taylor price
One Nice Bug Per Day
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
Game of Thrones Daily
Sweet Seals For You, Always
ojovivo
Today's Document

izzy's playlists!
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸

art blog(derogatory)
todays bird
Mike Driver

PR's Tumblrdome

tannertan36
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
YOU ARE THE REASON

Love Begins
Cosimo Galluzzi

seen from T1

seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Brazil

seen from Netherlands
seen from South Korea

seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Russia
seen from United States

seen from Dominican Republic
@justnebraskaliving

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Dealings
In Antony and Cleopatra, Shakespeare uses Mark Antony to show the importance of proper goal orientation to pursuing a fulfilling life, as well as the level of commitment and dedication necessary for its pursuit. Numerous themes undercut Antony and Cleopatra. The complex relationship between feelings of honor, loyalty and fulfillment runs throughout, but ultimately Antony’s fickle nature and liquid prioritization ability prove to be his downfall.
Antony has an explicit duty to govern and care for the interests of the Roman Empire. In the past, various sacrifices have been justified only in his specific interest in that higher calling. Antony arguably “took the deal” to pursue higher ends and goals than merely dying well. His pursuit of these higher ends has lost its zeal in the midst of earthly pleasures. Anthony renounces his duty to Rome altogether:
Of the ranged empire fall. Here is my space. Kingdoms are clay. Our dungy earth alike, (Act I, Sec 1, 39-40).
There’s not a minute of our lives should stretch without some pleasure now, (Act I, Sec 1, 53-54).
While these statements have a certain transcendental tone about them, they are intellectually weak. Antony’s “taking the deal” only maintains its relevance if he sticks to the pursuit of higher, noble ends. In a search for shallow pleasure, he externalizes an internal issue – his struggle for fulfillment – and tries to find meaning with Cleopatra.
Although Antony’s relationship with Cleopatra is passionate and exciting, it is also treacherous. Cleopatra is the very embodiment of self-interest and his relationship with her proves to be his downfall.
Go tell him I have slain myself. Say that the last I spoke was “Antony," and word it. Prithee, piteously. Hence, Mardian, and bring me how he takes my death. –To th’ monument! (Act IV, Sec 14, 10-14).
This is not to say that Cleopatra is evil or bad, merely that Antony has misoriented both his search for meaning and the methods by which he can get there. In seeking a fulfilling, good life, he’s realized the maximal growth of his current position. Perhaps this means he should reorient his goals to accommodate different potential. His response, however, prioritizes another person – Cleopatra – and her presence as the end all be all of his life.
Notably, this relationship bears complications in the fulfillment of his duties to Rome. Where Antony finds himself conflicted, his commitment is forced to the middle of two incompatible goals. In failing to choose either Cleopatra or Rome, he effectively prevents himself from having either.
What is interesting is not the absence of sufficient options or goals in Antony’s life that proves detrimental; it’s his indecision and reluctance to choose:
There’s a great spirit gone, thus did I desire it. What our contempts doth often hurt from us. We wish it ours again. The present pleasure,By revolution lowering, does become the opposite of itself, (Act I, Sec 2, 137-141).
Internal conflict, and the absence of concrete, foundational goals ultimately leave Antony without a home. While he falls back upon his routes in search of an honorable death, his life could have been one of more fulfillment and meaning. Antony should have accepted his shortcomings and defeats to better understand himself, and provide the perspective needed for growth. Rather, Antony spent the end of his life meandering between conflicting ends.
One campus rape is one too many. But the severe new policies championed by the White House, the Department of Education, and members of Congress are responding to the idea that colleges are in the grips of an epidemic—and the studies suggesting this epidemic don’t hold up to scrutiny.
A new article by Emily Yoffe of Slate describes how several universities handle cases of rape and sexual assault, the incentives behind these policies, and the unintended consequences.
These policies have good intentions, but the quasi-judicial methodology employed, and the presumptions made, are detrimental to the idea of justice, and speak to the misplaced role these universities now play.
She begins by detailing Drew Sterrett's experience at the University of Michigan, including the conflicting testimony of Sterrett, his accuser, and the only witness, their mutual friend and Sterrett's roommate. Despite conflicts and discrepancies in CB's account,
In her deposition, CB acknowledged that she didn’t do that, that in fact she’d never used the words “sexual assault” to describe what happened. The report said that Sterrett’s roommate was asleep during the entire sexual encounter. This was contradicted by the time-stamped Facebook message complaining that he was being kept awake.
and additional testimony that directly contradicts CB's story,
I cannot state it more clearly that this is untrue. I asked her if she wanted to have sex; she said ‘yes.’ ” (CB’s assertion was also challenged later by an affidavit sworn on Sterrett’s behalf by his freshman year roommate, the one in the upper bunk. The roommate said that he saw CB get into Sterrett’s bed of her own volition and that his bed and Sterrett’s were so close that he would have heard if she had exclaimed, “no” or “stop.”
the University of Michigan still pursued disciplinary action against Sterrett. To a degree this is understandable. Despite the prevalence of faulty campus rape statistics (statistical analysis suggests a number closer to 1/30, not 1/4) the federal government has made specific incentives for universities to prosecute rape, and to lower the standard in doing so:
Colleges were told to adopt a “preponderance of evidence” standard when evaluating whether a student was to be found responsible for an allegation. This is the lowest evidentiary standard, only requiring a smidge more than 50 percent certainty. Because the punishment for such infractions can be severe—from suspension to expulsion—many schools had previously used the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, a significantly higher burden of proof, though still below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal proceedings.
This is problematic. Rape change an otherwise legal act - sex - and upon removal of consent, criminalizes the act. Understandably, rape can be difficult to prove. Not only must the act be confirmed, but also the absence of consent. Especially with interactions that only have two actors, like sex, the conflicting and adversarial testimonies complicate the process. This has led to a judicial system that poorly prosecutes rape and sexual assault.
However, In attempting to correct this problem, the university response has gone too far:
The critiques of how the criminal justice system treats victims are many and justified, but that’s an argument for further reform, and for finding ways to reduce the trauma to victims, not for asking schools to take over the role of law enforcement.
The reality of this situation and our legal system is stark, but changing the fundamental nature of our system - the presumption of innocence - is not an adequate response to any poor prosecutorial relationship, and certainly not one this complex. By disregarding the complexity questions of consent have, and failing to properly address the issue alcohol plays in many of these situations, Universities have sought to protect themselves and their image, under the guise of student safety.
Not unlike the recent abuse of police department-prosecutor relationships with indictments, these instances show biased institutions and individuals can never be legitimate arbiters of justice.
Have you read the original Rolling Stone piece?
Yes.
They weren't charged. They don't have to be specifically named for there to be consequences. There are reputation implications and UVA suspended all greek houses. The bulk of my comment was meant to address the standards for legitimate reporting and whether questions of fairness become murkier with issues of sexual assault.
Have you read the original Rolling Stone piece?
Yes.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Over the last couple of weeks, Rolling Stone magazine has come under intense scrutiny in the journalism community for a story they published about a gang rape that happened at a frat house at UVA. Several groups have begun to discredit the story and suggest that it was not fair they only interviewed the victim. The magazine didn’t get the other side of the story. I believe its obviously important to get both sides of the story in order to make a rational and just decision, but I think the waters become a little murkier when it involves sexual assault. The reporter obviously did not want to discount the woman’s story, and therefore shared her story to give it a platform, and while pieces of it are coming under scrutiny it would be terrible if these criticisms of this woman’s led to a complete dismissal of the situation because something clearly happened.
This story illustrates a couple of things. 1) The intellectual shelf life of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case is less than we thought, and 2) Political Correctness and Sensitivity are not the same thing as justice.
The waters do not become murkier with sexual assault. Justice is justice. Sensitive issues like rape, despite the horrific implications the absence of just prosecution would bring, should be held to the same standard of proof.
You're right, it would be terrible if this kind of situation went unaddressed. Statistics show the amount of campus sexual assault is increasing, and that's not acceptable. But overcompensating to the point where the falsely accused have no recourse or defense is equally unjust.
I would argue the way some approach this situation - campus sexual assault - actually exacerbates these problems, because it promotes division and delegitimizes the process. Many universities have adopted quasi-judicial processes that in no way reflect justice. This is also unacceptable.
At the risk of sounding insensitive, I strongly oppose the notion that standards for proof and due process have a reciprocal relationship with the crime and its severity. This is simply irresponsible reporting.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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):
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.
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.
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.
Police check up on a black man spotted walking in snow and 32-degree weather with his hands in his pockets.
The American people are on edge.
When in a position of fear, humans oftentimes act upon irrational thoughts, resulting in poor assumptions and even poorer reactions. A man in Pontiac, MI was called in for looking suspicious - he had his hands in his pockets.
It is of no matter what he actually had in his pockets, because in times like today, the common theme is you cannot trust anyone. And after witnessing the reactions of young individuals on social media over the weekend and their sentiment towards “the system” and police, I am incredibly nervous for my society’s future relationship with the police.
Here’s the thing. We must have a police force to watch out for the well-being of society. Police officers are the ministers of law, ensuring that people within the community are acting in accord with the law in order to promote a peaceful life. Does that system break down? Absolutely. Do some police officers take advantage of their authority and make poor decisions? Certainly. But that does not negate the need we have for the police.
A constant theme on tumblr that I have witnessed is that all police officers ought to be feared and will act outside their jurisdiction. This is not promoting justice, despite what these individuals think they are doing. Rather, they are promoting a generalization that breeds nothing but violence against order. This thought process takes away the respect that police officers working to unconditionally serve their communities deserve. We as a society must condemn officers who are not working for the well-being of the people, but condemning and assuming that all officers are out for bad is just as poor of an assumption as the one the man made when he decided to call the police on a man for “having his hands in his pockets.”
I like where you decided to take this story. Uproar about Ferguson has led many into variety of under-thought conclusions about police and the public. Criticism of police in general is inevitable, but they're much better than the alternative.
You're right, we do need police. Our society is dependent on legal protection, and it can't be expected to function without law-enforcers. The problem is that enforcement requires power and discretion. How far can society trust the balance between that discretion and power? When is it a threat itself?
Ferguson is a terrible case, because any interpretation is speculative at best. It can't be the shiny example of police misconduct many think, but it does raise awareness about known misconduct. It also raises subtler questions about why the public (specifically poor minorities) so distrust the police.
Those issues - accountability and public perception - have to be reconciled if laws, their enforcers, and the people are to regain a correct disposition. I don't think there's any one solution to this problem.
I do think the burden to correct this falls on law enforcement. Maybe the answer lies in attempts to self-police more impartially, or install more external oversight. Regardless of where the answer lies, they have the power. This level of suspicion over that power will remain until they can restore public faith.
Think
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics explores one fundamental end of human experience: fulfillment, or happiness. Previous texts contain simple examples, but Ethics takes a theoretical approach. Where the Iliad and Odyssey narrate Achilles’s search for glory in wartime and Odysseus’s adaptation in pursuit of a goal, Ethics, explores fulfillment as a concept. Aristotle describes the relationship of happiness and its guarantor – the good life – through nature, process, and application.
Nature: What is the good life?
The good life is happiness; their relationship is interactive. Every action performed by men is aimed “at some good” and Aristotle claims the good desired through this process “is happiness” (1095a.13). While most men “identify happiness with pleasure” (1095b.16), their identification is shallow. Happiness is a conclusion, “something final and self-sufficient…the end of action” (1097b.21-22).
Theory behind the good life has three aspects: desire, practice, and reflection. Desire embodies what might produce happiness, the practice is the very act thought to bring it, and the reflection relates the two in attempts to direct future actions. No conception of the good can be completely accurate – “it is not a common element answering to one idea” (1096b.26) – but ideas must always seem correct to individuals. Even when false, those ideas serve as a starting point for the good life; “having this as a sort of pattern we shall know better the goods that are good for us, and if we know them shall attain them” (1097a.1). This reflection is also interactive. Thought, directed action, and reconsideration, all occur somewhat congruently:
…but the term ‘good’ is used both in the category of substance and in that of quality and in that of relation, and that which is per se, i.e. substance, is prior in nature to the relative (for the latter is like an offshoot and accident of being) (1096a.19-22).
Process: What makes the good life good?
Three sub-characteristics guide practice of the good life: pursuit, priority, and patience. The good life demands pursuit of virtue. The good life also requires virtues be organized with balance to themselves and other virtues. Patience acknowledges the limits of this organization and returns the process to its start for more accuracy.
Virtue is ultimately a “state of character concerned with choice” (1106b.36). One must pursue being a person of good character, to pursue the good life. Virtue is inherently good action, in concordance with knowledge of the goodness of those actions. “Both the reasoning must be true and the desire right, if the choice is to be good” (1139a.24-25). It is – in a sense – moral mastery.
The key guide of virtue, however, is knowledge-priority. Logically, virtues that assist in the guidance of other virtues are primary. Where certain virtues – patience, for example – serve to guide action in a positive manner, they are limited. Knowledge of both the practical world and of reason gives the virtue-seeker access in to the merits of different virtues: wisdom. “Therefore wisdom must plainly be the most finished of the forms of knowledge” (1141a.17-18).
Conceptualizing this idea in a true hierarchy is impossible. Each stage interacts repetitively with the others, but reflection on past, and projection toward the future bear the greatest responsibility to seek virtue. Rather, consider it a cycle with governing rules, but no clear order. Incomplete wisdom may fail, but the process inevitably improves the quality of new wisdom. “For with the presence of the one quality, practical wisdom, will be given all the virtues” (1145a.2-3).
If happiness is activity in accordance with virtue, it is reasonable that it should be in accordance with the highest virtue; and this will be that of the best thing in us. (1177a.11-13)….Firstly, this activity is the best (since not only is reason the best thing in us, but the objects of reason are the best of knowable objects); and, secondly, it is the most continuous, since we can contemplate truth more continuously than we can do anything. (1177a.20-23).
Application: What promotes good living?
Simply, the good life promotes the good life. It is a self-supporting process. Given the primacy of knowledge and wisdom, however, it does have a specific outward application through sharing.
Community is important, and Aristotle suggests that life for a solitary happy man “would be hard” (1170a.5). Through community, the good life expands itself exponentially:
“the good man in becoming a friend becomes a good to his friend. Each, then, both loves what is good for himself, and makes and equal return in goodwill” (1157b.34-35).
Human expansion in this sense transcends individual happiness. Communal interests also serve to advance the good life itself. Seeing a conclusion for virtuous pursuit, Aristotle suggests formal application of this process through education and law making as an end goal: “legislators ought to stimulate men to virtue and urge them forward by the motive of the noble” (1180a.5-6). Wisdom and virtue hold access to the good life, but Aristotle suggests it is the duty of the wise to also project their wisdom to the public. The end of the good life, and thus happiness, is politics.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Arbitrator Shyam Das has ruled in favor of the NFL on Tuesday evening, saying the league can keep Adrian Peterson on the commissioner’s exempt list, effectively ending any chance the Minnesota Vikings running back will play again this season.
Watching Mike and Mike this morning on ESPN, the news broke that Peterson was to be suspended until April 2015. Peterson has been quite defiant that what he did to his child was consistent with how he was raised and felt no remorse over his actions. He also failed to show up to an arranged meeting with the commissioner last week, a move that he says was because his legal adviser recommended it and that Peterson felt would not be fair. He has also argued that he was not given proper due process or opportunity in this issue, which he was according to the CBA.
I have been anxiously awaiting this verdict simply because I cannot stand what he did. I respect his ability as a player but his action toward his child is absolutely moronic. Regardless of how one was raised, every single bit of data shows that beating a child for punishment is unhealthy and does nothing but harm. Peterson may have been raised a certain way but when looking at the pictures of his kid, A FULL WEEK LATER, and seeing the cuts and bruises, that goes beyond a simply admonishment.
I for one applaud the commissioners response to this, setting an example in a league that has been filled with violence off the field. Players must understand that they are not above any law and their careers can be harmed should they act in an immoral way. Justice has been served in this case, so far at least, and hopefully Peterson accepts the wrong and not just make excuses. Personally, I believe most people deserve second chances but unless he can show change, I wish that no team signs him and maybe other players will understand that being a pro athlete comes with responsibilities. It comes with setting an example to those watching. Unfortunately I am aware that many fans will take his side and wear his jersey in defiance of the league’s punishment.
The NFL has some problems. Intimately following this news from its outset, I think most have it wrong. Not only are conceptions that Peterson deserves this wrong, so is the very idea that the NFL is interested in justice. The NFL doesn’t care about justice; it cares about bad publicity.
Let me begin by saying I don’t believe in corporal punishment. Data does suggest it is ineffective and outdated. Data also suggests that most (70%) people believe it to be neither of those things. However, here is no consistent polling of American attitudes on the use of switches.
I can’t condone Peterson’s actions, but I also can’t condemn his intentions. Most of the current narrative revolves around his attitude, calling him “defiant” or “unremorseful.” Perhaps he’s defiant, but only toward the NFL, not toward his actions. Peterson has explicitly apologized for the consequences of his actions, both before the story broke, and after, publicly. I think Peterson has done a poor job of parenting. Apparently Kelly Chase, the judge who approved Peterson’s plea deal, thought a misdemeanor, fine and community service was enough to punish his poor job. (Many claim the plea deal falls short of legitimacy, but I assure you, the presence of an arbitrator – which have well documented employment biases; i.e., the NFL – pales in comparison to formal legal proceedings.)
Gooddell, who suspended Peterson an additional six games without pay, doesn’t care about any of this. By circumventing the CBA, responding to Peterson’s lack of deference, and ultimately levying punishment for the crimes of Ray Rice and others upon Peterson, Gooddell has lost all legitimacy. The idea that Peterson hasn’t lost anything is absurd; he’s lost millions in pay, endorsements, not to mention the change of public perception. Just ask Tiger Woods how much those things are worth. This is about making Peterson an example. Gooddell is offering Peterson up as a sacrifice, in exchange for a “we’re hard on abuse” stance.
Example making is not justice. Gooddell isn’t standing up for children; he’s standing on Adrian Peterson for the NFL. The actions taken thus far aren’t helpful for abuse, its victims, or the perpetrators. The NFL can do better.
Law, police, and the justice system form a protective blanket that many feel is necessary to freedom in today’s world. This security is often successful, but the system is inherently limited through its human actors. Sometimes their actions not only allow injustice, rather they perpetuate it by withholding evidence and convicting those not guilty.
Last week, a judge was actually sentenced to jail time. Ken Anderson (at the time a prosecutor) withheld evidence regarding the innocence of Michael Morton. Morton went on to serve 25 years behind bars.
"What happened to the police/prosecutors who did this to the poor guy?" The answer is almost always, "Nothing," or worse, "The police officer was promoted and now is the chief of his department."
Godsey’s column goes on to note that this isn’t an unusual situation; it happens all the time. But what is notable, is Anderson actually received jail time (he’s already been disbarred and resigned from the Texas bench). I’ve written on this issue before, and the incentives to convict innocents patently outweigh the cost for prosecutors. We can’t reasonably expect prosecutors to act justly and honestly if they have no risk of backlash. Anderson’s sentence of 10 days, especially following the 25 years of prosperity, is far from a solution, but it is a step.
It’s been 70 years since we fought a war about freedom. Forced troop worship and compulsory patriotism must end
Soldiers, arguably, may be the closest thing we have to the Greek heroes. They are undertaking dangerous missions for the sake of America. This article questions the assignment of the word hero to all soldiers. I think that is not entirely correct.
Wow, this article stirs up a lot of emotion. I come from a basically all military family, and to think that someone has the nerve to say that the sacrifices my Dad made and the sacrifices my brother is going to make aren’t heroic is sickening.
These are interesting points, and the article is a touchy subject so that should be expected. The crux of is his argument is not that "the military is bad" or that "the danger a soldier experiences is not heroic." His argument has a couple of legs: 1) soldiers who perpetuate unjust wars cannot be heroes (this contradicts the classical greek idea of someone like Hector of Troy), 2) Being a soldier cannot, by default, be heroic if some soldiers are not heroes, and 3) assigning a heroic connotation to all soldiers undermines real heroism.
His first point is fascinating - because it makes heroism about the cause, not the acts.
Wars that are not heroic have no real heroes, except for the people who oppose those wars. Far from being the heroes of recent wars, American troops are among their victims. No rational person can blame the soldier, the Marine, the airman, or the Navy man for the stupid and destructive foreign policy of the U.S. government, but calling them “heroes,” and settling for nothing less, makes honest and critical conversations about American foreign policy less likely to happen.
The reality is that the public is aghast at the concept of soldiers not being heroes. In war, we consider all participants either heroes or villans, when the author would rather think of soldiers as trapped in tragic circumstances. He also claims being a warrior is not inherently heroic. It's no more accurate to call all soldiers heroes because some soldiers are heroic, than to call all soldiers evil because some do evil things.
His third point, though, is what really gets me.
The assignment of heroism, exactly like the literary construct, might have more to do with the assignment of villainy than the actual honoring of “heroes.” Every hero needs a villain. If the only heroes are armed men fighting the country’s wars on drugs and wars in the Middle East, America’s only villains are criminals and terrorists. If servants of the poor, sick and oppressed are the heroes, then the villains are those who oppress, profit from inequality and poverty, and neglect the sick. If that is the real battle of heroism versus villainy, everyone is implicated, and everyone has a far greater role than repeating slogans, tying ribbons and placing stickers on bumpers.
We consider all soldiers heroes, because they fight the bad guys, often at enormous personal cost. Heroism is more complicated than Black vs. White, and Black is always good.
Real heroism exists, but it requires you do something, not be something.
But it now appears possible that the Supreme Court may be willing to deprive millions of Americans of health care on the basis of an equally obvious typo. And if you think this possibility has anything to do with serious legal reasoning, as opposed to rabid partisanship, I have a long, skinny, unbuildable piece of land you might want to buy.
As fascinating as the role played by punctuation and typographical errors in legal contexts is, the more pressing issue brought up by Dr. Krugman is the partisanship of the courts. Some ideological bias is inherent in the Supreme Court, as the Justices are appointed by presidents who will be more inclined to nominate people who will not oppose their agenda. Ideally, partisan bias is checked by Senate’s power to approve the nominees and the existence of life terms for the Justices.
If partisan bias does exist in the high court, as Krugman suggests, then it is a threat to justice in the nation. The court system exists to protect the people from unjust and illegal laws. If their impartiality is compromised severely, then the platform of the ruling party has the potential to become morally and legally enshrined, no matter how unjust it is.
I have more faith than Dr. Krugman when it comes to the impartiality of our Justices. Obviously, ideology will lead to what appears to be partisan bias in some cases. This is not unanimously the case, however. Republican-appointed Anthony Kennedy has voted against the party line on many occasions. In regards to the law that Krugman is addressing, Republican-appointed John Roberts provided the swing vote in favor of Obamacare, and wrote the decision. If “rabid partisanship” was not strong enough to prevent the approval of the law when its constitutionality was hotly contentious, I doubt that it will prevail over “serious legal reasoning” in this case.
This is pretty foundational in its relevance to our topics because it shows judicial partisanship and real justice are incompatible. It's tricky for me to follow this reasoning, though, because this seems contextual: is upholding this law (or opposing ion ideological grounds) wrong, or unjust?
First, not only do I find ideological bias inherent due to the politics of appointments, but because judicial actors are politically informed. With more political sophistication comes more ideology. This ideology is extremely important in conceptualizing what one thinks of as a good life, and how they feel different variables promote or threaten that idea. Ideology is both the foundation of how people think of a good life, and the threat to opposing conceptions.
The problem here though, is with the location of this bias: in judges. The partisanship here seems undermining because it conflicts with the 'cult of american law.' We tend to view the law as justice, and judges as the arbiters of that justice. The conflict and polarization of these ideas is telling. Some uniformity is needed to ensure this process, but it can't be forced from the top down, these ideas have to be instilled in the public, and allowed to work up from citizens to judges. Polarization and the multiplicity of good life conceptions will always prevent real, uniform justice, and the 'rule of law' can't provide a measuring stick.
The problems isn't that judges are ideological, it's that we all have different ideologies.
Missundaztood
Many feel Plato’s Republic is a representation of the perfect utilitarian society. While there is some truth to this, the good society depicted in the book is meant as an allegory; it shows the hierarchical value of the human soul and its virtues. Certain pursuits are inherent to different people in Plato’s Republic, and subsequently to the human soul. These pursuits are not, however, all equal, and some must have authority over others. Socrates shows a society that illustrates this hierarchy. Despite its flaws, the illustration’s relevance on the human soul is sound. His conclusion, though, is more difficult in application.
Socrates describes his just city as balanced between classes with different propensities and purposes: care for the city vs. care for themselves. Justice exists in the correct power displacement of these classes to each other. Normal people are concerned with normal things. They have trade and craftsmanship. They are the producers. Conversely, those charged with ruling are concerned with the well being of the city, at large. Correct alignment with these classes is important both internally and externally, as subgroups exist within these classes. The ruling class, for example, contains both a subclass inclined towards knowledge, and a subclass inclined towards honor, enforcement, and protection.
While an initial reading of The Republic might suggest that this really is the perfect society, Socrates, by his own disclaimer, suggests that the real takeaway with regard to justice rests on the individual:
So the, perhaps there would be more justice in the bigger and it would be easier to observe closely. If you wan, first we’ll investigate what justice is like in the cities. Then, we’ll also go on to consider it in individuals, considering the likeness of the bigger in the idea of the littler? (Book II: 368e)
Additionally, as a system built off of inherent qualitative differences among individuals is ultimately untenable in an imperfect world, Glaucon serves as the audience by inquiring if such a city is even possible. The Republic does not shy from this subject, but rather moves towards the evils of the misaligned city, and subsequently the misaligned soul.
Socrates’ transition into how this tripartite understanding applies to the individual is most important for this reason. Similar to how the just city is divided into guardians, auxiliaries, and producers, the soul is divided by inherent difference and purpose. The producers are motivated by general incentives, like greed or lust. They represent the carnal or appetite portion of the soul. The auxiliaries – the applicative aspect of the ruling class – represent the spirited, emotional part of the soul. The knowledge inclined ruling class, the guardians, represents the logical reasoning of the just soul. The spirit is important, because it holds the strength of both the city and the soul. When correctly aligned with the ruling class, the city functions, as does the soul.
This seems a fascinating categorization and mirroring of political and intrapersonal life, but the significance goes much deeper. Ultimately, the city cannot uphold this kind of division. It is untenable. The methodology required to determine the quality of different persons, be it eugenics or predetermined career paths, is impossible to achieve. Shortcomings like this – the inability to apply perfect theory to an imperfect world – render the perfect city somewhat impossible. That being said, it is possible to conceptualize the reflection of this idea and its relationships to the individual. While placing different people in ruling and subsidiary positions based on their inherent quality is questionable, subduing carnal desires to calculated reasoning is legitimate. The core takeaway of Socrates’ message – an appeal to philosophy – rests on a healthy thirst for knowledge to best equip rational governance.
This concept has tremendous implications. First, responsibility for justice rests on individual pursuit of the good. Any subsequent society should represent those values. A society, however, cannot be made to enforce just ideals among people devoid of correctly aligned souls. Second, it places value in knowledge and its pursuit. This is why The Republic’s message, with regard to individuals, is so compelling. Prioritizing knowledge, reason, and philosophic given its propensity for correctness. Calculated, deliberative thought seems most likely to produce best results, with regard to science and morality. While I agree with this this priority, I am left questioning if humans overvalue this hierarchy to the point where it is not legitimate. Motivated, or backwards reasoning, seems likely to produced a perception of reality which is in fact, not real. Does this mean the tripartite soul is open to perversion? Perhaps yes. True pursuit of philosophic governance is far more difficult than it seems.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
"Several years after completing my 16-month sentence for drug dealing, I indebted myself considerably to obtain a master’s degree in the humanities (with honors). Despite the fact that my offenses had occurred over a decade ago, I found that paying jobs in public high schools and community colleges were legally barred to me by the State of California. (I now teach as a volunteer at halfway houses.)
This is too bad not just for me, but also for the students I would have happily taught. Former felons are uniquely positioned to reach the very population most likely to make the same bad choices that landed them behind bars.”
Is the good life possible for those who have made mistakes with the justice system in the US? Sure, some crimes should put individuals behind bars forever; but is a better life possible for low level offenders after one trip to prison? Does that little box define you now? Felon/Not Felon. Black and White no? I think there is a huge amount of potential talent being lost to the criminal justice system in the US. The fact is that once you enter the system for the first time, it often follows you for the rest of your life. You can break free of it. How is that the good life? How is it a chance to better yourself and your situation? It sets you up for failure.
While I think there’s a lot of proper criticism within your response to this subject, I think the general conclusion is incorrect. First consider proper criticism. Our justice system absolutely criminalizes things which I don’t consider unjust or wrong, many of which qualify as low level offenses. This person for example - ”16-month sentence for drug dealing” - committed a low level crime. Questions about whether these actions should be a crimes are important when considering justice. Equally important is the question of whether drug dealing and something worse, like child molestation, should be grouped together into a yes or no questionnaire.
There’s a larger issue here however. Whether hindering an individual’s pursuit of the good life is ever just. Correcting the process whereby a person becomes a felon is primary. Assuming conviction was correct, however, I think these limits are justified. In such a perfect justice system, felons are people who violate imperative social convention. The situation is not so much that “they’ve been set up for failure,” as much as their chances for success have been limited. This is because they’ve shown tendencies to limit other person’s pursuit of the good life - it’s a greater good type of consideration.
I think this process is inherently terrible. Dealing with people who ‘break the rules’ is always going to be complex and create winners and losers in society. Given the situation at large, creating an extra layer of identification towards those people and their interactions with the post-prison world is not unjust.
A few problems here are that hiring businesses don’t believe in rehabilitation and the stigma towards convicts is unfair. I’ve been rewatching The Office and an applicable example arose: A black man transferred from one branch to another as his original branch closed. A rumor spread that this man was a convict and he was knowingly hired by his previous boss. The people in the new office did not react kindly, and the man was treated completely different from when he first arrived as a normal person. When he admitted that his crime was insider trading, the tension in the office was eased, as if to say it was a white man’s crime and there was nothing to fear. This example says many things. Most important is that when someone is seen as a convict, people are afraid of him/her, and he/she is avoided (whether it be in getting a job, or people in a workplace avoiding them). It would be hard for this man to escape the stigma of being a convict in the real world, yet he seemed to be rehabilitated.
This is of course magnified when talking about a violent crime. Should we believe in rehabilitation when it comes to rapists, murderers, or -not necessarily violent but still- drug dealers? My gut reaction is to say yes. It should be the task of society to first rehabilitate these offenders, and further trust that rehabilitation can be effective. However, once a convict leaves a facility, it should not be believed that they have been “cured.” There should be an ongoing process of rehabilitation. As far as taking away the negative stigma, that’s up to the maturity of society, as well as the trust. This is a difficult thing, but I believe in restorative justice and rehabilitation, even if that means risking repeat offenders.
It's a stretch to say that businesses don't believe in rehabilitation. Perhaps businesses don't want to shoulder the risk of someone being released from prison, but not being rehabilitated. This is a sticky subject, but let me be clear: even in a proper justice system where people aren't placed in a cage for selling plants, criminal 'box' laws violate criminals' rights. The question is whether that is justice, or whether it impedes justice. You say it's not fair, you say that it hinders rehabilitation.
Fundamental to this discussion is a set of priorities. 1) We are entitled to seek out a good life. 2) Things which impede our ability to seek out a good life are unjust. The extent to which government should insure this process is inherently ideological, but most agree it has some obligation to protect the process for its citizens. When a convict is released, assuming the process leading to his conviction is just, he's forfeited some of his potential for a good life. His decisions, actions violated priority '1' and therefore were unjust.
You say you believe in restorative justice and rehabilitation. I think these are valuable things, but I also value protecting innocents. Citizens (in this case businesses) should have doubts about released convicts. After all, they violated social contracts and trust. Of course there is some middle ground here, but until they show the propensity to not violate those norms, everyday citizens and businesses should not be required to 'trust them out of restorative justice principles.'
"Several years after completing my 16-month sentence for drug dealing, I indebted myself considerably to obtain a master’s degree in the humanities (with honors). Despite the fact that my offenses had occurred over a decade ago, I found that paying jobs in public high schools and community colleges were legally barred to me by the State of California. (I now teach as a volunteer at halfway houses.)
This is too bad not just for me, but also for the students I would have happily taught. Former felons are uniquely positioned to reach the very population most likely to make the same bad choices that landed them behind bars.”
Is the good life possible for those who have made mistakes with the justice system in the US? Sure, some crimes should put individuals behind bars forever; but is a better life possible for low level offenders after one trip to prison? Does that little box define you now? Felon/Not Felon. Black and White no? I think there is a huge amount of potential talent being lost to the criminal justice system in the US. The fact is that once you enter the system for the first time, it often follows you for the rest of your life. You can break free of it. How is that the good life? How is it a chance to better yourself and your situation? It sets you up for failure.
While I think there's a lot of proper criticism within your response to this subject, I think the general conclusion is incorrect. First consider proper criticism. Our justice system absolutely criminalizes things which I don't consider unjust or wrong, many of which qualify as low level offenses. This person for example - "16-month sentence for drug dealing" - committed a low level crime. Questions about whether these actions should be a crimes are important when considering justice. Equally important is the question of whether drug dealing and something worse, like child molestation, should be grouped together into a yes or no questionnaire.
There's a larger issue here however. Whether hindering an individual's pursuit of the good life is ever just. Correcting the process whereby a person becomes a felon is primary. Assuming conviction was correct, however, I think these limits are justified. In such a perfect justice system, felons are people who violate imperative social convention. The situation is not so much that "they've been set up for failure," as much as their chances for success have been limited. This is because they've shown tendencies to limit other person's pursuit of the good life - it's a greater good type of consideration.
I think this process is inherently terrible. Dealing with people who 'break the rules' is always going to be complex and create winners and losers in society. Given the situation at large, creating an extra layer of identification towards those people and their interactions with the post-prison world is not unjust.