Documentary: Big Bucks, Big Pharma

Big Bucks, Big Pharma: Marketing Disease & Pushing Drugs

This documentary, released in 2005, examines the impact of Big Pharmaceutical's on health and health care delivery in the United States. Despite being released over 10 years ago, the drug companies continue to have the same approach to health care. Through marketing, branding, relationships with doctors, influence in politics, and presence in the medical education, this billion-dollar industry continues to drive prescription use as a health care outcome.

By spending billions on advertising to encourage consumption, America has quickly become the leading (by far) consumer of pharmaceutical drugs. For context, in 2005 the amount of money spent advertising one cholesterol drug, Vioxx, was more than was spent on both Budweiser and Pepsi in that same year. 

America, about 5% of the total world's population, consumes almost 50% of the world's pharmaceutical drugs. 

In America, adverse reactions to properly prescribed prescription drugs is the 5th leading killer of Americans, with over 100,000 people dying annually. And are we getting better health outcomes because of the use of these drugs? No, because the drug is not intended to address the root health problem, it is intended to blur the symptoms while the pill is working. This is because, as an industry, it is driven by profit just like all industries. If the industry creates a medicine that cures the health problem, they lose a customer. If they create a bill that provides temporary relief but does not cure the problem, they have life-long customers.

No pharmaceutical advertisement on television will tell you that fact. Check out this documentary to see how it all works. 

Documentary: The Culture High

The Culture High 

One of the best documentary films of 2015, the Culture High examines marijuana prohibition, the mechanisms in place to continue the Drug War, and the greater social implications and effects of this policy that has been perpetrated for decades.

With intellectuals, media figures, and celebrities such as Gabor Mate, Graham Hancock, Howard Bloom, Joe Rogan and Snoop Dogg, the film hits hard on one of the most important issues facing American society, the Drug War.

Journeying across the North American landscape, The Culture High is the riveting story that tears into the very fabric of modern day marijuana prohibition to reveal the truth behind the arguments and motives governing both those who support and oppose the existing pot laws. With budgets to fight the war reaching billions and arrests for simple possession sky rocketing to nearly a million annually, the debate over marijuana's legality has reached epic proportions. From Police Militarization to campaign contributions the film raises the stake with some of today's biggest names, unprecedented access to footage previously unobtainable, and incredibly moving testimonials from both sides of the spectrum. Top celebrities, former undercover agents, university professors and a slew of unforgettable characters from all points of view come together for an amusing yet insightful portrait of cannabis prohibition and the grasp it has on society as a whole. The Culture High will strip search the oddity of human nature and dare to ask the question: What exactly is going on here?

See the full film here.

Website - http://www.theculturehigh.com/

Watch the Trailer below...

John Stewart Interview (Rachel Maddow)

Maddow Interviews John Stewart

Almost 5 years after his infamous spot on CNN's Crossfire, in which Jon Stewart took on the hosts of the show in an episode that would lead to the show being ended by CNN, Stewart sits down with Rachel Maddow to discuss the very same concerns that drove him to CNN's Crossfire. Whether you like or find John credible as a journalist should not be the focal point but rather the issues with American political discourse that Stewart is pointing out, and the institution (the media) that continues to perpetrate political division rather than focusing on important issues that face the American people.

Stewart says to Maddow that "we have all bought into, that the conflict in this Country is between right and left, liberal and conservative, red and blue. And all the news networks have bought into that as well. What it does is it amplifies a division that I don't think is the right fight." Stewart goes on to say that in his opinion there is a greater difference between people with kids and people without kids than there is between left and right and that the left-right perceived division has become more of "an arms race."

Stewart says, "my problem is that it has become tribal." Maddow, of course, tries to diminish her (MSNBCs) involvement in this - or rather says that they don't do it in the same way or to the same degree as Fox News which really proves his point, right? Stewart points out quite correctly that "we have a tendency to grant amnesty to people who we agree with and to overtly demonize people we don't. I do the same thing. I think everybody does." And the effects of this are what he feels are polarizing the two sides.

"The problem with a 24 hour news cycle is that it is built for a very particular event, 9/11. Other than that, there really isn't 24 hours worth of stuff to talk about, in the same way. Now, the problem is how do you keep people watching it? O.J. isn't going to kill someone every day. What do you have to do? You have to elevate the passion of everything else that happens that might even be somewhat mundane and elevate it to the extent that this is 'Breaking News,' this is 'Developing News.' The aggregate effect of that is you lose the lexicon. You lose any meaning of what breaking news means or urgent or look at this or dangerous."

Stewart continues, "maybe these networks aren't meant to be viewed in aggregate, but there is an aggregate, there is an effect." Meanwhile, while the public is left fighting over which party is bad, the discourse about issues, real issues, like military adventurism, Wall St corruption, criminalization of victimless crimes, corporate greed and corruption are lost. Issues that everybody agrees on get pushed to the side.

Below you can listen to the full interview.

The Finance Industry Has Captured Our Government

Greenwald: The Finance Industry Has Captured Our Government

In this video, Glenn Greenwald discusses an article written by Simon Johnson, ex-Chief Economist at the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Greenwald says that if everyone were to read one article this year, this would be the one he would recommend. The premise of the article The Quiet Coup is that, in response to the economic crisis of 2008, the United States government is enacting policies that serve a very small financial elite at the expense of ordinary Americans. 

Johnson cites his experience at the IMF, monitoring the policies of Russia and Argentina as they experienced similar financial crises and ultimately the crash of those economies. In both those countries and in the U.S., the financial elite (oligarchy), who was responsible for the economic downturn, captured the governments of those nations and drove policies designed only to benefit that very narrow class of financial interests. 

Greenwald points out that the financial interests and their unlimited wealth have done this systematically through campaign contributions and being appointed to government positions where they can influence policy. As one example, Greenwald highlights that under Clinton, ex-Goldman Sachs CEO Robert Rubin was appointed to the Secretary of the Treasury. Then, under Bush II, ex-Goldman Sachs executive, Hank Paulson was appointed to that same post. And then, under current President Barry Obama, ex-Goldman Sachs executive, Tim Geithner. 

Listen to the full video below, comment, follow this blog. 

Chomksy Interview 2016 (Foreign Policy)

Simone Chun Interviews Noam Chomsky

In early 2016, MIT Professor and foreign policy giant, Noam Chomsky is interviewed by writer and activist Simone Chun. Chun asks Professor Chomsky about expected changes to U.S. foreign policy under presidential hopefuls Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Ted Cruz. 

Among the topics covered are the Iran nuclear deal, South Korea, the media, and a range of other topics. Read the full interview (here). 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chun: Do you feel that there will be any significant change in the foreign policy of the United States after President Obama?

Chomsky: If Republicans are elected, there could be major changes that will be awful. I have never seen such lunatics in the political system. For instance, Ted Cruz’s response to terrorism is to carpet-bomb everyone.

Chun: Would you expect that Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy would be different from President Obama’s?

Chomsky: Judging by the record, she is kind of hawkish—much more militant than the centrist democrats, including Obama. Take for instance Libya: she was the one pressing the hardest for bombing, and look at what happened. They not only destroyed the country, but Libya has become the center for jihad all over Africa and the Middle East.  It’s a total disaster in every respect, but it does not matter.  Look at the so-called global war on terror. It started in 15 years ago with a small cell in a tribal sector in Afghanistan.  Now it is all over, and you can understand why. It’s about comparative advantage of force.

Chun: How about Bernie Sanders–what do you think his foreign policy will be?

Chomsky: He is doing a lot better than I expected, but he doesn’t have much to say about foreign policy. He is a kind of New Deal Democrat and focuses primarily on domestic issues.

Chun: Some people in South Korea speculate that if Bernie Sanders gets elected, he may take a non-interventionist position towards foreign policy, which would then give more power to South Korea’s right-wing government.

Chomsky: The dynamics could be different. His emphasis on domestic policy might require an aggressive foreign policy. In order to shore up support for domestic policies, he may be forced to attack somebody weak.

Chun: Do you believe that Americans would support another war?

Chomsky: The public is easily amenable to lies: the more lies there are, the greater the support for war. For instance, when the public was told that Saddam Hussein would attack the U.S., this increased support for the war.

Chun: Do you mean that the media fuels lies?

continue full article (here).