Frosty Speed Demons

So Danica Patrick didn't do so well in her NASCAR debut. Ah, well. At least she wasn't hurt.

Speaking of NASCAR, and in keeping with our Olympics theme, has anyone else noticed that speed-skating is essentially just NASCAR on ice--without cars, though, which makes it infinitely more interesting. We don't understand people who refer to NASCAR drivers as athletes. It takes no athletic skill to make a hish-speed left turn. Maybe if they were propelling themselves around the track at a hundred miles an hour without benefit of internal-combustion engines. . . .

If speed-skating is NASCAR, then short-track speed-skating is roller-derby. When people tell us that Apolo Ohno wins a race, we just take their word for it, 'cause we have no idea how anyone can keep track of who's ahead of whom in that venue.

How does someone decide to devote him/herself to speed-skating? It does look kind of cool, but when you come right down to it, it's really just skating in a big circle really really fast. Are speed-skaters just aspiring hockey players who don't know how to handle their sticks?

Snort!

(Image from vancouver2010.com)

Skimetics

We like the Olympics, especially the winter games. Every four years we get to decompress from football season with the charming sight of athletic, lycra-clad women speeding around skating rinks or careening down mountains or sweeping in front of teakettles. (OK, curling doesn't call for women to be clad in lycra, but such an innovation would significantly boost ratings.)

More importantly, the advent of the games provides us with fascinating new pieces of trivia, like the fact that ski-jumpers may be more prone to eating disorders than female gymnasts or "America's Next Top Model" contestants ("Battle of Weight Versus Gain in Ski Jumping"). Because weight is inversely proportional to the distance ski-jumpers can travel, many aspiring Olympians succumb to anorexia and bulimia.

Maybe they need to perform (take?) some laxativities. Of course, when it comes to bowel-loosening activities, hurtling at extreme speeds some 400 feet down the side of a snow-covered mountain is about as laxativitudinous as it gets..

In an effort to discourage extreme weight loss, ski-jumping officials are recalculating the formula that determines maximum ski-length:

"Currently, the longest allowable skis are 146 percent of a jumper's height. To be eligible for that maximum length, a jumper must have a body mass index of at least 18.5 without his equipment. . . . For each half-unit below this minimum, allowable ski-length in relation to a jumper's height is reduced by 2 percent. . . . After the Olympics, the rules will be adjusted. . . . The relatively heavier athletes will be allowed slightly longer skis as encouragement not to lose weight to enhance their performance."

That's a lot of information, but it basically means that heavier ski-jumpers will get a sort of "weight premium" in the length of their skis--longer skis enabling longer jumps. To put it another way, if the Solipsist ever decides to take up ski-jumping, he will be allowed to wear 19-foot skis, and will thus probably sail over 900 miles per jump.

But we're not likely to take advantage of this opportunity any time soon. Ski jumping is one of those sports we think no one should try--EVER--unless he's already really really good at it. We wonder how one actually starts ski-jumping. Sure, in a sense it's rather simple: You go to the top of the ramp and ski straight down, gathering speed as a simple function of gravity, until you reach the end of the ramp and take off. The experts make the rest look easy. But if you screw up, you end up looking like the "Agony of Defeat" guy. And until you're an expert, aren't you somewhat likely to screw up? We don't understand how anybody survives long enough to make it to the Olympics.

Enjoy the games!

(Image from Wikiality.com)

Excuses, Excuses

This semester, Tuesdays and Thursdays are rough days for your old pal the Solipsist. We teach pretty much straight through, non-stop from 9:30-1:00, then we hold workshops from 1:00-2:00. On Thursdays, we then teach another class from 5:40-8:30. And lest this sounds pretty cushy to you non-teachers out there--those who read this and think, "Boy, you have to work a whole 12 hours a week! Rough!"--let us point out that each class contains some 30-odd (REALLY odd) students, each of whom turns in between 3 and 12 pages worth of work a week, each page of which requires a certain amount of care and tending by Your-Not-So-Humble-Correspondent.

(If any of you think teachers have an easy job, TRY IT FOR A WEEK!)

Anyway, all of this is by way of saying that we're likely to be a little fahblundget on Tuesdays and (especially) Thursdays, so the posts will probably be brief. We're going to try to save up our one-liners for those days.

For the lameness of other days' posts, we have no excuse.

Now, if you'll excuse us, we have to go teach prospective auto mechanics how to write standard business letters without accidentally setting themselves on fire. Ready the ointment!

We're Going Slightly Mad

We apologize for yesterday's entry--we were uninspired and tired, so we basically phoned it in. Actually, it might have been better if we had phoned it in. Then we could have just dictated something and not had to overcome the inertia of staring at a blank screen, which no doubt contributed to the general blahness of yesterday's post. We'll try not to let it happen again.

We noticed today that the psychiatrists of the world are updating the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, currently in its 4th edition. The DSM-IV is an object of frequent controversy both for its inclusions and omissions. The DSM-V should be no less controversial. Noteworthy proposals mentioned in today's paper include the "addition of a childhood disorder called temper disregulation disorder with dysphoria." This behavioral condition would presumably become an alternative diagnosis for kids currently being diagnosed as bipolar. Potentially a good thing, as it would lead to behavioral rather than drug-oriented therapies.

Also, "sex addiction" may be redefined as "hypersexuality," which is when "a great deal of time is consumed by sexual fantasies and urges." Doesn't everybody have that? Seriously, though, we were actually relieved to hear that nympho/satyromania and its ilk are getting a closer look; we are sick and tired of being accosted by Supermodel Solipsist Groupies who hurl themselves at us, only to be rebuffed.

On an unrelated note, some mental-health professionals propose including "Graphomaniacal Delusion of Grandeur Disorder (G-DOG): A disease suffered by those who write compulsively and believe that supermodels are hurling themselves at them.

We personally think it's far past time that Juggler's Despair made the DSM.

One problem we have with the DSM is that it seems to pathologize everyday humanity. Speaking as a clinically semi-depressed person, we know all too well that mental illness is all too common. According to the National Institutes of Mental Health, 26.2% of American adults suffer from a diagnosable mental illness. But is this a sign that more than a quarter of the adult population is certifiably bonkers, or rather that there are just an ever-increasing number of diagnoses? Since one can search in vain for anyone who could be described as 100% normal, the question is not whether one suffers from a mental illness, but which one and to what extent?

We're hoping for a mild case of irrational euphoria, ourselves.

Comfort Mugs, Redux

One year ago in this space, we discussed "comfort mugs," ceramic repositories of psychic well-being, particularly on Sunday mornings when filled with coffee and accompanied by The New York Times, a baseball game, and thou. Frankly, given the first two, we can take or leave "thou." Our comfort mug is decorated with DC Comics superheroes--the alternate CM features "The Jetsons." Several months ago, we received a "Toastmasters" mug, which does a good job of holding coffee, but has yet to manifest any comforting properties.

At the risk of sounding double-entendre-ish, we feel uneasy when others handle our comfort objects. As a married Solipsist, we've grown accustomed to WOS using our mugs and wearing our socks and t-shirts. But still, we must stifle a shudder of dread if the mug is placed too near the table's edge. We imagine we would survive the breakage of the mug, but would it be a life worth living?

The corollary of loving things is fearing their destruction--the corollary of loving people, too. Do we invest objects with significance in order to give ourselves practice in dealing with greater losses? Or does our inherent need for connection and fear of loss cause us to invest the objects with significance? The pondering continues.

The Joys of Teaching

We were all set to provide our thoughts on yesterday's main event--the Super Bowl. . . commercials--but we got a little backed up at work, and it's late, so we thought we'd share some entertaining tidbits from our students.

In every class we teach, we assign the following piece of regular homework: Every day, students are to take a piece of non-fiction prose and select a paragraph of approximately 150 words. They are then to hand-copy this paragraph exactly, paying attention to sentence structure, diction, punctuation, etc. The idea is that no one actually learns to write by taking writing classes--people learn to write by reading and writing. We feel, therefore, that one of the most valuable services we can provide our students is the opportunity--or the mandate--to conscientiously read professional writing.

Students receive no credit for an entry with more than three errors. When students ask us how we will know if they've made a mistake, we explain that, if we find more than three misspellings, run-on sentences, or other fundamental errors in composition, we assume the mistakes are the student's and not the professional writer's or editor's. (And, of course, we tell students that they can show us the original and, if the mistakes appear there, they will be given full credit for the assignment--and forbidden from ever using that source again!)

In general, the students do a decent job, and any mistakes are fairly minor and uninteresting. Every now and then, though. . . .

Tonight, for example, we read a selection from an article ostensibly titled, "Travoltas May Be Forced to Relieve Son's Death." The most interesting error, though, was from an article on bulimia. The article explained that many bulimics will try to maintain their weight by exercising, vomiting, or using diuretics or "laxativities."

Activities that make you poop, perhaps?

Solipsist out!

None Dare Call It Treason (A Brief Post)

Addressing the "Tea Party" convention yesterday--

(Digression: Is this an official "party," now? Do we need to abandon the scare quotes? Because if we do, then we're REALLY scared. EOD)

--Sarah "Caribou Barbie" Palin said, "I am a big support of this [Tea Party] movement. America is ready for another revolution."

Now, we're all for free speech. But consider what would have happened in 2008 if candidate Barack Obama had used that rhetoric. The Republican howls of "Sedition!" and "Treason!" would still be echoing today.

None dare call it treason? May we at least call it offensive idiocy?