All the Shamefulness of Cockfighting without Quite So Many Disembowelments

Best.  Weekend.  Ever.

As I write, not one but two major cat organizations--the International Cat Association and the Cat Fanciers Association--are throwing their annual feline fetes.    Let me be clear: While I enjoy the spectacle of mass quantities of kitty cats, I have also always suspected these events to be shams.  Pure popularity contests! Which is why I was happy to see that some passionate cat fanatics (you know, you can't spell 'fanatic' without C-A-T--albeit rearranged) have taken it upon themselves to organize actual competitions to determine objectively who is the top dog among cats (you know, you can't misspell 'competition' without C-A-T).

According to the New York Times, the newest distraction for sport-hungry animal lovers (or animal-hungry sport lovers) is feline agility contests ("In Feline Agility Competitions, the Biggest Obstacle Can Be the Cat").  In these competitions, cats negotiate obstacle courses of hoops, ramps, and tunnels, coaxed along by their owners with feathers and other dangling enticements.  The challenge is not so much physical--any non-geriatric cat with basic motor functions can negotiate these obstacles--as psychological: You will likely go insane before convincing your cat to run the course.

Frankly, as much as I enjoy watching cats do pretty much anything, I can't see this "sport" taking off.  Aside from the technical issues mentioned above, there are limited sponsorship opportunities.  After all, the more people invest in cat-training, the more cats will choose to negotiate the obstacle course--if only to get these humans to leave them alone.  And given that a successful "run" takes less than ten seconds, the opportunities to sell stuff during a match are only slightly fewer than those offered by a typical sumo-wrestling match.  And we don't even get to see two fat guys collide.

Utterly Pointless Entry

In newspaper articles, one frequently hears commentary from the Union of Concerned Scientists.  UCS is a Cambridge, Massachusetts, based organization dedicated to "working for a healthy environment and a safer world."  The non-profit organization "combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices."

When asked to comment about the UCS, a spokesman for the Union of Indifferent Scientists said, "Meh."

Thursday Trendwatch

For those of you who still believe you will someday be able to retire, RETIREMENT PLANNING (10) makes sense.  Financial planner David Ning offers some tips for fifty-somethings on avoiding problems in retirement, including things like not taking out a new 30-year-mortgage, watching out for debt, and investing cautiously.  Looking for a savvy investment?  One word, people: Eels.

They eat eel in China, don't they?  At any rate, if you're thinking about retiring, you might want to avoid China, at least if you're planning on driving anywhere.  With its enormous population and liberalizing attitudes toward private property, China has a growing number of car owners--and a correspondingly growing number of inexperienced drivers--which may partially account for the increasing number of accidents including a horrific BUS CRASH (9), that killed 20 people, including 18 kindergartners.

If there is a bright side to such a tragic story, it is that these children will be spared the spectacle of the new and improved WOODY WOODPECKER (8).  The iconic cackler will receive a cinematic reboot by the same studio that brought you "Despicable Me."  In the modern version, Woody will find himself imprisoned by the CDC after an outbreak of bird flu.  Harrowing scenes of avian waterboarding are being scripted to give the character more "edge."

No word on whether TAYLOR LAUTNER (7) will appear in the Woodpecker extravaganza.  If he does, though, I just hope, for his fans' sake, he takes his shirt off.  Apparently, legions of tween girls, repressed housewives, and Jerry Sandusky are frustrated that the well-pectoraled werewolf appears shirtless only once in the latest "Twilight" movie.

The trendwatch certainly puts things in perspective.  Clocking in at number 6 is JESSIE JAMES.  She's a country singer who's trending because she's singing during halftime of tonight's Jets-Broncos game.  The sad part of this is that the article pointing out this fact feels the need to clarify that Jessie James is NOT to be mistaken for her two famous namesakes: The guy who cheated on Sandra Bullock and, of course. . . "leggy British singer Jessie J."

I weep for our generation.

Because no Trendwatch would be complete without a bit of technology (except, of course, for all those previous trendwatches that didn't include a bit of technology), we present a story about 2013 FORD ESCAPE (5).  In addition to being shiny, this model allows you to open the trunk by kicking the underside of the car.  In the 2014 model year, Ford will introduce a feature whereby you can turn on the radio by tickling the windshield.

Thanksgiving is almost upon us, and with it will come the inevitable mishaps: an insufficient number of chairs for the dining room table; too many raisins in the stuffing (which, by the way, means ANY raisins in the stuffing); and, of course, an epidemic of third-degree burns suffered by those who improperly deep-fry their turkeys.  Not to worry, though, WILLIAM SHATNER (3) is on the case!  The venerable star of television, movies, and travel-website commercials has filmed a public service announcement warning people about the dangers of careless turkey-frying.  Ah, Shatner!  Is there anything he CAN'T do?

Well, apparently he can't do EVA LONGORIA (3).  The "Desperate Housewives" sexpot is rumored to be dating Los Angeles Laker Matt Barnes.  'Cause her marriage to San Antonio Spur Tony Parker worked out so well, I guess. You think maybe she should start watching a different sport?

Of course, the rumors might not be true.  Maybe the celebrity gossip mill is just hungry for a romance between a raven-haired beauty and an NBA baller, what with the whole Kardashian marriage implosion.  And what's happening with Kim Kardashian you ask?  (You know you did!) Well, if a group organizing a KARDASHIAN BOYCOTT (2) has its way, you may never know.  The Facebook page calling for a boycott of this drain on the national attention span has over 113,000 "Likes."

Keeping up with the Kardashian, though, at least in terms of marital success is the number-one trendiest topic of this moment on the time-space continuum, RUBEN STUDDARD (1), who is getting a divorce.  You may remember that Ruben Studdard won the second season of "American Idol."  More likely, though, you remember the guy he beat, Clay Aiken.  Poor guy just can't catch a break.

Here's to Your Health (Continued)

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of the Affordable Care Act (i.e., "Obamacare").  The main issue under debate concerns whether Congress overstepped its authority by requiring to purchase health insurance under the law.  As an article in the Times put it, "If the federal government can require people to purchase health insurance, what else can it force them to do? More to the point, what can’t the government compel citizens to do?" (Health Law Puts Focus on Limits of Federal Power)  It's an interesting question.  Honestly, as much as I support the idea of healthcare reform, I'm not sure I have a great answer.

The obvious comparison is to automobile insurance (leave aside for the moment that automobile insurance is regulated at a state, as opposed to a federal, level).  If people can be required to buy automobile insurance, why can't they be required to buy health insurance?  The Obamacare critics' response is that, technically, the government does not require people buy auto insurance: It simply makes such insurance a legal prerequisite for car ownership.  Since no one is required to buy a car, no one is required to buy car insurance.  On the other hand, no one can "choose" whether to remain healthy--which is too bad really, as that would solve a lot of problems--so the health insurance mandate becomes a charge incurred simply for existing as a citizen of the United States.  That is to say, it becomes a "tax," which Congress does have the authority to implement, but calling the requirement to buy health insurance a tax would have been politically unpalatable, so it was not done that way, which is why the case has made it to the Supreme Court.

The problem with the current case before the Court is that, if the insurance mandate is declared unconstitutional, then the whole Affordable Care Act probably falls apart. Healthy people will choose not to purchase health insurance, figuring they don't need it.  The majority of people buying insurance will be the elderly, the infirm, or the hypochondriacal, forcing insurers to raise rates if they hope to take in more money than they pay out in claims.  Since insurers will not be able to deny clients due to pre-existing conditions, all these folks will be able to buy insurance, but they will not all be able to afford it, which will put the country right back where it's been for many years now: an incredibly wealthy nation with an ever-increasing number of citizens unable to afford basic healthcare.

Ultimately, this speaks to the absurdity of our healthcare system.  As a nation, we seem to have lost sight of the fact that there is a fundamental difference between health insurance and healthcare.  Whenever we hear statistics about our nation's healthcare shortcomings, it's always put in terms of the number of people who lack health insurance: "45 million people lack health insurance"; "the ranks of the uninsured continue to rise"; etc.  Technically, no one in the United States lacks access to healthcare: If you have a medical emergency, hospitals have to treat you, regardless of whether you have health insurance or not.

The tragedy would not be a finding that Obamacare is unconstitutional.  The tragedy is that our politicians are so beholden to corporate interests that it is inconceivable that they would pass legislation that actually addresses the problems of healthcare in this country.  If Congress mandated that every American is entitled to receive a certain basic level of healthcare, and paid for it through the tax system ("Medicare for all," anyone?), they could cut out the profit-minded middlemen of the insurance industry.  They would run afoul of no constitutional issues, and they would go a long way towards making the United States a bit more civilized.

But that'll never happen.  People will scream "Socialism!" and scare away anyone interested in a sensible solution to an intractable issue.  Like I said, tragic.

Advice for Young Teachers: Brace Yourself for Weisenheimers

Yesterday, I reviewed the grading criteria for my students' final essays.  One criterion is that students avoid using "slang and a conversational tone."

"But, Mr. Solipsist, we're allowed to use a dictionary, right?"

"Yes."

"OK, but, what if I--I've seen these--they have these slang dictionaries, right?"

"Well, yes--"

"So, OK, what if I look up a word and it's IN the slang dictionary?"

"What about it?"

"Well, then I can use it, right?"

"No."

"But it's IN the dictionary!"

"But it's in the SLANG dictionary."

"But if it's in the DICTIONARY, then it's not slang, right?"

"No.  If it's in the SLANG dictionary, then, quite literally by definition, it IS slang."

"I disagree."
"What part of this do you disagree with?"

"If words are in the dictionary, I should be able to use them."

"So. . . if you bring in a Sanskrit dictionary, I should let you write the essay in Sanskrit?"

"Well, no, I mean--"

"Actually, I think that's a fantastic idea.  You're going to write your essay in Sanskrit.  And you can use as much Sanskrit slang as you like.  Make sure to bring your dictionary."

That'll learn 'em.

Monday Miscellany

I WAS READY
One of the hardest things I've had to deal with since moving to California from New York is lack of access to my favorite sports teams.  Except when the New Yorkers are playing their Bay Area rivals or manage to find themselves in a nationally televised venue like the World Series (and I'm a Mets fan, so, y'know, good luck with THAT), I must suffer the profoundest feelings of sports-related deprivation.

Yesterday, therefore, presented a rare treat: BOTH New York area football teams, the Jets and the Giants (no, the Bills don't count), were featured on local television.  The Giants played the 49'ers, and the Jets played the Patriots on the nationally-televised Sunday night game.  Seal up the ManCave, WOS, I WON'T be out for dinner. . . .

BUT THEY BOTH LOST!!!!

I know dealing with loss is a part of the whole sports-fan experience (see above: Mets fan).  But I can't shake the feeling that both teams owe me something for such a crushing disappointment.  Season tickets would be acceptable.

***************************************************
WELL, NOT THAT I KNOW OF
The other day, I went to my local Moby-Dick-character named coffee establishment.  I ordered quite a few items: a couple of breakfast sandwiches, a few pieces of coffee cake, a caffeinated beverage or two.  The cashier called out my sandwich order to her colleague--presumably the specially-trained, pretentiously-titled operator of the microwave (Irradiatista?)--retrieved my coffee cake, and rang up my order.  "$3.67," she said.

That did not sound right.

"Um, did you charge me for the sandwiches?"

"Yeah."  She could see my confusion.  "Oh, I gave you my employee discount."

Now, I know I'm cute as a button and all, but I doubted that this accounted for this girl's generosity.  At the risk of getting my nose bitten off by a gift horse, I said, "Well, thanks, but. . . why?"

"Well, you're Libby's dad, right?"

"Uh. . .no?"

"Someone told me you were Libby's dad."

"If I'm not Libby's dad, do I need to pay full price?"

"Well. . . .No, I guess not."

I guess I really should have asked about Libby's mom.  I mean, if she lived in New York back in the mid-90's, there's at least a biological possibility, I suppose.

Overall, my happiness at getting an extremely inexpensive breakfast is tempered by the fact that I apparently look like someone who would name his child "Libby."

Sensitivity Training

In today's Times, journalist Katie Roiphe discusses the ongoing debate over what constitutes sexual harrassment when it comes to things like dirty jokes and "inappropriate" language.  The topic is in the news, of course, because of revelations--which, considering that they have been in the public record all along, are hardly revelatory--that Republican presidential "candidate" Herman Cain has had some problems conforming to current societal norms regarding acceptable workplace conduct.

Sexual harrassment falls into the categories of "quid pro quo" ("If you don't have sex with me, you're fired") or "hostile environment" (when an employee is made to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome because of an iappropriately sexualized atmosphere).  According to one of Cain's accusers, Sharon Bialek, Cain engaged in an act of quid pro quo harrassment, suggesting he would find her a job if she "performed" satisfactorily.

To be clear, this sort of behavior is unacceptable.  Indeed, from what Bialek has said, Cain's actions probably crossed a line from harrassment to outright assault.  Even if he had simply made a verbal proposition, however, this would count as a clear-cut example of quid pro quo harrassment.

Problems arise from the "hostile environment" idea.  I've always questioned this rule, myself.  It's always seemed like a violation of that most useful of childhood rules, the one about sticks and stones breaking bones but names (or boorish comments) never hurting. Clearly, there are things that I, as a man, should and should not say to a female co-worker or student.  Generally, men can safely comment on a woman's hair, dress, or breasts (I know--I was surprised, too), but that's about it.  I sympathize with women (or men) who feel uncomfortable because of colleagues' crude jokes or conversations.  I encourage these offended people to discuss the situation, and I encourage the jokesters to take their colleagues' feelings into consideration.  But if they choose not to?  Is there a law against being a jerk?

Whenever we start criminalizing language, we risk sliding down that proverbial slippery slope.  We may not like "patently offensive" language, but who decides what is patently offensive?  Doesn't "offense" reside in the judgment of the offended?  Is it possible to know ahead of time what may or may not offend someone?  We would like to think that it's a matter of common sense, but it isn't.  Is it appropriate to say that someone "looks nice today"?  I would think so, but what if it isn't?  Does it depend on the way the words are said?  It could, but then are we not legislating line-readings?

Sensitivity to others is an important quality of an enlightened society.  Some people will remain unenlightened, but society has its ways of dealing with such people without legal consequences.  The rude, the crude, the sleazy, and the profane have been falling out of favor for years.  Like smoking, male chauvinism is no longer cool.  Social sanctions will do the job better than courts and lawyers, leaving us free to focus our legislative energies on truly harmful harrassment of the Cainian variety.