Texsox

Here is my bathroom dilemma right now. There is a major storm blowing through campus and we are being kept in our portables. This is my conference period which means I should be in the bathroom getting rid of the second cup of coffee. Feeling like Forest Gump. I need to go pee . . .

Thinking about Danks numbers. Before expansion, he would have been teaching a PE class somewhere and impressing the kids with his stuff.

QUOTE (flavum @ Apr 21, 2016 -> 08:15 AM) How many losses the Sox had when they got their 11th win, and records after 20 games: 2005 11-4, 16-4 2010 11-15, 8-12 2011 11-19, 8-12 Under Ventura 2012 11-11, 10-10 2013 11-15, 8-12 2014 11-11, 10-10 2015 11-16, 8-12 So this is the best start during the "Ventura Era". Contract Extension!

I was brainstorming with one of the administrators and she asked if I could align it with something we were doing in class. I laughed and laughed. We are reading Brave New World.

FWIW of no real practical value. 2016 April 20 2015 May 6 2014 April 21 2013 April 26 2012 April 23 2011 April 26 2010 May 1 2005 April 19

It certainly is nice to see so many threads with this title . . .

You seem to be bringing up the point that we have to protect all or nothing. Marking perfect the enemy of better. Change always happens in incremental measures. Hopefully the goal is a no one person's identity isn't used as a slur. If the next area for protection is the LGBT community, well we have to continue somewhere. I believe we started with n*****, which would also get a serious ban.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 07:08 PM) I have 93GB of music stored on my netbook and 59GB of music on a micro sdx card in my cell phone. Best part is that all the music I listen to is 100% commercial/ad free. Soon I'm going to upgrade my cell phone with a 200GB micro sdx card so I can have all my music with me. Also going to get an external hard drive for storage. I love music. Doesn't that make your phone really heavy? What program(s) do you use to play and organize?

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 04:07 PM) Because only two political parties' nominees matter when it comes to deciding the most important office in the country. Restricting access to voting in either of the two primaries because I don't identify as D or R is undemocratic and specifically leads to the fringes of parties nominating candidates. Again, I don't have to pay dues to the Democrats or Republicans to participate. I don't have to pledge fealty to that party, so even if I identify myself as an R in NY 6 months in advance of the election, I can still vote D in the general. There is no logic in saying "independent voter, you don't have a say in either the nominee from the Republican party or the Democratic party because you didn't check a box. I'm not advocating a system where people get to vote in both primaries. But restricting access to either party is a bad system. Give me a system where I show up on primary day and pick D or R for my ballot. Don't give me a system where I'm disenfranchised from the pick. How the individual party decides to select their candidate should be their choice. You are making the choice to disenfranchise yourself by not following the rules the party voluntarily put in place. There are no constitutional requirements for primaries. You can continue to deny seeing the logic, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 02:53 PM) But there's nothing stopping that now. Granted each state does primaries differently, but if I'm registered as an R, I can vote for Kasich in my primary because I feel like he's the best choice for President. Then Trump gets the nomination, and I decide that Clinton suits my interests better. I can still cross parties and vote for Clinton. So other than the fact that the Rs and Ds are private entities (which in a Presidential context is silly because they are the only two real choices for President), what is the logical basis for restricting access to the primaries? The logic is that each party is created to further that party and should be allowed to do that as they see fit. Twelve political parties will select a nominee at a convention without primaries because that is the best way they can do it. The Dems and Reps hold caucasus and primaries so their party can select a nominee. They should be allowed to set rules that help assure that the people who are helping in the decision are the best people to make the selection. People who openly and willingly identify with a party are much more likely to donate their time, talent, and treasure to that party and to help elect that candidate. They are the more valuable voice in the decision making. They are also the ones that will vote no matter what. Again, this is a political party decision. What logic is there in allowing non-members to decide who that party nominates? Where is the logic in a party creating rules that encourages non members over regular members? They would be creating rules that could hurt them.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 03:16 PM) Wait a second, teachers usually do things for graduating students? I have in the past. Just trying to make their final days in high school a little cooler.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 02:09 PM) I don't follow that logic. When I check the box as "Democrat" when I register to vote, I am not estopped from voting for Republicans in elections. I can still be an Independent and be a part of the primary. Basically, you are disenfranchising people who don't check a box... My comment was in response to the idea that independents should be allowed to decide who the D or R nominee is. My logic is the party gets to decide who their nominee is. If you want to be that involved in the process of selecting the D or R nominee you must be involved in that political party. If you care so much about who the D nominee is you should be a D. If you don't want to be a member of one party, why should you get to be a part of that party's decision making? Where is the logic in having someone help decide the R nominee just to go vote for the D later?

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 08:58 AM) Yes, bowling is an official HS sport and part of the IHSA. The girls have been official for as long as I can remember. The boys became part of it around 2002. When I was in HS we had a bowling program and competed against all the other schools but weren't recognized by the IHSA for some reason. So I kinda got screwed out of all the scholarship money that they give out to the kids these days. Every single league and tournament that my daughter bowls in now she is earning scholarship money. I'm glad to hear that.

I remember trying to track one down that would stop when we flipped the breaker. It was in a vacation property that a friend owned. It wasn't until about a month later when someone who was renting the "in-law unit" complained about the smoke alarm that we realized that circuit actually covered a couple outlets on the "other side".

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 01:47 PM) Each party gets to make its own rules, but honestly it is pretty stupid to have one state where you can declare the day of the election, and another where you have to give six months of advanced notice. If this were being done in Republican state, people would be screaming about vote suppression. Or states that caucus and do not have a ballot.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 01:54 PM) I think the important counterpoint to this is that for a variety of reasons we're really stuck with a two-party system at least at the Presidential level, and if you want to have a say in who the nominees of the only people with a shot at the office will be, you have to choose D or R. Then you stop being an independent. If you want to be involved at the primary level, you just stepped beyond independent and into the inner workings of a political party.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 01:38 PM) That doesn't make it any better. You are still forcing an independent voter to decide 6 months before the election. At that point in October there had only been a couple debates and there were still 15 or so Republican candidates and a half dozen Democratic candidates running. At stake here is not any elected office. It is an organization selecting their nominee. Primaries are not even required. As I mentioned above of the 14 parties that were on the 2012 ballot, two held primaries to help in making the decision of who would be their nominee twelve did not. People act like they were voting for President. The primaries are basically a traveling commercial to build support and publicity for their party. There aren't many organizations that make it easy for people from outside the organization to influence major decisions by that organization. You're a shareholder of Coke? Sure, come in and vote at the Pepsi shareholder's meeting.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 11:34 AM) Because having to link yourself to one side is f***ing lunacy. I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I'm voting for Gary Johnson but why shouldn't someone be able to vote for whoever they want in a primary? It doesn't make any sense. Your party doesn't even have any primaries. They pick a candidate at their convention. Why can't I have a vote in the Libertarian nominee? That's lunacy. Of the dozen or so political parties which ran a candidate for President in the last election, two held primaries the rest did not.

Actually yes, it is too soon. You don't know what you really need until summer and you don't know what kind of season the possible hole filler is having.

Is the HS team officially recognized as a sport or is it intramural / club level? In Texas it is not officially recognized through our state sports organization. We have a pretty good team here and it is well supported as a club but not at the same level as if it were part of our sports umbrella.

As we are getting near the end of the school year I am trying to think of some things to do for my graduating seniors. What have teachers done that you remember? Any suggestions?

QUOTE (Brian @ Apr 19, 2016 -> 11:51 PM) Saw a tweet where 1.5 mil Independant voters weren't allowed to vote when Bernie could've gotten 70% of them. The whole system needs to be redone. It's too out of date like a certain amendment. The Democrats are picking a candidate. Their group is selecting a candidate. There are mechanisms in place for people who do not wish to join the Dem organization to select and run for president. Why should people who are not Democrats have any say in which candidate that group nominates? "I'm not a Democrat but dammit I want a voice in who they nominate!" Does that even sound right?

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 03:21 PM) Irrelevant. I'm not running for President and wasn't asked a direct policy question on that point. If I were running for President, I'd hope I would have an answer to that question that went deeper than don't go to alcohol parties... What types of answers would you have felt were a valid response? How could a candidate have answered the question that would have you applauding and not complaining?

At some point the government just has to force people to do stuff they might not find optimum.

Wow, talk about early projections.