Notice I was talking about casualty *rates* rather than absolute casualty values. According to that study, infantry duty in Iraq is just as dangerous as it was in Vietnam...
You're deluding yourself if you think casualty rates in Iraq are "very small" compared to Nam. This article may be of interest. Here's an excerpt:
But a comparative analysis of U.S. casualty statistics from Iraq tells a different story. After factoring in medical, doctrinal, and technological improvements, infantry duty in Iraq circa 2004 comes out just as intense as infantry duty in Vietnam circa 1966--and in some cases more lethal. Even discrete engagements, such as the battle of Hue City in 1968 and the battles for Fallujah in 2004, tell a similar tale: Today's grunts are patrolling a battlefield every bit as deadly as the crucible their fathers faced in Southeast Asia.
At any rate, the adventure in Iraq was just that; unnecessary (the administration exerted undue pressure on the intelligence agencies to give them the casus belli they wanted--and George Tenet got his congressional medal of honor (despite being the person who said the presence of WMDs was a "slam dunk") for toeing the party line ; and before you bring out the old canard about various ancient, sequestered chemical stores being "WMDs", remember GWB himself has admitted several times that he was mistaken on the WMD issue (oh clarification: not him personally, because he wants to be a second Teflon president, but the intelligence agencies, and the troops on the ground), and initiated on false premises.
GWB stated in circa 1999 that if he had the "political capital", he would invade Iraq--this was well before the dog and pony show of attempting to find a diplomatic solution. He repeated the same "political capital" nonsense in his inauguration speech in '04.
We opened a needless second front, went into Iraq without a plan for what to do after the initial phases of the war (Rumsfeld quashed any discussion regarding a post-war plan; and again, don't delude yourself...the "mission accomplished" thing was a cheap trick, one meant to deceive the American public) created a recruiting ground and haven for Al Qaeda, motivated all those millions of youthful would-be insurgents in the Arab world with fiascos like Abu Ghraib, Haditha and so on.
All the while, former White house interns are put in charge of something on the order of $13 billion (and much of it becomes mysteriously "unaccountable"), contractors with political connections get no-bid contracts and overcharge taxpayers to the tune of millions, and a war that will eventually cost on the order of $2 trillion keeps continuing with no end in sight.
I wonder how long your sort of blind party loyalty coupled with this sort of rationalization will continue...well, apparently you have the company of 30% of the voting population.
Traitor generals? Oh you mean the ones who do their patriotic duty (burning many bridges in the process) by criticizing that arrogant fool Rumsfeld? The Venona transcripts do indicate that there were many Soviet moles at the time, but McCarthy had no basis for his accusations. He was a drunk populist who latched on to a meme and hurt a great many innocents with his wild accusations and witch-hunts.
The "R" statistical software guy is full of shit. A cursory look at his matrix multiply code will reveal that he's a completely inadequate programmer. Porting some piece of shit package from one OS to another and making no effort to optimize for the second OS does not make for an accurate comparison of performance.
Did you bother to skim through the article, or even the summary? Apparently not.
The draft legislation, created by the Bush administration and backed by Rep. Lamar Smith, already enjoys the support of large copyright holders such as the Recording Industry Association of America.
Oh please, "First Contact" was one of the better films in the Trek franchise, I'd rate it 3rd overall. If there was a movie that deserves to be panned, it was the last one. "Insurrection"? The title was something along those lines. Truly awful, almost as wretched as the one in which Kirk sets off to find "Eden" and "God".
Crichton is a Luddite-ish (and a bad writer to boot) whose general methodology is to spin the latest Frankenstein fear into a novel ("Prey", which I believe was his previous novel, was about the grey goo nanotech scenario); this is not the same, but given how divorced from reality his stuff generally is, you really should fact check. I once read an article by a respected climate scientist debunking his viewpoints on AGW, but I can't find the link at the moment.
This one and this are vaguely interesting.
This is sort of appeal-to-authority-ish, but they're real authorities, and here's what they had to say about the novel:
"Notable mainly for its nuttiness," an analysis from the Brookings Institution said.
"Does not reflect scientific fact," the Union of Concerned Scientists said.
It's somewhat challenging, but doable...your characters should all have godlike abilities at that point. The easiest way would be to (ab)use the mage spell Project Image (and perhaps Simulacrum as well) and go on a rampage with multiple calls to Dragon's Breath, Comet, Timestop, Summon Planetar etc.Be sure to cover your mages with your fighters (who should all have Greater Whirlwind and +5 weapons, to make sashimi of those pesky monsters that you face). Also highly recommend the elemental summons and so on, and the instant heals from the rod of resurrection.
When reading about the immense excitement this game seems to generate among enthusiasts, I'm tempted to go out and purchase it. However, I did try Morrowind for a few hours (PC), and I was never engaged. I've played NWN, the Baldur's Gate series, and KotOR, and enjoyed them all, so perhaps I've been conditioned to expect a Bioware sort of game (although I've played through hack and slash-ish stuff like Diablo and Dungeon Siege, but wasn't really a fan) with the associated linearity. The whole clicking to swing your sword thing, and the washed out color scheme didn't really do it for me, but perhaps I should give it another try.
Also, is a familiarity with Morrowind a pre-requisite to playing Oblivion?
Eh...KotOR 1 was fantastic, but while the sequel had its moments, on the whole it was rather shoddily made (and incomplete, to boot). But agreed, the first game's sense of immersion was unmatched, it's among the most engrossing games I've played.
You are incorrect--the release version of OS X for Intel does support the "NX" (no execute page protection mode, and by implication, PAE) feature, and has stack pages marked NX by default. Get your facts right before bloviating, troll. I believe, but am not sure, that the G5 equivalent is supported as well, but given the architecture+ABI differences, it's somewhat less vulnerable than x86 to stack smash style vulnerabilities.
"Kurt Gödel (how could I forget him?) is one of the gods of the voodoo science pantheon. Gödel is certainly the most often quoted yet inconsequential mathematician of the world. He is known for his incompleteness theorem, the most non-scientific, chicken-feather-voodoo nonsense ever penned by a member of the human species."
Exactly how was this accepted for submission, especially in the "Science" category? This would be more appropriate under "kooky humor", at best.
Utter nonsense. It appalls me how many latter-day Confederate sympathisers attempt to cast a gloss on the roots of the war by saying it was about "states rights". I will quote:
What did Southerners themselves say about the cause of the Civil War? The South Carolina Secession Convention adopted the Declaration of Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina, written by Christopher G. Memminger of Charleston. In this document the secession of South Carolina from the Union was rested squarely on two factors:
the North's hostility toward slavery, and
the North's refusal to enforce the fugitive slave laws.
In fact, in a 4-1 vote, the convention refused to even consider adding other issues, such as the tariff!
One of delegates, Thomas Jefferson Withers, had earlier written: "The true question for us is, how shall we sustain African slavery in South Carolina from a series of annoying attacks, attended by incidental consequences that I shrink from depicting, and finally from utter abolition? That is the problem before us - the naked and true point."
So the members of Convention pretty clearly realized that they weren't concerned about any issue other than their right to maintain, buy, and sell human property -- African American slaves.
Take a look at this page, which may demolish some more of your fondly held delusions.
Apropos the Bible, I'm completely in agreement that it should be read as a historical text - indeed, I agree that it has enormous historical and literary value. The issue at hand is that it purports to be an arbiter of morality, and is believed to be divinely created and infallible, or divinely inspired, by many. This is a dangerous view, as the text is steeped in the values of the times, and while the views espoused in the Bible may have been somewhat progressive at the time, they can only be regarded as inhumane today.
I'm not certain why you segued into a rant on the separation of church and state, but I will let website advance several well-written arguments in favor. You should also look up the phrase "tyranny of the majority", and James Madison's and Thomas Jefferson's views on the constitution - I daresay that they knew rather more about the constitution that they helped frame than you or I. Here's a rather profound quote:
Directly, The (unamended) Constitution, Article VI, Section III
" but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
"The remaining part of the clause declares, that 'no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States.' This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any test or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew that bigotry was unceasingly vigilant in its own stratagems, to secure to itself an exclusive ascendancy over the human mind; and that intolerance was ever ready to arm itself with all the terrors of civil power to exterminate those, who doubted its dogmas, or resisted its infallibility."
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Vol III, (1833) p 705.
The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but rather derives from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, Jefferson referred to a "wall of separation between church and state." James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote in the early 1800s, "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." Ulysses S. Grant also called for Americans to "Keep the church and state forever separate."
Oh, and by arguing for the teaching of superstition rather than science in schools, your argument has lost any sort of legitimacy.
Please read my response to "baked beans", who seems to be of a more literalist bent - I have included many quotes that aren't from the epistles. Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Ah, the human capacity for self-delusion never ceases to amaze. No, I wasn't referring to any particular instance of slavery, although the instances of slaveowners in the south using the Bible to justify themselves did weigh heavily upon my mind, and I guess I must do some research to dispel your comfortable notion of slavery in Biblical times.
The standard of treatment for these "household servants who take care of the chores":
"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money" (Exodus 21:20-21).
In other words, non-fatal mutilation is excusable. (A "law of moses").
"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever" (Exodus 21:2-6).
In other words, the child of a slave is born a slave, and the incentive for the slave to remain enslaved is the fact that his wife and children are slaves.
How about this, which condones selling your daughter into slavery, and polygamy as well?
"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation, he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife: her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish"
No doubt this was considered progressive at the time, but if you believe this is "divinely inspired",you must have awfully low standards for your divinity.
"And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee" (Deuteronomy 20:13-14).
This is justice? I shudder to think of the twisted world view that would excuse such passages. And if you really believe the enemies of the Israelites were indulging in "sex with animals" (not that it would excuse genocide, rape and enslavement in any case), you're quite naive. History (and I use the term loosely here) is often written by the victors.
And how about the conduct of Moses, in Numbers 31:7-18
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
Genocide, and rape (but only of virgins!).
So atrocities in this "mortal existence" are okay and excusable when endorsed by the Bible, since the rest of eternity is heavenly bliss?
An example of the lord's vengeance:
Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of
Oh here comes the tired old rhetoric about how the New Testament is more humane and gentle, and overrides the barbarism of the Old Testament.
I wonder what you have to say about these appalling quotes from the NT:
"Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ." (Ephesians 6:5) "Slaves, obey your human masters in everything; don't work only while being watched, in order to please men, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord." (Colassians 3:22) "Slaves are to be submissive to their masters in everything, and to be well-pleasing, not talking back." (Titus 2:9) "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel. " (1 Peter 2:18) So yes, the Bible supports the barbaric and inhumane institution of slavery, and encourages slaves to submit themselves to their masters, even the cruel ones. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, I looked those up when I was discussing Biblical support for practices like slavery with another poster who lacked critical thinking abilities.
How about women's rights? Let's see.. "Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." (1 Corinthians 14:34)
I believe you can get the behavior you want with a third party utility; I don't feel a need for those features (and I use my powerbook constantly), but I can understand why their lack may be an annoyance.
Dunno about the rest (never saw a need for them, especially the "quite" sound - the rest seem like nitpicks from someone used to windows machines), but the newer powerbooks do have hibernate; the older ones could stay on standby for several days, so it wasn't really something I missed.
While I don't know for certain why tests weren't conducted before India's acknowledgment of the WTO protocols, it's possible that the fear of reverse engineering experimental (and potentially successful) pharmaceuticals by companies in that country (before IP protections were instituted) may have played a role. I'm not an expert here so I cannot vouch for this.
Instances of malfeasance by multinational pharmas during the course of clinical trials in third world countries have been well documented: see for instance this story about Pfizer's behavior in a Nigerian meningitis test; and this story (referred to in Marcia Angell's book) about ethics violations in an Ugandan HIV study.
Also, the grandparent poster seems to be equating animal testing with human testing in third world countries; they are *not* at all equivalent, both from a medical perspective, and from a regulatory perspective. If they were, and animal testing was such a huge financial barrier in the US, why wouldn't they do their animal testing in third world countries? You know, market forces and all...
You sir, are a fucking idiot. Where did the original poster express support for ecoterrorism? And such attacks have had *very* little effect on medical testing on animals, and you'd know this if you actually had a clue. I know this because a close friend of mine works on radiation therapy research which routinely uses simian test subjects.
I don't know if this "argument" was intended as a strawman, but it appears several moderators have somehow taken leave of their senses and given you an "insightful" rating. The issue at hand is when certain corporations find the regulatory system in the US not to their taste, and use near-illiterate test subjects in third world countries to refine/try out dangerous products before introducing them to far more strictly regulated FDA approved trials. You have turned this serious issue into a rant about the merits of capitalism and extolling the virtues of drug companies who do no wrong (see, for instance, this book by an editor of the New England Journal of medicine, and any number of ethics scandals involving big pharma), along with putting words into the mouths of your opponents. Shame on you.
Slashdot Mirror
Notice I was talking about casualty *rates* rather than absolute casualty values. According to that study, infantry duty in Iraq is just as dangerous as it was in Vietnam...
Sorry, that first link regarding casualty rates should've read like this.
Why bother typing if you don't have anything intelligent to say? *sigh*
GWB stated in circa 1999 that if he had the "political capital", he would invade Iraq--this was well before the dog and pony show of attempting to find a diplomatic solution. He repeated the same "political capital" nonsense in his inauguration speech in '04.
We opened a needless second front, went into Iraq without a plan for what to do after the initial phases of the war (Rumsfeld quashed any discussion regarding a post-war plan; and again, don't delude yourself...the "mission accomplished" thing was a cheap trick, one meant to deceive the American public) created a recruiting ground and haven for Al Qaeda, motivated all those millions of youthful would-be insurgents in the Arab world with fiascos like Abu Ghraib, Haditha and so on.
All the while, former White house interns are put in charge of something on the order of $13 billion (and much of it becomes mysteriously "unaccountable"), contractors with political connections get no-bid contracts and overcharge taxpayers to the tune of millions, and a war that will eventually cost on the order of $2 trillion keeps continuing with no end in sight.
I wonder how long your sort of blind party loyalty coupled with this sort of rationalization will continue...well, apparently you have the company of 30% of the voting population.
Traitor generals? Oh you mean the ones who do their patriotic duty (burning many bridges in the process) by criticizing that arrogant fool Rumsfeld? The Venona transcripts do indicate that there were many Soviet moles at the time, but McCarthy had no basis for his accusations. He was a drunk populist who latched on to a meme and hurt a great many innocents with his wild accusations and witch-hunts.
The "R" statistical software guy is full of shit. A cursory look at his matrix multiply code will reveal that he's a completely inadequate programmer. Porting some piece of shit package from one OS to another and making no effort to optimize for the second OS does not make for an accurate comparison of performance.
Oh please, "First Contact" was one of the better films in the Trek franchise, I'd rate it 3rd overall. If there was a movie that deserves to be panned, it was the last one. "Insurrection"? The title was something along those lines. Truly awful, almost as wretched as the one in which Kirk sets off to find "Eden" and "God".
This one and this are vaguely interesting. This is sort of appeal-to-authority-ish, but they're real authorities, and here's what they had to say about the novel:
It's somewhat challenging, but doable...your characters should all have godlike abilities at that point. The easiest way would be to (ab)use the mage spell Project Image (and perhaps Simulacrum as well) and go on a rampage with multiple calls to Dragon's Breath, Comet, Timestop, Summon Planetar etc.Be sure to cover your mages with your fighters (who should all have Greater Whirlwind and +5 weapons, to make sashimi of those pesky monsters that you face). Also highly recommend the elemental summons and so on, and the instant heals from the rod of resurrection.
Also, is a familiarity with Morrowind a pre-requisite to playing Oblivion?
Eh...KotOR 1 was fantastic, but while the sequel had its moments, on the whole it was rather shoddily made (and incomplete, to boot). But agreed, the first game's sense of immersion was unmatched, it's among the most engrossing games I've played.
You are incorrect--the release version of OS X for Intel does support the "NX" (no execute page protection mode, and by implication, PAE) feature, and has stack pages marked NX by default. Get your facts right before bloviating, troll. I believe, but am not sure, that the G5 equivalent is supported as well, but given the architecture+ABI differences, it's somewhat less vulnerable than x86 to stack smash style vulnerabilities.
I'm not certain why you segued into a rant on the separation of church and state, but I will let website advance several well-written arguments in favor. You should also look up the phrase "tyranny of the majority", and James Madison's and Thomas Jefferson's views on the constitution - I daresay that they knew rather more about the constitution that they helped frame than you or I. Here's a rather profound quote:
Oh, and by arguing for the teaching of superstition rather than science in schools, your argument has lost any sort of legitimacy.Please read my response to "baked beans", who seems to be of a more literalist bent - I have included many quotes that aren't from the epistles. Thank you for your thoughtful response.
The standard of treatment for these "household servants who take care of the chores": "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money" (Exodus 21:20-21).
In other words, non-fatal mutilation is excusable. (A "law of moses").
"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever" (Exodus 21:2-6).
In other words, the child of a slave is born a slave, and the incentive for the slave to remain enslaved is the fact that his wife and children are slaves.
How about this, which condones selling your daughter into slavery, and polygamy as well?
"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation, he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife: her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish"
No doubt this was considered progressive at the time, but if you believe this is "divinely inspired",you must have awfully low standards for your divinity.
"And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee" (Deuteronomy 20:13-14).
This is justice? I shudder to think of the twisted world view that would excuse such passages. And if you really believe the enemies of the Israelites were indulging in "sex with animals" (not that it would excuse genocide, rape and enslavement in any case), you're quite naive. History (and I use the term loosely here) is often written by the victors.
And how about the conduct of Moses, in Numbers 31:7-18
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
Genocide, and rape (but only of virgins!).
So atrocities in this "mortal existence" are okay and excusable when endorsed by the Bible, since the rest of eternity is heavenly bliss?
An example of the lord's vengeance: Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of
I wonder what you have to say about these appalling quotes from the NT: "Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ." (Ephesians 6:5) "Slaves, obey your human masters in everything; don't work only while being watched, in order to please men, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord." (Colassians 3:22) "Slaves are to be submissive to their masters in everything, and to be well-pleasing, not talking back ." (Titus 2:9) "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel. " (1 Peter 2:18) So yes, the Bible supports the barbaric and inhumane institution of slavery, and encourages slaves to submit themselves to their masters, even the cruel ones. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, I looked those up when I was discussing Biblical support for practices like slavery with another poster who lacked critical thinking abilities.
How about women's rights? Let's see.. "Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." (1 Corinthians 14:34)
I believe you can get the behavior you want with a third party utility; I don't feel a need for those features (and I use my powerbook constantly), but I can understand why their lack may be an annoyance.
Dunno about the rest (never saw a need for them, especially the "quite" sound - the rest seem like nitpicks from someone used to windows machines), but the newer powerbooks do have hibernate; the older ones could stay on standby for several days, so it wasn't really something I missed.
Instances of malfeasance by multinational pharmas during the course of clinical trials in third world countries have been well documented: see for instance this story about Pfizer's behavior in a Nigerian meningitis test; and this story (referred to in Marcia Angell's book) about ethics violations in an Ugandan HIV study.
Also, the grandparent poster seems to be equating animal testing with human testing in third world countries; they are *not* at all equivalent, both from a medical perspective, and from a regulatory perspective. If they were, and animal testing was such a huge financial barrier in the US, why wouldn't they do their animal testing in third world countries? You know, market forces and all...
You sir, are a fucking idiot. Where did the original poster express support for ecoterrorism? And such attacks have had *very* little effect on medical testing on animals, and you'd know this if you actually had a clue. I know this because a close friend of mine works on radiation therapy research which routinely uses simian test subjects.
I don't know if this "argument" was intended as a strawman, but it appears several moderators have somehow taken leave of their senses and given you an "insightful" rating. The issue at hand is when certain corporations find the regulatory system in the US not to their taste, and use near-illiterate test subjects in third world countries to refine/try out dangerous products before introducing them to far more strictly regulated FDA approved trials. You have turned this serious issue into a rant about the merits of capitalism and extolling the virtues of drug companies who do no wrong (see, for instance, this book by an editor of the New England Journal of medicine, and any number of ethics scandals involving big pharma), along with putting words into the mouths of your opponents. Shame on you.