JUGGERNAUT

Steff, try to imagine that you are an impartial juror. You've just learned that she had sex with two of the three guys accused of raping her the night before. Then you hear she was infatuated with the one so much that she agreed to meet him again. As a juror these men no longer are "strangers" to this girl. That makes a big difference in the case. As an example consider the two highest profile rape cases of recent times: Mike Tyson & Kobie Bryant. Now imagine that the very night before the alledged rape the girl willingly consented to sex with them. How do you think that affects those rape cases? If I were the prosecutor in this case I would hammer to the jury that she was only 16. I would bring forth medical experts in the field of psychology that would strongly suggest that any mention of consent on her part is fallous. Consent requires being of sound mind & body. The use of drugs in this case is paramount in that regards. Now again I'm unfamiliar with the laws of Orange County, but even if age of consent is 16 the prosecutor can still make his case based on the sound mind & body argument. I would be surprised if they are free of criminal charges for providing the drugs & alcohol to her.

Again it all depends on cost. 2004 RPG 5.24 2003 RPG 5.94 2002 RPG 6.53 2001 RPG 4.93 2000 RPG 6.99 ----------------- Avg RPG 5.93 That's good for 5th on the SOX this year. Better than Lee. If Lee is worth 7/8 mil then isn't Jones worth 9/10 mil in CF? Maggs has not been missed because of this: Konerko 7.17 Jose Valentin 6.99 Juan Uribe 5.92 Koney has performed at about a level equal to Maggs avg RPG. Val has performed better than Koney's avg. Juan has performed better than Lee's avg. Lee has performed better than Val's avg. The biggest difference is Val. Since giving up SH he's raised his RPG by better than a run a game.

Steff, you misunderstood me. Personally I believe she probably was drugged & it was against her will, but I can't ignore the fact that she had sex with 2 of the same men the night before. Without question that fact damages her defense. Is the age of consent 16 in Orange County? Because I'm surprised it's not mentioned & definitely think it's a major factor in this case. If she's underage then it doesn't matter whether she consented or not.

Charles Johnson II? (OPS: LH 1003, RH 821, 10HR, 28RBI) http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,3...2245262,00.html Johnson sits at $9 million each year, but can veto any trade this season. The Yankees have inquired about Wilson as a means of shedding Kenny Lofton's contract. The Rockies' willingness to eat a few million could facilitate a Johnson deal.

A little wakeup call for the Boss: "The decision won't change the way Hart does his job. He so badly wants to win this year that he inquired about the availability of Diamondbacks pitcher Randy Johnson. If the Unit is going any where it's likely Texas. They have the young players to get that deal done.

I've said this before so here it is again: any reasonable hitter that comes to the White Sox will see his numbers increase. It's happened time & again. It's becoming a proven track record under KW. Jones is due to make 13 mil through 2007. KW can get ATL to eat some of that & prob drop his cost to about 10 mil a yr for the SOX. His 5 GG & the status of being the best defensive CFer in the game is worth probably 6-7 mil. Every Braves pitcher is on record as saying Jones as greatly helped their ERA with his ability to record outs that others simply can't. But there is a big hangup with this one. KW must do his homework & make every evaluation possible to determine that Jones is healthy. There were some reports he may not be. We don't want a reverse damaged goods scenario.

It is certifiably good for baseball. Do you have any idea what the TV ratings would be if the White Sox were to make it all the way to the World Series with Ben Sheets on the roster?

Only Miguel possesses the power stroke to hit (HR,triples) in Safeco. The others will be average at best in that park. Sorry to tell you this, but it's true. You have one of the best pitcher's parks in the majors. You should tell your GM that he should have insisted on Borchy instead of Reed & Morse. Borchy might strike out but he's more likely to hit 30 HRs there some day then any of those 3. Olivo will do fine, but now that we know he's having surgery .. it sure smells like a damaged goods scenario. I'm sure it's not serious but it definitely would have sidelined him on the SOX.

Hopefully the VA DA will prosecute the case on strong merits & not something loose like "attracting pedophiles". This really is a challenge of rights to privacy vs indeceny laws. Unless the camp can provide reasonable assurance that the camp would not be accessible to the public's eyes the state should prosecute this under indeceny laws. The state has the right to protect the public from indecent exposure of both adults & minors. I do not believe this camp can provide this assurance since it is unlikely the air space would be restricted. All one needs to do is open a helicopter service to then provide indecent public exposure of the camp.

Very damaging: The woman testified in the case that a day before the alleged assault she willingly had sex with two of the accused, Haidl and Spann, and kissed Nachreiner. She said she returned the next night to see Spann, but quickly became dizzy and collapsed after drinking a blue-green drink that Nachreiner gave her. Be that as it may, if the laws of that state see this as jail bait then they should at least be convicted for that.

Yes, but both those teams had high-power offenses & light's out arms. The Angels in particular had a slightly above-avg rotation but light's out bullpen.

Can people stop fantasizing about Randy Johnson? As of right now there have been no talks & no indication that the D'Backs or RJ are willing to part. It's just some fantasy of the Boss' & the reality is that it's highly unlikely he gets traded. At this juncture if Ben Sheets becomes available JR needs to wine & dine Selig to letting us get him. It's good for baseball.

I wouldn't put much stock in that prediction. What happened to the cub? I think it all depends on Scott Schoenweis going forward & hopefully he will return before the trade deadline. I think that's the way KW is looking at things as well. Scott was doing a fairly good job until he tried to throw with pain. He was still pitching competitively & keeping the SOX in ball games in that time. Scott has proven to KW that he has a warrior's mentality on the mound. It's rare to find such guys .. especially LHers. But with Scott it's all about health. KW needs to see that he is healthy enough for a lot of innings the rest of the way. If Scott is healthy then I think the SOX are set. I don't see any pitcher left (w the exception of Moyer) that can give the SOX a better chance of winning then SS. To go to battle with 2 strong LHers & 2 strong RHers in the post season is both rare & exceptional. Dropping Garland to #5 fills out one of the best 1-5 rotation in the AL. With respect to the bullpen, Jackson's out. Adkins has proven himself & Politte's resurgence makes Jackson less valuable to the SOX. A bullpen of Shingo, Marte, Politte, Cotts, Adkins, (Diaz/Rauch) again ranks as one of the best in the AL. As for the lineup well it's still undecided what to do with Maggs. What's making this decision worse is the time it's going to take for him to get his timing back. If you can make a deal for a solid talent in return that is ready to play & a near lock to help the SOX win it might be the best path to take. Andruw Jones fits that bill because he has a strong bat against RHers (rare on the SOX) & he's a 5 type GG CFer. Probably the best glove CFer in the game. But there's no way AJ is worth Maggs straight up so either ATL needs to throw in cash or Estrada. Shoring up the middle D with AJ & Estrada would probably be the best move right now. If it can be had for the right price. I think Alomar, Burke, & Davis all have their weaknesses. I don't know about Davis but Alomar & Burke are weak in throwing runners out. That could be a weakness exploited in the post.

This question applies to two recent events dealing with natl security. The first is the use of UAVs to find illegals crossing the border. When the border patrol started to use these recently hispanic communities where up in arms that they were "profiling" hispanics in their routes. Now mind you these are illegals crossing the border. I don't think the border patrol had any idea of the political turmoil this would create. It seems to suggest that the Bush's idea of pushing illegals towards citizenship is not a bad one because if you can't even try to stop them from crossing over then how are you going to process them when they do? The second event was the Guantanamo case. I agree that all prisoners should have some right to counsel within the military courts. I don't believe it should extend beyond the military court system & I feel it should be up to that system to decide whether such a case should be made public or private. However; I believe civilian American citizens should have a right to counsel & access to American court systems outside of the military. In otherwords I believe there should be a double standard for foreign & American prisoners on the basis of national security. I think domestic terrorism for the most part has proven to be loosely organized & less of a threat than foreign terrorism.

I can't find the Guantanamo thread so I'm just going to comment here. I haven't read every word of the decision but what I did read bothered me on one key point: absence of the military presence. It seemed the courts decision gave little to no respect to the judicial branch that exists in each military service. Again I try to balance reality against idealism. I agree that any terrorist charged with the crime of terrorism or brought even for questioning should have rights to representation. But I believe that representation should be confined within the judicial branch of that military service. The attorney should be court appointed & the decision to make the proceedings & records private or public should lie at the discretion of the military judges. I can not think of any group of persons better qualified to weigh the concerns of national security vs due process & individual rights.

On the subject of line-item veto those powers were granted & then taken away but the issue remains in debate. The trend in recent years I believe is that more states are granting this power to governors. It's obvious as to why. There is a cost to drafting local legislation. More states are operating in the red & have no choice but to do what they can to minimize costs. Granting this power to governors is one of the ways to do that. This is the part of the Federal budget deficit that many people are unaware of. It came to light recently in IL when the gov attempted to borrow millions from the French to offset part of IL budget deficit. The state of IL would have had to pay 18 million a year to a French bank for many yrs. I do not remember the total amount. Now of course when a state runs a budget deficit it doesn't stop paying people. What happens is that the money is borrowed from the Fed & the Fed deficit grows. There are limits to all this of course & at some point states have to cut expenditures or raise taxes. What is still being attempted in IL is bringing to light a new angle on the Federal deficit. It's always been considered money we owe to treasury bond holders. But given the terms of these bonds that's always been interpreted as money we owe ourselves. It would be like the Yakuza borrowing money from you & then you try to collect. But now that some states are securing loans with overseas banks the Federal deficit is taking on a much more dangerous face because that's debt that must keep up with timely payments. So it's being transformed from debt we owe ourselves to debt we owe to others. Not a good thing at all.

What you say is true, but the reality is that it's not going to change. When you refer to the President in these cases you are talking about both Clinton & Bush so it is an aspect of government today that crosses party lines. So on the fact of that reality the net effect is that on some of the most important social issues in America nothing gets done. Recent USSC decisions are rendering these laws for the most part useless. So the time & money that goes into them is a complete waste. In an ideal world Congress would respect to the USSC and follow their guidelines. But we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world where members of Congress answer to their constituents first & foremost & not all constituents think alike or are in line with USSC thinking. So the net effect is the system appears broke & the greater polarization occuring in the US on issues is making things worse. With reality being what it is the proper response of the court should be to divert the matter to the states. I would argue that any decision by the USSC of a narrow margin like 5-4 should ultimately end up in diverting the matter to states. Of course cases like Guantanamo are Federal matters where that is not an option.

This is a true fact, but the question that I think some in America are asking now is should it be? As you know the press is now going after Kerry's divorce records & on the heels of Ryan's case it's going to be hard for Kerry to protect himself. Divorce is a very bitter & messy circumstance in most cases & dirt usually gets thrown both ways. This is an inevitable consequence of money & possessions being associated with the dirt. The more dirt you can throw at the other the better off you will be is the standard rule. It's even more messy when children are involved. I think it would be a terrible precedent going forward if every candidate who was divorced had to have their divorce aired publicly or in the press. Do we really politicians to have to smear their ex's in order to refute any & all allegations by them in a divorce proceeding? I think the best way to handle this is that if statements are not made under oath & therefore subject to perjury laws they should be omitted from the press.

That is way too harsh. It was a Hollywood marriage & at the time Jeri Ryan was a sex symbol. She was the sexy borg alien on Voyager & the show took advantage of that as best it could. From there her status as a sex symbol took off. What Ryan felt is that allegations in a divorce proceeding that were not subject to oaths or perjury laws would never be taken so serious by the press. Especially a Hollywood divorce. He never misled the public & he never lied. He clearly refuted the allegations in the divorce records. The answer to all of the press questions lie in the records but they of course wanted to grandstand the event. I think the MAJORITY of Americans hold dear to their hearts the rights of privacy in matters between couples. Comparing Clinton's extra-marital affair to the Ryan's infatuation with 9 1/2 Weeks is ridiculous. One involves betrayal & dishonor & the other involves poor discretion. Ryan did make the mistake in not informing the republican party of the content of those records. Whether he felt there was no potential harm or not is not the issue. The issue is that he had a responsibility to the party to inform them of anything that even in a remote chance could damage the campaign. Basically he did not respect the party enough to entrust his political career in their hands. The idea of Ryan being a senator that doesn't respect or trust the party he was elected under is not comforting. If he doesn't respect the party then he probably won't respect the people that elected him & he'll likely put his own interests over the people's. It was a lesson for us all I think because he seemed like a good guy. Wealthy investment banker turn school teacher running for the Senate. Seems like the ideal candidate. But poor discretions aside we've really learned that he was zealous in his beliefs & would probably not have represented the interests of the people of IL. Once again we learn you can't judge a book by it's cover.

QUOTE (JUGGERNAUT @ Jun 30 2004, 07:36 PM) A judge should only make things open to the public when the evidence is compelling. Either testimony under the consequence of perjury, criminal charges, or something that appears obvious. Allegations suggesting one or both were fans of 9 1/2 Weeks is hardly compelling evidence.

The fact remains this decision goes against the ruling majority opinion of Americans. The law was passed with a majority of both houses & signed by Clinton. That means it was already watered down to begin with. This decision means that it will likely be another 5 years before a new law is worked. In the meantime child molesters are free to use any means at their disposal to seduce kids. Now I understand both sides of this issue & I'm not entirely in agreement on either. I respect the first amendment rights so I certainly don't want the law abused by law enforcement officials. But on the other hand I look at the consequences in absence of the law. I'm not against the US SC striking down such laws. But when a law has such wide-spread support & clearly reflects the majority opinion of the nation the US SC should then clearly guide Congress in what elements of the law are unconstitutional & which are not. They should make their best effort in helping Congress write a better law that will be approved by their interpretation of the law. The time, effort, & $ that goes into writing these laws is too great to simply be tossed aside in the end. We gave the president the power of a line item veto. Governors have it as well. Perhaps it's time to give the US SC similar powers with respect to interpreting the law. Strike down the parts that are unconstitutional & allow those that are.

Pretty much sums up your existence.

QUOTE (JUGGERNAUT @ Jun 30 2004, 07:36 PM) A judge should only make things open to the public when the evidence is compelling. Either testimony under the consequence of perjury, criminal charges, or something that appears obvious. Allegations suggesting one or both were fans of 9 1/2 Weeks is hardly compelling evidence. Now either you are reading impaired or dishonest. There's my final word on the issue. I'm not going to waste any more time going through the early stages of the debate. Only a moron would do that. You have my final word on the issue above. If you say something in reference to that quote then I will respond otherwise I'll just keep reminding you of it. I learned this is the best approach to take with dishonest or reading impaired people from other threads.

Once again, either you are reading impaired or dishonest. Everyone who has ever read my posts on this board or any other knows that I am the most pro-democratic person there is. Whether the majority decides to roast Christians or not will not change that. I believe in a government of the people, by the people, & for the people. I believe the people over time will work things out to correct any injustices. So in any decision with respect to politics or government I will side with the majority one as being the one to govern the nation. That does not mean that I will always agree with the majority. In many cases I will not. But I will respect the power of the majority to determine the ruling opinion. Therefore the most important individual rights in any democracy are those that hinder or help an individual influence the majority opinion.

QUOTE (JUGGERNAUT @ Jun 30 2004, 07:36 PM) A judge should only make things open to the public when the evidence is compelling. Either testimony under the consequence of perjury, criminal charges, or something that appears obvious. Allegations suggesting one or both were fans of 9 1/2 Weeks is hardly compelling evidence. Now either you are reading impaired or dishonest. There's my final word on the issue. I'm not going to waste any more time going through the early stages of the debate. Only a moron would do that. You have my final word on the issue above. If you say something in reference to that quote then I will respond otherwise I'll just keep reminding you of it. I learned this is the best approach to take with dishonest or reading impaired people from other threads.