Just one of the Chebabs

Back in 1995, the movie Boys filmed several scenes on the campus of St. John’s College, where I was attending grad school. I was sitting out in the quad between classes one evening with my friends. The crew was getting ready to shoot an outdoor scene with Winona Ryder.

My buddy Mitch stared at the crew setting up on the lawn.

Our friend Haydn asked, “Whattaya thinking?”

Mitch replied, “I’m gonna run through that shot, throw Winona over my shoulder, and carry her all the way down to the river, shouting, ‘Court order or no, we’ll be together!'”

Mitch had been a rugby player, and if it came down to him and Lukas Haas, there was no doubt in my mind to the outcome.

I asked, “Why ya gonna do that?” I was an awful stick in the mud.

Mitch replied, “Because I want my college alumni bulletin to read, ‘Mitchell Prothero is not allowed within 50 yards of Winona Ryder.'”

Years went by, and Mitch is now writing from Gaza City:

Sure, some gunmen remain, but they’re all in Hamas uniforms, and the leadership has banned the infamous black ski mask. (Hamas leader Ismail Haniyah said militants should don masks to fight Israelis but not when patrolling the streets of Gaza.) So, people can now see the faces of their police officers. But in most cases, it’s not gunmen doing law enforcement, it’s a collection of unarmed men in Hamas hats and bright safety vests that say Police in English and Arabic. They provide traffic control, investigate petty crimes, and offer a general nonthreatening sense of security not provided in the past by surly masked gunmen with uncertain political (or ethical) affiliations.

Smart readers will be waiting for the “but” in this story. And Gaza currently has a big “but.” The semblance of normalcy on the streets belies the fundamental problems at work in this tiny, conservative coastal strip. Gaza and its 1.5 million people appear destined, at least for the moment, to be cut out of any political process involving the Palestinians. Not to mention cut off from government funds and humanitarian resources, and barely able to travel in or out of the strip. Even the Israeli fuel company that provides gas and oil for generators is operating on a day-to-day basis. If they cut those supplies, people will run out in a matter of hours, and hoarding supplies of fuel and food grows less possible each day.

Perhaps even more frightening for the people of Gaza is the sickening sense that things are about to get really bad, which they certainly will. It’s just a question of which direction the fresh hell will come from.

Give it a read, or Mitch’ll come for you next.

Regulatory Overkill?

[Excerpted from this month’s From the Editor column at my magazine.]

In last June’s From the Editor page, I wrote about a scandal involving Chinese “innovation,” namely a rip-off that literally involved scraping a western company’s name off of cell-phone chips and painting a Chinese company’s name on them. I received some guff for that editorial, and have been told at numerous conferences in the past year that China will dominate the 21st century, because the world is bowl-shaped or flat or somesuch.

I maintain that the country’s poverty-level population (800 million), out-of-balance birthrates (in the 1990s, some provinces peaked at 32 male births to one female, thanks to advances in portable sonograms), and catastrophic environmental record are going to yield so much unrest as to counter its “economic miracle.” Those of you who’ve had the misfortune of listening to me expound on this subject know that I believe China’s one-party dictatorship makes it impossible for the nation to truly accommodate itself to the western world; instead, it does a passable impression of capitalism. But when it breaks down, it breaks down critically.

Let’s take China’s role in exporting chemicals, a major economic driver. Those exports have made plenty of news lately, after

  1. an ingredient (or two) used by Chinese livestock-food suppliers to falsify protein tests led to the deaths of a number of pets in the U.S., and
  2. a counterfeit ingredient in cough syrup supplied by a Chinese company poisoned at least 100 people n Panama.

These problems don’t only plague China’s exports; the same ingredients have led to deaths within China, too. Perhaps we should envision these as growing pains, a result of China’s crash course in modernizing the SFDA and bringing its drug supply under regulation. If anything, that would mark these events as symptoms of the country’s attempt to join the international community.

That reading might be a valid one, given that the toxic ingredient in the cough syrup happened to be diethylene glycol. After all, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act was passed in the U.S. in 1938 after the use of diethylene glycol in “Elixir Sulfanilimide” led to the deaths of more than 100 Americans.

Seventy years ago, there was no requirement for tox-tests for drug formulations. The manufacturer’s lab tested for flavor, appearance and smell, but not toxicity. So this elixir shipped, and the death followed. At the time, the agency was simply fortunate that the product was called an “elixir.” According to an FDA article, if it had been called a “solution” instead, “FDA would have had no legal authority to ensure the recovery of the drug and many more people probably would have died.” As it was, agents had to fan out across the country to help in the recall of the elixir. All told, 234 out of 240 gallons of the toxic product were recovered.

Following the diethylene glycol disaster, the FDA was given greater authority to regulate drugs, and evolved into the agency we know today, for better and worse.

Nowadays, we hold congressional hearings about tougher standards for Advisory Committees. Concerned about conflicts of interest, our representatives debate regulations stipulating that no one who is an expert enough about a subject to get paid for it should be responsible for evaluating it. (Hey, it’s my reductio and I’ll ad absurdam if I want to.)

As it turns out, China — and that one-party system of theirs — has also developed new regulations to deter conflicts of interest. In their case, a court recently ordered the execution of the former head of the SFDA.

In May, Zheng Xiaoyu was convicted of taking more than $832,000 in bribes in cash and gifts during his tenure. According to a state newspaper, “Under his watch, six types of medicine approved were fake and pharmaceutical companies got away with using false documents to apply for approvals.” Oh, and an antibiotic produced under not-so-aseptic conditions looks to have killed at least 10 Chinese patients.

The government has already taken the occasion of the sentencing to announce a new food-recall system; we’ll see how it overhauls the drug process. I’m all for creative destruction, but I’m hoping it won’t take too many more of these episodes before we see China adopt some semblance of global standards. I’m not optimistic about this, of course.

Fortunately for Mr. Xiaoyu, if the method of execution is lethal injection, then there’s always a chance he’ll come out of this experience just fine.

Happy May Day!

In honor of The Worker, Hugo Chavez will be seizing 4 oil projects in the name of a free Venezuela today! By “free” I mean “free to see their oil production fall apart as they drive out foreign investment”:

Critics say that [state company PDVSA] has hired many inexperienced personnel, resulting in a string of deadly refinery and oil field accidents. The company had a chance to retain hundreds of experienced employees from its joint-venture partners when it took control of the 32 fields last year, but it stumbled badly by cutting salaries by an average of 30%. That led to mass desertions [. . .] Production at the 32 fields taken over by the company last year has fallen 100,000 barrels a day, or roughly 20%, the result of lower investments by PDVSA and its minority partners, prompted in part by legal uncertainties. Diminishing prospects in Venezuela lead international companies to cut their investment there last year to $540 million, down from $1 billion in previous years.

As Mr. Nobody put it, “Workers of the world, ignite! You have nothing to lose but your minds!”

Missed by that much

I just finished reading Taliban, Ahmed Rashid’s study of the Taliban’s rise in Afghanistan, this weekend. The book was published early in 2001 (pre-9/11, that is), so its perspective about the civil war is untinged by What Would Come. Rashid does paint a very bleak picture about the region and the regime, and offers a ton of insight into how Afghanistan got so messed up.

The book is also a product of its time, of course. One of the “problems” with Taliban is that oil was priced around $13/barrel in the years leading up to its publication. That fact was a key to his understanding of Russian and Iranian policy, and it’s completely understandable; who would even entertain the notion that oil would someday trade for 5x that price?

I found myself marveling over how the country, long seen as the prize in The Great Game, achieved its present-day notoriety only when it fell under the radar and became an utterly failed state. Once “we” stopped paying attention to it, Afghanistan became the engine of the new world.

Which brings me to the end of the book. Usually, I don’t give away endings, but I don’t think I’m doing Rashid any disservice in this case. Here’s the final paragraph:

But if the war in Afghanistan continues to be ignored we can only expect the worst. Pakistan will face a Taliban-style Islamic revolution which will further destabilize it and the entire region. Iran will remain on the periphery of the world community and its eastern borders will continue to be wracked by instability. The Central Asian states will not be able to deliver their energy and mineral exports by the shortest routes and as their economies crash, they will face an Islamic upsurge and instability. Russia will continue to bristle with hegemonic aims in Central Asia even as its own society and economy crumbles. The stakes are extremely high.

I don’t mean to goof on Rashid by writing this, but isn’t it amazing how much worse it got than his most pessimistic projection?

Response and responsibilities

For a month or two, Slate has been running excerpts from Clive James’ new book, Cultural Amnesia, which it describes as a “re-examination of intellectuals, artists, and thinkers who helped shape the 20th century.” The excerpts are presented as A-Z profiles, and some are compelling enough that I put the book on my Amazon Wish List. (However, since I know I won’t get around to reading it for quite a while, I’m figuring I’ll end up buying the paperback in 2008 or ’09. Or I’ll find a remainder/surplus copy at the Strand, as is my wont.)

I thought the Terry Gilliam one went off the rails a bit, pursuing a discussion of torture that probably could have been written without including Gilliam’s masterpiece, but it’s still an engaging essay. With a number of the other essays, James appears to be pursuing the question of artists’ responsibilities in the world, vis a vis the political tumult of the 20th century. (It’s not only about artists, but they seem well represented in the 110 profiles the book contains.)

Thus, the discussion of Borges has to get at his relationship with Argentina’s junta, while the take-no-prisoners profile of Sartre posted today questions the nature of JP’s resistance during the war as well as his avoidance of the truth about the Soviet Union. (It also touches on the subject of the necessity of bad writing, a favorite topic of mine.)

The excerpt that I enjoyed the most — I haven’t read them all — is the one discussing Rilke and Brecht, even though I haven’t read much of Rilke beyond his poetry and know nothing of Brecht’s work. The essay contrasts Rilke’s art-for-art’s-sake with Brecht’s art-as-politics, and finds Brecht wanting. (Okay, it finds Brecht a noxious scumbag.) But James goes on to make an interesting and subtle point about the relation between the artist — particularly the ‘word artist’ — and his beliefs, and perhaps between the artist and the audience.

Give it a read (and go check out some of the others) and let me know what you think.