What the Chinese Can Teach Us about Capitalism

In China, in 2007, the richest 10% of the population earned, on average, 23 times as much as the poorest 10%. In the United States, in 2008, the richest 0.01% of the population earned, on average, 875 times as much as the poorest 90%.

Chinese officials are worried about this trend. They fear that such income disparity could anger the poor and lead to social unrest. Thus, they have taken steps to forestall resentment--steps like imposing restrictions on ostentatious displays of wealth at funerals and in burial arrangements.

The official American response to income inequality includes such steps as ensuring that tax breaks for the richest citizens remain in place, vilifying unions that represent middle-class workers, and doing everything possible to shred whatever social safety nets have been put in place to protect the poorest.

Now, China has an authoritarian political structure and a popular tradition of respect for authority. But even they are worried enough about popular resentment that they have taken steps (albeit modest) to remedy at least the appearance of flagrant inequality. Americans have considerably less respect for governmental authority (see, for better or worse, the Tea Party). How long will it be before their far-more legitimate grievances boil over?

Solipsistography
"China Curbs Fancy Tombs That Irk Poor"
"It's the Inequality, Stupid"

What's the Earth Ever Done for Us?

And so this is Earth Day. Bah! Humbug!

Sure, Earth Day was once filled with magic. We'd sit around our plastic tree, opening presents wrapped in recycled paper. . . then reseal the presents so we could use them again for Channukah. Conservation ruled!

That all changed around 1990. There was this huge Earth Day celebration in Central Park. We went to support the planet and see the B-52's for free. And we behaved as well as we could: We urinated against the thirstiest looking tree we could find. We threw away our styrofoam cups in the general vicinity of the trash receptacles. And what did we get in return? A poorly amplified rendition of "Love Shack" and a third-degree sunburn on our legs.

We've sat out every Earth Day since.

Today, though, we fight back! We will get in WOS's car (that's right--we won't even use the Prius), drive to a McDonald's ten miles away, and order the biggest, rain-forest-destroyingest meal we can think of. On the way home, we hope to run over a polar bear.

And if the Ghost of Earth Day Future comes and shows us a future wherein we lie dead amidst the ruins of a despoiled planet, we hope we're filled with formaldehyde, so we can continue wreaking our vengeance upon this thankless planet.

That'll teach you to sunburn us!

Bzzzzzzzzz

You know, if there was one place we thought we could always go to where we wouldn't have to hear about vibrators, it was the New York Times. It used to be Walgreen's, until that chain store started selling vibrators. . . a fact documented in today's New York Times.

Yes, folks, it seems vibrators have become "acceptable." What's next? Equal pay for equal work?

Seriously, though, we were actually prepared to gloss over this article with a mere smirk and a leer, until we read this bit:

"Perhaps the top of the line [of 'personal massagers'] is the Lelo Inez, which for $13,500 offers a 'virtually silent' engine. . . and either an 18-karat gold-plated or stainless steel finish."

$13,500? Look, we defer to our female readership for guidance here, but. . . $13,500?!? What does a $13,500 vibrator do that a $19.99 Walgreens model doesn't?

For that kind of money, we hope that it at least cuddles with you afterwards.

Solipsistography
"Vibrators Carry the Conversation"

Sunday Paper Recap (Wednesday Edition)

As a beneficiary of grade inflation, we've never cared overly much about it. We never would have made it through the South North Westernburg School of Forestry and Dental Sciences with a 3.92 GPA without the boost provided by the ever-upward spiral of mediocrity. Still, we shudder at the fact that many of New York's college and university dining halls "failed" their recent inspections with the lowest grade awarded: C.

If a 'C' grade means that you have a minimum of 28 violations--28 roaches, 28 mice, 28 incidents of fry cooks couughing up ebola germs onto your bacn cheeseburger--what would earn someone an 'F' (if such a grade is even possible)?

It's this acceptance of baseline mediocrity that gave us such phenomena as President George W. Bush (he of the "Gentleman's C's" from Yale). It also explains why so many people have such problems with President Obama, what with his constantly sterling academic achievements: If he could have passed by just showing up, wasn't he just showing off? Sounds un-American.

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

From a study of longevity:

"[T]he single strongest social predictor. . .of early death was parental divorce during childhood."

Thanks a lot, MOS and DOS! You've doomed us to an early death!

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

Finally, psychological research has shown that people are more likely to remember things when they are presented in an unusual font. This has something to do with the fact that people devote more mental energy to "decoding" the information, which helps the brain store the information for later.

This is important information because there is something that the Solipsist has wanted to tell his followers for a long time. Because it is so immensely important (and, frankly, embarrassing), we wanted to make sure that, when we told you, you would remember it. We don't want to have to discuss it again. We didn't realize that simply putting the information into an unusual font would do the trick. So, here it is, in webdings:

The Solipsist has spent the last several years exploring the effects of sodium on otter reproduction. It turns out that sodium has no effect on otter reproduction. Also, otters really don't like to be watched when reproducing.

There. Now don't forget!

Solipsistography
"Come On, I Thought I Knew That!"
"Eighty Years Along, a Longevity Study Still Has Ground to Cover"
"Student Gripes Have a Point: Campus Dining Fails Exams"

Good Night? Good Luck!

This week is Spring Break at the Solipsist's college of employment. Many are the joys of having a week off: Sleeping late, reading, counting cats. The problems arise when we sit down to blog. Maybe it's the sleeping late, but our mind doesn't seem to. . . . uh. . . . y'know. . . . uh. . . WORK! That's it! It doesn't seem to work as well as it does when we're sleep-deprived and stressed out. In desperation, we flip over to Yahoo! to see what's "trending now."

A group of M. Night Shyamalan's fans have taken up a collection to send the one-time wunderkind back to film school. We can certainly think of better ways to spend money, but we understand the impulse. We liked "The Sixth Sense" as much as anyone, and we think that "Unbreakable" is underrated, but since then the man has had whatever is the opposite of the Midas Touch when it comes to filmmaking.

The problem is not so much Shyamalan's directing as with his writing. The immense success of "The Sixth Sense" was due in large part to its wonderful twist ending. And it is a wonderful twist: It makes sense and you do not see it coming. (Well, the Solipsist did see it coming, but that was only because, by the time we saw it, we had heard from so many people that there was a surprise ending.) The movie had other things going for it, but all anyone ever talked about was the ending.

"Unbreakable," the next film, also features a twist ending, although one that is not quite as "organic" as that of "The Sixth Sense." It makes sense, and it does make the audience gasp, but it also feels somewhat tacked on, incidental. To put it another way, with "The Sixth Sense," if you KNOW there's a twist ending coming, you can figure out what it is, and you feel satisfied; with "Unbreakable," if you KNOW there's a twist ending coming, you will NOT see it coming, because the twist itself really has nothing to do with the main storyline.

(We are being intentionally vague on the off-chance that any of our readers have not seen either of these movies.)

At any rate, after his first two films, Shyamalan apparently decided that twist endings were going to be his "thing." And we filmgoers humored him: We all went to see his movies and we all munched our popcorn and tried to figure out just what strange direction Night was going to take us in this time. And Shyamalan tried to oblige, giving us twist endings that, frankly, didn't make any sense. (See "The Village"--or better yet, don't.) Or endings that made sense as far as they went but about which we really didn't care (See "Signs" or "Lady in the Water"--or better yet. . . .)

Once you know that a director is setting you up for a surprise ending, it becomes nearly impossible for you to be surprised. Indeed, the best thing that Shyamalan could probably do is write a straightforward screenplay that just tells a story from beginning to end. (Although for all we know, he tried that in "The Last Airbender," and that certainly didn't work out too well.) And if he can't do that, maybe it's time for him to just try directing the work of another screenwriter.

And if none of that works. . . well, there's always film school.

Coming This Fall to ABC

The US and its allies are looking for a country to offer sanctuary to Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi. The international community feels that if they can ensure Qaddafi's safety, he may be persuaded to step down without further bloodshed.

(DIGRESSION: Since Qaddafi would likely find himself indicted by the International Criminal Court, the preferred place of exile would not be a signatory to the treaty requiring countries to turn people over to the court. One such country? The USA! EOD)

Personally, we think this is a great opportunity: (Soft jazz piano and bass)

VOICEOVER: On April 19, Colonel Moammar Qaddafi was asked to leave his place of residence. That request came from his rebellious countrymen, the United Nations and NATO. Having nowhere else to go, he appeared at the home of his childhood friend and fellow ex-dictator Hosni Mubarak. Several months earlier, Mubarak's people had asked HIM to leave. Can two deposed autocrats share an apartment, without driving each other crazy?

***************************************
Happy Passover, everybody! We're off to have our traditional dinner of pork chop sandwiches on rye bread. With mayo.

Skeeball on Galactica

We have never subjected our readers to a description of our dreams. Mainly, this is because there is nothing--nothing--as uninteresting as descriptions of other people's dreams. Even a dream wherein one is on the Battlestar Galactica, on what must be the "Lido Deck," where one can play a watergun-target game and skee-ball, and where there also appears to be some kind of petting zoo (featuring a cage full of adorable skunks)--even such an inarguably interesting dream as that holds little interest for anyone aside from the dreamer.

In movies and books and TV shows, dreams are invariably highly symbolic and plot-relevant. The hero's dream alerts him to his erstwhile partner's treachery. In her sleep, the heroine receives a vision of who her true love is meant to be.

We understand why writers resort to this strategy: It's a quick and easy way to provide some insight into a character's subconscious or perhaps to provide a character with a useful revelation. But don't fictional characters ever just have dreams about visiting a forest filled with walruses?