tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7655407863660711763.post9069379054993459487..comments2009-03-26T10:08:13.342-04:00Billy Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04850166742797443954noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7655407863660711763.post-50999921540246086102009-03-26T10:08:00.000-04:002009-03-26T10:08:00.000-04:00"...It sucks." Constructive criticism!<BR/><BR/>I'll try to meet you more than halfway, is that cool? As you know, this is a work in progress, and I'm still working out the kinks in terms of style and content. For my own part, I have generally liked the third-person approach, as it's a touch playful and serves to remind both me and the reader that it is a pseudonym and thus not precisely "me," but if it gets in the way of the main points I'm trying to make it ain't worth it. So you'll forgive me if I occasionally lapse into that style from time to time, if only for my own amusement.<BR/><BR/>Apologies for having taken such time to reply--I have been flat on my back for nearly two weeks with a truly nasty case of cellulitis and am only now on the road to recovery. New entries coming soon.Billy Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04850166742797443954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7655407863660711763.post-76434311429115122722009-03-20T09:56:00.000-04:002009-03-20T09:56:00.000-04:00Billy, I love your blog and agree with most of your points, but can you please stop this obnoxious third-person schtik? It sucks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7655407863660711763.post-2880160376533686122009-03-11T18:54:00.000-04:002009-03-11T18:54:00.000-04:00You're right; he was sloppy in lumping together a few different ideas. <BR/><BR/>One problem has been the high-jacking of any supposed moral or ethical arguments by the religious right, where they managed to make it seem like they were the only ones that cared about such issues. And I think that's what Obama was getting at. So let's debate whether certain practice are ethical, but the answer is not based on what one person's religion dictates.<BR/><BR/>The other, totally separate issue, is the corruption of science by other interests, whether religious or corporate. So we can debate whether it's a good idea to have sex education that's accurate and thorough but let's not pretend that abstinence programs work. Or let's debate the pros and cons of various ways to regulate greenhouse gases instead of denying all the science showing that global warming is real. And let's consider what actually causes autism, even if that means acknowledging that the pharma companies that produce vaccines are not in fact evil incarnate.Liddy Gationnoreply@blogger.com