Don’t get me wrong here, I’m all in favor of confirming well-accomplished and superbly educated individuals to the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States).  And I’m sure Obama’s hand picked candidates are hard working men and women, in this case all women, whose lives showcase the upward mobility possible only in America.  The problem though is that all of that simply isn’t enough.  As David Brooks of the NY Times points out, the recent Supreme Court nominees under Obama lack much when it comes to being a member of the highest court in the land.   He says the biggest issue is the simple fact that both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are ultimately products of professional American meritocracy, a system where only those who are overly cautious about not stepping on anyone’s toes succeed; one where only the submissive, crowd pleasing, and non-risk-taking rise to the top.  Elena Kagan perfectly fits this description; her collegues report her as being very cautious, especially in her dealings with other individuals, and she really is not known for any remarkable or unique intellectual positions she has held in regards to the law and politics.

So the problem is that I fear more and more Supreme Court nominees in the future will be like Kagan or worse.  Sure they got the credentials, such as an Ivy League education and elite positions within the government and academia, but do they have the right personality and set of experiences that can lead the nation to having a dynamic and truly effective Supreme Court?  This I heavily doubt.

We all talk about how “dissatisfied” all Americans are with “Obamacare” and the oncoming socialist/quasi communist takeover within our government, but do any of you obstructionists begin to wonder how frustrated and fed-up many other Americans are at you?! In the end, your dreaded “Obamacare” will pass despite the fact you tried to hold the bill, and the nation, hostage with your promised “filibustering.”

But just to be clear on the whole matter, I have severe issues with the current health care bill, such as how it short changes many states which have great Medicaid programs (e.g. New York). Also, I am kind of worried as to how this whole bill will affect small businesses. (There are plenty more, but these are the ones that pop to mind as of right now…although we shouldn’t forget about all the healthcare lobbyists’ fingerprints on this bill either)  Nevertheless, some of the positives of this bill, such as expanding coverage to tens of millions of more Americans and eliminating all that pre-existing conditions garbage, makes it better than having no bill at all.

As for what Republicans had to say about all of this, listen to Mitch McConnel, the Senate Minority leader, when he says, “They’re making a vigorous effort to try to jam this down the throats of the American people, who don’t want it. We think that’s a policy mistake, and we think resorting to these kind of tactics, to thumb your noses at the American people, is something that ought to be resisted.”

Oh, shut still your quasi-turtle face, Senator McConnel! You’re partly the reason we’re in this mess.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/health/policy/04health.html?hp

Here’s the link:

http://blog.indecisionforever.com/2009/04/29/jon-stewarts-extended-interview-with-cliff-may/

Great stuff, seriously! Even May says himself, “Literally, this is the best conversation I have had on this subject anywhere.”

Water boarding is the new fad when it comes to interrogating suspected terrorists nowadays, but to hold such of view of this ancient practice is to be just plain ignorant.  Contrary to public belief, water boarding is not a “new” method of “enhanced interrogation” but is actually a torture practice dating back to the 14^th century.  Now of course, back then there were definitely harsher interrogation techniques, but nevertheless water boarding was believed to be a form of torture.  As in matter in fact, the phenomenon of calling it a form of “enhanced interrogation” is actually quite recent.

First, let’s look at the history of water boarding.  It was the Spanish Inquisition that first implemented it and since then it has been used throughout the Middle Ages.  Once the Enlightenment hit however, some people became “enlightened” and thought the practice as barbaric and inhumane.  So soon after, the practice moved away from the public eye and was done rarely and secretly.  In the 20^th century however, water boarding made a comeback as the Brits used it in Palestine, the French in Algeria, the U.S. in the Philippines, the Japanese in World War II, and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

Focusing more on the U.S.’s history with water boarding, during the Spanish American War, a U.S. major implemented it.  Consequently, that major was suspended for a month and fined; the reason was, according to the judge, because “the United States cannot afford to sanction the addition of torture.”  It’s also important to note that the U.S. convicted a Japanese official in 1947 of war crimes for water boarding an American civilian. The criminal was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.  Another case of water boarding happened in the Vietnam War, when an American soldier was found to have water boarded a North Vietnamese soldier to extract information.  The U.S. military promptly investigated and had the soldier court martialed. 

So, this all begs the question, why is water boarding torture?  Well I think common sense alone can explain this quite sufficiently, but for those more in tune with the artificial legality of things, perhaps this will help.  According to the UN Convention of Torture that President Ronald Reagan signed, “torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him…information…” Now if you’re at this point in the article and still don’t think water boarding is torture; I highly recommend you go and experience water boarding.  Perhaps then, after you undergo simulated drowning with your throat being filled with water 83 times, or in the case of Khalid Sheik Muhammad, 183 times; maybe then you’ll realize water boarding does actually cause “severe pain” and “suffering” that is both “physical” and “mental.”  And please, don’t pull any Orwellian shenanigans. 

            So recently I attended an event where eminent Harvard historian, Niall Ferguson, and senior fellow at Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis, Jeff Madrick, spoke about the current economic crisis.  These two men are both highly regarded individuals when it comes to academic matters, especially when it concerns economic history.  Madrick, it seems, is a liberal Keynesian academic while Ferguson is very much conservative and classical on economic matters; the guy thinks the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression.  Overall it was very enjoyable to see these two intellectuals spar when it came to the issue of debts, Keynesian economics, the outlook of the American economy, and President Obama’s economic policies.

            On debts the two men differed greatly.  Ferguson, the more articulate and charming of the two, lambasted America’s absence of “thrift spending” and called for people to save more out of their income.  He argued, that according to basic economics, saving would in the long run better serve the American economy.  Madrick, in response, said the average American income, adjusted with inflation, has flat-lined and perhaps even decreased since the late 1960s; thus by in large, the idea of there being an overly consumerist American is a myth.  Ferguson shot back saying regardless, data proves debt is increasing when compared to previous decades, and that Madrick’s focus on middle class spending is the wrong way to approach it.  Because in reality, according to Ferguson, the debt is largely from the rich, upper class, and that it is precisely the mishandling of this money amongst the rich that greatly contributed to the current financial mess.  The two men continued to argue over whose data was “more right”, so the moderator moved on to a different topic.

            As for Keynesian economics, Ferguson handsomely critiqued it as mainly a form of economics that has become too politicized and simplified to be efficiently utilized by the government.  But more fundamentally, he believes the long-term effects of intensive Keynesian economics, such as large deficits and debt, eventually hamper and stagnate the overall economy.  He cited the current state of the Japanese economy to support his view.  Madrick, in defense of Keynesian policies and now Obama’s, said the massive intervention and regulation of government both fiscally and monetarily is necessary.  The loss of entire businesses, financial structures, and the economic lives of individuals must be avoided if possible, and it is Keynesian policies that do exactly that.  Both Madrick and Ferguson did agree however that Keynesian economics has become oversimplified and too politicized though.

            As for the outlook on the American economy, both had very pessimistic views, and Ferguson said the Obama Administration’s predictions of economic growth next year were that of “fairy tales.”  They both blamed economists, yet surprisingly not themselves, for being unable to see this financial hurricane coming.  Although on a lighter side, Ferguson remarked that the United State is doing much better than many other countries, especially the East Asian ones, where GDP is expected to fall about 10% and that the U.S. bailout, when proportionately compared to China’s, is relatively small.  The U.S. will instead, in Ferguson view, will have a GDP contraction of only around 2 or 3 percent.

            Now as for President Obama’s policies, both had their criticisms, but it was really Ferguson who had the harshest words.  The man said the main issue now was the incoming collision that would occur between Obama’s monetary policy and his fiscal policy.  Ferguson warned that the tremendous debt resulting from Obama’s massive fiscal increases and the Federal Reserve dropping the interest rate to near 0% would cause very high interest rates in the near future.  The Harvard academic was very concerned about this, because such a future will harm the economy over the long run.

            I must say though, Niall Ferguson, despite the fact he’s opposite me when it comes to economic matters, is a man whom I greatly admire and respect.  His intellectual prowess and charming wit, not to mention his great ability at articulating himself, always leave a deep impression upon me.  Jeff Madrick was great too, but Niall was really amazing; it’s people like him that make me want to become a renowned academic. I recommend all you guys check out Ferguson further; he’s also a great history writer!

To better illustrate this, noted academic Wendell Berry in his article “Faustian Economics” tells of two literary characters who play out the eventual fate of mankind if it continues on its current path. He first points out Doctor Faust from The Tragic History of Doctor Faust and explains Faust’s mortally impossible goal to consume all the knowledge in the world. Desperate to accomplish his ambition, Faust makes an ill fated pact with the devil and is eventually damned because of it. Secondly, Berry introduces Satan from Paradise Lost who rebels against God as he cannot accept the prospect of relegating himself to a higher authority. Within the explanation of these two beings, Berry enlightens the reader showing that both Doctor Faust and Satan ignore their all too real limitations and instead futilely aspire for unfeasible aspirations. In the same respect contemporary man is just the same.

We are like Faust in that we ignore our all too human flaws and embrace the view that our own ability will lead us to a better tomorrow with more resources to plunder and more technology to capitalize so that we may keep afloat our highly consumerist, materialistic culture. Usually though we say such beliefs in a different way, substituting “our ability” with the words “free market” and “science” as our vehicles of progress. Many intelligent people have exclaimed “the free market will eventually find valid alternative fuel sources” or “science will eventually solve the global climate crisis” and show the almost religious faith they have in humanity’s own seemingly infinite ability. Yet oil prices just keep rising as the rate of production and discovery of new oil fields remains the same and consumption keeps doubling, tripling, quadrupling or whatever it is now. Of course on the up side we can always exchange our needless farmland that feeds much of the third world with fields of “green” fuel; a situation where food really is for oil, and where society, well American society anyway, really is progressing.

Like Satan we cannot accept the fact we are not gods and yet act like we are deities. We speak of this almost divine right we have when we go about consuming endlessly, saying in defense that such frivolous spending is “good for the economy”; and view our struggle against our own realistic limitations as heroic and romantic, just as how Satan saw his rebellion was against God, which was in actuality grounded in Satan’s own narcissism. We ought to know our place in the world and accept our all too human qualities, understanding that this cycle of voraciously feeding on the earth will destroy the once pristine Appalachian Mountains as we torn the coal asunder from them and as we let our halcyon Californian forests burn from global warming’s unfortunate progression.

Have we reached our zenith or are we already past it? Maybe the real key to our success on this temporal earth is to realize the limits of our existence like an artist knows the boundaries of the wall he paints on or like how a playwright understands the limited extent his audience will sit and pay attention to the stage. Such people have to enrich themselves in their confines and create wonderful masterpieces that are enjoyed by every new generation; there is no doubt everyone here can name a literary work they read over and over and receive a different perspective each time. Like them, we should acknowledge our limitations and know we may not go beyond them; and within such confines we can augment ourselves to an infinite level. As a great teacher once said, “an inch wide and a mile deep”.

Sources:
Much of this article’s ideas came from Wendell Berry’s article “Faustian Economics” in this month’s Harper’s Magazine. A great article; I advise everyone to check it out!

]]> http://www.envisionmore.net/our-all-too-human-selves/feed/ 3