That's where the money is

byebye tax dollars:

http://www.aarp.org/states/fl/news/articles/medicare_ripoffs_stealing_your_health_care.html

[...] law-enforcement authorities estimate that fraud, waste and abuse cost U.S. taxpayers as much as $60 billion across all public health-care programs. Together, the United States spent more than $1 trillion on all public health programs in 2004, roughly half of all health spending.

Alongside the horrible Medicare Part D plan generated under our most recent Republican president, the amount of funds that are being thrown away to "professional medicare scammers" is shocking. Even more appalling, are the number of paper claims that Feds have been ignoring--each which provided substanial evidence that the medicare system was being taken advantage of. The new health care bill is planning to allocate millions of dollars for greater caution in hope to prevent such reoccurring fraudulent cases. ...

"For three years, the federal agency in charge of preventing Medicare fraud repeatedly ignored internal watchdog warnings about swindlers stealing millions of dollars by scamming several programs, documents show.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services received roughly 30 warnings from inspectors over three years -- mostly under the Bush administration -- but didn't respond to half of them, even after repeated letters, according to records provided to The Associated Press by U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley's office.

A July 2008 warning said organized crime had infiltrated the system and was costing more than $1 million dollars for each phony Medicare provider license the crooks obtained. The letter got no response, Grassley said."

READ:http://www.aapsonline.org/fraud/medfraud.htm

Agro-Imperialism

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22land-t.html?_r=1&em

Religious freedom and the Lack Thereof

This evening, I had a discussion leading to the recent event at Fort Hood involving Major Hasan. I can't help but try to decipher his sentiment. I think what most people are choosing to ignore, is the LACK of religious freedom that men of our military face. Stepping outside of our American nationalistic box, it is complex, yet not difficult, to understand the suffocation Hasan must have felt. I want to reiterate this point, especially to those I spent time with earlier, as to not be so nationalistic and parochial and thus midjudge his actions as being "anti-american." http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/why-mrff.html (WATCH)
It is no shocker that the words which emerged from his mouth were religious in context prior to releasing fire. I do not think this makes one "anti-american"--for obvious reasons. And this is the kind of information that DOESN'T reach the news--again for obvious reasons.

"Major Hasan also told family members that he had experienced anti-Muslim harassment in the Army and had tried for several years to be discharged. But the Army, which had paid for his education and was in great need of psychiatrists, refused, family members said.

“Just recently, we received phone calls from the family, saying that Nidal was unhappy because he had big problems at work,” said Mohammed Mohammed, a cousin of Major Hasan’s from Ramallah on the West Bank. "

Prosthetics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X85Lpuczy3E

What amazes me even more, is how this was a topic of discussion in my previous neuroscience seminars at the University of Florida. We fantasized about projects, such as the one above, pulling through and proving successful. This is a giant leap (relatively speaking, considering the field of study is relatively narrowly understood) from prosthetic appendages which have recently been invented. Such limbs possess the ability to withstand different pressures, temperatures, and physical states. Even more recently, neuroscientists have developed pathways and systems which allow paralyzed patients to induce immobile limb movements through mentally-evoked electrical stimulation (see below).

Scientists Restore Movement to Paralyzed Limbs through Artificial Brain-Muscle Connections

For release: Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Researchers in a study funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have demonstrated for the first time that a direct artificial connection from the brain to muscles can restore voluntary movement in monkeys whose arms have been temporarily anesthetized. The results may have promising implications for the quarter of a million Americans affected by spinal cord injuries and thousands of others with paralyzing neurological diseases, although clinical applications are years away.

"This study demonstrates a novel approach to restoring movement through neuroprosthetic devices, one that would link a person’s brain to the activation of individual muscles in a paralyzed limb to produce natural control and movements," said Joseph Pancrazio, Ph.D., a program director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS).

The research was conducted by Eberhard E. Fetz, Ph.D., professor of physiology and biophysics at the University of Washington in Seattle and an NINDS Javits awardee; Chet T. Moritz, Ph.D., a post-doctoral fellow funded by NINDS; and Steve I. Perlmutter, Ph.D., research associate professor. The results appear in the online Oct. 15 issue of Nature.* The study was performed at the Washington National Primate Research Center, which is funded by NIH’s National Center for Research Resources.

In the study, the researchers trained monkeys to control the activity of single nerve cells in the motor cortex, an area of the brain that controls voluntary movements. Neuronal activity was detected using a type of brain-computer interface. In this case, electrodes implanted in the motor cortex were connected via external circuitry to a computer. The neural activity led to movements of a cursor, as monkeys played a target practice game.

After each monkey mastered control of the cursor, the researchers temporarily paralyzed the monkey's wrist muscles using a local anesthetic to block nerve conduction. Next, the researchers converted the activity in the monkey's brain to electrical stimulation delivered to the paralyzed wrist muscles. The monkeys continued to play the target practice game—only now cursor movements were driven by actual wrist movements—demonstrating that they had regained the ability to control the otherwise paralyzed wrist.

The group's approach is one of several lines of current neuroprosthetic research. Some investigators are using brain-computer interfaces to record signals from multiple neurons and convert those signals to control a robotic limb. Other researchers have delivered artificial stimulation directly to paralyzed arm muscles in order to drive arm movement—a technique called functional electrical stimulation (FES). The Fetz study is the first to combine a brain-computer interface with real-time control of FES.

"A robotic arm would be better for someone whose physical arm has been lost or if the muscles have atrophied, but if you have an arm whose muscles can be stimulated, a person can learn to reactivate them with this technology," says Dr. Fetz.

Until now, brain-computer interfaces were designed to decode the activity of neurons known to be associated with movement of specific body parts. Here, the researchers discovered that any motor cortex cell, regardless of whether it had been previously associated with wrist movement, was capable of stimulating muscle activity. This finding greatly expands the potential number of neurons that could control signals for brain-computer interfaces and also illustrates the flexibility of the motor cortex.

"The cells don’t have to have a preordained role in the movement. We can create a direct link between the cell and the motor output that the user can learn to control and optimize over time," says Dr. Fetz.

Dr. Fetz and his colleagues found that the monkeys' control over neuronal activity—and the resulting control over stimulation of their wrist muscles—improved significantly with practice. Practice time was limited by the duration of the nerve block. Comparing the monkeys’ performance during an initial two-minute practice and a two-minute peak performance period, the scientists found the monkeys successfully hit the target three times more frequently and with less error during the peak performance. In the future, greater control could be gained by using implanted circuits to create long-lasting artificial connections, allowing more time for learning and optimizing control, Dr. Fetz says.

The researchers also found that the monkeys could achieve independent control of both the wrist flexor and extensor muscles.

"An important next step will be to increase the number of direct connections between cortical cells and muscles to control coordinated activation of muscles," says Dr. Fetz.

If researchers are able to establish a connection between the motor cortex and sites in the spinal cord below the injury, people with spinal injuries may be able to achieve coordinated movements.

Clinical applications are still probably at least a decade away, according to Dr. Fetz. Better methods for recording cortical neurons and for controlling multiple muscles must be developed, along with implantable circuitry that could be used reliably and safely, he says.

NINDS (www.ninds.nih.gov) is a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and is the nation’s primary supporter of biomedical research on the brain and nervous system.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH)—The Nation's Medical Research Agency —includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the primary federal agency for conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and it investigates the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.

Moritz, CT, Perlmutter, SI, and Fetz, EE. “Direct Control of Paralyzed Muscles by Cortical Neurons.” Nature, published online October 15, 2008.

Don't Waste the Fruit!

The seeds are not the only amazing part of the inner pumpkin! Save your pumpkin flesh and use them in desserts, dinners, and even smoothies! It is difficult to believe how much healthy food is being thrown down the disposal so families can light these fruits shells for 2-3 days before they begin rotting. Do your part and conserve the food of our globe!!!

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!! :)

Pumpkin Pie

• 175g/6oz plain flour
• 75g/3oz butter
• 100g caster sugar
• 2 tbsp cold water
• pinch salt
• 450 g (1 lb) prepared weight pumpkin flesh, cut into 2.5 cm (1 in) chunks
• 2 large eggs plus 1 yolk
• 1 tsp ground cinnamon
• ½ tsp freshly grated nutmeg
• ½ tsp ground allspice
• ½ tsp ground cloves
• ½ tsp ground ginger
• 275 ml (10 fl.oz) double cream

Pre-heat the oven to 180ºC/350ºF/Gas Mark 4. Sift the flour and salt into a bowl. Cut the butter into small pieces and rub it into the flour until the mixture resembles fine breadcrumbs. Add 2 tablespoons of cold water to mix it into a firm dough, then wrap it in cling film and chill for 30 minutes. Meanwhile, to make the filling, steam the pumpkin, then put it in a sieve and press lightly to extract any excess water. Then lightly whisk the eggs and the extra yolk together in a large bowl. Place the sugar, spices and cream in a pan, bring them to simmering point, stirring with a whisk regularly. Then pour this mixture over the eggs and whisk it again briefly. Now add the pumpkin pureé, still whisking everything until it is thoroughly combined. Roll out the pastry on a lightly floured surface, then use it to line a 20cm flan dish. Prick the entire surface with a fork and bake blind at 190ºC/375ºF/Gas mark 5 for 15 minutes until just firm to the touch. Then pour the filling into your pastry case and bake for 35-40 minutes, by which time it will puff up round the edges but still feel slightly wobbly in the centre. Then remove it from the oven and place the tin on a wire cooling rack. Serve chilled (stored loosely covered in foil in the fridge) with some equally chilled créme fraïche, but warm or at room temperature would be fine.

fiscal incentives

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/ideas-for-fixing-health-care/?ref=health

The higher spending — and much of the growth in spending — is due to the provision of unneeded and sometimes harmful care: hospitalizations that could have been avoided with better primary care; frivolous specialist consults; overuse of diagnostic tests. Unnecessary care can be harmful because hospitals are dangerous places to be, especially if you don’t need to be there. And having more physicians involved in your care makes it harder to know who is responsible: too many cooks can spoil the soup.

A topic of a recent discussion. Aside from the mentioned factors, physicians and other health care providers have fiscal incentives to treat patients in unnecessary segments, as well as provide incomplete or "possible fix-it" diagnoses for their patients. This brings patients back to their physicians, helping health care providers earn more bucks, while also driving up medical costs.

And just when I found my favorite brand!

http://www.bilerico.com/2008/06/bolthouse_farms_keep_keep_it_together.php

boo. It seems wrong to support this company any longer. ON THE OTHER HAND, Newman's Own is one of very few companies to donate 100% of their profit to foundations across the world, (with a special shout-out to Camp Boggy Creek!). Not only does Paul Newman's products help feed America, but they are also great for you. Most of the items on his menu are made with all natural and organic ingredients. What's even better, is that this company is moving toward eco-friendly packaging. So whenever you're stuck in grocery aisles choosing between which brand of cereal to buy, lean toward Newman's products!

Abstract Cigala

Mmmmm I wake up to the sounds of Cigala, a spanish musical artist, and can't help but dream of what he looks like. He has, in the least traditional sense, one of the most sensual and beautiful voices I have ever heard. I am so tempted to learn more about him through websites and perhaps get a glimpse of what he looks like. Though, I've finally decided I'd rather let him remain as a self-created portrayal within my imagination. Afterall, it is his voice that is important. I don't want to be influenced by a face when I can imagine so much more outside the boundaries his physical traits would place. This isn't about superficiality; rather, about allowing dreams to flourish. Afterall, I belive music breeds creativity. I'd rather not be disappointed.

Up yours FDA

I cannot imagine which parent would force--and I use the word force here literally, their own infant into medically-related pharmaceutical studies. What goes through a mother's mind when she essentially signs away her own child's life to the medical industry?

A very recent study examines the repercussion of drug, Paracetamol, in infants whom have been given precautionary vaccinations for fever. Paracetemol, a fever reducer, is an NSAID, which are non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents/analgesics. It has been studied to cause liver failure in certain types of mammals, and to do serious damage on kidneys, even in low dosages, on humans. All this, and its more harmful effects are, by law, written in the print of the study contracts and thereafter provided to patients (in this cause the legal guardian of the patient) for their understanding prior to accordance of admission. What I am trying to say is that mothers are fully aware of the damaging possibilities their child may experience while being involved in such a study.

With a trial group of over 400 babies, of each who partook in vaccines against pneumococcal disease, Haemophilus influenzae type b, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, hep B, polio, and rotavirus, were then provided with three "therapeutically relative" doses of this NSAID every 6 to 8 hours. It was found that these babies developed a WEAKER immune system with decreased amount of antibodies as a result of the said drug, alongside mild damages to infant kidneys.

BABIES DO NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO MAKE ARTICULATE DECISIONS, let alone moderately simple ones. It is therefore the task of the caretaker to make the most informed decisions for their child. I feel that there needs to be a greater amount of regulation and education for such cases. It seems striking to me that infants can bear horrible results from experiences in their life they did not have control over, especially in sitations that CAN AND SHOULD be easily regulated by the government. Why is the governmental health agency even allowing production of such research studies on infants? Especially when it is that that humans of this age group are most susceptible to disease and infection? The more and more I advance in my medical school education, the more and more I become disgusted with the process and influence the pharmaceutical industry has on my future career and on the future of global health. Research is crucial. However, I do not feel that drugs should make its way through the green light on FDA's horribly regulated roads without having successive POSITIVE tests in ALL directions on in vitro trials.

FDA fails to reduce accessibility of paracetamol despite 450 deaths a year. Confidential documents from the US Food and Drug Administration suggest that the agency has avoided a debate on tough new measures to reduce overdoses from painkillersto avoid offending the pharmaceutical industry. FDA fails to reduce accessibility of paracetamol despite 450 deaths a year. Confidential documents from the US Food and Drug Administration suggest that the agency has avoided a debate on tough new measures to reduce overdoses from painkillersto avoid offending the pharmaceutical industry.

In the United States paracetamol is associated with more than 100000 calls a year to poison control centres, as well as 56000 visits to emergency departments, 26000 hospitalisations, and
450 deaths.

According to one FDA insider, [decisions to black label this drug] were dropped because senior FDA managers saw them as too offensive to Johnson & Johnson. Asked about this alleged corporate influence within the FDA, Dr Cantilena smiled and said he did not want to speculate.

Of course.

Up yours FDA.

Amalgams

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html?_r=1

Unwritten agreements between some companies appear to stand in the way of ingredient testing. Many big slaughterhouses will sell only to grinders who agree not to test their shipments for E. coli, according to officials at two large grinding companies. Slaughterhouses fear that one grinder’s discovery of E. coli will set off a recall of ingredients they sold to others.
[...]
Cargill, whose $116.6 billion in revenues last year made it the country’s largest private company, declined requests to interview company officials or visit its facilities. “Cargill is not in a position to answer your specific questions, other than to state that we are committed to continuous improvement in the area of food safety,” the company said, citing continuing litigation.

The meat industry treats much of its practices and the ingredients in ground beef as trade secrets. While the Department of Agriculture has inspectors posted in plants and has access to production records, it also guards those secrets. Federal records released by the department through the Freedom of Information Act blacked out details of grinding operations that could be learned only through copies of the documents obtained from other sources. Those documents illustrate the restrained approach to enforcement by a department whose missions include ensuring meat safety and promoting agriculture markets.

Information at our fingertips

Just as grade school children are now being taught arithmetic with calculators, I think that medicine should also take another step forward and embrace technology for efficiency purposes. This is an extremely handy application, and by the time I am a graduating physician, I can only imagine what else will be available. I still believe medical/health students alike should be taught anatomy in its most time-consuming forms. Perhaps, however, not in such a detailed and meticulously specified format. Rather, students could focus on general specifics and localities and instead dedicate more time to understanding its relative clinical functions/pathologies.

(a)theistic existentialism

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/09/30/first.blasphemy.day/index.html

A recognized blasphemy day? INCREDIBLE. I refused to even capitalize the "b". I would consider myself a theistic, bordering on atheistic, existentialist. I do not see; however, why it is necessary to launch a recognized day where people collectively bash on religion/God. First, aside from the few states where this is illegal, protecting the rights of free speech in religion/anti-religion is performed anyhow. Secondly, does anyone really know the fate of the unknown? How can there be a concrete event, such as this one, without it being based on concrete thoughts? Essentially, these individuals are putting their "faith" in God being nonexistent, thus recognizing the idea of God as existent.

Thirdly, regarding the event...
The devout Catholic turned non-believer leads a movement that is all about protecting people's rights to speak irreverently about religion. [...] You might say he is a blasphemer's savior.

Religion can be described as a particular system/movement of faith and worship. See the above excerpt for clarification.

...

Science of female desire

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?pagewanted=1&em

“The horrible reality of psychological research, is that you can’t pull apart the cultural from the biological.”

Baucus Caucus

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/19/the-baucus-caucus-phrma-insurance-hospitals-and-rahm/

Repeat of Kyoto Protocol?

Today, as eco-activists from across the country will gather in New York to hear Obama's position on the climate summit, I remain hesitant. Already, people are growing less concerned with Obama's words, his ideas, and his lack of concise efforts. Now, with a globally influential event at hand, I wonder if Obama's warnings will come across as decisive, effective, and thorough. And with our nation being one of the top two emitters of greenhouse gases, Obama's actions must be definite.

It wasn't long ago, under the Bush administration, that the US made big mistakes after changing their stance on CO2 emission reductions:

The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. It was opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and closed a year later. Under terms of the agreement, the Kyoto Protocol would not take effect until 90 days after it was ratified by at least 55 countries involved in the UNFCCC. Another condition was that ratifying countries had to represent at least 55 percent of the world’s total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990. The first condition was met on May 23, 2002, when Iceland became the 55th country to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. When Russia ratified the agreement in November 2004, the second condition was satisfied, and the Kyoto Protocol entered into force on February 16, 2005. As a U.S. presidential candidate, George W. Bush promised to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Shortly after he took office in 2001, however, President Bush withdrew U.S. support for the Kyoto Protocol and refused to submit it to Congress for ratification. Instead, Bush proposed a plan with incentives for U.S. businesses to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions 4.5 percent by 2010, which he claimed would equal taking 70 million cars off the road. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, however, the Bush plan actually would result in a 30 percent increase in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions over 1990 levels instead of the 7 percent reduction the treaty requires. That’s because the Bush plan measures the reduction against current emissions instead of the 1990 benchmark used by the Kyoto Protocol. While his decision dealt a serious blow to the possibility of U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol, Bush wasn’t alone in his opposition. Prior to negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution saying the U.S. should not sign any protocol that failed to include binding targets and timetables for both developing and industrialized nations or that "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.

The plan is to replace the Kyoto treaty with a new one, to be agreed in Demark this December. However, prospects of a worthy deal is becoming less obvious everyday. And truly, it seems the biggest worries lay in China, whom are skeptical as to why they should contribute to a mess created by the wealthy--especially when it will put a damper on positive economic trends of their own country. As they watch our nation waver with half-made decisions, it is as if they are standing next us repeating the words "after you"--after all they are in no rush to push for reduction of emissions when statistics show that such efforts will not cause a decrease in emissions until at least 2030.

Even members of Obama's cabinet have recently spoken out against this issue, agreeing that decisions to be made in climate change may have to be put of until next year. And with our nation being one of the most critical facets to the Copenhagen Summit, it seems that this global effort will again be neglected.

Turritopsis Nutricula. Aka. WOW

Meet the world’s only immortal animal

If you’re thinking McLeod, you couldn’t be further from the truth. What you have to do is think small; not microscopic, just big enough to see with your naked eye. Turritopsis nutricula is a hydrozoan, and it’s considered by scientists to be the only animal that cheated death.

Solitary organisms are (according to current belief) doomed to die, after they completed their life cycle. Hydrozoa are a huge class of predatory animals that live mostly in saltwater, closely related to jellyfish and corals. Eggs and sperm from an adult jellyfish (medusa) and they then develop into polyp stage. Medusae evolve asexually from polyps.

Still, our Turritopsis nutricula (could we call it Joe??) managed to find a way to beat that. What these little folks do is they revert completely to a sexually immature, colonial stage after they reach sexual maturity. They’re even cooler than that. When they’re young they’ve got only several tentacles, but at a mature stage, they get to 80-90 of them.

They’re able to return to polyp stage due to a cell change in the external screen (Exumbrella), which allows them to bypass death. As far as scientists have been able to find out, this change renders the hydrozoa virtually immortal.

- Zime Science

Sex Trafficking and its Roots

I want to get my hands on "Women's Lives, Men's Laws"--written by a strong and influential feminist, Catharine MacKinnon. MacKinnon has consistently fought for making equal rights a reality for women. Making visible the deep gender bias of existing law, she even proposes situations where the legal system favors women over men--thus evaluating both sides of the gender bias. I want to see her view point on sexual discrimination/abuse, prostitution, pornography, and racism.

My interest lies in a cross-cultural and cross-national understanding of law, ethics, history, and its contribution to female subjugation. The following is a journal article by Ed Vitagliano, whom provides insight of sex trafficking across Asia, and even well into America. Although this problem is perhaps well-known, it is constantly overlooked and thus made less of a reality and more of a story. I recently watched a very influential South Indian movie, Water, which made real the occurrences of female sex trafficking cases. I have met a number of female sex slaves as a volunteer in a women protection program. It is a harsh reality, and I believe it may have associations deeply rooted in the legal system.

By Ed Vitagliano By the thousands Trafficking: “knowingly obtaining by any means – often by force, fraud, or coercion – any person for involuntary servitude or forced labor,” according to Thomas M. Steinfatt, professor of communication at the University of Miami, who studies the subject. It operates just like any other export-import business. According to Donna M. Hughes, professor of women’s studies at the University of Rhode Island and an expert on the sexual exploitation of women, girls and women are procured in one nation, conveyed through transit countries, and finally arrive in the nation of destination. There, “men use them in legalized or widely tolerated sex businesses, and men physically travel around the world to buy women and children in prostitution, as a form of tourism,” said Hughes. “Through recently developed global communications technology, these forms of sexual exploitation are now carried out through phone lines and satellite transmission,” namely the Internet. To call what happens to these women slavery is not hyperbole. Hughes said, “The methods used in trafficking for sexual exploitation comprise a modern slave trade. The perpetrators range from loosely connected procurers and pimps to transnational organized crime networks.” It’s big business. Hughes said estimates of the money that pours in through the sex industry – prostitution, the sale of women and children through sex trafficking, the sale of child pornography, etc. – are between $7 billion and $57 billion a year. That indicates that a lot of flesh is being peddled, although exact figures are difficult to come by. Hughes said a United Nations estimate puts the number of women and children who are sexually exploited by the sex trade industry each year at one million, while child-advocacy groups, according to a story in USA Today, estimate that there are currently two million children worldwide that are working as sex slaves.
Locked in cages While the exact numbers may be difficult to ascertain, there are admittedly thousands of women and girls who are deceived or simply sold into forcible sexual slavery. In his heart-breaking account of the international sex trade, journalist Peter Landesman wrote in The New York Times Magazine, “Some of them have been baited by promises of legitimate jobs and a better life in America; many have been abducted; others have been bought from or abandoned by their impoverished families.” Hughes told Voice of America, “Usually what happens is the woman is searching for a job and she is told that she can go abroad and make a lot of money … but the problem is that when she arrives in that particular country … she is told no, in fact you’re not going to be a waitress, a nanny, you know, whatever job, a dancer maybe, that we told you. You’re going to be in prostitution and you don’t have a choice.” Those holding the women in slavery tell the victims they must remain and work as prostitutes until they pay off the transportation cost to the new country. Hughes said they’re often told, “We’ll beat you up if you don’t do what we want and you owe us $30,000.” Sometimes, Hughes said, the men do release the women after the “debt” has been paid. “Other times, if the women can’t earn as much for the pimp as he likes, he sells her again. I’ve interviewed women who have been sold four or five times. Of course, the problem with this is that their debt starts all over again.” The coercion process is often a brutal one. Bharti Tapas, a girl interviewed by ABC News Downtown in 2001 for a special on the sex trade in India, was 14 when she was sold into slavery by her own parents, and then forced into prostitution. “When I arrived at the brothel, I refused to do what they told me to and they beat me and starved me for 10 days,” Tapas said. “I thought I would rather kill myself than be forced to work as a prostitute.” She relented, according to the story, and joined “thousands of other girls who are beaten, locked in tiny cages or hidden in attics. Some are forced to have sex with as many as 20 men a day under the watchful eyes of madams and pimps.” Psychiatrist Wendy Freed authored a report for Physicians for Human Rights. Her report on the psychological aspects of women trapped in sexual slavery in Cambodia presented this frightening pattern faced by thousands of girls and women: “The young women have been in captivity for a period of weeks to months or years. Initially there is shock and disbelief. Many young women describe not being able to believe that they had been sold. … Once they realize that in fact they are sold, they fight the brothel owner’s demand that they accept customers. Refusal leads to beatings, being locked in a room, and going without food. This persists until the young woman gives up and realizes that indeed they are trapped and have no options.… At some point in this process, the young woman becomes submissive in order to avoid further beatings and torment; her ‘spirit is broken.’ She surrenders, becomes resigned and accomodates to the circumstances of captivity.” Hughes calls these brothels “sexual gulags,” and cites the reports of international aid workers that describe men buying oral sex from girls as young as five years old, and intercourse with girls as young as 10 or 11.
Porn – part of the problem Certainly poverty plays a critical role in motivating poor girls and women to seek employment in far away places, as well as generating a market for the sale of women to brothels. But what is driving the increase in demand for illicit sex? In an article in the Journal of Sexual Aggression, Hughes said, “In the last three decades, prostitution and pornography have become increasingly tolerated, normalized and legitimized, resulting in expansion of sex industries all over the world.” This tolerance, she said, has “increased men’s demand for women and girls to be used as sexual entertainment or acts of violence. The demand is met by increased recruitment of women and girls into the sex industry, usually by violence, deception or exploitation of those made vulnerable by poverty, unemployment and prior victimization.” The Internet has made pornography ubiquitous, and Hughes said this new forum has “provided pornographers access to a global audience with almost no restrictions or regulations. It provided men, who are usually secretive about their exploitation of women and children, with easy, private access to unlimited amounts of pornography.” The country that comes in for the lion’s share of the blame is the United States. Hughes said, “The U.S. is the country mainly responsible for the industrialization of pornography and prostitution, either in the U.S. or in prostitution centers created by the demand from U.S. military personnel. The U.S. is also the home of the Internet pornography industry.” For example, Hughes said that, according to one study, 70% of the customers for live sex shows on the Internet are in the U.S.
American taste for trafficked girls Virtual sex is not the only decadent delicacy for some Americans; the simple fact is that thousands of trafficked women and girls are ferried into the U.S. for the purpose of illicit sexual encounters. In an article for The Weekly Standard, Hughes wrote about the extent of the sex trafficking industry that shuttles girls through Mexico to brothels outside San Diego, California. “Over a 10-year period, hundreds of girls, 12 to 18 years old,” were brought into the U.S. by Mexican nationals. “The girls were sold to farm workers – between 100 and 300 at a time – in small ‘caves’ made of reeds in the fields. Many of the girls had babies, who were used as hostages with death threats against them, so their mothers would not try to escape,” Hughes said. An American doctor who was volunteering to provide health care to migrant workers in the area told Hughes that younger and younger girls were brought over the border – some nine and 10 years old – who might be used by as many as 35 men in one hour. “The first time I went to the camps I didn’t vomit only because I had nothing in my stomach,” the doctor told her. “It was truly grotesque and unimaginable.” When she wanted to complain to government authorities about the abuse, the doctor was instructed by her supervisor to concern herself only with trying to prevent the girls from contracting sexually transmitted diseases by providing condoms. “I fought a lot with the U.S. government and they told me that I shouldn’t do anything, that I had signed a federal agreement of confidentiality,” the doctor said. From San Diego to New York City, girls and women are being abused in the middle of normal neighborhoods, “hiding in plain sight,” according to Hughes. It is a staggering vice, and Landesman said the U.S. has become “a major importer of sex slaves. Last year the C.I.A. estimated that between 18,000 and 20,000 people are trafficked annually into the United States.” Of these, an estimated 10,000 are victims of the sex slave industry. Those numbers add up. According to Kevin Bales, author of the book, Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy, and president of Free the Slaves, America’s largest anti-slavery organization, there are 30,000 to 50,000 sex slaves residing – against their will – in the U.S. at any given time. Cracking down Some have suggested that legalizing prostitution would put an end to such a depraved industry, but the opposite may very well be true. Hughes said, “What happens when you have a large demand for women in prostitution is that you don’t have enough local women who are able to fill up all these slots that are needed, so the pimps have to start looking abroad.” She added that evidence from the Netherlands, Germany and Australia – where prostitution is legal – indicates that such a policy has “resulted in increased trafficking of women to meet the increased demand for women in prostitution and an accompanying increase in organized crime.” While prostitution is still illegal in the U.S., many municipalities have minimal penalties for prostitution, reflecting the belief that it really isn’t that big a deal. “Pimping must be made a felony,” Hughes told the AFA Journal in an interview, “and the government needs to enforce the laws against trafficking that are already on the books in this country. There are lots of local and state laws against it, but often prostitution is considered a victimless crime or nuisance crime.” Under the Bush administration, the federal government has begun to make the prosecution of trafficking a priority. Last September, in an address to the United Nations, President George Bush called the sex slave trade “a humanitarian crisis.”

fresh produce=)

I spent this morning finding the sweetest berries and freshest breads from my local farmers market. Next time you go grocery shopping, try heading to your local market
before settling for Trader Joe's, Jewels, or Dominicks.

Not only are the fruit and vegetables much more ripe and the breads more fresh, but all these foods come from natural resources without any touch of GMO's, fillers, pesticides, or hormones. Ooh and you are supporting your local farmers!


Eating locally and shopping at farmer’s markets…

• Supports small-scale farm families so they can pass on their skills and passions to future generations
• Uses less resources due to decreased shipping
• Supports more environmentally friendly farming practices
• Builds relationships between the farmer and the consumers
  

Here is a list of your local farmers in Chicago! My favorite is Geneva Greens, as well as the following others:

Sweet Earth Organic Farm

608-875-6026

Vegetables, Fruits, Flowers

Tiny Greens

217-328-9367

Micro greens, Wheatgrass

Mick Klug Farms

269-208-9334

Berries, Sweet and sour cherries, Nectarines and peaches, Apricots, Melons, Vegetables

Prairie Fruits Farm

217-643-2314

goat cheese, fruit

Xenophobia?

The people of our country are acting like nationalistic fascists. We (the media public) gathered, from what should have been an influential promotion of health care reform, a tunnel vision on illegal and immigrant issues. Obama had yesterday evening as an opportunity to prove that he is a strong and confident leader. Very well, his term is 1/4 the way through and he has accomplished little outside of the economic stimulus plan. So I was hoping that he would redeem himself with making positive leaps in health care reform. It seems obvious now that will not be the case. Instead, our nation became focused on the minority of the issue at hand. And with no disappointment or regret to Wilson, after all his frustration is well-warranted. This is not to say that his actions were appropriate. But his sentiments may very well have been.

Today, very few discussions regarding health care reform stood outside of the ill-mannered issue which occured last night. This angers me beyond measures, as I saw Obama's address as an opportunity to move foward--as an opportunity to move this issue from the political scene to to a national healthcare scene. For the past several weeks, health care reform has become a political debate. One versues democrats and republicans, which itself even bcecame lopsided. Republicans and even democrats are persuading our people against a public option, which I myself do not support. Perhaps, however, not for the same reasons. Political parties make percentages of their yearly paycheck through essential tip-offs from health insurance companies. In fact, John Kerry has earned over 680,000$ from health insurance companies as a way to promote these markets. Inducing the public option will, inevitably, lower health-insurance policy prices, and refocus the profits in government hands. Essentially, this is unfair, and goes against our free-market traditions. Even more importantly, this will cause a big deficit in congressmen's wallets ie: Kerry, Rockefeller, and Hutchison just to name a few. Why aren't people talking about this? Instead, American taxpayers are looking for someone to hate and thus look toward illegal immigrants, accusing them for soaking up tax dollars on their visits to the emergency room. Perhaps our nation doesn't fully understand the way medical bills and insurance companies work. Illegal immigrants are STILL PAYING FOR HEALTH CARE. Being stabilized in the ER after long waiting hours does not mean that they are receiving adequate health care attention. There are hundreds of other places that our tax dollars are being misrepresented (ie. welfare?). However, I digress from Wilson, illegal immigrants, and the "you lie" comment, as it only promotes the focus on the issue.

So why was THERE NO FOCUS ON HEALTH CO-OPS? I can't figure out what is going through their minds. This is a serious and affordable health plan that can be used as an intermediary until, or "until", health reform reaches us. We are missing the big picture. Pareto's rule plays a perfect signifance here. 80% of our nation's economy is being held by 20% of the population. So when the affluent stop spending, guess what happens to the American dollar? Of course, it plummets. We need to broaden that 20%. Whether this means restructuring medicare (which would actually save our nation millions of dollars than creating a new government-run health care program--why not fix what we already have?) or developing a broader inclusion of insurance companies to minimize competition.

It seems to me that Obama hasn't realized that he is now the 44th president. He is still stuck in that campaigning mode. We're a nation waiting to be led. Please come through Obama. Stop throwing out ideas and possibilties and start feeding us plans and methods. The time is now. Well really, it was yesterday...at the very least. Instead, Obama talked about possibilities and his open-mindedness to new ideas. If "now is the time to act" why hasn't he nor congress done so? Obama and his cabinet are directing their focus in the wrong place and inevitably making the nation angry. But for good reason. For example, his idea to force insurance companies to provide coverage for those with pre-existing medical conditions is completely unfair. That is NOT what insurance is. Insurance companies are free-markets whom profit from customers paying for the premiums but not using them. This is a business. Outside of emotion, there is NOTHING wrong with that. If we wanted to do something about that, then forcing them to become a government dominated industry is NOT the way to do it. That goes against what our legal system believes in. Even more, telling our country that only the rich will be paying for the new medical benefits being advocated is absolutely untrue, or at least short-sighted. Implicit taxes are no less important than open taxes, fiscally speaking. And these implicit charges will be incurred, both on the rich and poor.

I wish I knew more about politics so I could have a hand in them. So to the 535 men in congress, I hope, for the sake of the America dollar, and for the sake of the hard-working individuals muddled in healthcare bills, that something is done soon. That a focus on health co-op is generated. That medicare is tweaked to support the poor public. That the public opinion is heard. And more than anything, that the gap between the rich and poor is minimized. I think what people are forgetting most is that being uninsured does not nearly attribute low-income.

You're a good man Obama. Please be a good president.

the not-so moment of truth

I think the following article displays by far one of the most comprehensive attitudes regarding Obama's situation on health care reform. Tonight, Obama will be addressing to congress the dire necessity to move forward with an immediate health-care reform. What is even more necessary, is for him to deliver this speech with clarity, power, and confidence. As professor Zelizer essentially noted, wavering ideas on important concepts make such concepts less important and less unified. I know I will be tuning in this evening to see what Obama chooses to clarify. It is essential that the heavily bipartisan attitude of the democratic party be somewhat eliminated (and I only say somewhat since total uniformity doesn't provoke new ideas). My biggest concern lies in the future of health co-ops, which may be the most efficient (alongside modificatoins to governmental medicare) and plausible means of immediate and positive reform. Allow previously successful presidencies to be a model for Obama tonight!

Editor's note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. His new book, "Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security -- From World War II to the War on Terrorism"

PRINCETON, New Jersey (CNN) -- On Wednesday, President Obama will make the most important speech of his presidency. We hear this phrase so much that it has become a cliché. But, in this case, the cliché is accurate.

President Obama suffered a politically brutal month in August. The opponents of health care dominated public debate about the legislation circulating in Congress. Public approval ratings for the president and his health care plan, as well as the Democratic Congress, have fallen. Democrats have become internally divided.

It is possible Obama could end his first year in the White House without a major piece of legislation beyond the economic stimulus.

For a president who began the year with his supporters talking about a transformative leader who would equal Presidents Lincoln or Roosevelt, this would be a major disappointment.

When Obama delivers his speech to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, he joins a long list of presidents who have used this technique to build public support behind a decision or legislation. A look back reveals some lessons that might be useful as the president shapes the final text of his message.

Some speeches have solidified the public confidence in the leadership skills of the president.

On December 8, 1941, the day after Japanese forces had attacked American forces at Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt spoke to Congress. In the speech, Roosevelt's words demonstrated a kind of decisiveness that would help to rally the public around the White House as the war escalated.

President Roosevelt explained to Congress what had happened and called on the nation to once and for all abandon its resistance toward entering war.

"No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory . . . Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger."

Sometimes a president can motivate the nation to reach beyond what seems possible.

On May 25, 1961, President Kennedy announced to a joint session of Congress that the United States would send a man to the moon by the end of the 1960s.

The speech came at a time when Americans were still reeling from the Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite in 1957 and a Russian cosmonaut entering space in April 1961.

Importantly, Kennedy was blunt about costs: "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish." The speech was a success, as was the program.

Speeches can also be used to embrace a moral cause. This was the case with LBJ's talk about voting rights in March 1965. Originally, President Johnson had opposed voting rights legislation, fearing that it would create a vicious backlash by opponents of civil rights.

But the civil rights movement would not take no for an answer. During a march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, on March 7, the police violently attacked the protesters after they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge. The media called this day "Bloody Sunday."

The president decided to push for legislation. On March 15, he delivered one of the most powerful speeches of his career to a joint session of Congress. In the speech, Johnson placed Selma in a long tradition of fighting for freedom that began with the American Revolution: "This time, on this issue, there must be no delay, no hesitation and no compromise with our purpose."

Johnson ended the speech with a dramatic proclamation, openly embracing the rhetoric of the civil rights movement, when he said that, "Their cause must be our cause, too. Because it is not just Negroes, but really all of us who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And, we shall . . overcome."

When the president finished his talk, Congress burst out in applause. Like Martin Luther King Jr., many civil rights activists watched the speech with tears in their eyes.

One day after the speech, Alabama Sen. Lister Hill asked Sen. Richard Russell of Georgia: "Dick, tell me something. You trained that boy . . . What happened to that boy?" Russell turned to Hill with a disappointed face and said, "I just don't know Lister.... He's a turncoat if there ever was one." Congress passed the legislation.

On other occasions the addresses have inspired confidence in what a White House and the nation could achieve. Ronald Reagan arrived in Washington at a time when many Americans had become despondent about the potential for ever reviving the economy. Stagflation and unemployment had devastated the American dream in the 1970s.

Reagan was determined to reverse the interventionist economic policies that Democrats had championed. OMB Director David Stockman suggested to the president, "An opening in which old, failed policy principles are set up in straw-man fashion: this sets the strategy for a totally new framework for national economic policy."

On February 18, 1981, after reviewing the litany of economic problems, Reagan declared that "We don't have an option of living with inflation and its attendant tragedy . . . We have an alternative, and that is the program for economic recovery. True, it'll take time for the favorable effects of our program to be felt. So, we must begin now. The people are watching and waiting. They don't demand miracles. They do expect us to act. Let us act together."

Two days after the speech, two-thirds of those polled by Washington Post/ABC News expressed their support for the president's message.

These speeches don't always work, as was the case with President Clinton's address calling for health care reform. And Obama has an especially tough task ahead given that this speech comes after his opponents have been able to reshape the debate for a month and public confidence in him and the plan is falling.

Nonetheless, Obama must draw lessons from all of the successful examples. He needs to achieve many goals at once.

He has to assert his leadership as FDR did in 1941 because there are now growing doubts that he is in control of this debate and on top of this policy. Democrats want a president who will carry them through this and other tough struggles rather than a president who they need to save politically.

Voters -- Democrats and Republicans -- need to have confidence that Obama knows what the right answers are in this extraordinarily complex issue.

The president also needs to echo the motivational message of JFK as well as the moral daring of LBJ by reminding Americans of the broader imperative that he feels is behind his call for health care reform and to offer a response to the criticism that more government will only make the condition of health care worse.

Finally, Obama must tap into the rhetoric of Reagan by instilling confidence that the country can achieve these reforms and that we can afford them (obviously, with a very different message about the role of government).

This might be the last opportunity to seize back some of the public and to re-energize support for his agenda. If he fails, it can be a long winter for the administration.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Julian Zelizer.

Pharmaceuticals and Personal Interests

The late 1950's was a time of a new beginnings, where optimism and energy flourished. World war II was now a memory, and instead it was replaced with growing visions and a scientific epicenter. Innovations became prevalent and tomorrowland seemingly arrived. Housewives were serving TV dinners in less than 5 minutes of preparation and X-ray machines were being found at shoe stores everywhere. It would only be a matter of a few years before Boeings 707s would be able to transverse nations in a matter of hours, or faster vehicles would drive coast-to-coast on Eisenhower's new turnpike systems. Successful nations only became more and more so, following the advent of technology, which I can only say cast a heavy and increasing anxiety of international threat of annihilation. By the late 1950's nuclear war drills became commonplace in schools across North America, only to be supported by a booming fallout shelter business. Recurring threats between the U.S., Southeast Asia, and the Suez Canal only reminded the world that World War II was not the last word. Central and eastern european nations, I could say, were developing the most rapidly. The USSR was the first to launch the Sputnik satellite, and when the launch of the first U.S. satellite exploded in 1957, the USSR was applauding the launch of their second satellite.

Perhaps Germany experienced the shorter end of the stick during WWII, as the final years of the war had been a living nightmare. Most citizens had no idea if they would wake up alive the next morning, and had even began expecting to open their eyes to bombing or dangerous wastes. So it was no surprise, that when tranquilizers and sleeping pills were introduced in Germany in the early 1960's, citizens were supported to partake in its usage as a way to relieve post-war anxiety. I found that almost 1 million people in Great Britain were using barbiturates daily and almost 15% of central European prescriptions were a barbiurate or sedative of some sort. Not to mention, suicide by sleeping pills was the seemingly popular way to check out. The U.S. didn't stray far behind, while they produced over 4 billion sedatives in just 1955 alone. Pharmaceuticals flourished. Get this, the U.S. actually allowed usage of a prescription medicine that could speed up the process of suntanning: "You can turn the color of a life guard!" was at the head of their vision statement.

I am sure most everyone is familiar with Huxley's Brave New World, where he described how the dependence upon alcohol in forgetting Communist threats and society's woes would soon be cross-tolerated with invention of a "wonder drug"--a pill which could help people unwind without, psychiatrically speaking, ellicit any abusive or dependent symptoms. "Will the pharmacologist be able to do better thant he brewers and distillers?"
It was no surprise then, that just a month after Huxley's statement, that Germany began distribution of a newly, and uninvestigated, "wonderdrug" Thalidomide within large parts of Europe. This was done under the leading German pharmaceutical company Gruenthal, which was mainly given its fame after mold production of industrial penicillin. Oh and by fame, I mean notorious for throwing drugs in the market without any sense of adequate testing...forget exhaustive testing at the least. Thalidomide was first administered to help decrease feelings of uncomfort in pregnant women. Soon enough, it was discovered that this drug had absolutely no effect as an antibiotic, but what it did show, was a high sedative affect in humans. Surprisngly, this drug showed no affects in animals. In fact, the toxicity test results were beyond remarkable. Even at the highest doses, it was nearly impossible to attain the LD50 (the dose at which 50% of the subjects die). (WHICH THIS BRINGS ME TO AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT RELATING TO VEGANS AND USERS OF MEDICINE. EVERY SINGLE DRUG AVAILABLE IN THE U.S HAS BEEN TESTED AND KILLED MILLIONS OF ANIMALS). By the way, there were at least some rules, which detailed that drug could not be put on the European markets without "successful results" (even slightly below an LD50 denotes success) in both humans and animals. So of course Gruenthal manipulated their research, to forcibly induce results with compound treatments to show that, in company, Thalidomide can produce sedative effects. Through fiscal means, Gruenthal managed to leak its force within scientific journals internationally recognized, supporting the usage of Thalidomide. Giving out free samples to companies and physician offices everywhere, advertisements with children reaching for a bottle of Thalidomide (Distaval) stated "This medicine could save your child's life" (as it was also used as a means to calm children down in anxious moments. It even came to the point that this drug was commonly known as the "babysitter" as it had the powerful ability to always produce consistent sedative effects. In fact, this drug became so commonly used that pregnant women did not even list it on injested medications on routine physicals. Eventually, this drug found its way across the entire world, (and for once I am happy to admit that the FDA disallowed entrance of this drug into the U.S) totalling over 12.4 million dollars of sales in 1961. Thaldomide began being mixed into other pharmaceutical treatments, to which even an addition to common advil and tylenol.

This is a PERFECT example how fiscal interests and greedy powers can inflict horrible results. The lack of extensive research, and the growing rush to get a "goldmine" drug into the market ended up, within JUST TWO YEARS OF ADMINISTRATION, producing birth defects in the thousands. Children were being born with fetal limb abnromalities and loss of external structures, such as the ears and nose. And JUST three months ago, Germany finally began dispensing compensation for thalidomide victims (OVER 40 YEARS LATER. please read!!: http://www.goinglegal.com/article_863416_101.html). Thalidomide, even now, is still being released as an off-label drug as a "special needs" medication to patients with severe pain. In truth, Thalidomide may have some beneficial effects to those women whom are not pregnant or not planning to become pregnant. However, that is only a short-term vision. It is, an essence, a hippocratic dilemna. It can destroy you or it can save you. Though, there is nothing to be said until it undergoes years of extensive treatment, as such all pharmaceuticals should. YOUR PATIENTS ARE NOT YOUR RESEARCH. And to all of us becoming physicians, I think the take-home statement is this: be aware that short-term success does not mean long-term benefits. We may be doing more harm than good.

I think the even bigger question may be why individuals choose to venture into pharmaceuticals for purposes so unnecessary. There are clearly more homeopathic and physical ways of doing so. Listen to your body, not the pills.