Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 5:59PM

I know that I did a lot of drinking last week, but I do not remember hiring Erin Callan. I did do a bit of "interviewing" and I'm trying to recall the day-to-day details, but it's pretty fuzzy.
I hope I don't regret this.

--Calgary Schmooze

Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 6:01PM

@ calgary-- would've been funnier if you'd signed it 'brady dougan'

Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 6:17PM

Lil' Tim, doesn't the shtick get tiring? Not trying to wound your fragile little ego here, just asking.

Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 7:01PM

Timmy-baiting has almost reached the level of a sport. Of course, it's far too easy, because he bites too often.

Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 7:03PM

lol

i like this guy timmys approach.

no rulez~!

fuck it. while we're at it, get rid off rule 144, reg d, reg s, margin requirements...

timmeh gotta gets paid!

timmeh~!

Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 7:05PM

KLW, it is unfair (or retarded?) to simply read the headlines as interpreted by far left wingers to start denouncing stuff.

Did you actually read through the thing. The key phrase (emphasis added by HHS) was -

"The Department proposes, then, to allow individuals and institutions to adhere to their own views and adopt a definition of abortion that encompasses both views of abortion."

That is abhorrent - letter individuals and institutions adhere to their own views?

Somewhere in the crusade of imagining that Bush (as an agent of the crazy right wing) is imposing some views on everyone, I think you have forgotten that the left has ALREADY imposed its views on everyone else and assumed that to be the baseline.

So we are to pre-assume that punitive redistributive taxation is good, abortion is good, guns are bad, unions are good, government is good.

If anything, the right wing resurgence has managed to shake people's belief in these self-evident truths of the left and let people chose an alternative for themselves. Be it chosing whether to go to public school or not, be it chosing whether to be a part of a union or not, be it chosing whether to patronize private charities of government institutions, be it whether to let your own community chose to keep firearms or not.

Is that what you leftists hate so much - the fact that people may freely chose things which do not jive with YOUR worldview?

Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 7:06PM

lol

i like this guy timmys approach.

no rulez~!

fuck it. while we're at it, get rid off rule 144, reg d, reg s, margin requirements...

timmeh gotta gets paid!

timmeh~!

Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 7:06PM

Ahh.. damn typos...

Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 7:54PM

Look back at the HHS statement, nowhere does it DENY any choice to anyone - if anything it only talks of letting individuals adhere to their own definition.

So for starters - on face value - I am yet to see what was wrong with that. HuffPo assumed that statement to implicitly have some evil connotation simply because it came from an agency under the Bush administration, and you chose to pick up that version and amplify it here - while berating the remaining 6 months of Bush's term.

This particular issue is probably on of the most vexing ones, and 'pro-choice' is simply a political label which has nothing to do with expression of 'choice' regarding the underlying issue (same is the case - partly - with 'pro-life').

I confess that I started off as someone firmly in the 'pro-choice' camp. However, in an ever changing medical world, there are deep ethical issues involved which a simple slogan like 'choice' cannot cover.

For example, an infant a month old cannot survive without adult support. So can the adult in-charge 'chose' to terminate the infant's life?

Compare that to the case of an 'embryo' at 6 months. Given advances in medical procedures, the embryo can be separated and very much kept alive without ANY involvement of the mother. In effect, the 6-month old embryo is no different from the month old infant.

So should the mother be allowed to terminate the infant in this second case? Is this decision simply classifiable as 'choice'?

Also, given constant advances in medical technologies, very soon it may be possible to fully sustain embryos 3,2,1 month old without any involvement of the mother.

So at what point do you draw the line between whether the embro is a human or not? Are overworked, tired and ill single mothers holders of the 'choice' to terminate their 2 month old infants? Is that even an individual 'choice'?

I do not claim to know or have a crytal clear defensible position on this. However, I do believe that claiming that this highly complex ethical issue which involves 2 lives can be simplified to being the matter of personal choice of 1 individual is an oversimplification, and fatally so.

Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 7:57PM

And just to loop back there were 2 issues here.

1) The statement by HHS nowhere hinted that it was taking away any 'choice.' If anything it furthered 'choice' as per the clearest and most straightforward interpretation (I cannot comment on what the 'evil hidden' connotation might be)

2) I do not think that what you claim to be your 'choice' in the second post is really just an individual 'choice.' Rationale explained in the above post.

Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 8:13PM

7:54 here again,

HuffPo seems to have edited the initial entry and changed the emphasized part (wierd, they said they didn't add it initially?).

Anyways, I quoted the HHS statement above at 7:54. And here is the HuffPo conclusion

"Most dangerously, perhaps, this new rule establishes a legal precedent that may eventually be used as a basis for banning the most popular forms of birth control along with what is, in fact, abortion"

First, it was not any 'rule' but a recommendation. Secondly, how 'letting individuals and institutions adhere to there own definition' is equivalent to 'basis for banning popular forms of birth control' is simply completely beyond. It defies elementary logic.

Your infrequent posts tend to show you as someone reasonably sharp. However, irrespective of where your views lie in the abortion debate, picking this gem a baseless illogical conclusion up without reasoning through it yourself is sad.

And then you chose to make a snide hit on Bush. Whatever wrong the guy may have done, this was hardly anything he deserved to be hit for. Bush Derangement Syndrome is full view.

Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 9:22PM

@ 7:54

The issue of when life begins is a very complex and personal mattter. I believe the issue of whether to terminate a pregnancy is personal choice. Merely because a fetus may survuve outside the womb does not mean the government should substitute it's view for the individuals choice.
As a practical matter a 6-month old embryo is very different from month old infant. Try about $2 million dollars different. A baby born at 22 - 24 weeks is barely viable and will need to spend about 2-4 months in an incubator at a NICU (neonatal intensive care). If the baby survives it will have long term developmental and physical problems. Further, what about when a woman terminates because she finds out that her baby is going to be born with severe mental/physical disabilities. If this child is brought to term the mother will suffer severe economic consequences (amongst other consequences). In the previous scenerio's is the governmemt going to provide for the long term care of these infants (probably close to $20 million over the course of their life time).

As long as the cost (pysical,mental,emotional, economical) is left up to the individual mother and as long as the choice to have sex is left up to the individual then the choice of whether to terminate
is best left up to the indiviudal.

Finally, as a real practical point banning abortion is like bannig prostitution. Neither is effective demand for the service. It merely causes the seekers and providers of the service to go undergroud.

Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 9:32PM

What happened to WallStrip? Did they not do it today?

Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 12:28AM

So what does everyone think of the emperor's new clothes?

Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 12:49AM

check out the file name-
http://tinyurl.com/67h2uk

Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 1:24AM

Hmmmm. Somone is dedicatedly outing BL today.

Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 1:28AM

Yup that certainly seems like bl. theres the jew-ey nose and we've seen those manhands before. Result of years of playing field hockey (as I saw in the earlier picture posted this evening on the erin callan thead that was taken down)?

Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 1:30AM

that hand actually looks pretty small but it couldn't be her b/c the nails are painted.

Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 1:31AM

Posted by guest, Jul 15, 2008 11:52PM

the Levin stalkfest continues. was this one taken at the bat mitzvah?

http://tinyurl.com/5cvjql

Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 1:33AM

you people hve an absurd amount of time on your hands. get lives, please.

Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 1:36AM

someone is wet

Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 2:25AM

Everything will be fine if Citi bring back the umbrella.

Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 2:57AM

@2:25AM

Love you umbrella comment!

Under my umbrella.....ella ella ella, eh.

Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 6:25AM

Mar'97//Citi with no umberella//share price 16 ish
Apr'98//Citi gets red umbrella/ share price 30.59
Decade of red umberlla glory
Feb'07//Chuckles Prince scraps umbrella// share price 50.37
Jul'08//Citi with no umbrella//share price 14ish, party likes its 1997

Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 6:26AM

Sorry umbrella

Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 6:38AM

Note:
The immense power of the umberlla may only exist within the metal one that used to be in Tribeca as Travellers has slumped too.
My bet is the a shady cabal of Washington insiders (or a hedge fund) have discovered its awesome power and a keeping it somewhere.
If you want America's children to eat we need to find that umbrella and put it out front of the Fed.

Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 6:54AM

the umbrella was my port in the storm

Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 6:54AM

the umbrella was my port in the storm

Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 6:54AM

the umbrella was my port in the storm

Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 6:56AM

"

Posted by AJ, Jul 15, 2008 6:03PM

If this new regulation rids the world of Tim Sykes, I'm for it"

agreed!

Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 6:57AM

sykes, what would it take to make you go away? name your price.

Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 7:00AM

July 16 (Bloomberg) -- Gordon Brown says he wants the brightest people in the world to come live in Britain. Unless they are Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Michael Dell, all of whom would be excluded under the government's new immigration rules.

Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 7:01AM

drop outs

Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 8:40AM

I smell a catfight.

Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 9:38AM

@8:35 - she doesn't know much but nothing like a woman scorned. She was exposed as a beard and now is using ex-hubby's money to try to prove to herself that by existing, she is somehow relevant to the rest of us.

Posted by guest , Jul 16, 2008 12:32PM

It's not her ex-husband's money which is backing HuffPost; she has a private backer who is content to lose money in the short-term as the site builds.

I not quite sure why, but I find her incredibly obnoxious.