Supreme Court Diversity, Justice Sotomayor and GMOs.

Supreme Court Diversity, Justice Sotomayor and GMOs.

When I hear someone call for diversity these days, I am never sure which way the intent is directed.  But this I read a while back and gave pause.  Justice Sotomayor said in an interview at Brooklyn Law School, “I, for one, do think there is a disadvantage from having (five) Catholics, three Jews, everyone from an Ivy League school (on the Supreme Court).”  

Here we have a justice calling for a different kind of diversity on the Supreme Court.  And it makes sense.  She seems to suggest that Justices from other law schools may bring different perspectives.  This is sorely needed.  

In 2014 the Supreme Court ruled that “Monsanto may sue a farmer whose field  was accidentally contaminated with Monsanto materials.”  On the surface this seems to make some sense.  There is a patent by Monsanto which protects the GMO seeds which they have developed.  GM surely has thousands of patents to protect devices they have developed for their cars.  

There is a problem here.  Cars are a material object created by humans.  But seeds and the way these function have been developed over millions of years by Nature to assure their survival and success.  To give the right to a company to sue for what Nature has been doing since, well, since the earth cooled, displays a level of ignorance or complicity which is nothing short of scary.  How can it be ignorance?  

We live now in Georgia and where we live can have some strange wind patterns.  Often in the morning the wind comes from the west, later on from the south and occasionally from the east and once in a while from the north.  The seeds I plant can conceivably be contaminated from a large area.  I could plant trees around the border and this would reduce the chances of cross pollination but certainly would not end it.  So the ignorance rests on the utter cluelessness of how weather can work with Nature.  How a farmer’s heritage seeds can be contaminated by “an act of God”.  The Supreme Court Justices might alter their views, if they understood farming.  There is also the danger in allowing a company to have a patent for a seed and give them the right to check another farmer’s field without permission or knowledge.

This ruling clearly is for the benefit of giant companies to be able to control who manages the food supply, not just for the USA but for the entire world.  This is where complicity comes in.  It is illogical to assume that when someone becomes a Supreme Court Justice that they delete their past, their past of employment, their past education, their past views.  After all, who and what each of us is depends on what we read, studied, heard and where we worked.

So when this ruling was made, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion.  From 1976- 1979 Thomas worked as a corporate lawyer for Monsanto.  This, to me, is a serious conflict of interest.  He did not recuse himself.  It appears that members of the Supreme court are exempt from having to recuse themselves, when a case comes up in which a former associate or employer is involved.  They are permitted to evaluate their own obligation to recuse themselves.  A rather convenient arrangement.  

Justice Thomas has received gifts from groups which support programs such as those developed by Monsanto.  $15,000 bucks from American Enterprise Institute which opposes regulations on GMOs,  speaking engagements at organizations which also oppose GMO regulations.

So it seems that integrity is not only lacking in Congress and the Executive branch but also the Judiciary.  This is scary because one thing, it seems to me, preserves what freedoms we have and that is the fact that one branch of government is supposed to watch the other.  This conflict between the three branches has kept them off of our backs, for the most part, for more than two centuries.  

There is not much doubt that corporations play a huge part in elections, in both parties.  This is clear when we see how Senators respond and how Congress people respond and how Presidents respond. President Obama appointed Michael Taylor to run the FDA.  Where did he work previous to his appointment?  He was a lobbyist for Monsanto!

Who appoints Justices?  The President.  Where do they come from?  Many from corporations, major power interests.  President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia.  Where did he work?  For a company which defends corporations.

Just exactly where in all this are the interests of the country as a whole defended?  

Modern Epicureans as Anti-intellectuals

Current argument by some claim that there are certain matters settled and beyond dispute.  I agree that some issues come under this group:  the distance of the sun from the Earth, or that the Earth revolves around the Sun.  There are hundreds of others.  But there are some problems which science, for example, faces which are at least questionable. 

Lets change subjects for a moment and think about the ideas of Marcus Tullius Cicero.  He wrote a book, On the Nature of the Gods in 45 BC.  It consists of a dialogue between Cicero, his friends, Balbus, Velleius and Cotta.  Cicero narrates but hardly participates in the discussion.  As though he sits at the side, follows the conversation and thinks of what is said.

Velleius submits the argument of the Epicureans who argued that only things exist. And these things, atoms are constantly shifting about and that no object ever remains the same.  He carries his argument to all areas. God does not exists for God does not consist of atoms.  The ideas in your head can not be the same as those in mine.  Pleasure and pain determine how we act, why we act (because only atoms, physical objects interact).  Thus we seek pleasure but avoid pain.  No one does something for country because it is right but because there is some personal advantage for doing so.  Such as saving the country to protect one’s own property.  Any argument or piece of litarature outside of these limits is not worthy of study.

One of the characters in the dialogue, Balbus, a Stoic, critiques Velleius’ points.  Balbus makes the case that Epicureanism tends to be dogmatic- here is the list of what is true, learn it and then one will know; that here is no need for knowledge outside of what the senses provide, because Epicurus (the founder of Epicureanism) has transmitted to all posterity what is true and what is false; that Epicurus saw no need for examining any other system of thought or anyone else’s ideas; that any system which disputes Epicurus is not just wrong, but foolish; that Epicureanism has the tendency to argue that the matter is settled and case is closed.  Balbus is extensive in his arguments to refute Velleius and Epicureanism.  

But all this leads to a question about Epicureanism.  If it had gained ascendency and had the power to enforce its views, would it be tolerant of different views?  After all does dogma see any need for dispute?  Epicureanism never says that it appears to be correct but that it is correct. 

At the end of the dialogue, Cicero says that he favors the Stoics but realizes that upon further study, he may change his mind.

My concerns is that if only things exist and constantly change how can love or justice or courage be nailed down?  It would be like nailing jelly to a tree (as Dick Goddard used to say). In fact how can any aspect of life be understood in any way except as objects of matter?

It seems to me that modern liberals (I despise the use of that word- it is derived from Latin, liber-free, al- pertaining to. pertaining to the essence of what freedom is.  But it is the word in vogue, so here we go.)  modern liberals are much like the followers of Epicurus.  First they are followers, they deny any value to an idea which questions theirs.  They hurl snide remarks at those who offer a different perspective (as Velleius does in Cicero’s book), there is no need for discussion, no need for debate and certainly no need for study of anything but accepted liberal views.  In the end Epicureans and modern liberals are curiously anti-intellectual.  And had they ascended to indisputable preeminence, no ideas but their own would be tolerated.

It is interesting and telling that Epicureans saw little of value in Cicero’s ideas.  Yet, it was Cicero who took advantage of an opportunity to save the school in Athens which Epicurus set up, because Cicero felt that all systems of thought deserved a reading and study.  Ironic is it not?  Or is it?

Liberty and Common Core

These are thoughts about Liberty and Common Core.  The comments evolved on Face Book from a nice discussion on an article about whether there should be evaluative tests, written tests or that these should be eliminated. 

 A friend of mine made the point about Common Core exams/tests that these rely less on recall and more on the performance of complex tasks where there is more than one right answer.  Those are good points and a nice observation on Common Core.  I can see the attraction for some of these features.  The problem I see with Common Core tests and one I feel is loaded with danger is that the writers of the tests determine what is taught.  This may seem a strange point but bear with me, please.  I use the following as a means to make my point.  

I taught Latin.  In some ways I liked the AP Latin tests, but what bothered me was the clear indication (as the years passed- I did not notice it for some time) that the same passages were hit over and over in terms of say a five year period.  Thus there were passages never hit which were stunning displays of artistic quality and of personal value for a student’s view of life.  My point here is that those who wrote the tests and selected the passages had the imprint of THEIR view of what  was significant in a piece of literature.  I noted, too, that the authors selected and the works selected represented the social and even political views of the test designers (This point is picked up later).  These points make the case that a teacher would tend to focus on what the test designers felt was valuable.  I ignored that, frequently, but the time constraints made it difficult to fit in.  My system jeopardized my students' performance on the exam, because I did not always select passages for my tests which I knew may be on the exam.  I hope that these sentences make my point understandable.  

I have another example.  I investigated the International Baccalaureate syllabus for Latin.  I was stunned to see that every author selected, every one, was from the imperial period, there was nothing from those authors who defended liberty, free speech and opposed tyranny.  Of course, I point out that we are a country which cherishes liberty.  I understand the title of the program is IB, but even so, it is heavily promoted here in the U.S.A.. My concern is this- it is dangerous to have authors selected or tests designed by a centralized group.  It will defend its turf against a challenge.  

Years ago a group of Latin teachers, like my self, asked the committee which selects authors and passages for AP Latin courses to help with the process.  These were permitted to sit in the room with the committee, but were not permitted to ask questions, make comments, written or spoken.  And this was the result of an extended set of negotiations.  

I might add that the Romans never had any national syllabus or anything vaguely similar to public education, yet there was very strong similarity between the authors covered by one teacher or group of teachers and another.  Yet, because there was no national control of any kind, teachers were known to tailor their program to the interests of individual students.  Even in the imperial period, teachers continued to teach authors who defended liberty and fought against tyranny.  Thus there was for a long time a constant stream of those who opposed the manner in which some emperors operated and challenged conventional thinking.  Opposition ended when a way was found to end the system where teachers designed their own program.

Uniformity in Education

Is it wise to want sameness and /or uniformity?

I admire the paintings of Monet.  Do I need to compare the paintings of Monet to Renoir in order to know that his paintings are beautiful and well done? Do I need to compare Raphael to Michelangelo in order to know that Raphael has skill?  There is great skill in each but in terms of consistency, consistency between one and the other in terms of presentation, there is very little similarity.  Each approaches their area in a different way and one can not be used to evaluate the other.  Yes, there is value in comparing and contrasting one great work with another.  But only in terms of enhancing our love and admiration for each.  If we compare great works for the purpose of producing uniformity, we do so at the risk of killing creativity, expression and freedom of thought.

So what are we doing comparing the students of Oregon to those in New Jersey?  We are comparing a product.  There is great value in a set of same products to be not similar.  I noticed through the years that business terms and industry terms crept more and more into education speak.  It may be a coincidence but I doubt it.  Language usually reflects how people think about things.

In production of an object, there is great value in sameness.  But a human is not a product, but a distinct individual with intellect.  

How does making kids into a product comport with all this talk about individuality and thinking outside the box?  What we are doing with nationalized tests and national standards is creating uniformity.  This is weird in terms of all this talk of diversity, divergent thinking and independent thinking.  Those are smoke screens for what is actually happening.  What we have is a push to create uniformity in thought on a number of areas.  I once had In School Suspension duty one period a day at West G.  Boring job, but in the suspension room were text books for examination for adoption on a shelf.  So I picked up American history books and selected a period.  I chose the abolitionist movement.  It mentioned famous Black activists who worked for it, certain groups who did the same.  But not a word of the real hot bed of the abolitionist movement:  the churches.  I wonder why.  I noticed, too, that when it came time to discuss the modern civil rights movement that Martin Luther King was referred to as Dr. King, never Reverend King.  His reference to news papers at the time was always Reverend King.  The civil rights movement first began and maintained its drive in the churches.  Yet, the insistence of some for the necessity of uniformity and the zeal for some committee to decide what topics to approach, how to approach these and how long, controls in a nuanced manner what people know about something and how they feel about particular individuals, ignored some interesting facts.

I showed Inherit the Wind several times in class.  It portrays in a fictional manner the trial which took place in Tennessee years ago.  A teacher was on trial for teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution.  Frederick March, Spencer Tracy and Gene Kelly gave impressive performances.  We had been translating selections from Cicero where he presented arguments on difficult and controversial topics.  We watched the movie 20 to 30 minutes each day followed by a series of questions to make sure the students followed the arguments.  The main point of the movie was that the teacher was not permitted to express his views on a controversial subject.  The court room exchanges were engaging and dramatic.  At the end of the movie, I gave a brief presentation on Intelligent Design which has been relentlessly attacked by many.    I then asked my students to write a paper constructing an argument why a teacher should be allowed to present a case for Intelligent Design.  

I was looking for two things- 1. I wanted the students to take arguments used in the movie to justify why someone should be allowed to present an argument for a controversial topic such as ID, 2. I wanted the students to confront the defense of an idea with which they might not agree.  

How would a review committee of Common Core (or by whatever name it goes) feel about my idea?

One more.  I taught Latin a particular way.  Others I knew by the dozens taught another way.  Some used one textbook method, others a different one.  Each method was quite different from other systems.  It would never occur to me to dictate to another Latin teacher, which book to use, which method to employ, what history topics to cover or what was valuable in an author.  Each teacher must employ that system which best suits their nature and personality.  To enforce my views upon them would be a disaster.  And that is what we have with CC.  

I suggest that any system which sets standards for education contains the values and views of those committee members who write out the program.  Their values may be fine points, but their values and the necessity for uniformity end up preventing alternate views, alternate views which just may increase admiration for those values of the committee or even improve them or perhaps cause those to be rejected.  At the heart of this is the ability to critique a viewpoint, the right to think outside the box and the right to think.  This is a dangerous path we have taken. 

776. Cicero on Politics and the Limits of Reason, by Jed. W. Atkins.

776.   January 16, 2018.  Cicero on Politics and the Limits of Reason, by Jed. W. Atkins.  Atkins advances the argument that Cicero argues in De Republica and De Legibus that reason and the perfect natural law are the essential weapons for a statesman to have.  But these tools need to be put into play in light of history, the people of a particular nation, their customs and in light of chance circumstances which take place.  He also argues that the De Republica and De Legibus were meant to be taken together.  Atkins asserts that Cicero felt that politics, reform and the goals of perfection must be viewed in terms of the art of what is possible.  Hence the title of the book:  Cicero on Politics and the Limits of Reason.

It is interesting that Atkins feels compelled to deal with the view of a long list of scholars who find it almost impossible to imagine that any Roman, let alone Cicero, could possess the innovative intellect of a Greek.  It has always struck me that Classicists can possess deep seated prejudices just like anyone else.

I would recommend reading Bruce Frier’s, The Rise of the Roman Jurists and Alan Watson’s The Spirit of Roman Law.  These would be of great value in assessing Cicero’s innovative nature and the arguments presented by Jed. W. Atkins.

508. De Natura Deorum by Cicero

508. De Natura Deorum by Cicero.

Cicero recalls a conversation he once witnessed between Gaius Velleius who was an Epicurean, Quintus Lucilius Balbus who was a Stoic and Gaius Cotta who was a follower of the Academy.  Cicero as young lad sat and listened.

This book discusses the nature of the gods. Various Roman scholars express their views on God and another fellow provides an analysis from the philosophical point of view of the Academics. Is there a God? Can the existence of God be proven? Does God communicate with people? If so, how? Do the gods even care about humans, their problems and concerns? 

I have read this work several times.  I think that this book is not often read because of the approach Cicero takes.  It is not designed to bring comfort.  It is designed to encourage thinking.  Cotta who represents the Academics only finds faults in the argument of each presenter.  He never offers his actual views.  In the first book Velleius presents the case for the Epicurean view of the gods.  Epicureans posit that gods are idle and have no care or concerns.  Cotta who comments on these remarks from the Academic view wonders then why they need arms or legs.  Then Balbus presents the Stoic view.  Parts of this presentation come from Stoics deep interest in natural science.  The Universe is almost viewed a a mammoth thought which pervades and permeates everything.  Then Cotta offers a critique of this view.  He finds many gaps, contradictions and fuzziness. In fact Cotta’s attack is so strong that one could easily find oneself questioning one’s own beliefs.  Interestingly at the end of the discussion, Cicero offers his view that Balbus had the stronger case.  

Cicero has a command of the arguments which each philosophical system has concerning religion and the gods/god.  But he does not offer an answer which brings comfort for one who wishes to believe or for that matter for one who denies the existence of God.  It seems again that Cicero’s view of divinity is very complex and that contemplation of the divinity is so complex that the only way to slowly inch toward an understanding of the whole thing is continued examination of every philosophical system available.  Each system seems to have some grain of truth. Those who follow one system of thought or one area of study automatically limit themselves to a narrower view of the whole of existence.  Cicero posits that one can always be wrong- so examine the ideas of others.

How can order of the universe be an accident?  If rules of physics and natural science lie behind this order whence came those rules?  How can beauty be an accident?  Can chance alone account for order and beauty?  Isn’t it a contradiction to equate beauty and order with luck?   

Cicero says that studying the nature of the gods is the noblest of studies for the human mind to grasp.  He seems to suggest that the study of this subject goes to the very heart of the human intellect- to try to understand the mechanics of the physical world in terms of its purpose. 

758. De Lege Agraria I by Cicero

758.  De Lege Agraria I by Cicero.  A Tribune by the name of Rullus put forth a bill in early 63 BC for land reform.  Cicero opposed it.  The speech was delivered in the Senate, January 1, 63 BC.  He takes the following line:

Does it make sense to hand over authority to a land commission which has designed the bill in secret?  This bill will allow public property to be auctioned by the board of ten, called the Decemvirs.  Rullus wants land to be purchased for distribution to citizens.

Rullus plans to itemize every bit of property to be put up for sale.  This was land won by the valor of our ancestors.  It is to be sold for the sake of a bribe. (That bribe is the offer of land to citizens at the expense of their freedom.)

Land in Greece, Macedonia, Africa, Asia is to be sold and land which once Mithridates possessed.  Some of this land will be the land recently acquired by Pompey.

Is any of this aimed at Pompey?  Yes.  No place has been established for the auction.  Why?  Because the Decemvirs get to decide.  This is odd when one considers that the Censors who let out state contracts for the collection of taxes, must do so in full public view.

What a burden the huge commission will be on the local population who must provide food, shelter and other needs.

The Decemvirs will deiced what is private property and what is public and will sell accordingly.  Their power will be unlimited.  It will be possible for the commission to receive money for not selling.  In other words, justice will be for sale, since they will have the power to label land as public or private.

Quo in iudicio perspici non potest utrum severitas acerbior an benignitas quaestuosior sit futura.

In this decision it is not possible to be clearly seen whether severity would be more bitter or kindness would be more profitable.

Rullus can sniff out a coin no matter how well hidden.  This law would give control of money from conquests to this commission.  This law would put in charge of the commission oversight for most of the state’s income.  Rullus and his supporters contend that anger against this law will be reduced when people see that the money will be used to purchase land.  The law is vague as to where colonies will be established.  It is possible that people beholding to Rullus, et al., will be placed in a colony in Italy.  (This , of course, could be used to influence elections.)  Thus Cicero imagines that Capua could be set in opposition to Rome.  Cicero suggests that since nothing is in place which will determine who the colonists are that perhaps criminals will be the colonists.

This law is designed to shift the base of power away from the Senate and Rome.  (For after all, it will be the commission in distant lands which will determine what is sold and what is not.)

Rullus, you and your friends, thought that the public could be hoodwinked into accepting the plan, until the details were exposed by me.  This bill has not produced comfort but fear that the powers of the commission will be used to effect something way beyond simply establishing colonies.

The Senate’s authority is at stake as a guiding force for the nation.