Is there Sacrifice in Capitalism? What is...happiness?

.....

"Speed of light isn't fast enough for some of us. Duh." Text Sent at 2:00am 7/29/09

Please watch the following video for a tickling of your tummy:
"Everything is amazing, and no one is happy.."


.....

Healthcare and the Beginning of a New Era

As the health care debate unfolds on Capital Hill, I try to grasp, as I assume many Americans do, the details behind the arguments that are being made. Each day I read articles about Obama’s push for health care reform but a majority of what I read fails to cover any substance. I find half-assed articles with big words like socialism and freedom, words used as weapons to instill fear and hide the facts. I want numbers, studies, models, graphs, and in depth coverage. For legislation this big, I want to make sure I know what I’m paying for. Yet none of the major networks, let alone Congress, are giving us anything but political bull. And when Americans watch their chosen representatives play politics, they understandably become discouraged and withdrawn from the discussion, giving the status quo that much more momentum.

I refuse to become tangled. I refuse to withdraw. I think that with narrow and directed discussions about health care reform, our nation can mold the best health care system in the world. As the debate continues into the fall, I will try my best to cut through the fear and tackle the arguments that give cause to our legislation. As such, I will begin with the premise that movement is better than non-movement when there is a train coming strait at you.

Isn’t it undeniably true that our current system must change? The status quo is not working and we must take a step in another direction. Whether we step in fire or water, we will soon learn and readjust. The rising costs of healthcare are simply unsustainable. The train is coming. It is better to do something than nothing. Can everyone agree on that?

The Importance of Being Diverse

As we move through our lives, we all begin to experience some worlds more than others. Whether we see more of the office than the outdoors, more of the streets than the school, more of the city than the jungle, or more of the computer than any thing else, each of us begins to see more of a few and less of the rest.

This past weekend I ventured past the computer, past the front door, past the streets and the buildings of New York, past the suburbs, past the small towns in Upstate New York, and into the Catskill Mountains. I went hiking on a very difficult trail called “Devils Path” by Tannersville, New York. We arrived at 12am and, with our headlamps, hiked to the first peak

It was at the top of the first peak, looking out at the lights from the small towns, the mountains visible by moonlight, and the few clouds that hung about the sky, that I noticed I was far from my world. My world currently consists of a large, shabby apartment in Brooklyn and a Federal Courthouse on Long Island. In between those two, I’ve found a half-world on the LIRR. But these, day in and day out, fill what I call my life, and for that I am grateful. But I understand the extent to which they are limiting. My situation could be much worse. I know many people who spend most of their waking life in front of a computer at a desk in an office. One can imagine the lack of real world stimulation, and cnn.com doesn’t count.

I propose that a limited routine, if not understood in the context of life, can become a health threat and long-term crisis. First, in keeping one’s world small, one misunderstands the relevance of his or her situation. For example, the people who enjoy Dunkin’ Donuts each morning forget that there are others, standing on the same Earth, who, by mere chance, were born into a situation where water is a privilege. They forget all the details that make our world possible. We begin to take life for granted. In doing so, forgetting the rest and focusing on the few, we box ourselves in mentally and physically. This often leads to depression and the fear that any given night we might just fall asleep and wake up thirty years later without really doing anything we wanted to. The illusion our small worlds paint for us seem to lie in wait, until we are old and a bit wiser, at which time they spring up and our mid-life crises set in.

There are some great counterarguments to this point. One argument is that those who are very focused are often the leaders in their fields, the ones who truly represent achievement. I would contend that those who truly enjoy their work actually maintain a much deeper understanding of life because they are more in tune with their dreams, that their mind’s hunger is never crippled, but rather satisfied and expanded with each new discovery, each project they finish. Another argument is that, to a certain extent (and this is certainly true for law students), we limit our routine because it will pay off one day. Concededly, this is the strongest challenge I face. If anyone has any rebuttals now would be the time to voice them. My reservation stems from my belief that this problem is rooted in the structure of American society, specifically, a lack in creative education, but let’s save this for another discussion.

Second, a limited routine cripples the mind’s unusual ability to dream. My assertion depends on the assumption that our minds cannot create something that is absolutely new, meaning, we cannot form an image if we have never seen an image before. Simply put, a limited routine stifles one’s dreams. I believe that all dreams are derivatives of experiences we have actually had. Therefore, if we limit our experiences, we limit our dreams.

To state it clearly, I propose that a limited routine is harmful, but only if one fails to understand the context of one’s life. So how does one understand the context? One option would be to ensure our life is speckled with thoughtful catalysts, such as the one I described above. Any input would be appreciated.

Bears in the Woods and Fear Over Reason

I spent some of this past weekend waiting for a bear. To be precise, about three hours of listening to rustling in the nearby thicket. Knife out, rock in hand, and a good climbing tree in sight, we waited for a ferocious, non-existent bear. We called to the noise, “Hey bear, are you human?” No reply. I was exhausted and wanted nothing more than to sleep. But while waiting for the bear to appear, my mind began to reason as though life depended on it.

The choice was between a few hours of sleep and the security of knowing I controlled my own fate by staying awake and prepared. Sleep, I knew, could decrease my chances of a misstep on the following day’s trek. And so I broke into an internal debate about the consequences and probabilities of the scenarios I had conjured up in my head to explain the noise: a mass murderer, a black bear, a tarp someone left behind or a yeti.

Stepping back for a moment and taking into account all of the possibilities, I realized the probability of an attack was unlikely whether it be bear or human; no human would climb that high, make that much noise, and not respond to our calls and no bear would linger that long. Still, I waited until sunrise and sacrificed a lot of sleep. Fear won over reason.

When I finally laid down, I realized I had abided by the precautionary principle – I acted as though the worse case scenario were immenent and simply denied the fact that it was improbable. Later, I was angry in the morning when we discovered the nearby rustling was only nocturnally-mute humans with a shitty sense of humor. Fear trumped rationality and as I came to my senses later the next day, it began to bother me that I made the wrong decision. On that night, I regret to say, I was not guided by reason.

Is it reasonable to abide by the precautionary principle? If so, when? Does the principle have a place in the court room, particularly in the context of climate change?

Why Cod?

This is not a blog about the Cod fish, per se. However, as law students and avid fishers we find our title quite appropriate.

If you ever find yourself in a New York courtroom one of the first things you will notice are the words “In God We Trust” centrally placed, a few feet above the judge’s bench. It is not exactly surprising to see the phrase, we are accustomed to it by now. Notwithstanding the familiarity of the words, we still feel discomfort when faced with these words in the Court.

What is the significance of “In God We Trust?” Does the phrase presuppose that a God exists? Is the government invoking religion in what is supposed to be a secular judicial system? If so, is there a harm in doing so or is the phrase simply an innocuous nod to past traditions? If our government must invoke a higher power why not display “In the Gods We Trust?” or, “God, If you Exist, We are Hereby Placing Our Trust In Your Good Will To Ensure Our Judicial System Functions Properly?”

The words we choose to display publicly in our ‘human made’ legal system should have nothing to do with any God. For one reason, we did not ask a God’s permission or confer with a God before writing our laws. Our State and Federal legislatures do not have a direct line to heaven. There is no teleconferencing with God before a bill is signed or a judicial decision is issued.

The separation between church and State is one of the strongest features of the United States. Yet our own courtrooms, the arteries by which earthly justice is served, degrade themselves by placing their trust in the supernatural. Courts frequently reject arguments of pure conjecture yet in doing so they are oblivious to their own hypocritical endorsement of the unknown.

The phrase “In God We Trust” does not make sense as a national motto of the United States, a nation founded on the premise that no matter what religion persuaded your soul, you would be free to practice its tenets. We live in a nation of healthy religious diversity, where Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, and hundreds of others walk the streets in peace, holding true to their own beliefs about their place in this world. And let’s not forget the millions of non-believers, people who simply see the world without the supernatural. So who is this “we” that trusts in God? “We” seems to be leaving out many.

Finally, by conflating the judicial system with God, the Court implicitly condones the moral codes of organized religion (or at least in some people’s minds it does). Many monotheistic religions condemn certain behaviors and lifestyles that are natural and acceptable outside of their religions. In fact, most people have a hard time abiding by certain tenants just as a matter of biology. There should be no confusion; the Court should not decide the fate of criminal defendant, determine when human life begins, decide who can marry, or make any other decision under an influence of God. By placing “In God We Trust” in the courtroom, the Court rubber-stamps each decision it makes with God’s authority. In doing so, the Court submits itself, in the name of justice, to a moral rubric that excludes the very people it was meant to protect.


What would be some good alternatives? One suggestion is: “By Reason We Are Guided.” Any other ideas? What do you think about the phrase?