TheBigHurt35

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 01:25 PM) I don't think you'll get kicked out of a Mass because you use a condom. It is clearly more of a social and cultural issue than religious. If you continue to engage in harmful activities that put your life in danger because it's the cultural norm, there's no need to blame the Church... FWIW, the priest that married my wife and I knew that we were co-habitating prior to our wedding (the obvious implication being pre-marital sex) and had absolutely no problem with it.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 12:00 PM) The biggest hurdle to eithe an African or a Latin American Pope was that it would have likely ushered in some much needed serious debate on the Catholic stance against birth control in general and condoms in particular. Instead, tens of thousands of people continue to die from AIDS in Africa every year for lack of education or access to condoms. I can appreciate religious orthodoxy as much as anyone and yes there are core tenets at the heart of the Catholic faith, but this is a glaring example of how the Church remains hopefully and fattally out of step with the realities of modern life. It's better to transmit HIV, get AIDS and die than to use a condom in the eyes of the Catholic God? Agreed that the Catholic Church's position on birth control is woefully lacking. And you're probably right regarding the Church's decision to select a Pope. But I think that the greater problem in Africa lies in the attitudes of the men. Having sex with many women (i.e., cheating on your spouse) is seen as "manly" over there. Being married is almost a death sentence to most women, as they know that their husbands will visit prostitutes and that they will most likely contract HIV at some point. They know about condoms, but their use is frowned upon by much of the male population. IMO, their own lifestyle is a much greater problem than Catholic influence.

QUOTE(winodj @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 11:22 AM) There are portions of the Catholic Church, even in the College of Cardinals that aren't as conservative as you might think. Just out of curiosity, how many non-Caucasian Popes have there been? I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I could be wrong. I really thought that they might've elected an African Pope, given the extent of povery and disease that's been ravaging that continent. That may have also helped to stem the growth of radical Islam in northern and northeastern Africa.

QUOTE(winodj @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 11:21 AM) Roll your eyes all you want, but he was tried for this "perjury" and found not guilty by a jury of his peers (the United States Senate.) What a load of crap. The Senate is about as unbiased as OJ's jury was. Clinton was let off by the Senate because enough Dems voted along party lines. Liar, liar, pants on fire. Funny, I remember liberals complaining in the mid '90s that the sanctions on Iraq were causing poverty. Talk about flip-flopping...

Hello TheBigHurt35! Your Ron Mexico name, the ultimate disguise, is Big Boy Soviet Union. Well, I do enjoy good Vodka.

I thought that they would have chosen a Pope from South/Central America or Africa. But I guess not. Then again, it doesn't surprise me that the notoriously conservative Catholic Church may be hesitant to pick a non-Caucasian.

QUOTE(winodj @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 11:40 PM) Funny you should mention that, when there was a period of time when there was a perceived threat from Iraq that was more realistic than the one we were fed two years ago, Clinton wanted to act in Iraq. Clinton did nothing but beat his chest like a tough guy and drop a few bombs on Baghdad after Saddam would kick out weapons inspectors. His "strategy" of dealing with Saddam did absolutely nothing to "contain" Saddam, in contrast to our current President's plan. You mean that they were more concerned about Clinton committing perjury, a federal crime. Or is that just a "technicality" to you? If Clinton hadn't lied under oath and disgraced the Presidency, he wouldn't have had those problems. It was HIS fault, not that of the "vast Right Wing conspiracy." :rolly Of course, Congress is usually needed to appropriate funding for military action. Too bad Billy Boy lost all of his political clout by making an ass out of himself. If going from working as the CEO of an energy-contracting company to Vice President of the United States makes one a "flip-flopper," I suppose that Mr. Cheney would take it as a compliment. He had an obligation to Haliburton and Haliburton stockholders in 1999 to procure as many oil contracts as possible. As Vice President, his obligations clearly needed to change.

Always glad to see a win and that was a hell of a game from Carl and the set-up men. But I'm beginning to lose confidence in Shingo. I hope that he proves me wrong soon.

QUOTE(winodj @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 02:13 PM) Don't deflect. Answer the question. It was answered before I even read your post. Um, yeah, the mighty Clinton administration managed to get around the all-powerful Dick Cheney (who worked in the private sector at the time), despite the fact that Cheney's Republican cohorts had supported very stiff sanctions against Iraq since the Persian Gulf War. And even if Cheney did represent a threat to "Clinton's" sanctions, Clinton's clout was next to nothing in 1999 after being impeached. Why you even brought Clinton into this is beyond me.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 01:26 PM) This guy is definitely a few fries short of a Happy Meal -- being prosecution for a chess game? He played chess -- its not like he did anything criminal while there. Is Fischer even worth the effort to bring him back? Thought not. What Fischer did would be analagous to one of us taking a vacation in Cuba. He broke the law. Plus, he's committed tax evasion.

QUOTE(winodj @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 01:02 PM) No I mean name the famous Bush administration member who actively lobbied for an end to sanctions to Iraq in 1999. Of course, you forgot the part about France, Russia, and Germany lobbying the UN to allow an increase in Iraq's oil output from 700k to 2 million barrels/day and the name of the (Republican-controlled) country that opposed it.

It may have been a Sox town between the '50s and early '80s, but certainly became a Cubs town when Harry went to WGN. IMO, it's been that way ever since (the early/mid '90s notwithstanding).

Ugggh... not this crap again. :headshake I'm certainly open to theories that the media and/or the Sox front office has it in for Frank. But it seems that Frank's involved in just a few too many "bad PR" incidents to completely absolve him from blame (the big piss fight with Jerry Manuel in Spring Training a few years ago, Paulie calling him out in the press a couple years ago, Frank whining about his contract to the press on a number of occasions, etc.). Here's how I see it... -The Chicago media doesn't like Frank -The Sox front office wants some bad PR on him to keep his contract price down -Frank has an ego the size of Montana and is frustrated because of his diminished skills, inability to stay healthy, smaller contracts, his team's inability to win, and a general lack of respect for him by the front office and the media -Ozzie never liked Frank and is using his managerial power to settle a personal vendetta

Anyone else see the Bobby Fischer interview on ESPN's Outside The Lines? Wow... this guy has completely lost his marbles. For those who didn't, here's a general synopsis (sorry, no link available): Mr. Fischer was befriended by the late Dick Schapp after he defeated Bois Spassky. However, Fischer later alienated Schapp, who was Jewish, by his anti-Semitic comments. (Ironically, Fisher's mother was Jewish and he was raised a Jew.) After being alienated by Fischer he remarked that, "Fischer doesn't have a sane bone in his body." After spending 20 years out of the public eye, he played a rematch against Spassky in Yugoslavia in 1992, which violated federal law. Fischer later relocated to the Far East and, after 9/11, said the following on a radio station in the Philippines: "This is all wonderful news. I applaud the act. The U.S. and Israel have been slaughtering the Palestinians, just slaughtering them for years. Robbing them and slaughtering them. Nobody gave a s***. Now it's coming back to the U.S. f*** the U.S. I want to see the U.S. wiped out." Last year, Fischer was arrested in Japan for trying to use a revoked US passport. Instead of being deported back to the US, he was offered asylum by Iceland. The US government has filed tax evasion charges against Fischer, but it is unlikely that Iceland will extradite him. Jeremy Schapp traveled to Iceland and attended the press conference for Fischer's arrival to learn more about his relationship with his father. Not surprisingly, Fischer turned the resulting dialogue into an anti-Semitic tirade, insulting Jeremy's late father and even calling him a "dirty Jew." When asked about his Jewish heritage, Fischer was in complete denial. Ironically, Icelandic officials are now looking into prosecuting Fischer for hate speech.

QUOTE(winodj @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 10:28 AM) Question: Name the famous American lobbying for an end to Iraqi sanctions in 1999. You mean that it took until 1999 for Americans to realize sanctions on Saddam weren't working?

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 10:37 AM) And BigHurt, leftists aren't necessarily anti-religion since there are a lot of people in liberation theology and follow the religious teachings of Helder Camara or Oscar Romero that are leftist. When did I ever say that all leftists are anti-religious?

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 08:39 AM) I know he's not serious, but is that a joke? Not a very tasteful one. :headshake I hope he continues to bash the Catholic Church and make his party look like a bunch of anti-religious dunderheads.

QUOTE(winodj @ Apr 17, 2005 -> 10:02 AM) The Volcker report has said that less than one third of the total money that saddam hussein has supposedly illegally extorted through kickback, illegal oil sales, etc. came from OFFP. That would leave over TWO THIRDS of the 25+ billion dollars. The US and UK were responsible for enforcing the embargo. And you're neglecting to mention that American citizen traders are now being indicted to help perpetuate some of this fraud, both through OFFP and outside of it. And without the embargo, Saddam would've made even more money off of oil sales. Is it the fault of the US and UK that people will try to take advantage of the embargo? If anything, this argument further supports the notion that sanctions and the OFFP were not viable solutions to dealing with Saddam. Overthrowing him was.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Apr 15, 2005 -> 02:41 PM) The whole point of the ACLU is that they pick battles that most lawyers wont touch with a 10 foot poll. People have rights, no matter how disturbing their preferences are, they have rights that the govt can not infringe upon. The ACLU originally became involved with NAMBLA over their "right" to advocate child molestation on their web site. The First Ammendment doesn't specifically give NAMBLA the "right" to do this... it's a blanket statement that's open to interpretation in the courts. For example, you'll never find pornography on network television, despite what "rights" the First Ammendment guarantee. Hell yeah, it's their fault. Nobody held a gun to the ACLU's collective head and forced them to defend NAMBLA. They chose to defend them.

QUOTE(EvilJester99 @ Apr 15, 2005 -> 01:50 PM) Yeah its mostly family that is keeping me...I have a prospect on a couple jobs though. I am sure I will be fine but this stuff just sucks. Its more the uncertainty more than anything that makes one nervous. I have to many bills to pay, mortgage, cars and a family to support....no worries though, I will find something... if not I can always become a hitman or something hehe Glad to hear that you have prospects. I'm sure that something will work out soon. I was recently unemployed for a while (by choice... my boss was literally going senile) and I'll give you a piece of advice: When you're not looking for a job (nobody can do it 8 hours per day, 7 days a week), use this opportunity to spend time with family, friends, and get involved with your hobbies. It'll take your mind off things and you'll become closer to the people in your life. That was the one positive that came out of my unemployment.

QUOTE(winodj @ Apr 15, 2005 -> 01:20 PM) The problem is that the law here is pretty clear. It's an all or nothing thing if the state does it. As much as I don't want NAMBLA, NORML or the KKK or for that matter the 700 Club adopting highways in my town, if my state wants a program, I have to let them as long as the group meets the state guidelines for the program. Equal rights and protections under the law do not disappear because you belong to an organization that 99+% of the public finds distasteful. Well, if that's the law, they have the right to do it until it's changed (which may happen as the result of this).

QUOTE(EvilJester99 @ Apr 15, 2005 -> 09:55 AM) I just found out today that my plant is shutting down and moving to Pittsburgh. I have no interest in moving there so I guess I am going to be without a job...Man I hate having to search for jobs...Good thing I have some money put away and will also get a severance package for my troubles... :banghead I'm very sorry to hear about your situation. I'm sure that a similar (or better) opportunity will present itself soon. Is it completely out of the question for you to move to Pittsburgh (i.e., family keeping you in Joliet), or do you simply not want to go there? If it's the latter, you might want to consider making the move. I don't know what the job market is like in your field, but it's not terribly good in mine and the economic indicators for this summer aren't exactly rosy. Not to be pessimistic, but that's sort of the reality right now. Whatever you choose to do, though, I'm sure you'll be fine in the end.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 15, 2005 -> 12:33 PM) Still, the distinction is "thoroughly" -- it doesn't seem to be asking too much that an expert (reading merely the abstract) realize that a random sequence of phrases doesn't make sense. It wouldn't be funny if a paper with deep, obvious errors gets into a conference, because the abstract could be interesting and convincing. But it is funny when gobbledygook is accepted. I agree that the chair should've done a better job reviewing the paper but, as I said before, there's more of an honors system in place than a true reviewing process (because, frankly, nobody has the time to review the large volume of material that's submitted for presentation). In addition, scientific conferences aren't formums for complete, peer-reviewed work to be showcased. They're more of an opportunity for people to bounce ideas off one another's heads and learn more about work outside of their immediate areas of experitise... and, of course, socialize. It's a relatively informal setting. Work that doesn't make it into proper peer-reviewed journals doesn't mean diddley-poo to the scientific community. What's kind of sad is that these grad students know all of what I explained above, yet still thought it'd be "funny" to do this. If anything, it makes them look like people of substandard-MIT intellect.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 15, 2005 -> 12:20 PM) It's not a good sign in any profession when it takes a "fine-toothed comb" to separate work from pure garbage. I don't even know why people present "papers" at conferences... none of the chairs have time to thoroughly review them. They typically assume that the first author received approval from his/her PI. It's an honors system of sorts. Also keep in mind that presentations at conferences typically mean significantly less than work published in peer-reviewed journals.

This doesn't really surprise me. Typically, material reviewed for conferences doesn't go through a "proper" reviewing process. What usually happens is one person is in charge of "reviewing" over 100 posters/papers/presentations and, not surprisingly, does not go through each with a fine-toothed comb. On the other hand, articles submitted to a peer-reviewed journal typically involve reviews from 2-4 experts in that field, with an associate editor making the final decision based on the reviews. This process usually takes about two months.