EvilMonkey

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 4, 2005 -> 04:34 AM) Actually they did "My Girl (Gone, Gone, Gone)," and "Watcha Gonna Do When I'm Gone," so take your pick. For my monet, they were always a poor man's Big Star/Badfinger hybrid. As for current Canadian groups, Big Sugar is the one I really get into. Yeah, the first one. 'Gone, gone, gone'. Kinda like Sosa, eh?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 4, 2005 -> 03:52 AM) Now Chilliwack on the other hand... they sucked. Chilliwack? Did they sing 'She Gone' or something like that? That one was a good song. Heard it on XM tonight on my way home. I couldn't tell you anything else they did, though.

The problem here is that while the Canadian Govt. is probably urging its citizens to 'Buy Canadian', they them selves did not. Kind of a 'do as I say, not as I do' thing. I encounter this in my business, where the local government has many 'Buy in Bloomingdale' ads, promotions, etc., but I lost out on a $4000 print job to a company in Wisconsin, by $79. For a $79 savings, they sent work, and money OUT of Illinois, and out of Bloomingdale, and into Wisconsin. So much for supporting local businesses. That is what the one guy was trying to say. They COULD have purchased them from a local company, but to save a little scratch, they sent the job to China. The story didn't say what the cost savings was, but if it was only 5% or 10%, they purchasing guy should re-evaluate his purchase criteria.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 2, 2005 -> 05:03 AM) http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_...5p-236111c.html This man is an absolute disgrace to higher education. He's a nutcase who has absolutely no place teaching anything to anybody's kid and the fact a public university has this assclown on its tenured payroll makes me sick. This is hate speech, cut and dried, and that this man still has a job is more proof that hate speech is ok........just so long as it's the right kind. Oh, c'mon Nuke. According to his wife, he just "... tells the truth in a straightforward way, that is perceived as harsh,". How can that be hate speech?

I don't know when they ever opened it, but when I drove by at 6:45PM, it was still blocked off. Scary stuff.

I agree with all. Props to Brooks, very creative.

Mags isn't going to hit 30+ homeruns playing half his games in Detroit.

Just say 'NO' to Urbina. Not worth it, especially for the money. Last year he was almost as wild as Koch. Urbina alone cost me first in my fantasy league with all his walks and blown saves.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 26, 2005 -> 03:11 AM) So why didn't Rush, Hannity, Fox News, the WSJ, and the rest of the conservative press not report it?? How do you know that they didn't? I thought you didn't listen to them? I have on occasion, but don't make a habit out of it, so I can't say that they did or didn't.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 25, 2005 -> 11:20 PM) In your post was what they are being charged with They are not being charged with disrupting the election. You are right, they are not being charged with trying to disrupt an election. But tell me, what do you think they were doing? Just working off some youthful energy that was merely misdirected? Bulls***. Since they obviously targeted Republicans, why can't that be a hate crime? Yeah, that is a stretch, but so was windodj trying to tie this into Iraq. These guys vandalized vans, being used by Republicans, to help people get to the polls. They knew that, and targeted those vans with the idea of disrupting the plans of the Republicans. They got caught. Tell me this: if the situation was Republicans (or the kids of Republicans) slashing the tires of vans used by ANY Democratic get-out-the-vote group, say in Ohio, would it have taken this long to get printed in a paper, or would the headline the next day read something like 'Neocons try to influence the vote'? Now I am not claiming a conspiracy here, just pointing out that Democrats f***ED UP HERE. Just accept that and move on.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 25, 2005 -> 09:18 PM) If it was November 3rd, there would have been a police report taken down and then filed away no matter if the individuals were Dems or GOPers. If it was November 3rd, there would have been no election for them to try and disrupt.

QUOTE(winodj @ Jan 25, 2005 -> 02:35 PM) The downside is that it would make gerrymandering possible in nearly every state. I'm not really all for the idea either. Actually, by decreasing the size of the districts, there shoudl be LESS gerrymandering. if you only have ot have a district comprised of 200,000 people instead of 600,000, it would be easier to accomplish without having one district stretch down one alley, behind the grocery store and around a different district, just to ensure the racial makeup of a district. I am not saying it wouldn't still happen, just is should happen alot less.

While I dislike the law REQUIRING us to wear seatbelts, I got used to wearing mine early on when I owned a Jeep CJ-5. I took the doors off in spring, and kept them off until it snowed. Driving with no doors, better wear seat belts.

HEY! FOCUS! Stay on topic here. This is not about Bush, this is not about making some Muslims eat pork, nor about alleged election fraud in Ohio. If there was enough to procecute someone in Ohio, don't you think that Mr. Soros, with all his gazillions, would make it his personal mission to have that person or persons busted? ESPECIALLY after having just wasted $20+million trying to defeat Georgie? Give it up. The party that screams 'foul' the loudest once again got caught doing what they blame eveyone else for. Being 'flip' my ass! You are as big a flaming liberal (no pun intended) as anyone on here, and I almost predicted your response to the letter. I actually thought someone else would have responded first, though. 'Very solid allegations ' are just that. ALLEGATIONS. These guys were busted, on film, and with witnesses. I wasn't looking for you, or anyone, to get 'outraged' at the guys slashing tires. I just seem to remember around election time it seemed like every other post was about how the Republicans were trying 'steal the election', or disenfranchise minorities, or have political insiders rig voting machines, etc. Well, here is a case of the other side doing just what they scream so loudly about. Only they were stupid enough to get caught. You want to argue Alberto's views on 'torture', go to a different post.

I did like the idea where we could have the people stay in their home state and video conference to Washington. It would cut down on alot of expenses, dual offices and residences, etc.

QUOTE(winodj @ Jan 25, 2005 -> 04:55 AM) Torture: OK. Perjury: OK. Vote Tampering: OK. Tire Slashing: Jail. Torture, perjury? Who said anything about those? Vote tampering, yeah, this could get there, albit it would be a stretch to do that. Quit trying to change the subject. Idiots thought they would get away with something, and got caught. And it just so happens that they either belong, or have parents who belong, to the party that was screaming the loudest about having 'every vote count' and all that. Sure, let's just stop people from even GETTING to the voting booths by messing up their transportation. (can you say disenfranchised Republican voters?) They slashed the tires on 25 cars. That wasn't just an impulse, they had to have thought about that one for a bit. Is this on the same level as torture? No, and I never said or impied that it was. You were the one making that astronomical leap because you don't really have anything smart to say about the situation. Defend, deflect and deny.

I found this while surfing different blogs, and it sounded interesting. Figured I would throw it out here to be dissected by one and all. http://www.nationalsummary.com/politics__c...s_too_small.htm Is Congress Too Small? By John D. Turner “The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative” – U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 2 This may sound like a silly question. Many may think that Congress is too large. We have to pay for these useless parasites that seem to have more accountability to special interests than they do to us. But perhaps that’s part of the problem. Perhaps part of the reason why the special interests are so powerful and we as individuals are so weak is because each Representative represents so many people that our voices are diluted and the effects of special interest money are magnified. Originally, the Constitution provided for one Congressional Representative for every 30,000 people in a state. But you say the country was much smaller then. If we did that today, we would have thousands of representatives! 9666 of them to be exact; give or take a hundred or so based on the last census. With an average of say, 50 staffers per congresscritter, that would mean an additional 483,333 federal workers. We would need a good sized high-rise office building just to house the House, and could employ everyone in Washington D.C. just to service them! Of course, you wouldn’t need 50 staffers per congressperson, since they would be representing only 30,000 people each instead of the current 666,666 based on a current population of 290 million that they currently serve. Hmmm. I wonder if there is anything significant about that number. One congressperson to represent 667,000 people (we’ll round it up). Perhaps that’s one reason why my congressperson could seem to care less what I think. As a percentage of his total voter base, I am insignificant! The founder’s believed that in order for a Representative Democracy to work, those doing the representing had to be accountable to the people, and understand their needs. It is hard for that to occur when the number of people they represent becomes too large. It won’t be long before every representative represents over a million people each. It is hard to imagine how this can reasonably occur. At some point, the people become less important than the special interests. That time occurred long ago the way the Congress is currently constructed. The solution isn’t campaign finance reform; the solution is Congressional size reform. The constitution was adopted in 1787, and provided for a census to be taken in 1790 and every 10 years thereafter to apportion Congress. The population of the United States in the 1790 census was 3,894,000. Based on the current number of citizens per representative, the House would consist of just 13 members, one for every state (since no state can have less than one), and the House would be half the size of the Senate! Perhaps 9666 congresscritters, growing at a rate of several hundred every 10 years is a bit extreme. However a constant 435 is demonstrably too few. If we were to readjust the size of Congress to one representative per 100,000 population, then we would end up with around 2900 representatives in Congress. This is still a large number, but more manageable. This would give us representation on roughly the same basis as we had back in 1870 (except that we had fewer representatives back then as we had fewer states). Lets call it 3500, to pick a nice number, and allow for population growth for awhile without readjusting congressional size for several decades. Increasing the size of Congress would have multiple benefits. First, whereas the deep pockets of special interests might be able to buy the votes of 435 representatives, purchasing 3500 (or a majority thereof) would strain even George Soros. Second, with a greater number of seats, and the size of each district correspondingly decreased, we could reasonably expect greater minority participation in Congress without the torturous gerrymandering that currently occurs to “guarantee” minority victories. Districts could be drawn that actually make real-world instead of political sense. Finally, the reduction in the number of people represented by each Congressperson (and correspondingly, the physical size of their district), would mean that not only would you have a better chance of getting your representative on the line when you need them, but they would have an easier time understanding and meeting the needs of the areas they represent. There is nothing magical about the number 435. Of course, we would need to build a new structure to put them in, as they clearly wouldn’t fit into the chambers they currently occupy. But what is more important; the building or the job? We could also take this opportunity to construct government quarters for them in Washington DC, eliminating the need for them to maintain two households, one in their home district, and one in DC. This need for two residences is frequently mentioned as a reason why they require such large salaries. As their retirement check is based on their salary, we are in effect also paying them extra retirement pay based on their need to maintain two households, even though when they retire they only require one. Or perhaps they could simply maintain offices in their own district, and meet virtually using video conferencing or other collaborative means. This is the 21st century after all; there is no longer any need to get together physically to conduct business. This would also provide a decentralization of government that would make it difficult for a terrorist group or any other entity to eliminate a large portion of our government in one fell swoop. It would also make it more difficult for special interest groups as well, since all the congresscritters would no longer be conveniently located in a single place. And your representative would remain at home, where he or she belongs, taking care of the needs of their district, instead of being sucked into the never-never land that exists inside the beltway in Washington DC. When the government wanted to get together for ceremonial reasons, the State of the Union speech, for example, they could just rent a large domed stadium somewhere in the U.S., such as the Alamodome here in San Antonio, or some other venue that holds several thousand persons. It could change each time, like the Superbowl. Perhaps we could even return Washington DC to the states that donated the land in the first place, and then the residents could regain the right to vote without the ridiculous notion that they should be a separate state. There would be costs to be sure. However I believe the benefits would outweigh the costs over time. The various convoluted “reforms” we have put into place are not doing the job. As fast as Congress passes a new “reform” (which is never very fast), the smart guys in each party figure out ways around the new rules. What is needed is a dilution of power, and more transparency, not more rules that everyone can hide behind. And therein lies the rub. Enacting these changes would require action by Congress. And what Congressman is going to voluntarily reduce their power and importance? One of 435 is much more important than one of 3500. They would be reduced from being minor deities, to demigod status; perhaps even less. The biggest change might be in the Electoral College, which would expand from 535 votes to 3600 votes. Proportionally, nothing would change. California would get 428 electoral votes compared with the current 55, but the ratio of votes to total votes remains the same. However, with each district being smaller, and representing fewer voters, more power might appear to shift to high population areas, since these districts will typically no longer have any rural component, and there will be a lot of them. In reality, this shift in power is already happening. It’s just hidden from public view. In districts where the preponderance of the population is urban, the rural component gets short shrift. Expanding the number of representatives would at least get rural voters some representation in Congress where now they have little. It might also, in conjunction with these changes, be a good idea to move away from the “winner take all” method most states use to count votes in the Electoral College to a “one elector one vote” method. This would make third party candidacies more viable. Of course, the way electoral votes are counted by state is set up by each state, not by the federal government, so either the process would have to be federalized, or all the states would have to be convinced to change their method. Since this would not favor the two major political parties, and would tend to dilute the power of the larger states (voting in a bloc gives them a lot of clout), it isn’t likely to occur either, no matter how “fair” it might appear. In all, expanding the size of Congress makes sense. It would benefit the people of the United States in terms of increased representation and dilution of special interests. Contriwise, it would be detrimental to the special interest groups and Congresscritters in general, in terms of dilution of power and influence. Don’t expect this to become a burning issue in Foggy Bottom any time soon.

5 charged in election-day tire slashings Sons of prominent Milwaukee politicians among those facing felonies By DERRICK NUNNALLY [email protected] Posted: Jan. 24, 2005 Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann announced this morning that five of the seven men arrested in the election-day slashing of Republican vehicles’ tires - including the sons of two prominent Milwaukee Democratic politicians - have been charged with felonies and will appear in court this afternoon. The five who were charged with felony criminal damage to property for slashing 40 tires on 25 vehicles are: * Michael Pratt, 32, of the 400 block of N. 16th St., Milwaukee. Pratt is the son of former acting mayor Marvin Pratt. * Sowande A. Omokunde, 25, of the 4000 block of N. 19th Place, Milwaukee. Omokunde is the son of U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore. * Lewis G. Caldwell, 28, of the 2900 block of N. Summit Ave., Milwaukee. * Lavelle Mohammad, 35, of the 4700 block of W. Lloyd St., Milwaukee. * Justin Howell, 20, of the 2400 block of N. Olive St., Racine. The vans had been rented by the state Republican Party to transport voters to the polls on election day Nov. 2. If convicted, each of the five faces up to a $10,00 fine and up to 3 1/2 years in prison. The crime met the $2,500 damage threshold as a felony because the slashed tires and towing costs totaled more than $5,300, according to the criminal complaint filed today. It says the men were caught after a security guard in the Republican Party headquarters parking lot saw the vandalism and wrote down the license-plate numbers of a fleeing car. McCann said the state’s relatively clean political history makes such election-day sabotage without precedent in his memory. “This isn’t what goes on all the time in Wisconsin,” he said, citing his recollection of contentious elections from the late 1960s. “... There might be signs town down in those campaigns, but never anything like this.” He said the investigation had taken nearly 12 weeks because witnesses had dispersed after the election to states including Georgia, Virginia, Maryland and New York, and FBI investigators were sent to conduct the interviews. “Lying to an FBI agent is a federal offense,” McCann explained. He said the FBI reports only got back to his office Jan. 14 because the slashings, though locally controversial, probably weren’t the highest priority for federal investigators more concerned with terrorism threats. “You’ve got to understand how this looks elsewhere,” McCann said. “It’s a tire-slashing case. ... I never got a call from (Attorney General John) Ashcroft about the case." Just imagine that this was a group of 'young Republicans' that slashed the tires of some vans that Operation Push had hired to get people to voting places, or any such similar group. I bet it would have taken less than 12 weeks to get press.

I was in a skybox watching that! That was before I owned by business, and the one I had worked for got the use of it from their lawyer buddies. I remember that the seats were cramped, and I wasn't too impressed, except the view was pretty good. And then when Robin went to the mound, I almost fell out of the box not believing what I was seeing. One one hand, I just knew Robin was gonna get whupped. But on the other, I always thought Ryan was kind of a jackass, and was hoping the youngster would put a dent in his mystique. Alas, that was not to be.

PLus, most American airports can't handle the Airbus' wingspan. Who's going to pay for the upgrades to make the planes fit? Not the US airlines.

My first thought is that the woman should be charged with child cruelty for trying to bring kids into the world at her advanced age. She already killed one of them when her womb couldn't support it, and they had to remove the second one just to save it. She was being selfish, and it cost a life. This being her third attempt, you think she wold have learned something after the first 2.

QUOTE(Yossarian @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 02:14 PM) To say that the Beltran contract definitely proves the benevolence of JR is pure nonesense. In no way, shape, or form was I trying to say or impy that, but to jab at the few people on here that seem to think JR is the only owner who pulls things like that. The contract in itself suprises me, since Borasss seems to really hate having his clients sign deals with deferred money. I seem to recall it not being good enough for mags. Well, Mags, you are no Beltran.

I was wondering how come all the people on here, who constantly b**** and moan about the Sox putting deferred money into contracts (or at least trying to), haven't mentioned anything about Beltran having 28% of his total contract deferred? In the last 4 years of his contract, $8.5 million of the $18.5 he will be getting is deferred, for each of those years. Gee, sounds like a Reinsdorf contract, eh? I guess using dereffer money is an acceptable baseball practice, as long as it isn't the White Sox doing it. I hate Borassssss.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Jan 11, 2005 -> 06:42 PM) Me no likey wine.....me like beer!!!! I agree!!!!!

QUOTE(Iwritecode @ Jan 11, 2005 -> 05:51 PM) Please. I've had long hair since I was a junior in high school. Right now it goes just past the middle of my back. It's always clean and kept back in a neat ponytail. Looking at me from the front you wouldn't even know I have long hair. No job I've ever worked at (retail or professional) has ever had a problem with it... I own a printshop, and employ several people. While long hair itself doesn't preclude me from hiring anyone, general appearance does. I did hire a guy who had hair down to the middle of his back. He started out as bindry help and moved his way up. When I was in need of a salesperson, he asked for a chance. I wasn't sure how his hair would go over, but I gave it a shot, since he knew his stuff. He did OK for about 3 years. Then one day, he turns 30, cuts his hair off (real short, not bald!), and within 4 months, his sales almost doubled. Even though he wore his hair back and kept it neat and clean, he just looked more 'professional' with shorter hair. While I may not have had a problem with it, apparently alot of print buyers did.