Three Cheers for Cancer (A Longish Post)

I saw this posted on Facebook yesterday.  A compelling point.  Had I too quickly condemned handgun enthusiast?

I engaged in a moment of soul-searching.  Then, I rebooted my capacity for rational thought and realized that the above statements are complete and utter bullshit.  No surprise, really. The source of the image--"The Republican Revolution"--is a proud Tea Party organization.  You remember the Tea Party, right?  Those are the folks who continue to insist in the face of all evidence to the contrary (and no evidence in support) that President Obama is a Kenyan-born, crypto-Islamofascist just waiting for the opportunity to impose Sharia law on the real Americans of Peoria.  Ludicrous!

Everyone KNOWS Obama was born in Indonesia!

Sigh.

Lest anyone come across this image and take the statement seriously, let's take a few moments to reflect:

First, consider the utter implausibility of the numbers: 1,100 murders prevented every DAY (their emphasis) by handguns.  According to the Department of Justice, for the last several years, the number of homicides in American has hovered around 15,000.  If the Republican Revolution's number is accurate, then, in the absence of guns, we could expect around 400,000 additional murders each year.  This would translate into a homicide rate of approximately 1 per 750 people--or over 133 per 100,000.  To put that into context, the deadliest country, in terms of homicide rate, is Honduras, whose rate is just over 82 per 100,000 people.  I find it difficult to believe the United States population is inherently 60% more murderous than that of Honduras.  But perhaps that's the gun enthusiasts' argument: Honduras is significantly more dangerous than the United States BECAUSE so many fewer people have guns: Honduras comes in 88th in per capita gun ownership (6.2), whereas the US is number 1 (88.8).

(DIGRESSION: THE US HAS ALMOST 90 GUNS FOR EVERY PERSON?!?! HONDURAS HAS MORE THAN SIX?!?!? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE WORLD?!?!?!?!?!?!?  EOD)

Ultimately, we must guess at the basis for the Republican Revolution's argument.  Certainly there is no actual data to support it.  I went to the Department of Justice website, the ostensible source of the data cited.  For starters, it should be noted that there is no "National Crime Victims Survey"; there IS a "National Crime VICTIMIZATION Survey."  A small point, perhaps, but when trying to establish credibility, it would behoove one to correctly state at least the TITLE of one's source.  Unsurprisingly, I could find no measurement of "number of murders prevented"--whether because of gun possession or for any other reason.

Because how COULD there be such a measurement?  How can one quantify something that DOESN'T happen?  Even a theoretically cut and dried instance of murder-prevention-by-handgun doesn't withstand scrutiny.  Imagine: a gun-wielding miscreant confronts a little old lady, proclaiming his intention to murder her in cold blood.  Fortunately, an armed good samaritan overhears the threat and, brandishing his own weapon, frightens off the potential killer.  Surely, this is a clear instance of a homicide prevented by gun ownership?

Well, no, it isn't.  We don't know that the miscreant would have followed through on his threat.  We don't know if his gun would have jammed or if, had he shot, the wounds would prove fatal.  Certainly, we can all breathe a sigh of relief that no harm befalls either the old lady or her rescuer, and we could (and should) thank the civic-minded good samaritan.  But from a statistical perspective, even so clear a case of self-defense is of questionable value; and how many such "prevented homicides" are even THIS obvious?

Another way of thinking about this: If, as mentioned above, approximately 15,000 people are murdered in the United States each year, this translates into a rate of a little less than 5 per 100,000 people (given a population of about 300 million).  We could also say that the NON-HOMICIDE rate is about 99,995 of 100,000: Of every 100,000 people, 99,995 are NOT murdered each year!  Presumably, gun ownership saves some of these people, but other factors contribute as well: running away, not being targeted by a potential killer, even death by natural causes.

In 2010, over 500,000 people died from cancer in the United States (600 per 100,000 people)--or more than 1,100 people per day!  Thus, CANCER is a more effective preventer of homicide than handguns!  Yay, Cancer!

Look, statistics can be manipulated to support any political or ideological viewpoint.  The bottom line, though, is that approximately 30,000 people are killed with firearms in the United States each year (that includes suicides and accidents in addition to homicide), a fact that arises not through statistical manipulation but through physics and human biology.  When the gun lobby wants to address reality with reality, I and many others will be more than happy to listen.

A Senator's Lot Is Not a Happy One

Pity United States senators.  They had to cut short their Christmas vacations to return to Washington at the behest of President Obama and their caucus leadership.  They face the real possibility of having to work through New Year's Eve!  And for what? The possibility of rescuing the nation from financial disaster?  For THAT they have to miss "Dick Clark's Rockin' New Year's Eve with Ryan Seacrest"?!?

(DIGRESSION: How can it be "Dick Clark's Rockin' New Year's Eve" if (A) it's "with Ryan Seacrest" and (B) Dick Clark is somewhat dead?  Has Dick Clark, in death, become the James Patterson of New Year's festivities?  EOD)

You still don't feel bad for the senate?  Well, what if I pointed out to you that senators receive NO COMPENSATION!  Well, OK, they make a token salary of $174,000 per year.  Plus, I guess, whatever income they have from their private investments.  And, yes, sure, they have the prospect of any number of lucrative post-congressional careers.  And, OK, I guess if you want to be technical, there are probably some non-financial rewards to serving in this highly exclusive prestigious institution that sets the course of national policy and quite literally makes history on a regular basis, but still: We're talking CHRISTMAS VACATION!!!  Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), how do you feel about having to cut short Christmas?

“'I didn’t realize how much I didn’t want to be here until I got here,' said Mr. Schumer, who had taken the red eye from San Francisco, where he had arrived only days earlier to visit his daughter."

AND HE'S JEWISH!

Adding insult to injury, the senators have had to return to Washington to do nothing in particular, as there is no specific legislation to vote on.  Senator Harry Reid is waiting for the White House to propose a solution to the imminent arrival of the "fiscal cliff," which I frankly don't understand, but from everything I've heard will lead directly to the zombie apocalypse and/or commence the 1,000 year reign of Gondrok, Dark Lord of Chaos.  Or something.

Where was I?

Ah, yes, Reid is waiting for Obama, who needs assurances from Sen. Mitch McConnell that Republicans won't simply filibuster any proposal, and everybody needs assurances from Speaker of the House John Boehner that, IF the senate passes legislation, the Republicans in the House of Representatives won't just screw everybody over like they did last week.  So, in other words, the senators are angry because they have nothing to do, but none of them will do anything unless and until they know that nobody will undo whatever they decide to. . .do.

As of last month, the job being done by Congress met with the approval of 18% of Americans.  Who ARE those people?

Dubious Moments in Marketing

I saw a TV ad this morning for the WaxVac, a product that helps one remove wax and other nasty particulates from one's ears.  Now, I welcome any innovation in orifice-maintenance technology.  (NOTE TO SELF: Patent "SnotBot" immediately!)  I was troubled, though, by the commercial: The acting is completely over the top, particularly the moment when the man shrieks in pain while attempting to clean his ears the old-fashioned way:

A note to dude and anyone else in a similar situation: If you cause yourself extreme pain while swabbing your ear with a Q-Tip, you are doing it wrong.

Paging Sam Roth

When we first moved into our current place of residence, we received a phone call from someone looking for "Sam Roth," who I am not.  (For the record, neither is WOS.)  Over the next few days, we continued occasionally to get calls for Sam, so we drew the logical conclusion that Sam either occupied these premises we did, or at least he had this same phone number.  We explained to callers that Sam Roth was not at this number anymore, and that we had no knowledge of what Sam's new number was--indeed, we had no knowledge of Sam.  Eventually, the calls subsided.

Here's the thing, though: The calls never completely stopped.  Indeed, just this morning I got a phone call from someone looking for Sam Roth--or for "Lisa" (Sam's wife? Daughter? Pet ocelot?). What makes the situation strange--not to say disturbing--is that these aren't impersonal calls, as from some out-of-date marketing list.  I get the impression that these are people with some personal connection to Sam (and/or Lisa).  At the same time, though, how close can these folks be?  They're still calling a number that Sam Roth hasn't had in at least four years!

Does it occur to them that, if they haven't spoken to Sam in such a long time--and weren't given his new number--that Sam doesn't WANT to talk to them?  Of course, maybe they HAVE been in touch with Sam, and he's giving them his old number intentionally so as to cut off further communication!  In which case, I would just like to say:

Sam! Cut it out! It's getting annoying!

It's Christmas Time. Be Afraid.

At or around Christmas, DOS always takes time out from his "busy" schedule to compose a Christmas Fable, which he then sends out to All and Sundry--or at least to All: DOS and Sundry haven't been on speaking terms since the cheese-grater incident.  This year's fable was typical, only more so.  DOS assumed I would not share this year's fable--which he prefaced with "I've never been so ashamed"--with Solipsist Nation, as I've done in the past.  I saw this as a dare, and I've never been one to back down from a dare!

Plus, it's Christmas!  I don't feel like actually writing anything.

Without further ado, then, I present DOS's Christmas Fable, 2012:

A Whale of a Tale Of a Fable

Call me… Maybe,…..not Moby.
I signed on to the Pee-Nutt as a whaler. Which was unfortunate, because it was a cargo ship that carried only Tuna.
I promised to keep that fact private or, as we musicians say, “piano”.
This made me a piano tuna.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Anyway,
The only other crew was made up of slaves (or, “Bought Men”, as we called them) and  Jews who, while not slaves, were, indeed, “Kept” men in that they were the “property” of the captain’s wife who used them at her pleasure.
The events I will tell you of, happened right around the Passover holidays.
The Jews wanted to celebrate, but the captain, jealous of the attention his wife gave to them, would only allow it. if they gave up the one thing that mattered most to them; dinghy ( that’s “Ding”- EE) racing in their rowboats.
Henceforth, only the slaves could use the boats.
Reluctantly, the Jews agreed
And so, to this day, that fateful holiday is recorded as:
Bought Men and Row Ban: The Kept Crew Seder.

BUT, I DIGRESS
“No! No!”, said Gress, “Don’t Die!!!!!!”
“But I must!”
“No! No! You have so much to live for! It’s Christmas (See, I got to it)!
We NEEEEED you!
You’re the Spirit that holds the gum to our fake beards; You’re the Angle on top of the tree, we tilt when it won’t fit in low ceiling-ed rooms; you’re Seasonal Affective Disorder, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the knowledge we gain from denims ( Sad, Madd, and Dungarees to Know… look it up under “Byron”).
“But I must, “ said I “For I am under a curse.”
“Is it Mayan?”
“No, you nit, it’s not yours! Why must everything be about you!?”
“Then…”
“Many years ago, when my name wasn’t “Maybe”, but Fersher,  I was engaged to a girl.  Not, however, just any girl, but the daughter of Santa Claus. Her name was “Morality”.

“Morality Claus?”
“Exactly”
“And?”
“And. I violated my Morality Claus!”
“You mean…?”
“YES! I kissed her under the Mistletoe… before CHRISTMAS EVE!”
“Bounder!”
“Um, no, I only kissed her!”
“Go on!”
“Well, because of that, I was placed under a curse. Doomed to wander the Earth; sail on ships (see: above) and Die, Gress, every Christmas Eve, until the late actress Rue McLanihan is witness to bad weather in my presence (Just go with it! It’s late) And that can never happen, now!”
“Don’t be so sure!”
“What! Who said that?”
“I did! I am the ghost of Christmas Future, played by the Emmy-winning Ghost Of… you, guessed it!... Rue McLanihan!
 And I brought with me the Ghost of Christmas Present played by Tony-Award winning actor/lyricist Adolph Green author of such hits as On The Town, Wonderful Town, Singin’ In The Rain, and others, too numerous to mention!”
“Thank you, Rue. But you left out one important thing that is vital to this particular story.”
“What’s that ‘Dolph?”
“Well, for about 10 minutes in the late 1930s, I was a semi-member of the Communist Party!”
“And why is that important, ‘Dolph?”
“Because, thanks to that lapse in my youth, I am going to set Maybe free of his curse!”
“And how will you do that, ‘Dolph?”
“Why, my sweet, by noticing that it is precipitating, quite fiercely out there, and thus fulfilling the terms of lifting the curse!”
But, ‘Dolph, are you sure?”
(OKAY, folks, Here it comes!!!!!!!!!!!)
“Rue, ‘Dolph, the Red, knows, Rain, dear!”
and they lived happily, and curse-free, ever after.

Petitions and Remembrances

I am outraged by the petition posted on the White House's official website, seeking the deportation of television host Piers Morgan.  The petition was started by gun enthusiasts after Morgan vehemently expressed his support for strengthened gun control laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings. 

To be clear, I heartily support the petitioners' cause: What right-thinking American DOESN'T want Piers Morgan deported?  But I am outraged that I now find myself agreeing with sociopathic gun nuts.

Incidentally, do these petitioners, who claim Morgan's anti-gun comments represent a "hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution," recognize the irony of defending the Bill of Rights by punishing someone for exercising his freedom of speech?  Or do they just assume that the Second Amendment trumps the first because. . . .because. . . I don't know, because two is bigger than one?

******************
On a somewhat more reverent note, I was saddened to read of the death of Jack Klugman at the age of 90.

When I was a child, one of my favorite afternoon pastimes was watching reruns of "The Odd Couple" (7:00 on channel 11)--a perfectly written, perfectly cast show that retains its charm even forty years after its original airing.
Klugman, of course, played one-half of the titular couple, the slovenly Oscar Madison, perpetually at odds with his best friend and roommate, the persnickety neat-freak Felix Unger (Tony Randall).  While both characters were well-written, Oscar was clearly the one viewers were meant to identify with: His Everyman enthusiasms (sports, gambling, beer) more accessible to most people than Felix's upper-class tastes.  The only thing "unrealistic" about Oscar was his extreme slovenliness--and after spending a year with my sophomore roommate in college, I realized that even that was more plausible than I had originally thought.
Klugman had numerous other roles, including the title role in "Quincy, M.E."--basically "CSI" without all the DNA sequencing.  But Oscar Madison is the role for which he will be most remembered.  And frankly, that's not a bad thing at all.

Who Goes There?

"Anonymous" is one of my biggest fans.  Not the hacker collective responsible for making Guy Fawkes masks fashionable, a different "Anonymous."  (Or, maybe it is.  How the Hell should I know? It's "Anonymous"!)  Many days I open my e-mail to find that "Anonymous" has left a new comment on the previous day's post.

In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion who "Anonymous" is--at least the majority of the time.  Over the last several months, though, something strange has been happening.  I check my e-mail and see the familiar message alerting me to a newly posted comment from my most stalwart fan.  When I sign on to this blog, though, no comments--from "Anonymous" or anyone else--appear.  It's just as well, really, because the content of these "Anonymous" comments is. . . Well, here, for example are a couple of comments--copied verbatim--ostensibly left but not actually appearing on the "Solipsist":

"Properly, the submit is in fact this most up to date theme within this windows registry linked issue.
I personally participate in your data and may thirstily
look forward to your own arriving improvements.
Just declaring cheers will not just be adequate,
for any unparalleled lucidity in your crafting. I will at
once seize the rss to settle up to date with almost any updates.
Stop by my web-site. . . "

"Great try out Gregory. Consult a few of your mates which love gizmos.
I’m confident they could aid.
Feel free to visit my site .. . "

The comments end with a link to some other website (which I will not deign to reprint here), frequently a site selling remedies for erectile dysfunction or genital warts.

NO! OK?!?

Obviously, these comments are some kind of spam; perhaps FOS with his wealth of all-things-computer-related can shed light on this particular marketing ploy.  But I guess I should applaud Google's spam filters for blocking these questionable comments, while at the same time allowing the more innocuous comments of the TRUE "Anonymous" (who despite his snarky attitude does possess command of basic syntax) to go through.