Controlled Chaos

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Jan 16, 2007 -> 12:09 PM) They have Von Maur here in Louisville and I've maybe been in there twice to actually look at anything. Kinda reminds me of Nordstrom's a bit on some of the overpriced crap they carry. Usually if I'm going to spend a lot on Jeans I'll go to Guess. And if I really want to overpay for a nice shirt, I usually try to look for Lacoste when its on sale at Macy's. But I feel ya, no way I'd pay anywhere near those prices for clothes, its just ridiculous. Yeah, I thought nice jeans were like Tommy Hilfiger, Polo or Guess....I have some Polo and Tommy jeans that were like $95.00 before they were marked down and I bought them. I'd brag to my wife on what a good deal I got on these "expensive" jeans. pfft little did I know. To me an expensive shirt is like $75.00 and if it's something I really like I'll buy it. But s*** I didn't even know $175.00 shirts existed.

I had a gift card to use. So I did some looking around at the place and I'll be damned if there wasn't a whole world of retail I didn't know existed. This place has the most ridiculous prices I have ever seen. I didn't know there was such a thing as Jeans for $285.00. The brand was 7 for all mankind, which I never even heard of, but all their jeans were like 175-200. In fact, almost every brand of jeans they had there were $125.00 and up. T-shirts were $40.00. Most button up shirts were over $125. Even if you went to a clearence rack that price was like $85.00. So my question is...who shops here? Who spends $200 on Jeans? $175 on shirts?

I'm curious to know what price the government had to pay to get Jack back. If it was just money, I don't think it would have taken a terroroist bombing the hell out of the US to get him back. I'm guessing it's something bigger and maybe it will play a part later on in the show.

Awesome and just an FYI to some of you. The premier is being released on dvd on Tuesday. I was able to get it over the weekend and watched the whole thing last night. It's great. Some Big things happen in tonights episode. Marisol Nichols.... My hottie. I keep following her from show to show...and now she is on a show I actually like. She's from Naperville.

QUOTE(GoRowand33 @ Jan 14, 2007 -> 09:33 PM) almost a replica of an article he wrote around week 15 where he said the bears would be 1 and done in the playoffs this year for the same reasons he lists in this article he's an idiot, who cares Almost sounds like he has an axe to grind. When you write this sentence "Grossman kept his screw-ups to a workable number. He threw an interception in the fourth quarter to cornerback Pete Hunter, who about a week ago was working as a loan officer." and don't even mention that the ball was right to moose and it hit off his shoulder pads and then got picked, then it's like you're bending the facts. or this comment "watched Ryan Plackemeier shankemeier a punt 18 yards" and not mentioning that Idonije forced him to kick it that way. I just hate that style of writing. The Marriotti style. You have to kind of massage the facts to get your points across. He could have wrote the same lame ass story and told the whole truth. It still would have been lame, but at least you wouldn't lose credibility by not telling the whole story.

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Jan 12, 2007 -> 03:12 PM) It's dang good pizza as well. Large one topping pizza for 4.99. Nothing can be "good" for that cheap. Not the sauce, not the mozz, not the toppings.

So Happy Together - Me First and the Gimmie Gimmies Time After Time - Me First and the Gimmie Gimmies Actually every cover by them is great

My Box in a Box. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdaSv4a-ia4

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 11, 2007 -> 11:52 AM) I know I did. Amy Jo Johnson... so hot! (Well, back then I thought she was. Not so much now) Lets find a better pic. I'd say she is pretty hot

I'm not sure if this is all about looks or not. I mean there's a lot of things these people do that make them extremely unattractive to me, but as for their physical attributes they are hot. Example: Jessica Simpson She is Hot, but her stupidity is such a a turn off I wouldn't put her in my hot category. Pam Anderson was extremely hot in her first Playboy shoot. February 1990. I can't find pics, but I remember she was very sweet and sexy instead of the slutty and skanky she is now. As for not being attractive at all Paris Hilton is my number 1.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 10, 2007 -> 01:18 PM) I was literally going through all the metra stops, on that line, and I couldn't think of any there that would be very affordable. I have a couple of friends renting in Downers Grove and they're talking about moving out of DuPage soon just so they can afford a house. My townhouse is in Lisle, literally across the street from the Metra train station. It's a 2 minute walk. Id hate to leave because it is so perfect for commuting, but once we go for baby #2 we'll need a bigger place. My wife's parents are in Norridge and mine are in Darien. Ideally we'd like to find something in the middle. Unfortunately, those suburbs are like downers, westmont, oak brook, hinsdale, elmhurst willowbrook pretty much all the places where prices are way too high....

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 10, 2007 -> 01:16 PM) I'm hoping for something a bot closer to the city than Montgomery, but, I may have to bite the bullet. I don't want to bite the bullet. This blows!!

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Jan 10, 2007 -> 12:57 PM) Yeah, I don't get that either. The guy that lives behind us sold his shack (I hesitate to call it a house) to some developers for $180K. The house the rebuilt is going for just shy of $500K. Makes us sick because it is doing a number on our taxes hence why we are considering moving to central IL by his brother. Westmont is booming with tear downs Here' is an example http://realtor.com/Prop/1072367486 and this is what will replace it http://realtor.com/Prop/1060346634

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Jan 10, 2007 -> 12:50 PM) We did that in the city (almost a complete tear down). Our mortgage at the time was about 90-92 and the rebuild cost us about 100K-110K which worked out to be cheaper than moving to a larger home. Sorry for the confusion, I meant purchasing a house just to tear it down and rebuild. The smallest dumpiest houses are going for 150-250 and then people knock em down and rebuild. Hell my wife is from norridge and the basic chicago style bungalow houses are selling for 400,000 and people are buying them and knocking em down and building mansions. Why you would do that in Norridge, I don't know, but there's tons of it going on right now.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Jan 10, 2007 -> 09:37 AM) Replace Masset with Haeger and you have a sick bullpen AND a spot starter. Imagine facing Haeger's knuckler and then seeing Thornton, MacDougal, or Jenks heat. It will seem like the ball is going 199 mph. I definitely wouldn't mind Ozzie employing the tactic of a mid count switch if Haeger was on the mound and it was a big out in the game. Bring in one of the gassers. QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Jan 10, 2007 -> 12:46 PM) BTW, Aardsma is my "sleeper" for the season. I think he is going to have a great season for us. My wifes Uncle is a die hard cub fan and he was extermely pissed about the Aardsma trade. Said the cubs got hosed on that one...and that he has sick stuff and will be a top closer down the road. I know nothing Aardsma, but I'm exctied to see him throw.

I've been looking at houses here and there in the west suburbs and if you want something under 10 years old, unless you go way out west...you're payin 500,000 minimum. I also can't figure out for the life of me how people afford to tear down and re build. I think there's just a whole lot more rich people out there than I thought.

QUOTE(G&T @ Jan 8, 2007 -> 09:50 PM) Yes. http://www.fhmus.com/articles-1276.asp

Bear Down

http://www.citizensutilityboard.org/ciDontGetShocked.html

ComEd’s support of the arts could give you a real shock By Chuck Goudie Daily Herald Editorial Columnist Posted Monday, January 08, 2007 So there is no confusion, I am not an electricity expert. I do know this: if you wrap your fingers around the prongs of a plug and stick it in a socket you will get a shock. If the power is working. Nor am I am a utility company executive. Nevertheless, I know John W. Rowe made $27,564,226 in a year as chairman of Exelon, the company that owns ComEd. No, I’m just a customer who pays his monthly ComEd bill and expects the lights to go on when the switch is flipped. Period. Let me tell you what I don’t care about. King Tut. “On behalf of my colleagues and the board of directors of Exelon Corporation, I want to express how pleased we are to sponsor Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs, Rowe said last May as he unveiled a King Tut exhibition at Chicago’s Field Museum. It just closed last week. “Exelon, as a leader in the electric and gas industry, understands the critical importance of supporting education and the arts in the communities we serve. One of our goals is to make Chicago a better place to live and visit, and I know of no better way than bringing exhibits like this to our town.” What does being a leader in the electric and gas industry have to do with supporting education and the arts? What business does the company that we pay to power our lights, TVs and air conditioners have donating some of that money to a museum for an exhibit featuring jeweled collars and glittering bracelets? I’m not an accountant either, but you don’t have to be a CPA to know that the money ComEd gave for the museum exhibit is just a trickle from the surge of cash that comes in every month for our electric bills. But it’s not just King Tut, even though Chairman Rowe is an armchair archaeologist who has paid millions for some Egyptian artifacts that adorn his home and office. Mr. Rowe must not believe in the Curse of King Tut’s Mummy, that says anyone who comes close to the relics will face a painful existence. Exelon and ComEd pump a fortune into museums, zoos, drama groups, ballet organizations and even two charity golf tournaments. They don’t grow that money on utility poles. It comes from what all of us pay every month for their product. Maybe they should include a questionnaire in our bills asking if we want them to spend anything on King Tut, the Joffrey Ballet or an outfield ad at Sox Park. Com Ed President Frank Clark is quite civic-minded too. You know Frank. He’s the friendly, neighborly fellow who appears in the utility’s TV commercials walking down a quiet residential sidewalk explaining how great Com Ed is. Clark’s bio states that he “led the development of the African-American Legacy Fund, a $3 million endowment in partnership with The Chicago Community Trust to broaden education, the arts and community development to meet the changing needs of the community. He serves on the Executive Committee of The Chicago Community Trust. Clark is also co-chairman of the DuSable Capital Campaign, a $24 million initiative to expand the DuSable Museum, the nation’s first museum devoted to African-American arts and culture. In addition, Clark was instrumental in revitalizing the Harold Washington Cultural Center on Chicago’s south side, which features the ComEd Theater, a 1,000-seat performing arts hall. Clark serves as the chairman of the board of trustees of the Adler Planetarium and Astronomy Museum. He also serves on the board of trustees of DePaul University, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, The University of Chicago Hospitals & Health System, and the Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum. Clark is chairman of the board of directors of the Metropolitan Family Services. He supports several organizations’ development efforts as a member of the board of directors of the Governors State University Foundation, Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library Foundation, Illinois Manufacturers Association, Big Shoulders Fund and United Way of Metropolitan Chicago.” I’m no time management expert, but with all those commitments it is hard to see how Mr. Clark can put in enough hours to justify his $4,000,000+ earnings at ComEd. Even with the hard work of attending to museums, boards, charities and electricity, Frank Clark found the time to host a big party for his close friend Sen. Emil Jones. That is the same Emil Jones who happens to be President of the Illinois Senate. In June of 2005, state campaign disclosure records show that Clark paid for Sen. Jones’ party-under-a-tent, complete with floral arrangements and a dancing act. Although Sen. Jones has since become the leading advocate for ComEd’s huge rate increase, Jones’ spokeswoman maintains that the big-top party and $200,000 in campaign donations from Exelon, Com Ed and their executives have no connection. That explanation might play better in New York. You know what they call the power utility there, don’t you? It’s Con Ed.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jan 7, 2007 -> 01:51 PM) the good shephard gets a big thumbs up from me. I kinda of agree with this review on the movie. The Good Shepherd" Robert De Niro's pic about one man's role in the birth of the CIA is all cloak and no dagger. By Stephanie Zacharek Dec. 22, 2006 | Sitting through boring movies is part of a critic's job, and it becomes second nature to forge ahead stolidly. But the first 20 minutes of Robert De Niro's "The Good Shepherd" were so dull -- so aggressively, brain-freezingly dull -- that I wondered how I'd make it through the remaining 140. Thankfully, this elephantine epic, a fictitious saga (written by Eric Roth) detailing one man's role in the birth of the Central Intelligence Agency, gets slightly more interesting as it lurches forward -- either that, or the thing somehow lulled me into a state of drugged compliance. You can hear the movie's impending themes thundering through the forest before their massive heads even start poking through the trees, chief among them the idea that duplicitousness in the name of duty -- particularly when you're working for the U.S. government -- can poison not just your heart but your whole family. This is a somber, weighty, gray picture, one that pays clear tribute to the "Godfather" movies as it tries to scale some very rocky moral territory. But it's so unsatisfying to watch that even its biggest, most meditative right-and-wrong quandaries come to seem puny. De Niro can't sustain the necessary tension from scene to scene: The picture feels slack and wrinkled, even when, maybe especially when, it needs to be taut. And nearly all the characters -- not just the secretive, CIA-employed ones -- are so unformed and hard to read that it's tough to have an emotional stake in what happens to them. "The Good Shepherd," soft when it needs to be sharp, is all cloak with very little dagger. We first meet the lead character, Edward Wilson (Matt Damon), in the early 1960s, around the time of the Bay of Pigs. He's one of those anonymous, vague-looking, bespectacled men who spend their nights hunched over a hobby table (he's expert at building little ships in bottles) and their days shuffling along long, underlit hallways with other men dressed just like they are, in plain, drab suits and shapeless raincoats. You just know these guys are up to no good, partly because one of them is played by William Hurt, who has grown into the No. 1 casting choice whenever a movie calls for a seemingly benevolent baddie. These men enter each other's offices and throw manila file folders on one another's desks; John Turturro skulks about ominously. The most exciting moments in the first 1/20th of "The Good Shepherd" involve dim, grainy footage of two people rolling around in bed, with a psych-ward drone on the soundtrack; my heart leapt at even these halfhearted David Lynch references -- at least they were something. Then, through flashbacks, we learn that Edward is a Yale-educated lover of poetry who, thanks largely to his collegiate affiliation with the supersecret Skull and Bones society, found himself working first for the OSS and later for the organization that sprang from its loins, the CIA. The women who drift through Edward's shadowy life include a sassy debutante named Clover (Angelina Jolie, who jazzes up the movie considerably when she enters it, although the indistinctness of her role eventually grinds her down) and -- no fooling -- a beautiful deaf girl named Laura (Tammy Blanchard, who squeezes some sparks out of her blandly beatific character). Edward never set out to be an operative; it just happened that way. But before long he becomes a favorite of the extra-secretive Bill Sullivan (played by De Niro), who will engineer what will become the CIA. The guy has some serious foot problems and ends up in a wheelchair; at a big Christmas party, filled with other sneaky-looking government guys, he gets wheeled right up to a baptismal font of eggnog, so you know he must be important. Damon's Edward spends most of the movie struggling with his conscience, a state that Damon plays with an array of muted shadings: He gives a gently shaped performance in a difficult, oblique role. In fact, most of the actors here do pretty well, even when they're asked to deliver ridiculous Cold War-code dialogue. (Talking on the phone, or just in casual conversation, characters are given to uttering flat non sequiturs like "The best-laid plans of mice and men.") Michael Gambon and Alec Baldwin have small roles, and they whip the picture into a state of semi-liveliness whenever they're on-screen. De Niro -- this is the first film he has directed since 1993's "A Bronx Tale" -- shapes some individual scenes beautifully (including several in which Edward's awkward love for his son, played by a young actor named Tommy Nelson, comes through so tenderly that you can't help feeling sympathy for both characters). De Niro seems to be good with actors but less successful at stringing a movie together, and keeping it together, scene by scene. He doesn't have good instincts about what to keep in and what to cut out: One interminable sequence features many, many close-ups of hairy masculine knuckles turning dials and fiddling with various surveillance thingamabobs. The whole picture has a dull, worthy sheen (it was shot by Robert Richardson, in gray-flannel-suit tones), and it sends us home stooped with the weight of its life-and-death questions. By the end, "The Good Shepherd" has us fully convinced of the banality of evil. But does it have to come dressed in clothes from Robert Hall? Below is an interesting review by a poster commenting on the article.. Ok. Let's go over the things we learned in this movie (in no particular order): The dehumanizing torture techniques employed by the CIA are a natural evolution from naked collegiate frattish hazing. Thus a fairly straight line can be drawn from snobbish frat hijinks to Abu Ghraib (and worse). File this insight under 'the enemy is us' and in the 'the personal is the political' folder. The Cold War, like the War on Terror, were (are) self-perpetuating constructs that have little and dubious external reality. These things instead are all really about a sort of autonomous unceasing autistic hunger for power. There are no 'real' enemies except ourselves (and maybe the Nazis in the beginning - more on this below). Matt Damon's listless vacant performance - part of deconstructing the WASP - is meant to show baddie anglo-saxons are pretty much soulless vis a vis other ethnicities. Is this movie really about deconstructing the CIA or rather WASPs themselves? We are primed to have an eerie creepy thrill whenever we are cued with imagery of thin-lipped Ivy-leggers in large groups with cocktails. The model battleships in the bottle? clumsy-handed take on the idea of imperialism in a vacuum. Moreover, savor the hints here that we are just carrying on the colonialism/imperialism of the bad old UK under new name and management - hence the Brit and pirate flags on gift to son - the movie's Rosebud. Early emphasis on Nazis in the beginning is there to act as shadowy counter-weight (to the later CIA) and provide balance to the old canard 'you eventually become the monster you seek to destroy.' Though by the end of the film, I think we are supposed to see the CIA as closer to the KKK than to the Nazis per se - i.e. the CIA is behind a sky-high 'lynching' of a black woman that has the temerity to marry into the sanctified white inner circle. Who would have guessed this film would have funhouse reflections of Birth of a Nation? As with Munich, the gray topsy-turvy world of espionage is the stage par excellence for postmodernism and relativistic games. Hence no accident, that Wilson is lit major. The whole thing can be read as a kind of literary gag. I'd like to see the drowning professor as the old critical analytical methods drowning in Deconstructionism - if only the old fraud wasn't set up as a deconstructionist himself.

QUOTE(G&T @ Jan 6, 2007 -> 09:13 AM) Well she has that throaty kinda voice, which is nice. But most car commercials just have voice overs, not hotty spokeswoman. She's just got that natural hottness. Man I been saying that since her first commercial. I think I even tried googling once to find out who she was. edit And here she is....Jill Wagner. I wish I wouldn't have found these Stuff pics, cause I like her better in the commercials Stuff Mag Mercury

I want MB here. I love his work ethic and his do whatever you need me to do attitude. I do think he would give a hometown discount and stay here for a few million less...however, the security is in the years of his contract. The Sox don't give pitchers long term deals which leads me to believe he is gone. I wish MB was the one exception, but I doubt it.

QUOTE(EvilJester99 @ Jan 3, 2007 -> 05:02 AM) Only movie in theaters I am interested in going to see is "The Good Shepherd". Big Thumbs Down for me.

QUOTE(MEANS @ Jan 5, 2007 -> 03:50 PM) why would making twice monthly appearances cause him to sit the entire season? he could just miss a few games each month and we start Citron instead. That's what I was thinking. What the heck is it for him to fly out there a couple times a month for court?