Controlled Chaos

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 12:21 PM) That's not what I took away from this article. If he wants a baby so bad why not adopt? That way her career might not suffer a hit and he gets the kid he wants--in addition to helping out a kid in need of a family... well I agree with that...I don't know the story...I dont know if that was considered. In fact, we dont' even know if this is the reason they broke up. I was basically just goin by what this lady wrote and she seemed to be saying it is scary for women cause men just consider you a uterus...and I dont see that at all, if indeed kids are the reason they broke up.

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 11:02 AM) Just a question about the "feminist junk" comment. Where in blazes did you come up with that? Some women don't want kids. I'd rather seem them admit that rather than popping a kid out and then not taking care of/loving the child. Myself, I can't wait to have a child, but not all women feel that way. As ChiSoxyGirl said, this sounds like a lack of communication. Wanting a family isn't a bad thing? She is 35 he is 40....so she wants to wait another 5 years or so and he should be fine with it. Does he not have a say at all?? If he doesn't want to wait and be 60 when his FIRST child is 15, does that mean he is disrespectful to women. The author is basically saying that he only likes Jen because she can have a baby ....which is bulls***. I don't see the media message as "You may land a hot husband, ladies, but you'd better pop one out soon, or you won't keep him." I just see at as two people that disagree. As all you people posted...It was a communication failure or a reversal of prior communication, either way that wasn't how this author portrayed it. She says "It's a regressive and scary message to women: No matter how rich, thin, beautiful or talented, what really makes us attractive -- after a few years of marriage anyway -- is our ability and willingness to reproduce on demand!" This is such BS....that is not the message. A man is part of a family too...It isn't just about a womans ability to reproduce...it's about having a family TOGETHER. If she does not want that family now, why is it a scary message for him to leave? Just seems her point in this article is spread your legs and have babies when your man says so or you will be left alone. When in reality couples discuss babies before and during marriage and may agree or disagree, but it isn't as cut and dry as the big bad men won't let women have a career.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 08:04 AM) Only the coolest people on Soxtalk belong to the 31 year olds Happy Birthday Mr New Father Happy Birthday mreye!! I'll be 31 this year too....will it still be cool in Novemeber??

Not that I'm into the brad and jen thing that much, but I read this article in the suntimes yesterday and to me it seems like feminist junk. I can't find the link to suntimes, but the writer was from salon.com so I found the article there...it's just a little more profane on salon then the suntimes, but the point is the same. The not-good-enough girl It's 2005 and newly separated starlet Jennifer Aniston is -- surprise! -- being pilloried for putting her career before motherhood. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Rebecca Traister In a Friday evening press release announcing their separation, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston made a startlingly direct address to those who have been tracking their marital fortunes with the ardor of Red Sox fans. "For those who follow these sorts of things, we would like to explain that our separation is not the result of any speculation reported by the tabloid media. This decision is the result of much thoughtful consideration," read the press release. "We ask in advance for your kindness and sensitivity in the coming months." The tabloid press responded to this cuffing with a giant "Whatever, dudes!" and a prompt avalanche of stories cheerfully regurgitating exactly the same speculation they've been churning out since the beginning of the Aniston-Pitt dynasty: He wanted kids, she wanted a career, he got tired of waiting. The media lesson we're all being fed in the wake of the breakup -- whether it bears even a passing resemblance to the realities of Pitt and Aniston's marriage -- is glaringly clear: You may land a hot husband, ladies, but you'd better pop one out soon, or you won't keep him. For the four and a half years since their wedding, the coverage of the Aniston-Pitts has included near daily checks of Aniston's frustratingly flat belly. There have been stories about her supposed trips to fertility clinics, and detailed records of every baby gift she ever lavished on former "Friends" costar Courteney Cox Arquette's new kid, Coco. She even mocked the way she was constantly hounded about her reproductive -- rather than her cinematic -- future on "Saturday Night Live," when she played a paparazzo yelling at Jennifer Aniston, "When are you going to have a baby?" Then there have been the stories about Pitt's desire to bed his costar, Angelina Jolie, in the upcoming "Mr. And Mrs. Smith," mostly, it seems, because she has a cute son. Pitt hasn't helped matters by dragging his sorry ass around town and opining to anyone who'll listen -- Vanity Fair, Diane Sawyer -- about how eager he is for kids. "We've been in rehearsals for long enough," he told CNN, with a whiny candor that I hope earned him a tongue-lashing. But now that the marriage seems to be ending, the press is gleefully dancing on a grave that they have dug: one that contains the corpse of a marriage that does not bear fruit. It's a regressive and scary message to women: No matter how rich, thin, beautiful or talented, what really makes us attractive -- after a few years of marriage anyway -- is our ability and willingness to reproduce on demand! In highly speculative weekend coverage of the story, both the New York Post and the New York Daily News put the breakup on their covers; their tut-tutting could barely be suppressed. The Daily News noted that after Aniston's hit show, "Friends," ended last year, "both fans and Pitt began pressuring Aniston, 35, to have a baby. Pitt made it clear to anyone who listened that he was ready for a change of life and to have children." The News story reported that the couple had a nursery built into their Beverly Hills home, and even suggested that the issue of children "really hit home" when Pitt's ex-fiancée Gwyneth Paltrow had a baby and started cooing everywhere about the all-consuming fulfillment of motherhood. The paper conceded that Aniston acknowledged that she'd like to have children and sometimes wore a fertility medallion. (Then again, wouldn't you throw on a fertility medallion -- or 12 -- if you had millions of people practically threatening to behead you unless you produced an heir?) "But," the story went on, "Aniston also set up a brutally heavy four-film work schedule that would leave her little time for motherhood in the next three years." An accompanying article quoted New York family therapist Jane Greer as saying, "It was really inevitable ... It was really just a matter of time." The rest of the early coverage was in the same vein. The Star, quickly amending an on-stands cover headline that squealed, "Brad & Jen Back On: It's Baby Time!" posted an online story reporting that "He wanted children, while she was pursuing a full-time career as a film star after a 10-year successful run playing Rachel on Friends." As if to suggest that 10 years of superstardom really should be enough to satisfy any ambitious young woman. By Sunday, the Post's "Had to Be Dad" cover story was quoting unnamed sources who said that "Aniston doesn't want to take the time off to have a kid -- and she doesn't want to endure the physical effects that giving birth will have on her sexy body." Then there is the Jolie factor. According to the Post, Pitt hit it off with his costar, not because he was "craving Jolie's pillowy lips and 'Tomb Raider' physique -- but time with her 3-year-old son, Maddox." Other stories claim that Jolie urged Pitt to stick it out in his marriage and awakened a passion in him for humanitarian and political work. Jolie's role in the coverage of the Pitt-Aniston bust-up has been startling on several levels, and speaks quite terrifyingly to the way in which we seem to be in the midst of a cultural moment in which motherhood is revered to a dangerous degree. Jolie, the stunningly beautiful and intermittently talented (see "Gia") actress, is 29 years old, and has been making her own headlines for a long time. She has multiple tattoos, and is an admitted self-mutilator and blood fetishist who likes to wear vials of her boyfriends' blood around her neck. Then there was a period where she had a very weird making-out-with-her-own-brother phase. But that was before Jolie became an ambassador to Cambodia and adopted a son there in 2002. When she became a mother, all the gore and dirt of her overreported past dissolved in a kind of media-sponsored beatification. Nowhere is it clearer than in this Pitt-Aniston saga in which Jolie is cast as irresistible to a baby-hungry Pitt because of her natural maternal instincts (and, implicitly, her femininity). Then there's the fact that apparently toting a young son around with her makes her a veritable sage. As for Aniston, what has happened to her is a travesty. Who knows why her marriage ended? And who cares? Sure, we love the melodrama. But please -- not when it's packaged as a morality tale that reinforces expectations and assumptions we should be well on our way to banishing. Jennifer Aniston failed to reproduce with her husband, Brad Pitt. But her failure -- as reported between the lines of every story we're reading -- wasn't simply a fertility issue. It was an unfathomable -- though possibly temporary, at the precarious age of 35 -- prioritization of her career over her family. It was an instance in which we were treated to the sight of a woman we like, openly wanting to get further ahead professionally before giving over her life -- and yes, her body, which is a serious commodity in her business -- to the demands of childbearing and child rearing. And clearly, it still makes us uncomfortable. Aniston's career is at a stage that's perhaps more delicate and pressing than even her blessed biological clock. She has 10 years as one of the most successful sitcom characters in television history to wipe out if she wants to become a viable movie star. And she should act fast while she is still a known quantity, and can still draw on her looks and fantastically fit body. She has four movies on deck and yes, that has meant time away from her marital bed -- and all its baby-making potential -- to shoot them. All while her husband, 41, who began the game as a full-blown movie star and "the Sexiest Man Alive" and once deigned to guest-star on her sitcom, has lowered the burner on his career and turned more attention to things like architecture and his Jolie-inspired humanitarian pursuits. In a particularly poignant f***-you to Aniston, photographs in one of People's sidebars ("Separate Lives: The year they drifted apart") show Pitt kibbitzing with Nelson Mandela and architect Rem Koolhaas while Aniston shoots a film with Hollywood punch line Kevin Costner. So she may be hanging with Costner while Mr. I'm-Ready-for-Children is befriending Mandela, but at 35, why is it such a crime that Aniston should want to get the good roles she's still offered and up her asking price before her female body and face begin to fall and age and literally lose their value? The New York Daily News on Monday ran a feature in which it interviewed New York mothers about the impact of Aniston's breakup with her husband. "I still give her five years to make up her mind," one 30-year-old mother was quoted as saying, while a 36-year-old dad said, "She has time ... With technology today, people are having kids into their 50's." One grandmother said, "She can go back to a career afterward. She has to think about her biological clock." It's enough to make us all -- movie stars and non-movie stars, moms and nonmoms, those of us married to Brad Pitt and those of us who are not -- sit back with enormous martinis and consider whether the most interesting things about us will ever cease to be our uteruses.

If he says..."we messed up 'blank' part of the war" everybody in the world will jump on it....cause you are all just dying to have something to point at. If he stays steadfast and relentless in the fight..then only the people that nitpick every little f***ing thing he does anyway, will find something to b**** about. I have no problem with what he said. We did have an election...part of that election was the Dems hammering home what a failure the Iraq war is and Bush won anyway. It is not the sole reason, but it is part of it..so why can't he acknwledge it. I know all the elitists want to think Bush only won cause of the religion issues or the gay marriage issues, but I hate to tell you....a lot of EDUCATED people that can careless about either issue voted for Bush. Why can't you just accept there are people with a different opinion than you...and no matter how much you rip the president and no matter how many celebrities get paraded in front of the cameras to degrade this administration and no matter how much hype a movie filled with lies gets....people still have minds of their own. Republicans are not sheep. We are not all flyover morons.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Jan 14, 2005 -> 02:49 PM) Just saw paparazzi last night and it was very good. More a suspense type movie though I saw paparazzi at the show and that was a very good movie that didn't get a lot of recognition.

Just curious for those of you that download... Where do you get your covers?

I know Jackson is an ass, but that's no reason to stop reading a good article. Jackson was only mentioned in the beginning.

This guy makes more and more sense everytime I read him. I wonder if his show is this good. The race card -- 2005 Larry Elder January 13, 2005 The Democratic Party continues to play the race card for political gain. The Reverend Jesse Jackson steamed into Ohio, the so-called battleground state that went for Bush, claiming that Ohioans' votes failed to count. "The playing field is uneven," said Jackson. "...We as Americans should not be begging a secretary of state for a fair vote count. We cannot be the home of the thief and the land of the slave." Remember the claims by John Kerry and others of one million black voters disenfranchised in Florida during the 2000 presidential election? Peter Kirsanow, a black attorney and member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, says the commission's six-month investigation failed to find any evidence of black voter "intimidation." "Not one person was intimidated," says Kirsanow, "[or] had their vote stolen. There was no disenfranchisement . . . no truth to any of those allegations." According to columnist John Leo, contributing editor at U.S. News and World Report: If an effort was underway to suppress the black vote, it clearly failed: 900,000 blacks voted in Florida, up 65 percent over the 1996 presidential election. That unexpectedly high total clearly strained the system, put pressure on officials and voters to move along quickly, and kept phone lines clogged when voter verification calls were needed. P. Diddy, the rapper, music mogul and fashion impresario, spearheaded a "Vote or Die!" voter awareness campaign. Diddy called himself a "disenfranchised voter." "...I'm...a disenfranchised voter," said Diddy, "...because politicians, they just didn't pay attention to us. I call ourselves 'the forgotten ones' -- youth and minority voters. Their campaign trails don't come into our communities unless they go to the churches, and they don't stop and speak to us." Sort of a 21st-century definition of the word "disenfranchisement." Whatever. Donna Brazile, Al Gore's campaign manager -- and a black woman -- called the Republican Party the party of the "white boys." According to Brazile, "A white boy attitude is, 'I must exclude, denigrate and leave behind.' They don't see it or think about it. It's a culture." (Brazile now serves as an analyst for CNN.) Samuel L. Jackson is a respected black actor who appeared in more American films than anyone during the 1990s. In April 2000, he appeared on the cover of Architectural Digest, along with Clark Gable, Natalie Wood, William H. Macy, Hedy Lamarr, Marilyn Monroe, Bing Crosby, Doris Day and Claire Danes. Surely the Jackson family celebrated the actor's appearance on the cover, and the glowing inside piece on their lovely home. Wrong. Because Jackson shared the cover with other celebrities, his wife, LaTanya Richardson Jackson, wrote to the magazine and accused it of racism: "It is with sincere regret that I write to tell you how disappointing it is to see my husband, Samuel L. Jackson, featured in the lower left-hand corner on the cover of your April 2000 issue," wrote Mrs. Jackson. "It seems a very odd and racist placement. In the magazine racks of most establishments you don't see him at all; perhaps that was the point. I hardly think anyone is really more interested in all of the dead people you chose to prominently display . . . ." More recently, the actor implied racism on the part of the National Basketball Association for severe punishment of athletes involved in the Detroit Pistons/Indiana Pacers' brawl in Michigan: ...t kinda looked like a, you know, black-athlete-beatin'-up-white-fan fight more so than, you know, athletes versus fans.... It looked like it was [a racial element], and I'm sure Commissioner Stern had to defuse that situation, like getting rid of the bad guy. But you can't deprive a guy of makin' a livin' all year, just because he did something like that. Actor Will Smith blamed racism for the AIDS epidemic. "I firmly believe that it is quite highly possible," said Smith, "that the AIDS virus is the result of genetic warfare testing." Richard Williams, father of tennis sensations Venus and Serena Williams, also has three stepdaughters -- one is an actress and singer, one is a lawyer, and one, now deceased, attended medical school. His view of America's "race relations"? "In America," says Williams, "black people doesn't really have an opportunity at nothin'. . . . It's kinda bad bein' black in America." Polls find young blacks less likely to call racism America's No. 1 issue. A Time/CNN poll found 89 percent of black teens consider racism in their own lives to be "a small problem" or "not a problem at all." Twice as many black teens as white believe that "failure to take advantage of available opportunities" is a bigger problem for blacks than discrimination. Polls and focus groups show younger blacks less likely to identify themselves as Democrats, and more likely to support partial privatization of Social Security, school vouchers and the abolition of race-based preferences. This spells trouble for the Democratic Party and its monolithic black vote. Horrors! The Democrats may have to find another card to play.

The Flys -- Got You (Where I Want You)

Hide a fish somewhere...keep it wrapped so it doesn't get messy...the smell will still get out.

QUOTE(mreye @ Jan 12, 2005 -> 01:21 PM) You know how the pigeons get in the fans at CBOT and get chopped up? They found a head one time, stuck a paper clip in it and stuck it in the holes on the top of my monitor. It freaked me out. I got him better when about an hour later I took a half piece of altoid, colored it black and said, "Ewww, an eye fell off," and threw it at him across the room. He just about broke the window when his chair and him went flying backward. Sounds like a productive day!!

Go into MS Word or similar program on co-worker's computer, and add an entry to the AutoCorrect feature. This is a very simple prank that will send the novice user into a frenzy. Configure the AutoCorrect option to replace the word "the" with the phrase "you suck!". They will usually panick and start scanning for viruses Simple and yields such nice results. Simply pop out the 'm' and 'n' key on someone's keyboard and reverse the two. Any flat tool will work. Just pry it with little pressure and they will easily come right off. Then just sit back and watch the confusion.

Absolutely disgusting. Basically if you're a "radical" you're a wackjob

Her daddy is a sick, but very smart man as he has made both of hs daughters rich beyond belief. One is a complete moron and the other is a talentless hack....and both have blown up becuase of tv shows on MTV.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 12, 2005 -> 12:48 PM) I know the Saudis haven't done much, but this is just another example of people using tragedy to advance their own agendas. I hope the author doesn't mind exploiting the deaths of 160,000 or so people to slam liberal Muslims. I notice the author made no mention of Christian groups doing the samethings. I didn't take it as him advancing an agenda...I took it as he is just pointing out some facts that I wouldn't have known if I didn't read it. I had no idea there were some people saying that those islands got hit because of what their religions and beliefs are. Are the christian groups saying and doing the same things?? If so that would be pretty hypocritical for him to fault one and not the other. I thought the whole point was kinda like...hey look how everyone around the world bans together in times of crises, but not only does this group not join in...they basically say you deserve your death and destruction because you believe different from me....

Saudis and Tsunamis Not everyone worked together to help the earthquake victims. by Paul Marshall Volume 010, Issue 17 DESPITE A FEW PLAYS FOR political advantage, here and abroad, the world's response to the Indian Ocean tsunami has been heartening. With few exceptions, the vast majority of people, countries, and religions are working together to alleviate human suffering. The big exception is radical Islamists, led by Saudi Arabia. By January 6, Americans had pledged over $350 million in private donations, more than matching the sum committed by the U.S. government. The same compassion is shown elsewhere. In Vancouver, Canada, Buddhists are selling their temple to donate money to the aid effort. In Thailand, locals have given injured foreigners preference in access to hospital beds and surgery. The Foreign Ministry says, "We feel a special compassion for the people we consider our guests." In Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tiger guerrilla movement is working with government officials to provide relief. The Russian town of Beslan, where Chechens massacred hundreds of children last year, has pledged a million rubles from the relief funds it received. Afghans have donated blood and are sending doctors with long experience of dealing with disasters. East Timor, still recovering from decades of brutal Indonesian military occupation, is donating $50,000 to Indonesia. Prime Minister Alkatiri says the gift is "our way of saying we are here as your friends when you are in need." In India's Cuddalore area, most dead and injured are Hindu and Christian, and they are being aided by Muslim neighbors. Local leader Mohammed Younus emphasizes, "To the possible extent, we have been making sure that the Hindu bodies are burnt, and Christians are buried. They should not feel offended in death. . . . We will continue to raise money to feed them for as long as they need. They are welcome to be with us as long as they want." It would be pleasant to end on this note, emphasizing that, as usual, most of the world's religious bodies are engaged in cooperative humanitarian work and, in so doing, are not, as some say, "putting aside" their religious differences, but instead are visibly demonstrating their beliefs. However, one religious movement shatters this general harmony--radical Islam, especially the Saudis. The prominent Islamist website Jihad Unspun maintains the tsunami struck Thailand for supporting "the Christian crusaders in the war on terror," Sri Lanka for giving "its full backing to the Christian Crusaders inside the White House," India for its "Shirk (polytheism)," and Indonesia because "the Kufr (non-Islamic) government of the apostate Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono" is fighting against the "mujahideen" in Aceh who want to establish an "Islamic Sultanate where the Sharee'ah (Islamic laws) prevail." The website does not explain why Aceh, the most Islamist of any Indonesian province, suffered the worst damage. The Middle East Media Research Institute--which posts excerpts from Arabic TV, with translations, at memritv.org--has provided a sampling of Saudi sermons on the same theme. Ibrahim Al-Bashar emphasizes that the countries that were struck "refrain from adopting Allah's law, which is a form of heresy." Sheikh Fawzan Al-Fawzan asserts, "these great tragedies . . . are Allah's punishments of the people of these countries, even if they are Muslims." Cleric Muhammad Al-Munajjid concludes that the tsunami was caused by Christian holidays "accompanied by forbidden things, by immorality, abomination, adultery, alcohol, drunken dancing." These are not isolated rants by errant preachers: They reflect official government positions. Al-Bashar is an adviser to the Saudi justice minister, and Al-Fawzan is a professor at the Al-Imam Mohamed bin Saud Islamic University, a position that he, like Al-Munajjid, cannot hold without government approval. All their sermons were shown on the state-controlled Al-Majd TV channel and reflect the Wahhabi ideology that is the state religion of Saudi Arabia--and which the Saudis, flush with petrodollars, assiduously propagate around the world, including in the United States. The same pattern is shown in Saudi government giving. Riyadh originally offered $10 million for tsunami relief; then, after international criticism, upped its pledge to $30 million. This sum is dwarfed by the $150 million per year the Saudis have given to the families of suicide bombers. Meanwhile, according to government websites, they spend billions funding 1,500 mosques, more than 200 colleges, and some 2,000 schools for Muslim children in Europe, North and South America, Australia, and Asia. Their aim is not to alleviate human suffering, or even Muslim suffering, but only to promote their version of Islam. The tsunami tragedy shows once more that Islamist extremism does not seek freedom, democracy, or the alleviation of poverty. Its explicit goal is to advance enmity between Wahhabis and all others, and to create reactionary regimes ruled by a perversion of Islamic law. The extremists would remove a Muslim leader such as Mohammed Younus, and perhaps execute him for the "crime" of cremating Hindu bodies and placing crosses on the graves of Christian victims. Islamist extremism--an incubator not only of terrorism but also of universal hatred--is the enemy of all other beliefs. Paul Marshall is senior fellow at Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom, which will shortly release a report on Saudi influence in American mosques.

absolutely ridiculous...to do that to this guy

http://triplexgoldteeth.com/ I don't know about you guys, but I'm all about the spinners

I got it, but part of it was that I just read something somewhere that said on all the change the presidents face left except for the penny lincoln faces right

Look I don't have any conformation or anything, but it's a pretty good bet if these things make money then they will offer them on the website or at the games. The whole idea behind them is raising money...so why limit it to those attending soxfest. It's not like they are saying they are a limited edition or anything. It's a 2 dollar bracelet to raise money for a charity...

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2005 -> 10:12 AM) Has anyone heard when the new Law and Order Trial by Jury starts? I thought 24 started out great!!

I actually just met this dude at my New years party that grows his own. He wanted to take the Cabo Wabo bottle when we were done cause he said it was a good bottle to grow it in. I was like whatever dude...it's all yours. Oh and by the way...I still hate tequilla...My friends assured me I would like cabo wabo even though I hate tequilla...they were WAY wrong...tequilla is tequilla...and it doesn't like me. :puke

Congrtas Goldy!!!!!!!!!!

QUOTE(winodj @ Jan 10, 2005 -> 02:00 PM) Can bleeding heart liberals get their own group too? Bleeding Hearts seems appropriate