Tags: Republican Party, shampoo
What to do with bad shampoo?
It works for some, but not for you.
In my relentless quest to avoid buying from companies that contribute primarily to the Republican Party, I occasionally try brands of shampoo that are new to me.
Some do not work well, at least for me. Is there an alternative to just throwing the shampoo away?
There is. Shampoo is excellent as hand soap. It is also very effective for washing toilet bowls.
But be warned: if you wash a toilet bowl with shampoo, the toilet bowl may stare back at you. See photo 7 in this very amusing collection.
Heloise, feel free to quote these hints.
Tags: bribe, bribery, drug company, Federal Trade Commission, generic drug, patented drug, pharmaceutical company, pharmaceutical patent, Sarah Kliff, Supreme Court
A recent article by Sarah Kliff in the Washington Post describes a common practice called “pay for delay”.
It is used when the patent expires on a drug maker’s very profitable drug. The drug maker that formerly held the patent develops a patent dispute with a company that would have produced a generic version of the drug. Then the suit is settled by the former patent holder paying the would-be producer of the generic version to delay producing and selling the generic version.
Would someone please explain to me how this is not bribery?
Functionally, it acts as a bribe paid by the company that formerly held the patent on the drug, and as acceptance of a bribe by the company that would otherwise have produced a generic version of the drug.
Both companies benefit. Only the consumer is harmed.
The online version of Sarah Kliff’s article includes an instructive graphic showing how much this is costing the consumer.
The Editors of the Washington Post have argued that “pay for delay” constitutes illegal collusion.
The Federal Trade Commission is suing in the Supreme Court.
Tags: assault rifle, assault weapons, Eugene Robinson, Frank Sharry, gun control, Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington Post
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Harry Reid is too frail a reed for the Senate to lean upon.
Harry Reid adheres to the principle, ‘don’t bring it to a vote unless you already know that it will pass’.
This led him to withdraw a ban on assault weapons from a recent bill on gun control. Eugene Robinson’s insightfully described the issues, the calculations, and the trade-offs in a recent article in the Washington Post.
If losing the vote would have made it less likely for the legislation to be brought up again in the future, then Harry Reid’s principle would have been appropriate.
But the legislative histories of the battles for civil rights and for non-traditional pairings in marriage show the opposite. Losing a vote now, and forcing your opponents to publically attach their names to their position, lays the groundwork for eventual victory. But to win eventually, you have to bring your legislation up for a vote again and again, never being discouraged by the fluctuations in the political weather. You never stop proposing your legislation. You never give the impression that the pressure might fade away.
This is illustrated spectacularly by the imminent victory of efforts to reform the immigration laws – especially those that pertain to those who are here because they or their parents snuck in. Advocates of immigration reform modeled their campaign on that for gay rights, as recounted in a recent article by Frank Sharry in the Washington Post.
Harry Reid is a good Senator. But he is not a leader. Seniority, by itself, is not a sufficient qualification for a leadership role.
Gutless and spineless, Harry Reid is anatomically deficient for the job.
As urged in a previous post in this blog, at the very first opportunity, Senate Democrats should elect a new Majority Leader.
Tags: George Zimmerman, manslaughter, Trayvon Martin, vigilantism
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
This is a follow-up of a previous blog posting on George Zimmerman’s fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.
In my opinion, George Zimmerman is guilty of the exultant manslaughter of an opportunistically chosen victim.
Let me explain what exultant manslaughter is.
Like many of us, George Zimmerman’s personality includes a streak of vigilantism. (The popularity of the YouTube video of a vigilante bus driver in Russia confirms that the vigilante urge is widespread.)
George Zimmerman was – probably only semi-conciously – looking for an opportunity that would provide a rationalization, an excuse, a cover, that would permit him to experience the thrill of power and accomplishment and of virtue from having blown away a bad person. Any instance of the types of persons we all hate would do: the types of persons who cause us to gnash our teeth in frustration when we learn of their acts.
He had no particular person in mind. The person was to be selected by fate. George Zimmerman prowled the streets in his vehicle at night, because the history of nightime property crimes in his neighborhood favored stumbling upon a malefactor that way.
That is what is meant by exultant manslaughter.
I know this because of something in my own history. When I was a graduate student I would work on my thesis until late at night, and then walk home through the empty and mostly dark campus. One day there was news that over several nights lone students had been beaten up by a small roving band of rogue students. Instead of changing my schedule, I went to a store that sold outdoor gear, and bought a blackened commando knife in a sheath. Each night I strapped it on before leaving the office. I walked home with my hand on the knife’s handle, scanning for lurking threats, and thinking of the satisfaction there would be in sinking the blade into astonished attackers. Stupid but lucky, I never had the occasion to experience what the consequences would have been.