NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 01:29 PM) Whoa. Good question. I'd have to look at things from the point of view of what was the purpose of this fake ID business and the damage that could have been done to society in general by the nature of the 'business'. Was this kid selling fake ID's to 19 year olds that wanted to get into a bar or was he selling to terrorists that need the ID's to operate within this country. Of course, there a lot of 'what ifs' that can thrown around here. You have to have faith in the powers that be to get an accurate read on the circumstances and that they would act accordingly. I don't believe there was anything on their minds aside from getting into the bars.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 01:29 PM) I'm no legal expert, but I'd say that he could likely be charged with multiple counts of fraud. If I were the prosecutor, I wouldn't push for jail time if the kid is in college and has no prior record. A hefty fine and probation should be sufficient. If I were the university, however, I'd consider expelling the kid for committing a felony on university property. FYI, yes, the particular offense of making and selling false identifying papers is a manner of fraud in the state in question. Fraud with a deceptive instrument may be another legal term one could use.

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 01:22 PM) Quick question, were the fake IDs made with real people's information or were they complete fakes? Complete fakes, if I recall correctly. Some of their own correct data with some artificial information. Fake from scratch (though the template scanned in was probably someone's real ID at some point).

The hypothetical thread in here today got me to thinking... wouldn't questions like that be more challenging if they were real situations? Nothing against hypotheticals, they are useful exercises. But I decided to lay out here a real choice from a real scenario, which I think really brings out analytical mindset regarding the law. So here it is... A 19 year-old college student is caught making fake ID's. The cops find this accidentally, but the kid's dorm room is a veritable orgy of evidence - template, partially completed ID's, completed ID's, checks and cash from clients, tools and papers, and a laptop computer with the ID designs on it. Turns out he has made and sold about a dozen of them to students (in one case to a dorm floor RA or whatever you call them). The cops followed normal procedures throughout the event, so you can assume there were no legal complications or loopholes to be found. The kid is arrested, and marched out of the dorm in handcuffs, eventually spending the night in jail before his family can bail him out the next day. The kid has no previous criminal record, and an excellent academic record. By state law (in the state this occurred in), the offender is guilty of roughly a dozen counts of a class D felony, punishable by up to 4 years in prison (for each count, potentially). In theory, the crime could be pushed to federal jurisdiction as well, because the ID's were for one state, made in another, given to students from a bunch of others (I don't know the exact criminal violation at the federal level). He is also, of course, guilty of violating some university regulations and dorm rules and all that jazz (not sure how serious that would have been, maybe kicked out of the dorm or something). So I ask this... what do you charge him with, and do you send him to jail? There is one argument that, given he was guilty of a felony (multiple counts), he should do the jail time. He should be treated no different than similar offenders who, say, performed a small-scale burglary or was convicted of selling heroin. Equal treatment. Or, on the other hand, there is the argument that this 19-year old college student would probably have his life ruined by such jail time, and that if you choose a lighter sentence (probation, school expulsion, community service, some combination), he could still be a valuable member of society. And it was a non-violent crime. Judgement call. Bonus question - what do you do with those who purchased the ID's? Charge with misdemeanor? Flip them on the kid? Probation or something? What do you do? I'd love to hear answers and explanations for you positions.

This thread is giving me a headache. Take that as you will.

QUOTE(kevin57 @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 12:54 PM) Plus, who's the say that there would be any significant qualitative difference between a graduate of Yale and a graduate of the University of Iowa? If you are looking to go less left than Yale, the University of Iowa is not the place to go. Your mainstream Hawkeye is from Chicago or some other big city, and usually left-leaning. The in-state small town crowd usually goes to Iowa State or UNI. I'd stick more with the Nebraska example.

QUOTE(POPPY_HIDALGO @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 11:20 AM) I see the Sox winning somewhere between 110 and 120 games this year. The rotation is that solid and the everyday lineup is easily one of the best in the league and by the end of the season might be looked at as one of the greatest of all time. So how well do you all see them doing this year? Why does your poll entirely skip the 100-120 range, when that is where you say they will finish?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 11:57 AM) You can also make a case for the fact that NBC,ABC, FOX and CNN tooks shots at CBS because they are their competition. It seems to me that would be a factor. Which is exactly the point I made earlier. It business. If one network ends up going at a story at too steep an angle, the other networks will take the more direct line up the middle and beat them to the punch. In other words, if a network starts veering off to one side or the other of the aisle, and misses stories because of it, they will pay for it in ratings. Its not liberal media bias - its dirty laundry, and the same thing will happen to whomever goes into Congress in 2006 and the Presidency in 2008, regardless of party.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 11:33 AM) Cheaters are always going to look for ways to cheat. I respect football for at least putting in things like *gasp* rules and *godforbid* penalties for things like drug usage and illegal activity, while the sports of baseball and basketball have acted like they done exsist and even become complicit in their coverups. It might not be perfect, but its better than the joke that my favorite sport became. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 11:07 AM) I knew somebody would mention that "one error against the Cubs" in the manner you did. And, don't get me wrong, it's a valid point. However, I didn't judge Gload's OF abilities based on one play. I've seen too many plays where he just didn't seem real comfortable when trying to snare what should have been 'a can of corn'. He is shaky out there. Wait. Let me qualify that a bit. He's very shaky in RF. In left he didn't look quite so uncomfortable. Still, I wasn't filled with a feeling of confidence when a flyball was hit toward Gload in left. I see others feel the same. So noted. I'll talk all of your words for it, not knowing any different. This brings up another question. If Gload is the better stick than Borch, but Borch can play OF a lot better... which would you rather have, based purely on that? And further, which can be learned more quickly - defense or hitting? Of course, what is probably going on behind the scenes is KW is trying to trade either one, depending on what the other team wants. That may decide which one stays.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 10:32 AM) No, he's just not meant for the outfield. Gload doesn't have the speed, range, or arm to play there. The only place I would ever risk putting him for a very short time would be LF. I would never stick him in RF again. QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 10:54 AM) In his brief tenure in the OF with the White Sox, I have seen him drop 2 flyballs, something little leaguers don't do. He can't throw, and he has no range. He is a decent defensive firstbaseman, but not exactly gold glove calibur. Gotcha.

QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 10:16 AM) Carl may be right: we may fall flat on our face this season. But I'm quite confident that it won't be because the absence of himself, Frank and Willie, or even Aaron. Of that group, I still think Aaron will be the loss felt most deeply. But I think you are right, even that won't cause the Sox to fall flat.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 10:09 AM) Gload is also shaky catching the ball in the OF. I honestly think that people are too focused on the one big error in the Cubs game in '04 (or was it '03?). But then, I also must admit I have not seen him play all that often, so I have to mostly go by stats, which are sometimes deceiving (and he doesn't have much time in at the MLB level). His stats don't seem to scream particularly good or bad to me - the ones I could find.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 04:28 AM) Someone stole their thunder ... and they want it back. Yup.

So, the biggest minus with Gload has typically been pointed out as his arm from the OF. Now that he is healed from shoulder surgery, has anyone seen him throw from out there this spring? Do things look any different? I was at one spring game, but Gload didn't play. I did see Borch play a little OF, and he did seem pretty solid out there. Especially when he was on the field at the same time as Grieve. :puke

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 12:44 AM) That would require Jim Thome to die. Even if Thome died, I'd still rather have Ross Gload DH, or have Mack play 1B and DH Konerko, than have Carl back. He was the worst DH in the league last year, in case we all forgot.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 06:04 PM) true, but most of the news stories i saw showed both sides of the story. a lot of the news stories showed how unfair some of those 'swift boat' political ads were. the CBS story was a hatchet job, a politically motivated hatchet job IMO. meh, i usually watch 'the Newshour' (pbs) anyways. Ah, the old McNeil Lehrer show. That is a good one.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 06:00 PM) The Swift Boat and Rathergate situations are not comparable because the Swift Boat Veterans MADE THEIR OWN CASE. Sure, they were on TV, but their argument was being made by them, not the network. O'Reilly has left-wing nutcases like Al Sharpton on his show all of the time, but that doesn't mean that he's promoting their ideas. On the other hand, Dan Rather and CBS were the ones who directly presented the case about Bush's military record. And the networks also looked into Swift Boat. I make no defense of Rather. Instead, I am just trying to point out that as much crap as there was being thrown at Bush about his Guard duty, there was just as much crap about Swift Boat (along with his use of his medals, etc.). The media explored both sides, albeit poorly. There simply isn't this vast conspiracy across the media that you claim exists.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 05:35 PM) I disagree with you there as well. Murder is not "beyond our country's control." That's why we have the police and the FBI. The news media isn't interested in removing crime from our inner-city streets. They're interested in embarrassing the Bush administration and putting liberals in positions of political power. Not what I said. Read my post. Most Americans do not see a way to stop a murder - it is easier to pick one person they think caused many deaths. That could be Bush, or Islam, or the Iranian Premier or whomever. That is what I am getting at. Of course we can do things about murder generally, and we have. Murder rates are down nationally, and have been on that trend for a decade or more. QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 05:35 PM) The letter was the most important piece of evidence and it was determined to be not authentic by multiple experts. The document, supposedly written on a typewriter in the '70s, was determined to have been written on a computer with Microsoft Word! And Dan Rather happily declined to attempt to authenticate the document before reading it on the air to tens of millions of registered voters. No time for the truth, there's an election coming up soon! It was key, and as I said in my reply to Mr G, it was shoddy journalism. But there was other evidence, much like the evidence used in the Swift Boat nonsense. And just the same, they were both covered in the news.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 05:34 PM) whoa...i know you aren't defending the use of forged documents, in an attempt to sway public opinion, on a national news telecast directly before a presidential election? the "well it was probably true anyways" argument is a very bad one. No I'm absolutely not - let me be clear there. They didn't check into it nearly enough, and failed in their journalism. But I don't think it was a liberl athing - I think it was "Get this dirty laundry into the news ASAP", and it would have been the same for Kerry. And it was - Swift Boat appeared in the MSM plenty.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 05:52 PM) LOL

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 05:44 PM) Gload is the Chevy Player of the Game. 2 for 3, HR, RBI-double. Time for Borchard to show his stuff. *elbows Rock*

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 05:15 PM) OK, how about Dan Rather's fake story about Bush's military service record, conveniently aired right before the '04 election? Is that current enough for you? I addressed all your points in an earlier post, except this one above. First, the story wasn't fake. The letter may have been, but there was other evidence besides the letter. And having seen the other evidence, I'm not sure Bush didn't in fact skip out. Second, they also reported a ton on the Swift Boat nonsense. There too, there were multiple pieces of evidence, but nothing terribly concrete. So how is that different? They were both covered in the news, both talked about plenty. Where is this supposed bias?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 04:21 PM) So why aren't the 100's of killed every day IN THIS COUNTRY from violence covered with the same fury? Now THAT is a good question. I think that is less about politics than it is about the sociology of American society. It it was political, they'd cover the murders too, and blame that on some politician. Murders are everyday, and they seem to the average American as unavoidable. How can you predict murder or change the path away from it? That is a difficult task. War, on the other hand, is a choice. A murder is a person's choice but beyond the country's control. War is a choice we have a voice in, in a democracy. I think that is your answer.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 04:08 PM) Most liberal media outlets are anti-war and anti-military. Most of the major ones in this country are also anti-Bush. Walter Cronkite going on the 6:00 news and flat-out lying to millions of Americans about what happened during the Tet Offensive tells you all you need to know about liberal media bias during a time of war. You didn't answer the question. How is reporting combat deaths of thousands of American troops not news? Or otherwise worded, how is that politically biased? Walter Cronkite 40 years ago is your example?! The "MSM" as some like to call it will report what people read/hear/see. If they fail to do that, they fail to exist. If they choose to not report certain things, other networks will, and again, they will fail to exist. Its not politics - its business.