Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Cremation Solicitation
The Northern Lights have seen queer sights
But the queerest they ever did see,
Was that night on the marge of Lake Lebarge
I cremated Sam McGee.
—Robert William Service, The Cremation of Sam McGee
It was only fortuitous but clearly felicitous-the story in the Wall Street Journal about the increasing popularity of cremation and my printed invitation to get one for free. The Wall Street Journal story written by Jeffrey Zaslow appeared on February 3 and my invitation arrived the same day. The WSJ described the increasing popularity of cremation as a way of addressing the question of what to do with one’s family and friends following their demise.
According to the WSJ, in 1980 about 4% of families were choosing cremation and today that number has increased to 39%. The Cremation Association of North America projects that within 15 years the number of folks seeking cremation (post mortem, of course) will increase to 60%. Using the Cremation Association’s statistics we are informed that each of us when cremated weighs approximately 5 pounds (good news for those who spent their entire lives worrying about being overweight) and the combined total of all those being cremated in a year is approximately 338 tons. Mr. Zaslow spends much of his tale describing the places favored by those responsible for disposing of the ashes following the cremation and those looking for ideas are referred to his story in the WSJ. It was a truly remarkable coincidence that on the very day Mr. Zaslow’s story appeared in the newspaper my invitation for a free cremation appeared in my mail box.
The return address on the envelope indicated that the sender was the Neptune Society located in Arvada, Colorado and next to its name was a seal with the words “Memorialized Cremation” and 4 towers resembling smoke stacks from two of which wisps of smoke seem to be emerging. (The seal is quite small and even assisted by a magnifying glass I cannot be sure they are in fact smokestacks.) On the face of the envelope, beneath my name, was printed “Free Pre-paid cremation! DETAILS INSIDE.”
Although an offer of anything for free is tantalizing, I was slightly apprehensive since I was sure the contents would disclose, as do so many seemingly irresistible offers, that there was a time limit associated with the offer and that in order to take advantage of it I would have to agree to be cremated by a date certain selected by the Neptune Society, probably in a month in which cremations are typically low. It was, therefore, with some relief that upon opening the envelope I learned that although the contents breached the envelope’s promise of a free cremation, there was no time limit for taking advantage of the offer. It would be valid even if I chose to live another 40 or 50 years. The breach of promise, as it were, was that I had not won a free cremation as promised by the envelope but had only been given a chance to participate in a drawing where, if successful, I would be entitled to be cremated for free no matter how long after the drawing I decided to postpone the happy event.
The enclosed letter explained that the Neptune Society has the distinction of being “America’s Cremation Specialists” and informs that Neptune’s motto is “Simple, Economical and Dignified.” The letter sets forth a number of reasons why cremation (after death) makes sense including the fact that by paying for the cremation now you “lock in today’s price” no matter when you decide to die. Somewhat mysteriously, the letter concludes with a footnote apologizing “if this letter has reached you at a time of serious illness or death in your family.” That seems odd since that is exactly the time when such a letter would be most relevant and, depending on the time of the next drawing, welcomed by its recipient.
Enclosed with the letter was the ticket to participate in the drawing. It was in the form of a card, the completion and return of which entitles me to be entered in the free cremation lottery. On one side of the card is a tranquil picture of a misty forest with shades of green faintly visible through the mist. On the back of the card is a quotation from Eleanor Roosevelt that has no particular relevance to cremation. It says: “Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, and today is a gift; that’s why they call it the present.” The quotation would be more meaningful if it meant that each recipient of the card got the present of a free cremation instead of the opportunity to participate in a drawing.
I have not returned the card. I am waiting to see if those selling cryogenic preservation with the tantalizing prospect of possible future resurrection will be having a drawing in which I can participate. Then I can decide whether to go for the hot or the cold. I’ll not enter both.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Heeere's Johnny.
No matther whether th’ constitution follows th’ flag or not, th’ supreme coort follows th’ iliction returns.
— Finley Peter Dunne, The Supreme Court’s Decision
It seemed rude, but Sammy was just coming to the defense of a colleague. It happened during the State of the Union address when Sammy mouthed the words “Not true” in response to the President’s comments about a recently decided U.S. Supreme Court case. Johnny was still smarting, insofar as a Chief Justice of the United States ever smarts, from the fact that that decision demonstrated that when testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee at his confirmation hearing, he had his fingers crossed.
One of the issues that concerned some of the senators during that hearing was whether Judge Roberts’s ideology would cause him to ignore the established principle of stare decisis that says courts should give great weight to judicial precedent and be slow to overturn established law. The reasons for the rule were best expressed by Judge Roberts himself when in response to questions from Senator Arlen Specter he said:
“I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness. It is not enough—and the court has emphasized this on several occasions—it is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided. That really doesn’t answer the question, it just poses the question.
And you do look at these other factors, like settled expectations, like the legitimacy of the court, like whether a particular precedent is workable or not, whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments. All of those factors go into the determination of whether to revisit a precedent under the principles of stare decisis. . . . If a[n] overruling of a prior precedent is a jolt to the legal system, it is inconsistent with principles of stability. . . . [T]he principles of stare decisis recognize that there are situations when that’s a price that has to be paid.”
On January 21, 2010, in the case of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, the Chief Justice was part of the 5 person majority that overruled decades of established law to find that the law limiting corporate expenditures in political campaigns is unconstitutional even though, as Justice Stevens observed in his dissent, the Court had adequate grounds to rule in favor of the plaintiffs without holding the statute unconstitutional. Mindful of his senate testimony, the Chief Justice wrote a 14-page mea culpa (in legal parlance called a concurring opinion) explaining why his vote to overrule earlier cases did not overrule his testimony before the U.S. Senate. What was notable about the Chief Justice’s concurring opinion was not so much what he wrote as to how it came to be written.
Citizens was first argued before the Supreme Court in March, 2009 and a decision was expected by late June. Instead, on June 29th the Court announced that it had set the case for reargument one month before its regular fall term was to begin and set a schedule for the filing of briefs. It said that it wanted the hear argument on the very issues that the parties had stipulated were not being presented to the Court. It asked the parties to advise it whether it should overrule either or both of two prior rulings on campaign finance law. Justice Stevens observes in his 94 page dissent that the parties had agreed that neither side was attacking the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 insofar as it prevented corporations from making independent expenditures for speech that is an “electioneering communication” or that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. Commenting on the procedural issues, Justice Stevens said that although there was initially a “facial challenge to the constitutionality of Section 203 [of the Act]” . . . . [i]n its motion for summary judgment . . . Citizens United expressly abandoned its facial challenge. . . and the parties stipulated to the dismissal of that claim.” He observes that the Court typically does not anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it nor formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise fact to which it is to be applied.
Only time will tell whether Citizens will open the monetary floodgates to corporate involvement in political campaigns since corporations can now make independent expenditures in support of candidates or parties. What no one can debate is that by joining the members of the Court who said the case should be reframed and reargued so that the Court could overrule earlier decisions, the Chief Justice made a mockery of his statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Not that it matters. He now is where he wanted to be and no one can touch him.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Handshakes, Cricket and Sexual Intercourse
Difference of Religion breeds more quarrels than difference of politics.
— Wendell Phillips, 1860 Speech
In a competition with Pat Robertson for proving how stupid one can be, it’s hard to win, but Dubai, Iran and Pakistan gave it a good try. Pat’s entry into the “Can you believe how stupid I am” competition was his explanation that the Haitian earthquake resulted from a pact with the devil made by the Haitians to rid themselves of the French. The legal system in Dubai, a diplomatic reception in Spain and cricket in Pakistan were Mr. Robertson’s competitors.
Until the most recent event, Dubai had been in the news because of its near brush with financial death that preceded by just a few weeks the opening in Dubai of the tallest building in the world. Its entry in this contest had nothing to do with that. Its entry came courtesy of its legal system. Reports in assorted media described the plight of an unmarried British couple comprising a 23-year-old woman of Pakistani descent who, with her 43-year old male traveling companion, traveled to Dubai for New Year’s Eve. During the visit the woman was raped by a hotel employee in a public bathroom. The couple promptly reported the assault to the police who being detectives realized that this unmarried couple was sharing a hotel room. Ignoring the claim of rape, officials charged them both with having illegal sex and drinking alcohol in an unauthorized location. Given the seriousness of those offenses, their passports were taken and they may not return home until the investigation is completed. One report says that police are skeptical that a rape occurred. Dubai police apparently think life for tourists in Dubai is so dull that the couple made up the story in order to make their trip more interesting.
If the couple is ultimately convicted, they face up to six years in prison The director of the police station that arrested them explained to Gulf News that: “Our rules are clear in the U.A.E.; illegal drinking and sexual intercourse is considered an offense, so a case was filed against the couple as well.” (There are almost certainly circumstances in Dubai when sexual intercourse is not considered an offense. People planning on traveling there should not rely on the preceding sentence but should do their own investigation into the rules covering this activity.)
For our next example we travel to Spain. The question presented by events in that country is what happened at a diplomatic reception given by the king and queen for ambassadors and ministers. It involved a handshake or a non-handshake. One of the ministers in attendance was Stas Misezhnikov, Israel’s tourism minister. Another was Iran’s tourism minister, Hamid Baghaei. According to Mr. Misezhnikov’s assistant, the two ministers shook hands at the reception. Iran, which we have seen time and again, can get excited over the most peculiar things, was furious. Its tourism ministry issued a statement in which it said that the suggestion of a handshake was “an ugly and false rumor”. It went on to say that Iranian officials present at the reception “never encountered Israeli officials in any form,” thus putting to rest any thought that its minister might have had contact with some disembodied form of Israeli floating around the room in spectral fashion. To reaffirm the preposterousness of a handshake the statement said Iran considered “the permanent struggle against this international pariah its divine duty.” Although Iran may have hoped that statement would earn it the prize, it was competing with Pakistan. That kafuffle involved cricket rather than a handshake.
One of the big cricket events that takes place each year is the cricket tournament in India sponsored by the Indian Premier League. Prior to the tournament there is an auction in which players are selected to participate in the tournament. The winning teams in the tournament make a great deal of money. Pakistan’s players are acknowledged to be the champions of the kind of cricket that is played in the tournaments and in years gone by have been chosen to participate. Their acknowledged prowess notwithstanding, this year none of the Pakistanis was chosen by the 8 teams that the Indian Premier League comprises.
That failure was almost as offensive to Pakistan as the non-existent handshake to Iran. Pakistan’s interior minister, Rehman Malik says the failure to choose Pakistani players had nothing to do with their skill but, instead, was a diplomatic statement. He said: “The manner in which the players were insulted showed that India is not serious about the peace process with Pakistan.” He said that he was convinced that the Indian government had put pressure on owners of the teams not to bid on any Pakistani players. S.M. Krishna, India’s foreign minister responded saying: “Government has nothing to do with I.P.L. on selection of players and various exercises that are connected with it.”
As I said at the outset, Pat Robertson hasn’t cornered the market on nutty behavior. He has no reason to be ashamed of his effort, however.