FlaSoxxJim

QUOTE(mreye @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 11:54 AM) You feel sorry for him? He broke the rules. IMO, the rule is lax. In my high school all athletes signed a sheet that said if they were caught drinking, smoking, etc, they'd be out for the remainder of the season. The kid's a Junior. Straighten up your act and come back next year. He did break the rules and should be punished accordingly. But, sure, I do feel sorry for him if one screw up does end up killing a legitimate shot at a scholarship and possibly cost him a chance at going to college.

It sucks for the kid and I feel sorry for him. But obviously they can't make an exception for him.

Mimes. Every damn one of them. Even the ones with the baseball bats and the rollerskates from The Warriors. Especially them.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 11:11 AM) O.K., so just what the hell is your idea of a "completely useless fact" then??? I know I am setting myself up...but still. You want useless. I got useless: :P • Male lizards of genus Anolis have two penises (gosh, I know a disturbing amount about animal penises). • There are no irregular verbs in the Swahili language. • The twelve cranial nerves are, in order of emergence from the brain, optic, olfactory, occulomotor, trochlear, trigeminal, abducens, facial, auditory, glossopharyngeal, vagus, somatic (aka spinal accessory), hypoglossal. The competing mnemonic devices to remember this uselessness are (depending on your preferred vicees and/or level of maturity): "On old Olympus' towering tops, a Fin and German viewed some hops," or; 'Oh oh oh, to touch and feel a girl's vagina – so fine" Yessiree. Time to purge the mental hard drive.

Muskrats WISH they were badass enough to be marsupials. Placentas are sooo overrated.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 10:30 AM) Texsox - "Armadillos make better lovers" "Really they're quite fearful - that's my theory. They see us on stage with tight trousers. We've got, you know, armadillos in our trousers. I mean it's really quite frightening..."

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 08:59 AM) Ya means like me?? I'm a big ol Mooron. Iz keep votings for the GOP and they keeps screwings me too. Thanks for clearing all this stuff up fer me mister. I can'ts believe how stoopid I iz. Then stop voting that way. Kick a hound dog enough times and they can learn, voters should be able to do so as well. And no, I didn't mean to offend with my post (I did intend to deride people who repeatedly vote for a party that screws them over, however). I have family by blood and through marriage that call themselves rednecks, but I'll strive to refrain from using the term. Or maybe I'll take a cue from the African American community and help steal that hateful, hateful word back for the community that has been so very hurt by it. Next time I see my wife's family I'll give them a big. "Whassup Mah' Neckaz!" and see what they think.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 08:45 AM) So his penis is up his ass Heh, not quite. The erect non-bandicoot marsupial penis still points forward but the testes have to teabag around it. Very technical description, I know.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 07:31 AM) You sure don't mind throwing derogatory comments around, do you? I'm open to suggestions for the politically correct term for the group in question.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 07:34 AM) I've just chased the biggest possum I've ever seen in my backyard with a broom. Fun Times. Now wait just one second. Go pick on one of your own Aussie marsupials leave the only one we have alone! FUN FACT: With the exception of the bandicoot, males of all marsupial specias have a penis that is posterior rather than anterior to the testes. [/nearly useless facts from college mammalogoy class]

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 06:12 AM) :headshake Oh, there's no secret there, my family-in-law know they are redneck dupes. There are plenty of exceptions, certainly. My wife is one. But that doesn't mean you can't throw a Bud can around here without hitting somebody who gets screwed by the GOP year after year and keeps voting for them anyway. :headshake

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 01:10 AM) nevermind...the halloween/axe murderer joke is officially dead. Or maybe you're just a stupidhead. Seriously though, I thought Austin Powers 3 was the real Revenge fo Michael Myers.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 12:57 AM) Michael Myers was really good in Wayne's World and the underrated, and way too long "So you married and Axe Murderer" I thought it was "So I Married an Axe Murderer". . . Or are you talking about a sequel I don't know about.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 10:26 PM) But, Michael Myers is my boy so I hope this one can really resurrect (no pun intended) the franchise. Meh, if Michael Myers was such hot s*** then he would have been up in space duking it out with Jason and Freddie a couple of years ago. . . They should have stopped Halloween at number 3. Even though 3 (Season of the Witch) had nothing to do with the Michael Myers storyline, it was still a creative film. Halloween II mostly sucked, but it still had Donald Pleseance in it so I'll let it slide.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 11:30 PM) has anyone seen a green meteorite? I've seen two. and one purple one. That's pretty cool. Unless you're Superman. Then you're f***ed. OMG. If YOU'RE Superman, then we're all f***ed.

I missed the 100th episode?!!? :o Ach, what the hell. I missed the first 99 too, so I'll probably get over it. :rolly

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 02:36 PM) You just need money to benefit from the GOP. Damn, you beat me to it. Truer words were never spoken. The south is full of a bunch of redneck dupes - including the family I married into.

btw, I get a "Can't locate object method" system error from Kerry's server when I try to sign the petition. CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!! So, can you look into that for them, Kap?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 12:08 AM) What a f***ing tool. If this was going to happen, it needed to happen way before this. John Kerry= total tool. I don't know that it could have happened any sooner. It's only within the last day or so that it was known for sure that the 41 necessary to sustain a filibuster was going to be iffy. Not that a filibuster was an inevitability (I've long seen it as a viable option of course). But you want to know if you've got the numbers to sustain.

Having grown up in Beverly, the story is humorous to me because it's the second reason we have had for making that trip to the other side of Western (OK, the third reason actually. Evergreen Park and Oak Lawn girls were easy ). But the primary (and still most important) reason is that we have to go to the other side of the street to get a damn beer, as the high and mighty Lords of Beverly got the neighborhood voted dry I don't know how many decades ago. And it's always been such a focking funny inside joke, because up and down the street, from Keegan's to Cork and Kerry, to Brubaker's, Wrong's, Heart's. . . it's nothing but us gawd-damn drunk Beverly folks in there night in and night out. But I digress. Ach, there has been a Sam's Club just west of where this Wal-Mart is going for several years and the traffic in Beverly has not gone to hell. In fact, the worst thing BAPA ever did was to start installing the friggin' rotaries and the speed bumps on Leavitt.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 03:44 PM) Sorry, I just didn't have the time to look for it. Can you include a link to that thread in the main debate thread? Thanks. Here's the link: http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=45759 And I'm not ignoring the points and challenges you brought up. Indeed, I anticipated they might have come to the fore in the present discussion between Mr. NorthSide and myself, but that conversation has taken a different tack. I am going to refrain from engaging in a new discussion until the other one is played out, but I look forward to exploring the other facets of te debate with you. You may even be suprised at some of the opinions I have about the politico-artistic legacy/baggage of Andres Serrano et al. Until then,

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 02:27 PM) Excellent question again. I think the easy way to answer your question is to break it up into two stages. The first stage of your question is, do I see a grey area here? The answer is yes, I do. The Smithsonian institutions are an excellent example of this. The Smithsonian is, in essence, a guardian of some of the most crucial physical manifestations of our nation’s culture. But is it art? Or is it more of a publicly accessible national anthropological archive? There are others too. The second stage of the question then is, would I be willing to end federal spending on such things? The answer to this is both yes and no. I would submit that the Smithsonian institutions be granted continued funding, under the stipulation that it maintain a strict mission as a historical vessel for the entire nation. That is to say, spending money on archaeological and historical items, famous American art, and other important items should continue. And the studies they fund to paint a clearer picture of our past as well. These are all expected of any nation – the cataloguing of events. But any variance from that mission into art or entertainment for its own sake, changes the mission, and falls outside the purview of the federal government. Those pursuits would need to be funded in some other fashion. Their mission should be as a museum – teaching history, not making it. Indeed, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it will not always be black and white. But as I think its fairly clear that the federal government is not intended to entertain or make us happy, I must be of the position that restraint in spending in those grey areas would be beneficial. Rebuttal: Ah, if only man was sage enough to know the precise moment when contemporary art ascends to the level of the historic, and then transcends to become part of national heritage. A recent event is perfectly illustrative of the point. Last year, a 6-disc CD box set, Jelly Roll Morton - The Complete Library of Congress Recording, was released. To say this is a landmark recording is a disservice which fails to recognize its importance in jazz music history as well as American history. The history of the recording is that Jelly Roll Morton, in 1938 and near the end of his life, took a break from the gig at the D.C. jazz club he had been relegated to playing, took a seat at a piano in the Library of Congress and allowed 23 year old Alan Lomax (then an assistant in charge of the Library's Archive of American Folksong) to record him playing and singing his vast repertoire. All the while, Lomax asked and Jellyroll answered questions about himself, his music, and his recollections of life in America at the dawn of jazz. NPR ran a piece on this a few weeks back, playing a few minutes of the audio and it gave me chills. So, here we have a once-in-a-century session that not only recorded the repertoire of one of the architects of jazz, but also represents literally the first oral history of jazz. It was, instantly and simultaneously, art, history, and unique American heritage. And it would not have happened if the government limited its funding of art to spending money on archaeological and historical items and famous American art. A variance from that mission, to merely make a contemporary recording of some old piano player, surely would have fallen outside the purview of the federal government in your estimation. Let me comment on something else you said. One part I quite agree with, while the other gets to the heart of our differences. Indeed, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it will not always be black and white. You correctly recognize that where the government should spend to support art is not always going to be black and white. But - and this is where we differ - that is precisely why lines cannot be drawn on this subject. Lines are suited to matters that are easily bifurcated - black or white, yes or no, one or zero. Conversely, review panels and committees of intelligent and qualified human beings are better suited to matters that are not so readily delineated. Allow a learned peer review panel to evaluate grant applications based on various merit criteria, to determine which applicant entities should be awarded a small portion of the limited federal funding allocated to supporting. That is how it is done with federal funding in my field, the sciences. And although it might be a surprise to some, that is also how it is done with federal funding in the arts.

QUOTE(kevin57 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 10:03 PM) In any case, demoncracy occurred in yet another Mideast place. YEA! Whatever Hamas may do, they'll have to be accountable to the people. Most of the Palestinians may want Israelis in the sea, but they want bread on their tables, a roof over their heads, a good school for their kids, and a decent street to a decent job a lot more than some political ideology. Yep. And that brings us back to the McCain quote that LCR posted above. We say we want electoral democracy in these countries, so we have to be prepared to live with the will of the people. (btw, I'll assume "demoncracy" was a typo and not a Freudian slip. )

As if the story needed to get any worse. . . Make it eight deaths now. The grandfather of all these kids was, understandably, devastated by this tragedy, and just had a heart attack and died. No joke. I'm sitting here watching the local news report it.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 02:58 PM) Here is my 2nd and final question for you. You have stated support for federal funding of the arts. You have also hinted at the idea that art fits well within the confines of the term 'welfare', specifically the dictionary definitions providing for happiness and good fortune. So, if the US government is to be in the business of making its citizens 'happy', then why not also fund Major League Baseball? Millions of people get a lot of enjoyment out of that every year - possibly more so than the active appreciation of art. And it is the national passtime. Or what about the NFL, NBA or NHL? How about monster truck rallies (SUNDAY! SUNDAY SUNDAY!), or even spas and massage parlors? Where, exactly, do you draw the line? What falls under the hapy umbrella, and what does not? Now I likes me a good Monster Truck Rally, so this was a bit of a poser. I appreciate the sentiment that there would be difficulty in drawing a line if I were to urge the federal underwriting of anything and everything that makes Americans happy. And I suppose I opened myself up to that argument extension by submitting that "general welfare" encompasses the well-being of citizens above and beyond our essential needs. Fair enough, though I keep reminding myself that critically scrutinizing the Constitutional promise of welfare promotion as a "legal node" was originally your idea of a good time. We sure know how to have fun, don't we? At any rate, no, I am not willing to underwrite the whole of America's entertainment pursuits and pass-times. While I maintain that "promoting general welfare" does extend so far as to mandate some level of federal support for arts and humanities, I do not suggest such a mandate extends ad absurdum. I appreciate (as a debate tool), but do not accept the apagogical leap you have arrived at, i.e., 'if we're going to have government funded arts initiatives then we need to have government-funded monster truck rallies too.' I'll engage in a bit of reductio proof by contradiction myself by way of clarification. You and I both know that we enjoy by decree of Declaration the unalienable right to the "pursuit of Happiness." And I'm pretty sure my pursuit would be more rewarding if the government got to work on a Kate Beckinsale clone or two that they could throw my way. I don't expect that's going to happen though. In short, I see limited federal funding for arts and humanities as being well inside the line of reason that separates practicality from apagogy. Or as I will henceforth call it, the "Beckinsale Line."