Thursday, January 20, 2022
Contempt
—The apple never falls far from the tree.
ˆProverbial SayingˆNeil and his deceased mother, Anne, like virtually all children and parents, shared many qualities. In the case of Neil and Anne, one of the shared qualities is contempt for others.
In Anne’s case it demonstrated itself in her lack of respect for Congress and environmental regulations. In Neil’s case it demonstrated itself in his public demonstration of contempt for CDC recommendations about the value of being masked in certain situations. First things first.
Anne Gorsuch was appointed to head the Environmental Protection Agency by Ronald Reagan in 1981. She was the first woman appointed to that position and held it from May 20, 1981 until March 9, 1983. She demonstrated her contempt for the Agency she had been appointed to lead by effecting sharp budget cuts, reducing the number of cases filed against polluters, and filling various departments within the agency with subordinates she recruited from industries the EPA was supposed to regulate.
According to a story in the Washington Post on September 30, 1981, budget cuts implemented by Anne stripped 3,200 personnel of their jobs and were so massive that, according to agency sources “they [the cuts] could mean a basic retreat on all the environmental programs of the past 10 years. . . .”
In 1982 Congress demanded that the EPA turn over some of its records to the Committee that was investigating the alleged mishandling of a $1.6 billion toxic waste fund. Anne refused to hand over the records and, as a result, was cited for being in contempt of Congress. In March 1983, Anne resigned as head of the EPA after a tenure that had lasted less than 2 years during which she repeatedly showed her contempt not only of Congress but of the goals of the EPA. Neil is faithfully following in his mother’s footsteps.
Some members of the Supreme Court are concerned about the possible spread of the Omicron variant within the Supreme Court building. Accordingly, in information distributed to attorneys entering the building the “Court asks that attorneys wear masks that cover the nose and mouth at all times within the Court building, except when actively eating or drinking.” When waiting their turn to address the Court during hearings those not speaking are required to be masked at all times.
The mask requirement does not, of course, apply to Justices of the United States Supreme Court as Neil has shown. Without out so much as setting pen to paper and writing an opinion in which he expresses his contempt for one position or another in arguments presented to the Court, Neil has demonstrated contempt for suggestions from the CDC and others that those with medical issues as well as those without such issues may be well served if people with whom they interact are masked when in proximity to them.
One of Neil’s colleagues, Justice Sonia Sotomayor is concerned about the possibility of being infected with Covid-19. Justice Sotomayor has diabetes and that puts her at a high risk for serious consequences should she become infected with the omicron variant. According to news reports, as the number of Covid-19 cases increased during December, Justice Sotomayor informed her colleagues that she did not feel safe being around people who were unmasked. That did not, apparently, make an impression on Neil. Since the first of the year all of the Justices except for Neil, have been wearing masks when sitting on the bench in the United States Supreme Court. Neil sees no reason to encumber his very attractive appearance with a mask even though CDC suggestions clearly suggest that wearing a mask in those circumstances would be appropriate.
As an apparent result of Neil’s public display of mask contempt, since the first of the year Justice Sotomayor has avoided participating in Supreme Court proceedings and conferences in person. Instead, she has participated remotely. It is not possible to know whether, if Neil abandoned his public display of his contempt for use of the mask and began wearing one during Court proceedings, Justice Sotomayor would once again participate in person. It is also not possible to know whether if Neil abandoned his public display of contempt for the mask suggestion from the CDC it would encourage other skeptics of the CDC recommendations to follow that entity’s recommendations thus, perhaps, helping to slow the spread of the variant. What it is possible to know, and what the absence of his mask does unquestionably show, is that Neil has contempt for the suggestions from the CDC vis a vis the usefulness of masks. He is, after all, a Justice on the United States Supreme Court and there is no reason he has to be considerate of his colleagues nor observe a rule for which he has obvious contempt. He is his mother’s son. Anne would be proud.
Thursday, November 25, 2021
Death in Texas
[T]he last act crowns the play.
— Frances Quarles, Epigram
Texas once again demonstrates that it can show the rest of the country the way and is now doing so at considerable expense to itself, by arguing a death penalty case in the United States Supreme Court.
The current case is not the first time Texas has taken steps to address death penalty practices that have caught national attention. In 2011 it addressed the question of the death penalty prospect’s cuisine.
It has long been a tradition in many states that in order to make the hours immediately preceding the execution of the death penalty more pleasant for its beneficiary, the beneficiary may select the last meal he or she will ever eat. Until 2011, the beneficiary of the death penalty in Texas could select whatever he or she wanted for a last meal. Since it was taking place in Texas, cost was no object. That changed in 2011, however, because of the egregious behavior of Lawrence Russell Brewer.
On January 24, 1992, the day on which Lawrence was to be executed, Mr. Brewer could, according to Texas tradition, order whatever he wanted for a last meal. He ordered steak, fried okra, a triple bacon cheeseburger, three fajitas, an omelet, pizza, half a loaf of bread, Blue Bell ice cream, peanut butter fudge and three root beers. As if such elaborate selections were not enough to offend those who think a last meal choice is inappropriate to offer those whose conduct got them to the threshold of the execution chamber, Mr. Brewer added insult to injury. He went to the execution chamber without having eaten one bite of the ordered meal. (It should be noted that the failure to eat the ordered meal was not the reason he was sent to the execution chamber as some recalling a mother’s infliction of punishment for the child who did not eat his/her dinner might have mistakenly thought.)
A state senator was so outraged by news of Mr. Brewer’s menu selections and refusal to eat that he sent a letter to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice demanding that the practice of offering the condemned a meal choice stop. That, as we now know, was not the end of Texas’s encounter with practices associated with the death penalty.
On November 8, 2021 Texas was in the U.S. Supreme Court arguing in defense of not permitting a person about to enter the death chamber to be accompanied by a spiritual advisor who could pray with the prospective corpse and lay hands on him/her. Texas was in front of the Court because of a 2019 Court ruling that said Texas could not execute a man on death row unless his Buddhist adviser or a Buddhist adviser of the state’s choosing was in the execution chamber. As a result of that blocked execution, Texas imposed a new rule that only prison security staff can be in the execution chamber with the victim. It was that rule that was being questioned by Mr. Ramirez’s lawyer in the oral argument in November 2021.
The Court was, as might be expected, very sensitive to the question posed and its possible ramifications as demonstrated by its questions, all of which seemed to overlook the fact that the execution chamber is quite small and entering it is subject to strict controls. Justice Kavanaugh wondered what would happen if a prisoner wanted bread and wine in the execution chamber, thinking the condemned may make the request looking for a last drink of wine rather than partaking of the body and blood of the condemned’s Jesus. The Justice was also unmoved by Mr. Ramirez’s lawyer’s observation that Texas had allowed spiritual advisors at 572 executions engage in touching and audible prayer for a period of 40 years through 2019. Sensitive to niceties, he said that statistic did not impress him at all because the chaplains at those execution were state employees and not security risks. He further observed that an execution is a “very fraught situation with a lot of potential for issues.” That, some might think, is a problem for the person about to be executed rather than for the executioner.
Justice Alito, a stickler for detail, was afraid judges would have to go through the entire human anatomy to determine where touching was permitted, a concern perhaps more pronounced if the prospective decedent was a woman rather than a man. Anticipating possible problems he asked: “What’s going to happen when the next prisoner says that I have a religious belief that he should touch my knee? He should hold my hand? He should put his hand over my heart? He should be able to put his hand on my head?”
The only thing more bizarre than Texas’s belief that a condemned person should not be permitted to have a non-prison religious advisor present in the death chamber were the perils perceived to exist by the Justices who will finally decide the limits that can be imposed on that practice. Prospective decedents need not hold their breaths waiting for a result. The only thing more interesting than the result will be the reasons that accompany it.
Wednesday, November 3, 2021
Transmogrification and Gentrification
“For the times they are a’changin.”
Bob Dylan (1963)It is rare that this column addresses issues of a non-political nature, but a recent trip to Texas, the state that is home to two of the most obnoxious politicians in the country, Gregg Abbott, and Ted Cruz, prompts this observation. It is inspired by a large bill board on one of Austin’s busiest streets. The message on the billboard demonstrates the transmogrification of the inquiry and the gentrification of the expletive.
Those of advanced age will remember the days when one person, inquiring of another person, what that person intended by a comment made by that person, would simply inquire “what do you mean by what you just said.” A parent inquiring of a child what a seemingly impertinent remark by the child was intended to convey would ask “what did you mean by that” with extra emphasis on the word “that.” In more extenuating circumstances the inquiring parent, or in an adult conversation, one of the participants in the conversation might inquire in a slightly hostile manner “WHAT did you mean by THAT,” the emphasis being on the capitalized words.
As time went on, the inquiry was aided by the addition of three other words to express the inquirer’s displeasure with the other person’s utterance. The displeasure or exasperation was demonstrated by the addition of the words “in the world” following the word “what.” Eventually, as the elderly among us will recall, the word “hell,” used as an expletive, and not as a destination, could be added to the inquiry so that the question would be “what in the hell did you mean by that.” Today, thanks to the gentrification of an expletive, the inquiry has become more forceful.
The expletive in question is a word that in the writer’s youth was rarely, if ever, heard in conversation among either the young or the old, at least in this writer’s experience. The word in question is a four letter word used to describe the act of procreation otherwise known as “sexual intercourse.” The origin of its use is, according to at least one source, difficult to find. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, “fuck” was “difficult to trace in usage, in part because it was omitted as taboo by the editors of the original OED when the “F” entries were compiled (1893-1897.) The “F” word was, according to the writer, “not in a single English language dictionary from 1795 to 1965. The Penguin Dictionary broke the taboo in 1965. Houghton Mifflin followed in 1969 with ‘The American Heritage Dictionary.’” According to the writer, however, Houghton Mifflin also published a “Clean Green” edition without the word, to assure itself that the dictionary would have access to the public high school market.”
Those wondering why the authorities would fear inclusion of that word in texts used by students in school need only consider the reaction of many parents to the teaching of what is known as Critical Race Theory. Critical Race Theory has a set of ‘basic tenets’ among which is that race is socially constructed, not biologically natural, racism in the United States is normal, not aberrational, and legal advances or setbacks for people of color tend to serve the interests of dominant white groups. It is a concept that inflames the millions of parents who are concerned that their children are being taught about what life in a white America has been like for people of color and other minorities. Objections to its inclusion in the curriculum has led to the recalls of local school boards, and other elected officials by the parents who live in the bubble of ignorance. Those same parents, of course, would today not hesitate to use the F word if doing so would fairly express their outrage at the inclusion of Critical Race Theory in the curriculum. Had the offending word appeared in high school text books many years ago it is a virtual certainty those very same parents would be making the same demands of educators that they are now making of those including “Critical Race Theory” in their schools: get the word out of the classroom.
The transmogrification of the inquiry is demonstrated by the Texas billboard . The billboard leaves the completion of the word to the reader. Noone driving by will be distracted by going to a device to see what letters might follow the “F”, proof, if proof is needed, that the word is now fully gentrified. And its use in posing an inquiry to someone to determine what he or she may have meant by posing a question, demonstrates how the art of asking a question has been transmogrified. A pity, some older people might say, that.