A Solution in Search of a Problem

You've got to love the Republican Party--and by "love," I mean "roll your eyes at the cynical political machinations of."  Unwilling to propose policy addressing the actual problems of our society--foreclosures, mass unemployment, obscene levels of income inequality--the GOP instead goes out of its way to propound solutions to the non-existent problem of "rampant" voter fraud.  Since the 2010 elections, "more than a dozen states have passed laws requiring voters to show photo identification at polls, cutting back early voting periods or imposing new restrictions on voter registration drives" ("New State Rules Raising Hurdles at Voting Booth").  Yesterday, the Justice Department announced that it would challenge one such rule in South Carolina.

In theory, voter-identification laws sound reasonable: In order to safeguard our democracy, we should embrace legislation that seeks to ensure that only those eligible to vote are allowed to vote.  Voter ID laws, therefore, make sure that fraudulent voters cannot sway an election.  But, as many have pointed out, there is no evidence that this has happened.  Indeed, we could frame the issue differently and say that, in order to safeguard democracy, we should embrace legislation that seeks to ensure that anyone eligible to vote CAN vote.  Such legislation would give voters the benefit of the doubt and allow them to cast a ballot at least provisionally.  Either type of legislation has merits.

The fact, though, is that Republicans largely support the first type of legislation, which suggests that they feel confident that the vast majority of those who would be found ineligible under such legislation would be unlikely to support Republican candidates or causes.  Indeed, one of the more. . .amusing provisions, from Texas, would allow concealed-handgun licenses to be used for identification but not student ID cards.  Seriously, why not just say that a Republican Party membership card meets the ID requirements, while a Democratic one will not only prevent one from voting but lead to temporary detention?

"Republicans, who have passed almost all of the new election laws, say they are necessary to prevent voter fraud, and question why photo identification should be routinely required at airports but not at polling sites."  Well, probably because the threat of hijacking an airplane is literal, while the hijacking of our democracy is at most a metaphorical--and most likely an illusory--threat.

If Republicans are so concerned about threats to democracy, why are they not more incensed at the disproportionate electoral clout wielded by the wealthy and corporations?  Or are logos considered an acceptable form of voter identification?

Bah!

Sorry, but I'm feeling kind of grumpy these days.  Every time I turn on the TV it seems like I have someone else in my face telling me to think of those less fortunate, remember those less fortunate.  Those less fortunate get all the breaks!  Why won't somebody think about me?

That is all.

Thursday Trendwatch

Much as we hate to do so, we must begin today's Trendwatch in Europe, where TURKEY AND FRANCE (10) have come to the diplomatic equivalent of blows over France's passage of a law declaring it "a crime to deny that the mass killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks nearly a century ago constitute genocide."  This is a sensitive subject for the Turks, who prefer to refer to the mass killings of 1915 as merely a "large-scale de-lifing."  While I sympathize with the French decision, and agree that Turkey should face up to its past, uh, indiscretions, I have no great enthusiasm for laws that restrict free speech.  If people want to deny the Armenian genocide--or, indeed, the Holocaust--they are free to do so, and everybody else is free to subject them to the scorn and ridicule that they deserve.  Besides, is there some enormous wave of Frenchmen running around denying the Armenian genocide?

Maybe San Francisco can pass a law criminalizing the disparagement of ALEX SMITH (9).  Not that this is much of a problem anymore.  At least for now, the previously maligned 49ers quarterback would seem safe from criticism, with the team having already clinched their division and cruising toward the playoff.  Smith should remain above criticism until at least mid-January and the inevitable evisceration by Green Bay.  The Packers not only have a nearly unstoppable offense and strong defense, they also have an added advantage: access to Wisconsin cheese.  According to a new study, cheese provides surprising benefits in a person's LDL CHOLESTEROL (8)  level (that's the bad one).

In fairness, the "benefits" are relative: Cheese is "better" than butter for a person's LDL cholesterol levels.  So, if you were considering drinking a big ol' glass of butter, you might want to consider shotgunning some Cheez Wiz instead.

The Solipsist sends its best wishes to the family of ETTA JAMES (7).  The 73-year-old singer has been hospitalized with incurable leukemia.

Ms. James has suffered from a series of illnesses over the last several years, including dementia and kidney failure, and we hope she and her family can find some peace at last.

In lighter news, the husband of "real" housewife of "New" Jersey, TERESA GIUDICE (6), has been arrested for pretending to be his own brother.  Seriously, I know nothing about this show, but I can understand wanting to change one's identity to avoid being associated with it.  I just think the guy should have looked beyond his own family.  Kind of defeats the purpose, you know. . . .

Coming in at number 5 are INVESTMENT STRATEGIES, which I guess means it's time for the Solipsist's Can't-Miss-Investment of the week:  I recommend putting everything into. . . LLAMAS!  You're welcome.

BRITNEY SPEARS (4) is in the news.  Again.  For getting married.  Again.  Her first ex-husband, Jason Alexander (no, not THAT Jason Alexander) thinks her latest engagement is a scam.

Well, he would say that!  After his own 17-minute marriage to Britney, ANY future relationship the pop-princess would pursue would necessarily seem sham-like, but, Jason, you can't expect a girl to stay single forever!  Shame on you!

And shame on CHRISTIAN BALE (3)!  At least, that's what the Chinese authorities are saying.  Last week, Bale stirred up some trouble when he had the audacity to try and visit a human-rights activist while in China doing publicity for a movie that was financed by the Chinese government.  When he tried to meet Chen Guangcheng, simply to shake the man's hand, Bale was physically stopped by a group of government-backed guards, an altercation captured by a CNN film crew.  It should be noted that Chen is not in prison and is thus, in theory, free to meet and/or be visited by whomever he wants.  But still, the Chinese government is right!  Christian Bale SHOULD be ashamed of himself!  I haven't heard of such outrageous, offensive behavior since that time Bono gave a thumbs-up to Nelson Mandela!  Celebrities!

I think China should throw the book at Christian Bale!  Maybe he can share a cell with  "American Idol" runner-up ADAM LAMBERT (2), who was arrested in a bar-brawl in Finland.  I'm sure. . .one of them would learn. . .some kind of lesson.

And speaking of learning lessons, CALLISTA GINGRICH (1) will need to learrn some lessons about Twittequette.  The aspiring First Lady has taken to Twitter to bash Mitt Romney, making fun of him for, among other things, his unseemly displays of wealth--this from the woman who, along with her husband, had a half-million dollar credit line at Tiffany's.  By the way, wasn't Callista Gingrich the name of the Necromancy Professor at Hogwarts?

Word of the Day: "Like"

Whenever Facebook introduces changes, people invariably complain.  At the risk, however, of causing major consternation in the social networking world, I would like to suggest a much-needed innovation.  Something needs to be done about the "Like" button.

As Facebookers know, when responding to someone's status or other postings, you currently have the option to leave a comment or, if you want to acknowledge the post without making the effort to write actual sentences, you can simply "Like" the entry.  This involves the highly complex procedure of clicking a button labeled "Like."  Interestingly, on Facebook, "Liking" is an active process: Once you "Like" something, the "Like" button changes to "Unlike," suggesting that, while you may instantly forget whatever it is you've just "Liked," you do, in some sense, continue "Liking" it indefinitely, as if in some remote corner of your subconscious, you continuously appreciate the fact that, say, your friend had a delicious dinner with Ralph and the kids.

Maybe you do.

At any rate, a problem arises when you wish to acknowledge a posting, a comment, a status update--when silence seems callous--and you don't really have anything to SAY about the post--words are superfluous--but somehow "Liking" seems inappropriate or insufficient.  Currently, you have no other options.

Twenty-three years ago today Libyan terrorists planted a bomb on Pan Am flight 103.  The plane blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing everyone onboard as well as several people on the ground.  Thirty-five passengers on the flight were students from Syracuse University, including several friends and acquaintances of mine.  As you might imagine, several of my Facebook friends, also from Syracuse, have posted memorial comments on their walls today.  And I have nothing to add.

So I "Liked" the posts.  What else could I do?

Now I'm not suggesting that Facebook should--or even could--add buttons to express every possible emotional reaction to a friend's piece of news, much less to express the complex emotions one feels when confronted with important reminders of somber occasions.  But an "Agree" button would be a welcome addition.  Or even just a simple "Yes."

As for those people on Pan Am 103, especially Theo and Miriam, let me just say for now and always, "Like."

Fun with Lawsuits

"At the heart of the disputes are the kind of small but convenient features that would cause many people to complain if they were not in their smartphones. For example, the case decided Monday involves the technology that lets you tap your finger once on the touch screen to call a phone number that is written inside an e-mail or text message. It also involves the technology that allows you to schedule a calendar appointment, again with a single tap of the finger, for a date mentioned in an e-mail."
                                      --"U.S. Backs Apple in Patent Ruling That Hits Google"

In response to the ruling, makers of android phones have promised to alter the technology so that it requires one and one half finger-taps.  Meanwhile, in a countersuit, android manufacturers are suing Apple over the appearance of the word "android" in online dictionaries included as free apps for iPhones.  Washington is also suing Apple over the company's use without permission of the state's iconic fruit as both its corporate name and, by implication, as the nickname of downloadable features.  The Seattle tribe of Native Americans is in turn suing Washington State, but, as usual, no one is paying any attention.

Meanwhile, back in the mobile-phone-and-app arena, a group of ornithologists is suing Zynga for defamation on behalf of birds everywhere, who insist they are not angry, merely anti-pig.  Last year, the National Association of Pig Farmers settled with Zynga for an undisclosed amount.  The Solipsist will file a suit against Google next week for its continuous snubbing of this column as a "Blog of Note."

The Arab League is also suing mobile phone manufacturers for their unlicensed use of the numerals 1 through 9 on keypads.

Monday Miscellany

MIXED BLESINGS

'Tis the season when teachers--even the most inept, mean, or solipsistic ones--receive Christmas cards and/or thank-you notes from their students.  And nothing warms the cold, cold heart of a writing teacher quite so much as receiving a warm, deeply felt thank-you card riddled with grammatical and spelling errors.

****************************************************************
LET ME EAT THEIR CAKE

The hot new dessert trend seems to be "cake pops"--a pastry-lollipop hybrid that, when sold at places like Starbucks provides all of the overpricing at half the calories.  Last night, I saw an ad for "Bake Pops," a do-it-yourself cake-on-a-stick kit.  In the commercial, a housewifey-looking type explained that she "used to feel guilty when [she] ate a whole piece of cake."

I know how she feels.  I often feel guilty when I eat a whole piece of cake--especially when the kid I took it from won't stop crying!

It's the internet's world; we just bulk up in it

An interesting juxtaposition on the front page of today's "Sunday Review" in The New York Times.
We are nearing a point--if we have not already reached it--when the internet is no longer something we log onto, but something we exist within ("The Internet Gets Physical").  The development of sensor technology allows or will allow your refrigerator to order milk from the store when you're running low, hospital rooms to remind doctors to wash their hands before and after touching patients, and bridges to let structural engineers know that they are in need of repair in a way more congenial than the time-honored method of collapsing unexpectedly.  All of which sounds good, even as it does remind one disconcertingly of "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream"" (Harlan Ellison.  Read it) or Skynet (which was, I believe, based on "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream").  We seem well on our way to the Kurzweillian "Singularity"--that point at which we can ditch the meaty encumbrances we call bodies and simply upload our essential selves into a vast electronic consciousness.

And yet, at the same time, we have become ever more obsessed with the maximization of our brute physicality.  According to sportswriter Steve Kettman, testosterone supplements are not just for athletes anymore ("Are We Not Man Enough").Perhaps inspired by the sight of godlike--if puffy--sluggers shattering baseball's records, growing numbers of men are becoming aware of the benefits of increased testosterone--and the ravages of "Low T" syndrome.  Juicing is the new normal.

Is the obsession with physical enhancement--whether through testosterone injections, breast implants, or other more-or-less societally acceptable tweakings of the human form--perhaps a backlash against our diminishing reliance on our physical bodies?  As our physical selves become more superfluous, do we feel a need to assert our essential beings through greater emphasis on that which clearly separates us from the realm of pure thought?

Descartes famously said, "I think, therefore I am" (only he said it in Latin, so nobody could understand him).  It's looking, though, like "thought" will soon no longer be solely an activity of mankind.  Perhaps that which truly separates man from machine is not intellectual but physical achievement.  I juice, therefore I am.


 But as we become more wired, and more of the things that used to require human intervention can n