I was inspired by the following profundity in one of the paid ads presented at the bottom of the first page of a recent BC article:
Acai Berry Side Effects
Warning! Want To Try Acai Berry?
Have You Considered Side Effects?
The side effects question had nothing to do with that article but it is a good one, too seldom asked.
There are lots of really great medicines and supplements out there, both prescription and over-the-counter. They are said to cure sexual dysfunction, acne, baldness, heartburn, diarrhea and even constipation. Unfortunately, some medicines may have nasty side effects, also known as unintended consequences. There was once a quite effective medication for arthritis pain, Vioxx, which helped me tremendously for about four years. Then, it was suddenly taken off the market "voluntarily," because it may have caused some folks to die prematurely. It also had another arguably even worse side effect: it caused Merck to agree to pay $4.85 Billion in 2007 to settle Vioxx lawsuits. Warning labels probably wouldn't have done much good, and I would likely have continued taking Vioxx for many years without ill effect. Now I can't. So, I'm still alive but my knees hurt. Oh well.
There are many things other than medicines which may have unfortunate side effects. These things do not have the sorts of warning labels which the FDA requires pharmaceutical companies to print on their medicine containers, nor are there any disclosure statements of the sort which the SEC requires corporations to make when issuing securities. Nobody reads those things anyway, and probably wouldn't even if printed in twelve point bold face type. They aren't meant to be read. If these "lawyer speak" things were readable and actually got read, nobody in his right mind would take the medicines or buy the securities, and the economy would probably be in the tank even worse than it is today.
In some cases, even the makers of these things are kept (or elect to remain) blissfully in the dark. They don't know what they are making, and therefore can't possibly know what it will do. It seems as though they are so enchanted by the claims of wonders to be wrought that they don't even consider the potential side effects. One example is the recent "stimulus package," overwhelmingly approved by the Congress even though it was not available for review or even to be read by the Honorable Members — much less unwashed members of the public — prior to the vote. I doubt that anybody read the thing as a whole, to see whether there were any unfortunate interactions of its components. Side effects? What side effects? We have been assured that this legislation will get the economy moving and we need it right now. There's no time to bother with such trivial matters as reading it. Actually understanding it? Don't be silly. Gotta Rush, no matter what it may have in store for us. So what if General Motors is again on the cusp of bankruptcy? It just needs more money, no big deal; the U.S. Government has lots of that stuff and can easily get lots more where that came from. Just think what we could have done to save the dodo birds from extinction. They couldn't fly, didn't use a teleprompter, and probably weren't very smart, either. Side effects? Nah, it's all perfectly safe.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - handyguy
I notice that no one has commented on this article yet. It’s clever and deserves some attention, so I’ll give it a shot.
Mr. Miller’s literate posts in the comments section on Blogcritics are well done. I would enjoy them more if they didn’t often seem like nasty far-right zingers wrapped in the sheep’s clothing of mild-mannered words. This often gives them the air of cheap shots, and this article shares that quality.
"We have been assured that this legislation will get the economy moving and we need it right now. There's no time to bother with such trivial matters as reading it. Actually understanding it? Don't be silly. Gotta Rush, no matter what it may have in store for us."
This is funny, but an exaggeration. The stimulus bill went through several versions, but much of it remained the same during the two or three weeks it was being discussed constantly on the news and in the blogs. Most or all of the major changes were discussed in detail, ad nauseam. And you’ve surely had time to read the finished product by now.
But isn’t your main objection the fact that a large spending bill exists at all? Would you ever have supported any $800 billion spending bill, no matter what was in it? Pretending that it’s full of dangerous unknown side effects is just a rhetorical device.
And, as you note, the bill passed “and now we are stuck with it.” And maybe, like Vioxx, it will have some very beneficial effects, in addition to your unspecified side effects.
2 - handyguy
My comment was so long I divided it into 3 parts. Whew!
"So what if General Motors is again on the cusp of bankruptcy? It just needs more money, no big deal; the U.S. Government has lots of that stuff and can easily get lots more where that came from."
Again, funny but not even close to fair. No one in either the Bush or Obama administration relishes handing out money to troubled banks and auto makers, and no one has pretended for a second that it was easy or fun. But some very intelligent people do think it’s necessary.
"As to the roughly four hundred and ten billion dollar "omnibus" budget bill, this too shall pass, even though it is full of those much disparaged, but even more beloved, earmarks."
The earmarks make up less than 3% of the bill. Nearly half of them were inserted by Republicans, including Richard Shelby [who even voted for the bill! unlike his more hypocritical colleagues Mitch McConnell and Ron Paul].
It’s easy [and fun] to make jokes about water taxis and swine manure odor, just like all the previous earmark whoop-de-doos on this web site and elsewhere. Just say “earmark,” and get a laugh. But as Donna Brazile has pointed out, legislators in both parties love their darned earmarks, and many [probably most] are worthy projects " so sliming them in toto as laughable waste is not fair.
The real problem with the omnibus spending bill is not earmarks, but the fact that it increases spending year-on-year by several times the cost of inflation. This is why Evan Bayh and Russ Feingold opposed it. But that’s not as surefire a laugh-getter as stinky pig lagoons.
The president didn’t want to expend time or political capital in fighting the bill’s details, so he called it “last year’s business” and said we should just pass it and aim reform at future bills. This may or may not have been a miscalculation, but it does make sense.
3 - handyguy
"Secretary Clinton, known by some rascals as the Wicked Witch of the West, recently mounted her zero carbon footprint broom and flew east to criticize Israel and to pontificate about the need for a seven percent solution two state solution to the Israel - Palestine mess."
One suspects you share those “rascals’” view of Clinton as a green skinned evil harpy. And heaven forbid anyone should, gasp, criticize Israel. Although there may be more than one viewpoint about this: the NY Times devoted an entire article today to the very cautious tone of the whole Clinton Mideast trip, compared to the relatively free-wheeling rhetoric of her Asian visit.
And if you read what she actually said, in the link you provide, her criticism was very mild indeed, was said only during her meeting with Abbas, and, as the Times points out, was further watered down when she spoke directly to the Israelis.
"Not to be outdone by his former(?) rival, President Obama has appointed a very sophisticated and intelligent guy as his chief reviewer of intelligence information."
You then proceed to quote not straightforward facts about Chas Freeman, but hotheaded opinion pieces, without labeling them as such. For an alternative viewpoint about Freeman vis a vis Israel and the Saudis, I recommend Andrew Sullivan. Freeman’s views on Tiananmen Square do bear more research and discussion, but I wouldn’t want to base a final opinion on one out-of-context quote Freeman contributed to an online newsgroup.
Still, I understand that having fun and being fair are sometimes mutually exclusive activities.
4 - roger nowosielski
I tend to agree with you, Handy, which is why I haven't commented on it either - perhaps precisely for the reasons you mention. I wish Mr. Miller would try a little harder from taking pot shots every time he comes out, and I'm certain his articles, if only by virtue of the style, would generate much greater readership and readers' participation.
5 - Clavos
Heh.
6 - Silas Kain
One suspects you share those "rascals'" view of Clinton as a green skinned evil harpy. And heaven forbid anyone should, gasp, criticize Israel.
What happens when Netanyahu ascends the Throne? I suspect we will see a rise in anti-Israeli sentiment within these United States.
7 - roger nowosielski
Ruvy happens to think he's cave in under the pressure from Clinton.
8 - Silas Kain
It will be an interesting exercise in political pressure, will it not?
9 - handyguy
I don't know, Silas. But it is a real stretch. to say the very least, to portray the foreign policy team of this administration, as some have done, as anti-Semitic.
I suspect any real "criticism," or more accurately, pressure on Israel will have specific, practical intentions. A further-right, harder-line Israeli government may draw that kind of pressure sooner rather than later.
10 - Silas Kain
I don't think I'm portraying this Administration as anti-Semitic. As long as Rahm Emmanuel is Chief of Staff, the Administration will maintain a strong pro-Israeli stance. Personally, I am a strong proponent of the two-state solution. Let us not forget that Israel was Palestine for thousands of years before the Truman intervention. I like the Obama approach to the Muslim world but the fact that he is going to visit Turkey troubles me. Until Turkey admits their part in the Armenian genocide, I don't believe they deserve entry into the E.U.
11 - Dan(Miller)
Handyguy,
Thanks for the kind words about the writing. As to the substance, like Popeye or any other "honest sailorman," I yam what I yam.
True. Many components of the "Stimulus package" were available before the entire thing came to a vote as an inviolate package, many were not. The problem is with the way that its components may interact. That's where the unintended consequences come in. It is big and bulky, and if there are no problematic interactions, it will be miracle. Here's an analogy: a committee of master builders designs a really big house for you, but they forget to put in an entry for the master bathroom adjacent to your bedroom. You are in a hurry, and don't want to be picky, so you say OK! Here's ten million dollars. Please have it ready in two months. They comply. Then, you move in, are very happy and retire for the night to your beautiful master bedroom for some much deserved sleep. Then, you have an urgent call of nature at 2:00 am. The light switch for the bedroom is, unfortunately, hidden in the kitchen somewhere behind the refrigerator. And, of course, you can't get into the bathroom. Ouch.
I haven't spent much time looking at the "Stimulus package" as enacted, because I gave up in frustration. I did notice that there is a provision for State legislatures to accept Federal largess if the Governor does do so not within a specified period of time. I don't like that, but it's what happened. However, various sections of the package require later certifications by the Governor as to the way that the Federal funds were spent. What happens if the Governor declines so to certify? There does not appear to be any parallel provision for the State legislature to provide certifications. What happens then?
Perhaps I am overly sensitive to side effects, because I have seen quite a few poorly written contracts bring grief to the parties. That sometimes happens with even well written contracts, and with short, well written legislation. The "Stimulus Package" is, due to the circumstances surrounding its absurdly quick passage under even more absurd political pressures, about as likely to result in unintended consequences as a contract written by Donald Duck and Elmer Fudd.
Earmarks? One of President Obama's campaign promises was that there would be no more of those noxious things. I don't care whether they are Democratic or Republican party earmarks, and I don't care that they may make up less than three percent of the bill, a figure that I don't know how to calculate. It's still a Hell of a lot of money. In any event, they shouldn't be there, and now that an interim spending bill has passed, they should be weeded out. That probably won't happen, because the whole thing might be studied and lots of additional problems found.
As to Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Freeman, true: I don't much like either of them. I do agree with Candidate Clinton's earlier position that then Candidate Obama was simply not prepared for his new job. Managing the Harvard Law Review provided at best grossly inadequate preparation to become President of the United States.
The linked article by Andrew Sullivan is interesting, because it seems to damn Ambassador Freeman with faint praise, while passing over the problem that Ambassador Freeman is not to be just one more voice among many crying for President Obama's attention. That wouldn't be all that bad. However, as I understand the situation, he will be the guy largely responsible for picking, choosing and filtering the intelligence information which President Obama sees. It is an important job, and I seriously doubt that he will be able to put his own views aside when he performs it, even if he tries to do so.
Dan(Miller)
12 - handyguy
By "some" I did not mean you, Silas.
And Turkey is conveniently a non-Arab, nominally secular, nominally pro-Western, nominally democratic country that also happens to be Muslim.
Most countries have unpleasantness in their histories. Do you think other countries should refuse to deal with us because of Native American genocide or black slavery?
Visiting Turkey does not imply that Obama thinks the Armenian genocide was just peachy. He's apparently going to give his promised speech in a Muslim capital elsewhere, to be determined.
13 - Dan(Miller)
Handyguy,
Here, I pretty much agree with you. Turkey is a reasonably secular state and has been for quite some time. It is in danger of ceasing to be secular, and of being screwed up by religious fanatics (probably a redundancy). The E.U. has played no small part in this unfortunate regression.
If President Obama can do something positive there, it will be a spectacular achievement and one for which I will be delighted to give him full credit. Hell, I may even try to write an article about it.
I do hope that he handles his visit to Turkey better than he handled the recent visit by the British PM to Washington. Perhaps he learned something from that.
Dan(Miller)
14 - handyguy
Earmarking items in a spending bill is just a tool. Like any tool, it can be used well or poorly. At least now, unlike in the past, earmarked projects are not anonymous, secretive or hidden.
Legislators will keep defending the use of earmarks, so the president may not be able to do more than point them out and complain. For him to veto any and every bill that contains them...well, that would turn Barack Obama into John McCain, and I don't think it's likely.
15 - roger nowosielski
Weren't you or somebody else who said that "earmarking" is just a way for the states to get back some of the moneys taken from them by the federal government?
16 - handyguy
It wasn't I. I guess in some cases that might be valid. Overall it's a tug of war between the legislative and executive branches to control spending. And most of them are locally directed.
I could see calling earmarks "noxious" when they were anonymous and sneaky. Now they are anything but.
Some fiscal hawks find nearly all spending objectionable. Yet it is quite remarkably hypocritical for someone like Mitch McConnell to decry Obama's spending while McConnell himself lards up the omnibus bill with Kentucky projects.
17 - roger nowosielski
Well, they're not against spending for Iraq and Haliburton. But that's a horse of another color.
18 - roger nowosielski
Well, you from these parts, so you know what's like in this neck of the woods.
19 - handyguy
Is that your attempt at a Hoptown accent? Not workin', try again! Or better yet, don't. =)
Why are you in that little town again? Family ties? Work?
20 - roger nowosielski
My sister and brother-in-law have a medical practice here. No work. Just fell behind my rent in California and got evicted. Not enough time to fix my shit so I decided to come here rather than be homeless. Not certain it was a wise choice. BC is pretty much my only connection with life, sad as it may sound.
21 - handyguy
Sorry to hear it. Hang in there.
22 - roger nowosielski
I'm fine now. The worst part was getting adjusted. It's like having been transported in a time machine one hundred years back.
23 - Baronius
"Turkey is a reasonably secular state"? Secular, yes. Reasonable, not even close.
I think it's fair to criticize the use of earmarks as well as the lack of transparency, because Obama promised the opposite. But they're both really more Congress's failings than Obama's.
I don't know if you've heard Dennis Miller's recent comments (your brother, perhaps?), but he's in the exact same frame of mind as me. Dennis wants Obama to succeed, although he's no friend of socialism. He doesn't want to spend the next 4-8 years full of hate like the Democrats were. He's not about to give up on a president after 6 weeks. But still, there are some pretty troubling signs.
24 - Dr Dreadful
"Turkey is a reasonably secular state"? Secular, yes. Reasonable, not even close.
Why do you say so?
25 - handyguy
I wasn't praising Turkey. I was enumerating the probable reasons why it was chosen for the Prez's first visit outside North America.
But it's apparently not 'reasonable' enough to be the place he will deliver a promised speech to the Muslim world during the first 100 days. I'm not sure which country will qualify for that, but my guess is Indonesia, since Mr. Obama lived there as a child.