A couple of interesting developments on the new pharmaceuticals front: The Wall Street Journal fronts news that
Sanofi is having major problems with Acomplia, their new anti-obesity wonder drug, while the Times buries Merck's decision to drop it's "me too" sleeping pill, generic name gaboxadol.
Together these developments reinforce the perception that there's problems on the "blockbuster drug" front - few new treatments are shaping up to be the new Viagra, and several are failing to even get out of the gate; all of which continues to challenge the notions about "pricing for the high cost of research" argument about why American drug prices are so high.
Guess That Part About Manna Being Short for Marijuana Is Just Rumor...Toking is out at the Seder - 420 isn't KP.
(Although based on the seders I've attended - stoned is no solution. Munchies during the readings? Zoning out mid-meal, when we're just in hour number 3? Laughing during the reading of the four questions for no apparent reason? Feh.)
Certainly would help with reclining, though...:) Any thoughts, Jennifer?
I'd like to take a slightly different tack, and talk about the economics of it, and how we got here. Because, as I mentioned, that stock market disaster a couple of weeks ago was in fact driven by the subprime story, and the banking situation has the potential to wreck world markets, much in the way I sort of crank predicted (though I blamed Boomers, not bad loans).
By the way, speaking of Iraq - I have to say I was impressed, after all the roiling, that both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid held things together and passed Iraq funding bills with specific deadlines and timetables, baiting the President to come out, as he did, and threaten to veto them when they get to his desk.
No, there aren't veto-proof majoritioes here... but that's not the point. The point is that there will have to be some negotiating, now, on the final terms, and the President will likely have to agree to... something; something that says we will leave at some point if things don't get better.
The fact that dire predictions - and traditional GOP sarcasm - about Pelosi failing to get her majority, or about Reid never being able to get timetables past GOP Senators, turned out to be for nought is the real story here. Pelosi's win was huge. And Reid's was nothing short of remarkable, undoing weeks of "Mitch McConnell is a genius Minority Leader" storylines floated by the right.
Sure, the midterm elections had a lot to do with this - no one could seriously let the Democrats get away with not doing something different this time for funding. But it's also interesting to see thoughtful progressives accept logic that a few years ago would have seemed completely anathema - that real change is slow, that gradual progress is better than nothing at all (i.e. if you can't get everything you want right away, don't bother settling). Democrats proved that crafting legislation is about the art of the possible, and about making the compromises needed to get things done. And that, frankly, is what I wanted to see. Because that how's real uniters - as opposed to real dividers - work. And it means the winds of change are finally having an effect. I can feel it. Can you?
In this case, it's the argument J brings up that what we - what some
Democrats anyway - want from her is an apology for her support for the Iraq War.
It's argued that many other Democrats, Senators anyway, have done just this. Kerry, after all, went through a long, tortured process of trying to explicate how he'd supported the War then, but didn't now (the famous "I was for it before I was against it" construction is part of this).
And, as per my usual - especially with J - I find myself being totally contrary about this.
I've been debating whether or not to post a link the Ann Althouse meltdown... but now that Garance herself has commented, I might as well, since I like any excuse to link to her (GFR, you're just so cool... sigh)... even though I think these Bloggingheads TV exchanges are more than a little silly (though as a fan of Garance, I did love every hair-tossing moment she was on).
I've mentioned Althouse, briefly, in posts last year. She's a University of Wisconsin law professor, and her somewhat idiosyncratic blogging has given her something of a unique niche, combining deep understanding of the law and centrist, if slightly left politics. She's also more than a little thin-skinned and resistant to criticism and questioning (which, my impression, is true of many longtime University types, especially in law).
So perhaps it's no surprise that Althouse got all prickly in this exchange, when Garance referenced a long simmering feud between Althouse and Jessica Valenti at Feministing, involving a photograph with Bill Clinton and a discussion of prominent breast display that was, I thought then and still do, rather silly all the way around. Still, her over-the-top reaction is the kind of meltdown one rarely sees in public; which may be why Garance seems so flustered by the exchange. That, and I think the mistake here is taking oneself way too seriously.
But more than that, I think this is about the rage discussion I mentioned a short time back - you keep carrying that anger, it will eat you up inside. I think it's very easy for a writer - especially in this blog era - to wrap who they are and what they write very tightly up in one package and see one as the other. And they're not; I think to be a really good writer is to not be married to every word you write (if nothing else, to understand how revision fits into the writing process), and not to take every question or criticism personally. My brief foray in gay journalism, just out of college, taught me volumes about writing on deadline, and adjusting to being edited. And yes, I'm still proud of what I write, but I also accept that feedback will help me to improve it.
Along the same lines, I think L'Affaire Althouse harks back to the Marcotte/McEwan fiasco at the start of the year - people being called to account for things they said in a way that makes them uncomfortable. In that sense, the Feministing/Valenti's Breasts episode should be a dead issue - but Althouse, still, won't acknowledge even the possibility that she went too far. And just to thread in Michelle Malkin's latest take on threats and ugly e-mails from those who disagree, I think it's a given that the web has unleashed some incredible ugliness from firebrands who disagree and who take advantage of anonymity to say the most horrendous, awful things, and make unconscionable threats on others. But I continue to maintain, you get back what you give; if Althouse wants people who disagree to be nicer, she could start by doing it herself. And if Malkin wants an uplifted dialogue, she could raise the level of rhetoric she spews at things she dislikes. With blogging, as with life, there's not much use to giving in to anger and fear. Let go, and move on.
Once, long ago, in passing, I mentioned my love for Nora Ephron.
But it's more than that. I think she's a terrific writer. And her thoughts on the Sixty Minute interview between Katie Couric and John and Elizabeth Edwards seems quite dead-on. (Hat tip to Alterman)
I keep trying to say that I've said all that I want to say about Scooter Libby. But for a trial everyone insists was no big deal, no one seems able to really let go. Which tells me a) It's a bigger deal than we'd like to think and 2) There's more to it than meets the eye.
I'd like to point to two similarly elitist, but otherwise quite different takes on the case:
The first, as I was about to re-laud Vanity Fair, was discovering Michael Wolff's essay on the trial in the new issue this past week. Wolff is a consummate New York mag insider, and his chatty prose here reminds me of being in a top restaurant (or Elaine's) straining to hear the conversation of the well-connected types sitting nearby. Full of "you must know"s and "it's obvious to everyone" (in the know), Wolff makes a smart case that what's breaking down here is the right-wing PR machine, and the problem is that the left has not stepped up with one of their own. This has been a personal bugaboo with me for years - having worked in New York advertising, and on campaigns, I know there are good, smart, hungry ad guys (and gals) who are Democrats who want to contribute. Yet mainstream Democrat advertising is horrible, our PR is lame, and we tend to combine our faith in being right with our distrust of big business enterprises to resist the ad game. It's silly, and it cedes the field to Republicans. But really, check out Wolff, who's on a real tear here.
Then today in the Times Magazine is Max Frankel on the fact that the Libby trial showed how "secrets" are the real currency in official Washington. Frankel, a former Executive Editor of the Times (not necessarily a great one) was the Chief Washington Correspondent of the Times during The Pentagon Papers incident, and he's got good insight on relating events then to events now. He's also got that Times quality - not unlike Wolff, but different - of knowing that he's elite and you're probably not, the elitism of the right schools and the right connections and the insider access only a Timesman can claim (see, for instance, their snarky, almost juvenile takedown of Matthew Fox as Columbia graduation speaker on today's editorial page). You wouldn't overhear this at Elaine's, but you'd hear about a guy who has a cousin who has a friend who heard this at a dinner party. Frankel's take is long, and more than a little windy for something I think is more obvious than he realizes. But no one else has drawn these threads together quite this way, and he has a point. One of the things that bothers me most about this Administration is the resurgence (and the right's casual acceptance) of renewed secrecy insanity, and the resumption of trying to hide our government's workings from its citizens. I think it's reasonable to ask and expect that all Democrat candidates, whoever gets the nomination, be committed to reversing that trend. And that's one thing where I'm not sure Hillary Clinton would turn out to be the right answer.
PS - I'm taking the long view on that relauding of VF - this issue was better, but still rather annoying. We'll wait and see what develops...
Setting aside, for a second, the lack of self-awareness required, George Will's column today makes a valid point: intense anger is not helping either side in politics.
I think anger is one of those unwieldy emotions - like grief - that American culture isn't quite prepared for. We want people to stand up and speak up... but not to be angry about it. We wouldn't want to be in the celebrity spotlight, but we expect the celebrities who get there to be grateful, not angry. Anger makes us - especially women - uncomfortable; and men, I think, have assimilated as a lesson of feminism that getting angry (which men often equate violence) is unacceptable.
But the fact remains is a part of who we are. It's kind of silly - and more than a little dangerous, in the long run - to pretend that we don't get angry. We do. It's what you do with that anger that matters. As Don Henley says in The Heart of The Matter "You keep carrying that anger, it will eat you up inside." (I'm also partial, by the way, to India.Arie's new version... but mostly I just love the song.)
Sanofi is having major problems with Acomplia, their new anti-obesity wonder drug, while the Times buries Merck's decision to drop it's "me too" sleeping pill, generic name gaboxadol.
Recent Comments