Today's Wall Street Journal includes a story on ad agencies becoming increasingly involved in the research and development of drugs by the drug companies: recruiting patients for clinical trials, providing labs for drug development, and helping fund that development. Thomas Harrison, CEO of the Omnicom agency, says, "What we want to try to do is look at the molecule in the test tube as a brand. A lot of people don't think a brand is a brand until it has the FDA approval. But we are asking, what is the maximum commercial potential of this molecule? What will it be when it grows up? What is the message? How should the clinical trial be developed?"
I believe this is the first time in human history a single molecule has been thought of as a brand-something to be advertised, promoted, and pitched to focus groups.
posted by Arne at 9:47 PM
"weapons of mass destruction"-How did humanity reach a point where this phrase could be dropped into casual conversation? How is it that people can be proud to say things like "I participated in a project that furthered the spread and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction"? And such people are regarded as neither insane nor evil? How did we ever come to accept such a horrible phrase?
posted by Arne at 8:20 PM
And now President Bush says, "We've got all options on the table because we want to make it very clear to nations that you will not threaten the United States or use weapons of mass destruction against us or our allies or friends." Now, when Bush says, "We've got all options on the table," isn't that, coming from a country with many hundreds of nuclear weapons, a very real, very explicit threat to other countries, not just a warning? Who's doing the threatening here-the U.S. or the other nations? Dmitry Rogozon, a Russian legislator, said, "They've brought out a big stick — a nuclear stick that is supposed to scare us and put us in our place."
posted by Arne at 4:05 PM
I came across these interesting remarks in the Four Books on Architecture, by Andrea Palladio:
There were three types of prisons in antiquity: one, for people who were depraved and had lost their way, was where they were kept until they were back on the straight and narrow; this type is now usually reserved for the insane; another type was for debtors, and we too use it; the third is for degenerates and criminals, already condemned or about to be condemned; these three types are enough since men's follies arise from either depravity or arrogance or willfulness...The prisons must be located on very safe sites near the squares surrounded by high walls and protected from the violence and conspiracies of treacherous citizens. Prisons must be made healthy and
pleasant because they were devised to guard but not to torment or torture miscreants or other sorts of men.
posted by Arne at 6:03 PM
On yesterday's Sunday morning political talk shows, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice both made appearances to explain the meaning of the recently revealed military plans that include discussions of the possible tactical use of nuclear weapons against China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Russia and Syria.
Powell said the document was just ''prudent military planning.'' One has to ask how dropping nuclear and/or hydrogen bomb(s) anywhere in the world, and thereby likely killing thousands of civilians, can be called prudent or, for that matter, much of a plan.
Meanwhile, Rice said, "We all want to make the use of weapons of mass destruction less likely. The way that you do that is to send a very strong signal to anyone who might try to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States that they'd be met with a devastating response."
Again, one has to ask how it is that people who have quite gladly killed themselves in the course of killing others will be deterred by this sort of signal. I thought the way to make the use of weapons of mass destruction less likely was to destroy the weapons of mass destruction so they can't be used.
posted by Arne at 4:49 PM 