Front Page News?

Yesterday, I was skimming the paper and the headlines when I ran across something that made me stop. On the front page of the Wall Street Journal was an article at the bottom named: “Silencing the Lambs: Scientists Target Sheep Belching to Cut Methane”.

You might ask yourself, “Why would scientists care about stopping sheep from belching?” I know that I asked myself that question. Well it turns out that sheep methane is a large cause to “global-warming”. Then I thought, “This is front page news? It really must have been a slow day for you Wall Street Journal!” Was there no other news in the entire world that could have been slightly more interesting? Personally, I do not even want to hear that scientists are being paid to figure out how to keep sheep from belching.

After noticing the article, my first instinct was to laugh. “Is this article a joke?” For the sake of my sanity, I am going to say that this article wasn’t even true. Wall Street Journal, you have let me down.

Obama's Gameplan

Forest Laboratories Accused of Fraud

The manufacturer of Celexa and Lexapro, Forest Laboratories, is in deep trouble with the US government by failing to report the negative side-effects of their drugs on children. Their studies showed that the drugs were not very effective in children and that they could lead to suicidal feelings as well.

By hiding these facts, Forest did not adequately inform the health care industry about the detrimental effects of their drugs, which is illegal. This led to doctors prescribing drugs that they did not know the whole truth about; therefore, the government is suing Forest for 3 times the amount of federal money spent on all pediatric prescriptions for Lexapro and Celexa.

In addition, Forest also used incentives such as gift certificates to restaurants and paid vacation to entice doctors to prescribe their medications. When Celexa’s active ingredient became generic in 2002 (citalopram), they marketed Lexapro, which is a different version of citalopram, an anti-depressant.

An article in the New York Times suggested that this is a common situation with many antidepressant manufacturers. Antidepressant makers try to hide the negative symptoms to further promote their drug. Most antidepressants can have negative side-effects, so doctors should take extra care when prescribing them.

Many doctors require a check up with patients several weeks to a month after prescribing the antidepressant to verify that the drug is doing its job. This is the best way to approach the problem because it minimizes potential problems caused by antidepressants. The healthcare industry is a lucrative business, but patient care must continue to be the highest priority for doctor’s in order to further benefit the health of our nation.

Our Slump (Part 2)

Our Slump (Part 2)

Here is a short list of a few elements that put us in this economic crisis:

Housing Industry,
Mortgage Crisis, --> Today’s Topic
Banking Decisions,
The fall of the Dollar.

The people blame the lenders for allowing their loan, the lenders blame the government for not restricting the loan, and the government blames the people for lying about the loan. I call this the tri-fecta-of-unethics. While everyone is sitting around rationalizing reasons as to why they were actually the ethical ones, in reality the correct answer is that all of them are to blame.

People making $30,000 a year were walking into banks and getting approved for $500,000 houses. How? They lied. The banks did not think twice about the family’s income, instead they said: “Have you heard about the adjustable rate mortgage?” Both parties sitting in the office, knowing that they can’t afford a $500,000 house. Everyone knew this was going on, including the government. Is it not the government’s job to protect the citizens, even if it is from themselves? It did not take long till people could not pay, and loans were going bad. To make matters worse, banks were selling and buying bad loans back and forth for years. Ethical?

So the plan is take the tax payers money, give it back to the banks (the same ones that made all these bad loans), because we do not want them to go out of business. On top of that, since the government is giving them tax payer money, they want to own a portion of the bank. Nationalizing the banks is not the way to go about solving this problem.

People say: “The banks shouldn’t go under!?!”

So here is the solution: People should be able to make a ‘tax-free’ private donation to the bank that they feel shouldn’t go under. I bet less people would donate if its money from their pockets, but what these people don’t understand is: taxes do come from their pockets. Theirs. Ours. Mine. Yours. Let me keep MY money that I have worked for. If I do not want to help a bank, I should not have to help a bank. My money and your money, is going to make an investment that will never pay us back! Our taxes are going to help private (although, possibly not much longer) organizations.

To sum everything up: the lender, the government and the lying home buyer are all guilty.

The Bailout!

Movie Review: Slumdog Millionaire

After winning 8 Oscars and 63 other movie awards, Slumdog Millionaire has had a very successful year. Winning best picture at the Oscars has put it up with likes of Schindler’s List (1993), Forrest Gump (1994), and The Godfather (1973). Slumdog Millionaire, however, does not deliver the same level of perfection as past winners, and viewing it does not give a feeling of “this is the best picture of the year.”

Slumdog Millionaire is the story of young Jamal Malik, a teen from Mumbai that gets chosen to be on India’s “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” He does not have much education, but he answers many questions correctly based on life experiences. When a question is asked, the movie flashes back to the past to reveal why he knows the answer for that particular question.

Director Danny Boyle did do a good job with presenting the movie in a fresh way, but it did not have the expertise of a typical “best picture.” The story is fairly interesting, but there are not any surprises with the story’s direction, therefore the story is predictable for most of the movie. Best pictures should show audiences fresh and unpredictable stories, but Slumdog Millionaire does not. A question is presented when the movie first starts, and it is answered at the very end. The way this was designed, and the question itself for that matter, seemed tacky and irritating as well.

Flaws aside, Slumdog Millionaire is a good movie. I do recommend seeing it even though I do not believe it is best picture material. When it is released on DVD, rent it and decide for yourself.