Jenksismyhero

Ha, so I didn't think the 'john does' could actually be sued and I was right. Even though they are named as defendants, the complaint doesn't even mention them as violating any statutes. It's all about the pilots/flight attendants/gate workers and airport employees in their capacity as agents of US Airways and the Airport, violating the Imams civil rights. Here's a copy of the complaint. It'll be interested to see what the Judge says about the John Doe's. My guess is he/she will force the Imams to remove them from the entire lawsuit for lack of violating a law. http://www.cair.com/pdf/usairwayscomplaint.pdf

Same reason.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 09:00 AM) Anyone out there know when the 100 or so additional HD channels will finally make the air on DirecTv. The handful that are offered now are not cutting it for me. They've been talking about that for years. Not sure of any date though. I'm still waiting for the History Channel to be in HD and then I'd be set.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 08:30 AM) That's just it - the move is 100% posturing and 0% substance, because those protections already exist under the law as I understand it. Its not that I think this causes some new problems - its that the whole premise is nothing more than fear-mongering. Eh, I think you're reading too much into it. Yeah politics is involved, but I think its more to protect people who want to speak out but feel they can't because they don't want to be sued for it. I'm not sure current laws protect those people without having to drag them through the muck of a lawsuit. This will let claims to be dismissed right away. I guess I can see that it's got no substance though. This has happened once out of how many flights? 500k? A million? It's a non-issue really. So...in the end I agree with you but for different reasons. Ha! I love logic in the morning.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 07:33 AM) Assinine. That's what this is. 1. If you are considering reporting suspicious activity on a plane because you think someone is up to something dangerous, you aren't going to give a flying f*** about maybe getting sued IF you make it back to the ground. So there is absolutely no such thing as this "chilling effect". 2. If people report suspicious activity to a responsible person (stewardess or pilot or cop or whomever), and that is the end of their involvement, no lawsuit will EVER be successful against them anyway unless it can be proven they KNEW it was a false report. That is just like any other type of false reporting, 911 calls, etc. So there is nothing to protect against here - this law accomplishes nothing. 3. It saddens me that the security "hawks" who want to turn this country into something out of a sci fi dystopia of paranoia, fail to see that the more we do pointless, fear-driven things like this, the more we give up ground and LOSE to the terrorists. Not to mention we look like cowards on the world stage. This makes me ill. The language includes protecting speech that is made 'in good faith.' I don't see what the problem is. It shouldn't create the problems you guys suggest. If it does, they'll be sued as if the law had not been in place to begin with. So again, I don't see the problem. Putting something like this on the books just allows the process to work a little faster by letting the judge dismiss the claim at the outset.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 11:47 AM) The plot thickens Excerpt: Russia slams U.S. global policy By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 47 minutes ago MOSCOW - Russia's Foreign Ministry on Tuesday criticized the United States for what it called over-reliance on force and warned Washington against military action against Iran. But in a major review of foreign policy priorities, the ministry said Russia was ready to cooperate to end global crises if Washington treats it as an equal partner. The statement reflects Russia's growing confidence and economic clout, and appears to be a signal to Washington that, while the two nations can work together, Russia will not always follow the U.S. lead. It also plays to national pride in advance of parliamentary and presidential elections. Russia criticized what it called "the creeping American strategy of dragging the global community into a large-scale crisis around Iran," saying that Iran helps maintain stability in Afghanistan and Central Asia. Gee this wouldn't be because Iran owes Russia a ton of money. Sorta like France and Saddam...

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 11:40 AM) Not to spin this into a comparative worth discussion, but that would be interesting as well, throughout history some of the most valuable citizens were not formally educated. I'm thinking more along the lines of let's all pay the same amount in taxes. $1000, whatever. No one pays any more, or anyless, than another. That's the total gross income, now put together government services based on that amount. $1000 to someone who makes 11k a year means a whole lot more than someone who makes 11 million a year.

QUOTE(chimpy2121 @ Mar 18, 2007 -> 10:32 PM) No talk about the Cartman Sucks episode? hahaha I thought it was pretty funny. I really liked how Cartman tried to be all serious. "If you look at this picture you'll notice the contrasting shapes and distinctive color arrangement. And yes, that's a penis in my mouth. So as I was saying..."

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Mar 17, 2007 -> 10:41 PM) Well I definately don't think it's acceptable, this is why: They were an elite program for the last 6 years. Illinois basketball was definately top 10 in the nation and I'd say top 5 overall during those years as a whole. Self recruited players without being in the Final Four, much less the championship game, but Weber couldn't keep that going despite doing what Self hadn't. Why is that? He's at a top program that was getting the most national exposure it's gotten in awhile, that almost went undefeated. He also played in a major conference. Why is it he couldn't keep the flow going? Weber knew the players he was going to have this year. Why didn't he bother developing Warren Carter earlier? Carter was a 4 star SF recruit out of Texas IIRC. Why would you wait all the way until his senior year to get him burn? Calvin Brock should've been backing up Dee Brown and Rich McBride last year so he could develop and get his feet wet. It's not only that Weber sucks at recruiting, he underachieved for a program that was doing great up until this year and his acts of discipline are a complete joke, especially compared to his football coach. In summary, 1)He doesn't have top talent on the horizon when he should be. 2)He didn't win this year with probably better talent then he'll have next year. 3)His way of teaching his players are small slaps on the wrists. 4)His former assistant coaches are outrecruiting him despite not even sniffing the Final Four. I could understand a down season if you're waiting for players to come though, but at this rate, we'll have to wait until 2010 for that freshman in high school to come and play for us and that's if he doesn't decide to go to Kansas or Duke. Underachieving? Weber has the 2nd best winning percentage in the nation behind that rat face from the east. I'm so tired of this crap talk. If they guy doesn't get lied to and screwed over by one recruit this is a total non-issue. Sorry man, I just can't fault the guy for losing out on him and then being screwed. He had the verbal for over a year and had no reason to think about a back up plan (what recruiting pitch would he use? hey we love how you play, don't really have any spot for you because we have probably the top recruit in the nation coming in, but do you want to come anyway if he backs out?) I've been a die hard Illini fan since I was able to understand sports. My family has had season tickets to basketball and football since I was 5. But I hate this fallacy that the 'illini nation' has that we went from nobodys to an elite program that should be contending for national titles every year. We've had two legitimate shots in the last 2 decades. Yeah, there were some good teams in the mix as well, but we've NEVER had the expectation of winning it year after year until now. People need to put things into perspective. I can't believe people consider this season a failure after everything that this team has gone through. They've had injuries and distractions the entire year. They haven't played as a full unit until about a month ago. Hell, the PG has a messed up MCL and he's still playing. I'm amazed the team got into the tournament, let alone in the position to win a game (which they should have no doubt).

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Mar 17, 2007 -> 08:38 AM) Well, they lose Warren Carter who was probably their best player this season. And they also lose McBride, who was their best guard. And I'll go ahead and assume Jamar Smith won't be around either. Semrau might be able to offset Carter's loss to some extent. But an team that is is already offensively challenged will lose 2 of it's top 3 offensive players. That's a heavy burden to place on a couple of freshmen backcourt players (McCamey and Watkins, assuming Watkins doesn't drop IL for AZ). And it's not like Weber likes to play young guys as it is. There's a lot good teams in the Big Ten. I think it will reaslitically be difficult for Illinois to finish above 7th next season. If Weber gets next year's team to the tournament, I don't think ayone could criticize his coaching. That's crap. We were supposed to finish in the bottom of the Big Ten this year and if we hadn't choked against Michigan State (up like 15 at the half), Iowa or even Wisky, we would have finished 3rd in the conference. There is still talent on the team with Randle and Pruitt (and even Brock to some extent). Add in Cole and Watkins who will probably be immediate contributors, and I think we're in the same boat as we were this year: A decent tournament worthy team that'll have ups and downs because of the inexperience of youth. I'm tired of the whining and complaining. I don't want to accept losing or down years, but this is the first time in 8 years we've missed out on the 2nd round. Ask Kansas and their umpteen Mcd AA's how it feels to get ousted in the first round TWO YEARS IN A ROW.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 06:13 AM) Aaron is so getting kidnapped at one point or another. You can see that one coming a mile away. Nah, they've already done that. I think we'll find that Desmond has been to the island before, sorta like Groundhog Day. He 'sees' the future because he's seen Charlie die before the other times that he's been there. His whole flashback led me to believe this was true. It's all about him replaying that one part of his life where he had to choose which path to go down. The one leads him to man-up and pick Penelope, the other forces him into this sorta-pergatory island in which he's forced to save someones life in order to get back to the position where he can make the choice again. All of this of course is somehow mixed in with the fail safe key and the hatch explosion. Something happened there I think that ties it all together. I think the rest of the characters are just there, living in the moment, but the show itself is all about Desmond. I dunno, crazy sci-fi theory I know, but I believe the two skeletons on the island, whom the producers say play an integral part of the whole story, are desmond and penelope so I gotta find some way to tie all that in.

the first games were ok, but I can't get it to play anything now. it's just buffering...

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 11:10 AM) I agree with you that the only significant differences between Clinton/Reno's firings and these news ones are timing, and that the current administration is lousy at being smooth. But the bias we are seeing, I think, is less about a "liberal agenda" and more about increasing levels of media exposure generally, and the soundbyte style of journalism. Whomever our next President is, I will guarantee right now, will be scrutinized even more than Bush was. Bet on it. And as our society gets more and more into the flash and dash style of information ingestion, the media will more and more being trying to create shock waves where none (or very few) should exist. Here is a thought to ponder. All sorts of polls and studies indicated during the last 10 years a significant movement to the right of the country as a whole. And this was both the already-right-leaning folks, and the moderate or "swing" voters. That trend seems to be be reversing a bit now, but only just starting to. So... if you are a media business (paper, TV, radio, whatever) who is trying to make money by reporting to the broadest possible audience (in other words, I am not talking about the fringe ones here)... why on earth would you promote a "liberal agenda"? It makes no sense at all. Sure, there are always individual reporters and such that show some bias in their presentation, intentionally and unintentionally. But there is no "agenda" there other than to make money, generally through loyalty. And the way to do that is capture more audience, not less. Drama and controversy sell papers more than actual news. I think the reason that there is this conspiracy about the leftist media is that they're generally anti-Bush (and his admin) because of what it creates. It's the popular thing to do now.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 08:45 AM) Seeing those kind of numbers in print is staggering, and yet not surprising. We as American's make no effort to see the world through anyone else's eyes, and on top of it, we don't even understand our own history, or the forces that shaped it. Its just sad. Agreed. We've focused our attention on sterilizing all religious thought in this country as opposed to fostering a more inviting and accepting forum for religous discussion.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 02:20 PM) Link. Nothing in this story says that a gay individual was kicked out of the military for being a victim of same sex rape. You have six people involved, two of whom left and eventually 'came out.' I presume the other four are still serving. So in the end the only guy who might have had some trouble with the DADT policy is the guy who was convicted of raping five guys, one of whom conceded he was in fact gay, but still raped. Plus this is just one incident, a bizarre one at that.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 02:08 PM) DADT prevents soldiers from reporting same sex rape because they'll also get drummed out of the service as a suspected homosexual. For being raped by another guy? I can see the guy doing the raping being suspected, but the victim? That seems made up. A crime is a crime, even under military law.

Lol, doh. 'For Dems only' means Kevin doesn't read it! I think the dont ask dont tell policy is fine. I see nothing but problems by 'getting it all out in the open.' It'll just create more situations for minorities (in this situation gays) to be discriminated/ridiculed. I just have problem with the gay/lesbian groups that are so up in arms about this. It's this guys opinion. He doesn't prescribe moral code for the country, so who cares what he thinks? There are plenty of safeguards to protect gays from any sort of discrimination. It's not like he's teaching 5th graders to lynch every gay person on the street. I wish people would grow some skin. Not everyone has the same opinions about things. Stupid or not, inappropriate or not, I think there's an extreme overreaction to his comments. Just my opinion. I'm probably a bigot for thinking that people still have a right to speak their opinions though. Even if they are out of touch with reality...

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 11:35 AM) More than that, almost none of the models actually predict that there will be an increase in the total number of hurricanes due to anthropogenic climate change. What the models do predict is that if you do get hurricanes...because of the warmer surface waters which store more energy, they will be able to gather more strength and therefore hit with greater force. Having, for example, the 2 strongest hurricanes in recorded history appear within 1 year would fit well with that trend. Doesn't prove it of course. And 2006 shows the nastiness of trying to tie single events to global climate change; 2006 was a year with a very small number of Atlantic hurricanes. Why? Because 2006 was an El Nino year, and the ENSO pattern tends to drive strong winds over the Central Atlantic that serve to shear and break up hurricanes, preventing them from forming. You are right in that it isn't something that's going to destroy the world tomorrow (or ever, for that matter). But here's the other side of the token; the more time we take before taking strong action, the less time we have to actually figure out a solution. Making genuine cuts in CO2 emissions now is a defense mechanism. We're not going to stop the earth from warming at least another degree C, and we can't really get back the Degree C or so that we've already done, but beyond that, nothing else is guaranteed. If we take strong steps to slow down our emissions, then we can buy ourselves some time to come up with an actual solution to prevent the situation from becoming quite disasterous. There's a reason that no real sane person is calling for us to totally give up using Fossil Fuels tomorrow; that is a solution that is more damaging than the problem. But when you weigh the cost of making some small shifts in our behavoir versus the extra 10 or 20 years that those changes could buy us, I think the cost/benefit analysis turns around the other way. Hey we're in total agreement there. I'm fine with Gore promoting environmental programs. However his movie, book and speeches often delve into hypothetical’s of future catastrophes. Could they happen? Sure, they could. But it's doubtful that New York will be under 20 ft of water, or that we'll have 20 billion displaced people around the world because of rising waters. Or 'Katrina was just the beginning' - my favorite tag line. It's the psychological effect he has on people that don't actually talk about the issue or do a little research on their own. They see a movie, promoted by a popular liberal, and they take it as truth (an inconvenient one at that). They equate global warming with the apocalypse. It's something the left accepts as a perfectly legitimate means to 'expose' the problem. Now lets think of the reaction if Bush had 'sold' the Iraq war by creating a movie showing Al Qaeda shooting in the streets of New York, or Al Qaeda planting bombs, or hijacking plans, etc etc. The guy makes a few speeches about the ties (albeit remote) between Iraq and Al Qaeda and he's accused of fear mongering. He talks in generalities about the 'evil doers' wanting to attack us on our own shores and he's labeled a bloody thirsty tyrant. Tell me how Gore is any different and why he's such a saint for doing it. I'm not an ubber-Bush supporter either. I just see the ridiculous double standard that's in play with this entire issue and how politicians are able to promote their answers to our country’s problems.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...=1&catnum=0 Figured this would be a more hotly debated topic.

We gotta start this discussion back up. Never enough bashing on Gore for me. This article pretty much sums up my view of the whole global warming thing. Yes there is a problem that needs to be addressed. But it's not happening tomorrow. He's a fear mongeror, just like Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield were to the left a few years ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/...and&emc=rss

QUOTE(BobDylan @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 05:16 PM) You've got it all wrong. You know what's wrong with the movies? People give them 10/10 ratings because they see a cool trailer where some guy yells (and is overracting quite extremely) "THIS IS SPARTA!" before they actually see the movie. You're bashing this guy for making comments about a movie he's seen. Yet, you, who has not seen it, is saying, "It's not going to do this, or this, or that," and praising the s*** out of it. Um, excuse me? Having not seen it, how exactly do you know there aren't parallels drawn to today's world? The guy who saw the movie seems to disagree with you. And, well, since he's actually seen the movie, I'm going to trust his insight more than yours. But, hey, you know what? Who says I have to listen to him. I can go see the movie and disagree with him after I see it myself, no? You know what's truly messed up in our society? When you basically tell this critic that his American freedoms are invalid because it's "an f'n" movie. Yet, you, who has nearly no knowledge on the movie, are allowed the rights he's not? Give me a break, man. No, but there's a difference between not liking a movie because the acting blows, the plot makes no sense, or the story in general just isn't good enough entertainment to be big-screen worthy. It's another thing to not like a movie because it's not politically correct enough for the current time. This is what this guy said. The movie popularizes war and death and they were far too masculine so its a bad movie. This is the BS type of review that is ruining hollywood. It's this political correctness crap that continues to curb our freedom of speech. And I never said anything about this guy not having a right to say what he wants to about the film. All i'm asking for is some relevant criteria to judge the film on. Arguing that the directors didn't correlate the movie to modern times is ridiculous. It's an f'n movie. It's not supposed to be about modern times. And I saw the movie tonight and thought it was badass. It's not a film you go see to find the meaning of life, but it was an awesome visual representation of a mythological event that happened in the distant past. If you don't bring in the BS political crap of modern times you would see the brilliance of the film. If, however, you have a stick shoved up your arse like this reviewer did, you'd have a problem with it.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/....300/index.html I haven't seen the movie yet (will do so tonight at the IMAX on Navy Pier), but this is exactly what's wrong with movies today. This tool bag gets his voice heard by the movie execs and the art of making movies suffers. There's a reason why the movies the last few years have been complete crap. They follow this douche-bags way of thinking. And to be fair, I might hate it. But I can guarantee I won't hate it because the director hasn't compared it to our time. Or that the director failed to appreciate that being in a war-weary time we shouldn't be celebrating death and destruction brought upon by war. And of course lets hate the movie because the directors forgot to include gays! Oh the tragedy! And of course, I love the little hit on Western civilization. We're so messed up, aren't we? This guy is everything that's wrong with our society. It's an f'n movie. It's supposed to be unrealistic. Some people enjoy the movies because it takes you to a different world. This is precisely why I'm excited about seeing this movie.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 12:38 PM) I wasn't quite sure what to make of the Chess game. Doesn't a good chess game take hours? Also, if Locke is that smart why does he appear to do some really dumb things. He was the one that demanded the buttons be pressed at the hatch and then he blew up both the hatch and the flame just out of curiosity is he that dumb or is he smart. Great Episode none the less. At first I thought that what Locke did was dumb, and slightly unrealistic. Here's a guy who plays a seemingly harmless chess game and then ends up with this command prompt from the Dharma guy. Wouldn't he have called in Sayid and Kate to take a look? But if you think about, I think he did what most people would do. The first question was do you want to communicate with the main land. He tried, but it failed. Second question was do you want to access the sonar beacon. Again, didn't work. Then it asks if there's been a hostile incursion. He could have been thinking, well if this place is for Dharma and the hostiles are taking over, they probably set up a system whereby they could be notified and can send necessary help. I think the whole episode continues to show the differences in the characters. We've learned previously that Jack is the go for the gusto, shoot from the hip, be brave and courageous type. Locke is the complete opposite; follow your beliefs and intuition, let something else guide your path. And then the whole '77' episode contines to differentiate those two from Sayid; the analytical, deep thinking person that acts only when he has gathered all necessary information. Locke's actions in the flame are exactly what someone like Locke would do: he's going on faith that everything around him is real (supported by his past disbelief in the numbers and his revelation that his initial belief was correct) and that he should act accordingly.

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 10:49 PM) I don't think they were proven to be her or not to be her either way. Her friend stepped up and said they were not. Again, I don't think it really matters. Let's say they were for her..... Why penalize a girl for doing something that every does? She didn't release the photos. Someone was trying to either cause problems for her or make a profit off of her. She had no control over their release. All that aside, the other thing is Idol is different than it was in Season 2. At the time, American was still trying to establish itself and a contestant that got paid for photos done on a fake kiddie porn web site would not be good for "the American Idol brand". Now, American Idol is fully entrenched into American life. Idol is so big, they can just basically ignore situations like Barba's, essentially like flicking a bug off its shoulder. Anyone crying racism here is just idiotic. Or just too stupid to understand there are differences in the two situations. It's definitely not racist. It's 'weight-ist.' Thank you Rosie O'Donnell for yet another wonderful contribution to our society...

Out of curiosity, how many people watch the episodes more than once?