Congresswoman Katie Porter Exposes JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon As Out Of Touch With Real Wages

Source: CNBC News

Last week, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing in which a few of the top CEOs of major banks participated through testimony.  During that hearing, a couple of significant breakthroughs were displayed.  One discovery was a declaration of divesting/guiding investments with a severe consideration from Climate Change (as I posted about last week).  That was great news.  Now for the disappointing news.  One specific CEO was asked about hiring wages had very little to say.



Normally, these large corporations lobby Congress to prepare them for such a hearing.  When Congresswoman Katie Porter (D-Irvine CA) had the chance to ask the CEOs questions, no Washington intern could have prepared any CEO for the reality check she was about to deliver.

Wow!  Based on his answers he is far removed from relating to the everyday worker that the job description Congresswoman Katy Porter describes in her questioning.  Which is sad, to say the least.  Although, the disappointment in his answer coincides with the significant disparity between the wealthy class and the poor class.  The middle is eroding as we speak.



Until legislation is put into place to close the disparity between the two classes, moments like these will become more significant in frequency.  The direction that the United States is headed is unsustainable.  Taking away healthcare (pre-existing conditions), supplemental nutrition programs, and stagnating wages will only serve to widen the current gap.  Right now is the time for new leadership to step in and make drastic changes.  Listening to Congresswoman Katy Porter provides a new sense of optimism for the future of the Congress.  Hopefully, the momentum keeps moving forward to a better world.



Related Articles:



Top Bank CEOs Commit To Divesting Investments To Account For Climate Change

Congress Intervenes And Asks For No More Oil Drilling Off Of Florida

President Trump Is Out Of Touch With The Transition Toward Renewable Energy

EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation

Environmental Groups Question Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Cuts

President Trump's Immigration Rhetoric Damages International Science Student Enrollment

What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?

Can The President Prevent The Public From Learning About Scientific Research???

President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement


World Goes Left, While Trump Leads Right - On Climate - Why?


Is This Behavior Presidential - President Trump?


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future


READ THIS BEFORE VOTING -- Presidential Science (WORLD) Issues!


Brings Jobs Back By Promoting Renewable Energy!

Coca Cola Tries To Shape Nutritional Value Within The CDC?

Source: WV Record

U.S. citizens hope that the government will keep the country safe and healthy at the very least.  How is that accomplished?  Through the work of an entire government workforce at all of the various federal agencies around the nation.  Agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Human and Health Services (HHS), National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) -- to name a few.  That is why when you read the title of the blog post above, you have to step back and ask yourself: Did I read that title correctly?  Did Coca Cola really influence (corruption) the CDC to shape the nutritional value of their products?



Yes, you have read the title correct as I did a couple of weeks ago in a summary sent via email by Politico Agriculture as follows:

STUDY: COCA-COLA AIMED TO INFLUENCE CDC ON OBESITY: A report in a peer-reviewed health journal highlights emails and other efforts in which Coca-Cola tried to influence public health officials on policies.

The study was based on email correspondence between Coca-Cola and the CDC, obtained through FOIA requests, documenting efforts by the company to gain access to agency staff, build relationships and shape policy on nutrition and artificial sweeteners, our Jesse Chase-Lubitz reports.

Highlights: The report includes details about lobbying the World Health Organization; meetings between company and agency officials to discuss research on low-calorie beverages; and a CDC official recommending a colleague for a job at Coca-Cola.

— The company said it has been transparent about its actions and that the emails "pre-date a commitment we made in 2015 to disclose our funding for well-being scientific research and partnerships publicly on our website."

— CDC said it has "extensive ethical and scientific-integrity checkpoints internally and externally" to balance its recommendations.

The news comes as a surprise to most people.  Even though we (as consumers) would like to think that the government has our back in terms of nutrition (healthy products), there typically is a large amount of negotiation involved in marketing, approval, and relations in any consumer market.  The full report can be accessed here -- which includes hundreds of pages of e-mails detailing negotiations between the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control and the Coca Cola Corporation.



Let me pause and just say a little more about the negotiation process between the government and corporations about bringing products to the marketplace.  Another example can be taken from the pharmaceutical industry.  As I note in a post with an embedded video explaining that after a pharmaceutical industry decides to take the therapeutic target discovered at a university and develop a drug to hit that target (i.e. a medicine), there are significant number of hurdles.



One of which is negotiating the process of completing all of the paperwork required by the FDA.  Which includes clinical trial information along with other tests required by the FDA to ensure compliance on behalf of the corporation that the drug is ready to be released to the marketplace.  This process involves a tremendous amount of communication back and forth between the FDA and the pharmaceutical corporations.  The process under scrutiny can include a fine line under which these negotiations result in the approval of a medicine to the marketplace.  Sometimes, the questionable negotiation will result in a medication's recall from the marketplace.




A second example is concerned with the big tobacco companies withholding scientific evidence which proved that nicotine is in fact -- addictive.  Yes, nicotine is addictive.  Dr. Jeffrey Wigand was a vice president of research and development at a large tobacco company.  He observed obvious fraud to hide the fact that nicotine was indeed addictive and that the companies had prior knowledge of this while taking advantage of the data.  Dr. Wigand eventually became the largest whistleblower in history which resulted in the enormous tobacco lawsuit (the largest in history) in 1998.  Corruption is always lingering around the corner.  The issue of scientific evidence and addiction of nicotine is still a point of contention -- check out the article.

Congress Gets Involved?

After the report was made available to the public, eventually Congress got a hold of it and decided to take action by sending a letter to the Inspector General which is shown below:

Dear Inspector General Levinson: 

We are writing to request investigatory action following the release of a report in The Milbank Quarterly detailing communications between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and representatives from Coca-Cola. 

The report, "Public Meets Private: Conversations Between Coca-Cola and the CDC," published an analysis of 295 pages of emails dated between 2011 and 2015, obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests.  The emails show a troubling pattern of the company using access to high-level CDC officials to shape debates over public health policy directly involving the nutritional value of its products. 

In one example, Coca-Cola used self-funded epidemiological studies on low and no calorie beverages to argue to CDC staff that "associations between diet beverages and weight...is likely the result of reverse causality."  It is deeply concerning to see CDC engage with data coming from the company on a question so fundamental to its bottom line -- especially when data show that outcomes from industry-sponsored research differ significantly from independent studies. 

In another exchange, a Coca-Cola executive requested and received advice from a CDC official on how to best approach the World Health Organization director-general perceived as a "threat to our business" for naming soft drink manufacturers as contributors to global obesity. 

Though we recognize the role of public-private partnerships in advancing the agency's broad public health goals, this report demonstrates Coca-Cola's conflicts of interest in engaging with CDC staff on nutrition policy.  CDC's Guiding Principles for Public-Private Partnerships advices staff to avoid partnerships with a representative of "any product that exacerbates morbidity or mortality when used as directed."  Given that decades of peer-reviewed research has established links between soft drink consumption and negative health outcomes like obesity, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, it is clear that the Coca-Cola's influence is inappropriate and must be probed further. 

The CDC has an essential mission.  Its pursuit of evidence-based public health policy is fundamental to the safety and well-being of all Americans.  As we face an unprecedented obesity epidemic, we must ensure that the public can trust the agency to promote quality and objective data -- particularly when it conflicts with powerful industry interests. 

Therefore, in your capacity as Inspector General, we ask that you investigate the relationship between the CDC and Coca-Cola outlined in this report, determine whether there is a broader pattern of inappropriate industry influence at the agency, and make recommendations to address this issue. 

We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.  If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our staff.

Sincerely,

Chellie Pingree
Member of Congress
Rosa L Delauro
Member of Congress

Letters such as the one shown above should instill a sense of honesty and sincerity from members of Congress.  Many people in the United States of America do not realize that members of Congress get involved in such inquiries which is sad to say the least.  Congress is charged with an enormous amount of duties which span a wide range from setting 'boxing regulations' to 'quantum computation' which greatly impact the U.S.A. -- in different ways.



Keeping the corporations which hold an enormous amount of influence in check is extremely important.  At the same time, negotiations between corporations and federal agencies are extremely important in setting rules for any free market economy.  Although, such a blatant transaction on behalf of Coca-Cola in trying to promote self-funded research (especially when the benefit is obvious) is extremely illegal and needs to be dealt with from a legal standpoint.



One major problem with communications between organizations (corporations) and federal agencies is the amount of information which is given to the federal agencies to support claims of consumer safety.  As you can see, if a federal agency were to accept research which was funded by the corporation as evidence-based decision making policy, corruption would be without question and consumer confidence in federal agency would be diminished.  The public is already very skeptical of such transactions prior to knowledge of this one.  The current revelation only solidifies the public's fears already -- which is sad.  Although, the action on behalf of the public by Congress is a breath of fresh air.



Related Blog Posts:


FDA Director Scott Gottlieb Addresses Public On Eliminating E-Cigarette Use Among Youths


Congress Gets Involved In Beef Recall


Senator Carper Blasts Environmental Protection Agency For Considering Relaxing 'Mercury and Air Toxics Standard'?


How Effective Are Poultry Corporations At Reducing Salmonella In Their Products?


https://jmkthought.blogspot.com/2018/11/how-effective-are-poultry-corporations.html


One Unknown Fact Which Should Cause Consumers To Be Careful About Handling Meat Before Cooking!


NIDA Director Nora Volkow: How Health Communicators and Journalists Can Help Replace Stigma with Science


Should you consider science while before voting next Tuesday?

What Are Activist Ralph Nader's Opinions On Radio News Organizations Such As NPR Or PBS?

Source: Current.Org

If you are a news junkie, then you are aware of the importance of 'public news radio.'  The origin of which is 'National Public Radio' which was enacted by Congress decades ago:

National Public Radio (NPR, stylized as npr) is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization based in Washington, D.C. NPR differs from other non-profit membership media organizations, such as AP, in that it was established by an act of Congress [2] and most of its member stations are owned by government entities (often public universities). It serves as a national syndicator to a network of over 1,000 public radio stations in the United States.[3]

NPR produces and distributes news and cultural programming. Individual public radio stations are not required to broadcast all NPR programs; most broadcast a mix of NPR programs, content from American Public Media, Public Radio International, Public Radio Exchange and WNYC Studios, and locally produced programs. The organisation's flagship shows are two drive-time news broadcasts, Morning Edition and the afternoon All Things Considered; both are carried by most NPR member stations, and are among the most popular radio programs in the country.[4][5] As of March 2018, the drive time programs attract an audience of 14.9 million and 14.7 million respectively.[6]

NPR manages the Public Radio Satellite System, which distributes NPR programs and other programming from independent producers and networks such as American Public Media and Public Radio International. Its content is also available on-demand online, on mobile networks, and, in many cases, as podcasts.[7]

National Public Radio has grown substantially over the years to cover a wide range of topics through various avenues including story telling, interviews, live shows, and hosting podcasts.  The popularity has suffered along with other news outlets with the rise of internet radio, but has managed to diversify and adapt (with apps, etc.) to a new digital landscape to remain relevant.  Like any other news junkie, I often wonder what policy makers and other news addicts like myself think of NPR.  Further, where do they source their news?  Politico, NPR, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times -- or local newspapers.

Additionally, what do activists like Michael Moore and Ralph Nader think of public news radio.  Fortunately, Ralph Nader recently wrote an opinion with a brief historical account of public news radio (shown below).  So what does Activist Ralph Nader say (his personal opinions) about radio news stations such as NPR and PBS:

Recently an elderly gentleman asked me about my opinion on NPR and PBS, knowing of my vigorous support in the nineteen sixties for these alternatives to commercial radio and television stations.

Here is my response:

Congress created NPR and PBS to provide serious programming, without any advertisements, for the American people. Former media executive Fred Friendly and others worried that the commercial stations were not meeting the 1934 Communications Act requirement that they operate for the “public interest, convenience and necessity.”

In 1961, before a shocked convention of broadcasters, the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Newton Minow called commercial television “a vast wasteland.”

Over the decades, NPR and PBS have produced some good programming – original features (among the best coming from Boston affiliate WGBH) and interviews. NPR has the largest radio audience in the country. David Brancaccio, the bright host of Marketplace Morning Report, has a daily listening audience of 11 million.

However, over the years, without regular critiques by liberal and progressive groups, both NPR and PBS have bent to the continual right-wing antagonism in Congress that decreased public budgets. PBS started to allow advertisements (called “support for x station or x PBS network program comes from y corporation.”) These ads have become more frequent and can be as long as 15 seconds.

During the 8am to 9am hour WAMC, Albany recently aired 28 such “support from…” commercials. That is almost one “ad” every two minutes!

The omnipresence of the ads hour after hour has irritated many NPR listeners around the country. By way of comparison, a major commercial station in Hartford – WTIC – clocked 18 advertisements in that 8am hourly slot – albeit they were longer than the NPR ones.

It seems that NPR and PBS, often by their omissions and slants, bend over backward in order not to offend right-wing lobbies and corporations. They invite guests on air who ideologically oppose public broadcasting – that’s fine, but then they minimize the appearances by leading progressives.

Occasionally, I speak with the NPR and PBS Ombudsmen. The purpose of the ombudsman is to maintain proper standards and ethics as well as to consider audience complaints. A while back, an NPR Ombudsman volunteered to me that NPR was giving far more time to representatives of conservative evangelical groups than to representatives of liberal religious organizations.

Charlie Rose on PBS had many more CEOs on his program than civic leaders. During a rare appearance by me on his show with Jim Hightower and William Greider in 1998, the audience reaction was robust. The response from around the country was so pronounced that in an internal e-mail, that was inadvertently sent to my office, a Rose staffer complained that we might have been encouraging the positive response. Absurd and false, but revealing nonetheless.

Rose, by the way, set the stage for PBS and NPR by interviewing his two favorite reporters again and again instead of active specialists or scholars in various fields. For example, Judy Woodruff, the ultra-cautious, exclusionary anchor of the “News Hour,” interviewed reporters on complex tax legislation instead of authentic experts such as the long-time director of the well-regarded Citizens for Tax Justice, Robert McIntyre, often invited by her predecessors.

In 2016 we convened for eight days in the largest gathering of civic leaders, doers, and thinkers of more reforms and redirections ever brought together. They made over 160 presentations in Constitution Hall (see breakingthroughpower.org). Although we advanced this remarkable Superbowl of Civic Action directly to NPR and PBS producers, their reporters never showed up. Certainly, they have not treated right-wing conventions in Washington, D.C. in that manner.

There are other practices of public broadcasting and its syndicated talk shows, that its audiences should know about to understand how much broader coverage they have been denied. One is that the amount of time devoted to music and entertainment pieces goes well beyond the intent of the legislators who created NPR and PBS (both created by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967). Members of Congress knew that entertainment was adequately taken care of by the thousands of commercial stations.

Moreover, even commercial network radio would not use its weekday 6pm hour for music, as one NPR station does in Washington, D.C. Nor does commercial network TV news in the evening start their programs with several advertisements, as does PBS’s The NewsHourand Kai Ryssdal’s jazzy, drumbeat, breathless NPR evening show – Marketplace.

Recently, I discovered another woeful transformation. Wondering why I could not get calls back from the state-wide NPR stations in Minnesota and Wisconsin, I sent them written complaints. These stations had venerable programs that used to interview me and other civic leaders on consumer, environment, and corporate crime topics.

Minnesota Public Radio politely wrote back, regretting that they had not called me back and explained that they now adjust their programming to react or expand on ”what is in the national conversation.” Since Trump et al. command the heights (or the depths) of the news agenda, very important subjects, conditions and activities not part of this frenzied news feed are relegated to far less frequent attention.

These are just a few of the issues that should be analyzed by print journalists who cover the media full time, such as the estimable Margaret Sullivan of the Washington Post, formerly the “public editor” of The New York Times. But then, she also doesn’t return my calls.

The slide toward commercialism and amiable stupefaction will continue on PBS and NPR until enough people review public broadcast’s history, raise their expectation levels consistent with why PBS and NPR were created, and insist on adequate public funding (a truly modest amount compared to giant corporate subsidies by taxpayers). These redirections would enable public broadcasting to fulfill better its serious statutory public interest missions.

There you go. That is why important and educated activists like Michael Moore and Ralph Nader are needed greatly in society.  To keep the balance of reporting in check.  Of course, ask any person that listens to 'Fox News' and they will definitely tell you that NPR is extremely liberal left media which has zero value.  I have heard this out of my family who is split down the middle.  The conservative right feels exactly this way.  So much so that any type of mention brings 'liberal left media' right out of their mouths instantly - without hesitation or volume control.



Any news is biased to some degree.  To expect otherwise is completely is not logical.  Although, the media landscape has changed over the years to reporting specific ways which are catering to different sides in unique ways to secure funding.  Maybe a committee should be formed composed of both right and left leaning news commentators/activists to be charged with evaluating the degree to which any news organization leans either way.  The committee could additionally evaluate the entire day of radio/reporting to see how much time is spent on reporting and how much time is used otherwise.



Nevertheless, having the insights of people who deeply care enough to stand up to organizations is beneficial in multiple ways.  One of which is to motivate each of us to not only pay attention to reporting, but start to get more engaged with what is being sent over the airwaves throughout our nation to listeners.  Which could potentially impact the direction of the country moving forward.



Related Blog Posts:


Over 600 Environmental Groups write letter to Congress to phase out fossil fuels


Ralph Nader: Post Election -- Next Step -- Open Up The Existing Secretive Congress


Ralph Nader: Warner Slack - Doctor for the People Forever


Ralph Nader: An Open Letter to Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon


Ralph Nader: MAGA is really MADA?


Ralph Nader: Has Corruption Become Institutionalized?


Ralph Nader Says 10 Million People Could Change Healthcare Policy - That Few?


Ralph Nader Suggests To Consumers Reading 'Consumer Reports' Before Impulse Buying


Thoughts: Ralph Nader On A Cashless Economy

Conservatives are calling on President Trump to fire EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt over Renewable Fuel Standards

Source: Breaking Energy

What is the motivation to move from a 'fossil fuel' based economy toward a renewable energy economy?  According to an excerpt which arrived in my e-mail box yesterday morning from 'Politico Energy,' farmers are not happy with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's handling of the Renewable Fuel Standard as shown below:

ON THE ROAD AGAIN: Following his talks Tuesday with Kansas farmers, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is expected to travel today to a sorghum farm in Reliance, S.D., where corn growers will take to their tractors to protest his moves on biofuels. In particular, the farmers are angry about his proposed changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard, and they're accusing him of siding with oil refiners.

Already, Pruitt faced some heat when he met with farmers and ethanol producers in Kansas on Tuesday. "To be honest, Administrator Pruitt, we're mad as hell," Kansas Corn Commissioner Dennis McNinch told Pruitt, according to a KCC press release. "We are under attack once again from the oil industry as they try to unravel the RFS using their latest scare tactic claiming that RINs are about to put them out of business. Big oil is enjoying wide profit margins today. People like Sen. [Ted] Cruz believe that the oil industry needs to be thrown a bone. How many bones do they need?"

From Pruitt's corner, the administrator called the visit "a candid and productive dialogue" on the RFS in a statement. Statements from farmers indicate Pruitt also said EPA has the authority to reallocate blending requirements from exempted small refiners to large refiners, which farmers say would stabilize biofuel credit prices. Bill Pracht, CEO of the East Kansas Agri-Energy, the ethanol producer Pruitt visited, said in a separate statement he told Pruitt that biofuel credit prices had been so volatile over the last year that the company had idled a brand new biofuel plant.

The administrator tweeted out images from his trip Tuesday. "I strongly believe the most effective way to make decisions is to hear directly from stakeholders," he wrote. "The Trump Administration is committed to standing up for the American farmer."

And he tipped some WOTUS news: During his visit to Dedonder Farms in Kansas, the administrator told farmers that he would send the agency's new Waters of the U.S. rule to OMB later this week, according to a tweet from local media at the event.

Still, ahead of his trip today, the American Future Fund, an Iowa-based 501(c)(4) focusing on conservative and free market ideas, announced a new TV ad campaign targeting Pruitt. "Scott Pruitt is a swamp monster," the ad says. "Mr. President, you know what to do," before playing a clip of President Donald Trump declaring, "You're fired." The ad is initially set to air in Nebraska and South Dakota. Watch it here.

ON THE HILL: GOP Sen. John Cornyn says finding common ground on an overhaul of the RFS is "like trying to come up with peace in the Middle East." Cornyn has not yet put pen to paper on a bill, though he's still holding discussions and he hopes to at least introduce a bill this year. "It's not easy," he said. "There's a reason this has been hanging around for a long time. We're just trying to grind it out day by day."

Not into octane: Cornyn is not enthusiastic about swapping out the RFS for a national octane standard, a policy that seems to have taken center stage in talks led by Rep. John Shimkus. The octane standard has some backing from both oil and ethanol interests, but support will depend on the details of the plan. "No decision is made on our side," he said. "I'm not sure we need another government mandate when we're trying to get rid of one, so that's a concern."

The excerpt above raises the obvious questions: Where does oil come from?  The ground.  Why is oil in the ground to begin with?  Why is oil called 'fossil fuels'?  If Google is consulted, then the following answer is shown below:

Which translates to the following picture shown below from the website 'Quora':

Source: Quora

A picture is worth a thousand words!  There are only a limited number of 'fossils' which were buried many thousands of years ago.  If there have been no recent extinction events which have caused a replenishing event, then why would a society think that 'fossil fuels' will be around forever?  The world operates on around 94 billion barrels a day.  Oil rich regions like Iraq where oil seems to be endless are speculated to only be able to support the world for 4 years.  That is, of course, if the world was drawing oil only from Iraq.  Given the distribution of oil from around the world, the estimate is probably much longer.


Despite the obvious decline in investment in 'fossil fuel' based energy -- as discussed in this blog post previously, the Trump Administration continues to seek waivers for the refineries to please the oil industry.  Why?  I am amazed.  Even after being criticized heavily by Congress - as noted in the previous blog post on the Renewable Fuel Standard.



Although, presently, the Administration is caught in their own conundrum -- which was brought on by earlier language sent out to please both parties.  In earlier discussions, both the White House and the EPA Administrator seemed sincerely interested in 'bailing out' both industries -- which seemed impossible at the time -- and is now coming to light to be impossible.  Lesson learned: Watch out what you promise to whom you promise!



As a result, farmers in the Mid West have now started to turn against the White House and the EPA Administrator.  The turning tide might not be very strong at the moment.  Although, the blatant display of displeasure is certainly a sign of the changing times.  The conservative nonprofit group 'American Future Fund' has produced the following video (commercial - 30 seconds in length) calling for EPA Administrator to be fired:

Wow.  Maybe the time has arrived for the White House to make changes which are more in line with the changing world.  Which is to say, adhere to the targets for the Renewable Fuel Standard set by Congress.  Stay within the goals set by the Paris Agreement.  And drop support for the aging (and dying) coal and nuclear power plant industries.  The world is changing.  Why is the U.S. not in line to change with other countries?  Lets start demanding change too.



Related Blog Post:



Parameters: Oil vs. Corn based Ethanol - A Tug-Of-War between Trump Administration and Congressional Leaders


Parameters: Shells Oil Corporation Invests In Renewable Energy Infrastructure


Thoughts: Trump Administration Realizes Renewable Energy Is Here To Stay?


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan


EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?


EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation


How Can The Paris Climate Agreement Be "More Favorable To The U.S."???


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future


Iraq Has Enough Oil To Support The World For 4 Years -- What?


Is 94 Million Barrels Of Oil A Large Amount? That Is The Global Daily Demand!