Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 11:05 AM) I've come around on Lovie lately. He still makes some dumb moves with TO's and reviews, but his defensive scheme is solid more often than not. Again, this just fits into what the Bears want to sell you. Yes, this scheme works against the s***ty to average teams out there. Not the perennial powers like GB, NE, NO, IND, etc. Teams with actual offensive lines and good QB's. They get destroyed unless they get lucky with some fluke turnovers/special teams play.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 10:32 AM) GMAB man, the "Next level" with the Packers/Saints? Patriots I'll grant you but they have one incredible QB that keys the whole thing, and still they haven't won a Super Bowl since 2004, so by your own standard there's something wrong. The Saints had that Conference championship run in 2006, then dropped to 7-9 and 8-8 and missed the playoffs the next 2 seasons before finally snapping together their super bowl run. The Packers went 6-10 as recently as 2008, struggled mightily with their offensive line throughout 2009, and frankly nearly missed the playoffs in 2010. The only thing different here with the Bears compared to those 2 teams is that the Bears didn't finish the Super Bowl win. All 3 of those teams have had down/inconsistent seasons, playoff runs that ended in disappointment, etc., the only difference is a Super Bowl win. If Angelo could have provided at least a competent offense to go with the stellar defense, the Bears would have won at least two SB's in the last decade if not more. He should have been fired about 3 years ago for failing to address the o-line and receiver situations (along with Lovie, who is absolutely worthless and one of the worst game managers in the league). It's pretty simply IMO. We're one of the best football markets in the country. Yet we've consistently gotten s*** for DECADES on the offensive side of the ball. Completely inexcusable. I'm tired of defending this franchise as one that actually cares about winning. They don't. They want their fans to think that they care, but they don't. They keep up the defense + running the ball = success mantra because it sounds good to claim that we're one of the top franchises for wins the last decade. But anyone that watches the games knows that the Bears have been incredibly lucky to have won anything under the Angelo-Lovie regime. HOF MLB, perennial pro-bowl OLB, one of the best field goal kickers in history, and the best return man in history. Remove those guys and we're the Lions. f***ing pathetic.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 28, 2011 -> 11:36 AM) Finished watching Terra Nova, really liked it. So what was your basis for your crackpot theory from a page or two ago?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 28, 2011 -> 01:32 PM) I agree on the casino idea, and I agree the CTA needs some efficiencies. Though I also think that, even with those efficiencies, CTA is still underfunded for their infrastructure needs. One thing I see you included on the revenue side is the exchange transaction fee. The financial sector is probably the single most important one for downtown Chicago, and at this point with CME Group talking about leaving (they won't though), I am not sure that adding a tax making the Chicago exchanges less competitive is a good idea. Yeah I'll be honest, I wasn't sure what effect that would have. I have no real strong tie to keeping that in, but if there's evidence that it would hurt more than help, i'd be fine taking it out.

REVENUE INCREASES ($234M total) Impose a pay-per-throw garbage collection fee: $125M Transaction tax on major exchanges (not sure the fee level, apparently small): $37M Impose a blue cart recycling fee: $18M Eliminate free sewer service for Senior Citizens: $17M Eliminate free water for hospitals and non-profits: $15.2M Double ambulance fees (currently $750, and was recently doubled anyway): $13.2M Eliminate reduced rate city stickers for Seniors: $7.6M Increase health insurance contribition for city employees making over 90k: $1M SERVICE/DEPARTMENT CUTS ($698.6M Total) Eliminate supervisory personnel redundencies (includes 707 from CFD who have a 3.5-1 ratio, and 309 from CPD currently 8-1): $190M Switching to a grid system and reducing to one the laborers per truck: $66.1M Fire 161 general laborers: $65M Reduce firefighting teams from 5 to 4 per vehicle (this proposal caused the 1980 CFD strike): $57M Get rid of on call pay for CPD and CFD: $52M Convert 20% of firefighting apparatus to ambulance/EMS: $41.5M (wouldn’t there be a revenue increase effect here too?) Switch all employees to a 40 hour workweek from 35 and reduce accordingly: $40M Fire 75 downtown traffic control aides: $37M (fire all of them if there are anymore more Transfer City Dept of Public Health to the Cook County Health and Hospital System (LOLOLOLOL): $33.7M Eliminate 200 motor pool truck drivers who just transport to jobs: $19M Transfer all election management oversight to Cook County: $16.1M Eliminate quarterly pay for supervisors (not sure exactly what this means): $9.6M Eliminate Chicago Career Tech (job training program): $8.4M Eliminate tuition reimbursement programs for city employees: $7.3M Eliminate funding for after school and summer employment programs for youth: $6.5M Eliminate Condo Refuse Rebate Program: $6M Eliminate city-funded delegate agency programs for small business: $5.6M Merge City and Park District agencies: $5M Reduce spending on janitorial services: $5M Reduce number of holidays for city employees from 12 to 10: $4.9M Charge more for health insurance for city employees who smoke: $4.8M Eliminate "Personal Computer Operators": $4M Hold municipal elections on same day as statewide elections: $3M Close down the CFD Commisary contract and use just the uniform allowance: $2M Reduce number of fire districts and district-level personnel from 6 to 4: $1.9M Eliminate city TB clinics: $1.4M Eliminate subsidy to "World Business Chicago" economic development office: $1.4M Privatize CFD Internal Affairs investigations: $1.2M Civilianize CPD Forensic Services: $1.1M Privatize parking enforcement: $1.1M Independent commission to redistrict ward boundaries apolitically: $1M Gives you about 300M in surplus which should be used for infrastructure improvement/saved for a rainy day fund. Other ideas: -Get the casino into the old post office building ASAP. Some rich European billionaire wants to spend like 4B to create a casino/hotel/shopping district in the southwest loop, which is great. Do it. Create another destination for the City = more money/job for the local economy. Subsidize the cost and own a minority percent of it for the benefit of the public. -Cut CTA services and/or find a way to make it more efficient. The bus system is in need of some tweaking and I think there's millions in cost savings there. -Not a fan of the fee to enter the city. You basically pay that now with the taxes parking operators pay that are just passed to consumers anyway or the ridiculous street parking rates.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 27, 2011 -> 06:19 PM) Not really, because his suggestions could have been suggested by a f***ing first grader...since they're all f***ing "well, no s***" suggestions. Here is my prediction, and I'll be right about this just like I was right about the "no longer affordable health care act". They're do a combination of fake cuts*, various nickle and dime tax increases, such as soda tax, gasoline tax, income tax, entertainment tax, increase various fees, such as stickers, etc... ...and despite all the increases in revenue and fake cuts*, nothing will change...budget shortfalls will continue to happen, and round and round we will go. *fake cuts are the types of cuts governments propose, such as all the "cuts" we've implemented in the federal budget...where where pretend not increasing future costs count as cuts. For example, while we currently only spend 1M on X, and we "predicted" we'd be spending 2M on X in 5 years time...we will instead only be spending 1.25M in 5 years time...HENCE OUR AWESOME FIGURE OF "CUTTING .75 MILLION!" Reality is, costs went up .25M, and they didn't cut dick. Because that's how we do things now. Only in my family, we "cut" going out to fancy dinners to once every few months, down from once a week. IE, really real cuts. The kinds of cuts governments don't do. What we love to do more than anything is stick our collective heads in the sand while we keep electing the same people to continue doing the same s***ty job. Let's all pretend these budget shortfalls came as a big surprise when over the last decade, despite the fact that we watched them band-aid short term s*** solutions like selling off City services, or the Skyway, only to blow through that windfall of money in less than 2 years time...to then find ourselves right back where we started, only worse, because all the while nothing was done to curtail it! Only now we are without valuable assets that could have been reformed to save money, kinda like the private enterprises that bought them did. I've decided shooting holes into other peoples suggestions is my new desired method of posting, versus proposing wildly out of reach solutions in an ideal world none of us live in! The two parties in control have completely changed the narrative of elections. It's not longer about actual issues, it's about a bunch of fake bulls*** issues that get people riled up so that no matter who is in office a small elite still comes out ahead.

In the end, just more ways to f*** the middle-class. I'm sure there will be poor exemptions, and the rich in the area probably don't care.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 27, 2011 -> 08:31 AM) HIMYM theory I stopped watching the show about 3 season ago, but happened to catch most of last nights. It's funny how absolute nothing has changed in that show. Characters make the same jokes, Ted's in the same spot with women, Barney continues some ridiculous sexual quest, etc. On another note, I watched Terra Nova. I really agreed with the two guys from AV Club that reviewed the show. It has a chance to be really good and at the same time it has a chance of being really bad. It's walking a very fine line. But since this was just the first 2 hours, I saw enough potential that i'm going to stick with it.

I ended up with a Vizio 55 inch LED ...the "LED of the year" according to CNET in 2010. Zero complaints. I thought it was a cheap brand, but it seems to be made of quality parts (not too plastic-y) and it's got an outstanding picture.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2011 -> 11:39 AM) If those same people make trumped up allegations in affidavit form alleging coercion, why should I believe that their original testimony isn't trumped up as well? A concern the Court in the petition addressed. I think there were only 3 who actually alleged coercion. One flat out denied any coercion (despite his affidavit) during the hearing. The second was deemed not credible but his testimony regarding facts allegedly coerced wasn't all that important to the verdict. The third the Court considered the "coercion" but whatever he wanted to recant didn't have much to do with the evidence that the jury ultimately used to find the guy guilty. So it didn't really matter. At the end of the day all of these people, like with most people wanting to recant their testimony, had some ulterior motive. The Court asked some good questions - if this were true, why did it take 20 years for these people to suddenly cry foul? If this were true, why didn't the defense use this evidence in the first appeal and petition to the parole board? In at least one witnesses' case, why did he only sign and affidavit but refuse to testify at the various appeals/petition hearings to back up his claims? It was all pretty suspect.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 23, 2011 -> 11:01 AM) How is that even possible?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2011 -> 09:54 AM) I wouldn't think that after the events in the state of Illinois a decade ago the claim that police coercion in capital cases is disturbingly commonplace would be even a subject for debate. So because it's happened before in Illinois it's now "commonplace" in Georgia? I mean I get what you're saying. This stuff happens. But you have to take this on a case by case basis. In this case there was no evidence of any coercion, just some trumped up affidavits alleging it. There wasn't even a hint of truth to those accusations, let alone proof.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 07:29 PM) Reall, at this point, there are no longer multiple independent witnesses. Let me ask you this...because this is bothering me. Imagine I'm right. Imagine that the conviction was 99% based on corroberating testimony of 9 witnesses. 1 of those witnesses is a possible alternate suspect. 7 of those other witnesses recant their stories after conviction and allege coercion, which frankly is not uncommon in these cases. Imagine a situation where the wrong person is set to die. Is there any actual reason to think this is impossible? That it could not possibly have happened in this case? What do you mean there are no longer multiple independent witnesses? Yes there are, and they testified to what they saw. 20 years later they signed an affidavit (drafted by the defense attorney) wanting to change their story and creating a theory that they were coerced into testifying the way they did. The court went back through all of the records - from the initial police investigation on the night of the murder, to the trial, to the post-trial appeal, and to this habeas corpus hearing - and determined that of the 7, only one had any actual credible claim to recant their testimony, but at the end of the day what he wanted to recant didn't change his testimony with regard to the guys guilt. So, this nonsense that all of the evidence convicting the guy is suddenly out of the window is simply not true. And I love how you can throw in this - "which frankly is not uncommon in these cases" - which just proves you're inherently biased against cops/prosecutors and believe that every case is a conspiracy to wrongly peg and kill the black guy in the case. I'd never want you on a jury because you'd completely ignore the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard and instead create your own "I want 500 people witnessing the murder without a single discrepancy in what they saw before I can even consider that the guy is guilty" standard. Not realistic at all. Again, I need an explanation for why this is such a bad thing. You're placing an impossible burden on the State to prove any case and to keep the conviction. You're making the determination of 12 people completely meaningless. In essence you're arguing for infinite number of trials until the guy finds that one juror who refuses to find him guilty. How many trials and reviews should a person get before the justice system determines that the person is guilty for good?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 23, 2011 -> 08:06 AM) There is a big racial disparity for death penalty prosecution and conviction rates. And for shooting cops... I wonder if statutorily that automatically bumped up his punishment. And who knows what that other guys' story is. Just like this Davis case, of course the headline makes it seem like bulls***. In reality there's probably a really good justification for what happened.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 04:54 PM) It goes beyond determining if a witness is credible and if they are telling what they 100% believe to be the truth, that's the additional burden. Your breathalyzer example really isn't a comparable scenario. In your second scenario, remembering if your friend's alibi isn't really the same as fingering someone for a crime or remembering details of a scene or an event. The issues with eyewitness testimony comes from remembering details, people you don't know, timelines and events. Seriously, there's a decent amount of research in this area, it's not something I'm just making up here. Human memory just isn't reliable enough to be the only evidence to sentence someone to death imo. Seems to me you're thinking about this in a vacuum. You're ignoring that there are multiple witnesses corroborating what the others saw plus the physical evidence. There's more than just one guy thinking he saw someone do something with a ~10% chance of being mistaken.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 04:52 PM) I did, and so have many others that don't agree with you. It's not as clear-cut as you're presenting it. With respect to this guy getting his due process, and Georgia's system being entirely adequate, it is. This dude had multiple opportunities to provide some piece of evidence to establish that the jury got it wrong. Every single one was questionable, if not downright unbelievable. I think your guys' standard is beyond reality. I'll be asking my next jury pool if anyone is a soxtalk member....yikes you guys would be difficult to convince.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 04:03 PM) The real issue is that it is up to the defense to raise doubt on eyewitness testimony, and even in the case of coercion, that's really hard to do. Best answer I can give is that there needs to be well designed procedures that allow for overturning a conviction, particualrly a death sentence, in these cases. In Georgia, there are not. The other thing I should point out is...this isn't necessarily a constitutional issue. The Constitution doesn't require fairness or logic, it requires Due Process, and in this case...the level of "Due Process" granted by the state of Georgia is not up to the task. Sorry Balta, but this is beyond bulls***. MILLIONS of dollars and THOUSANDS of hours were spent by every level of the judicial and administrative system to make sure this guy was guilty. You guys are just asking for "one more chance" despite the fact that the guy was given about 15. Is that not enough? Seriously? How is that not due process? Seriously people. READ THE OPINION. Look at the actual details of this case. We're not talking about simple facts like A sees B shoot C. A tells cops B did it. B put to death even after A says no i was wrong. There are HUNDREDS of underlying facts in this case that showed that a lot of what the people were recanting/saying was complete bulls***. They changed their story 15 years down the road.

QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 12:57 PM) I don't see the problem, if somehow some new evidence would prove his innocence without a doubt, we can always dig him up and bring him back to life. You act as though this guy wasn't given a fair shot to prove his innocence. He offered nothing over the last 10 years to show that. A jury found him guilty on some pretty strong evidence tying him to the scene in the same clothes, eye witness testimony of him being the shooter, and ballistic evidence to support it. This wasn't some bulls***, trumped up case. Essentially what you guys are suggesting is that our criminal justice system should allow someone to delay their punishment indefinitely because who knows what he might be able to create to establish his innocence. So, credibility or reasonability of the "evidence" aside, he offered a new theory so it must be accepted as true.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 12:46 PM) notice that the burden of proof is shifted from the state to Davis, though. If the state convicted on a weak case that later falls apart, Davis has to prove his innocence, the state doesn't have to justify their case. eye-witness testimony is pretty much s*** regardless of whether the person giving it honestly believes it, and it's especially useless when it is later recanted or contradicted. And that's the way it should be. The state proved it's case. He's guilty. Unless you want to make that (And every other verdict) completely meaningless, of course there has to be some burden shifting involved.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 12:43 PM) what is totally false? So, they were friends of Davis and told the truth at the time and got him convicted, but now recant their story? The problem with this line is that if they're unreliable witnesses, they're unreliable witnesses. And police coercion is incredibly difficult to prove; how long did it take for the CPD people who literally tortured suspects to face any charges? There were 9 witnesses who attested to Davis' involvement and whereabouts that night. Obviously that number doesn't include ballistics experts, any psychological or character witnesses, etc. I ask again, did you read that opinion? Go start at like pg 135 and check to see how each individual "new" affidavit was reviewed. Most either (1) didn't actually recant anything of importance (i.e., showing his innocence), (2) didn't establish that any type of coercion actually happened (and in at least one case, flat out denied that it did), or (3) were not credible based on the fact that some of the "new" testimony was contradicted by various pieces of evidence introduced at trial.

Didn't know where to put this really, but it's finance related: http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/21/pf/cost_ra...child/index.htm Holy balls kids are expensive.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 11:54 AM) This is the reasoning used to dismiss at least one of the recantations: Well hey, the cops said they didn't tell her to lie in court, she must be making this up! Yeah, the part about his "new" testimony (not directly to his innocence or guilt) not jiving with other testimony established at trial is the more important part. The fact that the other officers completely denied it (as opposed to not saying anything about it) is just the cherry on the top.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 11:41 AM) Asking courts to re-weigh a capital case that was heavily (entirely?) dependent on witness testimony where the witnesses have almost all recanted and claimed coercion doesn't seem like an especially heavy burden to place on the system avoid executing the wrong person. This is totally false. Edit: as to the "all witnesses" part. Sure they CLAIMED coercion. And from the few that I read either the Court found that the witnesses flat out admitted that he wasn't coerced (the first guy) or that there was no credible evidence establishing any coercion. Also interesting too that some of the recanters were friends of Davis. Any real shock that they'd lie/recant to get him off death row/out of jail? second edit: I take that back. looking through the rest the guy that was being assaulted in the parking lot was one that recanted his testimony. But certainly not "almost all" of the witnesses recanted their testimony.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 11:23 AM) btw here's the ruling from a year ago: http://multimedia.savannahnow.com/media/pd...uling082410.pdf Just skimming through this, the guy had about 10 different appeals/petitions. While not all of them weighed evidence as to his innocence, the parole/conviction board of Georgia actually did. He basically got a second trial to establish that his first trial was wrong...documents were submitted, testimony from his "new" affiants were provided, and Davis himself was allowed to speak. They ultimately rejected his petition finding no reversible error or evidence of his innocence. As to this petition, it's not like the Court just read some briefs. They clearly analyzed their new affidavits and compared it to their prior testimony and of the evidence of the trial itself. The first guy's recantation wasn't that he changed his mind, only that he now could not remember exactly what he saw. (pg 129-130) And he couldn't support at all his claim of being coerced to testify (in fact he expressly said he wasn't). The second guys recantation and new testimony completely contradicted other witness testimony about the night of the shooting, so while his recanted testimony was admitted as credible, it essentially threw in doubt all of his testimony (both old and new). The third guys was determined to be a complete lie and totally unbelievable (134-135). Instead of wasting the next 20 minutes finishing this, it seems to me all of this "new" evidence was incredibly suspect (as I had rightly presumed) or that the recantations didn't really change any of the the "damning" portions of their prior testimony establishing the guys guilt. Couple that with the fact that this guy got more of his fair share of chances to prove his innocence (and couldn't), I just don't see the uproar. In fact, this again just proves that cable news headlines just make the country dumber. Sounds like a s***ty system when the headline is "7 of 9 witnesses recant testimony of guilt, man still put to death." People read that an assume he's now innocent. Total bulls***. And BTW it was 7 out of 36 state and 5 defense witnesses that recanted their testimony. The rest did not. And it doesn't look like any of them were eye witnesses, just other people with alleged knowledge of the case (including a jailhouse snitch). Did you read this before claiming that George "murdered" him?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 11:14 AM) That sort of assumes an infallible justice system, though. How many people have been exonerated from death row thanks to DNA testing after decades of protesting their innocence and having people discover flaws and fabrications in the prosecutors' cases? Why is their testimony from 20 years ago enough to convict, even with all of the problems with eyewitness testimony and accusations of police coercion, but now their recantations are "suspect"? I think adding new evidence that didn't exist is one thing. Asking reviewing courts to re-weigh evidence is another. That's not their role, nor should it be. It would make the entire system meaningless. Every case would immediately be appealed so that a different set of eyes would render a verdict. And then when the party that lost doesn't like the appellate courts' ruling, they'd appeal it to the SC and then on through the federal system.