Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 02:43 PM) According to the interview with the creator, the killer will be 100% revealed, and the case will be closed, in addition to a new murder and storyline all within S2. So I am thinking it will end 2-3 episodes into the season. I dunno. I take that as it's possible that they "resolve" the investigation by finding out who did it, and then using the remaining time to finding some higher ups or something that ordered it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 02:44 PM) You think they've been postponing reports for years? Please, the homicide rates in Chicago have dropped dramatically, over a period of a good number of years. Could there be manipulation in there? Sure, a few here and there. But I want someone to show me how its even remotely possible to "fudge the numbers" to show a 40% drop in homicides over years or a decade. I never claimed they were postponing reports for YEARS. Nor did I claim that it was significant fudging. I'm just saying it's possible (and probably likely).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 12:25 PM) these attacks make no sense. First, someone who deals but doesn't use is irrelevant since the topic was usage rates. Second, you've asserted that welfare recipients would under-report, but haven't explained why. Frankly, it doesn't make any sense. It is because my original point was that people in public housing are involved with drugs more than the general population. Involved meaning not only uses, but also deals/sells the crap out. You provided a study that's entirely about dependence and usage being the same (all while not counting certain people, for example multiple members in a single family residence from what I remember). So that's a percent they've come up with that wouldn't include people that deal the stuff because those people wouldn't be using it (they'd cut into their profit). And you don't think people would lie about usage to protect the aid they get? Currently they can lose their aid if they are involved in crime. While people in the general population might be worried about being caught, their income and home isn't going to be lost because of it. I think that's a pretty important difference.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 11:02 AM) How, specifically, are the murder rate statistics being manipulated? You'll love this reference, but check out The Wire, which is widely considered to be really, really accurate. They fudged the numbers all the time. They purposefully spread out crimes by date to make one month look better than the last. I don't know how much of an affect this really has, but since people's jobs are on the line, I have no doubt that they fudge the numbers in their favor.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 10:39 AM) Vague objections to murder rate statistics don't apply to the survey I provided in response to Jenks' request for a survey that supported what I said. You need to actually address the methodology of that study and how sample-collecting would be biased towards underreporting welfare drug use or overreporting non-welfare drug use. eta also there's still zero legitimacy for rejecting data based on anecdotes from police buddies who work in the drug unit. Hopefully jenks saw what I was driving at with sampling bias there. His cop buddies work with the druggies, of course it's going to seem like a much higher rate if that's your only perspective. I got your point (and I did attack the methodology, including the purpose of the study which was dependence and usage, not involvement in anyway - dealers don't use their own product, for example, or the fact that those people have more to lose if they admit to usage), but if my cop buddies who work in the drug unit spend 95% of their time with the same people, who live in the projects, then that tells you that they spend a lot of time at the projects. They work in districts that encompass a lot of area, not a 2 block radius where public housing projects are.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 12:03 PM) Politics 101. Its whey everything in the previous 8 years had a Bush attached to it. I still can't believe he caused Hurricane Katrina.

I just watched the "dey tuk r jbbbbsssss! (da ka duuuuu!)" episode of southpark

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 20, 2011 -> 04:16 PM) Grantland - Bills Simmons' take on 'The Killing' Finale I just watched the last 2 episodes last night and I don't really get all the hate this show is getting. Simmons goes a little too far here. Really? You're going to question AMC for this? Ridiculous. If I'm AMC i'm laughing all the way to the bank. This show got more people talking than any marketing campaign could. They'll absolutely get a bunch of viewers back next year to find out who killed her and why Holder (i'm guessing the most popular character in the show) did what he did. I mean, overall the show sucked, especially compared to the Mad Men/Breaking Bad's of the world. Way too many red herrings, way too many boring and unnecessary scenes (the whole Sonoma thing, the whole Bennett thing, the whole Larson family thing). And you had to know that someone in the campaign was involved (especially the main candidate) since they spent SO much time on that boring s***. If anything my complaint of the show would be that it was boring as hell with bad writing, not that they somehow strung me along only to pull the rug at the last second. And I can already guess that next year it'll take 6 episodes to find the "real" killer, and then it'll take the remaining season (or more) to find him/her. Snooze.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 06:59 PM) The s*** they deal with everyday compared to what we deal with are apples an oranges. Let's not pretend we know. Hell, my brothers a cop so I *DO* know...but I still don't know. 99% of the people I deal with at my job on a daily basis are educated upstanding citizens. The opposite holds true for police...and it's very easy and convenient to forget that. Granted, the buddies of mine work in drug/gang units, so the worst of the worst areas of the city. But the stories they tell me are just completely unbelievable. These are guys that did 1-2 tours in Iraq. They tell me these areas are worse. The people they deal with are completely disconnected from the "real" world we all take for granted. They wouldn't hesitate to kill a cop if they knew they could get away with it.

Interesting that the Celtics took JJ and Moore. I don't see either as being NBA contributors. JJ is too skinny/weak and Moore is undersized, though he is very gifted offensively. If i'm the Celtics, I'm looking for tall athletic guys that can play 2-4.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 10:32 AM) http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/06/23/bul...quettes-butler/ Might have been posted already, but here's a great read on Butler.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 12:20 PM) At first it was cute then it started getting annoying. Well yeah, welcome to the Sports Guys' World.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 12:08 PM) Bill Simmons has fun with the NBA Trade Machine Also, his podcast with Chad Ford from Tuesday was pretty awesome. They dissect the Draft and trade possibilities like no other. I like his "coin" system.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 12:03 PM) Only if we disagree with the fed policy! I'm sure you can find an exception or two, but I think it's pretty rare for me to like federal policy more than state policy. Because at the end of the day, I can move to a state that matches my view of how my community/government should work.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 11:24 AM) Well their representatives have not said that. Because politically they probably don't want to step on the Mayor's shoes and they hope to rise the ranks of the CPD.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 11:05 AM) If you did this regularly, you either would run out of reserves, or the price drops related to the releases would be negated by buying oil to refill the reserves to release again later. I guess i'm assuming that we have some set rate of reserving incoming oil (since we got 700 something million laying around), so that in every 6 month or a year period (make it sporadic) you're gaining most of it back. But yeah, obviously you couldn't do this consistently for an extended period without running out pretty quickly.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 10:27 AM) I think an interesting part of the gun debate, is that people who take the word of policeman in regards to drug policies (keeping them illegal), ignore policeman's recommendations when it comes to concealed carry. And vice versa. Do they say that? I'd have to ask. I'd imagine my friends would say "what's the difference? criminals have/use guns they're not supposed to have. Doesn't stop them from shooting at us now."

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 11:00 AM) I didn't realize this was coordinated with 27 other nations for a total of about 60 million barrels. Interesting. http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/168476/201...ic-reserves.htm Right, but if you did this every six months, couldn't you affect prices like it just did? For example when oil prices jump in reaction to world events (like Egypt and Libya)? Or is 60 million barrels not enough to do that?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 10:26 AM) Release from the strategic reserve or OPEC meetings? The OPEC meetings do happen regularly. No I mean the release of a small percent of our reserves.

I already can guess how this discussion will turn out, but thoughts? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/b...0,7086189.story Seems to me any argument about rising crime rates and whatnot are gonna be out the window soon, since the worst states for gun crimes still allow concealed weapons. And this line of thinking just never made sense to me. People using guns for crime aren't exactly following the rules anyway, so now their going to "hide" them? How does that make sense?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 09:21 AM) Yeah, this should have been done right after OPECs mini-meltdown at their last meeting. why isn't this done on a regular basis? Once every 6 months, or once a year, etc?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 04:54 PM) Depends on what you mean by as-is. Current state for 5-10 years would suck, but its still very survivable, nationally and globally. If you mean things get worse and worse for 5-10 years, that's different. Yeah i mean current state. 9-10% unemployment, around 1% growth, more and more people retiring. More pensions becoming due. It's not totally in the crapper where we can just forget about them completely, but at the same time nothing else good is happening so we just sorta stay in this meh period for a decade or two. Edit: though I guess GDP growth is a little better than that, but still only 2-3 percent.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 04:40 PM) Yeah, I was going to say something like that. We've had lots of panic moments in our economic history, some stronger than others, but this country always found a way to claw back into things. I am pretty confident that will be the case here as well. And on the very slim chance it doesn't, and we descend into some sort of economic death spiral, then those pensions will either be irrelevant or will be just dropped a la bankruptcy dropping of debt. What if we stay as is for the next 5-10 years?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 04:18 PM) Now, it's not given in here...so I have to ask..."How are they defining fully funded"? Are they stating that assets must match liabilities to the pension? Because, while in the long run this in theory does need to happen...we're still in a depressed market state. Those pension plans are still working to recover their losses from the 2008 debacle...but if the economy is able to grow at a rate that say, begins to reduce unemployment, that should have a strong stabilizing effect on those same pension funds. Over the last 25 years, public employee pension plans have averaged 8.8% return, while over the 2007-2010 period they averaged about 0.4%. If you try to be concerned about pension plan funding at the bottom of the market, you're going to have a pension plan that is overfunded if the market ever recovers. Again, the bigger problem here is the economy as a whole producing this drag. There are certainly still issues in pension systems, but they're much smaller than would appear based on a standard of "Fully funding pensions based on the mid-2011 gap". This, of course, assumes that we'll get back to some semblance of pre-2007-2008, which is not a guarantee at all.

Another depressing study on pension deficits: http://www.cnbc.com/id/43498037