slothrop

Wake Up! Athletes with modern free-agency no longer have loyalty to teams. That is a dead concept. Those who do have loyalty are loyal because they are well paid combined with other circumstances (sick family in the area, don't want to move kids out of school, etc). Either way they are acting out of self-interest and not some concept of selfless sacrifice for a "team." And as AD said, this is how they SHOULD act! Not one of you would act differently if put in the same position. Why should they sacrfice getting paid more to stay with a team when their career could be over on the first play of the season?

What is interesting is that they distinguish this case from Lopez and Morrison (which I argued in a mock court in law school). Lopez was the seminal case in "modern commerce clause" jurisprudence that overturned over 60 years of cases stemming from Wickard v. Filburn. With the development of the "modern commerce clause" the 1964 Civil Rights ACt may not have passed if Congress had done so with this Court. In this context it is interesting how the "Gun Free Zone Act" in Lopez and the "Violence Against Women Act" in Morrison do not pass Constitutional muster, yet the federal law prohibiting Marijuana does. On the face of it, under these line of cases, Congress was not empowered to enact that legislation. Is this Conservative activism at work?

Would it not be better for the strict constructionists be crusty old historians? This debate is as old as the Constitution - this is not a new argument made up by Delay. JEfferson believed in a living constitution that would be rewitten be each generation. Others of the time believed as did Scalia. I believe that the "strict constructionist" point of view is contrary to common sense. Society and culture changes over time - that is simply a natural state of affairs. It is simply delusional to believe that we can maintain a single interpretation - i.e, the founders' intent - for over 200 years. Also social circumstances change. For example, how can the view of the founders' be used to interpret how property law or copyright law applies to the internet? Also, strict constructionists would tell you that you do not have a guaranteed right to privacy because it was not an enumumerated right. To me, as it did Douglas, that flies in the face of logic.

Not to be a legal geek, but as a lawyer I must correct you. The "penumbra doctrine" was written by Douglas in Griswald v. Connecticut - not Roe v. Wade. Also, read the decision and its progeny - the case is emblematic of the classic battle between strict contructionists like Scalia and "living Constitutionalists" like Douglas. The penumbra argument makes logical sense - i.e. certain enumerated rights (i.e. right to free association, speech, and religion) are impossible without certain unenumerated rights such as "right to privacy." Thus, it is simple logic that Americans enjoy a COnstitutional right to privacy.

I would not be so picky - I would not need requirement "B."

Just Got my McGahee Throwback along iwth something for my 1 year old son - all for fathers' day (that is how I justify it when my wife sees the expense!)

he looks like a five-year-old kid who's mom just told him to try on the ugly sweater his aunt knitted him for Christmas! I like the unis though.

You have an anti-bias bias. I don't understand this perversion of the word "bias." OF COURSE THEY ARE BAISED! They are supposed to be biased towards the issues they were formed to advocate for. Guess what? The Heritage Foundation is biased; Sierra Club is biased; Catholisism is biased; George Bush is biased; John Kerry is biased; I am biased; and you are biased. Oh yeah, that rag you quoted your article from, the Washington Times, is biased towards the extreme right wing. Bias in and of itself is not a bad thing - it a good thing in a democracy. Different biases boiling in the labatory of ideas is what democracy is about.

Compare Travis Henry's rushing statistics from 01-04 with Anthony Thomas' stats in that same period. Thomas was benched for Thomas Jones and is now a backup in Dallas. Henry will have the same fate. Again, I ask, what would you give for a top 15-20 running back? Fourth round pick sounds fair.

I simply disagree with your assessment of Henry's talent. To me he is a stupid one demensional runningback who can not mentally or physically grasp the complixities of modern offenses. Just my opinion - but it seems it is the opinion of the rest of the league as well.

Really? Who? Look, the market is clear on the going price for Henry - They best TD can do is get a fourth round pick with incentives that could push it to a second or third. Dreaming, wishing, or hoping will not make the situation any better. Look at it this way, what would you trade for a back who is 15th -20th best in the league? (compound that with the fact that HEnry's intelligence is a huge factor that teams are considering). When looked at in this light a fourth round pick looks good.

Exactly, that is the middle ground. If Henry runs for 1500 yds (which won't happen) and 12 td's then maybe they give us a 2nd or more likely a third. So take the 4th round pick and make it a higher pick if certain benchmarks are reached.

after watching teh first episode again tonight the "monster" had the same mechanical sound and sucked trees into the ground as it did in the last episode.

My wife tells me that I can create terrible and ferocious wind!

rght, but what is the significance of Boone, Shannon, Locke, Mars, Charlie, and jack showing?

Do we know which survivors sat in those seats? (if any did). EDIT: NEver mind- that was cool as hell. Is there any significance to those names appearing?

Another idea I had in addition to those quoted above (assuming the above are correct) is that Danielle may have either been: 1) banished from the "Others" or the underground people; 2) like the survivors and caught inbetween the battle between the underground people and the "Others;" or 3) she is playing stupid and is really a leader of one of teh groups.

What if the "monster" is what it looks like - blasts of hot air? What if there are people living underground and the "monster" is really a ventelation/exaust system for an underground bunker/village? That would explain the mechanical chain-like nature of the thing that grabbed Locke - it was a security system. Maybe these underground people are engaged in a battle with the "Others" and the survivors are caught in the middle? Maybe the hatch was made as the entrance to the underground village to protect them from the "Others" - or more remotely, maybe they are survivors of a nuclear fallout from 1950's testing or something. Another thought I had aout the hatch was that maybe, like the "Blackrock," a submarine got beached far inland on the island - but the stairs seemed to reach too far down for that. But submarines have hatches that can only be opened from the inside, right? (I really don't know). Just a few ideas.

Exactly, anyone who as studied labor and employment law knows that as an employee you have no free speech rights, even as a public employee (I recognize this is a general statement that has some exceptions, but is largely true).

It will be great to hear him tell all the out of work factory workers in rochester about how personal saving accounts will supply them with a fruitfull retirement.

Mary Magdaline?

how about, "No, because George sucks"

Red Dog! LOL!

The whole republican stance on bankruptcy is ironic. 70% of all personal bankruptcies are due to the inability to pay medical costs when catastrophy strikes. However, the republicans staunchly support an increased privatization of medical care causing more and more AMericans to go uninsured. If they dislike bankruptcy why not go to a single-payer system. Just a thought.

Casa Di Pizza is the Best! I love their garlic crust.