the s'plainer

linguistic gymnastics for the self-assured

[jefuntitled]

I have 2 extra copies of Frag Digest #1 which is a zine put together by the mighty talented Christopher Fischer over at Unread Records. Wess Hess, Noah Sterba, and myself have also contributed some selections. If you want one, reblog this, and I will randomly chose two people to send them to this Friday the 13th. 

[paulogodchalk-blog]

The Impossible Logic of the US Gun Debate

The US Senate, despite a Democratic majority, was unable to pass a very reasonable gun measure today that included “universal background checks for gun sales, the reinstatement and strengthening of the assault weapons ban, limiting ammunition magazines to a 10-round capacity, and other measures.” Basic protection for our nation’s children, movie/temple-goers, senators—to name the victims of a few recent tragedies—was denied. It is obvious that the money given by the gun lobby is of more importance to these twisted individuals than the lives of innocent people.

Polls show that a majority of Americans are in favor of tighter gun laws. This is good news, as it suggets that citizens are not completely desensitized and accepting of random acts of violence that have become routine in our society. However, the failure to pass such basic and common sense laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill reflects a larger trend in American politics that reaches beyond the realm of public opinion—that is, the huge influence moneyed parties have in politics and the relative absence of public consent in important decisions.

Recent public discourse concerning tighter gun laws gives evidence that logical arguments are fated to lose to those that have inexhaustible resources, namely money. Indeed, there exists not one convincing reason that the Manchin-Toomey amendment is unconstitutional or excessively harsh toward law-abiding gun owners.

Bad Company

Those that voted against the compromise are defending the rights of some shady characters. The legislation would expand background checks to private dealers, including exchanges made online. If current gun owners and gun-rights advocates are law abiding citizens, which their absurd claim (we’ll get to that later) to the 2nd Amendment implies, why are background checks threatening? Ensuring that criminals and the mentally ill cannot obtain a lethal weapon should be something we can all agree on.

Under current law it is illegal for those charged with a felony to own a firearm. But without background checks what’s to stop a convicted felon from obtaining one anyway? The answer, because of the prevalence of online private selling, is NOTHING.  In a New York Times article published today, journalists found that there is literally nothing barring a criminal from purchasing a gun other than the inclination of the individual selling it. Selling guns across state lines, which is illegal, is common and the identification of the purchaser is largely concealed in these online communities.

Investigation of this “never-ending gun show” revealed that the online gun market is essentially anarchic. Multiple clients were contacted and discovered to be felons, illegally buying and selling guns freely. The website the journalists explored was found to be the source for weapons used in violent crimes, as a number of lawsuits indicated. If gun-rights advocates are not criminals, which most presumably are not, why is it so hard to accept measures that regulate this terrifyingly free exchange of lethal weapons?

Propagating Bogus Claims

One of the rallying cries of gun-advocates is that gun control measures are authoritarian in nature. Citizens have a right to own weapons, the argument goes, in order to protect themselves from government tyranny. Without this right the people can be easily subdued and controlled without the means to fight this injustice. Immediately clear in this line of reasoning is its foundation in delusional paranoia. The argument that the world’s largest and longest standing democracy is moving toward tyranny (not comepletely ridiculous) and plotting to “take away our guns” so as to leave us no defense is absurd for numerous reasons. However, only one is necessary to abolish it: drones. If someone can convince me that a citizenry armed to its teeth with firearms has a chance of defeating a government armed with a fleet of unmanned drones I will happily reconsider—or check myself in to a mental ward.

Another popular claim is that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Those who use this defense typically call for more funding for programs that help the mentally ill or, astoundingly, for teachers to carry weapons to protect students from would-be murderers. What I don’t understand, however, is how this in any way defeats the purpose of stricter legislation—after all, wouldn’t more gun control make it more difficult for “people who kill people” to obtain a weapon that would make it easier to do so?

These are but two examples of arguments used by average American citizens. They highlight the dumbing down of the real issue; it is much easier to fire up uneducated gun owners by simplifying the problem at hand—simply changing the issue from, “lets keep guns out of the hands of criminals and make guns in general less dangerous,” to, “the government is going to take your guns away!” The rhetoric used by gun-rights advocates underlines not only a fundamental misinterpretation of harmless legislation but the honest intentions behind it.

The 2nd Amendment is Untouchable

The 2nd Amendment to the US constitution reads:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It seems that people who invoke the claim that gun-control legislation is unconstitutional forget the first half of the sentence. How is an amendment addressing the need for a “well regulated militia” even relevant to society today? Further, how are stricter background checks and bans on military-grade assault weapons (built solely for killing people) infringing on the right of the people to “keep and bear arms.” Assault weapons, after all, had not been created at the time the Amendment was adopted—does it not follow that the framers intention for such dangerous weapons is unspecified and open to interpretation?

This argument, which is clearly the strongest and most frequently used, inflames the emotions of “good” American citizens by drawing attention to our “sacred” Bill of Rights and the words of our beloved Founding Fathers. Gun control legislation, it goes, is simply unconstitutional, anti-American, and antithetical to the brave and wise men who authored our constitution. Its words are final and not open to interpretation, end of discussion. That this reasoning gathers so much support and provides a legitimate answer to tighter gun regulation underscores both the unforgivable ignorance of citizens that adhere to it and the exploitative nature of the moneyed interests that propagate it.

The unflinching protection of the 2nd Amendment illustrates a discriminate attitude toward the Bill of Rights. The jurisprudence of the 4th Amendment provides ample evidence. It states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

While admittedly ambiguous—it’s been subject to copious reviews and interpretations—the intention is clear, we are free from personal government intrusion unless that intrusion has been legally authorized.

Despite its crystal clear purpose, the 4th Amendment has been all but obliterated. “Probable cause” has been so broadly interpreted it has lost its meaning—even allowing, hilariously, searches and seizures on people acting suspiciously unsuspicious. Numerous exceptions have been introduced to circumvent the warrant requirement—including voluntary consent and exigent circumstances—and rely heavily upon the arresting officer’s discretion, which judges rarely call into question. The weakening of the amendment and shocking reinterpretation of its original intentions continues to this day with little opposition or public outrage.

A Counterintuitive Conclusion

The problem with the gun debate is multifaceted. The most obvious explanation for the disproportionately loud voice of 2nd Amendment defenders is money. The people most affected by the ongoing desecration of the 4th Amendment are lower income minorities, as a case currently before the Supreme Court indicates. These actual infringements directly affect innocent civilians, as they are embarrassed and harassed by officers claiming “probable cause” who are virtually protected from claims of racial discrimination. How many innocent civilians would tighter gun regulation directly harm? My guess it a whole lot less.

The voices of these people go unheard because there is no lobby putting money in the pockets of politicians—there is no profit in protecting these rights because there is no consumption involved. Gun manufacturers are worried about the bottom line; less regulation means more available customers; what these customers might do with their gun is someone else’s problem—the “people kill people” argument again.  It is an industry and as such has an interest in producing and selling as many weapons as possible, to ensure this means dedicating significant resources opposing legislation that might negatively affect their profit margin.

There is no lobby for human rights because there is no profit in them, no resources to buy votes. Arguing for legislation that would make it harder to carry out violent acts of public violence at the hand of a gun is futile—it is the equivalent of a charity director trying to win a settlement against an investment banker. The 2nd Amendment protects a specific industry and provides that industry a means to exploit their (largely) ignorant consumers to oppose legislation that would hardly affect them.

The great irony is the selective attention given to one "right" over another—if people are so worried about the government "taking their guns away" they should focus their attention on the now unlimited ability of the government to search and seize. That gun-rights advocates abhor minor exceptions to the 2nd Amendment while conveniently ignoring those of others (which are arguably more consequential) is reflective of the ridiculous reasoning on that side of the debate.

[paulogodchalk-blog]

Now That's What I Call Terrorism

PARIS (AP) — A European court issued a landmark ruling Thursday that condemned the CIA's so-called extraordinary renditions programs and bolstered those who say they were illegally kidnapped and tortured as part of an overzealous war on terrorism.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that a German car salesman was a victim of torture and abuse, in a long-awaited victory for a man who had failed for years to get courts in the United States and Europe to recognize him as a victim.

Khaled El-Masri says he was kidnapped from Macedonia in 2003, mistaken for a terrorism suspect, then held for four months and brutally interrogated at an Afghan prison known as the "Salt Pit" run by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. He says that once U.S. authorities realized he was not a threat, they illegally sent him to Albania and left him on a mountainside.

The U.S. kidnaps and tortures a "terrorism suspect" (a phrase that apparently implies guilt on the basis of...suspicion?). Ok, nothing unusual there--the U.S. is powerful and free, so THEIR brand of terrorism is justified.

But upon realizing they have the wrong guy, dump him on a mountainside in Albania. One could reasonably conclude that this was in the hopes of putting the whole mess behind them and never having to hear of it again. After all, the CIA is pretty good at cleaning up its messes, or at least getting away with them.

Fortunately, that was not the case this time around. For his four months of abuse, Mr.  al-Masri was rewarded US$78,500 by the Albanian government for the violation of his rights and the U.S. was reprimanded with a symbolic slap on the wrist by the European Human Rights Court.

--wait. What?

I guess it doesn't really matter that,

[t]he court said El-Masri was severely beaten, sodomized, shackled and hooded "at the hands of the CIA rendition team" in the presence of Macedonian authorities. It described the measures as "invasive and potentially debasing ... used with premeditation, the aim being to cause Mr. El-Masri severe pain or suffering in order to obtain information." 

The Macedonian officials who were "in the presence" of the crime were forced to pay--a rather disproportionate sum--while the perpetrators, the increasingly twisted lads in the CIA, got off scot-free.

This just goes to show that the CIA is truly above ANY law ANYWHERE. Hopefully similar cases, there are plenty out there, will dampen the complicity of European governments in this kind of behavior. In a sense, they enable these extraordinary (no kidding?) renditions that are just as much a war on the fundamental principles of democratic government as they are on terrorism. 

If the CIA and the international War on Terror are not reigned in, it won't be long until criminal procedures in democracies operate under the principle of, "guilty until proven innocent under conditions of excessive torture," which sounds an awful lot like terrorism to me.

[paulogodchalk-blog]

The Tragedy of Great Men in Democracies

When deciding whether Coriolanus and Julius Caesar are heroic figures it is important to consider the context of their exploits respectively. Coriolanus was Rome’s greatest citizen in the earliest days of the Republic whereas Julius Caesar occupied that role near the end of it. Both were victims of their own success in a society that placed a great deal of importance on egalitarian values—specifically, the right of common people to have a say in who should govern. Though they lived in different times the role of the soldier was essentially the same; the most accomplished and honorable were to be rewarded leadership roles and thus serve the people.

It cannot be reputed that both fought valiantly for the security of Rome and guaranteed its future prosperity. It also goes without saying that the respect and honor each received for their deeds was well deserved and in keeping with Roman tradition. They simply accomplished what every citizen wished they themselves could: glory in battle, recognition for great deeds. Their victories made the existence of the common people possible in the first place. Coriolanus’ contempt for the people was a legitimate reaction in defense of the Roman idea that great deeds are alone enough to justify the reward of leadership. Caesar’s obsession with his public image was a reaction to a highly developed political system in which pandering was part of the game. Both acted in an appropriate manner given the context of their respective situations; that is, the uncomfortable position of being Great in a democratic society.

What is evident about Roman society after reading these Shakespearean tragedies is the relevance of both Plato’s and Aristotle’s conception of democratic government. Aristotle posits that democracy necessitates the banishing of the truly excellent from society—Coriolanus’ ousting from the newly formed Republic by the people and the conspiracy against Caesar both fit this description. Moreover, the tragedies of these Great Men perfectly reflect Plato’s assertion that, “too much freedom seems to change into nothing but too much slavery, both for private man and city.” When viewed through the lens of this prophetic statement Coriolanus and Julius Caesar can only be considered heroic.

For Coriolanus, his absolute disdain for the public in not unfounded—they are plainly a fickle and inconsistent mob. It is unthinkable in the Roman tradition of meritocracy that he should have to solicit the people to confirm his greatness. After the consuls convince the people that Coriolanus is a tyrant and against their interests, the latter of which is debatable considering his military exploits in their defense, they use their power to banish him. Coriolanus then conspires against Rome with a nearby enemy but is ultimately talked out of it by family and friends. Had he gone ahead and invaded Rome, would the result not have been slavery, if not death, for the people?

Julius Caesar lived in slightly more complex times. He had unanimous approval from both the people and the Senate because of his military achievements and was a skilled politician. Because it was impossible to know the level of greatness he would reach, the concept of assassinating him earlier is irrelevant. Ultimately, one must decide whether the assassination benefited the people. I don’t believe that it did, for it effectively marked the transition from republic to empire. Effectively without representation or even the façade of it, the assassination was a great disservice to the people and the future of the Republic. There was not substantial evidence that Caesar would have been a ruthless dictator and the result of his death was a less free society.

As members of a democracy it is hard for us to call Caesar and Coriolanus heroes. Coriolanus despised the public and Caesar manipulated it. But it is important to keep in mind that each fought for the idea of Rome in an honorable manner. The Republic never existed because it was based on the premise that the common people made Rome what it was. The fact is that the people were inconsistent and often did not know what was best for themselves; they simply supported whatever was last said. I feel that Coriolanus and Caesar were heroes because they had the credentials of past heroes; Coriolanus' refusal to act against his nature and Caesar's concern for the people despite his great power are exemplary. Both were clearly on a level above their peers, whose envy and deceit only harmed the idea of Rome.

[paulogodchalk-blog]

The Tantrum Heard 'Round the World

The New York Times has reported that Israel plans to move forward with the development of a settlement in East Jerusalem, an area known as E1. Most of the international community agrees that the expansion violates international law and would essentially amount to “the fatal heart attack of the two-state solution.” The news comes a day after the United Nations General Assembly voted to upgrade Palestine to a nonmember observer state.

Israel’s announcement appears to be the diplomatic equivalent of a temper tantrum. Surely the prospect of Palestine joining the International Criminal Court doesn’t bode well for Israel, which has shamelessly committed human rights abuses against Palestinians for decades. Another reality Israeli leaders have been forced to swallow since the vote is the international consensus that Palestine has just as much a right to exist as Israel. The message is clear: a two-state solution is the only possible outcome that will ensure justice for both sides.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Israel does not intend to solve the conflict peacefully. Rather, the strategy seems aimed at paying lip service to a two-state solution while continuing expansion into Palestinian territories—that is, when they are not busy launching grossly disproportionate counterattacks on Palestinian citizens. Hopefully—the thought process seems to be—in time there simply won’t be enough, or any, Palestinians left to contest the all-powerful military establishment that is Israel.

Although the United States continues to oppose the settlements, they play an enabling role in Israel’s tirade against international norms and the institutions designed to enforce them. The U.S. was one of only nine countries that voted against recognition of Palestine in the UN vote, putting it in the coveted company of Canada, Czech Republic, Marshal Islands, Micronesia (Federal States of), Nauru, Palau, and Panama.

I understand that the vote was more of a political move, a show of support for an ally, but what will it take for the U.S. to get serious about their belligerent ally? What will it take for the U.S. to step back and reassess their generous financial and political support of an increasingly unpopular Israel?

I’m worried that the answer to those questions is one: a calamity.

[paulogodchalk-blog]

Meet Vinod Khosla

Mr. Khosla will risk a few strikeouts for the chance to hit home runs. “My willingness to fail is what gives me the ability to succeed,” the investor has said frequently.

The odds can be especially brutal in clean technology. The projects are often capital-intensive — like $200 million or more for a biofuels plant — and they can take years to pay out, said Sam Shelton, a research engineer at Georgia Institute of Technology. By comparison, social media start-ups often require little upfront money and few employees. “The economics are totally different,” Mr. Shelton said.

[...]

Mr. Khosla is “always thinking at a very high level about the potential of an idea,” KiOR’s chief executive, Fred Cannon, said. “He has a very good feel for when to step on the gas.”

After jumping in early, Mr. Khosla appears willing to ride out the swings, in both directions. Over the years, public filings indicate he has plowed roughly $80 million into KiOR, amassing a 54 percent stake in the company. Although the stock is off its peak levels and I.P.O. investors are still underwater, his holdings are worth $356 million — a threefold gain.

This is what "job-creators" are supposed to do--it is why they are paid, why they receive benefits from the government. I feel that too many capital investors have forgotten that risk is part of their job. They want only to make safe investments and add to their piles of money.

Vinod Khosla is an anomaly. He is a wealthy investor with an eye on clean energy, heavily investing in the industry and taking the setbacks in stride. He understands that our reliance on dirty fuels is both unsustainable and threatening to human existence. Investors need to follow his example if we are to mitigate climate change and avoid an irreversible disaster.

[paulogodchalk-blog]

Random Tribute: Etheridge Knight

I was flipping through some old notebooks when I stumbled across a drawing I did in the midst of an obsession with Etheridge Knight my freshman year. The photo I copied came from the back of a book I checked out from the library after multiple weeks of studying a short poem of his in an Intro to Poetry class. It was titled “Dark Prophecy: I Sing of Shine” and though laden with vulgar language, the poem manages to convey an essential truth about race in the United States. I was moved by the imagery and the uncompromising message it conveyed.

The lines I wrote in the drawing were from a favorite of mine from the book, which was a collection of his “essential” poems. I searched the web for it but had no luck, not remembering the name. I was disappointed to discover only a handful of his poems are published online, his Wikipedia page remarkably thin.

This should have come as no surprise. The Oxford Book of American Poetry, a monstrosity of an anthology, contains not a line of his work. I’m compelled to believe that this omission has less to with taste than race; his musings were blunt, he never dressed up America’s history of inequality. The few black poets in the anthology often comment on race but are universally acclaimed, so their inclusion is obvious.

I feel that Etheridge Knight’s absence exemplifies the high bar black artists must clear in order to be truly appreciated. Their work must not only be profound but socially conscious and elegant as well. That multiple sub-par white poets made the cut further illustrates the racial disparity that is seemingly inextricably linked to everything American.

I suppose the purpose of this muddled post is to give credit where it is due and to direct readers to an under appreciated poet. Also, Etheridge Knight’s legacy (or non-legacy) reminds me of the pervasive nature of the United States’ race problem (another example: Toni Morrison’s Wikipedia page lists only “African American literature” under genres, as if she hasn’t made a significant contribution to postmodernism). Not even literature can escape its all-encompassing grasp.

Perhaps I’m mistaken in all of this, I’m no English major. These are but simple observations of an occasional literature fan and avid fan of Etheridge Knight.

(Click the link below to read “Dark Prophecy: I Sing of Shine”) 

[paulogodchalk-blog]

TransCanada Still Despicable

Despite legitimate concerns raised by environmentalists and even some politicians over the risks that the TransCanada pipeline poses, the project is underway in East Texas. Because no one listened to threatened landowners and citizens worried about polluted water, protesters have taken to rigging themselves to equipment and hoisting themselves into trees. Just as the legitimate modes of opposition were ignored so were the acts of protesters. If cops were unable to remove the protesters, they were sprayed with pepper spray. This is but one event of many in the TransCanada saga that serves to illustrate the deference our government gives to big oil and other huge companies over the legitimate concerns of its citizens. It's an injustice that, unfortunately, is likely to go uncorrected until a catastrophe happens. Let's hope by then its not too late.

[foreveryours-a]

[paulogodchalk-blog]

Perfect.

[paulogodchalk-blog]

Palestinian Leadership in Trouble

The Palestinians have a lot going against them. They are divided both geographically and politically. There are those who support Hamas as a militaristic way to achieve their goals and those who feel the Palestinian Authority's focus on diplomacy is a better solution. Unfortunately, the former is gaining support to the detriment of the latter. The Gaza Crisis has served only to weaken the strength of the Palestinian Authority, "which Washington considers the only viable partner for peace with Israel." Palestinians are understandably impatient with the Palestinian Authority; they are tired of the humiliation that is inherent in occupation and want relief from their oppressors. The Palestinian Authority supports incremental progress toward a two-state solution--such as receiving recognition by the UN as a nonmember state--and this takes time. Hamas, on the other hand, offers instant gratification in resistance, gives citizens an opportunity to play a role in the struggle. Inactivity, as surely some Palestinians see it, is as bad as accepting their inferior status and Israel's right to expand settlements. Israel's deadly retaliation for the rocket that killed three citizens has served only to mobilize increased support for Hamas and has left the Palestinian Authority on the brink of irrelevance. This is troublesome because Hamas is clearly not interested in the benefit of the Palestinain people--their reckless actions have cost the lives of many citizens and are unrealistic in their approach to this great problem. It is becoming apparent that Israel is no more seeking an agreed peace than Hamas. Before the crisis Israel suggested it would retaliate should the Palestinian Authority's request of the UN be realized. By keeping Palestinian leadership as divided as possible, Israel is perpetuating the problem; their opposition to UN recognition of Palestine appears to be outright opposition to a two state solution, which I feel would be most just. The final sentence in the article sums the debacle up perfectly, "increasingly, the Hamas agenda and the Israeli one seem to be the same...derailing Palestinian leadership." In the wake of this latest crisis a solution is looking as far away as ever, leading one to believe the impatience of the Palestinians will only heighten.

[paulogodchalk-blog]

Our Divided Democracy

Aristotle’s Politics provides powerful insight concerning the current political climate in the United States—the increasing polarization between parties in particular. He discusses the preservation of certain types of government and the causes of their destruction. Though he argues different possibilities, Aristotle suggests that, “the great preserving principle is…that the loyal citizens should be stronger than the disloyal,” and that democracy is best when all citizens have similar beliefs—the equal education of citizens appears to be a way in which to produce such citizens.

A strong democracy according to Aristotle, then, appears to be one in which equality of education as well as the quality of education is paramount. Such institutions are essential to promoting democratic values; weak institutions of this nature contribute to an increasingly divided state and either discontent or faction among the populace is likely to occur. It seems that if citizens are not only educated by public institutions but that all are equal in the worth of education provided and access to it, a democracy is likely to flourish.

U.S. democracy is currently in a very interesting position. The state remains an international hegemon in an increasingly unstable world. It has the world’s most advanced and powerful military and continues to make important cultural contributions to the world. Despite all of this, the political system appears to be broken—congress’ approval rate is under 20 percent and the two political parties are as divided as ever. Seeing as our political culture has made possible many of the great advancements that the U.S. has contributed to the world, I argue that the current path of our government will result in greater instability and that correcting the public educational institutions of our country should be the primary concern of U.S. citizens.

Let me be blunt. The fact that just about every state has initiated secession petitions, continued doubts about the president’s birth certificate, and concerns over religious freedom receive media coverage is despicable. General Patraeus’ “sex scandal” (whatever that means) is another example of things that a significant proportion of U.S. citizens focus their energy on over the difficult issues that will affect the future prosperity of their country. Another terrifying fact is that there are representatives in both the Senate and House of Representatives who deny evolution and that global warming is caused by human activity—two topics on which most rational human beings have reached consensus.

Our political parties reflect the insane beliefs of many U.S. citizens. The Democrats are extremely moderate (that is, they represent a very broad range of citizens) and the Republicans have gone rogue—they represent fringe groups that vote but are not representative of the U.S. demographic. If one were to watch both conventions they would see it in the crowd. This kind of split, Aristotle would argue, is a sign of future instability in the U.S. political system.

So what should we do? I (perhaps naively) believe that education is our only hope at correcting the problem with our political system. Schools are unequal because funding is related to property value and property value is related to economic status. Problems with public schools are perpetuated by our complete inattention to them—as I said earlier, this is not the kind of issue one sees on Fox, CNN, or MSNBC. If we can focus our attention (just for a minute!) on education instead of, say, wars abroad perhaps we can mend the division between the parties. If more people were educated we would not have to waste our time talking about what constitutes as rape or whether or not global warming is a threat global security. Creating an equal and quality education system, I believe, should be the primary concern of U.S. citizens because it provide the kind of people that will help us correct our current problems.

[paulogodchalk-blog]

Aristotle's Insight on the Gaza Conclict

A few days ago rockets launched from Gaza killed 3 Israeli civilians. Israel's response has been to call up the troops and strategically bombard the region. 

I understand that Israel needs to protect its citizens as well as the fact that it would be political suicide not to respond swiftly to these fatally violent attacks. However, there is no justifying the disproportionate response from Israel, whose retaliation has killed at least 19 people including children and elderly citizens.

I am not attempting to measure justice based on body counts. Rather, the situation should be put in context. An oppressed population, as Aristotle points out in his Politics, is an inherently dangerous one. The obvious lack of equality creates incentive to revolt and in a rivalry such as this we see these extreme acts of violence.

The most recent conflict serves to illustrate the instability that injustice breeds and Israel's reactionary response has served only to deepen the problem.

[paulogodchalk-blog]

Accountability in the Gulf

According to the New York Times BP will plead guilty to 14 criminal charges filed by the U.S. Justice Department in response to the massive oil spill in 2010. The plea will cost the company more than $4 billion and impending charges could result in damages ranging from $5.4 billion to $21 billion.

Let’s just say it is nice to see justice being served.

We can only hope that the government’s decision—to not only harshly punish a corporation for cutting corners but to charge individuals involved—sets a precedent for future interactions between corrupt companies  and the U.S. government. This kind of accountability is a necessary component of a just society.

[paulogodchalk-blog]

The U.S. Needs an Arvind Kejriwal

Arvind Kejriwal has created a political party in India in order to battle corruption, because “corruption, he argues, corrodes all the political parties in a fundamentally compromised system.” While the U.S.’ political system is not in as bad of shape as India’s, a reform or—a revolution?—complete overhaul of the system wouldn’t be such a bad thing.

By forming a political party that is focused on transparency and government accountability, Mr. Kerjriwal is acting against the current unjust system. The success of this political party would undoubtedly bring him a great deal personal benefits but the idea is to make the political system more responsive to the needs of all of India’s citizens—for this he is a hero.

[paulogodchalk-blog]

The U.S. is not Opposed to Terrorism

The preliminary hearings of Sgt. Robert Bales, who is accused of the horrific murder of 16 Afghan citizens, have begun and I am reminded of the damage that the world's most sophisticated military has inflicted on several poor nations and their citizens. Acts of terror are isolated incidents that involve rogue actors--they are typically not connected to states or their governments and usually represent a fringe group whose interests are far different from the rest of the population. If this definition of terrorism is accepted it is hard to justify the U.S. war against the state of Afghanistan.

The killings are but one example that proves the occupation of Afghanistan is a travesty and has only provided opportunities for American sociopaths to inflict their own brand of terror on innocent civilians. Whether it be the treatment of prisoners, the reckless killing of civilians through drone strikes, or the intimidation and culture of fear that is bred by occupation, the U.S. has proven that it is not opposed to terrorism but to acts of terrorism brought against its citizens and on its territory. It has also shown that it is not opposed to using terrorism for its own means--a really depressing fact seeing that the U.S. is supposedly The Most Democratic Nation on earth.

God Bless Us.

[paulogodchalk-blog]

The Oligarchic States of America

Book XIII of Plato’s Republic finds Socrates explaining the different forms of existing regimes to Glaucon and Adeimantus. He names each in descending order after his ideal aristocracy, which is ruled by philosopher kings and is the greatest of regimes. Each successive regime is a degree worse than the one before it and proceeds as follows: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. Socrates describes not only the city but the likely state of the soul corresponding to an individual living in a given regime. He also describes how one regime eventually degenerates until it is no longer sustainable. At which point the soul becomes a slave and the prospect of attaining of knowledge and truth is bleak.

What is fascinating about Socrates’ description of each regime is their relevance to the modern reader. Although ancient societies were nowhere near as complex as today’s nation-states, I still found myself comparing the United States to his definitions of regimes to see which most accurately describes our current government and the values of the individual in our society. Despite the limitations of his analysis—which is broad and at times ambiguous—and the difficulty of comparing ancient regimes to current ones I argue that his Oligarchic regime is most similar to that of the U.S. and that certain policies reflect parallel values as described by Socrates

A timocracy is a regime that is based on its love of ruling. The timocrat is concerned with achieving honor by battling enemies of the regime. Because the greatest concern is essentially the protection of the regime a timocracy is less susceptible to factions within society, which Socrates states is the most harmful to a regime. The dissolution of such a regime begins when children witness the passivity of their fathers when they are treated unjustly by the state. When they mature they become concerned with money and hording that money as protection against the state, which they show less deference to because of lack of trust. The result is the oligarchic man and regime.

Socrates describes an oligarchy as one that’s populated with money-makers and lovers of money, “they praise and admire the wealthy man and bring him to public offices, while they dishonor the poor man,” (Bloom 228). This perfectly describes the capitalistic democracy of the U.S. Reagan’s trickledown economics is a perfect example; cut the taxes of the rich and tear down any regulations that might get in the way of corporations making money. By giving great opportunities to the wealthy, benefits will naturally befall the working poor and middle class in the form of increased wages and more jobs. This type of deregulation in favor of the wealthy continues today and illustrates that the priorities of our society is aiding the rich and hoping that somehow the poor are positively affected.

Socrates democracy, which comes next, is relevant because it presaged the liberal nihilism that is persistent in American society today. However, its description entails the ruling of the people by the people which simply is not the case in the U.S. today. Rather, Socrates’ oligarchy which is ruled by wealthy elites seems more reflective of leaders in the U.S. today.

What is funny about this argument is that, regarding the Republic, my assessment is actually a compliment to the regime of the United States; an oligarchy, after all, is a step closer to the ideal regime than a democracy.

[paulogodchalk-blog]

Russian Prime Minister Speaks Up for Jailed Punks

According to the Independent, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has publicly stated his disagreement with President Vladimir Putin over the prison sentences of two members of the punk band Pussy Riot. They were arrested and given a harsh sentence after performing an anti-Putin song in a Moscow cathedral.

Medvedev has made a courageous, if not heroic, decision in defying Putin's decision, which has received a great deal of media attention. In a country where opposition is not exactly tolerated, Medvedev's defense of the prisoners, whose acts he admits were distasteful, is an example of a heroic action…we can only hope that justice follows.