Soxy

Thanks guys much appreciated. Last time I took the tollways it took me 3.5 hours to get to Plainfield from the IL border. Insanity.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Mar 13, 2006 -> 08:38 PM) im not calling anyone out by any means. its just an interesting topic, and i cant help but put a bit of a republican slant on everything i say. Saying Saddam is a murderous bastard really isn't that republican--it's sort of a bi-partisan declaration. . .

Oswego (near Plainfield, Aurora, Naperville, Joliet)

Hi guys, I'll be driving into town on Tuesday from NY. The problem is that the traffic around the 290/94/something is horrible. I was wondering if you guys knew of any secret routes that would be faster. I was looking at taking 30 in from Indiana (which would drop me not far from my house), but would really appreciate any help about the best route. Muchas gracias in advance.

Link Corruption killed Starkesia Reed Fear kept Washington officials from standing up to the NRA By Ronald S. Safer Published March 10, 2006 We are focused these days, and rightly so, on public officials whose self-serving acts of corruption victimize American citizens. All well and good--provided we don't lose sight of an equally insidious, equally intractable, equally endemic form of corruption: the corruption that killed Starkesia Reed, a 14-year-old freshman honor student at Chicago's Harper High School. You've read about Starkesia. She was struck down by a stray bullet from a high-powered assault weapon last Friday morning as she stood in the sanctity of her own home. I don't absolve the killer who fired the weapon. I think I earned my anti-street-crime bona fides as a federal prosecutor. But the killer had a big assist from Congress and our president. In 2004, those so-called public servants let lapse the federal law that banned assault weapons like the one that evidently killed Starkesia. Tuesday's Tribune reported that law enforcement sources have concluded that the shooter sprayed 29 rounds, hitting seven other houses on the stretch of South Honore Street where Starkesia lived. It is now lawful for companies to manufacture, sell and distribute these weapons. And it is lawful for a person to buy an assault weapon if he or she is not a felon. Why did the president and Congress allow these weapons to again fill our streets? Not because the law banning assault weapons was unpopular; poll after poll shows that the public favors gun control, particularly a ban on assault weapons. Not because lawmakers and the president wanted to support law enforcement; most police unions and law enforcement organizations that spoke to the issue in 2004 favored renewing the ban. That made sense. Officers and agents are tired of being outgunned by criminals. Not to protect the rights of hunters. I know of no deer or duck hunters who use assault rifles. Not to allow people to protect their homes. It is the rare homeowner who goes to bed with an Uzi under his pillow. And, most chilling, not because they didn't know that Starkesia Reed would have her precious life taken by one such weapon. They knew. They did not know her lyrical name and they did not know the date: March 3, 2006. But they knew that legions of innocent children have been cut down in the crossfire of drive-by shootings. Those drive-bys are precisely what these semi-automatic weapons--many of them convertible to automatic--are designed to execute. They're efficient, capable of quickly spraying a broad area with lethal bullets. Anyone in that area--an intended victim or a bystander like Starkesia--risks extermination. Our elected officials in Washington, D.C., knew. They had to know. And they let it happen. Why? Corruption. They weren't bribed by a gang. This corruption is more subtle. They were corrupted by fear. The National Rifle Association opposed the ban on assault weapons--just as it indiscriminately opposes any legislation to ban ammunition such as armor-piercing bullets that are designed to penetrate the supposedly bulletproof vests of law enforcement officers. What do NRA leaders have that corrupts these politicians? Votes? Absolutely not. Their members are decidedly in the minority on the assault weapon issue. They do, though, have money. Cold cash. And organization. They can withdraw the grease that lubricates the re-election machine of members of Congress. They can support a congressman's opponent with impressive resources. They are disciplined, single-issue-oriented and relentless in their opposition to anyone who has the audacity to suggest any weapon or ammunition controls be implemented. I understand the politicians' concern. When I wrote an op-ed piece before the assault weapons ban lapsed, urging Congress to renew it, I received approximately 1,000 e-mails from NRA members. One was careless enough to attach the e-mail from an NRA leader who had forwarded my e-mail address to the organization's members and urged them to let me know how "alone" I was in my viewpoint. The membership dutifully responded. Some of these e-mails were thoughtful and interesting. Some were threatening and criminal. (I concluded that the people who wrote the latter messages had skipped over the 1st Amendment to the Constitution in their haste to distort the 2nd. But I suspect they could name every member of the Simpson family.) But remember, I am a harmless and powerless voice. I can only imagine the resources the NRA can train on those with the power to protect children like Starkesia against these weapons of slaughter. Until we change our political system so that sound ideas rather than 30-second ads bought by private contributions decide our elections, we will have to rely on the courage of our elected officials to keep our children safe. I suppose even a brave lawmaker could ask, "What good would it do for me to act on this issue if it results in my being voted out of office and losing power?" My response would be: "What good is being in office if it gives you the power to save the life of Starkesia Reed and all those who will tragically follow, yet you choose not to exercise it?" That failure to act ratifies the corruption. The corruption that cost Starkesia Reed her young life.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 12:42 PM) I'd love to see Mandisa win, but I just don't see it happening. She has by far the most talent, but keeping in mind who is contributing the majority of the votes here, I just don't see it happening. I'm also glad to hear that I am the only one who can't stand the whole act that Kellie puts on. It is a complete ripoff of Carrie last year. I know Bama Rex is a fan of Kellie, but no one I know in real life enjoys her. I can't believe she's still around after the lies about oh, I've never sung in public before, I've only ever sung in my shower. When she competed in beauty pagents and other talent competitions. She just adds to the golly-gee I'm a nice but stupid southerner stereotype.

I was also sad to see Gideon go, he totally won me over two weeks ago with the A change is gonna come song. I can't believe Kevin is still around. I don't hate Bucky, I think he'd be a good country artist, I like his voice for country, but I don't see him around much longer. Ace should go soon too, his last two performances have been physically painful, but he's beautiful so that will buy some time. I like Taylor, although I feel a little guilty that maybe I like him for the Timmy (Southpark) factor. I'm bored with Chris, he's super talented but this nouveau pop-rock stuff isn't really my style. Maybe he'll do better under the theme weeks, but I could also see that being his downfall. I love Elliot's voice and he's got the perfect face for radio, but I don't think he'll win. I would like Melissa a lot better if she dressed better (maybe her pitch problems on Tuesday were because she couldn't breathe in that jacket?), I don't think the Stevie Wonder songs next week will be a good genre for her either. I think Lisa is dull and a disappointment. And Kellie Pickler is as fake as Melissa's tan, and far less talented than Melissa or any of the remaining girls. I'd like Mandisa to be the last lady standing because I really enjoy her voice and would like to hear her on the radio. Ideally, I'd like the top 4 to look something like this: Katherine, Mandisa, Taylor, Elliot But it will probably go more like this: Kellie, Katherine/Mandisa, Chris, Ace/Elliot I'd like Mandisa to win it all because I bet her album would be amazing and fun.

I needed nothing to get into Canada this past November, but it was more difficult to cross back into the States and he asked for id.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 01:52 PM) bader-ginsburg is the worst. believes prostitution and drugs should be legalized and that it is allowed by the constitution. ultra-liberal, always know where shes going to vote. plus, she is a frickin' eyesore. that said, we need all sides of a supreme court issue to be examined, so we do need bader-ginsburgs on the court too. Your cogent reasons have convinced me! The sentence after the bold I agree with, an all right or all left court would be bad for the nation.

My grandma had a massive stroke, is brain dead and against her wishes my uncle had her put on life support. I then got a ticket for allegedly running a stop sign. Worst 24 hours ever.

Linkage French Journal Says New Crustacean Found Tue Mar 7, 6:58 PM ET PARIS - Divers have discovered a new crustacean in the South Pacific that resembles a lobster and is covered with what looks like silky, blonde fur, French researchers said Tuesday. Scientists said the animal, which they named Kiwa hirsuta, was so distinct from other species that they created a new genus and new family for it. A team of American-led divers found the animal in waters 7,540 feet deep at a site 900 miles south of Easter Island last year, according to Michel Segonzac of the French Institute for Sea Exploration, or IFREMER. The new crustacean is described in the journal of the National Museum of Natural History in Paris. The animal is white and 5.9 inches long, about the size of a salad plate. In what Segonzac described as a "surprising characteristic," the animal's pincers are covered with sinuous, hair-like strands. The diving expedition was organized by Robert Vrijenhoek of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in California.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 11:14 PM) I don't know, i've never been offended by anything someone said here. but i'm kinda hard to offend. That sounds like a challenge. . .

I think Melissa and Kinnik are gone. Although my sleeper pick to go home is Lisa. Ideally, Kellie Golly-gee Pickler would go too. Girl is like fingers on a chalkboard to me. Edit: Holy hell can Mandisa sing. She was awesome. So was Katherine.

That's wonderful!

Maybe two better questions are: 1.) Why is a college having a homecoming king and queen? 2.) Why is their homecoming in February?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 02:35 PM) But you know what? I think that's my entire point. I'll speak for myself, I know I've come out swinging a few times at least in appearance with my posts, when in "real life" I don't care. So, in appearance, as a poster I appear rude and disrespectful, when I really didn't mean it that way in the first place. I agree, the stuff I actually care about (with a few exceptions) I don't even read about on this board because I know my opinions won't be received respectfully and that I will not be so nice when I post in those threads. I really think that would make a much better policy: if this topic is so near and dear to your heart that you can't play nice with the others then you shouldn't play at all. And I'm not trying to use that fact that I have lost respect for some people or whatever as leverage against them, or to put them off. But the problem with the internet is that you only see what people say and have no real sense of who they are--I think this place fosters a really nice sense of community. But since this forum started (really since the last election) I feel less and less like I belong to this community, and less and less like I want to belong here. If this forum is as civilized as some of us can be about stuff we care about then, damn, we're pretty pathetic.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 01:28 PM) Don't forget Boat Trip! Oh! And Rent. Plus, if it was really a gay agenda Bette Midler would totally have an Oscar right now. And Bea Arthur.

I think debate is sort of a too nice word for what goes on a lot of the time here. Debate to me entails actually being receptive and listening to the other side. That doesn't really happen much around here. I think a lot of time instead of listening to the message behind someone's belief it's usually dismissed before any actual discussion can take place. I wouldn't say this whole forum has made me more liberal or more likely to vote straight ticket, really it's just left me with changed opinions about some posters who are just really rude and disrespectful.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 6, 2006 -> 12:38 AM) I saw the movie, and if it wasn't about 2 gay cowboys, it doesn't win Oscars. I'm not homophobic or anti gay or anything like that (in fact, gay marriage should be legal). But I hate the fact that movies win Oscars simply because of the overtones of the plot, and not the quality of the movie. Because all "gay" movies win Oscars? To Wong Foo, Pricilla Queen of the Desert, But I'm a cheerleader, the birdcage, In & Out, etc. . .

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 5, 2006 -> 08:54 PM) Again, I tie this situation to CPR treatment being denied because the man supposedly had the virus. Not because he was gay. Unless he only thought he had the virus because he was gay.

I was really impressed with SNL, and it made me really like Natalie Portman. My favorite was the Sasha Cohen joke in weekend update.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Mar 4, 2006 -> 03:26 PM) The judge in this case is a meathead. He used to be a public defender, what a shock. Any judge who thinks its a requirement in a rape trial to have the victim watch the attack should be taken off the bench. But because he is a public defender, he will get a great rating from the bar association come next election. He is doing some goofy things in the criminal court. This is just one of them. I agree. And as Queen pointed out, the victim was intoxicated, so legally, consent could not be given. I was absolutely shocked by this verdict--and it takes a whole hell of a lot to shock me.

Pretty unsurprising cast-offs. Bottom 3 girls: Heather, Kinnik, Brenna (Kinnik stays) Bottom 3 boys: Kevin, Sinatra kid, and Sway (Kevin stays) I think the real question still remains: when do we get to vote Paula off?

Good. Alleged rape victim won’t have to view tape Tribune staff reports Published March 1, 2006, 1:03 PM CST A Cook County judge today backed off from his threat to send a woman to jail if she refused to view a videotape of her alleged rape, CLTV reported. In court today, Judge Kerry Kennedy ruled the witness can continue her testimony without viewing the tape, CLTV reported. He also refused a defense request to dismiss the charges against the suburban man accused of sexually assaulting her. On Tuesday, Kennedy had said he would hold the woman in contempt of court if she would not view the tape when the trial resumed today, prompting a lawyer for the defense to request that the case be dismissed. The judge's action angered victims' rights advocates, and a group of lawyers worked overnight to prepare an argument to present to the judge this morning, according to Lyn Schollett, general counsel for the Springfield-based Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault. "The court cannot knowingly inflict this kind of distress on a victim," Schollett said. She said the group of attorneys argued in a legal pleading that making the woman watch the tape was an invasion of privacy under Illinois law and irrelevant to the case. The Naperville woman was 16 years old when she allegedly was assaulted and videotaped four years ago at a party in the Burr Ridge home of Adrian Missbrenner, 20. He was one of four men charged in connection with the incident, and his trial on charges of aggravated criminal sexual assault and child pornography began Tuesday in Cook County Circuit Court, Bridgeview. He faces 6 to 30 years in prison if convicted. George Acosta, the attorney representing the woman in a civil case against Missbrenner's family, said she has never viewed the video and has stated repeatedly that she did not want to. The woman has said she did not know Missbrenner before going to his home with a girlfriend in the early morning hours of Dec. 7, 2002. She has testified that she woke up in Missbrenner's house the next morning, naked from the waist down with vulgar words written on her legs with a marker. She said she went home and cried, and learned later that she had been videotaped. Accompanied by several friends, she went back to the Burr Ridge home and asked for the tape, but Missbrenner denied it existed, she said. Her parents then took her to a hospital, and police were called. Several days later, Cook County police obtained the videotape from a friend of Missbrenner's, who said Missbrenner had given it to him. Missbrenner's attorney, Patrick Campanelli, said Missbrenner was concerned the girl was going to claim that the sex was not consensual so he gave the tape to the friend to save, if needed, to support his claim. The videotape was viewed in the March 2005 trial of Christopher Robbins of Brookfield, who was acquitted of sex charges after arguing she consented to sex with him in an incident that wasn't videotaped. Robbins allegedly is seen on one segment of the tape, but not engaging in sex with the woman. Prosecutors allege that the videotape first shows another defendant, Burim Berezi of Brookfield, having sex with the woman, then it shows Missbrenner. They say the tape shows her unconscious as people spit on her and write derogatory words on her naked legs and abdomen. Berezi fled the country after being charged and remains at large. Missbrenner also fled but returned from Europe in May 2005. A jury convicted him of violating his bail bond, and he was sentenced to six months in jail, which has been served while he was being held without bail on the sex charges. The fourth defendant, Sonny Smith, 20, of Brookfield, who operated the camera, pleaded guilty to child pornography and was sentenced to the Illinois Department of Corrections boot camp.

Hope this doesn't make some people too angry I wouldn't want them to think I don't approve of President Bush in the sight of torture or anything. . . from notorious hothead Garrison Keiler. . . Link What to do when the emperor has no clothes Garrison Keillor, Tribune Media Services Published March 1, 2006 These are troubling times for all of us who love this country, as surely we all do, even the satirists. You may poke fun at your mother, but if she is belittled by others it burns your bacon. A blowhard French journalist writes a book about America that is full of arrogant stupidity, and you want to let the air out of him and mail him home flat. And then you read the paper and realize the country is led by a man who isn't paying attention, and you hope that somebody will poke him. Or put a sign on his desk that says, "Try much harder." Do we need to impeach him to bring some focus to this man's life? The Feb. 27 issue of The New Yorker carries an article by Jane Mayer about a loyal conservative Republican and U.S. Navy lawyer, Albert Mora, and his resistance to the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. From within the Pentagon bureaucracy, he did battle against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and John Yoo, who then was at the Justice Department, and shadowy figures taking orders from Vice President Dick "Gunner" Cheney, arguing America had ratified the Geneva Convention that forbids cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners, and so it has the force of law. They seemed to be arguing that President Bush has the right to order prisoners to be tortured. One such prisoner, Mohamed al-Qahtani, was held naked in isolation under bright lights for months, threatened by dogs, subjected to unbearable noise volumes and otherwise abused, so that he begged to be allowed to kill himself. When the Senate approved the Torture Convention in 1994, it defined torture as an act "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering." Is the law a law or is it a piece of toast? Wiretap surveillance of Americans without a warrant? Great. Go for it. How about turning over American ports to a country more closely tied to Sept. 11, 2001, than Saddam Hussein was? Fine by me. No problem. And what about the war in Iraq? Hey, you're doing a heck of a job. No need to tweak a thing. And your blue button-down shirt--it's you. But torture is something else. Most people agree with this, and in a democracy that puts the torturers in a delicate position. They must make sure to destroy their e-mails and have subordinates who will take the fall. Because it is impossible to keep torture secret. It goes against the American grain and it eats at the conscience of even the most disciplined, and in the end the truth will come out. It is coming out now. Our adventure in Iraq, at a cost of billions, has brought that country to the verge of civil war while earning us more enemies than ever before. And tax money earmarked for security is being dumped into pork-barrel projects anywhere somebody wants their own SWAT team. Detonation of a nuclear bomb within our borders--pick any big city--is a real possibility, as much so now as five years ago. Meanwhile, many Democrats have conceded the very subject of security and positioned themselves as Guardians of Our Forests and Benefactors of Waifs and Owls, neglecting the most basic job of government, which is to defend this country. The peaceful lagoon that is the White House is designed for the comfort of a vulnerable man. Perfectly understandable, but not what is needed now. The U.S. Constitution provides a simple, ultimate way to hold him to account for war crimes and the failure to attend to the country's defense. Impeach him and let the Senate hear the evidence.