|
|
|
|
Thursday, 10 August 2017 08:44 |
|
Hoxie writes: "From making silly faces in court, to trolling female journalists online, to referring to the prosecution as 'junior varsity,' the Pharma Bro let the world know he wasn’t fazed. And why should he be? How Shkreli got rich in the first place remains not just legal but celebrated."
Lead defense attorney Benjamin Brafman walks with former pharmaceutical executive Martin Shkreli after the jury issued a verdict at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, August 4, 2017 in the Brooklyn borough of New York City. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty)

Why Martin Shkreli Won’t Be the Last Pharma Bro
By Josh Hoxie, Fortune
10 August 17
artin Shkreli—famously known as the guy that jacked up the price of a lifesaving AIDS treatment by 5,000%—finally saw his day in court, albeit for a completely unrelated case involving an unrelated company from his time as a hedge fund manager. The trial, just concluded last week, found Shkreli guilty of three counts of fraud for essentially lying to his investors about how he would invest their money and when they would be paid back.
The conviction, carrying a potential 20 years in prison, is no joke. Yet the notorious self-promoter took the opportunity to extend his 15 minutes of fame by creating a media spectacle of the trial. From making silly faces in court, to trolling female journalists online, to referring to the prosecution as “junior varsity,” the Pharma Bro let the world know he wasn’t fazed.
And why should he be? How Shkreli got rich in the first place remains not just legal but celebrated.
Shkreli is a pharmaceutical company executive, and by industry standards he appears to be a very good one. He became famous for purchasing the exclusive rights to sell the life-saving drug Daraprim and raising the price from $13.50 to $750 per pill. This sparked outrage and condemnation, but also significant profit.
The real crime of the Pharma Bro is the unrepentant greed that drives him, as well as the industry he’s thrived in. Sen. Bernie Sanders has attempted to put a stop to this greed with recently introduced legislation to cap prices for pharmaceuticals developed by government-funded research. Far from a new idea, Sanders has been pushing for a bill like this for decades.
It’s easy to lose track of the big picture when talking about Shkreli. He is, after all, the kind of guy that would auction off the opportunity to punch him in the face and also the kind of guy for which that would be a pretty big draw.
Yet what he represents is far more sinister than just your garden variety jerk—although he’s certainly that. While raising the price of a life-saving drug by 5,000% rightfully drew the scorn of millions of people, price gouging is all too common for the industry. Take the EpiPen, the lifesaving device for kids and adults with severe allergies, whose price was famously hiked up over 500% in the years after it was acquired by Mylan.
Pharmaceutical executives defend their exorbitant prices by pointing to the supposedly exorbitant cost of research and development. Yet Big Pharma spends more on marketing than R&D, a fact that probably doesn’t surprise anyone who’s been near a television. In 2013, Johnson & Johnson alone spent more than double on ads than they did on research.
These companies also spend exorbitant sums on making their executives and shareholders fabulously wealthy. Pfizer alone spent over $120 billion on share buybacks and dividend payouts to investors from 2003 to 2012, all while reaping enormous benefits from taxpayer-funded investments in drug development.
Laws that protect investors in these companies are what landed Shkreli in court. Yet until there are laws to protect patients from drug company extortion, like the one proposed by Sanders, the line of Pharma Bros ready to take his place is already queued up.

|
|
The Pacific Northwest's Fiery Week Warns of Hotter Times to Come |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=37482"><span class="small">Eric Holthaus, Grist</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 10 August 2017 08:34 |
|
Holthaus writes: "With excessive heat warnings and temperatures reaching the triple digits from northern California through Washington state (places where air conditioning is far from a given), it's a bit hard to fathom that this week should have been even hotter."
A Forest fire in British Columbia. (photo: Ben Nelms/Reuters)

The Pacific Northwest's Fiery Week Warns of Hotter Times to Come
By Eric Holthaus, Grist
10 August 17
t’s feeling a little apocalypse-y in the Pacific Northwest this week.
With excessive heat warnings and temperatures reaching the triple digits from northern California through Washington state (places where air conditioning is far from a given), it’s a bit hard to fathom that this week should have been even hotter.
All-time records could have been set up and down the coast, if it hadn’t been for the thick smoke streaming down from more than 100 massive forest fires in British Columbia, about 500 miles north.
You heard that right — the smoke in places like Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver was so thick it changed the weather. At Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, smoke even kept flights from taking off. (From the air, you couldn’t even see the ground.) In Seattle on Thursday, the air quality was worse than in Beijing.
Welcome to climate change, 2017 edition.
This interplay between fire and hot weather has inspired a bleak and eerie feeling for people in this part of the country. As climate scientist Sarah Myhre writes for Seattle’s alternative newspaper, the visceral experience of climate change in the future might feel a lot like it does this week in the Emerald City.
Hot temperatures increase evaporation rates and dry out the soil, resulting in even hotter temperatures. Drier weather makes wildfire more likely, and wildfires in a hot and dry environment can spark pyrocumulus clouds — freak thunderstorms borne literally of the heat of the fires themselves, whose lightning can spark new fires. (This actually happened in northern California on Wednesday.)
It’s no wonder it feels like a sneak peak at the end of the world.
It’s normally fairly dry this time of year from Sacramento to Juneau, but the last six weeks have been exceptional. This summer’s wildfires in British Columbia are the worst in more than half a century. If it doesn’t rain this weekend — and it’s not forecast to — Seattle will set a new a new all-time record for consecutive days without measurable rainfall.
In a normal year, Seattle reaches 90 degrees only three times. In this week’s heatwave alone, Seattle may reach that mark seven days in a row. In parts of southern Oregon, temps rose above 110 degrees this week even despite the smoke. And the latest forecast shows that the smoke might stick around for at least another week.
Overnight lows, in particular, were record warm this week — a classic signal of global warming. The changing atmosphere is effectively becoming a thicker blanket, preventing heat from escaping into space at night, making overnight temperatures warm even faster than daytime highs. That’s a worrying trend for public health.
At 1 a.m. on Thursday morning in Seattle, the temperature was still 77 degrees, equivalent to the average high for this time of the year. Without the smoke, the high on Thursday would likely have breached 100 for just the fourth time since weather records began in Seattle, back in 1894.
As the New York Times points out, only about one-third of Seattle’s homes have air conditioning. The inability to cool down is a public health hazard in extended heatwaves like this; studies of hyperthermia consistently show that it’s the lack of overnight recovery time that can become deadly.
A new study out this week projected that, should global carbon emissions continue unchecked, more than 500 million people in South Asia alone could be subjected to heatwaves so intense by the end of this century that they could kill even healthy people that happened to venture outdoors.
That’s exactly what scientists mean when they say climate change could render parts of our planet uninhabitable. This week’s weather, as mild as it is in comparison, is yet another warning sign.

|
|
|
I Fully Support My Brother Colin Kaepernick |
|
|
Wednesday, 09 August 2017 14:30 |
|
Lee writes: "People, let's get the story straight. I fully support my brother Kap - 100 percent."
Director Spike Lee with NFL Quarterback Colin Kaepernick. (photo: Spike Lee's Facebook Page)

ALSO SEE: Spike Lee Announces Rally for Colin Kaepernick at NFL Headquarters
I Fully Support My Brother Colin Kaepernick
By Spike Lee, Spike Lee's Facebook Page
09 August 17
eople Let's Get The Story Straight. I Fully Support My Brother KAP 100 Percent. I However Find His Situation Very Suspect. How Is It Possible That All 32 Teams In The NFL (NO FREEDOM LEAGUE) Can't Or Won't Find A Spot For Number 7 On Their Rosters With His Proven Talent? Do Some Research And Peruse The Current Rosters Of All 32 NFL Teams And Check Out Who Are Their 2nd And 3rd String Quarterbacks (And There Are Teams That He Could Be The Starting QB) . After Doing That, Scratch And Shake Ya Head. Now About This Rally, I First Heard About The United We Stand Rally This Morning. I Did Not Organize It, This Is Not My Brainchild. I Don't Know Who Started This, But It Wasn't Me. The Fact Is I Can't Even Make It To The Rally. I Have A Shoot The Very Same Day Which Was Planned 2 Weeks Ago That I CAN NOT Reschedule. Nonetheless I Will Be There In Spirit And Solidarity. I Truly Hope And Pray That 1 Courageous Owner And General Manager Will Step Up And DO THE RIGHT THING. Kap Needs To Be In Uniform In The NFL For The 2017-18 Season. Onward And Upward, Spike Lee. YA DIG - SHO-NUFF?
And Dats Da "COLLUSION" TRUTH, RUTH

|
|
We Need One Sane Leader in the US-North Korea Standoff. Pressure's on You, Kim Jong-un. |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=45739"><span class="small">Joshua Keating, Slate</span></a>
|
|
Wednesday, 09 August 2017 14:20 |
|
Keating writes: "The good news is that despite the weird haircut and the Dennis Rodman spectacle-and the very real and horrific ongoing human rights abuses in North Korea - Kim probably isn't crazy. Like his grandfather and father before him, Kim has generally behaved in an predictable and rational way for the ruler of a small, poor country trying to preserve his own grip on power in the face of much more mighty rivals."
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un celebrates the successful test-fire of the intercontinental ballistic missile Hwasong-14 in July. (photo: Korean Central News Agency)

ALSO SEE: 'God Has Given Trump Authority to Take Out Kim Jong-un,'
Evangelical Adviser Says
We Need One Sane Leader in the US-North Korea Standoff. Pressure's on You, Kim Jong-un.
By Joshua Keating, Slate
09 August 17
en. John McCain summed up a widespread American view when last March he described Kim Jong-un as “this crazy fat kid that’s running North Korea.” The breathless style of media reporting about Kim, and his father before him, has played up his eccentricities, often relying on dubious sourcing. When a story originating on a satirical Chinese social media account about Kim Jong-un feeding his uncle to a pack of dogs went viral in 2014, outlets around the world were quick to re-report it as fact. After all, it seemed like the kind of thing he could have done. Hollywood comedies like Team America and The Interview have reinforced the notion of the Kims as mincing weirdos, driven by their own insecurities to threaten the world with nuclear annihilation.
Viewing North Korea’s rulers as cartoonish madmen might have been comforting before. It’s somewhat less so now that North Korea has developed the capability of launching nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles. The good news is that despite the weird haircut and the Dennis Rodman spectacle—and the very real and horrific ongoing human rights abuses in North Korea—Kim probably isn’t crazy. Like his grandfather and father before him, Kim has generally behaved in an predictable and rational way for the ruler of a small, poor country trying to preserve his own grip on power in the face of much more mighty rivals.
After watching Saddam Hussein (who famously didn’t actually have weapons of mass destruction) and Muammar Qaddafi (who gave up his) succumb to Western military interventions, North Korea apparently decided the smart move was to develop a nuclear deterrent of its own—an entirely understandable, if regrettable, response. Kim wants to have nuclear weapons, to deter an attack, but since nothing would ensure the destruction of his regime faster than actually using them, he’s unlikely to do so.
The startling realization for Americans is that, between President Trump and Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader is probably the more predictable of the two. When a small, weak nation threatens to drown its enemies in a “sea of fire,” it’s a signal to rivals that the consequences of attacking Pyongyang could be dire for them. When the leader of the world’s most powerful country uses the same type of rhetoric, it’s harder to interpret.
So, what are North Korea’s leaders to make of Donald Trump? If Kim Jong-un is a rational actor, he might reach one of two conclusions. One is that Trump might actually mean the things he says and might very well back up his threats with action. In that case, the prudent course would be to give the U.S. president a wide berth and avoid doing anything further to provoke him. This is Nixon’s famous “madman theory,” as explained recently by Slate’s Fred Kaplan. Given that the North Korean regime has probably been practicing its own version of the madman theory for decades, it’s likely to see through that strategy.
The second conclusion he might reach is that Trump’s threats are empty. Judging by other recent crises, his statements at any given time don’t necessarily represent U.S. policy.
Republicans spent much of Barack Obama’s second term pillorying him (with some justification) for drawing a “red line” for Bashar al-Assad—threatening to use force if the Syrian leader used chemical weapons—that he never actually intended to enforce. Trump, on the other hand, draws red lines like a kid set loose with a crayon on an Applebee’s place mat, threatening rivals from Mexico to China to congressional Democrats with dire consequences that rarely materialize. Trump promised in January that a North Korean nuke capable of striking the U.S. “won’t happen.” Such a weapon now either currently exists or will very soon.
In April, Trump told North Korea he was sending a powerful “armada” to the Korean peninsula while it was actually heading in the opposite direction. His vow Tuesday to unleash “fire and fury like the world has never seen” is probably more bluster, and if Kim is really a “smart cookie,” he’ll realize that.
When nuclear weapons are involved, even sane leadership on both sides won’t necessarily prevent war. As a recent Slate cover story on the Able Archer incident explained, misread intentions could very well have led to nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union in 1983—and Soviet leader Yuri Andropov was nobody’s idea of a flamboyant madman.
That said, the best scenario we can hope for in this standoff requires at least one rational actor. The worst scenario is that Kim actually isn’t rational, that he will interpret Trump’s provocations to mean an attack is imminent and that he should therefore strike first, either against one of his neighbors or, as was suggested Tuesday night, against a U.S. military site in the Pacific. In addition to unleashing a catastrophic war, such an attack would almost certainly lead to the destruction of the Kim regime. He’d have to be crazy to do it. Let’s hope he’s not.

|
|