StrangeSox

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 03:57 PM) The problem is, if you don't do it the way that the Supreme Court ruled, in effect, every guilty plea is now turned on its ass. It basically throws out all court cases with a guilty plea based on all the evidence at trial. I mean, I understand your points, but how can you say that every case must now have a review with DNA evidence? The ruling doesn't say that they won't get a review, it just says that every case doesn't have the right to a review. Am I right? From what I understand, since the trial, a new DNA test has been developed. The guy convicted of the crime wants to do this test and his defense will pay for it, but the state is refusing to give him access to the DNA evidence he needs. Essentially, he will get no review--he will not be allowed to test the evidence via a new method to possibly exonerate himself even if its at his own expense.

Yesterday's court ruling in Osborne was simply one of the most absurd and appalling rulings I have ever read. Chief Justice Roberts should be ashamed of himself. Because of his ruling, innocent men are going to die in prison or via the death penalty. It really is that simple. What is absolutely shocking about the ruling is how utterly dishonest it is. Roberts is usually a careful judge who at least can state the legal issue accurately. In this ruling, his portrayal of the facts and legal questions in the case is one dishonest statement after another. To wit: In the very first sentence of his holding he admits that DNA testing can conclusively prove guilt or innocence in many cases. That will be important to remember a little later. But how about the blatantly dishonest statement of the legal issues at stake? No one is suggesting that "every criminal conviction is suddenly in doubt" or that providing due process in cases where DNA evidence is available requires "overthrowing the established criminal justice system." He is plainly erecting a straw man to knock down, something routine in chatroom debates but far beneath a Supreme Court justice. And it only gets worse: So they admit that he has a liberty interest in accessing the evidence - obviously, for crying out loud, since his very liberty is at stake. But somehow that stake is diminished in Roberts' mind once the trial takes place, even after admitting earlier that the DNA evidence could prove him innocent. This is an absolutely bizarre bit of thinking. The majority of the court seems to think that due process is somehow entirely separate from questions of guilt or innocence. But that is not only nonsense, it's dangerous nonsense. We guarantee due process not only as a matter of principle but also for the purely pragmatic reason that it helps lead to the truth. If the point of the criminal justice system is not to distinguish guilt or innocence as accurately as humanly possible, then it's time to scrap the entire system. A rather ironic statement in a case where the plaintiff is being denied access to evidence for DNA testing, don't you think? "The system works perfectly, it allows access to DNA evidence. And the fact that it denied access to this man has no bearing on the validity of that previous statement." This is absolutely ludicrous reasoning. But perhaps worst of all: Of course there's no long history of a right to access DNA evidence for testing. You know why? Because we've only had DNA testing for a couple of decades. Most Supreme Court rulings have at least minimally plausible arguments on both sides. The cases that reach the court have vexed the lower courts and are typically close calls. This one is not. This one is nothing short of vile and disgusting. Innocent people will die as a result of it. And none of the five justices who signed on to the majority opinion could possibly care any less. Shame on them.

My girlfriend is just starting the program at Aurora University. Its cost was comparable to UIC, IIRC. UIC's programs focus heavily on urban education. I know Aurora has a masters in education program for someone looking to teach elementary school or a teacher certification for someone looking to teach high school (no masters but less classes).

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 13, 2009 -> 09:21 AM) A combination of solar, wind, hyrdo, geo and other natural sources is definitely a feasible option. Just not one that will come to complete fruition any time in the next decade. It takes time. Not really, at least without some revolutionary breakthroughs in power transmission and storage. These sources cannot be implemented in many places in the country. Look how cloudy and rainy its been in Chicago for the past week or two--we'd be in big trouble if we were solar-only. There's no room for wind farms in the city proper, and we don't have hydro or geo sources there either. There's over a Terawatt of power production in this country. We'd need about 9 million square miles of solar at absolute peak efficiency for 8 hours a day to replace that. That's half of Texas. Wind farms take up more space. Hydro and geo are great where they are available, but they're not available everywhere.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 12, 2009 -> 10:49 PM) So, you'd like to explain why more nuclear plants are a good idea? Because wind and solar are not a feasible option to replace coal and natural gas.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 11, 2009 -> 10:47 PM) <!--quoteo(post=1916783:date=Jun 9, 2009 -> 01:17 AM:name=BobDylan)-->QUOTE (BobDylan @ Jun 9, 2009 -> 01:17 AM) <!--quotec-->Language NSFW "Who puts a Manny being Manny bug in this game?" That was freaking hilarious... however, it saddens me to know it's because of that piece of crap game that we no longer have MVP baseball. Also, awesome sig by the way. I think he said "button" which makes it even funnier.

If its through a VAT sales tax, they'll be paying in. Illegals may not pay income taxes, but they still pay sales tax, gas tax, liquor tax, cig tax, etc.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 11, 2009 -> 10:01 PM) really, how so? Oh, because they never have to ration health care, do they? And you get medical treatment fast as well, right? Generally speaking, no and yes. They're not perfect systems. Ours has some advantages that theirs don't. But, I'd say that on the whole, they appear to be more efficient and provide more care to more people than ours does, and at a cheaper price. For all the fear of "bureaucrats deciding your healthcare!", which doesn't really happen, our current system has actuaries and bean counters at Insurance Co, LLC deciding what treatments you get and from whom. edit: I'd never support a plan where you can't opt out of government care, like Britain. There needs to be private options available.

AMA opposes government-sponsored health care plan.

Your avatar is all too appropriate, kap.

So the logic is: P: Von Burren was an antisemitic holocaust denier P: Iran's President (and maybe a significant portion of their population? I don't know) also denies the holocaust P: Some members of the left support Iran (or at least don't hate the country) C: Therefore, antisemitism/ holocaust denial is left wing? You're a few links short of a chain, there.

There's an anti-Israel/ Pro-Palestein vein in the left-wing, but I never saw that as antisemitism.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 11, 2009 -> 09:01 PM) Yes it will. It has only a little to do with the % spent, it has to do with the threat. Insurance costs are covered in the several CBO studies I've seen. Malpractice insurance is there to cover that threat.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 11, 2009 -> 07:19 PM) I just can't win. I'm an educated, white, suppressed non-union American male. The world sucks for me. Go work for the IRS. They've got a union! Malpractice spending is less than 5% of health care costs. Tort reform won't solve this problem. http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 11, 2009 -> 02:37 PM) This is where the government should indeed step in, in two ways. 1. Declare certain areas too high risk for building, because of highly likely disasters. Disasters COULD happen anywhere, but certain areas, like right next to the San Andreas or in below sea level areas on the Gulf Coast, you KNOW it will happen, and relatively soon. You prevent them from building residences, or businesses with hazardous materials, in those areas. 2. For people already in those areas, you make it law that they will not get financial assistance from the government in the event of the highly likely event you are marking for. By doing it this way, you avoid 5A Takings Clause issues because you are not dealing in things that belong to them (government assistance is not guaranteed in disasters) with your prevention. ETA: You need to draw this line pretty far up. These have to be areas of extreme risk, as I noted. This happened recently in Galveston. Basically, what was once their property is now public beach front. http://wbztv.com/national/Ike.Texas.Homes.2.820742.html

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 10:26 PM) Well, you know systems like that have worked brilliantly in europe... My question is, how is the United States not gonna go into bankruptcy? They've worked a bit better than our expensive system.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 04:57 PM) uh thats more of a far left conspiracy theory. Iran supporter type stuff. Theocratic Iran is far-left?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 09:10 AM) I don't even know all the dynamics, but it depends on lost of factors, such as where it is extracted, who buys it, who owns it first, etc. But its not like Exxon pulls it out of the ground and pays taxes on it as soon as they get it. They extract it, refine or process it into various states, and the resulting products are sold and taxed like other commodity items (sort of). And I do not know if Alaska specifically levies a tax on the commodities anyway, or if they even can, if the final sold product isn't producing in Alaska (even though the oil may come from there). Also, if you use a sliding tax scale like that, you are actually doing damage to the effort to get off oil. Alaska does level taxes/ fees on oil companies directly. This is because a lot of their oil fields are on state land. They have a "windfall profits tax" in Alaska, which makes Palin's campaign rhetoric all the more hilarious. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...laskatax07.html

Partial-birth is just the name given to the procedure by pro-life activists. There is no such medical terminology. There was an interesting discussion on another board I visit over whether or not this procedure is less risky for the mother than just carrying the child to term. The OP is a bit of a stretch, IMO.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 9, 2009 -> 08:56 AM) And as has been discussed here before, those were not scientific pieces. Actual, peer-reviewed scientific research pieces are virtually all acknowledging a warming trend, and at least some degree of human involvement (how much is of course debateable). Those 70's pieces talking of a mini-Ice Age were pop stuff based on just a couple years of data, which isn't enough to make any sort of reasonable case one way or another. The oft-quote mined Hays et al article from an issue of Science. You see guys like George Will taking only the very last part of this: He tries to spin that as near-term global cooling trends while lying to his readers by not disclosing the 20,000 years part. It wasn't necessarily the science that convinced me, but just how empty the counter arguments are and how often they lie or mislead.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 9, 2009 -> 07:32 AM) Sorry, but your boyfriend sucks at hitting. Who s*** in your cheerios this morning?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 9, 2009 -> 07:29 AM) He had plenty of playing time for an entire season in 2006. When he was platooned with Mack after getting off to a slow start in his first ML season?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 8, 2009 -> 08:33 PM) Private industry ALWAYS does it better then the government - even if private industry sucks. Chicago parking meters.

Scotty Pods has been one very pleasant surprise. I don't think anyone would have expected him to be one of the top contributors in our lineup.

QUOTE (whitesoxmanager @ Jun 8, 2009 -> 02:53 PM) can anybody please come up with any reason to be optimistic? its been a long while since watching whitesox baseball was this brutally painful? September 2007 wasn't that long ago...