What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

[StringJunky]

Phi,

 

I haven't read String Junky's whole pdf but seeing who the thing is about makes me stop to make a point.

 

The guy was a smug, young criminal twerp that is guilty of extortion or holding people's life for ransom or something and does not deserve of drop of dopamine for the rest of his worthless life. We are rightly prosecuting him for his crimes.

 

But I want to point out that he raised the price of a life saving drug, from 13.50 a pill to 750 a pill because he was a greedy bastard, that broke the law. The important thing in the story is to realize that the drug company, before the creep bought it, was making a drug saving pill for 13.50. This in no way demonizes drug companies, and infact should engender pride and gratification from us all, that the people that worked to develop and test the drug, did the work

The times they are a-changin.

 

 

But price increases--and efforts to keep them quiet--aren't limited to Turing and Valeant, and the committee knows it. Big Pharma players and smaller specialty companies alike--from Pfizer ($PFE) and Amgen ($AMGN), to Horizon Pharma ($HZNP) and Vanda Pharmaceuticals ($VNDA)--have all taken recent price increases, according to analysts, and they haven't gone unnoticed.

"The documents show that these tactics are not limited to a few 'bad apples,' but are prominent throughout the industry," Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) said in a statement.

 

http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/turing-valeant-hiked-prices-max-profits-then-scrambled-quash-bad-pr-documen/2016-02-02

[overtone]

The important thing in the story is to realize that the drug company, before the creep bought it, was making a drug saving pill for 13.50. This in no way demonizes drug companies, and infact should engender pride and gratification from us all, that the people that worked to develop and test the drug, did the work.

In addition to developing the drug, the drug company involved spent millions - far more than it spent developing the drug - on lobbying Congress to get favorable and long term monopoly control over its manufacture (to have US patent and ownership laws written in its favor). It also obtained, by much effort and expensive "lobbying", very favorable legislation regarding its tax liabilities (deductions for "research" and "marketing" and other expenses (including the lobbying itself), the depreciation of its legal monopoly, the description of retained earnings, international earnings and profits, the corporate and capital gains tax rates on income derived from the sale of the drug, etc etc etc). It also received, in return for its investment in lobbying Congress, special industry treatment of its legal liabilities for side effects etc, protection from the market leverage of big purchasers such as Medicare, the right to advertise its drugs to ordinary people unable to evaluate their needs or risks, and other benefits.

 

So with all this added value, the drug company was able to sell the drug for a very high price - much higher than it would have obtained otherwise - to an "investor" with no political vulnerabilities, no brand name to sully, and an interest in gouging sick people for big bucks with their lives on the line. And it and its executives and investors enjoyed favorable taxation policy on the profits made thereby.

 

So our problem here is not just the creep. There's always a creep around. It's the corruption of Congress by the drug company. And that corruption is almost total in the federal level Republican Party - essentially the entire Republican Congress and all Presidential candidates are on board defending most or all of those price boosting privileges. They call it "free market" and "business friendly" and "job creation" and "small government".

Edited February 4, 2016 by overtone

[StringJunky]

Legal corruption...erm, I mean... Lobbying.

.

I've never thought of it like that really... I agree.

[tar]

Overtone,

 

Good post. I did not know that such monopoly protection was obtained prior the sale to the creep. But still a certain amount of copyright protection is afforded people in this society for creating something that is useful to society, to allow them a certain amount of time to be financially rewarded for such a thing.

 

Our system has evolved for reasons, all along.

 

There are scores of thousands of lobbyists, in Washington to ask that their towns and bridges and organizations and companies be looked after and not overlooked, when legislation is made. Yes it is unfair for somebody to take large sums for the ear of a powerful person, because we all don't have the funds available to bend those ears...but 475 thousand for a speaking engagement is also a form of the same thing. At one point, Bill and Hilary were swamped by legal expenses and more than broke. For them to be multimillionaires now, does require that somebody s giving them money, to bend their ears. That is one reason people are backing Trump, because people think that since he already is a billionaire, he can not be corrupted by special interests. And Bernie is trusted, because he gets his funding from 3 and a half million different sources, at 37 dollars a pop.

 

Perhaps that is why they are each attracting so much popular support.

 

But popular support is not the only kind you need to run this country. You need to be on the side of the power structures already in place. The churches, the industry, the local organizations, the universities, the medical community, the aerospace industry, Hollywood and the media, state and local governments, the military and the huge organizations that are built under each cabinet chief, that do not completely turn over upon each election. It is not just the republican party that operates on its own. The democrat party does the same. The rules of the Iowa caucus are set by the respective parties. Not the pervue of the state attorney general. Not governmental in many ways. It is interesting in our system that the President of the U.S. is also the head of his or her party. It is almost like a conflict of interests.

 

The head of state, the head of the military the lead law enforcement officer, the boss of every cabinet member and facet of the federal government, is also the head of the party that elected him or her.

 

Such power as the president wields is probably done with the OK of the rich and powerful. That is, the place does not run without everybody from the janitor to the manager to the board member, to the CEO and college president and hospital board chief, being onboard.

 

It is OK in terms of political dialog to talk about taking your country back, but in reality, on Monday morning, you are most likely going to work and will do your job, and report to the same boss you reported to on Friday.

 

Regards, TAR

Willie71,

 

Extract dopamine from the king, if you think it due. No reason to make me feel bad about the way I have conducted my life.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited February 4, 2016 by tar

[Willie71]

You supported the king who took the dopamine. You do not take personal responsibility for that?

[Willie71]

 

 

 

I just have to post this. I'm re-reading 1984, and just came across this passage again:

 

The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called, in Newspeak, crimestop. Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity. But stupidity is not enough. On the contrary, orthodoxy in the .full sense demands a control over one’s own mental processes as complete as that of a contortionist over his body. Oceanic society rests ultimately on the belief that Big Brother is omnipotent and that the Party is infallible. But since in reality Big Brother is not omnipotent and the party is not infallible, there is need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts. The key-word here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutu-ally contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impu-dently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal will-ingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that blackis white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.

 

 

 

Excerpt From: "1984" by George Orwell. Scribd.

This material may be protected by copyright.

 

Read this book on Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/book/233992090

 

Sound l,e anything we are discussing?

[tar]

rats, just hit a button and lost an excellent post

 

I can't reproduce it as cleverly and precisely and in the right order and the right mood as I just had it, with all the points and all the examples, but basically...

So without the words I would usually use to prove my points, and bring you to the same conclusions I will just state them.

 

whatever human penchant there is to fall for groupthink, is obviously occurring on both sides of the aisle, or we would not have party line voting

 

the British oligarchy that ran the world in the past, still runs the world today

 

If you storm the castle, you are liable to be shot in the snow, like Finicum.

 

Regards, TAR

couple of the sub points

read 1984 when it was still in the future, so have been looking out for it

 

campaigned for McGovern in New Hampshire, so I know what is going to happen with Sanders

 

Antidisestablishmentarianism, the word, was coined several cycles ago.

Queen Elizabeth, began her rule the year I was born, and her idea of civility and proper behavior is the same idea I hold.

Bernie does not want the death penalty because the government should not be involved in killing, yet he is ready to be commander in chief.

Edited February 5, 2016 by tar

[iNow]

whatever human penchant there is to fall for groupthink, is obviously occurring on both sides of the aisle, or we would not have party line voting <rest of meandering irrelevance has been snipped>

Groupthink [math]\neq[/math] doublethink or newspeak, and to suggest an equivalence of terms or party behaviors here is to highlight a blindness, whether willful or otherwise.

[Willie71]

Groupthink [math]\neq[/math] doublethink or newspeak, and to suggest an equivalence of terms or party behaviors here is to highlight a blindness, whether willful or otherwise.

Sounds just like doublethink.

[Ten oz]

Bernie does not want the death penalty because the government should not be involved in killing, yet he is ready to be commander in chief.

The Commander in Chief doesn't order the execution of captured combatants. Your example of what you view as a contradiction by Sanders makes ZERO sense. EXECUTING combat vs active combatants and EXECUTING people detained and in your care are very, very, very ,very different things.

[Willie71]

The Commander in Chief doesn't order the execution of captured combatants. Your example of what you view as a contradiction by Sanders makes ZERO sense. EXECUTING combat vs active combatants and EXECUTING people detained and in your care are very, very, very ,very different things.

While at the most basic level, both are taking life, the process and social implications of both are dramatically different. What happens in gitmo or Abu Ghraib are more akin to the death penalty, and Brenie is against those things, while the current republican leaders want to expand those atrocities and human rights violations. Very few people can make a comelling case for isolationism or pacifism in the modern world. The question is will we hold ourselves to a higher ethical ground than those we call barbarians. There is a great divide in how Bernie and the establishment weigh this ethical dilemma.

 

Bernie follows rule based utilitarianism, while the others use utilitarianism. The utilitarians use doublespeak and claim to use virtue ethics, when they clearly are the barbarians.

[tar]

iNow,

 

There is a certain communication that occurs between you and me when I say something, and you say something.

 

That communication is different than the communication that is occurring between you and any other particular poster, or reader of this board.

Writing words on this page are directed at you, because I addressed you, but I want anyone listening to hear the words, as well.

 

I have ongoing debates with specific people on specific points on this thread, and issues carried over from others. Well chosen points and stories on my part are not ramblings. They are intentional attempts at communication. To get an idea in my head into other people's head. To have a discussion. To explore ideas. To bring up points. To ask people to put themselves in someone else's shoes, and to give other people the benefit of the doubt and concede that this is other people's world, as well, and other people, even people that do stupid stuff, or make mistakes or do something contrary your opinion of what it means to be a good person, still just might, and probably are good people.

 

In any and all cases, we care about what other people think about us, and what we say, and what we do. We like to be doing it right, with other people, even people we don't know, appreciating our efforts. Or as Hilary says, I am for you, even if you are not for me.

 

Groupthink, in my definition, is having an image in your mind of an invisible other that is judging your behavior. You know what thoughts are proper, you know what thoughts are not. You think and say and act in a way that will be accepted and rewarded and encouraged by your team, and avoid those thoughts and words and actions that will bring punishment or disgust or shunning from those you care about. Your group.

 

Regards, TAR

Willie71,

 

People loyal to the king, like the three Musketeers are the good guys.

 

People rebelling against the king, are mischief makers.

 

If the king is unjust as in Robin Hood, someone needs to fight for the people, 'till the good king returns from the Crusades.

 

If the queen says let them eat cake, when told the people have no bread, then you have a revolution.

 

For the past 7 years the democrats have been on the throne. Hilary can not, and make sense at the same time, pull the Robin Hood card, and use the same slogans the Democrats used to replace the evil king Bush.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited February 6, 2016 by tar

[iNow]

You're the only one mentioning groupthink, tar. Doublespeak and newspeak are distinct concepts.

[tar]

I was talking about a person having an image of Big Brother.

Somebody watching, all the time.

to some that is a good thing, to other's that is a bad thing

 

to some that is God, to others it is the human race, or the earth, or aunt mary or buddah or ghandi or Socrates or Einstein or newton, or Jesus or Mohammed.

 

to some it is a federal agency, to others the local police, to others black helicopters/ and drones

 

after 9/11 there was, along with the fight against global terrorism many big rallies against globalism, against the world bank, and the world court, and big money and power dominating the world

 

taking the position of an ISIS member on the coast of Libya looking up in the sky and seeing a drone, the idea of big brother puts the U.S. in the evil role and Allah in the good guy role

was watching a Fox report, about a town out west, where someone had put up a big god bless America sign on town property

an atheist sued and won (on the basis of separation of church and state) and the signs were taken down in response somebody made more signs and distributed them around town, and everybody put them up on their lawns

 

I have heard many politicians and leaders utter the words God bless America. What if by God, we just mean each other, and objective reality in general? Even a humanist, can not disagree with that.

Edited February 6, 2016 by tar

[Phi for All]

was watching a Fox report, about a town out west, where someone had put up a big god bless America sign on town property

an atheist sued and won (on the basis of separation of church and state) and the signs were taken down in response somebody made more signs and distributed them around town, and everybody put the up on their lawns

 

Excellent example of what's wrong with America! Everything went right in this story. Laws and traditions were both upheld fairly with regard to town property and the religious message, and all should be happy with the outcome. Even the atheist, who was just helping his neighbors enforce the Constitution. Remember that document?

 

But you and FOX think it's a bad thing all around. You use a great example of the nuances of local politics to infer something is wrong. Something is wrong, and it's your perspective if you think this story somehow paints a bad picture.

[tar]

I thought is was a good picture of America.

I am an atheist, and think the story has a happy ending. My point is that local traditions matter and the constitution matters and common sense matters and human judgement matters, and this country is for all americans, not just atheists, like me. And other people, whether republican or democrat are good people, loving people, sensible people, rational people and should be given the benefit of the doubt, and not automatically considered evil, just because they are registered to the other party or have a different outlook on life, than you do.

Edited February 6, 2016 by tar

[Ten oz]

 

Excellent example of what's wrong with America! Everything went right in this story. Laws and traditions were both upheld fairly with regard to town property and the religious message, and all should be happy with the outcome. Even the atheist, who was just helping his neighbors enforce the Constitution. Remember that document?

 

But you and FOX think it's a bad thing all around. You use a great example of the nuances of local politics to infer something is wrong. Something is wrong, and it's your perspective if you think this story somehow paints a bad picture.

Conservatives (those who self identify) create their own definition for words. For them separation of church and state is translated so that "seperation" equals "freedom" and "state" equals "people". So to them it reads freedom of church and people. They double down on that concept by insisting this country was founded on christian values. Of course even that phrase gets redefined. "founded on" equals "established for" and "values" equals "people".

 

Conservatives do this with everywhere it suits them. In the 2nd admendment "Militia" becomes "individual persons" and "Arms" becomes "gun". Just look at what conservatives did with the first admendment. "speech" became "money" and "people" bcame "corporations".

 

So while I agree with your post (+1) I also understand that it is not one that will put a scratch a conservatives world view.

[Phi for All]

I thought is was a good picture of America.

 

FOX's picture of it was horrible. They slanted the whole thing to equate belief in God with patriotism, implying that you atheists aren't patriotic. I'm not sure why that doesn't disgust you.

[Ten oz]

I thought is was a good picture of America.

I am an atheist, and think the story has a happy ending. My point is that local traditions matter and the constitution matters and common sense matters and human judgement matters, and this country is for all americans, not just atheists, like me. And other people, whether republican or democrat are good people, loving people, sensible people, rational people and should be given the benefit of the doubt, and not automatically considered evil, just because they are registered to the other party or have a different outlook on life, than you do.

Just so we are all clear please state what would have been the common sense outcome? .

[tar]

I helped put Christmas lights up in my town's veteran's park. Not a manger or a cross or a star of David.

Christmas lights. Holiday lights, if you will. It need not be an indication that I am Facist. I like the rule that you need a special one day permit to display a religious symbol, or make a political statement on town property.

[Phi for All]

Conservatives (those who self identify) create their own definition for words. For them separation of church and state is translated so that "seperation" equals "freedom" and "state" equals "people". So to them it reads freedom of church and people. They double down on that concept by insisting this country was founded on christian values. Of course even that phrase gets redefined. "founded on" equals "established for" and "values" equals "people".

 

Conservatives do this with everywhere it suits them. In the 2nd admendment "Militia" becomes "individual persons" and "Arms" becomes "gun". Just look at what conservatives did with the first admendment. "speech" became "money" and "people" bcame "corporations".

 

So while I agree with your post (+1) I also understand that it is not one that will put a scratch a conservatives world view.

 

It's definitely a "have-your-cake-&-eat-it-too" mentality. They wield the Constitution haphazardly, using it only to reinforce what they want, ignoring the parts they don't. Ditto all their platform points as well. Small government only as far as regulations go, but lets give big business the keys to the vault and grow the gov their way. Welfare only if a private corporation profits, according to Christian values (What Would Donald Do?).

 

It's hypocrisy on a national level. Hiding behind the flag, or the church, or whatever makes them feel secure as they pretend what they stand for is being represented by their leadership. I think the real terror is they know they're wrong, but their pride insists they double down on the crazy and stay the course, right onto the rocks.

 

Good conservative captains, who honorably, ignorantly, want to go down with the ship.

[tar]

Phi,

 

So you are right. You demonize people you don't even know, and can not figure why they are not as angry as you are at other people's behavior.

 

Perhaps some of us, give the other guy the benefit of the doubt and realize the world is not arranged only for me or for you, but for us, and by us.

 

If the us is doing the arranging, then we have the us to thank for it.

 

Some of those individuals are conservatives.

 

Regards, TAR

Willie71,

 

I know you are not voting in the primaries, but if you lived in New Hampshire would you be registered democrat, independent or republican?

 

Who would you get your vote?

 

Do you figure everybody who does not vote for your guy or gal is an idiot?

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

 

It's definitely a "have-your-cake-&-eat-it-too" mentality. They wield the Constitution haphazardly, using it only to reinforce what they want, ignoring the parts they don't. Ditto all their platform points as well. Small government only as far as regulations go, but lets give big business the keys to the vault and grow the gov their way. Welfare only if a private corporation profits, according to Christian values (What Would Donald Do?).

 

It's hypocrisy on a national level. Hiding behind the flag, or the church, or whatever makes them feel secure as they pretend what they stand for is being represented by their leadership. I think the real terror is they know they're wrong, but their pride insists they double down on the crazy and stay the course, right onto the rocks.

 

Good conservative captains, who honorably, ignorantly, want to go down with the ship.

Jeb Bush's campaign in many ways is a reflection of the fact that conservatives know the Bush admin was terrible for this country. They know it enough to not even give his brother a serious consideration. Meanwhile they still defend the Bush years and policies. Too prideful to just admit they were wrong and their ideas didn't work. Jeb is a former govenor of a large state, brother or a president, son of a president, spent more than anyone on his campaign, and he can't get any traction. Conservative will still defend the Bush's for the sake of argument so not to have to admit any error but they sure don't seem to be willing to elect another Bush.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Ten oz

[tar]

Willie71,

 

Here I am a conservative, but a sensible one, giving you, a person not even a citizen, a right to caucus, as if we did not even have political parties, and you have a vote in the general. Remember, even me. A republican can vote for Bernie, in the general election if you prove to me, that he is the best leader of the free world available.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited February 6, 2016 by tar

[Ten oz]

Willie71,

 

Here I am a conservative, but a sensible one, giving you, a person not even a citizen, a right to caucus, as if we did not even have political parties, and you have a vote in the general. Remember, even me. A republican can vote for Bernie, in the general election if you prove to me, that he is the best leader of the free world available.

 

Regards, TAR

Is that for oneself to determine?