My Fellow Americans

Over the last few weeks, you've heard of several activities about which I am less than pleased--I am less than pleased, that is, with the fact that you have heard about these activities: The targeting of conservative groups by certain rogue elements of the IRS; eavesdropping on members of news gathering organizations; collection of data from cellphone and internet providers.  Frankly, it's gotten to the point where I can't turn on the television or open a newspaper without discovering something else about which I supposedly had no idea.  I'm tired of it, and I suspect you are all tired of it as well.  So, I would like to take this opportunity to reveal all of the secrets my administration is currently concealing before you read about them in the New York Times.

First, let me be clear, I had NO KNOWLEDGE that employees at the Cincinnati IRS offices were targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny.  That being said, I confess to snickering for exactly three minutes when I heard the news.  There is a possibility that a memo about the incident addressed to my attention might surface,  on which a handwritten note--"How you like me now, Motherf****rs?"--might appear.  I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of such a memo.

All right, so, as for the additional secrets and covert operations underway:

--The United States is, in fact, behind the following recent uprisings: Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Turkey.  We do not, however, have anything to do with what is going on in Syria: Those people are just plain nuts.

--I have had orders drawn up authorizing drone strikes against the headquarters of Fox News, the Texas office of Senator Ted Cruz, and Mr. John Travolta.(I'm sorry. I just have hated everything he has done since "Pulp Fiction.")  Let me be clear: I have not signed these orders, and I have, in fact, signed a signing statement signifying that I intend never TO sign them.  Seriously. Drawing up the orders was done at the suggestion of my therapist, who felt it would be cathartic, and, I have to say, she was right.

--Yes, I am seeing a therapist.  In fact, I have been in treatment and taking a cocktail of psychotropic medications for the last seventeen years.  You don't think this Spock-like demeanor just happens, do you?

--A plan is in place to balance the budget, involving a sizable wager on the Houston Astros winning this year's World Series.  A Bahamian bookmaking outfit locked in our odds at 2,000-1.  To that end, I have also ordered St. Louis Cardinals management to trade the entire team to Houston.

--I personally convinced Columbia Pictures to hire M. Night Shyamalan to direct "After Earth." I take responsibility for that one.  I still believe he has another "Unbreakable" in him.  I'm beginning to think I was wrong.

I think that's everything.  Well, except for the secret recording of everyone's keystrokes on Google that has been going on since August 2009.  But I assume you all knew about that.

Good night, and God Bless America.

Where Can I Get a Job Deoxygenating Mice?

Well, some good news for a change.  We've all grown weary of the constant drumbeat of news stories about how this or that thing that we've loved for years is slowly killing us.  Salty snacks raise blood pressure!  Red meat clogs arteries!  Masturbation leads to memory loss!  And, of course, Masturbation leads to memory loss!  So you can imagine my relief when I read today about a long-term study that has determined that drinking coffee increases longevity and helps stave off dementia.  Sure, I'd rather hear that eating pork chops improves muscle tone, but good news nonetheless.

"In a 2012 experiment at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, mice were briefly starved of oxygen, causing them to lose the ability to form memories. Half of the mice received a dose of caffeine that was the equivalent of several cups of coffee. After they were reoxygenated, the caffeinated mice regained their ability to form new memories 33 percent faster than the uncaffeinated."  Specifically, caffeinated mice took 33 percent less time than uncaffeinated mice to bite the noses of the scientists who had deprived them of oxygen.

Swab Stories

The other day, the Supreme Court ruled that police may gather DNA samples from people arrested for serious crimes.  Authorities already had the right to take DNA samples from people convicted of such crimes, so this represents an expansion of police powers.  With this ruling, police can take a cheek swab after arresting someone and compare the suspect's DNA against samples collected in other unrelated cases.  In the case under consideration before the Supreme Court, for example, a man arrested for assault was subsequently charged with and convicted for an unsolved 2003 rape, after a DNA sample implicated him in that earlier crime.

Civil libertarians argue that such DNA collection represents a violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.  Indeed, in an unusual ruling, arch-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia joined most of the traditionally liberal judges in dissenting from the decision, which was written by everyone's favorite swing justice Anthony Kennedy.  Scalia invoked the Founding Fathers: “The proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would not have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.”

Kennedy himself, along with most of the other traditionally conservative justices, kind of sidestepped the whole Fourth Amendment question, suggesting that collection of DNA is just another way for the authorities to establish the identity of a person in custody: “When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody. . . taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”       

With all due respect to Justice Kennedy, that argument is disingenuous, or, as Scalia put it, “taxes the credulity of the credulous."  Police do not need DNA to establish a suspect's identity; indeed, unless the suspect's DNA is already in the criminal justice system, the DNA sample will be useless.  There are far more effective ways of establishing identity: Dental records, psychic mediums, or, I don't know, asking to see someone's driver's license.  No, the whole purpose of gathering a suspect's DNA is, as happened in this case, to try to match the suspect to an unsolved case.  And honestly?  I don't see a problem with this.

Look, I don't normally agree with Antonin Scalia, but I admire his defense of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches.  At the same time, the collection of a DNA sample hardly strikes me as "unreasonable."  At its most invasive, DNA sampling requires nothing more than a cheek swab--and frankly not even that: If a suspect has a drink of water while being processed, police can probably retrieve DNA from the cup.  And on balance, if DNA collection helps police solve vicious, violent crimes, I don't think a suspect's minor (at most) inconvenience is too great a price to pay.

I am more concerned, honestly, with Fifth Amendment concerns, i.e., whether compelling a suspect to provide a DNA sample violates his right to avoid self-incrimination.  Again, though, given the fact that DNA--like other evidentiary material (fingerprints, clothing fibers, etc.)--can be gathered passively, whether or not the suspect voluntarily agrees to provide them, I do not think this represents a true constitutional concern.

One thing, though.  I am intrigued at Scalia's invocation of the Founders' presumed resistance to modern-day investigative methods.  After all, in other areas--say, gun control--the Founders would presumably have NO objections to modern variations on classical themes, or so go the arguments of those who say that there is no reason to update the Second Amendment's non-restrictions on firearms to take into account guns that fire considerably more bullets than a musket could.  Do I digress?  Well, yes, but I couldn't end this blog post without reaffirming my general disagreement with the vast majority of Scalia's right-wing jurisprudence.

More Musings

I blame the Lecters for naming their kid something that rhymes with "Cannibal."  If only they had named him "Heterinarian"!

All those wasted lives. . . .

To The Victors Go the Spoils

Did you know that the winner of the America's Cup gets to set the rules for the competition the next time it takes place?  Well, of course you didn't!  Why would you?  My guess is that no more than about, say, one percent of the population follows yachting's premiere event.  And leave it to a "sport" tailor-made for the richest of the rich to embrace a rule whereby the rich, in effect, get richer.  Still, when they heard about this, the champions in other major sports--who, let's face it, are also members of the ultra-rich--thought it was a great idea, and they have all proposed certain rules changes of their own.

The San Francisco Giants have introduced the following adjustments to the standard baseball rules for this season.  For their home games, Giants players will have the option to use either standard wood bats or bats made out of aluminum.  Visiting teams will be required to bat with whatever loose chunks of concrete and rebar may be found around AT&T Park.  Additionally, the Giants will play all 162 games at home.

The Super-Bowl champion Baltimore Ravens have required all opposing players, in the interest of safety, to encase themselves in large blocks of memory foam.  Furthermore, Raven field goals will be worth seven points, and, in order to earn seven points for a touchdown, players on visiting teams must, after reaching the end-zone, recite from memory a Shakespearean sonnet (of Joe Flacco's choosing) in Maori.

The Miami Heat have declared that, for the finals, the San Antonio Spurs must field a team composed only of native-born American citizens, thus disqualifying Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, and Tony Parker.  Duncan may receive dispensation to play, however, if and only if he agrees to wear wooden shoes, in keeping with the traditions of the Virgin Islands' colonial history.

Speaking of beating up on the Dutch, the 2010 World Cup champions, Spain, have decided that they will just use their hands from now on, 'cause, let's face it, that was always a stupid rule anyway.

Finally, in defense of his 2012 US Open golf championship, Webb Simpson has declared that only players with stupid first names be allowed to compete.  Many commentators feel this was a flawed strategy, as either "Tiger" or "Eldrick" certainly qualify.

Do What You Want to the Girl, But Leave ME Alone

Government officials, medical experts, and others are pushing to expedite the approval process for drugs that can treat "superbugs"--those antibiotic-resistant infections spawned in no small part due to the overuse of previous iterations of drugs.  This time, though, government officials are determined to do things right!  They might, for example, forbid using such drugs to treat any but the sickest patients.  That'll work.

Look, I'm a fairly well-educated and, I like to think, rational person.  I understand the concept of "the greater good."  But people will not forego life-saving--or even life-improving--treatment for the sake of abstract notions of long-term benefit--at least if that long-term benefit simply benefits other people.  Sure, my misuse of antibiotics--combined with the misuse of antibiotics by others--will ultimately give rise to an incurable superflu and lead inevitably to a final confrontation between good and evil on the Las Vegas Strip.  But damn it, my tummy hurts!

You all better hope the fate of the world never depends on me.  I mean, you know all those movies where the hero realizes that he must sacrifice himself to save others?  "So, you're saying that, if I voluntarily jump into the volcano, I can appease the gods and they will spare the village?  Yeah, um, sounds great, but what's in it for me?"  If I have to choose between my name living on in glory and my body living on in shame, I'll take corporeal shame every time.

And I'm sure I'm not alone in this.  Yes, many parents would give their lives for their children, but that's about it.  I know plenty of firefighters, police officers, soldiers, and others have died in service to others, and I respect them for it.  But I imagine most of those folks had no particular intention of dying.  Let's face it, altruistic self-sacrifice--especially the sacrifice of one's actual life--is pretty anti-Darwinian (again, except in the case of parents and children).

Harlan Ellison once speculated that what killed the dinosaurs was basically a failure of imagination--an inability to see what was coming: "Gee it's getting chilly out.  Oh, well, what are you going to do? Mmm. . . trilobites!"  Ellison also warned that we--modern humankind--didn't look so hot ourselves.  But I don't think we suffer from a lack of imagination.  We can imagine all too well what will come of our (in)actions.  I suspect we just lack the capacity to care.

Meanwhile, Over at Bibliamnesia

Everything I Remember About. . . Moby-Dick.