Comebacks (A Brief Post)

Everything old is new again.

In Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected under questionable circumstances.

More and more people--and not just British royalty--are suffering from gout.

What's next?  Consumption?  Scarlet fever?  The vapors?

Seriously, what is next. . . .

Tomorrow's News Today

It's All in the Hips: Hula Hooping Parties Hot Ticket in Inner Cities"

"For Re-Election Bid, Obama Foreswears Air Travel, 'Trains Are Good Enough for Me!'"

"Christmas around the Corner, Consumers Queue at Apple Stores for Next Gen 'iRotary Phones'"

"Spielberg, Scorcese Team Up to Open, Provide Content for, New Chain of Nickelodeons"

"Stock Market Tumble Stirs Panic; Federal Intervention Seems Likely"  Oh, wait. . . that's yesterday's news.

(Image from MSNBC.com)

Cigarettes Don't Kill People. . .

Consider this sentence:

"The legislation, which the White House said President Obama would sign as soon as it reached his desk, will enable the Food and Drug Administration to impose potentially strict new controls on the making and marketing of products that eventually kill half their regular users." (Emphasis added.)

(From "Senate Approves Tight Regulation Over Cigarettes" [A1, upper right corner])

This is not a comment on the legislation.  For the record, the Solipsist is no fan of smoking or the tobacco industry, and Sloppists, of course, are welcome to leave their two cents on the new FDA rules in the comment section.  Here, however, we are interested in sentence structure and editorializing in news articles.

For you non-grammar enthusiasts (as if anyone could not be enthusiastic about grammar!), the highlighted part in the sentence above is called a relative (or adjective) clause.  Usually beginning with 'that,' 'which,' or some variation of 'who,' these clauses add information to a sentence in the same way as single-word adjectives do.

Here's the thing about relative clauses: They are not grammatically necessary.  In other words, the sentence could have ended after the word 'products' and still been a complete sentence.  True, it would have felt incomplete: ". . . will enable the Food and Drug Administration to impose potentially strict new controls on the making and marketing of products."  What "products"?  Doesn't the FDA already have the authority to impose controls on "making and marketing" of products?  So some modification, for the sake of clarity, is required.

OK, why not just say "tobacco products," then, and leave it at that?  And here's where we get some none-too-subtle editorializing.  The writer (and editor) chose to modify the word "products" with a restrictive relative clause, signaling that the information contained in the clause is vital to the meaning of the sentence.  (FYI, when describing things--as opposed to people--restrictive clauses usually begin with 'that,' and non-restrictive clauses begin with 'which').  And what is this crucial modification?  The verbal phrase "eventually kill half their regular users."

Not "that pose major health concerns."  Not "that have been linked to cancer and other fatal illnesses."  Not even "that are often lethal to regular smokers."

". . .that eventually kill half their regular users."

Even as a non-smoker who would just as soon see cigarettes disappear, the Solipsist finds this phrasing jarring and extreme, particularly in the second paragraph of a news article.  To paraphrase (reluctantly) the gun lobby: Cigarettes don't kill people; smoking them does.  And actually, smoking cigarettes doesn't "kill" people, either: It often leads to debilitating and/or fatal illnesses, but this is not the same thing as "killing."  To this writer anyway, the word 'kill' suggests either a volitional act on the part of an actor ("John killed Fred") or a sudden death under violent circumstances ("John was killed when his car crashed into a tree.")  Unless a cigarette somehow develops consciousness, and/or someone dies when a cigarette spontaneously bursts into an enormous fireball, a cigarette has never "killed" anyone.

(Digression: To say nothing of the fact that we find the claim questionable: While the article doesn't explain "regular users"--pack a day?  Two packs?  A carton?--we cannot help but say, "Wait.  Do 50% of people who smoke actually die directly from smoking-related illnesses?"  We'd love to see some back-up of that.  EOD)

Semantics?  Well, yes and no.  Words matter.  And in a newspaper, where there should be a clear distinction between news reports and editorials/opinion pieces, there is no need for this kind of pedantry on the news side.  The reporter's/editor's viewpoint comes through clearly in this sentence.  But blatant pontification in what should be an objective piece often serves only to alienate the people you most want to convince.

Notes on Commerce--Corporate, Gay, and Just Plain Silly

Talk about a thankless job!  How'd you like to be a "Special Master for Compensation."  Sure, it sounds like a title for the payroll clerk at an S&M club.  But it's nothing so exciting.

A "Special Master for Compensation" (SMC) decides who gets what.  For the executives of several bailed-out businesses (including GM and Citigroup, among others), the SMC is Kenneth R. Feinberg.  He has been appointed (to an unpaid position) by the White House to decide on fair compensation for chief executives and the 25 highest paid employees at these companies.  Considering that one of Mr. Feinberg's previous jobs was SMC for 9/11 victims, he probably considers his new position a comparative cakewalk.

We would like to wish Mr. Feinberg luck--he'll need it.  If, however, he wants any assistance, the Solipsist would like to offer his services; YNSHC would relish the opportunity to dictate salaries to humbled CEO's.

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

More reassurance on the eventual legality of same-sex marriage:

One thing on which conservatives of virtually all creeds and colors agree is that, to quote Calvin Coolidge, the business of America is business.  And same-sex marriage is good for business.  Since Connecticut legalized same-sex unions last year, the ultra-WASP haven of Greenwich has become a hotbed (so to speak) of gay marriages.  It's the first town over the border from New York, and over 140 gay and lesbian weddings have been held there so far.  And how does the horsey set feel about this veritable inundation by wild-eyed, passion-filled homosexuals?  Well, as of this writing, the Hyatt Regency Greenwich has "only" two same-sex weddings scheduled for this summer, but their general manager, Thomas C. Delaney, says "We'd like to have a lot more."  Peter J. Crumbine, a Greenwich town selectman (whatever that is) says that his little hamlet is "happy to be of service" to the gay community.

In the long run, when intolerance meets the profit motive, greed will out.  God bless America!

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

The Mr. Irrelevant News Story of the Day

"Why Round Sunglasses?  A Style Investigation"

In many ways, this has been a traumatic year.  The United States is bogged down in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan; there is turmoil in Pakistan and nuclear brinkmanship in North Korea; the American economy, once the envy of the world, continues to teeter on the edge of the abyss; every day brings reports of layoffs, foreclosures, and the struggles of the ordinary people to make ends meet.  And through it all, one question gnaws at the Solipsist, consuming his waking hours and troubling his dreams:

What's up with circular sunglasses?

Now, finally, we have an answer.  Apparently, round sunglasses are "in."  So say designers and fashionistas.  Why?  Well. . . .uh. . . just 'cause.  The intrepid reporter Eric Wilson has discussed the issue with various industry participants.  One explanation is a sudden enthusiasm for the work of Malian photographer Malick Sidibe, whose work was showcased at the Venice Biennale a couple of years ago: His portraits from the 195o's and 1960's, showing round-rimmed-bespectacled Africans celebrating the end of colonialism proved inspiring for today's designers.  Or perhaps it's a new interest in John Lennon, featured in an exhibit at New York's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Annex.  Or maybe it's the Broadway revival of "Hair."

We will never understand the fashion world nor the people who try to explain it.  People wear what they are told to wear, and they are told to wear what those "in the know" deem trendyat any given moment.  Now it's round sunglasses, next it will be bonnets or bell bottoms or leather chaps.

Why ask why?

Undrafted Articles

"China Faces Criticism Over New Software Censor"  (A8)

"Georgia Man Is Convicted of Conspiring with Terrorists" (A21)

"12 Flu Victims Have Died, and Ill May Total 550,000" (A24)

(Image from Swisseduc.ch)

Introducing "Mr. Irrelevant"

Since you'll be wanting the Solipsist's thoughts on the latest economic news--that several big banks are being allowed to repay their government bailouts--here it is.  We're in favor of it.

Look, if you lend money to someone, don't you want to get it back?  And if you get it back early, isn't that a good thing?  Sure, you might forego some interest, but that's not a consideration here.  The big worry now is that the government will lose leverage over the financial titans if said financial titans no longer hold government funds.  A realistic concern.  The solution, of course, so simple that we're sure no one in the government has considered it, is just to say to the Morgan Stanleys and Goldman Sachses and Banks of America the following:

"Great.  Your debts are paid; you can go right on back to doing what it is you do so. . . 'well' seems like the wrong word, but there it is.  However, once you repay this money, we're done.  You get into trouble again, you're on your own."

Too big to fail?  No such thing.

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

In April, the National Football League holds its college draft.  During this two-day, 7-round affair, the 30-odd NFL teams replenish their rosters with fresh collegiate meat.  Most of the attention, understandably, is given to the number-one pick and the rest of the first round draftees; these are the players expected to make immediate and/or long-lasting impact.  There is, however, a special designation for the last player selected: "Mr. Irrelevant."  The final player selected in the final round (256th overall) is generally not expected to make a huge difference--often he never even makes the pro team.  Still, for all his relative obscurity, Mr. Irrelevant is drafted; he can reasonably claim that, of thousands of college football players, he is better than all but 255 of them.  (In case you're interested, this year's Mr. Irrelevant was Ryan Succop, a kicker from South Carolina, selected by the Kansas City Chiefs.)

We thought about Mr. Irrelevant as we were perusing this morning's New York Times.  For you non-New Yorkers, a word about how the front page is organized:

The top story is placed in the upper-right hand corner, "above the fold."  (Today it was the story referenced above, about large banks being allowed to repay TARP funds.)  Two or three other major stories also appear above the fold.  Below the fold, you have another 2-3 stories that the editors consider major (today, for example, there is a piece about increasing college costs).  Finally, at the bottom of the page are some headlines of articles with one-sentence summaries.  These, presumably, are articles that the editors think you should pay attention to, but which are not considered important enough for full-blown front-page treatment.

Here at The Solipsist, we want to bring our readers all the news they need to go about their days feeling smugly well-informed.  Since we are over-opinionated jerks, we are all too happy to comment on the day's top stories.  However, it occurred to us that you Sloppists, well-read, educated, and damn good-looking folks that you are, are probably already reasonably well-informed about the page-one-above-the-fold stories.  But what about that last headline stuck onto the bottom of page one?  What about "Mr. Irrelevant"?

So, today begins a new feature, "The Mr. Irrelevant News Story of the Day."  We will provide a summary of a story to which you might not have paid attention, but which is obviously important enough for our national paper of record to spotlight (however minimally).  For purposes of comparison (and often in the interest of irony), we will also feature headlines of (and links to) several "undrafted" stories, i.e., articles that were not considered as important as "Mr. Irrelevant."  We hope you find this useful.

Mr. Irrelevant News Story of the Day

"Loving Fish, This Time with the Fish in Mind"

Mark Bittman, a food columnist for the Times, tells us about how he eats fish.  We were pleased to hear he has concerns about overfishing and the questionable environmental and nutritional value of aquaculture (i.e., fish-farming).  He encourages people who love fish (and those subjected to those people's dietary preferences) to think carefully about a fishie's provenance and perhaps to cut down on fish-eating in general.  As in all things, moderation in the consumption of orange roughy is probably a good idea.  (For the time being, however, you can apparently gorge yourself on mackerel and herring.)

"Undrafted" Stories:

"Kansas Abortion Clinic Operated by Doctor Who Was Killed Closes Permanently" (A16)

"Two Paths, Same Fate for Reporters Facing Prison"  (A16)

"Screen Actors Approve New Contract"  (B4)

Seriously, Who WOULDN"T Want to Be a Vampire?

The other night, we were watching an old(ish) science-fiction show.  In this episode, the heroes found themselves on a planet populated by androids--if you're familiar with "Blade Runner," you would call them replicants (not that this show possessed anything near the quality of "Blade Runner").  The climactic scene involved the protagonists' needing to rescue one of their own from a group of replicants, who were preparing to "download" our hero's consciousness into a new-model android: an android that looked just like our hero.  Unsurprisingly, the hero was ultimately rescued, and the whole crew escaped from Planet of the 'Droids.

Now the question is this: Why did the guy need to be rescued?

The trope of the dehumanization of human beings is a staple of the science-fiction/horror genres: androids, sure, but also pod-people, zombies, vampires, etc.  But we should examine the knee-jerk antipathy towards this process: Not all dehumanization is the same.

Paris Hilton notwithstanding, there's never been a good-looking zombie.  But think about what was going to happen to our hero in the aforementioned TV show.  He was going to have his consciousness (i.e., his thoughts, feelings, memories--everything that really made him "him") downloaded into an android body that looked exactly like him but that would presumably never grow old, never get sick, never die, and have superior strength and endurance.

Rescue?  Please!  Where do we sign up?

Or vampires.  Sure, you have to give up afternoon strolls (although if current pop-fiction is any indication, even this restraint is optional).  But think about what you get in return: eternal life, the ability to turn into a bat, and apparently enough sex appeal to melt lead.  What about the whole, "having to kill innocent people to live" thing?  Well, if Twilight is reliable, you apparently don't even need to do that: small animals can slake one's bloodlust.  (We could be wrong about this; not being a thirteen-year-old girl, we haven't actually read the Twilight series.)

The mere thought of "dehumanization" is not, in and of itself, scary because dehumanization is a fact of modern life.  Science is moving us quickly toward the post-human.  Gene therapy, for example, holds the promise of vastly increased human life span and enhanced physical abilities.  While there is no shortage of dystopic visions of the world to come (see "Gattaca," for a powerful example), it is not enough for a story simply to posit one's "loss of humanity" as a source of horror.  Too many of us relish the thought of losing some of our humanity in exchange for something we expect will be better.

In the meantime, if you run into any vampires looking for converts, please send them the Solipsist's way.

Don't be SAD (Sorry.)

Of course, maybe hockeyists are just susceptible to ulcerative colitis. . . .

But if that's so, then it may also be the case that baseball players have a pronounced vulnerability to mental disorders.  We may be exiting the steroid-era only to enter the Paxil age. 

According to an article in yesterday's Times, a number of prominent baseball players, including Dontrelle Willis of Detroit, Khalil Greene of St. Louis, and Zack Greinke of Kansas City, all suffer or have suffered from Social Anxiety Disorder (which is basically just what it sounds like).

(Digression: Detroit, Kansas City, St. Louis. . . . Maybe it's just depressing to play baseball in flyover country?  We'd be anxious too if we lived somewhere where the biggest Saturday-night activity is shuttering automotive plants.  EOD)

Now, the Solipsist--whose own hold on sanity is tenuous at best--is sympathetic to those suffering from mental illness.  But the sudden prevalence of these social-anxiety-disorder diagnoses is one of those things that make you go "hmmm."

(Digression: We can't help but wonder if there's something to the fact that this disorder acronymizes (?) as "SAD" but that nobody actually uses that acronym.  Are we simply meant to feel clever for noticing it?  Is it meant to be subliminal?  Discuss.  EOD)

Look, the basic symptomology of SAD (there, we did it) is that people are, well, extraordinarily anxious in social situations, to the point where they cannot function.  Now, take Dontrelle Willis.  Here was a young man who electrified the major leagues when he came up in 2003 with the Florida Marlins.  He was named rookie of the year, and he helped his team win the World Series (over the Yankees, no less, for which he will always have a special place in the Solipsist's heart).  This kind of performance--this kind of career choice in general--would hardly seem possible for someone who cannot function around large groups of people.

Baseball can be a harsh game: The difference of a few centimeters in the place where bat meets ball can be the difference between a home run and a weak grounder.  And on the pitching side, a few inches in any direction can be the difference between a strikeout, a walk, or, indeed, a home run.  It's precise.  And baseball history is full of players who soar one year only to crash the next.

It's more than understandable that the Dontrelle Willises of the world--and the teams that employ them--would want to find an explanation, especially one that could be ameliorated by simple administration of anti-depressants.  But, frankly, a human arm repeatedly throwing a ball over 90 miles an hour to a precise location practically defies the laws of physics.  Maybe the laws of physics just catch up with some players sooner than others.

Oh, Say Can UC? (Sorry)

Fernando Pisani is living with ulcerative colitis (or UC) (not to be confused with the University of California, which due to budget cuts is suffering its own stomach pains these days--hyuk!) (but we digress).

Who's Fernando Pisani, you ask?  Well, you could look him up in the handy-dandy Google search bar atop "The Solipsist" (talk about shameless sponsor sucking-up), but we will tell you: He is a hockey player (Hockeyist?  Hockeyator?  Sorry, it's not a sport we follow).  We know he suffers from UC because of his presence as a television spokesplayer for a UC organization, "In the Zone for Ulcerative Colitis" (or ITZFUC--oooh, bad acronym there).

Yesterday, WOS and the Solipsist were watching TV when Pisani's commercial came on.  WOS perhaps uncharitably commented that this guy has no charisma whatsoever.  (He DOES suffer from UC--that could sap the verve from anybody.)  She wondered why the UC organization would hire HIM as a spokesperson, instead of someone more charismatic like, say, Magic Johnson or Shaquille O'Neal.

Now, the obvious answer is that neither Magic nor Shaq suffers from UC.  But then we got to wondering if that was, in fact, an important consideration.  After all, Magic can probably afford to buy his own ottomans (say), but that doesn't stop his doing commercials for Rent-a-Center.  (For that matter, we assume his personal accountant doesn't work for Jackson-Hewitt.)  He does those ads because he is paid well for doing them.  If the folks at "In the Zone for UC" really wanted to draw attention to this disease, wouldn't it have been better for them to hire a spokesman with some panache (even a non-UC sufferer)?

One can imagine that meeting:

In the Zone for UC: Magic, we want you to be the face of ulcerative colitis!

Magic: But I don't HAVE ulcerative colitis!

ITZFUC: You don't?

Magic: I don't!

ITZFUC: Not even for. . . .ONE-MILLION DOLLARS?!?

Magic: Oh!  My tummy!

Tomorrow: More on athletes and the trendy diseases they have!