clyons

Not sure where to post this, but the other night I dreamed that Frank Thomas had been murdered. I am obviously one deeply disturbed White Sox fan.

Nobody's getting canned (yet). But the one on the hottest seat should be Kenny.

Its April 21st. We're 4 games under, 6 games back, but its April 21st. It has really sucked to watch the team sleep walk to start season (again) after you wait all winter long and look forward to being excited about White Sox baseball. Seven game losing streaks always suck. but they especially suck in April, when they can b****slap a winter's worth of optimism right out of you. Honestly though, they are not that rare, and certainly not fatal.

The Bears schedule looks brutal. Atlanta, at NO, and GB to open the season, and at GB, at Minn to close it.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 20, 2011 -> 08:51 AM) "Did you see that Davey Bolland? He is so f***in' money!"

QUOTE (Knackattack @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 05:52 PM) Rather have Konerko or Q! there due to overall better hitteryness but meh TCQ -- at least for now

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 05:47 PM) Dunn needs a start at 1st so he can stop thinking of nothing but his at bats And to get the hell out of the 3-hole.

I didn't hear this, but I've thought he's sounded a lot less tolerant of the real morons lately, and more inclined to tell idiots off. Frankly, I don't mind that at all. In my book, people who call sports radio are just one step below people who post on message boards.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 15, 2011 -> 03:45 PM) Oath before god, many people dont believe in god and even if they do, there is nothing different about a regular lie and a lie under oath. Moist people are willing to lie, I dont believe for a second that swearing on a bible makes them second guess it. The reason we have laws against perjury (imo) is so that the govt can try and convict more people. If a person lies under oath, I dont really care, it doesnt change my day. In fact I generally hope that they lie, because it destroys their credibility. Most cases are based on physical evidence, only very few cases ever turn on a statement, and even then you generally have a he said/she said situation. I have a very jaded perspective, because I have seen Police Officers perjure pretty badly and never suffer any consequences. The reason they dont suffer is that the Prosecutor and the Police Officer are aligned, and therefore in some cases the Prosecutor kind of encourages perjury... The concept of "oaths" and of "swearing to tell the truth" is ancient, and goes back to the roots of Judeo-Christian tradition. The concept of imposing sanctions for the violations of oaths go back similarly as long, apart from any legal framework. Neither was concoted by governments looking simply to "convict more people." As to government officials not suffering the consequences of perjury, tell that to Burge, Mark Fuhrman, and Scooter Libby. I am sure it happens more often than it gets prosecuted, but before Bonds, the only perjury defendants I could name were all government officials.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 15, 2011 -> 03:18 PM) No the entire point of a trial is that everyone is going to lie and its up to the judge or jury to determine who is telling the truth. Im not sure how the legal system falls apart if people are lying under oath. The legal system presumes that everyone is lying, and therefore it is up to the attorney to show why the other person is lying and why his client is telling the truth. Man, I totally disagree with this. We administer oaths before God, and have laws against perjury for a reason.

Well, John Burge just got 4 1/2 years for perjury and obstruction, but I realize that example kind of cuts both ways. I think the reason perjury prosecutions are relatively rare has a lot to do with the fact that there rarely is extrinsic evidence to support them. In the Bond's case, the government had all of Anderson's doping calendars (which ultimately were excluded) as well as witnesses who claimed to have observed shots he denied ever getting before the grand jury. With Bill Clinton (not a criminal prosecution, I know, but the point is similar) you had his DNA on Monica's dress. You can't expect to lie with impunity if there's hard evidence out there that you are liar. I think the fact that Bonds was convicted of anything even without the Anderson evidence (and apparently, but for one reported holdout, would have been convicted of more) shows the government's case was not a sham.

Coop says Santos might be next: http://twitter.com/#%21/JimBowdenXMFox/sta...617082434174976

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 14, 2011 -> 10:47 AM) What happens to our legal system when we allow the govt to strip away the 5th amendment because they can give you "immunity". No where in the 5th do I see any sort of immunity exception. 5th Amendment: I just dont think that the govt should be able to force anyone to testify who doesnt want to. I understand your larger point about the govt infringing upon people's liberty to choose whether or not to testify, but I disagree that doing so involves any stripping away of 5th amendment rights. Once immunity is granted, the 5th amendment simply doesn't apply; there is no longer any criminal jeapordy related to the subject of the testimony. The constitution only confers the right to be free from forced self-incrimination. It provides no privilege against forced self-embarassment or inconvenience. I also agree with you that the spectre of an "obstruction of justice" charge can unfairly put the screws to folks, and be easily abused. Frankly, I don't understand how a person can be convicted of that crime for merely being "evasive." I should think being outrightly perjurious would be an element of the offense, but apparently its not.

GUILTY. 1 count of obstruction of justice. Deadlock (mistrial) on remaining counts. http://eye-on-baseball.blogs.cbssports.com...297882/28504158

3 in the 9th. 3 in the 10th (so far). Unreal.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 13, 2011 -> 03:55 PM) Well, on the plus side, we're still on a pace (even with a loss) for 96 wins and 67.5 blown saves.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 13, 2011 -> 02:53 PM) Sounds like I may possibly end up playing chauffeur for Val Kilmer this weekend. Cool. The guy has been Batman, Jim Morrisson, and Elvis, which in my book pretty much hits the trifecta of awesome.

Becks

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 13, 2011 -> 08:40 AM) I'd go with pre-control Nolan Ryan. Batter had no idea where his pitches were going, and neither did he. Besides if you charged the mound, he'd just kick your ass. The Big Unit, because of his unrivaled combination of gas, nastiness, height, and ugly. It was probably Gibson until he came along. Don Drysdale needs to be at least part of this conversation.

Teabag

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 04:12 PM) And 1 more thing to clarify. Im pretty sure that the evidence used against Bonds would not have generally been admissible in trial. Therefore the grand jury was important because they could ask him questions that would have been stricken in a normal trial for lack of foundation. Id actually have to really look at the transcript to see, but my guess is that they were questioning him on BACLO stuff. You're saying that Bonds' allegedly perjurious answers were to fishing expedition-type questions that wouldn't even have elicited helpful information against BALCO, correct? That certainly could be true. Unfortunately, that scenario isn't confined to Grand Jury abuses; its what got Clinton in trouble vis-a-vis Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones civil case.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 04:06 PM) You are right, 5th amendment can be plead in potentially any case, the immunity is what could strip the 5th. Im not making a legal argument, Im making a theoretical argument about grand juries and how they are used. The purpose of the grand jury is to prevent facts from being exposed to the public, especially because there are almost no rules of evidence that apply to grand juries. As soon as a grand jury no longer is secretive, it losses its function as a grand jury. As the govt could not deliver a secretive grand jury, they should never have had the right to hold one in the first place, therefore Bonds should not have had to ever testify. Furthermore, I absolutely disagree with the idea the govt can give you immunity and then compel testimony. If I dont want immunity and I dont want to testify, that should be my choice. That is not the law, its more my philosophical point. In the context of the law, the govt can give immunity and force testimony, I just think thats bogus if the person doesnt want it. Got it, thanks.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 02:40 PM) Bonds refused to do it, even when he was in front of the grand jury which is supposedly in secret and therefore you have no 5th amendment rights. That is the catch here, the govt pulled Bonds into a grand jury, where he, unlike most defendants, could not plead the 5th amendment. The reason that the 5th amendment does not apply, is that the information at a grand jury hearing is secret, it is never to be released to the public. Bonds attorneys argued that the govt could not deliver on the secrecy, and that Bonds should not have to testify against himself (like any other defendant in the world.) I am not a criminal lawyer and I don't want to hijack another thread with more legal debate with you, but I don't understand how the fact that grand jury proceedings are "secret" has anything to do with one's ability to plead the fifth. I always understood that unless a witness has been immunized (which can happen against his or her will, and I believe happened with Bonds) he or she can plead the fifth in any proceeding if there is reasonable fear of prosecution, especially before a grand jury. See, Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27. Are you saying the fact that Bonds himself was not the grand jury's immediate "target" or subject makes a difference? I thought Bonds couldn't plead the fifth before the grand jury because he had already received immunity for possible steroid related crimes, and therefore had no fear of prosecution. Therefore, even though his testimony (if leaked) could possibly have been personally embarrassing, he did not have to "testify against himself" in a 5th amendment context. As the prosecution has argued in this case, "all he had to do was tell the truth?"

I generally believe curses are for Cub fans, but the Hawks have the so-called "President's Trophy Curse" on their side in the series. Its been "in effect" the last two years, and aren't things like that supposed to happen in threes?

Last night, needing a single for the cycle in the 9th inning of a blowout game, Sam Fuld legged out a double. In further evidence of what's wrong with this country, almost 1/4 of survey takers on Si.com say they would have stopped at first. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/extr...ight/index.html