The Unbearable Coolness of Lighting

Like Priuses and low-flow toilets, light emitting diodes (LEDs) are current "it" girls of green tech.  Whereas standard light bulbs burn out after a few months, and compact fluorescents contain dangerous quantities of mercury, LED fixtures contain no harmful chemicals and last about as long as Wagner's "Ring Cycle" or a typical season of "American Idol"--that is, they go on and on and on until at some point you just look up and say, "Good Lord!  Hasn't this thing died yet?"  Which, admittedly, is a desirable quality in a light fixture.

But while LEDs are useful, one wouldn't normally think of them as exciting.  So we were amused by some quotes in "Green Promise Seen in Switch to LED Lighting":

"Brian Owen, a contributor to the trade magazine LEDs, said. . . ."

The quote's not really important.  We were just surprised to find out that there was still a whole magazine devoted to LEDs.  We thought it had folded ages ago; the Solipsist cancelled its subscription back in '04.

"Ted Van Hyning, director of event technology at the Renaissance Hotel in Cleveland, said the new LED lights in the hotel's conference rooms use 10 percent of the electricity of the fluorescent lights they replaced. . . . .'We have six-figure energy costs a year, and these lights could represent a huge saving.  Besides, they're cool and sexy and fun.'"

So, if you're keeping track, "cool, sexy, fun things in Cleveland":

--LeBron James

--The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

--LED lighting at the Renaissance Hotel

"Buoyed by the improvements in the technology, Peter Byrne, a lighting designer and energy consultant for Buckingham Palace, installed the 32,000 [!] custom LEDs in the ceiling of the grand stairwell when older fixtures wore out. . . .  'They need high-quality light--they have a lot of gold,' he said, 'and gold tends to look silver if you light it poorly.'"

See, British royalty is just like us!  Why, just the other day, we were expressing concern to WOS that, if we switched to LEDs, it would make all our gold look silvery and hideous. We would barely be able to tolerate sitting on the toilet in the leprous reflection of poorly lit gold bathroom fixtures.  Thank you, Your Highness, for (literally) lighting the way.

 

Plinky Agonistes

Sigh!  All right, Plinky, let's see what you've got:

"What's the most important thing you've learned lately?"

Before we get to that, an explanation for those of you who may just be joining us.  Plinky, as we mentioned in our post of May 18, is a "topic generator" for the uninspired blogger.  Feeling a touch of writer's block?  Well, check out the daily "Plinky prompt," and you'll never be at a loss for words.  The problem is that the prompts themselves are rather uninspiring: the kind of thing a writing teacher might assign on the first day of class.  "Don't worry.  This won't be graded.  I just want to get a sense of where you're at. . . ."  Yawn.

So we've resisted the lure of Plinky, but, today, we just can't come up with anything.

See, the problem is, The Solipsist really isn't about anything.  Most blogs have a focus.  If you blog about, say, golf, then every day you just share some bit of golf arcana or your predictions for the U.S. Open.  If you blog about politics, well, there's always something horrendous to write about there.

More importantly, if your blog is about "something," then other enthusiasts of said something will seek you out.  They'll give you their own pointers for "striking the perfect mudwucket" (which we believe is a technical golf term).  Or they'll slip you the latest dirt on Judge Sonia Sotomayor's college days as a field entomologist with Greenpeace.

The Solipsist, in contrast, is proudly about nothing.  Sure, we'll ramble on and on about politics or baseball or reality television or the greeting rituals of the modern teenager.  But we're not obliged to write about anything in particular.  We're the "Seinfeld" of blogs.

Of course, "nothing" was good enough to keep Jerry Seinfeld in cereal and comic books for nine seasons or so.

All right, so, we're about nothing.  Fine.  Nothing (heh) wrong with addressing a Plinky prompt once in a while then, right?

"What's the most important thing you've learned lately?"

Look, it's not like we haven't had ideas!  Just today, during a conversation, we had an idea for a story about a college offering a major in "Messianism."  Seemed like it had some potential.   Y'know, courses could include "Introductory Resurrection" and "The Politics of the Rapture."  But then we got stuck.  The problem is that, while it may or may not have potential, it probably doesn't work as a blog post.  More of a short story idea.  Or perhaps a skit.  Basically, it's the kind of thing a writer jots down in his notebook.  This writer has terrible handwriting, though, so it gets thrown on the blog instead.

"What's the most important thing you've learned lately?"  Probably that if one keeps putting words down, ultimately one can generate enough text to produce a satisfactory blog entry and thus avoid Plinky for at least one more day!

No Love in Homeroom!

Why don't Mormons believe in pre-marital sex?

They're afraid it might lead to dancing.

--Old joke

From today's Times:

"For Teenagers, Hello Means 'How About a Hug?'

"Girls embracing girls, girls embracing boys, boys embracing each other--the hug has become the favorite social greeting when teenagers meet or part these days. . . .  Comforting as the hug may be, principals across the country have clamped down. . . . Schools that have limited hugging invoked longstanding rules against public displays of affection, meant to maintain an atmosphere of academic seriousness and prevent unwanted touching, or even groping."

Well, the Solipsist couldn't agree more!  Why, it seems that if high-school students aren't gunning each other down in pre-meditated massacres, they're running around hugging each other!

Must be all that senseless affection in video games.  Just last week, Video Game Review's top titles included, "Halo 4: Assault on Cuddletown," "Grand Theft My Heart," and "Left 4 Dead 3: Zombies Need Love, Too."

No doubt teens will protest such heavy-handed policies.  Fear not, though, kids, Uncle Solipsist has done some research.  Here is a list of acceptable alternative greeting activities, as approved by the National Association of Greeting Standards (NAGS):

--High-Fiving

--High-Fouring (especially popular at leper colony high schools)

--Spontaneous square-dancing

--Suckling

--The "Klingon"  (sort of a high-speed chest-bump, followed by a cry of "KA-PLAH!!!!")

--Guinea-pig exchange

Principals nationwide have expressed approval for these greeting rituals.  NAGS will update the list as needed.

Five-Legged Sheep

"How many legs does a sheep have, if you call a tail a leg?

"Four.  Calling a tail a leg does not make it one."

                              --Old riddle.

First, a stipulation:

We have no objection to gays and lesbians getting married.  If that's what they want to do, more power to 'em.

Now, on to a discussion of yesterday's California Supreme Court ruling.

For the benefit of our out-of-state and/or clueless readers, the background:

Back in November, while the rest of the country (and, indeed, most of California too) reveled in the election of our first African-American President, the Dross State witnessed its own personal civil rights setback.  A group of right-wing lunatics. . .  sorry, crypto-fascists. . . no, wait, that's not it. . . ah, yes, "concerned citizens" somehow managed to convince a majority of this otherwise enlightened state to pass Proposition 8.

Prop 8 amended the state's constitution to establish that "marriage" could refer only to a union between a man and a woman (presumably ONE man and ONE woman, although the indefinite article leaves a bit of wiggle room).  This act overturned judicial rulings earlier in the year that gave same-sex couples the right to marry.  As you would expect, the "No on 8" forces were stunned by the results, and they sued to overturn the overturning.  Their argument essentially hinged on whether Proposition 8 was an amendment or a revision to the state constitution.  If the latter, then the ballot initiative itself would be unconstitutional, as a revision can only be placed on the ballot by a 2/3 vote of the state legislature (as opposed to a simple petition drive).

Are you following?

OK, so, yesterday, the courts ruled that Prop 8 was, indeed, an amendment, and, as such, it was legitimately placed on the ballot.  Therefore, the election results stood, and the constitutional amendment passed.

Crypto-fascists - 1 (well, 2, actually), liberals - 0.

Sad result, but the Solipsist would like to ask everyone to relax.

Relax, everyone.

First, this was not a ruling against gay marriage.  It was a ruling about an electoral procedure.  The court itself is largely sympathetic to same-sex couples, as evidenced by the apparently contradictory fact that the court, at the same time it upheld Prop 8, also declared that those couples who had gotten married before Prop 8 went into effect were still married.

Second, same-sex couples today have the exact same rights they had yesterday, except for the right to call their unions "marriages."  According to an article in today's Times, Karl Manheim, a professor at Loyola Law School Los Angeles says, "claiming that the word 'marriage' is essentially symbolic is like telling black people that sitting in the back of the bus is not important as long as the front and the back of the bus arrive at the same time."

Well, no, it's not like that at all.

Prof. Manheim correctly suggests that both the use of the word 'marriage' and the forcing of blacks to sit in the back of the bus are essentially symbolic acts.  What Manheim and others must remember, though, is that, in the case of the segregated south, symbols took the form of actions--actions that physically manifested underlying racist attitudes.  On the other hand, whether we call a loving union a 'marriage' or not remains confined to the realm of the symbolic.  Words are symbols, and what we're arguing about here is words.

To put it another way, let's say the court had overturned Prop 8.  Then, presumably, same-sex couples could rejoice that they could say they were "married."  And the supporters of Prop 8? Would they suddenly start referring to their gay and lesbian neighbors as married couples, inviting them over for brunch and bridge?  Doubtful.  You see, in their eyes, these people can NEVER be married, no matter what a court or a legislature or an executive decides, because to them, a marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

Calling a tail a leg will never make it a leg.  At the same time, though, if you choose to call a tail a leg, and all your friends call a tail a leg, and the vast majority of people around the world understand that you call a tail a leg and respect your decision to do so. . . . You see where we're going?  

Which brings us to, third, it's only a matter of time before same-sex couples have the right to marry in California.  For Pete's sake, Iowa--IOWA!!!--has legalized same-sex marriage.  Does anyone really think California is going to let itself be out-liberaled by flyover country for long?  The trend in society is toward more openness, more tolerance, more live-and-let-live.  If the "No on 8" crowd wants the Solipsist's advice (and how could they not?), they should simply take their cue from the court.  Get a referendum on the next ballot that amends the constitution to repeal this amendment.  And while they're at it, maybe they could get an amendment on the ballot to rationalize California's budget process? Probably too much to ask.

Look, if it were up to the Solipsist, the state would get out of the marriage business altogether.  Civil unions for everybody (if that)!  If you want to get married in a church or a mosque or a synagogue or a Moonie compound, go with your God.  What does the government know about love anyway?

In the meantime, same-sex couples, you're married!  The best thing you can do is keep insisting on it, keep holding your wedding ceremonies, keep referring to your husbands and wives and in-laws until the whole thing becomes the most common-place, unremarkable thing in the world.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a 5-legged sheep!

Letters to Obama

Dear President Obama,

We received your e-mail, informing us of your choice of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court.  Although "born in the Bronx" and "Supreme Court nominee" are two phrases we never expected to see in the same sentence, she seems like a very nice lady.  Still, we think you should give the Solipsist another look.

Oh, sure, when it comes to things like "qualifications" and "legal acumen," Judge Sotomayor is probably a more conventional choice.  But isn't that the point?  Don't you want to make your mark?  Yes, yes, it's all well and good that she will be the first Hispanic justice.  But let's face it: Hispanics are the fastest growing ethnic group in the U.S.  It would seem to be only a matter of time before someone got around to appointing a Hispanic justice.  Because we like you, though, we are offering you a truly historic opportunity to be the first President to nominate someone with absolutely no credentials whatsoever!

(We know what you're thinking: Bush I beat you to that with Thomas.  But, y'know, he looked OK on paper.  The Solipsist barely looks OK in the mirror!)

And if you're looking to 2012, may we suggest that having inroads to the Latino vote is useful; having inroads to the desperately-unqualified-for-anything vote, however, would be a sure path to a landslide.

Respectfully yours,

The Solipsist

A Republic, Not a Democracy

(Yes, we are ashamed at paraphrasing Pat Buchanan for today's title, but it's apropos.)

This may come as a shock, but the United States of America is not a democracy.  That's not some snide comment on the depredations of President W. and others throughout American history; it's simple fact.

A democracy is defined as a system of government whereby the people rule--directly and unequivocally.  In a democracy, decisions are made by popular vote, and, if there is a representative body (e.g., Congress), then democratically elected members are expected to follow the will of their constituents without fail.

By contrast, the United States is a republic.  This is similar to a democracy in certain ways, but with at least one key difference.  In a republic, the (democratically elected) representatives are allowed to follow their own beliefs and vote however they want on issues.  Thus, a politically unpopular measure, like raising taxes, even if opposed by the majority of a particular representative's consitutents, can still succeed if the representative feels, deep down, that it is in the best interest of society as a whole.  Certainly, the representative then faces negative personal repercussions (i.e., being voted out of office), but he has ultimately done nothing wrong.

The reason for this civics lesson is recent events in California, current homeland of the Solipsist.  If you've been following the news, you know that California is essentially broke: The state nickname, in fact, has been changed to the Dross State.  This is largely a result of the nationwide financial crisis.  In California, however, things are complicated by the fact that the powers-that-be at some point in history forgot the fact that California, like other states, is supposed to be a republic.

California, you see, is ballot happy.  When it comes to budgetary measures, the state constitution provides that any major initiatives must be approved by statewide referenda (this after passing the legislature with a 2/3 majority--a herculean task in and of itself).  So, instead of acting with all deliberate haste in dealing with a financial crisis, the state first has to come up with suggestions, submit them to the popular will, and then, IF they are approved, put them into effect.

Ah, but what if they're not approved?

Well, that's what we're dealing with now.  The governor proposed a series of measures, including tax increases, service cuts, and reshuffling of funds, in order to close a  20-something billion dollar budget gap.  These measures all failed (the sole measure that passed was one prohibiting pay increases for legislators during times of financial exigency--whoo-hoo!).  But were we really surprised?  In the history of ever, how many times have people DIRECTLY voted to have their own taxes raised?

And there's the problem with democracy.  One person, a representative, no matter how much he or she may personally dislike a policy, may ultimately be convinced to take action for the public good.  But how do you convince several million people to vote against their own immediate interest?

The democratic model takes the heat off the representatives to a certain extent, but at what cost?  Interestingly, people may vote for a candidate who levels with them and tells them that he or she will raise taxes in order to pay for essential services (see Bill Clinton and, indeed, Barack Obama).  They just won't pull the lever themselves for the actual policies.

The good news is that California's mess is prompting near-unprecedented calls for a new constitutional convention to straighten out this mess.  The bad news?  Before any new convention could be convened, it would have to be approved by a referendum.  

Since we started with a Pat Buchanan paraphrase, we'll end with one by a perhaps more palatable American: "The masses," according to Alexander Hamilton, "are asses."

Sunday Paper Recap

Once is occasion.  Twice is repetition.  Three times is tradition.  So, we guess this is now a tradition.

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

First, we know we talked about this the other day, but, really, this whole closing Guantanamo thing is getting ridiculous.  We understand why people wouldn't necessarily want Guantanamo detainees relocated to their neighborhoods, just as many people wouldn't want maximum security prisons across the street from their children's schools.  At the same time, though, people have maximum security prisons in their neighborhoods.  For some communities, prisons are huge sources of revenues and jobs.  And these prisons house populations that are just as if not more dangerous than that of Gitmo.  Remember, maximum security prisoners have actually been convicted of things like assault, rape, and murder, as opposed to those detainees who are only being held preventively.  Politicians need to realize that keeping open that recruiting poster for Al-Qaeda endangers Americans just as surely as would closing it and transporting the prisoners elsewhere.

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

Also, we can't help but be a bit concerned about President Obama's assertion that some of these prisoners are too dangerous ever to be released but may not be able to stand trial.  He is talking about gaining some kind of authorization for indefinite preventive detention.  He seems to be talking about an American Gulag.  Keep your eyes open.

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

What a difference a space makes.

We know this is just a typo, and we're not making a big deal about it, but we thought this was an interesting sentence in the sports section.  In an article about Indy-car driver Helio Castroneves, who was recently acquitted of tax evasion charges, we find the sentence: 

"Castroneves and his sister turned themselves in to federal authorities in Miami on Oct. 3. . . ."

Only it didn't actually say that; it said they "turned themselves into federal authorities."

So, for those of you preposition fans (we know you're out there), that space makes all the difference between surrender and transformation.  There's something kind of poetic about that.