Ground Zero Mosque

Recently, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the construction of the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque," actually an Islamic community center located not on Ground Zero itself, but two blocks away. Newsweek magazine summarizes the background of the project in its August 8th, 2010 feature article by Lisa Miller, with an excerpt below:

Locally, the fight over the mosque has been more than ugly. Its founders—a well-known interfaith activist and spiritual leader named Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf; his wife, Daisy Khan; and a downtown Manhattan real-estate developer named Sharif El-Gamal—originally called their project Cordoba House, after the medieval town in Spain where a Muslim caliphate fostered one of the most vibrant periods of interfaith flourishing in history. But critics seized on the name as a signal that Rauf and the others had Islamic hegemony in mind, and the founders changed the name to the generic Park51 (based on the site’s street address)...

Park51 was born several years ago, the vision of Rauf, Khan, and El-Gamal. In 1997 Rauf and Khan founded the American Society for Muslim Advancement, an organization devoted to interfaith work and promoting the cause of moderate Islam. In addition, Rauf had been the imam, or pastor, of a mosque in Tribeca, just 10 blocks north of the new, controversial site, for nearly 30 years. El-Gamal had his office nearby and prayed there frequently. The mosque, which still exists today, is a tiny storefront wedged between a bar and a French bistro. On Friday afternoons—which for Muslims is like Sunday morning—congregants overflow onto the sidewalk.

Frustrated by the cramped quarters, El-Gamal, an American born to a Polish mother and an Egyptian father, was inspired to improve facilities for Muslims downtown—and, after 9/11, to show his friends and neighbors “a new face of Islam, the voice that is not heard.” He bought the building at 45–51 Park Place two years ago for $5 million, and together with Khan and Feisal sketched out a plan. They would demolish the existing building and put in its place a deluxe, multipurpose center big enough to house a swimming pool, a gym, exhibition space, conference rooms, day care, a senior center, and a 500-seat auditorium. It would accommodate all the downtown workers—lawyers and laborers—who wanted to pray on Fridays; it would have an interfaith board and interfaith programming; and it would present to the world a moderate, peace-loving, diverse, ordinary Islam. As of last week, El-Gamal says, they had gotten all the necessary city approvals to begin construction on Park51, though lawsuits are still pending. The budget for the proposed construction is $100 million, which Khan says they hope to raise mostly through a bond offering.

The site is huge, nearly 100,000 square feet. Standing in front of the building, you cannot see Ground Zero; tall buildings entirely block the view. Khan says they chose it because it was big enough and it had the right zoning. Moreover, it was symbolically advantageous. “We want to provide a counter momentum against extremism,” says Khan, who spoke to me in her office. (Her husband was out of town.) “We want peace, and we want it where it matters most. This is where it matters most.”

However, responses to the project have been severe. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert weigh in on some of these reactions below:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, 16 August 2010:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mosque-Erade
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

The Colbert Report, 16 August 2010:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Growing Intelligence Community - Richard Clarke
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News

Finally, President Barack Obama stepped up and directly addressed the issue, stating his emphatic support of religious freedom and tolerance for all beliefs.


To borrow a phrase from Stephen Colbert, Obama nailed it. If there is anything that the United States should have learned in the past decade, it is that straying from the fundamental principles outlined in the Bill of Rights and the subsequent abuse of these principles has caused more harm than good to American interests. If the United States really wants to improve relations in the Muslim world, demonstrating tolerance of Islam and all religious beliefs has to start at home. Furthermore, the problems in any faith lie at the extremes. It would behoove the American public to recognize this and work to support and encourage moderates who are interested in interfaith work in order to diminish the influence that these extremists can have on a population.

Tolerating this (and other) Islamic Center(s) is not something "extra" that Americans have to do - it is part of what comes with living in a country that draws strength from its diversity, even if the American people need occasional reminders of this. In the words of the late American author Kurt Vonnegut Jr., "The purpose of human life, no matter who is controlling it, is to love whoever is around to be loved," (Sirens of Titan).

France's Burka Ban

A few days ago, in a Europe fearful of "Islamization," the lower house of the French Parliament voted to ban burkas and most other face-coverings. The ban is plainly about protecting French identity from the apparently un-French burka. A few might say it is to protect women from oppression -- and indeed, any man found to have forced a woman to cover her face will himself face up to a year in jail and a 30,000-euro fine -- but even women who freely choose the burka will be fined.

No, the ban is about French unease with the Islamic covering. I expect most Americans would agree with me; the libertarian argument that people should be allowed to wear what they want would hopefully carry the day. And yet the French debate on the burka reminds me of the American debate on gay marriage. Both are portrayed as threatening, but the bans have less to do with real threats to French society or heterosexual marriage than they do with French or heterosexual insecurity. And they should deal with their insecurity in a way that does not oppress a minority.

American Education... how do you spell wtf ?

As a student going through the ridiculous process of pulling applications together for law school while spending the summer in Europe, American education is giving me a headache. Every time some European asks me to explain what the process is like or how much it costs, they all think that I am lying when I tell them that I am paying well over $20,000 per year at my public university. They then think that I am rich or how else could anyone afford such costs without scholarships (in a university with 47,000 students in a state constantly cutting funding for public education, it is nearly impossible to get a substantial scholarship; most financial "aid" comes in the form of loans). If by some chance they did believe me when I told them what undergrad costs, they absolutely lose it when I tell them the price of law schools (public and private) that I am hoping to apply to (at least twice as much). When I ask them how much they pay for school, they say that they are paying for one of the highest tuition prices - 1,000 to 2,000 euro per semester (at today's exchange rate of $1.2935/euro, that is about $1,300 to $2,590).

While the United States' university educational system does have merits in the freedom that students have to really study whatever they want (financial concerns aside, of course), it is absolutely ridiculous that a country that constantly stresses the need for educated professionals still supports a system that throws students and their families into thousands of dollars in debt before the students even have a chance to earn any money. My European friends cannot even fathom the idea that many Americans save for college since birth and that this is still not sufficient.

Although taxes in many European countries are higher than in the United States, providing and supporting quality education in public universities for all students is considered a fundamental right. Thus, it is made a priority and families are not indebted because they have children that need a university education.

I do not have any thorough policy prescriptions here, just an observation on how insane the undergraduate and post-graduate educational system is (open to ideas, here). While Americans generally do not like paying such high taxes, reforms definitely have to be made to ensure that the taxes we are paying are being used efficiently. And if someone had to raise my taxes in order to support universities, I would not mind paying it, as the cost of attending would probably decrease. Until some reforms are made, I will be looking forward to dropping more money on law school apps and then hiding in law school deferring student loans for a few more years.

Fo-Po Breakdown: Iran, USA, and a tad bit of Turkey

I am aware that this is sort of old news. However, since I have been busy lately and this is still an important on-going problem, I will write my blog post about it anyway. This began as a reaction to an op-ed in the New York Times, by Princeton doctoral candidate Elliot Hen-Tov and Princeton professor of Near Eastern Studies, Bernard Haykel. With the recent tightening of the newest sanctions on Iran this past Thursday, July 1, 2010, it is important to revisit this issue.

First, back to the op-ed from last month. In order to make any real headway on US-Iran relations, it is absolutely essential that each side really understand the other. For prominent scholars of prestigious universities, this also holds true. Which is why this article must be revisited – the Princeton people have it wrong. Their main assertion is that “Iran… stands to lose much influence as Turkey assumes a surprising new role as the modern, democratic and internationally respected nation willing to take on Israel and oppose America.” While parts of this statement are correct, the article represents a flawed understanding of Iranian politics and its relationship to the United States. Principally, it does not really matter for the United States (or Israel for that matter) what type of fiery rhetoric Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad uses – it is generally not directed at American or Israeli audiences anyway. The poll quoted by the authors, although irrelevant to their article, proves this point. The two major regional powers in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia, whose regime is a strong US ally, and Iran, whose regime clearly is not. When Ahmadinejad makes his statements in “support” of the Palestinian cause, he also does so bearing in mind that this can also play on Saudi Arabia’s weaknesses. Iran can claim to be the true supporter of Muslims in peril (despite a substantial number of Palestinians being of Christian or other backgrounds) while simultaneously making the Saudi regime appear weak to its people by alluding to its close relationship to the USA. In this manner, the Iranian regime hopes to remain dominant in the region over Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states.

Ahmadi-casual-Friday-nejad is not some “irrational, rouge leader” as realist IR theory would have us believe. The Iranian government’s support of Israel is mostly a domestic campaign to give the regime the appearance of standing up to the hegemonic rule of the United States and then Israel. Given the vastly superior military forces of both the USA and Israel, Iran would not risk attacking Israel. So, while these authors note that Turkey is seen by Palestinians as a much closer ally than Iran, it is crucial to understand that Iran’s political exploitation of this crisis is mostly for the purpose of bolstering domestic support for the regime and is targeted to domestic and Saudi, not international, audiences.

Secondly, I take issue with the Islam in Turkey being called “more liberal and enlightened.” Again, this is a fundamental mis-characterization of reality. While Saudi Arabia and Iran might be self-proclaimed Islamic states and Turkey a self-proclaimed secular state, the notion that any one regime is any more or less liberal/enlightened than the other is absurd when further examining their actual policies. In Iran, women are obligated to wear hijab at all times; in Turkey, there are laws making it illegal to wear the veil in some public places. Forcing people to appear secular is no better than forcing people to appear pious – these are merely two extreme ends of the spectrum. In a liberal Islam, it would seem that one would have the ability to choose without being compelled towards either end of such a spectrum. Furthermore, the fiercely secular and authoritarian policies enacted by the Turkish government can be just as bad as the authoritarian policies of Iran.

Returning to the sanctions and Turkey’s vote (along with Brasil), it is not really that much “against the United States” for Turkey to vote against the sanctions. The United States, while allies with Turkey, is far stronger allies with Saudi Arabia in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, with the United States’ help, has stronger military and economic ties to the USA, and it is closer to the other Arab states in the Middle East than Turkey is. With Turkey looking to gain membership to the European Union, it is smart to keep its options open for markets in the Middle East for the EU, but if push came to shove for the United States, I would bet that it would retain Saudi Arabia as its ally over Turkey. Anyway, Iran and Saudi Arabia are focused on each other and Turkey is focused on the EU, so it really does not matter for Iran what Turkey says – although its vote was nice anyway.

As stated in the BBC article, the sanctions imposed in June were not very substantial. This would suggest that the Obama administration is just reacting initially to [uneducated] domestic pressures in Congress to appear to be doing something about the Iranian nuclear program. While it is good that these sanctions were not substantial, it is also extremely damaging to any potential for improving diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran, only serving to prove Ahmadinejad correct when he claims that the United States is really not interested in changing the status quo. Bolstering domestic support for the current Iranian regime is the last thing that the United States should be doing.

In a more recent development, Nom Chomsky acknowledges that Iran poses a serious threat of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, despite citing sources earlier on in the article that discuss Iran’s relatively weak military capabilities; he just proposes different solutions instead of the United States “reinforcing [its] control of the vital Middle East oil-producing regions.” However, with Iran, this is not a valid argument either. Georgetown scholar Mehran Kamrava and University of Colorado professor Nader Hashemi are both of the opinion that Iran does not want to actually acquire a nuclear weapon. If Iran were to obtain the technology and actually produce a nuclear weapon, this would push Iran into a whole new realm of military prowess in which it would find itself on the bottom, easily bested several times over by the United States, Israel, etc. In other words, Iran can be a relatively strong conventional military power in the region, especially when compared to Saudi Arabia’s military on its own (aka minus USA support), but it would lose this advantage if it entered the nuclear arena and would find itself in a situation it cannot win. Thus, even the idea that Iran’s nuclear program to gain such knowledge is the most serious threat is absurd. The best solution would be to focus on finding common ground and interests within the Middle East between Iran and the United States (two really good examples here are Afghanistan and Iraq… hint, hint State Department) and go from here to rebuild diplomatic ties.

Speaking of best solutions, July 1^st was not one of these. The New York Times reports that President Obama signed a law in one of the few moments of consensus in Congress during his administration that “imposes penalties on foreign entities that sell refined petroleum to Iran or assist Iran with its domestic refining capacity. It also requires that American and foreign businesses that seek contracts with the United States government certify that they do not engage in prohibited business with Iran.” As stated several times before, the solution is to OPEN not close relations with Iran. This means diplomatically and economically. As Ahmadi-I-say-crazy-things-that-people-should-not-listen-to-nejad stated on June 28 that he would like to resume nuclear negotiations with the United States in August, giving the United States yet another opportunity to resume meaningful dialogue, the Obama administration missed it again and chose to respond to domestic pressures. This is where the State Department people need to step in and fix it.

Caving into absurd, ill-informed domestic pressures from a Congress that cannot even agree if sick people should get help to be less sick is certain to make the problem worse, not better. The Obama administration needs to focus on its priorities, improve its image in the Muslim world and the Middle East by closing Guantanamo and playing a meaningful role in improving the situation between Israel and Palestinian territories, and respecting the sovereignty of Iran and its government despite the outcome of the 2009 presidential elections. It is certainly not an easy task and will take time to produce the change promised by the Obama campaign, but it will be easier to accomplish with greater understanding of the nuances of regional politics in the Middle East and when the United States takes an active stance by following through on some good faith measures and working with Iran as a regional power in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both the United States and Iran have a lot to gain from improving relations with one another and since the United States remains the global hegemonic power in this system of uni-multipolarity, it must responsibly take the first steps to initiate this process.

Dear Congressman Hoekstra

Your recent "Perspective" is an interesting example of empty political posturing. You express your opposition to a cap-and-trade program that would regulate CO₂ emissions, which you call a "job-killing National Energy Tax." Yet you also want to promote renewable energy to reduce both our dependence on foreign oil and pollution to the environment.

I agree that we should encourage clean energy, but how exactly do you propose to do this? We could discourage carbon-emitting energy sources by taxing them or instituting a cap-and-trade program, but you clearly believe that would kill jobs. Alternatively, we could subsidize clean energy, but we would have to institute a "job-killing" tax to pay for it to avoid being irresponsible and increasing our national debt. Or we could mandate that utilities must produce a certain proportion of their electricity from renewable energy in a one-size-fits-all regulation. But that would ignore regional and other differences and would not allow companies to behave as rational, economic actors.

As your constituent, please tell me how you plan to promote clean, renewable energy. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too just because it's an election year.

Sincerely,

Wolverine

Note: This is not the first example of Hoekstra's disingenuousness.

Oh, the Hypocrisy!

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

~Daniel Patrick Moynihan

In an article bemoaning conservatives' apparent disconnect from reality, Paul Waldman writes these two paragraphs and puts them next to each other, apparently unironically:

Ascribing the most nefarious of motives to our political opponents is standard fare, of course. But basing your political arguments not on what those opponents have done or have proposed to do but on what they "would" do, frees you from the need to keep a hold on even the slightest tether to reality. Who needs evidence of the other side's evil, when you can just imagine what lies in their hearts?

Imagination also has its psychic rewards. Take the Tea Partiers. The vast majority would probably say that Barack Obama, that vile socialist, has raised their taxes. The truth, however, is that Obama cut taxes for 98 percent of working families with the stimulus bill. You could argue that those tax cuts weren't a good idea, but you ought not to be able to argue that they didn't happen.

So to sum up: Paragraph 1: Basing your arguments on what your opponents would do frees you from reality. Paragraph 2: Tea Partiers would say that Obama raised their taxes, but it's not true.

Waldman's only justification of this is Tea Party Nation leader Judson Phillips refusing to admit that most Americans' taxes decreased under Barack Obama. Does Waldman bother to mention a New York Times poll where a majority (52% to 42%) of Tea Partiers say that the amount they pay in income taxes is fair? No, there's no sign that Waldman even looked at it.

I am sympathetic to the argument that conservatives' reliance on straw men comes at the expense of facts. But that doesn't mean that liberals should emulate it.

The American Power Act

Much has been said about the American Power Act, introduced to the Senate on May 12. It would incentivize more offshore drilling and nuclear power. It would limit the EPA's capacity to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. And it does not nearly reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough.

Some of these complaints are misleading: For instance, the American Power Act only limits the EPA's ability to regulate under the Clean Air Act because it establishes a cap-and-trade system for large carbon emitters. EPA would deal with these emitters under the American Power Act, while still reserving the ability to regulate other emissions, like automotive emissions, under the Clean Air Act.

And in spite of these complaints, the American Power Act deserves our support. It finally sends a signal that the United States will regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. Such a signal is needed for entrepreneurs to invest in researching and implementing green energy. Indeed, it is precisely what they are waiting for.

And yes, it does not reduce greenhouse-gas emissions enough. But it is much easier to establish the cap-and-trade framework and adjust later on. And as Joe Romm reminds us, this is exactly what happened with the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act(s).

Yes, the bill is flawed and we should lobby the Senate to improve it. But those flaws should not prevent us from taking the first real step to fight global warming and passing this bill.