slothrop

Don't forget, secret societies can be powerful (i.e the MAsons and the American Revolution). In fiction secret societies are extremely powerful (weird old guys in X-Files). Maybe that is what the "Dharma project" has become.

Why is the shark part of the security system? I could just be, as was said in teh movie, a zoological experiment as was the polar bear. What I did see was Jack looking at a photo in Desmond's living quarters of Desmond with a girl. Jack seemed interested in the picture. It was quick so I could not tell if that girl was Sarah or not. That would be interesting, eh brother?

oh yeah, one other thought I had when I woke up this morning - The gate in front of Locke's father's house - did that gate have the same or similar "Dharma" pentagon symbol? I don't remember. I think we are dealing with a Masons type secret society with Dharma. We may find shadowy figues all over.

Some, if not all the strange phenomena can be explained by the "Dharma Experiment." In the film they said that among the subjects explored by the Dharma project was zoology and they showed a polar bear. The "monster" i think is a system of boobytraps to protect the Dharma chamber. Concerning Jin, what if he is from the Dharma project? As well as Clair psychic? What if the shadowy founder of Dharma is Jin's wife's father? What if he ownes Oceanic Airlines and other transnational carriers such as shipping lines? Concerning the electromagnetic source - I think it could have been designed to bring down plans and disrupt navigation on ships. Or, what if it alters the weather around the island? Along these lines, anyone remember what the pilot told Jack what happened just prior to the crash? Could the electro magnet been so powerful (or maybe a cncentrated beam) so as to rip a plane apart? We still have no explanation as to why a plane would be torn in two in midair.

If he wasn't going to talk about any starters why didn't the reporters ask "who will be the backup QB?"

Concerning the ping-pong table - when Locke was exploring inside the living quarters, just to the right of the "mural" that contains the number "108" and pictures of sharks there is a ping-pong table. Except now, half of it is set up against the wall so that one person can play. That may indicate that Desmond was down there by himself for a considerable period of time and that Ethan, as some surmised, was not his roommate.

Enough with the football analogies. A supreme court justice should have detailed knowledge concerning the issues discussed in the cases. Does the new nominee understand Commerce Clause jurisprudence pre and post Lopez? Does she understand the history? Does she know the history behind substantive due process? The re-invigoration of the 11th amendment? And many other issues (14th amendment; 4th amendment in patriot act era; etc, etc, etc). You can't just shoot from the hip on these issues, and no Mr. President, I won't "trust you" that she is qualified. Prove it. That is your burden in order to maintain the Court's integrity. One of the constant tensions for the Court is that it must maintain its integrity in a democracy considering it is comprised of unelected persons. The Court is constantly mindfull of that tension. "Trust me" does not cut it and I would guess that the current justices would agree.

I agree with you that a new apointee will not overturn cases laft and right. Again, my objection does not concern her political agenda. Rather I am concerned with her qualifications. The integrity of the Court is my concern. She is simply not qualified. As of yet, not one of you in the "Bush Cult" have been able to point to one thing from the nominee's background to make her qualified.

Oh, I know ABe Fortas left because of illegal conduct but that does not hide the fact that when he was nominated the whole country said collectively, "huh?" Same with this choice. Is it too much to ask to have the president nominate someone who is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice? Again, I supported Roberts - I thought he was an excellent choice. Lets put it this way - name one thing that makes the current nominee qualified? Her education? - no. Her judicial experience? - no. Her legal experience? - no. Her lengthy work of Constitutional study? - no. How about clerking for the SC or any federal judge? no.

I meant Mr. William Gates. you just google "bob gates" to get that web site or do you have that listed in your "favorites?"

From CNN.com I am reacting as a lawyer - on teh face of her resume' she is unqualified. There are many brilliant people in this world but that does not make them qualified to be SC justice. For example, Bob Gates is a brilliant man, but unqualified to be a justice. Same with Bush's selection. The Constitution is not something to be cavalier with. This is a rogue pick from a rogue president with questionable judgment. We may be stuck with her for the next 20-30 years. Luckily Abe Fortas resigned when he found he was over his head.

If you read my posts concerning Roberts I thought he was extremely qualified! This woman is not even in the same universe as "qualified." It has nothing to do with her political views. She is void of anything that makes her qualified other than graduating from an average law school and passing the Bar.

Beer Mat signals when refill needed Now I don't have to waste valuable energy butting into the bar waving a $20 bill at the bartender as though he/she is a stripper.

Does he and the republicans have enough political capital left to push a controversial pick through? I think that is an interesting question and will be "fun" to watch. As I stated above, I think she is wholly unqualified to fill, IMHO, one of the 9 most important positions in our government. And there is no "lets just see how she works out and we can change our minds later."

I am in a keeper league where passing TD's are four points. I have Manning and was offered Steven Jackson (can keep him for a 4th round pick) and a second round pick. Our rules does not allow me to keep Manning. We also get 1/pt per recepetion. I am tempted to pull the trigger. Should I?

My secretary can splel. It is why I hired her! LOL!

Wrong, Renquist went to a top teir law school ranking in the op of his class. He then clerked for Justice Jackson - a very prestigous position. Also, as attorney general he was required to work in the federal courts.

My problem with her is that she is utterly unqualified! This is like a Joel Giambra appointment! She went to Southern Methodist Law School and was NEVER a judge. While there have been several Supreme Court Justices who had no judicial experience, most of them stood out in the area of Constitutional Law. Maybe they were top of their class from HArvard, Yale, Princeton, etc and became a constitutional law scholar. Or, their practice area was so impressive in relevant areas. From what I can tell Meirs has none of these things. SHe was a private attorney and became a political insider. This is disturbing in light of the fact that Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be insulated from the political process.

This was from the last post on the other LOST thread: Yes, in the first episode, when Jack is running around like crazy trying to save people he finally gets a "quiet" moment to check out a huge gaping wound in his right side. This is when he first meets Kate and he asks kate if "she ever patched a pair of jeans before." AFter Kate tenatively agreed she told Jack she was scared. Jack told her a story about one of his first spinal surgury. He was just finishing when he sliced open a pouch of nerves causing the nerves to spread all over like spagehetti. Jack then said, something like "I gave myself 5 seconds to feel the fear, to embrace it, to let it sink in. But after those five seconds I will not accept it anymore - one - two -three - four - five." (Not exact quote - just parapharasing).

Now I know why paragraphs were invented.

Ok a few more thoughts (everyone hates mine because they get no response except for "its a long shot." Oh well): 1) What if Danielle's "scientific team" was suppossed to relieve the team in the hatch? But for what ever reason they never got there? 2) The painting inside the hatch not only had teh number 108 in it, but it also had pictures of a shark(s) and people with what I think is the word "help." 3) What if the guy in the mental instutution with Hurley was a former member of the team in the hatch or a survivor that got off the island? If I remember from season one, he was told the numbers by a friend who was in the military. Am I off on this?

I still think that Clair started to get "sick" in episode 10 lest season and when "ethan" captured her he was not bad, rather he may have vaccinated her.

They have shown the father of Clair's baby in the episode I described above (episode 10 - psychic episode).

I just finished watching episodes 9 and 10 from season one (9 - Sayed visits Daniell; 10 - Clair has nightmares). These two episodes are critical in light of episode one of season two. Here is what I noticed and I infer: 1) Ethan is introduced to us by John Locke! Out of the blue Locke introduces Ethan to Hurly and it appears Locke has some kind of relationship with Ethan. 2) When Clair woke up screaming that someone attacked her and stuck a needle in her - maybe Ethan, who may have lived with Desmond in the "hatch" wanted to test Clair's baby to see if it was "infected." 3) It is clear that the "it" daniel refers to in her radio messege is an infection. She told sayed that she ahd to kill her husband and the other from her scientific party because "they were sick" and that she had no other choice. Therefore I infer that Desmond and Ethan are monitoring, or more scinically, breeding an infection. Maybe they are trying to learn how to contain it? Maybe it was an old military creation gone awry. 4) Notwithstanding point 2 above, I think Clair was begining to show signs of the infection causing halucinations. She even looked sick with red circles around her eyes (not there in previous episodes). Maybe Ethan took her to treat her in the "hatch" and provide a vaccination. Again, just my thoughts.

What is sickening is that you have reacted this way toward her. For the sake of argument omit how you feel about the war. Here is a Mother who lost a son. You don't think that experience would cause a mother to have powerful feelings and *gasp* act upon those feelings? Maybe to the point of placing herself at teh center of a firestorm and sacrificing her liberty? So, after losing a son you say she is "enjoying this" and is a media whore simply because she is smiling? Come on.