The former bodyguard and chauffeur to Liza Minnelli (news) accuses the singer of forcing him to have sex with her and is seeking more than $100 million in damages, according to court papers unsealed on Wednesday.
Uhhh... I'd like to spend an evening with her next, okay?
According to a six-page complaint filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, M'hammed Soumayah said that "without his consent," he was forced to have sexual relations with Minnelli.
I've always found that on those occasions where I'm not interested performance is less than whatcha might call satisfactory...
He said he finally succumbed to her advances after many repeated attempts and has evidence of a relationship. But he offered no details in his complaint. Her affidavit did not address the allegations made by Soumayah about being forced to have sexual relations with her. Soumayah was hired by Minnelli in 1994 as her personal bodyguard and assistant and was paid an annual salary of $238,000.
That's some fairly expensive muscle, isn't it? Not that I've hired any lately...
Soumayah wants $50 million from Minnelli for her "intentional assault and battery," another $50 million for sexual harassment and $89,000 in back wages.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
11/11/2004 5:01:09 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#7
We've determined what you are. We're just negotiating the price.
Posted by: Don ||
11/11/2004 11:09 Comments ||
Top||
#8
forcing him to have sex with her
What a steaming load of horse crap.
She's what, 5 feet tall? If he's a professional (and I use the term loosely) bodyguard, he's a good deal larger.
Yet he says she forced him to have sex with her? How? Did she use a gun? A knife? Even if she had, he's so much bigger he should have been able to disarm her. I could disarm her.
If your boss hits on you, and you don't want to be hit on, say no. If it persists, GET ANOTHER JOB. (AFAIK, labor laws don't apply here.)
What a money-grubbing weenie. A real man would have kept his weenie in his pants and MOVED ON.
Loser.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
11/11/2004 12:37 Comments ||
Top||
This stuff drives me nuts.
Australian farmers face a future climate that is drier, with more extremes of droughts and floods and an ability to adapt swiftly will be the key to the industry's survival, scientists say. Australia is the world's most arid inhabited continent. But farmers, through trial and error and a lot of pain and suffering, have turned the country into one of the world's breadbaskets whose wheat and meat exports are worth about A$8 billion (3.25 billion pounds) a year. Global warming and predictions of rapid climate change, however, are likely to mean more pain and challenges for Australia's grain, grazing and irrigation industries, says Mark Howden of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's (CSIRO) Sustainable Ecosystems division. "There will be winners and losers but it depends on where you are," said Howden, a senior researcher at CSIRO. For example, there has been a sharp decline in rainfall since the 1970s in Western Australia, where about 40 percent of Australia's wheat crop is grown. This is just not true according to the CSIROs own figures and conclusions, the south west is not getting drier and Western Australia overall is getting wetter - Link to CSIRO data. The big news this year is how cold its been and late frosts have severly impacted the wheat crop, but thats not the MSM agenda and doesn't get mentioned.
Posted by: phil_b ||
11/11/2004 4:40:18 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
phil_b,
It seems the planet Mars is also going thru a warm spell,with polar icecaps melting. Since car emissions,industrial pollution or cow farts have limited effectiveness on the Martian climate,what could possibly cause two planets to experience a warming spell? Maybe the activities of the star they revolve around?
But since the envirocrats can't regulate the Sun,or blame its actions on the US,they will just ignore it.
Posted by: Stephen ||
11/11/2004 12:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Stephen, I'm aware the primary determinant of climate cycles is solar radiation. I don't know what its like in the USA, but we are constantly bombarded with the message our climate is getting drier and people look at me in disbelief when I tell them its not true. The interesting question is why the media, governments, and a significant section of the scientific community need to conspire in order to peddle this nonsense. I have to conclude that Kyoto has become a crucial test of Tranzi credibility. Hopefully, the day is not to far off when they have to fess up and admit the trillions (literally) of dollars Kyoto is costing is a massive waste (and could have been spent on something worthwhile).
Taiwan was rocked by a 6.0 magnitude earthquake, the second temblor to hit the island in about 12 hours. No casualties were immediately reported. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. and United Microelectronics Corp., the world's two largest producers of made- to-order chips, said the quake had no immediate impact on the companies, according to Taiwan Semiconductor spokesman J.H. Tzeng and United Microelectronics spokesman Alex Hinnawi. A quake with a magnitude of 6 can cause severe damage.
The temblor, which struck at 10:16 a.m. local time, had an epicenter 46.8 kilometers (29 miles) offshore of east Taiwan and 13.9 kilometers deep, the Central Weather Bureau said. A quake with a magnitude of 5.5 struck the island at 10:48 p.m. last night, causing buildings to sway in the capital of Taipei. Taiwan, which sits along faults between the Philippine Sea and Eurasian Continental tectonic plates, gets struck by an average 200 earthquakes a year, according to the Weather Bureau. Quakes occur as the plates push together. On Oct. 15, Taiwan was struck by a quake with a magnitude of 7, the strongest since a Sept. 21, 1999, temblor with a magnitude of 7.6 that killed 2,500 people and caused an estimated $9 billion in damage.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
11/11/2004 12:29:57 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Dubai's gold market continues to experience strong local demand for Diwali and Eid, despite the sombre mood prevailing in the country due to the passing away of Shaikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan and the steep increase in gold prices which touched a 16-year high of Dh49 per gram for 22 carat jewellery, recently. According to a study by the Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry, local gold demand in the UAE reached more than 90 tonnes last year and sales increased by 14 per cent or Dh4.9 billion, compared to 2002, putting the country among the world's top 10 gold consumers.
Dubai imports gold from more than 60 countries and re-exports it to more than 50 destinations. The local gold industry covers a large segment of demand in the domestic market, with about 50 tonnes of gold consumed annually in manufacturing articles of gold, of which a small portion is exported. Gold trade circles expect that domestic production will grow due to the achievements of the Dubai Metals and Commodities Centre and the availability of skilled workers.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
11/11/2004 4:21:09 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Dar ||
11/11/2004 13:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
...And try the General's vodka:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3675546.stm
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
11/11/2004 20:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Not true- when did any Russian ever invent anything that worked? When the Russians took Eastern Germany late in WW2 they took, in their amiable Russian fashion, everything that wasn't nailed down, everything that was nailed down, and all the nails.
At that time the Germans were developing the AK47 as an assault weapon. Not sure if they ever got it into production. Anyway, the Russians took the factory, plans and parts and you know the rest.
They did the same with a BMW motorbike too- it became the Cossack.
Japan's military on Thursday shadowed an unidentified submarine that entered its territorial waters the day before, but officials said they had not yet figured out what country the intruder was from. Tokyo put its navy on alert Wednesday after spotting the submarine off Japan's southern island of Okinawa, and sent a reconnaissance plane and destroyer to follow its movements. The submarine, which spent two hours in Japanese waters before leaving, was heading north Thursday, Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda told a news conference. He refused to confirm media reports that defense officials believe the vessel is from China, saying: "We don't have enough conclusive evidence to make a determination."
He said it would take some time to identify the submarine because it hasn't surfaced and didn't appear to be heading toward a specific country. Hosoda said Tokyo hasn't confronted any countries about the incident. Defense Agency chief Yoshinori Ono told a parliamentary committee Thursday the military was still tracking the submarine. Officials have refused to confirm media reports that Tokyo was investigating a possible link between the sub sighting and China's recent exploration of natural gas fields in Japan's southern waters. Japan's Yomiuri newspaper said defense officials suspect Beijing may have sent the vessel to head off criticism from Tokyo about China's recent surveys for gas fields near Okinawa.
Territorial disputes have occasionally flared up between Japan and its neighbors, China and South Korea, including one that has deepened in recent months with Beijing over natural gas deposits in the East China Sea. Japan has accused China of conducting surveys for gas fields near Okinawa that extend into Japanese territorial waters. China says its activities are close to its coast and don't concern Japan and has rejected offering more information.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
11/11/2004 3:54:58 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
OldSpook is right. Wannan find out who the mystery sub belongs to ? Fire on the MF'er. Try to sink it NOW.
Posted by: Mark Z. ||
11/11/2004 11:50 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Theres no need to sink it to know whos it is. If it really is a nuke, I'm sure they got a blade count, reduction gear tonals, CHT grinder tonals and electric generator tonals. These are like finger prints, unique to each sub. If its a diesel on batteries, thats allot harder to detect but if they have air cover on it (best way to track/kill a sub) they'll wait for it to snorkle to charge its batteries. They'll get a tonal off the diesels then. Its allot easier to ID a sub when you know its not hunting you.
I'd be VERY surprised if they didn't already know whos it is - not to mention one of ours are probably within earshot of it too.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
11/11/2004 12:02 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Where's the USS Ward when you need it?
Posted by: Dar ||
11/11/2004 12:15 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Unless Jacques Cousteau's team has gotten blown off course, it's hard to imagine this being anything other than a hostile incursion. What's the relevant law here? Can you just sink any submarine that crosses into your national waters? With a surface ship, I think you're supposed to try to hail them first, but I don't know how one does that with a sub. Whatever the law says, it'd be nice to see the Japs honor their militant ancestors by dropping a few torpedos on this fool.
#6
I would vote for forcing it to the surface and then boarding it . . . by force if necessary. How do you force a sub to the surface? Depth charges, I believe, are a good way to start.
Posted by: Jame Retief ||
11/11/2004 12:33 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Might be fun to take a few runs at it with a practice torpedo.
Posted by: ed ||
11/11/2004 12:36 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I'm with Yosemite on this one - there's likely a 'blue' sub or two in the neighborhood, or along the route...
#9
Active ping,they hate that cause then they know they are being hunted.Sovit and US subs did it to let the other guy know"If I wanted you would be dead now".
According to Japan's Chief Cabinet Minister, his country's defense forces have been unable to confirm the nationality of supected Chinese nuclear submarine caught trespassing in Japanese territorial waters because, in a fiendishly clever move, the vessel "stays underwater."
#17
An electrician who used to work for me used to fly P2V Neptunes in Antisubmarine warfare for the Navy. They were off of Jan Mayen island one day (toward Iceland and Greenland) when they caught a Soviet diesel sub on the surface. It crash dove, and they kept track of it with sonabouys. They had these cherry-bomb type explosives around, so they started banging around the hull of that sub. For the next two days, in shifts, the P2Vs harassed this diesel sub with the bombs, one after another. My friend said that they enjoyed it immensely, but started feeling sorry for the submariners after a while.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/11/2004 17:22 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Lol, AP! But when you have the opportunity to practice on a real live "enemy" sub, well hell, you've just gotta exploit the shit out of it, lol! Of course, if they had the chance, they'd do the same or worse. I wonder if the socialists hereabouts figure we owe that crew hearing aids...
#20
It's 'Kimmy' alright! The NORK's card under the table, would be to launch against the Japanese should the US preempt their nuclear developemnt strategy with a strike. That activity requires 'probing' the Japanese defense readiness. The Japanese will do nothing under the secret US reassurance that they are tracking the intruder from base!
#21
ASYMMETRIC WARFARE applies to undersea warfare as well as surface, aerospace, and space, espec given America's new concepts od maintaining absolute Battlespace, SPAWAR, and MilTech dominance as much as possible. No matter their rhetoric, RUSSIA-CHINA are still COMMUNISM-CENTRIC/CONTROLLED - America's alleged new friend Russia is still engaged in massive global Anti-American weapons proliferation and tech transfers, with CHINA, amongst others in the world, gobbling up Russian -built Airborne transports, fighter-bombers, missle systems, and Submarines AMAP. Submarines, NOT surface ships, is intended to be China's ultim mainstay/primary platform for both strategic attack, deterrence, and local tactical area defense, includ local and regional anti-USN /Carrier naval defense of PLAN amphibious, commando, airborne, ground and naval surface forces. Various Net sources still argue that China is bent on acquiring Russian AKULA II's attack subs, or to develop its own, and that both Russia and China are bent of developing large UW armed Sub Transports for carrying troops, regular or commando, and supplies, as well as dev the techs necessary for conversion in case of war ags the USA. With its future J-10 and other LCA [Ex. French Mirage2000's], as anticipated China intends to flood the skies with a HI-LO MIX of mostly light but capable fighter and fighter-bomber tacair. All things equal,. in case of WW3 ags the USA, both Russia and China intend to use "TAKE-AND-HOLD" tactics, with the Clintons and International Diplomacy taking care of the rest as to the milpol defeat of the USA. The sub detected near Japan is believed by the JMSDF to be of the HAN-type, doing anything from probing of Japan's UW defenses to conducting UW surveying to landing SPEPCOPS teams. For me, the only pragmatic, non-political reason for China to be surveying and resurveying the undersea geography near Japan is that they are in process of dev specific underwater warfare tactics for use in coming war ags US and Allied SSN or attack subs, i.e. asymmetric, undersea "sub(s) vs. sub(s)" offensive-defensive battle requiring maximum use of natural geography. With Russia allowing so many Chinese into their FAR EAST-SIBERIA regions, just an AIRBORNE- andor SUB-hop away from Northern Japan and espec ALCAN [Alaska-Canada], specifically the Mountains, High Ridges, Riverine Basins, Valleys, and Swamps, snow or water, anything to minimize US Tech and SATWAR advantages in favor of SPECFORS AND INFANTRY COMBAT.
China Thursday said it knew nothing about a submarine that entered Japanese waters near a disputed gas field and sparked a high seas chase."We don't know. We are not aware of this situation," (Ok, whatever you say...sure)
the foreign ministry said in China's first response to the incident that has come amid mounting disputes between the two countries. The submarine was detected early Wednesday in Japanese waters near islands disputed with China about 300 kilometers SW of Okinawa. Judging from its cruising sound, the Defence Agency believed the vessel to be a Chinese navy Han-type nuclear submarine, Japan's mass-circulation Yomiuri Shimbun and Jiji Press news agency said.
"And we have reason to believe that Sean Connery is driving it."
The Japanese navy has been trailing the submarine with two destroyers and a surveillance airplane, a defence agency spokesman said. The incident comes amid a series of disputes between Japan and China, including friction over the right to explore for gas near their maritime border in the East China Sea. Only this week, China accused Japan of a "Cold War mentality" after Japanese reports about alleged Chinese plans to attack Japan. The reports said this could be triggered by disputes over Taiwan or energy resources.
"We are opposed to the instigation and playing up of the China threat," the foreign ministry said on Tuesday. "Relevant parties should discard their Cold War mentality and safeguard measures to promote peace and development in the Asian Pacific region and the world at large."
"C'mon, man. MoveOn already..."
While the Xinhua news agency Wednesday ran a brief report from Tokyo about the unidentified submarine, it has filed nothing since and the story failed to appear in any of China's major state-run media Thursday.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
11/11/2004 4:25:27 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
aaaah denial , the first step towards acceptance ;)
#3
The same way all submarines navigate . . . dead reckoning and sonar. Sonar keeps them away from all the big stuff under water and they simply keep an eye on their speed and direction while submerged. Once they surface they can use their illegally acquired GPS . . . er . . . sextant to determine their position.
Posted by: Jame Retief ||
11/11/2004 6:44 Comments ||
Top||
The Taiwanese president's flight to an outlying island several weeks ago was diverted because 28 Chinese fighter jets were spotted in the area, a major Taiwanese newspaper reported Thursday. The report in the United Daily News - which only cited unidentified "reliable sources" - didn't say whether President Chen Shui-bian's reported encounter with the Chinese jets on Sept. 27 was a coincidence or an act of intimidation by China. Taiwan's Defense Ministry declined to comment on the report about the Chinese jets.
The United Daily News said the Taiwanese president was flying to the Penghu islands when the 28 Chinese planes approached the "middle line" of the Taiwan Strait, the 100-mile body of water that separates the rivals. The president's pilots altered their flight path to avoid the Chinese jets, delaying Chen's arrival at Penghu by 15 minutes. The report did not say how close the jets came to the president's aircraft. The flight to Penghu - off Taiwan's western coast - takes about 40 minutes. A similar incident happened on Oct. 2, when Vice President Annette Lu flew to Penghu, the newspaper said. On Wednesday, Chen urged China to agree to the creation of a military buffer zone between the rivals - an area that jets and warships would not enter. The Taiwanese leader has also said the two sides should agree on a code of conduct so that their militaries can avoid incidents that could trigger a conflict.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/11/2004 12:36:16 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Only the first, in a line of Chinese intimidation tactics to pursuade the Taiwanese to 'see the light'. After President Chen Shui-bian gets a change of new shorts; he should call the 'bluff' by skirting the "Middle Line" with 50 of his bombers! I bet the Chi-Coms drop their bowls of rice in a quick panic!
Slobodan Milosevic called on judges to subpoena former U.S. President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Thursday, saying he would like them to testify at his war crimes trial by Christmas. The former Yugoslav president, charged with genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in the Balkans in the 1990s, opened his defense in August in what is seen as Europe's most significant war crimes trial since the end of World War II. Milosevic asked for The Hague tribunal to also summon German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, former German Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and retired U.S. General Wesley Clark, who directed the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia.
Milosevic, who has been on trial in The Hague since February 2002 charged with ethnic cleansing in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, said he had done the groundwork by sending letters to embassies and providing clarification when asked why he wanted the witnesses to give evidence during his defense case. "By conclusive action it has been shown that they are not willing to appear," Milosevic told the trial's three judges in a webcast of a hearing at the U.N. tribunal. Presiding judge Patrick Robinson said he would not issue a subpoena unless Milosevic submitted his request in writing.
After he stopped giggling and composed himself.
"You must make a written submission setting out the circumstances which show that they are unwilling to come and setting out the evidence you want them to give," he said.
Milosevic won back the right to lead his own defense earlier this month in an appeal against a decision by judges in September to appoint two lawyers to manage and present his case to prevent trial delays due to his ill health. Milosevic, who has described himself as a peacemaker in the Balkans and does not recognize the court, has dismissed the charges he faces as politically motivated "lies" and declined to enter a plea. Pleas of not guilty were entered on his behalf.
#8
If Slobo wants an American ex-president to testify, why doesn't he ask Carter?
I'm sure Jimmuh would be glad to do it. After all, he never met a dictator he didn't like.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
11/11/2004 17:41 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Slobo - I was busy with Monica - I saw nothing - I know nothing - Leave me alone - I have surgery to recover from, and I have to run my wife's campaign the next four years - No time!
Lithuania has become the first country in the European Union to ratify the European Constitution - just under two weeks after the document was formally signed. The small Baltic state, which joined the EU on 1 May, ratified the document via its parliament - the Seimas - by an overwhelming majority on Thursday (11 November). Eighty-four voted in favour of the Constitution with four against and three abstentions. One down, twenty-four to go. Nice overwhelming majority though.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris ||
11/11/2004 11:05:35 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Appropriate, as we are coming up on the 65th anniversary of the last time they lost their independence.
#5
Surely those who voted in favor of that "Constitution" have read it all and don't have any objections.
Surely those who voted against it, have read it all and don't have any agreements.
Even *I* have objections to the Constitution. Voting in favour of it simply means that you feel the pluses outweigh the minuses. You don't have to consider it the paragon of perfection.
But as for "reading it all", it's perhaps noteworthy that in the Eurobarometer IIRC the country that is most hostile towards the European Union is also the one that claims to know least about it -- similar to the situation in Rantburg, I feel.
And once the EU Constitution is adopted by all, the EU will have exactly one seat at the UNSC, right?
No, the EU member states (even with the new constitutional treaty) don't give up their right to conduct their own foreign policies. So, from the point of view of other international organizations, we will still be 25 countries, not one. Even if we try to coordinate policies.
It is uncertain whether EU will however gain a seat in *addition* to the 25 member states. I hear it's gonna accede to gain such a seat in the Council of Europe, anyway. Which I wonder if it will one day merge with the EU, same as the WEU has almost-sorta merged with the EU.
#6
One can be against that "EU Constitution" while agreeing with some parts of it. It's enough that there are a few major tyrannical aspects to it.
In a similar vein, a terrorist is not murdering innocents 24h a day. Just a few times in a lifetime is enough to make such a beast deserve the death penalty.
Evil can come in small pieces, and compromise with it means it wins by default of the good.
EFL & a swift swing of the Cluebat
Michael Moore met with Harvey Weinstein and Moore says they plan to start working -- now -- on "Fahrenheit 9/11œ." "We want to get cameras rolling now and have it ready in two-three years," Moore says. "We want to document and commercialize it. Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information (in this election) and we want to educate and enlighten them. They weren't told the truth. We're communicators and it's up to us to start doing it now. He doesn't get it (I know. That's an understatement.) Notice his timeline. Moore wants to realese his propaganda just before the '08 election cycle. Well, if all goes well he acomplish the same result he yeilded in '04. This man knows how to rally a base.
Posted by: Dragon Fly ||
11/11/2004 10:21:46 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Just another way of calling 51% of Americans stupid. Say, maybe he can get a job working for the Daily Mirror.
It never occurs to these kumbayahers that the American people heard, processed, understood, and promptly tossed their arguments into the circular file.
#5
Hell, he could film the next four years in the next four weeks. He just made up the first one as he went along anyways as well. This time I hope he puts in a conspiracy about George Bush's shameless oil ties with little green aliens!
#6
*Shrug* This is really all about Moore's bank account. Moore has figured out that he can make a lot of money by playing to the hysterical fantasies of left.
Posted by: Pat Phillips ||
11/11/2004 11:24 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Weinstein owns/runs Miramax - vote accordingly with your wallet
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/11/2004 11:31 Comments ||
Top||
#8
If Hillary wants to have any chance at the presidency in 2008, she's gonna have to get rid of this clown, even if it means having him whacked.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
11/11/2004 11:58 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Thanks for all the help, Mikey. I couldn't have done it without you. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: George W. Bush ||
11/11/2004 12:01 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Hillary has no problems getting folks wacked I understand.
#11
What happens if the death of Arafat and the Iraqi elections both end up working to help peace in the middle east by 2008. I'm not talking perfect peace, but a noticable improvement. If that happens what will Mikey talk about that will ever convince folks that his world view is valid?
#16
Haven't seen the original F 911, but I understand that logic and facts are put under more strain than the elastic on Mooron's undies. (Dave Kopel has a site listing more than 50 problems with the movie.) I'm sure this will be moore of the same.
Posted by: Tibor ||
11/11/2004 13:19 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Haven't seen the original F 911, but I understand that logic and facts are put under more strain than the elastic on Mooron's undies.
Tibor, I really, really didn't need that image in my head. Really.
Posted by: Jonathan ||
11/11/2004 14:42 Comments ||
Top||
#19
From what I've heard Mikey actually is a talented little propogandist. Hillary needs to convince him to make a pro-Clinton movie instead of an anti-Bush movie. Yes it's a harder subject, but it would help the Democrats (and by democrats I mean Hillary) far more.
#20
His talent consists of a few juvenile smirks strung together with no coherence or artistic ability whatsoever. Leni Riefenstahl was talented. Mikey Boy's a complete idiotarian who figured out how to bring Chomskyism down to a level that would make lumpen morons feel clever.
This fall, in one of the most spectacularly hyped and unsuccessful political efforts in recent memory, leftist filmmaker Michael Moore barnstormed America's campuses in an effort to increase the youth vote. In speech after speech, he begged, pleaded, and even bribed students (with offers of ramen noodles and underwear) to get to the polls and vote for John Kerry. Although Moore's effort failed (not only was George W. Bush re-elected, but the proportion of "youth" voters did not increase in 2004), it was certainly lucrative. He charged most colleges between $30,000 and $40,000 per appearance and appeared at multiple colleges in battleground states across the country. According to Moore's website, his "Slacker Tour" featured appearances at 63 cities, "mostly on campus." While it is impossible to determine Moore's fee for each of those appearances (on occasion, he did appear for free), it is easy to see that the Slacker Tour brought Moore a considerable amount of money. And much of that money was paid to him illegally. (in the link)
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
11/11/2004 6:23:13 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I've always maintained MM found a market for schlock leftist nonsense and set about servicing it. I tried to read Stupid White Men, and it's unreadable dreck, and it would still be unreadable dreck if he was revealing the meaning of life. I hear the ghost of PT Barnum telling me there is a sucker born every minute.
#2
Back when I was attending the University of Oregon in the early 1970s, I was constantly outraged about student fees. I was famous as someone who complained about this issue often in the student newspaper. In particular I complained about such large expenditures for speakers I disliked.
Since then, as the years have passed and as I have been free of the personal aggravation of paying such fees, my opinions about that issue have evolved. I think that the student governments that govern these fees are a worthwhile part of the university experience, and I regret that I myself did not become directly involved. I imagine that many of those who did become involved did develop much valuable experience.
A celebrity like Michael Moore gets $30,000+ for giving a speech. That seems nonsensical, but it's just a fact of life.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/11/2004 8:48 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I suppose you think Osama Bin Laden and Zak should also be paid for spreading lies and propoganda on our collage campuses as well right?
I'm sorry but I think that if a university is going to spend mandatory student fees for a speaker at least the speaker should be somwwhat honorable and worth listening to. Mike Al-moore is neither.
I see no 'educational enhancement' to having an old fat liar spread his bullshit.
#4
Everyone asks why tuitions are rocketing up across the US...students are not paying near enough attention that their entire tuition bill for four years of college can be spent...on one celebrity speaker, for one day, for five hundred people.
#5
Somebody give that swollen garbage bag a world-class surprise. PLEASE!
[Enter Michael Moore]
Crowd: *jumps up as one* SURPRISE!
Moore: *gasps* *clutches chest* ouch *dies*
Posted by: Steve from Relto ||
11/11/2004 10:06 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I would be against paying Michael Moore to speak.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/11/2004 10:22 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Can I ask why such lectures aren't paid for voluntarily? I mean, if they can sell enough tickets to cover the fee, then fair enough. Stealing from the many to indulge the few is just plain wrong.
#8
Student fees are to be used for official disbursements by the university. As regards speaking engagements, they should be reserved for figures whose speeches and thought have real academic merit rather than for celebrity idiotarians like Mikey Boy.
#9
It's a prestige thing, Bulldog. (Oh, and happy Remembrance Day.) Part and parcel of the lefty "it's for your own good/you'll thank me later" worldview, plus a chance to show off how very progressive and forward-thinking your college is. And a healthy dose of spending "other people's money".
When Michael Moore was scheduled to speak (for $35,000 taxpayer dollars) at a college in Northern Virginia (just outside of Wash DC), the local red-state radio station raised a big stink and got him to cancel his fee. Jabba still came and gave his talk...but for free!
#11
#9 Seafarious - one slight correction. Al-Moore didn't cancel his fee. The university was forced by the publicity to cancel paying him Virginia taxpayers' money.
He didn't come for free anyway out of the goodness of his heart - he has none (goodness or heart) - but as a publicity stunt. He could well have afforded to go for free to all the universities he inflicted himself on, but he's a greedy, money-grubbing weasel who publicly laughs at those who pay for his crap. And they keep paying him anyway.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
11/11/2004 13:16 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Here we go MS: One thing that snipers were very discriminating about â every single ambulance I saw had bullet holes in it. Two I inspected bore clear evidence of specific, deliberate sniping.
Call the UN! Convene the Links Committee! Let's do lunch and compare links! Kofi is good for the tab.
#13
Re #8 (lex): Student fees are to be used for official disbursements by the university. As regards speaking engagements, they should be reserved for figures whose speeches and thought have real academic merit rather than for celebrity idiotarians like Mikey Boy.
I agree.
The question I raise here, though, is whether giving the university's student government the authority to make such decisions is a worthwhile university experience. I used to say no, now I say OK.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/11/2004 13:21 Comments ||
Top||
#14
model EU/UN, huh, Mikey? Using someone else's money to make decisions for those less progressive/educated/wise little peepuls?
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/11/2004 13:34 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
11/11/2004 16:16 Comments ||
Top||
Canada's health minister said Wednesday that his country "cannot be the drug store of the United States" - a warning that comes as several states are pushing to buy low-cost prescription drugs north of the border. "It is difficult for me to conceive of how a small country like Canada could meet the prescription drug needs of approximately 280 million Americans without putting our own supply at serious risk," Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh said in prepared text for a speech at Harvard Medical School.
Business has been booming for Canadian Internet pharmacies that take orders from Americans looking to buy Canadian drugs made less expensive by government price controls. Busloads of Americans cross the border to take advantage of Canadian drug prices that can be as much as 80 per cent lower in some instances, according to a congressional study. Dosanjh said Canadian health officials have found no evidence so far of shortages in Canada, but he predicted potential problems down the road if demand increases. "To me it is a matter of common sense that Canada cannot be the drug store of the United States," he said. "Neither American consumers nor Canadian suppliers should have any illusions otherwise."
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
11/11/2004 4:44:48 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is complete BS. The reason Canada cannot be the drug store of the United States is because if sales from Canada start significantly impacting US sales the drug companies would refuse to export to Canada or allow them to make the drugs under license. The simple fact is US consumers massively subsidize the cost of drugs in Canada.
#2
It is a delicious irony. I've been waiting for he push back on this for a long time. What we are starting to see is market forces raise its marvelous head.
BTW the same thing happens in Mexico when all the snow birds go over the border to get their prescriptions filled for the next year.
Posted by: Douglas De Bono ||
11/11/2004 7:28 Comments ||
Top||
#3
US consumers massively subsidize the cost of drugs in Canada.
Apparently it's price controls that subsidize the price of drugs in Canada. If it is still worthwhile for US companies to sell their products to Canadians, then I would suggest that someone south of the border is getting just a little bit ripped off.
Posted by: Rafael ||
11/11/2004 9:08 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Raf, I think it has to do with the drug patents. My understanding is that Canada told the US dug companies, "We'll respect your patents...IF you sell us our drugs cheep..."
#5
Sefarious, I doubt it. That would start a trade war. I think it was just a big customer throwing its weight around; "If you don't sell to us cheap we'll buy from your competitor cheaper." Canada as the Wal*Mart of drugs. We are getting ripped off and the Canucks are getting a bargain. Time to decontrol durg prices world wide. Let the free market be free.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/11/2004 9:32 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Actually, I seem to remember that Seafarious is right. The drug companies caved because Canada is a small market. (A letter from a Canadian in the local paper the other day smugly referred to this as, "The Canadian government negotiated cheaper prices from the drug companies.")
Of course, the US could retaliate and refuse to recognize Canadian patents, but as we all know, nothing is ever invented in Canada...
(I googled around a bit, looking for an article on the patent issue. I found many articles on the subject, all of which said that the topic was, like, real complicated. So that's a big help.)
#8
#1 has it spot on...US taxpayers subsidized the us drug companies which sell to Canada and then the Canadian govt subsidizes these purchases lowering the cost to the Canadian citizen. if US taxpayers never footed the bill for development of the drugs the prices would be much, much higher.
Posted by: Dan ||
11/11/2004 12:14 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Think about it. If this weren't true, why would it be illegal to re-import the drugs back into the U. S.? Did Congress ever pass a law saying that a refrigerator made in the U. S. but exported to Caqnada could not be sold in the U. S.? So why did they for drugs?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/11/2004 12:17 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I suspect the negotiated Canadian drug prices are actually sufficient to cover production costs, plus a little profit. Even though the Canadian market is not huge it is big, especially as a single 'sale' (government price negotiation), so the 'little' profit is still significant.
What the Canadian purchasers are NOT paying for is R & D, which is a huge part of the true cost of pharmaceuticals. The US customers pay that, which is not a big ripoff of the customer.
And of course the US customers also may for all those advertisements, which really could be considered a ripoff. So don't respond to the ads and they'll go away.
Neither the US nor the Canadian government is subsidizing US purchases of drugs through Canada - the other US customers are. At some point the US drug companies will not agree to sell 'subsidized' drugs TO Canada; Canadians will have to start paying their full share of R & D or go buy drugs somewhere else. Where?
Drugs are basically cheap to make. The reason drugs are expensive is that it takes 600 to 800 million dollars per drug to develop the science and confirm the drug safety in the clinic. After that, manufacturing the drug is generally pretty inexpensive, but the developers of the drugs have to charge enough to make back their sunk costs of research. This is why drugs are expensive. Fortunately, they can make back their research and manufacturing costs by selling at FREE-MARKET rates (what the market will bare) in the US alone. Most of the rest of the world represents markets where drug companies can make more than it costs to manufacture the drugs, but not enough to pay for the drug development. So, they sell them cheaper into those markets (Plus... the people in those markets don't have as much money to spend and so it's more ethical to charge them less for their drugs. If you comparing GDP per Person verses cost of drug in a country, you generally find that each person pays a relatively similar portion of their respective GDP for drugs. We pay more because we have the highest GDP per person on the planet.
Canada (and most of Europe) take advantage of the US market by threatening the drug companies with "forced licensure" of their drugs to local companies. Foreign companies using a forced patent license pay 2-3% over the manufacturing costs to the owner of the drug patents. It makes more sense for the pharma to sell their product at a lower cost into Canada rather than let Canada facilitate the theft of their patent rights.
See... now doesn't it make better sense. Canada really doesn't want a bunch of US consumers descending on them and making an issue of their cheaper drugs. We could have cheaper drugs too... if we wanted to stop research on new/better drugs. Personnally, I would rather pay more for my drugs and have money being spent developing better drugs that will help me live a longer/better life.
But, that's just me. I'm sure other people would rather have the Patent rights of our Pharma industry ignored for cheaper drugs today. 'Course... with no patent profits, nobody would develop any more new drugs.
#12
.."they sell them cheaper into those markets (Plus... the people in those markets don't have as much money to spend and so it's more ethical to charge them less for their drugs."
So, what is the deal with Saudi Arabia? Drugs are very cheap there. Is the Government of SA subsidizing them 100%?
#14
Don't know about 100%, Anon, but I think Saudi Min of Health buys at a discount, then discounts THAT cost (at a loss to its budget, obviously) which explains the low cost at the register. Morocco and Egypt also have very cheap drugs by following this method.
Does Canada discount drugs a second time a la Saudi? Anyone know? The fact this explanation was never brought up during campaign amazed me, cuz I heard a few expert economists explain it as such. Buy cheap, take a loss and stuff doesn't cost much. Wow. The Canadian miracle. So I guess drugs in US would be as cheap as Canada and others if we were willing to have taxpayer pick up the loss cost.
BTW, Illinois guv, Rod Blagojevich, will run in '08 and is padding his resume by having Ill. defy FDA in setting up system so Illinoisans can get Canadian, Irish, and UK meds in Land of Lincoln. Only problem is that Canucks, Irish, and UK health ministries are not at all happy about it. Too unilateral for them.
Posted by: chicago mike ||
11/11/2004 15:09 Comments ||
Top||
#15
I don't know the specifics with respect to drugs in SA... but if you compared the relative GDP per capita you would find out that:
US GDP/Capita (2000) = $35K
SA GDP/Capita (2000) = $10K
Based on that, I would expect at a minimum that drugs would cost 3 times less. Probably, my guess would be that SA isn't to finicky about where it gets it's drugs. They could easily buy them from Indian manufacturers who basicaly have license from their government to pirate the entire US pharmacopia without paying any patent license fees... so they could easily be 10x cheaper than the same drugs found in the US. Note: The politically correct verbiage used the the WHO for stolen patent drugs created in third world countries is "Generic" drugs... which means something entirely different here in the US. In the US "Generic" means the patent has run out. In international drug trade (managed by the WHO) generic means stolen.
#16
Classic free rider situation. US and a few European companies fund 90% of the drug development, to the tune of ~$200B annually, and the countries whose scientific institutions and corporations are too small or lame to handle this scale of development end up hacking the drugs and creaming off the profits and the social benefits.
#17
Fortunately, they can make back their research and manufacturing costs by selling at FREE-MARKET rates (what the market will bare) in the US alone.
There is nothing fortunate about it if you have to buy drugs instead of sell them.
There is NO Free-Market if re-importation is illegal. Make it a truly free market and the world price will go up and the US price will go down. THAT'S a free market and a fair one.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/11/2004 15:33 Comments ||
Top||
#18
What Mrs D said. If your country doesn't subsidize R&D, then your consumers should at least pay world prices.
#19
Amen. Certainly, (un)common sense needs to enter into the equation somewhere - and the socialist twaddle needs to be ejected from it. There will be no R&D without a profitable return to justify it. There is no reason why the US consumer should be forced to bear the burden alone - when the entire world benefits from such R&D.
Free-Market Capitalism created these medical wonders, and Free-Market Capitalism should be the mechanism by which they come to market.
#22
Let me present a couple of simple analogies that might be more easily grasped:
Microsoft spends a lot of money developing operating systems for computers. They then sell that software in the US for a certain price which we in the US are willing to pay. In another country, Microsoft sells the software for less, because they can afford to pay less... but still more than the marginal cost of burning another copy. Microsoft makes agreements with the distributors in those countries whereby they agree not to re-import those cheaper copies back into the US. Do we US consumers have a right to those cheaper copies? How much pressure does the US government put on foreign governments to honor us copyrights on software? Enough to prevent wholesale pirating? LOL... in some cases the US government helps some (China) and in others (Mexico?) maybe more/less pirating happens.
.com is right that socialist twaddle comes out much more when it comes to drugs... because peoples lives are on the line. Suppose you have an HIV epidemic in your country (India) and you can't pay the full market price? You gonna let your people die because some company won't give you the drug at the price you CAN pay? Hell no, you are just going to make a copy of the drug and those "Greedy Capitalists" can just suck wind. 'Course, now I've created a manufacturing facility that can make HIV drugs indistinguishable from the ones the US drug companies make. When I've treated all the sick people in India, and I still have extra capacity... why can't I just sell that extra drug on the international market? It'll make me money! It's the same drug. It will save lives. Sure, the Patent belongs to some US company... but they don't need the money, they have plenty. I'm saving lives, I'll even sell that drug back into the United States.
That's going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Research lives off the profits of the novel new drugs that are sold at premium prices. Stealing the profit from the system results in slowing the development of new drugs. Personally, when I get cancer, I want the newest and best drugs available... no matter the cost. I'm not sick now, but I'm willing to pay higher costs (and let the rest of the world free-ride) so that I get my treatment when I need it.
Re-importation is penny-wise pound-foolish thinking. 'Course Canada wants to continue the free ride. Let 'em.
#23
Amen, Leigh, regards the golden goose, especially.
Life is hard. It will get a LOT harder if you're a stupid socialist parasite dependent upon others. This is classic stuff, on the fucking "3 Little Pigs" level, folks. Free rides kill the pony that brung ya.
#24
One other comment I might make: the US has become the world powerhouse for drug development, sales, and profit - because it's a free market that protects intelectual property.
It's a huge jobs machine and it sucks in jobs from Europe and Asia to keep it fed. The European drug companies are dying on the vine from price controls... and they have slowly begin to shift their headquarters and operations here to the US. In the small biotech company where I work, half the researchers are from Europe and Asia. They can't keep their best people because the US is the center of the industry: we have the stage, the stagehands, choreographers, the song writers, the orchestra, the ticket sellers, and the actors to make the "show go on". They can buy tickets, but we create the magic.
#25
Leigh - Terrific analogy - kudos to you and your peers!
And multiply this 100x for all of the other high technology markets which either are or are becoming dominated by US companies. This is extraordinarily simple: free markets work. The others do not. Reward the creators - or lose the ability to create and become a 2nd or 3rd World country.
They can hate us (ostensibly), but they can't live without us (literally).
#26
If you think there is not reimported software and illegal software being sold in the US, you are naive. However, MS has taken steps to minimize its presence. That, among other reasons, is why MS went to the mfrs and gave them breaks to get them to include the OS on new machines. Most people won't go to the trouble to use a gray market or illegal software because the price differential is not sufficient and there are a lot of other hassles with service and quality. The software industry has been agressive about prosecuting users of illegal software. Individuals don't upgrade to the extent companies do and companies shouldn't risk prosecution for using illegal software.
But the drug companies are greedier than Gates. They make the price differential so great that it is worth it for people to go to Canada or Mexico to get their meds. And they have a lot less control over the end use customer than does MS. There's no need for customer support and no way for the drug company to tell where the drug you're taking came from. When the differential gets sufficiently great, market forces will start to overcome legal restraints. Re-importation is coming, legal or illegal, because it is fair to the consumer and the drug companies are too greedy to modify their pricing to prevent it. Unfortunately, that, along with the empty new drug pipeline, is why the goose may die. If it does, Drug company gred will have more to do with it than re-importation.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/11/2004 17:38 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Mrs D - I hear you -- and seldom disagree with you, but on this topic I do:
Who owns the drug?
If a no-shit / no-games Free Market were in effect, would not the price / profit margin have to meet with the reality of what people were willing to pay? If no one buys the drug because the price is too high, they also lose their investment in the R&D and all assoc costs incurred bringing the drug to market.
The current situation is insane. You / we / everyone can't have it both ways for long.
Which do we prefer? No new drugs because it's financial suicide to invest in the process - and everyone goes without - or a Free Market where the price is determined by the market and Gov'ts that give a rat's ass about their citizens subsidize the price and drug companies continue to produce new drugs?
#28
Leigh and .com, the argument that the US is a drugs powerhouse becuase its a free market is both false and irrelevant to the original issue. The argument is false becuase in a globalized world industries gravitate to centres of excellence that are largely unrelated to consumption. This why chips are made in Taiwan, tropical fish are bred in Singapore and Formula One racing cars are made in the UK.
Its irrelevant becuase the issue is Canada and others are free-riding and not paying a fair share of R&D costs which are the main cost of drugs. Allowing re-importation of drugs will either reduce drug company profits or force them to raise prices in Canada (almost certainly the latter). The Canucks know this and that is why they are very worried about reimportation.
#29
phil_b - The "excellence" you refer to gravitates to those centers where their expertise is appreciated. To equate a microbiologist with years of self-paid education with an assembly-line worker is rather silly - even in the chip biz: clean rooms can be built anywhere and workers of moderate intelligence can be trained to operate the mfg process almost anywhere.
The R&D must be differentiated from the Mfg, IMHO.
The drugs issue is definitely skewed in cost to the R&D, and this is likely the case with most high-tech: the materials and mfg pale in comparison to the R&D required to define the process.
#30
The problem with free market capitalism in the pharmaceutical industry is that for certain rare diseases, you'd be SOL if the drug you needed to stay healthy cost you $10,000 annually. So you have a case where the rich are healthy, and the poor, well, tough shit.
The question of subsidy has to come in somewhere, whether subsidizing R&D, or allowing people to get the meds they need at a reasonable price. This is of course dependent on whether we actually care about the health of everyone in a society. It has nothing to do with providing or getting free rides.
The health minister is justifiably starting to shit bricks about the impact this will have on Canada's health system.
As an aside, there was a similar situation with medical imaging, but in reverse. American companies wanted to set up shop in Ontario providing medical imaging services at a lower cost and faster service than what was available locally. They were told to F-off, the fear being that they would, *gasp*, undermine (read: make better) Ontario's health system.
Posted by: Rafael ||
11/11/2004 19:14 Comments ||
Top||
#31
.com, Leigh: Thank you for the spirited defense of free markets.
Regarding Taiwan and chips: There is wonderful engineering of computer components and subsystems in Taiwan. That's because Taiwain has free markets, educated and hard working citizens, and proximity to much of the manufacturing, and relatively strong respect for intellectual property rights. What you don't see much of in Taiwan is fundamental research, nor the sales and marketing that connects the products and services to the customer. What Taiwan does is one piece of the value chain. For the most part the chain starts and ends in the US. Taiwan is in many ways an offshore engineering facility for the US economy. The growing economic links between Taiwan and China and the US and China are changing the dynamic somewhat, but the fundamental processes of value creation haven't changed.
#32
.com, reimportation is the issue for me. Are you saying you support the American government making a law that prevents Americans from buying a drug at the lowest price possible world-wide because the American people have a responisbility to pay for the R & D of drug companies? Because that's what I'm against and if you're for it, I sure would like to understand why.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/11/2004 20:21 Comments ||
Top||
#33
Mrs D - I'm for making whatever changes are needed to solve the current insane situation. I do believe in intellectual property and free markets. Both of these have been bastardized by opportunist governments around the world - creating an insane market, an unfair burden upon Americans, and a situation which might just end with a huge reduction of R&D - and that helps no one.
#34
Its called DEREGULATION and FREE MARKET CAPITALISM - top-down or bottom-up, the decentralized American systems are custom-made for one-on-one competition with anybody or any group! Maybe the Canadian mil might be able to afford their modernizations, instead of buying such small handfuls of equipment as to be akin to a perm-bankrupt local township police force occas armed with army tanks, instead of being a de facto major sovereign world power.
#35
OK... Here is my thought experiment on re-importation:
I'm a drug company. My scientists identify a protein which appear only on the surface of cancer cells. We celebrate! Our patent lawyer runs out and patents the target protein. Our 17 year drug patent clock starts to tick down. We float some stock (maybe $50 million to fund this experiment.)
Based on identifying that target, my scientists create an antibody that targets that protein and kills the cancer cells. (We patent the antibody... restarting the 17 year clock.) After paying for the research to identify the protein, the antibody, and after extensive testing in animals, we float some more stock (maybe $200 million). I create an FDA compliant manufacturing facility and get FDA approval to begin testing the cancer killing antibodies in humans. Up to this point, I've probably spent $50 million. Now comes the expensive part; Human testing.
I go out and recruit a cohort of 200-300 doctors who I will pay to identify appropriate patients and manage their care. The FDA will ask me to do a series of human experiments, dosing at a minimum probably 2,000-5,000 patients. For those patients, I will pay for: the manufacturing facility that created the antibody, the drug necessary to treat the patients, the doctors who are recruiting/treating patients, a raft of additional tests (which are extraneous the actual treatment to show that the patients aren't suffering some unknown side affect), and all the normal tests and exams necessary to control and treat cancer. For a bunch of those patients, I will pay for "comparative" treatment to show my drug works better.
In dribs and drabs, I float another $300 million in stock to pay for the clinical trials.
On top of that medical treatment, I will pay to have people generate and collect all the study data. The clinical trial(s) paperwork has to be double and tripple checked QA to meet FDA requirements. It's a mountain of paperwork.
Think of how expensive it would be if you got cancer. Now, to turn it into a clinical trial, double the cost and multiply it by thousands of patients. By the time I'm done testing in the clinic, if my drug gets approved, I've spent (let's make this cheap) $550 million. Maybe if I have bad luck, the drug only works "a little bit" and FDA thinks side affects are to unpleasant or not acceptable, so I don't get approval and I'm out $550 million for nothing... but drug development is a crapshoot. Maybe the FDA will OK it after another $50 million in testing? In the end, it takes me 5 years from the time I discover the antibody. I have 12 more years on my patent.
Whoot! My drug is a success and slays cancer cells and leaves the rest of the body (mostly) untouched! I have a blockbuster drug. My patent runs 12 years before the drug goes generic. I have to make back my $550 million plus make a profit so my investors stay happy and I want to make additional money so I can research more drugs to replace my blockbuster when the patent runs out. My researchers have identified more proteins that occur on the surface of other cancers that I want to try developing more antibody cancer killers.
Lets say, the antibody I identified kills prostate cancer. I have 220,000 cases anually in the US... and my antibody will work on 1/2 of them. So, 110,000 potential customers annually. Over the 12 years my patent runs, I may get 100,000 treatments a year... so maybe 1.2 million cases total to recover my investment and make a profit. Just pulling a number out of the air here, let's say it costs me $500 to make enough drug to treat one patient.
How much should I charge to: Get back my initial investment, make a profit, pay my sales force, pay corporate income taxes (before dividends!), pay for more research, pay a "risk surcharge" profit to my investors for investing in such a chancy scheme, pay liability insurance to protect me from product liability lawsuits, get more money so I can get the antibody drug through more clinical trials to apply against another type of cancer. See... this all piles up, and I ONLY HAVE 12 YEARS BEFORE ANYBODY CAN MAKE A GENERIC. I've got to charge a lot, because I risked a lot to create the blockbuster.
Bottom line though: I created the drug. It was my and my investors money that was risked. I own the drug. I own the world-wide rights. I have a right to ask whatever I want for the drug. Sky is the limit. As a consumer who has prostate cancer... you can decide to pay, or not.
Now, let's assume, as Mrs. Davis suggests, that any drug I ship out of the US might turn right around and target my 100,000 patients. Normally, to sell into Canada I would negotiate a price with the Canadian Health Ministry and they would agree not to re-import it back into my main market, the US. As long as I sell it above $500 per treatment, I make some more money. But, now that the law says the drug MUST be allowed back into the US... I tell Canada: Pay my US market price or go flip.
Canada says: "But Candians don't make as much money as Americans! You Americans make $55,100 per capita (2003). We Canadians only make $29,700 per capita... can't you give us a 46% break in price to reflect our dire financial condition caused by our socialist paradise? We're dieing from prostate cancer here! We need a break!"
"Sorry, no can do." I say. "If I give you a 46% break, I just killed the price I can charge in the US and I can't make back my sunk costs in research and profit in the short time I have before my drug goes off-patent."
"Damn!" say the Canadians. "Those heartless greedy Americans! They already make 46% more than us and now they want to kill us from prostate cancer! Those Bastards!"
When the Canadians get back from their vacation, they decide that the only way they can help Canadians with prostate cancer is to make my drug in their country without my authorization, in spite of my patent because they have "an over-riding public health need" I'm not "working my patent" and I won't sell my drug to them at the price they like. (Don't laugh... this is the way negotiations in internatinal drug sales goes... there is always the treat of forced licencing or outright theft of your patented product for "the public good".)
I won't tell the Canadians how to make my antibody... but they have biochemists and they can work back from a sample of my drug to re-create it. So they do. Now, I have NO DRUG SALES TO CANADA instead of a lesser sale.
This is what you are looking at when you are going to require re-importation of drugs.
My humungous ego demands it!
Ralph Nader, an independent presidential candidate this year, has called for recounts of November 2 voting results saying that amid allegations of irregularities, he wanted to ensure that every ballot was counted. Read all about it! Nader Sweeps Nation In Recount! Read all about it!
Nader, who this year drew about one percent of the vote nationally, told a press conference Wednesday he was speaking out for the "thousands" of US voters asking for recounts and not on his own behalf. "Over 2,000 citizens including voting rights advocates are urging in writing the Nader Camejo campaign to help make sure every vote is counted and counted accurately. The Nader Camejo campaign does not view the election to be over merely because concession speeches, which have no legal effect, have been given. Rather they are over when every vote is counted and legally certified," Nader said. And quickly please! Before I become totally irrelevant!
He urged recounts particularly in the hotly disputed states of Ohio and Florida, which went to Bush, New Hampshire which went to Kerry, and North Carolina, which went to Bush. Nader highlighted irregularities including one reported earlier in an Ohio polling station where 638 voters cast ballots but results showed 4,258 voted for Bush, and 260 for Kerry. How many for Nader Camejo, whoever the hell he is?
"Striking inconsistencies exist between the vote as reported on the AccuVote Diebold Machines and exit polls and voting trends in New Hampshire. These irregularities in the reported vote count favor president George W. Bush by five to 15 percent over what was expected. Problems in these electronic voting machines and optical scanners are being reported in machines in a variety of states," Nader added. Quick! Somebody notify President Gore!
#6
Geez Ralphie - Wasn't that your slot in Ohio that was labeled, "Candidate Disqualified"?
Ayep. There were signs at every polling place saying any votes for them would not be counted.
Does anyone else remember what the polls were saying before election day in 2000? I seem to remember that Bush was slightly ahead, leading to stories worrying about Bush winning the popular vote but not the electoral college. I doubt, had the Florida count gone the other way, that citing polls would have gotten much traction.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/11/2004 18:12 Comments ||
Top||
Here we go again An emerging conspiracy theory among some political left wingers acccuses Republicans of stealing the 2004 presidential election. While many Americans wonder why Election Day exit polling was so inaccurate and showed Democrat John Kerry winning, liberal bloggers and activists insist the exit polls were correct and that Republican forces used fraud to help President Bush win re-election on Nov. 2nd.
Greg Palast, a contributing editor to Harper's magazine, conducted an investigation into voter fraud for BBC television's Newsnight. "I know you don't want to hear it. You can't face one more hung chad. But I don't have a choice. As a journalist examining that messy sausage called American democracy, it's my job to tell you who got the most votes in the deciding states. Tuesday, in Ohio and New Mexico, it was John Kerry, Palast said in his investigation reprinted at TomPaine.com. Many others on the left are also venting their anger at the losing Democratic nominee, John Kerry. The liberal website Buzzflash.com blasted Kerry in a headline, discouraging him from even considering another run for President in 2008. More in the link
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
11/11/2004 5:14:31 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I am laughing. The more the left talks about this crap the further they get from having a chance in four years. Every reputable person who has looked at this both partisan and non-partisan has said Kerry had his ass handed to him quite fairly. There was no cheating. If there had been the election would be in court today, it's not.
An intersting aside to this is that 56% of Kerry voters also voted to ban gay marriages. The vote against gay marriage also brought out Democrats not just Republican evangelicals. Most Blacks and Hispanics also voted against gay marriage where it was on the ballot. It's not the reason Kerry lost. It's another left wing illusion/delusion.
#4
I heard an interview on NPR yesterday -- the interviewee, despite all the heavy hints from the interviewer, insisted that there had been no cheating that she could find. The electronic machines were honest, Ohio legitimately went to Bush, and the exit polls were quite simply wrong. Zogby wrote to that effect on his blog Mea Culpa: I'm a Pollster, Not a Predictor.
#5
The day after the election, the Daily Kos was urging people to put out relentless claims of fraud even if they were false, with the specific intent to undermine Bush's legitimacy around the world and here at home.
#6
Since the lefties are so much smarter than the rest of us cattle, and their ideas so much better, obviously they couldn't have lost the election. There was some underhanded business involved. Why can't you all see that?
#9
They didn't get over it in 2000. The won't get over it in 2004. That's because, elections adide, they are LOSERS.
Posted by: Tom ||
11/11/2004 8:56 Comments ||
Top||
#10
RC, you don't realize how much that is possible. If you look at the Senate races it looks like the Republicans are posed to take even more seats. I don't wan to get my hopes up, but I will open my wallet to help.
#11
I KNEW they would try to pull this crap. It was inevitible for the LLLs. Now, if they really feel like trying to rise up or something, just remember LLLs which side has all the guns. (Hint, it ain't yours)
#12
RC, you don't realize how much that is possible. If you look at the Senate races it looks like the Republicans are posed to take even more seats.
Oh, I'm aware of how many more Democrat seats will be up for reelection than Republican seats. Barring a major screw-up, and if the Donks keep heading down the road of insanity, I think it's possible for a filibuster-proof majority.
Imagine what would happen if the Donks manage to postpone/filibuster judges, both appellate and supreme, until the 2006 election. Imagine the screams of anguish if the Republicans find themselves needing to fill dozens of judicial appointments without having Donk obstructions...
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/11/2004 10:30 Comments ||
Top||
#13
This is the left's version of Black Helicopters.
#14
No. These people just do not believe in democracy other than the Peoples Democratic Republic version. No outcome, no matter how big the difference would have been, would have satisfied these harpies. There is only one true faith/voice and that is theirs. The modern version of the devine right of kings.
Posted by: Don ||
11/11/2004 11:15 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Tom Daschle ||
11/11/2004 11:53 Comments ||
Top||
#17
It was Thursday. I was working the Wellstone Assassination when the bosses at DU called. Drop everything, they said. We're pulling you off Wellstone.
What's up? Is Mumia Free? We finally find the Mossad guys that pulled 9/11?
No, they said. The election was fixed...again.
I understood. I pulled my Bushitler and Ashkkkroft files and started reading...
#18
As soon as the election was over the LLL were trying float this crap everywhere they could. It mostly was quickly dismissed. Nothing now here move along.
I hope it takes another 4 years before the LLL realizes they're advertizing why people shouldn't vote for them.
Posted by: Charles ||
11/11/2004 14:26 Comments ||
Top||
#20
rkb, thanks for the CalTech study that demolishes these idiotic claims once and for all. A curious sidenote: the authors employ an unusual description for one of the flawed exit poll sample populations, calling it "too female and Western...[to be valid]"
Pretty obvious that the authors of this report-- even though no names are provided-- are Asians or Asian-Americans. I suspect that these folks are much more resistant to the kind of KosMikeyDU moonbattery than undereducated, innumerate "math is hard" non-asians. Another reason IMHO to tilt this country's orientation toward Asia, and to eliminate curbs on immigration for anyone with an advanced technical degree.
#22
The media-conformist left's de rigeur rejection of the election result is still more proof of their fundamentally authoritarian, absolutist, and morally depraved nature. In terms of personal ethics and intent, as opposed to committed acts, this is probably the most evil large group of people in history. The conspira-loons, and many of the rank and file, have to be aware of the ample proof that pro-Kerry exit polls were fabricated at the DNC and fed to gullible slaves like Kos.
When you deal with lefties, you deal with common criminals, preferential liars, and power-seeking psychopaths. BTW, where is your armed rebellion, left-scum? Is it the same as all your other pronouncements, claims, and diatribes; horseshit and media smoke from start to finish? Bring it on.
#23
Isn't it strange how the MSM is all over this 'controversy' without a shread of evidence -- in fact in the face of evidence that the exit polling was slanted.
YET... they totally ignored the Swiftvet issue which had 200-odd eye witnesses incliding Kerry's entire chain of command.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who spent a record-shattering $75 million to become mayor in 2001, is ripping the city's campaign matching-funds system that's likely to funnel millions to his Democratic foes in 2005. In a fire-breathing speech to a judicial reform group in Manhattan yesterday, the multi-billionaire mayor went into attack mode on campaign finance - an issue opponents consider to be one of his weaknesses. The salvo came on a day when the Quinnipiac University poll measured Bloomberg's approval rating at 49 percent, a five-point increase since August. With a year to go before the election, Bloomberg outpaces all Democratic challengers except former Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer, who retains a 5-point advantage, according to the poll.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
11/11/2004 3:01:41 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Campaigne finance reform = complete joke. Show me a wealthy person who complains about campoaign finance, and I'll show you the next clown who will spend "as many millions as it takes" to get their desired result. A pox on all these a**holes.
From The Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society
The Islamic Republic of Iran has stepped back from stoning Jhila to death. Jhila is a 13-year girl who, in an unwanted and unknowing sexual relation, became pregnant. The Islamic Republic of Iran had imprisoned and sentenced her to death penalty by stoning. They took away her new born child to a state infants centre. To protest this verdict, I published my first press release to announce a campaign against stoning and imprisoning this 13-year child. It is unprecedented that this campaign has proliferated everywhere now! The Islamic Regime has stepped back under the pressure of people's struggle and the campaign for saving the life of Jhila. The Islamic Republic Daily Paper on 17.10.04 has quoted one of the official judiciaries that they did not issue a sentence of death penalty by stoning for Jhila, but she had been sentenced to penal imprisonment. He said that Jhila has been sent back to Marivan to fulfill her punishment.
This step back is not enough. Jhila is a child. Jhila must live with her family, not in jail, be a provincial welfare penitentiary or any kind of prison. She is a child who needs guardianship, support and safe environment. International covenant on Civil Rights forbids and condemns children imprisonment. Jhila must be released immediately. We fight for her release.
Jhila's child, if she will, must be given back to her. We demand financial and health support for both of them. The two children, both mother and her baby, must be kept in a safe place out of religious and traditional moral pressures and political violence.
According to the recent news received by the Organization for Woman Emancipation, Jhila and her brother's cases had been sent to the office of Khameniee, the spiritual leader of the Islamic Regime.
On behalf of the Organization for Woman Emancipation and as a coordinator of the campaign for saving the life of Jhila, I call upon all people, progressive individuals, web lags owners, media representatives and all opposition groups to help me to release Jhila from prison. If necessary, we will process a procedure to reside Jhila and her child in an European country.
The Organization for Woman Emancipation will publish details of this campaign. You can go to the site for saving Jhila's life and sign the petition for her release: www.stoning.webbyen.dk.
Phon: 0045 40543992
E-mail: nahid@mail.danbbs.dk
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/11/2004 11:22:58 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
Michael Moore plans a follow-up to "Fahrenheit 9/11," his lies hit documentary that assails President Bush over the handling of the Sept. 11 attacks and the war on terrorism, according to a Hollywood trade paper. Moore told Daily Variety that he and Harvey Weinstein, the Miramax boss who produced the film, hope to have "Fahrenheit 9/11 1/2" ready in two to three years. Just in time for the 2006 elections I will bet
"Fifty-one percent of the American people are retardsdidn't buy my lies lacked information (in this election) and we want to brainwash educate and enlighten them," Moore was quoted in Thursday's edition of Variety. "They weren't told the truth. We're communicators and it's up to us to start doing it now." Boy, is it getting deep from that fat f**k
A spokesman for Fellowship Adventure Group, formed by Weinstein and brother Bob to help distribute "Fahrenheit 9/11," did not immediately return a call seeking comment. "Fahrenheit 9/11," which won top honors at May's Cannes Film Festival, became the first documentary to top $100 million at the domestic box office. Moore, who won the documentary Academy Award for "Bowling for Columbine," is pushing "Fahrenheit 9/11" in the best lie best-picture category for the upcoming Oscars. The issues for the follow-up film will remain the same, Iraq and terrorism, Moore said. "The official mourning period is over today and there is a silver lining: George W. Bush is prohibited by law from running again," Moore said. Now if only we can prohibit by law Michael Moore to stop breathing...
#9
Sounds good to me... Well, I dunno -- I'm almost set up... another coupla weeks... mebbe they'll give me a contract to buy my stun guns, mace, pepper spray, and other self-defense products, lol!
#11
775,000 volts of persuasion for those moments when one comes face to face with intransigent or repugnant persons. I was lacking in the close-quarters response category, unless I was willing to employ my Daito - something of an all or nothing thing, and decided melike these non-lethal goodies enough to peddle 'em, lol!
#13
Moore is a wuss. Before the election, he was talking about how the American people would vote K as they were so smart and trustworthy given they KNEW that Bush would bring Armageddon. Now? "mourning period is over", "silver lining", "prohibited from running BY LAW". Gee, I really didn't know that last one, mike. Thanks for telling me. BTW, this is the exact meme I saw on various French forums last week, i.e. only four more, then Hillary. Get in their face and you see how they fold.
What about Armageddon, Mike?
Let's see when he does his for-pay rants in Europe if he says that Amreicans "lack information" or are "stupid"; important since he used this latter adjective and others to describe us on his previous speaking tours abroad. Guess he got flak over it and has changed his nomenclature while referring to his countrymen while here. On the road? We'll see. But we'll be listening.
Posted by: chicago mike ||
11/11/2004 21:16 Comments ||
Top||
#14
He knows the "smart" 48% will not be able to resist pouring another few tens of millions into his already plump wallet.
#1
Having had some minor (and very peripheral) involvement in the wind farm business, I'd say this guy got it exactly right.
"But hey, you're Green and have the moral high ground." Heh.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
11/11/2004 13:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The article does not depict the situation in the US. In the US, essentially all the commercial windfarm companies are affliated with or are subsidiaries of big corporations.
#3
That's a great slogan for The Guardian to adopt and adapt as well--
"We know Americans in Clark County, OH, may not appreciate us butting into their election, but we're journalists and have the moral high ground!"
Posted by: Dar ||
11/11/2004 14:22 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Just don't try to build it near a Kennedy compound...
President Robert Mugabe has ordered Z$10 billion worth of arms and anti-riot equipment from China, ZimOnline has learnt. Well-placed sources said Mugabe negotiated the arms supply deal when he met a joint delegation of government and private business representatives from Beijing in Harare two weeks ago. The Chinese delegation returned home last week. Defence Minister Sydney Sekeramayi, who helped Mugabe negotiate the deal, last night confirmed that the government held defence and trade talks with the Chinese. But he would not be drawn to disclose the details of the negotiations. Sekeramayi said: "There were discussions which centred on co-operation in areas of defence strategies and trade. But we cannot discuss those issues in detail in the Press."
At the official exchange rate of Z$6 200 to one greenback, Z$10 billion is equivalent to about US$1.6 million, which is enough to buy about 13 000 tonnes of maize for one million starving Zimbabweans per month. A tonne of maize costs about US$120 on the international market. Zimbabweans, about 90 percent of whom eat maize as their staple food, consume about 150 000 tonnes of the grain per month. According to the sources privy to the arms deal, the Chinese representatives offered to supply Zimbabwe's armed forces with weapons at preferential prices. Mugabe accepted the offer saying Zimbabwe, which is under a European Union and United States arms embargo, needed to beef up its arms reserves.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
11/11/2004 4:01:25 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A tonne of maize costs about US$120 on the international market.
For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she did not believe in birth control. "I was shocked," says Lacey, 33, who was not able to get her prescription until the next day and missed taking one of her pills. "Their job is not to regulate what people take or do. It's just to fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician."
Some pharmacists, however, disagree and refuse on moral grounds to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions. Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year. The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill. A pharmacist that refuses to hand out birth-control because of religious concerns is like a professional soldier that refuses to fire a gun, or a science teacher that tells his students the world was created on 4004 BC. Utterly unfit for their jobs.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris ||
11/11/2004 10:26:30 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
As is an obstetrician who refuses a request to carry out an abortion eh, Aris?
If you ran a newsagents, would I have a right to demand that you sell pornographic magazines? What would give me the 'right'?
#2
If true, that's just plain wrong. What if you get some Enviro-nut pharmacist, that starts refusing giving out life saving medicine because it was tested on animals. I think we all know with the LLL in America today that is not far from their reality.
#3
Unsurprisingly you are wrong Aris.Having worked at a pharmacy myself there are lots of moral/ethical decisions to be made. The pharmacy I worked at for instance would not stock certain drugs due to the concerns of the owner. He would politely point out that he did not stock it and refer them elsewhere.
I would agree that this pharmacist, unless the owner, should be warned to not do this again or risk being fired, but I do not own that pharmacy and neither do you so it is none of our business what they choose to sell or not sell. That is the beauty of a free market as well as freedom of religion.
The woman has a legitimate complaint with that pharmacist. If the pharmacy doesn't change things to suit her she can, and probably should, take her prescriptions elsewhere.Problem solved.
Posted by: Kelvin Zero ||
11/11/2004 11:08 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I suppose that CVS, a company, has a right to establish its own policies, but they risk losing lots and lots of customers if the policy is not made public and consistent. Unless you all want to argue that sex is only for procreation, you better keep channels to birth control open or live your lives as celibates.
#5
Aris has no idea how easy it is to get a prescription filled in the US. Even in the middle of downtown Cincinnati, which is relatively free of anything that would make it livable, there are half a dozen places, ranging from national chain to mom-and-pop store. That's not even counting the various hospitals, free clinics, etc.
Out in the suburbs it's even easier.
If one pharmacist says, "sorry, I don't want this business", there are plenty of choices elsewhere.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/11/2004 11:14 Comments ||
Top||
#6
If you ran a newsagents, would I have a right to demand that you sell pornographic magazines?
People depend on pharmacists, they don't depend on porn. And such dependency on drugs received from a pharmacist can be *urgent* in times. The moral equivalency argument must be checked and evaluated at its specific points, you can't just *mention* moral equivalency, and think you've won the debate.
But I wonder what'd *you* think of a *doctor* that refused to treat patient with AIDS because he considers their disease a divine punishment that should not be interfered with.
And since you mentioned abortions, Bulldog, I wonder if you've considered whether the lack of birth control availability is likely to increase them or not.
#7
Unless you all want to argue that sex is only for procreation, you better keep channels to birth control open or live your lives as celibates.
That's not the issue, Jules. Seems as though you've got the wrong end of the stick. The point is that no one has a 'right' to tell pharmacists what to stock. It's up to them (or their employers, or their franchise-issuers). It's not up to anybody else, even [gasp!] Little Hitlers like Aris.
#8
just my five cents. (im get five cuz ima speciel) ifn one is por-lifer im not seein how bein against birth control is make any sense. is this guy one of those who are think it a sin to spill him seed so to say on the ground? bah! thisn stoopid. give the woman her pills an quit bein em jackass.
>:(
#9
Robert> As you wish. I imagined there existed drugs and prescriptions that only pharmacists could give out. In which case if they have by law been given exclusivity to that right, that at the same time would constitute an obligation to them. (If they didn't accept the obligation, they shouldn't have the exclusivity)
But if the right to give out drugs and fulfill prescriptions isn't exclusive to the pharmacist profession, and everyone can do it according to the laws of the "free market", then I agree with you that pharmacists shouldn't be obliged to follow any rules pertaining to their profession either.
#10
I believe the pharmacists are well within their right sto refuse to dispense, but should make their policies known publicly. Let market forces reign. If their employer doesn't like it, they'll fire them. If the public doesn't like it, they'll lose business. As usual, Aris, you're entirely wrong about America and free market economics, as well as religion and free will. Doesn't leave much, does it?
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/11/2004 11:30 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Bulldog> You see pharmacists as shopowners with a right to sell or buy as they wish, I see them as members of the medicinal profession with certain obligations to the public.
We may differ on what these obligations are, but I think it's absurd to call me a "Hitler" over it.
#12
Bulldog, that's the only issue left of the two the incident presents, from what I can see. Are the questions here not 1) Do businesses have right to promote their core principles in the marketplace, including the right to state their promotion of/opposition to birth control? I don't think we disagree there. There are other pharmacies that can pick up the slack.
Where we may or may not disagree is on the other point 2) Whether each couple having sex today is doing so for procreation purposes or other purposes? Does each sex act represent a commitment on both parties' parts to accept the outcome of a pregnancy? People have sex, sex can bring pregnancy; can a woman intervene at the earliest possible moment to prevent a pregnancy?
... they don't depend on porn. And such dependency on drugs received from a pharmacist can be *urgent* in times. The moral equivalency argument must be checked and evaluated at its specific points, you can't just *mention* moral equivalency, and think you've won the debate.
That's not the point. If you think you might 'need' drugs, the onus is on YOU to determine whether they will be available for you when the time comes. Not some other party. Your attitude is typical left-wing euro it's-not-my-responsibility bullshit. I suppose you'll be demanding there's a fully-stocked pharmacy within two kilometers of every bed next.
But I wonder what'd *you* think of a *doctor* that refused to treat patient with AIDS because he considers their disease a divine punishment that should not be interfered with.
I'd say he was a bad doctor, and would recommend that the patient get a second opinion. I think the doctor would find retaining employment difficult. A doctor who won't give you what you want is like a pharmacy that won't give you what you want: as good as no doctor or no pharmacy at all. My suggestion would be to move on. Yours attitude is: force them to accommodate my will!
And since you mentioned abortions, Bulldog, I wonder if you've considered whether the lack of birth control availability is likely to increase them or not.
#14
Aris confuses the exclusive role of an entire profession with the decision of one member.
In the US, as has been noted above, there are many outlets for prescription drugs. These include free or government-sponsored health clinics, commercial drug stores (pharmacies) and hospitals. Moreover, there are no limits on the number of new outlets that can open in response to market demand. So Aris' analysis is weak ... this decision does not limit access to the birth control drugs.
As for side effects of the decision, I personally don't have a moral problem with hormonal birth control, so this pharmacist's decision doesn't resonate with me.
But in point of fact, celibacy is another option (other than abortion) and it's one that has been followed by many unmarried people in a wide variety of cultures for a good deal of history -- modern, cynical snickers notwithstanding.
#17
Aris confuses the exclusive role of an entire profession with the decision of one member.
Do those individual members accept no obligations when they accept the right?
When soldiers are sworn in, we don't leave it up to "market forces" as to whether they'll defend their country or not, they are supposed to take an oath that obliges them to it.
"Your attitude is typical left-wing euro it's-not-my-responsibility bullshit."
Your attitude is typical right-wing "taking up the right doesn't mean I'm taking up any responsibilty" bullshit.
"I suppose you'll be demanding there's a fully-stocked pharmacy within two kilometers of every bed next"
I've not yet lived in a place where there hasn't been a pharmacy within a few *blocks* actually.
In the US, as has been noted above, there are many outlets for prescription drugs.
But not fully libertarian free market, is it? You are still *preventing* some shops from stocking up and selling certain drugs.
And that, for some bizarre reason, doesn't sound to you as Hitleric -- preventing stores without a license from stocking drugs doesn't sound Hitleric to you, *obliging* stores with a license does sound Hitleric?
#18
Basic question. Does this pharmacy stock birth control pills, yes or no? If no, then post this information. If they do, then individual employees should not be making pharmacy policy. If an individual pharmacist disagrees, don't put them on alone behind the counter.
Posted by: Weird Al ||
11/11/2004 11:46 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Troll, troll, troll your boat all the way from Greece.
#20
Sock Puppet> Your IQ needs to be on the single digits to consider me a troll -- which without a doubt it is. Screw you, and leave the thread alone if insults without content is the only thing you have to contribute.
Yeah, employees should be fired if they go against pharmacy policy, and pharmacies shouldn't be allowed to call themselves pharmacies if they don't follow obligations inherent in their license.
The question is what those obligations should be. Or if any such obligations should exist.
#21
Do those individual members accept no obligations when they accept the right?
Of course they do - just not the ones you want to impose on them. They are obligated to represent correctly the drugs they dispense and they are obligated to store them in such a way that they do not degrade, and to destroy and not dispense those that whose shelf-life has expired.
What they are NOT obligated to do is to dispense every drug to anyone who can get a doctor to prescribe it.
Market forces are messy and inexact ... in fact, they're the worst way of organizing the distribution of good -- except for all the other ways, which are even worse.
#22
I have to agree with Aris. Pharmacists are members of the health care profession and I don't think they have a "right" to deny people a prescription based on their religious beliefs. In this case the woman had been filling her prescription there for some time and sudenly the pharmacist decided not to. The states that have enacted laws to support these "moral" decisions are walking a fine line enacting laws to support a religious view.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
11/11/2004 12:09 Comments ||
Top||
#23
DB, then you should adress BD's (I like the palindronimic handles) question in #1.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/11/2004 12:11 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Aris, I am an independent consultant licensed to practice engineering. I exercise my rights to (1) turn down any job that I don't wish to do and (2) turn away any potential client for any reason I choose. I have turned down potential clients solely because they seemed to be arrogant on the phone. I would probably turn you down too.
I'm with the pharmacist on this one, even though I don't agree with the pharmacist's selection of items to sell.
Posted by: Tom ||
11/11/2004 12:16 Comments ||
Top||
#25
I hear Cuban pharmacists do what they're told, DB.
Posted by: Che Geuvara ||
11/11/2004 12:17 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Of course they do - just not the ones you want to impose on them.
Exactly -- which is why the whole thing of being both a Hitler and a troll is simply because my opinion differs from most people here on what these obligations should be, before a person can be called a pharmacist. If people could stop with the insults and focus on the argument, then debate on Rantburg might one day become meaningful.
What they are NOT obligated to do is to dispense every drug to anyone who can get a doctor to prescribe it.
I think they should be. Unless they think that the doctor has made a life-endangering mistake in which case they should tell the customer about it.
#27
What they are NOT obligated to do is to dispense every drug to anyone who can get a doctor to prescribe it.
I think they should be.
That's why we're glad you don't live here and that we do. We prefer to be free to do as we wish rather than have some know it all tell us what is good for us and what to do. The Democrats are starting to figure this out. One wonders if you ever will.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/11/2004 12:25 Comments ||
Top||
#28
In this case the woman had been filling her prescription there for some time and sudenly the pharmacist decided not to.
Same pharmacy != same pharmacist.
But the change in policy -- if there was one -- should not have happened without warning.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/11/2004 12:38 Comments ||
Top||
#29
This exchange illustrates pretty well one reason why many members of the EU are economically screwed. Aris's attitude is typical of those whose legislation-manias and inability to accept the superiority of free market systems are crippling economies and entrepreneurial spirit. It's all just so much shouldn't-be-my-responsibility bullshit. And very 'Hitlerian'. And impractical. How do you ensure that all pharmacists are capable of providing all medications without adding reams of paperwork and bureacracy and extra obligations onto pharmacists' shoulders? Bureacracy and paperwork, of course, waste time and raise prices. So ultimately less of the actual products can be afforded by anyone. Likely knock-on effects of prescribing the minimum that pharmacists have to stock would be the closure of small, local pharmacies which cannot stock everything, and an increase in the number of unofficial pharmacies who do not request a licence and therefore do not need expert staff. And all because Aris et al were enraged that some pharmacist decided not to stock one convenience drug.
In this case the woman had been filling her prescription there for some time and sudenly the pharmacist decided not to.
If your barman suddenly pulls your favourite beer from his selection, what do you do?
#30
You've not answered my question Bulldog -- how can you justify the inconsistency about your so-called "Free Market", when you prevent the non-licensed from handing out drugs, but at the same time you are not obliging the licensed to so hand them out? How is the latter any worse than the former?
You think that the Doctor that refuses to treats AIDS patients because of religious concerns should be left to "market forces" -- I think he should be removed from his profession as clearly unfit. If that makes a "Hitler", so be it -- but I'm tired of arguing with clowns that treat the most minor disagreement of policy as if it was the institution of a genocidal dictatorship.
Yeah, I believe that pharmacies should be obliged to fulfill prescription -- that *clearly* means I'm just one step away from building Auswitz and mass-murdering the Jews. Whatever, you asshole.
How do you ensure that all pharmacists are capable of providing all medications without adding reams of paperwork and bureacracy and extra obligations onto pharmacists' shoulders?
This wasn't a matter of "capability", Bulldog. So that's hardly the issue, is it? In fact it wouldn't even be as big an issue if the pharmacist was merely willing to refer the customer to a pharmacy that *does* stock the item in question. But I guess that'd be as "sinful" as selling it himself.
#31
BD: i did not read that the pharmacy stopped stocking the drug, only that the pharmacist refused to fill it. This was a refill script, which means the patient did not have a prescription in hand, which in turn means she could not simply go to another pharmacy. She would have to go back to her MD, assuming they were in their office at that time of day, fight her way through their phone system, and try to get another Rx.
Baseline: science does not dictate to religion, and religion does not dictate to science. Pharmacist had an obligation to fill the Rx, hand the patient over to another pharmacist, or make sure an appropriate script was ready and waiting at another pharmacy. Otherwise fire her ass.
Posted by: Weird Al ||
11/11/2004 13:42 Comments ||
Top||
#32
Let me throw a little reality into this debate.
My doctor prescribed birth control pills for me to help my Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. I do not use them as a method of birth control.
Now, this pharmacist objects to chemically preventing pregnancy -- but would he also refuse to fill a prescription that keeps me from resembling a medium sized boulder, barely capable of movement or coherent thought (i.e. for me this is absolutely not a convenience drug)? If yes, then he is an unthinking pig. If no, then he is prejudging the reason his customer has the prescription. Neither is consonant with his professional duties, or an indication that he has the mental capability to engage in the complex logic/knowledge chains necessary to execute his duties in the face of doctor error and possible drug interactions. (BTW Bulldog, I don't know how it is in your part of the world, but in the States pharmacology is a 5-year university program, and the graduates must know everything. They function as high priced insurance policies to ensure that the doctor is not able to screw up. Whatever medications the pharmacy doesn't have on-site can be easily gotten, even by the small, local shops. Those are just less likely to carry a large variety of candies and fizzy drinks at the front end of the store.)
Many medical schools no longer teach abortion techniques because of vociferous objections. What this means is that e.g. when a woman needs to have her dead fetus removed from her womb lest it kill her, there are no doctors capable of performing the procedure. Do those of you who support the pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense, also support the right of the medical profession to refuse to teach necessary procedures?
#33
bogus comparison TW - how many doctors, even the strongest pro-life, would refrain from learning surgical or D&C procedures to remove a dead fetus to save the patient's life. I don't buy that. I also don't buy that many med schools refrain from teaching such methods. call me naive...
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/11/2004 13:49 Comments ||
Top||
#34
BD: just re-read your post. Since when are BCPs a "convienience" drug? Rogaine is a convienience
drug. BCPs, as noted above, are prescribed for a number of reasons, not limited to pregnancy prevention. Plus, we're not talking about all pharmacies carrying all drugs. We're talking about a REFUSAL to dispense. Where the hell are you getting Hitler into this? Or is everyone who disagrees with you a fascist?
Fran G: you're naive
Posted by: Weird Al ||
11/11/2004 14:08 Comments ||
Top||
#35
...how can you justify the inconsistency about your so-called "Free Market", when you prevent the non-licensed from handing out drugs, but at the same time you are not obliging the licensed to so hand them out? How is the latter any worse than the former?
LOL '...how can you justify the inconsistency about your so-called "Free Market"...' Does that sound 'Hitlerian', or Stalinist? Both, as a matter of fact. If you really can't see the chasm of difference between entitling someone to provide a service and forcing them to provide a service, you and we non-totalitarianism-inclined are wasting our time debating this issue.
Yeah, I believe that pharmacies should be obliged to fulfill prescription -- that *clearly* means I'm just one step away from building Auswitz and mass-murdering the Jews.
Hitler didn't only murder Jews you know, Aris. He had all sorts of ideas besides genocide. You should read up on the Nazis. They were pretty keen on diktats and state compulsion. Liked things nice and ordered, they did. Got the trains running on time. Like the Soviets did, and the Fascisti. Got the people where they were needed, but didn't like to think of them as individuals capable of individual choices. You really ought to look it all up.
This wasn't a matter of "capability", Bulldog. So that's hardly the issue, is it?
Not for you. But then real-world matters don't often come into your thinking, do they?
In fact it wouldn't even be as big an issue if the pharmacist was merely willing to refer the customer to a pharmacy that *does* stock the item in question. But I guess that'd be as "sinful" as selling it himself.
Go and read rkb's post #14, which I said I agreed with. It's got nothing to do with 'sinfulness'. It's an issue of the pharmacist's right to sell and stock what he chooses. But I think you're projecting again, aren't you? In your eyes this is half about sinfulness - the 'sinfulness' of the pharmacist in holding and expressing intolerably non-PC opinions.
#36
Pharmacist had an obligation to fill the Rx, hand the patient over to another pharmacist, or make sure an appropriate script was ready and waiting at another pharmacy
I'd agree with that the pharmacist ought to have chosen one of those options given the circumstances, Weird al, given the circumstances (the patient not having a prescription in hand). In this case the pharmacy had entered into an understanding with the patient that it would provide the drug. Failure to supply in that instance means that the pharmacy has failed in its agreed obligation to the customer.
Baseline: science does not dictate to religion, and religion does not dictate to science.
We're talking about a pharmacist's right to choose.
We're talking about a REFUSAL to dispense. Where the hell are you getting Hitler into this? Or is everyone who disagrees with you a fascist?
Is a CVS pharmacy a private company, or a state-run operation? That makes a difference as to whether obliging them to provide a service is acceptable state-intrusion into private enterprise.
No, of course not everyone who disagrees with me is a fascist. Aris's ideas about obliging all pharmacists to dispense, to anyone, something that is going to be used as lifestyle medication, is excessively authoritarian.
#37
If you really can't see the chasm of difference between entitling someone to provide a service and forcing them to provide a service, you
I don't see much difference between putting a service under state control, and putting it under state control. If you want to speak about a libertarian-type "Free Market", then the state doesn't have the right to "entitle" businesses to perform a service which should (under Free Market) be FREE for all to provide as they saw fit. But when we have a system where the state "entitles" businesses to perform service, then the state also has the right to say *what* that service will be, and what guidelines will be followed.
But it seems that the Libertarian argument is as impossible for you to understand, as the Socialist-democrat argument is. You dangle utterly arbitrarily between the two options, and attack everyone who differs in his stance, as if they were idiots or fascists or both.
"You should read up on the Nazis. They were pretty keen on diktats and state compulsion. Liked things nice and ordered, they did. Got the trains running on time"
Yeah, they improved the economy and didn't give a damn about the people, which was btw your attitude in e.g. #29. They also didn't give a damn about the Untermenschen that couldn't take care of their own selves. They also liked to have shops that did not provide services to certain kinds of people.
I wonder what you'll say about a pharmacist that refuses to sell to Jews or blacks. *I* would also remove their licenses -- I'm sure you think it's their Free Market rights to sell or not sell as they see fit.
It's an issue of the pharmacist's right to sell and stock what he chooses
And it seems it's also his right to steal the prescription given him by the customer and refuse to give it back because he morally objects to it.
#38
Frank, normally I weigh your opinion heavily, but in this case you are indeed naive. Medical Students for Choice have this to say about their training:
"Even though abortion is one of the most common surgical procedures that women undergo in the U.S. and Canada, few medical students and residents are learning about abortion and how to provide this procedure. Currently, only 5% of all abortions are performed in hospitals where most medical students and residents are trained.
"Medical students are realizing that even if they donât plan to perform abortions themselves, they will have patients who are facing an unintended pregnancy. They may also need to perform an emergency D&C. An estimated 43% of women in the U.S. will have at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old. Without proper training, tomorrowâs doctors cannot hope to be fully prepared to meet their patientsâ needs."
In the Curriculum Reform page of their website, they mention this: "At UC-Davis, MSFC students reintroduced abortion into the curriculum by working with local providers to write a course module for the third-year ob/gyn rotation and to develop electives for fourth-year students who want to learn abortion procedures."
"INCIDENCE OF ABORTION:
o 43% of women have had an abortion by the time they were 45.
o 48% of pregnancies among American women are unintended. ½ end in abortion.
o There is a <1% complication rate associated with the procedure.
WHO HAS:
o 52% are younger than 25.
o 6 in 10 women having abortions have experienced contraceptive failure.
o 14,000 abortions follow rape or incest.
o 24% of abortion patients must travel over 50 miles, 8% more than 100 miles.
PROVIDERS:
o 87% of counties in the US have no provider, effecting 34% of all 15-44 year old women.
o 57% of OB/GYNs providers are reaching retirement age.
o 91% of OB/GYN residents report having no experience with abortion procedures"
Both sites, I'm pleased to say, mention that abortion rates have dropped significantly across the country for many reasons, including a reduction in the level of "home run" sexual activity amongst unmarried teens. Nonetheless, doctors without either proper training in abortion technique, or experience executing a D&C, are not who I would want poking around my insides attempting to save my life in an emergency.
But to get back to the point of this thread: is it acceptable for that pharmacist to refuse to give me meds, just because he wrongly assumes that I might be trying not to get pregnant?
#39
Or, should the pharmacist quiz everybody who brings him a script, to ensure that he is only refusing the right people? What about those who don't know (a husband, for instance, or an old lady with a long list of prescriptions for everything from glaucoma to incontinence), or think him impertinent for even asking? Nowadays lots of meds are prescribed for other than listed symptoms/diseases/conditions (I think thalidimide (that resulted in those poor "flipper babies" when given to pregnant women for nausea) is now being used for MS symptoms). How deeply is the druggist entitled to probe in order to protect his conscience?
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/11/2004 14:49 Comments ||
Top||
#41
Thank you, TW, for injecting some real considerations into the mix. I dont know if those statistics are representational or not, but even if we reduced them by a factor of 3, they would still be pretty sobering, particularly if 6 in 10 abortions are the result of the failure of contraceptives. No matter how many circles we run around this issue, we'll all have to come back to the beginning-our own deeply held convictions about sex, procreation, religion, honor, commitment, self-autonomy-and hold hypocrisies up to the light.
#42
no disrespect, TW, but I'd prefer an AMA survey, for example, generally less spun.
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/11/2004 14:53 Comments ||
Top||
#43
Do those of you who support the pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense, also support the right of the medical profession to refuse to teach necessary procedures?
I don't. Of course aspiring doctors should be taught how to perform abortions in order to save the mother's life where necessary. A doctor who lacks the knowledge needed to do this is not a complete physician.
This has nothing whatsoever in common with a fully-trained, competent pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription that he is completely capable of filling, that is not a life-saving prescription, and that is readily available at almost no inconvenience and no added cost to the patient.
You and Aris are completely misunderstanding the vast social and professional gulf between doctors and pharmacists, a difference that is encoded in the law and reinforced by the much more extensive array of legal and professional restrictions applying to the former.
Unlike pharmacists, medical doctors do not ply their trade inside grocery stores or Walmarts or next to barbershops and banks. The presumption is that dispensing prescription drugs, while it should be licensed, does not create a sensitive personal doctor-patient relationship imposing all manner of obligations and delicate professional judgments.
Doctors have great obligations under this relationship, obligations that have been reinforced through many years of training and through peer review boards. Pharmacists do not. There is no "Journal of Pharmacological Ethics" or pharmacological equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath. Pharmacists are just guys in white coats with a specialized undergraduate degree who know how to mix drugs.
#45
So if I go to a grocery store and the clerk thinks it is immoral to sell me beer that the store stocks, that is OK? When people serve the public interest, at what point is it permissible to force one's own "moral" values on another? The pharmacist cannot refuse to sell to someone based on their race even though it might conflict with their "moral" values. I don't see the difference here. As for BD's comment, ending a life through abortion is not the same as preventing one. Catholics do practice the rhythm method of birth control. It is still birth control. The customer has no right to "demand" that the pharmacy stock birth control pills if they do not and the magazine customer has no right to demand that pornographic magazines be stocked.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
11/11/2004 14:58 Comments ||
Top||
#46
No one should have to sell anything they don't want to, but they should have to give the prescription slip back. As I see it, that belongs to the patient until the pharmacist dispenses the medicine.
Aris, I don't think you understand U.S. and state laws regarding drugs and professional licenses. Just because there are illegal drugs in no way implies a right to any legal drug from any legal pharmacist. My state regulates alcoholic beverage sales by only selling them through state-run stores, but that doesn't mean that my local state-run store has to carry or provide every type of alcoholic beverage. And just because I bought something there before does not mean that they have to sell it to me again on demand or on short notice. Do you live in the real world, Aris, or are you still a university student?
Posted by: Tom ||
11/11/2004 15:01 Comments ||
Top||
#47
So if I go to a grocery store and the clerk thinks it is immoral to sell me beer that the store stocks, that is OK?
Folks, please try to keep your eye on the ball. If you're going to argue by analogy, get the anology straight in the first place. It was the pharmacists' employer, not the pharmacist, who chose not to dispense contraceptives. The right analogy here would be a grocery that does not stock alcohol, not a clerk who refuses to sell the store's alcohol that any other clerk will gladly sell.
Really, this is getting out of hand. Abortion comparisons?! Scenarios in which the checkout girl won't sell beer that's on the shelf?! It's just a pharmacy, folks. There's one on every corner. The hyperventilating here is ludicrous.
#48
Agree about the hyperventilation, but say "abortion" and it happens. Sort of like "Nazi" or "slavery". OTOH, Bulldog, you get it! Sure you're not a closet American?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/11/2004 15:18 Comments ||
Top||
#49
Deacon Blues, there's a federal law against racial discrimination. There's no law that says that a grocery store has to stock beer. If I own the grocery store, that's my choice. It's not a matter of "the public interest". If my employee decides to not sell you the beer that I stock for purposes of selling to you, then he's fired.
Incidentally, re #24, it is not illegal for me to discriminate against Aris on the basis of his arrogance. I spent 20 years in the corporate world taking every assignment that my bosses dished out. One of the big pleasures of self-employment (i.e., ownership) is that I can now say "no" to jerks and crappy projects.
Posted by: Tom ||
11/11/2004 15:18 Comments ||
Top||
#50
"We're talking about a pharmacist's right to choose." No we're not. We're talking about a pharmacists professional obligations. Again, religion does not have the right to dictate to the scientific community. If the pharmacist feels that strongly, she should work for a pharmacy that doesn't stock the drugs. Again, it's not a life choice drug. How about it's use for prevention of migranes. Or incapacitating menstral cramps. Or etc.
Posted by: Weird Al ||
11/11/2004 15:25 Comments ||
Top||
#51
Deacon Blues, there's a federal law against racial discrimination.
The fact of the *existence* of the federal law, doesn't make such law either right or wrong.
The full libertarian argument hates that law against racial discriminaiton as much as it would hate obliging pharmacists to sell against their will.
Incidentally, re #24, it is not illegal for me to discriminate against Aris on the basis of his arrogance.
And I'd be willing to defend your right to reject projects on the basis of my arrogance. But then again you are not a doctor or a pharmacist. If you were a doctor or a pharmacist I would *not* defend your right to reject me on the basis of my arrogance. Certainly not without ample notice, anyway, nor without referring me to someone who would accept me.
#52
Again, folks, THINK: Pharmacists and doctors are not comparable.
The former do not have anywhere near so extensive a set of professional, ethical and legal obligations as the latter. They're hardly more privileged than the other guys employed by Walmart, the ones stocking the shelves with diapers and fizzy drinks.
If you still can't grasp this crucial distinction, then ask yourself why doctor-patient relationships are privileged, or why doctors typically receive over 8 years of post-graduate training while pharmacists have only bachelor's-level training.
Or look at the profound legal differences. If your obstetrician refuses to perform a medically-necessary abortion to save your life, that is a violation of the Hippocratic oath and potentially a fatal catastrophe that may well expose him to criminal prosecution. If the pharmacist on one corner refuses to fill your birth-control prescription, that's an absurdly minor inconvenience that is of no importance to anyone. Get some perspective, and put this asinine non-controversy to bed.
#53
Actually, Aris, some doctors in the U.S. are screening and rejecting some patients so as to reduce malpractice claims and malpractice insurance costs. As for referring you to someone else, why would I or a doctor have any obligation to refer you. It just wastes our time and puts us at legal risk if you have a problem later. Refer yourself.
Posted by: Tom ||
11/11/2004 15:43 Comments ||
Top||
#54
#53. As a physician, you can certainly refuse to accept any patient before the fact. Once one of your staff have made an appointment for that patient, you have a doctor-patient relationship, even before they walk through the door. At that point refusing to refer the patient to someone else without giving 30 day notice opens you to a charge of abandonment, and puts you at both legal and financial risk. Sorry. I have to deal with this every day. And kicking someone out for being a pain in the ass can open you for trouble with their HMO unless you convince the HMO it's OK.
Posted by: Weird Al ||
11/11/2004 15:49 Comments ||
Top||
#55
If the pharmacist on one corner refuses to fill your birth-control prescription, that's an absurdly minor inconvenience that is of no importance to anyone.
That's a pretty cavalier attitude there, lex. I personally don't know how hard it would be to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy. I do know that missing a pill for just one day can alter the effectiveness of the pill. It may be a minor inconvenience to you if it results in contraceptive failure, but it might be something much more traumatic to someone else.
#56
I'm not going to get into this in detail, Weird Al, but there are many ways to cause patients/clients to go somewhere else for their procedures without having them realize that your main motivation is to get rid of them.
Posted by: Tom ||
11/11/2004 15:57 Comments ||
Top||
#57
#56. Of course there are. You don't even have to pretend. Just tell them "you and I don't seem to be getting along". "You have 30 days to find someone else." No problemo. That's not the point. You don't do it without proper warning. If you do in this profession, sooner or later you're going to get nailed.
Posted by: Weird Al ||
11/11/2004 16:03 Comments ||
Top||
#58
Free-Market Capitalism, again, is the answer. If the company owning the pharmacy doesn't want to sell a product, then that's that. If a Phamacist doesn't want to sell a product offered by the company that employs them, then they should move along - they don't have the right to make the call. Waaaay simple.
#59
The article doesn't say the Pharmacist owns the CVS Pharmacy. If that is the case, then the pharmacist may be perfectly within her rights not to sell birth control pills. But to fill the prescription for a period of time and without warning refuse to re-fill it, in my opinion, is wrong.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
11/11/2004 16:08 Comments ||
Top||
#60
CVS is a HUGE chain - hundreds of stores. I assure you the Pharmacists in question does NOT own it.
#61
Thanks, .com. Someone owns the individual store, but as part of the franchise they bought, they follow the rules CVS lays down. Mickey D's don't get to decide whether or not they're selling big macs. Free-market indeed. You work for the chain, you don't like their rules, you go work somewhere else. Way simple .
Posted by: Weird Al ||
11/11/2004 16:15 Comments ||
Top||
#62
Tom, my point is that in this country (US) people can be forced by law to do things they feel are against their moral principles. Retail stores are considered , for law purposes, to be in the public interest. Hence anti discrimination laws for restaurants or any other retail service. You can't refuse to sell things to people, or provide a service to them based on their race. I never said there was a law that the grocery store has to stock beer. I think the analogy is still the same. Refusal to provide someone a good based on your moral principles. If that is a policy stated up front, fine. A pharmacist who owns the pharmacy can stock and sell whatever he or she wants. Having provided a good previously and their being an implied contract (the statement on the container about refills) the pharmacist is obligated to provide the good again.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
11/11/2004 16:23 Comments ||
Top||
#63
Frank, I'm sorry you don't like my sources. I did a quick google, and those were the first relevent ones to come up. I can't find anything on the AMA site, but WebMD has a nice article that provides similar statistics. WebMD is aimed at the general reader, providing information from the AMA and peer-reviewed journals in layman's terms across the range of medical issues and concerns. I'm not trying to advocate for/against abortion per se, but rather to point out the concern that the current generation of doctors is not properly trained in a necessary technique, because certain individuals have chosen to loudly impose their opinions of one aspect of use of that technique upon the whole field.
But still, you haven't addressed my question: is this pharmacist entitled to refuse to sell me birth control pills that I need for an off-label purpose that directly addresses my ability to function beyond the edge of my mattress? (In case you wondered: I most sincerely wish I were exaggerating about this. But I'm not.)
#64
.com-CVS is a huge chain, true, and getting bigger all the time. Osco is fading in Illinois, with Walgreens taking their place and CVS trying to nudge in. When I lived in NY, I got a rude awakening on what NY considers a good drug store. The 2 CVS's I went to in Westchester County were empty, filthy stores attended by rude, clueless clerks. This incident may be exposing a bigger customer service/good business problem with CVS. In which case, the market will decide to push them into insignificance anyway.
#65
One must always consider the personal and political motivations behind Aris' posts.
Regarding the article: it seems unlikely to me that it's true. I mean, what kind of birth control pill was it? If there was a change in policy or providers, wouldn't she have known? Is this just ONE person at the pharmacy? A word of caution. Creating straw dogs/fake stories is one of the ploys of Planned Parenthood. One of their main arguments is that the "govenment wants to control your body." Whatever. You'll be hearing scads of these stories throughout the next four years since ("faith-based") Bush won the election. Their goal as an industry is to earn dollars. The abortion industry is a non-regulated industry. They want to keep it that way. But it's losing money becase women are wising up. So I always take anything they say to be geared toward their specific ideological/business concerns. Linking legitimate discourse and critique to extreme occurences is their strategy to limit discourse and critique of the real issues. "If you stop partial birth abortions, they'll take away your birth control pills!" ALERT! ALERT! Religious extremists are so populating pharmacies that you can't get your birth control pills! The religious right is interfering with your life! AHHHhhhhhh! See, we told you!
If the guy really didn't fill her prescription, I generally agree with Weird Al #18, 50 and Kelven Zero #3.
Of course, RU486 pill has been proven to be dangerous due to increased risk of severe hemmorage. It's a bad drug. I wouldn't blame anybody--religious or not--if they wouldn't fill that type of prescription. Some physicians (pharmacists are physicians--lex must be thinking of pharmacy techs) take the (original) Hippocratic Oath seriously.
There is much misinformation out there regarding the subject of abortion, which is what this is really about. For example, a lot of med schools force interns to perform abortions--which goes against the conscience of some. Abortion is big business, and since is it unregulated, many ob/gyns peform abortions on the weekends and earn anywhere from $2000-$10,000 in cash, which they can pocket. If something goes wrong, they send the woman to the hospital claiming a "botched abortion" by some back-alley kook. Of course they want to know how to do it. Follow the money.
As a former prochoice advocate, may I recommend Feminists for Lifeas a starting point for research--the Voices of Women section is really interesting, or this link or this link which feature physcians with interesting viewpoints.
#66
I think a pharmacist is free (within the approval of their employer) to dispense whatever they feel correct in dispensing. Should they feel Vioxx (to pick a recent example) is not OK - they should say so up front and publicly and state why. You are free to visit any number of pharmacies, and the company employing a pharm that will not dispense necessary meds for invalid reasons will fire them. This is a spinoff of the requirements that Catholic charities provide birth-control and abortion coverage for all employees - a big argument here in CA. Make the restrictions known upfront and let the consumer choose accordingly
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/11/2004 16:40 Comments ||
Top||
#67
Jules187 - they are (almost) literally on every corner here in Sin City - and competing head to head with Wahlgren's. Never been inside either, so I can't address that aspect.
But employees do not tell employers what actions they will and will not do on the job. That's just phreakin' stupid - and no matter what BS pseudo-morality might be attached to doing one's job, that is still not an employee's call. Ever. No likee? Fine, pack up your shit and get the fuck out - someone else wants the job. This is an incredibly fucked-up thread --- i.e. it is Arisified.
#68
This is an incredibly fucked-up thread --- i.e. it is Arisified.
Yeah, 9 posts of mine out of 67 -- but the length is all again clearly my own fault, and not caused at all by the fact there's real controversy here and people may have honest differing opinions about it.
One must always consider the personal and political motivations behind Aris' posts.
My motivations in this thread have so far been only political. Except when calling Bulldog an asshole, or Sock Puppet a moron.
#69
Aris, your argument about regulated professions versus laissez faire markets is pedantic and borders on asinine (an improvement from your normal commentary to be certain, but still ....) The licensure of a professional by any government carries with it certain rights and may also impose certain obligations for the good of those served. If the licensing agency chooses to impose a requirement that the professional to be licensed must always perform services upon any demand, they're clearly free to do so.
The proper question here is whether or not the state that licensed the pharmacist in question imposed such a requirement as a quid pro quo for granting said license. If not, as is almost certainly the case, then it is abundantly clear that the pharmacist is free to provide or withhold services as he/she so chooses for whatever reason and with respect to whatever goods. No obligation can exist where none has been imposed.
When a pharmacist acts within the strictures imposed on them by the state that granted thier license but in a manner a customer does not like the issue that arises is between the pharmacist and his/her employer as well as between the business employing the pharmacist and the customer. Both are, of course, more than capable of resolution within the limited free market for pharmacy services that exists in the US.
#70
"The proper question here is whether or not the state that licensed the pharmacist in question imposed such a requirement as a quid pro quo for granting said license"
The question is not only whether it imposed such a requirement, but whether it *should* impose such a requirement in the future.
#71
And there you have it. The imagined high ground of moral superiority. Justifies absofuckinglutely anything - if you can take it and hold it. At least it does in the eyes of those who believe in the infallibility of the imposed social-engineering game. It's good to be King - of the game.
#72
Aris, Aris, Aris, how can you be so dumb? No body is going to impose a requirement on pharmacists in this country to fill every Rx they get, any more than the guvmint is going to tell me who I can treat. We both are expected to use our best judgement. That doesn't mean we can abandon patients just because we don't like them. We give them fair warning, then give them the gate. That's all.
Posted by: Wierd Al ||
11/11/2004 19:44 Comments ||
Top||
#73
Aris, Aris, Aris, how can you be so dumb? No body is going to impose a requirement on pharmacists in this country
Why is it so difficult for you people to understand that what *is* isn't always what *should* be?
Why am I attacked for not only discussing the particulars of the law as it currently stand, but also the particulars of the law as I feel it should be?
Are your brains *so* rotted that you can't understand even the concept of disagreement about alternate possible policies?
One thing I haven't discussed or mentioned at all, Weird Al, and that is the *likelihood* of America ever using my ideas. So when you say "Nobody is going to impose a requirement on pharmacists in this country to fill every Rx they get" my response to you is "So? Does the fact that nobody is going to, means that nobody *should*?"
I full-well understand the difference between desire and reality. You people not only fail to understand the difference, you go rabid at the thought of anyone contemplating said difference.
How am I dumb, Weird Al, for saying about what obligations I feel the pharmacists *should* have towards the public? Please do explain that.
As for .com, his main participation in any thread has long since been the effort to attempt to stifle any and all debate. He attacks liberalhawk when he's discussing alternate possibilities, he attacks me for "imagined high ground of moral superiority" using long sentences that amount to squat but a mocking insult -- and is offended at any thread that contains anything else other than booing or cheering. He's particularly offended at this debate since it ended up dividing regular mainstream Rantburger participants as well -- any debate is eeeeevil according to .com. Any thread where not everyone shares the same opinion is "fucked up" and "Arisified".
.com is a fine example of a person offended by even the concept of argumentation or debate.
#74
No Aris, the proper question to be answered before castigating the pharmacist in question is whether or not such a requirement has already been imposed on him/her. If not, no harm no foul. It's as simple as that. The question you're trying to use to blur this discussion is wholly different not in the least because it is necessarily forward-looking as opposed to the proper question which must necessarily look to the past.
There's a practical consideration here as well: namely a Constitutionally protected freedom of religion consideration that you entirely neglect in your analysis. For example, the religious beliefs of conscientious objectors must be respected and protected even by our military largely due to the First Amendment's protection of the freedom of religion in the US. Do you really believe a licensing regulation that rode roughshod over the licensee's freedom of religion for the sake of nothing more than the convenience of consumers would survive a Constitutional challenge? If so you're woefully uninformed.
Argue that the 1st Amendment to our Constitution should be repealed if you will, but I think you'll find that the overwhelming majority of us are very happy with it.
#76
Why am I attacked for not only discussing the particulars of the law as it currently stand, but also the particulars of the law as I feel it should be?
For one because you're either utterly ignorant of the Constitutional basis of many of the freedoms we enjoy or you don't believe in said Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. When you attack them, as you've done here, you insult the very ideals upon which our nation was founded. That's not going to make you very popular around here.
#77
One thing though: .com succeeded here. By again using my name as an insult in #67 (when my last participation in this thread was 16 posts earlier, btw) he attempted to turn discussion away from the issue of the thread and onto my own person.
And he succeeded. Congrats .com!! Again you managed to destroy a discussion through a personal attack. You are a truly competent villain.
#78
Aris, have you ever noticed you start more arguments than discussions?
Ever wondered why you're the common element?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/11/2004 20:13 Comments ||
Top||
#79
I think that Bulldog's conclusion back at #35 should just about wrap it up. "And that's where I end this debate, asshole."
[For those of you who are shocked at his impropriety, please note that Aris used the word first against him in #30.]
Posted by: Tom ||
11/11/2004 20:15 Comments ||
Top||
#80
No Aris, the proper question to be answered before castigating the pharmacist in question is whether or not such a requirement has already been imposed on him/her.
No, I'm allowed to castigate the pharmacist in question regardless of whether he/she was violating the law or not. I don't call him/her a criminal, I called him/her unfit to be a pharmacist. That's a personal judgmenent on my part against him/her, involving what I feel it takes to make a pharmacist worthy of the task inherent in the name.
Or don't you have freedom of opinion in that Bill of Rights?
Do you really believe a licensing regulation that rode roughshod over the licensee's freedom of religion for the sake of nothing more than the convenience of consumers would survive a Constitutional challenge?
I have no idea. America reinterprets the meaning of its Bill of Rights through the courts every couple of decades, after all. I'm not fully aware what the current level of interpretation stands as.
#84
"Does the fact that nobody is going to, means that nobody *should*" Yes, it means no body should. In spades. Christ you are stupid. Valid reasons not to fill a script: 1# The patient has Rx from multiple MDs, and this one is going to interact terrbly with current scripts. 2# the patient is filling multiple narcotic scripts from multiple MDs. #3 The patient appears drunk or stoned and incapable of understanding dangerous side effects. 4# the signature looks forged. Etc. Just as I don't have to write a narcotic Rx for someone just because they demand it. Get a life.
Posted by: Weird Al ||
11/11/2004 20:36 Comments ||
Top||
#85
.com is my idol. Still, you're wrong aris :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/11/2004 20:39 Comments ||
Top||
#86
Nice argument ad hominem (a hallmark of a weak debater) but I'm not going to take your bait or let you off the hook.
I called him/her unfit to be a pharmacist.
You have no objective basis for making that factual assertion because as we've already discussed it's a virtual certainty that there's no requirement that the pharmacist act as you believe he/she should. It would be well within the bounds of discussion to express your opinion e.g., "I don't believe a pharmacist should ..." but you're far out of bounds in making a factual assertion e.g. saying that he/she is, "...unfit to be a pharmacist." Those are very different statements and you have absolutely no basis for the factual assertion.
America reinterprets the meaning of its Bill of Rights through the courts every couple of decades ....
Actually we interpret our Constitution through the courts every day, not "...every couple of decades." You're apparently as ignorant of the process as you are the current interpretation. I'll leave it for others here to judge the merits of your arguments accordingly.
#87
Weird Al> Yes, THOSE are valid reasons. But I don't think "Because I don't wanna" is such a valid reason for a professional in healthcare. And so-called religious objection usually boils down to "I don't wanna".
I don't like the elevation of religious belief beyond what it is -- mere opinion.
"Does the fact that nobody is going to, means that nobody *should*" Yes, it means no body should
You have either a difficulty with parsing language, or a difficulty with understanding of logic, or are conformist extra-ordinaire. You feel they shouldn't for *different* reason that the fact that "nobody is going to".
#88
AzCat> "but you're far out of bounds in making a factual assertion e.g. saying that he/she is, "...unfit to be a pharmacist." Those are very different statements and you have absolutely no basis for the factual assertion."
There's no difference whatsoever in speech between "I think he's unfit to be a pharmacist" and "He's unfit to be a pharmacist", except that the latter isn't as modest as the former. Other than that *ofcourse* I'm expressing a personal value judgment when I'm calling someone unfit for something. I never said "Anyone who's sane will see it's factual truth he's unfit", I said the plain "He's unfit.", which clearly indicates my own *opinion* on the subject. What else could it be indicating?
If I were humbler I'd have added "IMHO" ofcourse, though "IMAO" would right now be more accurate. But those are decorations. Normal people know that calling someone fit or unfit or something is a matter of opinion. How many of you must have called Kerry unfit for President? Can you all swear you always predated your comments with "I think" and "I believe"? No, those were implied, as is natural in speech.
#89
If you check about a hundred posts back, you'll see that I said emphaticly that the pharmacist should not refuse to fill a script based on religious objections, and I've said that same that over and over. However, I've also said that if she objects, she should get employment where it won't be a problem. Once again, religion cannot dictate terms to a scientific situation, particularly if you are an employee. This is different that saying the pharmacist "should" be made to do these things. No, she should not. In any way. but she shouldn't choose to work in a place where it's going to be an issue. Anymore than she should feel she has a right to hand out religious tracts at her place of employment.
Posted by: Weird Al ||
11/11/2004 21:11 Comments ||
Top||
#90
There's no difference whatsoever in speech between "I think he's unfit to be a pharmacist" and "He's unfit to be a pharmacist".
No difference at all other than the former being a statement of your opinion and the latter being a statement of fact, modesty has nothing to do with it. I suggest that you attempt to discern the difference between opinions and facts before continuing this discussion.
How many of you must have called Kerry unfit for President?
That's entirely irrelevant, we're talking about pharmacists.
Normal people know that calling someone fit or unfit or something is a matter of opinion.
Fit or unfit is a matter of fact where actions of those to be judged can be measured against objective standards. Licensure of professionals impose objective standards of conduct on the licensed professionals, ergo if you cannot show a breach of those objective standards you cannot judge one fit or unfit to practice their profession. It's that simple.
It appears that what you really want to criticize are the licensing standards of the pharmacy profession yet you persist in attacking the pharmacist for acting properly within the existing standards by which he/she is to be judged. You're obviously quite confused. What you intend to say is, "The standards of licensing pharmacists in the state in question do not agree with my own internal moral code" but it keeps coming out as, "The pharmacist in question is not fit to practice his/her profession." A bit of clear thinking would go a long way towards bolstering your argument but that's probably asking a bit much of an admittedly ignorant Greek socialist.
#91
"How many of you must have called Kerry unfit for President?" That's entirely irrelevant, we're talking about pharmacists.
LOL!!! Yeah, I think that says it all for your argument.
AzCat, I suggest *you* learn the difference between opinions and facts -- and you should also understand that beyond the kindergarten level not all opinion need be prefaced by "My opinion is". One is still allowed to simply *state* what his opinion is, and unless he explicitely claims it to be a fact you have no business misrepresenting him as doing so.
It appears that what you really want to criticize are the licensing standards of the pharmacy profession yet you persist in attacking the pharmacist for acting properly within the existing standards by which he/she is to be judged.
If my words keep coming out as "The pharmacist in question is not fit to practice his/her profession", that's probably because that's *exactly* the way I mean them: According to my opinion, the pharmacist in question is not fit to practice his/her profession *AND* if the standards of licensing pharmacists don't reflect that, then said standards should change.
#92
Yeah, I think that says it all for your argument.
Of couse it does. It says that I intend to keep this discussion on-topic rather than allowing you to sidetrack it onto irrelevant issues.
I suggest *you* learn the difference between opinions and facts -- and you should also understand that beyond the kindergarten level not all opinion need be prefaced by "My opinion is".
Interesting suggestion coming from someone who's proven themselves incapable of phrasing a statement properly. Perhaps it doesn't translate well into Greek but there's a very real difference between factual assertions and subjective judgements and how they're worded or at least that's what they told me in law school.
#93
Perhaps it's your own inability to tell your opinions from facts that's at the root of this problem, AzCat. Most people recognize that what they state is their opinions, and that when they make a judgement it's *their* judgment, that's why they don't need to mention it all the time. If I was referring to some universal rating system of pharmacists which factually and objectively had rated him unfit, be sure I'd have let you known.
Same as when I called Bulldog an asshole, I called the pharmacist unfit, using my own judgment. I didn't say "I think Bulldog is an asshole" and for the same reason I didn't say "I think the pharmacist is unfit". Kinda ruins the momentum, don't you think?
#94
Perhaps it's your own inability to tell your opinions from facts that's at the root of this problem....
Not at all Aris, I work with what people actually say without attributing to them things they might or might not mean. Again, there are ways to phrase opinions and there are ways to phrase factual assertions, it's all fairly straightforward.
If I was referring to some universal rating system of pharmacists ....
That would be irrelevant. What would be relevant is the particular licensing standards in place in the US state in question and the interplay of that system with the Constitutional rights of pharmacists in said state. Again, you appear too ignorant of the relevant issues to intelligently comment.
I called the pharmacist unfit, using my own judgment.
Now that you've admitted that your factual assertion was really nothing more than your subjective opinion we can safely ignore your thoughts since objective standards are in place to judge the conduct of pharmacists in their practices. Those objective standards cannot both remain within the bounds of our Constitution and adhere to your own internal code of morality.
I hate to be the one to burst your bubble Aris but within the United States, our Constitution will trump Aris Katsaris' personal code of morality every single time. Thus where your morality conflicts with the US Constitution your view is moot and of no interest and your argument is specious because your position is quite clearly unconstitutional. You must first defeat the concept of freedom of religion as we recognize it here in the US, then you may properly return to the issue of the propriety of the prohibition of the free exercise of religion by professional licensing standards. Cart -> horse. HTH.
Like I said many times: it's all relatively simple but I do understand that it might be a bit much for an admittedly ignorant Greek socialist to comprehend so I've been trying to help you out.
#95
Just repeat "admittedly ignorant Greek socialist" a couple more times and that will exorcise away any need to use any need for arguments or indeed any need for sentient thought.
And as a sidenote I'm only a "socialist" in the sense that I'm not a libertarian.
Now that you've admitted that your factual assertion was really nothing more than your subjective opinion
Oooh, I *admitted* that my stated opinion was my stated opinion. Given that from the start of the discussion I've been framing the issue as a difference of opinion, your late understanding of the same (atleast 80 posts overdue) says something about your own intelligence and understanding of language.
I hate to be the one to burst your bubble Aris but within the United States, our Constitution will trump Aris Katsaris' personal code of morality every single time
And your Constitution says that religious conscience trumps professional obligations? I've not read the Bill of Rights that way, and I seem to have missed the Court decision interpreting as such. Direct me to it, please.
I wonder how far that interpretation extends. For example, if a surgeon on the operating table decided that his religion stated to kill his patient, would he not only be acquitted of murder but even kept in his profession?
#96
In #9 you recognized that the dispensation of drugs was limited to a select few, namely pharmacists. In #20 and posts infra you explicitly recognized the licensure of pharmacies, only partially correct in that the issue here is the licensure of an individual pharmacist. The licensure of a business that employs individual pharmacists is a tangential issue at best since you framed the issue with respect to the individual pharmacist when you started this thread, but still you did properly recognize the existence of a licensing process.
Given that you were aware that at least someone involved in the pharmacy business must obtain a license prior to engaging in the trade, and given that said licensing process must necessarily include objective standards for licensure and will include objective standards for conduct, your assertion that your later statement on the fitness of an individual to practice this profession was merely opinion is highly suspect. You clearly knew of the existence of a licensing process comprising objective standards and made a statement that is prima facie a statement of fact; ergo if you intended your statement to be interpreted as other than a statement of fact the impetus was on you to clearly identify it as opinion. Since you did not do so the statement must be interpreted in light of the knowledge you displayed earlier, namely as an interpretation of the objective standards which you had early acknowledged.
Thus your statement standing alone was a statement of fact but it was also a statement of fact interpreted in light of your other statements earlier in the conversation. I'm sorry if English it too nuanced for you but that's just how it is. BTW: the âEnglish is only my 12th languageâ argument is the only one you have left. Use it to good effect.
And your Constitution says that religious conscience trumps professional obligations?
Yes it does, no question about it. It's the highest law in the land and where any government action violates it said government action is illegal. That much is crystal clear.
Just repeat "admittedly ignorant Greek socialist" a couple more times and that will exorcise away any need to use any need for arguments or indeed any need for sentient thought.
But Aris you are an admittedly ignorant Greek socialist. Well, you're an admittedly ignorant socialist anyway but I believe you've stated in the past that you're Greek as well.
I give you credit for being at least mildly intelligent thus I inferred that when you claimed to be a "progressive liberal" you meant it in the American sense because in the European sense that phrase is an oxymoron while in the American sense it is merely redundant. You might use such a redundant term in English to reinforce the idea you're trying to convey. Since progressive and liberal (in the American sense) are synonymous we're left to infer that you wanted to express precisely how far off the left end of the political scale you really are. You don't seem like a communist thus I stopped at socialist. Isn't it just dandy when people infer your meaning?
As for your being "admittedly ignorant" that's not an insult that's a factual observation. You stated above that you're ignorant of the current interpretation of our Constitution thus you are, by your own words, "admittedly ignorant."
#98
Nobody is answering Trailing Wife's question. I too was prescribed birth control pills for reasons unrelated to preventing pregnancy. Do I have to wear a scarlet letter because the pharmacist has decided that I am a slut?
#99
SC88 - I personally don't think the pharmacist should question you about the purpose of your prescription. You and Trailing Wife are more than free to, as a former coworker used to day, "Vote with your feet." That seems the obvious solution since nearly every business in this nation reserves the right to refuse service to any of us for any reason. Why should pharmacists be any different, particuarly when there's a Constitutional issue in the mix?
Good work, France.
British troops - believed to include members of the SAS - have been sent to the troubled West African state of Ivory Coast. They will finalise contingency plans for the rescue of hundreds of UK citizens, including diplomatic staff, should the violence in the west African state spiral out of control. As thousands of French citizens began to flee their former colony yesterday after days of anti-French riots and looting, Downing Street said plans were in place for British nationals to follow. The British military team has been sent to prepare a safe passage from the embassy in Abidjan to the airport. A larger force is on stand-by in Britain to join it should evacuation become necessary. Anti-French feeling remained at fever pitch yesterday, with mobs attacking United Nations and French convoys ferrying expatriates to the airport. "It has now turned into an anti-white rampage," said a Canadian UN official. "The mobs are urging each other to find and kill any whites they can get their hands on."
Posted by: Bulldog ||
11/11/2004 8:19:48 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
My liberal and progressive acquaintences have always told me that only White People are bigoted (sp?) racists.
They couldn't have possibly been mistaken, could they?
/sarcasm
AR
Posted by: Analog Roam ||
11/11/2004 8:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Did'nt send in enough troops, if they are looting. Well the French and the left have said that about Iraq, anyway.
#3
I for one am in favor of expanding the permanent membership of the UN security council and giving a seat to the Ivory Coast.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
11/11/2004 8:54 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The French have brought this on themselves by importing millions of illegal Muslim immigrants into Ivory Coast and then helping them to take the country over, step by step. The non-Muslim natives are merely trying to take their country back after having been the subject of a bloodless Muslim invasion.
#10
I'm with the Ivorians on this one. France has backed the Muslims. Many of which are illegals from Burkina Faso. Perhaps we should offer an alliance?
#18
"It has now turned into an anti-white rampage," said a Canadian UN official. "The mobs are urging each other to find and kill any whites they can get their hands on."
"You have to understand their rage." - Rep. Maxine Waters (D)on the L.A. riots.
Vitamin E supplements, taken by many people in hopes of warding off heart disease, do not work and may actually make the condition worse, researchers say. "People take vitamin E because they think it's going to make them live longer. This doesn't support that at all," said Dr. Edgar Miller of Johns Hopkins University, who led the new analysis. The study was reported Wednesday at an American Heart Association conference in New Orleans and was also published online by the Annals of Internal Medicine. Many people continue to take vitamin E despite Heart Association guidelines saying it doesn't work and recent research suggesting it can interfere with statin drugs. The study was an analysis of 19 previous studies involving a total of about 136,000 people who took vitamin E alone or in combination with other vitamins. Those taking 400 international units per day or more - the amount in most vitamin E supplements - had 10 times the risk of dying as those taking 200 units or less. Great, I just brought more last week..
Most multivitamins contain 35 to 40 units of vitamin E, which the study suggests might be slightly beneficial for health, Miller said. "I spend all my time trying to tell patients why they should not take vitamin E," Dr. Raymond Gibbons, a Mayo Clinic cardiologist and chairman of the American Heart Association conference. "Too often in terms of the supplements there's very scant science. In this area, we have the science. Vitamin E doesn't work."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
11/11/2004 4:47:52 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is one of my pet peeves: women's health studies. Rarely does a week go by where the very (food, product, supplement, procedure) that was touted last month as a cure for (breast cancer, "female troubles", you name it) is found to be the cause of something else equally or even more dire. I'm so tired of the stories on the news threatening me with the latest studies; I really feel like the (yes, MSM) considers me (and women in general) as total idiots, unable to care for ourselves without their "guidance". Feh. /rant
#2
I wonder if they corrected for obvious sample bias.
In other words,, its more likely that heart patients and such would be the ones on Vitamin E, and not normal healthy people, so of course you'll find a larger percentage of heart problems with Vitamin E users. Its like saying that people on blood pressure medication are more likely to have strokes than those not on it - which is true for the general population, but not true for those with high blood pressure.
This smells like "bad science". And cardiologists seem to be no better at it than anyone else, given their repeated rejection of the Atkins diet, even after it was shown to work - in clinical studies as well as in "the real world" - to reduce the risk of cardiac problems in the target group (Syndrome X people).
These are the same experts who devised the food pyramid that has resulted in the fattest population on earth.
#3
"135,967 adults who had participated in 19 studies. Many were older than 60 years of age. About 60% had heart disease or a risk factor for heart disease, such as tobacco use and high blood pressure." Taken from an online summary of the article.
Meta-Analysis study involving 19 different studies. Never did trust this type of analysis. Not to say it isn't true, just suspect. On the other side, also highly suspect is the idea "if it's natural, it can't hurt me". Right. Please swallow this pound of nightshade and get back to me tomorrow.
Posted by: Weird Al ||
11/11/2004 11:24 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Hmmmm....I always referred to Ecstasy as "vitamin E".... ;)
A 56-year-old US woman became the oldest American to give birth to twins on Tuesday in New York, also going down in the history books as one of the oldest new mothers in the US. "I feel terrific," Aleta Saint-James — who underwent three years of fertility treatment and had her twins through in vitro fertilisation with donated eggs — gushed at a news conference yesterday at New York's Mount Sinai Hospital. "Holding these children is just the most incredible thing that I've ever done in my life and the best gift God could have given to me," she said. "I was in a good physical condition and my mental energy is very balanced. I knew I could give extraordinary things to these children," she said, shrugging off suggestions that she should not have followed her dream of giving birth.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
11/11/2004 4:26:53 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
sorry if i offend anyone , but this seems as a drastically risky thing . She'll also be senile and incontinent b4 her twins reach 20 , leaving them to spend the important years of their life caring for this very selfish woman
#2
You nailed it, MacN. And if she has any fewer than four nannies(one for each child day shift/night shift), that mental energy will be unbalanced within the month. I saw myself being vital until my 120th birthday (I've got genentics on my side), but Chronic Fatigue Syndrome stepped in -- life is full of these little surprises, and generally when they are least welcome. I hope she has three trusts set up and fully funded: university education for each of the kids, and 20 years worth of old age care for herself. Selfish, fer sher! But "woman" may be too polite a term.
#3
What is really disgusting is that doctors spent three years to make her pregnant. Don't they have anything better to do with their training? They are the real whores here.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/11/2004 7:42 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I saw her on TV.. eeewwweee...
She could just manage to get up to the speakers stand.
This is a stupid stunt.
#5
Look on the bright side: at least there are still people in this country willing to bear and raise children, despite the hardship, risk and inconvenience. Could be worse-- look at EUrabia's slow suicide.
#8
I was 54 when my youngest child was born. He is now a mischievous toddler at 18 months and an absolute joy to have around (he is right here right now, no doubt trying to figure out some way to sabotage what dad is doing).
There are more than a few differences between our case and this woman's though:
1. Genetics are strongly on my side. There is no history of dementia or Alzheimer's in my family. My grandmother is 102, fully mobile, and as sharp mentally as she ever was.
2. Er, to put it as delicately as possible, we did not require medical intervention to conceive the baby (though we did consult a doctor about genetic and aging issues).
3. My wife is 21 years younger than I am and will be able to finish raising our son if I do happen to check out early.
4. I have already raised two children, now 30 and 22 respectively. Believe me, it gets easier with experience.
5. We only have one little guy, not two.
The low-carb craze has passed its prime, as companies report a pickup in the sales of starch-heavy food. General Mills Inc., which makes cereals such as Cheerios, Lucky Charms, Wheaties and Trix, said sales climbed almost 3 percent in the third quarter, to $2.58 billion from $2.51 billion a year ago. Although net income dropped 19 percent to $183 million in the three months ended Sept. 30, the Minneapolis company blamed higher commodity costs and restructuring instead of the "Atkins effect" as it had done earlier this year.
Fewer people are using the Atkins, South Beach and other low-carb diets these days, as they grow tired of the high-protein, high-fat diets -- lots of meat, no starch -- and health professionals question the long-term consequences of those food choices. The percentage of Americans on low-carb diets has dropped by almost half to 4.6 percent at the end of September from 9 percent in January, its peak, said Harry Balzer, vice president of the NPD Group Inc., a Port Washington, N.Y., marketing-research company that tracks food-consumption behaviors. "Well, the increased awareness for the low-carb diet fad appears to be waning," said Mitchell Pinheiro, a food analyst for Philadelphia investment bank Janney Montgomery Scott LLC.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
11/11/2004 3:57:24 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Thank goodness.
Anyone for Manacotti?
Posted by: N Guard ||
11/11/2004 8:43 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Twinkies for everyone!
The other day I was watching an old tape, and a commercial for Grape Nuts came on. Did you know Grape Nuts has twice the carbs of most other cereals? (Or so they claimed.) For energy! I laughed and laughed.
France is evacuating its nationals from Ivory Coast after days of anti-French demonstrations. The first plane carrying 270 people from the main city Abidjan landed in Paris on Wednesday evening, and two more flights were expected follow. The disturbances came in response to France's destruction of the Ivorian air force, in retaliation for the deaths of nine French peacekeepers on Saturday. The government has called on people to return to work in riot-hit Abidjan. The BBC's James Copnall in Abidjan said the situation in the city is calmer, with some public transport now operating, and that there is a good chance some people will return to work tomorrow. But anti-French mobs are still active in Abidjan, he added.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
11/11/2004 12:42:03 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If there are 10-14000 French in the Ivory Coast, and they will all have to go, that is going to be one hell of an evacuation.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/11/2004 2:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
AP, you forget who we're talking about. These folks know how to retreat.
SEN. Zell Miller (D- Ga.) laced into New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd yesterday on the "Imus in the Morning" radio show, saying, "The more Maureen Loud [sic] gets on 'Meet the Press' and writes those columns, the redder these states get. I mean, they don't want some high brow hussy from New York City explaining to them that they're idiots and telling them that they're stupid." Miller also suggested "that red-headed woman at the New York Times" should not mock anyone's religion: "You can see horns just sprouting up through that Technicolor hair." Dowd responds: "I'm not a highbrow hussy from New York. I'm a highbrow hussy from Washington. Senator, pistols or swords?"
Oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/11/2004 12:13:36 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#8
Good point on the lady thing but I still don't see him dueling with a hussy either.
Barbara Skolaut, thanks for the correction but there really is no "t" in my last name. Everyone wants to put one in there because of that bastard Sherwood Schwartz and his Gilligans Island and Brady Bunch brainwashing but really, there isn't one just like Schwarzenegger and Schwarzkopf it's the german word for Black.
It amazes me how when Democrats win big, they can't wait for an opportunity to shut out Republicans. But when they are on the losing end, they demand conservatives reach out to them. That kind of nerve need be replaced by humility.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/11/2004 12:02:56 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The most likely democrat evolution will be much like the rise of the post-Eisenhower "country-club republican" faction. They will be a group of democrats who give support to republican efforts in exchange for largesse. Because they bring home pork to their home district, their seats will be safer and they will gain seniority in the democrat party, squeezing out the most radical. They will become comfortable in the minority, and the party will only recover once it gets new blood with new ideas and a new paradigm for success. By that time, the republicans will have faded a great deal and be in need of long-term reform.
An Islamic appeal court in Nigeria overturned a death by stoning sentence handed down to a 29-year-old pregnant woman for having sex out of wedlock, the judge said on Wednesday. Judge Mohammed Mustapha Umar said the lower court had given an incorrect sentence on Hajara Ibrahim, who had confessed to having sex with a 35-year-old man and becoming pregnant.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/11/2004 9:52:10 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
This fall, in one of the most spectacularly hyped and unsuccessful political efforts in recent memory, leftist filmmaker 
An emerging conspiracy theory among some political left wingers acccuses Republicans of stealing the 2004 presidential election. While many Americans wonder why Election Day exit polling was so inaccurate and showed Democrat John Kerry winning, liberal bloggers and activists insist the exit polls were correct and that Republican forces used fraud to help President Bush win re-election on Nov. 2nd. 
