chasfh

I think it would depend on how much the season gets pushed back, but let's assume for this discussion my scenario of an April 15 start plus an extra week in October happens. That's two fewer weeks on the front end and one more week on the back end. One way would move part of the first two weeks to the back half, have a combination of doubleheaders and a couple or three fewer off days, and keep everything else as is. The easiest thing for the Tigers in that scenario would be to move the Seattle and Oakland series to the end of the year; move the Red Sox series to current off days July 21-22 (doubleheader on 21); move one of the White Sox games to off-day September 15 and the other two to make doubleheaders in the June 13-15 and September 15-18 timeframes; and add a doubleheader to one of the Royals series. It's all a pain in the ass, but workable. Another thing they can do is to simply push back the entire schedule two weeks and compress the schedule for some combination of fewer off days and scheduled doubleheaders. This could probably work logistically because teams' travel secretaries may not have made any arrangements with out-of-town hotels in light of the coming lockout and likely schedule rebalancing. I doubt they would simply reduce the season to the romantic ideal of 154 games because that would cost Baseball TV and gameday revenue, and Players would push for their constituents to be paid for an entire 162-game season, which I doubt Baseball would agree to. However it comes out, I can't imagine that they would not have the plan for a restructured 162-game schedule in place before they ink the new CBA deal. But who knows, maybe they're unconcerned about all that while no deal's in place. Maybe it'll be just sign the deal and we'll figure out

I’m still thinking they won’t talk in earnest until after the Super Bowl, when the spotlight shuts off football and people typically look toward baseball as what’s next. That’s when they know they’ll have to get busy in order to look busy. I’m still thinking 162 games starting around April 15 and ending October 9, a week late.

Exactly! 😁

Not all coercive, non-consensual sex rises to the level of aggravated rape. Sometimes girls and women give in to sexual coercion when they don't want to, just to get past the moment with as little harm as they can manage to.

How do we prevent a full-grown man from imposing himself sexually on a woman or girl a third or half his size?

After Roe is overturned, how soon will it be before we see states try to pass legislation that criminalizes women who travel for abortions in legal states and then return home? I could see something like that being tied up in federal courts for years, which by itself would give the idea the imprimatur of even-handed legitimacy.

He was caught on the phone already trying to!

Randy Quaid looks like he’s been dealing without electricity, heat, and water for some time now.

Here’s my link: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/its-official-election-was-secure Now let’s see yours.

Apologies if this was posted here last week because I don’t remember seeing it, but: my new favorite news anchors.

We already have that, in spades.

It's true Chicago was 28th on a list from 2019. Chicago wasn't even in the top 30 on Bunker's updated 2022 list. But whatever. Go ahead and parrot Trump's Chicago Worse Than Afghanistan trope. Feel free to believe that. Here, I'll help you: you don't wanna come here. Stay away. It's worse than Afghanistan. Stay in Detroit. 😏

Good luck with that.

What city is missing from that list? 🤔

The irony about many people who want to “know as much about this virus as possible” is that the “knowledge” they’re are obtaining from their various sketchy sources is not making them more knowledgeable about the virus at all.

And those other 28 cities would have more. Some way more.

If they all had three million people there'd be a lot more killed in these cities than in Chicago!

I guess I'll stay out of grocery stores and side streets around there, then! This'll cheer you up: just this summer I was riding north on Sacramento one afternoon, approaching that MLK boys club at Washington. I saw three kids, maybe mid-teens, walking south on the sidewalk alongside the club in the approaching direction. As I drew within a few dozen yards I saw one kid kind of notice me and look like he was 'fi'na do something, so I got a notion. And as I was passing them, sure enough, the one kid kind of lerched a step toward me raising both arms up and shouted EEEYAH! And at the same time I leaned toward them and shouted "BOO!" and grinned. And as I was biking away I could hear peals of laughter receding into the distance behind me. Wouldn't it have been funny if they pulled out a gun and shot me? Because, you know, that's exactly what you would expect mid-teen kids in the city to do to a guy riding a bike on a major street in the middle of the day, amirite? 😆

You seem to be fine that hundreds of thousands people are being killed in America when comparable countries in the world aren't having such a problem. As long as you don't feel endangered though.

What do St. Louis, Baltimore, Birmingham, Detroit, Dayton, Baton Rouge, New Orleans, Kansas City, Memphis, Cleveland, Richmond, Miami Gardens, Washington, North Charleston, Peoria, Philadelphia, Columbia, San Bernadino, Cincinnati, Columbus GA, Tuscaloosa, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Little Rock, Shreveport, Montgomery, and Buffalo all have in common? https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/murder-map-deadliest-u-s-cities/

I suppose I can see why you infer that I said that, although I didn't say that. My original point was that unless you see all this crime first-hand, which most people even in city of Chicago do not, then the only way to conclude that crime is out of control is that you're being told that it's out of control. It would be the media most people would hear such a thing from. Because I haven't seen crime first-hand, and because I haven't had to change anything about the way I live my life here due to crime, I don't perceive crime as being out of control. I suppose if I were to see a few instances of crime first-hand—a gang beating on the street, being in a store that gets held up, witnessing a shooting, getting car-jacked—that would change my perception of my vulnerability to crime here. And who knows, maybe that will happen sooner than later. But until then, I'm going to take the same precautions I have been for 25 years here, and not worry about it any more than I have. In the meantime, I don't agree that I should be made to feel guilty for not feeling freaked out by crime here.

Actually, I do ride my bike through there a lot in the summer! When the wind is coming in from the south to southeast, I'll ride over to California, down to Augusta, across to Sacramento, then down Sacramento straight through East Garfield and Douglass Park. Sacramento swings back out to California, I go past County, to 35th, all the way across to the lake, back up the lake to Fullerton, then down Lincoln Park West to Armitage, across to Racine, jot down to Cortland, pick up the 606 at Marshfield, then on home. It's a good ride. The only problem I have is how tore up the pavement is between County and 35th, mainly because the Stevenson comes through there and no one lives along there, so there's no money in it to fix it up around there. So gotta be careful for the tires.

Man, so much going on here ... I didn't say this. You're making this up. They can say crime is out of control any time they want. Applying the phrase "out of control" is as much a narrative decision in service of their business as it is an objective reflection of reality. What are you talking about? I answered your question multiple times! I even gave you a number like you wanted! How can you say I'm still going around in circles! 😅 Well, as it turns out, the final number of murders in Chicago as reported by CPD was 797, which is less than 800, so, by the number I gave you, and that you appear to accept, Chicago's crime rate is not "out of control". I know where your calculation came from. I told you where it came from. Now this statement looks like you're trying to make me feel guilty about something. I have no idea what I should be feeling guilty about. In the end, it occurs to me that the source of your frustration with me is that I don't view this through the same lens that you do, and you can't understand how that could even be possible.

I see, OK. Although you're basically saying here you've already given up on me giving you a number, anyway. I've never had a number for this. I've never thought about it in those terms. I believe "out of control" is a subjective perceptual condition, and my subjective perception is that crime in Chicago is not out of control. If I perceived crime here to be out of control, I'd probably be planning to move, because I wouldn't continue living in an environment that I felt endangered me and my wife on an everyday basis. If you want to believe that 175 is the maximum number of murders Chicago can experience and still be within control, that's your perception. Whether it's based on a calculation you made from another city's number, or whether you're pulling it out of your ear, that's up to you. Although as I said, it hasn't been as low as 175 for some eight or so decades. But OK, if you want me to put a number on it ... mmm, I don't know, let's say ... 800. Anything over 800 murders is out of control. So if Chicago had over 800 murders last year, it's out of control. If they had 799 or fewer, it's within control. How's that? Now what?