🏀 KuBuckets Archive

The NRA, which has funded and lobbied many of the hard-right to power, wants us to believe that the Framers intended the 2nd Amendment to cover teflon-coated body armor-piercing bullets (i.e., "cop-killers"), high-capacity magazines, and rapid fire high-powered rifles. I am amazed that when it comes to implements of killing, the far right insists that the Constitution has to be interpreted broad-mindedly due to the vast changes in technology, but when it comes to any recognition of equal rights for groups legally discriminated against since the Revolution the hard right insists, and has for a century, that the Constitution cannot be interpreted liberally in recognition of the vast changes in society.

"Principled"?

I like the notion of having two sets of terms. "Liberal" and "conservative" for people who wish to describe either their general approach to politics or to a particular issue. These terms allow people to accommodate having different approaches to certain things. I am happy to be labeled liberal overall, as it describes many of my views--liberal on government's role in guaranteeing children basic necessities, conservative on the death penalty (but liberal in thinking the government has a higher duty than it is showing to guarantee it is fairly administered with proper legal representation and resources, etc), liberal on progressive taxation (progressive is a recognized economic term as used here, not a political approach), conservative about the need to reduce deficit spending, conservative on 2nd amendment but liberal in thinking that reasonable regulation/licensing and safety training are constitutional, liberal on reproductive rights and abortion but willing to concede that the conservative view has merit so the issue cannot be settled by court or legislative fiat, liberal about the need for international cooperation but conservative in believing we need a three-ocean military presence....

"Alt-left" and "alt-right" seem to me to be labels that can be used to describe people who have unyielding uniform adherence to a set of extreme beliefs and who approach political discussions with the view that no one else is worth listening to. These are the people who spread conspiracy theories, attribute fascist or socialist thinking to anyone disagreeing, even if they are generally in agreement on other issues. These are the people who are most incensed about pretty much everything, and they overwhelm discussion with noise and disparagement. They use labels about people to dismiss ideas that are brought up. An example is the inability of most Trump supporters to recognize that there are conservative icons who believe Trump is pursuing policies anathema to conservatism (George Will, John McCain, Kathleen Parker, the recently departed Charles Krautheimer)--the most notable characteristic of an extremist is to refuse to even consider that other people have brains, too. Similarly, the rise of speech codes on college campuses is the result of giving in to shrill demands for protection that refused to listen to almost a century of academic scholarship that treasured academic freedom and eventually established campuses as havens of free speech and scientific inquiry.

Extremists have long been with us but generally their views have failed to carry the day in post-WW2 politics.The problem is that the alts on both ends are now, through the magic of the Internet, both organized and mobilized, and, due to the demise of traditional news, they have been given apparent credibility. The media gives far more attention to an Alex Jones screed than it does to a speech by a General Powell, and it thrusts videos of World Bank protestors into our faces for days at a time without ever reporting on what the World Bank actually does. (Conservatives criticicize the MSM as replacing news with editorials, but I think that is wrong--the MSM has replaced news with sensationalism as it has replaced editors with Web supervisors and marketing analysts.)

As the extremists shout down the people who oppose them, they seem sometimes to save the loudest and most vicious attacks on people closest to their end of the spectrum. If you aren't a Trump Republican, you can't be a Republican deep down inside so you shouldn't be listened to. If you support BLM but think NFL players are waging a counter-productive battle, you aren't a true progressive or worse, you might be a closet racist (God forbid you ever laughed at a Flip Wilson joke).

Where am I going? Right here: the extremists are highly motivated, and have taken advantage of the relative non-activism of moderates in both parties, in order to dominate primaries. With as few as 5% of voters participating in primaries, the extremists have cashed in on a huge opportunity to decide who runs in general elections. This has resulted in a race to the fringes by candidates that is almost comical--here in SC, the Republican candidates for governor all ran ads pointing out every time they refused to compromise with anybody about anything, including the incumbent proudly trumpeting how he vetoed lots of legislation passed by the Republican legislature! After the primaries are over, we get 2 candidates who are then incapable of moving back to the center because of the tight bonds held over them by the activists--the extremists--to whom they owe their primary victories.

When anyone willing to compromise gets labeled a "dirty compromiser" very little can get accomplished. Each party will spend its time trying to undo the other party's accomplishments. Our country was founded on the basis of recognizing that there are many disparate branches of political thought. Compromise was always previously believed to be the best approach of achieving the broadest success. Only if we as a whole decide it is more important to build something, rather than defeat somebody, will we return to the greatness that defined our unique experiment as a country.

@Woodrow Maybe the media refused to go.....

@nwhawkfan The fans following Tiger get raucous for anyone he is playing with, too. The crowds yesterday were cheering for everyone doing well. Most PGA fans want to see success and great competition, and cheer everyone. (Ryder Cup crowds are more like Fenway crowds, though.)

Now, if they could just immediately eject any effing jerk yelling "IN THE HOLE!" it would be great. Or, if all the other spectators would beat him to death--okay, maybe just yell "Shut up!"--it would be a fantasy fulfilled.

@approxinfinity No different than many relationships presidents have had with media figures over the years. Violates journalistic ethics but that seems less important to everyone than it used to.

If you think Trump and Fox are unique, you probably need to do that history study I referred to earlier. I think you are seeing all the challenges and you view them as major threats. Modern technology has changed how everything works, but if the apocalyptic reactions can be minimized, the system will correct over time. If everyone sees Trump as the greatest threat to democracy and gets so bent out of shape over every word he utters, the reaction could be worse than anything the orange guy can do.

@approxinfinity Nope. First Amendment applies to the nitwit press, too. It is up to other journalists to track down any corruption. Passing laws with restrictions just encourages secrecy.

@approxinfinity When I say absolutist, I am discussing political speech and this is in reference to calls for campaign spending limits (which favor incumbents exponentially). I am not saying speech that is defamatory or militating for violence against individuals or by mobs should be protected. I am also not suggesting that calls for revolution are protected, for the best method of revolution is by constitutional means--even a new constitutional convention if desired.

Each example is of speech where there are consequences for particular types of speech that hurts people or threatens public safety. The government can choose reactively to intervene on these when necessary but faces a legacy of overwhelming precedent against overreach when it starts to define in advance what limits there should be on funding that goes into discussing public policy, or how much anyone can spend to help get his or her views out into the political marketplace.

My fellow liberals are so short-sighted in advicating speech restrictions like campaign finance limits that it literally hurts my head, but it scares me even more that the political left is working so hard to ensure the passage of laws that will eventually likely silence their own expression.

As for Czarist Russia, they failed to make massive reforms in favor of their feudal powers. The propoganda rallied enough people to allow the Commies to set up a horrid solution. No government that massively fails its people has the right to suppress its people solely to perpetuate power. If it hadn't been Lenin, it would have been someone equally ambitious and bloodthirsty--oppressed people will support any change, even to their own detriment.

JayHawkFanToo said:

The founding fathers never envisioned professional politicians, they thought we should have citizen legislators that would take a few years off their careers to contribute to the country and then go back to what they did before and not make a career out of politics. Right now the perks are too much to give up the position, good pay, great health insurance, power, get vested into the retirement plan after a few years...no incentive to go back to their previous jobs.

I have always maintained that the best way to fix social security and health care is to have congress have social security as their retirement plan and Obama care as their health provider...both systems would be fixed in no time flat. Without all the perks term limits would almost no be nessesary.

Politicians have made the system of government so complicated that now they claim you need years of experience to be effective which really is not true; while the system is complicated most of the details are worked out by aides and congressional offices personnel anyway and the congressman is just the front person.

Don't be too enamored with the original intent of the Framers as to whom they envisioned would be politicians. The assumed it would be a group largely like themselves, white male property owners. They also distrusted a standing army, never envisioned a bureaucracy as practically a 4th branch of government, and certainly never considered the nation engaging in numerous undeclared wars costing upward of 100,000 lives over 7 decades. Times change, and the country has, too.

@Kcmatt7 Well, @HighEliteMajor might fall off his chair reading this, but I am a First Amendment absolutist who believes that limiting any type of political spending by individuals or groups is unconstitutional. (Now, I only think that applies to people, not legal fictions like corporations. Unlike people, corporations have existence only insofar as defined by law, so I see no problem in restricting business speech.) I always just think how important Thomas Paine's Common Sense was in rallying support fot the Revolution, and shudder at the notion that anyone in government should ever have the chance to decide who spends what on what things.

Everyone throughout the political spectrum needs a healthy detailed course in American history and needs to realize that disaster awaits any country taken into long-term constitutional and institutional upheaval by any group or party as a way of trying to defeat the short-term problem of having political opponents in power.

Term limits would simply mean that elections will get more expensive more often. If a seat is up for grabs every two terms or so, there will be no end to the number of people trying to buy the seats.

10 under after round 2, still in first but the afternoon groups are still starting.

@JayHawkFanToo And most sports books reserve the right to cancel bets and return them if there are serious indicia of shaving, especially if they see unusual activity on their platform or other legitimate books. Actually, that is a factor strongly in favor of allowing legalized gambling. Bookies are not likely to be that willing to part with money and certainly won't share betting info.

6 under after round 1. Missed tying the PGA record by 1. Go Gary!

http://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/24334141 ↗

@KUSTEVE I actually have heard that question before, even if you were being facetious. Since a player's job on offense is to score, no one usually cares. BUT... (there is always a but)..

If a coach puts his starters back in the game with a 20 point lead with 2 mins left after sitting out much of the 2nd half, and if they run fast breaks nonstop and score enough points to beat a 31 point spread, there might at least be some questions asked.

@JayHawkFanToo They have been certified by the NBA Players' Association, I believe. Not much reason until now for the NCAA to get into it since an agency relationship has always ended eligibility.

@KUSTEVE He would get to the NBA and find that he would be harrangued in the same way not only by agents, but also by the GM, the owner(s), the marketing department, the local and national media, the fans, AND the stars themselves. Quieter in college, and 1/3 the number of games.

KUSTEVE said:

Won't we be recruiting agents instead of players?

Maybe the goal is to make agents into paid recruiters so that all that shoe money can just slide around schools and back out again until it sticks somewhere. Whoever ends up with it gets penalized so that the new NCAA investigators-for-rent have something to do.

@HighEliteMajor Thanks for taking that in the spirit I intended. Sometimes my jokes fly like lead balloons.

Hey world out there: See, people of different mindsets can choose to get along!

@Gorilla72 That article certainly suggests that the NCAA self-administered a major shit-pie into its own face.

Suggested amendment would be needed in @HighEliteMajor's tagline if his alternative rule were adopted:

".....except for any college basketball player who wants to stay in college after auditioning to determine whether he is good enough to turn pro."

All in fun!

@jaybate-1.0 I think it could implicate everything from conspiracy to manipulate a sporting contest to illegal interstate gambling to illegal wire communications to fraud to RICO, depending on who is doing it and how it is done. This definition from USLegal.com gives a hint:

Shaving is the illegal practice of deliberately limiting the number of points scored by one's team in an athletic contest, as in return for a payment from gamblers to ensure winnings. It is collaboration between athletes and gamblers to commit criminal sports wagering by manipulating the scores of sporting events such as basketball and football. Athletes are bribed to make the scores between teams closer than they would be otherwise so that the point margin is less than the point spread estimated by oddsmakers.

@JayHawkFanToo @KUSTEVE

Well, I sure hope this puts to rest any persecution complex on our part from thinking that Nike schools are not being thoroughly investigated and, forgive me, brought to Heel.

@JayHawkFanToo FYI, you can get rid of your post completely by hitting the menu dots a second time after the delete, and then select "purge".

@Kcmatt7 Thank you. I had read that but had no clue about the details.

@HighEliteMajor You are overlooking the falsified financial documents that were presented to KU to obtain something of value (scholarship). Any use of false information to obtain financial aid, loans, scholarships, etc. violates a number of state and federal statutes. There is your crime, not tied to NCAA rules at all. That is why, if the preparer did not know of the payments and was also duped by the financial plotters (say, if it was done directly by SDS or a parent in Africa), and if that person wasn't part of the conspiracy, I am not sure the criminal conspiracy could be proven. Big ifs!

I challenge anyone to find another example of using "the championship" without "game" in the context of a player or coach leading a team to it when it means only a second place finish. So, Watson led Clemson to two NCAA football championships in 2016 and 2017 while Saban simultaneously led Alabama to the very same two championships?

@JayHawkFanToo You, I believe, have the better case here. Absolute fact: since he failed to lead UT to the Big 12 championship, he cannot also have led them to the Big 12 championship.

@JayHawkFanToo I think my inferences are legit. How would Pitino know exactly where it was coming from from DePaul? And, if you read it that way, he slso heard KU was offering money, so you must think that was staff, too?

@JayHawkFanToo Ironically, Texas tied KU for the reg season title both the year before and the year after Durant, and was seeded #1 in the Big 12 tourney both years, too, because they beat us in the single games played those years. Geez, Durant was a relative failure compared to his contemporary Longhorns.

Holy Moly, I never saw this thread until today when I was trying to understand the new BShark-is-missing thread! I was at Disney and with grandkids for about 10 days, and didn't care to keep reading AD & Zenger things, not knowing what I was missing.

Anyway, better late than never @JayhawksandChill: you captured it all perfectly, so, PHOF!!!

I own guns, but have no problem with attempts to develop requirements for safety training and limitations on magazine size and ammo stockpiling. Registration may be a pipe dream if 3D guns proliferate (no serial numbers). I recognize there are well-meaning people who want to get rid of all guns, just as there are well-meaning 2nd Amendment defenders.

There are also people on both sides who are nuttier than a fruitcake. Anyone who takes an unyielding position at either extreme end is guaranteeing that the battle will become more and more bitter, and will eventually result in a solution being crammed down people's throats rather than a reasonable compromise. The NRA is succeeding so far in knocking out any reasonable attempt to solve criminals' and violently ill people's virtually unfettered access to guns. The ultimate result, I fear, will be an overwhelming populist movement to amend or repeal the 2nd A.

@JayHawkFanToo I would suspect that the "DePaul offer" of $200,000 was, if the claim is even true, really made by a booster or other 3rd party, not the staff. Certainly not in an acceptance letter!

I could see someone from the school saying the value of the scholarship over 4 years would be 200 grand.

@KUSTEVE When @HighEliteMajor and I agree on something, it is very likely correct!

@HighEliteMajor I don't think it would make a difference because the crime of conspiracy to commit fraud is complete once there is (1) an agreement to do the acts constituting fraud (here, to have the parent/guardian prepare and submit falsified papers with the intent to deceive the school and the NCAA), and (2) a completed action "substantially in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy" (here, actually preparing and submitting those documents). SDS not being ruled ineligible might seemingly lessen the effect of the conspiracy, but a good prosecutor would say it didn't matter because that only means the deception was successful--SDS got in the door on scholarship, and that was the goal. Whether 3rd party NCAA subsequently booted him out of BB wouldn't matter.

A hit man hired to kill someone, and the person hiring him, are both still guilty of conspiracy to murder once an act is complete (like providing a gun, or paying) even if the shot misses, or even if intended victim is not even there or even if the hit man never intends to do it (as when an undercover agent pretends to be a hit man).

@JayHawkFanToo I think you are right. There is a difference, I surmise, in how the NCAA will treat the current crop of cases (involving inducements to attend a particular school) from how it has punished impermissible benefits that have nothing to do with the kid's choice of schools (like D Jackson and Selby). In the latter type of cases, they usually just suspend the kid for some formulaic number of games and make him pay it back or donate something. The new cases involving inducements to attend implicate eligibility fraud ab initio and they showed, with Bowen, that they are not going to let kids skate if they (or family) tried to profit from their choice. (That is why I am not hopeful on SDS.)

I was wondering why 200 thousand wasn't enough to get him to DePaul?!! Maybe it was the dad who told them that to try to get more $ and simply not true.

@KUSTEVE Roy, and all coaches, would have preferred to leave on a winning note. Your accusation to the contrary makes no sense. Why on earth would he rather leave with a second title game defeat?

In any event, he did not miss a single free throw that game, nor to my knowledge did he design a play to have Hinrich give up the last shot.

I fear your unhappiness with Roy has led you down a path unsupported by nothing but suspicion. But if you can point to any questionable coaching moves in that last game, I would be willing to reconsider!

The legal case between UL and Pitino looks like a mother lode for info on shady stuff. This article even mentions DePaul as offering 200 Large for Bowen.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/24265763/court-documents-say-rick-pitino-misled-louisville ↗

If HCBS was a huge egotistical jerk, we could name the entire athletic area
The Self Center.

@JayHawkFanToo The answer to all your questions is "No, not a bit."

On sentencing, thanks for bringing that up. The difference between what white-collar defendants receive from what they faced is another point of concern about how disparate the treatment of minorities is from the treatment of whites (who make up the overwhelming majority of white-neck, er, white-collar, defendants). They get low sentences compared to what they face, whereas nonviolent minority defendants face mandated minimum sentences. Ever notice that the law and order whiners never seek mandatory minimums for white-collar crimes?

Of course, the rich miscreants who commit financial crimes get pardons from their connected pals. (In both parties--Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich was deplorable.) If you think Manafort, even convicted of everything, will serve any time greater than 6 months before your hero pardons him, you are dreaming.

Finally, the use of immunity for small fish to testify against big fish is the only way to get evidence. The biggest objections are to giving deals to jailhouse snitches who have no connection to their cellmates and have been shown to be willing to say almost anything about their new companions who strangely spontaneously confess to all types of crap after getting locked up. A second objection is when they give better deals to big fish and then fry the no-longer-needed little fish to increase conviction rates.

I have never heard a convincing argument against giving immunity to an accessory to give needed evidence to convict a major actor in a criminal enterprise.

I suppose you think it is the accountants who committed crimes benefiting Manafort. And Gates must have fooled him into saving millions in taxes. Poor Paul, such an ingenue in the ways of international finance and business partnerships. My tears are streaming down my cheeks.

@DoubleDD Sorry to hear about the twisters. We used to drive from KC to Waterloo, Iowa to see my grandparents in the 60s and 70s. Went through Marshalltown, Traer, Tama....all types of towns both northeast and southwest of Des Moines before I-35 was completed. (One stretch of 2-lane highway in northern Missouri was called the deadliest 20 miles of highway in the country.)

Funny family legend involving the late great unintentional comedienne, my Mom: In Marshalltown, we always stopped at this one restaurant both going up on Friday and going back home Sunday night. It was the only thing open. On a Friday night once, my mother ordered a Rueben sandwich that was thoroughly horrible. On Sunday, she ordered it again. Then, when it was also bad, she got something else. We asked why she invited such misery.

Mom: "It was so bad on Friday that I just didn't think it was possible for them to make it that bad again. I was wrong!"

@JayHawkFanToo (1) You might want to read the testimony of his accountant and tax preparer of the past 2 days. How could he be exonerated 8 years ago for falsifying documents to obtain loans in 2016, and filing false returns for 2015? (1-a) Dershowitz is an idiot at times. (2) I am a lawyer. You aren't, as far as I know, although you do make lots of pronouncements about the law. Those facts do not have anything to do with my ability to read trial reports. Please do not tell me how I am supposed to view things since I have no role other than as a citizen. I I were a juror, I would be instructed not to draw conclusions until deliberating, etc etc etc. But I am not. I am under no duty to presume innocence. It is a misconception to think the public is obligated to presume innocence of anyone--it is a legal presumption intended only to determine the burden of proof is on the prosecution to present sufficient evidence to overcome that presumption beyond a reasonable doubt. It applies only to decision-makers. As a spectator (meaning not a participant) I have read testimony that to me looks like clear evidence of guilt. But I am aware this is just the prosecution. So, if that evidence is clearly rebutted, I will change my mind. (3) I assume by keeping an open mind you mean like the president, who has pronounced before trial that PM is being railroaded?

@Kcmatt7 It is not the same at all. I am talking about people who justify deporting someone living a peaceful productive life by pontificating, "They are here illegally. A crime is a crime. Period." But they are not absolutists when it comes to income tax cheating, which is rampant. I knew a guy who had had a pool cleaning business in Hollywood who collected his fees in cash and proudly told me how he saved so much in taxes because he only reported half of it. His drug use was legendary. He always stopped every conversation about immigration by talking about how the "(effing) Mexicans" needed to be kicked out for breaking our laws. In other words, there is a principle involved of law and order, just not one that applies to anyone else except illegals.

The problem with saying the protestors should look to b-on-b crime as a greater harm to blacks than police brutality is that the argument misses the point entirely: the protestors are attempting to bring attention to, and to stop, decades of official sanction of abuse and violence perpetrated by the people whose job it is to prevent and solve crimes, not commit them. A community has felt targeted by agents of the state and ignored when challenging that until recently as the video evidence has become overwhelming. Anyone who thinks all members of a race have to rein in any criminals in their midst before they have the right to protest officials and officers commiting crimes is a fool.

If it is simply a matter of not wanting to tolerate the fact that "illegals" broke the law, I wonder how many immigration hardliners cut off their friendships with people they know who falsify their tax reporting? Hey, right wing: if you think someone named Carlos or Juanita is a crook for entering illegally, why are conservatives not leading the charge against major tax cheat Manafort? Why is the president whining his buddy Paul is being treated worse than Al Capone, and pardoning his rich friends for their crimes?

@jaybate-1.0
I am forced to admit I generally enjoy Birthdays and Lifedays more.

I should clarify: my point is that I think ESPN has not created eastern championships due to any bias. The simple fact is that national television programming tends to not only reflect the heavy population densities in the east, but also the fact that western games scheduled in the evenings are on too late for the easterners to watch. So they are scheduled later, watched later, and watched less. ESPN wants to get ratings, so focussing on the east and central reflects population and time zones, not a choice of desired winners which is what "bias" implies.

KU was not nearly as good as its Blueblood reputation from the late 50's through the early 80's. And KU has been phenomenal in terms of overall performance since then (the lack of titles is the only aberraion). So, the rise of ESPN is paralleled by the resurrection of KU.

Interestingly, the influence of ESPN has also occurred in conjunction with the meteoric rise in the use of email, the vast increase in plastics-based pollution of the ocean, and the appearance of independent multi-national terrorism networks like Al-queda and ISIS.

Correlations do not necessarily imply causations.

@kjayhawks My contribution to unity!

@kjayhawks We had a yard sale today in 83 up to 95 heat. Maybe a group handshake would be better than a hug!

That Collins quote is QHOF!

@kjayhawks I think it was people dying that generated the protests in the first placce, so yes, for the protestors, it is a life and death issue.