Untitled

[agentsmokestack]

Land or Water?

Coriolanus and Antony both betray Rome. Although Coriolanus’s betrayal is the more obvious one (there is nothing subtle about an army on the doorsteps of the city), Antony’s is the greater one, because it is more complete. Coriolanus holds on to a bit of Rome, what he perceives to be the ideal that encompasses Rome. Unlike Coriolanus, Antony abandons every aspect of what it means to be Roman.

Antony leaves Rome repeatedly, and for extended periods of time, indicating that he does not wish to be a part of the physical location of Rome. He might not hate the people of Rome like Coriolanus does, but he does not seem to care about them either, as evidenced by the fact that they do not appear at all in the play in which he is the main focus. Antony also betrays the government of Rome by disrespecting and fighting Julius Caesar’s chosen heir.

Coriolanus commits similar betrayals, forsaking and threatening the physical city of Rome, the people of Rome and the government of Rome. And yet, Coriolanus seems far more heroic than Antony, because of his motivations. Sure, Coriolanus is partly self-motivated, but what drives him most is the protection of the ideal of Rome, which is the true form of the city itself (in his mind). Thus, as was said in class, Coriolanus carries Rome with him, in “the world elsewhere” (3.3.135), and continues to fight for it, even while he is attacking the Rome and its surroundings.

Antony on the other hand seems to act out of selfishness and desire, without regard for any version of Rome. The biggest difference between Antony and Coriolanus is that while Coriolanus refuses to be “false to my nature” (3.2.15) Antony trades his Roman ideals in for Egyptian ones.

Shakespeare uses symbolism to highlight the two cultures and ideals. Rome is represented by land and Egypt is represented by water. Rome is like the land because it is rigid and solid in its duties. It is also a conqueror of many lands. Egypt is associated with water. The source of Egypt’s prosperity is the Nile. The Nile is also the inspiration for Shakespeare’s depiction of Egypt’s culture and ideals, which are fluid, like the water that flows in the river. When Antony first meets Cleopatra, she is in a “barge”, “burned on the water” (2.2.201-202).

Despite being Roman by birth, Antony is depicted as lacking the attributes of land that are associated with Romans. He shirks his duties countless times during the play. He neglects his duty to his wives, by loving Cleopatra more than them. He neglects his duty to Rome by leaving it behind and living in Egypt. He neglects his duty to Caesar, his friend, by not respecting his wishes and seeking to seize the power from Octavius.

In place of these Roman ideals, Antony has taken on the ideals of Egypt. He pursues pleasure and desire far more than the good of his city (or even himself). His personality has even become shifty like the waters of a river, as he shows inconstancy, indecision and instability.

Antony’s abandonment of his Roman ideals and values was not a sudden change, but was a process begun before the play’s start, as indicated by the first description we get of him. Philo’s langauge compares Antony to a river; his dotage “O’erflows” (1.1.2) and his eyes “now bend, now turn” (1.1.4). Like a river slowly erodes the land it flows through, Egypt’s values slowly eroded his; he even says to “Let Rome in Tiber melt” (1.1.34). However, it might be possible to identify the point of no return. This comes when Antony literally chooses water over land, in Act 3 Scene 7, when he takes Cleopatra’s advice and fights Octavius at sea, despite the warning from Enobarbus. 

[agentsmokestack]

I am, it seems, among the few who think that torture is justified at a theoretical level. If the CIA has a terrorist involved in 9/11 in custody, and can prevent another 9/11 if and only if they torture said terrorist, I am inclined to believe that torture is justified. However, it might very well be the case that the theoretically permissible case would/could never actually happen in the real world.

In any case, the question at hand is not a theoretical one. We are being confronted with the real acts of our intelligence agency and have a chance to be part of the change, going forward.

The most disturbing thing I have read about the report so far is:

The report found that at least 26 detainees “were wrongfully held,” including an “intellectually challenged” man who was used as “leverage” to obtain information from a family member, two former intelligence sources and two individuals identified as threats by a detainee subjected to torture. Agency records were often incomplete and, in some cases, lacked sufficient information to justify keeping detainees in custody.

Even if torture is permissible in some cases, it must never be used against innocent people, especially in cases like this.

There will undoubtedly be debate about whether actionable intelligence was uncovered via torture. The report seems to disagree with the CIA’s (and Zero Dark Thirty’s) claim that such intelligence exists. Regardless, I don’t think that the existence or non-existence of such intelligence is relevant to the justification of torture. According to the report, the CIA itself determined that torture had “proven to be ineffective” (19). Part of the problem is that physically and psychologically devastating measures “result in false answers” (19). This is illustrated in 1984, where prisoners will confess anything and implicate anyone to make the torture suffered in “Room 101” cease. In other words, the CIA tortured detainees without reason.

[justnebraskaliving]

I scrolled through my newsfeed and didn’t see any posts about police killing people today, and certainly none about white officers and black victims, so here we go. 

A NY Grand Jury recently decided not to indict Daniel Pantaleo, in the death of Eric Garner.  Pantaleo placed Garner in a chokehold when Garnder resisted arrest.  This chokehold killed Eric Garner.  In case you forgot the NYPD’s chokehold policies, allow me to remind you: yes, NYPDOs are banned from using them.  Watch a video of the Garner CH here or here.

No Grey Area for NYPD Chokehold Use

Part of the reason chokeholds are banned, is the window between effectiveness and damage is difficult.  If a person is not out in 5-10 seconds, the hold has likely been performed incorrectly, and may suffer brain damage, or death.  

So when Pantaleo decides to use a CH and kills someone, why is the Grand Jury so hesitant to indict?  He’s clearly liable for criminal charges, despite his claims of intent.  

“I became a police officer to help people and to protect those who can’t protect themselves,” Officer Pantaleo said. “It is never my intention to harm anyone.” 

He is either lying, or lacks the necessary mental processes (like following protocol, or releasing after the CH has exceeded legitimate duration) to follow through on protecting and avoiding harm.  

Until the GJ-Police Indictment process is seriously revised or discarded, no one should expect justice for misconduct, unless of course their attacker lacks a badge. 

[agentsmokestack]

I wish this case had gotten more media coverage (prior to tonight), because, unlike in the Michael Brown shooting, it is clear that the police officer(s) acted wrongly. The video and the circumstances surrounding this case make it much easier to sympathize with the victim and practically impossible to sympathize with the officer. Hopefully, this case can be used as a banner through which we can bring about the types of reform that are obviously needed.

That being said, I’m not convinced that it is time to abandon the grand jury process, and I can understand the decision not to indict in this circumstance.

The role of a grand jury is not to determine whether or not a law was broken. And it certainly isn’t to pass moral judgment on the accused. The one and only job of a grand jury, according to the Times article you cite is to, “determine whether enough evidence exists for a case to go forward to a criminal trial, either before a jury or a judge.”

 One of the operative words in that description is criminal. You say that “He’s clearly liable for criminal charges” because he used chokehold, which is against NYPD policies. However, police guidelines and policies are not laws, therefore violating them does not constitute a criminal offense.

Of course, the police officer could still be reasonably accused of breaking some type of homicide law. We do not know what law he was accused of breaking, because there is no Sunshine Law (like there is in Missouri) in the state of New York. After perusing New York homicide law, it seems to me that the most likely law officer Pantaleo violated is that of criminally negligent homicide (since most others require some sort of intent, which is hard to evidence), defined in New York as:

A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person.

Criminal negligence is defined as (emphasis added):

A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

In this case, it would be hard to gather the evidence indicating that the risk not perceived by Officer Pantaleo was a “gross deviation” from reasonable precaution, because there were other factors involved in Eric Garner’s death. The autopsy concluded that it was the neck compressions combined with the chest compressions (likely suffered when there were multiple police officers on top of him) that lead to his death. Mr. Garner also had imperceivable health problems which contributed to him dying from the incident, namely his “acute and chronic bronchial asthma.” 

These factors, and the fact that the other officer charged with killing an asthmatic with a chokehold was acquitted, provide some reason as to why the grand jury might not have thought enough evidence existed to convict of a criminal offense.

However, the justice system does not stop here. The federal government can pursue civil rights charges against the officer. In the case from 1994, the officer who was acquitted ended up serving jail time as the result of such an investigation.

It is clear that Officer Pantaleo acted wrongly, and the result was truly tragic. However, the lack of an indictment on criminal charges by a grand jury is not justification enough to say that justice will not by had for Mr. Garner. I hope, and believe, that the officers at fault here will be held responsible in other courts of law.

[unlpols2]

The point of a grand jury is to determine whether there is probable cause to prosecute someone for a felony crime. If a video of a guy being suffocated to death no longer suffices the probable cause threshold, then I don’t know what could. What has happened in these recent judicial proceedings  involving police brutality  is the abuse of the grand jury instrument to favor the police. 

Mostly, Garner’s case is much more discouraging than Brown’s. When Brown first surfaced, police critics were calling for body cameras. With this recent failure of the justice system, it becomes inherently clear that body cameras won’t solve the issue, but rather change requires a rethinking of the place police forces occupy in the system. Quit idolizing police officers. Not all of them are good people, but not all of them are bad either. Their actions have to be analyzed on an individual basis. A badge should not protect you from justice. 

[pauljac3fan-deactivated20160114]

Failures of the justice system to prosecute police brutality that is on videotape go back, sadly, even further than Eric Garner. The decision to not prosecute Garner’s killer makes it abundantly clear that a system that is stacked in favor of police and against minority populations is not going to be addressed in any meaningful way by only capturing instances of police brutality on video cameras. This recent FiveThirtyEight article [fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/] describes how uneven the playing field in court can be, as grand juries tend to return indictments at an absurdly high rate (over 99.9% of federal grand juries in 2010 returned an indictment) but are extremely unlikely to indict police officers for on-duty misconduct. The article details that in Dallas only 1 out of 81 police shootings went before a grand jury between 2008 and 2012 resulted in an indictment. Any sort of solution to the problem of police brutality has to go beyond just getting it on video. I would encourage anyone who thinks body cameras are the all-encompassing solution to ask Eric Garner’s relatives or Rodney King how well videotape solves the flaws in our justice system.

[justnebraskaliving]

agentsmokestack

police guidelines and policies are not laws, therefore violating them does not constitute a criminal offense.

You’re right.  To a degree.  Violating NYPD policies alone is not a crime.  But evaluating the probability of his criminal negligence is the real takeaway.

Refer back to your definition of negligence (different emphasis added):

A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

The very reason chokeholds were banned by the NYPD is because of the substantial risk they have.  The NYPD explicitly thinks these risks are unjustified.  His failure to observe this policy speaks directly to his negligence for this very reason. 

The standard we hold POs to, or rather that POs attempt to hold themselves to, only works when they’re held accountable for deviating from this standard.  This is why the GJ process has so dramatically failed us.  Please visit pauljac3fan's article to note how easily the GJ process is used by prosecutors to indict.  

Given this evidence, it seems probably the prosecutors avoid indictments via the GJ to preserve their relationship with law enforcement.  As long as that relationship exists, in connection with the GJ process, justice won’t be served.

[politicschmolitics]

I agree with you all that this ruling is not right, and a huge loss for justice. When I heard the ruling, I immediately recalled the feelings I felt following the Trayvon Martin case. It seriously makes me question our justice system immensely. 

I think that one of the reasons there should have been charges brought in the Garner case is due to Garner stating repeatedly, “I can’t breathe”, and Officer Pantaleo continually holding the chokehold. I’m not very knowledgable on the criminal negligence homicide information. So if anyone knows- Would the fact that the suspect made repeated claims that he was unable to breath change anything about the criminal negligence homicide charge? 

I also think it’s important to note that the New York medical examiner ruled the death a homicide.

The Garner case also makes me question if police body cameras will do anything to help our justice system. I was definitely for the implementation of body cameras, but this case just makes it seem as if it won’t help at all.

If a person can catch a police officer using a banned tactic by the NYPD to sustain a suspect, which then results in his death, how much more clear cut evidence do you need?

[agentsmokestack]

The argument that the banning of the chokehold is enough to consider his Pantaleo's actions a "gross deviation from the standard of care" is a powerful one, and enough to convince me that, based on the evidence we have have, Pantaleo should have been indicted. (Though I do think it might be a bit presumptuous for anyone to make claims based on incomplete evidence and scattered knowledge of the law.) I also remain hopeful that Pantaleo will be brought to justice in other courts of law.

But, assuming that Pantaleo ought to have been indicted, where did the breakdown(s) in justice occur, and what can we do to make our society more just?

I remain skeptical that the Grand Jury process is the root, or even a significant root, of the injustice of a system. The referenced five-thirty-eight article is interesting, and significant. However, it isn't conclusive. If shows a major discrepancy and offers an inexhaustive list of possibilities for the discrepancy, not all of which are malicious.

A more concerning article from the site examines the biases in the Staten Island area residents. I believe that people will put aside their biases in situations like this, but if they cannot, it seems unlikely that a criminal trial would produce a different verdict that the grand jury decision. It also seems unlikely that prosecutors who "go easy" on police in Grand Jury, wouldn't go easy on them in a criminal trial. So do we need an alternative justice system for cases involving police? 

I am inclined to believe that the problem is in our laws and court rulings that give police (and others) leeway to use deadly force in various circumstances. Pantaleo's lawyer's account of his testimony claims that at the time when the deadly chokehold/compression was applied (the initial takedown may or may not have been an improper technique), the officer feared for his life because of the position the tussle left him in.

How can our laws balance the right to defend one's self from reasonable danger while stile protect the perceived threat? What makes an action reasonable?

On a related side note, police policies that attempt to crack down on low level crime to prevent escalation ought not be coupled with frivolous laws like the selling of loose cigarettes (as pointed out by Charles Krauthammer on Special Report w/ Bret Baier).

[justnebraskaliving]

I scrolled through my newsfeed and didn’t see any posts about police killing people today, and certainly none about white officers and black victims, so here we go. 

A NY Grand Jury recently decided not to indict Daniel Pantaleo, in the death of Eric Garner.  Pantaleo placed Garner in a chokehold when Garnder resisted arrest.  This chokehold killed Eric Garner.  In case you forgot the NYPD’s chokehold policies, allow me to remind you: yes, NYPDOs are banned from using them.  Watch a video of the Garner CH here or here.

No Grey Area for NYPD Chokehold Use

Part of the reason chokeholds are banned, is the window between effectiveness and damage is difficult.  If a person is not out in 5-10 seconds, the hold has likely been performed incorrectly, and may suffer brain damage, or death.  

So when Pantaleo decides to use a CH and kills someone, why is the Grand Jury so hesitant to indict?  He’s clearly liable for criminal charges, despite his claims of intent.  

“I became a police officer to help people and to protect those who can’t protect themselves,” Officer Pantaleo said. “It is never my intention to harm anyone.” 

He is either lying, or lacks the necessary mental processes (like following protocol, or releasing after the CH has exceeded legitimate duration) to follow through on protecting and avoiding harm.  

Until the GJ-Police Indictment process is seriously revised or discarded, no one should expect justice for misconduct, unless of course their attacker lacks a badge. 

[agentsmokestack]

I wish this case had gotten more media coverage (prior to tonight), because, unlike in the Michael Brown shooting, it is clear that the police officer(s) acted wrongly. The video and the circumstances surrounding this case make it much easier to sympathize with the victim and practically impossible to sympathize with the officer. Hopefully, this case can be used as a banner through which we can bring about the types of reform that are obviously needed.

That being said, I'm not convinced that it is time to abandon the grand jury process, and I can understand the decision not to indict in this circumstance.

The role of a grand jury is not to determine whether or not a law was broken. And it certainly isn't to pass moral judgment on the accused. The one and only job of a grand jury, according to the Times article you cite is to, "determine whether enough evidence exists for a case to go forward to a criminal trial, either before a jury or a judge."

 One of the operative words in that description is criminal. You say that "He’s clearly liable for criminal charges" because he used chokehold, which is against NYPD policies. However, police guidelines and policies are not laws, therefore violating them does not constitute a criminal offense.

Of course, the police officer could still be reasonably accused of breaking some type of homicide law. We do not know what law he was accused of breaking, because there is no Sunshine Law (like there is in Missouri) in the state of New York. After perusing New York homicide law, it seems to me that the most likely law officer Pantaleo violated is that of criminally negligent homicide (since most others require some sort of intent, which is hard to evidence), defined in New York as:

A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person.

Criminal negligence is defined as (emphasis added):

A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

In this case, it would be hard to gather the evidence indicating that the risk not perceived by Officer Pantaleo was a "gross deviation" from reasonable precaution, because there were other factors involved in Eric Garner's death. The autopsy concluded that it was the neck compressions combined with the chest compressions (likely suffered when there were multiple police officers on top of him) that lead to his death. Mr. Garner also had imperceivable health problems which contributed to him dying from the incident, namely his "acute and chronic bronchial asthma." 

These factors, and the fact that the other officer charged with killing an asthmatic with a chokehold was acquitted, provide some reason as to why the grand jury might not have thought enough evidence existed to convict of a criminal offense.

However, the justice system does not stop here. The federal government can pursue civil rights charges against the officer. In the case from 1994, the officer who was acquitted ended up serving jail time as the result of such an investigation.

It is clear that Officer Pantaleo acted wrongly, and the result was truly tragic. However, the lack of an indictment on criminal charges by a grand jury is not justification enough to say that justice will not by had for Mr. Garner. I hope, and believe, that the officers at fault here will be held responsible in other courts of law.

[agentsmokestack]

Witness 10 proves Darren Wilson had a reasonable belief he needed to shoot Michael Brown

A credible eyewitness corroborated Officer Wilson's testimony ... and proves that Wilson had a "reasonable belief" under Missouri law permitting him to defend with deadly force.

Many aspects of the Ferguson tragedy, and even this article, relate to justice, heroism, and the good life. The aspect I want to focus on is the heroism of Witness 10 and others who have supported Officer Wilson. Witness 10 has done the right thing by sticking to his/her true account of what happens (the word true here means consistent over a long period of time, unchanging in light of leaked physical evidence, and corroborated by known facts about the incident). Witness 10 has done this at risk of personal harm as well. This includes harm in the immediate aftermath:

When he started saying what he had seen, some in the crowd became verbally “violent” toward him (204:3) and started directing racial slurs toward him (206:10).

 It also includes the ongoing threat of individual persecution that supporters of Wilson fear they will face, should their identities become known.

As for those who would willfully shape their testimonies to harm the officer, and intimidate others into doing the same, it is a reminder of the ominous truth in the words that rest behind the Justices in Nebraska's Supreme Court: Eyes and ears are poor witnesses when the soul is barbarous.

[agentsmokestack]

World of Friendcraft

I believe it is possible to have Aristotelian friendships of all kinds in World of Warcraft (or other immersive online experiences). Before I go down the list of friendships, however, I first must address whether friendship of the Aristotelian manners at all can exist in the pathways of the Internet.

  Living together is important for Aristotelian friendship, but I believe that it is not crucial. Also, playing World of Warcraft together can constitute as living together in Aristotle’s view. While Aristotle claims, “there is nothing so characteristic of friends as living together,” he qualifies that by saying, “distance does not break off the friendship” (1157b).

  Furthermore, I think there is a distinct possibility that Aristotle would extend friendship to virtual relationships if he were alive today. Obviously technology has advanced significantly since Aristotle’s time, and it is likely that he did not envision the sort of virtual connections we make today. Therefore, we should look at his reasons behind the importance of living together and see if they can apply today without physical presence.

  In giving his reasons for proximity as a part of friendship, Aristotle says, “those who live together delight in each other and confer benefits on each other” (1157b). In his time, it would indeed have been difficult to delight in another person and confer benefits onto them without being near them. However, the advent of instantaneous long-distance communication is giving us more and more ways to delight in people who are nowhere near us. As for the part about conferring benefits, one can confer benefits to another player by giving them in game items and assistance. Someone who doesn’t play MMORPGs might scoff at this, but players give real value to in game items (if you need further evidence, look up Spectral Tiger Loot Card on eBay).

  His other reason is that “if the absence is lasting, it seems actually to make men forget their friendship” (1157b). However, if you are consistently logging in and interacting with another player, you are unlikely to forget that person, despite not being in close physical proximity. If a player is away from the game or does not interact with another player for an extended period of time, then perhaps he/she will “forget their friendship,” but this is true with friends in the physical world as well and not unique to virtual friendships.

  The first category of Aristotelian friendship is utility. Aristotle says, “those who love each other for their utility do not love each other for themselves but in virtue of some good which they get from each other” (1156a). This is probably the most common sort of friend in World of Warcraft.  In WoW, there are many objectives that require many players. For instance “raiding” (the ultimate endgame activity) requires between 10 and 40 players. Sometimes raids include only people who know each other for purposes other than that raid, but usually you will end up working together with a fair amount of players you have never “met” before. Yet, you are friends for a time, with a common goal and utilities to provide each other. According to Aristotle, “those who are friends for the sake of utility part when the advantage is at an end” (1157a). This is true in WoW as well. When the raid is done, such friends part ways, perhaps never to be seen again. If there is a mutual agreement that the utility can still be gained from the friendship, you might add someone to your “Friends List” so that they can be contacted for future raids.

  The second category of Aristotelian friendship is pleasure. These friends are those who appreciate each other “not for their character,” “but because they find them pleasant” (1156a). I suspect that these friends are much the same in World of Warcraft as they are in real life (RL), though there is likely a valid concern about just how much pleasure can be gotten from another person without seeing them face to face and doing activities together. An RL friend, who is such for pleasure only, makes other activities more enjoyable, and this type of friend exists in WoW as well. This type of player could be fun to quest with, make you laugh, or nice to talk with via voice communications.

  The final category of Aristotelian friendship is true friendship. It requires that friends “wish well to their friends for their own sake” (1156b). In addition to this, true friendships are “mutually recognized” (1156a) and “permanent” (1156b). They also bring utility and pleasure for “the good man is at the same time pleasant and useful” (1158a). Lastly, these friendships require “time and familiarity” (1156b). It is true that this type of friendship is harder to form in WoW than in RL, because it takes more time to become familiar with someone who is hiding behind some layer of anonymity and because one does not typically spend vast amounts of time with another player. In this way, true friendship is unlike the other types, which are easier to form in WoW because of convenience and opportunity. That being said, there is a very small number of people whom I have known in the game for several years whom I think would fit all of these requirements. It is possible that these types of friends could only exist in one’s “guild.” However, this small number is to be expected, despite interactions with thousands of players because, “it is natural that such friendships should be infrequent” (1156b).

[penser12]

Keystone bill fails to pass Senate

This has been a hot button issue throughout the entire U.S., especially in Nebraska.  The proposed new pipeline would offer a more direct route to Texas and thus to the ports.  Currently, there is a smaller pipeline. However, the Keystone XL pipeline will be much larger, capable of transporting 830,000 barrels of oil a day.  The problem for the American public is two fold. One, we will continue to damage the environment and the delicate ecosystem of the Sand Hills, and two, we will also remain dependent upon fossil fuels for energy instead of turning to renewable resources.  The proposition has clear supporters: Republicans, and opposers: Democrats.  However, with the newly elected U.S. Senate, come January this proposition will no longer simply be a proposition.   

Republicans levels of commitment to the Keystone XL Pipeline is unjust. They are blinded by the idea of making jobs for Americans, after the construction of which will dwindle from 42,000 to 50.  They are irresponsibly condoning private interests of big oil while ignoring the fact that global warming exists and is thus harming the environment.  This issue should not be a party issue but rather an environmentally conscious decision.  The Republicans are not treating this proposition as such and are thus unjust.  They cannot or will not realize the consequences this pipeline will have upon our environment, and thus they are behaving irresponsible and unjustly toward the environment. 

[agentsmokestack]

The Keystone pipeline is an interesting piece of legislation from a political perspective. I think it is a bit misleading to say that the bill has clear opposition in the Democratic party, 14 Democrats voted for the bill, which failed to pass by a margin of 1 vote. Now, it is true that the rush to have this vote, and the Democratic support is due in large part to the efforts of Senator Mary Landrieu, who has a run-off election coming up and who effective lost that race with this vote.

I think it is strange that you call the Republicans unjustly blind. The truth is, the State Department did an extensive study on the environmental effects of the pipeline, which, according to that article, "raised no major environmental objections." It seems to be to be a waste of the taxpayers' money to fund such a report, and then promptly disregard it when it doesn't give you the results you want. It's just like that time the Browns spent $100,000 to determine that Teddy Bridgewater was the best QB prospect and then drafted Johnny Manziel.

Now, I'll admit, I'm not from Nebraska, and I'm not familiar with all of the precise environmental harms. However, I think the biggest mistake people who oppose the Keystone Pipeline for environmental reasons make is comparing it to the status quo. The question should not be, "What will a world with the pipeline in it look like compared to the world today?" the question should be "What will a world with the pipeline in it look like compared to a world without the pipeline?". This is precisely the question that the State Department report asks (you can find it here http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221135.pdf). 

Absent the Keystone Pipeline, the oil market will not simply stop drilling and give up. Instead, it will find different ways to get the oil that would be brought through the pipeline down to the gulf. Starting on page ES-28, the report considers how the status quo might change to solve the problem sans the Keystone Pipeline. The detriments of these alternatives are compared with the various pipeline routes on the grounds of physical disturbances, CO2 emissions, and oil spills (ES-33, ES-34, ES-36). The alternatives to the pipeline seem to have comparable or worse environmental effects. 

Ultimately, I don't think the Republicans are acting blindly and unjustly. If injustice is being done here at all, I would say it is in the wasting of taxpayer dollars on a report that, in my mind, has been disregarded.

[agentsmokestack]

Amidst the discussion of the NFL's domestic violence concerns, much if the focus seems to be on the players, and macro level disciplinary policies. This article did a great job of refocusing the issue to the victims. As someone who watches a fair amount of football, I know that I do not think about the families of the athletes very often. It was very interesting to hear about the support groups that are formed among the wives of NFL players at their cities, where the families may not have any other connections. However, it is apparent that these support groups are ultimately functions of the team and place the team first. Wives/girlfriends who are abused are in an incredibly difficult position. They have many forces pressuring them to not report including their own future, the team structures, the wives of other players, and their overall aloneness in an unfamiliar environment. It seems that justice would demand that we make things easier for women in these terrible predicaments, but how do we do that? And should the NFL set up its own program, or should a law enforcement agency step in?

[captain-ahab-0-blog-blog]

Meet the Islamic State's newest best friend

The Egyptian militant group Ansar Beit al-Maqdis pledged allegiance to the Islamic State’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Monday, joining a growing number of jihadist groups outside of Syria and Iraq who’ve offered their support to the self-declared caliphate.

As the blurb from the article states, ISIS has gained the support of another jihadist group - Ansar Beit al-Maqdis.  The group is based, and has participated in terrorist attacks in Egypt.  The ABM has killed security forces and civilians alike, hundreds in total.  This brings up a question that has discussed before by our classes’ blogs - would the U.S. adopting a more active role in the fight against ISIS be considered just and also, is our inactivity considered injustice?  Aristotle says in the nicomachean ethics that a greater injustice is doing injustice to friends compared to injustice to a stranger.  I bring this up because Egypt has been considered one of our allies in the middle east.  On the country level, allies would seem to suggest friendship (of the utilitarian variety).  Therefore, it would follow that the just action for the U.S. to take would be to come to Egypt’s aid and combat terrorism.  Continued inactivity would be injustice as our allies, friends, are in need of our assistance.  

[agentsmokestack]

Do you think that this connection of justice and friendship extends to relations between countries? I, for one, have my doubts. It doesn't really seem that countries can be friends in the Aristotelian way. In addition to the very human characteristics of friends, it seems to me that friends in the Aristotelian manner might have to be under the same government. 

Also, if friendship is extended to the country level, would Egypt still be our friend? They have certainly been one of our stronger allies in the Middle East, historically, but the last few years have been pretty rocky. To me, it seems that we can't be sure if they will be our friend under the new regime. President Obama put them on the fence two years ago (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-19584265) but I'm not sure how things have changed since then.

[agentsmokestack]

But it now appears possible that the Supreme Court may be willing to deprive millions of Americans of health care on the basis of an equally obvious typo. And if you think this possibility has anything to do with serious legal reasoning, as opposed to rabid partisanship, I have a long, skinny, unbuildable piece of land you might want to buy.

As fascinating as the role played by punctuation and typographical errors in legal contexts is, the more pressing issue brought up by Dr. Krugman is the partisanship of the courts. Some ideological bias is inherent in the Supreme Court, as the Justices are appointed by presidents who will be more inclined to nominate people who will not oppose their agenda. Ideally, partisan bias is checked by Senate's power to approve the nominees and the existence of life terms for the Justices.

If partisan bias does exist in the high court, as Krugman suggests, then it is a threat to justice in the nation. The court system exists to protect the people from unjust and illegal laws. If their impartiality is compromised severely, then the platform of the ruling party has the potential to become morally and legally enshrined, no matter how unjust it is.

I have more faith than Dr. Krugman when it comes to the impartiality of our Justices. Obviously, ideology will lead to what appears to be partisan bias in some cases. This is not unanimously the case, however. Republican-appointed Anthony Kennedy has voted against the party line on many occasions. In regards to the law that Krugman is addressing, Republican-appointed John Roberts provided the swing vote in favor of Obamacare, and wrote the decision. If "rabid partisanship" was not strong enough to prevent the approval of the law when its constitutionality was hotly contentious, I doubt that it will prevail over "serious legal reasoning" in this case. 

[agentsmokestack]

Antigone and Socrates

There are many parallels between Antigone and Socrates as he is presented in the Crito and the Apology. In class, Dr. Kohen put them in the same, superior, category of heroes: those who sacrifice for others. In addition to their heroic sacrifices, their motivations and justifications are often quite similar. Socrates and Antigone both break the laws of their cities. In each case, the reason for their rebellion is upholding the higher laws of religion and justice. Antigone says that she broke the law of the city because “it wasn’t Zeus who pronounced these things to me, nor did Justice” (459-460). Although Socrates was accused of disbelieving in the god of Athens, he also followed the commands of a god. He claimed that his entire journey was the result of a visit to an oracle, who told him that a god said he was the wisest man. Socrates also cites examples where he values justice above the commands of the government and above his own well being (Apology, 32d). Both Socrates and Antigone put their city’s well being above their own. Socrates chooses to obey the decision of the courts instead of fleeing, which would destroy the city. Antigone chooses to oppose an unjust law that hurts the city. Upon first examination, it might seem that they take opposing positions on whether or not citizens can break bad laws. This is furthered by their differing reactions to what appear to be two identical statements made by the leaders. To Antigone, Creon says, “No evil is worse than disobedience. This one thing destroys cities” (684-685). Socrates, speaking as the laws, asks himself does it seem possible for a city to exist…in which the judgments that are reached have no strengths” (Crito, 49c). Since Antigone disobeys Creon, and Socrates does not disobey the laws, it might be concluded that Antigone is willing to destroy the city, while Socrates is not. However, Creon’s statement is not the same as the Laws’ statement. Creon says that the breaking of any law would destroy the city. This is empirically denied, as laws were doubtlessly broken frequently in Grecian cities. For instance, Socrates had already been found to have broken the law of the city when the Laws tell him not to disobey their findings. The message of the Laws is that lawbreakers must accept their punishment if the city is to survive. Antigone and Socrates both break the laws of their city and they both are willing to accept their punishments. This is an important element to the type of heroism displayed by Socrates and Antigone. In class we discussed that a key distinction between terrorism and heroism is who takes the fall. With terrorism, the “price” paid is shifted to, or at least includes, people other than the “hero.” True heroes will not destroy the lives of others in their own pursuit of what they see as a higher law. However, the true hero does not merely avoid shifting the consequences to others, they must accept the consequences of their actions themselves. Even when following a higher law, they must submit to the penalties for breaking the lower law.

[ecceromani71-deactivated2015012]

Nebraska joins 23 states with minimum wage above federal government mandate

The ballot initiative will hike the state’s minimum wage to $8 per hour in 2015 and to $9 an hour in 2016.

Seeing as election day just passed, I think it is perfect timing to talk about the minimum wage increase. Personally, I am happy about it (I work at a children’s museum of course I would love to be paid more for dealing with those brats), but I am somewhat surprised that it passed. Embarrassingly I was not as informed as I should have been for these elections, and only really felt passionate about the result of this vote after seeing an ad on TV for it. But I was caught off guard by Norman Anderson’s, who voted against the raise, statement near the end

[Minimum wage should] be a good start for kids in high school, not a wage for adults supporting families.

Perhaps in a perfect society that would be true. Perhaps in Socrate’s perfect city we would be able to control exactly who did what job, how much they were paid, and their living expenses. But this is the corrupt democracy we are living in, 2nd from the bottom, and to continue to vote against such initiatives despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary about it seem ludicrous to me. 

(A bit of a side note, the political ad used for this vote was to speak to the women voting, saying that it is mostly women being paid minimum wage. They had clips of different women talking about how the raise would benefit them. What outraged me was that they were all white, middle aged, and seemingly middle class women who they used to talk, when in reality that is not the target audience. I am not saying to only have poor minorities in these ads, but diversity in both age and race would be helpful in extending the influence of the ad.)

[agentsmokestack]

The raise of the minimum wage is a timely and relevant issue. Does justice demand that we have a higher minimum wage? I voted against the minimum wage measure yesterday, but I'm not inherently opposed to the idea and would love to see hard evidence of benefits to an increase. If I am remembering correctly, the CBO's last report projected half a million job losses to accompany the national 10.10 initiative.

One of my favorite benefits of our federal country is that states can serve as "Laboratories of Democracy" and test out legislation prior to its implementation on a national level. This year, several states raised their minimum wage, and the preliminary results seem to be positive for the good life of their working citizens. However, it is a small sample size and a small benefit, which is why I chose to vote for a punt. But hey, now Nebraska gets to be part of the experiment to determine what will help bring about the good life for the citizens of our nation, and that is exciting.

[agentsmokestack]

Some of us have been discussing the justice of the election system, as it pertains to voter fraud and voter intimidation. This article, and its affiliated study touched on many of the issues we have been discussing. I have been of the position that voter fraud is serious but that in-person voter fraud and non-citizen voting does not happen on a large scale. However, this article refutes that claim, estimating that 6.4% of non-citizens voted in the 2008 presidential election. The study also points to two races in that election that were likely determined by non-citizen vote. I think we can all agree that justice demands election integrity in democracies, so long as voter turnout is not suppressed, especially in a discriminatory manner. So how do we maintain the integrity? The study rejects the effectiveness of voter ID laws, so how might we fix the system? On a related note, do you think we should just allow non-citizens to vote?

[captain-ahab-0-blog-blog]

Jim Crow returns

Double voting: Election officials in 27 states, most of them Republicans, may launch a massive purge of black, Hispanic and Asian-American voters.

A republican-lead initiative has lead to millions of Americans, vastly minorities, to be placed on a list of people potentially banned from voting at the next election.  The enormous list has been compiled of people who, according to the Interstate Crosscheck software, are suspect of having voted in multiple states.  While voting in such a manner is an offense punishable by up to a decade in jail, the problem lies in the inaccuracy of the program.  Many of the so-called ‘matches’ do not have matching middle initials, social security numbers, or don’t account for junior and senior titles.  

If a portion of the almost 7 million names on the list have their voting rights taken from them, elections could easily be swayed.  The list being comprised heavily of minorities, who statistically have shown to vote democrat, is highly suspicious given that it is being lead by republican officials.  I find it hard to believe that they are pursuing these bans for any other reason than to tilt the elections in favor of the republicans.  Both the timeliness and the voting demographics affected by the program make it highly suspect.  This might be different if voter fraud was an actual problem in the U.S., however it has been proven to be minuscule (http://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud/).

The program is a direct assault on the good life.  Without proper, and fair, representation of all peoples, how can the government claim to be the voice of the people? As the title eludes, Crosscheck functions akin to the voting laws in place prior to the civil rights movement.  The prohibition of minority voters is damaging to our democracy, as well as our society as a whole.  A political system free of discriminatory statutes is necessary for a just state and the pursuit of the good life within it.

[huskerred100]

Is it just to allow the possibility of voter fraud?  You claim that the problem is minuscule, but on what measurements?  Even if one voter commits fraud, isn’t that a threat to the entire platform of the American political election?  Just as Socrates was one man, he knew he couldn’t break the laws for the benefit of the city, can’t we view voter fraud the same way?  Also, your argument seems to take aim at Republicans and their “war on race”.  While in a different perception, lose voting tabs could easily perpetuate voter fraud.  Though these individuals should definitely not be banned unless proved by further investigation and charges, you are putting Republicans in a lose-lose situation.  Generally, Democrats view voter identification laws as a plot to stop the minority from voting.  Voter identification laws can include anything from mail, to Social Security Cards, even a birth certificate. If some kind of voter identification was required (not only including the ones I mentioned), voter fraud would be an almost non-existent issue.  So as you argue against the investigation, I will argue that not imposing some kind of voter identification is a direct assault on the good life.  Even the possibility of fraud can undermine the enthusiasm of the American vote.  This is not a prohibition of minority voters, and not a repression of the voice of the American people, but a couple small and easy steps to validate the American vote. 

[agentsmokestack]

I agree you that voter fraud is unjust and threatens any democratic system of governance. I also think that voter fraud is real and probably affects the outcomes of elections occasionally. Regardless of whether it is actually real, the perception that it is real is dangerous. captain-ahah-0's claim that voter fraud has been "proven to be minuscule," is not supported by the article that was linked, which only says that voter impersonation is rare, and that:

The database shows 207 cases of other types of fraud for every case of voter impersonation.

The question isn't whether or not fraud exists, it's whether or not photo ID laws prevent fraud effectively, and whether they do so to an extent that outweighs the suppression of turnout. Since photo ID laws do not stop mail fraud, which appears to be the most threatening, it would seem that other venues are needed to prevent the injustice of voter fraud.

[agentsmokestack]

I have often written about the heroism involved in the treatment of Ebola. Men and women leave the comfort of their lives and venture to one of the most painful environments imaginable for the good of people they've never met who live halfway across the world. And how are we welcoming these heroes back home? By stripping them of their rights and forcibly placing them under quarantine. Is that just? Perhaps it is. In cases, like vaccinations, the Supreme Court has upheld the power of the government to overrule personal rights to ensure public health. In light of the recent incident where a returning doctor was out bowling and on the New York subway just hours before noticing his fever, perhaps these measures are precisely what we need to keep the public safe.

[agentsmokestack]

Persuade or Obey

In the Crito, Socrates personifies the laws and the community of the city and engages in a hypothetical debate with them. He has the laws and the community offer him a choice, persuade us of your innocence or obey us and do not escape from prison(50b).

The “choice” between persuading or obeying an overwhelming force is paralleled in the first book of the Republic. In the opening scene, Polemarchus announces that he will force Socrates to come to Cephalus’s house. In doing so, he is advising Socrates to obey his order. Socrates offers the alternative of persuading Polemarchus to let them go (327c).

It is important to consider whom Polemarchus is representing. As mentioned in class, Cephalus, whose name means “head” in Greek and who practices an earlier model of justice, represents traditional Greek thought. Polemarchus, as Cephalus’s son, therefore represents contemporary Greece, specifically Athens. Like contemporary Athens, Polemarchus has the contradictions relating to justice that Dr. Kohen pointed out last Thursday. The justice that Polemarchus preaches is very different from the justice he practices. Polemarchus argues that justice consists of “helping friends and harming enemies” (334b). However, when he is out in the real world, and not just talking in hypotheticals, Polemarchus operates under a notion of justice that is more like Thrasymachus’s “advantage of the stronger” (337c). Polemarchus, when ordering Socrates not to leave town, flat out says “either prove stronger than these men stay here” (327c). This indicates that what will happen is dependent entirely on a comparison of strength between parties, echoing the sentiments put forth by the Athenians in the Melian dialogue. There doesn’t appear to be any clear justification for labeling Socrates an enemy, so Polemarchus is not following the justice he proclaims.

Looking back at the Crito, It might seem like their is some difference between the laws and the community and Polemarchus. The laws and the community appear to be willing to listen to Socrates, whereas Polemarchus said that persuasion was not an option, because he would refuse to listen (327c). However, this difference is illusory. Although the community claimed that persuasion was an option, when the trial took place, they were unwilling to be persuaded and, instead, rejected Socrates as a person.

Thus, Polemarchus’s conception of justice and his perception of Socrates as presented in the opening scene of the Republic heavily resembles those of the laws and the community in the Crito. As a result, Socrates employs the same tactic in order to change their mind about him and, more importantly, about justice. When considering the options of persuading or obeying, Socrates decides to persuade by obeying.

In the case of Polemarchus, who will not listen to words, Socrates decides to obey his command to come and talk with the men at Cephalus’s house. This gives Socrates the opportunity to change Polemarchus’s beliefs regarding justice, which he does by arguing that it is never right to harm anyone.

In the case of the community, which was not convinced by Socrates’s words, Socrates obeys the command to not escape from jail in order to persuade the community that their practices regarding justice are wrong. He does this by setting an example and refusing to make what he can do the only limit on what he does.

[agentsmokestack]

Wainstein probe implicates over 3,000 students in University of North Carolina academic scandal

Report details "shadow curriculum," utilized by athletes and other students.

Many aspects of justice are at play in this story. Obviously, there are concerns about what is good for the student athletes (who may be left unprepared for life after sports by inadequate curriculum) and those of us trying to obtain "real" degrees as opposed to "shadow" degrees. However, what I found most interesting was the reasoning for the curriculum.

Neither is quoted extensively in the report, but the report queries extensively as to their motives. Atop even a Tar Heel fandom that sometimes caused Crowder to miss work on days after harsh basketball losses, both Crowder and Nyang’oro seem to have operated out of a sense of “compassion,” according to the report. Crowder’s compassion stemmed from her time as an undergraduate at North Carolina in the early 1970s, when she thought the university catered excessively to only the “best and brightest,” while Nyang’oro’s compassion kept in mind two former student-athletes from early in his tenure who had left the school because of academic ineligibility, after which one became an inmate and the other a murder victim.

It would seem that the motivations were pure, though perhaps misguided. Usually with scandals of this nature, the motive is related to keeping talented athletes eligible for games. That doesn't seem to be the case in this situation, as indicated by the fact that the coach has been cleared and the fact that the instigators of the curriculum were from an academic department. This isn't to say that their actions were good, or even justified, but I think we should think of this as more than a way to keep athletes on the court.