Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Defenders of the Faith
<< some interesting points in this article >>
By SLAVOJ ZIZEK
Published: March 12, 2006
London
FOR centuries, we have been told that without religion we are no more than egotistic animals fighting for our share, our only morality that of a pack of wolves; only religion, it is said, can elevate us to a higher spiritual level. Today, when religion is emerging as the wellspring of murderous violence around the world, assurances that Christian or Muslim or Hindu fundamentalists are only abusing and perverting the noble spiritual messages of their creeds ring increasingly hollow. What about restoring the dignity of atheism, one of Europe's greatest legacies and perhaps our only chance for peace?
More than a century ago, in "The Brothers Karamazov" and other works, Dostoyevsky warned against the dangers of godless moral nihilism, arguing in essence that if God doesn't exist, then everything is permitted. The French philosopher André Glucksmann even applied Dostoyevsky's critique of godless nihilism to 9/11, as the title of his book, "Dostoyevsky in Manhattan," suggests.
This argument couldn't have been more wrong: the lesson of today's terrorism is that if God exists, then everything, including blowing up thousands of innocent bystanders, is permitted — at least to those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, since, clearly, a direct link to God justifies the violation of any merely human constraints and considerations. In short, fundamentalists have become no different than the "godless" Stalinist Communists, to whom everything was permitted since they perceived themselves as direct instruments of their divinity, the Historical Necessity of Progress Toward Communism.
During the Seventh Crusade, led by St. Louis, Yves le Breton reported how he once encountered an old woman who wandered down the street with a dish full of fire in her right hand and a bowl full of water in her left hand. Asked why she carried the two bowls, she answered that with the fire she would burn up Paradise until nothing remained of it, and with the water she would put out the fires of Hell until nothing remained of them: "Because I want no one to do good in order to receive the reward of Paradise, or from fear of Hell; but solely out of love for God." Today, this properly Christian ethical stance survives mostly in atheism.
Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good deeds in order to fulfill God's will and to earn salvation; atheists do them simply because it is the right thing to do. Is this also not our most elementary experience of morality? When I do a good deed, I do so not with an eye toward gaining God's favor; I do it because if I did not, I could not look at myself in the mirror. A moral deed is by definition its own reward. David Hume, a believer, made this point in a very poignant way, when he wrote that the only way to show true respect for God is to act morally while ignoring God's existence.
Two years ago, Europeans were debating whether the preamble of the European Constitution should mention Christianity as a key component of the European legacy. As usual, a compromise was worked out, a reference in general terms to the "religious inheritance" of Europe. But where was modern Europe's most precious legacy, that of atheism? What makes modern Europe unique is that it is the first and only civilization in which atheism is a fully legitimate option, not an obstacle to any public post.
Atheism is a European legacy worth fighting for, not least because it creates a safe public space for believers. Consider the debate that raged in Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, my home country, as the constitutional controversy simmered: should Muslims (mostly immigrant workers from the old Yugoslav republics) be allowed to build a mosque? While conservatives opposed the mosque for cultural, political and even architectural reasons, the liberal weekly journal Mladina was consistently outspoken in its support for the mosque, in keeping with its concern for the rights of those from other former Yugoslav republics.
Not surprisingly, given its liberal attitudes, Mladina was also one of the few Slovenian publications to reprint the infamous caricatures of Muhammad. And, conversely, those who displayed the greatest "understanding" for the violent Muslim protests those cartoons caused were also the ones who regularly expressed their concern for the fate of Christianity in Europe.
These weird alliances confront Europe's Muslims with a difficult choice: the only political force that does not reduce them to second-class citizens and allows them the space to express their religious identity are the "godless" atheist liberals, while those closest to their religious social practice, their Christian mirror-image, are their greatest political enemies. The paradox is that Muslims' only real allies are not those who first published the caricatures for shock value, but those who, in support of the ideal of freedom of expression, reprinted them.
While a true atheist has no need to boost his own stance by provoking believers with blasphemy, he also refuses to reduce the problem of the Muhammad caricatures to one of respect for other's beliefs. Respect for other's beliefs as the highest value can mean only one of two things: either we treat the other in a patronizing way and avoid hurting him in order not to ruin his illusions, or we adopt the relativist stance of multiple "regimes of truth," disqualifying as violent imposition any clear insistence on truth.
What, however, about submitting Islam — together with all other religions — to a respectful, but for that reason no less ruthless, critical analysis? This, and only this, is the way to show a true respect for Muslims: to treat them as serious adults responsible for their beliefs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/opinion/12zizek.html?th&emc=th
A Cancer Drug's Big Price Rise Is Cause for Concern
The increase has stunned doctors, who say it starkly illustrates two trends in the pharmaceutical industry: the soaring price of cancer medicines and the tendency for those prices to have little relation to the cost of developing or making the drugs.
By ALEX BERENSON
Published: March 12, 2006
On Feb. 3, Joyce Elkins filled a prescription for a two-week supply of nitrogen mustard, a decades-old cancer drug used to treat a rare form of lymphoma. The cost was $77.50.
On Feb. 17, Ms. Elkins, a 64-year-old retiree who lives in Georgetown, Tex., returned to her pharmacy for a refill. This time, following a huge increase in the wholesale price of the drug, the cost was $548.01.
Ms. Elkins's insurance does not cover nitrogen mustard, which she must take for at least the next six months at a cost that will now total nearly $7,000. She and her husband, who works for the Texas Department of Transportation, are paying for the medicine by spending less on utilities and food, she said.
The medicine, also known as Mustargen, was developed more than 60 years ago and is among the oldest chemotherapy drugs. For decades, it has been blended into an ointment by pharmacists and used as a topical treatment for a cancer called cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a form of cancer that mainly affects the skin.
Last August, Merck, which makes Mustargen, sold the rights to manufacture and market it and Cosmegen, another cancer drug, to Ovation Pharmaceuticals, a six-year-old company in Deerfield, Ill., that buys slow-selling medicines from big pharmaceutical companies.
The two drugs are used by fewer than 5,000 patients a year and had combined sales of about $1 million in 2004.
Now Ovation has raised the wholesale price of Mustargen roughly tenfold and that of Cosmegen even more, according to several pharmacists and patients.
Sean Nolan, vice president of commercial development for Ovation, said that the price increases were needed to invest in manufacturing facilities for the drugs. He said the company was petitioning insurers to obtain coverage for patients.
The increase has stunned doctors, who say it starkly illustrates two trends in the pharmaceutical industry: the soaring price of cancer medicines and the tendency for those prices to have little relation to the cost of developing or making the drugs.
Genentech, for example, has indicated it will effectively double the price of its colon cancer drug Avastin, to about $100,000, when Avastin's use is expanded to breast and lung cancer patients. As with Avastin, nothing about nitrogen mustard is changing but the price.
The increases have caused doctors to question Ovation's motive — and left lymphoma patients wondering how they will afford Mustargen, which is sometimes not covered by insurance, because the drug's label does not indicate that it can be used as an ointment. When given intravenously to treat Hodgkin's disease, its other primary use, the drug is generally covered by insurance.
"Nitrogen mustard has been around forever," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society. "There's nothing that I am aware of in the treatment environment that would explain an increase in the cost of the drug."
Dr. David H. Johnson, a Vanderbilt University oncologist who is a former president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said he had contacted Ovation to ask its reasons for raising Mustargen's price.
"I'd like to have some evidence from them that it actually costs them X amount, so that the pricing makes sense," Dr. Johnson said.
"It's unfortunate that a price adjustment had to occur," Mr. Nolan said. "Investment had not been made in these products for years."
Ovation, a privately held company, also needs the money to conduct research on several new drugs for rare diseases, Mr. Nolan said.
He acknowledged that Merck still made Mustargen and Cosmegen, an antibiotic that is used to treat a rare childhood kidney cancer, for Ovation. He said he was not sure when Ovation would begin producing the drugs, and a Merck spokesman said that Merck would continue to provide the drugs to Ovation as long as necessary.
But people who analyze drug pricing say they see the Mustargen situation as emblematic of an industry trend of basing drug prices on something other than the underlying costs. After years of defending high prices as necessary to cover the cost of research or production, industry executives increasingly point to the intrinsic value of their medicines as justification for prices.
Last year, in his book "A Call to Action," Henry A. McKinnell, the chairman of Pfizer, the world's largest drug company, wrote that drug prices were not driven by research spending or production costs.
"A number of factors go into the mix" of pricing, he wrote. "Those factors consider cost of business, competition, patent status, anticipated volume, and, most important, our estimation of the income generated by sales of the product."
In some drug categories, such as cholesterol-lowering treatments, many drugs compete, keeping prices relatively low. But when a medicine does not have a good substitute, its maker can charge almost any price. In 2003, Abbott Laboratories raised the price of Norvir, an AIDS drug introduced in 1996, from $54 to $265 a month. AIDS groups protested, but Abbott refused to rescind the increase.
And once a company sets a price, government agencies, private insurers and patients have little choice but to pay it. The Food & Drug Administration does not regulate prices, and Medicare is banned from considering price in deciding whether to cover treatments.
more...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/business/12price.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
a little weird... but I like it
maybe that's why I like living here lol
nice brochure design :)
I don't know much about fibonacci...
I prefer to see it turn up a bit before I'm convinced it's the bottom (MACD).. but I've gotten more conservative in my outlook. Also, I would say that there there could be some resistance right about your 1.99 mark
LOL
I plan to join them later by going out to a movie :)
lol in alot of cases, you are right about that!
...protection against her own weakness...
ack!!! it really is such BS when some want to control women and try to rationalize it by saying they are just trying to protect them... or put them on a pedestal... what a bunch of crap.
LOL... that was a stretch for that grub!
so even if you discount the one, there is still the other.
Ex-'Apprentice' Announces Run for Congress
Thursday March 9 5:55 PM ET
<< I think this is hilarious! and the really funny thing, is that I think Raj really fits the part of politician. >>
Raj Bhakta, the aspiring "Apprentice" turned aspiring politician, is running for Congress.
Bhakta, who was fired by Donald Trump during the second season of the NBC reality show "The Apprentice," is challenging Democratic U.S. Rep. Allyson Schwartz for the state's 13th District seat representing suburban Philadelphia.
Bhakta received the county GOP's endorsement days before making his announcement Monday.
ADVERTISEMENT
"We offer voters legitimate change," Bhakta said. "I am not a politician. I am someone from a business background who wants to make a change."
If elected in November, Bhakta said he would serve a maximum of three terms and called on Schwartz to agree to the same term limits.
Schwartz's press secretary, Rachel Magnuson, sidestepped the term-limit challenge, calling the freshman congresswoman someone who has worked hard for the people of her district.
Bhakta, 30, is best remembered for his flashy bow ties, being turned away by tennis star Anna Kournikova for a coffee date, and flirting with Trump's secretary after being booted from the show. He manages a real estate development firm in Fort Washington.
Schwartz raised $1.4 million in 2005 and has more than $1 million in the bank as she fights to retain the seat, according to her most recent campaign finance report.
For the same reporting period, Bhakta reported roughly $100,000 cash on hand. He said Monday that he has raised about $250,000.
___
On the Net:
http://www.rajforcongress.com/
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/ap/20060309/114195570000.html
Genasense is different from Ganite, isn't it?
Maybe I'm confused, but I thought it was two different things.
Have you not noticed that every 'reform' of anything to do with campaign refinance, or lobby reform, either dies from neglect or gets passed in some bastardized form that means nothing...
yes I have noticed and glad we agree on it.
I also agree with term limits. So if all of us agree, we need to put the pressure on our representatives to pass some real reforms.
That's great.
I recently saw a PBS special on the life of Benjamin Franklin... after he became wealthy he founded a University in Philadephia which became the University there. It's good when those who have succeeded give back to the community... good for them, good for everyone... win win.
My problem with Bush's policies is that it's win/lose... win for the wealthy at the expense of others.
The rich today would argue that should have been allowed to keep it all to begin with. Because now it's all about me.
sadly true.
I'm also reminded of T.Roosevelt who put aside more land than anyone else. He was intelligent, well read, articulate... and although he came from well to do background, he understood the importance of balance the interests of powerful corporate interests AND those of the people.
I can understand how many were led to believe it back then because of the Bush admins deceptions. However, I find it hard to understand how, in hind sight and in view of all his other uncovered lies... how anyone can believe they didn't know and didn't twist the intelligence for their own agend. How can anyone NOT see the Bush's admin pattern of behavior as deceptive, very self serving and for the benefit of the ultra powerful and rich in this country.
another good example of someone trying to speak up and who was right there in Bush's admin and had years and years of expertise on the subject...
Richard Clarke... and look what they did to him when he tried to set the record straight.
but you seem to be arguing the case for believing there were WMD... why?
many of us knew and posted right here on ihub our reservations... those who spoke out were ignored and the Bush admin did everything they could to play upon the fears generated by 911
yeap, another good point.
and if we believe the bring democracy crap... or humanitarian claims we would help darfur, tibet and others
What I read at the time 2002 convinced me this was nothing more than a plan for regime change based on false information. I did not think then that there were any active weapons programs in Iraq.
exactly.
based on that, why would you want to believe Bush or Powell or anyone? I wanted the inspectors to finish their job and get the report. My belief is that Bush & Co knew if they did, they would report that they had found nothing (which we all know is the case today) and therefore cut them short to proceed with their plans... the agenda they had well before 911... before they entered the white house.
you have to wonder if that's the real reason she resigned...
just another Bush lie to add to the long list...
people are wising up :)
great response.
and I would add... should everyone in the world believe the ravings of a nutcase dictator? should we invade countries based on speculation? no.
[edited due to lack of coffee]
I have no idea... and I wonder if the other is already on the market... it may be hard to displace something already being used unless you can show it's better somehow.
geez... continued escalation
yes we agree the father should be consulted and his wishes taken into consideration... but I still don't see the reason you added and "supreme court"...
well a miscarraige
results in the death of a fetus. So is that murder? Or what?
from your words above, there is an insinuation that a miscarrage is murder... is that what you think? who is the murderer?
so do you think they should do the reform? will you write your representatives and say something?
it shows up on rare occassion lol
OR the supreme court
?? as far as I can the supreme court simply opened the door for women being able to decide for themselves... they didn't dictate to you what you should do
so what did you question have to do with the current thread?
it carries into present day is less obvious forms
If you say miscarriage is murder who is the murderer?
if he's not blaming the woman, then I guess he's blaming god?
[edit] his question didn't make any sense ...
what are you implying? that women are at fault for miscarriages?
maybe they realized how stupid it was and thought that those countries would just cave in... now that they haven't, they send Condi to eat crow...
is she straying from the party line? I don't trust her though... what's her motive?
or stroke... I had a 30 year old friend who had a stroke because she was on the pill