POLS Blog

[twentytwotwentythree-blog]

The best post I wrote this semester

I believe the best post I wrote this semester was about the prohibition of marijuana. I believe it was my best work because it is an issue I feel passionately about; because of that I have done a lot of research and papers on the subject and knew what to source. Sure, I threw in some anecdotal evidence, but that was to make my post seem a little more interesting as I threw in a bunch of facts and statistics there at the bottom of the post. 

I know the arguments people make against legalizing marijuana, and I know how to counteract it. I've had enough debates with people throughout the years that I know how to get to the core of why they believe that marijuana is bad. The propaganda throughout the years has certainly done a great job convincing people that marijuana should be a Schedule I controlled substance. 

Obviously, people are thinking more about what we've been taught in school and in the media about marijuana and how it is probably not correct. Alcohol is not on the list of controlled substances, but it clearly is more problematic for society than marijuana is. 

I feel like the post I wrote demonstrated those points that I like to counter mostly every time I find someone talking about marijuana without any statistical evidence to back themselves up. 

As far as what I thought about the blogging assignment as a whole. I think my habits forced me not to do as much with it as I would have liked. I kept forgetting to check Tumblr everyday. I did, however, go back and read through all the ones I had missed since the last time I checked it. Mostly by that time, though, it was too late to have a discussion about it. 

I think the blogging assignment would have been better if the class was divided to a due date every 2 weeks. That way at least 2 people had to have the long-form post everyday for the two weeks. That day would also be when the 2 posts were due, so at least 4 would be posted everyday. It would make it easier on the professor, and easier to check tumblr everyday because you know that at least one person has posted. Who knows if this would change anything though. 

I did enjoy it, I just wish I would have engaged a little better. I wouldn't be surprised if I posted in this blog again from time to time. 

[twentytwotwentythree-blog]

Hero or Villain?

On Tuesday, Prof. Kohen posed a couple of questions to the class: Is Coriolanus a hero? ...or is he a villain? Also, when did Rome die? 

I would argue Coriolanus is a little bit of both. As I have referenced again and again, I don't think there is a set definition of a "hero." There are similar characteristics that are identifiable in all people that have been labeled as such, but those alone may not constitute the title. An example of similar characteristics would be doing something seen as "great" by a majority of people. Coriolanus was a great warrior; I don't think we can argue with that fact. However, just because he was a war "hero" doesn't mean that he wasn't a political villain.

Sicinius asks, "What is the city but it's people?" Coriolanus does not see it that way. If the city is made to serve the people, then Coriolanus views may definitely quantify him as a villain. The commoners should have no say or business in how they are governed is the way Coriolanus sees it, they do not know what is best for them. Because of this, the people feel like they are not being heard or matter, and lead to rebellion. Coriolanus was so intent on retaining the "idea" of Rome, that he would not entertain even the guise that the people have a say in government. He thought that the Tribunes were a terrible idea, and it did just what I have described above; make the people think they are being represented. 

One of the definitions the Merriam-Webster dictionary offers for “villain” is, “one blamed for a particular evil or difficulty.” I would argue that Coriolanus somewhat fits this definition given the views the people have of him in the latter half of the play. He is blamed for attempting to sack Rome, which would be seen as a particular evil; he is also blamed for potentially trying to suppress the people if he were in power. Given all of this, Coriolanus expressed behaviors that could lead to being cast as a villain; though he didn't quite make it to it.

For the second question, when did Rome die? In class we heard a variety of responses to this question; all leading to the idea that “Rome” didn't exist in reality for very long if it did at all. If Rome is indeed a theory or idea, the preservation of that idea could continue for thousands of years. In a less theoretical view, the cultural and political phenomenon from “Rome” are seen throughout modern times. People still refer to ancient Rome when discussing culture and obviously, like we do in this class, politics. Rome tried to institute a series of checks and balances and term-limits so one person didn't have sole power, and didn't have power for long. This is still instituted in many governments across the world, obviously America is one of them. Given all of this, I would say that the idea of Rome put in a tangible, physical reality died around Coriolanus, which is why he wanted to fight for it. The theoretical idea of Rome hasn't died out completely as we see remnants scattered in governments across the world. 

[herestojoe-blog]

Earlier this month I wrote an article on a similar topic to this one about whether or not a police officer needs a warrant to take his police dog for a walk. It seems that privacy is a hot topic recently as yesterday’s NYT featured a front page article concerning cell phone searches by authorities.

Much like the article about the drug-dogs, the only reason that the question of fourth amendment rights and cells phones is appearing is because of stupid criminals who texted about their criminal activity and then left their phone in their apartment that was being searched by a police officer.

I suppose that stories like this infuriate me so much because I just don’t understand, if you are committing or have committed a crime, why you would text, email, write a letter, etc, and not even be concerned that said form of communication could potentially be used as evidence against you!

Again, my stance on the subject is that if you aren’t doing anything illegal, these so called “privacy issues” are not issues at all!

In reply to pols383: I concede to you that they *are* “privacy issues.” I think the point I’m trying to make is that it if you have nothing to hide, you don’t have privacy “issues.” Just because you have the right to something doesn’t mean you need to have that thing, e.g. I have the right to own a gun, but if I neither hunt nor feel threatened in my neighborhood and require a means to defend my home, do I NEED to have a gun? I feel like rights are only justifiable insofar as they are necessary.

[twentytwotwentythree-blog]

I agree with Prof Kohen in that it doesn't matter if you're not doing anything wrong, you still have the right to privacy. If I want to text or call a friend about any number of subjects, I expect that the government wouldn't be spying on that conversation. It's just like the Stasi in East Germany, people spying on others conversations in hopes that there might be some incriminating information. No thanks, no thanks. 

[kohenari]

In case you were tired of seeing nothing but videos of those subway heroes who jump onto the tracks to save someone who has fallen in the way of an oncoming train, here’s a video of a subway villain, who jumps onto the tracks to rob the person who fell.

The victim is struck by the train but survives. The robber says, ”If I had known I was being taped, I wouldn’t have done it.”

This is one reason that it’s important both to teach people about heroic behavior and to laud those who put themselves in harm’s way on behalf of others.

HT: Matt Langdon.

[twentytwotwentythree-blog]

Does this mean that the only reason people do bad things is because they don't think they're being recorded? I wonder if people who do good things because they know they're being recorded qualifies someone as a "hero." Say someone was going to walk on by from someone falling off a train track, but saw that a camera was going and decided to cash in on the publicity they would hopefully get. I would argue that they would not be considered a hero, though they did a good deed for the wrong reasons. 

This falls into my changing definition of what constitutes a hero; if intentions are good when they consciously decide to perform a good deed, they're a hero. If someone has bad intentions but still does a good deed, they're not a hero fitting my definition. 

However, my argument somewhat falls apart when we look at people such as Achilles. During that time people did things to reap the glory, not necessarily because they thought what they were doing was the "right" thing. I wonder if the culture shapes the definition of hero. 

[twentytwotwentythree-blog]

Sunday night, twitter-focused comedian Jenny Johnson got the best of Chris Brown on twitter. For years she has been posting jokes about Chris Brown, one of them: "Call me old fashioned, but Chris Brown should be in jail." For anyone who has read the police report, (or if you haven't you may do so here: Police Report Findings), it is brutal to read. He repeatedly beat Rihanna to the point she was losing consciousness; she tried to protect herself and he beat her harder. What Johnson has been doing is making jokes about Brown because he seems to be unapologetic about it, still having anger issues, etc. Johnson clearly doesn't believe that justice was served when Brown missed out on jail time. 

This brings us to the most recent issue, Sunday night Brown posted a tweet about his appearance and how he looks older than 23. The following ensued:

I know! Being a worthless piece of shit can really age a person. RT@chrisbrown: I look old as fuck! I'm only 23...

Brown replied with a sexually explicit reply - which set him off on a misogynistic series of tweets. Today on the blogosphere some people are trying to justify Brown's actions by saying Johnson "started it" or that he has a right to defend himself. Since when does anyone have to defend their actions if they feel there is nothing they have to defend? I think the fact that Brown responded in such a hostile manner shows that he has a lot of growing up to do. 

Perhaps Brown realized this fact, because he deleted his twitter last night after the exchange. At least his publicists are finally stepping up their game and drawing the line. 

As a result of Chris Brown deleting his twitter, Jenny Johnson is receiving death threats via twitter from Brown's fans. Who is right, who is wrong, what is just, what is unjust. I'm not really sure it's clear here. The only thing I know is that if you beat up a person who is defenseless you are not allowed to play the victim card. Ever. 

[kohenari]

That’s the actual, official Twitter account of Rupert Murdoch, repeating an old anti-Semitic canard in a bid to express his support for Israel.

Basically, Murdoch is convinced that the Jews control the media … but they don’t really know what to do with it.

There are so many things wrong with this very brief tweet that I’m accepting suggestions for the thing about it that makes the most sense … that is, if you think anything in here makes any sense at all.

HT: Zain.

[twentytwotwentythree-blog]

First, what the hell is Rupert Murdoch thinking? He's not out of hot water from the wire-tapping scandal, now he's got to throw his two-cents into a weird conjunction of issues? 

Aside from the obvious, anti-Semitic remark Prof Kohen pointed out, I wonder if he's trying to align himself with something he thinks he needs to support in order to gain brownie points?

After critically thinking about the issue of Palestine and Israel and all the complexities that go with it, you can't say that one country is totally right, or another country is totally wrong. That's not the way the world works, they both think that they're right, and the other wrong - that's what war is about. The definitions of who's to blame is almost as vague as the definition of justice. It doesn't matter how many times we point a finger at someone, it's not going to change the issue. 

[theartofthestate]

In which a Montana man, Chris Williams, faces 80 years in prison for a nonviolent crime. This is him in response to a plea deal for 10 years and a $288,000 fine:

“This is nothing more than slavery and completely disregards my rights as a citizen of the United States of America. I have declined the offer.”

What is most interesting to me here is not the problems with States passing laws that conflict with federal ones, or even with the morality of the “war on drugs.” What is interesting to me is the desire to compare the sentences of perpetrators of different crimes. The author, Ms. Cohen compares the minimum sentence  of the charges facing Mr. Williams (80 yr) to the minimum charge doled out to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky (30 yr). 

In our society, the amount of time we dole out to criminals is the primary measure of severity in punishment. It’s intuitive then, to think that the amount of time criminals face ought to positively correlate with the level of moral failing, and severity of each crime. Cohen believes rightly that people will be much more disgusted with the acts of a Sandusky, than those of a Williams. The question this raises is whether or not the punishments for different crimes ought to be compared to one another, or if each crime ought to be considered on it’s own.

Certainly the comparison of sentences highlights the subjectivity of our legal system. I think we ought not look at the punishments for Child Molesters in determining what we ought to do with those who violate drug laws. Even as a tool for comparison it diminishes the value of our legal system. Each case ought to be examined on its own merit. That said, i think that the punishment for Mr. Williams is egregious. A nonviolent crime disputed between state and federal law ought not result in a lifetime in prison.

[twentytwotwentythree-blog]

Going away from the war on drugs debate I have extensively discussed in earlier posts, this point you bring up is very interesting. 

Unfortunately, I do not believe that every case can be judged on its own merit. Sure, that's what is supposed to happen, but is that what is fair? There is no comparison between Sandusky's sentencing and Williams' case. One man damaged the lives of countless people (if you're including the victim's families and friends, as well as the people on staff), and Williams did not damage a single person's life. 

I think re-examining how we sentence people would be a good basis to start. I predict by 2032 at the latest, marijuana will not be a federal crime... or at least be downgraded from a Schedule 1 Controlled Substance. However, in between now and then, I think it would be wise to consider how we sentence people of violent crimes, and those of non-violent crimes. In crimes that may be seen as "self-hurting" (drugs) but not afflicting harm on others; should not even be close to the sentencing of someone who has sexually assaulted or murdered someone... or any assault in general I suppose. Mixing non-violent offenders and violent-offenders in the same prisons is an equation for chaos. 

[bandit723-deactivated20130606]

Judge sentences teen to 10 years of church

Is this legal? Obviously, it is because the judge has been handing down sentences like this for some time, but why is it? Serving justice isn’t forcing religion on someone that has committed a crime. What happened to counseling, community service, or...

[twentytwotwentythree-blog]

I think the big question here is how this Judge is still on the bench. The Judge's duty is to uphold the law as the fact finder. He found the minor guilty, and must sentence him. This sentencing is odd, and if he has been doing this type of sentencing before it doesn't match the crime. Aristotle talked about the role of a judge in justice and how it's about evening out what has been taken. The person he sentenced was convicted of manslaughter, since he is a minor his sentencing would be lesser than that of a person older than 18, I get that. However, how is forcing a person to go to church going to even the score? It won't. If the person he sentenced doesn't believe in God, all he is wasting is an hour a week. I'm sure the kid is wasting an hour a week playing video games. If that's the case, maybe he should ban video games from him. This is just ridiculous.

The kid made a mistake and from that mistake he killed his friend. He will have to live with that fact every day of his life. Instead of making the kid go to church, maybe he should make him go to counseling and have him help with programs that stop teenagers from drinking and driving. That way he would be adding to a society he had taken from, therefore he would be serving justice.

[herestojoe-blog]

Dear Oxford English Dictionary,

Please delete the word “marriage” from your records.

Sincerely, The World

While this is a gross overreaction, something does need to be done about the word “marriage,” specifically in regards to its modern usage. In modern discussions of justice as is pertains to marriage, problems arise in the areas of same-sex marriage and, as we have recently seen in the news, adultery in marriage. I believe that many of these problems are a direct result of the traditional American understanding of the word. Many people, i.e. most of the religious right, think of marriage as a sacred covenant that bonds a man and a woman. Even many non-religious Americans seem to think that regardless of same-sex or heterosexual orientation, the marriage contract has implicit promises of monogamous sexual practices.

The article linked to in this post says that the laws that our country has on file regarding marriage and specifically adultery are outdated. The author states that the laws will not simply change because no politician in their right mind would take a stance against them. For many this is an issue of justice. Adultery as a criminal act is in the books in 24 states as well as in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Opponents to adultery laws, like the author, say that these laws are unjust because of changing views on marriage. The traditional view of marriage outlined above is becoming weaker in the United States, so many ask why laws that uphold this archaic view of marriage are sill on record.

I see there being two solutions to this problem. The first, and highly unlikely solution, is some type of cultural revolution that either upholds or strikes down the traditional American view of marriage. The second, is the removal of the word “marriage” from the public sphere altogether. Marriage in the civil world simply means the legal agreement whereby two people are able to share assets/taxes/benefits. By removing the word “marriage” from civil matters and replacing it with generic civil term such as “civil union”, many groups could be appeased. The religious-right could choose to apply the word “marriage” with religious connotations to their civil unions in the private sphere if they so choose; while at the same time, they could be content in knowing that homosexual couples are not getting “married.” On the flip side, same-sex couples could receive all of the benefits afforded by the government to heterosexual couples by being joined in a civil union.

[twentytwotwentythree-blog]

I agree, and from reading the NYT article, the fact that adultery is a felony in states is a problem. Even though it says it is hardly prosecuted. What two consenting adults voluntarily decide to do (that doesn't harm anyone, except the spouse that is cheated on - emotionally) should not be a government issue; it's something to be handled in their personal lives. As Aristotle said, that person may have voluntarily acted unjustly (towards their spouse), but that does not mean that person is unjust. 

The David Petraeus scandal goes deeper than the fact that he cheated on his spouse. There's evidence that she may have had access to "top secret" information, and he was hiding a secret. If Petraeus didn't have to hide the fact that he was in an extra-marital affair, it really wouldn't have been an issue because there wouldn't be that assumption that she was privy to any information she shouldn't have been.

I think you're right in saying the idea and definition of "marriage" is outdated, the article talks about how must of what constitutes the definition of marriage is from the Old Testament... and that was like.. what, over 2,000 years ago? I know that I wear clothes woven of two different fabrics, as banned by the Bible, I also wouldn't stone a disobedient child. I think these are two things that aren't in our laws, so why is the old-timey definition of marriage still there? 

Civil Union is definitely the better term. It's a union between two people who, like you said, are given tax benefits, etc. If we go back to Aristotle's definitions of what is just and what is unjust I'm not sure we can say about same-sex marriage. Two people are voluntarily committing an act, but who says the act is unjust? The State? The Bible? Aristotle talked about gain, that an unjust act usually is committed for self-gain, but what if that self-gain is the gain that every heterosexual person is allowed to have and is considered just? No one is harmed by same-sex marriage as in no one loses. What has been taken from someone unjustly by having a same-sex marriage take place? Nothing. Two people would be allowed to act justly in the same way heterosexual couples already do. If the couple enters into an "open-relationship" I think that's up to them, and the state shouldn't say anything about it. They both voluntarily want to go into that, then so be it. 

I think it's hard to use the bible to state what is just and unjust as a general rule. People say you can't take the bible literally and visa versa, but I find it hard to pick and chose what you want to believe and what you think is right for a society. For example, the one story about if a man marries someone and has sex with her and then he doesn't like her he can say there was no proof of her being a virgin. The parents are supposed to keep the bloody linens of their child losing their virginity and present it as proof. If no proof exists, the woman must be stoned to death. Someone can't say this is outdated, but that the homosexual verse or the verse about adultery is not outdated. You can't pick and choose, so the best option I believe is to follow that "civil-union" law and ditch marriage outside of the church. If people want to marry in the church and abide by all of that, so be it, but I do not think it should be enforced by the state, as there is a distinct difference between the state's law and "god's law". 

[infinity1897-blog]

The Chicago Tribune reported today on a protest rally attended by thousands outside Ireland’s parliament on Wednesday. The protesters gathered to express their outrage at the country’s strict abortion laws which led to the death of 31 year old Savita Halappanavar after she was denied an abortion...

[twentytwotwentythree-blog]

Unfortunately, as we have discovered in class, sometimes we are living with unjust laws and perhaps unjust rulers. It seems that since this story has come about, the Irish government is looking at their laws to improve better ways to go about cases like this. Maybe this means Ireland will be ruled by more just laws. 

Also, more unfortunately, there are people even in this country that believe it was god's will to have the woman die, even though her death could have been prevented. This hearkens back to Antigone's dilemma of abiding by the state's laws, or god's laws. Regardless, I don't think it will ever be decided what is more just to follow.

[raisingarebel-deactivated201311]

Tuesday’s election resulted in Colorado and Washington state voting to legalize marijuana for recreational use. Massachusetts doctors can now recommend the drug as medicine.

Last week, I wrote about some of the moral issues of justice at stake for a society that legalizes pot. This columnist is particularly concerned with the statement the Democratic Party would be making as the party that supports pot, explicitly saying that legalizing pot “sends the message that weed is harmless.” For a young citizen like me, I am admittedly very driven by social issues when it comes to our two-party system. Perhaps it’s just the media I consume, but it’s the social issues and underlying questions of justice are what I find the biggest differences between the two parties. For me, the Democratic party, represents a group of people who believe a just government should help the people who need it the most. I consider this ideological position the best one for our society. I agree with the columnist that legalizing marijuana is not just bad party politics, it is a bad reflection of our society. In terms of party politics, the Democratic party can’t be the party that supports weed and also claim to support education and health reform, when weed is proven to have adverse affects on these institutions. While the legalization of marijuana seems the fit the liberal identity of the Democratic party in contrast with the more rigid socially conservative Republican party, the Democrats can’t claim marijuana legalization simply for that reason. So actually, perhaps the Democrats are trying to play savvy party politics, but it is an unjust and inconsistent position. Rather, the just government should not only help people, but protect them and demonstrate good values.

[twentytwotwentythree-blog]

I know of MANY intelligent and healthy people who smoke Marijuana. If you can point me to some evidence to show more adverse affects to health and education from marijuana than from alcohol or prescription drugs I would be willing to consider your argument. You cannot claim there are many facts out there that support your claim without giving them.

The author of the NY times article says

Legalization also runs counter to the Democrats’ commitment to education. States with medical marijuana laws have always had much higher rates of teenage marijuana use, but now the effect is nationwide. Since 2008, teenage use has increased 40 percent, and heavy use (at least 20 times a month) is up 80 percent.

What he doesn’t say is whether it affects their academic performance. The connection to education is only that teenagers are using it, who most likely attend school. This statistic also, ironically, helps the case to abolish prohibition of marijuana. It is obviously VERY easy for teenagers, and anyone, to obtain marijuana. If it is regulated it will make it harder for the more vulnerable to get the substance. The laws for providing minors with alcohol would be the same for those who provide minors with marijuana.

Some more anecdotal evidence I have is one of my friends who smoked marijuana everyday his junior and senior year in high school and scored a 35 on his ACT. He graduated high school with over a 4.0 average because of the AP classes he took were weighted higher. He was always in honors courses. He continued smoking marijuana everyday throughout college, where he graduated as an honors Electrical Engineering student with around a 4.0… he now has a job with a top firm making just shy of $100k a year right out of college. Since he received his job he has quit smoking marijuana as he is drug tested regularly as part of his job.

No one would say that alcohol is harmless, yet it is very legal. We saw what happened with the prohibition of alcohol, like I mentioned in my post from last week. The mafia formed. The same way there is gang-related activity with marijuana today.

This is an issue I feel extremely passionate about because REPUBLICANS like to say that the government dictates too much of what we can and can not do. Yet when it comes to smoking marijuana, the government should be interjecting in that? Is it just for the government to dictate what I do in my own home that does not harm anyone? I’d rather a person go home and smoke a joint to cool down after a rough day before I would have them go home drink a few beers, get more aggressive and beat their spouse and children. I’m not saying all people who drink are aggressive I’m just saying it furthers those feelings. An angry person shouldn’t drink, that’s common knowledge. There is also the term “an angry drunk.” I’ve never heard the term “the angry pothead” used as wide-spread.

I still don’t understand why you’re saying it’s an unjust position; WHY is it unjust? What is it violating? Other than giving more rights to the masses. One of the definitions of justice we have been given through our readings is that Justice is, "following the laws" whether you agree with them are not. So if that's your particular definition of "Justice" then you are absolutely correct. However, in a modern day society that definition isn't enough to justify taking rights away from something that is proven to be just as - or less harmful than other regulated products.

The author of the NYTimes article also says

Legalization would also undermine a successful Democratic program: drug courts, which were written into the 1994 crime bill by Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. They use coercion, the threat of jail, to keep addicts in treatment.

There are judges and enforcement agents who are AGAINST the prohibition of marijuana because it is a failure. These are the people who have seen it first hand.

There are websites out there that retired judges and enforcement agents have made to educate the public on what they have seen and why the war on drugs doesn’t work. Here is one of them. http://www.leap.cc/

Our former president Jimmy Carter acknowledged the way we punish Marijuana use in our judicial system is a little peculiar. The people we should be after are those who are selling it and engaged in criminal activity because of it.

“Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use.”

I would encourage you to look at the stats provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/dcf/enforce.cfm#arrtot

42.1% of all drug-related arrests are due to Marijuana POSSESSION.

These last two Info-graphs from the same bureau of justice source show that most arrests are on possession, which would mean they did not have enough of an amount to be intent to sell. There are far more arrests for non-violent crimes like Marijuana use, than there are arrests for murders/rapes/assaults, etc. I think our tax money and our law enforcement personnel's time would be better spent chasing violent offenders than people who possess marijuana for personal use. It costs a lot of money to keep marijuana offenders in prison. Can't we all agree that Heroin, Cocaine and abused prescription drugs are much worse and have a higher probability of addiction?

[twentytwotwentythree-blog]

The gunman who went on a rampage and killed 6 people and injured another 12 has been sentenced to 7 life terms in prison. This is the gunman who shot Representative Gabrielle Giffords. In addition to that, he was sentenced 140 years. I believe this to be a just punishment as this man will never see the light of day and will never be able to physically harm another person again. 

The judge had this to say, 

From the bench in Federal District Court, Judge Larry A. Burns said he was not going to make “political statements,” that he was just “a single federal judge” who had “no intention to change the law.” Still, he questioned the wisdom of allowing the unrestricted sale of high-capacity magazines, like the one Mr. Loughner used to carry out his crimes.

The article tends to point out that gun control is the leftover idea from all of this mess. With more and more high-profile mass shootings, when are we going to better control who has access to guns and bullets and how they’re sold? Clearly, there will always be someone who can violate a law and ruin it for everyone else, but like the judge pointed out… why is it necessary to buy such high-capacity magazines? No one needs to have 30 rounds ready to go. The only thing that would provoke is chaos, which it has proven to do so. 

Guns and bullets clearly can kill people. There is no other use for a gun than to kill something. However, I don’t see anyone with a handgun killing deer. Given the capacity for harm, is it just to have such lax laws regarding this type of possible-destruction? I do not think so. 

[lennythelamb-blog]

Three states have legalization of pot on their ballots in next weeks election. Is it time for other states to follow suit? Is it justice for marijuana to be illegal, but alcohol, and certain prescription drugs not illegal. There is always the argument that pot is not as bad as alcohol. Some even think that it would be beneficial to legalize marijuana, the government could put a major tax on it, and also all the money that could be saved in the prosecution of crimes related to marijuana.

The three states that have the chance to legalize marijuana are putting their future in the hands of the voters. It will be up to the people instead of the law makers. Most people who believe in legalization of pot, and people who smoke it will believe that justice will finally be done. This justice will be put in the hands of the people.

[raisingarebel-deactivated201311]

I think the issues of justice here are in what is just for the society. The emphasis of the question should be on the morality of legalizing marijuana and whether it is good for the people. I think the argument for the benefits of government revenue through tax and saving money from the war on drugs is pragmatic but it ignores the moral issues at stake. By legalizing marijuana we are saying as a society, that we believe that this substance is safe for our people to consume. At the very least, we are saying that the people have a right to consume this substance at their own risk. The studies show that pot is mostly harmful because of a long-regarded myth but is actually less harmful than alcohol. Even if this is true, I don’t thinks its a complete argument to legalize marijuana by simply saying that its “not that bad” or that its not as bad as something that is already legal. The difficulty with pot is that it is considered a drug, though perhaps a mild one, that is not far off from other drugs that are more harmful. Even if we can demonstrate control, our society may become overall more accepting of these mind-altering substances. These are (some of) the moral implications we have to consider when voting to legalize pot. 

[blossom90]

Yeah, pot is a drug. Alcohol and tobacco are also drugs. Ones that kill a lot of people every day. So I’d say that the argument that pot is not nearly as harmful as alcohol/tobacco and those drugs are legal, thus pot should also be legal, is more complete than, “Pot is a drug so it’s morally wrong.” 

[twentytwotwentythree-blog]

The fact that RaisingaRebel called Pot a mind-altering substance in line with real mind-altering drugs like Acid proves that our country still has a long way to go in drug education. Our society doesn't run itself strictly on what is morally right, but perhaps more with what is ethical. 

Moral = Usually pertaining to a number of guidelines or ways to live rooted in religious doctrine. (That's the connotation associated anyway)

Ethical = being in accordance with the rules and standards of right conduct.

We could get into the whole issue of how is "right conduct" determined if not from religious doctrine, but I can save that for another day. I'm just going to say that I believe people live in accordance with what is best for an efficient society, well that's how I view my life anyways. I think we get too hung up on words like "morals" to see past and look at what's actually best for our country. 

With the legalization of marijuana there are so many things to consider. The War on Drugs is a failure and its creation was racially motivated; by our understanding, that is not just. Trying to stop marijuana from entering our country is costing us a stupid amount of money each year. Cartels heat up because of this, gang-related violence can sprout up because of this. It's literally a plant. A plant that grows out of the earth like that. It's not like Meth, which is concocted from under-the-counter cleaning products and other weird household items, it's natural. 

How many people can you think of that have killed someone while under the influence of alcohol? Now replace alcohol with Marijuana. I do not know anyone who smokes marijuana who wants to light up a doobie (Sorry, I just wanted to use that word), go out into the streets and shoot someone. What they want to do is sink further into the couch while watching a bad horror-movie and eating cheetos. 

Also, remember what happened with prohibition of alcohol? The mob formed. Remember what happened when prohibition ended? They really didn't have much more to do. I believe the same thing can be argued for the cartel violence that is leaking into this country. No one will have to fight over who has control over the marijuana-running business if it is legalized. Also, guess what? The tax money that other people have mentioned! If it is regulated and treated like tobacco and alcohol, it will make it harder for under-aged people to obtain it. The legalization will also require people to smoke it in their own homes, so it really wouldn't affect public health if that's the issue. 

Also, if we're going by Socrates' definition of Justice, isn't it all about minding your own business? If we place this context into a modern definition, instead of meddling in classes, it could literally be meddling into people's lives.

Our country has some backwards ideals with no arguments for them. Want to know how all of this started? William Randolph Hearst was mad that the hemp industry was able to make paper cheaper and more efficiently  He had a huge stock in the timber industry as a publisher and started a smear campaign against hemp. That smear campaign also started racial stereotypes of Mexicans; so really nothing good has come out of not regulating and taxing marijuana and hemp products. 

[raisingarebel-deactivated201311]

This was published almost a year ago, but we examined this blog post in one of my other classes and I wanted to discuss it here in the framework of heroism and justice. 

Brian E. laments the Black American obsession with the rap community and women such as Beyonce. He doesn’t understand why these women and their male counterparts are so admired. He doesn’t explicitly use the word “hero” until he gets to Tupac, but he finds the whole notion flawed anyway. However, I wouldn’t consider it too far to consider Beyonce a pop culture hero. I think what we find in her is an upstanding woman in the face of the high-pressure public life. She, like anybody, faces choices on how she would like to live her life under these circumstances. We hear about the tragedies- the Lindsay Lohan’s, and we hear about the otherwise very boring- the Kardashian’s etc. But Beyonce chooses to live a pious life- faithful to her partner and family, and to her art and sense of self. 

The blogger doesn’t approve of the highly sexualized image that Beyonce portrays while working. He finds it a bad perpetuation of objectification and sexualization of women of color. I disagree. For Beyonce, who otherwise portrays a very pious image, her sexuality on stage is an empowerment of women and women of color. It shows that she doesn’t have to hide or be fearful to sharing herself and her body as it is with the world. She demonstrates femininity as well as good virtue. I wouldn’t want Beyonce’s life given the track that I’ve set out for my own, but if I were a successful artist in the public life, I would want to act as Beyonce does and share good values on art, family, race and womanhood. 

[twentytwotwentythree-blog]

What has Beyonce specifically done to be called a hero? I don't believe that most celebrities are heroes in the way we have defined over and over in this class. What hard decisions has she had to make? She may be a role-model for young women, but I do not see how she is a hero. Now if she decided to drop her career and help mistreated children in over-crowded orphanages in Russia, than yeah, I think I may have to consider her a hero then, or something closer to the definition. In that scenerio, she would have given up her career that keeps adding to her wealth, disappointing her fans by not putting out new music, to help others. The decision wouldn't be for her benefit only. 

[twentytwotwentythree-blog]

The Good - Music

Here are five bands I like in no particular order

The Smiths -I love The Smiths in many different ways. I discovered them when I was an angst-y teenager and I felt like the lyrics really just spoke to me. Now I dissect the lyrics and find clever references and ridiculous poetry, mostly depressing, juxtaposed with an upbeat composition courtesy of Mr. Johnny Marr. The Smiths were so good, they wrote a song about knowing people would grow out of that connection that brought them to the band, but hopefully they remember them fondly; which I do.

Crowded House - Now I discovered this band in the 90s during my VH1 phase. I would watch Pop-Up Video, and just random video countdowns on the daily. I came across "Locked Out" and I was hooked. Most people consider them a one hit wonder with, "Don't Dream it's Over" but it's more than that. Neil Finn has the ability to write beautiful poetry and catchy hooks. A pop-rock genius. 

My Morning Jacket - I really can't even describe this one. I wasn't a huge fan of My Morning Jacket until I saw them in concert two years ago. Literally the best show I have ever seen live, and I've seen a lot. (DYLAN SUCKS LIVE NOW, SORRY. LOVE THE DUDE, BUT SERIOUSLY.) Jim James' voice is intoxicating. If you've ever seen that episode of American Dad, "My Morning Straight jacket" it's literally just like that.  Their songs build slowly, adding more and more to it until your mind is just blown. Check this song out : 

Guided by Voices - Hey, remember a little genre called Indie rock? Probably wouldn't exist without this lo-fi band. All the elements of a true rock n' roll band with some analog distortion. Bob Pollard has a way of making you look at the title of a song and be like, "Seriously? What in the world is this?" But by the time you finish the song you're somehow in love with it. 

Arctic Monkeys - I generally hate it when people sing in an accent, must be my American arrogance. However, I am absolutely enthralled by it with Alex Turner's singing. Also, have you heard this drummer? Seriously underrated. This band progresses their sound every album too. A band that is not satisfied with the album they put out and go beyond it. 

[herestojoe-blog]

Authorities in New York arrested a six-year veteran of the NYPD after an investigation that yielded disturbing computer files and snippets of conversations with co-conspirators. Gilberto Valle had been stalking women and planning to have them kidnapped for him so that he could cook and eat them. Most of the email messages that they found were too disgusting to even read again and write here.

The most important thing that comes out of this story is the New York justice system’s effective use of preventative justice. The NYPD and district attorney took preventative action in arresting Valle before he was able to commit the terrible crimes that he was planning. His lawyer is arguing that he didn’t commit any crime and in the eyes of the law is innocent. This is the second time this semester that I have written a post about the Minority Report style “pre-crime” justice happening in this country. The first time I was leaning toward opposition, now however, I fully support action being taken to prevent this man from carrying out his evil deeds. When there is as much compelling evidence against someone like this, isn’t it better to prevent a crime from happening then to wait until someone gets eaten? I hope I’m not alone in thinking that this is justice being done the right way.

[twentytwotwentythree-blog]

I completely agree with you. I don't know enough about the police force, etc. to know how much preventative justice occurs or is even investigated, but I think it is important to think about. Of course there is a question of invasion of privacy and what have you in the way to obtain the information about preventative justice. In this case the wife came forward and tipped the police off about the disturbing behavior and subject matter on his computer. In a case like this, I think it is imperative that anyone step up and report something like that. For some reasons, many killers must take recognition for their acts in some fashion, that's how a lot of them get caught, they can't keep it to themselves. 

It seems he went into gross detail about the acts he was going to commit. I don't think there's any way that one could assume from all the evidence against him, that he was just messing around... or, as his lawyer said, just a "sexual fantasy."

[twentytwotwentythree-blog]

So this article is about Clay Aiken joining the cast of the new Celebrity Apprentice: All Stars. First of all, this show is awful. An argument could be made that Donald Trump is seemingly doing a just thing by apprenticing these people, but really it's for his own advantage and fame.

Really, it's a ploy for me to talk about the Clay Aiken/Ring of Gyges argument made in class. I had not thought about that song in years, but once Prof Kohen said the words "Clay Aiken" and "Invisible" the words came flowing back into my brain, unfortunately so. (Sorry, brain)

The words of the song that really stick out to me, besides the watching "you" in your room bit, was this:

If I was invisible Wait, I already am

Seriously, Clay? What does that even mean? So, if he was invisible, he would just watch you in your room... is he already doing the watching in the room? Is Clay Aiken already living an unjust life regardless of the consequences that Glaucon suggests prevent people from doing unjust things? Mr. Aiken is seemingly invisible, but not necessarily so. If the extreme of injustice is to seem to be just when one is not, where does Clay fit into all of this? 

Instead of doing as the shepherd under the ruler of Lydia did with the invisibility ring - having sex with the ruler's wife and then killing the king so he could rule - Clay just wants to observe. OR DOES HE!? I just looked up the rest of the lyrics, and the last line that is repeated over and over is: 

If I was invisible (I'd make you mine)

Maybe Clay really is the shepherd after all.