Untitled

[batmanisatruehero]

What Women Owe to Cleopatra

Cleopatra is the example of a woman who knows how to use her femininity to get what she advance herself in society. Because of this quality, she is probably the strongest female character we have read this semester. As we discussed in class, Cleopatra and Antony may never have been in love with each other, but rather the idea of each other. For Cleopatra, her relationship with Antony was useful so that she could defend her own people from being conquered as easily as the rest of the areas within the conquest of Rome. Being the queen of Egypt, as well as beautiful, were really the only things that she had to offer. Yet she was able to use those two roles to her advantage, and even elevated those two qualities by use of theater in order to keep Antony thrilled and satisfied with their relationship.

By having control of Antony, it was not hard to be a major influence in how his part of the triumvirate was ran. The fact that she was able to assert herself to the point that she had more control of Antony’s military than he did shows how far a woman can go if they use their femininity to their advantage.

Cleopatra uses her sexuality to gain what she needs. It is a method that is still extremely effective today. It is an under-the-radar type of strategy that women are able to use in order to advance themselves in society and live comfortable lives. In pop culture and literature, this is a very common use of female characters, especially in political dramas. We can see this with many of the female characters in House of Cards where Zoey Barnes uses Frank Underwood’s attraction to her to give her confidential stories from the White House, and with Frank’s wife who uses her relationship with her husband to have impact on issues she is passionate about.

Cleopatra is a combination of these two characters, considering it is clear that Claire really is in love with her husband and because Cleopatra is actually successful in exploiting her femininity and because Zoey’s career would be nothing without Frank.

In Antony and Cleopatra as well as House of Cards, women are portrayed to be completely reliant on men in order to be taken seriously. Without Antony, Egypt would be quickly disposed of. This really leaves no alternative for Cleopatra except to use her role as a female to win over Antony. It begs the question, how far would women have advanced themselves without using their sexuality? It is clear that women are progressing to being more respected for their work rather than their bodies nowadays to a certain extent, but how often would women have been given an ear by men if they had not been in the bed next to them, especially in the days of Antony and Cleopatra? A lot is owed to Cleopatra and other women like her who were brave enough to lower themselves to the desires of men to get what they wanted, but we are thankfully at a point in time where that will not be as necessary. 

[penser12]

 The release of classified information has long been awaited since the end of the Bush administration, and the descaling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The release of CIA classified documents describing “interrogation” methods outside of the U.S. during this time has come to light today.  A senate committee tasked with the job has made a fraction of the records public: only 524 pages out of 6000.  The results are horrifyingly surprising, even for the Bush administration.   The level of injustice that occurred here is astronomical. Even though the administration was faced with the difficult challenge of 9/11, this did not give them the right to torture individuals with medieval practices. The United States’ justice system requires humane treatment of prisoners.  As their guards, they have absolutely no right to treat another human being like a sub species. The CIA’s sanctions are a stain on the justice system of the United States.  As one of the most modern countries in the world, how can we expect other countries not to carry out war crimes when we are committing them ourselves? 

 The democratic senator who led the committee, Dianne Feinstein, said,  “The major lesson of this report is that regardless of the pressures and the need to act, the intelligence community’s actions must always reflect who we are as a nation, and adhere to our laws and standards.”  But the United States completely dropped the ball. This type of behavior, which was carried out for several years, is shameful, and completely unjust.

[unlpols2]

Simply reading the article describing the actual report is highly disturbing. A forward of a Senate report on CIA torture policies should not start with a Senator proclaiming that she “could understand the C.I.A.’s impulse to consider the use of every possible tool to gather intelligence and remove terrorists from the battlefield, and C.I.A. was encouraged by political leaders and the public to do whatever it could to prevent another attack.” 

Well, here is the deal. Some actions are simply wrong. The CIA  acted with the intention of protecting the United States, and, as the reporter states, they embraced this task with vigor. However by being prepared to do the right thing and prevent another attack at all cost, they committed horrible injustice.  As much as the Bush Administration and the CIA are both trying to clear their hands, deep down they know they took the deal. They answered injustice with injustice. And now they have to live with it. No matter how one spins it, these “interrogation methods” show the wickedness of human nature (The same can be said of Al Qaeda).  

[batmanisatruehero]

I think we can all agree that the degree of torture taken on by the CIA is gross, and that no form of torture is just. When the US ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, it probably didn't take into account the threats they would face in the 21st century. Or maybe they did and ratified anyway.

I'm willing to bet that after 9/11, most Americans would have been in favor of varying degrees of torture in the interest of national security. Everyone in approval of these acts at the time were no doubt under the influence of fear and vengeance. They thought, at the time, that the public would be under this same influence. What was not taken into account was how the public would react around ten years later, or how far the CIA would take the torture.

The CIA is learning that the American public is even  less tolerant of behaviors similar to the 1970s. Thank goodness for that. No form of torture can ever be justified. By torturing prisoners of war, we only make it OK for our own military personnel to be tortured. This accountability step was a major step forward for the US human rights record. I applaud the response of the American public and remain hopeful that we can move forward with a closer watch on the CIA. 

[batmanisatruehero]

This was definitely a step in the right direction to shrink the amount of detainess in Guantánamo, especially because Latin American countries are dying to appeal to their big friends from the United States. The move by Uruguay has peaked interest from countries like Brazil, Chile, and Colombia to accept low profile detainees, according to the article. 

That's all well and good, but the low profile detainees are just the surface of the larger issues, which is what do we do with the high profile detainees when that's who's left? It's no question that it is in the best interest of the United States to close Guantánamo, seeing as just the name raises thoughts of the hypocrisy of the US. But where do we send the rest of them, when our friends don't want the dangerous ones?

I support the opinion of the author of this article that they be transferred to domestic prisons. It is cheaper than having them overseas and Guantánamo as a propaganda symbol would wane. The risk in this is increasing the chances of terrorist attacks, plus not too many Americans would be thrilled with having former terrorists as their neighbors. However I think it would be a good move for the US to close Guantánamo for good and show the international community that torturing prisoners and withholding them from fair trials is never acceptable in the name of justice.   

[politicschmolitics]

(Reuters) - An Atlanta family was saved by its dog when the German Shepherd jumped up and took gunfire directed at their car during a road rage incident between the occupants of two other vehicles, police

We’ve discussed the traits of heroism almost every class session. We’ve tried to determine a profile of a hero. I believe one of the main criteria is that the person who is a hero takes a serious risk, usually risking their life. 

A dog in Atlanta died after an argument between two vehicles resulted in gunfire. The car the dog was riding in, with his family, was caught in the crossfire. The dog, Noah, leapt in front of one of the children in the car, protecting her from the gunfire. The wounded dog then jumped out of the vehicle and chased the car that was the source of the gunfire, until he could not go any further and died of his wounds during his chase. 

Many are proclaiming this dog as a hero, since he prevented the young girl from being shot, taking the bullets himself. It would fit into our criteria of a hero. The dog protected someone from major harm, only to be the one to actually suffer. 

But should Noah the dog actually be proclaimed a “hero”? 

We’ve all heard the stories of hero animals. Animals that save their families from fires, or those that save their owners from heart attacks or seizure episodes. What makes these episodes of heroism less important than those committed by humans? 

However, to be a hero, does one have to have the capacity to know what they are doing? Or does having a natural reaction to do something that may turn out as heroic qualify someone as a hero?

This leads to my main question- do you have to be human to be a hero? 

[my-anonymous123]

First off, I feel bad for the three children that had to witness this road rage going on. The argument that occurred with the driver in the Taurus and the passenger another car is ridiculous. It ended with gun shots and the loss of a family dog from a different car.  

This class has taught me the difference between someone who is doing a nice deed and someone who is considered to be hero, usually by risking their life, like you said. This is an interesting article because I think that if the dog was a human, that person would automatically be considered a hero. Since it is a dog, it may sound absurd to say a dog is hero to some people. If Noah specifically went in front one of the children to protect her, then I would consider Noah a hero even though he was “highly trained.” He is considered a hero because he was protecting the girl from this terrible incident, risking his life.

[kantfindjustice-deactivated2015]

How can I say this? I’ll take the Dr. Kohen approach and just say it. A dog cannot be a hero. Come on. One could train dogs day and night to protect their owners, sniff for mines, sniff for bombs, sniff for drugs, etc. You’re basically programming a computer. If drugs are found, sit. If someone violently enters home, attack. A dog doesn’t have the reasoning capabilities, and therefore the moral agency, that heroism requires. Heroism requires you to evaluate the situation, and act in a way that defies logic and self-preservation for some (greater?) goal. A dog cannot think like that.

The woman and her husband, who was in a store at the time of the shooting, told police that Noah was “a highly trained canine as he saved the family by taking the bullets” and then chased the Taurus until he couldn’t go any further, according to the report.

They trained the dog to jump out of a car and maneuver itself into gunfire to save its family? Of course they’re not going to say that they have a well-behaved dog that just happened to take a bullet. I’m not one to speak ill of the dead, but what that’s what you have, a well-trained dog who happened to move himself in front of gunfire (which may or may not have hit the family, anyway) and gets itself shot. Even if they trained the dog specifically to jump out of its passenger seat (who puts the dog in the passenger seat, anyway) and take bullets, it’s not heroism because you cannot be trained to be a hero. Sure, the dog was probably acting on some instinct/training to protect the family, but from what the article says (it doesn’t really say much), the dog acted like a dog, not like a human who logically decides to put his/herself in harms way to protect others.

So, sure if a person did this, then it was a heroic act, but it wasn’t. The article didn’t mention the word “hero” for good reason, dogs don’t have moral agency and therefore are incapable of being heroes.

[politicschmolitics]

I completely agree that the dog should not be declared a hero, but my posting of this article did exactly what I wanted it to do- produce dialogue. I think there’s a comparison; however, between the dog and the “fight or flight” response humans have. I don’t have a specific examples, but often when people do something seen as “heroic” such as saving someone from a burning building, they say “I didn’t even think about it” or “It was a natural reflex”. So, if there’s no logical decision behind an act, such as a split-second and it’s either fight or flight, does that change if a person is a hero or not? If there’s no thought process or evaluating the situation, does that change if an act is considered heroic? PS- The Hero Dog Awards is a real thing… Google it. You can’t make that stuff up.

[kantfindjustice-deactivated2015]

Oooo this is actually interesting:

I don’t have a specific examples, but often when people do something seen as “heroic” such as saving someone from a burning building, they say “I didn’t even think about it” or “It was a natural reflex”. So, if there’s no logical decision behind an act, such as a split-second and it’s either fight or flight, does that change if a person is a hero or not? If there’s no thought process or evaluating the situation, does that change if an act is considered heroic?

So I mean there could easily be a difference between what the actor in the situation actually did and what they said they did regarding whether or not they had moral agency. One can’t be a hero by accident, so if someone trips down some steps and in doing so, somehow stops a bullet meant for someone else, I’m confident in saying that they’re a victim of an unfortunate happenstance, not a hero, since they didn’t make a decision to do that.

Where this gets kind of interesting is: what if our instinct is to protect someone at our loss in a certain circumstance. What comes to mind is that sort of paternal instinct where one is more likely to immediately default to saving a child, sometimes at their (the parent’s) expense [citation needed, but you probably know what I mean]. If a mother instinctively sacrifices herself for her daughter, without making a conscious decision and therefore exhibiting some form of moral agency, is it a heroic act? I suppose following my logic in this post and my previous one … if it’s not a conscious decision, there’s no moral agency, and therefore it cannot be a heroic act.

But this is all assuming people can, at times, act purely, 100% on instinct, which I don’t know is actually true or not. So my answer is: maybe?

[captain-ahab-0-blog-blog]

I find the question of ‘can people who act on instinct be considered heroes’ an interesting one. I also question as Kantfindjustice does if people actually can act purely on instinct beyond the momentary reflex. For the sake of the argument I’ll assume you can. Then the question becomes where does this ‘heroic’ instinct come from? For many I would believe that it comes from habitual acts of selflessness and action. Over time they would essentially train themselves, similar to the dog discussed above, to be ready to act selflessly when the time comes. At some point, if the habituation is repeated enough, it is likely that they would come to a situation where to act selflessly could be a life threatening prospect but they would act on it anyways, instinctively.

More interesting, however, is the question of whether this instinct can be present prior to learning or habituation. What I mean is can some people be genetically predisposed to act heroically instead of being a bystander? It is true that different people can be genetically predisposed to be more anxious, happy, etc. This does not mean that they will be 100% of the time, but coupled with the right environment, their chances of exhibiting the trait are far higher than a person without the disposition. So why not heroism? Conceivably some combination of predispositions such as bravery and altruism could lead someone, in the correct environment, to act heroically out of instinct.

The question at the heart of this still remains, can these outwardly heroic acts be truly considered heroic if the act comes entirely from instinct? Regardless of where the instinct comes from, is conscious thought a prerequisite for heroism? If we cannot consider the dog from the article a hero, then I do not believe that a person acting purely on instinct can either. It is our higher level thinking capability that truly separates us from the dog and taking that away, I believe, would also take away the possibility for heroism. In that circumstance we would only be well trained or constructed, not heroic.

[batmanisatruehero]

I like where you're taking this when you say the word "habituation." Where does this habit come from? We hear of these instances where a mother will do something crazy for their child in order to keep them safe. Or the same thing comes from a momma bear protecting its cubs. Why does this happen? Because protecting kin becomes habitual/instinctual. Around my later teenage years, I could see myself taking a bullet for my little brothers, yet I don't think they were on the same level. They had not yet been conditioned to the point of protecting kin the same way my parents had because of the attachment of raising them, or in my case, because they were my little brothers and I wanted them to be safe.

In the case of this dog, I don't know how many years it was in the family, but I would suggest that his attachment to the family and his habituation of keeping them safe is what led him to do what he did. A mother is rarely labeled a "hero" when she tears down a burning building to save her children. She's just being a mother. But when a random person saves another random person, we're quicker to give them the hero label because they have no previous attachment to that person, and therefore have not been conditioned to protect that person. 

[batmanisatruehero]

Ferguson mayor: No severance pay for Wilson

Wilson said threats directed at the department fueled concern that staying on the force might have "put the residents and police officers of the City of Ferguson at risk, which is a circumstance that I cannot allow."

This is the best move Wilson has made in the past four months. The media and the general public have been in an uproar in light of the decision of the grand jury, and the average citizen would suggest that the American justice system has failed. Thankfully, Wilson decided that the smartest and safest move would be to step down from the force, which is ultimately what this nation wanted, albeit not because our laws called for it. From what I have read, the laws did not necessarily give the grand jury grounds to indict Wilson. Yet as we have learned from Aristotle, laws do not always trump men. Wilson recognized that the good life was threatened for both the police and the citizens of Ferguson, and because the law would not settle this case, he acted on his own. Will this solve the unrest in Ferguson? Doubt it. But it was still the right thing to do. 

[batmanisatruehero]

Theater for the Plebeians

Shakespeare’s Coriolanus is the prime example of theatrical politics. By this I mean and refer to Caius Marcius strutting his stuff in a toga in order to win votes to become consul. Not only is Caius disgusted at parading his wounds (which he never actually shows), but he is also disgusted by the people he parades himself to. This leads to the questions, how theatrical should politics be, and should people rule people they despise?

Regarding politics as theater, it is clear that no one would have voted for Caius without his recent success in battle. The people imply that they will only vote for him if he shows the wounds he received in battle. Were they expecting Caius to be proud of these wounds? Would this pride outweigh the disdain he showed towards the very people he was trying to rule? 

This brings the question of pride over humility. By presenting himself as prideful, Caius shows that he was proud to have fought for his people and for Rome, which is ultimately what the people want to see. However, given the background we have on Caius, we know that he is most definitely not proud to fight for the ignorant plebeians.

"To brag unto them, thus I did, and thus; show them the unaching scars which I should hide, as if I had received them for the hire of their breath only!"

 His pride more comes from the Achilles-like honor he wants to attain.

There is no way Caius can play humility, because he is not humble at all, and the people know it. This is why they know that showing his wounds would be a huge act of humility for him. It would mean that he concedes to the people, and needs their help so he can become consul. By wearing the toga, he communicates to the people that he did what he did for their support. But he did not, which is where theater comes in, because he has to convince the people of the pride he takes in them. 

"He said he had wounds, which he could show in private... 'I would be consul,' says he: 'aged custom, but by your voices, will not so permit me; your voices therefore.' When we granted that, here was 'I thank you for your voices: thank you: your most sweet voices: now you have left your voices, I have no further with you.' Was not this mockery?"

 You bet it was.

He despises the very people he is to appease, so this brings us back to the first question, why do the people vote for him if they know he hates them? Is it because it brings them satisfaction that he finds himself having to lower himself to what they want to see in order to gain their favor? His theatrics convince no one. They get what they want for a brief moment, but then he is given a position in which he rules them. Do they build him up (put him in office) simply so they can tear him down (kick him out)?

In a return to the second question I asked at the beginning of this post, why should Caius rule a people so ignorant? Because he is righteous and he would hopefully lead the people away from their ignorance. However, can one who is hated by the many change the many? In order for Caius to lead the people of Rome towards a better society, he has to make the people think he has changed himself so the people do not see him as far removed as he makes himself. The danger in this is the people would see through his façade, in a similar way to how he was trying to gain votes. Once the people saw how he was trying to change them, he would risk banishment from Rome. 

In the end, Caius' fall is all too predictable. This is extremely frustrating because it is clear to the audience that the plebeians need to change. Caius is the one who ends up being forced to seek their change, and because of his distaste for them, there is no foreseeable way in which he can succeed.   ​

[kantfindjustice-deactivated2015]

Catholic Church argues it doesn't have to show up in court because religious freedom

And you thought Hobby Lobby was extreme.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. 

What a problem. This event - the firing of this teacher for undergoing in vitro fertilization - lies at the intersection of religion, law, and workers’ rights - a maelstrom of confusion. I mean where does one even begin? By what right do they fire her for disobeying their religion? What about all of the other people that don’t follow the religion to the letter that are still being employed? Surely not every employee follows the Catholic religious tradition to the letter. Following the Church’s argument, should they not also be fired?

Then comes the legal argument. Those arguing for the Church/school argue that this teacher signed a contract of employment and agreed to follow the rules and blah blah blah. I’ll return to my first argument. Then why don’t they fire anyone else for not following Catholic teachings 100%? Shouldn’t everyone be protected from being fired by their employer for these circumstances? Imagine if a Muslim fired a Christian for not observing Islamic law/tradition? These people would be outraged. That’s not to mention that I am unable to find the limit of religious expression. This leads me to believe that the government can interfere when “a religious practice poses a threat to the health, safety, or Welfare of the public.” Well allowing religious organizations or people to fire someone else for not believing in their religion constitutes, what I would say, a flagrant threat to the public welfare.

And this is all ignoring the fact that the Church claims that they are immune from appearing in a court of law. The ACLU lawyer mentioned in the article says that such a claim is unlike any other cases. If the Church claims they are immune from appearing in court, can any organization claim such a thing? Ah I see now, this is how all of those bankers got away with zero justice after the financial collapse. One can merely claim that they don’t have to appear in court. What? No.

The question here, for me, is: at what point does “free exercise thereof” stop? Here’s my claim: if one’s religion affects any other non-consenting party, your freedom of exercise stops. Your religion cannot dictate to me what I do with my life. Think of religion as an optional set of rules to which one must willingly choose to belong. I have no choice in following local, state, and federal law. No one does. I, however, do have a choice in following religious law. And free exercise of religion stops when you try to force someone into unwillingly following those laws.

The problem here is, of course, that the teacher did willingly sign the contract to be employed at this school. This is a problem for which I can’t really find a solution. The history of education in the Western world is invariably intertwined with religion. Universities began as religious schools. For centuries no or few secular schools existed. And many great schools are religious. Georgetown is a catholic university, and known as a great school. There’s little we can do to separate religion from education in our history and our society, but I think I’m justified in saying that those employed by religious universities, schools, etc. need protection from their employers.

I’ll attempt to take what works on a national level and make it work for this problem. Denmark is a constitutional monarchy. It’s state religion is Lutheranism (Church of Denmark). The monarch is required to be a member of the church (indeed they’re the “supreme authority” of it), but citizens are granted full freedom of religion. The same ought to apply to religious organizations/schools. The school’s religion can be Roman Catholicism, but surely its employees ought to be guaranteed freedom of religion, which means they can’t be fired for legal actions that might be contrary to the religion of the organization.

[peacewalker383]

I would almost feel comfortable arguing that the members of the church’s claims have a small shred of merit, if not for the fact that they were all also American citizens, enjoying all of the benefits thereunto provided.  I am in agreement with you that as soon as any sort of religious practice infringes upon a non-consenting party that the freedom of religious exercise ceases to be held in precedence.  I would even argue that their religious practices, while surely being protected by the Constitution, do not take precedence over the courts, and their whole claim of having freedom from being summoned to a trial is a direct exploitation of the Constitution.  If you live here in America, and enjoy her freedoms and commodities, then your duty as a citizen to the courts comes first, for to do the opposite would pose a greater injustice to the whole of our society by undermining our current (albeit outdated) Constitution, than to the Church’s right to unpersecuted religious practice.

In the case of the teacher unfortunately, I would argue that while it’s definitely not morally correct to fire someone for something so trivial as not conforming to religious practice, the greater injustice would be against the Church if we disallowed them from firing the teacher.  If a private school, business, or corporate entity expects adherence to certain requirements, then the fault ultimately lies in the employed.  I agree though, that they better vet every single employee to ensure that everyone is complying by set standards, or this quickly becomes a case of discrimination rather than religious adherence.   

In all though, I believe that in a completely just world, we wouldn’t allow religion, or any other product of the human imagination for that matter, to dictate what a person can or can’t do while employed.

[captain-ahab-0-blog-blog]

I agree with what you are saying in your post Kantfindjustice.  The part of the article that really stood out to me was the broad potential for precedent that this case could set.  The Catholic Church is claiming that they do not have to go to court because doing so would infringe upon their religious freedom.  If this claim becomes validated, because it is so broad, then it could open the door for other groups to take this line of argument, opening up a massive legal loophole.  Claiming religious freedom infringement could become a form of a legal immunity.  Whether infringed upon or not, people undoubtably would abuse the exemption when they would have had a weak argument in trial.  I sincerely hope that this line of argument is not accepted by the courts.  Justice in the United States is built upon laws, not religious or other in-group beliefs.  Everyone ought have to face the same legal standards as everyone else and have to prove that they are right before the law, not hide behind beliefs.  

[pols383student-blog]

I agree with what is being said here. If a church decides that it needs to advocate for policy changes based on its own moral code, then it consents to show up to court. If a church has decided that its way is the right way, and that everyone else should follow their way, that church’s representatives need to be willing to defend these ideas in public. They consented to show up to Court when they began to advocate for a religiously-based change in public policy 

I believe the separation of church and state is a two-fold protection: it protects religions from government interference, and allows people of all beliefs and non-beliefs to do as they wish. It allows for the two to coexist relatively peacefully. 

[batmanisatruehero]

What bothers me most about this article is the lack of care for the congregation the Catholic Church shows. When Herx's boss said, "I'll pray for you," almost every single human on earth would have taken that as a vote of confidence. Instead, he went behind her back to get her fired, and make the Catholic Church look like a tattle-tailing institution that sees itself as above the law. This action in itself shows that the Indiana school at the very least is most definitely not above the law. There was no clearer opportunity for Herx's boss to warn her that if she went ahead with the procedure, she would be fired because of what the Catholc Church teaches. Instead, he was extremely ambiguous with his wording, and allowed her to proceed so that she would not be able to erase what she did. This is immature, hypocritical, and not at all a course of action Christ condones. 

[batmanisatruehero]

Obama calls hostage's beheading by ISIS 'pure evil'

American aid worker and former soldier Peter Kassig was beheaded by ISIS terrorists, the White House confirmed Sunday.

The argument could definitely be made that Peter Kassig was a hero. Before being an aid worker in Syria, Kassig was an American soldier. What I think makes him a hero is his willingness to serve in a non-violent way, those injured in the conflict. He was still risking his life, but in a way he found more meaningful. 

Does going overseas to offer aid in violent conflicts constitute someone as heroic? Kassig was on the ground, interacting directly with the people he was working to help. He knew there was an enormous risk in helping these people. Is every aid worker a hero? What about journalists? Aren't they risking their lives so we can hear the stories of Syria? For someone to be a hero here, do they have to be executed by ISIS? Does it matter that Kassig said nothing, while previous westerners have blamed president Obama and David Cameron for their deaths?

[ecceromani71-deactivated2015012]

Mexico protesters set fire to National Palace over missing students | Al Jazeera America

Gang members have confessed to killing the 43 missing students and dumping their charred remains in a landfill

Once again, we see international problems get little to no coverage in the states unless we personally are involved. But I think that it is very interesting to see this, and am pretty pleased that the students are taking action against the injustices that they see in their country. It is so unsettling that government officials would give the students up to gang members to be killed because of protesting against new government regulation. their attempts to reduce government critique has proved counter intuitive; by doing this it will only fuel the fire (no pun intended) for citizens to push for change in the governement, even moreso than before. 

[dalergang24]

So I think you cover two interesting points here, 1. those students are heroes, and 2. the US is awful at the news. Both statements I think are true. But does the US need to report on such a story, it obviously does not impact people being able to lead their lives here so we need to cover it? There are definitely enough things going on here in the United States to fill up the 7 o’clock news. Obviously this is a grave tragedy and a gross injustice, but injustice happens all the time. To your other point, I totally agree I feel like the government has really screwed themselves with this move, so it will be interesting to see the response as it continues to develop.

[batmanisatruehero]

Sure, the U.S. might be bad at covering some stories. Do we remember Rwanda? Darfur? Why do these stories not get covered heavily? Because these places don't have much to contribute, or because the U.S. has more important things going on (Rwanda was of no interest, and Darfur became a problem during the War on Terror). Mexico though, I think has been covered pretty well. I've even done a post on Mexico for this class, but no one was interested. Maybe what I said about it was boring. Maybe everyone else was worried about Ebola. Or a drunk guy killing his kid by "accident." What I'm saying is that we shouldn't as much blame the media as ourselves. We can pick and choose what we read about in the news by clicking what sounds interesting to us. Granted, Ebola is going to be the headline, whereas the truth about the students from Mexico or updates on the 200 girls from Nigeria will be in a smaller font. To answer dalergang24, I think it's without question that the media must report on this story. Mexico should be a priority to the U.S. especially considering their proximity. It would be an injustice for the international community to be unaware of the corruption in Mexico that has surrounded this recent event.

[batmanisatruehero]

I think this is absolutely ridiculous. At first while I was reading this article, I thought, "maybe this is just some students in India trying to make a point." I thought, "maybe if this cheating movement gains enough momentum, it could push the government to combat cheating." Instead, this movement has pushed the government to SUPPORT cheating. "When pro-cheating rallies were held in Uttar Pradesh in the early 1990s, the state's chief minister gave in to demands and repealed an anti-copying act - he actually allowed students to cheat." For the sake of justice and the good life, I really hope this is not how the government would respond a couple decades later. I don't want my professors to be publishing their work in "bogus journals." I don't want to have my post-graduate work to be graded by other grad students. For India to make progress in higher education, universities and the government need to recognize the all too obvious hinderances of cheating, in order to put an end to the manipulation of the lower classes.

[batmanisatruehero]

Dying for Good

Antigone would have been a very well favored student, had she been a student of Socrates'. Despite knowing that there were penalties for the actions Antigone committed, she valued what was right over her life, which is what Socrates died for. However, I would argue that Antigone died for a better reason, and I would further push to say that she died for a more heroic cause.

Socrates died to prove a point. He used his death to make the people of Athens realize that their view of justice was twisted. Despite being guilty of breaking the laws he was accused of, Socrates wanted to prove that those laws were unjust. He wanted to show that provoking the youth to think was a good thing for Athens. He wanted to show Athens that what they believed of the gods might not necessarily be true. 

Antigone on the other hand wanted to be in favor of the gods. She was not necessarily trying to prove her point to the community. That just happened to be the plus side of her giving her life for her brother to be buried. 

What's the difference here? The difference is that Antigone did not have an ulterior motive for doing what is right. As is discussed in The Republic with the allegory of the ring, it seems as if Antigone is acting as if no one was watching her actions, as opposed to Socrates, who wants the people to change their ways as they see that they are killing him unjustly. Of course Antigone wants people to change their unjust ways, but she does not die to put on that kind of show. She dies because she does what she sees as right. Ironically, this line of thinking comes from The Republic, despite how Socrates dies. 

What comes out of this play, I think, is that people will follow the example of goodness because that kind of a life style is attractive, not because the person who did a good deed convinced them that the deed was good. For example, Mother Theresa gained fame from her actions, not her speeches. People began to follow her because what she was doing for the people of Calcutta was a good thing to do, not because she was boasting about what she was doing. When she began to attract attention because of what she was doing, she would of course explain her motives, and those motives would make sense to the masses. This is what happened between Antigone and Ismene. Ismene feared for Antingone, but once Antigone explained why she had to die, Ismene wanted to help Antigone. A movement was sparked because of the actions of Antigone. 

What Socrates does throughout his life is good. Where I think Antigone trumps Socrates though, is that Antigone does not accept her death as a way to attract attention, she only accepts her death because she knows that is the right and just thing to do by the gods. She dies for good rather than proving her point.  

[garybusey4you]

"Several years after completing my 16-month sentence for drug dealing, I indebted myself considerably to obtain a master’s degree in the humanities (with honors). Despite the fact that my offenses had occurred over a decade ago, I found that paying jobs in public high schools and community colleges were legally barred to me by the State of California. (I now teach as a volunteer at halfway houses.)

This is too bad not just for me, but also for the students I would have happily taught. Former felons are uniquely positioned to reach the very population most likely to make the same bad choices that landed them behind bars.”

[garybusey4you]

Is the good life possible for those who have made mistakes with the justice system in the US? Sure, some crimes should put individuals behind bars forever; but is a better life possible for low level offenders after one trip to prison? Does that little box define you now? Felon/Not Felon. Black and White no? I think there is a huge amount of potential talent being lost to the criminal justice system in the US. The fact is that once you enter the system for the first time, it often follows you for the rest of your life. You can break free of it. How is that the good life? How is it a chance to better yourself and your situation? It sets you up for failure. 

[justnebraskaliving]

While I think there’s a lot of proper criticism within your response to this subject, I think the general conclusion is incorrect.  First consider proper criticism.  Our justice system absolutely criminalizes things which I don’t consider unjust or wrong, many of which qualify as low level offenses.  This person for example -  ”16-month sentence for drug dealing” - committed a low level crime.  Questions about whether these actions should be a crimes are important when considering justice.  Equally important is the question of whether drug dealing and something worse, like child molestation, should be grouped together into a yes or no questionnaire.  

There’s a larger issue here however.  Whether hindering an individual’s pursuit of the good life is ever just.  Correcting the process whereby a person becomes a felon is primary.  Assuming conviction was correct, however, I think these limits are justified.  In such a perfect justice system, felons are people who violate imperative social convention.  The situation is not so much that “they’ve been set up for failure,” as much as their chances for success have been limited.  This is because they’ve shown tendencies to limit other person’s pursuit of the good life - it’s a greater good type of consideration. 

I think this process is inherently terrible.  Dealing with people who ‘break the rules’ is always going to be complex and create winners and losers in society.  Given the situation at large, creating an extra layer of identification towards those people and their interactions with the post-prison world is not unjust. 

[batmanisatruehero]

A few problems here are that hiring businesses don't believe in rehabilitation and the stigma towards convicts is unfair. I've been rewatching The Office and an applicable example arose: A black man transferred from one branch to another as his original branch closed. A rumor spread that this man was a convict and he was knowingly hired by his previous boss. The people in the new office did not react kindly, and the man was treated completely different from when he first arrived as a normal person. When he admitted that his crime was insider trading, the tension in the office was eased, as if to say it was a white man's crime and there was nothing to fear. This example says many things. Most important is that when someone is seen as a convict, people are afraid of him/her, and he/she is avoided (whether it be in getting a job, or people in a workplace avoiding them). It would be hard for this man to escape the stigma of being a convict in the real world, yet he seemed to be rehabilitated.

This is of course magnified when talking about a violent crime. Should we believe in rehabilitation when it comes to rapists, murderers, or -not necessarily violent but still- drug dealers? My gut reaction is to say yes. It should be the task of society to first rehabilitate these offenders, and further trust that rehabilitation can be effective. However, once a convict leaves a facility, it should not be believed that they have been "cured." There should be an ongoing process of rehabilitation. As far as taking away the negative stigma, that's up to the maturity of society, as well as the trust. This is a difficult thing, but I believe in restorative justice and rehabilitation, even if that means risking repeat offenders.

[batmanisatruehero]

Burkina army told to hand over power

Pressure is on the Burkina Fasso army as protests have been taking place in the capital, Ouagadougou. It seems as if the army does not have any long term plans to run the affairs of the state, as they claim they have plans to only remain in power until the civilians can establish a transitional government for themselves. So far I think the army has acted justly in this incident. The former president was attempting to alter the constitution so he could lawfully remain in power, and the army rightfully stopped him from doing so. The army then took control of Burkina Fasso to maintain order. The one protester killed so far is of course the one downside to the army being in control right now, but the future of Burkina Fasso appears to be in the hands of the citizens. Justice should hold if the people can act quickly and establish the transitional government the army expects. 

[my-anonymous123]

Homecoming Prince Identified as High School Shooting Suspect

A high school homecoming prince in Washington state calmly opened fire in the school cafeteria at lunchtime, killing one person and injuring four others - including two of his relatives - before shooting himself to death, police and witnesses said.

Another school shooting happened in the cafeteria at Marysville-Pilchuck High School. 14 year old Jaylen Fryberg, killed one person and injured four other people, including two of his relatives and himself.

Despite the fact that the 14 year old had a weapon, I think that public schools need to take action when it comes to the security and safety of schools. I know that some public schools (middle and high schools) have metal detectors in every entrance of their school for safety purposes. Though students would complain, it could be a possibility to make the school a safe environment. Public schools need to do something to make their schools as safe as possible. On another note, Fryberg shouldn’t have had access to a gun/weapon. School shootings will keep occurring, if we cannot control who has access to a gun.

[kantfindjustice-deactivated2015]

This, I would argue, is not the solution to the problem of spree shootings. I’ve outlined in other posts my ideas for gun control, and although there is no reason that a 14-year-old should have access to guns, I would argue that the problem (and the obligation) lies with the school and, more generally, with how we handle mental health issues in this country.

No normal person does this. The article states that he was methodical, calculating. Most murders aren’t like this; most murders are acts of passion. This kid, in my opinion, had clear mental health issues. The article also mentions that he got in an argument the day before over racial slurs. While controlling his access to weapons was obviously needed, also needed was proper assessment and care for mental health concerns in this country.

So how do we achieve justice in this situation? I propose two ways: 1) Treating mental health concerns as just that - health concerns and 2) Criminalizing the availability of weapons to minors. We’re going to keep experiencing these shootings until we fix these underlying issues.

[my-anonymous123]

As I’ve previously talked about in one of my posts, I do think mental illness is a factor when it comes to murders; my example was Nikko Jenkins and how they shouldn’t have released him. It is easier said than done to say that we should criminalize the availability of weapons to minors when so many people illegally own weapons. Unfortunately almost anyone can get a gun due to connections, even though it is illegal. I’m not saying it isn’t a problem, I do think we need to be more strict on who and who cannot own have the rights to a gun but clearly school shootings are still a huge problem.  That is why I suggested that schools look at the alternative of putting metal detectors in their schools. Or perhaps figure out another way to make their school safer. The fact that the 14-year old kid had a weapon in the cafeteria shows to me that the safety of the school needs to be re-evaluated.  If schools don’t take any action on trying to make a safer environment for their students, then more and more school shootings will occur. It is not fair to parents are children that they can’t go to school without worrying about their well-being. Schools used to be considered a safety-zone and now they are becoming more of a primary target for shootings. These school shootings are unjust and unfair to the community and environment. The high school students shouldn’t have been killed/wounded.

[batmanisatruehero]

I would like to return to the comments made in this string of posts regarding mental health. I agree that mental health often plays a factor in these types of shootings. But this is a case where the community is shocked that Jaylen Fryberg because he did not appear to have any major or apparent mental health issues. He just seemed to be an aggressive football player. As the video to this link says, he was "popular."Should there have been warning signs here? His friends did not see this coming. One of his friends in the interview says he was behaving like normal the day before. It does not seem as if anyone would have said he was spiraling out of control.

However, as dalergang24 said in one of his posts:

They were described as popular and this made me wonder why the media and people place labels such as these on people, as if being popular makes you unable to commit such a crime or being quiet automatically qualifies you to be capable of such a crime.

It bothers when people are labeled as popular, or even normal. It seems like we are slowly starting to learn that young kids are vulnerable, and there is so much that can drive them to the point that Fryberg was driven to. So I am curious about what was meant about "addressing mental health concerns." There is plenty we can do about people who consistently act out, or the person in class who is constantly keeping to themselves, and especially when someone has sudden change in attitude. But I don't think it's fair to blame this on the lack of care we give towards people with mental health issues in this specific case. I think this is a case where we need to address gun laws. Even if a parent believes their child would not commit this kind of act, we can never know for sure what is going through the minds of adolescents. I don't think justice failed in the lack of security in the schools, it failed in the leniency of gun laws, and the access Fryberg had to guns. 

[batmanisatruehero]

The wit and wisdom of Eleanor Roosevelt

Politician and former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt is well know for her campaigning and wit, 12 quotes from the politician celebrate her wisdom.

Before taking this class, if I had been asked who some of my heroes were, I would have included Eleanor Roosevelt in my list. She may not fall under the technically correct definition for a hero that professor Kohen has been preaching, but she most definitely made an impact on not only the American good life, but the good life for the world as a whole with her role as first lady. As this brief article touches on, Rooselvelt was an active first lady, and made sure that she made major impacts on the issues that mattered most to her. While I recognize she is not a hero, I greatly admire the impact she made on promoting a universal good life. 

[batmanisatruehero]

An Interpretation of Socrates' Take on the Good Life

In the Apology Socrates tries to show the city of Athens his attempt to give meaning to life. It is easy to call oneself the master of their profession, but to what purpose are they performing that task? By studying Socrates today, students are able to break away from routine and meaningless lifestyles.

Because this text has been so widely read, humanity today has a better understanding of working the way it does. In other words, thanks to Socrates, people today are encouraged to consider how they can make the world a better place for their fellow people, rather than being motivated by material possessions, or as Socrates says “things of the city” (36c). In reading the Apology as well as listening to the commentary given to us in class by professor Kohen, it seems that the good life was given a crucial examination by Socrates, which is that life cannot be good without examination, and by examining life, there will always be things that can be made better. In other words, the good life cannot be achieved, it can only be strived for

  What Socrates did through his whole life was not corrupt. He helped citizens ponder the best ways to impact their city. “I went to each of you privately to perform the greatest benefaction, as I affirm, and I attempted to persuade each of you not to care for the things of the city until he cares for the city itself, and so to care for the other things in the same way.” Socrates tries to bring people to the realization that while they can earn things from the skills they possess, people need to consider how they can positively impact the city as a whole.

As a college student, this text has been a reminder of the importance of considering not just how I can live a comfortable life, but instead examine myself as an individual and in turn decide how I would best function in society in order to impact those around me in a positive way. When Socrates examines those most wise in their professions, he shows that anyone who claims to be most wise is more ignorant than anything. “…whatever I do not know, I do not suppose to know.” What Socrates wants those judging him to know is that he does not want to show the city of Athens that the way he lives is the best way to live, instead that there is always room for growth. When we live believing that we have achieved a good life, our lives become meaningless. When lives become meaningless, the people living those lives become uncomfortable.

I tried this strategy on my family, and it worked quite well. When I asked my dad if he felt like he had a satisfied life and that he had impacted the city in a positive way, he said yes. He lives in a modern house in the suburbs of West Omaha and lives a very comfortable life. When I asked him if he felt satisfied with knowing how many people I see in downtown Lincoln living uncomfortable lives, or if he felt comfortable with the North Omaha toddler on TV using words I did not know the meaning of until college (bad words, not good), his attitude shifted defensively, similarly to the father’s accusing Socrates of corrupting the youth in Athens.

This personal example shows that there are always going to be people who are uncomfortable with having their lives examined by someone who points out what more can be done. When people live comfortably, they want to continue to live comfortably, because in most cases they feel that they have earned that comfortable life. Socrates shows us again and again, that even if we are living a good life, we should strive to make it better. 

[batmanisatruehero]

Ched Evans: Debate rages over rapist's right to work

Convicted rapist Ched Evans has been released. But should he return to football?

There has been a lot of recent controversy over whether or not professional athletes should be allowed to return to their sport if they have committed a crime. There is Oscar Pistorius who murdered his girlfriend, Ray Rice who brutally assaulted his girlfriend, Adrian Peterson who abused his child, and now Ched Evans (international soccer player) who was convicted of rape. After carrying out a punishment, should these stars be allowed to return to being paid a high salary and influencing young people? Are famous people required to maintain a clean record, or is there a moral responsibility to being famous? This decision ultimately lands on whoever is paying the athlete, not the public. When people acquire fame in any kind of entertainment, there are often moral clauses in the contracts they make, which calls for the individual to behave in whatever their contractor deems as morally acceptable behavior. If there is no such clause, as far as justice is concerned, an athlete should be allowed to return to their job. Should contractors themselves be required to include moral clauses?