illinilaw08

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 30, 2018 -> 05:04 PM) It's no flaming spear being thrown into the ground while riding bare-back on a horse like Florida State, but they did research and based it off of the dances of plain indians, right? The dance was created by a bunch of former boy scouts without any input from Native Americans. That makes it "based on a true story." It doesn't make it authentic... Without getting into a tangent, that was a huge problem with the Chief. I distinctly remember getting a program at a game in the 90s that told me the dance was authentic. When the university is peddling a false narrative, it makes it very difficult to obtain allies from the other side of the debate...

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 30, 2018 -> 04:28 PM) Are you racist for calling an authentic Native american dance "corny" It wasn't authentic...

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 30, 2018 -> 03:59 PM) Native Americans are more worried about food, water, jobs, money, preventing and treating alcohol/drug addiction, etc. than names that people came up with decades and decades ago that have now become part of the general lexicon without the racist connection. However, that doesn't mean it's unreasonable for NA's to be offended or that it's the end of the world if a private company decides to make a change. I think it's unnecessary, but whatever, if they want to do it, go for it. I objected and still object to the U of I's decision to get rid of the Chief, a beloved mascot that was honored and respected, because a few select liberal professors b****ed and whined, but whatever, there's no going back. On the statue issue, I'd like to see the FDR statues/monuments removed. The dude rounded up a bunch of people and put them in camps because they looked different. In the modern era no less. How is no one talking about this? This isn't even close to a true recitation of what happened with the Chief. I was a HUGE fan of the Chief. Got chills when he danced to the end. But it was a tradition that offended a lot of people, and it needed to go. Also, I, too, remember all those memorials to FDR for interning Japanese-Americans. I mean, come on, Jenks. This is the same BUT THE FOUNDING FATHERS OWNED SLAVES stuff that's a non-sequitur. FDR isn't being honored for the internment. In fact, it's generally regarded as a massive stain on his Presidency. But that's still completely and utterly different than statues and monuments that honor Confederate soldiers and generals for actually fighting to maintain the institution of slavery!

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 30, 2018 -> 02:12 PM) So a statue of great generals in history would be exploiting racist imaging but a statue of General Washington or any other President who owned slaves is not. There are a lot of statues in the South honoring Confederate generals and other soldiers. There are significantly less statutes in the South honoring those who were slaves. West Point can teach military tactics as much as they want. Our history classes should (and will) continue to teach the Civil War. Monuments honoring the men who fought a war to uphold the institution of slavery should not exist in public spaces. Last point on this, we can honor Washington, Jefferson, and the other Founding Fathers who owned slaves for the brilliant political minds that they were while also pointing out that they owned slaves and continued a morally repugnant institution. There's more room for nuance with the founding fathers than there is with Confederate monuments. Washington and Jefferson aren't being honored for their association with slavery, like Confederates are. They are honored for their part in founding the nation.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 19, 2018 -> 11:48 AM) Guys, guys guys. Was driving to get a haircut and listened to Rush. Hmmm, he said the economy is thriving under Trump. Said stock market is doing amazing. Said everything Trump is doing is working. Says Democrats are causing a ruckus over the shutdown to deflect attention from Trump successful economy. Before you deem me some Rush fanatic, folks, I listened for a grand total of 3 minutes before commercials hit and that was it. I'm hitting my head against a wall here, but Greg - you understand that Rush is an entertainer and nothing more, right? He's not a policy expert, he's a guy with a radio show that caters to his Conservative base. He's simply not a reliable source of information, so stop pretending like he is.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 18, 2018 -> 01:19 PM) Rutherford’s still in the 60’s at pipeline, isn’t he? Pipeline hasn't updated the top-100 yet. Those are still last year's rankings.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 12, 2018 -> 05:03 PM) Replace Underwood with Groce in each of these posts and it's all the stuff I heard 5 years ago. Just wait until Groce gets his guys! Look at what Weber left him! Blah, blah. Teams are short of talent in various areas and they figure out a way. I know Illinois lacks size and that's not Underwood's fault. I know they're young and rely on freshman. Also not Underwood's fault. But what about coming out flat? Playing terrible halves (not minutes, full 20 minute stretches)? Not being able to come up with set plays to get good shots? Making the same mistakes over and over again (turnovers, turnovers, turnovers). I also feel like they pretty quickly went away from the score within 7 seconds stuff. I've watched every game and when they're running and gunning they hit shots, but as soon as they miss one or two and the defense applies a little more pressure all that run and gun stuff stops. Their half court is bad. And they keep fouling! Has their been a game when foul trouble didn't play a part? That's on coaching too. Not saying this whole experiment is a failure before it begins, but I really did believe that Underwood would get them to 5-7th in the Big Ten, right in line with a tourney bid. That's clearly not happening. They may be the worst team in the conference. Coaching really can only get you so far though (and remember that Groce's first IL team nearly is the closest IL has been to a Sweet 16 since Dee Brown graduated, while Beilein went 10-22 his first year at Michigan). There's been good stuff this year. Leron Black has made huge strides. Aaron Jordan (!) is an important contributor. Frazier obviously looks like a star in the making. But the bad stuff is part roster composition - which isn't really BU's fault. Finke is a guy that is just too limited athletically to guard at this level. That's fine if he's your backup center, and it's fine if he makes shots at an elite level. He's been brutal shooting the ball, and Ebo isn't ready to play more than 10-15 minutes a night. A complete and utter black hole at one position kills a roster. With Smith, my read is that the fact that he didn't exclusively focus on basketball until his Senior year of HS is becoming evident. He can score, but he's not an elite shooter, and he hasn't adapted yet to stronger and more athletic competition at the rim. It's going to take longer for Smith than I expected it to take, but BU can't just snap his fingers and have the light bulb go on. The point here is that there are some good pieces in place. It's just a roster that's short on size, experience, and shot making. The shot making, IMO, gets a big bump with Ayo and reasonable strides from Year 1 to Year 2 from Smith (not to mention from Frazier). The experience gets a bump because 10 of the 11 guys are back next year. The size, well, let's hope that BU can find a 5th year big that's ready to play a role (rebound, block shots, score a bit - but mostly the first two). With another year in the system, and reasonable improvements from the FR to Sophs, I'm optimistic about next year...

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 4, 2018 -> 09:54 AM) Gardner’s tweets of indignation that Sessions lied to him are precious. Dude lied to you in confirmation hearings, you knew it and confirmed him anyways Yep. Sessions going after legal marijuana has been a thing literally since before he was confirmed. Can't wait to vote against Gardner (again) in 2020.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 28, 2017 -> 12:25 PM) I can't believe how much you guys speak for me how do you know what I know how do you know what I see if I think I've heard merry Christmas More this year I think it's a good chance I've heard merry Christmas More this year you guys are lumping me in with everybody else that you hate very weird I'm telling you my experiences. You wont accept them Greg - it's mainly that you think this is an important issue. The war on Christmas is a joke. There are Christmas trees everywhere, every year, there are Christmas lights and decorations all over the country, in stores and otherwise. TV shows have Christmas episodes. Networks still air Rudolph. Any "attacks" on Christmas are pushes for inclusion. Hey, in addition to a Christmas tree, let's have a Menorah! Instead of wishing a customer a Merry Christmas, let's wish them Happy Holidays in case they don't celebrate Christmas! Who is hurt by any of that? There are people in this country who are actually discriminated against. The fact that you (a) think people couldn't say Merry Christmas before; (b) think now people can say Merry Christmas; and © that this is all a victory for Trump is mind boggling.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Dec 27, 2017 -> 02:07 PM) I just don't think someone's race, sex or religion is important to a conversation. If greg was a black muslim woman would it be okay for Balta to articulate that is why he doesn't understand something? Since this conversation is about saying the words "Merry Christmas," it is explicitly about religion. If Greg were a black, Muslim woman, I doubt he would think that Donald Trump made it ok to say Merry Christmas again.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Dec 15, 2017 -> 02:39 PM) As a trial attorney, that was all pretty pathetic and it's sad i'm far more qualified than him to be a judge and i'm 35... However, people are pointing to the wrong things here. Not ever trying a case, never deposing anyone (!), not knowing what a motion in limine is and never arguing a motion before a judge (!!!!!) are the damning parts of his lack of experience. Saying he hasn't read the Federal Rules of Civ Pro or Evidence is not really a big deal. I haven't read either in years and I suspect the vast majority of attorneys/judges out there haven't either. It's a rule book. That's like asking how many professional athletes have read their respective rule books. The answer is virtually none, but you reference it when needed and your experience has provided you with opportunities to read/interpret/use the rules at one point or another. Just because I haven't read it from page one all the way through doesn't mean I don't know or understand the rules more concretely (or that I can't learn through judicial training). I've seen my share of us dist court judges that don't know everything about the law as well as they should, but I also know several absolutely brilliant judges who can spout legal opinions and doctrines like it's nothing (much like Chief Justice Roberts at his confirmation hearings). But a lot of that comes from experience from being a judge, not from being an attorney. I agree with most of this. I will say, however, that I refer to the Rules of Civ. Pro. every time I'm looking at a discreet issue to refresh my recollection. And I look at the Rules of Evidence every time I'm prepping for trial. I took the "read" part of this to be just that. How many times have you looked at that rule book? The most important thing here is that you are patently unqualified to be a judge without having tried cases and argued motions in front of the Court. New judges have a steep enough learning curve as it is, and it's absolutely absurd that this dude was ever tapped for a lifetime appointment...

QUOTE (raBBit @ Dec 8, 2017 -> 04:57 PM) The mainstream media has plenty of instances of sexual abuse. We don’t bring up that every time we talk about them why not? I’d rather have my daughter have her social security number compromised then be subjected to an environment of sexual abuse all the time. Wikileaks also has a 100% record of veracity. One hundred percent. Given the Panama Papers weren’t leaked by Wikileaks, yes, we should overlook them. Journalism isn't just stating facts. That's not journalism. Otherwise journalism would be nothing but box scores and entire transcripts of speeches. It's incredibly unethical to publish social security numbers, but that seems to be a policy point of Wikileaks - I mean, who cares right? The info was accurate! Why did Wikileaks choose to not participate in the Panama Papers? Why did Wikileaks then accuse the US of funding the Panama Papers? If all that Wikileaks cares about is the truth, that seems like a particularly odd stand to take. Wikileaks is an organization that obtains and leaks documents to the public. That's pretty different than journalism...

QUOTE (raBBit @ Dec 8, 2017 -> 02:29 PM) These WikiLeaks were publicly accessible. LOL Still funny that all these people hate Wikileaks for doing what, you know, journalists are supposed to do... Journalists are supposed to publish people's social security numbers without their consent?

QUOTE (raBBit @ Dec 8, 2017 -> 11:10 AM) Virtually all experts? Maybe virtually all experts whose opinions you don't write off. I bet if he had the opposite opinion you wouldn't be exercising the same criticism or any criticism at all. https://www.vox.com/2017/12/4/16733422/fbi-...nn-russia-comey Here are a bunch of constitutional scholars taking the opposite opinion to Dershowitz. This is like when we were talking about the 2nd Amendment the other week. There are legal arguments on both sides of the equation, and it's something that will ultimately be decided by SCOTUS if push comes to shove. And flip around your argument, Rabbit, you are really quick to jump on here with Dershowitz's opinion, but not with the other side of the argument. Would you have posted this at all is Dershowitz had said that the President can be convicted of obstructing justice?

QUOTE (ptatc @ Nov 30, 2017 -> 09:06 PM) I didn't realize only the wealthy were taxed. With respect to the Estate Tax, the first $5.49M per individual is not subject to tax. So for estate tax purposes, it is only the wealthy who are taxed. Caveat to that is that inherited (non-Roth) IRAs are subject to tax since they were not taxed in the first place regardless of the dollar amount.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 30, 2017 -> 04:25 PM) Same here. I itemize. I probably won't have enough any more under the new plan. Losing the personal exemption (Senate version) means my taxes are going to go up in 2018, without question because I'm going to lose around $8k in deductions. Bad times.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 29, 2017 -> 10:41 AM) It's hysterical to me. They cry about the coaches, the players, but if the refs were competent, they would be undefeated. There have been times historically where calls against Illinois led to rule changes. The '84 Elite Eight loss @ Rupp led to the "no more home games in the NCAA Tournament." The '13 loss to Miami in the Second Round led to replay on out of bounds calls at the end of games. One of the Kittner football teams got two official apologies from the B1G in one season. Refs are going to be bad, and they obviously aren't targeting Illinois, but there have definitely been times where Illinois fans have had legitimate gripes. I also don't think it's an Illinois only issue. I lived in Indianapolis for a bit, and every IU loss was because of the refs. I sat in Mackey Arena for an Illinois-Purdue game where the crowd literally booed every foul call against the Boilers. Illinois fans are bad, but they aren't alone in being bad. Last night, Underwood was publicly mad about the officiating. He's not going to be mad about it every night. There were some legit gripes about the officiating in last night's game. I'm not sure that's why Illinois lost the game, but there were some really confusing stretches from the refs.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 28, 2017 -> 12:45 AM) Don't shoot the messenger. Discussion on Rush's show today (relax I listed for a total of about 3 minutes before another commercial annoyance drove me back to the safety of the Beatles channel) was that Bernie is gearing up for a presidential run. Rush said young kids are in love with socialism/communism and Bernie probably will win. HOWEVER, my gosh as much as I enjoyed Bernie last time, he is getting pretty darn old. He'd have to have a helluva good running mate cause time stands still for no one. RUSH. IS. NOT. A. RELIABLE. SOURCE. OF. INFORMATION.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 15, 2017 -> 03:17 PM) It is short lived. Once all the context came out the story died. The MSM bit on the selective editing malpractice and then abandoned the story when it showed the DT Jr. was basically ignoring the messages. Every theory on Seth Rich is a conspiracy. It's an unsolved murder. Just because someone's theory doesn't line up with your team doesn't mean they're a moron. It was the difference between admitting they're a Russian outlet and saying they're being slandered as a Russian outlet. Trump Jr. forwarded the early e-mails to a bunch of people in the Trump campaign. That's potentially important in the context of the Mueller investigation. The e-mails are pretty strong evidence that Wikileaks was attacking only one side of the 2016 election. The e-mails show that they wanted the Trump administration to voluntarily turn over Trump's tax returns in order to be able to provide the impression that they were fair and balanced. Rabbit, you are a smart guy - surely you can see the difference between "hack Democrats and release that info" (including SSNs of donors) and "get info voluntarily because it isn't damaging to present the facade that you aren't biased."

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Nov 10, 2017 -> 05:13 PM) The thing I find ironic is that it's sexist to suggest that a woman can't make consensual sexual decisions when she's intoxicated, but a man can. I guess people see it as a power dynamic. Neither party can legally consent when they are intoxicated. It's just like entering into a contract. You can't enter into a contract if you are intoxicated. You can't enter into a contract if you a minor. You cannot legally consent to have sex when you are intoxicated. This blurs a lot of lines, because pass out drunk is different than over the legal limit.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 10, 2017 -> 04:18 PM) This goes without saying. But applying it to 18-year-olds who just got out of their parents house with unlimited alcohol, raging hormones and no supervision definitely complicates matters. I think the education should be more about preparing for alcohol. Raising your kid to be a decent person is obvious. Understanding the inevitability that they're likely going to be immersed in it years before they're legal is important. I am for ruling with an iron fist but if you're kid is in a bad situation due to alcohol they are much better off being comfortable calling their parents knowing they're not going to be punished for being around booze. Long story short, I was going to college parties not long ago. I come from a big family and started drinking with friends when I was 14-15. The parents who were realistic about alcohol's place with young Americans have kids who tend to act better when they partake in it. Some girls I grew up with who had really protective dads would end up in a situation where they had a little bit a freedom and they would end up getting wasted and doing something dumb. Suppression and rebellion has a real effect on kids with this stuff. No disagreement from me here with any of this.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2017 -> 04:03 PM) But it is bloodlust. Why the hell does this guy owe you or me an apology? He owes these women apologies...you know, the ones he actually harmed. I don't know either party. He doesn't owe me anything. Yeah, I might have misconstrued what you said. I don't think CK owes any of us an apology. But I also think that this is a transparently fake effort from CK. He's apologizing because he's been caught, and he's apologizing to try to get his career back. CK's acts are despicable, and I'll hold him accountable by not consuming his art. With that being said, it's not bloodlust to hold these guys accountable - publicly - for their bad acts.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 10, 2017 -> 03:58 PM) After separating the sending pictures part out, I can definitely say I under what you're saying with the latter portions. I don't send pictures to girls whether you're referring to dick pics or something else so I can't speak to that. The pendulum is swinging hard one way. With the whole rape-culture hysteria the last decade on college campuses and now this Hollywood stuff, it's getting a bit hairy. Obviously the Hollywood stuff is disgusting and the college campus stuff is a bit more complicated but I would hate to be a teenaged boy now having to grow up with this stuff. As the man, you are expected to make all the moves, advances, buy the drinks, etc. When people are drinking, a lot of interactions and signals, or flirting as you put, can be misread or packaged clumsily. The situations where men are using their power to enable them to satisfy their sexual perversions need to stop. Looking at the dating climate as a whole though, there's a fine line between being the victim of abuse and being a victim of regret. These stories aren't going anywhere either. I think most know I am pretty young and I don't want to scare any parents with teenagers but this whole young generation goes to high school and college and experiences a hookup culture fueled almost entirely alcohol. I have a 25 year old friend. Good looking guy, smart, captain on his high school football team, went to a B10 college. IE - never had any issues getting girls but never has had a girlfriend since we were like 15. He told me has never had sex with a girl sober. It's unbelievable. For me, this part is all about education, and it's about consent. You drill into your son that (a) a woman can't consent when she's drunk; (b) that consent is the most important thing when it comes to sexual encounters; and © if you are unsure, don't do it because if you are wrong, you might ruin your life. It's easier to say this than to do this, and I had my fair share of drunken hookups in college. But sex is just like entering into a contract. Both parties have to have the capacity to consent. Teach your sons that and hope they make the right decisions.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 10, 2017 -> 03:52 PM) You are absolutely right, it isn't going to change anything for a lot of people. But it seems to fulfill the bloodlust that everyone seems to want when a public person does something idiotic or repulsive. This is a problem that is systemic in Hollywood (and in politics!). What matters at this point isn't whether these guys apologize. What matters is whether the culture changes. What matters is whether we as a society start to listen to victims, and make it ok for victims to speak up without their careers and their livelihoods being threatened. I don't think that's "fulfilling a bloodlust." Since the Weinstein stuff broke, there have been dozens of allegations against dozens of powerful men in Hollywood. This isn't CK doing something stupid as a one-off. He's one of dozens in Hollywood that have been accused of abusing their power. If I'm going to condemn Roy Moore and Donald Trump, I need to also condemn people whose art I like - like CK, when it turns out that they were bad actors as well.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 9, 2017 -> 05:43 PM) Well this seems to be the one time that people are actually believing victims (in general that is) so I would imagine that is why the dam seems to be breaking here. Yep. Dustin Hoffman's bad act might not be as bad as Weinstein's, but it's still a bad act. It's a good thing (IMO) that so many women (and men!) have not only become empowered to come forward, but also that people are believing the accusations.