Adventures in the Backcountry

I am sitting on a computer in the little Mercantile of Denali National Park in Alaska as I write this entry. I'm rather out of the loop with respect to news and current events, something that is rather odd for me. But that is because I have spent five days in the backcountry wilderness of one of America's largest national parks.

We departed from the Denali Headquarters on July 20 on a "Camper Bus," which drives across the rough, dirt/gravel road through Denali National Park. Along the road, we saw a number of grizzly bears, golden eagles, caribou, and ptarmigan. Of course, we had to stop for every animal at 1,000 yards so people could take pictures that would most certainly not develop well. I couldn't tell for sure, but I don't think anybody on the bus was in possession of Mini-Hubble to view the animals. Nevertheless, after several hours on the bus, we made our final stop past the Eilson Visitor Center, right above the Thorofare River. We made our way along a game trail (that's a trail carved out by wildlife, for those of you who are unfamiliar with outdoors jargon) for a short ways down the hill from the park road, until we came to some rather thick brush. We had to find a place to descend into the riverbed, but there were really no gentle slopes, so we selected the slope with the most brush. Normally, one would never want to travel in thick brush, but whenever traveling up and down very steep inclines, brush is essential, because it is the only thing that keeps one from losing his footing and plummeting to his certain doom--ok, maybe not that dramatic, but broken bones are pretty bad in the backcountry.

We get down into the riverbed, and spot a moose at about 300 yards, just trapsing across the Thorofare. As we began to cross the classic Alaska stream, with its 25-30 braids, we discovered the water, while cold, was pretty shallow in most places, and not terribly swift. With ease, we finished crossing the Thorofare, and thought we were well on our way, when I looked up and spotted a male grizzly bear (quite large...500 lbs or so) at 150 yards. We stopped, hoping he had not yet seen us, and then noticed that he most certainly had, and was moving directly towards us. We waved our hands and shouted "BEAR! BEAR!" as if that is the thing one ought to say to a bear instead of "GO AWAY GO AWAY" or something else (I figure that talking to bears is like giving political speeches, it's not so much the message, but the delivery that matters). He raised up, gave us a second sturdy look, and then nonchalantly moved in the opposite direction. Danger had been averted.

I will continue this post later, but my time on the computer has run out...

The Dangers of Closure

With the recent, rather brutal, battle in the United States Senate over the ratification of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), the people of the United States should be increasingly concerned about the policy direction the United States is taking with respect to trade and international commerce. One of the hallmark events of the pre-World War I era was the movement from free trade and free international economic activity to that of relative economic closure, and high tariffs. We would do well to avoid a repeat of this disastrous epoch in world history, but the rising pressures from China's rapid economic expansion, coupled with the resistance of American Organized Labor community to revisions in America's antiquated labor laws confront us with a severe set of problems. First, we are inefficient at production compared to the rest of the world, and second, we are unwilling to accept large trade deficits (despite the fact that most economists will tell you the trade deficit is not the problem; the budget deficit is, and the trade deficit would be relatively resolved if we did not have the budget deficit issue, but I digress).

Given this, there is increasing pressure in the American political community to oppose further liberalization of American trade, and even to impose tariffs on goods coming from countries like China. This is the worst possible course of action we can take in the face of these problems, and the lessons of history teach us that economic closure leads to economic stagnation and even recessions, and then to war. There is no greater form of war mongering than passing tariffs.

Bush's Supreme Decision

Few issues in the last several years have received public attention as much as the American judiciary. The Right has excoriated it for being too Leftist, and the Left has excoriated it for being too Rightist. The Religious Conservatives have claimed that the Court is anti-religious, and the Radical Left-wingers have claimed that it isn't Anti-Religious enough. Leftists claim they want a judge who sees the constitution as a living document, except when that means giving into a majority view that most liberals reject. Conservatives claim they want a judge who "interprets the law rather than makes law." We shall soon see if the Conservative bloc and the President hold true to this conviction, or if the Conservative bloc cheers when the President appoints an ideologue to the court instead of a strict constructionist. The Constitution is not a living, breathing document. It is a set of rules by which we have determined we will govern ourselves. If we think the rules need to change, we have a method for changing those rules. At the same time, existing rules can be applied incorrectly and the Court can determine when there has been a long-standing misapplication of the rules. Brown v. Board of Education is the quintessential example of the Court correcting such a misapplication. Ultimately the underpinning notions of the Constitution are that individuals have rights that must be upheld, must be applied equitably, and in a judicious manner. This means individual rights for all Americans, and the President needs to choose a Justice who recognizes this, even if it conflicts with his ideological beliefs. Fidelity to the Constitutional text should be the foremost concern of any Justice on the Supreme Court, and sometimes fidelity to the text requires the abandonment of tradition. I sincerely hope that equal rights, including private property rights, free speech rights, the right to freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, privacy rights, equal protection, etc. are the fundamental concern of the new Justic on the Supreme Court. I am sketpical that this will happen in our era of partisanship, for which both sides are to blame, but I hope the confirmation process will bring about this desire end in spite of the partisanship. Conservatives and Liberals ought to be united on this front, but politics seems to always get in the way.