Those Who Can. . .

From the "Now We've Seen Everything" Department:

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, teach gym. Time was, that was the end of the line. You can't teach gym, you're out of luck. Now, however, even those for whom Phys. Ed. is daunting can experience the thrills of pedagogy. We refer to "Dreamer Series: Teacher" for the Nintendo DS. (NOTE: Please cross-reference this entry under "This Is Not a Joke.")

The "Dreamer Series" allows players to explore careers. As "Dreamer" implies, these are careers that might be considered "dream jobs." Two titles in the series, for example, are "Pop Star" and "Top Model." Other titles include "Horse Trainer," "Puppy Trainer," and "Zoo Keeper." Obviously, these are not as apparently unattainable or anorexia-inducing as pop stardom or supermodeling, but we still see the appeal of these games: Who doesn't like to play with animals--especially virtual animals that one doesn't have to clean up after?

Then there's the third tier of titles--games that give girls (yes, girls--more on this later) the opportunity to virtually experience things that, frankly, they could probably experience more rewardingly in reality: "Shop Owner," "Babysitter," and, as mentioned above, "Teacher." You may object that they may not WANT to do these things in reality. Fair enough, but then why in God's name would they want to be virtual teachers?

Of what would a teaching video game consist anyway? As a teacher, the Solipsist can assure you that the thrills are few and far between. Do you mark up student essays? Do you earn bonus points for catching grammar errors? If the objective is to get your students to "love" you (as suggested by the copy on the game itself), isn't the easiest thing simply not to assign homework and give everyone A's? That's what we do in our classes. (Perhaps we've said too much.)

And about the "girls" thing mentioned above: All these games feature cover pictures of clean-cut, adorable young women, probably in their late teens. Their target audience, in other words, is clear. Now, we know that all girls (and ONLY girls) get goopy over horses, but we have a problem with the implication that teaching (or for that matter pop-stardom) is a strictly female aspiration. And even if the vast majority of babysitting jobs are held by young women, isn't this all the more reason to encourage a more unisex approach in the gaming world?

Actually, the babysitting game is not a bad idea. For parents, that is. Before hiring a babysitter, hand them a DS with "Dreamer Series: Babysitter." If the young lady's (or man's) initial instinct is to press "shake" when the baby starts screaming, you should look elsewhere for domestic help.

Look, bottom line: There is NOTHING exciting about teaching. Frankly, if you're looking for video-game excitement, stick with "Halo." Or even "Dreamer Series: Accountant."

(Image from Amazon.com)

That's Not a Maggot--It's a 'Carcass Puppy'

From the "Apparently-This-Is-Not-a-Joke" File:

As some of you may have heard, the state of California is going through a small patch of financial turbulence these days. Nothing too significant: A little less street-cleaning, a few unfilled potholes, several thousand state employees laid off or furloughed. But remember that the Chinese have the same word for "crisis" and "opportunity."


(Digression: Homer Simpson: "Yeah, crisotunity." EOD)


It is times like this that call forth the creative problem-solvers among us. And no one can solve a problem more creatively than the good folks at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). When word got out that the California Parks Department was considering closing several beaches in an effort to trim the budget, PETA stepped forward to help. They have offered to provide the money to keep Pescadero State Beach open--under one condition. In order to receive the funds, California has to agree to rename Pescadero Beach "Sea Kitten State Park." (See "PETA Offers to Save Beach If Name Is Changed")


This is not a joke.


And what, you may ask, are "sea kittens"? Fish, apparently. According to Lindsay Rajt of PETA, "The term 'sea kitten' is an effort to evoke the same sympathy for fish that people feel for cats and dogs." Well, good luck with that. Does PETA not realize that people love kittens not because they're called "kittens," but rather because they're adorable. And delicious. (Did we say that out loud?) Fish, on the other hand, are simply delicious. Oh, we'll admit we sometimes get a little verklempt when we see a cute little flounder playing with a ball of yarn or chasing its own tail, but in general we don't find fish cute, and calling them "sea kittens" will do nothing to change this.


How do you suppose PETA's financial supporters feel about this? We're unsure exactly how much PETA is willing to pony up--sorry, is willing to "humanely-treated, fully-inoculated, and stylishly-groomed little horse" up--in order to save the beach, but is this really the best use of funds? Exactly how many additional animals will be "ethically treated" as a result of this outlay? If comments on "Digg.com" are any indication, the whole thing may backfire: The first comment we came across, posted by someone named "fuzzyllama," was "Mmm these kittens taste like fish." There must be better ways for PETA to spend money.

Sea kitten? (Image from howstuffworks.com)

**************************************
A personal note:


Today marks the 40th anniversary of the appearance on this earth of FOS. We've known FOS for 34 of those years. And while it is sad to see someone we care about slipping precipitously into his dotage (he is significantly older than the Solipsist, who doesn't celebrate the second anniversary of his 39th birthday for several weeks yet), we want to use the bully pulpit of the internet to wish him many happy returns.


Now, FOS, get on Facebook will you!

Speling Dosn't Count

It nevr ceeses 2 amaz us: the feer and trepidashun that peeple feeel arond speling. Wat did there teechurs do 2 thm 2 mak thm thiss way? Somtimes, on the 1st day of our wrting class, we aks the stoodents wat they want 2 work on durring the semster. Wat is it aboot there own riting they most want 2 imprve? Invaribly, the 1 thng that allways comes up is speling! Asif the ownly thng standin btwn them and publikashun in The Knew Yourker is a fyew orthgrafical shortcommings!

Let us b perfektly cleer: Speling dosnt count! Thees days, if u're woried abowt yr speling all u realy need 2 do is run stuff thru a spelchekker! And with Mcrosofts helpfull red underlinnings poppin up evry time it thnks u made a misstake, u'll hav a gud idea of wear ure misstakes r anyway. Rite now, todays entry looks like a viktim of a partikulerly suddistic cereal killr--one hoo gets his thrills from laserating his viktims, woching thm bleeed out, a deth of 1000 cutz!

The unnimportanse of correkt speling cannot b ovurstated.

Fr xmpl, y cn prbbly tll wht ths sntnc sys, vn thgh w'v lft ll th vwls t. Mch f wht cmprss prpr spllng, thrfr, s smwht nncssry!

And wat's realy unfortunat aboot a fixashun on speling is that it distrakts peeple from focuussing on wat realy maters, i.e.e., wat they r aktually riting!

We wuld also like to point out that speling and grammer r 2 diffrent things. In addishun 2 our riting class, we allso teech a class caled "Grammer and Stile." Wen we survay stoodents and aks them wy they have desided to tak this class, we allways here stoodents say that they want to impruve there speling. Wel, gud luk with that! We dont teech it!

Look, u realy want 2 becom a beter speler? Hear's the sekret: Read mor! That, & dont be shy about usin the spelcheker! Remmber: Peeple wer speeking & comunicating cleerly long befor they wer speling! We'll juge yor riting by the content of yor content, not the content of your charakters.

Senate Testimony

Senator Wadsworth Stallgroper (R-MT): Mr. Solipsist, if confirmed, how would you rule in a hypothetical case involving late-term abortion?

Solipsist: Well, Senator, of course it would be improper to offer speculative judgments on hypothetical cases, but let it be noted that the Solipsist is a firm believer in a woman's right to choose and is likely to uphold Roe v. Wade under virtually any conceivable circumstances.

(Collective gasps from the gallery.)

Senator Stallgroper: Now, Mr. Solipsist, this committee is not interested in your vague and evasive responses to our. . . wait, what did you say?

Solipsist: Is there some problem with the distinguished gentleman's hearing? We said we would vote to uphold Roe v. Wade under virtually any circumstances we can imagine. It is, after all, established case law. And while reasonable people may disagree about the rightness or wrongness of abortion, it is not the place of judges to arbitrarily overturn previous decisions. It's called stare decisis. Look it up. And frankly, we're pretty tired of these right-wing interest groups that seem to have nothing better to do than concoct cases to exploit possible loopholes in Roe v. Wade, hoping to get a sympathetic court to overturn the verdict. Don't they realize that, even if they succeeded, all that would happen is that the question of legalizing abortion rights would be returned to the states, and, with a majority of people favoring at least SOME access to abortion, such a ruling wouldn't even change much. The point is, these people need to find a new hobby.

Senator Stallgroper: Well, uh. . I

Solipsist: And as long as we're opening up here, let's stipulate that the second amendment specifies a "well-armed militia." This does not translate into a god-given right to amass a private arsenal. Seriously, these second-amendment "purists" need to recognize that, even if we recognize a "right" to own guns, there is no such thing as an unlimited right. Would the NRA say the first amendment guarantees the proverbial right to yell fire in a crowded theater? Probably not. Would they not agree, then, that the second amendment similarly guarantees no right to lay down fire in that same theater? Look, obviously, we're not a fan of guns. But we're willing to compromise. How about, Congress enacts sensible laws for gun owners, requiring them to be trained and licensed before they can own guns. We think it should require as much oversight to operate an AK-47 as it does to operate an Acura.

Senator Stallgroper: Yes, thank you--

Solipsist: Oh, and by the way, when we said "god-given" up above, that was a LOWER-CASE 'g'! Yeah, that's right, we have a problem with religion, too! God can stay in the church or the synagogue or the mosque or, heck, in people's hearts and minds. But keep him out of this building here and that building there (pointing right. An adviser whispers in Solipsist's ear.) What's that? Oh, sorry (pointing left), the Supreme Court building is over there.

In fact, let's just put it out there. We think workers have the right to unionize. We think people have a right to work hard and become rich, but we also think that the rich have an obligation to help the rest of society--y'know, the society that allowed them to become rich in the first place. We think gay people should have the right to get married and join the army and vote. (Adviser whispers.) We've just been informed that gay people already have the right to vote. Anyway, the point is, we're secure enough in our masculinity so as not to feel threatened by the expansion of rights to gay people. Aren't you, Senator?

Senator Stallgroper: I, I, that is--

Solipsist: ANY-hoo, we believe that government should, for the most part, stay out of people's personal lives, but it should get involved when there are basic inequities in our market-based system or when one person's freedoms conflict with another person's safety. That sounds reasonable enough don't you think? Thank you, Senators, for your consideration.

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why the Solipsist will never be appointed to the Supreme Court.

The All-Star Game: A Modest Proposal

"A man becomes preeminent, he's expected to have enthusiasms. . . . What are mine? What draws my admiration? What is that which gives me joy?. . . [Brandishes bat] Baseball! A man stands alone at the plate. This is the time for what? For individual achievement. There he stands alone. But in the field, what? Part of a team. Teamwork. . . . Looks, throws, catches, hustles. Part of one big team. Bats himself the live long day, Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, and so on. If his team don't field. . . what is he? You follow me? No one. Sunny day, the stands are full of fans. What does he have to say? I'm goin' out there for myself. But. . . I get nowhere unless the team wins."

--Robert De Niro as Al Capone. "The Untouchables"

(Screenplay by David Mamet.)

The All-Star Game begins shortly, but the Solipsist will not be watching. Why? Mainly because it's a dreadful bore. And this is from someone who loves baseball!

Back in the day, the game held more interest. It was the only time you could see the best pitchers in each league face the best hitters in the other--outside of the World Series, of course, which, as it includes only two participants, provides at best a limited sample of such confrontations. Since 1997, however, when interleague play became a part of the regular season, the All-Star Game has been merely an unwelcome pause in the midst of serious baseball.

The game's irrelevance was driven home in 2002 when it ended in a tie in the eleventh inning. Both teams were out of players, so Bud Selig, the Commissioner of Baseball, decreed that the game would end. While this was certainly a bummer, especially for the fans who had bought tickets, it was the right decision: Why force players to play on, perhaps risking injury, for what is, after all, an exhibition game? Then, in an effort to boost fan interest, the lords of baseball made the worst decision since the creation of the designated hitter: Since 2003, the league that has won the All-Star Game has won home field advantage for its representative in the World Series. In other words, the most meaningless game of the regular season has determined the site of the season's most meaningful game: Game 7 of the World Series.

The flaw in this reasoning is the nature of baseball itself. With all due respect to Mamet and De Niro, baseball is ALWAYS about individual achievement. Unlike basketball and football, where groups of players work in concert to achieve certain goals, baseball is always about the individual making plays--when batting, sure, but also when in the field. Only one player at a time catches or throws the ball. And when the throw is bad or the catch is muffed, only one player is penalized with an error. The only slightly balletic moments in baseball occur between a shortstop and second baseman turning a double play, but that's it. So, while every All-Star would presumably like to be on the winning team, does anyone honestly believe that Ryan Zimmerman of the dismal Washington Nationals is as invested in the game's outcome as the league-leading Dodgers' Orlando Hudson, Chad Billingsley, and Jonathan Broxton? And why should those last three players have to play as if their season depended on it (which it could) while their non-All Star teammates get to enjoy three or four days of rest?

We understand the All-Star game is fun for some fans, and it brings in revenue for Major League Baseball and the host city (this year, St. Louis). But if MLB wants to increase interest in the game, farcically inflating the game's importance is the wrong way to do it.

There are alternatives. One suggestion floated awhile back was to take a page from the National Hockey League and have a USA vs. The World All-Star Game. Not bad, but the World Baseball Classic has kind of undermined that idea. Plus, if the results of the WBC are any indication, American fans would find the results of that contest less than satisfying.

We think the pre-All-Star Game festivities actually show the way to go. The Home-Run Derby, for example, is always popular--baseball's answer to the NBA's Slam-Dunk Contest. What's nice is that it's purely exhibitionistic; nothing is at stake beyond the contest itself, and it gives fans a chance to see something they enjoy: home runs. The All-Star festivities also include a "Futures Game," basically a minor-league All-Star Game, where fans can see the "stars of tomorrow." There's also a kind of Pro-Am softball game featuring retired major leaguers and celebrity players: At last night's game, Olympic gymnast Shawn Johnson cartwheeled down to first after drawing a walk.

But baseball is all about matchups, so if MLB wants more people to tune in, give us the kinds of matchups we wouldn't normally get to see. How about some kind of "Stolen Base Showdown"? Take, say, the 5 or 10 best catchers in baseball and challenge them to throw out the 5 or 10 best base-stealers. Or, even better, how about an Offense vs. Defense All-Star Game? It would work something like this: Fans would vote on the top offensive and defensive players at each position (we would grudgingly include DH's, and pitchers could be excluded from the offensive team). During the game, the Offense gets three outs at a time to push a run across the plate. Pitchers could be replaced after every three outs. For every "inning" in which the offense scores, the Offensive team gets a point; for every inning in which they don't score, the defense gets a point. Whoever reaches five points first (best of nine) wins the game.

We know it sounds complicated, but baseball fans LOVE complication. Do fans of any other sport quibble over statistical minutiae with the enthusiasm of baseball fans? And this would truly give fans the opportunity to see the best hitters (regardless of league) facing not only the best pitchers, but the best all-around defenses as well. What about home-field advantage for the World Series? Please! Go back to the old system of alternating years. Or, even better, do what every other sport does and give home-field advantage to the team with the best record. They deserve it.

Major League Baseball, all we can say is, you're welcome.

What the Solipsist would like to do to Bud Selig and those who thought it would be a good idea to award World Series home-field advantage to the winner of the All-Star Game (image from www.empireonline.com)

Guilty Consciences

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being, "Not guilty at all," and 10 being "Hitler," how guilty does each of the following scenarios make you feel?

You finish loading your car at the supermarket. Instead of putting your shopping cart in one of the "Please leave shopping carts here" spaces, you simply leave the cart in front of where you had been parked.

Same situation, but you wheel the cart up on a nearby median.

What about this: You're working late, and, when you leave your office, you see that the custodian has already started mopping the floors. You need to walk across the still-wet floor to leave the building.

What if you're at work and doing a legitimate, but not urgent, task. A customer comes up and asks you for assistance. What this person is requesting is really not your job, but you COULD help her with it. You really don't want to, though, so you beg off, citing the fact that you have this other work to do.

What if you decide to sleep in on a day when your significant other has to get up early?

Is feeling guilt in any of these situations proper? Neurotic? Praiseworthy? If you feel unnecessarily guilty about something, is that a sign of character, of being in tune with a higher moral plane? Or is it rather a sign of moral weakness that you feel guilty but do nothing to assuage your guilt?

We have no answers for these questions. We're curious, though, to hear how our own concerns compare with those of other Sloppists.

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

Cultural Illiteracy Update

OK, for the last time, here are today's "Top Ten" Yahoo! search items, as of this writing:

10. Swine Flu: Boy, people can't get enough of this stuff, can they? We'll assume this is just carry-over from last week's Rupert Grint shocker.

9. Ted Kennedy: Well, we all know who he is. We assume he's not dead, or there would have been more news about it, so we're not sure why he's being searched.

8. MLB All-Star Game: Tomorrow, from St. Louis.

7. Neil Patrick Harris: TV's Doogie Howser. And he's also on that "How I Met Your Mother" show. Not sure why he's here.

6. Molly Ringwald: Hmm. . . .Neil Patrick Harris, Molly Ringwald. . . OH! This is "Top Searches" from 1989!

5. Blackberry Tour: Wait, "Blackberry" has a tour?!? Does it ride on a bus? With groupies? We have no idea.

4. Daughtry: "American Idol" finalist from a few years back who's actually made something of a career for himself. Don't know why he's here.

3. Butner Federal Prison: Heh-heh, "BUTT-ner." No idea. (Just checked: It's where Madoff is going to serve his sentence.)

2. LaToya Jackson: Rumor is, there IS no LaToya Jackson: She and Michael were always the same person. Michael faked his death and is now going to live out his days as LaToya. OK, we made that up.

1. Jessica Simpson: She and Tony Romo just broke up. On the eve of her (we are NOT making this up) Barbie-themed birthday party. Some people seriously need to be shot.

All right, so, for today, our score is 30%. And for the week, our overall cultural "knowiness" is an even 40%. We will, of course, strive to improve on this score. In the meantime, though, we hope that you Sloppists can tolerate being informed of less than 50% of the news that really matters.

At least we'll try to be amusing.

What a Difference an "A" Makes

"'When you sleep together, eat together and spend all day on the bike together, there's always a bit of "Melrose Place" drama going on' Vande Velde said, referring to a nighttime soap opera from the 1990s." ("Eyes on Rift Within Team As Armstrong Remains 3rd")

At first, when we read this sentence from an article about the Tour de France, we felt old. We are, as WOS gleefully points out every chance she gets, rapidly approaching (if not already in the throes of) middle age. We must be old if instantly recognizable cultural touchstones of our youth call for editorial explication in The New York Times. Ah, yes, we remember the frisson we felt when platonic roommates Billy and Allison finally succumbed to their unspoken passion! (Not that we ever watched the show! Like Seinfeld, we plead utter ignorance of such televisual pap!)

(Digression: Jerry Seinfeld was the star of a popular situation comedy in the 1990s called "Seinfeld." EOD.)

But then we thought about it. "Melrose Place," according to IMDB.com, ran from 1992-99. The average age of New York Times readers, according to a 2007 interview with publisher Arthur Sulzberger, is 37 (42 for the print edition). In other words, the average reader of the paper in which the editor felt it necessary to explain a pop-cultural reference, was between 20 and 27 years old when the cultural referent in question was current. Furthermore, that 20 to 27 year old would have been right within the target demographic of said referent!

Honestly, the editor was only doing his or her job. What transforms this sentence from simple editorial thoroughness to ageist condescension is a seemingly innocuous word choice.

WARNING: GRAMMAR CONTENT AHEAD

The problem lies in the phrase "a nighttime soap opera"--specifically in the indefinite article "a." Consider the connotation if the editor or writer had simply said "the nighttime soap opera." Then, the editorial suggestion would have been "we know that you know what 'Melrose Place' is; we just want to make extra sure that everyone can appreciate Vande Velde's allusion." Conversely, the use of "a" implies that whoever's reading this piece would have no idea what "Melrose Place" was; the editorial voice is speaking to you in a tone usually reserved for pre-schoolers to explain something that you couldn't possibly be expected to understand.

Frankly, rather than explicate what "Melrose Place" was, we would have really appreciated some discussion on the fact that this cyclist's thoughts go to "the nighttime soap opera from the 1990s" immediately after he was talking about how the cyclists "sleep together." Maybe the Tour de France is more exciting than we thought!

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

Cultural Illiteracy Update

As of this moment, here are the "Top Ten" Yahoo! searches for today.

10: Aaron Sorkin: The creator of "The West Wing" and playwright of "A Few Good Men" among other things. Don't know why he's there.

9: Barclays Scottish Open: Well, if its GOLF, it's probably a tune-up for the British Open, which starts on Thursday. Let's give ourselves credit for this one.

8. Best Man Speeches: Uh. . . .?

7. Sail Boston 2009: Is that an event or a command? We don't know.

6. Giada De Laurentiis: Dino's daughter? We got nothin'.

5. Cooking Schools: Christ, Sunday's just shaping up to be a total washout. Why are people searching "cooking schools"?!?

4. Codex Sinaiticus: Well, a "codex" is a book--generally a bible. Is this a Bible found at Mt. Sinai? (It also kind of sounds like a cold medicine.)

3. Paula Creamer: OK, she's a golfer! The LPGA US Open is going on! It all falls into place!

2. Entourage: HBO show. New episodes?

1. Rihanna: A popular singer whom one can "throw" at friends on Facebook. We don't know.

Boy, today was dismal. We give ourselves a score of 20% (and that's only giving ourselves credit for "Barclays Scottish Open," which is kind of a guess). For the week, this drops our overall score to 41.7%. The experiment concludes tomorrow.

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

Today we introduce a new occasional feature of "The Solipsist." Starting today, our very own WOS will contribute "thought pieces" on a variety of topics. Now, it should be understood that WOS is a caring nurturer, but she has what the Scots refer to as "anger." Herewith, the first installment of "Stuff WOS Hates":

You know what I hate?!? That stupid lady on the Dannon Light and Fit Yogurt commercial! That dumb whore rips the lid off that yogurt and slurps it down like she's never seen a spoon in her life! Goddamn I hate that slurping noise! It makes me want to rip my ears off! Sounds like a blow job gone wrong!

(Digression: It should be noted that the Solipsist himself has no particular problem with this commercial. EOD)

And THEN! And then! And then that idiot smiles! That stupid dumbass smile! I wanna wipe that stupid smile right off her stupid face. God I hate her stupid face with her damn button nose and stupid blond hair. I know that's a redundancy of "stupid"! You wanna make something of it?!? Now every time that commercial comes on, I have to mute the television so that I don't hear her slurping! And then I forget to UNMUTE the TV when my shows come back on! God I hate her! Bitch, stay away from me or you're gonna get an asskicking! And if I ever see you in a store slurping yogurt, I'm gonna grab a spoon, scoop out your eyes, and shove them down your throat so you can see when I plant my foot square in your ass.

Thank you for listening.

--WOS