By Andres Arevalo
It is interesting to witness how much the world has changed in the two years since the world’s financial crisis started. In these two years major challenges to the “world order” have been raised, and the system in which we have all grown up with in this country, capitalism, is now seriously challenged. In his book The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations, Ian Bremmer raises several interesting questions about this topic. I found his comparison between mercantilism and state capitalism fascinating but nonetheless a bit faulty. Mercantilism is generally perceived with negative connotations. Mercantilism generally only benefited the elite that controlled its key industries and sought to take advantage of other world regions, most famously the American colonies. However, I doubt that State Capitalism has the same intentions. In nations such as China and Saudi Arabia the state puts more emphasis on education and health-care than Britain or the Netherlands cared for in the 17th century. Although these nations restrict personal freedoms their citizens are seeing the benefits of the wealth generated by their countries. Purchasing power in nations such as China and Vietnam has dramatically increased since those nations began implementing “state capitalistic” measures. People in these nations now enjoy higher living standards, better education and health coverage. China is one of the few developing nations in track to meet the 2015 Millennium Development Goals which include halving poverty and achieving universal primary education amongst others. In this sense state capitalism should not be viewed as something negative, but rather an alternative way in which nations seek to better the life quality of its citizens. It’s true that it also works as a tool of keeping the political parties of these nations in power, but it’s only able to do so because the political parties responds to the basic needs of its people.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Polio Eradication
By Andres Arevalo
For my UNA-USA internship, I attended a lecture about polio eradication yesterday in the UNICEF headquarters. As part of the American government’s effort to form a deeper partnership with the Islamic World following president Obama’s speech in Cairo in 2009, the State Department partnered with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in joint efforts to eradicate the disease. The partnership is the last step in a wide eradication campaign started in 1988 by the World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF and the Rotary Club that so far has lowered global incidence by 99%. However, Polio is still endemic in four countries, Nigeria, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, three of which are OIC members. Polio is highly contagious disease that may lead to paralysis and in some cases death. Leaders such as the Emir of Argungu Alhaji Sama ‘la Mera, the traditional head of a Northern Nigerian community, spoke about their efforts to vaccinate people against Polio. The Emir emphasized the need to engage traditional leaders in order to reach people in certain regions of the world, particularly in communities like his where fundamental Muslim sects like the Islahuddin refuse vaccines. The Secretary General of the OIC, Dr. Ekmeliddin Ihsanoglu also spoke about the importance of reaching towards “religious and community leaders for help towards polio eradication”, especially since polio infected areas include regions like the Afghan-Pakistani border where Tribal sects control the government. Dr. Ihsanoglu also spoke about the need for “indigenous production of vaccines”, arguing that dependence on foreign funding may bring negative consequences to OIC member states.
Chris Maher of the World Health Organization praised the efforts of countries such as India and Nigeria in their eradication efforts. They are currently on track to become polio free by 2011. However, challenges exist, a recent Polio outbreak in the Central Asian nation of Tajikistan, a non-endemic country, demonstrated that efforts towards eradication should not stop. However the largest risk the operation faces is the funding gap it faces. The joint operation is about 800 million dollars short despite commitments by the U.S government, the OIC, the Islamic Development Bank, and organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. As Saad Houry, Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF, stated, “We may lose all previous investments if we do not reach the goal”. Houry also emphasized the fact that this is a unique opportunity for humanity to completely eradicate a deadly disease, only the second time in history this would be achieved (after smallpox).
For my UNA-USA internship, I attended a lecture about polio eradication yesterday in the UNICEF headquarters. As part of the American government’s effort to form a deeper partnership with the Islamic World following president Obama’s speech in Cairo in 2009, the State Department partnered with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in joint efforts to eradicate the disease. The partnership is the last step in a wide eradication campaign started in 1988 by the World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF and the Rotary Club that so far has lowered global incidence by 99%. However, Polio is still endemic in four countries, Nigeria, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, three of which are OIC members. Polio is highly contagious disease that may lead to paralysis and in some cases death. Leaders such as the Emir of Argungu Alhaji Sama ‘la Mera, the traditional head of a Northern Nigerian community, spoke about their efforts to vaccinate people against Polio. The Emir emphasized the need to engage traditional leaders in order to reach people in certain regions of the world, particularly in communities like his where fundamental Muslim sects like the Islahuddin refuse vaccines. The Secretary General of the OIC, Dr. Ekmeliddin Ihsanoglu also spoke about the importance of reaching towards “religious and community leaders for help towards polio eradication”, especially since polio infected areas include regions like the Afghan-Pakistani border where Tribal sects control the government. Dr. Ihsanoglu also spoke about the need for “indigenous production of vaccines”, arguing that dependence on foreign funding may bring negative consequences to OIC member states.
Chris Maher of the World Health Organization praised the efforts of countries such as India and Nigeria in their eradication efforts. They are currently on track to become polio free by 2011. However, challenges exist, a recent Polio outbreak in the Central Asian nation of Tajikistan, a non-endemic country, demonstrated that efforts towards eradication should not stop. However the largest risk the operation faces is the funding gap it faces. The joint operation is about 800 million dollars short despite commitments by the U.S government, the OIC, the Islamic Development Bank, and organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. As Saad Houry, Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF, stated, “We may lose all previous investments if we do not reach the goal”. Houry also emphasized the fact that this is a unique opportunity for humanity to completely eradicate a deadly disease, only the second time in history this would be achieved (after smallpox).
Maternal Death
by Joanna Kurylo
Every 90 seconds. That is how often a woman dies due to giving birth. That is 90 seconds too often. This week, leaders met at the United Nations not only for the opening of the General Assembly but also to discuss the Millennium Development Goals. By the year 2015, the goal of the MDGs was to cut the number of deaths by 75%. Progress has been made, as a matter of fact, a woman used to die every 60 seconds due to giving birth.
More progress needs to be made, and that is what Amnesty International has been stressing as a part of their “Demand Dignity Campaign.” On September 20th, Amnesty International had launched a “Maternal Death Clock” in the middle of Times Square (it is also available on amnestyusa.org.) The purpose of this campaign was to raise awareness about a particular issue that most people are not aware about. Every 90 seconds, one more number was added to symbolize how many women have died. What may shock people even more is that the United States is one of the countries with the worst statistics on maternal care! The United States is officially one of 40 other countries where they have a greater risk of dying to delivery complications! Amnesty International states, "The US health care is failing women. For those who can afford it, the USA offers some of the best health are in the world. For many, however, that care is beyond reach." Horrifying statistics resonate this.
“Deadly Delivery: The Maternal Health Care Crisis in the USA” a publication by Amnesty International, discusses the various barriers to proper Maternal Health in the United States. Some of the barriers include financial, beurcratic and language. Women of color, those in poverty or women who are immigrants are more likely to die due to various complications.
According to the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development the United States spends more on health care than any other country in the world. Also according to Kulkina, in Sever Obstetric Morbidity in the United States, over 68,000 women died between the years of 2004-2005!
Hopefully, the push to end maternal death will continue. Just because world leaders leave NY and go back to their daily roles, they will still be reminded that though preventable, a woman is still dying every 90 seconds. Even though Amnesty International has submitted all of the petitions (46,000), there are still things that you can do in order to help stop the deaths. Tweet or Facebook the following message, "Every 90 sec, one woman dies giving birth. Tell MDG Summit leaders to end #maternaldeaths by 2015." If you have your own blog or website, please share the clock! One of the biggest obstacles to ending maternal death is lack of knowledge. Please spread what you know today.
Friday, September 24, 2010
The Human Rights Dilema: More Questions Than Answers
by Michelle Consorte
Sanjar Umarov, leader of an opposition party called Sunshine Uzbekistan was released early from a 14-year prison sentence in late November of last year. His original sentence would have kept him locked up from 2005 until 2029. His case is one which points to the enormous amount of human rights abuse and torture cases that, have not gone unchecked, but which have not been stopped or reduced either. At least, not to a level where we can claim sustained 'improvement.'
In fact, Human Rights Watch, a prominent NGO, was so concerned about treatment of prisoners in Uzbekistan that it published a report on 2007 on torture and abuse of prisoners in that country. The report includes an appeal to the Uzbek government to abide by the standards that it had agreed to uphold.
But Mr. Umarov, after his almost two years in solitary confinement, had a novel idea: what if we were to install video cameras in the prisons to monitor them for torture and abuse?
According to an article by the New York Times, Mr. Umarov was held in multiple sites during his incarceration. Where there were cameras, he said, his guards never beat him. Sometimes they were even well mannered. Gasp!
My only concern with this concept is: who would subsequently monitor the cameras? After all, if the system is as corrupt as we envision, is it not possible that whoever is watching the footage could be paid off, or otherwise convinced, to keep knowledge any 'illegal' activities quiet? But, then again, as Mr. Umarov claims, just the threat of punishment for, well, overt punishment might be enough to keep the guards, etc in check. In which case, Mr. Umarov may have struck Human Rights gold.
But the question still remains of who will supply consistent, reliable, and just force behind the threat of the cameras? For, on a macro level, we have no supranational governing body; our international mode of governance has been solely through nation-states since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. On a micro level, unless governments are willing to undergo major reforms and start enforcing the (apparently arbitrary) treaties that they signed, another governmental force needs to step in, and due precisely to these sovereign nation-states, most ruling bodies would be rather unwilling to let another authority step in and take the human rights reigns.
Forgive me for beating a liberal's dead horse, but is it really too much to ask for a simple promise to abide by a set of human rights? Didn't most countries sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or similar treaties meant to steer countries away from such human rights abuses?
Could it be that the definitions provided within these documents are not satisfactory to all parties involved and therefore they are unwilling to abide by the stipulations of such documents? Or, is that just the post-modernist in me talking?
Does it really take a watchdog wielding his own weapon to keep us from using ours? Apparently, and unfortunately, it seems so. In this case, are we really a species full of power-hungry cut-throats, as some realists, like John J. Mearsheimer, often make us out to be? I'd like to think that we had evolved past the cannibalistic phase.
Indeed, I am asking far more questions than I attempt to answer. This is because I am incapable of giving a reasonable answer to the majority of these questions. Still, hopefully, I have started some form of a dialogue which can lead us in the right direction to find these answers, now that the questions have been raised. For, we cannot set our course for universal human rights installment if we have not yet plotted a course. And maybe, that is exactly the problem we've been facing.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
America's Newest Witch
by ESME ELLIS
Christine O'Donnell. What a perfectly ravishing example of American lunacy.
I had assumed that after Madame Palin, we were done with these all-American Madonnas, with little else to do than attempt to re-enact high school power struggles on the American political stage. This was wrong of me- they have found a corner market, a niche to call their own, and the liberal parties in this country would be very, very foolish to dismiss them.
The Tea Party has a simple message and this makes them highly accessible to large portions of the country that have never before felt inclined, galvanized or represented accurately enough to vote. These women appeal on every level- there is something cut-throat about those perfectly glinting teeth, constructed hairstyles, and twinkling eyes. They appeal in the same way Katie Couric appeals- all-American, perfectly put together, and most importantly, a conduit for someone else's voice.
They are the champions of the everyday man, the competition to the educated elite. What is even more worrying is that they have defined what the everyday man ought to look like, and thus have created a permanent voting block. The educated elite become the evil, rather than the salvation. In this, Palin's Tea Party is taking on Plato himself, defying 2,000 years of Western Classicism and literary tradition.
I admit that it is a bit strong of an allegation, but it is important to note that this party only deals in terms of absolutes. Absolutes are comprehensible, accessible, and better yet, easily communicated. There is something classic about the rise of the Tea Party, something vaguely impressive about the whole process of creating a party to defend pure principle. The only downside, really, is that they have created a definition of working class that has to be strictly adhered to. The working class must now only include anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun supporters, or face the excommunication of being labeled liberal. There is very little room for difference of opinion within the ranks of the Tea Party, perhaps because it is still a minority party. And yet, we must ask ourselves, what does it mean, that in this day and age, America's leading minority party is Tea Party, rather than perhaps the Green Party? The Germans have have succeeded in electing a Green- Socialist coalition in the past- America is barely capable of mustering a Green Party contender, never mind victor, each electoral period.
As for the latest saga in the Beauty Queen Diaries, Christine O'Donnell has managed to make herself a Senatorial Contender in the state of Delaware. She is perhaps an increasingly less rare example of what can go wrong when you put lipstick on a bulldog. Witchcraft allegations are the least of her problems. Actually, I don't think they serve much purpose, except to perhaps alienate some of her would-be evangelical supporters. It is certainly an odd position for a candidate of her persuasion to admit, but I assume she is taking an Obama-like " I inhaled- that was the point-" line on this witchcraft affair. In fact, it would almost make me like her as a canidate, and applaud her success in the primaries, if she weren't such a giant nutter.
Christine O'Donnell is, for most Americans, a canidate running purely on issues of sexuality. I literally have no idea about her political stance, other than the fact that she is worse than most great-aunts when it comes to sex. Do a little research, and it turns out Christine has been preaching longer than most middle-aged despots. In the media, she is only covered as the "virginal witch woman" with money problems, and that, combined with her killer smile and easy attitude, has made her a captivating American figure. My personal favorite is the equation of "mixed dorm floors" to , and I quote, " menage-a-trois" rooms. I literally can only imagine what a "menage-a-trois " room would look like. Also, is that a word that we use now? Did she just make it up?
I doubt she will win. That being said, I am secretly thrilled she made it past the primaries. What a prime example of the possibilities in America that still exist.
Christine O'Donnell. What a perfectly ravishing example of American lunacy.
I had assumed that after Madame Palin, we were done with these all-American Madonnas, with little else to do than attempt to re-enact high school power struggles on the American political stage. This was wrong of me- they have found a corner market, a niche to call their own, and the liberal parties in this country would be very, very foolish to dismiss them.
The Tea Party has a simple message and this makes them highly accessible to large portions of the country that have never before felt inclined, galvanized or represented accurately enough to vote. These women appeal on every level- there is something cut-throat about those perfectly glinting teeth, constructed hairstyles, and twinkling eyes. They appeal in the same way Katie Couric appeals- all-American, perfectly put together, and most importantly, a conduit for someone else's voice.
They are the champions of the everyday man, the competition to the educated elite. What is even more worrying is that they have defined what the everyday man ought to look like, and thus have created a permanent voting block. The educated elite become the evil, rather than the salvation. In this, Palin's Tea Party is taking on Plato himself, defying 2,000 years of Western Classicism and literary tradition.
I admit that it is a bit strong of an allegation, but it is important to note that this party only deals in terms of absolutes. Absolutes are comprehensible, accessible, and better yet, easily communicated. There is something classic about the rise of the Tea Party, something vaguely impressive about the whole process of creating a party to defend pure principle. The only downside, really, is that they have created a definition of working class that has to be strictly adhered to. The working class must now only include anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun supporters, or face the excommunication of being labeled liberal. There is very little room for difference of opinion within the ranks of the Tea Party, perhaps because it is still a minority party. And yet, we must ask ourselves, what does it mean, that in this day and age, America's leading minority party is Tea Party, rather than perhaps the Green Party? The Germans have have succeeded in electing a Green- Socialist coalition in the past- America is barely capable of mustering a Green Party contender, never mind victor, each electoral period.
As for the latest saga in the Beauty Queen Diaries, Christine O'Donnell has managed to make herself a Senatorial Contender in the state of Delaware. She is perhaps an increasingly less rare example of what can go wrong when you put lipstick on a bulldog. Witchcraft allegations are the least of her problems. Actually, I don't think they serve much purpose, except to perhaps alienate some of her would-be evangelical supporters. It is certainly an odd position for a candidate of her persuasion to admit, but I assume she is taking an Obama-like " I inhaled- that was the point-" line on this witchcraft affair. In fact, it would almost make me like her as a canidate, and applaud her success in the primaries, if she weren't such a giant nutter.
Christine O'Donnell is, for most Americans, a canidate running purely on issues of sexuality. I literally have no idea about her political stance, other than the fact that she is worse than most great-aunts when it comes to sex. Do a little research, and it turns out Christine has been preaching longer than most middle-aged despots. In the media, she is only covered as the "virginal witch woman" with money problems, and that, combined with her killer smile and easy attitude, has made her a captivating American figure. My personal favorite is the equation of "mixed dorm floors" to , and I quote, " menage-a-trois" rooms. I literally can only imagine what a "menage-a-trois " room would look like. Also, is that a word that we use now? Did she just make it up?
I doubt she will win. That being said, I am secretly thrilled she made it past the primaries. What a prime example of the possibilities in America that still exist.
About Roma people's human rights in Europe – The black hole of the European Union's liberalism
by Adrienn Kácsor
Let me start with a personal announcement: me, I deeply believe that there is no such thing as 'gypsy crime'. Just to make it clear: 'gypsy crime' in Europe means 'crime committed by gypsy people' – the word is the worst stereotype in itself, as far as I am concerned.
How lucky I am that I am writing these sentences out of Hungary. Otherwise, I might be sent to prison for three years.
According to a proposal for new regulations discussed in the Hungarian Parliament last week, from three to five years spent in prison would be the acceptable punishment for those who publicly deny the existence of 'gypsy crime'.
The proposal was made by the members of the Hungarian far-right party named Jobbik. The radical politicians gave a clear explanation for their proposition:“no one should lie in public”.
This totally absurd announcement was based on the result of a public poll conducted by the Hungarian Perspective Institution ('Nézőpont Intézet'): it turned out that “89% of the Hungarian population think that gypsy crime is an existing problem in Hungary”.
In this sense, János Volner, one of the Jobbik politicians said that they would like to create “open and sincere public discourse on the serious social issue of gypsy people, just as they did it in France”, referring to France's removal of the Roma camps.
Unfortunately, one could expect that the party 'Jobbik' would continue its radical actions, once it enters the Parliament. (Actually, Jobbik has become the member of the Parliament this May, due to the results of the 2010 elections, as the third biggest party, with more than 12% of the votes received). But no one might expect them to go this far. I mean, “creating open and sincere public discourse” by announcing that committing crime is a kind of behavior based on one's ethnicity – in liberal countries this is simply called racism, not sincerity.
The reactions to this proposal have been mixed in the last few days. The Hungarian left party immediately said that Jobbik politicians should be sent to prison. The prime minister Viktor Orbán was only smiling on the proposal, not really considering it to be serious.
But this is completely serious, as I feel: even if the proposal is rejected in the Parliament, as one could hope, the fact that this proposition already managed to reach the Parliament and the public discourse – this is something to take seriously, not to smile on it.
And then rather not speak about the result of the poll, that almost 90% of the asked believe that 'gypsy crime' exists. This is really time for Hungarian politicians and intellectuals to start debating over how to solve this serious issue.
A couple of days ago, EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding in a BBC interview said that 'it is not about a minor question. It is not one sentence in a law which is not appropriate or so on and so forth. Here we touch upon the fundamental values on which Europe has been built since World War II: respect for the individual and non-discrimination against racial, ethnic or national groups”, speaking about how French authorities have deported Roma people from France.
I must agree with Viviane Reding's opinion.
It really seems that Roma people are not taken into account in Europe, when speaking about individual's rights...
Monday, September 20, 2010
Park51 Revisit
I wanted to share this with people but wasn't sure how I should do so. This seemed a semi-appropriate forum, so here you are.
Now that polls have closed Afghanistan, the task of counting ballots, disseminating accounts of fraud must now decide which of the more than 2,500 candidates vying for the 249 seats will sneak their way in. Most likely, weeks will be absorbed trying to sort through accounts of fraud and deciding which votes to validate and which to throw out. Pessimistically, the fraud that is eventually addressed may only be a small minority of all that occurred as Afghans tried to make their voices heard.
Threats of violence greatly hindered access to polling stations, willingness of Afghans to vote, and the ability of independent election observers to report on polling conditions. Even before election day, about 1,000 polling stations closed because the safety of those operating them could not be obtained the New York Times reported. The Taliban did everything in its power to dissuade Afghans from voting. At least 10 people were killed through these attacks. Not only did the Taliban throw grenades and assault voters with gunfire, but also made clear a threat to amputate the fingers, ears, and noses of those who were bold enough to vote.
This threat of violence kept many off the streets. An estimated 3.6 million votes were cast, 1 million shy of the results from last year's presidential election. Only half as many international observers maintained a presence of in the country compared to the year before. Again, due to the threat of violence, these observers were confined to polling stations in province capitols.
Even given the small number of international observers, reports of fraud were abundant. There were cases in which polling stations locked their doors for hours well ballots were uniformly filled out and boxes were stuffed. Many voters reported to the permanent ink coating the index finger after one has cast a ballot easily washed off, paving the way for repeat voting. Some areas reported that no ballot, pens, or ink even showed up at their stations, despite the fact that they were open. In 2009 a fourth of the ballots were thrown out due to complaints of fraud. However, it's still too early to say really how deeply widespread the fraud this go around is.
Staffon de Mistura, a UN special Afghanistan Representative was quoted in the New York Times as saying, "There's not, so far, a clear indication of massive or systematic fraud, but there will very likely be quite a few cases of retail fraud combined with irregularities." However, these seemingly small cases of fraud can have significant effect on the results of a parliamentary election. Provinces are allotted seats based on their approximated populations (an actual census hasn't been taken in decades). Therefore, the top number of vote getters in the province win the seats. Voting gaps between the top candidate and the lesser candidates may be large, however farther down where candidates are really competing for the last couple of spots, a few votes can make a large difference.
It seems apparent that Afghan voters lack confidence in their political system. Such frequent accounts of fraud and threats of violence undermine the legitimacy of the eventual parliament. For any government to truly reflect the interests of the people and command authority they must be chosen by the people. This sentiment is little reflected in Afghan opinion. Until this is rectified, little can be done to codify a stable government.
Yet, there are small signs of hope. Sangar Rahimi reports that at the very least urban candidates are campaigning on platforms of social justice, jobs, women's rights, and equality. There is no indication that the candidates themselves actually hold such sentiments or will do anything to advance them, however if the job of a candidate's campaign is to tell people what they want to hear, then at least this reflection of public opinion gives a little light to where Afghans want their country to go.
-Maeve Dwyer
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Did ICTY brought Trouble or the Rule of Law in Balkans
by Dardan Lajqi
The former Yugoslavia countries have always had people that were over the law or differently said people that are immune to the law. International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia since its establishment in 1993 has worked to punish the law breakers and especially the ones that the Yugoslavia itself was unable to do so. For those 17 years of work ICTY has charged more than 160 people and 94 of them were Serbs, 29 Croats, 9 Albanians, 9 Bosniaks, 2 Macedonians and 2 Montenegrins (ICTY). The prime minister of Serbia and many more high rank generals, ministers and people with high power within their states were also charged from ICTY. An article published in BBC says five former top Serbian officials were found guilty on some or all the charges relating to the 1990s conflict. Thus, ICTY was a great help in bringing the rule of law in Balkans, but still there are people that argue that ICTY wasn`t equal on assigning punishments and that the ICTY mission was very expensive and it should be closed.
ICTY has charged plenty of powerful people and thus showed Balkan citizens that no one is stronger than the law itself. People in former Yugoslavian countries are now familiar with their rights. From now on, the population in former Yugoslavia cannot be cheated from its leadership. Even the leadership itself is now aware that they cannot just break laws, because the law is more powerful than them and that in case they break it, its citizens will want justice and that the world will do something, if the state itself doesn’t. ICTY also brought hope and safety to the people living in the former Yugoslavia, because their rights are now protected more seriously and that no state leader can`t change or deny their basic human rights. People now know that even if in war, the rule of law is on their country and that they still have their human rights protected and if not from their country, then from a tribunal similar to that of the ICTY.
Nonetheless, there are still people that think that ICTY created trouble by being unbalanced or unequal with their charges while some also want to close ICTY because of high operation costs. They might say that they have charged Serbians way too much, compared with others, while there were also victims of some of the war crimes. But, in my opinion the attackers and the ruling force were Serbians, and the oppression itself came from Serbians, they were the ones conducting crime and ordering crime that’s why they have so many more charges compared to other nationalities of the former Yugoslavia. Other nationalities or other war participants have charges too, but they just have much less charges compared with the Serbs, this also means that there was much fewer crimes conducted from others compared with the Serbian crimes. ICTY spends a lot of funds to operate each year but still it should not be closed because without its help the former Yugoslavian countries would have never attained the rule of law. Besides that ICTY should still not be closed, because there are still some people on the trial and another two haven`t got arrested yet.
There is no doubt that the ICTY has made an enormous contribution to international criminal and humanitarian law. ICTY has done great work those 17 years of its existence, and it still keeps doing a great job. They made people feel safer and with that they helped on bringing the confidence and the hope to people, which was needed to bring the rule of law. It was indeed needed to make people aware that their human rights are protected from a force existing outside the boundaries of their country. Citizens are now stronger than ever and only because they feel that they have rights now and a place to go and complain where their voice will be heard.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Big Brother's Reading Your BBMs
By Michelle Consorte
With the new generation of technology that has fallen into the lap of the general populace, has also come a new wave of regulations and patrolling at a similarly uncomfortable distance. The ability to regulate what types of communications go on and what information is sent to who becomes increasingly difficult as new portable technologies and encryption codes continue to become more complex as to allow more privacy. These new technologies also allow for the easier and more rapid spread of ideas. Both of which will definitely put off authoritarian and despotic-esque governments like China, Russia, and the several members of the United Arab Emirates. These governments have recently taken more drastic measures to try to stifle these novel developments.
Having been at my internship at a human rights organization for 2 days, I feel that I am adequately qualified to assess this situation as a direct violation of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Humor aside, the actions of these countries legitimately cross clearly-set lines of human rights. Whether you belong to the school of thought which honors international law as a binding legal framework, or that which assumes international law to be more ‘guidelines’ than actual rules, you cannot deny that these codes have indeed been broken.
China was the first country to come into the media’s recent spotlight as having taken censorship and suppression a bit too far. China’s transgressions were apparently so offensive that Google Inc, the world’s premier information provider, initially chose to leave the country rather than submit to the censorship laws that were being imposed on the company.
However, after much deliberation and communication, Google, Inc decided to remain in China, despite, the intensive and slightly invasive censorship enforced by the Chinese government. According to Google Inc’s blog, the internet giant apparently reached a compromise with China. Instead of automatically redirecting all users, Google Inc is taking a small percentage of them to a landing page on Google.cn that links to Google.com.hk—where users can conduct web search or continue to use Google.cn services like music and text translate, Google Inc can provide locally without filtering. “This approach," states the blog, “ensures we stay true to our commitment not to censor our results on Google.cn and gives users access to all of our services from one page.” Still, if internet giant Google Inc were originally intending to pull out we can see the impact that China’s steadily tightening supervision of the Chinese Web is having.
Besides attempting to control the vast abyss that is the internet, certain countries are also trying to take command of more personal communication: texting and emailing, primarily from BlackBerry Smart phones. Certain countries in The United Arab Emirates are planning to suspend BlackBerry services like email and text messaging in October. This is because the devices use highly encrypted data which is sent through a closed, global network operated by Research In Motion, the company that produces BlackBerries. Since the data is so highly encrypted and never hits the open Internet, it cannot easily be tracked by governments on a large scale. In other words, if Big Brother can’t watch your BBMs, then apparently, you can’t have them.
Additionally, Russian authorities have recently taken to confiscating laptops under the pretext of them having illegally-downloaded Microsoft software on them. It should be noted, though, that most of the confiscated laptops have been taken from activist groups that plan activities and hold missions that run counter to governmental policies. The tactic works to stifle such activism and uprisings. One such group, Baikal Environmental Wave, which was organizing protests against Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin’s decision to reopen a paper factory that had been polluting Lake Baikal, was intercepted by Russian police who took the group’s laptops. The group was then charged with piracy, even though members stated that the software was legal, and were even able to produce original receipts.
Originally, Microsoft seemed to be siding with the government. However, on Monday, the company’s senior vice president and general counsel, Brad Smith, issued the following statement from its headquarters in Redmond, Wash: “We want to be clear that we unequivocally abhor any attempt to leverage intellectual property rights to stifle political advocacy or pursue improper personal gain,” Mr. Smith said in a post on the company’s blog. “We are moving swiftly to seek to remove any incentive or ability to engage in such behavior.” Microsoft also implemented a new policy of an automatic blanket software license to advocacy groups and media outlets so that any computer owned by these groups containing Microsoft software is considered legal, thus making it much more difficult for authorities to charge and stop opposition groups. And the battle between technology, business, and private citizens continues ever onward, only escalated by the emerging technologies.
All of these bring to mind, for me at least, George Orwell’s 1984, and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. In both of these novels, for those of you who haven’t brushed up on your high school literature in a while, both of these works describe authoritarian governments, complete with mind control, drugs that force people into submission, and propaganda powerful enough to alter years of history in minutes. That is not to suggest that governments have gone quite that far. However, there has indeed been a move of governments to invade the privacy of civilians and put barriers and restrictions on various types of communications, which, unfortunately, makes some of the instances in these novels, once seen as ludicrous and impossible, seem not too far off.
With the new generation of technology that has fallen into the lap of the general populace, has also come a new wave of regulations and patrolling at a similarly uncomfortable distance. The ability to regulate what types of communications go on and what information is sent to who becomes increasingly difficult as new portable technologies and encryption codes continue to become more complex as to allow more privacy. These new technologies also allow for the easier and more rapid spread of ideas. Both of which will definitely put off authoritarian and despotic-esque governments like China, Russia, and the several members of the United Arab Emirates. These governments have recently taken more drastic measures to try to stifle these novel developments.
Having been at my internship at a human rights organization for 2 days, I feel that I am adequately qualified to assess this situation as a direct violation of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Humor aside, the actions of these countries legitimately cross clearly-set lines of human rights. Whether you belong to the school of thought which honors international law as a binding legal framework, or that which assumes international law to be more ‘guidelines’ than actual rules, you cannot deny that these codes have indeed been broken.
China was the first country to come into the media’s recent spotlight as having taken censorship and suppression a bit too far. China’s transgressions were apparently so offensive that Google Inc, the world’s premier information provider, initially chose to leave the country rather than submit to the censorship laws that were being imposed on the company.
However, after much deliberation and communication, Google, Inc decided to remain in China, despite, the intensive and slightly invasive censorship enforced by the Chinese government. According to Google Inc’s blog, the internet giant apparently reached a compromise with China. Instead of automatically redirecting all users, Google Inc is taking a small percentage of them to a landing page on Google.cn that links to Google.com.hk—where users can conduct web search or continue to use Google.cn services like music and text translate, Google Inc can provide locally without filtering. “This approach," states the blog, “ensures we stay true to our commitment not to censor our results on Google.cn and gives users access to all of our services from one page.” Still, if internet giant Google Inc were originally intending to pull out we can see the impact that China’s steadily tightening supervision of the Chinese Web is having.
Besides attempting to control the vast abyss that is the internet, certain countries are also trying to take command of more personal communication: texting and emailing, primarily from BlackBerry Smart phones. Certain countries in The United Arab Emirates are planning to suspend BlackBerry services like email and text messaging in October. This is because the devices use highly encrypted data which is sent through a closed, global network operated by Research In Motion, the company that produces BlackBerries. Since the data is so highly encrypted and never hits the open Internet, it cannot easily be tracked by governments on a large scale. In other words, if Big Brother can’t watch your BBMs, then apparently, you can’t have them.
Additionally, Russian authorities have recently taken to confiscating laptops under the pretext of them having illegally-downloaded Microsoft software on them. It should be noted, though, that most of the confiscated laptops have been taken from activist groups that plan activities and hold missions that run counter to governmental policies. The tactic works to stifle such activism and uprisings. One such group, Baikal Environmental Wave, which was organizing protests against Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin’s decision to reopen a paper factory that had been polluting Lake Baikal, was intercepted by Russian police who took the group’s laptops. The group was then charged with piracy, even though members stated that the software was legal, and were even able to produce original receipts.
Originally, Microsoft seemed to be siding with the government. However, on Monday, the company’s senior vice president and general counsel, Brad Smith, issued the following statement from its headquarters in Redmond, Wash: “We want to be clear that we unequivocally abhor any attempt to leverage intellectual property rights to stifle political advocacy or pursue improper personal gain,” Mr. Smith said in a post on the company’s blog. “We are moving swiftly to seek to remove any incentive or ability to engage in such behavior.” Microsoft also implemented a new policy of an automatic blanket software license to advocacy groups and media outlets so that any computer owned by these groups containing Microsoft software is considered legal, thus making it much more difficult for authorities to charge and stop opposition groups. And the battle between technology, business, and private citizens continues ever onward, only escalated by the emerging technologies.
All of these bring to mind, for me at least, George Orwell’s 1984, and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. In both of these novels, for those of you who haven’t brushed up on your high school literature in a while, both of these works describe authoritarian governments, complete with mind control, drugs that force people into submission, and propaganda powerful enough to alter years of history in minutes. That is not to suggest that governments have gone quite that far. However, there has indeed been a move of governments to invade the privacy of civilians and put barriers and restrictions on various types of communications, which, unfortunately, makes some of the instances in these novels, once seen as ludicrous and impossible, seem not too far off.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Osama bin Laden is Laughing at Us: The Counterproductivity of American Islamophobia and How We Can Begin to Stop It
by Elizabeth Dovell
This is exactly what they wanted: to change and disrupt America’s way of life. The terror attacks perpetrated on 9/11/01 continue to influence our lives today; not just the memory of that horrific day, but the fear that has been instilled in the American public since the attacks. It is a continuation of their terrorism- to spread doubt, fear, uncertainty. In some respects, the enemy has already won- not just against “white America,” but against Muslim-Americans as well. The American Muslim- frankly, all Muslims not party to terror networks (believe it or not, they’re out there, folks)- is just as much or as little of a threat as your Judeo-Christian neighbor. Judge people based on character, not religion. While religion may indeed shape one’s life, it does not dictate action. Sure, there are plenty of Muslims in the United States who are criminals. There are also plenty of Christians, Jews, etc. who have broken the law and are menaces to society. We are making a serious mistake when we judge people solely on their religion. It’s not just bigoted, it’s irresponsible.
So why have we betrayed the Muslim community in this country? Is it because they are not as “American” as we are? Would we dare say such a thing about African-Americans or Asian-Americans? I myself am only a third-generation American...on one side. My maternal great-grandparents fled the pogroms of Russia and the Ukraine, and my father, born and raised in the United Kingdom, only became a United States citizen five years ago. So, really, how “American” am I? How “American” are the rest of us? That is precisely why the “it’s just not American” argument with regards to the Islamic community center at Park Place upsets and frustrates me. Why is it not American? The last time I checked, the United States was not a theocracy. Unlike states such as Saudi Arabia, we have no official state religion. Unofficially, Christianity is the established religion in this country, purely for majority’s sake. We are a melting pot nation- and I, for one, am proud of that.
I recently saw a post written by a friend of a friend on a social networking site. The user said, with regards to the Islamic community center, that this was America, and what did we need a mosque for anyway? Well, my friend. Would you dare say “this is America, what do we need synagogues for anyway?” If so, you would have been slammed as an anti-Semite. Nowadays, in many parts of this country, a statement like that is met with fervent nods of agreement.
In a recent New York Times Op-Ed piece, Nicholas Kristof quoted a Newsweek article concerning the turmoil caused by Park51: “Newsweek quoted a Taliban operative, Zabihullah, about opposition to the mosque near ground zero: ‘By preventing this mosque from being built, America is doing us a big favor. It’s providing us with more recruits, donations and popular support.’ Mr. Zabihullah added, ‘The more mosques you stop, the more jihadis we will get.’”
I think the ultimate triumph over the enemy would be to allow the community center at Park Place. Sure, it would take some convincing, some getting used to. Even better, the community center should emphasize the fact that multiple religions are welcome. Of course, the prayer room on the top floor should still be constructed, perhaps along with a nondenominational prayer room as well. Think about it: a place of peace, reconciliation, and cultural understanding located quite near the place we were attacked in order to break our morale, our spirit, and create chaos and strife? It may not solve the problem of Islamophobia in this country, but it's a pretty good step in the right direction.
This is exactly what they wanted: to change and disrupt America’s way of life. The terror attacks perpetrated on 9/11/01 continue to influence our lives today; not just the memory of that horrific day, but the fear that has been instilled in the American public since the attacks. It is a continuation of their terrorism- to spread doubt, fear, uncertainty. In some respects, the enemy has already won- not just against “white America,” but against Muslim-Americans as well. The American Muslim- frankly, all Muslims not party to terror networks (believe it or not, they’re out there, folks)- is just as much or as little of a threat as your Judeo-Christian neighbor. Judge people based on character, not religion. While religion may indeed shape one’s life, it does not dictate action. Sure, there are plenty of Muslims in the United States who are criminals. There are also plenty of Christians, Jews, etc. who have broken the law and are menaces to society. We are making a serious mistake when we judge people solely on their religion. It’s not just bigoted, it’s irresponsible.
So why have we betrayed the Muslim community in this country? Is it because they are not as “American” as we are? Would we dare say such a thing about African-Americans or Asian-Americans? I myself am only a third-generation American...on one side. My maternal great-grandparents fled the pogroms of Russia and the Ukraine, and my father, born and raised in the United Kingdom, only became a United States citizen five years ago. So, really, how “American” am I? How “American” are the rest of us? That is precisely why the “it’s just not American” argument with regards to the Islamic community center at Park Place upsets and frustrates me. Why is it not American? The last time I checked, the United States was not a theocracy. Unlike states such as Saudi Arabia, we have no official state religion. Unofficially, Christianity is the established religion in this country, purely for majority’s sake. We are a melting pot nation- and I, for one, am proud of that.
I recently saw a post written by a friend of a friend on a social networking site. The user said, with regards to the Islamic community center, that this was America, and what did we need a mosque for anyway? Well, my friend. Would you dare say “this is America, what do we need synagogues for anyway?” If so, you would have been slammed as an anti-Semite. Nowadays, in many parts of this country, a statement like that is met with fervent nods of agreement.
In a recent New York Times Op-Ed piece, Nicholas Kristof quoted a Newsweek article concerning the turmoil caused by Park51: “Newsweek quoted a Taliban operative, Zabihullah, about opposition to the mosque near ground zero: ‘By preventing this mosque from being built, America is doing us a big favor. It’s providing us with more recruits, donations and popular support.’ Mr. Zabihullah added, ‘The more mosques you stop, the more jihadis we will get.’”
I think the ultimate triumph over the enemy would be to allow the community center at Park Place. Sure, it would take some convincing, some getting used to. Even better, the community center should emphasize the fact that multiple religions are welcome. Of course, the prayer room on the top floor should still be constructed, perhaps along with a nondenominational prayer room as well. Think about it: a place of peace, reconciliation, and cultural understanding located quite near the place we were attacked in order to break our morale, our spirit, and create chaos and strife? It may not solve the problem of Islamophobia in this country, but it's a pretty good step in the right direction.
September 11 in 2010: The Day of Frustrations
by Adrienn Kácsor
NEW YORK, Sept. 11 -
A lot of screaming and shouting what mostly characterized the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Whole day's atmosphere became embodied by the debate over the planned Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero, as the Annual Commemoration Ceremony was followed by rallies for and against the mosque.
This year's September 11 was not only about commemorations and ceremonies, but rather about angry protests, as one might expect.
During last week, there had been several appeals to the public to respect the sensitivity of 9/11. Still, some protesters armed with placards became already visible during the Official Commemoration Ceremony held at Zuccotti Park in the morning.
However, the tensions peaked during the afternoon, as the rallies had previously been announced to 2PM. Both sides held their own protest at the same time, but on the opposite ends of Park Place.
The two blocks distance plus the numerous cordons and policemen proved to be sufficient to subdue the protesters. No physical violence occurred on Saturday, but even more yelling and arguing – not only about the legacy of the “Ground Zero Mosque” (just as everyone calls the Islamic Cultural Center), but mainly about the meaning of American identity, democracy and religious freedom.
“We must respond to the provocation” - says Sharon Eolis, one organizer of the rally in support the mosque. “We are here to remember as well, to protect the memory of those people who were killed 9 years ago. We do not want to be disrespectful of their memories, but we must stand clearly against the Tea Party to protect our constitutional rights”.
Thousands of people joined the demonstration organized by Sharon and her friends on Broadway, on the west side of City Hall Park, with placards telling to “Stop the racist war against Muslim people” and “Islam NOT EQUAL to War”. For most of them, the scandal of the Ground Zero Mosque has become a clear political question about rights, as well as a strong protest against the growing islamophobia of the American society that Muslims could recently identify.
Meanwhile, a crowd of several hundreds of opponents of the mosque gathered around the corner of West Broadway and Park Place -there seemed to be less people than two blocks away. Most of them were holding American flags in their hands.
“Simply do not build the mosque here, that would be absolutely insensitive toward the many families, who lost one of their lovers during the terrorist attacks. I mean, this is the place where almost 3 thousands Americans were killed. People died here as their bodies were burnt. ” - says David, 55-year-old.
On both sides, the same arguments had been repeated constantly during the last few weeks, as the American media has been endlessly focused on the debate over the mosque. On one side, one would argue that it would be absolutely insensitive toward “Americans” to build an Islamic Cultural Center just two blocks away from the former World Trade Center – this point of view is similar to the terminology used by the Conservatives.
On the other side, people fear losing the essence of the American democracy, in the name of religious freedom that should be guaranteed for everyone – the point which was frequently emphasized by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and President Barack Obama as well. In this sense, the intense public discussion also turned into a political question between Republicans and Conservatives.
On Saturday, September 11, almost everyone, who took part in one of the protests, expressed strong opinion or feelings about the mosque and the related topics. It seemed that after weeks of ceaseless discussions, it was still more essential for thousands of New Yorkers to speak out their frustrations, rather than to commemorate silently. However, everyone asked was fully aware that it might have been insensitive on the day of 9/11.
There were a group of youngsters, inside the cordons on West Broadway, all of them in their twenties, who were not trying to state loudly their point of view. Instead, 6 or 7 of them did meditation in the middle of the shouting crowd.
“Shamata or Calm Abiding is the type of meditation that is possible to do in such a noise” - says Patrick Groneman, the most well- trained 'meditator' from the group. “We do not want to say opinion about the mosque. We are here just to be present here, to get experience here and to silently show that we are present and we commemorate today, instead of the many frustrations.”
Around 5PM, Patrick and his friends finished their 2- hour-long meditation and were about to leave the protest. A few minutes later the thousands of people did the same.
10 minutes after 5PM the shouting and yelling crowd calmed down, as New Yorkers started to leave the surrounding of Ground Zero to get home.
A Quiet Street
In the midst of political and religious unrest, the heroes of 9/11 return to remember.
By Esmé Ellis
Long after the protesters around the Park51 “9/11 mosque” site had faced off and gone home, and after the tourists had come to examine the fabled site and taken their photos, the robust sound of bagpipes and applause echoed in the empty space of Ground Zero. A street parallel to the site glowed gold with candlelight, and the fenced-off area boasted a surging crowd, firetrucks with their lights, and music.
The Emerald Brigade, New York Fire Department’s own bagpipe association, gathered together as a group in the center of the crowd, performing songs of remembrance and commemoration, while firefighters from all around the Northeast and the continental United States congregated on the small side street parallel the site of Ground Zero. The uniforms in the crowd displayed the different insignias of brigades all around the country: Anaheim, Coral Springs, Pheonix, Margate Flounder, and even Australia were among those represented on Greenwich Street.
Open container laws were blatantly overlooked, as uniformed men went in and out of a local Irish pub, talking with colleagues and introducing their families around. The crowd surged in the fenced off area, army men mixing with police, and Marines lifting their glasses to passing firemen.
Deputy Fire-chief Mooney stood alongside the 50 ft bronze memorial running along the west wall commemorating the firemen who sacrificed their lives in the blazes of 9/11, greeting fellow firemen and explaining the purpose evening to the curious passersby. He declined to be quoted for Bard Politik Daily, but expressed his appreciation for the sentiment on display around him that evening.
Behind the deputy fire chief, candles illuminated the copper color of the memorial, which depicts firefighters braving flames and names of the fallen. Men in uniform stepped forward to lay a hand on the wall, often pausing by a particular name, and kneeling. The night progressed, and flowers piled high in front of the bronze relief.
A Brooklyn firefighter, who did not wish to be named, explained the origins of the events of the day. “ It started a couple of years ago as an impromptu moment, with only a few people, but as you can see, those people kept coming back every year, and it got big.“ He gestured out at the crowd of fire fighters and their families, milling around the block. “-And now, well, I guess it is a sort of unspoken tradition. We all come back here every year to see each other."
As it grew dark, two beams of light shot into the sky, tall over the heads of the gathering. They reached high into the sky, two phantom towers designed to replace the ones that fell. The “Tribute in Light”, as the installation is called, is the brainchild of artists Julian Laverdiere and Paul Myoda. Each anniversary, 88 searchlights are placed in a square formation near Ground Zero and the light rises up to cloud level, seen as far away as New Jersey on clear nights. The show is projected to occur until the 10th anniversary of the attacks.
A senior firefighter looked up at the pale cylindrical lights in the sky, before turning back to face the party.“Our memory goes on,” he recited carefully. “ This day will always be a sad reminder of the events nine years ago.” Around him, fellow firefighters nodded, and then they slowly dispersed, to go talk, smoke, or drink, free to wander down the middle of the closed off street on a warm September evening.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
And God spoke to Terry Jones...
-Maeve Dwyer
The world may breathe easier today, and perhaps lend their thoughts to more pressing matters, knowing the threatened Qur'an burning by Terry Jones and his congregation at the Dove World Outreach Center officially has been canceled. In an interview this morning on NBC's Today Show Pastor Terry Jones announced that just as God spoke to Abraham commending his obedience while saving Isaac from his fate, he too had been blessed with divine council telling him his point had been made and there was no need to proceed with the burning. "We feel that, whenever we started this out, one of our reason was to show, to expose that there is an element of Islam is very dangerous and very radical. I feel we have definitely accomplished that mission," Jones said this morning in reference to widespread protests and death that occurred when NATO forces open fired on protesters scaling a compound fence in Afghanistan.
As the Washington Post reported, the commotion started on July 12 when Jones started posting various anti-Islamic messages on Twitter including '9/11/2010 Int Burn a Koran Day'. A Facebook group apparently amassing over 500 members was later created (though it seems to have been deleted more recently...). Euro Islam.Info, run by a Harvard Professor, first reported the story, however little attention was paid to the pastor of the approx. 50 member congregation. The Qur'an burning threat sprang onto the national and international media stage only this past week or so in the wake of all the Park51 controversy. A CNN interview with Jones from July gained widespread circulation on Youtube. Protests sparked across the Middle East and US embassy were asked to access their security situations.
The story caught the attention of high level personal both within this country and abroad. American congregations have burnt Qur'an's before, but there was worry with regard to the media already surrounding Park51 and American- Islamic relations. Obama, Hilary Clinton, and General Petraeus all made personal condemnations of the proposed act, insisting US troops abroad would be in danger. Defense Secretary Gates even personally called Jones to persuade him not to act.
I find it absolutely amazing that Jones, whose church in Gainsville holds low standing within the community, had the ability to create such worldwide uproar. A man who usually adresses no more than 50 people, commanded the attention of the nation's highest offices. The media jumped on the story, thrusting it to stages that should have been well beyond its reach. (And now look, here I am blogging about this!). I find a large part of myself amazed that the president, out of all the other concerns he must be faced with, felt this large enough to speak on, paid such attention to it, ensuring that people across the world would know of the insignificant pastor's plans. Furthermore, that the issue was even brought to the president's attention in the first place is astounding. Do we look at social media for that? The media's obsession with American-Islamic relations? Understandably, had images of the event found their way online, they would make prime resources to spur anti-American sentiment. Still, I'm not sure what to think.
The world may breathe easier today, and perhaps lend their thoughts to more pressing matters, knowing the threatened Qur'an burning by Terry Jones and his congregation at the Dove World Outreach Center officially has been canceled. In an interview this morning on NBC's Today Show Pastor Terry Jones announced that just as God spoke to Abraham commending his obedience while saving Isaac from his fate, he too had been blessed with divine council telling him his point had been made and there was no need to proceed with the burning. "We feel that, whenever we started this out, one of our reason was to show, to expose that there is an element of Islam is very dangerous and very radical. I feel we have definitely accomplished that mission," Jones said this morning in reference to widespread protests and death that occurred when NATO forces open fired on protesters scaling a compound fence in Afghanistan.
As the Washington Post reported, the commotion started on July 12 when Jones started posting various anti-Islamic messages on Twitter including '9/11/2010 Int Burn a Koran Day'. A Facebook group apparently amassing over 500 members was later created (though it seems to have been deleted more recently...). Euro Islam.Info, run by a Harvard Professor, first reported the story, however little attention was paid to the pastor of the approx. 50 member congregation. The Qur'an burning threat sprang onto the national and international media stage only this past week or so in the wake of all the Park51 controversy. A CNN interview with Jones from July gained widespread circulation on Youtube. Protests sparked across the Middle East and US embassy were asked to access their security situations.
The story caught the attention of high level personal both within this country and abroad. American congregations have burnt Qur'an's before, but there was worry with regard to the media already surrounding Park51 and American- Islamic relations. Obama, Hilary Clinton, and General Petraeus all made personal condemnations of the proposed act, insisting US troops abroad would be in danger. Defense Secretary Gates even personally called Jones to persuade him not to act.
I find it absolutely amazing that Jones, whose church in Gainsville holds low standing within the community, had the ability to create such worldwide uproar. A man who usually adresses no more than 50 people, commanded the attention of the nation's highest offices. The media jumped on the story, thrusting it to stages that should have been well beyond its reach. (And now look, here I am blogging about this!). I find a large part of myself amazed that the president, out of all the other concerns he must be faced with, felt this large enough to speak on, paid such attention to it, ensuring that people across the world would know of the insignificant pastor's plans. Furthermore, that the issue was even brought to the president's attention in the first place is astounding. Do we look at social media for that? The media's obsession with American-Islamic relations? Understandably, had images of the event found their way online, they would make prime resources to spur anti-American sentiment. Still, I'm not sure what to think.
Friday, September 10, 2010
GOOD READS ....
Paul Krugman and Robin Wells prescribe medicine for the U.S. economy
Nouriel Roubini and Ian Bremmer on the U.S. economy’s “Paradise Lost”
· Sidebar on “Seven Ways to Save the World”
Sebastian Mallaby: Capitalism and Its Divided Critics
Asia’s New Economic Reality – Evan Feigenbaum
Jeffrey Mankoff: Recession has fickle Russia wooing Western investment again
Similar piece from AEI’s Leon Aron
Stunning 9/11 profile of ‘The Mastermind:’ Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (requires subscription)
Sadly funny travelogue of Castro’s Cuba, from incisive Jeffrey Goldberg
Part 1:
Part 2:
John Taylor: What should the Fed do next?
Food Riots in Mozambique: Sign of Things to Come?
Campaign Kickoff: Obama’s Plan to Defy the Polls, Recast his Economic Record
· TIME: What’s the Democrat’s agenda?
· Dems Go on Offense
· FT’s “Obama and Wall Street” section
· NYT Editorial: How to Get Obama’s Mojo Back
The 9/11 Memorial Commission releases a video of what the site will look like next year (for the 10th Anniversary)
-- Michael Moran
Nouriel Roubini and Ian Bremmer on the U.S. economy’s “Paradise Lost”
· Sidebar on “Seven Ways to Save the World”
Sebastian Mallaby: Capitalism and Its Divided Critics
Asia’s New Economic Reality – Evan Feigenbaum
Jeffrey Mankoff: Recession has fickle Russia wooing Western investment again
Similar piece from AEI’s Leon Aron
Stunning 9/11 profile of ‘The Mastermind:’ Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (requires subscription)
Sadly funny travelogue of Castro’s Cuba, from incisive Jeffrey Goldberg
Part 1:
Part 2:
John Taylor: What should the Fed do next?
Food Riots in Mozambique: Sign of Things to Come?
Campaign Kickoff: Obama’s Plan to Defy the Polls, Recast his Economic Record
· TIME: What’s the Democrat’s agenda?
· Dems Go on Offense
· FT’s “Obama and Wall Street” section
· NYT Editorial: How to Get Obama’s Mojo Back
The 9/11 Memorial Commission releases a video of what the site will look like next year (for the 10th Anniversary)
-- Michael Moran
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Week One Readings
Brazil Keeps Climate Targets (Reuters)
- Bare bones lead, with attribution.
- Even here, there’s a small nut graf
- Inverted pyramid
- (note lack of depth, acceptance of assertions)
Pakistan Envoy Says Floods Will Demand Billions Moer (AP)
- Slightly more complex lead
- Subtler nut graf
- Note the burying of where this took place (Asia) as unimportnat
- Note how this piece cut – probably was 2/3rds longer
- Note British style deck – like broadcast lede in
- Complex story requiring multiple explanations
- Yet note how – knowing their audience – it’s not dumbed down
- Note also the Telegraph’s Nazi reference
- Kicker: Quote from official source... pushing the story forward
Israel, Hamas battle near downtown Gaza (MSNBC)
- Powerful, active lead graph – does not squander the sound and fury
- Note the insert – typically of AP, which must constantly keep up to the minute.
- Nut graf short, comprehensive... -- Israeli troops now have the coastal city of 400,000 virtually surrounded as part of an offensive launched Dec. 27 to end years of Palestinian rocket attacks on its southern towns.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Religious Double Standard
By Andres Arevalo
As the world witnesses the construction of an Islamic Cultural Center three blocks from ground cero, many New York residents are still struggling to form their opinion in the controversial debate, some ranging from complete disapproval to indifference. Bene Thalhammer, a German student not here during September 11 sees “no problem in building a religious center here as it represents freedom of religion, one of the important values this country was built upon”. While Matthew Carr, a gentleman of about sixty proclaims that “the mosque constitutes an insult to our nation and the thousands of victims that died that day”, and while he considers himself “tolerant of Muslims” he sees their decision to continue building the Islamic Center as “a negative point against their religion and their views”. But as New Yorkers and the media focus on the radical wings of Islam, touting their insensibility towards women and homosexuals, and their intolerance towards other religions, it seems that a kind of religious double standard is being practiced. Having recently read an article in the London’s Guardian about an extremist Jewish Community just outside of New York City http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/05/ground-zero-civil-liberties-paul-harris, it appears to me that Americans are ready to accept one kind of radical religious group while alienating another progressive and religiously tolerant group as the Islamic Community building the Center present themselves. While a recent New York Times poll suggests that a majority of New York City residents oppose construction of the center http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/nyregion/03poll.html?_r=1, this majority is even bigger when it comes to Jews and Catholics. And while both of these religious groups have radical factions, none has come to the intense scrutiny Islam has. While it’s true that Muslim terrorists perpetrated 9/11, the American public and the media must be weary of cataloguing all Muslims in the same category as these terrorists, the same way all Jews are not members of the Kyrias Joel community outside of New York City. While many New York residents feel that the memories of those lost in the attacks are not being respected we must also respect the religious freedom we enjoy in this country. Blocking the construction of an Islamic center may bring unprecedented consequences that may affect not only Muslims, but members of every religion.
Apparently, 'Mosque' Is Now a Synonym for 'Community Center'
By Michelle Consorte
Instead of picturing a cultural center similar to Manhattan’s 92nd Street Y, or the YMCA, many Americans, 50% according to a poll conducted by the New York Times, have an image similar to the one painted by Charlie Brooker: “The planned ‘ultra-mosque’ will be a staggering 5,600ft tall…and will be capped with an immense dome of highly-polished solid gold, carefully positioned to bounce sunlight directly toward the pavement, where it will blind pedestrians and fry small dogs.” Obviously, this is a gross, but rather humorous, exaggeration. Still, the immense public backlash lends much to this illustration.
Although Park 51, a.k.a. the Cordoba House, is going to be a cultural center, containing a swimming pool, gym, and restaurant, the media and several politicians have portrayed the building as a haven for terrorists to come together and plot future attacks on the United States within the facility’s prayer room. Construction of Park 51 has been overdramatized by focusing on the single issue of the building housing a prayer room for Muslims- this sole fact has completely overshadowed the other, community-based aspects of Park 51. Thanks to this drastic oversimplification and distortion of the building’s purpose, many Americans are ready to wage jihad against the building that they presume is intended for that same function.
From birth the project has donned an unfortunate title: “Ground Zero Mosque.” The raw image of the symbol of Muslim faith (the mosque) being planted on the very grounds that were massacred by extremists of the same religion is enough to throw a large percentage of the American population into a passionate uproar.
Now, there would be some legitimacy in this reaction, if it were true. However, there really is not much bite to follow the bark of the building’s title. In reality, Park 51, the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque,” is to be built on Park Place (the site of the old Burlington Coat Factory), two blocks and a corner from the World Trade Center site. The two buildings cannot even be seen from one another, must less are located on the exact same ground. The name has gained so much hype that this small, yet essential, piece of information is often overlooked.
“It shouldn’t be any issue,” said Andrew, 39, a trucker and supporter of the community center, in reference to the chosen spot.
Even those who are aware of the precise location of the proposed Cordoba House feel the spot is disrespectful and insensitive to those who were affected by 9/11. Some have gone so far as to call it a ‘victory mosque’ which commemorates the actions committed against the U.S. on 9/11.
On the other hand, supporters of the mosque look more into the core of the country than out for their reasoning. Noel Arroyo, standing in front of the proposed ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ location, pointed to the U.S. Constitution, namely the first Amendment.
“It all boils down to Article 1: freedom of religion,” Arroyo said.
Other supporters expanded upon this central idea.
“It’s ironic that they’re building a freedom tower [and not allowing freedom to Muslims to practice their religion]. You can’t draw a line where freedom of religion should apply [and where it stops],” said Matt Sky, 26, a supporter of Park 51 who has been protesting outside of the proposed site for roughly 2 ½ weeks.
Why is the idea of a community center; a building intended to bring people together for positive activities so easily displaced? How can a project that is supposed to create dialogue between different faiths be silenced without adequately examining the facts? Unfortunately, for these questions, this reporter has no answers. For much of the mainstream media has chosen to disregard these original intentions in favor of more sensationalized, fabricated ones that generalize all Muslims as extremist terrorists who despise the United States with every fiber of their being. Peaceful community center or scheming al-Qaeda cell? Apparently, the latter will gain more attention, and so, once again, the truth has been constructed.
Islamic Center and the Media – Don’t Take It Personal
by Andras E. Kovacs
Muslims of New York hoped the Community Center near Ground Zero opens up new channels for them to clear up the misconceptions that surround their religion. Instead, most Americans use it as an opportunity to dispute on the heart of their own identity. Again.
The night I first set foot on New York City’s sidewalks I saw two newspapers lying in front of me. Bold, big letters were reporting on a public outrage caused by a mosque, being built on 9/11’s ’hallowed ground’. Reading these August 23 editions of the New York Post and Metro, their sketchy articles portrayed a situation in which instead of a national memorial, a gigantic mosque is taking shape where once World Trade Center’s proud towers were standing. Following up the issue in the New York Times it has not only become evident that what is actually underway is legal preparation for the construction of an Islamic Community Center in the neighboring blocks, but a thorough poll (articles: 1, 2) has also debriefed about citizen’s elaborate relationship with it. Unsupportive of the building’s placement as it is, it still proved to be less than what you might identify as outrage. I can safely say, representing the point of view of a complete outsider, that a random encounter with the media can misguide one’s perception of the issue. However, the problem here seems to be nothing more than that people don’t throw The Times on the sidewalk as often as they do the Post.
What I find more alarming is that the public discussion is stuck around a paradox of two core American values appearing to be in conflict with one another. First is the conventional respect towards the deceased and their relatives, in union with the hurt pride of a nation that is seeking for vendetta for almost a decade and receives only slaps on his face, from even the most unexpected directions (its leaders, its financial system and even the causes that it is fighting for turning out to be, to say the least, contestable). Now the enemy, knowing no decency, dares to appear at the grave. At the most symbolic grave that there is. So it feels. A more theoretical approach, every bit as essentially American as the other, repeats the first amendment as its mantra, claiming that the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution should be sustained, no matter what. The fact that foundations of the national identity came against each other is the primary reason the issue can excite such a feverish and extended debate. The problem with the press is that it fuels the fire by giving its support to either one of the arguments– in order to help it overcome the other. Scarce are the articles that try to shed light on the schizophrenia, inherent in this strife of decency and pride vs. religious tolerance. Asking the following questions could, perhaps, help: If we do not identify Islam with extremist terrorism, how can the mere presence of a religion hurt our feelings of respect towards the victims of, what was in fact, extremist terrorism. Especially if the religion in question is no less sympathetic with the catastrophe of 9/11 than any other. Or: If we do identify Islam with extremist terrorism how is it that we only want to move it away a couple of blocks? How can we let others protect it in the name of religious tolerance?
While many articles cite Feisal Abdul Raif, the imam of the proposed project, as being reproving of terrorism personally and promoting a branch of Islam that is peaceful and tolerant, they keep quiet about whether this is normal for Islam or an anomaly. In the New York Times there is an obvious assumption of the former, in the New York Post, of the latter, but never straight talk. The media outlets that are against shout a vague claim of immorality, which comes from the same place the support for the war on Iraq came. From a thick mist of dangerously confused concepts. Their reasons for being careful not to make that any clearer can be understood. It is less evident why the supportive side of the media does not assume a broader perspective. Still, they make no real efforts to provide a clear guideline to the questions that are hanging in the air since 9/11. (Who are they exactly, who hate us? Why exactly do they hate us? What is their relationship with Islam? And what is Islam?) What they are trying to accomplish is to persuade their readers that Park51 and its worshippers are going to conform with American values and it is indeed an American duty to let them conform. The debate takes no real interest in the religion or in the people who respect it but in the question of what makes us (well, I’m here for two weeks, am I not?) American. Or, it is important to distinguish if you are on the liberal side, what makes a New Yorker–which should be nothing less than the role model for the country, a little more truly American than the rest. Just as it was fatally neglected in the past decade, this again, is no occasion for the press to go after Islam in general, to tell their readers not what its particular, decently modernized New York branch thinks but what it is actually about. What the majority of its believers believe and what its scripture says. No media is trying to educate Americans about the very thing they are encouraged to form an opinion on.
Proof that the debate is more focused on ideas than on what is actually going on is that most reports overlook the fact that there actually is a mosque, home to prayers, two blocks from the Gound Zero, exactly where the Islamic Community Center is planned to be built. It is almost a year now since it first opened. It is free for anyone to enter. During Ramadan, visitors are even invited to join worshippers on their iftar. It is very easy to engage in casual conversation and learn about their view of the issue. Yet we, from Bard, were the only ones of those thousands concerned who were there to do it. Peter–born and raised in America, which is of no concern to a New Yorker, but what if–offered an opinion, not frequently voiced by the media. (That is not to say it is not voiced at all–with different overtones–, e.g. in CNN, The New York Times, and in The New York Post.) He told us that they are struggling to clear people’s misconceptions about Islam and explain them what it stands for, and what its relationship is with those who are not of the faith. But what they have to say have no news value. Media, simply, does not mediate it. Or even worse: ‘They always put someone on TV who’s got an accent or doesn’t know anything about Islam.’ They see the establishment of the Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero as an opportunity for communication in many senses. First, it is going to be a building open for everyone, a building where those who are willing to get informed about Islam can find resources. Second, its proximity to the WTC site, in their opinion, expresses that they share the viewpoint of those who suffered losses on 9/11, and that they are there to talk about it. ‘What better place is there? What better way to show that Muslims are completely opposed to what took place on 9/11 than actually building a community center, that is everyone’s.’ says Peter. ‘Muslims have also died in Twin Towers. There’s a quote that Muslims were attacked twice that day.’ Apart from being attacked literally, 9/11 was also an attack on the image of their religion. They hope that the media attention they are receiving now is finally a chance for them to speak to the public and rectify this image. Browsing through the press coverage of the last four months, it is clearly not.
Resources:
MSNBC
Wall Street Journal
Mayor Bloomberg’s speech
The New York Times
International coverage through the New York Times
The New York Post
CNN Belief blog interview
CNN: Fareed Zakaria GPS
Fox News
The Washington Post
The Huffington Post
Box: Tourists resting alongside the WTC construction site react differently when they learn about the mosque already open next street, and about the views its worshippers shared with us. Gabor Janos, a camp counselor from Hungary asserts that ‘Americans don’t care what Muslims think. They are too narrow minded. They formed an image of an enemy. That’s all they needed. They won’t let it loose.’ Geoffrey Lyle, a senior tourist from California, approaches the news from a different pragmatic standpoint. ‘I’m sure they’re good people. Otherwise they’d be in jail.’ Adding ‘It’s not American Muslims that are the problem. Their home countries. They’re [the ones] causing the troubles.’
Muslims of New York hoped the Community Center near Ground Zero opens up new channels for them to clear up the misconceptions that surround their religion. Instead, most Americans use it as an opportunity to dispute on the heart of their own identity. Again.
The night I first set foot on New York City’s sidewalks I saw two newspapers lying in front of me. Bold, big letters were reporting on a public outrage caused by a mosque, being built on 9/11’s ’hallowed ground’. Reading these August 23 editions of the New York Post and Metro, their sketchy articles portrayed a situation in which instead of a national memorial, a gigantic mosque is taking shape where once World Trade Center’s proud towers were standing. Following up the issue in the New York Times it has not only become evident that what is actually underway is legal preparation for the construction of an Islamic Community Center in the neighboring blocks, but a thorough poll (articles: 1, 2) has also debriefed about citizen’s elaborate relationship with it. Unsupportive of the building’s placement as it is, it still proved to be less than what you might identify as outrage. I can safely say, representing the point of view of a complete outsider, that a random encounter with the media can misguide one’s perception of the issue. However, the problem here seems to be nothing more than that people don’t throw The Times on the sidewalk as often as they do the Post.
What I find more alarming is that the public discussion is stuck around a paradox of two core American values appearing to be in conflict with one another. First is the conventional respect towards the deceased and their relatives, in union with the hurt pride of a nation that is seeking for vendetta for almost a decade and receives only slaps on his face, from even the most unexpected directions (its leaders, its financial system and even the causes that it is fighting for turning out to be, to say the least, contestable). Now the enemy, knowing no decency, dares to appear at the grave. At the most symbolic grave that there is. So it feels. A more theoretical approach, every bit as essentially American as the other, repeats the first amendment as its mantra, claiming that the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution should be sustained, no matter what. The fact that foundations of the national identity came against each other is the primary reason the issue can excite such a feverish and extended debate. The problem with the press is that it fuels the fire by giving its support to either one of the arguments– in order to help it overcome the other. Scarce are the articles that try to shed light on the schizophrenia, inherent in this strife of decency and pride vs. religious tolerance. Asking the following questions could, perhaps, help: If we do not identify Islam with extremist terrorism, how can the mere presence of a religion hurt our feelings of respect towards the victims of, what was in fact, extremist terrorism. Especially if the religion in question is no less sympathetic with the catastrophe of 9/11 than any other. Or: If we do identify Islam with extremist terrorism how is it that we only want to move it away a couple of blocks? How can we let others protect it in the name of religious tolerance?
While many articles cite Feisal Abdul Raif, the imam of the proposed project, as being reproving of terrorism personally and promoting a branch of Islam that is peaceful and tolerant, they keep quiet about whether this is normal for Islam or an anomaly. In the New York Times there is an obvious assumption of the former, in the New York Post, of the latter, but never straight talk. The media outlets that are against shout a vague claim of immorality, which comes from the same place the support for the war on Iraq came. From a thick mist of dangerously confused concepts. Their reasons for being careful not to make that any clearer can be understood. It is less evident why the supportive side of the media does not assume a broader perspective. Still, they make no real efforts to provide a clear guideline to the questions that are hanging in the air since 9/11. (Who are they exactly, who hate us? Why exactly do they hate us? What is their relationship with Islam? And what is Islam?) What they are trying to accomplish is to persuade their readers that Park51 and its worshippers are going to conform with American values and it is indeed an American duty to let them conform. The debate takes no real interest in the religion or in the people who respect it but in the question of what makes us (well, I’m here for two weeks, am I not?) American. Or, it is important to distinguish if you are on the liberal side, what makes a New Yorker–which should be nothing less than the role model for the country, a little more truly American than the rest. Just as it was fatally neglected in the past decade, this again, is no occasion for the press to go after Islam in general, to tell their readers not what its particular, decently modernized New York branch thinks but what it is actually about. What the majority of its believers believe and what its scripture says. No media is trying to educate Americans about the very thing they are encouraged to form an opinion on.
Proof that the debate is more focused on ideas than on what is actually going on is that most reports overlook the fact that there actually is a mosque, home to prayers, two blocks from the Gound Zero, exactly where the Islamic Community Center is planned to be built. It is almost a year now since it first opened. It is free for anyone to enter. During Ramadan, visitors are even invited to join worshippers on their iftar. It is very easy to engage in casual conversation and learn about their view of the issue. Yet we, from Bard, were the only ones of those thousands concerned who were there to do it. Peter–born and raised in America, which is of no concern to a New Yorker, but what if–offered an opinion, not frequently voiced by the media. (That is not to say it is not voiced at all–with different overtones–, e.g. in CNN, The New York Times, and in The New York Post.) He told us that they are struggling to clear people’s misconceptions about Islam and explain them what it stands for, and what its relationship is with those who are not of the faith. But what they have to say have no news value. Media, simply, does not mediate it. Or even worse: ‘They always put someone on TV who’s got an accent or doesn’t know anything about Islam.’ They see the establishment of the Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero as an opportunity for communication in many senses. First, it is going to be a building open for everyone, a building where those who are willing to get informed about Islam can find resources. Second, its proximity to the WTC site, in their opinion, expresses that they share the viewpoint of those who suffered losses on 9/11, and that they are there to talk about it. ‘What better place is there? What better way to show that Muslims are completely opposed to what took place on 9/11 than actually building a community center, that is everyone’s.’ says Peter. ‘Muslims have also died in Twin Towers. There’s a quote that Muslims were attacked twice that day.’ Apart from being attacked literally, 9/11 was also an attack on the image of their religion. They hope that the media attention they are receiving now is finally a chance for them to speak to the public and rectify this image. Browsing through the press coverage of the last four months, it is clearly not.
Resources:
MSNBC
Wall Street Journal
Mayor Bloomberg’s speech
The New York Times
International coverage through the New York Times
The New York Post
CNN Belief blog interview
CNN: Fareed Zakaria GPS
Fox News
The Washington Post
The Huffington Post
Box: Tourists resting alongside the WTC construction site react differently when they learn about the mosque already open next street, and about the views its worshippers shared with us. Gabor Janos, a camp counselor from Hungary asserts that ‘Americans don’t care what Muslims think. They are too narrow minded. They formed an image of an enemy. That’s all they needed. They won’t let it loose.’ Geoffrey Lyle, a senior tourist from California, approaches the news from a different pragmatic standpoint. ‘I’m sure they’re good people. Otherwise they’d be in jail.’ Adding ‘It’s not American Muslims that are the problem. Their home countries. They’re [the ones] causing the troubles.’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)