Wednesday, March 23, 2016

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. 


Tuesday, March 22, 2016

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.


Watch the Trailer below...





Monday, March 21, 2016

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.





Tuesday, March 15, 2016

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. 




Saturday, March 12, 2016

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).

Friday, March 11, 2016

Confessions of an Economic Hitman


Confessions of an Economic Hitman

by John Perkins


The book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins has received international recognition and was converted into a documentary. If someone approaches me with an interest in learning about international affairs or world poverty or the American empire, and their interest is to hear the side of the story that is not given in the mainstream press, U.S. classrooms, or Hollywood, this book is one of my first recommendations. It is a good introduction into the workings of empire.

Since the book was published, it rose to 5th on the NY Times bestseller and 23rd on Amazon and is also being taught in college classrooms including DePaul University. The main criticism of the book, including a NYTimes review, is the veracity of the some of the information or story. However, most criticisms don't deny that things like he describes happen but rather Perkins was not there or is embellishing. I, personally, try not to take anything as full truth or falsehood. But, ultimately, that is for the reader to decide. 

Simply put, the way it works is - Large multinational corporations and their agents in government and international agencies identify countries that have resources those corporations covet. Through the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund (IMF), both of which are headquartered in Washington D.C., massive loan packages are created to lend to those countries. Most of us would think this is a good thing. But there is a huge misconception about these loans (sometimes called Structural Adjustment Programs).

The money does not go to the people of that country but rather to a large multinational corporation to build infrastructure projects, whether that be energy or other industry, that the same or another corporation will ultimately control the production of. But the rub is, the country is indebted, so the people of that country, often of very low-income, are left paying the debt and interest while a very small group reap the profits gained from resource extraction.

If the leaders of those countries are not willing to agree to these sorts of deals, well as you will find out, Economic Hit Men are sent to attempt to corrupt them. If corruption doesn't work, then there is an effort to remove them from power. Guatemala and Iran in 1953 as well as Ecuador and Panama in 1981 are just a couple of examples. Here John Perkins talks about those examples as well as others including Iraq, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia. And finally, if they remain in power, then military is sent in to get rid of them. 

Perkins goes on to coin the term Corporatocracy (or it was at least the first time I heard it). The premise is that powerful corporations, rather than the U.S. or any other government, are running the global empire. Decisions are made to benefit those interests. And also, that the distinction between government and corporations has become so diluted due to revolving door between the two. 

Below is a "short documentary" about 26 minutes long but I have also include a link to the full interview, the book, and his website.







"When I read Confessions of An Economic Hit Man, I could not have known that, some years later, I would be on the receiving end of the type of economic hit that Perkins so vividly narrated. This book resonates with my experiences of the brutish methods and gross economic irrationality guiding powerful institutions in their bid to undermine democratic control over economic power. Perkins has, once again, made a substantial contribution to the world that needs whistleblowers to open its eyes to the true sources of political, social, and economic power." 
- Yanis Fourvakis, Former Greek Minister of Finance






The Girl Who Silenced the World


The Girl Who Silenced the World


If you haven't watched this, you must, and it will send shivers up your spine.

This speech was made in 1992, by then 12 year old, Severn Suzuki. It was a plea, made in front of the delegates of the United Nations and member states, at the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero. 

The look on the faces of those in attendance is priceless. A child is telling them all the things they already know but choose, for political reasons, to ignore. 

"At school, even in kindergarten, you teach us how to behave in the world. You teach us not to fight with others, to work things out, to respect others, to clean up our mess, not to hurt other creatures, to share, not be greedy. Then why do you go out and do the things you tell us not to do." 

"My dad always says, you are what you do not what you say. Well, what you do makes me cry at night. You grown ups say you love us. But I challenge you, make your actions reflect your words." 

Today, Savern remains an activist for the environment after getting her degree from Yale University. Visit her website (here)



Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Why Are American Health Care Costs So High?

Why Are American Health Care Costs So High?



In the United States, we pay more $$ in taxes than many countries with "socialized" health care. Additionally, we pay much more in personal funds to health care than any other country. Everything health care in the United States costs more.

Listen to John breakdown some of the complexities and issues with the American Health Care system. Using statistics John shows that we pay much more for health care but still have some of the worst health care outcomes of any "developed" country. This video is a good introduction to some of the issues with American health care including cost of care, health outcomes, pharmaceuticals, insurance, malpractice, and hospitals.






Tuesday, March 8, 2016

My Take: Charleston Massacre

This is user content written following the Charleston Church Massacre.

I know that this issue is on the back burner given the recent Supreme Court decisions (marriage equality) but I have wanted to speak on this issue. And I am going to make what I feel is a critical plea. The boy who committed this atrocity SHOULD NOT BE KILLED. I am going to plead with you all to please have compassion and understand that our desire for revenge or "justice" will not cure the ills that caused this tragedy, it will likely make them worse. And please, before you rush to judgment, read the rest of this post.

In the wake of the Charleston shooting I find myself frustrated again with the dialogue that pervades. This post was sparked by commentary of a man in the mainstream media (MSM) that I have huge respect for his willingness to be truthful and his ability to both recognize and present the complexity of issues. But Jon Stewart failed me on this occasion, calling the national tragedy a "black and white" issue. He wasn't, although the pun was clear, referring to race but rather the motivation for the actions. The dialogue that has followed has been rather simplistic and in my opinion, completely skates the larger issues here. This is not about a flag, the Confederacy, guns, or even racism for that matter.

Time and time again, facing national tragedies, we have missed an opportunity to speak that truth. We get caught up in simple, emotional, and sometimes partisan critiques of individual behavior and we remain poised to defend our position, rather than listen. What doesn't happen on a large scale is reflection. Reflection of a sickness, much more prevalent than racism, that we all share and contribute to, it is a disease of American culture. It is a kind of moral rot.

A sickness, founded in resistance to change, aimed at simple answers to serious questions, easy "fixes" to complex and profound problems facing us. The great and all too appropriate metaphor of American society flashes before my eyes. I see an ostrich, with an American flag wrapped around its body, with its head buried in the sand.

"The truth is hard to come by because most nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations and the incessant search for scapegoats are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins." - Martin Luther King, 1967

From our birth, our parents birth, and well beyond, we were taught that retribution through violence is the appropriate means to reconcile our grievances. While I will be the first to admit that this cultural mindset does not always manifest itself through violence, it still pervades. The examples are endless. Police capturing and locking away the bad guy. The death penalty for somebody who kills another person. The response by our government to a "hostile" leader in another country. Drone strikes of "enemy combatants." Dropping an atomic bomb on the people of a country who attacked Pearl Harbor. Rambo taking aim at a drug lord, piercing his forehead with an arrow (of course made by his own hands). How can we sit on our pedestal, given our practices and history, and say that violence to address one's grievances is worthy of the highest punishment, the death penalty?

From that same speech, Martin Luther King Jr reflects on this conflict. "As I have walked among the desperate, reject, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through non-violent action; but they ask me and write me, 'So what about Vietnam?' They ask if our nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems to bring about the changes it wanted, why shouldn't we? I knew then that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed without first haven spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world: my own government."

This kid, who is obviously sick and deranged, learned to address his grievances with retributive violence from somewhere. And how can we, in good conscience, kill him when our government is bombing innocent human beings as an acceptable means of addressing its grievances (which I could argue are sick and deranged, but that is not the point).

I am going to go on a little tangent then come back to this original point because I think these two components are extremely critical and cannot be overlooked. First, the burden of making money in order to survive in our Country. Not too long ago, one income could support a family. Today, one income sometimes cannot even support one person. This phenomenon is recent and we, as a culture, have had no opportunity to reconcile it, to integrate the vast advances in technology and human ingenuity to reverse this trend. It is contributing to the destruction of the American family and we have had no opportunity to sit down and ask why. Parents working 60 hours a week, spending no time with their children cannot be overlooked as a contributing factor. The need to work more and more hours while having less and less time to provide a supportive and loving environment for children is a compounding, powerful problem. This has become commonplace and is statistically proven to be more prevalent among those of the lowest incomes. And the strife for money to survive or to have nice things has changed from a means to a purpose of many lives. Often children are left confused, angry, sick, and in search of support systems which are not always good.

Second, is the way we approach the results these circumstances, what we call "health care." Another manifestation of this easy and quick-fix attitude. This attitude in our health care system is applied to children as well. You are having trouble paying attention, here's a drug. You are feeling depressed, here's a drug. You are hyper, here's a drug. These drugs have neurological and biological effects on children who are crying out for help or maybe just attention. They do nothing, literally zero, to address any of the problems causing the illness. Yes, they may quell the bad feelings but they do not address what is causing the feelings. And even with the statistics pointing to these facts, our normally incompetent federal agencies calling prescription drug abuse in the US an "endemic," we still can't slow down and ask why. This kid, in particular, was given a narcotic (pharmaceutical drug prescribed by a doctor) which has been shown to have a direct correlation to violent behavior in young men and has also been shown to have connections to other drug dependencies.

Why are we so resistant to understand? Is it because it requires introspection? Is it because it forces us to reflect on the parts of ourselves that we don't like? Or is it because we simply don't know how to?

So, who was this kid? What was his life experience? What drove him to commit such an awful act? I can assure you, though the simple answer may be convenient for your political agenda or helping you come to terms with what happened, it will not do a damn thing to prevent this from happening again.

I am telling everybody who has made it this far, it is not because he was "crazy" and it was not because he was racist. Yes, he was "crazy." Yes, he was racist. But there are a lot of racist and a lot of "crazy" people who do not shoot up churches.

This, like racism, are a symptom of a greater problem. They are symptoms of a sickness. We have become a culture that is in constant conflict with what we know is "right" and how we act. Would we want to give a drug to a friend who is feeling depressed? No, we would want to understand what ails them. Would we want to punish a family member because he used illegal drugs or stole something? No. Would we want to drone strike our friend because his reality of constant war and death drove him to pick up a gun and fight back against the forces he perceived as responsible for those conditions? No. So why do we remain silent when it is done to others? And worse, why do we encourage it and defend it? Why are we content with such simple explanations and simple answers? Is it just the compounding affect of an elementary psychological term, the fundamental attribution error?

Martin Luther King Jr said we need a "revolution of values." I am sorry Jon Stewart but that will not come from changing street names and taking down flags. That will come from changing how we approach our problems. That will not come from government mandates and more laws but will come from changing our own personal choices. That will come from slowing down, analyzing not only the behavior but also how we, individually and collectively contribute to that behavior. Everything we do changes our worldview, it ever so slightly alters our perception and the future. Whether that be watching Rambo or reacting emotionally to a terrorist attack or the greater implications of our everyday purchases. It changes us, it helps define our understanding of and our course in life. The more and more we are resistant to changing our perception of the world, the more and more we close the door on the endless possibilities of change presented to us.

"We as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism, and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered."