StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 04:36 PM) If Ray Rice gets his job back off of a f***ing technicality, that will be even more disappointing than Ryan Braun getting off of his suspension off of a BS technicality. The Ravens are still free to cut him whenever they want.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 04:27 PM) I'm not saying people should accept this type of crime, but I'm just not sure anyone would lose their job when there was no prosecution. I'm not a lawyer but would anyone really lose their job when there was no conviction in court? I personally think he should go to jail for a long time regardless. Let her enjoy his money without him having the opportunity to touch her. But we can't just do whatever we want to someone outside of the court system. Just recently the CEO of Centerplate, a major food supplier to parks and stadiums across the country, was forced to resign over his puppy-kicking video. For the most people, employers can fire you for almost any reason or even no reason at all.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 04:23 PM) No workplace should want to be associated with this sort of behavior. I have no problem with someone losing their job for it. In any business, the employees of a company are a large part of their image. Getting rid of people who don't fit that image does not bother me in the least. I don't know that I'd go so far as to make anyone who's convicted of a horrible crime like this case of DV (or should have been convicted!) essentially unemployable for life.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 03:32 PM) I just like how all the people who are so supportive of his wife dont get that this actually hurts her economically and that in no world would she want Rice's contract to be terminated. I wondered out loud here back when the new punishments were first announced if it'd have the effect of making some DV victims even more hesitant to come forward. "Yeah, my husband beat me up again, but if I report this one, he's going to lose his $50M contract"

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 01:47 PM) It's not an overreaction, just nobody acted appropriately when it first happened.

The NFL is also doing a 180 on having seen the full video before deciding on the suspension. Someone Is Lying About Whether The NFL Saw The Ray Rice Tape

don't worry steve, we'll track down the bastard that did this (congrats!)

From Posner's opinion, on Indiana scoring an own-goal here: Charles Pierce has more excerpts, e.g. "go figure"

couple days old, but the DoJ opened a civil rights investigation into the actions of the Ferguson PD prior to the shooting of Michael Brown http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nation...5d02_story.html Also, libertarian Randy Balko on how municipalities in St. Louis County profit off of poverty overall, it's a pretty depressing overview of how institutional racism in our justice system functions. It also gets into housing discrimination, hitting on some of the same themes that TNC did in his "The Case for Reparations" article.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 11:02 PM) In my league a guy had the Manning-Demaryius combo in the opener last year... same, that was brutal.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 04:19 PM) My wife fell into an unrepaired hole around a manhole cover last night and fractured her ankle. Should we sue the city like a bunch of money crazy mf'ers? That's awful, sorry to hear that.

Cam Newton is now listed as a game time decision for Sunday, late start too.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 06:59 PM) Not only will they change their position, but in 50 years, they'll be saying they were the ones who led the fight for gay rights. Some progressive Christians actually are helping lead lgbt rights

His brand already lost trademark protection so I'm not sure how far the legal argument would go. Besides, it seems like that'd be a very clear violation of the announcers' first amendment free speech rights to say or not say what they want.

Here's the opinion overturning the WI and IN bans, written by Posner (full ruling at bottom of article): http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/wisco...tutiona#1hj1d9c His ruling is basically a direct rebuttal of the "marriage is for biological parents' procreation" argument.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 04:33 PM) Supposed to comment on the play that just happened. ok have any actual announcers said that they aren't going to use Pro-Football, Incorporated's pseudonym?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 03:15 PM) If true, and if the court agrees that marriage is meant for 2 opposite sex couples propagating for the future of our country, then they can ban it. Not sure that's a real solid argument in 2014 when there are all sorts of marriages, good and bad, with kids and without kids. It hasn't been a real solid argument for a while now, having been explicitly rejected by every lower court that has been presented with it. edit: it was literally laughed out of the supreme court during oral arguments in the Prop 8 case even if they say that marriage is for the propagation of children, they're still on very shaky logical ground. There are all sorts of benefits, privileges and obligations that come with marriage that are unrelated to child rearing. There are couples who cannot have their own biological children or simply choose not to. Others choose to adopt, including gay parents. Many children are also born and raised outside of wedlock. Either way, you can't ever get back around to the conclusion that gay couples should be excluded.

yeah, that sort of ignores that the job of the color commentary is to give us opinions and biases, or when they give their opinions on reviews, play choice, strategy, etc.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 02:26 PM) One got upheld yesterday? I guess I missed that. yes, Louisiana's got upheld by a district court yesterday. It's expected to get upheld on appeal as well by the 5th Circuit which is apparently very conservative friendly right now, at least as far as I've heard. It's the first federal ruling since Windsor to uphold a ban. More than 20 other courts have ruled against such bans since Windsor.

Have any announcers, as opposed to sports reporters, announced that they won't be using the full name? I have to say I'd be surprised if the TV networks would let them do that given the importance of NFL advertising revenue.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 02:27 PM) But that isn't their name or brand. Cry all you want to, but for now the name is the Redskins and as a member of the NFL with that name they have every right and expectation to be called that name, not some made up feel-good version that people want to use to feel good about themselves. At least as far as broadcasts go. Go call the Yankees the New Your Baseball team and see how that goes over. They have money, time etc. invested in the name/brand and to not use it is to dilute it. Unless they started referring to all the teams as something else, like The New England NFL Team' or something, it is just wrong. The team doesn't have any sort of right to demand that others use the name instead of a different but clear reference to them. Unless there's something specifically in the TV/announcer contracts with the NFL, the NFL can't dictate that. What would they dictate, anyway? Announcers shorten teams' names all the time: "Chicago really needs to stop the run here!" "The Pats need a quick turnover to stay in it!" "Washington is playing great on defense tonight." Maybe they should just start calling them by their official corporate name, Pro-Football, Incorporated.

"The Washington NFL team" pretty clearly identifies what they're talking about.

you have to figure Maclin's going to get hurt at some point, maybe use him while you can?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 02:24 PM) Well, I would guess you might have a difficult time finding many, if any, people in academic positions at Berkeley that has ever publicly expressed a conservative viewpoint. I'm not sure what Berkeley has to do with this, but John "torture memos" Yoo has been a law professor there since the 90's.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 02:04 PM) Well, I've never heard of this kind of thing happening at ND with regards to an academic position, but there are hundreds of people in administrative positions at ND because of connections to wealthy donors. Oh absolutely. That's how the boards at most of these schools get staffed. But when it comes to free speech and academic positions, there's actually a lot of case law that says public schools cannot base hiring/firing decisions on viewpoints. Far from happening all the time, like jenks said, it's actually explicitly illegal to do so.