• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bearrock

  • Rank
    The Special Teams Ace
  • Birthday 11/17/1980

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Redskins Fan Since
    seems like forever
  • Favorite Redskin
    Darrell Green
  • Not a Skins Fan? Tell us YOUR team:
    WHAT!!!!!! Blasphemy
  • Location
    Fairfax VA
  1. To me there is a difference between tolerating a view and not silencing a view. If someone espouses a stupid or a dangerous view, that person has the right to do that. But, I'm not going to tolerate it. That view should be exposed as stupid or dangerous so that no one with half a brain or modicum of sanity will ever give credence to that view. One shouldn't confuse the right to express an idea with the privilege of having that idea be accepted by others.
  2. Zakaria's examples are bad examples. I think most of us would support individual's right say anything in a reasonable manner (although I personally would draw the line at Westboro, so I guess places matter for me too). But I also think most of us would support the idea of individual's right to leave and not listen if they found the speech stupid, offensive, or a general waste of time. There is nothing wrong with students walking out on Pence's speech. That's not some sign of anti-intellectualism. Booing, De Vos, I would say is more borderline in terms of manners, but again not anti-intellectualism. Pence and De Vos are being judged by the content of their positions and no one is preventing them from speaking. Sure there are closed minded liberals, but these examples don't support that.
  3. Before I discuss this particular topic, I want to stress that I think our criminal justice system badly needs a thorough reform, that we overcriminalize our citizens and that there is definitely disproportionate impact along racial lines in the system (and no, it's not because blacks are more likely to commit crimes). I think there are many things you can find troubling in the story, including the realization that eyewitness testimony or identification can be very very unreliable. With that said, the way the system is current structured in many states, probation violation hearings are not treated like a criminal hearing. You don't have a right to a jury trial. Some states do not guarantee right to an attorney. And they do not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. Think of the OJ case. Jury found him not guilty, but OJ was found liable in the civil case. Just because the evidence doesn't support a criminal conviction, doesn't mean that same evidence can't support a probation violation.
  4. Probation violations are by preponderance of the evidence. Criminal convictions require beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence did not support a criminal conviction, but was sufficient to support preponderance standard. It is hard to say whether the judge got it right or not without examining the evidence, but the two results are not inconsistent with each other (furthermore, even if the order of the trials were reversed, acquittal of the criminal charge would not have resulted in dropping the probation violation because the standard is different.)
  5. Universities should stand for free exchange of ideas and a place where your position can be freely challenged. I can support the concept of safe space in the sense that students should be free from belligerent, harassing, or threatening behavior. But, they should not be coddled from competing, shocking, or offensive ideas. Best way to deal with a bad argument is to debate it and expose it. Don't ban fringe idiots from campus. Require that all speakers have an open question and answer session. University shouldn't be a time for sitting around with like-minded people in an echo chamber.
  6. Honestly never knew that "triggered" had such history. On a side note, if C3PO's programing mandates a certain response and that process is described as "triggered", isn't that recognizing the involuntary nature of "triggered" rather than making light of it? Or was it offensive because they used the term outside the context of something serious like PTSD or rape?
  7. Absolutely. You have to look at both his production, but also how he makes it easier for his teammates. One thing I would like to see Wall improve upon or utilize more is the finishes in the paint but not around the rim. His drives to the basket puts a lot of contact on his body and actually makes the choice a bit binary for the defense. If he can develop more arsenals in the paint like floaters and distance bank layups (can't think of the right term, but what Irving does a lot), it would put so much pressure on the defense and make scoring easier for him in playoffs. Beal's change of pace on his dribbles really opened up his offensive game this year. Similarly, more variation for John could really elevate his game.
  8. What I would be worried about is Wall deciding NO with Wall/Davis/Cousins is a better option than Wall/Beal/Cousins. I think the latter is a better balance, but I don't think it can happen unless Ted commits to going over the luxury limit.
  9. I think you're right (moreso on Cousins than George). But I can dream right?
  10. Code word for "I wanna make sure Ernie is gone before I commit."
  11. @StillUnknown Thanks for posting that. Very thought provoking to be sure.
  12. Thanks to Zaza!
  13. Warriors blew a 3-1 series lead right?
  14. Did they come out for the 1st half?
  15. Imagine what he could do with his impeachment!