farmteam

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 11:51 AM) And the new coach won't be coming into a team devoid of talent either. James and Hill will stay committed if you hire a competent coach, you have 3 freshmen that have showed flashes this year and Bertrand still has two years left. If Paul doesn't go pro you have the talent to be good (not great but good) right away. If Leonard stays and the team is actually coached properly they could be top 15 right off the bat. This isn't an Indiana rebuilding job. Your painfully true words bring back terrible memories of the team during my time there.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 07:59 AM) Good post, FT... I doubt there is a legitimate false imprisonment charge...they would have alleged it had it been the case. My guess is the reason they didn't allege it is exactly what you guys pointed out...she made no effort to leave. And Tex is right, the defense would simply argue they locked the door to keep the conversation private (by keeping others out), not to try and lock her in. In a practical sense, however, I'd be willing to bet it was done for effect as much as anything, for the sake of intimidating the girl. As for the issue of privacy, I disagree with your notion that the girl can't make her sexual preference known in one setting but still have the right to keep it secret in another. How is a high school student supposed to express, (or for lack of a better word) develop or enjoy her sexuality if it is unknown to all of her peers? As someone mentioned previously, there is an assumption made by most that people are heterosexual. In order to make it known that your preference is the same sex, you must engage in some sort of expression which makes that at least partially evident. If you're going to argue that she can't make it clear to her peers that she prefers the same sex, yet also keep this unknown to her mother, because her behavior at school destroys her expectation of privacy, I'd strongly disagree. The fact that she was able to keep it secret from her mother evidences the fact that she did have an expectation of privacy and that privacy still existed, despite her behavior at school. The school officials, minus some issue of imminent danger or harm, have no right to violate her expectation because they were not serving any interest other than some personal score of theirs. I briefly mentioned it at the end of my previous post, but is important to remember a lot of the rules get thrown out of the window (or a lot of new rules get thrown IN the window, if you prefer to think of it that way) when dealing with minors. I know you know that; I'm just stating it to give my argument a more definite context. Also, in the interest of clarity, the second bolded point is exactly what I'm arguing, as long as by "keep this unknown to her mother" you mean "legitimately seek legal recourse against those who inform her mother of her actions at school." She can try to keep it unknown from her mother all she wants; she just cannot (in my view) require, and even reasonably expect her mother not to become aware of her sexual orientation if it's common knowledge among a diverse group of people (the student body). That last bit makes an assumption that I inferred from the original article -- it seems like the entire school (or at least a significant portion of) knew of her sexual orientation; if it was only a few close friends (small enough to fit the definition of "all reasonable measures to ensure the secret is kept confidential") then that is different. But if it was anything more than that, as it seems it was, then yes, she should have reasonably expected her mother might become aware of her secret; put a different way, I don't think a member of the diverse group that knows of her sexual orientation could be reasonably expected to assume her mother (or anyone else) did NOT know of her secret. That doesn't mean those who knew could still maliciously or intentionally tell her mother; that might be a different tort (probably IIED, as someone mentioned earlier). I'm speaking merely of accidental disclosure; the sort of thing you say reasonably assuming the other party knows something when in fact they don't. In this case, it looks like the coaches did do it intentionally/maliciously (though malice requires intent, so saying both might be overkill!). However, it seems you and I have moved to arguing about invasion of privacy in the more general sense of accidental disclosure (at least, by both your's and my posts, it appears we have a disagreement over this basic point, so that should probably be resolved before moving onto the malicious disclosures, and we'd probably agree pretty quickly at that point). The above is pretty much the purely legal argument I'm making; but as you've said this is more intricate because it involves a stigmatized secret (homosexuality). Perhaps you're fusing your legal and practical arguments, and I'm thinking you're blending lines you're not -- whereas, I'm keeping them separate (until I synergize them after analyzing both) as much as for my own sake as for the sake of accentuating the different positions (purely legal and purely realistic, and everything in between). You're right that coming out is an incredibly difficult decision, and while the argument I made above would not distinguish between disclosing any orientation, be it gay, straight, bi, etc., in real life there's obviously a big difference between disclosing a person disclosing their heterosexuality and another person disclosing their homosexuality (with the root of the difference perhaps being that there's no "disclosure" of heterosexuality usually, it's far more often than not assumed). What I said above ("I don't think a member of the diverse group that knows of her sexual orientation could be reasonably expected to assume her mother (or anyone else) did NOT know of her secret"), gets sort of screwed up on this point. Common Sense/Courtesy dictates that a random student (but not a close friend) of the girl wouldn't be talking to random people about her sexual orientation, because that's a characteristic that's considered to be inherently private (this is distinguished from people talking about sexual acts hetero or homosexual individuals participate in; I'm referring merely to the "state of things" as it were), in large part because homosexuals are historically pariahs. However, this is one of those things that falls in that gray area of law, where courts say "While ethically I may find your act abhorrent, it's protected, or at least not condemned, by the law." I agree with this latter view. To try to detail out all the groups you can and cannot tell a secret to would involve far more complication than courts usually think reasonable. On a slightly different note, the first bolded point brings up a good point that you might have implied but didn't state explicitly -- that if we accept the premise that we can't forbid the reasonable expression of one's sexuality, we allow the expression of that sexuality to take place, and expression inherently breaks a secret being kept in the strictest of senses. Your premise (or at least as I read it; correct me if I'm wrong) presumes a public expression of sexuality. However, as I think Soxbadger mentioned, any public act inherently can't be considered private. I agree that gays should have the same public right to reasonably expressing their sexuality as straight people do. I also agree that there isn't the worry of "disclosure" for a straight person expressing their sexuality publicly that there is for homosexuals (who are not out yet). Without that worry, straight people are allowed much greater use of that freedom. However, let us not forget the multitude of factors that go into deciding whether to come out entails (or I assume; I'm straight and thus didn't have to make that decision, but it certainly seems like there would be many considerations into it?), and this invasion of privacy is only of those factors (even if a heavily weighted factor). And this is where the crux of our disagreement comes up, I think: I consider that factor to be something considered when making the decision to come out, and once that decision is made, the individual has accepted those consequences, while you think this particular factor (invasion of privacy) should still be protected anyway (again, let me know if I'm putting words in you're mouth). I really don't intend for that to sound callous; I still certainly maintain that any intentional or malicious disclosure is probably a tort of some kind. I just mean that "coming out," at its core, centers around deciding to take this (controversial? touchy? stigmatized? I can't think of the right word) characteristic public, and doing so involves accepting the purely "accidental disclosures" I discussed at the beginning might occur.

I'm sorry to hear that. It sounds like he at least passed on his love for the Sox to you, so hopefully that can continue to bring some positive memories.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 09:13 AM) Agreed, this is a sad situation. I know it's a message board and we're all supposed to be fire-breathing assholes, but I feel bad for Bruce and the end of the road here. Last night you were listening to a man defeated. He knew it was the end. It's hard to imagine what he's feeling, don't think any of us have been in such a situation. I'm not terribly upset with his comments. Did he throw guys under the bus? Sure. But for years he's been protecting dumb, lazy players, and he finally called a spade a spade. And it's not like it was crazy, he was just defeated and was honest. I mean what exactly did he say that was incorrect or so out of line? Leonard was a dog, he's got a terrible attitude, Paul plays like an idiot (that last play is not what was drawn up at all, Paul was selfish and just stupid), DJ failed to do anything on offense. So on and so on. It IS sad that Abrams is your leader. Now yes, he recruited those lazy, dumb, etc, players. So yes, it's the end of the road. Ultimately, it's on him. I'm sad to see him go. Not in the I want him to stay kind of way, just sad that it's coming to an end. Bruce is a good guy, he ran a clean program (nothing tells me otherwise), he works very hard and cares a lot about the team and the university. But yes, the success recently wasn't there, so this is what will happen. Doesn't mean it isn't a sad time, IMO. I don't see the point in firing him now just because of those comments. He's not the first coach to call out a player or a team, whether that coach was on the hot seat or not. Will it be awkward? Sure. But maybe it will get through to them, and even if nothing happens productive this year, those players can take some of that with their career moving forward. But I think he deserves to just coach through the BTT at the least, and then we can move forward. I also don't think it looks very good to the college basketball world to fire him right now. I mean yes he won't be here next year, however I don't see all the great things that can come from him not being here and having the rest of the staff coach the rest of the way. It's not a great situation, I know. MT also said he will wait until after the season, and I don't think an 8 minute press with a defeated man after 9 years will/should change that. I wishing nothing but the best for Bruce at the next program he takes over. He was around for some great years early, and just IMO, he coached that team up to get to where they needed to be. We don't need to argue about Self recruits for the rest of the thread. But generally he's respected as a good coach, however his lack of talent (or the wrong talent) brought in ultimately hurt him. I see what he means by coaching not to lose. Obviously he was feeling everything and nowhere to go with the team, trying to win now and that's it, not thinking long term. He takes the blame for it, and it's a shame that's how it played out with the last few teams. Color me sad today just with the overall situation. I hope both the team and him can move forward over the next few years and both have success. I agree he should not be fired with only a small part of the season left anyway, but if he were fired tomorrow and that press conference was the proverbial straw, I don't think it would be because he threw his players under the bus so much as how defeated he was (not just implicitly, but what he actually said, too). That's more damaging, I think, for the man who's supposed to lead his team (and, at a Basketball school like Illinois, be the most prominent public face the University has). If this were Crean, I'd be way more upset about the apparent defeatism (not just currently, but saying he's been like that for awhile) than throwing players under the bus.

What a pathetic post game conference. That's the first time I've ever seen one this blunt that's depressing; usually if they're being really blunt they're angry.

Whew. I'll take it. As much as he angers me most of the time, I'll give VJ3 his props tonight. Only 6 points, but each of his 3 buckets came right when IU really needed it, not to mention he hasn't played in two weeks. Clutch. Also, I can't decide who I want to lose more in this game, but I decided to root for Illinois in this one. (That's option 1b. 1a is the stadium blowing up.)

QUOTE (Brian @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 02:38 PM) Yo, Steve! Anything interesting on TV tonight???? CRIMINAL MINDS. Duh.

QUOTE (Brian @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 09:43 AM) Deleted Alcatraz from DVR. Just not into it no matter how hypnotizing Rebecca's eyes are. And her bewbs. Amazed how much I dig Justified without even know the characters yet. Am I suppose to know what the letter said at the end? Did you just pick it up this season too? Never seen it before (save for part of one episode once a while back), but loving it so far.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 04:57 PM) To invalidate the POA yeah, you'd eventually need a judge/jury to agree with you. But if you can't find a doctor to declare him mentally incompetent there's no point in bringing the action for fraud or conversion in the first place. Good point.

Fascinating thread so far. Interestingly enough, I've been studying Lawrence for the past day or two. The court could easily have found for Lawrence based purely on Equal Protection grounds, and in the same stroke distinguish it from Bowers. The statute at issue in Lawrence prevented only same-sex couples from engaging in sodomy; the statute at issue in Bowers applied to everyone. However, the Court in Lawrence decided to be pretty ambitious and decide it on due process grounds also (in order to essentially invalidate ANY anti-sodomy statute). The holding was confined to the "harm principle" -- the State cannot overstep the bounds of personal liberty, unless the conduct in question brings actual "harm" to another (admittedly "harm" is pretty broad, but they seem to have meant it in a colloquial, common sense way, and not in a "BUT SEEING GAYS MARRIED MAKES ME ANGRY" way). Since sodomy was deemed not to be harming anyone, the State could thus not ban it. And just to note, this only applies to consenting adults; minors and other protected parties are a different issue. As for the invasion of privacy and false imprisonment, I generally agree with what Jenks said early in the thread. In most areas of the law, for something to be considered "private" the person who wants to keep that secret must make a reasonable effort at maintaining its privacy. This doesn't mean keep it private from certain individuals or entities; it means to keep it as private as reasonably possible. So if the student was openly out at school, it doesn't matter if she didn't want her mother to know -- she had stopped keeping it "secret" in general, and therefore destroyed its confidential nature in totality (speaking in a purely legal and not ethical sense). I see what Jenks and Soxbadger are getting at with treating homosexuality as something that should be considered inherently confidential makes gays seem inferior. It's similar logic from Plessy, and which was underlying in "separate but equal" -- to tell a class of individuals "We're treating you differently based solely on this characteristic of yours [and not in any way that's meant to protect you]" tells them they don't deserve to be treated equally, and are thus inferior. I agree with it in that sense; but from a practical point of view, it seems fairly evident that there is a stigma associated with being gay that could cause "coming out" to be a difficult and deeply personal decision that should be respected; not because as a society we think you should be treated differently, but because some elements of our society as a whole has attached that stigma. And in THAT sense, this differs from "separate but equal" in the sense that it IS meant to protect individuals, in the same the law seeks to protect minors or the mentally ill (and no, I'm not equating homosexuality with either of those two). Jenks is right as to false imprisonment (at least in many jurisdictions, not sure about Texas). It may seem odd, but courts are pretty stringent on that the person allegedly being confined had to ask to leave. It wouldn't matter that the coaches locked the door and started asking her questions. If she didn't explicitly ask to leave, false imprisonment won't hold up (some courts have even said that just asking isn't enough; the person has to actually attempt to leave). All in all, it seems like the Coaches at least overstepped their bounds and should probably be fired, but I'm not so sure about the legitimacy of this litigation, at least without more facts.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 02:09 PM) It doesn't mention it in this article, but last campaigns crack at this featured the AG of Missouri and several other prominent politicians and law enforcement personnel. Just the appearance that if you speak bad about the government the AG and police chief are gonna arrest you and press some kind of 'truth charges' is enough to evoke brownshirt comparisons. The name itself smacks of censorship, oppression and any other bad thought you would want to ascribe to it. It LOOKS bad, and it SOUNDS bad. Seriously, you guys don't see how this looks bad, AND has the potential to be REALLY bad? Hold your horses on the 1984 paranoia there. I agree that "truth teams" is sort of a weird name, and that there's definitely an Orwellian connotation to it, or at least it's plausible there could be such a connotation to it. But it's not like they're running around imprisoning people; that seems like a ridiculous stretch, based solely on the original article you posted. It seems like what Strange said -- basic grassroots campaigning, highlighted by the websites and people that try to dispel myths. Note that it's dispel these myths, and try to persuade you why they (Obama's campaigners) are right. It's not a "Censor the opposition and beat you if you agree with them" sort of thing, and I don't see the logical steps for it to become something like that.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 03:47 PM) If he just signed the POA, you could attempt to get that invalidated since he didn't have the mental capacity to sign it. That'd require something from his doctor. That's why you normally would open up an estate to get the same powers as a POA, without the need for him to agree to it. Would he just need something from a doctor? I'd think it would need to actually be adjudicated, as Soxbadger referenced. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 03:47 PM) I'd talk to an attorney about it. If you're talking about a few thousand bucks lost, since you stopped them from getting anything in the future i'd move on. At some point getting an attorney involved becomes a financial decision - is it worth it? A few thousand bucks? Probably not. I'm guessing this couple, if they're stealing from him, are a bunch of deadbeats anyway. Even if you got a judgment you couldn't collect. Tough situation. People are assholes. This is the bottom line. It sounds like the scenario where at the least it's probably worth going to an attorney and seeing not only if there might be a case, but if it's actually worth it to pursue. My guess is that it won't be.

QUOTE (Capn12 @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 04:41 AM) Not mentioning Arlandria, as pretty much the song with the most awesome around, makes me sad. Oh Arlandria was my favorite track on the album, but I was trying to find songs where there'd be a specific reason for Felix to like them, so I just said the ones with the Nirvana/Husker Du ties. Oh, and Felix, I forgot to mention that Krist Novoselic plays bass on I Should Have Known (I think it's that track; definitely one of the tracks on the album), so it's sort of cool that it was the first time in 20 years that Novoselic, Grohl and Butch Vig recorded a song together.

QUOTE (Felix @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 07:45 PM) On an unrelated note, since we've successfully threadjacked this from talking about just Pearl Jam to now talking about alt rock in general, anyone fans of the Melvins? Houdini is a fantastic album. I tried to get into the Melvins once, and couldn't do. They're the kind of band I'd be willing to give a second try to, though. And as for Wasting Light, I think White Limo is far away the most QotSA-like track. You might like "I Should Have Known" if only because it's about Cobain; I'm also a fan of "Dear Rosemary" because Bob Mould plays guitar and sings backing vocals on it. On a different note, have you heard any Howler? Local Minneapolis band I've grown fond of. Sort of like a garage surf rock. Pretty young too, I think the singer/guitarist/songwriter is only 19.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 05:20 PM) OK, seriously, does just the sound of this frighten any of the Dem trolls in this thread who are concerned about personal liberty and such? Honestly, ask yourself if you would be OK with it if the parties were switched. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/obam...--abc-news.html I don't think I qualify as a "Dem troll" but I don't see any personal liberty issue, at least for the part you quoted. I do see it as one more aspect of the whole process that will quickly devolve into (if not begin as) negative campaigning.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 05:08 PM) I don't know, I think it would be kind of funny if the Cubs broke the curse at the Cell, not at Wrigley. They have this moment they have been waiting 100+ years for, and it happens at the Cell. If the Sox hadn't won in '05, then it would bother me, but otherwise it be amusing IMO. Yeah, that would be pretty awesome. I've always said I honestly have no problems with the Cubs winning the World Series (besides the obvious fact that it means the White Sox didn't), I would just make sure I wasn't in Chicago for the entire following year or I'd kill half their fans.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 12:51 PM) It's Google. It's almost certainly responding to various cookies that have been picked up by your browser at places you've visited previously. Yeah, that's what I get for searching stuff on Gay Marriage for equal protection debates, and living in Minnesota. Like Strange said, I don't normally notice them either; I only did with this one because it was pretty outlandish (I wish I could remember what it said now that I've mentioned it twice, I just remember my feeling on it).

QUOTE (Felix @ Feb 10, 2012 -> 09:25 PM) In Utero is, and always will be, one of my top five favorite albums of all time ( is one of my favorite alt rock songs of all time), and while Nevermind was very important at the time, it really doesn't even come close to the quality that In Utero was. In Utero was a much more raw, untamed sound while Nevermind felt too almost polished (especially in relation to modern music now). I'm a much bigger Nirvana fan than Pearl Jam, but some of that is for sentimental reasons. I'm pretty lukewarm on Pearl Jam aside from Ten (which is excellent), but admittedly I haven't fully delved into their work. I've never had much motivation to do so, for one reason or another. edit: Going back and reading through some of this thread, In Utero is a superior album to both Nevermind AND Ten. Just saying In Utero is indeed a much better album in terms of quality (I find this odd, I never agree with you on music!), but when taking importance into account, Nevermind just blows passed it. Nevermind was still an awesome album, but even Cobain said he hated how polished it sounded. That's why I like In Utero -- takes a lot of the raw energy from Bleach, yet still somehow refines it and adds the band's pop sensibilities. I'm surprised more people don't love Nirvana's Unplugged album. Probably my favorite acoustic album of any artist, it's phenomenal. Nothing can give me chills like Cobain yelling/howling/rasping "shiver the whole night through" on the last refrain of "Where Did You Sleep Last Night." QUOTE (Felix @ Feb 10, 2012 -> 09:25 PM) edit2: I never thought I'd say this to a Badger fan, but holy s*** yes. Foo Fighters f***ing suck these days. I was never a huge fan in the first place, but they're borderline unlistenable and have been for a little while. Self-titled was very good, but it's been a steady downhill since. And I'm saying this as someone that loves Dave Grohl (especially as a drummer). Foo Fighters are just incredibly boring to listen to. I really love the Foo Fighters (and really really REALLY love Grohl). Even what you're probably referring to as their sucky stuff I probably like, but not as much as The Colour and the Shape (and to a just slightly lesser extent) There Is Nothing Left to Lose. Both are f***ing fantastic albums. However, I did think Wasting Light (their most recent album, came out in April 2011) was their best since There Is Nothing Left to Lose. Still not close to their first two albums, but I thought it was pretty good. I saw them this past September in St. Paul...man can they put on a show. Also, Grohl's opening to "Aneurysm" from the Paramount show was mind-blowing.

I agree with this QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 11:10 AM) To me it perfectly summed up the average voter in this country - generally ignorant and uninformed not only about the political process, but of politicians and their true motivations. and this QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 11:23 AM) I took that she meant thinks would improve under Obama to the point that these immediate concerns would no longer be as such....but maybe I am giving her the benefit of the doubt, because to think otherwise would leave me sort of incredulous...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 10:17 AM) Tangentially related, the ACLU head has offered up $1k for anyone who can bring forth documented, verifiable accounts of voter impersonation. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/w...onation-reward/ Woo hoo! It's the Minnesota chapter, so it's a way for me to money this fall! Side note: This reminds me of the targeted "Minnesota for Marriage" ads I was getting. At least one of those was downright terrible and I was kind of upset it was on the site; what's Soxtalk's ad policy? And I was actually surprised, it's usually hard for vitriolic ads to get any response from me other than laughter.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 10:38 AM) worked last time: I'm not sure what bothers me the most among all the things that could from this -- *The misrepresentation of "Obama will pay for..." (which isn't what she said). However, I understand it's easy to infer (maybe even correctly) that that's what she meant, instead of a general "He gives me hope" thing. In that case, something that bothers me is... *People who hear what they want to hear. I didn't listen to the speech in question (or maybe I did, but it appears to be from 2008 so if I did I don't remember it), but I'm guessing it was a typical "Sounds awesome, unless you read even slightly between the lines and nothing is being promised at all" type of speech. Maybe it's the cynic in me, but that's the lens through which I view every speech a politician makes; a lens which presumes we're being promised much, much less than what it seems, unless proven otherwise (proven in terms of what the speech actually said, not what happens later). However, do I put the blame on people who hear what they want to hear, or... *The politicians who tell people what they want to hear, and in a way that can save their ass later. Again, me being a cynic makes me place the blame on the people hearing the speech; the politician is just playing a role that's to his advantage; it's the people who blindly listen who give them that power. No sheep to speak to, no double-talk, or at least much less. While politicians do have the ability to just not do this (and make me happy!), it's a device too easy to use, and too often used, for me to get mad at a particular politician over it. "Just the way the game is played" is a phrase that comes to mind. *I'm not even going to touch on the "taking her daughter out of school" part in fear it could open a can of worms I want no part of. The only thing I will say is that I don't categorically oppose parents taking their children out of school for something that's beneficial (which I leave intentionally broad -- it could be a baseball game with a parent they don't see often, it could be a speech like this, whatever; depends on each parent/child); whether or not this was is the can of worms I don't want to open. The above was not directed at any party or poster (including you Jenks, though yours was the post I quoted). It just sort of touched off that occasional feeling of incredulous I get at misinformed people. Reminds me of one my first weeks of law school last year, when someone made a comment along the lines of "Well, we're all going to get really jobs out of school anyway." I felt bad for her more than anything, for committing that much money under such a dangerous misconception.

Anyone see the Google homepage today? Cute.

I was always wondering where IU recruit Ron Patterson got the nickname "Buss." http://indiana.247sports.com/Article/Not-a-Busta-61185

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/colleges/p...r-on-a-hot-seat Decent article by Bardo; nothing new really, but seems to be a good sum-up of many Illini fans feelings (at least on this board) on Weber and the program from a prominent former player.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 08:31 AM) Obviously he committed the error in honor of Jose