SOL: You know, if you think about it, just about any movie could be improved if you change one word of its title to "Monkey."
WOS: Hm.
SOL: "When a Monkey Calls."
WOS: "The Silence of the Monkeys."
SOL: Exactly! . . . "Monkey of Arabia."
WOS: Heh.
SOL: "Monkey."
WOS: Hm?
SOL: That would be "Avatar."
WOS: Oh. Oh. . .Kay.
SOL: "Planet of the Monkeys."
WOS: That one doesn't work too well.
SOL: Guess you're right. . . ."Monkey Monkeys."
WOS: What?
SOL: Instead of "Thirteen Monkeys."
WOS: What?!?
SOL: You know, the Bruce Willis movie about the disease that kills people.
WOS: As opposed to the disease that cures people?
SOL: You know what I mean.
WOS: "TWELVE Monkeys."
SOL: Oh, right. (Pause) Well, you can see where my title would avoid confusion. . . . What movie had thirteen of something?
WOS: I'm ignoring you.
(Pause.)
SOL: "Schindler's Monkey.". . . Too soon?
WOS: A bit.
(Pause.)
SOL: "Abbot and Costello Meet the Monkey". . . "The Hurt Monkey". . . "Harry Potter and the Monkey of Azkaban."
WOS: Just how long are you going to do this?
SOL: I don't know. How many movies are there?
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Friday, September 14, 2012
Because We Live in a SOCIETY!
As I head into a fun-filled weekend of paper-grading, let me just leave you for now with a simple rule to promote global harmony and warm fuzzies:
If you are standing at a crosswalk, and a driver waves you across the street, don't DAWDLE! Don't stroll, plod, or shuffle! Stride with all deliberate speed to the opposite corner. Run if possible. Or at least trot. Unless you are walker-bound, there is no excuse for holding up the polite person who has tacitly agreed not to run you over any longer than is absolutely necessary!
And would it kill you to give a little "Thank-you" wave?
You're welcome!
If you are standing at a crosswalk, and a driver waves you across the street, don't DAWDLE! Don't stroll, plod, or shuffle! Stride with all deliberate speed to the opposite corner. Run if possible. Or at least trot. Unless you are walker-bound, there is no excuse for holding up the polite person who has tacitly agreed not to run you over any longer than is absolutely necessary!
And would it kill you to give a little "Thank-you" wave?
You're welcome!
Thursday, September 13, 2012
No Bullying Pulpit
This seventh-grader, Benny, is a really nice kid who lives in a rough neighborhood--has lived there all his life. The other neighborhood kids have never liked Benny--most of them kind of hate him. They always call him names, pick fights with him, what have you. And over the years, Benny's gotten pretty tough: He's had to! When the other kids start hassling him, he gives as good as he gets. And Benny has one big advantage over the other neighborhood kids: His best friend, Barry, is the star linebacker on the local high school football team. Barry has always looked out for Benny (he's an old friend of Benny's family), and he always will.
Lately, though, Benny has started to annoy Barry. See, Benny's been going around threatening the local bullies, warning them that if he even thinks they're going to start trouble, he's fully prepared to make life extremely miserable for them. It's not a completely unreasonable position to take--this is a very rough neighborhood. But now Benny's also demanding that Barry make some serious threats towards these kids as well.
Barry doesn't think this is such a great idea. Sure, Barry could make the threats--and even back them up: He's a senior linebacker, and these are essentially just little kids. But Barry has other things on his mind: his classes, an after-school job, college applications, to say nothing of the big game coming up against Mitford Prep. . . OK, you get the point.
I am Jewish, and a strong supporter of Israel--or at any rate of the ideal of Israel: a secular democracy in an otherwise benighted land, a haven for a historically persecuted people--my people. But when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu starts issuing demands that President Obama declare "red lines" to Iran--lines which the Islamic Republic dare not cross in its pursuit of nuclear weapons lest it find itself on the receiving end of an American attack--I just feel like telling him: Shut. Up.
I don't want to see Iran get the bomb (though I still have a philosophical problem with the idea that a nuclear-armed country has some sort of right to forbid another country from acquiring same). I understand Netanyahu's concern. However, he has no right to demand that another country--a country that has done more for his land than any other nation in the world--essentially commit itself to go to war on his behalf if some arbitrary "red line" is crossed. Netanyahu, of course, says such lines would make war less likely, as Iran wouldn't want to provoke a US onslaught. But I can't help thinking that Bibi--who seems all too eager to unleash hell on Iran--would see American red lines as green lights: How much time do you suppose would pass between an American ultimatum and Israel presenting Washington with evidence of Iranian violations? I put the over-under at a week. And then what?
Mitt Romney--Surprise!--thinks President Obama is showing contempt to our staunchest ally. But it's easy to play backseat president before the election. And even Romney hasn't said what his red lines would be.
If Netanyahu is so gung-ho to attack Iran, let him do so. The United States will, as President Obama affirmed at a recent gathering of Jewish leaders, "have Israel's back." But Bibi must understand that the American people are quite weary of Middle East wars and have little appetite for another one. We remember George W. Bush, who was all too willing to issue threats and ultimatums, and we are none too thrilled with how all that turned out. I, at least, appreciate a President who is not willing to make bombastic threats for no reason other than that a friend asked him to. President Obama has certainly failed to live up to his Nobel Peace Prize in many ways, but in this instance, at least, he is showing the right spirit.
Lately, though, Benny has started to annoy Barry. See, Benny's been going around threatening the local bullies, warning them that if he even thinks they're going to start trouble, he's fully prepared to make life extremely miserable for them. It's not a completely unreasonable position to take--this is a very rough neighborhood. But now Benny's also demanding that Barry make some serious threats towards these kids as well.
Barry doesn't think this is such a great idea. Sure, Barry could make the threats--and even back them up: He's a senior linebacker, and these are essentially just little kids. But Barry has other things on his mind: his classes, an after-school job, college applications, to say nothing of the big game coming up against Mitford Prep. . . OK, you get the point.
I am Jewish, and a strong supporter of Israel--or at any rate of the ideal of Israel: a secular democracy in an otherwise benighted land, a haven for a historically persecuted people--my people. But when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu starts issuing demands that President Obama declare "red lines" to Iran--lines which the Islamic Republic dare not cross in its pursuit of nuclear weapons lest it find itself on the receiving end of an American attack--I just feel like telling him: Shut. Up.
I don't want to see Iran get the bomb (though I still have a philosophical problem with the idea that a nuclear-armed country has some sort of right to forbid another country from acquiring same). I understand Netanyahu's concern. However, he has no right to demand that another country--a country that has done more for his land than any other nation in the world--essentially commit itself to go to war on his behalf if some arbitrary "red line" is crossed. Netanyahu, of course, says such lines would make war less likely, as Iran wouldn't want to provoke a US onslaught. But I can't help thinking that Bibi--who seems all too eager to unleash hell on Iran--would see American red lines as green lights: How much time do you suppose would pass between an American ultimatum and Israel presenting Washington with evidence of Iranian violations? I put the over-under at a week. And then what?
Mitt Romney--Surprise!--thinks President Obama is showing contempt to our staunchest ally. But it's easy to play backseat president before the election. And even Romney hasn't said what his red lines would be.
If Netanyahu is so gung-ho to attack Iran, let him do so. The United States will, as President Obama affirmed at a recent gathering of Jewish leaders, "have Israel's back." But Bibi must understand that the American people are quite weary of Middle East wars and have little appetite for another one. We remember George W. Bush, who was all too willing to issue threats and ultimatums, and we are none too thrilled with how all that turned out. I, at least, appreciate a President who is not willing to make bombastic threats for no reason other than that a friend asked him to. President Obama has certainly failed to live up to his Nobel Peace Prize in many ways, but in this instance, at least, he is showing the right spirit.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
What Would Jesus Do? Probably Not What Mitt Did
The last 24 hours have been rather hectic in the Middle East, and I, sadly, have had scant time to check out the news in other than a cursory manner. Here's what's happened so far:
Yesterday, US embassies in Egypt and Libya were attacked by mobs, apparently responding to an inflammatory, anti-Muslim video produced by some fringe amateur filmmaker. How sleazy is the video? Well, I haven't seen it, but it received a seal of approval from Terry Jones--organizer of International Burn a Koran Day (which I'm sad to say falls on a Saturday this year, so no day off!). Apparently, a large portion of the Islamic world has yet to realize that just because a mentally defective racist American happens to say something, this does not reflect the official position of the American government or the vast majority of Americans. At any rate, these protests turned particularly violent in Libya, where four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed.
It goes without saying--or it should--that no one in his right mind--American, Libyan, Egyptian; Democrat, Republican, or Independent--condones these actions. The Libyan government condemned the attacks, as did any number of decent people the world over. As for the domestic US reaction, the consensus could be summed up as anger at the perpetrators, sympathy for the victims, and resolve not to be cowed by international terrorists. Despite their well-publicized differences, political figures both Democratic--President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senator John Kerry--and Republican--Speaker of the House John Boehner, Senator Mitch McConnell--issued sensible, sensitive responses to the horrific events. Politics, as it has been often said, stop at the water's edge.
But someone forgot to tell Mitt Romney. Rather than taking the opportunity to appear statesmanlike, Romney wasted no time in politicizing the incident, spewing partisan misinformation to an anxious nation.
A bit of background: Before--let me emphasize, BEFORE--the attacks on the embassies, an embassy employee, in an apparent attempt to soothe the feelings of Muslims over the offensive video--issued a statement essentially affirming the United States' commitment to religious freedom and its fundamental respect for members of all faiths. This relatively benign statement--again, made BEFORE the attacks--was seized upon by Mitt Romney as some kind of "apology" offered up by President Obama to the very people who killed his Ambassador. The fact that it was not an apology nor was the statement made by the President or any member of his Cabinet only adds to the inanity of Romney's statement.
Andrew Sullivan has done a thorough job of destroying Mitt Romney for this egregious act of tactlessness. I would just like to emphasize the utter cluelessness this betrays. Because who's Romney trying to impress? Anyone who would conceivably believe these blatant misrepresentations is already firmly in the "Vote Romney" column. Anyone else--anyone undecided--must surely listen to this repulsive act of blatant politicization and shake his head over the depths to which an intelligent, historically moderate representative of the American elite has allowed himself to sink.
Yesterday, US embassies in Egypt and Libya were attacked by mobs, apparently responding to an inflammatory, anti-Muslim video produced by some fringe amateur filmmaker. How sleazy is the video? Well, I haven't seen it, but it received a seal of approval from Terry Jones--organizer of International Burn a Koran Day (which I'm sad to say falls on a Saturday this year, so no day off!). Apparently, a large portion of the Islamic world has yet to realize that just because a mentally defective racist American happens to say something, this does not reflect the official position of the American government or the vast majority of Americans. At any rate, these protests turned particularly violent in Libya, where four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed.
It goes without saying--or it should--that no one in his right mind--American, Libyan, Egyptian; Democrat, Republican, or Independent--condones these actions. The Libyan government condemned the attacks, as did any number of decent people the world over. As for the domestic US reaction, the consensus could be summed up as anger at the perpetrators, sympathy for the victims, and resolve not to be cowed by international terrorists. Despite their well-publicized differences, political figures both Democratic--President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senator John Kerry--and Republican--Speaker of the House John Boehner, Senator Mitch McConnell--issued sensible, sensitive responses to the horrific events. Politics, as it has been often said, stop at the water's edge.
But someone forgot to tell Mitt Romney. Rather than taking the opportunity to appear statesmanlike, Romney wasted no time in politicizing the incident, spewing partisan misinformation to an anxious nation.
A bit of background: Before--let me emphasize, BEFORE--the attacks on the embassies, an embassy employee, in an apparent attempt to soothe the feelings of Muslims over the offensive video--issued a statement essentially affirming the United States' commitment to religious freedom and its fundamental respect for members of all faiths. This relatively benign statement--again, made BEFORE the attacks--was seized upon by Mitt Romney as some kind of "apology" offered up by President Obama to the very people who killed his Ambassador. The fact that it was not an apology nor was the statement made by the President or any member of his Cabinet only adds to the inanity of Romney's statement.
Andrew Sullivan has done a thorough job of destroying Mitt Romney for this egregious act of tactlessness. I would just like to emphasize the utter cluelessness this betrays. Because who's Romney trying to impress? Anyone who would conceivably believe these blatant misrepresentations is already firmly in the "Vote Romney" column. Anyone else--anyone undecided--must surely listen to this repulsive act of blatant politicization and shake his head over the depths to which an intelligent, historically moderate representative of the American elite has allowed himself to sink.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Endorsement
I've been kind of swamped today at work, so I have very little time. Let me just use this space to give the Solipsistic endorsement in this year's presidential race.
After careful consideration of both candidates, thorough scrutiny of both party's platforms, and some deep soul-searching, I have ultimately decided that the Solipsist will give its endorsement--and it was a close, close call--to President Barack Obama.
In other news, the sun rose in the east today.
After careful consideration of both candidates, thorough scrutiny of both party's platforms, and some deep soul-searching, I have ultimately decided that the Solipsist will give its endorsement--and it was a close, close call--to President Barack Obama.
In other news, the sun rose in the east today.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Job Creators
By now, you would think I'd be immune to the depredations of logic committed by the Republican Party. But they constantly surprise. A few days ago, WOFOS sent me a link. Please click to get a sense of the true level of pettiness and hypocrisy subscribed to by members of this cabal:
http://www.nevinssmallbusinesspledge.com/
If you're not in the mood to click the link--or if you're afraid of exposing yourself to right-wing cookies--allow me to summarize. The link takes you to a page where "job creators" can make the following "pledge":
"I will hire a new employee when Mitt Romney is sworn in as President of the United States of America."
You can, of course, pledge to hire as many employees as you like.
I wonder if those who sign this pledge are aware of exactly how hypocritical they sound. Consider, these right-wingers are proud capitalists of the staunchest sort. In their Ayn Randian worldview, "producers" create wealth and prosperity by utilizing capital in the most efficient and effective ways--and ONLY in the most effective and efficient ways. An employer will thus only hire people when he or she needs these people to improve productivity. By the same token, though, if a new hire will improve productivity, the employer must, according to the fundamental tenets of this philosophy, hire that worker.
Now, if these people are pledging to hire new workers, they must need these new workers--every day without them is thus hurting their businesses' productivity and thus committing an offense to the Great God of the Market. The alternative explanation is that the "producers" don't truly need more workers but will hire them as some sort of "favor" to. . . Well, I'm not exactly sure: Romney, perhaps, but since he'd already have been elected, I'm not sure how important that favor is. But what will these "surplus" workers do, exactly? Corporate busywork? Sounds positively Keynesian to me.
Beyond the illogic, though, I can only shake my head at what this pledge blatantly reveals: Republicans will refuse to hire people until Barack Obama is no longer the President--presumably because he is the President--and then blame President Obama for the high unemployment rate.
At long last, have they left no sense of decency?
http://www.nevinssmallbusinesspledge.com/
If you're not in the mood to click the link--or if you're afraid of exposing yourself to right-wing cookies--allow me to summarize. The link takes you to a page where "job creators" can make the following "pledge":
"I will hire a new employee when Mitt Romney is sworn in as President of the United States of America."
You can, of course, pledge to hire as many employees as you like.
I wonder if those who sign this pledge are aware of exactly how hypocritical they sound. Consider, these right-wingers are proud capitalists of the staunchest sort. In their Ayn Randian worldview, "producers" create wealth and prosperity by utilizing capital in the most efficient and effective ways--and ONLY in the most effective and efficient ways. An employer will thus only hire people when he or she needs these people to improve productivity. By the same token, though, if a new hire will improve productivity, the employer must, according to the fundamental tenets of this philosophy, hire that worker.
Now, if these people are pledging to hire new workers, they must need these new workers--every day without them is thus hurting their businesses' productivity and thus committing an offense to the Great God of the Market. The alternative explanation is that the "producers" don't truly need more workers but will hire them as some sort of "favor" to. . . Well, I'm not exactly sure: Romney, perhaps, but since he'd already have been elected, I'm not sure how important that favor is. But what will these "surplus" workers do, exactly? Corporate busywork? Sounds positively Keynesian to me.
Beyond the illogic, though, I can only shake my head at what this pledge blatantly reveals: Republicans will refuse to hire people until Barack Obama is no longer the President--presumably because he is the President--and then blame President Obama for the high unemployment rate.
At long last, have they left no sense of decency?
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Nationals Shut Down Strasburg
The Washington Nationals yesterday announced that ace pitcher Stephen Strasburg would be shut down for the remainder of the season. The move comes as little surprise: Team management announced early in 2012 that they would strictly limit Strasburg to around 160 innings for the season, in an effort to protect the young right-hander's long-term health. With the Nats currently holding the best record in baseball, the immediate impact of Strasburg's departure may be slight. If, however, the team falters in the playoffs, the second guessing of the decision to bench their best pitcher--a strong contender for the National League Cy Young award--will continue long into the winter.
A fierce competitor, Strasburg chafed all season at the seemingly arbitrary limit that was being placed on his innings. Indeed, Nats' manager Davey Johnson speculated that Strasburg's poor outing Friday night, in what turned out to be his final start of the season, may be attributable in part to distractions caused by the impending shutdown.
In an interview with "The Solipsist," Strasburg, while still expressing disappointment at the decision--"I just wish I could be out there helping my teammates"--was also philosophical.
"Look, I know I'm coming back from [Tommy John] surgery. I understand that Davey and Mike [Nationals general manager Mike Rizzo] are just looking out for me, and they want me to have a long career."
Asked what he would do now, Strasburg stated his intention to continue traveling with the team and supporting them in whatever way he could. "I'm going to be right there on the bench, Man. Anything my teammates need, I'm going to be there. They want me to chart pitches, help warm up guys in the bullpen, whatever. And when we win the World Series, I want to be right there pouring champagne with everyone else."
Asked if there were any positives in the early end to the season, Strasburg grew animated. "Honestly? I am kind of relieved we've finally gotten this over with. I mean, all you guys in the media kept talking about the innings limit, but that was only part of it!
"The Albertson's down the block? Their express lane is for ten items--but they would stop ringing me up after seven! Which, in a way was OK, 'cause Mike and Davey would only let me carry $20 at a time. . . And for some reason it was all in quarters.
"At every meal, I was allowed 100 chews! I tell you, if I never eat another bowl of soup again, it'll be too soon!
Davey Johnson confirmed the Nationals' actions. "Well, sure, he's a young guy. I know he'd like to chew his food all day if he could. But a pitcher's mouth has only so many chews in it, and we want to make sure he'll be around for awhile."
If anyone was more relieved than Strasburg at the lifting of the team's restrictions, it was his girlfriend, Maggie Johnson. "Well, you know. . .Steve would be allowed 25 . . .uh. . . thrusts? Then they'd have to pull him."
A fierce competitor, Strasburg chafed all season at the seemingly arbitrary limit that was being placed on his innings. Indeed, Nats' manager Davey Johnson speculated that Strasburg's poor outing Friday night, in what turned out to be his final start of the season, may be attributable in part to distractions caused by the impending shutdown.
In an interview with "The Solipsist," Strasburg, while still expressing disappointment at the decision--"I just wish I could be out there helping my teammates"--was also philosophical.
"Look, I know I'm coming back from [Tommy John] surgery. I understand that Davey and Mike [Nationals general manager Mike Rizzo] are just looking out for me, and they want me to have a long career."
Asked what he would do now, Strasburg stated his intention to continue traveling with the team and supporting them in whatever way he could. "I'm going to be right there on the bench, Man. Anything my teammates need, I'm going to be there. They want me to chart pitches, help warm up guys in the bullpen, whatever. And when we win the World Series, I want to be right there pouring champagne with everyone else."
Asked if there were any positives in the early end to the season, Strasburg grew animated. "Honestly? I am kind of relieved we've finally gotten this over with. I mean, all you guys in the media kept talking about the innings limit, but that was only part of it!
"The Albertson's down the block? Their express lane is for ten items--but they would stop ringing me up after seven! Which, in a way was OK, 'cause Mike and Davey would only let me carry $20 at a time. . . And for some reason it was all in quarters.
"At every meal, I was allowed 100 chews! I tell you, if I never eat another bowl of soup again, it'll be too soon!
Davey Johnson confirmed the Nationals' actions. "Well, sure, he's a young guy. I know he'd like to chew his food all day if he could. But a pitcher's mouth has only so many chews in it, and we want to make sure he'll be around for awhile."
If anyone was more relieved than Strasburg at the lifting of the team's restrictions, it was his girlfriend, Maggie Johnson. "Well, you know. . .Steve would be allowed 25 . . .uh. . . thrusts? Then they'd have to pull him."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)