Why are we so wild for Draper? By any measure, the character’s a cad. He constantly cheats on his wife. He skips town for weeks and won’t write or call. He doesn’t talk much, and anesthetizes any feelings with copious amounts of booze. He’s an enigma, a locked box of a man who resists, maddeningly, easy explanation. And yet he excites an attraction among women—particularly ones my age, women in their late ’20s and ’30s who were born after the era that Mad Men portrays…
[ ]…A man’s man. A virile man. A masculine man. Strong terms. And ones that would make our postmodern gender-studies professors blush. After all, we’re the generation of women who grew up beating the boys in math class, reading Judith Butler (by choice or by force), celebrating “Grrl” power.
She does end up blurring the line between Jon Hamm the actor and his character Don Draper. The attraction is easy to understand either way. Draper the bad boy and Hamm for his appearance. It would have been interesting to compare Draper with Pete Campbell (Vincent Kartheiser). Sexual attraction aside why do viewers like Don better then Pete. Pete has his faults – he’s cold, conniving and has cheated on his wife, but if we were keeping a brutally honest scorecard at the end of the day Don has deviated from social norms – socially defined moral behavior – to a greater degree and more often then Pete. One quality slightly in Don’s favor is that he is less cold then Pete. Don can certainly keep a secret and is somewhat forgiving or at least not that judgmental about other people’s moral lapses. Its easy to imagine Draper as a politician, abet without that tortured soul. A Draper type who has all of Don’s charms, but is cold and calculating, lacking the inhibitions that stop Don from being completely amoral. That sort of person is not uncommon in our political or business history ( the Teapot Dome scandal or Iran-Contra for example). While hot debates over Teapot Dome are over, Iran-Contra can still get an argument going. While I wouldn’t say that Admiral John Poindexter or Oliver North had Draper’s charm many people did and still do like them and believe in them. Listing Poindexter or North’s moral and legal failings to their defenders would be a waste of time. In one episode of Mad Men, Pete did in fact have evidence that Don was some kind of impostor. Don’s boss, happy with all the business that Don brought the company and having formed some personal attachment to Don, dismissed Pete’s accusations as irrelevant. The Pete’s of the world are easy to spot in real life, the Drapers and their agenda not so much.
Ten years later, Silbergeld, now a professor of environmental health sciences at the Bloomberg School of Public Health, is one of several researchers at Johns Hopkins and around the world assembling evidence that the industrial farming of chickens, pigs, and cattle is cultivating more than poultry and livestock — it’s cultivating bacteria that medicine is losing the ability to fight. Antimicrobial drugs, including antibiotics like penicillin, ciprofloxacin, and methicillin, kill pathogenic bacteria. But they simultaneously drive the resistance that is bacteria’s defense, especially when administered in low, subtherapeutic doses. Scientists estimate that 50 percent to 80 percent of all antimicrobials in the United States are not used by doctors to treat sick people or animals but are added to farm animal feed, mostly in such subtherapeutic dosages. Public health researchers like Silbergeld are convinced that this nontherapeutic use of antimicrobials is building dangerous genetic reservoirs of resistance. If they are right, industrial agriculture is fostering and dispersing drug-resistant bacteria that impair medicine’s ability to protect the public from them.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that livestock and poultry produce 335 million tons of manure per year, which is one way resistant pathogens get out of animals and into the environment. That’s 40 times as much fecal waste as humans produce annually. Farms use it for fertilizer and collect it in sheds and manure lagoons, but those containment measures do not prevent infectious microbes from getting into the air, soil, and water. They can be transported off the farms by the animals themselves, houseflies, farm trucks, and farm workers, and by spreading manure on other fields. Out in the environment, they form a sort of bank of genetic material that enables the spread of resistance.
“This development of drug resistance scares the hell out of me,” says Kellogg Schwab.(emphasis mine)