bmags

QUOTE (Knuckles @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 08:22 PM) Bulls quietly putting a nice streak and offense as potent as we have seen it, Fred Hoiberg finally payin off? Yes, I fall for it every time, and everytime I remember that there is no sport where repetition with the same group matters more than basketball.

Excellent article if you have access. i learned a lot http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-...aluable_company

I was surprised Oregon police have let the men go in and out for supplies.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 09:29 AM) This makes sense and is something the Bears should have done to protect Cutler. The Bears carousel of coaches on the offensive side of the ball and hiring defensive minded coaches sans the buffoon Treastman has led to a constant state of flux. Now Gase is gone and in comes a new offensive guy. It seems the offense changes annually. No. Nobody is going to look at the Bucs firing their head coach to promote their coordinator and say "Bears should have done that".

The three year thing is really so stupid.

Why the hell would you fire lovie two years into his tenure as every other team in the league looks for a new coach?

God Missouri is awful. Kim Anderson killed the program.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 06:15 PM) You were the guy at the Rec center that everyone hated playing with, weren't you? I was open

While I'm happy for him...who is the idiot that doesn't vote for him? That Babe Ruth wasn't unanimous says all you need to know.

I still think at this point I'd take power over OBP. I would have preferred Gordon, but I could not stand how it took 4 singles to get a run last year.

Can WE hire Ron Washington?

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 04:14 PM) His 1.4 fWAR w/ Houston was in 2014. Not very long ago at all, actually. I think caulfield is trying to say the 1.4 is probably a better benchmark to look at.

Also, I say this as a horrible basketball player who could not shoot worth a damn... It is very hard to turn down open long shots.

This is a pretty smart move by Upton, but I would be terrified.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 02:42 PM) The crux of the issue between the citizenry and the BLM/other federal agencies (largely the US Forest Service) is in regards to economic activity on that land. Rural communities in the West are dependent on extracting resources from that land for economic livelihood. That economic need is balanced against environmental, climate, and conservation needs. Most of the economic drivers are hard on the land. The not-fringe position is returning the land operated by the BLM/USFS to the states. The Senate actually took up a vote earlier this year that would have paved the way for this transfer of land (couldn't get to 60 votes). As mentioned earlier in this thread, there are significant costs associated with the states taking on that land including, but not limited to, the massive amount of funds the feds spend fighting forest fires on federal land (and private land) each year. The BLM has its problems, but the critics of the BLM and the USFS is economic in nature. Calling the feds the bad guy and those opposed to the feds the good guys (your category B), grossly misstates the actual issue regarding the use and control of federal land in the West. Finally, on the pardoning, in light of the economic costs associated with wildfires in the West, if the Hammonds were pardoned it would exclusively be because a bunch of armed militia occupied federal land. Even in the event that a pardon was justified, and the occupiers themselves faced prison time for their acts, it emboldens militia in these land use disputes. After the incident at the Bundy ranch, the feds really can't embolden those groups further. I disagree with mandatory minimums, but I've in practice seen them used in scenarios much, much worse than this. And honestly, arson in the west is a pretty terrible thing. Forest fires cost billions to fight every year, push insurance costs through the roof, and endanger hundreds of lives. It's a more serious issue than I think you are giving it credit for. Thank you, I enjoyed all of this post. "The BLM has its problems, but the critics of the BLM and the USFS is economic in nature. Calling the feds the bad guy and those opposed to the feds the good guys (your category B), grossly misstates the actual issue regarding the use and control of federal land in the West." I agree. I don't actually support many of the economic arguments. The grazing rights are already subsidized, and quite frankly, in a degree that would be difficult for the states to accomplish as easily as the Fed Gov't. But currently there seems to be too much tacit local sympathy of violent and destructive measures just because of the negative view toward those federal agencies. Usually when that happens, the viewpoint of group B is "yeah they went too far, but they had no choice" Whether or not is is usually patently absurd. With cases like this where: - The economic changes they request are a non-starter - Restrictions are likely to increase (as they have in last 4 years) A responsible way to still accommodate that population is to make sure there is a structure in place to hear their concerns and recommendations. While moving to the states would obviously also give it a huge advantage to reduce local restrictions, it's also evidence of a lack of process. The bolsheviks did not support the leftist parties in Europe, as their piecemeal socialist victories like 40 hour work week were enough to satiate the local population and weakened their foothold for recruitment and revolution. The lesson there is when there is destructive, adamant minority, the local population is especially prone to submitting to the will of that group. Undercutting that with some goodwill measures can go a long way toward stability. For your last paragraph, you are probably right. The likelihood is they have no control of what happened after starting the fire, and that it wasn't larger was luck. But, despite SS's claims, there are many reports I've read that they have a lot of local support. The father here is older, admitted guilt and served time. Frankly, to me, reducing a federal statute applying more time to a local man is a pretty good symbol to start some outreach.

Rabbit do you need to be asked? Rock? Rock I know your source dried up but what are your thought on asking.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 01:53 PM) Then I remain confused as to why you seem to have zero understanding and think pardoning a couple of ranchers who have broken the law repeatedly for over 20 years, threatened various federal employees, and endangered the lives of others would have a positive impact on local relations with the BLM. eta Nancy Langston, the author of the NYT piece I linked, is a professor of environmental science and published her first book in 1995. I am reasonably sure that she is not 24 years old. eta2: also I would appreciate if you would acknowledge that the Hammonds were made explicitly aware that the government was going to appeal the original sentence, that the government wase guaranteed to win that appeal, and that the sentence that would be imposed was the same deal that the Hammonds agreed to. It doesn't seem particularly "cruel" but absolutely routine. I have explained myself clearly. You have held two ideas in your head that a) there is a fringe population in the west that has acted out in illegal and damaging activities due to an ideology that they have been slighted by the fed regulation of the land. There is a fringier population among them who is currently holding land hostage by force. b) There is a larger population of people that do not support the first part of a and certainly second part of a, but do support policies in a range of exploitative grazing/mining or use of land for quads. Yet actually hold them all together as one group. My concerns are about group B, whom in all reports on your google searches on the matter, do not support the actions of A, but always caveat to sympathize with the handling of the lands under federal management. You continue to read that, and assume it's about group A. You remind me of discussions of Black Lives Matter, where no discussion of the actual grievances of human people matter because you really want to talk about the group that rioted. Nothing and no where have I stated anything that the group that stormed the federal land should receive leniency in punishment. In a similar way that you may pardon a protestor arrested for legitimate reasons but has sympathetic support may be a strategic consideration to show understanding, pardons could be applied to groups StrangeSox doesn't actually agree with. Also, the "years of government outreach" do not necessarily mean anything. Good governance is effective governance.

None of what I said is arguing against your second and third paragraphs, except that I disagree that pardoning does nothing. Please, for the love of god, stop posting a bunch of article put together by 24 year olds who googled this for 3 hours. I have already THEM and already read the articles that they GOOGLED.

Jenks, we get it, your entirety of bulls fandom is being pissed off that rose destroyed his knees and is not openly talking about how he's a terrible player. He should not be fined every time he shoots a 3. He has halved his 3PA this year. He's trying.

You assume any moves to understand the conflict where a significant group of people in interaction with the government service includes accommodating all demands. There has been long festering issues here, and when consistent destructive acts continue to be applied, that atmosphere creates the atmosphere of "they may have went too far, but I hate the BLM...so" That situation, if not resolved, creates a larger problem where if any major (and positive) action may need to be done on those lands with the help of local population, they will not have the trust and support of it. Your assertion here that "what they want" is the list of demands from disparate parties to have unlimited use of the lands. This reminds me of the Missouri protests where people looked at certain ridiculous demands and said "they want this but X, X, X!" What I see here is a situation where a large constituency who may have illegitimate demands, but the real issue is a a group who does not feel that they have a process to raise and legitimately address their concerns. When it comes to the federal government controlling local land all around you, yes I can see that being a huge concern. Pardoning some local participants with local support and addressing how a process can be created to create a more consistent and transparent process to the changing of rules that affect this people would help prevent a situation like now where people get lockstep behind the craziest demands just because they are so fed up. If you can't empathize with these people, I'd suggest looking at your own run-ins with local gov't and land use situations. I get frustrated often, and I have clear and transparent areas where I can address it.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 12:41 PM) Vox with an interesting piece on the conflicts between the BLM and certain people in the West. http://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10718128/feder...-oregon-militia I live in close proximity to a lot of cool outdoors stuff here in Colorado and much of it is national forest. Letting that land go back to the states increases the likelihood that logging and mining will replace some of the recreational value of the places I spend a lot of my weekends in the summer. There's a delicate balance out west between the economic value of the land (and a lot of the rural communities in the west depend on those industries) and the environmental and recreational value of that land (the value of federal protection of national forests is one of the few times environmental groups and hunters see eye-to-eye in Colorado). It's a difficult issue, but I don't see how that equates to "something rotten in the BLM." Furthermore, why on Earth would you give in to these "protestors" and pardon these guys - even though they don't endorse the occupation of the federal building? There are plenty of people much more deserving of pardons and any pardon is a tacit endorsement of the illegal behavior of the protestors... I said something rotten between the BLM and the western states. BLM is not national park service. I'm also not pardoning the protestors, which, the assumption would be are in for criminal prosecution at the point their snacks run out and get cold. And you are allowed to use multiple pardons. Indeed, there is no limit.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 11:59 AM) Just my opinion but I think the Sox missed out on a big opportunity with Henderson Alvarez. This was my thing. It just seemed so obvious. I'm sure he ends up like never playing and that's why he wasn't mentioned, but that seems like a fantastic gamble. He was fantastic 2 years ago.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 11:57 AM) I would be stunned if Osweiller doesn't get a decent size offer from someone. Not saying mega money, but QB's get paid, and someone who has crappy QB play is going to have seen enough of Brock to think he could take steps forward and be their QB. Houston

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 09:31 AM) I disagree that Obama should pardon the two ranchers or that a five year sentence "looks ridiculous." Whether or not there was any mandatory minimum, I think five years sounds like a reasonable sentence for their crimes and history. Unless you think the President should pardon every person who receives a mandatory minimum sentence that is harsher than what the sentencing judge would have imposed, these guys shouldn't receive any special treatment and don't have a very sympathetic case anyway. As the law stands right now, yeah, I do support the circuit court enforcing the law instead of letting a district judge arbitrarily decide to ignore the law because it sets a pretty terrible precedent and not just for sentencing. I think appellate courts forcing lower courts to follow existing law is necessary for a fair justice system. Re-sentencing when trial judges don't follow the law is what happens routinely. I also support the abolition of mandatory minimums. This is not contradictory to also believing that judges need to adhere to the law as it currently stands. If there had been no mandatory minimum, there would not even be a mechanism for the government to appeal the initial sentence (which absolutely everyone was aware would happen when the initial sentence was handed down), and that would be fine. There's an argument. I'm not advocating that any law be imposed. By law, they should go back for the correct sentencing. Hence the pardon, a legal maneuver. The pardon is a political move. For one, there is clearly something rotten in the west right now between BLM and local population. Sending someone back for more time after time served seems more cruel than the correct sentencing applied already. If you want to send them back for child abuse, that's a different case entirely. While the environmental cases should be held strong, the general use of the land as park space seems to be a huge opportunity for good will there and should be looked at.

They at least franchise Miller.