clyons

Jose Contreras comes off the DL in midseason. It takes him about three starts to fine-tune his forkball, after which he and his well-rested arm put together a steak that pales only in comparison to his late 2005 dominance, which the White Sox ride to a narrow first place finish in a thrilling four-team division race. Songs are written about him on his native island and on the South Side. President Obama renews diplomatic relations with Cuba in his honor.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Feb 15, 2009 -> 03:23 PM) Debatable. There was some jawing go on, and I honestly could not tell if he was celebrating or taunting. It was also hard to see what was going on with him and Pritchard near the end of the game in that loose ball. Seemed like a pretty wimpy T, and the announcer agreed. I rewound it, and he was celebrating the jam when he bumped the other guy. I admit that I'm biased, though.

On a related note, most of Roger Clemens' defamation suit against Brian McNamee has been dismissed. http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/11371040 Watch ol' Rusty hail this as a tremendous victory for the Rocket.

The Given Day by Dennis Lehane. Its set in early 20th-century Boston. Babe Ruth is a minor character.

Five. Five dollar. Five dollar foot-looongs!!!!

QUOTE (G&T @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 03:32 PM) I don't get what the basis of the suit is. She doesn't state that she felt forced into sex, or that she was raped, or that she has HIV. In fact, despite her claim that she's has many sexual encounters with Alomar while he had HIV, she never contracted it herself. The only issue is whether "AIDS-phobia" is an actual emotion disorder (I've never heard of it). Even if he was grossly negligent, she did not suffer any actual harm. I may be totally wrong about this, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I think the claims are for infliction of emotional distress; both intentional (Count I) and negligent (Count II). A plaintiff doesn't necessarily have to have suffered an actual "emotional disorder" to make such claims (although it helps to ratchet up the damages). General worry, anxiety, sleeplessness, depression, etc. can suffice. The gist of the claims is that by having unprotected sex with her while he was infected, he caused her these emotional injuries in that she became distressed about possibly getting AIDS; not that he physically injured her by having unprotected sex or via actual infection.

Today driving south on I-55 near Kedzie, I noticed a billboard that depicts the famous, red, Wrigley Field marquee and reads, "What Happens in Wrigley Field Stays at Wrigley Field." Its obviously a take-off on the famous Las Vegas marketing slogan, but to what intended effect? The team can't actually be trying to attract people to the ballpark by directly comparing it to "Sin City," can it? You would think they'd want to market a two-time defending champion instead of playing up the "come out to get drunk" stereotype. Am I missing something here, or am I getting the message they're trying to send?

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 09:20 PM) then they should prosecute the union. those idiots had plenty of time to destroy those confidential results and for some reason they didn't. If only idiocy was criminal . . .

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 05:09 PM) entire list of names to be leaked soon. If they're going to investigate/prosecute players for perjury, they should also investigate/prosecute the source(s) of these leaks. That's only consistent and fair.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 02:55 PM) Yes he's a liar and a cheater, but so are I don't know how many other players too. Just come clean. It doesn't make it ok, but it removes that cloud from you. How many of those other 104 players willingly went on national TV with a network news anchor and pissed all over the truth, the sport, and its fans? Yeah, I'm glad he removed that cloud and came "clean," but I'm sure as hell not going to praise him for it. The only difference between Arod, Clemens and Bonds is better representation and a current mega-contract.

"Manning up" only when caught is not "manning up" at all--its just saving your skin, and its motivated by the same greedy, selfish instincts that made him lie in the first place. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=362...ce=search_video He's a liar and a cheater. That's not a "man" to me.

It just occurred to me that Madonna must have some weird kinky fetish for shriveled sacks.

Willy Loman? Devoted Husband of Linda; Proud Father of Biff and Happy; Brother of Ben. "Popular" salesman known up and down the East Coast. Very heavily insured. Died in an apparent single car accident; circumstances of which remain under investigation.

QUOTE (Pants Rowland @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 03:33 PM) Screw that. If you do not know the White Sox double play combo from 1987 you can go the F back to Russia! Guillen-Manrique? And it doesn't matter how many people showed up for the parade. We all know the Cubs' parade will blow ours away.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 10:57 AM) Well, at some level it's sort of a fair point. Especially in a criminal case, it might be darn hard to actually establish that the evidence here wasn't contaminated. McNamee, an admitted criminal with motivation to shift blame to other people, had them in his possession, presumably for years. In a civil case, I think it's probably the nail in the coffin of Clemens's defamation suit. And in the public eye as well. I have difficulty though seeing how this could be useful in any criminal prosecution. I don't think there's ever going to be a criminal case here. As a practical matter, this evidence is no different than the DNA on Monica's blue dress.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 07:16 AM) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3880712 I can hear ol' Rusty now: "The DNA laboratory was an absolute cesspool of contamination." Might as well, its worked for a famous athlete before.

I hate Curt Schilling more than I hate the Yankees. And I HATE the Yankees.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 05:06 PM) It's like Forrest Gump except for being mentally retarded, he retards physcially. This is spot on. In fact, I would add that apart from that difference and the encounters with celebrities, BB is a virtual remake of Forrest Gump (they share the same screenwriter). Someone posted a funny, split/screen comparison of the movies on Youtube that has since been taken down. It highlighted the following similarities: SPOILER ALERT (I don't know how to do that masking thingy): I thought BB was ok, but I'll be pissed if the writer wins an Oscar, because it seems like he just cut and pasted from his Forrest Gump screenplay.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 18, 2009 -> 10:50 AM) Didn't bother to click around on the link before replying, did ya? if so, you would have also found these: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/apply.html [ Just how hard do you want it to be? They have to show they are not crazy, not a felon, have their fingerprints on file withthe government (a very big deal for some) and can handle a gun properly. And the training classes have to be approved by the state, so it's not like you can just print up a fake certificate. You are right, in a 'shall issue' state, as long as you meet the criteria, they have to issue it. That prevents someone from not issuing it because the white sherrif doesn't like black people having guns, or similar situations like that. I never said it should be hard (although I do think it should be). All I said is that it the degree of difficulty varies by jurisdiction, and that in Florida--where they helped pioneer "shall issue" permits--it's not particularly difficult at all if you're not crazy or a con. Nothing in your link (which I did read, thanks) contradicts anything I posted, your unwarranted snarkiness notwithstanding. Over and out.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 08:04 PM) http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/eligible.html You must be able to demonstrate competency with a firearm. Possible Reasons for Ineligibility: The physical inability to handle a firearm safely. A felony conviction (unless civil and firearm rights have been restored by the convicting authority). Having adjudication withheld or sentence suspended on a felony or misdemeanor crime of violence unless three years have elapsed since probation or other conditions set by the court have been fulfilled. A conviction for a misdemeanor crime of violence in the last three years. A conviction for violation of controlled substance laws or multiple arrests for such offenses. A record of drug or alcohol abuse. Two or more DUI convictions within the previous three years. Being committed to a mental institution or adjudged incompetent or mentally defective. Failing to provide proof of proficiency with a firearm. Having been issued a domestic violence injunction or an injunction against repeat violence that is currently in force. Renouncement of U.S. citizenship. A dishonorable discharge from the armed forces. Being a fugitive from justice. Awful lot of reasons there to deny someone a permit. care to try again? Yeah, you're right, dog. Those standards are extremely hard for sane, non-felons to meet. Good Lord. Plus, there's no "denying" a pemit in Florida or any other "shall issue" jurisdicition: a person is either eligble or ineligible via the criteria you cited, or they aren't. If the applicant is eligible, the state has zero discretion to deny.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 04:33 PM) But it isn't 'everyone', concealed carry is hard to get. The difficulty of getting a concealed carry permit significantly varies by jurisdiction. I think Florida is required to issue one to any sane, non-felon who applies.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 04:06 PM) So people can own guns, but not carry them? That defeats the very purpose of 2A, not to mention you are placing your own fears over other peoples' constitutional rights. I'm sorry but that doesn't fly with me. Own them, keep them in your home to protect your property, use them to hunt or shoot skeet, but don't take them to a bar like Plaxico Burress where you can shoot yourself, or someone around you. The constitution does not confer the right to carry a concealed weapon. Absent a permit, that's a crime in lots of places.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:02 PM) I'm sorry, but that argument is essentially "I believe this and will continue to do so regardless of how illogical my position is shown to be." Would you prefer to attend a party where only the thugs have guns, or where there are more guns and both the thugs and responsible individuals have guns? That's not it all. Stats don't overrule logic in all cases, and I don't think they do in this debate. Every "party" is different; different people, different settings, different moods, different contexts. Stats from one have no bearing on another. Its like a poster said earlier; stats showing there's no crime in Boofoo, Hicksville where everyone has guns do not translate to Chicago, Illinois. As to your question; If there was a way of knowing in advance, I'd prefer to attend the party where there are more guns, and the bad guys are offset or outgunned. That's a no brainer. However, there's no way of knowing that ahead of time. In actual society, you won't know who's packing until somebody (the bad guy) draws. Once that happens, a dangerous situation exists, no matter what. The fact that a good guy might be present and able to draw back could reduce the danger or it might enhance it; once again that would depend upon the specific context and the characters. I don't see how that could ever be meaningfully measured or predicted in advance with statistics.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 01:10 PM) I'm curious as to why you think concealed carry (or even open carry) should be totally illegal. It doesn't lead to higher gun crimes or accidents. I've never been persuaded by statistical arguments in gun debates, whether used by either side. I don't think an assertion like yours can be conclusively proven or disproven. My thoughts are based on a certain logic, which I freely admit is overly simplistic. If I go to a party attended by 100 people, none of whom has a gun, my chances of being shot at that party are virtually zero. I think that my chances of getting shot increase if even one person at the party has a gun, regardless of whether that person is a trained and responsible off-duty cop, or a crazed, murderous thug. My chances likely go up even more if both a cop AND a murderous thug are there and both armed. Gun supporters like to believe that the cop and the thug cancel each other out; or that if everyone of the 100 people at the party was armed, everyone would be equally safe. I personally think it would be lot more dangerous. Statistics will never convince me otherwise. I realize, of course, that if society at large is the "party," I have no chance of ever attending a party without guns. I would just prefer to attend a party where there are fewer guns, not more.

I'm sort of a contrarian on this issue. I was raised a hunter and a sportsman and support the second amendment and the individual right to bear arms, but I'm anti-handgun and militantly anti-assault weapons. That said, I think its reasonable that you should be able to keep just about anything short of a nuclear or chemical weapon as protection in your home. On the street, whether on your person or within access in your car, is a completely different story and, imo, should be totally illegal. I know reasonable people who feel safer having one handy while in a "bad neighborhood," but I've heard too many stories about folks like that that have bad endings.