Saturday, April 16, 2011
Researcher Compares Apples and Oranges, Discovers Awful Truth
San Jose--Police are searching for a free-lance researcher and bike messenger who has been missing since Thursday night. Mitchell Renfro sent a text message to his cousin and sometime girlfriend, Terry McAdam, at 7:12 PM, informing her that he "had the evidence" and that "They" were after him. He has not been seen or heard from since. Police investigating the disappearance found numerous bound volumes in Renfro's apartment. According to friends, co-workers, and assorted pizza delivery men, Renfro has devoted the last several years to an extensive comparison of apples and oranges. "It started about five years ago, when Mitch was in college," said Renfro's dentist, Dr. Henry Wasserman of Redwood City. "He became troubled when someone told him that comparing Mick Jagger and an eggplant was like, well, you know, 'comparing apples and oranges.' He didn't get it, so I had to explain that this was what people said when you tried comparing two things that couldn't really be compared." According to Renfro's journal (vol. 6), he never accepted this non-comparability. "What's wrong with comparing apples and oranges?" he wrote. "They're both fruit, right? What's really going on here?" For the next several years, Renfro apparently spared no expense in his quest to determine why people refused to compare apples and oranges. His travels took him to Montreal, Indonesia, and the Vatican, where he escaped what investigators now consider to be the first of several assassination attempts. Police suspect that Renfro's final message indicated that he had finally completed his comparison and stumbled on to a secret that was never meant to be revealed. "I just hope he's OK, wherever he is," Ms. McAdam told reporters. "And if anyone is holding him, I can promise you that he'll only eat peaches from now on."
Friday, April 15, 2011
Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Something That Looks Pretty Much Like Her
Whew! Things got a bit heavy here at Solipsist Nation for the last couple of days. In honor of Friday, then, we present something on the lighter side.
It will relieve Sloppists to know that hard-hitting, in-depth investigative journalism has not disappeared. The front page of today's Times attests to that. Unfortunately, the Times' front page features not their own hard-hitting, in-depth investigative journalism, but that of one of their major competitors, Linn's Stamp News.
Yes, Sloppists, scandal has rocked the philatelic world to a degree unseen since some yutz printed an airplane upside down.
(DIGRESSION: How did people know the airplane was printed upside down? Maybe everyone was just holding their sheet of stamps by the wrong end. EOD)
Since December, the United States Post Office has sold "Forever" stamps bearing the image of the Statue of Liberty. The only problem? The "Lady Liberty" peering out verdigristically at the Luddite slapping her onto a piece of snail-mail is not, in fact, the familiar icon who looms over New York harbor; it's her Las Vegas doppelganger. The mistake was caught by a keen-eyed stamp collector, who also happens to be a Statue of Liberty "Superfan." (Sorry, Ladies, we don't know whether he's single.)
While the two statues have major differences--as the article helfully points out, "The Las Vegas statue is half the size of the real Statue of Liberty. And of course, they are in different cities" (thanks, New York Times)--the headshot pictured on the stamp is distingishable from the New York version through subtle variations noticeable only to a keen-eyed observer: slight differences in hairstyle, more definition around the eyes, a rhinestone-encrusted crown. . . .
What can we learn from this episode? As former NYC-Mayor Ed Koch said, "It simply means the post office is doing a stupid thing."
It will relieve Sloppists to know that hard-hitting, in-depth investigative journalism has not disappeared. The front page of today's Times attests to that. Unfortunately, the Times' front page features not their own hard-hitting, in-depth investigative journalism, but that of one of their major competitors, Linn's Stamp News.
Yes, Sloppists, scandal has rocked the philatelic world to a degree unseen since some yutz printed an airplane upside down.
(DIGRESSION: How did people know the airplane was printed upside down? Maybe everyone was just holding their sheet of stamps by the wrong end. EOD)
Since December, the United States Post Office has sold "Forever" stamps bearing the image of the Statue of Liberty. The only problem? The "Lady Liberty" peering out verdigristically at the Luddite slapping her onto a piece of snail-mail is not, in fact, the familiar icon who looms over New York harbor; it's her Las Vegas doppelganger. The mistake was caught by a keen-eyed stamp collector, who also happens to be a Statue of Liberty "Superfan." (Sorry, Ladies, we don't know whether he's single.)
While the two statues have major differences--as the article helfully points out, "The Las Vegas statue is half the size of the real Statue of Liberty. And of course, they are in different cities" (thanks, New York Times)--the headshot pictured on the stamp is distingishable from the New York version through subtle variations noticeable only to a keen-eyed observer: slight differences in hairstyle, more definition around the eyes, a rhinestone-encrusted crown. . . .
What can we learn from this episode? As former NYC-Mayor Ed Koch said, "It simply means the post office is doing a stupid thing."
Solipsistography
"This Lady Liberty Is a Las Vegas Teenager"
Image of "Inverted Jenny" from Internet Time Blog
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Born in the USA! (Part II)
People can believe whatever they want. Some still believe that if one sails too far in one direction, one will fall over the edge and become dragon-fodder. Some believe that man never landed on the moon. The Solipsist believes that North Dakota does not exist, and you will never convince him otherwise. And, of course, some believe that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii (or, presumably, any other state) and was thus ineligible to be elected President.
One should not devote too much time to refuting these assertions, especially since we did so yesterday. We thus continue our discussion of this non-issue with Point Two of our extensive two-point discussion:
It really doesn't matter anyway
That's right: Even if it somehow turned out that Obama was not born in the USA, he is still the President. He won the 2008 election by a sizable margin over Senator John McCain, despite any concerns raised about his natural-born citizenship. Meaning that a significant percentage of the American electorate either felt that Obama was enough of an American for them, or at least he was the better-qualified candidate whatever his planet of origin.
But Solipsist, it's in the Consti-TOO-tion!!!
Well, OK. The Constitution also says that Black people are only equivalent to 60% of a human being.
(DIGRESSION: Would this mean that Obama technically only needs a 60% verifiable birth certificate? 'Cause if so, we think the "Certificate of Live Birth" he's offered should count.
((ADDITIONAL DIGRESSION: A friend chastised us for "not doing our homework" because, if we had, we would see that Obama's sister, who was born in Indonesia, also has a "COLB" from Hawaii. The point supposedly being that these documents are unreliable. If this is true, we would accept the fact that Obama's sister's certificate is a less-than-absolute guarantee of HER place of nativity, but we would hasten to point out that this proves nothing about Obama's birthplace. EOAD))
(BACK TO THE ORIGINAL DIGRESSION: Of course, President Obama is only half-Black, so maybe that makes him 80% human--which still puts him ahead of Biden. EOD)
OK, anyway, back to the original point: It is in the Constitution that one must be a "Natural-Born Citizen." Congress and the judiciary have expanded and expounded upon this clause over the years. Thus, for example, a child of two American citizens born outside the country will be granted natural citizenship. Also, those born to American parents on overseas US territories like military bases will also receive automatic US citizenship. Presumably this explains the relative lack of foofaraw over the fact that John McCain was most emphatically and unambiguously NOT born in the USA (he was born in the Panama Canal Zone). Unfortunately, Obama doesn't qualify for this sort of consideration: His father, of course, was a Kenyan citizen who traveled to the United States for the sole purpose of furthering his studies and impregnating our women.
Which brings us to the thorny question of racism: Is the continued focus on Obama's place of origin simply a manifestation of inherently racist attitudes? Well, yes and no. We were actually surprised to see how many challenges to presidential aspirants' "Native-Born" qualifications there have been. While it did not receive much attention, John McCain's eligibility was challenged. The citizenship of Al Gore, that most blandly American of candidates, was challenged on the grounds that he was born in Washington, D.C. (i.e., not a state). So it is quite likely that Obama's standing would have been challenged regardless of his color. Nevertheless, if Obama's father's name had been, say, Barry Owens, and he was from, say, Canada instead of Kenya, we consider it unlikely that this controversy would still be raging.
The most infuriating thing about this whole controversy, for us, is the hypocrisy. Let's face it, those behind the Birther movement could care less about the constitutional questions. You think we're wrong? We'll take it back--IF you can show us any leader of the movement who was equally concerned about the blatant unconstitutionality of the 2000 election of George W. Bush.
Of course, the reason people are screaming about Obama's supposed alienness is that they hate Obama. Fair enough. We hated George W. Bush. But we hated him in policy grounds: pointless wars, environmental degradation, economic cataclysm. And there are similarly "valid" reasons to dislike Obama. The Solipsist, a lifelong Democrat, has plenty of gripes with President Obama, from his too-timid healthcare plan to his apparent unwillingness to stand up to Republicans and big-business interests.
Why won't Birthers simply let the citizenship non-question go and focus on these more-substantive issues? Is it because the people behind the Birther movement have no better ideas for solving the nation's real problems? Indeed, is it because they themselves profit from these problems and don't want anyone to focus too closely on them? Now there's a conspiracy theory worth investigating!
Solipsistography
"Donald Trump Strikes Back"
One should not devote too much time to refuting these assertions, especially since we did so yesterday. We thus continue our discussion of this non-issue with Point Two of our extensive two-point discussion:
It really doesn't matter anyway
That's right: Even if it somehow turned out that Obama was not born in the USA, he is still the President. He won the 2008 election by a sizable margin over Senator John McCain, despite any concerns raised about his natural-born citizenship. Meaning that a significant percentage of the American electorate either felt that Obama was enough of an American for them, or at least he was the better-qualified candidate whatever his planet of origin.
But Solipsist, it's in the Consti-TOO-tion!!!
Well, OK. The Constitution also says that Black people are only equivalent to 60% of a human being.
(DIGRESSION: Would this mean that Obama technically only needs a 60% verifiable birth certificate? 'Cause if so, we think the "Certificate of Live Birth" he's offered should count.
((ADDITIONAL DIGRESSION: A friend chastised us for "not doing our homework" because, if we had, we would see that Obama's sister, who was born in Indonesia, also has a "COLB" from Hawaii. The point supposedly being that these documents are unreliable. If this is true, we would accept the fact that Obama's sister's certificate is a less-than-absolute guarantee of HER place of nativity, but we would hasten to point out that this proves nothing about Obama's birthplace. EOAD))
(BACK TO THE ORIGINAL DIGRESSION: Of course, President Obama is only half-Black, so maybe that makes him 80% human--which still puts him ahead of Biden. EOD)
OK, anyway, back to the original point: It is in the Constitution that one must be a "Natural-Born Citizen." Congress and the judiciary have expanded and expounded upon this clause over the years. Thus, for example, a child of two American citizens born outside the country will be granted natural citizenship. Also, those born to American parents on overseas US territories like military bases will also receive automatic US citizenship. Presumably this explains the relative lack of foofaraw over the fact that John McCain was most emphatically and unambiguously NOT born in the USA (he was born in the Panama Canal Zone). Unfortunately, Obama doesn't qualify for this sort of consideration: His father, of course, was a Kenyan citizen who traveled to the United States for the sole purpose of furthering his studies and impregnating our women.
Which brings us to the thorny question of racism: Is the continued focus on Obama's place of origin simply a manifestation of inherently racist attitudes? Well, yes and no. We were actually surprised to see how many challenges to presidential aspirants' "Native-Born" qualifications there have been. While it did not receive much attention, John McCain's eligibility was challenged. The citizenship of Al Gore, that most blandly American of candidates, was challenged on the grounds that he was born in Washington, D.C. (i.e., not a state). So it is quite likely that Obama's standing would have been challenged regardless of his color. Nevertheless, if Obama's father's name had been, say, Barry Owens, and he was from, say, Canada instead of Kenya, we consider it unlikely that this controversy would still be raging.
The most infuriating thing about this whole controversy, for us, is the hypocrisy. Let's face it, those behind the Birther movement could care less about the constitutional questions. You think we're wrong? We'll take it back--IF you can show us any leader of the movement who was equally concerned about the blatant unconstitutionality of the 2000 election of George W. Bush.
Of course, the reason people are screaming about Obama's supposed alienness is that they hate Obama. Fair enough. We hated George W. Bush. But we hated him in policy grounds: pointless wars, environmental degradation, economic cataclysm. And there are similarly "valid" reasons to dislike Obama. The Solipsist, a lifelong Democrat, has plenty of gripes with President Obama, from his too-timid healthcare plan to his apparent unwillingness to stand up to Republicans and big-business interests.
Why won't Birthers simply let the citizenship non-question go and focus on these more-substantive issues? Is it because the people behind the Birther movement have no better ideas for solving the nation's real problems? Indeed, is it because they themselves profit from these problems and don't want anyone to focus too closely on them? Now there's a conspiracy theory worth investigating!
Solipsistography
"Donald Trump Strikes Back"
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Born in the USA! (Part I)
Sometimes, just for kicks, we ask our students what qualifications a person MUST possess to be elected President of the United States. Many of them correctly guess there is an age requirement, although most don't know what it is. Some guess a President must have a college degree. (No. In fact, Harry S. Truman, as well as some of our earlier Presidents did not graduate from college.) Others guess that only men can be President. (No. It only seems that way.)Students are often surprised to learn that the only technical requirements for becoming President are that one be at least 35 years old, that one has resided in the United States for at least fourteen years, and that one was born in the United States of America.
As George W. Bush demonstrated, you don't even technically need to receive the most votes in an election.
Simple enough, really, and yet that last clause--the whole "Natural Born Citizen" thing, has caused all manner of controversy lately, as a small but vocal minority of Americans continues to insist that President Barack Obama has somehow managed to scam his way into the office of the presidency despite having been born in Hawaii. (That's not a state, right? The people are all different colors and stuff.)
No, no. These people are well aware that Hawaii is a state. They just don't think Obama was born there. They think he was born in Kenya or Indonesia or spawned in a tube or hatched from a pod or something. . . . The mind cringes.
Anyway, much to our chagrin, we have found ourselves drawn into the whole Obama birth-certificate (non-)controversy. Here, we present Part One of our final word on the situation:
Point 1. Barack Obama was born in the United States
Anyone who still insists that President Obama was not born in Hawaii is grasping at straws. No less a conservative icon than Bill O'Reilly seems to have thrown in the towel by acknowledging that President Obama produced his birth certificate (or, at any rate, his "Certificate of Live Birth") showing that he was, in fact, born in Hawaii. Much of the continued uproar, as far as we can tell, centers on the "birther" claim that President Obama needs to produce a "different" birth certificate or a "better" birth certificate or a birth certificate that sings and dances and poops strawberry ice cream.
And that's the point isn't it? First Obama's political opponents made a (reasonable) request that he prove he was born in the United States. At the time, the Obama campaign complied with this request, posting a copy of his birth certificate on its website. This "Certificate of Live Birth," by the way, was the same document that Barack Obama presented when he applied for a United States passport. It stirred no controversy then, and was considered sufficient proof that he was a natural-born United States citizen. Nevertheless, this did not satisfy a certain faction.
So what do we learn from this? Most emphatically NOT that Obama is some sort of crypto-Muslim-UnAmerican Manchurian (Mohammedan?) Candidate sent by . . . . well by "whom" is never made clear. . . .to corrupt and destroy America. Rather, what we learn is that a certain faction will NEVER accept that Obama was born in the USA, regardless of HOW much proof he offers.
You disagree? A thought experiment: President Obama calls the governor of Hawaii today and orders him to release absolutely every official document pertaining to his birth. The governor complies. Absolutely every document confirms what the vast majority of this country already knows: Obama was born in Hawaii.
What do you suppose would happen? Would the Birthers shake their heads and humbly and sincerely apologize for all their nonsense over the last three years or so? Or would they, rather, insist that THESE documents are insufficient or forgeries? Be honest now.
Frankly, at this point, the burden of proof falls on the Birthers. Obama has shown you some evidence that he was born in Hawaii. It now falls to you to show us some equaly compelling documentary evidence that he was born elsewhere.
Tomorrow:
Point 2: It doesn't matter anyway
Image from DailyKos
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Utterly Pointless
Just a normal Tuesday, folks. . . .Normal Tuesday. . . .That would make a good name for a band. . . .Normal Tuesday. . . .Normal Tuesday and the Manatees. . . .That's what we'll call our band! And then everyone'll think that the Solipsist is "Normal Tuesday," and we'll have to correct them. No, no, we'll say: We're not "Normal Tuesday"; we're the Solipsist. Just like the lead singer of Hootie and the Blowfish was not "Hootie." He was quite emphatic about that. The Manatees, though, will, in fact, be manatees: Gentle, folk-rock playing seacows. . . . Yeah, that's our plan. *************************** Nerdy Grammar Shout-Out of the Day:
"But after getting a glimpse of the [changes to liturgical] texts in recent months, thousands of priests in the United States, Ireland and Australia have publicly objected that the translation is awkward, archaic and inaccessible."
Now that's some nice parallel structure, folks, complemented by nifty assonance ("awkward, archaic, and inaccessible"). Well played, Laurie Goodstein! (Leave it to the Jews to write elegantly about the Catholic Mass.)
Solipsistography
Image from Lily Pad Interiors
Monday, April 11, 2011
Literally Old
A couple of tidbits from today's paper, in case you missed them. First, from an article about converting weapons-grade plutonium into fuel suitable for civilian energy needs:
Further down the page, in an article about Katie Couric's dimming future at CBS News, we find a silver lining for the Tiffany network. Despite shrinking ratings,
“'We are literally turning swords into plowshares,' one of the project’s biggest boosters, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said at a hearing on Capitol Hill last week."No, Senator, you're not. You're LITERALLY blending plutonium with uranium to make a new fuel known as mixed oxide, or mox. If you wanted literally to turn swords into plowshares, you would need to find a surplus of swords and a craftsman skilled in the metallurgically transformative arts. Indeed, we doubt whether anyone ever LITERALLY turned swords into plowshares. How many swords would one need to make a good plowshare? And aren't there better uses for old swords? Prybars? Letter openers? Back scratchers?
Further down the page, in an article about Katie Couric's dimming future at CBS News, we find a silver lining for the Tiffany network. Despite shrinking ratings,
"Ms. Couric managed to do something unexpected: she lowered the median age for the program’s audience. After having the oldest network news audience under Mr. [Dan] Rather, CBS now has the youngest — with a median age of 60.6"60.6! Median! Not content to rest on their laurels, CBS has determined to hold on to this youth demographic. Witness their upcoming three-part special report on Rita Coolidge.
Solipsistography
"Couric's Rocky Five-Year Path to a Likely Parting with CBS"
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Anniversary
It was seven years ago today that WOS became WOS (even before we were 'S'--go figure). So we're off to dinner, and we have time only for this brief review of "127 Hours":
HOLY CRAP! HE CUTS HIS OWN ARM OFF!!!!
HOLY CRAP! HE CUTS HIS OWN ARM OFF!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)