Andrew in CA

Pete- you're right, this ^ is the correct thesis. What I stated was a main point she made near the end of the Southern Cone section of the book that I found unconvincing. My mind is certainly open and the book does have it's good points as well. I'll wait until I'm finished to pass final judgment and I'll resurrect this thread when I do finish it.

Bret the Hitman Heart

All great Randy moments, but when he cussed out his boss last night, I thought I was going to piss myself. "It's OK, Stan, everything's changed!"

I'm almost halfway through her book The Shock Doctrine, and am so far unconvinced by her thesis: that violence and torture is necessary to implement Friedman's economic plan. It may be sufficient, but it isn't necessary.

I'm just saying that Flutie means a lot to BC. The statue is a little much, seeing as how the only other statue on campus is of St. Ignatius, but the dude is a god at BC to this day. No one cares what he did after, although I still have my Bills Flutie jersey from when I was 15. And he is a short man- I'm 5'10' and he is probably 2 inches shorter than me. He's always been cool when I've talked to him (twice), even when I brought up the Bills.

Only Heisman Trophy winner to come out of BC, put BC football on the map, gave BC a highlight that will go down in history, a local boy that beat the odds when people thought he was too small, he is still an active figure on campus, he has a foundation to support families affected by autism...

This episode was Randy Marsh's finest hour. He's now my favorite character, just edging out Butters.

Fair enough. At least you're providing a link.

The quote: "He pointed to the writings of British anthropologist J. D. Unwin, whose 1934 book, Sex and Culture, chronicled the historical decline of numerous cultures. Unwin studied 86 different cultures throughout history and discovered a surprising fact: No nation that rejected monogamy in marriage and pre-marital sexual chastity lasted longer than a generation after it embraced sexual hedonism. Unwin stated it this way, "In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on prenuptial and postnuptial continence." Are you not changing the parameters, then? You say that public acceptance of homosexuality caused the fall (which had been going on throughout Roman paganism, including the Pax Romana), while Unwin says a rejection "of monogamy in marriage and pre-marital sexual chastity" caused the fall. There isn't a mention of homosexuality, just of pre marital sex and marital affairs. Your claim, that allowing same sex marriage is a direct link to the downfall of 16 civilizations, is not proven by this at all. It is absurd at face value, and your declaration that it is fact puts the onus on you to demonstrate it is fact. You cannot claim ridiculous notions are fact without providing proof if you don't want to be laughed at. Otherwise, anyone could say whatever they wanted, and demand to be disproven rather than provide proof.

Did the Romans permit same sex marriage a generation before its demise? I can't find information on that, and the Wiki entry doesn't mention it. Also, regardless of whether Roman Christians practiced Christian values, they were decidedly practicing pagan values- including homosexuality- for hundreds of years prior to Christianity's imposition, including the Pax Romana. Why did it not crumble then?

I feel better that you provided some evidence. I'll have to examine Unwin's thesis before I can fully comment, but this does not logically connect on its own- i.e., it does not demonstrate that homosexuality caused the fall of the civilizations instead of merely coinciding with it. I'll peruse this topic more in depth, if only because I find it so incredulous.

But your argument is that these 16 (including Greece- is that Athens? Sparta? Macedonia?) went down because of their acceptance of homosexuality. Forgive me, but I've never heard of ANY SUCH THING EVER. Odd that Rome would fall due to an acceptance of homosexuality AFTER the imposition of Christianity and its abhorrence of homosexuals, when previously their Roman paganism had examples of homosexual acts by gods.

Yes, I'm still waiting for the 16 civilizations as well. Since it's a fact and all.

We're all still waiting in the California thread for you to name the- what was it, 16?- civilizations that collapsed because of homosexuality. And President Hamilton.

Did President Hamilton govern one of those civilizations?

President Hamilton?

Thanks for the info, Wacka, I didn't realize public transportation was that convenient. And thanks for the comparison, Dean, really gave me some good info. You make a good case for both, but the more I hear about it, the more SF seems like it's for me.

That's cool, thanks, Wacka. Berkeley is my #1, but my chances aren't too great there. The more realistic school is UC Hastings, located in SF itself. It's in the Tenderloin, if I'm not mistaken, which is a pretty crappy part of town from what I hear. However, much like USC, attendees look past that because of other factors. Looks like you're in the majority, LA is getting smoked. Most people I've asked agree, but then again I don't know anyone that's been to LA for more than a layover- isn't quite the tourist hotspot that SF is. I've got a couple friends from college that grew up there and some that live there now, and they all say it's awesome.

LA is still gettin killed. Thanks for all the help. Chef, good luck with your move. LABillz, thanks for the info. Law school will be taking up most of my time, for sure, but hopefully I'll make it out of the library at some point . Kelly, thanks again for the specific info- I've heard that USC is in the gut, but that most attendees aren't too bothered with it. Dante, thanks for the help- most of my winter is spent watching Bills/Sabres, so I'll be anxious to be in a place where I can get outdoors yearround.

Wow, LA is getting killed. Dante: Thanks for the info. If I do end up at the SF school, I might have to live in Oakland, at least for a little while, because of the housing costs in SF. The climate there doesn't bother me, I like the mild fogginess. Also, in terms of getting outside the city, I've heard that there is some great hiking/kayaking stuff around there. Could you speak to that at all? Kelly: Thanks for your SoCal input. If I were to go to LA, it would be UCLA or USC- could you speak to those locations at all and even the costs for housing, food, etc. if you have any idea? Although I said I like the SF weather, there's nothing wrong with 80 and sunny, either; however, I'm much more a mountain and lake guy than beach bum. Chef: What did you think of your time in LA that is soon coming to a close? Are you moving to SF because you're sick of LA or for a job et. al? Thanks for all the info, and keep it comin. I need as much input as I can get.

To those that live, have lived, or can speak with an informed background regarding San Francisco or Los Angeles, I have a question. I'm applying to law school and really want to go to California. I will most likely get into schools in both these areas. I've been to SF twice and really loved it. I also took a trip to Santa Cruz and Monterey from there and thought it was great. I've never been to LA or Southern California at all, although I hear it gets a bad rap and is actually a cool place. So, if anyone has any advice or input on either place, or especially a comparison, I'd appreciate it. Keep in mind I would be there anywhere from 3 years to permanently.

I couldn't agree more. There were only 3 attempted runs (for a net 16 yds) after the Lynch TD drive. Why they abandoned the run is baffling.

If that is the case, it's a shame, and hopefully they will learn that every single NFL opponent needs to be considered dangerous. Let's hope we're both ing a Bills victory here next week, SKOOBY!

They only attempted 3 runs the rest of the game after a long, run filled, effective drive. The run was making the pass, and they abandoned it.

That is the only acceptable explanation, IMO. And I also agree rd: TE- right play call, he just f'd it up by staying to high and acting like it was a goal line play instead of tucking it in.