Discover Top Posts Tagged with #pols383

8/26 “Argumentative”

The idea of divine intervention in the Iliad was brought up in class today, and. beyond that, how the gods in Greek mythology spend their free time pondering and arguing over things that don’t matter, because they don’t have any real things to worry about. My mind immediately shot over to the classic, incomparable staple of reality television, “The Real Housewives of [City or Area].”

I’m very familiar with that series, New York to Beverly Hills to Atlanta, because my mom pretty much only watches the Bravo network. Throughout my hours and hours of viewing Real Housewives, spanning childhood to today’s holiday visits, I’ve picked up on one very, very common theme: it’s nothing. The show is about nothing. The people in it do, for the most part, nothing. The only thing that keeps the show moving is the drama, which may seem like something, but under the surface it too is nothing of substance. Frankly, it’s impressive - no TV show since Seinfeld has done nothing so well.

So a group of gals are gathered and given camera crews, and basically the only driving force of the show is incessant bickering of the stars. Why? Why do they argue, why do they fight, why do some of them just fabricate stories about others in order to stir up d r a m a ? My cumulative days-worth of research leads me to one conclusion: they have no worries. Like the Greek gods, the Real Housewives don’t have anything uber meaningful to discuss because... they don’t really have anything meaningful going on. Don’t get me wrong, some of them have careers (despite the title containing the word “housewives”), many start their own businesses, but there’s never really a concern of failure. They have projects that they partake in, they have children and families that they take care of, but those often are more of a drama-plot device than anything else. For the vast majority of their screen time they’re entrenched in some pointless argument, and it’s because their wealth allows them to float above any real concerns of survival.

I also realize that it is a reality show, which means that it really isn’t reality, but let’s look at Congress. Congress is different, they have SOME sort of meaning, if not only for the fact that they are one of three branches of government. But one thing is for sure, and that is that they do a lot of bickering. And that’s what it is, bickering, at least for the most part, as opposed to truly arguing. Some members of Congress argue for things that their constituents need, like healthcare, I can’t and won’t deny that, but a lot of the time both sides of the aisle actually agree more than they disagree, and the bickering comes from that environment. Think about recent stimulus check debates - Democrats want $x to give to people, but Republicans want to give $(x-y). Both agree that a one-time stimulus check is the best course of action, they just disagree on the dollar amount, and when their debates fail to bring about any agreements or resolutions the idea is effectively scrapped altogether, and why? Because stimulus checks don’t effect the vast majority of members of Congress, they don’t feel the effects of COVID in nearly the same way as the average American, so it just isn’t a huge deal to them.

That’s the big idea. They debate and bicker and occasionally argue “on behalf of the American people,” but really what they discuss is nothing. In the end, a one-time stimulus check will not cut it, it will not resolve the woes of the American people felt due to COVID, and that much is proven by the fact that a SECOND stimulus check was seen as necessary. Do they think that they’re fighting the good fight, discussing what they discuss? Maybe, but that’s really beside the point. People NEED healthcare, they need social safety nets, and the fact of the matter is that the majority of Democrats and Republicans don’t want to hear that, and that’s because they don’t have to worry about that stuff. For a majority of members of Congress, they are so distanced from the Average Joes they represent due to economic gap that they don’t truly bring forth (or at least they don’t seriously consider) ideas that would actually address the needs of the people. What they’re left with is debate of ideas that truly don’t mean anything - at the most they’re short-term fixing problems that will just resurface in a short amount of time (again, see stimulus checks).

All in all, a leader is only effective if they are in touch with the people that they’re leading, otherwise they’re just performing as an individual and implementing policies and ideas that either (1) they THINK could work, or (2) they personally like and agree with regardless of the opinions of their constituents. To bring it back around to the Iliad, Agamemnon was a leader who made decisions that his soldiers (Achilles in particular) didn’t always like. If you’ve seen Stanley Kubrick’s “Paths of Glory” from 1957, the French generals most CERTAINLY act in a way that is unpopular among their subordinates (this post is long enough already so I won’t give a synopsis, but I do recommend watching it). Even though they were likely in the place of the soldiers they command at some point, they’ve distanced themselves so much from that position and those responsibilities that they’ve lost touch with it.

The higher up the command chain you move, the less to relate to those at the bottom, and so my concluding point is that hierarchy aids dysfunction. With more and more levels of command comes more and more degrees of separation among people who are supposed to be working toward the same goal, and that is no way to properly tackle and solve issues - in fact, I would say it’s a means of creating MORE issues, given the internal confusion and tension that comes from that separation. Should there be a more direct means of solving issues, a flat organization system where everyone contributes to making the machine run, you lose the muddling that hierarchy brings with it. You can better satisfy the masses since the members of those masses are directly addressing their problems. People know what their problems are, and it only makes sense that they would also be a great resource for finding solutions.

#pols383

You'll want to eat these favorites before they are gone for good.

Once again, this world is unjustly affecting me. If we use Polemarchus’s theory of justice, which he believes is an obligation to do good to the good people in your life, and to do bad to the bad people in your life, then Taco Bell is being extremely unjust. This company has a very loyal fanbase, which I used to sort of consider myself part of until past item removals, but they continue to do harm to their fanbase. Everyone has a favorite menu item or two from Taco Bell, but the company itself does not seem to understand that. They keep removing items, including my beloved Chipotle Griller, but have shown no attempt to add as many new items. I understand wanting to remove a few items that do not sell well or just to free up inventory, but I have to believe that is not the case based on how many items have been removed.

Their proposed reason, at least for the Mexican Pizza item, is that the removal will help with climate change. They say that its packaging leads to lots of waste. That is a noble reason, but for a few reasons I do not entirely believe them. First, that does not explain why they have removed so many other items with no explanation. And second, there are most certainly many ways that Taco Bell could be reducing their effect on climate change. They could be taking more small steps, and they could also outright stop their business entirely, since we know that high beef production and other plastics contribute to climate change in drastic ways too, and both are needed for Taco Bell to continue to exist. If they want to stop climate change, the most good given to the world, including its customers, would be to stop business all together, although I understand that would not be effective without the same action being taken by all the capitalist companies that depleting the Earth’s resources.

If climate change is not the reason, or at least the entire reason, for their removal of many items, then there must be other ways for them to be more just. If they need to do good to the people that are good to them, they have a few ways of doing this. They could satisfy their customers by returning many items to the menu. If they do not want to do that, which I am sure they don’t otherwise they wouldn’t be doing the opposite in the first place, then they must add new items of equal or greater value than the previous items. And lastly, the people who do the most good for Taco Bell and are most deserving of good actions done for them, are their workers. They need raise wages for all their employees, especially since the average pay is less than $10/hour for their employees. They need to provide more benefits to their employees as well. And they accomplish a lot of this by simply allowing their employees to unionize more effectively. Of course, I understand that Taco Bell does not have to adhere to any theory of justice, especially not the very specific one I picked, and no matter what they do, people will likely continue to eat their delicious slop. And I personally believe that the existence of Taco Bell and other similar companies are pretty unjust by their very nature. But I truly believe that a more just Taco Bell would make the world a better place, even if only in small incremental ways.

#pols383

In the News 9/16

In some justice related news, yesterday September 15 Jake Gardner was officially charged for the murder of James Scurlock. James Scurlock was shot in downtown Omaha, NE outside of The Hive during a protest on May 30th. He claims it was self-defense of his business, but that is not enough of a probable cause in this matter. After the death of this young man, the Omaha Police Department failed to uphold this man to the crime he committed. Douglas County Attorney Don Kleine said he was not going to charge him due to the act being in self-defense. Though the prosecutor Fred Franklin believed this to be the right thing to do till more evidence presented itself. Franklin was presented with posts from Facebook, messages, and videos of belligerent behavior with bystanders prior to the shooting. The jury reviewed this and officially agreed to the charges of manslaughter, attempted first-degree assault, terrorist threats, and weapon use. This is a big deal because this means Gardner could face up to 95 years behind bars. Jake knew he could replace those windows, but you can never restore a life. It took months to get this grand jury, and even a result of what had happened that night. Justice is not always an easy thing to obtain, but with perseverance it can be achievable. This is merely only one small step there are still many more to climb, but I believe it is possible. Justice is an extremely hard thing to define, because everyone's take is so different. People will debate on the matter just like in the Republic, but all in all the court will be the final stall.

https://omaha.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/grand-jury-charges-white-bar-owner-with-manslaughter-in-shooting-death-of-black-omahan/article_7ec77c96-94be-5c5d-9e43-fbff9845c51b.html

#pols383

Final Class Takeaways 11/20/20

I think the lecture I enjoyed most this semester was the one on friendship. It was an unexpected addition to a class on heroism, but at the same time, completely necessary to any class on how to live a good life. Friendship is an inherent part of any good life, as human beings would quite literally die without companionship and community. I thought it was interesting that people in the class have different views on friendship as well. Some argued that friendship is ‘living together’ as I believe Socrates argued as well. I think, during a pandemic, this has been proven both incredibly true and in another sense, completely false. As someone who takes social distancing seriously, my friend group has been condensed to the people I live with. I am lucky to live with my three best friends who are my favorite people in the world, and living together has defined our friendship this semester. However, many are not in the same situation as me. I have many friends who live out of state or even in state but in different households. We have had to redefine our friendships in this sense to seeing each other through a computer screen. Unfortunately, some friendships have simply not stood the the test of a pandemic, and I have fallen out of touch with people that I love very much. In an ideal world, I think that friendship is living together: spending time together in person, sharing activities, meals, conversations, etc. However, we are in far from an ideal world right now, and friendship has been manifested in many different ways by different people.

#pols383

The Oligarchs are the Gods

When studying Plato’s Republic and other Greek literature, the importance and intervention of the gods always sticks out like a sore thumb. Even in modern adaptations like Rick Riordan’s Percy Jackson series, the Gods of Greek mythology are always the same: petty, problematic, and dramatic. The Gods are spoiled with infinite power, time, and influence. Meanwhile, the people of the Earth deal every day with the struggles of war, poverty, and weather- all as a result of the actions of the Gods.

The Gods are a metaphor for the rich, powerful oligarchs that control economies and lead our nations. It is no secret that even in our representative democracy we are led by the affluent, wealthy, and powerful because they have the resources to run successful campaigns and appeal to major party contributors. The Oligarchs are the Gods. For these politicians, businessmen, and philanthropists- the world is simple. Their wealth enables them to have a much greater say in our society’s future than the average individual. All of this, of course, has problematic consequences for the average American. The business practices of the rich exploit workers in pursuit of profit. The price of being elected to public office is enacting policies that support big business and the powerful. Policies that are popular and proven are ignored, like private prison reform, universal healthcare, the lowering of prescription drug costs, gun control, campaign finance reform and more all represent this. The mask of politics and spin convince us that congress is broken as a result of partisanship- but the roots go deeper than that. Partisanship is worsened because the average american has less say than the rich.

It seems conspiratorial and a bit extreme to claim that we are controlled by a deep state of wealthy elites. But the problem is that these elites don’t even work in the shadows. The deep state is in plain view for us to see. Current campaign finance laws coupled with deregulated business practices allow for the wealthy to control elections and massive conglomerates to rule. The better financed campaigns almost always win- especially at the state level. Larger businesses almost always overpower their competitors. This issue transcends party lines. What is so hypocritical is that both parties use finance as a campaign tactic against their opponents, neither enacting legislation to change it. That of course makes sense though, because these politicians achieved their power through this same corrupt system.

#pols383 #argumentative

In the News 10/28

In rather tragic news, but maybe exciting news depending on who you ask Amy Barrett was officially confirmed this Monday as new Supreme Court Justice. I honestly cannot believe it, but what do you expect with an all red house it was no surprise. Trump has officially found a way to secure a second term by bringing on Amy Barrett as new Justice. “Barrett, who is 48 years old, is likely to serve on the court for decades and will give conservatives a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, a shift in its makeup that could have dramatic implications for a range of issues that could come before it, including the future of the Affordable Care Act and any potential disputes regarding the 2020 election” (Barrett, Foran). This is quite concerning that on one of the most important courts in the U.S., republicans have taken a majority lead. This can speak a lot to important issues down the line like Roe v, Wade, ACA, Immigration, Crime, and Civil disputes. “Democrats have warned that Barrett's confirmation will put health care protections and the Affordable Care Act in jeopardy” (Barrett, Foran). I think by officially having a conservative majority our chances at progressivism to come forward is now being set back. I think sometimes we need conservatism in our economy so help find a balance, but in issues of autonomy not so much. Barrett is a textualist in her religious affairs, and with how she plans to hold her seat on the Court. She is not for the people, lacks the experience to sit on the court, and has said it is not the judges job to ensure public safety. If she chooses to follow Scalia steps in not following views, but strictly applying the words the constitution provides we are in for a whirl. Attempting to scrivener error everything congress does instead of reading things within interpretation can be quite harmful with moving forward as a society. As for now we can only watch and see what will come out of this new appointee. This November will be our first chance since ACA is to make an appearance in front of the Supreme Court for the third time. I hope that the judges will do what is right, and not put millions of peoples healthcare on the line again.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/26/politics/senate-confirmation-vote-supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett/index.html

#pols383

In the News 10/14/20

falhttps://www.npr.org/2020/10/14/923766097/facebook-and-twitter-limit-sharing-new-york-post-story-about-joe-biden

This article is very prevalent to our class discussion from today. In our breakout rooms, we discussed the ethicality of censorship. My group took the subject to the censorship of today, which is a hot button issue when concerning social media sites, especially Facebook and Twitter. We came to the conclusion that there is an important distinction between censorship based on opinion and censorship based on facts and truth. There have been many calls for Facebook in particular to fact check content posted and take down false articles and posts. I agree with this kind of censorship. People cannot make rational, informed decisions if their decisions are not based on true facts. This article discusses a current post that Twitter has eliminated and Facebook has “limited the distribution” of because the information cited is not proven to be true. This also plays into the controversy surrounding election manipulation via social media and false claims.

#pols383

A grand jury didn’t charge any officers with shooting Ms. Taylor in her Louisville apartment. A former officer, accused of firing recklessly, was indicted on three counts of “wanton endangerment.”

I wanted to wait to write this post until after this was announced. I was hoping to be able to write this post about justice and not have to be cynical on a post for once. I feel like I am taking a class about heroism and justice at the worst possible time, but nevertheless, this needs to be talked about. The ruling on Breonna Taylor’s killings have just been released a few minutes ago, and neither police officer was charged with murder. All they decided was that one will be indicted on three counts of “wanton endangerment.” These results are not judicial justice at all, and are certainly not traditionally just. This is especially upsetting given how long they kept us waiting on this decision, as well as the protests that had sparked because of her death in the first place.

Once again, the government has brushed aside the voices of millions of people in order to protect the police. In general, this proves again that our leaders do not even slightly care about the people they are supposed to be serving, and would honestly rather we shut up and never ask for anything ever again. But I guess it’s true that “justice” is just another word that has lost all its meaning in this bleeding world. Or at the very least, justice is not dictated by the majority, but by the ruling minority. Yes it’s a fictional show about warring space wizards, but I think it was surprisingly insightful when Darth Maul told Ahsoka Tano in one of the last Star Wars: The Clone Wars episodes, “Justice is merely the construct of the current power base.” This is certainly true of this situation. Most people, unless their morality has been poisoned by things such as the internet, would agree that it is unjust for police officers to bust into a person’s home and kill them, especially when that person is not guilty or even the suspect. Yet, here we see justice not being carried out despite seeming clearly wrong on a surface level. I’ve always heard the justice is blind, but it is certainly not color blind in the United States. If we want to ensure a future in which this is not normal, we can only do so through real and collectivized action among all people. And for anyone that does not feel bad for her or about his ruling, just remember that nobody is safe from extrajudicial killings done by an overzealous police force. Just because it was not you or someone you know this time, does not mean that it’s guaranteed to remain that way next time. And when the next one happens, because it will happen, I hope that justice will once again be fought for, win or lose, just like last time, perhaps even louder.

#pols383

8/26 “Argumentative”

#pols383

#pols383

Trending Tags

Recently Viewed Tags

#pols383