illinilaw08

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 23, 2013 -> 09:02 AM) To people without any skills, yes. Growing up, these are the jobs I worked before I had any skills, too. And I didn't expect to be paid as if I did, either. That's why I did something about it. ...and I know, my life full of "white" privilege is what did it all for me, too. I know this because I put fourth no effort to get where I am today. I didn't go to school full time (24 credit hours per semester) all while working at Dunkin' Donuts on the weekends for 5$ an hour, and Osco Drug at nights during the week for 5.35$ an hour, either, all with no car, because all I could afford was public transportation. Because my privileged upbringing in Bridgeport afforded me all the luxuries of life, and my daddy had me all set up with the perfect job long before I even graduated high school. After a while, I get sick of listening to peoples s***. Most of the time, I can look at their Facebook feed and show you exactly why they're f***ing broke and going nowhere, and it wouldn't matter if they were making 100k or 45k, they'd end up in the SAME situation. http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/20...mps-and-reality Forbes discusses the McDonalds budget. Basically, the column says that the minimum wage brings less purchasing power than it did when first instituted. Goes on to say that the gap is actually covered by federal programs (food stamps, welfare, etc.) which programs, in a way, actually are subsidies to low wage employers like McDonalds and Wal-Mart (they pay less for the same labor). Interesting column. As to your other point, I do a lot of bankruptcy work, both on the creditor side and on the debtor side. People who go "broke" making $45k or $100k per year are at least able to pay for neccessities (rent, food, heat) while making their poor decisions that push them into bankruptcy. Then, there are a class of people who literally cannot afford to file a bankruptcy because their income is so meager. The point here is twofold: First, is there a societal obligation to help those at the bottom attain the basic necessities (food, clothing, shelter). I argue that there is because, if people can afford the necessities, in theory, crime goes down, property values go up (panhandlers and the homeless are... not great for property values). What mechanism you use to get there, I'm open to suggestion. Second, do businesses have a moral obligation to their employees? There have been articles recently discussing how Costco is destroying Sam's Club because, by actually paying their employees well, their employees are loyal, happy and productive. Finally, I hate the attitude that "because I went through something crappy, other people should go through it as well." Partners at law firms who were treated like crap as associates are more likely to treat associates like crap themselves. It's admirable that Y2HH worked extremely hard to achieve his success. And there are plenty of others like that on this board. But would you have achieved success if Osco or Dunkin paid you better? Yeah, you still would have. And that success would have ultimately been easier to achieve (based on your description above of working two jobs while in school) if you only had to work one job to make ends meet, or working two jobs allowed you to afford something more reliable than public trans. The goal should be to make that success, to make the ability to improve your circumstances, easier and not harder. Hang on, I need a second to get off my soapbox...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 18, 2013 -> 02:53 PM) It's used to wipe the slate clean, yes, but often times the businesses that file are failing so badly they just end up back in debt and close shop anyway. Or even more often, they clean their books of debt and then find a bigger buyer to take the business. That's why I'm wondering if tons of investment is really worth it here. You're basically asking Detroit to take out a loan the first day of being debt free. Their pension system, which I think is constitutionally protected from becoming an "unsecured" debt (i.e., they won't take pennies on the dollar), is underfunded by like 10 billion. Chapter 9 is a weird title of the Bankruptcy Code (municipalities in bankruptcy) and really has very little in common with Chapter 11 where a business would usually fall. Creditors have significantly less rights and the 10th Amendment affords significant additional protections on the muncipality. The issue as I understand it right now is that the Detroit pension system is attempting to obtain a state court ruling holding that Detroit cannot file bankruptcy since pension rights are protected by the Michigan constitution. The hearing on that issue in state court is set for Monday. A bankruptcy filing on Friday would stay that hearing and, probably, force a bankruptcy judge to hear the issue of whether Detroit has standing to be a debtor in bankruptcy first.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Jul 13, 2013 -> 11:48 PM) Brek Shea is starting to venture into the category that I have Kljestan in. Just a horrible performance. I cant see him being needed in Brazil next summer. Still time for the 18 cycle. Shea needs to solidify his club situation. He's a pretty unique guy with his combination of speed and size. If he can crack the XI at Stoke this year, I think his unique skillset absolutely puts him in the mix (performance against Cuba notwithstanding).

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jul 16, 2013 -> 09:28 PM) I've always loved the World Cup but that's really the only time I watched. I'm actually starting to follow all the prelims and watch as many games as I can now. Let me ask you guys: what battles should I be looking for on the US roster? And what do we think the starting 11 will be come next summer? If healthy, Jozy, Dempsey, Bradley, Howard, and Fabian Johnson are no doubt starters (though where Fabian plays may be in doubt). In the next year, there will be plenty of battles for spots all along the backline and certainly on the wings in the midfield. Holden or Geoff Cameron could potentially push Jermaine Jones for the spot next to Bradley, but that probably pretty unlikely. Since the Qualifier at Azteca, it looks like Besler and Gonzalez are the first choice CBs. And based on the uninspiring group of prospects called in for the Gold Cup (Goodson, Gooch, Orozo-Fiscal), Besler and Gonzalez aren't likely to be pushed any time soon. John Anthony Brooks (dual citizenship with Germany, hasn't made his national team selection yet) could be a wild card here if he opts for the US. The biggest trouble spots are RB and LB. At RB, Timmy Chandler had a dip in form last year, Steve Cherundolo is 35 and injury prone, Eric Lichaj has never impressed Klinnsman, and Parkhurst is very, very hit or miss. At LB, Fabian Johnson is probably best when he's in the midfield (and he's one of the few players on the roster that actually provides width). Beasley is an ok fill-in, but not a guy you want playing LB against the best international sides out there (I actually wouldn't hate to see Beasley play LM on top of Johnson since we know Beasley can be a true wide option). Castillo is kind of a disaster. On the wings, if Fabian stays back at LB, Donovan and Zusi are probably your best wide options (though I read a compelling argument for Donovan as super sub - like Fielhaber in '10, but better). If Brek Shea can find his way into Stoke's XI, he might be able to get himself into the mix. Joe Corona or Alejandro Bedoya could be there. I don't think Holden has ever looked very comfortable out wide, but I'm sure Klinnsman will try him out there if Holden can stay on the field this season. As to the starting lineup for Brazil, I think we see: Jozy Zusi-Dempsey-Donovan Bradley-Jones F. Johnson-Besler-Gonzalez-Chandler Howard

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 12:50 PM) You honestly don't see the exponential increase in the possibility of danger and generally horrible altercations when you start attacking people who are following you because you think they are crazy-ass crackers? I have used this example in this thread before... but if someone were following my wife when she was out on a run... speeding up when she sped up, slowing down when she slowed down, I would think it would be reasonable for my wife to spray that person with pepper spray. Taking the slur out of the equation, Martin would be pretty reasonable in think the person who was following him was a crazy-ass. Of the actions in this case, I find Martin attacking the person that is following him (if that is in fact what happened) as being much more reasonable than the action of the person following him in the first place.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 12:23 PM) he was UNRECOGNIZED by the neighborhood watch. He called reporting someone he didn't know walking in the dark and rain, in an area where there had been recent breakins and followed. I see zero wrong with any of that. Who the hell cares if he's unrecognized by the neighborhood watch? He's walking on the freaking sidewalk... Martin is NOT BREAKING THE LAW!! He's not creating a disturbance. He's not peering in windows. If all Zimmerman does is call the cops, Martin is severely inconvenienced, but he's still alive. If Zimmerman does not follow Martin, Martin does not die that night. That fact is absolutely not subject to dispute. Do you see zero wrong with that as well?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 12:16 PM) Look at a map of the neighborhood. the sidewalk was between the rows of houses, not bordering the street. That is why Zimmerman had to get out of his car. The only reason to be on that sidewalk is if your house is on that sidewalk. Being unrecognized, he is suspicious. Were those sidewalks on private property? Do you need a permit to be on the those sidewalks? Was Martin engaging in some kind of illegal behavior by walking on the sidewalks? Prior to Zimmerman following Martin, Martin was not breaking any laws. Zimmerman followed him. Martin ends up dead. That death is a tragedy.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:55 AM) Nice to see all the people on here who would just do nothing if they noticed a strange person walking around their neighborhood in the dark rain for 20 minutes or more, when the whole neighborhood is only about 3 blocks long. Don't look twice at him, that might be profiling, and certainly don't call the police, if he happens to be black that's racist. Walking on the sidewalk. He's not walking on people's lawns and peering in windows. He's not walking up the driveway of a house where you know the owner is on vacation. He's just walking around the neighborhood... on the sidewalk. While it's unreasonable (in my opinion) to call the police in that situation, it is certainly a better option than following him around and creating a confrontation. I don't know how the jury comes out on this. I think there's a decent chance the self-defense argument sticks given the level of the burden. But I think Zimmerman will be paying the Martin family a significant amount of money if there's a civil trial with a reduced burden. The other point that cannot be driven home enough is this: Martin was not breaking the law. Zimmerman followed a 17 year old kid while carrying a firearm. Zimmerman's act of following Martin led to the confrontation. As a result, Martin is dead. Anyone that fails to see the tragedy in Martin's death... I just don't know what to say...

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 11, 2013 -> 01:21 PM) Well golly gee. 50-50 to get to the conference finals? Yayyyyy!!! What was I thinking? #strivetobethe90sknicks Didn't the '94 Knicks make the Finals in Jordan's first year of retirement? If the current version of the Bulls is similar to the Knicks, then it means their route to the Finals is blocked by the most dominant player in the league. Not sure how you get beyond that... Would you rather have the Bulls roster this year or the Nets? In cap hell, with no real assets going forward, and maybe a 2 year window to win? I'm not real happy about the idea of extending Deng, but I don't really understand all the hand wringing about this offseason.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 11, 2013 -> 10:53 AM) Is it legal to do that? Charge people with multiple charges on one specific crime? Yes. You can bring multiple charges for one crime. There's also a legal doctrine of "lesser included offense." Basically, the doctrine says that if you are charged with Murder 1, and Murder 2 and Murder 3 are not pled, but require the same elements of proof, a jury can be instructed that they can find the defendant guilty on the lesser offense. I haven't followed the Zimmerman case close enough to opine on that, but I assume that's the legal theory in play here. Edit: Per the article linked below, the prosecution tried two theories. One is that manslaughter is a lesser included offense... which the judge said is correct. The second is that third degree felony murder is a lesser included offense because of the child abuse angle Jenks referenced above, to which the defense, probably rightly, is furious with. That issue has not been rule upon. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-575...er-judge-rules/

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 9, 2013 -> 09:39 AM) When I was living with my ex 3 years ago, this is exactly what happened to me. I did Yoga with her and got absolutely punked trying to do some of the stretches. I go to a yoga class specifically geared toward men. It's pretty great because we are all runners/cyclists who are terribly inflexible. I'm sure someone watching our class would get a lot of enjoyment out of the ineptitude. So, I guess my point in this is that, if you are self-concious about your flexibility, you might want to see if there are any male only classes available and geared toward beginners.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 3, 2013 -> 03:22 PM) They are. You are right. My bad.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 3, 2013 -> 03:11 PM) Surrounding superstars with elite talent is hard. Look at the Knicks, Nets as examples of teams that got their guy but couldn't get over the top. Or teams that made moves for the sake of making moves. The Bulls are in a position to be very competitive this year. And if Rose is back, the Bulls stay healthy, and they catch a couple breaks against Miami, they could make the Finals this year. The Bulls are also in a good position going forward. They have two valuable assets that will get more valuable with time (Mirotic as he gets closer to the League and the Charlotte pick as they continue to be terrible). The Bulls didn't need to panic trade for Bargaini or KG/Pierce. They don't need to pay the tax right now. They don't need to sacrifice the future to be good now. San Antonio gets all kinds of praise for not making panic moves (and the one FA splash I can think of - Richard Jefferson - was an absolute disaster). The Bulls front office deserves praise for not making moves for the sake of making moves.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 3, 2013 -> 02:48 PM) Being a third wheel doesn't help your numbers. He had plenty of minutes and plenty of shots. He did not play well in the '12 Finals. But if you were GarPax, what would you have offered for Harden? Don't say, "the Bulls should have gotten the deal done!" Tell me how they could have gotten it done. I hear what you were saying earlier about bad contracts hampering the Bulls. Boozer's deal certainly hurts the Bulls flexibility and was a terrible overpay (even at the time). The fact is that there are very, very few difference makers in the NBA. Of the stars traded over the last several years, Paul and Deron are irrelevant to the Bulls argument because of Rose. Rose and Melo would have had a very difficult time coexisting. Howard is flaky and would have cost a LOT for what could have ultimately been a rental. Harden I've addressed (and even if I concede Harden, it's not like the Bulls have missed a ton of opportunities here).

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 3, 2013 -> 02:39 PM) Even if this were true, which it wasn't, it just means that would have been the perfect time to figure this out. Harden's Finals point totals: 5, 21, 9, 8 and 19. He was 2-10 from the floor in both games 3 and 4. Everyone knew Harden was good. No one expected Harden would be as good as he was this past season. And, again, even if the Bulls had seen Harden's '13 coming, do you honestly think the Bulls had the assets to beat what Houston gave up?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 3, 2013 -> 02:05 PM) Harden would look pretty f'n good on the Bulls team, and i'm sure the cap gurus could have figured out the appropriate set of players to get it done. I don't have a good enough NBA memory to know what major guys have been put up as trade bait the last several years, but there have been plenty. It's not like major players don't get traded in this league. And even if those trades weren't publicly discussed, the fact is the Bulls COULD have been making calls to see what it would take to get certain guys with the assets they have. And all of the insiders have said the Bulls just don't do that. Wasn't Kobe at one point seriously considering a move and Chicago was a team on his list and the Bulls refused to give up Deng? OKC got Kevin Martin, Jeremy Lamb, 2 1s and a 2 in the Harden trade. Objectively, the Houston 1s were always going to be better than picks offered by the Bulls. Additionally, in Martin, OKC got a player they were hoping would give back a decent amount of Harden's production and a young asset in Lamb (who, remember, was a lottery pick in '12). Who could the Bulls have offered OKC that would have made this work? Butler? Hadn't proven anything yet. Deng? Boozer? Why would OKC have wanted those assets. The Charlotte pick and Mirotic would have been intriguing, but OKC wanted pieces to help them win NOW. The Bulls just didn't have the pieces to move for Harden (who, by the way, was coming off a particuarly bad Finals and who certainly wasn't a definite star at the time of the trade). You don't make a move for the sake of making a move when you are in the Bulls position. You make a move that will put you over the top. The last time Rose was healthy in the playoffs, the Bulls made the ECF!

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jun 30, 2013 -> 08:54 PM) In Zimmerman's warped mind frame at the time, Martin trying to lose him may have also looked like a criminal trying to flee. The bolded is the important thing here. Zimmerman was not acting like a reasonable person when he followed Martin. If Martin was on a neighbor's lawn, looking in the windows, etc., it's a very different analysis. But based on everything I have heard, Martin was just walking on the sidewalk. That's the tragic thing here. Whatever caused Zimmerman to follow Martin, whether it was racism, some misplaced idea of justice, or even legitimate concern for his neighbors, Martin wasn't doing anything wrong when he was walking on the sidewalks of this development. But for Zimmerman's acts, Martin would still be alive. And regardless of the outcome of this trial, Martin's death is tragic because it absolutely did not need to happen.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 08:54 AM) It's threatening behavior and I wouldn't exactly feel great about it, but if you just turned around and shot that person would that be legit under stand your ground or self defense? No way. There's no way a jury would consider that a reasonable fear of imminent death/great bodily harm. And again, let's use the evidence we have which is Martin's statements to his friend. He's more pissed off about it than afraid. Stand Your Ground is an odd law if it can be applied in this context. Let's say that the facts are exactly as Zimmerman alleges. Zimmerman follows Martin. Martin gets mad and attacks Zimmerman. Zimmerman is getting his head slammed against the concrete, pulls the trigger and kills Martin. Here's my issue with this whole thing. Zimmerman clearly starts this entire encounter. But for his act of following Martin, no fight ensues, and Martin is still alive. Why should the guy whose action started the entire encounter get the benefit of SYG? Basically seems to ok the use of deadly force any time someone is losing a fight, regardless of who was at fault in starting the fight. That, to me, just does not seem like a just result. And why do we need SYG when there are already a number of instances in which self defense can be claimed? Edit: and the first paragraph is not what happened. Martin wasn't armed. Didn't just turn around and shoot someone. The better question for the first paragraph is that, if someone has been following you for 20 minutes, would that person be justified in confronting the follower? If my wife was out of a run and some creepy dude was following her for 20 minutes, I would hope if he approached her, she would be justified in pepper spraying his face.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 04:00 PM) If I see kids I don't know checking out that empty house, or walking up the driveway, I sure keep my eye on them. When they disappeared around the side, I walked a bit to see that the side door was open, so I called. Yeah. And like Jenks said, you just love to ignore context. recent breakins, unknown person, all that adds into perceptions. But you just look at race, it seems. I'm sure you can see the difference between "walking on the sidewalk" and "disappearing around the side of an empty house that has been broken into before" or "walking up the driveway of an empty house." Two of those things are suspicious behavior. One of them is absolutely not.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 03:41 PM) Well, if he started his call 'there's some guilty looking black kid walking down the street...', it would be worse than 'there is a suspicious kid walking down the street'. Race shouldn't matter in most of your arguments you have used throughout here. The kid was suspicious regardless of his color. Unrecognized, looking lost, recent break ins, dark, raining, all enough to warrant a closer look. I think the biggest outrage in the Martin saga comes from people's definition of "suspicious." Taking race out of the equation entirely, Martin was a 17 year old kid, walking on the sidewalk, wearing a hooded sweatshirt. He wasn't on people's lawns. He wasn't peering into windows. He was just walking. Add his race into the equation and you can see why this became such an ordeal. Anecdotal evidence of my own. My house was broken into last July while I was at work. It was in broad daylight, only electronics in sight were taken. Clearly the work of youths. Fast forward. If a youth is walking past my house, that's not suspicious behavior. If a youth is loitering in front of my house, slightly more suspicious. But even after being the victim of a property crime, if a kid walks past my house, it would not be a reasonable impulse for me to follow them down the street.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 02:52 PM) He could have run after him and still maintained 20-25 feet of distance. That's not escalating anything, that's just keeping your eye on someone you think is suspicious. I totally agree this should have all been avoided and that it's a sad story. But that doesn't equate to a guy going to jail for a long time over a mistake of trying to play cop a little too much. Come on now Jenks. If I'm out walking my dog and someone starts following me, stopping when I stop, speeding up when I speed up, I'm absolutely going to feel threatened by that situation. If I'm going for a run and somebody is following me in their car, turning when I turn, stopping if I stop, I'm absolutely going to feel threatened by that situation. The mere act of following ABSOLUTELY escalates the situation. This doesn't equate to a guy going to jail for trying to play cop to much. If convicted, it's a guy going to jail for taking an innocent 17 year old's life.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 11:22 AM) In the books i've read on Lincoln, i've never read that he believed that blacks were not equal with whites. He had a very realistic opinion that slaves were not going to be accepted into society and it was going to be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for them to fully integrate. And yes, he changed his mind on if slavery should be allowed in the south in order to preserve the union but that was because he knew that it would eventually die out. It was much more a "should we intervene in this issue or let it die out naturally" argument, not whether it was acceptable or not. As a teenager and young lawyer he wrote about how he believed slavery was awful. I'll check the book out and see what it says. I don't doubt people can change their minds. But again, i'm talking about politicians who debated over a bill and then signed it knowing full well what they were doing was denying federal recognition of marriage for homosexuals, and now they're claiming that it's great that the awful bill they signed is no more. I think it's just further proof that politicians are awful, corrupt people who sell their souls to stay in office. They have no principles, one way or the other. Jenks: Not sure if you read Team of Rivals by Goodwin (the book Lincoln the movie was based on), but she provides a lot of evidence of the following: (1) Lincoln believed that the Constitution protected salvery in the South but that the Founders intended for slavery to remain confined to the South and would ultimately be extinguished on its own accord; and (2) that Lincoln was a supporter of the Black Laws which indicated that blacks could not sit on juries, etc. Goodwin explained that Lincoln's beliefs on the relative inferiority of one race to the other was the mainstream view in the 1850s. Moving this to contemporary times, I think it's the mark of an effective leader if someone can say, "I was wrong" about a belief in the past. I understand that's not what some politicians who voted for DOMA said, but the ability to change your position is a good trait in a leader. Additionally, it's pretty ridiculous to ignore the societal shift on gay marriage since DOMA was passed. Look at the characterization of gay characters in popular culture just in the last decade... it is not in the least bit unreasonable that politicians would have actually changed their stance on the issue in the last 17 years.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 19, 2013 -> 10:06 AM) So are you suggesting that the Spurs would have been better off with no review? Pops was calling for the damn thing, and it NEEDED to be reviewed. Also, Van Gundy pointed out that it also gave the Spurs time to draw up a play. People need to stop spinning everything just to hate on the Heat and the refs. Yes. I am not suggesting that, I am flat out saying that the Spurs would have been better off without the review. Not a lot of plays you can draw up to get a good look going the length of the floor with 5.2 seconds left against a set defense. The best way to get a good look in that scenario is to let your guys go and try to get an open look in semi transition before the defense gets set. I would have been saying the same thing if a Ginobli three had tied the game and been reviewed. I understand that, under the current system, that play had to be reviewed, but the review helped the Heat much more than it helped the Spurs (and, as has been noted, Pop was furious about the review).

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 19, 2013 -> 09:27 AM) And the Spurs got away with some blantant hacks too. For the most part, they let them play on both ends, and that's what we'd all want to see if it didn't involve the Heat. Everyone needs to pull away from the Heat hate and just enjoy a great game. The decision that no one is talking about was the review of the Allen three at the end of regulation. In that situation, the easiest way for the Spurs to score is to inbound and go before Miami can set its defense and hope to get a good look in semi transition. As neither team had a timeout, that review gave the Heat the ability to set their defense without the ball being advanced. With that being said, hats off to the Heat for pulling out an absolutely epic game. Lebron's 4th quarter (until Wade came back in and Spoelstra immediately ran a post up for Wade out of a timeout) was absolutely incredible. Hope Game 7 delivers...

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 19, 2013 -> 08:09 AM) The US never plays well in Costa Rica and they are playing the game at that hellhole Saprissa, so doubtful US qualifies then, but it's nice to have them in such a good position already. This. With two of the most difficult matches ahead in the next set of qualifiers, it is very nice for the US to be sitting 5 points clear of third and six clear of 4th. Get any points in the next set (@Costa Rica, home Mexico), and they will still be in great shape as far as qualifying goes. Jozy Altidore with just a beastly June. Will be interesting to see what happens with his club career because, between his club form (31 goals this year), his recent international form (4 goals in 4 games), and his age (23), there will be a lot of clubs with interest. Hopefully he lands in a good spot because there is not much (any) depth behind him at striker as of today, and the year before a World Cup is not an ideal time for Jozy to be trying to find playing time somewhere...