Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 26, 2015 -> 01:03 PM) Think about it. If and when the Bears are good enough, and one of these jokers who could help them wants and needs a second chance, there is no way. I wrote that before I read the Biggs article and I agree totally with him. This signing was stupid. It was a big PR risk, there is one writer that is calling for the Bears to be fined and give up draft picks for signing him, but Biggs said the team isn't ready to win, McDonald while a good player, isn't Pro Bowl quality, and he is getting a little long in the tooth. Doesn't seem like the time or the guy to take your shot with. Why? What does the Bears offering this guy a second chance and then cutting him when he gets arrested again have anything to do with a player in the future?

QUOTE (bmags @ May 26, 2015 -> 12:07 PM) If you are wondering why I stayed: 1) It was an awesome day out and I hadn't been out all year 2) Had they said from the beginning it was a 2 hr delay I would have left There was technically only 5 tee times ahead of us when we arrived. It was really hard to cut our losses. You learn that the discount just aint worth it in golf. Not if you want to do anything else that day. Plus it really wears at you as you wait for 5 minutes to hit every time. I have to find some new courses. Indian Boundary and Chick Evans are pretty terrible during peak times, but they're a great deal in the spring and fall. Both have back 9's that allow you to loop back around and basically play 25-26 holes without anyone knowing. I've done that a bunch of times. Not sure where you're at, but Fresh Meadows isn't terrible and normally isn't crazy busy. I play there a lot and also Carriage Greens, though CG can be really bad mid-day weekends. 5 hour rounds are common. I played this weekend down in Central Illinois (my old home course, Lake of the Woods in Mahomet). $18 bucks sharing a cart. 2 of us got in 18 in about 2.5 hours. It was awesome.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 25, 2015 -> 07:19 PM) If the Bears were a player or so from being a Super Bowl contender, I might agree, but this embarassment will have ramifications for years to come. I think guys with sketchy backgrounds are goimg to have a hard time getting approved by George. Plus domestic violence, and sexual assault ia a little more serious than other things you give guys second chances. Jesus, that's a hot take.

QUOTE (Tex @ May 26, 2015 -> 11:39 AM) One topic, one direction: Advocating that a law isn't necessary because it won't stop a crime is silly. Because we have gun laws, these criminals will face charges. You seem to believe we shouldn't have these laws. No laws, no punishment. I want punishment, you want to protect criminals from punishment because they aren't stopped by a law. Thank you for accepting this plain and simple truth and not replying. You're still missing the point. If none of these tragedies occur, you wouldn't be advocating for more gun laws. But because these tragedies occur, you think they're necessary. Don't you see the disconnect there? And if your aim is to just tack on more jail time, make existing laws tougher. Don't create entirely new requirements that won't do a damn thing but inconvenience a hell of a lot of people.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 21, 2015 -> 08:36 PM) Have you actually looked at the skyrocketing coats of college these days? Don't you whine about your own student loans? Edit also again weirdly assumes that there aren't a decent number of people with a college degree or technical training making less than $15,. And where exactly are all of these higher paying jobs? Edit 2 for example, guess how many non - doctors in the medical field with technical training and usually at least am associates degree make less than that! Yeah but I also recognize that at the end of the day the cost is worth it. I'm going to make exponentially more with a law degree and tons of student debt than I would with a GED working at McDonalds. Non doctors such as what? PA's? Dental assistants? They make more than 30k, especially after a few years.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 22, 2015 -> 08:58 AM) I personally don't tend towards either of the extreme arguments here, but I just wanted to point out that the bolded is patently false. It takes a large chunk of money to pay for a college degree. The part about also having to work to live I have no issues with, as that really is just being dedicated and motivated. But the reality is, even if you are dedicated and motivated, where do people find 15k/year or 25k/year for a 4-year school? Loans just make it cost even more later, and they aren't available to all, nor are they always enough to cover everything. I am not suggesting, by the way, anything beyond what I've said here. I'm simply stating that the barrier to obtaining a college degree (assuming you mean a 4-year degree, not a JuCo certificate) is the opposite of insanely low, it is clearly quite high. If you're talking short-term professional training or community college, now that's a little more realistic. Which if you learn a specific trade can work, but its not the same as a 4-year degree and we all know that. I meant at least an associates. Are there even minimums to get into an associate program? And loans are loans. Federal loans are available to basically anyone. Not getting something beyond a high school diploma (my original point) is easy and anyone that doesn't do it just doesn't have the drive/motivation. I'm sure you can point me to a situation where an 18 year old has 2 meth head parents and has to raise her 4 siblings, but for the vast, vast majority of people it's easily attainable. Bettering your life to become something more than a fast food worker is not a difficult thing in this country.

QUOTE (Brian @ May 21, 2015 -> 05:24 PM) How much does McDonalds make a year? How much do CEOs there make? While $15 an hour maybe way too much for that job, the company could trickle down profits to people it could benefit. Probably wouldn't hurt them that much. The problem is you could make executive pay a dollar and it's such a small dent in the cost of covering the increase, especially for a company like mcdonalds.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 21, 2015 -> 06:55 PM) There's a weird assumption here that nobody making less than $15/hour worked hard in school or works hard at their job. The barrier to obtaining a college degree or technical training is insanely low and the benefits are incredibly high. Not doing so is just a failure these days for young people. I could understand a 40 year old. But an 18 year old? Knowing what you need for a good job? It's just dumb and a sign of a lack of effort/drive.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 21, 2015 -> 05:28 PM) I would just like to point out that Australia is a real country that exists, that they have a $14.81 minimum wage and that they still have thousands of fast food restaurants. http://www.wsj.com/articles/australia-deba...high-1422210360

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 21, 2015 -> 01:08 PM) I worked my way into and through college. So no. But Rock, in a socialist utopia you could have gone to school for free! And then you could have chosen your profession and worked it for the same wage as everyone else! And then we'd all get to enjoy cell phones and tv's and nice cars. Don't you see?!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 21, 2015 -> 01:01 PM) The good news is you can afford to pay that back on a minimum wage salary, right? And I'm sure you have no problems with your tax dollars going to pay for the health care among the poor right? That's not a cost you'd prefer to not pay as a taxpayer? Because I'd much rather McDonalds pay for that than me. Well, under gov't loan programs that have existed for decades, you pay what you can. What's wrong with that?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 21, 2015 -> 12:49 PM) Then we need to start generating some other jobs, because >1/2 of the people who are doing those jobs are over 25. More than 1/2 of fast food front line workers are on public assistance and being paid for in part by the taxpayers, either through medicaid and CHIP for health care, food stamps, TANF, or the Earned Income Tax Credit. All programs being abused/over used because morons think working at a McDonalds with kids is a good decision. And instead of shooting for something a little higher, they shoot for a minimal raise in the same job. I totally agree there's a catch 22 here. McDonald's gets to pass the buck off to the taxpayers under the current system. I'd be totally happy getting rid of all of these incentives for people making some dumb choices in life. Having those systems and programs in place for people who need it is absolutely a good thing. But they're designed to be short term assistance programs not long-term entitlements.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 21, 2015 -> 12:54 PM) Should health care coverage be a handout? If you get sick can you just work harder to get over that? Should the ability for kids to go to college be a handout? Health care has been a handout for a long time, especially for women and children and the poor we're talking about. Preferably even in situations where they're not already covered, family members would take care of their family. The nanny state shouldn't be expected to. College is available to anyone. Take out a loan. Welcome to the world everyone else has been living in for decades.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 21, 2015 -> 12:53 PM) Why is it a problem? People shouldnt have to work for what they get? If you want luxuries and opportunities in life you have to work for them. Too many people expect to do the minimum and get handouts, THATS the problem. Agreed. If Rock worked 2 jobs making 23k for his life, adding in a family, then it's a problem. If it was a stepping stone to something bigger and better, why's that a problem? Everyone I know started working a s*** job in high school or even a s*** job in their careers. It works out for the vast, vast majority of people.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 21, 2015 -> 12:49 PM) Then we need to start generating some other jobs, because >1/2 of the people who are doing those jobs are over 25. I don't disagree there, but it's ridiculous that people decide to have families and think a McDonald's job is a good way to go.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 21, 2015 -> 12:42 PM) There are 0 parts of Los Angeles County, for example, where a $15/hour minimum wage full time job can afford that list, especially since you included kids. 2 full time $15 minimum wage jobs can barely pull that while renting a 2 bedroom apartment based on livability calculations/rent. That 31% criteria is crap. Literally no one follows that, especially right out of school. edit: lol, for Chicago it says you need to make $69k to afford a $1700/month apartment. First off, that "median rent" is obviously not the goal of post-college grads. You live cheaply, especially when you're young and single. That's like saying college grads can't afford a 60k car right off the bat. They can't and shouldn't. Second, even assuming $1700 is the target, that's EASILY affordable on a 70k salary. s***, my wife and I started with one income, her making about 40k, living in a 1500/month apartment and we did totally fine.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 21, 2015 -> 12:17 PM) I seriously hate this line of thought. Yes, people who have families and careers should be able to afford cell phones. Yes they should be able to afford a television. And it's not the Tv/Internet that gets people in trouble these days any more, its health care costs and college costs if they have families. Fixed. Cashiers at McDonalds are not working a career and they certainly shouldn't be working that job as a career with a family.

Not to mention this now allows Reek a path of redemption. Whereas before he was just a brainwashed/fearful dog, Ramsay's abuse is going to someone he grew up with and presumably loved. The mistreatment of Jenye fueled that in the books, and Sansa is the replacement for that in the show (but even more directly). Also, I don't want to be all insincere or anything, and for f***'s sake we're talking about a TV show character, but when I first read all the reviews of the episode, it was as if they had a 15 minute rape scene where Sansa was being beaten or held at knife point. In reality it was a "consummation of marriage" that was obviously unwanted and forceful, but it could have been SO much worse given what Ramsay is capable of. In my mind the reviews had it built up to this big thing and it never really was THAT bad. And I still don't get the people who don't see the "value" of that scene and how it sets up what's about to happen.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 21, 2015 -> 12:17 AM) Lovett to SJU Well f***. Not getting a PG is going to destroy the Groce era at Illinois.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ May 20, 2015 -> 03:37 PM) http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/...he-sand-snakes/ I largely agree with the thoughts in this Grantland post re: the Sansa rape scene, but to sum up: 1) The producer referred to the rape scene as "a hardened woman making a choice." That is not the scene that was depicted. Sansa did not choose to be raped, she had no say in the matter. 2) Putting Sansa in that position was a narrative shortcut that makes no sense from Littlefinger's standpoint. It makes no sense that Littlefinger hasn't heard of Ramsay who has flaying people all over the North, but that's the producer's explanation for why Sansa was left unprotected. Like the post says, some of the depictions of rape on the show have been tone deaf. Taking Jamie Lannister - a character on a redemptive arc - and having him rape Cersei in the Sept was such a terrible decision for a character on a redemptive arc. Likewise, with Sansa, if the intention is to show Sansa as "a hardened woman making a choice," that's not the scene that they showed. 1) Was the hardened choice going to marry into the family that killed your family and took your home? I mean, maybe rape wasn't on the table explicitly, but you gotta figure it wasn't going to be all roses and sunshine there. 2) Does Littlefinger really care? Sansa is just a pawn in his game. Whatever happens, happens. That's the way I took it all anyway. He's a cold, calculated dude.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ May 20, 2015 -> 02:21 PM) That's pretty much it, the shock is probably moreso in that Sansa has been a pretty delicate character and has avoided most of the physical torment up to that point all for it to lead to marrying Ramsay/getting raped. Yes she was abused by Joffrey but for the most part she left "unharmed", only to end up with Ramsay. Lol, this comment basically sums up the faux outrage on this topic. Let's pooh-pooh away the fact that she was physically beaten by grown men (also terrible!), but get upset about a rape scene, in a TV show with dragons eating people, dude's getting beheaded, people getting sliced open, people being murdered and poisoned... Frankly, the fact that people are responding the way they are means the writers really hit a note and did a good job. People are upset because they feel so sorry for a (fake) character being put through something like that. Kudos to them. Also, anyone complaining about the "well they didn't have to go that far" just needs to stop. It's called creative license. They didn't HAVE to show the red wedding, right? They could have just made mention of the fact that characters died! Or made it less graphic. Blood was flying everywhere. But they didn't. And people loved it. I think the rape scene fits. I think it's a scene that now forces Sansa and Theon to work together to defeat the Boltons from within. Sansa's been a follower basically her whole story. Now she's going to act for once. At least that's my hope.

QUOTE (Brian @ May 19, 2015 -> 05:34 PM) This is how I feel. He just comes off as uninterested. He was always on way too late for me growing up so I never watched until he went to CBS. He's still bitter about Leno getting Tonight Show but judging by ratings, NBC made the right decision. P.S. The new guy after Letterman, Corbin?, is awful. CBS has to have buyers remorse. I've only seen a couple bits but the Tom Hanks movie history was hilarious.

I can't believe anyone is backing Thibs after that s*** show of a series against the Cavs.

Letterman's heyday was before my time (80's). In high school (1996-2000) I would always watch his monologue, top ten list and the first guest. I could tell even then that he was sorta mailing it in every night. He didn't have much enthusiasm unless something random hit (Uma/Oprah, the asian dude next door that he would have run around, Biff, etc.) I stopped watching in college and probably haven't watched more than about 5 minutes since. I'm shocked he stayed on the air as long as he did, but I'm sure it was his call more than CBS. He was still pulling in decent ratings. He was consistent, they knew what they would get. It is odd though to hear or see people talk about what an influence he was. Norm MacDonald broke down crying the other night. I don't get it, but again, I think that's because he was huge in the 70's/80's.

QUOTE (farmteam @ May 18, 2015 -> 11:13 PM) I didn't realize you were that split, I thought you were mostly plaintiff. You do insurance defense? Only when insurance companies refuse to pick up a tender. We represent a couple of big utilities and then some random businesses. Mostly property damage/PI work, but also contract disputes, employment disputes, etc. The defense work really pays the bills and then the plaintiff stuff we can sort of pick and choose what we want to do, so it's mostly larger med mal or wrongful death cases. Although we do have the occasional bulls*** $20k auto cases too. It varies, which is nice. Keeps things interesting. I can't imagine doing the insurance defense stuff, working the same types of cases over and over again.