Jake

If you believe that Goodell is unable/unwilling to be fair—which isn't crazy to think—then destroying your phone isn't suspicious, it's keeping you from getting framed.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 05:49 PM) I despise Hillary. That's a fact. So I guess I need to know the limits. Am I allowed to continue blasting her while praising Ben and Trump? But I love women. Like I said my daughters will be surgeons and wife is pharmacist. I believe in women. As far as Hilly though I have a problem with her personality and entitlement. Women are fiction! I'm a womatheist

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 12:23 PM) A first base coach was killed by a line drive foul ball. Was it his fault for not paying attention? Fans have about the same amount of time to react as he did. Great point. And in the case of fans (at least at non-Sox ballparks), it is almost guaranteed to hit somebody even if it whizzes past one particular person

If the perps have been on the run, then someone is going to notice that 1-3 people from their social group are not around. More dangerous might be if they knew that they wouldn't be identified and are therefore just going about their days like usual.

Here's how the NY Times reported on this over a month ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/world/eu...ngham.html?_r=0

I feel like that's a really minor error in that he almost certainly attended the game and thus came when it ended and she probably didn't know or care whether he was playing.

Is that big spike between 1999 and 2004 9/11? If so, I'm surprised it's not even more of an outlier.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Aug 29, 2015 -> 10:35 AM) Yency Almonte. Kid is pitching pretty damn good. http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/p...traderumors.com Hmm, no strikeouts

I do think Fulmer, at least as a starter, has more polishing needed than Rodon. We've seen Rodon struggle with command this year but IMO Fulmer has even more work to do in that regard.

Given the trail of extremely strange behaviors this guy has apparently left behind throughout his entire life, it's really kind of shocking he made it this far without some kind of intervention or something else remarkable happening before he was able to do this. It is sad that it is not difficult for this sort of person to buy a gun and go kill people with it. These are the costs of the freedoms we refuse to live without

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 27, 2015 -> 02:07 PM) Yeah...that sounds really bad. No idea what kind of proof exists but I presume she has a lot of the messages that go with that stuff. I was going to say, one reason I would never say never (aside from the fact that we don't know Rose) is that he doesn't exactly strike you as someone who surrounds himself with the best and the brightest. You would think his brother would have been all over him about stuff like this and would be smarter (since he is the cash train). If rose did this, I hope he loses everything and rots in prison. If he did it, he will not go to prison because the accuser has not pursued criminal charges

You can basically say whatever you want as long as some official communication on the product says that the FDA hasn't validated your claims.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 27, 2015 -> 01:05 PM) Victim shaming happens because not all accused of rape actually rape someone. Here's someone Rose had sex with for 2 years, and suddenly he drugs her, but not well enough that she can't leave his place and get home safely. Then it hits her, and she can't defend herself and DRose and his people break into her place to rape her. No one would buy this in a movie. And then, after suffering for a couple of years, decides to sue. For the record, it is not at all uncommon for rape victims to wait long stretches of time to report. They often are afraid of backlash, being shamed/disbelieved by family, and myriad other things. While I agree the story sounds a bit outrageous, I did realize that as worded it sounds as if she is saying her friend drove her home. I'd say she has virtually no chance of proving guilt based on what we've heard, but it is not absolutely impossible that there is guilt. For me, trying to evaluate the claims, the part that seems off to me is seeking the civil suit. With that said, if there's no evidence, then I suppose a true victim still wouldn't try in criminal court. I think it's also worth saying that if accuser is some kind of monster making things up, why make it up this way? Why not a more believable version of events?

This definitely has less of an appearance of legitimacy than Kane's and many others, but TMZ has a way of making things appear a little sensational. As for the "[person] can have anyone he wants, why would he rape?" business, it's a bit more complicated than that. There are a lot of reasons someone might rape, but one of them is going to be a feeling of entitlement, which we know athletes tend to have. They will feel entitled to have sex with someone, feeling most compelled to do so when they have been rejected. It's arrogance, callousness, power. Again, I'll wait to hear more on the Rose thing. Sounds horrifying if true, but also sounds improbable logistically speaking. Might not be described accurately, though.

It's okay that this story has gotten so much attention because of the fact it was caught on film. That's just how people work. You can't help but empathize when you actually see it rather than hear it. There are lots of terrible murders, but you usually have them conveyed as mere facts that have gotten all too familiar. This one got me especially because I once spent some time with a TV news station and everything about the scene felt familiar. I didn't watch the killer's own video, but I saw a screen grab of what I believe is probably the first frame of the video. Just the photog, reporter, and person being interviewed. I've seen that 100 times. It's insane. There's a screen grab of the killer from the news channel's footage when the camera hit the ground that is particularly terrifying.

Local news report near Roanoke VA was interrupted by gunman shooting cameraman, reporter to death. Person being interviewed is reportedly in surgery. The live feed gives a glimpse of the gunman, who was dressed in black and still holding his pistol towards the victims when the camera hit the ground.

I've been wondering about this and there's nothing very obvious with this. First of all, let's give some props to the Sox for sticking with Sanchez. He was really bad for about twice as long as the look that Micah Johnson got, but they kept him out there and he caught fire. We're now approaching a point where Sanchez has been hitting really well for as long as he had hit really badly. Fluke? Maybe, but Carlos has hit at every level. I think he can realistically be a league average bat (which is great for a defense-oriented 2B). So many question marks: - Can Sanchez cut it defensively at SS? Particularly, is he more valuable at 2B where he's definitely an above average defender or SS where he could be below average (maybe he's better than that, I don't know). - Can Saladino cut it defensively at SS? He has more arm than Sanchez and has more of the size you look for, but I haven't seen him there so I don't know. We have also seen Saladino look excellent defensively at 3B. - What are the options with Micah Johnson? You don't want him to spend too much more time in the minors, though you could feasibly start him there next year. If you keep Sanchez at 2B...what do you do with Micah? We have a strong anti-Micah-OF contingent here and there honestly isn't an obvious opening at those positions anyway. His bat didn't look great in the MLB (though he wasn't horrible by any stretch) and he hasn't looked like that elite base stealer in quite a while. Are you going to move heaven and earth for this kid? - Can any of these guys hit? I think Saladino is the biggest question mark here. He's a smart hitter but he has a relatively spotty minor league track record. After his quick start, he has fallen back to earth pretty hard. I don't think any are sure bets to be starter-quality bats, though. I've seen enough of Saladino and Sanchez to know that they can be players worth having on the strength of their defense at 3B/2B respectively without their bats actually reaching their potential. Johnson, on the other hand, has to hit enough better than the other two to make up for his poor defense. Overall, you're looking at three guys who could each be average or better major leaguers but also could each be journeymen or worse. None have sky high upsides. Only one has a clearly defined position and that's because he's terrible at that position. It's a case of the team needing good talent evaluators to just figure this out.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 18, 2015 -> 10:26 AM) Pretty much every interview I have ever heard on this topic is something to the effect of the coaching staff knows what changes it wants to make, but until the player is open to making them, it doesn't matter. QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 21, 2015 -> 06:49 PM) I think it is more then that. Even when a player is open to them, it isn't necessarily easy to just change something you have severe muscle memory towards. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. You can't take someone and totally recreate their swing. And sometimes you just can't get whatever they are trying to do to work. By and large, most of what they are at that point is set, so the changes tend to be minor. Approaches are something you can absolutely work on though (again, easier said then done). I think the ability to make changes is a talent in and of itself. Like Chisoxfn says, it's not always quite as simple as desire, even if desire is an important piece of the puzzle. In the brief time I spent around high-level amateurs and college/pro scouts, I remember being surprised and kind of frustrated about what a premium they put into seeing a player adjust and improve. I watched a kid at a recruiting camp enter the thing looking basically like s***, but he so quickly adapted to a few suggestions given by instructors that by the end of the 5-day event there was a crowd around his BP sessions. And it wasn't so much that they were great BP sessions, but that everyone was talking about how quickly he was able to implement meaningful advice. To make changes, you definitely have to have the desire, which not everyone does. Arrogance would be the biggest factor there. You also have to be smart; you need to understand what you're being told and why it makes sense. You need the type of athletic competence that allows you to feel and notice the intricacies of what you're doing. Some guys are successful because they basically just picked up a bat and were naturally good at hitting. If you do that for the first 20+ years of your life, with only trivial coaching changes throughout, you may have never developed or never had the sense of their own body to make real changes to their mechanics.

Since people like the idea of deterrence and clearly gun ownership doesn't prevent robberies (case in point). If running away from armed homeowner doesn't keep you from getting shot, why would a home invader not just start a shootout? The burglar clearly didn't intend to use the firearm, just as something to spook anyone inside. He figures that if he runs away he might go to jail but at least he isn't getting shot. When people try to convince folks like me that being armed is a powerful deterrent, they usually emphasize that an encounter like the one being described doesn't have to end violently. But now apparently it does and should. To be clear, I don't think the case we're talking about is 100% cut and dry or some example of the most egregious poor judgment or malice. But guns aren't toys and to the extent I'm willing to say that we should have them in our society, I expect more than the level of discretion any old person who might be handed a gun would have. This is why you hear some people horrified at how easy it is to procure a gun. You don't want it to both be easy to get a gun and have legal interpretations that assume the least from those who might try to use them justifiably.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 07:56 PM) If someone had just had a gun on me, it is hard to say any "fear" would be gone that quickly, nor am I sure that a reasonable person would be able to switch gears that quickly. A trained police officer, I can see that being a standard. A homeowner? Not so much. Sounds like an argument against using guns for home defense

If I had to decide on the homeowner's fate, I'd be trying to see whether it seemed that he fired the fatal shots out of fear or out of anger. The way it is being described makes it seem like he continued to fire not because he thought he was still in danger, but because he was pissed they were getting away.

I doubt any better human being has been elected POTUS than Jimmy Carter

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 01:41 PM) I get that. I just don't think that should lead us to a conclusion of "fire everyone. I'd start with others first. The dumbest thing IMO is to just fire KW and assume much will change. The man in charge gets the glory and the blame, but it's a highly collaborative job. When a guy has done poorly at it, some of the blame goes to his underlings. With that said, that means the guy in charge either doesn't know who to fire or doesn't know who to hire. So part of the "benefit" of cleaning house is not just losing the boss, but you're losing the guys who were quietly killing you.

For the record, at last measure 54% of Libyans said they liked American leadership, double their opinion of China and Russia. 75% said they appreciated US intervention in their civil war.

Most precedent suggest that for nuclear disarmament, treaties work well and sanctions work poorly