...and nonbelievers

Another notable line in Barack Obama's inauguration speech was this:

"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness.
We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth."

I was stunned to hear the words above in bold, and Obama said practically the same thing during his interview with Al-Arabiya. For the nonbelieving me, it's an amazing but also quite welcome inclusiveness. I've never heard any American politician respectfully acknowledge nonbelievers, atheists if you like. These days it seems taboo to say such a thing. I am liking this guy. If she were a believer and looking down or up from wherever, Madelyn Murray O'Hair would definitely be cheering. I know, a contradiction.

I just wonder if Obama will keep up with such a line. Perhaps not because officially as President in his inaugural speech he has somewhat already introduced his governing philosophy to America and now to a Middle Eastern audience. But if he's going to be consistent it's got to crop up again, and you know the media and religious circles will be picking up on it. Unfortunately, too many people will have a cow (if they haven't already). However, it's a good sign that Obama welcomes nonbelievers in the political discourse.

Build, not destroy

I caught a segment on PBS' Frontline/World last night about a movement by local business people and citizens in Palermo, Italy to fight against the control that the Mafia has over businesses. It was and is an inspiring story about a people taking back control from a destructive presence. Here's a link to their Addiopizzo site.

The segment reminded me of something President Obama said in his inauguration speech:

"To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy."

That was directed at Al Qaeda and any other organization intent on terrorism. So far, there haven't been any quotes from Obama's speech that have been highlighted as being historically memorable. I think though that last bit might be one. It's what I thought of and resonated with me when watching the story about the Palermo business people rising up against the Mafia.

Hopefully, this quote's point is resonating in the Arab world. Obama reiterated this point in his recent interview with Al-Arabiya. However, it goes both ways. With the Iraq War, does America fully understand the destruction it has caused? With the war in Gaza and prior to that Lebanon, does Israel fully understand the destruction and suffering it is causing? Hamas, of course, doesn't seem to understand the destruction it is causing either.

Boston Public Library

That picture of John Updike two posts ago was taken in the Boston Public Library. The hall that he is in is according to this the Bates Hall. I could be mistaken about exactly which room it is, but I definitely recognize the space. It was in this hall over 20 years ago on one of those tables in the photo's background where I came to appreciate the greatness of the New York Times.

It was one of those unremarkable experiences that somehow never leave your memory. But I guess it involved a discovery for me. I had heard of and read the Times before, but the setting, spreading out the pages of the Times on a nice big wooden table in an architecturally historic room, and perhaps having the free time that day to absorb and fully appreciate the paper made it memorable.

Seeing one my favorite authors in a place for which I have a fond memory makes for a cool photograph.

John Updike interview

A video interview of John Updike from last October by the New York Times.

John Updike dies today at 76

Robert Spencer for the New York Times

Though John Updike lived a decent and a generally expected number of years, it's still a great loss when a giant of literature passes. Usually, before calling someone a giant you let decades or a century pass by since their career or life ended. It seems premature to do so when they're still alive or active in their profession. However, John Updike produced some classic works, particularly the Rabbit books (I read all of them, easily drawn into the writing and LOL quite often), was quite prolific (many essays and short stories, poetry too), and was highly regarded in the world of literature. It was easy to recognize John Updike as a special writer.

I sound like I've closely followed his career, but that wouldn't be true. I'm not a short story, essay, or poetry reader, and I've only read the four Rabbit books (Rabbit Run, Rabbit Redux, Rabbit is Rich, Rabbit at Rest) and In the Beauty of the Lilies. Actually, just checking Wikipedia, there was Rabbit is Remembered novella. Totally missed that. The Rabbit books were crazy, funny, lewd, but immensely readable. Not that they were cheap page turners, but well told stories that were comfortable to read. The Beauty of the Lilies was somewhat of an epic, a novel tracing four generations of a family. I thought it was quite good up until the end which obviously drew (too much I thought) from a certain true event.

I had bought other books of Updike's which for some reason I never read, The Coup and Villages. I might still read Villages since I think it's more contemporary.

A five page (online) New York Times obituary is here. I only got through the first page before wanting to post this. It says he died of cancer. His life was cut short.

More examples of Ethan Bronner's reporting

I'm continuing to look over Ethan Bronner's war in Gaza reports. Here are some that I have comments on (in reverse chronological order):

In this article on January 5th, I have a quibble about what Bronner writes in the 11th paragraph:

"Israel has said it wants to end Hamas’s will or ability to shoot rockets at civilians in southern Israel, which Hamas has been doing for years, terrifying tens of thousands of inhabitants."

While I would imagine that the rockets have been terrifying Israelis and that the rockets fall in random places though generally near the southern border with Gaza, in comparison to Israeli firepower, they haven't been causing that much damage, and is it really true that "tens of thousands have been terrified"? Are they or have as many been as terrified as the Palestinians are right now with American-made warplanes, helicopters, and drones flying overhead dropping more accurate bombs or other weaponry, not to mention an army ground invasion? That last part of the above sentence could have come straight out of an Israeli official's mouth.

I also had thoughts about the following:

"Some officials here and abroad began exploring ways to keep Hamas from rearming as it has through smuggler tunnels in the Sinai. Some were suggesting a huge concrete underground wall, and others suggested heavily armed international monitors."

Yeah, I guess it's not good for Hamas to be able to smuggle arms into Gaza, but then what about Israel being able to rearm itself with American aid? Shouldn't there be a limit on what America provides to Israel, particularly with the destruction Israel is causing in Gaza and what it did to Lebanon in 2006? I don't read reporting about that possibility however remote. If you're going to let Israel be infinitely rearmed, why shouldn't Hamas have some armament? I never liked Hamas when they were carrying out the suicide bombings in Israel a few years ago. Yes, I viewed them as a terrorist organization that was harming the peace process rather than helping it. And Hamas is still terroristic with its rockets, but I cannot help feel some sympathy for their cause and the Palestinians as a whole when they have been blockaded and then pummeled by overwhelming Israeli firepower.

Because of its rockets, here is an article published Jan 3rd about how Hamas can be removed from power. Because of its disproportionate use of force, I ask how can the Israeli leadership be removed from power? There is no such talk of that.

This article on Dec 30th focuses on the ceasefire negotiations first and then goes onto describe the casualties of the war. Might one want to recount the immediate death and destruction first and then report on negotiations for a ceasefire? Wouldn't that properly highlight the horror that is going on in Gaza?

Here's one more for this post, and article published on Dec 29. What I don't like is in the 12th paragraph and a general point of the Israelis is the unchallenged assertion by Ehud Barak, Israel's Defense Minister, that he has nothing against the citizens of Gaza. Well, if he has nothing against Gazan citizens, then he shouldn't be commanding his forces to wreck their cities and towns. These types of statements are stupefying, and apparently Bronner accepts them.

An example of Ethan Bronner's reporting

I mentioned in my last post that I would try to find some articles of Bronner's that I think equated the Israeli suffering with that of the Gazans. This post was to have references to several articles, but I had too much criticism of just one of his articles that it filled up a whole post. If there is more, I will post more.

This article on January 5th is my most memorable article. It had some things beyond just the equating of suffering that bothered me about it. First, Bronner writes in the second paragraph "On the 10th day of Israel’s war on the Islamist rulers of Gaza, ...". Well, that's exactly the way that Israel would like you to view it, that this is a war on Hamas, not on the Palestinians. The problem with that is that Israel's massive retaliation for the Hamas rockets can't help but destroy many Palestinian lives. The Israelis know that. The Palestinians know that. NY Times readers know that. The world knows that. If the war were actually to be on the Islamic rulers (Hamas), Israel would have been much particular about its targets and would have not tried to wreck practically the whole Gazan infrastructure. To describe the conflict as a war on the Islamic rulers of Gaza totally misrepresents what is going on.

The 4th paragraph says this: "Intense battles continued into the late night, with early reports of rising casualties on both sides." Rising casualties on both sides? As if it's an equal amount of rising casualties! As Bronner himself reports just a few paragraphs later, the Palestinian death toll had risen to 550, a quarter of those civilians. Hamas had killed 5 Israelis since the conflict began. Again, rising casualties on both sides??!! It is ludicrous to write such a statement when the figures are so disparate. One ponders at how Bronner undercuts his own writing.

Bronner spends much of the rest of this article regurgitating what each side's leaders are saying without writing himself that Israel's response is disproportionate. He writes that the French, the UN, Arab states are working on a deal to bring an immediate though maybe temporary end to the hostilities. Does Bronner ever state why they are doing this? Does he not want to print the reason?

Granted, Bronner reports all the facts for which he deserves credit, but from those facts can't he see the justification for an immediate ceasefire?

Email to NY Times correspondent Ethan Bronner

Today I submitted an email to New York Times correspondent Ethan Bronner. Bronner is the Times' Jerusalem bureau chief and has been the Times' primary correspondent covering the war in Gaza. In the Week in Review section of today's Times, Bronner had this defense of his reporting of the war. What disturbed me about the piece was this:

"...and how the war of language can confound a reporter’s attempts to narrate — or a new president’s attempts to mediate — this conflict in a way both sides can accept as fair."

Reporting so that both sides view it as fair is not the point of journalism! The point of journalism to report events accurately. This statement really summed up for me Bronner's reporting. Generally, it has been good, but at times particularly early on in the war, Bronner seemed to equate the destruction wrought upon Gaza with what the Hamas rockets were doing to Israel. I wish I had the quotations to show this, but I haven't yet found them after a quick look at the large number of articles by Bronner on the war. If I get a chance to review the articles, I'll post examples of I'm writing about here.

Below is the email. It's okay. I was in a bit of a rush, because I had to meet somebody soon after writing it. I don't know if I'll get a response to my bullet in his in-box. He may be getting a whole lot more after this piece.

Dear Mr. Bronner,

Earlier today I read your "The Bullets in My In-Box" opinion piece. I understand that there are difficult challenges in reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but I was quite disturbed by the one that you mention, that "the war of language can confound a reporter's attempts to narrate - or a new president's attempts to mediate - this conflict in a way both sides can accept as fair". Certainly, a new president must mediate this conflict in a way that both sides can accept as fair. However, mediating and narrating are two quite different things. What a reporter should be concerned with is that the narration is accurate, not with how both sides view the narration. This attempt to narrate fairly in the eyes of both sides explains to me your reporting on the war in Gaza. At least a couple of times I detected an equating of the suffering experienced by the Israelis with the suffering experienced by the Gazans. I will paraphrase, but there was one article where you wrote that there was suffering on both sides, and I found this to be a highly inaccurate way of characterizing (or to use your term "narrating") the suffering. As everyone knows, the Gazan suffered so much more than the Israelis: for now a 100 to 1 ratio in terms of deaths, who knows how many injured Gazans, and a wrecked infrastructure endangering the health of Gazans and furthering their suffering. So when you justify your reporting as an attempt to narrate fairly in both sides' eyes, then I find that to be very misguided. You do not need to worry about how the two sides view your reporting. With all due respect and knowing your years of experience, your goal should be to report accurately no matter what the sides think. If it paints a picture of one side more negatively than the other, then so be it. If the reporting is accurate, then that is what happened, and both sides must accept the truth and how it reflects upon them. Sometimes, it is like reporters seem to feel like their reporting must put them in the middle, thinking that they will then be viewed as impartial. But when one side is clearly in the wrong (as Israel was killing many more Gazans than Hamas killing Israelis), then reporters should not be trying to justify its views. I hope your future reporting more accurately conveys the suffering in any such future conflicts.

Regards,

President Barack Obama 2009 Inauguration and Address

It was a momentous day today with Barack Hussein Obama becoming the first African-American president.

I watched the inauguration with Ali. A bit of a flub during the oath (Chief Justice Roberts' fault I think). Ali and I both thought Obama's address was good. I was pleasantly surprised at the originality of it. I was expecting some echoing of prior addresses by FDR, Lincoln, or JFK. However, it was all Obama. The address I thought began rather sternly which I appreciated. Rather than being too celebratory, it was a reminder that the country (and the world) is in difficult times, and to me, it was basically a call to work, to get active about sorting out the country's problems, particularly economic. Like his acceptance speech on election night, the address was sobering. It was another wake up call in my opinion.

Not posted, but I did catch some of the presidential procession down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House. The Obamas according to recent precedent walked parts of the distance.

The Inaugural Parade of bands, military and other groups was really cool and went on into the early evening. I haven't watched inaugural parades, but I don't recall newsclips of previous parades continuing into darkness. That was rather neat to see, and I really enjoyed hearing the marching band music. The drums really get one going. While most of the viewing stand became empty after awhile, Barack and Michelle Obama were there until the end as I guess they should be.

There's still balls to come, but for television viewers, that's about it for today. All in all, it was a very happy day. Let's hope the months and next four years ahead are successful ones for getting America back on track.

How I blew Sunday evening

I had to resolve my Mario Kart Wii obsession with attaining gold trophies in the Grand Prix racing in all 8 circuits in all the 4 modes. For the past week I only had the Lightening Cup in Mirror Mode to go. So after deciding to use my Nortel personal holiday on Monday, I proceeded to spend whatever time it took (the whole evening) to achieve my goal.

The Lightening Cup is the last and hardest of the circuits. I found this out in the 150cc mode when it took me forever to get the gold. The circuit has courses that are very windy requiring alot of good drifting. Another pain is that if you get any kind of trophy in this circuit (after having attained trophies in the other circuits) the dang game plays these game credits that go one for about 5 minutes, and one cannot skip out of them by pressing the 'A' button. So whenever it looks like I might get the silver or bronze but not the gold trophy, I quit the circuit and start over.

Anyway, last night it took me between 2 and 3 hours to get the Lightening Cup gold in the Mirror mode (which is the same as the 150cc but everything is flipped). Before achieving gold, I got 3 silvers and a bronze (and therefore the obligatory credits) in addition to all the circuits I quit trying to avoid the credits. And you know, after spending so much time on this game, it's rather anticlimactic when one does get gold. One is just happy that it's over. If I had gotten gold in one attempt (as I amazingly did in the Special Cup circuit) or alot fewer attempts, I would have been stoked.

So now my Mario Kart license is completely filled with gold boxes, and I can move on with my life.

Today, MLK day, the idea is to make up somewhat by being a little productive. Have a derby car to start on for Erin's Adventure Princess Derby Day this weekend.

My first Amazon book review: Outliers

I posted my first ever book review on Amazon yesterday. It was for Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers: The Story of Success". I gave it 4 out of 5 stars. It was very readable with numerous examples of very interesting cultural phenomena. I got through it quickly. But at the end as I write below, the gist seemed to change to more about hard work. I didn't find the central premise to be entirely convincing. Here's the review:

Worth a read but not great ****

I almost gave this 3 stars, but gave it 4, mainly because it was a very interesting read. However, the thrust of the book, that one's circumstances are more influential on one's success than one's own hard work, wasn't that compelling to me. Certainly, how one is raised or the opportunities one has play a big part in leading to great success, but I think Gladwell too much minimized hard work as a factor. Alot of people have opportunities, but why is it that some take advantage of those opportunities and others don't? I think there is a matter of judgement in one's path to success, and that doesn't seem to be considered here.

The first half of the book gave a number of compelling examples about how one's circumstances contribute to one's great success. But by the end of the book, particularly when Gladwell is writing about his parents, the gist seems to be about hard work.

While very interesting examples of culture affecting behavior are given throughout, how did the Kentucky family feud chapters fit in with the rest of the book about success? Also, the second half of the book was all over the place though the KIPP school chapters were extremely interesting to read about.

Overall, well written, nice interesting narratives of cultural phenomena, but a bit short and not entirely convincing on the circumstances aspect.

Nortel files for bankruptcy

It happened as had been rumored since the weekend. See the story here. Prior press reports of a potential bankruptcy had been dismissed by our executives. Hah! They're words in all the talks about the way forward are pretty much bunk at the moment. Mike Z sent an email out today to employees about our company restructuring. Couldn't bring himself to say the "b" word.

Black Hawk helicopter crash at A&M

A tragic helicopter crash occurred yesterday on the Texas A&M campus. One person (a 2008 A&M graduate) was killed, and four were injured. Story here. It occurred during some ROTC training.

Letter to The New Yorker, about what else?

I sent this in to the New Yorker just a little while ago:

To the Editor,

David Remnick writes a nice Comment piece (Homelands) regarding Barack Obama and the advent of his presidency. However, like much of American politicians and the media, Mr. Remnick unfortunately discounts the disaster that has unfolded in Gaza. He writes "The civilian suffering and deaths are inevitable; the lessons less so." No, Mr. Remnick, the civilian suffering and deaths are not inevitable. The human tragedy in Gaza is not just another conflagration in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that we should passively view as inevitable and therefore accept. It is blind American support for Israel and American-made F-16s and bombs that are allowing Israel to rip Gaza and its people apart. Hamas certainly is to blame for triggering this assault, but by no means do their rockets justify what Israel is doing to Gazans. There is just no comparison in the suffering between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

And the lessons are not less inevitable. By now, Americans and one would wish Israelis should know that unjustified war (Iraq) or a disproportionately violent response are not the answers to terrorism. Fighting terrorism with even greater terrorism (yes, these wars are terrorism) is exactly the wrong way to go about achieving peace. Only further anger and radicalism ensues. Mr. Remnick is right; "the obligation of constant engagement is deep", but when the engagement is not occurring and a people are being pummeled with the many lives forever torn or lost, there should be an immediate and fierce effort to achieve a peace. America should be a part of that effort. Resignation to inevitable violence, such as it is in Gaza and in 2006 in Lebanon, is lacking in compassion and is unnacceptable.

I am sure that Barack Obama will bring back that American engagement to the Israeli-Palestinian situation that has been sorely missed over the past 8 years. So far though, he has been disappointingly quiet about Gaza or only supportive of Israel's right to defend itself. I hope though that during his presidency the Israeli-Palestinian situation will be truly treated even-handedly by America as 71% of Americans would like it to be (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/503.php?lb=btis&pnt=503&nid=&id=).

Regards,

A Times Editorial Page shift?

This is more of a sense than anything else, but I sense a shift in the New York Times Opinion section. It seems less liberal. Knee-jerk centrist sometimes?

Andrew Rosenthal became the section's editor last year, and I'm wondering if that is the cause for this apparent shift (at least to me). Rosenthal obviously made his impact when he signed up William Kristol as one of the op-ed columnists. Kristol is one of the most conservative pundits out there, but also I think not one of the smartest. Fair enough to try to balance an opinion page with alternative views, but the Times could have done much better than Kristol. I can't think of better ones off the top of my head, but there has to be some conservative thinkers out there better than Kristol.

Earlier last week, we had an op-ed from John Bolten and John Yoo. Say what you want about Bolten, but how does a discredited lawyer like Yoo get space in a national newspaper? Yoo is the guy who authored the Justice Department torture memos.

And from time to time, we get op-eds from a group of Iraq promoters, Richard Perle being one of them, as sort of an update on where things are at in Iraq. These people were entirely wrong about the war and what it would do for Iraq, us, and the world. Yet they are still recognized in a national forum for their opinions.

I also wonder if the editorial shift has affected which and when letters get published. The letters on Israel and Gaza seemed to be overly even while the online comments for the editorial and Friedman's column on the subject were more weighted against Israel. My letter obviously wasn't published. Haven't had one published in awhile.

Better, sort of

On the same day as my last post, the Times does indeed have some good op-eds.

What You Don't Know About Gaza by Rashid Khalidi provides some facts and a perspective from the Palestinian side.

Fighting to Preserve a Myth by Gideon Lichfield strongly questions Israel's militaristic strategy and calls for more a politically-minded approach.

So it's not all bad, but I don't think balanced reporting. Or should one call it proportionately accurate reporting and editorializing?

Finally, some letters on Friday regarding Israel and Gaza. A day or two late. Titling them as "Finger Pointing Over Israel and Gaza" seems like a trivial way of describing the debate. The debate and the violence are hardly trivial.

New York Times: A disappointment

Just when I think I may start subscribing for the full week, the NY Times becomes very disappointing with its coverage of the conflict in Gaza. Today's front page has a photo of Israeli soldiers taking a break and an article about Ehud Barak's rising political stature as a result of Israel's bombing and invasion of Gaza. Then there is a little note at the bottom referring to an article regarding the bombing of a UN school in Gaza where numerous children and other civilians were killed.

Just where is the Times's morals in this? The bloodshed of Palestinians at the hands of Israel warrants much more attention than an Israeli politician's prospects or some Israeli soldiers at rest (or the loss of a few fallen Israeli soldiers written about inside). The Palestinian strife was buried in today's paper.

And no letters published about the conflict/invasion in the opinion section yet. Two days ago, the editorial board had a very lame editorial about what it calls Israel's "incursion" into Gaza. Plus, Thomas Friedman yesterday had a ridiculous op-ed that focused on the geopolitics of the conflict, allowing him to ignore the suffering of the Palestinians and as usual throw blame at the Arabs. I did read though some excellent online reader comments disagreeing with each.

Over the days of the conflict I've noticed in the ongoing articles an effort here and there to somehow equate the suffering of each side.

I could not read today's paper.

Letter to the NY Times: Israel-Gaza and Obama

Though it most likely won't be published, my letter to the NY Times today. I also sent a copy of it to http://change.gov, Barack Obama's President-Elect (and probably continuing) site.

To the Editor:

In regards to the conflict in Gaza, President-Elect Barack Obama's silence is deafening. Mr. Obama is willing to talk about the economic crisis but not about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. This is not leadership. This is not change. Mr. Obama should be strongly urging an immediate end to the violence. This bludgeoning of Gaza and its people by Israel is a greatly disproportionate response to the Hamas rockets and can not be tolerated. The longer that Mr. Obama remains quiet, the lesser pressure there is for real diplomacy, and the greater the view that he along with President Bush is tolerant of Israel's brutal treatment of Palestinians.

Get the Sunday Times?

Today's New York Times had a slew of good articles and opinions today. It kept me reading on the couch for hours. I subscribe Monday through Saturday. Sunday is generally too much paper for me to trudge through (and Saturday is a slow news day). But of course, it can have good feature articles, and after today I'm reconsidering. Here's a rundown on today's interesting reads:

An extensive article on Bruce Ivins, the military microbiology researcher who was the FBI's chief suspect in the anthrax investigation before Ivins committed suicide.

An article on the beginning of Israel's invasion of Gaza. This whole bombing and now invasion has been brutal and disproportionate. Of course, the Bush-led US stands by doing nothing and basically condones Israel's actions. And the rest of the world is basically impotent to do anything. The result of it all will just be more anger at Israel and America, and probably more terrorism.

An analysis of what is it that Israel's trying to do.

Frank Rich's op-ed on Bush's narcissism.

A long op-ed on how Wall Street got into its mess by Michael Lewis and David Einhorn.

An interesting article on the Irish economy's rise and fall.

And I was just too worn out to read another article on today's financial mess, but this was probably a good one, by Joe Nocera.