MattZ

And this is why I live in NYC.

from Rhapsody: "Cardinology is well-crafted adult alternative rock grounded in Americana ... Although Adams is considered a prickly fellow, this album will cement his rep among the Starbucks faithful." I can't help but be annoyed by those statements. Not sure why.

Happy birthday!

thanks for posting

I go back to ann arbor once a year for the holidays with my wife (she's from Ypsi). We always meet friends at Casey's tavern for a burger and few pints of Bells and then hit Angelo's for breakfast the next day. At this point, I am not sure if the memories make the food taste better.

And I'll take a burger from Casey's over a blimpy burger.

Yeah, I'm with cryptique on this one.

Did you go to Blimpy Burger?

Yes and yes. Best opening line ever: In 1984 I was hospitalized for approaching perfection.

Moe - check this out. Article in today's nypost suggesting that part of the selloff in the market relates to the assumption that Obama wins the election. Again, directly contradicting the evidence you posted. But again, not really sure what it's evidence of. It bears repeating that this is the nypost, so take it with a grain of salt. http://www.nypost.com/seven/10132008/posto...nic__133374.htm AN OBAMA PANIC? MARKETS FEAR HIS POLICIES Barack Obama has re mained cool and confident amid the financial melt down, even as John McCain at times has been embarrassing, lurching from one pro

very cool. thanks for posting.

Well I sure hope you two are happy now.

Jeez, I assume at least 80% of your posts are jokes. Should I assume otherwise? (Yes, it was a joke).

I'm really not arguing that. I swear! I do think a compelling case could be made that access to contraceptives are in the best interests of the public and thus could be legislated. The downfall to that argument is you could take that reasoning too far, and then use the same analysis to suggest legislating the use of condoms. I am certainly not suggesting that.

I want a retraction from spawn's dad.

Yeah probably. Still, I think a pretty compelling case could be made that the cost to the taxpayer of unwanted pregnancies is significant enough that the public interest would require it. Of course, that same logic would lead one to think that we should legislate the USE of condoms. And I am certainly not suggesting that. No, seriously. I am really not suggesting that.

Yes, but if I were, I'd point out to you that it doesn't need to be apples/apples to justify legislating it from a public policy perspective.

I'm digging Crossed Out Name. I'm a sucker for any song that mentions Manhattan.

Sure, but if you view STDs and AIDS from a purely cold public policy perspective, and you say that those diseases and the fallout from them are expensive for the state, it's not just about putting the responsibility on the indivudual to sleep with someone that is 100% clean. Because the fallout doesn't just impact the indivudual who gets the STD. Especially if that individual doesnt have health insurance. Same with the seat belt laws. Sure, you can just say "if they dont want to wear a seatbelt, fuck em, they'll end up regretting it." The issue is that insurance companies regret it. Or

I dont think it's tooooo much of a stretch to at least argue that health care is a civil right. But I agree it is certainly not accepted. And I agree it's harder to equate contraception with health care. So, no, I won't argue it.

I am just posting in here because I dont want to go back to that stupid election thread.

Yes, you are right. I admitted it above.

Of course. I never suggested otherwise. I dont have any problem (legally) with a private business doing something like this. We agree. Although for the record, there were plenty of private businesses that decided not to serve black people for awhile. Under the same theory. I am not suggesting that we need to legislate access to contraception or antibiotics, but legislating the behavior of private business is not without precedent.

In my example, I am (perhaps unfairly) assuming that the people most harmed by something like this, are people that are poor enough that it is difficult for them to travel out of their way to another pharmacy. It's hard to imagine that a free market left to solve for "demand" in that situation is going to spring up to ensure that the have nots can get the antibiotics or contraception that they need. Maybe I am wrong. Either way, this story is not an example of that, so this whole discussion is silly.

Because the market has a good track record of ensuring that the poorest citizens have access to the health care that they demand/need?