I know I haven't blogged in a while, but I can't help but share my thoughts on Egypt. After Tunisia's example, the Egyptian people are fighting for their voices to be heard, showing the power of peaceful demonstrations. Hopefully, in addition to Mubarak stepping down and there being a peaceful transition of power, the rest of the world will learn one or more of the following lessons.
1) Supporting "friendly dictators" is a recipe for unrest, anti- our democratic values, and never in America's best interest. This is a tactic we've tried repeatedly, believing the alternatives worse. But in actual democracies, even if leaders we don't like come to power, if they make poor decisions for their people, piss off the rest of the world, or cause hardship to their people, they can be voted out in the subsequent election. Yes, the palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas, but largely because the alternative was rife with corruption, but then they were less content with Hamas when they saw just what their choice meant. If America has a vested interest in the region, we have ways to put political and economic pressure on whatever government comes to power. We don't need any particular ruler to make that happen.
2) Israel is not the #1 problem in the middle east. For years, leaders in the Arab world have tried to focus the attention away from domestic problems and direct the anger of their people at an outside force. And many liberal NGOs, instead of focusing on the oppression of homosexuals, freedom of religion, womens' rights, freedom of speech, and other human rights issues in the many middle eastern countries, have disproportionately focused on the Palestinians, feeding this mirage that Israel is the real and only problem. I'm not saying that there aren't issues between Israel and its neighbors, but by removing autocracies, it forces Arab governments to actually deal with domestic issues, such as corruption, poverty, and human rights. Perhaps down the line they can actually look at making peace with Israel and make the actual compromises necessary without fear of losing their #1 punching bag.
3) Good, investigative journalism is imperative to transparent government and a free society.
As we've see the past few days, Mubarak's thugs have not only targeted protesters with intimidation, firebombs, and shootings, but there has been a strong persecution of journalists in the region, to try to discourage the independent reporting that discredit official government propaganda of what's actually happening. Rachel Maddow did a good job tying together just why journalists are being targeted (see the broadcast from 2/2).
This further emphasizes the importance of journalism to an open society, yet for the past few years in the the US, journalists are often so afraid of being seen as biased they don't actually investigate national news and politics. Giving the full picture does not mean asking people on both sides to give official talking points, having a panel of "experts" give their opinions. It means actually fact-checking what politicans say, whether their actions match their words, what is actually happening on the ground. And if the report on a story implicates one person or party for doing bad things, not spending half the time asking them what they meant to do/say (do most news stories on Egypt now spend half the time quoting official Mubarak sources?). Perhaps these indefensible attacks on journalists will reinvigorate reporters, to apply the investigative tactics learned abroad in our day to day news coverage.
As I continue to follow the revolution unfolding in Egypt, I am glad for the resolve of the Egyptian people and journalists covering the story, and hope that the world actually learn these lessons.
Saturday, February 05, 2011
Monday, August 30, 2010
Free or reduced price High Holiday options in Atlanta
Since I just researched this for an email, I figured I'd post this publicly for all who were interested. A number of area synagogues offer free or reduced price high holiday tickets to young adults. Some places to look at:
Hillel (reform, conservative, and orthodox)
Open Jewish Project at The Temple (reform)
Or Hadash (conservative)
Atlanta Jewish Experience at Beth Jacob (Orthodox shul, learner's service)
Beit Chaverim (reconstructionist)
Kehilla (modern orthodox, explanatory service)
Or Ve Shalom (sephardic)
and any of the Chabads
Feel free to add to this list if you know of any others...
Monday, April 26, 2010
Gender Roles and Dating Rules
I know I've touched on this in multiple posts previously, but I wanted to clarify based on some of the comments from my last one and consolidate here.
One of the hardest things for me to get used to in Atlanta is that gender-based dating rules are largely followed. For someone uncomfortable with the idea of boxing anyone in based on their sex chromosomes, the fact that I've caved and have come to accept to many of these rules seems rather hypocritical. Lest you get the wrong idea, here's why:
Dating is complicated. Everyone is trying to one-up those they date, get inside their head, and hopefully be on the same page emotionally. Gender rules give a clear cut answer to a lot of what the other is thinking, albeit rather arbitrarily. Assume for the rest of this that I'm talking the first few dates, because things do tend to change when it comes to long term. For example, Jack and Jill go grab dinner. Jack tries to pick up the tab, Jill knows Jack sees it as a date. Jill lets Jack pick up the bill, Jack knows Jill too wants this to be a date. Both know where the other stands and can respond accordingly.
Take something a little less defined. If it is the guy's responsibility to be the initiator (of planning a date, a kiss, etc), it is the girl's responsibility to make sure the guy knows she's interested. Even in strictly defined gender boxes, both must be active participants. The big problem with leaving it up to the individuals to decide who plays what role, is the uncertainty that follows. If Jack is not initiating, does that mean he's not interested, or desiring Jill to initiate? And if the latter, does he know how to make Jill know he's interested, i.e. how to play the active "female" role? Now Jack and Jill are back to the game of trying to interpret each others actions without knowing the context, making the whole dating game that much more complicated.
Now, I'm not saying that we always need to follow the archaically defined gender roles in dating. However, perhaps we need to learn a little something from the homosexual dating culture (at least how I understand it to be, please correct me if you know this to be wrong). You don't always have to play the stereotypical "male" or "female" roles in dating, and can swap periodically. However, make sure if you're not doing one, you're doing the other, actively, and hopefully the other will catch on at some point.
One of the hardest things for me to get used to in Atlanta is that gender-based dating rules are largely followed. For someone uncomfortable with the idea of boxing anyone in based on their sex chromosomes, the fact that I've caved and have come to accept to many of these rules seems rather hypocritical. Lest you get the wrong idea, here's why:
Dating is complicated. Everyone is trying to one-up those they date, get inside their head, and hopefully be on the same page emotionally. Gender rules give a clear cut answer to a lot of what the other is thinking, albeit rather arbitrarily. Assume for the rest of this that I'm talking the first few dates, because things do tend to change when it comes to long term. For example, Jack and Jill go grab dinner. Jack tries to pick up the tab, Jill knows Jack sees it as a date. Jill lets Jack pick up the bill, Jack knows Jill too wants this to be a date. Both know where the other stands and can respond accordingly.
Take something a little less defined. If it is the guy's responsibility to be the initiator (of planning a date, a kiss, etc), it is the girl's responsibility to make sure the guy knows she's interested. Even in strictly defined gender boxes, both must be active participants. The big problem with leaving it up to the individuals to decide who plays what role, is the uncertainty that follows. If Jack is not initiating, does that mean he's not interested, or desiring Jill to initiate? And if the latter, does he know how to make Jill know he's interested, i.e. how to play the active "female" role? Now Jack and Jill are back to the game of trying to interpret each others actions without knowing the context, making the whole dating game that much more complicated.
Now, I'm not saying that we always need to follow the archaically defined gender roles in dating. However, perhaps we need to learn a little something from the homosexual dating culture (at least how I understand it to be, please correct me if you know this to be wrong). You don't always have to play the stereotypical "male" or "female" roles in dating, and can swap periodically. However, make sure if you're not doing one, you're doing the other, actively, and hopefully the other will catch on at some point.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Dating Passivity
As Evelyn tells me, I must balance my more serious blogs with those on a lighter topic, namely dating. One might think in my 4+ years blogging I may have run out of insightful things to say about dating, but I seem to be constantly provided with new material.
In many discussions I've had lately, both male and female friends have complained about the passivity with which potential partners seem to approach dating. As a female, it's literally refreshing to encounter someone who blatantly expresses interest, who courts actively and pursues obviously (yes, I said court, if we're going to live in a society where gender dictates dating rules, the male at least tries to impress the female with an interesting date, initiating phone calls, etc). While some do give this breath of fresh air (and are actually more likely to achieve a first or 2nd date, mind you), the majority seem to take the passive approach: flirting but never crossing the line, interested when the girl initiates but not initiating himself, etc.
According to male friends, the female equivalent passive behavior is a lack of explicitly showing interest, general flirtatious behavior not solely directed at the guy in question, accepting of but requiring the guy's initiative on everything, etc. Sorry I can't elaborate more here, but maybe some of my readers can.
It seems to me that there are 2 likely causes: 1) the person lacks the self confidence to fully put him/herself out there, and 2) as the movie says, (s)he's just not that into you ( or maybe even (s)he could be, but could also be into others if the opportunity presented itself, and would like to leave those doors open). Yet regardless of rationale, the passive approach doesn't work. As one friend famously said, we Americans need to stop buying so many cereal boxes. If we're constantly rotating between types, we never fully evaluate any one box before it goes stale.
And since humans are not cereal boxes, the other person is unlikely to stay interested if they're not sure you are. As another friend put it, "I don't need you to know you want to marry or even enter a long term relationship with me from the first date. But I do need you to be all in for seeing where it leads. Half-assing it just doesn't cut it."
Perhaps if we worry less about rejection, show our intentions clearly, and focus more at a single option at a time, we might just find what we're looking for a little sooner. And maybe one of these days I'll start remembering that myself ;)
In many discussions I've had lately, both male and female friends have complained about the passivity with which potential partners seem to approach dating. As a female, it's literally refreshing to encounter someone who blatantly expresses interest, who courts actively and pursues obviously (yes, I said court, if we're going to live in a society where gender dictates dating rules, the male at least tries to impress the female with an interesting date, initiating phone calls, etc). While some do give this breath of fresh air (and are actually more likely to achieve a first or 2nd date, mind you), the majority seem to take the passive approach: flirting but never crossing the line, interested when the girl initiates but not initiating himself, etc.
According to male friends, the female equivalent passive behavior is a lack of explicitly showing interest, general flirtatious behavior not solely directed at the guy in question, accepting of but requiring the guy's initiative on everything, etc. Sorry I can't elaborate more here, but maybe some of my readers can.
It seems to me that there are 2 likely causes: 1) the person lacks the self confidence to fully put him/herself out there, and 2) as the movie says, (s)he's just not that into you ( or maybe even (s)he could be, but could also be into others if the opportunity presented itself, and would like to leave those doors open). Yet regardless of rationale, the passive approach doesn't work. As one friend famously said, we Americans need to stop buying so many cereal boxes. If we're constantly rotating between types, we never fully evaluate any one box before it goes stale.
And since humans are not cereal boxes, the other person is unlikely to stay interested if they're not sure you are. As another friend put it, "I don't need you to know you want to marry or even enter a long term relationship with me from the first date. But I do need you to be all in for seeing where it leads. Half-assing it just doesn't cut it."
Perhaps if we worry less about rejection, show our intentions clearly, and focus more at a single option at a time, we might just find what we're looking for a little sooner. And maybe one of these days I'll start remembering that myself ;)
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Fascism and Basketball?
I love it when two of the random things I ponder in a given week can offer a different perspective of each other. A couple days ago I was listening to a How Stuff Works podcast on fascism while running. Yes, the word frequents the political vernacular all too often these days, but what does it actually mean?
If I can summarize the podcast well, fascism is the extreme right of the political spectrum, where every action is done for the good of the state. There is no real sense of individualism, the leaders form a totalitarian society and cultivate a country specific focus that often becomes synonymous with the leaders themselves. There's also usually some sort of survival of the fittest mentality with the fittest being one particular race or sect. And, of course, the need to engage in wars to conquer other, less fit, nations.
The surprising thing is, they require and get a lot of their countrymen to buy into it. This has always been one of the scariest things to me about historical fascists in general: how do the leaders convince the average citizen to hate their neighbor, to get so wrapped up in the movement that they don't question the leadership, and blindly cheer their side on in the war games currently being played?
Interestingly enough, we just started March Madness, the college basketball playoff games that keep many fans glued to the tv. Popular enough to be discussed on the major news networks, these two weeks are just one example of fans dedicating their lives to watching their team(s) play, espousing the strengths of the players and mocking the weaknesses of their opponents. Not to remove myself from this, I found it exhilarating to be apart of the excitement that is Cameron Indoor Stadium during Duke basketball, learning the cheers for our players and chants against our opponents, and badmouthing UNC at every chance I could (GTHCGTH anyone?). I even commented to some of my high school friends about how nice it was to be somewhere with actual school pride. Yet, there have been many instances where sports rivalries exploded into abusive rhetoric, raw anger, and even physical altercations.
Now, I'm no psychologist, but I can't help but think that the same sense of pride and competition we encourage blindly in sports is what fascists could tap into to support their rise to power. I mean, think of how many ordinary Germans were convinced to aid the Nazis during WWII, not from personal vendettas with Jews and others, but out of a skewed sense of German pride. What then should we make of it when we start trash-talking opponents we've never met? It's a scary parallel.
I guess it comes down to the chicken or the egg conundrum. Does athletic fanaticism slowly build our willingness to trample on arbitrary opponents? Or, if we are wired to be overly proud and subjugate others, are sports just a healthy and much preferred outlet to express these emotions (than war, e.g.)?
If I can summarize the podcast well, fascism is the extreme right of the political spectrum, where every action is done for the good of the state. There is no real sense of individualism, the leaders form a totalitarian society and cultivate a country specific focus that often becomes synonymous with the leaders themselves. There's also usually some sort of survival of the fittest mentality with the fittest being one particular race or sect. And, of course, the need to engage in wars to conquer other, less fit, nations.
The surprising thing is, they require and get a lot of their countrymen to buy into it. This has always been one of the scariest things to me about historical fascists in general: how do the leaders convince the average citizen to hate their neighbor, to get so wrapped up in the movement that they don't question the leadership, and blindly cheer their side on in the war games currently being played?
Interestingly enough, we just started March Madness, the college basketball playoff games that keep many fans glued to the tv. Popular enough to be discussed on the major news networks, these two weeks are just one example of fans dedicating their lives to watching their team(s) play, espousing the strengths of the players and mocking the weaknesses of their opponents. Not to remove myself from this, I found it exhilarating to be apart of the excitement that is Cameron Indoor Stadium during Duke basketball, learning the cheers for our players and chants against our opponents, and badmouthing UNC at every chance I could (GTHCGTH anyone?). I even commented to some of my high school friends about how nice it was to be somewhere with actual school pride. Yet, there have been many instances where sports rivalries exploded into abusive rhetoric, raw anger, and even physical altercations.
Now, I'm no psychologist, but I can't help but think that the same sense of pride and competition we encourage blindly in sports is what fascists could tap into to support their rise to power. I mean, think of how many ordinary Germans were convinced to aid the Nazis during WWII, not from personal vendettas with Jews and others, but out of a skewed sense of German pride. What then should we make of it when we start trash-talking opponents we've never met? It's a scary parallel.
I guess it comes down to the chicken or the egg conundrum. Does athletic fanaticism slowly build our willingness to trample on arbitrary opponents? Or, if we are wired to be overly proud and subjugate others, are sports just a healthy and much preferred outlet to express these emotions (than war, e.g.)?
Monday, February 08, 2010
The right to bear arms
What exactly does the 2nd amendment guarantee? The debate around the 2nd amendment has come up a lot in my social circles lately, and I think I'm one of a few that has not come to a decision about it yet. Given that I have readers on both sides of this issue, let's dive in, but with a scientific/logical approach.
Apart from regulation of who has access/what checks are done/whether guns can be hidden (to which most sane people can usually generally agree to some basic guidelines), there seem to be two main areas of disagreement that arise about the 2nd amendment.
The first is on the wording of the 2nd amendment itself. What does it mean, and what was its original context? In other words, does the 2nd amendment guarantee us the right to bear personal weapons? For starters, let's look at the actual text:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
From a purely grammatical standpoint, this amendment is messy and confusing. Does the right of the people to bear arms depend on being part of a well regulated militia? For you history buffs out there, in what context was this amendment given? And for you lawyers, do we even care about the original meaning, or just how it can be interpreted in the present day?
The second general area of disagreement is regardless of whether or not we should have the right to bear arms, does it benefit us as a society? In other words, do guns make us more safe? Here I've heard both sides shout arguments: access to guns either increases violent deaths, or acts as a deterrent to/weapon against crime. Does either side have scientific evidence to back up these claims? Has anyone done a study to show that inner city gangs have less death if they don't have access to guns, or whether they just revert to knifing each other? Or has anyone studied whether families with guns have successfully deterred/impeded would be robbers?
In short, I'm looking for solid facts and logical philosophical arguments about these 2 areas to back up some of the ardent positions a lot of you take on this issue. Do I have any takers?
Apart from regulation of who has access/what checks are done/whether guns can be hidden (to which most sane people can usually generally agree to some basic guidelines), there seem to be two main areas of disagreement that arise about the 2nd amendment.
The first is on the wording of the 2nd amendment itself. What does it mean, and what was its original context? In other words, does the 2nd amendment guarantee us the right to bear personal weapons? For starters, let's look at the actual text:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
From a purely grammatical standpoint, this amendment is messy and confusing. Does the right of the people to bear arms depend on being part of a well regulated militia? For you history buffs out there, in what context was this amendment given? And for you lawyers, do we even care about the original meaning, or just how it can be interpreted in the present day?
The second general area of disagreement is regardless of whether or not we should have the right to bear arms, does it benefit us as a society? In other words, do guns make us more safe? Here I've heard both sides shout arguments: access to guns either increases violent deaths, or acts as a deterrent to/weapon against crime. Does either side have scientific evidence to back up these claims? Has anyone done a study to show that inner city gangs have less death if they don't have access to guns, or whether they just revert to knifing each other? Or has anyone studied whether families with guns have successfully deterred/impeded would be robbers?
In short, I'm looking for solid facts and logical philosophical arguments about these 2 areas to back up some of the ardent positions a lot of you take on this issue. Do I have any takers?
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Gender Roles and Religion, part III
It's been a while since I wrote the first two parts to this discussion, part I being a general overview of gender differences in religion, and part II focusing on how we see G-d. I figured it was time to expand a little on the rationale behind "separate but equal", as I myself struggle to form an opinion on the matter.
Now, most of my readers know by now that I'm an ardent feminist. Growing up I was thankfully taught that I could do anything I set my mind to. Judaically, it manifest itself as wearing a kippah and tallis to services (the former practice I only took up during undergrad). Yet why is this important to me? Do I get something additionally spiritual out of it, or is this simply a reflection of "if he can do it why can't I?" On the other hand, I will always wear a skirt on Shabbos, because for me, it's a time to celebrate being female. As my recent convos with the new Rabbi and Rebbitzin examined, is there something different between the sexes in their sense and practice of spirituality and religion?
The most convincing example of this was the first time I met the Rabbi, who's a big kabbalah guy and often offers classes on Jewish mysticism. His rationale for the different obligations of men and women included a description of women being inherently more spiritual, and thus men needing additional religious obligations. This notion was reinforced by looking around the room at the gender ratio (in this case, about 20 women and 3 men), which is apparently the case in a number of the classes that he leads. Is this a reflection of actual gender differences, or just a freak coincidence?
Within traditional Judaism, there are religious tasks ascribed solely to females: lighting shabbos candles, making challah, Rosh Chodesh (new month) celebrations, that can be particularly meaningful. If I want to keep observing these traditions as a female, isn't it a bit hypocritical to deny men their own roles? As a side note, this contradiction is reflected in a number of non-orthodox synagogues, where the women's club plans events solely for women and the men's club plans events anyone can participate in. Likewise, while some women read torah, few men light candles. It seems to me that we need to choose one: separate but equal, or equal and equal.
Yet I still have difficulty with the concept of different obligations, for the differences between the genders are not discrete, rather a continuum. There are men who have a strong caring and "maternal" instincts towards family and friends. There are females who want nothing to do with raising a family or caretaking. Let alone any in the LGBT community.
Do any of my readers have strong opinions on the matter?
As an update (since the initial draft was written in December), for the past couple of weeks I declined to wear a kippah at services as an experiment. While no one else seemed to notice, I couldn't shake the feeling of nakedness without my head covered. Guess at least to me there is something spiritual about it.
Now, most of my readers know by now that I'm an ardent feminist. Growing up I was thankfully taught that I could do anything I set my mind to. Judaically, it manifest itself as wearing a kippah and tallis to services (the former practice I only took up during undergrad). Yet why is this important to me? Do I get something additionally spiritual out of it, or is this simply a reflection of "if he can do it why can't I?" On the other hand, I will always wear a skirt on Shabbos, because for me, it's a time to celebrate being female. As my recent convos with the new Rabbi and Rebbitzin examined, is there something different between the sexes in their sense and practice of spirituality and religion?
The most convincing example of this was the first time I met the Rabbi, who's a big kabbalah guy and often offers classes on Jewish mysticism. His rationale for the different obligations of men and women included a description of women being inherently more spiritual, and thus men needing additional religious obligations. This notion was reinforced by looking around the room at the gender ratio (in this case, about 20 women and 3 men), which is apparently the case in a number of the classes that he leads. Is this a reflection of actual gender differences, or just a freak coincidence?
Within traditional Judaism, there are religious tasks ascribed solely to females: lighting shabbos candles, making challah, Rosh Chodesh (new month) celebrations, that can be particularly meaningful. If I want to keep observing these traditions as a female, isn't it a bit hypocritical to deny men their own roles? As a side note, this contradiction is reflected in a number of non-orthodox synagogues, where the women's club plans events solely for women and the men's club plans events anyone can participate in. Likewise, while some women read torah, few men light candles. It seems to me that we need to choose one: separate but equal, or equal and equal.
Yet I still have difficulty with the concept of different obligations, for the differences between the genders are not discrete, rather a continuum. There are men who have a strong caring and "maternal" instincts towards family and friends. There are females who want nothing to do with raising a family or caretaking. Let alone any in the LGBT community.
Do any of my readers have strong opinions on the matter?
As an update (since the initial draft was written in December), for the past couple of weeks I declined to wear a kippah at services as an experiment. While no one else seemed to notice, I couldn't shake the feeling of nakedness without my head covered. Guess at least to me there is something spiritual about it.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Strength and Emotions
When it comes to relationships, how do we define strength?
As someone who values mental and emotional strength, I have yet to decide who to award points to when it comes to relationships. The older we get, the more each of us puts up walls. We get cynical and jaded from past experiences, and begin to know better than to blindly rush into each potential love story. We learn to be self-sufficient, so that when the man/woman of our dreams turns out not to be all they were cracked up to be, we have a strong sense of self to fall back on. We find our selves less willing to trust our emotions to another, and thus less likely to find ourselves hurt.
Yet on the flip side of the coin, while you may lose strength points for letting your feelings for someone else dictate your actions/thoughts, it takes a good amount of strength to wear your heart on your sleeve. When the naivete is gone, you have to willingly make yourself emotionally vulnerable to another person. First this involves admitting to yourself such a vulnerability, which is difficult enough, and then acting on it so that others can see. For most this is the scary part, and takes a good amount of courage to overcome. Surprisingly, this is what is most difficult for the stereotypical tough guy to do.
Which takes more strength? And which should we as a society value more?
As someone who values mental and emotional strength, I have yet to decide who to award points to when it comes to relationships. The older we get, the more each of us puts up walls. We get cynical and jaded from past experiences, and begin to know better than to blindly rush into each potential love story. We learn to be self-sufficient, so that when the man/woman of our dreams turns out not to be all they were cracked up to be, we have a strong sense of self to fall back on. We find our selves less willing to trust our emotions to another, and thus less likely to find ourselves hurt.
Yet on the flip side of the coin, while you may lose strength points for letting your feelings for someone else dictate your actions/thoughts, it takes a good amount of strength to wear your heart on your sleeve. When the naivete is gone, you have to willingly make yourself emotionally vulnerable to another person. First this involves admitting to yourself such a vulnerability, which is difficult enough, and then acting on it so that others can see. For most this is the scary part, and takes a good amount of courage to overcome. Surprisingly, this is what is most difficult for the stereotypical tough guy to do.
Which takes more strength? And which should we as a society value more?
Online dating
For all those of my friends who like to live vicariously through my dating stories, I figured it was time for an update. As I'd expect someone in my mother's generation to say, dating today just isn't what it used to be. Particularly in the age of online dating, as I'm now learning.
Let me paint the picture. Sign up for Jdate, Match.com, etc, and you're hit with a plethora of potential mates, their pics and bios for you to peruse at leisure. Having never met them, you come up with some arbitrary criteria from which to narrow the pool. You rule people out because they're too short, too tall, overweight, not meaty enough, too old, too young, not religious enough, too religious, have a boring job, don't make enough, hold the wrong political views, etc. With a narrower list, you can proceed.
The next stage is that someone initiates some sort of contact, be it an email or a chat message of some kind. And if you're the recipient, you get to evaluate whether the other person is worth your time. It never ceases to amaze me when someone decides not to respond. Maybe there are other things/people currently going on in their life, but more likely, they've already ruled you out. I mean, how does one take rejection by someone you've never met? They're not even rejecting you, just some aspect of their perception of you, which is the absurdity of it all... then after this realization you proceed to yourself ignore the message from the chubby/dull looking boy with no ambition.
In the last stage, whenever you do actually set up a meeting, you're now used to evaluating people based on predetermined criteria. No longer are you simply looking for a vaguely defined chemistry with someone, you're comparing against the checklist in your head. And then you wonder why no one seems to be measuring up to your preconceived notions of perfection. Now even when you meet members of the opposite sex on your own, your instinct is still to be in checklist mode. Either way, it becomes all too easy to rule people out rather than in.
In short, I think the world of online dating is allowing us to date like we shop, comparing models and prices until we find the best possible option. Perhaps in doing so we lose sight of the bigger picture of connecting to an actual person.
Let me paint the picture. Sign up for Jdate, Match.com, etc, and you're hit with a plethora of potential mates, their pics and bios for you to peruse at leisure. Having never met them, you come up with some arbitrary criteria from which to narrow the pool. You rule people out because they're too short, too tall, overweight, not meaty enough, too old, too young, not religious enough, too religious, have a boring job, don't make enough, hold the wrong political views, etc. With a narrower list, you can proceed.
The next stage is that someone initiates some sort of contact, be it an email or a chat message of some kind. And if you're the recipient, you get to evaluate whether the other person is worth your time. It never ceases to amaze me when someone decides not to respond. Maybe there are other things/people currently going on in their life, but more likely, they've already ruled you out. I mean, how does one take rejection by someone you've never met? They're not even rejecting you, just some aspect of their perception of you, which is the absurdity of it all... then after this realization you proceed to yourself ignore the message from the chubby/dull looking boy with no ambition.
In the last stage, whenever you do actually set up a meeting, you're now used to evaluating people based on predetermined criteria. No longer are you simply looking for a vaguely defined chemistry with someone, you're comparing against the checklist in your head. And then you wonder why no one seems to be measuring up to your preconceived notions of perfection. Now even when you meet members of the opposite sex on your own, your instinct is still to be in checklist mode. Either way, it becomes all too easy to rule people out rather than in.
In short, I think the world of online dating is allowing us to date like we shop, comparing models and prices until we find the best possible option. Perhaps in doing so we lose sight of the bigger picture of connecting to an actual person.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Reflections and apologies
It's that time of year again, to reflect on the past year and ask forgiveness for all the wrongs. I think this is one of the hardest things to do, both to remember individual events and to apologize without coming off insincere. But here it goes anyways.
First off, I want to apologize that my memory is not great, so I'm writing a generic apology for all that I may not remember. If I've wronged/hurt you in any way, purposeful or not, I'm sorry. If you're reading this, you are someone who I care about, and therefore do not want you to have suffered because of my actions (or lack thereof) or continue to be hurt by them/me. Please forgive me.
If you feel there's individual grievances which need further discussion/apologies, please let me know. Here's to a new year, a fresh start, and high expectations.
L'shanah Tovah.
First off, I want to apologize that my memory is not great, so I'm writing a generic apology for all that I may not remember. If I've wronged/hurt you in any way, purposeful or not, I'm sorry. If you're reading this, you are someone who I care about, and therefore do not want you to have suffered because of my actions (or lack thereof) or continue to be hurt by them/me. Please forgive me.
If you feel there's individual grievances which need further discussion/apologies, please let me know. Here's to a new year, a fresh start, and high expectations.
L'shanah Tovah.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Where have all the manly men gone?
I promised one of my high school friends a few weeks ago that I'd write about this topic, so I figured it's about time to address it. It seems that this is neither simply a regional problem nor a cultural one, rather an epidemic sweeping our country: the disappearance of manly men. Where have they all gone?
Hyperbolic perhaps, but this topic has come up frequently with my female friends lately. No, it's not that we're looking for guys to be every stereotype of manly at all times. We appreciate that men are getting more in touch with their emotions, care about their interpersonal relationships, and are free to take on stereotypical women's roles (e.g. cooking, caretaking). Yet, there should be some manly traits to balance things, whether it be skill in a particular sport, assertiveness in your professional/personal life, the desire to protect those you care about, the willingness to stand up for what you believe in regardless of the cost. In short, particularly with women who are themselves athletic, ambitious, and/or strong-willed, it's the realization that we don't want to "out-man" the men in our lives.
This isn't an issue with all guys (I know of a number who have found a good balance between their masculine and feminine qualities), nor is it confined solely to men. To be entirely fair, there seems to be a growing trend of wussiness throughout our whole country, not just with our males. Parents are increasingly overprotective of their children, and the overall economic prosperity of our country minimizes the need to work hard in future generations. And entirely too frequently, it seems to play itself out in the guys we date, those who can't stand up to their parents on their partner's behalf, those who shy away from leadership and decision making in any capacity, those who have to be consoled more often than they console, those who avoid/fear taking any risks, not to mention those who can't get up the nerve to pursue women they're interested in. While I usually hate stereotyped gender roles, if you are male and all too often fit the descriptions above, it's time to grow up and man up (see above link for ideas). Wussy is simply not sexy.
Hyperbolic perhaps, but this topic has come up frequently with my female friends lately. No, it's not that we're looking for guys to be every stereotype of manly at all times. We appreciate that men are getting more in touch with their emotions, care about their interpersonal relationships, and are free to take on stereotypical women's roles (e.g. cooking, caretaking). Yet, there should be some manly traits to balance things, whether it be skill in a particular sport, assertiveness in your professional/personal life, the desire to protect those you care about, the willingness to stand up for what you believe in regardless of the cost. In short, particularly with women who are themselves athletic, ambitious, and/or strong-willed, it's the realization that we don't want to "out-man" the men in our lives.
This isn't an issue with all guys (I know of a number who have found a good balance between their masculine and feminine qualities), nor is it confined solely to men. To be entirely fair, there seems to be a growing trend of wussiness throughout our whole country, not just with our males. Parents are increasingly overprotective of their children, and the overall economic prosperity of our country minimizes the need to work hard in future generations. And entirely too frequently, it seems to play itself out in the guys we date, those who can't stand up to their parents on their partner's behalf, those who shy away from leadership and decision making in any capacity, those who have to be consoled more often than they console, those who avoid/fear taking any risks, not to mention those who can't get up the nerve to pursue women they're interested in. While I usually hate stereotyped gender roles, if you are male and all too often fit the descriptions above, it's time to grow up and man up (see above link for ideas). Wussy is simply not sexy.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Exes, friends, and family
In talking with a number of friends and family members recently, exes has become an overwhelmingly frequent topic. It seems that no one knows what to do about them.
First off, for those relationships that end relatively well, we often want to maintain the underlying friendship. This one seems like a no-brainer, but let me be clear about this: you cannot go straight from being romantically involved to being platonic friends. Yet almost everyone I know, both male and female, have convinced themselves at one time or other that they can be the exception to this rule. And so they begin this pattern of recapping their day to their ex while searching for/going on disconnected dates with others, until one of them finally realizes that he/she cannot rely on their ex emotionally and simultaneously try to move on, and they cut all ties. We need a cooling off period after a relationship, to get used to the others absence and rediscover our independence. Friendships can be reformed, but they must be just that: started anew after the raw emotions settle down.
Secondly, for those relationships that end not so well, how should we handle it? Whether one publicly or privately copes, we feel any from a range of passionate feelings: hurt, anger, betrayal, jealousy, longing, love and hate. It only makes sense that those who can put us on cloud nine can hurt us just as drastically, so passive feelings are not an option. Yet how long should we feel that way? If one harbors strong feelings of resentment/hatred well into their next relationship, is this simply symptomatic of the extent of emotional damage? Or is it a sign that they have not completely gotten over their ex?
Lastly, for those particularly long term relationships or marriages, what should one do about the family? Does one need to divorce the spouse's family too, even though they may have played a major role in one's own life? And if not completely, what are our obligations to the ex-family in terms of life cycle events?
As usual, I have more questions than answer, so please post your thoughts.
First off, for those relationships that end relatively well, we often want to maintain the underlying friendship. This one seems like a no-brainer, but let me be clear about this: you cannot go straight from being romantically involved to being platonic friends. Yet almost everyone I know, both male and female, have convinced themselves at one time or other that they can be the exception to this rule. And so they begin this pattern of recapping their day to their ex while searching for/going on disconnected dates with others, until one of them finally realizes that he/she cannot rely on their ex emotionally and simultaneously try to move on, and they cut all ties. We need a cooling off period after a relationship, to get used to the others absence and rediscover our independence. Friendships can be reformed, but they must be just that: started anew after the raw emotions settle down.
Secondly, for those relationships that end not so well, how should we handle it? Whether one publicly or privately copes, we feel any from a range of passionate feelings: hurt, anger, betrayal, jealousy, longing, love and hate. It only makes sense that those who can put us on cloud nine can hurt us just as drastically, so passive feelings are not an option. Yet how long should we feel that way? If one harbors strong feelings of resentment/hatred well into their next relationship, is this simply symptomatic of the extent of emotional damage? Or is it a sign that they have not completely gotten over their ex?
Lastly, for those particularly long term relationships or marriages, what should one do about the family? Does one need to divorce the spouse's family too, even though they may have played a major role in one's own life? And if not completely, what are our obligations to the ex-family in terms of life cycle events?
As usual, I have more questions than answer, so please post your thoughts.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
On Jewish women
I'm currently reading a book entitled : The Modern Jewish Girl's Guide to Guilt. Although I think it was given as a joke, it's actually a really cool collection of writings by Jewish women about guilt many of us feel because of our upbringing/community (e.g. not calling your mother, supplying grandchildren, or academic perfection). While I could write a blog about most of them, the last few pieces touched on something I've been thinking a lot about lately: how the world (including the Jewish world) sees Jewish women.
Let's start by laying out the stereotypes. Jewish women are pushy, gossipy, manipulative, overly dominant in their relationships. They worry about everything, are overprotective and overbearing, always prepare an overabundance of food, and have mastered the art of guilting. Let's not forget those observantly orthodox are backward and submissive caretakers, while those who have largely assimilated in American society have earned the title of Jewish American Princesses (JAPs). Have I covered all the bases?
What really gets me is that Jews are often the biggest critics. To be clear, I think it's healthy that every group of people look internally for flaws to try to fix. Yet when the critiques become so prominent as to eclipse any of the positives, that becomes detrimental to us as individuals. The closest comparison I can make is to African Americans during the slave trade and afterward, having been told so many times they were less intelligent, unable to succeed on their own, that some began to believe it themselves (ala Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye).
Not to mention that by harping on the negatives in mixed company, it can perpetuate these stereotypes in non-Jewish circles which may not have the context with which to interpret them. But that's a discussion for another time.
While I do not feel the need to defend the JAP stereotype, I do want to address the strong-willed dominant woman one. As with most ethnic groups throughout history, women have traditionally focused inward, often the ones responsible for taking care of and protecting the family. So when anything or anyone threatened the family unit, it has often been the women who noticed and spoke up first (or who were the only ones around while the men were off fighting).
In particular with Jewish history, the main lesson after the Holocaust was Never Again. And by this, I mean never again are we to ignore the warning signs, to take discrimination and write it off, unwilling and unable to see the violent tides of the future. Never again are we to march like sheep to our deaths. Yes, it's been a while since the 1940s, but the scars are still present, and have definitely influenced the way we raise our children. Couple that to the fact that Jews tend to be fairly progressive when it comes to gender equality, and you have a couple generations of Jewish American women taught to follow their dreams, speak up for what they believe in, and fight to protect their family. This is something we should be proud of, not apologizing for.
Let's start by laying out the stereotypes. Jewish women are pushy, gossipy, manipulative, overly dominant in their relationships. They worry about everything, are overprotective and overbearing, always prepare an overabundance of food, and have mastered the art of guilting. Let's not forget those observantly orthodox are backward and submissive caretakers, while those who have largely assimilated in American society have earned the title of Jewish American Princesses (JAPs). Have I covered all the bases?
What really gets me is that Jews are often the biggest critics. To be clear, I think it's healthy that every group of people look internally for flaws to try to fix. Yet when the critiques become so prominent as to eclipse any of the positives, that becomes detrimental to us as individuals. The closest comparison I can make is to African Americans during the slave trade and afterward, having been told so many times they were less intelligent, unable to succeed on their own, that some began to believe it themselves (ala Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye).
Not to mention that by harping on the negatives in mixed company, it can perpetuate these stereotypes in non-Jewish circles which may not have the context with which to interpret them. But that's a discussion for another time.
While I do not feel the need to defend the JAP stereotype, I do want to address the strong-willed dominant woman one. As with most ethnic groups throughout history, women have traditionally focused inward, often the ones responsible for taking care of and protecting the family. So when anything or anyone threatened the family unit, it has often been the women who noticed and spoke up first (or who were the only ones around while the men were off fighting).
In particular with Jewish history, the main lesson after the Holocaust was Never Again. And by this, I mean never again are we to ignore the warning signs, to take discrimination and write it off, unwilling and unable to see the violent tides of the future. Never again are we to march like sheep to our deaths. Yes, it's been a while since the 1940s, but the scars are still present, and have definitely influenced the way we raise our children. Couple that to the fact that Jews tend to be fairly progressive when it comes to gender equality, and you have a couple generations of Jewish American women taught to follow their dreams, speak up for what they believe in, and fight to protect their family. This is something we should be proud of, not apologizing for.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Stuck in the middle
Why does my world always seem so polarized? I mean, whether it's a relationship gone sour, an organization's leadership butting heads, or friends who just plain dislike each other, lately I always seem to find myself stuck in the middle. While it may be a good thing that so many feel comfortable enough to confide in me, it always puts me on the defensive.
Call me an optimist, but I still think that most people are inherently good people. Yes, Zenith's body-flaunting-boy-crazy mentality annoys the crap out of me, but she's also friendly, caring and fun to hang out with when boys aren't around. Zed may be a dick to the women he dates, but is funny and intellectually stimulating and a supportive friend. If you minimize an individual to having only one personality trait, you ignore all of their redeeming qualities. So I generally choose to see the whole package, which is apparently not the popular approach.
That being said, I recognize the need to vent when something annoys you. This is particularly true with any sort of organization, as those who want to lead are also likely to have strong personalities and bump heads a bit. Yet here I often find myself as the middleman, instead of the injured parties directly interacting, I try to ferry the concerns of the venting one to the one she's speaking about, and try to defend the latter to the former.
Regardless of circumstances, I end up in the middle of a sea of negativity, which starts to impact my mood and thoughts. So what should I do? If I shut down lines of communication that are negative, I lose friends' willingness to share their feelings and frustrations, and mute criticism that could be constructive organizationally. If I don't, my role of cheerleader/telephone will continue to wear on my psyche. All I know is I hate being stuck in the middle.
Call me an optimist, but I still think that most people are inherently good people. Yes, Zenith's body-flaunting-boy-crazy mentality annoys the crap out of me, but she's also friendly, caring and fun to hang out with when boys aren't around. Zed may be a dick to the women he dates, but is funny and intellectually stimulating and a supportive friend. If you minimize an individual to having only one personality trait, you ignore all of their redeeming qualities. So I generally choose to see the whole package, which is apparently not the popular approach.
That being said, I recognize the need to vent when something annoys you. This is particularly true with any sort of organization, as those who want to lead are also likely to have strong personalities and bump heads a bit. Yet here I often find myself as the middleman, instead of the injured parties directly interacting, I try to ferry the concerns of the venting one to the one she's speaking about, and try to defend the latter to the former.
Regardless of circumstances, I end up in the middle of a sea of negativity, which starts to impact my mood and thoughts. So what should I do? If I shut down lines of communication that are negative, I lose friends' willingness to share their feelings and frustrations, and mute criticism that could be constructive organizationally. If I don't, my role of cheerleader/telephone will continue to wear on my psyche. All I know is I hate being stuck in the middle.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Life, death, and everything in between
I just got back from an unusual and last minute trip to New Jersey. One of my favorite uncles has been battling cancer for a while, and now it appears like cancer is winning. Since they just sent Hospice in, my aunt and uncle decided to pass along the word now, in hopes that everyone could visit while he's still alive.
It's always hard to see someone you love in pain. For my uncle, it comes down to balancing pain with the hallucinations that come when he's on too much pain medication. In this situation, I can't help but wonder what to hope/pray for. I mean, while I'd love a miracle, I'm a little too much of a realist to think he'll recover. So do I wish for more time with him? Or less time that he's in pain?
On top of this, we only spent about an hour with him each day we came to visit, because he was very tired and weak. The rest was spent with family, some of whom I don't get to see very often, and while there were moments of tears, there was overall still a reunion-like feel to our interactions. I know it meant a lot to him to have everyone there (I mean, he even told my grandmother he liked her singing growing up). So I've been pondering the importance of family. Although they can annoy you greatly at times, there's nothing like family to be there for you when you need it most. Nobody like family to love you regardless of how cranky you are, to drop their lives for you in a moment's notice. In my independent life in Atlanta, it's easy to lose sight of this.
In writing this, I don't expect sympathy, because no one ever knows what to say in such situations, so I will excuse everyone from the obligatory awkwardness. I will instead end on a more positive note, with some of my favorite Uncle Alan-isms:
1) He knows NYC in and out. He's famous for giving my friends an insiders' tour, pointing out things like where Ghostbusters was filmed, the courthouse steps from law and order, and every science fiction bookstore in the city.
2) At over 6 feet, he sticks out like a sore thumb with the rest of my family. During one of my high school soccer games, I knew my family made it out, because I heard his booming voice as I chased the ball. Sure enough, there's my uncle and the rest of the family, cheering me on with every touch, even though he understood little of the game itself.
3) He used to own a science fiction bookstore, and still loves the genre. Although I always argue, his rationale is that there's so much social commentary laced into the stories, that they become more realistic than other fiction. Then again, he once argued that Babylon 5 was more realistic than the Bourne Identity, because in the former the escape pod had blinking lights and the latter had a silencer on a revolver.
4) He knows politics. If you want someone on a ballot in NYC, you get my uncle. What this involves I know not, but he's damn good at it, and loves every opportunity to criticize the thieves and idiots he often found himself working with. This week we got him talking about his theory on why Obama won: within politics, there are a lot of crooks that try to ride the coattails of the politicians without doing much work. This primary season, most of them flocked to Hillary, which left the hardworking idealists to run Obama's campaign, which lead him to a landslide victory. Why have all these Obama people now come into the spotlight for "thievery?" They're all recent additions to the Obama wagon, and now is the first time he's having to learn how to sort the good from the bad.
I could go on, but I'll leave this off here. The summary version: love your family, and make the most of your life. Then even if you find it unexpectedly shortened, you'll know you made a difference and touched others.
It's always hard to see someone you love in pain. For my uncle, it comes down to balancing pain with the hallucinations that come when he's on too much pain medication. In this situation, I can't help but wonder what to hope/pray for. I mean, while I'd love a miracle, I'm a little too much of a realist to think he'll recover. So do I wish for more time with him? Or less time that he's in pain?
On top of this, we only spent about an hour with him each day we came to visit, because he was very tired and weak. The rest was spent with family, some of whom I don't get to see very often, and while there were moments of tears, there was overall still a reunion-like feel to our interactions. I know it meant a lot to him to have everyone there (I mean, he even told my grandmother he liked her singing growing up). So I've been pondering the importance of family. Although they can annoy you greatly at times, there's nothing like family to be there for you when you need it most. Nobody like family to love you regardless of how cranky you are, to drop their lives for you in a moment's notice. In my independent life in Atlanta, it's easy to lose sight of this.
In writing this, I don't expect sympathy, because no one ever knows what to say in such situations, so I will excuse everyone from the obligatory awkwardness. I will instead end on a more positive note, with some of my favorite Uncle Alan-isms:
1) He knows NYC in and out. He's famous for giving my friends an insiders' tour, pointing out things like where Ghostbusters was filmed, the courthouse steps from law and order, and every science fiction bookstore in the city.
2) At over 6 feet, he sticks out like a sore thumb with the rest of my family. During one of my high school soccer games, I knew my family made it out, because I heard his booming voice as I chased the ball. Sure enough, there's my uncle and the rest of the family, cheering me on with every touch, even though he understood little of the game itself.
3) He used to own a science fiction bookstore, and still loves the genre. Although I always argue, his rationale is that there's so much social commentary laced into the stories, that they become more realistic than other fiction. Then again, he once argued that Babylon 5 was more realistic than the Bourne Identity, because in the former the escape pod had blinking lights and the latter had a silencer on a revolver.
4) He knows politics. If you want someone on a ballot in NYC, you get my uncle. What this involves I know not, but he's damn good at it, and loves every opportunity to criticize the thieves and idiots he often found himself working with. This week we got him talking about his theory on why Obama won: within politics, there are a lot of crooks that try to ride the coattails of the politicians without doing much work. This primary season, most of them flocked to Hillary, which left the hardworking idealists to run Obama's campaign, which lead him to a landslide victory. Why have all these Obama people now come into the spotlight for "thievery?" They're all recent additions to the Obama wagon, and now is the first time he's having to learn how to sort the good from the bad.
I could go on, but I'll leave this off here. The summary version: love your family, and make the most of your life. Then even if you find it unexpectedly shortened, you'll know you made a difference and touched others.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Ethics of War, part 2
In continuing the discussion of ethics in war, I want to now focus on the decision to enter war. War by definition causes loss of life, usually both civilian and military. So when is it justifiable, and when is it not?
I initially looked for a definition to post for why a country has a military to begin with, but definitions available are either vague (e.g. webster's) or uncited (e.g. wikipedia). Given that, all that follows is from my head, so feel free to disagree as you see fit.
Almost every country has a military of some sort, with the number 1 goal of protecting it's people from outside attackers. Thus, there's usually a Department of Defense or such put in charge. So, if a country is attacked by invading forces on its sovereign territory, it seems necessary to engage in war to defend itself. Yet this is only a clear cut decision when there's an immediate threat on your home turf that must be stopped, with a recognizable foreign army playing by a set of international rules. What happens when you're attacked on foreign soil, such has been the case with embassy bombings of the US throughout the world? If you're being attacked sporadically, does it still count as an imminent threat? And if you knew your country was going to be attacked tomorrow, would it be morally justifiable to preemptively strike?
Now, there's also the diplomatic approach to solving conflict, without engaging in an all out war. Obviously, diplomacy takes fewer lives than war, and thus a quick diplomatic solution would be preferable. Yet in the case of an invading army, talking will do little if they gain control of your cities. In the case of isolated attacks, how long does one hold off military response while pursuing diplomatic pressure? Even in negotiations, prior military restraint might decrease your country's standing and thus negotiating ability. Depending on the point in history and location in the world, willingness to negotiate may be seen as a strength or a weakness. Additionally, if your "enemy's" goal is to destroy your country, can you really even negotiate?
Lastly, when living in a country with one of the world's strongest military powers, don't we have a responsibility to use our might to protect those who cannot defend themselves? With genocides in Rwanda, Darfur, etc, one might see us obligated to be engaged around the world, as a moral police force of sorts, even though it risks the lives of our citizens. If we take this premise of moral responsibility, yet the need for our intervention exceeds our ability, how do we decide where to deploy our soldiers? In deciding between two equally justified engagements, is it ethical to be selfish and choose the one that might bring financial benefit to us? Or does that cross the line of risking our lives for financial gain?
I initially looked for a definition to post for why a country has a military to begin with, but definitions available are either vague (e.g. webster's) or uncited (e.g. wikipedia). Given that, all that follows is from my head, so feel free to disagree as you see fit.
Almost every country has a military of some sort, with the number 1 goal of protecting it's people from outside attackers. Thus, there's usually a Department of Defense or such put in charge. So, if a country is attacked by invading forces on its sovereign territory, it seems necessary to engage in war to defend itself. Yet this is only a clear cut decision when there's an immediate threat on your home turf that must be stopped, with a recognizable foreign army playing by a set of international rules. What happens when you're attacked on foreign soil, such has been the case with embassy bombings of the US throughout the world? If you're being attacked sporadically, does it still count as an imminent threat? And if you knew your country was going to be attacked tomorrow, would it be morally justifiable to preemptively strike?
Now, there's also the diplomatic approach to solving conflict, without engaging in an all out war. Obviously, diplomacy takes fewer lives than war, and thus a quick diplomatic solution would be preferable. Yet in the case of an invading army, talking will do little if they gain control of your cities. In the case of isolated attacks, how long does one hold off military response while pursuing diplomatic pressure? Even in negotiations, prior military restraint might decrease your country's standing and thus negotiating ability. Depending on the point in history and location in the world, willingness to negotiate may be seen as a strength or a weakness. Additionally, if your "enemy's" goal is to destroy your country, can you really even negotiate?
Lastly, when living in a country with one of the world's strongest military powers, don't we have a responsibility to use our might to protect those who cannot defend themselves? With genocides in Rwanda, Darfur, etc, one might see us obligated to be engaged around the world, as a moral police force of sorts, even though it risks the lives of our citizens. If we take this premise of moral responsibility, yet the need for our intervention exceeds our ability, how do we decide where to deploy our soldiers? In deciding between two equally justified engagements, is it ethical to be selfish and choose the one that might bring financial benefit to us? Or does that cross the line of risking our lives for financial gain?
Monday, January 12, 2009
The ethics of war, part I
While the majority of my recent comments/posts have been in support of Israel's actions in Gaza, it's mainly a protest against the double-standards applied to Israel when compared to the rest of the world, in the media, at the UN, and around the world. If one is a pacifist, and anti-war at all times, while I disagree with you, I can respect your current criticisms of Israel. You are consistently applying ethical principles to Israel as you do every other country in the world.
However, for those of us who believe that war is sometimes necessary, yet do not like the conditions of war, there are much harder questions to answer about the morality of war. How do we decide what is moral in war? When is it moral to enter into war, and what defines ethical behavior during it?
Let me be entirely clear, by international law regarding war, Israel has every right to defend its citizens as it is currently doing. There is no definition of proportionality in war, a country keeps a strong army as both a deterrent and to defend itself to its utmost ability if necessary. Yet the violence and harm to civilians in Gaza currently is deeply unsettling for me. This blog is therefore not about legality and justification, but how a military in general should handle morality. The very nature of a war means that you value the lives of your soldiers and citizens more than the lives of your enemy. But what is the exchange rate?
From a sheer numbers game, you risk the lives of your soldiers less when you have an air attack, bombing the crap out of anywhere the enemy combatants may lie. Yet in doing so, the risk of injury to their civilians increases dramatically, particularly when armed militants use human shields. If you truly value life in general, do you send your troops in on the ground, where their lives are more at risk but the damage to the opposition's civilians will be decreased? How do you balance the two?
With guerilla warfare, one has to decide in a split second whether the woman running toward you needs medical attention, or has a bomb strapped to her chest. For an individual soldier, the mere definition of war is bound to have psychological impact, so I find it hard to imagine not being trigger happy in such a scenario, and in most encounters. How does a country advise/instruct ethical behavior of its soldiers with such a scenario?
However, for those of us who believe that war is sometimes necessary, yet do not like the conditions of war, there are much harder questions to answer about the morality of war. How do we decide what is moral in war? When is it moral to enter into war, and what defines ethical behavior during it?
Let me be entirely clear, by international law regarding war, Israel has every right to defend its citizens as it is currently doing. There is no definition of proportionality in war, a country keeps a strong army as both a deterrent and to defend itself to its utmost ability if necessary. Yet the violence and harm to civilians in Gaza currently is deeply unsettling for me. This blog is therefore not about legality and justification, but how a military in general should handle morality. The very nature of a war means that you value the lives of your soldiers and citizens more than the lives of your enemy. But what is the exchange rate?
From a sheer numbers game, you risk the lives of your soldiers less when you have an air attack, bombing the crap out of anywhere the enemy combatants may lie. Yet in doing so, the risk of injury to their civilians increases dramatically, particularly when armed militants use human shields. If you truly value life in general, do you send your troops in on the ground, where their lives are more at risk but the damage to the opposition's civilians will be decreased? How do you balance the two?
With guerilla warfare, one has to decide in a split second whether the woman running toward you needs medical attention, or has a bomb strapped to her chest. For an individual soldier, the mere definition of war is bound to have psychological impact, so I find it hard to imagine not being trigger happy in such a scenario, and in most encounters. How does a country advise/instruct ethical behavior of its soldiers with such a scenario?
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Sickness and courtesy
So I figured I'd break up the political posts with something everyone can relate to at this time of year: being sick. I write this from home, where I was sent to take care of myself by my labmates. Funny thing is, in comparison to the way I was feeling on New Years day, I feel great. Until they said something about it, it would never have occurred to me to take today off. This got me thinking: what do we owe ourselves and others to do when we're not feeling well?
When it comes to ourselves, the majority of my friends and I are workaholics to some degree or another: we invest time into our professions because we somewhat enjoy them and enjoy the feeling of productivity in general. So when it comes to ourselves, we often fight to work through whatever currently ails us to make progress on the never-ending to-do lists. For me personally, I tend to set the threshold of a sick day at when the sickness actually impedes my ability to do work, which is very rarely. The downside to setting a threshold so high is that it inevitably takes me longer to fight off the disease when I'm running constantly.
The other unintentional side effect is our ability to transmit the disease to others. Obviously no one wants to make their friends/co-workers ill, but often our desire to "tough it out" increases our risk of transmission. When I first started feeling sick in new york last week, it didn't even occur to me not to stay with friends and family I had come to visit. Now looking back on it, should I have? What is the ethical and responsible behavior choice here? Should we remove ourselves from all social activity while we are sick, or is there some middle ground?
When it comes to ourselves, the majority of my friends and I are workaholics to some degree or another: we invest time into our professions because we somewhat enjoy them and enjoy the feeling of productivity in general. So when it comes to ourselves, we often fight to work through whatever currently ails us to make progress on the never-ending to-do lists. For me personally, I tend to set the threshold of a sick day at when the sickness actually impedes my ability to do work, which is very rarely. The downside to setting a threshold so high is that it inevitably takes me longer to fight off the disease when I'm running constantly.
The other unintentional side effect is our ability to transmit the disease to others. Obviously no one wants to make their friends/co-workers ill, but often our desire to "tough it out" increases our risk of transmission. When I first started feeling sick in new york last week, it didn't even occur to me not to stay with friends and family I had come to visit. Now looking back on it, should I have? What is the ethical and responsible behavior choice here? Should we remove ourselves from all social activity while we are sick, or is there some middle ground?
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Civilians and the media
As the media likes to show coverage of, a great number of palestinians have been caught in the crossfire of the latest fighting. It's a terrible shame that innocent men, women, and children are injured or killed during the fighting, and I empathize with their feelings of anger and frustration. Yet the media would have you blame the Israelis. The common argument goes something like this: if more innocent palestinians are injured/killed than innocent Israelis, obviously we need to support the side fighting for the palestinians, Hamas.
There are multiple flaws with this reasoning. First off, there is no moral equivalency between indiscriminantly shelling civilians, and targeted strikes on terrorists with civilian collateral. If your goal is to maim as many civilians as possible, how can the international community sympathize with your cause? This is an entirely different tactic than the goal of the Israelis, who have been phoning their targets to warn the residents to evacuate in advance of an airstrike, to try to minimize the harm to civilians.
This leads me to the second flaw: who is to blame for palestinian civilian deaths? Israel has a number of unmanned aerial vehicles that have been monitoring Gaza, which they use to look for the sites of rockets launched (usually from the backs of trucks), and rewind the videos to find the origin of the trucks (i.e. the site of rocket storage). When terrorists choose mosques, schools, and hospitals as their base to store or launch rockets, they purposely endanger the lives of all the civilians in these locations in exchange for media sympathy. They alone bare the responsibility for the innocents injured.
Compare this to the Israelis. The residents of Sderot and other cities being targeted are largely not losing their lives. Why? Because Israel's government does everything it can to prevent it, created a warning system, built shelters for the people, and has technologically savvy medical care that saves lives. The efficacy of its warning system and emergency care does not negate the intended threat of Hamas rockets.
Lastly, let's not forget the violence on the palestinians directly at the hands of Hamas operatives. In recent days, a number of suspected Israeli "collaborators" have been killed or tortured. Fatah (Hamas' rival political faction) leaders have been kept on house arrest, have had limbs broken, and otherwise threatened by Hamas. This is all in the name of maintaining political control of Gaza.
When an organization is so willing to take and risk the lives of their citizens, the international community needs to stop showing them sympathy. Feel sorry for the palestinians indeed, but realize it's at the hands of a morally reprehensible leadership that they suffer.
There are multiple flaws with this reasoning. First off, there is no moral equivalency between indiscriminantly shelling civilians, and targeted strikes on terrorists with civilian collateral. If your goal is to maim as many civilians as possible, how can the international community sympathize with your cause? This is an entirely different tactic than the goal of the Israelis, who have been phoning their targets to warn the residents to evacuate in advance of an airstrike, to try to minimize the harm to civilians.
This leads me to the second flaw: who is to blame for palestinian civilian deaths? Israel has a number of unmanned aerial vehicles that have been monitoring Gaza, which they use to look for the sites of rockets launched (usually from the backs of trucks), and rewind the videos to find the origin of the trucks (i.e. the site of rocket storage). When terrorists choose mosques, schools, and hospitals as their base to store or launch rockets, they purposely endanger the lives of all the civilians in these locations in exchange for media sympathy. They alone bare the responsibility for the innocents injured.
Compare this to the Israelis. The residents of Sderot and other cities being targeted are largely not losing their lives. Why? Because Israel's government does everything it can to prevent it, created a warning system, built shelters for the people, and has technologically savvy medical care that saves lives. The efficacy of its warning system and emergency care does not negate the intended threat of Hamas rockets.
Lastly, let's not forget the violence on the palestinians directly at the hands of Hamas operatives. In recent days, a number of suspected Israeli "collaborators" have been killed or tortured. Fatah (Hamas' rival political faction) leaders have been kept on house arrest, have had limbs broken, and otherwise threatened by Hamas. This is all in the name of maintaining political control of Gaza.
When an organization is so willing to take and risk the lives of their citizens, the international community needs to stop showing them sympathy. Feel sorry for the palestinians indeed, but realize it's at the hands of a morally reprehensible leadership that they suffer.
Gaza and the Media
By now most people have heard about the "Crisis in Gaza" from the various news outlets. On CNN, the story went something like this: Israeli airstrikes kill hundreds of palestinians, including many civilians... and oh yeah, Hamas is firing some rockets into Israel. How on earth is one to get the full picture from this nonsense?
Let me be perfectly clear: since 2005, when Israel withdrew its presence in Gaza, over 7,500 rockets have been fired into southern Israeli. The rockets are indiscriminant, and have equal chances of hitting a school, hospital, or someone's kitchen, and are packed with shards of metal and glass with the aim to injure as many Israelis as possible. For the past few years, residents of the Israeli town of Sderot have grown accustomed to daily warnings from the rocket detection system, which gives them about 30 seconds to run for cover. Outdoor playgrounds are unused, because teachers can't round up a classful of children and bring them to shelter in time. Residents often shower with a door open so they can hear the alarm, rarely go outdoors, and over 50% know someone who has been injured or killed by a rocket attack. A large percentage of children are now suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
In the past 6 months, Egypt brokered a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel. In contrast to what most would consider to be a cease fire (i.e. all fire ceasing), the cease-fire decreased rockets being fired, down to about 2-3 a day, and in return Israel did not target Hamas operatives. The latest airstrikes and ground operations came because Hamas refused to renew this cease fire. Let me ask you, how many rockets fired from Mexico would the people of California be willing to put up with before urging the government to respond? Why does the international community pressure Israel to show restraint, when no country would be willing to put up with daily attacks on its civilian population without responding?
Let me be perfectly clear: since 2005, when Israel withdrew its presence in Gaza, over 7,500 rockets have been fired into southern Israeli. The rockets are indiscriminant, and have equal chances of hitting a school, hospital, or someone's kitchen, and are packed with shards of metal and glass with the aim to injure as many Israelis as possible. For the past few years, residents of the Israeli town of Sderot have grown accustomed to daily warnings from the rocket detection system, which gives them about 30 seconds to run for cover. Outdoor playgrounds are unused, because teachers can't round up a classful of children and bring them to shelter in time. Residents often shower with a door open so they can hear the alarm, rarely go outdoors, and over 50% know someone who has been injured or killed by a rocket attack. A large percentage of children are now suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
In the past 6 months, Egypt brokered a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel. In contrast to what most would consider to be a cease fire (i.e. all fire ceasing), the cease-fire decreased rockets being fired, down to about 2-3 a day, and in return Israel did not target Hamas operatives. The latest airstrikes and ground operations came because Hamas refused to renew this cease fire. Let me ask you, how many rockets fired from Mexico would the people of California be willing to put up with before urging the government to respond? Why does the international community pressure Israel to show restraint, when no country would be willing to put up with daily attacks on its civilian population without responding?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
