Dan Gould

Just a horrible, horrible story, and while the trajedy will effect the family for a long time (and that poor kid, old enough to remember everything that happened when his Dad died), I have to wonder whether the other person who will be deeply effected is Josh Hamilton - a guy who self-medicated with drugs and alcohol, then became clean and sober and cashed in on all of his physical gifts. How is he handling this? I know I might obsess about the what-ifs - what if he threw it a little harder and more accurately and the guy didn't have to lean out for it? What if he just threw it in a different direction? I don't know how he's reacting to this, maybe he is in a much better place now but I would sincerely hope this doesn't cause any sort of relapse of his drug use/alcohol abuse.

I agree that it's human instinct for people to gravitate to this kind of thing. But I don't think that exempts them from moral criticism. Guy You're respectfully invited to shove your moral criticism up your ass. Dan, first off let me back up and apologize for my tone, which was condescending. But let me ask you - what do you think motivated people to watch the Anthony trial? Thank you, because I don't think this is an issue of morals - though I suspect you're still going to come back to that. To answer your question, no one can truly speak for the great numbers of people interested in watching or following the Anthony trial. But my best guess is: Sadness for the loss of such a young person, to all indications at the hands of her mother and a desire to see justice done; The seemingly sociopathic behavior of the mother in the 31 days after the child disappeared as shown by the lies she told to friends, family and the police. General fascination with any case where a mother kills her child (or children).

Mark beat me to it - I suspect there will definitely be some interest in both of these sets.

I agree that it's human instinct for people to gravitate to this kind of thing. But I don't think that exempts them from moral criticism. Guy You're respectfully invited to shove your moral criticism up your ass.

Shawn, You shouldn't have to go that far - if its a criminal case just admit a bias toward or against the cops. Say you think cops lie routinely and you won't get picked. Kevin, I have to wonder if given the same situation, any of us would be able to hold out and force a mistrial. I can only imagine the pressure your dad felt. Larry, I can't believe the judge would enter the jury room and make such a comment. I would think it constitutes judicial misconduct of some sort. No one talks to the jury unless its in court with both counsel present. Sticking his head inside and saying 'what took you so long?' Shocking, at least to me.

Its the Nanny-State instinct of a particular breed of politician that will always endure. The fact is that its very rare that an elected representative gets removed due to a specific vote, so there is no feedback loop and there really can't be any conclusion of general approval by the population. I would say that if Nanny-State laws were put to a referendum and approved by the voters, then its democracy in action and not busy-body politicians trying to enforce their vision of "proper behavior". But I don't know of any case where nanny-state laws got that kind of treatment. The cost is shifted towards who? Non-taxpayers? I mean, I get the argument that there may not be an impact to the "general taxpaying public". We can contrast and compare statistics and actuarial tables and underwriting guidelines to ferret out that one, or at least attempt to. What I'm not buying is that "taxpayers" of one stripe or another totally escape the impact (no pun intended), not unless buying motorcycle insurance exempts you from paying taxes, or vice-versa. Costs are shifted to a lot of different people. It can be shifted to taxpayers if the helmetless end up on disability for the rest of their lives. On the other hand, crash victims can end up at private or parochial hospitals where they get their treatment covered out of the charitable care budget. Taxpayers aren't paying for that. I didn't mean to imply that taxpayers don't get stuck with some of the cost-shifting - only that there is no reason to assume that the helmetless injured cost more to taxpayers than the helmeted. Even if the costs are higher as the earlier study indicated, there's no evidence that the helmetless are disproportionaly under or uninsured. That's where TD goes completely off the rails.

I'm enjoyed Wakefield's fluttering (sorry) march on 200 wins. 198 picked up yesterday. After 200 I would love to see him get to 192 with the Sox - I think he's eight away now - and get Clemens (and Cy Young) out of the club record book.

But is it not reasonably safe to assume that most riders who buy insurance are also taxpayers? I'm just saying that even if the additional cost of non-helmeted injuries are only borne by theose who buy the insurance, it's still then (mostly) taxpayers paying the extra expense. And if they - the affected taxpayers - don't feel justified in bearing that burden, what is their recourse other than through legislation, besides doing a Wardell Gray on every uninsured rider they see? There is a population of motorcycle riders who have accidents resulting in injuries requiring medical care. Some of those riders wear helmets and some do not. Some have insurance for medical expenses, some don't. For those who are uninsured or under-insured, there is cost-shifting toward others when they require medical care. Without evidence that those who refuse to wear helmets also make up a disproportionate share of those without sufficient insurance, there is no support for TD's statement that Let alone his gratuitous and utterly non-sequitur put-down

OK but it still shows nothing about any association between riding without a helmet and being un-insured or under-insured.

Utter bullshit. Taxpayer winds up paying for ambulances and medical care for the helmetless crashers. Typical neocon garbage. Hmmm ... pretty sure the ambulance comes regardless, so that's a sunk cost, helmet or no. And on what basis do you claim that the taxpayer pays for medical care of helmetless crashers? Is there some proof that the people who don't wear helmets also have insufficient insurance, or no insurance? Citation, please. And furthermore, what are the survival rates of helmetted and helmet-less motorcyclists who crash? Helmets save lives presumably, but they're not perfect systems of head-protection and I have no doubt whatsoever that helmets cost taxpayers more because they keep people with still-critical injuries alive, resulting in the creation of more profoundly disabled former riders draining medical resources. Dead riders don't cost the taxpayer anything. Typical and predictable leftwing crap.

If Masterson keeps it up the Tribe could have a really strong #2 starter for a long time to come - assuming they can afford and are willing to buy out a couple of years of free agency, and if the team keeps developing who's to say he wouldn't want to stick around and be part of a contending team? One thing is for sure I enjoyed watching him silence the Yankees. Unfortunately I suspect that this will be the high-water mark of the Sox, or perhaps that will come right at the break if they beat up on the Orioles. I think Lester will be out until at least the end of July and so will Buchholz, Lackey isn't out yet, and they are one more injury to a starter away from having no choice but to call up Kevin Millwood.

I didn't say you should care - I said its normal for others to care and they shouldn't be criticized for doing so. Big difference.

No, I am saying that when the evidence seems clear and convincing, and the defense makes obvious missteps like promising evidence in their opening argument and not delivering any, a quick verdict is more likely to be one of guilty.

I'd pay the $50 to get that plate design.

In-fucking-sane. Motive isn't an element of the crime to be proven. The medical examiner determined the death to be a homicide. Who takes an accident and makes it look like a homicide? Who has their own flesh and blood die and have no burial or memorial or even respectful treatment of the body? As the ME also said, everytime a toddler drowns, the parents or caregivers call 911. They don't cover it up. Bat-shit fucking insane is what that alternate believes.

I think there is something to be said about that - when I saw that they had reached a verdict I was 100% certain it was guilty due to the short time spent in deliberations after such a long trial. Did no one believe she was guilty and needed convincing to go with the others? Did they really fully consider all of the evidence? It seems highly unlikely given how little time they spent deliberating. Its almost as if someone said "I've got reasonable doubts" everyone else said 'so do I' and they said "let's take a vote!"

Guy, Are there hundreds - or thousands - of murders of 2 year olds by their mothers, every day, world-wide? Are there hundred - or thousands - of such cases where the mother spends a month telling lies about her daughter's whereabouts, where she gives no indication that anything has happened to the child, and never calls the police? Why you can't distinguish between this case as a unique confluence of facts and circumstances different from other trajedies is beyond me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX_687HwX9c&feature=player_detailpage

I'd like to nominate Chris for Best Non-Sequitur Comeback Ever.

If you watch any of the national news programs or channels, it's been difficult to avoid this case over the past 3 yrs. This one has been *the* case that's been talked about for a while now, maybe more so than the Barry Bonds trial. Very much more so than the Bonds trial. A much greater proportion of the population cares when a two year old is murdered by her mother than whether or not some baseball player used steroids and lied about it. I've never understood this holier-than-thou, "this is what's wrong with the country" reactions when a murder and trial like this gets a lot of attention. Why shouldn't people care, or follow the case and then talk about the verdict?

I can't wait for Chris to point out how wrong Burns is. Who knew that it was mixers that were outlawed, not the alcohol itself?

But apparently you can get an acquittal even after telling wild stories in the opening statement and introducing not a single shred of evidence to back any of it up. Since when does a jury not punish a defense when it makes wild accusations and then doesn't provide any evidence? That's what I can't get - the defense theory of the case was ludicrous on its face and unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

What say you?