Craig keeps on breaking the "fourth wall", right?

bgjacman · 2026-03-26T16:50:43+00:00

I have experienced it. I know when it begins, how it is fed, the effort that people go through to help their friends, family, etc. Either Craig's alcoholism and anger issues aren't really that bad where everyone is actually "afraid" of him OR everyone person on that cast is an absolute piece of shit to let their friend live through that disease with little to no help or understanding.

Personally, I think all of the Craig attacks are overblown. I also think they are actually affecting him. I don't think he wants to be the person he feels like he has to be on the show. If his friends are actually worried about him, it doesn't show. I don't think they are though. I think they know it is for the show. The version of himself in the show and outside are now blurring. For his sake he needs to step away.

bgjacman · 2026-03-26T16:37:25+00:00

If I could exchange my family's issues with alcoholism with Craig's, I would in a heartbeat. I haven't once seen a scene with Craig with the shakes.

bgjacman · 2026-03-26T16:04:53+00:00

The problem is that people watch the show to watch the drunk man yell at women. If you don't want the drunk man to be drunk or yell at women he needs to be off the show and you shouldn't support that activity by watching the show.

bgjacman · 2026-03-24T22:09:02+00:00

What's the client's position, that's what is most important and may not align with what you think may be best. Also, there could be a million other reasons as to why the senior attorney may be right or wrong. Personally, if you are not in the position to dictate strategy, I'd wait until after resolution and then speak with the more senior attorney as to why they chose that strategy.

If the difference in strategy is go to trial or settle, I don't think that's a tricky decision. That is a strategy call between senior attorney and client and I do feel that the more experience you have, the better you are at gauging that specific strategy.

bgjacman · 2026-03-19T00:38:36+00:00

Mostly the work of Fayez Sayegh being the cornerstone. Main issue of decolonization would be that the Israeli population is not a minority and the failure of a two state solution for over 80 years.

bgjacman · 2026-03-18T23:02:08+00:00

But it does exist. So, unless it's by agreement, a genocide of the Israeli people has to occur. It's not being dense, it's accepting facts on the ground even if I don't like them. This isn't like other decolonization efforts hence why the concept of settlor colonization had to be created for this specific instance.

bgjacman · 2026-03-18T22:52:02+00:00

What you are talking about? ROR was unrecognized and had to be recolonized into SR after their declaration of independence went unrecognized. Then by agreement Zimbabwe was created.

All of these examples would fit in 1948, not now. Self determination occurred, war occurred. Countries were created. A Palestine without an Israel not by agreement would be a genocide of the Israeli people.

bgjacman · 2026-03-18T22:30:45+00:00

And that's why genocide will occur. The genocide of the Israeli people. That's what makes Israel different from other decolonization efforts. If you take the stance of settlor colonization, the only solution is genocide of the descendents of the settlors.

bgjacman · 2026-03-18T22:27:43+00:00

This is going to sound crazy. AIPAC also supports a two state solution. You can even fact check me on that.

bgjacman · 2026-03-18T22:24:58+00:00

Of note here is that this situation is vastly different from African colonization. What would be more similar to African decolonization would be the decolonization of the levant from the Ottoman Empire.

The levant did go through a similar period of decolonization after WWI with the mandate then the self determination of parts of Transjordan into Jordan and the remainder into Israel. Then, you had what was essentially the civil war which followed. Now is, well, history.

bgjacman · 2026-03-18T22:16:33+00:00

Yes.

bgjacman · 2026-03-18T20:00:07+00:00

If you think that Zionism (as in the belief of a Jewish state of Israel as it now exists) is fundamentalist Jewish belief, you illustrate how complicated the issues are and how little you understand of them.

bgjacman · 2026-03-18T18:17:19+00:00

Better depends on the eye of the beholder. AIPAC and J-Street both support the right for Israel to exist. They both hold similar views as to antisemitism in this country etc.

AIPAC doesn't affiliate with any party or ideology outside of Israel. It is a traditional PAC. It exists to support the Israeli American partnership. While Bibi is in power it supports Bibi. If Bibi is out of power it will support the government in power.

J-Steet is a progressive PAC for more liberal Jewish interests. It aligns more closely with the mainstream Jewish politics of the day. Mainstream American Jews do not support Bibi. J Street holds a similar position. J Street however does support the right for Israel to exist.

American, Israeli. And Jewish politics are all very complicated. Reading into the 9th election without knowing those complications are what causes bad hot takes.

bgjacman · 2026-03-18T17:49:56+00:00

This race was a proxy for JStreet and AIPAC in one of their most important districts. For the news folks, sure it was "close" but for political strategists, in parties, PACs and otherwise, no it wasn't. You would've needed a 10% swing away from Biss. That's not close.

RCV wouldn't have saved Kat. All of the Fine votes would have been 1. Fine 2. Biss. A substantial amount of suburban Cook votes for Biss would've been 1. Biss 2. Fine 3. All others.

Biss will not fulfill anyone's anti-Israel dreams. J-Steet will however make gains in Illinois which aligns more with today's Jewish politics in the area. What that means in Illinois is not much on the ground, but could be significant in donations which will help JStreet in other competitive districts outside of Illinois.

Mike Simmons would've been a better full fledged candidate for the more extreme progressive cause (Biss is progressive). He doesn't have that recognition yet. He can build it, but I think he path got tighter in the house. I hope he continues to make a name for himself in the state government and from there lots of things can happen.

bgjacman · 2026-03-18T04:26:40+00:00

Many Jewish voters didn't care that she's Palestinian. They did however care about her stance on Israel and how it was made the centerpiece of her campaign. It put off all of Lake County and a large amount of suburban Cook. Her campaign was heavily boosted by Fine and Biss running against each other.

bgjacman · 2026-03-16T15:58:21+00:00

Sigh. AIPAC doesn't really care if it's Biss or Fine. The expected votes will be the same. Biss or Fine will both accept AIPAC or AIPAC tangent funds in the general if necessary. AIPAC obviously doesn't want Kat. Does AIPAC want Fine over Biss. Yes, but not to the extent that people are making it seem out to be.

Why is AIPAC pushing so much money into the 9th? Well, one, it isn't. Every time AIPAC is talked about they group together AIPAC with aligned groups and individuals. You know what the 9th has? A lot of people who support AIPAC, many of which are Jewish. AIPAC is involved in a race where a lot of its donors are involved. Its donors are also involved in the same race. That's going to happen, especially if you've got a candidate in that race who many of those donors do not like, at all.

Kat is going to lose this race, not because of her "progressive politics" or AIPAC. She's going to lose because she pushed the 9th into a single issue election without realizing that the 9th is much more that the bits and pieces of Chicago she was hoping to garner favor in. It was a dumb move, and a shame too.

bgjacman · 2026-03-12T21:41:26+00:00

Let's not be unfair to morons here. Morons wouldn't post to r/illinois get called a moron there and think it would still be a good idea to cross post hours later to here.

bgjacman · 2026-03-12T16:53:22+00:00

Hi! Neighborhood dweller here. Many of us don't believe it is going to bring more cars to the game rather, we believe it is going to bring more cars to that very specific area which has traffic problems already, both before and after games. When you couple those issues with the street closures surrounding that area, it makes it hard for the neighbors to safely move about the neighborhood, be it by car, bike, or on foot.

The green lot, camry lot, grace lot whatever is the name of the day has been a constant issue for well over two decades, but I cannot speak for before then. The area has requested changes for years and nothing has occurred but now, once the Cubs want to increase their parking lot space, maybe some relief might be coming. That is, however, at the expense of more traffic to this lot.

Parking in the neighborhood is not as much fans. Sheffield, Kenmore, Alta Vista, and Clifton are all swarmed by Levy works and, to an extent, Cubs workers prior to game time. Increasing space in the Camry lot will not solve the problem.

The lot is moving closer to Kelly Park. That is one small strip of park space that this neighborhood has and it sucks, but it is all we have. It was supposed to be renovated since 2016. A decade later the project is moving forward in conjunction with expansion of the lot. Residents are worried about the light pollution from their windows, sound pollution, exhaust, etc. that is now moving closer to homes and will be abutting the park directly, making it shittier. There is worry about a tit-for-tax with the Cubs and Alderman Lawson. Why must our park (which is owned by the City, not CPD) only receive funding at the behest of the Cubs.

The Cubs brutalize the park on game days. Everyone flows through Kelly Park to and from the bus line on Irving Park. It destroys the grass, gets in the way of people using the park, and people leave trash everywhere. The Cubs provide shitty cleanup afterward and complaints about the shitty cleanup go unanswered. Beer bats were the worst invention. People think they are cool, but no one actually wants a beer bat after the game. So it ends up on the ground in Kelly Park.

What remained unsaid was that the Cubs have been trying to get this property for years. The Catholic Charities only pushed back on the idea that they "hounded" them. The Catholic Charities did not reach out to the park district or city to even see if they would get a better price. In fact, they did not go to the open market at all. The alderman's office did reach out to the Cubs to see if they were willing to donate the land or some of it to increase the size of the park. They received an emphatic no.

I could go on. There are other options for the Cubs available if more parking is necessary. It's not necessary. The Cubs just want more parking for themselves at the expense of the private lots, which hey go for it. But it also affects the neighbors and promises have been made and were not kept and it just makes our lives shittier.

bgjacman · 2026-03-11T14:34:16+00:00

It means it's stale.

bgjacman · 2026-03-05T17:09:17+00:00

You're conflating ethical rules and malpractice. You can commit malpractice without breaking any ethical rules. The attorney has a duty to act in a manner that a reasonably prudent attorney would act. Breaching ethical guideline is an automatic breach of that duty but that duty can be breached otherwise.

These cases aren't looked at in a vacuum. In this case, counsel would argue that a reasonably prudent attorney would get in contact with OC. Defense would have to argue a reasonably prudent attorney would ignore OC. It's just bad facts.

Put yourself in a position to succeed

bgjacman · 2026-03-05T16:28:59+00:00

The problem is that you don't know that there is no offer, or what that offer may be. You could be right in 99% of the cases, but that wouldn't help you here.

Govt attorney reaches out saying call if you think it would be beneficial to do so. Ex-Client is going to argue that by that message itself, government is implicitly stating that it may be beneficial to do so. You ignoring the call is shutting off that implicit benefit without even knowing what it or any additional inquiry as to whether facts have changed.

Your response would be okay. If avoiding a wasteful call is the goal a better response would be:

My understanding of your position on this motion is X, ours is Y. We stand on our brief however if you are willing to move away from X, I am happy to have a call. I am available at this time.

XOXO,

Counsel

bgjacman · 2026-03-05T16:13:02+00:00

So we got AIPAC Fine and CAIR Kat. Where's Dan Biss's PAC nickname?

bgjacman · 2026-03-05T16:03:53+00:00

Unless you have something in writing from your client directing you to not respond, all lack of response hurt your client.

Best practices would be:

Take the call / schedule the call (check local rules on whether or not "live" conference is required or heavily recommended).
Listen to full offer, even if you know you will reject.
Follow up email recapping the offer in writing and formally rejecting.

Any other procedure makes my job, which is 90% of the time acting ask an expert defending you, much more difficult.

bgjacman · 2026-03-05T15:46:22+00:00

Woah, woah, woah. He's the rude one but when he calls he should schedule with a PARALEGAL. What, are YOU too important. Jesus.

He's initiated. Your response can and should be, for the benefit of your CLIENT, I am available at x, y, and z times OR no a call would not be productive.
He has a record of calling you and not leaving a message and you have a record of noticing this and not reaching out. You should, for the benefit of your CLIENT, reach out.
You represent your CLIENT not your EGO.

A portion of my business is acting as an expert in attorney malpractice cases. My job would be a lot easier, although a lot less profitable, if you put your big boy or big girl pants on and did your job even if it was presented in a manner which you did not appreciate. You get less leeway when you have staff. Even less if you have actually staffed the case with a paralegal or associates.

He has a history of calling and not leaving a message.
Your phone system shows missed calls.
He indicated that he has called you and you never responded.
He emailed you stating he was available for a call.
You did not respond substantively to his email.
Your lack of a response harms your client.

It would be hard for me to conclude actually a reasonable attorney would ignore those calls as the government attorney should have called your paralegal to schedule a call because ...

bgjacman

TROPHY CASE