Monkeypox

What better way to express my jingoism and xenophobia than shrouded beneath the cover of international competitions in sports I watch just short of never. I miss the Communists. Sure, Axis of Evil sounds better in a Golden Age Comic Book way, but I just don't know that I can get it up for women's soccer and flyweight boxing. How's Iran's Space Program coming along? How broad are the shoulders of the Eastern Iraq Women's Swim Team? What? There's no Eastern Iraq? Next thing I know you'll tell me they don't have a wall!

Maybe discussion about such events is a contributing factor to creating similar future events. Let's discuss.

This IS a tough penalty, and appropriately so. That might be the first time I've said that about the NCAA>

Bane was created in the early 90s. That's why he didn't appear on the show. Not a strange choice at all.

There's no better evidence that The Machine works on perpetual motion now than the fact that the politicians were able to say - "We're not going to politicize this," knowing full well that they can trust in the American People to do it for themselves.

Completely subjective, and missing the point. Bane didn't arrive until 1993, but he is by no means a B-list villain. He broke Batman, and his plan and methodology of carrying it out was significant and groundbreaking. Also, the ONLY villain on your list that hasn't already appeared in one of the Nolan Batman films (or in this one), is The Penguin, who's never really been as highly regarded by the fanboys and critics as he was by casual fans (and ranking near 20 places after Bane in IGN's Top 100 Comic Book Villains of All Time). But, more to the point, either you: 1) Think Christopher Nolan's use of Bane had something to do with a liberal conspiracy or 2) Think he chose him because he was seeking a significant villain to end his trilogy and the Bane storyline (releasing prisoners from Arkham and a months-long plan to stalk and kill Batman) was the means to achieve it. This, of course, doesn't even delve into the fact that Joel Schumaker had Bane in the dreadful Batman and Robin. In fact, didn't he have him portrayed by an pro wrestler, Jeep Swenson.... who once went by the stage name of The Final Solution? Wait, it's all becoming clear... a George Clooney movie portraying Bain Capital as a monstrous, retarded, jingoistic, anti-semitic wrestler - THIS CONSPIRACY GOES BACK DECADES!

I'm still mad that they took out celebrating with the mascot.

To quote: "The behaviors and failures described in the allegations set forth by the grand jury try not only the integrity of the university, but that of intercollegiate athletics as a whole and the NCAA member institutions that conduct college sports..." It asks Penn State to show how they DIDN'T fail them. They didn't send a letter saying "Hey, did you guys break the rules? Yes or no?" The four questions it poses are 4 ways in which Penn State has to address these alleged failures. IOW, Penn State has to prove that the allegations are wrong. Also, does anyone here really think that Penn State showed institutional control over the goings on of the football program?

And yet you make such definitive statements. I agree, though, there's no comparison to kids getting paid and kids getting raped and having a university cover it up and profit from it.

The letter clearly outlines the statements in the by-laws, and addresses where Penn State failed them. I think it's hard to say NCAA enforcement is a joke in the same breath that many say they don't want enforcement against Penn State.

1) So do these 2) So did these 3) OSU didn't get it for LOIC, and neither one covered up for child molesters (regardless, no punishment has been dealt yet) 4) Still doesn't cover the fact that they "punished the innocent" after the guilty were no longer at the University

LOIC. That's the big bad one, and Emmert specifically references it in the letter, asking Penn State to please show them how it WASN'T lack of institutional control. I think they'll have a hard time convincing the NCAA that it doesn't apply in this situation. It'll just come down to what sanctions they apply. I don't think it will be the death penalty, just because I don't believe the NCAA ever wants to go there.

Also, I don't remember hearing any of this outcry about the sanctions at Ohio State or USC punishing the innocent.

I don't refuse, I just assume you've either read the report, the NCAA bylaws, the previous posts in this thread, any article that references the NCAA letter to Penn State, or the letter to Penn State itself. http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/pennstatencaaletter2.pdf

Penn State, the institution, is responsible for the acts that took place, whether or not those people are currently still in-house. Just as they can take away scholarships from a school after the players have left and boosters are forced out, they can punish the football program for the rules that they've broken in the past. Penn State themselves has already, as a start, taken away $2.6 million from their own athletic department as a result, even though it "punished the innocent." Still, that's a drop in the bucket for them. Fact of the matter is that Penn State and the individuals in that community BENEFITTED from the cover-up of those crimes. That handful of men are facing the criminal charges. That doesn't have to do the monster that Penn State football was allowed to become WITHIN Penn State University. And that is why the program, and university, need to be punished, and accept their punishment.

Indirectly isn't relevant. If I think my wife is going to work and instead she's committing genocide, I'll be INDIRECTLY punished when she goes to jail, despite the fact that I had nothing to do with it. Make no mistake, Penn State broke the rules of the NCAA, and faces punishment due to their lack of institutional control and participation in the cover-up, per NCAA guidelines. This isn't about how many people can be indirectly affected, because that's no excuse to refrain from punishing the guilty. And Penn State, the institution, is guilty for lack of institutional controls.

Once again, a Death Penalty punishment is executed against the university, not members of the community. Logic fail.

Except that's not the same at all, unless the dead serial killer's son participated in the coverup. The punishment (jail/death penalty) in this scenario is to PSU football. Just because some people believe that automatically transfers that punishment out to everyone who could possibly be adversely affected by those consequences doesn't make it so. That's where the analogy fails. PSU football is being punished. The shop owners/restaurant people etc. will be negatively affected, and unfairly, just like the family of a murderer, even though they did nothing wrong. But the responsibility lies on the criminals and those that support them, not upon the rules and laws that punish them. And make no mistake, the NCAA has the rules in place that they can punish Penn State football. Death Penalty isn't even the worse they can do, actually, but I doubt we'll even see that.

This argument that you shouldn't punish PSU for the cover-up because some 3rd party will be hurt by it is like saying you shouldn't send a serial killer to jail because he's got kids to feed.

I'm just glad that people are starting to hate a team that will actually be in our conference.

The trend in Texas at least is due to the CPRIT saying it will tie all future funding for research to tobacco-free policies. That means between $30-80million for UT Austin. For North Texas... well, we currently receive $200k. Still, take the money. At least then the decision is sensible. OU's decision does not appear to be based on funding.

This is what I'm noticing. Much more prototypical OL frames in these guys.

Zeller to Cleveland for these magic beans!

Oh, exactly. I think the thing that bothers me most is the one-sided rhetoric from both ends. On one hand, I work in the medical field and am surrounded by conservatives talking about how this is the end of America. In my side work, I write and work on films with an entirely different crowd of artsy trust-fund babies who've lived most of their lives on someone else's dime. They're both screaming today, and both of their world's are equally intellectually insular.

I don't buy health insurance. I take care of myself, work independently with doctors, and pay out of pocket for medical expenses. I use things like Care Credit, etc. where you can put it on an interest-free credit card and pay it off in a certain time frame. I don't make a lot of money, so I have to be extra-responsible and careful with it. This was a choice I had to make when a pre-existing condition initially knocked me out of getting coverage after I was laid off and subsequently had to move. Then, when I was again eligible, for those that the pre-existing condition didn't disqualify me, simply made up for it by having ridiculous premiums. I tried paying them for a year, but then I realized that $60 worth of lab work and $150 worth of dental visits, and $200 worth of doctor's fees a year didn't add up to $2000+ a year in premiums. The only insurance I've debated having the last several years is catastrophic care. It's funny that everyone who lauds this says "Now you won't be crippled by the cost of having cancer/brain injury/getting mauled by a giant lobster." The reality is that while that's what insurance USED to be, these days it's a whole lot more of people wanting a $10 co-pay so they can go into the doctor because "my poop smelled funny this morning." People really don't understand how health insurance or health care companies and professionals actually get paid. Again, I work for a health care company, bill Medicare and Medicaid and work on contracts with a county hospital. And I'll be the first to say this will change absolutely nothing about health care. It won't improve access, it won't make it cheaper, and it won't suddenly make people able to get and afford major catastrophic care.