Happy Talk Like a Pirate Day!

Yarrrr, avast us hearties! Shiver our timbers and flag down the cannonade! Today, as ye all no doubt know, be International Talk Like a Pirate Day! So, if ye haven't been arrgh-ing and timber-shivering all day, ye've just not been in the holiday spirit!

All right, that's enough of that. But if you DIDN'T know today was ITLAP Day, here's some background.

TLAP Day is the brain(?)child of a couple of guys named John Baur and Mark Summers, who invented the holiday one day while playing racquetball. The date (9/19) has no significance aside from being the birthday of Summers' ex-wife--a date which hadn't been "claimed" by anything momentous like the attack on Pearl Harbor or Arbor Day. Although the Pirate Guys chartered the holiday in 1995, it attained (inter)national prominence when promoted by columnist Dave Barry in 2002. Since then, the sky--or at least the internet--has been the limit.

We have no quibble with the semi-celebrity status achieved by the Pirate Guys, but we think it's fascinating how this holiday has grown. We find it fascinating that TLAP Day has gone so viral that, for the most part, you don't even need to explain it anymore. Indeed, ACOS has been posting reminders of TLAP Day's approach on his Facebook page for the past several days. We picture him laying his pirate hat, eyepatch, and pegleg, out on his bed sometime last week and muttering softly as he stroked a stuffed parrot, "Soon, me pretty. 'Twill be soon. Arrrr. . . ."

In psycho-sociological terms, Talk Like a Pirate Day is a meme. A meme is essentially the cultural equivalent of a gene--or, perhaps, a virus. Just as genes are transmitted throughout a population by sexual reproduction, memes spread throughout a population by means of repetition--or maybe sexual reproduction, we're not sure. And, like that of genes, the reproductive success of memes is a function of their "coding" for desirable traits.

Thus, for example, we imagine two memes, one that "codes" for randomly killing people in the street and another that "codes" for, well, NOT randomly killing people in the street. Since the second meme would obviously be more useful for the survival of a society, that meme will become culturally dominant. Other memes, like genes, have greater or lesser degrees of reproductive success. The belief in God has been pretty successful; the belief that the world is flat had a good run until disproven by science. (Of course, the fact that some folk still believe the world is flat suggests memes cannot simply be eradicated through scientific advancement; no innoculation will be 100% successful in the elimination of a "diseased" meme.)

In our lifetime, we have seen memes come and go: neoconservatism, a fondness for disco, "Where's the beef?" Sure, we're still mimetic carriers, but that's all: These are recessive traits. They have outlived their usefulness in society. We suspect Talk Like a Pirate Day will go the same route. So enjoy the meme while you can. Matey.

Cheap Laughs

We apologize for the brevity--not to say non-existence--of yesterday's post. We were at an academic conference on "The Future of the Semi-Colon"; it looks bright! We had major difficulty accessing the internet via our handy new cellphone. We managed to make it to blogger.com, and even to the "New Post" tab of "The Solipsist"; we couldn't, however, enter any text beyond the title. Still, we maintain that our daily blogging streak continues. (Like if Cal Ripken, Jr., had come in as a pinch-runner in the bottom of the ninth. It would still count!)

While away, though, we caught the premiere of NBC's new comedy, "Community." The show takes place at a community college, so you can understand YNSHC's interest.

Frankly, we wonder if we should take offense.

The show stars Joel ("The Soup") McHale as a shady lawyer forced to return to school in order to avoid disbarment. He figures the easiest way to earn credits is to go to a community college, where he can fake his way through classes, as he once faked his way through courtrooms. He is surrounded by a group of misfits, representing the predictable stereotypes of community-college students: Abed (Danny Pudi), a socially dysfunctional middle-easterner who appears to suffer from Asperger's Syndrome; Troy (Donald Glover), a former prom king/jock clinging to the glory of his high school days; Shirley (Yvette Nicole Brown), an early-middle-aged African-American woman seeking to continue her education (the academic term of art is "returning student"); Annie (Alison Brie), a neurotic recent high-school graduate who apparently struggles with an addiction to ADHD medication; and Chevy Chase. He plays the elderly student looking to fill his retirement with educational enrichment, and he, too, is a bit of a dolt.

McHale's Navy--or at least his crew--is rounded out by Britta (Gillian Jacobs), an attractive, young(ish), high-functioning woman, who belies the stereotype of the typical attendee of "loser college" (as the dean refers to CC's in the show's opening). Her excuse for not attending UCLA? She "dropped out of high school to impress Radiohead." This, of course, was followed by time in the Peace Corps and other resume-filling activities sure to impress whatever four-year school she eventually transfers to.

Therein, of course, lies one flaw in this--or any--show revolving around a community college: The high-functioning students won't stick around for long. Two years, at most. Of course, if the producers of "M*A*S*H" could keep the Korean War raging for 11 years, the producers of "Community" will find a way to keep Britta at Greendale for a while.

But will they have to worry about that? Probably not. The show did provide a couple of chuckles, but nothing truly memorable. One of the best parts of the pilot was an appearance by "Daily Show" alum John Oliver as a psychology professor, and we're not even sure he's a regular on the cast.

And then there's the "offense" question. Apparently, some were bothered by the light-hearted banter about Asperger's Syndrome; that, however, is politically correct inanity. We were more bothered by what the show says about community colleges.

We will be the first to admit that there is some truth to the caricatures: you can find virtually all those stereotypes--including, it must be noted, the high-functioning, perfectly "normal" girls like Britta--at every community college. You also, frankly, also find students much more dysfunctional than even Chevy Chase (hard to believe, we know!). Still, a part of us was put off by the show's mockery.

Don't get us wrong: We agree with the old "Candid Camera" lyric--it is "fun to laugh at yourself." No one knows better than the Solipsist that a rich vein of comic material can be mined at any institution of higher (or lower) learning. "Welcome Back, Kotter," "Head of the Class," "Animal House." But consider the targets of those shows: "Kotter" was about a dysfunctional class filled with misfits--who actually start to thrive under a teacher's guidance. "Head of the Class" was about high-achieving "Sweat Hogs." "Animal House" poked fun at fraternity culture. "Community," indeed, could work if it poked fun at a BAD community college; the problem is that the show seems to tar ALL community colleges as bad ("loser" college, indeed).

Sure, the students at community college are not the types you'd find at Harvard or Yale or even Missouri State (for example). But that's the point. These students are people who have made a conscious choice to better themselves through education, and they are often doing it at the only place they can. We would hate to see the already second-class image of community colleges degraded even further by its representation as a holding pen for societal misfits.

Especially if it's just not that funny.

Can`t Blog--Travelling. More Tomorrow

The Acorn Falls

ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is having a rough year. Last November, the grassroots organization was accused of perpetrating voter fraud in support of the Obama campaign. More recently, right-wing videographer James O'Keefe undertook a sting operation, wherein he and a female colleague posed as a pimp and a hooker. The pair then visited ACORN offices across the country, soliciting "advice" on how to set up brothels for underage Salvadoran prostitutes. (Go ahead, chuckle.) The undercover videos show ACORN employees--despite the fact that O'Keefe and his collaborator wear outlandish costumes and make outrageous requests--offering straight-faced advice on ways to get around zoning restrictions, law enforcement, tax authorities and the like. In the aftermath, the US Senate has voted to prohibit the Department of Housing and Urban Development from providing financial support to the organization, and politicians are rushing to distance themselves from ACORN. (See "Conservatives Draw Blood from Acorn")

The vast right-wing conspiracy is creaming its khakis. (Sorry for the image.)

First, let us stipulate that we harbor no ill will towards ACORN. They seem like good folks. According to their mission statement, ACORN "aims to organize a majority constituency of low- to moderate income people across the United States. The members of ACORN take on issues of relevance to their communities, whether those issues are discrimination, affordable housing, a quality education, or better public services." We're going out on a limb here, but we suspect the vast majority of ACORN employees are opposed to Salavadoran child prostitution. Assuming those caught on film were offering Mac-Daddy O'Keefe sincere advice, they should be terminated. But at worst their comments attest to nothing more than the fact that even an ACORN tree can grow a few bad apples.

(Digression: According to a posting on ACORN's site, at least one of the staffers, Tresa Kaelke, caught offering questionable advice was playing along with what she took to be a joke: "They were clearly playing with me. I decided to shock them as much as they were shocking me. Like Stephen Colbert does." EOD.)

And yet, we have to admit. . . . Now don't jump down our throat! . . . We are forced to acknowledge. . . . This is hard for us. . . . When you sit back and think about it. . . . (Solipsist swallows hard.) . . . Don't you kind of have to appreciate James O'Keefe a little?

Very little, to be sure. But, look, while we good liberals can roll our eyes and mutter imprecations, we would applaud a similar video featuring, say, Michael Moore infiltrating the Heritage Foundation. And these days, when "You lie!" is the right-wing version of a Dorothy Parker-esque bon mot, one must grudgingly acknowledge a right-winger who apparently possesses a scintilla of wit. One only hopes that O'Keefe undergoes a conversion at some point and decides to use his powers for good.

Precisely Irrational

The Solipsist is a closet math-geek. (Yes, yes, there's nothing "closeted" about our geekdom. But you may not have known about the "math" part.) As an English instructor, YNSHC finds something pleasing about the fact that math provides an opportunity to arrive at actual solutions. And every now and then, we discover a philosophically interesting tidbit amidst the mathematical minutiae.

Take the Pythagorean theorem (please!). Now, as any math teacher, engineer, or 7th grader could tell you, the Pythagorean theorem states that the sum of the squares of the two legs of a right triangle will equal the square of the hypotenuse: A-squared + B-squared = C-squared.

(Digression: You'll have to put up with the fact that the Solipsist has no idea how to do superscripts or other math-y symbols. EOD)

Now, in practice, what this means is that if you know the lengths of any two sides of a right-triangle (a triangle with a 90 degree angle), you can calculate the length of the third side fairly easily. If you know, for example, that the two legs of said triangle are 3" and 4", you can get the length of the hypotenuse:

3-squared + 4-squared = C-squared.

9 + 16 = C-squared

25 = C-squared

The square root of 25 = C

C = 5

Easy peasy eggs and cheesy.

Of course, not all right triangles provide such a nice pat answer. Sometimes, the sum of the squares of the legs will not equal a perfect square, i.e., the answer will be irrational. Take, for example, an equilateral right triangle, the legs of which are each 1":

1-squared + 1-squared = C-squared

1 + 1 = C-squared

2 = C-squared

C = Square root of 2

Now, on the test, you could usually get away with saying that root-2 is the answer. Some instructors might want you to whip out your handy calculator; the Solipsist's gives him an figure of 1.4142135623730950488016887242097.

Approximately.

Because it is approximate, of course. You could keep adding digits until your figure could encircle the globe. Twice. And you still would not get the exact answer for the square-root of 2.

But here's the thing: You could certainly DRAW a right triangle with legs of 1" and 1". You could then draw the line--the hypotenuse--connecting those two legs. And you know how long that line would be? EXACTLY root-2 inches long.

Think about that: The quantity is precise. It is exact. It is logically sound. And yet, it is completely impossible ever to assign to this quantity a precise numerical value. There are more things in mathematics, than are dreamt of--or at least nameable--in our philosophy.

Cake

One of the more mystifying cliches encounter on a regular basis is "You can't have your cake and eat it, too." What's the point of having cake, one might inquire, if one cannot eat it? Of course, the cliche simply means that once you have, in fact, eaten your cake, you no longer have it; you cannot both ingest the cake and possess it; you cannot have things both ways; you must choose.

(Digression: the meaning would be much clearer if one reversed the terms: "You cannot eat your cake and have it, too." Start spreading the word, Sloppists. EOD)

All of which is by way of introducing today's topic: the powerful human impulse to clasp one's cake in a death grip while at the same time enjoying all that cake-y goodness.

At work we see this all the time. Today we heard about a student who required a creme-filled donut. (NOTE: We are changing various details to preserve both student confidentiality and allegorical rhetoric.) The school's Pastry Department was only too willing to provide said donut--it's what they do. But the student, perhaps fearing the stigma of identifying herself as a pastry needer, did not wish to utilize the department's services. Instead, she went to her instructor and demanded that the instructor himself provide her a donut. As this instructor's department chair, the Solipsist was consulted. His response: If the student is unwilling to do what she needs to do to acquire the services to which she is entitled, then we are under no obligation to go out of our way to meet those needs. Our dean was concerned that the situation might become litigious!

Such is our society today, though. How can we blame this student when all around she sees supposed grown-ups behaving in much the same way? AIG wants a government bail-out but balks when anyone in government proposes reasonable restrictions on the use of those funds. The federal government must stay the hell out of education--unless it's considering legislation to permit prayer in schools. The federal government must also keep the hell out of people's private lives--except when it comes to preventing women from having abortions or gay people from getting married.

Look, there's really nothing wrong with WANTING to eat one's cake and have it, too. As human beings, we're hard-wired with those desires. The mark of maturity, though, is the recognition that it's largely impossible.

Here's to Your Health III

Amidst all the foofaraw about healthcare reform, one constant refrain of those who oppose a public option is that private insurance companies will be unable to compete with a government-run plan: "A public plan is essentially a stalking horse for a single-payer plan. . . . There is no way the private sector will be able to compete" ("Public Option Fades from Debate Over Health Care").

Can we get a "So what?"

We comprehend why the insurance industry and its paid legislators worry about this. We fail to understand, however, why the masses who descended upon Washington yesterday are so protective of Big-HMO. (OK, they weren't ONLY protesting healthcare reform: They also wanted the right to brandish firearms and shoot illegal immigrants, but healthcare was on the agenda, too.)

Look, YNSHC is basically happy with his insurance provider but would hardly be traumatized if a cheaper government-sponsored alternative came along. And if conservatives are all about the market--which is all about competition--then why fear the prospect of consumers freely choosing a government option that they perceive to be a better value and/or a better provider of healthcare? On the one hand, conservatives complain that the government is essentially evil and incompetent; on the other hand, they worry that a government-run health insurance program would be so wildly successful as to bankrupt the private insurance industry.

One seemingly reasonable fear is that so many people would choose a public option that it would bankrupt the government. This makes no sense. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 11 to 12 million people might take advantage of the option--a manageable number. But let's say, as some conservatives fear, that the number will be much higher. The Lewin Group, a consulting firm, has projected that more than 100 million people might enroll. OK, Lewin Group (which, by the way, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the insurance giant United Healthcare--we're just sayin'), let's take it a step further: Let's say everyone enrolls in the government plan! Then what? Well, government costs will increase exponentially! And who will pay for this? The taxpayer!

Again, can we get a "So what?"

Look, folks, you're all paying these costs already. That "free" insurance you get from your job? Not so much. The Solipsist figures, conservatively, that the nifty coverage he gets from his job costs his employer at least $1,000 a month--probably a lot more. Of that $1,000, some portion goes to pay his insurers' marketing and other administrative costs--costs which a public provider would not incur. If we took home that extra $1,000 a month, even if we had to pay an additional 700, 800, 900--hell, even 999 dollars a month in taxes, we'd still end up ahead financially!

Now we understand why right-wingers were so intent on disrupting any reasoned debate of healthcare reform. When you look at the basic facts and think about the whole thing logically, they really don't have too much going for them. Don't let the screaming drown out the sense.