to live on one hundred thirty three bucks a month for food i should try it because you know how fabulous bad luck i got so. i mean. i know that i'm seriously really messed up. in the old very slow motion leopoldo that's. the worst for the little thing the white house or the. radio guy minestrone the. clothes are about to give you never seen anything like this until. it's up guys and i mean martin rock in the breaking the set so i've got a packed show for you guys today but first let me highlight

a couple headlines that aren't quite getting the attention they deserve for one the fight to hold former guatemalan dictator to deal someone's accountable for war crimes is far from over see recently mourned was convicted by water mellows constitutional court for the genocide conviction was thought to be a landmark ruling for justice in a country where as many as two hundred fifty thousand people were killed during a bloody thirty years civil war moment was sentenced to eighteen years in prison the barely serve one day of that sentence because in a bizarre turn of events watermelons top court threw out the conviction and ruled that the trial should restart from where it stood on april nineteenth which means montez again another trial defense and another opportunity to walk free moving on to another disturbing story in florida where an f.b.i. agent just shot and killed a man who was allegedly being investigated in connection with the boston marathon bombings slain man was twenty seven year old you brought a game to da ship originally from chechnya a thought. these claim that they were interrogating his alleged friendship with

tamarind sarnia when he pulled out a knife stabbed one of the officers and was subsequently shot and killed police of course say that the shooting was in self-defense so it's their word against a dead man and sadly dead men tell no tales so even though we won't ever know if this man was actually involved in everything anything at all you can pretty much bet that they expect people to be fine with killing an executive when and that's not ok with me so let's ask the questions demand the answers and let's break the set. i am sure everyone has heard by now hollywood actress angelina jolie is that a double mastectomy which is the medical term for having breast removal surgery usually it's a move women choose to make when they're faced with the unfortunate news of having

tested positive for cancer however in angelina's case the move was preemptive she went through the major surgery in order to reduce the risk of cancer after learning that she had a faulty gene called b.r.c.a. one which sharply increases her risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer take a look. after angelina jolie revealed she had a double mastectomy people magazine is reporting this morning that jolie is now planning to undergo surgery to remove her ovaries because of an increased risk of cancer her openness over her health problems is producing what's being called the jolie effect and later jolie made a surprise announcement this morning the oscar winner is revealing she had a double mastectomy generosa surgery and an op it for the new york times it was performed earlier this year in which reaction today to the blazing announcement by angelina jolie about her surgery to reduce her risk of cancer not angelina jolie got more coverage than being gazi in the i.r.s. when she told the world should

a double mastectomy to prevent breast cancer which runs in her family. indeed it was the story of the week across the corporate media no look i'm not going to sit here and question whether or not this is a story worth covering i admire her greatly for having the courage to put vanity aside and use her celebrity status to help empower the four hundred thousand people who will die from breast cancer this year alone takes a lot for one of the world's biggest sex symbols to boldly state how her breasts do not define her femininity having said that the real issue here is something that goes much deeper than preventative msec timmy's or good motherhood those mutated genes found in angelina's body called b.r.c.a. one and b.r.c.a. two are at the heart of a debate at the supreme court it's a case called association for molecular pathology versus myriad genetics and it's deliberating whether or not a company can patent parts of the human body or genome it's something that most of us probably haven't given much thought to that is an issue that calls into question

the ethics and morality about patenting life and what consequences that may have so to talk about this case and the implications on science and medicine and joined now by sandra park a.c.l.u. staff attorney and representative for the plaintiffs in this case thank you so much sandra for coming on and. thanks for having me so what is the you currently arguing in the myriad genetics case what is the concern with patenting these genes. so we brought the first lawsuit in the united states challenging human genes it's estimated that twenty percent of our genes have been patented and patting genes allows the patent holder to control all the testing that's done on the genes as well as any research that has died and we think that simply goes too far in giving monopolies to companies over the future of genetic research but didn't the supreme court already invalidate these sorts of patents under mayo versus promethea.

mail actually dealt with a different kind of patent relating to medical methods there is no case yet decided by the court about whether human genes can be patented and we're expecting a decision in june so even though these genes are current naturally in the body and this is why i think it's confusing for a lot of people they're like how can they patent something that's naturally occurring in our bodies myriad genetics invested in the research the technology the development in order to isolate these genes to research them which they say that entitles them to a patent because they developed this this research in order to isolate these genes and and study them why is that something that you disagree with. well i think it's important to note first that millions of dollars of federal tax money went into the search for these genes and there were teams around the world looking for these genes and simultaneously found b.r.c.a. two but i think the more fundamental argument that we're making is that a gene is a product of nature and so when myriad argues that they somehow invented something

by just isolating the gene and remember all that isolation means is that you've removed a gene from the cell in the body we think that argument is fundamentally flawed because you could make the same argument when a doctor removes a kidney from the body for transplant it's clear to us that the doctor did not invent the kidney by removing it it's still a human organ it's still a part of the body and it's still a product of nature let's talk about the monopoly issue which you mentioned i mean already this test costs three thousand dollars for people who want to pursue it in the u.s. and it's under almost exclusive ownership by myriad genetics if myriad wins this case how will it affect other scientists organizations wanting to research these genes. well we've already seen the problem with these patents where myriad has been able to shut down every other laboratory that has offered comprehensive testing of

these genes even when those laboratories were using different testing methods and that's really our concern that allowing patents on the genes allows patterning of fundamental elements of our human body that we actually want scientists to use to further develop and to further do research on to create inventions that we do think are patent inventions such as new tests or new drugs and that's simply not what myriad has done here they've actually patented the gene itself so what do people do if they can't afford to test to know if they have cancer cells i mean it seems like i mean i guess if the innovation is able to go to other companies and people and scientists then that will be lower obviously the monopoly is causing this to be so expensive because it seems like this is only benefiting the people going to four to take this type of action in the first place. yes it's a big problem where there are patients that have family histories of breast and ovarian cancer or who have other risk factors for hereditary breast or ovarian

cancer and cannot afford the test and that means they're deprived of a crucial piece of information about their own genetic risk for cancer and that's an important piece of information for making medical decisions about how often you're going to get screened for cancer whether you're going to take prophylactic measures like angelina jolie did and many other decisions including you know family planning for ovarian cancer many people choose to remove their ovaries but if you haven't had kids yet it's a it's a serious issue about whether you want to take that step and when you want to take that step and knowing your genetic risk is really crucial to making that decision indeed its ownership over your own lives i mean making decisions based on what's best for you and your body and you know we've seen the supreme court rule time and time again on the side of big business patenting life and like crop seeds so should we expect the current court to rule similarly on this case. i think the court has

been very strong on this issue for over one hundred fifty years the court has said that products and laws of nature cannot be patented and so we're very hopeful that they will apply that precedent to this case and invalidate the patents on human genes it seems like this is inevitably going to be used for corporations to patent i mean or at least is going to be attempted time and time again in other avenues i mean i guess where do we draw the line because it seems like this is a concept that could be taken very very far in a very dangerous direction sandra. yes and i think that is what really concerned the court in oral argument last month what you heard the justices asking the attorney for myriad about is where do we draw the line if you had patented the chromosome that was isolated from the body without the. ok or if you had been the first to remove a piece of the liver would that be ok and i think that they really were concerned that marriott's attorneys seem not to be drawing any sort of principled line where

do we stop in terms of patterning parts of the human body and sandra just lost it or up about thirty seconds to one is this case going to be determined this year. so we expect a decision by the end of june thank you so much sandra park a.c.l.u. staff attorney will be definitely following this important case very closely thanks for your time. thank you. so guys i want to share with you this awesome tweet from actor john q sachar said that my interview with noam chomsky is a must watch so you sex advice and go watch it on here to dot com breaking the set stick around we'll be right back. time has a new alert animation scripts scare me a little. there is breaking news tonight and we are continuing to follow

the breaking news. out what favors family cry tears of joy and if great things other than there has to be either brand or at the core of what is around. there's a story made sort of playing out in real life. or you. were. really.

lucky. if you'd like to. have ever considered that the war on terror could just be a symptom of an unavoidable culture clash between islam and the west it's a theory called the clash of civilizations popularized by author samuel p. huntington in the ninety's that claims that there is an inherent cultural clash between the east and the west pitted against each other by default it's a concept that's many opponents and academics have criticized over the years but

one that raises very important questions about how we're seeing u.s. foreign policy a volved today and that's something that my next guest dr drawn trumbo has studied extensively as a historian and research director at harvard law school while in boston over the weekend i had the opportunity to sit down with him in his office where i first asked him to break down the theory of the clash of civilizations take a look. in the early one nine hundred ninety s. samuel p. huntington wrote a very influential article for foreign affairs magazine and this was right after the cold war of the early cold war. the early end of the cold war where people were saying now that the soviet union is now breaking up the west doesn't have an enemy what are we going to do there was this fear and huntington talked about it a lot that the liberal democracies become flabby and decadent fall into

a kind of crass commercialism and materialism and that you need to be sometimes have an enemy a proper enemy to get your society mobilized to fight for higher values and to. you know continue strength of your civilization and so the speculation became well the new enemy now that the cold war is over is going to be islam the history of. doing say frats and the ottoman empire fear is of long stretches of history where western societies were able to work with islamic societies but that kind of gets brushed aside just to say we are deep down we hate each other and to some void this conflict is going to have to come to a head and there were a lot of ideologues that really got behind it especially who were fearful of the

consequences of the end of the cold war when you hear the clash of civilizations being used as almost a justification for why these wars in the middle east are happening isn't almost a childlike dumbed down view of a battle that's much more complex about resources than geo political control we just had this testimony from the assistant. secretary of defense sheehan who was asked well how long is this war on terror going to go and he said well it will last he says at least another ten to twenty years and many commentators said well we've already had this twelve years since nine eleven so that they're officially sort of saying that it's probably a thirty years war at least and i think the clash of civilization is very useful for that kind of thinking because it tells you that there is this a long term thing that's unceasing that's very hard to do and

it makes it very hard for people to then talk about ways in which some of this can be wound down and part of it is the logic of the war on terrorism is your are constantly attacking people that leads to tremendous amounts of civilian casualties case can be made that in fact you know many more civilians are often being killed than suppose a terrorist and you're belding war and more means all along and so it just keeps keeps it going many people look at the middle east and say they're centuries behind the western world they're so barbaric when you look at countries like egypt iran afghanistan and i mean mere decades ago they were much more progressive than they are today what do you think has caused this backwards trend the transformation was very very rapid but i think one thing that a lot of people don't don't appreciate sometimes is that

a lot of the repression that was supported by the west that was designed to destroy a left secular. alternative many times and so that was knocked out of the way and then you know of course people they always tried to distance themselves from say the support for. extreme islam in afghanistan where they had this idea that we are going to support these taliban because this is going to be our way of sticking it to the soviets and so you know that is sort of been now just distance and said well we had no responsibility for that there's always been a denial in the story about bin ladin you know there was a lot of efforts to build up this kind of very extreme islam sometimes with the support of the saudis as a way of fighting soviet communism and also opposing more left leaning forces in

islamic societies and so you know when they got stronger and stronger you know later on i think i think some of these western foreign policy observers started say oh well we had nothing to do it this this was just some thing that was just permanently part of their societies because there is a law mixed civilizations and the you know there's always been this war a lot of warm of is a lie they would say and they would try to frighten paul that this is a permanent feature in those societies but you know it's not really you know the way those societies you know developed in the twentieth century many cases and so. they don't want to talk so much about about the role of repression in the types of regimes that we gave great support to that ended up developing this kind of

backlash against it i can't help but remember that famous photo hailing bin ladin as the anti soviet hero of the cold war and of course we all know what happened when that you discussed the search for a new cold war enemy how was that enemy constructed you did have a literature in the eighty's during the reagan ear that there was. you know a. kind of terrorism network out there that was going to view a very dangerous wars but i do think the clash of civilizations people they really then tried to just link it to something that was inherent to islam and they really talk a reading of is alive to try to find any aspects of the koran in the defs to try to say these are the evidence of a structure of violence now many of us could take say the christian scriptures

judeo christian bible and you can find areas where if you want to see a very unforgiving a merciless god you can find it if you take it out of the right tax out in course we see extremists christians who you know are sort of ideologues who without mercy you can find this i think an in a lot of world religions where. you know many of the world religions have great peaceful impulses that you can find but if you really want to find some of the things that are you know ugly you can mock the things and find them and so i think there was a lot of effort you know to try to find this kind of interpretation of islam and not really try to find you know aspects of islam that have you know been in a more peaceful direction there was you know and that was

a lot of huntington's effort to always say wherever muslims are islam has bloody borders they can't get along with people and many times that was done in a very decontextualized way looking at situations sometimes where muslims were sometimes also minorities in societies where they were really under a lot of assault an attack. and it was sort of many times is blaming the victim and saying there is violence there it must be because muslims are there and that was you know way that it would be written about and we know that the u.s. foreign policy necessitates an enemy think you're communists and terrorism what do you think the next enemy is going to be after the thirty year war on terror you see some theorists really looking into this question of what is going to happen with the united states and china because china seems to be the real global powerhouse in

many ways. but i think when you do ask this question of an enemy i do think that is. a fundamental problem for liberal democracies that many of the great theoreticians of liberal democracy do have this deep seated worry about how do you have societal cohesion how do you mobilize societies for higher gauls if you don't have an enemy and obama to some extent is not really broken with a lot of their. you know activities you know we have drone attacks going on at a much much greater rate than the previous government and republican government and there's a lot of continuity in the foreign policy if you really really really break it down and i think that's a hard thing for

a lot of liberals to swallow when people say that you've also done a lot of research on the homogenization of culture the spread of american is in the through hollywood when you look at films like zero dark thirty argo films that perpetuate this clash between east and west would you say that hollywood is now a very effective propaganda tool for the establishment the issue was. some people in the state department were afraid that hollywood out a certain amount of volved carroty and they were worried about that but at the end they decided no hollywood is a great asset for the united states it's helping spread the american way it's helping perpetuate. the new goods coming off of our assembly lines people are seeing them in the movies there was an effort you know to then make a lot of fiercely anti communist movies during the one nine hundred fifty s. and on but overall i think that the main thinkers for

us capitalism in the establishment institutions they still regard hollywood as a big asset for u.s. business and industry even though from time to time there's individual exemplars that they don't like there's a lot of complaint they feel that hollywood is not pro-business enough and that that complaint comes out a lot even though hollywood i think many times when there is a criticism of business it's often the critique is that there's an evil doer in that company and all that evil doer has to be replaced by a good person a nice person and then i think. it's very hard i think for hollywood to have a more systematic critique of the system why does this lead to the same outcomes over and over again that are interests of the people on the corporate domination of so much of the society in the culture and dr your research director

at harvard of course one of most prestigious institutions in the country how would you say that harvard and other institutions like it perpetuate the same ruling class the same ruling elite and what's problematic about that you know once again you have to start asking yourself why is it that when say the reagan administration comes. the power there they were bragging we have twice as many harvard people as the kennedy administration there. ready to serve the most conservative regimes and the liberalism i often argue is not very liberal it's often it was very willing to cooperate with the cold war in the national security state and go along with that and many of them as accept most of the major assumptions of the. post nine eleven consensus that this war

on terror is something that must continue on and on you know when you have the president of harvard at the three hundred seventy fifth anniversary welcomes henry kissinger back and there's just all these standing ovations in applause for this man you know harvard i think feels very comfortable with many of the leading architects of a foreign policy that's created this permanent war economy and this national security state and chomsky also said that propaganda is largely directed toward the privileged thank you so much for your time thank you. guys that's it for today's show as always thanks for watching thanks for your feedback always and i'll soon right back here tomorrow while i'll be breaking the set all over again. just such.

a mission is. the cretaceous priests in store charges three. arrangements three. three stooges priests told freeboard counseling videos for your media projects a free media dog our teeth on tom. wealthy british style insults and sometimes that's right let's go. let's. market. substandard. find out what's really happening to the global economy

with mike's culture for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into kinds of reports . indicating. the long. term outlook for myself prime. target.

it. cheap.