Hillary, Hillary, Wherefore Art Thou, Hillary?

Former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is campaigning to become President of the United States; and if she is successful in her efforts she will be the country's first woman president. The sheer historicity of this potential and possibility of such accomplishment is exciting, to say the least. Thus far, however, Sec. Clinton's role in the 2016 election cycle has been blemished by an ever-widening gap among Democrat women voters. The press and various pundits recognize this phenomenon as occurring in two camps--women older than 45 years of age and women younger than 45 years. Women over 45 years are inclined to support and vote for Clinton; while younger women express a strong preference for Senator Bernie Sanders. Many have speculated as to the impetus behind this divide; Gloria Steinem offered that younger women weren't drawn to support the Sander's campaign for any reason based in intellect or politics or altruism, rather the attraction was simply one of pheromones and the boys to which they belong. Ms. Steinem, who has since apologized for her overwhelmingly sexist statement, must think that younger women are incapable of objective thought and reason; and as such, grade a candidate based on the physical attractiveness of his/her campaign workers. While former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told us about a special place in hell for those women who choose not to support women; comments that not only rely upon a less than subtle equating of free-thought with heresy but are also reminiscent of attitudes generated during the Inqusition of the 13th century, in that they are devoid of either objectivity or reason.
Was the purpose of the 19th Amendment and the Women's Suffrage Movement to have all women vote as a block with little or no thought given to issues, candidates, etcetera?  Unlikely. In fact, that perspective does strike one as more than a bit sexist, anathema to the entire suffrage movement.
Does it seem so far-fetched to Ms. Steinem and Secretary Albright that younger women represent a sophisticated demographic, independent and unbound by the shackles of a mentality more closely akin to that of a 1960's UAW union member? And by that I mean simply, that both Steinem and Albright seem to advocate for voting preferences and political palettes that are dictated to and determined by a group to which one has pledged economic fealty or in this instance gender fealty.
I would submit that so many younger women have turned away from the Hillary campaign as a result of priorities: their priorities this election cycle do not coincide with those of the current female presidential candidate. Where is the discussion about women's health issues? Genetically modified organisms (GMO's)? Fossil fuels? Universal voting suffrage? In all fairness, she did not assume the gauntlet regarding the increasingly oppressive financial burden of student loan debt until Senator Sanders insisted it was an issue of enough gravity to merit reshaping the national conversation. Still another, some might say, even more poignant aspect of this divide amongst women is the struggle between two philosophies--entitlement versus altruism.
On the campaign trail,  Hillary Clinton insists that, as President, two of her earliest actions will include mandating equal pay for equal work and a moratorium on coal, oil and natural gas drilling on public land. I want to believe her but find it difficult; as Clinton has already redacted from her platform earlier statements regarding coal, oil and natural gas. She now supports drilling on public lands. Will her intentions soon cool on the issue of equal pay?
Clinton's sense of altruism as a candidate versus her sense of entitlement regarding ascension to the position POTUS becomes even more opaque when one looks at her big-ticket supporters, the PAC supporting her candidacy and her tie-in to global agrichemical ventures, like Monsanto, Dow Chemical and Syngenta. For example, Clinton enjoys the support of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, on the order of $25M in campaign donations, thus far. Bill Gates owns millions of shares of Monsanto and Cargill stock, roughly $23M worth. The intersection of interests is unavoidable. The potential for a superimposition of Monsanto priorities onto those of the Clinton campaign becomes increasingly more likely when one realizes the influence of former Monsanto executives on any future administration, because they have certainly influenced those previous. Please consider the following: Michael Taylor, the FDA's current Deputy Commissioner of Foods, is a former Monsanto executive; Clarence Thomas, current Supreme Court Justice, was formerly a Monsanto corporate attorney; and Jeremy Crawford, a law and lobbying specialist, previously in the employ of Monsanto, is now employed as a campaign advisor for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential bid.
According to data compiled by Greenpeace, Secretary Clinton's campaign and the superPAC supporting her, Priorities USA, have received in excess of $4.5M from the fossil fuel industry. Relative cheap-skates compared to the agrichemical interests, but substantive none the less. In fact, more than eleven registered oil and gas lobbyists have given a combined total to her campaign of more than $1M. A fair percentage of the fossil fuel contributions to Hillary's campaign have come from two donors: Donald Sussman and David Shaw. Sussman is the founder and chairperson of Paloma Partners; $2.5M of this hedge fund is invested in energy companies, i.e. Phillips 66, AGL Resources and Occidental Petroleum. Incidentally, Paloma Partners received $200M in US taxpayer money as part of the AIG bail-out. David Shaw, chief scientist at DE Shaw Research, has given $750,000 to Priorities USA and another $50,000 to Clinton's Ready PAC, (formerly Ready for Hillary PAC). Shaw, in fact, served on the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) in both Bill Clinton's administration as well as that of Barack Obama's; and he has major holdings in the Marathon Petroleum Corporation.
Hillary Clinton appeared at a fundraiser in January of this year, which was in large part under-written by the fracking lobby; the event was co-hosted by Michael C. Forman, founder and CEO of Franklin Square Capital Partners. Franklin Square is a $17B investment firm which holds significant interests in scores of Pennsylvania fracking companies. Secretary Clinton obviously supports fracking; as evidenced by her actions while at the State Department--she lobbied against fracking bans throughout Eastern Europe. In addition, when asked during a recent debate about her support of fracking she responded: I don't support it when any locality or state is against it, number one...I don't support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don't support it, number three, unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using. Sounds like a fracking endorsement to me! And still it continues--Clinton states that she supports a Department of Justice investigation into ExxonMobil as she continues to accept campaign contributions from the Exxon lobby!?
At the start of the 2016 campaign season, more than 20 environmental organizations, human rights organizations, etcetera, asked the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates to sign a pledge to #FixDemocracy. This #FixDemocracy pledge asked candidates to support the following legislation: 1) The Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would help to restore as well as increase protections against voting discrimination; 2) The Voter Empowerment Act, to modernize voter registration and ensure equal access to polling stations, voting opportunities for all Americans; 3) The Democracy for All Amendment, to overturn SCOTUS decisions like those of Citizens United and limit the influence of money/corporate contributions in politics; 4) The Government by the People Act/Fair Elections Now Act, would place an emphasis on the small campaign contributions of ordinary citizens while working to de-emphasize the influence of big-business/big pharma in political campaigns. Of all the candidates asked, only Senator Bernie Sanders signed the pledge. Hillary Clinton acknowledged the request but did not sign. No Republican candidate responded nor did any sign the pledge.
Why does any of this matter? It is near impossible to deny the influence that corporations have upon our political process. It might be one person, one vote; but it is also one company, ($)4.5M votes or one company, ($)17B votes. The depths to which such corporate power can penetrate into our legislature is almost impossible to fathom. The companies and corporations involved in this presidential campaign are not altruistic; if anything they are dangerous and destructive to the very foundation of a democratic society. Money for influence in the context of government is the antidote to Jeffersonian democracy.
In support of this contention please consider the following information about several of the companies mentioned earlier, Monsanto, Dow Chemical and Syngenta.
 Founded in 1901, Monsanto is a publicly traded American multinational agrichemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. At present it is best known for its production of GMO's including genetically engineered seeds, and RoundUp. RoundUp is a glyphosate-based herbicide used to eradicate "weeds"; lymphoma and leukemia are known side effects of exposure to this product. Monsanto has also brought us such gems as DDT, PCB's, Agent Orange and Bovine Growth Hormone. Dow Chemical is also an American multinational corporation, that develops agrichemicals, plastics, etcetera. According to the EPA, Dow is responsible for 96 Superfund toxic waste sites, including a former UCC uranium and vanadium processing facility near Uravan, Colorado. Dow has a number of subsidiaries and joint ventures, i.e. Arabian Chemical Company, Dow Chemical Kuwait, Sadara Chemical Company, the Kuwait Styrene Co KSC, the Kuwait Olefins Com KSC, Map Ta Phut Olefins Co Lmtd. Syngenta is a global Swiss agribusiness which produces agrichemicals and seeds. It was formed in 2000 after a merger between Novartis agribusiness and Zeneca agribusiness. In February 2016 ChemChina offered to purchase Syngenta for $43B. Syngenta currently is the primary producer of the herbicide atrazine. Atrazine is banned in the EU but still used across the US. It is a known endocrine disrupter in all animals, including humans; and is responsible for decimating the amphibian population of North America. The EU recently suspended the use of Syngenta's herbicide, Cruiser (thiamethoxam TXM) on all bee-pollinated crops. Of course, Syngenta in collaboration with Bayer is formally challenging this ban in court.
These are the sorts of companies that buy our politicians and hijack the political process. These are the companies that have systematically and without evidence of remorse neutered our democracy. We vote for candidates that are little more than mouth-pieces for chemical interests both foreign and domestic. Maybe, Ms. Steinem and Secretary Albright, young women have pulled away from Hillary Clinton because she has allowed herself to become someone who is owned by corporate interests; she is no longer an advocate nor is she an activist for women's rights and a human rights agenda, she is an atavism, representing a time and place from which young women have been liberated. Someone who has sold their very soul, their identity to the promise of fiduciary gain and financial kickback is little more than a slave to the paymaster and as such that person is wholly incapable of understanding the workings of a free mind. And maybe that's the difference right there, Ladies.

Please reference: signforgood.com, naturalsociety.com, althealthworks.com, news.vice.com, greenpeace.org, democracyawakening.org.

Female Physicians Earn Less than Male Physicians

In a profession as seemingly as objective as medicine, gender-based discrimination is alive and well. Any physician, irrespective of specialty or gender can testify to the significant sacrifices required to be accepted to, navigate and finally graduate from medical school. The debt is nothing short of overwhelming. And if the newly minted physician had any graduate degrees prior to his/her admission to medical school, that debt remains and invariably complicates post-graduate financial existence.
This next statement may sound incredible but please persevere--Male and female medical students are charged the exact same amount/rate of tuition per year of medical school education. One's cost of tuition is, to my knowledge, not based on the presence or absence of certain gender-specific organs. That being said, why then has it become accepted throughout the world of physicians to pay women less than their male counterparts? Even after residency, loan repayment schedules are not based upon projected earnings for each gender. Financial expectations, as regards loan obligations, tuition obligations, etcetera, are constant across the board. There exists no uterus-friendly clause that offers a reduced rate of interest to female med school grads and residents.
However, before we all rush to implicate motherhood, two-income households, and this mysterious desire for part-time employment so many partially informed critics have assigned to us, as female physicians, let's examine the numbers.
The existence of gender-based pay-disparity is not a new or novel economic phenomenon. For more than a few decades, American society has compensated female employees at a rate of about 79 cents for every one dollar earned by a man. For female physicians and surgeons this disparity is closer to 62 cents for every one dollar earned by a male colleague. Recent surveys and several well-crafted studies have found that female physicians, irrespective of specialty, make on average $168,000/year; for male physicians, that figure is much closer to $200,000/year. When distilled further, mid-career female physicians, again irrespective of specialty, earn between $12,500 and $15,000/year less than their male counterparts; when these figures are extrapolated over a projected 30-year career--women, as physicians, earn $350,000 less than male physicians. This very significant gap does not account for all of the financial potential and opportunities lost which are irrefutably contained in a figure as formidable as $350,000.
At first blush, the aforementioned salaries for both male and female physicians may appear substantial enough to afford a certain immunity to internecine criticism; in that, the very weightiness of a physician's income, when compared to the yearly salary of the primary school teacher or factory worker neutralizes any call for equity among the genders. Many men and non-physician women have been overheard more than once to comment, "How much money does she need?" "She's a doctor, she'll always make enough money." "Her husband is probably a doctor too." The best and most simple response to this variety of commentary is by way of extant legislation, i.e. the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. Equal pay for equal work is not a complicated issue--two workers that perform comparable job duties with comparable responsibility, having completed all requisite training, certification and licensure are to be paid the same hourly wage, receive the same percentage of reimbursement with comparable benefits and insurances.
This disparity will only be brought to an end within the field of medicine when female physicians-- academics and clinicians alike--find the strength and necessary courage to challenge and ultimately silence pay discrimination. I truly believe if we needed to accomplish something this seemingly Sisyphean for our patients, it would've happened years ago.

Please reference: eeoc.gov, mobile.nytimes.com, todayshospitalist.com