southsider2k5

QUOTE (woods of ypres @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 06:02 PM) Why not Fales? That was my first thought.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 07:10 PM) http://www.csnchicago.com/white-sox/samard...im-feeling-home Samardzija might be a bigger Sox fan than some of us. Ha, I have a picture with Ron KIttle from when I was a kid too.

Of course they sold 2000 shirts overnight after the SB City council questioned the shirts.

I think the best protest of all would be for no one to go see it, and prove a point to Sony.

QUOTE (flavum @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 04:40 PM) Royals- Edinson Volquez for 2 years. Chris Cotillo ‏@ChrisCotillo 8m8 minutes ago Sources: #Royals, Edinson Volquez closing in on deal believed to be in the two-year, $20M range. One source believes physical is last step.f

Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal 9m9 minutes ago Turner, as others have noted, would be a PTBN because he was drafted only last year (1st round). Per source, trade could look like this: Turner, Joe Ross to #Nationals. Myers, Hanigan, Jose Castillo to #Padres. Souza, Ott, Rivera, Smith, Bauers to #Rays (Souza, Ott from Nats). That is not the official deal, just an outline coming from a source. Competitive-balance picks also might be involved.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:51 PM) Where we need to bring in a bench player is for the outfield. We have nothing in AAA to help. We have 3 guys ready to go for the infield. Let them fight it out. Why bring in someone we know is terrible like Beckham or Cabrera? Unlike most, I have very low expectations of those 3.

Comcast SportsNet ‏@CSNChicago 12m12 minutes ago Marc Trestman admits failures with #Bears QB Jay Cutler (@CSNMoonMullin) -- http://bit.ly/1C0qnYj #BearsTalk

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:43 PM) Bonaficio brings more to the table than Beckham though. If he were brought in to be the starter at 2B, I'd be very upset, but as a bench player he wouldn't be the worst player in the world. Basically Leury Garcia with a much better bat as a guy who is fast and flashes leather and versatility but just doesn't hit enough to start. The starter frankly needs to be one of Sanchez or Johnson at this point in time. I wouldn't even be upset with a cheap Gordon Beckham being brought in as a bench player. We know he can play 2B and 3B defensively. I am sure with some reps, he'd serve as a serviceable enough SS to cover the few games that Alexei takes off.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:38 PM) somewhat related, the most popular internet sites by year since 1996 (soxtalk does not make the list) The Sabes blew this one.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:29 PM) I don't know if he has first amendment protections or not. As a non-lawyer, I presented one argument that seems possibly could be made. His shirt makes a comment on police policy and procedure and how he will conduct his job. If that's not in line with department or legal standards, that could be an issue. I have a bigger issue with "breath easy-obey the law" and the message conveyed by it actually being his policing mentality than his dumb shirt. If this is the case, then there is evidence that he isn't performing at his job, and you have actual causation to fire him.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:24 PM) In one, you have a teacher telling students what he believes (and the science may back up to some extent but maybe not billions) will be the global consequences of climate change. He is not threatening anyone. He is not trying to justify or excuse harm that will come to anyone. He's not saying it's okay to kill the CEO of Exxon to stop this. Whether or not his comments belong in the classroom is a different discussion, especially since we were focused on off-the-job comments. In the other, you have a police officer telling people that their concerns over police brutality up to and including killing a man who presented no threat and just had some cigarettes are merit-less and that if they don't want to be killed or otherwise brutalized by the police, they just need to 'obey the law.' One of these situations is about impersonal and natural forces. Another is about conscious human behavior by authority figures. It doesn't even rise to the level of saying that this WILL happen to you if you don't X, which is still a huge level below if you do X I will do Y to you. This is a level below that saying that if you DON'T X, nothing bad will happen to you. Again for my tastes, it is an incredibly flimsy argument to take away the first amendment, and one that would be easy to exploit.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:23 PM) The fact that you have to provide context to the speech you find offensive/wrong is a good argument for why it should be protected. Seriously. That standard would allow me to say that nazi's killed millions of people. You called the President a Nazi. You just threatened the President, now you can go to jail for a federal crime.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:19 PM) Eric Garner was murdered by a police officer. "I can't breath" were his last words. In response, people across the country have been using "I can't breath" as a motto against police brutality. When another police officer responds with "Breath Easy, Obey the Law" in this context, it's clearly an implied threat or at least approval of the excessive force that caused Garner's death. That is an incredibly low standard for the first amendment. If taking words from other instances to turn them into perceived threats, you have basically opened up the legitimacy of turning anything into a reason to take away freedom's of speech.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:15 PM) It's an implied threat. If teachers are implicitly or explicitly threatening children, they should face consequences as well. Outside political activism doesn't do that. edit: this conversation isn't going to go anywhere else if you can't see why police-community relations would be seriously harmed by officers issuing the implied threat that this shirt does So if a teacher tells students that billions of people will die if climate change isn't addressed, are they threatening students? Because that is very similar to what is being said on the T-shirt. There is no claim that this officer will do it. None at all.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:14 PM) Not if they don't actually use deadly force. Besides, this isn't even an actual threat. It is a stretch to say that it is. I guess I think more of freedom of speech. There is a big difference to saying "I am going to kill you if you X" and what this shirt has on it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:12 PM) If the teacher can be shown to treat students unfairly based on their race, religion, creed, beliefs, whatever, then they're fair game for discipline. It's different when a police officer can be seen as justifying deadly force against anyone who dares disobey. Not if they don't actually use deadly force.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:08 PM) Selling shirts that promote or help to legitimize police violence up to and including being choked to death against department policy in response to disobeying even the slightest command is going to directly affect how that officer is received in the communities he serves. A teacher's political advocacy outside of the classroom doesn't really compare to that. But a teachers personal belief doesn't affect how they are received in the classroom? That is crap.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 02:58 PM) That first line wasn't about the legal aspect, but I think the idea that wearing and promoting a shirt like this directly harms police-community relations both for this officer as an individual and for the department as a whole is a legitimate concern. The shirt does have a police "badge" on it, so you could argue that he's using or attempting to use his status as a police officer to promote the product and the message. I honestly don't see it as any different than having a legitimate concern about what a teacher believes outside of the job, affecting what they do on the job. Until something actually happens, it is separate. It would be just as easy to say that having a teacher who does [blank] has the ability use their state as a teacher to promote the product/idea and the message.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 02:50 PM) Good taste and basic human decency should stop him. The implied threat by a police officer seems like it could interfere directly with his duties, though. Except the opposite are protected by freedom of speech, which is the issue.

At this point I think Tresman wants to get fired, so he gets to keep the money from the rest of his deal.

So back to the freedom of speech vs your job discussion, should South Bend be able to force the officer to stop selling the “Breathe easy, don’t break the law” shirts he created? http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/17/india...he-easy-shirts/

Why would he sign with the Sox? We have Alexei at SS, presumably until Tim Anderson decides he is ready.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 02:00 PM) Consider it at worst an even trade for their subsidization of our importation of goods produced with cheap labor. I consider it a great way to collapse communism.

Long, but great read. http://sabr.org/bioproj/topic/fidel-castro-and-baseball