Saturday, February 25, 2012
Life-Saving Tip
Hours after being adopted, a 21-pound cat named Pudding apparently saved the life of its owner, who was having a diabetic seizure, by jumping on the woman's chest and biting her nose until she regained consciousness. This, people, is precisely why I rub butter on my nose every night before I go to bed. Just in case.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Maher Money, More Problems
Last night, during a stand-up comedy special, Bill Maher presented a check for $1 million to Priorities USA, a super-PAC supporting Barack Obama's re-election. In general, I find the whole super-PAC concept nauseating, just the most blatant evidence that our entire political system is dominated by moneyed interests. However, if someone must buy my leaders, I guess I'd rather it be Bill Maher than, say, the Koch brothers.
Maher's donation reveals two interesting facts:
One, Bill Maher is freakin' loaded! I mean, if he's donating a million bucks to a super-PAC, then he must have at least. . . .Well, close to a million dollars! Probably a little more, assuming he wants to go on eating after making his donation. I could see a million dollar donation from Clooney or Brangelina or, I don't know, Gallagher--but Bill Maher! All he does is make snarky comments about our political system, which brings me to fact number two:
Why don't I have a million dollars?!? (Okay that was more of a question than a fact.) I'm definitely in the wrong business. Or at least the wrong medium.
Maher's donation reveals two interesting facts:
One, Bill Maher is freakin' loaded! I mean, if he's donating a million bucks to a super-PAC, then he must have at least. . . .Well, close to a million dollars! Probably a little more, assuming he wants to go on eating after making his donation. I could see a million dollar donation from Clooney or Brangelina or, I don't know, Gallagher--but Bill Maher! All he does is make snarky comments about our political system, which brings me to fact number two:
Why don't I have a million dollars?!? (Okay that was more of a question than a fact.) I'm definitely in the wrong business. Or at least the wrong medium.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
The Vagina Ideologues
In what--somehow--passes for good news, Virginia's right-wing lunatic of a governor, Bob McDonnell, backed down from a controversial law he had previously supported, wherein women seeking abortions would first have to submit to a vaginal ultrasound. Instead, Virginia law will "only" require women to have an abdominal ultrasound, with the more intrusive method simply being available as an option if the woman requests it.
(DIGRESSION: Las Vegas bookmakers have established the over/under on vaginal ultrasound requests at zero. EOD)
(ADDITIONAL DIGRESSION: This whole reproductive rights battle has really gotten out of hand. Don't get me wrong: I'm all in favor of vaginas, but could we please go a day without seeing them splattered all over the front page of The New York Times! EOAD)
Well, abdominal ultrasounds. I guess that's not so bad. And it does ensure that women seeking abortions will get ultrasounds, which is important. After all, women need ultrasounds to. . . uh. . . to. . . Wait, why do these women need to have an ultrasound, again? . . . Oh, so that they can see the fetus they're carrying. Oh, OK!
Wait, I'm sorry: This is important, why? . . . Oh, because then they might have second thoughts about having an abortion. . . . I see. . . So, this has absolutely nothing to do with the woman's health, then; it's basically just something politicians are doing to possibly make women feel worse about a decision that they've probably agonized over already. . .
Now, I know what you're all thinking: Here goes the Solipsist on another left-wing rant about overreaching, self-righteous, paleo-conservative zealots seeking to impose their Sharia-esque worldview on the rest of America. Well, you couldn't be more wrong. I think this law is a wonderful idea. I think women should be forced to consider fully the consequences of whatever abortion-related decision they make. Of course, in fairness, if pregnant women must face this sort of "reality check," so should everyone else--especially politicians who seem to find this sort of thing so important:
--You want to repeal Obamacare? You go and explain, in person, one at a time, to a substantial number of people--let's say fifty, just to keep it manageable--a substantial number of people who will lose their access to healthcare--why this is really good for them.
--You don't like gun-control laws? Go speak to the relatives of the Columbine killers or the Virginia Tech massacre or the Tucson shootings--go speak to them one at a time--and explain why everyone must have continued access to guns.
--You don't think taxes should be raised on the rich? Go around the country to explain to people making around $30,000 a year--one at a time--why it's a good thing for the country that they pay taxes at a higher rate than multi-millionaires.
You get the point. If women facing one of the most serious decisions they are ever likely to make must undergo a blatant attempt to force them into empathy, I see no reason why we should not hold our elected representatives to the same standard.
Alternatively, in keeping with the whole vaginal ultrasound concept, we could simply force politicians to undergo a thorough colonoscopy whenever they're thinking about dropping a load of crap on the rest of us.
(DIGRESSION: Las Vegas bookmakers have established the over/under on vaginal ultrasound requests at zero. EOD)
(ADDITIONAL DIGRESSION: This whole reproductive rights battle has really gotten out of hand. Don't get me wrong: I'm all in favor of vaginas, but could we please go a day without seeing them splattered all over the front page of The New York Times! EOAD)
Well, abdominal ultrasounds. I guess that's not so bad. And it does ensure that women seeking abortions will get ultrasounds, which is important. After all, women need ultrasounds to. . . uh. . . to. . . Wait, why do these women need to have an ultrasound, again? . . . Oh, so that they can see the fetus they're carrying. Oh, OK!
Wait, I'm sorry: This is important, why? . . . Oh, because then they might have second thoughts about having an abortion. . . . I see. . . So, this has absolutely nothing to do with the woman's health, then; it's basically just something politicians are doing to possibly make women feel worse about a decision that they've probably agonized over already. . .
Now, I know what you're all thinking: Here goes the Solipsist on another left-wing rant about overreaching, self-righteous, paleo-conservative zealots seeking to impose their Sharia-esque worldview on the rest of America. Well, you couldn't be more wrong. I think this law is a wonderful idea. I think women should be forced to consider fully the consequences of whatever abortion-related decision they make. Of course, in fairness, if pregnant women must face this sort of "reality check," so should everyone else--especially politicians who seem to find this sort of thing so important:
--You want to repeal Obamacare? You go and explain, in person, one at a time, to a substantial number of people--let's say fifty, just to keep it manageable--a substantial number of people who will lose their access to healthcare--why this is really good for them.
--You don't like gun-control laws? Go speak to the relatives of the Columbine killers or the Virginia Tech massacre or the Tucson shootings--go speak to them one at a time--and explain why everyone must have continued access to guns.
--You don't think taxes should be raised on the rich? Go around the country to explain to people making around $30,000 a year--one at a time--why it's a good thing for the country that they pay taxes at a higher rate than multi-millionaires.
You get the point. If women facing one of the most serious decisions they are ever likely to make must undergo a blatant attempt to force them into empathy, I see no reason why we should not hold our elected representatives to the same standard.
Alternatively, in keeping with the whole vaginal ultrasound concept, we could simply force politicians to undergo a thorough colonoscopy whenever they're thinking about dropping a load of crap on the rest of us.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
The SoLinsist
As anyone who even moderately follows sports knows, New York City and the rest the basketball-watching world has been in the grips of full-blown Linsanity for the past two weeks. Knicks point guard Jeremy Lin is the feel-good sports story of the year.
Lin was undrafted out of Harvard--not exactly a basketball powerhouse--and signed with the Golden State Warriors, who cut him before this season began. Right, he wasn't good enough to play for the Warriors. He signed with Houston and was promptly released by them, as well. The Knicks signed him, sent him to the D-league (the basketball equivalent of baseball's minor leagues, but without all the sunny optimism), and brought him back to the NBA primarily to serve as a back-up to a back-up. Decimated by injuries, the Knicks turned to Lin, and, after one shaky performance, he has contributed one dominant performance after another.
Perhaps it was just a question of Lin finding the right coach. He fits in perfectly with Knicks Coach Mike D'Antoni's fast-paced, team-based offensive philosophy. Lin looks to pass first, but is quite capable of scoring when needed. The bottom-line is that Lin is a protoypical point guard, highly intelligent, and refreshingly unselfish. For the first time in many years, the Knicks are a team worth watching.
Of course, much of the hype around Jeremy Lin revolves around his ethnicity. Asian-Americans are, to put it mildly, not highly represented in the National Basketball Association. The NBA currently features twice as many players under 5'10" (2) than Asian-Americans. But given his astonishing level of play over his first two weeks, given his playmaking creativity, given his grace under pressure and demonstrated ability to flourish under the microscope of the most ravenous fans in the most media-saturated place on earth, it is not too early to begin asking--and seriously considering--a question that would have seemed laughable only two weeks ago: Is Jeremy Lin nothing less than the greatest player in the history of the NBA?
No, of course he's not, what are you kidding me?
Lin was undrafted out of Harvard--not exactly a basketball powerhouse--and signed with the Golden State Warriors, who cut him before this season began. Right, he wasn't good enough to play for the Warriors. He signed with Houston and was promptly released by them, as well. The Knicks signed him, sent him to the D-league (the basketball equivalent of baseball's minor leagues, but without all the sunny optimism), and brought him back to the NBA primarily to serve as a back-up to a back-up. Decimated by injuries, the Knicks turned to Lin, and, after one shaky performance, he has contributed one dominant performance after another.
Perhaps it was just a question of Lin finding the right coach. He fits in perfectly with Knicks Coach Mike D'Antoni's fast-paced, team-based offensive philosophy. Lin looks to pass first, but is quite capable of scoring when needed. The bottom-line is that Lin is a protoypical point guard, highly intelligent, and refreshingly unselfish. For the first time in many years, the Knicks are a team worth watching.
Of course, much of the hype around Jeremy Lin revolves around his ethnicity. Asian-Americans are, to put it mildly, not highly represented in the National Basketball Association. The NBA currently features twice as many players under 5'10" (2) than Asian-Americans. But given his astonishing level of play over his first two weeks, given his playmaking creativity, given his grace under pressure and demonstrated ability to flourish under the microscope of the most ravenous fans in the most media-saturated place on earth, it is not too early to begin asking--and seriously considering--a question that would have seemed laughable only two weeks ago: Is Jeremy Lin nothing less than the greatest player in the history of the NBA?
No, of course he's not, what are you kidding me?
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
The Secret: Insane Enough for a Man, But Made by a Woman
My writing students have an ongoing, full-semester, every-night-of-the-week-including-weekends assignment: Each day, every student must find a piece of professional writing and hand-copy approximately 150 words, paying careful attention to word-choice, punctuation, etc. Since the only true way to learn to write is reading, this forces students to read at least a little bit each day. And the additional physical labor of hand-copying (as opposed to typing) forces students to slow down and pay some attention to the way sentences are formed.
An added bonus for me is that I encounter all manner of writing to which I would not otherwise be exposed. And this is how I came to read selections from Rhonda Byrne's mega-best-selling self-help book, The Secret. And I must say. . . Wow! This woman really is a dangerous lunatic, isn't she?
For those of you who may not be familiar with her thesis, it seems to boil down to this: If you believe something will happen, it will happen, so you need to believe the right way. Her "Law of Attraction" sounds, on the surface at least, like nothing more than a rehashing of the tried and true "power of positive thinking." Except she takes things a step further. For example, are you hoping to lose weight? No problem! According to Ms. Byrne, "Food cannot cause you to put on weight, unless you think it can." Calories are effectively just a failure of the imagination.
And imagination--or, if you prefer, belief--is Byrne's main (and as far as I can tell, only) ingredient for success. If you believe it, it will happen. But it's not enough to just believe that something will happen: In order to activate the Law of Attraction, you must act as though whatever you want is already reality. You can't actively try to lose weight: You must believe and act as though you are already thin! You can't try to make money: You must believe and act as though you are already rich. Even as I type this entry, I am being serviced by Angelina Jolie! Which is whyy ther mite b more typrs than usualll. . . .
"Except," you will object (and WOS will insist), "you're not being serviced by Angelina Jolie." Of course, this is no refutation of the Secret. Like all good pseudo-science, Byrne's theory is utterly unfalsifiable: If Ms. Jolie is not standing naked in my office with a feather-duster and a jar of mayonnaise, it is undoubtedly because I do not sufficiently believe that it is happening! Curse my rational mind!
None of this would be of particular import if it weren't for the fact that, apparently, millions of people actually subscribe to this insane philosophy. Because I believe the technical term for what Byrne is advocating is "psychotic delusion." If Byrne doesn't believe her own nonsense, then she is a highly successful con-artist. I find that, however, somewhat more comforting than the alternative explanation--that she actually believes what she says. In fairness to her, though, the inexplicable success of her own delusional ramblings certainly suggests some proof of her own theory.
An added bonus for me is that I encounter all manner of writing to which I would not otherwise be exposed. And this is how I came to read selections from Rhonda Byrne's mega-best-selling self-help book, The Secret. And I must say. . . Wow! This woman really is a dangerous lunatic, isn't she?
For those of you who may not be familiar with her thesis, it seems to boil down to this: If you believe something will happen, it will happen, so you need to believe the right way. Her "Law of Attraction" sounds, on the surface at least, like nothing more than a rehashing of the tried and true "power of positive thinking." Except she takes things a step further. For example, are you hoping to lose weight? No problem! According to Ms. Byrne, "Food cannot cause you to put on weight, unless you think it can." Calories are effectively just a failure of the imagination.
And imagination--or, if you prefer, belief--is Byrne's main (and as far as I can tell, only) ingredient for success. If you believe it, it will happen. But it's not enough to just believe that something will happen: In order to activate the Law of Attraction, you must act as though whatever you want is already reality. You can't actively try to lose weight: You must believe and act as though you are already thin! You can't try to make money: You must believe and act as though you are already rich. Even as I type this entry, I am being serviced by Angelina Jolie! Which is whyy ther mite b more typrs than usualll. . . .
"Except," you will object (and WOS will insist), "you're not being serviced by Angelina Jolie." Of course, this is no refutation of the Secret. Like all good pseudo-science, Byrne's theory is utterly unfalsifiable: If Ms. Jolie is not standing naked in my office with a feather-duster and a jar of mayonnaise, it is undoubtedly because I do not sufficiently believe that it is happening! Curse my rational mind!
None of this would be of particular import if it weren't for the fact that, apparently, millions of people actually subscribe to this insane philosophy. Because I believe the technical term for what Byrne is advocating is "psychotic delusion." If Byrne doesn't believe her own nonsense, then she is a highly successful con-artist. I find that, however, somewhat more comforting than the alternative explanation--that she actually believes what she says. In fairness to her, though, the inexplicable success of her own delusional ramblings certainly suggests some proof of her own theory.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Solipsipiphany
"Oh! Wow! I just figured something out! You know that game? With the hippos? 'Hungry, Hungry Hippos'? OK, well, you ever wonder where they came up with that idea? 'Cause I have! And. . .and. . . and. . . I mean, yeah, hippos are big and fat, so they probably are hungry a lot of the time, but what if! What if! There was this bunch of hippies? Living in a-a-a-a commune somewhere, right? And, you know how when hippies smoke the marijuana they get the munchies? Right? And, so, I'm thinking that one of the hippies said to all his other friends, 'Wow, what a bunch of hungry, hungry hippies we've got here.' And then another one of the hippies said, 'Dude! That should totally be the name of some kind of game where, like, all the players are trying to grab the last Ding-Dong.' And then they thought about it for a while, but, like, when they went to sell this great game idea to, like, I don't know, Hasbro or whatever, the big game-guy was all, like, 'Look, I love where you guys are coming from, but no parent is going to buy a game called "Hungry, Hungry Hippies,"' and then he was like, 'What about "Hippos"?' and the hippies said, like, 'Cool' and 'Yeah' and 'Whatever,' and I think that's probably how it all happened."
WOS: What the hell is wrong with you?
WOS: What the hell is wrong with you?
Sunday, February 19, 2012
He Don't Need No (Public) Education
Rick Santorum disapproves of government-provided education. On the face of it, this puts him squarely in the mainstream of extreme conservative thought (i.e., slightly to the right of Hitler). For years now, conservatives have decried the federal Department of Education and have to various extents called for its demise. Santorum, however, takes things a step further, questioning whether even STATE governments have a legitimate role in education.
A firm advocate of home-schooling, he points out, by way of what passes for reasoning among neanderthals, that for the first 150 years in our nation's history, American presidents home-schooled their children at the White House. Now, I am not sure how many of our nation's pre-1939 presidents even HAD school-age children during their administrations, but assuming that some did, I hardly think these Commanders-in-Chief spent a great deal of time helping Junior with his algebra homework in between negotiating trade agreements with the Austro-Hungarian Empire and exterminating the Shoshone. I imagine, they being Presidents and all, these chief executives probably retained high-quality tutors to support their children's educations. This is "home schooling" in the same way that having the White House chef whip up Veal Milanese at 3:00 AM is "home cooking."
Still, Santorum practices what he preaches. He home-schools his own brood--or, more likely, his wife does, teaching being acceptable women's work. And he fundamentally rejects in his own household the notion that government has any appropriate role to play in the provision of children's education--well, except for providing him and his family with about $38,000 worth of equipment and services to support his kids' cyber-schooling. Asshole!
Sorry, that's inappropriate: Rick Santorum is NOT an asshole. He's simply what oozes out of one.
All this would be merely amusing if Santorum were not tied in the polls for the Republican nomination for the presidency. Seriously, Mitt Romney--who comes across as FDR in comparison--faces an uphill battle in Michigan, which is more or less his home state! A question to Republicans: What the hell are you people thinking?!? I suppose I shouldn't complain too much: If Santorum somehow does end up as the Republican nominee, the election probably becomes a virtual cakewalk for Obama: I can't imagine any Democrats or many independents actually casting a ballot for Senator Anal Froth--sorry, that's unfair--FORMER Senator Anal Froth (Troglodyte-Pa.),
As DOS mentioned to us today: Years ago, around the time that Santorum was first calling homosexuality a gateway to "man on dog" action., Saturday Night Live offered the following assessment, which seems even more approriate today: "Rick Santorum puts the 'idiot' in the expression 'This guys an idiot!'"
A firm advocate of home-schooling, he points out, by way of what passes for reasoning among neanderthals, that for the first 150 years in our nation's history, American presidents home-schooled their children at the White House. Now, I am not sure how many of our nation's pre-1939 presidents even HAD school-age children during their administrations, but assuming that some did, I hardly think these Commanders-in-Chief spent a great deal of time helping Junior with his algebra homework in between negotiating trade agreements with the Austro-Hungarian Empire and exterminating the Shoshone. I imagine, they being Presidents and all, these chief executives probably retained high-quality tutors to support their children's educations. This is "home schooling" in the same way that having the White House chef whip up Veal Milanese at 3:00 AM is "home cooking."
Still, Santorum practices what he preaches. He home-schools his own brood--or, more likely, his wife does, teaching being acceptable women's work. And he fundamentally rejects in his own household the notion that government has any appropriate role to play in the provision of children's education--well, except for providing him and his family with about $38,000 worth of equipment and services to support his kids' cyber-schooling. Asshole!
Sorry, that's inappropriate: Rick Santorum is NOT an asshole. He's simply what oozes out of one.
All this would be merely amusing if Santorum were not tied in the polls for the Republican nomination for the presidency. Seriously, Mitt Romney--who comes across as FDR in comparison--faces an uphill battle in Michigan, which is more or less his home state! A question to Republicans: What the hell are you people thinking?!? I suppose I shouldn't complain too much: If Santorum somehow does end up as the Republican nominee, the election probably becomes a virtual cakewalk for Obama: I can't imagine any Democrats or many independents actually casting a ballot for Senator Anal Froth--sorry, that's unfair--FORMER Senator Anal Froth (Troglodyte-Pa.),
As DOS mentioned to us today: Years ago, around the time that Santorum was first calling homosexuality a gateway to "man on dog" action., Saturday Night Live offered the following assessment, which seems even more approriate today: "Rick Santorum puts the 'idiot' in the expression 'This guys an idiot!'"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)