Rants, reviews, and reflections

Mike's Comments

Monthly Archives: January 2009

HOPE AND CHANGE

Posted on by Posted in Politics

The Catholic theological virtue of Hope describes our longing for eternal life and the kingdom of heaven, in which we rely not on our own strength, but on the help and grace of the Holy Spirit. Hope is the political sense is something far different, and was one of the twin towers of Obama’s successful presidential campaign.

No doubt, many Black people and White liberals were inspired by his victory, and the notion that a Black man could become president in our supposedly terribly racist country would be a source of hope. But why?

There were already many rich and successful Black individuals, who may not have become president, but have ascended to great heights nonetheless. Were they less of an inspiration? By the same token, how does the success of another person affect my success? The only example I can think of would be if you are a vendor for a small company (dominated by that magical individual) that gets very successful, and keeps you on, so you grow with them. A related example would be any other sort of “coat tail effect,” such as a brilliant employee raising up an entire company, or a star player raising up the team, coach, and owner.

However, we cannot forget that the office of president is largely symbolic, with few specific powers. As such, he should be able to inspire us. In fact, the office is so symbolic that historians make the absurd mistake of not evaluating a president’s term in its own time frame, but rather wait for the “verdict of history” to come in. Consider how nonsensical this would be if applied to anyone else.

Will we view the feckless Wall Street titans, like Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain—who was kicked out by Bank of America, after he paid out huge bonuses to execs and redecorated his office for over $1 million, in the wake of the firm losing more than $27 billion in the year—any differently 50 years from now?

Yet, like it or not, Obama is a symbol. Will this be sufficient to rally the nation? My take is that it will not, especially if his actions prove to be as empty and superficial as his words. As it is, how much hope is there for those new victims of state-funded abortions overseas, as reinstated by our dear leader?

Commentator Robert Tracinski had a few choice observations about Obama’s inaugural address:

  • Obama boldly came out in favor of “hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism”—the most superficial and anodyne list of traditional American values one could possibly compile.

  • It is basic choices between opposing principles that Obama is telling us are “stale” and “no longer apply.” And if you think that ideas and principles still matter, you’re a cynic!

  • Thus, Obama begins his administration by declaring that he will run the government while rejecting any overarching ideas and principles regarding the proper role and scope of government action. He starts by telling us, in effect, that he has no idea what he is doing.

As to change, there sure do seem to be lots of Clintonites brought back for round two, along with a treasury secretary designate who doesn’t like paying his taxes; a CIA director designate who have never been involved in intelligence; and a Washington insider apparatchik (Daschle) who, like George McGovern before him, mastered—for a time—the art of getting elected in a tiny state. Daschle then re-emerged as “not” a lobbyist, but rather was a special adviser in a K Street law firm.

One thing we do know from history is that Keynesian government spending to try to get us out of a bad economy does not work. When FDR tried it, things only got worse, and it took the austerity and forced defense build-up of World War II to bring us out.

As columnist Ross Mackenzie noted, in an analysis of Obama:

“He could be, likely will be, a transformational president. In his ideological predilections and in his appointments, one finds key indicators of what sort of transformation—what sort of change—he has in mind. They don’t make for easy sleeping. Goodwill for Obama, and high hopes for his presidency? Of course. Still, for the nation, the signs provide little comfort. Maybe that is because not all change is for the better. Going to hell is a form of change, too.”

LAST CHANCE HARVEY

Posted on by Posted in Movies

Last Chance HarveyA simple story, plenty of outdoor London scenes, and good perfs by the two leads make this one a pleasant diversion. Sure, there are some flaws, but in films like this—where you want to be charmed—you don’t care.

Harvey Shine (Dustin Hoffman) is traveling to London for the wedding of his estranged daughter Susan (Liane Balaban). Upon arrival at Heathrow, he is understandably tired, and blows off airport survey taker Kate Walker (Emma Thompson). When he gets to his hotel, he finds out that he is the only one in the wedding party staying there. Nonetheless, he tries to be of good cheer at the rehearsal dinner, where his outcast status is made even more obvious when Susan tells him that her stepfather (James Brolin) will be giving her away at the wedding.

Meanwhile, Kate is out on a blind date, and her own outcast status is underscored when friends of her date show up at the pub, and a good time is had by all (except her).

Determined not to attend the wedding reception, and given the very real excuse of protecting his job as a jingle writer by saving a big account, Harvey plans to return to New York right after the ceremony. As it happens, though, he misses the flight, and upon notifying his boss of this, is fired.

At this, he heads to the airport bar and quickly downs a couple of drinks, before noticing Kate, sitting a few feet away. He approaches Kate with the idea of apologizing for treating her rudely the previous day, and then explains what has happened to him in the last few hours. She wants no part of it at first, but the conversation continues, and they begin walking around London. Clearly, there is an attraction, but Kate—who has been hurt before—tries to ignore it.

During their stroll, Kate tells Harvey that he really must go to the reception, and he replies that he will, but only if she accompanies him. There are some bittersweet moments as the rest of the plot plays out but—rare for this genre—there are no big character arcs for anyone.

Since the plot is so thin, a couple of devices are added, with little effectiveness. Moreover, there is no back story as to just why Harvey is the family black sheep, or why the wedding of two Americans would be held in London, for that matter. With not much to go on, we get the impression that Harvey’s situation might have been catalyzed by his snobbish ex-wife (Kathy Baker), who expected way too much of her musician husband—and her daughter simply followed suit.

Or maybe, Harvey’s sensitive nature is what gets him in trouble. At any rate, I would disagree with those critics who portray both Kate and Harvey as losers.

The title refers to a conversation with his boss, who tells him that this is his “…last chance, Harvey.” Older people need love too.

WHO COULD BE AGAINST SAFER PRODUCTS FOR CHILDREN?

Posted on by Posted in Greenies, Eco-Poseurs, and the Environment

Who indeed, and that’s the problem. On August 14, 2008, President Bush signed into law the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). There are two main portions (or “titles”) of the Act: Title I–Children’s Product Safety and Title II–Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform. Within Title I are eight sections, two of which are concerned with certain chemicals that might be found in children’s products. Section 101 regulates the amount of lead that can be contained in these products, and Section 108 regulates certain compounds called phthalates, used as softeners in plastics.

No doubt in response to the several scares over lead in Chinese-made toys, the lead regulations provide for a phased-in tightening of the allowable lead starting on February 10, 2009 and proceeding through August, 2011. A drastic lowering applies to permissible lead paint content from 0.06 percent to 0.009 percent (effective August 14, 2009). This level could be lowered after further studies are conducted.

Significantly, since clothing is considered a children’s product, the thrift stores and resale shops howled in protest.

“We will have to lock our doors and file for bankruptcy,” said Shauna Sloan, founder of Salt Lake City-based franchise Kid to Kid, which sells used children’s clothing in 75 stores across the country and had planned to open a store in Santa Clara, CA this year.

Carol Vaporis, owner of Duck Duck Goose Consignment in New Port Richey, FL, said her store stocks barely used brand-name clothing from places such as Limited Too and Gymboree. “We really provide a service to the community to help people get clothes for their children they otherwise couldn’t afford,” she said. In addition, families who turn in clothing get a portion of the sales price.

As with so many laws that are introduced to “protect” the public, it was beginning to look like CPSIA would be hurting people who needed to purchase used clothing, and people who might generate a little income by selling this clothing to the stores—in other words, those of limited means. Then there is the matter of shutting down the thrift shops themselves, many of which are raising money for charity.

Fortunately, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the agency that will have to enforce the law, published a ruling on January 8, 2009, that provides, in part:

The new law requires that domestic manufacturers and importers certify that children’s products made after February 10 meet all the new safety standards and the lead ban. Sellers of used children’s products, such as thrift stores and consignment stores, are not required to certify that those products meet the new lead limits, phthalates standard or new toy standards.

But, there is still a gray area, as the ruling continues:

The new safety law does not require resellers to test children’s products in inventory for compliance with the lead limit before they are sold. However, resellers cannot sell children’s products that exceed the lead limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the products being sold have less than the new limit. Those resellers that do sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or criminal penalties.

Typically, lead in clothing can appear in buttons, charms, and appliques that have been added to fabric. Presumably, if the resellers avoid these, they will be OK. At least, the burden of testing has been removed from these small operators.

It might have been a whole lot easier to simply ban lead content buttons, charms, and appliques, along with lead-containing jewelry. As it happens, in the most celebrated and tragic case, a four-year-old Minnesota boy died in February, 2006 after ingesting a lead charm, that fell off a pair of Reebok athletic shoes. The charm in question contained an unbelievable 99.1% lead. Subsequent testing of the same type of charms showed that they could range from 0.07% lead all the way up, and this is apparently typical of cheap metallic jewelry items.

The ban on phthalates is controversial, to say the least. Lunatic Greenie activists who were originally trying to get vinyl products banned—but then gave up since there are far too many essential medical applications—set their sights on phthalates, since they are necessary for the production of vinyl plastics.

It is well worth noting that many eminent toxicologists—including Michael Kamrin and Robert Golden—are by no means convinced that there are any safety issues with phthalates—one of the most studied group of chemical compounds in history. More than that, the CPSC’s own scientists had already done work confirming that phthalates are a non-issue, and the agency is far from pleased with that provision of the CPSIA.

To make matters worse, the National Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit in December, 2008. requesting that the phthalates provision apply retroactively to inventory on hand as of February 10, 2009. Previously, the CPSC had issued a ruling that the phthalates ban is NOT retroactive. Otherwise, hundreds of millions of dollars in inventory would be in limbo, resulting in higher costs to consumers, during a recession.

All this for compounds that have never been shown to have any ill effects on humans in the stated applications. Rather, certain rodent studies suggested that they might be endocrine disruptors—IN RODENTS, at substantially higher concentrations.

However, rats and mice do not equal humans! For example, it is well established that rodent-based tests for certain thyroid effects may not be relevant for extrapolation to humans due to substantial species differences in thyroid function. Numerous drugs in common use produce adverse thyroid effects in rodents, but not in humans, including CNS-acting drugs (phenobarbital, benzodiazapines), calcium channel blockers (nicardipine, bepridil), antihistamines (doxylamine succinate) and steroids (spironolactone). For these drugs, a listing of possible side effects does not even include adverse effects on the thyroid.

Furthermore, extensive data exists on the in utero effects of DES (a very potent estrogen) on humans, which, at the very least, imply that massive exposure to phthalates—at thousands of times the levels proposed— would be necessary to produce adverse effects.

But, who needs science when muddleheaded officeholders, led by misinformed and biased staffers, think they know what’s best for us?

96 YEARS AFTER THE 17TH AMENDMENT: MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED

Posted on by Posted in History

When the 111th Congress opens on Tuesday, we should be in for plenty of entertainment. Roland Burris, the senate pick from corrupt Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich is supposed to be showing up, but will be barred from taking office. We also hear that Al Franken, not yet certified by Minnesota’s secretary of state, in an election process that is still pending, might also try to take a seat.

It is likely that Caroline Kennedy (she used be called Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, although some sources say that she never took her husband’s name) will be appointed senator by New York’s Governor Paterson, himself brought to office upon the resignation of Eliot Spitzer. It is worth noting that Ted Kennedy, while duly elected in 1962, was aided significantly in his senatorial quest by his brother JFK.

Upon JFK’s election in 1960, and his senate seat becoming vacant, he persuaded Massachusetts Governor Foster Furcolo (himself indicted on bribery charges later dropped) to appoint JFK friend Benjamin Smith to the seat. However, the deal was for Smith to resign in 1962, when Ted became 30 years old, and a special election was then held.

More recently, Alaska’s Senator Lisa Murkowski was appointed by her father the governor in 2002, but was elected in her own right in 2004.

All of the above fun and games were facilitated by the seventeenth amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1913. At our country’s founding, the senate was meant to act as a sort of ambassadorial body, whereby the states would have influence over Federal activities. As originally intended, the senators were appointed by the state legislatures.

This would change to direct election, along with the provision for governor’s appointments by the 17th amendment, against a backdrop of muckraking, yellow journalism, and woefully misguided progressive “reforms.” After all, this was the era of supposed super-baddie John D. Rockefeller, loved by consumers, but hated by socialists and competitors.

In an era of little social justice, corporations were an easy target, and this helped sell newspapers. Still, it was hard to ignore Rockefeller’s influence. The price of kerosene dropped from 58 to 8 cents per gallon. It now only cost about 1 cent per hour to light a small home. Thousands of jobs were created, based on all the new products he developed. Too bad they don’t teach that in high school history.

One favorite muckraker was David Graham Phillips, whose 1906 series “The Treason of the Senate,” along with corruption trials and removal of Senators John H. Mitchell (R-OR) [Mitchell died before the proceedings were complete, but he was going down] and Joseph R. Burton (R-KS) would do much to advance the cause of direct election of senators.

While Phillips is still lauded in some quarters, even reform-minded president Theodore Roosevelt, who would later support direct election, condemned his reliance on innuendo and exaggeration. In Phillips’ view, any senator connected to any business interest was virtually by definition corrupt and thus “treasonous.”

Which brings us back to our current situation. Not counting southern senators who were expelled during the Civil War era, only two senators were actually kicked out or resigned prior to the 17th amendment, while four were censured. and this covers the time frame 1797-1913. After the amendment, four left office, and five were censured. As such, it looks like we are doing a bit worse on the new system.

At any rate, given the incredible amounts of money now required for any election campaign, and the prohibitive advantages of incumbency, not to mention our present situation, direct election of senators is an idea whose time has gone.