So I run across another article about photographers being harassed by police and find myself thinking once again that in these cases the officers should be given two choices. 1, admit to dereliction of duty and be drummed out. Or, 2, admit to incompetence and be taken off active duty and be sent back for retraining.

Really, even if terrorists were prone to standing around blatantly taking photographs, they are so outnumbered by actual professional photographers, amateur photographers, tourists, and anyone else you can think of who would be innocently taking photos that to use photography as an indicator that someone needs to be questioned is utter stupidity. The ratio of false positives to actual positives is going to be so lopsided that frankly I think even under the US Constitution's strict definition of treason, you could actually make an argument that it is indeed 'aid' to the enemy. Has even one person anywhere in the world who was stopped solely because they were taking photographs turned out to be a terrorist? How can this kind of time wasting on the part of those who are tasked with the job of protecting us be anything but dereliction of duty? Frankly I see it is no less intentional time wasting than if they were to find a quiet spot and pull out a game boy for a few minutes of Tetris or Mario.

Although at least that last option would have the positive of not being harassment that will cause a group of people to start viewing the police as an enemy.

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.

From "5 Myths About Health Care Around the World," at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778_2.html

Under the header, Foreign health-care systems are inefficient, bloated bureaucracies. "U.S. health insurance companies have the highest administrative costs in the world; they spend roughly 20 cents of every dollar for nonmedical costs, such as paperwork, reviewing claims and marketing. France's health insurance industry, in contrast, covers everybody and spends about 4 percent on administration. Canada's universal insurance system, run by government bureaucrats, spends 6 percent on administration. In Taiwan, a leaner version of the Canadian model has administrative costs of 1.5 percent; one year, this figure ballooned to 2 percent, and the opposition parties savaged the government for wasting money." (emphasis added)

Can we at least have a rational debate about improving out health-care system? While we're at it can we also be honest enough that if it's going to be government run that we make that pass constitutional muster (with something more palatable than the "let Congress do any bleeding thing it wants to do" Interstate Commerce Clause AKA The "Limitations? What? You thought we were serious when other sections imply any kind of limit to Congressional Authority" Clause).

Frankly I think those who feel that Mary Jo Kopechne is the only thing we should remember about Ted Kennedy are as misguided as those who feel that that incident should be stripped from memory.

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.

Consider, if we aren't going to give any immigrants a break, not even spouses of people serving in the military in combat zones... Has it occurred to them that this means having to deport Superman as well. After all, where are his papers?

Not to bad for a few minutes work on Photoshop Elements. Might redo it, the second frame wasn't supposed to just read Boston, I'm sure most of the people there are far smarter than their government.

I need to play with Photoshop more.

(Changed the icon a bit. Now an all purpose "Out of the gene pool!" icon.)

If zero tolerance is a good idea when dealing with students, how about a zero tolerance policy regarding any misbehavior on the part of school administrations. "Sorry Principal Smith, you didn't smoke on school grounds but you did have the pack in your briefcase. You get a month of unpaid time off. What? Mortgage payments? Should have thought about that before."

Somehow I suspect with the gun at their heads they'd suddenly have a much different opinion on zero tolerance policies.

So, 105 - 71% yes and 106 - 51% yes; 201 - 54% yes and 206 - 57% yes.

What happens if all four of those pass? I can't recall anyone saying what the rule is. Assuming the ratios stay the same would 105 and 206 win because they passed with a greater margin? An initiative run off? Legislature picks and choses between the two like Congress's conference committee? (Well, when the conference committee isn't inserting their own entirely new stuff) The universe explodes due to paradox? All four get written into law making for guaranteed court cases to argue out the contradictions?

Maybe this has been in the news, I've largely been avoiding TV and Radio for the las week...

EDIT: D'oh. Okay, clearly I'm too tired to read the results correctly. 105 and 106 are both those percentages voting no, and no is leading on 206 as well.

Still, the question still is interesting to ask. What does happen if such mutually contradictory initiatives pass?