Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Boogua @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 03:17 PM) Jawun Evans is at 100% on that crystal ball thing (not that it means too much) and he's visiting champaign this weekend. If he commits before Brunson, I just can't see Brunson going to Illinois. I wouldn't mind being wrong... Groce could sell them on being the two starting guards, both with the ball a good portion of the game ala Dee and DWill.

His reasoning was a good one IMO and perhaps a key angle for the conservative members of SCOTUS to strike down the bans - marriage isn't a fundamental right, so the burden on the state to justify its legislation is evaluated on a rational basis standard, not strict scrutiny. 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. I do think, though, that SCOTUS is going to have to rule that if marriage is a fundamental right, then there really should be no rules on marriage whatsoever. Multiple partners, incest, etc. Those are all based on social mores, just like gay marriage.

"See guys! Look how much we care!"

I'm sure it's "tough" to maintain long term, long distance relationships. I'm sure it's about keeping the other party interested.

QUOTE (Jake @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 09:16 PM) I don't see any way Quinn wins the election. So that leaves Rauner Don't underestimate the stupidity of Chicagoland.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 06:02 PM) I like Trestman and think he is a great offensive mind, but I think an A rating is pretty absurd right now. The defense is still his responsibility and in terms of Emery, I give him an A for addressing what I consider areas of need, but one of the biggest needs, our LB Corps was still ignored by and large and if we don't make the playoffs, will likely be one of the key contributors to that. However, Emery's drafts just don't look that good. Like I said, last year is still up for evaluation but these guys get an awful lot of credit given all of the questionmarks and things still to come. I'm all for giving people credit where it is due but I'm not there yet with this crew. 1) How can you blame the coach for SEVERAL devastating injuries? They were playing 2nd and 3rd string d-lineman and rookies at LB. No amount of coaching can fix that. Again, that issue in addition to losing your franchise QB for a good chunk of the season, and they still managed to go 8-8 with one s***ty play keeping them from the playoffs. 2) While LB is a need, CB and DL were bigger needs. I think he needed to wait another year on Bostic, who clearly has the athletic make-up to be a good LB but still needs to learn the game. We'll see if he can make that jump. Williams is a decent starter. He's not going to lose games for you. But we all know the season comes down to the offense scoring points, and the D-Line teeing off and getting enough pressure. Everything in the middle and back end don't have to be as good if that happens. 3) Emery has hit on 2 pro-bowl players in 3 drafts. That's pretty damn good in my book.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 08:13 PM) Here's the thing Jenks, both candidates are going to be taking money out of our pockets. If Rauner lowers the minimum wage, that's just more people on the government tit. Quinn's mismanagement of tax funds is already costing us money. The question is, which is going to cost the least. So yeah it's really the lesser of two evils. I think Rauner has a good message with term limits and shutting down democrat ineptitude in Illinois. That being said, no poor person is going to get behind that guy knowing he thinks they should be paid less and that he wants to have tax loopholes for people that invest. I think Rauner would shake up Illinois but he probably doesn't have the ammo to win this. I don't think Rauner will because he won't raise taxes. And the minimum wage stuff was an offhand remark to a small group of Republicans. It wasn't an actual initiative. And he's backed off of it and now supports a raise in the minimum wage. Still, that's one of those talking points you know will never, ever happen, even if he is elected. Frankly at this point if anyone votes for Quinn they're a f***ing moron. Rauner could be a terrible governor and at worst that puts him on par with Quinn. We are one of the worst states in the union. Even if you're anti - Republican policy, you have to belive that something differrent will be better than what we have now. Also, I'll never understand someone that can vote for a liar. A liar who can't even come out and admit he was a liar. Again, sadly lying will be acceptable. Being a successful person is not. Who thinks that way? (55% of this stupid f***ing state) And on top of that, this state HAS to break up the Madigan machine. Absolutely has to. We have no hope if he can continue to rule the state government.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 12:45 PM) Because of Tucker and DeCamilis, my faith in the Bears are pretty low. Unlike others, I also am not bought into Emery / Trestman yet either. I don't know that Trestman has what it takes to hold people accountable and be a successful head coach. I do think he's an extremely bright offensive mind and have full faith in him running the offense. Difference between winning and losing is so slim in this league though, so little things matter, and hopefully he can make sure the players and coaches know that and are held accountable. Emery has done a nice job in FA and targeting needs but other then Jeffrey and Long, we've had pretty horrific looking drafts with him. In fact, I think only two guys remains from his first draft. I will say jury is out on a lot of picks from last year, but given what I've seen to date, I think last years class is looking almost as awful too, save Long. I have such little faith in Bostic. Emery turned one of the worst offensive lines into one of the best offensive lines in one off-season. ONE off season. He brought in Brandon Marshall, a top 5 WR, for pennies. He's brought in Jared Allen and some other good D-lineman that SHOULD vastly improve the defense this year. He's drafted pro-bowl quality players in Long and Jeffrey. Bostic still has that potential. You can't really expect a rookie to jump in and play middle linebacker with 2nd and 3rd string d-lineman in front of him. He's got a grade of A thus far in my book. Not sure what else you think he could have done. Trestman gets an A so far too. If we're going on what the guy had when he came in, his defense was old as dirt and half of them got hurt, his starting QB got hurt, so he brought in a semi-retired, HS FOOTBALL COACH back-up QB and turned him in to, statistically, one of the best in the league.The offense went from one of the ten worst to one of the ten best in the game. He was 17 seconds and a moronic defensive play call away from getting to the playoffs. And he never really embarrassed himself with stupid challenges or wasted time-outs (none that are memorable or impacted the game anyway, as best I can recall.)

Pats D versus the Dolphins, or Denver D versus the Colts. Denver D is better, but Colts are better too.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 11:49 AM) That is nothing to do with it, but, yes I will cry zero tears that someone didn't get into their "dream school" that they were a fringe acceptee for, because they were just as susceptible to another white kid with money taking their spot as to a minority. Diversity at a university is good, kids learn just as much from each other as the uni. Grabbing students from different areas, backgrounds and cultures is absolutely worth it, especially since the success rate of "student with 21 ACT" and "student with 23 ACT" is negligible in difference. Looking at two students with such similar academics in GPA or test scores is just meaningless, it'd be like looking at one baseball player with a 1.6 WAR and another with a 1.5 WAR and saying "clearly 1.6 is better than 1.5, we must go with the first!" That difference is so small to be a fluke, and at the end, they'll go with who is a better fit for the university and their goals. If it was their dream school and did not get in, they can spend a year at a different school, do well, and transfer, where they will find it much easier after all the other freshman have dropped out due to drinking too much. Back to this: 1) So long as you recognize you don't truly believe in equal protection and anti-discrimination policies. You, and others, basically ignore that supposed universal truth when it suits your aims. Everyone is equal! Everyone deserves an equal chance! Unless you're white, and there's enough white people already, so it's cool to discriminate against them. 2) I agree diversity is a good thing, and that it has value. But interestingly, blacks and hispanics aren't the only minorities out there. Other minorities get to those schools and provide that "diverse" experience without being favored in admissions processes. Schools don't go out of their way to attract under-qualified or barely-qualified asian and indian students in the name of diversity. I agree that step is important, but I don't agree it's the universities responsibility to do that. 3) As to the last comment, hey, black kids can just be better at school and read a book about financial aid and get into the school they want! No biggie.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 12:00 PM) It's not that he has to "deal" with people not liking him, it's that UIUC is now losing someone who they viewed as an important scholar in his field because some wealthy donors don't like the things he said on twitter. Even more damaging, it sheds a very negative light on the school in academia and can impact their ability to attract top scholars in the future. I'll let the letter from the American Historical Association, the professional body for historians, explain: Let's pretend this guy said something borderline racist/homophobic/sexist, yet the school still wanted to hire him because he's an "important scholar." I'm sure you'd be 100% behind him, right? Because donors/alumni shouldn't pressure the admin to get rid of someone they like, right? Come on, you know that's BS. This guy said some controversial things to a group of people. They complained. The admin reacted. Change the statements to whatever you want and this stuff happens all the time.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 11:55 AM) What do you mean conspiracy theory land? There is an ongoing case in the real world where an academic hiring is being reversed due to pressure from wealthy alums. There was also the eventually failed attempt to remove UVA's president in 2012 that was at least partially influenced by two wealthy donors. What I meant by that is that I don't think there's a realistic fear that major donors are getting people hired/fired for random reasons. Here there's a person making controversial and borderline anti-semetic remarks and people who contribute a good sum of their hard earned money don't want their school hiring someone like that. It's no different than donors being pissed with athletic programs bringing in bad kids or unethical coaches or other teachers/students make racist/sexist remarks. You can't expect to be shielded by some professor bubble just because you work at a school. If a client of your employer learned that you were making public comments they didn't agree with and they threated to move their business elsewhere, i'd have no problem with your employer getting rid of you. That's the way the world works. Obviously a school is not a business, but you're talking about alumni who are very involved in funding the school and allowing it to operate. I'm not saying the school should follow the donor's wishes all the time, but should it be a consideration? Absolutely. You need to keep your donors and alumni base happy. And if enough of them complain, you should act. Ok, well I disagree. I don't think the admin should follow every command of the donor, but they should at least listen to them and consider them.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 11:28 AM) Do you think it's good for wealthy alumni to be able to control academic hiring decisions? Might it be better for these institutions to not have to rely so heavily on donations? I mean in conspiracy theory land I could see a problem with it, but not really in the real world. If I gave up millions of dollars for a donation, I would expect that the school would want to make me happy. If it was a general donation to the school for anything, maybe that's not quite as appropriate, but it definitely is if it's a specific donation for say a research project and the person being hired/not hired is going to work on the project. And it might be better in theory to get rid of donations, but the alternative is public funds. Public colleges don't need a reason to increase their rates and we don't need a reason to increase taxes. It's already too f'n expensive to get a college education and I already pay too much in taxes. edit: You can't tell from the article what the donations were for, but I guess we can surmise that most were general donations. I still don't really have a problem with it, especially if you've got a bunch of high level donors making the same complaint. If the hire is saying controversial things, he's going to have to deal with people not liking them. That's the nature of speech. What if the guy went on a moronic misogynist rant about rape or naked pictures being leaked or something and a bunch of female donors, alumni and students voiced their concerns? Should those concerns not be considered either?

Got excited to play Madden 25 again last night. Spent 20 minutes updating the rosters to this year and getting my franchise set up. Played approximately 1.5 quarters of a game before broke ass Madden came back and I turned it off. Near the start of the game I had an awesome, wide open screen play with Forte. One defender within 25 yards, Forte behind 2 lineman......neither lineman blocked the defender, 4 yard loss. This happened twice. On defense, I had several opportunities to sack the QB, but the player - my human controlled player - inexplicably bumped into the QB but refused to tackle him with his arms, despite my frantic button pushing. QB got away. On several other plays, the computer RB would break 8 tackles in a 5 yard area by the line of scrimmage. When i'm the RB, one guy with a finger can bring me down. I quickly turned that s*** off. Madden f***ing blows. Every game I have gotten in the last 10 years has blown. I don't know why every 2 years I get excited about it when I know i'm ultimately going to get upset and quit playing.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 10:42 AM) We've seen the same thing with politicians in IL as well. This is about the least surprising thing ever. Colleges are just well paid whores anymore. Or in every walk of life? You favor and follow instructions of those that have been good to you.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 10:21 AM) Honestly, if you were on the bottom 25% of applicants, I have no sympathy for you getting denied. That makes you like thousands of other applicants. You were the reason you did not get accepted, not a minority/low-income candidate. Also, I don't know what you are talking about "changing schools", they weren't guaranteed entry anywhere, they can go to the other 5 state schools or many private schools in Illinois and probably pay less than U of I. Thousands is probably a little much, hundreds maybe. But who cares? You're still taking away spots from other students on the basis of race. It's the definition of discrimination. They're not guaranteed entry but if that's a dream school they didn't get into because of discrimination and they have to go to their plan B that can have a major impact. Quality of the school, location of the school, cost, people you know, etc. etc. are all factors that differ greatly depending on where you go. Simply saying you can go to 5 other state schools or to cheaper schools ignores the differences between each school. Again, this just goes back to your "they're white, they have money and can deal with it" response which is a bunch of BS. There are low class white people too who are suffering from the same issues as minorities.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 09:41 AM) I'm not gonna cry over kids that can afford to pay their own way and are "qualified". Those kids are going to find a college. If they were passed over for the sake of "diversity" they were on the fringe anyway, with the same resume as 5-10k other kids. Talk to someone in college admissions. Every kid has the same resume, they are shooting fish in a barrel. Oh, no, you had to go to Iowa instead of Illinois? Your life is over! You will die, you poor child who probably were born to a well off enough family to go to a good school and will leave college without debt, WHY IS LIFE SO UNFAIIIR WHYYYYYY But most can't in the same way a minority applicant can't. They have to take out loans too. And I guess go ahead and ignore the issues having to change schools will raise for those students because diversity? Going to Illinois v. Iowa is a pretty big deal. They're not the same school, they're obviously geographically apart and they cost a different amount of money. But I know, every white person has advantages and can afford it and blah blah. That kind of viewpoint is exactly the problem I have with the big diversity push. Same with AA policies. The goal is admirable, but doing it that way is flat out wrong.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 2, 2014 -> 03:53 PM) That's fine if you went to a private school, but I went to a state school and I believe it is their responsibility to make sure they exhaust their resources to make sure as many students in the state have a chance as possible. That doesn't mean that they should allow a kid with a 13 on their ACT, but it does mean that if they continue to raise ACT and tuition to raise their "status" as a university by improving their inputs, than I won't give them a dime. And despite your claims, studies continue to show that students in low income areas do not realize how much financial aid is available to them. They see the sticker price and believe they cannot afford it. It's not that they aren't smart enough to get into college, it's that they do not realize they can. Then that's the fault of the high school, not a college. Why should a college - even a public college - spend its money to recruit students and teach them about financial aid when there's no guarantee the kid will go to the school? That doesn't make sense. I just think it's BS that we continue to ignore qualified people willing to pay for school just for the sake of diversity. Yes, diversity is a good thing. Getting more minorities into higher education is a good thing. But it shouldn't be at the expense of other students. My school decided that, in the name of diversity, it would ship in 30 inner-city kids from Detroit and give them free rides. Most wouldn't have gotten into the school based on their grades and ACT scores. But because it sounds good to market to alumni that they brought in 30 inner-city kids, they did it anyway. They passed on 30 other qualified students just to say they were more diverse (even though the school was still like 97% white). To me that's a bunch of BS. Colleges not working hard enough to be diverse isn't the problem. The problem with diversity in higher education begins much, much earlier than college.

I'm not sure on this, but in the civil area some statute of limitations are tolled if the plaintiff/claimant is under 18. I wonder if there is any way to toll the Sol here. I'm sure there are some civil torts she committed. Fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc. I'd imagine there are other out there when you purposefully cheat someone like that. On the support argument, you almost wonder if that lie can be used against her.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 2, 2014 -> 03:33 PM) I don't have a problem with claiming they are diverse, I have a problem with how schools in fundraising efforts continue to show off how hard they try to help out low-income students when in fact they are purposely not trying that hard. It IS more expensive to get those kids, but that where I want my money to go, not a new book store every ten years. I still don't see why this is the responsibility of the school though. Kids shouldn't have to be sold on getting an education. If "you'll make X amount more money with a degree than without" doesn't get through to them, I don't know what will. Hell, here in the city CPS now pays for school meals. They have in the past, but now it's being used as a marketing tool. "Get your kid to school and they can eat, for free!" How f***ing sad is that? Move some tax dollars to increase resources for college-prep and college planning at high schools. I can get behind that. But to expect universities - who turn away qualified candidates willing to pay their way - to spend tons of money to basically recruit kids, just for the sake of diversity? Nope. Pass.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 2, 2014 -> 03:09 PM) How many gangs kidnap people, hold them hostage, torture them, and then make movies to broadcast their killings, all overlaid with messages about terrorism and overthrowing the government? People who also happen to be "western" born with passports to the US and other western allies. These guys could be a significant domestic threat if they're allowed to travel freely. I'm totally on the side of Cameron on this one. I hope the US enacts similar legislation.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 2, 2014 -> 01:48 PM) The thing is, Goose gets like maybe 5 minutes of those 3 hours, and says something stupid pretty much every time. I totally excuse color and PBP guys because they literally do have to talk for 3 hours. But goose has all game to come up with something, and usually when it is his turn I get a bunch of stupid. Pam Oliver and Laura Oakmin run laps around Siragusa. And I am not comparing him to Simms or Aikman because they are in the booth. Goose is just jock talk combined with food talk. He barely offers an intelligent thought, which sucks. I do enjoy Moose and Kenny though Completely disagree. At least with Goose you'll get a "here's where the D-line/O-line screwed up on that play" explanation. With Edwards/Oliver/Oakmin you're getting, at best, a "yeah, we really need to play batter next half to win the game" response from a coach/player. Sideline reporters who can't talk about the actual game are useless.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 2, 2014 -> 01:16 PM) Wat. NO this is entirely false. Goose is terrible I don't think Goose is any worse than Aikman or Simms. I mean look at this list of s*** for Fox: 1) Joe Buck, Troy Aikman and Erin Andrews 2) Kevin Burkhardt, John Lynch and Pam Oliver 3) Chris Myers, Ronde Barber and Jennifer Hale 4) Thom Brennaman, David Diehl and Laura Okmin 5) Kenny Albert, Daryl “Moose” Johnston and Tony Siragusa 6) Dick Stockton, Donovan McNabb/Brady Quinn/Kirk Morrison and Kristina Pink I'm surprised they didn't renew Billick's contract. He was the best analyst IMO, although he talked a little too much. Siragusa is easily the best on field talent and I agree he's added more as the years have gone by.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 2, 2014 -> 12:56 PM) Because no one was beheadded in the stone age. I'd imagine a sharp rock for cutting would make it pretty difficult to behead someone.

http://fortressamerica.gawker.com/the-isla...te-4-1629599572 2nd journalist gone. Bomb the whole region back to the stone age and then GTFO.