NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 12:33 PM) It's not, not in the grand scheme of things. Why can't people just accept that historical data that shows there are plenty of things more important than base stealing for creating runs--like OBP and SLG. It's not being arrogant; it's being reasonable. No stat head is going to tell Scottie Pods to not attempt to steal if he can swipe at an 80% clip, but they are going to ask the leadoff hitter to get on base more, and to throw in some doubles and HR every once and awile--something he doesn't really do well at all. Scottie Pods is an average major league LF in his good seasons, nothing more, nothing less. However, compared to stonehands and lead footed Carlos Lee, he fit into the Sox's idea for better defense, which looks like a smart move in hindsight. Speed offers a lot more than the stats give it credit for. As iwrotecode pointed out, it has a huge effect on opposing pitchers and catchers, and not in a positive way. It also creates a whole bunch of total bases. it means players advance another base on hits. Stolen bases and speed generaly are undercredited by the historical stats, IMHO. And, speed creates a better defender, all other things being equal. The Sox last year were the best team in baseball for a number of reasons - including home runs, defense, speed, clutch hitting and a spectacular pitching staff. But some of the things that helped them win - speed, defense, smart outs - are often dismissed by the analysts as unimportant. Well, I think that was proven wrong last year.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:40 AM) By definition, my most recent post, it's not illegal. The SCOTUS decided the issue wasn't worthy of review. This is a case of all aspects of checks and balances being brought into the mix, and the law stands. If the law stands, it's not illegal. A law is enforceable if it stands, unless/until a court decides otherwise - you are correct there. But, I think it is also true that any law or action in direct contravention of the Constitution is also illegal, even if it stands prior to a court challenge. Obviously, others don't see this Constitutional conflict. Some do, some don't. For those of us who do, this is clearly illegal. Yet again, I would really like to see this whole mess go before SCOTUS. They rejected review of one particular aspect, or one angle if you will, on the issue. But the real picture would become more clear if someone could bring a case on behalf of the subjects of these searches (surveillance). That would be the true test.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:35 AM) JIm must be writing a book. Yeah, he's been writing for a looooong time now. This should be interesting.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:34 AM) When a law is passed by the legislative branch, signed by a president (Carter, in this case as FISA was enacted in '78) and reviewed by the judicial branch, it is not illegal. When warrants are allowed, or warrant-necessary issues are agreed upon outside a judicial body, even if this is according to a legislated law... it is unconstitutional, and therefore, illegal. I REALLY would like SCOTUS to look into this in some way, though I am not sure how it would be brought to court.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:28 AM) Actually, that is another tangent. This discussion started when I said the current administration was not acting illegally. However, I see your point. Certainly, the administration is not entirely at fault here. I do think the warrantless searches are illegal, and the administration is the main actor. But, there are complicated things under the hood here, as we are discussing - this is not a tangent, but all part of one issue. Agencies like NSA and FBI are, and should be, bulldogs. They should be relentless in trying to get the info they need. It is the place of the courts to pull the other direction, for equally good reasons. Such is the nature of the adversarial model of law.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:26 AM) Let's not get off on a gun control tangent. No no, not tyring to - just wanted to provide an example and that was the first one to come to mind.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:24 AM) It's NOT outside the judicial branch when you have judges hearing the arguments and making the decision. Is the SCOTUS going to weaken their own branch of the government if they believed the process was outside the judicial branch? Your arguments make no sense. The judicial branch is inherently involved in this situation. I know they are involved. I said that. I am saying, and have said multiple times now, that the problem is the presence of non-judicial personnel in the decision making process for warrants. That makes it a non-judicial body, and more specifically, a joint body. Those joint bodies, especially when one of the bodies is the requestor for the warrant, should nto be in a position to make those decisions.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:22 AM) Oh. One more point. The SCOTUS decided not to hear any challanges to this law. That tells me that they consider this to be constitutional and not a worthy challenge. Maybe. Sometimes that is true. But SCOTUS also sometimes avoids big fights that they don't want to get dirty with. Example: despite all of the laws passed at various level on gun control, and despite all the federal court challenges, SCOTUS has avoided the issue (despite its Constitutional importance) entirely since the mid-19th century.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:18 AM) In a courtroom, you have one side presenting a case. You have another side arguing opposing viewpoints. Those are the 'other people'. And then, in this case, you have 3 jugdes deciding the matter. Sounds like a court to me. But it it outside the judicial branch of government. Do you not see the danger in that? You are allowing the agencies that want the warrants to be part of deciding if they are acceptable or not. To me, that clearly violates the stated purpose of the need for warrants in the first place. If the FBI can request a warrant AND be part of granting said warrant, than why involve anyone else at all? You may as well let them do as they please.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:12 AM) reas YAS's post. this court of review is composed of judicial members. you are justifiying your calling it a kangaroo court by using buzzwords that you havent justified. "avoids due process"? HOW?? and how does it clear warrants? its pretty hard to argue with someone who wont give the actual reasons for their arguement. Again, please read my posts. You can disagree with my points if you'd like, but I'm not going to bother responding to you any longer if you are just going to insult me.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:15 AM) How can the judicial process be supplanted when judges are making the decisions? They aren't, in this case. The FISA court, which is a real court, can make those decisions. A joint committee should not, even if some judges are present. The heart of the issue here is that this is putting the wolf in the hen house. The executive and legislative branches should have no say in the final decision on judicial warrants in any case.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:09 AM) What does that mean? Three judges is not enough to constitute a court? Three judges plus a whole slew of other people from various Congressional and Executive bodies and agencies is not a court - it is a joint committee. They want to meet? Fine, they could probably do some good things. But they can't adjudicate warrants or case work, as far as I see it.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:08 AM) If the mechanism for calling this Court of Review was legislated when FISA was enacted, how can you blame the administration for using laws passed by the legistative branch that allows the judicial branch to rule ... keeping in mind that the administration was not the administartion in office when it was enacted? I am pretty sure that the legislative body cannot pass laws taking Constitutionally granted authorities away from other branches of government. In my view, by creating this Court of Review to supplant judicial process, they have done just that. A judicial process has been replaced by a joint committee of sorts. While that joint committee could certainly exist and provide insight, it should not be allowed to clear warrants.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:02 AM) First of all, it wasn't 'the Administration" as we know it. This Court of Review provision was put in place when FISA was enacted, with the foresight that circumstances would change and issues or disagreements might need to be addressed. Also, this "Court of Review" is made up of members of the judicial branch. The "Court of Review", as constituted and described in the article, has 3 judges on it, but also a whole slew of other folks. Its not a court at all.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:01 AM) then stop blaming bush for everything. there are democrats in congress as well as republicans, and they all vote on bills, including this one. and just what, pray tell, makes this legally and legislativly created court of review a "kangaroo court"? um... do you read any of my posts? I don't blame Bush for everything. But I sure as heck blame him and the Administration AND CONGRESS for this whole mess. It avoids due process. It essentially clears warrants, a judicial function. This should not occur outside FISA or some other purely judicial body.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 09:49 AM) It really seems like nothing Maussaoui could have said would have got the FBI off their asses to actually investigate him. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060321/ap_on_re_us/moussaoui I heard a radio news report today that Samit made at least 70(!!) requests to his superiors in the 4 weeks between Maussaoui's arrest and 9/11 to search his place and investigate concerns of Maussaoui's roommate that he was radical Islamic extremist bent on terrorism. That's more than 3 requests a day during 4 work weeks. All requests to conduct an investigation were denied. Untill after 9/11, that is. Not surprising. There was that female agent in Minneapolis as well, who banged on a few too many doors about Moussaoui, and they tried to fire her for it. The FBI is one messed up department.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 09:43 AM) Here's your answer, Jim. The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance program. Does anyone other than me see a Constitutional problem in this "Court of Review"? Essentially, Congress and the Administration have created their own kangaroo court. It flies in the face of the checks and balances between the divisions of the federal government. Not only does this not make me feel better about things - it scares me even more. Judicial review has been supplanted by a Congressional/Executive joint body. This is even more clearly unconstitutional than the spying itself.

I'm glad they liked the Sox' offseason moves (as did I), but I am beyond tired of hearing this "lightning in a bottle" garbage. These baseball "analysts" just can't accept that maybe sometimes, teams are better (or worse) than their almighty stats tell them they are. Maybe, just maybe, the stats out there today can't tell you everything about a team. And maybe some numbers are more important than they give them credit for. The Sox were in first the entire freakin' season last year, and went 11-1 in the postseason. These "gurus" can stick that bottle up their collective arses, along with the arrogance they can't get past.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 09:11 AM) Supposedly, he can hit 98 MPH but he mostly works around 94. Of course, he has no control so that doesn't mean much. Oh I don't know... if I'm a hitter, I'm fairly certain it matters to me if he is throwing 98 mph at me with no control.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 04:51 AM) What is hilariously funny about this while censure thing is that the President DID NOTHING ILLEGAL! I respectfully disagree.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 04:27 PM) You know what the scary thing is? We're actually talking about who's faster, Ross Gload or Joe Borchard...as if it makes any difference WHATSOEVER. True dat.

QUOTE(Misplaced_Sox @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 04:17 PM) That prob true as I havent been able to see most ST games but the sample size in ST is just to small for me. For one he is not very quick or speedy and it always seemed an adventure in the MLB's for him when I saw him out there. What happens when he starts having shoulder trouble again... Then we are 0 for 2 on this deal. I can't speak about the shoulder, but speed is a non-issue. Gload actually has at least one SB this spring, and I think he's faster than Borch.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 03:38 PM) Do what you feel is right according to you. I'll agree with this but add one caveat - don't go out and drive a car after doing either one. There's no excuse for that kind of recklessness and stupidity. That aside, no harm, no foul.

QUOTE(Misplaced_Sox @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 04:05 PM) Yes I know Borchard has not done much when up here but since half of last season til now I have just felt that maybe it was clicking for him and that being a utility OF would have done a lot for his confidence. I just feel that Borchard has a higher ceiling than Gload who is at his highest ability in terms of talent. Borchard was not so old that he could not have had the chance to be a player still. And I thought kenny would play that experiement. I guess not. I hope him well in Seattle I just hope he does not turn into a monster. Gload hit over .300 in a full MLB season (a few hundred at bats I think) in 2004. Even at his "ceiling", Borch won't do that, I'd be willing to bet. And if you think Gload has hit his talent ceiling, I show you exhibit A: his defense in the OF this spring. He has looked a ton better than he did in the past with the glove.

QUOTE(ChiSoxCE2005 @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 04:00 PM) Hey guys, anyone have a radio link? The PBP is much appreciated, go white sox! AM 670 I think. Or click "Audio" from the mlb.com scoreboard.