bmags

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 29, 2007 -> 02:44 AM) He will be an idiot (again) as soon as he picks against us. The further he gets away from NY-Bos the worse he gets, but still does a very good job. yes, he is a boston/ny homer, but i don't blame him. Of all these ESPN analysts, when he does a profile of a team, his opinions matter. It seems like this guy actually knows every team. I mean, when harold reynolds talked about the sox, i didn't pay any attention to it, because it seemed like his comments were completely derived from watching one game, and then he generalized it for the entire season.

i roll my eyes at your 'kerouac'

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 29, 2007 -> 01:16 AM) I know Denny Hastert received major press in Virginia as I heard from an ex-Illinois buddy of mine who now resides out there after the bogus land-highway stuff came up who heard it on the news. You all need to stop thinking on such large levels here . There can be bias in the media without it being a 'conspiracy'. Liberal news writers tend to slant thier writing. They don't have some manual to go by when preparing these stories, that is just how they are. And yes, conservatives would be the same way in slanting their views in stories they write. Yes, this was a local story about a state level politician. That means it should have received MORE attention as to the political party. ESPECIALLY in light of what crime it was and the Foley incident preceeding it. Like it or not, that IS important today. What if his party only had a 1 person lead in controlling the house? Or if he is forced to resign, they lose a veto-proof majority? What if he chairs an important committee? I DID NOT say there was a left wing conspiracy to hide the party affiliation of the guy involved, but there had to ba a reason that it wasn't mentioned sooner than the last paragraph. We have gone over this before. When writing about politicians, the R or D almost always comes after the first mention of their name. When it doesn't, it stands out as either agenda based or supreme sloppiness. Either way, someone should be in trouble for the bad writing, and this guy should get everything coming to him. The AP style book would be the manual, actually. And party affiliation would be the low end of the totem pole in importance, as most normal people want to know who what happened and when. If you are looking for in depth reporting on this to answer all your what-ifs, the AP news wire reports are not what you should be looking for. And as for the last half, not really. For state senators and local positions such as mayor, they would be recognized in the place where it would affect their voters. But nationally, the position is more important than the party. There are exceptions, like if the person is speaking about their party at large, they'd obviously ID them, to prevent confusion to the reader. No confusion here, as his party really had no relevance to the reader.

i usually am pumped for every season. I feel like we have a world series caliber team if all the pieces fall in place.

well, we know DMX won't be.

list almost reads like my favorite bands. LOL, i don't know how ghostface made it on there though.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 28, 2007 -> 04:34 PM) The nice thing about rotten tomatoes is you get to see a TON of reviews in the same place. So, you can get a more wholistic view about what people are saying about the movies. If there's a movie I'm on the fence about seeing I always check rotten tomotoes. i agree. Assume if its in the 20-30's its pretty awful. But a lot in the 60's are movies that people are torn on and its good to make your own decision.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 03:12 PM) They set a standard for over one billion Catholics and all but maybe a thousand lived up to that. How low should they set the standard? What message does it send when the Church refused to speak out against abuse? Wouldn't the same people who call them hypocrites now claim the Chuch is not taking a strong enough stance? Abuse is wrong, we all know it. Why should any voice be silenced that proclaims that? By silencing one billion people, who does it help? Why hasn't anyone answered this simple question? The Church is stating that child abuse is wrong, y'all think they shouldn't say it. Who does that help? I agree that the Church, and all of society, could do much more to protect children. I also believe that society needs to continue to speak out against the hardships and horrors that some children face in their daily lives. Poverty, abuse, violence, wars, famines, persecution. I was referring to the times when the Catholic Church had so much power as to kill or jail anyone that tried to publish (galileo, descartes always started out with an appeasement to the church) and such. Silence before publishing is wrong, and IMO, this is just them trying to reassert their authority.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 01:46 PM) "And the people who decide the limits are the public" How does the public decide the limits? When a group complains, like in this case, they are told to STFU, it's art, and art has to push beyond the limits. We're are the spot on the spot where a circular argument begins. The debate doesn't start until *after* the work has been created, at that point it is too late. And our society has determined that it is, in many cases, our responsibility to not be offensive. So it is your problem. We restrict obscenities, racist remarks, etc. You can't stand on a street corner and offend people as they pass by. We have enacted laws to stop people from being a nuisance. Again, highly subjective and arbitrary, but the intent is clearly to protect society from being offended in some cases. So to say as an artist you are above the law, would be poor hubris, and I doubt you would. But we should recognize that you do have that restriction. Perhaps that is the central tenant of my belief that one can not justify any behavior as "it's art" and protected. And who determines when someone is harmed? We both know that is highly subjective. Even experts in the field will debate at what point anything becomes harmful. If the limit is physical harm, you are rejecting any psychological harm. That would leave the door wide open for a wide range of indecent, immoral, works. For example, paintings of child pornography would not create any physical harm, yet are clearly something our society has ruled as too offensive to produce. Again something that I am certain you wouldn't defend, but it is the crack that allows psychological harm to creep into the debate. And finally, the slippery slope of interpretation is another land mine in all this. Whose interpretation is valid? A majority? The Artist? A Panel of experts? The most vocal? The most influential? And we could debate forever the role of the artist in interpretation. Is the artist's opinion of his own works important? Do we really need to know anything about the artist to understand the work? I've always felt the artist should be allowed the freedom to break out of himself. I believe the artist / author should remain a mystery and allow the work to stand on it's own merit. Others believe to know the work, one must know the producer. i think we can all agree that when the Catholic Church set the limits on morals it wasn't exactly good for the gander. The point is this: People say movies are garbage now and they don't talk about anything that matter. On THe Waterfront tackled issues relevant to the time, i'm in a hurry but you can think of more examples. Well relevant to our time is this, though the general crime rate has gone down substantially the past 20 years, violence against women has not. This writer and director decided to tackle that issue and how it can affect the persons involved, timely now considering how a stupid woman in NC decided to water down rape allegations because she wanted 'something'. This isn't the first time this topic has been covered. 'M' by fritz lang, in 1931 covered a child killer, an awful shot of the ball she was plaing with rolling away from the bushes and her balloon caught up in the electric wires. In "Platoon" oliver stone showed soldiers raping a villager. This stuff moves people. into action . Whether you think it is tasteful, imo, can only be relevant after the fact of seeing it. But this is pre-sensoring, which goes against every bone in my body.

i'm willing to wait until spring training to see how the dude does.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 12:15 PM) I can't understand the point of view that these boundaries in how child abuse is depicted in movies should come down. Why anyone would want to see more or that, and in greater detail, sickens me. I understand pushing some limits, but not in child abuse. Someone tell me just how much violence and abuse against children they want to see in movies? Is there really that great of a demand to see young children abused? Isn't it possible we have reached a limit? Maybe Taxi Driver was the edge? don't you think you should hold off judging it until you've seen the scene yourself, or have the reviews come out about the scene?

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 05:48 AM) Its gonna be sick seeing the pedophiles line up to see this one. i'm sure you'll be able to point them out. I'd rather they watch a movie about said act than committ said act, if there was a choice.

we've had a nice run of luck on these injured washed up guys lately. Maybe he'll turn to gold.

i like the cover, dude. too much clutter on magazines nowadays. Soon all the info will be on the cover like it is on newspapers like the WSJ.

jodie foster as a 14 year old prostitute

morning becomes eclectic!!! the only one i listen to and it's great (an artist/band come into the studio, chat with them, do live performances, its great.)

just a little point: in around 1997 there was a high profile movie sleepers, starring brad pitt among others. It had a scene where kids were forced to "service" the prison guards or else were hit over the top of the head. None was actually seen of course, but it was explicitly mentioned what was going on. it was a powerful scene. it didn't numb the issue of this abuse. It's a story.

ny times had this awesome piece on a 1930's brazilian folk boxset that i wrote about in my website. It sounds awesome.

such a taboo subject indeed, thousands of rapes go unreported every year, perhaps a little discussion on the matter wouldn't hurt. This scene should be done powerfully. And instead of it starting a discussion on how to fight against rape, or in cases of incest where the child has no chance, we yell to put it back in the closet? You know, what los said, i've seen movies with gross cruelty against children, all made numb by the explosions and quick cuts for style, a scene like this has the chance to actually mean something. And those are important. Movies are telling stories. Stories like these are told everyday. This obviously isn't going to be a movie for children. Grownups can handle grown up topics.

well, come on, bad queen serves as pure novelty, which has its place.

coachella has like 4 stages.

i missed that news. s***.

yeqz?

i don't see how signing another OFer suddenly made us a worse outfield than before. Why the cries now? It's been this way for a year and a half. *not actually a half a season, i was thinking half a year as in this offseason.

wait til cooper gets to 'em