Wait, Free Speech Doesn't Cover That?

"It's a potential catastrophe for patients." - Steve Nissen (Head of the Cleveland Clinic)

No, not the zombie-apocalypse that we narrowly missed last Friday, but the possibility of protecting off-label promotion of medical drugs as free speech.

About a week ago, American drug giant Pfizer (proud bringer of Lipitor)  paid the US government more than $55 million in fines for the actions of one of its companies, Wyeth, which overstated the benefits of its drug protonix, despite warnings from the FDA.

While drug companies paying for similar offences is an age-old story, a recent court ruling could deeply reduce the trust we have maintained with drug companies. According to US vs. Caronia, it was initially ruled that the defending company (Jazz Pharmaceuticals) was over exaggerating the benefits of its drug Xyrem, and thus had to pay the fines. However, a federal appeals court has overturned that statement, saying "that off-label promotion should be protected as free speech." The case will proceed to the Supreme Court, meanwhile, what will it mean for us if off-label promotion does indeed become protected?

Well, two things.

1. Loss of trust between patients and drug companies (if there was any to begin with)
2. Discourage "good science"

By allowing drug companies to have unrestricted promotion of off-label uses, our job as consumers becomes that much harder. We have to begin analyzing which uses and side effects to truly take into account, or whether they should be taken into account. Allowing off-label promotion will not only affect the way we buy drugs, but also the way we approach drug companies. Is it really necessary to add suspicion to an already uneasy relationship?

According to the journal Nature, forcing drug companies to go through the FDA-approving process encourages companies to invest in trials in order to provide truth to their off-label uses. Trying to turn off-label uses to label uses, progresses Science and Medicine development. For example, through the trials Johnson & Johnson was able to expand its drug label, for patients who have advanced prostate cancer.

Good habits lead to good science, something we can't avoid losing so that drug companies can simply make more money.

Pardon My French... or My Asian?

                       
Would you categorize either as "Oriental?"

When Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" overtook the charts on May of 2011, it wasn't the expression of creativity that shocked the audience, but her overt use of the word, "Orient."

Defined by Merriam Webster,
Oriental: sometimes offensive : Asian; especially : one who is a native of east Asia or is of east Asian descent.

So, why is it so offensive to use this word against people like, say me? And in fact it is considered so offensive that in the states of Washington and New York, the word "Oriental" was banned from all legislature. Jeff Yang explores this age old question in an NPR article.

To be quite honest, the word "oriental" actually isn't a slur (believe me, there are worse things you could be called), but it's offensive because it is more indicative of the time period.

Oriental was predominantly used in the early 20th century, a time associated with the subordinate status of Asians, from exoticism to the old stereotypical geishas. Professor Wu states that the word "oriental is like the word negro. It conjures up an era." It brings up the 1952 Asian exclusion acts, racism that prohibited Asian immigrants from attaining citizenship. As a result, the word "Oriental" is considered racist. Using the word implies the same thoughts and opinions felt during the mid-1900s.

At the same time, the word, according to Jeff Yang, is just inaccurate. "Orient" translates to just "the East," and that term for the Asian region is incomplete for two reasons. First, only in a flat world does it truly make sense to be calling the Asian region the "Far East" because in the context of our spherical world, if you keep going east, it eventually becomes the west. In other words? It's really outdated. Second, "Oriental" also effectively leaves out completely the Indian subcontinent, whereas, the term "Asian" includes the Indian subcontinent. Therefore, the term "Oriental" is not only inaccurate but also ignorant of current times and geography.

So, while Lady Gaga was just trying to prove the necessity of being our own individuals, maybe next time she can prove the necessity of being politically correct individuals.

How neutral is neutral?

Reading Reading Lolita in Tehran, I was introduced to the complex world of wearing veils in the Muslim culture. Naturally, the controversial issue of its ban in countries such as France and Belgium came up. I asked myself, "How does a country go about expressing a ban on a religious veil neutrally?" So, I went on a quest to answer this question...

As I looked at the different cases for the burqa ban, I noticed two things:
1. Absence of any "signal" words - veil, muslim, etc.
2. Playing the Hero

An article analyzing the 5 arguments of the French burqa ban legislation, claimed that, as was expected, the words, "women, veil, Muslim, or even burqa" were never mentioned in the entire bill. Instead, it was phrased as prohibiting:

"porter une tenue detinee a dissimuler son visage" ("wearing attire designed to hide the face")

While this shows neutrality in the law, there were a slew of exceptions that followed:

"The prohibition described in Article 1 does not apply if the attire is prescribed or authorized by legislative or regulatory dispensation, if it is justified for reasons of health or professional motives, or if it is adopted in the context of athletic practices, festivals, or artistic or traditional performances."

These exceptions indicate the subtle bias within the legislation, and perhaps even a favoritism to Christianity. In fact, the French's main response to the legislation is that they have a similar "dress code" for other religions too, a ban on the Jewish yarmulke and large Christian crosses. Yes, Christian crosses. The main difference is that the yarmulke and the headscarf are both religious obligations, whereas the Christian cross is not an obligation.

However, what was most appealing about the analysis, was the presence of the idea of "imprisonment" in the bill. The idea of imprisonment was portrayed through the bill's explanation of the coercion that the women are put through to wear the veil as well as the suffocating aspects of the veil. For example, the veil was described as a "degrading prison" by one of the legislators, as it objectifies women. At the same time, because the veil covers the entire body, it's seen as hot and uncomfortable, and therefore a health hazard.

By taking a deeper look at the bill's efforts to "free" the women, we see both a superficial understanding of the religion and an attempt to play the hero role in a situation where a hero wasn't called for. But, I'll leave that for you to judge. How neutral is such a ban? What does it reveal about a country?

A Trapped Democratic Republic of Congo

In recent light of events involving the M23 in the Democratic Republic of Congo, let's take a deeper look at the effect of the 4 traps described by Paul Collier in the Bottom Billion.

The Conflict Trap:

Among the slew of nicknames that the DRC has, "conflict" ought to be one of them. Collier defines the two greatest risk factors for those that fall under this trap are low income and low growth. With a stagnant and slowly declining growth rate of approximately 6% and nearly 70% of the population in poverty, the DRC has had a civil war under Kabila. Yet, the root cause of the conflict in the DRC goes back to the Berlin Conference of 1884. Unaware, the European nations largely combined some Rwandan speaking population along Northern Kivu and Southern Kivu with Congolese populations. For example, the Banyarwanda (aka "those who come from Rwanda"), populate much of North and South Kivu. While, they live in the DRC, they speak the language of Rwandans, and thus with the lack of even good governance, the area is constantly mired in conflict. Language can play the important role in unifying a country and tearing it apart.

At the same time, this internal conflict fuels the conflict coming from the outside. The M23 rebel group provides ample evidence of this. Because of the internal divisions spawned by the linguistic and ethnic differences, allows the M23 rebel group to even set up de facto administration within the DRC and to overtake Goma and Sake.

But let's take a closer look at the role of having Rwanda as a neighbor...

The Landlocked with Bad Neighbors Trap:

While Collier defines this particular trap with the characteristics of being fully surrounded by other countries, the DRC partially falls under this trap. The DRC, although it appears to be at the heart of Africa, actually has approximately 40 km coastline. For example, it has access to trade, to export one of its main natural resources, its mining industry. However, just because it's not landlocked, doesn't mean it avoided the bad neighbors.

History shows that not even 20 years ago, because of the DRC's greedy neighbors, Uganda and Rwanda, the country struggled in a great civil war. And most recently, the M23 rebel group infiltrated the DRC, capturing Goma and Sake, reviving the bad blood among the Ugandans, Rwandans, and Congolese. After all, the M23 is largely found to be heavily supported by the Rwandans and possibly Ugandans.

Yet, why the Congo is deeply affected by its neighbors relates back to not only the aforementioned language issue, but it's a case of bad governance makes the situation worse. As Collier states, " a good government can most surely make a difference in a landlocked resource-scarce country, even with bad neighbors" (63).

Bringing us to...  

The Bad Governance Trap:

The DRC hovers the boundary of falling under this trap. It hovers because it hovers the boundary of being a failed state and not being a failed state. A failed state, is based on the parameters of bad governance and bad policies, according to Collier. So, remember Moise Tshombe or Mobutu? People who antagonized ethnic groups by supporting regional strong men who plunder resources. These figures created the DRC's past as a failed state. In this sense, the DRC is a paradox. While the current president, Kabila has implemented budgeting programming, it lacks in its ability to stop figures like Bosco Ntaganda (aka the general of the Congolese army).

Further evidence of bad governance points to the humanitarian crisis that remains uncontrollable by the government. With nearly, 1.8 million women raped, at a rate of approximately 1 rape per minute. Rapes committed primarily by unpaid government soldiers. The inability to stop the humanitarian crisis, leaves the population largely behind, especially since this then affects education. Although Collier mentions that a precondition for a turnaround necessitates a large enough population so that the educated population reaches critical mass. However, in the case of the Congo, if such a large portion of the population is oppressed, education becomes second to survival, and thus, the bad governance trap remains.

The Hall of Fame - DRC's leaders over the years

Kasavubu

Mobutu

Laurent Kabila

Joseph Kabila

The Natural Resources Trap:

The DRC unfortunately also has a case of the Dutch Disease. Although it is blessed with precious resources such as cobalt, copper, diamonds, gold, zinc, etc, it has known exploitation and corruption as a result of these resources. In fact, The Heart of Darkness delineates the Dutch Disease and its effects on the DRC. The DRC's particular case of Dutch Disease comes with two implications. The first is the humanitarian crisis that it has spurred. In terms of the value of human life in the DRC, it is worth very little. The armies and proxy militias of nearly 6 different countries as well as those of the Congolese government and rebel groups have taken no shame in plundering and looting the natural resources of the DRC.

The second implication is that of Collier's: using natural resources to fuel conflict, especially since the DRC is democratic while it is also very ethnically diverse. In fact, the mining industry of the DRC is evidence of corruption and exploitation. For example, many "makeshift" mining ores are built to exploit these resources, and many during the wars affecting North and South Kivu, creating the profit to buy more arms for the militias. This in effect prohibits further growth, as the country is put under the conflict trap as well.

What's in a name?

In the aftermath of one of the worst hurricanes in history, naming the storm became a quite controversial topic. With CNN banning the coined phrase "Frankenstorm" made popular by meteorologist Jim Cisco. From Hurricane Sandy to Hurricane Exxon, this hurricane is having a bad case of an identity crisis. 

        But if you're someone like me, the first question that popped into my head was, "Does it even matter?" However, according to this fascinating article post, there's a lot to be learned from Hurricane Sandy's name. 

Hurricane Sandy, in fact had 4 different names: 
1. Frankenstorm
2. Sandy
3. Megastorm
4. Hurricane Exxon

 
 Starting with the name Frankenstorm, a combination of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and mother nature's wrath. The name indicates what happens when human error combines with mother nature. According to Bill Nye (Yes, the Science Guy), although climate change does not cause hurricanes, it sure makes them worse. In other words, the name is far from just a Halloween nickname, but it prompts us to recognize how this hurricane is in part due to our own mistakes.

 
 Then there's Sandy. Following in the footsteps of the centuries old tradition of naming hurricanes, Sandy was the lucky winner. Yet, does using the name Sandy really do anything? Well, if anything, hearing the name Sandy flashes images of Olivia Newton-John or even the dog from "Annie." In other words, giving the hurricane such a common name anthropomorphizes the natural disaster. Putting names and faces to the hurricane creates a more emotional connection and allows us to talk about the hurricane in the context of our the ones we love and care about.         

 However, Tina Rosenberg of the New York Times reminds us, the cost of Sandy just this year might amount to nearly $50 billion. That's some major bucks, which explains this next name, Megastorm. While Sandy's impact is catastrophic, the name also reminds us the money, energy, and time that goes into "saving the world." Maybe rather than having to save it all the time, making certain choices to avoid that path would create efficiency. 

Yet, my personal favorite has to be Hurricane Exxon. As Bill Mckibben explains, "Hurricanes should be named after fossil fuel companies." As of this year only, fossil fuel companies have spent more than $150 million blocking solutions to the climate crisis that affect the companies. Naming the hurricanes after fossil fuel companies would directly associate mother nature's wrath to the big fossil fuel companies.

While we don't realize it, naming makes a significant difference to what narrative we subscribe to, whether it's the belief that it's a human made error or it's the fault of fossil fuel companies. However, could the naming process be considered as a waste of time? After all, the focus might not be what we call it, but how we react to it? Could it also serve as a dividing force in a time when unity and teamwork is necessary? 

Discuss!

The Twitter Election

As if the millions of conferences and brainstorming the nastiest thing that can be said about the opposing candidate aren't enough to keep the presidential candidates busy, add conquering the Twittersphere to that list.
      Yet, while this article by Dr. Janet Johnson talks about Twitter as another setting for candidates to use, SNARK - Twitter's winning trait - might just be changing the Election rhetoric, as well as the rhetoric of candidates as well.



Now, looking at the stats, there's no doubt that Twitter is a medium that people use in order to discuss politics, but it's actually the sound bites that leave the biggest impact. With trends like #horsesandbayonets dominating the Twittersphere, the audience is evidently keyed into the snark aspect of the election. In fact, according a Vancouver Sun article, people are more interested in what the Twitter feeds are saying more than the actual articles or accounts in the news.

This leads us to ask, what kind of impact is this leaving on the candidates themselves?

Because the one liners lead to much more satisfactory trends than some statistic or a long-winded, sophisticated speech, President Obama, according to this article has changed from a tone of hope to to one of snark.
Even Governor Romney agrees in the power of snark, as he told New York Times that ahead of the first debate his strategy was to memorize one liners.

And despite some critics, the snark rhetoric is winning. According to most pundits, the final debate, where President Obama scored multiple one liners, was considered absolutely a win for President Obama.

So, what kind of snark are we talking about? Let's recap...

At the final presidential debate, President Obama showed a true transition from the hope rhetoric that he has for a long time exemplified, to the more Twitter approved, snark rhetoric.

1. President Obama's Seinfeld experience.
While discussing Russia in foreign policy, in response to Governor Romney's statement that Russia is the #1 geopolitical foe, President Obama channeled his inner George Constanza.

"The 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years." - Obama

 2. “Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We also have things called aircraft carriers that planes land on and submarines that go under water.” - President Obama

This particular one liner was so "snarky" that more than 100,000 people tweeted about it within a minute of the president's saying it. In other words, in the Twittersphere rather than remarks about the statistics of the actual number of ships in the navy, it was Obama's snark that dominated. As a result, for those who have resorted to Twitter as their news source, that puts Obama in the lead or at least in the forefront of people's minds.

3. “[Romney is] changing up so much and backtracking and side stepping we’ve got to name this condition he’s going through, I think it's called... Romnesia." - President Obama

#Romnesia has for a while circulated the Twittersphere, indicating the impact of the snark rhetoric.

This particular shift and importance of Twitter even in our elections, might be a tad troubling. After all, how are we changing the rhetoric of elections? Debates?

Is President Obama's snark rhetoric what we need to hear? Is Twitter ultimately healthy for our elections? I mean sure, the candidates can get more coverage, but if it changes how they're talking then, is it really all that great?

Although there is a typical positive response to snark, does it in the end affect how people vote?

Please share your thoughts or any particular tweet/trend that you found to be satisfying!

Joan d'Arc of Our Decade

Words cannot describe the horror of what happened to Malala Yousufzaii, and as a female living in the US being handed my education, it's given me a lot to think about...

Last night, however, as I was reading different articles about the event, I noticed two things:

1. The power of the phrase "Daughter of the Nation"
2. Westernized word choice

The first article that I stumbled upon, described the new name that was created for Malala, "Daughter of the Nation." Despite the brutal context of the event, I think there's some romantic aspect to the name. From spurring demonstrations by the tens of thousands to becoming the rallying cry for the heroine, the use of this phrase has done something for Pakistan that hasn't been achieved in a long time. Unity.

Now, knowing a little a bit about Pakistan might help to see just the extent of the unifying power of this rallying cry. For the longest time, Pakistan has been a country torn among different religious groups all under the larger umbrella of Islam.

Different religious groups in Pakistan

 
And even up until Malala, protests against violence against women striving for an education have been small and negligible. Yet, both this phrase and Malala have brought together Pakistanis of all different stripes.

"So what is it about the phrase that could make it so powerful?" I asked myself.


I saw that in the phrase, "Daughter of the Nation," the use of the word nation implies a representation of Pakistan as a whole. Rather than, for example, "Daughter of not Taliban or Freedom or Education," which would alienate Malala from the people. Instead, this phrase gives the Pakistanis an idea that they can identify themselves with. At the same time, it's also an identity that they're sharing with the world, albeit a different one. For a while, other countries have viewed Pakistan solely through a religious lens or even as "the place where the Taliban are located," but this time Pakistanis are rallying behind someone who represents the larger idea of rights as a human being, which is something almost everyone can agree with.

At the same time, I've been wondering, is this phrase appealing to other countries because it can be seen as very westernized word choice?

Speaking of westernized word choice, did you know Malala was Christian? Yes. Nor did I. But a better question to ask might be, does it matter? And if it were added what would it bring/not bring to the conversation?

I'll give you a couple seconds to ponder that...
...
...
...
...
...
...


Well?

I guess for myself, I saw this event larger than religion, which was precisely why I thought it transcended the discontinuity among religious ideologies. Yet, the second article I happened by took me by surprise. Unlike the title of the first article, which was "Pakistani teen shot by Taliban becomes 'daughter of the nation', the title of the second article was, "Christian girl hailed as 'daughter of nation' by senior Pakistani cleric."

Yes... both titles include the phrase "Daughter of the Nation," however, one describes the teen as Pakistani and the other as Christian. Although, both are exactly 9 letters, they imply and add very different ideas to the conversation. Associating Malala as Pakistani, reestablishes the intent of the phrase, using her as a mascot of representation of what the Pakistani people believe in, which is the idea that it's wrong to have bullets settle disputes. On the other hand, describing Malala as Christian, who comes from a country where Islam is the major religion, could be possibly detrimental and beneficial. For instance, by adding that she's Christian, it provides the opportunity for people to compare Islam and Christianity. Perhaps, even to the extent of saying Christianity is better than Islam because Malala was Christian, and look she was standing up for ideals championed by Western societies: education and rights, while the attackers are based on an extremist form of Islam. 

A less pessimistic take on that might be that defining Malala as Christian actually allows others to relate to the cause and to Malala. Since, some of us won't necessarily understand having to fight for our education or risking our life to simply have the chance to learn.     

But at the same time, comparing the two articles, is there really a significance in mentioning her religion? Wouldn't that create more of a separation between Islam and Christianity in the minds of readers?


My heart goes out to Malala and her family, and wish her a swift recovery~

    

Stop Licking Watermelons

Mistranslated Phrase of the Day:

At a Budapest Zoo: "Please do not feed the animals. If you have any suitable food, give it to the guard on duty."

I never realized the true power of languages until I, Elizabeth Woo, was a victim of it. It was in 4th grade when rather than studying for a Math test I had that week, I boasted that because I was familiar with the format of the tests, studying would be unnecessary. My mom responded with the quote, "수박 겉 핥기" (soo bak gut halki sheek). Directly translating this phrase to English, I was left with "Stop licking watermelons." Yum.

It turned out that the phrase actually signified the idea of making judgments before experiencing or knowing the deeper layers. She was warning me of assuming the nature of the test before having truly taken it.

Despite not earning a good score on the Math test, I instead became aware of the power and role of languages. Without knowing the Korean language, I would not have been able to access or even understand the wisdom that my mom was sharing with me. Ever since then, through my adventures to Germany, France, Finland, etc. I've pursued learning the languages.

I was shocked to see how many different expressions existed that couldn't be translated from one language to another as well as the importance of one single word. This got me thinking. How does the English language influence us?

Historically, I saw the country split over the wording of the Declaration of the Independence. I saw the country go to war over the de Lome letter. I saw Lincoln bringing people together through his Gettysburg Address. I realized history in part repeated itself because of the same mistakes or successes that were made through the rhetoric and the language.

Language continues to be influential, even today. With the election on its way, the presidential candidates must not only have policies, but they must also be able to wield the language in their favor in order to attract the American public. Languages also play a key role in the lives of immigrants. As I saw with my Korean language, languages shape a culture and there are values and ideals that can't be easily transferred from one language to another.Outside of our borders, the language we use to engage with other countries on a daily basis naturally contributes to our ability to trade and to collaborate.

From my high school perspective, there's even a difference in my language of the texting, facebooking, tweeting world and that of my parent's generation or that of the next generation's. It's from those differences and even similarities that values and priorities are reflected.

Languages are the silent movers. They can poke holes in our foundation or make it stronger, without us even knowing.

For too long we have deceived ourselves of the taste of the watermelon solely by licking the surface. Join me in investigating just how deep the layer goes.