Soxbadger

The Aussie player appears to move his shoulder in the replay in an attempt to trip the player. It was not a bad call, it may have been a questionable call. Atleast thats what I saw.

I dont think their will be any punishment. I dont think they did anything wrong. But I just think its strange to see everyone trying to go after the NYT, when the WSJ did the exact same thing. To me it just seems based around the fact the NYT is seen as "Liberal".

My only post is, Whatever you want for the NYT, you better want the same for the Wall Street Journal. So if you want to put the death blow on basically the preeminent financial newspaper in the US, go ahead.

I personally do not like the death penalty. I do not think that it is a very good deterent, and I do not think that it works any better than life imprisonment. The reason I do not like it is because trials are in the hands of humans, humans will make mistakes. When some one is put to death, there is no "we found new evidence" or "we made a mistake" its done. And after seeing how many criminals have been released because of DNA evidence, I only wonder if in the future we will find even better CSI technology. But if the state has the death penalty, then they should be able to give it whatever preference they want. They can make it for only extreme cases, or they can make it for every case.

I guess I am in the minority, I like Vazquez. I like a player who has a desire to win and plays with passion. This is only Javy's second time playing with a winning team, for the good part of career he has played on bad teams. When he starts to realize that the Sox will win games for him as long as he keeps it close, he will start being less hard on himself. Right now Vazquez is still new to the Sox, he is going to have some ups and downs, but when all the dust settles Vazquez is a good pitcher, and will eventually harnass his emotions. I hear a lot about Chris Young, how many games has he played in the MLB?

Sleepy, The level of US play will increase consistently over the next few years. Of the great super powers in soccer, only 1, Brazil has a population near 200mil. When you look at the size of the US compared to other nations, it only needs a fraction of the interest to be competitive. Then combine that with how many immigrants from latin america are coming into the US, there is a foundation for a great Soccer team. MLS basically just needs to stay afloat. Only MLB started with no competition, when NHL, NBA, NFL started there were multiple league's questions about whether the sport would be able to make it etc. But as time passed each of them began to make their own niche in American society. And while the US is not supreme at hockey, they still hold their own on the international level, which is all US soccer needs to do to really start the ball rolling. Once they can go out there with legitimate world wide stars, people are going to buy the jerseys and want to be on the team. Its not that young boys dont play soccer, almost every kid I knew played soccer, almost all of them until high school. The biggest detractor at that point was the similar season of football and soccer, where many who played both had to chose. Once there is money to be made by American's in soccer, there will be many more chosing it at as a sport. Just as of now, the US has not had any real legitimate world wide star. When the first does come, it will bring the sport popularity.

Well obviously the quality of play will be low: 1) It is basically one of the lowest leagues in the world. 2) Its during the World Cup so the "best" players are gone. But if MLS gets backing money wise, there really is no reason why they wont be able to draw the bigger athletes. The US is where the money is in the sporting world, and that is why you hear of Beckham's wanting to come here as they age. If there could be a "Gretzky" type player in US soccer, it would blow up. Unfortunately US players just do not have the technical skills of foreign players. Even watching the US team in the World Cup, their touches are almost always poor and they lack any creativity in attacking. Its almost as if they are the antithesis of US sports, in which generally people want to see high scoring games regardless of the consequence. You would think that the US would come out and attack, because atleast that would appeal to the US audience.

Actually it hurts when 1 team is physical and the other team is weak. Makes the more physical team look even worse. Watching this World Cup and then watching the MLS game, Fire versus Red Bull, it just is shocking the difference in physicality. The MLS basically had no fouls called, and many no calls would have received atleast a yellow card in the cup. The question is, which is the more entertaining form, the one where fouls are called strict, or the one where the game is played loose. I think that soccer could become a big time sport in the US, but international play will have to start to change to the American mindset. American's in my opinion, can not accept it when players lay on the ground in pain to get a foul, are taken off on a stretcher, and then 5 seconds later do not even seem to be in pain. Another thing is that blatant time wasting at the end of close games that just destroys the intensity. Watching Portugal just stall for about 15 minutes while different players took their turns being injured just ruined the ending of an otherwise good match. If the no touching style of play continues to dominate, many American's will never be able to get into the sport. The US also needs to really teach their players how to play the game, its just disgusting watching how few shots on goal they attempt. Their basic strategy is to always try and use headers, where as a team like Brazil barely ever scores that way.

Thanks, luckily the Sox won yesterday or else it would of been a pretty disapointing day.

NP if no disrespect intended. I already have my juris doctor.

Im not a law student, please dont disrespect me again. And states do have limitations on their power. I do not think a state could make a law that would deprive a fundemental right, or do something that would be at a strict scrutiny level at the federal level. I do think that states should have great leniancy in laws that would only need rational basis on the federal level. Also if they were not prosecuting marijuana they would have more people to prosecute the harder drugs. Not to mention, the most effective tool against drugs is education. When people saw the effects of crack, many of them no longer wanted to do it. It was no longer glamorious. People make good decisions, they dont need the govt to hold their hand.

Teix started slow HR wise in his rookie year. He turned it up in June though so at this point he is about 1 month behind. But in his big years he put up 9hr's in some months which could easily put him on pace for 30hrs. His BA and OBP have been good. Supposedly hes moving to the 4th spot so that might change things.

Your right, one day I will get my states rights battle on marijuana. Daley already wants to make it no more than a fine. When the day comes, which side will you be on, states rights or federal rights? And I dont get what your point is. So what that it is illegal right now, that does not mean people should just stop talking about the reasons why it should be legal. That seems to be the whole point of the message board, to get your viewpoint across. If you want to have the viewpoint that marijuana should be illegal just because the govt says so, that is your opinion. But for most people that is not enough, they want reasons.

Nuke, There is no slippery slope. The drugs you compared it to: Meth, heroin, and cocaine, are all much different than marijuana. First, every drug that you mentioned on that list can kill a person on their first try. This is a very important part of drug legislation, as the entire purpose is that the govt is supposed to be protecting us from ourselves. When a drug can kill you because of an overdose, that drug is much more dangerous. You can simply not overdose on marijuana, it is physical impossible. That right off the bat makes marijuana far different from the substnaces you listed. Second, addictive qualities. Unlike the drugs you listed, marijuana is not known to have any physically addictive qualities. Even compared to nicotine, the stopping marijuana has almost no impact on the person. There is pyschological addiction, even if it can not be proved well. But at the same time I have been pyschologically addicted to video games, and they are readily available. Three, drugs that are far more dangerous than marijuana are given out by doctors every day. Morphiine, yes. Oxycoton, yes. But marijuana, some times the only thing that will make these people feel better can not be given, because the US govt says so. There is just no policy rationale, and this relates back to the argument of why marijuana should be legalized in general. Fourth, this is not going to happen over night. I do not really give much credit to the slippery slope, because tobacco and alcohol are already legal. No one is seriosly considering making crack, meth, herion, or coke legal, society can draw the line on what is to harmful and what is not. Those senators and representatives are no better or worse than you or I, but I have seen with my own eyes what alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana can do. And I can say with absolute certainty that marijuana is at worst, just as bad as the other two. The govt should not get to make rules just because, there should be reasons, otherwise people should have the freedom to do it.

1) This isnt about the administration anymore, its about the millions of people in Iraq who we are supposed to doing right by. The Administration, whether they are liars, negligent, or just honestly made a mistake, is nothing more than an extension of the American people. When the US decided to go to war with Iraq, there was popular support. So it is not just the administrations fault, it is the fault of every person who was a sabre-waiver. After 9/11 many American's were looking for a fight, and Iraq happened to be the most convenient fight. The problem occurred when very few if any WMD were found, no real significant ties to 9/11, etc. At that point the administration was in a bind, so they changed tunes to make Iraq about "freedom". That is very problematic on an international stage, because why was Iraq the only dictatorship that we were advocating the over throw of? There are far worse dictators, men who have killed hundreds of thousands to millions of people, and the US does not lift a finger. The failures of today have nothing to do with how Iraq is being handled presently. There just is no way to handle this type of conflict. Not even the greatest President with the most competent adminstration could make any difference in Iraq. The people who are fighting, do not want America there under any circumstances. 2) Yeah they said it, but Im not sure why anyone would have actually believed it. If terrorists were so pissed off about flying planes over Saudi Arabia that they attacked the WTC not once, but multiple times, how do you think they were going to respond with us taking down "one of their own." (I mean that in terms of a muslim regime.) If anything the US should have known that by invading Iraq and putting US troops there it would create a breeding ground for terrorism. Instead of having to attack the US at embassies around the world, or travel across the globe to the US, they now had an area geographically close to them where they could attack the US. And even more importantly, they can actually suceed in this war. There was no chance, no matter how many terrorists attacks, that US citizens truely would be dissauded from our style of life. Looking at history, the US in the last 100 years has been the sleeping dog. And every time the dog has been awoken, it has come out with a vengence. Compare that to Iraqi citizens who have only had freedom for a year, they have no ties to democracy, it means nothing. Every day that passes with more Iraqi deaths, they begin to wonder, "Was it maybe better the old way. Sure we do not have the same freedoms, but we had security, we were not afraid that on any given day we may be kidnapped in our own homes." Even in the US you see this. Post 9/11 the govt has been increasingly eroding freedoms that used to be sacred. But it is being done in the name of "security". If US citizens do not care about losing freedom for security, how do we expect other countries to?

These numbers mean nothing. Bush SR had a ridiculously high rating the year he lost to Clinton. The only rating that matters is the rating when people step into the booth, and a lot can change between now and then.

Basically what you are seeing is the limitations of Democracy. (Republicanism if you want to be really technical. And by Republicanism, I mean a form of govt where there is not direct representation as in a Democracy, ie electoral college. ) In order for democracy to work, the people of the country must want it to work. This is why the model for democracy almost always follows a similar pattern, the people of a nation rise up against the previous form of govt (in most cases some form of monarchy or dictatorship), and through revolution win their freedoms. This is a very important step in democracy, because with out this step, many nations revert back to the previous form of govt. Iraq though is following the short version of democratic revolution, which has been far less successful in long term success. Japan is one of the few countries where this form of transition has worked, going from monarchy during World War II, to democracy after World War II, but in almost all other cases this type of transition has only worked for a short period of time before reverting back to its original form, or turning into a different form such as a military dictatorship. Without the support of the people for democracy, the form of govt just does not work. The entire principal of democracy is that the govt lays in the hands of the people, so when the people are to fractured the govt becomes fractured. When this occurs those who have power (in modern times military generals, classically wealthy elite), consolidate it and strip away what has been won. This is problematic for a democracy because in the end, the military is the only part of the govt with any real power. And when the military colludes against its own nation, the nation is at the mercy of the military, and generally the most powerful general then becomes some form of dictator. The inherently limited power of the democratic govt makes it so that it has no real power without the military to enforce its power. Thus when a country is fractured, the military begins to take sides. Iraq is some what of a different case study though. First note that Japan was permanently disarmed after World War II, making it so that there was no military that could overthrow the democracy. Second it is important to realize that the American intervention in Iraq has started the process of democracy. What we are seeing right now is democracy at its first stages. The Iraqi's are fighting for what they believe in, regardless of whether we agree with it or not, the landscape is much different than Iraq under Saddam. Because democracy promotes all viewpoints, it is inevitable in a new democracy that you will see acts of terrorism, violence. The problem now is, the people of the US were not prepared for this type of revolution. Democracy is the only thing most American's know, at the beginning of the war many thought if you just give people the right to vote, they will be happy and everything will turn out good. When in reality most countries that have become democracies have atleast 1 time reverted back. Put in perspective, the US is the longest standing free society. Compared to France which reverted back under Napolean. At this point there is nothing the US can do. Once Saddam fell we were in it for the long haul. If we leave now, the democracy will fail. Most likely it will be some where in the range of at minimum 5-10 years before there is any stability in Iraq. Each election will be another time where the govt becomes destabilized and when the time is ripe for overthrow. When the US took 1 step into Iraq, this is the deal that we made with the Iraqi people. We told them that we would give them freedom, and it is now our responsibility to hold to that. For better or for worse, we can not take back what has happened. That is the test for war supporters, not whether they support it today, but whether 10 or 20 years down the line we are still willing to risk our own citizens lifes to ensure that Iraq has a democracy. Sorry for the long post.

Lowercase, Thats basically the history as I know it as well. A few very rich and powerful people got together to make a plant illegal. Unlike cocaine, poppy, or other plants that require synthetic processes, marijuana can be grown and basically smoked as is. Santo, In part that is one of the reasons for the continued illegality, but it is some what poor economic reasoning. The basis of our economy is supply and demand. Right now the supply for marijuana is basically consistent, while the demand is always increasing. Unlike normal economic models, increasing supply does not work as well because marijuana is a black market substance. Therefore instead of increasing supply to meet demand, there is an increase in price. A marijuana plant which may cost less than $5 to grow, can reap thousands of dollars of marijuana. The govt could make money, because right now the black market price is so high that if it was legitimized, supply would increase drastically destroying the black market. There would be no need to go to a dealer, when you could just go down to the store and buy a pack of joints. The govt could put excessive taxes on it, and it would never reach the prices of the current drug scene. Also while marijuana is easy to grow, it is time consuming. The period from germination to blooming, is at minimum 2-3 months, and then there is the time required to let it dry, etc. So most people are not going to want to start growing their weed crop in May, only to get their first results in August. Not to mention once it becomes legal, the supply will flood the market place, making it not worth most people's time to grow their own. Most people do not grow their own produce for the very same reason, the amount of time and effort that it takes to grow the product is not worth the money it costs to buy it. And we are not even getting into the more complicated aspects of growing, weeding out the males to prevent seeds, only harvesting females the plant with the stronger potency, breeding methods to create even more potent strains, and the list goes on. You can buy a home beer brewer out of a magazine, but it does not make it worth while. If marijuana was ever legalized the govt would see a windfall profit. First, think of all the expenses that it will no longer have. It no longer will have to pay for marijuana felons in jail, wont have to pay extra police, dea to capture and track, less court time, etc. Then think of all the added revenue, the drug trade is a billion dollar a year industry, and right now the US govt sees $0. Should marijuana be legalized the revenue stream would be equal to or surpass that of tobacco and alcohol, and that is billions of tax dollars uncollected each year. If Reagan had not beaten Carter, it is likely that marijuana would have been legalized. Nothing against Reagan as he was one of my favorite presidents, but the man had been fighting hippies since the 60's in Cali. It was pretty predictable that he would be the President to bring "Just say No" and bring the war on drugs back into the public.

I dont care what people say, the Mets are good and the White Sox or any team from the AL should not take the NL lightly. Reyes, Beltran, Delgado, Wright is a hell of a line up considering they do not have a DH. And unlike most NL teams who suffer when it comes time to play with a DH, the Mets have guys like Milledge, etc who are just looking for a place to play. True the Mets pitching is not that great, but their offense has the tools to win any game. And in a 7 game series with Pedro going atleast 2 times, that is only 2 other games that they need to win. Its one thing to be confident, its another to be arrogant. And Reyes just went for the cycle last night, imagine Pods being able to do that.

Lost is so good. The second season is probably better.

Thats actually not true: http://www.opcw.org/html/db/members_ratifyer.html In 1993, the United States signed the UN-sponsored Chemical Weapons Convention. In October 1996, the 65th nation ratified the convention making the treaty effective on April 29, 1997. Through ratification, the United States agreed to dispose of its unitary chemical weapons stockpile, binary chemical weapons, recovered chemical weapons, and former chemical weapon production facilities by April 29, 2007, and miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel by April 29, 2002.

My last post was eaten by the abyss, but to paraphrase: 1) Why would Liberal's (I assume you meant capital L) be disapointed. Historically Liberal's have been very willing to go to war for the right causes, World War I, World War II, and Korea. 2) If they found a nuke, or something else that truely was capable of mass destruction, I think people would really change their opinion. But when the best you can find is antiquated weapons like Mustard Gas, or Sarin which can be made in your basement, it does not set a good precedent for when govt's can be over turned. The US stockpile of weapons is far greater, yet I doubt many would agree that China could invade us if we dont destroy all the weapons we have stockpiled over the last 100 years.

The only reason Marijuana ever became illegal was through the lies and deceit of a few people, mainly Hearst. He got rich selling fabricated stories, and along with some of his friends in the paper industry paid off the US govt to make marijuana illegal. Dont people wonder why liquor and tobacco are legal, while marijuana is not? The answer is because hemp is a renewable resource that can be turned into energy, paper, and many other useful products. Henry Ford was trying to create a car that ran entirely on hemp in the early 20th century. Its a pretty in depth subject, but basically a bunch of rich guys colluded to get it originally banned (or more specifically made it so that you needed a stamp to sell it, and then made it impossible to get the stamps, effectively illegalizing it). If you are interested just put into google, Hearst illegal marijuana.

Its not about being offended, its about professional's having a certain level of class. I am no better than anyone else and have used the word, phrase, and other similar insults more frequently then I would like. But I would not use them when I was at work.

BTW Illinilaw, congrats on your first year, the hardest part is over. ( I assume Conlaw I is 2nd semester 1L, I have a JD and was quite successful in Conlaw I & II). But I am going to defer to everyone else's expertise in this thread. I did the research, and found no evidence to suggest that the Supreme Court has ever been explicitly told it can not review an Amendment. No one has found contrary evidence. All cases, arising under the constitution. I see no words of limitation. I am sorry that I am taking the minority viewpoint, but I started believing the same thing as you. I thought that as soon as I looked into it, that I would find a bunch of cases or con law articles that said the Supreme Court's power was restricted in this regard. I found nothing. I then asked if anyone else could find something, some shred of evidence besides for our own opinions, and I was given nothing. So in the end, this is nothing more than a bunch of opinions. I am glad that you all think you are right, but that will not change what I think is right. No one has put any nail in the coffin, I do not think it is assinine to suggest that when 2 amendments would come into direct conflict, as these 2 amendments would, that the Supreme Court could decide that in the end one of them was invalid. Unlike the slavery amendments, women's sufferage, they are not in conflict with any other amendment. So yes in the very limited situation, where an amendment may pass that is in direct conflict with another amendment, the supreme court would be able to invalidate one of them. Other wise what is the point of an amendment, if you can just eat away at it through smaller "less restrictive" amendments. We arent completely over turning the 1st amendment, we are just taking away the spirit. So I guess if people wanted to make an amendment that took away all firearms, that the Supreme could not step in? These are questions that are uncontemplated by the founding fathers. The only time that an Amendment has been rescinded is prohibition, and our expert Illinilaw08 will tell us about the filled milk case and why the govt could make any law that was rationally based. I am sure that he knows all about Carolene products. Then compare this projected case, where the Supreme Court has already ruled that flag burning is protected by the First Amendment. This would be the first time I can think of the supreme Court calling something a "protected activity" and then it being overturned by Amendment. You may all be right, but when you act like my stance has no merit and dont even give me the respect to do some research and tell me what precedent you have on your side, it just gets very frustrating to argue. I respect Illinilaw, but I do not see how his argument is persuasive either way. As you say the Constitution is not specific, but in the end you will agree that there is only one body that has the power to interpret the constitution, and that body is the Supreme Court. Therefore it would be entirely within the Supreme Court's power to interpret the constitution to give them the power to call an Amendment unconstitutional. If they read that power into the constitution, which I have given my reasons why they could; article 3 specifically says "all" which means without limitation, Amendment is legislation, the Judiciary always has power over legislation. Then maybe they will over turn it. Once again, Im not saying this is what they will do, I already said Im not willing to research every judge's opinion on the topic and guess what they would say. All i am saying is that I did the research because I was interested, and when I really started to look at the issue from a seperation of power standpoint, the area gets very murky of where the Supreme Court's power ends. You already have all made up your minds, and maybe if the stars are aligned we will see what happens. But for some reason I dont see the Amendment making it.