Ukraine's recent protests

Protesters in large cities in Ukraine have been calling for their president, Viktor Yanukovych, to resign peacefully since late November. The protests were spurred after President Yanukovych refused to sign a treaty that would integrate Ukraine more into the EU 28-nation bloc in favor of maintaining stronger ties with Russia. Ukraine is one of Europe's largest nations with a population of 45 million people. Because it's so large, the eastern and the western parts of the country rarely agree. Case in point: this protest, the first wide-spread anti-government incident in an unstable country since the Orange Revolution in 2004. The anti-government sentiments stem from the youth in large cities' desire for a stronger relationship with Western Europe; on the eastern side of the country most people speak Russian and desire a stronger relationship with Russia.

So why do these protests matter?

I haven't found anything on deaths as a result of the protests so far; however, it looks like these protests will continue until Yanukovych either rescinds his decision to ignore the EU or renounces his presidency so elections can take place for a new government.

Ukraine has been termed "the breadbasket of Europe" because of its advances in agribusiness over recent years. Although Ukraine, like most former Soviet states, has a weak economy, it has the potential to be a major asset to whichever bloc it joins.

These protests represent, yet again, that the world is changing and that it is primarily the youth that want change. We saw this with the Arab Spring a couple of years ago, and the Southeast Asian and African independence movements leading all the way back to the post WWII years. People want control of their countries. But, as is often the case, people in the same nation might not always agree as to what the best future course may be.

Justin Bieber and the lens of Belieberism

So. Justin Bieber.

Last spring he visited the Anne Frank House and wrote in the guestbook that he hoped Anne would have been one of his fans.  When I first heard about this in our class discussions I was shocked at the egoism and arrogance of that little comment.  It's almost like Bieber said "This historical figure's humanity is irrelevant unless it applies to me".

But after reading the articles I just got more and more depressed.  One of the teenagers in question makes over 50 million dollars a year and has been under the pop-star image since he was a tween. And, presumably, he started his career doing something he loved. Yet he's unsatisfied. The other teenager spent two years in hiding from the Nazis while doing something she loved: writing about her experiences. She lived during one of the worst periods in recent history and ultimately did not survive. One of these teenagers will probably be remembered for another hundred years while the other will probably only be known in the next couple of years for various controversies. Out of these two teenagers, Justin Bieber seems to have the better deal. He's alive and he has enough money to live comfortably for the rest of his life even if he never sings again. But Anne Frank has something Justin Bieber can't get a hold of. Anne Frank is, for all intents and purposes, immortal. The diary that she kept has subsequently been published and translated into over 60 languages. She has a museum devoted to telling her story.

With this in mind, is Justin Bieber's comment in the Anne House guestbook excusable? I think that it wasn't appropriate or that it could have been worded more eloquently, but it's understandable. It's understandable that Bieber would try to comprehend Anne's struggles through his own experience (that's kind of the basis for empathy - imagining yourself in someone else's shoes) and wonder what she would be like if things had gone differently. So while it wasn't the best comment to leave in the guestbook at least it shows some reflection and sincerity (no matter how egocentric) on Bieber's part in attempting to relate to Anne Frank.

Why government needs regulation

Disclaimer: this post will take a Hobbesian view of humans by saying that generally they are concerned with their own self-interest and advancement.

The recent Johnson & Johnson lawsuit concerning their inappropriate marketing of the antipsychotic drug Risperdal marks the "third-largest pharmaceutical settlement in United States history and the largest involving the marketing of antipsychotic and anti-seizure drugs to older dementia patients" according to the NY Times. The suit also marks the largest whistleblower payout in US history with the four whistle blowers receiving as much as $167.7 million according to CNN Money.

Here are some facts about the conditions of the suit:

• Risperdal's primary function is to treat schizophrenia. Johnson & Johnson ignored FDA regulations by marketing Risperdal to children before the FDA approved its use in children and outright defied the FDA by expanding their market to geriatric patients even after the FDA rejected the company's legal attempts to market to older consumers.

• Johnson & Johnson is not pleading guilty to the civil suit that they paid doctors off to prescribe the drug more frequently than necessary. 

• The company knew of the possible side-effects that Risperdal could cause in patients, especially children and geriatric dementia patients, yet marketed the drug extensively.

• Risperdal was among Johnson & Johnson's highest revenue-producing products. "In 2004, for example, Risperdal brought in $3.1 billion in sales, accounting for about 5 percent of Johnson & Johnson's total revenue that year, according to company filings"(Thomas, 2).

• Johnson & Johnson will pay criminal fines amounting to about $485 million and civil penalties of $1.72 billion. This totals to about $2.2 billion that Johnson & Johnson will pay to "put the chapter to rest" and hide the marketing scandal.

So why do I say that regulation is necessary and that humans are essentially selfish creatures?

The executives at Johnson & Johnson knew that the drugs they were marketing were not the safest they could possibly be because they ran in to trouble with the Food and Drug Administration when they attempted to expand their market legally. BUT they tried to poke holes in the system to get what they wanted at the expense of people who can't defend themselves effectively. They didn't care that they were endangering people by marketing Risperdal. Thankfully, the system caught up to them and forced the company to compensate for the damages it had caused. Without this regulation in place, Johnson & Johnson could have continued to harm innocent people for the sake of profit.

Maybe it would be more effective for me to say that government needs whistleblowers? (I think the whistleblowers were also acting out of self-interest - I doubt all of them would have come forward if they weren't getting a reward for their actions. I like to hope that they would have but I'm not certain). For all intents and purposes FDA regulation was dodged fairly easily until four people not associated with the government came forward and revealed Johnson & Johnson's wrongdoings. Then regulation started to work again, as exemplified by the lawsuit.   

The tobacco buying age in NYC is now 21

So last week Mayor Bloomberg signed legislation that in six months will raise the legal age to buy tobacco, cigarettes, and e-cigs to 21 in New York City limits. Both of the articles mention that college students in Manhattan feel that the legislation won't have much effect on their ability to get tobacco. Afterall, the legislation will only make it illegal to buy tobacco products if you're under 21, not make it illegal to use it. The second article said:
"It is not the job of the law to police citizens’ personal health [...] No, children shouldn’t be allowed to purchase tobacco, but once you’re an adult, it’s your body and your money – not the government’s."

and this made me think of two things: 
1) PROHIBITION! or the classic question of the law's ability to police morality. Raising the legal age to buy cigarettes in New York City is obviously not the same as outlawing them for the entire population but both Prohibition and this legislation have similar goals in mind. One council speaker said that "This is literally legislation that will save lives" shortly before the bill passed. It is unquestionable that getting cigarettes out of people's hands will save them from being more susceptible to lung cancer, just like getting booze out of people's hands will save them a liver. But is it right for government to determine what is morally acceptable when it comes to the health risks individuals take willingly and privately? 

2) ADULTHOOD! specifically, when do we become "adults" and what benefits/responsibilities do we receive as such? In some cases of violent juvenile crime, "children" under the age of 18 can be tried in adult court and sent to adult prison. In those cases age doesn't matter so much as the actions an individual has taken. Currently the legal drinking age in the United States is 21; in Canada it's 18 (or 19 in some provinces), in Germany it's 16. Is this a reflection of cultural differences in alcohol tolerance or differences in how each country views the maturity of its youngest citizens? Is maturity or mature actions the prime indicator for when an individual reaches "adulthood"?

Pirates as Businessmen

In the NPR podcast about the Somali pirate attacks in 2009 the Planet Money team talked about how pirates and the "unwilling customers" (the crew on the ships they board, the ship company itself, the government that the boarded ship belongs to etc) have "normal" business transactions when dealing with ransoms. Apparently in one instance after a CEO of a shipping company retrieved control of his boat back from the pirates the crew found a time sheet listing the hours a pirate had worked! I never imagined I would ever have anything in common with pirates when I pretended to be one for Halloween ten years ago, but hey I like getting paid for the work I do too. I'm just not willing to wield guns and abduct people to get some cash.

I found it fascinating that in the podcast the CEO of a Danish shipping company seemed to think of the months spent trying to get his crew and ship back as business as usual. He said the company never expected to not have to pay a ransom, the company even had special insurance for pirate negotiations. In a link provided by the podcast to a Freakonomics page about pirate economics, the author of The Invisible Hook talks about how the traditional brand of pirate as a sadistic, irrational person who likes to brutalize hostages just for the hell of it is quite inaccurate. The business men negotiating the ransom were and, according to the podcast, still are treated with respect and hostages are not tortured indiscriminately, for the most part. While pirates had to cultivate an image of "men on the edge" they didn't want a reputation for wanton brutality. This image was the result of an economic choice of what would best suit the needs of the criminal system.

Recently pirates abducted two US citizens on an oil vessel off the coast of Nigeria. The citizens were the captain and chief engineer of the vessel (higher ranking crew members have more value and thus will fetch a higher sum on the ransom "market", if you can even call it that). The UN reported that Somalia has fallen to a 7 year low, partly because of increased security of ships in that region. Sooo it looks like the piracy market has moved to the West coast of Africa where government restrictions on vessel security are much higher than in Somalia.  The organized crime operation of piracy, like other forms of organized crime such as drug cartels or cat burglar associations, is fluid and moving where there is the most opportunity for economic growth.

One pressing issue facing governments all over the world for the history of civilization is how to deal with illegitimate markets. Prostitution has been around since Biblical times. The United States saw a backlash of gangs and mobs during Prohibition who worked the bootlegging business of ferrying illegal alcohol from moonshine distilleries to city speakeasies in the 1920's. All of the taboo ventures in organized crime have at least three things in common. One they all make awesome movies. And, more importantly, they are all rarely understood as primarily economic ventures and the members of each venture are usually demonized. I'm not saying that piracy is moral or a legitimate way to make a living, especially when it puts others in danger. But for the people involved in the trade, like all other black markets, piracy may be the only way or at least may seem like the best way to make a living in a society that doesn't offer other options.

The latest US shutdown

Only recently did the US political machine require shutdowns of the federal government to allow Congress to discuss budgetary issues. The first two times the government was partially shutdown were during the Clinton administration in 1995 and 1996. The third time was from October 1st to October 17th, 2013 under Obama's administration. During both shutdown events workers were furloughed and the economy suffered slightly. And why? Both shutdown events occurred in highly polarized Congresses. According to a 2013 joint study by Duke University and UNC, the events of the 1995 Congress potentially have led to increasingly partisan politics in D.C. such that, although 1995 represented the most partisan Congress in 100 years, the politics are even more polarized now.

After my brother graduated from college he worked on Capitol Hill for Louisiana's Democratic Senator for a couple of years. During the latest shutdown, over 800,000 federal employees were deemed "non-essential" and furloughed from their jobs. The "non-essential" departments included the EPA, WIC services, FEMA, and national parks services, among others. When I read articles about the political squabbling of the shutdown I couldn't help but think about all of the people deemed "non-essential" who paid the price for big party officials in the House and Senate refusing to discuss budget and healthcare issues like adults. If any of them were like my brother when he worked in the Senate then they desperately needed those jobs and those paychecks to go about their daily lives. 

The worst part about this latest shutdown is that it seems to have gone on way longer than it should have. Neither side got what it wanted out of the shutdown and people who could have made the shutdown end more quickly refused to talk to eachother seriously about Republicans' and Democrats' goals and the possibility for a compromise.

Biker gangs and Alexian Lien

On September 29th a group of motorcyclists got into a violent confrontation with an SUV that is now being called the "Manhattan Brawl". The driver of the SUV, Alexian Lien, was sent to the hospital for stitches to his face after being beaten by some of the bikers in the group. And so far at least one of the bikers is paralyzed after being run over by Lien's car. Here's a video of the event:



An interesting way to look at the Manhattan Brawl is to see how different sides are analyzing the events. One article claims that the motorcyclists in the incident don't actually qualify as a "biker gang". Autoevolution.com claims that not enough leeway is being given to the motorcyclists due to their image as a gang. Other sites clearly portray Lien as the victim of a senseless attack from crazy people.

So I guess the real question is who deserves the most blame? Both sides ended up getting hurt somehow and both sides in some way initiated conflict. The SUV probably wouldn't have run over a man if the motorcyclists hadn't hogged the entire road and forced him to stall. The man who started beating on the SUV with his helmet probably wouldn't have done that if his friend didn't get run over. In the brawl clearly there were victims and perpetrators, but it seems like the lines of guilt are being drawn almost entirely on preconceived notions about one side's identity.