Comments for H&I* Fires, 7 DEC 2007

H&I* Fires, 7 DEC 2007

2007-12-08T05:20:43Z

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite.

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

Time to add a new caveat, because from email it's not clear to some folks (mind you, if you don't read this it won't matter...) Being an open post, people (collectively, the Denizens) other than I post in the H&I. They sign their work (most of the time) - keep that in mind when you want to flame someone in email please - if it doesn't say "The Armorer" or "John" then I didn't write it! And honestly - if you don't like something said or posted... leave a comment, and hash it out (within the context of The Rulez which are clearly posted on the comment form, I would add).

****************************
T'would seem that not all have a hankering for Bolivarism down in S. America. No wonder Hugo Chavez was mad enough to be cursing on TV the other day.
--
Barnett and Sigger have threads on the whole NIE and Iran nuc situation is all about.
--
An example of conversations in gollum's hole when The Mrs. is In Residence (and why there's a hole in the internets with Cassandra not being around to discuss gender politics anymore).

Her: I wonder how long they'll allow companies to make drugs that have side affects that affect female fertility? gollum: Huh? Her: Well, there's an acne treatment where the dispensers only gave women a one month supply and tested women for pregnancies every time they came in for a refill. (lots of dialogue ensues) gollum: Let me get this straight, people will take stuff that really isn't necessary for survival or for the ability to, truly. function normally but for simple convenience or vanity and then complain and when said drug, that they knew full well had risks associated with it while knowing they wanted to get pregers or that the way they lived their lives, created problems? Her: (reaches for magazine and thwacks gollum on the head) You just don't get it. Get with the times, Ry.

Sorry, but as a guy who would give his left arm to be able to go back and be a bench chemist again I can't understand this. You take a drug for a purely superficial reason and then get pissy because we chemists can't give you Utopia out of a bottle, and that the price for a perfect complexion comes with a price? Haven't you all ever heard of TANSTAAFL? What's more important to you? Don't you people know how to, you know, prioritize things in your lives 'cause you know sometimes wants are conflicting? Jeebus.

Damn it, this is why we need Cass. I can't cover this properly, even though that conversation did happen while The Wife was watching CSI: Miami and I was reading last night. Damn it, Cass, you needs to weigh in on this. (Slinks on back down to Castle Argghhh!'s dungeon.)
--ry
*************************

There have been a few editorials in the British papers from the MoD and British military regarding the British disconnect from their armed forces. On Sunday, the city of Nottingham hosted a welcome home parade for the Mercian Regiment. They say it was one of the largest welcome home parades for British troops in British history.

[Update: CAPT H provides a link to a YouTube video of the Mercians Welcome Home parade. -the Armorer]

In another report, a poll indicates US military and their families' support for the war in Iraq has dropped drastically. And, that US military members are leaning towards supporting Hillary or Obama. That is, if you ignore the rather convoluted language of the supporting paragraph which actually shows Rudy leads the way:

When it comes to candidates in next year's presidential election, military families are less reliably Republican than in earlier campaigns. Two Democrats, Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois run slightly ahead of former Republican Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney among those voters, and both Democrats trail only slightly former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

I suppose you can conflate that to mean that the military is "less reliably Republican" if you belong to the conservative group that thinks Rudy is not a "real" Republican. I would love to see the numbers that support this purported "Democrats trail slightly". Is that 2 points or 15?

In this little report, a more in depth explanation of how the CIA used "open source" photos from an Iranian "government sponsored" trip through their nuclear facility. Which, in turn, led to the revision of the NIE report.

Part of me would like to congratulate the CIA on using resources that the blog-o-sphere has been doing for years to develop information. The other part of me would like to remind these idiots that a "government sponsored" trip, regardless of what government, is generally guided and keeps people away from areas that they don't want the media to report. In Iran, a secretive government who has a tendency to lock up and kill reporters who even smell like they might report something detrimental, this caution goes double for day trips to the local nuclear facility.

I am of the mind that, if the Iranian government willingly allowed reporters into Natanz and allowed them to take pictures, it was a distraction from the things that they do not want us to see. Like another part of the building or another site all together. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Unless, of course, you write the NIE. Then it takes a "willing suspension of disbelief".
-Kat

]]> *A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires.

Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute.

*Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*

The UAVs (oops, can't call 'em UAVs anymore - they're now Unmanned Aerial Systems... some Colonel got his Legion of Merit for that change...), er, um UAS's we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now.

I call the post that because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to. It's also an open trackback, so if someone has a post they're proud of, but it really isn't either Castle kind of stuff, or topical to a particular post, I've basically given blanket permission to use that post for that purpose. Another term of art that might be appropriate is "Free Fire Zone."

Comment from Cricket on 2007-12-08

2007-12-08T15:02:57Z

For the record, I have never taken any meds that were considered risky for conception or the fetus. Except one time. I have a special needs child and we still don't know what caused it; there are some other factors as well. Bottom line: If a woman is planning to conceive, she needs to stop risky meds and behaviors three months before trying. Her body will be stronger and she will not be as sick or worried and will have a better outcome for her and her little one.

Comment from Cricket on 2007-12-08

2007-12-08T14:53:30Z

Ry, I worked in a health food for years. I am leery of all meds, regardless of source. Bottom line, for most women who are wanting to conceive, if having a baby is really that important to them, they will discuss every teensy weensy detail with their doctor or nurse practioner to the nth degree. And when some get pregnant while taking a suspect drug, the second they find out, they will do one of several things: Stop taking the med until they get clearance from their doc, continue taking the med regardless or terminate the pregnancy. It depends on the woman, what she determines to be important. No politics need be involved... but if her SO is part of the decision making process, there might be other factors involved. For me it is black and white since I am not a chemist; I had horrible high blood pressure with each pregnancy and dealt with it using non invasive techniques like walking, drinking lots of water, and lying on my left side. I also ate a lot of fresh fruit and took a couple of prescription vitamins: B-15 and a thyroid supplement. I still don't know what the difference is between a glandular and what an endocrinologist would give, so there you have it. Acne was never an issue with me; when I was expecting, my skin cleared up even more. My hair was thick and shiny...but I gained a lot of weight. Hormones? I think so, despite walking a mile every day and watching what I eat. Sigh. Now, I have a question: I have been doing 'kitchen science' with my children using Dr. Jay Wile's books. I would love to get a decent chem set but they are so safe as to be a waste of time. HELP! Cliff, John is a good guy. I don't always agree with him, and he is one of those rare bloggers that will put up contrarian posts as long as the post or tone of the response is polite, reasonable and doesn't go into name calling and character assassination. We call that being adult. Cheerio.

Comment from kat-missouri on 2007-12-08

2007-12-08T10:35:42Z

Dude...get more sleep.

Comment from ry on 2007-12-08

2007-12-08T10:18:46Z

Sorry to come back late on this, but, hey, I'm gollum and I sleep odd hours sometimes. So shoot me(no, that's not an offer to be a target, John). Nope, I don't sleep on the couch. She simply slaps when annoyed, and that's all this was for Jess. I'd have to do something incredibly stupid instead of just 1 degree away from 'the norm' stupid. And I honestly don't think this is stupid. Not when people at NIH are talking about 'nerfing the world' to end risk to pregnancies. Now *thats* stupid. 1) I find the argument about *why* pharma makes drugs to be a bit off. (I may not be the hoary old veteran of pharma like the Chief is with helofloppers, but I've actually worked in the industry while having quite a large number of friends who still do.) Wrong. Drugs get made because there's a demand, by the paying public, for them. PRofit comes into play with the pricing, and not the decision to make and the design of said drug(the design is based on what we can and can't do and biology). Risk to benefit is never something *we* were ever given. You, the public, comes to us chem nerds and say you have a problem you want fixed. We take a whack at it, and we tell you, point blank, that what we've got will do what you want so long as you accept these side affects. It's the public that damn well better know that they're supposed to be doing the cost:benefit thing. 2) Pharmacological affects are funny things. At some level the molecule in question is causing a change in something. Antibiotics work mostly on the microbial you're trying to kill. It causes changes within them. Unfortunately, sometimes, they also cause changes in the cells of the person. THe drug *acts* on something. Remember that. THis isn't freakin' magic and we don't live in Harry Potter world. It acts on something, it causes chemical/biochemical changes. A drug simply doesn't wander around your body only looking to act upon the one thing it's designed for. We often wish that it was. 3) It's been known for quite some time that the 'bible' on a given molecule takes a reeeeeeally long time to write. BUt the public won't wait on it. That want's it now, Precious. In the 90's there was a change in how FDA works---an Merck is the one's paying the price for the changes the public wanted Congress to make so they could get their drugs *right now*. The fast tracking of clinical trials is one of the largest travesties EVER. And it's the reason why I'm hesitant to buy into populism as inherently an un-alloyed good thing. 4) Prioritization. I had a specific set of scenarios in my head when Jess and I were discussing this, and some of that came across in this passage(simple convenience or vanity and then complain and when said drug, that they knew full well had risks associated with it while knowing they wanted to get pregers or that the way they lived their lives, created problems?). I was absolutely thinking of the women who a) wanted to get pregnant while they were on a drug that had the side affect(s) pertaining to fertility and fetal development; b) idiots who are on this stuff, going to bars, and partying like it's 1979(basically tremendously irresponsibly). What i would ask these individuals is this: what's more important to you? Having both is fundamentally un-available. Jeebus, we simply don't know how to make drugs without side affects(and I largely doubt that there is such a thing likely to be ever made). What's more important to you? Perfect skin and self image or the ability to have a healthy child/child at all? I didn't write the rules(might want to check with Unka Bill, he did give Sky Boss the recipe for mud. Maybe he was feeling devlish at the time.) and we simply have to deal with what is possible. It's impossible to have both. What's more important? ' 5) Yeah, Boss, you're missing something. There's no median. There's not really some nice gaussian we can deal with, maybe a non-nice statistical distribution but not a nice bell curve. That's why even dosages are a nightmare. You can have two men of equal height, weight, and same race who require notably different doses of X. It's largely dependent on what process you're mucking with. SOme processes are rather reliably the same from person to person, but many aren't. (Which is kind of why I wish the old pharmacist practice of binding their own pills/elixers in store would come back. A 5mg or 10mg pill doesn't quite cut it when you're an individual that needs 6mg but 10 mg is over-kill and causes the side affects for. Efficiency in production isn't always your friend. Just most of the time. My econ friends are probably on the warpath over that one.). 6) "True, which means the risk is assumed to exist not at the creation of the drug, but at its prescription which would leave physicians in the same boat: risk/benefit ratio. Who assumes the risk and who pays for it if it goes wrong?" No the risk for side affects is assumed to exist when the drug is designed(even aspirin has side affects, listed on the bottle and known from 150 some odd years of testing on it). We spend months(in the new chitty regime) or years trying to find them all. We're required to. Both ethically and legally, with the former being of greater importance. I've never met a pharma-chemist who didn't give a crap about how his molecule affected people. The person who assumes the risk for any given drug is the drug taker. It has to be you, and not the chemist. We've *told* you that the drugs have side affects. They all do, always. Everything has an ld50(lethal dosage for 50% of the population taking it, kinda like a c.e.p. for weaps for the staunchly mil-science). There's always something. Always. You're taking that risk when you take the med. Whether it be aspirin or cholesterol meds or vee-ageer--rrrra. Think about it. If the risk were on the pharmas they'd all be out of business since each and every time something happened they'd be financially responsible. What they are responsible for is making it in a manner that is as pure as possible(no CH3Cl occluded in the pill) and informing you of the dangers associated with the drug. We can't knowingly make something that is specifically lethal. Yes, there's no nice curve, metabolism being an odd thing, and people have nasty reactions to stuff. We know that's possible with each and every molecule on the market. You, the drug taker, are saying that despite these risks(always, always, always inherent) alleviation of your affliction is enough of a benefit to justify taking the risk. If you don't know that, well, then you're an idiot, though I feel bad saying that. If you don't know that you truly are an idiot about this. 7) " I think that has a huge amount to do with mal-practice suits going up and insurance, thus cost increasing. People want risk free benefits. Not happening." If I could kiss you, without you or Jess killing me, I would. That's so true, and is largely my point. 8) Acne was only the drug Jess brought up. It actually got started over some kind of bladder control drug commercial. And like I said, I had specific scenarios in mind. If you're married, want kids, and are taking this stuff? Damn it, you need to make up your mind which is more important to you. If conceiving naturally is something *really* important to you then you might not want to be on some of the meds out there(including, maybe, some of the different oral birth control meds. Maybe). Trias, yeah, I know acne can be real bad. Mark Springsteel was a guy I worked under who had really nasty acne scarring. BUt still, when he was thinking about getting married and having kids he stopped taking certain types of acne meds and moved to something that didn't work as well without the harmful side affects. Why can this dude do it, but every Britney on the block can't? Makes no sense to me, especially since it's law that every prescription leave a pharmacy with what amounts to a book on what the possible side affects and risks are. 9) "This could be your errant assumption. Errant in assuming that the acne treatment is perceived by the females as purely vanity as you perceive it to be." Sigh. Then someone needs to get real about the importance of 'radiant skin' in life, and it isn't me, loadr. We've evolved a long way from hunter gatherers, and not just socially either. New environment, new pressures, and therefor *new rules*. I often take this as a cop-out. It's utterly true, but people use it as a cop-out. Under this paradigm all guys should be hunting out hs girls or college girls. We know that doesn't happen anymore. We've even got a legal definition of men who want hs girls(pedophiles) which makes it outside the norm. Why don't we, you know, expect women to change in relation to the new environment too? (THe Wife gets the question, she's someone who has changed in relation to the new environment, but figures the rest of society just doesn't matter.). Oh, and Cliffy decided to come out and play. How nice.

Comment from Maggie on 2007-12-07

2007-12-08T05:22:17Z

Regrets? I've had a few. But then again..... LOL, yeah! I've been drinking. What of it? Anyway, back to the question. Do you have regrets? I know the question was for John, but so what? I've never been one to care what I barge in on. I voted for "W" both times and I have NO REGRETS. Good God, man! Are you trying to seriously assert that Al Gore or John Kerry could have handled this shite? Handled it...AT.....ALL? Nevermind better. Now who's been drinking? PLEASE! Would I have preferred John McCain? Of course. But I picked "W" and I would vote exactly the same way if the election were today and the choices were the same. The damn stickers are still on my car! Or for AFSis's benefit "The damn stickas are still on my cah!" LOL

Comment from Neffi on 2007-12-07

2007-12-08T01:09:03Z

when that criminal Bush tried to destroy the United States and the world. ummm... is it just me or is a tone of shrill desperation creeping into the voice of the "real informed Americans" Cliff speaks of/for?

Comment from HomefrontSix on 2007-12-07

2007-12-08T00:50:54Z

Cliff ~ I voted for Bush. Twice. Both times with a clear conscience and strong conviction that he was the right man for the job. I believe strongly that we SHOULD be in Iraq and that our mission there is just, if not overdue. I am not a lemming and will willingly tell you when and where I disagree with the Bush administration's policies but Iraq is not one of them. My husband has been deployed and is now home. He will go again in the near future. Do I think it is worth it? Yes, I do. Sixty-percent of those surveyed do not think we should be there? Then, when their time is up, let them leave after serving honorably and fulfilling their obligations. Keep in mind that the majority of those in the service RIGHT NOW are here voluntarily and agreed to serve (or continue serving for those that renewed their commitment) AFTER THIS WAR BEGAN. Yet 60% don't think the war is not just or "worth it"? That doesn't seem to mesh with the facts above. If you're so convicted about this issue, why spend time here stirring the pot? Why not direct your efforts where they will make a bigger difference?

Comment from FbL on 2007-12-07

2007-12-08T00:42:12Z

John wrote: You believe me to be unethical in my worldview and actions, as you have made clear time and time again. I know you to be specifically unethical, and willing to do venal things in pursuit of your agenda, which you no doubt have tortuous justifications for. Cliff, you truly astonish me in your willingness to rely on others' restraint. But I suppose that is the way of bullies... they just keep pushing it until someone stands up to them. I suspect John will keep his own counsel on the details, but I would certainly be interested to see your response if he didn't.

Comment from kat-missouri on 2007-12-07

2007-12-07T21:38:23Z

To have no regrets means to have no feelings or compassion. However, regrets do not make or break my feelings on the purpose and necessity of the war. Nor its support to completion. The cost to my feelings being little in comparison to the costs of those who served and their families. I rather detest arguments that insist emotions trump reason and necessity. Or that the existence of emotions renders reason and necessity moot. I rather liken it to the idea that courage cannot exist without fear. Self satisfaction in stating the contrary is not a sign of superiority. It is an unenviable smugness that can only come about because one has never chatted with a one legged marine Iraq vet at the VA stand down or stood in ankle deep snow at a cemetery while the taps blow and a family cries. While I don't suggest that is necessary in order to feel the sting of regrets, the rarity of such events from those who refused responsibility for the war rather places their demands for "regrets" from others who did in a far inferior light.

Comment from kat-missouri on 2007-12-07

2007-12-07T20:53:02Z

Well, my guess is that the family and the multiple deployments have an effect on this "support". Kind of the "long war" fatigue and it is likely not solely in regards to Iraq, but Afghanistan as well. There is plenty of evidence that shows how national fatigue translates to fatigue from the military. civil War, WWII, Vietnam (yes, Vietnam, don't think that everybody hated that war from the get go), etc, etc. What's interesting is that the poll was taken now when, for all intents and purposes, the war is going swimmingly and is about to conclude. Very likely that this results in a pressure release when the families start wondering, if that's true, when will their troops come home. And, of course, most of them haven't ever dealt with the VA so now that they are, it is considerably different and even more convoluted than active duty medical care. I'd be disappointed too.

Comment from Maggie on 2007-12-07

2007-12-07T20:31:35Z

Re: The poll results on Bush's approval rating amond the military and their families - I find three things are true here. One - From Cliff's link:

"You generally expect to see support for the president as commander in chief and for the war, but this is a different kind of war than those we've fought in the past, particularly for families," said David Segal, a military sociologist at the University of Maryland. Today's all-volunteer force is older and more married than any before it. Facing a shortage of troops, the Army increased the maximum enlistment age from 35 to 42 and called up reservists, who tend to be older and more settled than recruits fresh out of high school. The result is a fighting force that left thousands of spouses and children behind.

So the demographic being polled is different than that in other conflicts. Two - I would guess that these numbers parallel results of any survey asking if the respondent viewed terrorism (I mean Al Queda, Hamas, etc.) as one of the top threats to our way of life (meaning Americans). If you say "yes", you likely agree we *need* to win in Iraq. If you say "no", if you think that there is no threat or that it's a low priority, you will favor leaving. It just stands to reason that if you don't velue the goal, you won't agree with the price being paid. Three - People who do not make the effort to read past the headlines or gather information from diverse sources are easily led astray by a very liberal main stream media (they don't even try to disguise their bias anymore).....so there are equal numbers of poorly informed people among the two demographics....people with military int heir family and people without military in their family. You can not dismiss the overwhelming influence of negative press which was not a factor in certain other conflicts.

Comment from Cliff on 2007-12-07

2007-12-07T20:22:49Z

I feel your anger John, but let me suggest you will feel better when you direct it at the responsible ones. I've never suggested you shouldn't be allowed to vote but I would suggest such an idea is a freudian indication of your sense of guilt for voting for the guy. What I did suggest in my unanswered e-mail to you is that you may consider what you will tell your grandchildren when they ask you what YOU did when that criminal Bush tried to destroy the United States and the world. Don't take your stuff out on me brother. I'm just doing my duty as a real informed American. I have no regrets. How about you?

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2007-12-07

2007-12-07T19:12:50Z

No problem, Cliff. By your standards, I'm a bad American, as you've made clear to me myriad times. Personally, I think you should move to have my right to vote revoked, so that I won't waste it on things you don't like. But, of course, unless I say, "Bush lied, people died, impeach the bastard and throw him in jail and US out of Iraq now" you aren't going to approve of anything I have to say on the subject and, perhaps more importantly, aren't truly interested anyway, except as a foil for your agenda. You aren't here to engage, you're just here to smarmily fling poo and leave. Lastly, I nor any of the othere Denizens of this space don't need to justify a thing to you. You believe me to be unethical in my worldview and actions, as you have made clear time and time again. I know you to be specifically unethical, and willing to do venal things in pursuit of your agenda, which you no doubt have tortuous justifications for. Please, do not bother. AFAICS, we have no common ground from which to proceed, and you should go spend your time more fruitfully in other pursuits.

Comment from Cliff on 2007-12-07

2007-12-07T18:13:11Z

I need to applaud you all for posting about the new LA Times/Bloomberg poll that say among other things:

And among those families with soldiers, sailors and Marines who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 60% say that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, the same result as all adults surveyed.

I often wonder what this means against the chorus of MilBlogs that claim to support the troops by specifically NOT substantively criticizing the president. It would seem to an objective observer, that given the great majority of serving troops and their families who say the war is not worth it, how can one claim to support the troops WITHOUT directly challenging the administration's myriad of reasons (and lies) for going to war and staying there. Really! I mean come on. I ponder this daily. How can any good American not stand up and scream - STOP THIS WAR NOW!

Comment from Trias on 2007-12-07

2007-12-07T16:16:51Z

Your wife is wrong. I know I know write it in your diary it won't happen too often. She's not alone. No no quite not alone. You and I know about the risks but the army out there that expect their free lunch is quite large. Many don't want to know about risks. Businesses don't want to tell them. Actually this ties into the whole responsibility issues recently discussed. You could be wrong on acne. Maybe. I wouldn't call if critically important but it's certainly not superficial. I know of 2 guys that had permanent scarring on their face. Quite hideous I assure you and merely acne that ran amok. For women where frankly social expectations on beauty are more severe it's an even bigger issue. Drifting offtopic a tad, smallpox, that old disease, was as much about the scarring as the deaths. Don't underestimate the importance of social rejection and acceptance. I have felt the brunt of such in multiple ways. I think you have a bit too.

Comment from kat-missouri on 2007-12-07

2007-12-07T15:34:44Z

And the drugs are formulated and tested for a standard deviation or so from the median. Which, given the impact of genetics, means that people outlying from the median are going to be more and more likely to suffer the side effects. Or... am I missing something?

True, which means the risk is assumed to exist not at the creation of the drug, but at its prescription which would leave physicians in the same boat: risk/benefit ratio. Who assumes the risk and who pays for it if it goes wrong? I think that has a huge amount to do with mal-practice suits going up and insurance, thus cost increasing. People want risk free benefits. Not happening.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2007-12-07

2007-12-07T15:13:40Z

Let us also talk some expectations... a lot of acne issues are hormonally-related. As are reproductive systems. And the drugs are formulated and tested for a standard deviation or so from the median. Which, given the impact of genetics, means that people outlying from the median are going to be more and more likely to suffer the side effects. Or... am I missing something?

Comment from kat-missouri on 2007-12-07

2007-12-07T14:38:36Z

Ry...you sleeping on the couch? Look, there is a great concept out there that says that drug companies make medicine that makes you better. If its true, most people begin to trust the drug companies and assume that the drug company would not make anything harmful. Unfortunately, there is a tendency for drug companies in the "risk/benefit" ratio to assume that there is an acceptable "risk" of lack of pregnancy or birth defects for the benefit of improved skin, psychology, etc for the patient and profitability for them. Yes. They take a risk for profit. It's that idea that twists people's panties the most because they believe that drug companies, who have a huge reputation for performing miracles, play on that reputation, understanding that people will assume a company that most often saves lives, even if it puts out a risk warning label, is not intending to hurt someone or has lowered the risk factor considerably. The idea that the company then might turn around and make a profit based on a risk posed to others lives based on their selling a drug on their otherwise well earned reputation, sounds immoral. Kind of like the snake oil guy come to town. Not that I view them as such. I actually hold the same idea that most drugs are likely to change you in some way either physically or mentally when you take it. You are inducing a chemical, largely outside the normal body chemistry, into the blood stream. But, people don't want to believe it so its easy to blame the drug companies and insist they are immoral.

Comment from Oldloadr on 2007-12-07

2007-12-07T13:24:16Z

ry -

You take a drug for a purely superficial reason

This could be your errant assumption. Errant in assuming that the acne treatment is perceived by the females as purely vanity as you perceive it to be. According to this research you could make the case that women instinctively know they are in a competition to snare the most qualified father for their future offspring:

One branch of evolutionary psychology focuses on the distinct mating preferences and strategies of men and women. For example, because our male ancestors were easily able to sire numerous children at little cost to their fitness, the theory says, they were inclined to short-term mating with multiple partners. In choosing mates, they gravitated toward youth and physical attractiveness — markers of fertility and health. By contrast, females, for whom conception meant pregnancy and the need to care for a child, were more selective, searching for long-term commitments from males with the resources and willingness to invest in them and their offspring.