Springtime for Paladino

The Democratic Party is salivating at the prospect of squaring off with "unelectable" Republican candidates like Christine "Masturbation Causes Scurvy" O'Donnell in the Delaware senate race and Carl "The Speaker of the New York Assembly is the Antichrist" Paladino in the New York gubernatorial campaign. While anything that makes Karl Rove dyspeptic is pleasing in our eyes, we can't help but feel more than a little nervous.

The Solipsist doesn't know much about O'Donnell's opponent, but we do know that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo should cruise to victory over Paladino. Cuomo is an experienced politician with favorable job-performance ratings, a huge financial advantage, and a last name that is to New Yorkers what "Kennedy" is to Bostonians. Indeed, one reason you've probably heard less about New York's primary than Delaware's is that the New York Republican nominee is largely seen as cannon fodder: Nobody expects Paladino to win, but nobody really thought his primary opponent, Rick Lazio, had much of a chance against Cuomo either.

So why are we scared?

Look, we share the hope of rational people everywhere that the lunatic fringe will settle down before this country falls completely to pieces. We hope that the victories of Paladino and O'Donnell and assorted other wingnuts--woefully unqualified to hold public office--will prove pyrrhic and bring people back to their senses. But what if they don't? What if, against all odds, these straw men manage to rally just enough people to their cause? What if unenthusiastic Democrats fail to come out on Election Day, assuming their uninspiring-if-safe candidate's victory is a foregone conclusion?

In "The Producers," Messrs. Bialystock and Bloom do everything they can to ensure a financially lucrative Broadway disaster. When, despite their best-laid plans, the show is a smash hit, Bialystock laments: "How could this happen? I was so careful. I picked the wrong play, the wrong director, the wrong cast. Where did I go right?" If we're not careful, we worry that parts of the country could be "going right (wing)" in the worst possible way.
-----------------------------
On a related note, we would like to declare our massive man-crush on Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, both of whom announced plans to hold Glenn Beck-style rallies to counter extremists of all political persuasions. Stewart will stage the "Rally to Restore Sanity" on the National Mall on October 30; Colbert will stage his own "counter-rally,": The "March to Keep Fear Alive." If anyone would like to hook their favorite blogger up with airfare, we promise to let you be a guest-columnist!

Judge Wesley Brown is Really, Really Old

Check it out everybody: Yoda is a federal judge in Kansas!

Gateway Apparel

From the Just-As-We've-Always-Suspected File comes news that a striking number of perpetrators and suspects favor the garb, particularly the caps, of the New York Yankees. Which just proves our theory: Yankees fans are a bunch of criminals.



Sure, apologists will point out that this could simply reflect the Yankees' inexplicable popularity: The Yankees sell more merchadise than any other sports franchise, so it is unsurprising that their merchandise is over-represented among any population, be it composed of law-abiding types or Yankee fans--sorry, criminals.



But that's what apologists do! Look for rationalizations when the obvious answer stares them in the face! Criminals wear Yankees caps because the Yankees are the team of criminals: From white-collar Wall Street types to "someone accused of helping tie up a 9-year-old girl." It's Occam's Razor, people!



We have it on good authority that Yankees' garb may actually TURN people into criminals. Don't forget, we never heard a word about Alex Rodriguez using steroids before he came to the Yankees. (OK, supposedly his use of banned substances occurred during his time with the Texas Rangers, but can anyone doubt that if he hadn't gone to the Yankees he would retroactively not have used them. And, no, don't bother trying to untangle that sentence.) Rumor has it that even Derek "Salt of the Earth" Jeter goes to the Central Park Zoo after hours to throw batteries at sea lions.



In short, say "Yes" to drugs, to alcohol, to pre-marital sex and even to violent video games. But for the sake of civic tranquility, just say "No" to Yankee caps!

(Image from The New York Times)

Funny Talk

Say this word: Pakistan.

If you're like most Americans, you probably said, "PACK-uh-STAN," the first syllable sounding like the thing you carry on your back, the last sounding like the first name of Oliver Hardy's comedy partner. If, however, you pronounce it correctly, i.e., the way people from Pakistan pronounce it, you said, "PAHK-ee-STAHN." Of course, if you, as an American, do pronounce it properly, you probably get some strange looks--like you're trying too hard. . . . or belong to an al-Qaeda sleeper cell.

Years ago, a sketch on "Saturday Night Live" featured performers discussing upcoming football games. The announcers talked about how the 49'ers of "Sahn Frahn-SEES-co" would be playing the Denver "BROHN-coss" and about their favorite sportscaster, "Bohb COHS-tahss."

Why is correct pronunciation a source of humor? Or even suspicion? Of course, it's partially garden-variety xenophobia, the fear of the outsider, the uneasiness aroused by that which is different. It's also related to the anti-intellectualism that sneers at people who go out of their way to use "whom" correctly. But is there not also something frightening in the idea that correctness must fall victim to conformity? Down that road lies demagoguery.

So the next time you perk up at the sound of someone saying "ee-RAHN" instead of a nasal "eye-RAN," think about offering praise instead of burial.

****************************
We notice that the Solipsist now has 25 followers! Quite the milestone! We're not sure who the new Sloppist is, but welcome! (Incidentally, we're claiming all our followers as dependents, in case the IRS contacts any of you.)

We Can All Haz (Plastic) Cheezburgers!

We're kind of pressed for time today. So just check out this article about 3-D printing.

Architectural models! Toys! Prosthetic limbs! If they had one of these things in the Emerald City, "The Wizard of Oz" would have been a much shorter movie ("You want a brain, Mr. Scarecrow? Just give me a second!").

But could they print the Solipsist up a soul?

We WERE Ready for Some Football

The final play neatly summed up the futility and ineptitude displayed tonight by the offensive unit of our favorite aircraft-themed football team: Trailing by one point--ONE POINT!--with less than a minute to play and no time outs, the Jets faced a fourth-and-ten at about their own 20-yard line. The quarterback tossed a perfect throw to the tight end who caught the ball at the sideline for a nine-yard gain. NINE YARDS! All the guy had to do before stepping out of bounds to stop the clock was to turn left and take a couple of steps--or even just shift the ball to his left hand and hold it out over the down marker. That, apparently, was too much to ask.

The worst part? We're probably going to hear about this from ACOS. Sigh. We log off to take our medicine.

Who's Afraid of Virginian Lobbyists?

Imagine you own a fast-food franchise in a small town.


Election day approaches. The mayoral incumbent, before taking office, ran a successful local business. He has also patronized your establishment and spoken highly of your food on several occasions. His opponent, on the other hand, a member of the local hospital's board of directors and a medical doctor, has spoken out about the dangers of fast food and has proposed new local taxes on sugary soft drinks. Whom will you vote for? Moreover, whom would you support financially?


Presumably, you'll do everything in your power to assure that the incumbent wins re-election. This is simple rational behavior. If and when you make your campaign contribution, you aren't bribing the mayor to support favorable legislation, you are helping someone who has shown himself favorable to your interests to remain in a position of authority.

To be clear: We do not say this behavior is desirable--much less admirable--but it seems neither scandalous nor, given current laws and regulations, illegal. Nor, frankly, would it seem to be newsworthy.

It bemuses us, therefore, whenever we read a front page story, as we did today, about a legislator, in this case Ohio Republican John Boehner, who has close ties to lobbyists. Why is this news? Of course, legislators have close ties to corporate lobbyists. The not-so-subtle subtext of this type of investigative report is that these agents of mammon are effectively buying votes in Congress while they are buying access to representatives. But does anybody believe that John Boehner, like any other chamber-of-commerce Republican would NOT vote for legislation favored by Big Tobacco, Big Insurance, or Big Finance if tlobbyists DIDN'T shower him with gifts? Likewise, Democrats are probably Democrats because they share common interests with core Democratic constituencies like unions. Their support for union causes is not predicated on financial support; rather, financial support comes because these interest groups hope to ensure their champions' continued political viability.

If money truly did buy votes, wouldn't it make more sense for money to be thrown by unions to Republicans and by fatcats to Democrats?

By all means, get money out of politics. Until this happens, though, why is anyone shocked--shocked!--when politicians receive financial support from the people they serve?