Jenksismyhero

One word: Blago

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 17, 2008 -> 02:40 PM) 1. Part of the reason crime is going back up a bit is the economy. This is a manifest reality that show itself time and time again. Worse times, more crime. And the police can only address a small part of the problems. 2. More cops isn't the answer - it almost never is. But for the portion of this that can be addressed by the police, they do need different tactics. And Weis has outlined a whole series of those types of things that he is implementing. The problem he's running into though, is that the guys with the stripes (sargeants, lieutenants) are the ones that need to implement his plans. And a lot of them are older officers who don't like change. Dealing with that fact will be the biggest challenge for Weis. Even if he is successful, which would be impressive, its going to take time. 1. agree it's a part 2. See, I don't think any of it can be addressed by police. Police catch the effects of crime, not the cause. They're step two in the process. They rarely prevent, unless by putting someone in jail you assume they're preventing further crime. It's like fighting terrorism by waging a traditional war. Not gonna happen. The only way the south and west sides, where 95% of these murders occur, are going to get better is by fixing the communities and making their members actually care about it. Not saying some don't, as obviously every time tragedies like these happen, the reaction from the community is pretty big. But it goes deeper than that. Cultures need to change, ways of life need to change; to me it's on the people in those neighborhoods. From what I see, the city offers a LOT, it's just a matter of getting people to use the services that are provided (or the bigget hurdle - getting people to WANT to use those services). I just laugh at how Blago thinks it's a problem that can just be "fixed" by waving his magic pen that appears to have limitless funds.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 17, 2008 -> 02:38 PM) It's funny to me that he managed to succeed someone who was sentenced to prison for corruption, and be even worse, and have people hate him more. You know you're bad when your own party hates you. I'm still looking forward to the day that we Illinoisans (sp?) can proudly say that we have two ex-governors in jail, AT THE SAME TIME. Ah, good times.

It's too bad we don't have video of Daley's reaction to this. Essentially Blago is just slapping him in the face and telling him he can't control his own city. In the bigger picture though, what are MORE cops going to do? People shooting each other isn't going to stop simply because a police car drives past once more every hour than it did two weeks ago. I'm pretty sure if you were looking to gun down someone, knowing that police presence has increased, you just wouldn't do it in broad daylight in the middle of a public street. You'd do it like all of these killings seem to be - in back alleys, in back yards, in poor underdeveloped areas where no one lives... Blago has to be the dumbest person ever to have held such a high position in government.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 17, 2008 -> 09:13 AM) I don't know why I am surprised, but I was. The man needs to look in the mirror and not the camera for once. Apologizzzzzze....

Two opinions on this: 1. Wouldn't the announcement itself (i.e. congress, states, companies all say tomorrow, "ok, we're starting in 30 days") have an effect on the price of oil immediately? Doesn't the price already go up and down by $10 bucks just when someone farts near a major drilling area in the middle east? Wouldn't the possibility of a million barrels a day that they're projecting also mess with the futures speculation, which many believe is the real culprit in the price doubling the last few years? 2. I fail to see why drilling for more oil now has anything to do with fixing the energy problem this country faces and figuring out the best way to deal with it. Even if today Congress gives out 50 trillion dollars to find viable alternatives, it would take decades to implement. No matter what we do (even after we waste the next decade or more talking about what we're going to do) it's going to take a long time for anything to actually change. It's unfortunate, but that's the reality. I'd much rather we continue to find ways to fix our current oil problem, which is sucking this country's economy dry, and work on the long term solution at the same time. And I don't see how saying "well it's going to take 5-7 years to make a difference" does anything. We all said that a decade ago, and i'm pretty sure we'd be in a better spot now had we done it then. In a decade are we going to look back and say the same thing?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 17, 2008 -> 10:03 AM) I'd call it the opposite of a fountain renovation. A fountain doesn't generate revenue, nor does it help cut down driving and pollution, as this would. Its really nothing like it. You have to look at this as more of a business proposition. As such, the big worry is management - will the CTA be smart enough to have the stores run by private business? The fountain brings in a lot of tourists, but regardless, I agree with your point. I just don't trust the CTA to do anything right. They need to work on the crappy service they already provide instead of worrying about adding the option for riders to buy a candy bar at a 100 million dollar grocery store they build. Let's work on new trains, new tracks, better bus service - these are the issues they should be talking about, especially since ridership is just going to go up and up over the next few years.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 17, 2008 -> 09:51 AM) I think most train stops should have the following: - a mailbox - laptop kiosks with Internet connections (like at airports) - one of those dvd rental kiosks - dry cleaners - cafe/coffee shop - newspaper/convenience store (many already do but should be expanded to other stops) - shoe shine stand Sorta like the 25 MILLION dollar Buckingham Fountain renovation/remodel, I find this to be a gigantic waste of money. All the stops downtown already have a grocery store/convenience shop within a block, often times within 100 feet. There isn't much room on the brown or red line to add a grocery store, and we'd have to go through yet another construction project. I read in the paper that they were thinking the north/clybourn stop would be a good place. That's about the only one I could agree with because they already own the corner lot and it would just be a matter of building it on top of the subway, not creating a mess with tracks.

So what exactly is the point of referencing every single mistake McCain's ever made? No one is perfect, especially when you have cameras and microphones on you 24/7. This thread seems to have less discussion of policies and more on "oh my! what a moron that guy is! He mispoke! *giggle giggle*"

wii speak would be great. it's so frustrating to play friends on mario kart wii and never be able to talk trash. i'm interested with this motion plus thing. i never really noticed that the original remotes were all that bad.

lol, I was saying it half-seriously in response to Emmit Smith. He's def not THE most overrated, but I do think his legendary status is a bit much.

I guess I just don't see the love for Barry Sanders. I'm not saying he wasn't a great back, but people put him up there in the all-time lists. He played a shorter career and often competed against Emmit Smith for best back of the year (and lost). If you're going to have Emmit be overrated, then Barry is there too. And even if he had a better line, that's a slippery slope. You define a persons career based on what they do, not what they do with what they have.

QUOTE (shipps @ Jul 14, 2008 -> 08:22 AM) Emmit Smith for all time. Barry Sanders.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3485871 I know a lot of people hated his work, but I enjoyed Billy Packer. My only complaint is that he doesn't work any other games besides the Big Ten Tourney and the NCAA tourney, and for people that watch their team religiously, it's annoying to hear him rant/rave about a scrub player and/or not give enough credit to other kids that play well without recognition. But he reminds me a lot of Ozzie - he's not going to sugar coat things. Clark Kellog is going to replace him. Gus Johnson should have been dubbed as his replacement and Kellogg should have stayed in the studio, IMO.

This could probably go in the Pro McCain thread, but I thought it deserved its own. Even if you don't agree with his politics, I don't think anyone can match this guys story. http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/0...t.html?PageNr=1

QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 11, 2008 -> 02:13 PM) This whole thing annoys me. How is he "returning" when he hasn't actually missed a season? The Packers are going to look bad in this no matter what, but they need to move on. They drafted Rodgers in the 1st round a few years ago and the few times he played last year, he looked solid. He has been patient and paid his dues and deserves a shot and an opportunity. As much as I agree and think this is true...it's Brett Favre. He made the Packers relevant for nearly 2 decades. He owns the city. He's as big as Lombardi. Favre owes nothing to the Packers and the Packers owe everything to him. And I'm annoyed too. I think mainly I'm annoyed because ESPN, with nothing else to talk about, keeps making these stories appear 10 times more important than they really are.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 10, 2008 -> 01:01 PM) I'm sure we'd see link after link of it if McCain did it. Obama campaign spokesperson: "he's so old he can't hold his own gas. would you place your trust in such a man? vote Obama"

first post in the thread! Repubs rule.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/07/08...plan/index.html Even if this isn't the "answer," it's better than simply talking about the "answer." We need more people like him to turn this ship around.

Embarassed?? You mean ecstatic? I'd love to be paid overtime for work I never did.

I got sucked into this last night after watching the 2 min "showdown." Basically I could tell instantly from "next on" clips of the showdown to the episode that actually covered it, that the entire show is scripted. It has to be. It's a huge publicity stunt to get these guys back into relevancy when/if they actually do release Lost Boys 2. That said, Haim is just beyond lost. He's a sad story. Feldman thinks he's a bad ass (with that wife I don't blame him) but he's sort of annoying. The molestation stuff is a little crazy - someone told me it was Michael Jackson but they can't say his name because Feldman told a grand jury he doesn't know anything about that, so he would be committing perjury. I dunno, i'm ashamed to say I threw it on the season pass just to see what Haim will do next, but i did, so there you go. Edit: ha, looks like they actually are going to release it in about 4 weeks.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Jul 1, 2008 -> 04:50 PM) Did you really keep a straight face while you typed that? Here's how I know I'm right: "Swiftboating" has become a verb. And couldn't you all agree that cable news put Bush into office the second time? Both sides made it happen - the right and foxnews polarized everyone in the middle to think we were getting attacked tomorrow if Kerry became president. And the left and CBS, using shoddy journalism and $$, allowed the whole swiftboat thing to happen (by talking about it for approx 18 months, non-stop, as if it was the greatest issue in the history of the world). But really the effects of cable news started before Bush. It started with OJ and grew with Clinton getting his winky whacked in the oval office. Ever since our lives have been completely changed for the worse because the news has been sensationalized and butchered to death. I'm not saying before cable news everything was peachy and the news only covered important issues, but it certainly wasn't mainstream journalism to talk about Britney's va-jay-jay for 2 weeks. It's simple: there's just not enough things that happen in a day to warrant 24/7 coverage. So to keep viewership up, you get talking heads who blabber on about nothing and polarize positions that needn't be polarized. The news then becomes entertainment and anything important that we as a society should be learning/understanding is lost. This has far greater ramifications than anything Bush has/will do. He could bomb Iran tomorrow, we could go to another war, and in 50 years we'd still be worse off because our society would still be listening to Rush Limbaugh/Al Franken/every other moron out there who's like them, and use them to educate ourselves about what's actually going on in the world. (and i don't think everyone here fits this mold, but unfortuntately, i'd say our types represent about 5% of the voting population)

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2008 -> 03:02 PM) "Hi" Nope, not even close. Cable news has ruined nearly everything. Bush may be a close second, but the ramifications of shoddy journalism and extremism in the news far outweighs whatever negatives Bush has/will bring to the country.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 1, 2008 -> 01:08 PM) good lord look how dumb our TV media is... http://www.veracifier.com/episode/TPM_20080701 More proof that cable tv news is the worst thing to happen to the world in the last 25 years.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 27, 2008 -> 03:04 PM) I totally agree that you're right on the usage of the phrace "Judicial Activism". The thing I find interesting is that by overturning precedent and creating a new right, I think this ruling is just about as "Activist" as you could get using any definition other than "left-leaning". I don't really care that it is, because I view the constitution as a living document that doesn't have static meanings (That's part of its strength) and thus, as society changes, the courts should allow their interpretations of it to change also. But if you're going to define judicial activism as a problem, then here's a classic example of it. What precedent did it overturn? This is the first time the Court has ever squarely addressed the issue of the true meaning of the 2nd amendment and whether it affords an individual the right to carry a gun. Any previous decision that's come before they Court has been tossed aside on technicalities or other non-issues or the Court has basically said "uhhh, no thanks we don't want to rule on that now, let the states decide." If anything this is the exact opposite of judicial activism and precisely what judicial interpretation should be. Scalia started by analzying the words in the Constitution, ruled on what they meant both individually as words, as clauses and then as a complete phrase, and then used that ruling to analyze the DC law. Judicial activism = Lochnerism