Here at P+P, we are constantly re-thinking the best ways to organize content and deliver a reading experience outside the punditry and beltway-blogger echo chamber. As such, we’d like to offer up a new permanent Monday fixture that will throw out some hand-picked stories from the weekend for your reading pleasure, along with some brief news analysis for that tangy P+P twinge. Enjoy!
My wife recently endured the pharmaceutical gauntlet with a failed Yaz experiment and a system-ravaging run with the mega-antibiotic Cipro, so this skewering of Big Pharma that got a ton of run on Digg struck particularly close to home. Like any debate worth having, it’s complex and too easy to generalize. Sure, many people out there take many drugs that save their lives or keep them stable without any severe side effects. It’s no secret, however, that Big Pharma is rivaled only by oil, tobacco, and Israel when it comes to lobby power in Washington. No other country in the world markets drugs the way we do in the US. One has to step back and wonder, as noted in the blog entry linked above, how is it legal to market anti-depressants wide instead of administering only under strict psychiatric recommendation? Doesn’t that constitute baiting people who just may be having a bad week? When money changes hands between doctors, HMOs, and pharmaceutical companies, aren’t the best interests of the patient lost somewhere in the capitalist shuffle?
*****
As I was reading the LA Times’ news analysis piece of Bush’s Middle East tour, a quote from Bush directed at Arab nations struck me as pretty preposterous, even by his standards:
“America is deeply concerned about the plight of political prisoners in this region, as well as democratic activists who are intimidated or repressed, newspapers and civil society organizations that are shut down and dissidents whose voices are stifled.”
He added, “I call on all nations in this region to release their prisoners of conscience, open up their political debate and trust their people to chart their future.”
It’s just really, really tough to listen to Bush as he parades around the Middle East in a last-ditch effort at affecting some sort of positive change in the region. There is factual basis to what he saying. But to say this to the faces of 1,500 people at the World Economic Forum in Egypt, shortly after he proclaimed “Happy Independence Day” in Hebrew before Israeli parliament, is rife with problems. There is the issue of preaching peace when you clearly show favoritism to a nation equally as culpable in the violence plaguing the region. There is the hypocrisy of demanding the release of prisoners of conscience when the US continues to operate Guantanamo Bay. And there is the continually misguided view of the Arab populace as a people ready, willing, and able to embrace Western-style Democracy with open arms and favorable results despite clear failures in Palestine and Iraq. To his credit, he said “we must stand with the Palestinian people, who have suffered for decades and earned the right to a homeland of their own,” but as always, actions speak louder than words.
*****
Meanwhile, Sen. Barack Obama, fresh off a too little, too late endorsement from Sen. John Edwards that (with the gift of 20/20 hindsight) could have ended this primary a long time ago in the blue-collar battleground states, defended himself against a not-so-thinly-veiled foreign policy attack by President Bush, the Washington Post reports.
Obama used a speech that was otherwise focused on rural issues to respond to Bush’s comments to the Israeli Knesset on Thursday. The president said that “some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.” He went on to compare a willingness to meet with “terrorists and radicals” to the pre-World War II “appeasement” of Nazi Germany.
Of major significance here is not the current admnistration’s “who me?” denial that this was aimed squarely at Obama, but the fact that it sparked a debate between Obama and McCain that left one former first lady silent on the sidelines. Also significant in that media attention is finally shifting back toward the issues people actually care about, instead of the gaffe-ology of recent weeks.
Taking it back to the comment made by Bush, Chris Matthews does a much better job than I ever could dismantling the scenario:
*****
Over at CNET’s News.com, they present two dueling articles on the ever-popular social networking site Facebook (WhoseSpace?). First is a report from Santa Clara where the VP of Marketing for Facebook claimed that his employer is now the “cable company of The Net.”
His sell: Facebook is the next-generation platform of the Internet that can turn any ambitious entrepreneur (with the right application) into an overnight success. He rattled off the stats to back up the argument.
The average development time, he said, for an entrepreneur to build a Facebook application is between two and 15 weeks, according to a self-reported survey of its developer community. The average number of employees to make those applications: between one and five people. And about 33 percent of Facebook application makers reported profits of up to $500,000 a month. Finally, at least one-quarter of the applications running on Facebook have 100,000 active daily users.
Kind of bizarre to parallel yourself with the likes of Comcast and Adelphia, but the numbers are staggering nonetheless, backing up his claims of obliterating the barrier to entry for entrepreneurial minds.
The other entry has a decidedly different angle with the title “Amateur hour at Facebook. What gives?” In a nutshell: Facebook has decided to block Google’s Friend Connect software, which their way of integrating social network user profiles into search results. While Facebook’s VP of Marketing is doing a bang-up job selling them as virtual sliced bread, it seems their PR department is holing themselves away, pretending this whole mess will go away while Google paints a halo over its head. Growing pains are a bitch, eh?
*****
And as the last little roundup, a few nuggets of off-the-wall goodness. The NY Times ran a few pieces of Barack Obama original poetry from 1981. The dude wasn’t half bad! For all of you camera junkies out there, CameraPorn (it’s a benign site with very NSFW name…trust me) ran their “60 Photography Links You Can’t Live Without” to great fanfare.
And what would a roundup be without a little video mental floss:
Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Flash video.
Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Flash video.
Money 101: Tara Graham breaks down the current economic crisis, complete with history and analysis for your addled eyes (and pocketbooks).
Brian Frank went to the McCain-Palin rally in Carson and lived to tell about it.
For gay couples, neither candidate in Thursday’s VP debate offered anything remotely resembling change. Tara Graham takes them to task.
Mark Evitt takes a hard look at the recent Village Voice firings and the state of print media in general.
Ryan Barrett takes you through her own person Spin Room on last week’s Vice-Presidential debate.
Tara Graham hits you with the week in gossip. Catch up on the brain candy.
Emily Henry takes a look at the new import HBO sketch-comedy series Little Britain USA
Missed your dose of gossip last week? Tara Graham rounds up all of the juicy tidbits. (Spoiler: Clay Aiken is gay)
Confused by the pro-corn syrup commercials you’ve been seeing lately? You’re not alone. Mark Evitt breaks it down for you.
Samantha Page previews the Hullaboo fundraising fest for the Silverlake Conservatory of Music
Chris Nelson weighs in on Obama’s candidacy, the punditry poison, and the speech from Invesco Field.
Max Zimbert interviews some political heavyweights on the Dem’s chances in Ohio and Iowa.
The P+P crew gives a Cribs-style walk-through of their sick DNC digs.
More on the epic Wyclef performance from Chris Nelson, including a sick photo gallery and descriptions of the electric vibe at the event.
Torey Van Oot gets ex-Fugee Wyclef Jean to share his thoughts on courting the Latino vote for Obama.
Entries
May 28th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I’m not sure how the people Bush is referring to in his statement: “the plight of political prisoners in this region, as well as democratic activists who are intimidated or repressed, newspapers and civil society organizations that are shut down and dissidents whose voices are stifled” can be compared to those held in Guantanamo Bay? The US isn’t holding newspaper writers and civil society organization workers there. They are holding “potential” mass murders and individuals who consider the bombing of a civilian target (Twin Towers, Night Clubs, Subway Stations, Etc), a success rather than collateral damage or a tragic mistake. I say “potential” because these individuals should be tried for their crimes or “alleged” crimes. I have seen some of the detainees first hand in Iraq and they are not school teachers or the kind of person we want sitting in a Leavenworth Jail cell within our countries boarders.
I would have no problem keeping them in the country they were detained in, but that would cost the US even more money to build and maintain prisons in Iraq/Afghanistan and be an even bigger target for attack. Although I can’t deny part of me would condone taking them all out back and putting two in their head, one in their chest justice (once proven guilty); I know that is not what our country is about (even though right after 9/11 most Americans, including the liberals, would have agreed with that kind of “justice” too). But, would these people the media crying for do the same for us? Would they worry about our human rights… Not on your life!
Does that give us the right to treat them poorly? Does it give us the right to treat them with “disrespect?” According to the articles of war, the Geneva Convention, and all of the other “rules of war” the US follows, no it doesn’t. But, we are the only ones following those rules in this fight. I promise if the shoe was on the other foot, we would not be having this discussion. We’d all be glowing in the dark or worst. I just don’t understand why people in this country are so upset over this? Really! It makes me sick to hear people cry over some of these guys getting panties put on their heads. What about the things they have done? Sawing off a man’s head while he is still alive; an unarmed man at that. Where is the cry for him? Where is the call for justice? Do people really think that is an isolated incident? Or is it easier for them to forget about that? I just don’t get it?
It’s easy in this country to point fingers; blame it all on Bush… but is he the real problem? What about our congress? What have they done for us lately? I am not saying Bus has it right, I’m saying it’s all jacked up and people need to stop focusing on the easy target (The President) and start looking at the whole crew in DC. I don’t trust any of them to be quite honest and that is pretty sad because I want to so badly. I believe in this country and its people… but there doesn’t seem to be much to believe in these days does there?
I’m not getting down on you personally. I’m just sick of hearing how outraged people are about Bush, but not Congress. I’m sick of the bleeding hearts for the guys at Gitmo, but not for the lives they have taken. I’m glad that Americans have the right to disagree and question our leaders, but we need to question them all.
Ok, I’m done. Sorry – But I had to let that out.
Peace Dude
May 29th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
On the contrary, the United States just released an Al-Jazeera journalist from Guantanamo Bay after six years of imprisonment, no charges, no trial, nothing. I believe he had a five year old daughter who had never met.
Regarding why people are upset over this, besides the obvious wrongful imprisonment of foreign nationals outside the US judiciary system, is the idea that we should be the standard-bearers for the world. As Gandhi said, if everyone subscribed to an “eye for an eye,” the entire would be blind. Saying that we would be “glowing in the dark” if the “shoe was on the other foot” is conjecture at best because that’s simply not the situation. We are the lone superpower in the world and as such, we should be expected to set the example in terms of how we treat not just our own citizens, but anyone else, regardless of their crime, alleged or otherwise. To do so is the basis for modern civilization and to abandon those values not only stoops us to the barbaric justice enacted on the likes of Daniel Pearl, it also destroys our honor as a nation when we violate binding agreements such as The Geneva Convention.
Bush is the president, and therefore the figurehead of the United States. Just as he would be praised for achieving peace in the Middle East, he must also bear the brunt of the criticism for bringing war to the region. He is the Commander in Chief of the US military forces. When Enron implodes, the CEO goes to jail. When the military commits acts of atrocity or injustice, Bush is to blame as the man in charge. It was Bush alone who used his executive order to authorize torture of Gitmo detainees with absolutely zero input or action from Congress, so in fact, he IS directly to blame, not just as a figurehead, but as the man who signed the order.
May 30th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Tocuhe my friend –
However, this is a discussion I would like to continue over a cup of coffee someday…