Politics and Dimples.

[enirehtakeel-blog]

This is it.

This semester has been interesting; I have never been in a class where online participation was so heavy (except, of course, that online political science degree I'm working on). Looking back over my past three-and-a-half months of blogging has been embarrassing at times and enlightening at others. I would have to say one of my best blog posts was my attempt to "redefine justice." I wrote this at the end of September, and I remember putting so much thought and effort into it. Of course, this was long before we had dug into Plato or Aristotle. Looking back on it now is somewhat similar to looking back on a paper I wrote in the first grade. At the time it was written, I felt so accomplished. Now I only know that I don't know very much. However, I still think that this was one of my best blog posts because, although it was far from being correct (even laughably so), I made an attempt to attach a definition to something we still can't define today. I spent almost an entire week thinking, writing and rewriting the post and when I finally hit the "publish" button, I was excited to see how people would react. 

This leads me to the second half of this post: blogging. I liked the blogging assignment because it made me continue to critically think about the concepts we were discussing in class throughout the week. A final paper might have made me focus on a single book we read or interesting discussion in class, but blogging forced me to actively and publicly agree or critique what we were learning. Unfortunately, because of personal time restraints, I was unable to comment as frequently or as soon as I would have liked. My favorite part of the assignment was when I was able to jump in on the conversations of my peers. I know it was frustrating when people either waited until Saturday night to blog or simply didn't put in time or effort to their work. However, I think it might be beneficial to find a way to tie the blogging process into class a little more. I mentioned in class that it might be beneficial to talk about interesting posts, whether good or bad. I don't think it would be good to approach them as "good" or "bad" publicly; instead you might try allowing students to read the post and comment on it in class. Whoever wrote it would remain anonymus and, hopefully, a good discussion might be sparked. I know I am now technically a "blogger," but I'm not sure about what my future as such holds. I know I will continue to read the blog and probably follow more people. However, I'm not sure if I will continue to contribute to the forum, myself. 

For what it's worth, I learned a lot from this class, and I plan to continue reading and developing my opinions of justice and heroism throughout my life.

[enirehtakeel-blog]

This summer the U.S. Supreme court ruled that sentencing juveniles to life without parole is cruel and unusual punishment. Now 27 men are hoping to receive new sentences. The Nebraska board is looking at giving the men parole after serving 50, 70 or 90 years - which is just another name for a life sentence.

So, let's talk about justice.

Most of these men committed murder - some even raped or kidnapped their victims prior to killing them. True to the definition we uphold, the punishment these men face is just. But now the High Court is saying it's unjust. Well, which is it? 

Personally, I agree with the Supreme Court. I believe these men should receive parole. Most of them have spent decades in prison. I know it has changed at least one of them for the better. Governor Dave Heineman argues he is opposed to reduction of sentences because he is trying to keep neighborhoods safe, but there comes a point when justice no longer means, "you do the crime, you do the time." Sometimes it means that you give someone another shot at life.

[enirehtakeel-blog]

Coriolanus' commoners.

This is an interesting article I found on NPR about undocumented immigrants who are struggling after Superstorm Sandy. Many of these people lost everything they had here but because they are not citizens, they don't have a social security number and cannot apply for federal aid. The story highlights the struggles of three different immigrants, but the story is predominantly the same: these people are starting over. Obviously Superstorm Sandy took a toll on everyone it hit but in its aftermath, it also drew a distinct line between social classes. Here is a group of people calling for aid they will likely not receive - at least not from the government. As we have continued through the "Roman Trilogy," we have spent a lot of time talking about "the common people." 

And, frankly, I'm confused by it.

We easily accepted Coriolanus' hatred toward the mob; he was above the need for their approval to rule Rome. We see it again when Julius Caesar waits until he is offered the crown by the Senate to consider accepting it. Every time the mob has been brought to our attention in class, the discussion of the worth of the people has been waved away. They are victims of "group think," and "group think" is uneducated and dangerous. 

For a while, I was livid by our dismissiveness of these people. Collectively we had seemingly decided that the individuals that make up the mob are useful when we need something from them (ie: a wheel maker is most useful when one wheels are needed for chariots; a prostitute, when someone is feeling lonely), but that they are otherwise useless. 

However, as my advocate within was silently screaming about human rights and how we are all equal and "who says one person is better than the other, huh?" I was also agreeing with everything we were talking about. And that was even more confusing. Eventually, I realized my frustration was stemming from not holding a definition of "common people." Who makes up the mob? Is it everyone who doesn't fit into this obscure definition of "great"? Or are there certain commoners that are better than others? Further, how has the mentality about, well, mob mentality evolved over the years? 

Education has been saved for "the best" for many years, so it is understandable that group think has been a greater issue, even in recent history. Obviously, the mob mentality was greatly improved by the introduction of public education, but it still has problems. And obviously, not everyone can be "great." Coriolanus firmly held the belief that commoners were easily dispensable and without them, the city would still survive. However, there are many among the commoners who understand how to make informed decisions, and are even leaders themselves.

Today, our "aristocratic" class has expanded; I would argue that anyone with a university education under their belts is part of this higher societal tier. But that still leaves a lot of people who are trapped in the ruts of society - and the connection between people and democracy is still our right to participate in it. I understand that not all people can make the same contribution to society and that, although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights tells us we are all equal, there are countless issues with inequality. In our attempts to find and define justice, we have overlooked the key reason for our search: humanity. I do believe that some are more qualified to rule than others, but the naturally "great" seem to forget or disregard the most important part of their leadership: the people they rule. In fact, they might not even be the most fit to rule. The difference between those who rule the mob and those within is that those within understand the value each member holds. The bottom line is that the mob is made up of people; group think only sets in when they are dismissed and only used when needed by those who are "greater" than them. Let's face it: the poor and racial minorities become very important when politicians are up for reelection. Otherwise, we're usually trying to ignore them or find ways to sweep them under the rug.

Coriolanus' solution to allow the aristocracy rule is outdated, but we keep it in place. Only the very wealthy are able to run for high positions, and they are unable to relate to the common man. If you want to fix the problems within our system, you go straight to the people. You educate the common person to be a good ruler. There will always be those that are better or smarter but, unfortunately, they are out of touch with the needs of the commoners. The solution for society is not to push aside the downtrodden and allow the best to rule; it is to include and be an advocate for all. Don't worry: most of the commoners don't want the power anyway - the best and most qualified will take it. These people are just tired of being ignored by it.    

[fauxpolitics-blog]

This is a very interesting NPR piece that explores the divergence of educational and intellectual culture between eastern and western traditions.  Turns out eastern cultures view intellectual struggle as a sign of strength, and an opportunity to become better.

[enirehtakeel-blog]

I saw this article a while back and it hit home. Although school has never been extremely challenging for me, I hadn't realized that I'd been trained to believe that struggling in school "meant" I wasn't as smart as my peers. As a side note, I did find it interesting that Spiegel made sure to include at the end of the article that one teaching-learning style is not better than the other, instead they are different. I'm not so sure I believe that. I think the Western outlook on education discourages a lot of people from either pursuing higher degrees or studying something they are truly passionate about, but not as skilled at. I also fail to understand how it makes us more creative. I actually think creativity is something sparked by good instructors or simply seen in individual students. As far as I can tell, our fear of struggling is doing more to make us lazy and the most creative thing I see students do is hunt for short cuts.

[uncalar]

[kohenari]

It’s Life Day, Charlie Brown!

This print by uncalar is a thing I might very well buy today.

[enirehtakeel-blog]

Knocked out.

The family of boxer Hector "Macho" Camacho is preparing to take him off life support after he was fatally shot. Obviously as a champion fighter, he is hailed as one of Puerto Rico's heros. During his life he also actively denounced the rise of violence and drug use in Puerto Rico. However he struggled with addictions to both drugs and alcohol and had charges of domestic abuse filed against him. I am not suggesting that a hero has no flaws; in fact, it is quite the opposite. Both Achilles and Odysseus had their fair share of failings. 

We have spent weeks in class talking about heros and justice and how all of us apparently fit into the mix. I have come to the conclusion that we regard heros as such, because the are both better than we can hope to be and, at the same time, figures to whom we are able to relate. On the other hand, philosophers, though far greater than the common person can hope to be, are not our heros. We turn them out of our cities; we dismiss them as useless.

And, yet, philosophers are not meant to be our heros.

A truly just person is quiet and, as Socrates comments, is actually considered unjust, while the unjust person is revered as just. Philosophers actively seek and, in some cases, hold the answers to a just society and, yet, we would rather follow our flawed heros and leaders, who are sometimes unjust people.

How is society supposed to advance if we never escape this vicious cycle? Or is it this vicious cycle that validates both the concept of the hero and the philosopher?    

[ejamesk-deactivated20140303]

All men (and women) are not created equal. Some people are faster runners. Some are better at math. Some are capable of feats that no other human can do, but a certain attribute holds them back. We humans are clearly different from one another. Some have light colored skin, while others are…

[fauxpolitics-blog]

There is a hidden premise that is very dangerous in your argument.  You propose that

1. )people are not the same

2.) hidden premise: equality requires identity

3.)people are not equal, and equality is not possible

This is the quote from your piece which seems to propose what I enumerate above:

“We humans are clearly different from one another. Some have light colored skin, while others are dark. There are blondes and brunettes, tall and short, thin and fat, etc. Clearly, we are not equal.” 

I don’t believe you are conceiving of equality in a reasonable manner.  If the simple fact that we are different means that we are not and cannot be equal than equality itself is a useless concept.  Instead I would propose a less strict definition of equality that does not require identity.  For example, all humans possess inherent human dignity which makes them equal despite their differences.  What I’m really getting at is that, equality does not require identity.

But what about situations in which people are clearly “better,” than others, you might ask.  Clearly Usain Bolt is a better runner than me, so at least in that context he is a better human.  Unfortunately, you do not acknowledge the importance of the context above.  When we say that stronger or faster, is better it is only within certain contexts that this is true.  Within an evolutionary framework this is fairly clear, as certain genetic arrangements will fair better in certain environments. However, we have to keep that sense of the word “better” in context.  You seem to use it as an absolute, suggesting that people can be intrinsically better.  I would disagree, proposing instead that their “betterness,” is determined by the instrumental value that their set of traits holds with respect to their fitness in a given environment.  This means that people are NOT better or worse intrinsically even though we can acknowledge some people are more fit in certain environments, just as we do for animals.  

What does this mean for equality?  We can still recognize that people do not possess equality of fitness if we hold the environment constant.  But since we know that environment is not a constant and that different traits are more fit at different times and at different places, this notion of fitness will not truly capture whether or not people are equal.  Instead we go deeper, to things that are not contingent on external factors such as environment, and here we find things like human dignity which all humans possess and which makes us equal. 

[enirehtakeel-blog]

Although I absolutely agree with the post from fauxpolitics, I understand where you are coming from, ejamesk. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are bothered by teachings from Aristotle and Socrates that claim that, while all can aspire to understand justice or live Good lives, only a very select few actually can. You are very right that from the beginning we are not equal, mentally or physically. However, fauxpolitics was correct to suggest that people are equal in our pursuit of human dignity.

So, my question to both of you is: where do we draw the line between our most obvious inequalities (physical and mental) and the lives we are able to live? If, in fact, we all deserve a dignified life, then don't we all deserve to live just lives? Perhaps, though, I am merely one of those screaming about inequality because I am no philosopher myself.

[enirehtakeel-blog]

I'm sure all of you have been plagued by the endless lists of "what people are thankful for" on Facebook. Maybe you've even contributed to some yourself. But for those of you who wonder what it's like to hold an out-of-this-world celebration, here you go.

[enirehtakeel-blog]

Hollowed-Out America

The American Dream includes a spacious house and a front and back yard, earned for our families from our years of hard work. Similar to, but smaller than Aristotle's model of the city, individual households demonstrate a governmental structure, with a head of the house and his/her subjects. (As there are several years and several social movements between present day and Aristotle's life, I will leave the gender roles up to debate.) People who live in South Lincoln are completely disconnected from the city - some Lincolnites even refer to South Lincoln as a completely different town. Everything is very spread out in South Lincoln and very rarely do you see people walking or biking to get where they need to go, leaving them little chance to run into people unexpectedly, a key component to Aristotle's city. Later in class, the question was posed: how do we get our city to be a city again?

Saying we want to bring people from South Lincoln back into the Downtown and Near South, we need to make resources readily available for people. We need grocery stores and small branches of superstores, such as Target, to move into these neighborhoods. Additionally, peoples' jobs and schools need to move to more centralized locations. And hey, saying people decide mowing the lawn is simply too much work and they start moving back into the city, we'll probably also see an increase in bicycle usage and walking and a decrease in driving. Nothing like killing two birds with one stone, right? Obviously, I've blown through some very significant details and rebuilt 1950s Lincoln in a short paragraph, but that's because I'm not as concerned with the city so much as the people who populate it. 

Merely successfully recreating a city does not mean that it will have the positive effects Aristotle claims. Just two decades ago, parts of our world were being introduced to the internet and even a decade ago, the web was nowhere near as advanced as it is today. Facebook has exploded in the last eight years and Twitter in half that time. It is the world's fastest technological revolution, and it has changed humanity, from the way we work to the way we think.

The most obvious example of our changing mentalities is Facebook. Not only has the concept of friendship been skewed but also, the way we interact with each other. "Liking" someone's status or pictures has significance. We alert others to our relationships and relationship interests. "Facebook stalking" is no longer considered creepy; it's now a way people determine if they want to be your friend in reality or, in some cases, if they want to hire you. And it's not only limited to that site; we use multiple other forms of social media, including Twitter, blogs, etc. to influence the way we think about our world and the way we fit within it. We are slowly becoming more concerned with the way we appear on the internet, than with our mannerisms in reality. Even if we were connected once again by the close confines of the city, we would not be connected at all. We would remain preoccupied with technology and our virtual appearances. Even if you see people in unplanned situations, you are likely to base your opinion of them off of what you know about them on Facebook, Twitter, etc. because that is the new "grocery store." We run into people online now, and we rely heavily on those meetings. 

However, while the idea of intimate cities is slowly becoming an idea of the past, the Internet is beginning to sew together an intimate global city. We have the ability to talk to game with, etc. against people from all over the world. We are able to build virtual relationships with people we may never meet in person. In a way, we are recreating Aristotle's city. This time, though, it's online. 

So what does that mean for our friendships or for justice? Most obviously, it means change. In the case of justice, the law is frantically working to keep up, but society is developing much faster than it can. It will take years for our justice system to catch up, but in the meantime, we should caution ourselves. I'm not suggesting real relationships are going to become a thing of the past, but we should be careful when judging a person's worth based on their online profiles. 

[enirehtakeel-blog]

I pledge allegiance to the United State of Nebraska

So, some Nebraskans think the state needs to secede.

In the same way that Lincoln is a political community, the United States is also a political community. Although it is not the exact same concept, there are definite parallels between the two. And although some aren't exactly discouraging Texas from seceding, they are absolutely necessary to our Union.

Obviously, this is a political community on a much larger scale. You're not going to be constantly interacting with people face-to-face from all different states (unless you're a resident of Downtown Omaha and need to go grocery shopping), however, there is constant dialogue through different media, such as the internet. Additionally, there is constant interaction between the states through our representation in the government. Although all 300 million Americans aren't able to run into each other at the grocery store (or act as government representatives) we all have the opportunity to vote. We are tied together as a single union and if any part secedes (for example's sake) they become like those who live in South Lincoln - they are no longer a part of the political dialogue.

I realize that the threat of secession is not legitimate. However, it is still important to not that the act itself does not play to the common good of the city, which is vital for the polis to be just. We must learn to look for the middle ground; not everyone is always going to be happy, but they'd be a lot worse of without federal dollars.   

[enirehtakeel-blog]

I attended the second panel on Friday, during which Dr. Scott Straus spoke about genocide. I found his presentation especially interesting because, instead of talking about how to end genocides or even how to prevent them, he instead talked about defining them. His argument was that countries are…

[fauxpolitics-blog]

This argument is logically deficient in the following way:

This is what you propose:

1.) If there is a case of “x” going on, then we ought to stop it

2.) If “x” has not been defined, we ought not waste time defining it if doing so will slow us down in stopping it

3.) therefore, in cases where “x” is not defined, but is occurring, we ought to concern ourselves only with stopping “x”

So one question? in (1) how do you know that there is a case of “x” going on if you haven’t defined it.  In other words, if you’re not straight on what genocide is how do you know that you need to stop it.  Is one person dying a genocide? does a murder in Chicago require global cooperative action? Surely it does not.  Outlining the boundaries of controversial issues such as genocide and terrorism is essential to stopping these things from occurring because it allows us to accurately identify when they are occurring. 

[enirehtakeel-blog]

You have a fair argument here. I should clarify that the conference's focus was not necessarily on identifying what "genocide" is but instead, what it isn't. Genocide is actually well-defined, but crimes such as ethnic cleansing, war crimes or crimes against humanity. 

However, I do want to address your argument. You are absolutely correct that definitions matter and should be debated. But, sometimes, there either isn't time to define something or despite an already-set definition, countries aren't willing to act if it is not advantageous to them. For example, we knew about the Nazis' systematic killing of Jewish people, but the United States did not get involved in the war until after we were bombed by Japan. How was that just? Millions were dying, and we waited until it was in our best interest to do something about it. It is the same with situations where countries are debating what kind of atrocity is being committed. It is important to know exactly what is going on, but to what extent is that even possible? Even after we set the definitions of "ethnic cleansing" and "war crimes," they are still going to happen and it is likely whoever is committing them isn't going to make sure they are killing people according to the international community's definition. They will be more creative; they might even make up an entirely new crime (maybe without knowing it).

So I have a question for you: How much time and how many lives do we sacrifice in our effort to define one of these atrocities?

You asked me if a murder in Chicago warrants international attention. I am sure this comparison of a single act to the years and millions of lives lost during the Nazis' killings of the Jews and the Hutus' extermination of the Tutsis was no more than a gross mistake. Obviously, were not going to call in the international front for every single murder committed. I am merely saying that, sometimes, there isn't much time to wait around for a definition or a financial opportunity to play to our empathetic sides. No matter the definition of any of these crimes, the solution should always be the same: stop it. We do not live in a perfect world, but it can be agreed that robbing a person of their right to live is unjust. The longer a committee sits, trying to define what is going on, they're lack of action ultimately makes them no better than those who are actually slitting the victims' throats.

[enirehtakeel-blog]

During the “Politics of Food in North Korea” conference on Thursday, the speaker, Rhoda Howard-Hassmann began the lecture by defining human rights as “inalienable rights people possess, simply because we are human.” As the evening progressed, she moved into a mountain of statistics about the North…

[fauxpolitics-blog]

“There is absolutely no argument that starving civilians in your country is unjust. “ 

I hope you meant to type *just

[enirehtakeel-blog]

I didn't, actually. However, I understand why you misunderstood it. I meant to say, "People agree that a country starving its civilians is unjust." 

Thank you for pointing that out, though. I hope others haven't also been confused by it.

[kohenari]

What follows is a guest blog post written by Marty Nader, a political science PhD candidate at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln; he specializes in campaigns, elections, political communication and public policy.

I would put Ed Gogek’s New York Times op-ed regarding the successful...

[enirehtakeel-blog]

Fallen Hero

Obviously one of the biggest stories this weekend has been Petraeus' retirement. I have read several articles about it and, aside from all giving the same facts, they have all been written the same way. I should clarify: although the reason for Petraeus' retirement is an extramarital affair (as far as we currently know), almost all news coverage has been careful to focus on his extremely long and successful military career.

And that brings us to the million-dollar question: Is Petraeus a hero?

If we are going to stick to Homer's definition of a hero - especially his example of an Odyssean hero - I would argue Petraeus is a hero. He has completed heroic acts and is regarded highly for his multiple qualities, both as a warrior and as a regular citizen. If we're really going to push the envelope, let's consider Odysseus' love life; the man slept with nearly everything that walked. Please don't take the comparison to mean that Petraeus' decisions exactly mirrored those of the Grecian hero, only that both had extra-marital affairs. 

So was his retirement just?

We have read that Odysseus chose to live a just life, but it is absolutely indisputable that his life wasn't also full of mistakes and bad decisions. But hey, it's the thought that counts, right? We are dealing with a very time period and social mentality from what was considered right and normal in Ancient Greece. Today, extra-marital affairs are frowned upon, so I would argue that Petraeus' choice to retire was his way of delivering justice to himself.

Whether it was necessary is debatable but then again, so were most of Odysseus' actions. 

[6myth]

The Associated Press reports that in Cleveland, Ohio a woman was caught driving on the sidewalk in order to avoid a bus which was unloading children. Besides having her license suspended for 30 days and having to pay 250 dollars in court costs the judge also ordered her to stand on the corner where the infraction happened for two days from 7:45 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. each day with a sign reading “Only an idiot drives on the sidewalk to avoid a schoolbus”. 

This is another case of public shaming similar to what was happening with the UNL Haters blog a few weeks ago where I wrote that public shaming (in this case of racism and homophobia) does not directly engage people but rather attacks them putting them on the intellectual defensive. So is this case much different? Moreover is it a just punishment? Socrates characterizes justice as something that makes someone more just, the same way music makes a man more musical. Well if we assume that driving on the sidewalk and endangering children’s lives is an unjust act and that by being publicly shamed and humiliated in this way will make the Cleveland woman less likely to perpetrate the same unjust act then it has made her more just. Naturally this analysis discounts the effect of the fine and suspension but the point of this post is evaluating the punishment of the self shaming. This leads me to the question as long as a punishment makes the person more just does it justify the punishment? Without going into detail I think the implications to answering yes to this question seemingly justifies torture, mutilation or other horrid acts to be punishment as long as the outcome makes the person more just. This is one of the problems I have with retributive justice, if we take Socrates definition of justice focusing more on educating citizens on what was wrong with their actions and making them truly understand the implications of living in civil society are a much more just method of dealing with those who commit crimes. The question is would is be as effective? 

[apsio-blog]

Upon first reading this post I was shocked that a judge would actually order someone to stand on a sidewalk holding a sign like that.  I could understand the part of going to the place where the children get off the bus, but not the part of holding the sign.  This is because holding a sign and being publically shamed will not make the women more just.  It may make her not do it again and behave more justly, but as far as changing her character into a more just one it won’t have much of an effect.  If, she had been ordered to stand on the sidewalk when all the children get off the bus everyday with no sign, it would have been more effective.  This is because the goal would not have been public shaming, but to make the women understand the importance of these kids’ lives and what could have gone wrong because of her actions.  This would have had a better chance of changing the women into a more just person.  Also, by publically shaming this women you are setting an example of what her concept of justice should be; which would be paying back your debts and shameful revenge.  This will have a negative effect on the women’s concept of justice causing her to use this misconstrued version of justice when anyone wrongs her.

[fauxpolitics-blog]

I agree with you that shaming is not an appropriate means to achieving justice.  As you purport, it does not “engage,” the person.  In other words shaming does not function in such a way that it helps the person correct their behavior in the future.   However, where I disagree with you is that UNLhaters is equivalent in this sense.  Let’s consider exactly what UNLhaters does.  

Here I’d like to make a distinction between shaming and causing shame.  In the court case you address, the aim of the action taken is to shame the person.  However, I feel that in the case of UNLhaters, the aim is exposing what a person has said to a broader audience.  No additional commentary is made about the nature of the comment, save the tags.  In that sense, what UNLhaters does is promote transparency about social justice issues, not promote shaming, although the result is that some people feel ashamed about what they have said.  It forces people to consider public reaction to what they choose to say.  Transparency is absolutely essential in noting and redressing violations of justice when they occur. Hence, I don’t believe that the court case you describe and the actions of UNLhaters are analagous.

[enirehtakeel-blog]

I heard this story earlier this week and my initial reaction was a combination of shock and admiration. Obviously, I was shocked by the judge's strange enforcement of his/her power. However, at the same time, my initial instinct was to think that this was absolutely just. I don't have children, but I do have younger siblings and I'm a mentor in the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. If anyone were to put my brother, sister or "mentee" in harm like that, I'd want the same punishment - or something harsher.

However, there were three things that caught my eye in your blog. The first was your use of Socrates' argument that "justice is something that makes someone more just." The other was your conclusion that things like this particular punishment or UNL Haters is the beginning of the slippery slope to the justification of torture. Finally, it struck me as interesting that you discuss and compare both Socrates' and Aristotle's definitions of justice in this post. Comparisons between Aristotle and Socrates can be easily formed, but it is not plausible to use both when trying to determine whether something is just. According to our class discussion, Socrates' never actually defines justice; he merely tries to define what is Good. Aristotle, on the other hand, actually divides justice into distinct categories, each with their own definition. 

I will personally tackle this using Socrates' definition of justice. I completely agree with you're understanding of justice as "something that makes someone more just." However, in Book One of Plato's "Republic," Socrates argues harming another person will actually make them unjust. In your post, you suggest that the judge's unusual punishment will make the woman more just and, therefore, grander and more harmful punishments will also be justifiable in the future. 

I disagree with this. While wearing the sign is sure to embarrass the woman, it is unlikely it will make her a better person. I agree with apsio, who suggests that education would be better. Perhaps she should be required to go through Driver's Ed again as well as be required to volunteer at a school (as long as that volunteering doesn't include driving). Therefore, I don't think you can jump to the conclusion that torture or other war crimes will ever be justifiable, because they won't make a person more just.

It's a slippery slope, but I don't think this strange punishment is the beginning of the end. 

[enirehtakeel-blog]

Geno-what?

I attended the second panel on Friday, during which Dr. Scott Straus spoke about genocide. I found his presentation especially interesting because, instead of talking about how to end genocides or even how to prevent them, he instead talked about defining them. His argument was that countries are incapable of helping victims if they cannot define the problem. I could liken his argument to the idea of a doctor being unable to treat a disease because he isn't sure what the disease is.

Obviously, genocide or any other similar crimes (ethnic cleansing, war crimes or crimes against humanity) are unjust. But aren't we only contributing to them and, in turn, acting unjustly when we sit around pondering how to define them?

We are all human which, in theory, means we should all hold basic human rights. If this base idea can be agreed upon, then it means we must act to help our fellow beings in any way we can. I maintain that justice is a means of "evening the playing ground." Genocide or like crimes violate the normality of human life. It is necessary to correct that wrong as soon as possible - even before we have defined it. 

[enirehtakeel-blog]

Hungry? The government wants you to be.

During the "Politics of Food in North Korea" conference on Thursday, the speaker, Rhoda Howard-Hassmann began the lecture by defining human rights as "inalienable rights people possess, simply because we are human." As the evening progressed, she moved into a mountain of statistics about the North Korean government's systematic starvation of the country's civilians. Although it partially stems from poor agricultural practices by the government years ago, it has progressed into a source of power. People are fully reliant on the government, and they're still starving. One in three children has stunted growth or is malnourished. People are not allowed practice "juche," (self-reliance) or obtain their own food, and if they do, they will be thrown into a prison camp.

But none of this is new to you. We know about this and we have for years. The countries that  surround or have ties to North Korea - South Korea, China, Japan and Russia - know about it. And no one is doing anything, for two reasons: the threat of nuclear war and the threat that North Korea's government could collapse, allowing inter-country chaos to ensue.

There is absolutely no argument that starving civilians in your country is unjust. So how are we going to justify all the other countries (United States included) that are also starving these people? Threat or no threat, isn't there a point when something must be done? The bottom line is that North Korea continues to wave their nuclear program in countries' faces but so far, their attempts to test their weapons have failed. Likewise, if a civil war ensues because their government collapses, Dr. Howard Hassmann said one of the greatest threats would be an influx of refugees into other countries.

When do we draw the line? When do we seek justice for these people? After all, they are human.