Corrections

It happens to the best of us.  And we are the best of us, so we're no exception.

We are talking, of course, about making mistakes.  It's unavoidable really.  When you consider the tremendous deadline pressure we are under to bring truth--make that, TRUTH--to the world, it's a wonder we get even half of what we're saying right.  And so, in the spirit of TRUTH, and in imitation of the great journalistic bastions to which we wish to be compared, we offer here the first in an occasional series of CORRECTIONS:

The capital of Japan is not Moosejaw.

Due to en editing error, we erroneously reported that "Mr. Simon Lepz of North Bergen, NJ, was found guilty of snatching, bludgeoning, and parboiling baby ducks."  The sentence should have read, "Mr. Simon Lepz of North Bergen, NJ, was found not guilty of snatching, bludgeoning, and parboiling baby ducks."  We apologize to Mr. Lepz's family.

There is, in fact, no 'i' in team.  We don't know how that one got past us.

Speaking of 'i's, in a report on the recreational harpooning industry, we inadvertently left out the fourth 'i' in 'pneumonoultramicriscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.'

Due to an overindulgence in cake, we were in a bit of a stupor when we composed our piece on the fauna of Madagascar.  There are not, in fact, more than 16 million species of dolphin on the island.  We meant lemurs.

Zoltan Gyongyossy is a modern Hungarian flutist.  He is not a James Bond villain.

In a piece about good dinnertime conversation topics, we should not have included, "Pooh."

We regret the errors.

Nobody Ages Gracefully in Yogurt Commercials

We feel bad for Jamie Lee Curtis.  From her debut in "Halloween" (1978) through such classics as "Trading Places" (1983) and "A Fish Called Wanda" (1988), she had a nice little film career.  She was the sexy woman who could do comedy--and do it well, too: How many leading ladies do you know who could do comedic scenes with Eddie Murphy, Dan Ackroyd, Kevin Kline, John Cleese, and Michael Palin without being completely upstaged?

Now, though?  She's doing commercials for Activia, a Dannon yogurt product that helps women stay regular (now there's a euphemism).  

Of course, there's nothing particularly new or shocking about celebrities "slumming" as they grow older.  Bills must be paid, after all.  And if Orson Welles could shill for frozen peas, and Joe DiMaggio could pitch Mr. Coffee, then Jamie Lee Curtis certainly isn't too big to sell dairy products.

What strikes us as sad about Jamie Lee's situation is the way the commercial acknowledges Curtis' fall from stardom--and, more than that, the way the commercial, in this post-ironic age, forces Curtis to acknowledge this decline herself.  In the TV spot, a supermarket shopper exclaims, "Hey, it's the Activia Lady!"  Jamie Lee, still attractive but now silver-haired, looks at the camera, shrugs, gives a half smile and says, "That's my name now!"  The line is delivered with good humor, but you can practically hear the subtext: "What the hell happened to my career?  Sigourney Weaver doesn't do yogurt commercials!"

We suppose it's hard to age in Hollywood.  Those who had any dignity to begin with must find it more and more difficult to maintain it as the years go by.

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

Also, a big Solipsistic welcome to our newest follower, "Jess" (if that is her real name)!  We don't know who you are, but welcome to the Sloppists (yes, that's what you guys are called--you may want to rethink your followership).  We look forward to your comments!

The High Cost of Quitting

How much does it cost to quit smoking? Not in emotional/physiological terms, but in terms of actual money? We're thinking, "Very little." In fact, one could reasonably assume that quitting smoking--or drinking or shooting heroin or sniffing glue or gambling or any number of other socially undesirable activities--would actually save money. You'd have at your disposal all that extra cash that you've been doling out on your bad habits. Indeed, this could be one of the strongest arguments for giving up said habits.

This occurred to us as we pondered the news that congressional Democrats were balking at authorizing an expenditure of some $80 million to close the prison camps at Guantanamo Bay. Now in fairness, it's not so much the "expenditure" part to which they object, as it is the "to close the prison camps" part: They're worried about what happens next to the potentially dangerous inmate population. NIMBY-ism rears its ugly head--arguably with good reason, as a Pentagon report cited in today's Times concludes that about 1 in 7 freed detainees return eventually to terrorist activity. Still, you can assume a less than 15% chance that the released detainee next door is a terrorist and a better than 85% chance that he is a hilarious neighbor in the mold of Lenny, Squiggy, or Jack (from "Will and Grace").

But getting back to the $80 million: We think this seems an unnecessarily large amount of money. How much does it cost to just say, "OK, folks. Prison's closed!" Presumably, you need some money to transport the soldiers who've been guarding the place back to the U.S. But other than that, what else do you need money for? The last person out could just leave the gate open, and the detainees can either hang out or make their way to Havana, where they will still get free (and apparently high quality) health care.

Yes, this sounds callous, and we are being somewhat facetious. At the same time, though, if you asked the detainees which they would prefer--to be set free in something like the manner described above or to continue sitting around in crowded cells for an indefinite and potentially endless period--which do you think they would choose? We're not sure the answer is obvious.

So, in this spirit, we offer to President Obama our solipsistic services as prison-camp-closing experts. And as you can see, we will not be needing 80 million hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

We'll do it for $75,000,000.

Perfect Priorities

The article: "Gay Marriage Slow to Draw an Opposition in N.Y."

The gist: Conservatives inside and outside of New York State government are having difficulty rallying the faithful to defeat a bill allowing same-sex marriage.  People offer various theories as to why there is such a relative lack of outcry over this invariably touchy topic.  Of course, we think the answer is fairly simple: (A) New York is essentially a liberal state, and (B) people are probably just tired of fighting over this and being on the wrong side of what is essentially a civil rights issue.

The quote that caught the Solipsist's eye:  The reporter explains that even the Catholic Church has been relatively quiet on the issue:

(Digression: Is that proper colon use?  Do we need a period in there somewhere?  EOD)

"The state's Roman Catholic bishops have been somewhat distracted, too, having focused their lobbying energies this session on defeating a bill that would extend the statute of limitations for victims of sexual abuse to bring civil claims, and have appeared unprepared for the battle over marriage."

So, if you're keeping track at home, the Catholic Church's priorities, in descending order of importance, are as follows:

1) Denying the civil rights of people who have been raped by priests.

2) Denying the civil rights of homosexuals in loving, committed relationships.

3) Denying the civil rights of women who want to be able to have an abortion.

4) Denying the civil rights of women who don't want to be able to have abortions, but might want to be priests.

5) Denying the civil rights of Jews/Muslims/Buddhists?  (We're speculating here, but, heck, prove us wrong.)

And then, presumably, if there's time, helping the poor and downtrodden, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, etc.

We're sure Jesus would be proud.

Gronk's Demise

Big entertainment news on the front page of Yahoo!:

Chace (sic) Crawford will be playing the Kevin Bacon part in an upcoming remake of "Footloose"!

Two questions:

1) Who?

2) Remake of "Footloose"?!?

Why remake perfection?!?  (We'll let you ponder whether that's sincere or sarcastic.)

(Digression: Spell check underlines BOTH words in Chace Crawford's name, but neither in Kevin Bacon's.  Just saying.)

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

On another topic.

There's a stand-up comic (we forget who) who has a routine where he riffs on the fact that, when people are asked to name their greatest fear, the second most common answer is, "Death."  The most common answer is, "Public speaking."  This means that more people would rather be shot in the head than stand up in front of an audience.  Toastmasters, not firefighters, are truly the bravest of the brave.

But why is this so?  Sure, it can be intimidating to stand up and talk to a group of people, particularly a group of strangers and particularly if you're not as well prepared as you could be.  But still, to prefer death?!?  The question is, What is it that people think is going to happen to them?  OK, maybe the speech will bomb.  Maybe nobody will laugh at the jokes.  Maybe people will make fun of the way you look or dress or smell.  But, ultimately, so what?  Why do people care so much?

Many (if not most) fears can be attributed to our reptile brains.  We presumably fear snakes or spiders or large predatory animals because, at some point in our evolution, avoiding these things was a good way to continue, y'know, not dying.  (Come to think of it, it's probably still a pretty good survival strategy.)  But public speaking?  When was it an evolutionary disadvantage to get up in front of an audience?

Gronk: [Tapping on a rock to get the group's attention] Unk!  Urga-murga!  Ooooga, booog!

[Various murmurs of assent from the assembled cavemen.]

Gronk: [Continuing]  Onk-orga-blok.  Mop Limbaugh!  Crahg!

Plook: [Raises a finger and rises]  Uh. . . Crahg?

Gronk: Crahg!

Plook:  Ahn-Crahg!

Gronk: Crahg!

Plook: AHN-CRAHG!!!!

Gronk:  Crahg!  Crahg!  CRAHG!!!!

[Plook hurls a stegosaurus femur at Gronk's head, crushing his skull against the cave wall.]

Plook:  Huf. . . Ahn-Crahg!

Well, we suppose we can see where public speaking could have been evolutionarily disadvantageous.

 

Summertime Blues

Plinky looms ominously in the back of our mind.  If you don't know what Plinky is, there's a link to it on the right side of "The Solipsist."  It's basically a "topic generator."  We haven't explored the site that much, but every day the good folks at Plinky provide a topic on which one can blog.  We thought it was a cute idea, so we stuck it on "The Solipsist."  The problem is that the topics are all kind of "meh."  Today's, for example, is, "Martha Stewart is coming over for dinner.  What do you serve?"  We suppose there is room for creativity there, but at the same time, it leaves us a bit cold.  It sounds like something a desperate host of a dying dinner party would throw out in the hope of convincing people to at least stick around for dessert.  Our point is, we always have "Plinky" as a fallback if we can't think of anything to talk about, but we feel like it would be admitting defeat.

We came close today, but instead we thought we'd kvetch a bit about television.

(Digression: We could also kvetch about the fact that "kvetch" trips the spell-check.  What, no Jews at Google?!?  EOD)

TV is suddenly a vast wasteland.  What's up with the season finales of "House," "Fringe," and "Lost" all falling in the same week?  Now what are we supposed to look forward to?  It's a sign, we suppose, of how spoiled we've become with the "seasonless" TV season.  We can remember when summer was always a time of reruns and anticipation.  Over the last few years, though, it seemed like there was always something good on.  These days, though?  "Rescue Me," and that's about it--and even that, while enjoyable, is no "Lost."

By the way, we're somewhat ashamed to admit this, but we really don't get "Mad Men."  We've watched the first three episodes on DVD, and. . . well, again, "meh."  Yes, it's well acted and intelligently written--and we must say that it's absolutely beautiful to look at.  But when you consider the first three episodes as a whole. . . nothing really happens.  The central message of the show seems to be that men of the early 1960s were irredeemable chauvinist pigs, and women more or less accepted this as a fact of life.  We can see the irony underlying a lot of the characters' behavior, and we suppose the producers are making some deep meaningful point about a society and a way of life on the verge of seismic change, but, again, so what?  We'll watch the rest of season one, but so far, we're underwhelmed.

(Digression: Then again, we never understood the overwhelming appeal of "The Sopranos," either.  Another perfectly good show, but it just never really grabbed us.  The best TV show in the history of ever?  "The Wire."  Check it out.  EOD)

Speaking of "Mad Men," check out this picture (National Geographic's Picture of the Day from Saturday):

The orangutan in the London Zoo apparently enjoys mopping his own cage.  We, however, aren't sure what disturbs us more: The fact that the poor ape has to perform janitorial duties or the fact that his keeper is dressed like an extra from "Mad Men."  Is the official dress code of the London Zoo "1950s housewife"?   Any insight that Sloppists can provide will be appreciated.

Not today, Plinky!

Sunday Paper Recap

Unoriginal, we know, but it's hot outside, and we're feeling lazy.  Herewith, highlights from today's New York Times:

President Obama is still refusing to release additional pictures of "enhanced interrogation" or whatever the kids are calling it these days.  We're willing to give the Prez. the benefit of the doubt and assume he's sincere when he says he's refusing on the grounds that the photos won't provide any new information and they could further inflame anti-American sentiment.

That being said, he's wrong.

On a practical level, whose anti-Americanism is he worried about inflaming?  Let's face it, those nice folks at Al-Qaeda aren't suddenly going to decide to start grilling hot dogs on the 4th of July if the photos aren't released.  And as for driving people who are not anti-American into the "enemy camp"?  What, Canada's going to start sending suicide bombers over Niagara Falls if a few provocative pictures come out?  (That would actually make a good Onion article.)

On a philosophical level, too, we take issue with Mr. Obama.  How can he claim that "there is little to learn from [the pictures]"?  How does one know how much there is to learn from something until one has actually been exposed to it?  Understand, the Solipsist is not among those clamoring to see these new images--there's something prurient about the whole thing.  Still, the President has taken some strides towards getting this country back on the right path after eight years in the constitutional wilderness.  He shouldn't retrench over something as pointless as possibly disturbing but probably unsurprising pictures.

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

From the "Why is this front-page news?" department:

"When the toilet in Carol Taddei's master bathroom began to break down a few months ago, she decided it would be cheaper to buy a new one [and install it herself] than pay for repairs. . . .  Initially, things looked good with the flushing and the swishing.  That is, until the ceiling collapsed in the room below the new (leaky) toilet.  Rushing to get supplies for a repair, Ms. Taddei clipped a pole in her garage.  It ripped the bumper off her car, and later, several shelves holding flower pots and garden tools collapsed over her head."

A nice treatment for a Roto-Rooter commercial, maybe, but front page news for the national paper of record?  The gist of the article is that the economic crisis has forced upper-middle-class amateurs to channel--with hilariously catastrophic results--their inner Joe the Plumbers, Tool-Time Tim Allens, and Madge the Hairstylists to save money on household repairs and other personal services.  Fine, but there's something troubling about the article's prominent placement and cautionary (albeit humorous) tone.  It feels like the Times is telling its bourgeois intellectual readership (present company included) not to get its hands dirty with manual labor.  That sort of thing is best left to the blue-collar-types who read the Daily News.  

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

Who edits this stuff?

Here's a sentence from an article in the Sports section, about the statistical unlikelihood of Alex Rodriguez tipping (giving away) pitches to opposing middle-infielders.  The article makes a distinction between "low-leverage" and "high-leverage" situations (i.e., moments in games that are relatively meaningless and meaningful, respectively):

"If a tipping conspiracy were in place, one would expect that Rodriguez and rival middle-infielders in games he played to have hit better in low-leverage situations than in high-leverage ones."

We went over that sentence three times trying to figure out why it was so convoluted.  First, it appears that the "that" should come out--probably a holdover from an earlier draft.  Still, removing it only makes the sentence grammatically correct, not any clearer.  The problem seems to come from the prepositional phrase "in games he played," used to modify "rival middle-infielders."  What are the other options?

First, let's grant that the modifier is necessary--that, without it, we could be talking about any rival middle-infielders in any games.  This is a silly assumption: The article is about A-Rod tipping pitches to middle infielders; how could he have done that for people who weren't involved in the same game.  At any rate, though, as a stylistic exercise, let's say that all the information is necessary.

Why not switch the order of ideas:

"If a tipping conspiracy were in place, one would expect it to come into play in low-leverage situations.  In other words, we would expect that both Rodriguez and his opponent's middle infielders would hit better in low-leverage situations than in high-leverage ones."

That's better, right?  Now, you may object that the revision comes in at two sentences and 45 words, as opposed to the original's one (incoherent) sentence and 33 words.  All right, let's see what we can do about that:

"If a tipping conspiracy existed, it would probably come into play in low-leverage situations, when one would expect that both Rodriguez and his opponent's middle-infielders would hit better."

One sentence, 30 words, no confusion!  The lesson: Beware prepositional phrases used as adjectives.  Too many of them in too short a space leads to lack of clarity