illinilaw08

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 11:31 AM) It also looks like this law is modeled after a federal law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Fre...Restoration_Act (still applicable at the federal level) which, gasp!, was introduced by Chuck Schumer and signed by President Clinton. Yes, the law was modeled after RFRA, but if you read quotes from supporters of the law, they are talking about this law protecting the rights of photographers, bakers, caterers, etc., to not have to provide services at gay weddings. This law is not proposed, or passed, without that issue being litigated in the court system in other states. It is a law with a discriminatory intent against a specific subset of the population, regardless of how people try to spin its intent.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 09:42 AM) What jenks said makes sense. If you aren't government-funded, you're not required to separate religion and your business. However, if you do discriminate, your business won't last and you'd just be a terrible business owner. However, if I remember correctly, the religious freedom law in Kansas allowed government-run businesses to turn away certain people. That's just wrong. There are certain classes that are protected and cannot be legally discriminated against under federal law, no matter what your religion says (race, gender, etc.). Unfortunately, sexual orientation is not currently a federally protected class for those purposes. To Jenks' point, there's a reason these laws have such widespread support. I think it vastly overstates things to say that a business that discriminates based on sexual orientation would only thrive in a small town in the Deep South. If that was the case, Indiana's legislature wouldn't be signing this bill into law. I like SS's first post though...

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 23, 2015 -> 04:36 PM) Pretty aggressive to rank a team that wasn't good enough for the NIT that high in Michigan. OSU is fully dependent on the incoming class. They will be playing big minutes but it happens to be the best incoming class in the conference. Also have Trevor Thompson now eligible. Wisconsin loses a ton. Three NBA players. MSU loses a ton as well. Both Dawson and Trice. Their guard play could be rough without Trice unless Forbes or Nairn make a big leap. Until the draft entrants and spring signings shake out, it's tough to grade this out. I'm pretty curious about Indiana's offseason. Aren't they oversigned by 2 and still recruiting?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Mar 18, 2015 -> 11:25 PM) So the story says he tried to pull away from the officer (resisted) and when tried escaping they tackled him, causing him to hit his face/head on the ground. If that is what happened, not sure I see the big deal. of course, not sure what facts are facts since of course the first thing brought up is race. Not that he was breaking the law, not that he tried to resist the police and tried to escape, but race. Now if there are more facts, or at least pictures of the cops doing some 'extra curricular' stuff, then we revisit this. Just to be clear, the Yahoo story doesn't say that he tried to "escape." It doesn't say that he tried to run from the police officers. The story says "Johnson asked the ABC officer to let go of his arm and tried pulling away from the officer." Furthermore, according to the article he wasn't charged with resisting arrest, apparently a different charge under VA law (resisting requires fleeing). Drunk college kid tries to pull his arm away from the alcohol cops, gets tackled and ends up with a head injury. IF the facts are as the Yahoo article posted above lays out, that looks bad on the part of the officers...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 18, 2015 -> 09:30 AM) I don't know why you keep beating this drum when it doesn't matter. It's akin to blaming Bush for crap Obama does. At some point you gotta let it go. Yes, the class sucked (although even scouts were wrong about Henry and Shaw, both 4 star, 90+ graded recruits). Yes, it didn't help Groce. But we're three years down the line now. Groce had a couple of good players from the prior staff and that's about what you'd expect when a coach gets fired. Rarely is anyone fired with tons of talent on the roster. Is it a factor here? Sure, but not a big one. The bigger one is Groce's offensive coaching sucks. And as much excitement as he's brought in recruiting, frankly his recruiting hasn't done s***. Nunn is a bust unless he works on his right hand dribbling (and he was basically a Weber recruit, although not 100%. Groce just had to close the deal). Hill, a Weber commit IIRC, is easily the best player on the roster, and has the most potential. Everyone else Groce has signed and/or brought in has sucked. Rice was his savior last year, but maybe the biggest problem this year. They were better without him. He didn't fit with the other guys on the team. I'd love to throw Groce a bone and call this a bit of bad luck. The suspensions of Paul and Rice didn't help. The injuries to Abrams and Rice didn't help. Losing Snider at the last possible second after getting a verbal didn't help. Signing Tate and having to play 4-5 (or 3-5 with Egwu) for extended stretches clearly wasn't the plan, but that's what he gets for signing him. We're trending the wrong direction. I never bought last year that this season was going to be miraculously different. I laughed at those that said this was a tourney team for sure. And next year they're in the same position - bubble team. Although next year without Egwu and Rice there's a strong possibility of not getting to .500 in conference. It could be worse. Nunn wasn't even on Illinois' radar while Weber was the coach. And I think it's a bit unfair to call Nunn a bust. He had no offseason because of the knee injury, averaged 11 ppg and had 4 games of 20+. He's a streaky shooter, needs to be more consistent, and needs to get better with his right hand. But calling Nunn a bust is just flat out wrong. The roster that Groce inherited DOES matter when you evaluate him. Webber's last 3 classes left Groce with 2 B1G caliber players after the '09 class left. While it's easier to find instant impact freshman in basketball than in football, it's still not easy. Bertrand's Sr. year, that roster was bad and it was short. This year was a disappointment. But part of that was because of the Abrams injury. Part was Cosby being a colossal bust (how much of that is on the coaching staff is debateable). At some point, Illinois needs to take a step forward. But the 4th year, to me, is the important one. Groce's first recruits are upper classmen now. Hopefully, like Maryland and Arkansas, Year 4 is the year we see the leap. There are obvious reasons for concern, but next year's roster should have plenty of talent (assuming Abrams has a close to complete return from the injury). IF it's a bad season again, then Groce's seat is hot.

QUOTE (Boogua @ Mar 17, 2015 -> 09:48 PM) Yup. The only 2 players that were average longterm from the 2010, 2011, and 2012 classes were Abrams and Egwu. That's insane. Groce has screwed up not recruiting a better PG, but he was a bit unlucky by Abrams tearing his ACL too. He had to try to rebuild with a bunch of transfers that ended up being failures. I don't think Groce ever expected Tate to play this much for his program either. If Abrams was healthy Tate and Starks would have been splitting 10-15 minutes per game off the bench. Honestly, this has to be a factor when evaluating Groce. The vaunted 2010 class was a bust (though Leonard is one of only 2 current Illini in the NBA). The 2011 class had only Abrams and Egwu as long-term contributors. The 2012 class was empty. Starting next year, the roster is Groce's. His first class is upperclassmen. There shouldn't be a need to bring in anything other than spot transfers at this point (adding a 5th year when you have an open scholarship just seems like good policy). IF: 1) Abrams is healthy next year, the point guard position goes from terrible to B1G average - a huge improvement. 2) Paul and Finke can score from the 5 spot without being atrocious defensively, the offense will look significantly better (Illinois was 6-1 this year when Egwu scored in double figures - including the Maryland and @ MSU wins). 3) Two of Black, Colbert, JCL, Jordan, and DJ Williams are ready to provide consistent minutes (lumped together because Hill can play 4 if necessary). Honestly, I think it's reasonable to expect improvement from Black and that JCL - the 2nd highest rated B1G recruit next year - is ready to play right away. If all that happens, then next year should be a good year. If not, this is another NIT season and Groce's seat gets really warm...

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 17, 2015 -> 09:21 AM) Getting Aguirre was huge. They get to the Final Four, then get the WGN TV contract which had their games beamed all over the country back when you were lucky if your school had one nationally televised game. When that playing field was leveled, DePaul was in trouble. The thing is, the campus is probably way nicer than it has ever been. It's not a bad school, and if an athlete wants their degree, they will bend over backwards helping them get it. But all the losing and losing, they aren't even a thought in most players' minds. They had a few successful season under Leito but they haven't even made the NIT fo 8 years. DePaul took advantage of the Public League's hostility to the Kruger hire back in the late 90s when they landed Quentin Richardson, Bobby Simmons, and Lance Williams. I think that group made an NCAA tournament appearance. Seems like that was DePaul's last relevant team...

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 5, 2015 -> 02:19 PM) 10-8 over an 11-7 B10 team doesn't have too many precedents. In 2013, 8-10 Illinois was a 7 seed. 9-9 Iowa missed the tournament. 2010, 10-8 Illinois missed the tournament. 9-9 Minnesota got in. Conference record is one factor that is absolutely not considered by the committee. IF Illinois beats Purdue on Saturday (please, please beat Purdue on Saturday), the Illini will have a better resume than Purdue. Purdue has two horrible home losses in December and lacks a real signature win (home against Ohio State is their best). Illinois, on the other hand, has one bad loss (@ Nebraska) and three wins that are better than Purdue's best win (Baylor on a neutral floor, Maryland, and @ Michigan State). Depending on what happens to the rest of the bubble (and if any bids get stolen in conference tournaments), Illinois and Purdue could both be on the outside looking in. But an Illinois win @ Purdue definitely puts the Illini ahead of Purdue as of Saturday.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 27, 2015 -> 12:38 PM) Anyone use a fitness tracker? The wifey and I are looking at the Fit Bit Charge HR. Neither of us are working out a ton, but it would be nice to know how much we are walking and moving around during the day. My wife loves hers. She particularly likes it for tracking steps and tracking sleep. Workout related, I had been rounding into pretty good shape - looking to run a half marathon in May in sub 1:45 and was feeling really good about workouts, etc. But I've had my ass kicked by the flu for the past week. No working out for the past week and I know my fitness levels will have taken massive leaps backwards in the meantime. Very, very frustrated.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 23, 2015 -> 10:23 AM) I've seen Hill be more successful with his contested old-man, H-O-R-S-E shots than Tate with an open look. I'd take my chances with Hill, no question. Oh, no doubt. There were two great Hill possessions last night. The first, Dawson was yelling at Hill's man to watch for the shot fake, Hill got him to bite, made the jumper, and drew the foul. Dawson bit on the Hill shot fake a couple possessions later. Clearly Michigan State had scouted Hill's old-man HORSE game. But the shot fakes are so good, he still had them biting.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 23, 2015 -> 10:10 AM) The big thing is he's either super passive or super aggressive. Nothing in between. An entire offensive possession will go by and he doesn't touch the ball, or if he does, it's a simple hand-off, or he's a ball hog and drives to the lane and takes a contested shot. He needs to try and set guys up more. The defense collapses around him, we have good shooters, why isn't that the offense instead of this garbage, toilet bowl offense they run (i.e., nothing). Also, there were about 5 trips where Tate is holding the ball with 5-6 seconds left in the shot clock. That's moronic. I'd bench guys, especially Nunn, Hill and Rice, for ever giving up the ball to Tate with that much time on the clock. I'd rather you take a fall away contested three than give the ball to Tate with the pressure to do something with the ball. The point guard is almost always the release in those late shot clock situations. If somebody on the wing is bottled up under 10 seconds left, the pass is back to the top of the key for a reversal (assuming there isn't a post feed available - and on this team, there isn't). Likewise, Tate is always going to be the open man there because teams aren't trying to deny him the ball. So if the options are (1) forced shot; (2) turnover; and (3) pass to Tate and hope, you pass to Tate and hope... That's the problem with Tate generally. Unless he becomes at worst a 25% 3 point shooter, he's a career backup at best. Also of note, I was 100% sure Nunn's three was going in with 38 seconds left. Wednesday just became a lot, lot more important... need to win @ Iowa City.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 19, 2015 -> 04:28 PM) I think a President shouldn't have a problem stating motive when the motive is clear and has been admitted. The fact that he does so in one situation, without facts to support, and actively chooses not to in another, despite having proof of it, for fear of some kind of illogical response, to me, is ludicrous. I think it's fair to point out that the motive of ISIS - if stated the wrong way - risks painting Muslims and Islam with a pretty broad brush. That Atlantic article which went into ISIS in detail was very, very long. I think it's also fair for the President to try to make comments that, taken out of context, imply that the US is at war with Islam. Equating the war against Islamist terrorists with comments about race relations in the US is, in my opinion, comparing apples to oranges.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 19, 2015 -> 04:12 PM) I don't think it's just regional. They've already made it global by killing Americans, Japanese, Britians, Frenchman and I think Australians (?). It's the true jihad movement, not the "soft" jihad OBL started. (i'm not saying they will get global, but clearly their aim is to kill every non-Muslim, including Muslims that don't practice their version of Islam.) Sure, ISIS is indiscriminate in who they kill within the Middle East. Again, however, based on the Atlantic article, ISIS' goal is not to attack the West specifically (as Al Qaida would). According to that article, their primary, immediate, aim is their territory in the Middle East.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 19, 2015 -> 03:15 PM) Its actually a great comparison. The reason why ISIS is a different threat is that they could destabilize the region. The reason I pointed to WWI is because the region where the assassination occurred, the Balkans, was considered the "powder keg of Europe." If you look at the Middle East with a variety of different countries backed by different proxy powers, you could have a similar result where ISIS destabilization leads to a much larger war where countries such as Israel, Iran, US and Russia are eventually dragged in to support their regional allies. Going to war with ISIS isnt about beheading people, its about protecting borders of allies, most specifically Iraq/Saudi Arabia, but partially Israel as well. There is a reason why the US is extremely involved in the Middle East and not so much in areas dealing with Boko Haram. It isnt about body counts, its about the potential long term impact of ISIS on the Middle East, and what the fall out could be if they were successful. Again, they dont just want to stop where they are at, they want to take Saudi Arabia and other areas too. Strange Sox, Thats just opinion. In my opinion there is no way that letting ISIS succeed in the Middle East will ever result in "good" for the US. They want to take over the entire Arab world with an interpretation of Islam that is inconsistent with that of even the most fundamentalist countries in that region. No established state in the Middle East, from Iran to Turkey, is supporting ISIS. This isn't a situation where there are entangling alliances that can force WWIII (ie, Iran on one side, Israel on another). Further, "letting ISIS succeed in the Middle East" is not effective policy. But again - ISIS is a regional threat to every single established state in the region and we're seeing military intervention against ISIS from a number of those states.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 19, 2015 -> 02:24 PM) Austria-Hungary was never going to be a legitimate threat to the United States, but it certainly played a role in starting World War I, which resulted in a pretty catastrophic path. You can count the legitimate threats to the US on one hand. So if that is the threshold, the US should never get involved anywhere, because it really doesnt concern us. A war that started over an assassination and entangling alliances isn't really an apt comparison. And if the US is going to go to war every time there's a despot committing mass atrocities, we'll be in a constant state of war all over the world...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 19, 2015 -> 02:39 PM) ISIS also appears to be a completely different animal than the others. They make Al Qaeda look like a street gang. Based on the Atlantic article about ISIS, however, it appears part of the reason ISIS is a different animal is their aims are regional - ie, building a caliphate in the Middle East. So based on that, one could argue that they are less of a threat to the US than Al Qaida ever was. Unlike Al Qaida, ISIS is a threat that the regional powers in the Middle East (Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, even Iran) have to take seriously.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 17, 2015 -> 03:57 PM) Phoenix's arenas aren't much of an example of anything good. The Bob (D-Backs) is downtown, but downtown Phoenix is usually dead outside of busines hours. They built another one in Glendale in the middle of nowhere. Yeah, I lived out there for a bit. D-Backs and the Suns are downtown. The Glendale location has been fine for the Cardinals, but a disaster for the Coyotes. The only time that arena was ever close to full was if an Original Six team was in town. Downtown Phoenix is pretty sleepy, but a lot of people work down there, so weeknight D-Backs and Suns games at least can get decent walk-up crowds. They have also seriously improved public transportation and there's a light rail stop right outside of the Bob. The Glendale location is in the middle of freaking nowhere - other than an NFL team, I have a hard time believing those locations work. EDIT: Not sure of the reason for the improvement, but the areas east of Coors Field here in Denver used to be pretty terrible, but have improved significantly over the last 5+ years. I suspect that has a lot more to do with Denver experiencing a boom than it does Coors Field, but still relevant to this discussion.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 13, 2015 -> 11:10 AM) He's a bad shooter, but really he only takes about 1 jump shot a game and it's usually a 3 pointer at the end of the shot clock. Not a shock that a player bricks those. He can finish around the rim, at least that's something. Last night was maddening. How do you dominate a team 21-2 over the last 10-15 minutes of play but play so horribly the first 30? Credit Michigan for nearly stealing that game with maybe the worst starting line-up in the Big Ten, but yikes it was like they were Tom Crean running up against that zone. They seemed totally unprepared and got really lucky to get that win. I'll take it, but man is the Wisconsin game going to be a beat down. If we don't lose by 20 i'll be happy. I thought a lot of the struggles against the zone happened with Tate in. Michigan didn't have anyone concerned with Tate, allowing them to clog the lane (taking away Hill flashing to the middle) and cheat the zone toward Hill, Nunn, and Rice on the perimeter. Tate being a bad shooter can really hurt the offense. I like the way he moves the ball and runs the offense. But until he can be something of a threat to get his own offense, the half court offense will struggle with him in the game.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 10, 2015 -> 04:00 PM) The definition of capital punishment includes the use of "legal process." I think you'd be severely stretching that definition to include "a decision made by a band of terrorists." If the "legal process" is corrupt and unjust, how is that better? These are extreme examples to be sure, but Nazi Germany and Stalin era USSR killed a hell of a lot of people by using the "legal process." Again, I don't think we disagree that much - this is a fairly odd discussion - but the United States is doing what should reasonably be expected of it as to ISIS (basically everything short of boots on the ground). We can't say the same thing about the human rights issues in Saudi Arabia.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 10, 2015 -> 03:16 PM) Where does it give the number of people beheaded for witchcraft? I see some numbers for people being held and for total claims in a given year, but not of those actually executed. This article (linked in SS') http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16150381 gives about 3 examples, one of which was overturned by the states' high courts. I think you all are making that out to be WAY more serious than it actually is, unless i'm totally missing something. Yes, we should expect more from our allies, including SA. Yes, a sorcery/witchcraft law is ludicrous. Yes, I guess in some sense we should expect more from a "civilized" society like SA. But Christ people, they lit a dude on fire! They lined up men from an entire village and shot them execution style! That's far more disturbing and wicked than what SA does based on radical religious beliefs. Do the beheadings have to be for witchcraft for us to condemn them? I'm certainly no expert on Saudi Arabia, but this Washington Post piece depicts some pretty bad human rights issues in Saudi Arabia. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldv...ple-last-month/ Fundamentally, I agree with you. ISIS is obviously a greater threat to regional stability than is Saudi Arabia and their lawlessness is reprehensible. I'm not hear to debate moral relativism between ISIS and SA, but there are clear issues with human rights in SA - something we shouldn't turn a blind eye toward. To me, however, this comes down to one crucial point: we are taking an obvious stand against ISIS - which is important and good. But we should have some power to put some pressure on SA - our ally - to come around on human rights. For strategic reasons (oil, stability in the region, etc.), we don't put that pressure on them.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 10, 2015 -> 02:19 PM) No, see that's the difference. As I said before, at least SA has a "law" and SOME kind of justice system in place. Yes, it might be weak, it might be ludicrous, but it's SOMETHING. Presumably you could, in most cases, not do what is illegal and you'd be fine. Just because Balta can point to a few select cases doesn't' mean it's some epidemic where SA is systematically killing its people based on witchcraft allegations. ISIS is doing that. Grabbing random foreigners, kidnapping them, holding them for ransom and then killing them when they don't get their money (and let's not forget about the mass executions in public). I seriously cannot believe that you guys think the two situations are even remotely similar. Several pages back, SS posted an article, citing a researcher from Human Rights Watch, discussing the number of people the Saudis behead for witchcraft in a given year. My take is that the one with a terrible justice system that beheads people for "witchcraft" is not a moral high ground compared to someone like ISIS - who is not an actual state (are terrible laws that allow for execution on a whim better or worse compared to it being done lawlessly by a terrorist group). In my opinion, it's a very fair criticism to point out that (1) Saudi Arabia is our ally because of oil; and (2) we should expect a better human right's record from our allies. The solution to that issue obviously isn't "stop using oil," but I do think it's fairly obvious that we tolerate behavior in Saudi Arabia that we wouldn't from our other allies. EDIT to include SS's earlier link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014...th-penalty.html

QUOTE (Greyone @ Feb 3, 2015 -> 02:49 PM) Coyotes do, we here in Homer Glen have had a few small dogs get eaten by coyotes. Though I blame the stupid owners, small dogs that get to run around loose have stuff happen to them. Though one was on a property but the leash it was on was extremely long and they had no fence, basically went up to an open retention are. http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adven...n-the-West.html Hopefully not too filibuster-y of a post, but Outside Magazine had a pretty balanced discussion of wolves in the West last month.

Hasn't been noted yet on this thread, but the Budweiser Macro-beer commercial was pretty terrible. Liam Neeson and the First Ever Fantasy Draft were good (as has been said previously, you always win with a bear in a sombrero).

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 04:33 PM) You are conflating bankruptcy laws with default, which paints an innacurate picture. If a person goes bankrupt they can discharge debts, but almost never student loan debts. So it is true that the risk of a DISCHARGE via a legal maneuver is very low. However, a person could certainly just stop paying on the loans, for whatever reasons. And whether or not they seek bankruptcy protection, that still ends up being a DEFAULT on the loan. So the default risk is still there and still significant. Yes - I did not use the proper terms of art, but the bank still has significantly lower risk when the debt can't ever go away. If I default under the terms of the note I signed with the holder of my student loan debt, they file suit, obtain a judgment, and garnish my wages/bank accounts until paid in full. I don't have the recourse of filing bankruptcy. The bank incurs the cost of collection, but the risk of a complete loss under the loan went way down. That risk is different than the specific bankruptcy default which means that any repayment to my creditor is dependent on having non-exempt assets that a trustee can sell and use to pay creditors. The second statement is correct - someone can stop paying the loans for any reason at all. But the lender has plenty of remedies to recover the debt. Regardless, the lack of risk of a bankruptcy discharge makes the likelihood of the lender recovering significantly higher and should lead to lower borrowing costs.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 01:27 PM) And your rate for a person with no job, probably no or little credit and no collateral who wasn't going to be paying them back for years would have been much higher in a private setting. The student loan bubble is both federal debt and private debt. As discussed earlier, at least when I went to school (graduated 6+ years ago), the federal loans were not enough to reasonably cover tuition + room and board. So that means you take debt from the private sector. The private student loan debt doesn't have a comparable instrument in the private sector. You literally cannot get rid of private student loan debt the way you can any other private debt. So if the risk of total default to the lender is practically zero, why are interest rates on student loans as high as they are?