Soxy

Ebony and Ivory by Macca and Stevie Wonder (I think)

Update!

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 11:35 AM) Cardinals beat the Brew Crew in 7 games. Yeppers.

So, the Alabama quarter has Helen Keller on it, with her name written in teeny tiny braille, which is a nice thought. But it raises the question: how do they do fine print in braille? Seriously.

Gregory and Minors, enough. Since you've been warned by LCR this is locked.

Looks like 7 years was a bit generous on my part. . .

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 02:10 PM) Never said that it was... and I disagree with the slime thrown your way. Working in academia is tough. My boss (and I'm sure yours as well) have very difficult jobs. My comment was mostly in reference to evil's post not yours. But congrats on, presumably finishing the dissertation.

National guard and governor on the way.

Linkage Huge massive flooding around my area. A lot of bridges are closed, some of them are even flooded over. Also, it has been said that the rivers (there are two that intersect in the area) haven't even crested yet. There's also rumors of more rain for the area later. So, please, cross your fingers that we won't get anymore rain. Also, please send some warm fuzzy thoughts to all the families and businesses that have been evacuated.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 01:44 PM) FWIW, I was recently denied a competitive NIH postdoctoral fellowship (grant)... and the research had nothing to do with earth and atmospheric sciences. And, FWIW, my work has nothing to do with the earth/atmospheric sciences either; nonetheless it's a hard field filled with dedicated professionals who work their ass off in the pursuit of knowledge and I hate to see them slimed without hard facts supporting an opinion. But I guess, that's why I'm a good scientist.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 10:26 PM) Soxy, are you, or a close relative, a scientist? My statement was not intended to personally insult you, or to insinuate that ALL scientists will lie, just as all politicians don't lie (if you look hard, you may find a few who don't, they ARE out there, somewhere). But why this manufactured outrage over that statement? Global warming, second ice age, then global warming, then the next ice age, then global warming, whatever the current funding will support, they (in general) will do. In regards to global warming, once a particular notion becomes conventional wisdom, evidence and stories confirming that conventional wisdom are easily accepted and published—and reported in the media. Thosestudies that contradict the prevailing views have a much harder time getting a hearing. With the loud voice and center stage that global warming gets, studies that would contradict that would be met with extreme scepticism and dismissed as bad science. http://www.sitewave.net/PPROJECT/ That links to a petition signed by over 17,000 scientists that disagreed with Kyoto and some of the global warming alarmists. When Kyoto was turned down (by Clinton), all you heard about was the concensus in the scientific community about global warming. This doesn't look like concensus. Oh, here is a review of Gore's flick, although if may be a bit biased. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2.../4/173940.shtml The outrage is because I know how hard grants are to get (I'm in the process of applying for a competetive NSF pre-doc grant, and in renewing, with my mentor, an equally competitive NIH grant). And I assure my outrage is genuine, not manufactured.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 09:42 PM) Well, to a minimal extent he has a point: scientists have lied about their results, historically. I'd direct you to the Korean Stem Cell Scientist, for one. But, I share your disgust. I'm just pointing out that there ARE scientists who lie. And there are safeguards in the funding system to catch liars. It's like the old adage: One replication is better than ten publications.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 06:17 PM) I cannot agree with that statement more. And if people think a scientist won't lie to protect his grant, they have their heads up their asses. They are as bad as politicians and earmarks. maybe worse. Wow, I don't think I've ever been this offended at a Soxtalk post. Congratulations, your inane comment and complete ignorance of the grant reviewal and application process wins you a big prize.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 03:35 PM) That HAS to be the first time anyone has ever uttered that phrase! Helllllooooooo, they have Corn Fest, I would think that you, of all people, would appreciate CORN FEST!

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 03:42 PM) Clearly, these scientists are biased. Everyone knows scientists are a bunch of pinko liberal commies anyway.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 03:35 PM) Isn't the LAT owned by the Tribco? Yes.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 03:04 PM) I really wish more people would adopt his philosophy: I earned my money, I'm going to make my children and grandchildren earn it too! I think he's not donating like 7 billion dollars.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 05:24 PM) But if the state has the death penalty, then they should be able to give it whatever preference they want. They can make it for only extreme cases, or they can make it for every case. *Draws up proposal for death penalty for people who pass on the shoulder and who run red lights*

*coughcough*

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 05:45 PM) I will take a stab at it. There is also a commandment that says Eye for an Eye which I take to mean that if you kill an knowingly innocent person then your life has to forfeited. It's not one of the Big Ten, but yes, it is a command inasmuch as the other commandments (like killing unwed non-virgins, only having slaves from adjacent countries, etc). It's merely a list in one of the books of the Law (Exodus) for a code of behavior. You'll see that not far from that exact phrase (which, yes, does include a life for a life) will be how to repay a slave should you knock a tooth out. Essentially, this is merely one in a long list of provisions about how a good Jew should live his/her life. Biblically, one could look at these laws as part of the Abrahamic Covenant (it's been about 6 years since I took Old Testment stuff, so bear with me). Basically, the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, stuff was one of 500 plus (not sure how many) provisions in the Abrahamic covanent. So, if a Jew would like to claim that the law of "retributive justice" (which is heavily advocated in the pentateuch) then, fine I'll buy it because to Jews, those first five books are the "bread" (or manna) of the Jewish faith. Christians, however, do not hold these laws sacred. Jesus is considered, by Christians, to be the theological fulfillment of the initial covenant God made with the Jews. In the Gospel of St. John, Jesus replaces the Jewish Law with himself as the central tenent (manna, bread) of faith. He is, accordign to Christians, the Bread of Life, not the law. Other instances of Jesus being against this concept of retributive Justice can be seen even in the most central parts of Christian faith, namely the Lord's prayer (which makes forgiveness of a sinner conditional upon the sinner forgiving those who sinned him/her). Jesus also goes so far as to say that if you have a grudge against your brother, you must first settle that grievance before even being allowed at the alter. Essentially, what I'm arguing here, is that the Old Testament adage of "eye for an eye" is, at least according to the Christian faith, no longer a rationale for behavior. Instead, christians must love the Lord God and their neighbors as themselves. Essentially, if you do not forgive those who have sinned against you, you aren't just forfeiting your life, but your relationship with the Creator. Also, if you can, I'd like you to list three mainline churches that support the death penalty. QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 06:55 PM) Like LCR pointed out, you are talking out of your ass. "Eye for an eye" is Biblically from Exodus (also Leviticus), and non-Biblically reflected in the code of Hammurabi. You are apparently also unaware of what the Nazz had to say about Old Testament retributive justice, according to the Gospel of Matthew: You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also . . . You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. Ah, well, I understand that the soft and fuzzy lovey-dovey Jesus is hard for the Kill 'em All Cult to abide sometimes. Dammit, you beat me to it. However, I would like to just add that the whole Turn the Other Cheek stuff, isn't about pacifism and nonviolence only, one theologian (my bff, Walter Wink) suggests that it was Jesus being all, subversive and trying to upend the classist system he lived in. And I object to teh soft and fuzzy lovey-dovey Jesus. His rules are freaking hard.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2006 -> 12:50 PM) For history buffs, it is interesting to see the group of guys that has been portrayed as the Robber Barons of our generation start to mimic them even more, with many of them giving away huge amounts of wealth as they age, and even becoming socially consious while doing so. I wonder in 100 years if we will see as many places named after Gates and Buffett as we do after Carnangie today? I think, at least gauging from what I know about the Gate's charity, a lot of the money will go overseas (like the article said) for immunizations and basic health and life issues. I recently saw an interview with the Gates' and they are also big crusaders for reform in the US educational system, so we may see a lot of poor inner city and rural schools named after them.

That's really refreshing.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 25, 2006 -> 04:34 PM) Yeah, and they get scored on more than a bimbo in a bar after a couple of roofies. :headshake :puke

Elect first woman presiding bishop (in US and Anglican Communion) I think she's a good choice for the Episcopal church, although I'm not sure how this will be seen by the larger Anglican Communion. Seems very grounded (and intellectual, with a PhD in marine biology). General Convention also refuses the proposed halt to electing gay bishops. Overall, very interesting convention (that isn't over yet). It will be very interesting to see how this all pans out--I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Episcopal church kicked out of the Anglican communion in the next 7 years, followed closely by the Canadian Anglican church (I think NZ may also follow).

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 20, 2006 -> 09:24 PM) Kudos, Balta, and a fine choice by the Soxtalk Men of the Square Table. On behalf of myself and Queen: ah-hem. Seriously, congrats Balta.