« | Home | Recent Comments | Categories | »

New Trojan Horse targets Mac users

Posted on October 31st, 2007 at 23:57 by John Sinteur in category: Apple, Security

[Quote:]

Security research company Intego on Monday issued a security alert about a new Trojan Horse called OSX.RSPlug.A that specifically targets Mac users. The Trojan is a form of DNSChanger that changes the Mac’s Domain Name Server (DNS) address.

According to Intego, the Trojan has been found on several pornographic Web sites. When trying to view a movie, the user is told that “Quicktime Player is unable to play movie file. Please click here to download new version of codec.”

When the user clicks the link a disk image (.dmg) is downloaded to the desktop. When the user installs the software, they are actually installing the Trojan, not a free video codec. The Trojan is installed with full root privileges, which means it has access to all files and commands on the system.

When the malicious DNS server is active, it hijacks some web requests, leading users to phishing web sites (for sites such as Ebay, PayPal and some banks) or to web pages displaying ads for other pornographic web sites, according to Intego.


Write a comment

De ontdekking van…

Posted on October 31st, 2007 at 17:56 by John Sinteur in category: Cartoon

1029.gif


Write a comment

The Lonely Tire

Posted on October 31st, 2007 at 17:38 by John Sinteur in category: Great Picture

31-0629045388l.jpg

[Quote:]

What is this lonely tire doing beside the road? Did someone just leave it there? Has it run away from his three best friends?

Read the rest of this entry »


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. Woe. If they’d hit a window they might have lived.

Marketers Use Trickery To Evade No-Call Lists

Posted on October 31st, 2007 at 16:42 by John Sinteur in category: If you're in marketing, kill yourself

[Quote:]

Older Americans around the country are getting duped by a seemingly innocuous tactic that can expose them to hard-sell pitches from the insurance industry.

The technique is centered on a marketing tool called the lead card, and it became popular after the federal government created its Do Not Call Registry in 2003 to shield consumers from unwanted solicitors. Sent through the mail, the lead card invites the recipient to mail off an enclosed reply for free information about, say, estate planning.

But the cards fail to warn that by sending off replies, recipients are giving up their right to avoid telephone solicitations from the sender — even if their phone numbers are on the Do Not Call list.


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. In this case, at least there has been initiative from the consumer to show interest. There are lots of ways they evade this stuff by getting your contact info from someone you are doing business with and then claiming an existing business relationship.

You can guess where this story goes, right?

Posted on October 31st, 2007 at 15:15 by John Sinteur in category: Indecision 2008

[Quote:]

State Rep. Richard Curtis, R-La Center is married and has children, according to his legislative Web site. Elected to the state House of Representatives in 2004, he has voted against gay rights legislation.

More here.


Write a comment

Ninja Parade Slips Through Town Unnoticed Once Again

Posted on October 31st, 2007 at 15:10 by John Sinteur in category: Funny!


Ninja Parade Slips Through Town Unnoticed Once Again


Write a comment

Low Buzz May Give Mice Better Bones and Less Fat

Posted on October 31st, 2007 at 14:56 by John Sinteur in category: News

The most interesting advances in Science don’t come when somebody shouts Eureka! They come when somebody wonders “now this is odd…”


Write a comment

Fuel Efficient Cars – Biodiesel – Hybrids

Posted on October 31st, 2007 at 14:51 by John Sinteur in category: News

[Quote:]

Goodwin leads me over to a red 2005 H3 Hummer that’s up on jacks, its mechanicals removed. He aims to use the turbine to turn the Hummer into a tricked-out electric hybrid. Like most hybrids, it’ll have two engines, including an electric motor. But in this case, the second will be the turbine, Goodwin’s secret ingredient. Whenever the truck’s juice runs low, the turbine will roar into action for a few seconds, powering a generator with such gusto that it’ll recharge a set of “supercapacitor” batteries in seconds. This means the H3′s electric motor will be able to perform awesome feats of acceleration and power over and over again, like a Prius on steroids. What’s more, the turbine will burn biodiesel, a renewable fuel with much lower emissions than normal diesel; a hydrogen-injection system will then cut those low emissions in half. And when it’s time to fill the tank, he’ll be able to just pull up to the back of a diner and dump in its excess french-fry grease–as he does with his many other Hummers. Oh, yeah, he adds, the horsepower will double–from 300 to 600.

“Conservatively,” Goodwin muses, scratching his chin, “it’ll get 60 miles to the gallon. With 2,000 foot-pounds of torque. You’ll be able to smoke the tires. And it’s going to be superefficient.”

He laughs. “Think about it: a 5,000-pound vehicle that gets 60 miles to the gallon and does zero to 60 in five seconds!”

[..]

Two years ago, Goodwin got a rare chance to show off his tricks to some of the car industry’s most prominent engineers. He tells me the story: He was driving a converted H2 to the SEMA show, the nation’s biggest annual specialty automotive confab, and stopped en route at a Denver hotel. When he woke up in the morning, there were 20 people standing around his Hummer. Did I run over somebody? he wondered. As it turned out, they were engineers for GM, the Hummer’s manufacturer. They noticed that Goodwin’s H2 looked modified. “Does it have a diesel engine in it?”

“Yeah,” he said.

“No way,” they replied.

He opened the hood, “and they’re just all in and out and around the valves and checking it out,” he says. They asked to hear it run, sending a stab of fear through Goodwin. He’d filled it up with grease from a Chinese restaurant the day before and was worried that the cold morning might have solidified the fuel. But it started up on the first try and ran so quietly that at first they didn’t believe it was really on. “When you start a diesel engine up on vegetable oil,” Goodwin says, “you turn the key, and you hear nothing. Because of the lubricating power of the oil, it’s just so smooth. Whisper quiet. And they’re like, ‘Is it running? Yeah, you can hear the fan going.’”

One engineer turned and said, “GM said this wouldn’t work.”

“Well,” Goodwin replied, “here it is.”


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. Sorry, but all that I can think is G*D D*MN GM!!!…

Viespeuk (43) op vrije voeten

Posted on October 31st, 2007 at 14:43 by John Sinteur in category: Nederland is Gek!

[Quote:]

Inwoners van Nederland en Renkum, Bennekom en Doorwerth in het bijzonder. Hou u kinderen thuis. Omdat ze bij het OM hebben lopen knoeien, rijdt er nu een gore viespeuk door uw straat. Waarschijnlijk in een lichtblauwe Fiat Multipla. Hoewel de zaak klip en klaar lijkt (“De man heeft de vergrijpen bekend. De slachtoffers waren kinderen in de leeftijd van 9 tot 11 jaar. Agenten betrapten de man op heterdaad.”) heeft de rechter-commisaris van Arnhem vandaag in alle wijsheid besloten deze sex offender de straat op te sturen. Uiteraard mag u als hardwerkende burger niet weten hoe deze meneer heet en hoe deze meneer er uitziet. De privacy van een pedo is in dit land meer waard dan een kind. Dit zaakje stinkt natuurlijk. Zo had de politie geen tijd om een aangifte in behandeling te nemen. En daarbij; ANP had aanvankelijk de naam van aanrandert op de nieuwsfeed staan, maar ANP heeft de naam verwijderd, ook uit de archieven. WAAROM??? Amerikaanse collega’s noemen gewoon man en paard. Engelse collega’s noemen gewoon man en paard. Spaanse collega’s noemen gewoon man en paard. Kijk, dat schept duidelijkheid. Nu worden alle lichtblauwe Multipla’s gedemoniseerd…

Tja. Het is maar waar je prioriteiten liggen


Write a comment

Puzzling

Posted on October 31st, 2007 at 14:32 by John Sinteur in category: Software

Take the names of two U.S. States, mix them all together, then rearrange the letters to form the names of two other U.S. States. What states are these?

Although the answer is really, really easy if you think about it for a second or two*, it can be used to demonstrate some interesting programming principles, and you can say something very interesting about algorithms and programming languages.

* answer:
North Carolina
South Dakota

converting to

South Carolina
North Dakota


Write a comment

Noun + Verb + 9/11 = Giuliani Vocabulary

Posted on October 31st, 2007 at 13:49 by John Sinteur in category: Indecision 2008, Quote

[Quote:]

“…And the irony is, Rudy Giuliani, probably the most under qualified person since George Bush to seek the presidency, is here – talking about any of the people here. Rudy Giuliani. I mean think about it, Rudy Giuliani, there’s only three things he mentions in a sentence — a noun and a verb and 9/11 and I mean, there’s nothing else. There’s nothing else.”

– Senator Joe Biden


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. biden, your a jealous piece of SHIT.

  2. Name-calling, lousy grammar, no arguments but just a personal attack…. let me guess, you vote R.

High Court to Hear Exxon Valdez Case

Posted on October 31st, 2007 at 11:57 by John Sinteur in category: News

[Quote:]

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether Exxon Mobil Corp. should pay $2.5 billion in punitive damages in connection with the huge Exxon Valdez oil spill that fouled more than 1,200 miles of Alaskan coastline in 1989.

[..]

The justices said they would consider whether the company should have to pay any punitive damages at all. If the court decides some money is due, Exxon is arguing that $2.5 billion is excessive under laws governing shipping and prior high court decisions limiting punitive damages.

The last time I bought anything from an Exxon company was sometime during the nineties when I took delivery of a new (company) car, and the fuel tank was just about empty and the only station I could reach was one of theirs.

Next time, I’ll walk instead.


Write a comment

Sorry PR people: you’re blocked

Posted on October 31st, 2007 at 7:37 by John Sinteur in category: If you're in marketing, kill yourself

[Quote:]

had it. I get more than 300 emails a day and my problem isn’t spam (Cloudmark Desktop solves that nicely), it’s PR people. Lazy flacks send press releases to the Editor in Chief of Wired because they can’t be bothered to find out who on my staff, if anyone, might actually be interested in what they’re pitching. Fact: I am an actual person, not a team assigned to read press releases and distribute them to the right editors and writers (that’s editor@wired.com).

So fair warning: I only want two kinds of email: those from people I know, and those from people who have taken the time to find out what I’m interested in and composed a note meant to appeal to that (I love those emails; indeed, that’s why my email address is public).

Everything else gets banned on first abuse. The following is just the last month’s list of people and companies who have been added to my Outlook blocked list. All of them have sent me something inappropriate at some point in the past 30 days. Many of them sent press releases; others just added me to a distribution list without asking. If their address gets harvested by spammers by being published here, so be it–turnabout is fair play.

There is no getting off this list. If you’re on it and have something appropriate to say to me, use a different email address.

Followed by a nice long list of addresses, and a lot of very interesting comments. As one of the commenters state: I

absolutely love the fact that the only people who have commented and are offended are PR spammers. I think that, more than the post, more than the list, more than anything else, speaks volumes.


Write a comment

Daily Kos: The Cult of the Professional

Posted on October 31st, 2007 at 0:10 by John Sinteur in category: News

[Quote:]

Andrew Keen recently wrote a book called “The Cult of the Amateur” in which he lambasts citizen media for degrading our culture. To him, Craigslist, YouTube, blogs, and the like are dangerous because “the distinction between trained expert and uninformed amateur becomes dangerously blurred.”

Despite the patent absurdity of the premise, I picked up the book anyway, thinking it may have some value.

What did Keen, an “expert” technologist and entrepreneur, have to add to the debate?

I started reading until I got to page 52, and unexpectedly came across this passage:

Unfortunately, the internet is bloated with the hot air of these amateur journalists. Despite the size of their readership, even the A-List bloggers have no formal journalistic training. And, in fact, much of the real news their blogs contain has been lifted from (or aggregated from) the very news organizations they aim to replace.

It is not surprising then that these prominent bloggers have no professional training in the collection of news. After all, who needs a degree in journalism to post a hyperlink on a Web site? Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, for example, the founder of Daily Kos, a left-leaning site, came to political blogging via the technology industry and the military.

First of all, I’m not sure what Keen is talking about when he says we aim to replace news organizations. He’s been reading too much Pajamas Media propaganda. But more importantly, it’s really too bad that this non-amateur, non-blogger, expert technologists doesn’t know how to use Google. Or a web browser.

Because right on my About page you’ll find this:

Moulitsas earned two bachelor degrees at Northern Illinois University (1992-96), with majors in Philosophy, Journalism, and Political Science and a minor in German.

Oops.

Or he might’ve found out that I spent a significant amount of time working for traditional media outlets:

After a hitch serving as an artillery fire director at the headquarters for a missile battery, he attended Northern Illinois University, winning dual degrees and majoring in philosophy, political science and journalism and minoring in German.

From there, it was on to Boston University, where he earned his law degree.

“I knew in law school that I never wanted to be a lawyer. It was a way to kill three years of my life,” he offered with a smile.

He could have become a reporter—there was a job offer from the Associated Press—and he did freelance for three years for the Chicago Tribune, “but I decided I didn’t want to live vicariously through other people’s lives.”

Oops again. That article, by the way, is from the Daily Berkeley Planet, so he didn’t even need to go online to read it. Keen lives in Berkeley.

Had he asked me about my experience, I would’ve added that during law school, I was a graduate assistant to communications “expert” T. Barton Carter (where I helped update his seminal law textbook on media law), and T.A.’d a class on media law at the Boston University College of Communications.

Yeah … oops.

But that’s not all! More recently, in 2005, I spent two weeks in the UK reporting on the elections for the Guardian. And yes, produced “journalism” like this and this.

Oops, oops, and oops.

Keen has just proven why us “amateurs” have little regards for the “experts”.


Write a comment

Iraqi Dam Seen In Danger of Deadly Collapse

Posted on October 30th, 2007 at 16:28 by John Sinteur in category: Mess O'Potamia

[Quote:]

The largest dam in Iraq is in serious danger of an imminent collapse that could unleash a trillion-gallon wave of water, possibly killing thousands of people and flooding two of the largest cities in the country, according to new assessments by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other U.S. officials.

Even in a country gripped by daily bloodshed, the possibility of a catastrophic failure of the Mosul Dam has alarmed American officials, who have concluded that it could lead to as many as 500,000 civilian deaths by drowning Mosul under 65 feet of water and parts of Baghdad under 15 feet, said Abdulkhalik Thanoon Ayoub, the dam manager. “The Mosul dam is judged to have an unacceptable annual failure probability,” in the dry wording of an Army Corps of Engineers draft report.

At the same time, a U.S. reconstruction project to help shore up the dam in northern Iraq has been marred by incompetence and mismanagement, according to Iraqi officials and a report by a U.S. oversight agency to be released Tuesday


Write a comment

Where’s the Fallacy?

Posted on October 30th, 2007 at 13:16 by John Sinteur in category: ¿ʞɔnɟ ǝɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ

[Quote:]

1798900454_8b618cb2df_o.png


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. That’s so awesome in it’s philosophical insight i might just stick it on my pod wall!

Immunity Deal Hampers Blackwater Inquiry

Posted on October 30th, 2007 at 12:36 by John Sinteur in category: Mess O'Potamia

[Quote:]

The State Department promised Blackwater USA bodyguards immunity from prosecution in its investigation of last month’s deadly shooting of 17 Iraqi civilians, The Associated Press has learned.

The immunity deal has delayed a criminal inquiry into the Sept. 16 killings and could undermine any effort to prosecute security contractors for their role in the incident that has infuriated the Iraqi government.

“Once you give immunity, you can’t take it away,” said a senior law enforcement official familiar with the investigation.

State Department officials declined to confirm or deny that immunity had been granted. One official — who refused to be quoted by name_ said: “If, in fact, such a decision was made, it was done without any input or authorization from any senior State Department official in Washington.”

Also from the article: Richard J. Griffin, the head of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security which granted the immunity, announced his resignation effective last Thursday.

How conveeeeeeenient.


Write a comment

NBC chief says Apple ‘destroyed’ music pricing

Posted on October 30th, 2007 at 12:09 by John Sinteur in category: Intellectual Property

[Quote:]

NBC Universal chief executive Jeff Zucker on Sunday urged colleagues to take a stand against Apple’s iTunes, charging that the digital download service was undermining the ability of traditional media companies to set profitable rates for their content online.

We know that Apple has destroyed the music business — in terms of pricing — and if we don’t take control, they’ll do the same thing on the video side,” Zucker said at a breakfast hosted by Syracuse’s Newhouse School of Communications.

[..]

He said NBC routinely propositioned Apple to breach its standard pricing model and experiment with higher pricing for one hit show such as “Heroes” by raising the price from the iTunes standard $1.99 to $2.99 on a trial basis.

“We wanted to take one show, it didn’t matter which one it was, and experiment and sell it for $2.99,” he said. “We made that offer for months and they said no.”

The NBC chief also revealed that in addition to more pricing flexibility, his firm was also seeking a cut of Apple hardware sales — such as the iPod and iPhone — which were capable of viewing content downloaded from the iTunes Store.

“Apple sold millions of dollars worth of hardware off the back of our content and made a lot of money,” he said. “They did not want to share in what they were making off the hardware or allow us to adjust pricing.”

Zucker’s comments also arrive just as NBC and NewsCorp. are launching their joint online video venture, Hulu.com, which aims to compete with iTunes by offering streaming TV and other commercial video content to viewers under an ad-supported model.

Read “ruined the music business” as “actually giving the consumer what they want instead of relying on greed and laziness to fill my coffers with regrets.”

Also, I checked out the “hulu” service he talked about, and it claimed that the content wasn’t available in “my region”, which is odd, since there are plenty of other sites that tell me otherwise. The only places that don’t allow me to view NBC content is the services ran by NBC…


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. What is really interesting is how iTunes can make a profit on selling those shows but NBC Universal cannot seem to “set profitable rates for their content online” selling the same shows! Evidently it isn’t just our school kids that are getting dumber.

  2. The sad reality is that even at $1.99 it is too expensive! The demands for a share of the hardware sales is ludicrous too. Do they really think that their poor quality content is doing anything to encourage sales of iPods? I seem to remember the statistics suggesting that the vast majority of iPod owners have never bought anything from the iTunes store. Most people are happy with just their ripped CD content, and other free content. That, and some free podcasts is all I put on mine.

    And I haven’t bought any nrw music in a long time because their attitude is starting to piss me off. I won’t download anything or copy it – I write software for a living, so I understand well enough why that is wrong. So, I just don’t buy any more. I don’t think it has ever occurred to those idiots who run the music companies that there are people like me out there who just get so fed up with their whining about not earning quite so many millions off of somebody else’s work that they just stop buying altogether. They’re just pimps in reality, and they’re annoyed that somebody came along with a new business model. What would really make a difference would be for Apple to start signing artists directly, and giving more of that 99c to the people who really deserve it.

  3. Check out the comments on the hulu weblog…. brutal!

Low Morale Has U.S. Troops in Iraq Pretending to Patrol

Posted on October 30th, 2007 at 12:03 by John Sinteur in category: Mess O'Potamia

[Quote:]

Iraq war veterans now stationed at a base here in upstate New York say that morale among US soldiers in the country is so poor, many are simply parking their Humvees and pretending to be on patrol, a practice dubbed “search and avoid” missions.

Phil Aliff is an active duty soldier with the 10th Mountain Division stationed at Fort Drum. He served nearly one year in Iraq from August 2005 to July 2006, in the areas of Abu Ghraib and Fallujah, both west of Baghdad.

“Morale was incredibly low,” said Aliff, adding that he joined the military because he was raised in a poor family by a single mother and had few other prospects. “Most men in my platoon in Iraq were just in from combat tours in Afghanistan.”

According to Aliff, their mission was to help the Iraqi army “stand up” in the Abu Ghraib area of western Baghdad, but in fact his platoon was doing all the fighting without support from the Iraqis they were supposedly preparing to take control of the security situation.

“I never heard of an Iraqi unit that was able to operate on their own,” said Aliff, who is now a member of the group Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW). “The only reason we were replaced by an Iraqi army unit was for publicity.”

Aliff said he participated in roughly 300 patrols. “We were hit by so many roadside bombs we became incredibly demoralized, so we decided the only way we wouldn’t be blown up was to avoid driving around all the time.”

“So we would go find an open field and park, and call our base every hour to tell them we were searching for weapons caches in the fields and doing weapons patrols and everything was going fine,” he said, adding, “All our enlisted people became very disenchanted with our chain of command.”


Write a comment

T-Mobile and Apple Announce iPhone Germany Rate Plans

Posted on October 30th, 2007 at 11:15 by John Sinteur in category: Apple

[Quote:]

Apple and T-Mobile announced rate plans for the iPhone in Germany today.

tmobilerates_400.jpg

That is fucking expensive. Expect a lot of iPhone-unlocking activity in Germany by people who want an iPhone without this insane plan.


Write a comment

Pope tells pharmacists to use conscientious objection to avoid dispensing abortion pills

Posted on October 29th, 2007 at 18:47 by John Sinteur in category: Pastafarian News

[Quote:]

Pope Benedict XVI urged Catholic pharmacists on Monday to use conscientious objection to avoid dispensing abortion pills or euthanasia drugs.

In a speech to participants at the 25th International Congress of Catholic Pharmacists, Benedict said that conscientious objection was a right that must be recognized by the pharmaceutical profession.

Such objector status, he said, would “enable them not to collaborate directly or indirectly in supplying products that have clearly immoral purposes such as, for example, abortion or euthanasia.”

In his speech, the pope also said that pharmacists have an educational role toward patients so that drugs are used in a morally and ethically correct way.

Bullshit. Pharmacists have an educational role toward patients so that drugs are used in a medically correct way, and the only reason they could possibly have to not dispense the drugs a doctor ordered is when they know the drug may have an adverse effect on the patient – for example when another medication, one the prescribing doctor wasn’t aware of, has a contra-indication.

If they can’t do that job properly because their shaman tells them something else, they should get a job they can do, like goat herding.


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. Vulgarity, shamans and goat herding. It’s pretty clear that you don’t have the first clue about catholic medical moral teaching. Killing kids and prematurely ending the lives of adults are two “medically” unjust pharmaceutical practices. Anyone can shoot their mouth off, try being the person who actually tries to understand a position before pontificating yourself. Best.

  2. The question is not whether John has a clue about Catholic teaching, but instead whether Catholic teaching has any role in the application of legal medical intervention.

    When you order a steak and the vegan waiter refuses to serve it to you on moral grounds, do you tip the waiter for upstanding morals?

  3. Catholic moral teaching that abortifacient and euthanistic drugs constitute grave moral injustices cannot be compared to a vegan who refuses to serve meat. While a vegan might believe the killing of animals to be always unethical, he is wrong. A Catholic’s belief that it is always wrong to kill human beings, however, is correct. While both the vegan waiter and Catholic pharmacist are expressing a conscientious objection, only one of them is doing so validly. What John should address is whether the Pope is wrong about abortifacients/euthanasia. Those two questions are the a priori for discussing the role of the pharmacist.

    I think if John spent the slightest time trying to understand the Church’s position, he would see that it is far beyond shamanism and goat herding. It’s actually much closer to objective science. Indeed, I think John is more suited to goat herding than blogging if this is any measure of his normal standards of commentary.

  4. All careers have ethical dilemmas that require one to have an informed conscience in order to navigate successfully. The Pope, as chief pastor of the Catholic faithful, is perfectly entitled and expected to give this sort of advice. His statement was basically a clarification of the moral proximity exercised by a pharmacist, as opposed to doctors, patients, cashiers, etc… Moral proximity is always a tricky area and a legitimate one for a spiritual advisor to comment on.

    The analogy in another comment between this and a vegan waiter in a carnivorous restaurant is a valid one, but the commentary on it misses the point. The vegan would indeed face a moral dilemma, if it was their opinion that eating meat was objectively wrong. However, the client/patient’s satisfaction with their service is not the issue here, but rather, the culpability of the waiter/pharmacist.

  5. To me this seems like its removing a persons ability to run their business the best way they see fit. If selling certain drugs is immoral in someones eyse, they should be given the right not to sell it. It should be considered a business risk not to sell it.

    If every restaurant owner was forced to sell pork, then faithful Jews could not own restaurants. Their rights would be violated by this, so we don’t make such laws. The laws created to force pharmacists to carry drugs that they feel are immoral are doing the same thing and should be viewed as equally stupid.

    I disagree with you completely.

  6. Catholic moral teaching that abortifacient and euthanistic drugs constitute grave moral injustices cannot be compared to a vegan who refuses to serve meat.

    Why not?

    While a vegan might believe the killing of animals to be always unethical, he is wrong.

    Why?

    A Catholic’s belief that it is always wrong to kill human beings, however, is correct.

    Why?

  7. Owning a restaurant is not a regulated business. Dispensing medicine is. Which means if you do not agree with the regulations, you can either try to change them, or change jobs.

  8. I think if John spent the slightest time trying to understand the Church’s position

    The position of the church isn’t relevant, but let me address it anyway.

    Okay, from the top. The church disagrees with the current regulations on certain drugs – I’ll come to the validity of that later, but it appears that the church has several choices here: 1) tell people to follow the regulations while they try to change them, 2) tell people to break the regulations, 3) tell people to not engage in this profession at all (until the law is changed). If you’ve followed my weblog a bit, you know I have pretty strong opinions on copyright laws, and the choices are similar: I can tell people to 1) continue to buy music and try to change the law, 2) pirate content, 3) not buy any music (until the law is changed). I consider it to be immoral to tell people to break the law (although there are hypothetical cases where it is required to do so), so I advise people to choose option 3. Please note that the actual morality of the law in question isn’t very relevant for this choice: if you think the law is wrong, you will try to change it no matter which of the three choices you make.

    Next, and lets take abortion pills for this example, since it is the more difficult choice. What, exactly, is the purpose of the pope’s statement in this? What does he want to accomplish? Let’s guess “as few abortions as possible, preferably zero”. That is a moral goal that I completely agree with. Now to methods. There’s basically two ways to accomplish the goal: 1) decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, 2) force pregnant women to deliver the baby. It is clear from other papal policies (take a look at condoms for example) that number 1 is not an option for the church, which leaves number 2. The real world effect of this policy is an increase in suffering: not just for the women, but also for the unwanted children, and as a long term effect, for the rest of the world as well (since the message appears to be “breed no matter what the consequences”). I consider any policy which increases suffering like this to be an immoral one, and I have to speak out against it.

    The same could basically be said about euthanasia drugs – the position of the church is one that increases suffering in the world – the church’s policy against suicide is in general a sensible one, but doesn’t work in all cases and their total rejection of all possible cases, again, increases suffering in the world and is therefore in my opinion an immoral one.

    Lastly – if you really want to know all the details of my position on this, which is very subtle in certain area’s, you’re not going to get that on a weblog, not even my own.

  9. Regulated? How so? (Seriously… I do not understand what the difference would be. Please explain).

    Restaurants ARE regulated, it seems to me. For example, you need a liquor license to sell alcohol. You also have to keep your restaurant clean, or else the health department shuts you down. How is it different?

    We tell restaurants what they can NOT sell… (alcohol in certain cases… unsanitary food).
    Likewise, we tell pharmacies what type of drugs they can NOT sell (cocaine. Unhealthy drugs).

    Are there any drugs that pharmacies HAVE to sell aside from those we are discussing? Or are laws like this a first?

    I’m just trying to get educated here. If anyone can answer these, I’d appreciate it.

  10. Restaurants ARE regulated, it seems to me. For example, you need a liquor license to sell alcohol.

    This regulation is the other way around – I can only speak for the specific regulations here in the Netherlands, but when it comes to prescription drugs, that is, drugs that cannot be sold “over the counter”, the rules are this (simplified, of course): a doctor can prescribe them. A pharmacy MUST fulfill the prescription. If the pharmacist believes it is not right to do so for medical reasons, he can contact the doctor and consult. If the patient tells (then or later, for example with a repeat-prescription) about side effects, the pharmacy can consult with the doctor and replace with an alternative after consultation. But the salient part of all this: the pharmacy is NOT allowed to say “no, that medication is not good for you” in just about all other cases.

    To get back to your restaurant example: there are no regulations that force restaurants to serve food prescribed by a third party to a potential guest. For example – there are no regulations that say something like “certain foods like X can only be prescribed by a licensed diet expert, and if prescribed, all restaurants MUST give anybody who walks in with a prescription for food X the food in question”. If such regulation existed, then indeed the Jew would have problems with non-kosher food in his restaurant.

    Are there any drugs that pharmacies HAVE to sell aside from those we are discussing?

    Yes. All of them.

  11. This might get long… I apologize (its a good discussion though, so I can’t resist).

    The position of the church isn’t relevant, but let me address it anyway. When you are dealing with the freedom to practice one’s religion (which is how I’m personally approaching this issue) it is completely relevent, as is the position of any pharmacists religion.

    What, exactly, is the purpose of the pope’s statement in this? What does he want to accomplish? Let’s guess “as few abortions as possible, preferably zero”. That is no doubt part of it, but I would say that there are other issues including the right to practice one’s religion. Overall, I think the Pope wants what all people want… a better world in general. Catholics should have the right to participate in this in all aspects of their life, including their job.

    Now to methods. There’s basically two ways to accomplish the goal: 1) decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies… It is clear from other papal policies (take a look at condoms for example) that number 1 is not an option for the church.
    Not quite. That is terrible logic. It assumes that there is only one way to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, when in fact there are many. Many methods are beleived by western society to be immoral, including forced female sterilization. Artificial Birth Control is a way that is seen as moral by many, but not the Catholic Church, which advocates another way to end unwanted pregnancy… abstinence. Think of it what you will, but don’t make sweeping judgments that a group of people want to increase suffering in the world (as your next comment suggests) because they don’t allow one means to achieve a given end.

    2. The real world effect of this policy is an increase in suffering: not just for the women, but also for the unwanted children, and as a long term effect, for the rest of the world as well (since the message appears to be “breed no matter what the consequences”).

    Whoa… I’m gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you on this one. It is true that pregnancy can be a cause for suffering. I’ve never given birth (because I’m a man) but from what I hear, its no easy task. So yes… pregnancy whether wanted or not can increase suffering. But there is also joy that is associated with both ‘wanted’ and ‘unwanted’ pregnancy. Like the adoptive parents that can raise a child… or the child that gets adopted into a good family and lives a good life. Yes, some ‘unwanted’ children suffer, but so do many ‘wanted children.’ Thus, to say that the church is conspiring to increase suffering seems to trivialize those who are actually suffering because it puts the onus on people to treat ‘societal suffering’ rather than ‘individual suffering.’

    I consider any policy which increases suffering like this to be an immoral one, and I have to speak out against it.
    Really? Because there are a lot of Catholic pharmacists out there who are going to suffer when they realize they can’t morally do their job any more and have to quit like you recommend. At least the pope sees this as immoral, so he speaks out against it. You two have something in common!

    The same could basically be said about euthanasia drugs – the position of the church is one that increases suffering in the world – the church’s policy against suicide is in general a sensible one, but doesn’t work in all cases and their total rejection of all possible cases, again, increases suffering in the world and is therefore in my opinion an immoral one. Again, you pretend as though there is only one way to reach a goal… kill people who are going to suffer. There are MANY other ways to ease a person’s suffering when they are ill that don’t result in euthanasia, including physical pain medicine and psychiatric care. These should be administered… not death.

    Sorry for the length. I’m seriously interested in stuff like this though, so as I said, I can’t resist.

    Cheers!

  12. Yes. All of them.
    HAHAHA. Shows what I know!

  13. Oh… you’re from the netherlands… perhaps things are different in the US. Recently in my state (washington, in the USA) this whole topic became a big deal when, for the first time, the state’s government said that pharmacists must sell ‘abortion pills.’ If its been the case in the netherlands, then we are clearly might dealing with two very different sets of laws and very different solutions.

  14. A Catholic’s belief that it is always wrong to kill human beings, however, is correct.

    Why?

    Oh, no. You did not just say that. You think it’s okay to kill innocent human? Fine. Be brave and get in the sacrificial line.

  15. I’ll just pick a few points – it’s late and I need the sleep, I’ll pick up the rest later.

    I knew you would bring up adoption – it is (unfortunately) only a very limited answer to the problem, and if you look at how many adopted children go looking for their roots it is at best a sub-optimal solution, and at worst a very bad one.

    Also, there are indeed many other ways to decrease unwanted pregnancies, and I didn’t enumerate, and I’ll probably agree with you on the morality (or lack thereof) of many of them.

    Next, I refuse to believe you think the suffering is limited to the pregnancy itself – and I don’t think I need to elaborate on the exact suffering I am talking about; you’re smart enough.

    I never said the church is conspiring to increase suffering, I said I believe their policy causes an increase in suffering. There’s a difference, although the practical upshot is still that I consider the policy immoral. It may not have been their intention, but it is the result.

    Because there are a lot of Catholic pharmacists out there who are going to suffer when they realize they can’t morally do their job Then those pharmacists should realize they’re interpreting their job wrong. The fact that a patient walks into their store for an prescription drug that normally ends pregnancy does not mean the patient wants to end pregnancy – the pharmacist has no way to know that, since he wasn’t present when the doctor prescribed it. The same is true for birth control pills which are sometimes prescribed for the hormone-balance effect and not the birth-control effect. If a pharmacist feels he’s suffering because he helped somebody balance hormones he is in the wrong job. The core issue is: the pharmacist does not and cannot know, and should stay out of that part of the transaction.

    Again, you pretend as though there is only one way to reach a goal… I said no such thing, on the contrary: I said that one should not reject all possible cases. I want as little euthanasia as possible, and the methods you mention are amongst those that can be used to stop them. But I’m human enough to recognize that it is impossible to solve everything, and I regrettably admit that sometimes the euthanasia drugs are the best (or should I say least bad) answer. And again we come to the core of the issue: the PHARMACY cannot know when this is the case, the medical practitioner’s job, and the pharmacist should not interfere.

    Don’t apologize for the length, stuff like this needs extensive discussion. I think you and I don’t disagree much on the goals, but we sure do disagree on the means and methods.

  16. Why did you insert the word “innocent” in there suddenly? That changes the statement in a significant way, and would not have triggered a “why” from me. Your original statement was:

    A Catholic’s belief that it is always wrong to kill human beings, however, is correct.

    So, again: why?

  17. If the pharmacist believes it is not right to do so for medical reasons, he can contact the doctor and consult.

    If I believe that a pill will cause a person’s death and that filling it will violate the hypocratic oath, do I not thereby have a legitimate medical reason? A person who wishes to care for others by being a doctor must have the right to make a moral objection against drugs which cause death. It is the same case as when a man who wants to defend his country objects to an unjust war. He has that right, and he shouldn’t have to leave the military because of that.

  18. FWIW, nature “forces” a women to birth her child. One forces an abortion, not a child’s birth. No one has the right to prevent that child from living. Thank you.

    P.S. It must be remembered that laws are not absolute, and that when they promote evil, one has a natural, moral obligation to resist that law.

  19. Here in the netherlands, as you know, euthanasia is allowed, under very, very strict conditions. As a result, no pharmacy will ever have a patient walk in with a prescription for that drug, the process just doesn’t work that way – and that’s a good thing since the process is geared towards only allowing it in the extremely rare occasion where all other methods are worse.

    Besides, if you think about it, it is a very regular occurrence for a pharmacy to have people walk in with prescriptions for drug that can easily kill – a few times a year there’s a big media alert when somebody loses something (or gets robbed) and potential dangerous drugs may end up in the wrong hands. Basically the news reports are something like “if you don’t have disease X, and you take this pill, you will probably die. If you’re a kid, you will certainly die”. So it is safe to assume that “people walk in with a prescription for a lethal drug” is a fairly common occurrence for a pharmacy.

  20. when they promote evil, one has a natural, moral obligation to resist that law.

    Which is exactly why I’m ranting against the pope here. I feel his policies promote evil and must be stopped.

  21. First off, the controversy in Washington State was over Plan B. Plan B is not an abortion pill, it is an emergency contraceptive, i.e. it _prevents_ pregnancies.

    Second, if you’d spent 5 minutes with Google, you could have verified that the State of Washington in fact also requires pharmacists to fill legal prescriptions. In fact, you can readily find articles about pharmacists who are now suing the State over this.

    When you’re debating a topic like this and speaking so ill informed, your other opinions lose a lot of persuasive force.

  22. You don’t even know who you’re talking to. Hint: AmericanPapist vs. Moth.

  23. A suffering person can be kept alive for years, while all he can do is lay in a bed, endure incredible pain tied to infusion and a machine that makes his lung work, while all he prays for is an ending. Is it immoral to turn off the machines?
    If it were your 21 years old daughter, what would you do? Keep her suffering but “alive”?

  24. No, it is not immoral to turn off the machines. Its also not immoral to refuse a dangerous or costly operation/treatment. I believe it is immoral, however, to prescribe something with the intention of killing.

    I also think that we have enough pain medicine and knowledge of psychiatric care to administer to severely suffering patients treatment that ends pain and prolongs life.

  25. I’ll try to keep it brief. But first, thanks for the good, honest, charitable discussion.

    No, I don’t believe suffering is limited to the pregnancy itself. What I was attempting to do was demonstrate that even in ‘wanted’ and ‘unwanted’ pregnancies, there is a certain degree of suffering just as there is a certain degree of happiness. Do we have the ability to predict which individual pregnancies will bring about happiness and other ones suffering? No. But I’m willing to bet that the vast majority bring about more happiness then suffering. I know many post-abortive women who regret their abortion and suffer because of it, but I don’t know a single woman that has regretted carrying their child to term. What I’m trying to say is that if we decide to provide abortion medicine because we predict imminent suffering, we might very well be wrong and who knows… we might be causing more suffering by allowing this. (Sorry, I’m having a rough time making myself clear… Do you get what I’m saying?) Basically, since we can’t predict suffering for sure, using it to base moral judgements is wrong. (and it sounds very utilitarian to me, which is an ethical system I find to be deeply flawed).

    I never said the church is conspiring to increase suffering, I said I believe their policy causes an increase in suffering. There’s a difference, although the practical upshot is still that I consider the policy immoral. It may not have been their intention, but it is the result.
    Ok, I apologize for misinterpreting your comments. But the question is, How do you know that the church’s policy causes suffering. Is it possible that you are wrong? Is it possible that the Church’s policy could actually cause happiness? If so (to bring this back to the topic at hand) shouldn’t the members of the Church have the right to try to contribute to this happiness, even if they might be wrong? I think they should have this right.

    Then those pharmacists should realize they’re interpreting their job wrong. The fact that a patient walks into their store for an prescription drug that normally ends pregnancy does not mean the patient wants to end pregnancy – the pharmacist has no way to know that, since he wasn’t present when the doctor prescribed it. The same is true for birth control pills which are sometimes prescribed for the hormone-balance effect and not the birth-control effect. If a pharmacist feels he’s suffering because he helped somebody balance hormones he is in the wrong job. The core issue is: the pharmacist does not and cannot know, and should stay out of that part of the transaction.
    First of all, the laws in the Netherlands might be different from the laws in the US. Admittedly, I do not know the pharmaceutical laws in the US very well. This might wind up being our impasse.

    But you do make a very good point. I realize that it is quite true that some forms of birth control can have other therapeutic benefits. Depending on the pharmaceutical system I can see how this could be a difficult thing to overcome, as far as the Church’s position is concerned. I might have to get back to you on this one.

    I said that one should not reject all possible cases. I want as little euthanasia as possible, and the methods you mention are amongst those that can be used to stop them. But I’m human enough to recognize that it is impossible to solve everything, and I regrettably admit that sometimes the euthanasia drugs are the best (or should I say least bad) answer. And again we come to the core of the issue: the PHARMACY cannot know when this is the case, the medical practitioner’s job, and the pharmacist should not interfere.

    Can you think of a case? I can’t, but if you can I might be able to respond to this better. Do you know which drugs the Pope may have been talking about specifically?

    I think you and I don’t disagree much on the goals, but we sure do disagree on the means and methods.

    Agreed. Now I’m off to bed.

  26. Plan B is an abortifacient contraceptive, which in my book makes it an abortion pill.

    I’m well aware of the pharmacists suing the state.

    So you admit my opinions were persuasive? Although I would admit that I don’t have much knowledge on pharmaceutical policy I would argue against you that I am so “ill informed” that it damages our ability to have this conversation. You are correct though, I should have looked for info in the most obvious place… the internet.

  27. Ah, okay.. but the question remains.

  28. Since plan B works BEFORE the egg is hatched, are you now claiming life begins at ejaculation?

  29. We can only “predict suffering” by previous experience, by what we’ve seen, and what we’ve been told by others, and my experience leads me to believe that abortion should be available as an option. One to be avoided if at all possible, but available. Abortion is never good, but sometimes it is the lesser evil. My experience is that you simply cannot make sweeping statements and claim morality, you must always leave room to judge individual cases on their own merit. Anybody claiming “I am moral because I reject ALL occurrences of X” is by definition wrong. Human experience covers too wide a range. So, should Church member have the right to try to contribute to happiness even if they’re wrong? Of course, but they need to realize that dogma is just about guaranteed to be wrong in some individual cases, so Church members following dogma and nothing but dogma are not doing it right – even by other Church dogma, by the way. I believe the Church also calls for some form of opening your heart for your fellow men, and relying on dogma prevents that.

    Can you think of a [euthanasia] case Yes. Remember that this discussion has been a big one over here in the Netherlands. I’m not going to summarize for you, you’d have to read a fairly large volume of Dutch newspapers to begin to get the subtleties and difficulties involved in these cases – again, this is not something you want to deal with by uttering a sound bite. And just rejecting all possibilities out of hand, like the pope does, is no more than a sound bite.

  30. No, I speak with the management and ask for another waiter who will serve me what I want to buy. If there is no other waiter in the restaurant who will, I find another restaurant.

    Simple.

  31. Pharmacists run a business. And let’s for a moment talk about a pharmacist who owns his own business. As someone who owns his own business, he has the responsibility to stock medicines which not only will alleviate suffering, but help his bottom line.

    What if a pharmacist decides that stocking a certain drug will not help his bottom line. And as a matter of fact, will cause him to lose money. Would you force this pharmacist to stock this particular drug even if doctors were prescribing it?

    This really isn’t so much a moral issue as it is a property rights issue. Does a pharmacist have a free hand in organizing his business to maximize his profits?

  32. Over here a pharmacy isn’t expected to STOCK everything. There are eleborate deals with the pharmaceutical companies to ship same day or overnight to pharmacies. In combination with the health care insurance system being what it is over here, the bottom line is not driven by what a pharmacy STOCKS.

  33. This really isn’t so much a moral issue as it is a property rights issue. Does a pharmacist have a free hand in organizing his business to maximize his profits?

    Since it’s life or death you’re talking about, the answer we’ve come up with over here is a qualified “no” to that question. Or, if you want to pick nits, “up to a point”.

  34. I see that anti-Catholic bigotry is alive and well and living here.

  35. I don’t think hatched is an appropriate word here… but it does kind of paint a funny picture of a baby coming out of a hard shell egg. So that’s cool. But there is a chance that the sperm and egg will join together before plan B takes effect. When it does take effect, it is possible that an embryo could be destroyed. I do not believe that human life begins at ejaculation.

  36. I don’t think it is specifically anti-Catholic, nor bigotry. The point being made here is that certain groups, including the catholic church, seem to feel that they have the right to both judge others and impose their beliefs on others at will. Neither of those actions are acceptable behaviour. The pharmacist can choose not to use a drug personally, but has no right to judge another person who wishes to as long as it is in compliance with the laws of the country.

    No matter hiw much it would like to, the catholic church does not make the laws. When churches do make laws you end up with tyrannical extremist nations (and, yes, this has happened in the name of catholicism in the past – in fact, some of the worst current day islamic states would seem innocent in comparison to what happened when the catholic church ran states).

  37. The only problem here is that this is *your* definition of evil, and what right do you have to judge others, and decide what they consider to be evil?

  38. “I also think that we have enough pain medicine and knowledge of psychiatric care to administer to severely suffering patients treatment that ends pain and prolongs life.”

    There, unfortunately, you are wrong.

    “I believe it is immoral, however, to prescribe something with the intention of killing.”
    That’s between the patient and the doctor. Not something the pharmacist should decide.

  39. The same right that the pope has. Or you. Or anyone else.
    Now, either John can define evil in his eyes – beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say – and has the right to do it, or he can’t, but then the Pope should stay quiet on the same issue. Not to mention Moth.

  40. Sounds like you believe life begins when the sperm enters the egg. So that one cell has a soul and everything that goes along with it? In that case, you’re going to be very, very surprised when you enter Heaven and find yourself vastly outnumbered by one-celled souls.

  41. Well, you’re right. I was wrong that pain can be “ended” in all cases. However, it seems as though pain can be reduced in all. This article here was pretty good: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4004/is_200707/ai_n19433624/pg_1
    (The article also has some interesting facts concerning euthanasia in the netherlands, in that many involuntary cases are happening… off topic, but worth reading.)

    The strength of your position, it seems, is in your final statement combined with another statement from John. Drugs have multiple uses, and a pharmacist might not know why drugs are being prescribed. This is where I must concede the debate at this time, since I don’t have adequate knowledge of this subject.

  42. Yes, Life begins when the sperm enters the egg. That however, does not mean that the one cell has a soul. Even the Catholic Church admits that the question of when a soul is enfused into a human life is open… http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatstmts/cdfabort.txt *See footnote #19. Note that (according to the Catholic Document) it could have a soul and that this has no bearing on the fact that it is human life, even if the single celled human life will not arrive in heaven. (also, the Church does not know what we will look like in heaven. Its possible that the elderly will look younger and that the young will look older… in other words, you might not necesserily look the same way you did when you die).

  43. on the involuntary cases: we know it happens, because the subject of euthanasia is out in the open and can be discussed freely. Do you think it doesn’t happen in other countries?

  44. No, it happens everywhere, and has happened throughout human history.

  45. Then we have vastly different ideas about when human life begins, and that’s at the core of the debate as well. Given the position you describe (which I was aware of, but I felt it needed to mentioned on this page, and it could not come from me), you position on abortion is a logical one. And here’s another deep thinker for you: I know I may be wrong about this, but so may you, and that means you have only little say in what other people consider a valid limit on abortion. And unless you want to live in a world where you force catholic doctrine on everybody, you will have to allow that other people will have abortions. And note that getting a law passed (it is a democracy, after all) is not going to be enough to stop abortions.

  46. yes. true – so which is the better sitiation: a country like the Netherlands, where you can openly discuss that is does happen and talk about how to stop it, or a country that lives in denial about this. Our euthanasia laws have interesting side effects this way…

  47. The Catholic Church maintained that women has no soul at all for a long time.
    And it maintained that the soul enters the body with the first breath taken and leaves it with the last breath.

    “in other words, you might not necesserily look the same way you did when you die”
    You absolutely won’t look the same way. When the last day comes and everyone will be resurrected – sorry, don’t know the english terminology :) – there will not be a lot of headless, armless, legless, quartered, etc. people.

    The Church maintains that it could have a soul. I am just waiting the moment when they will baptize the eggs before birth, so with a spontaneous abortion the pagan soul won’t go to Hell. If they don’t try to prevent this unfortunate case, they are:
    1) Knowingly not doing their job
    2) They know there is no soul in danger.

    You choose.

  48. And here’s another deep thinker for you: I know I may be wrong about this, but so may you, and that means you have only little say in what other people consider a valid limit on abortion. And unless you want to live in a world where you force catholic doctrine on everybody, you will have to allow that other people will have abortions. And note that getting a law passed (it is a democracy, after all) is not going to be enough to stop abortions.
    Here is a question. If we think like this can we ever make moral progress. Using an analogy, should we say, “I think black people are equal to white people, but I may be wrong, so I shouldn’t put a limit on slavery/racial discrimination.” No, we shouldn’t say that.

    I guess what I’m trying to say is that if you find my reasoning to be logical, then don’t disregard it because it isn’t certain. If you believe you have a more logical position then, by all means, act in accord with it. But don’t refuse to act because there is a degree of doubt. I’ll be honest, I have a little bit of doubt with my position. Its not much, but it is present. At the same time, I act in regard to my position all the while using reason to either lessen my doubt or to change my position. I don’t believe that having doubt justifies my not acting, and I don’t believe it should for you either.

    I realize passing a law will not be enough to stop abortions. But that, to me, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a law. Murder happens even though we have a law, so does that mean we should repeal laws against murder? Nope. But it does bring up a reality that my ‘battle’ to end abortion is not in the legislature of states, but in the hearts and minds of individuals. Its a good thing I’m young, idealistic and overly optimistic and actually think this might be possible.

  49. Roland, that was a ridiculous comment. As for your first point, find one document in the Church’s history that says women don’t have souls.

    Point 2 was funny.

    Point 3 was completely irrelevent.

  50. Again, because people don’t act like you (the netherlands) they must be not open to discussion and in denial, huh? You’ve made statements like this 3 times now and it seems a bit condescending to me. This one implies that I am in denial and not open to discussion, which is not true. If you are more specific perhaps I could comment further.

  51. I guess what I’m trying to say is that if you find my reasoning to be logical, then don’t disregard it because it isn’t certain.

    I won’t – don’t worry about that.

    I realize passing a law will not be enough to stop abortions. But that, to me, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a law.

    Okay, here’s a reason: look at the effects of such a law in El Salvador. The poor die because of coat-hanger abortions, the rich have them anyway in a foreign country. There’s similar stories for other places that had or have such a law. The negative effects of the law cause too much damage.

  52. Again, because people don’t act like you (the netherlands) they must be not open to discussion and in denial, huh?

    It was definately not my intention to insinuate that – if you interpreted it that way I apologize. All I intended to do is show you a different way of looking at the problem. What I’m trying to show is that, usually, more transparancy and discussion is good, I wasn’t trying to imply that there isn’t any transparency or discussion – the fact that we’re discussion that proves that there is!

  53. But this is exactly it for the Catholic pharmacist… it is life and death to them! They believe that they are cooperating in killing people by filling these prescriptions. I think that if anyone feels this strongly, they should have the right not to cooperate in this.

    You will then say, “They don’t! They can quit the pharmacy business.”

    I will then say: But that seems unjust because there are many already established Catholic pharmacists who are being pushed out of work due to these laws. Not only that, but it disregards all the positive work that they do aside from this. Its like the whole homosexual adoption thing that has happened in Boston. Catholic agencies were not placing children in homosexual homes. So, the government told them they could no longer place children at all, disregarding all of the good work that the adoption agencies were doing. Thus, the government really wound up punishing orphans and prospective parents because with one less ‘supplier,’ the time it takes to adopt gets longer. This seems similar: Pharmacists provide a valuable service to a community, which we no doubt both agree upon. But if you force a pharmacist to leave his profession based on one or 2 drugs, you are really removing many drugs from the market and causing longer lines at other pharmacies, and it is sick people that are being punished.

    Even from your perspective on this issue, it seems as though pharmacists that refuse to sell these drugs can still be of service to the sick.

  54. here is another chilling article about the effects of an abortion ban.

  55. You will then say, “They don’t! They can quit the pharmacy business.”

    No, as established elsewhere in this thread I will say that he may be mistaken about the nature of the prescription he has to fulfill, and that it is not his job to judge on that.

    You saw reason when I explained that, he should as well – if he can’t do that, he isn’t qualified to be a pharmacist, and he should indeed quit the pharmacy business. Not because he won’t prescribe certain drugs, but because he doesn’t know what the job actually is.

  56. Although I think I know where this discussion will take us, I’ll try to get back to you after I read the articles.

  57. Apology accepted.

  58. I don’t think it is specifically anti-Catholic, nor bigotry. I would agree, based on the nature of the conversation we had. However, the goat herding call was harsh. It seems to say that the only job Catholics can morally perform is goat herding, which indeed, is a bit offensive.

    The point being made here is that certain groups, including the catholic church, seem to feel that they have the right to both judge others and impose their beliefs on others at will. Neither of those actions are acceptable behaviour. The pharmacist can choose not to use a drug personally, but has no right to judge another person who wishes to as long as it is in compliance with the laws of the country.
    I have a different spin on this issue… First, EVERYBODY including the Catholic church has the right judge others behavior and to impose their beliefs on others. Its not unacceptable at all. Even by saying that “The Church has no right to…x” is judging the church and imposing your belief on it. Should we use force to do this? no. I think the human community has learned enough times that this is bad. But can we do it through civil disobedience and policy? Yeah… sure… why not? I think we should all try to impose our beliefs on others and we shouldn’t be offended when people try to impose their beliefs on us. In america, some people got together and imposed their belief that slavery was immoral. What I’m trying to say is that imposing belief on people is not that bad of thing.

    That being said, I have second comment on this point. Let me suggest that you are not hearing the pope in the way he wants to be heard and in the way that Catholic Pharmacists are hearing him. As a Catholic, I want to be the best Catholic I can be. I need guidance in this way, and I rely on statements like this one to educate me and advise me in such matters. Thus, I do not see this as scaring or intimidating Catholics into a mindless obedience, but rather as a service being paid to the pharmacist trying to be the best Catholic he can be.

  59. Yes. I’m aware of that.

    But the point of the post still fits… can a pharmacist still pay a valuable service to the sick in the community if he is unwilling to give medication to certain types of illnesses? What if he is the only pharmacist in a small town, and the entire community will suffer because of it? Some might blame the pharmacist… I blame the law that won’t let a person practice their religion faithfully.

  60. And I’d agree with you in that particular case. Workarounds need to be found in cases like that so that both the community has a pharmacy and the people in need of the disputed medication can still get their prescriptions filled. There’s probably no one-size-fits-all answer to that.

    Something similar came up with gay marriage over here – city officials who were tasked to perform the marriage ceremony were told they had to follow the law, and those with religious objections were told they would no longer be able to perform the ceremony. At all, including heterosexual couples. Since the position was a voluntary one and is usually performed in addition to their normal civil service work it didn’t really present too big of a problem, but a few cases got national attention. Now admittedly marriage isn’t a life-death situation, but the secularization of society will bring a lot of these conflicts to light. Or, in short, karma will run over your dogma in interesting ways…

  61. Or, in short, karma will run over your dogma in interesting ways…

    We’ll see.

  62. Last night, a 15 year old girl was shot in a park in the city I live in. The suspects are described as juveniles who were apparently unknown to her group of friends, but came into the park firing shots randomly, one of which hit her in the back as she ran for cover. And that repeats itself all over the country, every day.

    So, now tell me why it is that these people who are so adamant that abortion is killing innocent lives and must be made illegal, are so vocal in their defence of the right to own guns? And that’s before we even get to the fact that these same people are more than happy to send the ones who make it to 18 off to fight and perhaps die in Iraq or Afghanistan. It seems to me that this “culture of life” only exists before the child is born. After that, all bets are off. Limited access to health care, plentiful supply of guns to shoot each other with, and a war to send the ones who make it that far off to. And you worry about the abortions?

  63. And you worry about the abortions?

    Of course. You’re right in many of the things you say (although the rabid anti-abortionists and right-to-lifers are mostly evangelicals, not catholics). And you’re right that we should stand up to it. But you can’t say “X is worse than Y so why do you worry about Y?” I worry about both.

  64. John,

    I *think* that American papist did not mean to say that it is never justified to kill a human-provided that doing so is in self-defense.

  65. My statement stands. A person has the right to choose to serve the ill, without being forced to give perscriptions which PURPOSELY cause death. It is a violation of the hypocratic oath. Thank you.

  66. The Pope isn’t promoting disobedience of unjust laws by commission. He is not telling anyone the DO anything. His is telling the truth- one has the right to NOT DO want he believes is evil. The Pope is right. I have the right to object to a law which proposes to force my to do ANYTHING which I believe is evil. Why is it that patients, according to some people here, cannot be subject to a momentary wait while another doctor fills the perscription instead of the original doctor- but a Doctor must be forced to violate his ethics. If patients can define what is evil for themselves, why do the dissenting doctors not have the same right? Objecting to filling a perscription is not DOING something EVIL. It is NOT doing the evil. Thank you

  67. “Now, either John can define evil in his eyes – beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say – and has the right to do it, or he can’t, but then the Pope should stay quiet on the same issue. Not to mention Moth.”

    John is not just defining evil for himself-he is saying that doctors must either conform to laws which would force them to fill perscriptions for what they consider to be evil purposes, or quit their jobs and go broke. The pope is the leader of a religion which has one BILLLION members- his calling is to shepherd souls, and to defend the consciences of his flock from lawmaker forceing them to choose between one’s job and one’s conscience. How can you dare to tell the pope to be silent? It is his duty to speak to truths of the Faith.

  68. provided that doing so is in self-defense.

    I don’t think so – it’s easy to come up with a scenario where it is necessary to kill an innocent person in self-defence, which would make a nice conundrum of this thread.

  69. You would make an extremely bad pharmacist. Many forms of medications can be used to purposefy cause death, including morphine, many chemotherapy medications, sleeping pills, etc. If you stop prescribing medicine X because it can purpose cause death doctors will describe something else, and very soon in this cat-and-mouse game you’ll be a pharmacist who exclusively sells aspirin and nothing else. Your intentions are good, but as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this particular good intention simply won’t work.

    Also, from elsewhere in the thread I assumed you said it is sometimes OK to kill – in self-defense if I’m not mistaken. If that’s what you think, why do you think it is okay for YOU to kill others in certain very specific circumstances, but not okay to others to kill (themselves!) in other very specific circumstances? That sounds terribly inconsistent to me.

  70. wait, you’re mixing things up again – here in the Netherlands, DOCTORS can indeed refuse to assist in euthanasia, and patients will have to find another one. PHARMACISTS cannot refuse to fill prescriptions. There is a HUGE difference between those two situations. Deciding which prescription is right for a patient is the job of a doctor. Deciding a euthanasia drug is not right for a patient is therefore fully within his job description, and a doctor can therefore refuse to do so. Deciding which prescription is right for a patient is NOT the job of pharmacist, and therefore he cannot refuse.

  71. a BILLION

    I guess there’s a similar number of people who like britney spears music, but that does not automatically mean the music is any good. And, note that I’m not telling the pope to be silent, I would never do so. Instead, I’m telling him (or rather, people reading this) that he is wrong.

  72. And on second thought, you’d even have to stop giving people Dihydrogen Monoxide!

  73. I wasn’t talking about killing in innocent person. That is never just.

  74. You would make an extremely bad pharmacist. Many forms of medications can be used to purposefy cause death, including morphine, many chemotherapy medications, sleeping pills, etc. If you stop prescribing medicine X because it can purpose cause death doctors will describe something else, and very soon in this cat-and-mouse game you’ll be a pharmacist who exclusively sells aspirin and nothing else. Your intentions are good, but as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this particular good intention simply won’t work.

    Look, one must assume the best intentions of a person buying drugs that NORMALLY treat illness. One cannot assume so about contraceptives, which ALWAYS AND ONLY have ONE PURPOSEFUL effect. It seems to me that you’re saying that the state, a la, “1984″ has th eright to arbitarily define morals, and that those who don’t fall in lock-step with said arbitary “morals” must quit their jobs, thereby losing their Livlihood. That is wrong.

    why do you think it is okay for YOU to kill others in certain very specific circumstances, but not okay to others to kill (themselves!) in other very specific circumstances?

    Human life is sacred. I believe that the ordered, purposeful universe has in orderedm, purposeful Origin. When human #1 seeks to to what is NOT his to take, that is, the life of human#2, who is not purposely threathening his life, Human #2 can defend himself (or herself), if necessary, by killing Human #1, provided human #1 will not stop sekking Human #2′s life without dying himself. I think we agree that no created human gave himself life. it follows that no created human has the right to decide when to take his own life. I understand suffering, but killing oneself will not lead to peace. Also, you may say “but you think that a person can give his life for his country. Isn’t that like suicide?” No. A soldier who dies does not kill himself. He dies when an unjust aggressor kills him. I’ve spent too much time here already, so I must taake my leave from further discussions. Thank you.

  75. Deciding which prescription is right for a patient is the job of a doctor. Deciding a euthanasia drug is not right for a patient is therefore fully within his job description, and a doctor can therefore refuse to do so. Deciding which prescription is right for a patient is NOT the job of pharmacist, and therefore he cannot refuse.

    The doctor and the pharmacist both have consciences. No one has the right to force someone, under threat of removal of one’s paycheck, to do what one beleives is wrong. When someone fills a perscription, one is aiding someone to treat an illness, or to take a life. The same ethics apply. A pharmacist, by refusing to cooperate in evil, is not denying a person a contraceptive. That person can get his perscrition filled by another person, without violating anyone’s consciene. Respect pharmacists’ rights to guard their morality. When conscience is controlled by the state, consciene no longer exists.

  76. I disagree, but I have told you why already. Respectfully.

  77. Doctors and Pharmacists of rights of consciecne. Doctors cannot force the ethics on Pharmacists, ect. It works all the way around. I cannot believe you think The state can deny a person the unalienable right to liberty to not do something a person thinks is wrong. I only hope they never try force YOU to violate your consciecne or the right to pursue a job serving the sick via the Pharmaceutical industry.

  78. I think we agree that no created human gave himself life. it follows that no created human has the right to decide when to take his own life. I understand suffering,

    I fail to see how the fact that somebody else gave birth to me denies me the right to decide about myself, but thank you for all your comments so far!

  79. I am not doing any such think. If you choose to be a pharmacist, that choice has consequences. IF you cannot deal with the consequences, your choice was the wrong one, and you should make a different one. It doesn’t matter where the consequences come from – in this case from law, in other cases from other sources.

  80. One cannot assume so about contraceptives, which ALWAYS AND ONLY have ONE PURPOSEFUL effect.

    Sorry, you’re wrong. Contraceptives are also prescribed to balance hormones.

  81. The Pope is an old man who was member of Hitler Jugend. Now, I think he is a really relevant person when you talk about evil.
    Plus, how DARE the Pope tell me what to do and what not?

  82. “No one has the right to force someone, under threat of removal of one’s paycheck, to do what one beleives is wrong.”

    I’m a busdriver. I believe it’s wrong to use buses in the country. I refuse to drive them out of the city. And you still have to pay me for not doing part of my job. Right.

    “A pharmacist, by refusing to cooperate in evil, is not denying a person a contraceptive.”
    Erm, the pharmacist is not cooperating in evil. If he refuses to give out the prescribed medicine then he acts evil. Against the Bible.
    Funny how christians always violate one of their most important commandments.
    “Don’t judge…”

Cartoons

Posted on October 29th, 2007 at 18:24 by John Sinteur in category: Cartoon

arial2.gif

jones1.gif

matson.jpg

payne.jpg

powell-1.gif

powell1.gif


Write a comment

Minister detained at US airport

Posted on October 29th, 2007 at 15:39 by John Sinteur in category: Security

[Quote:]

Britain’s first Muslim minister, Shahid Malik, says he is “deeply disappointed” that he was detained by airport security officials in America.

The international development minister was stopped and searched at Washington DC’s Dulles airport after a series of meetings on tackling terrorism.

Mr Malik, MP for Dewsbury, West Yorks, had his hand luggage checked for explosives when returning to Heathrow.

He said the same thing happened to him at JFK airport in New York last year.

On that occasion he had been a keynote speaker at an event organised by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), alongside the FBI and Muslim organisations, to talk about tackling extremism and defeating terrorism.

[..]

“The abusive attitude I endured last November I forgot about and I forgave, but I really do believe that British ministers and parliamentarians should be afforded the same respect and dignity at USA airports that we would bestow upon our colleagues in the Senate and Congress.

“Obviously, there was no malice involved but it has to be said that the USA system does not inspire confidence.”


Write a comment

Apple not just refusing cash, also refusing Apple Gift Cards for iPhones

Posted on October 29th, 2007 at 14:42 by John Sinteur in category: Apple, What were they thinking?

[Quote:]

You can chalk this one up to our bad in assuming best intentions, but when Apple said no cash for iPhones, they damn well meant it — enough to extend the policy out to no cash for anything that could in turn purchase an iPhone. Turns out you can’t even use your Apple bucks to buy an iPhone anymore, not even if someone bought you an Apple Gift Card with their credit card. Ok, for a lot of you this isn’t a big deal, but who gets hit hardest? Try all those teenage Apple fanboys begging various family members for small denomination gift cards that will add up to the iPhone they’ve been after. We’ve never heard any company being so adamant about keeping non-paper trail for every single damned purchase, but now we’re just left wondering how long until someone (or some state) sour from this bitter pill decides to challenge Apple on that whole US dollar bills being “legal tender for all debts, public and private” thing.

P.S. -No we’re not lawyers, but yes, we’re aware that it’s probably completely legal for Apple to do. But that doesn’t make it right, nor does that mean it will go unchallenged, you feel us?

From the comments on that page:

CUPERTINO – Apple announced today that it would no longer be accepting purchase requests for the iPhone. “We feel the iPhone is too good for regular humans,” says the Apple spokesperson. “To protect our brand image, we have decided to stop selling our product altogether to maintain a level of exclusivity unattainable by any other product currently on the market.”

The spokesperson also announced they would continue advertising in order to maintain the feel of unattainability.


Write a comment

Non Sequitur

Posted on October 29th, 2007 at 13:47 by John Sinteur in category: Cartoon

nq071029.gif


Write a comment

CNN

Posted on October 29th, 2007 at 13:37 by John Sinteur in category: Quote

CNN is one of the participants in the war. I have a fantasy where Ted Turner is elected president but refuses because he doesn’t want to give up power.

Arthur C. Clarke (1917 – )


Write a comment

Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard: the Ars Technica review

Posted on October 29th, 2007 at 8:50 by John Sinteur in category: Apple

Here is a long but excellent review of Leopard.


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. Yea, I read the whole thing this morning. Very good review.

Condom

Posted on October 29th, 2007 at 0:11 by John Sinteur in category: News

The Surgeon General announced today that he will recommend changing the country seal from an eagle to a condom because it more accurately reflects our politics.

A condom stands up to inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you’re actually being screwed.


Write a comment

California Fire (24 pics)

Posted on October 28th, 2007 at 17:32 by John Sinteur in category: Great Picture

[More here]

califo_05.jpg

califo_06.jpg

califo_19.jpg


Write a comment

Stuck between a rock…: Maison de Plougrescan

Posted on October 28th, 2007 at 16:18 by John Sinteur in category: Great Picture

[Quote:]

10254994.jpg


Write a comment


« Older Entries