Tuesday, May 18, 2021
Tough Choices
— Virgil, Aeneid_Had I a hundred tongues. . . I could not name all the types of punishment,
As the months since the events of January 6 at the United States Capitol have passed, one would be forgiven for assuming that the only issue confronting the country is the need for voting reform. At last count 38 state legislatures have devoted much of their time trying to enact voting reform in order to correct the non-existent deficiencies of the election just passed. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, more than 400 voting restriction bills have been introduced in 48 states during the current legislative sessions of which 63 seem to have a chance of becoming law. As of this writing, 12 states have already enacted 26 laws to make voting more difficult.
As a result of the foregoing efforts, the news from South Carolina is like a breath of fresh air and completely unexpected. South Carolina is, after all, the state that has given us, and the United States Senate, Leslie Graham, one of the brighter, if nonetheless lesser, lights in the United States Senate. He is constantly in the news. Few would have expected South Carolina to become a state that chose this year to reform its method of implementing the death penalty rather than join its Republican colleagues by taking steps to solve the non-existent problem of voter fraud. In March 2021, the forward-looking South Carolina legislators addressed the very real problem that exists in that state when it comes to implementing the death penalty.
One of the last rights given to a person condemned to death in South Carolina, is the right choose which of the two approved methods of execution the condemned person would like to undergo as the state fulfills its duty to execute that person. The two choices are: lethal injection, or, electrocution in the electric chair affectionately known as “Old Sparky.” If the condemned decides neither prospect is appealing and refuses to make a choice, the default provision provided under South Carolina law is that the prisoner is put to death by lethal injection. Therein lies the problem. There are no drugs available to South Carolina to enable it to honor a prospective decedent’s wish that he or she be executed by lethal injection. An example of the dilemma this poses for the state, but not the person to be executed, is offered by Richard Moore.
Richard Moore has been sentenced to death but has been uncooperative and has persistently refused to tell the authorities how he would like to be executed. State law decrees that if he refuses to express a preference, he is to be killed by lethal injection. Because of the unavailability of the drugs needed to execute him, Mr. Moore has, as it is, the last laugh. The state cannot execute him. It is to solve this dilemma that a new law has been passed by the South Carolina legislature and is now heading to the governor for signature. Although it has no effect on Mr. Moore since he was sentenced under the old law, under the new law there is both good news and bad news for the prisoner condemned to death.
The good news in the newly enacted law, at least from the point of view of the person to be executed, is that he or she is given an additional choice of how he or she would like to die. Under the old law the only choice was between lethal injection or the electric chair. Under the new law the person facing execution will not only be able to choose between those two traditional methods of being put to death, but now by the newly provided third method, execution by a firing squad. The bad news in the new legislation, from the prisoner’s perspective, is that he or she will no longer be able to thwart the execution of the execution by refusing to make a choice, thus preventing the state from executing him because of the unavailability of the means to do it. Under the new law, if the prisoner follows Mr. Moore’s example and refuses to express a preference for the means of execution, or selects lethal injection when no drugs are available to enable the state to honor the prospective decedent’s request, the execution of the death penalty will not be put on hold. Under the new law, absent a positive choice by the condemned individual, he or she will be executed by being seated in Old Sparky. That method of execution is guaranteed to be successful. All that is needed for it to work is that it be properly plugged in. Good news for the state-less good for the person anticipating the event.
Tuesday, May 4, 2021
The Twins
This is what you shall do. . .stand up for the stupid and crazy. . . — .Walt Whitman, Preface to the first edition of Leaves of Grass.
A number of readers wondered whether, following my recent piece on The Triplets in the House of Representatives, I was being unfair to the United States Senate, a body that includes at least two people deserving recognition as much as the triplets in the House. I can only acknowledge my oversight with a mea culpa and make amends by directing the readers’ attention to two Senators who, with each utterance, warm the cockles of the trumpian heart and the hearts of all who love and miss the trump.
The two Senators are Senators Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Josh Hawley of Missouri. Great minds can differ on which of the two men is the dumbest man in the Senate. NBC’s Joe Scarborough bestowed the label on Josh, calling him the dumbest guy in the Senate, but I prefer to bestow that honor on Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson. Ron does not have the academic credentials of Josh. Josh attended Stanford, and Yale law school. The lack of those credentials does not, however, deprive him of the right to being first, not second, in the competition.
Ron has served in the Senate since 2010. During that time ample opportunities for him to show his stupidity have presented themselves, and he has rarely failed to take advantage of them. In 2021, however, he has taken positions that in the opinion of this writer give him an insurmountable lead over Josh Hawley. Among his most memorable demonstrations were his comments on the rioters who stormed the United States Capitol as Ron and his colleague took refuge in a safe space in the Capitol building. Ron said of his time being sequestered in a safe space in the Capitol that: “I never felt threatenened I didn’t foresee this. They made up their own standards in terms of incitement. The first question was ‘Was this predictable? Was it foreseeable? And the answer was no, it wasn’t. I don’t know any Trump supporters who would do that.” In an interview in March he said of the rioters that: “I know those were people who love this country, that truly respect law enforcement, would never do anything to break the law, so I wasn’t concerned.” He went on to say that had the rioters been members of the Black Lives Matter crowd he would have been more concerned for his safety. He did not explain why he joined his colleagues in being taken to a refuge where they were protected from the people showing their love for the country by storming its capitol nor has he explained why more than 400 of them have been criminally indicted for trying to prove their love of country.
Ron’s observations about the good intentions of the rioters by themselves, would perhaps not earn him the distinction I have granted him. It is also his expertise on the Covid-19 vaccine. He has repeatedly downplayed the need for people to get vaccinated against the virus. In an interview with Vicky McKenna on April 23 he explained that if a person had the vaccine he or she didn’t need to worry about whether anyone else got the vaccine. As he explained: “So if you have a vaccine, quite honestly, what do you care if your neighbor has one or not. I mean, what is it to you? . . . . So why this big push to make sure everybody gets vaccinated?” The more than 570,000 American who have died could explain why taking the vaccine is important. Anthony Fauci responded to Johnson’s comments saying they were nonsense. He said we have very effective vaccines and it makes no sense to take the Johnson position that if he’s been vaccinated no one else needs to take the vaccine.
Johnson’s competitor is Josh Hawley. Josh is better credentialed than Ron. Josh received his undergraduate degree from Stanford University and his law degree from Yale Law School. Both of his degrees have served him in poor stead proving, as a president of Harvard once said, the mere fact that you graduate from a great university does not mean you are an educated person. On December 30, 2020, Josh announced by means of a trump like tweet, that he would refuse to certify the vote that Joe Biden had been elected president. “I cannot vote to certify the Electoral College results on January 6 without raising the fact that some states, particularly Pennsylvania, failed to follow their own state election laws.” Not content to express his unwillingness to certify the electoral college results, as the rioters gathered on January 6 preparing to launch their attack on the Capitol, Josh walked by them pumping his fist in the air in a gesture of support. What happened next is history.
Commenting on Josh’s tweets and conduct, John Danforth, a former Missouri Senator said: “Supporting Josh Hawley. . . was the worst decision I’ve ever made in my life. He has consciously appealed to the worst. He has attempted to drive us apart and he has undermined public belief in our democracy. And that’s great damage.” Senator Danforth got that right. Josh Hawley is a national disgrace. So is Ron Johnson. The nut jobs in the House of Representatives have not upstaged the ones in the Senate. The electorate has made sure there are enough to go around.
Thursday, April 29, 2021
The Triplets
Against stupidity the very gods
Themselves contend in vain.
— Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller,
The Maid of Orleans
The women set a high bar but their colleague, Jim Jordan can meet it. At first blush it would seem that Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert have an insurmountable lead if recent actions by those two women are the measuring stick. They both serve in the United States House of Representatives and seem to be engaged in a competition to see which of them can come up with the most effective way to demonstrate their stupidity. Their records, of course, set a low bar.
Prior to entering the House, Rep. Greene had a legacy that some might have believed gave her an insurmountable lead. Commenting on the Las Vegas mass shooting in which 58 people were killed she said the event might have been staged in order to help those in favor of anti-gun legislation. Describing the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that resulted in the death of 20 children,she called it a hoax. She said the killing of 14 students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School was staged. In February 2019 she said that two of her House Colleagues who were sworn in without their hands on the Bible were not “really official” members of congress. They are both Muslim and Rep. Greene said: “They really should go back to the Middle East.” Those comments standing alone should have given her the clear lead over any of her colleagues. It was not to be. Lauren Boebert entered the fray.
Though at something of a disadvantage when competing with Rep. Greene given Greene’s long prominence on the national stage, Rep. Boebert is, making her mark when it comes to bizarre behavior and postings while in Congress. In addition to insisting on her right to be armed while wandering the halls of the capital, she refused to open her bag when trying to enter the House chambers when she set off a metal detector alarm. Prior to the beginning of the January 6 insurrection and as the crowd was mobilizing in the square a few blocks from the capitol, she tweeted that “Today is 1776.” In another tweet she said the Democratic National Committee had rigged elections.
The two women found common ground in their opposition to the National Marrow Donor Program. The National Marrow Donor Program matches bone marrow donors and cord blood units with patients who have leukemia and other diseases. Rep Greene said her opposition to the bill was because “Nothing in this bill prevents the funding of aborted fetal tissue by taxpayers.” Using that as the governing criterion, Rep. Greene can justify every negative vote she casts in the House since that could be said of almost every bill ever considered by the House. Rep. Boebert explained her negative vote by saying: This bill added hundreds of millions of dollars to the national debt, while not receiving a CBO score or going through the committee process.” The bill passed the House in a 415-2 vote. The foregoing notwithstanding, the two women do not occupy the crazy space alone. Their male colleague in the House, Jim Jordan, is good company for them.
Jim has been in the House since 2007 and that has given him plenty of time to establish his credentials as a nut job and examples are abundant. In an interview with Tony Perkins in 2013 Jordan agreed with the idea that the Obama administration was trying to buy up all the available ammunition in the United States as a way of depriving Americans of their 2d Amendment right to have guns, since guns without ammunition are useless. His attacks on attempts to control the pandemic, however, set a new low bar for hm. He has demonstrated it repeatedly in his repeated attacks on Dr. Anthony Fauci.
In a hearing of the House Select Committee on the Coronavirus in July 2020 he suggested to Dr. Fauci that rules limiting the size of church gatherings were an infringement on the First Amendment Constitutional right to freedom of religion. In a December 2020 tweet he said: “Dr. Fauci says Americans should avoid travel over the holidays. What will he cancel next? Saying “Merry Christmas”?
In a hearing before the House Select Coronavirus Subcommittee on April 15, 2021 he addressed Dr. Fauci’s written statement to the Subcommittee in which Dr. Fauci said the pandemic still demanded restrictions on what people can do. Demonstrating his keen grasp of things scientific, Rep. Jordan said: “In your written statement you say now is not the time to pull back on masking, physical distancing and avoiding congregate settings. When is the time? When do Americans get their freedom back.” Continuing his attack on Dr. Fauci he said that the mandate that the restrictions that had been imposed right after the pandemic began had turned into “a year of lost liberty.” Articulating his stupidity so no one would miss it, he asked: “What has to happen before Americans get more freedom.” Happy to instruct the errant congressman, Dr. Fauci gave the obvious answer that would occur when the level of infection was so low as to no longer pose a threat. Undaunted, Jordan then said Americans’ liberties had been assaulted, and asked Dr. Fauci whether he believed that “the Constitution is suspended during a crisis.” It was a rhetorical question.
Jordan, Greene, and Boebert make a good team. The Republicans in the House of Representatives are fortunate to number them among their members. The rest of us less so.