The NY Times critic A.O. Scott has chosen The Apartment as a truly unique and off-beat holiday movie (be sure and check out the video clip). I agree–the movie is a gem. It manages to tread the fine line between unsentimental and bitter. So it’s a sweet movie, but it won’t gag you. I’ve seen it many times and hope to see it many more.
“Better living through chemistry”–it’s an ironic variation on an old DuPont advertising slogan, used by people concerned about the overuse of toxic chemicals. Yet, sometimes, chemicals actually can help us live better.
Sometimes chemicals can do us good; sometimes not.
He goes on to make a point that I can truly appreciate as one who used to give legal advice to the toxics and pesticides programs at the U.S. EPA. I’ll just give it to you in his own words:
“Some chemicals, like benzene, have been discovered over time to be carcinogenic, but contrary to popular belief, except for pharmaceuticals and to some degree pesticides, the vast majority of the approximately 50,000 commercial and industrial chemicals currently being used are not subject to any pre-market approval or testing for long-term health effects. No one is checking first to see whether they cause cancer, birth defects or genetic mutations that might lead to cancer in future generations. They are simply out there by the billions of pounds (last year, 4 billion pounds of pesticides were added to our environment, some but not all tested for health and environmental effects).
“This is what is charitably called the ‘data gap’ — a paucity of information about the toxicity of these products and the effects of our exposure to them. Without such knowledge, all efforts to effectively regulate them are doomed to fail.
“These ‘gaps’ are not a secret. They were supposed to be filled more than 30 years ago when Congress passed a woefully inadequate law called the Toxic Substances Control Act. Guess what? It didn’t control the toxic substances.
“A high priority for the Obama administration should be a fundamental rewrite of the Toxic Substances Control Act — perhaps along the lines of the European REACH pact that the U.S. has opposed. The REACH pact mandates testing of the suspected worst actors among chemicals and then phasing them out — without the full-blown trials the substances control act now requires in the United States.”
Well-stated. Yet, he goes on to conclude:
“All in all, it’s hard for me to feel warm and cuddly about the chemical companies that have resisted reform for decades. And yet here I sit (or lie), counting on them to save me from leukemia.” (Sadly, the author of this piece died on Dec. 21, at age 61, of complications from his illness.)
It’s kind of the way I feel about plastics. They’re bad for the environment in many ways. But we rely on them so much for medical equipment and supplies, prosthetics, pill bottles and all sorts of components in everything from cars to thermostats (parts that used to be made of metal by tool and dye experts, a craft that’s changed dramatically with the times). So what can I say? Can’t live with them, can’t live without them?
I can really appreciate this op-ed about how charitable organizations are suffering due to the economic crisis and the importance of giving even a little when you can. I’m trying to organize a fundraiser for dystonia, and it’s been tough to find sponsors. (I’m crossing my fingers and hoping for better luck when the new year comes.)
We all have limits on how much we can give, but it’s important that we try to give something (even $10) to the causes we care about. What’s $10 these days? A few coffees from Starbucks for you could make a world of difference to someone with nothing. Especially if you multiply that amount by a few (hundred?) thousand people.
This guy, Todd Wilbur, is pretty funny–love the way he tosses stuff around the kitchen. (Sort of the opposite of Rachael Ray’s fastidious use of the “garbage bowl”?) He’s also doing something both informative and cool. He figures out the secret recipes of brand-name foods (or comes as close as possible, without outright stealing them, I guess). In this video, he shows you how to make Twinkies. Yes, you can make your own Twinkies. He also answers the age-old question: do Twinkies really last forever?
And here’s a Christmas bonus–how to make those Starbucks cranberry bliss bars. Yum! (I would have embedded the videos, but they wouldn’t cooperate . . .)
You can get these and other recipes for knockoffs of your favorite brand-name treats at Top Secret Recipes. (Click on “recipes” and either search or view by brand.)
When talking heads and other people of influence make predictions for real, do you ever get the urge to write them down? Just to see if they actually happen?
I must confess, I’ve come to share the view that the film seems to celebrate crushing self-sacrifice and the denial of lifelong dreams in order to conform to society’s demands, but never previously grasped that Bedford Falls might actually have been a more interesting, less oppressive and stuffy place without George Bailey than with him! Astonishing thought . . .
Even so . . . that last scene where George’s brother calls him “the richest man in town” . . . how can you not be moved?
Anyway, you gotta love the Internet. Check out these computer-enhanced variations of the incident on Boing Boing. (via The Heavy Metal Librarian) Be sure to scroll all the way down, so you can see The Three Stooges clip.
And, while we’re at it . . .
. . . check out this more elaborate version of the Stooges versus our lamest duck president in recent memory.
Remember that housing bubble? The highly-inflated prices for homes? The declining economy has done a good job of making that a thing of the past.
So it seems that now is the time to buy a house. Or real estate in general, I suppose. Of course, it helps to have a job to pay for this–and many people are losing them. Which makes you wonder . . . even if this is a great time to buy, how many people actually can?
To sum up, it’s a great time to buy a house, but a lousy time to get credit and even more difficult if you just got laid off. But if you have a few spare thousand lying around, you might want to think about it.
"Since we cannot know all that there is to be known about anything, we ought to know a little about everything."
~ Blaise Pascal
About Me
Debbi Mack practiced law for nine years before changing careers and following her lifetime dream of becoming a writer. She is a mystery author, as well as a freelance writer and researcher. You can learn more about Debbi at her Web site, http://www.debbimack.com .
Chemical Conundrum
December 29, 2008 · Leave a Comment
“Better living through chemistry”–it’s an ironic variation on an old DuPont advertising slogan, used by people concerned about the overuse of toxic chemicals. Yet, sometimes, chemicals actually can help us live better.
In this op-ed, an environmental lawyer confronts the irony of receiving toxic chemical treatments for his leukemia, after spending “much of the last 25 years doing battle with the chemical companies, including seeking to ban (sometimes successfully) various toxic chemicals, some strikingly similar to those I am now ingesting.”
Sometimes chemicals can do us good; sometimes not.
He goes on to make a point that I can truly appreciate as one who used to give legal advice to the toxics and pesticides programs at the U.S. EPA. I’ll just give it to you in his own words:
“Some chemicals, like benzene, have been discovered over time to be carcinogenic, but contrary to popular belief, except for pharmaceuticals and to some degree pesticides, the vast majority of the approximately 50,000 commercial and industrial chemicals currently being used are not subject to any pre-market approval or testing for long-term health effects. No one is checking first to see whether they cause cancer, birth defects or genetic mutations that might lead to cancer in future generations. They are simply out there by the billions of pounds (last year, 4 billion pounds of pesticides were added to our environment, some but not all tested for health and environmental effects).
“This is what is charitably called the ‘data gap’ — a paucity of information about the toxicity of these products and the effects of our exposure to them. Without such knowledge, all efforts to effectively regulate them are doomed to fail.
“These ‘gaps’ are not a secret. They were supposed to be filled more than 30 years ago when Congress passed a woefully inadequate law called the Toxic Substances Control Act. Guess what? It didn’t control the toxic substances.
“A high priority for the Obama administration should be a fundamental rewrite of the Toxic Substances Control Act — perhaps along the lines of the European REACH pact that the U.S. has opposed. The REACH pact mandates testing of the suspected worst actors among chemicals and then phasing them out — without the full-blown trials the substances control act now requires in the United States.”
Well-stated. Yet, he goes on to conclude:
“All in all, it’s hard for me to feel warm and cuddly about the chemical companies that have resisted reform for decades. And yet here I sit (or lie), counting on them to save me from leukemia.” (Sadly, the author of this piece died on Dec. 21, at age 61, of complications from his illness.)
It’s kind of the way I feel about plastics. They’re bad for the environment in many ways. But we rely on them so much for medical equipment and supplies, prosthetics, pill bottles and all sorts of components in everything from cars to thermostats (parts that used to be made of metal by tool and dye experts, a craft that’s changed dramatically with the times). So what can I say? Can’t live with them, can’t live without them?
Categories: Commentary · Environment · Health/Wellness · Legal · Pharmaceuticals · Toxic Substances