#Osborne P Anderson | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

carnalesferales · 3 years

Text

Los grandes fondos de inversión que controlan las farmacéuticas

Las principales multinacionales, la mayoría de los grandes grupos de comunicación y hasta el negocio de los fármacos y las vacunas están controlados o condicionados por quienes gestionan los dos fondos de inversión más grandes del planeta.

Nos referimos a Blackrock -que gestiona más de ocho billones y medio de dólares en activos y controla en España a gran parte de las empresas del IBEX 35 y a los principales grupos de comunicación – y al Grupo Vanguard, que gestiona 6,2 billones de dólares y es el accionista principal -directa o indirectamente- del sistema productivo y financiero occidental ya que influye decisivamente en el Banco Central Europeo y la Reserva Federal, las principales petroleras (como Exxon Mobile o BP), gigantes industriales como Monsanto, Pfizer y General Motor y gigantes mediáticos como Time Warner o Walt Disney, entre muchos otros. Se calcula que controla el 75% del tejido productivo y financiero del mundo. Estos dos grandes fondos de inversión controlan igualmente los laboratorios que fabrican y venden las principales “vacunas Covid” – Pfizer, Moderna y AstraZeneca – y son los que han impuesto el relato oficial sobre la Covid-19.

Blackrock y el Grupo Vanguard son, junto a otros grandes fondos de inversión mil millonarios, los dueños de los tres principales laboratorios fabricantes de las “vacunas Covid”: Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna yAstraZeneca.

Blackrock, el mayor fondo de inversión del mundo cuyos Activos Bajo Gestión – que determinan el valor total de mercado y clientes de una financiera – ascienden a 8,676 billones de dólares (datos de 2020) (1) controla en España buena parte de las multinacionales del IBEX 35(2) – incluyendo los tres principales bancos españoles: Santander, BBVA y CaixaBank y posee acciones en casi todos los bancos relevantes (3) y en varios de los principales grupos de comunicación de prensa, radio y televisión como Grupo PRISA, Atresmedia y Mediaset.

Por su parte, el Grupo Vanguard (4) controla activos por valor de 6,2 billones de dólares y tiene inversiones repartidas por los cinco continentes destacando compañías como Microsoft, Bank of America, JP Morgan, Exxon Mobil, Coca-Cola y fabricantes de fármacos o biotecnología como Johnson & Johnson y Monsanto. Además es el principal accionista de las cinco empresas conocidas como GAFAM: Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple y Microsoft.

Estos dos gigantes financieros son los dueños mayoritarios -hay otros fondos de inversión con participaciones menores – de los tres principales laboratorios fabricantes de “vacunas Covid”: las estadounidenses Pfizer/BioNTech y Moderna y la inglesa AstraZeneca(5). En noviembre de 2020(6) su participación era la siguiente:

– Pfizer.- Su principal propietario es el Grupo Vanguard (8,12%), seguido de State-Street Global Advisors (5,2%), Blackrock (5,01%), Wellington Management (4,22%), Geode Capital Management (1,61%) y Norges Bank (1,07%).

–Moderna.- Su máximo accionista es Fidelity (8,64%) seguido de Flagship Pioneering/ (7,8%), Grupo Vanguard (7,04%,), Blackrock (4,09%), Boston Biotech Ventures (2,33%) y otros fondos con porcentajes menores.

–AstraZeneca. El mayor fondo en su accionariado es Blackrock (7,69%) seguido de Capital Group (4,06%), el sueco Investor AB (3,93%), el Grupo Vanguardm (3,41%), Wellington Management (2,95%), Norges Bank (2,36%) y Legal & General (1,55%).

BLACKROCK CONTROLA GRUPOS MEDIÁTICOS

En cuanto a los grandes grupos de comunicación del mundo el principal accionista es Blackrock. Las empresas más valoradas en bolsa(7) son las cinco tecnológicas: Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Facebook, Apple y Microsoft, conjunto conocido como GAFAM. Tienen una fuerte vinculación con los grupos de comunicación y han pasado de ser meras plataformas necesarias para el periodismo digital y todo tipo de contenidos culturales a convertirse en productores comunicativos.

Estas cinco empresas tienen relación con los mayores fondos de inversión que, a su vez, están presentes en los grandes conglomerados mediáticos tradicionales. Seis de esos fondos poseen acciones en las empresas GAFAM, el Grupo Vanguard, Blackrock, State Street Corporation, FMR, Geode Capital Management y Northern Trust Corporation y están presentes además en los grupos mediáticos más importantes: News Corporation, Comcast Corporation, Viacom Inc. CBS Corporation yThe Walt Disney Company.

Estos fondos de gestión son asimismo accionistas de empresas globales de muy diferentes sectores como Exxon Mobile (petrolera), Coca-Cola (restauración), McDonald’s (restauración), Boeing (aviación), General Motors (automóviles), General Electric/ (electrodomésticos y armas, entre otros), Helmerich & Payne (petrolera) y Hewlett Packard Enterprise (tecnologías de la información). Su poder es tal que “están situadas por encima de la dinámica democrática, en el plano de la invisibilidad, por lo que su existencia así como las posibles presiones y condicionamientos a las sociedades en las que desarrollan sus actividades pasan inadvertidas a las audiencias de los medios, los ciudadanos y los votantes”(7)

Blackrock se fundó en Nueva York en 1988 y uno de sus fundadores es Keith Anderson, actual jefe de inversiones de George Soros(8). La empresa tuvo un crecimiento tan vertiginoso en cuanto se creó que llegó a ser considerada “el mayor banco en la sombra del mundo” porque ni sus actividades, ni su líder –Larry Fink-, ni el resto de sus directivos se prodigan en los medios de comunicación de masas, discreción que sin duda aprecian sus clientes: bancos, profesionales financieros, fondos soberanos, fondos de pensiones y algún que otro mil millonario. Y obviamente sus inversiones abarcan todos los ámbitos claves de la economía: la propia banca, las químicas, las petroleras, el sector de la automoción, los grandes laboratorios… (9).

Todo ello inmerso en una enorme red donde las vulneraciones a la competencia y los conflictos de intereses son bien conocidos… y consentidos.

EMPRESA «CONSEJERA» DE ESTADOS EN CRISIS

Blackrock fue definido en La Vanguardia como “un gigante despierto que está cambiando el capitalismo” añadiendo que “habla de tú a tú con los gobiernos e instituciones financieras. Les aconseja cómo actuar y lo mismo hace con las compañías en las que es el principal accionista. Y entre ellas están, por ejemplo, el 88% de las empresas del índice (de bolsa) S&P 500”(10).

Recordemos que Monsanto fue comprada por la farmacéutica alemana Bayer, compañía en la que Blackrock posee un buen paquete de acciones y, por tanto, poder en su Junta Directiva. Y hablamos de una operación que ascendió a 63.000 millones de dólares, una de las más importantes de la historia(11).

Blackrock también domina el sector financiero de Europa y se sabe que actúa con dureza contra cualquier intento de regulación del sector. Es más, está promoviendo la privatización de las pensiones públicas, objetivo clave para multiplicar los fondos que gestiona.

Blackrock actúa como «consejera» de estados con problemas económicos pero su «asesoramiento» consiste en instarles a privatizar patrimonio público. Se lo sugirió a Estados Unidos tras la quiebra de Lehman Brothers, fue quien elaboró el informe para que Grecia reestructurara su banca privada tras la victoria de Syriza, llevó a cabo una auditoría del sector bancario de Irlanda que puso al país bajo control de la Troika. Y un último apunte: mientras que con Barak Obama hubo numerosos ejecutivos de Goldman & Sachs ocupando puestos claves del gobierno quienes los ocupan hoy con Joe Biden son ex altos cargos de Blackrock(12).

En fin, Blackrock está presente hoy en la quinta parte de las grandes empresas estadounidenses – en muchos casos siendo el mayor accionista – hasta el punto de que el New York Times lo ha apodado “el gigante silencioso”. Y es que se ha convertido en uno de los principales grupos de presión política tanto en Estados Unidos como en Europa tras contratar a antiguos cargos de gobiernos y bancos centrales como, por ejemplo, Philipp Hildebrand – exDirector del Banco Central de Suiza-, George Osborne – exMinistro de Hacienda del Reino Unido -, Stanley Fischer – exVicepresidente de la Reserva Federal estadounidense -, Friedrich Merz – exportavoz parlamentario de la Unión Demócrata Cristiana de Alemania (CDU) -, Cheryl Mills – exjefe del gabinete de Hilary Clinton – o Jean-Françoise Cirelli – ex consejero de Jacques Chiraq(13).

BLACKROCK EN ESPAÑA

El desembarco en España de Blackrock se produjo en 2012 cuando el Banco Central Europeo rescató Bankia y otras cajas saqueadas y se creó el SAREB, el llamado “banco malo” que se supone se creó para sanear el sistema financiero. Blackrock fue el encargado de gestionar los «fondos tóxicos» inmobiliarios de las entidades rescatadas(14). Poco después, tras la «reorganización» de fuerzas – propiciada por Mariano Rajoy y Rafael de Guindos – los activos se repartieron con grupos extranjeros y Blackrock se convirtió en 2016 en el primer accionista de los bancos Santander y BBVA y se introdujo en sectores de la alimentación (DIA), la construcción (Merlín Properties, Inmobiliaria Colonial, Lar España e Hispania Activos Inmobiliarios), la energía (Repsol e Iberdrola), la siderurgia (Acerinox), la gestión aeroportuaria (AENA) y los medios de comunicación (Telefónica y Mediaset). La operación sobre los grandes medios de comunicación la complementaría en noviembre de 2020 adquiriendo, junto a CVC Capital Partners, la mitad de la deuda del grupo PRISA, teniendo así en sus manos el control de las operaciones corporativas pero también según se afirma el de los contenidos, la línea editorial y el tratamiento de las noticias del diario El País y la Cadena Ser, lo que “puede suponer la estocada final a la independencia de los grandes medios de comunicación”.(15)

Algunos medios ya han afirmado que “la pandemia y la crisis han servido de alfombra roja para la penetración del capital extranjero – principalmente norteamericano pero también europeo – en múltiples arterias económicas y sectores monopolistas clave de nuestro país. Uno de ellos son los grandes grupos de comunicación que además de su importancia económica son un potente aparato de poder”(16). Los medios de comunicación en España han perdido más de 2.100 millones de euros de su valor en Bolsa añadiendo que en julio Atresmedia caía un 28%, Mediaset un 43% y Grupo PRISA declaraba unas pérdidas de 209 millones de euros en nueve meses. El grupo francés Vivendi ha adquirido el 9,9% de las acciones de Grupo PRISA asociándose con el fondo estadounidense Amber Capital que posee el 29,84%. En cuanto a International Media Group – propiedad del jeque qatarí Khalid Thani Abdullah Al-Thani- tiene un 6,5% del Grupo PRISA y posee un 8% del Banco Santander e Iberdrola a través del fondo de inversión Qatar Holding.

Y la cosa no acaba ahí: el gigante de la comunicación alemana UFA/RTL es dueña del 18,65% de las acciones de Atresmedia cuya Consejera Coordinadora es Patricia Estany Puig, Directora Gerente en JP Morgan.

Vocento y Mediaset comparten por su parte un inversor: Norges Bank. Se trata del fondo del banco noruego que gestiona el sistema de pensiones de su país y además está presente en 34 de las 35 empresas del IBEX y posee acciones de Prosegur, Iberdrola, Inditex, Telefónica, AENA, BBVA, Bankia y Banco Santander.

España sigue manteniéndose entre los principales receptores de inversión extranjera a nivel mundial. Detrás de un importante sector del país, como son los medios de comunicación, hay intereses de multinacionales y bancos estadounidenses, alemanes, franceses, italianos y noruegos de igual modo que ocurre en el resto de sectores del país. Los medios de comunicación están en manos de banqueros y grandes empresarios de las eléctricas, las farmacéuticas, las apuestas (…) El discurso que vemos en los grandes medios no es otro que el de la clase dominante y responde a su único interés: los beneficios.

LOS FABRICANTES DE VACUNAS: DELINCUENTES Y CORRUPTOS

Aunque las prácticas corruptas son moneda habitual de las grandes multinacionales farmacéuticas -algo que venimos denunciando desde hace años- Pfizer ostenta el dudoso honor de haber sido condenada en firme en múltiples ocasiones. Pfizer tendrá que pagar 60,2 millones de dólares por haber sobornado a médicos e instituciones sanitarias de Europa y Asia tras la denuncia de la Comisión del Mercado de Valores de Estados Unidos (…) Pfizer hizo pagos ilegales al menos en 11 países” (17). Y no es más que una muestra porque desde el 2000 ha tenido que pagar en total 4.747.652.947 dólares por distintos delitos relacionados con la salud, la seguridad, la competencia y el medio ambiente(18).

Obviamente Pfizer no es la única que arrastra un historial de multas.

Según una investigación de las universidades de Carolina del Norte, San Francisco y Nebraska publicada recientemente en JAMA -la revista de la Asociación Médica Americana (19) – las grandes empresas farmacéuticas han sido multadas hasta en 196 ocasiones por delitos que van del soborno al fraude masivo. Son sin embargo GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Johnson & Johnson, Abbott y Eli Lilly las multinacionales más sancionadas al haber tenido que pagar entre 2003 y 2016 miles de millones de dólares por motivos que incluyen productos adulterados, soborno, ocultación de información, fraude, delitos medioambientales, comisiones ilegales, publicidad y/o etiquetado engañoso.

Terminamos recordando que altos ejecutivos de las principales empresas fabricantes de vacunas se aseguraron de obtener enormes beneficios económicos independientemente del éxito que pudieran tener al comercializarse. Stéphane Bancel – Director Ejecutivo de Moderna – vendió acciones por valor de 40 millones de dólares, Tal Zaks – Director Médico de la empresa – obtuvo por las suyas 60 millones y el presidente Stephen Hoge logró más de diez millones (20). Ventas que se hicieron nada más afirmar los grandes medios de comunicación que la vacuna era eficaz según los primeros resultados y subir en Bolsa las acciones de la compañía. Poco después se publicaría que el Director General de Pfizer, Albert Bourla, había vendido el 62% de sus acciones -más de 130.000- a 41,94 dólares cada una obteniendo más de cinco millones de dólares de beneficio con la operación y que la Vicepresidenta Ejecutiva y Directora de Asuntos Corporativos de esa empresa, Sally Susman, obtuvo casi dos millones de dólares por las suyas. Y lo mismo hicieron otros altos ejecutivos de esas y otras farmacéuticas -como Novavax– en cuanto aparecieron las noticias sobre sus «prometedores resultados».

De hecho el Wall Street Journal afirmó recientemente (21) que en 2020 se habían vendido 496 millones de dólares en acciones cuando en 2019 fueron solo 132 millones. Y no se anduvo con rodeos al explicarlo: “En 2020 vendieron más de ocho millones y medio de acciones personas con información privilegiada porque en 2019 fueron 4,7 millones” . Y ante ello cabe preguntarse: ¿por qué esos ejecutivos vendieron tan rápidamente sus acciones? ¿Quisieron aprovechar la subida lograda con el «boom» mediático antes de que el globo se desinflara? Y si fue así, ¿es que nunca confiaron en la presunta eficacia de sus vacunas? Porque si uno cree que funcionan nunca habrían vendido tan rápidamente…

De hecho, no sólo los grandes fondos financian o poseen las acciones de medios de comunicación y verificadores de noticias, incluso las propias farmacéuticas directamente controlan a estos verificadores en muchos casos. Así, por ejemplo FactCheck.org, está financiado por el mismo grupo de presión sobre vacunas que se supone debe verificar. El sitio es un socio de Facebook (empresa GAFAAM y propiedad de Blackrock y Vanguard, como hemos visto) cuyos artículos se utilizan para censurar voces críticas en la plataforma de redes sociales. Además, está encabezado por el exdirector de los CDC, lo que vuelve a ser un conflicto de intereses.

Incluso un congresista estadounidense, Thomas Massie, ha señalado el hecho de que un proyecto de “verificación de hechos” de vacunación contra el COVID-19 realizado por un sitio web asociado con Facebook está financiado en realidad por un grupo que posee 1.900 millones de dólares en acciones de Johnson & Johnson. El grupo está encabezado además por el ex director de los CDC.

El ex director de los CDC es ahora el director ejecutivo de la fundación que financia el programa de verificación de datos de vacunas de FACTCHECK.org. Aproximadamente el 15% de los activos de dicha fundación son acciones de J&J

El sitio explica que SciCheck COVID-19 es un proyecto posible gracias a una subvención de la Fundación Robert Wood Johnson, que revela que tiene un valor de $ 53,501.

SciCheck es una sección del sitio web FactCheck que dice «se centra exclusivamente en afirmaciones científicas falsas y engañosas que hacen los partidarios para influir en las políticas públicas».

“Las vacunas benefician a quienes han tenido COVID-19, al contrario de las publicaciones virales”, es el título de otro artículo reciente de SciCheck.

El brazo SciCheck del sitio FactCheck.org está financiado por el grupo llamado Fundación Robert Wood Johnson (RWJF).

El director ejecutivo y presidente de RWJF es Richard E. Besser. Besser ha estado al frente de RWJF desde abril de 2017. La biografía de Besser en el sitio web de RWJF dice: «Besser es el ex director en funciones de los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades».

La biografía de Besser explica además que trabajó como director de la ‘Oficina de Coordinación de Preparación para el Terrorismo y Respuesta a Emergencias’ en los CDC, luego se unió a ABC News en 2009, donde fue director médico y de salud en jefe.

«También se desempeñó como director interino de los CDC de enero a junio de 2009, tiempo durante el cual dirigió la respuesta de los CDC a la ‘pandemia’ de influenza H1N1».

Curiosamente, mientras que Factcheck.org ha negado directamente la acusación de parcialidad de Massie en el artículo «SciCheck y nuestro compromiso con la transparencia», ignora la posibilidad de parcialidad derivada del anterior papel de Besser en los CDC.

FactCheck.org se defendió de la acusación de parcialidad diciendo: “Contrariamente a la sugerencia de Massie, la Fundación Robert Wood Johnson, como es el caso de todos nuestros patrocinadores, no tiene control sobre nuestro contenido editorial».

Sin embargo, Massie en ninguna parte dice que RWJF tiene «control» sobre el contenido editorial de FactCheck.org. Se reconoce comúnmente que las partes externas pueden ejercer influencia sobre una organización de una manera más indirecta, como a través de intercambios quid pro quo.

También es digno de mención que FactCheck.org se asoció con Facebook «poco después del 2016» supuestamente para «desacreditar engaños y falsedades maliciosas publicadas en el sitio de redes sociales».

En fin, es obvio que hay un pequeño grupo de personas que desde la sombra se están convirtiendo en los dueños de las más grandes empresas del mundo en todos los sectores, incluidos los laboratorios fabricantes de vacunas y fármacos y los principales medios de comunicación del planeta. Y siendo así es fácil entender por qué se ha impuesto el falaz relato oficial sobre la Covid-19.

Fuentes:

François Duval – Revista Discovery Salud n.º 248, mayo 2020

Trikooba.com

greatgameindia

Notas:

(1) Black Rock Reports Full Year 2020:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1364742/000156459021001137/blk-ex991_6.htm

(2) CTXT

https://ctxt.es/es/20160309/Politica/4697/Botin-Santander-Blackrock-Fink-Ana-Patricia.htm

(3) https://www.yoibextigo.lamarea.com/indice-dossier/?tag_id=37

https://www.yoibextigo.lamarea.com/indice-dossier/?tag_id=31

https://www.yoibextigo.lamarea.com/indice-dossier/?tag_id=38

https://www.yoibextigo.lamarea.com/indice-dossier/?tag_id=35

https://www.yoibextigo.lamarea.com/indice-dossier/?tag_id=40

(4) Vanguard Group – https://investor.vanguard.com/corporate-portal/

(5) https://kaosenlared.net/pfizer-y-los-grandes-medios-de-comunicacion-de-espana-comparten-accionista-blackrock/

https://kaosenlared.net/blackrock-y-vanguard-los-fondos-buitres-detras-de-la-marca-pfizer/

(6) https://www.estrategiasdeinversion.com/actualidad/noticias/bolsa-eeuu/fondos-con-mas-presencia-en-las-farmaceuticas-n-461787

(7) Mancinas-Chávez, R; Ruiz-Alba, N; Martín-Jiménez, C. Comunicación y estructura invisible de poder: fondos de inversión en el accionariado de las empresas mediáticas. El profesional de la

información, v. 28, n. 6, e280601, 2019. http://profesionaldelainformacion.com/contenidos/2019/nov/mancinas-ruiz-martin.pdf

(8) https://www.americanprairie.org/profile/keith-anderson

(9) https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/economie/080518/blackrock-ce-leviathan-de-la-finance-qui-pese-sur-les-choix-europeens?onglet=full

(10) https://www.lavanguardia.com/economia/20180506/443279727124/blackrock-investigacion-primera-gestora-fondos.html

(11) https://www.pagina12.com.ar/258436-el-fondo-black-rock-dueno-de-casi-todo

(12) https://www.elpaisdigital.com.ar/contenido/la-vacuna-de-blackrock/29923

https://bayanodigital.com/pandemia-vacunas-blackrock-empresa-que-ocupa-puestos-estrategicos-en-la-administracion-biden-es-pfizer

(13) https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackRock

(14) https://ctxt.es/es/20160309/Politica/4697/Botin-Santander-Blackrock-Fink-Ana-Patricia.htm

(15) https://www.eulixe.com/articulo/infografia-del-dia/blackrock-fondo-buitre-norteamericano-controla-banca-espanola-medios-comunicacion/20201127171924021665.html

(16) https://deverdaddigital.com/el-capital-extranjero-en-nuestros-medios-de-comunicacion/

(17) https://www.dsalud.com/noticias/pfizer-pagara-602-millones-de-dolares-por-sobornar-a-medicos-e-instituciones/

(18) Historia criminal de Pfizer en la página web del Departamento de

Justicia de Estados Unidos:

https://cienciaysaludnatural.com/historia-criminal-de-pfizer

https://www.enorsai.com.ar/politica/31547-la-historia-oculta-de-pfizer-que-revela-millones-de-dolares-en-pago-de-sobornos.html

La historia criminal de Pfizer y de las mayores farmacéuticas del mundo | terraindomita (blackblogs.org)

(19) Arnold DG, Stewart OJ, Beck T. Financial Penalties Imposed on

Large Pharmaceutical Firms for Illegal Activities. JAMA.

2020;324(19):1995–1997. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2772953

(20) https://www.npr.org/2020/09/04/908305074/bad-optics-or-something-more-moderna-executives-stock-sales-raise-concerns?t=1616583136465

(21) https://www.wsj.com/articles/insiders-at-covid-19-vaccine-makers-sold-nearly-500-million-of-stock-last-year-11613557801

1 note · View note

papermoonloveslucy · 4 years

Text

A GIRL, A GUY, AND A GOB

March 14, 1941

Directed by Richard Wallace

Produced by Harold Lloyd for RKO Radio Pictures

Written by Bert Granet and Frank Ryan, based on a story by Grover Jones

Synopsis ~ A shy, quiet executive for a shipping firm who finds himself with a dilemma: he’s become smitten with his young temporary secretary but she’s the girlfriend of his Navy buddy - and the buddy is scheduled to be discharged in only a few days.

Note: “Gob” is a slang word for a sailor. This term first showed up in regard to sailors around 1909 and may have come from the word gobble. Reportedly, some people thought that sailors gobbled their food. The term also may come from the word gob, which means to spit, something sailors also reportedly do often.

PRINCIPAL CAST

Lucille Ball as (Dorothy ‘Dotty’ Duncan aka ‘The Girl’) is in her 52nd film since coming to Hollywood in 1933.

George Murphy (Claudius ‘Coffee’ Cup aka ‘The Gob’) was in four films with Lucille Ball between 1934 and 1941. In 1959, Murphy served as guest host of “The Westinghouse Desilu Playhouse” when Desi Arnaz took a role in his own anthology series. He was also a performer in “The Desilu Revue” aired in December 1959. As the host of “MGM Parade”, he interviewed Lucy and Desi in February 1956.

Edmond O'Brien (Stephen Herrick aka ‘The Guy’) won an Oscar in 1955 for The Barefoot Contessa. He was nominated a second time in 1965.

Henry Travers (Abel Martin) was nominated for an Oscar for Mrs. Miniver in 1943. He is best remembered for playing Clarence the Angel in It’s A Wonderful Life (1946).

Franklin Pangborn (Pet Shop Owner) did four films with Lucille Ball between 1937 and 1946.

George Cleveland (Pokey Duncan) did four more films with Lucille Ball till 1949.

Kathleen Howard (Jawme) makes her only appearance with Lucille Ball.

Marguerite Chapman (Cecilia Grange) makes her only appearance with Lucille Ball.

Lloyd Corrigan (Pigeon) did Two Smart People with Lucille Ball in 1949. He played the minister in “The Milton Berle Lucy-Desi Special” in 1959. He also did three episodes of “The Lucy Show.”

Mady Correll (Cora) makes her only appearance with Lucille Ball.

Frank McGlynn, Sr. (Pankington) makes his only appearance with Lucille Ball.

Doodles Weaver (Eddie) makes his only appearance with Lucille Ball.

Frank Sully (Salty) did four films with Lucille Ball before playing the man who delivers “The Freezer” on “I Love Lucy.”

Nella Walker (Mrs. Grange) also appeared with Lucille Ball in Fugitive Lady (1934).

Richard Lane (Recruiting Officer) previously appeared in three films with Lucille Ball in 1937 and 1938.

Irving Bacon (Mr. Merney) did seven films with Lucille Ball before playing Mr. Willoughby in in “The Marriage License” (1952) and Will Potter in “Ethel’s Hometown” (1955).

Rube Demarest (Ivory) makes his only appearance with Lucille Ball.

Charles Smith (Messenger) makes her only appearance with Lucille Ball.

Bob McKenzie (Porter) appeared in three other films with Lucille Ball.

Nora Cecil (Charwoman) makes her only appearance with Lucille Ball.

UNCREDITED CAST

SAILORS

James Bush (Sailor Taking Address Book), Charles Flynn (Thin Sailor), Jack Lescoulie, George Ford, Art Rowlands, *Bernard Sell

HUSTLERS

Tom Quinn, Cyril Ring, Ralph Brooks

AT THE OPERA

Edward Peil Sr. (Assistant Manager), Eddie Arden (Opera Page Boy), Warren Ashe (Ticket Taker), Blue Washington (Doorman), Jimmy Cleary (Program Boy), Tom Costello (Floor Manager), William A. Boardway (Patron), Walter Byron (Patron), James Carlisle (Patron), Jean Fowler (Patron), Kenneth Gibson (Patron), Carl M. Leviness (Patron), John George (Newsboy Outside Opera House)

AT THE DANCE HALL

Carolyn Hughes (Girl), Charles Irwin (Emcee), Eddie Borden (Man), Eddie Hart (Ticket Taker #2), Dewey Robinson (Bouncer), Ronald R. Rondell (Ticket Taker)

AT THE MARRIAGE BUREAU & WEDDING CHAPEL

Wade Boteler (Uniformed Attendant), Homer Dickenson (Wedding Chapel Attendant), Harry "Snub" Pollard (Attendant), Wade Boteler (Uniformed Attendant), Fern Emmett (Middle-Aged Woman at Marriage Bureau), Henry Roquemore (Middle-Aged Man at Marriage Bureau), Effie Anderson (Marriage Bureau Clerk), Hal K. Dawson (Photographer)

IN THE STREETS: PEDESTRIANS, BYSTANDERS, OBSERVERS

Mary Field (Woman on Street), Vince Barnett (Pedestrian), Leon Belasco (Taxi Driver), George Lloyd (Bystander Smoking Cigar), Joe Bernard (Tattoo Artist), George McKay (Joe - Counterman), Vince Barnett (Bystander with Packages), Victor Potel (Bystander Eating Popcorn), *Leon Belasco (First Taxi Driver), *Mike Lally (Second Taxi Driver), George Chandler (Bystander Betting Five Bucks), Irene Coleman (Bystander Watching Eddie Grow), Tom Coleman (Pedestrian), Andrew Tombes (Bus Conductor), Hal K. Dawson (Photographer), Edgar Dearing (Policeman), Fern Emmett (Middle-Aged Woman), Mary Field (Woman on Street), Bud Jamison (Tall Bystander), Tiny Jones (Passerby), Bert Moorhouse (Pedestrian), Bud Osborne (Bystander), Frank Mills (Laborer in Manhole), Andrew Tombes (Bus Conductor)

OTHERS

Sally Conlin (Little Girl)

Joe Geil (Boy)

Steve Pendleton (Mr. Adams)

Earle Hodgins (Sylvester P. Wurple)

Lloyd Ingraham (Announcer of Piano Winner)

Alex Pollard (Butler)

George Lollier (Grange's Chauffeur)

Alexander Pollard (Grange's Butler)

* actors who later did background work on Lucille Ball’s sitcoms.

3G TRIVIA

The film was dramatized for radio on “The Screen Guild Radio Theatre” on October 9, 1944, also starring Lucille Ball and George Murphy. They rerpised their roles on radio once again for “Old Gold Comedy Theatre” on February 11, 1945.

Maureen O'Hara was initially slated for the role played by Lucille Ball. Ball and O’Hara had done the 1940 film Dance, Girl, Dance together.

This film came towards the end of Lucille Ball's RKO days. She had already achieved leading lady status and would only make four more films for RKO before moving to MGM. She couldn’t know that she would one day own the studio with her husband, Desi Arnaz. Interestingly, RKO borrowed George Murphy from MGM for this film.

This film's earliest documented telecast took place in Altoona, Pennsylvania, on Sunday June 3, 1956 over TV station WFBG. That same week, Lucille Ball began filming season six of “I Love Lucy” in Hollywood.

In 1971, “The Carol Burnett Show” spoofed the film with “A Gob, a Girl and Her Galoshes".

The movie was referenced in the Emmy-winning documentary “Lucy and Desi: A Home Movie”.

#Lucille Ball #A Girl A Guy and a Gob #RKO #George Murphy #Edmond O'Brien #Irving Bacon #Henry Travers #Franklin Pangborn #Lloyd Corrigan #Mike Lally #Leon Belasco #1941

2 notes · View notes

tiesandtea · 4 years

Text

Suede: prima donna Brett about Head Music (OOR, May 1999)

By Raymond Rotteveel Magazine: OOR no. 9, p. 34-37, 1st May 1999 (cover) Scanned by @kalluun-patangaroa (full article here) Translated from Dutch by Miriam, SuedeNation Scrapbook (source)

A short report on the London Astoria fanclub gig (27 March 1999) and the preceding press conference, followed by an earlier original interview with Brett about Head Music, its creation, influences and lyrical approach.

Head Music is not a reaction against Coming Up. We made this record without thinking about our past.

On paper, it looks like fun, but in real life, press conferences can be pretty disappointing. In real life, the five members of Suede are sat on a small podium in the London club Astoria, blinking their eyes because of the bright spotlights and they can see nothing of the about a hundred journalists that have flown in from all over the world. If the band is then confronted with – to say it mildly – backward questions like 'What do you think about Bernard Butler', it isn't very motivating and a corny atmosphere sets in.

Singer Brett Anderson, sat in the middle, at first answers the questions cooly and businesslike. 'No, I haven't heard BB's album yet, but the split was the best that could ever happen to me. We are both happy, so...'. And: 'No we did not choose Electricity as the single, a group of idiots did that.' Anderson wants to stress that he feels happy: 'Yes, even I have all the emotions a man can have, and being happy is one of them', and that for him, the evolution of Suede is best expressed in his favourite song Savoir Faire. 'It came to be through a new way of songwriting, but it also has the dark edge of Suede in it'.

If about 10 minutes later Ludwig from Austria (magazine unknown) asks when the single will be released – the Astoria is wallpapered with posters saying 'Electricity, new single out on April 12' – the party is over. 'Speak to your local Sony', Brett snaps back and announces the last question. The planned time for our questions is thus reduced to 15 minutes.

A few hours later the Astoria is filled with about 1500 people for a special fanclub-only gig.

The concert has, even before it's started, all the ingredients to become special. It is the first one in London since a long time and it’s especially for the real fans and therefore an appropriate test case for the new material. From opener 'Can't Get Enough', a raw straight-forward rocker, Brett is in his element: gesticulating, clapping his hands and dangerously waving his microphone about, he moves across the stage like a male diva, all the while arousing the audience with sensual hip-wiggling moves. "I feel now walking like a woman and talking like a stone age man", he wallows in his well-known cracking voice. Those who see him like this understand why he was once called 'the man who brought style back to British music by slapping his arse'. Other things that catch attention are that the now short-haired guitarist Richard Oakes is given a lot more space live than on the album and that is for the good of the sound.

The melodramatic 'Down', the ballad 'He's Gone' and the Eastern-tinted 'Indian Strings' are the highlights of the new songs tonight, while of the older material the sublime B-side 'Europe Is Our Playground', the hit 'Trash' and the encores 'Beautiful Ones' and 'Saturday Night' are way ahead (of) the rest. From the first two albums, no songs are played.

Two weeks earlier in a hotel in Notting Hill, the area where most Suede members live.

The band has just finished mixing HM and tiredness is written across Brett's face. 'Pff, yeah, we have been mixing till late last night and it has been pretty intense. It's been hard labour, but then it always is. I have never made a record that was not difficult, but that's part of it. It is not meant to be relaxing to make a record, in my opinion. It always has to be a difficult process. It's always hard work and there's always a moment where you think 'Fuck, this is going completely wrong'. I have experienced that with every record. You have to doubt the things you are doing or create. Unless you are a total idiot, you have to doubt to be able to create'.

Head Music. A record that isn't half as easily digestible as preceding million-seller CU, but that isn't as heavy as for example DMS. A record that, also through attracting producer Steve Osborne (of the remix team Perfecto Records and known for Happy Mondays and U2), was announced in the British press to be a dance album.

Unjustly, Brett says: 'There are a lot of dance elements in it, drumloops, electronics, samples, that sort of thing. A lot of songs have been written from a certain groove or rhythm. In that, Steve had an important part. But the fact that we sound like this now, has also to do with the fact that we wanted to change our sound. To do so, we chose Steve and it worked out very well. But it's not a dance record, no. No, I've never really understood those notices in the press. I mean, I wish it was that easy, that you could say ‘Come on, let's do a dance record'. But that's not the case. It's kinda stupid to say something like that. If you say that upfront, it will never sound like a fucking dance record. It's a Suede record with elements from dance music. Suede will of course remain a rock & roll band and will not change into some sort of dance act because we happened to work with a producer who produced that sort of record in the past. It’s true that there are more songs now that you can really move to, that are in a way very danceable.'

HM sounds very different from the light-footed CU. How did that come about? I have been listening to a lot of different music over the last years, to music that has not been written from the starting point of traditional songwriting. Things like Tricky, Asian Dub Foundation, Audioweb and Prince. Furthermore, there has been a sort of musical revolution within me. I used to write songs from a melody, usual the singing melody, while now I see music more as a whole. I have learned to experiment with different instruments, I have learned to play new instruments and have even become a reasonable guitarist. There are, by the way, a lot of other songs on HM, songs with a heavy punk-like guitar. Can't Get Enough can be regarded as a punk song, but then (in) Suede style. People often regard punk and dance as two totally different styles, but that's not the case. The best punk has a groove, and the best dance sounds agressive. We have tried to use the best of both styles.

I think Neil Codling, your keyboard player, has had a big part in creating the new Suede sound. That's right. Neil has incredibly developed himself technically over the last year. He is a real sound wizard, yes. It's also because Neil is now more part of the band. At the time of CU, he hadn't been around for that long. Neil was to HM a sort of pre-producer. He's had a big influence. For instance, he convinced me that we had to go into the studio (in) a different way this time. That we had to be able to write on the spot from 2 chords or a rhythm, that everything didn't have to be set beforehand. You should see his flat. It's stacked with recording equipment, effects and computers. You can't see a thing and he's working in there all day.

Could you compare HM to the previous records already? I must say, I haven't heard the record as a whole yet. Only the individual songs and they sound really good. At this moment, I still see HM as a collection of songs. As an album, I cannot value it yet. If I listen to the songs, I must say, I feel the record sounds more diverse and universal than the three previous ones. The band is more balanced and you can hear that on HM.

How do you regard previous Suede albums now? I really like some songs on CU. I can still listen to them. From DMS, Wild Ones is pretty much the only song I can still listen to. The album as a whole I find too dark. Of course, my taste has changed over the years. DMS has a certain emotion that I really enjoy, but at the same time, the album is too heavy and too personal for me. The album has a brilliant spirit, but there's also something immature in it. That doesn't matter (though), I think it's good to look back on things and to conclude it wasn't all perfect.

DMS made me feel claustrophobic. Claustrophobic, that's the perfect word to describe DMS. The stress and the weird atmosphere in the studio during recordings, the heavy drug use and the near-constant tensions in the band, between me and Bernard especially – DMS reflects that all. Yes, I was pretty fucked up at the time.

And CU was a reaction against that? Yeah, that's the big difference with HM. With CU, we more or less made (it) as a reaction to the melancholy of DMS. It was, in a way, a relief, I think. HM is not a reaction against CU. We made this record without thinking about our past. That also has to do with us being more balanced as a band than ever before.

And you personally? There are even stories going around that Brett has sworn off drugs? Eh, well, it's not as extreme as before. But I still find coke or xtc enlightening from time to time. It's not that I have to take something at all costs now, but when I have taken a pill I do think: "There's nothing wrong with this". Xtc has always been one of my favourite drugs and I'm not going to say now that I'll never take it again. But it has been a while since the last one, yes.

You once said, your lyrics would become less personal and more observing. I think I succeeded in that. The only rule that I applied for myself was that I shouldn't sound emotional all the time. I even wanted to sound distant and cold. They aren't condescending observations, I keep singing about my life and my friends in a way. But my lyrics are now less emotional and through that more honest, I feel. There is something dual in that: you are prone to think that when a lyric is more emotional, it’s more honest. But that is not always the case. I could sit here and cry dramatically and that would come across as very emotional to you, but it wouldn't necessarily be sincere. I have tried to be less complicated this time. As a person, I feel less complicated and less dramatic now. This is an evolution I have undergone as a human being. I like to see myself as an evolving person, on an emotional level as well. I don't want to be the same dramatic person all my life. That would make things very boring, don't you think?

‘Crack in the Union Jack’ sounds like a political song, a kind of negative view of Britain that is going through difficult times even under Labour. If you use words like Union Jack in a lyric, it’s almost immediately regarded as a political song, eh? But it’s about feelings of human disillusion and about people who hide behind the wrong kind of nationalism. It is a negative song, but not against Labour. It's far too easy to say that Labour is making a mess of it just like the conservatives. Labour also makes mistakes, but I feel it's still better for our country that they are in power. That's not how I feel all the time though, it was more the reflection of a mood. See it as a negative snapshot of Great Britain.

#brett anderson #suede #head music #oor 1999 #article translations

12 notes · View notes

peach-salinger · 6 years

Text

✧･*ﾟscottish surnames

→ link to my scottish female name masterlist → link to my scottish male name masterlist

under the cut are 733 scottish surnames. this masterlist was created for all in one breath rp at the request of lovely el, but feel free to link on your own sites! names are listed in alphabetical order. ❝mac❞, ❝mc❞ and ❝m❞ are split into three sections because i mean... look at them. please like♡ or reblog if you found this useful.

abbot(son), abercrombie, abernethy, adam(son), agnew, aikenhead, aitken, akins, allan(nach/son), anderson, (mac)andie, (mac)andrew, angus, annand, archbold/archibald, ard, aris, (mac)arthur

(mac)bain/bayne, baird, baker, balfour, bannatyne, bannerman, barron, baxter, beaton, beith, bell, bethune, beveridge, birse, bisset, bishop, black(ie), blain/blane, blair, blue, blyth, borthwick, bowie, boyd, boyle, braden, bradley, braithnoch, (mac)bratney, breck, bretnoch, brewster, (mac)bridan/brydan/bryden, brodie, brolochan, broun/brown, bruce, buchanan, budge, buglass, buie, buist, burnie, butter/buttar

caie, (mac)caig, (mac)cail, caird, cairnie, (mac)callan(ach), calbraith, (mac)callum, calvin, cambridge, cameron, campbell, canch, (mac)candlish, carberry, carmichael, carrocher, carter, cassie, (mac)caskie, catach, catto, cattenach, causland, chambers, chandlish, charleson, charteris, chisholm, christie, (mac)chrystal, (mac)clanachan/clenachan, clark/clerk, (mac)clean, cleland, clerie, (mac)clinton, cloud, cochrane, cockburn, coles, colinson, colquhoun, comish, comiskey, comyn, conn(an), cook, corbett, corkhill, (mac)cormack, coull, coulthard, (mac)cowan, cowley, crabbie, craig, crane, cranna, crawford/crawfurd, crerar, cretney, crockett, crosby, cruikshank, (mac)crum, cubbin, cullen, cumming, cunningham, currie, cuthbertson

dallas, dalglish, dalziel, darach/darroch, davidson, davie, day, deason, de lundin, dewar, dickin, dickson, docherty, dockter, doig, dollar, (mac)donald(son), donelson, donn, douglas, dorward, (mac)dow(all), dowell, (macil)downie, drain, drummond, (mc)duff(ie)/duff(y), duguid, dunnet, dunbar, duncan, dunn, durward, duthie

E, F

eggo, elphinstone, erskine, faed, (mac)farquhar(son), fee, fergus(on), (mac)ferries, fettes, fiddes, findlay, finn, finlayson, fisher, fishwick, fitzgerald, flanagan, fleming, fletcher, forbes, forrest, foulis/fowlis, fraser, fullarton, fulton, furgeson

gall(ie), galbraith, gammie, gardyne, (mac)garvie, gatt, gault, geddes, gellion, gibb(son), gilbert, gilbride, (mac)gilchrist, gilfillan, (mac)gill(ivray/ony), gillanders, gillespie, gillies, gilliland, gilmartin, gilmichael, gilmore, gilroy, gilzean, (mac)glashan, glass, gloag, glover, godfrey, gollach, gordon, (mac)gorrie, gourlay, gow, graeme/graham, grant, grassick, grassie, gray, gregg, (mac)gregor(y), greer, greig, grierson, grieve, grimmond, (mac)gruer, gunn, guthrie

hall, hamill, (mac)hardie/hardy, harper, harvie, hassan, hatton, hay, henderson, hendry, henry, hepburn, herron, hood, hosier, howie, hugston, huie, hume, humphrey, hunter, (mac)hutcheon, hutcheson

I, J, K

(mac)innes, irving, iverach, ivory, jamieson, jarvie, jeffrey(s), johnson, johnston, jorie, (mac)kay, (mac)kean, keenan, keillor, keir, keith, kelly, kelso, keogh, kemp, kennedy, (mac)kerr(acher), kesson, king, kynoch

laing, laird, (mac)laine/lane, lamond, lamont, landsborough, landsburgh, lang/laing, larnach, laurie/lawrie, lees, lennie, lennox, leslie, lindsay, little(son), lithgow, livingston(e), lobban, logan, lorne, lothian, lovat, love, loynachan, luke, luther

MAC-

mac ruaidhrí, mac somhairle, mac suibhne, macadam, macadie, macaffer, macainsh, macalasdair, macallister, macalonie, macalpine, macanroy, macara, macarthy, macaskill, macaskin, macaughtrie, macaulay, macauslan, macbean, macbeath, macbeth(ock), macbey, macbriden, macbryde, maccabe, maccadie, maccaffer, maccaffey/maccaffie, maccalman, maccambridge, maccann, maccance, maccartney, maccavity, maccaw, macdowell, maccheyne, maccodrum, maccomb(ie), maccorkindale, maccormick, maccoll, macconie, macconnachie, macconnell, maccoshin, maccoskrie, maccorquodale, macclaren, maccleary, macclew, maccloy, macclumpha, macclung, macclure, macclurg, maccraig, maccrain, maccreadie, maccrimmon, maccrindle, maccririe, maccrone, maccrosson, maccuaig, maccuidh, maccuish, macculloch, maccurley, macdermid/macdiarmid, macdougall, macdui, macduthy, maceachainn, maceachen, macelfrish, macewan/macewen, macfadyen, macfadzean, macfall, macfarlane/macpharlane, macfater/macphater, macfeat, macfee, macfigan, macgarrie, macgarva, macgeachen/macgeechan, macgeorge, macghie, macgibbon, macgillonie, macgiven, macglip, macgriogair, macgruther, macguire, macgurk, machaffie, macheth, machugh, macichan, macinnally, macindeoir, macindoe, macinesker, macinlay, macinroy, macintosh, macintyre, macisaac, maciver/macivor, macilherran, macilroy, macjarrow, mackail, mackeegan, mackeggie, mackellar, mackelvie, mackendrick, mackenna, mackenzie, mackerlich, mackerral, mackerron, mackerrow, mackessock, mackettrick, mackichan, mackie, mackilligan, mackillop, mackim(mie), mackinven, mackirdy/mackirdie, mackrycul, maclafferty, maclagan, maclarty, maclatchie/letchie, maclaverty, maclearnan, macleay, maclehose, macleish, maclellan(d), macleman, macleod, macleòid, maclintock, macllwraith, maclucas, macluckie, maclugash, macmann(us), macmaster, macmeeken, macmichael, macmillan, macminn, macmorrow, macmurchie, macmurdo, macmurray, macnab, macnair, macnally, macnaught(on), macnee, macneish/macnish, macnicol, macninder, macnucator, macpartland, macphail, macphatrick, macphee, macphedran, macpherson, macquarrie, macqueen, macquien, macquilken, macrae/machray, macraild, macrob(bie/bert), macrory, macrostie, macshane, macsherry, macsorley, macsporran, macsween, mactavish, mactear, macturk, macusbaig, macvannan, macvarish, macvaxter, macvean, macveigh/macvey, macvicar, macvitie, macvurich, macwalter, macwattie, macwhannell, macwhillan, macwhinnie

MC-

mccabe, mccain, mcclelland, mcclintock, mcconell, mccracken, mccune, mccurdy, mcdiarmid, mcelshender, mceuen, mcewing, mcfadden, mcgeachie/mcgeachy, mcgowan, mcilroy, mcinnis, mcivor, mckechnie, mckeown, mclarty, mclennan, mcneill(age/ie), mcowen, mcphee, mcpherson, mcwhirter

maduthy, magruder, mahaffie, main(s), mair, major, malcolm(son), malloch, manson, marr, marno(ch), (mac)martin, marquis, massie, matheson, mathewson, maver/mavor, maxwell, may, mearns, meechan, meiklejohn, meldrum, mellis(h), menzies, mercer, micklewain, milfrederick, millar/miller, milligan, milliken, milne, milroy, milvain, milwain, moannach, moat, moffat, mollinson, moncrief, monk, montgomery, moore, moray, morgan, (mac)morran, morrison, morrow, morton, mossman, mucklehose, muir(head), mulloy, munn, munro, (mac)murchie/murchy, murchison, murdoch, murphy

N, O, P, Q

nairn, naughton, navin, neeve, neil, neish, nelson, ness, nevin, nicalasdair, niceachainn, (mac)nichol(son), nicleòid, (mac)niven, noble, ochiltree, ogg, ogilvy, o'kean, oliver, omay/omey, orchard(son), orr, osborne, park, paterson, patrick, patten, peacock, peat, peters, philp, polson, power, purcell, purser, qualtrough, quayle, quillan, quiller, quinn, quirk

R, S

(mac)ranald(son), randall, rankin, reid, reoch, revie, riach, (mac)ritchie, roberts(on), rose, ross, rothes, roy, ryrie, salmon(d), scott, selkirk, sellar, shannon, sharpe, shaw, sheen, shiach, sillars, sim(son/pson), sinclair, skene, skinner, sloan, smith, somerville, soutar/souter, stein, stenhouse, stewart/stuart, strachan, stronach, sutherland, (mac)swan(son/ston), swinton

T, U, V, W, Y

taggart, tallach, tawse, taylor, thom(son), todd, tolmie, tosh, tough, tulloch, turner, tyre, ulrick, urquhart, vass, wallace, walker, walsh, warnock, warren, ward, watt, watson, wayne, weir, welsh, whiston, whyte, wilkins(on), (mac)william(son), wilson, winning, wright, young

#names #masterlist #surnames #last names #name masterlist #rph #scottish surnames #scottish last names #roleplay help #roleplay #rp #mine #my stuff #surname masterlist #last name masterlist

76 notes · View notes

bluewatsons · 5 years

Text

Carol Bacchi, Drug Problematizations and Politics: Deploying a Poststructural Analytic Strategy, 45 Contemp Drug Problems 3 (2017)

Abstract

This article puts in question the usefulness of the concept of “problem” or “problems” in alcohol and drug research and theory. A focus on problematizations is defended as a more effective political intervention. Particular attention is directed to the place of problematization as a mediating concept in understanding how practices constitute “objects” and “subjects,” a proposition commonly linked to “the ontological turn.” To access and analyze problematizations, the article puts forward a Foucault-influenced poststructural analytic strategy called “What’s the Problem Represented to be?” (WPR approach). Previously applied to the policy field, this article illustrates the usefulness of the WPR approach to interrogate the full range of governmental and knowledge practices. Examples of application of WPR from the alcohol and other drug field are highlighted throughout. The article extends this work by directing particular attention to the forms of politics facilitated through such an analytic strategy and to the importance of applying this form of questioning to one’s own propositions and policy proposals.

This article focuses on the desirability of replacing problems with problematizations in alcohol and other drug research and related social theory. It begins by elaborating concerns with the ways in which the concepts problem and problems operate in the alcohol and other drug field historically and currently. It then proceeds to explain how the study of problematizations produces insights into modes of governing and the enactment of “subjects” and “objects.” A poststructural analytic strategy, the “What’s the Problem Represented to be?” (WPR approach), is offered as a means to undertake this form of study (Bacchi, 1999, 2009; Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). Several researchers have already applied the WPR approach in the alcohol and other drug field (e.g., Farrugia, Seear, & Fraser, 2017; Farrugia, 2016; Fraser & Moore, 2011; Lancaster, Seear, & Treloar, 2015; Lancaster, Seear, Treloar, & Ritter, 2017; Lancaster, Treloar, & Ritter, 2017; Månsson & Ekendahl, 2015; Manton & Moore, 2016; Moore & Fraser, 2013; Seear & Fraser, 2014), and these analyses will be highlighted as I make my argument.

Interrogating the Role of “Problems” in Alcohol and Other Drug Research

References to “problems” abound in political debate and analysis, displacing considered reflection on issues. At a basic level, the term “problem” is ambiguous in meaning. It can refer to a concern, a gap between the current situation and a more desired state (Hoppe, 2011, p. 23) or simply a question (Meyer, 1995). Its use is prolific, in particular, in the alcohol and other drug field, where making alcohol and drug use “problems” is rife (Bacchi, 2015a).

“Alcohol problems” and “drug problems” operate as taken-for-granted descriptions of conditions that ought to be rectified and/or eliminated. The terms are heavily and negatively value laden, indicated by their common association with “social problems.” As argued in Poststructural Policy Analysis (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016, p. 62), “Here we have Problems with a capital ‘P’.” Consider, for example, the Fact Sheet produced by the Australian Government (2016) headed “What is the Ice Problem?” (emphasis added). Consider also the Health Department’s (Australian Government, 2004, emphasis added) module “What is intoxication and why is it a problem?”

It is inadequate, however, simply to recommend that the term “problem” be deleted from alcohol and other drug policies and research. As Tanesini (1994, p. 207) reminds us, concepts have no fixed meaning; rather, “they are proposals about how we ought to proceed from here.” Clearly, therefore, “problem” and “problems” as concepts have to be considered within the projects to which they are attached. They are never exogenous to (outside of) social and political practices.

The term “problem” appears in the work of important poststructural philosophers. Both Canguilhem and Bergson, with Deleuze, call for the creation of problems (Osborne, 2003, p. 9), albeit with different meanings.1 In addition, the poststructural scholars Glynos and Howarth (2007, p. 167) follow Shapiro (2002, p. 601), who proffers “problem-driven research” as preferable to “theory-driven research,” where “a phenomenon is characterized so as to vindicate a particular theory rather than to illuminate a problem that is specified independently of the theory.” On the other side, the writer and public speaker Eckhart Tolle (2005, 2009), associated with positive psychology, prefers “challenges” to “problems.”

These examples indicate the need to consider the forms of politics made possible by particular theoretical stances and their associated terminologies. In this context, it is important to reflect on the political implications of the problem-solving paradigm that informs the “evidence-based” policy movement, a powerful influence in alcohol and other drug research. In evidence-based policy, there is a grounding assumption that the “problems” being “addressed” are readily identifiable and uncontroversial. Researchers are called upon (simply) to test various interventions to find out “what works” in relation to those “problems” (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). This approach to research establishes relations of governing that privilege those who get to set the “problems” to be “solved,” illustrating the “centralizing power-effects” of “evidence-based policy” discourse (Lancaster, Seear, Treloar, & Ritter, 2017, p. 60).

In a move to displace the power of “problems” that defines the alcohol and other drug field in restrictive and negative ways, this article proposes a shift in focus to the study of problematizations. It draws on exemplary research in the field to illustrate what is gained, in respect of political analysis and on-the-ground political effects, from this innovative perspective. Particular attention is directed to the mediating role played by problematizations in the constitution of “objects” and “subjects” and to the importance of self-problematization. The next section introduces the WPR approach, an analytic strategy that facilitates this form of critical analysis.

The WPR Approach: Displacing “Problems”

The conventional view of public policy is that policies are reactions to problems that sit outside the policy process waiting to be “solved.” As an example of this common perception, Edwards (2004, p. 1, emphasis added) states, “public policy addresses societal problems and is about ‘what governments do, why they do it, and what difference it makes’.”

By way of contrast, in the WPR approach, governments do not react to problems that are presumed to be self-evident. Rather, they are seen to be involved in the creation or production of “problems” as particular sorts of problems, with particular parameters, causes, effects, and remedies. There is no suggestion of manipulation in this proposition; rather, it is a description of the way in which policies do their work as explained below.

Policy proposals or proposed “solutions,” it is claimed, by their nature contain implicit representations of the “problem” or “problems” they purport to address. This argument builds on the commonsense understanding that what we propose to do about something reveals what we think needs to change and hence what we think the “problem” is. For example, a policy that offers training programs to women as a way to increase their representation in positions of influence produces the “problem” as women’s lack of training. In a WPR analysis, women’s lack of training is identified as a problem representation, referring to how the issue is problematized.

To interrogate problem representations, the WPR approach deploys seven interrelated forms of questioning and analysis (see Table 1). It incorporates adaptations of Foucauldian archaeology, genealogy, and problematization. Questions are asked about

the presuppositions and assumptions (conceptual logics) that underpin specific problem representations, rendering them intelligible (Question 2);

the conditions of “emergence, insertion and functioning” (Foucault, 1972, p. 163; Question 3) that explain how specific problem representations came to be accepted; and

the effects produced by the way in which the “problem” is characterized and conceptualized (Question 5).

Table 1. WPR Chart: What’s the Problem Represented to be? (WPR Approach to Policy Analysis).

The focus in this analytic strategy is on problematizations within policies, distinguishing it from interpretive studies that direct attention to how people (e.g., policy workers) problematize issues (Bacchi, 2015b).

To say that a policy represents a “problem” in a particular way does not imply that we are talking about an image or impression of a “problem,” as if we could wish it otherwise. As Anderson and Harrison (2010)explain,

As things and events they [representations] enact worlds, rather than being simple go-betweens tasked with re-presenting some pre-existing order or force. In their taking-place they have an expressive power as active interventions in the co-fabrication of worlds. (p. 14)

Problem representations, therefore, become part of how governing takes place. They are enacted as part of “the real.” In this understanding, as Farrugia, Seear, and Fraser (2017, p. 4, emphasis in original) describe, “problems are ontologically constituted in the interventions designed to solve them.” It follows that we are governed, not through policies, but through their problematizations, that is, through the ways in which policies characterize and conceptualize issues.

The WPR Approach: Moving Beyond Policy Analysis

To date, the WPR approach has been applied primarily in the field of policy analysis (Bacchi, 1999, 2009). However, drawing on governmentality studies (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016, pp. 41–44), a key premise of the approach is that governing involves a wide range of actors and agencies, including experts and professionals and the knowledges they produce. As a result, the WPR approach can be deployed to interrogate the full range of governmental and knowledge practices.

The suggestion here is that the logic behind the WPR approach—that proposals contain implicit representations of “problems”—offers a way of thinking rather than simply a method of policy analysis. In this broader understanding, various materials (see below) are treated as proposals, that is, as recommendations for how things ought to be. Hence, based on the premise that proposals indicate what needs to change, it becomes possible to consider how these materials conceptualize “the problem,” enabling a WPR analysis.

For example, this way of thinking proves fruitful in teasing out the problematizations in governmental technologies including “mundane programmes, calculations, techniques, apparatuses, documents and procedures” (Miller & Rose, 2008, p. 55). Technologies such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), produced by the OECD (2017), which compares “literacy” rates as a “measure of human outputs,” problematizes “citizenship” in terms of human productivity (Kelly, 2015, p. 21). As another example, the apparently innocuous practice of signposts at European airports that establish different checkpoints for “persons covered by Community law” and for “third-country nationals” problematizes “citizenship” in ways that firm up both “Europe” as a “place” and the category of “the European” (Walters, 2002). In the alcohol and other drug field, Moore and Fraser (2013) show how the “episode-of-care” funding model, as a governmental technology, produces the “problem” it assumes, an apparent increase in the number of “addicts” (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016, p. 90).

Because the WPR approach assumes a broad view of governing that extends beyond governmental institutions, it can be applied to nongovernmental technologies as well as to governmental technologies. For example, the questions in the approach can be used to critically interrogate:

diagnostic instruments such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (Bacchi, 2009, p. 235),

opinion polling (Osborn & Rose, 1999), and

social attitude surveys—for example, the International Social Survey Programme (Bacchi, 2012a).

“Expert” knowledges also become targets for analysis. Researchers in the alcohol and other drug field (Lancaster, Treloar, & Ritter, 2017), for example, have shown the usefulness of the WPR approach in analyzing “evidence-based policy” discourse. Seear and Fraser (2014) apply WPR to case law and precedent. Månsson and Ekendahl (2015) take symposia as their target, while Farrugia (2016) shows how WPR can be applied to social marketing texts.

The way of thinking introduced in the WPR approach, in which various materials are thought of as proposals about how things ought to be, can be adapted to reflect critically on phenomena that are not strictly textual, such as buildings, ceremonies, and organizational culture (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016, p. 18). For example, one could study how modern schools with their “uni-purpose facilities located on enclosed land, fenced and gated” reflect a “hidden curriculum” that problematizes the moral and cognitive training of young people (see Bottrell & Goodwin, 2011, p. 4). In this instance, buildings are treated as proposals about how things should be, revealing what is represented to be problematic.

With similar logic, it is possible to apply the WPR approach to concepts, such as “affirmative action” or “equality” (Bacchi, 1996). Since concepts can be described as “proposals about how we ought to proceed from here” (Tanesini, 1994, p. 207, emphasis added), it is possible to analyze what is the target of change and what the “problem” is represented to be.

Bottrell and Meagher (2008) suggest that WPR could prove to be a powerful form of analysis in the whole field of practice research. As they point out, the focus in that area of study is on establishing which interventions work to address which problems. Here, as in conventional policy studies, “problems” are treated as self-evident and as exogenous to analysis. Bottrell and Meagher (2008) put WPR forward as a way to counter this logic. They recommend treating practice “interventions” as proposals that create particular understandings of “problems,” providing a basis for interrogating those problem representations.

Interviews, often employed in social science research, require a modified form of WPR since they do not readily produce proposals about how things ought to be. Poststructural interview analysis provides such a modification (Bacchi & Bonham, 2016; see also Bonham & Bacchi, 2017). This seven-stage analytical strategy treats interviews as texts, with a focus on precisely “what is said.” It enlists methods of interrogation similar to those deployed in WPR, including:

an “archaeological” search for the knowledges that underpin interview statements, making them possible;

a genealogy of the “conditions” necessary in a particular period “for this or that enunciation to be formulated” (Foucault, 1972, p. 15, Footnote 2); and

an analysis of how interviewees problematize their conduct in terms of established norms.

The following section concentrates on the insights produced into how governing takes place through these forms of analysis, with a particular focus on how “subjects” and “objects” are constituted.

How Are Problematizations Useful?

As argued above, we are governed, not through policies, but through their problematizations. Since this argument draws its inspiration from Foucault, it is important to clarify that he uses the term “problematization” in two ways:

as a critical strategy, which he called “thinking problematically” (Foucault, 1971/1977, pp. 185–186) and

as a historical process of producing objects for thought (see Bacchi, 2012b).

“Thinking problematically” involves a conviction to approach questions differently, not to argue pro or con a specific position but to inquire into the terms of reference within which an issue is cast. As Deacon (2000, p. 127) explains, the analytic purpose is not to look for the one correct response to an issue but to examine how it is “questioned, analysed, classified and regulated” at “specific times and under specific circumstances.” In line with this objective, the WPR questions (see Table 1) serve to involve researchers in “thinking problematically.”

In the second meaning, problematization captures a two-stage process including “how and why certain things (behavior, phenomena, processes) became a problem” (Foucault, 1985, p. 115) and how they are shaped as particular objects for thought (Deacon, 2000, p. 139; see also Deacon, 2006, p. 186, Footnote 2). These problematized phenomena are referred to as problematizations and become the foci for study, as Foucault (1986) elaborated:

The archaeological dimension of the analysis made it possible to examine the forms of problematization themselves, its genealogical dimension enabled me to analyze the formation out of the practices and their modification. (pp. 17–18)

In WPR, the goal becomes problematizing, as an analytic strategy, the problematizations—“the forms themselves”—located in policies and other practices.

When applied to policy analysis, the approach provides useful insights into modes of governing. As Rose and Miller (1992, p. 181) describe, “government” is a “problematizing activity.” Osborne (1997, p. 174) concurs that “policy cannot get to work without first problematizing its territory.” That is, in order for something to be governed, or imagined as governable, it needs to be problematized (Packer, 2003, p. 136).

It follows that a study of problematizations can provide ways of comprehending the rationales, or rationalities, associated with specific modes of rule. For example, Dean and Hindess (1998, p. 9, emphasis added) describe a neoliberal rationality as “a style of problematisation, a mode of reasoning that can best be identified by examining problematisations.” A critical analytic task becomes discerning “which of these problematizations indicate lines of fracture and transformation and which indicate a consolidation of regimes of government” (Dean, 1999, p. 44).

A study of problematizations also provides crucial insights into how practices constitute “subjects” and “objects,” indicating a contribution to this basic premise of the so-called “ontological turn.”2Pellizzoni (2015, p. 77) expresses concern that reference to the constitutive nature of practices—his target is Barad (2007, p. 57)—“leads easily to taking them [practices] as self-evident givens rather than perspectival ‘cuts’ in the spatio-temporal flux of events.”3 The analysis to follow shows how the concept of problematization works past this difficulty.

Given his nominalism and his fondness for spatial/geographical metaphors, Foucault (1981/1991, p. 75) describes practices as “places” where “what is said and what is done, rules imposed and reasons given, the planned and the taken for granted meet and interconnect.” Here, in lieu of a definition of practices or a presumption that practices are self-evident, Foucault directs attention to how selected practices function—to the work they do. Flynn (2005, p. 31) offers an example:

the practice of legal punishment…entails the interplay between a “code” that regulates ways of acting—such as how to discipline an inmate [“rules imposed”]—and the production of true discourse that legitimates these ways of acting [“reasons given”].

From this example, we can see that Foucault was interested in specific kinds of practices—those that establish and apply norms, controls, and exclusions and that render “true/false” discourse possible (Flynn, 2005, p. 31). In short, he directed his attention to governing practices and how they operate. Hence, he avoids the tendency to talk about the effects of practices in general, lapsing into the danger Pellizzoni (2015)identifies of treating practices as (simply) self-evident forms of activity (see above).

Foucault’s particular concern is to consider how governing practices form or constitute “subjects” and “objects.” To this end, he turns to problematizations. The following quote from Foucault (1994), writing as Maurice Florence, shows the connections between practices and the constitution of “subjects” and “objects” and the place of problematizations in this analysis:

He [sic, the researcher] first studies the practices—ways of doing things—…through which one can grasp the lineaments of what was constituted as real for those who were attempting to conceptualize and govern it, and of the way in which those same people constituted themselves as subjects capable of knowing, analyzing, and ultimately modifying this real.

These “practices,” understood simultaneously as modes of action and of thinking, are what provide the key to understanding a correlative constitution of the subject and object. (p. 318, emphasis added)

By studying the ways in which specific governing practices problematized what was taking place, the researcher gains access to how “the real” was constituted and how “subjects” constituted themselves.

For example, as Foucault elaborates, to understand how “madness” was produced as “real,” as an “object for thought,” it is necessary to examine the following practices:

how madmen [sic] were recognized, set aside, excluded from society, interned, and treated; what institutions were meant to take them in and keep them there, sometimes caring for them; what authorities decided on their madness, and in accordance with what criteria; what methods were set in place to constrain them, punish them, or cure them; in short, what was the network of institutions and practices in which the madman [sic] was simultaneously caught and defined. (Foucault, 1969, in Eribon, 1991, p. 214)

Here Foucault is not questioning the existence of something “real” that is being regulated; however, this “thing” is not “madness” until it is produced through the practices he describes.

To trace the dynamic by which this occurs, Foucault (1985, p. 115) asks “how and why were very different things in the world gathered together, characterized, analyzed, and treated as for example ‘mental illness’?” The answer to this question, he explains, provides the “elements” deemed relevant “for a given ‘problematization’” (Foucault, 1985, p. 115).

To summarize, by looking at what was “done” (i.e., the practices) to those called “mad,” it is possible to see how they were “problematized”—conceptualized as a specific kind of phenomenon—and made “real.” In this way, attention is directed to the “conditions of emergence” (Foucault, 1972, p. 163) or “modes of coordination” (Mol, 2002, p. 84) involved in collecting together things, actions, gestures, behaviors, words that make up “madness” as an object of thought and “the mad” as “real” “subjects.” Problematizations thus provide a key link in the constitutive role of practices.

Foucault (1997c) proceeds to spell out the political implications of identifying the place of problematizations in constituting “the real,” offering a dual agenda:

It was a matter of [first] determining the role of politics and ethics in the establishment of madness as a particular domain of scientific knowledge [connaissance] [e.g. how it came to be], and [second] also of analyzing the effects of the latter on political and ethical practices [e.g. how the mad are treated, etc.]. (p. 116)

The main purpose of studying problematizations, therefore, is to establish a critical distance from “objects,” such as “madness,” as fixed essences. As Veyne (1997, p. 160) explains, “[T]here are no natural objects…. There are only multiple objectivizations (‘population’, ‘fauna’, ‘subjects under law’), correlatives of heterogeneous practices.” As a result, the analytical emphasis shifts from presumed “objects”—“sexuality,” “madness,” “addiction,” and “drugs”—to the relations and mechanisms involved in their becoming. That is, attention is directed to the politics, understood as the complex strategic relations that shape lives, involved in the production of “the real.”4 Showing how these “things” have come to be “real” opens up space to contest them, a vital political intervention.

Applications of WPR within the alcohol and other drug field illustrate the role of problematizations as important mediating factors in the production of “the real.” Fraser and Moore (2011, p. 499), for example, deploy poststructural methods of policy analysis, including WPR, to examine “how the problem of ATS [Amphetamine Type Stimulants] use has been formulated in policy” in Australia. In their analysis of the 1985 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Bill (New South Wales), Lancaster, Seear, and Treloar (2015, p. 1201) use the WPR approach to reflect on how the practice of constituting “illicit drug use” as an “inherently criminal activity” limits access to injecting equipment to “authorized persons,” with concerning effects for population health. Lancaster, Duke, and Ritter (2015) produce a comparative analysis of how the “problem of drugs” is represented in “recovery” discourse in Australia and the United Kingdom. Other recent applications of WPR by Månsson and Ekendahl (2015) and Manton and Moore (2016), respectively, show how, through problematizations in specific sites, “cannabis” and “intoxication” are produced as objects for thought, and “youth” and “men” and “women” are constituted as particular kinds of “subjects.”

Conclusions: Self-Problematization and Critique

A particular concern in this article has been to highlight that, in treating so-called “problems” as self-evident or given, researchers can produce or reinforce (dangerous) “realities”—for example, “drug problems” and “alcohol problems” as taken-for-granted ills to remove, and a problem-solving (evidence based) ethic that obviates the politics involved in constituting “problems” as particular sorts of problems. The WPR approach offers self-problematization as a means to assist researchers to avoid potentially dangerous uses of “problems” and other concepts.

Self-problematization is not to be confused with reflexivity, a mode of self-monitoring popular in much poststructural and other social theory. Important contributions from Mazzei (2013, p. 733) and Stengers (2008, p. 53) point to the way in which the notion of reflexivity relies upon a political subject reminiscent of the humanist subject, that is, a subject able to draw upon inner resources of insight and judgment.

Self-problematization attempts to bypass this difficulty by making the act of thinking itself an object of thought (Rabinow, 2003, p. 8). In the place of easy-to-make declarations of the need to become “reflexive,” it institutes a practice of the self, an exercise in which one subjects one’s own recommendations and proposals to a WPR analysis (see Foucault, 1997a, 1997b). Step 7 in the approach (see Table 1) specifies “Apply the list of questions to your own problem representations.” In respect of political implications, such a practice creates the opportunity for researchers to consider the operation of frameworks of meaning—for example, harm, responsibility, well-being, social inclusion, and so on (see Pellizzoni, 2015, p. 69)—in their analyses that could undermine their objectives or produce deleterious consequences.

This self-critical ethic institutes a commitment to a form of ongoing critique, “an open-ended provocation of the problematic” (Osborne, 2003, p. 7). As a result, there is a reluctance to engage in a project of creating or constituting problems (see above), which implies an ability to “legislate as to the very universe of problems and solutions that might be available to us” (Osborne, 2003, p. 7). By contrast, the kind of poststructural analysis offered here does not prescribe political positions, nor does it describe desirable futures:

Rather, it aims to make visible why particular positions and visions of the future occur to us, and especially to reveal when and where those positions work in the same register of “political rationality” as that which they purport to criticize. (Brown, 1998, p. 44)

As to the adequacy of such a form of critique in an age of “alternative facts,” “fake news,” and public marches to defend science (Garrison, 2017; Webb & Mitchell, 2017), WPR cultivates attention to the conditions under which things become “evident.” In this way, it helps to identify the boundaries of acceptability for claims to the truth—politicizing such claims. In addition, through a practice of self-problematization, it keeps us aware of the limits of our own explanations, holding us “constantly open to new formulations, new problematizations and problematics” (Osborne, 2003, p. 9).

Notes

Osborne (2003, p. 10) clarifies that Canguilhem’s injunction that the “business of philosophy” is “not so much to solve problems as to create them” is markedly different in meaning from its sense in Bergson: “It is not to produce a problem-solution composite but to incite the open-ended provocation of the problematic.” The project in Canguilhem, therefore, aligns with the Foucault-influenced commitment in “What’s the Problem Represented to be?” to “a holding open of, so to speak, the possibility of further possibility” (p. 9). See discussion at end of this article.

As with any “turn” in social theory, it is important to recognize that such labeling can link perspectives that may not always “sit happily together,” in this case, “new materialisms, compositionism, speculative realism, material semiotics” (Michael, 2016, p. 361).

Woolgar and Lezaun (2013, p. 326) also express concern that Barad’s notion of ontological enactment tends to “assign agential priority or causal primacy to the ‘materiality’ of objects.”

With Mol (2002), Woolgar and Lezaun (2013, p. 334) emphasize the need to identify the “coordination work” required to produce a “singular ontology.”

References

Anderson, B., & Harrison, P. (Eds.). (2010). Taking-place: Non-representational theories and geography. London, England: Ashgate.

Australian Government. 2004. What is intoxication and why is it a problem? Department of Health. Retrieved from http://www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/drugtreat-pubs-front12-fa-toc*drugtreat-pubs-front12-fa-secb*drugtreat-pubs-front12-fa-secb-2*drugtreat-pubs-front12-fa-secb-2-1

Australian Government. (2016). What is the ice problem? Retrieved from https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/fact_Sheet-what_the_ice_problem.pdf

Bacchi, C. (1996). The politics of affirmative action: Women, “equality” and category politics. London, England: Sage.

Bacchi, C. (1999). Women, policy and politics: The construction of policy problems. London, England: Sage. Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Frenchs Forest,Australia: Pearson Education.

Bacchi, C. (2012a). Strategic interventions and ontological politics: Research as political practice. In A. Bletsas &

C. Beasley (Eds.), Engaging with Carol Bacchi: Strategic interventions and exchanges (pp. 141–156). Adelaide, Australia: University of Adelaide Press.

Bacchi, C. (2012b). Why study problematizations? Making politics visible. Open Journal of Political Science, 2, 1–8.

Bacchi, C. (2015a). Problematizations in alcohol policy: WHO’s “alcohol problems.” Contemporary Drug Problems, 42, 130–147.

Bacchi, C. (2015b). The turn to problematization: Political implications of contrasting interpretive and poststructural adaptations. Open Journal of Political Science, 5, 1–12.

Bacchi, C., & Bonham, J. (2016). Poststructural interview analysis: Politicizing “personhood.” In C. Bacchi & S. Goodwin, Poststructural policy analysis: A guide to practice (pp. 113–121). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bacchi, C., & Goodwin, S. (2016). Poststructural policy analysis: A guide to practice. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Bonham, J., & Bacchi, C. (2017). Cycling “subjects” in ongoing-formation: The politics of interviews and interview analysis. The Journal of Sociology, 53, 687–703.

Bottrell, D., & Goodwin, S. (2011). Contextualising schools and communities. In D. Bottrell & S. Goodwin (Eds.), Schools, communities and social inclusion (pp. 1–20). South Yarra, Australia: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bottrell, D., & Meagher, G. (2008). Communities and change: Selected papers. Sydney, Australia: Sydney University Press.

Brown, W. (1998). Genealogical politics. In J. Moss (Ed.), The later Foucault: Politics and philosophy (pp. 33–49). London, England: Sage.

Deacon, R. (2000). Theory as practice: Foucault’s concept of problematization. Telos, 118, 127–142.

Deacon, R. (2006). Michel Foucault on education. A preliminary theoretical overview. South African Journal of Education, 26, 177–187.

Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London, England: Sage.

Dean, M., & Hindess, B. (1998). Governing Australia: Studies in contemporary rationalities of government. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Edwards, M. (2004). Social science research and public policy: Narrowing the divide (ASSA Policy Paper 2/2004). Canberra, Australia: Academy of the Social Sciences.

Eribon, D. (1991). Michel Foucault. London, England: Faber & Faber.

Farrugia, A., Seear, K., & Fraser, S. (2017). Authentic advice for authentic problems? Legal information in Australian classroom drug education. Addiction Research & Theory. doi:10.1080/16066359.2017.1343823

Farrugia, A. (2016). Assembling realities, assembling capacities: Young people and drug consumption in Australian drug education (PhD thesis). Curtin University, Bentley, WA.

Florence, M. (1994). Foucault, Michel, 1926. In G. Gutting (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Foucault (pp. 314–319). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Flynn, T. (2005). Foucault’s mapping of history. In G. Gutting (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Foucault (2nd ed., pp. 29–48). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Foucault, M. (1969). Pamphlet submitted to Professors of the Colle`ge de France (B. Wing, Trans.). D. Eribon (1991) Michel Foucault (pp. 214–216). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge, and the discourse on language (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. (1977). Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In D. F. Bouchard (Ed.), Language, counter-memory, practice: Selected essays and interviews (pp. 139–164). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. (Original work published 1971).

Foucault, M. (1985). Discourse and truth: The problematization of parrhesia (J. Pearson, Ed.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. Retrieved October 7, 2017, from http://foucault.info/documents/parrhesia/

Foucault, M. (1986). The use of pleasure: The history of sexuality (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Virago.

Foucault, M. (1991). Questions of method. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 73–86). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1981).

Foucault, M. (1997a). The ethics of the concern of the self as a practice of freedom. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Essential works of Foucault, Vol. I. “Ethics” (pp. 281–301). New York, NY: The New Press.

Foucault, M. (1997b). Subjectivity and truth. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Essential works of Foucault, Vol. I. “Ethics” (pp. 87–92). New York, NY: The New Press.

Foucault, M. (1997c). Polemics, politics and problematizations, based on an interview conducted by Paul Rabinow. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Essential works of Foucault, Vol. I. “Ethics” (pp. 111–119). New York, NY: The New Press. Retrieved October 7, 2017, from https://foucault.info/doc/foucault/interview-html

Fraser, S., & Moore, D. (2011). Governing through problems: The formulation of policy on amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) in Australia. International Journal of Drug Policy, 22, 498–506.

Garrison, H. (2017, May 4). Sweden joins global march for science. Vetenskap & Allma ̈nhet. Retrieved October 15, 2017, from https://v-a.se/2017/05/sweden-joins-global-march-science/

Glynos, J., & Howarth, D. (2007). Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory. London, England: Routledge.

Hoppe, R. (2011). The governance of problems: Puzzling, power and participation. Bristol, England: Policy Press.

Kelly, S. J. (2015). Governing civil society: How literacy, education and security were brought together (PhD thesis). Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

Lancaster, K., Duke, K., & Ritter, A. (2015). Producing the “problem of drugs”: A cross-national comparison of “recovery” discourse in two Australian and British reports. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26, 617–625.

Lancaster, K., Seear, K., & Treloar, C. (2015). Laws prohibiting peer distribution of injecting equipment in Australia: A critical analysis of their effects. International Journal of Drug Policy, 16, 1198–1206.

Lancaster, K., Seear, K., Treloar, C., & Ritter, A. (2017). The productive techniques and constitutive effects of “evidence-based policy” and “consumer participation” discourses in health policy programs. Social Science & Medicine, 176, 60–68.

Lancaster, K., Treloar, C., & Ritter, A. (2017). “Naloxone works”: The politics of knowledge in “evidence-based” drug policy. Health, 21, 278–294.

Ma ̊nsson, J., & Ekendahl, M. (2015). Protecting prohibition: The role of Swedish information symposia in keeping cannabis a high-profile problem. Contemporary Drug Problems, 42, 209–225.

Manton, E., & Moore, D. (2016) Gender, intoxication and the developing brain: Problematisations of drinking among young adults in Australian alcohol policy. International Journal of Drug Policy, 31, 153–162.

Mazzei, L. (2013). A voice without organs: Interviewing practices in posthumanist research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26, 732–740.

Meyer, M. (1995). Of problematology: Philosophy, science, and language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Michael, M. (2016). Neoliberalism and the ontological turn: Conflicts and collusions. Science as Culture, 25, 361–366.

Miller, P., & Rose, N. (2008). Governing the present: Administering economic, social and personal life. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press

Moore, D., & Fraser, S. (2013). Producing the “problem” of addiction in drug treatment. Qualitative Health Research, 23, 916–923.

OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematics, financial literacy and collaborative problem solving (Rev. ed.). Paris, France: Program for International Student Assessment, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. doi:10.1787/9789264281820-en

Osborne, T. (1997). Of health and statecraft. In A. Peterson & R. Bunton (Eds.), Foucault: Health and medicine (pp. 173–188). London, England: Routledge.

Osborne, T. (2003). What is a problem? History of the Human Sciences, 16, 1–17.

Osborne, T., & Rose, N. (1999). Do the social sciences create phenomena? The example of public opinion research. British Journal of Sociology, 50, 367–396.

Packer, J. (2003). Disciplining mobility: Governing and safety. In Z. Bratich, J. Packer, & C. McCarthy (Eds.), Foucault, cultural studies and governmentality (pp. 135–161). New York, NY: State University of New York Press.

Pellizzoni, L. (2015). Ontological politics in a disposable world: The new mastery of nature. London, England: Ashgate.

Rabinow, P. (2003). Anthropos today: Reflections on modern equipment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. British Journal of Sociology, 43, 172–205.

Seear, K., & Fraser, S. (2014). The addict as victim: Producing the “problem” of addiction in Australian victims of crime compensation laws. International Journal of Drug Policy, 25, 826–835.

Shapiro, I. (2002). Problems, methods, and theories in the study of politics, or what’s wrong with political science and what to do about it. Political Theory, 30, 596–619.

Stengers, I. (2008). Experimenting with refrains: Subjectivity and the challenge of escaping modern dualism. Subjectivity, 22, 38–59.

Tanesini, A. (1994). Whose language? In K. Lennon & M. Whitford (Eds.), Knowing the difference: Feminist perspectives in epistemology (pp. 203–216). New York, NY: Routledge.

Tolle, E. (2005). A new earth: Awakening to your life’s purpose. New York, NY: Dutton.

Tolle, E. (2009). The power of now: A guide to spiritual enlightenment. Novato, CA: New World Library.

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). What works clearinghouse. Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

Veyne, P. (1997). Foucault revolutionizes history. In A. I. Davidson (Ed.), Foucault and his interlocutors (pp. 147–182). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Walters, W. (2002). The power of inscription: Beyond social construction and deconstruction in European integration studies. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 31, 83–108.

Webb, J., & Mitchell, N. (2017, April 23). March for science: Meet some of the people who descended on Sydney. ABC News. Retrieved October 15, 2017, from http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-04-22/march-for-science-meet-those-who-attended/8462352

Woolgar, S., & Lezaun, J. (2013). The wrong bin bag: A turn to ontology in science and technology studies? Social Studies of Science, 43, 321–340.

#drugs #drug policy #addiction #problem #problematizations #drugs and society #WPR #ontological turn #practices #objectivizations #michel foucault #public policy

1 note · View note

5heclai · 6 years

Text

Who I Want to Win at the Grammys 2019

Record of the Year

"I Like It" – Cardi B, Bad Bunny and J Balvin

"The Joke" – Brandi Carlile

"This Is America" – Childish Gambino

"God's Plan" – Drake

"Shallow" – Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper

"All the Stars" – Kendrick Lamar & SZA

"Rockstar" – Post Malone featuring 21 Savage

"The Middle" – Zedd, Maren Morris

Album of the Year

Invasion of Privacy – Cardi B

By the Way, I Forgive You – Brandi Carlile

Scorpion – Drake

H.E.R. – H.E.R.

Beerbongs & Bentleys – Post Malone

Dirty Computer – Janelle Monáe

Golden Hour – Kacey Musgraves

Black Panther: The Album, Music From and Inspired By – Various Artists

Song of the Year

"All the Stars"

"Boo'd Up

"God's Plan"

"In My Blood"

"The Joke"

"The Middle"

"This Is America"

"Shallow"

Best New Artist

Luke Combs

Dua Lipa

Bebe Rexha

Jorja Smith

Greta Van Fleet

Chloe x Halle

H.E.R.

Margo Price

Pop

Best Pop Solo Performance

"Colors" – Beck

"Havana (Live)" – Camila Cabello

"God Is a Woman" – Ariana Grande

"Joanne (Where Do You Think You're Goin'?)" – Lady Gaga

"Better Now" – Post Malone

Best Pop Duo/Group Performance

"Fall in Line" – Christina Aguilera featuring Demi Lovato

"Don't Go Breaking My Heart" – Backstreet Boys

"'S Wonderful" – Tony Bennett & Diana Krall

"Shallow" – Lady Gaga & Bradley Cooper

"Girls Like You" – Maroon 5 featuring Cardi B

"Say Something" – Justin Timberlake featuring Chris Stapleton

"The Middle" – Zedd, Maren Morris and Grey

Best Pop Vocal Album

Camila – Camila Cabello

Meaning of Life – Kelly Clarkson

Sweetener – Ariana Grande

Shawn Mendes – Shawn Mendes

Beautiful Trauma – P!nk

Reputation – Taylor Swift

Rock

Best Rock Performance

"Four Out of Five" – Arctic Monkeys

"When Bad Does Good" – Chris Cornell

"Made an America" – The Fever 333

"Highway Tune" – Greta Van Fleet

"Uncomfortable" – Halestorm

- I think it’s really cool The Fever 333 got nominated

Best Metal Performance

"Condemned to the Gallows" – Between the Buried and Me

"Honeycomb" – Deafheaven

"Electric Messiah" – High on Fire

"Betrayer" – Trivium

"On My Teeth" – Underoath

- Please choose them academy

Best Rock Song

"Black Smoke Rising"

"Jumpsuit"

"Mantra"

"Masseduction"

"Rats"

Best Rock Album

Rainier Fog – Alice in Chains

Mania – Fall Out Boy

Prequelle – Ghost

From the Fires – Greta Van Fleet

Pacific Daydream – Weezer

R&B

Best R&B Performance

"Long as I Live" – Toni Braxton

"Summer" – The Carters

"Y O Y" – Lalah Hathaway

"Best Part" – H.E.R. featuring Daniel Caesar

"First Began" – PJ Morton

Best Urban Contemporary Album

Everything Is Love – The Carters

The Kids Are Alright – Chloe x Halle

Chris Dave and the Drumhedz – Chris Dave and the Drumhedz

War & Leisure – Miguel

Ventriloquism – Meshell Ndegeocello

Rap

Best Rap Performance

"Be Careful" – Cardi B

"Nice for What" – Drake

"King's Dead" – Kendrick Lamar, Jay Rock, Future & James Blake

"Bubblin" – Anderson .Paak

"Sicko Mode" – Travis Scott, Drake, Big Hawk & Swae Lee

Best Rap/Sung Performance

"Like I Do" – Christina Aguilera featuring Goldlink

"Pretty Little Fears" – 6lack featuring J. Cole

"This Is America" – Childish Gambino

"All the Stars" – Kendrick Lamar & SZA

"Rockstar" – Post Malone featuring 21 Savage

Best Rap Song

"God's Plan"

"King's Dead"

"Lucky You"

"Sicko Mode"

"Win"

Best Rap Album

Invasion of Privacy – Cardi B

Swimming – Mac Miller

Victory Lap – Nipsey Hussle

Daytona – Pusha T

Astroworld – Travis Scott

Country

Best Country Solo Performance

"Wouldn't It Be Great?" – Loretta Lynn

"Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters" – Maren Morris

"Butterflies" – Kacey Musgraves

"Millionaire" – Chris Stapleton

"Parallel Line" – Keith Urban

Best Country Song

"Break Up in the End"

"Dear Hate"

"I Lived It"

"Space Cowboy"

"Tequila"

"When Someone Stops Loving You"

Best Country Album

Unapologetically – Kelsea Ballerini

Port Saint Joe – Brothers Osborne

Girl Going Nowhere – Ashley McBryde

Golden Hour – Kacey Musgraves

From A Room: Volume 2 – Chris Stapleton

#grammys #2019 #kacey musgraves #kendrick lamar #black panther #lady gaga #mac miller

9 notes · View notes

fuckyeahmarxismleninism · 3 years

Photo

Today, on the anniversary of the Oct. 16, 1859, raid on Harper's Ferry by a band of Black and white abolitionist guerrillas led by John Brown, read Vince Copeland's important essay on the U.S. Civil War and the Black liberation struggle, "The Unfinished Revolution":

“How could twenty Black and white revolutionaries have created so much hysteria, while the organized invasion of massed Northern troops was met by a fervor of militant, self-confident, and even temporarily victorious defensism?

“The difference between the John Brown raid and the long-fought Civil War was not just in the massive character of the latter as opposed to the allegedly individualist character of the former. It wasn‘t just that the Northern army had conventional organization into companies, regiments, brigades, and so on, as opposed to the general guerrilla insurrection almost begun by Brown and Anderson.

“The real difference lay in the fact that one conceived of a slave uprising and took the first steps in that direction — while the other, although forced to free the slaves in the long run, and forced to enlist nearly 200,000 Black men in its ranks, did not at first contemplate an actual slave uprising, and, in fact, opposed it.”

#Harpers ferry #John Brown #Osborne P. Anderson #Black liberation #civil war #class struggle #armed struggle #slavery #white supremacy #capitalism #imperialism #guerrillas #solidarity #workers #revolution #Vince Copeland #Struggle La Lucha #Marxism

57 notes · View notes

stoweboyd · 10 years

Text

Pew releases AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs

It's been quite a few days.

The Pew Research Internet Center released their AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs report this week, where we were asked this question:

The economic impact of robotic advances and AI---Self-driving cars, intelligent digital agents that can act for you, and robots are advancing rapidly. Will networked, automated, artificial intelligence (AI) applications and robotic devices have displaced more jobs than they have created by 2025?

I was prominently quoted on the first page:

The full quote is this:

Stowe Boyd, lead researcher at GigaOM Research, said, "As just one aspect of the rise of robots and AI, widespread use of autonomous cars and trucks will be the immediate end of taxi drivers and truck drivers; truck driver is the number-one occupation for men in the U.S.. Just as importantly, autonomous cars will radically decrease car ownership, which will impact the automotive industry. Perhaps 70% of cars in urban areas would go away. Autonomous robots and systems could impact up to 50% of jobs, according to recent analysis by Frey and Osborne at Oxford, leaving only jobs that require the 'application of heuristics' or creativity...An increasing proportion of the world's population will be outside of the world of work---either living on the dole, or benefiting from the dramatically decreased costs of goods to eke out a subsistence lifestyle. The central question of 2025 will be: What are people for in a world that does not need their labor, and where only a minority are needed to guide the 'bot-based economy?"

I've been interviewed several times about the report --- by the AP, various newspapers, and others --- and its been quoted all over, as in the NY Times, Fortune, and Forbes. Here's an example from CIO:

Steve Rosenbush, The Morning Download: Facebook,Yahoo Developing New Models for Data Protection

AI, robotics, and the future of jobs. With Watson angling for the corner office, no job is safe from automation. Are the robots coming to take our jobs? The Pew Research Center recently asked nearly 2,000 technologists what the employment landscape will look like over the next decade, as artificial intelligence and robotics continue to gain ground. The experts, who included CEOs, tech journalists, Internet pioneers and researchers at tech vendors, are divided almost 50-50 on whether AI applications and robots will displace more jobs than they create. Some foresee more income inequality and more blue and white-collar displacement. "The central question of 2025 will be: What are people for in a world that does not need their labor, and where only a minority are needed to guide the 'bot-based economy?" wonders Stow Boyd [sic], lead researcher at GigaOM research. Others are more optimistic, citing humanity's ability to bounce back. "Technology will continue to disrupt jobs, but more jobs seem likely to be created," said Jonathan Grudin, principal researcher for Microsoft MSFT -0.30% Corp. So the short answer is that the jury's still out on whether we're heading towards a breakdown in social order or a new era of techno-based entrepreneurship. Someone should ask Watson what it thinks.

Interesting that the business publications, like Forbes and Fortune, were more interested in my predictions about robot sex partners than the impacts on work:

Robotic sex partners will be a commonplace, although the source of scorn and division, the way that critics today bemoan selfies as an indicator of all that's wrong with the world.

One thing that has been made clear in the fallout since the report was published: there is a sizable contingent who --- like me --- are convinced that increasing automation will lead to a large reduction in employment, and there appears to be an equally vocal group that believe that either new work will arise that only people can do or governmental controls will be put in place so that people will be employed whether we need them to be or not.

The authors of the report, Aaron Smith and Janna Anderson, characterized the various positions of the hopeful (52%) and the concerned (48%):

Key themes: reasons to be hopeful

Advances in technology may displace certain types of work, but historically they have been a net creator of jobs.

We will adapt to these changes by inventing entirely new types of work, and by taking advantage of uniquely human capabilities.

Technology will free us from day-to-day drudgery, and allow us to define our relationship with "work" in a more positive and socially beneficial way.

Ultimately, we as a society control our own destiny through the choices we make.

Key themes: reasons to be concerned

Impacts from automation have thus far impacted mostly blue-collar employment; the coming wave of innovation threatens to upend white-collar work as well.

Certain highly-skilled workers will succeed wildly in this new environment---but far more may be displaced into lower paying service industry jobs at best, or permanent unemployment at worst.

Our educational system is not adequately preparing us for work of the future, and our political and economic institutions are poorly equipped to handle these hard choices.

I've been asked by Aaron to appear at the Pivot Conference this October to speak on this theme.

At the time that the telephone switch was being developed, projections showed that all the women in America would have to be telephone operators in the next 20 years to handle the growth of telephone use. Now the number of telephone operators is functionally zero. Yes, those workers transitioned from that work to other occupations. If 85% of other occupations are either eliminated or disrupted out of existence, and all that remains is a narrow suite of domains where AI and robots can't play because of insufficient creativity or human emotion --- like improvisational jazz, playing Go, or nursing the sick --- we will hit a wall.

It's hard to imagine that our economy can respond to this challenge as quickly as our technologies can make it a reality. We're still living in a world where women are paid 87¢ for every $1 that men make, and women have been in the workforce for a hundred years. Culture is slow but technology's fast.

I tweeted earlier this week:

Or, how will unemployed people eat? The level of unemployment we have now is the new normal, not temporary @mertinsantos @pewresearch

--- Stowe Boyd (@stoweboyd) August 6, 2014

#writings #robots #ai #the future of work #pew research

1 note · View note

altusfl · 6 years

Text

39. The 1987 Season --- Team rosters

Team by team breakdown of more noted players in the 1987 season

Atlanta - QB Steve Bartkowski,QB Walter Lewis, RB Kirby Warren, FB Ken Talton, WR Marcus Anderson, WR/KR Cormac Carney, DL Curtis Anderson, and NT Bob Nelson OLB Cornelius Bennett, ILB Larry Kolic, P Jim Grupp K Efren Herrera

Arizona- QB Alan Risher, QB Doug Woodward RB Kevin Nelson,RB Nuu Faaola, RB Scott Stamper, RB Randy Johnson RB John Barnett,FB Mack Boatner, WR Jackie Flowers, WR Neil Bahlholm, WR Lenny Willis, TE Mark Keel, G Carl Roberts G Frank Kalil, C Mike Katolin OL Jeff Kiewel RG Alvin Powell, DE Skip McLendon, DE/NT Mark Buben DE Mike Mraz DT Stan Mataele NT Dan Saleamua OLB Ed Smith, OLB Ben Apuna, OLB Scott Stephen MLB Byron Evans DB Lance Shields DB Eddie Brown DB Gordon Bunch,FS Allen Durden SS David Fulcher SS Don Schwartz P/K Frank Corral

Birmingham- QB Cliff Stoudt,QB Bob Lane, QB Mike Shula, RB Brent Fullwood, RB Earl Gant, FB Tommie Agee FB Leon Perry WR Jim Smith, WR Joey Jones, WR Ron Fredrick, WR Perry Tuttle, WR Greg Richardson TE Darryl Mason TE Allama Matthews T Pat Phenix, T Robert Woods G Pat Saindon, G Buddy Aydelette, C Tom Banks G Dave Drechsler DE Jon Hand DE Dave Purifory DE Jackie Cline DE/DT Jimmy Walker DT Doug Smith, DE/DT Ronnie Paggett, NT Donnie Humphrey OLB Herb Spencer,LB Dallas Hickman, LB Thomas Boyd CB Ricky Ray CB Dennis Woodberry CB Frank Reed DB Dave Dumars SS Billy Cesare FS Mike Thomas FS Chuck Clanton P Danny Miller K Scott Norwood

Boston - QB Mike Hohensee QB Steve Beuerlein RB Troy Stratford, RB Richard Crump, WR Joey Walters, WR Kelvin Martin WR Nolan Franz, TE Dan Ross, T Pat Staub G Steve Trapillo G John Schmeding G Gerry Raymond C Mike McLaughlin DE John Bosa,DE Kenny Neil DE Robert Banks DE Wally Klein NT Mike Ruth OLB Ben Needham ILB Marcus Marek CB Goldie Lockbaum CB Woorow Wilson S Joe Restic P Bucky Scribner K John Carney

Chicago-QB Vince Evans, QB Jack Trudeau RB Bo Jackson, RB Thomas Rooks, FB Keith Byars, WR David Williams,WR Steve Bryant, WR Doug Donely, WR Jaime Holland WR James Maness TE Cap Boso, TE Jerry Reese LT Mark Dennis, LT Lee Spivey,LT Duane Wilson,RT Jim Juriga,RG Arland Thompson, C Bill Winters DE Tyrone Keys DE Don Thorp, DE Ken Gillen, NT Paul Hanna DT Tony Suber ILB Pepper Johnson ILB Jeff Leiding LB Byron Lee LB Scott Leach LB Larry Kolic OLB/DB Jim Bob Morris, OLB/DB John Barefeild OLB/DB Larry James CB Rod Hill, FS Craig Swoope DB Mike Ulmer S Sonny Gordon P Jim Miller K Max Zendejas

Denver- QB Doug Flutie, QB Bob Gagliano RB Bill Johnson, WR Leonard Harris, WR/KR Marc Lewis, WR Vincent White,WR Frank Lockett, LT Steve Rogers, C Tom Davis OL Sid Abramowitz DE Bruce Thornton, DE Calvin Turner, ILB John Nevens, LB Greg Gerken CB/PR David Martin, CB David Dumars CB Nate Miller, P Jack Weil K/P Jim Asmus (Future deals- FS Scott Thomas, MLB Terry Maki, and CB Tom Rotello)

Hawaii - QB Jack Thompson, QB Robbie Bosco,QB/RB/WR Raphel Cherry, WR Walter Murray, WR Mark Bellini , WR Glen Kozlowski, RB/PR/KR Gary Allen, RB Del Rodgers, RB Anthony Edgar RB/PR/KR Vai Sikahema, FB Lakei Heimuli, FB Tom Tuipulotu, TE Trevor Molini, TE David Mills, RT Jim Mills LT Darryl Haley, LT Dean Miraldi T Vince Stroth, T Nick Eyre, T Wayne Faalafua G Joe Onosai G Louis Wong G Bernard Carvalho, C Ed Riewerts C Robert Anae DE Jason Buck DE Jim Herrmann DE Brandon Flint DE Brad Anae, DE Junior Filiaga, DT Kit Lathrop DT Tom Tuinei DT Colin Scotts, DT Brad Smith, OLB Kyle Whittigham, OLB Leon White, LB Cary Whittingham, LB Filipo Mokofisi, MLB Kurt Gouveia,MLB Marv Allen CB Dana McLemore CB Jeff Griffin CB Manny Hendrix, DB/KR Erroll Tucker, FS Blaine Gaison FS Jeff Wilcox SS Mark Kafentzis SS Kyle Morrell SS Jeff Sprowls, S Verlon Redd P/TE Clay Brown K Paul Woodside

Houston- QB Jim Kelly, QB Todd Dillon WR Richard Johnson, WR Ricky Sanders, WR/PR Gerald McNeil, WR/KR Clarence Verdin, RB Sam Harrell, RB Darryl Clark, LT Bryan Dausin RT Tommy Robinson T Ernie Rogers, T Denver Johnson RG Billy Kidd, LG Scott Boucher, C Frank Kalil, DE Pete Catan, DE Cleveland Crosby DE Hosea Taylor DE Charles Benson DT Tony Fitzpatrick DT Hosea Taylor OLB Andy Hawkins, MLB Kiki DeAyala, OLB Mike Hawkins, CB Will Lewis CB Mike Mitchell FS Luther Bradley FS Hollis Hall SS Calvin Eason,S Tommy Myers P Dale Walters K Toni Fritsch,

Jacksonville- QB Ed Luther, QB Robbie Mahfouz WR Alton Alexis, WR Perry Kemp, WR Wyatt Henderson RB Kevin Mack, KR/RB Tony Boddie,RB Archie Griffin, FB Larry Mason T Bob Gruber G George Collins C Jay PennisonT Roy simmons C Mike Reuther,RT Ralph Williams, LG Rich garza,DE Mike Raines, DE Keith Millard, DE Phil Dokes OLB tom dinkle LB OLB Joe Castillo, CB Van Jakes S Don Bessillieu S Chester Gee CB Mark Harper DB Bobby Hosea, P/K Brian Franco

Los Angeles- QB Rick Neuheisel, QB Mike Rae RB Christian Okoye, RB Reggie Brown RB/KR Jarvis Redwine, WR JoJo Townsell, WR Mike Sherrad WR John Jefferson WR Duane Gunn TE Tim Wrightman TE Ricky Ellis OL Rod Walters, Vince Stroh, Bob Simmons, Doug Hoppock, Perry Harnett, & Jerry Doerger, C Mike Katolin & G Alvin Powell, DE Lee Williams, DT George Achica, DE Fletcher Jenkins, DE Ben Rudolph DT Eddie Weaver,DE Dennis Edwards, DE Ray Cattage, DE Rich Dimler OLB Eric Scoggins ILB Howard Carson,LB Danny Rich LB Sam Norris CB John Hendy CB Tyrone Justin CB/S Mike Fox SS Tim McDonald P Jeff Partridge K Tony Zendejas,

Memphis- QB Warren Moon, QB Mike Kelley, WR/KR Derrick Crawford, WR Derek Holloway WR Greg Moser, WR Sam Graddy, WR Ted Wilson, WR Gizmo Williams RB Tim Spencer, RB Harry Sydney, FB Cornelius Quarles, TE Keli McGregor RG Myke Horton G Bill Mayo DE Reggie White, DE/DT Calvin Clark LB Rod Shoate, LB Mike Brewington CB Mossy Cade CB Leonard Coleman CB mike thomas CB/s Mike Fox DB Terry Love FS Vic Minor SS Barney Bussey P Jimmy Colquitt K Alan Duncan

Miami – QB Vinny Tesreverde, QB Don Strock RB Curtis Bledsoe, RB George Works, RB/PR/KR Eric Robinson FB Dwayne Crutchfield, WR Eddie Brown, WR/KR Mike Harris WR Greg Taylor, WR Ricky Simmons WR Elmer Bailey TE Willie Smith TE Bob Niziolek LT Joel Patten RT Jeff Seevy RT/RG Dave Pacella RG Ed Fulton C/G Brian Musselman C Tony Loia T Ed Muransky Vaughn Harman DE Willie Broughton DE Ken Fagan DE Greg Feilds, DE Malcolm Taylor,DT Jerome Brown, DT Dan Sileo, LDT Bennie Smith DE Bob Cobb DE/NT Richard Tharpe DT Kevin Kellin DT Gurnest Brown OLB Winston Moss LB Jon McVeigh LOLB Darnell Dailey ROLB Joe Hines MLB Mike Muller LB Ken Kelley CB Jeff Brown CB Reggie Sutton CB Trent Bryant CB Willie Holley FS Victor Jackson SS Mike Guess P Greg Cater K Jeff Brockhaus

Michigan – QB Richard Todd, QB Jim Harbaugh QB Whit Taylor RB John Williams, FB Albert Bentley,WR Anthony Carter, WR Chris Carter, WR Anthony Allen, TE Mike Cobb,TE Donnie Echols T Ray Pinney, T Chris Godfrey T Ken Dallafior,G Tyrone McGriff, G Thom Dornbrook, C Wayne Radloff, C/G George Lilja DE Larry Bethea DT/NT David Tipton DT Mike Hammerstein DT/DE Allen Hughes ILB Ray Bentley, OLB John Corker, OLB Kyle Borland OLB Angelo Snipes ILB Mike Mallory ILB Robert Pennywell CB Clarence Chapman,CB Brad Cochran CB Ron Osborne DB Oliver Davis S Garland Rivers S David Greenwood P Jeff Gossett K Novo Bojovich

New Jersey- QB Steve Young, QB Tom Ehrhardt RB Hershel Walker, RB Dwight Sullivan RB Calvin Murray, FB Maurice Carthon, WR Scott Schwedes, WR Clarence Collins WR Walter Broughton WR Tom McConnaughey WR Charlie Smith, TE Gordon Hudson, TE Brian Forster C Kent Hull, DE James Lockette, DE Ricky Williamson, DE Freddie Gilbert DT Tom Woodland, LB Jim LeClair, LB Mike Weddington CB Kerry Justin,CB Mike Williams CB Terry Daniels S Gregg Johnson DB Tony Thurman P Rick Partridge K Roger Ruzek

New Orleans- QB Reggie Collier, QB David Woodley, RB Buford Jordan, RB Marcus DuPree, RB Anthony Steels, WR Trumaine Johnson, WR Jerry Gordon, WR Ron Johnson WR Mardye Mcdole TE Sam Bowers T Broderick Thompson T Randy Theiss G Gerry Raymond, G Louis Oubre G Terry Crouch DT Jerald Bayless, DT Henry Thomas DT Jeff Gaylord, DT Larry McClain, DE Darryl Wilkerson DE Larry White NT Jerry Ball NT Oudious Lee OLB Micheal Brooks KB ray phillips CB Lyndell Jones S Charles Harbison S Tim Smith P Dario Casarino, K Tim Mazzetti

Oakland- QB Fred Besana, QB Tom Ramsey RB Eric Jordan, RB/KR Elmer James FB Tom Newton FB LaRue Harrington WR Gordon Banks, WR Ken Margerum, WR Lew Barnes WR Kevin Williams, TE Brian Williams, T Gary Zimmerman, T Jeff Hart, G Tracy Franz, G Jim Leonard C Roger Levasa RDE Dave Browning, DE Greg Feilds, LDE Monte Bennett, NT Tim Moore OLB David Wyman OLB David Wyman OLB Tim Lucas OLB David Shaw ILB Gary Plummer LB Tony Caldwell LB Mark Stewart LCB Mark Collins,RCB Derrick Martin FS Frank Duncan SS Marcus Quinn, P Stan Talley, K Sandro Vitiello

Oklahoma – QB Doug Williams, RB Ernest Anderson, RB Allen Pinkett, RB Andrew Lazarus, RB Vagus Ferguson,RB Mike Gunter FB Ted Sample, FB Derek Hughes, FB Jim Stone, WR Al Williams, WR Kris Haines, WR Lonnie Turner,TE Ron Wheeler,TE victor Hicks, LT Joe Levellis T Mike Perino, RT Jim Bob Lamb,G David Huffman, G Tom Thayer, C Mark Fischer, DE Leslie O'Neal DE Bob Clasby, NT Tony Casillas ILB Putt Choate,OLB Dewey McClain OLB Kevin Murphy ILB Terry Beeson, LB Vic Koenning, LB Tony Furjanic CB Peter Raeford,CB Rock Richmond, CB Barry Copeland, CB Roney McMillan CB Lee Wilson DB Rod Brown FS Kelvin Middleton SS Herb Williams, P Case DeBrujin, K Luis Zendejas

Philadelphia- QB Chuck Fusina, RB Kelvin Bryant, RB Paul Palmer RB Allen Harvin, FB David Riley WR Scott Fitzkee, WR Willie Collier WR Tom Donovan TE Ken Dunek TE Steve Folsom RT Irv Eatman, RG Chuck Commiskey, C Bart Oates, LG George Gilbert LT Mike McClearn D Bill Dugan NT Pete Kugler, DE William Fuller, DE John Walker, DE/DT Willie Rosborough ILB Shane Conlan, ILB Glenn Howard, OLB John Bunting OLB George Cooper LB John Brooks CB Garcia Lane, CB John Sutton CB/S Roger Jackson FS Mike Lush, S Scott Woerner, SS Antonio Gibson P Sean Landeta, K David Trout

Pittsburgh- QB Glen Carano, QB Craig Penrose, HB Mike Rozier, HB Walter Holman, RB/KR/PR Mel Grey FB Amos Lawrence WR Greg Anderson, WR Julius Dawkins, TE Joey Hackett LT Don Maggs LG Corbin C Correal RG Lukens RT Feilds OL Emil Boures LDE Sam Clancy RDE Tony Woods DE Doug Hollie DT Ken Times, DT Mike Morgan, DT Dennis Puha, LDT David Graham RDT Dombrowski DE Ike Griffin NT Laval Short LOLB Rich D'Amico ROLB Mike McKibben MLB Brian Bozworth,LB Craig Walls CB Jerry Holmes,CB Virgil Livers, S Tommy Wilcox, P Larry Swider K Tony Lee

Tampa Bay – QB Chuck Long QB Jimmy Jordan, QB Ben Bennett RB Gary Anderson, RB Greg Allen, FB Greg Boone,WR Larry Brodsky, WR Willie Gillespie WR Chris Castor TE Marvin Harvey, LT Dan Fike, RT Reggie Smith LG Chuck Pitcock RG Nate Newton C Chris Foote DE Mike Butler DE Don Feilder DE Walter Carter, NT Fred Nordgren, DT Mike Clark DE Jim Ramey ROLB Alonzo Johnson LOLB James Harrell, MLB Kelley Kirchbaum MLB Fred McAllister CB Jeff George,CB Warren Hanna, FS Zac Henderson SS Blaine Anderson DB Alvin Bailey DB Doug Beaudoin P/K Zenon Andrusyshyn,

Click here to continue to the next post

Click here for previous post

1 note · View note