I saw 'Memoirs of a Geisha' with a friend of mine yesterday. Decent movie. Very atmospheric. Unlike Kingdom of Heaven, the careful cinematography and art direction was backed up with a plot and character development. In fact, the cinematography even enhanced the plot. Which was nice.
There was one shot in particular, where just the interaction of acting, lighting, and camera angles appeared to bring the main character, Sayuri/Chiyo, from childhood into adolescence. Her face, a childs, seemed for a moment completely ageless.
In a word, it was neat.
Anyway. That the movie had a pleasing plot and good narrative drive isn't worth talking about, because it was based on a novel that had both. I'm also not going to talk about the implications of using chinese and malaysian actresses instead of japanese, because, well, I dunno.
But. It did bring up some issues. Like...why aren't their courtesans anymore? Or geisha? Or really, really high-class prostitutes? Why isn't there a demimonde?
Because of fucking romantic fucking marriage. Or, the expectation of romantic marriage. Men expect their wives to like them, fuck them and make conversation, rather than expecting their wives to cook and clean and breed. So we're left with prostitution, because men still can't expect consistent sex throughout marriage, and straight unmarried men keep refusing to have sex with each other, as god intended.
And the sad result of this perverse modern inovation is that being charming, talented, and easy is no longer a career option for women. You have to be charming, talented, and easy for free, or pretend to be so for a few weeks or months, and then return to your dismal skanky self once a commitment is made. Men and women expect to fulfill all (or the majority of) each other's opposite sex needs. Men and women occupy similar worlds, due to feminism. There is no upperclass male world of art, letters, and dirty jokes with a separate supportive domestic female world. Thus, there is no neccessity for a segment of women to cross over into the male world.
If men have a reasonable expectation that their legally sanctioned heterosexual relationships will be in any way fulfilling, the career of professional mistress is dead. It's simply too expensive to keep two women when one will do. Especially now that one woman can be expected to be self-supporting. Why buy the cow when you can marry the milk while she continues working and pays for the cable?
Too bad. I mean, feminism is great and everything, but...I'd really, really like to be witty, learned, and slutty and nothing else, and, you know, eat cheese like nobody's business.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
I think I have an inferiority complex.
I'll mail a roll of pennies to the first person who supplies me with the originator of that term. It's in my notes, but why not skip a step?
But my roommate bought that charmin ultra toilet paper. It's so thick and soft and cushy. They should get rid of those fat-bottomed bears and go to a simpler ad campaign. On a black screen, in mid-sized, serifless font, it should say:
Charmin Ultra: The kiss of luxury, on your sphincter.
That's all. That's all you need. Unfortunately, I can't deal with soft, cushy, almost plush toilet paper. It feels like it's too good for my proletarian bumhole. So I bought Scott, single-ply. I feel like after a roll of this corrective toilet paper, I will feel ready for the rippled kind, which is only slightly above me.
But my roommate bought that charmin ultra toilet paper. It's so thick and soft and cushy. They should get rid of those fat-bottomed bears and go to a simpler ad campaign. On a black screen, in mid-sized, serifless font, it should say:
Charmin Ultra: The kiss of luxury, on your sphincter.
That's all. That's all you need. Unfortunately, I can't deal with soft, cushy, almost plush toilet paper. It feels like it's too good for my proletarian bumhole. So I bought Scott, single-ply. I feel like after a roll of this corrective toilet paper, I will feel ready for the rippled kind, which is only slightly above me.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Underused Nicknames for US States
Alabama : The Touch-Me State
Alaska: Girls! Girls! Girls!
Arizona: America's Chumbucket
California: Potsylvania
Colorado: Coloraddy
Connecticutt:Grandma
Delaware: Smellaware
Florida: Laos on the Atlantic
Louisiana: The thinking man's Tennessee
New Jersey: The Garden State
New Hampshire: Lil' Smokey
New Mexico: Old Canada
New York: Happy Sock
more later
Alaska: Girls! Girls! Girls!
Arizona: America's Chumbucket
California: Potsylvania
Colorado: Coloraddy
Connecticutt:Grandma
Delaware: Smellaware
Florida: Laos on the Atlantic
Louisiana: The thinking man's Tennessee
New Jersey: The Garden State
New Hampshire: Lil' Smokey
New Mexico: Old Canada
New York: Happy Sock
more later
Monday, December 26, 2005
Lesser known facts about women
That can be discerned from the feminine hygiene aisle at CVS.
True: Women like to smell like food. They will buy nearly anything that will make them smell either like a salad course or a dessert. The dessert part has been known for de
cades. The salad course is a more recent innovation. It began with skin products containing avacado and cucumber, for their cooling properties. Now women will pay money for the privilege of splashing alcohol and water solutions laced with the scent of cucumber and anything onto themselves, anywhere you suggest they should.
While cucumber melon and cucumber green tea have been fully exploited at prices accessible to any consumer, cucumber and a light vinagrette is, as yet, unpopular. This may be, at least in some part, due to women's discomfort at walking around smelling as if they'd just douched and then pleasured themselves with the pick of the produce department.
False: Women want their vaginas to smell like flowers, seasons, or abstract concepts. The product at right is "Norforms Vaginal Suppositories". It's a waxy, scented, plug that women stick into their boxes, which then melts and releases its scent as the day goes on. People don't believe me when I tell them this product exists. I know it does. I used to put it on shelves when I worked at a pharmacy. But just because it exists doesn't mean that it is needed or wanted; however, it may be used because it exists. While it is false that women don't wake up in the middle of the night, concerned that their vaginas don't smell enough like lilies, ambition, or autumn dew; it is true that there are a certain segment of women who can be convinced that other women's vaginas smell like 'wisteria wanderings', and if theirs don't...well, civilization might be less for it.
True: Vulvae can be terrible, disturbing, disgusting things that must be contained
, for the LOVE OF GOD. They lie in wait, in underpants, ready to spew forth, well, just anything at any moment. That is why so many products meant to be jammed into the vagina, or placed in front of it to keep it from contaminating the world, are named after soothing abstractions. Let us consider: Instead.
What is instead?
Why, instead is the feminine hygiene cup. Instead is a little soft poly cup that you brace against your cervix, to catch all the fluids that runs out. For men: This differs from tampons in that tampons absorb the fluids. This cup just..well, dams them up. So they retain all their feminine, runny, gloopy glory. It is, in all ways but one, inferior to tampons, because all fluids retain their fluid natures...just waiting to spill out. So what is it instead of? I suppose, it's instead of just standing pantsless over a bucket with your legs open for 4-6 days. (The maple syrup method) How is instead superior to tampons? It's the only feminine hygiene product that can be worn during intercourse. How's that, guys...INSTEAD of putting down a towel, you get to bang your dick against a soft cup full of 12 hours worth of blood!
Other abstract concepts in women's pants "Serenity" and "Poise".
These are, of course, products designed to keep women who piss themselves, over the course of their daily lives, from being discovered pissing themselves over their daily lives.
You'd think this would be a problem known only to elderly women, and equally so to elderly men.
Alas, no. It's a dirty secret that one in three women, after having a baby, experiences stress incontinence. One in three. That means that if you're into milfs, you're into watersports. One in three women can be found, if laughing or doing strenuous exercises, serenely, and with poise, pissing themselves.
True: Women like to smell like food. They will buy nearly anything that will make them smell either like a salad course or a dessert. The dessert part has been known for de
cades. The salad course is a more recent innovation. It began with skin products containing avacado and cucumber, for their cooling properties. Now women will pay money for the privilege of splashing alcohol and water solutions laced with the scent of cucumber and anything onto themselves, anywhere you suggest they should.While cucumber melon and cucumber green tea have been fully exploited at prices accessible to any consumer, cucumber and a light vinagrette is, as yet, unpopular. This may be, at least in some part, due to women's discomfort at walking around smelling as if they'd just douched and then pleasured themselves with the pick of the produce department.
False: Women want their vaginas to smell like flowers, seasons, or abstract concepts. The product at right is "Norforms Vaginal Suppositories". It's a waxy, scented, plug that women stick into their boxes, which then melts and releases its scent as the day goes on. People don't believe me when I tell them this product exists. I know it does. I used to put it on shelves when I worked at a pharmacy. But just because it exists doesn't mean that it is needed or wanted; however, it may be used because it exists. While it is false that women don't wake up in the middle of the night, concerned that their vaginas don't smell enough like lilies, ambition, or autumn dew; it is true that there are a certain segment of women who can be convinced that other women's vaginas smell like 'wisteria wanderings', and if theirs don't...well, civilization might be less for it.
True: Vulvae can be terrible, disturbing, disgusting things that must be contained
, for the LOVE OF GOD. They lie in wait, in underpants, ready to spew forth, well, just anything at any moment. That is why so many products meant to be jammed into the vagina, or placed in front of it to keep it from contaminating the world, are named after soothing abstractions. Let us consider: Instead.What is instead?
Why, instead is the feminine hygiene cup. Instead is a little soft poly cup that you brace against your cervix, to catch all the fluids that runs out. For men: This differs from tampons in that tampons absorb the fluids. This cup just..well, dams them up. So they retain all their feminine, runny, gloopy glory. It is, in all ways but one, inferior to tampons, because all fluids retain their fluid natures...just waiting to spill out. So what is it instead of? I suppose, it's instead of just standing pantsless over a bucket with your legs open for 4-6 days. (The maple syrup method) How is instead superior to tampons? It's the only feminine hygiene product that can be worn during intercourse. How's that, guys...INSTEAD of putting down a towel, you get to bang your dick against a soft cup full of 12 hours worth of blood!
Other abstract concepts in women's pants "Serenity" and "Poise".
These are, of course, products designed to keep women who piss themselves, over the course of their daily lives, from being discovered pissing themselves over their daily lives.
You'd think this would be a problem known only to elderly women, and equally so to elderly men.
Alas, no. It's a dirty secret that one in three women, after having a baby, experiences stress incontinence. One in three. That means that if you're into milfs, you're into watersports. One in three women can be found, if laughing or doing strenuous exercises, serenely, and with poise, pissing themselves.
Fat Children vs. Fat Puppies- A reprise
Even on christmas, I hate
but I love...
not a big fan of...
but I'm pretty keen on
but I love...
not a big fan of...
but I'm pretty keen on
Saturday, December 24, 2005
I have a theory.
Women experience love by doing; Men experience love by feeling.
So when I feel completely unloved and rejected because someone doesn't do something for me that I'd try to do for them, it's all mistranslation.
And this could be evolutionary. Men, to most efficiently propagate the species, would have to feel sufficient sexual attraction for a partner to facilitate intercourse, sufficient attachment to her to repeat the act over enough time to conceive a viable pregnancy, and sufficient protectiveness of her to keep buzzards, tigers, and dinosaurs away during the slow, loagy, third trimester. And that's it. If they just do what their emotions make them feel like doing, they're set. Their genes live on.
Women, to efficiently propagate the species, must do things. They've got to keep horrible screaming things alive, in the face of the same tigers and dinosaurs. They've got to feed horrible screaming things. They've got to haul shit and gather shit and maintain the cave. If women don't do things they wouldn't otherwise do, their genes didn't get passed on.
Which explains why we have so much cultural pressure on men to jump through hoops on gifting occasions. It's an attempt to rewrite the evolutionary script. It's retraining. It's an attempt to reconcile the sexes. Unfortunately, there's no profit in telling women that men can love deeply and truly without jumping through hoops; and less profit in telling men that instead of buying things for women, they could figure out ways to make their lives easier, and they'll be twice as happy. So instead we have absurd diamond commercials, 100% valentine's day markups on roses, and a heterosexual romantic culture based on buying.
Buying, by the way, is no real compromise between feeling and doing. It cheats both sides. Current theories of romance insist that thinking+buying=romantic gesture, but there is no substitute for doing or feeling, respectively.
So it's not anybody's fault that I'm feeling like absolute shit right now. It's the dilemma of non-equivalent acts.
So when I feel completely unloved and rejected because someone doesn't do something for me that I'd try to do for them, it's all mistranslation.
And this could be evolutionary. Men, to most efficiently propagate the species, would have to feel sufficient sexual attraction for a partner to facilitate intercourse, sufficient attachment to her to repeat the act over enough time to conceive a viable pregnancy, and sufficient protectiveness of her to keep buzzards, tigers, and dinosaurs away during the slow, loagy, third trimester. And that's it. If they just do what their emotions make them feel like doing, they're set. Their genes live on.
Women, to efficiently propagate the species, must do things. They've got to keep horrible screaming things alive, in the face of the same tigers and dinosaurs. They've got to feed horrible screaming things. They've got to haul shit and gather shit and maintain the cave. If women don't do things they wouldn't otherwise do, their genes didn't get passed on.
Which explains why we have so much cultural pressure on men to jump through hoops on gifting occasions. It's an attempt to rewrite the evolutionary script. It's retraining. It's an attempt to reconcile the sexes. Unfortunately, there's no profit in telling women that men can love deeply and truly without jumping through hoops; and less profit in telling men that instead of buying things for women, they could figure out ways to make their lives easier, and they'll be twice as happy. So instead we have absurd diamond commercials, 100% valentine's day markups on roses, and a heterosexual romantic culture based on buying.
Buying, by the way, is no real compromise between feeling and doing. It cheats both sides. Current theories of romance insist that thinking+buying=romantic gesture, but there is no substitute for doing or feeling, respectively.
So it's not anybody's fault that I'm feeling like absolute shit right now. It's the dilemma of non-equivalent acts.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
The Boston Celtics
In order by how much I'd like to see them naked.
1. (Tied)Marcus Banks
(Tied)Tony Allen
Very tough call. But I feel like Marcus won't be a Celtic long. Who knows where he'll go. And who wants to see a Knick or a Net or a Wizard naked? Not me. Not now. But Tony Allen...the arms. The shoulders. The back. The legs. It's obvious what I need to complete this picture.
2. Ricky Davis
I just...need to know. I mean...the dunks. What is the source of his power? Could it be? I think it is. I think, if he is not an alien from the planet dunktron, he must draw his power from somewhere. And a girl has hopes.
3. Delonte West
I already know what model bed he sleeps in; It's hard not to wonder what he sleeps in.
4. Kendrick Perkins
This is really wrong, because he's a million years younger than me. But he's gotten so big over the three seasons. He has stretch marks on his arms. I want to touch them.
5. Marc Blount
I keep a basketball signed by him next to my bed. He looks a little like one of my ex-boyfriends. He's charmingly unassuming. He never looks directly at the camera. The crushness is great.
6. Orien Greene
Again, much younger than me. But oh, the legs.
7. Justin Reed
8. Ryan Gomes
9. Gerald Greene
10. Dan Dickau
I could, after all, squint my eyes and pretend he's Toby Maguire. Or Topher Grace.
11. Raef LaFrentz
12. Brian Scalabrine
Oh, the pastiness. Oh, the doughiness. Oh...the freckles and the firecrotch.
Excluded from the list- Al Jefferson and Paul Pierce. Al Jefferson because he is my soulmate, and thus, I refuse to objectify him. He's also the pure embodiment of the hopes of Basketball. He is our gallant one, our grail knight, our Galahad. Paul Pierce because I have too much respect for him as a human being, for his struggles and his successes. I have a childish adoration of him.
1. (Tied)Marcus Banks
(Tied)Tony Allen
Very tough call. But I feel like Marcus won't be a Celtic long. Who knows where he'll go. And who wants to see a Knick or a Net or a Wizard naked? Not me. Not now. But Tony Allen...the arms. The shoulders. The back. The legs. It's obvious what I need to complete this picture.
2. Ricky Davis
I just...need to know. I mean...the dunks. What is the source of his power? Could it be? I think it is. I think, if he is not an alien from the planet dunktron, he must draw his power from somewhere. And a girl has hopes.
3. Delonte West
I already know what model bed he sleeps in; It's hard not to wonder what he sleeps in.
4. Kendrick Perkins
This is really wrong, because he's a million years younger than me. But he's gotten so big over the three seasons. He has stretch marks on his arms. I want to touch them.
5. Marc Blount
I keep a basketball signed by him next to my bed. He looks a little like one of my ex-boyfriends. He's charmingly unassuming. He never looks directly at the camera. The crushness is great.
6. Orien Greene
Again, much younger than me. But oh, the legs.
7. Justin Reed
8. Ryan Gomes
9. Gerald Greene
10. Dan Dickau
I could, after all, squint my eyes and pretend he's Toby Maguire. Or Topher Grace.
11. Raef LaFrentz
12. Brian Scalabrine
Oh, the pastiness. Oh, the doughiness. Oh...the freckles and the firecrotch.
Excluded from the list- Al Jefferson and Paul Pierce. Al Jefferson because he is my soulmate, and thus, I refuse to objectify him. He's also the pure embodiment of the hopes of Basketball. He is our gallant one, our grail knight, our Galahad. Paul Pierce because I have too much respect for him as a human being, for his struggles and his successes. I have a childish adoration of him.
Ephemera
1. King Kong
Good movie. A wonderful depression era psychological tale about a girl with daddy issues and an ape with abandoment issues.
Watch out for: People telling you the movie is about interacial love. It's not. If everytime you see a 25 foot gorilla, you see a black man, you are a racist. Learn to tell the difference. And, if every time you see a gorilla, you see a black man, does that mean every time you see an orangutan, you see a mick? Ponder.
Also, watch out for people telling you that this movie has nothing to say about race- how about the tribespeople on skull island? Peter Jackson, new zealander most dear to my heart, apparently doens't like aborigines. They are depicted as, well, nothing but an exraordinarily barbaric plot device. If I were papuan, I'd be offended. As a filmgoer, watching a remake of a very racist picture from the 30's, I'm pro. Not every film needs to depict accurately the life, thoughts, culture, and self-representation of every group represented. And I say this not as a cultural critic, I say this as a fat cracker bitch.
2. Squatters
I purchased a small popcorn. The boything, as is his practice, purchased a bucket of soda. We shared both. 25 minutes into the movie, I had to piss like the proverbial racehorse. By this, I mean with a midget wearing satin perched on my back, whipping me. When I got to the restroom (Since when, by the way, has it been general practice for movie megahouses to build 20 stalls per screen? There are more porcelain seats than cloth ones), there were 5 stalls out os service, two in use, and a handicapped stall. Since I'd neglected to bring my insta-gimp kit I headed into the one remaining stall. On first glance, it was clean. Just some floating toilet paper. Water was clear and clean, better than new jersey tap.
I voided my bladder. I completed the transaction, stood up, and, saw-
SHIT ON THE FRONT OF THE TOILET SEAT.
THE FRONT!
This, kiddies, was the work of a squatter. Squatters walk among us. The, in fact, believe they are in the majority. But they are not. If there were no squatters, there would be no need to squat.
There is no better way to spread piss around the entire periphery of the bowl than hovering above and letting fly. I'd always known that I followed a squatter when the toilet seat wore a piss-yellow crown. Worse still, is sitting after a squatter, without checking thoroughly, and standing up to feel your legs driippp. It is an experience like this that turns weak-souled folk into squatters themselves.
I had always assumed, though, that if a squatter had to go bad enough that they were taking a dump in a public restroom, they'd sit like a normal person. (It is an esoteric, yet empirically proven, fact that squatters are also the people who go home to shit) Apparently not.
On the front of the bowl, folks. It was a toilet with the horseshoe shapped seat. This black, shiny, smooth, turd was perched right between either end of the seat, insouciently on top of the rim, as if it were peering into the bowl.
This could only have been the work of a squatter. Squatters hover above the bowl, either supporting themselves by bracing against the walls or relying on the strength of their thighs. They often miss the bowl while peeing, due to labial interference, instability of position, or improper positioning above the bowl. There is great variance of genital positions vis-a-vis the bowl, due to innacuracies inherent in squatting calculations.
There is no way, sitting on the toilet, to crap on the front of the rim.
Unless you have a prehensile anus. In which case, can I see a picture? Because I'd like to see how that works.
Otherwise, a pussy-ass SQUATTER was responsible for my legs coming closer to someone else's shit than they ever have before. This squatter, so concerned that there might be microscopic ass cooties on the seat, decided to let fly and let lie. Selfish, neurotic fucks.
Friends don't let friends squat.
3. Whiners
Ah, whiners. These folks have some advice for the new owners of Dunkin' Donuts. Apparently, they want English speaking employees, who are warm, professional, and precise, delivering hot coffee precisely the way they want it, and baking donuts overnight inthe back room. All for less than the change in your pocket.
People want everything. They do. People expect absolute facetious solicitation for all purchases requiring paper money. They want their order more precise than they can make it. They want the cream cheese on the bagel. They want the cream and sugar in. They want the coffee to taste exactly the same. No, stronger. They want DD's to focus only on coffee and donuts. No, keep the chai too. On second thought, bring back soup. Bring back chili. Bring back sandwiches. No! Get rid of the steak, egg, and cheese.
The dirty secret about coffee is that it tastes bad. It's not just an acquired taste. It's earned through days and months of choking down something that you can't believe the whole world considers necessary. Chocolate, cocoa, also tastes bad. When something is so raunchy and bitter that entire industries have been built around doctering it up...it doesn't taste good.
I drink espresso, straight. By which I mean I swallow it in four gulps, and chase it with whipped cream, hot chocolate, or water. It tastes like burning. But the effects are lovely. So I believe that I like it. I crave it. I want it. So I think that there is some sensory experience to it that I enjoy. There isn't, really. I'm simply too lazy to drink drip coffee. Espresso is quicker, so it's my preferred caffiene delivery system.
Donuts exist to make people believe they like coffee. So do cream and sugar. Fat and sugar are the drugs our bodies use into tricking us into doing things we otherwise wouldn't. Also, orgasms and laughter. But mostly fat and sugar. (Note to self- Open Regional House of Fried Dough and Oral Sex). And since the effects of cafiene feel good, and we trick ourselves into drinking coffee with cream and sugar until we associate the physiological arousal caused by cafiene with the taste of coffee...we all think we like it.
I don't know where I'm going with this. Later.
Good movie. A wonderful depression era psychological tale about a girl with daddy issues and an ape with abandoment issues.
Watch out for: People telling you the movie is about interacial love. It's not. If everytime you see a 25 foot gorilla, you see a black man, you are a racist. Learn to tell the difference. And, if every time you see a gorilla, you see a black man, does that mean every time you see an orangutan, you see a mick? Ponder.
Also, watch out for people telling you that this movie has nothing to say about race- how about the tribespeople on skull island? Peter Jackson, new zealander most dear to my heart, apparently doens't like aborigines. They are depicted as, well, nothing but an exraordinarily barbaric plot device. If I were papuan, I'd be offended. As a filmgoer, watching a remake of a very racist picture from the 30's, I'm pro. Not every film needs to depict accurately the life, thoughts, culture, and self-representation of every group represented. And I say this not as a cultural critic, I say this as a fat cracker bitch.
2. Squatters
I purchased a small popcorn. The boything, as is his practice, purchased a bucket of soda. We shared both. 25 minutes into the movie, I had to piss like the proverbial racehorse. By this, I mean with a midget wearing satin perched on my back, whipping me. When I got to the restroom (Since when, by the way, has it been general practice for movie megahouses to build 20 stalls per screen? There are more porcelain seats than cloth ones), there were 5 stalls out os service, two in use, and a handicapped stall. Since I'd neglected to bring my insta-gimp kit I headed into the one remaining stall. On first glance, it was clean. Just some floating toilet paper. Water was clear and clean, better than new jersey tap.
I voided my bladder. I completed the transaction, stood up, and, saw-
SHIT ON THE FRONT OF THE TOILET SEAT.
THE FRONT!
This, kiddies, was the work of a squatter. Squatters walk among us. The, in fact, believe they are in the majority. But they are not. If there were no squatters, there would be no need to squat.
There is no better way to spread piss around the entire periphery of the bowl than hovering above and letting fly. I'd always known that I followed a squatter when the toilet seat wore a piss-yellow crown. Worse still, is sitting after a squatter, without checking thoroughly, and standing up to feel your legs driippp. It is an experience like this that turns weak-souled folk into squatters themselves.
I had always assumed, though, that if a squatter had to go bad enough that they were taking a dump in a public restroom, they'd sit like a normal person. (It is an esoteric, yet empirically proven, fact that squatters are also the people who go home to shit) Apparently not.
On the front of the bowl, folks. It was a toilet with the horseshoe shapped seat. This black, shiny, smooth, turd was perched right between either end of the seat, insouciently on top of the rim, as if it were peering into the bowl.
This could only have been the work of a squatter. Squatters hover above the bowl, either supporting themselves by bracing against the walls or relying on the strength of their thighs. They often miss the bowl while peeing, due to labial interference, instability of position, or improper positioning above the bowl. There is great variance of genital positions vis-a-vis the bowl, due to innacuracies inherent in squatting calculations.
There is no way, sitting on the toilet, to crap on the front of the rim.
Unless you have a prehensile anus. In which case, can I see a picture? Because I'd like to see how that works.
Otherwise, a pussy-ass SQUATTER was responsible for my legs coming closer to someone else's shit than they ever have before. This squatter, so concerned that there might be microscopic ass cooties on the seat, decided to let fly and let lie. Selfish, neurotic fucks.
Friends don't let friends squat.
3. Whiners
Ah, whiners. These folks have some advice for the new owners of Dunkin' Donuts. Apparently, they want English speaking employees, who are warm, professional, and precise, delivering hot coffee precisely the way they want it, and baking donuts overnight inthe back room. All for less than the change in your pocket.
People want everything. They do. People expect absolute facetious solicitation for all purchases requiring paper money. They want their order more precise than they can make it. They want the cream cheese on the bagel. They want the cream and sugar in. They want the coffee to taste exactly the same. No, stronger. They want DD's to focus only on coffee and donuts. No, keep the chai too. On second thought, bring back soup. Bring back chili. Bring back sandwiches. No! Get rid of the steak, egg, and cheese.
The dirty secret about coffee is that it tastes bad. It's not just an acquired taste. It's earned through days and months of choking down something that you can't believe the whole world considers necessary. Chocolate, cocoa, also tastes bad. When something is so raunchy and bitter that entire industries have been built around doctering it up...it doesn't taste good.
I drink espresso, straight. By which I mean I swallow it in four gulps, and chase it with whipped cream, hot chocolate, or water. It tastes like burning. But the effects are lovely. So I believe that I like it. I crave it. I want it. So I think that there is some sensory experience to it that I enjoy. There isn't, really. I'm simply too lazy to drink drip coffee. Espresso is quicker, so it's my preferred caffiene delivery system.
Donuts exist to make people believe they like coffee. So do cream and sugar. Fat and sugar are the drugs our bodies use into tricking us into doing things we otherwise wouldn't. Also, orgasms and laughter. But mostly fat and sugar. (Note to self- Open Regional House of Fried Dough and Oral Sex). And since the effects of cafiene feel good, and we trick ourselves into drinking coffee with cream and sugar until we associate the physiological arousal caused by cafiene with the taste of coffee...we all think we like it.
I don't know where I'm going with this. Later.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
People keep telling me not to be a lawyer!
Goddamnit, it's not about what I want to do. It's about possibilities, and apptitudes, and doors. It's not about dreams and wishes and childhood.
I'm 23 years old. My breasts are 2 inches lower, at their lowest point, braless, than they were when I started college for the first time, 7 years ago. I've got grey streaks, heating bills, and three tubes of steriod creme to keep the skin on my hands on, if not soft, painless, or whole. If I were graduating Bennington two springs ago, rather than UMass Boston this summer, maybe things would be different.
But they're not. I'm old. I'm tired. I want to sleep. I want to cook. I want to perfect my muffin recipe. I want to learn to make yeast-raised biscuits, and baking powder biscuits with mashed potatoes in them. I want to paint. I used to paint. I wasn't good at it, but I enjoyed it. I want to sew, which I was good at, but don't have time to do anymore. I want to read fiction without feeling guilty. I want to have two days off in a row, from school and work. These things aren't going to happen, vocationally.
I realize that.
But I'm also very bright, and very verbal, and I've become very motivated. I can stay at the top of a class comfortably, I can achieve, I can study, I can take tests. I want doors to open to a career where the good parts of my mind matter enough to make up for the bad parts. And I want to continue my education. Graduate schools are too much like Bennington, and the only thing a graduate education in the Humanities is sure to prepare you for is some more time in academia. Not for me.
Also, the highest acceptance rate of legitimate Psychology Ph.D programs is around 8%. And you're competing against people with 4.0s exclusively. Yale Law has a 6% acceptance rate. And they're #1.
Is it so terrible to want to use my mind? Is it so terrible to want an education that will lead to a vocation? Is it so terrible to abandon, as avocational, all my dreams? It's not, by the way. It's just fucking honest.
I'm tired. I'm tired of stressing and fighting and exhausting myself trying to keep my life together. I drive to work, drive to school, drive to Rhode Island. I barely go out with friends. I think I've been out with friends twice this month, if you don't count grocery shopping with my roommate. I don't eat lunch at school with any group of peers- I drop in, drop out. My closest allegience is through work. My roommate sees her psuedo-boyfriend more often than I see my whatever. I want to just do. one. thing.
And Law School will let me do that. First year, all I have to do is work my ass off. That's all. Just work and get through it. And I know that I can. And I know that if I work hard, I will do well. It's not like this illusion of adult life I try so hard to maintain. It's one thing. And I know I can do one thing.
I can be a good law student, and then a good lawyer. And it's possible that I will get a great satisfaction from both.
So all of yall can eat it. And you know what it is.
I'm 23 years old. My breasts are 2 inches lower, at their lowest point, braless, than they were when I started college for the first time, 7 years ago. I've got grey streaks, heating bills, and three tubes of steriod creme to keep the skin on my hands on, if not soft, painless, or whole. If I were graduating Bennington two springs ago, rather than UMass Boston this summer, maybe things would be different.
But they're not. I'm old. I'm tired. I want to sleep. I want to cook. I want to perfect my muffin recipe. I want to learn to make yeast-raised biscuits, and baking powder biscuits with mashed potatoes in them. I want to paint. I used to paint. I wasn't good at it, but I enjoyed it. I want to sew, which I was good at, but don't have time to do anymore. I want to read fiction without feeling guilty. I want to have two days off in a row, from school and work. These things aren't going to happen, vocationally.
I realize that.
But I'm also very bright, and very verbal, and I've become very motivated. I can stay at the top of a class comfortably, I can achieve, I can study, I can take tests. I want doors to open to a career where the good parts of my mind matter enough to make up for the bad parts. And I want to continue my education. Graduate schools are too much like Bennington, and the only thing a graduate education in the Humanities is sure to prepare you for is some more time in academia. Not for me.
Also, the highest acceptance rate of legitimate Psychology Ph.D programs is around 8%. And you're competing against people with 4.0s exclusively. Yale Law has a 6% acceptance rate. And they're #1.
Is it so terrible to want to use my mind? Is it so terrible to want an education that will lead to a vocation? Is it so terrible to abandon, as avocational, all my dreams? It's not, by the way. It's just fucking honest.
I'm tired. I'm tired of stressing and fighting and exhausting myself trying to keep my life together. I drive to work, drive to school, drive to Rhode Island. I barely go out with friends. I think I've been out with friends twice this month, if you don't count grocery shopping with my roommate. I don't eat lunch at school with any group of peers- I drop in, drop out. My closest allegience is through work. My roommate sees her psuedo-boyfriend more often than I see my whatever. I want to just do. one. thing.
And Law School will let me do that. First year, all I have to do is work my ass off. That's all. Just work and get through it. And I know that I can. And I know that if I work hard, I will do well. It's not like this illusion of adult life I try so hard to maintain. It's one thing. And I know I can do one thing.
I can be a good law student, and then a good lawyer. And it's possible that I will get a great satisfaction from both.
So all of yall can eat it. And you know what it is.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Mmm...research.
My life has become research.
Between the emergency contraception thing (where the research is done) and a long paper for my research methods class, I've been living my life inside databases. My plans for the future- sleep, reading fiction, and basically rotting my brain. But, for now, it's fun. I actually like it. I swear. I wish I had a hamburger.
Between the emergency contraception thing (where the research is done) and a long paper for my research methods class, I've been living my life inside databases. My plans for the future- sleep, reading fiction, and basically rotting my brain. But, for now, it's fun. I actually like it. I swear. I wish I had a hamburger.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
This is getting weird.
The earlier I search, the less information I find about this incident in Fenton, Mo. And the more I look at news sources rather than advocacy groups, the more ambiguity and contradiction I find. Please, planned parenthood- do not turn out to be manufacturing scandal where none existed before. That's totally what the other side does. FUCK.
From Saveroe.com on 10/27/05
"A 26-year-old Missouri woman was refused EC when she handed her prescription to a pharmacist at a Target store in Fenton, MO, on September 30. The woman was told by the pharmacist, “I won’t fill it. It’s my right not to fill it.” Target does not support a policy to have valid prescriptions for birth control, including emergency contraception, filled in-store without discrimination or delay!"
Buyblue.org merely rephrases the saveroe blurb, and lists them as a source.
One week EARLIER, on Oct. 20, 2005, in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, in an article on a recent flurry of activities by Planned Parenthood, I was able to find vague mention of the incident.
"Two days ago, Planned Parenthood organized pickets outside the district office of Target in Bridgeton, to protest what the organization says was a Target pharmacist's refusal on Sept. 30 to fill a woman's order for emergency contraception.
A Target spokeswoman said the chain's own investigation determined that no such incident occurred. The woman claiming to have submitted the prescription said in a telephone interview Wednesday that it did." (Mannies, J. For Planned Parenthood, active month shows that it's in the game. St. Louis Post-Dispatch 10/20/05 pg. d3)
.
There was also this article, in the same paper, the day before.
Blog after blog, organization after organization uses the planned parenthood press release as their source. Goddamn. As far as I can tell, every bit of information floating around the web on this incident, other than the two mentions in the P-D, comes directly from Planned Parenthood. The age of the woman, the dialogue between her and the pharmacist, what happened after.
I am seriously trying SO HARD to find a newspaper article on the incident in Fenton. I'm trying so hard to confirm that what happened, happened. I have so far been able to confirm that there IS a Fenton, Missouri. There IS a Target, with an in-store pharmacy in Fenton.
I feel like Peter Sarsgaard in Shattered Glass, here.
You know what I'm going to do?
I'm going to write to Jo Mannies, of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Maybe she/he can tell me something more. I'm searching and searching and searching...and getting very nervous. If someone could just point me to one more newspaper article prior to the Dan Savage mention on 11/17/05, I'd be fucking delighted.
Plus, how's this for irony- going into my kitchen today, I was injured by a -coat hanger-. The skin on my foot is ripped open and really, really hurts. I am still pro-choice, however. But from now on, kids, lets use knitting needles, yes?
From Saveroe.com on 10/27/05
"A 26-year-old Missouri woman was refused EC when she handed her prescription to a pharmacist at a Target store in Fenton, MO, on September 30. The woman was told by the pharmacist, “I won’t fill it. It’s my right not to fill it.” Target does not support a policy to have valid prescriptions for birth control, including emergency contraception, filled in-store without discrimination or delay!"
Buyblue.org merely rephrases the saveroe blurb, and lists them as a source.
One week EARLIER, on Oct. 20, 2005, in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, in an article on a recent flurry of activities by Planned Parenthood, I was able to find vague mention of the incident.
"Two days ago, Planned Parenthood organized pickets outside the district office of Target in Bridgeton, to protest what the organization says was a Target pharmacist's refusal on Sept. 30 to fill a woman's order for emergency contraception.
A Target spokeswoman said the chain's own investigation determined that no such incident occurred. The woman claiming to have submitted the prescription said in a telephone interview Wednesday that it did." (Mannies, J. For Planned Parenthood, active month shows that it's in the game. St. Louis Post-Dispatch 10/20/05 pg. d3)
.
There was also this article, in the same paper, the day before.
Blog after blog, organization after organization uses the planned parenthood press release as their source. Goddamn. As far as I can tell, every bit of information floating around the web on this incident, other than the two mentions in the P-D, comes directly from Planned Parenthood. The age of the woman, the dialogue between her and the pharmacist, what happened after.
I am seriously trying SO HARD to find a newspaper article on the incident in Fenton. I'm trying so hard to confirm that what happened, happened. I have so far been able to confirm that there IS a Fenton, Missouri. There IS a Target, with an in-store pharmacy in Fenton.
I feel like Peter Sarsgaard in Shattered Glass, here.
You know what I'm going to do?
I'm going to write to Jo Mannies, of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Maybe she/he can tell me something more. I'm searching and searching and searching...and getting very nervous. If someone could just point me to one more newspaper article prior to the Dan Savage mention on 11/17/05, I'd be fucking delighted.
Plus, how's this for irony- going into my kitchen today, I was injured by a -coat hanger-. The skin on my foot is ripped open and really, really hurts. I am still pro-choice, however. But from now on, kids, lets use knitting needles, yes?
What's going on in Missouri
So I've been doing more research.
I did a lexis-nexis search of newspapers from MO, looking for newspaper articles about what actually happened in the Fenton incident. I haven't found one yet that tells me what happened AFTER the phamacist refused the prescription (it was a paper one), and BEFORE the media shitstorm.
But I did find this, in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Group forms to fight Blunt's Plan B proposal
St. Louis-More than a dozen Missouri union and women's rights groups, along with some religious organizations, announced Wednesday that they've formed a new coalition to fight what they call Gov. Matt Blunt's "war on women."
"Governor Blunt has named his next target in his war on women -- and that target is birth control," said spokeswoman Stacey Newman after the new coalition's news conference at the Salad Bowl, 3949 Lindell Boulevard.
Called the "Coalition Against War on Women," the group is attacking Blunt's plan to push for a state law during the next legislative session that would allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for Plan B, commonly known as the "morning-after pill."
The pill prevents pregnancy if taken within a few days after unprotected sex. It cannot disrupt an established pregnancy, but critics oppose Plan B because it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.
Planned Parenthood and other members of the coalition say that the pill contains the same ingredients as ordinary birth-control pills.
Replied Blunt spokesman Spence Jackson: "The majority of Missourians will disagree . . . and see it as a drug to abort an unwanted child."
.(St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Metro Digest, 11/10/05).
Emergency contraception is an issue at all MO pharmacies, not just at Target. This is some serious peril, folks. Why is it that the fight over the policy of a single corporation has been allowed to overshadow (maybe even play understudy to) potential legislation of an entire state?
Nobody has to shop at Target. Some people have to live in Missouri. I assume so, at least, because it's still claiming a population. I wonder, though, if Target might not have been so targetted if they didn't have an incident in the right state at the right time.
Maybe, too, it's easier for Planned Parenthood to start a campaign against a corporation beloved by and familiar to us east-coast blue-state abortion-lovin' sensitive folks, than it is to go out and start a campaign in a population that may or may not believe that the morning after pill is an abortifacient.
I did a lexis-nexis search of newspapers from MO, looking for newspaper articles about what actually happened in the Fenton incident. I haven't found one yet that tells me what happened AFTER the phamacist refused the prescription (it was a paper one), and BEFORE the media shitstorm.
But I did find this, in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Group forms to fight Blunt's Plan B proposal
St. Louis-More than a dozen Missouri union and women's rights groups, along with some religious organizations, announced Wednesday that they've formed a new coalition to fight what they call Gov. Matt Blunt's "war on women."
"Governor Blunt has named his next target in his war on women -- and that target is birth control," said spokeswoman Stacey Newman after the new coalition's news conference at the Salad Bowl, 3949 Lindell Boulevard.
Called the "Coalition Against War on Women," the group is attacking Blunt's plan to push for a state law during the next legislative session that would allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for Plan B, commonly known as the "morning-after pill."
The pill prevents pregnancy if taken within a few days after unprotected sex. It cannot disrupt an established pregnancy, but critics oppose Plan B because it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.
Planned Parenthood and other members of the coalition say that the pill contains the same ingredients as ordinary birth-control pills.
Replied Blunt spokesman Spence Jackson: "The majority of Missourians will disagree . . . and see it as a drug to abort an unwanted child."
.(St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Metro Digest, 11/10/05).
Emergency contraception is an issue at all MO pharmacies, not just at Target. This is some serious peril, folks. Why is it that the fight over the policy of a single corporation has been allowed to overshadow (maybe even play understudy to) potential legislation of an entire state?
Nobody has to shop at Target. Some people have to live in Missouri. I assume so, at least, because it's still claiming a population. I wonder, though, if Target might not have been so targetted if they didn't have an incident in the right state at the right time.
Maybe, too, it's easier for Planned Parenthood to start a campaign against a corporation beloved by and familiar to us east-coast blue-state abortion-lovin' sensitive folks, than it is to go out and start a campaign in a population that may or may not believe that the morning after pill is an abortifacient.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Pharmacy Procedures (How a scrip becomes a pill)
If I had time tonight, I would write this in the style of schoolhouse rock. Yet, I don't. I'm supposed to be writing a paper for my Psychology of Personality class.
So, doing research, talking to people with views different than mine, and people in the pharmacy industry, I've been able to isolate a reason for this whole dang EC thing. The claim is that filling a prescription is so much more involved than simply selling condoms, so a pro-life pharmacist who refuses to sell EC is more like a ob/gyn who won't perform abortions than a Catholic cashier who won't sell condoms.
Of course, my answer to that is that all of them are equally wrong. In fact, in my eyes, the cashier is most justified. Being a pharmacy clerk is situational employment. It's a low-paying job that a person takes because it's available and they were hired; a pharmacist or an ob/gyn has undergone years of schooling and professional training for their career. They've made a choice, knowing what the job involves might conflict with their personal beliefs, and yet persisted in persuing their career. I have no sympathy. More so because the cashier would get fired, yet the pharmacist and doctor are protected. It seems to me to be a class issue.
But I digress.
Is it really so involved? Is there something really special that goes on behind those ecru-half-walls that enclose the pharmacy from the area where glucose testing strips and "back massagers" are sold?
My pharmacy informant says not. I talked to a licensed pharmacy technician this week. In exchange for a box of generic fruits'n cream flavored oatmeal, she let me in on what goes on in a pharmacy. I call it-
How A Scrip Becomes A Pill
By H. Barista
First, a patient interacts with a doctor. The doctor determines the medication to be prescribed, and, if applicable, the dosage and amount of refills. At that point, the doctor hands the patient a prescription, or calls the prescription in to the pharmacy.
If the doctor calls the pharmacy, a pharmacy technician answers the phone. She takes down all of the information as if it had been written out, and enters it into the computer. If the doctor gave the patient a paper prescription, the patient brings it into the pharmacy and hands it to a pharmacy technician, who then enters the information into a computer.
The pharmacy technician then plays fun games with the insurance company. If they're like mine, they probably won't cover it, because they won't cover anything. If they're a good company, they will cover it.
The technician then goes and physically takes the medication off the shelf. She checks both the label and the pill against computer records. She counts it out and places it into a proper bottle. She then places a label on it. With Plan B, which is pre-packaged, she just places the prescription label on it.
Finally, she brings the prepared prescription to the pharmacist, who scans it once more and places it in a bag.
The pharmacy technician or pharmacy cashier then rings the patient up, and hands them their prescription. They ask them to sign for it and ask if they have any questions for the pharmacist.
The End.
So how involved, how INTIMATE, was that? Obviously, it would be terribly traumatic for a pharmacist who did not believe in contraception to in fact, verify that something already prepared was the proper contraception, and put it in a bag. Oh, I forgot to mention. Sometimes ,the pharmacist staples the bag. Stapling is 9/10ths of the law, right?
So this whole process brings up two things-
1. What is the moral imperative pro-life pharmacists find that prevents them, not from preparing, not from recieving, not from dispensing, but merely verifying- a contraceptive prescription? What it comes down to is that pharmacists are not just refusing to participate, but standing in the way where ever possible. And that's fucking rotten. Would these same pharmacists, if learning that a co-worker planned on going straight from work to have an abortion, lock them in the closet (wow, that's a fucking BAD metaphor)
2. Why can't those pharmacy techs just hand over the Plan B? It's against the law. Other than that, there's no danger. It's packaged. The dosage is explained, both on the prescription, and in the package insert. It's clearly labeled as what it is, and there are no refills to mess around with.
As to the first, if it were widely known how little interaction pharmacists had with pre-packaged prescriptions like E.C., maybe their beloved moral exceptions would be pushed aside and lawyers for large pharmacy chains wouldn't be so afraid of theevil, moralizing bastard pro-life pharmacist lobby. As to the second, if that couldn't be done, perhaps legislation could be proposed that allows pharmacy TECHNICIANS to dispense factory-packaged prescriptions without pharmacist verification, making sure that a single employee couldn't prevent a person from receiving birth control or EC.
So, doing research, talking to people with views different than mine, and people in the pharmacy industry, I've been able to isolate a reason for this whole dang EC thing. The claim is that filling a prescription is so much more involved than simply selling condoms, so a pro-life pharmacist who refuses to sell EC is more like a ob/gyn who won't perform abortions than a Catholic cashier who won't sell condoms.
Of course, my answer to that is that all of them are equally wrong. In fact, in my eyes, the cashier is most justified. Being a pharmacy clerk is situational employment. It's a low-paying job that a person takes because it's available and they were hired; a pharmacist or an ob/gyn has undergone years of schooling and professional training for their career. They've made a choice, knowing what the job involves might conflict with their personal beliefs, and yet persisted in persuing their career. I have no sympathy. More so because the cashier would get fired, yet the pharmacist and doctor are protected. It seems to me to be a class issue.
But I digress.
Is it really so involved? Is there something really special that goes on behind those ecru-half-walls that enclose the pharmacy from the area where glucose testing strips and "back massagers" are sold?
My pharmacy informant says not. I talked to a licensed pharmacy technician this week. In exchange for a box of generic fruits'n cream flavored oatmeal, she let me in on what goes on in a pharmacy. I call it-
How A Scrip Becomes A Pill
By H. Barista
First, a patient interacts with a doctor. The doctor determines the medication to be prescribed, and, if applicable, the dosage and amount of refills. At that point, the doctor hands the patient a prescription, or calls the prescription in to the pharmacy.
If the doctor calls the pharmacy, a pharmacy technician answers the phone. She takes down all of the information as if it had been written out, and enters it into the computer. If the doctor gave the patient a paper prescription, the patient brings it into the pharmacy and hands it to a pharmacy technician, who then enters the information into a computer.
The pharmacy technician then plays fun games with the insurance company. If they're like mine, they probably won't cover it, because they won't cover anything. If they're a good company, they will cover it.
The technician then goes and physically takes the medication off the shelf. She checks both the label and the pill against computer records. She counts it out and places it into a proper bottle. She then places a label on it. With Plan B, which is pre-packaged, she just places the prescription label on it.
Finally, she brings the prepared prescription to the pharmacist, who scans it once more and places it in a bag.
The pharmacy technician or pharmacy cashier then rings the patient up, and hands them their prescription. They ask them to sign for it and ask if they have any questions for the pharmacist.
The End.
So how involved, how INTIMATE, was that? Obviously, it would be terribly traumatic for a pharmacist who did not believe in contraception to in fact, verify that something already prepared was the proper contraception, and put it in a bag. Oh, I forgot to mention. Sometimes ,the pharmacist staples the bag. Stapling is 9/10ths of the law, right?
So this whole process brings up two things-
1. What is the moral imperative pro-life pharmacists find that prevents them, not from preparing, not from recieving, not from dispensing, but merely verifying- a contraceptive prescription? What it comes down to is that pharmacists are not just refusing to participate, but standing in the way where ever possible. And that's fucking rotten. Would these same pharmacists, if learning that a co-worker planned on going straight from work to have an abortion, lock them in the closet (wow, that's a fucking BAD metaphor)
2. Why can't those pharmacy techs just hand over the Plan B? It's against the law. Other than that, there's no danger. It's packaged. The dosage is explained, both on the prescription, and in the package insert. It's clearly labeled as what it is, and there are no refills to mess around with.
As to the first, if it were widely known how little interaction pharmacists had with pre-packaged prescriptions like E.C., maybe their beloved moral exceptions would be pushed aside and lawyers for large pharmacy chains wouldn't be so afraid of the
Friday, November 25, 2005
Hobobarista's EC Coverage.
As if there are more than four people who have ever read this blog- (P, R, R, N, M- maybe five of you), I'm still going to do a little link-n-sum of my personal Plan B brigade.
Basically, here's what's going on. On 11/01/05, Dan Savage wrote, in his column "Savage Love" of a dispute between Planned Parenthood and Target. It seems a pharmacist in a Fenton, MO Target refused to fill a 26 year old Planned Parenthood Patient's prescription. Target says that their policy is to allow pharmacists to refuse to fill emercency contraceptive prescriptions. I wrote an entry that day, threatening a boycott and linking to Target's website so readers could write to Target themselves.
I pondered this, and made a plan for further research. I went to the Planned Parenthood website, and found that a major point of contention between Target and Planned Parenthood is whether Target's policy allowing pharmacists to 'opt out' of filling prescriptions is standard for the industry.
I decided to investigate pharmacy procedures, other large chain pharmacies' policies, and the original incident in Fenton. So far, I've recieved replies from Brooks and Walgreens and CVS, while KMart gave me the brush-off. Today, I wrote about pharmacy procedures.
I've also written about the silent part of the debate behind this whole mess.
Basically, here's what's going on. On 11/01/05, Dan Savage wrote, in his column "Savage Love" of a dispute between Planned Parenthood and Target. It seems a pharmacist in a Fenton, MO Target refused to fill a 26 year old Planned Parenthood Patient's prescription. Target says that their policy is to allow pharmacists to refuse to fill emercency contraceptive prescriptions. I wrote an entry that day, threatening a boycott and linking to Target's website so readers could write to Target themselves.
I pondered this, and made a plan for further research. I went to the Planned Parenthood website, and found that a major point of contention between Target and Planned Parenthood is whether Target's policy allowing pharmacists to 'opt out' of filling prescriptions is standard for the industry.
I decided to investigate pharmacy procedures, other large chain pharmacies' policies, and the original incident in Fenton. So far, I've recieved replies from Brooks and Walgreens and CVS, while KMart gave me the brush-off. Today, I wrote about pharmacy procedures.
I've also written about the silent part of the debate behind this whole mess.
CVS Replies
Dear (Hobo Barista):
Thank you for contacting us about our prescription filling policies.
At CVS/pharmacy, we are committed to helping people live longer,
healthier, happier lives. In pursuing that goal, our pharmacists work
hard to ensure that our customers' prescription needs are promptly and
completely satisfied.
We remain committed to providing reasonable accommodations to our
pharmacists that have sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict
with their duty to fill prescriptions. However, we also remain focused
and committed to patient care. So in order to meet the prescription
needs of all of our patients in a prompt and timely manner, our policy
requires that a pharmacist who wants an accommodation for a sincerely
held religious conviction notify us before being asked to dispense a
medication to which they object. In this way, alternate arrangements
can be made in advance to ensure that these prescriptions will be filled
promptly in our stores.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your comments with us.
Sincerely,
Christine Fleuette
CVS Customer Relations
Thank you for contacting us about our prescription filling policies.
At CVS/pharmacy, we are committed to helping people live longer,
healthier, happier lives. In pursuing that goal, our pharmacists work
hard to ensure that our customers' prescription needs are promptly and
completely satisfied.
We remain committed to providing reasonable accommodations to our
pharmacists that have sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict
with their duty to fill prescriptions. However, we also remain focused
and committed to patient care. So in order to meet the prescription
needs of all of our patients in a prompt and timely manner, our policy
requires that a pharmacist who wants an accommodation for a sincerely
held religious conviction notify us before being asked to dispense a
medication to which they object. In this way, alternate arrangements
can be made in advance to ensure that these prescriptions will be filled
promptly in our stores.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your comments with us.
Sincerely,
Christine Fleuette
CVS Customer Relations
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Walgreens Replies
November 22, 2005
Dear (Hobobarista),
Thank you for taking your time to contact our Corporate Offices. We
appreciate hearing from our
customers and value all comments received.
Thank you for sharing your opinion with us in regard to dispensing of
contraceptive medication by our
pharmacists. Walgreens believes it has an obligation to meet the medical
needs of all of its patients. We
also believe we have an obligation to respect the wide spectrum of views
and beliefs of our 163,000
employees. At rare times these may differ.
To fairly resolve these situations, and where allowed by state law, we
believe it's reasonable to respect the
individual pharmacist's beliefs by not requiring them to fill a
prescription they object to on moral or
religious grounds. We also believe it's reasonable to meet our obligation
to the patient by having another
pharmacist at the store fill the prescription. If another pharmacist is not
on duty, we will arrange to have the
prescription filled at a nearby pharmacy before the patient leaves the
store.
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to respond to your concern.
Sincerely,
Kari G.
Consumer Response Representative
For those keeping score, we're waiting for CVS and Planned Parenthood to reply. After that, I'm going to talk a little bit about pharmacy procedures, to clarify exactly what is so morally repugnant to these christian pharmacists.
Dear (Hobobarista),
Thank you for taking your time to contact our Corporate Offices. We
appreciate hearing from our
customers and value all comments received.
Thank you for sharing your opinion with us in regard to dispensing of
contraceptive medication by our
pharmacists. Walgreens believes it has an obligation to meet the medical
needs of all of its patients. We
also believe we have an obligation to respect the wide spectrum of views
and beliefs of our 163,000
employees. At rare times these may differ.
To fairly resolve these situations, and where allowed by state law, we
believe it's reasonable to respect the
individual pharmacist's beliefs by not requiring them to fill a
prescription they object to on moral or
religious grounds. We also believe it's reasonable to meet our obligation
to the patient by having another
pharmacist at the store fill the prescription. If another pharmacist is not
on duty, we will arrange to have the
prescription filled at a nearby pharmacy before the patient leaves the
store.
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to respond to your concern.
Sincerely,
Kari G.
Consumer Response Representative
For those keeping score, we're waiting for CVS and Planned Parenthood to reply. After that, I'm going to talk a little bit about pharmacy procedures, to clarify exactly what is so morally repugnant to these christian pharmacists.
What we're afraid to say about sex
So there's the hpv vaccine.
There's emergency contraception.
There's abstinence only sex education.
And there are teenagers.
The HPV vaccine has been shown to be effective against Human Papilloma Virus (Genital Warts). HPV has been shown to be a cause of cervical cancers in young women. And yet there's a push-back against it. It is believed that parents wouldn't want their daughters vaccinated, for fear of giving them the "green light" to have sex.
Emergency contraception has been shown to prevent pregnancy up to 72 hours after unprotected sex. (Or, after contraceptive failure- makes it seem more responsible to say it that way)Emergency contraception has further been shown to be extraordinarily safe. (Let's remember, kids, tylenol can kill you when used improperly, as can coffee, and, if you're unlucky, peanut butter). But there's a reluctance to allow it to be sold over the counter. It is believed that if it were available over the counter, more teenagers (and women) might engage in unprotected sex.
The only sex education programs allowed to benefit from federal health education funding are abstinence only programs- programs that teach nothing about contraception or barrier methods of disease prevention, and emphasize the risks (mental AND physical) of premarital sex. The rationale behind this is that if you tell teenagers that they can have sex in a safer manner, they will perceive that as permission or even encouragement to have sex.
I'm going to say something groundbreaking here.
Get ready.
So what?
So what if teenagers are encouraged, by availability of contraceptives and tools of disease prevention to have sex? If these teenagers are making the decision that with the HPV vaccine banishing the risk of cervical cancer, condoms prevent aids and pregnancy, and the morning after pill, when used correctly, can prevent a broken condom from becoming a pregnancy- more power to them. How adult. How correct.
Basically, the prevailing argument about teens and sex from the right (and, by extension, everyone else and sex- there is a certain population that WOULD deny adult women access to these items in order to deny teenagers access to these items- they're called social conservatives), is that sex is too dangerous for teenagers, thus, we must make sure to let them know how dangerous it is so that fear will override libido. If we do anything to create the impression that sex can be at all safe, kids will start fucking immediately. So the best thing to do is make sure that sex has plenty of consequences, if they do have it. The left's weak, whinging counter-argument in recent years is that sex is dangerous, but if we give teenagers all the information and resources available, they still won't have sex any earlier than if we hadn't, and maybe when they do, it won't be so bad.
The left fails because their message isn't consistant. They weaken their own argument by conceding too much to the other side. And that's how the right is able to appear to beat them. The left says, and rightly, and logically, and bestly- that teenagers should be able to have safe sex, but that they really won't have any sex at all. That's silly. That's a contradiction. The right has easily been able to make that message look stupid. Of course, the right has only been able to do that because somehow, Americans have forgotten that teenagers become adults, and quickly. And the only way that screwing up sexually (discounting any religious beliefs) as a teen is going to seriously affect your adult life is by getting serious AIDs, HPV, or pregnant (or impregnating someone else). * Yes, your feelings might get hurt. You might find yourself emotionally scarred. But nearly everything you do as an adolescent might leave you emotionally hurt or scarred. People used to call that building character.
The right fails because their message only works on a moral playing field. Plus, they're the homogay. The reason their message works is what goes without saying after it, and what the left is too fucking pussy to contradict. The conservative message about sex is that we should keep it dangerous, and make the dangers clear, because teenagers (unmarried adults, gay people, etc) should not be having it. That implies that there is a reason, beyond the explicit dangers of sex, that teenagers should not have sex. And that reason, always unspoken, is that it is morally wrong.
And the left won't come out and say "We don't care if teenagers have sex or not". Or even "It's not wrong for teenagers to have sex" or even "It should not be public policy to prevent teenagers from having sex". That last one is my favorite. Pretend I put that last one first.
And why SHOULD it be public policy to prevent teenagers from having sex? Especially if the tools to make it at least as safe as adult sex exist and are widely available and instruction in their proper use is easily available?
There are reasons for teenagers not to have sex, but those have to do with the teenagers themselves, their culture, their beliefs, and most fundamentally, their family. It is the family's place to say "I know, it seems like you can have sex safely, but your dad and I believe that if you or anyone else touches your clitoris for fun, you'll burn in hell forever and ever". Or in another situation, "You know, knowing you, Suzy, and having been your mother for 16 years, I really wish you'd put off sexual intercourse and serious sexual contact for another few years. That's why your curfew is 8pm and you're not allowed to have boys in rooms with closed doors".
These conversations are similar to other conversations families have to pass on their values to young people who are gaining their independence. Imagine a young man entering high school. His family are observant jews or muslims or hindus. One of his parents might have a heartfelt talk with him (or fire-and-brimstone) about how he's gaining more independance now, but, as he's able to make more choices outside of the house, it's very important to them that he continue observing their dietary traditions (kosher or halal or other). Or even imagine a child raised by strict vegan parents-
their personal morals would dictate that the cheese sandwich in the lunch line was wrong. The child would know their parents beliefs, and the rationale behind those beliefs, even as her parents taught her and gave her the tools to act on those beliefs independently. (For example, learning to read labels and scan for casein and lecithin). Just the same, a christian family must be comfortable telling their child that even though sex might be safe, it is their belief, and very important to them, that they not indulge.
The only difference is that the vegan parents don't campaign for looser milk pasteurization standards, so that omnivorous children come down with a nice case of food poisoning every now and again, so their child can learn the dangers of eating animal products. The Hindu parent does not write to the television station demanding that they run more stories on bovine spongiform encephelopathy so that their children know that it's not just wrong, but dangerous to eat meat.
So why sex? Why do we, as a country, believe that the moral persuasive power of parents is so weak that we need to rely on scare tactics to force this one issue? It is just as morally subjective as whether or not to eat animal products, but we pretend that it is not. No one wants to say that it's ok for teenagers to have sex, because it is perceived as so potentially destructive to them. No one wants to say that we could make it less destructive for teenagers to have sex, because no one wants to be heard to say that it's ok.
And that, my friend is circular logic.
So I'm fucking breaking that circle.
INSOFAR AS IT IS SAFE, IT IS OK FOR TEENAGERS TO HAVE SEX.
Whether their families choose to encourage them not to, forbid them to, or punish them for- is none of my or anyone elses business.
*Why am I discounting other STD's here? Well, because proper access to healthcare will counterract the most serious effects of most other STD's. If girls have a good, open relationship with a physician, Gonorrhea and Chlamydia will be detected before reproductive damage would occur, just as in an adult woman. Same with boys. Same with syphillis. And herpes, while an effective scare tactic, just doesn't ruin your life the way people would like you to believe. The other varietal diseases- shigella, crabs, etc...same as one or the other.
There's emergency contraception.
There's abstinence only sex education.
And there are teenagers.
The HPV vaccine has been shown to be effective against Human Papilloma Virus (Genital Warts). HPV has been shown to be a cause of cervical cancers in young women. And yet there's a push-back against it. It is believed that parents wouldn't want their daughters vaccinated, for fear of giving them the "green light" to have sex.
Emergency contraception has been shown to prevent pregnancy up to 72 hours after unprotected sex. (Or, after contraceptive failure- makes it seem more responsible to say it that way)Emergency contraception has further been shown to be extraordinarily safe. (Let's remember, kids, tylenol can kill you when used improperly, as can coffee, and, if you're unlucky, peanut butter). But there's a reluctance to allow it to be sold over the counter. It is believed that if it were available over the counter, more teenagers (and women) might engage in unprotected sex.
The only sex education programs allowed to benefit from federal health education funding are abstinence only programs- programs that teach nothing about contraception or barrier methods of disease prevention, and emphasize the risks (mental AND physical) of premarital sex. The rationale behind this is that if you tell teenagers that they can have sex in a safer manner, they will perceive that as permission or even encouragement to have sex.
I'm going to say something groundbreaking here.
Get ready.
So what?
So what if teenagers are encouraged, by availability of contraceptives and tools of disease prevention to have sex? If these teenagers are making the decision that with the HPV vaccine banishing the risk of cervical cancer, condoms prevent aids and pregnancy, and the morning after pill, when used correctly, can prevent a broken condom from becoming a pregnancy- more power to them. How adult. How correct.
Basically, the prevailing argument about teens and sex from the right (and, by extension, everyone else and sex- there is a certain population that WOULD deny adult women access to these items in order to deny teenagers access to these items- they're called social conservatives), is that sex is too dangerous for teenagers, thus, we must make sure to let them know how dangerous it is so that fear will override libido. If we do anything to create the impression that sex can be at all safe, kids will start fucking immediately. So the best thing to do is make sure that sex has plenty of consequences, if they do have it. The left's weak, whinging counter-argument in recent years is that sex is dangerous, but if we give teenagers all the information and resources available, they still won't have sex any earlier than if we hadn't, and maybe when they do, it won't be so bad.
The left fails because their message isn't consistant. They weaken their own argument by conceding too much to the other side. And that's how the right is able to appear to beat them. The left says, and rightly, and logically, and bestly- that teenagers should be able to have safe sex, but that they really won't have any sex at all. That's silly. That's a contradiction. The right has easily been able to make that message look stupid. Of course, the right has only been able to do that because somehow, Americans have forgotten that teenagers become adults, and quickly. And the only way that screwing up sexually (discounting any religious beliefs) as a teen is going to seriously affect your adult life is by getting serious AIDs, HPV, or pregnant (or impregnating someone else). * Yes, your feelings might get hurt. You might find yourself emotionally scarred. But nearly everything you do as an adolescent might leave you emotionally hurt or scarred. People used to call that building character.
The right fails because their message only works on a moral playing field. Plus, they're the homogay. The reason their message works is what goes without saying after it, and what the left is too fucking pussy to contradict. The conservative message about sex is that we should keep it dangerous, and make the dangers clear, because teenagers (unmarried adults, gay people, etc) should not be having it. That implies that there is a reason, beyond the explicit dangers of sex, that teenagers should not have sex. And that reason, always unspoken, is that it is morally wrong.
And the left won't come out and say "We don't care if teenagers have sex or not". Or even "It's not wrong for teenagers to have sex" or even "It should not be public policy to prevent teenagers from having sex". That last one is my favorite. Pretend I put that last one first.
And why SHOULD it be public policy to prevent teenagers from having sex? Especially if the tools to make it at least as safe as adult sex exist and are widely available and instruction in their proper use is easily available?
There are reasons for teenagers not to have sex, but those have to do with the teenagers themselves, their culture, their beliefs, and most fundamentally, their family. It is the family's place to say "I know, it seems like you can have sex safely, but your dad and I believe that if you or anyone else touches your clitoris for fun, you'll burn in hell forever and ever". Or in another situation, "You know, knowing you, Suzy, and having been your mother for 16 years, I really wish you'd put off sexual intercourse and serious sexual contact for another few years. That's why your curfew is 8pm and you're not allowed to have boys in rooms with closed doors".
These conversations are similar to other conversations families have to pass on their values to young people who are gaining their independence. Imagine a young man entering high school. His family are observant jews or muslims or hindus. One of his parents might have a heartfelt talk with him (or fire-and-brimstone) about how he's gaining more independance now, but, as he's able to make more choices outside of the house, it's very important to them that he continue observing their dietary traditions (kosher or halal or other). Or even imagine a child raised by strict vegan parents-
their personal morals would dictate that the cheese sandwich in the lunch line was wrong. The child would know their parents beliefs, and the rationale behind those beliefs, even as her parents taught her and gave her the tools to act on those beliefs independently. (For example, learning to read labels and scan for casein and lecithin). Just the same, a christian family must be comfortable telling their child that even though sex might be safe, it is their belief, and very important to them, that they not indulge.
The only difference is that the vegan parents don't campaign for looser milk pasteurization standards, so that omnivorous children come down with a nice case of food poisoning every now and again, so their child can learn the dangers of eating animal products. The Hindu parent does not write to the television station demanding that they run more stories on bovine spongiform encephelopathy so that their children know that it's not just wrong, but dangerous to eat meat.
So why sex? Why do we, as a country, believe that the moral persuasive power of parents is so weak that we need to rely on scare tactics to force this one issue? It is just as morally subjective as whether or not to eat animal products, but we pretend that it is not. No one wants to say that it's ok for teenagers to have sex, because it is perceived as so potentially destructive to them. No one wants to say that we could make it less destructive for teenagers to have sex, because no one wants to be heard to say that it's ok.
And that, my friend is circular logic.
So I'm fucking breaking that circle.
INSOFAR AS IT IS SAFE, IT IS OK FOR TEENAGERS TO HAVE SEX.
Whether their families choose to encourage them not to, forbid them to, or punish them for- is none of my or anyone elses business.
*Why am I discounting other STD's here? Well, because proper access to healthcare will counterract the most serious effects of most other STD's. If girls have a good, open relationship with a physician, Gonorrhea and Chlamydia will be detected before reproductive damage would occur, just as in an adult woman. Same with boys. Same with syphillis. And herpes, while an effective scare tactic, just doesn't ruin your life the way people would like you to believe. The other varietal diseases- shigella, crabs, etc...same as one or the other.
Monday, November 21, 2005
KMart declines to reply.
Dear (Hobobarista),
Thank you for contacting Kmart.
Regretfully, we are unable to assist you with your request through this
department. Please contact your local Kmart pharmacy for further
assistance.
To locate the closest Kmart pharmacy, please visit www.kmart.com and click
on the store finder link located in the upper right of every page.
We appreciate your inquiry and apologize for any inconvenience.
Look for great bargains throughout the store and find Kmart exclusive
brands like Martha Stewart Everyday, Thalia Sodi, Joe Boxer, Route 66 and
Jaclyn Smith.
Angela M.
Kmart Customer Care
Thank you for contacting Kmart.
Regretfully, we are unable to assist you with your request through this
department. Please contact your local Kmart pharmacy for further
assistance.
To locate the closest Kmart pharmacy, please visit www.kmart.com and click
on the store finder link located in the upper right of every page.
We appreciate your inquiry and apologize for any inconvenience.
Look for great bargains throughout the store and find Kmart exclusive
brands like Martha Stewart Everyday, Thalia Sodi, Joe Boxer, Route 66 and
Jaclyn Smith.
Angela M.
Kmart Customer Care
Brooks Replies
Dear Brooks Pharmacy Customer -
As healthcare professionals, our pharmacists' primary objective is to provide our patients with superior health information and unmatched standards of care.
Our company position is that our pharmacists comply with the policies and procedures to ensure that appropriate care is delivered to our patients. This prohibits a pharmacist from refusing to fill a prescription based on any religious, political or moral beliefs.
Brooks Pharmacy has traditionally carried and dispensed the Plan B product in question to our patients who present prescriptions, and will continue to provide it.
Cordially,
Customer Care Dept.
As healthcare professionals, our pharmacists' primary objective is to provide our patients with superior health information and unmatched standards of care.
Our company position is that our pharmacists comply with the policies and procedures to ensure that appropriate care is delivered to our patients. This prohibits a pharmacist from refusing to fill a prescription based on any religious, political or moral beliefs.
Brooks Pharmacy has traditionally carried and dispensed the Plan B product in question to our patients who present prescriptions, and will continue to provide it.
Cordially,
Customer Care Dept.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
