Bobref

Jimtown is nothing but pure class. Our crew worked our last regular season game there before we called it quits, and they treated us like kings ... as always. So many great experiences at Knepp over the years.

I won’t say I’ve never been tempted.... But unless there was an issue of personal safety involved, I can’t get behind this. PLEASANT HILL, Iowa -- Fifth-ranked Marshalltown has not made it to the state soccer tournament in 18 years. Southeast Polk has never played on the big stage. The two teams squared off Saturday to punch their ticket to state. With the game tied 2-2 through regulation and overtime, the teams headed to a penalty shootout. In the penalty shootout, it came down to the final Southeast Polk shooter. The Rams need to score to stay alive. But Marshalltown’s Jesus Munoz saved the shot. It appeared as if the Bobcats had won and were headed to state, but the referee said Munoz left his line early. Munoz received a yellow card and was sent off. The goal was counted, and Marshalltown fans became very upset with the decision. As a result, the referee ejected the entire Marshalltown fan base. Everyone was ordered to leave the stadium. After about a 15-minute exodus, the shootout resumed. The Rams once again needed to score to keep it alive. But Marshalltown's backup goalkeeper, Ernesto Tellez, made the save, and this time it counted. Marshalltown won the game and is heading to state, 3-2 over Southeast Polk and 8-7 in PKs. https://whotv.com/2019/05/25/referee-ejects-entire-marshalltown-fanbase-during-wild-finish-in-substate-final/

In other words, localities seeking the benefits of having a major manufacturing entity relocate there have offered various types of economic incentives to lure the manufacturer... just like they would with any other manufacturing entity that promised local employment opportunities and infusion of cash to the local economy. Wouldn’t matter if they were manufacturing Winchesters or widgets.

Update: https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-met-illinois-recreational-marijuana-legislation-20190531-story.html Interesting that Illinois becomes the first state to legalize recreational use of marijuana by legislative act, rather than voter referendum. Illinois is one signature away from joining the 10 other states that have legalized recreational use of marijuana. With a bipartisan vote of 66-47, the House approved a bill Friday that had been passed by the Senate Wednesday. Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who campaigned for office on a promise to legalize pot, almost immediately issued a statement in which he promised to sign a bill that he said offers “the most equity-centric approach in the nation.” “This will have a transformational impact on our state, creating opportunity in the communities that need it most and giving so many a second chance,” Pritzker said in his statement. With the governor’s signature, Illinois would become the first state to create a commercial recreational marijuana industry through the legislature rather than by voter initiative. Supporters hailed the measure as an acknowledgement that the prohibition of marijuana has failed, and they argued that the bill will begin to address decades of racial disparities in the prosecution of drug crimes. Will employers still test for marijuana once recreational use is legal in Illinois? Don't keep a pipe at your desk just yet. » “Prohibition hasn’t built communities. In fact, it has destroyed them,” said Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D-Chicago, who worked with Chicago Democratic Sen. Heather Steans for more than two years to craft the bill. “It is time to hit the reset button on the war on drugs.” The bill takes effect Jan. 1 and would allow residents age 21 and older to legally possess 30 grams of cannabis, 5 grams of cannabis concentrate or 500 milligrams of THC contained in a cannabis-infused product. Nonresidents could possess 15 grams of cannabis. It would also create a licensed cultivation and dispensary system while directing Pritzker to pardon people with past convictions for low-level pot possession.

There are places, like Planned Parenthood, for example, that are heavily subsidized. But I don’t know that it’s ever completely free. There are 15 states where Medicaid pays for abortions. Can you guess whether Indiana is among them?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/30/politics/illinois-legal-marijuana-legislation/index.html Washington (CNN)Illinois is close to becoming the 11th state in the United States to legalize the purchase and possession of recreational marijuana. The state's Senate on Wednesday passed legislation on a 38-17 vote that would allow adults to buy and possess small amounts of marijuana. The bill is currently being considered by the Democratic-majority House, which is facing a Friday deadline to get bills passed before adjournment. The bill already has the support of Illinois' Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker, who had campaigned for the legalization of marijuana. The bill would allow adults 21 and older to purchase and possess 30 grams of cannabis, five grams of cannabis concentrate, and cannbis-infused products containing no more than 500 milligrams of THC. Nonresidents will be able to purchase half of each of those amounts. And here we are in progressive Indiana - stuck in the middle again.

Yes, but if you were an unemployed 17 yr. old with basically no means of support, would you take a 3 state bus ride to get an abortion, even if you could afford the ticket? Because that’s what it will come to.

That would be true, if travel does not impose a relative barrier ... which, I’m afraid, it does.

We’re going to see a lot of this sort of litigation as states pass their versions of “heartbeat” laws. The problem with those laws is that, at bottom, “viability” is not a legal concept. It’s a scientific concept that can’t simply be changed by legislative fiat. If the Alabama legislature passed a law that said “henceforth, for all purposes within the state of Alabama, 2+2=5, would that make it so? Courts recognize this, even if windbag populist politicians pandering to their perceived constituency don’t. Or won’t.

The problem with that reasoning is that the 14th Amendment has “incorporated” certain of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights - the first 10 amendments - into the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. So, a state law that restricts abortion to the extent it violates the 9th Amendment’s guaranty of privacy would also violate the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, which applies to the states.

Wait... I thought we were talking science, not sentiment.

It’s just as arbitrary as any other stage of fetal development, IMO.

I wonder how many people weighing in on this subject have ever read - much less understood - the Court’s opinion in Roe v. Wade. Here’s what the Court said, in a nutshell: Previous cases have established the existence of a constitutional right of privacy, and the Court ruled that allowing a woman to control her own body, including the decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, falls within this right of privacy. Therefore, until the point where the fetus could not survive outside the womb, i.e., “viability,” the mother’s right of privacy trumps any other decision. However, once viability is established, the state’s interest in safeguarding the well-being of its citizens, including its unborn citizens, starts to become more important, and more restrictions on the mother’s decision-making process are justified. I don’t expect the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. In fact, I look for them to reaffirm the basic principle. But as always, the devil will be in the details. Technological advances since Roe have pushed the threshold of “viability” back. I expect this conservative court to give states a little more leeway in determining when the state’s interest trumps the mother’s. But that’s all.

About time that someone made the point that legality and morality are not the same thing. The legal availability of abortion is not the same thing as compelling people to undergo them. You can personally believe that abortion is wrong without attempting to impose your belief system upon others.

If you do the right thing, but for the wrong reason, does it matter?

So, what’s the point that you’re trying to make? That women should only be allowed to have abortions if they have a good reason? If that were the case, my guess is the people who decide whether a reason is good enough are those same old white men sitting around the table.

Exactly.

Not if you’ve actually been paying attention to the playoff qualification debate.

I know, everyone thinks of this as Star Wars Day (“May the 4th be with you.) But this date commemorates something much more significant. Never forget.

No doubt that the numbers of teenagers getting TJS these days dwarfs the number 2 decades ago. And no doubt a lot of that is due to overuse of undeveloped arms. But that’s not the only reason. Techniques for TJS have improved significantly since Dr. Frank Jobe invented the procedure for Tommy John in 1974. This is a procedure now taught in hand/shoulder fellowships. There is much less risk associated with the procedure these days. On the other side of the equation, the greater level of skill and refinement of techniques have combined to make the results of the procedure consistently better. So the risk/reward ratio has been reversed, and there are many more surgeons trained in the procedure. The combination of these developments results in a much greater number of surgeries.

Frankly, the judges I know have to listen to so much crap, if I were them I’d be hitting Happy Hour every day.

I read the article in the Indiana Lawyer. But regardless of where they had been before the incident, I don't understand why you have a problem with this. Now, if they went out to some bars and charged that to the taxpayers, I would have a problem with that. But as long as they were doing what they were supposed to be doing during the day, i.e., judicial continuing education, who cares what they were doing on their own time? Not everyone who goes "out on the town" drinks so much that they are impaired the next day. I'd be more concerned about the possible gastric consequences of late night White Castles.

Yeah, because judges aren't human beings. They're not entitled to any free time. And seriously, does "out on the town" include White Castle? Maybe in Frankfort ...

This used to be the case. I heard that some referees would manipulate the clock by being very deliberate about marking the ball ready for play and thus delaying the start of the 25 second play clock ... although I never did that myself. 😉 But that’s no longer possible with the advent of the 40 second clock.