skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Assuming you've already breezed through part 1, we can now address the general question of what pro-life pharmacists want by asking the first specific question of these folks:
If you are refusing to serve a customer or fill a prescription based on your moral beliefs, will you make it clear why?
I'll bet most of you never considered that as an issue -- whether the pharmacist should have an obligation to explain truthfully why the customer is being refused service. But this really is a sticky issue.
Recall back here when "Pharmacists for Life" President Karen Brauer was fired for refusing to fill a birth-control prescription. But she never used her moral beliefs as a justification. Instead, she lied about the availability of the drug, almost certainly to avoid a confrontation and perhaps to hang on to her job. As I've explained previously, that's not principle -- that's cowardice.
If these folks are going to be selective about who they choose to serve, it seems only fair that they agree to be honest about why they're doing it, and be prepared to deal with the consequences. In short, I'd make that part of the "contract": no weaseling -- you tell the customer you're not helping them because you think you're morally superior. Then be prepared for some overworked, overstressed, deeply-into-PMS female who's having a bad day and is already late for her next meeting to launch herself across the counter to rip your throat out. Hey, no one said having morals was easy, did they?
Which brings us to the next question:
If you, the pro-life pharmacist, refuse to serve a customer for some reason, are you prepared to allow someone else at that same store to process the customer, and without any additional delay?
Oh, yes, most of you potential customers know where I'm coming from. You're busy, you're trying to run a dozen errands on your lunch break, you've just stood in line for 10 minutes at the pharmacy counter and you finally get to the front of the line, only to hear, "Oh, I'm sorry, I can't fill that for you -- it's against my religious beliefs. Sorry."
"Well, fuck you," you say, "I just wasted 10 minutes standing in this line for nothing. I want my prescription filled, and I want it filled it now, and I don't give a shit about your religious beliefs." So what would be an acceptable outcome? Actually, there's one way out, and that's only if there is another pharmacist on duty who is immediately (and let me stress, immediately) available to handle your request, because I'm going to propose a single cardinal rule for the implementation of conscience clauses -- these clauses can be exercised as long as the customer is not inconvenienced in any way, no matter how minor. And I'm going to call that non-negotiable. But what does it mean?
It means that if you've just stood in line for 10 minutes, you can't be told to go stand in another line for another 10 minutes. It means that the alternate pharmacist has to drop, right now, whatever they're doing and deal with you, for a very simple reason -- you stood in line, you played by the rules, you got to the front of the line and now it's your turn to be served. If it means you have to be served by someone else, so be it.
What this also suggests is that, if for any reason, an alternate person is not available, the pro-life person must deal with you. No morals, no principles, no bullshit. To paraphrase a well-known saying, religious scruples on their part doesn't constitute an unwarranted unconvenience on your part. And you'll note what else this implies -- they can't refer you elsewhere. You came to that pharmacy, you waited in line, you now have a right to be served. End of discussion and, again, it's just part of a larger picture -- conscience clauses are just fine as long as they don't affect the customer even in the slightest. How that's implemented is not your, the customer's, problem, is it?
Coming up in part 3: Who gets to decide what falls under the conscience clause?
Given the current brouhaha over "conscience clauses" -- wherein medical personnel like doctors and pharmacists reserve the right to act like sanctimonious, moralizing assholes in deciding whether or not they're going to serve you -- I thought I'd revisit the whole issue and put down in writing some random thoughts I've been having lately that I don't think have gotten sufficient coverage anywhere. Fair warning -- I'm tired so this piece may be a bit more rambling than normal but I'm sure you can handle it. You're all clever folks. Well, most of you.
And another warning -- while I'm going to consider a number of positions and open questions here, they're purely for the sake of argument and discussion. Let me make it painfully clear that I don't in any way support the notion of a conscience clause (with a single exception I'm going to get to later). In my opinion, if people like pharmicists can't serve the general public fairly and completely, they should have their sorry asses fired. We already have way too many fundamentalist, lunatic dingbats in society as it is without giving them control over prescription drugs as well.
And a final defining ground rule -- while conscience clauses can be applied to numerous vocations, I'm going to keep things simple and discuss just pharmacists and, for better or worse, I'll use the phrase "pro-life pharmacists". It's not my favorite term but, for the sake of discussion, it will do for now. And having laid the foundation, we can start with a simple question that turns out not to have a simple answer:
What do "pro-life" pharmacists want?
Sounds like an easy question, doesn't it? Ah, but as I suggested above, the devil is in the details.
Pro-life pharmacists would undoubtedly answer that they want the right to dispense drugs and fill prescriptions in a way that doesn't offend their religious or moral beliefs. But this is a maddeningly vague and incomplete answer. Does this mean that they're prepared to let someone else at the pharmacy do that instead? Does it mean they're prepared to refer customers elsewhere? Does their squeamishness restrict itself solely to prescription drugs, or do they want carte blanche to refuse service based on any product in the store that offends their delicate sensibilities? Oh, yes, lots of questions and not that many clear-cut answers, so here's what I'm proposing.
If pro-life pharmacists want this freedom, I suggest that they be prepared to spell out, in excruciating detail, what rights they're after and how they plan to accommodate customers they refuse to serve. In essence, a contract, which spells out precisely what they can and can't do because, as we all know, if you're not precise, these folks will take every chance they get to push the envelope a little further each time.
To that end, I'm going to propose a set of questions for which there might be surprising answers. And that's coming shortly in part two.
Oh, yawn. Another day, another dose of right-wing, academic bias bullshit. Man, these people are pathetic.
Seriously, how would most really vile and loathsome political public figures (read: Republicans) survive if they couldn't just blame everything on being quoted "out of context"?
And the best part? Even Faux News' Chris Wallace doesn't buy Cornyn's argument. Man, you know you're a complete lowlife when, as a Republican, even Faux News takes a step or two back when you enter the room.
Well, first there's this:
Several members of an advocacy group for victims of priest sexual abuse were flying to Rome Sunday to protest Cardinal Bernard Law's leading Mass in honor of the late Pope John Paul II, the organization's founder said Saturday night...
Court documents showed Law knowingly moved priests accused of abuse from parish to parish without disclosing allegations against them. He resigned in 2003 amid intense public outrage.
However, credit where credit is due, at least Law and the church have the courage to stand up, confront his accusers and address the allegations:
The Boston archdiocese has told CNN it won't comment on the issue... Last Sunday, Law appeared in an ABC interview about the pope and refused to discuss the abuse crisis.
OK, scratch that courage part. Athenae over at First Draft also has a thing or two to say on the subject. You go, girl.
And just in case you have room for a little more outrage, over here at God is for Suckers, a timely display of more logic. You'll love the comments part where "Frank" makes the case that, yes, that toddler really did deserve that terminal illness and who are you to question God's will?
And good morning to you, too.
One of the most maddening aspects of arguing with imbeciles is their lack of understanding of the most basic rules of logic, like the ones explained here. If you've been a regular reader of this blog, you've most likely seen almost all of those rules violated painfully at one time or another.
Consider one of my favourites, the "No True Scotsman ..." fallacy:
Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. I then say "Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
This is an example of an ad hoc change being used to shore up an assertion, combined with an attempt to shift the meaning of the words used in the original assertion; you might call it a combination of fallacies.
And if you change a few words around, well, it sure looks familiar, doesn't it?
WB: Tom DeLay is going to Rome as part of the U.S. delegation.
CC: Um, no, the U.S. delegation consists of five people, none of which is Tom DeLay.
WB: Well, he's going as part of an unofficial delegation.
Man, I could teach an entire course in critical thinking based on Weasel Boy's stupidity alone, but that's not the point here.
There's one argument I've seen countless times that I don't think has a Latin name. I call it the "Argument from Personal Bewilderment," where the arguer's position is, simply, that because he doesn't understand something, it is therefore not understandable and should be rejected.
You run into this all the time debating with creationists, when they say something like, "Well, I just don't see how your naturalistic, materialistic processes can result in evolution. It just doesn't seem possible, so I don't believe it."
At this point, the proper response is not to try to explain biological evolution even further. The proper response would be to point out that, gosh, that's too bad but science in general and biological evolution in particular doesn't give a rat's ass what he believes. It may be cruel but science marches on -- it doesn't hang around, waiting for some moron's stamp of approval. Said moron probably doesn't understand superconductivity, or cosmology, or general relativity either but, gee, that's tough.
So to the common conservative lament of, "Well, I just don't understand how that can work and I don't believe it," the proper response is, generally, "No one gives a shit what you believe. Deal with it."
... and, Jesus Christ, it's an ugly scene. Recently, the New York Times' Paul Krugman wrote a column on the alleged pro-liberal bias in higher academia. Among other places you can read it is here at Free Republic, otherwise known as Mouthbreather Central.
Read Krugman, then read the comments that follow, which start with this gem:
Paul Krugman is a One-Man Circle Jerk
Oh, man, this guy makes my head hurt.
First, in a spasm of oratorical onanism, he flatters himself by implying that academics, through a process of intellectual self-selection, today represent some sort of awesome-brained uber-species of hominid, much as knuckle-dragging Republicans have grunted and scratched their way into populating the ranks of the brutish military. Well, if one accepts this basic thesis, then perhaps Krugman stands as testimony to the dangers of inbreeding, for Mr. Enron Advisor stands prominently as perhaps the economist most associated with the longest and broadest train-wreck of a professional record...
Then, rapid-fire, he starts in with a lefty Clif's Notes version of claimed Republican pseudoscience. These, like his economics and his Enron advice, he gets rather wrong. Sure, Bush says the jury is still out on "evolution", because it is, especially regarding certain of the more ambitious aspects of the theory: One doesn't have to be a Young Earther to have difficulties with the many hoaxes that have crept into the fossil record, and one needn't be a fundamentalist to see striking parallels between Genesis and the Big Bang theory...
If you're looking for a reason why conservatives don't quite fit into academia, man, do I have a data point for you.
AFTERTHOUGHT: If you have the time to kill, keep reading the comments section to get the full flavour of the Neanderthal mentality of the far right. In particular, notice the irony of this excerpt:
I think it's as simple as the age-old saying, "Those who can, DO, those who can't, TEACH."
In other words, we have conservatives who have nothing but contempt for academia, while simultaneously decrying the "fact" that they can't be a part of that very same academia. I'm sure you can be stupider than this but, I swear to God, I'm not sure how.
And you know that, when it comes to promises of abstinence, teenagers can be amazingly resourceful when it comes to finding loopholes.
Sadly, I don't get the Documentary Channel, but "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism" is on tonight at 8 p.m.
Jesus Christ, someone needs to get a fucking life.
And over here, Ellen Goodman weighs in on the whole pharmacist/conscience clause thing.
I'm not done with this topic yet and it's no secret what I think of these "pro-life", sanctimonious weasels. But I'm amused by this excerpt from Goodman's piece:
Pharmacists don't have the same claim to refuse filling a prescription as a doctor has to refuse performing an abortion. But there are other ways to exercise a private conscience clause. Indeed, in a conflict between your job and your ethics, you can quit. It happens every day.
When Thoreau refused to pay taxes as a war protest, remember, he went to jail. What the pharmacists and others are asking for is conscience without consequence. The plea to protect their conscience is a thinly veiled ploy for conquest.
Conscience without consequence. Principle without repercussions. Gosh, where have we heard that before? Oh, yeah ... here. :-)
But my self-indulgent preening aside, here's another suggestion. A number of folks (including moi) have suggested that one way to respond to "pro-life" pharmacists is to boycott their stores. A reasonable idea but, unless you actually get turned away trying to fill a prescription, you might never learn that the pharmacy you frequent has one of these fundamentalist nutbars tending the pharmacy counter.
A simple solution would be to require (yes, require) pharmacies that employ these loons to post prominently on their storefront a sign along the lines of:
NOTE: This store employs one or more pharmacists who reserve the right to refuse to process your prescription for any reason, based on their moral or religious beliefs.
Personally, I don't think this is an outrageous requirement. If a pharmacy isn't embarrassed to have a "pro-life" pharmacist working on staff, they shouldn't be embarrassed about announcing that to the world, which makes it so much easier for customers to decide if they want to take their business elsewhere.
Thoughts?
A lot of left-wing bloggers are crowing over liberal Paul Begala's alleged bitch slap of CNN's odious hack Wolf Blitzer over here, where Blitzer questions whether Begala is a good Catholic, and Begala takes appropriate offense:
BLITZER: While they were united today in mourning the death of the pope, U.S. Catholics are a diverse group, as illustrated by two of our Crossfire co-hosts, the conservative Robert Novak, the liberal Paul Begala. Both good Catholics -- I don't know "good" Catholics, but both Catholics. I'm sure Bob is a good Catholic, I'm not so sure about Paul Begala.
BEGALA: Well, now, who are you to pass moral judgment on my religion, Mr. Blitzer? My goodness gracious.
BLITZER: All right, go ahead, go ahead.
BEGALA: On the day of my Holy Father's funeral. My eldest son is named John Paul, after the Pope.
Jesus fucking Christ, how offensive can Blitzer be? He's insulting someone's faith on national TV! And if that's not outrageous enough, he has the nerve to refer to Bob Novak -- I mean, Bob Goddamn Novak, the man who outed a covert CIA operative -- as a "good" Catholic, then openly wonders about Begala!
And even after Begala goes after him for it, he's still too fucking stupid to know what kind of dickhead he's being because he does it again:
BLITZER: So you are a good Catholic?
BEGALA: I'm serious, that annoys me. I don't think anybody should presume that a liberal is not a good Catholic.
And might Blitzer finally clue in to what kind of utter asshole he's being? Fuck, no! Shortly thereafter, he tries to pass it all off as a joke, and finds yet another way to insult Begala, suggesting it's just Begala that's too "sensitive":
BLITZER: I was certainly not questioning -- I was only teasing.
BEGALA: Okay.
BLITZER: Don't be so sensitive.
And everyone's all hepped up about how Begala lowered the boom on Blitzer. Truth is, he did no such thing -- that was about as lame a comeback as you can imagine. What a shame Begala didn't just lay into Blitzer, and rip him a new orifice or two, maybe like this:
BLITZER: While they were united today in mourning the death of the pope, U.S. Catholics are a diverse group, as illustrated by two of our Crossfire co-hosts, the conservative Robert Novak, the liberal Paul Begala. Both good Catholics -- I don't know "good" Catholics, but both Catholics. I'm sure Bob is a good Catholic, I'm not so sure about Paul Begala.
BEGALA: Excuse me, Wolf? Did I hear you right? On one of the most emotional days for people of my faith in history, did you just insult my religious beliefs? What the fuck kind of total asshole are you?! Where do you get off taking that kind of bullshit, cheap shot at me, you little cocksucker? On national TV, you call Bob Novak a "good Catholic"? Hey, I didn't endanger our country's security by outing a fucking secret CIA operative, did I, you little pissant. I want an apology out of you, and I want it right now or I'm going to come hunt you down and kick the living shit out of you for being such a condescending prick. I mean, fuck, but you really are an asshole, aren't you?
Now that would have been a good comeback.
Oh, yes, it's always good times when conservatives finally turn on each other.
Despite my painfully explicit instructions here, Weasel Boy couldn't resist adding one more inane, off-topic, tap dancing comment which, as I promised I would do if he didn't abide by my conditions, I deleted. His major point was to storm off in a huff, vowing never to waste any more breath on me.
Let's all remember that promise, shall we?
And over at Salon, we find Eric Boehlert roasting Republicans over an open fire (commercial viewing required to get a site pass):
Right-wing bloggers shrieked that the GOP Schiavo memo was a "liberal media" fraud. Now that they've been proven wrong, are they apologizing? Why, no!
Still gloating over their role in unmasking CBS's faulty National Guard memo story last September, right-wing bloggers launched a new memo-based crusade against the so-called liberal media last month, one that turned out to be completely phony. But unlike CBS and its tarred former anchor, Dan Rather, who eventually admitted their mistakes in the Memogate affair, these bloggers (many of whom were also involved in the CBS campaign) haven't had the guts to apologize for their blunder.
Here's one of the funnier excerpts, in which the dickheads over at PowerLine turn the whole story inside out to blame it on (you guessed it) the mainstream media:
Even when proven to be categorically wrong, reckless bloggers don't flinch. Examining the rubble Wednesday night, after the Post published its story about Sen. Martinez, Power Line concluded, "This story serves as an object lesson in how the mainstream media can take a dopey, one-page memo by an unknown staffer and use it to discredit the entire Republican party." Only someone who is shameless, and spends weeks accusing both reporters and Democratic elected officials of being liars, could turn around and announce that a manufactured episode had served as "an object lesson in how the mainstream media" tries to discredit Republicans.
Does that sum it up or what?
SNARKY UPDATE: By the way, you'll notice how numerous members of the right-wing wankerhood are describing the author of the memo as some "unknown staffer" of Florida Republican Senator Mel Martinez, subtlely suggesting that it was some no-name junior aide or something, maybe some dimbulb intern from Bob Jones University on a summer co-op position or something.
Don't be fooled -- the author was, in fact, a man named Brian Darling, who was Martinez's chief legal counsel, hardly an "unknown staffer". Just more bullshit you have to wade through to get to the truth.
Even funnier is how Martinez disavows any knowledge of Darling's actions:
Martinez said in a written statement that he discovered Wednesday that the memo had been written by an aide in his office.
"It is with profound disappointment and regret that I learned today that a senior member of my staff was unilaterally responsible for this document," Martinez said.
But this isn't surprising -- apparently, Martinez has a nasty habit of blaming his staff whenever the shit hits the fan. Apparently, it's just never Mel's fault. How predictable.
SNARKIER AFTERTHOUGHT: I'm hoping most readers appreciate the eye-popping, unbelievable stupidity in the article linked to above but, just in case there are freepers reading, I'll spell it out, slooooooowly, and you can decide for yourself how believable is the good senator as he tries to pin the blame elsewhere when he opens with:
"Until this afternoon, I had never seen it and had no idea a copy of it had ever been in my possession," Martinez said of the document. He had previously denied knowing anything about the memo and condemned its sentiments.
Fair enough, that's not unreasonable -- he never saw it and had no idea it existed. Then how does one explain the following inexplicable behaviour?
In his statement, Martinez acknowleged he inadvertently gave [Democratic Senator Tom] Harkin the memo without ever reading it. But he acknowledged his staffer was responsible for both "drafting and circulating" the memo. He did not specify where else the memo was sent...
Martinez, in his statement, said Harkin had asked for background information on the bill ordering a federal court to review the Schiavo case.
He said he pulled a one-page document from his coat pocket and handed to Harkin. "Unbeknownst to me ... I had given him a copy of the now infamous memo."
So ... Martinez was unaware that the memo existed and yet we're supposed to believe that he's dumb enough to reach into his coat pocket, pull out a one-page document whose contents he is totally unaware of, and then hand that document unread to a Democratic senator? Exactly how stupid do you have to be to do that?
And, yes, that was a rhetorical question.
I was preparing a longer piece on the more general subject of "conscience clauses" but (hat tip to Atrios) to keep you occupied until then, we have this piece on PfL president Karen Brauer, showing just what kind of total wingnut this woman really is. Yeesh.
It's not like I want to belabour this -- God knows, even I get tired of hoofing someone in the nads when they're just lying on the ground, not even trying to protect themselves -- but this is such a delightful example of my four rules of wanker rhetoric, I have to share it.
Recall, if you will, CC's four stages of wanker rhetoric here, summarized (in chronological order) as:
- Unreasoning embrace of nonsensical position.
- Redefinition of basic terms to suit the argument.
- Unexpected change of subject to avoid impending defeat.
- Sudden admission of error, accompanied by insistence that this whole thing is no big deal.
Note especially point two, in which the wanker begins to redefine basic terms to suit his claim, generally using words in subtlely non-standard ways. Which brings us to Jinx "Weasel Boy" McHue in the comments section of this piece, who knows exactly what the issue is, but keeps twisting basic definitions to avoid the obvious.
If you have the stomach for it and want to recap, the issue -- the primary issue -- is whether GOP House Majority Leader (R - Total Sleazebag) was really and truly "called to Rome" as part of "the U.S. delegation", as he claimed. And note well the emphasis on "the" U.S. delegation, as there is only one as I described, and whose official members I listed individually. There may be an arbitrary number of additional attendees, but they are not part of the official delegation of five. Did you catch that? Can anyone read my original piece and not understand the point I was making? Good, so let's see how Weasel Boy finally tries to, well, weasel his way out of admitting he was wrong. Can you guess? Go on, guess. Really. That's right -- he redefines the concept of the word "delegation":
CC: Ah, so you're claiming that DeLay really is part of the U.S. delegation to the Vatican?
WB: I'm not claiming it. THE NEWS is.
Of course, the news piece he links to claims no such thing, as it describes DeLay being part of a "26-member House delegation", or a "bipartisan Congressional delegation", making it clear that this is not the official one. But that's OK for Weasel Boy -- he sees the word and just seizes the carp, as they say.
Weasel Boy does, of course, completely ignore other news pieces which draw a clear distinction, like this one:
Some of most most famous Catholics in Congress plan to attend Pope John Paul's funeral even though they won't be part of the official U-S delegation. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will lead a group of 14 senators, including Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy and Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.
Speaker Dennis Hastert will lead a House delegation of 26 members, including Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Representative John Boehner of Ohio -- and New York Congressman Charles Rangel.
Ah, but what's precision and semantics between friends? The amusing part of all of this is how predictably Weasel Boy is following my earlier four stages of wanker rhetoric. He's like a Mattel toy -- wind him up and watch him redefine terms and change the subject. But since I'm getting tired of this, here's what I'm going to do.
I'm simply going to delete every single comment from now on from Weasel Boy on this site until he offers up an unconditional and unambiguous admission that he was wrong. No weaseling, no redefining terms, no shucking and jiving. Weasel Boy has a long history of making insipid claims, getting called on them, arguing inanely for a short time, then vanishing for several weeks hoping everyone's forgotten how he ran out on the argument just when he was getting pounded.
Not this time, WB. Your claim is crap, and you've been caught dead to rights. Time to take your medicine like a good little weasel. Until you do, no more comments for you. This might be the only possible way to teach you some manners.
I'm imagining this new joke:
Q: How can you find Tom DeLay when you need him?
A: Just follow your nose.
It's like this guy leaves the stench of corruption and unethical behaviour wherever he goes. Courtesy once again of John over at AmericaBlog, over here, we have the king of GOP sleaze handing out bogus awards in exchange for brown paper bags stuffed with bills:
The good news reached the Jamestown, N.Y., office of Dr. Rudolph Mueller in a fax from a congressman in Washington. Mueller had been named 2004 Physician of the Year...
But to receive the award in person at a special two-day workshop in Washington last month, Mueller found out that he would have to make a $1,250 contribution to the National Republican Congressional Committee. It was a disturbing discovery, he said.
"To actually buy your award and it's not from your peers or from your patients or from the community that you serve, it's really deceptive," said Mueller, author of "As Sick As It Gets: The Shocking Reality of America's Healthcare, A Diagnosis and Treatment Plan." "It's not being honest, it's just not right." ...
Mueller soon found he was not the only winner. There were hundreds of Physicians of the Year present, many of whom found the criteria for being selected equally as opaque.
And I'm guessing that it's just a coincidence that every Physician of the Year just happened to be Republican. What are the odds of that? Read the whole piece -- it's three pages long so don't miss clicking through. And my favourite part?
Mueller said most of the talk at the sessions was about marketing, lawyers and taxes, and that he was met with silence when trying to raise the issue of the lack of affordable health insurance.
"This is the real crisis," Mueller said he told the congressmen on one panel at the events. "Please, I am begging you."
The congressmen said nothing and quickly called for a question from another Physician of the Year, Mueller said.
I guess these folks never got that "Culture of Life" memo.
Things appear to be getting a bit heated in the competition to build the Alaska gas pipeline:
TransCanada Corp. [TCC] launched a counterattack yesterday against pipeline rival Enbridge Inc. over who gets to build the US$20-billion Alaska gas pipeline...
Construction of the proposed pipeline has become a controversial issue in Canada because the Canadian government is under pressure to decide whether it will continue to support the NPA or whether it will allow a new project regulated under the National Energy Board, effectively allowing competitors to come forward with competing proposals.
And given the fact that the proposed pipeline would, in large part, pass through Canada's Yukon Territory and British Columbia, how do TCC's competitors justify getting their hands on the business?
Enbridge and Alaska producers, ExxonMobil Corp., BP PLC and ConocoPhillips, escalated their lobbying efforts in recent weeks asking Ottawa to open the process to competition.
What a novel idea -- having a genuinely open, competitive bidding process. What a truly American concept. You know, getting advice from Americans on the merits of fair business practices is like getting lectured by the Catholic Church on child care.
And here's the Sudden Sage, with a recap of the GOP's embarrassment regarding the Terri Schiavo memo ("Oops, I guess one of us really did write it ... heh heh ..."). This is most definitely not the end of this story.
ADDITIONAL, THOROUGHLY SNARKY SENTIMENT: There's so much that can be said about the breathtaking hypocrisy of the right regarding this allegedly "fake" memo that turned out to be quite real. But, really, does anyone sum it up better than John over at AmericaBlog:
Eat that, you God damn lying conservative bloggers, FOX News and Rush Limbaugh.
Yes, sometimes, the only suitable response is unlimited profanity.
Damn. I was all set to do a lengthy Church Lady-type victory dance over how that Terri Schiavo "Here's how the GOP can benefit from her suffering politically" memo really did turn out to be written by a GOP lowlife, but (via Pharyngula), someone already beat me to it.
And the best part? In the finest spirit of Weasel Boy, those wankers over at PowerLine haven't apologized. They're still in damage control mode, trying to salvage their reputations and blame everyone else:
HINDROCKET adds: A reader asks a good question: Where has Tom Harkin been for the last two and a half weeks? If he had come forward on March 19 or 20, there never would have been a "talking points memo" story, or at least not much of a story. The truth--that an obscure Republican staffer wrote a dumb memo that hardly anyone saw--would scarcely have created a ripple. The whole point of the story, as initially reported, was that the document was an official "GOP memo," created by the party's leadership and broadly circulated to the party's Senators. If Harkin had told what he knew promptly, that story never would have been written, or would have been promptly spiked. So it seems likely that Harkin stayed quiet because he wanted the false account to circulate; indeed, he may have been the source of the misinformation promulgated by ABC and the Post. But then, why did Harkin come forward yesterday? Again, the most obvious answer does Harkin no credit: with speculation increasingly focusing on the Democrats as the likely source of the memo, it was in his party's interest to come forward, even at the risk of exposing the falsity of the early reporting on the memo.
Yeah, the memo was written by a Republican but, somehow, it's a Democrat's fault. Delightful.
UPDATE: Not surprisingly, TBogg is all over this as well (and make sure you follow the links). Apparently, being a right-wing wanker means never having to say you're sorry. Or wrong. Or that it's your fault. Even a little bit.
And in honour of some of my most recent commenters, welcome to the first weekly Thursday night weasel blogging.
Link:
The space shuttle Discovery began its slow creep to the launch pad Wednesday after a brief delay caused by the discovery of a crack in the external fuel tank’s foam insulation. NASA later said the crack was no reason for concern.
There is no punchline sufficiently cynical for this situation, is there?
You do realize, don't you, that the official nine days of mourning only begins with the funeral on Friday, don't you?
I realize this is kind of kicking a man when he's down but when that man is Tom DeLay, there's no such thing as a good time to stop. As many (including your humble author) have noted, Tom "The Chicken" DeLay suddenly bailed on a conference designed for right-wing lunatic wingnuts all about the judicial war on faith, claiming that he was (and I am quoting directly from the schedule here) suddenly called to more important matters:
Congressman Lamar Smith will speak in place of Tom DeLay, who was called to Rome as part of the US delegation attending the Pope's funeral.
Excuse me? One does not just get "called to Rome". And how exactly does DeLay think he's going to weasel his way into the U.S. delegation? According to this online Yahoo piece:
Former Presidents Bush and Clinton will accompany President Bush to the funeral of Pope John Paul II, the White House said Tuesday. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will also be part of the small official U.S. delegation, but former Presidents Carter and Ford will not.
The president and his wife, Laura, will lead the group representing the United States at the funeral on Friday, said White House press secretary Scott McClellan.
McClellan said the White House "reached out" to Carter, but he would not explain why Carter was not going along.
A spokesman at The Carter Center in Atlanta, Jon Moore, said Carter — relishing the memories of two visits as president with the pontiff — had told the White House he wanted to go to the funeral. Upon learning that the Vatican was limiting the U.S. delegation to five people and that "there were also others who were eager to attend," Carter was "quite willing" to withdraw his request, Moore said.
Now, if you count carefully (and, for you mathematically-challenged freepers, you should need only the fingers on one hand), you'll notice that the explicitly-identified members of the U.S. delegation do, indeed, total five exactly. Which makes one wonder -- how exactly are they going to squeeze DeLay in there?
To that end, if someone has time between now and Friday and White House Press Reptile Scott McClellan has another gaggle, I think it would be just delightful if someone were to ask, "Scott, how exactly did Tom DeLay come to join the U.S. delegation going to Rome?" And let's be clear -- the question should be asked just that way, and the asker should have a copy of the lunatic conference's schedule in which DeLay begs off because he's just too popular a guy to leave behind.
That would be just too much fun for words -- watching Scottie tap dance desperately to avoid calling DeLay a liar and yet still having to hang him out to dry because he'd have no choice. What a shame none of the press corps have those kind of balls. Paging Helen Thomas ... your country needs you.
It's not like CNN is any guiltier than any of the other networks in getting ridiculously obsessed with the current Pope-a-palooza, but I just surfed by CNN and caught Judy Woodruff (you remember Judy when she actually had principles, right?) pimping an upcoming segment on her colleague Robert Novak's journey to Catholicism.
Bob Novak. Yeah, that Bob Novak -- one of the sleaziest "journalists" on the planet. The one who saw nothing wrong with outing a covert CIA operative. Come on, Judy, why not ask Bob how he reconciles being a traitor with his Catholic faith? Hell, I'd pay to see that.
So, even if the occasional commenter doesn't see the problem with subtle threats against federal judges, it's amusing to note that Tom DeLay himself clearly realizes what kind of trouble he bought just by being his typical asshole self.
From this piece over at AmericaBlog, we have DeLay quietly vanishing from the list of keynote speakers at a conference. Yeah, right about now, perhaps the last thing DeLay needs is to be a keynote speaker at a conference on "The Judicial War on Faith."
It's hard to believe there really are people who condone threatening federal officials but, hey, they're out there.
AFTERNOON UPDATE: Apparently, Tom "The Bugman" DeLay isn't the only one getting cold feet over being linked with a bunch of anti-judiciary lunatics. Over here, we learn that Senators Brownback and Coburn have suddenly discovered scheduling conflicts or something. Given that Wankfest 2005 starts tomorrow, one wonders just how many others will find better things to do between now and then. We'll keep watching the guest list.
In the meantime, you have to enjoy watching what happens when you suddenly shine a light and watch the roaches scurry for cover.
Due to an unforeseen dental emergency (and I promise I will never, ever, ever make root canal jokes again), I've been out of commission for the last couple days. Back to regular posting within a day or so, perhaps sooner if I get ambitious.
Oh, look ... right-wing nutbar David Horowitz, crying like a little girl again. It's always great fun watching Horowitz trying to cast the mote out of his neighbour's eye, ignoring the log in his own. Poor David is obviously incensed by name calling:
The previous night I had spoken at Skidmore College, where a Professor of Psychology had publicly referred to the College Republicans as “America’s future fascists.”
Of course, this is the same Dave who titles his piece "Bowling Green Barbarians", and devotes a significant portion of his leftist-bashing "Discover the Network" web site to something called "Moonbat Central".
Poor Dave -- he just can't figure out why people don't like him.
SUSPICIOUS AFTERTHOUGHT: In an accusation in the above article eerily similar to his University of Northern Colorado fantasy, Horowitz writes:
At another school in Pennsylvania that I visited the week before, a biology professor showed Fahrenheit 9/11 to his biology class in the midst of the presidential campaign. In taking an entire class to show this propaganda film, the professor was obviously not teaching his students biology, or imparting any knowledge he was credentialed to share with them. He was simply inflicting his ignorance and prejudices on an audience that was unable to escape. There is something pathetic in adults who cannot restrain the urge to vent their political frustrations on a captive audience put at their disposal and take advantage of the vulnerability of audiences who in objecting risk ridicule (more frequently inflicted than you would imagine) or – worse – punitive grades that can negatively affect their careers (also more frequent than you would imagine).
First, just as he initially referred to "a University in Colorado" without being any more specific, making it extra-difficult to verify the details, Horowitz here refers to "another school in Pennsylvania" without naming names. So why the secrecy? If it's worth making the accusation, it's certainly worth being specific so readers can follow up, no? After all, as we've all seen, if Dave tells a story, you're almost guaranteed it's going to be bogus or missing some really important bits. So what to do? Against my better judgment, I'll spend a few minutes trying to corroborate Dave's bulls... uh, accusations. Where to start?
Well, how about googling on Dave's own site, Front Page Mag, for the combination of "Pennsylvania", "biology" and "Fahrenheit 9/11". Surely that should be specific enough to nail down this incident. Oh, look. Not so good. But let's not give up yet.
Since it happened on campus, surely the baby fascists over at Students for Academic Freedom would be all over this like religious wingnuts on a feeding tube. So let's google them with the same combination. Dang. This is getting tricky. But stepping back a bit, I think there's a bigger problem with Dave's accusation.
There's an irritating lack of detail even in that accusation above. Dave uses phrases like "unable to escape" and "captive audience", clearly suggesting that attendance at this film was mandatory, perhaps even done during class time. But who's to say that's how it happened? It's just as reasonable to imagine the faculty member, at the end of a class, just being informal and saying something like, "Hey, there's a special showing of Fahrenheit 9/11 at the local repertory this Friday, special prices for students and faculty, me and a bunch of buds are heading down. You're all invited and we can probably squeeze a few people into cars if you need a ride."
Do I know this is how it happened? Of course not -- any more than you know that it didn't. But given Dave's penchant for tall takes and making shit up, I don't think it's unfair anymore, when you hear a new claim out of Dave, to immediately react, "OK, what's he leaving out or misrepresenting this time?" I mean, given Dave's track record, it's a better than even bet that he's lying about something.
And, finally, what I think is a glaring omission -- what happened when any offended students reported this incident to the appropriate campus ombudsman? I mean, that's what campus officials are for, isn't it? To complain about inappropriate behaviour. And yet, amazingly, when Dave tells a story, there's a suspicious lack of what happened when the student followed the proper on-campus channels. It's almost as if they want these incidents to happen and crank up the sensationalism as quickly as possible by dragging Dave and the SAF into the picture as their initial strategy.
Ah, but that's just the conspiracy theory talking, isn't it?
P.S. If any readers have info on the alleged and maddeningly-vague Pennsylvania case Dave describes, by all means, let us know. I can't wait to add another Davey boy notch to my belt.
P.P.S. And I'm pretty sure it would be unnecessarily snarky to point out that the intellectual wizards at the SAF have, as their motto on their main page, the phrase, "You can't get a good education if they're only telling you half the story." That's right. And you certainly won't get a good English education with grammar like that. Conservative, higher education indeed.
Perhaps the most annoying thing about dealing with the proponents of ID is trying to get a consistent description of what they believe and what they're proposing. These days, trying to get an IDer to define his (or her) "theory" of ID is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall.
From the Discovery Institute's own web site, we have the pretty indisputable position that the theory of ID is, indeed, a theory:
1. What is the theory of intelligent design?
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection
So it's a theory. No, wait, it's not a theory, according to Michael Shermer:
Intelligent-design theory lacks, for instance, a hypothesis of the mechanics of the design, something akin to natural selection in evolution. Natural selection can and has been observed and tested, and Charles Darwin's theory has been refined.
Intelligent-design theorists admit the difference, at least among themselves. Here is ID proponent Paul Nelson, writing last year in Touchstone, a Christian magazine: "Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity' — but, as yet, no general theory of biological design."
Which suggests that the proponents of ID really shouldn't be allowed to participate in any conversation regarding science until they at least get their own house in order and can agree amongst themselves what they're proposing.
But at least they can agree on one thing -- ID is not religion:
3. Is intelligent design based on the Bible?
No. The intellectual roots of intelligent design theory are varied.
Or is it? Writes Shermer again:
On March 9, I debated ID scholar Stephen Meyer at Westminster College in Fulton, Mo. After two hours of debate over the scientific merits (or lack thereof) of IDT, Meyer admitted in the question-and-answer period that he thinks that the intelligent designer is the Judeo-Christian God and that suboptimal designs and deadly diseases are not examples of an unintelligent or malevolent designer, but instead were caused by "the fall" in the Garden of Eden. [William] Dembski has also told me privately that he believes the intelligent designer is the God of Abraham.
It's a theory. It's not a theory. It's not religion. Yes, it is. It's a dessert topping. It's a floor wax. Is it any wonder no one with an ounce of sense takes these wingnuts seriously?
It's hard not to think so after you read this. The right might not like Michael Moore but there's no denying that Moore is at least an order of magnitude smarter than Levin.
(This article has been deliberately post-dated so that it remains here for at least the next week. Newer articles are regularly posted below this one.)
(UPDATE, Sun, Apr 3: Apparently, someone tried the "here's my best arguments against evolution" strategy over at Pharyngula, and got pasted for his trouble.)
(FINAL THOUGHTS, Mon, Apr 4: Well, that experiment was a dud. Apparently, no creationists were willing to step up to the plate. Pity.)
In what might prove to be an embarrassing example of bad judgment on my part, I am going to turn this site over to the advocates of creation science and Intelligent Design Creationism and let them submit what they consider their best -- their absolute best -- piece of evidence, either for creation science or ID, or against biological evolution. But there are going to be rules, so pay attention.
When it comes to creationists, there's a depressing tendency to try to defend creationism or discredit evolution using what is called the "shotgun approach"; this involves spewing numerous (generally illogical or just plain stupid) arguments out at high speed, hoping your opponent just can't keep up. The idea is to leave the impression with a gullible audience that, since you have so many pieces of evidence, well, some of them have to be valid.
A perfect example of this kind of tap dancing is creationist Walter Brown who published a 1983 book entitled, "The Scientific Case for Creation: 108 Categories of Evidence," a wretched little piece of dishonesty that was thoroughly eviscerated here. But it's not the quality of Brown's scholarship that's even the issue -- it's his obvious strategy to inundate the reader with various "evidences" to the point that you might start to think, gee, there's got to be a pony under all that manure somewhere. No, sorry, it really is all just manure.
And it's to that end that I'm challenging supporters of creationism or ID, if they're feeling ambitious, to submit what they think is the best, most compelling and most irrefutable single piece of evidence they can come up with to support their position. And note the emphasis on "single". I don't want to see Brown's scattershot approach -- "Well, there's this, and if you don't agree with that, well, I got this, too ..."
Bottom line is, you get one shot at this so take your time, do your research, write it up as if you're functionally literate and post it to the comments section. However, before you get all excited, let me give you some advice to keep you from embarrassing yourselves.
First, I've been looking at this stuff for years so chances are good I've seen pretty much every popular argument that's ever been presented. What this means is that you really shouldn't submit something that's been thoroughly debunked for years. That means I don't want to hear about the shrinking sun, the amount of dust on the moon, the amount of helium in the atmosphere, dinosaur and man tracks together in the Paluxy River, trees embedded in multi-layer strata or how radiometric dating is unreliable. (And, related to that last point, I really don't want to read submissions where you don't even know the difference between radiometric and radiocarbon dating. If you submit something like that, I will hold you up to unlimited scorn and ridicule. Trust me.)
And, even more importantly, you shouldn't even think of submitting an alleged evidence that has already been rejected by other creationists. That would be an unspeakably bone-headed thing to do, especially since I just told you not to, capische?
So, with the ground rules out of the way, go wild. Remember, you get to submit and defend a single piece of evidence. Any submission that violates that rule will be either deleted without comment or left there and made fun of, depending on what kind of mood I'm in.
Let the games begin.
UPDATE, Wed, Mar. 30, 6:40 AM: Hmmmmm ... response a little disappointing so far. Apparently, creationists are not keen on the idea of having to actually make a claim and defend it.
It's not like you need even more insulting hypocrisy coming out of the Bush administration, but here's a truly delightful example. Over here, Brendan Nyhan points out Chimpy's sleazy habit of accusing others of racism when it comes to, for example, Social Security and democracy in Iraq.
Specifically in the case of Iraq, as Nyhan points out:
[Bush] frequently does the same thing when talking about the war in Iraq, attributing opposition to the war to "some" people who don't believe Iraqis are capable of democracy, which again attaches the vague stigma of racism to all of his opponents.
Keep in mind that these folks who argue that Iraq really is ready for democracy -- really, it is -- are the same folks whose former Iraq Grand Viceroy Poohbah Supreme Wizard, Paul Bremer, couldn't even hightail his cowardly ass out of there without issuing a whirlwind of laws and edicts:
As of June 14 [2004], Bremer had issued 97 legal orders, which are defined by the U.S. occupation authority as "binding instructions or directives to the Iraqi people" that will remain in force even after the transfer of political authority. An annex to the country's interim constitution requires the approval of a majority of Allawi's ministers, as well as the interim president and two vice presidents, to overturn any of Bremer's edicts. A senior U.S. official in Iraq noted recently that it would "not be easy to reverse" the orders.
It appears unlikely that all of the orders will be followed. Many of them reflect an idealistic but perhaps futile attempt to impose Western legal, economic and social concepts on a tradition-bound nation that is reveling in anything-goes freedom after 35 years of dictatorial rule.
The orders include rules that cap tax rates at 15 percent, prohibit piracy of intellectual property, ban children younger than 15 from working, and a new traffic code that stipulates the use of a car horn in "emergency conditions only" and requires a driver to "hold the steering wheel with both hands."
So, apparently, the Iraqi people are ready for democracy but still have to be told how to drive. How quaint.
I'm certainly not done with these loons, but I'll give you a break and let someone else slap them around for a bit here.
Well, now that my Dookies screwed the pooch, I might as well cheer for UNC. It just goes with the geography.
You remember one of David Horowitz's academic anti-conservative bias poster children, Ahmad al-Qloushi, don't you? The one who turned in a worthless, piece of crap essay and complained when it was graded accordingly? Apparently, neither Horowitz nor his devoted disciples, the Students for Academic Freedom, are prepared to give up on Ahmad -- they must figure they can get a few more miles out of him.
How else to explain this spectacularly stupid March 31 piece by Horowitz and the SAF's Sara Dogan, published at the SAF web site. And the best part of that article is that it makes all of Horowitz, al-Qloushi and the SAF look even more dishonest than ever (if that's even physically possible).
Let's have some fun and deconstruct the stupidity, a little at a time (emphasis lovingly added for maximum embarrassment). First, here's Dogan in her overview:
The final straw came when the class was instructed to complete a take-home final exam which asked students to “Analyze the US constitution (original document), and show how its formulation excluded the majority of the people living in America at that time, and how it was dominated by America's elite interest.” Ahmad chose to write an essay defending America’s Founding Fathers and upholding the Constitution as a progressive document which has contributed to freedom beyond America's borders.
And as some of you may recall, this was kind of the problem -- that Ahmad simply didn't answer the question. But apparently, conservatives are above that sort of thing. Anyway, onward, to where the accused, Professor James Woolcock, in his denial, reveals a few eye-opening details about what really happened, and how he actually worked pretty hard at accommodating al-Qloushi:
In mid-November 2004, Ahmad al-Qloushi came to see me at my request to discuss the outline of his Final Research Paper assignment in the course: “Introduction to American Government & Politics.” He had failed to write the mid-term assignment ...
Ooooooh. That's not good, and I don't remember anyone mentioning that in any earlier articles. That's kind of an important detail, dontcha think? The fact that al-Qloushi already has a track record for not getting his work done. Anyway, let's continue.
... and had chosen to write his final paper on a topic we both agreed would be a challenge for him. Recognizing that he would have difficulty completing the assignment, I offered him the opportunity to write his paper on a less challenging topic from the mid-term assignment list of topics. We agreed that should he take up the offer, I would not only discount the points he failed to earn at mid-term, but I would also work with him on the outline, and on the review of a draft copy of the paper before he submitted it for grading. Mr. al-Qloushi agreed to do that. However, he turned in his final written assignment without returning for the assistance which we had agreed on earlier. When I read the paper, it became clear to me that it did not respond to the question.
And yet another little-known bit of the story -- that al-Qloushi didn't keep his promise on how this essay was going to be completed. My, but little Ahmad is being an irresponsible little wingnut, isn't he? And on we go, as Woolcock continues:
In late November, after grading all final papers, I asked Mr. al-Qloushi to come and discuss with me the grade. During this meeting, I sought from him his reasons for reneging on our earlier agreement. In response, he expressed in great detail, concerns and feelings of high anxiety he was having about certain developments which had occurred over ten years ago in his country. Some aspects of his concerns were similar to certain concerns expressed in his paper.
Based on the nature of the concerns and the feelings of high anxiety which he expressed, I encouraged him to visist one of the college counselors. I neither forced nor ordered Mr. al-Qloushi to see a counselor; I have no authority to do so. My suggestion to him was a recommendation he freely chose to accept and which he acknowledged in an e-mail message to me on December 1, 2004.
And, finally, it's all clear. According to Woolcock, he recommended counselling for al-Qloushi, not because of the contents of his paper, but because of al-Qloushi's admitted anxiety over historical events in his country. In short, Horowitz and the SAF's accusations all this time were total rubbish. But it's Ahmad's attempts at a defense that leave one howling with laughter:
My complaint is not about how technically good or bad I am as a student. If I failed that class based on my performance, then so be it.
Yes, Ahmad -- if you failed because of your abysmal scholarship, then suck it up, take it like a man and shut the fuck up about it, and stop being such a whiner. Oh, wait, wait, Ahmad isn't done yet:
I wrote my midterm but was not permitted to turn it in because it was two hours late. That’s fair enough.
Uh, yeah, I'll say that's fair. And that's your defense? Mother of God, but Ahmad is a pathetic little whiner, isn't he, as he finally admits how he just screwed up. But, apparently, it's not his fault. When it comes to crybaby conservatives, it's never their fault, is it?
And after reading part one, you can probably see where I'm going with this. Our previous definition of "principle" referred to the idea that someone is willing to stand by their beliefs and, more importantly, is willing to accept the consequences of those beliefs. Which brings us to "Pharmacists for Life" president Karen Brauer, who isn't willing to do either and has no principles whatsoever although you'd never know that by reading the mainstream press.
Check out this excerpt from a March 28, 2005 WaPo article:
"Our group was founded with the idea of returning pharmacy to a healing-only profession. What's been going on is the use of medication to stop human life. That violates the ideal of the Hippocratic oath that medical practitioners should do no harm," said Karen L. Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life, who was fired from a Kmart pharmacy in Delhi, Ohio, for refusing to fill birth control prescriptions.
Wow. Based on that wording, you'd think that Brauer took a principled stand based on her religious and moral beliefs. And you'd be dead wrong, based on this snippet from an interview with sanctimonious, right-wing gasbag Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: I got you. Now, when the customer complained, what happened there? Did you refer that customer to somewhere else?
BRAUER: I asked -- I -- she did not complain to me. OK? What happened is, she came in for a refill. I informed her that we did not carry the drug at the time. And I offered to call a copy of her prescription to the pharmacy of her choice.
O'REILLY: And then she complained. But did you -- how -- why would she complain about that, if you didn't have the drug on hand?
BRAUER: Somehow she found out that this pharmacy actually did have the drug at the time.
O'REILLY: So you lied to her.
BRAUER: Yes, I did.
Ooooooh ... that's not quite the impression you got from the WaPo article, was it? Rather than taking a direct, principled and public stand based on her moral compass, Brauer simply lied about the availability of the drug. She wanted to adhere to her religious beliefs, but she had no intention of dealing with the consequences of those beliefs. So she lied. That's not principle. That's cowardice.
It's the same kind of cowardice you see when public figures stand up, put on an air of nobility and say things like, "Regardless of who was actually at fault, it happened on my watch and I'm prepared to take full responsibility," when, of course, they're not prepared to do any such thing. When was the last time you heard something like,
"Yes, I understand that others may have been guilty but, as this happened under my administration, I should have known better and I am taking full responsibility for ... excuse me? What? What do you mean, I'm fired? Jesus Christ, when I said I'm taking full responsibility, I didn't really mean it. I meant, I'm just saying that so I look good but, fuck, it wasn't really my fault, was it? Why take it out on me?"
So Brauer, the unprincipled liar that she is, still has the gall to stand up and say she's doing this based on her moral compass. Is that rich or what?
BY THE WAY: If you read both the WaPo article and the O'Reilly snippet carefully, you'll have noticed yet another example of Brauer's total lack of principle. In the O'Reilly interview, she describes the incident as:
BRAUER: I asked -- I -- she did not complain to me. OK? What happened is, she came in for a refill. I informed her that we did not carry the drug at the time. And I offered to call a copy of her prescription to the pharmacy of her choice.
So while Brauer was not willing to fill the prescription personally, she seemed to have no problem passing it on to another pharmacist who would. And yet, here's Brauer in the WaPo article, taking a noticeably more uncompromising stand:
Brauer, of Pharmacists for Life, defends the right of pharmacists not only to decline to fill prescriptions themselves but also to refuse to refer customers elsewhere or transfer prescriptions.
In other words, Brauer once again put aside her precious principles for the sake of expediency and out of sheer cowardice to avoid what would have been the inevitable confrontation if she had said something like, "I'm sorry, ma'am, but not only am I not going to fill this prescription, I'm not even going to refer you to another pharmacist who will."
It's not like it matters anyway. While Brauer's supporters might want to make this into a religious principles case, it's really simpler than that. She lied to a customer, and that should have been more than enough justification to fire her sorry ass.
To paraphrase a war cry heard from the lunatic right wing only a few years ago, "It's not the religious principles, it's the lying."
And before we get back to Karen Brauer of the group "Wingnut Pharmacists for Fascism", some good news out of Chicago (thanks to Atrios for the link):
Gov. Rod Blagojevich filed an emergency rule Friday requiring pharmacies that sell contraceptives to fill prescriptions for birth control quickly, following recent incidents in which a Chicago pharmacist refused to fill orders for contraceptives because of moral opposition.
"Our regulation says that if a woman goes to a pharmacy with a prescription for birth control, the pharmacy or the pharmacist is not allowed to discriminate or to choose who he sells it to or who he doesn't sell it to," Blagojevich said. "The pharmacy will be expected to accept that prescription and fill it ... No delays. No hassles. No lectures."
Fernando Grillo, head of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, said the emergency rule clarifies an existing requirement.
Note well the reference to the current "regulation" and "existing requirement". In short, at least in Illinois, it's never been a matter of personal choice or moral guidelines on the part of the pharmacist -- you have a job to do and the law requires you to do it. If you can't handle it, find another line of work.
(CORRECTION: The original version of this story claimed that "Liberty Magazine" was published by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. That was wrong, and the article has been corrected.)
This is the story of a woman ... a woman with no discernible principles whatsoever, a point we will demonstrate by taking the long road.
First, what does it mean to have "principles"? Or, more specifically, to have the strength of your convictions? A natural answer is that you're prepared to stick to those principles come hell or high water, that those principles will take precedence over all other considerations and that, quite simply, you're not prepared to compromise them strictly for convenience.
Need an example? No problem. As you can read in this article, Eli Herring was a man of principle:
In 1995, Eli Herring, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, turned down the National Football League draft and a potential multimillion-dollar contract with the Oakland Raiders because Herring, as The Wall Street Journal and Reader’s Digest reported, wouldn’t play football on Sunday.
Now that's principle. It doesn't matter one whit whether or not you agree with Herring's religious beliefs -- there's no way you can't admire the man. What Herring is in effect saying is, "I have certain beliefs, and I am prepared to deal with the consequences of those beliefs -- no whining, no complaining." Prepared to deal with the consequences of those beliefs. Remember this; it's important.
You can say the same thing about Eric Liddell, the Scottish runner who was the inspiration for the movie Chariots of Fire. Liddell's religious beliefs also took precedence over his dream of an Olympic gold medal:
Scottish runner Eric Liddell was expected to be one of the top contenders in the 100-meter race at the 1924 Olympics. He probably would have been, too, if the opening heats for the event would not have been on a Sunday. Liddell considered Sunday to be a sacred day, and he refused to run on it. Even though he pulled out of his best event, Liddell did not give up on his dream of winning a medal. Instead, he entered the 400-meter race, which had its heats on a different day. While nobody expected him to do well, he ended up winning the gold medal in world-record time.
And, like Herring, Liddell knew the consequences and accepted them. Principle.
And then there are the hypocritical, unprincipled whiners, as you can read here, once again from the same issue of "Liberty Magazine":
Recently another case involving principle, athletics, and religious observance came to the fore, this time in Oregon. However, this wasn’t a case of an athlete turning down a multimillion-dollar contract or seeking to take off a holy day. Rather, it was a group of young athletes at Portland Adventist Academy (PAA) asking both the state board of education and the Oregon School Activities Association, or OSAA, which manages competitive sports programs among the state’s schools, to accommodate the Sabbathkeeping desires of the school’s basketball team, the Cougars.
The issue might not have arisen had not the Cougars been a successful team. In 1996 the Cougars qualified for the state tournament and eventually won the championship. OSAA officials changed the semifinal game’s time to Friday afternoon, allowing the team to play. However, it is argued, the body would not have made any further schedule adjustments, which meant the Cougars would have forfeited games they would have been required to play on Saturday morning or afternoon, time that is part of the seventh-day Sabbath observed by Adventists, as well as by Jews and by some Christians in other denominations and independent churches. (A Salvation Army church in Grants Pass, Oregon, has in recent years promoted Sabbath observance along with Sunday services, for example.)
What happened after the 1996 Cougar victory appears to have set in motion the current crisis: OSAA wanted the Adventist school to promise that it would not forfeit other games if the team gained a spot in future play-offs. School officials could not in good conscience sign a pledge such as that; they then went to the Oregon Department of Education and sought a ruling compelling OSAA to make “reasonable accommodation” for the students.
And what does this all mean? It means that those fine, upstanding, religious young men from PAA were a bunch of snivelling, whining, unprincipled crybabies who, on the one hand, wanted to honour their religious beliefs and yet, on the other hand, wanted everyone else to have to adjust to accommodate them.
As you can see above, the tournament organizers had already rescheduled one game to accommodate the PAA players. But further accommodation would undoubtedly have meant further chaos in the schedule, with PAA not even promising to show up for future games if they qualified.
Come now, you're thinking, would it have been so difficult to shift games around on the weekend? Oh, yes:
... OSAA has for decades enforced rules banning competition on Sunday, the day of rest observed by the state’s largest Christian faith, the Roman Catholic Church, and its second-largest, the Mormons.
As you can see, competition was already banned on Sunday and now the PAA was asking that it be banned from Saturday morning and afternoon as well. In short, the PAA was asking everyone else to put up with massive inconvenience just so they could keep competing. These are, quite simply, people who don't have the strength of their convictions. Unlike Liddell or Herring, despite their public sanctimonious piety, they weren't prepared to accept the consequences of their beliefs. Crybabies. Nothing but crybabies.
Which brings us to Karen Brauer of the "Pharmacists for Life", who you've met previously and who also has no principles to speak of. But you'll have to wait for Part 2.
Yes, there's nothing like threatening federal judges to cement your position in the nutbar fringe of the "law and order" party. Any bets on whether any members of the GOP will act like civilized human beings and call DeLay to task for his thuggery? Oh, yeah, like that's going to happen.
From today's New York Times, regarding an increasingly-ailing Pope John Paul II:
... The apparent nearness of death set off concern - but some degree of relief, too, that the pope may be released from his long and painful years of illness ...
Ah, I see -- so Terri Schiavo is to be kept functionally alive, no matter what, no matter how futile the effort, but the Pope might finally be released from his long-term ill health.
Fuck that. I want to see the same Catholics who were weeping and wailing outside Terri Schiavo's hospital demanding that the Pope now be kept alive at any cost for the next 15 years, even if it means poking him full of tubes and watching him descend into a persistent vegetative state.
Hypocritical assholes, the lot of them. How can they even look at themselves in the mirror?
It seems that, given an ongoing dialogue in the comments section of this earlier piece, it's worth taking a closer look at what's going down in Maine and, by all accounts, we have another complete crock cooked up by David Horowitz, the Students for Academic Freedom, College Republicans and sympathetic but clueless conservative professors. Where to even begin? First, just to get the flavour, go read that earlier article and the comments from one Prof. Jon Reisman, then I'll go to work.
Now, I'm going to do this in reverse chronological order, just because I want to and because it's going to be more amusing that way. Let's start with one of the links provided by Prof. Reisman himself here, which opens with:
Several University of Maine System students told lawmakers Wednesday they have been treated unfairly on their campuses because they are politically conservative. All members of the College Republicans, the students testified before the Legislature's Education Committee in favor of LD 1194, which would require state colleges and universities to publish an "academic bill of rights" to keep students and instructors from being penalized for expressing unpopular viewpoints both in and out of the classroom.
Not to generalize but, given that the two previous high-profile cases of alleged anti-conservative bias -- Ahmad Al-Qloushi at Foothill College in California and the student at the University of Northern Colorado -- turned out to be total crap (see numerous earlier postings at this blog), you really, really hope that the wingnuts at the SAF and the College Republicans have learned their lesson and won't make any sweeping, grandiose claims about sinister, pro-liberal bias on campus without researching them carefully and having the evidence to back them up. Sadly, you'd be mistaken:
Allison Geagan of the University of Maine said one professor - whom she didn't identify - spoke in class against President Bush for 20 minutes, but wouldn't allow her to offer an opposing view.
Lovely. More anonymous slander. But that's just annoying -- the next sentence gets downright illogical:
Mia Dow, also from UM, said she was afraid of revealing her Republican status to professors for fear they would give her a grade "based on my political party and not on my work ethic."
Aha! So Dow's devastating, irrefutable, smoking gun evidence of anti-conservative bias is that ... she has not been given a bad grade because of her political beliefs. But she's sure that she would have if she admitted to being a Republican. Apparently, this is what passes for critical thinking among College Republicans these days. And it just gets more bizarre every time Dow opens her mouth:
"I have been taunted, sworn at and humiliated beyond the realm of imagination and I am sick of this treatment," she said
Of course, it's curious as to how she would be treated so inhumanely if, as she has already claimed, she hasn't revealed her Republican status to professors. A real puzzler that, no? No matter -- why employ logic and reason when ridiculous, unsubstantiated hyperbole will do? You can read the rest of that article to see if I missed anything important.
And the second link from Reisman doesn't add a whole lot to the first. Oh, look, here's Ms. Dow again:
"I am here today with my fellow College Republicans because I feel you must be made aware of a scary trend occurring on all Maine campuses," said Mia Dow, a member of the College Republicans at the University of Maine, Orono. "I have been taunted, sworn at and humiliated beyond the realm of imagination, and I am sick of this treatment," she said.
You know, that's got to be some pretty devastating, horrific persecution if it's "beyond the realm of imagination". What a shame Dow didn't see fit to provide a single example of it. And, once again, how odd that unimaginable persecution when Dow openly admits she hasn't even revealed her Republican leanings to her profs. Go figure.
And then we meet the irrepressible Prof. Reisman again:
But Jon Reisman, professor at the University of Maine at Machias, supported the bill. Colleges around the state have made strides in the last decade to combat discrimination in areas of gender and ethnicity, he said, but intellectual diversity is now at risk.
"We don't have intellectual pluralism on our campuses today and the research shows it," he said.
At which point this would be the perfect place to show us some of that research but ... no. Dang. Again, read the entire piece and see if you can tease out any actual evidence. But here's the funniest part. Really. You're going to enjoy this.
As you can read here in this piece from the Bangor Daily News over at the SAF's web site,
"Republicans and conservatives are in the closet mostly," said Jon Reisman, a professor at the University of Maine at Machias, who noted that he is the only member of the faculty with a Bush-Cheney sticker on his car.
"We have to speak up more, but the culture is pretty negative," he said, recalling that when Hilary Clinton visited the University of Maine as first lady, "it was almost a coronation," in contrast to Laura Bush's visit, which elicited "a pretty cool reception."
Go back and read that again slowly, just so you're clear on what Reisman is suggesting. He's suggesting that there is a clear anti-conservative bias on campus because Hillary Clinton was received more exuberantly than Laura Bush.
Note that he's not claiming that Laura Bush was prevented from coming to campus, or that she was treated rudely, or perhaps even heckled beyond the bounds of imagination or anything like that. His beef is that people at his college were simply more enthusiastic about Clinton's visit.
Apparently, the concept of "freedom of expression" is utterly lost on Reisman, who is upset that members of the college community have the unmitigated gall, the breathtaking audacity, to be more excited about the visit of an accomplished, sitting United States senator than that of Stepford wife Laura Bush. Hard to believe, yes, but Reisman's solution is to pass an Academic Bill of Rights, not to address actual anti-conservative bias on campus, but apparently to make sure folks show the same enthusiasm for conservative visitors, whether they mean it or not. In short, Reisman wants to tackle, not what people actually do, but simply what they think.
In Reisman's world, there are just too many people who like liberals more than conservatives and, if he can't persuade them otherwise, well then, he'll just legislate them into line. Sorry, what was all that about "academic freedom" again?
P.S. I'm not done with Prof. Reisman yet. Someone that dense truly deserves more than one smackdown and, as always, I'm happy to oblige.
AFTERTHOUGHTS: I'm more than a little puzzled by these excerpts from one of the news pieces covering the College Republicans getting their say before lawmakers:
Several University of Maine System students told lawmakers Wednesday they have been treated unfairly on their campuses because they are politically conservative. All members of the College Republicans, the students testified before the Legislature's Education Committee in favor of LD 1194, which would require state colleges and universities to publish an "academic bill of rights" to keep students and instructors from being penalized for expressing unpopular viewpoints both in and out of the classroom.
Note well that these little fascists aren't just yapping off to a newspaper reporter, they're testifying before a state legislature committee, so one would think they'd come thoroughly prepared, with solid evidence of their claims. Instead, we have the aforementioned Mia Dow, taking hyperbole to, well, unimaginable heights, after which the article simply moves on:
"I have been taunted, sworn at and humiliated beyond the realm of imagination and I am sick of this treatment," she said.
While supporters believe the bill is necessary ...
And even though this is official testimony, no lawmaker has the presence of mind to ask something as innocuous as, "Um ... could you maybe give us an example of all of this?" Truly pathetic reporting.
