Rex Kickass

OMG It's Saturday shuffle. 1. The Raveonettes - the love gang 2. Half-Handed Clouds - You've Been Faithful To Us Clouds 3. Gorillaz - O Green World 4. Jesus Loves You - Sweet Toxic Love 5. Chiodos - Expired in Goreville 6. Brazilian Girls - Last Call 7. Placebo - One of A Kind 8. Paul Weller - You Do Something To Me 9. Captain Beefheart and His Magic Band - Bills Corpse 10. Railroad Jerk - One Step Forward Bonus soulful 11th 11. Marvin Gaye - Gonna Give Her All The Love I Got

1. Whale - Kickin' 2. Billy Bragg - Blake's Jerusalem 3. Plastic Bertrand - Ca Plane Pour Moi 4. Bobby Womack - How I Miss You Baby 5. Bruce Springsteen - Oh Mary Don't You Weep 6. bis - The End Starts Today 7. Captain Beefheart and His Magic Band - The Dust Blows Forward n The Dust Blows Back 8. Bettie Serveert - Log 22 9. The Replacements - Kids Don't Follow 10. Vinicius de Morais - Minha Namorada Bonus 11? Gorillaz - Last Living Souls

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Jun 22, 2007 -> 11:20 AM) She sings? The Paris Hilton Reggaeton remix? Kind of a jam. QUOTE(Soxy @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 09:55 AM) I agree. Suleimann--Die Prinzen (long story as to why I have a large collection of German Music on iPod) Die Toten Hosen/Rheinpiraten were way better!

QUOTE(3E8 @ Jun 21, 2007 -> 09:32 PM) Great song Really the last great grunge song of the 90s IMO.

Open letters are so douchebaggy, but whatever - just call me Summer's Eve. I haven't posted here much lately. I have pretty much disengaged myself from politics in general. And its funny that I write this as I stand on the edge of getting a job that would put me in a political role every day. But lately, I just can't stand it. And the reason is pretty simple, cynicism. Too often, our discourse has been reduced to tearing someone else's guy down based on things done in his life. I've done my share of that - but the truth is that its gotten to a fever pitch here lately. I can't tell you how many interesting initiatives or proposals are shot down by people because "it won't matter anyway." Often these things are said by the same people who talk about the need for change in our country in one form or another. When this change is proposed, its shot down by the same people. And usually not even for valid reasons. Usually its just plain cynicism. I'm sick of people longing for the ambition that our country used to have, and when that opportunity is given them to reach for that ambition - they just turn away from it. Making the world better is hard work. And if you aren't willing to do it, you don't really want it. Love, Rex Kickass

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 24, 2007 -> 05:39 PM) Actually, to some level, there is evidence that this will happen; as cars get better MPG, you don't have to spend as much to drive as far, so you will have the ability to drive more, and some people do so. But - if you increase the MPG on an SUV by 75%, it doesn't mean that people are going to drive 75% more. I think there's a time component there that will eventually win out. People will drive more, but probably not to the extent where the benefits of raising the MPG standard will be nullified.

From what I've seen from afar, the culture in the dugout seems too similar to what it was in 2003. This feels like a team in freefall, without a way out and without a way to even feel better despite some talent issues. Last time I checked clubhouse culture is something that Ozzie would be in charge of. Ozzie may be an alright manager in some aspects, but his day to day in game handling seems a bit suspect to me. Has since his first day as a MLB manager and that sad, sad loss to the Royals in the 9th inning. A lot of people might blame the talent level on this team. But it seems to me that a good manager, knows how to work with whatever talent level he has to win the games he should win and to get the best out of his staff every day. Unfortunately, I'm just not seeing that here. Ozzie, it's time to go. KW, you too.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jun 22, 2007 -> 04:41 PM) unions are always great for workers, just ask the auto industry... oh wait.... Actually, they are. Why do Toyota plants have problems getting union representation? Because Toyota doesn't actively unionbust (some plants are represented.) However, Toyota appears to have made a decision to offer similar benefits packages without having to be negotiated to it by a union. But if GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler didn't have these contracts, do you think the benefits Toyota workers receive would be nearly as generous? My guess is no.

Jason, exactly. This is a small step towards energy independence. Just because you get more miles to your tank of gas doesn't suddenly mean you're going to move 15 miles further away from work. Because even if you get better mileage, it doesn't improve the amount of time you spend traveling.

However, this isn't a term or condition of employment. This is a job fair.

Because when you don't have a policy worth promoting, you have to attack an inconsistency on your opponent's behalf.

My favorite interview from a supporter of this bill is Trent Lott who said something like, the federal government just can't enforce companies to this law. It just won't work. Now I'm pretty sure that it's gonna be close to impossible to round up and deport 12 million people. But I'm also pretty sure that if we want the flow of illegal labor to stop, we have to stop letting employers knowingly flout the law and hire illegal labor.

Yeah, but seriously, Obama would have voted to increase the minimum wage and to expand stem cell funding if he wasn't running for President.

I wish that we would take more of a leadership role to allow the players involved in this find an agreement.

I haven't had a chance to watch any games recently, but when I read what he has to say - I feel like he's given up on the team. If that's the case, maybe the team should give up on him.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Jun 12, 2007 -> 01:01 PM) That is a good point. However, I would hope that we allow our elected officials to have their own view point. They were elected with those view points. Someone else should get elected if the general population does not agree with them and views that opinion as too big of a problem. You may call this a straw argument, but I'm going to try and draw a correlation that does not involve religion. I'm sure someone else can come up with a better one. I am in no way correlating Catholicism to the oil industry. I am just making the point about calling someone a title that you do not personally believe. The point is an extreme one to make it obvious. If an elected official was visiting the heads of the oil industry and they expected everyone to call them "The Environmentalists", but the elected official did not believe that was true, should he still be required to call them that because of etiquette? Now, you may point out the difference between the heads of oil industry and that of a sovereign nation, but "His Holiness" is a religious title. It is not a title for the head of a nation. Vandy, "His Holiness" is the title of the head of state to the Holy See, a recognized nation by the United States. If you recognize the sovereignty of the nation, you use the correct title when addressing the head of state. It's diplomacy 101.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Jun 12, 2007 -> 08:54 AM) I wouldn't call it a mistake if it was me. I am not Catholic, and I would not refer to any person as "His Holiness". Only God can be referred to as Holy. We have all done wrong during our lives, including the Pope. Right now, I bristle at the idea. Other titles are fine by me, and people should be called them when the situation warrants it. Maybe a Catholic can show me where the name came from, why the Pope has assumed such a name, and what it means to them. Your personal viewpoint has no business in an official state visit. We recognize the Holy See as a sovereign nation and this was a visit to the Pope in the Vatican. As such, it is only respectful to follow the etiquette that is expected in the house you're visiting. This president is well known for correcting people for not referring to him as "Mr. President" as is the current standard of behavior in the White House. You'd think he'd do the same. What he said to the Pope is a mistake, and no big deal. How he refers to heads of state in joint press conferences however is not. It's just disrespectful.

What's more disrespectful than this mistake (and that's what it was - although given that this isn't his first papal audience in the last seven years, you'd think he'd get it right by now) is his habit of doing joint press conferences with heads of state and referring to them by their first name instead of "prime minister xx" or "president xx" especially given that he hates the same treatment.

RIP. For those of you wondering, although WY is a state with a Democrat as Governor, the state will retain a Republican senator through 2008 by state law. The Governor is required to appoint one of three chosen candidates by the deceased Senator's political party.

I thought he was stripped last year of his committee assignments.

Fred Thompson 2008 = Howard Dean 2004.

Y'all should read the link. A gay bar in Australia got the right to ban straight people. That's a bar I'd never go to.

YOU LEAVE LINDSAY A-LOHAN-E!

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ May 30, 2007 -> 04:48 PM) If he vetoed troop withdrawls...can't there still be troop withdraws? or even troop withdrawals? there's a big difference in my mind. Why would he veto troops with drawls? We need all the help we can get!

Gay bars don't ban heterosexuals in the US and let's hope it stays that way.