Chutzpah, Thy Name Is Abbott

Covid-19 is devastating Texas. The state is reporting an average of more than 12,000 new cases a day, and intensive care units are basically full.  Covid tents are once again being erected in hospital parking lots to deal with the surge.

. . . If only there were some kind of vaccine,

In fairness, Texas is certainly not the worst state in terms of vaccination rates, with something like 56% of its eligible residents vaccinated--not great, certainly, but not as bad as some other Deep Red states.  I imagine having liberal bastions like Austin helps.  But the sheer size of Texas's population means that huge numbers of Texans remain unvaccinated, despite the near ubiquitous availability of vaccines.

In the meantime, though, Texas governor Greg Abbott remains steadfast in his refusal to do anything constructive in combatting the virus.  Not only has he refused to implement a statewide mask mandate, he has gone a step further, and forbidden local governments from imposing mask mandates of their own.  At the same time, though, Abbott is begging health care workers from other states to come to Texas to help with the Covid surge.

All I can say is, I hope that--Hippocratic Oath, notwithstanding--these out-of-state health care workers tell Abbott to go fuck himself sideways.  If he's not willing to do anything to mitigate the spread of the virus, why should anyone risk their own health and well-being to bail him out?  If I were a health-care worker, I'd offer to come to Texas if and only if statewide mask mandates are put in place, along with any number of other mitigation measures.  I might also ask for a million dollars a week. Why not?

****

In other news, the CEO's of Southwest, American, and Delta Airlines have announced that they will not require their employees to get vaccinated, in contrast to United Airlines, which did impose such a mandate.

Really, Delta? Isn't it bad enough for your corporate image that the plague raging across the country is universally and unrelentingly referred to as the "Delta variant"? You really want to compound that by going on record as being less than fanatical in taking steps to protect your staff and customers?

Ain’t No Suppression Like Voter Suppression

Florida legislators just passed Georgia-style restrictions on voting. The usual stuff: Barriers to mail-in voting, reductions in the availability of drop-boxes, penalties for distributing food and water to people on line to vote. 

By the way, what is the Republican obsession with preventing the distribution of food and water to voters? Snacks are not a partisan issue. I have it on good authority that even MAGAts like cookies.

The only hope for the country is a huge backlash to this kind of Republican thuggery. In my fantasy, this becomes a highly effective campaign issue for Democrats, and, like, Stacey Abrams rides this indignation to a landslide victory in Georgia’s next gubernatorial election. I’m not really optimistic, but that would certainly be delicious.

*****

NBC is promoting the Tokyo Olympics as “An Olympics like no other.” Apparently they think that’s a good thing.

2020 and Counting

The House of Representatives expanded somewhat regularly over the course of American history, reflecting the growth of the American population.  This growth, however, stopped in 1913, when House membership was capped at 435.  At that time, the United States population was approximately 97 million; today, it's just over 328 million.  In other words, if the House of Representatives is truly meant to serve as a sort of microcosm of the country as a whole--to represent, as it were--it should have at least three times as many representatives today as it had 100 years ago.

Sure, the thought of 1200 congressmen is slightly nauseating, especially when three of those congressmen would be Matt Gaetz.

(DIGRESSION: Has he been arrested yet?  Can we please get on that? EOD)

At the same time, we also get three AOC's, so I can live with that.

*****

The 2020 census has come and gone; it's all over but the counting--but since the whole thing is counting, I guess it's really not that all over, after all.

If you returned your census form last year, good for you! You count! If you didn't, fear not! You're in the good company of roughly 33% of your fellow Americans (or, as we've established above, about 110 million people).  This raises the uncomfortable question, If only about 67% of the population responds to the census, how does the Census Bureau know that that other 33% exists? And if the Census Bureau does, in fact, know this, why do we need to fill out census forms at all?

When it came to encouraging residents to complete census forms, states took different approaches. Some states, like California, New York, and Minnesota, began planning early and spent millions of dollars on outreach and marketing.  Oregon distributed ponies. On the other hand, states like Florida, Texas, and Arizona took an approach to the census that could best be described as "Meh."

Perhaps coincidentally--but probably not--these states are all run by Republicans, the governing party that has proclaimed itself hostile to government. I suppose that's their right, but did anyone point out to them that, by thwarting the nasty federal government's efforts to count their citizens, all these states have accomplished is ensuring their own underrepresentation and underfunding?

Kudos to them for owning the Libs.

Why Is This News?

I just read this article--front-page, top right corner of The New York Times--reporting that former representative Dennis Hastert (R-Ill), who served as speaker of the house for much of the early 2000's, has been indicted over activities designed to hide past "misconduct"--the word placed in ominous quotation marks right in the headline.

Now, today's title notwithstanding, I understand why this merits press coverage: Hastert is (or at any rate, was) a prominent public figure, apparently the longest-serving Republican speaker ever.  In that sense, any major events in his life merit some public scrutiny--in the same way that a Kardashian wearing a tacky dress apparently merits scrutiny.  But front-page, above-the-fold coverage in the national paper of record?  Even if Hastert is ultimately found guilty, his "crimes" hardly seem worthy of such blaring coverage.

The crimes themselves sound pretty bad: Lying to federal investigators and engaging in shady banking practices.  But the shady practices themselves seem to be that he withdrew money from bank accounts--apparently, his own bank accounts--in amounts that were designed to evade bank-reporting requirements.  He was giving the money to an unspecified person to compensate for unidentified instances of "past misconduct": In other words, it sounds like he was a naughty boy in the past and was now paying someone off to keep his naughtiness quiet.  When his banking patterns did draw the attention of regulators, and Hastert was subsequently questioned by the FBI, he denied paying anybody and claimed that he was just holding onto the cash himself because he had lost faith in the nation's banking system.  (And, heck, the way Congress operates, who wouldn't believe such an excuse?)

So, OK, if he did everything he's being accused of, he did break some laws.  But in the annals of criminal justice, his crimes hardly rise to Dillinger-esque proportions: He used his own money, to pay off someone for something he did, long after he was no longer involved in government, and--presumably out of embarrassment, he tried to hide the fact that he was making these payments.  He should certainly face punishment, but unless there is substantially more to this story than we're hearing so far, I imagine that punishment will probably amount to little more than some fines--and of course the suffering of the shame that he had tried so hard to avoid.

At the risk of sounding like a Fox News enthusiast, though, the "liberal" New York Times' trumpeting of this story from its most-prominent platform, makes me wonder if the editors are engaging in their own inappropriate glee at the downfall of a prominent Republican.  Not that I don't enjoy that as well, but I could wish for the Times to tone down its Schadenfreude.

Well?

Over the last year, seemingly every week has featured a new instance of extreme police brutality, resulting in the death of an unarmed man.  The fact that all the victims were black has only aggravated the underlying outrage, adding a grimy layer of institutional racism to what was at best an ugly situation indicating a need for better training for--and perhaps screening of--those who would serve as police officers in our communities.  But I've been struck by something: In nearly every news article written about these killings--from Michael Brown (Ferguson, MO) to Eric Garner (Staten Island) to Freddie Gray (Baltimore)--we see some variation of the following disclaimer:

"Because no nationwide database of police killings exists, it is impossible to draw definitive conclusions about the actions of the officers in this case."

Fair enough, but doesn't this suggest it might be time to start compiling such a database?

While We're at It, Let's Do Away with Spring Break, Too

Wow, it's been awhile.  My apologies to my loyal readers out there--all both of them--but things have been busy at Solipsist Central.  Nevertheless, I felt compelled to throw in my two cents on yesterday's major court ruling in California.

In case you missed it, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu declared the state's law granting public school teachers tenure after eighteen months of service unconstitutional, based on the idea that tenure protections deprive students--in particular lower-income and minority students--of the state-guaranteed right to a quality education:

“'All sides to this litigation agree that competent teachers are a critical, if not the most important, component of success of a child’s in-school educational experience,' Judge Treu wrote in his ruling. 'There is also no dispute that there are a significant number of grossly ineffective teachers currently active in California classrooms.'”

I, too, basically agree with that entire statement (although words and phrases like "significant number" and "ineffective" are so vague as to be meaningless).  Still, however, I reject the conclusion that, somehow, eliminating tenure protections will lead to a vast improvement in overall educational quality.

When the general public hears the word "tenure," they probably picture college professors: tweed-bedecked academics sipping brandy and pontificating on intellectual ephemera with little concern for or interest in the real world needs of the students they teach.  Those who brought this particular case see tenure as little more than a job-protection program for incompetent teachers.  And I will acknowledge that tenure laws do make it difficult to get rid of unsatisfactory teachers.  But people need to remember that the original idea behind tenure was not to protect the incompetent from some deserved termination, but rather to protect highly-qualified professionals from arbitrary punishment when they expressed unpopular ideas.  Is this, in fact, still a problem?  Consider that there are school boards in Kansas that discourage the teaching of evolution.  If you were a Kansas science teacher, would you be willing to discuss Darwin in a classroom--even as an alternative to creationist nonsense--unless you had some kind of tenure?

More to the point, though, What, exactly, do opponents of tenure expect will happen if they achieve their goals.  Let's say we could all agree on some objective definition of "incompetence," and that schools subsequently rid themselves of all their tenured-but-incompetent instructors.  What then?  Do you suppose there will be some sudden influx of brilliant, dedicated instructors rushing to fill these classes?  Do you think there is a vast pool of people dying to teach--if only this already poorly compensated profession would do away with one of the few perqs it offers?  Or would the remaining instructors--by definition those who are competent-to-excellent--simply be asked to do even more, take on more classes, teach more students--knowing that if they are unable to keep up with the ever-increasing demands, they, too, will be found incompetent and summarily replaced?

Sure, it should be easier to get rid of grossly incompetent teachers.  But in an underfunded, undervalued, overcrowded, and overburdened school system, teacher tenure is one of the least important "problems" to be tackling.

What a Difference a Catastrophe Makes!

Cheers to Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-eally?!?) for taking a bold stand against diehard conservative activists!  Boehner slammed outside agitators in a speech to House Republicans, lambasting them as hypocrites who claim to espouse faith in higher principles but who truly seek only to raise money and expand their membership lists.  They are, Boehner concluded, "ridiculous"!

Why the verbal tongue-lashing?  Well, Boehner is apparently fed up with the damage caused to his Grand Old Party by these unelected agitators.  After all, because of provocations from groups like Heritage USA, cowardly Republican leaders--like John Boehner--were forced to abandon their principles and shut down the government over an unwinnable attempt to defund the Affordable Care Act!  If only staunch possessors of adamantine backbone--like John Boehner--had been in charge back then!  Imagine how differently things would have turned out!

California Dreaming

In 2008, California voters approved an initiative so common-sensical that it's hard to believe it passed.  Proposition 11 took the job of creating legislative districts away from the state legislature and gave it to a non-partisan fourteen member commission.  In other words, no longer would career politicians have the authority to create districts designed to ensure either the re-election of incumbents or one party's stranglehold on a legislative seat.  Instead, a commission comprised of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four members of neither party would draw district boundaries.  In subsequent elections, the top two finishers in district primaries would face each other in a general election, regardless of party affiliation (i.e., if the top two finishers were both Democrats or both Republicans, they would compete against each other, rather than against a less-successful candidate of the opposing party).

Impartial drawing of legislative districts!  What a concept!  Who could be against that?

Well, career politicians who suddenly find themselves having to appeal to a broader electorate, sure.  But what real people could be against that?

And now, California is enjoying the results.  A legislature that has to be at least somewhat responsive to the general public--as opposed to special interests or to the most-extreme wings of its members' constituencies--has actually managed to, y'know, legislate.  Skeptics will point out that the only reason such harmony exists is that  the legislature has come to be dominated by one party--Democrats--who also hold the governorship.  They may be right.  Of course, non-skeptics would point out that the fact that Democrats dominate the legislature following non-partisan redistricting simply shows how artificial and unrepresentative the previous district boundaries were.

Furthermore, despite Democratic control of everything, California has hardly become a socialist paradise.  Yes, significant left-wing legislation has been passed, allowing such things as driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants, but at the same time, according to an article in today's Times, 39 out of 40 bills identified as "job killers" by the typically Republican-friendly Chamber of Commerce have gone down to defeat.  In other words, when legislators don't have to cater only to one side of the political aisle, they can afford to take what they see as common-sense stands in accordance with their own judgment.  This is not to say that their judgments are always right, but we have become so used to knee-jerk liberalism or conservatism, that it is refreshing to see moderation, especially when it seems to be associated with functioning governance.

California has often served as a testing ground for national policies.  Maybe the rest of the country could take a note from the Golden State now.

I Hate When They Seem Reasonable

The only thing I hate more than reading about Republican-driven machinations to suppress voter turnout is reading about Republican-driven machinations to suppress voter turnout--and agreeing with it.  Well, kinda.  Sorta.  In principle.

Over the last few years, a number of state legislatures have introduced bills that require voters to show photo identification when they come to the polls, ostensibly to prevent voter fraud.  The fact that there is exactly no evidence to suggest that voter fraud is a widespread problem--or, for that matter, a problem period--has proven no deterrent to these zealous guardians of the public weal.  And the fact that these laws pose disproportionate obstacles to minority voters--voters who are far more likely to vote Democratic than Republican--is pointed out by only the most churlish and cynical of pundits and bloggers.

Color me churlish.

So it was with no small sense of unease that I found myself less troubled by an article about Kansas and Arizona, which have introduced "two-tiered" voting systems to allow them to impose extra requirements on voters in state elections--specifically, in this case, a requirement that prospective voters show proof of citizenship.  And while I am fully aware that this, like the various proposals to require photo identification, is primarily an attempt to disenfranchise as many low-income and/or minority voters as possible, I find myself unable to muster a good argument against it.  After all, if voting is a privilege of citizenship--and it is--then why shouldn't states be able to demand proof of citizenship before extending the privilege.

What's even more troubling about this is that proving citizenship is arguably more difficult than merely proving identity.  While I am aware that many low-income or minority citizens may not have photo IDs, I also think that, in the main, the vast majority of people do carry identification: I've carried a driver's license since I was 18--and I didn't even start driving until I was over 30!  In other words, photo identification is fairly common. On the other hand, how many people carry around proof of citizenship?  Not everyone carries around a social security card, and even fewer carry passports, much less birth certificates.  Sort of makes me nostalgic for the good old days of voter-suppression through photo ID requirements.

Donation Consternation

Shortly after the AIDS epidemic began, medical authorities instituted a ban on blood donations by gay men.  Now, however, authorities are considering rescinding this ban, citing improved screening techniques as a way to protect the blood supply without resorting to such blanket prohibitions on potential donors.  So you all know what this means, right?  We can look forward to right-wing diatribes about how allowing homosexuals to donate blood will set the United States careening down a slippery slope that will culminate in dogs donating blood to cats and other violations of the natural order.

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.

And His IP Address is "Freely"

I realize that cybersecurity is no laughing matter, and I suppose I should be up in arms at the news that the Chinese military has once again unleashed its elite hacker unit upon targets far and wide.  Still, it's hard to get too worked up about this, particularly when you hear that US counterintelligence has been engaged in an all-out effort to thwart people with "names" like "UglyGorilla" and "SuperHard."  The best part?  UglyGorilla's real name, apparently, is Wang Dong!  So I guess UglyGorilla actually sounds comparatively imposing.

Extremity in the Pursuit of Moderation Is No Virtue

I give up.

For as long as I can remember--which admittedly is not very long, thanks to repeated blows to the head suffered during my last whaling expedition--at least WOS told me they were suffered during a whaling expedition--frankly, it sounds a little fishy to me. . . . Get it?  "Fishy"?  "Whaling expedition"?  Huh?  Huh?

Where was I?

Oh, yes.

For as long as I can remember, one could scarcely turn on the news or read a newspaper without finding some dire warnings about the impending societal breakdown caused by our soaring national budget deficit.  Indeed, the deficit was of such concern that it caused lawmakers of both parties to embrace draconian fiscal solutions.  Social spending slashed!  Taxes raised on the wealthy!  (Well, "as if," but still.)  Freezes in government salaries!  Layoffs in government offices!  Reduced allocations for selective enforcement of IRS laws!  (Which the more I hear about the more I start to wonder if there really is any major scandal going on there, but that's another story.)  The Republic must be saved from its own profligacy, and if some temporary pain is the price we must pay to stabilize the national budget, so be it!  So you would think today's news that the budget deficit is actually shrinking faster than expected, and that the annual deficit would actually be about $200 billion less than projections had indicated would be unambiguously good news.

Except it's not!

Economists have mixed feelings about deficit reduction based on their ideological leanings.  For some, the fact that the deficit is shrinking is less important than the fact that unemployment remains high, there being some correlation between a shrinking deficit and continued job shortages--presumably because government could do more to increase employment if it were willing to spend money, which would increase the deficit, but for ostensibly "good" reasons.  Got it?  Other economists say that any current shrinkage is but a temporary reprieve from overwhelming forces that will come crashing down upon us in some not-too-distant future, plunging us into a Mad-Maxian dystopia of widespread anarchy and rampant Thunderdome construction. 

Now, what I don't know about economics could fill a book--an economics textbook most likely.  But if deficits are bad, and reducing deficits is also bad, could somebody please tell me at what point I get to stop panicking?

And as if this economic quandary weren't bad enough, we can't even count on biological certainties anymore.  You know how you're not supposed to eat too much salt?  Well, now it turns out that a low-salt diet has no particular benefits and may even increase the risk of heart attacks!  Yes, presumably one still should not ingest excessive amounts of salt--

--and I love this commercial for a drug--I think it's Cialis--that features the disclaimer that people shouldn't "drink alcohol to excess" while taking the drug.  Are there drugs whose makers recommend excessive drinking?--

--but having too little salt in one's diet may be just as bad.

Must we constantly struggle, Goldilocks-like, to find the just-right balance in everything?  Can we not agree on the relative horribleness of anything?  Hitler, maybe.  At least he's good for something.

Too Depressed to Blog

I don't think I can post today.  Too broken up about the whole Margaret Thatcher thing.  In her honor, I plan to go outside and kick a hobo.  RIP, Iron Lady.

PS: I'm still kind of pissed off about the whole "Iron Lady" movie: Robert Downey, Jr., wasn't even IN it!

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!

The NRA Does It Again!

Regular readers of this blog--all both of you--know my position on gun control: The more the better.  So you might expect I would favor disarming those gun owners against whom courts have issued orders of protection.  Relieving perpetrators of domestic violence of their violent paraphrenalia just makes sense.  Still, as I read an article today, about states' efforts to legislate or enforce such disarmament, I found myself wondering....

First, how useful is such legislation?  Don't get me wrong, in terms of strategy, I think gun-control advocates should flood state legislators with as many proposals as possible: As I mentioned in an earlier post, making the NRA and like-minded groups battle on as many fronts as possible is a good way to sap their resources and/or their will to fight against more mainstream, acceptable proposals.  At the same time, though, when questioning the effectiveness of this particular type of legislation, gun-rights advocates make a reasonable point.  By definition, those against whom orders of protection are issued are not exactly model citizens.  They have presumably manifested disregard for law and order.  Requiring these people to give up their guns is a fine idea, but are these people truly going to feel constrained by such laws?  Are they likely to hand over all their weapons--even the ones the cops may not know about?  Will they not just go out and buy another gun, assuming that is their weapon of choice.  (Arguably, laws against gun purchases by this population would be a sounder idea, from a prevention standpoint.)  By all means, pass these laws, but at the same time understand that this is just one of many possible remedies for gun violence.

The other thing this article makes clear, though, is the continuing tone-deafness of the National Rifle Association.  Seriously, if MoveOn.org or some other liberal advocacy group does not, within the next 24 hours, create an ad promoting the NRA as the "Wife Abusers Rearmament Society," then someone should be fired for dereliction of duty.

Information Fatigue

If you go to the website of The New York Times today, you will see, plastered across the homepage in 19,000-point type a story about the death of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.  If you continue onto the "Most Popular" tab, you will find, topping the list, an epic story of the search for the long-elusive Higgs Boson, the "God particle," the fundamental building block of all things thing-y.  And as I browsed through these articles, I wrestled with a profound philosophical question: Do I care?  Does anybody?

I mean, I suppose Hugo Chavez cares about his own death--or he would if he were alive.  I guess it matters to Venezuela.  I feel I SHOULD care about the Higgs boson if, as I understand, I'm made of them. . .  or surrounded by them. .  . or in danger of being swallowed by them--OK, I admit I don't get it.  It's just been one of those days that makes me question the basic value of the news.

We're constantly hearing about the imminent death of print journalism.  I resist this bleak diagnosis.  But today, as I play the responsible citizen, performing my civic duty of making myself as well-informed as possible on all matters--and in the case of the Higgs, all FORMS of matter--I question how important any of it is.  I think I need a reporter to step out of the frame and explaiin to me why this is important to me.  Otherwise, I'm liable to throw up my hands one day and become one of those people who does nothing on the internet by seek out new and cuter cat videos.  Those are made of bosons, too, right?

Pistorius Off

The other day, star South African athlete Oscar Pistorius shot and killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp.  Born without fibulas, Pistorius inspired his nation and the world, as he ascended to the highest levels of sport, competing in the Olympics and Paralympics on prosthetic limbs.  He claims that the shooting of Steenkamp was a tragic mistake: that he thought she was an intruder breaking into his home.  That's his defense.  You believe him?  Personally, I don't think he has a leg to stand on.

Oh, like you weren't thinking it!

(And before you condemn me, may I point out that MOS's initial comment was, "I don't think his defense has legs."  So you see where I get it from.)

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

Buried in a report about the Nemocalypse battering the Northeast was this little tidbit: "Maine declared a partial emergency, allowing it to suspend federal transportation rules, extend worker hours and bring in extra crews from Canada to assist with storm damage repair."

Dear Maine, I know you're digging out from snowfalls of biblical proportions, but don't be snowblind to the dangers posed by "well-meaning" Canadians!  Once these subversive maple-suckers gain a toehold in American soil, there's no telling where they'll stop!  This time next year, we could all be sucking on Molsons and acting politely to each other!  I urge all my Maine readers to resist the Canadian surge.  And in case I have no Maine readers, I encourage my followers around the Northeast to form a human microphone (a la Occupy Wall Street) to scream this warning to our for-the-moment compatriots in the Lobster State (or whatever).

Of course, if the Canadians DO manage to infiltrate America, we may just be able to sic a few drones on 'em.  During confirmation hearings for John Brennan as CIA director, the nominee revealed that the Obama administration has discussed the feasibility of creating a special court (along the lines of the FISA court, which currently rules on the admissibility of wiretapping) that would hear arguments about whether an individual--particularly an American citizen--could be targeted for drone-strikes.

Personally, if I were a judge, you could not PAY me to sit on such a court! I would TOTALLY do it for free!  I mean, come on!  "How was your day, Dear?"  "Oh, not bad.  Had a few meetings.  Lunch with Roger.  Authorized death from above."  How cool would that be?

I probably wouldn't last long in the job, though.  I think the administration would grow tired of my compulsion to include on all my orders lines from the movie "300" or pseudo-Schwarzeneggerian sign-offs: "Hasta la vista, terrorists!  You have not a REMOTE chance of avoiding being DRONED und CRATERED!"

Another article profiles the teenager who unwittingly helped ignite the Syrian revolts that have so far left thousands dead and hundreds pf thousands displaced.  The teenager (whom the paper does not name, for obvious reasons) inspired rebellion when he was arrested and tortured for participating in the relatively innocuous "crime" of anti-regime graffiti: "He watched his cousin spray-paint the wall of a school in the city of Dara’a with a short, impish challenge to President Bashar al-Assad, a trained ophthalmologist, about the spreading national revolts.

“'It’s your turn, doctor,' the cousin wrote."

All I can say is, an opthalmologist AND a sadistic dictator?  SOMEBODY had quite the "Tiger Mom."

An increasingly popular app called Snapchat combines the availability of instantaneous chatting provided by Facebook and Twitter with the ephemerality of those dissolving cassettes at the beginning of every episode of "Mission: Impossible."  It seems that people--especially younger folks--are growing weary of having every youthful indiscretion stored indefinitely on the world's servers.  Snapchat messages and pictures automatically self-delete after a set period of time, encouraging people to express themselves more revealingly than they might do on a less transitory platform.  I think this is a great idea, and I am already developing the app that I think will be the logical successor to Snapchat: I call it, "Talking to People."

In New York, the Department of Homeless Services is paying landlords thousands of dollars to rent rooms that would normally go for a few hundred.  I would hereby like to officially offer up my spare bedroom (formerly known as SOS's room) for use by New York's Department of Homeless Services.

Finally, John Karlin, formerly of Bell Labs, has died.  Actually, he died on January 28.  I guess the Times delayed the announcement of Karlin's death to spare his family the crush of paparazzi that would otherwise have surely disrupted his funeral.

Who was John E. Karlin, you ask?  (Don't pretend you know!)  He was a pioneer in the field of industrial psychology, the study of the way that human beings interact on a psychological and emotional level with technology.  The study of the way people interact physically with technology is known as ergonomics--or Japanese pornography.

Anyway, we largely have Karlin to thank for the layout of the touch-tone phone and its many descendants.  Much time was spent deciding, for example, the appropriate size of the buttons, as well as their layout: lower numbers on top vs. lower numbers on bottom, that kind of thing.  All I can say is, I'm glad Karlin's team rejected the proposed "QWERTY" keypad (or, more accurately, "KWERTY"), which would have had the top row go 5-9-3 and placed the "star" key (which even then nobody had a use for) where the seven is today.  Rest in Peace, Mr. Karlin.  To hear a eulogy, please press the pound key or remain on the line.

My Luck, I'll End Up in Canada

I'd like to believe that, to be named an official overseas representative of the United States, one must exemplify the highest ideals of what it means to be an American citizen on the world stage: a firm grasp of geopolitics, a reputation for sophisticated public intellectualism, that sort of thing.

Turns out, one just needs a lot of cash and a willingness to lavish it on one's political patrons.

Which, I guess, when you think about it, is a pretty appropriate representation of Americanism after all.

Now that President Obama has secured a second term, the time has come for him to reward his most stalwart supporters with choice ambassadorships around the world.  Top fund-raisers may soon be invited to lead embassies in such desirable locales as London, Paris, and Rome.  While career diplomats--i.e., those who have devoted their lives to public service--get stuck in such garden spots as Yemen and the Sudan, those who wrote nice big checks have to go slumming in Papeete, Tahiti, or Oranjestad, Aruba.

Sure, there's a certain logic to this breakdown of responsibilities: Since trouble is far more likely to flare up in Pakistan than in the Bahamas, it makes sense to have more experienced foreign-service officers in these potential hotspots.  On the other hand, if a billionaire heads an embassy in an underdeveloped land, he or she could probably just buy the country in the event of revolution.

Bottom line, though, this practice of doling out plum ambassadorships to well-heeled political cronies strikes me as more than a little corrupt, and I want in on it!  I'm realistic: I understand that the five dollars I sent to the Obama campaign in 2008 will not get me into the Court of St. James.  But I don't want to get sent to one of those loser countries like Uruguay or Denmark, either!  I've given this a great deal of thought over the last ten minutes, and I think Australia would be perfect: I sort of speak the language (what the hell's a didgeridoo?); I have a full appreciation of grilled meats; and I know the words to every Men at Work song ever recorded.  President Obama, you know where to find me.

Pack up the cats, WOS, we're heading to Canberra!

(WOS: Oh, God, what is it this time?)