Katrina

I've been slammed with several things keeping me from the blog lately, but I wanted to make a quick post related to an e-mail that was read on CNN's "Situation Room" this afternoon. Basically, the writer mentioned how nice it would be to have National Guard help in the areas ravaged by Hurricane Katrina, but, of course, many of them are overseas, fighting to stay alive in Iraq.

It will be interesting to see if our overseas deployment has made us less able to respond to a crisis as dramatic as Katrina. The National Guard Bureau has asked all states to determine how many National Guard troops they could muster to send to the Gulf Coast. It will be a lot less than they could offer if many of them weren't off fighting a war, but it still isn't certain whether the discrepancy will be enough to make a difference. But I'm sure the police officers who are getting shot while trying to stop looters from stealing guns could have used the help.

In the meantime, members of the Louisiana National Guard had to watch in horror from their camps in Iraq as the water rose over New Orleans. They are scheduled to return home soon, if they still have homes. The days to come will determine whether we're witnessing a great American city getting wiped off the map.

Prescription Morality

My friend John R. sent me his thoughts on an interesting trend seen in many parts of the country. Some pharmacists are refusing to give people their prescriptions if those prescriptions conflict with their arbitrary moral beliefs. Some might say it's tantamout to refusing medical care if you don't like something about the patient. It's a tactic that an enlightened society should find disgusting and dangerous. In his comments presented here in their entirety, John says that the Law -- so often the bulwark against the frightened bleatings of the irrational -- could set things right here:

-------------------------------

This is a situation that has received a little attention in the news lately, but not nearly enough, in my humble opinion. Recently, in the Northeast, as well as other parts of the country, pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions for routine contraceptives, such as birth-control pills, citing moral objections, forcing patients to return later or go store to store, and in some instances, missing doses because of the delay.

This is an unacceptable situation. These alarming cases highlight the need for a federal law to ensure patients get their prescriptions filled in a timely manner. It is unfortunate that such a law would be necessary, but apparently it is.

Of course, pharmacists, like other professionals, are human beings with opinions, values and religious beliefs. But a firefighter cannot refuse to douse a burning home because he or she objects to a family situation or lifestyle, such as a gay couple or an interracial couple. Nor can a pharmacist substitute his or her judgment for that of a physician or a customer -- and they should not be in the business of creating undue hardships for patients who have limited opportunities, because of the number of pharmacies or access to transportation in an area, to get their prescriptions filled.

Furthermore, customers should not have to go into a drugstore worrying about being subjected to another individual's moral judgment, no matter what they are purchasing, as long as that item is legal. Whether or not you approve of birth control in general, from condoms to the pill, or the morning-after pill specifically, the fact of the matter is: They are legal.

Certainly, pharmacists serve a valuable role in determining whether a patient's prescriptions conflict with or counteract each other, but they should not be in the position of determining whether medication is morally "right" -- or, to take this reasoning to the not-unforeseeable extreme, whether certain segments of society are worthy of receiving medication at all. It is up to a physician and a patient to determine the best course of action for that particular individual. Period.

The American Pharmacists Association says pharmacists should not be required to fill certain prescriptions if they have personal objections. However, the organization says, they should ensure that there are alternatives in place, such as referring the patient to another pharmacist on duty.

That is the goal of the federal Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act, which was introduced in the U.S. House and Senate in April. The legislation would recognize the right of pharmacists to hold personal religious beliefs, but would make sure that does not impede a patient's access to legal prescriptions, including contraception.

The bill, introduced by U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., would allow an individual pharmacist to refuse to dispense contraception, but require the pharmacy to ensure that someone else there fills the prescription in a timely manner. The bill would make sure that a patient's prescription is filled without delay or harassment, regardless of the religious or moral beliefs of a specific pharmacist. Since the proposed legislation does nothing to resolve the issue in a small pharmacy with only one pharmacist on duty, owners of those shops should be prepared to lose regular customers if their pharmacists are allowed to dictate morality in dispensing prescriptions.

Personally, I think this bill, while not ideal (in that it does not force pharmacists to provide medication regardless of their personal moral beliefs, which would be a similar standard under which physicians operate), is the best middle ground for which we can hope in the philopolitical atmosphere of our current national debate. While a compromise solution, it remains a solution nonetheless, and should be supported.

And as a final warning to pharmacists out there -- speaking in my capacity as an attorney, and in particular a tort litigator, I would be very cautious in counseling clients that they were free to refuse to dispense medication based on moral or religious grounds, merely because a professional association allows that behavior. In our current highly litigious culture, creative tort theory is ever evolving, and I would not want to be in a courtroom for a case of first impression where a woman brings suit against a pharmacist for monetary damages as the result of an unwanted pregnancy caused by that pharmacist's refusal to dispense the morning-after pill on a timely basis. Too far-fetched you say? You would be surprised...

Kansas Joins The 11th Century

Just in case anyone missed it, the Kansas Board of Education voted to allow intelligent design to be taught in the schools there. The actual decision is left to local schools whether to pollute their science courses with rhetorical bull. No word on whether Flying Spaghetti Monsterism made the cut.

I want to make it clear that the varied attacks I make on intelligent design being taught in the schools on this blog are not attacks on people with religious views or even on the idea of having a religious viewpoint. Specific to the decision of a school board to include such teachings in a science class, my problem is that ID does not, in reality, represent science. Proponents find things about evolution that they can't grasp and package them together in what they believe is a critique of the theory. But that "critique" does not pass scientific muster. Their points are usually without merit (they often describe espects of evolution as unexplained, when, in fact, they are explained). And the whole mess is not based on scientific principles, even though its proponents would have you believe they are.

That's where the problem lies with scientists attacking intelligent design. There's nothing there to attack. It doesn't come from any rational basis, so rational argument doesn't work. ID proponents inevitably must fall back on faith and their own misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. When that happens, anyone trying to reason with them comes up against a brick wall. There's simply nothing more that can be done.

And that is why it is so imperative that this is not taught in the schools. It represents irrational, non-critical thinking. Rather than being simply "another point of view," as the president would have you believe, it is a set of half-truths, lies and faith. It allows for the dumbing-down of our schools and is a recipe for disaster.

Unlike Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, of course, which has pirate-related data to back itself up.

FSM In Our Schools

One person who is upset about the pressure to include Intelligent Design in the schools is Phil Plait, the brains behind the wonderful Bad Astronomy Web site. He also picked up President Bush's call to teach magic alongside science (and yet call it science) in our nation's schools. And so I'm indebted to him for pointing out another, equally credible "school of thought" that deserves to be taught in the schools just as much as ID does.

It's called Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, or FSM. That link will take you to a letter to the Kansas School Board from Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen, exhorting them to apply the same critical thinking skills they've already focused on the ID issue and include FSM in any discussion of the possible origins of life on earth. The letter includes such scientific standbys as charts, numbers, graphics, etc., to prove that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. It also shows the frightening effects of the decline in pirates.

This scientifically sound theory does have detractors, of course. One letter to the site not only expresses the hope that Henderson's genitals are eaten by three-legged mice with squirrel tails, but also puts forth the idea that ninjas are cooler than pirates.

Two members of the school board did write back, assuring Henderson that they are compiling many alternative theories and think that the members in the majority of the board might just have the intellectual capacity to want to include the study of FSM in the schools.

So wear your pirate regalia and push for the inclusion of FSM! I'm also reminded of another school of thought regarding mankind's origins that was expressed in the movie, "A Mighty Wind," by the Bohners:

Laurie Bohner: Terry and I worship an unconventional deity. The power of another dimension. Now you are not going to read about this dimension in a book or a magazine because it exists nowhere -- but in my own mind. Through our ceremonies and rituals we have witnessed the awesome and vibratory power -- of color.

Terry Bohner: This is not an occult science. This is not one of those crazy systems of divination and astrology. That stuff's hooey, and you've got to have a screw loose to go in for that sort of thing. Our beliefs are fairly commonplace and simple to understand. Humankind is simply materialized color operating on the 49th vibration. You would make that conclusion walking down the street or going to the store.

Sounds like another strong case...

Peter Jennings

Longtime ABC anchorman Peter Jennings died last night after a short bout with lung cancer. Only 67, Jennings was the one "Big Three" anchorman who had not announced any plans for retirement before lung cancer forced his hand.

I never met Jennings, though I saw him a couple times at the Republican National Convention last summer. I work with several people who have dealt directly with him, and their comments seem to be consistent with everything I've read. He was driven and controlling at times. He was also known for legitimately caring for the people he worked with, tempering exhausting schedule demands with moments of making sure they and their families were comfortable and had what they needed.

A person I work with described Jennings taking part in a town hall-style political forum in New Mexico fairly recently. Jennings was taping a special edition of World News Tonight in the area, so he was splitting time between that broadcast and the forum. He didn't know any of the forum participants before getting to the station, but an hour before the show began, he had memorized all their names, bios and other relevant information and talked the state's nervous governor into not walking off the set. It was his preparation that made him such a valuable part of the media world.

His experience was with international news. He established a bureau in Beirut and became an expert on the Middle East. He was on the scene of the Israeli athlete hostage-taking by an Arab terrorist group at the 1972 Munich Olympics. He dominated the ratings when America cared about what was going on overseas.

By the mid-1990s, Jennings had slid to No. 2 behind Tom Brokaw, as Americans shifted to more insular concerns. But on Sept. 11, 2001, I and many others tuned into ABC and heard Jennings' informed, somewhat patrician tone describing the events and putting them into a perspective that few others could.

This morning on NPR, Jennings' colleague and friend, Cokie Roberts, described how thrilled he was, a transplanted Canadian, to finally get his American citizenship recently. Last election was the first presidential election in which he voted, and Roberts said he was excited to finally take direct part in the process he had covered for so long. He never thought that his first election would be his only one.

The national nightly news has become a stagnant product across the networks. With Brokaw and Dan Rather retiring, and now with Jennings' untimely death, it will be interesting to see if the networks do anything to revive the format.

But Jennings was one of the voices I grew up with. It's unfortunate that in his last appearance on World News Tonight, the cancer had ravaged his voice, although his hoarse tone did not affect his usual smooth delivery.

"I have never spent a day in my adult life where I didn't learn something," Jennings told the Saturday Evening Post. "And if there is a born-again quality to me, that's it."

The appeal for journalism to me is that it's given me the chance to always learn something new, every day. I'm glad it did the same for Jennings, and it's too bad that his education ended sooner than he would have liked.

For ABC News' coverage of Jennings, go here, where you can also find video retrospectives and a message board.

Every Child Left Behind

It's no secret that President Bush is a firm believer in everything said in the Bible. He has used the support of evangelical Christian groups to get elected twice and rewarded them with government gifts. He has helped shape a culture that is increasingly subjected to pressure from these specific religious groups to impose on the country what they are convinced is the truth -- or rather, Truth. Now, he's given his approval to extend one particularly pernicious example of this into the schools.

In an interview with Texas newspapers, Bush said that he believes intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution in schools. He uses the language many ID proponents use, saying that
"part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." This language mistakenly puts evolution and ID on the same level, granting equal value to each.

I've brought up Slate writer William Saletan before, and I'll point to another column of his in which he tries to make the point that ID represents an evolution of creationist thought. The idea is that creationists are moving more and more toward evolution with each step away from the "young Earth" believers of the past centuries. His point seems to be that since ID pays service to certain scientific concepts, it's only a matter of time before it adopts all scientific concepts and becomes indistinguishable from evolution. I think. Saletan doesn't always hit you over the head with his points. He could also just be saying that scientists are ignoring the strengths of ID at their peril.

At any rate, here's my problem with Saletan's point of view (either one) and why it's so incredibly stupid to teach intelligent design in schools alongside evolution. First, as mentioned, creating a curriculum around these two ideas puts them on the same level. But evolution is science. It is based on the testing of hypotheses. Experiments will disprove weak hypotheses, and the overall theory is modified to fit new experimental results. The refined theory is tested, and so on. That is called science.

Intelligent design is about finding holes, and instead of creating a hypothesis that is experimentally tested, it concludes that wherever there is a hole, there's God. If you can't yet explain, that's where God's acting. And Bush considers this to be a mode of thought equal to science? A way of thinking that our children should learn to prepare them to compete in the world? It doesn't belong in our schools, which should be teaching our children critical thinking. Instead, it tries to show our children a way to stop thinking.

As a side point, I think most theologians would have a problem with the ID approach, if they think about it. And this seems to go along with what Saletan was, at least, hinting about. If you keep applying this reductionist reasoning to try to prove the existence of God, or even just simply that God created life, you run into an increasing problem. As science explains more and more, God diminishes until there's nothing left or so little that God is no longer consequential. If God isn't anywhere (or almost nowhere) at some easily conceivable point in the future, then how was he anywhere in the past? This school of thought that's mostly pushed by certain evangelical Christians in our society is a dangerously slippery slope for them, because it shows the path away from their God.