Jenksismyhero

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/1962.html http://www.syracuse.com/poststandard/stori....xml&coll=1 A couple more stories. Apparently this Juneteenth is a heckuva party. It's supposed to celebrate freedom and the end to slavery but ends up as a violent mess across the country. And I agree the race factor shouldn't be important. But it also didn't surprise me much when I found out who was involved.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 19, 2007 -> 10:30 AM) So I'm the only one who thought the episode sucked? It's a show full of actors who barely act as is, so when you throw them into a documentary style show suddenly you have bad actors who aren't used to acting, acting like they're not acting and failing miserable. Vince looked completely ridiculous as Pablo Escobar, it looked like a skinny white guy in a whole lot of prostetic makeup with a terrible accent. If Medellín were a real movie Vincent Chase would win a Rassie for the role. Seeing as how nothing bad really ever happens on this show, I assume Vince will win an Oscar for the role or some s*** which will make no sense what so ever. Agreed. The show has gone downhill since season 2.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Jun 18, 2007 -> 12:17 PM) No, it wasn't her, but as I was watching I did remark to my wife that she looks very similar to Cuthbert. This show is solid, and does a good job of ending on a note that makes you want to come back next week. Eh, I dunno. I just watched Episode 2 last night and I'm still not feeling it. I have zero interest in surfing, so that might be part of it. It just seems to move very, very slow. Also, does anyone else feel that using past actors on other big HBO series is a bad thing? Two guys from Deadwood showed up in that episode and instead of me thinking about the new character, all I think about is "oh hey, that's that guy from Deadwood. Wow, he sure is different in this show."

I think the point is that we work hard AND still have to pay taxes AND pay for health care AND pay for our education AND pay for our (well not me but in the future) kids health and education, etc, etc etc. We're tired of paying for our own interests as well as others, especially when those others are here illegally. You don't see them getting anything for FREE, but you see them getting things TAX FREE, which is huge. Think about how much tax revenue you'd get from 12 million people. Think how much we spend, per year, on illegals ($20k right?). So it's not 'free' but it's sure is better than being here legally. And unfortunately, in some states, illegal immigrants can (and do) get financial aid: http://www.finaid.org/otheraid/undocumented.phtml One thing that cracks me up about your responses is that you paint this picture like illegal aliens are essentially in slavery and even though they get paid something they should be getting more. Their situations are NOT that bad. For every illegal that is working in crappy positions, I'll give you 10 ordinary American CITIZENs working their asses off 40-50 hours a week and not getting half of the government assistance your illegals or any other bum on the street receives. It makes me sick we even debate this sort of issue when we have honest, hard-working people scrapping by.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jun 19, 2007 -> 12:00 PM) You weren't born in the life of a legal firm, and nobody is forcing you to go law school. These immigrants, like many of our ancestors, were born in s***ty environments and are willing to face criminal charges and go through extreme dangers to come here and work a s***ty job for the rest of their lives. 5 years from now you'll have a smaller debt and a cushy job, and you earned by working hard. 5 years from now an illegal will still work the same level s***ty job (dishwasher, landscaper, painter, etc..) making the same s***ty money, still not receiving medical benefits but the alien will mind his or her own business while Mr. Whitecollar like yourself is trying to push them out of the country thinking it isn't fair that you can get the newest Mercedes because you have too much debt in your house and law school. I'm sorry, I forgot that we have a no tolerance policy for immigration. Of course the ONLY way to better your life is to come into the country illegally. What a shame it is that people have to work their way through life and abide by the laws of the land to be successful. Tell joe-schmo alien to go through the proper channels of immigration and he can be as successful as he wants to be. No one is forcing him to take on these crazy ridiculous extreme jobs you think actually exist. I'm not one of those people who think we need to kick every illegal out, but it's ridiculous to give blanket amnesty to people who willfully break the law, regardless of their motive for doing so. Devise a system where people who've been here for X number of years (proven by documentation) can stay, so long as they pay back every cent of taxes and social services that they owe the rest of the public, and I'd proudly support it.

Count me in the camp that feels no sympathy for illegals. I work 40-45 hours a week at a VERY demanding firm downtown and have law school at night from 6-9pm, five days a week. And when I'm finished, I get to pay off about 130-140k in loans.

I'm still debating whether I liked it. I think right now I disliked the episode in general, but loved how it was wrapped up in the end. Some of my thoughts: - AJ's sudden change seemed forced. We've spent 3-4-5 episodes now building up this plot about AJ and his depression/suicide, his hate for American culture, the war, etc. And his story arc ends in 15 minutes when he says he's going to the Army and then his parents suddenly pull some strings and get him a job. Why didn't they do this years ago? The storyline all makes sense and fits with the show, but it just seemed forced and thrown together in the last minute. This should have taken an episode or two IMO. - I thought the scene with Tony and Junior was great. Tony walks in, expecting to yell and fight, and then he quickly realizes that Junior is gone. The person he's held all that hate for is no longer there. He's no longer a problem to deal with. - Age has been kind to the actress that plays Meadow. Not so much for the actress who player her friend from a few seasons back. - As to the final scene: I've read numerous stories over the years about how Chase wanted the show to be set in the real world. He hates TV because writers are forced to make happy and/or complete endings. The stories always need to have a beginning, middle and an end. But he doesn't like this. He's always wanted The Sopranos to be real. As that reviewer notes, there are numerous storylines that left us hanging, because in the real world that's how it goes. To me the final scene was a perfect example of the entire show filmed in 5 minutes. You have this 'happy' family getting together for dinner. You have a Journey song that's all about continuing to believe everything is alright. There are no troubles for the Sopranos, everything is cool. Except everything isn't cool and ok. Tony's pending indictment, the continued threat of danger to Tony and his family, the uncertainty of AJ's future and Meadows future, Paulie's demons from the past, etc etc. The ending to me was perfect. Life continues to go on for the Soprano's (and everyone associated with them) with all of the uncertainties they have to deal with on a daily basis. Yet they continue to act like nothing is wrong and everything will be ok. They're continuing to believe...

QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Jun 7, 2007 -> 01:23 PM) Is this whats all the fuss is about? A Bruce Willis interview? Is that a man with a perfect 10 body? Sure looks like it.

She should be 'riding' this for all it's worth. Who else gets the attention of 300k+ people in less than two weeks? I'd be hiring a PR firm and hitting the talk show circuit. But that's just me.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 4, 2007 -> 06:18 PM) I have to say, Biden took a step forward in that debate. He looked and sounded awfully good. And as has been pointed out before, he is the ONLY candidate in either party offering a real alternative for the Iraq War. Something to consider. My guy Richardson is showing the exact positives and negatives that were there going in - great policy ideas and great resume, but he is the least charismatic of the bunch. If he can't smooth out his delivery, he won't last long. Too bad really. He's just so much more qualified than everyone else, and actually brings some affirmative economic ideas to the table. Clinton is so wish-washy she makes John Kerry look like an oak. Edwards is just sleazy. He really is. Obama, I think, made a good step forward. He's hard to dislike when you're listening to him speak. He is loosening up again, and it is helping him a lot. Gravel, Kucinich and Dodd were, as expected, non-factors. I checked out the debate even though I knew I'd be screaming at the TV the entire time. I swear that each candidate got together and said "ok so our plan should be to never answer the question straight up, bring back past questions you didn't get a chance to answer, and make sure to indirectly point out how crummy the last eight years have been, even if it doesn't make sense in the context of the question asked." But I agree with your assessment. I though Biden was someone I might actually consider. The guy is passionate and very rarely skipped over any question without giving a direct answer (I loved Clinton's argument "we can deal all day in hypotheticals but we can't answer those types of questions." I really liked his strong commitment to fixing the Darfur debacle, whereas the rest of the candidates were pretty wishy-washy (i'd support a no-fly zone...wtf is that?). And he seems like the only one in Washington with some sort of plan to solve the Iraq mess. If someone can tell me the difference between Bush and the rest of the Dems and how they'd deal with fixing Iraq (not just bringing our troops home) I'd sure like to hear it. Edwards is very sleazy and downright moronic really. I loved how he had to mention he talked to the Pakistani president two sec's after Clinton mentioned she had met with him. Yet it was like 3-4 years ago. Such a lame attempt at proving his utter lack of experience - a common theme the entire debate. Clinton seems too angry and pent up with frustration. How much does it have to eat at her when the candidates kept saying things like, "when I worked with your husband, when i saw the problem i went straight to your husband," etc. Obama was typical Obama. What does he believe? Um, that we need to stop people from being killed, we need to give everyone money, health care and education and he likes ponies. He MAY have some real policies that he'd like to implement, but everytime he's on a national stage this is the stuff I hear from him. And they all do it, so I guess to be fair I shouldn't discount him that much, but as someone I need to get to know it's not helping me decide if I like him. Richardson is another guy I didn't really mind. Like Biden I give him props for saying things that are unpopular. I think keeping us out of the Olympics could be a useful way to deal with China. That's a lot of $$ pissed down the drain if we don't attend. I came away not, not liking him, so good for him. Kucinich instantly lost any hope of my vote when he said he's against the assasination policy and would not take out Bin Laden if he had the chance.

the writers have said it's neither. it's just some anonymous safe house

So I watched Apocalypto this weekend. Has anyone else seen it? I thought it was in the same mold as Passion: well done, good acting, beautifully filmed and directed. But I still can't decide if I liked it or not. Which got me thinking about the whole point of the movie and it it ultimately comes down to showcasing persecution and death. This seems to be a running them in his movies recently. I'm waiting for him to do his next movie on Darfur or some other genocide. He really does a good job in this genre.

Thought it was on Ok episode. Still think this last half season has been more miss than hit. Since we'll have at least a few episodes on set of the new movie, I wonder how they'll keep Ari in the show.

I dunno, we've never heard of him contacting one of the other five families before. I think that'd be too out there to believe. It looks like it'll come down to a shoot out. Either way it plays out though, it's clear the NJ crew has taken a serious hit, one they likely won't recover from. I'm in agreement with all of you. Fantastic episode. I too felt sad for Silvio. One of my favorite characters.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jun 1, 2007 -> 09:39 AM) Could the sign say No n*****s? 40 years of civil rights and we'd be right back to where we started? Segregated bathrooms? Segregated hotels? Sorry, I can't support that in any way. Aren't we beyond this sort of thinking though? Shouldn't the pendulum swing back some? The vast majority of people in the country don't care about your race or religion or sexual orientation. So what if this person doesn't want homosexuals in his bar? Don't go there if you don't agree. It's not as if this one guy will cause every other bar owner to become anti-gay. The fear of shutting out minorities is long gone. And really this issue makes me laugh. In every educational institution I've been in (college and now law school) there have always been certain scholarships for blacks (or any other race) or women, job fairs for minorities only, organizations for minorities/gays only, etc etc. Most of them say 'for minorities only' so it's not a situation in which everyone is invited but it's tailored towards minorities. Oh I know, white males have every advantage in life (bullsh*t, I'd argue we have a tougher time in 2007 living in a metro area), but it still cracks me up.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 31, 2007 -> 04:19 PM) Of course...you're sort of ignoring the key point...the ACLU only gets its attorney fees paid for if it wins a case. If an opponent actually has a valid case, then they won't be paying for the ACLU's attorneys. The issue of course is that it actually is constitutionally problematic for the government to be endorsing one type of religion over another, etc, so there's always a reasonable shot that if someone does something stupid, like insist that this government building needs to have a cross on it's front otherwise Jesus will hate America, they will lose. In other words...don't put the stuff there if you're not constitutionally sure. It's really not that hard to read the recent court decisions to figure out where the court will come donw. Yep. You plant a cross in the public square and slap a plaque on it that says "In Remembrance of the Traditions of our Founding Fathers."

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 30, 2007 -> 09:28 PM) You know, this reminds me so much of that episode of the Simpsons where Maggie is born. And Mr. Burns decides to give Homer the Plague, I mean the Plaque...which reads...Don't forget, you're here forever. Would people have an issue with this (permanent base there)? My dad seems to think that was the point of this entire war. The Bush people thought the best and easiest target was Iraq, which wouldn't take long to overhaul, and then we could move onto the bigger evil-doers in Iran. But along the way we found out that taking over a country and implementing a new government is hard work and takes a little longer than expected. At least it would give us the ability to protect the oil fields...

I guess I'm looking at it from a different perspective. In terms of the larger picture of liberating them and instituting a democracy, there were plenty of men and women to do the job. The violence that occurs there on a daily basis isn't stopping the bigger goal of creating a new, successful country. It sure isn't helping, obviously, but it's not stopping it.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ May 30, 2007 -> 07:22 AM) But we might have had a better shot at it, had they listened to the people who said that 500k troops were needed, not 150k (those people who KNEW about Iraq from experience in 1991). Or, if this administration had actually thought through the nation-building part AT ALL, instead of focusing solely on the military aspects. That last part is what really amazes me - its like one company taking over another with no idea of what they want to then do with it. If a CEO did that, they'd be out of a job. I don't agree with this. (a) How would more troops help? Pointing a gun at someone screaming "Hey, you better like that guy over there or else!" doesn't work with one troop, let alone 500k of them. The problem is that we aren't utilizing the forces that we have there. We're trying to make an impact while staying out of the way. We're walking the fine line of trying to make a strong presence while also building up the Iraqi army and police force and their presence. I think the number of troops was more than adequate for what was needed. (B) They didn't focus entirely on military aspects. The entire first two to three years were filled with public works projects, upgrading water, sewage and power systems, building hospitals and schools, fixing roads and bridges, etc. And those works are in use today. The military did it's military thing by trying to weed out the remaining Saddam loyalists, and the government contractors, with support from the military, went to work rebuilding the country. And really that's not fair to say because there has been a ton of political work done over the last few years as well. You don't see it because the headlines don't scream "Success! Iraq's government strong, stable and willing to take over," but that doesn't mean there hasn't been an emphasis on it or that no work is being done.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ May 25, 2007 -> 11:28 AM) I know I'm "retired" from all of this soxtalk stuff but I am bored at work today and this question was on my mind. I have two friends that have been dating about 2 years now. The guy is 21 and will be graduating in Dec; the girl, 22, has just graduated. Neither of which have full time jobs right now, and he plans on "being in graduate school as an english/writing student" which he'll "definitely be paid for" 1) Do you think it is wise for them to elope, because "they don't have the money for a big ceremony?" 2) Do you think it is selfish to elope (assuming you're not 35+ and/or in some other obvious non-traditional situation) and not include friends and family? 3) Do you think it's appropriate to then have a later reception paid for by someone else, which will surely invite people to bring gifts regardless of the "please don't bring gifts" note on the invitations? I'm just curious if I'm being overly protective of these friends. anyone? thoughts? Why can't they just wait? My gf and I have been dating for close to 5 years now and have put off plans of marriage until we're both finished with school (december baby!). Obviously she's cool about this, which some women aren't. The more we keep talking about marriage, the more I think something like that is selfish. We want to do a travel wedding, which is essentially the same as eloping in this context. But only the closest of family will be able to attend and the rest will only have a reception to go to. I think ultimately grandparents and aunts/uncles feel left out. I know my grandparents would be really angry if we traveled some where and got married without them there to see it. I think it's a whole family event.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 24, 2007 -> 11:11 PM) That leaves out the 1 other point though...Yes, 35% say there should be an immediate withdrawal. But another 35-40% beyond that say that well maybe there shouldn't be an immediate withdrawal, but there should be firm benchmarks set or an official timeline for when we're withdrawing. Hell, I'll even cite the Fox News poll that says that. Only like 25% of this country wants this war to continue until January 20, 2009/forever, as is currently in the law. And if you simply ask the "Favor/oppose" question, it's 60-65% opposed. This country doesn't want this thing any more. The only question is what the best way out is; immediate withdrawal or something phased with more timelines. See this is where I'm glad Congress and Bush 'compromised.' I think a hard date would have been terrible. As the great mind, Elizabeth Hassleback, said the other day (no i don't watch the show, just happened to see the clip of her and the fat one fighting), if you give the other team information, such the exact play you're about to call, that changes the game entirely. They can sit back and wait for it. That's exactly what will happen. They set a date, everyone will calm down until that date and then major planned attacks will occur and someone will try and take control of the country, sorta like Saddam did. I liked the compromise because we dropped the date and instituted benchmarks that the Iraqi government has to meet. We're finally kicking them in their ass and saying look, we helped you out, its time for you to take control of your people. And I think those polls are also crap. Who wants war? Shouldn't that be like 95% are opposed to war? Who likes the fact that Americans are dying?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ May 24, 2007 -> 12:49 PM) I still fail to see a reason for invading the country. Iraq was not an imminent threat. Iran and North Korea are more of a threat. Well thats fine, and you can have that opinion. My issue is when people have this opinion and couple it with the 'that bastard Bush created this war out of nothing' argument. This is when revionist history comes to play and we get situations like know where a large chunk of the population thinks Bush created the war and lied to everyone. The fact is he didnt lie and there was evidence. Whether or not that threat justified the war, ok, thats an argument I don't mind having. QUOTE(Y2HH @ May 25, 2007 -> 08:29 AM) Those of us inbetween can probably come to a conclusion that although the war has gotten a tad out of control -- it's war, and only an idiot would assume something like WAR could be "in control" -- but there was probably SOME good that came of this, even with the bad. No matter what way you slice it...war sucks...but sometimes, it's necessary even if unpopular. Agreed. More people need to remember this. I think 24/7 cable news has made this problem (expectations) worse.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ May 24, 2007 -> 12:38 PM) The inspectors were let in before we invaded and found nothing. There was no reason to invade. I don't think it was as cut and dry as this. (a) it's a big country. we found bunkers we didn't know saddam had after we invaded. just because a group of 20 inspectors goes in and looks around doesn't mean they checked every possible place (B) they were never given enough time to complete the job. if i recall correctly saddam waited a long time before he let them in, and when he did he didn't cooperate fully. also the inspectors DID find weapons that were banned after the Gulf War the he said he got rid of but obviously didn't. The left can try to spin this all they want, but the fact was the majority of the world thought he had them. The best intelligence available said he had them. If you want to debate that the Bush admn tried to sell the war on shaky intelligence (my favorite was the mobile missile systems on semi-trucks), ok fine. But the evidence did exist and it was believed by the majority of the international intelligence community at the time. It wasn't fabricated like so many people think.

Excellent article. I agree with everything he said.

Also remember to always thank both sets of parents for the rehearsal dinner and reception.