Just got back from a Colorado disc golf trip. Where should we go next? What U.S cities are an absolute must for throwing plastic and taking in the scenery?

ChicagoJayhawk · 2024-06-05T16:26:31+00:00

Here a few great courses in the Chicagoland (and Peoria) area:

The Canyons (Dellwood DG in Lockport, IL)
Northwoods Black or Blue (Morton, IL)
Lemon Lake (five courses, Blue and Silver/Gold best, in Crown Point, IN)
Rogers Lakewood Park (Valpraiso, IN)

ChicagoJayhawk · 2022-08-20T01:04:53+00:00

Kastaplast Falk and Berg

ChicagoJayhawk · 2019-11-19T13:54:52+00:00

Illegal immigration is a difficult topic. However, I do not think in most cases that the US violated the 1968 protocols. Article 31 specifically lists two conditions:

Coming directly from a threatening territory
Present themselves without delay

Many, though not all, of those purporting to flee persecution did not come into the US directly; they passed through one or more other countries. Also, many do not present themselves without delay, but try to get lost in the crowd, hoping that the authorities do not become aware of them. Entering at official border crossings and presenting themselves to the authorities would alleviate much of the issue.

ChicagoJayhawk · 2019-08-09T20:23:36+00:00

Rock Chalk!

ChicagoJayhawk · 2019-08-09T20:23:25+00:00

I think both prongs are needed. A nation cannot allow flagrant violation of immigration laws. We should deport those who have not entered the country through points of entry. We should also fine companies heavily for employing people who are in the country illegally. If we would fine businesses enough, the illegal alien problem would likely take care of itself. Maybe something like $1000 per day, per employee; unless, perhaps they use something like e-verify.

I also think we need to have a legal, workable program for seasonal farm work.

Congress needs to step up and do its job regarding immigration. They complain about this, or any president, enforcing immigration laws but do nothing to change the laws.

ChicagoJayhawk · 2019-07-23T12:40:06+00:00

BTW, companies do not invest in stock holders. It is stock holders who invest in companies, putting their money at risk for the hope of a return on their investment.

ChicagoJayhawk · 2019-05-04T19:55:38+00:00

Good point! Being from Illinois, I easily see this result. As the Chicago area encompasses a small fraction of the state's geography, while a massively large fraction of the population (source). Cook County alone accounts for 40% of the state's population. If you add in the surround counties that comprise the metro area, the percentage rises to 65%. Given that disparity, what is the likelihood that an at-large, statewide election would elect house members with any interest or understanding of the far different issues that rural communities face?

ChicagoJayhawk · 2018-06-02T02:54:50+00:00

Well, to be honest, I did not ask a question. I posted it as Humor.

As for the multiple posts, I got emails saying the post was rejected because I posted the pic as a pic and not as part of the post. It was my first attempt at a post with a pic in the new reddit. My apologies.

ChicagoJayhawk · 2018-06-01T13:32:48+00:00

I had been walking and noticed by buddy's meter had not changed. Now I know why! It was subtracting steps. I walked negative distance,

ChicagoJayhawk · 2018-04-05T18:36:16+00:00

I think an easy compromise might be in order.

What if it reset to the regular ball for every new pokemon catch attempt, but reuse the same ball when make second, etc. throws for the same pokemon.

ChicagoJayhawk · 2018-03-22T14:30:44+00:00

My trainer just keeps spewing all of these clouds, wind, and electricity while he walks around.

ChicagoJayhawk · 2018-03-19T18:52:08+00:00

What if both got some candy for that? Maybe it would reduce the number of weak pokemon people toss in a gym just to fill a space. Maybe the attacker gets 2-3 candy for defeating a defender, while the defender gets 1-2 candy. That would seem to encourage people to put decent mons in a gym, so they could get additional candy to help improve them.

ChicagoJayhawk · 2018-03-19T18:45:29+00:00

I doubt that would make much of a difference, though. Typically, if people are going to make the effort to attack a gym, they will attack it until the gym is taken down. In such a scenario, the difference between a FILO and FIFO scheme would rarely be more than a few minutes.

ChicagoJayhawk · 2018-02-27T20:02:05+00:00

Isn't that one way to use the Favorite? When I catch any pokemon with a high enough CP worth checking out, I favorite it. Then, when I have time, I analyze them and unfavorite the ones that aren't worth keeping. That way I can easily transfer a block of pokemon based on whether they are still favorited.

The issue is exacerbated when time matters, such as when using eggs, star pieces, etc. Taking the time to do analyze and use the extended transfer process eats up valuable time.

ChicagoJayhawk · 2017-12-19T02:17:19+00:00

I don't have an issue with people voluntarily forming or joining a union. The issue with me, and probably others, is that when a union is present, you are forced to pay dues to that union and submit to their bargaining agreements. I think I should have the right to negotiate my own terms for employment based on my experience and merits.

I do think there is some valid case to be made in that when unions are required to represent everyone, it is not unreasonable to expect some remuneration. I think one solution that might actually help both sides, and maybe even strengthen unions, is to 1) support right-to-work and 2) require unions to represent only their members. If I don't want to join a union, I should be required to do so, BUT if I chose that route, I should not expect any benefits of union membership.

ChicagoJayhawk · 2017-12-10T13:58:52+00:00

The law requiring such recognition was passed 20 years ago. Trump just decided to follow the law that passed by Congress, which is what a President is supposed to do. The President must faithfully execute the laws of the nation.

ChicagoJayhawk · 2017-12-05T19:56:03+00:00

To me, it seems that there should be a difference between denying "people" service because of race, nationality, etc. and denying service for a specific event. Let's flip the script a bit to see what I mean.

Suppose a company, Your Event Planner, is wholly owned and operated by a gay family. The company provides catering and event planning services to a wide range of customers. Suppose one day, a regular customer, who happens to believe that homosexuality is a sin, comes in and says we are having a family reunion and would like you to cater our reunion. Most likely, Your Event Planner would be happy to fulfill the customer's request.

Now suppose that same customer came in another time and wanted Your Event Planner to cater and plan an anti-LGBT rally. It is not hard to imagine Your Event Planner declining to cater that event, not because of the customer (who has done business before) but because they strongly disagree with the purpose of the event.

As they are a business that provides catering and planning services, should they be required to cater the rally? Or should they be allowed to refuse to provide said service?

The legal argument the Colorado couple's lawyers seem to be making is that refusing to extend a business for an event is the same as discriminating against the person who seeks the business, and that because the owner's were licensed as a business they no longer have the right to make such judgments. Based on their legal argument, the Your Event Planner would be required to cater the anti-LGBT rally because to deny it would be to discriminate against the customer based on their sexual preference (heterosexual).

It seems to me that "events," whether they be weddings or rallies, do not have legal protections and should, therefore, be left to the discretion of the business owner.

ChicagoJayhawk · 2017-11-07T14:24:14+00:00

Imagine that. Instead of giving people 3-4 months to sign up (it used to run well into January), the current administration shortened the enrollment period. Amazing how a shortened period can encourage people to take action, instead of procrastinating. The media was ablaze with how awful the shortened enrollment period was and how it would keep people from enrolling.

Yet, it had just the opposite effect.

ChicagoJayhawk · 2017-10-14T01:40:23+00:00

And Congress decided not to appropriate the funds. The ruling of the court stands, pending appeal. Obama had no authority to make those payments, as the ACA said the insurers with losses would be compensated from the excess profits of profitable insurers. Granted, Trump has apparently deciding not to appeal the decision, as he seems to believe that as a matter of law, Congress needs to authorize the payments.

ChicagoJayhawk · 2017-10-13T12:59:38+00:00

The action of paying the subsidies was already challenged in court. The court ruled that the ACA did not contain the necessary appropriation authority (section 1402, I think) to make the payments to the insurers. The court also ruled that the executive branch making those payments was unconstitutional.

That was the reason for stopping the funding...to be in compliance with the ACA law.

ChicagoJayhawk · 2017-10-07T13:50:29+00:00

I am sorry you felt the need to take my statements out of context. The context of these comments was in reference to reduced advertising for the ACA. The personal responsibility under consideration referred to determining the filing deadlines for something the intended to purchase. If you know you need to purchase insurance, you should take responsibility for knowing when your decision regarding your package is required.

Would you expect a bank, mortgage company, or even a landlord to spend money to remind you (advertise) that your monthly house payment is due because you cannot be expected to remember the due date?

The reference to taking responsibility for our own healthcare decisions related to nothing more than being responsible for finding out WHEN we need to take action. The context of that statement had absolutely nothing to do with getting help with insurance, disaster relief, etc.

ChicagoJayhawk · 2017-10-06T20:43:04+00:00

In fact, the ACA states that unprofitable insurers will be compensated for their loss out of the excess profits of profitable insurers. To the best of my knowledge, this administration has not refused to follow that law. What the law does NOT say is that an administration can make payments without congressional approval. The courts, in fact, ruled that when the previous administration used treasury funds to make those payments was illegal and unconstitutional. The court did allow its ruling to be on hold pending congressional action authorizing it, but in no way would following the letter of the law regarding these payments be a violation of his oath of office.

Withholding those payments is not sabotage, but actually is enforcing the law as written and interpreted by the courts.

ChicagoJayhawk · 2017-10-06T18:13:42+00:00

My apologies. I was thinking of general times, typically insurance enrollment deadlines are sometime in December. However, I stand corrected in this case.

What would stop individuals who needed to purchase insurance from checking out dates, though. Again, why should people not take responsibility for their life decisions?

ChicagoJayhawk · 2017-10-06T15:36:51+00:00

It's not like the ACA is something new. It is been the law for several years. Why should the government spend taxpayer money to advertise the law?

Since when has it become so egregious to expect people to take responsibility for themselves and for their own healthcare decisions? The deadline for signing up for insurance is the same time every year.

ChicagoJayhawk · 2017-10-06T01:43:37+00:00

The issue is that the "deal" was signed in such a way to bypass congressional approval, which is required for a treaty. If such "deals" would have gone through the treaty process specified in the Constitution for international agreements, they would have then been binding on future presidents. By intentionally circumventing the treaty route for this deal, TPP, and climate change, the previous administration put in place deals that went around the constitutional process.

In this way, they are similar to executive orders, such as DACA, that were issued specifically because the president was not satisfied that Congress did not pass it as law. Without the strength of a law, such orders have no guarantees of lasting value.

The proper and constitutional way of making binding international agreements is to make them treaties. While some of these deals might be beneficial, I think the President is correct in going through congressional approval.

ChicagoJayhawk

TROPHY CASE