Which gets it right?
1. Bush noncommittal on Guantanamo shutdown
2. Bush Open to Possibly Closing Gitmo Camp
3. Rumsfeld Says Guantánamo Isn't Being Considered for Closing
My money is on #3.
Which gets it right?
1. Bush noncommittal on Guantanamo shutdown
2. Bush Open to Possibly Closing Gitmo Camp
3. Rumsfeld Says Guantánamo Isn't Being Considered for Closing
My money is on #3.
The NYT runs a moderately interesting story about a sort of whistle-blower at Pfizer, Dr. Peter Rost, a Vice-President for Marketing, who quite naturally is getting the cold shoulder from the company after saying it charges too much for drugs (some kind of marketing!). I say “sort of” because from what's in the article, At Pfizer, the Isolation Increases for a Whistle-Blower, Dr. Rost is more of a corporate critic of overcharging for drugs than an actual exposer of illegality, which is what I take whistle blowers usually to be.
Pfizer is afraid to fire him, either for fear of bad publicity, or for some murky legal reasons having to do with a Justice Department “investigation into its marketing of genotropin, the growth hormone Dr. Rost was responsible for selling at Pharmacia.” So meanwhile he gets put into corporate Siberia, what we used to call “the office with the dog”. This sort of thing happens; I recall one case in Treasury, long ago, where the politicals tried to get rid of a high civil servant they mistrusted for political reasons by assigning him to log all uses of the photocopier. Didn't work — he said they'd be gone in four years….
But back to the NYT story. The most interesting item is the amazing fact in the next to last paragraph. I would imagine that in these days of title inflation, VP's for Marketing must be quite numerous. I might have guessed that at a major subsidiary of a big drug company, a higher middle manager might pull down $150-200,000, perhaps with some bonus in good years. But no. The NYT reports that Pfizer is paying Dr. Rost $600,000 year — no wonder he's willing to stick it out and do nothing!
$600,000 per year for a Marketing VP. If they can afford that, doesn't it suggest that the drugs must be seriously overpriced?
Catnip to a certain kind of (experienced) geek: Zork – Uncyclopedia—a wiki-based Zork parody (via Boing-Boing)
Want to participate in the fight against US-sponsored torture but don't have the time, the skills, or a clear idea where to begin? Consider a donation to one of these groups:
I'd welcome suggestions for additions to this list.
Can the GOP find a would-be Senate candidate who would be even worse if elected than the hapless Sen. Martinez? Oh yes it can: Harris to challenge Nelson for Senate seat.
Via TaxProf Blog some good advice for Democrats from Prof. Deborah Geier:
Democrats should focus on the following statement: The distribution of the tax burden worsens inequality because there is less income inequality before annual tax bills are paid than after they are paid. That's the key point that should be stressed, over and over again, like a broken record (in the days of yore before CDs): The government imposes taxes in such a way that the distribution of income is more unequal than if the government imposed no taxes at all. Congressional Budget Office data discussed below shows that the gap (which is increasing) in pretax income between the very wealthy and the rest is smaller than the gap in after-tax income. Thus, the distribution of the tax burden itself is increasing inequality. I need to stress here that I am not talking about using the tax system to reduce income inequality, which is a use of the tax system that is utterly anathema to conservatives and libertarians alike. What I am saying here is that the tax system should be structured so that the distribution of the aggregate tax burden itself does not actually worsen income inequality. In other words, the government should not be intervening through the tax system to make the gap between the very rich and everyone else actually greater than it otherwise is (in the absence of tax). I think most Americans, whether Democrat or Republican (or Rockefeller Republican), would agree with that statement.
Amen to that.