Unemployment Plummets after Fed Changes Meaning of "Unemployed"

WASHINGTON--Obama administration officials yesterday declared an end to the unemployment crisis, after a working group of economists, manufacturers, and anatomists released a report officially changing the meaning of the word "unemployed" from its previous definition--"without a job; out of work"--to the more politically useful, "state of having or possessing three or more  legs."

"We felt something had to be done to solve the unemployment problem once and for all," Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said.  "Finding jobs for 27 million people was just not a feasible solution.  We think this represents a good compromise."

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner seconded Solis.  "Have YOU ever tried to employ 43 million people?  Can't be done."

When asked about the new definition, Dr. Michelle Sokolove, the lead anatomist on the panel, explained, "Originally we looked at fingers.  We thought defining the unemployed as those lacking a full set of fingers--ten--might help us eliminate 96 million people from the ranks of the unemployed.  You'd be surprised, though, how many people in America are missing fingers--even if we exclude pinkies."  Sokolove went on to explain that this method of counting the "unemployed" actually produced an increase in the unemployment rate to 9.7%.  "We had a similar problem with toes."

Eventually, the panel thought about using a surplus of fingers as the defining characteristic of an "unemployed person."  While this did lower the official unemployment rate to 7.3%, the panel felt that more could be done.

"Actually," said Solis, "it was former Labor Secretary Robert [Too-Tall] Reich who came up with the ultimate solution. "We had him on a conference call, and he said, 'Well, if you're going to base the unemployment rate on ridiculous physical characteristics, why not only count people with three legs as unemployed?'  The man's a genius!"

"Yeah, that was what we call sarcasm," Reich explained, when asked for comment.

The new measurement will go into official use immediately.  With this announcement, the United States unemployment rate has now fallen to 0.0002%.

In a related story, unemployment benefits for Anthony "Sidecar" Montrose of Butters, NC, have been extended another 50 weeks.

I'll Have a Large Popcorn, No Butter, and Some Phenobarbital

Apparently, a scene in the latest "Twilight" installment ("Breaking Wind," I think) is, in rare cases, causing seizures ("Epilepsy Foundation Issues Warning About Latest ‘Twilight’ Movie").

People having violent physical reactions to movies is not unheard of.  The shaky camera work in "The Blair Witch Project" caused nausea in many people, including Your Not-So-Humble Correspondent.  And I also broke out in hives while watching "The Blind Side," although that was probably just a reaction to Sandra Bullock.

Thursday Trendwatch

Proving that fake fire alarms are comedy gold, NBC Nightly News anchor BRIAN WILLIAMS (10) interrupted "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" with a mock alarm.  Williams was responding to Stewart's mockery of Williams' handling of a false (but admittedly annoying) alarm that went off during NBC's news broadcast earlier in the week.  Just remember, it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye. . . or dies horribly in a fire that first responders couldn't reach because they were too busy responding to false alarms.

OK, that could be funny, too.

Speaking of funny, today is World AIDS Day.  (I checked my mailbox, by the way: Your cards and presents must still be in transit.  Just sayin'.)  Actually, some good news has come out of the front, as AIDS RESEARCH (9) has made great strides.  Now, instead of being an instant death sentence, AIDS has in many parts of the world become something like a manageable chronic illness like diabetes or halitosis.  New research also indicates that effective treatment also greatly reduces transmission.

Obviously, any hint that the scourge of AIDS may largely fade is great news.  My only concern is, What horrific disease is going to rear its head next?  Ebola?  Marburg Virus?  Mega-halitosis?  Stay tuned.

Up next in the trendwatch, HANUKKAH CANDLES (8).  Or, if you prefer the variant spelling: Hanukkah Kandels.  There's no particularly story here, other than the fact that the candles are on sale (insert your own mercantilistic Jew jokes here).  Still, since no one knows exactly when Hanukkah STARTS, it's probably a good idea to get your candles now.  And, of course, to get a jump on sending those gifts, cards, gelt, to your favorite blogger.  Or, better yet, to me: Fuck Huffington!

To go back to World AIDS Day for a moment, one of the big events is the premiere of a documentary about children living with the disease: "Keep a Child Alive with ALICIA KEYS" (7).  No word on whether the children were give a choice in the matter.

Well, look who's imitating the Solipsist, now: Yahoo!  See, we do our weekly capsule of Yahoo's trendwatch, and now Yahoo! horns in on our action by putting together its own YEAR IN REVIEW (6), or, as we call it here at the Solipsist: Plagiarism!  I mean, they're just trying to crush the little guy by putting together a sort of Meta-Trendwatch of the whole year!  I could do that.  I WILL do that.  Start sending in your suggestions for what we should include in our own Solipsistic year-end recap.  Suggestions will be ignored in the order received.

In a sign on blatant anti-Semitism, ARTIFICIAL CHRISTMAS TREES (5) sneak onto the trendlist three spots AHEAD of (REAL) Hanukkah candles.  Time to boycott!

And speaking of boycotts, KHLOE KARDASHIAN (4) has apparently not been boycotted off of TV yet, but she IS "counting down" to the birth of her sister Kourtney's new baby.  I guess this falls under the category of "newsworthy" because it suggests that Khloe possesses the ability to count.

 

KATHERINE HEIGL (3) is a castrating bitch!  Seriously!  Well, I don't know about the "bitch" part, but she's seriously into castration.  Of dogs, that is.  She's taken her talents to IHateBalls.com to promote the spaying and neutering of pets.

Just to be on the safe side, though, I'm officially crossing her off my list of fantasy-worthy celebrities: Everybody else moves up a notch (good news for Hillary Clinton).

Disgraced former Illinois Governor (Yeah, I know: Redundant) ROD BLAGOJEVICH (2) may get 15 to 20 years in prison for his role in a scheme to "sell" the senate seat of President Obama.  Prosecutors have actually offered Blago a choice: 20 years in prison or 20 minutes alone in a room with Katherine Heigl. . .and a pair of pruning shears.





The top item on this week's trendwatch is confusing: It's about SARA GILBERT (1), formerly of "Roseanne."  The article claims she has a new girlfriend.  I can only assume they meant "boyfriend."  I mean, Sara Gilbert's a WOMAN.  Isn't she?  I'll have to look into this.

"Consubstantial"? Really?!?

Last night, Stephen Colbert reported on recent changes to the Latin Mass.  Specifically, the Nicene Creed now states that Jesus Christ is "consubstantial with the Father."  This replaces the phrase "one in Being with the Father."  Now, I'm no Catholic, but I possess enough basic literacy skills to derive from the context of this discussion that "consubstantial" means "one in Being with"--except it's far more high-falutin'.  We can conclude from this revision, therefore, that Vatican scholars are like seventh-graders trying to impress their English teacher. 

Writers should never use five-dollar word when fifty-cent ones will do.  The single word "consubstantial" doesn't even really provide an advantage in brevity over the four-word "one in Being with": Both options contain the same number of letters and syllables.

As a Jew, I am apathetic.  As an English teacher, I am unimpressed.

The Cost of Doing Business

Among the financial shenanihoots that helped bring down the world financial system was a scheme by Citigroup to sell investments that were designed to fail so that the company could bet against them and reap huge profits.  The Securities and Exchange Commission took a dim view of this and filed suit against Citigroup.  The two parties agreed to settle the lawsuit: Citigroup would pay a $285 million fine, without admitting to any wrongdoing.  All that was left was for Federal Judge Jed S. Rakoff to sign off on the deal.  Yesterday, however, Judge Rakoff rejected this agreement.

Good for him.

The agreement bothered Judge Rakoff because he was asked, essentially, to serve as a "rubber stamp."  Despite the fact that the SEC alleged that Citigroup had committed fraud, the agreement provided insufficient specifics, and the company was not required to admit wrongdoing.  Therefore, the judge could not determine whether the agreement was “fair, reasonable, adequate and in the public interest."  And about that whole, "Is it in the public interest" question?  Let me save you some trouble, Judge Rakoff: It's not.

The judge correctly pointed out that, while $285 million may sound like a lot of money, it's basically pocket change to a company like Citigroup.  And paying such a fine--particularly if a settlement does not require a company to admit wrongdoing--can be written off as an acceptable cost of doing business.  The SEC wants to settle the cases because the agency worries--understandably--that it cannot win a trial against a company with the vast legal and financial resources of Citigroup.  A bird in the hand--or 285 million birds--is worth some even more hefty amount in the bush.

Except it's not.

If the government took Citigroup--or AIG or Bank of America or any of the other malefactors of great wealth--to trial, nobody knows what would happen.  The government might very well lose the case.  I suspect, though, they might not.  And at any rate, going to trial would send a message that the costs of doing business might turn out higher than Citigroup might like to pay.  Obviously, these petty-cash fines don't convince the wrongdoers to change their evil ways.

So Judge Jed Rakoff did his job.  Now it's time for the SEC to do theirs.

Monday Miscellany

Warning: This Commercial Contains Explicit Hypocrisy

In commercials for its "Black Friday" deals, Wal-Mart ("the happiest place on earth") used AC/DC's "Back in Black" as background music.  Does anyone else find it interesting that the store uses music in its commercials from a band whose albums it probably refuses to stock?

**********************************************
At the Baseball Talks, They Did "Nude Descending a Staircase"

At a press conference announcing a tentative deal to end the lockout, representatives of the NBA, the team owners' group, and the players' union took a moment to recreate Leonardo Da Vinci's "Last Supper":

In an unrelated story, Miami Heat forward Lebron James (not pictured) announced that he was "taking his talents to Gethsemane."

*****************************************
And, for a Great Dane, Scooby-Doo Is Really Cowardly!

I just noticed: On "The Flintstones," Fred powers his car with his feet!  That means that, when he's driving, he's actually just walking--and carrying his car at the same time!!!  What an idiot!

Plus, You've Got to Take the Kochs and Scaifes with the Gateses

Through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, billionaire Bill Gates has donated millions of dollars to such causes as improving education, eradicating malaria, and upgrading water systems around the world.  Through the Open Society Foundation, billionaire George Soros has disbursed vast sums to promote democracy and human rights.  These guys are part of the problem.

Don't get me wrong: I think clean water and human rights are good things--especially when it comes to making soup.  But as Nicholas Confessore points out in today's Times, such aggressive philanthropy often finds itself at odds with democratic principles and the greater good.  While some would argue that any private support for public initiatives is welcome in these economically difficult times, such largesse often provides ammunition for conservative arguments about the rationale for shrinking government--"starving the beast," in their parlance: "See, government doesn't need to be involved: Private citizens can do a fine job of providing for society's well-being."

But even if private charity could conceivably fund public services at a level adequate for society's needs (it can't), the relinquishment of such services to the private sector would represent an unacceptable abdication of government responsibilities.  While everybody may support the idea of improving education, for example, not everybody agrees that Bill Gates' approach (which places particular emphasis on the role of charter schools) is the best way to get there.  But in a privately funded system, the citizens don't have a choice about the way the money is used: They can take it or leave it, and "leaving it" is not a realistic option.

Certainly, Gates and Soros and other public-spirited tycoons have every right to use their money the way they see fit.  As citizens, we can applaud their charitable impulses and appreciate their desire to "give back" to the society that has enabled them to amass their great fortunes.  But we must also remember that we cannot count on their support to meet all of society's varied needs.  The best way for the 1% to give back is to support (as, to their credit, people like Gates and Warren Buffett do) progressive taxation to meet the needs of the general public.