illinilaw08

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jan 25, 2016 -> 12:24 PM) Abortion is used to oppress women far more than women's advocacy groups realize. Getting rid of abortion would actually do a lot for women. Some, like the author of the article I posted, are starting to realize this after years of believing the opposite. Explain how abortion is used to oppress women. I understand the moral argument against abortion - an argument that stems from a basic distinction regarding when life begins. I may have a different interpretation, but I understand the argument and I understand why people are so passionate on that point. To be quite honest, I would take the anti-abortion argument more seriously if those who wanted to stop abortions would give greater funding/access toward birth control and other means of stopping unplanned pregnancies. But it seems to me that the most vocal abortion opponents are also the ones who want to teach abstinence only and want to keep condoms and birth control out of people's hands...

The wife and I are thinking about heading to Hawaii this year. Probably looking to stay on one island for a beach vacation with the option to get some hiking and the like in. We're looking at a deal on the west side of Maui. I've never been to Hawaii and looking to see if anyone has opinions...

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 01:12 PM) Honestly, this isn't a discussion that will change anyone's minds. People believe what they believe. I guess it depends on what side of the fence you are on. As a fan, would you rather make the playoffs every year with no realistic shot at competing for a championship or would you rather compete for championships and actually make it to the Finals. Paxson is risk adverse. PS, I said trade Noah for Love. I also said trade Noah for Melo. Bulls refused to add him in either deal which is where negotiations stopped. Funny people get criticized for video game trades, but those are the only ones the Bulls attempt and fail miserably at. Fact is: Bulls suck at getting FAs Bulls suck at making trades Bulls suck at evaluating their medical staff Bulls are OK at drafting. And honestly, without Butler, they're mediocre at it Bulls are horrid with coaching relationships. But somehow that makes them a tip line front office. I guess as long the playoff tickets are available for a round, its all good. I measure my FOs in championships and appearances. Not how many times they got exposed in the playoffs for a weak roster makeup in a very weak conference. I remember every proposed deal for Love including Butler. As in, it would have been Noah + Butler. And once Wiggins was on the table, the Bulls wouldn't have been able to match any offer for Love. In any event, does anyone really think Love would have put the Bulls over the top - even had the Bulls been able to land him without moving Butler? I have a hard time putting the lack of title appearances on the Bulls' FO because they couldn't stop Rose from breaking. That's the single most important reason the Bulls never broke through. The Bulls might have been able to give Rose away, but their best chance to win a title in the last decade (other than winning the Lebron FA lottery) was to not screw up the pieces around Rose and hope he recovered. GarPax aren't infallible. You just can't hang not making a finals on them when no one could have forseen the steep decline of Rose before Rose signed his deal.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 14, 2016 -> 05:52 PM) 37? Jesus. He's only 4 years older than me. Whitman was in my law school class. Great dude and really, really smart. Would have liked for him to have a bit more seasoning, but if he's the hire, that's amazing.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 8, 2016 -> 12:56 PM) I was curious about the history for Illinois and looked it up. From 1993 to 2007, they made the tournament every year but one, winning at least one game there in all but 3 appearances. Since then, 3 appearances (2009, 2011, 2013), 2-3 record in those three tourneys in the 8 seasons since. Not the worst in the Big 10, but a significant drop-off. Not sure I'd call it "continually miss the tournament" either though, as there have only be one or two year gaps. Well, this is going to be year 3 in a row without a berth. And since Dee graduated, Illinois has been a 5 seed or better only once. In my lifetime, the only comparable bad period for Illinois basketball was the probation era Henson years, and even that might not have been as bad...

QUOTE (gatnom @ Jan 8, 2016 -> 11:10 AM) You guys really make the situation sound a lot worse than it is at Illinois. This was a tournament team at full strength, but last night they played with one starter on the road at MSU. Of course they were going to look like s***. In a vacuum, I still think Groce is a good enough coach to win at Illinois. However, it's not a vacuum, and three straight tournament misses is probably too much to overcome. I actually don't disagree with any of this. The problem is that the Class of '17 is hugely important for the future of the program. Assuming Thorne and Tracy get 6th years, you are replacing 6 scholarships in the '17 class. It's also a class that is strong south of I-80 which has always been the best recruiting spot for Illinois. The question to me is what does the Illinois brand look like right now and can Groce sell that brand to the '17 class? I'm beyond hoping that this team can turn things around this year, and I've come to grips with the fact that this team might struggle to make the NIT. But there are a lot of good bones here. Next year will have talented seniors (Nunn and Hill at least), two Sophs who have shown that they can, at the very least, score at the B1G level (JCL and Finke) and a talented freshman PG in addition to Thorne (hopefully), a healthy Black, and two Soph 4 stars (Jordan and DJW). There's plenty of reason to be optimistic about next year's team. But if it's a one-off, 6 guys leave, and the '17 class is a disaster, then you are right back at square one. In the alternative, if Groce isn't the guy, you are giving the new coach a much stronger roster than Groce inherited and time to bring in a good class in '17. To me, the fundamental question then is this - is Illinois so broken that Groce can't bring in a good class in '17. We can't do the Illinois thing where you hold on to coaches for too long (see the last 3 football coaches and Webber) leaving the program in shambles...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 11:31 PM) And it's got SOME talent coming back. Now would be the time to change. I've been a fairly consistent Groce apologist on this board, but if you are going to move on, this offseason is the time to do it. Assuming no major attrition, hypothetical new coach is coming into a situation with a lot of returning talent (and finally a point guard!). This is, of course, assuming that there is an AD in place and the university can competently make a hire by early May. Because of the amount of scholarships to be replaced in '17, the new coach will need time to develop relationships and bring in, at the very least, a competent class that year.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 04:28 PM) Thank you, I enjoyed all of this post. "The BLM has its problems, but the critics of the BLM and the USFS is economic in nature. Calling the feds the bad guy and those opposed to the feds the good guys (your category B), grossly misstates the actual issue regarding the use and control of federal land in the West." I agree. I don't actually support many of the economic arguments. The grazing rights are already subsidized, and quite frankly, in a degree that would be difficult for the states to accomplish as easily as the Fed Gov't. But currently there seems to be too much tacit local sympathy of violent and destructive measures just because of the negative view toward those federal agencies. Usually when that happens, the viewpoint of group B is "yeah they went too far, but they had no choice" Whether or not is is usually patently absurd. With cases like this where: - The economic changes they request are a non-starter - Restrictions are likely to increase (as they have in last 4 years) A responsible way to still accommodate that population is to make sure there is a structure in place to hear their concerns and recommendations. While moving to the states would obviously also give it a huge advantage to reduce local restrictions, it's also evidence of a lack of process. The bolsheviks did not support the leftist parties in Europe, as their piecemeal socialist victories like 40 hour work week were enough to satiate the local population and weakened their foothold for recruitment and revolution. The lesson there is when there is destructive, adamant minority, the local population is especially prone to submitting to the will of that group. Undercutting that with some goodwill measures can go a long way toward stability. For your last paragraph, you are probably right. The likelihood is they have no control of what happened after starting the fire, and that it wasn't larger was luck. But, despite SS's claims, there are many reports I've read that they have a lot of local support. The father here is older, admitted guilt and served time. Frankly, to me, reducing a federal statute applying more time to a local man is a pretty good symbol to start some outreach. This article is more on point to the current land use discussion than to the actual Oregon case, but it's pretty relevant. http://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10718316/fossil-fuels-colorado Long story short, it's the conflict between economic interests in rural, mountainous, Colorado, and climate. Offered without comment...

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 03:14 PM) I have explained myself clearly. You have held two ideas in your head that a) there is a fringe population in the west that has acted out in illegal and damaging activities due to an ideology that they have been slighted by the fed regulation of the land. There is a fringier population among them who is currently holding land hostage by force. b) There is a larger population of people that do not support the first part of a and certainly second part of a, but do support policies in a range of exploitative grazing/mining or use of land for quads. Yet actually hold them all together as one group. My concerns are about group B, whom in all reports on your google searches on the matter, do not support the actions of A, but always caveat to sympathize with the handling of the lands under federal management. You continue to read that, and assume it's about group A. You remind me of discussions of Black Lives Matter, where no discussion of the actual grievances of human people matter because you really want to talk about the group that rioted. Nothing and no where have I stated anything that the group that stormed the federal land should receive leniency in punishment. In a similar way that you may pardon a protestor arrested for legitimate reasons but has sympathetic support may be a strategic consideration to show understanding, pardons could be applied to groups StrangeSox doesn't actually agree with. Also, the "years of government outreach" do not necessarily mean anything. Good governance is effective governance. The crux of the issue between the citizenry and the BLM/other federal agencies (largely the US Forest Service) is in regards to economic activity on that land. Rural communities in the West are dependent on extracting resources from that land for economic livelihood. That economic need is balanced against environmental, climate, and conservation needs. Most of the economic drivers are hard on the land. The not-fringe position is returning the land operated by the BLM/USFS to the states. The Senate actually took up a vote earlier this year that would have paved the way for this transfer of land (couldn't get to 60 votes). As mentioned earlier in this thread, there are significant costs associated with the states taking on that land including, but not limited to, the massive amount of funds the feds spend fighting forest fires on federal land (and private land) each year. The BLM has its problems, but the critics of the BLM and the USFS is economic in nature. Calling the feds the bad guy and those opposed to the feds the good guys (your category B), grossly misstates the actual issue regarding the use and control of federal land in the West. Finally, on the pardoning, in light of the economic costs associated with wildfires in the West, if the Hammonds were pardoned it would exclusively be because a bunch of armed militia occupied federal land. Even in the event that a pardon was justified, and the occupiers themselves faced prison time for their acts, it emboldens militia in these land use disputes. After the incident at the Bundy ranch, the feds really can't embolden those groups further. I disagree with mandatory minimums, but I've in practice seen them used in scenarios much, much worse than this. And honestly, arson in the west is a pretty terrible thing. Forest fires cost billions to fight every year, push insurance costs through the roof, and endanger hundreds of lives. It's a more serious issue than I think you are giving it credit for.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 01:26 PM) As far as the sentencing was concerned, all parties knew upfront that the judge was disregarding the law, that the prosecution was going to appeal and that resentencing was almost 100% going to be the outcome. To add to that, the original plea deal that the Hammonds agreed to included five year sentences. The judge decided to throw that agreement out and impose his own sentencing in direct contradiction of the law. As the Popehat link explains, this is pretty banal legally. There's nothing abnormal about resentencing when a judge doesn't follow the law, and that includes sending people back to prison to serve the appropriate sentence even if they've already been released from the initial sentence. What is the positive political outcome of pardoning these guys? Why them instead of countless of others that are far more deserving? Have they even asked/petitioned for a pardon, or has it been a bunch of out-of-staters? What message does it send to the Yokel Haram clowns if that's your response? Regarding public land in the west, there's been "something rotten" between BLM/various federal agencies and ranchers/miners/loggers for several decades, even in cases (such as this one and the Bundys!) where the ranchers who hate the BLM get sweetheart land lease deals that are about 10% of the normal grazing land lease rates. These people generally reject any sort of environmental concern and really any restriction whatsoever on how they use public land and only see agricultural, extractive industrial, or destructive recreational (e.g. guys who want to be able to blast through fragile ecosystems and culturally important sites on ATVs) purposes for the land. They want the land turned over to private parties (generally themselves!) for free, or they want to be able to graze/log/mine the land at will with no restrictions or requirements. It's not their land, it's all of ours, and they want that changed. The refuge the bozos are occupying is open to the public, and tourism is an important part of the local economy. The park is crucial for migratory birds, so lots and lots of birders head there each year. The local population doesn't really seem to have a problem with the refuge. You also need to keep the ranchers and their sentencing separate from the militia guys--the ranchers aren't demanding that all BLM land be turned over or anything crazy like that. They're pursuing their legal fight through the courts on non-crazy/normal grounds. Vox with an interesting piece on the conflicts between the BLM and certain people in the West. http://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10718128/feder...-oregon-militia I live in close proximity to a lot of cool outdoors stuff here in Colorado and much of it is national forest. Letting that land go back to the states increases the likelihood that logging and mining will replace some of the recreational value of the places I spend a lot of my weekends in the summer. There's a delicate balance out west between the economic value of the land (and a lot of the rural communities in the west depend on those industries) and the environmental and recreational value of that land (the value of federal protection of national forests is one of the few times environmental groups and hunters see eye-to-eye in Colorado). It's a difficult issue, but I don't see how that equates to "something rotten in the BLM." Furthermore, why on Earth would you give in to these "protestors" and pardon these guys - even though they don't endorse the occupation of the federal building? There are plenty of people much more deserving of pardons and any pardon is a tacit endorsement of the illegal behavior of the protestors...

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 28, 2015 -> 12:49 PM) Starts at 0:34 Most definitely Luke speaking, and the line was most definitely not in the movie. That's why I was shocked there wasn't another 5 minutes at the end of the movie because I was certain this line was coming. I'm pretty sure that was dialogue pulled from Luke speaking to Leia in Jedi, re-purposed to fit the trailer.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 09:05 PM) A fair point on the second one, but come on guys, lets think outside the box a little bit(I'm speaking to both the filmmakers and Empire). Yeah, I'm pretty much over planet destroyers in the Star Wars galaxy. The pacing on the Starkiller Base destroying the planet the Senate is on (?) felt extremely rushed to me. Really liked this one. There were some legitimately funny moments, and some stormtroopers actually got to have personality! There were certainly issues that have been pretty thoroughly discussed in this thread, but I was happy with the film overall.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2015 -> 10:16 AM) He "sent them" to the other shelter though. To me, that means he provided the transportation. At the very least, it's quite a bit different from "barring" them from the place, as if he pushed them outside and then locked the door behind them. It all seems very reasonable to me. It's a motel-like shelter, from the looks of it. The facilities aren't great. It's a rural area so you can infer there's very little money there. There are more men than women. There seems to be an issue of people having sex going on (the whore house was a reference to the fact that he probably doesn't want his shelter to become known as a place to get laid, or to be seen as a place where people can come meet and bang...whether that's due to his religious beliefs or not is beside the point, he runs the place so it's his rules you have to abide by). According to his own words, he "sent" the women away because of the number of men vs. women at the shelter. They were "sent" to another shelter, not left on the street. Again, I have a hard time believing that means he told them about the place 30 minutes away, kicked them out and yelled "good luck!" as he locked the door. He also was quoted as saying that he acknowledged sex takes two people and that he hoped in the future he could upgrade the facility and allow women back. This is all a very different scenario than what SS and that website proposed, which was, in summary: "evil religious guy kicks out poor, helpless women from a shelter because they were tempting men into having sex." Ok, so a cursory review of some articles doesn't go any further than that he "sent them" to the other shelter. If he arranged transportation for the women, then I'm less concerned. But I also don't believe that the articles saying he "sent them" means he arranged transportation. Somebody knocks on my door by accident looking for the house next door, I send them next door. That doesn't mean I walked them next door. Sent does not necessarily mean "arranged transportation." At best, it's unclear (though I think critical to whether this guy behaved poorly by the act of removing women and children from his shelter in the middle of winter). Also, I don't disagree that it's his shelter and his rules. But that's part of the problem with relying on private parties for safety net services. This guy, on a whim, could decide to kick out everybody in his shelter. Fine, it's his place, it's his rules. But if the government provides those services, then the homeless actually have rights (equal protection, etc.). Finally, the guy actually did say that the women were tempting the men with sex. It's his right to say that and believe that, but to call it out as an ignorant statement (and frankly to then refer to the women as treating the shelter as a whore house) is straight out of the playbook of blaming Eve for original sin in the Bible. I'm sure this guy was dealing with a bad situation and, again, housing some homeless is better than housing no homeless, but he backed up his decision with a pretty ignorant statement and it's not unreasonable to call him to task for that...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 05:16 PM) I suppose, but it sounds like an actual sex problem more than a temptation problem. The problem is more easily solved by getting rid of one sex. I agree it's pretty s***ty to throw out women, but it's charity, can't really b**** about getting something for nothing. edit: and it sounds like from this story it was more about numbers than sex: Seems reasonable to me. Pretty tough to get to the shelter that's 30 minutes away if you don't have transportation. Because these women and children are homeless, it's reasonable to assume that at the very least some lack sufficient transportation. Because this is a rural area, it's reasonable to infer that public transportation doesn't service the area. This guy certainly doesn't have to provide shelter to the homeless, and the charity provides an objective benefit (ie, some homeless sheltered is better than no homeless sheltered), but it does illustrate the limitations of the social safety net relying on the whims of religious dogma.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 9, 2015 -> 12:50 PM) Neither of those are secular. The first christmas trees were created by devout Christians in Germany, and Santa Clause is a legend created off of St. Nicholas...saints are usually connected to religion quite closely. They may not have secular origins, but at the very least they have been co-opted as secular symbols now.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Dec 9, 2015 -> 09:17 AM) Why should public schools have nativity scenes? You want to indoctrinate kids, Greg? To me, Christmas and weddings are pretty similar arguments. Christmas has a religious component (the nativity scene, etc.), and a secular component (basically anything involving Santa and the tree). Just like there is the religious sacrament of matrimony and there's the secular government's recognition of marriage. If I had a kid in school, I'd have no issue with the secular presentation of Christmas, nor of the secular presentation of Hanukah. But I'd have a pretty hard time with the manger scene and other depictions of the baby Jesus...

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Dec 8, 2015 -> 05:30 PM) Because they have this mistaken belief that they are no longer allowed to say Merry Christmas. I'm questioning where that's coming from and why it would be any more harmful than any other greeting. They are the same people who think there is a war on Christianity in this country. Why do they think there is a war on Christianity? Because they can't discriminate against LGBT folks. Because they have to acknowledge that they live and work with people of other cultures and faiths. Because they have to acknowledge that there is a separation of church and state. Crimson hit the nail on the head. It's a persecution complex.

QUOTE (shakes @ Dec 8, 2015 -> 04:41 PM) And Bryce Harper had just as large of a drop in road OPS. Almost all hitters are better at home. An .835 road OPS for a 24 year old who players stellar defense, is great in my book. He's the type of player that will succeed anywhere. It doesn't matter, the Rockies aren't trading him. Arenado is one of the best defensive 3Bs in the game AND he's an impact bat. The Sox wouldn't move a guy like that for a collection of good but not great prospects, so I don't see why we'd expect the Rockies to do the same. The only way the Sox and Rockies would be able to get a deal done is Arenado for Sale... and I really don't think either team does that.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Dec 8, 2015 -> 12:28 PM) Google "the war on Christmas". Yes people get upset when things are renamed to be "holiday" parties, parades, plays, etc... instead of "Christmas". No, I think people understand that adults get upset about this. I think people struggle with WHY they get upset about it. What about me telling someone Happy Holidays drives them to such rage? Recognizing that there might be kids from other cultural and religious backgrounds in a public school seems pretty harmless to me. In fact, NSS' experience seems pretty ideal to me.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 25, 2015 -> 11:17 AM) Sounds like State's Attorney wanted to charge a long time ago but was waiting on the federal investigation to complete. Not sure what value there is in waiting for that, unless they thought the Feds could put together more evidence somehow than their office could. Also, watched the video. Yeah that's murder, completely unjustified. And I agree that Rahm saying he signed off on a $5M settlement without knowing a video existed - when it was Police dash cam and would have to be in the most basic core of evidence - is a bad, bad look. Serious question - what's the process for the City to settle cases (I've had dealings with settling cases with cities in a couple states, but never Chicago)? Does it go to the City Council? Would the mayor have his hand in it? How detailed is the presentation? I guess my question here is whether it would be ordinary course for the City of Chicago to sign off on a $5M settlement without knowing there was a video...

QUOTE (gatnom @ Nov 23, 2015 -> 11:25 PM) With respect to Groce, I think you just need to let the season play out. At this point, it seems unlikely that this team will do anything, but I think you need to get the new AD in place and allow him to make his own decision on the situation. It makes no sense to fire Groce now and completely punt on the season, no matter how hopeless it may seem. This. I may be the ultimate glass half full guy when it comes to Illinois basketball, and I do think this team is going to get better when Nunn, Tate, and Black are all 100%. I think if this team continues to be this bad, however, the new AD will have a decision to make. The current roster should be attractive to somebody coming in (assuming no attrition). And somebody with recruiting ties here in the Midwest might be able to save the '17 class. IF this year is bad when the dust settles, I'm on board with moving on...

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Nov 19, 2015 -> 10:52 AM) I'm pretty similar to this, but we can't afford to lose much more in non-con at this point. Gotta beat pretty good teams like Chattanooga now, no leeway. Hopefully we can surprise in Big Ten season but it's one area that I've been most critical of Groce and scared of, we just don't perform well in conference play. Hill, Nunn, JCL, Finke, Thorne, Black, AJ. That's a good core for this year, the defense is improving and if we can stay healthy we may have a shot at the tourney, but we'll need some upsets with some hot shooting games. Meh, RPI should be inflated by the non-con games in Springfield. None of the losses have hurt thus far (though it would have been really nice to get a true road win last night). To Jenks, I'm not worried about Black... yet. It's reasonable for him to have some rust coming off the injury. And the fouls were all really easy corrections (I mean, the first two were freaking moving screens). Assuming that Nunn and Tate are back and have shaken off the rust by B1G play, I'm actually really comfortable with Thorne, Morgan, Black, Finke as a big man rotation and Hill, Nunn, JCL, Jordan/Austin (depending on need d v. o) at the wings, and Hill/Tate running the point. I'm trying to keep an even keel on the early season bumps...

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Nov 19, 2015 -> 10:53 AM) Logical for Illinois' side, I still think the chances of that happening are slim. As someone who lived in Champaign for 7 years and has been in Denver for two, I can say that all else being equal, Boulder beat Champaign-Urbana every single day of the week.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 17, 2015 -> 04:16 PM) Student and work can be verified though. Random refugee cannot. Is there ever 100% certainty? Of course not. But again, if there's a risk, why chance it? What's the "real human harm" when half are denied anyway, and the other half have to wait 1-2 years? It's not some immediate "let me in or I die tomorrow" situation. The real human harm is that once they make it through a very long and thorough screening process, they are resettled and out of danger. I encourage you to read A Long Way Gone about the value to a refugee of finally being allowed to come to the United States. There is absolutely a real human cost here, whether the refugee is accepted a year later, two years later or four years later. Unless you think that our intelligence agencies are bad at their jobs, there is no reason to oppose continuing to accept refugees from Syria or any other humanitarian crisis.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 17, 2015 -> 04:06 PM) The screening process is more rigorous than any other way to get into this country. The attacks in France were carried out mainly by French and Belgian nationals. Those guys could have flown to the US on their legitimate French and Belgian passports no problem. There's also always the issue of home-grown terrorists in this country. Now why would they try to go through the 18-24 month process with in-depth screening and security checks and a pretty small shot of admission anyway (we've only taken several thousand out of millions of refugees to this point) when there are much, much easier ways to get in? Vox article describing some of the policy differences between resettlement of refugees in Europe and in the US. http://www.vox.com/2015/11/17/9750538/syrian-refugees Like SS said, we're talking about an 18-24 month screening process, including multiple interviews. That's a really, really slow burning plan. And as others in this thread have pointed out, it's one of the more difficult ways for ISIS to get assets into America...