clyons

Vancouver has now caught us for 4th place; points and games played are equal. Columbus is lurking, too. Home ice in the playoffs could be in jeopardy.

QUOTE (knightni @ Mar 19, 2009 -> 03:12 PM) L'Bridge "Has anyone seen L'Bridge?"

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Mar 19, 2009 -> 12:49 PM) Alexei played just as much, if not more CF in Cuba than he did SS. He also spent more innings in CF last year than he did SS. I do remember him being out there, but I can't specifically recall any games he played CF or how he did there. Those games were pretty early, weren't they? How was he defensively? As good as he is in the infield? (which I would consider solid enough, but not great).

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 19, 2009 -> 10:42 AM) Mackowiak's issues in CF had little to do with athletic ability. He simply didn't get good reads, didn't position himself well, and didn't know the position. Being a good athlete doesn't make you a good CF, it goes well beyond that. That said, Getz did play 15 games in the outfield for Charlotte last year, all in LF. But that is the sum total of his OF experience in the minors. So even if he has the right raw skills, it would take him a while to adjust to CF, if he ever did. Yeah, if we convert either Getz or Alexei to center, it would have to be at least after a season of winter ball there. I don't want to live through any more on the job training in season. Been there done that with Mackowiak, and before that with Steve Sax.

Does anyone think Getz could be an option in CF once Beckham takes over at 2B?

Not to hijack or unfairly pile on the Church, but apparently the Pope said today that the distribution of condoms in Africa can actually contribute to and "aggravate" the spread of Aids there. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/1...ca-condoms-aids Perhaps because he's never used one, he doesn't understand how they work.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 11:37 AM) I think you'd be right if the bonuses were actually paid out. Because they are then the property of the payee. But the haven't been (I think). So if a contravening law is passed now, the contract would then be promising something the law disallows, and that won't be valid. All told though, the tax route would probably be easier. I don't think it matters if they've been paid out. Once vested, the contractual entitlement to the bonuses is a property right in and of itself. If the bonuses was legal when the contract was entered and the bonuses were earned, that property right can't be taken away without due process. If Nevada outlaws gambling tomorrow, the casinos can still enforce and collect on all of Charles Barkley's past debts.

My 2 cents on how contract law applies to the AIG bonuses: If these bonuses have indeed been "earned" under the terms of the employment contracts, the government can't interfere through legislation. The constitution prohibits "ex post facto" laws (i.e., retroactive criminalization) as well as the deprivation of citizens' property rights, including contractual entitlements, without due process of law (hearings). Things can only be declared "illegal" going forward. If they're going to put the screws to the AIG executives, it will have to be through the tax code, as we're now hearing.

A friend emailed me this link to the Panthers' announcer's goal calls. Some of them are pretty funny. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3b_7S-sGBo...feature=related

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Mar 15, 2009 -> 11:30 PM) Unfortunately for Owens, most big league teams field a second baseman.

At least if its another cell phone company, it won't be too much of a stretch to keep informally calling it "The cell." If its Sprint, however, they should go with the alliteration and officially call it "Sprint Stadium." Thanks for the cash, US Cellular. Never used your service and hated your Joan Cusack commercials, but we have a much nicer ballpark today because of you.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Mar 15, 2009 -> 10:45 AM) That depends on how strict you wish to consider the issues. I prefer to take a macro view to see what overall direction society is taking and fit stem cell research into the overall picture. It is part of a whole, and to ignore the impact that stem cell research will have on the overall moral and ethical debate is short sighted. Basically a slippery slope that at the minimum, we need to tread carefully on. I was considering the issue in the same general context of the thread: Obama's decision to reverse the Bush ban on federal funding in March 2009. The particular questions you raised, while important, really aren't a part of the same picture, unless its expanded into a different debate entirely. We're in agreement if you oppose creating life for the sole purpose of destroying it, even if that is ultimately for the "greater good." I do too. But I don't think that issue is even on the same ethical plane here let alone the same slippery slope, and this funding reversal is a long, long way from opening that particular door. These stem cells already exist, for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with pure research. Furthermore, left alone, they have virtually no chance of ever coming to term. That's a key distinction.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Mar 15, 2009 -> 10:16 AM) I wonder how we will settle an ethical choice of terminating a life that was conceived to save another. An interesting and extremely difficult moral question. However, one that is irrelevant to the subject of stem cell research.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 13, 2009 -> 10:01 AM) I call it the Amoco building Yeah, I still hear that fairly often, but its original name seems to have been forgotten by most. I think it depends on how iconic the particular building is, as well as, of course, what name you were introduced to it as. After 20 years, I still call it the "Playboy Building," but occassionally I'll hear an old-timer refer to it as the "Palmolive Building," and it hasn't been that for over 40. I'll continue to refer to it as "Sears Tower" as both a matter of habit and obstinacy. On the other hand, I have no problem calling the ballpark "the Cell" because: 1) I think that's a cool nickname, and 2) to me, there was only one "Comiskey Park."

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 12, 2009 -> 09:01 PM) I think we should call the building formerly known as the Sears.... the Big Willie Seconded. Hate the name change, but in a way its kind of fitting that the "City of Big Shoulders" would also have a Big Willie.

An article on the Trib's website today advises that "if" the Cubbies resume trade talks for Jake Peavy, they're not likely to go anywhere. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-1...,5421418.column In other breaking news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 12, 2009 -> 11:36 AM) Maybe to the outside, but not here. Even after 6 years, most of the city Sox fans refer to our ballpark as Comiskey Park. It is that way with a couple of the towers that changed hands as well. I don't know about that. How many of us still refer to the Aon Center as the Standard Oil Building? I never hear that.

QUOTE (chimpy2121 @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 09:07 PM) I love that it came off of Marmol too. LOL at those announcers. Marmol is "one of the greatest closers in the game." Dude has 8 career saves.

Imho, those who try to turn the stem cell debate into an IVF debate and ultimately a abortion debate clearly miss the point and can't be reasoned with. These procedures are extremely and radically different. I happen to believe that as a matter of both science and morality, abortion is designed and intended to stop a beating heart. Anyone who has the slightest comprehension of how IVF works knows that it does not. As for stem cell research, by the time an embryo has become a potential test subject, its chances for "life" are already all but over. In a certain sense, "experimenting" on them is similar to giving experimental treatments to the terminally ill, although the embryos obviously have no choice in the matter. It is a statistical fact (and a sad one) that some embryos "created" during the IVF process will not survive all the way to birth, but the procedure itself does not compel their elimination. It is an equally sad and accepted fact that some airline passengers will not survive their airline flights this year. Some of them may be unborn babies too. If infertility doctors are potential abortionists, then so are airline pilots; the only difference is degree. Its not a perfect analogy, but in both instances, there is no intent to "kill" anyone, yet we tolerate and accept the virtual certain death of a few, in exchange for a great benefit to many. Personally, I could never be a party to abortion (I'm a guy), but I have two absolutely beautiful children through the miracle of IVF, one of whom survived long, long, odds after being "frozen" and then "thawed." As I said earlier, it was important to my wife and I to give all of our embryos a chance at life, and I couldn't be happier that we did. If anyone wants to judge the "morality" or "ethics" of the many couples that undergo this procedure, that's fine; I guess that's easy from a distance, but I'm told judging is sinful too. This is not a simple issue, and as a parent of IVF children and a son of a mother with Parkinson's, it tends to get me a little worked up. No disrespect to those who disagree.

Man, has D Rose had a game winner yet?

Foley deservedly rips on Campbell. 1-0 Bruins.

As others have said, its one thing to create and then destroy embryos merely for research, and another thing entirely to perform potentially life-saving research on existing embryos that, for one reason or another, will never be given a realistic chance at "life" to begin with. Sadly, there are thousands of embryos sitting in infertility labs that will remain frozen forever or ultimately be discarded, and this research allows them to be put to a greater good. My wife and I went through IVF, and it was important to us that all of our embryos be given a chance at life. Rather than do an "Octomom," we froze half and used them in two stages. Different people make other choices (and that's fine), but I know for a fact that many embryos are never placed in a woman's womb. As I understood the Bush policy, these embryos could remain frozen or be "discarded," but could not be put to potentially beneficial research purposes where federal money was involved. That never made sense to me, and I'm glad this has been changed.

QUOTE (SouthsideDon48 @ Mar 7, 2009 -> 09:09 AM) Also, now that some of the Losties are trapped at the same time period as the Dahrma Initiative, does anyone think we'll finally see Radinsky? Radinsky is one of the characters I've wanted to see for a while now. Scott Radinsky?

Well done! All the best to mother and son.

In no particular order: Archie Bunker Barney Fife Tony Soprano Andy Sipowicz Bart Simpson Dana Scully Mr. Spock