Huffingtonpost.com just posted some extraordinary photos of protests in Egypt. The Egyptian protests follow two weeks in which the Arab street has exploded in anger against their respective governments. Tunisia, Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iran, amongst others, are all experiencing political turmoil. Yes, we are used to seeing the Arab street explode over an array of minor issues –like the Muhammad cartoon saga. But this time is different, the street is not (yet, anyways) protesting the “meddling Americans” or the “Zionist occupiers”, this time they are directing their collective anger inwards -against their own governments. Moreover, this is the first time that so many Arab and Muslim nations have simultaneously experienced political unrest. There are no jobs, the government is unable, or unwilling, to end the economic woes, and there is a complete disconnect between the people and their governments and elites.
The narrative of the Arab protests is familiar. There is rampant unemployment, extremely low government approval ratings, and individuals willing to do more than sulk at home. In Greece and Ireland, two western states, the street exploded, and their respective governments have been hit hard. Who’s next?
From this perspective, the economic woes of the past two years have spawned a global wave of protests. Wikileaks exposure of routine two-faced political dealings by governments has added fuel to the fire of mistrust and dissatisfaction so prevalent in many societies. The real question is whether we can expect the same results in America?
It is true that Americans have historically weathered economic malfeasance and ineptitude –like during the great depression- with relative calm. But America has changed since the 1930’s, and nobody can say with certainty that a single digit approval rating of our government will not translate into burning tires and bodies on the streets of New York and Chicago. The Muslim Brotherhood and other such Islamic groups have not yet hijacked the protests. Just as the far left –or right- in America have not yet coalesced into an effective anti-government apparatus. But the possibility exists.
So I ask: Will the Anger of the Arab Street Cross the Atlantic?
Showing posts with label Huffingtonpost. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Huffingtonpost. Show all posts
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Divorce is Good?!
HuffingtonPost.com, the self proclaimed left wing response to drudgereport.com and co.,(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45168.html) recently launched its newest addition to string of highly specialized categories, divorce. Its founder, Ariana Huffington, claimed that she was prompted by the statistic that 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce. It's an astute idea. After all divorce is part of the fabric of our society and America needs a forum for the growing discussion.
Yet I was taken aback by the direction in which many of the contributors on her site were going. One op-ed "Divorce! It’s good for the children!" by http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/divorce-its-good-for-the-_b_782469.html Jane Smiley, argues that divorce can be good.
But is it?
Ok, I understand that many in our society attempt to go with the flow. When they recognize a societal trend they respond with non-judgmental acceptance, i.e. instead of attributing meaning to a given development they just recognize it and report on it. I appreciate the importance of presenting objective-oriented information.
However, I perceive more than just aloof coverage, by contributors to Huffingtonpost.com, of a news-worthy story. Instead, it seems that many who gravitate to this media platform are attempting to justify the trend. Instead of offering an unadulterated statistic to their audience these writers are attempting to reshape an historically negative event (even when justified), divorce, into a positive activity.
The arguments are boring, but non-the-less should be considered.
1. we live in a post-marriage society
2.marriage works for some and not for others.
3. marriage vis-a-vis same sex couples and singles is exclusionary.
I can accept that religious grounded argument for marriage (such as the refrain that "love is a part of marriage, not marriage") often have a minimal impact in the secular public sphere and are already discounted as antiquated and/or myth. Never mind that religious communities of all types are also experiencing relative increases in divorce rates. I can even see why many proponents of divorce discount the anecdotal evidence as to the ravages of broken, uh I mean separated families. I live in Crown Heights, where gang affiliation is often directly attributed to absentee parents. Just as my classmates, of divorced parents, in my hometown of suburban CT. seemed, perhaps mistakenly, to have their own genre of problems (who doesn't right!?).
Still I'm sure many divorced parents and their children are neither gang-bangers or in therapy.
Fine, I can understand all these perspectives.
Furthermore, we may never know whether rampant divorce is a symptom of a larger cultural problem, or just another seminal development in an increasingly changing society.
But at the same time it may be cause for serious concern even for those who feel that our capitalistic mindset requires a materialistic reason to gain our attention.
So I ask: Do the implications of increasing divorce rates have a direct impact on our economic welfare?
What if it is not a mere coincidence that the 1960's liberal revolution and the increasing divorce that came with it, was also the decade when real income reached its peak and has since declined? What if having an economically stable home to turn to (yes two adults living in one location are more likely to accumulate resources to share with others) in times of distress and need, helps strengthen the fabric of our national psyche and, by virtue of that, our productivity? What if your divorce precludes your children from marrying, which negatively impacts the economic environment that we ALL live in? Do the inherent responsibilities of a successful marriage inculcate its members, especially its children, with a sense of monetary responsibility, credit cards and all?
If huffingtonPost.com is going to publish articles justifying societies divorce from marriage than, for the sake of the greater good, it should also explore the ramifications of a society without marriage.
Yet I was taken aback by the direction in which many of the contributors on her site were going. One op-ed "Divorce! It’s good for the children!" by http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/divorce-its-good-for-the-_b_782469.html Jane Smiley, argues that divorce can be good.
But is it?
Ok, I understand that many in our society attempt to go with the flow. When they recognize a societal trend they respond with non-judgmental acceptance, i.e. instead of attributing meaning to a given development they just recognize it and report on it. I appreciate the importance of presenting objective-oriented information.
However, I perceive more than just aloof coverage, by contributors to Huffingtonpost.com, of a news-worthy story. Instead, it seems that many who gravitate to this media platform are attempting to justify the trend. Instead of offering an unadulterated statistic to their audience these writers are attempting to reshape an historically negative event (even when justified), divorce, into a positive activity.
The arguments are boring, but non-the-less should be considered.
1. we live in a post-marriage society
2.marriage works for some and not for others.
3. marriage vis-a-vis same sex couples and singles is exclusionary.
I can accept that religious grounded argument for marriage (such as the refrain that "love is a part of marriage, not marriage") often have a minimal impact in the secular public sphere and are already discounted as antiquated and/or myth. Never mind that religious communities of all types are also experiencing relative increases in divorce rates. I can even see why many proponents of divorce discount the anecdotal evidence as to the ravages of broken, uh I mean separated families. I live in Crown Heights, where gang affiliation is often directly attributed to absentee parents. Just as my classmates, of divorced parents, in my hometown of suburban CT. seemed, perhaps mistakenly, to have their own genre of problems (who doesn't right!?).
Still I'm sure many divorced parents and their children are neither gang-bangers or in therapy.
Fine, I can understand all these perspectives.
Furthermore, we may never know whether rampant divorce is a symptom of a larger cultural problem, or just another seminal development in an increasingly changing society.
But at the same time it may be cause for serious concern even for those who feel that our capitalistic mindset requires a materialistic reason to gain our attention.
So I ask: Do the implications of increasing divorce rates have a direct impact on our economic welfare?
What if it is not a mere coincidence that the 1960's liberal revolution and the increasing divorce that came with it, was also the decade when real income reached its peak and has since declined? What if having an economically stable home to turn to (yes two adults living in one location are more likely to accumulate resources to share with others) in times of distress and need, helps strengthen the fabric of our national psyche and, by virtue of that, our productivity? What if your divorce precludes your children from marrying, which negatively impacts the economic environment that we ALL live in? Do the inherent responsibilities of a successful marriage inculcate its members, especially its children, with a sense of monetary responsibility, credit cards and all?
If huffingtonPost.com is going to publish articles justifying societies divorce from marriage than, for the sake of the greater good, it should also explore the ramifications of a society without marriage.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Understanding the Israeli Exhortation "Why Not Them" (1)
In a recent piece published in Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-harris/to-the-free-gaza-movement_b_602061.html),one amongst many, David Harris, the President of the American Jewish Congress (AJC), asked the now infamous question of the Free Gaza Movement, "why not them".
The Free Gaza Movement was one of the major organizers of the "provocation with a bad ending" flotilla. Harris asked them, rhetorically, why don't you organize to stop mass human rights abuses all over the world -why Israel? His conclusion, is that they do not seek to help Gaza but to hurt Israel.
Amongst his supporting evidence is the assertion that if they wanted to help Gaza, they should have delivered the aid the fastest way possible, via established land routes.
For the sake of balance, the Free Gaza Movement responds that they organized to help Gazans not other victims.
But this essay is not about this specific article or event. Rather it is meant to offer a number of perspectives on Harris’s underlying argument, as his observation is not new. Pro-Israel, and watch-dog groups covering NGO's, human rights groups, and of course the UN Human Rights Council - (UNHRC) in response to habitual and sustained criticism of Israel- regularly make this same accusation .
The "why not them argument" boils down to the question of why so much energy and resources are expended on criticizing Israel while the other more sever human rights violations are ignored?
Is this a legitimate argument?
Before that can be answered a more expansive understanding of this oft cited rhetorical question and the corresponding answers offered is in order.
Here I will attempt to analyze and expand the underlying question from three perspectives.
1. The implications perspective.
The implications perspective is always offered rhetorically and is historical in nature. It asks what can possibly explain the obsession with Israel, and the disproportional negative attention it engenders, except history? History explains the criticism of Israel as it comes from the same quarters that perpetrated the crusader riots, the wave of expulsions of Jews from almost every nations-state of Western Europe and later the Arab world, ghettos, and of course the holocaust.
Some in the Jewish community point to the Talmudic maxim, “Esiv Sonei et Yaccov” Esau hates Jacob –the decedents of Esau -commonly understood to refer to the descendants of Rome -as part of their nature hate the descendants of Jacob, the Jews (please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-do-i-hate-jews.html).
The implications perspective argues that the disproportionate criticism of Israel, is explained by the source of the criticism, i.e. much of criticism is not of Israel but of the Jewish nature of the state of Israel (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-have-no-problem-with-jews-its-just.html). The implications are that good old historical anti-Semitism is alive and well, as evident by the, otherwise unexplainable extent of criticism of Israel, to the detriment of 10’s of millions really being oppressed across the globe. The point being that anything Israel does, short of disappearing, is open to attack.
This is one way to understand the “why us not them argument”. In part two we look at two others and attempt to draw a concrete conclusion.
The Free Gaza Movement was one of the major organizers of the "provocation with a bad ending" flotilla. Harris asked them, rhetorically, why don't you organize to stop mass human rights abuses all over the world -why Israel? His conclusion, is that they do not seek to help Gaza but to hurt Israel.
Amongst his supporting evidence is the assertion that if they wanted to help Gaza, they should have delivered the aid the fastest way possible, via established land routes.
For the sake of balance, the Free Gaza Movement responds that they organized to help Gazans not other victims.
But this essay is not about this specific article or event. Rather it is meant to offer a number of perspectives on Harris’s underlying argument, as his observation is not new. Pro-Israel, and watch-dog groups covering NGO's, human rights groups, and of course the UN Human Rights Council - (UNHRC) in response to habitual and sustained criticism of Israel- regularly make this same accusation .
The "why not them argument" boils down to the question of why so much energy and resources are expended on criticizing Israel while the other more sever human rights violations are ignored?
Is this a legitimate argument?
Before that can be answered a more expansive understanding of this oft cited rhetorical question and the corresponding answers offered is in order.
Here I will attempt to analyze and expand the underlying question from three perspectives.
1. The implications perspective.
The implications perspective is always offered rhetorically and is historical in nature. It asks what can possibly explain the obsession with Israel, and the disproportional negative attention it engenders, except history? History explains the criticism of Israel as it comes from the same quarters that perpetrated the crusader riots, the wave of expulsions of Jews from almost every nations-state of Western Europe and later the Arab world, ghettos, and of course the holocaust.
Some in the Jewish community point to the Talmudic maxim, “Esiv Sonei et Yaccov” Esau hates Jacob –the decedents of Esau -commonly understood to refer to the descendants of Rome -as part of their nature hate the descendants of Jacob, the Jews (please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-do-i-hate-jews.html).
The implications perspective argues that the disproportionate criticism of Israel, is explained by the source of the criticism, i.e. much of criticism is not of Israel but of the Jewish nature of the state of Israel (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-have-no-problem-with-jews-its-just.html). The implications are that good old historical anti-Semitism is alive and well, as evident by the, otherwise unexplainable extent of criticism of Israel, to the detriment of 10’s of millions really being oppressed across the globe. The point being that anything Israel does, short of disappearing, is open to attack.
This is one way to understand the “why us not them argument”. In part two we look at two others and attempt to draw a concrete conclusion.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Three Excuses and One Belief:
One of the best barometers of a news sources political leanings are its readers comments.
The same exact story about Obama-care elicits diametrically different responses on Huffingtonpost.com then it does on Foxnews.com.
Like stories on Obama-care, any issue relating to Jews/Israel often results in predictable comment trends, with some innovative comments thrown into the mix.
For example Israel/Jew related stories commonly spur two opposing argument lines.
Anti-Israel= Israel spies on America. Israel takes American money, with negative consequences for America. Israel attacked and killed Americans in the Liberty incident.
Pro-Israel= G-d gave Israel to the Jews. Those that bless Israel will be blessed.
On Fox news the latter is the more prevasive comment. On left-leaning sites the former has the louder voice.
I have always found the two trends an expression of ignorance. The Bible has never been followed by the most religious of followers, even though the three monotheistic beliefs all claim to believe in it. As for the dull anti-Israel comments I told myself that these people great-grand parents believed in the Elders-of-Zion conspiracy and probably thought that Jews use Christian blood in their Matzoh.
However I recently noticed that these beliefs, like 9/11 conspiracy theories in the Middle-East, are really wide-spread. I will give, as I expect others to give me, the benefit of the doubt and offer a different perspective.
1. It is true Israel spies on America, like it does almost every country. Israel is an ally of America NOT America. The reason why Israel's intelligence is from the best in the world is because of its aggressive spying. In the real world of real politics, this is a common practice. Israel does not use this intelligence to kill Americans, but to protect its own citizens. The real question is why Jonathon Pollard -the main Israeli spy that leftists like to bring up- has received such a stiff sentence, compared to other ally-spies.
As a side note these same liberal and predictable commentators NEVER talk about China and its rape of American know-how. I am not surprised, are you?
2. Israel does get 3 billion from America, ALL OF IT MILITARY LOAN GUARANTEES THAT ISRAEL PAYS BACK YEAR AFTER YEAR AND ON TIME. Moreover 70% of these loan guarantees are required and are used to purchase American weaponry, which of course boosts American industry. This is besides the fact that America gets the most powerful military in the larger Middle-east as its closest ally (for more on the obvious benefits of America’s alliance with Israel please see the "linkers and thinkers" series).
3. The most preposterous of all is the mantra " look liberty Israel killed Americans", as if that should undermine 62 years of an America-Israel alliance. Besides the fact that Israel claims that it was an accident, an accident that occurred on June 8 1967 -when Israeli war planes and torpedo boats attacked an American intelligence ship USS Liberty, that was off the coast of Israel in international waters- FORTY THREE YEARS AGO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident)! To use it for anything more than a proof that NO ALLIANCE IS PERFECT, is akin to America cutting off its alliance with Japan, because Japan attacked America!
Another side-note: these same commentators love to claim that this is an "insidious event covered up by AIPAC (read Jewish) Media" that they only found out about recently… Oh come on, type "liberty incident" into your Google search, the first hit, you guessed it. This despite the central role liberty plays in Israel and America!
As for those that support Israel with Biblical claims. Well that what it says in the Bible. If you don't believe in the Bible, then clearly those arguments don't hold water.
In my opinion there are three groups of people who bring up the above "facts": those who are genuinely ignorant, those that are looking for an excuse to be ignorant, and those that believe in the Bible.
Three excuses and one belief, to be exact.
The same exact story about Obama-care elicits diametrically different responses on Huffingtonpost.com then it does on Foxnews.com.
Like stories on Obama-care, any issue relating to Jews/Israel often results in predictable comment trends, with some innovative comments thrown into the mix.
For example Israel/Jew related stories commonly spur two opposing argument lines.
Anti-Israel= Israel spies on America. Israel takes American money, with negative consequences for America. Israel attacked and killed Americans in the Liberty incident.
Pro-Israel= G-d gave Israel to the Jews. Those that bless Israel will be blessed.
On Fox news the latter is the more prevasive comment. On left-leaning sites the former has the louder voice.
I have always found the two trends an expression of ignorance. The Bible has never been followed by the most religious of followers, even though the three monotheistic beliefs all claim to believe in it. As for the dull anti-Israel comments I told myself that these people great-grand parents believed in the Elders-of-Zion conspiracy and probably thought that Jews use Christian blood in their Matzoh.
However I recently noticed that these beliefs, like 9/11 conspiracy theories in the Middle-East, are really wide-spread. I will give, as I expect others to give me, the benefit of the doubt and offer a different perspective.
1. It is true Israel spies on America, like it does almost every country. Israel is an ally of America NOT America. The reason why Israel's intelligence is from the best in the world is because of its aggressive spying. In the real world of real politics, this is a common practice. Israel does not use this intelligence to kill Americans, but to protect its own citizens. The real question is why Jonathon Pollard -the main Israeli spy that leftists like to bring up- has received such a stiff sentence, compared to other ally-spies.
As a side note these same liberal and predictable commentators NEVER talk about China and its rape of American know-how. I am not surprised, are you?
2. Israel does get 3 billion from America, ALL OF IT MILITARY LOAN GUARANTEES THAT ISRAEL PAYS BACK YEAR AFTER YEAR AND ON TIME. Moreover 70% of these loan guarantees are required and are used to purchase American weaponry, which of course boosts American industry. This is besides the fact that America gets the most powerful military in the larger Middle-east as its closest ally (for more on the obvious benefits of America’s alliance with Israel please see the "linkers and thinkers" series).
3. The most preposterous of all is the mantra " look liberty Israel killed Americans", as if that should undermine 62 years of an America-Israel alliance. Besides the fact that Israel claims that it was an accident, an accident that occurred on June 8 1967 -when Israeli war planes and torpedo boats attacked an American intelligence ship USS Liberty, that was off the coast of Israel in international waters- FORTY THREE YEARS AGO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident)! To use it for anything more than a proof that NO ALLIANCE IS PERFECT, is akin to America cutting off its alliance with Japan, because Japan attacked America!
Another side-note: these same commentators love to claim that this is an "insidious event covered up by AIPAC (read Jewish) Media" that they only found out about recently… Oh come on, type "liberty incident" into your Google search, the first hit, you guessed it. This despite the central role liberty plays in Israel and America!
As for those that support Israel with Biblical claims. Well that what it says in the Bible. If you don't believe in the Bible, then clearly those arguments don't hold water.
In my opinion there are three groups of people who bring up the above "facts": those who are genuinely ignorant, those that are looking for an excuse to be ignorant, and those that believe in the Bible.
Three excuses and one belief, to be exact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
