More ballpark lies from Oregon this time

response to #11 Don, the Patriots didn't threaten to move the team. Connecticut made an offer and Kraft actually signed an agreement Connecticut and work was being done on the site. It was formally announced that the Pats were moving. The Patriots also submitted an application NFL for permission to move to Hartford. There were delays in prepping the site for construction, because of environmental cleanup problems I think, which threatened to push back the complettion date past 2002. At some point the Mass. legislature offered kick in $72 million in infrastructure costs, but the Patriots pay back $1 million a year for 25 years, and the NFL offered to kick in another $150 million from its stadium construction fund. So he didn't actually pay for it all himself. Kraft had a option to back out of the agreement by a certain date and when Ct. couldn't get it together and Mass came calling, he took the out. I think he ended up having to pay the state of Ct. about $3 million as a result.
— October 30, 2009 3:08 p.m.

Fabiani Quote Suggests Chargers L.A. Move May Be Done Deal

#54 even more meaningless, # 9 actually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_State…
— October 23, 2009 7:21 p.m.

Fabiani Quote Suggests Chargers L.A. Move May Be Done Deal

Can't speak of J'ville, but the owner of the Buffalo Bills, Ralph Wilson has publicly stated that he will not sell the team nor will he move it. I can't find the link now, but quite awhile ago I read an interview where he stated that he has made arrangements for his estate to sell the Bills after his death. Best bet right now is they are sold to a consortium who will move them to Toronto, where they already have an agreement to play 8 games over a 5 year period.
— October 23, 2009 5:18 p.m.

Plug In, Plump Up

Pete, I actually saw this a couple weeks ago. It's interesting that I happened to see your post this morning. We came down to our daughter's place yesterday because we're going to the Angel's games this week and she is the one who sent it to me. After I got the new engine in the Chevelle, we drove it down on a couple of visits this summer. That video was her way of reminding me about how unsafe an "old " car is. She conveniently forgets that as a kid she loved to ride in it and that when she turned 17, we offered to let her take the money out of her trust so she could have a car her senior year and she said she would really rather drive my hot rod to school... the very same car. Anyway a couple things about that video. First, if you didn't realize it, that the IIHS is fuly funded by the insurance companies and I'm sure both you and surfpup would agree that they never do anything unless it furthers their agenda. Secondly, I'm sure it's no accident they chose this car. MOst people who saw that video are probably not aware that car is constructed differently than most cars of that era. From 1958 thru 1964 or 65, a different frame was used on that class. The standard frame is what I refer to as a ladder frame. It has 2 parallel frame rails connected by perpendicular cross-members at various point. Those years of vehicles used an x frame. It basically looked like an elongated x. It had a center section with a tube for the drive shaft and a sort of wishbone shaped section extended from each end. best pic I could find: http://image.superchevy.com/f/10374397/sucp_0810_… This frame was a piece of krap which is why it got dumped after 5 years, I guess. When you put that design through an offset crash there is little structure besides the body panels to absorb the collision energy. It's no wonder that car crumpled up like it was made of newspaper. The design was considered somewhat unsafe even in its day and I once read that the original federal side impact regulations were created because of that design’s (accurately) perceived weakness. Just goes to show, things aren't always what they seem.
— October 20, 2009 11:03 a.m.

Ponzi Schemer J. David "Jerry" Dominelli Is Dead

re 65 Rules 901 and 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence govern the authentication and identification of evidence, and, of them, Rule 901(b)(4) “is one of the most frequently used to authenticate e-mail and other electronic records.” 901(b)(4): Distinctive characteristics and the like. Appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Ru…
— October 16, 2009 6:58 p.m.

UCSD's Gary Jacobson frets about polarization

AG, Article V of the U.S. Constitution establishes the means for amending that document. Amendments have been created to change the Articles of the Constitution, such as the 12th Amendment. But to the best of my knowledge, the actual text of an Amendment cannot be changed. Since we already have a constitutional amendment addressing the issue of freedom of speech, the only way to change it is to create an entirely new amendment repealing the First Amendment. Can you really see that happening? Only 1 Amendment ever been repealed. What I am talking about is the court's interpretaton if the First Amendment. Article III of the Constitution specifically gives the Court the authority to review, and affirm or overturn, decisions made by lower courts and tribunals. That is how cases such as Brandenburg V Ohio change the interpretation of the First Amendment. And that is how the nine people that make up SCOTUS define free speech. I don't claim to be a Constitutional scholar, so if anyone has a link showing otherwise, please provided it and I will stand corrected. Regarding the Michael Moore film, I didn't ignore the obvious corruption. Rather my point was, that a government official, the judge, even had the authority to do this. Surely you, like I have seen this happen in other countries, countries not on the list you cited, and thought it barbaric. You like I probably could not imagine that happening in our country. But it does, bribary and corruption not withstanding, it does. I have no difficulty in imaging strictrr free speech laws and having to same thing occuring only worse because some individual feels they have the power to do it. Haven't we seen enough of what power and corruption have done lately? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone.To me what anyone says here has no affect on me whatsoever. It's just keystrokes that appear on a screen. If it was in another form or forum it might. But in another form or forum some people might not say the same things that they do here. You have every right to your feelings about hate speech, AG, as Pete has to his, but it's just not that easy to change what the law says about it, whether we like it or not.
— October 16, 2009 6:40 p.m.

UCSD's Gary Jacobson frets about polarization

AG, I'm not going to take a side other than to say that I personally have no problem with the way the First Amendment is currently defined. But I do have a couple of questions. Are you aware that your statement " but I'm not going to even bother reading all of them, much less responding" could be taken as being said with an air of superiority? Just wondering. While I'm sure we all appreciate the link, was there really a need to post them all and did you actually read them all? If so how do you feel about Germany. Do you agree in prosecuting someone who was to write something percieved as promoting discontent or rebellion in Germany simply because it was written or spoken in German and made available in Germany? Even if the author wasn't a German citizen or not even in Germany at the time? One other question. Have you seen Michael Moore's last film? If not, and without passing judgementbad or good, the is one part I did find particularly interesting. the condensed version is that in Pa, one [articular county dicided to privatize juvenile detention. One teenager was incarcerated for saying something on her myspace page her principal didn't like. Another was incarcerated for argueing with her best friend at the mall. Extreme examples? Yes. Do worse things happen elsewhere? Yes. But they didn't happen elswhere, they happened here in this country. Then problem is if you try to "redefine" hate speech and the First Amendment, who decides on the definition??? The nine people who make up SCOTUS. Are you willing to live with their "interpretation"? Obviously not, since SCOTUS made it's interpretation and you disagree. So how would you go about affecting such a change? I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm just asking how since SCOTUS made their ruling 40yrs ago and to my knowledge, no case brought before them has resulted in a change.
— October 16, 2009 4:01 p.m.

UCSD's Gary Jacobson frets about polarization

"If speech can be seen to incite, or appears clearly capable of inciting violence, then it should be censored in some measure". Daniels, I have to say that's simply not going to happen. That was the whole issue in Brandenburg V Ohio. Before the courts ruling in that case, that was pretty much what could happen. In it's ruling the court struck down Whitney V California. They ruled that unless such speech was "likely to result in immediate violations of the law", it could not be censored. I'm sure you would agree at this time it's unlikely the court will reverse itself.
— October 16, 2009 2:31 p.m.

UCSD's Gary Jacobson frets about polarization

#59 There are exeptions to "hate speech" being protected by the First Amendment. In Brandenburg V Ohio, the Supreme Court held that the constitutional guarantees of free speech do not permit a state to forbid people from speaking in favor of the use of force or other illegal actions unless it was likely to result in immediate violations of the law. The right to free speech can be limited only when the speech can be directly and immediately connected to specific actions that could result in lawless behavior. (Hopefully I gave a correct interpretation; surfpuppy should feel free to correct me if neccessary) Look at some of the free speech laws in other countries. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/world/americas/…
— October 16, 2009 12:43 p.m.

UCSD's Gary Jacobson frets about polarization

response to 15 and 44. That is indeed the point I was attempting to make to Pete about quoting out of context, however Don, one could argue that we are again, if not still, in a time of societal inflammation. Try reading the quote not in the terms normally associated with a quote from that era, armed revolution. Instead read it thinking more in terms of the other definition in Webster's: Opposition to one in authority or dominance. "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them." We have the means for achieving this each time we go to the ballet box. Over 17 million californians registerd vote in the last election, yet barely half of them took the time to show up to vote. That is our opportunity for " rebellion" yet it goes unsatisfied. A wise man once said that you can't win if you don't show up. How many cry for revolution or rebellion, yet fail to show up.
— October 16, 2009 11:44 a.m.