Given a document, generate a short title of the document. The title should convey the main idea/event/topic about which the document is being written. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

[Q]: The Bulls proceeded delicately  working with the NBA to determine a suitable suspension for Portis  finally arriving at eight games. They considered the version of events at practice that preceded Portis’ punch  which by several accounts implicated  Mirotic  as an aggressor. They respect  Mirotic ’s reluctance to interact with Portis  even as management supported the third-year forward by allowing him to practice during the suspension. They balance the likelihood  Mirotic  will need to be moved to another team with the reality  he  can’t be traded until Jan. 15 because of language in  his  two-year  $27 million contract.
At this point  it would surprise me if  Mirotic  ever puts on a Bulls uniform again. A trade or buyout of  his  $12.5 million salary looms. The most important step toward returning is one Mirotic has shown little interest in taking: Hashing it out with Portis in person — the way Kreutz and Miller once did with the Bears after their flare-up at an FBI gun range.
“One would think that  Mirotic  and Portis would work things out and grow closer (but) maybe football players are different ’’ said Miller  happily retired and living in Texas. “Football players are very group-oriented and believe in the team mentality.’’
Ironically  as a team  the Bulls likely will benefit long-term from this awkward experience. The absence of Portis and  Mirotic  opened up playing time for rookie first-round pick Lauri Markkanen  who has taken advantage enough for coach Fred Hoiberg to project superstardom. And Hoiberg  who still was searching for credibility as his third season began  has demonstrated a stronger voice leading a young  developmental team learning  well  how to roll with the punches.
With Bobby Portis back  Bulls supporting him and  Nikola Mirotic  becomes tougher »
Here’s when Bobby Portis and  Nikola Mirotic  should play »
Bulls will follow  Nikola Mirotic's  lead »
[A]: Former Bears Olin Kreutz Fred Miller can relate to Bobby Portis


[Q]: Laura Ingraham  was one of the few people who saw Donald Trumpâs shocking victory coming. More importantly  as a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan who saw firsthand how viciously the Bush-aligned establishment despised Reaganâs working-class voters   Ingraham  understands how powerful the conservative-populist movement is and why the elites in the permanent political class have spent gazillions and worked overtime for three decades to thwart it.
In  her  blockbuster new book  Billionaire at the Barricades: The Populist Revolution from Reagan to Trump  Ingraham  the best-selling author  explains how Trump got elected and the forces heâand other economic nationalistsâwill have to battle to implement the peopleâs agenda.
Billionaire at the Barricades is a must-read because  Ingraham   who still gets chills when she sees footage of the crowd at Kemper Arena in 1976 realizing they had nominated the wrong man in Gerald Ford  takes readers on a fast-paced journey through the 2016 campaign cycle and shows how everyone who was blindsided by Trumpâs rise should have seen it coming  especially after Dave Bratâs shocking primary victory over then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) in 2014.
Elites give off the impression that Trumpâs populism on the campaign trail was something they had never seen before when  in fact  every candidate who has won the presidency in the television age has been the one who was the most populist. As  Ingraham  writes  âpresidential candidates invoke the populist style because it connects with working people.â
Conservatism and populism  according to  Ingraham   âoverlap in their opposition to âbig thingsââbig government  big international organizations  big media  big business cronyism.â
Reagan understood that âthese distant  uncaring entities rob people of decision making and ignore their interests â and  Ingraham  notes that âPat Buchanan and Donald Trump summarized conservative populism best when each vowed to put âAmerica first.ââ
âConservative populists tend to support a policy of economic nationalismâpeople-centered economic policies that put the nation and its workers first. They oppose a massive national debt because it weakens America and makes its citizens beholden to lenders â  she  continues. âThey also believe high taxes are bad because they sap workersâ wages and economic freedom. Similarly  they are against huge trade deals and international organizations like the World Trade Organization because they take power out of the hands of voters and give it to a far-away and often hostile global elite.â
When it comes to foreign policy   Ingraham  explains that âconservative populists oppose broad military interventionism and believe military force should only be used when American interests are threatened.â  She  slams populismâs critics who foolishly toss around âthe term âisolationismâ to dismiss populist foreign policy â even though that label does not describe any populist  she  has ever known.
 Ingraham  points out that âthroughout the Cold War  populists were among the strongest voices opposing Soviet communism.â In addition  populists have always believed that âsquandering the nationâs wealth and blood on un-winnable wars and nation-building is unwise. Instead  they support a pragmatic foreign policy based on achieving âpeace through strengthâ by maintaining a strong military and using it prudently.â
Unfortunately  as  Ingraham  details  âsome conservatives took a dangerous detourâ and âthrust us into a bizarre world of globalization  wars based on idealism and nation-building  and intense hatred toward the very voters who accounted for the Reagan coalition in the first place.â
The betrayal started almost immediately after George H.W. Bush won Reaganâs third term. The Bush administration purged Reaganites  and  Ingraham  recalls that Margaret Tutwiler told Reaganite Ed Rollins at a party that âthere are a lot of us who had to suffer during the eight years of Reagan  and now itâs our turn.â
âWe were Reagan people. They were Bush people. We all knew what the differences were â  Ingraham  writes. âMany of the GOP Establishment types who behind closed doors scoffed at Reagan as a dim-witted former actor with anââultraconservativeâ outlook were now working in the Bush administration. They thought it was time to return the Republican Party to what they believed was its more genteel  respectable roots. In effect  it meant the return to power of the Rockefeller Republicans who had worked to deny Reagan the presidency in 1976.â
Bushâs Office of Management and Budget Director Richard Darman convinced Bush to infamously abandon his âread my lipsâ pledge not to raise taxes  and  in the end   Ingraham  argues that âGeorge H. W. Bush stalled the conservative-populist engine that powered Reaganism.â As Rollins said  âGeorge Bush was the beneficiary of the greatest baton pass in presidential history in 1988  and he and his people tossed it away.â
âGlobalism is fundamentally anti-American because it aims to raze American sovereignty by atrophying our ability to take independent actions that are in our nationâs best interests â  Ingraham  writes  pointing out that globalists do not understand that âbecause of the enormous anti-American sentiment around the world  itâs almost impossible to create a multinational organization where U.S. interests donât become compromised or harmed.â
Just like his father  George W. Bush campaigned as a populist but governed as a globalist.  Ingraham  blames âBushâs decision to aggressively pursue amnesty after his unpopular warâ for insulting the âmillions of conservative-populists who had worked so hard to put him in power.â
âBecause of Bush  conservatives lost everything â  she  continues. âWe lost the House. We lost the Senate. And we lost the White House.â
[A]: Laura Ingrahamâs âBillionaire at the Barricadesâ Gives Conservative


[Q]: In their book and in a blog (nudges.wordpress.com)   Mr. Thaler and Mr. Sunstein  favor nudging people to save more  eat better  weigh less  invest more sensibly  pay down debt  avoid hazardous mortgages  drive safely and wear bike helmets â a list that expands as new ideas and new problems conducive to nudging emerge.
In a phone conversation   Mr. Thaler  said that carefully applied nudges might help ameliorate some of the problems that led to the financial crisis. Some nudges need to be more forceful than others. For example  rigorous public disclosure of leverage (the ratio of debt to capital) would be a burden. But it might be necessary to induce the people who run hedge funds  insurance companies and big banks to behave more sensibly.
âDisclosure does help at every level â  he  said. âMaybe itâs not a panacea  but thatâs not a reason not to do it.â
 Mr. Sunstein and Mr. Thaler  say that this apparent contradiction is reconciled through what  they  call âchoice architecture.â This is the deliberate imposition of structure in an environment â etching flies in a urinal â to induce people to make better choices. Consider a cafeteria where healthy foods like fruit and yogurt are placed in a prominent location  while junk foods are relegated to an out-of-the way spot. People are free to choose  but they are being nudged toward healthier decisions.
Similarly  Mr. Thaler and Shlomo Benartzi  an economist at U.C.L.A.  applied these theories to 401(k) plans with the âSave More Tomorrowâ program  which gives employees the option of increasing payroll deductions in the future. This arrangement acknowledges the human desire to enjoy life now and put off self-discipline â a tendency observed by Aesopâs fable of the ant and the grasshopper and confirmed through much recent behavioral research. With âSave More Tomorrow â you can have it both ways â consuming as much as you like now  while automatically increasing your savings rate on the next Jan. 1  and in every successive year.
Nudging derives from research by Daniel Kahneman  a Nobel laureate in economics; by Mr. Kahnemanâs late colleague  Amos Tversky; and by Mr. Thaler and others over several decades. Mr. Kahneman  a psychologist  gives  Mr. Thaler  considerable credit for the birth of behavioral economics.
 Mr. Thaler  has found that people often donât act rationally and in their own best interests  as is assumed by traditional economic models.  He  calls such idealized people âEcons â as distinguished from âHumans.â Econs are walking computers  and behave according to the laws of classical economics; Humans are quirky  like the people you meet on the street. Humans may know that they should eat less and exercise more  but they often miss the mark. They may know that they should save more  but often donât. And so   Mr. Thaler  says  most of us would benefit from a nudge.
DISCLOSURE aimed at enabling people to make more informed choices is often  Mr. Thaler âs preferred solution for complex issues involving markets.  He  cites disclosure rules imposed on mutual funds by the Securities and Exchange Commission that  imperfect as they may be  have allowed third-party firms like Morningstar and Lipper to create Web sites comparing fees and performance. The point is to make it âeasier for Humans to make decisions as if they were Econs â  he  said. Such comparisons arenât really possible now when it comes to hedge funds  for which standard  reliable data is not available.
In financial markets  where evidence of irrationality has been abundant lately   he  says  he  would increase regulations  but very carefully. Thereâs no evidence   he  said  that regulators could actually determine appropriate leverage for specific investments  for example  and âheavy-handed regulationâ could shut down financial markets and weaken the economy further.
âThe trick is to try and figure out a way of forcing these firms to disclose more of what theyâre doing without giving away so much that they can no longer make a living â  he  said. Such information would help individuals decide whether to invest in the funds  and would help regulators assess overall risk imposed on the financial system and the economy. In addition   he  said  disclosure itself often has a salutary effect on behavior because people tend to be mindful of the opinions of others.
As a principal in  the firm of Fuller & Thaler Asset Management    he  has applied  his  own theories  looking for behavioral biases that may affect specific stocks or market sectors. Two mutual funds managed by  the firm  havenât done very well lately  though  with returns over the last year that have slightly lagged the miserable stock market.
âWeâre not exceptions â  he  said with a chuckle. âWeâre just Humans.â
[A]:
When Humans Need a Nudge Toward Rationality