illinilaw08

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 01:08 PM) Based on this statement, would you support a business owner refusing to serve black people? Or a Muslim business owner refusing to serve a woman who isn't in a burka?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 11:57 AM) And even I would say I have no issues with "some businesses" allowing guns. It'd be hard to ban them from a gun store/gun range, for the obvious example. But if you're going to accept that some places don't need them, then it no longer is a matter of "freedom" whether you're able to carry them or not. I will say that there needs to be some clarity on where and when gun owners can carry. Like it or not, the Second exists. Like it or not, there are people that feel the need to carry a firearm when they go out in public. That hypothetical firearm owner should be able to have a pretty good idea as to where they can carry so they know when they need to leave the gun at home (courthouse, going out to get hammered, jury duty, whatever). Again, however, I will say that I hate the idea of "open carry." In 2011, there was a controversy at the Indianapolis Zoo when a dude was openly carrying a firearm. He was asked to conceal the gun or leave. He refused. The police were called and they escorted him off the premises. People were up in arms (no pun intended) that the Zoo had the audacity to call the police and that the police made the guy leave...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 11:48 AM) You're still not getting it. The legitimate reason put forth by these groups is religious freedom. You clearly don't buy that, but lots of other people do and so has our legal system in the past. And "you can simply not do X, Y and Z" or "Just don't do X, Y and Z here" has rarely worked as an argument in these cases, so I don't know why you think it's important here. We don't tell people to stop speaking because they can just easily shut up or talk in their homes. You don't lose your rights simply because there is an easier alternative. Lastly, I'm not cloaking anything. I'm pointing out how people emphasis rights more than others. People in this very thread keep talking about how awful discrimination is and we should never change the laws and blah blah and yet we still have minority and gender only contracts, affirmative action, etc., the freaking definition of discrimination on race and gender. We're cool with it because we think there's a legitimate reason for doing so. Well, the people of Kansas think there's a legitimate reason for not having to serve gay people if they don't want to. edit: I should say "some people in Kansas" not "the people of" Here's where I stand on the Second and Balta's hypothetical business. If Balta operates a bar, it should be within his rights to prevent Jenks from carrying in his business. If Balta is Jerry Reinsdorf, it should be within his rights as a business owner to prevent Jenks from carrying at the UC or the Cell. The sports arena leads to heightened emotions and the serving of alcohol leads to reduced inhibitions. Hence, the owner of that business has a legitimate reason to keep guns out. Now, if Balta owns a pet store and Jenks has a permit to conceal and carry, Balta is infringing on Jenks' 2nd Amendment right to carry to ban Jenks from carrying in his store (or by frisking Jenks when he enters the store, or refusing service to Jenks because he has a CCW, whatever). I think Balta has a better argument if Jenks is wearing a hip holster because that weapon in the open could scare people out of Balta's store. Balta has a better argument, at that juncture, to ask Jenks to leave the store. I think it's legitimate to say that the Catholic Church can refuse to perform a gay wedding. I don't think it's legitimate to say that a wedding photographer or a wedding cake business should be able to, on the grounds of religious freedom, deny their service to a protected class (which hopefully will include LGBT in the near future at the federal level). There's a clear distinction between the Church performing a sacrament and a private business providing a service.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 11:05 AM) Religious objections is the logic, whether you agree or disagree with it. And it's absolutely comparable under the law. How do you, of all people, not see that? Come on now Jenks. If there's a crazy religion that thinks interracial marriage is a sin, should they be allowed to refuse service to that interracial couple? No because of the 14th (and because it's morally wrong). Discrimination is absolutely and totally wrong. I can't believe you are supporting this point. The issue about the Second is a different one and is subject to its own problems. I think everyone agrees that the Second is subject to certain reasonable restrictions. What those reasonable restrictions are is its own argument...

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 10:35 AM) Stone was a long shot anyways, getting a guy like Thomas or Sharma is a more reasonable yet lofty expectation. Key word here is LOFTY, especially with Thomas. He's a 5* center from out of state. It's awesome that Illinois is in that recruitment, but it would be a truly historic pull for Groce to get Thomas. Center recruits generally don't make an impact as a freshman unless they are basically already NBA ready. For as long as I can remember, Illinois centers have made big leaps from year 1 to 2 (Archibald, Leonard, Tisdale and Egwu off the top of my head). The key to the center position in '15 for the Illini is the development of Morgan, Colbert and (potentially) Paul. They need to get someone in the '15 class at the 5, but I wouldn't expect an impact until '16. Groce, in my opinion, has done a really nice job of remaking a broken roster in a short time. The '13 class has a ton of balance with two guys making an impact this year (Hill and Nunn). Going into next season, the 4 is a big hole, so Black and Finke (who scored 42 points last night by the way) help with that roster balance. He's effectively used transfers to address weaknesses. The early commits in '15 provide depth on the wings going forward. The trouble spot is obviously PG, but that isn't really a problem until '15. Starks and Tracy are flawed, but they both can play. Hopefully Tate develops his own offense by '15 and can be a competent B1G point guard, but that's the clear weak spot in the roster after next year... Rome wasn't built in a day. I like Groce's plan and his team objectively overachieved last year. If next year's team underachieves, and he fails to get a PG in '15, then the pressure on him intensifies. For now, however, I think this program is in very good hands.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 25, 2014 -> 10:14 AM) Sigh, that was Groce's best shot at a 5 star immediate impact guy. Dude was tight with Groce, his family loved Groce, his AAU (or some tournament team) was coached by Nunn's dad and one of his best friends is an Illinois verbal commit (Williams). You can't dream up a scenario better than that. And Illinois still whiffs. Illinois just does not get these types of players. It's been 14 years since Dee Brown committed. Yeah, disappointing to not get Charles Matthews (assuming all the smoke around Kentucky is correct) because there really was a lot in the Illini's favor here. Fortunately, Matthews was kind of a luxury recruit for the Illini. Between Nunn, Hill, Cosby, Jordan and DJ Williams, the Illini are pretty solid on the wing for the foreseeable future. Matthews would have been a statement recruit in Chicago, no doubt... and this post should not be construed as "no big loss for the Illini" because he would have been a huge, huge pickup. Groce is off to a really good start with the '15 class and if he lands an impact PG, it's a homerun class with or without Matthews.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 04:11 PM) I agree it's unfair. It's a s***ty situation. Referring to your edit, I don't think I claimed otherwise. My point was we have justified killings based on that reasonable fear of imminent harm/death. It's up to a jury to decide if that fear and action were reasonable in a given situation. IF the facts are as laid out by bmags, and there wasn't actually a gun in the car, then the only way to justify the reasonable far of imminent harm/death is that a carload of loud black teens is sufficient to justify making the inference that one of them is armed. That's an awful decision by the jury. Yeah, it's up to the jury to decide, but that doesn't excuse the fact that it is a bad result under those facts.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 02:08 PM) .08 is by definition two beers. Two. As in 2. 1 + 1. That's not a matter of self control. That's a matter of blunt force solutions to relatively nonexistent problems. The drunks out on the roads are no more likely to kill you than half blind Grandpa or riced out Corolla treating public roads like the Monaco GP. I handled a lot of DUI prosecutions when I was in AZ... and there is a big difference between .08 and .38 (the highest amount I saw come across my desk from a blood draw). .08 is the legal limit... but most DUIs I saw were significantly higher than that, which is quite different than half blind grandpa or exhausted trucker. Also, while the legal limit in AZ is .08, they also have a standard of "impaired to the slightest degree." Greater burden on the prosecutor to prove the impairment (you are presumed to be impaired above .08), but being below .08 does not stop a DUI. Just a heads up for anyone heading out that way for Spring Training this year...

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 04:40 PM) Its absolutely relevant because without proving her past identity I cant prove whether she is telling the truth or lying. If I ask "Are you Joe" and you say "no", and I never ask who you are, I have no evidence of your identity. I dont care if she was a man, woman or whatever. That has nothing to do with the fact she claimed she had credentials which she didnt. And part of proving that is showing that at X time, she was doing Y. Of the 3 things you list, I only think 3 is a valid concern. As I said earlier, what if its shown that there is a high rate of suicide amongst Jewish people and they have historically been discriminated. Should we not say Bernie Madoff is a Jew? Or do we just report facts? I get it, I have a lot of interaction with GLBT, but this isnt revealing information about some random person who never asked to be found. Sometimes you have to live with the consequences of your decisions. Right. You can absolutely show that Vanderbilt did not have the credentials she said she did (when talking to the investor) without saying, "And get this! She used to be a dude!" You can say, "I've looked into Vanderbilt's credentials. I've searched her name; I've searched all aliases that she has provided or I have been able to find in the public record. She never worked at X. She never got degree Y. Based on my research, her credentials are false. I recommend that you confront her on that issue." She how I did that without saying, "She used to be a man!!" And yeah, if I'm reading an article about Madoff, why is the fact that he is Jewish even remotely relevant? Why should that be a part of any article on Madoff unless it's a biography of the dude?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 04:14 PM) When did we get to the point in society that who someone is, is not relevant to the fact they are scamming people? Is that seriously what we are saying now? Do you think if this was a trial about the fraud and I asked: "Were you previously Steven Krohl?" It would be objectionable based on relevance? Seriously, if thats not relevant, than nothing is. Who cares that she didnt really work at MIT, or any of that stuff, its not really relevant to whether the putter actually works, right? I mean maybe all of the science and credentials are completely bogus, but the putter works, so shouldnt the story just be: "Putter works amazing" I mean who cares that its all based on lies. This is getting f***ed up. On the bolded, it depends on what you were getting at with the questioning. If it was to show that the Defendant was transgendered and that's icky and bad, then no, it's not relevant. If it's offered to show that Vanderbilt did not have the credentials she said she had, yeah, it might be relevant. If it's followed up by: Q: When known as Stephen Kroll, did you obtain a degree in X or work at Y? But being transgendered, by itself, is not evidence that someone is a liar or deceptive. Furthermore, there are plenty of times when facts in court are offered under seal for any number of reasons. Courtrooms are cleared when dealing with alleged sex offenders to prevent the other inmates in the courtroom from knowing. Evidence is produced under seal if there is sensitive corporate information attached. Evidence of one's former sexuality is sensitive information that MIGHT be treated in the same way. And I think ultimately that's the point I'm trying to reach here. (1) There is a seriously high suicide rate amongst the transgender community; (2) the transgender community is not well understood and is far behind the strides that have been made with respect to the gay and lesbian communities - which is likely related to the point 1; and (3) outing Vanderbilt to an investor was unnecessary to show that Vanderbilt was not who she claimed to be - and is further evidence of 1 and 2.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 02:39 PM) I think the real questions are: 1) Do public figures deserve privacy protection? 2) Does it matter if the public figure has deceived for potential profit? 3) Should we ask the media to filter stories for us? I dont really know what is right here, I do know that when in doubt Id rather not let the media filter stories. 1) Yes, subject to reasonable limitations. 2) I think it's a question of whether it's relevant to the deception. 3) No, but we also shouldn't ask them to sensationalize the story either. Here, the relevant truth is that Vanderbilt falsified qualifications and engaged in an elaborate deception about the magic putter. That's the story. The transgender angle here merely serves to sensationalize the story.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 02:46 PM) Being a woman was just as much of a "lie" as having those degrees/job history. Even if she thought of herself as a woman her entire life, she didn't live as a woman all of her life. She was a male mechanic for years. Not a female scientist. And again, it's the truth! Why would we want reporters to suppress the truth just because it might embarrass someone? When has that ever been a good reason? The relevant point in your first paragraph is that she was a mechanic for years... not a scientist. Whether she was male or female when doing that job is irrelevant to her qualifications to make a magic putter.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 02:26 PM) If that would have happened, I guarantee someone else would have discovered that Dr. V was transgendered and it would have became public knowledge anyways. How is Dr. V being transgendered relevant to the lies she made about her credentials/the science behind the putter? It may be an interesting hook for a story, but the fact that Dr. V is transgendered is not relevant to whether or not the putter works... unless you think that Dr. V being transgendered was somehow a deception in itself. Accordingly, it's not the reporters role to out Dr. V to an investor. Maybe it would have been discovered and become public knowledge down the road, but it's not relevant to the story itself (Vanderbilt created an elaborate web of deception about the magic putter). It's not the reporter's job to out her to anyone. Period. I thought Simmons handled this well. It's clear that the article wasn't malicious (and some of the reaction to the reporter is reprehensible - death threats, outing public information about the reporter, etc.), but there was a significant amount of misunderstanding/ignorance of transgender issues that led to mistakes being made here.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 02:14 PM) This is the part of the story that cracks me up - it's great we're having an open, productive conversation BUT NEVER TALK ABOUT SOMEONE BEING TRANSGENDERED OPENLY AND PUBLICLY. THAT'S WRONG! Come on Jenks... there's obviously a difference between talking about the issues that transgendered people generally face in this country (the numbers on suicide rates are literally insane) and outing an individual as transgendered.

QUOTE (He_Gawn @ Jan 15, 2014 -> 11:43 AM) Excuse me for interrupting on the court storm debate (Which is stupid... who cares what a bunch of drunk 20 year old kids are doing)... Just have to drop this awesome quote by Trevon Jackson from last night... "We didn't play well at all, but I think that a lot of that has to do with the way the game was called... A lot of us didn't want to foul … I think that we couldn't really challenge as good as we wanted too because of some of the fouls that were being called." Sounds a lot like Ryan... Wisconsin had 3 fouls with 2:30 left in the 2nd half. 5 fouls with :28 seconds left. WTF are these two talking about? They barely called any fouls... Of course it didn't help their interior defense parted like the Red Sea when Ferrell and Robinson came through. There were two calls last night that I thought had a big impact. The charge against Wisconsin with about 10 seconds left in the first half (Gasser maybe?). Going to the replay, Dakich was preparing a lecture about extending your arm, then corrected himself when no arm was extended. The second was the and 1 Yogi Ferrell got that I think was Jackson's 4th foul. Jackson didn't touch him, but Ferrell simulated contact and got the call (I think Yogi Ferrell may have spent the offseason at the Brandon Paul School for Selling Contact). Other than that (and a couple no calls against Wisconsin early in the game), I thought it was pretty consistent both ways. On Indiana, I've been impressed by Robinson's development and Yogi Ferrell is a beast. If Robinson continues to give Indiana a viable 3rd or 4th scoring option, they will be dangerous this year.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 10, 2014 -> 09:12 AM) One thing I thought they handled very well was all the singing. That happened twice in the movies, and both were done very well. In the books, it seemed like it happened dozens of times, and it was usually grating to read. This times a billion. That's an issue that I think comes up a lot in fantasy adaptations. Martin's characters meander a LOT in the GOT books, but the TV show has the ability to write out a lot of the meandering. The one issue I had with the adaptation of LOTR was their treatment of Faramir - I thought him bringing Frodo and Sam to Gondor completely changed his character. And yes, Jurassic Park does in fact win forever.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jan 8, 2014 -> 04:50 PM) Michael Bradley appears set to transfer to Toronto FC. To say that is an awful move and that it makes Clint Dempsey's look good would be a massive understatement Sounds like Toronto offered a LOT of money. Reports have transfer fees and salaries for Defoe and Bradley at north of $100M in total investment. I'm hoping that, if true, Toronto immediately loans Bradley out (as Seattle has with Dempsey) to keep him sharp in a World Cup year. The fact of the matter is that if Bradley was getting squeezed out at Roma, it's an awful year for him to not be playing. You would think plenty of clubs in top leagues would be interested in Bradley though. Bradley is the most important player for the USMNT. To have him move to Toronto is... not great.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 13, 2013 -> 09:38 AM) What about the Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Indiana, Ohio State, & Northwestern games? Is it good to allow 200 rushing yards to 5 different players? Of course it isn't. But this was an extremely young defense. If they are still giving up massive yards next year, then that's a much larger problem. I brought up the Penn State example merely to show that the kids played hard for Beckman this year, even when the season was basically over already. And again, if Beckman was going to be fired for Year 1, he should have been fired after Year 1 (and I don't think anyone would have complained about that). Him and Cubit had a blow up on the sidelines, whatever. The sideline interference penalties obviously need to stop (though Beckman at least didn't run into any officials this year). And I absolutely think Beckman made some awful decisions this year. Like Krush, I don't know that Beckman is a long term fit at Illinois. But rebuilding a football program takes time. It's rare that freshman (in the realm where the Illini are recruiting kids from) are physically ready to contribute in Year 1. You don't know what you have in a lot of these kids until they are upperclassmen. So running Beckman out of town because his really, really young defense was terrible is nonsense. When Mike Thomas opted to bring Beckman back for a second year, a better showing this year meant Beckman would get Year 3. Now, if the defense is giving up 200 yards a game on the ground again in year 3, if they go 1-7 again in the league, then I think he's gone. If the Illini overachieve and win 7 or 8 games (and with some moderate improvement on the defensive side combined with a QB who can throw the ball downfield, why not?), then I think he gets an extension so questions about his job security stop. Next year is the year that determines Beckman's fate. Not this year.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 13, 2013 -> 08:22 AM) Yes, because looking at a one in a thousand coach who came into an even worse situation is dumb. Talk about your alltime cherrypick. The odds are massively against coaches who fail to win more than one conference game in their first two years, so bringing up past coaches is nothing more than a testament against Beckman. We've had the expectations discussion a bunch now. We're going in circles. I'm rooting for Illinois, as I always have. Beckman's buffoonery in year 1 has nothing to do with year 2. The team improved in Year 2, significantly. Here's the thing. I could have been on board with firing Beckman last year. The level of incompetence on the sidelines (running over officials, the dip, etc.) showed a guy that was absolutely out of his element. He was better this year. The team was better this year. The defense in the Penn State game showed a ton of heart and pride (only allowed 17 points and made a number of huge stops). The message you are sending if you fire Beckman after the team was noticeably better is... not good... to the rest of the coaching world. There are some interesting JUCOs coming in next year and, of course, Lunt gets the keys to the offense. I'm actually looking forward to Illinois football next year. If they win games, that will answer the recruiting questions about Beckman's job security. If they don't, or if they step back, there are grounds to let him go.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 12:34 PM) Yeah but so will Ghana and Portugal. Playing Ghana first is actually a break for us now that the group is set. Yeah, I agree that playing Ghana first is big. The prospect of Ronaldo is terrifying (especially agains the US back 4), but the rest of that Portugal side is not all that scary. Germany... well, unless the US drew SUI, the seeded game was always going to be difficult. Germany, in my opinion, is a better draw than Spain or any of the South American sides. Very glad to play Germany last. Hopefully they will have 6 points and the US will have 4 going into that match... where a 0-0 draw gets both through.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 10:40 AM) The show runners know the ending. They'll pass the books. http://winteriscoming.net/2013/06/what-hap...p-to-the-books/ I don't think anyone wants the series to pass the books, but it seems almost like an inevitability for the slowest author in the world. It also bears mentioning that just because the show runners know the ending doesn't mean they know the details of how Martin intends to get there...

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 09:22 AM) I am mentally preparing myself for Mexico to get SUI/ALG/GRE and for the US to get Netherlands/Ivory Coast/Germany Substitute Ghana for Ivory Coast. That's pretty much the nightmare scenario for me.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Dec 3, 2013 -> 11:46 AM) This ever so slightly is better for the US. Best case scenario would land Netherlands, Portugal or Italy in Pot 2 and then NOT be drawn into the US's group. Would weaken pot 4. Still probably we're drawn in the Group of Death though. Still holding out hope for Switzerland/Algeria/Greece though. World Cup Draw Day! Come on Switzerland/Algeria/Greece!

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 27, 2013 -> 02:06 PM) Two of those teams are now in major conferences. I don't think anyone equates those with the MAC. The MAC will never get any respect, that's just the way it is in football until a playoff system lets one in and they go deep. But the same arguments were levied against those schools (with the possible exception of TCU in '11). Shoot, people on this board argued after Utah beat Alabama in '09 that the Utes only won because Bama didn't care. NIU probably loses if they get a BCS game. But the fact that they are in the MAC, or that they lost to Florida State last year, are irrelevant to whether an undefeated Northern team this year "deserves" a shot at a BCS bowl.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Nov 26, 2013 -> 08:02 PM) At least those teams deserved to be there. Plenty of midmajors have won BCS games. TCU beat Wisconsin in '11. Utah beat Alabama in '09. Boise beat Oklahoma in '07. Utah beat Pitt in '05. It's not like the non-AQ schools always get blown out. Give undefeated Northern a shot in the BCS again. I don't really understand the argument against...