Soxy

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 10, 2007 -> 06:08 PM) The phrase "try and" really pisses me off. It makes absolutely NO sense and EVERYONE uses it. "I'm gonna try and loosen the screw." NO! As a high school Spanish teacher of mine would say: VERB SPLITTER! My first year in graduate school my "mentor" and I were writing a review article. She had written "irregardless" a few times, which I hate. So, I went through and corrected all of them. When I next saw the paper next, all of the irregardlesses made it back in. AGH! I also hate it when people (i.e. my students) wrept that people are ept at something. AGH! No, there is no ept! There is an inept, and that is clearly what people who write ept are. Damn kids.

I'm taking my mf-ing comps. And it is the worst ever. Ever. Ever. for me.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 10, 2007 -> 07:40 PM) *sigh Don't do enough, do too much, don't do enough, do too much. You people are hard to please. What are we supposed to do? He's just saying he feels like we're going to get attacked soon. I thought if we lived in fear the terrorists had won? And in all honesty he isn't DOING anything about it. Just saying he thinks another attack is imminent. How is that productive?

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jul 10, 2007 -> 03:36 PM) Well, with all due respect to the pope, he can go screw himself. Uhhhh, technically, he can't. . .

Maybe he should take a Pepto Bismal?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jul 10, 2007 -> 02:31 PM) That depends on how fast you read, silly. The Scholastic US edition will run 784 pages. about 90 pages less than Order of the Phoenix. Psht, that's nothing! I should be done by dinnertime on Saturday. . . Thank you Flaxx.

Does anyone know how long the last book is supposed to be?

Best news story of the day.

Always listen to your Grammy. Okay it's not news, and for those of us who grew up non-Catholic with a Catholic Grandmother this will come as no surprise. Pope: Other Christians not true churches By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 32 minutes ago LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches. Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church. On Saturday, Benedict revisited another key aspect of Vatican II by reviving the old Latin Mass. Traditional Catholics cheered the move, but more liberal ones called it a step back from Vatican II. Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers the erroneous interpretation of the council by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition. In the latest document — formulated as five questions and answers — the Vatican seeks to set the record straight on Vatican II's ecumenical intent, saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been "erroneous or ambiguous" and had prompted confusion and doubt. It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, "Dominus Iesus," which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the "means of salvation." In the new document and an accompanying commentary, which were released as the pope vacations here in Italy's Dolomite mountains, the Vatican repeated that position. "Christ 'established here on earth' only one church," the document said. The other communities "cannot be called 'churches' in the proper sense" because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles. The Rev. Sara MacVane of the Anglican Centre in Rome, said there was nothing new in the document. "I don't know what motivated it at this time," she said. "But it's important always to point out that there's the official position and there's the huge amount of friendship and fellowship and worshipping together that goes on at all levels, certainly between Anglican and Catholics and all the other groups and Catholics." The document said Orthodox churches were indeed "churches" because they have apostolic succession and that they enjoyed "many elements of sanctification and of truth." But it said they lack something because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope — a defect, or a "wound" that harmed them, it said. "This is obviously not compatible with the doctrine of primacy which, according to the Catholic faith, is an 'internal constitutive principle' of the very existence of a particular church," the commentary said. Despite the harsh tone of the document, it stresses that Benedict remains committed to ecumenical dialogue. "However, if such dialogue is to be truly constructive, it must involve not just the mutual openness of the participants but also fidelity to the identity of the Catholic faith," the commentary said. The document, signed by the congregation prefect, U.S. Cardinal William Levada, was approved by Benedict on June 29, the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul — a major ecumenical feast day. There was no indication about why the pope felt it necessary to release the document, particularly since his 2000 document summed up the same principles. Some analysts suggested it could be a question of internal church politics, or that it could simply be an indication of Benedict using his office as pope to again stress key doctrinal issues from his time at the congregation.

So, the last book is getting released in, what a week and a half? And the movie comes out this week. I know I'm not the only one that's excited. . . This was in the NYT Op-Ed section yesterday, and I enjoyed it immensely. Thought I would pass it along.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jul 9, 2007 -> 09:22 AM) Speaking of Harry Potter, I'm getting dragged to the new one when it comes out and I haven't seen the previous 900, so that should be fun. The 5th book was, imo, the weakest. But there should be some good action (especially near the end).

QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 9, 2007 -> 10:14 AM) Finally saw Shooter (which I bought on DVD weeks ago). I seem to be enjoying pain, blood, and guts more and more these days. *insert obligatory birth joke here* Did I mention congratulations?

Nice! I liked that they also gave a shout out to SLaM. What a delightful well-rounded site we are.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 8, 2007 -> 05:22 PM) They made it look like Harry Potter meets Lemony Snickets in the commericials. Instead it was stinking My Girl Blech. The book was really good. . .I'm glad I stayed away from the movie.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 8, 2007 -> 05:25 PM) Ah would that be nice. The term "unelectable" bugs me more and more as I get older. Basically they use that term to smear anyone who doesn't march to party line orders. I would so love to see a middle of the ground third party emerge, and this day and age is the perfect time. The moderate platform is so open for the taking right now. Its open like never before in my lifetime. Well, that's pretty much what it means. I think the two parties in this country are so strong they can smear people really effectively. Essentially, the voters have a VERY small choice in who goes into office--the parties hold a much stronger sway. Look at the presidential candidates. Not necessarily what the large voting bloc wants to choose from, but those are our options.

Oh mercy, I wish I had air conditioning.

Duckworth won't run in 2008 Excerpt: "Was it because I wanted the Congressional seat or was it because I wanted to make a difference? And if it was about taking care of health care and taking care of veterans, I'm doing that now," said Duckworth in a phone interview Sunday. "I think I have probably done more for veterans in the last seven months than Congress has, especially my opponent, but that's ultimately why I decided not to run, because I think we are making a difference."

Interesting Editorial from the Trib The right's dance with Islam Some U.S. conservatives share disdain for where freedom leads By Cathy Young Published July 8, 2007 Some years ago, I heard an amusing exchange on a right-wing radio show. A caller railed against feminists, homosexuals, atheists and other usual suspects. The host enthusiastically agreed, whereupon the caller expressed hope that they could join forces -- in supporting the establishment of Islamic law in America. The twist left the host sputtering incoherently. Yet the question of whether America's mostly Christian social conservatives should ally themselves with conservative Muslims is more than a radio prank call. In his recent book, "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11," conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza maintains that the political left has helped make the United States the target of Islamic extremists. "A decadent American culture" and "an aggressive global campaign to undermine the traditional patriarchal family and to promote secular values," D'Souza writes, has made Muslims feel that "their most cherished beliefs and institutions are under assault." According to D'Souza, the best way to resist radical Islam is to make common cause with Muslim traditionalists who reject Western decadence and secularism but also shun violence and extremism. This is quite a reversal of the stance taken by many conservatives -- including President Bush and Newt Gingrich -- who have invoked women's rights and even gay rights among the causes we champion in our battle against "Islamofascism." Though most conservatives reject D'Souza's thesis as a right-wing version of "blame America first," some observers are expressing concern. Commentator Andrew Sullivan argues that American "theoconservatives" have become a politicized "Christianist" movement. He sees many similarities to radical Islamic ideology, with D'Souza's book as a sign of a "Christianist/Islamist alliance." And it is true that some elements on the American social and religious right have long expressed guarded sympathy with the radical Muslim critique of Western decadence. Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher asserted that the honest answer to the "Why do they hate us?" question lies in the coarseness and destructiveness of "our sexual culture" -- in contrast to traditional Islamic societies, where "the family system ... works" despite being regrettably oppressive to women and children. Around the same time, Christianity Today Managing Editor Mark Galli editorialized that conservative Muslims hate the West for bringing "hedonism and materialism into their very homes through television, enticing Muslims to become religiously lazy and morally corrupt." In 2004, in the same magazine, Watergate felon-turned-evangelical minister Charles Colson warned that the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States would help Islamic terrorists by making "our kind of freedom abhorrent" to Muslims. In May of that year, former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan wrote that on such issues as homosexuality, "conservative Americans have more in common with devout Muslims than with liberal Democrats." Chiding Bush for urging Muslims to embrace the modern American version of liberty and equality, Buchanan wrote, "Why not stand beside Islam, and against Hollywood and Hillary?" In effect, D'Souza, Colson and Buchanan agree that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms -- only to conclude that our freedoms ought to be curbed. Of course, they would say that they are talking not about freedom but about its excesses. Excesses that, according to D'Souza, include the notion that "men and women should have the same roles in society" or that "freedom of expression includes the right to publish material that is sexually explicit or blasphemous." (While D'Souza deplores Taliban-style subjugation of women, he explicitly defends patriarchy with the tired argument that it allows women to exercise power within the home.) Yet there is no reason to believe that Islamic radicals or even most Muslim traditionalists oppose merely the "excesses" of, say, women's liberation. At heart is the basic notion of female equality. Radical Muslim fundamentalists have directed their ire not just at "The Vagina Monologues" but also at beauty pageants. And in many countries, even modest steps toward women's emancipation have been met by violence from fundamentalists. Nor does D'Souza say much about the hostility not only toward secularism but also toward other religions that is prevalent even in the mainstream of many conservative Muslim societies such as Saudi Arabia. At the opposite extreme from social conservatives who urge an alliance with traditionalist Islam are right-wing polemicists (such as writer Robert Spencer, author of several books, including "Islam Unveiled") who portray Islam itself as a violent, terrorist-breeding ideology. "There is probably no better way to repel traditional Muslims, and push them into the radical camp, than to attack their religion," D'Souza writes. Yet he shares some of the anti-Islamic polemicists' assumptions: for instance, that Islam is inherently incompatible with secularism and irrevocably wedded to a literal, fundamentalist reading of the Quran. Only, for D'Souza, these are not vices but virtues. It is true that, in the age of militant Islamic terrorism, it is not very helpful to tell millions of peaceful Muslims that their religion is inherently violent, evil and oppressive. It is equally unhelpful of D'Souza to deny the obvious: The best hope for peaceful coexistence is for the Islamic world to embrace modernization and individual liberty, not for the West to turn its back on those values. ---------- Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 8, 2007 -> 01:41 PM) What would it take to really fix politics today and get away from this stuff? By the way, that's a serious question. Fire them all? Start over? Repeat every 4-6 years? Shorten terms? Impose term limits? Get away from scare tactics? Have smarter voters that can see through bulls***? It's hard because I don't think it's just the politicians that are the problem. If it was, they would just get voted out. Instead, they find people to buy their bulls*** hook line and sinker. I think we've also (both sides) gotten away from actual issues and have plummeted into politics of scare tactics. Either we're told "The terrorists are gonna get us" or that "Our freedoms are being taken away." Of course, the people that could actually reform politics are either unelectable (see Dennis Kucinich) or don't want to get caught up in all that crap.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 7, 2007 -> 11:14 PM) So are you honestly telling me the next Democratic President will not have his backers talking about how bad the Bush administration was? Not a chance. They'll throw that out there every chance they get. Oh, they'll do it. But that doesn't make it right.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 8, 2007 -> 10:59 AM) Bridge to Terrabithia was god awful. It was nothing like the previews. I know, I read the book, and I was like, what the freak, that's not a good preview for what actually happens.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jul 6, 2007 -> 12:24 PM) Honestly, for all the whining liberals do about the Bush administration - at least its a current administration. The amount of time Bill Clinton's presidency still comes up around here, you'd think he'd still be schtupping Monica in the Oval Office right now. The best justification for current bad behavior is past bad behavior by someone else. We're not accountable to be good, only not worse than what our predecessors were. . .

The "I'd Rather Be Anywhere Than Here" Shuffle Gin and Juice--The Gourds (ah, college) The Letter--Natalie Merchant It's a Disaster--OK Go Father Lucifer--Tori Amos Fat Bottomed Girls--Queen Get to Me--Train Minnesoter--The Dandy Warhols (now we're talking!) Letter to a John--Ani DiFranco Damn I wish I was your lover--Sophie B Hawkins Come on Eileen--Dexy's Midnight. . . "Dammit I'm still here" bonus track: You Made a Man Out of Me--Otis Redding

I find myself oddly and horribly addicted to Hollyoaks on the BBCAmerica. Yikes.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Jul 5, 2007 -> 07:34 PM) Independent film channel is a new favorite of mine after viewing several interesting movies the last several days. Among them are two standouts -- "Once Were Warriors" and "The Magdelan Sisters" (Nora Jane Noone ). I don't know if anyone has heard of either, but if you're in Blockbuster or Hollywood Video and happen to see these titles, they're worth the money. I saw The Magdalene Sisters for a class I took in Scotland (it had just been released). Really disturbing--there was a non-traditional student from Ireland in the class who talked about those places. They don't seem like something from this century. But I agree, a good movie with very solid acting.