Unsatisfactory Relief

The verdict came back quickly--something like ten hours of deliberations for this latest "trial of the century." Guilty on all three counts: Second degree murder, third degree murder, manslaughter. Certainly the right verdict, and seemingly obvious, but the degree of relief that I'm feeling indicates just how troubled our society is.

For the sake of posterity--in case someone stumbles upon this blog in some distant future when recent events have faded into obscurity--the facts of the case: In late May 2020, at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic (or one of the heights, anyway), in Minneapolis, Minnesota, police responded to a call about a man passing a counterfeit $20 bill at a convenience store.  Police subdued the suspect, George Floyd, and laid him face down on the ground with his hands cuffed behind his back.  One of the cops, Derek Chauvin, knelt on Floyd's neck for over nine minutes, despite Floyd's protestations that he couldn't breathe and his pleas for his mother.  A crowd of onlookers gathered during these minutes, recording Chauvin on their phones and begging him to get off of Floyd.  Three other police officers warned the crowd back but did nothing to intervene on behalf of Floyd.  Chauvin kept kneeling on Floyd's neck, even after Floyd fell silent.  Floyd was soon pronounced dead.

The evidence against Chauvin was overwhelming.  Obvious.  Of course, he had caused Floyd's death.  Of course his behavior was unjustified by any conceivable "threat" posed by the handcuffed, prone, and thoroughly subdued George Floyd--who really never seemed to pose any threat throughout the entire encounter. Multiple medical professionals testified that Chauvin's actions had caused Floyd's death, and multiple police professionals testified that Chauvin's actions were unjustified by any police procedures. The trial lasted about three weeks, with virtually no defense presented.  The prosecution eviscerated the defense.  In the last lines of its closing argument--words that should live forever in the annals of legal history--prosecutor Jerry Blackwell said, "Mr. Floyd died because his heart was too big. You heard that testimony. . . And the truth of the matter is that the reason George Floyd is dead is because Mr. Chauvin's heart was too small."

And then, after less than ten hours of deliberation, the jury returned its verdict.  The speed—combined with common sense—certainly suggested a guilty verdict.  And yet memories of the Rodney King verdict and any number of other miscarriages of justice in the face of blatant police brutality and racism gave pause as we waited to hear the verdict.  And therein lies the problem: The fact that we are so relieved by what should be an obvious result shows how damaged we are as a society.

It's reminiscent of last year's presidential elections, when we were all holding our breath to see if the one candidate who had received seven-plus million more votes than the other candidate would be declared the winner (after the previous presidential election when the loser had only received about three-million more votes than the winner).  This is a democracy?

A police officer casually murders an unarmed, incapacitated man in front of numerous witnesses, and we need to keep our fingers crossed that he's found guilty.  This is a society of law?

"Chauvin Guilty" is a good headline.  But there's no celebration here.  Just a recognition of how far we need to go.

Still Can’t Use Your Hands, Right?

A group of the biggest, most successful European "football" (by which they mean soccer) clubs (by which they mean teams) have banded together to form their own league (by which they mean league), separate and apart from the Champions League, which is, we deduce, where they have normally played.  Raising the deep, thought-provoking question: Do we care?

Probably not.

Not only because this is soccer, which is at best a boring and at worst an imaginary sport (see our earlier posts on the topic).  But also because we haven't been able to find anyone to explain to us what, exactly, this means.  So, the clubs that were in League A will now be in League B, but they'll still play each other.  This sounds like the equivalent of saying, for example, the baseball teams in the National League West and the American League Central will now form their own league.  Clearly, this would be a major shake-up of the Major League Baseball universe, but ultimately, you would still have baseball players playing baseball against other baseball players, right?

Right?  No, seriously, we're asking.

Presumably this is all related to money, and the players and club owners figure they can make more money by organizing themselves differently,.  From what we can tell, exactly no one other than the teams involved is happy about this move.  Indeed, the soccer governing body UEFA--

(Digression: Does one pronounce that U-E-F-A or "Youeefa"?  If the latter, that would be a good name for a pet monkey. If the former, it's not even a good name for a soccer governing body. End of Digression)

--has gone so far as to threaten the players on the breakaway teams--which include such powerhouses as Real Madrid, Juventus, and the Devonshire Woolkettles (OK, we might have made up one of those)--with being banned from participation in the World Cup.  Which will really show those players when the World Cup is held without the best players from the best teams! A ratings bonanza in the making! On the plus side, under those circumstances, the US will actually have a chance!

So bottom line, we are fully in support of this development about which we understand nothing and care less. Thank you for your kind attention.

UPDATE: All the clubs that were going to form the Super League have officially decided not to bother. We can’t help but think that our indifference was a precipitating factor in their decision. You’re welcome, World. You’re welcome.

In Which We Discover a Random Ouchie

Do you ever find random injuries? Like, you’re unconsciously rubbing your finger, and then you suddenly realize that rubbing your finger hurts, and you look down and notice that the reason it hurts is that there’s a large, pulsing red gash on this finger.  The gash, however, is not the disturbing part.  The disturbing part is that you cannot remember how or when this gash occurred.  

Sure, one can always blame the cat—strictly speaking, blaming a cat is always a statistically sound strategy for virtually anything that goes wrong anywhere in the world, equally applicable whether one even owns a cat or not. But still, when blaming the cat, one should possess some clear memory of the cat’s assault. When something has happened serious enough to leave a mark, shouldn’t it be somewhat memorable?

In Which the Second Verse Is the Same as the First

 The mind of a modern American (this modern American, to be precise):

“Indianapolis, now? Jesus, this is three mass shootings in just a few weeks. First, Boulder, then... No, wait, Boulder was the second one. First there was. . .  uh. . . Oh come on! First there was. . .”

Reader, we sincerely COULD NOT REMEMBER. 

Yes, eventually we retrieved Atlanta from our mental database of national tragedies, but for several minutes, we drew a complete blank. And it’s not incipient Alzheimer’s: We can still always find the car keys and recite Doc Gooden’s 1985 pitching stats.  Rather, it’s the unrelenting accumulation of similarly horrific incidents that just keep happening, with only the details changing—and those not so much. Flags get lowered to half-staff with such depressing regularity that the country should just mandate shorter ropes.

And yet nothing will change. The NRA is literally bankrupt, yet nothing will change.

We’ll see the memes from right-wing idiots claiming that there is no gun problem. That it’s a people-problem. That somehow the breakdown of traditional values embodied by—who knows—gay marriage or kneeling during the National Anthem, maybe, is to blame for the breakdown of society, which manifests itself in senseless acts of violence.

Leaving aside their confusion of cause and effect, let’s take up their argument, though: It’s NOT a gun problem. Guns don’t kill; people kill and all that. We don’t have a gun crisis, we have a mental-health crisis. Well, shouldn’t we still do something? Shouldn’t we do something to keep these avatars of a fallen moral order from getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction? Shouldn’t we pour money into mental health services to keep heavily armed people from going over the edge?

We’re not saying anything new here. The news is repetitive, and so is the response. 

In Which We’re Baaaaack!

 Did you miss us? Did you notice we were gone? 

A couple of months ago, we remembered that, not too long ago, blogging was a regular pastime, a daily one in fact. And that people even occasionally read the silly meanderings set down in these pages. We stopped the regular blogging in the face of general feelings of overwhelmedness (it’s a word!) and really hadn’t given it much thought. But then, one day, we got to wondering whether the site still existed. Sure, the internet is forever, but Google must do occasional purges of dormant digital domains, right? How else to make room for the important things? Like porn? 

Imagine our surprise, not to say pride, when we realized that Ye Olde Solipsist could still be accessed! We could start subjecting the world to our random musings anytime we wanted! 

Alas, it wasn’t quite that simple.

While we could FIND our page, we couldn’t actually create any new posts. When we tried to sign in, we were offered the opportunity only to create a new blog—while (reassuringly?) being told that solipsisticmusings.blogspot.com was already taken. We were perplexed.

We went to Google Answers to try to find. . .well, answers. Interestingly, it seemed that ours was a somewhat common problem. So we posted our question, and sat back to wait for a reply.

And we waited.

And waited.

AND WAITED.

Stupid Google! Don’t be evil, my eye!

We had essentially given up on ever retrieving editorial access to our digital soapbox until today, when we had to go to Google to retrieve some information on llamas (don’t ask), and we noticed the little waffle in the upper right hand corner—which reminded us that we had a GOOGLE email address. One we never use. One that would probably be the one to which any replies from Google would probably be sent.

Sure enough, there was a reply, dated about ten minutes after we had sent in our initial question, telling us what to do, and before you could say “Sweet Loretta” we were back to where we once belonged.

When we first kept this blog, we went some five years without skipping more than a few days here and there. The new streak begins today!

Hate the Sinner But Love the Sin?

I find myself thinking way too much about the "Roseanne" reboot.  This morning, I posted a tongue in cheek comment to the effect that "Will & Grace" vs. "Roseanne" is the equivalent of Mets vs. Yankees: You can be a fan of one or the other, but not both.  This generated quite a bit of negative feedback, and not only, as one would expect, from Red Sox fans.

The position of those who took exception to my comment seems to be that both shows are, generally, high quality and can be appreciated by a diverse audience.  Fair enough.  I'm willing to accept that both shows have things to recommend them.  Indeed, I have every reason to think that "Roseanne" is, as far as these things go, a high-quality sitcom: I enjoyed the original run of the show (although I didn't watch the last 2-3 seasons).  And essentially the entire creative staff of the first run has returned for the reboot.  But I'll have to take people's word for its overall quality, as I flat out refuse to watch "Roseanne."

As you might have guessed, if you've paid attention to anything I've ever said or written, my boycott is inspired by Roseanne Barr's unapologetic embrace of the racist moron currently occupying the Oval Office.  And while I know I'm not alone in my feelings about this, I've been doing some soul-searching about whether I'm being exactly the kind of judgmental, intolerant elitist so frequently caricatured by the right. Should I not be willing to overlook any political "shortcomings" of the show's creator and appreciate the show (or not) on its merits?

Indeed, to return to the comparison I started out with, my guess is that "Roseanne" (as opposed to Roseanne) is probably more sympathetic to the opposing (liberal) viewpoint than "Will & Grace" is to conservatives.  Jackie, Laurie Metcalf's character, represents liberalism on "Roseanne," and she has always been a fully-developed character.  The right-wing viewpoint on "Will & Grace," however, is represented by Megan Mullaly's Karen Walker--Karen is frequently hilarious, but she is a total cartoon character, none of whose opinions are presented for anything other than laughter.

I freely acknowledge, then, that "Roseanne" may be an "objectively" good show--to the extent that any judgment on this kind of thing can be objective. I may be depriving myself of a rewarding aesthetic experience by my small act of cultural protest.  But in this era when good liberals are apparently no longer allowed to watch "House of Cards" or the films of Woody Allen or the comedy of Louis CK, why should I give a pass to Roseanne Barr?  I know, I know: What those icons of the left did was loathsome and creepy--if not illegal--whereas "all" Roseanne Barr has done is express some unpopular political opinions.  They are not equivalent.  But that doesn't make Roseanne Barr OK.

So, will I never support the artistic endeavors of ANYONE who support(ed) Trump?  I don't know; I think I might. The problem is not, simply, that Roseanne Barr voted for Trump. If she simply supported Trump because she believed he spoke for the "forgotten" working class--a false belief, in my opinion, but that's another story--but she was also willing to call him out for his racist/misogynistic/homophobic words and actions, then I could accept that.  But when a woman who, for example, has historically been an ally of the LGBTQ community refuses in a recent New York Times article to condemn or even criticize Trump's blatantly homophobic words and actions, then she deserves scorn.

Even a liberal icon like Jon Stewart criticized Obama over things like drone warfare and Guantanamo Bay, but Roseanne Barr is apparently unwilling to say anything bad about Trump.  And this blind devotion to an unbalanced, immature, divisive demagogue is tearing this country apart.  I cannot support a project of someone who wants to normalize or rehabilitate--or perhaps celebrate--someone as destructive to the social fabric as Donald Trump.

This Bud's for Bud

I know it's been awhile, but this will take more than 140 characters, and I know that no one will pay attention to a Facebook status update that goes on longer than a line or two.

A friend posted the above image to his Facebook feed.  Once I wrapped my mind around the message. . . Well, I have to admit, I was still confused.

The gist of the meme seems to be that we should thank our lucky stars that we live in a free-market system that enables corporate benefactors to provide for the general welfare.  That because Anheuser-Busch has reaped the rewards of capitalism, they are now able to give back and provide aid and comfort to the beleaguered denizens of Texas now reeling at the onslaught of Hurricane Harvey.

Really?

My first response to this was to point out that, while we can give appropriate kudos to Anheuser for doing a good deed, this hardly qualifies as capitalism.  Indeed, giving away product that has a monetary value is kind of the exact OPPOSITE of capitalism.  Ayn Rand would not approve.

But, the libertarians will cry, who ELSE but a massively successful corporation could possibly provide clean drinking water to storm-tossed refugees?

Uh. . . the government?  That's what we pay taxes for: So we can have things like clean water and sewer systems and roads and dams.  It's nice that Anheuser Busch decided to forego some profits for the day and devote their resources to the public good, but I wonder how many lobbyists that selfsame company employs to make sure that they pay as little as possible in taxes?  How many loopholes do they exploit?  Hell, how much of a write-off are they going to claim for the good deed they're doing here?  If all companies paid their fair share of taxes, then perhaps our country's infrastructure would not be in such a calamitous state of disrepair that major weather events frequently wreak havoc on our cities and towns.

But still. . .  Still. . .  Let's give credit where credit is due.  Thank you, Anheuser-Busch, you are good. . . Good. . .

And then it hit me: Look at the cans.  These are not simply cans of drinking water.  These are cans of drinking water emblazoned with the Anheuser Busch logo.  This is not (just) charity; this is advertising.

Well, so what, you'll say?  After all, the point is that thirsty people will get clean drinking water.  If Anheuser-Busch wants to claim credit for this service, that's their right.

And, again, yes. . . but.  I mean, think about it: These cans must have been lying around, right?  Obviously, Anheuser didn't JUST (in the last few days) get them printed up since Harvey made landfall.  So this got me thinking about what the company actually did: They made a decision--and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they decided with the best of intentions--to help out Harvey's victims and turn their production facilities from beer to water.  But then what?  They must have thought about how much water to distribute.  So what drove that decision?  What led them to the number 500,000?  Is that the number of cans of beer that would have been produced in a day?  If so, OK.

Or.

Is 500,000 the number of water cans the company had ready to go?  Because, if that's the case, then capitalism--far from inspiring virtue--in fact deprived people.  Because Anheuser, rather than producing as much water as it possibly could, limited its supply to that which could be marketed, to that which could serve as a platform for advertising.  Because Anheuser chose not to fill plain unmarked aluminum cans with water or--heaven forfend!--cans that had already been printed with Budweiser labels!  Because better to let some people go thirsty than risk that someone would open up a can of Bud and get water!  Think about the damage to the company's reputation!

(The fact that I personally find a can of Bud to be virtually indistinguishable from water is a whole different issue.)

Capitalism may do some things quite well, but when it comes to helping people--to altruism--a few cans of water are truly just a drop in the bucket.