Waiting to Warm the Bench

With Supreme Court Justice David Souter announcing his retirement (to say nothing of the increasing geriatricness--geriatricity? geriatricitude?--of the rest of the Court's liberal wing), it is time to start considering replacements.  Today's Times pointed out that President Obama could take this opportunity to reach beyond what has become the standard pool of nominees, the Federal Appeals Courts, in order to broaden the Court's sensibility.

It is worth reiterating at this point that there is no specific requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be a judge or even a practicing lawyer.  Indeed, over the course of its history, Justices have included governors, senators, attorneys general, and even cabinet officials, all of whom fulfilled their judicial obligations with greater or lesser degrees of success; that is, on the whole, they were neither better nor worse than those who had taken a more "expected" path to the bench.

But we would like to point out that the requirements--or lack thereof--for a Supreme Court nominee pretty much allow anyone to be considered.  Unless we're misreading something, the only requirements are a nomination by the President and a confirmation by the Senate.  Oh, sure, some familiarity with US history and jursiprudence might be a desirable qualification, but it's not on the books.  If all right-thinking (which is to say, in general, left-thinking) people got together, we could surely come up with some good outside-the-box nominees.  One thinks Bruce Springsteen would make a good Justice--one whose opinions would be brief and rhymie (and, seriously, what senator would want to face his constituents after voting against confirmation of the Boss?).  Paul Newman would have been good, but there are plenty of well-informed liberal types left in Hollywood: Susan Sarandon isn't really getting the juicy roles anymore, and she'd look good in black satin.   How about Jon Stewart and/or Stephen Colbert?  How about putting a writer on the bench?  Kurt Vonnegut may be gone, but he has plenty of disciples.

Presumably, many of these folks are perfectly happy doing what they're doing.  So Mr. Obama has to find someone who shares these folks' viewpoints, but who doesn't have quite so much of an interesting life that they wouldn't be willing to give it up.

Well, it's obvious, isn't it?  President Obama, the Solipsist awaits your call.

The Solipsist Fixes Sportswriting

In the world of sports journalism, cliches sprout like weeds.  See?  One can rarely make it through the sports pages without a "We're just taking it one game at a time" or "It's a team effort" or "The other team just wanted it more."

We shouldn't be too hard on the athletes.  After all, it's hard enough for professional writers to avoid cliches.  Why should we expect more from people who, however intelligent many of them are, make a living with their bodies not their minds?  Not to mention the fact that these interviews are often conducted in the aftermath of highly physical contests, while the interviewee is out of breath, drenched in sweat, and sitting in his underwear.  One suspects that even an urbane sophisticate would struggle to produce intellectual banter under such circumstances.  Nobody asks Elie Wiesel to sit for an interview in his boxers (although that would make a fortune on pay-per-view).

Still, in the interest of improving the discourse, the Solipsist would like to provide some alternatives to the standard cliches.  Feel free to pass these along to as many professional athletes as you come across in your day-to-day lives.

"We're just trying to take things two and three-quarters games at a time."

"Well, it was a real team effort today.  I'm part of the team, and so are my teammates.  And so are the coaches and the assistant coaches and the trainers.  And they all put in effort.  And then there's the other team--over there--they made an effort.  And, y'know, the broadcasters and the timekeeper and the official scorer and the referees. . . Well, they're like the, the, the intersection in the Venn diagram of the effort that was made.  And the fans.  And the hot dog guy.  And they all gave, like, 86%, which I figure is about the maximum percentage of effort that could be given by anybody while still allowing one's body to carry on the minimum functions necessary to sustain life.  Next question."

"I just want to thank Satan for my talent."

"Well, I guess we just wanted it less.  I know I personally couldn't give a gerbil's crap."

The Web Expands

You Sloppists rule! According to the latest "Google Analytics" report, we've been clicked on by people in Germany and the United Kingdom! Only once each, but still! Today Germany, tomorrow the world!

Uh, actually, that hasn't worked out so well in the past.

The Solipsist Does It Again (Again)!

And see, not one hour after the Solipsist told everyone to calm down over the whole swine flu thing, the World Health Organization has agreed! They, too, agree that we should stop worrying about swine flu--because it's not to be called "swine flu," anymore. Henceforth, in an attempt to get Egyptians to stop slaughtering pigs and to get us Jews back on pork shops, the WHO has declared that the flu formerly known as swine should be known by its proper name, "influenza A (H1N1).

Uh. . . yeah, that's catchy.

Chill (Well, Make that 'Relax')

Look: It's just the flu, people!

Seriously, for all the hysteria and media hoop-de-doo, it's important to bear in mind that exactly one person--a toddler--has died in the U.S. so far. Tragic for the family, certainly, but let's not start sealing ourselves into plastic bubbles just yet.

Really, you stick an animal in front of a disease and all of a sudden it merits media attention. Swine flu, bird flu, monkeypox (what was THAT all about?). But pigs are cute, especially baby pigs. At least it's not tarantula flu.

So if you start to feel a bit piqued, don't panic. Call in sick. Drink plenty of fluids. Get into bed with a big stack of comic books (cocoa optional). You'll get better. And in the meantime, sure, cover your cough and wash your hands whenever they get icky (excuse the technical terminology).

*********************************************
And speaking of technical terminology, the Solipsist came across the word "necropsy" in an article on drugs in horse racing. This got him to thinking: What's the difference between a necropsy and an autopsy. Well, for you fans of precise language, it seems that, although the words are in fact used interchangeably, "necropsy" is the term veterinarians use when specifically referring to the examination of a dead animal. "Autopsy" refers to the examination of a dead human--the "auto" in "autopsy" referring not so much to the self (as it would be hard for a dead person to examine himself) but to the idea of a human examining another human. Got to love that human on human action. You're welcome.

The Solipsist Conquers Facebook!

One of the marks of a great leader is his or her ability to mix with the common folk.  Think Henry V before the Battle of Agincourt (at least as portrayed by Shakespeare) or Abraham Lincoln or our own Barack Obama.  Men of the people, all.

Well who is the Solipsist to question the wisdom of the ages?  No one, that's who!  Thus, we have descended from our summit to trod upon the earth, deigned to dirty our feet in the muddy waters of the common stream, snuggled up to the great unwashed masses of our followers (and would it kill you to take a bath once in a while?  Really, people!).

In other words, we have joined Facebook.

Now, those of you who know the Solipsist's true identity can look him up, but those of you who don't, well, you'll just have to wait to be "friended" into the inner sanctum.  Sorry, but we cannot reveal the truth here.  You understand.  Were our true identity to get out, we would undoubtedly be swamped by fans, true believers, and process servers.  Thus, for now, the traffic flow from Facebook to Blogger is strictly one way.

Nevertheless, we will provide our first impressions of this particular social networking site; we understand you've waited for this for far too long.

1) Seriously, how does anyone get any work done?  The Solipsist currently has a mere seven friends (as opposed to "friends"--i.e., these are people he actually knows), and already he finds himself unavoidably sucked into the "Walls" and "Profiles" and "Gadgets" of just that small group.  "Oh, look: So-and-so is on Facebook.  I'll add her as a friend.  And what's this on her profile?  Why, it's a quiz to find out which Beatles song I am.  Hmmm. . . .Oh what the hell! (Click.  Minutes pass.)  Well, whaddya know?  I'm 'Across the Universe.'  Funny, I would have fancied myself an 'Octopus' Garden.'  Go know."  Before you know it, it's 5:00; you've missed a class, three meetings, and a solar eclipse; still, you can't log off just yet because you're thrilling to a threaded conversation about your cousin's Weight Watchers' recipes.  You begin to think the whole thing was actually a plot to get us all navel-gazing while the terrorists sneak in and make off with the Statue of Liberty.

2) You can comment on everything on Facebook.  Kind of like a blog (hint, hint); for the shockingly lazy, however, Facebook has simplified commenting.  You can simply click a link labeled "Like."  This will indicate that you "like" what you've just read.

(Digression: Couldn't they at least have made the link a complete sentence: "I like this."  Sure, why bother with a subject when a verb will do, but come on!  The Solipsist just watched "Wall-E," and he can't shake a vision of Facebook-entranced red-jumpsuited millions floating around in high-tech wheel(less)chairs punching "Like," "Like," "Like," as their consumer preferences are gathered, collated, and submitted for examination by the faceless empire behind the curtain.  EOD.)

But what really struck the Solipsist is that, after you've "Liked" something, you can "Unlike" it.  Thus, if you decide that someone's joke really wasn't that funny, or if someone has just insulted you by calling you a Canuck, you can go back and "Unlike" the post.  (Does the comment show that someone has unliked you?)

Would that you could do this in the real world!  Relationships would end so much more neatly.  No more, "It's not you, it's me"; gone forever the "Dear John" letter and the faked death; now, we can simply go up to the object of our discontent and tell her "I unlike you."  No muss, no fuss.

3) In addition to "Friends," you can have "Fans" (only a matter of time, right, Sloppists?), and "Relatives."  The somewhat disconcerting part is that, as with "Friends," when you want to add people as "Relatives," they have to confirm their status.  Fair play--

(Digression: We like that expression--"fair play."  Thanks, Emi Ha.  EOD)

--As we were saying: Fair play, but it's still disconcerting to receive an e-mail message indicating that "So-and-so is related to the Solipsist."  Especially when the So-and-so in question is the Solipsist's father!  (DOS?)  We suppose we should be reassured, but it's one of those confirmations that we never thought we would need to hear.  It's kind of like receiving a telegram letting you know that you do, in fact, have ankles.  Better that than the alternative, but nobody was asking in the first place.

Well, that's it for today folks.  We're off to link this post to our Facebook account.  The Solipsist movement will grow!

Huh?

"Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE!
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."
--The Princess Bride

The Solipsist received an e-mail at work today. He won't bother you with the actual text, but here's the gist:

"If you need help, I can meet you next Tuesday. If you can't meet on Tuesday because of your busy schedule (pun intended), Wednesday's OK."

Pun intended? Is the Solipsist missing something? Does the writer not know what "pun" means? And if not, what did he MEAN to use?

Perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on the man. He is offering to help. Maybe he's just interested in writing wrongs.

Pun intended.

The March of Progress

Unknown BC: Unheralded caveman invents the wheel.
1455: Gutenberg prints the Bible.
1610: Galileo discovers the moons of Jupiter and the phases of the moon.
1879: Thomas Edison develops the lightbulb.
1904: The Wright Brothers fly at Kitty Hawk, NC.
1969: Neil Armstrong walks on the moon.
2009: South Korean scientists develop glow-in-the-dark beagles.

Grammar Lesson

In today's Times, a sentence in an article about the growing number of atheists, contains the following clause: "An overflow audience of more than 100 had showed up for their most recent public symposium. . . ."

Anybody else have a problem with "had showed"?  How you answer that question may depend on how you feel about, say, the past tense of the verb "to dive": Dove?  Dived?  Either?

Languages are constantly changing, and they tend to move toward grammatical simplification.  Just think about "thou."  It's not an old-fashioned word for "you," not exactly, anyway.  It's the equivalent of the Spanish, "tu," which is to say that it's the familiar form of the second-person pronoun.  English used to make the distinction between familiar and formal, as other languages like Spanish and French still do.  No longer, though.  Now "you" can be one's best friend or someone one has just met.  A bit of elegance lost, perhaps, but just the way languages work.

And verbs simplify as well.  So irregular verbs tend to become more and more "regular" as time goes by.  The past tense of "dive" was always "dove," but now, more and more, you see "dived."  And if today's Times article is any indication, a similar transformation is underway for "show."  In the past, one had shown someone something, but now, apparently, someone has showed something else.  It doesn't yet sound right, but give it 20 years.

Random Thoughts and Observations

Latest Sign that People Are Officially Out of Ideas

Kelly Clarkson's new song is entitled, without apparent irony, "My Life Would Suck Without You."

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

Happiness

Yesterday was another good baseball day for the Solipsist: Mets won, and the Yankees lost to Boston 16-11.  This particular defeat included the loss of a 6-run lead.

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

Homers

Today wasn't as rewarding, though.  The Mets lost to the Washington Nationals, 8-1.  Disappointing.  But the Solipsist would like to make an observation about Bob Carpenter and Rob Dibble, the on-air "talent" for the Nationals.  The Solipsist subscribes to one of these MLB TV packages, where you get to see games from all over the country (in case you were wondering how YNSHC gets to watch the Mets despite living in Northern California).  You never know, though, whose video feed you're going to see.  Sometimes it's the Mets', sometimes it's the other teams'.

Now, in the world of sports broadcasting, some announcers are known as "homers," i.e., people who are unabashedly partisan about the home team.  Phil Rizzuto, who used to do local broadcasts for the Yankees, was a great example.  He made no secret of his loyalties: If the Yankees won, he was happy, and when the other team scored, he was upset.  Rizzuto, however, was a throwback.  He was an older announcer, and for his generation, this sort of "homerism" was expected.  Plus, he PLAYED for the Yankees in the 1940s and 1950s--did anyone think he was going to root against them?  Or, seriously, remain neutral.

Still, "homers" are a bit out of fashion these days.  Broadcasters have a more "journalistic" image these days: They should strive for general impartiality.

Which brings us to Carpenter and Dibble.

They are homers--RABID homers, which seems a bit extreme, considering that Dibble, a former relief pitcher, never played for the Nationals or their previous incarnation, the Montreal Expos.  As for Carpenter, he IS a professional broadcaster.  To go back to Rizzuto for a moment, even during his wildest pro-Yankee ramblings, he had the calming influence of Bill White to bring him back to earth.  Carpenter, on the other hand, is an enabler.

Here's the kind of thing we're talking about: In the first inning today, the Nationals' pitcher, Jordan Zimmerman, had two strikes on the Mets' Jose Reyes.  Reyes checked his swing on a ball in the dirt.  The catcher appealed to the third-base umpire to see if Reyes had swung.  The umpire said he had not.  After viewing the replay, Dibble and Carpenter concluded that Reyes HAD swung and were indignant that their young pitcher wasn't getting a call.  Later in that inning, the same thing happened with Carlos Delgado at the plate.  Again, an appeal to third; again, the umpire said no swing; again Carpenter and Dibble fumed.

Now, checked swings occur numerous times every game, and numerous times the pitcher and/or catcher will appeal a "no-swing" call to the first or third base umpire.  Most of the time, the umpire will uphold the no-swing call.  And, frankly, most of the time the replay looks like the player swung.  Indeed, the Solipsist will even agree that Delgado went around.

But Dibble and Carpenter kept going on and on and on about the umpire's ineptness in "blowing" the swing/no-swing call.  They were still talking about it in, like, the 4th inning, by which point the Nationals were AHEAD 4-1!

Guys, it's a Sunday afternoon game three weeks into the season.  We're not talking Game 7 of the World Series, here.  Relax!  These things have a way of evening out over the course of a season.  (Not that the Washington Nationals are going to the World Series.  They're 3-11.  A third-base umpire's non-call on a borderline play is the least of their worries.)