Of Dogs and Eagles

A superstar athlete who is caught breaking the rules should no longer be allowed to play professional sports. Just ask Alex Rodriguez.

Oh, wait.

OK, OK, well, in any event, a superstar who commits grievous physical and/or emotional harm to other living beings should certainly be ostracized from society and ineligible for large-scale displays of public adulation. Just ask Michael Jackson.

All right, all right, wait, we can do this.

Umm. . . OK! A SUPERSTAR ATHLETE who COMMITS GRIEVOUS PHYSICAL AND/OR EMOTIONAL HARM TO ANOTHER LIVING BEING should, at the very least, NO LONGER BE ALLOWED TO PLAY PROFESSIONAL SPORTS. Just ask Kobe Bryant or Mike Tyson.

DAMN IT!

This isn't working, is it?

Of course we're talking about Michael Vick. For those of you who haven't followed the news for the last couple of years--or who were only paying attention to frivolous stories like the election or the war in Iraq--Michael Vick was the quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons. Almost from the start of his professional career, Vick was a star. During his five seasons in the NFL, he was considered not only among the best quarterbacks in the league but one of the best athletes as well--a player who could almost singlehandedly win a game with either his arm or his legs, a player who gave defensive coordinators nightmares.

All of this ended prior to the 2007 season when Michael Vick pleaded guilty to running a dog fighting ring in Virginia. He was immediately suspended from football. He recently completed a two-year prison sentence (including several months under house arrest) and was reinstated to the NFL. The Atlanta Falcons had made it clear virtually from the moment of Vick's arrest that he was finished with their team, so it remained to be seen where Vick would end up. Would any NFL team risk the public-relations fallout from signing him?

Indeed. Yesterday, the Philadelphia Eagles signed Vick to a two-year deal.

Now, let us make one thing perfectly clear: The Solipsist is an animal lover. Granted, we're more of a cat person, but we harbor no ill will toward dogs or, indeed, any four-legged creature. We think what Vick did was loathsome, and we wouldn't hire him. Then again, since Vick has shown no evidence of writing ability, we probably wouldn't hire him even if he won the Humane Society's Man-of-the-Year Award. If we were running a football team, though. . . .

Look, is anyone really surprised? We have problems with the argument that Vick should never have been allowed to play professional football again. If Vick were, say, a plumber, would you confiscate his wrench and ill-fitting jeans? Of course not.

You may object: A plumber doesn't make $1.5 million dollars a year and have major endorsement deals. This is true, but it's not Vick's fault that professional athletes are grossly overpaid (if you think they are overpaid, which we don't exactly, but that's a topic for another post). In fact, one could argue that Vick is underpaid. Consider that the New York Giants just signed Eli Manning to a six-year contract extension worth over $15 million a year. Now Manning is a Super-Bowl winning quarterback with a terrific public image--about "as controversial as a bowl of corn flakes," according to one commentator--but Vick is undoubtedly a superior athlete (whether he's a better quarterback is, again, another topic). The point is, had Vick's career proceeded as expected, he would have been making significantly more than he is now. As for endorsements, we don't foresee sponsors burning up the phone lines to Vick's agent any time in the near future, no matter how well he does on the field.

Some will argue that it's not just the money they object to: It's the fact that, as a professional athlete, Vick is a role model. For better or worse, this also is true. But this, too, could be an argument in favor of reinstating him. If what Vick did in secret was horrific--and it was--then could he not now use the very public platform of an NFL quarterback to try and undo some of the damage? To speak out against the very crime for which he was convicted? To serve as a spokesman for animal-rights organizations, perhaps? At least to donate and help raise money for the APSCA?

Let us again be clear: We do not condone what Vick did. We are quite happy that neither the Giants nor the Jets signed Vick, and if anything this just gives us one more reason to jeer the Philadelphia Eagles (not that we really needed one). But Michael Vick committed a crime, was convicted, and served his sentence. And while what he did was loathsome, is it worse than alleged rape (Kobe Bryant) or rape (Mike Tyson)? Is it worse than cheating at the sport you chose to play (Alex Rodriguez, et al.)?

You may agree that it is worse, and more power to you. You may also argue that it is not worse, and that those other players have no right to continue playing the sports they're playing. Again, more power to you. And if you owned a football team, you would be within your rights--indeed, you'd be morally obligated--not to employ Michael Vick.

But it is hardly surprising that somebody did. Maybe it's a sign of the sickness of our society, but this is the society that we've got. The only way that's going to change is if the Eagles suffer financially because of the Vick decision--perhaps they will. In the meantime, though, they made a sound football decision. Call it what it is, cynical opportunism; or disingenuously (see yesterday's post) call it faith in the rehabilitative and redemptive power of incarceration; it hardly matters. What matters is what Michael Vick does now, both on the field and, more importantly, off.

Sincerely Counting by Pinball

Still Another Cousin of Solipsist (SACOS, not to be confused with COS or ACOS) sent us a link to a Youtube video of the old "Sesame Street" pinball-counting song. You know the one: "OnetwothreeFOURfive / SixseveneightNINEten / Eleventwelve (doo-doo-doo-duh-doo-doo-de-doo-doo-de-doo)." Quite the blast from the past. But did you know that the song was sung by the Pointer Sisters? Apparently, it was. And here's where things get interesting. The Solipsist works with the Pointer Sisters' sibling--the "Pointer Brother," if you will. Which means that the Solipsist is only three degrees of separation from the Muppets!!! Hell, the way we see it, we practically are a Muppet. We wonder what our muppet-form would be. . . . How about something minimalist and blue, maybe with a somewhat fearsome mien? The merchandising possibilities are mind-boggling!

Stanley the Solipsist? A Muppet in the making?

(Image from Boingboing)

********************************************

Speaking of "Sesame Street," today's post is brought to you by the word "disingenuous." Wonderful word, really. It's one of those words with a very specific meaning to indicate a very specific quality. People often use it--you might have used it yourself--with a vague sense of what it means--something "not good"--but without a precise definition and without complete confidence that they were using it correctly. Well, that's what we're here for.

Many people use the word--if they use the word--as a synonym for "dishonest," but that's not exactly right. "Disingenuous," according to dictionary.com, means "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity"; in other words, when Bill Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," he was, strictly speaking, not lying, but he was certainly being disingenuous.

(Digression: That is, of course, if you accept his reasoning that oral sex is not sex. The Solipsist is not of that opinion. In our view, we consider it "sex" if an attractive woman even casts a glance in the general direction of our nether regions. Then again, we're hopelessly needy and should probably not be considered an expert in this area. EOD)

We thought of this when we read the following quote from Yang Jiechi, the Chinese foreign minister, responding to a WTO ruling against China: "China will never seek to advance its interests at the expense of others" ("China Warms to New Credo: Business First"). Yeah, sure.

The world of international diplomacy--of politics in general--is rife with disingenuousness. Obviously, the Chinese foreign minister has to be delicate, but is there anyone out there who doesn't think that China (or the United States, or Finland, or Germany, or any country--well, any country that isn't Canada) would "advance its interests at the expense of others"? Of course China would advance its interests at the expense of others; that's what governments do: protect their citizens. Sure, most countries will try to be cooperative, if for no other reason than that cooperation costs less than conflict. But if it comes down to choosing between Chinese interests and those of any other country, of course China will defend its own interests.

That's what's so disheartening about the disingenuous statement. It usually doesn't so much cover up a lie as it distorts the truth--which is ultimately more harmful. A lie can be exposed and the perpetrators punished; the disingenuous speaker, once exposed, can simply shrug and smile and acknowledge the "misunderstanding." He or she blames the audience, who were not savvy or tenacious enough to ferret out the "truth."

The task of a speaker--or writer--is to convey meaning. Good writing is clear writing. Anything less than clear is less than good. Sincerely.

The Joys of Teaching (A Brief Post)

Well, of course something called "The Joys of Teaching" is a brief post! But seriously, folks.

This afternoon, the Solipsist received an e-mail from one of his former "students." This "student" had just checked his grades from the summer class (which, by the way, ended three weeks ago), and he wanted to know, "Why did I fail? I was sure I was going 2 pass."

"Well," we replied, "let's see. You failed the midterm. You failed the final. You handed in less than half of the required assignments.

"You thought you were going to pass, though? To paraphrase 'Monty Python,' explain the logic underlying that conclusion."

We know you shouldn't be sarcastic with students, but sometimes the situation just screams out for it.

Here's to Your Health II

"We believe there are several issues out there that leave the existence of the Republic at risk, not the least of which is Obamacare."

--John Stahl, Chairman of the Berks County Tea Party

("Senator Goes Face to Face with Dissent")

We got quite a few reactions to yesterday's post on the uproar over proposed health care reform. We weren't planning to revisit the topic today, but then we saw the above quote. We were so taken aback that we just had to say something.

Look, as convinced as we are of the essential rightness of all our positions, we think it's always advisable to at least try to see where the other side is coming from. We believe that's called "empathetitude" (we could be wrong about that--it's a state of mind we don't often adopt. So we're trying--we're really really trying--to parse the state of mind of these protesters who seem to think that passing legislation to ensure basic healthcare for the vast majority of the population is literally an existential threat to the United States of America. Let's see. . . .

We think the logic runs something like this: The idea of "universal healthcare" is equated to the idea of "socialized medicine." Now, in its most benign form, "socialized medicine" brings to mind images of the UK and Canada, which, while they may not be the toughest kids on the block, are hardly hell on earth. In fact, they have some things going for them. England has given us some pretty good music, and Canada has . . . uh, well. . . Canada's cute, too. So we can't see the problem there.

Well, OK, maybe people get turned off by the phrase "socialized," which makes them think of socialism. Now, here again, the main problem is that the word "socialism" has gotten a bad rap. Political scientist Robert Axelrod in a book about cooperation, effectively defined socialism (or at least a socialist state of mind) as "niceness." So what's the problem with "niceness"? Well, nothing, but many people equate "socialism" with "communism"--which are not the same thing--and "communism" with Russia and in particular with "Stalinism." The thing people don't realize is that calling Josef Stalin a socialist is like calling calling Tony "Scarface" Montana a pharmacist. Yes, socialism calls for state control of large sectors of the economy, but there's a huuuuuuuge leap from there to labor camps and mass starvation. So maybe people just need to be taken by the hand and told that socialism isn't so bad.

Oh, and, by the way, OBAMA ISN'T EVEN TALKING ABOUT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, YOU IGNORANT SCHMUCKS!!!!!!

Sorry. Sorry. That was uncalled for. Things got away from us for a moment.

Ahem.

From what we understand, President Obama is essentially calling for legislation that would require people to have medical insurance, that would allow government to compete with the private sector in the provision of insurance, that would subsidize poor people who cannot afford insurance, and that would raise taxes on the wealthy to cover a large portion of the costs. Hardly sounds like a slippery slope to North Korea.

Now, the Solipsist is not so naive as to think that only the rich will end up paying for this. We are fairly certain that somewhere down the line our own middle-class taxes might go up. We might, for example, have to pay taxes on our employer-provided insurance. And while this would be unpleasant, it also might--might--provide some opportunities. After all, as we said yesterday, one of the biggest problems with the current health care regime is that users are generally oblivious to the true costs. If we felt more of the "pain" of paying for healthcare, we ourselves would demand vastly greater efficiencies in the healthcare system, which would, in turn, lead to reduced costs. It's a thought, anyway.

So getting back to our original point--trying to be empatheticalistic to our ideological opposites, we think that all this rage is simply a result of misunderstandings. All someone needs to do is calmly explain to these poor benighted souls the errors in their logic.

That is, if you can get the morons to stop screaming for five minutes.

Here's to Your Health

We feel the need to weigh in on the whole health care reform imbroglio. These images of ravening mobs shouting down anyone who even tries to speak in favor of the proposed healthcare legislation--can there be that many lunatics in middle America?

Look, this is a complicated issue. The basic problem is that people who currently have health insurance don't necessarily see a great need for reform; to them (and the Solipsist is a member of this "them"), medical care feels "free." We see a doctor whenever we want, and all we pay is fifteen bucks for an office visit, and a few dollars more for prescriptions. And while we know--on an intellectual level--that the care we receive isn't free--that it does, in fact, cost someone thousands and thousands of dollars--the ironic reality is that, because we feel like it's free, healthcare actually becomes more expensive.

Think of it this way: Imagine you have health insurance, and you have a painful but totally curable medical condition that can be treated either surgically or medically (i.e., with drugs). Either method will be equally effective. The surgery will take care of the problem in an hour but will cost--someone--$10,000; the drug regime will only cost, say, $500, but will take two weeks to cure you. Which course will you choose? You'd probably choose the surgery. Why not? It's not like you're paying for it; in fact, you could argue that you already have paid for it-- in the form of less take-home pay--so you might as well take full advantage of your health insurance plan. On the other hand, if you were paying out of pocket, you'd probably opt for the cheaper course of action.

The way things are now, people have little incentive to choose the most cost-effective treatments. And doctors and hospitals, since they are generally reimbursed for the amount of care they provide, regardless of comparative efficiency, have little incentive to cut costs either. In short, the current system works pretty well for employed people who have health insurance through their jobs (although it could be argued that they might end up with more money in their paychecks under a government-run system), for medical providers, and for insurance companies. It doesn't work so well for the uninsured, for businesses (who struggle to pay for employees' health insurance), and, ultimately, probably for many of the currently insured, too--who will eventually lose their coverage if costs keep rising and employers just decide to stop providing insurance.

So something has to change. And we understand why people might object to various elements of healthcare plans under discussion. Hey, as soon as we hear things like a trillion-dollar price tag, even we get a little woozy. (And the Solipsist says this as a firm believer in universal healthcare. The words "socialized medicine" don't strike scare us. Sure, the term evokes images of third-world cesspools like Great Britain and Canada, but we think the US could possibly make it work.)

What's disturbing, though, is the level of rancor that this issue has stirred up. Seriously, who are all these people who are shouting down their congressmen--not even giving them a chance to discuss the issues? Are there really that many people out there who think that Sarah Palin, for example, knows what she's talking about--or, we should say, believes her own rhetoric--when she claims that President Obama's healthcare legislation calls for the creation of a "Death Panel" to promote euthanasia? Is the Republican party content to be seen as the party of pigheaded anti-rationality? Do they not realize that the style of discourse they are openly embracing would be out of place in a nursery-school playground, much less a town hall forum?

We hope--HOPE--that this reliance on scare tactics will ultimately backfire--that it will further consign the rabid right to the dustpile of irrelevance. We hope that.

We are not particularly optimistic.

Everything You Ever Needed to Know, You Learned from. . .

The Solipsist has done it again!

You're welcome!

What has he done? Well, nothing much--just figured out the fundamental reason for the economy's collapse! All in a day's work, really. Before we get to the reason, though, some questions.

Now, most Sloppists--though highly educated, sophisticated, and deucedly good looking--are not medical professionals. Nevertheless, we assume that most of you could offer at least a tentative interpretation or explanation of some or all of the following terms: IV. Differential diagnosis. Intubation. "Push 10 cc's of epi, STAT!" And why are you able to do this?

Similarly, even if you've never been arrested, you probably not only know what it means to "Mirandize" someone, but you could also probably do it easily--which would come in handy if you ever need to make a citizen's arrest. You all know to watch out for "perps." And a good number of you probably know what it means to be "on the job." If you ever need to interrogate someone, you've probably picked up a few handy techniques from various and sundry skilled role models. You see where we're going here, right?

Think about how much we've learned from TV. "M*A*S*H" taught us who outranks whom in the military, as well as what a "non-commissioned officer" is. "Seinfeld," for all that it was a "show about nothing," gave us a pretty good idea of how a stand-up comedian goes about building an act. Even fantastic fare provides basic science lessons: Where did most of us first hear things like "light year," "wormhole," and "parallel universe"?

So. The economic crisis.

Let's put it this way, you well-educated, erudite Sloppists: What's a "CDO"? OK, maybe you're saying "collateralized debt obligation"--maybe--but what does THAT mean? And don't pretend you know, because the problem was that NOBODY really knew what it meant. How about a "derivative"? What about "shorting a stock"--again, maybe you know what it means, but do you really know how it works? And if so, why didn't you make lots and lots of money doing it? (Oh, and if you did make lots and lots of money doing it, we know a wonderful little blog you could invest in. We're just saying.)

Even though all of these phrases have become marginally familiar to the general population over the last year or so, almost nobody knew what they meant before everything went kerflooey. And why not? Because there are not now, nor have there ever been, any good television shows about business. Sure, businessmen have figured as characters in numerous TV shows, but there has never been a business-oriented "ER" or "NYPD Blue" or "Damages" or even "Rescue Me"--in other words, a show that really revolves around the day-to-day workings of an investment bank or insurance conglomerate in the way that other shows have revolved around hospitals, police stations, law firms, or firehouses.

You may object that this just wouldn't make for compelling television. To which the Solipsist has just three words: "The West Wing." Ten years ago, if you had been told that a show revolving around policy wonks would keep you riveted to your TV sets, you probably would have been dubious at best. Nevertheless, if you, like millions of others, were a fan of the show, you can probably conduct a beginning seminar on the workings of the United States government, simply by providing plot summaries of your favorite episodes. So, to prevent another "Great Recession," all we need to do is get Aaron Sorkin to develop a series around the inner workings of Wall Street. Bradley Whitford can be the Tim Geithner figure; Allison Janney can be the head of the SEC; Martin Sheen can be a greedy CEO, etc., etc.

And one more thing, in the final season of "The West Wing," which aired in 2006, a relatively unknown ethnic-minority Democratic congressman defeated the party's establishment candidate for the nomination and then, in the general election, prevailed against a well-known, somewhat "maverick-y" Republican. If life continues to imitate Aaron Sorkin's art, then the financial landscape might end up better than ever.

It Doesn't Have to Be Old to Be a Classic--Does It?

Just a brief post today. The Solipsist had an unusually busy Sunday, packed with errands; we didn't even have time for a leisurely paper-read. Plus, we're still recuperating from yesterday's diatribe on hate crime legislation. So today just a brief comment on music.

At what point did the music you grew up with become "classic"? We were wondering this today as we sat in the car, listening to the "classic rock" station, and heard classic song after classic song after classic song that we could remember as "new." And if those songs are "classic," then how do you classify the likes of the Beatles and Led Zeppelin? Classical rock, perhaps?

(Digression: And gimme a break, automated spellchecker! You're gonna underline "Beatles"?!? You didn't even underline "gimme" and "gonna"! EOD)

We remember our first experience of this kind: A DJ introduced David Bowie's "Modern Love" as a "classic track." Now, this was only in, like, 1990, so maybe the good fellow was just suggesting it was something of an "instant" classic. But now, alas, we've come to realize that we are fans of classic rock, not because of any quirky, loner-streak--wanting to set ourselves apart from the trendy--but simply because the classics are what we know.

We're getting old, folks. Sigh!