bmags

hahaha alabama. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. but, i must say even after watching that disgrace last night, i still think Texas is better.

this is hilarious.

See, this is where a debate on Roger Ebert becomes stupid, I'm sorry everyone. What makes Roger Ebert a good critic isn't his damn star rating system. You have to READ his reviews. What makes him the best critic in his actual reviews, is he tells you everything about the movie, what is good about it and what is bad about it very specifically, and lets you decide if these are things that are important to you. If it's a dance movie, he doesn't grade it on the same scale as a mamet film, he'll say the dances are wonderful, or bad, but he'll let you know if it has transcended the genre for people like me, that wouldn't want to see a movie just because the dances are good, to have an actual good plot line. If you read his review without the rating system there is a lot of times you wouldn't really be able to guess accurately what his meaningless rating system has to do with it. If it's a movie like There Will Be Blood, he'll focus on how aesthetically gorgeous it is and dialogue driven to study a character, so while he'll give it a high or low rating, he'll let a prospective viewer decide if that is the kind of movie he likes, because obviously, there is no way someone is going to like every kind of four star movie.

QUOTE (mreye @ Dec 5, 2008 -> 05:47 PM) I'm glad he bashed other movies found to be riddled with inaccuracies. I think there is a rather large difference. One, Ebert was goaded into writing this review. Two, it is the basis of intelligent design that Ebert disagrees with, and in fact I'd bet that's why he didn't write a review because of that. The basis of fahrenheit 9/11, that bush is incompetent, made it easier to ignore execution. Plus no matter who you are you can probably undoubtedly state that Michael moore is a hell of a lot better than Ben Stein at making movies.

How productive to damn college educations while in all their solutions for a better america they talk about a need to get a good education.

I've never tried to pronounce a sigor ros album besides Takk, but I liked their english song and gobbledigook on that album.

I think MGMT was the year before but I could be wrong.

I think there is a disconnect in communication for sure on this front.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/wi...teins_mind.html Roger Ebert is great.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Dec 4, 2008 -> 07:41 PM) well in fairness....there was a time when pablo ozuna was a real good prospect...ranked #8 in all of baseball by baseball america...then the world found out he was two years older than listed but this was 2005, and I believe he was like 30.

I believe Gammons called Ozuna a nice young prospect when he came up.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 4, 2008 -> 07:04 AM) These Obama/White Sox things keep getting worse and worse. the first five paragraphs were painful. Why didn't someone stop him?

Elbow sucks. edit: Nouns.

QUOTE (Wanne @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 10:08 PM) Cole Armstrong can't be too happy. Unless it's Kenny's vision to have Flowers and Cole on the roster in 3 years or so. a lot happens in 2 years.

QUOTE (scenario @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 07:42 PM) Just saw one of Cowley's twitter posts from last night. Made me laugh. "Reports are now that Boone Logan is also gone. Like the end of The Godfather, Ken Williams is whacking all that have failed him." so awesome!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 08:34 PM) An interesting part of the Atlanta deal is that by jumping the gun with a good offer for us, they may well have prevented the Mets from getting better via the trade route. There's always talk of those teams in the NL east trying to make sure they don't let the other teams build up an advantage. Wonder if that played a role in getting the Vazquez deal done; now the Mets and Sox are much worse matches. good point.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 07:31 PM) This wasn't just running through the streets, guns a-blazin'. Several Indian special forces operatives interviewed said that they displayed advanced tactics. Less skilled/ knowledgeable people wouldn't be able to hold out nearly as long. I would think that there would be more people in those buildings during the early work hours on average. NYT: it appears these terrorists were trained by former pakistani military officials. wah oh

jiminy.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 05:09 PM) From what I heard this took months of planning and was a fairly complex operation. That's what I saw initially but since it seems much more rag tag.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 05:01 PM) The sieges are also not necessarily AQ, fwiw. But you are right that they are media whores. Frankly, they are much more advanced than we are at PR and image control. I'm aware, but these attacks are relatively easy to coordinate, i'm sure they've seen. I've no doubt they'd one up, but I'm just saying, I don't know if a big explosion is the next big Al qaida thing. An explosion is sort of one and done. Imagine coordinated sniper attacks in cities, freezing the nation for a prolonged period of time. It'd appear they are in power. They'd have an upper hand. The numbers wouldn't matter.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 04:51 PM) Here's the thing that sort of undersells me on that concept...why exactly wouldn't it have been done already if the group was willing to do that? All you need is the manpower and maybe $50,000 and a couple of weeks to go to U.S. gun shows. You could arm an army with that kind of money, without having any ID checks, with the equipment available regularly for sale in the U.S. It could have been done a dozen times by now if the manpower was there. The fact that it hasn't been done I think is an argument that the groups after us just aren't yet that interested in this sort of attack. I think you are underestimating distance. I think that initially this probably wasn't the strategy of Al Qaida as most of their attacks in the 90s were large bombings. But since 2001 the most successful attacks have all been these sieges. They seem to be big on imagery, and the sustained coverage of "martyrs" on the loose in America. That said, I think an attack on an elementary school would be brutal on them. They'd lose a lot of support, basically the world turns a blind eye on Chechnya right now and Russia is doing some pretty brutal stuff there.

QUOTE (joesaiditstrue @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 04:27 PM) I guess it's weird that I feel kind of sad that Uribe is going to be playing somewhere else I feel kind of sad that the legend of boone logan is. I'll never forget when he came up.

Me too, I feel the returns people are looking for from Dye aren't enough. I know he's aging, but he has a reasonable contract and his production hasn't waned. But obviously, if the right price comes along, I'm all for it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 05:19 PM) "topping" 9-11 is a vague concept though. Imagine an attack in the style of the recent Mumbai attack, except done on the biggest malls, or tourist attractions in the US simultaniously. They wouldn't have to kill as many people, but the lasting economic impact of the fear potential could actually do much more damage to the country as a whole. That could "top" 9-11 easily. Imagine an attack on the water supply's of the nations biggest cities. People would have a fear of drinking water and showering. How devistating would that be? Body counts aren't the only way to measure effectiveness. true, and all though this may be piped up by India police to appear they stemmed off something worse, the Mumbai terrorists had aspirations of 5,000 deaths. I don't think this type of terrorism is too beneath Al Qaida. Think of the theatre in Russia overtaken by Chechnyan rebels. About 200 killed. Imagine a coordinated attack on 10 high populated areas with lax security. As David Foster Wallace said, (this is kind of out of context and you see his point in the whole scheme of things more) what if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting? I think it's a little overblown but thought provoking.

that's a hell of a get I suppose.