Donald Trump Should Donate His Body To Science

Guest post by Noel Holston

Donald Trump should donate his body to science.

Laugh if you will. I realize it’s more than a little ridiculous, the notion that the most science-averse U.S. President of all time would bequeath his corpse to the medical school at Harvard or Emory or the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, his alma mater. 

But I’m serious. He’s an unusual human specimen, and he owes it to the nation  — to the world – to make himself available for posthumous study. 

First of all, there’s his body, the ample corpus that, clothed in white tie and tails for his recent state dinner with British royalty, led wiseacres and fashion critics to suggest that he wouldn’t be out of place leaping for mackerel at a Sea World show pool. 

What life-extending secrets could medical science learn about longevity, energy and endurance from dissecting an overweight septuagenarian who stays up half the night watching cable news and tweeting angry insults, gets little exercise beyond walking to Air Force One and his golf cart, and eats mostly the sort of fatty fast foods that are the foundation of America’s obesity epidemic? 

How is it that a walrus with the added weight of the world on his shoulders can make it through day after day of cabinet meetings, sit-downs with foreign dignitaries, medal ceremonies, interviews, photo ops, and campaign rallies without even taking regular naps? His performance on such occasions – his logic and lucidity – may leave many of us scratching our heads and grinding our teeth, but you kind of have to admit that his stamina is impressive.  

I don’t know about you, but I’m two years younger than he is, close to the ideal weight for my height, an exercise buff and a healthy eater. I take a siesta most days and still can’t stay awake for Stephen Colbert or Jimmy Fallon. And I don’t have the added stress of Nancy Pelosi or Rachel Maddow talking about jailing me.

More challenging, but also more rewarding potentially, would be the study of Trump’s brain. He says he’s a genius, and a stable one at that, but his declarations of mental prowess sometimes seem at odds with his erratic behavior, his childishness, and his very, very limited vocabulary. What could dissections and tissue scans discover about the wiring of his brain?

Some people believe that Trump is a narcissist, a liar, a con artist, a crook, or even a psychopath. He says he isn’t, and that he only interrupted his lucrative business career to take a relatively low-paying government job because America’s greatness needed restoration.  Objective scientific study of his brain could, among other things, settle such debates for posterity. 

In an article for the website Live Science, writer Clara Moskowitz reported about a Mayo Clinic study of people with antisocial personality disorder, a condition commonly found in criminals and characterized by an indifference to laws and the rights of others.

“Brain scans of the antisocial people, compared with a control group of individuals without any mental disorders,” she wrote, “showed on average an 18-percent reduction in the volume of the brain’s middle frontal gyrus, and a 9 percent reduction in the volume of the orbital frontal gyrus – two sections in the brain’s frontal lobe.”

Another study Moskowitz cited compared the brains of like numbers of psychopaths to non-psychopaths. “In the psychopaths,” she wrote, “the researchers observed deformations in another part of the brain called the amygdala, with the psychopaths showing a thinning of the outer layer of that region called the cortex and, on average, an 18-percent volume reduction in this part of brain.”

“The amygdala is the seat of emotion,” she was told by a member of the research team, Adrian Raine, of the Department of Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania.  “Psychopaths lack emotion. They lack empathy, remorse, guilt.” 

A close look at Trump’s orbital frontal gyrus and his amygdala could add to our understanding of how he came to be who he is – and possibly exonerate him.

Finally, there’s the fame factor. Very few celebrities have donated their bodies to science. Not only could Trump join that short list, but he would be also the first President. He really ought to do it. Let’s hope he does. 

The big reveal could be the basis of a prime-time special, like The Mystery of Al Capone’s Vault. The ratings would be huge.

Note: Noel Holston is a freelance writer who lives in Athens, Georgia. He’s a contributing essayist to Medium.com, TVWorthWatching.com, and other websites. He previously wrote about television and radio at Newsday (200-2005) and, as a crosstown counterpart to the Pioneer Press’s Brian Lambert, at the Star Tribune  (1986-2000).  He’s the author of “Life After Deaf: My Misadventures in Hearing Loss and Recovery,” which is scheduled for publication fall of 2019 by Skyhorse.

And When I Looked Up, MPR Had Disappeared

So I see “Magnum P.I.” is the latest geezer hit to get the re-boot treatment. Fans of TV as it once was already have a new “Hawaii 5-0” up and running, have seen “Roseanne” rise from the dead … die … and be born again (as “The Connors”, without the queen crazy) are awaiting the restoration of  “Murphy Brown.”

Since I never had any interest in any of these shows when I was (much) younger, I’m a bad judge of who they’re meant to entertain in 2018. But my wild guess is that none of the host networks in any rare moment of candor expects these shows to connect with your Gen X-ers, hipster Millennials or really anyone without an AARP card. That’s because what’s on sale here is — like Classic Rock on the radio — nostalgia for the aged, the now creaky folks eager to recall the time when their knees and hips and cataracts weren’t artificial.

Anyone younger than that has something in the range of 450-500 scripted TV series sprawling across dozens of cable channels and streaming apps providing comedy or drama far … far … more sophisticated, complex and involving than a reboot of color-by-numbers formulas anchored in an era 30 years out of date.

Somehow this nostalgia business — which will make a few bucks for the major networks — reminded me of how my own media consumption has shifted even over the past year. I mean, I don’t call watching a network series anytime in the past 10 years. “The Good Wife”? Never saw it. Oh wait. I did follow “Lost”. But when that ended (badly), so did my relationship with the ABCs, CBSs, NBCs and Foxs of the world, except of course for sports.

The main reason? The profound lack of imagination and audacity in storytelling. Think of it as an evolutionary standstill. Point being, times have changed network TV hasn’t. What worked in 1985 works today only with people with an impractical fixation with lost youth.

Other than a few gay characters it’s been years since there’s been anything in broadcast programming that offered any real sense of cultural change, suspense or comedic surprise. Why? Because everything, as they say in football, is being played between the 40 yard-lines. Right in the safe, dull, bland, familiar middle. It’s a safe, friction-less zone of perfect predictability, where everything is designed to reassure viewers that a kind of rule-abiding Eisenhower-era fantasy world still exists. Any viewer looking for a representation of life with the complexity of what they see around them every day has no choice but tune out and look elsewhere … and they’ve found it in abundance in shows like “The Sopranos”, “The Wire”, “Breaking Bad”, “Game of Thrones”, “Mad Men”, “Billions”, “The Terror”  and (a current favorite) HBO’s “Succession.”

In that vein, it occurred to me, while driving up to the cabin recently, that it has been at least four or five months since I’ve listened to anything on MPR, once the last go-to broadcast news source of any value in the Twin Cities. But MPR (and NPR) have now been entirely, and I do mean entirely, replaced by podcasts, all of which offer a far greater depth of reporting and analysis on a wider range of topics, from politics to science to entertainment than anything public radio can (or will) do within its self-determined parameters.

And yeah, this is Trump’s fault, too.

Anyone following the sprawling Trump story is vividly aware of characters and facets and the interplay between cast members that gets only passing “headline” mention on broadcast TV and only slightly more from public radio. (Honest analysis of the story puts hyper-cautious non-profit news outlets into the “bias” zone, y’know.) As with all complex fictional dramas, part of the appeal of the Trump story is figuring out who got to who and what made what happen, as well as building a notion of how it all ends. But most of that — way too much of it if you’re following closely and are, as I say, already familiar with the timelines and characters — is missing from public radio, and the network news.

Where it exists for me today are on podcasts like:

The Ezra Klein Show   (Check out the hour-long Aug. 2 conversation with Adam Davidson of The New Yorker. Note the part where they both express fear of what follows Trump, namely “competent Trump”. Just as corrupt, but not nearly the fool. Klein’s earlier conversation with author Michael Pollan, on his new book, “How to Change Your Mind” is maybe the most fascinating thing I’ve listened to in years.)

The Josh Marshall podcast.  (Linked is a recent one with Marcy Wheeler, a startling savant on dates and interrelations of characters in the Trump-Russia drama.)

The 538 Politics Podcast (The episode linked has Nate Silver and his crew playing with various theories of the Trump case. The key character IMHO is Clare Malone, the gal in the boys club with a very sharp and clever wit.)

Pod Save America. (Kind of the monster hit of political podcasts, starring ex-Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau and cronies.)

“Why is This Happening?”, with Chris Hayes. (This one, starring the MSNBC host, is newer and bit wonkier. But this particular conversation with Amy Chua, author of “The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother” was a thoroughly satisfying discussion of tribalism in American culture.)

The Lawfare Podcast. (At 334 episodes and counting, it’s kind of a granddaddy of the species. This particular episode, hosted by the conservative Heritage Institute is a fascinating and scary look at what’s coming next in fake news, namely “deep fake” video. Probably in time for this November’s elections. (Also, for a change of pace, here’s another talking with scientists about whether we should communicate with aliens — of the outer space variety.)

“I Have to Ask” with Isaac Chotiner of Slate. (Linked is his conversation with Davidson of The New Yorker.)

Brain Science, with Ginger Campbell MD. (Invariably interesting discussions with scientists on brain research and phenomena. The linked episode is with neuropsychologist Elkhonon Goldberg, (I had never heard of him), discussing creativity and — very relevant to the appeal of fake news — how in some humans novelty overwhelms the right hemisphere’s critical function.)

Celebration Rock. Hosted by Steven Hyden of 93X here in the Twin Cities. (Linked his Hyden talking, with customary intelligence, with Don DeLuca of the Philadelphia Inquirer about my favorite band of the moment, The War on Drugs.)

With all that and thousands more like them, the appeal of a new dude with less of a porn ‘stash and a newer Ferrari is lost on me.