Dan Gould

If they are serious about trading for Doc, I hope it doesn't cripple the team by giving up too much. Plus the real problem is that Holladay, while signed through next season, would almost certainly want a contract extension to waive his no-trade. He's 32 now, you want to extend a 33 year old, at huge dollars, for four or five years? Especially with that much mileage? Yeah its great that he throws so consistently deep into games. But the reality is that virtually no one in the game avoids arm trouble forever. The act of throwing is simply not natural and too violent to the arm to keep it up, year after year. So you'd be betting on Holladay being the rare bird whose innings never catch up with him, because that extention is going to take him to the end of his career, or very nearly so. On the other hand, slot in Holladay with Beckett and Lester and, for this year, Smoltz, and don't they become big favorites to win it all both this year and next? Its a tough choice. and I am not reading that much into the presence of scouts (and its totally foolish to think that Buchholz pitching on Friday in Toronto is anything but coincidence. They want to use him for one game to be sure Wakefield and Beckett are fully rested from whatever pitching they do in St. Louis. If it was Bowden's turn to pitch, they'd have announced that he was being called up, and if Toronto is serious, they'd send their scouts to wherever Pawtucket plays. On a separate note, a helluva performance from Beckett on the occasion of his 100th major league win. Complete game shutout- he'd only done it twice up until interleague play this year, and now has done it twice in the space of about three weeks. Only 95 pitches, too. He and Lester are really rolling, and Wakefield with 11 wins and Smoltz showing signs ... I feel a bit better about the second half than I did a few days ago. Some thanks go to the Angels for that.

Kevin Mahogany's CD of Motown tunes, Pride and Joy, includes a fine rendition of "She's Out of My Life".

Speaking of uncensored, I can't say I am surprised to learn that the infamous youtube clip of him on the post-game show going off about stealing bases was done as a lark and never actually broadcast. No way he keeps the gig if he can't censor himself on live TV. Still funny as hell though.

He was apparently strangled with the strap of a purse, which was found with blood stains, and she can't explain ten hours in the room not realizing he was dead. Hard to imagine a woman could have killed such a man but apparently they were having problems ... very sad.

Great profile of Earl Weaver here from S.I. Fascinating to realize how far ahead of his time Earl was in valuing OBP and stats like pitcher-hitter matchups. Plus he's just a fun character to read about.

I saw this yesterday, a very interesting article. What I found especially interesting is that these collectors don't take the approach that record dealers would, of severely undervaluing the 78 some old, probably pretty poor person happens to have. Instead they are willing to pay a very pretty penny for what they are so desperate to find.

What the hell is going on with John Smoltz, the Boston bullpen, and games that are supposed to be in the bag? Smoltz was the starter in the game that ended with the infamous bullpen meltdown, pissing away a nine run lead in less than five outs, and now at Fenway, against the Royals for God's sake, he's staked to a 9-1 lead, gone after five innings, seven strikeouts, and right off the bat Masterson gives up five runs in the sixth and Okajima gives up another in the seventh before Bard saved his ass by throwing ten pitches to get two strikeouts and a flyout with the tying run on base. 9-7 middle of seven. You gotta let Bard pitch the eighth -even though Tito was talking about not putting the guy into do-or-die situations. He seems like the only guy who isn't afraid to go after 'em.

You forgot to bracket that statement with IMO at the top and bottom.

Always a day late and a dollar short. :blush2:

Personally I have a hard time believing that she got into these fetishes without a little help via child abuse, which ties into her cold and dead eyes on display in a well publicized appearance on Tyran Banks's show. I have no idea if she qualifies as intellectual or if she's just learned enough to name-drop and fake her way through it - but doing what she does (and the words out of her mouth while she does it) and then making some claim about "feminism" isn't just laughable, its sad.

And the slide out of first place is nearly complete. They lose to the truly pathetic Royals this time, blowing leads and having the bullpen fuck away any chance they might have had. Now its 3-4 so far on the HOME FUCKING STAND. If the bullpen doesn't right itself and Bay and Youkilis don't start hitting again, they will be fighting the Rays for the last playoff spot AND LOSING

Well she doesn't exactly specialize in soft-focus sensual erotica. And unfortunately, the industry has changed so that acts that might physically nauseate a sexual "liberal" are more and more mainstream. I believe she was Tilly's "stunt butt." again, totally unbelievable body double. Tilly has a butt in proportion to her ample chest. Asia not so much.

There were people in my jury pool that were clearly taking the approach of saying anything they could to get out. One guy was really lame - first he says that yes, he's been the victim of a burglary, so he doesn't know if he could be unbiased. Then when the prosecutor asked about holding him to the "reasonable doubt" standard or do you expect him to do more, this clown said he'd expect him to remove all doubt from his mind. Sorry, but if you can't comprehend what reasonable doubt means and what the Constitution requires, you aren't much of a citizen. In fact you are worthless. Just say you've been robbed and you can't help but hold that against someone. But don't say you can't adhere to what the law says is the standard for conviction. I admit I've said things that got me eliminated, but they were strongly held opinions. The question was whether I would hold it against the defendant if he had refused a breathalyzer test at the scene and was pleading not guilty to drunk driving. I told the defense attorney that as someone who doesn't drink, if I get pulled over and accused of drunk driving and they want a breathalyzer, my only question would be "how hard do I blow?" and absolutely I would want to know why he had refused (in FL, refusal results in an automatic license suspension, iirc). I peeked over the bailiff's shoulder and saw the list of potential jurors - I was the only name crossed out, so either they used a peremptory challenge or got rid of me for cause but they knew I wasn't going to look kindly on the defendant's actions.

IMHO: Who in the heck would give Dykstra any of their money to invest? I love this sentence from the ESPN article: According to the bankruptcy petition, Dykstra's largest unsecured creditors include units of JPMorgan Chase & Co., owed $12.9 million, and Bank of America Corp, owed a combined $4.2 million. What The Heck! Lenny just walks into the bank, "Hey dudes, give me 13 million dollars!" "Sure Lenny, you're good for it!" Goodness gracious, exhibit A on how the banking industry got into such trouble. That ESPN report gets even more ridiculous. The name mentioned is Dykstra's attorney: Since when does a bank mislead a borrower on his ability to afford the property???? Its the f-ing borrower who convinces the bank he can afford the property, and its up to the bank to verify or not verify his ability to afford the payments. And once the loan is made, its up to the scumbag borrower to make the damn payments. But banks don't mislead borrowers on their ability to afford the property. They can and do mislead borrowers on the terms of their loan and the true cost of their loan. But that lawyer is a true POS and if he argues it in front of the trustee, he should be disbarred.

I never saw the Jennifer Tilly flick but I can't believe Asia Carrera was believable as a body double, even after her bad boob job. And yes, I know too much about this stuff too.

There was never any evidence he was any sort of financial investing genius, and his method of making himself out to be one was to never close losing trades. If you don't bank your losses, you never lose, and you can pretend that all of your trades made money.

How about Lenny Dykstra filing bankruptcy, listing debts possibly as high as 50 million and assets of less than $50,000? Number one, couldn't happen to a nicer guy (NOT!) and number two, not only was this obviously inevitable if you've read anything lately about his business practices but those articles that were linked in the last six months or so paint an ugly picture of a moronic con artist loser. If there ever was a person for whom debtor's prison would be a proper and fitting sentence, its Lenny Dykstra.* * IMHO, YMMV, and I am not stating that the same thing could not be said for Bernie Madoff or any of the other recent Hall of Shame financiers.

The fact is that not only did there used to be plots, but more than a couple of the performers in the eighties came to porn because they couldn't catch a break in Hollywood, and actually had training and some acting chops. These were mostly male performers, iirc. Generally the career path of starlets goes nude model/exotic dancer --> video performer.

I realize that you don't find out what they don't want to bring out in testimony - like in my case, using the security guy to testify to the recovery of the other two items because he witnessed it, but he couldn't testify to the conversation that preceded it, and the Deputy wasn't going to be asked about it. We got intimations during Voir Dire that maybe there was a history between the deputy and the defendant - but you never knew it from her cross-examination, which did nothing to help the defendant except to establish he denied knowledge of the item being stolen. And while there was reference to a stolen property report, it was never entered into evidence, nor was any police report, so we never saw them, although we asked the judge for them. Like I said, there was a big hole in the narrative that the was formed by the testimony - how the defendant came to be in possession of the charger. By the way, we joked after deliberations were over about who made the better impression in court - the Prosecutor, Dick Cheney (literally could have been his brother, and with the same low, rumbling voice) or Defense Counsel, Morticia (this was Bizarro World Morticia, because while she looked very much like the actress, had the same skin tone and hair, but was butt f-ing ugly).

Well yes, these are the sorts of things I was interested in hearing - what were the facts and the law and how did you deal with things like reasonable doubt (if a criminal case). I'd wonder why there was no police involvement - the guy beat the hell out of him, he didn't call a cop, to get an assault charge as well as documentation for a civil suit ...

Well, in the end it was all over in just a few hours. Too bad so few have had occasion to serve, even in a fairly minor criminal case (I believe it was misdemeanor but more on that later) you ought to really appreciate the fact that your own interpretation of what "reasonable doubt" means is going to have an important impact on another human being. Anyway - the simple facts of the case: The storage shed of a trailer park community was locked at 6 PM and found broken into at 12 AM. Missing was a weed whacker, a hedge trimmer, and a battery charger for a golf cart. The battery charger was beaten up and quite distinctive - when charging, it made a very loud high pitched vibrating noise. The next night, the security guard was on his rounds when he heard this very familiar sound from several houses away. He approached the house, where the owner came out to ask him if he knew anything about battery chargers and was there some way to make it work without the noise. Security guard asked him where he got it, he said that the previous night, around 7 PM or so, he had bought it from the defendant, whom he described as a longstanding friend. He testified that he had paid $50 or $75 dollars, and while the property report indicated that he said he purchased it at 10 PM, his testimony was that it was earlier, maybe as early as 6:30. Security guard calls cops, he finds defendant. Defendant admits selling the charger to the homeowner. The security guard testified that he observed the Deputy Sheriff and the defendant speak, then they went off a distance away to an empty lot at the far eastern end of the property from which they returned, carrying a hedger and a weed whacker. Now you might think that the charges would include burglary, but we were presented with a single charge, trafficking in stolen goods, specifically, the battery charger. The two elements of the crime are: Possession of the property in question; Sale of the property which the accused knew or should have known was stolen. So, its obvious the state has satisfied number one, but we haven't gotten any testimony on the state of mind of the defendant. In fact, we've gotten no testimony whatsoever about how he came to be in possession of the battery charger. His lawyer said in opening argument that he got it from a friend, who she named, but never called. Therefore, since the words of a lawyer don't constitute evidence, we have nothing from the defense about how he came to be in possession of the item. The defense rested without calling any witnesses. What the defense established during cross-examination (only three witnesses - the security guy, the guy who bought the battery charger and the deputy sheriff) was that the defendant never acted suspiciously or nervously, that none of the items had any markings on them indicating they were the property of the development, Whispering Pines, that he did not tell the buyer that it was stolen, and that there was an extensive network of buying/selling/bartering in this community throughout the time that the guy who bought the charger lived there. Other important facts: According to the buyer, he had told his friend that he needed a golf cart battery charger and his friend had previously stated that he had a friend or relative who had one, and he might be able to arrange a sale. (Pretty convenient, huh?) So - has the State proved its case beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt? For me, and eventually the rest of the Jury (there were two initial holdouts), there was a key part of the law that led us to conclude that he was guilty: The law says that if you are in possession of recently stolen property without a satisfactory explanation for how you came to have the property, it may be inferred that you knew, or should have known, that the property was stolen. Well - we can't even judge whether his explanation for having it is satisfactory or unsatisfactory, because the defense didn't offer any explanation! Now, here is the contradiction that I see - the law says you can't hold it against the defendant if he doesn't testify. But the law says that you can infer that he knew or should have known if he doesn't offer a satisfactory explanation. In other words, his refusal to speak results in an inference that leads to a conclusion of guilt. Another fact that worked against the defendant - let's assume that he simply found the items, and that's why he was able to lead the cop to their location. Well, why sell them? This is your friend, after all - why not just tell him, hey, I saw these over there, you said you needed a charger, I have no use for one. But no, he sold it to the guy, literally within hours of it having been taken out of the storage shed. His lawyer claimed that no one would be stupid enough to sell the charger in the same community but if he didn't know in advance that it made such a racket, why not? He had a ready buyer for it once he took it. So, bottom line - I hammered away at the part of the law that allowed the inference about state of mind, I already had three others on my side, the fifth guy came over quickly because he said that his feelings weren't strong enough if the majority felt the other way, and finally the sixth guy caved after I told him that we could go out and tell the judge we were hung, in which case she'd send us back to deliberate some more, or eventually we could tell the judge he wasn't deliberating in good faith so he could be removed and we'd start over with the alternate juror. I kept asking him about how he overcomes the law that says we may infer state of mind absent a "good explanation" and finally he just gave up and agreed to vote our way. We all wondered though why this went to trial and whether or not this might be a "Three Strikes" type of case where he'd face some mandatory sentence because of his prior convictions (there were implications that he was "getting his life together" which certainly implies that he hadn't had his life together before). Some people wanted to know what the potential sentence might be, and whether we should ask the judge for leniency but I knew the judge wouldn't go for it, and we wouldn't agree on what would constitute leniency anyway. On the other hand, the woman in charge of the jury room had told us that they had nine misdemeanor cases, no mention of felony cases to try, so I didn't think it was going to be a three strikes sentence. So - the moment of truth arrives, I was watching the defendant, and he gave a pretty emotional response, which made me wonder again whether the sentence was going to be pretty stiff, and I had doubts about the hold out when they polled the jury, but he wasn't concerned about his decision and affirmed his guilty verdict. All in all, a very interesting experience. I'm comfortable with my verdict and I hope the two who had different opinions are comfortable with their change of mind as well.

I am posting from the Palm Beach County Courthouse. My first Jury Duty notification since moving to PBC five years ago (I'd get called in for Broward Jury Duty all the damn time) - and I got empaneled on a criminal case. Pretty nice facilities here - four PCs with Internet, which is why I am able to post this, and they run movies on the video screen, which Broward definitely did not do. Anyway .... since I am getting my first jury experience but can't talk about it til the Judge says its OK, I figured I'd ask about jury experience by other members, and once this is over (possibly today, more likely tomorrow, we only got through opening statements before lunch and it looks like the defense is going to put on more than a couple of witnesses to rebut the prosecution) I'll jump back in with my own (new) story. In the meantime, talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic: reasonable doubt - what does it mean in practice?

It is motherfucking infuriating to come home having won seven straight series, ten games at home against utterly shitty opponents, and they are about to go 1-3 in the first four games. What should be the fucking cherry on top of the first half is turning into a motherfucking nightmare. And if this is what Smoltz is, then you can fucking forget about October.

Thank god the MFY lost because Smoltz sucks donkey dicks and they're turning another POS starter into Cy Fucking Young.

I really preferred the old design from several years ago, which matched the old purple/peach skin.