Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Cereal Boxes and Consumers
I’ve figured out there’s no Santa Claus and I know there’s no Easter Bunny. You might as well tell me what’s wrong with the 4th of July.
—Precocious child to parents
They’ve taken all the fun out of cereal boxes. That’s not all. They’ve imposed big fines on the one who tried to make them fun and threatened another. Of course the cereal companies are partly to blame.
Those of advanced years remember with what pleasure the new cereal box’s advent at the breakfast table was greeted by the young. In families with more than one child that one prize led to breakfast time controversy, as the siblings tried to determine who the recipient of the coveted object should be. Among the treasured prizes were such things as decoder rings that enabled the wearer to decode secret messages should the decoder happen upon any. Other prizes included plastic airplanes that purported to be models of actual airplanes but bore only the faintest resemblance to any actual airplane. In the 1950’s there were even more exciting trinkets including the Atomic Ring and the Meteorite Ring, the characteristics of which are charmingly described by Edward Meyer in the College Hill Review. Recent events suggest that cereal companies may want to return to the days of freebies in boxes instead of health claims on boxes. Consider the plight of Kellogg’s Frosted Mini-Wheats and their recent encounter with the Federal Trade Commission.
Those who manufacture “Bite Size” Frosted Mini Wheats distinguishing them from other cereals that are presumably not “Bite Size” (although exactly how to describe the size of a Post Toastie or a Rice Krispie I’ll leave professional advertisers to decide) have long since abandoned the practice of including the eagerly awaited toy in the box designed to appeal to the young consumer. This is the 21st Century and cereal companies believe that in order to attract buyers it’s the nutritional rather than the amusement value that counts. Kellogg’s did research and, according to the Federal Trade Commission, claimed in its advertising that the attention span of children who ate Frosted Mini Wheats improved nearly 20 percent over children who skipped breakfast. (Some may wonder if there is a scientific disconnect in that conclusion but I’ll leave that to those smarter than I to figure out.) The FTC found that Kellogg’s study showed an improvement in only 11 per cent of the students studied and the attention span of only one-half of those students increased 20 per cent. As a result of this, Kellogg’s will be subject to a fine of up to $18,000. It would probably have been better off sticking to decoder rings and tiny plastic airplanes. Since misery loves company, Kellogg’s is probably delighted with the plight of its rival, General Mills.
General Mills has been taken to task not by the Federal Trade Commission but by the Food and Drug Administration. (Why two different agencies have jurisdiction over seemingly identical infractions is unclear. It may be because Cheerios’ infraction affects those with heart conditions rather than attention deficit disorder. That suggests that many cereals are only half a generation removed from snake oil.)
General Mills has apparently been suffering from Oatmeal Envy. According to the FDA it has been misleading those seeking to reduce their cholesterol. It has long been known that oatmeal as well as certain other foods can reduce cholesterol. In a study released by the Mayo Clinic describing the foods that lower cholesterol, however, cholesterol was not included. Undeterred by its non-inclusion, for the last two years General Mills proclaimed that those who faithfully eat the cheerful little “O”s can reduce their cholesterol by 4 per cent within six weeks. In so doing, it has awakened an FDA that spent a happy 8 years under George Bush’s administration, sleeping. In a letter to General Mills, the re-awakened FDA advised the company that: “Based on claims made on your product’s label, we have determined that your Cheerios® Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal is promoted for conditions that cause it to be a drug because the product is intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease.” The letter goes on to advise the company that cheerios may not be legally marketed with the above claims in the United States without an approved new drug application.” General Mills says its science is strong and it looks forward “to discussing this with FDA.” If it loses it can always put decoder rings back in the packages. Christopher Brauchli can be emailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu. For political commentary see his web page at http://humanraceandothersports.com
Thursday, July 2, 2009
The Art of Adultery
When dalliance was in flower and maidens lost their heads.
— A 1957 release of bawdy English ballads sung by Ed McCurdy
It is time to review the rules for confessions of infidelity by public figures. They do not address toilet stall tap dancing since that, being a solo performance, raises different issues from the dalliances here addressed. These involve married couples. A number of matters of etiquette present themselves and the ones we examine are: attendance at the required press conference (who does and does not attend), tears (presence or absence) and apologies.
The proper place for the wife during the public confession of infidelity is first. In the John Ensign and Mark Sanford press conferences the wives were absent. In the Eliot Spitzer and David Vitter press conferences the wives were present although a study in contrasts. Mr. Spitzer’s wife assumed a stoical stance standing by her husband’s side although reports said Ms. Spitzer’s jaws were so firmly clenched that she could have bitten through a bar of steel. Mr. Vitter’s wife stood beside him but that came as something of a surprise since she had once said, about the possibility of her husband’s infidelity,: “I’m a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he does something like that, I’m walking away with one thing, and it’s not alimony, trust me.” John Edwards had an interview on ABC News without his wife and then issued a statement.
The next question: tears. The score is four to one against. Governor Sanford of South Carolina was the one. That may be explained because of his deep religious feelings and his understandable self loathing. He feels so strongly about the importance of family values that when voting for the impeachment of Bill Clinton he piously proclaimed that: “If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he’d be gone. . . .I think what he did in this matter was reprehensible. . . .” He didn’t just shed a tear or two. He reportedly choked up repeatedly during the press conference. That was consistent with his activities earlier in the week that he described as being spent with his mistress in Argentina crying (presumably, though unspoken, among other activities.)
All the men were appropriately contrite. They knew that in addressing their transgressions their apologies had to be heartfelt and all encompassing. David Vitter set the tone by announcing that God and his wife had already forgiven him (she by eschewing emasculation) and said the discussions would be limited to those two. He concluded, however, saying: I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way.” Eliot Spitzer said that: ”I apologize first, and most importantly, to my family. I apologize to the public, whom I promised better.” John Edwards, lamenting the paucity of the English language, said: “It is inadequate to say to the people who believed in me that I am sorry, as it is inadequate to say to the people who love me that I am sorry.” Senator Ensign said: “I know that I have deeply hurt and disappointed my wife Darlene, my children, my family, friends, my staff, and all those who believed in me. And to all of them, especially my wife, I’m truly sorry.” Senator Sanford said: “I hurt you all. I hurt my wife. I hurt my boys. And all I can say is I apologize.”
It is surely a coincidence that the Europeans choose moments when we are in a dither over the private sex lives of public figures to show us that groveling because of sexual peccadilloes is unnecessary in truly civilized societies. The reaction to disclosure of the fact that Mr. Spitzer found pleasure in prostitutes seemed foolish when compared with the equanimity with which the French greeted the goings on of Nicholas Sarkozy, his then wife and their respective lovers and his then political opponent, Ségolène Royal and her long time partner, François Holland. There was no groveling. And now, courtesy of the Italians, the contrast is again stark.
The wife of Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi has announced her intention to divorce him, in no small part because of pictures of him cavorting with young girls at his assorted mansions. Mr. Berlusconi’s equanimity is undisturbed. He maintains that his cavorting is perfectly harmless. When three women, not quite so young, came forward saying they were paid to attend parties at his official residence and were given jewelry Mr. Berlusconi was asked if he had ever paid a woman “so she would be with him.” Responding as one might exact from a man of his temperament he said: “Naturally, no. I have never understood what satisfaction there is if not in the pleasure of conquest. There is nothing in my private life for which I should apologize.”
The French and Italians know how what importance to place upon adultery in their national dialogue. We should be so civilized. Christopher Brauchli can be emailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu. For political commentary see his web page at http://humanraceandothersports.com
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
White House Visitors-A Secret
Secrecy and a free, democratic government don’t mix.
—Harry S. Truman, Merle Miller, Plain Speaking
At first one seeks comfort in the fact that in the Obama administration it’s good people who are visiting the White House and in the Bush administration it was the other kind. The comfort is brief.
Those with long memories will recall the endless fights over the White House Logs during the 8 years of the Bush presidency. Mr. Bush did not want people to know who visited the White House because it was none of the people’s business. Mr. Bush’s henchman, Dick Cheney also took the position that it was none of the people’s business to know who visited his residence or office. (Not only did Mr. Cheney not want people to know who visited him, he did not want people to know what people were involved in formulating the energy policy that was promulgated early in the Bush administration. The Supreme Court agreed that the people were not entitled to know who participated in making the energy policy and that information remained secret until 2007 when much of it was disclosed by the Washington Post.)
In 2006 the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) brought suit in order to find out how often conservative religious leaders had been visitors in the White House and the vice-president’s residence. Judge Roy Lamberth had the opportunity to rule on the administration’s claims on two different occasions. The first was in 2006 when Judge Lamberth concluded that since the records were kept by the Secret Service rather than the White House, the plaintiffs were entitled to get them under the Freedom of Information Act. He further observed that letting the public know who the visitors were would not “disclose presidential communications or shine a light on the president’s or vice president’s policy deliberations.” The judge also said that the White House did not avoid the results of his ruling when, after the suit was brought, it entered into an agreement with the Secret Service that after the records were created they would be turned over to the White House and labeled “presidential documents. When the case was appealed and sent back to him for further proceedings he again ruled that the logs were subject to the open records rules.
Dick Cheney enjoyed being shrouded in mystery. He did not want anyone to know who visited the vice-presidential mansion. When the Washington Post sued to find out who had visited the vice-president’s residence and office, the administration took the same position it took in the CREW suit. Like Judge Lamberth, U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo M. Urbina was unimpressed. He said records of who visited Dick Cheney were controlled by the Secret Service and, therefore, releasable under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). He rejected the assertion that those logs were presidential records and not subject to the FOIA. The government obtained an order temporarily blocking the release of the records. (Before an appeal could be heard the Washington Post that had brought the suit, withdrew the suit.)
In contrast to the Bush position, the Clinton administration never attempted to assert executive privilege over the logs even though such an assertion would have served Mr. Clinton well since the logs showed when Monica Lewinsky visited the White House, a useful bit of information when Republicans were impeaching President Clinton. They also showed when Denise Rich, the wife of Marc Rich who was pardoned in the last hours of the Clinton administration visited the White House.
Even though two Federal District Court judges have ruled during the Bush years that the visitor logs are not presidential records but Secret Service agency records that are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, the Obama administration has adopted the Bush position and refused to release them. Once again, CREW has sprung into action. It has sued to find out which top executives of the coal industry have met with White House officials in order to influence the administration’s energy policy.
While still a Senator and not yet a full fledged candidate Mr. Obama said: “We have to find more environmentally sound ways of mining coal than simply blowing the tops off mountains.” Now he is president. The EPA has just approved 42 of 48 pending applications including some that involve mountain top removal. That is the process by which the tops of mountains are blown off, the coal extracted and the residue shoved into valleys and streams below the former mountains. Mr. Obama’s critics would like to know which coal company executives have visited the White House and what their influence may have been. It sounds sadly similar to the questions that were asked but not answered when Dick Cheney’s energy policy was being developed. One hopes the similarity is illusory. But this example (and a number of others described by the New York Times’s Bob Herbert) leads one reluctantly but inexorably to the sense that it’s déjà vu all over again. Christopher Brauchli can be e-mailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu. For political commentary see his web page at http://humanraceandothersports.com