In Which TERROR! TERROR! TRUMP! and--If You Stick Around to the End--a Nice Palate Cleanser

For the record, the front page, above-the-fold story in today's New York Times chronicled the terrorist attack on a hotel in Mali.  So, progress?

*************
In other-ish news, members and supporters of Al Qaeda and ISIS are squabbling like Republicans and Democrats over which political party is superior.  ISIS murders dozens in Paris, and Al Qaeda jeers the indiscriminate nature of the attacks; Al Qaeda, showing infinitely more restraint and decorum, attempts to weed out Muslims in its Mali killing spree, and no doubt ISIS rolls its collective eyes at the resulting minimized body count: Only twenty-something killed?  You call that jihad? The bickering has reached such a point that one disgusted supporter tweeted a plaintive, can't-we-all-just-get-along message: “I just wish we could all be brothers again&not argue."

Boys, boys, no need to fight: You're both a bunch of sociopathic barbarians.

*************
Speaking of sociopaths, Donald Trump is sort of backing off his call to create a national registry for Muslims.  I don't see why.  Sounds perfectly reasonable.  I mean, what could possibly go wrong?  We could keep it simple, too: Maybe just a little yellow crescent moon patch on the sleeve?

*************
Finally, let's end on a pleasant note.  I just saw this commercial for Campbell's soup.  I guess it's been out for awhile, but this is the first time I'd seen it--such are the perils of DVR'ing everything and fast-forwarding through commercials.  Anyway, in the ad, two men take turns feeding soup to a toddler.  As the first man brings the soup to the child's lips, he does his best Darth Vader interpretation, "Cooper, I AM your father."  Then, the second man, also Vadering, says, "No, Cooper, I am your father."  The image of an attractive gay couple raising an adorable child--and quoting "Star Wars," no less!--has predictably angered right-wing bluenoses, such as the activist "Million Moms" group, who fear the ad "normalizes" such an abhorrent lifestyle.  Relax, Moms!  The ad never explicitly states that the men are a gay couple: For all we know, the baby was conceived during a drunken three-way with the kid's coked out mother.

I'm here to help.

But I personally choose to think the ad does, in fact, "normalize" what to me has been perfectly normal for quite some time: The fact that same-sex couples are just as capable of being loving (if incredibly dorky) parents as their heterosexual counterparts.  And maybe this commercial will help some people reach the same conclusion.  So, progress.


I assume we are meant to conclude that this is a gay couple raising a child, and not that the child is the product of a drunken three-way. 

Gay Marriage: Bread and Circuses

As I scrolled through my Facebook news feed this morning, I saw post after euphoric post celebrating the Supreme Court's decisions in two cases involving same-sex marriage.  Thanks were being offered!  Tears were being shed!  (I have a substantial number of friends in the musical theater industry.)  I'm happy that so many of my friends are happy, but, at the risk of being a massive wet blanket, I must admit to feeling less than overjoyed.

Don't get me wrong.  SCOTUS got the decision right.  As I have said repeatedly, insofar as the government should be involved in legislating romance at all, gays and lesbians should have the same inherent rights to marriage as heterosexuals. It's really a no-brainer--and, appropriately enough, those who oppose such rights are substantively lacking in brains (Bachmann)--or at least in hearts and souls (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito).  But at the same time, how much did today's decision actually accomplish?

By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act and declining to decide a case involving California's Proposition 8 (which outlawed same-sex marriage and was subsequently declared unconstitutional by a California court), the Supremes ensured federal recognition of gay marriage and in effect made California the thirteenth state to legalize same-sex marriage.  All well and good.  But they issued no sweeping statement on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage; individual states can still choose to outlaw or condone such unions as they see fit. But virtually every Democratic lawmaker--and even some moderate Republicans--has come out in favor of same-sex marriage.  The arc of history is indeed bending towards justice, and even if SCOTUS had done nothing, more and more states are likely to pass legislation allowing same-sex marriage in the near future.

Still, you might say, this decision likely expedites the eventual universal acceptance of same-sex marriage, and it certainly comes as a welcome relief to thousands of gay couples whose marriages no longer languish in some sort of legislative-judicial purgatory.  Isn't that worth celebrating?  Maybe.  I can't help but think, though, that what we are really celebrating is the fact that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy apparently is more sympathetic to the personal, symbolic rights of gay people than he is to the actual, political rights of black people.

How cynical was it for the Court to release its decision on gay marriage the day after its decision effectively revoking the Voting Rights Act of 1965?  People upset about the potential disenfranchisement of minority voters?  Let them eat gay wedding cake!  (That is, cake at gay weddings--not a homosexual pastry.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

And while Tea Partiers and other assorted troglodytes will scream that today's decision represents a major milestone on America's inevitable journey down the road to Hell, they will soon come to realize--as supporters of gay marriage have long argued--that same-sex marriage affects exactly no one other than the happy couples and their families.  On the other hand, the fact that retrograde state legislatures in southern backwaters can now happily experiment with ways to strip blacks and other undesirables of basic rights of citizenship affects us all.

Thursday Trendwatch--Tuesday Edition

All right, back despite popular lack of demand, it's the Yahoo! Trendwatch.  I know it's been a while, but I'm sure we could all use a little bit of levity.  Let's see what whimsical topics are "Trending Now" for all of us to share a good laugh about!

10. PERU EARTHQUAKE: Seriously?  Well, OK, maybe it's not exactly "whimsical," but at least no one died!  (No one died, right?  Right?!?  OK, good.)  The U.S. Geological Survey--which you've gotta figure just lives for this shit--measured the earthquake at 4.6 on the Richter Scale, whereas the Peruvian geological survey (which apparently can't even afford capital letters) measured it at 4.6.  But I think that's metric.

9. CAMBODIAN LOST CITY:  It wasn't lost in the earthquake, was it?!?  No?  OK, good.  The city, located near Angkor, is called Mahendraparvata.  How people know what it is called despite its having been "lost" all this time is beyond my capacities to understand.

8. FIRED RADIO HOSTS: PleasesayRushLimbaugh. . . PleasesayRushLimbaugh. . . . PleasesayRushLimbaugh. . . . Oh, that's too bad.  The radio hosts in question, Nick Cellini, Steven ("Steak") Shapiro, and Chris (I don't know, let's say, "Tungsten") Dimino, comprise the cast of 790 the Zone's "Mayhem in the AM" (Atlanta) radio show.  They were fired after conducting a fake interview with former football player Steve Gleason, who is paralyzed as a result of ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease).  The interview was filled with tasteless jokes: One of the co-hosts, for example, pretending to be Gleason and speaking with a computerized voice, asked if the hosts could, as a favor, "smother him."  OK, I admit, I kind of chuckled.  Tasteless though it undoubtedly is, I find it somewhat hypocritical for a radio station to fire shock jocks--I can't imagine that a show called "Mayhem in the AM" is known for its erudite discussions on the late works of John Updike--for being shocking.

7. PET FOOD RECALL: The Natura Company is recalling all pet food products made before last week.  This includes foods for cats, dogs, and ferrets.  Wait. . . . No, sorry, just ferret food--which would then be metabolized by the cats and dogs that eat the ferrets.

6. SHARK ATTACKS AT SURFSIDE: A 15-year-old boy was attacked while wading in waist-high water at Surfside Beach on the Gulf Coast of Texas.  According to the report, "The boy was bitten on his lower left leg, and then the teen started beating it." Why the teen felt that beating his lower left leg was an appropriate response to a shark bite is unknown.  Must be a Texas thing.

5. GREG LOUGANIS: The four-time Olympic Gold Medalist is getting married to. . . let's see. . . Johnny Chaillot.  But. . . but.. .  THAT'S A MAN!

The greatest athlete in the history of American diving is gay?!?  Well, I guess he always did show a marked enthusiasm for going down.  BWAAAAAA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAA!  BWAAAAA-HA-HA! BWAA. . . Ah, shut up.

4. MAN OF STEEL: More about Greg Louganis?  Oh, no, the movie.  It has set the record for the biggest June opening in box-office history.  No doubt this record will last forever!  Or, perhaps until next June.  (By the way, why do we care?)

3. WATERMELON OREOS: Because what could be more refreshing on a hot summer day than to bite into a crisp piece of watermelon. . . cookie? 

(WOS: So is it juicy?

SOL: No, it's like an Oreo--except they use vanilla wafers. And watermelon flavored filling

WOS: So, it's not like Oreo crème?

SOL: Well, it is. . . I mean, it's that kind of crème, but it's lightly watermelon flavored.  And it's dyed pink and green.

WOS: What?  Why don't they just dye it pink?

SOL: Well, because they wanted it to look like watermelon.

WOS: But you don't eat the green part!

SOL: True. I guess they should have used a pink filling and dyed the cookie parts green.

WOS: Yeah. . .  But then of course you'd still be eating the green part that nobody actually eats.

SOL: Right.  Nobody eats the green part of the watermelon. . . .

WOS: . . .  You eat the green part of the watermelon, don't you?

SOL: No.

WOS: You do.

SOL: Maybe.

WOS: [Sigh.]

SOL: I LIKE THE CRUNCHY!)

2. O. J. SIMPSON: It was 19 years ago today that O. J. Simpson led Los Angeles police on a low-speed highway chase while sort of fleeing arrest for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman.  The 19th anniversary is traditionally the bronze anniversary, so if you're thinking gifts, perhaps a bronzed pair of gloves or some sort of cutlery?  I don't know whether the Simpson chase qualifies as one of those iconic "Where were you when. . . " moments, but I will never forget where I was: In a sports bar in New York, surrounded by a mob of people who just desperately--desperately--wanted NBC to go back to showing the GOD-DAMNED KNICKS-ROCKETS GAME!  It was the FINALS, for fuck's sake!

And the number one top-trending topic for today is. . . .

1. DAVE CHAPPELLE: The mercurial comedian, who practically dropped off the face of the earth several years ago, is making a comeback and preparing to go on tour.  Good for him.  I don't really have a joke for this.  I mean, Dave Chappelle is nothing like the comedy gold that a Peruvian earthquake is!  Good thing I'm not a drive-time radio host.

Marriage Is Marriage Until It Isn't, and That's OK, Too

As the Supreme Court ponders arguments for and against the legalization of same-sex marriage, the justices inevitably wrestle with the legacy of Roe v. Wade.  In retrospect, that landmark case, far from settling a contentious social argument, inflamed the situation.  In the 40 years since abortion became a constitutional "right," those on either side of the debate have only hardened their stances rather than finding common ground.  Indeed, just the other day, lawmakers in North Dakota passed legislation that would effectively outlaw abortion in the state, openly challenging established law and essentially defying the Supreme Court.  The current justices are presumably leery about the prospect of launching another 40 year crusade, this time against gay marriage.

I don't think the Court needs to worry about that much.  Certainly there are people who feel passionately that marriage is a strictly heterosexual institution, but I doubt that a decision in favor of same-sex marriage would lead to the sort of never-ending, take-no-prisoners battle that commenced in the wake of Roe v. Wade.  For one thing, even if one truly feels that same-sex marriage is wrong, it is, at worst, a victimless "crime": Scaremongers howl that gay marriage somehow "threatens" the institution of marriage yet cannot offer any plausible evidence for their claim.  As far as I can see, their arguments boil down to linguistic tautology: Changing the definition of marriage harms marriage because it changes the way "marriage" is defined.  Unless a change of definition is inherently harmful, though, this argument is meaningless.

Definitions change constantly,  I suspect in the future we will lament the changed definition of marriage about as much as, say, Clarence Thomas laments the change in the definition of a black person from three-fifths of a human being.  Some will protest after same-sex marriage is legalized, but they will soon realize that their lives have changed not at all, while the lives of their gay friends and loved ones--and everybody has 'em--have changed for the better.  Just wait and see.

All in Favor of Equality

Over the last couple of days, Facebook has turned a bright shade of red, as countless people (many friends of Solipsist included) have changed their profile pictures to a red "equal" sign.  Someone somewhere decided that this symbol would indicate support for same-sex marriage and express one's hope that the Supreme Court decide in favor of those seeking to overturn once and for all California's Proposition 8, which outlawed such unions.

Now, I know how much Supreme Court justices are influenced by social-networking memes, particularly those involving gay marriage or kittens.  I have nevertheless not updated my profile picture.  I would like to take this opportunity to assure my legions of followers that this in no way indicates disapproval of same-sex marriage, something I fully support; it simply indicates utter laziness.

Hope that clears everything up.

The Solipsist Reads the Paper! (So You Don't Have To)

A couple of interesting nuggest from today's paper.

As President Obama winds up his trip to Israel, he can boast at least one significant accomplishment: brokering a rapprochement between the governments of Israel and Turkey.  The two American allies had maintained a frosty relationship since an incident in 2010 when Israeli troops enforcing a naval blockade on the Gaza Strip boarded a Turkish vessel that was on a humanitarian mission.  Violence broke out, several people were killed, and the Turkish government broke off diplomatic relations with Israel.  At the urging of President Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered a formal apology to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayip Erdogan, who accepted the apology.  The two countries will once again exchange ambassadors.

What was interesting about the apology is that it occurred in a phone call that was made from. . .  a trailer.  One doesn't normally see such high-level diplomacy conducted from such a location--at least, diplomacy that doesn't involve Mexican drug cartels.  The trailer itself was at Ben Gurion airport.  Were the phones in Air Force One not working?

**********************************************
Another article profiled Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, which is the primary organizational force behind the battle to forbid governmental recognition of same-sex marriage.  Brown is a Catholic who has already fathered eight--count 'em, eight!--children.  So, if we assume that one of the arguments against same-sex marriage is that the purpose of marriage is to produce children, I say that as long as we have dedicated procreators like Brian Brown, we have little to fear from a few gay marriages: He alone has already made up for the presumed barrenness of four to eight gay couples!

Also, has anyone considered the irony of the fact that the primary organization battling against the right to same-sex couples to wed is the National Organization for Marriage.  Orwell would be proud. 

************************************************
Finally, another front-page piece describes the dearth of female students in a number of New York City's most selective high schools.  How bad is the situation?  Well, at Stuyvesant High School, "Kathryn Rafailov, 16, a junior, said boys so dominated her square-dancing class that they had to pair off with one another."

Try to put aside for the moment the fact that Stuyvesant High School has a square-dancing class.  More troubling is the fact that a public high school is apparently OK with boys dosey-do-ing other boys!  Alert Brian Brown!

Just Another Day at Solipsist Central--Super Bowl Edition

WOS: Do you have work to do today?

SOL: A little.  I want to get it done soon.  It is Super Bowl Sunday, you know.

WOS: Oh, really?  Cool!

SOL: "Cool"?  Do you even know who's playing?

WOS: Yes! Yes, I do, Mr. Smartass.  The 49'ers and. . . uh. . . Wait, I know this. . . . Um. . .  (SOL begins flapping his arms.)  Um. . . Hm.

SOL: (Still flapping arms) SCRA-AAA-AAA-AWK!

WOS: The Chickens?

SOL: The Chi--  SCRA-AAA-AAA-AWK!!!!

WOS: The Roosters?!?

SOL: (Making a menacing face as he flaps his arms) SCRAA-AAAAAAAAAA-AWWWWWK!!! SCRAAA-AAAAAAAAA-AWWWWK!!!!

WOS: Um. . .The. . . Hawks?

SOL: (Croaking) NE-VER-MOOOORRRE!

WOS: The. . .Crows?

SOL: WHAT?!?

WOS: Oh, I mean, the Ravens!

SOL: "Quoth the CROW, 'Nevermore'"?!?

WOS: Shut up! Leave me alone! I just woke up!  Just for that, we're watching the Puppy Bowl on the bigscreen! You can go watch the game in your mancave!

SOL: (Muttering) Yeah, like that wasn't going to happen anyway.

WOS: What?

SOL: Nothing.

**************************
I don't really have a dog in this year's fight.  I live in the Bay Area, so I guess I'm nominally rooting for the 49'ers.  If I had to bet, though, I think I might actually go with Baltimore.  Here's the interesting thing, though: In a game featuring San Francisco and Baltimore, if you had to guess which team has gotten tons of press for recent anti-gay sentiment, and which has become known for its players' support of gay rights and marriage equality. . .  Well, let's just say, you'd be wrong.

Still, go Niners.

Rush Limbaugh's Head Might Explode!

In 2007, Edith Windsor married her girlfriend, Thea Spyer.  When Thea died in 2009, Edith inherited Thea's property, but, because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), she could not claim spousal inheritance rights.  She was assessed over $360,000 in taxes on her inheritance--taxes she would not have owed had her marriage to Spyer (which was performed in Canada) been recognized by the federal government.  Yesterday, however, a federal appeals court ruled in Edith's favor, declaring that such provisions of DOMA discriminated against homosexuals.  Many observers speculate that this case will go to the Supreme Court, which will then rule once and for all on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.

The appeals court made the right decision, of course.  But let's take a moment to acknowledge those who will suffer because of this ruling: Teabaggers.  Consider the quandary faced by poor Michele Bachmann, for example. If the Minnesota Congresswoman clings to her well-documented antagonism toward same-sex marriage--and homosexuality in general, which she has called "personal bondage, personal despair, and personal enslavement"--she will find herself in the equally unpalatable position--to her--of defending the rights of the IRS--an agency that she worked for only because, as she claimed, she had to "know her enemy."  And not just any rights, either, but the right to seize hundreds of thousands of dollars from a widowed octogenarian!  OK, a widowed octogenarian who shall burn in hellfire for her deviant lifestyle, but still!

If Bachmann possessed the intellectual capacity to appreciate irony, I'm sure even she would be tickled.

Thursday Trendwatch--Sunday Edition

10. HORMONE THERAPY
Why it's trending: Well, when has hormone therapy been anything other than trendy?  All the Melky's are doing it!  (Too soon?)  Specifically, though, researchers have found that a short course of hormone therapy poses little risk for menopausal women and may, indeed, alleviate some of the more troubling symptoms of "the change," including hot flashes, increased sweating, and husband slaughter.

9. CHRIS MATTHEWS HOST
Why it's trending: After watching President Obama's lackluster debate performance against Mitt Romney, the host of "Hardball" suffered a not-so-mini meltdown, which--as much as I agree with his overall points--was kind of hilarious to watch.  Anyway, Matthews is still mad.  When last seen, he was running down the shoulder of I-95 in nothing but a pair of boxer shorts, screaming "47%!  47%!"

An interesting sidenote: "The Chris Matthews Host" was the original name of "The Dave Matthews Band."  Dave and the guys ultimately decided that didn't make much sense.  True story.

8. BREAST CANCER AWARENESS
Why it's trending: October, is "Breast Cancer Awareness Month."  In the past, women-folk have observed BCAM by posting enigmatic Facebook status updates about the colors of their bras or the preferred resting places of their purses.  While this may or may not have raised awareness of breast cancer, it DID make me aware of which of my female Facebook friends like to "go commando," so it wasn't a total loss.

7. HOMS, SYRIA
Why It's Trending: Homs, a rebel-held Syrian town on the Turkish border, has come under massive aerial attack by government forces.  Turkey has returned cross-border fire.  Syrian human rights groups, as well as international humanitarian organizations, have condemned the government's heavy-handed and indiscriminate attacks against a largely defenseless population.  As developments unfold, the world watches with trepidation.

Meanwhile, in Homs, North Dakota, Zeke overslept, so he didn't open the bait and tackle shop until 6:15.  "Might as well've not opened at all," said Big Merle, who had come by Zeke's at its normal 5:00 AM opening time to stock up on nightcrawlers, "'tain't gwineta be any fishes awake now."  As developments unfold, the world watches with trepidation.

(Because Big Merle moved to North Dakota from Maine! OK, Anonymous?!?)

6. RUBEM ROBIERB
Why He's Trending: He's the fiance of Good Morning America weatherman Sam (not short for "Samantha") Champion (not short for "Championship Mud Wrestling Live from Reno").  Anyway, they're getting married.  I hope they'll be happy, but I can't say I approve.  Not because of the whole gay marriage thing; I just have a major problem with names that look like typos.

5. SAMSUNG GALAXY CAMERA
Why It's Trending: I guess it's a camera that's linked directly to the interwebs, thus enabling people to share pictures of their genitalia even faster and easier.  As developments unfold, the world watches with trepidation.
4. STEVE JOBS TRIBUTE LAPTOPS
Why It's Trending: As the one-year anniversary of his death approaches, Steve Jobs is being memorialized by Uncover, a laser-cutting business.  The company is engraving Jobs' image on three laptop computers that will be auctioned off for charity.  While highly stylish, the computers' pancreases are extremely unreliable.  (Too soon? It's been a year!)

3. COLLEGE FOOTBALL
Why It's Trending: Frankly, I'm surprised any time college football is NOT trending on a Sunday, given that the new rankings are released after Saturday's games.  Making today extra special, though, is the fact that, in the last week, no major college programs have been fined, sanctioned, or otherwise penalized for financial improprieties or child molestation.
2. EARLY VOTING
Why It's Trending: An Ohio law that would have ended in-person early voting on the Friday before Election Day has been overturned by a federal appeals court.  This is seen as a victory for President Obama, who received a substantial portion of the early votes in Ohio in 2008.  While the Romney campaign sees this as a setback, spokesmen expressed confidence that voter suppression efforts in other states would prove more successful.

And the NUMBER-ONE TRENDIEST TOPIC AT THIS MOMENT ON THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM IS. . .

TALLADEGA RACE
Why It's Trending: You know, I've always suspected that NASCAR fans were a separate race.  If not a whole different species!  Good to know.

Saturday Trendwatch

10. RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

WHY IT'S TRENDING: A recent study determined that people with rheumatoid arthritis were no less likely than non-sufferers to receive screening for various cancers.  These findings contradict those of an earlier study that found that RA sufferers did undergo fewer such screenings.  It was later determined that the original study suffered from a major design flaw: Instead of assessing people suffering from RA (rheumatoid arthritis), scientists mistakenly interviewed those suffering because of  RA's (resident advisors) at a number of northeastern colleges.  This not only explained the comparative scarcity of cancer screenings (among what was, after all, a generally young population), but also the abundance of respondents who referred to their "rheumatoid arthritis" as "a douchebag."

9. GAS PRICES

WHY IT'S TRENDING: Why wouldn't it be?  Gas prices are always a subject of discussion.  If they go up, it's news.  If they go down, it's news.  If they do nothing, it's news!  Might as well just throw darts at a wall with "Lower," "Higher," and "No change" signs taped to it.  This week, the answer is. . . .HIGHER!!!  HIGHER!!!  HIGHER!!!  At least in some parts of the nation.  In Massachusetts, gas prices have crept up nearly a nickel a gallon over the past week.  Blame Obama!  Of course, prices are still down significantly copmpared to this time last year.  Thank Obama!

8. BANKRUPTCY PROTECTION

WHY IT'S TRENDING: San Bernardino, California, has filed for bankruptcy protection.  Interim Mayor Andrea Miller worries that the city will be unable to meet payroll over the next three months.  Meanwhile, Pat Morris, the Mayor of San Bernardino, "said the decision was the beginning of a 'difficult conversation about the city's budget and the city's future.'"

I would humbly suggest that, if San Bernardino is in such dire financial straits, having two mayors could be considered an unnecessary expense.

7. JENNIFER LOPEZ AMERICAN IDOL

WHY IT'S TRENDING: Well, duh! If a major pop icon like Jennifer Lopez has decided to abandon traditional religion and worship Ba'al or something, I would HOPE it would make the news!  Millions of girls look up to J-Lo, and if she's turned to idolatry?!?  Look, I am all for the First Amendment, and I believe everyone has the right to pursue the religion of his/her choice, but a public figure has a certain responsibility to. . .

What?

TV show?  She's leaving it?

Oh.

Never mind.

6. MISSING MILLIONAIRE CASE

WHY IT'S TRENDING: Millionaire Guma Aguiar of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, has been missing since June.  Now, GPS data suggest that Aguiar may have abandoned his ship, which floated back to shore unattended, and jumped onto another one.  Frankly, this all sounds like a plot point from an episode of "Dexter."  Do we know if Aguiar ever got away with murder on a technicality?

5. CHEVY BUY-BACK

WHY IT'S TRENDING: General Motors has announced a new program, wherein buyers of 2012 and 2013 model year Chevrolets can bring their cars back for a full refund if they are not completely satisfied.  GM is introducing this strategy in order to compete with a newly resurgent Toyota.  Additionally, GM is promoting a "No Haggling" pricing policy, incorporating deep discounts on new cars to allow people to circumvent the negotiating process, which many people find the most unpleasant part of the whole car-buying experience.  If these plans don't succeed in allowing GM to increase or maintain market share, the company may consider other strategies, like giving away a free llama with every purchase of a Chevy Malibu.

4. SIGOURNEY WEAVER

WHY SHE'S TRENDING: Sigourney Weaver stars in the new USA show, "Political Animals," which premieres tomorrow night.  In the show, Weaver plays the ex-wife of a philandering American President.  After running for office herself, Weaver's character accepts the post of Secretary of State.  But it's not about Hillary!  Personally, we're looking forward to episode 3, where Weaver travels to LV-426 on a diplomatic mission to meet with a group of aliens who have taken over a terraforming community.  In space, no one can hear you negotiate.

3. MICHELLE OBAMA THREAT

WHY IT'S TRENDING: A Washington, DC, policeman has been suspended for making a threat against First Lady Michelle Obama.  The officer, who has not been publicly identified, has worked on motorcycle details involving Washington political figures.  Some have suggested the policeman may simply have been joking.  In which case, he should certainly be fired for sheer stupidity.

2. GAY COUPLE'S PICTURE MISUSED

WHY IT'S TRENDING: Brian Edwards and Tom Privitere are a nice married couple from New Jersey.  A picture from their engagement party

was photoshopped and used by a rabid anti-gay group as part of a campaign to defeat a Colorado Republican politician who supports gay marriage.  The Southern Poverty Law Center has requested that the hate group, Virginia-based Public Advocate, remove the picture from its publications, and Edwards and Privitere are considering a lawsuit.  In fairness, though: Look at that picture!  If those guys aren't a threat to everything that is good and pure, I don't know what is!

And the number one trending topic is. . . .

1. MOM SUING JUSTIN BIEBER

WHY IT'S TRENDING: Stacey Wilson Betts took her five daughters to a Justin Bieber concert where the Oregon woman claims she suffered permanent hearing loss.  Just to clarify, Betts is not claiming that the music itself was too loud--in fairness, any Bieber song played at a level to allow human perception could be said to be "too loud."  Rather, Betts is claiming that Bieber himself was showing reckless disregard for her hearing (and perhaps sanity), when he exhorted the arena full of screaming "Beliebers" to scream even louder.  His specific offense? "[W]aving his arms in an upward motion while riding over them in a heart-shaped gondola."

I kind of feel like screaming myself.

I Hate to Admit It, But Santorum Was Right

Talk about burying the lede! Hidden in an article about President Obama's recent endorsement of the right of gays and lesbians to marry ("Obama’s Switch on Same-Sex Marriage Stirs Skepticism")--all the way down in paragraph 12!--was this:

Mr. Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage appeared to have little effect on Americans’ view of the issue. More influential seems to be the increasing familiarity with people who are gay and lesbian. In a 2003 Times/CBS News poll, 44 percent of respondents said they had a colleague at work, close friend or relative who was gay, compared with 69 percent in the latest poll. Those who did were more likely to support legalizing same-sex marriage than those who did not.

Oh, well, there you go.

HELLO!!!!  Can we go back to that paragraph for a moment:  "In a 2003 Times/CBS News poll, 44 percent of respondents said they had a colleague at work, close friend or relative who was gay, compared with 69 percent in the latest poll."

(DIGRESSION: Heh. .  . heh. .  . He said '69.' END OF DIGRESSION)

There's been a 57% increase in the gay and lesbian population of the United States over less than ten years, and all we're talking about is the President's poll numbers?!?

(DIGRESSION: Heh. . .heh. . .He said 'poll.'  END OF DIGRESSION)

Have gay-marriage foes seen this? Their whole raison d'outrage has been that sanctioning gay marriage would lead to greater acceptance of homosexuality and, presumably, greater and greater numbers of people embracing this alluvasudden chic lifestyle ('cause nothing's cooler than holy matrimony!!!!). . . .  And, if these numbers are to be trusted, they're right!  As gay marriage has become a more and more mainstream topic of conversation, the numbers of gays and lesbians have increased dramatically!  The only possible conclusion: Letting gays marry TURNS AMERICANS GAY!!!!

Well, you've been warned.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go watch a Ricky Martin video.

Oh, noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

Two Cheers and a Yawn for President Obama

Call me jaded, call me an emotionless robot, but I just can't get overly excited about President Obama coming out (so to speak) in favor of gay marriage.  Don't get me wrong: I think anyone who wants to get married should have the right to do so, and I think the Prez did the right thing by declaring his support for this basic human right.  I'm just not convinced it's that big a deal.

First, I've always more or less assumed--and I suspect I'm not alone in this--that, deep down, President Obama always did believe that gay people should have the right to marry.  Indeed, back when he was just a local Illinois politician, he indicated as much on a questionnaire.  Only when he went national did he promote a more mainstream endorsement of civil unions.  Most people probably believed that Obama was cynically trying to make himself more palatable to middle America, but they overlooked this maneuvering, believing he would ultimately do the right thing with regard to gay civil rights.

Which of course he has.  President Obama has overseen a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," for example, as well as ordering the Justice Department to stop defending the "Defense of Marriage Act."  These substantive policy decisions have done more for the gay community than the purely symbolic statement that the President believes that gays and lesbians should be able to marry legally.

People say the President took a political risk.  I'm not sure why: People who oppose gay marriage were likely never going to vote for Obama anyway.  True, his statement may anger some members of the black community--particularly black clergy and their devout followers, but are these folks likely to flock to Romney?  And however many people are turned off by this non-change change of heart, I imagine at least as many found it refreshing to hear a politician take a firm, unequivocal position on a controversial social issue.

Indeed, this whole thing may redound to Obama's political advantage.  Mitt Romney, of course, has toed the party line and reaffirmed his opposition to gay marriage.  Personally, I suspect Romney's true feelings, like Obama's, differ somewhat from his public pronouncements.  I don't doubt Mittington's relatively traditional view of marriage--despite his ancestral co-religionists' somewhat more multiple idea of the husband-wives relationship.  I suspect, however, that deep down he really just doesn't care all that much about the issue.  Now, however, his Republican base will demand a full-throated denunciation of Obama's godless liberalism, which will only complicate Romney's attempt to present a more moderate image to the national electorate.

Maybe Romney should just come out in favor of gay marriage, too.  Now THAT would be newsworthy.

Over the Rainbow and Into the Chapel

Congratulations to the New York State government for doing the right thing and voting to legalize same-sex marriage.

When you think about it, this was kind of a no-brainer. Numerically speaking, the politics were clear. In New York, a majority of the population is in favor of same-sex marriage, and we suspect that a large proportion of the minority is probably indifferent at worst. Sure, some politicians who voted for the bill and who represent conservative districts will catch some flak for their votes, but we doubt that this will be a make-or-break issue for these folks, especially in a blue state like New York. On the other hand, a vote AGAINST the bill would very likely have brought significant electoral consequences.

At this time, though, the Solipsist would like to express his appreciation to those politicians who truly made this vote possible: People like Senator John Ensign, Newt Gingrich, and, yes, Rep. Anthony Weiner. By so completely lowering the bar to reveal the rank hypocrisy of any politician claiming to uphold traditional ideas of "morality," people like this have made it extremely difficult for any politicians to oppose the desires of good-hearted, loving couples to express their thoroughly decent commitment.

No Defense

In the latest sign of civilization's crumbling, the Obama administration has decided to stop defending marriage. President Obama has declared that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, designed to thwart federal recognition of same-sex marriages, is unconstitutional and ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the statute against court challenges. As Jon Stewart commented last night, "OK, Gays: Marriage is undefended! ATTACK!"

The Republican response was as swift as it was predictable. A spokesman for Speaker of the House John "Boys Don't Cry" Boehner, said, “While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation."

He has a point. After all, you don't see Republicans "stirring up" controversial issues in a time of national financial crisis. It's not as if they're going around trying to redefine rape or allow doctors to refuse to perform emergency abortions even if they are necessary to save a woman's life or cut off all federal funding to Planned Parenthood. Of course, the GOP would probably claim these are simply budget-cutting measures and should not be construed as nakedly political power-plays.

In that spirit, then, we suggest that the Obama Administration is simply looking for ways to cut spending as well. Think of all the money that the Department of Justice can save by not having to defend this frivolous and mean-spirited legislation.

Solipsistography

"In Shift, U.S. Says Marriage Act Blocks Gay Rights"

"Obama Decision on Marriage Act Has 2012 Implications"

Notes on Commerce--Corporate, Gay, and Just Plain Silly

Talk about a thankless job!  How'd you like to be a "Special Master for Compensation."  Sure, it sounds like a title for the payroll clerk at an S&M club.  But it's nothing so exciting.

A "Special Master for Compensation" (SMC) decides who gets what.  For the executives of several bailed-out businesses (including GM and Citigroup, among others), the SMC is Kenneth R. Feinberg.  He has been appointed (to an unpaid position) by the White House to decide on fair compensation for chief executives and the 25 highest paid employees at these companies.  Considering that one of Mr. Feinberg's previous jobs was SMC for 9/11 victims, he probably considers his new position a comparative cakewalk.

We would like to wish Mr. Feinberg luck--he'll need it.  If, however, he wants any assistance, the Solipsist would like to offer his services; YNSHC would relish the opportunity to dictate salaries to humbled CEO's.

*************************************************

More reassurance on the eventual legality of same-sex marriage:

One thing on which conservatives of virtually all creeds and colors agree is that, to quote Calvin Coolidge, the business of America is business.  And same-sex marriage is good for business.  Since Connecticut legalized same-sex unions last year, the ultra-WASP haven of Greenwich has become a hotbed (so to speak) of gay marriages.  It's the first town over the border from New York, and over 140 gay and lesbian weddings have been held there so far.  And how does the horsey set feel about this veritable inundation by wild-eyed, passion-filled homosexuals?  Well, as of this writing, the Hyatt Regency Greenwich has "only" two same-sex weddings scheduled for this summer, but their general manager, Thomas C. Delaney, says "We'd like to have a lot more."  Peter J. Crumbine, a Greenwich town selectman (whatever that is) says that his little hamlet is "happy to be of service" to the gay community.

In the long run, when intolerance meets the profit motive, greed will out.  God bless America!

********************************************

The Mr. Irrelevant News Story of the Day

"Why Round Sunglasses?  A Style Investigation"

In many ways, this has been a traumatic year.  The United States is bogged down in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan; there is turmoil in Pakistan and nuclear brinkmanship in North Korea; the American economy, once the envy of the world, continues to teeter on the edge of the abyss; every day brings reports of layoffs, foreclosures, and the struggles of the ordinary people to make ends meet.  And through it all, one question gnaws at the Solipsist, consuming his waking hours and troubling his dreams:

What's up with circular sunglasses?

Now, finally, we have an answer.  Apparently, round sunglasses are "in."  So say designers and fashionistas.  Why?  Well. . . .uh. . . just 'cause.  The intrepid reporter Eric Wilson has discussed the issue with various industry participants.  One explanation is a sudden enthusiasm for the work of Malian photographer Malick Sidibe, whose work was showcased at the Venice Biennale a couple of years ago: His portraits from the 195o's and 1960's, showing round-rimmed-bespectacled Africans celebrating the end of colonialism proved inspiring for today's designers.  Or perhaps it's a new interest in John Lennon, featured in an exhibit at New York's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Annex.  Or maybe it's the Broadway revival of "Hair."

We will never understand the fashion world nor the people who try to explain it.  People wear what they are told to wear, and they are told to wear what those "in the know" deem trendyat any given moment.  Now it's round sunglasses, next it will be bonnets or bell bottoms or leather chaps.

Why ask why?

Undrafted Articles

"China Faces Criticism Over New Software Censor"  (A8)

"Georgia Man Is Convicted of Conspiring with Terrorists" (A21)

"12 Flu Victims Have Died, and Ill May Total 550,000" (A24)

(Image from Swisseduc.ch)

Five-Legged Sheep

"How many legs does a sheep have, if you call a tail a leg?

"Four.  Calling a tail a leg does not make it one."

                              --Old riddle.

First, a stipulation:

We have no objection to gays and lesbians getting married.  If that's what they want to do, more power to 'em.

Now, on to a discussion of yesterday's California Supreme Court ruling.

For the benefit of our out-of-state and/or clueless readers, the background:

Back in November, while the rest of the country (and, indeed, most of California too) reveled in the election of our first African-American President, the Dross State witnessed its own personal civil rights setback.  A group of right-wing lunatics. . .  sorry, crypto-fascists. . . no, wait, that's not it. . . ah, yes, "concerned citizens" somehow managed to convince a majority of this otherwise enlightened state to pass Proposition 8.

Prop 8 amended the state's constitution to establish that "marriage" could refer only to a union between a man and a woman (presumably ONE man and ONE woman, although the indefinite article leaves a bit of wiggle room).  This act overturned judicial rulings earlier in the year that gave same-sex couples the right to marry.  As you would expect, the "No on 8" forces were stunned by the results, and they sued to overturn the overturning.  Their argument essentially hinged on whether Proposition 8 was an amendment or a revision to the state constitution.  If the latter, then the ballot initiative itself would be unconstitutional, as a revision can only be placed on the ballot by a 2/3 vote of the state legislature (as opposed to a simple petition drive).

Are you following?

OK, so, yesterday, the courts ruled that Prop 8 was, indeed, an amendment, and, as such, it was legitimately placed on the ballot.  Therefore, the election results stood, and the constitutional amendment passed.

Crypto-fascists - 1 (well, 2, actually), liberals - 0.

Sad result, but the Solipsist would like to ask everyone to relax.

Relax, everyone.

First, this was not a ruling against gay marriage.  It was a ruling about an electoral procedure.  The court itself is largely sympathetic to same-sex couples, as evidenced by the apparently contradictory fact that the court, at the same time it upheld Prop 8, also declared that those couples who had gotten married before Prop 8 went into effect were still married.

Second, same-sex couples today have the exact same rights they had yesterday, except for the right to call their unions "marriages."  According to an article in today's Times, Karl Manheim, a professor at Loyola Law School Los Angeles says, "claiming that the word 'marriage' is essentially symbolic is like telling black people that sitting in the back of the bus is not important as long as the front and the back of the bus arrive at the same time."

Well, no, it's not like that at all.

Prof. Manheim correctly suggests that both the use of the word 'marriage' and the forcing of blacks to sit in the back of the bus are essentially symbolic acts.  What Manheim and others must remember, though, is that, in the case of the segregated south, symbols took the form of actions--actions that physically manifested underlying racist attitudes.  On the other hand, whether we call a loving union a 'marriage' or not remains confined to the realm of the symbolic.  Words are symbols, and what we're arguing about here is words.

To put it another way, let's say the court had overturned Prop 8.  Then, presumably, same-sex couples could rejoice that they could say they were "married."  And the supporters of Prop 8? Would they suddenly start referring to their gay and lesbian neighbors as married couples, inviting them over for brunch and bridge?  Doubtful.  You see, in their eyes, these people can NEVER be married, no matter what a court or a legislature or an executive decides, because to them, a marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

Calling a tail a leg will never make it a leg.  At the same time, though, if you choose to call a tail a leg, and all your friends call a tail a leg, and the vast majority of people around the world understand that you call a tail a leg and respect your decision to do so. . . . You see where we're going?  

Which brings us to, third, it's only a matter of time before same-sex couples have the right to marry in California.  For Pete's sake, Iowa--IOWA!!!--has legalized same-sex marriage.  Does anyone really think California is going to let itself be out-liberaled by flyover country for long?  The trend in society is toward more openness, more tolerance, more live-and-let-live.  If the "No on 8" crowd wants the Solipsist's advice (and how could they not?), they should simply take their cue from the court.  Get a referendum on the next ballot that amends the constitution to repeal this amendment.  And while they're at it, maybe they could get an amendment on the ballot to rationalize California's budget process? Probably too much to ask.

Look, if it were up to the Solipsist, the state would get out of the marriage business altogether.  Civil unions for everybody (if that)!  If you want to get married in a church or a mosque or a synagogue or a Moonie compound, go with your God.  What does the government know about love anyway?

In the meantime, same-sex couples, you're married!  The best thing you can do is keep insisting on it, keep holding your wedding ceremonies, keep referring to your husbands and wives and in-laws until the whole thing becomes the most common-place, unremarkable thing in the world.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a 5-legged sheep!