Balta1701

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 08:43 PM) Stop it. You have no idea what you are talking about. Come on man...AIG winding up with their chief regulator being the Office Of Thrift Supervision? There's no such thing as a regulator making things so lenient that big companies use them so that they get funded? If anyone doesnt know what they're talking about in this case...the evidence is on my side. AIG used that regulator, which made no sense at all, because they wouldn't regulate them, and that's how we got the Aig mess. And the OTS came about in the first place because the previous office was closed down after failing to regulate in the early 1990s collapse, when the name was changed on the doors/

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 08:36 PM) This season was lost before August... After the July 31st trade deadline, the White Sox got weaker, the Tigers got stronger.. You're pretty much right, this season was lost when they went 11-22.

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 08:00 PM) As for the topic, No thank you.. If Albert stays in STL as everyone seems to think will happen.. 'Ramirez would be the #2 top hitter to go after My bet.. He ends up with LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Angels. They been throwing money down the drain the last several years.. he seems like a perfect fit for them. You're 100% correct...he's a perfect fit for LAA.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 08:30 PM) I've rarely had the motivation to even browse Soxtalk these last few months, but I've taken notice of Balta's shift in demeanor. He's much more critical of this team. Not that any of it isn't justified, but coming from him I'm not used to it. For anyone not around that often it's even more noticeable. I think I was very clear on my line. I think it's only fair to evaluate a manager or front office in aggregate. 88 wins last year and a 2008 division championship...that's kinda close, I can consider that. 3 straight years of missing the playoffs, then I can't defend things that I might otherwise tolerate if they were winning. This was the line, I think I said that last January. They failed to meet the required standard. There's no other defense.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 08:26 PM) I think I've agreed with SS2K5 and Balta more in the last month (mainly since Victory registered) than I have in the last two years combined. I don't like this at all. I would join filibuster (that would make things normal again). But that could get ugly - aka the Gordon Beckham gay thread. Oh god no....

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 05:22 PM) Thanks to you both for reading! Forgot to add one more very important thing to do in the markets... the dispersed regulatory authorities need to be consolidated. There should not be an SEC, a CFTC, exchange regulators, clearing house regulators, and so on... there should be one regulatory national body, in Treasury, to handle all financial markets. It can still be seperate from retail and institutional banking, but for the actual markets, it needs to be unified. This saves money, improves communication, makes it harder for instruments to slip between, etc. I can't complain about this in general, but if like to note a couple things...this agency needs to be well funded enough to attract legit workers, which is difficult for the government in the first place...and there needs to be an independent CPFB, like Dr Warren described. Otherwise...yes, regulator shopping is awful.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 06:04 PM) Seems to me you're thinking about this in a vacuum. You're ignoring that there are multiple witnesses corroborating what the others saw plus the physical evidence. There's more than just one guy thinking he saw someone do something with a ~10% chance of being mistaken. Reall, at this point, there are no longer multiple independent witnesses. Let me ask you this...because this is bothering me. Imagine I'm right. Imagine that the conviction was 99% based on corroberating testimony of 9 witnesses. 1 of those witnesses is a possible alternate suspect. 7 of those other witnesses recant their stories after conviction and allege coercion, which frankly is not uncommon in these cases. Imagine a situation where the wrong person is set to die. Is there any actual reason to think this is impossible? That it could not possibly have happened in this case? The only legal protection left after conviction is what the appeals court is allowed to consider and that is very narrow. In the hypothetical scenario that the wrong person was convicted right jere because of illegal police behavior, I can't see how by your standards that an innocent person would not die. If it is 1% possible that an innocent person could die...isn't that an enormous problem?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 05:21 PM) If a defense attourney could get up and say one in a thousand cases the eyewitness is wrong, they would. It would be the easiest out ever. I guarantee you that the failure rate of eyewitnesses is higher than that.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 05:14 PM) What do you think the state should have to convict? If there is no physical evidence (and I just explained why, in the vast majority of cases, there is no physical evidence), isn't eye-witness testimony the best evidence available? Yes, lineups can be unreliable. Yes, eye-witness testimony can be unreliable. Neither of those statements mean that eye-witness test is ALWAYS unreliable or even that it is unreliable in a significant percentage of cases. The standard is "reasonable doubt" though. If you told me on a jury that eyewitness id had a 10% failure rate and the case was eyewitness based, that's reasonable doubt o me.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 05:09 PM) In reality, how many times is eyewitness testimony actually wrong? The odds have got to be minuscule in reality, otherwise the defense would have a very easy way out of it. I really don't think we have a clue, but the evidence out there says that eyewitness only testimony is going to be unreliable a significant minority of times. Probably a lot more than 10%. it's way too easy to be co in Ed you saw something that you really didn't see. Eyewitness only convictions are a mess. He'll, eyewitness testimony is a mess since witnesses can be impacted by other evidence.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 05:00 PM) Juries should be more educated on the reliability of witness testimony and that an eyewitness saying "that's the guy!" doesn't necessarily mean that that is, in fact, the guy, even if that person earnest believes it. And yeah, if the state can't compile a strong enough case on solid evidence, sorry victim of a crime, we shouldn't try to push a weak case on someone who has a good chance of being innocent. The real issue is that it is up to the defense to raise doubt on eyewitness testimony, and even in the case of coercion, that's really hard to do. Best answer I can give is that there needs to be well designed procedures that allow for overturning a conviction, particualrly a death sentence, in these cases. In Georgia, there are not. The other thing I should point out is...this isn't necessarily a constitutional issue. The Constitution doesn't require fairness or logic, it requires Due Process, and in this case...the level of "Due Process" granted by the state of Georgia is not up to the task.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 03:53 PM) BenBadler Ben Badler Other than Otis Nixon (.030) in 1991, Ben Revere's isolated power (.034) is the lowest of any OF with at least 400 PAs in the last 90 years Meaning that Juan Pierre is better than both?

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 12:02 PM) Berkman gets a 1 yr/$12 million extension from Cardinals. That's a good deal for them considering the season he's had. Now th e only question left is whether he's an OF next season or a 1b replacement.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 03:39 PM) clarkspencer clarkspencer by BenBadler #Marlins closer Leo Nunez (36 saves) placed on MLB restricted list and suspended by team eithlaw keithlaw Hanley. LoMo. Nunez. Hey, Florida, maybe it's you? Clearly, the only guy who can deal with this is...Ozzie Guillen?

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 04:52 PM) Now this is a good topic for discussion. Lots of states have minimum certification requirements to defend an indigent defendant in a capital case. That's the only real solution to that problem is try to ensure that the best of the best are defending capital cases. Of course...to have the best of the best defending a capital case requires a lot of money, and enforcing the death penalty is already ridiculously expensive compared to normal prison sentences.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 02:47 PM) I just posted what amounts to my manifest about the economy, and no one even responded. I guess I should know not to post a dissertation in here anyway. Not sure what came over me, that was meant to be a short post, and I just kept writing (waiting on a job running). I was at the Gym and going to 2 different talks!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 02:23 PM) If you actually read my entire post, I applaud you. This is where we need to go, and this is also why I think we're going to be in good shape in five years, give or take three. But it's going to hurt like hell for a while. Here's the scary thing. I disagree with you, somewhat strongly, on various issues for the first 2 sections, particularly involving the level of blame you dispense to wall street and the government in general. But as I read through your list of solutions...there's not a single one I thought was a bad idea. I might well argue that they're not up to the task of getting us out of this massive of a hole...but every single thing you wrote as something which needs to be done, the most partisan Democrat here thinks is a good idea.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 04:39 PM) Again, the burden is on the State to prove its case, and a good defense attorney will poke holes in unreliable testimony on cross examination. And now you've gotten onto another major issue in the unfairness of the death penalty as currently used in this country...the fact that quality of representation varies hugely, and lower quality initial representation is directly correlated with increased use of the death penalty.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 11:29 AM) Take away J.D. Drew (who hasn't played in months) and his $14 million and you're at $68 million. That's more than a reasonable sum for the production they're getting (save for Crawford). Take away Adam Dunn and his $14 million and I bet the White Sox offense looks like a pretty decent bargain as well.

no, i'll rip up my knee

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 12:08 PM) Well, again, the various judges, administrators and gov't officials at all levels disagreed. I dunno why people in this country jump onto these media headlines as if they're the truth. See: Anthony, Casey. The public is given a shred of the entire story. Yeah, it sounds terrible that 7 of the 9 people suddenly recanted their testimony (from 20 something years ago), but I have to believe their reasoning for doing that was incredibly suspect and there was enough evidence established at his trial to still maintain the guilty verdict. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 12:27 PM) I think adding new evidence that didn't exist is one thing. Asking reviewing courts to re-weigh evidence is another. That's not their role, nor should it be. It would make the entire system meaningless. Every case would immediately be appealed so that a different set of eyes would render a verdict. And then when the party that lost doesn't like the appellate courts' ruling, they'd appeal it to the SC and then on through the federal system. The real problem here is that I'd think by any reasonable standard..."7 witnesses recanting their story and alleging police coercion" ought to be considered new evidence. And by your standard...if their reason for recanting their story is incredibly suspect, then their testimony should have been incredibly suspect in the first place.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 11:19 AM) I just hope it's no more than two years. I want Mark signed to a Tim Wakefield like deal. $10 million a year, renewed until he wants to retire.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 11:17 AM) Funny thing is, other than Crawford, they're not paying that much this year. Not for the guys that matter, anyway. That changes next year with Gonzo, obviously. I quickly counted up about $82 million spent on their offense this year not counting minimum salary guys, and about the same amount spent on their pitching staff (more if you break Matsuzaka's posting fee into yearly increments)

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 10:45 AM) I'm fine with most of those things stopping in exchange for lessening our government's ownership of our lives. No one is entitled to what someone else has earned. The fact that this is now considered some kind of horrible thing goes against everything the United States is supposed to be about. To hear the idea that people have money they aren't giving away being some sort of evil is just wrong. We aren't supposed to live in a society where we declare war against success and work ethic, but today those things have become a bad thing. War has been declared against the wealthy, or even moderately successful in this country. I read this 3 or 4 times before I realized why it bothered me so much. I could make almost this exact same set of statements, with a few words changed, and apply it to Goldman Sachs/Bank of America/everyone else on Wall Street, and have it be completely accurate.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 11:09 AM) But only if it's a liberal wish right?