Jump to content

Mplssoxfan

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,545

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Mplssoxfan

    Filibuster Catch-All

    in The Filibuster

    Posted

    Stalwart Service for U.S. in Iraq Is Not Enough to Gain Green Card

     

    This is an article about a Kurd who was a translator in Iraq and finally got to emigrate here. He's now being denied a green card for some very convoluted reasons. You really should read the article.

     

    Last month, however, the U.S. government turned down Ahmad's application for permanent residence, known as a green card. His offense: Ahmad had once been part of the Kurdish Democratic Party, which U.S. immigration officials deemed an "undesignated terrorist organization" for having sought to overthrow former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

     

    Ahmad, a Kurd, once served in the KDP's military force, which is part of the new Iraqi army. A U.S. ally, the KDP is now part of the elected government of the Kurdish region and holds seats in the Iraqi parliament. After consulting public Web sites, however, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services determined that KDP forces "conducted full-scale armed attacks and helped incite rebellions against Hussein's regime, most notably during the Iran-Iraq war, Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom."

     

    Ahmad's association with a group that had attempted to overthrow a government -- even as an ally in U.S.-led wars against Hussein -- rendered him "inadmissible," the agency concluded in a three-page letter dated Feb. 26.

     

    The second youngest of five children, Ahmad was away at college when Saddam Hussein, striking at rebellious Kurds, launched a chemical gas attack against Ahmad's home town, Halabja, in 1988. The infamous assault, in which more than 5,000 died, was often cited by the Bush administration as part of its justification for invading Iraq. It left Ahmad without a single living relative, as he has recounted to Americans many times over the past six years.

     

    Basically, the guy was part of an organization that tried to overthrow Saddam Hussein and, therefore, he's a terrorist.

     

    I don't want to draw any parallels, but I sure don't like this line of thinking.

     

     

     

    First Supreme Court case re: 2nd Amendment in 70 years

    in The Filibuster

    Posted

    QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 04:55 PM)
    People who tend to interpret this one very loosely,

     

    tend to interpret this one very literally.

     

    The opposite is also true. People who think the second is fluid want to take the first one word for word.

    Alpha brings up a great point. In general, people who see no exceptions to the 1st amendment are quick to point out exceptions to the 2nd, and vice versa.

     

    To me, in the 1st, the language is clear.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

     

    But, to me, the intent of the last clause of the 2nd is clear as well.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Again, I'm not an expert, but it seems pretty clear to me that the right to bear arms is an individual right. Of course, there is a clear basis for regulation in the first clause. If the word regulated is in the text, you can probably divine that regulation is what they had in mind.

     

    It's complicated, but I don't think that the founders contemplated people going through the streets with shotguns 24/7.

     

    My ultimate answer to Alpha? The two amendments are both open to interpretation -- think "clear and present danger".

    First Supreme Court case re: 2nd Amendment in 70 years

    in The Filibuster

    Posted

    QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 03:43 PM)
    One reason, perhaps the main reason, perhaps the only reason that our constitution has survived the dramatic changes that have taken place as the country moved from a small set of agrarian colonies to the foremost economic and military power on earth is that the Constitution is vague and allows for reinterpretation over time.

    Yes and no. There isn't much ambiguity here,

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    though people certainly interpret it in different ways.

     

    Obama's Pastor

    in The Filibuster

    Posted

    QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 18, 2008 -> 05:30 PM)
    See my post, Alpha. He didn't say that AT ALL. And I'm not an Obama-bot. The stupidity of this is mind-boggling.

    (nevermind... you actually quoted it... but it's definitely getting twisted around. To some, those remarks aren't controversial, sadly enough.)

    Are too an Obama-bot!

    Big Ten Tournament

    in A and J's Olde Tyme Sports Pub

    Posted

    QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Mar 16, 2008 -> 04:04 PM)
    The officials blew that one, definitely. It's either a foul or a travel. Minnesota didn't deserve a win yesterday, but that crew should be reprimanded by the league office.

     

    A friend who has worked the NCAA tourney the last couple of years was suspended by the Big Sky for a game because of a non-call he didn't make (if that makes any sense), and he's not assigned to do any NCAA games this year. He certainly deserved to be suspended, BTW. It would be nice if the Big Ten would discipline their officials when they make errors like this, but I won't be holding my breath.

     

    On a tangent, I remember a game many years ago where two officials (I'm pretty sure one was London Bradley, but I can't remember the other one) blew their whistles simultaneously. One saw a charge, the other saw a block. Incredibly enough, they called a double foul! That was an amazing display of egos and stubbornness.

    Just found out that my friend got a game or two in Omaha. Good for him.

    This is so crazy, it might just work! Naaah.

    in Pale Hose Talk

    Posted

    QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Mar 17, 2008 -> 05:20 PM)
    Fields at 2B?

     

    Why was this article posted?

    For the discussion possibilities. I don't buy what the writer's selling either.

     

    Josh does nothing for me at 2B, but, let's face it, we're looking at 86 wins this year, tops. Let's experiment.

     

    I thought that the main thrust of the column is that Ozzie is set in his ways. I admire him, but he needs to try something different.

    This is so crazy, it might just work! Naaah.

    in Pale Hose Talk

    Posted

    Linkity.

     

    For what it's worth, here's what I'd do: Stick Crede at third and Anderson in center, purely for their stellar defense early in the season, when the weather will make homers scarce and defense imperative. I'd stick Fields at second and deal with his poor range and hope that Joey Cora can teach him to turn a double play in short order. I'd stick Swisher in left and bat him leadoff, but freely insert Owens -- with Swisher, Paul Konerko, or Jim Thome sitting -- depending on the weather conditions and the pitching matchup.

     

    More at link.

    Big Ten Tournament

    in A and J's Olde Tyme Sports Pub

    Posted

    QUOTE(Felix @ Mar 16, 2008 -> 09:23 AM)
    Normally the play ends, then the officials call their timeout. This happened in the Wisconsin game yesterday too, when Hughes went down. He was on the ground, right in front of the ref, but play continued until the play was over. After it was, the whistle was blown and Hughes was dealt with.

     

    After the foul wasn't called, I don't see how it wasn't called a travel. Apparently you just get a do over if you get hit in the face and no foul is called, but whatever, we wouldn't have won anyway. It just would have been nice to get the chance, especially after that Indiana game.

    The officials blew that one, definitely. It's either a foul or a travel. Minnesota didn't deserve a win yesterday, but that crew should be reprimanded by the league office.

     

    A friend who has worked the NCAA tourney the last couple of years was suspended by the Big Sky for a game because of a non-call he didn't make (if that makes any sense), and he's not assigned to do any NCAA games this year. He certainly deserved to be suspended, BTW. It would be nice if the Big Ten would discipline their officials when they make errors like this, but I won't be holding my breath.

     

    On a tangent, I remember a game many years ago where two officials (I'm pretty sure one was London Bradley, but I can't remember the other one) blew their whistles simultaneously. One saw a charge, the other saw a block. Incredibly enough, they called a double foul! That was an amazing display of egos and stubbornness.

    North v South

    in The Filibuster

    Posted

    QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 02:41 PM)
    What more can be done? Any public figure that even remotely hints at it is thrown into the muck, usually ending careers or significantly effecting them. Affirmative-action and requirements for minority contracts have essentially eliminated access issues. Education/community issues are obviously heavily slanted towards certain races, but really what more can be done to fix that? That's not a racism issue so much as a class issue. Work discrimination occurs all the time (I work at a firm now with some really bizarre and off the wall type cases - the racism is SO obvious it's not even funny), but laws are in place to protect/remedy those situations. Voting might be an issue because of the way district/community lines are drawn - ensuring that each vote counts equally is very important. But even today I think it'd be tough to find issues there.

     

    Again I know racism exists, but I dunno what else we can do about it. There are just ignorant people out there who will do it/accept it/promote it no matter what.

    I think you misunderstood my intent, so allow me to rephrase.

     

    I think that we, as a people, have made great strides in curbing racism. I also feel that there is much work left to be done.

     

    Not talking about the Government, but about individuals.

     

     

     

    Jerry Crasnick from espn.com on Ozzie and Kenny

    in Pale Hose Talk

    Posted

    Link.

     

    As a duo, these guys run out some of the liveliest baseball dialogue since Abbott and Costello.

     

    • Williams on the pressures of the job: "Boston. New York. Chicago. Philadelphia. These are very demanding sports towns. If you don't recognize that one basic principle, it will swallow you up. So I wake up every day knowing that to a large segment of our fan base, I'm the village idiot.''

     

    • Guillen on the lack of respect accorded Williams: "People forgot how good Kenny was for four years. People forgot he didn't finish worse than second. It's a funny thing about this game. We win the World Series and Kenny makes three key moves to winning, and the guy in Cleveland [shapiro] wins the Baseball America Executive of the Year. That's a bunch of s---.''

     

    • Williams on the pecking order in Chicago: "Our fans don't care about injuries and other things that happened last season. It's all about what you do on the field. There's only one sports team in Chicago that will get a pass. I won't name them. But it ain't us.''

     

    • Guillen on his "hate-love'' relationship with Williams: "Last year Kenny and me stuck together. We fought together. We sat together. We were upset together. We blamed each other. We found out who was behind us and who wasn't. Ninety-nine percent of the people weren't behind us. Hey man, this game is a bunch of front-runners. If you're good, they kiss your butt. If not, you're horse s---.''

     

    Much more at link.

    North v South

    in The Filibuster

    Posted

    QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 02:37 PM)
    I'm not going to take a side on the north/south thing, but I do want to add two things...

     

    1. Rex is right - racism manifests itself differently in the north and south. I've lived in the midwest, and the south, and the west. Its different everywhere.

     

    2. Here is a little story about Chicago suburban schools and southern kids... A close acquaintance of mine was born in North Carolina, at Camp Lejeune (dad was a Marine), and the family moved to the north suburbs of Chicago when he was about 7. Shortly after arriving and starting in the schools (mind you, this was a highly regarded north suburban district), they put him in speech therapy. As the teachers tried to explain to his mother what the speech issues were, she realized what it was - his drawl. The school took his drawl for a speech impediment.

     

    Just something to think about.

    1. Spot on. In my experience, there is a great deal more of what I would call "closet racism" in the Northern climes. I think we can look to Ms. Ferraro's comments for evidence of closet racism bubbling up, to mix metaphors. I haven't traveled in the South in a while, but it was always my feeling that people in that part of the country were much more upfront about their opinions, on race and everything else.

     

    2. That's such a bias of Northerners that it isn't funny. Some of the most brilliant people I know are from the deep South, but other ignorant Northerners would underestimate them only because of their thick drawl. It is asinine.

×
×
  • Create New...