Not the pontifex maximus*

 

Cenchrus spinifex may well be our most annoying native grass. Many people would replace “annoying” with “painful,” given how readily the spikes on its seed capsules penetrate human skin (something I can attest to from years of experience). On July 13th in Great Hills Park I noticed that a stalk of this grass was growing close to a Mexican hat (Ratibida columnifera). You can see that two of the spiky seed capsules had come off and attached themsleves to the Mexican hat. Later I had to remove lots of them from my shoelaces, the soles of my shoes, and the mat I’d knelt on. Ah, what nature photographers endure for the sake of pictures.

 

* “The pontifex maximus (Latin for ‘supreme pontiff‘) was the chief high priest of the College of Pontiffs (Collegium Pontificum) in ancient Rome. This was the most important position in the ancient Roman religion, open only to patricians until 254 BC, when a plebeian first occupied this post.” You can read more in Wikipedia.

 

 

§

§        §        §

§

 

 

I think most people believe that similar things should be treated in similar ways. Evidence shows, however, that “should be treated” often differs from “are treated.” For example, we often see that when someone in political party X does something egregious, members in opposing party Y rightfully criticize the offender while members of party X support the offender; but then when someone in party Y commits a similar offense, members in opposing party X rightfully criticize the offender while members of party Y support the offender.

We do allow some amount of subjectivity. If person A and person B and person C with similar backgrounds are separately convicted of embezzling a million dollars in similar ways, and the judge in the first case hands down a sentence of 7 years in prison while the judge in the second case hands down a sentence of 8 years in prison and the judge in the third case hands down a sentence of 9 years in prison, we still feel justice has been done. But if a fourth person is convicted under similar circumstances and gets off with only probation, or a fifth person in similar circumstances gets 25 years in prison, we feel justice has not been served in those two cases.

I couldn’t help noticing an example of different treatment on July 19th, when the House of Representatives held a hearing with two whistleblowers from the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) who gave evidence of the ways in which people in charge at the IRS and the Department of Justice impeded the whistleblowers’ investigation into income tax violations by Hunter Biden, the son of the president of the United States. During the course of the hearings, one representative from Georgia stirred up a controversy. As reported in The Hill that day:

 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) leaned in on some of the more salacious issues concerning Hunter Biden in her questioning of IRS whistleblowers who investigated Biden at a House Oversight Committee hearing Wednesday — and brought sexually explicit posters to make her point.

“Before we begin, I would like to let the committee and everyone watching at home know that parental discretion is advised,” Greene said.

Greene’s questioning included her holding up small posters featuring graphic sexual photos from the laptop hard drive that purportedly belonged to Hunter Biden, which were censored with black boxes.

The faces of others involved in the sexual acts were censored with black boxes, but Biden’s face is visible in the photos.

 

Many people in the opposing political party were outraged that the Georgia representative had shown such salacious photographs in a meeting of adults, even though the representative had announced beforehand that parental discretion is advised in case any children were watching the hearing then or in later playbacks of the proceedings. And yet some (perhaps many) of the outraged representatives have been advocating for books with illustrations of sexual acts—and without any black boxes covering up intimate body parts—to be allowed in public school libraries. They call the keeping of such graphically explicit books out of schools “censorship.”

I’ll grant you that we could have done without the provocations of the Representative from Georgia. Similarly, I think we could agree that books with explicit illustrations of sexual acts aren’t appropriate for school libraries. Parents who want their children to see such books can buy them themselves or take them out of the public library.

 

© 2023 Steven Schwartzman