voxeclexnat

Cassius: And your worst enemy.

I started very cynical and wound up somewhere more cynical through this course.

Earlier this week, the Senate released a report on the CIA's "enhanced interrogation" (torture) techniques. The tactics in this comic were used by the agency at black sites around the world.

While the illustrations deceptively sensationalize and misconstrue things, the people not reading the report could do far worse than not scrolling by this.

The question isn't about torturing now, it is about whether or not we should torture. Courts, pundits, etc. fret over the past, the present is where attentions ought to be focused. So, should we torture? Does it work? Can we do it effectively? Is it worth the price? If you're guilty, should torture be a productive punishment? 

To be serious about the last question, there is a case to be made using natural law that when you violate another's rights, you suspend your rights. There is a reciprocity to these things. Additionally, torture is relative – we don't torture nearly as much, as harshly, or as effectively as compared to other countries. Having been waterboarded, it isn't humane, but I survived it and didn't have too many side effects other than getting interesting, inappropriate bar stories.

WHEN Canada’s state broadcaster fired one of its radio stars, Jian Ghomeshi, in October for allegedly hurting a woman during sex, it looked like an isolated case...

Jian Ghomeshi was not fired for roughness during intercourse, he was fired for rape. I've posted on this before, and I'll repeat it again. Ghomeshi’s defense was to blame the victim, and downplay either the seriousness of the instance or the character of the victim.

People are evil. Evil. They make excuses. They expect to write the narrative; they are hypocrites. Being able to twist the truth into a nicer lie is villainy. Enabling these by not seriously seeking justice, is evil. Avoiding Justice is injustice.

I said it before, and I'll say it again:

When it’s easier to have a public life as a rapist than as a rape victim, you know there’s a problem.

Between rampant racial inequality and Ebola outbreaks, South African comedian Trevor Noah admits he hesitated to visit a country as underdeveloped as America.

I love Trevor Noah.

The trouble with ‘voluntourism.

Like I said before, volunteerism is an intrinsically selfish and wasteful act. The money spent making a privileged first worlder feel like they did some tangible good is money that could have been spent actually doing some tangible good. Money spent on the smartphones for selfies, special clothing humble enough but still good looking enough for the humanitarian journey, funds spent on  transportation, the international cellular data fees, etc. were probably enough to educate and feed starving children for years.

Just like "happiness" or "chairness" really doesn't give a bloody fig about what you think it is, justice doesn't have much to do with you, and trying really hard to enact some social justice by making you feel productive is actually injustice.

If the villains in Coriolanus were the tribunes, the foolish people, and ignorance; then the villains in Julius Caesar are the ignorant and those that would manipulate them for their own gain. The ignorant in Julius Caesar are not those who kill Caesar, nor those who follow Caesar, but those who corrupt, follow, or kill for blindly foolish or selfish reasons. Unlike much of our literature or politics, the labels, causes, and “sides” that people fall under does not determine their virtue or heroism – it is their actions and motivations that determine heroism or villainy. As I previously noted, there are many strong parallels between the characters in the Shakespearian Roman Trio and the heroes of the Homeric texts. If Coriolanus is much like Achilles, then Caesar is more akin to a Homeric hero, perhaps Odysseus. Mark Antony is far more insidious than Odysseus, and is the villain. I will provide a lot of commentary and then focus on specific ideas drawn from the third act.

The play has two main heroes: Julius Caesar and Brutus. Caesar and Brutus become an investigation into the possible ends – the "what if?" – of what Coriolanus could have been. They are both very much pictures of what might have happened if Coriolanus were less rigorous in his integrity (i.e. Caesar), or had to make the very real and difficult choices that life demands (i.e. Brutus). Caesar is the traditional Homeric hero, capable of war and epic actions, while Brutus is (very much like Coriolanus), the tragic hero who does what he must because he believes he has to. Each sacrifices their life or performs extrardiary actions to do what they think right.

Caesar and Brutus are friends until the end, and each represents a part of the character we see in Coriolanus. Brutus (correctly or not) feels compelled to remove Caesar to protect the Republic; while Caesar feels compelled to conquer the republic to save it (which is somewhat true, in historical hindsight). Unlike Coriolanus, Caesar accepts his laurels and appeals to the people so that he might win them and take the Republic for its safety – Caesar crosses the Rubicon, Caesar comes to the Senate as the “Caesar." Caesar is undone after Brutus is lead to believe that his ambition is a tangible threat to the integrity of the Republic. Brutus is undone after killing Caesar. Like Coriolanus, both Caesar and Brutus love Rome, but disagree on how to act in its interest.  Brutus explains that he killed his friend not because "I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more." (Julius Caesar, Act 3, scene 2 21-22). Brutus believes so strongly in his actions and is so above reproach that he never sullies Caesar’s name by mentioning that Caesar was having an affair with Brutus’ mother – Brutus is bothered, but is never motivated by the personal harm done to him or his mother by Caesar. While it might have easily been reason or become a rationalization for the assassination, Brutus is willing to let his best friend have an affair with his mother and break her heart, without lifting a finger against him. 

Julius Caesar is, like Coriolanus, a play about the dangers of the actions of the ignorant. Be it the people who blindly follow Mark Antony after his pivotal speech, or Antony himself, those that traffic in ignorance are the villain.  Like Coriolanus, the play can be read so that it is about the dangers of ignorance. Unlike Coriolanus, heroism does not have anything to do with class: the villains are both ignorant plebeian and manipulative patrician. Julius Caesar communicates the dangers of being easily mislead, the danger of ignorance. The villains are the ignorant and those that lead them. One of the leaders of the assassination plot, Cicero, calls Brutus “The [one] with the courage of a man and the brains of child.” viewing Brutus’ idealism as a weakness to be exploited – distinguishing him as one of the villains. Cassius, Cicero, etc. are villains because they behave like villain – opposing them is Mark Antony, the chief of all villains. Unlike those in the conspiracy to kill Caesar, Mark Antony capitalizes on the events that transpire as well as the ignorance of the people. This is not to say that leaders, or even liars, are villains; only that those that capitalize on ignorance to wrongly advantage themselves over others are the villains here.

In the dialogue with Achilles, we see that Odysseus would have made as good a politician as Caesar or Mark Antony did in their less oligarchical, more “democratic” societies. 

"I owe you [...] Odysseus [...] a straight answer, as to how I see this thing, and how it is to end. No need to sit with me like mourning doves making your gentle noises by turns. I hate as I hate Hell's own gate that man who hides one thought within him while he speaks another. What I shall say is what I see and think.” (Iliad, Book IX, lines 376-384). Yet, Odysseus does not use the truth to lie, and only tricks, not enslaves others with his “tactical misdirection” and guile. Odysseus values the truth as more than just a weapon. Mark Antony seems less inclined to give the truth its due than Odysseus. 

While Mark Antony will twist the facts so that the public’s unexamined thinking about them becomes a lie, Odysseus shows he values the truth as he answers the Ghost of Agamemnon (Odyssey, Book XI, lines 459-464)

“Son of Atreus, why ask this of me? I cannot tell if he is dead or living, and it is wrong to utter empty words.” 

Time and time again, Mark Antony takes advantage of the situation by saying the opposite of what he thinks:

“Good friends, sweet friends, let me not stir you up to such a sudden flood of mutiny. [then going on to stir them up to mutiny]" (Act 3, Scene 2, 222-223)

Unlike Coriolanus, Brutus says exactly what he means without being demonized:

 "As Caesar loved me, I weep for him; as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was valiant, I honor him; but, as he was ambitious, I slew him." (Julius Ceasar, Act 3, Scene 2, lines 24-27)

Brutus is only punished when Antony twists his words. In some of the most identifiable words from Julius Caesar, Mark Antony says the opposite of what he means (my commentary is included in brackets and italics):

“Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. [Antony then goes on to praise Caesar wildly, even inventing things about his generosity and a will.] The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones; So let it be with Caesar.[Antony carries the idea of Caesar’s body and with him the rest of his life, even into the next play - referencing Caesar’s wounds frequently.] The noble Brutus Hath told you Caesar was ambitious: If it were so, it was a grievous fault, And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it. Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest-- For Brutus is an honourable man; So are they all, all honourable men-- Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral. He was my friend, faithful and just to me: But Brutus says he was ambitious; And Brutus is an honourable man. He hath brought many captives home to Rome Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill: Did this in Caesar seem ambitious? When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept: Ambition should be made of sterner stuff: Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; And Brutus is an honourable man. You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition? [This is to be juxtaposed to Coriolanus and what was made of his awards.] Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; And, sure, he is an honourable man. I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, But here I am to speak what I do know. You all did love him once, not without cause: What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him? O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts, And men have lost their reason. Bear with me; My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, And I must pause till it come back to me."

(Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 2, lines 82-117).

It is important to remember that this is a tragedy, for the whole of the play pivots around the climax. Like an ancient Grecian play, the climax begins with the the turning points for the protagonist and ends with the undoing of the tragic hero. The play continues to unfold after Caesar is killed, and it continues to climax until Mark Antony’s speech. The tragic hero, Brutus, reaches a pivotal turning point when Mark Antony gives his infamous speech. All that Brutus wanted was to save the Republic from tyranny, restoring the people to the body politic and balance to government. Antony's speech dashes Brutus’ sacrifice for this hope. Mark Antony’s speech sends Rome spiraling into chaos.

“Good friends, sweet friends, let me not stir you up to such a sudden flood of mutiny. […] I come not, friends, to steal away your hearts: I am no orator, as Brutus is; But, as you know me all, a plain blunt man, That love my friend; and that they know full well That gave me public leave to speak of him: For I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth, Action, nor utterance, nor the power of speech, To stir men's blood: I only speak right on; I tell you that which you yourselves do know; Show you sweet Caesar's wounds, poor poor dumb mouths, And bid them speak for me: but were I Brutus, And Brutus [were] Antony, there were an Antony would ruffle up your spirits and put a tongue In every wound of Caesar that should move The stones of Rome to rise and mutiny.” (Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 2, lines 222-223).

Time and time again, Antony stirs the people and twists facts and perceptions into lies. Mark Antony can only manipulate the people because of their ignorance. The people (plebeian and patrician alike), should be a warning to us – the danger we must fear is our ignorance. Like in Coriolanus, if we the people do not learn what justice is, we risk being misled and manipulated by our own appetites, emotion, and ignorance. 

As I said about Coriolanus: 

For the love of all that is, please think because ignorance is part of injustice. Ignorance is injustice. So think.

The best part? The theory might just make the movie - and the entire Dark Knight trilogy - even better, too.

The Hero of The Dark Knight Rises is Bane and Batman. Many people didn't realize this. The same way that people didn't realize that Elsa was not the hero of Frozen. The Dark Knight treated the Joker, a villain, as the hero, and people idolized him. People are incorrect and the industries that feed their ignorance (like, the entertainment industry) do not help, which is why you were mislead.  

As seen on: The Guardian, Washington Post, Huffington Post, HuffPost Live, Business Insider, The...

Because I'm an interesting person, I will go ahead and talk about something other than Fer. . . . There are serious race issues caused/perpetuated by people trying to help. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the money spent on transport, smartphones for selfies, clothing for humanitarian journey, international data coverage, etc. were probably not that helpful in actual "humanitarian" ways.

Please, don't add to the ignorance. Please, don't add to the violence. 

Special Forces sighted near Ferguson (White Guys with Beards)