skip to main |
skip to sidebar
It really has to be embarrassing when your international diplomats act like whiny little 12 year olds.
In a sign of its growing isolation on climate issues, the Bush administration had come under sharp criticism for walking out of informal discussions on finding new ways to reduce emissions under the United Nations' 1992 treaty on climate change.
The walkout, by Harlan L. Watson, the chief American negotiator here, came Friday, shortly after midnight, on what was to have been the last day of the talks, during which the administration has been repeatedly assailed by the leaders of other wealthy industrialized nations for refusing to negotiate to advance the goals of that treaty, and in which former President Bill Clinton chided both sides for lack of flexibility.
At a closed session of about 50 delegates, Dr. Watson objected to the proposed title of a statement calling for long-term international cooperation to carry out the 1992 climate treaty, participants said. He then got up from the table and departed.
On the other hand, it's not like he'd stand out in a crowd of senior Bush administration officials, is it?
It's a real eye-opener when one of the mainstays of the American print media doesn't even try to pretend it's being fair and objective.
And the LA Times op-ed page continues to swirl around the bowl with Doughy Pantload's latest gift-wrapped piece of excrement. How's this for an opening?
How we should judge torture
WHAT DOES Hollywood think about torture?
The answer isn't as obvious as you think. Sure, as a political force, Hollywood is against torture, which ranks somewhere in the parade of horribles ahead of SUV ownership and perhaps even voting Republican. No doubt Barbra Streisand and Alec Baldwin have delivered many a dinner table stemwinder against the Bush administration's defense of "coercive measures" in extreme circumstances.
Deep stuff from a man whose idea of actual combat is wrestling with his keyboard.
You should aspire to craft words this well.
Man, it seems like everyone's getting in on the act of laying into the Bushies regarding climate change and the Kyoto protocol:
Former President Clinton told a global audience of diplomats, environmentalists and others Friday that the Bush administration is "flat wrong" in claiming that reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to fight global warming would damage the U.S. economy...
Most delegations appeared ready Friday to leave an unwilling United States behind and open a new round of negotiations on future cutbacks in the emissions blamed for global warming.
Might as well ... it's not like they were coming along for the ride anyway.
See, this is why they call us liberals the reality-based community.
July 27, 2003:
I just realized I’ve been neglecting the laser-like writing of Charles Krauthammer; here’s his latest: Why Bush Made the Middle East Safer.
Dec. 9, 2005:
Israel expands arsenal to prepare for possible nuclear war with Iran
Israel is expanding its military arsenal to deal with what it views as the greatest threat to its existence: a nuclear attack by Iran. It has acquired dozens of planes with long-range fuel tanks to allow them to reach Iran and signed a deal with Germany for two submarines reported capable of firing nuclear missiles.
Though Israeli security officials said a strike against Iran is not on the horizon, senior Israeli politicians have begun openly discussing the possibility of a military option - either alone or with other countries.
Gee, I'll bet it's all kinds of fun to live in that fantasy world.
Read this, then tell me whether Donald Rumsfeld is lying, hopelessly senile or simply a total nut job. Those are your only three choices -- there is no door number four.
Well, someone in the White House has their panties in a bunch now. Based on this earlier piece, Justin from over at Flash Point Canada points us to the reaction here:
Washington furious over Martin's climate change comments
The White House has officially complained about Prime Minister Paul Martin's comments this week at the climate change conference in Montreal.
A senior official in the Bush administration has told Canadian Ambassador Frank McKenna that Martin's comments are the worst slight against the president since Germany's Gerhard Schroeder suggested President George W. Bush's stance against the Kyoto Protocol was responsible for hurricane Katrina.
To which Canada's official response to Commander Chimpy should be, "You're about $5 billion in softwood lumber duties short of being able to lecture us on anything, you alcoholic, sanctimonious little pissant. Now bugger off."
AFTERSNARK: And more:
An angry Bush administration official complained to Canadian ambassador Frank McKenna about Prime Minister Paul Martin's attacks on U.S. environmental policy, U.S. sources say.
Martin accused the Americans earlier this week of being deaf to global opinion on the need to sign the Kyoto Protocol. The White House took Martin's rebuke as cheap electioneering during the campaign leading to the Jan. 23 vote, the sources said.
Ah, yes ... "cheap electioneering." This from a member of an administration that suddenly discovered a new terror alert whenever they started to drop in the polls, and is using soldiers as the backdrop for partisan hackery. Yeah, these are just the folks who should be lecturing us about cheap electioneering.
Shorter Charles Krauthammer: "Due process? Fuck due process!"
BONUS SNARK: One good link deserves another. And while you're there, collect the entire set. Some wickedly funny stuff.
You know, you'd think that with their kick-ass, globe-striding, "bomb the crap out of everybody who disagrees with us" mentality, the senior members of the Bush administration wouldn't be such whiny little pussies:
With one day of talks to go at the UN climate conference, desperate efforts to draw the United States into the global effort to curb greenhouse emissions appear to have hit a brick wall, and Prime Minister Paul Martin is being blamed.
An official with close contacts in the U.S. delegation said any hopes of drawing Washington into the process were killed when Martin pointed a finger of blame at the United States in a news briefing at the conference.
"That was a big mistake," said the delegate, speaking on condition of anonymity Thursday. He said the U.S. delegation, which is directed from Washington by Vice-President Dick Cheney, was deeply angered by Martin's comments.
Poor babies. Geez, you'd think those folks would have learned a basic lesson in social dynamics by now -- if you don't want people to think of you as total assholes, well, stop behaving like total assholes. Man, talk about a no-brainer. But I'm thinking there's actually more happening here. Read further down:
The White House is likely to be further angered by news that former U.S. president Bill Clinton will address the conference on Friday at the invitation of the City of Montreal.
Clinton was a major supporter of the Kyoto Protocol while president, although his successor george W. Bush pulled out of the accord soon after taking power.
The visit was arranged on the initiative of Elizabeth May, executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada, who has known Clinton since working on one of his campaigns in the 1970s.
Although Clinton's speech is officially designated as a "side event" to the conference, it is expected to take place in the main conference hall, allowing thousands of delegates from around the world to attend.
Oh, yeah ... when the sitting president can't even fill a small room, it's got to be seriously galling to know that the Big Dog himself is treated as the closest thing to a world-level political rock star as you're going to find anywhere.
For an egotistical narcissist like George W., that's definitely gotta sting.
As others have already noted, there is serious buzz that Democratic senator and butt-kissing, suck-up quisling Joe Lieberman might replace current U.S. Sec Def Donald Rumsfeld. And why? Well, as I've already pointed out, Rumsfeld is now a complete loon.
There's a certain irony that the disreputable hacks on the Right will, without hesitation, tar someone as a barking moonbat simply because they have a disagreement on some issues while, within their own midst, those same wankers have a man responsible for the most hideous military clusterfuck in American history who is now clinically insane. It would be amusing if it weren't so sad.
But why Lieberman? What on earth would inspire the Bushies to reach across the aisle for a replacement? Aside from the fact that Lieberman is a completely unprincipled hack and crass opportunist, there's a certain cleverness in this pick that folks had pointed out as far back as February:
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) "could be on an administration list to replace Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in the next year or so," the Washington Post reports. Lieberman’s departure from the Senate could give Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell (R) "an opportunity to appoint a Republican to the seat for at least a few months before the election, inching the GOP closer to a filibuster-proof Senate."
Why, yes. If you need a replacement, what better choice than a sitting Democratic senator whose vacancy would be filled by a sitting Republican governor?
The Bushies may be total morons when it comes to foreign policy and military strategery, but you can't touch them when it comes to sleazy, backroom politics.
AFTERSNARK: Just FYI, Senator Suck-up has already started savaging members of his own party. Apparently, it's never too early to start being a traitorous, conniving little backstabber.
Remind you of any wankers you know?
Full-size original here.
Well, isn't this an exciting new development? Over here, we have Holden reproducing an eye-opening snippet from a recent White House press gaggle, in which WH Spokesweasel Scott McClellan makes it clear that Iraqi oil revenues will not be used to finance Iraqi reconstruction:
Q Scott, in the Iraq's reconstruction costs, how much of that should be paid for by Iraq with its oil revenues?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Iraq's oil revenues are for the Iraqi people.
[snip]
Q But the reconstruction is for the Iraqi people, too, so how much of that reconstruction cost --
MR. McCLELLAN: And it's not just -- and I'll point out, it's not just Americans helping, it's the international community that is stepping forward and helping. And the President touched on that in his remarks, as well.
Q So are oil revenues excluded from reconstruction?
MR. McCLELLAN: No. I mean, it's for the Iraqi people.
Q Right. So how much of the reconstruction costs --
... blah blah blah, no Iraqi oil revenue going toward the reconstruction. Which would seem to thoroughly contradict what one would have heard a couple of years ago:
The United States plans to retain control over the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, allowing the administration to decide how it will spend the money needed to repair the country. These contracts will be financed by the taxpayer, although senior administration officials have hinted broadly that Iraqi oil revenue will also be used to rebuild the country. "We're going to use the assets of the people of Iraq, especially their oil assets, to benefit their people," said Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on Friday.
Ah, what's another broken promise? It's not like anyone's even keeping track anymore.
UPDATE: Rather than just a "broad hint" that Iraqi oil revenue would be used for reconstruction, we can go right to the transcript:
TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) All right, this is the first. I mean, when you talk about 1.7, you're not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is gonna be done for $1.7 billion?
ANDREW NATSIOS
Well, in terms of the American taxpayers contribution, I do, this is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges, Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Iraqi oil revenues, eventually in several years, when it's up and running and there's a new government that's been democratically elected, will finish the job with their own revenues. They're going to get in $20 billion a year in oil revenues. But the American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.
Any bets that not a single member of the White House Press Corpse will go back to dig out this nugget?
... you just never know what you're going to get. From this morning's Globe, we have this:
Under mounting pressure to disclose whether clandestine Central Intelligence Agency aircraft carrying detainees landed in Canada, officials are attempting to ferret out details of dozens of suspicious flights identified by human-rights groups...
"We have no reason to believe that there was anything unusual about these flights at all," Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan said this week, acknowledging that she has ordered officials to track down details of 55 flights.
And for those of you who like your news with a conservative slant, why, there's the Post:
The Canadian government said yesterday it has no intention of questioning the Bush administration about allegations the Central Intelligence Agency may be secretly transferring terror suspects on flights through Canada, saying a preliminary review has turned up no evidence of illegal U.S. activity.
I think this is why I get my news from blogs.
"My president lied about WMDs, declared war, illegally invaded another country, destroyed its infrastructure, killed tens of thousands of civilians, squandered the surplus, wrecked our economy and caused the deaths of over 2,000 U.S. millitary personnel, and all I got was this lousy 5-mile stretch of road."
AFTERSNARK: It is, of course, hideously unfair that the mainstream media refuses to cover the good news of the Baghdad airport road. Damn them. Damn them all.
Oops ...
Apparently, Rep. John Murtha really, really, really, really hates America. Fucking commie bastard.
Remember that tidy little $1.7 billion war from way back when? Well, heh heh ... funny story ...
I'm mildly amused by the apparent support of George W. Bush for CPC leader Stephen Harper in the upcoming national elections. I mean, it wasn't all that long ago that getting the electoral endorsement of a fundamentalist dingbat who was responsible for the deaths of thousands was a bad thing.
Plus ca change and all that, ya know.
"Hey, Ford, you've just proposed closing at least 10 North American plants and eliminating 25,000 to 30,000 jobs within the next five years. What are you going to do now?"
"Why, we're going to alienate a massive segment of the market with our homophobic bigotry!"
You just can't make this stuff up.
Well, all you pessimistic nay-sayers can just take that, as the Washington Times (Journalistic motto: "Klaatu barada nikto.") is going to start filling you in on the tropical paradise that is Iraq:
On balance
The first in a series of editorials on underreported good news from Iraq
If Washington seems increasingly pessimistic about Iraq these days, Iraqis themselves aren't. In fact, 47 percent of Iraqis surveyed by the International Republican Institute in October said that the country is headed in the right direction (37 percent said it wasn't). That's a higher percentage than last year, when 42 percent of Iraqis thought so (45 percent did not) -- despite the problematic ongoing security problems.
And if you can't trust the International Republican Institute, well, who the heck can you trust?
Just follow the link. And these are the people who would lecture us on the lack of civility in modern discourse.
I'm thinking that this is when crying out "Oh God, Oh God, Oh God!!!" might be just a teensy bit awkward.
I figure that, if you need help quelling those impure urges, I'm pretty sure this is guaranteed to put you off your lunch for at least a couple of hours.
Pity poor Canadian wanker Bill Strong who, without even trying, really has become the gift that keeps on giving. Given that he's so concerned about what I write, I'll bet he missed this recent gem, in which conservative radio talk show host Michael Reagan suggests Democrat Howard Dean should be hung:
Michael Reagan, son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is blasting Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean for declaring that the U.S. won't be able to win the war in Iraq, saying Dean ought to be "hung for treason."
"Howard Dean should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war!" Reagan told his Radio America audience on Monday.
But perhaps I'm being overly hard on poor Mr. Strong. I'm sure he's a busy man and he'll get around to blasting Reagan at the earliest possible opportunity. Should be happening any minute now. Yessir, aaaaaaany minute now, right, Bill?
BONUS SNARK: Ann Coulter. In the dining room. With a baseball bat.
Geez, who could possibly have imagined something like this happening?
Germany's victim of extraordinary rendition sues in US courts as Rice is forced on defensive
When Khaled al Masri took the bus from Ulm to Macedonia two years ago, his only objective was to cool off after a row with his wife.
But his troubles were only beginning. At the Serb-Macedonian border crossing he was hauled off the coach and handed over to three men in civilian clothes carrying handguns. His name - identical to one of the 11 September hijackers - had lit up a police computer.
The German citizen did not know it at the time, but he was starting out on a journey into the darkest heart of America's war on terror. His ordeal would last five months, where, unknown to his family and friends, he would be trussed up, tortured and abused before being dumped in Albania, fearing he was to be shot.
The controversy over secret CIA flights, torture and illegal imprisonment, continues to rage across Europe. Yesterday saw the extraordinary spectacle of Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, acknowledging the CIA's "mistake" to the German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin.
Ah. So mistakes were made, were they? And what does one do when one realizes one has totally screwed the pooch?
The Washington Post this week reported that when the CIA realised they had been wrong, they decided to dump Mr Masri and act as if nothing had happened.
And these are the folks who want to tell Canada who to put on its "no-fly" list? Somehow, I'm not feeling totally comforted.
WHOOPS, LET ME REPHRASE THAT. Uh oh ... apparently, mistakes weren't made after all.
[German Chancellor Angela] Merkel told a joint news conference with Rice in Berlin that the United States had acknowledged it made a mistake in the case of Khaled el-Masri, who says he was flown to Afghanistan by U.S. agents and jailed for five months last year before being freed.
"I'm pleased to say that we spoke about the individual case, which was accepted by the United States as a mistake...," Merkel said in response to questions about the Masri case, which has caused a furor in Germany.
But senior U.S. officials, traveling to Romania with Rice on the next leg of her European tour, quibbled with Merkel's interpretation.
They said they had huddled with Merkel's aides after the news conference, seeking an explanation, because Rice had not admitted a U.S. mistake over Masri.
While the U.S. government had informed Germany about his detention and release, it did not say that was a mistake, one senior administration official told reporters.
"We are not quite sure what was in her head," he said, referring to Merkel.
I guess it all depends on your definition of the word "mistake," doesn't it?
Just when you figure you've spotted intelligent life at the Globe and Mail, along comes Marcus Gee again, with some (I'm sure) unintentional humour in the last paragraph of his most recent piece. See if you can spot the irony:
Critics say Mr. Hussein's trial is a farce, a charge that seemed to gain credence with this week's courtroom histrionics. But, as chaotic as it seems, the trial is giving Iraqis a chance to see, in graphic detail, what the cruelty of one man did to their country.
Sometimes parody just writes itself, doesn't it?
Well, isn't this an exciting development:
U.S. slashes softwood duties
A routine accounting review has persuaded the United States to do what years of legal challenges and fiery rhetoric could not — dramatically lower the punishing duties on Canadian softwood lumber.
In a decision that will save Canadian lumber companies roughly $600-million a year, the U.S. Commerce Department said yesterday it was nearly halving its 20-per-cent duty. And unlike the seemingly endless litany of legal rulings dating to 2002, those savings will be enjoyed within days, or as soon as the new rate is published in the official U.S. Federal Register.
But don't get too excited -- the Americans are still being total pricks about this:
The U.S. lumber industry was quick to point out the new lower rate was due almost entirely to the stronger loonie, which lessens the impact of the alleged Canadian subsidies, and not a sudden change of heart by the Bush administration about whether Canada illegally props up its lumber industry.
Nor does the decision affect the highly contentious issue of who pockets the roughly $5-billion in duties collected by the United States since the dispute began in May of 2002.
Well, it was exciting while it lasted.
Just in the last couple of days, I was thinking about something I wasn't planning on actually putting to paper, but this post over at pogge.ca inspired me to mention it. Either good or bad timing, depending on how you look at it.
pogge writes:
I've cut the Progressive Bloggers back to just the logo on the sidebar. It's not that I don't love them anymore but that sidebar was getting so long it was breaking at the bottom of the page. They're victims of their own success ...
Precisely. At last count, there are now 186 (count 'em, 186!) members of PB.ca, which inspires the question: Is there a point at which there are simply too many members? Can the message be drowned under the sheer number of affiliates and number of posts?
At the moment, I'm not taking a position one way or the other, I'm just curious as to what others might think.
All kidding and snark aside, I'm tempted to agree with Stephen Pizzo that U.S. Sec Def Donald Rumsfeld really is nuts. Seriously.
(Credit to Atrios for the pointer.)
I rather like this piece. You should, too.
Once upon a time, when I was beating up on my intellectual and ethical inferiors, I let my snark get the better of me and suggested, in a fit of pique, that "a depressing number of right-wing wankers need to be, not only corrected publicly, but hauled out to the sidewalk and beaten on the kidneys until they piss blood. Because, quite simply, they deserve it."
Apparently, given the obscurity of the above Hunter S. Thompson reference, at least one complete wanker took it seriously and waxed ever so sanctimonious about it:
I am always happy to see left wingers expose themselves for the intolerant idiots that they are. In their world, others are entitled to any opinion as long as it doesn't disagree with them, at which point they deserve to be "hauled out to the sidewalk and beaten on the kidneys until they piss blood".
I will give the right wing their proper credit on this point -- while those of us on the left will occasionally huff and puff and make threatening noises to blow off steam every so often, those on the right don't just talk the talk, they walk the walk:
Douglas County sheriff’s deputies are investigating the reported beating of a Kansas University professor who gained recent notoriety for his Internet tirades against Christian fundamentalists.
Kansas University religious studies professor Paul Mirecki reported he was beaten by two men about 6:40 a.m. today on a roadside in rural Douglas County. In a series of interviews late this afternoon, Mirecki said the men who beat him were making references to the controversy that has propelled him into the headlines in recent weeks.
I'm guessing we won't be reading any expressions of outrage over at Mr. Strong's site any time soon over that little smackdown, will we?
Not to take anything away from Robert's 2005 Canadian Blog Awards but this is what happens when any lunatic can invent their own awards show. Brought to you by right-wing Wizbang! which, for you puzzled Canadians, would be equivalent to being brought to you by Pete Rempel and Anonalogue.
In any event, the nominees for best Canadian blog are, in some cases, a real hoot but depressingly predictable: North American Patriot, Daimnation!, Small Dead Animals, Proud to be Canadian, Angry ... and so on, with the occasional non-right-wing-nutbar blog thrown in for balance. (Attaboy, pogge!)
Whatever.
P.S. And don't forget to check out their delightful choices for Best Blog: Andrew Sullivan, Captain's Quarters, Powerline, Michelle Malkin, Instapundit, Little Green Dumbfucks™ ... yes, the wingnutosphere is represented nicely. What? No AmericaBlog?
P.P.S. If you vote, you'll get to see the current voting totals. At the moment, Kate over at SDA is running away with the Best Canadian Blog category. Which is as it should be, given that she and those awards organizers truly deserve one another.
So do your country a favour and go vote for pogge. And this time, listen to me fer Chrissake.
All you need are thousands of children singing praises and you'd be pretty much set.
P.S. I'm having some trouble believing this is a legit story but, really, would anything surprise you anymore?
At least, that's what the American neo-con wankersphere would have you believe and, God knows, it's not like they've done anything lately that might make you question their judgment, have they?
Best six out of 11? Come on, best six out of 11 ...
US loses latest round in Canada lumber war
GENEVA (Reuters) - World Trade Organization (WTO) appeals judges ruled on Monday against the United States in the latest round of a long-running spat between the two countries over softwood lumber.
The three judges rejected a U.S. appeal of an earlier panel ruling that the United States had failed to comply with WTO findings in 2003 and 2004 that duties it had imposed on Canadian lumber imports violated the body's rules and should be changed.
The decision by the judges, from the WTO's Appellate Body, is final.
"Final"? Apparently, you've never met the Bush administration:
The U.S. Trade Representative's office in Washington said it was reviewing its options in response to the WTO ruling.
See what I mean?
At this point, when Commander Chimpy says something that turns out to be hopelessly, jaw-droppingly false, you can ask whether he's technically "lying" or whether he's just criminally stupid. Or you might wonder whether it even makes a difference any more. (Fine, he's not "lying." He's just a moron. Happy now?)
In any event, we have yet another example of Chimpy-generated bullshit:
The training of Iraqi security forces has suffered a big "setback" in the last six months, with the army and other forces being increasingly used to settle scores and make other political gains, Iraqi Vice President Ghazi al-Yawer said Monday.
Al-Yawer disputed contentions by U.S. officials, including President Bush, that the training of security forces was gathering speed, resulting in more professional troops.
Oh, yawn. So the Iraqis are nowhere near as ready to fight their own battles as we'd been led to believe. All those who are shocked by this latest development raise your hands. You people are idiots.
But here's the more interesting part, in the next paragraph (emphasis added):
Bush has said the United States will not pull out of Iraq until Iraq's own forces can maintain security. In a speech last week, he said Iraqi forces are becoming increasingly capable of securing the country.
Hello? It was only a few days ago that the Bush administration promised that, if the Iraqis asked the Americans to leave, they would. Now we have Admiral Bunnypants apparently reneging on that promise, stating adamantly that the U.S. will not pull out under certain circumstances.
It should be pretty obvious (well, obvious to everyone but Bill Strong) that these two things can't both be true at the same time. So which is it? Enquiring minds want to know.
"... and from our Washington, D.C.-based flight crew, thanks so much for flying Air Torture. Buh bye."
My favourite part:
Stephen Hadley, an adviser to Ms. Rice, said this weekend that she will defend the use of secret prisons "in a comprehensive way," that prisoners are not tortured and that the United States will not alter its transport and treatment of terrorism suspects.
Then maybe, just maybe, Canada could tell Rice that the U.S. can keep its rendition planes out of Canadian airspace. It's a good thing we here in Canada have leaders with the cojones to stand up to those thugs in Washington and ... and ...
Oh, fuck it.
SAY WHAT? There's an additional article about the mystery landing in Bar River, Ontario, in which a Bar River airport official does some really, really ugly things to the English language thusly:
"I suggest you don't pursue this any further," said the official, who asked not to be named. "I have no knowledge of any CIA aircraft."
Translation: It would be really unwise of you to continue this line of questioning related to something that I assure you I know nothing about. Really.
Over here, PZ has some fun with a recent New York Times piece that savages Intelligent Design pretty thoroughly. I'm not sure even I have the snark to follow up on that, but I might give it a shot later.
What the hell?
A mysterious Twin Otter plane owned by an alleged CIA front turned up in northern Ontario this fall, raising unanswered questions about why it was there...
A Bar River airport official said he does not discuss planes that use the facility out of respect for customers' privacy.
"I suggest you don't pursue this any further," said the official, who asked not to be named.
These are not the droids you're looking for.
David Limbaugh (the brother that is not the Oxy Contin addict that is bonking CNN's Daryn Kagan) writes, from his residence on the planet Weembo:
Dems finally on the ropes?
President Bush's speech on our progress in Iraq provides a long-overdue shot in the arm to the president's credibility, ...
Do you really need to read any more?
Not to take anything away from the current PB.ca format but I'm thinking it might be useful to start some sort of topic-based library where one could go to read the latest on the topic of their choice.
Just based on some of the recent posts, both from myself and others, I can see collections on at least some of the following topics:
- Intelligent Design in Canadian schools
- The medical profession and religion-based "conscience clauses"
- Water rights
- Trade disputes with the United States.
and so on.
In some cases, there could be sub-topics, such as trade disputes being sub-divided into things like softwood lumber, cattle and so on.
It might be overly ambitious and I don't know how easy it would be to implement but, if you think about it, if someone wanted to know the current situation with regard to, say, Canadian water rights under NAFTA or "pro-life" pharmacists and contraceptives, it's not clear where they'd get that information in a convenient package. At least, not without wading through a lot of unrelated material first.
Is this doable? Perhaps a smaller form of Wikipedia? Thoughts?
CLARIFICATION: Just to make sure I'm getting my point across on this, I'm envisioning the library as containing topics that have a long shelf life, such as ongoing trade disputes, that sort of thing.
At the other end of the spectrum, a current hot topic is the candidacy of Michael Ignatieff for the Liberals and, while that's an important issue, it's also fairly transient and has a short shelf life so it wouldn't be that appropriate for the library. Although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
Is it unreasonable to think that, if the Globe and Mail is going to give American evangelical swindler Ralph Reed this much coverage, they might also, perhaps, just touch a bit on stuff like this?
You'd think that latter stuff kind of counts as, you know, news.
JUST IN CASE YOU NEED THIS EXPLAINED TO YOU, what Reed and company did in the case of Indian casinos in Texas is absolutely breathtaking in its audacity. From the article above:
The ultimate source of Reed's multimillion-dollar fees for this lobby work appears to be a casino operated by the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, which wanted to eliminate competition from Speaking Rock and a small Alabama Coushatta casino in East Texas. The Louisiana tribe hired Abramoff and Scanlon in April 2001, ultimately paying them $32 million.
As soon as Cornyn shut down Speaking Rock in February 2002, team Abramoff pulled off an extraordinary double play. Playing on their close ties to indicted former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (who once had employed Scanlon as a press secretary), the same lobbyists who had worked behind the scenes to shutter Speaking Rock sold themselves to the Tigua tribe as the lobbyists who could press Congress to reopen that casino. The Tiguas-who hired Abramoff's team for an initial fee of $4.2 million-have since accused Abramoff, Scanlon and Reed of fraud.
Make sure you understand what happened here. First, the Coushatta tribe of Louisiana, who operated a casino, wanted to squash any potential gaming competition so they hired Reed and company to get the Texas casino, run by the El Paso-based Tigua tribe, shut down.
Once that happened, Reed and company turned around and signed on with that same Tigua tribe to get their casino re-opened. Is that a delightful scam or what? Man, that takes balls.
And don't forget, you read it here first. 'Cuz you'll never read it in the Globe.
DEAR AMERICANS: BUTT OUT! The meddling of Americans in our national politics knows no bounds, as The Jurist points out here. There was Focus on the Family, there was Ralph Reed, now there's the National Rifle Association.
I'm not clear on this -- are there any Canadian laws that define limits on foreign involvement in national elections?
BETTER AND BETTER: Oh, yeah.
Gosh, the pansy-assed whining from the right about that "Countdown to 2,000" fatilities in Iraq had hardly faded away and we can already guess that 3,000 isn't that far away, is it?
I'm guessing the ongoing U.S. military death toll means that democracy is on the march. Or that the insurgency is getting "desperate." Or that it's in its "last throes". Or something.
BY THE WAY, before anyone from Wankerville turns into a whiny little pussy and starts to complain about how I don't care about the troops (like it's my job or something), they might want to ask this guy about his priorities:
Calling the Bowl Championship Series "deeply flawed," the chairman of a congressional committee has called a hearing on the controversial system used to determine college football's national champion.
A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, charged with regulating America's sports industry, announced Friday it will conduct a hearing on the BCS next week, after this season's bowl matchups are determined.
"College football is not just an exhilarating sport, but a billion-dollar business that Congress cannot ignore," said committee Chairman Joe Barton, a Texas Republican. Barton's panel is separate from the House Government Reform panel that tackled steroids in baseball.
I mean, it's not like there might be other pressing issues on the agenda, right?
Oh, yawn. I'm not sure if I ever got around to dissecting wanker Bill Strong's latest flailing in my direction but, if you need the entertainment, this is my favourite part, where Mr. Strong quotes me as writing:
Mr. Strong has repeatedly referred to (and continues to refer to) a "Democratic resolution for immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq." There is no such resolution, as you can read here.
To which Mr. Strong responds, in that savage, right-wing, smackdown kind of way:
Technically, he's right ...
Ouch. I feel so upbraided. If you have a strong stomach, feel free to read the rest and marvel at the semantic contortions of those who had the nerve to chide Bill Clintion for his careful parsing of the word "is."
(If you need any help with the semantics, just take note of how often Mr. Strong starts using interchangeably the words "proposal," "resolution" and "issue", and how he insists on co-mingling the contents of Murtha's resolution with the contents of Murtha's press conference. Tap dancing at its finest. You expected any better?)
SOME EXTENDED PONTIFICATING: Don't you folks have something better to do on a Saturday morning? Just got a private e-mail, expressing still a little confusion about Mr. Strong's observations on Rep. Murtha's subsequent press conference at which Murtha spoke of, as my e-mailer wrote, an "immediate withdrawal" from Iraq, and how did this square with Murtha's resolution and doesn't this mean that Mr. Strong is actually correct?
In a word, fuck no.
Let me explain, not so much to further humiliate Strong in front of his children and adoring groupies, but to demonstrate the sleazy way that so many wankers play semantic games in order to win their unwinnable arguments. So, even if you're tired of the whole Bill Strong idiocy, be patient. There's something here worth learning.
As my long-suffering readers may remember, this all started back here, where the point of contention (and pay attention now, this is important) was whether the Republicans voted on, as so many wankers liked to describe it, a Democratic resolution for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
Quite simply, they didn't. Rep. Murtha's resolution called for (and I quote) a withdrawal "at the earliest practicable date". That resolution was rejected and replaced with a Republican resolution that did call for an immediate withdrawal, and that resolution was soundly thrashed. Therefore, when the residents of Wankerville went dancing in the streets about how the GOP defeated that hideous Dem resolution, they were lying. Period. End of discussion. Got that? Is that clear? Good. Onward.
The above was the sole issue that was at the heart of this entire debate -- the contents of those two separate resolutions. There was no other issue on the table. None. Zip. Squat. That was it. Capische?
So ... with me having made this point several times and trying to pound it into Strong's impermeable skull, we ended up here, with Strong quoting me as writing:
Mr. Strong has repeatedly referred to (and continues to refer to) a "Democratic resolution for immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq." There is no such resolution, as you can read here.
To which Strong replies (emphasis added):
Technically, he's right that no Democratic resolution was put to a vote, but ...
Freeze! If you wanted to, you could stop reading right there. Strong has finally admitted I'm right, and that's it. There is no need for further discussion. I'm right. Thanks very much. Hasta la vista, baby. Argument over. Drive safely. But you know it's not going to be that simple since, as you can see, Strong spends the rest of his article now dodging, weaving and tap dancing, trying to establish that, even though I'm right, well, I'm not really right. Or some such rot.
Strong first conflates the resolutions we were discussing with the general "issue" of a withdrawal from Iraq. But we weren't talking about the "issue," were we? So Strong's reference to an "issue" is meaningless misdirection. My argument concerned only the resolutions -- I don't give a fuck what Strong thinks of the "issue." That's not even remotely relevant to the discussion and can be ignored. But that's not the worst of it.
In a breathtaking example of meaningless drivel, Strong then quotes Murtha in a press conference thusly:
"The United States will immediately redeploy -- immediately redeploy. No schedule which can be changed, nothing that's controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target."
This is one of the oldest tricks in the rhetorical book -- changing the subject. See, we weren't talking about what Murtha said elsewhere. We weren't talking about what was said at a press conference, were we? No, we weren't. We were discussing the resolutions that were presented on the floor of the House of Representatives, which means that whatever happened at any press conference doesn't mean fuck all. It's just not relevant to the discussion.
Now, note carefully that this doesn't mean that we can't discuss what happened at that press conference as part of another argument. If one wants to claim that Murtha is being inconsistent, then, sure, you can make that argument. But that's a different argument. If Strong wants to bring up the press conference, he can do that only after he has unambiguously and unequivocally admitted that I was entirely correct in the original argument. There is no "but" qualifier here. I was right. Strong lied. And only after we have closure for that first discussion is Strong allowed to open another discussion, which he is certainly entitled to do. What he is not allowed to do is conflate the two discussions, which is exactly what he's doing here.
What this is is a warning to anyone who wants to engage a wanker in debate -- make sure you're precise about the issue being discussed because, as sure as Michelle Malkin is a Crazy-Assed Bitch™, as soon as said wanker starts to lose the argument, you'll see a slight but significant shifting of goalposts as extraneous and irrelevant facts and observations start to get dragged in. And it's your job to cut it off right there.
Once Strong admitted, "Technically, he's right ...", the argument was over. If he wanted to argue about other stuff, no problem, but that other stuff had no bearing on the fact that he lost that original argument.
Questions? And if you give me a few minutes, there's one more point I'm going to make here to put a couple more nails in Strong's coffin. Be patient.
JUST A LITTLE MORE WANKER DISHONESTY FROM MR. STRONG: Since I'm in a generous mood this morning, I'm going to demonstrate one more way in which wanks like Bill Strong fudge their arguments. As you can read, Strong tries to salvage his initial dishonesty by bringing up what Rep. Murtha said in a press conference which, as we have already established, is not even minimally relevant to the original debate. But, in fact, it's worse than that.
Note carefully part of Murtha's statements from that conference, which Strong reproduces on his site:
"The United States will immediately redeploy -- immediately redeploy. No schedule which can be changed, nothing that's controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target."
(...)
"My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq."
So Strong is trying to use Murtha's press conference to bolster his irrelevant argument about immediate withdrawal but ... hold on! Murtha never uses the word "withdrawal," does he? Why, no, he doesn't. He uses the word "redeployment" which, as you can read here, certainly does not mean the same thing as withdrawal, does it?
- To move (military forces) from one combat zone to another.
- To shift (something) from one place or use to another for greater effectiveness: redeploy the company's resources.
Is that hilarious or what? Strong, in trying to salvage his now-unsalvageable argument, quotes Murtha saying something completely different from what Strong is suggesting. And how does Strong defend his misrepresentation of Murtha's own words? Why, he now conflates the two words as if there's no difference between them:
The above quote is from the transcript of the news conference last Thursday by Rep. John Murtha and published in the New York Times. Rep. Murtha clearly is proposing a plan for immediate redeployment of troops from Iraq. So again my statement about a Democrat's proposal for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq was accurate. CC is caught in a lie once again.
Um ... right. Lying. That would be me, all right.
[ADDENDUM: Note once again how Strong dishonestly redefines the basis of the discussion, referring to a Democrat's "proposal" for an "immediate withdrawal" when, as we've already established, we were talking about the resolution and no such Democratic resolution ever existed, as Strong has already admitted. Jesus Christ, how dense/dishonest can one human being be?]
In any event, the lesson here is that, before you engage any wanker in intellectual discourse, you should take the time to define verrrrrrry carefully the parameters of the discussion. And the instant you hear something like, "Well, OK, technically, you're right but ...", stop the discussion right there and claim victory. If said wanker wants to open another discussion, make it clear that that's a separate issue entirely. Otherwise, well, you've seen the possible end result. And it's not a pretty sight, is it?
BONUS BOOT TO THE NADS: For another delightful example of wanker tap dancing, check out this piece over at Ms. Z's, where Ms. Z describes getting an email with the screaming headline "WMDs FOUND IN IRAQ!" But, if you follow the links, the eventual article is somewhat more restrained and unspectacular. I'm sure you're shocked.
A lengthy examination of the colossus that is Wal-Mart, with such tasty excerpts as:
Wal-Mart's discounted prices, however, come with a heavy price tag. Workers are under-paid and overworked in sweatshops overseas, while their non-union counterparts in the U.S. often cannot afford healthcare for their families. Wal-Mart has been the target of a flood of suits; it is currently the defendant in the largest sex-discrimination class-action lawsuit ever, a suit representing more than 1.5 million women.
When Wal-Mart comes to town, many small businesses invariably close, permanently changing the "civil fabric" of local communities. Worse, the company's bottom line is dependent upon soaking up of hundreds of millions of dollar in taxpayer subsidies extracted from cash-strapped state and county budgets.
I haven't finished reading it but if it's your cup of tea, have at it.
Well, isn't this just the most exquisite timing? There goes your privacy:
Morning-after pill privacy concerns raised
Guidelines on morning-after pill raise concerns from women's health groups. Pharmacists may ask for personal data such as sexual history and home address.
Canadian pharmacists are being advised to collect a woman's name, address, phone number and sensitive details about her sexual activity before dispensing the so-called morning-after pill.
The guidelines, put out by the Canadian Pharmacists Association, have drawn concern from women's health groups, which say the rules are discriminatory and raise privacy issues.
Anne Rochon Ford, co-ordinator of Women and Health Protection, a coalition of groups concerned about drug safety and funded by Health Canada, said she's not aware of any other behind-the-counter drug where pharmacists are asked to gather data before dispensing it, which "makes (the drug) look suspect and very loaded."
But Janet Cooper, senior director of professional affairs for the pharmacists' association, said the information is necessary to determine whether the pill will be used appropriately and effectively, since it doesn't work if taken more than three days after intercourse...
Could things get any more annoying? Why, yes:
Pharmacists are also charging a "counselling fee" of about $20 on top of $20 for the pill, putting it out of reach for many women, she said. The fee is government-paid only in Quebec, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
You know, if I was a woman, I'd be pretty miffed right about now. And the Canadian Pharmacists Association? We're not done with them either.
The more I think about it, the more irked I get about the fact that the recent Globe piece on American religious con man Ralph Reed said absolutely nothing about his current ethics controversy.
A really brief discussion of that controversy can be found here, in the current issue of The Nation, with the salient stuff coming at the end (emphasis added):
To be sure, Democrats have a sorry history of running as reformers. The party's inability to exploit the Enron debacle--at least partly because some Democrats accepted Enron-linked donations--shows there's more to hanging a scandal around your opponents' necks than merely watching it unfold. But because of Abramoff's long and close ties to the GOP establishment, the scandal of this particular lobbyist presents a unique opening. Indeed, while the primary focus should be on House and Senate races, one of the most interesting playouts of Abramoff's troubles may come in Georgia, where his pal from college Republican days, Reed, is running for lieutenant governor. Reed's most aggressive Democratic foe, former State Senator Greg Hecht, has created a model for Democrats seeking to make hay from the scandal by banging away at what he refers to as the Abramoff-Reed scandal. It appears to be working. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Georgia Republicans are worried about polls that show Reed's negatives beginning to move ahead of his positives. If Democrats are smart, they'll recognize that these trends can apply well beyond the borders of Georgia.
But, apparently, not across international borders. That would be too much to ask for.
SOME SERIOUS SHIT: If you don't think Ralphie Boy is running with a rough crowd, well, his good buddy Jack appears to be in a whole heap of trouble. And I'll just bet all of Wankerville's finest are going to find something else to blog about.
In the midst of a short piece on the right-wing blog Proud to be Canadian, Ms. Z asks the question: "Just out of curiosity, if Proud to be Canadian is so proud to be Canadian, then why are so many of its featured columnists American?"
An excellent question, since you can see that, of the 15 featured bloggers at that site, almost half of them (seven to be precise) are in fact American. How curious for a blog with that name. Which got me to thinking, are all bloggers at progressiveBloggers.ca Canadian? And should that be an actual requirement?
One might argue that, in the case of PB.ca, you don't actually need to be both Canadian and living in Canada. You could perhaps be Canadian but living elsewhere, or be non-Canadian but be living here and blogging on topics Canadian. Both of those would seem to be acceptable given that the home page of PB.ca simply reads "progressive bloggers", with a backdrop of a maple leaf, thereby giving the mandate of the site a little leeway.
It's a bit harder to argue that for a site whose very name screams "Proud to be Canadian." How exactly does one then justify the membership of Ann Coulter, who is neither Canadian nor lives here? What precisely is she contributing to the conversation, apart from screeching, pathologically dishonest invective from an American point of view?
Obviously, one can run one's blog any way one wants. But you have to wonder about a Canadian blog that can't seem to find enough actual, you know, Canadians to generate content. Puzzling, it is.
SNARK: I haven't had the courage to actually follow the link, but that same site has a piece by American Jennifer Roback Moore entitled "Why the Left Hates Sex." Do I dare?
It's going to take a few days to get back up to speed on the whole "conscience clause" brouhaha related to pharmacists and religious objections and all that madness so I'll just throw this open to the general readership -- what's happening these days, particularly related to last year's Bill C-307?
And note very carefully, when you read that bill, that it relates to far more than just pharmacists and dispensing birth control pills. Look at that intro:
An Act to amend the Criminal Code to prevent health care practitioners from being coerced into taking part in medical procedures that offend the practitioner’s religion or belief that human life is inviolable
Does that cover a lot of potential ground or what? It's not hard to imagine that there all kinds of possible mischief hidden in that bill. Is this a potential election issue? Has anyone brought it up? Etc., etc... you get the idea.
Is it just me, or is anyone else curious about why this recent Globe piece on American evangelical political huckster Ralph Reed never touched on his current entanglement in an Indian gaming scandal?
It's not like this is a minor detail -- this story has been getting up a real head of steam for months, and you can read about it here. So how is it that that little nugget never merited even a sentence or two in the G&M article?
Curious. Most curious.
We up here in Soviet Canuckistan already have enough grief dealing with home-grown religious wankery. We don't need American bible-pounding loons coming up and trying to mess with our political process, particularly American bible-pounding loons that have a real problem understanding the concept of ethics and integrity and stuff like that there.
So, my dear American friends, the sooner you can put that little con artist in jail, the happier we'll all be. If you can do it before our impending national election, so much the better. Get cracking. Time's a wastin'.
Well, who would have seen this coming -- Commander Chimpy actually starting to twig to who's responsible for the clusterfuck that his presidency has become:
The role of Vice President Dick Cheney as the administration's point man in security policy appears over, according to administration sources.
Over the last two months Mr. Cheney has been granted decreasing access to the Oval Office, the sources said on the condition of anonymity. The two men still meet, but the close staff work between the president and vice president has ended.
Good old Chimpy -- it's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
AFTERSNARK: It's amusing to read, in that article, about the redirection of blame by Commander Chimpy:
The sources said Mr. Bush has privately blamed Mr. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
This would be the same Mr. Bush who so eloquently proclaimed back in March of 2002, "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out."
I guess it all depends on what you mean by "we," doesn't it?
AFTERSNARK 2: Um ... huh?
The sources also said Mr. Rumsfeld is expected to remain in his post until U.S. troops are withdrawn from Iraq.
Excuse me, but Rumsfeld is, like, 73 years old or something. And there's an election in 2008. Someone seems to be overly optimistic here.
I really hate it when I need to take serious blogging time to give remedial reading lessons but, apparently, this is one of those times.
Over here, the adorable Ms. Z summarizes what happens when someone completely, totally, spectacularly misunderstands something and, when it's explained to them what really went down, instead of just apologizing for being such an airhead, they desperately try to salvage the situation and only make things worse.
I refer, of course, to the recent idiocy of Conservative MP Jason Kenney who got all bent out of shape when he misinterpreted a reference to "OMNI" the now-defunct science magazine (best described as science porn for the socially-challenged) as a reference to "OMNI" the TV station(s).
And when someone quietly whispered in his ear what a total jackass he had just made of himself, rather than sheepishly admit that he had just pooched it, he tried to bluff his way out of it which, of course, just made him look sillier.
Another delightful example of this can be found here when, as some of you might remember since I linked to it, our favourite American fundamentalist loon Jinx McHue completely misinterpreted a journalistic reference to the "hand of God" as a slight against Commander Chimpy's religious beliefs, when it actually referred to the controversial goal in the 1986 soccer World Cup by Argentinian legend Diego Maradona.
Rather than just swallow his pride and admit that he made a dick of himself, Jinx naturally dodged and weaved and tap danced, writing, "seems a strange phrase to use in reference to President Bush, unless, of course, it is meant as a direct reference to his faith in God," even after having it explained to him that it had nothing to do with Bush's religious beliefs, it had to do with a soccer goal.
Which brings us finally to here, where some readers are taking offense to my writing gleefully about right-wing screech harpy Michelle Malkin having a "stalker," even after I slowly, carefully explained that, by "stalker," I meant someone who will be following Malkin's postings carefully and methodically and pointing out their various flaws and inanities. And yet, even after that explanation of my use of the word -- clearly meant as slang -- some readers are still upset. To those readers, a word of advice -- get over it. Seriously.
At this point, you know full well what I meant and how I was using the word. I don't really give a fuck if my usage upsets you because we now both know that it has nothing to do with the concept of sexual predation or anything of the sort. In fact, referring to someone as a "stalker" in the blogosphere is becoming kind of a standard when describing anyone who seems to spend an inordinate amount of time checking up on someone else.
In short, if how I wrote that article upsets you, tough shit. I'm always willing to apologize for writing something classless or offensive, but I'm not going to apologize to readers who deliberately choose to misinterpret something I wrote, especially after the actual situation has been explained to them. Put another way, feel free to bitch at me for what I write, not for how you deliberately choose to misunderstand what I write. There's a difference.
And if that's not good enough for you, hey, it's a big blogosphere out there. Knock yourself out. And while you're feeling all bent out of shape and are off somewhere sulking, we here at CC HQ will be dealing with actual topics regarding womens' rights, like discussing the misogyny of the Catholic Church or the evil that is the pro-life pharmacist movement. Any time you want to stop whining and join the discussion again, you know where to find me. Do we understand one another?
P.S. When I refer to someone as having "screwed the pooch," I don't mean that literally, of course. But I'm hoping you figured that out all by yourself.
Randy "Duke" Cunningham ... congressman ... yeah, this guy, although I'm sure there's more to him than that web page. Think ... think ... oh, right. Now I remember.
(While this posting relates to "pro-life" pharmacists in the United States, I'll shortly be looking into this whole situation (again) here in Canada, so just consider this an appetizer for how fucked up things can get this side of the border.)
A recent article discussing the suspension of four pharmacists in Illionis who refused to fill birth-control prescriptions has a little good news but, relatively speaking, far more bad news for folks who like the ability to walk into a pharmacy and get their prescription filled without getting a sanctimonious lecture from Christian moralists.
In this article from the Boston Globe, we find that the Walgreen chain clarifies a couple issues while muddying far more. Let's consider the good news first, as Walgreen acknowledges that state law in Illinois trumps corporate policy or pharmacists' rights (all emphasis added):
Walgreen Co. said it has put four Illinois pharmacists in the St. Louis area on unpaid leave for refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception in violation of a state rule...
The licenses of both a pharmacy and that store's chief pharmacist could be revoked if they don't comply with the Illinois rule, [Walgreen spokeswoman Tiffani] Bruce said.
Walgreen, based in Deerfield, Ill., put the four on leave Monday, Bruce said. She would not identify them. They will remain on unpaid leave ''until they either decide to abide by Illinois law or relocate to another state" without such a rule or law.
Walgreen policy says pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions to which they are morally opposed -- except where state law prohibits -- but they must take steps to have the prescription filled by another pharmacist or store, Bruce said.
Now, the above is certainly good news since it makes it clear that state law will absolutely take precedence over religious objections but, unfortunately, from there it's all downhill. In the case where there is no such state law, what's going to happen?
First, re-read that final paragraph (emphasis added):
Walgreen policy says pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions to which they are morally opposed -- except where state law prohibits -- but they must take steps to have the prescription filled by another pharmacist or store, Bruce said.
And what exactly does that policy actually mean? Frankly, not much as it's semantically meaningless.
How would you interpret "they must take steps to have the prescription filled by another pharmacist or store"? Well, if you accept that you can have the prescription filled by another store, why would you bother even mentioning it might be filled by another pharmacist? If this were, hypothetically, the choice enforced on a pharmacy, they could always refuse to fill the prescription since they always have the second choice of sending it to another store, so that policy is, quite simply, meaningless. But it gets worse.
Note that Walgreen's policy suggests that the wingnut pharmacist (and I want you to read the next few words carefully) "must take steps to have the prescription filled ...". Note the significant word "must". This suggests that the pharmacist can't just say, "No, not here but, hey, there's another pharmacy across town, you might want to try there, who knows?"
No, that word suggests that the pharmacist has an obligation to make sure the prescription is filled and I'm not sure if that's what Walgreen had in mind. Is that really what they're promising? That the pharmacist is guaranteed to make sure that prescription gets filled? I'm not at all convinced that's what they really meant.
And even if it is what they meant, what might that involve? Perhaps calling up another pharmacy 20 miles away, making sure they can fill it, then sending the annoyed customer on their less-than-merry way? That doesn't strike me as a satisfactory arrangement so I'd want to know precisely what Walgreen is trying to say here. But here's the best part.
Walgreen is clearly suggesting that, if there is no state law to enforce good behaviour on their part, then their pharmacists will still make some (currently badly-defined) effort to help the customer. This would come as a surprise to "Pharmacists for Life" president Karen Brauer who, earlier this year, made it absolutely clear that such pharmacists were under no obligation whatever to help in any way:
On CNN, Brauer said that, though she refused to fill a prescription for birth control pills, she "offered to transfer her prescription to the pharmacy of her choice, because the prescription is her property in the state of Ohio."
But Brauer and Pharmacists for Life have both publicly denounced such transfers. The Washington Post reported on March 27:
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.
"That's like saying, 'I don't kill people myself but let me tell you about the guy down the street who does.' What's that saying? 'I will not off your husband, but I know a buddy who will?' It's the same thing," said Brauer, who now works at a hospital pharmacy.
Likewise, the Associated Press reported on September 16, 2004, that Brauer "does not believe there should be any obligation to refer rebuffed customers to another pharmacist who would fill their prescription. 'Forced referral is stupid,' she said. 'If we're not going to kill a human being, we're not going to help the customer go do it somewhere else.' "
Brauer further explained her opposition to referrals in Drug Topics:
"There is no moral or ethical obligation to tell a person where to get a drug that is detrimental," Brauer said. "Any patients who can transport themselves to a pharmacy can obtain the product they desire without need of a direct referral. Patients have proven themselves to be quite resourceful in obtaining pharmaceuticals. The referral rhetoric has been a tool to obtain involvement by the unwilling in dispensing drugs that stop human life or are detrimental. Obtaining the involvement of the unwilling has been used as a tool to legitimize the procedures and drugs that are in controversy."
Brauer's organization, Pharmacists for Life, goes even further, explicitly denouncing pharmacists who -- as Brauer claims to have done -- refer patients to other pharmacists who will fill the prescription:
A pharmacist by virtue of properly understood conscience cannot be licitly compelled to cooperate in such a fashion with what he knows will result in a chemical abortion and, hence, a dead baby. Such activity is called material cooperation. Further, it is not an inconvenience to refuse to refer such a client since the pharmacist is doing the woman and her preborn child a favor in terms of physical and spiritual health.
Material cooperation with such an evil can never be licit even if it may be lawful, as it is in today's society. In fact, pharmacists aware of the evil nature of such a scenario would have a duty as a pharmacist and a person not to cooperate in such an evil even under pain of serious adverse ramifications. Some authors, hiding their publicly stated support for any and all baby killing, have erroneously stated shameful opinions which equivocate on the rights of conscience and thus claim a pharmacist may have a right of conscience, but if all else fails, he must cooperate with the evil in our example. Such thinking shows the irrational absurdity and confusion in the minds of those who adhere to such ideas.
In short, Pharmacists for Life have made it clear that they are adamantly opposed to the very policy Walgreen is now advertising. One can be forgiven for suggesting that it would be entertaining to get these two parties in the same room and not let them out until they figure out who's at the top of this particular food chain.
ADDENDUM: If you return to the MediaMatters article, you can see where the American Pharmacists Association has a policy that is equally vacuous and content-free:
According to The Washington Post, "The American Pharmacists Association [APA] recently reaffirmed its policy that pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions as long as they make sure customers can get their medications some other way." APA vice president for policy and communications Susan Winckler explained:
What we suggest is that they identify those situations ahead of time and have an alternative system set up so the patient has access to their therapy. ... The key is that it should be seamless and avoids a conflict between the pharmacist's right to step away and the patient's right to obtain their medication.
This is not going to happen because, quite simply, there is no solution that will leave both parties satisfied. It is not physically possible so, regardless of what the APA claims, somebody is going to end up being pissed off.
You can find the Pharmacists for Life web site here, while the Canadian version is here, just so you Canadians can get a head start on being very afraid.
FOR YOUR HOMEWORK READING ASSIGNMENT: There was a flurry of posts on this topic some months back. Justin over at FPC mentions them, so you can start there and just follow the links back here to around April.
It just means I'm probably repeating myself to some extent, but it's probably worth seeing if anything's changed lately.
Given the number of loose ends that we have hanging around, I figure we can take them one at a time, starting with the one in which a couple commenters suggested I was being somewhat misogynistic in my references to Crazy-Assed Bitch™ Michelle Malkin.
Back here, we have Polly Jones upbraiding me for, among other things, suggesting that Malkin likes her horse cock and that I spoke approvingly of Malkin having a "stalker" and of "slapping her around." Pete Rempel also jumps in with both feet and makes an ass of himself by getting weirdly excited about this whole "horse cock" thing, so let's settle this, shall we?
While Jones didn't give a link to the offending post, private e-mailer "Gabe" did the heavy lifting to track down this previous post of mine, which we can now examine in excruciating detail. Let's start with the title, " Hey! Michelle Malkin has her own stalker. Cool.", where, if one reads even just the first paragraph, it should be clear that, by "stalker," I mean someone who will be religiously following Malkin's postings and dissecting them. Given that the name of the blog in question is "Malkin Watch," I'm not sure how clearer this could have been. But it gets sillier.
One need only read the entire section related to the horse cock to appreciate that I was using it as an analogy:
Witness Michelle pointing over to Little Green Dumbfucks, where serious dumbfuck Charles Johnson writes:
Here’s the LGF post cited by the Journal: Jihad at the University of Oklahoma? The question mark is, of course, intended to signify that the story is questionable.
Ah, so it's the question mark that makes the most outrageous rumour mongering and speculation acceptable. Which means I can, in good conscience, ask, Does Charles Johnson molest Catholic altar boys? I'm not saying he does, I'm just, you know, asking.
Or, perhaps, does Michelle Malkin occasionally like some serious horse cock? I mean, when dating within her species just won't satisfy her cravings, does she need a trip out to the farm to get herself a little something something from Secretariat and the boys?
I'm not saying it's true, of course. I have no evidence whatsoever for this but, hey, I'm just asking. That's all right, isn't it?
See how that works? I'm not writing that Malkin likes horse cock; I'm writing that, by her own logic, I would be entirely entitled to ask the question, as distasteful as it is.
Not at all surprisingly, Pete Rempel can't help but embarrass his species in that same comments section, writing, "You actually said that CC? Oh boy, this will be fun!" Why, yes, Pete, it will, only because one can first point out that you jumped all over this without having a clue what it was all about, and also because one has to wonder why you get so disturbingly excited over a reference to horse cock, but I really don't think I want to know any more, thanks.
Oh, and Pete? About that snarky comment of yours: "Oopsies! Looks like CC has gone back and deleted that post. Say is ain't so CC?"
It ain't so, dimbulb. Next.
AFTERSNARK: Will some of you folks, like, get a grip? I'm pretty sure that, with loons like this one running around, you don't need to be throwing terms like "sexist" around on this blog, know what I mean?
Regular readers of this blog (other than Pete Rempel and Jinx McHue, that is) may recall that I regularly ask when (or if) Iraq will eventually become fully "sovereign," or whether that question even has any meaning, given the frequency with which the Bush administration keeps yammering on about how they will, some day for sure, "grant" full sovereignty to Iraq, as if they're doing Iraq a favour or something.
This has become a bigger issue lately given that the Bushies have kind of, sort of promised that, if Iraq told the Americans to leave, they would, which kind of, sort of suggests that the Iraqis really are running things, no?
How, then, to explain this snippet from the latest issue of The Economist in an article entitled "Why America Must Stay"):
... Moves to set a timetable [for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq] have been voted down, but the Republican-controlled Senate has voted 79-19 for 2006 to be "a period of significant transition to full Iraq sovereignty" ..."
WTF?? So ... Iraq's not sovereign. Yet. And, by the end of 2006, it still won't be sovereign but, no fear, it will have made a "significant transition" on the way to getting there. What does this even mean anymore?
Apparently, though, Secretary of Advanced Senility Donald Rumsfeld missed the memo on that vote, proclaiming in his typical divorced-from-reality way:
When Aldinger protested that the question was not hypothetical, Rumsfeld replied that Iraq is "a sovereign country" ...
Listening to Donald Rumsfeld talk about Iraq is like listening to Stephen Harper talk about same-sex marriage. You don't know exactly what's coming, but you know the train wreck can't be far away.
I'm not sure it's possible to be more politically suicidal than Stephen Harper, given just the opening of an editorial in today's Globe (I have the treeware version in front of me and, trust me, I'm not quoting anything out of context):
Just what does Harper intend on gay marriage?
Did Stephen Harper learn nothing from the debate on same-sex marriage? The Conservative Leader has revived his party's opposition to the marriage of homosexuals without explaining how he would follow through. He raised the subject on Tuesday without being prompted, perhaps because he figured the controversial question would arise sooner or later and it was best to get it over with. But he didn't get it over with. He said that if the Conservatives formed the next government, he would arrange a free vote on whether MPs wanted legislation to restrict the definition of marriage -- to change it back exclusively to the union of a man and a woman. "If that motion is defeated, we won't proceed. If it is passed, we will proceed."
Dear Steve: This is why people who still have working opposable thumbs aren't going to vote for you. It's not that you're a homophobic bigot. It's that you're too stupid to know when to just let it go and move on.
And that's why I fully support Stephen Harper for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. I don't see why I need to go to the effort of dousing someone with gasoline and lighting a match when I can just give them the matches and point them at the gas can, knowing what the outcome is going to be.
Oh, man ... I've been just waiting for something like this to happen:
When UPI's Pam Hess asked about torture by Iraqi authorities, Rumsfeld replied that "obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility" other than to voice disapproval.
But [General Peter] Pace had a different view. "It is the absolute responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it," the general said.
Rumsfeld interjected: "I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it."
But Pace meant what he said. "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it," he said, firmly.
I knew it was coming -- a high-level military officer finally telling Rumsfeld to suck it. Too bad it took this long. (Read the entire WaPo article -- Pace clearly doesn't give a fuck what Rumsfeld thinks anymore.)
