Soxy

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 6, 2005 -> 06:58 PM) /waiting for Soxy's arrival Sorry guys, would have been here sooner but I uh, had, um, some stuff to "do." Anyway, interesting topic. I do think that there's some sexism in our society about masterbation. Men will talk about it pretty freely, but women don't really. Heck most of my friends and I didn't even talk about it until, like the last two years of college. But I think that the difference sort of speaks to the heart of the stereotypes/expectations of sexuality for the two genders. Women, although it's changing, are supposed to not want sex as much, be able to wear white on their wedding day, do it for procreation, blah, blah, blah. And I think a lot of that rubs off (pardon the unintentional pun) onto the topic of masterbation. Heck a lot of my friends never even masturbated until AFTER they lost their virginity. I think the masturbation double standard is kind of odd, because in Leviticus (everyone's favorite book of the Bible) there is a law against male masturbation but not female. (Mostly due to the ancient Hebrew's belief that sperm created life and "wasting it" would be tantamount to an abortion--now we know that's not true.) Funny "article" about masturbation and religion. Also odd, is the male fascination with a woman masturbating--I have never heard a female friend say they have a very strong desire to watch a man take a walk down wank lane. And I think some of Tex's list are for male masturbation and/or oral sex. But, I would have been very hardpressed (again, sorry for the pun) to think of more than 3 terms for it. I do, though, think that it's a good topic and should be discussed by women more regularly--not to mentioned practiced.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 6, 2005 -> 04:27 PM) What was that loud crash?!? Oh, look, it was Soxy falling off the pedestal I had put her on. Mariah Carey?? How Could You...?!? I know, it's awful. My only explanation is that it reminds me of my carefree junior high days.....

Lori Hacking and baby's murderer get's 5 years to life Hacking Gets 6 Years to Life for Murder By PAUL FOY, Associated Press Writer 20 minutes ago SALT LAKE CITY - Mark Hacking was sentenced Monday to six years to life in prison for the shooting death of his wife while she slept last July, bringing to a close a murder that shocked Utah and still hasn't been fully explained. Judge Denise Lindberg listened to nearly two hours of emotional testimony before handing down the only sentence she could under Utah law. Lindberg said only the parole board could determine how long Hacking will ultimately stay in prison, but that she will recommend that he be held "a very long time." Mark Hacking, 29, said there was no excuse he could offer for his behavior, and that he'd give a thousand lifetimes in prison if he could to amend for his actions. "She didn't do nothing but love me unconditionally, even when I didn't deserve it. She was the greatest thing that ever happened to me, but I killed her, and took the life of my unborn child and put them in the garbage and I can't explain whey I did it," Hacking said in a halted voice when addressing the judge and family members. "I put them in the garbage, and they rotted out at the landfill. I'm tormented every waking minute by what I did," he said. In April, Mark Hacking pleaded guilty to first-degree murder with a brief admission: "I intentionally shot Lori Hacking in the head with a .22 rifle on July 19, 2004." Utah's system of indeterminate sentences for crimes can be confusing. First-degree murder brings a mandatory five years to life, but Hacking's minimum will be increased to six years because he used a firearm. The judge can only impose the broad range of sentence, leaving it up to Utah's Board of Pardons and Parole to decide when or if Hacking will ever be set free.

Confession: I really like Mariah Carey's two new songs.....

Interesting... Suicide Attempts Linked to Weight Perception By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer 1 hour, 42 minutes ago CHICAGO - Suicidal impulses and attempts are much more common in teenagers who think they are too fat or too thin, regardless of how much they actually weigh, a study found. Using actual body size based on teens' reports of their height and weight, the researchers found that overall, overweight or underweight teens were only slightly more likely than normal-weight teens to have suicidal tendencies. But teens who perceived themselves at either weight extreme — very fat or really skinny — were more than twice as likely as normal-weight teens to attempt or think about suicide. The study was based on a nationally representative 2001 survey involving 13,601 students in ninth through 12th grade. The findings appear in the June issue of Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, published Monday. About 19 percent said they had considered suicide in the previous year and about 9 percent said they had attempted it. About 65 percent of students were in the normal-weight range, but only about 54 percent perceived themselves as "about the right weight." Some thought they weighed too much; others thought they were too thin. "Suicide ideation was more likely even among students whose perceptions of body size deviated only slightly from `about the right weight,'" said lead author Danice Eaton, a researcher at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Because nearly half of the students perceived themselves as too thin or too heavy, "these results suggest that a sizable proportion of students may be at increased risk" for suicide, the researchers said. Perceptions of being very overweight were linked with an increased risk for suicide attempts among whites. But black and Hispanic students who saw themselves as being very overweight were no more likely to say they had attempted suicide than blacks and Hispanics who thought they were about the right weight. The link between perceptions of being very underweight and an increased risk for suicide attempts existed for whites, blacks and Hispanics alike. The study did not determine which came first — perceptions of extreme weight or suicidal tendencies. But the results suggest that extreme weight perceptions might be a suicide warning sign, the researchers said. In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Alain Joffe of Johns Hopkins University said widespread media images of perfect bodies might help shape adolescent perceptions of normal. But he said it is also possible that adolescents who are already concerned with body image pay more attention to media images.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jun 6, 2005 -> 03:31 PM) Is P&P royalty free at this point? Hmmmm, maybe? But persuasion is a better novel anyway, I don't understand this obsession with P & P, I like Jane Austen more than most, but it's too much....

Seriously, how many adaptations of Pride and Prejudice can there possibly be? Do we really need another one? There are a million or so other great books that would be just as good (if not better) movies.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jun 6, 2005 -> 02:54 PM) She's been visiting the vomitorium, and by vomitorium I don't mean theatre entrance. And to be honest, she looked better before she lost all the weight and bleached her hair and skin. I thought, in a very heterosexual way, that she was very pretty before (aside from the constant booze and cigs).

Poor kid! That's awful. Hope he gets well quickly...

I also hope that he gets a new pair of knees out of this. It sounds like his are pretty bad, and walking across the country can't be helping them at all...

QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ Jun 6, 2005 -> 02:39 PM) I said God Damn! Boob reduction of any kind should be illegal! Have you seen her lately? Those things are looooooooooooooong gone.

That's incredible. Best of luck to him, I hope he makes it. It's a worthy cause. Kinda restores your faith in people a little bit.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 6, 2005 -> 11:27 AM) America, I give you "Dream On America," by Andrew Moravcsik. An excellent piece for the handful of citizens with an attention span, btw. Really interesting article. Thanks Jim.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jun 6, 2005 -> 11:16 AM) Most of the time in those cases you qualify for a grant. However, at the same time, I find it hard to imagine (if you live at home) that you can't work and do what you can to raise enough funds to pay the 4000 a year. I realize thats hard and you may have to work more than some kids do, but my thinking is if you want to go to college you'll find a way. I know my dad worked 50 hr's a week and went to school on the side cause he wanted to go badly (was living on his own in Cali after getting out of the navy and away from his entire family). My original point is that I think if people want to go to college they'll find a way. Luckily I don't have to worry too much. I live at home, work, and my dad is well off enough where he pays for my tuition (as long as I do good in school) and I pay for the books. I understand that you have to make sacrifices to go to college, because I did and will continue to do so until my loans are paid off. But, I currently make 12,000/year (which is about equivilant to workin 40 hours a week at a minimum wage job, damn that sucks). So, yeah, $400 for one class is out of my price range. And without studying there full time I would get no grants. Which is another problem, not a full time student = fewer available grants and scholarships. And if you're trying to work your way through college keeping up with all those credits is a bear.... So, I totally understand you need to give stuff up, work extra hours, etc to go to school--but 16,000 a year isn't a whole heck of a lot better than $22,000 a year as far as the instate/out of state tuition difference goes. And if you make less than 30K a year, well, I just don't think those kind of things are affordable--especially if they're messing with the amount of grants and loans awarded.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jun 6, 2005 -> 10:58 AM) If someone is in that type of bind, they always have the option of 2 years at a community college (absolutely nothing wrong with going this past cause you still can get into any school you want to if your grades are good enough). Its like 21 bucks a unit or something like that so you spend maybe 300 bucks a semester plus books. Highly affordable for 2 years than your final two years you can go for 2000 a semester. I was looking into brushing up my Spanish at CC course, but it was $400/course (for a resident), which I think is really crazy expensive. I don't feel like you are getting a lot of bang for your buck, no matter where you go to school. I have students here whose smallest class has been 150 students (insane), but they're still paying full tuition and all that. I think with the rising cost of education the US is really pricing out lower middle class and people with low SES. In this end this is only going to end up hurting this country. Higher education is too expensive, it sounds like Cali has a better system than NY or IL, but even that would be too much if you had two parents working minimum (or low paying jobs).

QUOTE(Soxnbears01 @ Jun 6, 2005 -> 09:49 AM) it's around 16k/year for U of I in-state, that includes everything. dorms are a ripoff. Where I go now they estimate it will be $15,900/year to live in a dorm and $11,000/year to live with parents. That's for NY residents. For out of state it goes up to 22,000/year to live in the dorms and go there.

QUOTE(mreye @ Jun 6, 2005 -> 09:43 AM) I just read the first part about the California kid going to UNLV. Isn't school free for him at a state school in Cal? Or at least extremely discounted? Stay in state or quitcher b****in'! My parents paid almost $10,000/year to send my sister (instate) to NIU--which isn't even the best state school. (Which, by the time my scholarships were counted in, is as much as my tuition was to a private school.)

Maybe I'll start saving for my kids now.... Financial Aid Rules for College Change, and Families Pay More By GREG WINTER Published: June 6, 2005 No matter how she parses it, Roberta Proctor cannot make sense of her son's college bill. Her income and her assets have not changed. If anything, she says, her family's finances have deteriorated somewhat. Skip to next paragraph Multimedia Graphic Raising the Eligibility Bar So, she wonders, how could she possibly owe an extra $6,000 for the coming school year, when tuition has not increased anywhere near that amount? But she does. Like the Proctors, Californians whose son just finished his freshman year at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, thousands of American families might find it harder to qualify for financial aid this year and might be asked to contribute more money toward the cost of college because of changes to a complicated federal formula they barely know about, much less understand. Taken together, these changes, some based on overly optimistic predictions of inflation, have required families to count a greater share of their incomes and assets toward college expenses before becoming eligible for financial aid. As a consequence, tens of thousands of low-income students will no longer be eligible for federal grants; middle-class families are digging deeper into their savings; and some colleges are putting up their own money to make up the difference. "This is not what we intended," said Joe Paul Case, the financial aid director at Amherst College, in Massachusetts, who helped develop the formula that the government now uses for the bulk of the nation's students. "There is certainly more duress than we had in mind." The New York Times did an analysis of the formula on middle-class incomes in more than a dozen states to see whether families would have to spend a greater part of their income and assets before qualifying for financial aid than they did five years ago. Though the effects of the formula changes vary from state to state, The Times found that families with the same earnings and assets as in 2000 would typically have to pay an extra $1,749 before clearing the eligibility bar for financial aid in 2005, after adjusting for inflation. Though the formula will change in the future, sometimes to a family's advantage, the impact on campuses now is obvious, many university officials say, and often cuts across class lines. The University of California, Berkeley, for example, says that 1,000 of its middle- to upper-middle-class students will probably lose eligibility for federal subsidies on their student loans in the coming year, a change that typically means higher debts because of accrued interest. On the other side of the economic spectrum, Northeastern University, in Boston, says that 300 of its low-income students will not receive the federal grants they would have been eligible for last year. "For some of those students, it's the difference between enrolling and not enrolling," said Seamus Harreys, dean of student financial services at Northeastern. "We're trying to figure how to get them through to graduation." For millions of students, financial aid arrives in a mixture of grants and low-interest loans from the federal government, the states and the colleges themselves. The amount students receive is mostly based on an intricate formula, administered by the Department of Education, that looks at many aspects of a family's circumstances, including its income, its tax bill, its investments, its size and even the parents' ages. The Department of Education says that any changes to the formula are driven by a legal obligation to keep it current, reflecting what families can truly afford to pay. For example, the administration determined that more of a parent's assets must be counted toward college expenses this year because it predicted better economic circumstances, including substantially lower inflation. Under that scenario, the administration argues, families need to save less money for retirement. "This is all statutory," said Sally Stroup, assistant secretary for postsecondary education for the department. Some economists consider the administration's economic assumptions deeply flawed. The department's estimates for inflation were, in fact, far enough off that it has now revised the formula it will use for the 2006-2007 school year, much to the benefit of families with assets. But the latest round of changes will not help parents in the coming school year. Politics have also come into play. In 2003, Congress blocked the department from changing how the financial aid formula treats state taxes. That move would have rendered 92,000 students ineligible for Pell Grants, the nation's largest scholarship program at more than $12 billion a year, and reduced government spending for the program by $290 million, according to the Government Accountability Office. Last year, the administration found support among Congressional leaders seeking to constrain the growing cost of Pell Grants, and the changes have now taken effect. Skip to next paragraph Multimedia Graphic Raising the Eligibility Bar Much as with federal income tax, the federal financial aid formula allows families to deduct some of what they pay in state taxes to determine how much they have left over for college. With the consent of Congress, that amount was cut significantly in almost all states this year, in some cases by half. On paper, at least, that leaves families with more money to pay tuition and other expenses. In The Times's analysis of the current formula, the increase in what families must pay before clearing the eligibility bar for financial aid was larger for families in New York, Iowa and Colorado, where the consideration of a family's state tax burden has changed significantly under the formula in an effort to make it reflect typical tax payments. The increase was smaller in states like New Jersey and Connecticut, where the treatment of state taxes did not change or became more favorable for students. Even so, the formula dictates that more of a family's assets can be tapped this year to cover college expenses than in 2000, in many cases almost twice as much. So, assuming the average savings, stocks and other financial investments of middle-class families with assets, as reported by the Federal Reserve Board, all families in the analysis ended up owing more money before qualifying for financial aid, regardless of where they lived. The analysis looked at the changing requirements under the formula for families earning from $65,000 in 2000 to about $85,000 in 2005. That is the middle of the income range and slightly above it for parents from 45 to 54, peak ages for sending children to college. Finally, the analysis also took into account whether there was one parent or two. Without exception, single parents experienced larger increases - typically $549 larger - in the amount they would have to pay before reaching the eligibility mark for financial aid. The reason is that the rules shield less of their savings from college expenses, on the theory that they will need less for retirement. Families have vastly different financial circumstances, so the analysis cannot be used as a predictor of what any individual will owe. Nonetheless, many colleges say they have witnessed the effects of previous changes, some in the last year alone. At Washington & Jefferson College, in Pennsylvania, parents will typically have to contribute an additional $1,947 compared with last school year before qualifying for financial aid next year - an extra 17 percent - even though their incomes have risen only 4 percent. At DePaul University, in Chicago, the bar for financial aid will typically go up by $4,215, or 39 percent, though incomes have increased by only 12 percent. Emory University, in Atlanta, says the incomes of its students' families have generally not increased, yet they would typically have to pay an extra $4,000 before becoming eligible for financial aid under the government's rules. "If there had been a $1,000 difference, that would be one thing. But when we saw these $6,000 and $7,000 differences routinely, we got really concerned," said Julia Padgett, director of financial aid at Emory. The difference was drastic enough that Emory, like a few of its well-endowed counterparts, abandoned the government's rules for many of its families, a decision that required it to surrender federal money for those students and substitute it with its own. "We just felt as if we had no ethical choice," Mrs. Padgett said. Most colleges, however, say they are not wealthy enough to forsake federal aid, which includes money to pay students in work-study jobs. In fact, passing up federal money might only worsen a student's financial outlook, they say. "It's really hard to explain to the family that although the federal formula may not make sense, and I may not agree with it, I have to go along with it," said Michelle Vettorel, director of financial aid at Washington & Jefferson. When the bar for financial aid goes up, students may also lose the state grants, sometimes worth thousands of dollars a year, that are often tied to the federal formula. "That's a huge concern," said Gerard Cebrzynski, director of financial aid at Lake Forest College, outside of Chicago. "We've seen several students who have lost their entire awards this year." Still, some college officials say the hand-wringing is unwarranted. Whatever the changes to financial aid, they say, students as a whole have rarely stopped pursuing degrees and college attendance rates remain high nationally. "I would not deny that this has impacted some people seriously," said Joe Russo, director of student financial services at the University of Notre Dame. "But nationally, has this caused enrollment to drop? It doesn't appear to have." What the changes will probably do, many university officials and parents contend, is have a disproportionate impact on middle-class families, especially when it comes to tapping their assets. "For the middle class, it means greater pressure put upon them to cobble together college funding at schools that are becoming increasingly expensive," said James Boyle, president of College Parents of America, an advocacy group. "It's another middle-class squeeze."

Happy Happy Birthday!!!

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2005 -> 06:15 AM) thanks to everyone who sacrificed that day. Reading and watching stuff about Dday is just mind boggling. The amount of work and planning that went into that, and we still managed to surprise them is just incredible. My great uncle, who passed recently, was on Normandy. Some very scary, but interesting stories about it. I can't imagine how terrifying it must have been. He said that the initial invasion was supposed to be the day earlier, but the weather prevented it. He also said a few people went ahead the day before, before it was cancelled (intelligence, front line types)--sounded like most didn't make it. Hats off to all of those who fought in that one. :uk

'Cause I don't have the heart to try One more false start in life It's been so hard to get it right Seems like the moment I catch up The farther you fly And I wasted your time, didn't I and That that's the reason we fight all the time It's been so long since you've been a friend of mine And I wasted your time, didn't I And that's the reason we fight all the time It's been so long since you've been a friend to me It seems like I dreamed and now I'm waking up to daylight What happened, when did you let go of me I miss you so badly It's been so long since you've been a friend of mine

I'm gonna take the money I make I'm gonna take the money I make I'm gonna take the money I make and I'm gonna go away... we barely have time to react in this world let alone rehearse and I don't think I'm better than you but I don't think that I'm worse women learn to be women and men learn to be men and I don't blame it all on you but I don't want to be your friend

Article on activities there. Normandy Prepares for D-Day Anniversary By FREDERIC VEILLE, Associated Press Writer 3 minutes ago SAINTE-MERE-EGLISE, France - World War II veterans and dignitaries were gathering in Normandy for ceremonies Monday to honor the sacrifices of Allied soldiers who died in the D-Day landings 61 years ago. Dozens of ceremonies were planned to commemorate those who fought and died on the five blood-soaked beaches during the June 6, 1944, siege that marked the beginning of the end of the Nazi regime. French and American officials planned a tribute with a church choir and band at the Normandy American cemetery in the town of Colleville-sur-Mer, where 9,387 fallen U.S. fighters are buried. Parades, wreath-laying ceremonies and concerts were scheduled in many towns and villages in a region. Rain led officials to cancel plans Sunday for some 150 military parachutists to drop into the town of Sainte-Mere-Eglise, a commemoration that was to include Germans for the first time. The town was the first liberated by U.S. forces in Normandy. Hoping to strike a spirit of unity, Mayor Marc Lefevre invited about 40 German parachutists to take part — but building support for his idea was not easy in his town. "Many people asked me what was going through my head," Lefevre said. "We need to know how to turn the page, and welcome the Germans without rancor." Hundreds of spectators, including some World War II veterans, peered skyward in anticipation of the jumps before organizers called them off. "It's always moving to see this," said 82-year-old spectator Shifty Power from Virginia who parachuted in on D-Day with the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division. "It's good for Germans also to take part — it's important for peace in the world." About 156,000 Allied soldiers — mostly American, British and Canadian — took part in the invasion, storming in from the English Channel and opening a Western front against the Nazis. For all of those that sacrificied, and continue to sacrifice, in the name of peace and the ending of oppression.

Really sad story. It's a pretty long story--but definitely worth the read. This is just pathetic; something you expect to hear about in a history book.

Watched the French film 8 Women with a couple people today.An interesting murder mystery, with some very odd songs, and equally odd lesbian scenes. It's sort of a nod to the old murder mystery genre especially the locked room (think J. Dickson Carr or Agatha Christie). Interesting, but the ending was a bit abrubt. Worth a rental if you like detective tales of yore. Also finished watching The Thorn Birds with my roommate (who's Jewish and asked at one point: Is a priest supposed to have sex with people?) yesterday. Classic but overacted and melodramatic. More fun with a bottle of wine and people that don't mind snide comments throughout the movie.