illinilaw08

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jun 12, 2013 -> 08:05 AM) That was probably the best 90 minutes I've seen the national team play since the 2009 Confederations Cup semi vs Spain. Michael Bradley is officially a world class player. And Jozy is playing himself (and AZ) into a pretty lucrative transfer deal this summer I believe. It will be interesting to see what JK does with Jones and Cameron. Cameron played a great game in the middle there alongside Bradley. Agreed with everything you just said. Cameron's performance, I think, allows JK to be extra cautious with Jones coming off a concusion. I also think Fabian Johnson heads back to LB (the Beasley yellow late was the only blemish on an otherwise great performance) with Eddie Johnson getting the start at the left side against Honduras. Jozy was just beastly last night. The turn where he was denied a penalty was spectacular. And Jozy and Dempsey finally appear to be on the same page. The backheel by Dempsey to Jozy freeing him for space to rocket one on net that led to Dempsey hitting the bar on the rebound was great stuff. The US has really struggled to create chances in the JK era. They created them in spades last night. Credit Cameron and Bradley who owned the midfield. Keep the momentum going and get three more points next week in Utah (against a good Honduras side). 5 up on Mexico with 4 to go would be an absolute dream...

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 08:39 AM) I believe that was the first time we've won in Jamaica, which is shocking, so no matter how it looked a win is a win. Mexico has looked really bad in qualifying. Another 0-0 draw for them. Blas Perez did not make the trip to Seattle for Panama so that should make it even easier for us. I expect a relatively easy 3-1 win tomorrow night. Should be an odd field tonight. The grass on top of the turf in Seattle apparently takes away a lot of the bounce on the ball. Hopefully the guys can adjust. BUT Seattle should bring the most pro-US crowd possible. Not good to be down Zusi and Jones tonight, especially since Zusi has been on the same page with Jozy the last two matches. Panama is definitely going to be playing for a draw, especially without Perez, as they are sitting on 6 points through 4 games. Would be very nice for the US to get three points tonight.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 11, 2013 -> 08:49 AM) That's the thing, in addition to any excuses, refinery issues or supply issues they can come up with, which add 50-60 cents per gallon, in Chicago, add another 60 cents per gallon in taxes, that's easily over a dollar. Chicago taxes have nothing to do with the fact that gas in Indy is over $4.00 per gallon and are .50 to .60 per gallon higher than they should be. This current spike in prices is all because of the refinery issues.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 01:07 PM) He'd have to take another 6-7 years to finish a book and a half (if he's truly done with half of book 6) for this to be a problem. Next season is the 2nd half of book 3, and books 4 and 5 can be stretched out to 3 seasons if need be. There's plenty of source material to keep this thing going until he finishes the books. In the article they cite to the following concerns: 1) Direct quote from Benioff, "If we tried to turn this into a 10-season show we’d strangle the golden goose.” 2) Salary negotiations with a massive cast (they made it work with the Sopranos, but it's an issue out there) and 3) Lots of kids in the cast who are going to age quickly. Additionally, it took Martin 5 years to write Book 4 and 6 years to write Book 5. It certainly is not a stretch to say that it might take Martin more than 6-7 years to write a book and a half (and per Wikipedia, a lot of the "finished" pages of Book 6 are scenes he initially intended to include in Book 5). There is certainly plenty of source material to stretch this out indefinitely, but there are certainly issues for HBO if Book 6 is released in 2016.

Entertainment Weekly article with Martin and the HBO guys. HBO is beginning to realize how terribly slow Martin is at writing books... Not sure what thread this really belongs in, but there aren't any spoilers in the article. Lots of interesting issues for the TV show that Martin appears fairly oblivious toward... http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/06/09/game-of-thrones-future/

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ May 29, 2013 -> 09:10 AM) Last year's team was a lot more dynamic, but incredibly inefficient. Betrand is about as efficient as a guard can get. Starks and Rice too are efficient players. We will see how it plays out. Bertrand is efficient within a very small sample size. If his shots go up, I expect efficiency will go down. Likewise, I thought Rice was fairly inefficient while at Drake. Illinois is trying to replace a LOT of production this year. Without sizable increases in production from Egwu and Abrams, Rice being able to replace the majority of Paul's scoring, and Ekey/Starks giving the Illini a semblance of a perimeter threat, next year is going to be a struggle to the middle of the B1G. There are a lot of good pieces in place but almost no experience. The freshman class is talented, but likely short on instant impact talent. Let's temper expectations please.

Apologies if this has already been covered in this thread, but has anyone read the Dark Towers series from Stephen King? Seems like a very large committment and I'd like some thoughts before I dive in.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ May 19, 2013 -> 01:47 PM) As I said, I don't expect Indiana to win because the Heat are very good. However, I'd say getting two is highly possible. If the Bulls can get one and hang in two others with half a roster, it's not that much of a stretch that the Pacers can get a pair considering they play a similar style. To me, the Pacers chances hinge almost entirely on whether or not Hibbert can be a factor defensively in this series. When the Heat go small and stash Bosh in the corner on offense, can Hibbert provide effective help when Lebron and Wade drive? Hibbert is pretty limited on the offensive end (decent array of post moves, but not an overpowering scorer, not a great passer out of the post). If Hibbert is able to impact the series defensively, I think the Pacers lose in 6.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 17, 2013 -> 11:11 AM) Then you have to decide if Kevin Love is the guy who takes you to the next level. I don't know that a low percentage big chucking threes fixes the needs of this roster. When healthy he does get to the line a lot, though, which is very nice. Rose and Love both shooting 41-44% on a f***ton of shots could be painful. I agree. In a world where the TWolves are shopping Love, the questions for the Bulls are the following: 1) Is Love the right second scorer to pair with Rose (injury issues, efficiency concerns); 2) If you choose not to go after Love, where are you going to find that second scorer (holding on to the hope that either Mirotic is that guy (unlikely) or that you hit the lottery with the Charlotte pick); and 3) Do you think you can beat Miami next year if the full roster is healthy (one last run with Deng who I assume is not re-signed after '14 unless he takes a very large paycut). There is a certain amount of risk in moving for Love, but if he's available and the Bulls have the assets to get it done, I think the Bulls have to make that move.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ May 16, 2013 -> 03:20 PM) Pointless talking about Love. Bulls have nothing in players/assets that would peak any interest (not that they have any interest in trading him anyway). Bulls absolutely have assets IF the TWolves decide to move Love (which is probably a big IF): Deng or Boozer to make salaries work and 2 of Butler/Mirotic/Charlotte pick. Mirotic is a high lottery pick if he was eligible for this year's draft and the odds of Charlotte turning things around by 2016 is, well, pretty unlikely, so the value of that pick is high. If the TWolves decided that they had no chance of resigning Love and attempt to maximize value in return, can you see anyone else with better assets to make a deal?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 14, 2013 -> 01:19 PM) It MAY. There is no substantial evidence to prove that it does. The reality is that a parents role/influence is magnitudes more important than what a child sees on tv. And that mother would be better suited speaking to her child and explaining why that child is special for who they are, as opposed to trying to argue that somehow the tv needs to be changed. I guess I just dont start burning effigies unless Im given real evidence of a crime. Right. It may. Pages ago, you were arguing that if it impacts girls, it must impact boys in the same way. And that argument said that media portrayal would drive little boys to become steroid users. My argument throughout has been that the depiction of male leads is very, very different than female leads. That bulimia and anorexia hit young women at a rate 9x that of males. And that the evidence on the steroid usage was not broken down by gender other than to say that 1 in 3 high school boys admitted using protein shakes to 1 in 5 females. Parents have a huge role. But so do the people your kids see on tv. That's why, coaching and parenting be damned, I thought I should hit a baseball out on my front foot, because that's what Frank Thomas did. Environment plays a huge role. Bullying plays a huge role. But if you can't see that there is a difference in the way that women and men are portrayed in the media, you are being willfully blind. And if you can't see that a correlation may exist between that portrayal and higher incidences of bulimia and anorexia, I don't know what to say.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 14, 2013 -> 01:11 PM) You are trying to hit a moving target it wont happen. There are tons of plausible explanations for why anorexia/bulimia exist entirely independent of media culture. If we actually look at what people who treat the disorder say: http://health.usnews.com/health-news/famil...ds-keeps-rising Rosen and his colleagues pored over more than 200 recent studies on eating disorders. While much is unknown about what triggers these conditions, experts now understand it takes more than media images of very thin women, although that's not to say those don't play a role, Rosen said. Its pretty much like drugs, blame the media. If only the media didnt glorify drug use, no one would use drugs. Yeah, it's not just the "ideal" female form that causes healthy girls to have bulimia and anorexia, but they certainly play a role. Why does it happen to women at a rate 9x that of men?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 14, 2013 -> 12:56 PM) Illini, First we need to separate the modeling. Models are abnormal. Most actresses are not model thin. Many people dont even find that thin attractive. It just happens that clothing designers (who strangely arent the macho men that seem to scare people at night) are fascinated with thin girls that look like young boys... Im not sure I need to explain that one further. Part of the problem with self image issues is that they are created by an individual. It doesnt matter if Im in fact thin, it matters what I think. There is just simply no evidence to suggest that what Disney or any media company is doing, is having a dramatic impact on eating disorder rates. here is an old British study: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/186/2/132.full.pdf Youll notice Anorexia stays constant, while bulimia peaks and then falls. I guess my biggest issue is that there really is very little evidence that the media has any actual influence on the rate of these disorders. Mental disorders are about an individual. The most beautiful girl in the world can have an eating disorder. It doesnt matter what the tv tells her, it doesnt matter what people tell her, it matters what she thinks. That is why many very thin girls have anorexia and bulimia, because its not based on reason, its based on a warped mental image. If you want to stop bulimia and anorexia, you are likely to have more success by targeting bullies, etc and trying to prevent children from getting a mental scar early, than you would by yelling about the image Disney portrays. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/anorexia/...DSECTION=causes Per the Mayo Clinic, among other things, "Modern Western culture emphasizes thinness. The media are splashed with images of thin models and actors. Success and worth are often equated with being thin. Peer pressure may help fuel the desire to be thin, particularly among young girls."

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 14, 2013 -> 12:49 PM) Let's be fair though - the woman of Hollywood aren't anorexic. They're healthy women who are probably skinnier than their average counterpart, but not unhealthy looking. But they don't show a wide array of healthy body types. It's very possible for a woman to be healthy without being a twig. And that body type is very, very rarely depicted in Hollywood.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 14, 2013 -> 12:36 PM) And even that isn't sustainable over the long-term...I remember the main model for Men's Health said he had to work out 3-4 hours a day to be in that kind of shape. Tell me that is more attainable than staying thin. IT'S MORE HEALTHY THAN STAYING THIN. And it isn't just thin vs. not thin. It's unhealthy thin. Going back to the Wikipedia entry on bulimia, the majority of women with bulimia are a HEALTHY WEIGHT TO BEGIN WITH. More from Jessica Clark from True Blood in Runner's World, http://www.runnersworld.com/celebrity-runn...ark?page=single "The fashion model aesthetic is evolving a little bit, but they still, overall, don't want you to be too defined. I always thought they wanted me to be "skinny fat" and not necessarily have a lot of lean muscle. I don't have the type of physique where I bulk up at all, but I do get extremely lean and you can definitely see the definition of my muscles, which I like and a lot of people like, and I think that's beautiful and powerful and sexy. But I did feel a sort of pressure to stay away from that. For example, generally speaking, they don't want you to have a six-pack; they don't want to see any lower-ab definition." Working out 2-3 hours per day to attain a certain body is very different from a look that is literally unattainable with exercise because exercise yields too much definition.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 14, 2013 -> 12:21 PM) I'd argue that the image portrayed by many male leads is not particularly attainable either. Just like women starve themselves and take a regimen of diet pills and fat burners, the men are taking syringes in their asses. Neither are healthy and neither are easily attainable. Should I taking testosterone supplements because my body has naturally slowed down its production? Something tells me that long term that would not be healthy. My guess is the reason you're saying the female ideal is unhealthy while the male ideal is healthy is because the habits to achieve the former have been covered by the media a LOT more than those to achieve the latter. No, I can show that young women, to acheive the "ideal" level of thin resort to eating disorders that weaken them. But not just that, the "ideal" female body type actually makes those women weaker and unhealthy. While men may decide that they need to bulk up to reach the "ideal" male body type, it's distinguishable for a number of reasons: 1) Not every male lead looks like an extra in "300." 2) The "ideal" male is strong and healthy. You get there by playing sports and working out. 3) The cause of high steroid use in high schoolers does not define steroid use across gender lines. Rather it says 1 in 5 high schoolers use steroids. Why they do that could be because Hollywood and ESPN makes them think strong gets the girls. Or they could be doing that to increase performance in sports. In either event, the "ideal" female form weakens. The "ideal" male form is strong and self confident. 4) Paul Rudd, Jason Segel, Jason Bateman, Seth Rogen, Toby McGuire, Leo DiCaprio, Kevin James, Adam Sandler. Those guys are regular guys physically. Not muscled up. Not roided up. There are much more positive body images available to men in the media than to women.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 14, 2013 -> 12:04 PM) Illini, To the best of my knowledge Disney isnt portraying an princess with an eating issue. I dont know if there is an actual correlation between Disney princesses and the eating disorders. What I can say is that if you are going to argue that the media can impact children negatively and cause disorders, that we should be honest and admit that it likely affects boys and girls equally. Unless of course we are arguing that girls are somehow different than boys and therefore are more susceptible to the media. But I dont believe that, I think boys and girls are equal. No, the princesses don't have eating disorders. But they do have a body type that isn't an attainable body type. From the Wikipedia article on Bulimia, "The media projects a thin-ideal rather than a healthy-ideal, and this causes women and young girls to work toward having a thin body even if it means purging.[13]" From an article in Runner's World with Jessica Clark from True Blood, "The physical requirements of modeling are very specific: They need you to be extremely thin. I got into a lot of unhealthy habits, which I think is very common for a lot of us, especially at that young age and dealing with that kind of pressure. I wasn't feeling very good, either mentally or physically, for a long time. It got to a point where I consciously needed to and wanted to get healthy. I was tired of feeling so weak and frail and exhausted all the time, and I thought there had to be a different way to do this and so I started running." The "ideal" female body image portrayed by the media is an unhealthy one that leads women to have specific eating disorders at a rate 9x that of men. The "ideal" male body image is a much healthier image, even if it (arguably) leads males to take shortcuts (steroids) to get there.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 14, 2013 -> 11:51 AM) Absolutely. Ive never said anything contrary. Those are major issues. I just think its hypocritical to scream about how girls are portrayed and not even mention how boys are portrayed. That is my entire argument, that if you are going to b**** at Disney, b**** at them about ALL CHARACTERS, not just female. That seems pretty reasonable to me. One difference. I can show that media portrayal of women in the media leads to bulimia and anorexia in women with a frequency of 9x that of men. While the figures on steroid use aren't clear in the articles you linked, they show high incidences of use of protein shakes (which don't have negative side effects - maybe I'm ignorant, but why is that included - but I digress) in both genders. Ergo, I can't point to the Disney portrayal of heroes as leading to negative male body image (not to mention that the Disney Princesses clearly target young girls over boys). I can with women. Maybe I'm arguing semantics here.... EDIT: The other difference is that anroexia and bulimia make you weaker. Not stronger. There are plenty of people that debate the actual harmful effects of PEDs. Everyone agrees that bulimia and anorexia are major health issues.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 14, 2013 -> 11:37 AM) http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/drug...increase-muscle 1 in 20 use steroids. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cont...2-0095.abstract Not a problem at all. Fair enough. Steroid use is a bigger problem in high school than I was aware. Will you, perhaps, concede that bulimia and anorexia are a major helath issue amongst high school girls and that it derives from a standard that makes healthy girls think they are unattractive if they aren't model thin? And that popular culture helps to push an unhelathy standard for women?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 14, 2013 -> 11:29 AM) Steroids help you work out, they dont cause any serious medical issues for a 13 year old? If you can show me stats that 13 year old boys are using steroids in a proportion anywhere close to the amount of 13 year old girls that are bulimic or anorexic, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Until that time, it's a ridiculous comparison. And as already noted in the thread, bulimia and anorexia hit young women at a rate 9x that of men. AND the majority of those it impacts are healthy women. But yeah, let's equate that to the 13 year old boys that are using steroids...

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 14, 2013 -> 11:17 AM) Why can't he? One is a serious medical issue. The other helps you work out. How are they even remotely similar?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 14, 2013 -> 11:14 AM) It stands to reason that boys wouldnt suffer bulimia or anorexia, boy images are shown as big and tough. If I watch Disney movies, I want to be strong, like Prince Charming, Simba. That makes me take steroids, testosterone, protein shakes, etc. Nothing will change unless we are going to try and completely rewire human behavior. Are you seriously comparing protein shakes and working out to eating disorders?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 14, 2013 -> 11:02 AM) I find it hard to believe that we have an epidemic of 5-10 year old girls suffering from bulemia and anorexia. From the Wikipedia article on Bulimia... "Over the years the size and weight of the average woman has increased with improved nutrition. Over the years there has also been an increased message from the media to be thin. The media projects a thin-ideal rather than a healthy-ideal, and this causes women and young girls to work toward having a thin body even if it means purging.[13]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulimia_nervosa Maybe I should have phrased my early comment as "adolescents" or "young women," but the point stands that body image problems, whilecertainly prevalent in both sexes, lead to eating disorders far more frequently in teenage girls than in teenage boys. Changing a successful movie character's appearance to make her part of an exclusive Disney club doesn't help with that. Is it the worst thing that has happened this week? Obviously not. Is it an issue? Absolutely.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 14, 2013 -> 10:37 AM) My problem is it's (1) super cheesy, (2) repetitive (3) all of the characters are terrible. If you watch that show and then immediately watch a good ensemble friends comedy, like New Girl, you'll see how awful it is. I agree. I loved the first two seasons. Show has gone steadily downhill since. For those interested in the final season... http://www.hitfix.com/whats-alan-watching/...what-comes-next

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 14, 2013 -> 10:30 AM) If you teach your kids that cartoons are - gasp! - FAKE and that it's pretend, this shouldn't be an issue. And frankly, if people are going to argue this point seriously, the original drawing wasn't exactly helping young fat girls to handle their body type very well. Look at the mom in that movie and the daughter. Both slim, great hair, facial features, etc. Regardless of what type of parents you are, kids are going to look up to their favorite fictional characters and their favorite athletes. I have great parents, but try as my dad and baseball coaches might, I still thought I should be out on my front foot with my back foot off the ground to drive the ball because that's what Frank Thomas did. Plenty of young girls have issues with bulemia (sp) and anorexia. They can't possibly all have bad parents.