Archive for the ‘news’ category

« ManicDDaily home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Context – World Series, Fort Hood, Obama’s Remarks

November 5, 2009

The effect of context.   As some ManicDDaily readers may recall, I was lucky enough to be given a ticket to Game 1 of the World Series last week.  As grateful as I was, the combination of Cliff Lee (the Phillie’s amazing pitcher), a wet, cold night, and the materialism and misogyny of a small set of other Yankees’ fans, made the evening a bit of a bummer.

What amazed me this morning was how much better that Game 1 experience felt in light of the Yankees’ overall Series’ triumph.  It was like the Yankees had once more pulled a difficult game out of the hat, only this time it was a game that they had actually lost, and the “pulling” was all done retrospectively.  Now, Game 1 feels simply like one more step on the Yankees’ journey towards victory—a lesson of, and for, New York–a lesson in resilience.

Since thinking all these grandiose thoughts about the Yankees, the horrible events at Fort Hood, Texas have taken place. Sport seems trivial compared to loss of life.  Nearly everything seems trivial when compared to terrible events of this kind, which, unfortunately, are all too common in today’s world.

Obama spoke about the tragedy in the context of a planned speech at a conference concerning Native Americans.   I had not seen Obama’s remarks earlier in the day,  so looked for them this evening online.  What was (sort of) amazing to me is that on youtube, at least, there was already a fair amount of negative commentary about Obama’s sober words, mainly because, since they were given in the midst of a planned speech, they followed introductory thanks to conference organizers and attendees, including a special acknowledgement (“shout-out”) to  one Congressional medal of honor winner.    The negative internet commentary viewed this introductory “shout-out” to the medal of honor winner (who I presume was at one time a soldier) as disrespectful to the current soldiers who were today’s victims.

I admit that the term “shout-out” was not a good choice.  (I’m guessing that part had been planned, like my Yankees’ bit, before the Fort Hood events transpired, and that Obama simply wanted not to forget to acknowledge the medal of honor winner.) However, Obama’s actual remarks, which immediately followed his introductory thanks, were grave and prayerful.  Which again brings up the issue of context.  Viewers expect that Obama is addressing everything he says to the world of TV.  But in this case, the guy is also speaking to a live audience.  People actually sitting in front of him, who have come with a detailed and specific agenda.   The fact that Obama politely acknowledged and thanked these people, before turning to the events at Fort Hood, seems to be a product of a methodical and polite nature, and not reflective of any lack of concern or gravity.  Certainly, this type of polite remark seems trivial in the face of the terrible events of earlier in the day;  just as tomorrow’s parade for the Yankees will seem ridiculous in the context of such horrible events.   It is just this shifting context of the horrible and wonderful, tragic and trivial, extraordinary and commonplace, polite and brutal, that makes up our lives.    Nothing just stops.

I’m guessing that we will hear more about Obama’s speech.   In the meantime, my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims of this terrible event, and their grieving families.

Categories: news, Obama
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama Truly At Dover

November 1, 2009

After all the silliness, I want to comment on something truly newsworthy—Obama’s late-night, early-morning trip to Dover, Delaware (October 29), to salute the 18 fallen soldiers whose remains were returned from Afghanistan.  Maureen Dowd has an interesting article about it this morning (November 1, 2009 – “Port Mortuary’s Pull”).  (For video footage involving one soldier’s casket, whose family gave full permission for filming, see  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/29/obama-heads-to-dover-air-_n_337930.html.)

Apparently, Liz Cheney, and others on the right are accusing Obama of using the moment as a photo op.  Dowd quotes Cheney as saying, to a Fox News radio host, “I think that what President Bush used to do is do it without the cameras.”  Dowd goes on to point out that Cheney’s right:  “There were no press cameras at Dover in the previous administration. There was also no W.”

What Cheney and others also fail to note is how small a portion of Obama’s participation was actually covered in the supposed photo-op:  a part of the “dignified transfer” of one soldier out of eighteen, a meeting with a chaplain and all of the families; all through the night.

I’m not saying that the loss of one night’s sleep is a huge sacrifice.  I’m just trying to further emphasize the ridiculousness of Cheney’s statement, and of any statement trying to cast doubt on Obama’s sincerity. Any person with an ounce of neutrality can see the somber gravity of Obama’s expression; it’s as clear as the blowing of that early morning wind.

Categories: news
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Snoring Through Executions

October 22, 2009

An article that caught my eye from the October 20, 2009, The New York Times was titled “One Reporter’s Lonely Beat, Witnessing Executions,”  (by Richard Pérez-Peña.)

Because I was reading the Times online, I picked the title out of the list of most currently emailed articles  and clicked on it.  This meant that I had no idea what newspaper section it had been printed in, no sense of the other stories around it, no context.

As a result, I clicked with the calm certainty that the article would be about Iran, or Afghanistan, or China, some distant locale of renowned penal severity.  In fact, it was about Texas.

The article, moreover, did not truly focus on the high number of annual executions in Texas, but on the press coverage (or lack thereof) of so many of such executions.

Apparently, there is now only one reporter regularly covering the “execution” beat, an Associated Press reporter, Michael Graczyk, based in Houston.  Mr. Graczyk has witnessed more than 300 executions, although he has, in fact, lost count.

Mr. Graczyk has increasingly become the only member of the press at these Texas executions, the only only non-interested witness (neither a family member of the victim, or inmate.)   This is attributed to (i) the shrinking size of newsrooms and budgets, and (ii) the fact that executions in Texas have become so routine.

In the interest of neutrality, Mr. Graczyk does not reveal his personal views on capital punishment, though he says he often stands in the viewing room of family members of the victim.  (There are apparently two viewing rooms, one for family members of the inmate, and one for family members of the victim.)  However, he says he makes this choice partly because it’s easier to get out of victim’s room faster and file his story faster.

I am against capital punishment.  I know that the crimes involved are beyond heinous.  I have to admit that I probably would be too wimpy to even hear about  many of them;  Mr. Pérez-Peña says that the details of many are “so gruesome it is hard to imagine that they are real.”   I also believe that it is possible that some relief is felt by a victim’s family upon the extermination of a person who has caused so much horror and suffering.  Even so, I am against state participation in further violence.  I certainly wouldn’t release a killer (and I understand that that is what many fear), but I don’t believe in adding more killing into the equation.  It concerns me that violence begets violence;  it worries me that pre-meditated, state-justified, violence makes for an even more violent culture; a place where violence is a readily-thinkable option.

Even if one is not against capital punishment, however, it is chilling to think that there are parts of our country, including the localities in which many of the executions are actually held, in which they are increasingly not considered newsworthy.

As the article says, “the only sound regularly heard during the execution itself, is, of all things, snoring.”

Categories: news
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Balloon Boy – His Father Tempting Not Just Authorities But Fate

October 19, 2009

One of the great ironies of the story of Falcon Heene, the boy who was not found in his father’s helium balloon was that in fact the boy was caught in another kind of bubble of his dad’s, a bubble of grandiosity, delusion, deception, craziness.

As almost everyone in the U.S. now knows, Richard Heene (the father) thought he’d raise media hype to both a new high (about 11,000 feet) and, possibly, a new low.  His hope was apparently to create some kind of family “reality” tale, which, like many, was based not on reality but a perverse pursuit of drama and attention.

Heene’s sons, particularly Falcon, were caught up in this drama as compelling foils.  All kids are cute, but these boys are really cute; little Artful Dodgers, as it were, to Heene and his wife’s Fagan and Nancy.  (Unfortunately, reports of Heene’s temper and of a complaint of domestic violence also bring up worrisome hints of Bill Sykes.)

You can’t help but feel incredibly sorry for the kids, especially Falcon (maybe as much of an Oliver as an Arful Dodger), whose discomfort was enough to make him physically ill during two TV interviews, literally sick to his stomach.  Oddly, the guilt he must feel now stems largely from honesty, from openly alluding to his father’s script.

The whole story raises a lot of questions both about Heene and about the reality show culture.

But one of the questions that hits me the hardest is not how Heene could have had the chutzpah, or the incentive, to try to fool the authorities, but simply how he could have stood to tempt fate in this awful way.

Most people, certainly in the traditional world, but also today, would not even speak theoretically of possible ill befalling their children.  Many people would have difficulty actually forming words around such horrible speculations.  I am an attorney in my real life, and even when writing memos related to estate planning, I frequently use vague, pablumesque, words to describe the future mortality of a loved one:  “if something were to happen to” so-and-so, I write.  “Pre-decease” is another good, legalistic word, simply because it is both Latinate and elaborate enough to create distance from what it truly means.

“God forbid” was and continues to be the typical phrase of protection against such terrible speculation.  “God forbid,” combined, after a silent prayer, and then perhaps a  knock on the head.  (Something wooden.)

One hates to see families split up. But you can’t help but worry about those kids in their father’s bubble, whether up in the air, or firmly tethered in their own back yard.

Categories: news
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Who Needs Water? Drilling the Marcellus Shale

October 17, 2009

Ten Reasons (That Anyone Can Understand) Why New York Should Say No to Upstate Natural Gas Drilling.

1.  You need water to make beer.

2.  Even a cold bath is better than one that leaves you with boils.

3.  Casino-Resorts without (a) hot tubs (that don’t leave you with boils), or (b) good beer (I’ve heard Adirondack is infinitely superior to Coors) tend to go bust.

4.   Milk is good for your teeth.

5.  Mountains are good for your soul.

6.   When the animals go, we’re next.

7.   It’s hard to create jobs in a place where you can’t drink, bathe, feed animals, or wash clothes in the water.

8.  It’s hard to keep jobs downstream of a place where you can’t—oops! Correction.  It’s hard to keep jobs in a place whose reservoirs hold water that can’t be drunk, bathed in, or used for any human or animal purpose.

9.  Wyoming was once a beautiful state.

10.  And I haven’t heard that it’s become the jobs capital of the country.

Six Reasons Why New York Should Say Yes to Natural Gas Drilling

1.  I can take my one-time drilling lease payment and rent a trailer (maybe) somewhere a whole lot warmer than Upstate New York.

2.  Those stupid dairy cows really build up a stench.

3.   Coors is okay by me.   (Better not drill in Colorado.)

4.  Mountains make me carsick.

5.  Those stupid, rich, New Yorkers—don’t they just buy bottled water?

6.  They don’t use water to make diet soda, do they?  Regular?

Categories: Environment, New York City, news, Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Twilight Amorality of Edward Cullen – What Does It Mean?

October 15, 2009

Maybe it’s the stress of the bad news (that horrible moment when the balloon landed and the first responders realized that the six-year old boy was not in it), or relief at the good news (the wonderful moment when it was discovered that the little boy wasn’t ever in the balloon, that he had been hiding in a box in the garage)—

Or maybe it’s the fact that the Dow’s close above 10,000 and Goldman Sachs’ good earnings report have been called by some at Fox, the “Bush” recovery, and  by others as  no recovery at all (apparently Goldman would have done better if it had simply invested in an index fund and the economy is certainly not out of the woods yet)—

Whatever—it’s all made me decide to write about Twilight again, the phenomenally successful series of books by Stephanie Meyer – 70 million sold and counting.

Specifically, I want to write about the amorality of Twilight, and to wonder what this amorality, or really, the audience’s acceptance of this amorality, may mean.

First, for those who don’t know the series, the Twilight saga, written by Mormon Meyer (a graduate of Brigham Young University), has typically been considered to be an anachronistically moralistic series of books.  This characterization has resulted primarily from the fact (spoiler alert) that the sexual consummation of the passionate love affair between vampire Edward Cullen and human Bella Swan (even full frontal nudity) is pointedly delayed until marriage.   Then (double spoiler alert), once they do get married, Bella nearly instantly becomes extremely pregnant.   (It was a good thing they waited!)

Edward is repeatedly characterized in the last three books, New Moon, Eclipse and Breaking Dawn¸ as a “perversely moral vampire” with very old-fashioned ideas.  His “family” is also characterized as amazingly moral because, by and large, they feed only on the blood of wild animals.  And, although they do seem to take particular pleasure in certain endangered carnivores, they try to avoid having an unduly negative impact on the environment.  (At least it’s not Aunt Susie.)

A closer look at the books (which I must confess I’ve taken, repeatedly) shows the vampires’ morality to be very one-sided, i.e. it’s all about sex and very little about money.   (Yes, the vampires, who are rich due to prophesy of stock market trends, do give their old clothes to the werewolves, but even they admit that they only wear things once.)

Not only are the vampires amoral, they are also incredibly solipsistic:  they (Edward in particular) only care about their own (Bella.)

In scene after scene, mayhem occurs just offstage.  In New Moon (the movie about to come out),  a large tourist group is fodder for the “Voluturi”, the vampire leaders.  Edward hurries Bella away so she won’t be upset by the sounds of the mass slaughter, but makes no effort to save even one tourist.  (Okay, they’re tourists….)

Similarly, when vampire mayhem stalks Seattle (of all places) in Eclipse, Edward’s main concern seems to be the negative attention the slaughter may bring.  In a hypothetical plane crash in that book, he talks, hypothetically, of reaching out to save only Bella from certain death.  (Doesn’t he have two hands?)

In the fourth book, Edward and Bella even stand passively (if uncomfortably) by as their vampire guests roam the countryside feeding on humans (granted, the guests go out of State.)

I know, I know.  There’s only so much a person…errr. ..vampire… can do.  Maybe Edward is right to focus his energies.  But what’s amazing to me is is the shift this represents from the classic romantic hero.

When did Superman even abandon a kitten up a tree to save only Lois Lane?  In nearly  every opera you can think of (Aida, Il Travatore, the Magic Flute), the hero must part from his love for the sake of Truth, Duty to  family, society, or gypsy clan, and some really heart-wrenching singing.   Romeo (yes, a hothead) forsakes Juliet to avenge Mercutio.    Even Harry Potter (who is a classic, if modern hero) leaves Ginny to save Hogwarts.

Edward’s solipsism is especially misplaced since he is supposed to be a World War I kind of guy.  It’s hard to imagine another generation so bound by duty.

So what does Edward’s amorality, and more importantly, fan inattention to it, say about modern culture?  (And please don’t get me wrong, I still love both him and his portrayer, Robert Pattinson.)

Certainly, we live in a country with a lot of fellow feeling.  I think about all the wonderful first responders who chased down the balloon today in which the little six-year old was, thankfully, not lodged;  I think of all the millions of Americans who undoubtedly hoped and prayed for that little boy’s safety.

But then I also think of the health care debate, the intense furor over the “public option”.

And, forgive me, but I also think of the outrage over Obama’s comments to “Joe the Plumber”; the casual ‘spreading wealth around’ remark that drew so much ire and concern, and that were raised with such anger (and comparisons to Stalinism) by my taxi driver in Florida.  (See earlier post re incredulity in Florida.)

Goldman Sachs’ outsized bonuses also somehow come to mind.

Hmmm…..

Categories: news, Twilight Saga
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Food Rules – Not Quite Michael Pollan’s

October 11, 2009

I have long been a careful eater.  Some might call me picky.  This isn’t really fair, because my refusal to eat certain foods has never arisen from finicky taste buds, but from strong ideas about health, morality and the environment.    I won’t burden you with these here, partly because it would take too long, and partly because, unlike the classic picky eater, I try to stay fairly quiet about my no-no foods, and to graze among the acceptable possibilities.

This pickiness, combined with the wish not to be a pain (especially when a guest), has sometimes exposed me to hunger.  And ridicule.   For years, for example, I was the subject of jokes among office mates due to my bringing carrot sticks and plain yogurt to a Yankees’ baseball outing.  (I have recently learned that the new Yankees’ stadium actually serves hummous and carrot sticks as one of its standard offerings.  Which just goes to show that my eating habits were not ridiculous but simply ahead of the curve.)

Last week, The New York Times published twenty rules for healthy eating chosen by Michael Pollan, author of In Defense of Food.  These were rules that Pollan had gleaned from readers, promoting among other things, the eating of apples when hungry, and the un-multi-tasked meal.

I’m not sure I’m capable of eating the un-multi-tasked meal on a regular basis, though I do love apples.  Still, after reading these, I came up with ten eating rules of my own:

1.  Avoid foods that are fire engine red, flame orange, any kind of blue, or electric green, unless they are unadulterated products of the vegetable kingdom.  In other words, yes fruit, nix Loops.

2.  Learn to say no to anything deep fried.  (This is relatively easy for me since I was raised by a mother who made all around her peel the skin off fried chicken, even her own 88-year old mother who used to groan “but that’s the good part.”)   If you have to have something deep fried, get your dining partner to order it, then sneak the occasional bite off of his or her plate.

3.  Ditto with dessert.  Get your partner to order it, and then sneak spoonfuls.  If you have dessert at home, refuse it at the meal, and then have small careful wedges standing at a counter or in front of the open fridge.   (Such wedges, eaten at midnight and intended to “even out” the dessert’s edges, have the advantage of being absolutely calorie-free.)

4.  Don’t buy things you can’t resist.  You will not be able to resist them.

5.  Don’t buy baked goods that come in packages that are easily stacked.  Actually, it’s probably advisable to generally avoid stackable food, especially if raw.  I make an exception here for crates of clementines (even though they are probably horribly sprayed) and those plastic cartons of organic salad (which are environmentally awful, but awfully convenient.)  (I would avoid non-organic salad mixes if stackable.)    This rule does not apply to cooked or dried foods – i.e. cans of beans, cases of plain yogurt (yes, yogurt has been heated), and any kind of whole grain.

6.  As a cook and mother, you basically have two choices:  either give in to the urge to taste constantly while you are cooking, serving, and cleaning up, and don’t eat anything during the actual meal; or steel yourself to taste absolutely nothing (not even that bit that will go to waste otherwise), and sit down and eat from your plate with the rest of your family.

7.    Here’s a couple of travel rules, learned, thankfully, not from my own experience, but from watching a husband: when traveling,  pay attention to the cues of waiter or waitress:  i.e. (i) do not order the “meat sandwich” in India, if the waiter tells you at first that they are out of it, and (ii) do not order a dish, even a “regional specialty,” if the waitress, shaking her head, keeps trying to dissuade you.

8.  Learn to like vegetables in all forms and varieties.  (I make an exception here for okra.)

9.   There are two fairly unadulterated, high antioxidant, foods that are (either one or the other) generally available in almost any establishment:  (i) tea; (ii) red wine.  (White, if not red, though lower in reservatrol).   In situations where the food is either doubtful or deep-fried, stick to one of these.  Unless–

10.  Unless, you are really really starving, already jittery and/or tipsy, and not in hummous-filled Yankee Stadium.   In that case, go for the scrambled eggs.

Categories: food, news
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama – Peace Prize and Possibility – Now Keep Him Safe

October 9, 2009

Obama  wins the Nobel Peace Prize.  I am so happy for him, and so happy for the world.

Yes, it is early.  Yes, it’s hard to point to results.  But I’m not sure that those Peace Prize winners who are major political leaders (and not leaders of  more containable movements and organizations) can ever point to lasting results.   That’s one of the age-old problems of our world—the endless wars and rumors of wars.

The committee has even admitted that the award was given to Obama to support and encourage his efforts as well as to reward them.

But it’s ridiculous to say that awarding the prize to Obama somehow cheapens the prize or is undeserved.

The fact is that Obama, even by the act of getting himself elected (before he even became President),  has radically changed the international climate.  These changes were not just made in diplomatic relations but in the hearts and minds of billions of people.  A sense of possibility opened.  It’s clichéd, but still true.  All over the world—Arabs, Africans, Asians, Europeans, South Americans, even Americans themselves—were shown that what had seemed unthinkable in the not very distant past was not only thinkable, but actual, real, had happened.   A black man was elected as President of the United States!  A man with an African father, a unusual (some might say, strange) anthropologist mother, and a very strong very American black wife was elected President of the United States!  A man who’d made money, not in business or through his family, or (God forbid) in politics, but as a writer was elected President of the United States!   A man, with an international background and outlook,  who understood (even before a presidential briefing) the difference between Sunni and Shia, was elected President of the United States!

I say this not to minimize Obama’s efforts as President, but to point out that Obama’s accomplishment of  becoming President itself promoted a greater sense of the possibility of peace in the world, of the progress of justice and fair play, and, perhaps more critically, of the importance of the individual.  His election brought a sense that an individual could accomplish great things.

His election also almost immediately created a more benign image of the U.S. in the world;  (the country was suddenly seen more as earnest good guy than self-righteous bully, or at least as trying to be earnest, trying to be good.  I, for one, count that as a step forward on the road to peace.)

It’s true that since his election, it is easier to point to Obama’s efforts rather than accomplishments.  The types of accomplishments that he is trying for are beyond the achievement of one person (despite the importance of the individual!).   But he openly recognizes that these accomplishments demand the cooperation and agreement of other parties, and he is working hard.

I don’t think awards go to Obama’s head.  I think/hope he’s more balanced than that, and more realistic.  (He also has that strong wife I mentioned before.)   The only thing that worries me is whether this kind of lionization will attract even more enemies to him, more crazies with guns.  Here, I think all Americans, even those on the other side of the political camp, could work together to absolutely condemn the crazy-talk, the heedlessly violent terminology, and hope and pray that Obama, and all about him, are kept safe.

Categories: news, Obama
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 4 Comments

The Relatives Who Would Be Famous – Elvis’s Grandson

October 7, 2009
Across the Aisle - "The Boy Who Would Be King"

Across the Aisle - "The Boy Who Would Be King"

I step into the subway train this morning and pass a New York Post open to the headline “The Boy Who Would be King.”

I, of course, think immediately of my blog of yesterday, in which I describe Robert Pattinson and Rupert Grint competing for the part of Prince Harry in a new movie to be called “The Spare.”

But the face that stares out at me diagonally and upside down as I sit down across the aisle has a distinctly American look.  Yes, the hair stands straight up, but not in the British-accenty, nearly-stuttering, hand-tousled style of RPatz, but straight up like angry crab grass.  It’s looks rougher, more bristly than Pattinson’s, and (although you figure something artificial has to be going on with Rob’s hair), these tresses are clearly dippity-dooed.  (Oops—I’m showing my age here.)  Gelled.

Then my eyes catch a couple of words of the caption.  “Elvis” is one, “grandson,” the other.

I can see the resemblance now, the rounded forehead that’s also square at the edges, a certain set to the chin.

OMG, I think.  But not in a truly enthusiastic way.

Yes, I like Elvis.   Actually, I love Elvis.  And I wish good luck to his grandson.  But what dismays me is how oligarchical this country has become.  The worlds of both entertainment and politics seem more and more like one huge dynasty trust.  (This, in case you don’t know, is a form of family trust intended to go on and on and on, minimizing tax, and building wealth for lucky future generations.)

Famous families, musical families, political families, are, of course, a tradition of sorts.  Look at the Mozarts, Wolfgang, son of Leopold.  Then there were the Brontes—Emily, Anne, Charlotte and Branwell.  (Only they were siblings, so they may not count.)   Still, what about the… Plantagenets, the Tudors, the Bonapartes, the Romonovs, the Redgraves….

But they were all European, for goodness sake.  The U.S. is supposed to be the land of opportunity, fresh starts, wide open spaces, being judged by your own merits and not because of your birth–

Okay, even the U.S. has had its historical political and entertainment families—the Roosevelts, the Rockefellers, the Barrymores.  But lately, it feels as if famous families have multiplied faster than rabbits; there are just so many interconnections:  the Kennedys, the Bushes, the Clintons, Evan Bayh (son of Birch), Al Gore Jr.  (son of Al Senior), Andrew Cuomo (son of Mario), to name a few.

I have to confess that I really don’t pay much attention to the world of entertainment.  (Robert Pattinson is about the only modern “celebrity” I know.)  Still, even I can come up with a bunch of actor/entertainer relatives.  (And I don’t mean to minimize the talents of any, just to point out the connections):   the Fondas, of course, Michael Douglas, George Clooney, Kate Hudson, Liza Minelli, Carrie Fisher, Nicole Ritchie, Sophia Coppola, McKenzie Phillips.

And now, we have Elvis’s grandson.

I just hope he inherited some blue suede shoes.

For families of elephants, please check out 1 Mississippi at link above or on Amazon!

Categories: Elvis Presley, news, Robert Pattinson
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Roman Polanski and Beef Inspection

October 4, 2009

My short attention span was caught by two very different articles in the New York Times today.  One, by Michael Moss, was “E Coli Path Shows Flaws in Beef Inspection.”  The other is really a group of articles about Roman Polanski, “The Polanski Case – A Gallic Shrug” by Michael Kimmelman, and “Room for Debate:  The Polanski Uproar” which features a group of views by writers, professors, lawyers (Geraldine Ferraro).

What struck me about the beef article is the degree to which safety standards in the industry are “self-regulated.”  According to the article, the U.S. Department of Agriculture allows grinders to devise their own safety plans, including self-testing, which the grinders then scrupulously ignore.

What also is impressive (i.e. scary) is the factory-like nature of beef processing; the fact that burgers are produced like cars, with parts shipped from multiple venues, both within and without the U.S., then hurriedly assembled (or in the case of beef) smushed together.

Frankly, many of the “beef products” going into hamburger can only be called “beef” in that they, like e coli and the manure that feeds it, were produced, at some point, by a cow.   Contamination seems almost a by-product of the system.  Everything is done too fast, with an emphasis on saving cents on the pound.  No one wants testing because no one wants an expensive recall.   Many producers will not even supply to grinders who test;  instead many want their products to be mixed up (and confused) with other products, then quickly sold to consumers who, it is to be hoped, will cook the life out of them.

There seems to be a kind of magical thinking going on here;  producers don’t want a system of testing because they don’t want (a) a timely finding that there is something wrong with their particular beef product, and (b) to have to do something about it.

Sadly, the only enforcement mechanism that seems to be effective is a heft law suit generally brought because of the death or paralysis of an e coli consumer.  A law suit happens, or threatens to happen, which, perhaps unfairly, clobbers a couple of players whose products are traceable and  suddenly, those players (and hopefully others)  literally clean up their acts.

Which somehow brings me to Roman Polanski.  I feel great sympathy for Roman Polanski.  He has suffered truly horrific events in his lifetime.  I cannot even begin to imagine the pain of these events.   I am guessing (like the rest of the world) that his pursuit of terribly young girls in the Seventies was probably a by-product of some of this pain.

I also believe that the Los Angeles County system of justice, and the greater federal justice system, probably have more urgent tasks on their current agenda than chasing him down in Switzerland.

But none of that is an excuse for drugging and raping a thirteen year old.

I hate to say it but all the reasons Hollywood and France brings up to exonerate Polanski just don’t make sense:

Yes, it’s true that many many people have done awful things and gotten away with them.

Yes, the girl’s mother bears blame.

Even the fact that the girl, now woman, has forgiven Polanski doesn’t excuse him from law-breaking.

Yes, Polanski has made some great films.  Yes, thirty years have gone by and Polanski appears to have a settled life.  These factors bear on issues of clemency, the likelihood of repeating the crime, whether he’s a danger to society (I don’t think he is) etc. etc.  But they don’t excuse him.

Even the fact that Polanski’s suffered a great deal in his life doesn’t exactly excuse him, at least not in the way the Hollywood people use the phrase—”he’s suffered enough.”  (He has suffered a great deal, but most of this suffering doesn’t seem to have come as a result of the rape incident.)

We have a criminal justice system. It is supposed to at least try to treat people equally, without regard to whether the perpetrator of a crime can pay off the victim, or can please other people with their movie-making.  It is also a system which people are supposed to face up to.  It can’t reward people for flight from its strictures;  it can’t simply ignore this kind of flight because someone is famous.

What to do with a case like Polanski’s?  I have to say that if I were a law enforcement official, I would not have ordered a concerted search for Polanski at this point.  At the same time, if I’d been Polanski himself, I would have been careful to lay low in France.

I guess this is part of what connects him to the beef producers in my mind:  first, the magical thinking, and second, the ad hoc quality of his pursuit (which reminds me both of the testing process, and the law suit process.)  But the fact is that if you are not going to self-regulate, then it’s possible you may eventually be walloped by the law.   Certain things (including both e coli and warrants for arrest and extradition) don’t  just go away on their own.

I should note here that I’m a vegetarian.  And was raised as a Lutheran.

Categories: news
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »