Friday, May 23, 2008


I want to just make note of three news stories that have captured my attention lately. To write about them, in depth, at once, would be exhausting. But I do want to continue to keep them in the forefront of my mind, so making note of them is important for future consideration.

This story and this story in the Nation about Big Pharma testing drugs in third-world nations. For years I have mistrusted the F.D.A. and Big Pharma in general, but this is just one further example of how capitalism necessitates the oppression of the poor. The best example of this? The fact that, in justifying the fact that these pharmaceutical companies have lied, coerced, and denied treatment to sick participants (including infants), the main defense for their actions was that, "poor people are lucky to have any treatment at all." WTF? I would be interested to know if pharmaceutical companies from countries with socialized medicine are facing similar accusations. Are American companies more likely to perpetuate harm on research subjects in third-world countries than their European counterparts, given the difference in our respective philosophies about health care being a human right? Or is this just another example of racism, classism, and oppression? Or both?

2) In a similar vein, this op-ed article in the Wall Street Journal, in which Mr. Lomburg tries to argue that if we'd just stop focusing so much on the fact that our planet is going to implode, we could REALLY help poor people. Because, you know, 10 years ago before global warming was in the public/legislative/world consciousness, the world HAD no problems! Attempts to bring down the global thermometer are simply diverting monies from cancer, "preventative/peacekeeping" wars, and getting vitamins to poor kids. Again I ask, WTF??? Using poor kids to justify polluting the planet....classy.

People keep trying to keep "those gays" from getting married. An amendment to California's state constitution will be up for vote in November to keep gays from marrying. The problem, as I see it, is this: as this article makes abundantly clear, gay marriage is not something that is decided by a majority vote by the people. It will be tragic interesting to see the war of the worlds type battle that will ensue after this "amendment" passes (which it inevitably will- I don't have much faith in people, even Californians, to not be ignorant hate-filled retards). Will the Supreme Court's initial ruling stand since it was in place before the amendment was made? Ugh. Don't we have bigger things to worry about than whether or not people get married? Like, you know, numbers one and two on this list?

No comments: