So wrong...but so funny

Meet Oscar the death cat.



My thanks to I can has cheezburger? .

The problem with the Plan B "morality" argument

There’s a problem with these morons and their ‘argument’. For background, their argument:

"It's all about when people think life begins and there's people on both sides of that fence and it's a very controversial issue, but we feel we need to take a position based up our beliefs," said Kevin Stormans, pharmacy owner, in June of 2006.

And

"Everybody draws their own lines," [Jim] Ramseth said. "And if a person's purpose is to kill a fertilized egg, then I disagree with that. Regardless of where the practitioner draws that line, they should have the right."

Finally,

…many of Ramseth's colleagues agree that they should not be forced to provide medication with which they have moral or ethical objections.

But here’s the problem. It isn’t a moral or ethical question. It’s a question of a pharmacist’s right to be willfully ignorant of the science of a drug. The answer is, such a right doesn't exist.

Find a company that will allow you to shirk, entirely, part of your job duties because of moral or ethical objections. Go ahead, let me know what company this is. Such a thing doesn't exist - you do what your job calls for, or you find a new line of work. Being Christian, or ignorant, or Christian and ignorant, is not an excuse for not doing your job. As pharmacists, their job is to dispense legal medicines legally prescribed. Their job is to educate patients as to the procedures to follow for taking the drug, how to be safe, and any side effects. Their job is not to decide for a patient whether or not they can take a drug.

Plan B is the most egregious case, by far. The only opposition to this comes from those who consider it an "abortion pill". The science is there - Plan B does not cause abortions. It has no effect on a fertilized egg. What it does is prevent fertilization of the egg, thereby preventing the need for an abortion, birth, adoption or any other such decision. The belief that Plan B is an "abortion pill" is borne entirely of ignorance - not just run-of-the-mill ignorance, either, but willful ignorance.

If a pharmacist is allowing themselves to be convinced, by some dogma or charlatan with a political ax to grind, that the science is wrong, well...they have no business being around drugs, much less dispensing them. This has gone on long enough - it's irresponsible, and frankly if they can be this offbase about one drug, they're capable of being offbase about any drug. They're dangerous and a menace to public health. In this blogger's opinion, it's time for the state to start pulling licenses - you don't accurately understand what the drugs do, you don't get to keep your pharmacist's license.

Bush aides = dum

One of the most enlightening things about all the subpoenaed aides from the Bush administration (because frankly, the politicizing of science and "above-the-law" chicanery is unsurprising) has been how...well, dumb these aides are.
On some level, you sorta knew they weren't bringing in the best and the brightest, and with the revelations about Regents University serving as a pipeline for Bush appointees it became clear what sort of qualifications were needed, but you still sort of expected (or at least I did) that some professionalism and intelligence was needed to survive working in the highest levels of government. I mean, agree with them or not, aides from previous administrations, R and D, have been intelligent, professional people, even if they were unqualified for the specific job or were evil. Not so with this bunch.

First we had Monica Goodling, the Gonzales aide who testified that she broke the law by crossing the line, but she "didn't mean to". (btw, that last linked article sees Goodline as wicked smart - I disagree. I think we saw her as she is, and she's exactly what the administration wanted: a patsy who's ballsy until she's actually confronted.) I mean, really. A grown woman saying that she broke the law, but "didn't mean to"...as if that's a defense to be taken seriously by anyone over the age of 8? For those who think she's smart and/or mature - this is a woman who worked at an executive level in the Justice Department and carried a Hello Kitty purse. I'm just sayin'...

Today, though, we get this nugget from former White House aide Sara Taylor:

"I don't believe there was any wrongdoing by anybody," Taylor said. "I don't believe anybody in the White House did any wrongdoing."

Just for the record, CNN refers to this as a "stiff defense" of her coworkers. Seriously, read the last sentence of her statement again. "I don't believe anybody in the White House did any wrongdoing." This is not something a person would say if they had anything going on upstairs. Let's take a look at what she said in defense of herself:

Loyal to Bush even outside the White House, Taylor said she was trying not to answer questions that might violate the president's claim of executive privilege. At one point she told the committee that as a commissioned officer, "I took an oath and I take that oath to the president very seriously."

Seeing a chance to weaken Taylor's observance of Bush's executive privilege claim, Leahy corrected her: She took an oath to uphold the Constitution, he said.

"Your oath is not to uphold the president," Leahy lectured her.

She also earlier added:

"I'm trying to be consistent and perhaps have not done a great job of that," Taylor said. "I have tried."

Sound familiar? It's "I stepped over the line, but I didn't mean to" all over again.

Sadly, it's now becoming clear that this administration has surrounded itself not just with yes men, not just with ideological partisans, not just with fundamentalist toadies, not just with boot-licking sycophants, but with immature, slow-witted children in adult bodies who had the good sense or good fortune to be associated with the right colleges and were willing to do the right work on behalf of Republicans.

By the way, correcting her interpretation of her oath wasn't a chance to "weaken [her] observance of Bush's executive privilege claim", but was entirely accurate and showed that her ignorance of her responsibilities not to Goerge Bush but to the nation hadn't gone unnoticed.

It pains me to see people like this in positions of authority in this administration, but sadly, I think it's the norm. I just hope we haven't seen too much damage already done.

On excessive sentences...

So, um, apparently Scooter Libby's sentence was excessive. Since he's clearly all about justice being served, I assume we'll hear from Mr. Bush any moment about this excessive sentence.