Crimson G

Is this the Yankees thread or something? I'm just here to give a thumbs up sign of approval for the good start the Mariners have got off to this year. Hope it keeps up since I'll be attending the home opener where Carlos Silva will be the starting pitcher.

I thought Craig was pretty top-notch this episode, but I'd otherwise agree with the assessment already given... the music video sequence at the end was pretty decent, too.

Really? No laughs for you. I was laughing for minutes on end when Sharon brought up Randy farting and holding her head under the covers.

Yeah but I have not seen Severed Ways. Didn't Kane, Austin and Cena all use wrestling moves, I am sure they did. The Rundown had the Rock Rock Bottoming some guy. I just watched the End Game trailer and it's probably the worst thing I've seen outside of stuff done in my college film classes. "It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood."? Really? It seemed like everyone (in the trailer, at least) had no clue how to read any of those lines and the cinematography was laughably bad for a horror movie/thriller/whatever they were going for. It looks worse than a reenactment on Rescue 911 or Unsolved Mysteries.

Um. This is the AAA locker room, not the WWE locker room. You realize there's an abundance of minis and people built like Mistico in Lucha Libre, right? Edit: Don't know why I originally capitalized minis.

And, damn there were some somewhat frightening moments in this, some amazing special effects, some incredibly (unnecessary) graphic moments, and some really poorly thought out moments in this movie. I thought the good outweighed the bad in the end, but wish they would have cast someone better to play the fatherly figure clearly needed for the role held by the emotionless Nicolas Cage.

Nope, the ex post facto provision of the Constitution only applies to criminal sanctions. American jurisprudence leaves leaves a lot of leeway for these types of actions by federal agencies when authorized by Congress. See, for example, US vs Carlton. "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." This is straight out of the Constitution. A tax is a law, and this one is "after the fact" of the contract, so the contract is not subject to the law. All future contracts of $250,000 in TARP-funded companies are, however.

I too hate contract law. Let's fuck over all rich people because some of them made poor decisions at work. [/end sarcasm] They fucked themselves over when they drove their business into needing bailout money in the first place. About a dozen of these executives at AIG took their retention bonuses and then split. That was paid by our tax dollars. And you are defending these guys? Are you yourself rich or something? I wasn't trying to defend these guys except indirectly. The proper (and only constitutionally legal) way to break an already written and binding contract is through Chapter 11 Reorganization (aka bankruptcy court.) Ex post facto law is explicitly unconstitutional (article 1, section 9), but seeing as we've pretty much shredded everything in the Constitution, I'll simply say that I understand and agree with your point-of-view (in theory.) These people failed and (most of them) do not deserve to continue their employment at AIG, let alone receive the bonuses coming their way. It is already a done deal however and this violation of the Constitution leaves the government open to lawsuit and further scandal because, if challenged in court, this 90% tax on executives at specific companies will not stand. And, no, I'm not at all rich. I work at a gas station convenience store and have over $15,000 in college loans to repay, if that tells you anything. I simply care about upholding the rule of law (if I believe it helps support our natural and unalienable rights.)

His answer is right in the quote you gave from him (though selectively highlighted): "[it is] a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end." It is not giving proper dignity to human life to cultivate human cells for harvest. I don't really see how that's a gray area. (Unless you're okay with other undignified human treatment like slavery, the caste system, etc. Then I think the conversation has warped beyond Mr. Krauthammer's basic argument.) But since it is NOT the same thing as making a human life, then why is it wrong? He's trying to say that the rule to not make a human life covers potential life...but does it really? How is "cultivating human cells for harvest" any different than donating blood or other things that involving people donating cells? I think these questions need to be answered before anyone can prove extracting embryotic stem cells is the moral equivalent of slave---wait...whut? So you'd be fine with creating embryos simply to utilize them in stem cell research, rather than what they're biologically meant for, which is to grow into a human being? It's treating (potential) human beings like they're no different from chicken eggs. We should simply use these things regardless of how we've gotten them and their legitimate functions in growing into human life. Mr. Krauthammer correctly said that this is treating human beings as a means, rather than an end.

I too hate contract law. Let's fuck over all rich people because some of them made poor decisions at work. [/end sarcasm]

His answer is right in the quote you gave from him (though selectively highlighted): "[it is] a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end." It is not giving proper dignity to human life to cultivate human cells for harvest. I don't really see how that's a gray area. (Unless you're okay with other undignified human treatment like slavery, the caste system, etc. Then I think the conversation has warped beyond Mr. Krauthammer's basic argument.)

If there's some logical, middle-ground nuance he explained there, I missed it. It really sounds like he is trying to have it both ways. I believe he's objecting to the use of humanity, not necessarily the state that these humans (or potential humans) are in within that same arena of scientific use. He's arguing that developing a human embryo to harvest it for genetic research or whatever other purpose is morally reprehensible, regardless of whether you believe them to be persons or not. I believe Mr. Krauthammer agreed with Obama on this point (if this what he meant by such a muddled sentence), but disagreed with the way he allowed for such a wide possible interpretation of the new position of the federal government. Basically, his point was that science is not a replacement for morality and morality needs to be involved in a proper and careful interpretation of stem cell laws. Obama seems to have given science a morality of its own. (It's the same point made by Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park. "You were so preoccupied with whether or not you could, you didn't stop to think if you should.")

Anybody read the article by Charles Krauthammer (I know I'm gonna get dinged for this one) regarding Obama's stem cell announcement. I thought it was actually a rather fair indictment on the man (until the last sentence, perhaps): Morally Unserious in the Extreme

Gorgeous George married Doyle von Frankenstein from The Misfits, "wrestled" in 3PW before it folded, showed up in TNA as "Minsa", and I think she's still semi-active on an indy level.

Owning a house might be put in the proper perspective again. Houses will no longer be treated as sources of credit, but strictly as living spaces. Houses will become affordable again. According to the article I posted above, perhaps houses will become smaller and use less energy. That's about all I can think of right now. But, the point really is that this needs to happen and will happen because the housing bubble cannot be sustained, not necessarily that it ought to happen. I agree with you that it would be nice to continue building new houses and therefore support the people in the industries reliant on that business, but we don't have the money to do that. It would be nice if everyone had all their basic necessities taken care of and didn't need to work, but that's not reality.