Bringing Light Into Darkness - News & Analysis

We believe we honor Dr. Martin Luther King every week on BLID by our weekly US Foreign Policy inquiries that MLK questioned, such as his concerns from studying US Vietnam intervention. Through the lens of MLK the framing of our foreign policy makes sense as

driven by the ‘great triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism’.

Tonight’s show is about terrorism, state sponsored terrorism, harboring terrorists and the United States' list of state sponsored terrorist nations. Who makes those ‘war on terrorism’ determinations? What is the integrity of the information made available to the US public in making those judgements, as well as shaping public understandings of the motives behind other US foreign policy interventions as well? We juxtapose the evidence provided - or lack thereof - claiming terrorist enabling behavior on part of Cuba recently made by the Trump administration with the primary focus of Cuban foreign policy according to Cuba and based on documented empirical historical Cuban government actions, vs our own policies, what we have done in the name of US Foreign Policy based on our own history of documented empirical actions.

How does Cuba compare versus the US regarding the claim of giving safe harbor to terrorists? Using case study of US foreign policy impact on El Salvador and its Civil War that ended in the 1990s, we reveal what US media ignored, namely the enabling of those responsible for death squads and terrorism given safe refuge in the US.

We discuss the image making of US mainstream media in shaping our perception of Cuba as an authoritative nation. We give examples of pejorative methods being used to create false images that Cuba is so oppressive that Cubans aspire to leave Cuba at a much higher rate than other Caribbean countries. Is there valid criticism of Cuban government suppression of political non-violent dissent and political imprisonment? Do these claims have merit or are they overstated? What should we anticipate as a Biden foreign policy change towards Cuba? Will it be positive, and will it create a reciprocal appreciation for the other’s sovereignty? If people understood how our Foreign Policy impact vs Cuba impact on majority populations was substantially different regarding ‘quality of life’ outcomes, would Cuba be perceived differently?

All these questions are addressed. Enjoy!

We believe we honor Dr. Martin Luther King every week on BLID by our weekly US Foreign Policy inquiries that MLK questioned, such as his concerns from studying US Vietnam intervention. Through the lens of MLK the framing of our foreign policy makes sense as

driven by the ‘great triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism’.

Tonight’s show is about terrorism, state sponsored terrorism, harboring terrorists and the United States' list of state sponsored terrorist nations. Who makes those ‘war on terrorism’ determinations? What is the integrity of the information made available to the US public in making those judgements, as well as shaping public understandings of the motives behind other US foreign policy interventions as well? We juxtapose the evidence provided - or lack thereof - claiming terrorist enabling behavior on part of Cuba recently made by the Trump administration with the primary focus of Cuban foreign policy according to Cuba and based on documented empirical historical Cuban government actions, vs our own policies, what we have done in the name of US Foreign Policy based on our own history of documented empirical actions.

How does Cuba compare versus the US regarding the claim of giving safe harbor to terrorists? Using case study of US foreign policy impact on El Salvador and its Civil War that ended in the 1990s, we reveal what US media ignored, namely the enabling of those responsible for death squads and terrorism given safe refuge in the US.

We discuss the image making of US mainstream media in shaping our perception of Cuba as an authoritative nation. We give examples of pejorative methods being used to create false images that Cuba is so oppressive that Cubans aspire to leave Cuba at a much higher rate than other Caribbean countries. Is there valid criticism of Cuban government suppression of political non-violent dissent and political imprisonment? Do these claims have merit or are they overstated? What should we anticipate as a Biden foreign policy change towards Cuba? Will it be positive, and will it create a reciprocal appreciation for the other’s sovereignty? If people understood how our Foreign Policy impact vs Cuba impact on majority populations was substantially different regarding ‘quality of life’ outcomes, would Cuba be perceived differently?

All these questions are addressed. Enjoy!

This episode’s show is on when medical care conflicts with Pharma corporate bottom lines, as a form of oppression. Oxycontin, Corporate Criminal Law and the Public Welfare, with guest and attorney, Kirsten Mayer who explains recent Supreme Court decisions that paved the way for prosecution of executives who were removed from the activity of the criminal behavior (i.e. the misbranding and its results of an explosion of opiate misuse that led to addiction and 500k deaths over the next two decades). As a consequence the prosecution of Purdue Frederick in 2007 along with "its top three executives, pleaded guilty as individuals to misbranding charges, a criminal violation and agreed to pay a total of US$34.5 million in fines as part of a $634m judgment.""

It is a story that as we speak today (11/2/20) has resulted in 500,000 deaths, twice the amount of the COVID 19 pandemic (albeit over a longer period of time). When 'corporate profits' dwarf the well-being of the majority population with respect to which is the greater priority. The majority lose and they lose badly.

On this episode, we discuss Purdue Frederick’s role in the Opioid epidemic sweeping our nation over the last 25 years and includes substantial portions of an older show (4/17/2008) featuring Attorney Kirsten Mayer. The $634m judgment appears to be significant...until you examine what the GAO noticed: That in 2001 alone, Purdue generated $1.3B in sales.

This judgment was followed by others, then most recently in October 2020, Purdue Pharma agreed to plead guilty to three criminal charges and pay $8.3B in fines and damages. The company admitted to bribing doctors to unnecessarily prescribe OxyContin and to lying to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) about controls on sales of the painkiller. It also paid illegal kickbacks to a health records company to promote opioid prescribing to physicians according to a 10/20/20 Guardian article.

“Purdue deeply regrets and accepts responsibility for the misconduct,” said the chairman of its board, Steve Miller. Meanwhile, the Sackler family reportedly received some $10B in payments over the years.

This show includes excerpts from a 2008 BLID show on the lottery and weaves in current 2020 analysis confirming and authenticating the 2008 show content and conclusions.

Please, join us Monday nights at 6pm CST at KOOP.org. Enjoy!

This episode’s show is on when medical care conflicts with Pharma corporate bottom lines, as a form of oppression. Oxycontin, Corporate Criminal Law and the Public Welfare, with guest and attorney, Kirsten Mayer who explains recent Supreme Court decisions that paved the way for prosecution of executives who were removed from the activity of the criminal behavior (i.e. the misbranding and its results of an explosion of opiate misuse that led to addiction and 500k deaths over the next two decades). As a consequence the prosecution of Purdue Frederick in 2007 along with "its top three executives, pleaded guilty as individuals to misbranding charges, a criminal violation and agreed to pay a total of US$34.5 million in fines as part of a $634m judgment.""

It is a story that as we speak today (11/2/20) has resulted in 500,000 deaths, twice the amount of the COVID 19 pandemic (albeit over a longer period of time). When 'corporate profits' dwarf the well-being of the majority population with respect to which is the greater priority. The majority lose and they lose badly.

On this episode, we discuss Purdue Frederick’s role in the Opioid epidemic sweeping our nation over the last 25 years and includes substantial portions of an older show (4/17/2008) featuring Attorney Kirsten Mayer. The $634m judgment appears to be significant...until you examine what the GAO noticed: That in 2001 alone, Purdue generated $1.3B in sales.

This judgment was followed by others, then most recently in October 2020, Purdue Pharma agreed to plead guilty to three criminal charges and pay $8.3B in fines and damages. The company admitted to bribing doctors to unnecessarily prescribe OxyContin and to lying to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) about controls on sales of the painkiller. It also paid illegal kickbacks to a health records company to promote opioid prescribing to physicians according to a 10/20/20 Guardian article.

“Purdue deeply regrets and accepts responsibility for the misconduct,” said the chairman of its board, Steve Miller. Meanwhile, the Sackler family reportedly received some $10B in payments over the years.

This show includes excerpts from a 2008 BLID show on the lottery and weaves in current 2020 analysis confirming and authenticating the 2008 show content and conclusions.

Please, join us Monday nights at 6pm CST at KOOP.org. Enjoy!

This episode's focus is to ‘Bring Light Into Darkness’ around what the US public should know about the cost of war. Over the last couple of shows we have focused on - among other things - the developing cabinet of President-Elect Joe Biden and the foreign policy history of Joe Biden along with those cabinet members he has already selected or is reportedly considering. The disturbing finding is that it all points to a bellicose foreign policy, similar to that of President Obama’s administration, as well as President George W. Bush before him and even in excess to Donald Trump’s foreign policy and broken promises of deescalating our military forces abroad.

This episode’s show shifts focus from personalities to objective outcomes of the past history of US militarism, and we are delighted to have a great American authority as our guest: Author and professor David Vine. We are excited to be presenting the

articulate and compassionate dialogue that Professor Vine shared as our guest, on Christmas eve, that we are sharing for the first time during our broadcast tonight.

Professor Vine presents a compelling account of the ‘Cost of War’ - not just for our servicemen and women and their families or the financial costs as a nation as well - but also for the world populations impacted negatively by unjust interventions promoted by our foreign policy.

Enjoy!

This episode's focus is to ‘Bring Light Into Darkness’ around what the US public should know about the cost of war. Over the last couple of shows we have focused on - among other things - the developing cabinet of President-Elect Joe Biden and the foreign policy history of Joe Biden along with those cabinet members he has already selected or is reportedly considering. The disturbing finding is that it all points to a bellicose foreign policy, similar to that of President Obama’s administration, as well as President George W. Bush before him and even in excess to Donald Trump’s foreign policy and broken promises of deescalating our military forces abroad.

This episode’s show shifts focus from personalities to objective outcomes of the past history of US militarism, and we are delighted to have a great American authority as our guest: Author and professor David Vine. We are excited to be presenting the

articulate and compassionate dialogue that Professor Vine shared as our guest, on Christmas eve, that we are sharing for the first time during our broadcast tonight.

Professor Vine presents a compelling account of the ‘Cost of War’ - not just for our servicemen and women and their families or the financial costs as a nation as well - but also for the world populations impacted negatively by unjust interventions promoted by our foreign policy.

Enjoy!

This episode's focus includes a continuation of our examination of President Elect Joe Biden’s cabinet. We examine Samantha Power and her likely United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Director appointment and what to expect based on her well documented foreign policy positions under the Obama administration, particularly her humanitarian intervention rationalizations for US intervention in Libya, Syria, and Yemen.

Dan Kovalik, a lawyer, professor, and author of “No More War: How the West Violates International Law by Using ‘Humanitarian Intervention’ to Advance Economic and Strategic Interests,” to discuss. Our guest leads a dialogue on US intervention history and its evolution in techniques while its motives have remained unchanged, driven by elite financial interests of US/western economic interests at the direct cost and inverse proportion of measurable misery that we document as well. Why is the consistent reality that we partner, arm, train and/or logistically support and/or otherwise enable military dictatorships, and governments with horrendous human rights outcomes for their majority populations? We document this reality and remind our listeners of the death squads and al-Qaeda like jihadist terrorists that we have consistently been enabling, but rarely if ever get reported by our mainstream press has the result enabling an ahistorical public consciousness in our citizenry. This absence of honest historically contextualized reporting seems devoted to Out of sight Out of Mind perspective that drives our media coverage, thus its complicity in promoting a long history of unjust interventions and their results, results which our guest does an outstanding job of detailing for us, particularly in Libya, Yemen, Nicaragua, and Guatemala.

Accountability starts with honest and thorough analysis of history. Enjoy!

This episode's focus includes a continuation of our examination of President Elect Joe Biden’s cabinet. We examine Samantha Power and her likely United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Director appointment and what to expect based on her well documented foreign policy positions under the Obama administration, particularly her humanitarian intervention rationalizations for US intervention in Libya, Syria, and Yemen.

Dan Kovalik, a lawyer,professor, and author of “No More War: How the West Violates International Law by Using ‘Humanitarian Intervention’ to Advance Economic and Strategic Interests,” to discuss. Our guest leads a dialogue on US intervention history and its evolution in techniques while its motives have remained unchanged, driven by elite financial interests of US/western economic interests at the direct cost and inverse proportion of measurable misery that we document as well. Why is the consistent reality that we partner, arm, train and/or logistically support and/or otherwise enable military dictatorships, and governments with horrendous human rights outcomes for their majority populations? We document this reality and remind our listeners of the death squads and al-Qaeda like jihadist terrorists that we have consistently been enabling, but rarely if ever get reported by our mainstream press has the result enabling an ahistorical public consciousness in our citizenry. This absence of honest historically contextualized reporting seems devoted to Out of sight Out of Mind perspective that drives our media coverage, thus its complicity in promoting a long history of unjust interventions and their results, results which our guest does an outstanding job of detailing for us, particularly in Libya, Yemen, Nicaragua, and Guatemala.

Accountability starts with honest and thorough analysis of history. Enjoy!

Host Pedro Gatos is joined by S Brian Wilson, a former commander of a USAF combat security unit in Vietnam who has been a justice activist for 50 years.

The two focus on the Nicaragua example, with special attention paid to the evolution of the different means and methods of illegal violations of international law in the US foreign policy’s toolbox of promoting sovereignty violations within third countries.

Host Pedro Gatos is joined by S Brian Wilson, a former commander of a USAF combat security unit in Vietnam who has been a justice activist for 50 years.

The two focus on the Nicaragua example, with special attention paid to the evolution of the different means and methods of illegal violations of international law in the US foreign policy’s toolbox of promoting sovereignty violations within third countries.