JUGGERNAUT

It's been some time. Is this your prom or hers? I guess this is yours. Speaking from personal experience this was a no-brainer for me. For my first prom (which was really her prom) she asked me first. Early enough to where there was time to date & get to know one another first. That's always a good thing. I didn't even know she was interested in me until she asked me. I would say if she was bold enough to do that you can be as well. But do it early enough to where you can go on a couple of dates first. You'll enjoy the prom more if you do. It goes w/out saying to open & close doors for her whenever you can. Be a gentleman because a prom is a special kind of date. You want to try to make all of her dates special like that before the prom.

The 4-6 wks is only 42 days. Still 1/2 of the 86 days needed to start the arbit clock. Using him in a spot role like this would not start the clock. But it would negate the Sep free pass so to speak. Once you are added to the 25 man roster every day in the majors is a day of service. So if he was sent down after 6 weeks & then called up in Sep & then went on to the playoffs he could pass the 86 days. The post-season counts in the service day time clock. A 16 day cushion is not very much. If the Sox made it to the WS BMac would be 2 yrs away from arbit. It doesn't seem like a bad tradeoff to me

I wonder how Daley will respond to this. The initial reaction to Columbine was to install metal detectors at the public school. If the report of the kid driving the car into the school is true that's not going to help much. Gun locks would help somewhat but it all depends whether he acted out of rage or premediated. If it was premediated then he could wait until he saved enough to purchase the gun illegally. If it was out of rage the lock would help to spin off time. Maybe enough to quiet the rage. I'm not talking a pad lock with a key or anything like that. I'm talking a lock that either disables the trigger or the firing mechanism. It would take the kid quite some time to take apart the gun to disable that. Then there's a good chance he wouldn't be able to put it back together again. I'm a strong advocate for gun locks as it doesn't threaten our 2nd amend rights at all.

With respect to what I call initial arbitration I think the key is 86 days of service. A call-up added to the 25 man roster must serve at least 86 days to be count as a major league service year. Call-ups in Sep when the roster expands would not count in that equation. In theory we can call BMac up in Sep for the stretch run & it won't cost us any time towards his arbitration. There is an exception of course. If BMac were to serve 86 days on the ChiSox & rank among the top 17% of arbitration eligible players he would be eligible for arbitration. It doesn't say by position so I think that would be very hard to do.

I also learned today that they are giving her morphine through an iv. That would make sense with respect to the pain killer reference I posted earlier. If this is true they've already consider her suffering & we can rule out #2 in the poll.

There are different levels of life support. You can set up a feeding tube solution at a low cost for hospice care. Much cheaper than in-hospital stay. The kind the baby needed whas substantially more. I agree that life should not come with the burden of meeting a doctor's cost. If the baby is a citizen the government should insure it's life at any cost.

Four pages & we go from dire straits to Mark may miss one ST start. Wow! From hell & back in Soxdom We can actually move Mark to the back of the rotation to gain 4 more days off the foot. Garcia, off, EL-D, 4th vs CLE Buerhle, Garcia, 5th @ MIN EL-D, off, Buehrle, Garcia @ CLE 4th, 5th, EL-D vs SEA - I'd like to give EL-D an extra day of rest Buehrle, Garcia vs MIN 4th, 5th @ DET EL-D, Buehrle, Garcia @ KCR 4th, 5th, EL-D, off @ OAK Buerhle, Garcia, 4th, off vs DET EL-D, Buerhle, Garcia vs KCR - Again giving EL-D an extra day of rest It actually works out pretty good. We feature are top 2 guys in both the CLE & MIN series. That gives us better odds to grab hold of the division. I put 4th & 5th because I think BMac still has a shot. If he makes it then Garland or Contreras will take Walker's spot in the pen.

That's the whole problem. She didn't have a living will so no one knows what she wants. We have the testimony of her family & friends from the parish she attended vs Michael's testimony & his friends. In any case Michael doesn't have to prove that she desired cremation. Once he obtained executor status over her life the rest is history.

This is kind of related. Airing on HBO this week is Sometimes in April. It's a movie that tells the story of genocide in Rhwanda. I think they biggest eye opener is that these are not illiterate savages. This is more reminiscent of the Holocaust. Education alone will not prevent genocide. You need a culture of life.

I don't know if this is true but since some of you have mentioned a funeral I've heard that Michael already secured the rights to cremate her after her death. Now again another legal door opens. If Terri dies, does Congress have the right to order an autopsy or delay the burial in light of the subpeona that was issued? I'm guessing we will cross that path when we come to it. Again her family & church friends are against the cremation & prefer a traditional burial. But since Michael is the custodian he decides. You would think out of respect & honor to his in-laws & his dearly departed wife he would allow them that little bit of dignity.

Well lets not forget the World Bank & the IMF have had pretty horrible track records of late. Maybe inexperience is what's needed. One interesting case is Argentina. After it defaulted it told the IMF essentially F off, we'll pay the debt back in our good time. It then began to raise tariffs & a few other interesting protectionist things. It's experiencing growth again. All w/out the IMF's help. Part of that growth is coming from China. China's only to eager to invest money in construction of new hotels, plants, etc in all of S America.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nw...s-campus21.html This sort of explains how emotions over rule logic in colleges today. The most alarming of course is the hooking up without the emphasis on safe-sex. A college student should know better whether s/he was taught in high school or not. It's not to much to expect them to research the subject of STD's on their own. But it's not to hard to figure out why condom's aren't very important during the hook-ups. They are stone-F'g-drunk when the act occurs! Apparently they desire to reach that state so they can blame the booze & not themselves for their actions. If you're a girl & get date raped or laid while stone drunk you can still retain your honor, but if you do it while your sober you're a slut. So I guess sluts don't drink I'm sorry. I know it's not funny. It's very sad. A morbid sense of morality born out of a society with decaying morals.

There are some good stories. Charities such as World Vision, Catholic Charities, & Christian Children's Fund are helping some kids. You to can become a sponsor of these children. Some donations are even used to buy victims from rape camps.

Our judicial system is predicated on jurors being able to act as impartial bodies when rendering a verdict. You simply ask a Jew whether they think the Holocaust would prevent them from rendering a verdict resulting in a death penalty. Unless they experienced a personal tragedy or other event that would give probable cause to believe they couldn't they should be accepted. It makes me wonder whether any one going to law school today takes anything they learn to heart.

80%! I wonder if you can order on-line. We love all things Japan, so she'll never suspect a thing

Yes. UoI, Louisville, UNC, Kentucky. UNC defeats UoI in the championship.

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/fc/US/ass...ce_050321221637 Near the end. I probably had a typo when paraphrasing it. I don't pay particular attention to typo's on a sports message board. Sorry. As for the case itself whether she is or is not in a persistent vegetable state for me is irrelevant. For me what's at issue is whether the courts ignored her religious practice in determining her will of life. Based on what I've read it certainly appears that's the case. We have Michael's word that she expressed a right to die with respect to that will. We have her families word & that of the members of the church she attended regularly that she expressed a right to live with respect to that will. If I were representing the Schiavo's that would be my case. Not that her religious rights were violated but rather her religious practice was ignored in determining her will of life. The appeal would be based on testimony that evidence pertaining to her religious practice was not admitted by the court in defense of her right to life. This includes testimony of church members that she expressed a right to live as well as pro-life rallies her & her family took part in. It's common knowledge that those who participate in pro-life rallies do not support right-to-die as a living will choice. On the subject of her condition (since this will undoubtedly play a role in any wrongful death suit) there is this link referring to surgeon Dr Bill Frist: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../ts_csm/atube_1 Lawmakers who are likewise Physicians like Senate leader Bill Frist in both the House & Senate disputed the attending physicians' claims that Mrs. Schiavo was in a "persistent vegetative state." Frist added ""From a medical standpoint, I wanted to know a little bit more about the case itself. Scores of neurologists have come forward and said that it doesn't look like she is in a persistent vegetative state.".

I mentioned the possibility of suffering & found this: A leading nuerologist said the timing of her death will depend on how well she was hydrated before the feeding stopped & whether her doctors give her painkillers in intravenous fluids to prevent possible suffering. The nuerologist did say that even persons in persistent vegetive states can experience pain during starvation.

The latest. http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/fc/us/ass...amaged_woman_19 On the one hand we have Terri's pre-sumptive civil right to die. On the other hand we have Terri's religious convictions. I say pre-sumptive right to die because it is an inconclusive right. Terri did not leave a living will nor did she leave an other conclusive indication she wanted to exercise her right to die. Terri's religious convictions are not pre-sumptive. They are supported by testimony from Church & family members. Before suffering the damage Terri was a regular Church-goer & close to her family in that regards. As a practicing Catholic there is nothing pre-sumptive about her willingness to exercise her right to die. It's clearly a sin in the Church & Terri took that seriously. So what you have here is a case of the most convincing argument for Terri's willingness to live expressed by her religious faith & the most convicing argument of Terri's willingness to die expressed by her husband's testimony. A lifelong commitment to practicing her faith vs a moment in time by her husband. Which is more credible to you? This in my opinion is what has plagued this case from the start. The court is essentially ignoring any testimony relating to her practice of her religion. That might sit well with some of you but it most certainly doesn't sit well with those of us who are religious. Suppose instead that Terri was an avid poker player & expressed her right to live in these circumstances with other poker players. Do you think the court would rule that testimony inadmissable? It appears U.S. District Judge James Whittemore is leaning towards letting her die. He does not believe that the states pre-sumption of her expressing a right to die violates her religious rights despite the knowledge that expressing that right amounts to commiting a mortal sin in her religion. On that basis he does not believe testimony pertaining to her religious convinctions or practices is sufficient to challenge Michael's guardianship & thus Michael's assertion of her wanting to die. That is where he stands right now. I do not know if Michael is religious or Catholic but I certainly would say that before a so-called impartial judge who is weighing these two sides that would certainly have a bearing on the case. I can guarantee you that if Terri is allowed to die the Democrats will suffer in the upcoming election. Terri's death will be blamed on the party that seems hell bent on eroding religious rights in America. If you thought gay marriage was a galvanizing issue for GOP you ain't seen nothing yet.

You're last line had me I was reading more about what was & was not admissable in the courts during the 10 rulings by the 19 other judges & I am disturbed by a general direction from the court. Putting aside Terri's condition, it seems to me the court had a negative reaction to her being Catholic. Part of the testimony to refute his assertion that she wanted to die in these circumstances included interviews with people who knew her both in the family & in the church before she married him. Those interviews clearly define her as being pro-life in the religious sense. I say this because as you know I'm pro-choice but lean more towards pro-life. Terri was fully pro-life. The court seemed to ignore this entirely. As for some of this testimony as to what she can or can not do or whether therapy can help there is a limit to what our modern science can answer. We have only begun to map the functions of the brain & we all know that short of exploratory surgery brain scans can only tell you so much. If much of her damage is on the surface it could be an entirely different story underneath. We don't have the technology to probe deeper with scans but exp surg would tell us that. Of course I just opened yet another can of worms in this case which is why it's better to error on the side of life. If Terri were to die as a result of court action Terri's family & the court of public opinion would likely demand an autopsy to see exactly how bad the damage really was. If it turned out to be less than what was expected the door opens for a wrongful death suit. The state of FL, USA, & possibly Michael & his attorneys could be named in the suit for suppressing evidence that pertained to her condition & was closely aligned with what the autopsy would reveal.

Still only 3-0? I don't worry about Freddy. Here's my take on ST in general: For Vets you look at what they did the season before. If they had a good year you kind of ignore whatever they do in ST. If they had a bad year or coming of an injury you expect to see improvement. Garcia had a pretty good year so I trust the player to be ready for the opener. Contreras had a bad year so I expect to see improvement. I trust in El Duque & Garland is just Jon. You hope for improvement but nothing in ST is going to give you a read on the regular season with him. It's all mental. Anyways, relax. Garcia will be fine for opening day. I think he knows he'll need a quality start to beat Westbrook. I'm sure he'll be ready for it.

It's all in the hands of Clinton appointee Whitemore. He is the Federal Judge who is going to rule on this today. Why? Because a bill that passed unanimously in the Senate & overwhelmingly in the House was signed into Law today by Pres Bush. It's not a simple law by any means. The gist is that in the absence of a living will and when a states judicial branch is at odds with it's executive & legislative branches motions can be filed in Federal court & trump the state's judicial ruling. Whitemore will decide whether Terri continues to live or dies. Generally speaking what we have this year is a GOP agenda to erode power away from the judicial branch of states. Eariler this year it was the effort to consolidate personal injury, liability, & malpractice suits from state courts to federal courts in an effort to lower the damage amounts. I don't necc have a problem with that because I generally place greater importance on the common good vs the selfish needs & wants of individuals. But I do find it a dangerous precedent when they do it piecemeal pertaining to special interests and legislative agendas. If the general problem is that too much power is wielded from the bench these days then you can easily weaken that power with term limits & more elections of judges at the state & federal level. The state constitutions control these parameters for non-federal judges. That is protected in the US Cons. But the appointment process or term limits can't be changed w/out a Cons amendment for federal judges. This is one amendment that is long overdue. In the modern age there is no such thing as a impartial judge. We don't live in a nation that foster's impartial decision making. We are a very divided nation when it comes to social issues. It's unlikely any appointment will ever include a person who has not taken a stance or a side in their lifetime. USSC Ruth Ginsberg advocates lowering the age of consent to 12. She believes it's perfectly acceptable for 12 yr old girls to have relations with male adults. That was apparent in the stances she took prior to her appointment. The GOP must have fallen asleep then or they made a deal with Clinton. But she's a perfect example of impartiality being non-existant . It's high time for some accountability in the judicial branch. There simply is no excuse for lifetime appointments given the vast numbers of qualified individuals in the legal profession today. Again if you look back through history the number of lawyers/per person ratio in the nation has grown rapidly as well. The US Cons should be amended such that Federal judges serve no more than 8 yrs. At which time they need to be reappointed to retain their seats. Since the appointments are driven by the executive branch & approved by the legislative branch the will of the people plays a role. With term limits there is accountability. That accountability exits at the lowest level of government where the people choose whether to retain or boot out a judge when the term has expired. It's high time something like that exists for the Fed.

Or the Flubs are the better team in Chicago because they draw more people to the beer garden. Young-gun success stories: Rich Harden (OAK): As a 21 yr old he had 5W-4L & a 4.46ERA in 13GS. As a 22 yr old he had 11W-7L & a 3.99 in 31GS. Dontrelle Willis (FLM): As a 21 yr old he went 14W-6L w 3.31ERA in 27 starts. As a 22 yr old he went 10W-11L w 4.02ERA in 32 starts. Jack Peavy (SDP): As a 21 yr old he went 6W-7L w 4.52ERA in 17 starts. As a 22 yr old he went 12W-11L w 4.12ERA in 32 starts. As a 23 yr old he went 15W-6L w 2.27ERA in 27 starts. I doubt any of these guys were any more ready to be starters in the MLs than BMac is. Their teams didn't fear what it might do to them & they are reaping the benefits from it. Don't expect greatness in his first starts. Harden demonstrated that (32IP, 4ER) but then followed up with rough starts. If BMac just pitches competitively I think he'll have a very promising future with the ChiSox.

BMac vs Milly @ the Cell. I like his chances. Millwood looks bad this spring. If it's Lee, or Davis (the over 5ERA club) I like his chances even better. All I'm asking of BMac from here on out is to pitch competively enough to avoid the loss. As long as he can avoid more than 2 losses a month I think he'll be fine.

Pos-AS 04: MIN 45W, 30L Pos-AS 04: CHI 37W, 41L Pos-AS 04: CLE 38W, 37L Pos-AS 04: DET 30W, 45L That makes every one chasing MIN a long shot, but I don't think it warrants all the CLE joy these analysts are spouting. They were at FULL STRENGTH & managed 1 more win than us the 2nd 1/2. We were anything but full strength. In my opinion the Twins have more reason to look forward to Mays in their rotation than the Tribe does with Milwood. Milwood was healthy & got hit hard at home & in some places on the road. Why should I believe he's going to return to form in 05 when he's clearly pitching in a tougher hitting league? It's been a tougher hitting league for about 5 yrs now. There's no reason to believe that Milwood is going to be a 15 gm winner for the Tribe. For Min, a healthy J Mays is capable of 15 wins. Looking at the CLE ST numbers, Boone isn't lighting it up. His 333A looks ok, but he only has 13TB, & 6RBI. Jeff Liefer has 20TB, & 8RBI. K Millwood 11.25ERA, 4.0IP. Contreras & Garland look better. Why isn't he pitching more? IMHO, Chicago White Sox 5-2, Cleveland Indians 5-1.