and they were factual events anyway. Just annoys me. 2. I'll add a third possibility to Rex's two (Brokeback and Luck). If Hollywood wants to avoid political messages entirely, they'll go with Crash. Which I thought was better than Brokeback anway (I haven't see Luck).

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 09:42 AM) Wall Street seemed to really like this guy. As I recall the markets rallied sharply the day his appointment was announced. Of course, that could be good or bad. WSJ had a profile a while back, and he seems very impressive. But that's the extent of my knowledge on him.

Morrisey makes some good points. Yeah, the Sox have gained popularity (quite a bit I'd say). Yes, the biggest single thing that would continue the trend is winning. And no, I don't really think he is part of any vast conspiracy on behalf of the Cubs. But there are other factors which are very important to many fans, which have been in the Cubs' favor in the last few decades. And those are changing too. The neighborhood? IIT just bought a bunch of land to the south of 35th to build a new commercial area, for bars, restaurants, condos, etc. Metra is putting a stop at 35th right there as well. Areas to the north of the park (Armour Park) are being bought up, torn down and rebuilt. The neighborhood is changing. Also, as SS2K5 points out, the real war is on the kids. And the Sox appear to be winning that one. Better promotions, better advertising, a more kid-friendly park, etc. Add it all up, and I think if all these trends continue, the Sox will take back the town. Better on the field, better stadium, better transit options, better parking, better kiddie stuff, and neighborhood options for before and after the game. Not sure when, but it would happen.

QUOTE(retro1983hat @ Jan 30, 2006 -> 02:07 PM) Mike Murphy just played a clip from a television show or a movie where a guy was mad his ex is now dating a Sox fan. Does anyone know where this is from? Probably Major League 2.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 30, 2006 -> 01:56 PM) Also I am curious when we are going to start hearing the howls from other industries such as the precious metals markets which are seeing highs they haven't seen since about the Gold Standard days? When do the Congressional hearings start for Big Gold? Derivatives markets are great economic tools for many reasons. But there is a danger when the trading of the commodity derivatives becomes dominated by a small handful of firms, and they start introducing advantageous market imperfections. These imperfections cause the degree of derivation of the traded instrument from the physical, deliverable commidity to increase dramatically. This makes the traded valuations less and less linked to spot market reality. And since actual delivery-desiring firms use those markets for pricing, which they do, they become subject to what is, in essence, the "trader" tax. This needs to be carefully monitored by CFTC and SEC, unless we want to start causing huge problems for numerous manufacturing subsectors.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 30, 2006 -> 01:50 PM) Ive said it before and I guess I need to say it again. Oil companies do not set the price of oil. Traders on the Nymex and at the Chicago Merc set the price of oil. Oil companies just benefit when the price goes up. Correct. But there are other factors in the price of gasoline aside from the price of oil. I think that's what people want to look into. And the traders themselves have, at times, thrown the country into unnecessary price spikes. With other commidities, the market has a little more "give" on spikes up and down. When oil spikes, gasoline and other oil products go up very quickly in response, so the trading fluctuations are felt much more directly. And some of the time, on the tips of the spikes, the extra bump in price is purely the result of speculators.

CLOSING STATEMENT: There many other subtopics and issues that could be discussed here. But despite the temptation to break new ground, I believe it is time to put a concise end to this particular debate. Therefore, I will do my best to be brief. It has become clear that Mr. Flaxx and I are of basically the same mind when it comes to state and local funding of the arts. The difference between us lies in the issue of federal funding. Mr. Flaxx has agreed that federal funding for the arts cannot go without limit, and I have agreed that one cannot simply say "absolutely no" federal funding of the arts can be allowed. There are grey areas. The difference between us seems to boil down to where we propose to draw the "Beckinsale Line™" As has been fleshed out in this thread, it is difficult or impossible to find guidance in the Constitution that would point the federal government towards funding the arts. This is not an issue of qualitatve value, but of the role of a specific level of government. The federal government was never intended to grant or create "happiness" - only to set the table for the pursuit of it. The legal and governmental definition of "welfare" clarifies this, as does the phrase "pursuit of happiness". Federal grants to the NEA or similar organizations, while seemingly well-intended, are outside the lines. To put an already cash and debt-strapped government in a position of funding something obviously outside the intended scope of administration is wasteful, not to mention against the grain of the core concepts of our Constitutional federation. The Beckinsale Line, like the jeans worn by its namesake, should run very close to the skin of the federal government. Our representatives in Congress have already added far too much fat to their waistlines. Now is the time to cinch in the belt and show some restraint. After all, neither the federal government nor any man or woman (Kate Beckinsale included) was meant to grow to be as unhealthy and obese as our government has become.

While there are things that can be done directly with this situation, the emphasis of the federal government should really be on getting us less dependant on oil as a whole. We need to push the energy alternatives past their current stages of immaturity and into usability.

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Jan 30, 2006 -> 11:09 AM) sun-times for some reason i think this is totally cool. maybe i'm just old. What's interesting is that this article doesn't discuss the real reason why Coke is going back to glass bottles. Plastic requires some sort of oil (refined as petroleum or whatever) to manufacture. Oil is way more expensive now, and plastic is becoming more expensive with it. Glass, on the other hand, keeps getting cheaper. Business aside, though, this is pretty cool. I do think it tastes better in glass.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Jan 28, 2006 -> 07:03 PM) he does make a decent point about the small percentile. to make an extreme point, theres around 4-6,000 people who vote for the american nazi party in each election. i dont see a s***load of movies and sitcoms about them and a s***load of legislation for what that tiny group of society wants. or wican laws, we should be having more wican and warlock legislation in the US house and senate. Maybe that's because no one is trying to enact thinly veiled hate-mongering into legislation that prohibits Nazis from marrying other Nazis. Just a thought. Also, the "point" Juggernaut keeps making about 2-7% is sort of laughable. First, pretty much everything I've read suggests more like 10%. Second, even if it's 5%, that's 15 million people in this country. That's more than there are American Indians. It's also an order of magniture more than there are Nazis. And oh yeah, that's 5 times the size of the City of Chicago. His "point" is absurd. And frankly, the fact that you can't see how equality is possible is pretty sad. Speak for yourself; you're wrong about some of the rest of us.

I'd like to vote yes... but I can't. I voted 'No'. Humans are flawed - death is not. Matt, Illinois

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 05:14 PM) http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/257316...rights27ww.html A Washington state gay rights bill passed both houses and is on the way to governor for signature which has been promised and may come as early as Tuesday. This is the same bill that died a year ago Microsoft decided not to support it. This year they stood by it. It kills me as a hardcore mac guy, but Gates is doing all kinds of good things now. This is small compared to the huge things the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is doing around the world for childrens' education and health. It's getting harder and harder to say bad things about the guy (besides the crappy computers). Good. What's up with the tool quoted in the article who said that all discrimination is wrong, and that he couldn't vote for this bill because it goes against that? How do these people sleep at night? Is he blind? And this argument that protecting gays against discrimination is stomping on religious freedom is awfully scary. By making that argument, you are saying that your religion allows you to practice bigotry in lending and hiring. Uh, no, guy. This is America. Here, you can hate whomever you want and whatever you want, but you can't expect your hatred to be legally recognized, or bigoted behavior to be tolerated. To me, its these "protection of marriage" amendments (thinly veiled hatemongering) that are violating the seperation of church and state. You can believe whatever you want, but don't expect everyone else to have to believe it to. These Christian fanatics (yes, fanatics, kind of like there are Islamic fanatics), who want to turn this into a religious state, make me physically ill. Turns my stomach. Nice to see freedom win today.