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

84-year-old former Egyptian dictator and Robert De Niro look-alike Hosni Mubarak was sentenced to life in prison.  He thus has nothing to look forward to but sitting around his room, watching television, and eating bland food, as opposed to your typical octogenarian who's out there windsurfing.  The Egyptian people, though, are disappointed in the verdict--some people are just never satisfied!--as the judge only found Mubarak guilty of being an accomplice to the murders of a couple hundred protesters during the early days of the uprising.  I suppose this is technically true, in the same way that Hitler was an accomplice to the SS.  Interestingly, this disappointing verdict has once again united the country: Islamists, liberals, and bears (oh my) have once again banded together to protest the corruption of the ruling elite.  Nothing like a common enemy to bring out the best in people.

In other news, the world economy still sucks.  The basic problem seems to be that we live in a globally interconnected world without globally interconnected regulatory systems.  (Don't say that out loud, though: People will accuse you of being a New-World Order leftist like, uh, the first President Bush.)

It turns out that Mitt Romney is a "Star Trek" fan.  Initially, this news worried me, as I feared it might induce certain people--FOS, for instance--to vote for the man.  Then I realized this was unlikely: After all, Romney may be a closet "Trek"-enthusiast (he rejects the "Trekkie" appellation), but Barack Obama is the nation's first Vulcan president.  Finding out Mitt Romney likes "Star Trek," though, does make him harder to hate, until I remember his attitudes toward everything that people who value a decent society hold dear; then I regain my urge to hurl tribbles at the man.

Iraq has increased its oil output tremendously, so much so, in fact, that the international community is cautiously optimistic that stronger sanctions against Iran may not prove as disruptive to world oil supplies.  Commenting on this news, former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said, "This is welcome news, of course.  Still, I would once again emphasize that increased oil production was never the predominant concern; liberating Iraq from a dictatorial regime and bringing democracy to the Middle East were."  Former Vice President Dick Cheney, in contrast, cackled and exclaimed, "Yahtzee!"

I was also disturbed to hear that, despite the fall of Saddam Hussein, the tradition of state-sanctioned torture continues in Iraq.  At an auction for oil contracts, "An elevator-music rendition of Lionel Richie's 'Hello' played over and over."  Monsters!

The more painkillers are used--and the earlier in treatment they are prescribed--the greater the overall costs to employers.  Hm.  You know, when you see that sentence typed out, you realize that one of the central premises of this article is that if you take more pills and use them for a longer period of time, it will cost more money.  No wonder Times readers are so well-informed!

Finally, the Times provides an interesting discussion of the various controversies and disputes around the Sept. 11 Memorial Museum.  One ongoing debate focused on whether or not to include photographs of the 19 hijackers who crashed planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.  Those opposed claim that this affords the murderers an undeserved honor.  It really doesn't, though.  Photographs of criminals don't celebrate the criminals.  Think of these as mug shots.

Torture--Financial and Otherwise

The Dow finished up 0.8% on Friday.  Not especially exciting news, but YNSHC wonders if his readers feel the same sort of thrill of relief (oxymoron?) when the stock market fluctuates by less than one percentage point on any given day.  Turbulence, good or bad, drains the soul.

The Solipsist has become far more. . . 'interested in' is the wrong term. . . perhaps 'forced to dwell upon' would be more appropriate--forced to dwell upon matters economic over the last several months than he ever would have thought possible.  The shameful truth is he really understands very little of what, exactly, has happened.  In that, of course, he is no different from the vast majority of captains of industry and titans of finance who got us into this mess.  Still, it pains him to fall back on what he believes to be cliched populist outrage (as opposed to well-informed analysis) when he reads about still more bonuses being paid out to AIG executives and can merely throw out predictable howls of protest.

Nevertheless: Howl.

AIG execs are in line to receive an additional $165 million in bonuses in the next few weeks, despite receiving some $170 BILLION in taxpayer bailout money.  Seems the company is "helpless" to do anything about having to pay out these bonuses, as the contracts were entered into last year long before the financial meltdown threatened the company with bankruptcy.

Now, the Solipsist is all for honoring contracts.  But shouldn't the government have forced AIG to renegotiate these contracts as a condition of receiving public money?  Of course, these are RETENTION bonuses (i.e., money paid to keep people from leaving); and the total comes to a mere 0.1% of the bailout funds (there's that reassuring less than one-percent amount again--ahhhh!); so it seems a small enough price to pay to retain the business acumen that made AIG what it is!

Oh.

Never mind.

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

A couple of other points in response to today's Times:

Nicholas Kristof writes about contaminants in the nation's food supply, specifically the disturbing incidence of MRSA in pork.  MRSA stands for "methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus"--in other words, an antibiotic-resistant bacteria, a potentially lethal "superbug."

In the column, Kristof provided his readers with the medical community's pronunciation of MRSA: "mersa."  This is not the first time YNSHC has seen the term in print, but, being the sunny optimist he is, he took comfort that the term has not yet entered so completely into the public realm that a columnist could take for granted that his readers would know it.  When Letterman starts making "mersa jokes,"  head for the hills.

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

On a less whimsical note (less whimsical than drug-resistant killer bacteria?  Why yes!):

Next to Kristof's column was a long piece by Mark Danner, a journalism professor, featuring excerpts from a Red Cross report documenting the interrogation of various high-value terrorism suspects at CIA "black sites."  The point of the article is that the US engaged in torture, that everybody in power knew it, and that the information (if any) gleaned from these torture sessions will be inadmissible in court and, for that and other reasons, not least of which is the diminution of America's moral standing in the world, is appalling and counterproductive.

And yet.

The Solipsist can't help noticing that none of the detainees mentioned in this particular article are innocent.  The people under discussion are people like Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--dedicated and apparently unrepentant members of Al Qaeda.  In response to reading about their suffering--forgive me, dear readers--all YNSHC could think was, frankly:

Good.

Now, this is not to suggest that everyone who has been held under abhorrent conditions or subjected to waterboarding or marched in front of the cameras of Abu Ghraib is guilty or deserving of this treatment.  And as an American, the Solipsist finds something disturbing and depressing at the thought that this country has openly adapted interrogation techniques more commonly associated with despotic regimes.  But he cannot help but think that there are some relatives of people killed at the Pentagon and the World Trade Center and other terrorist attacks around the world who would be more than a little satisfied by the treatment these people are receiving.  Yes, this might eliminate any chance for a "fair trial" in a US court of law, but would that provide the right sort of "justice" anyway?  A trial, a guilty verdict, and, presumably, a death sentence carried out after lengthy appeals via comparatively humane method  like lethal injection?  Satisfying?  Maybe, but probably not as satisfying to some as the thought of the ringleaders writhing in agony for a few dozen years.

To clarify: This writer is not advocating torture for torture's sake, or even as an all-purpose,  Jack-Bauer-esque interrogation method.  But perhaps as a judicially sanctioned form of punishment, it might not be such a bad idea.  For some crimes, it seems somehow more appropriate than life in prison or a swift and humane judicial execution.

Discuss.