Jake

The whole problem is acting like the state of Illinois is the entity to do this. State governments are f***ing stupid in the 21st century and work much worse than federal governments. They consistently f*** up every responsibility that they have, while nobody knows why they have those responsibilities (education standards, healthcare) instead of other entities (local governments? federal government?). Their means of collecting the money to fix these things are meager and without fail are regressive and harmful to the lower earners of the states. We have a high amount of agreement in the USA that progressive taxation is a good and fair thing while the norm in state governance is a flat tax. There's no way I want state governments running new mental health services when they can't do anything already. No state governments are working well. We need to reduce the responsibilities given to them, not increase them.

I'm interested in your support of police, Duke, since many people I know to have largely similar political beliefs to you generally are highly ANTI-police and see them as being used as part of a general police state. They seem to both dislike the institution and the people in it (I know their beliefs so well because I have several friends who are constantly posting examples of cop-induced violence on my Facebook news feed). On a totally unrelated note, you should be aware that "the true intent" as basis for legal or political thought regarding the Constitution is a hotly debated subject. There are endless discussions about this; whether it should be considered, if it should supercede "the text" or only apply when the text is unclear, etc. The founders were addressing a completely different set of problems (ie, the need for a huge expansion of federal power at the time) and could not have foreseen many of the different things that would affect us politically and otherwise. It's always funny how scholars/judges/laymen will agree on the previous point but not on how that should inform our interpretation of the Constitution.

Don't get me wrong, I do like Deadspin. Just thought I'd throw that in there. I spend lots of time on Deadspin/Gawker/Lifehacker/Gizmodo

Honestly, the thing that Deadspin is doing to piss me off is the constant stuff about concussions. They are just beating Goodell over the head with this stuff, criticizing every new policy, etc. I am okay with talking about the concussion problem. Unfortunately, the more we learn about concussions the more the issue (CTE, not concussions in general) appears to be unavoidable. Rules about hits may not reduce concussions at all and Deadspin is happy to point this out. Helmets do almost nothing to reduce concussions. Deadspin is happy to point that out. The current state of research indicates that most of the damaging blows do not cause actual concussions. Much like we think of with a boxer, the accumulation of sub-concussive blows over time is what causes this problem. So, Deadspin says they are anti-concussions (basically), but they are not anti-NFL (not to be confused with anti-Goodell). NFL fans make up a big part of their users. The more we learn about CTE, unfortunately, the more it appears the only way to reduce this risk significantly enough is to stop playing football. I can entertain THIS conversation, but Deadspin won't. They're just flinging s***.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 12:00 PM) I'm an over researcher as well, and with two new tv's to buy i've been all over the internet. My one concern was looking at a brand like Vizio when I know they are budget. I went with my old standard in Samsung. I have had very good experiences with Vizio - but I have to add that I am anything but an experienced or especially informed TV buyer. QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 03:08 PM) Like Dirsync, WS-trust or WS-fed and all of microsofts bulls*** google chat is free and handy and tons of people use it. Google Chat/Hangouts works for me.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 11:14 AM) Glad everyone's a critic. Perhaps I should have pointed out this part and how accurate and spot on I felt it was Yes, there are some details in that paragraph that are surely incorrect, but it's pretty spot on and fits the Sox. That was definitely not a paragraph I had a problem with -- though I feel the fact that he left out our recent WS win (which many casual baseball fans may have forgotten) made that paragraph seem unnecessarily bleak. We aren't a franchise that hasn't had any success. We're just one that is in a bad spot right now, not a 100 year bad spot like some other clubs QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 02:57 PM) I'm sorry to mods for direction this could take. But, there is much of Chicago political history and "urban renewal" that supports the authors take over yours. Chicagos neighborhoods aren't the way they are because of preference. Yes, there is a long history of public policy that has made Chicago the most segregated city in the USA and it has been that way for a long time, even when there were other cities using legal segregation tactics.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 10:28 AM) First of all, what exactly is a "vast minority"? 49.99 percent? No system is going to be perfect, but clearly we are tipped too far in the direction of having people who need to be under some sort of mental health care that aren't getting it. All I'm trying to say is that I don't think institutionalization is the answer for every person with mental health issues. Maybe the problem is that right now institutionalization is our only option so we shy away from getting help for people because of that stigma. I have no problem with having things like waiting periods, but no amount of gun laws is going to change criminals abilities to get them. Better mental health will change (some) people's desires to commit criminal acts in the first place. 22% of Americans claim they personally own a gun, according to Pew Research in 2010. 37% say someone in their household owns a gun. Both numbers have been trending downwards for about 50 years and I recall hearing 18% in the past year -- can't find the cite for that though. In the 1960s, gun owners were over half the population. Now it is a relatively small group of people, smaller than the 26% of Americans that have diagnosable mental illnesses (diagnosable implies that it is severe enough to be worth diagnosing, as we now understand many mental illnesses to occur on a spectrum).

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 09:46 AM) Most people don't need to be institutionalized long term. Most just need to be admitted somewhere to get diagnosed, get initial treatment, and then get on regular medication. It's not like we need to have a million people living in mental hospitals long term in order to help the problem. Most people, like those that aren't mentally ill? Sure. Recidivism in psychiatric hospitals is astronomical. Not only is the norm for a person who is institutionalized to return up to 10 more times, it is more common for a person institutionalized once to return 20 times than not to return ever again. It is an observed phenomenon that people who are not suffering mental illnesses (ie having some sort of emotional breakdown) often develop debilitating mental illnesses during involuntary commitments at mental institutions. It is ugly, ugly stuff and isn't to be taken lightly. The person that is depressed and needs to see a psychiatrist is not the person we're worried about here. QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 09:57 AM) So we're going to take away the rights of all Americans in order to avoid taking rights away from a small percentage of Americans? Gotta love that logic. ??? Making it harder to buy guns for the vast minority of gun owners or taking away all of the rights of people who have or seem to have a mental illness? The mass killings have spurred on debate that has done nothing but further entrench dangerous gun policy while increasing the stigmatization of mental illness that prevents good care or (more importantly) acceptance of mental illness by the general public

I have the sense that one of these mass killings will result in the loss of rights for people with mental illnesses rather than a push to make guns harder to acquire. Lots of people deserve help for mental illness that the government isn't providing them; but I'd rather err on the side of taking away too many guns than institutionalizing too many people. I have a feeling that the political consensus will end up being "institutionalize first, ask questions later"

QUOTE (ChiSoxFan05 @ Sep 17, 2013 -> 08:47 PM) I'm new to all the sabermetric stats. Are UZR and WAR and all of this stuff really indicative of how they're performing in the field. (#TWTW but not really) UZR is the absolute best way to evaluate player defense - it is predicated on humans reviewing video with objective (ie, not opinion-based) measures. The belief is that UZR is best evaluated with about three seasons worth of data, though. This is of course true for lots of other statistics; we know that batting average and other conventional stats tend to be unreliable over short periods of time, even single seasons can be predicated on luck or random fluctuations. So, I look at UZR with smaller sample sizes, but always take it with a grain of salt. One season isn't a bad amount of data, but when one season sticks out as different from the player's other years, you should definitely look upon it skeptically. This is especially true because defense isn't nearly as prone to things like slumps as offense, so in most cases a brief change in UZR is nothing to be alarmed about unless there is a clear cause like injury. Some players will have an upward trajectory in the early parts of their careers and many others will steadily get worse defensively.

See, what my doctor had told me is that there is a period in the middle of people's lives where it is common for the changes to stop....but the vision changes would come back at some point as you age. Mine has been stable for a while, so it seems like if I didn't do it soon (ie in the next ten years, which ins't THAT soon lol) I'd be wasting my time.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 17, 2013 -> 02:26 PM) Every single TV they rate high is a panny. I love Panny plasmas but at some point you have to like another set right? They also started to push Vizio, which to me just looks sketchy. Actually check that, they apparently hate Panny LED"s. It's okay, we're quickly approaching a point where the high-end TVs are near indistinguishable and the whole thing becomes highly subjective in nature. I look at CNET for some things, but just as one piece of the puzzle. I, of course, love researching the s*** out of tech purchases.

I read it and it was okay. Like others have said, there is quite a bit of objectionable material. The rips on Chicago are (at least) unnecessary, saying "Sox Park" was kind of weird, and I thought it was very interesting to say that we are a history-less franchise. There are franchises with more, to be sure, but we have been around forever and the White Sox franchise has done lots of things to leave a mark on baseball - dominating in the early 20th century, then the Black Sox, Bill Veeck, the marquee players to come through in the past 30 years (Big Frank most notably), and then...the thing NEVER MENTIONED in the article...we won the World Series 8 years ago! That isn't ancient history and to paint us a franchise that is the Cubs' pathetic little brother is silly because this franchise has accomplished something in the very recent past and we did it with a style that he thinks is useless for a winner. His primary concern, the state of the baseball fan and the in-game experience, is completely left behind because there is so much other bulls*** included. It comes off as an incoherent ramble instead of a harbinger of doom or whatever it was he was looking for.

This is the concern with any player that isn't in the MLB. You look at what he does when he isn't doing well and then you wonder...will those things happen a BUNCH at the next level and be his downfall? It's difficult to tell.

No reason to let go of Gillaspie. Cheap, left-handed, not a complete moron, and can be an average player for you. At worst, not a bad bench piece to play solid corner D and pinch hit.

I use the list feature extensively on Twitter. I have a White Sox list, so I can go there and get pretty much solely White Sox and MLB related news. I then have a list for other Chicago sports, which you might think would get crowded but at any given time there is usually only one team being posted about. Blackhawks and Bulls will have the most conflicts once they are both playing games at the same time, but that won't be too often. I then have a politics and news list where I have curated which news sources and political commentators/figures I want to hear from. I typically will make a quick sweep through that list, identify articles I want to read, then save each one I want to my Pocket for reading later. Facebook is for general BS among friends, I find that I check it fairly often but don't actually post/comment/like very often. I have a couple groups that I use, such as one for my work and one among a group of workout buddies. I will occasionally share news that I think is important and not 100% certain to start an argument. I have also used it to solicit donations for my fundraising commitment to St. Jude with limited success.

Trestman said that Peppers was very ill. He was sent home from Thursday's practice with illness and Trestman says that Peppers was sicker on Sunday than he was on Thursday.

While I would not deny that pitchers are easier to evaluate, particularly due to the fact that most of their skills are measurable. Unfortunately, it is far more likely that a pitcher deals with injury. Pitcher injuries are far more frequently career-altering than the vast majority of injuries suffered by position players. There is research showing that from the first time a pitcher goes to the DL for any reason, they basically become a ticking time bomb. This is why drafting is hard. It is difficult to objectively say how good and advanced a hitter is, but you can usually feel reasonably assured about what their physical skills/abilities will be. I know that Tim Anderson is going to be fast. I know that Alexei Ramirez is going to have a great arm. With pitchers, you know that at a moment's notice the one physical skill they have that matters may permanently degrade.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Sep 15, 2013 -> 11:43 PM) And you fantasy opponent, aka, ME, beats you by 0.6 pts because the 49'ers fumbled the ball on the kickoff a the end of the game. Kaepernick only got me 8 pts, but Seattle D scored me 22 pts. My DEFENSE led my team in pts this week and I won! lol I quit

Can we get a daily/weekly "greg says" topic?

I'm not worried about the turnovers. Our offense looks competent, even when it is unsuccessful. Our three and outs look better than our offense has looked in years. I can't say whether it's going to be a great offense, but it doesn't suck. Very encouraging. Our D looked vulnerable yesterday at times against a bad offense, so let's hope that gets shored up. No D-line presence whatsoever.

If Alexei is here, he must play SS. He's one of the game's best defensive shortstops, stupid errors or not

My fantasy opponent has Kaepernick and Seattle D. One is taking from the other and things are looking good for me at the moment

Dayan's success against righties gives me hope. There isn't much about Beckham to be positive about. His hot run was almost purely predicated on luck and even then, he was just shooting singles everywhere.

We can Crean somebody to make room for Lyle FWIW, Alexander RT'd somebody saying they thought Lyle and Alexander would go to Illinois. He RT's lots of stuff though