Sunday, February 22, 2009
Editorial IV
CLIMATIC ARMAGEDDON
For most of us, concerns over global warming are of a distant, somewhat abstract variety. Perhaps you’re considering a hybrid car for your next auto purchase or you’ve attempted to reduce the frequency with which you let your engine stay idle. Beyond this however, you’re life has not been measurably altered or significantly impacted by what skeptics refer to as an unproven theory.
To those who have doubts, I urge to you to request proof from the people of Bangladesh.
Last year, Fakhruddin Ahmed, chief adviser of the interim government of Bangladesh, appealed to the United Nations on behalf of those who have been done asunder by global warming.
"This year we in Bangladesh have witnessed one of the worst floods in recent times . . . there is little we can do to prevent significant damage . . . a one-metre sea level rise will submerge about one-third of Bangladesh, uprooting 25 million to 30 million people. I speak for Bangladesh and many other countries on the threshold of a climatic Armageddon," he said.
Don't fool yourself, this is an existential threat, despite the fact that it's usually marketed as a hip trend. Where are 25 to 30 million people going to go? With Bangladeshi cities being pushed beyond capacity as it is, displaced people will surely be heading to India, where they have already adopted a defensive posture by sealing their borders. A conflict is imminent, if not inevitable.
As for those sticking it out, the rise in water levels and salinity, has made life nearly unlivable. South Asia’s Venice, this is not. More like a nightmarish Atlantis. A portent of our future? Quite possibly.
For more on the drowning of Bangladesh, check this out:
For most of us, concerns over global warming are of a distant, somewhat abstract variety. Perhaps you’re considering a hybrid car for your next auto purchase or you’ve attempted to reduce the frequency with which you let your engine stay idle. Beyond this however, you’re life has not been measurably altered or significantly impacted by what skeptics refer to as an unproven theory.
To those who have doubts, I urge to you to request proof from the people of Bangladesh.
Last year, Fakhruddin Ahmed, chief adviser of the interim government of Bangladesh, appealed to the United Nations on behalf of those who have been done asunder by global warming.
"This year we in Bangladesh have witnessed one of the worst floods in recent times . . . there is little we can do to prevent significant damage . . . a one-metre sea level rise will submerge about one-third of Bangladesh, uprooting 25 million to 30 million people. I speak for Bangladesh and many other countries on the threshold of a climatic Armageddon," he said.
Don't fool yourself, this is an existential threat, despite the fact that it's usually marketed as a hip trend. Where are 25 to 30 million people going to go? With Bangladeshi cities being pushed beyond capacity as it is, displaced people will surely be heading to India, where they have already adopted a defensive posture by sealing their borders. A conflict is imminent, if not inevitable.
As for those sticking it out, the rise in water levels and salinity, has made life nearly unlivable. South Asia’s Venice, this is not. More like a nightmarish Atlantis. A portent of our future? Quite possibly.
For more on the drowning of Bangladesh, check this out:
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Article 59
ICC Issues Warrant For Al-Bashir, Or Not
‘New York Times’ Reports That Arrest Warrant Was Imminent For Sudanese President Was Unfounded
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Editorial III
Censorship = Cowardice
You may have supported Israel during the war in Gaza, or you may have not. But I believe that anyone who supports the ostracism of those who subscribe to antagonistic viewpoints is nothing short of a coward.
The source of my outrage is this article, on Ilan Pappé. For those of you who don’t know, Pappé is known for his strong condemnation of Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza, and has previously supported economic and political boycotts of Israel.
Now considering I knew nothing of Pappé before reading this article, I figured it was apropos to look him up. Here were some of the criticisms I found of his work:
• "Unfortunately much of what Pappé tries to sell his readers is complete fabrication. [...] This book is awash with errors of a quantity and a quality that are not found in serious historiography. [...] The multiplicity of mistakes on each page is a product of both Pappé's historical methodology and his political proclivities[.] [...] For those enamored with subjectivity and in thrall to historical relativism, a fact is not a fact and accuracy is unattainable." – Benny Morris
• "Readers are told of events that never happened, such as the nonexistent May 1948 Tantura "massacre" or the expulsion of Arabs within twelve days of the partition resolution. They learn of political decisions that were never made, such as the Anglo-French 1912 plan for the occupation of Palestine or the contriving of 'a master plan to rid the future Jewish state of as many Palestinians as possible. And they are misinformed about military and political developments, such as the rationale for the Balfour declaration . ." – Ephraim Karsh
Let’s assume the comments of Karsh and Morris are 100% true. Let’s say Pappé is crummy historian, who fabricates events and misinforms his readers. Given this, it is still wrong to censor him, or any other academic. Censorship is the last refuge of cowards. If you take such offense to this man’s work, if you feel it is flawed to the point of hilarity as the aforementioned scholars suggest, then challenge him to a public debate and publish counter-arguments.
To label someone like Pappé an anti-Semite or self-hating Jew and deny him tenure, is really no more than a thinly veiled effort to deny him a fair fight. If you feel strongly about an issue, and are deeply bothered by critical comments, take some advice from the streets: man up! A crude message? Sure. But a valid one nonetheless.
To silence one’s voice is to be a moral and intellectual eunuch. In the end, you fuel your enemy’s fire by not engaging him.
Take a look at this debate between Norman Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz. A paradigm for discourse? Probably not. Regardless of who you agree with however, at least Finkelstein and Dershowitz show some modicum of academic fortitude by engaging one another. Also, check out the famous Chomsky/Buckley debate from 1969.
You may have supported Israel during the war in Gaza, or you may have not. But I believe that anyone who supports the ostracism of those who subscribe to antagonistic viewpoints is nothing short of a coward.
The source of my outrage is this article, on Ilan Pappé. For those of you who don’t know, Pappé is known for his strong condemnation of Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza, and has previously supported economic and political boycotts of Israel.
Now considering I knew nothing of Pappé before reading this article, I figured it was apropos to look him up. Here were some of the criticisms I found of his work:
• "Unfortunately much of what Pappé tries to sell his readers is complete fabrication. [...] This book is awash with errors of a quantity and a quality that are not found in serious historiography. [...] The multiplicity of mistakes on each page is a product of both Pappé's historical methodology and his political proclivities[.] [...] For those enamored with subjectivity and in thrall to historical relativism, a fact is not a fact and accuracy is unattainable." – Benny Morris
• "Readers are told of events that never happened, such as the nonexistent May 1948 Tantura "massacre" or the expulsion of Arabs within twelve days of the partition resolution. They learn of political decisions that were never made, such as the Anglo-French 1912 plan for the occupation of Palestine or the contriving of 'a master plan to rid the future Jewish state of as many Palestinians as possible. And they are misinformed about military and political developments, such as the rationale for the Balfour declaration . ." – Ephraim Karsh
Let’s assume the comments of Karsh and Morris are 100% true. Let’s say Pappé is crummy historian, who fabricates events and misinforms his readers. Given this, it is still wrong to censor him, or any other academic. Censorship is the last refuge of cowards. If you take such offense to this man’s work, if you feel it is flawed to the point of hilarity as the aforementioned scholars suggest, then challenge him to a public debate and publish counter-arguments.
To label someone like Pappé an anti-Semite or self-hating Jew and deny him tenure, is really no more than a thinly veiled effort to deny him a fair fight. If you feel strongly about an issue, and are deeply bothered by critical comments, take some advice from the streets: man up! A crude message? Sure. But a valid one nonetheless.
To silence one’s voice is to be a moral and intellectual eunuch. In the end, you fuel your enemy’s fire by not engaging him.
Take a look at this debate between Norman Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz. A paradigm for discourse? Probably not. Regardless of who you agree with however, at least Finkelstein and Dershowitz show some modicum of academic fortitude by engaging one another. Also, check out the famous Chomsky/Buckley debate from 1969.
Editorial II
Blood Phone
In 2006 Warner Bros. released Blood Diamond, an expose of the bloodshed and violence that lay behind the illicit diamond trade around the world. In an effort to avoid spoilers, I’ll merely say that the film takes place during the Sierra Leone Civil War, which lasted from 1991 to 2002. Control of the West African nation’s diamond trade was the major precipitant of the war, leading to a regional conflagration that included Liberia, the United Kingdom, and an array of splinter paramilitary groups.
The conflict that left 100,000 dead by some estimates, and nearly two million displaced, resulted in the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme, ratified by the UN.
The KPCS has been quite successful in accomplishing its mandate: the eradication of diamonds that have emanated from conflict zones, thus reducing the likelihood that war and exploitation will be financed by conflict diamonds. The idea that one’s wedding ring had blood on it ultimately prompted the international community to act.
But how would people react if the Motorola cell phone they were speaking on was covered in that very same blood? What about the Finding Nemo DVD you just saw with your kids? Or the desktop they just wrote up their homework on?
Many would dismiss this as hyperbole, another form of liberal knee-jerk guilt felt for factors beyond our control.
As we speak, a war of catastrophic proportions has reached its crescendo in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). While the causes are myriad, prominent among them are coltan and cassiterite. Though the conflict’s origins lay elsewhere, these two minerals act as catalysts. Demand for electronic goods, many of which are comprised of coltan and cassiterite, is capitalized by militias who finance their operations by plundering these natural resources, and in the process unleashing incomprehensible violence on nearby villagers.
Also, check out this phenomenal piece on Western demand for electronics and their subsequent effect on the conflict in the DRC.
In 2006 Warner Bros. released Blood Diamond, an expose of the bloodshed and violence that lay behind the illicit diamond trade around the world. In an effort to avoid spoilers, I’ll merely say that the film takes place during the Sierra Leone Civil War, which lasted from 1991 to 2002. Control of the West African nation’s diamond trade was the major precipitant of the war, leading to a regional conflagration that included Liberia, the United Kingdom, and an array of splinter paramilitary groups.
The conflict that left 100,000 dead by some estimates, and nearly two million displaced, resulted in the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme, ratified by the UN.
The KPCS has been quite successful in accomplishing its mandate: the eradication of diamonds that have emanated from conflict zones, thus reducing the likelihood that war and exploitation will be financed by conflict diamonds. The idea that one’s wedding ring had blood on it ultimately prompted the international community to act.
But how would people react if the Motorola cell phone they were speaking on was covered in that very same blood? What about the Finding Nemo DVD you just saw with your kids? Or the desktop they just wrote up their homework on?
Many would dismiss this as hyperbole, another form of liberal knee-jerk guilt felt for factors beyond our control.
As we speak, a war of catastrophic proportions has reached its crescendo in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). While the causes are myriad, prominent among them are coltan and cassiterite. Though the conflict’s origins lay elsewhere, these two minerals act as catalysts. Demand for electronic goods, many of which are comprised of coltan and cassiterite, is capitalized by militias who finance their operations by plundering these natural resources, and in the process unleashing incomprehensible violence on nearby villagers.
Also, check out this phenomenal piece on Western demand for electronics and their subsequent effect on the conflict in the DRC.
Article 54
Sudan's Threats Buttressed By China
Friday, February 06, 2009*Correction: Even though arms are brought into Sudan, China argues that they are allowed to bring them into Khartoum, just not Darfur.
Original: Even though arms are brought into Sudan, China argues that they are allowed to bring them into Darfur, just not Khartoum.
Editorial I
The New Media: Anarchy or Democracy?
Journalism is at a crossroads. Such was the message espoused at a recent gathering I attended, hosted by the Committee for Concerned Journalists. The night’s keynote event was a roundtable discussion, moderated by Tom Brokaw on the future of journalism. All the usual worries were voiced, among them the collapse of print journalism and the rise of the blogosphere, leading to the inevitable question: What role will print journalists play in the 21st century?
Once considered the agenda-setters, those reporting the news will have to conform to modernity and revise their roles. Some on the panel believed that journalists must become interpreters, filtering the gargantuan volume of information into something coherent and sensible. Regardless, the consensus was one of positive acceptance. The new forms of media hailed the advent of journalism’s democratization.
But one panelist was alienated from this optimism. She longed for the days of old, when according to her, the presence of two different perspectives adjacent to one another on the front page, forced readers to acknowledge both sides of the story. Whether this was an accurate historical assessment or just delusional nostalgia, I don’t know. Most likely, the truth lay somewhere in between. Her point resonated however. The de-centralization of journalism was not a good thing. No longer forced to rely on the papers, people could seek out what they wanted to hear and not have to acknowledge an alternative perspective. Her vision was not one of journalism’s democratization but rather, the coming of anarchy.
While her argument was persuasive, I did not agree. The coming of the citizen-journalist is a great thing, as it forces the establishment to raise its game and put out a better product. Though the advent of YouTube has most likely ceded breaking news to the domain of the citizen, the introduction of competition will force journalists to research more thoroughly, analyze with greater insight, and portray stories more lucidly. However, it is undeniable that print journalism as once knew it, has lost its primacy.
The responsibility now falls on the citizen to be accountable, and deliver the news in a responsible fashion. It is on this note that I’d like to shed light on two articles, one from the Christian Science Monitor and another from the New York Times.
The first concerns the conflict in Gaza, and the shadow war that accompanied it, brutally fought on an e-battlefield:
“The recent battle in Gaza between Israel and Hamas wasn't only fought with bullets, bombs, and missiles, but also with keystrokes. Observers say that through Facebook, YouTube, and other Web-based applications, the online community participated in shaping the news, and was enlisted in the effort to influence public opinion in an unprecedented – and sometimes worrisome – way.”
The use of media as a weapon is nothing new. But when journalism becomes a battleground, and journalists construe themselves as warriors, quality news experiences a drought. Objectivity, if ever it was, has ceased to be a concern for those who believe the more “information” they can disseminate, the better their cause will be aided. The proliferation of this shoddy content combined with the ability to avoid contradictory viewpoints, i.e. Google Search, means zealous partisans can read within the cozy confines of preach-to-the-choir “commentary”.
The second article, from the Times, highlights one of the more promising aspects of the new media:
“Freedom of speech and the right to assemble are limited in Egypt, which since 1981 has been ruled by Mubarak’s National Democratic Party under a permanent state-of-emergency law. An estimated 18,000 Egyptians are imprisoned under the law, which allows the police to arrest people without charges, allows the government to ban political organizations and makes it illegal for more than five people to gather without a license from the government. Newspapers are monitored by the Ministry of Information and generally refrain from directly criticizing Mubarak. And so for young people in Egypt, Facebook, which allows users to speak freely to one another and encourages them to form groups, is irresistible as a platform not only for social interaction but also for dissent.”
This of course, is one of the best arguments I have seen for the promise of the new media. Journalism’s democratization has enabled repressive societies to follow suit, giving dissenters a medium for free speech.
With great privilege comes great responsibility. Citizen-journalists have been endowed with the tools to shape minds, without fear of being held accountable. Will we act responsibly or will we simply be catalysts the onset anarchic mob rule in journalism.
Journalism is at a crossroads. Such was the message espoused at a recent gathering I attended, hosted by the Committee for Concerned Journalists. The night’s keynote event was a roundtable discussion, moderated by Tom Brokaw on the future of journalism. All the usual worries were voiced, among them the collapse of print journalism and the rise of the blogosphere, leading to the inevitable question: What role will print journalists play in the 21st century?
Once considered the agenda-setters, those reporting the news will have to conform to modernity and revise their roles. Some on the panel believed that journalists must become interpreters, filtering the gargantuan volume of information into something coherent and sensible. Regardless, the consensus was one of positive acceptance. The new forms of media hailed the advent of journalism’s democratization.
But one panelist was alienated from this optimism. She longed for the days of old, when according to her, the presence of two different perspectives adjacent to one another on the front page, forced readers to acknowledge both sides of the story. Whether this was an accurate historical assessment or just delusional nostalgia, I don’t know. Most likely, the truth lay somewhere in between. Her point resonated however. The de-centralization of journalism was not a good thing. No longer forced to rely on the papers, people could seek out what they wanted to hear and not have to acknowledge an alternative perspective. Her vision was not one of journalism’s democratization but rather, the coming of anarchy.
While her argument was persuasive, I did not agree. The coming of the citizen-journalist is a great thing, as it forces the establishment to raise its game and put out a better product. Though the advent of YouTube has most likely ceded breaking news to the domain of the citizen, the introduction of competition will force journalists to research more thoroughly, analyze with greater insight, and portray stories more lucidly. However, it is undeniable that print journalism as once knew it, has lost its primacy.
The responsibility now falls on the citizen to be accountable, and deliver the news in a responsible fashion. It is on this note that I’d like to shed light on two articles, one from the Christian Science Monitor and another from the New York Times.
The first concerns the conflict in Gaza, and the shadow war that accompanied it, brutally fought on an e-battlefield:
“The recent battle in Gaza between Israel and Hamas wasn't only fought with bullets, bombs, and missiles, but also with keystrokes. Observers say that through Facebook, YouTube, and other Web-based applications, the online community participated in shaping the news, and was enlisted in the effort to influence public opinion in an unprecedented – and sometimes worrisome – way.”
The use of media as a weapon is nothing new. But when journalism becomes a battleground, and journalists construe themselves as warriors, quality news experiences a drought. Objectivity, if ever it was, has ceased to be a concern for those who believe the more “information” they can disseminate, the better their cause will be aided. The proliferation of this shoddy content combined with the ability to avoid contradictory viewpoints, i.e. Google Search, means zealous partisans can read within the cozy confines of preach-to-the-choir “commentary”.
The second article, from the Times, highlights one of the more promising aspects of the new media:
“Freedom of speech and the right to assemble are limited in Egypt, which since 1981 has been ruled by Mubarak’s National Democratic Party under a permanent state-of-emergency law. An estimated 18,000 Egyptians are imprisoned under the law, which allows the police to arrest people without charges, allows the government to ban political organizations and makes it illegal for more than five people to gather without a license from the government. Newspapers are monitored by the Ministry of Information and generally refrain from directly criticizing Mubarak. And so for young people in Egypt, Facebook, which allows users to speak freely to one another and encourages them to form groups, is irresistible as a platform not only for social interaction but also for dissent.”
This of course, is one of the best arguments I have seen for the promise of the new media. Journalism’s democratization has enabled repressive societies to follow suit, giving dissenters a medium for free speech.
With great privilege comes great responsibility. Citizen-journalists have been endowed with the tools to shape minds, without fear of being held accountable. Will we act responsibly or will we simply be catalysts the onset anarchic mob rule in journalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
