Blog #15 Life: The Book & American History

Part 1

Off the top of my head I know that America had to come up with thier own factories to create their weapons and other necessities during WW2. It created so many jobs for women-who weren't fighting in the war- and basically ended the great depression. "American industry was revitalized by the war, and many sectors were by 1945 either sharply oriented to defense production (for example, aerospace and electronics) or completely dependent on it (atomic energy)." The way that technology was advanced during the Industrialization time period set expectations that scientists would continue their new innovations in the coming future.

Before World War II was the Great Depression which completely destabilized the economy and the governments.

"In the United States, President Franklin Roosevelt promised, less dramatically, to enact a "New Deal" which would essentially reconstruct American capitalism and governance on a new basis. As it waxed and waned between 1933 and 1940, Roosevelt's New Deal mitigated some effects of the Great Depression, but did not end the economic crisis. In 1939, when World War II erupted in Europe with Germany's invasion of Poland, numerous economic indicators suggested that the United States was still deeply mired in the depression."

Many people were unemployed during the Great Depression which caused there to be little to no money for families and business owners which resulted in the meltdown of the economy in the 1930s. What I talked about before how when WWII came new businesses had to be opened which created tons of jobs for everyone to support the war, the economy sprang back up into action. The government controlled the economy through spending and consumptions is something that I found that I think is wierd because isn't spendings and consumptions equivalent to economics?

Part 2

A compelling character has some sort of profound connection of the main idea of the story: A patient, a doctor, a scientist, a politician, etc. An example of this is Francis Collins. Many of the articles in the New Yorker that we read in class include Francis Collins as a character because of the profound research and discoveries he has conducted in the science field.

An interesting plot has a 'who, what, when, where, and why' to it. The who and the what are probably introduced in the first paragraph, then later on disected into more detailed sections about who is invovled, what the actual topic is, the effect of the topic, the statistics of the topic, and real life connections; economical connections, cultural connections, historical connections, and political/governmental connections. For example in the article called Open Channels in the New Yorker, it introduces Chrissy, who was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis and deals with many conflicts in her every day life.

Specifics steps taken are introducing a character humbly, then later on revealing what went wrong with that character (for chrissy it was cystic fibrosis). Then they go into a little bit of background info of cystic fibrosis. they talk about how their is experimental drugs, but instead of flat out saying "There is an Experimental drug people take", they say something along the lines of: Chrissy was one of the 19 people who were involved in the Vertex's experimental drug project." Then they involve quotes from her to have actual results instead of saying oh it worked! Later on they talk more in depth about the experimental drug and what companies/peoples/groups that have made progress. They also have quotes from the peoples/organizations/groups and end with yet another character, this time a child.

The characters in many of these articles have a wide variety of personalities. Some are young and playful while others are middle aged and weary. I remember one of the quotes that was used in Open Channels that almost ANYONE should be able to connect to was when Chrissy said something along the lines of: Once you feel what it's like to be normal, your abnormality sucks. Those definately weren't the exact words, but that was the main point of the quote. They also used things where Chrissy went to church and her nephew who most likely doesnt understand cystic fibrosis was excited when he noticed Chrissy wasn't coughing as often as she used to. Its something that a lot of people can connect to because when a young child notices something, it must really be a huge improvement especially if its something complex as her disease. You also can imagine the reassurance that Chrissy felt to hear her nephew say that.

Blog #14! The life book & Humanities

Part 1:

The stage of life I will write about will either be pre-conception or during pregnancy. The relevant element of genetic technology that I will incorporate into my article is genetic testing: an array of techniques including analysis of human DNA, RNA or protein. Genetic tests are used as a health care tool to detect gene variants associated with a specific disease or condition, as well as for non-clinical uses such as paternity testing and forensics. In the clinical setting, genetic tests can be performed to confirm a suspected diagnosis, to predict the possibility of future illness, to detect the presence of a carrier state in unaffected individuals (whose children may be at risk), and to predict response to therapy. They are also performed to screen fetuses, newborns or embryos used in in vitro fertilization for genetic defects.

Part 2:

The National Human Genome Research Institute (http://www.genome.gov/10002335) is a research institute that primarily focuses on the research of human genomes. They have come up with important questions that may arise on the subject of genetic testing, tracked the legislature concerning genetic testing, their concerns and activities centering genetic testing, recommendations they have for policies concerning genetic screenings, and lastly a list of reports on genetic testing/screenings.

The Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society (SACGHS) - staffed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Biotechnology Activities - provides policy advice to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) on the broad array of complex medical, ethical, legal and social issues raised by genetic testing.

On March 26^th of 2009, SACGHS wrote a letter to the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities. “Genomic tests are expected to become increasingly prevalent in the coming years. The hope is that these tests will enable early diagnosis of common diseases and guide preventive measures tailored to each individual’s genotype. Similarly, pharmacogenomics tests are expected to enable more tailored treatment. Given the promise and potential value of genomic tests in reducing the burden of common diseases, these tests warrant careful study to assess their clinical utility…. working group does not have sufficient resources to keep pace with new and anticipated genomic tests. Thus, other government resources are needed to support the primary studies of these tests and disseminate their results. Like genomic information, family health history can provide clues to a patient’s inherited risk for common diseases. This test is already commonly used in clinical care but, for the most part, providers lack evidence-based guidance on how to use the information in clinical decision-making. Comparative effectiveness studies of family health history would provide needed guidance on how to incorporate this low-cost clinical tool into health care practice. SACGHS has made recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services about the need for the establishment and support of a program to conduct studies on the clinical utility of genomic tests. In our view, such assessments are key to the successful translation of genomic discoveries into clinically useful tests. SACGHS reports and recommendations are available at…”

The US Department of Health and Human Services also plays a role in Genetic Testings. DHHS mission is to Helping Consumers Take Control of Their Health Care. The Affordable Care Act, passed on September 23rd, 2010, gives consumers new rights and benefits in their health insurance. New funding for state consumer assistance programs will make sure people get those rights and benefits and take control of their health care. DHHS is involved in genetic screenings/testing: Statement on Genetic Testing in the New Millenium: Advances, Standards, Implications by Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. “Having the complete set of human genes – the periodic table for biology – will make it possible to begin to understand how genes function and interact. All of human biology then likely will be divided into what we knew before having the human DNA sequence and what we knew after. But, the HGP does not stop with completion of the human sequence. "This rapid availability of genomic resources and tools will accelerate dramatically the isolation of genes involved in disease and in drug response. As genome diagnostic and treatment technologies move from the laboratory into the health care setting, new genetic testing methods will make it possible to read the instructions contained in an individual’s DNA. Such knowledge may:

· Confirm a diagnosis of an individual who has already developed a disease;

· Predict risk of future disease in healthy individuals and alert patients and their health care providers to begin prevention strategies; or

· Identify risks of having a child with an inherited disorder.

In general, researchers and health care providers agree that predictive genetic testing should not be offered in the clinical setting without knowing the reliability and validity of the tests. Many also have raised concerns about the clinical use of genetic tests in the absence of safe and effective medical interventions for people who are found to carry inherited alterations that put them at high risk for disease. However, genetic testing still is a relatively new medical intervention for which regulatory and legal controls are unclear and the pathway for the clinical integration of new predictive tests has yet to be established.

From its inception, the Human Genome Project of the NHGRI recognized the responsibility not only to develop powerful new gene-finding technologies, but also to address up front the broader implications of these newfound abilities to decipher genetic information. Because genetic information is personal, powerful, and potentially predictive, its misuse can have significant consequences to individuals or to groups of individuals. NHGRI commits 5 percent of its extramural research budget to support research on the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of advances in genetics. The early goals of the ELSI program focused on four high-priority areas: (1) the use and interpretation of genetic information; (2) the clinical integration of genetic technologies; (3) issues surrounding the conduct of genetics research; and (4) public and professional education in genetics.

ETHICAL SOCIAL AND LEGAL

Protections must be erected against the misuse of genetic information. Fears about the loss of privacy of genetic information and the loss of a job or insurance coverage may make people hesitant to use medical advances. They also may be hesitant to volunteer for studies of disease-linked gene mutations for fear the results could be used against them. Although many states have attempted to address "genetic discrimination" in health insurance and the workplace, federal legislation would provide the most comprehensive protections.

Every physician, nurse, and health care provider will need to become familiar with this emerging field of genetic medicine. The need for medical genetic specialists who can sort out the most complex cases will be considerable, but there will not be enough of them to go around, and most genetic medicine will be delivered by primary care providers.

Finally, we must implement the proper regulatory and legal framework for the successful clinical integration of emerging genetic technologies. The Task Force on Genetic Testing report provided a good starting point for that process. There is still much work to be done. Now is the time for all parties to come together and develop a meaningful framework for insuring the safe and effective use of new genetic technologies in medicine. “ http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990421a.html

Part 3:

Genetic Discrimination: http://www.genome.gov/10002328#al-1

“Genetic discrimination occurs if people are treated unfairly because of differences in their DNA that increase their chances of getting a certain disease. Everyone should care about the potential for genetic discrimination. More and more tests are being developed to find DNA differences that affect our health. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, also referred to as GINA, is a new federal law that protects Americans from being treated unfairly because of differences in their DNA that may affect their health. The law was needed to help ease concerns about discrimination that might keep some people from getting genetic tests that could benefit their health. The law protects people from discrimination by health insurers and employers on the basis of DNA information. The law does not cover life insurance, disability insurance and long-term care insurance. Before the federal law was passed, many states had passed laws against genetic discrimination. For the text of the bill see: H.R. 493”

Genetic Discrimination is a relevant concept that can relate to the ideas of my article because some people are actually afraid that genetic testing can promote Genetic Discrimination. That genetic discrimination can occur within the family if one if afraid of their family member(s) finding out what one may be carrying, which may be a new revelation to others and make them wonder who it was passed down from. Genetic Discrimination might also occur when a Health Insurer finds out about the genetic abnormality, and may deny a person health insurance because of that. Employers may also use genetic information to determine whether to hire, keep, or fire employees. Genetic Screenings will be a huge advance in bio-technology, but shouldn’t be pursued further unless the genetic information is protected, thus preventing the possibility of it being used against someone. The Genetic Information Non Discrimination Act of 2008 was created to protect Americans from health insurers and employers who may try to discriminate them based on their genetic abnormalities. The law that was passed is basically the minimum requirement of protection a state must have to protect people against genetic discrimination, thus creating different levels of protection depending on the state in which you reside.

Economic: http://www.genetichealth.com/GT_Genetic_Testing_Costs_of_Genetic_Testing.shtml

Say you go in to have a meeting with your doctor to decide whether genetic testing is the right path for you and your partner. After a while of one on one conversation you are hit with the surprisingly large amount of money it will cost you. It brings up these questions:

Why Are Genetic Tests so Expensive? Often people have this reaction when they find out the price. Reason 1 why genetic testing procedures are so expensive varies depending on the type of lab procedure conducted, the size and number of genes you are having tested, and whether the test is conducted in a commercial or research lab. Reason 2 is because genetic tests are rare, it is not every day that one science will conduct 100 tests as they do with other common procedures. If the rate of people getting genetic tests increases, there is a possibility of the cost decreasing. Reason 3 is labor intensive- genetic testing requires the extraction of DNA from the blood sample which is not required in non-genetic tests. Not to mention the various levels of review that the test results have to go through before you can get them back. This is something that is necessary though, for the most accurate results of your genetic screening you must pay the price.
What Do Genetic Tests Really Cost?

Costs for Selected Genetic Tests by Disorder and Type of Test
LAB Test	Sequencing	Heteroduplex Analysis	DGGE	ASO	PTT
HNPCC	$500-3000	$260	$250-800	--	--
FAP	$800-1000	--	--	--	$235
BRCA1	$1290	--	--	$350-450	--
BRCA2	$1290	--	--	$350-450	--
BRCA-Ashkenazi mutations	--	--	--	$190-354	--
DGGE=Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis ASO=Allele specific oligonucleotide PTT=Protein truncation test

Should I Opt for the Less Expensive Test? Choosing the cheaper test may yield a less accurate or not a detailed account of your results from the genetic screening. The cheaper test may only include results based on what is already known to be in your family, whereas in a more costly genetic test, the results will yield ‘whole genes and identify mutations when one has not previously been identified in a family.’ If you are applying for a genetic screening, you should choose your test should be based on what results you want, not the cost.

Should I Use Insurance to Pay for A Genetic Test?

Pros of using insurance: The biggest pro of using insurance is that genetic tests cost money. Having your insurance company pay for the testing will save you from paying up to thousands of dollars for testing. If you get a positive result, your insurance company may be more likely to cover medical interventions specific for your disorder.
Cons of using insurance: If you use insurance to pay for testing, there will likely be a record in your file that a genetic test was ordered for you. The results may or may not be part of this record. This creates the potential for lack of genetic privacy that may lead to job, medical, or other discrimination.

Miscarriages: http://www.ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/testing/riskslimitations

Although it is not guaranteed, and maybe even considered rare, genetic tests risk the chance of having a miscarriage. ‘The procedures used for prenatal testing carry a small but real risk of losing the pregnancy (miscarriage) because they require a sample of amniotic fluid or tissue from around the fetus.’

Abortions related to Genetic Screenings: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/weekinreview/13harm.html?_r=1 ARTICLE!

“SARAHLYNN LESTER, 32, considers herself a supporter of abortion rights. She gives money to the National Abortion Rights Action League and volunteers for Planned Parenthood. But as a woman who continued a pregnancy after learning that her child would have Down syndrome, she also has beliefs about the ethics of choosing, or not choosing, certain kinds of children.

“I thought it would be morally wrong to have an abortion for a child that had a genetic disability,” said Ms. Lester, a marketing manager in St. Louis.

As prenatal tests make it possible to identify fetuses that will have mental retardation, deafness, early-onset Alzheimer’s disease and a range of other conditions, such personal deliberations are adding a new layer to the fraught political debate over abortion.

Abortion rights supporters — who believe that a woman has the right to make decisions about her own body — have had to grapple with the reality that the right to choose may well be used selectively to abort fetuses deemed genetically undesirable. And many are finding that, while they support a woman’s right to have an abortion if she does not want to have a baby, they are less comfortable when abortion is used by women who don’t want to have a particular baby.

“How much choice do you really want to give?” asked Arthur Caplan, chairman of the department of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. “That’s the challenge of prenatal testing to pro-choicers.”

For many women and their partners, the decision to terminate a pregnancy after a prenatal diagnosis of a serious genetic defect can be harrowing, often coming after a painful assessment of their own emotional and financial resources.

And there is widespread support for such an option: 70 percent of Americans said they believe that women should be able to obtain a legal abortion if there is a strong chance of a serious defect in the baby, according to a 2006 poll conducted by the National Opinion Research Center.

“This issue underscores the importance of families making personal, private decisions without political interference,” said Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, in a statement. “The decision should be with women, their families, and their doctors.”

But as more tests become available for conditions that do not involve serious disabilities, childhood diseases or death in early childhood, the emerging ethical questions may inject more nuance into a perennially polarized discussion.

“It will capture where the mainstream of Americans are on prenatal testing and abortion,” Dr. Caplan added. “Which is, some reasons seem good, and some don’t.”

Traditional anti-abortion advocates, from conservative politicians to Pope Benedict, have in recent months criticized the growing use of prenatal testing as a subtle form of eugenics. But the specter of fetuses being selectively targeted for elimination also has the potential to disturb solid supporters of abortion rights.

Some disabilities rights advocates, for example, are pressing the need to reconcile protecting abortion rights with a democratic imperative to embrace human diversity.

“If the response is simply, ‘You all are just anti-women’s-right-to-choose,’ I think that misses some of the important disabilities rights issues that are being raised,” said Andrew Imparato, president of the American Association of People With Disabilities.

Mr. Imparato said he was disturbed to learn recently that in several states with legislative efforts to restrict abortion rights, groups like Planned Parenthood often lobby for an exemption for women who learn their child would have a disability.

But he said that the person who alerted him was a Planned Parenthood lobbyist who was herself troubled by the tactic because it seemed to run counter to the progressive political agenda that supports both choice and tolerance of human difference.

“You’ve got these two basic liberal values on a kind of collision course,” said Rayna Rapp, an anthropologist at New York University who has studied attitudes toward prenatal testing.

Ms. Rapp argues that it doesn’t need to be that way. One solution, she said, is to make sure the world is a more welcoming place for people with disabilities. Other disabilities rights advocates emphasize the need to educate prospective parents about the positive aspects of raising disabled children.

Still, social policy may be unable to sway a seemingly strong personal preference for avoiding children with perceived genetic defects. About 90 percent of women who learn they are carrying a fetus with the extra 21st chromosome that causes Down syndrome choose an abortion. Studies have shown that many women choose to abort for diagnoses of less serious conditions.

And a growing number of fertile couples are using in vitro fertilization to gain greater control over the genetic makeup of their children. Under a procedure known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis, doctors screen embryos for a high risk of developing breast cancer or arthritis, and implant only embryos with the desired genetic makeup.

The questions may only become murkier if testing extends to traits like homosexuality or intelligence.

But Kirsten Moore, president of the pro-choice Reproductive Health Technologies Project, said that when members of her staff recently discussed whether to recommend that any prenatal tests be banned, they found it impossible to draw a line — even at sex selection, which almost all found morally repugnant. “We all had our own zones of discomfort but still couldn’t quite bring ourselves to say, ‘Here’s the line, firm and clear’ because that is the core of the pro-choice philosophy,” she said. “You can never make that decision for someone else.”

The rhetoric of “choice,” however, can take on a more troubling resonance when it comes to selecting children with new reproductive technologies, disabilities rights advocates say. “It so buys into this consumer perspective on our children,” said Marsha Saxton, a senior researcher at the World Institute on Disability in Oakland, Calif., who is an abortion rights supporter.

With a new, more conservative Supreme Court, which has just upheld a law banning a procedure critics call partial-birth abortion, disabilities rights advocates say they fear that the reproductive rights movement sees such discussions only as an opening to abortion opponents.

“The fear is that this will be used as an excuse to limit women’s access to abortion,” said Sujatha Jesudason, associate director of the Center for Genetics and Society, a nonprofit group promoting limits on reproductive technology. “But as these selective technologies are getting popularized we need to try to agree on a set of principles without giving up the fight for reproductive rights.”

If that doesn’t happen, some abortion rights supporters say they are worried that their opponents may hijack the discussion.

“Some religious conservatives say that they trust God to give them the child that is meant to be,” wrote Ann Althouse, a law professor in Madison, Wis., who identifies herself as an abortion rights supporter on her legal blog. “But isn’t there something equivalent for social liberals? Shouldn’t they have moral standards about what reasons are acceptable for an abortion?”’

In this article there is a woman who supports abortion rights, and after she found out her child would have down syndrome she still chose to continues her pregnancy. This article shows all the different arguments of the rights or wrongs about abortion: religious conservatives say that they trust God to give them the child that is meant to be, I thought it would be morally wrong to have an abortion for a child that had a genetic disability, As prenatal tests make it possible to identify fetuses that will have mental retardation, deafness, early-onset Alzheimer’s disease and a range of other conditions, such personal deliberations….etc

It brings up the question in politics of what are the fundamental basics that abortion rights should be based on? Your morals or your religion or what the president thinks perhaps? This is something I really want to look into for my article.

Blog# 13: Life-The Book!!

Immediately when I saw the paper, Genetic Screenings was leaping off the page at me! I have a bunch of iddeas I guess..here they are:

• If parents-to-be find out their child-to-be has some genetic abnormailty, will they decide to have an abortion? Is abortion good or bad? Who, what, when, where, and why do people have abortions.


• for the intro describe the setting of the parents to be at the genetic screening for their baby to be and everything goes perfectly well but what about those who have babies to be with genetic mutations? what happens to them?


• Talk about how genetic screening precedures work!


• who, what, when, where, and why were genetic screenings made!
  
• statistics about how many people get them, how many who get them turn out to have no abnormalities compared to babies who do have the abnormalities.
  
  So this stage could either be pregnancy, or adulthood depending which viewpoint I take.

Another thing that interested me was the part about childhood Diabetes: Insulin repreduction. During my SLC Brandon talked about how the bio-tech industry extracts the cells that create insulin and let them mass produce insulin. I forgot exactly how it works, but it really struck me as a clever way to go about creating more insulin. This is relevant today because there are children with Diabetes, type one as well as type two, who have diabetes. Some of them are born with it because their bodies aren't sufficient in producing insulin, but others have it beacuse of uncontrolled eating. If I have to write about this, something I could look into is statistics about the fats and sugars in food and should the govt make higher taxes on them since people are just eating whatever junk is easy and in demand. The science involved would have to be how the Bio-Technology Industry extracts the cell or whichever part of the body that creates insulin to mass produce insulin.


If I had to go to last resort, I would write about steroids. I know that they are illegal and people use them for an inhanced growth rate when they need to bulk up for some type of sporting event or just to boost their own ego's. I think it might be cool to talk about the way that steroids affects the horomone levels that you would naturally have and cause mood swings and whatever else they may cause. I could talk about why steroids has been banned and how people go around the rules by saying that its not steroids because it has some other ingredients even though it actualy is steroids...this is something I'd have to do a lot more research on..and I'm not exactly very interested in learning about steroids and how they work. I really do want to learn more about genetic screenings though!

Blog#12 Internship Brainstorm!

#1: For my internship I'd like to be in one that involves a lot of out doors or research since I am interested in doing one that is centered on evinronmental reservation. So it could be half outdoors or half in doors it really doesn't matter as long as I don't have to just sit in a room by myself all day and involves environmental reservation!

#2 For my internship skills I would need to have are wonder so I can understand things more in deeply, confidence to ask questions or for help when I don't understand things because I am new to environmental research, compliance so I don'tget kicked out or anything but that won't be a problem, perceptiveness since some things I learn during internship might be new to me, and probably some technical skills because there is a likely chance that I'll do some research.

#3 Things I really want to know what types of strategies environmental reservationists use/develop every day! I want to know how they conduct their research to see how much of natural resources are being wasted! I wonder if they go to other companies and like teach them how to be more environmentally concious and if maybe they team up with companies to manage the usage of their resources! I am totally pumped! I love the environment ask anyone! and they'll tell you I have signs around the house to help my family remember how to be green!

Remember...we want this:

Not this or this:

Blog11

The article I read is about the retired NORAD's new book who predicts that we will see a UFO on Oct 13 2010. I partly chose it because its today, and also because it caught my eye- how can you know when theres going to be a UFO?

"According to the author, the aliens would neither land or communicate on that date; they are aware from eons of experience with other planets in similar conditions their sudden intervention would cause fear and panic."

This quote makes me wonder why he even wrote this book. He says that a UFO will make worldwide appearance but then says that they aren't because they would cause fear and panic among humans. It makes me wonder if he just wrote this to get attention. This also means he believes theres aliens I guess.. and he is kind of old since he was part of WW2 so maybe theres a possibility that the war had a negative affect on his thought process. He claims that he has had past experiences where aliens have incarnated into other beings and told people about how mankind came into existence. Pretty much everything sounds very iffy so far. I am sure that he thinks the aliens are a good thing though and they mean no harm, just help.


The related article I found is: www.tucsoncitizens.com/paranormal/2010/10/13/dozens-of-ufos-over-new-york-city-or-were-they-just-balloons/

In this article they talk about how the people in NYC though they saw UFO's and theres a lot of chat about it on twitter going on, but there is a possibility they were just balloons. It makes me wonder if they read the article I read about the former NORAD officer and had it in mind- because when you really believe in something you will find something like it and make yourself believe that it is what you think it is. I just finished reading it and there was confirmation that there was just silver balloons and maybe it was a prank beacuse of the NORAD's claim about UFO's on oct 13. A lot of people commented this and some are just like aliens....right... because they think its just a bunch of hoobala but others really do believe in this type of thing. its very interesting.

Blog #10

Post your thoughts as you head into the trial. Are you ready? How do you know? What are you doing as your last minute prep?

I think with a bit more review of what I took down for my persons beliefs and the script I will be a-okay for the mock trial. I know this because prosecution and defendants are both going to ask me questions and I need to be confident with my character and know what they believe in order o get through the mock trial smoothly. My last minute preparations are reviewing the 10 point border plan

Civil War...Today?

July 21, 2006 Big Business and Big Government by Timothy P. Carney

Big business has too much power in Washington, according to 90 percent of Americans in a December 2005 poll.
Every week, headlines reveal some scandal involving politicians, lobbyists, corporate cash, and allegations of bribes. CEOs get face time with senators, cabinet secretaries, and presidents. Lawmakers and bureaucrats take laps through the revolving door between government and corporate lobbying. Whatever goes on behind closed doors between the CEOs and the senators can't be good or the doors would not be closed.
Just what is big business doing with all this influence? There are many assumptions about big business's agenda in Washington. In 2003 one author asserted, "When corporations lobby governments, their usual goal is to avoid regulation."
That statement reflects the conventional wisdom that government action protects ordinary people by restraining big business, which, in turn, wants to be left alone. Historian Arthur Schlesinger articulated a similar point: "Liberalism in America [the progression of the welfare state and government intervention in the economy] has been ordinarily the movement on the part of the other sections of society to restrain the power of the business community." The facts point in an entirely different direction:
Enron was a tireless advocate of strict global energy regulations supported by environmentalists. Enron also used its influence in Washington to keep laissez-faire bureaucrats off the federal commissions that regulate the energy industry.
Philip Morris has aggressively supported heightened federal regulation of tobacco and tobacco advertising. Meanwhile, the state governments that sued Big Tobacco are now working to protect those same large cigarette companies from competition and lawsuits.
A recent tax increase in Virginia passed because of the tireless support of the state's business leaders, and big business has a long history of supporting tax hikes.
General Motors provided critical support for new stricter clean air rules that boosted the company's bottom line.
The Big Myth
The myth is widespread and deeply rooted that big business and big government are rivals—that big business wants small government.
A 1935 Chicago Daily Tribune column argued that voting against Franklin D. Roosevelt was voting for big business. "Led by the President," the columnist wrote, "New Dealers have accepted the challenge, confident the people will repudiate organized business and give the Roosevelt program a new lease on life." However, three days earlier, the president of the Chamber of Commerce and a group of other business leaders met with FDR to support expanding the New Deal.
Almost 70 years later New York Times columnist Paul Krugman assailed the George W. Bush administration: "The new guys in town are knee-jerk conservatives; they view too much government as the root of all evil, believe that what's good for big business is always good for America and think that the answer to every problem is to cut taxes and allow more pollution." At the same time, "big business" just across the river in Virginia was ramping up its campaign for a tax increase, and Enron was lobbying Bush's closest advisers to support the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.
Months later, when Enron collapsed, writers attributed the company's corruption and obscene profits to "anarchic capitalism" and asserted that "the Enron scandal makes it clear that the unfettered free market does not work." In fact, Enron thrived in a world of complex regulations and begged for government handouts at every turn.
When commentators do notice business looking for more federal regulation, they mark it up as an aberration.
When a Washington Post reporter noted in 1987 that airlines were asking Congress for help, she commented, "Last month, when the airline industry found itself pursued by state regulators seeking to police airline advertising, it looked for help in an unlikely place—Washington." In truth, airline executives had been behind federal regulation of their industry for decades and had aggressively opposed deregulation.
In fact, for the past century and more big business has often relied on big government for support.
The History of Big Business Is the History of Big Government
As the federal government has progressively become larger over the decades, every significant introduction of government regulation, taxation, and spending has been to the benefit of some big business. Start with perhaps the most misunderstood period of government intervention, the Progressive Era from the late 19th century until the beginning of World War I.
President Theodore Roosevelt is usually depicted as the hero of this episode in American history, and his "trust busting" as the central action of the plot. The history books teach that Teddy empowered the federal government and the White House in a crusade to curb the big business excesses of the "Gilded Age."
A close study of Roosevelt's legacy and that of Progressive legislation and regulation, however, yields a far different understanding and shows that the experience with meat—big business calling in big government for protection—was a recurring theme. Roosevelt expanded Washington's power often with the aim and the effect of helping the fattest of the fat cats.
Today's history books credit muckraking novelist Upton Sinclair with the reforms in meatpacking. Sinclair, however, deflected the praise. "The Federal inspection of meat was, historically, established at the packers' request," he wrote in a 1906 magazine article. "It is maintained and paid for by the people of the United States for the benefit of the packers."
Gabriel Kolko, historian of the era, concurs. "The reality of the matter, of course, is that the big packers were warm friends of regulation, especially when it primarily affected their innumerable small competitors." Sure enough, Thomas E. Wilson, speaking for the same big packers Sinclair had targeted, testified to a congressional committee that summer, "We are now and have always been in favor of the extension of the inspection, also of the adoption of the sanitary regulations that will insure the very best possible conditions." Small packers, it turned out, would feel the regulatory burden more than large packers would.
Consider the story of one of the most famous "trusts" in American folklore: U.S. Steel.
In the 1880s and 1890s, rapid steel mergers created the mammoth U.S. Steel out of what had been 138 steel companies. In the early years of the new century, however, U.S. Steel saw its profits falling. That insecurity brought about a momentous meeting.
On November 21, 1907, in New York's posh Waldorf-Astoria, 49 chiefs of the leading steel companies met for dinner. The host was U.S. Steel chairman Judge Elbert Gary. The gathering, the first of the "Gary Dinners," hoped to yield "gentlemen's agreements" against cutting steel prices. At the second meeting, a few weeks later, "every manufacturer present gave the opinion that no necessity or reason exists for the reduction of prices at the present time," Gary reported.
The big guys were meeting openly— with Teddy Roosevelt's Justice Department officials present, in fact—to set prices.
But it did not work. "By May, 1908," Kolko writes, "breaks again began appearing in the united steel front." Some manufacturers were undercutting the agreement by dropping prices. "After June, 1908, the Gary agreement was nominal rather than real. Smaller steel companies began cutting prices." U.S. Steel lost market share during this time, which Kolko blames on "its technological conservatism and its lack of flexible leadership." In fact, according to Kolko, "U.S. Steel never had any particular technological advantage, as was often true of the largest firm in other industries."
In this way, the free market acts as an equalizer. While economies of scale allow corporate giants more flexible financing and can drive down costs, massive size usually also creates inertia and inflexibility. U.S. Steel saw itself as a vulnerable giant threatened by the boisterous free market, and Gary's failed efforts at rationalizing the industry left only one line of defense. "Having failed in the realm of economics," Kolko writes, "the efforts of the United States Steel group were to be shifted to politics."
Sure enough, on February 15, 1909, steel magnate Andrew Carnegie wrote a letter to the New York Times favoring "government control" of the steel industry. Two years later, Gary echoed this sentiment before a congressional committee: "I believe we must come to enforced publicity and governmental control . . . even as to prices."
When it came to railroad regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the railroads themselves were among the leading advocates. The editors of the Wall Street Journal wondered at this development and editorialized on December 28, 1904:
Nothing is more noteworthy than the fact that President Roosevelt's recommendation recommendation in favor of government regulation of railroad rates and[Corporation] Commissioner [James R.] Garfield's recommendation in favor of federal control of interstate companies have met with so much favor among managers of railroad and industrial companies.
Once again, big business favored government curbs on business, and once again, journalists were surprised.
To cast it in the analogy of Baptists and Bootleggers, the muckrakers such as Sinclair were the "Baptists," holding up altruistic moral reasons for government control, and the big meatpackers, railroads, and steel companies were the "Bootleggers," trying to get rich from government restrictions on their business. Roosevelt was allied to the "bootleggers," the big meatpackers in this case. To get federal regulation, he found Sinclair a handy temporary ally. Roosevelt had little good to say about Sinclair and his ilk; he called Sinclair a "crackpot."
This preponderance of evidence drove Kolko, no knee-jerk opponent of government intervention, to conclude, "The dominant fact of American political life at the beginning of [the 20th] century was that big business led the struggle for the federal regulation of the economy." With World War I around the corner, this "dominant fact" was not about to change.
The men who gathered at the Department of War on December 6, 1916, struck a startling contrast. Labor leader Samuel Gompers sat at the table with President Woodrow Wilson and five members of his cabinet.
Joining Gompers and those Democratic politicians were Daniel Willard, president of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad; Howard Coffin, president of Hudson Motor Corporation; Wall Street financier Bernard Baruch; Julius Rosenwald, president of Sears, Roebuck; and a few others. This extraordinary gathering was the first meeting of the Council of National Defense, formed by Congress and President Wilson as a means for organizing "the whole industrial mechanism . . . in the most effective way."
The businessmen at this 1916 meeting had dreams for the CND that went far beyond America's imminent involvement in the Great War, both in breadth and in duration. "It is our hope," Coffin had written in a letter to the DuPonts days before the meeting, "that we may lay the foundation for that closely knit structure, industrial, civil, and military, which every thinking American has come to realize is vital to the future life of this country, in peace and in commerce, no less than in possible war."
The CND, after beginning the project of government control over industry, handed much of its responsibility to the new War Industries Board (WIB) by July of 1917. That coalition of industry and government leaders increasingly took control of all aspects of the economy. War Industries Board member and historian Grosvenor Clarkson stated that the WIB strived for "concentration of commerce, industry, and all the powers of government." Clarkson exulted that "the War Industries Board extended its antennae into the innermost recesses of industry. . . . Never was there such an approach to omniscience in the business affairs of a continent."
Business's aims in the WIB were much higher than government contracts, and certainly business did not lobby for laissez faire. As Clarkson puts it, "Business willed its own domination, forged its bonds, and policed its own subjection." Business, in effect, shouted to Washington, "Regulate me!" Business called on government to control workers' hours and wages as well as the details of production.
A decade later Herbert Hoover practiced more of the same. Hoover's record was one not of leaving big business alone but of making government an active member of the team. As commerce secretary in the 1920s, he helped form cartels in many U.S. industries, including coffee and rubber. In the name of conservation, Hoover "worked in collaboration with a growing majority of the oil industry in behalf of restrictions on oil production," according to economic historian Murray Rothbard.
In the White House (where history books portray him as a callous and clueless practitioner of laissez faire), Hoover reacted to the onset of the Great Depression by pressuring big business to lead the way on a wage freeze, preventing the drop in pay that earlier depressions had brought about. Henry Ford, Pierre DuPont, Julius Rosenwald, General Motors president Alfred Sloan, Standard Oil president Walter Teagle, and General Electric president Owen D. Young all embraced the policy of keeping wages high as the economy went south.
Hoover praised their cooperation as an "advance in the whole conception of the relationship of business to public welfare . . . a far cry from the arbitrary and dog-eat-dog attitude of . . . the business world of some thirty or forty years ago."
Before FDR, Hoover got the ball rolling for the New Deal with his Reconstruction Finance Corporation. The RFC extended government loans to banks and railroads. The RFC's chairman was Eugene Meyer, also chairman of the Federal Reserve. Meyer's brother-in-law was George Blumenthal, an officer of J.P. Morgan & Co., which had heavy railroad holdings.
The New Deal and Beyond
After the groundwork laid by the Progressives, Wilson, and Hoover, the alliance of big business and big government continued throughout the 20th century.
Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented the same sort of government controls on the economy during World War II that Wilson had put in place during World War I, complete with rationing and price controls. Big business profited from the controlled economy in much the same ways that it had under Wilson.
President Harry Truman wanted his secretary of state's June 5, 1947, speech to Harvard's commencement to be a quiet one about the rebuilding of Europe. He didn't get his wish. The New York Times and the Washington Post both reported the story on the front pages. Within a day, the whole world knew about the Marshall Plan. But very few knew that a clique of mostly business leaders, called "The President's Committee on Foreign Aid," drafted the idea. Secretary of Commerce W. Averell Harriman, son of railroad magnate E. H. Harriman and former chairman of both Union Pacific Railroad and Illinois Central Railroad, ran the committee. Nine other businessmen joined him. "Throughout, business members—particularly Harriman— set the agenda and the tone for the group's work," historian Kim McQuaid writes. "Without the corporate politicians, Truman's effort would have failed. Men like [cotton baron Will] Clayton and Harriman arrayed foreign aid in procapitalist, anticommunist attire."
On Sunday night, August 15, 1971, millions of Americans watched President Richard Nixon lay out his New Economic Policy. Nixon had a reputation as a staunch conservative, but his New Economic Policy (a phrase borrowed, bizarrely, from Vladimir Lenin) showed Nixon to be a changed man. The federal government would prohibit any increase in wages, prices, or rents for 90 days. After that a "wage and price council" would dictate to businesses when and how much they could increase wages, salaries, and prices. The next day W. P. Gullander, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, declared that "the bold move taken by the President to strengthen the American economy deserves the support and cooperation of all groups." That reaction was typical among big businesspeople. The New York Times reported on August 17, 1971, "Business leaders applauded yesterday, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, the sweeping proposals announced by President Nixon Sunday night."
George W. Bush, in the name of "compassionate conservatism," has handed big business big favors in the form of a prescription drug benefit from Medicare, an energy bill full of brand new special tax credits and subsidies to energy companies, and a record loan guarantee to facilitate business with known nuclear proliferators in China. A report by the directors of the Health Reform Program at Boston University's School of Public Health found, "An estimated 61.1 percent of the Medicare dollars that will be spent to buy more prescriptions will remain in the hands of drug makers as added profits. This windfall means an estimated $139 billion in increased profits over eight years for the world's most profitable industry."
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled," said Kaiser Soze in the film The Usual Suspects, "was convincing the world he didn't exist." In a similar way, big business and big government prosper from the perception that they are rivals instead of partners (in plunder). The history of big business is one of cooperation with big government. Most noteworthy expansions of government power are to the liking of, and at the request of, big business.
If this sounds like an attack on big business, it is not intended to be. It is an attack on certain practices of big business. When business plays by the crooked rules of politics, average citizens get ripped off. The blame lies with those who wrote the rules. In the parlance of hip-hop, "don't hate the player, hate the game."

I chose this article because I think it shows how: "The long-term effect of the Civil War on the US economy was to accelerate the development of big business manufacturing in the North initiated by the demands of war production." I think the Civil War influenced America Today in soo may ways because there was a lot of demand for things since men were away fighting and they needed equipment and stuff for the war. So a lot of jobs/businesses had to be created to feed the need of the Civil War.