The Diocese, the Synagogue, the Governor and the Supremes

Much is being made of the Supreme Court's recent decision regarding the State of New York's restriction on attendance at religious services.  I wonder whether that "much" may have something to do with the hyperbolic statements Justice Alito, apparently in a very ideological--or should I say righteous?--mood, made before the Federalist Society.  Those concerned with the possibility of a new conservative majority of the Supremes further broadening the scope of the Establishment Clause may have cause for their concern given Alito's unqualified expression of his fears of government regulation.  But it seems to me this decision is fairly narrow.  It's the fact that there seems to have been no need for the decision to be made that's worthy of note.

The decision doesn't prohibit restrictions on the number of attendees at religious services during the pandemic.  Roughly speaking, it merely provides that the restrictions imposed in this case aren't adequately justified in the law given that restrictions on secular uses are not as stringent.  Such restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny; there must be a compelling reason for their imposition.  According to a majority of the Supremes, there was no such compelling reason.  There is nothing establishing that attendance at religious services is more likely to cause the spread of COVID than attendance at a liquor store or grocery or any of the kinds of secular uses that are less strictly restricted.

It's difficult to be outraged by this.  What is odd, however, is that injunctive relief was sought from the Court during the pendency of an appeal to a Federal Circuit Court, and the restrictions which were imposed are no longer imposed.  Typically, injunctive relief isn't available in the absence of the high probability if not certainty the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if it isn't granted.  Assuming that the inability of a person to attend a religious service will cause irreparable harm, if the restriction claimed unconstitutional is not being imposed, it isn't at all clear that irreparable harm of the kind claimed to exist will actually take place.

This is one of the points made by those Justices dissenting.  They note that if the restrictions are imposed once more, application for injunctive relief may be made at that time.  The majority, however, maintains, for reasons which don't seem to be given, that there is a constant threat they will be imposed and so injunctive relief is needed.  The majority appears to lower the burden imposed on those seeking the extraordinary relief of injunction considerably if what may possibly take place is sufficient grounds for issuance of an injunction.

It would be a matter of concern if that's what intended by the decision, or if that is how it will be construed in the future.  Then protection would arguably be available to anyone who thinks that freedom to worship may be restricted whenever a government may potentially restrict it and has the power to do so.  That would make the prohibition under the Constitution absolute, or provide an opportunity for the imposition of a uniform rule by which restrictions may be judged, instead of the case-by-case approach which has been wisely used in the past.

It occurs to me that activist judges may be conservatives as well as liberals.  An activist is an absolutist, and absolutists aren't thoughtful, careful thinkers--or jurists. 

Chess Play and Obsession

The success and popularity of the Netflix "limited series" The Queen's Gambit reminds me of the surge in interest in the game which took place when Bobby Fischer won the world championship in 1972.  I was a high school team player at that time, and the interest of others in the game was a subject of some fascination to me.  The match between Fischer and Spassky was, incredibly, broadcast live courtesy of public television, with commentary by Shelby Lyman.  I watched that broadcast and, more significantly, others did as well.  The popularity of the match and the game which resulted astonished me.

Chess players--serious chess players, in any case--have been and always are fascinated by the game; one might almost say addicted to it or obsessed with it.  It's necessary to devote a significant amount of time to it to play well, and the amount of time it's necessary to devote to it increases the more one plays and the better one gets, as does the quality of your opponent.  At the highest level, chess is life, as Fischer once said--for him it was in particular, it seems.  It's unclear he had any life apart from it.

Fortunately or unfortunately, I've never reached the highest or indeed the higher levels of play.  I played a great deal in high school, studied the game, and was successful particularly in the last year I participated in scholastic play.  Then I stopped playing, only to begin playing once more much later in life.  I'm now a club player, but haven't been in a tournament in many years.

The star of the Netflix series is addicted to drugs and alcohol, and the implication is her remarkable talent as a chess player is in some manner associated with those addictions and may itself be a kind of addiction.  I think there's something to that.  Chess has long been associated with intelligence.  One derives pleasure from being thought intelligent, and being thought more intelligent than those one defeats at chess.  Pleasure is also felt when winning, and winning at chess is thought to be the result of the fact the winner's intelligence is greater than that of the defeated.  The winner of a chess match is perceived as intellectually superior to his/her opponent.  Fischer used to say that he felt joy in crushing the will of his opponents, or something to that effect.  Such a feeling may well be sought eagerly and would be intense enough to give rise to something like addiction.  

Chess has also been associated with insanity.  Fischer, unfortunately, is a case in point.  The great 19th century player Paul Morphy apparently went mad.  G.K. Chesterton noted that reason, or excessive reasoning, can cause insanity, and pointed to chess players in support of this claim.   Chess has also been associated with evil geniuses.  Intellectual villains are sometime portrayed as being avid players of the game. There seems to be something of the game that attracts and repels us.  It's attractive as an exercise in skill, but we seem troubled by the display of great skill when it is confined to chess play.  We're moralists to an extent.  We think great ability of this kind should be applied to something more wholesome, and of greater benefit to people and the world.  There's something strange and dubious about great chess players.

I have no idea what it is about me that attracts me to the game.  But I think that to be a serious player one must at least have a fairly sizable ego, an ability to focus intensely and an ability to perceive combinations available in a position.  I have those characteristics, to a certain extent.  But a great player must have them to an extraordinary degree.  The ability to focus on the game alone, and nothing else, strikes me as especially important to success over the board.  Fischer, as I noted, said that chess is life, and the lead in the Netflix series says something similar.  I think it was that the chess board is itself a world, and most importantly one that she could control.  Being an orphan and subject to the whims of so many others, it's understandable she would seek out and master a world less cluttered and subject to strict rules. For a great chess player, chess is all-consuming.  Like an addiction to drugs and alcohol, I would think.

"A beautiful game, except for the players"  So says one of the characters in The Bishop Murder Case, one of the works of S.S. Van Dine involving the "detective" Philo Vance, when referring to chess.  The suspects in that book are a chess master and theoretical physicists, one of whom is disabled and fond of children's games.  Strange, unnatural, dangerous people, capable of atrocities. 

A beautiful game nonetheless, though. 

Yes, We Have a Banana (Republic)

The great Louis Prima, best remembered I think for Jump, Jive and Wail, also did a song called Yes, We Have no Bananas.  The latter song may be better known, but is more offensive, as it describes a Greek-American grocer who doesn't like to say "no" telling someone his store doesn't have any bananas.  Louis was himself of Sicilian heritage, and I think should have known better.  Regardless, that song provides the basis for the title to this post.

Certain nations were once--and perhaps still are--referred to as "Banana Republics"; states largely dependent for revenue on one or sometimes a few crops, and in any case limited resources, managed by a plutocracy and sometimes foreign powers (including the U.S.) which regularly experienced changes in government, all to better suit the plutocrats.  They lacked stable politics and stable political institutions, and nobody paid much attention to actual elections, which generally were fixed.  A chain of clothing stores are also called "Banana Republics" because, I believe, the name is thought to invoke tropical, outdoorsy, travel wear.  Those stores are not being referred to, this time, which may or may not disappoint the reader.

I don't think we're a bona fide, if that's an appropriate phrase, banana republic just yet.   We're arguably a plutocracy, true.  But at least in the past, we haven't given the world the impression that our politics and political institutions, and our elections, are all for show, mere facades, and may be denied and ignored.  Things have changed, however.

The outcome of a presidential election was challenged not all that long ago, but that involved a different set of facts entirely.  As far as anyone knows, and based on what evidence there is and has been made available even by those challenging it, there is no basis on which to doubt the 2020 election and its result.  Because there's no legitimate reason to deny the result, but it is being denied nonetheless to the detriment of the nation, we appear to be a banana republic.

Although he's the obvious culprit, we can't blame this mess entirely on the sad, strange, damaged man who lost the election, much as he claims so pathetically to have won it.  His equally sad and strange minions, including those Republicans who have tolerated and facilitated his antics, share in responsibility for this diminishing of America on the world stage.  We can only hope that our Republic will survive him intact.  Unfortunately, if he does indeed suffer from what the DSM used to call Narcissistic Personality Disorder, then it seems likely he will do all he can to create problems for those who have rejected him, which in this case includes the better part of the citizens of our nation.  Being unable to seek retribution against us individually, it makes sense to think he'll seek to do so to the electoral system he believes failed him and to thwart those actually elected by the same system.  

What fascinates and concerns me most in this situation are the craven, venal and self-regarding individuals in power who support him and his efforts to subvert our politics and cast doubt on the electoral process, for no discernable legitimate reason.  I don't think we can assume that these people are all as gullible and deluded as others who seem react to him as members of a cult do to the cult leader.  There must be some other reason which motivates them to encourage him.  It's impossible to believe that they think what he's doing is for the good of the nation.  That would be to consider them to be utterly unintelligent.  So, the reasonable inference is that they act in pursuit of what they think to be their own best interests.

As we're considering the politics of our Glorious Union, this means they're acting in a way they think best preserves or increases the money and power available to them.  One can see that the election of a Democratic president would adversely impact the money and power available to Republican politicians.  So it makes sense to think that they're playing along in the hope that even frivolous challenges to the outcome of the election will ultimately result in some good--for them.

It will be interesting to see how far they'll go in putting their interests before those of the stability and status of the nation.  The cynical view is that they'll go as far as they can without putting their own power, money and interests, and those of their friends, in danger.  Since none of the players appear to be principled and all of them appear to be supremely self-regarding judging from their conduct in the last four years, this is probably the most reasonable view to take.

We should fasten our seatbelts, as Bettie Davis famously said in All about Eve.  We may learn soon just how corrupt our politics and politicians have become.

 

Our Feast of Fools

Welcome, all! Or better, perhaps--Come one, Come all, to America's Feast of Fools!

Based somewhat loosely on the Medieval Feast (or Festival) of Fools--pardon me, Festum Fatuorum--this festival, which is of relatively recent origin, is formally held on the date of every presidential election, but the festivities are known to extend for several days after voting has taken place.  While the Medieval Feast celebrated the election of a mock Pope or Archbishop, we here in the United States celebrate the election of a mock President.

Most of us are familiar enough with the original Feast, having seen it animated in Disney's strangely disturbing Hunchback of Notre Dame.  The most ridiculous or grotesque person available was made Pope/Archbishop, and all joined in laughing at that figure while purportedly offering it reverence.  Liturgical and religious ceremony was parodied.  It shared certain characteristics with the Roman Saturnalia.  We in the U.S. similarly elect some absurd personage as president and ape the ceremonies of a democracy or republic.  Here, though, we don't laugh at the Feast.  Instead, or so I suspect, we're laughed at by the rest of the world.

What a spectacle we must make on the world stage.  I have a vague recollection of claims of American exceptionalism; the belief that we were favored in our form of government, our republic, our institutions, which allowed for the expression of the "will of the people" but protected the voice of the minority, and the peaceful transfer of power, the rule of law, etc., and our pride in our good fortune in being so enlightened.  Now we seem to be no more fortunate and no greater in this respect than most other nations.  No doubt there are those who enjoy how America, the (High and) Mighty, has fallen.  

Ostensibly at least, our politics, though driven in most cases by the pursuit and use of money uber alles, has managed to honor the election process.  There have been very few cases where the process has been subject to challenge, and claims of fraud were seldom made.  Those who lose have acknowledged losing more or less gracefully.  Things have changed, though.  Now we have those who are against votes and voting itself if their interests are are not met, and if they fail to retain their positions due to the election process.  Most of all depressing is the fact that a large portion of the electorate isn't disturbed by this and even joins in the rejection of votes and of the right to vote.  

Why has a change of this magnitude taken place?  I've pondered the use or misuse of the Internet before and have worried about its negative impact, and hate to sound like the proverbial broken record, but I think that it provides a means by which the ignorant, the misinformed, the authoritarian, the hateful, the bigoted--in short, those who are unwilling to accept anything they don't understand or perceive to be contrary to themselves and their interests, whether or not it is achieved legally or is not illegal--may communicate and coordinate, may plan, may indoctrinate, may foster discontent and act on it.  In a world in which any person may communicate anything without real effort and find those who share their feelings and support them, and where verification and careful, critical thought is discouraged, many dangerous people will thrive and their ranks will swell.  Manipulation of thought and feelings will be easy.  It's certain that manipulation is taking place.

Curiously, though communication of information and opinion is easy and widespread, ignorance and misunderstanding increases as a consequence.  Contrary information and opinion is available, but one won't become aware of it unless it's sought out.  It can be ignored.  One need not learn anything unless there is a desire to learn.  There is no desire to learn, however, where there is no reason to and prejudice and ignorance is encouraged by a host of others of like minds (if that word can be used) who reinforce accepted views.

Be careful out there.  Zombies of a kind actually do exist and thrive.  They don't eat brains, perhaps, but they don't think they need them, nor do they want to use them.