Soxy

Mmmmmbeermmmmmm Reuters This Has to Be Homer Simpson... PRAGUE (Reuters) - A Czech man is being taken to court after he hid in a restaurant washroom until the employees had left and then hooked up beer kegs directly to his mouth. Cleaning staff found him drunk and lying on the floor of the bar at the restaurant in the city of Brno, about 200km (120 miles) east of Prague, the CTK news agency reported on Thursday. "He had broken the door of the cooling mechanism ... and detached the hoses leading from the keg, squashed them in his mouth and literally filled himself up with beer," CTK quoted a police official as saying. The man will be charged with damaging property because he caused 8,000 crown ($340) damage to the beer cooling box.

So, a Muslim friend of mine pointed out that the islamic word for satan can also be translated as tempter. Consequently, it doesn't necessarily mean that US is the root of all evil, but more that it's trying to tempt the MidEast away from the traditional Islamic virtues and culture. I'm not saying it's a great idea to call countries Satan, but in that context it isn't as bad.... History of Satan

Wow. :banghead :banghead :banghead

Ouch, ouch, ouch. Even if it was a C-Section. Ish.

If you are going to hit a car and then drive away--don't have vanity plates. Idiot.

I think the article hit it right on the head when they said "Earlier this week, a Harvard faculty committee told Summers he may have damaged the school's efforts to attract more top female scholars with his suggestion that innate differences between the sexes may help explain why fewer women succeed in math and science careers." And Summers' comment that: 'Summers spoke of having learned much in recent days from a number of e-mails and calls that he said "made vivid the very real barriers faced by women in pursuing scientific and other academic careers." He acknowledged there had been "frustratingly uneven and slow" progress made in luring more women to the sciences.' Direct quotation from article I think it's sad if he honestly believes what he said, but even sadder for Harvard--how would you like to be a woman on that faculty after that remark...

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 11:35 PM) Kenny G & Earth, Wind and Fire are on Jay Leno right now..... as if that wasn't bad enough -- They are playing a cover of Outkast's "I like the way you move" BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! That's the worst thing I've ever heard!

That's it Tex! I've had with your your spamming! I'm going to tell the admins. I am going to get you banned.

I read this on the NYC version of the CTA Tattler. Wino are you in New York City???? Frantic hipster: Please tell me you have The Golden Girls on DVD! Employee: Nope, we are all sold out. Frantic hipster: Dammit! It's sold out everywhere! What am I going to do? --Barnes & Noble, Chelsea

That's like 8x as many people dead as live in my hometown. Wow....

Met with my advisor and here's her take on it (for background, she's, obviously, a PhD and is a full prof with tenure): She doesn't think it's true, her quote: I know lots of brilliant women. But she says that the way academia works there are lots of little subtle sexist kinks to it. In order to determine brilliance of careers she says that they should do a study looking at yars of employment/publishing record before getting tenure and compare the stats for men and women. She thinks that there would be a rather large disparity there. And she also said to look at men and women and how long they have the associate professor rank--and to see if one more than the other tops out there. Also, at faculty meetings the women will often say something that will later be attributed to a male faculty member--or they have to repeat themselves to be "heard." Also, women faculty member are more often referred to by their first name and men by their last. Essentially, her point was that there isn't an intelligence difference--but it's much harder for a woman to have a "distinguished" academic career, more work, more obstacles, glass ceiling. She also recommends a book by Virginia Vallian called Why so Slow? That really looks at this issue.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 12:16 AM) Still have questions about this response, but I don't want to sound like I'm advocating anything. I'm really just curious. Thanks, great discussion. I'm not entirely sure I buy this argument. But it's pretty much that argument that keeps single sex schools in business. Myself, being brash and over-confident, I've never been one to keep my thoughts to myself in class. But I am, perhaps, an atypical student.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 12:04 AM) Okay... But I still don't see how that would create a bias if both men and women were exactly the same. The average talker would be average on the whole, as well, and as many women as men would be more apt than the talkers. I think teaching style might influence this. I had one class this past term with my lab partner who answers every question--even if no one else understands. A good prof should be able to sniff out overall class consensus--but I'm not sure the class "talkers" are average students. I usually feel like they're a box of rocks or else head and shoulders above everyone else...

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 11:49 PM) Some replies -- Why does speaking in class matter? There's a lot less subjective grading in math-science courses (by necessity). I'm not sure why this would matter. Also, iirc he was citing test scores of relatively young kids, which would mitigate the argument about opportunities, although one could argue about relevance and development. I think speaking in class can matter because it provides a bench marker for a teacher on what is getting through and what isn't. So, classes tend to move at the speed of the talkers not, necessarily, the general trend of the class. Kids that push the class ahead or hold it back are really what form the concept of if they're getting it or not--while the rest of the class is assumeably just going along with them, whether they really are or not is another issue. Not the most cogent argument ever--but it might be one small piece of the puzzle.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 11:31 PM) I'm glad to hear the full price response, actually. But let me pick out one part: "I think this remark can be seen as being akin to saying well, impoverished people or people of color have a genetic make-up that makes them worse at these subjects. When really, it's a matter of opportunity to get into schools that will prepare people for those terminal degrees." I don't think that's correct. He's not saying that women are men, just take away a bit. That's how I take your statement that "genetic make-up...makes them worse". He's saying that the whole distribution is altered, w/ fewer great minds and fewer nitwits. It's worse only if you first condition on being in the upper echelon, not just on being female. It comes down to the definition of sexism -- I really wonder how women in academia think about this argument. Now, you may think this is a backdoor method of the same old argument, instead of an honest argument. I doubt that -- most big U presidents are very glib, but Summers was not the usual appointment. He's MUCH better as an academic than as a U president. I think he's never really escaped that predilection, hence the track record. Yeah, I think the distributional comment is interesting--but if you're looking at a smaller sample size and that sample is biased (and presumably the kids that are getting IQ tests or into college are already, at least historically for women, the better ones with more opportunity) I am just not sure that any valid comparisons CAN be drawn. I think that in the history of academia the playing field is just now becoming truly level (or approaching it)--I would hesitate to answer the distributional claim but I think that might change more down the road, because I think there will be more brilliant women and more dumb women going to school. Also, and this is an argument I HATE, but it seems pretty valid. Men speak more in class and in academic like that settings. So, the more you talk the more you have an opportunity for brilliance or idiocy...Maybe if he was somehow the pres at Wellsley or Bryn Mawr he might have a different take... I've got a meeting with my mentor tomorrow, and I'll ask her for her take on this. She's a hardcore academic, and I am sure she would have some interesting insights...

I read the NYT article earlier today... I think that as far as pure ability and raw intelligence go in academia they are not the best predictors. I think that more needs to be reported here than simply more men have PhD's in the Sciences and Math. For example: of the top PhD producing schools (i.e. their grads go on to do terminal degree work in their field) what has been the male/female ratio of the past 20/30/40/50 years. I imagine that the ratio has gotten distinctly more equal as time goes by. As, I imagine, has the amount of men/women seeking terminal degrees in those areas. I think this remark can be seen as being akin to saying well, impoverished people or people of color have a genetic make-up that makes them worse at these subjects. When really, it's a matter of opportunity to get into schools that will prepare people for those terminal degrees. Also, I took some classes in the "hard sciences" in my undergrad career--and, this is CERTAINLY not true for all professors, but many of them treat male students differently. Professors will ask men if they're pre-med and women if they're nursing. Or women are more likely to be asked if they're taking the class for a Gen Ed. I'm not saying that would deter women from going far in those subjects--but it is demoralizing to say the least. And embarressing. Basically, I think this goes much deeper than any of the articles go into. I think that the Old Boy mentality is pretty entrenched in academia--a lot of institutional sexism (heck, racism, classism, lots of isms) there. Well, I meant to put in my 2 cents but ended up putting in a whole nickel. Sorry.

Watching the game with my dad. Man, we both were like, . Oh Robin Ventura, I loved him. He was for sure the first non-my age crush. Man, that was right around the time I was getting into the Sox hardcore...Oh the memories.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 07:00 PM) You clearly don't get the idea behind No Child Left Behind. If we drop out enough of the core curriculum and spoonfeed a nation of functionally illiterate kids and just let them matriculate through the system and not be bothered really making sure they are learning... well then, no child has been left behind, right? I took an Industrial/Organization Psychology class last year--and one of the profs (and the textbook) said that 1/4 of the American workforce is functionally illiterate. That number is staggering but not really shocking. Our educational system is totally in shambles--I don't just blame this administration--it's been going down hill for too long to just blame current administration. I don't know how to fix it, but I hope something changes soon...

Speaking of babies--here's a pic of my ADORABLE new baby cousin...

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... Edit: I don't think anyone here is denying that a woman's career can certainly take a hit with a child. I've actually sat in on professional development stuff in my department where some people say don't have kids until you get tenure--because if you do you're playing with your career. Of course, this isn't the message put to men as well. I don't think that having a successful career AND family are mutually exclusive--but it can be a very difficult proposition. Call that feminist clap trap, but it's true--and it sucks for everyone involved...

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. Ahhhh, thanks Queen, that'd been bugging me as well.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 10:31 AM) I'd bet they did... and he was so happy to be banging her and ready to stick it to Paltrow for dumping him that he agreed to anything and figured he could change her mind later. She doesn't seem to me like one to not be up front about things she wants. I'm totally not putting all the blame on her. It takes two to not communicate....

Way to get born!!! Happy Birthday!!!

Wtf? First, I respect her decision to not have children due to a career. But Crikey, shouldn't she and her ex have talked about that BEFORE the marriage? It sounds like they are miles apart on their ideas about a family. That's NOT a feminist issue--that's a I have crappy communication with my significant other problem...

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Jan 17, 2005 -> 09:37 PM) How about 4 more years? And that point about Kerry receiving more votes than Reagan is mute. More people voted this election percentage wise not to mention that there are more people in the United States. I also believe I heard that Bush got the most votes in presidential history. Yes he did get more votes, but the percentage of votes cast that he received gives a more telling picture of the state of the union.