Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 12:29 PM) What if they are the only photographer in town? What if someone in a small town wants to rent an apartment and they are not allowed to because they are gay. They should have to possibly move to another town? What if there are multiple businesses in one town that do this. Pretty much saying get out of our town if you are gay. All tough questions, and good ones, but IMO when it's about the government mandating you do something, that something shouldn't ignore a constitutional right that you have. These laws don't say "anyone can discriminate on anyone if they have a religious objection to it." There has to be a substantial burden involved. They can still be sued and it's their burden to prove the substantial standard. Given that I see the impact of the law being pretty low, I don't have an issue with it. And again, IMO, in a perfect world you should be able to discriminate all you want. Society will determine if your actions are acceptable or not.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 12:26 PM) Your Cubs vs. White Sox analogy is really wide of the mark. Probably, but so is the reaction to this as open season on discrimination.

It also looks like this law is modeled after a federal law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Fre...Restoration_Act (still applicable at the federal level) which, gasp!, was introduced by Chuck Schumer and signed by President Clinton.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 12:20 PM) No, it was on that legal document as well, because that's what they used to compare all the letters. And other documents, like car rental agreements. They had a decent amount of samples available.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 26, 2015 -> 11:51 AM) Somehow I think if a business found some part of your personal life and used it to refuse service to you, you wouldnt be so open to it. But thats just me. I think it'd be fine with it actually. There are places I don't go because I know i'm not wanted. I don't walk into Cubs bars wearing Sox gear because it's not worth the aggravation. Does it really matter if they go the extra step of telling you they won't serve you? On top of that, no major retail shop/restaurant is going to take the chance of doing being so openly discriminatory. Not only because of the money lost from those customers, but also because of the PR nightmare it would cause. You think Chick-Fil-A is going to put out a statement that gays are no longer served in Indiana? Not a chance. At best you're talking about mom and pop shops like the photographer in Kansas that didn't want to photograph a gay wedding. So what, gay people can't go to the homophobic photographer. Is that really a big deal?

IMO if you're not receiving government money, you should be able to exclude whoever you want. But that's just me. You don't want to serve Cubs fans? Fine, don't. You don't want to serve gays? Fine, don't. It's 2015. Unless you're in the deep south in a town of 200, that kind of business isn't staying open very long.

Finished The Jinx last night. Pretty fantastic. HOWEVA,

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 25, 2015 -> 01:57 PM) I completely agree with your points. Schools expel students all the time and it is not a civil matter in court. So any due process does not require any court involvement. So again I ask, who sets the due process for the University of Oklahoma? As long as the process they select protects the constitutional rights of the student it is ok. What law would be broken if the due process is a decision by the university president? Who at the university should make the decision? The school would not be adjudicating this in a court room initially. Legally I'm not certain if there is a difference in a due process of a faculty committee, school board hearing, or school president hearing before action. These are not the first people to ever be expelled from a public university, there should be prior law to establish that covers this. But to suggest that this should follow a due process similar to our court system isn't necessary. Constitutional rights of speech are not you can say anything, anytime, and anyplace without penalty. What due process do you think is legally required in expelling a student from a university? Couple things here (and i'm basing this on my now 8-9 year old recollection of constitutional law): you're getting at the procedural due process requirements of the 14th amendment. That doesn't really apply here when you're talking about a government actor taking away or infringing on someone's constitutionally protected rights based on their own rules. Procedural due process is to make sure that you have access to courts, speedy trials, ability to testify, etc. It's a way of ensuring that you're able to adjudicate whatever dispute you have as per your rights. Substantive due process is a little different. It gets at going after states/government actors for infringing on rights of the people as enumerated under the Constitution. So when we say that these students weren't provided "due process under the law," what we're really saying is that the University failed to uphold it's legal obligation to abide by the Constitution and refrain from enacting laws/rules that infringe on the rights of the people. It has created and applied its own rules that don't comply with the Constitution. Now, specifically with this case, I think you could make the case that BOTH versions of due process were missing since the President unilaterally expelled the students without any hearing or involvement from the students to tell their side of the story. But that's a road that can be confusing, because you're right, school's don't have to go to court to expel students, but they might have to have some kind of procedure, be it a student union/congress hearing, a board of directors hearing, etc. I'm not sure if they did/do in this case.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Mar 25, 2015 -> 10:39 AM) Indiana's Stanford Robinson is transferring. I wouldn't be surprised to hear someone for UI leaving at some point as well, I could see Morgan leaving at this point. During Groce's press conference yesterday (at least reading about it on twitter) I didn't see Colbert's named mentioned. Groce said something about what Morgan needed to do for next year. I wondered if that was a sign Colbert was getting the "minutes are going to be tough to get next year, might want to consider moving on" talk.

What specifically is the issue with the driver?

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 25, 2015 -> 10:59 AM) What I believe you are missing is the university selects who is allowed to enroll in that university. The qualifications are set by the university not the constitution. Likewise, the university is allowed to establish a series of local rules to allow you to continue to attend the university, or not. Again, that is not set in the constitution. Constitutional rights trump the rights of public universities to operate as they wish. It's really that simple. A university can't decide to exclude blacks, women, etc just because their local rules say they can. Not sure what you're missing here.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 25, 2015 -> 09:47 AM) this Kevin Love/Lebron thing is getting more awkward every day I think it's a lot of nonsense really. We have this expectation that players all have to be great friends, otherwise there are problems. I don't think that's reality. There have been some weird comments that probably should have stayed private instead of on social media. That's about it.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 24, 2015 -> 11:15 AM) Sounds like you're body has met it's natural equilibrium, that's simply what you will weigh after taking those current factors into consideration. If you want to lose more, you'll have to turn up the exercise...sounds like you have a pretty slow metabolism. If I ate 1500 calories a day, I'd weigh 90 pounds and starve to death (and I'm 158lbs now, which is about 5lb over my target weight). Ideally I want to lose another 15-20. I'm 6 foot. 6 foot 205 sounds about right. I guess i'll start hitting the exercises more regularly and see if that does the trick.

QUOTE (Brian @ Mar 24, 2015 -> 06:00 AM) I appreciate what it is but I wish Will Forte's character was more likable and Carol was less annoying. Agreed. The show should have been 3-4 episodes of him doing crazy s*** while being the last man on earth. That was the best part of the show. Adding in Carol would have been a good midseason break.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Mar 24, 2015 -> 07:49 AM) I just saw the episode last night. I can't believe Sammi did that. I'm really curious how they're all going to respond to this. As for Cameron Monaghan on Gotham, is it even known how much he'll be in the show? If it will be significant I would not be surprised at all if he's sent away on Shameless or killed off. I don't think Shameless has more than 1 or two more seasons left anyways. I could. For as terrible/pyscho as she's been, Carl really did take her "baby" away. So she's lashing out, looking for revenge. What I don't get is why she's allowed back at the house. A little too convenient for the sake of the story. I knew she was going to do something dramatic, why else have her around? So far the season has been pretty meh, even though some scenes/episodes/plot lines have been stellar. I don't care about Carl, I don't care about Lip and his professor (much better with the asian chick/figuring out how to pay for school). They've neutered good Kev from past seasons. Fiona with the triumvirate of guy troubles, which you know will end badly no matter what so it's not really that interesting (the shortness of the steve/jimmy return was also a disappointment). The show's continued need to explore Debbie's sexuality at 13-14 (yuck). Oddly the best part of the last few episodes has been the Frank story line. He's actually been a nice guy. They're kind of limping to the finish a bit IMO.

Has anyone punched through the weight loss plateau before? I started this diet on Jan 3rd. I'm eating good, healthy foods, about 1500-1600 calories a day. I end up walking 2-3 miles a day commuting/walking around my office, but otherwise no real exercise other than an occasional elliptical session or walking a golf course. So far i'm down 22-23 lbs, which is great. But for about 2-2.5 weeks now i've been right at 222. Maybe a pound difference in that time span. I figure my metabolism has dropped and my body is used to the 1500-1600 calories it gets. I guess I should start exercising more regularly? Does the plateau eventually go away? If I keep doing the same thing am I just maintaining my current weight?

K.C. Johnson ‏@KCJHoop 27m27 minutes ago Thibodeau said Butler likely to go vs. Hornets.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Mar 22, 2015 -> 08:18 PM) I'll definitely give you Ohio State, and probably Michigan, but Illinois is not a better job (nor a better program) than Indiana right now. 1. Wisconsin/Michigan St 2. Ohio St/Maryland 3. Michigan 4. Indiana/Illinois/Iowa 5. Purdue/Minnesota 6. Nebraska 7. Northwestern 8. Penn St/Rutgers I'm not exactly thrilled with where Illinois is at these days, but the talent they have are underclassman and none of them are leaving early to go pro. IU could have a mass exodus next year with their coach and top few players. And what's their recruiting look like in 2015? No one of note I don't think. I think UI is definitely in the better spot in the short term. If IU lands a good coach that can recruit there's no doubt they can be that top team in the conference again. But, will it?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 21, 2015 -> 07:06 PM) It can be a top 5 job. But right now it's simply not there. If a coach can come in and recruit Indiana and coach the hell out of the kids its a premier program. I suppose it CAN be, but it's not the 80's anymore. Until Izzo and Ryan retire, they're, at best, the third best program in the Big Ten. Looking back of the last 20 years and projecting ahead a little, not sure Indiana overtakes OSU, Ill or Mich either. They've been just an average program since Knight left. I think 3 sweet 16's in 20 years, 2 of those coming just recently on the heels of a perfect storm of recruiting.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Mar 21, 2015 -> 10:18 AM) I really have no idea if he'll be back next year. Wouldn't surprise me either way. Everyone came out and said there were no truth to the Alabama rumors, but so far it's followed the pattern of many a coaching change. Coach has skid, AD publicly comes out in support, rumors surface of coach leaving for elsewhere, rumors are flatly denied...pretty standard. And Crean's comments at the end of his last radio show were rather cryptic. Not only do I have no clue who will be coaching next year, I have no clue who will be on IU's radar if Crean is gone. In general for coach openings Michael White of Louisiana Tech is an interesting name I've seen pop up. Good recruiter, done fairly well there. The two IU fans i'm friends with, irrational types, think Indiana is a top 5 job and they'll be able to pull either Stevens or Shaka to Bloomington. I'd say they're a bit out of touch with reality. IU fans better set their radar a little lower.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 20, 2015 -> 11:46 AM) I couldnt disagree with this more. The prevailing thought nationally and locally is that the front office has been pretty ridiculous here. If they patch things up, that would seem to go with the popular opinion By that I meant every other person has said they are cutting ties after the end of the year and there's no hope at reconciliation. He's the only one I've heard say there's hope this could last.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Mar 20, 2015 -> 10:54 AM) Evidently Cowley was on some show and indicated there is a good chance Thibbs / Front Office are able to mend things up in the off-season. I think a lot of people, including Friedell, have indicated that unless we win it all, Thibbs is gone. However, it sounds like JR and Pax are big proponents of Thibbs and there is beginning to be more sentiment to have everyone get together in the off-season (and ideally level heads will prevail). Personally I hope it is true (I also hope we win it all). Also pointed out it is unlikely Bulls will move Taj (to create minutes for Nik) as they view Taj as protection for Noah departing in 2016. Also indicated org is very confident of an early April return of Rose. In other words, Mariotti Cowley is just taking the least popular opinion route... again.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 20, 2015 -> 09:08 AM) Yes. But they do not now. Which is kind of my point. Whatever level of immorality the placement of violent fictional entertainment means to today's society, it's certainly superior to days of mob justice killing hundreds and intimidating a whole section of the populace. A chant referencing those times positively is despicable and clearly outside the norms of this country as seen by the reaction. So I have a hard time believing violent entertainment has debased the countries morality when they would view references to actual violence as outrageous. I can agree with this.

QUOTE (Jake @ Mar 20, 2015 -> 01:16 AM) A public university also has a responsibility to foster a safe and effective learning environment for their students. A horde of men shouting about lynching n-words could reasonably interfere with that enough to forfeit whatever free speech rights they might otherwise enjoy. Thinking of what I know about 1st amendment rights in schools, which is superficial, Oklahoma may have solid legs to stand on. Precedent suggests that restrictions on speech are acceptable under certain conditions: 1. Disruption - fairly straightforward. Will the speech act cause significant disruption/distraction that is detrimental to the overall atmosphere? There's certainly a case to be made that this case is highly disruptive, though it is interesting in that it probably would not have been without the distribution of the video. I could see some legal twists and turns over that aspect. 2. Offensiveness - how contrary to generally accepted standards is the speech act? It is currently part of the precedent that schools have some authority and responsibility to teach students moral values in the broad sense. In this sense, speech that is entirely contrary to even the most broadly conceived moral consensus can be restricted. I think this case fits this standard best. 3. Interference with school's goals - does the speech make it more difficult for the school to achieve its mission? A legal precedent involved a school's ability to prevent the display of a banner encouraging drug use, which was deemed too contrary to part of the school's aims (preventing unhealthy and illegal lifestyles). The Oklahoma case is fairly weak on this aspect. The restriction wouldn't have to satisfy all three of those and the SCOTUS could dismantle the existing paradigm as well, potentially. Another circumstantial aspect is the extent to which the speech may be conceived as endorsed by the school. So, for instance, a student having a private phone conversation leaked and getting expelled for what he or she said is different from the student getting expelled for the content of his or her valedictory speech. The Oklahoma incident happened as part of a fraternity event, so you have students acting in their capacities as members of a school-sanctioned organization at a school-sanctioned event. There are definitely some ingredients there for that aspect as well. Alright, time for me to disengage my armchair lawyering. Yeah if any of these arguments fly, you're opening the door to restricting speech at the whim of school administrators. For basically anything. Stand-in's and protests for things you probably support ARE disruptive and interfere with school goals. It's much easier to keep the rule as is - does it incite immediate violence? Is it a targeted threat that can be appreciated as real? If so, fine, we can restrict the speech. If not, even if it's terrible and awful, you have the right to say it and not be punished for it (by the school/government).

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 19, 2015 -> 03:39 PM) I assumed we were talking about the United States. I thought the point was that we are entertained by death? I think watching a 2 hour movie about murderers, destruction, etc. with a ton of death, shows a sign that we are entertained by it, real or not. The fact that they are usually top grossing movies just furthers that point. I don't think we as humans actually get off on the death aspect so much as the craziness that surrounds it. But it's still entertaining and fascinating for people.