Another post got me thinking about pharmacists who want to be allowed to pick and choose which prescriptions to fill. Now, there are some reasons I can think of why this could be reasonable. They might see that Doctor A has prescribed Medication X while Doctor B has prescribed Medication Y, which in combination will have serious side effects. It would be reasonable for the pharmacist to say, "Whoa! I don't think Doctor B knew what Doctor A prescribed. You really, really ought to make sure he knows this. If you want we can call his office and ask if he still wants you to take Medication Y when you are also taking X, or if it really has to be that medication we can call the other doctor and ask if he can change his prescription." Or perhaps they might have just received some kind of notice about previously unknown side effects. Perhaps most importantly they might see reason to believe that the prescription is fraudulent. (I actual saw this happen about a month back. The pharmacist said they wouldn't be able to fill the prescription until the next day. Then as soon as the person left, they called the doctor who had supposedly written the prescription. Strange, but the doctor's office says they have no patient by that name, nor is other information on the form correct.).

That said, whenever people come out arguing for pharmacists to get to pick and choose what to fill, they hardly ever seem to be giving more than token time to these issues. Probably because pharmacists are already able to take those issues into account. Nope it's given as a moral argument. "But it would be horrible to force the poor pharmacists to fill prescriptions that offend their beliefs."

To which I have to say, "Yeah, and who held a gun to the pharmacists head and told them, 'Go take pharmacy classes, get licensed, and work as a pharmacist -- or die!'? No one? Really? Then how is the possibility of this occurring a big surprise?" Should I be allowed to get a job as a bartender, and then say, "Whoa! Wait! Hold on! I'll serve people soda, or soda water, or if they insist mock cocktails, but I don't believe in drinking alcohol. No way I'm serving beer! And don't you dare fire me for this, I'm just obeying by moral principles!" I'd get laughed out of court, and if I went to ask my state or federal reps to change the law for me, I'd get laughed out of their office.

You know, you walked into the job eyes open. Either fill the prescriptions without a darn good reason, which doesn't include, "But I don't wanna," or maybe *you* ought to pay the expense of hiring your replacement.

It makes about as much sense to me as the kid who enlisted in the Marines, and then come Gulf War I said, "Whoa! Wait! I only joined for the college money, I don't believe in killing people, even in time of war, let me out!" Really? In you joined the Marines? The Gung Ho, storm the beach, kick the door in, and clear the way for the rest, Marines? You're a pacifist and you somehow didn't realize joining the Marines might mean going into battle? Right. You think my IQ is lower than my height in miles, don't you.

Based on an item on the news todayyesterday:

State court tells guy he never paid a ticket in 1999 and that he will have to pay it, plus almsot $1k in interest/fines. Guy says not only did he pay it in 1999, but that he is especially irked because a few months after paying in 1999 he was told he hadn't paid and had to go back to court and show that he had indeed paid. Sadly he apparently decided after some years of not being gone after to stop looking after the financial records with a paranoid eye.

Which raises two questions for me.
1) Shouldn't there be record of his going back to court to show that it had been paid. And shouldn't this be something that can be used to quash the current claim?
2) Isn't it normally the one making a claim that is expected to prove it. "You never paid!" Should be answerable with, "Okay, produce the complete file, and explain why for a decade a supposedly unpaid claim wasn't pursued."

And additional bit, a DMV official on camera said with a straight face and without apparently thinking there was anything wrong with it, "When you pay your ticket, hold onto the proof." "For how long?" "I'd say forever."

Um. Yeah.

Rant RE: Please Don't Blame FSU and A Great Day For Sports Photography?

So Scott Kelby held a contest recently on his blog. Send in your best sports photo for a chance to be Mike Olivella's assistant at an upcoming Florida State Seminoles game. Apparently this was beyond the pale as some so-called adult professional sports photographers decided it was worthy of throwing tantrums and crying until FSU would agree to tell Mike he couldn't allow the winner to use his Assistant's pass.

Really?

Do they have so little confidence in their skills that they feel that threatened by a guy with no media contracts being allowed on the sidelines? They have that little confidence in themselves and they dare call themselves professionals? They have so little confidence in themselves that they don't even wait to find out who will win or to look at the winner's submitted photo before starting to insist that the winner will be a trouble maker?

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned if they have that little confidence in their skills and that little maturity that they would whine until getting the chance to crush someone's dream opportunity -- then the appropriate action for them to take is to hand in their photography passes to FSU and go practice until they don't feel the need to act like a cranky toddler with no-sleep and a wet diaper.

My continued employment and modest pay are guaranteed for one simple reason. A good many high school graduates and working adults are either unaware of the existence of indexes, don't know how to use indexes, or are so confused by indexes that they would rather sit and mope for a week before calling in to say, "How in the world am I supposed to figure out how to do this?" or "I know this came up in the book, but it's over a hundred pages long, how can you expect me to find it?" And 99 times out of 100 if I look in the index it is listed by name. Not hunt through all the pages covered by that topic, but the very term they ask about is sitting there in perfectly readable 12 point type.


=o.O=

=0.o=

sigh


Don't even get me started on the apparent failure of coworkers to have graduated from pre-school. I'm failure certain toilet training, at least to the degree of, "Aim for the bowl!" is covered there. I'm pretty sure it was covered at the preschool I went to.

I really don't want to be that old guy who yells, "Get off my lawn you damn kids!" But they sure seem to keep asking for it. Come on world, I'm not even old enough for a proper mid-life crisis yet... Am I?

How to get rich in three steps.

1. Got to mechanics school just long enough to learn how to repair/replace a Chevy intake manifolds.
2. Talk government into requiring all cars to use Chevy engines as part of the government buyout of the auto industry.
3. Count money as people keep returning again and again to have engine manifold problems fixed.

Bitter humor? Why would I be bitter? Just because I am once again hearing that lovely gurgling sound that says, "Hey, guess what? I'm leaking again." It's not like I wanted any money in my wallet. You just get in trouble if you have money.

Between the public and the scum a villainy a thin red line separates and prote--

Wait. No. Wrong.

Actually the thin red line is a line that has suddenly appeared on the right side of my laptop's monitor. Running from top to bottom and remaining even after a reboot.

Damn.

Well, I was thinking about whether to get a new computer. But I had intended to wait longer. I'll just have to see how annoying the line is and whether I can live with it a few months while I save up some money.

So, in a recent tweet (I suppose twit would be the proper shortening of Twitter, but who wants to say that?) I just said:


Annoying. Annoying. Annoying. And apache.org and Google is failing me in finding an answer. You'd think that when mod_userdir looks in the public_html directory in the home directory that it would set that as the DocumentRoot. Nope. That's left on the default setting.

As some of you know, my job could be described as being like a helpdesk job at times. Which leads me to an important question.

Would it be offensive if I said I needed to learn Yiddish so I could properly express the mental pain that such a job can sometimes inflict?

As reported on Slashdot, an appeals court has ruled that the USDA can ban any testing beyond the current USDA testing for Mad Cow Disease. 2 to 1 the judges ruled that the USDA can can prohibit test kits from being sold or used to test for the disease. The USDA's argument is that even though the test kits aren't used until after the cows are killed, using them amounts to a medical treatment of the already deceased bovines.

Um. Right. Pull the other one.

It is at least fortunate to know that one of the judges still has functioning brain cells. "I find unpersuasive the Department’s arguments that a product with no other use than the diagnosis of an untreatable and invariably fatal disease is a form of 'treatment.'" Wrote Chief Judge David Santelle in his dissenting opinion.

This case came about because a Creekstone Farms Premium Beef decided to see if they could export successfully to places like Japan and South Korea if they pledged to test 100% of what they sold. Only there was that pesky USDA rule that said no one was allowed to do any testing beyond the USDA tests.

It is also fortunate to see that there isn't a total lack of brain function in the judges who ruled against Creekstone Farms. While they have upheld the USDAs authority to prevent the sale and use of the test kits, they did send the case back to the lower court to decide whether the ban was arbitrary and capricious. Hopefully we'll the lower court will rule in favor of a safer food supply.

I also have a suggestion. Go ahead an allow the USDA to ban any further testing. But also rule that in any case where the rancher can document that they asked to do additional testing and were denied, USDA official who ruled against testing (not the agency, but the individual official) shall bare full legal liability in the event anything does slip through. They won't mind being required to carry heavier liability insurance than surgeons, right? After all, the current testing is sufficient enough to require banning further testing, right? Right?

Thought so.

There are a number of downsides to living in an apartment. One upside is that when there are plumbing problems you just call the maintenance line and say, "Send someone over, the toilet and bathtub are back flowing."

And no need to pull out the checkbook, since it's covered by the money you fork over each month to the company that runs the place. So tell me oh people who keep talking about how I should be rushing out to buy a house or condo, when the plumbing backs up can I call the mortgage company and say, "Send someone over?" And considering a mortgage payment would probably be higher than rent...

I would like a house some day. But I don't think I'll be rushing into it. Meanwhile I'll be keeping an eye on the tub. The toilet just drained, but the tub seems more reluctant to do so.