Monthly Archives

Comments

Comments

• jon on February 26, 2003 08:59 PM
  whoa.
• Ashley on February 26, 2003 09:15 PM
  I kinda met Chuck the same way, with slight variations. We didn't talk long before we met, though, so most of our interaction was in the flesh instead of digital. I hope married life works out for the both of them... and you, too, with or without Leary's help (though he's a pretty damned funny guy).
• sarah on February 26, 2003 11:11 PM
  mark, mark, mark i gave you permission to post about me getting engaged, and you don't quite have the story right. there was no falling in love online, there was just a realization of attraction. when i went to visit danielle and actually met dan, it was to see if anything could possibly come of that attraction. it took several more visits and quite a bit of time before there was actually falling in love. i do find it amusing that when i told you i was engaged your response was not to say congratulations or some such but to ask "to whom?" smartass ;)

Comments

• Todd on February 24, 2003 06:37 PM
  I don't get it.
• mark on February 24, 2003 06:55 PM
  i was worried about that. there was this bicycle parked directly beneath a /huge/ bird nest on the quad...look closely all over the bike.
• Todd on February 24, 2003 07:45 PM
  Should have done a blow-up shot, you just can't see it.
• on February 25, 2003 08:16 AM
  ha ha! ho.. yep, now I get it.. funny.. mf

Comments

• esther on February 22, 2003 08:58 PM
  we should thank whoever made this sign - it'll be easier to identify the cars that need their tires slashed.
• esther on February 22, 2003 09:14 PM
  holy crap! i can't believe i just wrote that. i don't really mean it...
• greg on February 23, 2003 10:11 PM
  Discount parking is available in the next lot over for moderates who are willing to pick up our special discount war-mongers voucher...
• reva on February 24, 2003 09:44 AM
  If you are an intern please park here and leave your phone number on the dashboard.
• nate on February 24, 2003 10:07 AM
  'convinced we are always right since 1850'
• nate on February 24, 2003 02:22 PM
  or "buying the presidency since 2000"
• nate on February 24, 2003 02:24 PM
  or "republicans a breed all our own"
• mark on February 24, 2003 02:33 PM
  i would park in that space and put a sign on my dash that said, "i would have voted for mccain. how about you?"
• nate on February 24, 2003 03:23 PM
  'using the media to distort public opinion since 1999' http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0224-01.htm
• Todd on February 24, 2003 06:38 PM
  I like the one about buying the presidency... :)

Comments

• nate on February 21, 2003 11:44 AM
  well phooze it would appear you have entered the realm of multiculturalism. let me ask you this though: what does it even mean to be white? how much 'whiteness' do you need to be white? imagine only about a century ago the 3/5ths rule. how is it possible to measure such a thing? i dont know. and honestly, i wish people would stop trying. i consider myself white, but just the other day i had someone comment on the arab sounding nature of our last name. (i dont know if i should post this now as tom ridge might be tracking all electronic submissions of the word 'arab'. did i mention i love america?) without dallying too much, i would just say, good for you and cara and grace for talking about it. i think that the more closely we examine it, the more it appears that the borders are artificial. and if you really want to read about stupid white men, (aka, those in power - but i still love america) then click on my url.
• Regan on February 21, 2003 03:52 PM
  So...women are equal? How exactly did you come to this conclusion? You say that women are equal, but do not have equal opportunity as far as money. I agree that a large part is based on the fact that women are paid only 75% of what men make, but that is not the only thing keeping us (women) behind. Women's equality continues to come under attack when talking about issues such as reproductive health, the military, child care, the corporate world, and many other areas. Mark, I won't say much else here, but question equality. What does it mean? (God, I sound like Nate) I don't know, but I think a large part of understanding equality will come from understanding (and celebrating!)the differences between the male and female sex. Mark, haven't you been reading Women: an Intimate Geography? Silly boy...
• on February 21, 2003 04:06 PM
  carol moseley-braun I wouldn't care if she were green and sex indeterminate ~aka "pat".. QUALIFIED she's not! she does know how to use the political system for her own personal benefit, though. mf
• mark on February 22, 2003 12:57 AM
  i didn't say moseley-braun was a good candidate -- i don't know the answer -- but i do say that having non-white men entering races sets a positive precedent.
• ange on February 22, 2003 09:51 AM
  i'm gonna have to agree with regan on this one. since when do men and women have equal rights? your logic is curcular--if men don't see women as equals, how can there be equality? men have power. patriarchy exists. domestic violence and rape are perfect evidence that there is a significant power imbalance. if you're claiming that women have legal equality, take a look at a domestic violence case and how difficult it is for a woman to get a restraining order. and if she does get one--how easily her husband violates it.
• mark on February 22, 2003 12:04 PM
  no, i agree -- patriarchy does exist -- it runs our society. i was merely stating that i think women have equal educational opportunities, and therefore theoretically have equal rights in terms of money/employment. and i know that's not true...and no, regan, i never even touched women's rights in terms of abortion or anything -- reason being, that is a woman-specific thing, and i wanted to reference equality in terms of things that applied to both sexes. my opinions on pro-choice/pro-life are for a different day.
• jon on February 22, 2003 01:19 PM
  in defense of mark here are some key supporting points to his (perhaps) not-so-clearly worded argument. *the actual angle that most people take when viewing such situations "why don't more _______ (pick a minority or group) get to (be/do/have) ___________ (pick something of interest)?" is absolutely ignorant. the people of minority or other traditionally "disadvantaged" groups who are successful or fulfill that what-if generally are the last ones complaining about lack of equality because they worked hard like -most- everyone else who is successful rather then feigning the inability to have any effect on the future unless things are handed to them via affirmative action or some other interruptive practice. in other words, for all the women or minorities that constantly flash their respective inequality cards and cry foul, while they are doing that, others are succeeding. *women and other groups are afforded equality in opportunity. "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink" i think fits appropriately enough here. if you think that's sexist, consider all the dumb guys who get into college and screw-up, drop-out, etc. oh yeah, it's not a gender/race thing, because stupid isn't sexist or racist... anyone can be stupid - equally. the only difference between the guy drinking himself out of college and the same happening with a woman or a minority, is they can play the gender or race card as a reasoning why they failed. *people these days generally seeking "equality" don't really mean what that word traditionally means, but rather are seeking to shift the perceived imbalance in the other direction. classic feminism is dead. i personally know way to marxist feminists to be healthy, and they all have a pretty fierce agenda (i didn't even know there was such a combination until recently... talk about scary). *"men as a whole will never view women as equals." truer statements have never been said... except maybe "woman as a whole will never view men as equals." uh, oh... is there a duality lurking about in this area that never really gets thought about? how can a man ever be equal to a woman except in regard to opportunity that is an exterior force? how can an apple ever be equal to an orange? ...they are inherently different and instead of rallying for forcing them into the same mold, instead those differences should be embraced and celebrated. i could write more, but i feel that is sufficient. mark did write a little bit in what has been called "curcular" which in english means "circular" :), but having known him for a long time and having similar views on these subjects - i think the above may shore up his side a bit. oh yeah.. and carol moseley-braun? a completely token candidate. the only woman that will have a shot at that kind of a position is one who is akin to a margret thatcher. it takes a strong person to run a country, and i am DEFINITELY not insinuating that bush is strong... frankly we haven't had truly strong leadership in a long time and if it weren't for our government structure, capitalist underpinnings, and our existence way over in the western hemisphere, we could have had some serious problems. now why would you elect a weak man over a weak woman? other countries elsewhere think differently of women so it'd be theoretically better to have at the very least someone who they could pretend to respect vs. someone that culturally speaking everyone would know was not respected by certain sovereignties.
• nate on February 24, 2003 03:25 PM
  so jon - are we to take the natural selection argument away from your statements? that only the intelligent will truly survive in the end and therefore bickering over the lot of these issues is essentially futile? if so, then riddle me this - where does intelligence come from? is in natural or derived?
• Todd on February 24, 2003 06:53 PM
  There's too much here already to get very in-depth without typing for an hour.Men and women aren't equal, and fighting for that mindset isn't going to make any progress for the feminism cause. Trying to patch up a patriarchy so that women can function in it as well as men can won't work, what we need is a system that can mutually encourage the progress of both sexes by paying attention to their differences and helping them accordingly.Also, (and I might just be being naive here) I believe that difficulties faced by women exist because of ignorance and tradition, rather than malevolence. So the mindset that 'men' or 'the world' or 'the system' is out to get women is also destructive, because you can't help a group by setting them up principally as victims.Lastly, it's a bit underhanded to criticize a presidential candidate for knowing how to use the political system to their advantage without accusing all politicians of the same. I mean, look at our President. He deserves more criticism for that than anyone running possibly could.
• jon on February 25, 2003 12:25 AM
  amen. i totally agree. the victim mentality is probably one of the most harmful things for any group with any common trait, because it derails any potentiality for progress. additionally, i didn't see the point in adding too much to my political comment... but i would definitely favor the point-of-view that most politicians are morons and that our elected governmental system has digressed into a hand-me-down arrangment vs. honestly electing the best person for the job (which is further reinforced by the fact that most people don't feel they could have a chance against politically connected candidates or by not aligning with a particular party). by extension, i would also argue that our party and electoral system is broken as well and that having proportional representation along with a popular voting system would yield better results. i know this is opening a can of worms, and that a great amount of detail should be provided in addition to mentioning a couple of "buzzwords"... but that's not really the point of this. i'm sure some of you are familiar of the aforemention concepts and their success in parts of europe. check out http://www.fairvote.org/ for some more information on this subject. oh yeah... and how about changing "feminism" to "equalism" or something like that?
• Todd on February 25, 2003 08:38 PM
  I'm assuming it was taken for granted, but on re-reading my comment I'll post the disclaimer anyway:I made the statement "Men and women aren't equal" merely because the word 'equal' implies that they're the same, which they're just not. It was a comment on how giving men and women the same backdrop on which to function might not necessarily guarantee equal productivity because of those differences, not a comment on relative worth.:)
• Regan on February 28, 2003 12:42 AM
  Jon, your views on feminism, women, and minorities are frightening and incredibly insulting. *You will never convince me that minorities are afforded equal opportunity in education. The problem lies not in "leading a horse to water", but in our societies' hierarchy that is wealth-based. Look at the difference between New Trier and a Chicago public school, or Comden, IL (small southern town). Who will have the better resources, more diverse student/teacher population, and money? Add to this the idea that still exists that minorities are somehow inferior to the larger white, mostly male mass, and students will not succeed. Yes, there will always be a few who do rise above, but to hold those few up does not solve the problem. It only gives you a reason to dismiss the larger goal, which is equal opportunity. *I am so sorry that you have never met a 'real' feminist (or at least you make it sound that way). I am one; hi, nice to make your acquaintance. You might want to meet my father as well. Hes a real feminist too-or do you not believe this is possible because hes a male?(you tend to refer to feminists as women) For your knowledge, a feminist is ANYONE who believes in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. Last I checked, these items were still on the agenda. *Economic equality has not been reached. It is disconcerting that women make only 75% of what men make. And I don't mean in general-this represents men and women in the same fields with the same educational background and experience. I would never expect to 'earn' a job or get a raise because of my sex, and I certainly don't know any woman who would. Likewise, my pay should be based on my education and experience, not my sex. *Socially women/men are not equal, and I honestly don't know that they ever will be. Too many women try to masculinize themselves in order to gain equality. I don't want to be a man, and women shouldn't feel pressured to be little men. We aren't...we can't be...celebrate/understand differences-we both say that, Jon. *Politically, we are not equal. I won't even attempt to fully go into the whole woman in office thing, because I believe in voting for the best candidate-not just the woman. It would be wonderful to see more qualified women (and for that matter, men and minorities) in office, but unfortunately for women the old "I don't want a woman in office because she'll get PMS and blow up the country" argument is still used. Obviously you don't have to be a woman to blow up the country-look at our current president-select. However, I don't believe women are being drafted yet. I know that also lies under social equality, but it applies here as well. *I do not view myself as a victim. I see things that are wrong, and I do what I can to provide a solution. I want to be female and I want to have respect too. I am sorry that you have met such non-feminist-feminists who have made you believe that classic feminism (would you mind defining that for me) is dead. Todd-I absolutely agree with everything you said. Awesome...and I apologize to those who read this because its much too long.
• jon on February 28, 2003 01:26 AM
  did you read what i wrote or is it all about rattling off the typical list of items, including the hot "75% pay difference" which seems to not only be a good item to throw out since it was in the news within the past month, but it's actually wrong. don't short change women because according to the census women make $0.76 on the dollar which is up from $0.74 in '96. additionally "The median annual earnings of women age 15 and older who worked full time, year-round. After adjusting for inflation, earnings for these women climbed 3.5 percent in 2001, the fifth consecutive increase. In contrast, earnings for their male counterparts did not change significantly over that period." the point being, the gap is closing... women are getting paid more and men are not (one could call it "stabalizing", which would probably have occured faster if our economy had remained healthy and continued to grow and strengthen) some other facts to consider: *84 percent of women age 25 and over with at least a high school diploma, slightly higher than the percentage for men. *25 percent of women age 25 and over have a bachelor痴 degree or higher compared with 29 percent of men. *Younger women have gone beyond closing the education gap. They have opened a reverse gap: 33 percent of young women, ages 25 to 34, have completed college, which exceeds the 29 percent of their male counterparts who have done so. Young women, 25 to 34, also have higher high school completion rates than young men: 89 percent versus 85 percent. *56 percent of college students who are women. Women have constituted the majority of college students since 1979. *In each year since 1982, more American women than men have received bachelor痴 degrees. *57 percent of women age 16 and over in the civilian labor force. The percentage for men is 70 percent. --> note gap *More than 9-in-10 employed, civilian women age 16 and over work in one of three occupational groups: sales and office (37 percent); management, professional and related (36 percent); and service (18 percent). --> note "management" *15 percent of wives earn at least $5,000 more than their husband. In unmarried-partner households, that proportion is 22 percent. *21 percent of wives that live in married-couple households have higher levels of education than their husbands. In unmarried-partner households, that proportion is 28 percent. so take a look at those real facts and reconsider some of your statements. also, here's one last one about the whole "mostly male mass" point: *There are 145.0 million females as of July 1, 2001. That exceeds the number of males, who numbered 139.8 million. -- your argument about new trier has nothing to do really with the topics at hand, but purely with wealth. you could make the same argument with washington, d.c. area schools and services vs. rural mississippi. also, some of the non-real-feminists (as they apparently are in your opinion) would kick your ass if you tried to explain to them they weren't what they say they were... thus the problem with them (read as: militant) i honestly don't think you read what i wrote, but rather just assumed that i think women are inferior, incapable of politics, i think most women are victims or play victims, etc... i guess one could definitely draw from my writing that i could never see a man (in this case your father) being a feminist... er.. "equalitist". right. try reading what i write and rebutting that, if you disagree with it, vs. treating me like some meat-head, ignorant jock you have running around in chambana who think women can only be secretaries or waitresses... or maybe just as potential trophy-wives and mothers vs. individuals who are unique, talented, and worth respecting as much as anyone else. by the classic, dictionary definition, i would define myself as the proudest of feminists. source: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03ff03.html
• Regan on February 28, 2003 11:25 PM
  Thank you, Jon for providing me with information with which I am already well-versed. I used the 75% because it is a nice, round number not because it was "in the news" recently. You brought up the economy affecting the pay difference, but if the economy were still what it was, would that not also increase the male pay-rate? I believe that would make the difference the same? I referred to the majority as the white male mass because women are, I believe, still defined as a 'minority' for financial aid and affirmative action, which really is ridiculous considering how many more of us there are (thanks again for providing me with quite a well known fact, jon). I brought up wealth because you didn't consider it as an impediment to minorities' gain. "(...)the only difference between the guy drinking himself out of college and the same happening with a woman or a minority, is they can play the gender or race card as a reasoning why they failed." I wanted you to see another reason, that was all. That statement also makes it sound like you believe women/miorities do play the victim card when they fail. Its clear from that statement how I could have derived my conclusion that you believe women see themselves as victims. Forgive my assumption, but do you see how the conclusion was drawn? And I refer to the feminists you have met as non-feminist feminists because you say classic feminism is dead, and in doing so, you imply that feminism itself is dead. If this is true, then what/and who are you meeting? There are of course various types of feminists, and for the record, I do not believe that any (woman) who hates men can rightly call (herself) a feminist. Please understand that I am not saying the people you have met hate men and are not feminists, because there are so many variations. I would not tell any person that they are not a feminist, except for one situation, which I will not discuss here. And since you would call yourself a feminist by the 'classic' definition, is 'classic feminism' really dead? I am still curious what you believe this to be; are you refering to first-wave? Jon, do not think that I am new to the world of feminist theory...I have been studying feminism for quite some time now. If you want to discuss this any further, I would like it very much if you would e-mail me. We have gotten off to quite a bad start, considering that we seem to have some of the same ideals/views.
• Todd on March 2, 2003 02:13 PM
  Jon, it's amazing how offensive you can be without noticing, just by trying to be right.
• ange on March 4, 2003 02:48 PM
  regan, you rock.
• Regan on March 5, 2003 05:16 PM
  Thanks, ange. I appreciate the support.

Comments

• nate on February 19, 2003 06:38 PM
  and just so y'all know - the champaign espresso has wireless internet now (i'm actually using right now to finish up my law school essay) and tonight i found that their range extends into the home of gourmet chinese restaurant next door. so, if you are ever walking down daniel, look in, you may just see me or phooze online while eating chinese food. man i love technology.
• Todd on February 19, 2003 07:39 PM
  Actually, you should just wait a week or two and come use our wireless internet, because we're so much cooler than the Champaign store. :)
• mark on February 19, 2003 08:59 PM
  we're waiting for that, really. but you know there's a special place in my heart for this espresso (where, uh, i am also currently seated).
• jon on February 19, 2003 10:06 PM
  hey... that looks surprisingly similar to mine. except mine is now sans the two stickers in the bottom left due to a warrenty repair/replacement and the fact mine has been a road-warrior for 3.5 years. these things rock. congrats on getting a sweet computer.
• mark on February 19, 2003 11:01 PM
  thanks. it took a little convincing, but now, after pulling it out of hte box, i know i made the right decision.

Comments

• on February 19, 2003 06:50 AM
  that word actually existed before starbucks.
• on February 19, 2003 08:39 AM
  http://www.barista.co.in/
• jon on February 19, 2003 09:48 AM
  yeah, the whole barista thing is just a vicious urban legend-type thing... in italian - barista actually means "bartender" , "tall" means tal, "grande" means large, and "venti" means twenty (i believe a venti drink may be 20 oz., but i'm no 100% sure). additionally, the individual who put that website up must not have noticed that company began in '99 well after starbucks made barista a coffee buzzword... and well after italian's came up with a word for the guy behind the bar who hooked people up with their drink of choice.
• Cara on February 19, 2003 02:37 PM
  from my understanding, todd's fortune cookie-labeling is about adding "in bed" to just about any fortune that may have nothing to do with anything in bed (i.e. open up your eyes to a new opportunity in life....."in bed"). your fortune here in itself implies, um, in bed. so the theme is borrowed from todd, but they're not the same, jaasta leetrl beeta, naatuu maacha!

Comments

Comments

• nate on February 14, 2003 01:57 AM
  now was that so tough?
• nate on February 14, 2003 02:00 AM
  let me also say that tonight i was out at murphys wishing well a friend (who i wrote a recommendation letter for) who is getting married this weekend because her boyfried is shipping out (to the army) very soon. if you ask me, the future, while not something to be lived in, is something that vastly affects are daily lives. i also puts a little perspective for me, on what really matters.
• Todd on February 14, 2003 10:39 AM
  That's really weird. And Regan's wearing my shirt.I will avoid commenting on the future at this time. :)

Comments

• Todd on February 14, 2003 12:53 PM
  I'm not really sure what you mean by 'making sacrifices' in your current personal situation. Care to enlighten?

Comments

• jebadiah on February 12, 2003 02:47 PM
  a) should have gotten a good bike to begin with... i recommend what they call "credit card" b) now you are riding a rust bucket with an aerodynamic head, the better to fly over the handlebars into a non-moving object c) your dome looks better au natural not au under de plastique protectivo
• Ashley on February 12, 2003 10:38 PM
  I think you should post a picture. ;)
• nate on February 13, 2003 11:56 AM
  yeah i was one of the people that mark accuses of giving him a 'dirty look' when in fact i said nothing. further i would take up the fact that while you find it relevant to post about helmets, you completely neglect to elaborate on the grosse point blank referenced picture and the meaning that it might actually possess. i am officially boycotting your website until you actually write something that isnt just a chronicle but is actually self-reflective.
• mark on February 13, 2003 12:14 PM
  how are you going to know if i post something relfective if you're boycotting?
• ashley on February 13, 2003 01:31 PM
  I'll be his messenger
• Ashley on February 13, 2003 04:14 PM
  I should come up with a code name so the two Ashley's don't get confused.
• ashley on February 13, 2003 11:04 PM
  You capatalize your "A," I'll put mine in lowercase -- cool?
• Todd on February 14, 2003 12:55 PM
  Helmet schmelmet, head saftey is overrated. I've gone flying off my bike dozens of times (the last of which being the time that I wrecked it beyond reasonable repair, which is why I haven't ridden a bike in almost two years) and I was never worse for the wear. And they're a pain in the ass. I only wear one on my motorcycle because it's a lot more of a life and death type situation.

Comments

• Cara on February 11, 2003 02:03 PM
  Grace wondered why you posted and talked about the pics (the one that captured her obsession with that rediculous monopoly game and the trashed front yard of her apt) but neglected to talk about her great hospitality (by serving boca burgers, portobella mushrooms, chocolate covered pretzels, malt balls, etc.) maybe she was ashamed about people knowing about her love for the game....can't blame her, I'd be ashamed about playing monopoly, too....what can I say...

Comments

• yoko on February 8, 2003 02:22 PM
  that laptop looks great. i wish i could buy one like that! my laptop from the year 2000 is such a slow gadget now... *sigh*
• Greg on February 8, 2003 02:43 PM
  I don't know from the laptop, but it's DEFINITELY under the scholarship umbrella.
• jon on February 8, 2003 04:36 PM
  what the hell does capitalism smell like anyways? all i can smell right now is a commie.
• mf on February 9, 2003 09:35 AM
  ! ! !
• nate on February 9, 2003 04:29 PM
  ok so what about a wireless network card and a cell phone? then you'll really be hip
• jon on February 9, 2003 08:26 PM
  nate - was that directed at me?
• exwebmaster on February 13, 2003 12:15 AM
  you paid way too much... plus, thinkpads have notorious issues with the AC Adaptor. http://gateway.com/home/prod/hm_600x_config.shtml
• exwebmaster on February 13, 2003 12:16 AM
  but it' still a kick ass latop. :sigh: everyone has one but me.
• zip codes on September 6, 2003 02:43 AM
  So quiet lately. Any more comment please.

Comments

• esther on February 7, 2003 02:24 PM
  so that's bickham, huh? there was this one time when maggie & i were listening to the radio & he was on. he sounded so much like mancow that we both turned to look at each other with horribly disgusted expressions. not that we listen to mancow, but they put him on Q101 for enough for us to know his voice (meaning: much too often).
• on February 8, 2003 07:45 AM
  Bickham sounds nothing like Mancow...their voices are very different as is the content of the show. Besides Mancow has the same amount of airtime as any jock at Q101...4 hrs.

Comments

• jon on February 4, 2003 10:23 PM
  t-series rocks. hp makes wicked good laptops too. sony is also rather talented in the area of laptop making. but really, in the end, i think mark should get a radical powerbook... wheee!#@$%
• esther on February 5, 2003 12:17 AM
  i'd give hp a B+; the majority of my laptop problems can be solved by yelling obscenities at it...i mean, vocalizing my frustrations. but if i could do it over, i think i would've bought a dell.
• on February 5, 2003 05:15 PM
  dell!
• jon on February 6, 2003 02:18 AM
  you got a dell, dudE!