Politics Schmolitics @politicschmolitics - Tumblr Blog

The metamorphosis of Antony and Cleopatra

I know I write a lot of blog posts about gender roles for this class. I don’t mean to sound like a broken record this week, but I feel one of the most interesting and dynamic things about William Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra are the gender roles the protagonists begin in, and where they end off. I feel no major character in this book is stagnate. They are constantly changing their frames of thought or making decisions that are out of character.

At the beginning of the story, Cleopatra is held down to the traditional female gender role. She is looked down upon by the others in power. Octavius Caesar states about Antony:

"He hath given his empire up to a whore." (Act 3, IV, 76-77)

There are mentions made about her physical beuaty, and the hold she has on people. Cleopatra often uses her beauty and hold to manipulate Antony. She plays with his head in order to manipulate him to do things she wants.

However, I feel it’s still evident that it’s Antony who is calling the shots. He goes to Rome and is married to Octavia, and even though Cleopatra responds extremely physically to the messenger who brings her the news, there’s no reaction like that to Antony. She’s even okay with the marriage when she hears about Octavia’s physical appearance. It’s obvious that even though she tries to manipulate Antony repeatedly that she still respects him, or even respects the roles they are both expected to play. This is in sharp contrast to Octavia, who fits into the typical female role at this time. She abides to what Antony states, and even though she disagrees with Antony’s decisions that relate to her brother, she still listens to Antony and goes to Rome when he dispatches her.

There’s also a weird scene in the book that foreshadows the major character changes that are about to come. In Act 2, Scene V, Cleopatra states:

“Ere the ninth hour, I drunk him to his bed, then put my tires and mantles on him, whilst I wore his sword Philippan” (Act 2, V, 25-27)

Cleopatra, when putting on Antony’s sword, begins her journey into masculinity, and is shown in the next major decisions she makes. This also foreshadows Antony’s journey into the more feminine role.

Antony’s most masculine point and his highest point of power comes after Octavius Caesar and Lepidus break their truce and begin a war against Pompey. Antony grows extremely angry at this decision, and in a fit of power, declares himself and Cleopatra rulers of Egypt. It’s a bold move that leads Antony to fight Octavius Caesar’s army. Enobarbus insists that they do not fight Caesar in the sea, yet Cleopatra persuades Antony that her naval fleet will win. Cleopatra even takes a more masculine approach by actual involving herself in the battle.

This is where Cleopatra takes the role of director. During a battle, her ship flees without warning, and Antony’s ship follows her. This is a sharp hit to his masculine role, as running away from a battle is probably the most cowardly thing a person can do. As Scarus states: “I never saw an action of such shame. Experience, manhood, honor ne’er before did violate so itself.” (Act 3, X, 26-28)

This results in the victory going to Octavius Caesar. This is where the switch of gender roles begins. Cleopatra is now serving in the traditional masculine role, while Antony is serving in the feminine role. This is relayed even more in the next scene when Cleopatra is the one who most comfort Antony. Antony even confides in Cleopatra that she was the one who led when he states:

“You did know how much you were my conqueror, and that my sword, made weak by my affection would obey it on all cause.” (Act 3, XII, 71-74)

At this point, Cleopatra is serving in the typical male role. She is the one in charge, while Antony is serving in the typical female role, abiding by what she says. He no longer is in control, but his affections for Cleopatra are. Antony tries to redeem himself after his loss by threatening to kill Cleopatra for her betrayal, but the damage has been done. Cleopatra is the one calling the shots.

The switch of gender roles is most clearly seen in the two characters’ deaths. Antony, upon hearing of Cleopatra’s (faked) death, attempts to kill himself. He botches his suicide attempt and has to beg the guards and Diomedes to finish it for him. He dies a broken death (and dare I say) unheroic death. He fails to kill himself and then wanders around, hoping to find someone to finish the job.

This is in contrast to Cleopatra’s death. Cleopatra, facing living in Rome as an image of defeat under Octavius Caesar, Cleopatra decides to take her life. She would rather die than be mocked by the Roman crowds. She states:

“Antony shall be brought drunken forth, and I shall see some squeaking Cleopatra boy my greatness I’th’ posture of a whore.” (Act 5, II, 265-268)

Cleopatra dies by the application of deadly snakes, a death that I view as nobler than Antony’s. Plus, some of her servants also kill themselves with her. In her death she is able to remain as herself, unlike Antony at the time of his death.

In these ways, I feel both characters have dissociated themselves with their roles at the beginning of the story, and have taken on the traditional roles of the other gender. Antony starts as a strong, heroic male and ends as a weakened male who follows his significant other. Cleopatra starts as a strong headed woman held within the boundaries of the traditional female role at that time, and breaks down all of those barriers to not only become a warrior, but to die an honorable death defiant of leaders at that time. Both of these characters undergo a metamorphosis that results in completely different characters that were present when the novel started.

#pols383

A 10-year-old boy who's been in an adult jail since authorities say he fatally beat a 90-year-old woman two months ago is scared, lonely and misses his mother, his public defender said.

When it comes to the cross between the justice and the jail system, I feel the grayest area is when children are the perpetrators.

A 10-year-old boy (yes 10 years old) is facing an adult homicide charge in Pennsylvania after he became enraged and beat a 90-year-old woman to death.

According to the article, after the victim yelled at the boy, he put a cane around the woman's neck. He then punched the woman repeatedly in the throat and stomach while he held her down on a bed.

The boy has now been in an adult jail for two months. He's housed away from the adult population, and has been meeting with a psychiatrist. He hasn't been placed in a youth facility due to the distance away, and the boy's father does not feel comfortable having the boy placed in their care.

It's absolutely terrifying to me that a 10-year-old boy is capable of such violence. It's even scarier that the boy's father is unwilling to have the boy placed in his care- it signals to me that there's a deeper issue here.

However, while this is one specific case, what happens to children that face homicide charges? There are a slew of cases: to name two, a (then) 12-year-old who shot his father's fiance and the murder of James Bulger back in 1990 by two 10-year-olds in England that still hits headlines today.

Should these children serve less time than adults for their crimes? A crime is still a crime. The victims still deserve justice. However, does it make a difference if the child is 10 or 23? Should age dictate the severity and length of punishment?

I'm not saying that we should lock child killers in a dark room for the rest of their (long) lives, never to see the light of day.

However, how do you juggle providing justice while still taking a perpetrator's age into account? Who suffers from the bigger injustice here- the perpetrators, or the victim's families?

#justice #children

starrywest-deactivated20141225

BERKELEY, Calif. (AP) — Protests in New York and Missouri have died down, but angry crowds in one California city famous for activism spent much of the weekend blocking traffic

Dating all the way back to the 1700s, protests aren’t new to America. But nowadays how effective are they really? In my opinion, protesting has always been a method used in order for the people to bring justice to an unjust situation. And it would seem that bringing justice is exactly what the peaceful protesters want. However, the peaceful protesters, as seen in this article, are often overtake by people who take advantage of the situation and turn the protests violent. More and more it seems that protests for justice turn to riots. These riots do nothing but cause damage, harm others, and make people angry. Therefore, we must ask the question, are the protests for justice worth the end result of a riot? I don’t believe that they are. Unfortunately, although we’ve seen protests work in the past, it doesn’t seem as though they are as effective at resulting in justice as they were in the past. For example, women protested for their right to vote because they felt an injustice was being done to them by their right to vote being barred. They peacefully protested and they found justice in gaining the right to vote. While I understand that many people feel an injustice has been done in the cases of these police officers, it is my opinion that they need to find more effective ways of finding justice. It seems that protesting just isn’t doing the trick any longer.

mrcoolguy22

I agree with these sentiments, protesting has been a longtime, and in the past effective way to promote a stance on an issue. However recently, protesting just doesn’t seen to carry as much weight for one reason or another. The reason behind it fluctuates, but could be factors such as how protests are now portrayed in the media to the influence of big money on the political system. Probably the latter. As the politics is currently more about getting reelected than enacting policy, causes that are promoted by protesters are often causes that don’t generate money for reelection campaigns. The good life in being able to openly, legally protest unjust policy is definitely dwindling in influence, and how can people influence policy if the ones in charge of policy don’t listen.

my-anonymous123

Violent protests can be very dangerous to innocent people, which is why I don’t care for violent protest. Especially in the article when it gives examples like that rioters who have been throwing rocks at officers, not all officers are bad people, is it fair that they are mistreated? Since so many people are angry, which they have the right to be angry, they’ve turned to violent protesting, which has received the media attention that they want. There have been plenty of non-violent protesters like MLK, Alice Paul, Gandhi, etc. and they delivered the message that they wanted to spread.

On the other hand, Mrcoolguy22 brings out good point that people can’t influence policy if the ones who are in charge don’t listen. These violent protests have gotten a lot of attention. I think that more that people see other people being violent on television, the more they’re willing to follow. In the end, I don’t think violent protesting is the way to seek justice and to get back at police officers because peaceful protesters have also gained media attention.

politicschmolitics

While I agree that violent protests often do more harm than good, I think the issue lies deeper than that, particularly in the media. I'm sure everyone's noticed that the media tends to cover the protests that are violent over the protests that are non-violent. That's because non-violent protests are not newsworthy. They happen every single day (maybe not to the extent that they happened after Ferguson) yet they are rarely covered in the media. Why?

We don't find them interesting. I'm sure we've all driven by a protest downtown and have not given it a second thought. We consume media that covers these violent protests, thus more media is put out to cover these stories because the outlets know they will be read. We feel drawn to them because of the tragedy attached to the protests. Some make comments about how what they're doing is so radical and how they don't support the protestors, but yet they keep on reading.

Also, I don't know if I'm just noticing this, or if it's something that anyone else has noticed, but why does it seem that whenever there's pictures of a peaceful protest it's a white person pictured, but when there's the violent protests it's an African American?

For example:

Of course, this is just one case. I've seen others like it.

I think it's an injustice to state that one protest is more likely to produce a result than the other, since it's all about how the media wants to portray it. A change could be caused by the peaceful protestors, but it could be stated as a result of violent protests because that's what we're seeing in the media. Of course, as many, I disapprove of violent protests over peaceful protests. However, I think protests do still matter. Their presence all over the news shows that.

justnebraskaliving

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

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

No Grey Area for NYPD Chokehold Use

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

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

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

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

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

agentsmokestack

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criminal negligence is defined as (emphasis added):

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

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

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

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

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

unlpols2

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

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

pauljac3fan-deactivated20160114

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

justnebraskaliving

agentsmokestack

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

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

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

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

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

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

politicschmolitics

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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?

#animals #heroism

abcnews-deactivated20251106

59 years ago today, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Ala. - http://abcn.ws/12fkqL8

politicschmolitics

Speaking of true heroes...

Volumnia and her twisting of Aristotle's view of women

In class, we have just finished "Politics" by Aristotle, and are now beginning to read "Coriolanus" by the one and only William Shakespeare. As anyone who has read "Coriolanus" knows, Volumnia is that weird mother, and not in a good way. The one that makes you cringe as she speaks to her children, and who needs to take a GIANT leap back from her motherly role. She's the tiger mother, who pushes her children to the limit.

So, yes, I'm a little creeped out by Volumnia; however, I find it interesting how her role in "Coriolanus" contrasts, yet highlights the role of women in Aristotle's "Politics".

Aristotle's views of women is typical of what the U.S.'s was before women gained the right to vote. A women does not get involved with politics. Her role is to sit at home, look pretty, and to raise the children. According to Aristotle in "Politics":

"A husband and father, we saw, rules over wife and children, both free, but the rule differs, the rule over his children being a royal, over his wife a constitutional rule." 1259a 39-42

Thus, while Aristotle doesn't go as far as proclaiming the rule of a man over a woman as "a royal", he does state there is a constitutional rule over the wife. I believe this is where Aristotle marks the distinct difference between the rule of a man over his children than that of his wife. His wife, though still having her free will, still has to bow (not literally) to the rule of her husband. Aristotle goes further by stating:

"The freeman rules over the slave after another manner from that in which the male rules over the female, or the man over the child; although the parts of the soul are present in all of them, they are present in different degrees. For the slave has not deliberative faculty at all; the woman has, but it is without authority, and the child has, but it is immature." 1260a 8-15

However, what does Aristotle mean by lacking "authority"? I believe he means that women cannot get men to do what they want. This can be based off of their traditional role or their characteristics, such as not being as assertive as they should.

Aristotle also states that men should be involved in politics, as it is the role of a citizen. The involvement is what designates a citizen from a city from resident aliens and slaves. This is where Volumnia comes barreling in. We may have had a discussion in class about how it was wrong of Volumnia to state:

"Had I a dozen sons, each in my love alike, and none less dear than thine and my good Marcius, I had rather had eleven die nobly for their country than one voluptuously surfeit out of action." Act 1, Scene 3

It's her way of pushing her son, Caius Marcius into a noble life, and the life of a good citizen. She's the brains behind the mission, urging Caius toward aggression and a life of heroism and honor. She even praises her son's wounds by stating:

"O, he is wounded; I thank the gods for't." Act 2, Scene 1.

Definitely not anything a normal mother would say. She also pushes him toward becoming consul, which she states is a wish for him, but I feel is a wish that she has for herself. She is aware of the policy (very Aristotelian in nature) that women cannot be involved in politics, so she finds another way to be involved- through Caius Marcius.

Some may argue that she is still falling into Aristotle's views of women. She still is a mother, and that's all she'll be. She cannot directly be involved in politics, as she's still stuck in the role of a woman. She has children that she has to raise. We see her in Act 1 sewing, a women's role. She still carries the traditional women's role of mother.

However, unlike how Aristotle stated that women lacked "authority", Volumnia has it. She is able to put thoughts in her son's head and eventually make him a puppet for her endeavors. Unlike a female character we read about earlier, Antigone, Volumnia does not do the work herself, she instead uses her wit and role as a mother to persuade her son to take the fall... or the glory.

Some may view Volumnia as a weakling for this role, and may view her as the anti-Antigone: a person who would rather have someone else do the dirty work, instead of taking the risk and doing it herself. Volumnia puts the risk on her son instead of herself, something that could be viewed as cowardly versus heroic. However, if there's one thing I'm certain, it's that Volumnia certainly twists the Aristotelian view of women; taking some aspects and warping others. I think she's probably one of the most interesting and unique characters we've read thus far.

#pols383

politicalscience383-deactivated

In a CCTV video from Thursday, from eastern Zhejiang Province of China, a couple on a scooter is seen riding along a city street when suddenly they are hit by a vehicle.

In this video and short article describing the incident the word heroism is surprisingly not used; however, it is mentioned on Yahoo’s homepage in connection to the link. Although the actions of those in the video are definitely impressive and admirable, I think the use of heroism would be inappropriate to describe those who helped save the woman trapped under the car. They were not placing themselves in a situation of potential self-risk. I am not undermining their actions. Although they are not examples of a heroes, they represent another idea of focus for Pols383, a “good life”. They reacted as a group in a positive and selfless way to help another member of society. This reaction obviously directly helped save this woman’s chance at a “good life”, because she is still alive. Additionally, acts like this contribute to society’s confidence in other members and fosters other acts like this one be they big or small. If members of society were not confident others would act similarly for them if they were God forbid in a similar situation I believe they would be less likely to help. So, incidents like this positively enforce “good” behavior within society which benefits us all.

playerone77

Perusing the news this morning as I usually do, trying to decide what would be noteworthy to post for our class, I stumbled upon quite a few relative articles. For some reason I woke up in a mind state that I haven’t had in a few months, I missed it. I was in the mood to just be an asshole, to counter even the most common sense approach to humanity. I was in a mood to be sarcastic. I thought about reposting the article about the teacher fired for IVF, make a comment about how the church is right and blah blah blah. Really go all in on a counter argument, that ultimately has no argument. Ferguson is always a good go to, my mind just goes bananas with ideas.

Then I see an update to my roll and oh how awesome it was. Hopefully, in my rush to get ready for class, I can formulate my thoughts clearly.

While my opinion on heroism has changed since September, I feel the need to push back right now. While I respect the idea that hero is thrown around to much today and I find myself screaming at the tv every single time I hear, there are circumstances when it can be applied in the way we have come to see it. The comment from politcalscience383 “I think the use of heroism would be inappropriate to describe those who helped save the woman” just set me off.

I will call these people heroes, screw the definition we’ve discussed in class! They helped save a woman who was trapped. The represented what can be good about our species. They were not at personal risk but she was, they saved her. The idea of heroism means something different to everyone, that is allowed. To put this into an academic box and ruin the feeling it gives people is terrible. They are example of heroes to me, in this context. This article, for me, represents what can be wrong with education, it can tarnish and diminish an idea which is so powerful that it can motivate people to change their own world. It can force one to analyze to much and remove feeling, to become sterile.

Maybe that makes sense, maybe it doesn’t. This type of video makes me happy, brightens my day. To not describe her rescuers as heroes just pisses me off.

voxeclexnat

I have to ask, how do we consider heroism?

What you’re asking for is essentially debasing the concept of heroism for its betterment. You’re asking us to believe that corrupting the definition of what it means to be a hero will make heroism more compelling or enfranchise more heroes. But isn’t the uniqueness what gives the quality and significance to heroism? If everyone or anyone is a hero, then nobody is. It’s like arguments for inflation. Wildly debasing the value of the currency is sometimes argued to be a good thing. but at its face, it requires less value than it currently has. You’re asking us to use hyperinflation on heroism.

You finish with a statement that the people are heroes because they make you happy. No? Isn’t that cheapening heroism to the point where it will lose its value for you too? I suppose that it is sort of like asking if you will get tired of cat pictures if you consume every cat picture you can – but I digress. Is it not the fantastic nature, the distilled quality, and the unique occasion that makes up heroism?

politicschmolitics

My opinion of heroism has changed since September as well. I agree that labeling a man who reunites dogs with soldiers a "hero" is using the term a little loosely. However, if we make there be certain criteria to become a "hero", I think that would be incredibly wrong.

The thing that is rejoiced about heroism is that anyone can become a hero. You don't have to be born a hero. You don't have to look like a hero. There's no specified race, occupation, or environment that a hero needs to thrive in. A person can literally be walking down the street some day, and be a hero the next. It's achievable. I've grown up thinking I can become a hero, that my brother can become a hero, that I can be the friend of a hero, that one of my professors can be a hero... on and on. By putting certain criteria and pinpoints on heroism, I think it makes it unachievable. By stating that "only people who risk their lives or are in immediate danger" can be heroes, then I grow up believing that I have to be in a certain situation to become a hero.

And by stating that declaring these people "cheapens" heroism is wrong. What about the people that didn't help? What about the people who walked away? Aren't they unique that they actually stopped and helped? What if the car had exploded and hurt a few of those who were helping? Would that make them heroes then? Why is it that unless someone comes out scarred, missing a limb, or dead, that only then they can be declared heroes?

Again, I do agree that there's a line between a hero and a person who is doing a good deed. The dog man would be doing a good deed. These people should be declared heroes. If you still want them declared normal people, then I'm extremely lucky to be in the same category as (apparently) normal citizens who don't hesitate to rescue someone. That's good company to have.

#heroism

As a future law school student next fall, this article made me extremely angry, and reminded me of why I want to attend law school in the first place. If you have read any of my past blog posts (which I'll be extremely sad if you haven't), I mostly write about justice rather than heroism or the good life. That's because I truly believe justice is what all people, regardless of whatever background they may have, deserve. As a person who loves justice, I understand the importance of the writ of habeas corpus. As we have obviously seen in history (Central Park Five, anyone?), court cases can be wrong. That's why we need a check in order to ensure our justice system is doing it's job. Habeas corpus serves as one way to check the court system. However, when lawyers miss appeal deadlines, the grunt of the missed deadline falls upon their clients, those who have to suffer the consequences of a failed or not-granted appeal. What is even more disturbing is that the lawyers who fail with habeas corpus deadlines are often not held accountable for their actions. Out of 80 capital cases in which the lawyers missed their deadlines, as the article states, "Among the dozens of attorneys who have borne some responsibility for those mistakes, only one has been sanctioned by a professional disciplinary body for missing the deadline." It's truly unjust to diminish someone's chance for an appeal just because a lawyer was unaware of a due date for an appeal filing. That's what one aspect of a lawyers job is- to complete the filings by the set due date, regardless of whom the client is. The ending of the article gives me hope that this is a trend that will discontinue, as there are major reforms happening to adjust how habeas corpus appeals are filed and by whom. This is a great step our justice system is taking to correct its wrongs.

unlpols2

Americans were full of appreciation for their veterans and active members of the armed forces this week. Many accordingly “decorated” their Facebook walls and twitter feeds with signs of “gratefulness”, only to forget about them all together until the end of May (Conveniently most pools will be opening then. So - flags, barbecue and a little bit of military appreciation are certainly going to make for the perfect “freedom celebration”). However, behind a superficial wall of thankfulness hide much bigger problems active members of the armed forces are facing each day - PTSD, relatively low pay, and not so great benefits, as the recent VA debacle clearly illustrate, are a few examples of the many one could list.

The United States abandoned the much cherished concept of the citizen soldier in the wake of the war in Vietnam. No longer run average citizens into the danger of being sent into a conflict they do not understand and/or do not identify with. For them, the consequences of their actions are carried by others. Even worse, those who carry them are then in return, as a sign of thanks for their service, granted poor and inadequate benefits. Look, this is were Aristotle is completely wrong when he asserts that if things are held in common they begin to matter less. It is only when someone else carries on his or her shoulders the consequences of your actions that you stop to care. It is in this sense that the AVM is both undemocratic and threatening; the United States needs to engage in a serious conversation about the future, treatment and purpose of its armed forces.

politicschmolitics

I think this is the perfect blog post to summarize the lecture from today, particularly since this issue ties together homelessness and our armed forces.

After today's discussion, I truly believe that while we should be grateful toward our military members, labeling them all as heroes is not the route to take. I think it's absolutely ridiculous how on the holidays, people like to praise and treat our soldiers like superstars, yet when it comes to voting or supporting military benefits, such as mental health services for PTSD. Instead, they vote in representatives who continue to make cuts that would actually benefit our veterans, or argue when taxes have to increase to pay for these services. However, as long as we get our annual 'Thanks to our American heroes.' post on Facebook, people think they're good to go for the year.

While I agree that all soldiers shouldn't be labeled heroes (but some should have that title), not providing these services to them is a great injustice. As we said in class, most of our veterans have made sacrifices for the U.S., and for our country to turn its back on them when they return is massively wrong. Some of the homeless are veterans, whom upon return, didn't get the help they needed from the nation they served. And when these people are homeless, we tend to ignore them or talk negatively about them the rest of the days of the year. If we want to label our soldiers heroes on Veteran's and Memorial Day, and preach about how patriotic we are, then why don't we care the 363 other days of the year?

On Veteran's Day, we as a nation aim to honor our veterans for their act of bravery and service to keep our country safe. Why, then, are some veterans getting more recognition than others? Some veterans who served in the Cold War from September 1945 to Dec. 26, 1991 have seen a decrease in the recognition for their services. For example, there is no memorial in Washington D.C. recognizing those who served the U.S. in the Cold War, like there are for the multiple other wars the U.S. has been involved in. Also, since Cold War veterans are not considered wartime veterans, they are also barred from entering certain veteran service groups, such as the American Legion, which only accepts wartime veterans. There are also no commemorative medals that can be worn on military uniforms for Cold War veterans, and if they would like a medal, they have to purchase it through a private vendor. Does there have to be multiple casualties for a war to be considered "worthy" of recognition in Washington D.C.? Are veterans that served in a riskier setting braver than those who did not? Are they more heroic? I believe that a veteran is a veteran, regardless of when or where they serve, or how dangerous it was. They are all worthy of recognition, even if that recognition is in a material form, such as a medal or memorial in Washington D.C. There was a lot of media coverage about the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall over the weekend. When I visited Berlin, there were memorials and reminders of the Berlin Wall all over the city. It's certainly an injustice that we can't give our American soldiers that much recognition for their service as well.

Does civil disobedience truly mold a hero?

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson

Civil disobedience has long been an aspect of history. There have been countless examples even just in American history. One can think back to Rosa Parks refusing to sit in at the back of the bus, even though laws at the time forbade it. As we all know, she was arrested. The Vietnam War brought a whole slew of civil disobedience by American citizens, from demonstrations to the burning of draft cards. Often those who acted in disobedience against the government were arrested or punished in some way. A more current example would be the Occupy Wall Street protests. Again, those who participated were punished. In history, it seems civil disobedience and punishment go hand-in-hand.

While reading Sophocles's Antigone in class, I could see the similarities between Antigone and many of history's civil disobedient figures. Antigone, as a citizen of Thebes, directly disobeys Creon's decree that Polynices's corpse "that no one may bury or mourn him, but must see him unlamented, unburied, a sweet find for birds to feast upon" (Lines 29-31).

Antigone is aware of the decree, and the punishment, as she sarcastically states in lines 32-38:

"Such things they say our good Creon decreed for you and me- for me, I say! And he is coming here to announce it clearly to anyone who hasn't heard, for he considers it no small matter, but for the one who does any of it, the penalty is death by public stoning."

Of course, Antigone is stuck in a difficult position, as we know, burial rites are extremely important in Greek culture, and Polynices, being Antigone's brother, is someone she would desperately want buried correctly and properly.

When Antigone is caught burying her brother, she confesses that she was aware that the law stated that not to do so, and that she directly disobeyed. Antigone states her reasoning for disobedience in lines 459-472:

"Because it wasn't Zeus who pronounced these things to me, nor did Justice, companion of the gods below, establish such laws for humanity. I would never think your pronouncements had such strength that, being mortal, they could override the unwritten ever-lasting prescriptions of the gods, for those aren't something recently made, but live forever, and no one knows when they first appeared. I did not intend to pay the penalty to the gods for violating these laws in fear of some man's opinion, for I know I will die. How could I not, even if you had not proclaimed it?"

Thus, Antigone argues that Creon's decree does not overweigh that of the Gods, who strive for proper burial rites. Even though Antigone's brother is seen as a traitor, she feels he deserves proper burial rites Antigone also discusses this view in Lines 73-77, in which she states:

"It seems fair to me to die doing it. I will lie dear to him, with one dear to me, a holy outlaw, since I must please those below a longer time than people here, for I shall lie there forever."

On the opposite side, Creon believes that law should be obeyed above all else. In lines 677-679, Creon states:

"Rather, whomever the city chooses must be obeyed in all things- small, just, and the opposite."

Creon even goes as far as stating in line 684, "No evil is worse than disobedience."

Antigone accepts her inevitable fate, and states that she would rather please the Gods rather than a mortal ruler on Earth. We all know Antigone's fate, that she hangs herself. She does this to avoid a horrible punishment at the hand of Creon. However, Creon is not without punishment as well. He loses not only his son, but his wife due to his ways.

In today's day and age, we often see those who disobey society often as heroes, the prime example being Rosa Parks. She, like Antigone, stood for what they felt was right, and what is right by God. Rosa Parks, in her autobiography stated, "I refused to get up for that white man, he and I were not seen as equals from societies eyes, but God gave us both red blood in our veins." Antigone does the same, stating that it is against the god's wishes not to bury her brother.

However, couldn't the same be said for people such as radical religious zealot groups (such as a very publicized on from Kansas, whose name I refuse to state), who claims that what they are preaching is right, and that it follows with what God believes? They are also committing civil disobedience by picketing and protesting what they believe, often trespassing on various properties.

Why is Antigone seen as a hero, when those who were protestors for Occupy Wall Street, or religious groups are seen as a nuisance? Why is Antigone held in such high regard? She's still committing a crime, and going against what the law of Thebes states.

Does civil disobedience mold a hero, or is it the message they preach? If Antigone was fighting for something that we felt was wrong, would she still be seen as a hero to so many?

#pols383 #heroism #antigone #civil disobedience

theheightsandthedepths

Recently, a 90-year-old man as well as two pastors have found themselves in trouble with the law regarding Ft. Lauderdale’s new ordinance preventing “food sharing” on public property. The city cites that this only prolongs and promotes the homeless lifestyles that these individuals are leading, warranting such “justice.” This is where I find a contradiction with the city official’s philosophy - bear with me, i promise my point turns back to the article.

As a social worker in Lincoln, I encounter the homeless and impoverished on a daily basis. I am forced to keep up with the ever-changing legislation regarding public assistance, namely SNAP (formerly known as food stamps) and ADC (Aid to Dependent Children or “welfare”). Additionally, I am responsible for informing my clients that are accessing such assistance of their responsibilities and objectives, which are also laid out within the legislation - such as attending ESL classes, volunteering, and spending time in the computer lab searching for jobs. However, sometimes I find myself wondering if rocket science is easier than keeping up with how the government interacts with the impoverished.

The whole point of cash assistance is an interesting paradox in that its goal is to eventually get the individuals off public assistance. Naturally, society should hope that cash assistance is not the end game - how could that ever be sustainable for our country? Rather, it should assist in a person getting up on their feet, finding a sustainable job, and eventually weaning off of the government. After sitting through hours and hours of Department of Health and Human Services meetings, this is more or less the agenda.

However, I have come to find that public assistance can easily perpetuate a jobless and government-relying lifestyle, which is why i take issue with the city officials claiming handing out meals to the homeless is the cause for sustained poverty in the United States. In many states, including Florida, a family can receive cash assistance so long as they are participating with a certified agency and following their service plan, which oftentimes only includes a 20 hour ESL (if non-English speaking)/volunteer work week: simply show up to a computer lab, sit down, apply for at least two jobs a week, and that’s it. But as of summer 2014, individuals are no longer required to apply for jobs or accept job offers if they are outside their interest zone specified within their service plan. To put it simply, if one receives an offer to work at a meat packing facility, but meat packing was not in their interest zone, they are not required to take the job and will not be sanctioned for it.

Many people may scoff at me and say it’s the job market. “There’s not enough jobs, the wages are too low, and it’s so competitive.” Yes, wages are low, and it is nearly impossible to raise a family on minimum wage, but there are jobs, and I know there are because my Burmese refugees are off working at Cook”s Processing within 30 days of being in the United States, and thus, are not reliant on government assistance. Even more, Rescare (the DHHS affiliate that does the job assistance) employees have told me their phones are ringing off the hook from employers like Cook’s and other manufacturing plants - people simply aren’t willing to take the jobs. Certainly the work is hard and it is indeed not fun. I’ve spent enough time interpreting for my Spanish-speaking clients in the cold plant for me to be aware. This is not to say that poverty is a choice, as many disgruntled Americans will say, but it certainly is food for thought when looking at poverty within our own town of Lincoln.

Moreover, it is likely that these homeless men in Ft. Lauderdale are not even accessing such assistance. It’s a tricky process that many of these individuals are not motivated to complete. Homelessness isn’t fun, and it takes quite the shove to get out of it, and more than likely, people often end up back “under the bridge” if you will. Just talk to Pastor Tom at the Lincoln City Mission - he’s been seeing some guys come back for years in small spurts.

If feeding the homeless is perpetuating homelessness and poverty, then there is a much bigger issue at hand. Feeding the homeless is a service we must provide to our society as many people would simply die of hunger without such services. Do I believe in public assistance such as SNAP and ADC? Absolutely. It is beyond necessary for many individuals, including my refugees in their first months in the U.S. But what is the point, then, if people are simply resting upon this assistance without any incentive to move out of it. Leading these individuals to the good life means empowering them and providing them with the resources to take the next step, because although public assistance doesn’t always make ends meet perfectly, it can easily create a facade, covering the next step.

politicschmolitics

This post is absolutely well-written, and I agree with it whole-heartedly. The author, theheightsandthedepth, brings a different view to the issue in their position as a social worker, working with the homeless in Lincoln.

I, like theheightsandthedepth, believe public assistance should be provided, such as SNAP and ADC; however, we believe it should be a stepping stone for people to get out of poverty, rather than to rely on it wholeheartedly to live.

I believe it is true that many of those who claim to be homeless people (I'm talking about you, panhandlers outside of Walmart) are not actually homeless. However, there are a large majority of people out there who actually do need help, and can't survive on their own without assistance. You'll know these people when you encounter them.

THESE are the people the government should be aiming to help. Those people who truly are having a hard time, and are trying their best to get by, not looking for a hand-out or to live off of government assistance for the rest of their lives. The people who will take any job offered, no matter the field, and still need a little help.

Many people target immigrants or refugees as those that are "trying to live off of the government". I've heard these people referred to as "lazy" and "welfare recipients". However, in my experiences, that is absolutely not true.

I worked with UNL's Journalism College on their MOSAIC website, and during my time there, I spoke with multiple refugees and immigrants that have come to the U.S. They have been through things that I cannot even fathom, and yet have the most positive attitudes. These people have ran for their lives from their country, and when they sometimes can't make ends meet, instead of helping these people, too many people are willing to stereotype them. It's truly heartbreaking, and speaking with these people has really opened my eyes to things I've never thought about before.

In order to live "a good life" in the United States, I believe people should have three basic items- food, clothing, and shelter. Denying anyone this is not only wrong of a country, but it's disturbing that some people would rather have citizens of the U.S. starving on the streets than to funnel some of their tax money into these services.

Also, this arrest is not justice. If arresting a 90-year-old man for feeding homeless people in Florida is how you think the justice system should be run in the United States, there's truly something wrong with you.

#justice #homeless #florida

mrcoolguy22

US right-to-die advocate ends life

A developed society as this is, I’m glad somebody with a terminal illness has the opportunity to end their life on their own terms before potentially having to spend a ridiculous amount of more money on hospital bills. It shows a good life, or good death when someone can make their own decision about choosing to end their own life when diagnosed with a terminal illness. Most of the issues come from when people don’t have terminal illnesses. That is another entire ethical dilemma, a permanent solution to what is likely a temporary problem. Regardless, somebody with a terminal illness without much time left should have the opportunity to choose the time and method of their death, its not like they’re going to escape it.

pauljac3fan-deactivated20160114

This was a really interesting take on death as it relates to giving a good life. We spend a lot of time talking about what it means to live a good life, but a good death is also important. In my opinion, the law in Oregon that the article mentions is a very good one, as it allows patients with terminal illnesses to choose a dignified and relatively pain-free death. This law also is a prime example of how laws can help those who help with assisted suicide to live a good life because they do not have to use Kevorkian-esque devices, but can instead prescribe a prescription that the patient takes when they are ready.

penser12

Both of you make interesting points as to how this relates to the good life. Meeting death with dignity is indeed ending their life in a “good-life” manner. The states of Oregon, Washington, and Vermont, as well as other countries such as Switzerland, see thousands of people taking advantage of their laws regarding planned death. It is clear from this usage that individuals wishing to end their own life due to a terminal illness. Besides being a component of the good life, I would also highlight that these laws are just. They allow fair treatment to individuals burdened with terminal illnesses to choose to end their life before unsurmountable pain sets in, and not be seen as illegal suicides. I applaud Maynard in her efforts to bring attention to physician-assisted death.

politicschmolitics

I agree that Maynard deserves recognition for her efforts to promote an issue that she was so passionate about, even before her death. I encourage all of those who find Maynard's story interesting to watch the documentary "How to Die in Oregon". I had a completely negative opinion of the Death with Dignity Act until I watched this documentary. I now believe it is an option that all states should provide their residents. There's nothing cowardly or unheroic about knowing when a person cannot handle suffering anymore, and to end their life before they lose too much of their self to an incurable disease.

juliannablake

politicschmolitics

electricpastry:

CNN Discussion feat. Amanda Seales and Steve Santagati.

According to author Steve Santagati on CNN, women who are catcalled can solve all of their problems by calling their verbal harrassers out, and carry a gun for back-up. Sounds like a fool-proof plan, right? Apparently, I'm foolish to believe that we can live in a world where a woman does not get cat called on a daily basis, and doesn't have to carry a gun for protection. I tell you, I have some crazy, irrational thoughts (sarcasm). Oh, and let's not forget that Santagati also stated on CNN, "There is nothing more that a woman loves to hear than how pretty she is." All I can say is that I really hope this guy is single. And if he's not, I feel horrible for his wife right now.

I think this New York Times article and the multimedia presented with it is one of the best written articles I've read this year thus far. It focuses on The Sequoias, a retirement community that houses many residents in their own apartments, some in assisted living. The problem The Sequoias has encountered is how to keep elderly residents safe by taking measures to prevent falls, versus infringing on residents' abilities to live how they want to live, regardless of risk. In the videos presented in the article, you can see how various things, such as stairs and the little ramp of a shower, appear to an elderly person, coupled with normal things like cataracts and glaucoma. The Sequoias has taken action to help prevent falls caused by these things, such as putting a white stripe on the stairs, and making the lip of the shower a contrasting color. However, some residents have fought back against other changes the residential community has tried to make, such as moving resident's walkers to a safer storage place, serving them meals, and then bringing the walkers back following the meal. Eleanor Hammer, a 92-year-old resident, actually sued The Sequoias to stop this policy, saying it infringed on her freedom of movement. This is where the problem lies. In order to live "a good life," elderly residents at retirement communities should be free from the possibility of falling, either due to dangerous obstacles presented or other residents at these facilities. However, when does protecting an individual in these homes infringe on their personal choices, resulting in them not living "a good life" by infringing on their personal choices? Preventing falls is a problem that is not going away, as the article states "the rate of severe falls has been increasing for Americans over the age of 65". So does safety take precedence over personal freedom, or are a resident's personal freedoms more important than their safety? Which one has the bigger role to play in determination of "a good life"?

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Politics Schmolitics