Living Oblivion

Apathy is a sort of living oblivion. - Horace Greeley

[liveinoblivion]

The Case for Cautious Optimism

Let’s be real. The last few years haven’t been so hot. Well, if you want to get literal, then yes, they’ve been pretty hot. But I digress.

I was referring, predominantly, to the seemingly endless flood of negative news—from terrorist attacks to shootings, the refugee crisis to about a zillion things the Trump administration has done that at least I personally don’t agree with.

But there is cause for hope. In the last year to 18 months, more and more women and people of color announced their intention to run for office—a direct response to the Trump presidency. And we’re seeing results.  

We’re gearing up for a lot of firsts come November. For your enjoyment, here’s just a few: 

If elected, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be the youngest Congresswoman in history.

Stacey Abrams, the Democratic nominee for governor in Georgia, is the first black woman in the nation’s history to be a major party’s nominee for governor.

Andrew Gillum is Florida’s first black nominee for governor.

Oh, and if Ayanna Pressley wins in Massachusetts, she’ll be the first black woman to represent the state in Congress.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. 

Congress already has more female representation than ever before, with a total of 107 women in the House and Senate. But that number is likely to continue to rise come November—a record-breaking 100 women could be elected to the House, up from the current 84 female representatives.

Oh, and according to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, Democrats carry a clear advantage over Republicans heading into the midterms. 52% of those polled plan to support Democratic candidates, a 14-point lead over Republicans. This is the biggest advantage Democrats have held since 2006.

But if Trump’s election and Brexit taught me anything, it’s to expect the unexpected—and to not listen to the polls. So while I want this post to be all rainbows, butterflies, and a very contagious case of optimism, I’m heading into the last 50-odd days before Election Day with a case of cautious optimism instead. I hope you’ll join me.

[liveinoblivion]

Harvey Weinstein; or, the Straw that Broke the Camel’s Back

I keep trying to write this piece and failing—failing because I’m struggling to find the right words, and failing mostly because I think I’m still hesitant to write it. 

But let’s start where I initially started and see if by the end I can bring myself to come to the conclusion I intended to make.

--- 

The internet is collectively up in arms about the revelations surrounding years of sexual abuse by film producer and studio director Harvey Weinstein. And rightfully so.

Dozens of women have come forward offering their own account of inappropriate advances or even rape. Men are getting involved too, expressing shame and regret at not having acted sooner on behalf of these women.

But perhaps even more importantly, the allegations surrounding Weinstein are opening a broader conversation about sexual harassment and the difficulty women—and men—have stepping forward, out of shame or fear.

By Monday, my social feeds were flooded with #MeToo-s. It wasn’t just the activists, or the feminists, or the ones who tend to overshare on Facebook and Twitter. It was that friend who hasn’t posted a Facebook status in years, or that cousin of your mother’s who barely understands how to use social media. 

And yet, I still haven’t brought myself to add my own #MeToo. I sort of thought I was the only one (or at least one of very few), what with literally everyone and their mother sharing their own experiences or at least the hashtag. But then (via Facebook, of course) I was directed to a piece on some website unfortunately called Total Sorority Move, entitled, “Literally, Why Can’t I Say #MeToo?”

The girl’s account couldn’t resonate with me more. I haven’t said #MeToo not because I have never faced sexual harassment or abuse (honestly, I think you’d have to live under a rock to be a woman and not have experienced something unwanted at some point in your life), but because those two words carry so much baggage.

For me, #MeToo means acknowledging that I can be strong, independent, and self-sufficient while also having been the victim, countless times, to attention or behavior that was unwanted. #MeToo means realizing that there’s no such thing as “bad enough” to warrant saying #MeToo. It means knowing that even if I’ve learned from my experiences, grown, moved on, that there is probably nothing I can do to completely rid my future life from this harassment in some way, shape, or form.

Sort of a depressing realization really.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad this conversation is taking place. All the shitty things that have happened this year seem to have had a counter-effect of spurring a more activist population that is unwilling to stand quietly by. 

But it also makes me wonder—why does it take this Hollywood bigwig’s indiscretions to get us to finally start talking seriously about sexual harassment?

[liveinoblivion]

Making the most skeptical generation give a s**t

About a year ago, I was internally combatting feelings that 2016 was the worst year ever. Shit really seemed to be hitting the fan. But if only I could have anticipated what would happen next, I might have felt slightly different. 

Now, I’m not going to be quite so melodramatic and suggest that 2017 is now the worst year ever, but it ain’t looking too hot either. We started the year with the inauguration of the orange, superlative-using creature called Trump. Then came the reports of Russian hackings, collusions with the Russian government, attempted repeals of Obamacare... the list goes on. Globally, the refugee crisis is not abating, with new, increasingly dire crises cropping up in South Sudan and the region and a growing famine. And that’s barely the tip of the iceberg.

Looking at the daily headlines, it’s hard not to feel discouraged if not straight up pissed off that we have allowed ourselves to collectively reach this point. But the more I think about it, the more I realize there might be an even bigger, wider problem at play -- the combination of information overload and fake news with the feeling that a problem is far away (geographically or temporally) means that we don’t do anything. It’s ‘not our problem’ or we can’t ‘make a difference’ as a single individual. 

I’d be lying if I said I’m not guilty of this myself. I increasingly believe that climate change is going to compound all of the issues we already face as a globe, and yet I frequently find myself paralyzed, unsure of what I can do to even take a step in the right direction. Farhad Manjoo, aka the guy who usually writes about tech and business for the New York Times, came up with one potentially interesting approach in an article yesterday. In it, he suggests that Y2K could serve as a lesson for the global fight against climate change, that sometimes presenting the worst case scenario is exactly what we as humankind need to band together and get shit done. 

Manjoo says:

“The fight against Y2K was also close to unprecedented. Throughout our history, Americans have been good at getting things done after the stakes have become clear. We moved mountains after the Great Depression and Pearl Harbor. But Y2K is one of the precious few examples where we mobilized to fight something looming on the horizon — the same kind of mobilization we now need for climate change.” 

He explains that the ‘precautionary principle’, (the idea that it’s better to be safe than sorry), works best when we’re presented with the absolute worst possible outcome. People thought the effects of Y2K were potentially dire and we saw a nearly unprecedented global response. Perhaps with the rise of terrifying articles like this one in New York magazine, Manjoo suggests, we might actually be able to scare people into action. 

I guess only time will tell. 

[liveinoblivion]

2016 doesn’t have to be the worst year ever

Seemingly everyone has jumped on the “2016 is the worst year ever” bandwagon. And in some respects, maybe they’re right. Like many of those around me, I’ve come to fear opening my email alerts and Twitter in the morning, finding myself holding my breath or clenching my teeth in preparation of whatever bad news that day my bear.

But what I’m not convinced of is, are we really doing all we can to make it not so shitty? Yes, two men who ‘pledged allegiance to the Islamic State’ killed an innocent 86-year-old preacher. Yes, another man who had been denied asylum blew himself up outside of a festival in Germany and also may or may not have had ties to the Islamic State. And the list goes on. As a former journalist, I understand the need to report on what’s happening in the world -- both good and bad. But what I don’t understand is, in the grand scheme of things, is informing the world (truthfully or otherwise) that these attacks are tied in some way to a wannabe caliphate useful? Does it help us understand the attack better - the motives, the objectives - or does it really just give the Islamic State and other terrorist organisations more fodder? Doesn’t it serve simply to instill greater fear in the general public and convince would-be jihadists that they’re coming one step closer to achieving their objectives and therefore should press on, gaining more and more recruits who are willing to sacrifice their lives and cause pain to their loved ones? 

The circus that is the US presidential election has similarly turned into a scary place, in which seemingly the whole world is preparing itself for a Donald Trump presidency. We have become so disillusioned and apathetic, that seemingly more of my peers have shared various fearmongering tidbits from the Trump train than shared the truly hope-inspiring speech Michelle Obama gave at the DNC. (For what it’s worth, I’m totally on board with her encouraging attitude of “...this, right now, is the greatest country on earth” even if I don’t 100% agree.) Yes, bad news may make for a ‘better’ story, sells better, goes viral with more ease (though props to people like Upworthy for trying to go against the grain on this one). But is that the world we want to live in? The only way to change the narrative or the tone of the stories that major media outlets decide to share is to tell them that we don’t want to call attention to all the shit - instead we want to be reminded of the good that continues to exist in this world. Stories like the hundreds who lined up to donate blood after the attack at Pulse nightclub in Orlando -- rather than the story of whether or not the assailant may have been a closeted homosexual. Oh and by the way, in the aftermath of the Orlando shooting, the FDA is now considering changing its blood donor deferral recommendations, potentially opening the door for gay men to donate blood.

All of this to say that we can let 2016 be the worst year ever, or we can decide to refocus our energy and look to all of the good humanity has accomplished this year instead. It’s up to us.

// end cheesy rant

[liveinoblivion]

When the words escape you

Not having words to express myself is not a sentiment I’m familiar with. I already felt lost as an American in the UK experiencing the shock of Brexit, getting a small taste for the first time of what it’s like to be unwelcome someplace. I already felt ashamed to be the token American who Brits derided, asking what I thought about the prospect of having a President Trump. But now I’m feeling shame and disgust, witnessing from afar the horrific shootings taking place in the US over the last week, knowing my complicity as a white American, but feeling totally helpless to do anything about it. 

So for now, I turn back to a song J. Cole released a year ago that may be increasing in relevance, hoping that a year from now it’ll feel a bit more like a distant memory.

https://soundcloud.com/dreamvillerecords/j-cole-be-free

[liveinoblivion]

Travel is not merely a luxury or an educational strategy, but a moral imperative for those who have the means for it. [....] People’s suspicions are whipped up into terror not only of those who would terrorize them, but also of vast unfamiliar yet generally benign populations. We think fear must be played out in fight, via military intervention, or in flight, via isolationism — but we are not hunted game, and those are not the only options. There is also the possibility of acceptance, with its corollary of understanding and its ultimate manifestation in embracing what is alien. Travel is a corrective lens that helps focus the earth’s blurred reality.

Andrew Solomon, Travel as the Antidote to Xenophobia

[liveinoblivion]

Our own government has pledged to take 20,000 refugees but only the respectable ones, from faraway camps: the subtext being that the act of fleeing to Europe puts refugees outside the purview of human sympathy, being itinerant, a vagrant, on the take. Institutions and governments represent an ever narrower strain of harsh opinion. The thousands of volunteers in Greece, the Guardian readers who gave more at Christmas to refugee charities than to any appeal before, the grassroots organisations springing up everywhere to try and show some human warmth on this savage journey to imagined safety – none of these are represented, politically, in a discourse that takes as its starting point the need to make the swarms disappear, to trick them into going somewhere else. It’s those neutral-sounding, just-good-economics ideas that give the game away: if a million people in any given European nation suffered a natural disaster, nobody would be talking about how to raise a tax so that help could be sent. We would help first and worry about the money second. When the EU wants to rescue a government, or the banks of a member state (granted, at swingeing cost for the rescued), it doesn’t first float a "rescue tax".

Zoe Williams, The Guardian

[liveinoblivion]

“The most shocking thing about Calais is that it’s not even too big to solve” -- Yvette Cooper

[liveinoblivion]

70 Babies Have Died Since Aylan

As video circulates of a crew’s failed CPR on a drowned refugee child, nothing has changed and thousands more risk the seas. Why can’t the world pay attention to the escalating tragedy?

“What kills me is that even the biggest tragedies are headline news for just one day,” Melissa Fleming, chief communications and spokeswoman for UNHCR.

[liveinoblivion]

The larger the island of knowledge grows, the longer the shoreline where knowledge meets ignorance — extends. The more we know, the more we can ask. Questions don’t give way to answers so much as the two proliferate together. Answers breed questions. Curiosity isn’t merely a static disposition but rather a passion of the mind that is ceaselessly earned and nurtured.

“The Case for Teaching Ignorance” -- The New York Times

[liveinoblivion]

“In the last midterm election, about a third of eligible voters voted. If you’ve got gridlock and you’ve got people who aren’t producing, the fact that a lot of them got rewarded with reelection and the people who were in power creating the gridlock stayed in power, that’s the consequence of everybody staying home and acting cynical. The minute you withdraw in that way from the process of politics, well then you’re destined to have the existing power structures call the shots.”

[liveinoblivion]

No, It’s Not Time for the Jews to Leave Europe

Yesterday, this article by Jeffrey Goldberg started making the rounds on social media. The reaction of most of my peers and friends has been one that the author himself seemingly intended - fear. However, I’d like to call some elements of Goldberg’s piece into question.

On the one hand, I acknowledge and am upset by the apparent rise of anti-Semitic acts in Europe. On the other, the piece left a bad taste in my mouth, leaving me with the sensation that Goldberg was essentially fear-mongering.

Even if this discrimination is real (or despite its being real) and although Goldberg states that statistics show more than half of hate crimes being directed toward Jews, I don't think running is the answer for the Jews of Europe. Israel is not a solution in itself. 

Goldberg’s editorialization of several elements of European society call into question (for me) his ability to objectively present what is taking place. I acknowledge discrimination of Jews, but what about discrimination of other groups in Europe? I think any (particularly visible) minority is likely even today to face some form of discrimination, as unfortunate as that is. The violence and hatred is unforgivable but I still think that suggesting that Jews are no longer safe in Europe is a gross over-simplification and does not adequately offer a viable solution at all.

In his anecdotal bits summarizing interactions with Muslims in Malmö, Goldberg seemingly suggests a general hatred of Jews by Muslims. This is hugely problematic. By offering a largely one-sided view of Muslims that reinforces racist and violent stereotypes, Goldberg has only served to add fuel to the fire. He skims briefly over those who have “benign feelings toward Jews”, who “regret” Malmö’s reputation for anti-Semitism.

But what about the outpouring of Muslim support for Jews following the attacks of the Kosher supermarket in Paris or the synagogue in Denmark -- such as the human shield more than 1000 Muslims formed around the Oslo synagogue last month? Yes, I’ll admit these actions came following horrific acts of anti-Semitism, but is it not noteworthy who came to the support of Jews following these attacks?

I take issue with Goldberg’s piece not because it’s factually inaccurate (it’s not), but because his words exacerbate the situation rather than offering solutions. Creating or perpetuating antagonisms between Muslims and Jews in Europe will not stop the violence or the hatred. We should be trying to foster understanding and goodwill to prevent these horrific acts from taking place to begin with. 

Despite all this, I must make a further admission: as a secular Jew who was raised in an extremely liberal city in the US (and without any visible characteristics that would mark me as Jewish), I may not be able to fully understand how bad the situation is or might be for other Jews in Europe. I live here, I've traveled and spent time here, and have never honestly noticed discrimination toward Jews to be any worse than that of other groups. I think because the Jewish community is so small and close-knit throughout the world, when one of us is targeted, all of us suffer. So perhaps these relatively isolated instances are becoming conflated in our minds particularly with the memory of the Holocaust still fresh in the minds of many?

Yet the deep feelings of fear and loss following the Holocaust (and heightened by this ‘rise’ in anti-Semitism in recent years) does not justify the extreme ideas some possess, such as this one by Howard Jacobson:

“I know this is a dangerous thing to say … but the Holocaust didn’t satisfy.”

Jacobson has come to the dire conclusion that Europeans (of diverse backgrounds) still have a taste for the blood of Jews, as the Holocaust didn’t achieve its aim of complete annihilation. Goldberg immediately echoes Jacobson’s sentiments in his piece, asking whether it’s “time for the Jews to leave”. He goes further in his conclusion, saying:

I am predisposed to believe that there is no great future for the Jews in Europe, because evidence to support this belief is accumulating so quickly. But I am also predisposed to think this because I am an American Jew—which is to say, a person who exists because his ancestors made a run for it when they could.

This, to me, never has been nor will ever be the answer. Maybe I’m naive or an idealist, but adopting such a fatalistic attitude will never help solve the problem. 

[liveinoblivion]

Suis-Je Charlie? // Am I Charlie?

A week ago today, three men entered the Paris headquarters of satirical weekly magazine "Charlie Hebdo" and proceeded to open fire, killing twelve people -- among them both cartoonists for the magazine and two police officers. 

I was in Paris at the time and the effect of this terrorist attack on the city's inhabitants was palpable. Everywhere I looked, shops, restaurants, museums, and even traffic signs had some variation of "Je Suis Charlie" depicted. 

My first reactions were of anger and fear -- why did these cartoonists deserve to die for their explicitly satirical work, and did this attack mean that people in Paris, France, or the western world more generally were in danger?

In immediate terms fear won out. On Friday, a woman whose association with the perpetrators of the attack on Charlie Hebdo is unclear, held up a kosher supermarket in eastern Paris. As both a Jew and a tourist who had not hours before been walking on Rue des Rossiers (the main street of the historically Jewish Le Marais neighborhood), I felt in some senses that the "danger" had not passed and chose the activities of the rest of my visit with care. The French clearly shared my concern -- the day of my intended departure, a mistakenly abandoned camcorder case in the Gare du Nord led to an evacuation of the station and of course a delay in my return to London.

My point in all this isn't simply to record my own emotions or experiences over the last week. I mention the previous bits as an introduction to what happened today. 

I am currently enrolled in an extracurricular French class, comprised of a mix of undergraduate, Master's, and PhD students, hailing from various parts of the world. In today's culture part of the lesson, our professor showed a report detailing the biographies of some of the cartoonists who had been assassinated.

The report itself was in no ways political -- it did not even mention last week's events. Nevertheless, the conversation quickly turned to our own opinions and thoughts. Understandably and unsurprisingly, our professor was quick to defend the work of Charlie Hebdo, asserting that it has never been a racist publication and that its work has safely remained within the constraints of freedom of speech. It was the response of some of my classmates that surprised me more. A student from Spain argued that there was hypocrisy at play as Charlie Hebdo had never been censored and yet other French publications had been blocked in recent years. Additionally, he found the interpretation of the notion of freedom of speech on the part of the editors problematic. A Brazilian student echoed his comments, suggesting that many of the works of Charlie Hebdo directly offend many people, especially Muslims, and therefore should be censored. Our professor was quick to point out that blasphemy is not illegal in France and that no individual was forced to buy the publication should they find it distasteful. 

While it may not be well represented from this brief summary of the events that transpired, the discussion left me feeling extremely uncomfortable. Where does one limit freedom of speech? Should there be limits? Is limiting it in some cases a recipe for a slippery slope down the path to state-run, propagandist media? 

Having worked in journalism, I've often struggled with these and related dilemmas. Freedom of speech is an essential cornerstone of the democracies of the US and France. And yet sometimes works, particularly those satirical in nature, seem to go just a bit too far, pushing the envelope to the point of distasteful, offensive work. I think Muslims have every right to be offended by the work of Charlie Hebdo and any other publication that satirizes or mocks their religion. Nevertheless, it does not give any group or individual the right to kill in retaliation, nor do I necessarily think that censorship of the media is an appropriate solution. 

So where does that leave me? When the Spanish student asked me my opinion after class (I had remained obviously silent throughout the discussion), I dithered somewhat. For lack of my own eloquence, I turn to the words of Roxane Gay, who in a piece in the Guardian expresses many of the thoughts that have been passing through my mind. Most importantly, she noted that a nuanced appreciation of the past week's events is critical - the situation is not black and white, despite the unfolding of an "us versus them" mentality.

[liveinoblivion]

How Would the U.S. Media Cover the Eric Garner Case If It Happened in Another Country?

The latest installment in a continuing series in which American events are described using the tropes and tone normally employed by the American media to describe events in other countries. NEW YORK CITY, United States—The heavily armed security forces in this large and highly militarized country have long walked the streets with...

[liveinoblivion]

Poll Reveals What Americans Really Know About Ukraine

And this is what's wrong with America.

High officials in U.S. government are no doubt weighing America's policy options in the Ukrainian conflict. Nearly a quarter of Americans know what we should do about the Ukraine Administrative Adjustment Act of 2005, a new HuffPost/YouGov poll finds.That's not a good thing, because the Ukraine Administrative Adjustment Act doesn't exist.

[liveinoblivion]

The Perplexing Case of the Michael Dunn 'Loud Music' Trial

So a guy is at a gas station and some kids in a car next to him are playing their music too loud. He asks them to turn it down, they do. Then they allegedly turn it back up, and suddenly the guy's so angry he starts shooting into the car even as the kids begin to drive away. One of the kids is killed.

Today the wonderful people of Florida (aka the people who somehow found George Zimmerman not guilty) came to a verdict. They found Michael Dunn guilty on four counts of attempted murder (of the three surviving teens), in which he faces at least 60 years in prison. And yet, because of the Stand Your Ground law and the lack of clarity as to whether the dead teen Jordan Davis possessed a weapon, the jury wasn't able to determine whether Dunn is guilty of second degree murder. In other words, the jury decided that Dunn definitely tried to kill three kids, but they're unsure if he murdered the one who is no longer living. 

What kind of world do we live in where a death caused by a fatal gunshot isn't a clear-cut murder? Part of this might be my personal inability to understand how the Stand Your Ground law essentially makes murder permissible in the case of self-defense. As far as I'm concerned, murder is murder. But apparently that's not how the state of Florida sees it. And frankly, the verdict in cases like this and that of George Zimmerman are making me lose faith in our country's justice system.

[liveinoblivion]

The Average Grade at Harvard

...is an A. And it's supposed to be one of America's most prestigious colleges? What's going on here?