(Back to the top because people still don’t understand this.) His trial has been declared a mistrial. The personal is not the political. His wife seemed like a good person, but I could care less. FDR cheated on his wife. JFK screwed hookers in the White House pool while married. The facts about John Edwards [...]
Although this video of activist Greta Christina is primarily about atheism, this post is not really about atheism. She gets the “Why are you so angry?” question from religious people all the time. It’s a trick question, really, because it’s not like she’s a raving lunatic jumping up and down screaming about the religious right’s war on Solstice or anything. It’s more like *anything* that remotely in the teeny tiniest way calls into question the believer’s faith in the existence of god is deliberately misinterpreted as an aggressive act.
But what I like about Greta Christina’s talk the most is that what she says about how to use anger can- and MUST- be adopted by the reawakened feminist movement.
Smart lady. The best moment comes at about the 20:50 minute mark. Priceless.
1.) Charles Pierce writes that Obama’s press conference yesterday featuring Slutgate and contraception left him uneasy. In Standing Up for Sex, Pierce writes:
Not a simple, mumbling word about the right to decent health-care, let alone the right to choose. Given a golden opportunity to say flatly that he and his administration were foursquare behind these rights, he gave the whole thing a pass. I’m sure he’s got poll numbers that tell him not to say “abortion” in public but, damn, this was disappointing.
This is what I mean when I say that this issue can only be a political winner for the Democrats if they go out and make it one. How hard would it have been for him to say, “Look, it’s probably not a good time in history to be using the war metaphor, but there’s no question that the Republican party is a vehicle in an organized campaigh to roll back women’s rights in the most personal sphere of their lives, and, as long as I’m president, that won’t happen.”?
I’m glad he called Sandra Fluke. I just wish he’d show that he appreciates the incredible political gift she gave him.
Obama thinks his party affiliation speaks for itself and we should read into his statements what his real thoughts and intentions are. And this worked so well in 2008. Everyone thought he was a liberal even though he didn’t embrace liberal or even Democratic or New Deal principles. Everyone thought he was an anti-war candidate even though this was all premised upon what he *might* have done had he actually been present at the IWR vote. Everyone thought he was a feminist, which flew in the face of hard evidence that we watched and heard with our very own senses. In the past four years, he has shown himself to be none of the things he was assumed to be so, and, as far as I’m concerned, we should not assume or presume that he is onboard with sex being guilt free for adult women. More likely, he has no natural empathy for women in this regard so he’s more inclined to do what’s good for him politically and not for women socially. And right now, he thinks it is good for him politically to reach out to evangelicals and the women’s vote will just flock to him because women are assuming he is not as bad as the Republicans.
I think he is just as bad, if not worse, because his attitude encourages complacency. It will all be taken care of, don’t you worry. A year from now, women are going to be kicking themselves for not being more demanding of him. You’re only going to get a commitment from him under duress and until you hear him choke it out in a high squeaky voice, don’t assume anything.
2.) Speaking of beliefs that may or may not have any basis in fact, have you checked out the Richard Dawkins Belief Scale? Unlike women’s rights, you don’t have to commit to a god or atheism. It’s perfectly Ok to land somewhere along the scale. I’m a 5.78324. Some people might round that up. Here it is:
Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
Assuming that there are not as many 1’s out there as the Beanie Boys would have you think, why should we allow the 1’s to run the country based on judeo-christian biblical principles?
3.) More on belief. Pat Robertson may have exceeded his stupidity quota. When asked on the 700 Club about why God kills people with tornados, he had this to say:
There ya’ go, tornado victims. Let this be a lesson to you. Don’t buy a farm in the middle of tornado alley. Don’t be a person who earns a living in tornado alley either. And woe to you on the west coast in the earthquake zone. The kinfolk say, move away from there! Californy is NOT the place you want to be. Also, if you are anywhere where you could be swept away by a flash flood, get caught up in a hurricane or Nor’easter, burnt to a cinder in a wildfire, trapped in a heat wave, engulfed in a blizzard, frozen in a cold snap, eaten by wild animals or poisoned by insects and plants, or irradiated by a particularly unusual and strong solar flare, well, it’s your own damn fault. Did God promise you a rose garden? You should have bought one of the time shares in Glenn Beck’s underground bunker cities and retreated to it with your 6 months supply of dried ravioli and Tang.
Now, Viehbacher’s point seems to be that small biotechs and mid sized companies are more nimble and innovative than big behemoth pharma companies so, and here’s the logic of the bonus class in all it’s glory, big pharma scientists just aren’t as good as those in smaller biotechs and therefore deserve to have their jobs eliminated.
This ignores two things that Viehbacher is either denying or completely ignorant of. The first is that those of us who up until recently worked in big pharma until we were dumped for working in big pharma, did not start our careers in big pharma. Nooooo, we were in medium pharma. The first pharma I worked at only had 3 research sites and the one I worked at in Princeton was relatively small having about 400 people total working on about 5 different therapeutic areas. It was all self contained with chemistry, biology, animal facilities, structural biology, analytical, scale up, everything in one building. But then came the mergers and more mergers and we added more facilities and companies and satellite research centers in different companies and then we got consultants to come in every couple of years and rejigger everyone, just to keep it light and breezy. Every time there was a merger, work would come to a screeching halt for two years so the managers could play musical chairs and find a department headship position, usually by doing a real Julius Caesar meets Brutus in the Senate scene. So, big was never OUR idea. It was the bright idea of the finance guys, the consultant guys and the Viehbacher guys who got big bonuses from every merger they made.
The second thing that undermines Viehbacher’s argument is that all of those big pharma scientists that he thought were no good are now working for the small companies and acedemic groups that Viehbacher is planning to rape. Now that they’ve been liberated from the shackles of big pharma wage slavery, they are working more nimbly and innovatively at small biotechs and university labs with vastly reduced salaries and benefits. And this must warm the cockles of Viehbacher’s heart enormously.
5.) Finally, Titli Nihaan, my new favorite internet chef (until #1 child gets her own show), shows us how to make a Cassoulet and gives us some French lessons as a bonus! This is the halal version. I tried it the other night but made some even leaner substitutions. Delicious. Er, Magnifique!
Body: This paper, or pre-draft, or sketch, or whatever it is, started out with this title: "With The 12-Point Platform, this won't happen: An aristocracy of credentialism in the 20%." But then I realized I'd gotten in deeper than I thought -- one of those posts were the framework and the notes overwhelm the original idea -- and as it tur […]
On Virtually Speaking Sundays, Stuart Zechman and Dave Johnson talked about the evils of TPP and Fast-track, and argued about whether Hillary Clinton would have bad policies. (I don't understand why Dave keeps talking as if there will be no changes in the House and Senate after the next election - the one that theoretically elects Hillary Clinton. That […]