Wong & Owens

Yeah, they're in trouble. I think they'll come out of it though, the union dictatorship is all but over, and Chevy has some real nice stuff coming in the next couple years. None of the big 3 will ever be as big as they once were, but will some better products and the dismantling of the union stronghold, they'll get back on their feet.

I just finished "Mount Dragon," by Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child. Pretty good sci-fi flavored thriller

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 12:07 AM) My counterpart’s thoughts are appreciated, and I too agree with his “striping” down the issue to its core. I believe the federal government all too often fails in setting a proper example to the American people, i.e. massive debt, inefficiencies, petty squabbling at all levels of leadership. Yet, in all of that, I think we might agree that allocating funds towards the Arts is something the U.S. government seems to have succeeded in setting a positive standard. I continue to feel this issue needs to be pressed to the wealthy, liberally leaning constituents of Hollywood and the film, television and music industries. More and more movies are made in recent years with bloated budgets and anorexic scripts which reek of envy and covetousness for a time that has since passed; when movies, books, music, and art were much more concerned with passion and implication than money and power. I ask, instead of another award show that parades and selfishly accolades the work of a few, why is this money not spent on the reinvigoration of a new renaissance of the Arts? Why is this money not spent heavily on musical programs and arts awareness? Why is it so important for actors to seek wealth and material goods, when glory and zeal had been enough to fuel the flames of creativity over the past millennium? So I say, thank you to our leaders for setting a positive example in supporting the Arts. When will the Robert Redford’s and the Barbara Streisand’s of the world repay the art and craft that they have benefited so incredibly much from financially, so that our government, which has priorities that far exceed the Arts in fiscal importance? Shouldn’t the burden of financial responsibility be placed on the industry or industries that the art is derived from? While we might argue the extent of that burden, the standard needs to be set by those whose extreme wealth has resulted from Art, and not by our federal government. Now here is my question to you, Mr. uh, er, InPA. You appear to be of the opinion that wealthy people who have made lots of money off the arts should give more money back to fund public arts programs. If so, then is it safe to assume that you feel this way about all subjects within a curriculum? What I mean is, do you also feel that Bill Gates, for example, should give his money to fund computer programs in schools? Or that Warren Buffet should lend a hand to foot the bill for finance courses at the local community college?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 12:43 PM) "Antarctica is cold" may or may not be a statement of fact in 50-100 years. . . Try to keep up, eh? Now that I have my answer, I'll just go back to my paste-eating thank you very much.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 12:15 PM) So based on that second one...in roughly 50-100 years...no one will ever tell a lie again? Huh?

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 10:30 AM) Democrats and Republicans both adept at ignoring facts And in other news, the sun rose in the east, Antarctica was cold, and a recent study found that most people thought puppies were "cute." That's all for now, stay tuned for The Maury Povich Show.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 07:44 AM) Mr. Owens, I'd like you to explain what you mean by "I claim the reason for that is because the government is spending ridiculous sums of taxpayers' money on wastes of time, money, etc. and not on things that most members of society deem valuable" Understandably this statement has merits, but as I stated above, the Arts are funded significantly by our government as an example for the rest of us in my opinion. Do you agree, however, that that burden should be moved to those who financially benefit the most from the Arts? please explain. What I mean is, public schools have long had art and music classes, and until recently it was never an issue. Nowadays, however, you hear stories all the time about public school districts wanting to cut such programs due to budget cuts, fiscal restructuring, etc. Well, the American people are certainly not paying less in taxes than they used to, so I believe the logical direction to go is to ask where the money is going that could be used on art/music programs. And if you look, you find that tax money is going to projects such as: $200,000 Audie Murphy/American Cotton Museum, Greenville, Texas $150,000 Therapeutic Horseback Riding Program, Lady B Ranch, California $950,000 Please Touch Museum , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania $2,000,000 Kitchen Relocation, Fairbanks ( Alaska ) North Star Borough. I do agree that those who benefit financially from the arts should give back to the community, but I believe they already do. Could they do more? Absolutely. Should they do more? PRobably. But I don't think anyone would argue that Robert Redford, for example, should fund a public school district's choir, or high school drawing class. Especially not when the fine people of Indianola, MS see their tax money going to a B.B. King museum($1,000,000). I'd hope BB himself would argue that money could be much better spent to educate people about music. Short answer-- until the government has much better answers for what they do with our money, I don't think they have any right asking private citizens to fill in so they can waste our tax dollars on little more than re-election brochure material.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 05:22 PM) Pro-life til they're out of the womb. Then it is okay to support quasi-apartheid schooling, capital punishment, send them off to die in a war, etc. He sure believes in sanctity of life. There's definitely some hypocrisy in his "culture of life" mantra, but I didn't want to get into it. I give it 3 posts before it turns into another pointless reps vs. dems argument. "Doesn't matter who wins, 'cause they're all losers."

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 04:48 PM) full story http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/23/D8FAIOV80.html Is this a real big moment in this whole debate our has the President always voiced his opinions strongly in favor of stopping abortion? He's always been vocally pro-life, IIRC.

I believe that, in order to answer this question, one must strip away all the subjective arguments about whether or not the arts are "worth it," and get to the root question of-- "what is the purpose of government?" If government's role is to act as the voice of the people, to carry out orders dictated by the will of the masses in hopes of creating a better place to live and breathe, then what government should spend tax monies on should reflect that same mission statement. The question of whether or not to publically fund art programs has only become a hot-button issue recently, and the reasoning given for cutting such programs is almost always due to budget cuts. The issue then becomes why the government no longer has the money to fund these projects, and I claim the reason for that is because the government is spending ridiculous sums of taxpayers' money on wastes of time, money, etc. and not on things that most members of society deem valuable. What would your community want, $150,000 worth of music classes, or a "Therapeutic Horse Riding Program?". $100,000 worth of art appreciation, or should that money go to something called the "National Association of Promoting Success?"

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 11:08 AM) I think they said that if our opinions agree, it'll be more about writing style, flow, and abillity to pursuade. Does spelling count too?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 05:44 PM) Note: Only responses from the participants should be posted here. The first round question is: Using our tax dollars, Local, State, and National governments support the arts through grants, public art projects, and other expenditures. With rising government debt, is this a good use of tax dollars, who should decide what projects get funding, and under what criteria? OK, a question: What if my opponent and I have the same opinion? Should I automatically take the opposite, since Alex has already posted his answer?

QUOTE(Steff @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 09:22 AM) I just don't understand the asking of these things... Of the 4 (5?) females here I can't imagine any one of us would be capable of giving an honest answer unless we had to put that shoe on. And asking a man to put himself in that position...? No offense to you W&O. None taken, and I agree that's it's nearly impossible to say without actually being in that situation. However, I still think it's interesting discussion, albeit on nasty subject matter.

Here's a hypothetical offered up for discussion: You're a woman, and you have just been date raped. In court, the man who raped you claims the sex was consensual and he is found not guilty. In the meantime, you find out you are pregnant(the morning-after pill didnt work for whatever reason). Let's assume that the court case is finished within 3 months of the rape. Not only does the idea of this jackass's spawn growing inside you make you sick, but you have reason to believe that if this guy found out you were pregnant, he might even try and fight you for custody. What do you do?

QUOTE(Steff @ Jan 18, 2006 -> 01:52 PM) Nerds. Oh geez, we're getting called out by a chick in a bee suit wearing a crown on her head. Soxtalk has reached a new low....

Sign me up!

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 03:06 PM) So asking a priest why Dinosaurs are nowhere to be mentioned in the bible is a question they can't answer.. Other than the obvious answer (which it is not to ou) Why can't they answer this? The obvious answer to this is because they haven't asked Carl Everett about it. Then they'd be able to answer any questions regarding dinosaurs.

I'm as horrified by these crimes as everyone else, but I wonder if we don't realize that there's something else going on here besides just a greedy, consciousless crime. I mean, it's virtually common knowledge that these people are never "cured" and prison terms neither sway nor rehabilitate them. Rather than continue to throw good money after bad by trying to give them prison stretches or "therapy," I think we need to dig deeper to find out exactly what's making these people tick. Haven't they begun studying the brains of deceased serial killers? Are they doing this with child molestors as well? Anyone know if they can?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 11:43 AM) You'll notice that I have so ffar managed to stear well clear of the current religion kerfuffle. Seems some people are giving us atheists a bad rap over there. Awww, I thought we were tight. I see how it is now

QUOTE(kevin57 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 09:49 AM) It isn't always a question of "quantity" of evidence, rather "quality." Read the Jewish historian Josephus, who lived around the year 100, or the Roman historian Tacitus for a description of the early Christian Church. Those were exactly who I was thinking of when you first mentioned it, and from things I've read, there are many, many scholars out there who question the veracity of those writings. I could go into all the problems they have with agreeing on what exactly Tacitus was writing about when he touches on the christianity issue(was we documenting actual events? or was he writing down simply what christians told them they believed? none of the people Tacitus would have talked to would have been alive when JEsus would have been, IIRC), but it's not a debate that would really go anywhere-- it would simply come down to what you believe or don't.

Again, I would disagree. There is nothing close to a consensus of archaeologists who claim to have found enough evidence to say that Jesus existed. They haven't said he didn't either, to be fair. I would like to see some type of comparison of the amount of evidence that we have for Caesar. and the amount we have for Jesus. I don't believe the piles would be the same size at all, but I'm open to hearing an argument on this. We'll have to agree to disagree

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 07:04 AM) They make darn good leather. I completely agree.

QUOTE(kevin57 @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 06:07 PM) --It is a FACT that nearly every close follower of Jesus was martyred for their belief in Jesus. Now, it is one thing to make something up, but how many people would be willing to die for their lie? Only deep conviction and deep love for this person Jesus and his truth would give anyone to courage to do that. I would argue that. That is far from an indisputable fact. Many scholars don't even agree on the IDENTITY of many of Jesus's followers, and some scholars dispute the existence of Jesus himself. I personally haven't decided on that. In any case, close followers of any religion have been known to die for their beliefs, and their deep love of anything doesn't mean it's not misguided. I'm sure the Heaven's Gate folks had a deep love of that Applewhite? guy, but I don't think it proves that the Heaven's Gate belief system has any more merit than anything else. To Alex -- what was so asinine about my comments on missionaries?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 05:25 PM) Then don't go to Doctor's, lawyers, teachers, or any other profession. They all have people who have committed crimes equally horrific. Isn't this the basis for the T.V. show "Kung Fu?"

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 03:31 PM) W & O, since you're actually reasonable compared to Anthramoron, I'd like to keep reading your thoughts. I can't come back with much yet until I really read it. I'll try to, though. You're reading my thoughts?! Note to self: Ixnay on any future fantasies involving Diane Keaton and a Slip-N-Slide.......