In applying to Yale law school I was required to submit a 250 word essay on any give topic. Below is the first essay amongst my the three finalists:
The New York Times recently published an article exploring the problematic implications of rampant technological use on the brains of high school students. Yet, the source of the problem is not the abundance and pervasiveness of technology, such as Facebook, smart-phones, and I-pads, but rather its misuse.While our technological age has opened the floodgates of information that was once the privilege of the elite, it has also, ironiclly, created a problem of too much information. But the irony of abundance is not limited to technology. The abundance of food -itself a result of technological knowhow- has created a plethora of unimaginable dilemmas for Americans. Whereas as once our society was afflicted with starvation now we are burdened by over-sized guts and an epidemic of obesity related health problems that kill more Americans each year than malnutrition ever did.
How is it that our society has so abused the abundance we have achieved? Instead of leveraging the, relatively cheap, abundance of healthy produce to engender a well nourished and healthy society we have used an economy of scale to create fast food that unhealthier than it is cheap.. Instead of gorging ourselves on the intellectual bounty of C-span and PBS, we have squandered our access to knowledge on YouTube, online porn, and yellow journalism.
But, like nuclear energy, we must embrace abundance however terrible our failure to choose correctly is. True the higher we climb the greater the fall, but technology is value neutral. It offers us the choice to choose greatness, to actualize the positive inherent in the irony of abundance.
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Monday, November 22, 2010
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Not After 9/11, NOW! Why are Anti-Mosque Protests Sweeping Across America ?
I remember walking through Manhattans Mid-town weeks after 9/11 and I was both dismayed and proud of what I encountered. The protesters were advocating against going to war.
What we didn't see was wide-spread attacks on Muslims. On the contrary most political and religious leaders defended Islam and their American followers. Americans are proud of that too.
Almost 10 years later a new Mosque/community center has been proposed and approved by NYC only blocks away from a ground zero monument yet to be completed. To the families of victims it is seen as the ultimate insult, however legal, to the memory of their loved ones and many regular-Americans agree.
Then we saw The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html?_r=1) published an article exposing the growing trend of anti-Mosque protests highlighting the blatant arguments to suppress religious freedom. The NYT articles point was intended not only to expose a troubling trend but also to conflate the non-racist arguments against the ground zero mosque with the racist protests elsewhere; with the intent of discrediting the arguments against the ground zero mosque.
Yet the fact remains, after 9/11 there was little anti-Islam activity, whereas, now Mosque building across Amercia –reflecting a constitutional right to practice religious freedom- is being challenged!
Recently I have been called a bigot by a reader of my blog who opposed my article questioning the reasoning of building a Mosque so close to ground zero. The full essay can be viewed at http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/between-mosque-and-hard-place.html. But the thesis is that Muslims know there are questions about their beliefs and anger against the actions committed by people who claim to be Muslims. So I asked why not avoid insulting people? What was gained by using religious freedom to again victimize the victims? Did they expect such an actions to strengthen the harmony between Americas religious communities? My conclusion was that whatever the intentions, they forced the average American to choose between a Mosque -representing religious freedom- and a hard place -representing the insult and disregard that victims of 9/11 feel.
Indeed after 9/11 there was no “choice”, every community, except for a few who exercised their freedom to dance in New Jersey as the towers and people burned, gathered together and denounced the suicide-murder. For most Americans, like myself, it was another instance of the triumph of American exceptionalism -rationality and law trumped irrational anger and frustration, and there were no wide-spread attacks on Muslim-American community. After all Muslim were also lost in the inferno of hate, many spoke out against the terror, their religion was victimized by their suicidal coreligionists.
Yet now Americans turn on their tv’s and they see Muslims completely rejecting the feelings of many good and honest Americans. The same America that elected a Black president and refused to blame Islam for Fort Hood the attempted Christmas-day bombing, despite 9/11… Muslim-Americans like Farreed Zakaree, the CNN anchor and writer who returned an ADL award, because the ADL DID recognize the legitimacy, however irrational, of the victims feelings and opposed the mosque ON THOSE GROUNDS.
Muslim-Americans the overwhelming majority who espouse peace could have come out and declared
“WE ARE A PEACFUL RELIGOUN WE BELIEVED THIS MOSQUE WOULD FOSTER UNDERSTANDING AND HARMONY, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF PEACE AND THE STILL TRAUMATIZED VICTIMS, ESSPECIALY CONSIDERING RECENT AMERICAN HISTORY, WE WILL FIND A LESS SENSATIVE AREA IN LOWER MANHATTAN FOR THIS MOSQUE.”
Instead Muslims told me that they opposed the Mosque because of the unnecessary disunity it causes, but now support it because they feel under attack. But I say this is not the way you respond to an attack in America. Not one major America-Muslim organization publicized and acknowledged the feelings of the victims. Not one organization said “you know what we understand”!
Indeed America refuses to blame American-Muslims for the horror committed in its name, and I believe it will continue to do so.
When Americans saw American-Muslims going out of their way to insult America. They said “perhaps Muslims don’t understand the pain this mosque is causing”, let us explain it to them -dissuade them from using this location. That didn’t work. So then they asked “is this what we can expect from the Muslim-American community in the future”? To deliberately insult, like the fringe racists who now feel free to openly stand in front of Mosques with dogs at their side hurling insults? To use freedom of religion to create disharmony amongst religious communities? To be unable to adjust to real concerns by deeply hurt people? To add insult to injury and label the emotionally injured who ONLY remember their children and parents and call them bigots!!! Is this a religion of understanding is this a community which has leaders that understand that the law is a means for coexistence not an ends on to itself?
Of course protesting in front of mosques simply because they are Muslim institutions is wrong. Of course the Mosque/community center is legal, and Muslims are free to build anywhere the law allows them! Of course American-Muslims, (except the American-Muslims that provided support to the 9/11 hijackers) are not to blame for 9/11 and to blame them is wrong! Of Course!
But do Muslim-Americans understand that this Mosque will achieve the what the hijackers were unable to achieve, wide-spread religious conflict? Do Muslim-Americans not feel the grief that so many Americans victimized by 9/11 feel?
Then again by now the Mosque supporters realize what they are doing and continue to act, if they didn't at the onset.
If that is the case it does not make Mosque protesting outside of the ground zero mosque right, but it certainly explains it.
What we didn't see was wide-spread attacks on Muslims. On the contrary most political and religious leaders defended Islam and their American followers. Americans are proud of that too.
Almost 10 years later a new Mosque/community center has been proposed and approved by NYC only blocks away from a ground zero monument yet to be completed. To the families of victims it is seen as the ultimate insult, however legal, to the memory of their loved ones and many regular-Americans agree.
Then we saw The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html?_r=1) published an article exposing the growing trend of anti-Mosque protests highlighting the blatant arguments to suppress religious freedom. The NYT articles point was intended not only to expose a troubling trend but also to conflate the non-racist arguments against the ground zero mosque with the racist protests elsewhere; with the intent of discrediting the arguments against the ground zero mosque.
Yet the fact remains, after 9/11 there was little anti-Islam activity, whereas, now Mosque building across Amercia –reflecting a constitutional right to practice religious freedom- is being challenged!
Recently I have been called a bigot by a reader of my blog who opposed my article questioning the reasoning of building a Mosque so close to ground zero. The full essay can be viewed at http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/between-mosque-and-hard-place.html. But the thesis is that Muslims know there are questions about their beliefs and anger against the actions committed by people who claim to be Muslims. So I asked why not avoid insulting people? What was gained by using religious freedom to again victimize the victims? Did they expect such an actions to strengthen the harmony between Americas religious communities? My conclusion was that whatever the intentions, they forced the average American to choose between a Mosque -representing religious freedom- and a hard place -representing the insult and disregard that victims of 9/11 feel.
Indeed after 9/11 there was no “choice”, every community, except for a few who exercised their freedom to dance in New Jersey as the towers and people burned, gathered together and denounced the suicide-murder. For most Americans, like myself, it was another instance of the triumph of American exceptionalism -rationality and law trumped irrational anger and frustration, and there were no wide-spread attacks on Muslim-American community. After all Muslim were also lost in the inferno of hate, many spoke out against the terror, their religion was victimized by their suicidal coreligionists.
Yet now Americans turn on their tv’s and they see Muslims completely rejecting the feelings of many good and honest Americans. The same America that elected a Black president and refused to blame Islam for Fort Hood the attempted Christmas-day bombing, despite 9/11… Muslim-Americans like Farreed Zakaree, the CNN anchor and writer who returned an ADL award, because the ADL DID recognize the legitimacy, however irrational, of the victims feelings and opposed the mosque ON THOSE GROUNDS.
Muslim-Americans the overwhelming majority who espouse peace could have come out and declared
“WE ARE A PEACFUL RELIGOUN WE BELIEVED THIS MOSQUE WOULD FOSTER UNDERSTANDING AND HARMONY, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF PEACE AND THE STILL TRAUMATIZED VICTIMS, ESSPECIALY CONSIDERING RECENT AMERICAN HISTORY, WE WILL FIND A LESS SENSATIVE AREA IN LOWER MANHATTAN FOR THIS MOSQUE.”
Instead Muslims told me that they opposed the Mosque because of the unnecessary disunity it causes, but now support it because they feel under attack. But I say this is not the way you respond to an attack in America. Not one major America-Muslim organization publicized and acknowledged the feelings of the victims. Not one organization said “you know what we understand”!
Indeed America refuses to blame American-Muslims for the horror committed in its name, and I believe it will continue to do so.
When Americans saw American-Muslims going out of their way to insult America. They said “perhaps Muslims don’t understand the pain this mosque is causing”, let us explain it to them -dissuade them from using this location. That didn’t work. So then they asked “is this what we can expect from the Muslim-American community in the future”? To deliberately insult, like the fringe racists who now feel free to openly stand in front of Mosques with dogs at their side hurling insults? To use freedom of religion to create disharmony amongst religious communities? To be unable to adjust to real concerns by deeply hurt people? To add insult to injury and label the emotionally injured who ONLY remember their children and parents and call them bigots!!! Is this a religion of understanding is this a community which has leaders that understand that the law is a means for coexistence not an ends on to itself?
Of course protesting in front of mosques simply because they are Muslim institutions is wrong. Of course the Mosque/community center is legal, and Muslims are free to build anywhere the law allows them! Of course American-Muslims, (except the American-Muslims that provided support to the 9/11 hijackers) are not to blame for 9/11 and to blame them is wrong! Of Course!
But do Muslim-Americans understand that this Mosque will achieve the what the hijackers were unable to achieve, wide-spread religious conflict? Do Muslim-Americans not feel the grief that so many Americans victimized by 9/11 feel?
Then again by now the Mosque supporters realize what they are doing and continue to act, if they didn't at the onset.
If that is the case it does not make Mosque protesting outside of the ground zero mosque right, but it certainly explains it.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Understanding the Israeli Exhortation "Why Not Them" (2)
2. The Higher Standard or Thomas Friedman, Perspective.
This perspective was offered by Thomas Friedman. Friedman, a New York Times columnist, is despised in the pro-Israel community for his decades of outspoken criticisms of Israel -even during the waves of homicide bombings unleashed by Arafat and HAMAS, following the collapse of the Oslo accords. I must admit that I was often turned off by what I perceived to be the (unsurprising)perpetuation by a Jew of a biased perspective in an already biased Newspaper. That is until I “discovered” his journalistic expose called “Between Beirut and Jerusalem”. There, Friedman asserts that Jewish Israel must hold itself to a higher ethical standard. I will not go into the details of his argument here but it is a compelling explanation of his excessive criticism.
Still the question for the “higher standard perspective” is not whether Israel must hold itself to a higher moral/ethical standard of warfare but rather whether Israel is already meeting this standard and is still being criticized. For example, following Operation Cast Lead to stop years of HAMAS rocket fire on Israeli cities, the expected trend of Israel bashing again emerged. Israel, as usual, contended it could not have fought the war in a more moral/ethical manner.
This YouTube clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX6vyT8RzMo, is of a retired British general testifying in front of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) affirming that Israel did in fact meet this self imposed higher standard.
So from this perspective a question arises: “I can understand that you hold Israel to a higher standard but even after Israel has, or at least made its best effort to, meet that higher standard, why does the disproportionate criticism continue?” Thus critics focus excessively on Israel because they expect more, but the “more” – lift the embargo on Gaza/trust HAMAS; don’t respond to rocket fire when it is shot from amongst civilians; eliminate checkpoints- are simply unrealistic expectations. To meet this higher standard would effectively mean the destruction of Israel. Indeed, the only difference between this perspective and the first is that the latter one focuses on unrealistic expectations and the former is about anti-Semitism.
3. The Quantitative/Qualitative Perspective.
This perspective takes a bifurcated approach to understanding why it is that Israel is the focus of so much negative attention when it is not amongst the major human rights violating states (Congo, Sudan, Iran etc.).
Quantitatively speaking, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict pales in comparison with other conflicts if we compare the number of casualties, illegal acts, and human rights violations caused by other conflicts.
Conversely, if we evaluate this conflict qualitatively –the larger ramifications of the conflict- then one could make the argument that the Israeli/Palestinian does deserve all the attention.
The Darfur, Sudan crises can assist in understanding the difference between the above approaches.
Darfur has seen over 300,000 killed in the past 15 years. From a purely quantitative perspective Darfur is an infinitely more pressing human rights issue then Israel/Palestinian/Arab, where about 15,000 were killed over the past 20 years. However, from a qualitative perspective, the fact that Israel is Americas biggest ally in a region with significant strategic value makes Israel a target of any nation that wants to weaken America's dominant position in the region. Whereas, Darfur is seen, falsely I should add, by these same political forces as “just another episode of Black on Black violence”, i.e. there is relatively little strategic value in making Sudan a big human rights issue.
This perspective offers a rather simple explanation to the underlying question.
Israel receives disproportional criticism, not because of the relatively minor, Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the alleged human rights abuses, but rather as the result of a larger strategic tug-of-war over the Middle-East. In other words the pervasive focus on Israel’s perceived crimes is a superficial manifestation of a deeper more conscious struggle that has a lot less to do with human suffering then it does with economic and strategic interests. The result is America’s support for Israel, defending it from spurious attacks because of Israel’s strategic value to America (please see three part series http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/03/linkers-and-thinkers-is-americas_25.html). While other nations and NGO’s persistent attacks reflect the desire to weaken Israel and thereby weaken America's position in the Middle-East.
All of the above perspectives ask the same underlying question, “why not them” but the individual conclusions they offer -anti-Semitism; your higher standard is unrealistic; and strategic value- are very different.
So now, from these three perspectives, is the rhetorical question, "why not them" a legitimate response to the excessive criticism?
In my opinion it depends on the specific critique.
In other words the cumulative critiques of Israel is really the conflation of three streams of criticism.
In theory, if it was possible to eliminate all the critique stemming from the argument that Israel should be held to an impossible standard, or that Israel has no right to exist, leaving only the strategic component then the response “why not them” would have no bearing on the issue.
The difficulty is knowing when this answer is justified i.e. where the criticism is actually stemming from.
Thus on the surface Harris, was correct in his response to a specific criticism. Because that criticism was perceived to come from one of two arguments. Either from the argument that Israel has no right to exist/defend itself, or that Israel should be held to an impossible standard - After all the Free Gaza Movement wanted to break a blockade that was essential for Israel’s survival. At the same time there was/is clearly a larger strategic influences at play, namely the struggle for control of the Middle-East.
So why didn’t Harris include in his article a response to a valid source of excessive criticism –namely that there is another level that has nothing to do with human rights violations, anti-Semitism, or Israels right to exist, and everything to do with larger strategic interests?
Unfortunately, like Harris, many in the pro-Israel/American community, understand the, anti-Semitic, impossible standard, and quantitative side of this argument but do not appreciate the significance of the qualitative side –the specifics of which I will leave to the astute reader's imagination.
This perspective was offered by Thomas Friedman. Friedman, a New York Times columnist, is despised in the pro-Israel community for his decades of outspoken criticisms of Israel -even during the waves of homicide bombings unleashed by Arafat and HAMAS, following the collapse of the Oslo accords. I must admit that I was often turned off by what I perceived to be the (unsurprising)perpetuation by a Jew of a biased perspective in an already biased Newspaper. That is until I “discovered” his journalistic expose called “Between Beirut and Jerusalem”. There, Friedman asserts that Jewish Israel must hold itself to a higher ethical standard. I will not go into the details of his argument here but it is a compelling explanation of his excessive criticism.
Still the question for the “higher standard perspective” is not whether Israel must hold itself to a higher moral/ethical standard of warfare but rather whether Israel is already meeting this standard and is still being criticized. For example, following Operation Cast Lead to stop years of HAMAS rocket fire on Israeli cities, the expected trend of Israel bashing again emerged. Israel, as usual, contended it could not have fought the war in a more moral/ethical manner.
This YouTube clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX6vyT8RzMo, is of a retired British general testifying in front of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) affirming that Israel did in fact meet this self imposed higher standard.
So from this perspective a question arises: “I can understand that you hold Israel to a higher standard but even after Israel has, or at least made its best effort to, meet that higher standard, why does the disproportionate criticism continue?” Thus critics focus excessively on Israel because they expect more, but the “more” – lift the embargo on Gaza/trust HAMAS; don’t respond to rocket fire when it is shot from amongst civilians; eliminate checkpoints- are simply unrealistic expectations. To meet this higher standard would effectively mean the destruction of Israel. Indeed, the only difference between this perspective and the first is that the latter one focuses on unrealistic expectations and the former is about anti-Semitism.
3. The Quantitative/Qualitative Perspective.
This perspective takes a bifurcated approach to understanding why it is that Israel is the focus of so much negative attention when it is not amongst the major human rights violating states (Congo, Sudan, Iran etc.).
Quantitatively speaking, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict pales in comparison with other conflicts if we compare the number of casualties, illegal acts, and human rights violations caused by other conflicts.
Conversely, if we evaluate this conflict qualitatively –the larger ramifications of the conflict- then one could make the argument that the Israeli/Palestinian does deserve all the attention.
The Darfur, Sudan crises can assist in understanding the difference between the above approaches.
Darfur has seen over 300,000 killed in the past 15 years. From a purely quantitative perspective Darfur is an infinitely more pressing human rights issue then Israel/Palestinian/Arab, where about 15,000 were killed over the past 20 years. However, from a qualitative perspective, the fact that Israel is Americas biggest ally in a region with significant strategic value makes Israel a target of any nation that wants to weaken America's dominant position in the region. Whereas, Darfur is seen, falsely I should add, by these same political forces as “just another episode of Black on Black violence”, i.e. there is relatively little strategic value in making Sudan a big human rights issue.
This perspective offers a rather simple explanation to the underlying question.
Israel receives disproportional criticism, not because of the relatively minor, Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the alleged human rights abuses, but rather as the result of a larger strategic tug-of-war over the Middle-East. In other words the pervasive focus on Israel’s perceived crimes is a superficial manifestation of a deeper more conscious struggle that has a lot less to do with human suffering then it does with economic and strategic interests. The result is America’s support for Israel, defending it from spurious attacks because of Israel’s strategic value to America (please see three part series http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/03/linkers-and-thinkers-is-americas_25.html). While other nations and NGO’s persistent attacks reflect the desire to weaken Israel and thereby weaken America's position in the Middle-East.
All of the above perspectives ask the same underlying question, “why not them” but the individual conclusions they offer -anti-Semitism; your higher standard is unrealistic; and strategic value- are very different.
So now, from these three perspectives, is the rhetorical question, "why not them" a legitimate response to the excessive criticism?
In my opinion it depends on the specific critique.
In other words the cumulative critiques of Israel is really the conflation of three streams of criticism.
In theory, if it was possible to eliminate all the critique stemming from the argument that Israel should be held to an impossible standard, or that Israel has no right to exist, leaving only the strategic component then the response “why not them” would have no bearing on the issue.
The difficulty is knowing when this answer is justified i.e. where the criticism is actually stemming from.
Thus on the surface Harris, was correct in his response to a specific criticism. Because that criticism was perceived to come from one of two arguments. Either from the argument that Israel has no right to exist/defend itself, or that Israel should be held to an impossible standard - After all the Free Gaza Movement wanted to break a blockade that was essential for Israel’s survival. At the same time there was/is clearly a larger strategic influences at play, namely the struggle for control of the Middle-East.
So why didn’t Harris include in his article a response to a valid source of excessive criticism –namely that there is another level that has nothing to do with human rights violations, anti-Semitism, or Israels right to exist, and everything to do with larger strategic interests?
Unfortunately, like Harris, many in the pro-Israel/American community, understand the, anti-Semitic, impossible standard, and quantitative side of this argument but do not appreciate the significance of the qualitative side –the specifics of which I will leave to the astute reader's imagination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
