Yes, It Could Get Worse.

If there is one thing the Trump presidency has actually accomplished so far, it is inspire. Yes, you read that right: just a bit over two months in and this administration has been truly inspiring for huge blocs of people. Maybe not in the same optimistic "Yes we can!" way as his predecessor, or even in a "Feel the Bern" we-want-a-revolution-but-in-a-nice-way way, but still, when your inauguration is immediately followed with the largest single day political demonstration in US history (not to mention the almost countless large-scale rallies opposing your specific policies) it is difficult to say that you haven't inspired the masses. Unfortunately, some people still are not learning the most important lesson to be drawn from Trump's electoral success, the lesson that this is not a joke.

Take, for example, this recent Vanity Fair article in which Graydon Carter astutely points out that although Trump is constantly ridiculed, his presidency is not actually funny. It's tragic. It is already tragic for families preparing to be ripped apart by ICE raids, for innocent people seeking escape from war-ravaged countries, and with the upcoming legislative action aimed at repealing the ACA, it is poised only to create even greater catastrophe. So while it is satisfying to laugh at the utter ridiculousness of our president when he does things like jump into a big rig and honk the horn like a semi-competent toddler it is truly dangerous not to take him seriously. And that's not because he should be taken seriously per se, but because he is taken seriously by a lot of people in this country. Even in the previously cited Vanity Fair article, Carter lamented "That Trump's supporters continue to line up behind him remains a mystery" before elucidating a number of the ways that he and his administration are working actively against their voters' interests. It is obvious to a lot of people that Trump is aiming to screw over the very people who put him in power, but with the recent poll suggesting that only about 3% of Trump voters regret their decision it is apparently not obvious to everyone, and there is little reason to believe that his supporters will suddenly abandon their support for his movement.

That is why statements like this,

from co-founder of the Democratic Coalition Against Trump, Scott Dworkin, need to be re-thought. To say he is already the worst president we have ever had would be one thing (although with how awful some of his competition was that's far from inarguable), but to say he is the "Worst President We'll Ever Have" is astoundingly foolish. The Trump Presidency is a joke. But so was the Trump campaign, and while there are certainly some promising Democratic candidates to potentially tout against him (or whoever ends up running in 2020), plenty of people would have said the first woman running on a major party's ticket, or the cultural powerhouse that is Bernie Sanders, were also promising candidates. At this point the Democratic party's fracturing has even infected last month's race for DNC chair- a post about which, before the embarrassing Debbie Wasserman Schultz revelations, many people were decidedly unconcerned.

So before we decide that the Trump presidency is the worst one we will ever have, let's keep in mind that even a couple of weeks before his election the Democratic party was (according to the Pew Research Center) viewed more favorably than the Republican party, but they still lost.

People like Scott Dworkin, as well as other Dem leaders and just generally concerned citizens, must wake up to the fact that the Trump movement will have a successor- and that could be worse. 

Dear Fellow Millennials, You in Fact Don't Need to be Insulted by Everything

Since the surfacing last night of audio from a Hillary Clinton fundraising event back in February, I have repeatedly seen headlines (though I hesitate to call them that without noting that they are not seen on many reputable publications) and outraged Twitter remarks which claim the Democratic nominee for POTUS had "mocked" the large bloc of Millennial voters who had supported Bernie Sanders during the primaries. The condemning remarks, that Bernie voters are "children of the Great Recession living in their parents' basement," certainly can come across as derogatory or lambasting, but when you actually think about it they are nothing by which those voters should be insulted. In text form, they can come across harshly (most Millennials who have at some point gone through their significant others' phones or had their phones gone through should know that the written word sometimes is tricky when conveying a conversation as even the most innocent comment can seem sinister when that's what its reader has in mind ahead of time), but if you read the transcript critically or bother to listen to the actual audio, there is nothing mocking about this.

Hillary's actual statements were that Millennials are "children of the Great Recession"- true- "living in their parents' basement"- guess what, also true! Yes, fellow Millennials, I'm sorry to let you know what should probably seem obvious but we are at the highest rate of young adults living at home in recent history. But don't take my word for it, or even your own anecdotal evidence. Take this Pew study published in May of this year, going back to 1880, and finding that our generation is the first since then with a plurality living at home.

Now, with the knowledge that this is an actual fact, listen to the audio yourself and tell me how "mocking" this statement is. There's absolutely no mocking tone in her voice and I think it's pretty fair to say that that is not how she meant it.

There's another part of this audio leak which people are holding against Hillary, though, and that is her saying that many Bernie supporters are "new to politics completely" and therefore quick to believe idealism. Here is where I'll switch back to anecdotal evidence. I majored in Political Science undergrad and immediately went for my Master's in it, and I was absolutely obsessive about politics. I spoke to everyone I knew, ranting at length, and heard mostly crickets as a reply. Now a great number of those same people are facebook pundits, active spouters of the gospel of their political ideologies without having done ANY of the research. Do most of them know from where the concepts of modern liberalism and conservatism came? Have they agonizingly annotated their copies of Edmund Burke and Locke and Rousseau and Marx, and their case studies on what happened in different parts of the world at different points in history when each of these political theories were implemented? My guess for a large bloc is no. So yes, they are "new to politics." People my age previously have only had the man who was almost undoubtedly the coolest presidential candidate in history as their option against people whose views opposed what they knew they were in favor of fundamentally. Now, as people pretending to have our shit together, we are looking slightly more closely at the issues, but they still don't acknowledge the logistics of the matters. You do feel ideologically, as HRC says, and that's great; that is how we all should feel. But our actions should take into account common sense along with our consciences, and common sense (as well as just like even a superficial knowledge of world history) should tell you that you can't just Tabula Rasa a political system and expect it to work out. Change is gradual, and that doesn't make it any less great. The US' social policies of the last century were utterly shameful: even fucking interracial marriage wasn't legalized until Loving v. Virginia in 1967. Yet many young people expect everyone who grew up under such a system to even understand, let alone accept, every left-leaning policy they want. And they think that's fair. 

The facts of the matter are just that: facts. Hillary stated facts, which many people don't want to hear. There's no reason to glean from this audio that Hillary spoke condescendingly. On the contrary, she astutely pointed out a very significant reason so many millennials are inclined to feel in their hearts that debts should be lowered and social programs raised: because the system has failed us. Hillary is a person who has studied policy for a long time and the thing that all policy has in common is this: it is written and supported, or opposed, by humans. Humans, with feelings, they're who shape things, and so it is fundamental to an understanding of politics to understand the context that's molding the people creating them. Listeners of this audio might also note that Hillary follows up her comment by saying "So I think we all should be really understanding of that." Ooph man, that's hurtful. 

(I Can't Believe it Bears Repeating that) Listening to Celebrities is Dangerous

Fucking damn it, Susan Sarandon. Ok, vulgarity out of system (temporarily), but seriously, damn it. Earlier this week, the venerated actress and well-known liberal advocate appeared on MSNBC for an interview with Chris Hayes, and insinuated that if Bernie Sanders doesn't get the Democratic nod for the Presidential election she would consider voting for Trump rather than Hillary. Within days she attempted to renege on that suggestion via twitter (presumably out of shame and hindsight), but her response of "I don't know, I'm gonna see what happens" when asked by Hayes if she personally would vote that way was already out there, reaching a larger audience than does her twitter, and causing the kind of damage that only a celebrity political endorsement can.  As an observer of political discourse, I try to see the issues from both sides; understanding that views differing from your own are valid and arise from experiencing the world differently is not only an exercise in humility but also the only way to convert others to agreeing with your view. But on a personal level, I am pretty effing liberal. I agree personally with Susan Sarandon on a number of issues about which she has been vocal, but I have to call her out here not just for being irresponsible--as many have already done--but for being plain wrong. Not morally wrong, factually wrong.

First, let's consider her reasoning for supporting Bernie. As she says, Sanders is the only "candidate who makes decisions whose judgement turns out to be true but who does it at a time when it's not popular." Bernie is a progressive candidate, in many ways he is the most progressive. But it's not up to you (or anyone) to decide that the liberal view of social issues is "true." There are plenty of people who would disagree with the progressive stance and even though I'm not one of them, I can't say that what I think is the truth and what they think is false. More important, though, is the fact that Bernie is not quite as historically progressive as his supporters would like to claim he is. For an easy starter, there's his voting record on gay marriage. Bernie has never voted against gay marriage, and he opposed DOMA from the get, true, but that wasn't because he was always so forward-thinking about the rights of the LGBT community. It was because he felt the law interfered with states' rights to decide on the matter individually. As popular Vermontian Peter Freyne wrote, “Obtaining Congressman Bernie Sanders’ position on the gay marriage issue was like pulling teeth … from a rhinoceros." Sanders did come out (so to speak) for gay marriage a few years earlier than Hillary did, but that doesn't mean we can pretend he was that supportive when it was "not popular" as Ms. Sarandon said.

Gay marriage is not the only issue, by the way, on which Senator Sanders has not always had the most praise-worthy (to a liberal) position. While Bernie has not so subtly called out HRC for claiming to be progressive while having voted for the invasion of Iraq, his opponent was correct to point out that Sanders voted "against the Brady Bill five times." This "The Week" article from February of this year does a great job at pointing out the inconsistencies with progressivism in Bernie's voting record. On issues of gun control, criminal justice reform, and foreign policy, his rhetoric of necessary change doesn't quite align with his Senatorial voting record. 'It's super unprogressive to support the Iraq War, but I'll repeatedly vote to finance it. The armored vehicles found in police departments like Ferguson's are a mechanism of an institutionally racist criminal justice system which must be stopped, but I voted against a law that would have outlawed them.' For somebody whose platform is exclusively being the ever-progressive, these are pretty major issues.

Even above the discrepancies in actual governing issues, the most ridiculous part of the Chris Hayes interview has to be Sarandon's remark that Sanders "has no ego in this thing." A politician. With no ego. So, a person saying 'I think the country should be like this and I need your vote because I'm the person to achieve that goal' has no ego? Does she just not know what ego is? It's a pretty necessary component of becoming a politician. Even fellow mega-famous actor (& self-proclaimed Bernie lover) George Clooney concedes that to be in politics one needs a "tremendous amount of ego." To me, one definitive sign of an inflated ego is the practice of suggesting somebody else is wrong or flawed for doing or saying things that you've done or said yourself. Like, for example, in the Democratic debate just a few short weeks ago, when Bernie trivialized HRC's apparently overly complicated answer on fracking. "My answer is a lot shorter," he said, "No I do not support fracking." Well I'm glad Sanders was able to give such a cut and dried answer on that matter, but people like Peter Freyne will recall that this simplicity wasn't always your political MO (and personally, for this liberal, gay marriage is a much simpler issue than fracking). I am by no means saying Bernie is a bad guy or doesn't have solid interests at heart; I absolutely think he does and that he's about as sincere as a politician can be. I'm just saying it's ridiculous to portray anyone with their eye on the Presidency as some white knight with "no ego."

It'd be stupid for anyone to cast their Presidential vote based on celebrity advice, but somebody as long-term famous as Susan Sarandon knows her words do carry influence. She's a smart person, and I agree with her about a great deal, but in no effing way would a Trump Presidency "bring the revolution immediately," and neither would Sanders taking office. Because that's just not how it works. The US is not a country poised for revolution, and simply changing who occupies a seat in our existing political structure is not what a revolution is. We have a Constitution, for a plethora of reasons, and one of them is to check the power of our highest office. So, in reality, for someone as financially well-off as Susan Sarandon, whoever gets elected this November won't affect your personal life that significantly. But it will affect the daily lives of a lot of other people, and frankly, it's pretty fucked up that you'd be willing to risk the security of immigrants, Muslims, and the women's rights you've previously championed and which would come under threat from a President Trump to prove an ideological point.

Paul Ryan, Once Again, Sounds Like an Idiot

Cuba. A word that, for most Americans, has been oft-heard, yet remains decidedly indefinable. We know its leader, of course, eat sandwiches and drink libres named for the Caribbean Communist country, but having been mostly banned from travelling to its sultry beaches and deco-colored streets for over fifty years few of us know what Cuba really is. But alas, American explorers will soon be able to take the tiny ninety-mile trek to Castro's country and see this almost mythical land, thanks to President Obama's normalizing of diplomatic relations and subsequent easing of travel restrictions with the Republic of Cuba. This week, the President became the first sitting US head of state to make that trip himself since Calvin Coolidge in 1928, taking in an international baseball game, engaging in political discussion with Cuban leaders, and announcing that he is there to "bury the last remnants of the Cold War in the Americas." And honestly, it's about freakin time, considering that the Cold War (according to most) has been over for 25 years, and especially considering the close proximity of the two nations could allow for significant strategic cooperation, if the cards are played correctly. And yet, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has publicly declared that he thinks "not much" of this historic trip to Cuba, claiming that Obama's visit there "legitimizes a tyrannical dictatorship," stoking his own and many others' already existent anti-Obama flames. But does his claim hold up? Does the President's visit and attempt to resume diplomatic relations with Cuba lend credibility to a dictatorial regime? Or perhaps more importantly, is such a plan of action inconsistent with US relations with other states? It's difficult to accurately gauge potential international political nuances (though it's certainly entertaining, for a nerd like myself, to speculate), so for the sake of accuracy, let's look at some useful statistics.

Cuba is less than 100 miles from the United States, though for most who have exited the former for the latter, it was not an easy journey. Due to the fact that travel between the two countries is prohibited that short distance must be undergone in secret, in dangerous conditions, under which many do not survive. In the last fiscal year for which the record is updated, the US received 4,063 Cuban refugees, roughly 6% of the 69,986 total number of refugees. For broader perspective, the US took in 19,651 Iraqi refugees (the highest number by far), while taking in just 4 from Haiti. Most of us are aware of US-Iraqi relations as of at least the last decade and a half: we helped to overthrow someone we saw as a despotic ruler and normalized diplomatic relations following Saddam Hussein's ouster. Yet people are obviously still fleeing the area in droves, so perhaps it doesn't always help to insist upon the overthrow of a bad government before attempting to re-establish aid for and cooperation with a country. Haiti, too, is close to the United States, much closer than Iraq, and Haiti too has a storied history with the United States, going back generations. But what many in Haiti remember most vividly of the US is the fact that we supported Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier, and remained a close ally of his, despite his long rap sheet of human rights violations. For anyone unfamiliar with Baby Doc Duvalier's reputation, his "rule was marked by systematic human rights violations. Hundreds of political prisoners, held in a network of jails, died from their extraordinarily cruel treatment. Duvalier’s government repeatedly closed independent newspapers and radio stations. Journalists were beaten; in some cases, tortured, jailed and forced to leave the country." At the time of his death just two years ago, he was set to be tried internationally for human rights violations. Yet, as noted earlier, the US considered him a close ally. Again, for those unfamiliar with Haitian politics, Baby Doc Duvalier's rule was vehemently criticized by plenty of Haitians, most notably Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who would become Haiti's first democratically-elected President. Aristide was eventually removed by a coup d'etat in 2004, believing personally (and with the support of many Haitians and international observers) that "the U.S. kidnapped him and overthrew his government." Perhaps we should inquire of Speaker Ryan why remaining allies with dictator Duvalier and in all likelihood helping to overthrow fairly-elected Aristide was possible, yet diplomatic relations with Cuba should not be.

This might be a good time to remind ourselves that this is not the first time a US President has made a historic trip to a high-profile Communist country in an attempt to smooth over relations with that country. I'm referring of course to Richard Nixon's 1972 visit to China, the first US President to make such a trip since it was established as the People's Republic in 1949. 1972, the height of the Cold War, and the sitting head of the United States took a trip to the other side of the world, to a country well known not just for violating its own citizens' human rights, but for a tendency to invade surrounding countries and installing tyrannical rule. Today, the United States has an open trade policy with China, and although that country is still shrouded in a veil of secrecy, its abuses are much more openly known on the international stage. We can't thank President Nixon for much, but opening our dialogue with China has turned out to be pretty smart.

Now that we have gotten statistics and facts out of the way, perhaps it is time for speculation and hypothesizing, with a little help from Noam Chomsky. In a piece he wrote following the events of 2004 in Haiti, Mr. Chomsky rightly pointed out that "democracy means more than flipping a lever every few years. Functioning democracy has preconditions. One is that the population should have some way to learn what is happening in the world." Well, luckily enough, during this week's visit to Cuba, President Obama announced that Google would be one of the first US companies to expand to Cuba, offering an alternative to the state-run ISP. Surely, there will be some restrictions on its usage, but I'm fairly confident that the people of Cuba will find their way around them enough that their flow of free information will increase. And that's not everything, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. We have learned time and again that democracy can not be forced onto a country; its people must want it, and a less hostile relationship with America will lead to increased tourism, American products, and probably a desire for change. Perhaps and hopefully, once Americans get a taste of what travel writer Pico Iyer calls "that mix of elegy and carnival ... that sense of sunlit sadness" which "makes [Cuba], in the end, the most emotionally involving -- and unsettling-- place" the flame of admiration and love felt for that beautiful country by great American artists like Hemingway will rekindle, and stay aflame.

The Merits of Merrick, or (More Accurately), What Mark Joseph Stern is Just not Getting

In an 8 year tenure, President Obama has had the opportunity to nominate three Supreme Court Justices. Two of them, obviously, were able to make it past a Legislative branch hellbent on denying the President any power and make it all the way to the highest court in the land-- the pinnacle of a legal career in the United States, and they are women no less. Now, strangely enough, the nomination of Merrick Garland seems unfortunately destined for doom, and it's not just Republicans who are stonewalling his election. Politicians are what they are and while it is certainly stupid and childish (and frankly just lazy) to skirt their responsibilities in voting for their President's nominee, it's no shock. Their moves are calculated; they have an electorate whom they are (theoretically) there to serve, they have fellow lawmakers in all facets of the system basing their future support or non-support on the ways they vote, and of course they are in office as a career that they usually don't want to be cut short. But political writers and pundits, on both sides of the party spectrum, are using some absurd reasoning to justify their disagreement with Obama's appointment.

The main culprit coming to mind, because I think his views are unfortunately reflective of a significant number of other people's, is Slate contributor Mark Joseph Stern. In that publication's "Supreme Court Breakfast Table" series, the first entry, penned by Mr. Stern is titled "Merrick Garland is an extraordinarily disappointing choice." "Extraordinarily disappointing." That's a pretty strong condemnation, as far as polite and civil political discussion goes, and it's definitely the type of wording that made me want to know more. Does Mark Joseph Stern know a particularly great deal about Judge Garland? About his voting record, or maybe some personal remarks he's made that don't bode well for the candidate? Actually, no. Stern's disappointment in the President's nomination is the result of some pretty flawed reasoning. It's basically that Merrick Garland is a white male, and to Mark Joseph Stern (another white male) that's just not "progressive" enough. While I respect Stern's use of an oft-quoted Ruth Bader Ginsburgism in which she has stated that "nine" women on the Supreme Court would be "enough," I think he's missing a major point of feminism, which is too commonly misunderstood. What Ginsburg is probably saying there is not that the Supreme Court should only be composed of women, or that an all-female court would necessarily be more just than one with both men and women. More likely, she's not calling out a specific quota decreed as her appropriate amount of estrogen controlling the Supreme Court, but rather that there wouldn't be an amount that's "too much," so there logically can't be an "enough" either. This misunderstanding points to a bigger issue: that plenty of people don't comprehend that feminists don't want to unseat every job held by a man, they want gender to be a non-issue and candidates to be considered based on qualifications unrelated to their sex organs. In my humble opinion (for which nobody asked) I think it's equally ridiculous to hold against somebody that they are a white male as it would be to hold against somebody that they are a minority female. (As an aside, Merrick Garland is, by the way, not the typical WASP male which dominated the USSC for so long, as he's Jewish. Mark Joseph Stern posits that "100 years ago" there might have been some anti-Semitic blowback for this, but today it's a "complete nonissue." His evidence it's a "nonissue?" A fucking tweet in which one Jewish person declares that it's not really an issue. Wonderfully progressive and really thorough research there, bud, but for plenty of people anti-Semitism is still a pretty serious and prevalent issue.)

In that article, Stern goes on to say that had Obama nominated somebody less "conventional," he would demonstrate an understanding of the need for "empathetic, unorthodox voices on the bench." C'mon, Mark Joseph Stern, as a white male writing about this, I would think you'd be quick to understand that empathy is not born solely from personal race-related plight. Every single person who could possibly be nominated to the Court comes from unique circumstances and has his/her own biases; the point of a judge is to understand that and make decisions based on fairness and Constitutionality, leaving their personal experiences at the wayside as much as possible.

This brings me to my next point: the fact that some people are taking issue with Mr. Garland's not being liberal enough, while others take issue with his not being conservative enough. By almost all accounts of Judge Garland's judicial record, he is about as centrist as possible and extremely fair. He is well known on the legal circuit for taking each case brought before him as a distinct issue, without preference for one side or the other. Mark Joseph Stern, et al., I'm glad your personal viewpoints are liberal. Truly, the world applauds you, you'll be on the right side of history, yadda yadda yadda. The U.S., however, is not as decidedly liberal as you are; in fact, it's pretty evenly split between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents (who split pretty evenly as leaning toward Democrats and Republicans). I'm not saying I agree with people who are firmly anti-progress, but "progress" has different definitions to different people, and frankly, anybody who can't understand that viewpoints that oppose their own are valid are just ignorant. The nation's highest court should reflect the population and right now it's equal parts liberal and conservative. The Constitution would benefit from appointing the man that, when considered six years ago for the vacancy that was ultimately filled by Elena Kagan, the SCOTUSblog described as "essentially the model, neutral judge."  Republican Senators refusing to vote on any nomination offered by President Obama and liberal commentators angry that Judge Garland does not align closely enough to your personal views, you are equally guilty of being childish and self-centered, and of turning Judge Garland's nomination into a political circus. In fact, in another article written by Mark Joseph Stern as part of this Slate series, the author concedes that yes, ok, Merrick Garland is incredibly qualified and shouldn't face discrimination for being a white male. But Stern still takes issue with his appointment because of his personal view that had the President nominated one of his other options (namely Sri Srinivasan or Ketanji Brown Jackson) and Republicans in the Senate blocked their nominations, they could have been painted as racist, or sexist, or xenophobic. Basically, their blocking Merrick Garland is not politically opportunistic enough for Stern's liking. Mr. Stern, as a political columnist your job is certainly to espouse your own views, but it should also be to call out that type of bureaucratic bullshit, not contribute to it.

So, lastly, I will make a call to the great Elizabeth Warren to tell people on both sides of this issue to "Do your jobs" and consider Merrick Garland as a person with a brilliant legal mind and an enormous list of credentials, not a cog in a political wheel.

Dr. Strangedrug or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Martin Shkreli

By now I think it's safe to say that we all agree that Martin Shkreli is an asshole. Though many people and various publications have taken to naming him the "pharma bro" (honestly, why?), that title is not nearly sinister enough to apply to a gentleman who jacked up the price of a drug on the WHO's List of Essential Medicines by more than 5000% literally overnight... but I digress. Now I am as disgusted by Shkreli as the next anyone-possessing-a-conscience, and I am certainly pro-witch-hunt and especially pro-Shkreli exclusive douchebag tax, as proposed by Reddit user u/Fmello. But angry internet mob, Romans, country[wo]men, our wrath is partially misplaced. Hate this guy on a personal level, that much he has earned; but let's not turn him into the new Walter Palmer and instead focus some of this passion on a number of seriously broken systems.

The first thought most sane people would have when hearing of Shkreli's atrocities is something along the lines of "why would someone do that?" Well the answer there is pretty easy, greed is a powerful beast. The more appropriate question really is "how?" As in, "how is it possible that someone can expect to make so much profit off of sick people's required fucking medications?" Shkreli hasn't reinvented the wheel, he's only more obviously crushed people with it, and people making obscene amounts of money off sick people is nothing new. Take, for example, Forbes' list of the 25 most highly-paid American CEOs. Sparing you having to click through a slideshow (ugh), I'll just tell you that 6 of these 25-- or about 25%-- are at the helm of pharmaceutical or vaguely-worded biotechnology conglomerates, including #1 John Hammergren. This is a guy whose annual compensation totals about $31 million more than any estimate I've seen of Shkreli's entire net worth, and he's virtually unheard of. From this other Forbes article about the largest drug and biotech companies, we can glean how exactly people like Hammergren can get paid so exorbitantly and that is by utterly ridiculous profit margins. Obviously, these are corporations in a capitalist society and so they are entitled to profits; the morally questionable nature of making billions off of illness is neither here nor there for the moment, because that's just the way it is. But the flippant attitude that seems to exist toward this is its own distinct problem.

Let's look at (shocker) yet another Forbes article, from February of this year, that demonstrates how truly fucked up the pharmaceutical industry is. The piece looks to determine factors contributing to the trend of rising prices for generic medications, its author concluding that the answer is a combination of drug shortages due to both manufacturing issues and regulation and industry consolidation. As the author explains, these industry setbacks have resulted in some manufacturers creating a "tiered pricing system ... that would require members to pick up more of the cost." The word I find interesting here is "require," as if to suggest that the multi-billion dollar corporations physically could not pick up the extra costs in place of the patients. In fact, the article explicitly states that although "drug shortages would have a negative impact on patients needing those medications, drug makers might not be ready to make capital investments required for increasing production capacity as costs are significant." Just to recap, this is an industry where higher-paid CEOs can expect to make more than $100 million in 12 months, claiming to be less prepared to absorb high costs than sick people. More shocking than this absurd level of greed, which most people probably can't actually fathom, is how utterly unfazed people are by this behavior.

Unfazed, that is, until the internet found out about Shkreli's overnight price gouging and launched the crusade against him. As a human being (if he is one), Shkreli seems relatively unaffected, answering "you know, ambien," when asked on twitter how he sleeps at night in light of this controversy. As a businessman, though, Shkreli has apparently been shamed sufficiently, saying that he will lower the price of the drug as a response to widespread outrage. As the Washington Post (and surely, many others) would say, success, the internet has created a pariah and action is being taken as a result. This is misleading. As we've already established, jacking up prices of life-saving drugs is an industry-spanning practice; Daraprim is only one drug. Actually, in much of the rest of the developed world, Daraprim is not even the medication used to treat toxoplasmosis; Spiramycin is. In the US, though, Spiramycin is considered "experimental" by the FDA and only available for pregnant women via special request from their physicians. So, this antibiotic trusted in most of Europe and Canada (where healthcare is rated significantly better than in America) is too experimental for the FDA to give blanket approval but sketchy permanent birth control device essure has had approval since 2002, despite seriously adverse side effects. So let's not get ahead of ourselves calling this campaign a "success."

It should be noted, by the way, that the evil of pharma companies is by no means a new or newly-discovered phenomenon. Little Marty is evil but he's not definitively more evil than other biotech fat cats-- so from where did this absolute outrage come? A generally enlightening practice is to recognize that when most major news outlets (and presidential hopefuls

) 

are suddenly pointing left there is something pretty important going on to our right. The collective attention span is so compromised that even today, I debated whether three days after the fact, this would no longer be relevant. But that's the entire problem all over again, a nonchalance about these issues past a headline. So yeah, Martin Shkreli is a colossal douche, but I'm actually thanking him for giving us such an almost impossibly smug face to serve as the poster boy for a fucked-up system, who can hopefully spur some lasting change, even if it is out of repulsion. 

3.5 Billion Chances for Change

Between the early 1980s and today, over 3.5 billion people were born, making up over half of the world's current population. In the same period a great deal else has happened, as well: we have transitioned from the Cold War mentality which dominated much of the world for decades prior; AIDS has gone from being a scary blip on the radar of doctors and certain segments of the community to one of the most familiar and widely-ravaging epidemics in history; advanved technology has leapt from the pages of George Orwell and Robert Heinlein to our back pockets, with over 71% of Americans, and as much as 85% of American Millenials, owning smartphones. These are developments around which the youth of 2015 has grown and they have shaped our worldview into something utterly unimaginable as recently as 35 years ago.

The preceding generation often does not understand, or even acknowledge, the shifts in culture that have occurred. Having spoken at length about social, political, and economic topics with parents, their friends, and many of my friends' parents, I have noticed a trend among many of them of perceiving today's forward-thinking youth as mere extensions of their movements of backlash against their own parents' society. To a certain extent, this is true, but it is incomplete and does not grasp the level of change which has taken place. Though most of this generation is certainly more enlightened and aware of global issues than those which came before it, there still exist remnants of the conditioning under which they were raised that pervade their worldview no matter how well-intentioned they may be. As a self-identified feminist, I am often surprised by the number of people older than I am who still believe that feminism is concerned solely with breaking down the limits placed on women by their social upbringings; there are 3.5 billion people who are more likely to believe that the limitations placed on men are also damaging and in need of a revolution.

We are a cosmopolitan generation which has evolved beneath the loom of videogames and personal computers, but 3.5 billion of us are able to understand that technological advancement need not, and can not, take the place of humanity. We have seen firsthand the awesome power of social media as a tool of mass communication and coordination for major cultural revolutions, but we are also well aware that those revolutions required actual person-to-person interaction. There are 3.5 billion people today who understand that the Arab Spring and the Ferguson and Baltimore protests have been promoted with technology, but made possible by humanity.