Loading the Canon

Today's word: Canonical.

Authorized.  Respected.  Accepted.

We who were once English majors understand the word to refer to those works firmly ensconced in the literary pantheon.  Shakespeare, of course, but also Milton and Chaucer.  Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.  Melville and Hawthorne.  Roth and Bellow.  And on and on.  Indeed, one indicator of a work's canonical status is that it is commonly taught in English classes.

There are other ways that authors or their works may be considered canonical.  One would have to say that if a person's name becomes an adjective, that person is in the canon.  Thus, whether or not they are familiar with the author's work, most semi-educated people will understand a reference to a Kafkaesque situation or a Machiavellian politician.  These are canonical figures.

Even more interesting is when a literary reference from a specific work becomes an everyday part of the language.  What's interesting is that people may use these terms without having read the work from whence they spring, or, indeed, even knowing that these terms derive their meaning from literary works.  "Quixotic" comes to mind, especially given that the word is pronounced 'kwik-SOT-ic' not 'key-HO-tic.'  We imagine many people would never consider naming their daughters Lolita and marvel that anyone ever would, not realizing that the word itself is perfectly innocent, as were most women with that name prior to 1955.  In these post-Patriot Act days, we all know what it means for Big Brother to be watching us, even if we've never visited Orwell's Oceania.  And what about catch-22?  So descriptive of a certain part of the human condition, what did people say before Joseph Heller's novel?  No-win situation?  Damned if you do, damned if you don't?  Close, but neither conveys the futility and irony captured by that simple, mock-bureaucratic euphemism.

What brought this to mind today was a sudden recognition that we have added another word to this canonical list.  We saw a film clip on Yahoo! about a pair of raccoon kits rescued from inside a Pepsi machine, where they had taken up residence.  Who got them out?  Someone identified as a raccoon whisperer.

Yes, "whisperer" is the latest word to transcend its literary origins!

You may object that this is hardly a new word, and, if you are referring to its meaning as "one who whispers," you're correct.  That, however, is not the sense in which the word has entered the canon.  We are referring, instead, to 'whisperer's meaning of "one who speaks soothingly to recalcitrant animals."  This meaning came to general attention thanks to "The Horse Whisperer" (1995), a novel by Nicholas Evans, and, perhaps more significantly, a 1999 movie of the same name directed by and starring Robert Redford.  Personally, we are more comfortable with the canonization of Redford than of Evans; the New York Times described the novel as "sentimentally bloated."  But it just goes to show that a work doesn't need to be a masterpiece to achieve a certain canonization.

Has the word truly entered the lexicon?  Well, you tell us:

On Google:

Horse whisperer: Approximately 693,000 results

Dog whisperer:            Approximately 834,000 results

Cat whisperer: Approximately 38,400 results

Guinea pig whisperer: Approximately 194 results

Giraffe whisperer: Approximately 138 results

Platypus whisperer: Approximately 1,240 results  (So there are more platypus whisperers than guinea pig whisperers?  Seems unlikely.)

Halibut whisperer: 9 results

Wait a minute: HALIBUT WHISPERER?!?  Wouldn't he drown?

So thank you, Nicholas Evans.  You solved a problem we didn't know we had and gave us a word we didn't know we needed.  Your little spot in the canon is assured.

(Image from www.tanaku.com)

Better Ten Innocent People Go to Jail. . . .

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that prisoners have no constitutional right to DNA testing ("Justices Reject Inmate Right to DNA Tests").  While the Court's right-leaning majority makes the decision unsurprising, we are still somewhat bewildered by the reasoning.

First, Chief Justice Roberts based his decision on the premise that there was no need for a "constitutionalization" of this right because of the fact that almost all states (46 to be exact) already allow inmates some level of access to DNA evidence: "To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response."

In other words, if we're understanding correctly, just because--PRECISELY because--almost everybody does it, there's no need to say that everybody SHOULD do it.  We understand the idea of federalism and "state's rights," but doesn't the fact that most states do something reasonable call into question the reasonableness of the holdouts.

An even more debatable rationale was offered by Justice Samuel Alito who, in a concurring opinion, mentioned his concern that, if a constitutional right to DNA testing were recognized, states would incur significant costs.  True, of course, but we don't think financial concerns should be the basis for Supreme Court jurisprudence.  After all, a criminal justice system costs money.  States and municipalities could balance budgets and accumulate massive surpluses simply by declaring virtually everything legal, closing prisons, and disbanding police forces.  They don't do that, however, presumably because citizens have decided that a functioning legal system is worth a sizable expenditure.

Furthermore, the cost of DNA testing will likely diminish as the technology evolves.

Further-furthermore, the question before the Court was not whether the government should PAY for DNA testing, but simply whether such testing should be considered a constitutional right.  (Sure, if a right were established, it would almost inevitably lead to a case wherein a defendant would argue that the state was obliged to provide such services for the indigent, but that was not the issue under discussion here.)

And further-further-furthermore, the defendant in this case, William G. Osborne (who it seems, from information mentioned in the article, may well be guilty), was offering to pay for the testing himself.

Our legal system is grounded on a belief that it's better for 10 guilty people to go free than for one innocent to be wrongly convicted.  This decision flies in the face of that philosophy.

(Image from www.csb.yale.edu)

A Cornucopia of Irrelevance!

Oh, what a day for irrelevancy!

Mr. Irrelevant News Story of the Day

Location, location, location?  Not so much.  Nowadays, according to "The Unfortunate Location," people are willing to trade pristine placement for more house.  Twenty feet from a railroad that blasts through the neighborhood every morning at 7:30, rattling the windows and scaring the children?  Homeless people bivouacking in the backyard of your house, which is located between a gas station and a substance-abuse clinic?  A soaring crime-rate that necessitates the building of a fortified wall complete with surveillance cameras and spotlights?  No problem!  These days, bargain hunters will happily exchange peace, quiet, and, apparently, the prospect of living through the night for a choice domicile.  More power to 'em.

Before we get to the "Undrafted Articles"--those articles not "important" enough to merit front-page coverage or mention--we would like to draw your attention to two other stories that

were deemed front-page worthy--and more important than today's "Mr. Irrelevant.:

First, a story mentioned just after the "lead" stories, "What Has 132 Rooms and Flies?"  No doubt most of you have seen the footage, or at least heard about it.  During an interview, President Obama dispatched a fly.  (Here's the link if you've missed it.)  What you may not have heard is that PETA is upset about it.  They sent him a "Humane Bug Catcher" so that he could avoid such senseless brutality in the future.  Now, we know that PETA is not fanatically condemning President Obama and that they sent him the bug catcher not so much in the spirit of finger-wagging as in the spirit of, "Here's an opportunity to help us spread our message about the inherent value of all animals."  It should be noted that PETA sent him the bug catcher only after the organization had repeatedly been contacted by media outlets seeking comment on the whole squishy issue.

(Digression: The Solipsist hereby claims trademark on the following: "Flygate," "Swatgate," and "Mosca on the Potomac."  EOD)

(Additional digression: While we respect PETA's desire to protect animals, we've never been fans of these "Cruelty-Free" products, especially foodstuffs.  "Cruelty-free potato chips."  "Cruelty-free corn flakes."  "Cruelty-free bean dip."  Please!  Cruelty makes it taste good!  EOAD)

We will refrain from making the obvious comment that the folks at PETA need to get a life.  They know what they're doing.

We will, however, say that, while we would still be honored to meet President Obama, we would have to think twice about shaking his hand.

And finally, a story that was considered SO not-irrelevant that it merited placement right under the fold.  With a photo.  "For Bloomberg, Golf's a Foe With No Term Limits" tells the astonishing story of a billionaire who likes to play golf.  We know!  It's not totally without news value, though.  After all, unlike most billionaires, Mike Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City, only took up golf in 2000 in his late 50's.  Also, he's apparently, um, terrible.  So, y'know, there's the unquestionably newsworthy fact that an elderly Jew is not very good at sports!

Well, we take solace in the fact that it must be a slow news day!

Undrafted Articles

"U.N. Atomic Energy Chief Says Iran Wants Bomb Technology" (A16)

"After Affair, Senator Resigns Leadership Job" (A18)

"Keeping a True Identity Becomes a Battle Online" (B1)

(Image from Wadayaneed.com)

We Know You're Out There! We Can Hear You Twittering!

If a tree falls in a forest, and there's no one around to hear it, it may or may not make a noise.  Really, who cares?  But if a tree falls in a forest, and YOU are there, and it STILL doesn't make a sound, THAT would be noteworthy.  That would require an explanation.

The Solipsist, as has been mentioned, is on Facebook.  And like any good Facebooker, he checks his page several times a day, mostly in an effort to fend off boredom.  (Sometimes, things are pretty slow at the trout hatchery.)  Other times, he logs on for a mental-health break when things get too stressful.  (Sometimes, the trout hatchery can be surprisingly chaotic.)  It's nice to see if anyone has sent him a message or commented on his posts.  But even if no one has written anything to the Solipsist, these mini-excursions give him a chance to see what his friends have been up to: One might have taken the "Which transsexual rock star are you?" quiz; another may have posted new baby pictures; yet another may have tried to beat the Solipsist's score at the "Know-It-All: Chinese Emperors of the 12th Century Trivia Quiz" or simply told us "What's on his/her mind" (which may be nothing more than a random lyric from a 1980s rock song, but still).  The point is, there's always SOMETHING going on.

Except today.

The Solipsist logged on this morning and got his "updates" from the night before.  He typed in a random quote for today's "Status," and then went about his workday.  Later--several hours later--when he checked in again, the top "story" was. . . HIS OWN STATUS COMMENT.  In other words, NONE of his friends had done ANYTHING on Facebook for several hours.

Now it's not like the Solipsist has hundreds of friends, but he does have a few dozen, including several who update their statuses numerous times a day.  To log on after several hours--and we're not talking wee small hours of the morning, either--and see NOTHING new is downright disturbing.  It's as if the anchor came on the evening news and reported that absolutely NOTHING had happened that day: The utter lack of news would in and of itself be quite. . . newsworthy.

How often does "nothing" happen?  Imagine if the stock market opened at, say, 9, 473.68 and, after a full day's trading, closed at 9,473.68.  Sure it's theoretically possible, but what are the odds?  Wouldn't it freak people out?  (And no doubt SOMEBODY would start blaming Jews.  We're just sayin'.)

Awhile back, we commented that Facebook was essentially like homeroom.  We suppose that what we experienced today could simply be equated to coming into homeroom and finding everybody else absent; maybe it's snowing really hard everywhere but here.  Still, it's eerie.  In this hyper-connected, instant-update world, it's disturbing to think that animation has been, however briefly, suspended.

Then again, maybe the Solipsist is just being shunned.

(Image from "Funny and Beautiful Pictures")

In Praise of Common Sense

As well-informed Sloppists undoubtedly know, President Obama is traveling the country promoting ideas for healthcare reform.  A big story yesterday concerned the fact that Obama has proposed malpractice reform as part of the overall package.  This is something that doctors' groups have wanted for a long time, but it's been a stumbling block in previous attempts to craft legislation because of resistance from Democratic lawmakers (not least because trial lawyers--major Democratic donors--are against tort reform).  Not surprisingly, these groups are leery of malpractice reform.

It's things like this that drive the Solipsist batty.  From the way some people react, you'd think Obama was proposing that doctors be allowed to perform appendectomies under the influence of cocaine and highballs while texting.  He's not.  He's basically proposing that, as long as doctors follow their own professional guidelines when treating patients, they not be held liable for every unforeseen negative event that could possibly occur during a patient's treatment.  The theory is that this would prevent doctors from practicing "defensive" medicine, performing all manner of unnecessary tests just in case something goes wrong so that they can say that didn't overlook anything.  Said unnecessary tests add billions of dollars to the healthcare budget.  Sounds logical to us.  (And remember, this is coming from a liberal San Francisco Bay Area egghead type.)

Furthermore, fear of lawsuits can prevent doctors from honestly examining why something goes wrong.  There is an advocacy group known as the "Sorry Works!" Coalition.  Their creed is that, if and when mistakes occur, doctors should simply go to their patients and/or their loved ones, make a sincere apology, and offer whatever assistance they can to figure out where things went wrong.  If compensation is appropriate, it is offered swiftly and non-confrontationally.  Hospitals that have adopted this policy find that families in general are satisfied with and appreciative of these apologies, and even if the hospitals end up paying compensation, the process is less acrimonious, and the settlements smaller than they would be following jury trials.

In a way, this goes back to our post of June 14.  Then, we bemoaned the fanaticism of the right wing in their attacks on President Obama and liberalism in general.  But the healthcare issue has its rabid (though probably not as psychotic) partisans on both sides of the agenda, too.  Steadfast adherence to knee-jerk responses will never solve major problems; indeed, it only makes the problems worse.  It's past time to embrace common-sense approaches to seemingly intractable issues.  It's possible the problems are not as intractable as we've been led to believe.

Sad Dogs and Subsidized Cellphones

There's an anti-depressant called Cymbalta.  Perhaps you've seen its commercials.  Soft minor-key piano music plays under images of depressed people.  A female voice-over asks, "Where does depression hurt?  Everywhere.  Who does depression hurt?  Everyone."

(Digression: It's interesting that the grammatically proper phrasing--"WHOM does depression hurt"--is not used.  We'd be willing to bet that it's a very intentional non-use, as "whom" would draw too much attention to itself.  When did good grammar become ostentatious?  EOD)

As a semi-depressive person himself, the Solipsist sympathizes with the condition, and we certainly don't begrudge people whatever relief Cymbalta brings them.

What struck us was a slight variation on this commercial, one that focuses more on the "Who does depression hurt?" question.  Same voice-over actress, similar imagery.  But this particular ad's visuals focus on the people who are being hurt--not just the depressed people but the people around them.  We see images of what we can assume are significant others.  We see images of children worried about their parents.

And then we get a visual of a depressed dog.

Seriously.  A black lab or doberman is shown forlornly gazing up at its presumably depressed owner.

What are we supposed to make of this?  Who is the target audience?  Sure, a depressed person might see this and be inspired to take action.  We think, however, that the main target of this ad is the people around the depressed person.  Someone sees this ad and recognizes him- or herself in the image of the long-suffering friend/spouse/parent and resolves to broach the subject with the depressed person.  Perhaps this viewer intercedes on behalf of a child.  But are we meant to be motivated by the sight of a sad dog?  The Solipsist is as much of an animal lover as the next guy (as long as the next guy isn't, say, Michael Vick), but we think there are greater issues in the world, and greater reasons to intervene in a depressed person's illness--than a sad doberman.

Sheesh, if the dog really cared, he'd be trying to cheer up his owner so he or she wouldn't need Cymbalta!

The Solipsist is NOT going out of his way to entertain a lazy doberman!

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

The Mr. Irrelevant News Story of the Day

"Providing Cellphones for the Poor"

Apparently, the Lakers' don't merit front-page coverage, even when they win a championship.  Just goes to prove our theory: Nobody cares about the Lakers.  But this other story is actually kind of interesting.

The federal government operates a program called "Lifeline," which mandates that everyone be able to receive telephone service, regardless of income.  The Telecommunications Act of 1996 opened competition for this service to cellphone providers.  A basic package provides a free phone and about 68 minutes of "talk time" per month.  The government subsidizes the program.

All well and good, but check this detail: The government subsidizes the carriers to the tune of about $10 a month per client; the approximate cost of the services provided?  About $3.

Now, we are not, like our FFB "Math Mama," math experts.  We can, however, do some back-of-the-envelope calculations, and conclude that this amounts to a 233% profit.

The Solipsist, of course, is a firm believer in capitalism, especially when it comes to making scads of cash from his sponsors (we're sure the scads will come rolling in any day now).  But in these days of financial austerity, this strikes us a bit unreasonable.  A mere 200% profit would seem sufficient.

Undrafted Articles

"Pakistan to Strike at Leader of Taliban" (A4)

"Insurance Giant A.I.G. Takes Ex-Chief to Court" (B1)

And, of course, "Bryant, Jackson and the Lakers Add to Trophies" (D1)

(Image from "Drop That Sock")

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

Tomorrow we return to our day job at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.  We've enjoyed the last two weeks.  It's been nice just getting up in the morning, logging on to the New York Times, sipping coffee, and finding random things to pontificate about.  We'll miss the slow pace of the day that allowed us more time to reflect and, we hope, produce read-worthy stuff.  We'll try not to let the base down as we move back to our part-time blogging.

In the meantime, Sloppists should check out Frank Rich's column from today's "Week in Review."  In a nutshell, he writes about the increasing virulence of right-wing haters and the media enablers who encourage them.  In just the last couple of weeks, we've had the assassination of an abortion provider in Kansas and a fatal shooting at Washington's Holocaust Museum.  Rich provides plenty of additional examples and calls for conservative leaders to step up and denounce such fanaticism.  We're not optimistic.

We don't really have anything to add to Rich's piece, but we would love it if someone--anyone--could offer a sane explanation for such demagoguery.  All kidding aside, the Solipsist believes in rationality, and he would like to think that there is a rational explanation for such hatred (leaving aside for the moment the question as to whether hatred can be rational).  In other words, why are right-wing people so full of hatred for Obama and other liberal thinkers?

Look, we at the Solipsist "hate" George Bush.  We point to the state this country is in and say that Bush and his cronies are largely responsible.  It's based on facts.  The hatred directed toward Obama seems largely based on fears or misconceptions.  Fanatics claim that Obama and his followers are somehow selling the country out to terrorists.  Do they forget that the worst terrorist attack in this country's history happened on Bush's watch?  When they claim that 9/11 was somehow Clinton's fault, do they forget that it was Clinton who launched a 1998 missile attack on Afghanistan in an attempt to assassinate Osama bin Laden?  Or that, when he did so, he was accused of doing it only to distract the country from the Monica Lewinsky scandal (a scandal, incidentally, that was essentially a right-wing witch-hunt by an out-of-control prosecutor)?

Let's take right-wing ranters at face value for a moment.  Let's assume that all the things they fear coming to pass come to pass: same-sex marriage endorsed by the federal government; a complete realignment of the Supreme Court that leads to the reaffirmation of abortion rights and other conservative betes noir; strict gun-control laws; increased cooperation and respect for the United Nations and other international organizations, as well as acceptance of International Criminal Court jurisdiction in relevant cases; etc. etc. etc.

OK.  What exactly is so bad about all that?  We are not being rhetorical here.  We really want to know what it is that scares people so much that they are willing to take up arms and commit cold-blooded acts of, not to put too fine a point on it, terrorism in order to forestall these events--none of which is overly likely to happen anyway.

We of the left-wing persuasion have put up with almost thirty years of nearly uninterrupted right-wing governance (while socially liberal, Bill Clinton could hardly be considered a fire-breathing radical).  And for all our fears, the country has, essentially, survived, albeit in much worse shape than it could have.  We gave the right a chance, and they blew it.  Now it's time to try something else.  That's the way democracy works.

We just pray (in our avowedly agnostic way) that the left is given the chance.