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"?