Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Questioning morality

My last blog and the public response lead me to an overarching question about our interpersonal relationships: should we judge and/or question the actions of our friends and family on moral grounds?

Part of me says no, that I should care about them regardless of their opinions/actions, that it is not my responsibility nor role to lecture them on morality. I mean, discussing ethics is in general a touchy subject, and to argue someone's individual choices on moral grounds even more so. Ethics aren't always clear cut, and it's a sticky situation when one tries to decide absolutely ethical and unethical behavior for others. Besides, the last thing I want to do is define moral standards for someone else, or threaten to revoke my friendship if they have a differing opinion.

Yet the other part of me knows that we often regret our decisions after we've thought about them more, that living up to our moral ideals is difficult and not always clearly defined, and that sometimes one needs that outside voice to see the big picture. I have mixed feelings toward religious Christian circles and the roles they play in defining appropriate behavior for others. Yet there's something admirable about a group that legitimately cares about whether an individual's actions are moral and just. It's my understanding that by committing to such a group, you gain a network that will actively make sure your actions reflect the ethical and religious code you believe in. Granted this may be abused to preach religious ethics to those who don't seek that kind of feedback, or to quash differing biblical interpretations, but outside of that abuse, it's an interesting idea. An external conscience to help you strive to be a better person is, at least in theory, a nice thing to have.

I guess my question is actually two-fold: should we internally judge our friends/family based on the morality of their actions, and if we do, should we share these judgements with those being judged?

Monday, December 15, 2008

Moral equivocation

The more I listen to people talk about politics and philosophy, the more I realize everyone has inconsistencies in their reasoning from time to time. Conservatives usually argue against big government, but some have backed the huge bailouts in recent news. Liberals often are staunch proponents of free speech, yet will try to prevent a racist speaker from coming to campus.

However, some inconsistencies are particularly disturbing to me. For example, in response to my concerns about the bodies exhibit (see Bodies... and capitalism ), those who still wanted to go regardless gave their justification when they said they were in. One response was something along the lines of, "while the possibility that they use chinese prisoners disturbs me, when I weigh the probability of that against the potential benefit to my patients, the patients win."

This is moral equivocation at its worst. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that going to the equivalent of a death freak-show is going to teach you more about medicine than you learned in medical school? Particularly for someone who is concerned about human rights, are you really that willing to turn a blind eye to "injustice" for a chance to see something you already covered in school? Or are you just using that as justification to do what you wanted to do, so you could be morally beyond reproach (from both yourself and others)?

Now, there are obviously too many injustices in the world to do something about them all, but if one of your goals is to live a socially conscious life, then shouldn't you do so even when it's inconvenient for you? Maybe I'm a little radical, but I think people should try to practice what they preach. If you are against government handouts, then don't submit receipts to get reimbursed by FEMA for an emergency generator. If you stand against illegal immigration, don't go pay one of the workers standing outside of home depot to help you move. And in the above mentioned case, don't lean on the potential to save lives as justification for everything. That sounds a little too Nazi-esque for my comfort level.

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Tenure

The longer I spend in grad school, the more frustrated I get with all the political maneuvering and bureaucratic red tape. For example, last week one of the older male faculty members in our department made an inappropriate comment to one of my labmates about her not wanting to eat too much because she's looking a bit "husky". Now, mind you, this girl is anything but, probably in the best shape of anyone in lab, so this comment couldn't be more misplaced, but regardless, it's bound to hurt. Not to mention the fact that comments like those are what often lead to eating disorders and a decreased self-confidence, but that's a rant for another time. Yet this professor felt it necessary and appropriate to say something.

So the question is what do we do. Turns out this same faculty member has made comments to multiple labmates (past and present) before about the way they look, has hit on multiple females before (even slapping one's rear end at one point), and has been approached by superiors about it repeatedly. In fact, he was canned from the dean's office and no longer allowed to have female employees because of a sexual harassment complaint of an ex grad student. So why is he still employed by Emory?

Unfortunately, there's something in the academic world called tenure. For faculty, it's job security earned by hard work early in your career. In laymen's terms, it means the University can't fire you for much of anything. While I understand the faculty concerns, it seems to me that there needs to be more lenient definitions of what is actually grounds for termination. It's likely that Charles Nemeroff, the ex chair of Psychiatry who is currently under investigation for not disclosing money he got from pharmaceutical companies that directly conflicted with his research, will have a similar fate. Unless he's actually prosecuted and imprisoned, it's unlikely that Emory will do anything other than shuffle him around.

Tenure is why it is ridiculously hard to get rid of bad teachers at every grade level. While designed to protect/reward teachers for good work, it seems to be abused at every step along the way. Most schools would rather avoid the hassle, leaving those who are directly influenced by certain faculty's behavior to deal with the consequences.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Bodies... and capitalism

Some friends recently suggested a trip to Bodies... The Exhibition, currently showing in Atlanta. Now, I remembered hearing something about this a while back, but decided to do my own investigation. The quote from wikipedia perhaps puts it best:

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo concluded his investigation of Premier, finding "The grim reality is that Premier Exhibitions has profited from displaying the remains of individuals who may have been tortured and executed in China. Despite repeated denials, we now know that Premier itself cannot demonstrate the circumstances that led to the death of the individuals. Nor is Premier able to establish that these people consented to their remains being used in this manner. Respect for the dead and respect for the public requires that Premier do more than simply assure us that there is no reason for concern.

They have much more listed under criticisms of this particular exhibit (check out this one from npr), and you can check out any of the links for yourself.

Now, I believe strongly that to live in a capitalist society, people have to be willing to vote with their dollars, and not support financially what is against their morals. Yes, to be fair, no one knows exactly where the bodies came from, only that they were "unclaimed". Yet to me, even if one of the bodies was obtained in an immoral fashion, that is too much. I don't know, perhaps this issue strikes me more than it does most, but there seems something inherently wrong with disrespecting those who have died. I mean, even in times of war the remains of fallen soldiers were often returned to the enemy for a proper burial. The least we, as consumers, can do is require that consent is actually given to those whose bodies have been picked apart and put on display to be gawked at by thousands.

Not to get too high on my horse, as a scientist, I believe there is definite good that can come out of educating the public on human anatomy and physiology. Yet, we as a society should have boundaries on what we accept on scientific and educational merit. After all, not too long ago gross ethical violations were committed by Nazi doctors on unwilling Jewish prisoners, US doctors in the Tuskegee Syphilis experiments, etc in the name of science and medicine.

Friday, October 03, 2008

From the debate last night

Think the Obama/Biden ticket is weak on Israel? think again... the below is from the vice presidential debate last night, and I must say, Biden's remarks are damn comforting...

BIDEN: Gwen, no one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden. I would have never, ever joined this ticket were I not absolutely sure Barack Obama shared my passion.

But you asked a question about whether or not this administration's policy had made sense or something to that effect. It has been an abject failure, this administration's policy.

In fairness to Secretary Rice, she's trying to turn it around now in the seventh or eighth year.

Here's what the president said when we said no. He insisted on elections on the West Bank, when I said, and others said, and Barack Obama said, "Big mistake. Hamas will win. You'll legitimize them." What happened? Hamas won.

When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it."

Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.

The fact of the matter is, the policy of this administration has been an abject failure.

And speaking of freedom being on the march, the only thing on the march is Iran. It's closer to a bomb. Its proxies now have a major stake in Lebanon, as well as in the Gaza Strip with Hamas.

We will change this policy with thoughtful, real, live diplomacy that understands that you must back Israel in letting them negotiate, support their negotiation, and stand with them, not insist on policies like this administration has.


For the rest of the transcript, go here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/index.html

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Cheaters

Ok, so this is not the lightest of subject matters, but I've been thinking about this a bit lately. Now those who know me well know I have very little tolerance for cheating. If a good friend tells me they've been cheated on, I'm likely to take their word for it and even join in the badmouthing, encouraging them to leave the cheater in the cold. However, if I'm friends with the alleged cheater as well, this somehow becomes a lot more difficult a situation.

For some odd reason, we all like to think that our friends are good people and don't possess certain negative traits, cheating included. And so if the topic comes up, we're hesitant to believe it about them, and if we do, we're likely to still want to maintain the friendship. Case in point: one of my high school friends was dating a girl in a different social circle than we were (not better or worse, just different). He would often ditch times he was supposed to hang out with her to hang out with us, sometimes even lying to do so. There was also word of him being unfaithful, but since he was always faithful in and prioritized his friendship with us, we ignored everything else. Yet now that I'm older and supposedly wiser, I'm not sure what the appropriate response is/should be.

I guess my question is this: is cheating one of these inherently bad traits that should make us rethink our friendship, if we weren't directly hurt by the action? Or is cheating one of the many flaws of human nature that we should just accept if we're not the ones cheated on?

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

What women want

I was hesitant to write the female equivalent of the last blog, for a couple of reasons. First, I do not understand all females, and thus have difficulty giving advice on how to handle some of my gender. Secondly, I never know who's reading my blog, and don't want to give any potential suitors a how-to handbook on me. However, for the sake of balanced journalism, I feel the need to put aside my concerns and at least attempt something on women (and if you think you are a potential suitor, not to worry, I'm not revealing all of my cards anyways :P). I've attempted to feminize the previous questions as follows:

A) What goes on inside a woman's mind... and how attraction works for her?
B) Initial interaction: how to start up a conversation and keep her interested
C) What do women want in a man? In a relationship?
D) The five things men do that annoy women and kill intimacy.


I'll start with the premise from some of the earlier comments about men being the ones who predominantly pursue initially and women filter. As much as the feminist in me would like to pretend otherwise, guys, let me be clear. ALL FEMALES WANT TO BE PURSUED. Some have a more scripted interaction that they want to have, but regardless, every woman wants to feel attractive, wanted, and special. No, this doesn't mean that you need to fall all over yourself giving compliments (in fact, this approach can backfire as the comments seem to lose significance), but if you're thinking something positive about her, share it with her. Don't be afraid to put yourself on the line and make her blush, and if you're in the early stages of dating, let her know you're interested. If you're actually in a relationship, let her know she's wanted/needed/cared for always. This kind of leads me to my next point.

As to how attraction works, there's a lot at play, but one thing is certain: we like self-confidence. Now, I may have defined this once or twice, but confidence is definitely different than (and should never be confused with) cockiness. If you think back to high school, there was likely at least one of your not-so-attractive classmates who had a surprising amount of luck with girls. Why? Because he had charisma, was proud of who he was and it came across, no extra effort needed. Please don't try to flaunt your accomplishments or your sexual prowess, stating those things explicitly actually makes you less attractive, not more. But to be comfortable with who you are, that's sexy.

More comments may follow, but for now, I'll leave this open ended for you all. Feel free to post/answer any additional quesitons you come up with as well.

Sunday, August 24, 2008

Secrets of Meeting and Keeping a Great Man

Seeing as how I had a very lazy day today, I figured I'd try to make up some productivity and write a blog. I know I promised a rant on why cruises are not really my thing, but seeing as how most of my readers have already heard this shpiel, I decided on a different topic. Lately, I've started paying attention to the ads that pop up on the side of facebook, and how they decide what to show who. For the past few weeks, being listed as single in my profile has meant I get pegged with every dating and dating self help advertisement on the planet. Today was one of my favorite: the Secrets of Meeting and Keeping a Great Man. Clicking on the link brought me to their website, which describes what you will encounter if you want to subscribe (which of course costs money). Here are some of the more interesting ones:

A) What goes on inside a man's mind... and how attraction works for him.
B) How to "cheat-proof" your relationship... and why he might be tempted.
C) The differences in how men and women think about dating... and why
most men want to keep you from being successful.
D) The seven secrets to communicating with a man that will create lasting love and affection.
E) The truth about men who aren't "emotionally available"... how to know if you've got one and what to do if you're dating one.
F) The five things women do that annoy men and kill intimacy.

Do guys who mark single also get such silly advertisements? Ok, I understand that the sexes don't always understand each other, but do we really need an outsider to analyze a person they've never met? Better yet, I'm a firm believer in chemistry- you either have it or you don't, and no book is going to tell you how to develop it with someone. Not to mention how annoying it is how these websites make their money off of the insecurities of lonely women. If only I had done X, I could've married the guy of my dreams already, instead of spending yet another Saturday night home with the cat...

Apart from the how to cheat-proof your relationship bit (I'm sorry, but one should never have to change their behavior to make sure their significant other remains faithful), there are some interesting answers to the above, many of which most of us already know. But for argument's sake, let's get them in writing (and my version will be free).

Here's my challenge to my readers: if you have thoughts/answers to any of the above, please post a comment. I will do the same, and we will see what kind of compilation we get :)

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Emotional Memory

Perhaps it's because we all get a bit nostalgic as the evening progresses, but tonight on the drive home from a party the songs on the radio seemed particularly poignant. Now, for clarification purposes, there were a number of songs that I had previously associated with one event, feeling, or person that happened to be played in a row. It seems that the older I get, the more songs seemed to be viscerally linked to things, people, and times. Yet what does that say about me, or about humans in general? For argument's sake, I'll list a few particularly relevant songs (and those who know me well may even be able to guess the associations):

1) Better as a memory
2) Then you stand
3) Born to fly
4) The reason

Now, mind you, I've never had anything close to an official song with friends or guys, but these songs evoke an unofficial emotional response. One of the coolest things to me is that the most basic emotions cross all types of socioeconomic and cultural boundaries. At the heart of most humans (sociopaths excluded) is an innate emotional compass with which we attempt to chart a course through social, professional, and familial interactions.

While our experiences may differ and affect our judgements, there is something intrinsic and almost animalistic about our feelings. Even our most difficult to define emotions (e.g. love, anger, pain) can be related and personalized by someone listening to a song. Multiple someones.

I'm not quite sure the point I was going for in all of the above (after all, it is 3am), but I think there's something to be said about emotional memory and the raw feelings shared by all. Perhaps it's another equalizer for us all.

Friday, August 01, 2008

Supernatural Rats

I just got back in the country. My cruise ponderings will follow shortly, but I came across this story and couldn't help but post it to my readers. Check out the link for the full article, but to get the jist:

And it seems that there really is no end to the sneakiness of the Jews. In fact, according to two Palestinian newspapers, their mortal foe has come up with a new plan to dislocate Jerusalem's Arabs from the area -- through the medium of supernatural rats.

Yup, the fiendish Jews have been secretly breeding a new species of giant rodent which can even chase away Arab cats.

According to the reports, these rats are twice as big as yer average rat, they are ferociously aggressive, they like to attack Arab children and they breed four times more often than a normal rat.

The rats are apparently being introduced into the area by Jews "who bring them in huge cages and release them onto the streets to make living there a nightmare for Arabs".

Terrifyingly, the rats even know the difference between Jew and Arab and they leave the Jews alone while terrorising the Arabs.


yeah... I think I'll just leave it at that.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Quarter life crisis?

It's been way to long since I posted last. I can officially blame it on deadlines for school and moving into a new apartment, but that's not at the heart of the issue. I'm convinced that I've been in somewhat of a quarter-life crisis. And after talking with some of my close friends, I realized that it's something that we all basically hit around our mid-twenties. So let me attempt to define it a little better.

Most of us grew up with our futures sketched out for us to some extent: you graduate high school, go to college, graduate with a degree that gets you a highly interesting and successful job, and then.... and then what? I mean, hopefully somewhere along the line we get married and have a family of our own but until then, what do we do? What kind of job do we get? What makes our lives fulfilling? I'll touch on the doctoral research route a little later, but my point is that after undergrad we get thrown out in the real world to fend for ourselves, to figure out who we are, and what we want to do with our lives. Stuck somewhere between leaving our parents' care and taking care of others, we have our work cut out for us just figuring out how to take care of us.

For those like me who are used to defining our lives based on our success at one thing or another, grad school is particularly challenging. For those not familiar with it, the main goal of a science or engineering doctoral program is for students to be able to define a research problem or question, design a path for answering/solving it, and at the end of it all be able to reach some conclusions/answers. There's just one catch, and the reason such degrees take so long (try anywhere from 4.5-10 years). You're going to take a lot of wrong turns, reach a lot of dead-ends, and stumble numerous times along the way, because, well, the course is uncharted. It's all part of the learning process, but is a source of major frustration when that success by which we're used to defining ourselves isn't always imminent. I'm sure some of my readers fully in the real world can make parallels with their own jobs as well.

As frustrating as it can get, I think there is a good deal of silver lining (as always) for our age demographic. Part of the reason figuring out our lives is so difficult right now is because there is so much opportunity. We're at the stage in our lives where not much ties us to any one place/career/lifestyle. We can pick up and work in a medical clinic in a third world country for a time, get involved in a political campaign, or vigorously climb to the top of a corporate ladder. And perhaps most importantly, we can move on from our failures, change our minds repeatedly, and start anew down a totally different path.


Thus, after much introspection over the past few months, I'm back in action. Which, of course, means you can expect to hear from me more frequently from here on out :)

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

UN to expel World Union for Progressive Judaism

The UN is at it again, and since someone else already did a good job of explaining it, I'm inserting the highlights (check the link for the full story)

- More than 3,000 non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, are officially accredited by the UN, entitling these groups to enter UN premises, get access to meetings and decision-makers, and speak at UN bodies like the Human Rights Council. However, on Tuesday, the UN Committee on Non-governmental Organizations is poised to revoke these basic access rights from the World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ), which represents more than 1.7 million reform, progressive, liberal and reconstructionist Jews all over the world. The WUPJ offers a rare but tenacious voice that confronts Islamic human rights abuses at the UN at every turn.

- Bureaucrats at the UN trace the problem back to a Jan. 24, 2008, session of the Human Rights Council. As the council conducted its predetermined witch hunt against Israel, WUPJ representative David Littman referred to Hamas' genocidal charter. He began three times, quoting the charter's words that "Israel will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it," and calling upon the council to invoke the Genocide Convention.

- Each time, the council president interrupted and warned him to "focus on the issue." Littman stood his ground: "The issue is what Hamas and the government in Gaza wishes to do to Israel." Bang, bang, bang went the gavel. Stymied, Littman recalled his Shakespeare and said: "There is a general malaise in the air. A feeling that something is rotten in the state of this council." Those words were "disrespectful" to the Human Rights Council, the diplomats from the Muslim world declared.

Friday, April 25, 2008

British ex-jihadis form ranks for tolerance

In keeping with my theory that too much of news focuses on the negative, I wanted to post this story I found about positive efforts British Muslims are making to combat extremism. As much as outsiders can try to fight (either politically or physically) extremist ideologies, real change can only come from within the Muslim communities themselves. Here at least is a start:

They once plotted insurrection in Britain. Young, middle-class, and angry, they were the vanguard of a generation of disaffected Muslims that, at its most extreme, gave rise to the July 7, 2005, transportation bombers.

But now, in one of the most visible assaults on political Islam from within the British Muslim community, a network of ex-radicals launched on Tuesday a movement to fight the same ideology that they once worked to spread.


Click here for the rest of the article

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

In this day and age, stupidity does exist

Check out this article. And we thought our presidential candidates made some stupid moves. Holy crap, that's all I can say.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Sami Al Arian... Part 2

Those who read my blog regularly probably remember a post a while back about Sami Al Arian. Turns out, he has a great deal of supporters in the United States that claim he is an innocent man being persecuted by the US government. For those who have any doubt as to his thoughts/beliefs/intentions, this article does a good job of citing particular speeches, letters, and other documentation of his words and attitudes. Now, we can argue about how aggressively or not the judiciary is going after him and how fair it is, but after reading how he compares Jews to pigs and monkeys, among other things, can you really claim he is innocent?

Thursday, April 10, 2008

How I love my high school friends, part 2



Since my last one was so long, this will be very short. I just got back from San Francisco with my high school friends. Every time I see them, I'm reminded of how lucky I am to have found such great people so early on in my life. I love that with this group anything goes, from silly and childlike to serious and mature, we cover it all. Highlights included playing ball at GoogleLand, climbing my first tree, late night politics debates, indoor s'mores, and of course battle of the sexes charades. Check out the link for some of my pictures.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Obama and Israel

I apologize for the length of this post, but cutting it was difficult, since the point of me posting this is to clarify his stances more than is usually covered in the media. The following is an excerpt from an email that was sent on to me, written by someone who attended this meeting of about 90 Jewish leaders with Barack Obama. I'm bolding what I think is most relevant, for those who want the abridged version.

[Obama] said that he will carry with him to the White House "an unshakable commitment to the security of Israel and the friendship between the United States and Israel. The US-Israel relationship is rooted in shared interests, shared values, shared history and in deep friendship among our people ...I will work tirelessly as president to uphold and enhance the friendship between the two countries."

Obama next described a trip he took to Israel 2 years ago, and his travels around the country, saying it "left a lasting impression on me." "Seeing the terrain," Obama said, "experiencing the powerful contrast between the beautiful holy land that faces the constant threat of deadly violence. The people of Israel showed their courage and commitment to democracy everyday that they board a bus or kiss their children goodbye or argue about politics in a local cafe.

"And I know how much Israelis crave peace. I know that Prime Minister Olmert was elected with a mandate to pursue it. I pledge to make every effort to help Israel achieve that peace. I will strengthen Israel's security and strengthen Palestinian partners who support that vision and personally work for two states that can live side-by-side in peace and security, with Israel's status as a Jewish state ensured, so that Israelis and Palestinians can pursue their dreams."

He continued: "I also expect to work on behalf of peace with the full knowledge that Israel still has bitter enemies who are intent on its destruction. We see their intentions every time a suicide bomber strikes, we saw their intentions with the Katusha rockets that Hezbollah rained down on Israel from Lebanon in 2006, and we see it today in the Kassams that Hamas fires into Israel every single day from as close as Gaza or as far as Tehran. The defense cooperation between the United States and Israel has been a model of success and I believe it can be deepened and strengthened."

He went on to say that "the gravest threat ... to Israel today I believe is from Iran," noting that the "radical regime" is continuing to pursue nuclear weapons.

"President Ahmadinejad continues his offensive denials of the Holocaust and disturbing denunciations of Israel," Obama said. "He recently referred to Israel as a deadly microbe and a savage animal. Threats of Israel's destruction cannot be dismissed as rhetoric. The threat from Iran is real and my goal as President would be to eliminate that threat.

"Ending the war in Iraq, I believe, will be an important first step in achieving that goal because it will increase our flexibility and credibility when we deal with Iran. Make no mistake: I believe that Iran has been the biggest strategic beneficiary of this war and I intend to change that.

"My approach to Iran," he continued, "will be aggressive diplomacy. I will not take any military options off the table. But I also believe that under this administration we have seen the threat grow worse and I intend to change that course. The time I believe has come to talk directly to the Iranians and to lay out our clear terms: their end of pursuit of nuclear weapons, an end of their support of terrorism, and an end of their threat to Israel and other countries in the region.

"To prepare this goal I believe that we need to present incentives, carrots, like the prospect of better relations and integration into the national community, as well as disincentives like the prospect of increased sanctions. I would seek these sanctions through the United Nations and encourage our friends in Europe and the Gulf to use their economic leverage against Iran outside of the UN, and I believe we will be in a stronger position to achieve these tough international sanctions if the United States has shown itself to be willing to come to the table."

He added: "We have not pursued the kind of aggressive and direct diplomacy that could yield results to both Israel and the United States. The current policy of not talking is not working."

All told, he spoke for about ten minutes. Then, he opened the floor to questions.

The first questioner asked about Obama's affiliation with his church in Chicago, and his Reverend, Jeremiah Wright. The questioner asked if Obama was still a member, noting that Rev. Wright has preached anti-Israel sermons, and that the pastor has a close relationship with Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam.

Obama started by describing his church, the Trinity United Church of Christ, to which he has belonged for 20 years. It's a "very conventional" African-American church, he said. If you go on any given Sunday, you hear gospel music and "people preaching about Jesus."

He then said: "It is true that my pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who will be retiring this month, is somebody who on occasion can say controversial things. Most of them, by the way, are controversial directed at the African American Community and calling on them start reading books and turn off the TV set and engage in self help. And he is very active in prison ministries and so forth.

"It's also true that he comes out of the '60s, he is an older man. That is where he cut his teeth. That he has historically been interested in the African roots of the African-American experience. He was very active in the South Africa divestment movement and you will recall that there was a tension that arose between the African American and the Jewish communities during that period when we were dealing with apartheid in South Africa, because Israel and South Africa had a relationship at that time."

Obama said that relationship was "a source of tension" for his pastor.

"So there have been a couple of occasions where he made comments with relation, rooted in that," Obama said. "Not necessarily ones that I share. But that is the context within which he has made those comments. He does not have a close relationship with Louis Farrakhan. Louis Farrakhan is a resident of Chicago and as a consequence he has been active in a range of community activities, particularly around ex-offenders and dealing with them.


"I have been a consistent, before I go any further, denunciator of Louis Farrakhan, nobody challenges that."
(Here is a link to an Anti-Defamation League statement, praising Obama's condemnations of Farrakhan: http://www.adlorg/PresRele/NatIsl_81/5208_81.htm.)

Noting that Farrakhan was given an award, in 2007, by the Church's magazine (for his work on behalf of ex-offenders), Obama said: "I believe that was a mistake and showed a lack of sensitivity to the Jewish community and I said so. But I have never heard an anti-Semitic [comment] made inside of our church. I have never heard anything that would suggest anti-Semitism on part of the pastor. He is like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with."

Obama went on to talk more broadly about the relationship between blacks and Jews, saying: "the point I make is this: that I understand the concerns and the sensitivities and one of my goals constantly in my public career has been to try to bridge what was a historically powerful bond between the African American and Jewish communities that has been frayed in recent years. For a whole variety of reasons. I think that I have served as an effective bridge and that's the reason I have overwhelming support among the Jewish community that knows me best, which is the Jewish community in Chicago."

Then, returning to the question of his pastor, and repeating that his pastor is retiring this month, Obama said: "this is always a sensitive point, what you don't want to do is distance yourself or kick somebody away because you are now running for President and you are worried about perceptions, particularly when someone is basically winding down their life and their career."

(The Anti-Defamation League confirms that there is no evidence of anti-Semitism from Wright. The ADL has also said Obama has sufficiently condemned Farrakhan. The ADL does, however, continue to call on Obama to challenge his pastor for his pastor's connection to Farrakhan. For a recent JTA article examining these issues in more depth, see "ADL leader says Obama has Settled Farrakhan Issue": http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/2008022720080227obamafarrakh and ebate.html)

The second questioner asked Obama about emails that have circulated, suggesting he's Muslim.

Obama called the emails "virulent;" they started early in the campaign, he said, and have come out in waves, "magically appear[ing]" in states before primaries and caucuses. They contend that Obama is Muslim, that he went to a madrassa, that he used a Koran to swear himself into the Senate, that he doesn't pledge allegiance to the flag.

"If anyone is still puzzled about the facts, in fact I have never been a Muslim," he said. "We had to send CNN to look at the school that I attended in Indonesia where kids were wearing short pants and listening to iPods to indicate that this was not a madrassa but was a secular school in Indonesia."

The next questioner asked about the reports that Obama's advisors included Zbigniew Brzezinski (Jimmy Carter's national security advisor) and several others perceived as anti-Israel.

"There is a spectrum of views in terms of how the US and Israel should be interacting," Obama said. "It has evolved over time." Obama said that when Brzezinksi was national security advisor, he would not have been considered outside the mainstream of that spectrum. Noting that Brzezinski "is now considered by many in the Jewish community anathema," Obama said: "I know Brzezinski. He's not one of my key advisors. I've had lunch with him once, I've exchanged emails with him maybe 3 times. He came to Iowa to introduce me for a speech on Iraq. He and I agree that Iraq was an enormous strategic blunder and that input from him has been useful in assessing Iraq, as well as Pakistan ... I do not share his views with respect to Israel. I have said so clearly and unequivocally."

He went on to say that the other advisors who he's been criticized for having on his staff are former members of the Clinton administration. He mentioned Tony Lake, the former national security adviser, and Susan Rice, the former assistant secretary of state for African Affairs.

"These are people who strongly believe in Israel's right to exist. Strongly believe in a two-state solution. Strongly believe that the Palestinians have been irresponsible and have been strongly critical of them. [They] share my view that Israel has to remain a Jewish state, that the US has a special relationship with the Jewish state."

He then departed, a bit, from the topic of his advisors, and spoke more generally. "This is where I get to be honest and I hope I'm not out of school here," he said. "I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likkud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel, and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we're not going to make progress."

He took issue with commentators who suggest that talk of anything less than "crushing the opposition" is "being soft or anti-Israel."


"[If] we are never ever going to ask any difficult questions about how we move peace forward or secure Israel" in ways that are "non-military," he said, then "I think we're going to have problems moving forward. And that I think is something we have to have an honest dialogue about."


He pointed out that none of the emails about his advisors mention people on the other side such as Chicago businessman, global nonprofit activist, and philanthropist Lester Crown, a member of Obama's national finance committee, "considered about as hawkish and tough when it comes to Israel as anybody in the country."

"So, there's got to be some balance here," he said. "I've got a range of perspectives and a range of advisors who approach this issue. They would all be considered well within the mainstream of that bi-partisan consensus . in terms of being pro-Israel. There's never been any of my advisors who questioned the need for us to provide Israel with security, with military aid, with economic aid. That there has to be a two-state solution, that Israel has to remain a Jewish state. None of my advisors would suggest that, so I think it's important to keep some of these things in perspective. I understand people's concern with Brzezinski given how much offense the Israel lobby has raised, but he's not one of my central advisers."

He then noted that there has been a "fairly systemic effort" by Hillary Clinton's campaign to "feed these suspicions" about his advisors, citing a new Newsweek article documenting the effort. (Read the article here: http://www.newsweekcom/id/114723?from=rss)

The next question was sort of a follow-up. "Given your range of advisors," the questioner asked, "how would you approach foreign policy decision-making on Israel and the Middle East?"

"Well here's my starting orientation," Obama said: "A) Israel's security is sacrosanct, is non-negotiable. That's point number one. Point number two is that the status quo I believe is unsustainable over time. So we're going to have to make a shift from the current deadlock that we're in. Number three, that Israel has to remain a Jewish state and what I believe that means is that any negotiated peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians is going to have to involve the Palestinians relinquishing the right of return as it has been understood in the past. And that doesn't mean that there may not be conversations about compensation issues. It also means the Israelis will have to figure out how do we work with a legitimate Palestinian government to create a Palestinian state that is sustainable. It's going to have to be contiguous, it's going to have to work - it's going to have to function in some way.

"That's in Israel's interest by the way. If you have a balkanized unsustainable state, it will break down and we will be back in the same boat. So those are the starting points of my orientation. My goal then would be to solicit as many practical opinions as possible in terms of how we're going to move forward on an improvement of relations and a sustainable peace. The question that I will be asking any advisor is how does it achieve the goal of Israel's security and how does it achieve the goal of sustainability over the long term and I want practical, hardheaded, unromantic advice about how we're going to achieve that."

He added that when he was in Ramallah, he told the Palestinians "you can't fault Israel for being concerned about any peace agreement if the Palestinian state or Palestinian Authority or Palestinian leadership does not seem to be able to follow through on its commitments." With respect to negotiations, he said, "you sit down and talk, but you have to suspend trust until you can see that the Palestinian side can follow through and that's a position that I have consistently taken and the one I will take with me to the White House."

"One of the things that struck me when I went to Israel," Obama continued, "was how much more open the debate was around these issues in Israel than they are sometimes here in the United States. It's very ironic. I sat down with the head of Israeli security forces and his view of the Palestinians was incredibly nuanced because he's dealing with these people every day. There's good and there's bad, and he was willing to say sometimes we make mistakes and we made this miscalculation and if we are just pressing down on these folks constantly without giving them some prospects for hope, that's not good for our security situation.
There was a very honest, thoughtful debate taking place inside Israel. All of you, I'm sure, have experienced this when you travel there. Understandably, because of the pressure that Israel is under, I think the US pro-Israel community is sometimes a little more protective or concerned about opening up that conversation. But all I'm saying though is that, ultimately, should be our goal -- to have that same clear-eyed view about how we approach these issues."

The next questioner asked what Obama would say to the Jewish community about George Bush and his support for Israel.

Obama noted straight off that the Jewish community is "diverse" and "has interests beyond Israel." He said the Jewish community in America has a tradition as a "progressive force" concerned with children, civil rights, and civil liberties. "Those are values .. much more evident in our Democratic Party and that can't be forgotten."

He said that to the extent some Jews have gone over to the GOP, it's been because of Israel. "And what I would simply suggest is look at the consequences of George Bush's policies. The proof is in the point. I do not understand how anybody who is concerned about Israel's security and the threat of Iran could be supportive of George Bush's foreign policy. It has completely backfired. It is indisputable that Iran is the biggest strategic beneficiary of the war in Iraq. We have spent what will soon be close to a trillion dollars strengthening Iran, expanding their influence. How is that helpful to Israel? ... You can't make that argument.

"And so the problem that we've seen in US foreign policy generally has been this notion that being full of bluster and rattling sabers and being quick on the draw somehow makes you more secure.

"And keep in mind that I don't know anybody in the Democratic Party, and I will say this for Hillary Clinton and I will say this for myself, who has indicated in any way that we would tolerate and allow to fester terrorist threats, that we wouldn't hunt down, capture, or kill terrorists, that haven't been supportive of Israel capturing or killing terrorists. So it's not like we're a bunch of folks asking to hold hands and sing 'Kumbiya.'

"When Israel launched its counterattack against Hezbollah in Lebanon during the summer of 2006, I was in South Africa at the time, a place that was not particularly friendly to Israel at the time and I was asked by the press, what did you think? And I said, if somebody invades my country or is firing rockets into my country or kidnapping my soldiers, I will not tolerate that. And there's no nation in the world that would."


At this point, one of Obama's aides told him he had time for one more question. A questioner asked him about press reports that he would consider Sen. Dick Lugar for his administration, given, again, his lack of friendliness toward Israel.

Obama said he was good friends with Lugar, and that Lugar "represents old school bi-partisan foreign policy." He said that, among Republicans, Lugar was less ideologically driven, more driven by facts on the ground. After characterizing Lugar, he said he would "not be so presumptuous" to start talking about his cabinet, given that he is not yet the Democratic nominee.

Obama then decided, since his answer was relatively short, that he would take more questions. I raised my hand, and Obama called on me. I told him that I thought his approach to foreign policy -- negotiating with your enemies - could be powerful strategically. I said that a few days earlier, I had met with my rabbi in Akron, and mentioned to him that I was going to be here this morning.

"The rabbi asked me to ask you whether you would meet with Hamas," I said.

"The answer is no," Obama said.

"What's the distinction, then," I asked, "between Hamas and Iran?"

"The distinction would be that . they're not the head of state," he said. "They are not a recognized government . There is a distinction to be drawn there and a legitimate distinction to be drawn." "Now, again," he continued, "going back to my experiences in Israel and the discussions I've had with security officials there, I think that there are communications between the Israeli government and Hamas that may be two or three degrees removed, but people know what Hamas is thinking and what's going on and the point is that, with respect to Hamas, you can't have a conversation with somebody who doesn't think you should be on the other side of the table. At the point where they recognize Israel and its right to exist, at the point where they recognize that they are not going to be able to shove their world view down the throats of others but are going to have to sit down and negotiate without resort[ing] to violence, then I think that will be a different circumstance. That's not the circumstance that we're in right now."

He then turned to the audience to take one more question, about Indonesia (where Obama lived as a child) and the United States' approach to the Muslim world.

Obama said Indonesia represented a good case study. He said Indonesia actually had a very mild, tolerant brand of Islam when he was living there. In 1997, he said, the Asian financial crisis hit very hard, and Indonesia's GDP contracted by 30 percent. Essentially, a poor country had been hit with a Great Depression. "There was a direct correlation between the collapse of that economy and the rise of fundamentalist Islam inside of Indonesia," he said.

Obama said there is a hard-core group of jihadist fundamentalists in the Islamic world who "we can't negotiate with." He said Richard Clarke, the former chief counter-terrorism advisor in the Bush administration, estimates that there are between 30,000 and 50,000 jihadists worldwide -- "the hard core jihadists [who] would gladly blow up this room." He added, though, that it's a "finite number." "We have to hunt them down and knock them out. Incapacitate them. That's the military aspects of dealing with this phenomenon ... and that is where military action and intelligence has to be directed."

"The question then is what do we do with the 1.3 billion Muslims who are along a spectrum of belief? Some extraordinarily moderate, some very pious but not violent. How do we reach out to them? And it is my strong belief that is the battlefield that we have to worry about, and that is where we have been losing badly over the last seven years. That is where Iraq has been a disaster. That is where the lack of effective public diplomacy has been a disaster. That is where our failure to challenge seriously human rights violations by countries like Saudi Arabia that are our allies has been a disaster. And so what we have to do is to speak to that broader Muslim world in a way that says we will consistently support human rights, women's rights. We will consistently invest in the kinds of educational opportunities for children in these communities, so that madrassas are not their only source of learning. We will consistently operate in ways that lead by example, so that we have no tolerance for a Guantanamo or renditions or torture. Those all contribute to people at least being open to our values and our ideas and a recognition that we are not the enemy and that the Clash of Civilizations is not inevitable."

Obama closed with this: "Now, as I said, we enter into those conversations with the Muslim world being mindful that we also have to defend ourselves against those who will not accept the West, no matter how appropriately we engage. And that is the realism that has to leaven our hopefulness. But, we abandon the possibility of conversation with that broader Muslim world at our own peril."

(After the event, the Obama campaign released a partial transcript to the press. You can find it here: http://elections.jta.org/2008/02/25/obama-reaches-out-to-jewish-leaders/)

Again, Obama received an extended standing ovation. He had spoken for about 45 minutes. And he was mobbed by well-wishers at the podium. One woman asked him why he was not nearly as specific in the debates. "We have 30 seconds!" Obama said. Another woman said: "It is so refreshing to hear someone think."

When it was my turn, I shook his hand, introduced myself, and told him I had been working hard to defuse the smear campaigns directed at him. "It means a lot," he said. "Thank you."

I asked him if he could give me an autograph for my sons, Meyer and Heshel, and handed him a piece of paper and pen. As he began to write, I started spelling the names. "M-E-Y-E-R," I said, "and Heshel, H-"

But Obama cut me off: "Like Abraham?" he asked.

I was surprised that Obama knew Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel. Maybe I shouldn't have been. After all, Heschel had marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., and had been an outspoken critic of the Vietnam War; Heschel was a pious, pluralistic Jew committed to social action. But so few Jews today are even aware of Heschel and his legacy.

I nodded -- Heschel had inspired the naming of our son -- though we spelled it without the "c," something that I forgot, in that moment, to add.

"To Meyer and Heschel," he wrote. "Dream Big Dreams. Barack Obama."

I felt a keen sense, leaving the meeting room Sunday, that the media "storyline" I'd been hearing and reading of late -- that Obama is all eloquence, no substance; that he is a rock star generating a mindless cult of personality -- is itself overly simplistic and false. Obama showed a gut-level understanding of Israel's security needs and the US-Israel friendship. He exhibited a deep sensitivity to the Jewish community's concerns and addressed them, one-by-one. He spoke eloquently and precisely, without notes, demonstrating a nuanced grasp of the complexities of Middle East politics, and a clear-eyed vision of how he would proceed as Commander-in-Chief.

And he was all the more credible because he did not pander. He knew his audience. He knew not everyone in the room would be satisfied when he said he met with Brzezinski because of his views on Iraq. Not all would agree when he said that we have to allow for a debate in this country beyond the hawkish Likkud party position, or when he said a future Palestinian state would have to be contiguous. He said those things anyway - just as he told Palestinians in Ramallah that they would have to give up the right of return. He said them because he believes them. And he believes, ultimately, they would help Israel remain a vibrant and secure homeland for the Jewish people.

Monday, March 31, 2008

On Chivalry

Yes, this is two blogs in a day, a record for me. Not to worry, they're related a bit. What I'm about to say may come as a shock to some of my readers, but here it goes: I have difficulty with the concept of chivalry. I had to check to make sure I hadn't previously written on this topic, but seeing as I haven't, I'm good to go.

Let me start by saying that I've come a long way since high school, where I fought with my boyfriend for trying to carry my school books. If chivalrous behavior can be grouped in the category of doing nice things for others, that's something I can accept and even appreciate. If, on the other hand, it's seen as an obligation or as compensation for my inability to open my own door, that's another story. By the way, if you want to open my door, you have to get to it first, right Kpark? :P

Yet, even in my newfound acceptance of said behaviors, I have difficulty learning how to react to them. Take, for instance, the question of who gets the check at the restaurant. Well, old-fashioned chivalry would say the guy always does. As a poor grad student myself, some part of me wants to accept this whenever presented with the opportunity. However, the rest of me feels very uncomfortable with the idea of riding a relationship on someone else's dime (not to mention that it makes me feel good to treat people I care about now and then). If both male and female contribute equally emotionally to a relationship, why should there be an uneven distribution financially?

I guess what I'm asking is this: in dating, who should pick up the check? Does this change based on the finances of those involved? And if there is an uneven distribution, what levels the playing field?

Boys will be boys

Recently I was told that sometimes I have to let guys be guys, e.g. taking girls out to dinner and fixing/lifting/opening things, because, well, they enjoy such opportunities. Totally a valid point, and there's been a country song that's been playing a lot lately that paints a broader, humorous picture. I figured my readers might get a kick out of it, so check it out :)

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

An Unlikely Refuge: Muslims Fleeing Darfur Rebuilding Lives in Israel

I saw this article and found it interesting. A clip is below, but click here
for the full story.


"Even though we're Muslim, the Islamic world has done nothing to protect us," said Yassin, one of the first Darfurians to make it into Israel across the border from Egypt and now director of Bnei Darfur [Sons of Darfur], which assists Sudanese refugees to integrate into Israeli society. "All of the Arab countries support the government of Sudan - our problem is with the Arab League," he said. As far as Yassin is concerned, Israel has provided for his people in a way that no Arab country would - and for that he's eternally grateful.

Monday, March 24, 2008

Girls' Night

I have a really good group of girl friends in Atlanta, that are just plain fun to hang out with. Since we all have such busy schedules, we've been planning girls' nights about once every 6 weeks or so for about a year now. Yet throughout this time, one thing has not changed: the male response to it.

I've seen it all: excitement, confusion, jealousy, and the inevitable "Can I come?". What is with guys and girls' night?

Most prevalent is perhaps the notion that there will be scantily clad pillow fights, regardless of the time or temperature. While this has happened on occasion (gotta love Duke trips to Myrtle), the majority of girls' night is girl bonding. Females have a different dynamic when there are no males around, we seem to let our guards down and be, well, girls. Heads up, I'm about to reveal a big secret: GIRLS TALK. We get our kicks from being involved in each others lives, from work to play and inevitably guys. While we may not be bragging about our latest sexual conquests, we get updates and advice on relationships and life in general.

This is apparently very different than what happens on guys' nights, so perhaps this is where all the fascination comes from. From what I gather, the opposite gender likes to avoid meaningful conversations when they gather in mass, and focus instead on poker, sports, and likely cars. Now that the stereotypical locker room talk about girls is no longer PC, it seems that guys don't easily discuss females in their lives. Well, at least not during guys' nights, and thus the confusion.

Lest my male readers get too concerned about getting talked about, fret not. Assuming you're not being an ass to your girl (which will hopefully be pointed out to her), most conversations about you will end in your favor. Your girl is likely not to reveal your secret doll collection to the group, unless she needs suggestions on what kind of doll to get you next. And who knows, she might have even come away with a new idea to try with you next time you two have some alone time ;).

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

What can we do about it?

Every morning I receive my daily news digest of what's happening in the middle east, as seen from multiple news sources. I learned a long time ago that certain news sources have an inherently strong bias in what and how they chose to cover news related to Israel, and one should take this into account when reading it. Take for instance, the coverage of the massacre at the religious school in Israel and the daily firing of rockets into Israel proper (note, territory not disputed in any international forum except by those who deny Israel's right to exist). Every day I'd read the coverage that focused on the "disproportionate" Israeli response, and wanted to throw my hands up in the air and accept that the majority of western media will always have an anti-Israel bias. And then I stumbled on this article, which in addition to some suggestions about the power of an individual, does a great job at summarizing some of the facts of Israeli history most commonly distorted by the media and anti-Israel propagandists. It also gives a list of sources and suggestions for further reading.

To highlight one of the author's main points, we can do something as individuals. The most effective measure we have against propaganda is to educate ourselves and those around us of the truth. One can argue the nuances of what is an appropriate response, where the boundaries should lie, what the path to peace should be for hours, but these discussions need to start with a firm historical foundation of fact. So check out the article. It's a step in the right direction.

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Gender Differences

A friend forwarded me the following story (we scream, we swoon). The article is written by a woman about gender differences, with particular criticism for the female sex.

Yes, I'll admit, as a gender we are sometimes ridiculously superficial and dumb. Obama isn't the first presidential candidate to attract female voters based on his swoon-worthy appearance (e.g. JFK), yet even with the beginnings of female contenders, can you ever see males voting for president based on her sex appeal? Yes, some of us have a ridiculous obsession with looks, spend thousands of dollars on plastic surgery, botox, etc just to avoid the effects of aging. And yes, as a whole we seem to support intellectually void literature way more than necessary.

However, the author fails to acknowledge the stereotypical male equivalents of such silly shananigans. Take, for instance, the general male obsession with sports, willingness to spend entire days watching other people play on tv, bestowing personal worth based on athletic talent on strangers and family alike, and spending thousands of dollars on high-definition televisions to capture the action better. Another example to view is the willingness of males (more so than females) to resort to violence to solve our differences. And don't get me started on the amount of time and money males spend on hard-core porn (as opposed to the romance novel soft-core equivalents).

The author also choses to cite studies that rely on standardized testing. For those who are unaware, in the scientific community standardized means to test "intelligence" are highly controversial, often biased toward higher socio-economic status and the male gender. For a personal anecdote of gender differences in spatial perception, last year we had a question on a robotics exam that required us to analyze a sketch of a 3 dimensional robot. All 5 females in the class saw the robot differently than our 15 male counterparts and answered the questions accordingly, and didn't realize why our answers were all off until we discussed the drawing with the teacher. On subsequent exams, he used another method to show 3 dimensions, and the females went back to scoring above average.

What I'm saying is this: regardless of gender, people as a whole are not always the brightest. We obsess over stupid things. We focus on the superficial and popular rather than the deep and meaningful. Yes, there are population gender differences, but why should we seek to define any group of people based on the mean? And if one is going to base her arguments on scientific studies, perhaps she should investigate the methods used and what inherent bias they might have. At the very least, perhaps one should use her criticisms to encourage change in her gender's habits, instead of sitting back and accepting inferiority.

Sunday, February 03, 2008

Dating feedback

It's been a while since I last posted, and late on a Saturday night, however, I figured I'd write again about dating. Both with guys in my life and in my friends', I've become rather interested in what makes a person have dating balls.

Now, mind you in today's gender inclusive environment, the responsibility does not fall solely on the male for pursuing and making his intentions known. Yet for the life of me, I have not been able to understand what makes someone put him/herself on the line and obviously pursue someone else. In the ideal world, knowing someone is interested in you would make you more likely to put yourself out there, but this is not always true.

Case in point: for those who don't know, I'm rather interested in the topics of bowel/bladder/sexual function from a scientific perspective, and am pretty open to talking about it. Yet at a party last week, one such attendee decided to broach the topic by telling me personal stories of his sexual encounters. I am all for discussing the physiological mechanisms of mating and procreation (and their dysfunction), yet I don't really want to hear about how enjoyable orgasm is to you and details of your sexual conquests. And for some odd reason this particular attendee did not pick up any of the hints dropped that this was not a good way to hit on me. Which makes me think, he's in his late 20s, so he's got to have had many interactions with the opposite gender. Who on earth helped support his notion that this was a good way to pick up girls? Or how has he gone through this much of his life and not realized it?

As my friend Randy said, the difference between a sweetheart and a creep is whether his advances are welcome or not. Complicated to decipher, perhaps, but a relationship's potential for success depends on a person's ability to truly understand the other, and correctly perceiving one's response to your actions can play a pivotal role.

On the other hand, what makes some so willing to entirely put themselves out there for a potential boyfriend/girlfriend? I mean, at these early stages do they really know they'll be successful ahead of time? Or are those that are more readily pursuant just more self-confident in general and are willing to risk more to gain more?

I guess what I'm asking is two-fold: 1) what makes some potential datees be more ballsy than others, and 2) which is worse- someone you liked lacking the decisiveness/courage to pursue you, or someone you don't like continuing to pursue even though you've tried your best to discourage them?

Sunday, January 06, 2008

A land called paradise

For those who like to make generalizations about Islam and Muslims, or are just curious about American muslims check this out. It's a good reminder of how wrong assumptions and stereotypes can be. Thanks Sahar for sending this my way!

Thursday, January 03, 2008

Libya reformed?

This morning I read that Libya begins its month-long presidency of the UN security council. Wasn't it just a few months ago that we got it to abandon pursuit of nuclear weapons and begin taking a look at human rights? How is it we trust them now to head the UN security council???

For a description of how our current administration is handling Libya, I want to paste a few paragraphs written by the brother of a Libyan dissident currently imprisoned for speaking out against the government:

Tomorrow, Libyan Foreign Minister Abdel-Rahman Shalqam is to meet with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Their sit-down at the State Department will come nearly seven months after President Bush declared himself a "dissident president" and promised active support for dissidents around the world. "I asked Secretary Rice," Bush said during a speech in Prague, "to send a directive to every U.S. ambassador in an un-free nation: Seek out and meet with activists for democracy. Seek out those who demand human rights."

Nothing of the sort happened. In fact, in its embrace of Tripoli, the Foreign Service has built a wall of silence around human rights concerns...

My brother, Fathi Eljahmi, is Libya's most prominent democracy activist. Speaking at a conference in Tripoli in October 2002 that is usually a stage-managed affair, he surprised Libya's mercurial dictator, Moammar Gaddafi, by suggesting that legal guarantees of free speech and a constitution should accompany Gaddafi's rhetorical embrace of reform. State security agents took him directly to prison.

After nearly 17 months, Fathi won a respite, thanks to the intercession of Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.). And on March 12, 2004, President Bush cited Fathi's release as a barometer of change in Libya. "We stand with courageous reformers. Earlier today, the Libyan government released Fathi Eljahmi," Bush said. "It's an encouraging step toward reform in Libya. You probably have heard. Libya is beginning to change her attitude about a lot of things." Bush may have heard, but the Libyans had not. Two weeks later, Gaddafi rearrested Fathi. My brother has been in solitary confinement ever since.


Look to the whole article for more details and our government's reaction (or lack thereof). Just another example of how the current administration is failing to speak out again blatant human rights abuse in the world, to make a firm stance (and not just lipservice) against islamic fundamentalism, and in general to effect/demand real change.