alternate headline: man does job
03 Blue 07
- Member for
- 7 years 32 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|6 days 22 hours ago||He's still alive.||
Not sure if you're serious or forgot the "/s" tag, but CTE can only be definitively diagnosed posthumously, and, to my knowledge, they aren't yet close to coming up with a test that can objectively detect it while the patient is still living.
|6 days 23 hours ago||Really?||
Is Kanye the greatest musician of your generation? Really? He's not even the greatest hip hop artist of the 21st century. How can he "win" all of music when he isn't really even the best in his own genre? (I realize this is all wholly subjective; also, I'm a Kanye fan, and I think the guy is original and comes at things differently, for better or worse, but it's a leap to call him the greatest musician of this generation).
|1 week 2 days ago||Read it.||
Read it, and do so in paperback/hard copy form, due to the crazy number of endnotes per chapter. Also, don't skip or skimp on reading the endnotes. I felt like much of the best stuff was in the endnotes, and I'd even go so far as to say you won't have a full grasp on the book if you don't read the endnotes.
I'll also say that Infinite Jest is one of the few books I've ever read where I actually looked up others' interpretations of the book, etc., after I was finished. As Brian said, it's circular in its narrative. It's intellectually challenging, but I don't know if I've ever read more stimulating prose in my lifetime. DFW was incredibly talented, to say the least.
|1 week 2 days ago||Interesting||
I echo your sentiment, though I did finish Gravity's Rainbow. It, to me, was like a poor man's version of Infinite Jest (which makes sense, seeing as Infinite Jest was written after Gravity's Rainbow, and Pynchon's influence on DFW is readily apparent when one compares the styles of the two authors).
|1 week 6 days ago||Seriously||
Seriously, if I'm Riley, I AM the one thinking of suing, both the kid/parents (you can't sue a minor, to my knowledge, but you sue their guardian on behalf of the minor) and the school. He lost his job due to exercising his right to self-defense, something he never would have had to do if he wasn't tortiously and criminally assaulted and battered by the kid (by definition, if the kid was punching him, that's battery; assault and battery if Riley saw the punches coming). If the school has a rule that conflicts with the law and states, essentially, that an employee has to just take physical (criminal) abuse without protecting themselves, I feel like a strong argument can be made that such a policy is void as a matter of law, and any firing based on said policy was improper as well, thus opening the school up to liability. Or you can argue that the school's policy invites and encourages making its employees the victims of physical violence, which policy led to the kid being able to hit Riley with impunity, and (if true) the kid knew about said policy...so you could try to sue the school for the kid's violence in the first place by arguing that the school's imposition of this policy and the kid's knowledge of the policy were at least, in part, causes of the assault and battery itself. The school would argue that the kid's battery was a superseding intervening tortious act; Riley would argue that it was the foreseeable result of the school's policy.
|1 week 6 days ago||Yep||
Cosign- this is an accurate reflection of the state of the law in Michigan. It varies a bit from state to state, but it's pretty much axiomatic across the U.S. that you have the right to proportionally respond to physical violence in order to defend your body from physical battery being perpetrated by the batterer.
|1 week 6 days ago||Let's flip it||
Let's flip it: If your subordinate punches you at work, do you just take it and walk away? What if he keeps punching you? Do you subdue him, defend yourself, run away (if possible)? What if you can't escape?
Natural law, and this country's law, and the law dating back to before this country even was a country (Britain), says you have every right to stand your ground and fight back once you've been hit and the attacker is still a threat or still hitting you. And that's the way it should be.
Your mention of the tort system is a red herring. The instigator-- your subordinate (or, in Riley's case, the kid)-- is the one who has committed tortious conduct; proportionate self-defense is not only not tortious, it's vital to natural law (which our law grew out of). A man or woman has every right to inhabit his body and personal space without being battered, and has every right to respond to and neutralize the threat of the person committing battery in proportion to the threat (and by proportion, I mean you can't shoot someone just for flicking your ear; I dare say you CAN body slam someone who is repeatedly punching you. I know I'd defend that case at trial with the expectation of winning).
Do you want to live in a world where people can punch you in the face, but you lose all of your rights to sue (and put yourself in jeopardy of jail time) if you do anything but run away? What about if you're in a confined space? Should you just "take it"? Of course not. The right to self-defense is one of the most fundamental rights a person has.
|1 week 6 days ago||Intersection of Labor Law and Self-Defense Law||
What if the school has a policy, which it enforces, which states that you shall not retaliate against violence committed by a student? I think that (potentially) makes a difference, though it makes for an interesting legal discussion regarding whether an employer CAN even institute and/or enforce such a policy; if they can't, and Riley was fired for cause because of his failure to abide by the policy, it would seem that the employer fired him illegally.
|1 week 6 days ago||Law vs. School's Policy||
Doesn't Reilly have-- as all people in America do-- a right to self-defense (he does)? And, if Wyoming is like every other state, he has a right to defend himself proportionally to the threat being inflicted. If someone is punching you in the face, you have every right to defend yourself within reason. You do not merely have to run away. No one has a right to committ battery (or assault and battery) on another person, but everyone does have the right to protect themselves from such battery (or assault and battery), up to and including battery committed in proportional self-defense.
HOWEVA, at this school, their policies control, and if their policy is essentially "don't fight back if attacked by a student, no matter what" and Riley violated that policy, while the result is (in my view) potentially unjust in a broader sense, I don't know that it's inapppropriate (or at all illegal) to fire him for the offense. . .It certainly sucks, and seems unfair, but the context matters. If this happens on the street? No problem. Seems an open-and-shut case of self-defense. But it didn't take place in public, and it looks like Riley will have to take the consequences imposed by his employer.
|2 weeks 23 hours ago||Exactly.||
I pay $1600 per month, the majority of which are private (but federally-backed) student loans. Why? Because the federal loans topped out at less than half of tuition alone when I went to grad school. And all of these great programs they've unveiled do nothing to help those of us paying higher interest rates from private lenders with more onerous terms than the federal loans (i.e., number of months you can be in forebearance, penalty provisions, etc.).
|2 weeks 23 hours ago||Huh?||
I think you forgot the "/s" tag. Or, if you're serious, who do you think will go about collecting the taxes? Or do you think Americans will voluntarily pay their fare share (of course not)? I'm curious to learn of your plans for a post-IRS America...
|2 weeks 23 hours ago||Cosign||
I'm curious about my fellow MLaw grad's stance on strategic default and strategic breach in the law and economics realm, from a conceptual perspective; i imagine he hates it(?), even in a corporate setting, because it's breaking a contract(?). If so, I do see the validity of such a point-- if contracts are meaningless, then what's the point of contract law? And, furthermore, our economy runs best when contracts are honored; it is inefficient for business to have contracts be meaningless.
But I balance it on the other side with the (compelling in certain instances) arguments in favor of strategic breach which are put forth by law and economics scholars...including those at M Law and the University of Chicago (hardly a bastion of liberal thought). I think there are times when strategic breach makes the most sense; in fact, one could say your buddy's decision is by far the most rational decision he could have made. If our society has a major problem with what he did, perhaps we should change the laws, rather than demonize the people acting rationally under the laws.
|2 weeks 23 hours ago||W/r/t Law School||
With respect to law school, that doesn't always hold up in my experience. The difference in tuition in Michigan is less than 5% between in-state and out-of-state for U of M. Note that those are per-semester tuition numbers they are showing, not per year:
Similar deal in Illinois, too, from what I recall; they doubled in-state law school tuition at the University of Illinois sometime around 2006. (I was an Illinois resident at the time, so this was important information)
|2 weeks 23 hours ago||Question for Out of Left Field||
Question: Law school cost me about $250k in loans. Should I have gotten a "real degree" too? It only took me 3 years, not 4, so do I get some sort of credit in your world for not engaging in "four years of beer drinking" while earning that degree? What about the fact that over 50% of my debt burden comes from private loans (i.e., not federal loans, but federally backed) and in the case of one (cough, cough, Sallie Mae bar study loan) has an interest rate of 10%? Does this make me an asshole because I couldn't afford to go to any law school in the top-50 (went top-10) without taking out private loans?
Actually, now that I think about it, no matter where I went, it was going to cost that much or damn close-- no one offered me a full ride anywhere or anything more than a $3,000 tuition credit, even to much, much lower-rated law schools. Am I an asshole because the cap on annual federal loans for law school/grad school was about 1/3 of my tuition alone? Should I just not have gone to law school (you can't work during your first year, by the way-- ABA rule)? Does this mean only rich people should aspire to higher education?
Now, I realize I'm in a better position than many, many others because my career choice means I won't starve. But...I'm just trying to figure out how your logic would apply in my situation?
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Cosign||
I'm 35, but played throughout the 90's. Played tight end and linebacker. Never, ever led with my head. Why? I was watching live when Dennis Byrd was paralyzed when I was a kid (before I began playing tackle), and it scarred me for life/made me move my head out of the way when going into contact. Believe it or not, at least through the high school level, a player *can* effectively and violently play the game of football by blocking with, and leading with when tackling, his shoulder instead of his head.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||A Choice...||
Playing football IS a choice. Playing football while being fully informed of all of its risks, though? Not a choice I made (I played for 10 years, ending in the late 90's), nor that Mr. Sash made. You can make that argument going forward-- that the player assumes the risk-- but, to me, it has no validity with respect to discussing Sash or most former players, seeing as none of them knew of the risk of CTE when they played.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Classy||
Classy move. Also clearly heartfelt, and written by his own hand.
|4 weeks 15 hours ago||Seriously?||
You're from /living in Chicago, are old enough to know better (apparently), and favor Lebron? Wow.
|4 weeks 1 day ago||This is incorrect. Dingell||
This is incorrect. Dingell supplied 1 ticket, Amash supplied the other.
|4 weeks 1 day ago||Cart before the horse||
Both set of issues are important, and both sexism/terrible treatment of LGBT community, as well as mass murder of innocent lives, are worthy and valid issues which were, are, and will continue to be pressing concerns in the region.
However...one is worse than the other. Murder is worse than discrimination, beating, false imprisonment, etc. (generally speaking here). You have to, you know, actually be a living human being to experience discrimination, beating, false imprisonment, whereas murder takes your entire existence from you. The other problems you mention w/r/t to the LGBT community and women, while also unspeakably awful, take something less from a person than their very existence. I'd rather lose my dignity/be discriminated against/be treated terribly/be false imprisoned... but keep my life/existence on this earth, personally, if given the choice; I think most human beings would agree. (Obviously, of course, I'm not saying any of these is a good choice, and in fact I'm saying they are all morally repugnant...just that one-- murder-- is worse than the others; our penal code in the U.S. reflects this, as it does in most industrialized nations. That's why murder carries the highest sentence).
|4 weeks 3 days ago||Yes||
Yes, Harbaugh has said he wanted to major in History but was talked out of it at M.
|6 weeks 1 day ago||You jest...but...there's some truth in your comment.||
You jest...but...there's some truth in your comment.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||Al-Jazeera America||
Al-Jazeera America. Located in the U.S. Not Al-Jazeera (in Qatar). Has what appears to be an independence from Al-Jazeera in Qatar.
From their website:
What is the difference between Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera America?
|6 weeks 4 days ago||Yup||
So do Michael Cox and Justin Fargas.
|6 weeks 6 days ago||No, it wasn't. There's an||
No, it wasn't. There's an army of people on here who apparently get off on making jokes about WD's romantic life or lack thereof. It honestly says more about them than it does about him.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||6-6, not 5-7||
If I'm reading this correctly, by your own chart.... Rutgers was a 24.5 point underdog. They lost by 22. They actually beat the spread. Brian was correct. Therefore, not 5-7 but 6-6.
|9 weeks 4 hours ago||A: Scholarship limits||
The actual reason is because in basketball, like in football, there are restrictions on the number of athletic scholarships a team can issue. So, in your scenario: 1) the basketball team couldn't even issue 30 scholarships; 2) if they did just use their basketball schollies on football players, the basketball team would be less successful than if they, you know, used their scholarships on guys who were elite basketball players; 3) the scholarships would still count toward football (I think) because they are scholarship athletes playing football.
(Note: this is in reply to the commenter above, Kevin Holt, who asked why KU wouldn't just issue 30 bball schollies and have 20 of those guys play football)
|9 weeks 18 hours ago||NO, SENSEI||
|9 weeks 3 days ago||Edit: I should say "...when||
Edit: I should say "...when he testified, under oath, regarding the concept of what he knew and when he knew it..."
|9 weeks 3 days ago||This. In my mind, people have||
This. In my mind, people have let PSU off way too easily. I wish Paterno had lived so that we could have seen him in a prison jumpsuit on a perjury charge (note: his own handwritten notes from a 1997 meeting indicate he perjured himself when he said he had no prior knowledge of Sandusky's "propensities").