Stannis grows angry at the slow process to pick the next successor to the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. He has no love for the frontrunner, Janos Slynt, the corrupt former commander of King's Landing's City Watch. He threatens to overthrow the ancient election process if the Black Brothers stalemate again and no clear winner emerges.
Cotter Pyke and Ser Denys Mallister have split the vote of the moderates between the those who want to rely on the old values and those who want a fresh face in command. The withdrawal by the steward Bowen Marsh has not clarified the race. Othell Yarwyk is also considering abandoning his candidacy. Dolorous Edd Tollett has put forth a new candidate for all to consider.
The knight's watch are in an uproar. The new candidate is one not yet considered for the post. He is young and vigorous, has served well in the past and has no allegiance to any of the factions. Both Mallister and Pyke have been convinced to throw their support behind him each to prevent the other from being selected by Stannis and to prevent the corrupt Slynt from being selected. The future hangs in the balance.
After another self-serving outburst from Slynt, Yarwyk throws his support behind the new candidate. The kettle is called for. As the lid is removed, a huge black raven bursts out, flaps around the room and lands on the shoulder of the the new candidate, cawing out his name: BLOOMBERG! BLOOMBERG! BLOOMBERG!
NEW YORK, NY - AUGUST 26: Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg speaks on stage during the opening ceremony during Day One of the 2013 US Open at USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center on August 26, 2013 in the Flushing neighborhood of the Queens borough of New York City. (Photo by Matthew Stockman/Getty Images)
Let me see if I get this logic straight. We have various heart attacks if our well documented Western citizens are recruited by ISIS and end up in Syria helping to establish an Islamic Caliphate.
But at the same time we are allowing over a million undocumented refugees to flow into the heart of Europe coming directly from Syria and Afghanistan.
And then we get surprised when some ISIS recruits kill scores of innocent civilians in Paris.
Synergy is when 1 plus 1 equals 3. And these lax borders are creating synergy for Islamic terrorists. Why bother with old methods of infiltrating your enemy country and establishing a new identity? Just throw your suspicious identity away and sail to Greece in a rubber dingy with thousands of other men of fighting age. Walk to Germany and get distributed to any of the EU countries.
I'm tired of being politically correct here. There is a religious war going on and the enemy has stormed the walls. They are within our cities and killing our citizens. This has to end.
But how to end this? As in anything else there is a continuum of possible responses. On one extreme is doing nothing and the other is exterminating all Muslims. Clearly we cannot go to the latter extreme but it is time we moved a little further from the former extreme. The little surveillance we are conducting is not keeping us safe.
How about an end to Muslim immigration in the West? Is that going too far?
Due to being geologically isolated for millions of years before white settlers showed up, Australia developed thousands of unique animal species with their own prey and predators. Then Europeans showed up with their own animals and threw everything out of balance. Rabbits almost denuded the continent before a humans decimated the horde with germ warfare. Feral cats are eating up the native bandicoots and growing to the size of American wolverines. Sparrows are crowding out native parrots.
In a small island off the coast of Victoria which recently became accessible by land, foxes have been massacring the little penguins that used to call this place home.
Flightless birds are no match for these imported predators. But just before they were made extinct, a local farmer talked the government into allowing him to import a certain protective sheepdog that had been bred to protect livestock. He placed these Maremmas around the island and the penguin population climbed from less than 10 to more than 150 today.
A cute story like this has attracted the usual Hollywood lies so you can find an exaggerated version of the story in the movie
Gov. Bobby Jindal, front, with his family during a prayer at the opening session of the Louisiana State Legislature in April.Credit Pool photo by Gerald Herbert
Governor Bobby Jindal staked his position on the Gay Marriage debate. He stands firm on the rights of businesses to choose not to serve potential customers whose views they find abhorrent.
A lot of people compare this to Woolworths refusing to serve black customers in the 1960's. This is a poor comparison. In the 1960's the vast majority of southern businesses refused to serve blacks, leaving a large group disenfranchised with nowhere to eat, sleep or use public restrooms.
The Gay Marriage push is quite different. In this case we have a small group of people who are being overwhelmingly embraced businesses keen for their money. The few religious business owners who object to their behavior are not preventing them for getting their wedding cakes or flowers from someone else. These potential brides and grooms need to stop pushing their views on others and find the businesses who are happy to serve them. They are not hard to find.
Weak state governments are forcing these business owners to choose between violating their religious beliefs and going out of business. I'm glad to see one governor standing up for religious freedom.
Here's Jindal's full text:
BATON ROUGE, La. — THE debate over religious liberty in America presents conservatives and business leaders with a crucial choice.
In Indiana and Arkansas, large corporations recently joined left-wing activists to bully elected officials into breaking away from strong protections for religious liberty. It was disappointing to see conservative leaders so hastily retreat on legislation that would simply allow for an individual or business to claim a right to free exercise of religion in a court of law.
Our country was founded on the principle of religious liberty, enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Why shouldn’t an individual or business have the right to cite, in a court proceeding, religious liberty as a reason for not participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony that violates a sincerely held religious belief?
That is what Indiana and Arkansas sought to do. That political leaders in both states quickly cowered amid the shrieks of big business and the radical left should alarm us all.
As the fight for religious liberty moves to Louisiana, I have a clear message for any corporation that contemplates bullying our state: Save your breath.In 2010, Louisiana adopted a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits government from unduly burdening a person’s exercise of religion. However, given the changing positions of politicians, judges and the public in favor of same-sex marriage, along with the potential for discrimination against Christian individuals and businesses that comes with these shifts, I plan in this legislative session to fight for passage of the Marriage and Conscience Act.
The legislation would prohibit the state from denying a person, company or nonprofit group a license, accreditation, employment or contract — or taking other “adverse action” — based on the person or entity’s religious views on the institution of marriage.
Some corporations have already contacted me and asked me to oppose this law. I am certain that other companies, under pressure from radical liberals, will do the same. They are free to voice their opinions, but they will not deter me. As a nation we would not compel a priest, minister or rabbi to violate his conscience and perform a same-sex wedding ceremony. But a great many Americans who are not members of the clergy feel just as called to live their faith through their businesses. That’s why we should ensure that musicians, caterers, photographers and others should be immune from government coercion on deeply held religious convictions.
The bill does not, as opponents assert, create a right to discriminate against, or generally refuse service to, gay men or lesbians. The bill does not change anything as it relates to the law in terms of discrimination suits between private parties. It merely makes our constitutional freedom so well defined that no judge can miss it.
I hold the view that has been the consensus in our country for over two centuries: that marriage is between one man and one woman. Polls indicate that the American consensus is changing — but like many other believers, I will not change my faith-driven view on this matter, even if it becomes a minority opinion.
A pluralistic and diverse society like ours can exist only if we all tolerate people who disagree with us. That’s why religious freedom laws matter — and why it is critical for conservatives and business leaders to unite in this debate.
If we, as conservatives, are to succeed in advancing the cause of freedom and free enterprise, the business community must stand shoulder to shoulder with those fighting for religious liberty. The left-wing ideologues who oppose religious freedom are the same ones who seek to tax and regulate businesses out of existence. The same people who think that profit making is vulgar believe that religiosity is folly. The fight against this misguided, government-dictating ideology is one fight, not two. Conservative leaders cannot sit idly by and allow large corporations to rip our coalition in half.
Since I became governor in 2008, Louisiana has become one of the best places to do business in America. I made it a priority to cut taxes, reform our ethics laws, invigorate our schools with bold merit-based changes and parental choice, and completely revamp work-force training to better suit businesses.
Our reforms worked because they were driven by our belief in freedom. We know that a nation in which individuals, and companies, are protected from the onerous impulses of government is one that will thrive and grow. That’s the intellectual underpinning of America, and in Louisiana we defend it relentlessly.
Conservatism faces many challenges in today’s America. Hollywood and the media elite are hostile to our values and they tip the scales to our liberal opponents at every opportunity. Yet the left has lost repeatedly in state elections all over America. Republicans control 31 governorships. We control nearly 70 percent of state legislative chambers, the highest proportion since at least 1900.
Liberals have decided that if they can’t win at the ballot box, they will win in the boardroom. It’s a deliberate strategy. And it’s time for corporate America to make a decision.
Those who believe in freedom must stick together: If it’s not freedom for all, it’s not freedom at all. This strategy requires populist social conservatives to ally with the business community on economic matters and corporate titans to side with social conservatives on cultural matters. This is the grand bargain that makes freedom’s defense possible.
Lately major Tobacco companies are using a dirty trick to ensure they hook new customers in the third world. They threaten to sue the countries for unfair trade practices, going to far as to quote lawsuits, in which they were found guilty, in their legal fights. These small countries are quailing under the legal pressure and giving up their fights to protect their own citizens.
Today, Mike Bloomberg and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation donated $4 million to a fund that will help these countries fight these lawsuits. Good job Mike! Full NYTimes article below:
Cigarette production at the British American Tobacco Cigarette Factory in Bayreuth, Germany. Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced on Wednesday that they had started a global fund to help low- and middle-income countries fight legal challenges to their smoking laws.Credit Michaela Rehle/Reuters
Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced on Wednesday that they had started a global fund to help low- and middle-income countries fight legal challenges to their smoking laws by the tobacco industry.
The fund is modest, at least so far, with a total of $4 million from the two charities. But Michael R. Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg Philanthropies and the financial data and news company Bloomberg LP, said in a conference call with reporters that the investment was more like an initial marker, and that it was expected to grow as more donors joined the effort.
“The fact that there is a fund dedicated to taking on the tobacco companies in court sends a message that they are not going to get a free ride,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “If they say that’s not a lot of money — yes, well, take a look at who’s behind it.”
He added, “We just picked $4 million just to say, ‘O.K., here, let’s start it.’”
The fund was set up to counter what health experts say has been a strategy by tobacco companies to block smoking laws in poorer countries through legal means. In a number of cases, companies have challenged laws in development or after passage, warning governments that they violate an expanding number of trade and investment treaties that the countries are party to, and raising the prospect of long, expensive legal battles.
Companies say that there are only a few cases of active litigation and that giving a legal opinion to governments is routine for major players whose interests would be affected by a proposed law. But tobacco opponents and officials say the specter of litigation has had a chilling effect for countries that lack the financial resources to defend themselves.
“In an ominous trend, in some countries the battle between tobacco and health has moved into the courts,” Dr. Margaret Chan, the director general of the World Health Organization, said in a statement on Wednesday. Dr. Chan is participating in a conference on tobacco use in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. She added, “We will push back hard.”
The strategy has gained momentum in recent years, health experts say, as smoking rates in rich countries have fallen and tobacco companies have sought to maintain access to fast-growing markets in developing countries.
In Africa, at least four countries — Namibia, Gabon, Togo and Uganda — have received warnings that their laws run afoul of international treaties, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an advocacy group that will administer the new fund. In Uruguay, Mr. Bloomberg’s charity is also helping the government defend itself in court.
Wealthier countries have also been targets, including Australia, which is in court with an affiliate of Philip Morris International over rules on packaging, and Norway.
British American Tobacco, which issued some of the warnings in Africa, did not respond to requests for comment. Philip Morris International said in a statement, “Governments can and should honor their international obligations when enacting tobacco control measures, and this fund can provide them with resources to do so.”
Tobacco consumption more than doubled in the developing world from 1970 to 2000, according to the United Nations. Much of the increase was in China, but there has also been substantial growth in Africa, where smoking rates have traditionally been low. More than three-quarters of the world’s smokers now live in the developing world.
Every year, more than five million people die of smoking-related causes, more than from AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined, according to the World Health Organization. The organization said in a statement on Wednesday that new data shows a declining rate of tobacco use around the world.
Beyond giving money, the fund will also help countries draft tobacco laws in a way that could help avoid challenge from industry, and establish a network of lawyers experienced in trade litigation. Mr. Bloomberg said some law firms had already expressed interest in volunteering their services. Mr. Bloomberg has committed about $600 million to combat tobacco use since 2007.
Would that more politicians did what Matt Adamczyk plans to do: eliminate the position he just won. Here's the pledge he made when running for Wisconsin State Treasurer:
WHY I'M RUNNING
I am running for state treasurer on the pledge to eliminate the position. The antiquated office no longer is needed and has become a prime example of wasteful government spending. Governor Walker and the Republican legislature have removed almost all duties that once were the responsibility of the state treasurer and transferred those duties to other agencies. I fully support this effort by Governor Scott Walker and the Republican legislature to save tax dollars with these efficiencies.
My campaign consists of five pledges I’m making to the residents of Wisconsin if elected:
1. Pledge to work tirelessly to eliminate the Office of State Treasurer
2. Pledge to use the position to find government waste and eliminate it
3. Pledge to never waste taxpayer money
4. Pledge to return 25% of salary to taxpayers
5. Pledge to only serve one term
The only constitutional duty of the Wisconsin State Treasurer is to serve on the Board of Commissioners of Public Lands (BCPL). Serving on this board literally consists of two 15-minute phone calls per month. I feel it is wasteful to spend tax dollars on a four person staffed office for just one responsibility. That is why I fully support the Republican amendment, AJR 48, which would replace the state treasurer with the lieutenant governor on the BCPL.
The position is no longer needed since most of its duties have been transferred to other state agencies. But the position and the bloated staff remained until Matt took over. So far he has eliminated positions and wasted technology like cell phones that are being paid for but not used.
Maybe we can get someone in New Jersey to remove some wasted school boards for towns that don't have schools.
Below is a quote from one of my favorite authors. This particular book is on my wish list and I'll get to it eventually; I read the first book in the series: Plainsong. But what a great idea is represented by this quote! And what happens next?
“And so we know the satisfaction of hate. We know the sweet joy of revenge. How it feels good to get even. Oh, that was a nice idea Jesus had. That was a pretty notion, but you can't love people who do evil. It's neither sensible or practical. It's not wise to the world to love people who do such terrible wrong. There is no way on earth we can love our enemies. They'll only do wickedness and hatefulness again. And worse, they'll think they can get away with this wickedness and evil, because they'll think we're weak and afraid. What would the world come to?
But I want to say to you here on this hot July morning in Holt, what if Jesus wasn't kidding? What if he wasn't talking about some never-never land? What if he really did mean what he said two thousand years ago? What if he was thoroughly wise to the world and knew firsthand cruelty and wickedness and evil and hate? Knew it all so well from personal firsthand experience? And what if in spite of all that he knew, he still said love your enemies? Turn your cheek. Pray for those who misuse you. What if he meant every word of what he said? What then would the world come to?
And what if we tried it? What if we said to our enemies: We are the most powerful nation on earth. We can destroy you. We can kill your children. We can make ruins of your cities and villages and when we're finished you won't even know how to look for the places where they used to be. We have the power to take away your water and to scorch your earth, to rob you of the very fundamentals of life. We can change the actual day into actual night. We can do these things to you. And more.
But what if we say, Listen: Instead of any of these, we are going to give willingly and generously to you. We are going to spend the great American national treasure and the will and the human lives that we would have spent on destruction, and instead we are going to turn them all toward creation. We'll mend your roads and highways, expand your schools, modernize your wells and water supplies, save your ancient artifacts and art and culture, preserve your temples and mosques. In fact, we are going to love you. And again we say, no matter what has gone before, no matter what you've done: We are going to love you. We have set our hearts to it. We will treat you like brothers and sisters. We are going to turn our collective national cheek and present it to be stricken a second time, if need be, and offer it to you. Listen, we--
The NY Times neatly reported on the use of Nobel Prize winning gaming theory in the perennial problem of matching New York's high school students with the school of their choice. Since all 75,000 NYC Middle-school students have the option of attending any of the 426 NYC schools and there are many over-achievers, a simple priority list like the college acceptance process used to result in many unhappy applicants.
So a group of professors got together and modified a gaming theory called "The Stable Marriage" for this purpose. In the early 1960s, the economists David Gale and Lloyd Shapley proved that it was theoretically possible to pair an unlimited number of men and women in stable marriages according to their preferences.
By running a series of rounds of proposals and acceptances with tentative acceptance sometimes being trumped by a rejection and acceptance of another suitor, all the men and women get matched up with someone within their range of preferences.
Below is a nice graphic showing the process simplified to ten students, three schools, each of which have three slots, three preferences and three rounds. In reality there are more of each variable but, with computerization, the process works the same.
In 2003, New York City changed its method for matching eighth graders to high schools with a system, called a deferred acceptance algorithm, that was designed by a team of professors, including one who later won a Nobel prize in economic science. The key feature was mutuality: Students submit a list of preferred schools in order, and schools prepare an ordered list of students whom they want or who meet their standards. After rounds of computer matching, schools and students are paired so that students get their highest-ranked school that also wants them. Here, in simplified form, is how it works. In this example, each school can take three students, although it can list more, and each student can list up to three choices.
Sources: Academic papers, with assistance from Parag Pathak, Massachusetts Insitute of Technology
A hilarious article in today's NY Times detailed a story over 250 years in the making. A story of leadership, arrogance and come-uppance. I encourage you all to read the full article.
Colombians dressed up for Independence Day, including one as the one-legged military hero Blas de Lezo.
Credit Andrea Bruce for The New York Times
In 1741, a 186 British warships and 26,000 men, including 4,000 American colonists, tried to conquer Cartegena, protected by 6 warships and 6,000 men. The Columbian leader, Blas de Lezo, repulsed the men, losing an eye and a leg in the battle. His statue marks the site of the battle, incorrectly portrayed as missing an arm as well.
All was as it should be until October 31 of this year when Prince Charles of England visited and unveiled a black granite plaque hailing “the valor and suffering of all those who died in combat whilst seeking to take the city” was placed at the colonial fort where British troops were repulsed nearly three centuries ago.
This display of arrogance was not lost on the Columbians. “In London, why don’t they put up a tribute to the Nazi pilots that bombed the city during World War II?” asked Juan Carlos Gossaín, the governor of Bolívar, according to local news media.
On November 5th, Jaime Rendon, a local animal rights activist and gadfly took matters, and a small sledgehammer, into his own hands. He smashed the plaque, was arrested, quickly released and is now a national hero.
“You don’t play around with history here,” Mr. Rendón said. “You’re not going to put up a plaque in New York in honor of the people who knocked down the twin towers, isn’t that right? For us it’s the same thing.
Now the pedestal on which the broken plaque stood has become a tourist attraction and source of national pride.
Photographing the pedestal that held the plaque honoring British attackers.
If you've ever flown into or out of LaGuardia or JFK, you might be forgiven for thinking you weren't in the airport of the greatest city in the world. These airports and their connections to the city are just awful. Newark is better but it is in New Jersey with few connections to New York City. Most large cities have much better connections to their airports.
There is a competition to develop a better plan for these airports with a $500,000 prize.
This guy, Jim Venturi, has a BIG plan that may be what we need, rather than the Band-Aids others are applying to the systemic problem that is air travel into and out of New York.
The New York Times did a great job with a lot of data, showing the swings from Democrat to Republican in the House and Senate over the years from 1944 to this last election. With a very simple graphic and a few words, they show the weight towards Democratic and the shifts over the years as representatives clutched on presidential coat-tails or were ousted as their presidents lost popularity.
I'll let the graphs speak for themselves below:
What do you do when you are a small, former Soviet Republic, trying to make it on your own but tied to Russia's gas monopoly? Lithuania has figured out a way to break this strangle-hold that Russia has used to freeze out Ukraine and threaten to do so to other former Eastern Bloc countries.
The floating natural gas terminal Independence arriving in Klaipeda, Lithuania, on Monday.CreditPetras Malukas/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
This article explains how the Lithuanians have brought in a mobile factory for converting Norwegian Liquified Petroleum Gas to Natural Gas and parked it just off-shore. It may cost more than Russian gas but this independence comes at a price that the Baltic states are willing to pay.
I really enjoyed Talinn when I visited a few years back. Not only was the old town absolutely gorgeous with one beautiful square leading into another, the people were amazing. Everyone seemed friendly and spoke many languages.
So it came to no surprise to me that Estonians have fully embraced the digital world. According to this article, Estonians microchip technology to embed their national identity and access thousands of services, including banking and medical records.
They ignore concerns about privacy in favor of the greater convenience of full connectivity. Coming out from under the Soviet yoke a generation ago, they welcome the slashing of bureaucracy this electronic connectivity allows.
Look at some of the advantages they gain: 98% of Estonians file their taxes online in 5 minutes allowing the tax department to halve their workforce to 1,500 and issue tax returns in a week. Digital signatures on mobile devices are the norm.
Estonia is leading the way here. Is it the right path to the future? Are we heading to 'This Perfect Day?'
Very interesting analysis by Nate Cohn in last week's New York Times that showed why Democrats are unlikely to win a majority in the House of Representatives while winning statewide majorities for Democrats.
Democratic voters are clustered in cities giving huge margins of victory to Democrats while leaving many more slim Republican majorities in more rural districts. Look at the voting pattern of a few states to see the situation:
So while Pennsylvania and Ohio will vote Democratic as a state, handing their electoral votes to the Presidential candidate and putting Democrats in the Senate, they will send more Republicans to the House than Democrats. Same goes for many other states, enough to hand the House to Republicans for many years to come.
Great op-ed by Russell Shorto in today's Times showing that the secret to New York's success lay in the roots of the Dutch 17th century tolerance for others. Here is the full essay but I'd like to pull some excerpts here:
In founding New Amsterdam in the 1620s, the Dutch planted the seeds for the city’s remarkable flowering. Specifically, the Dutch brought two concepts that became part of New York’s foundation: tolerance of religious differences and an entrepreneurial, free-trading culture.
In the 17th century, when it was universally held elsewhere in Europe that a strong society required intolerance as official policy, the Dutch Republic was a melting pot. The Dutch codified the concept of tolerance of religious differences, built a vast commercial empire and spawned a golden age of science and art in part by turning the “problem” of their mixed society into an advantage. Dutch tolerance was transplanted to Manhattan: They were so welcoming that a reported 18 languages were spoken in New Amsterdam at a time when its population was only about 500.
While many economies elsewhere in Europe were still feudal, the Dutch pioneered an economic system based on individual ownership of real estate. That came about because the Dutch provinces occupied a vast river delta, in which land was at or below sea level and therefore constantly under threat. People in those communities banded together to build dams and dikes and reclaim land. The new land was not owned by a king or a church. Instead, the people who had created it divided it and began buying and selling parcels. That incentivized a whole society, fueled the growth of an empire, turned the Dutch into entrepreneurs and made them the envy of other Europeans.
"Lotteries are a tax on the stupid." We've heard this before but this simplistic statement ignores the entertainment value a poor person gets from dreaming about getting rich by purchasing a ticket. Being down and out is a tough situation and the thought that a $1 ticket can bring you riches is worth the purchase price.
My statistics professor once told me: 'The odds of winning the lottery are tiny, but by buying one ticket, you have improved those odds infinitely from zero to this number. Buying two tickets only doubles these odds so stick with one ticket." I use that philosophy when the mega millions gets above a quarter billion.
But I'm not poor and I already save about 20% of my income. How can we encourage the poor to save while still giving them the hope a lottery provides? A long time ago I dreamed of machines located next to the lottery machines at the convenience stores that people could load their money into a retirement account and see the balance and predicted amount at retirement every time they used the machine. Then they would have a choice between instant gratification and long term savings.
But I like a system even better as reported on in today's NY Times article. Here several credit unions offer 'Prize-linked savings accounts.' A small percentage of the interest rate is dedicated to monthly prizes which are randomly given to people who deposit money into their accounts that month. Not only do you have published winners, everyone else wins because they all save money for their futures.
Bertha before drilling began in July 2013. CreditTed S. Warren/Associated Press
It's been 18 months since I first blogged about Seattle's big dig project: the tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way viaduct. This was a huge project including the world's largest drill bit with a 57.5 feet diameter. I remember reading a few months ago about the bit hitting an unknown object that caused it to stall. What's going on now?
A hole dug by Bertha, the tunnel-boring machine that went dormant last December.CreditDavid Ryder for The New York Times
In a recent NY Times article, we learn that the pipe it hit back in December caused damage that has stalled the drill until next March. Rescuing the bit required the drilling of a shaft to reach the damaged area, shoring up the tunnel it already dug to prevent it from collapsing, replacing huge parts then making further repairs.
A crane hoisting a tunnel-boring tool at a construction site where a large shaft is being dug to get to Bertha. CreditDavid Ryder for The New York Times
One of the biggest problems is the size of everything involved. When everything is scaled up, the cost and time to repair problems scales up exponentially. The eighteen month delay and hundreds of millions in budget overruns all stem from an eight inch diameter steel pipe that nobody involved in the project knew was in the way of Bertha. I'd love to see the official risk management of this project.
The pharmaceutical industry gets a bad rap for charging so much for its drugs. A recent Op-ed criticized the $300,000 cost for a cytic fibrosis drug. But reading further in the article we see that this drug, while a miracle at combatting this disease, only works for a population of 2,000 people.
I can do the math and see that Vertex can, at most, gross $600,000,000 for this drug if everyone in this group buys it at full price. Given that a typical drug costs between $1-$2 billion to bring to market, this is still a loss leader. The drug is currently in Phase III clinical trials which mean the company has already spent about half the money.
The FDA and other worldwide regulatory agencies have forced thousands of regulations on pharmaceutical companies to ensure that drugs that reach patients are safe and effective. The work involved in meeting these regulations require thousands of people working full-time to bring new drugs to the market. That costs money. Who else is going to pay for it if not the final customers of the product.
Not every drug is suited for millions of patients so the cost of these specialty drugs must be borne by the small population of patients who need it.
As for pharmaceutical companies raking in incredible profits, do what I do and buy their stock. I haven't noticed any great increases in my stock values.
Not sure what happened to freedom of speech in this country. It seems there are a few sacred cows you can't speak out against. Mozilla's chief executive was fired because he donated $1,000 to support proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage.
Brendan Eich didn't ask his employees to vote with him, didn't discrimiate against homosexuals at Mozilla and he was supported by gay employees as an executive. He just donated money to support his own beliefs. When asked by gay groups to repudiate his donation he stood by his beliefs. And for that he was hounded out of his position.
It's a little sickening that the world has come to this but I take solace in the statements from a few gay rights leaders who are also offended by this behavior. According to a recent Times article: Andrew Sullivan, a prominent gay writer and an early, influential proponent of making same-sex marriage legal, expressed outrage over Mr. Eich’s departure on his popular blog, saying the Mozilla chief had been “scalped by some gay activists.”
“If this is the gay rights movement today — hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else — then count me out,” Mr. Sullivan wrote.
A number of gay rights advocates pointed out that their organizations did not seek Mr. Eich’s resignation. Evan Wolfson, a leading gay marriage advocate, said that this was a case of “a company deciding who best represents them and their values. There is no monolithic gay rights movement that called for this.”
