Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 10:22 AM) lol, wow. that's great

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 10:17 AM) How does that factor in stats like college-educated blacks having twice as high unemployment as college-educated whites? Equal merit, equal work does not result in equal outcomes. It doesn't, but so what? That's life. So long as everyone has an equal opportunity that's all that society can (and should) provide. I'm not suggesting the system is perfect. But I think that if you're a law abiding person that works hard and strives for a better life you can do what you want.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 3, 2011 -> 11:16 PM) So is Carmelo Anthony overrated or the package the Nuggets got back underrated? The Knicks are 9-12 since the trade and the Nuggets are 15-4. I get that the Knicks dealt whatever depth they had in that deal, but I've never really felt that Carmelo was one of the better players in the game. He just seems to be all name and just a little game. A zero-defense player going to a zero-defense team = failure. Denver, meanwhile, is holding opponents to something like 10 pts less a game since Carmelo left.

I'm all about Obama making this pledge, but really, hasn't every President since Carter been saying this? And yet we're still nowhere close to attaining that goal.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 3, 2011 -> 09:17 AM) signed George W Obama Change we can believe in.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 2, 2011 -> 10:16 AM) Would be nice, were it true. eta Productivity, Profits Up, Wages Down "Doing the right thing" is no guarantee of success. That doesn't apply to what I'm saying at all. We work harder for less money than our counterparts in the 40's. That sucks, but that's not an argument against the fact that if you get an education and have a crime-free record then your "success rate" in life is exponentially better.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 1, 2011 -> 02:28 PM) Because we've decided as a national policy that manufacturing is the biggest economic sector that has to compete directly with low-wage workers from overseas, so it has been effectively dismantled over the last 40 years. Or we've just gone to a more service oriented economy because the price of manufacturing is cheaper elsewhere. Either way, the fact that we have more people on the payroll of the government than in private business in manufacturing is still an issue IMO.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 1, 2011 -> 01:25 PM) That number can only be true if its HEAVY manufacturing. And that's to be expected. I don't see why.

Also depressing: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3867182108.html

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 1, 2011 -> 10:01 AM) I'd be in favor of decriminalizing all of it. The War on Drugs hurts users, costs billions and helps suppliers. But it goes back to the point that it's the same proportion of people on public assistance and not that use drugs, both hard and soft. It's just that poorer people tend to use crack and wealthier people tend to use coke. Throwing users in jail doesn't help users, doesn't get them clean and doesn't help society. Besides, what does cutting off their public assistance do? What greater good to society would that lead to? How do their children get fed and clothed? And it comes at the costs of invading the privacy of the 90% of people on public assistance that aren't users, and it comes at substantial financial costs. It'd be an economic and civil rights loser. It's not the job of public assistance programs to enforce law. Unreasonable searches are not in the public interest. I guess I just don't see a problem with it. You're requesting the government to assist you, the least you can do is be a law abiding person. Regardless of the numbers, it's at least forcing those people not to screw up their chances at a real job later. Public aid already has all sorts of requirements, I don't think being drug free is such a bad one.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 1, 2011 -> 09:53 AM) The idea that anyone makes it entirely on their own is part of the myth. Anyone who is successful has some help at some point. From friends, family, society, even government. There is nothing wrong with that; we are social animals and our brains have developed to work together. It also doesn't imply that no one succeeds based on merit, that it's all luck and chance. I'll pull the quote from one of Google's founders: And, of course, I vehemently disagree with the idea that anyone who fails to succeed fails because of "huge mistakes" in life. Unless being born into a poor neighborhood with crap schools and crap prospects is a huge mistake, while being born to wealthy parents that can send you to a school New Trier or Neuqua Valley and then on to the Ivy Leagues is the result of your own hard work and determination and lack of mistakes. The point is that normal, hard-working people that come from crap backgrounds with crap support can work hard, finish school, and "do the right things" while still losing at capitalism lottery, while others can be born into wealth, skate through life, produce nothing of value and b**** about high taxes. Our economy isn't some great sorting system of pure personal merit (nor should it be, but that's a different argument!), and blaming the poor for being poor is simply another form of blaming the victim. When the greatest predictor of your socioeconomic class is the one you were born into, it says something about how much merit really gets rewarded. It's also worth noting that money isn't the only privilege you can inherit--strong family support, social status and access, legal, community support and endorsement of education. These are all generalities, of course. We can all point to someone who started out with the odds stacked against them and ended up very successful. We can all point to someone who's poor and lazy. We can all find stories of welfare fraud, and we can all find stories of people who were born into wealthy families and still worked hard and provided a lot of value to society. I'll pull a quote from a Washington Post article addressing some of the arguments against inheritance tax: I don't disagree with what you're saying, other than the part about the "capitalism lottery." I don't think it's as harsh as you say it is. We're still talking about a minor chunk of societal pie here. My point is that if you make the right choices in life (abide by the law, obtain an education, work hard, etc) the odds are extremely stacked in your favor to come out with a successful life, regardless of how s***ty your home/family life is. Are there a ton of people who grow up in really s***ty situations? Absolutely. But governments role in that person's life is to (a) prevent that s***ty situation from happening as much as possible (safer streets, better schools, etc), and (B) assisting those that try but still fail.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 1, 2011 -> 09:32 AM) For some statistics on drug usage rates between welfare and non-welfare (statistically insignificant): http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-t...ion-eligibility It's also been ruled unconstitutional in at least one Federal court. Basically, it's an unnecessary invasion of privacy that doesn't really serve any public interest. Marchwinski v. Howard, 113 F. Supp. 2d 1134 - Dist. Court, ED Michigan 2000 Besides, I thought you were more liberal on this issue and favored decriminalization or legalization? Drugs like pot sure, but not the heavies like crack or heroin or meth. The bigger problem IMO is that those people eventually get caught. They'll have a record and will never get a job and will always be on government assistance. So why not just make it a requirement that they can't? Our liberal government is all about telling people what's good/bad for you, so let's apply that to this situation. And that's a pretty stupid decision. How is indirectly enforcing criminal law not in the public interest?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 31, 2011 -> 05:36 PM) People can better their lives, sure. That doesn't address massive inherited privilege disparities and how much harder millions of Americans have to work. It is also simply not true that hard work and elbow grease can and will get you ahead--like I said, millions of working poor bust their asses day-in, day-out (because they're likely working more than one job) without hitting the capitalism lottery. And looking at the statistics, hundreds of millions of Americans have worked hard over the last several decades to see no net gain. Meritocracy does not really exist in this country. IMO all that is talking about extremes. Can you go from really poor to really rich without any help. Maybe not. But that ignores the reality that people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet had help, but some of that may have been of their own doing. But either way, people can improve their lot in life from having nothing or having to work two jobs and barely scraping by to getting themselves more educated and qualified and getting a solid career. They may never be rich, but they can be comfortable in life. The problem is most people make huge mistakes in life that they then have to pay for. Having kids too early, being caught up in crime which screws up future employment, choosing not to finish school, etc. Well, yeah, that sucks for them, but it's not like the system kept them from living a comfortable life. No one is saying it's easy. You gotta work for it, but I can't agree that it's not possible. I have. But since public aid isn't going away and the stimulus has already been signed, we might as well get some public benefit from it. If it's a small number then it wouldn't be a big deal. And on what basis would that be unconstitutional? We probably are, but I'm just saying we already have the safety net system in place. If you lose your job you can receive unemployment until you get back on your feet. The government will help with your bills. Your kids. Your house. It's not like if you're an average American and life really screws you that you're left on the street to die. What more can you really expect?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 31, 2011 -> 04:15 PM) See, this I find incredibly insulting. The idea that the working poor don't bust their asses just to survive, that they don't work just as hard or harder and that they just want to sit around and accept public money is just absurd. People simply can't better themselves when more and more jobs are shipped overseas or simply downsized, placing a larger burden on the remaining employees. They can't better themselves and climb up the grand meritocracy ladder when wages have been stagnant for their entire adult lives while the cost of living sure as hell hasn't. Eh, we've had this argument before. From my personal experience looking at the Chicago public welfare scene, it is like that. There are certainly people out there who work their asses off and still have problems getting ahead. But they're a minority. And really, those people don't even get much public aid, which is part of the problem with the system. Those people, who do work their ass off and have jobs and have kids and still have trouble don't get the assistance they need. But there's a very large number of people out there who do just accept their check, take it, and stick their hand out again. I met/learned about countless numbers of them at various public housing projects in the city. And it's a BS point that people can't better their lives. People do that every single day. But it's the American problem - you actually have to work for it to get there. Who wants to do that when I can just point at someone else and scream "not fair!" I agree with this. But it's being taken just as much from the rich as it is from having to pay for the increased costs of society. I've advocated large worker programs before. I'd be all about people who receive government aid must not only pass a drug test, but must also volunteer and/or actually work to better their community. And I think we have that system you're looking for. But the problem is that system isn't designed for a large number of people, which we have.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 31, 2011 -> 04:06 PM) You can say EXACTLY the same thing about the top of the top of the top. Except when their fortunes are on the line, everyone in government picks up the phone. They get bailed out and lose nothing. They have probably even fewer qualms with asking the government to make sure the deck is stacked in their favor. They have absolutely no qualms accepting public money, public favors, things that can be turned into money, etc. I agree there, I thought all the bailouts were bulls***. And we still haven't really protected ourselves from the Wall Street screwing us all again.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 31, 2011 -> 03:18 PM) Yeah, it's not like the ultra-wealthy systematically exploit social safety nets to keep wages low and profits high! But keep continuing to ignore the gigantic wealth gap. Ignore 400 people controlling close to half the wealth in the country. Ignore stagnant wages for decades for most Americans and sky-rocketing executive pay. Those aren't the real problems. The real problems are poor people on food stamps! They're enslaved somehow! But see, this is the attitude which kills any real reform in this area. It's not a one side fix. It's not just saying the rich have exploited the system to be more rich. Sure, that's a huge problem, but at the same time we've basically accepted the fact that a large portion of the country is completely dependent on the rest of us to live. They have no driving force to better their lives. They have no qualms with accepting public money. In fact, they want more. And because the system is set up for the rich, the middle class ends up getting double screwed because they're forced to foot the bill without getting much of the benefit. Maybe if we reformed the advantages in the system for the rich, while at the same time maybe demanding a little bit from people that receive public assistance, the country (and government budgets) would be in even better shape.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 31, 2011 -> 12:46 PM) So VCU needs to be considered one of the best teams in the country because of their tourney play, but Kentucky is still overrated but just happened to play well enough to get to the Final Four. As a #4 seed. I never said the best, i said they were underrated. I argued that if they win the whole tournament I don't see how they wouldn't be considered, at the very least, in the discussion for the best team. And if Kentucky wins the whole thing then fine, i'll be proven wrong. But I don't think they're as good as advertised. Like I said before, they were a no-call travel away from losing in the first round.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/col...=PERDiem-110331 Hollinger with another "he doesn't fit into my statistics very well so he's not as good as we think he is" argument.

My point is that certain teams were pegged as contenders or "elite" teams before the tournament started, despite the fact that they never exhibited anything close to that. Duke and UNC were high seeds that were overrated. Again, name me some really good wins from this year to prove that. I think Kentucky, to a certain extent, was also overrated, though they played well enough to get to the Final Four. None of these teams were as great as they were made out to be.

kinda surprised that Henry didn't get some votes.

QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 31, 2011 -> 11:07 AM) As someone that hates Illinois, the worst thing that could happen would be for Weber to leave. I can't see how they wouldn't bring in a better coach. As long as Jerrance is on the bench, recruiting will be fine. Yeah, I'm one of the fire Weber guys, but really i'm right on the fence. I think he had a terrible recruiting stretch right out of the gate that really messed up the program. He's had some serious upperclassman issues (Pruitt/Randle, Meachum/Frazier, McCamey/Tisdale/Davis). Obviously it's ultimately his responsibility, but I think things would have been different if Gordon had kept his commitment and if Jamar Smith hadn't nearly killed a teammate and violated the terms of his suspension. Those are issues that even the best programs can't necessarily recover from. That said, his inability to look at his current team and make adjustments kills me. It's like he's so dead set on his way of playing that he'd rather they lose than win. I think a good coach tries his philosophy, but if it's not working you change for the short term. Shaka Smart might be overrated, but that's exactly what he did in the middle of this year. He was dead set against playing a zone or pressing, but he decided to try it and it's clearly helped his team win games. Mostly though I think he is learning from his past recruiting mistakes. He's not settling for guys with skills, but now he's seeking out guys with the skills AND the right attitude. Tisdale and McCamey were skilled, but they were incredibly soft. He's getting guys like Abrams and Shaw who want to destroy you, not just play better than you.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Mar 31, 2011 -> 09:49 AM) I think there are two huge questions: Who steps up and plays at the 4/5 and who becomes the team leader? I'm hoping it's Brandon Paul. I'm hoping he works really hard on his game in the off season, both physically and mentally. He COULD be a dominate player in the league and make himself a 1st round pick. This could be one of those years where Illinois will surprise people. It's tough being the leader behind 3 seniors. I thought Jay Williams the other day on ESPN 1000 made a good point about Illinois - having a team where your energy/will/win-at-all-costs guys are underclass never works. It's gotta come from the upperclassmen. I could see that team contending for a big ten title. I could see them being mediocre again. No one will know until they start playing games.

QUOTE (hitlesswonder @ Mar 31, 2011 -> 08:44 AM) I didn't think he'd leave initially, but now I'm thinking it's actually pretty likely. With Guenther leaving the writing is probably on the wall and Weber is smart enough to know that next year's Illinois team is likely to be pretty bad. With OU he gets a contract to take him to retirement plus more money per year. OU has better facilities than Illinois and he wouldn't have to deal with Jereme Richmond there. I think he's gone. For Illinois, there's no way they hire an elite candidate (like Smart) under the current circumstances and I imagine they'd lose a recruit or two. They would save money by not having to buyout Weber's contract when firing him. As per usual, the twitter non-sense has made a no-story a story. From Weber directly: Weber would never leave Illinois until he's forced out. I'm convinced of this.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 31, 2011 -> 08:23 AM) Because the rest of the nation is stuck on enslavement, er I mean, entitlement programs. These programs don't improve lifestyles. They stagnate them. Agreed.

I just find it hilarious that there were people everywhere, the media, this board, etc., who actually thought Bush was responsible for that. And drove that point home repeatedly, for weeks. Yet I have not heard a single thing from anyone about this new story.