Meanwhile the DEA teamed up with the CCA...

Ah, the United States of America.

The greatest country on earth. The land of the free and the home of the brave.

...Right?

In the 1980's, the US prison population was roughly 500,000 people. In just twenty six years, the prison population grew to nearly 2.5 million people, an increase of almost 500%. In that same time period, the general United States population grew about 24%.

This makes the United States the home of the world's biggest population, with nearly 1 in 100 American adults in jail. Despite having less than five percent of the World's population (at roughly 300 million people), we imprison 2.3 million people, or a quarter of the world's prisoners. That's more than China (a country 4 times more populous than the US), trailing a distant second with 1.6 million in prison.
This gargantuan increase in prison population cannot be attributed to violent crime; the United States' violent crime rate is its lowest point in decades. What it can be attributed to, however, is the failed "War on Drugs".

The War on Drugs has been going on since the early 20th century, with the prohibition of alcohol, but the war became an actual war in 1973 with the creation of the Drug Enforcement Agency by then-President Richard Nixon. The most serious offense that 51 percent of our 2.3 million prisoners face are drug offenses, such as possession and/or consumption.

Possession and consumption of drugs often carry ridiculously lengthy sentences, such as the Louisiana man who got 20 years of hard labor for possession of half an ounce (fifteen grams) of marijuana. Or the Missouri man who got life in prison without the possibility of parole for possession of five pounds of pot. Or another man who got 55 years in prison for selling marijuana to an undercover police officer. You get my point. These men will spend more time in jail than a man who raped a disabled girl (4-8 years) and more than a person who posses child pornography (5 years).

So what part does the CCA and the DEA play in all of this? And why should you care?
For those of you who don't know, the CCA (Corrections Corporation of America) is a private business that owns and manages prisons and detention centers, with more than 60 facilities throughout the United States. (Note: the CCA is a private, for-profit business. They have shareholders.) What they essentially do is convert prisons into for-profit businesses. Since many states are having financial woes, the CCA seems like a savior, as they are proposing to buy their prisons and run them. Many of the contracts they sign include lockup quotas, where the states guarantee to keep the prisons anywhere between 80 to 100 percent occupied. Since the CCA operates much like a hotel (they profit off the amount of beds they fill and the duration of the prisoners' stay), these quotas create a perpetual demand for prison inmates. This demand for prisoners is fueled by the DEA and the sometimes ludicrous laws for petty possession (see above). The CCA itself listed the following as its risk factors to the SEC:

"The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them."

Within the past ten years, the CCA has spent $19 million dollars lobbying congress. Where does this money go? In the pockets of conservative politicians, who are more likely to be in favor of stricter prison sentences for petty possessions and oppose legalization of marijuana. 

The following video beautifully illustrates what the CCA does.

The CCA also uses these prisoners as a source of cheap (and sometimes free) labor, thus creating further demand for prisoners and thus creating a generation of "new slaves".
What this demand for prisoners also creates is a prison system that is focused on retribution rather than rehabilitation. In the United States, two thirds of prisoners return to jail within three years of their release, often with a more serious and/or violent offense. This can be traced back to the fact that we tend to hand the hardest punishments possible to our prisoners, unlike many European countries which tend to rehabilitate their prisoners to prevent them from returning to prison. Their tactics include giving their prisoners a surprising amount of liberty, such as having no armed guards or gates. And guess what... it works. The rehabilitation method coupled with other crime prevention systems has led the Netherlands to close eight prisons due to the lack of crime.
I am in no way advocating for the legalization of each and every drug, though the legalization of some (such as marijuana) can be beneficial to our economy. I am, however, advocating the treatment of addiction as a disease that it is rather than a crime.

Title: SONNET ANALYSIS #1

*Two types: Italian and Petrarchan. *Italian has an initial octet and a second couplet.
*Petrarchan: 3 quadrants, one couplet.
*Petrarchan commonly used by Shakespeare

A POETIC INQUIRY

The sonnet I chose for this assignment was one by Pierre de Ronsard, a French poet.

When you are very old, at evening, by the fire, 
spinning wool by candlelight and winding it in skeins, 
you will say in wonderment as you recite my lines: 
'Ronsard admired me in the days when I was fair.'

Then not one of your servants dozing gently there
hearing my name's cadence break through your low repines
but will start into wakefulness out of her dreams
and bless your name - immortalised by my desire.

I'll be underneath the ground, and a boneless shade
taking my long rest in the scented myrtle-glade, 
and you'll be an old woman, nodding towards life's close, 

regretting my love, and regretting your disdain.
Heed me, and live for now: this time won't come again.
Come, pluck now - today - life's so quickly-fading rose.

The poem, in a way, does relate to my big question, one of which was asking if were alone? In this universe and on Earth? The sonnet is a bit of a love poem, telling a woman to reminisce to a younger time. The poet is now dead and she will be on the verge of death. She perhaps regrets having loved the poet and disdains it, yet he tells her to not worry about the past and enjoy the present. He finished it with a very clear message: live for today as this time won't come again.

HAMLET (Remix Feat. Curren$y, Wu-Tang Clan, and J.L. Austin)

What is "performative utterance"?

The rapper Curren$y put it best:

. There has been a long-held belief that actions and words are not mutually interchangeable; words are not as solid as actions after all. But according to the theory of performative utterance (a term coined by British philosopher J. L. Austin),                                                         (This guy)

certain sentences change the reality they are describing rather than simply passively describing said reality. Essentially, by saying something out loud, it becomes reality and sets an expectation, much like a judge saying "I sentence this criminal to death" 

or a priest saying "I pronounce you man and wife".

 Their words constitute an action instead of simply being words. The reasoning behind this theory is evident in Shakespeare's play Hamlet 

as well as in our own daily lives. While Hamlet spends the majority of the play contemplating suicide and debating whether he should kill King Claudius or not, his words themselves represent action.

When Hamlet sees his father's ghost

 in scene five of Act 1, he learns of the true reason behind his father's death: Claudius poured poison in his ear. This itself is symbolic of how Claudius is lying to the state of Denmark and to everyone in the play, this his words are like poison. Hamlet vows to his father that he will avenge him by killing his uncle. As soon as he says that, his word becomes bond; Hamlet can no longer turn back. He must get revenge and kill Claudius. 

Hamlet's use of self-overhearing plays a vital role in the development of the plot and the characterization of Hamlet. The reader is able to see how calculating and intelligent he really is  Hamlet is perhaps the greatest actor/deceiver in the history of humanity for this reason. He is able to flawlessly execute various fronts; from the crazy love drunk in front of Ophelia and Polonious, to the cold calculating genius when by himself. The reader might at first believe that Hamlet is a psychopath, but through indirect characterization and hearing Hamlet speak, it becomes apparent that he is not in fact a psychopath. By definition  a psychopath has very shallow emotions, inability to plan for the future, overconfidence, and are typically selfish. Hamlet is actually the polar opposite of all these traits. He shows a wide range of emotions, as seen by the various fronts he puts up. He plans ahead for the future, as seen by  the fact that he did not kill Claudius even when he had the golden opportunity (because Claudius was praying and if he was killed, would have gone to heaven). He is often very critical of himself and beats himself up more often than not. Lastly, he is not selfish because he went out of his way to avenge his father and to do what was right for the state of Denmark.

“Self-overhearing" is essentially thinking about your own thinking, or metacognition. 

Hamlet often speaks outloud to himself through various points throughout the play. By doing so, Hamlet is able to have epiphanies and learn about himself, his emotions, and his actions (or lack of). One of the most evident moments of this is the "To be or not to be" soliloquy in Act three.

 In this soliloquy, he is asking one of the most basic, yet most mysterious questions that have plagued humans since the dawn of time: why live? What is the purpose  of life? Life is so full of misery ("the whips and scorns of time, the oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, the pangs of despised love")

 why doesn't one just end it all and escape the misery ("to die, to sleep, no more, and by a sleep to say we end the heartache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to")? By asking himself these seemingly rhetorical questions, he comes to the conclusion that it is the fear of the great unknown (what happens after death) that prevents us from doing so. 

He has a revelation here when he says "conscience makes cowards of us all"; the more you think about it, the less likely you are to carry it out. He has an epiphany and discovers that the reason he has yet to kill his uncle is because he thinks instead of action. From that moment on, Hamlet is dedicated with carrying out his revenge at any and all costs necessary.

Hamlet has another epiphany when the acting troupe comes and tries to cheer him up. He asks one of the actors to recite a soliloquy from the play they’re supposed to perform. Hamlet is disgusted at himself when he sees the actor moved to tears by his performance over a piece of fiction when he himself cannot muster even the slightest bit of emotion for his father’s death. Here he has another revelation; he has yet to get his revenge because he is too much of a coward.

Hamlet’s use of self-overhearing and performative utterance is quite evident in everyday life. Sometimes when we do not understand something, we find ourselves either repeating the thing over and over out loud or in our mind, much like our memorization of “To be or not to be”. After repeating it a certain number of times, you reach a point where it actually resonates with you and you finally understand what Hamlet is trying to say.

Wu-Tang Clan had a now widely-recognized phrase (at least within 5%ers and hip hop aficionados), which went “Word Is Bond”.

What this phrase meant was that your word is true and without reproach; their word is promise. This is an example of perfomative utterance in our contemporary society. Another such example would be kids who get suspended or expelled by threatening others. They may have not actually done their words, but their words carry enough weight to be taken seriously.

Hamlet learned more about himself simply by talking out loud and listening to himself speak then he would have if he went to a therapist. Words carry just as much, if not more, weight as actions. By listening to ourselves speak, we are able to gain a deeper insight on our motives and thoughts that are constantly traversing our minds.  

13 Year-old boy is shot seven times by police officers in California

In case you haven't heard, Mia Levy and I have a blog called In Loco Politico, in which we will be posting a news article from either around the world, the nation, or the state and give our own input on it. I highly encourage you to visit and comment with your thoughts on the topic!

A few weeks ago, a 13 year-old was killed by two police officers, who shot him 7 times within 26 seconds. The police were dispatched to the area after a report of a suspicious person in the North California town of Santa Rosa. The kid, Andy Lopez, had his back to the police when they arrive. According to police reports and eye witnesses, Lopez was carrying around a toy gun which looked a lot like an actual AK-47.

The toy gun (right) in comparison to an actual AK-47 (left).

After he was yelled at by the two police officers to drop his weapon, but did not comply and rather turned around to face the police. At this moment, they opened fire a total of 8 times with 7 bullets hitting his body, 2 of which were labeled as fatal.

Did the police do what was necessary or did they act out of line? Both cases can be made. The gun clearly looked like an actual weapon, especially from a far. Some will argue that they should have assured that it was a real gun before firing, but that could have easily put them and innocent civilians in danger had it been a real gun. With all the recent shootings in the news, some even being perpetrated by teenagers or young adults, they had every right to assume that the weapon was real. I do not condone the actions of the police officers; the death of this young boy was unnecessary and a shame. But one must be able to see why the police open fired in the first place, and that there was reasonable suspicion that it was a real weapon that could have potentially killed the officers and any bystanders.

Related articles

• Boy Killed By Police For Carrying Fake Rifle (sfgate.com)
• Realistic toy guns worry local police (napavalleyregister.com)
• US police shoot dead 13-year-old boy who was carrying 'lifelike' toy gun - euronews (euronews.com)
• FBI probes California deputy's killing of boy with toy gun (news.yahoo.com)
• Teen With Pellet Gun Shot By Police 7 Times (webpronews.com)
• California | Police shoot 13-year-old Santa Rosa boy carrying fake gun (thejournalist.ie)

Voices In My Head

The rapper Curren$y put it best: "If I said Ima do it, you can consider it done". There has been a long-held belief that actions and words are not mutually interchangeable; words are not as solid as actions after all. But according to the theory of performative utterance (a term coined by British philosopher J. L. Austin), certain sentences change the reality they are describing rather than simply passively describing said reality. Essentially, by saying something out loud, it becomes reality and sets an expectation, much like a judge saying "I sentence this criminal to death" or a priest saying "I pronounce you man and wife". Their words constitute an action instead of simply being words. The reasoning behind this theory is evident in Shakespeare's play Hamlet as well as in our own daily lives. While Hamlet spends the majority of the play contemplating suicide and debating whether he should kill King Claudius or not, his words themselves represent action.

When Hamlet sees his father's ghost in scene five of Act 1, he vows to his father that he will avenge him by killing his uncle. As soon as he says that, his word becomes bond; Hamlet can no longer turn back. He must get revenge and kill Claudius. Hamlet is perhaps the greatest actor/deceiver in the history of humanity. He is able to flawlessly execute various fronts; from the crazy love drunk, to the cold calculating sociopath. 

The concept of "self-overhearing" is one that is quintessential to the development of Hamlet as a play and of Hamlet as a character. “Self-overhearing" essentially is thinking about your own thinking, or metacognition. This is evident in various points throughout the play. One of the most evident moments of this is the "To be or not to be" soliloquy in Act three. In this soliloquy, he is asking one of the most basic, yet most mysterious questions that have plagued humans since the dawn of time: why live? What is the meaning of life? Life is so full of misery ("the whips and scorns of time, the oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, the pangs of despised love") why doesn't one just end it all and escape the misery ("to die, to sleep, no more, and by a sleep to say we end the heartache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to")? By asking himself these seemingly rhetorical questions, he comes to the conclusion that it is the fear of the great unknown (what happens after death) that prevents us from doing so. He has a revelation here when he says "conscience makes cowards of us all"; the more you think about it, the less likely you are to carry it out. He has an epiphany and discovers that the reason he has yet to kill his uncle is because he thinks instead of action. From that moment on, Hamlet is dedicated with carrying out his revenge at any and all costs necessary.

Hamlet has another epiphany when the acting troupe comes and tries to cheer him up. He asks one of the actors to recite a soliloquy from the play they’re supposed to perform. Hamlet is disgusted at himself when he sees the actor moved to tears by his performance over a piece of fiction when he himself cannot muster even the slightest bit of emotion for his father’s death. Here he has another revelation; he has yet to get his revenge because he is too much of a coward.

Hamlet’s use of self-overhearing and performative utterance is quite evident in everyday life. Sometimes when we do not understand something, we find ourselves either repeating the thing over and over out loud or in our mind, much like our memorization of “To be or not to be”. After repeating it a certain number of times, you reach a point where it actually resonates with you and you finally understand what Hamlet is trying to say.

Wu-Tang Clan had a now widely-recognized phrase (at least within 5%ers and hip hop aficionados), which went “Word Is Bond”. What this phrase meant was that your word is true and without reproach; their word is promise. This is an example of perfomative utterance in our contemporary society. Another such example would be kids who get suspended or expelled by threatening others. They may have not actually done their words, but their words carry enough weight to be taken seriously.

Hamlet learned more about himself simply by talking out loud and listening to himself speak then he would have if he went to a therapist. Words carry just as much, if not more, weight as actions. By listening to ourselves speak, we are able to gain a deeper insight on our motives and thoughts that are constantly traversing our minds.  

On Apples and Oranges

So for the University of Chicago's writing supplement, I had to compare apples and oranges. At first, I was a bit dumbstruck. But soon, I found the perfect way to go about comparing the two, which goes much deeper than you'd expect. Without further ado, here is my essay On Apples and Oranges: The Equivalences and Dichotomies.

The idiom “apples and oranges” is often used to describe two objects (or ideas) that couldn’t be any more radically different. While at first this idiom appears to make sense at a glance (apples are red and, for the most part, sweet while oranges are orange and, for the most part, sour), once you begin to think about it. On the surface, it is a simple innocent. But once you examine it from a deeper perspective, you begin to see the dark, twisted origin and meaning behind it.

The common apple (Malus domestica) is a member of the Rosaceae (or rose) family. It is believed to be among the first tree to be cultivated by humans. It became a staple of European and Asian diet and remains one to this very day. Apples have made appearances in ancient Greek mythology (as Eris’s apple of discord). Some have argued that the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge in the Bible’s Garden of Eden is actually an apple. Thus, apples are symbols of immortality, youth, temptation, and sin. They are often red or green and are typically sweet. Apples typically grow and are cultivated in colder climate, such as New York, Washington, and Michigan.

The common orange (Citrus sinensis) is a member of the Rutaceae, or citrus, family. It is a hybrid between pomelo and mandarin and has also been cultivated since ancient times. Since they are hybrids, many orange trees are infertile, so it’s ironic that orange blossoms are symbols of fertility. They also symbolize happiness, love, and marriage. Oranges do need an abundance of rain and sunshine to germinate and they grow in more temperate climates, such as in Florida. It has higher source of vitamin C than apples.

The irony of it all is that in many languages, the word for oranges derives from the word for apples. Many languages actually refer to the orange as a Chinese apple. So maybe they’re not so different after all. Now let’s focus on the similarities rather the dichotomies. Both are fruits and derive from the same kingdom, class, and division. Both are more or less spherical, have similar mass, and contain an outer layer of “skin”. Both grown on trees and have seeds inside them. Both are a vital source of fiber and magnesium. Both grown in orchards and can be made into juice.

A saying that comes to mind when comparing apples and oranges is the Spanish saying “¡El pueblo unido, jamás será vencido!” which translates to “The people united will never be defeated!” This brings up the important question: what drives people apart more than anything? It is their differences and their inability to overcome them, especially when they are brainwashed to believe that anyone who believes anything different that their own is branded as an enemy. Thus, the creators of the idiom “apples and oranges” were the destroyers of men. They made the general populous focus on the differences that separated them (which were very little) instead of the common factors that united them (which were abundant). By keeping them fragmented and separated, they were able to conquer them and maintain their undisputed power. By keeping the people ignorant of their similarities, they were able to manipulate them and force them against each other, to slaughter and kill one another indiscriminately. Focusing on the differences of “apples” and “oranges” made one group feel superior than the other. Throughout the entire history of humanity, using this boogeyman tactic worked, and it drove brother against brother.  Some examples of this happening are the American Civil War, all genocides (such as the Holocaust, Soviet Purges, Colonization of the Americas, and Armenian genocide), lynchings of blacks in the south, and modern-day terrorist attacks. They realized that if the “apples” and “oranges” were to ever find out how similar they truly were and unite together, the leaders would have to abdicate their power to the people.

            The effects of this idiom are evident. It has driven human against human for millennia and has spurred ignorance and hatred. The idiom signifies how often we focus on the little, minute differences between one another (such as religion, ethnicity, political leanings, whether you leave your toilet seat up or down, et cetera) and how much that drives us apart. If, instead, we were to focus on our similarities (such as how we all have a layer of skin covering our juicy innards), we’d be much more advanced and there would be much less hatred and violence. Who knew we could have learned so much about human nature from apples and oranges?