My thoughts on the tenth Anniversary of 9/11

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the one of the deadliest attacks in US History. This event triggered a huge reaction not just in America but the rest of the world. In all likelihood, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya as well as the entire Arab Spring wouldn't have happened without 9/11. Even the global recession would have unfolded differently or not happened if the World Trade Centers hadn't fallen...

It isn't clear to me how we should commemorate this anniversary. Some of us might feel like waving flags and talking about how great the USA is. But is America better off today than it was before 9/11? I don't think so. Not only did the attacks weaken us, but so did our response to the attacks. I think Americans need to ask themselves: What we could have done differently between 9/11/01 and today, what mistakes have been made in the last ten years have made us worse off?

The wars that this country has entered in the past ten years have been huge mistakes. The people that were so confident that Hussein had WMDs and that fighting the Iraq war would be easy and inexpensive have been proven wrong. There is no connection between Libya or Iraq to the 9/11 attacks and when we finally found Bin Ladin he was in Pakistan. Politicians have used 9/11 and the fear of another terrorist attack to drum up support for unrelated conflicts. We have little to gain from winning any of the three wars we're in, and it's not clear what exactly our victory conditions are (except perhaps in Libya, but who knows what will happen to that country when its ruler of 40 years is deposed or assassinated). We've lost more military personnel in these conflicts than we lost citizens in 9/11, not to mention all the non-Americans who've died. These wars are unpopular among US citizens and especially unpopular with citizens of other countries. Yet we continue them because we think that somehow fighting and killing will lead to a better outcome.

As a country, we can't admit when we're wrong. If we were the dominant superpower, that strategy might be viable, but with Europe uniting, China rising and the economic growth of most of the so called "third world" exceeding that of the "developed world" the US cannot expect to grow in international power and prestige if we remain so stupidly stubborn.

Americans have also lost a lot of civil liberties in the past ten years. I know it's cliche, but I feel obliged to use the Benjamin Franklin quote:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Now we're harassed more at airports, can have our telephones conversations eavesdropped upon and many of the liberties established by the US Constitution have been limited. Of course, defenders of the Patriot Act and similar legislation would probably point out that there hasn't been an attack on the US in ten years, and claim that's evidence that these measures are working; they might also claim that unless you are hiding something you have nothing to fear from a loss of civil liberties. I find those claims to be naive for the following reasons:

1) There have been plenty of attacks against the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why would these terrorists go all the way to the USA to kill innocents when they can kill US soldiers and contractors without being racially profiled on the plane flight? This isn't to say I believe that these wars are a deterrent for terrorists, but that these wars make it easier for terrorists to harm Americans.

2) There have been attacks in Europe, India, Pakistan, throughout the Middle East, Russia and Indonesia. It's not clear to me that this is because these places have an abundance of civil liberties.

3) The intelligence community had the ability to violate various civil liberties in the name of national security before 9/11/01 yet they failed to prevent the attacks. Why should we give up more civil liberties for security when doing so in past hasn't worked?

4) Osama had specifically stated that the attacks occurred because of the US support for Israel, its intervention in Lebanon and the US military presence in Islamic holy land. I'm not suggesting that we start taking orders from our enemies, but I do believe we should listen to our enemies. I believe rescinding support from Israel and withdrawing US troops from the Middle East would be a small price to pay if it ensured that the War on Terror would end.

The World Trade Towers were filled with the same bankers that would cause the economic crash and demanded a bailout. Can anybody honestly say that justice wouldn't have been served if Bernie Madoff died in 9/11? While many innocent Americans died on 9/11, many of the bankers and soldiers who died were guilty of causing damage to the world. This isn't an attempt to justify the attacks, but we should at least be aware that the purpose of these attacks was not simply to kill innocents. We should try to make sure that when we fight our enemy, we use more ethical tactics and harm less innocents or else they (as well as the rest of the observing world) will feel justified in killing innocents when they fight us.

I think in order to win or achieve honorable peace in this War on Terror, we need to understand the perspective of our enemies. Some would like to portray them as sociopaths who are beyond understanding, but I don't think that's true. I think our enemies are more like ourselves than we realize. Our enemies have the same desire for world domination as us. It's true that withdrawing for our wars and changing our policies may cause our enemies to perceive us as weak and attack us again. But it's also true that our enemies aren't fully united, if they don't perceive the USA as a threat to them, they will begin seeing each other as enemies and fight amongst each other.

So to commemorate 9/11 we should remember what America and the world were like before the horrible event happened. We should try to restore the more peaceful world that we had on 9/10/01. Americans should acknowledge and respect those that died on this tragic day, but also show concern for those that have died in our misguided and vengeful wars in the last ten years.

New Statesman - Assange: "WikiLeaks is the intelligence agency of the people"

New Statesman - Assange: "WikiLeaks is the intelligence agency of the people"

My informal opinion on Wikileaks and Julian Assange

Would like to write something about the wikileaks fiasco, but lacks time and fears that when he has time, the story will no longer be in the media, so I'll write a short summary.

Julian Assange mediated the release of documents of powerful organizations. These documents reveal things which have made those institutions seem less credible. He's in jail for having consensual sex where a condom broke (but Dick Cheney shoots someone in the face and walks free).

How does this make sense?

Julian Assange may be a criminal for releasing confidential information, but I'm not going to moralize and I'm not a legal expert, but I don't want to see him go to jail. This is because I'd like to know what all these huge organizations are hiding.

Was Alexander Hamilton Black?

(Originally published 2.23.07 in the Hamilton College Spectator.)

In honor of Black History Month, I've decided to examine the evidence that our college's namesake was partially of African descent. I have searched the internet and received help and perspective from Professor Ambrose, Professor Rubino and John Guilbert, Executive Director, Nevis Historical & Conservation Society. I'll examine the ramifications of discrediting the assumption that Hamilton was European. Despite a biblical passage to the contrary, Jesus is often illustrated as Northern European. Cleopatra (from Egypt) was portrayed by the English born Elizabeth Taylor. Non-European figures have been "whitened" before. Below, I'll give a brief biography of Alexander Hamilton, focusing on the evidence that he may have had "black blood".

Hamilton was born as the illegitimate son of Rachel Fawcett Lavien on a Carribean island the size of the town of Kirkland called Nevis. His mother was divorced for infidelity long before Hamilton was born, casting question onto Hamilton's father. Some claim that it was James Hamilton, the man who lived with Rachel. Others claim it was Nicolas Cruger, a Carribean merchant with connections in New York who employed an eleven year old Alexander Hamilton after his alleged father left him and his mother died. Some claim that Hamilton's mother had affairs with her slaves. Additionally, many claim that Hamilton's mother was herself part black, newspapers record Hamilton being called a mustee (implying his mother was a quarter black) by political enemies. At fourteen, Hamilton was running Cruger's business. After attending a prep school in New Jersey and applying to an advanced program at Princeton, he was turned down only after an in person interview. At seventeen he began attending what would become Colombia University, only to drop out two years later to fight in the Revolutionary War. At twenty Hamilton was appointed lieutenant colonel and became very close with George Washington. After practicing law for a short period after the war was over, Hamilton became extremely instrumental in the ratification of the Constitution by writing most of the Federalist Papers and formed the Federalist party. Hamilton was perhaps the staunchest abolitionist of his time. He argued blacks were mentally equal to whites and that slaves could be competent soldiers. He supported the black led government in Haiti who overthrew the French. At thirty-two Hamilton was named the first Secretary of the treasury by Washington. After resigning due to a scandal, Hamilton became more involved in political rivalries that would eventually result in his death. John Adams called Hamilton a "creole bastard" and Abigail Adams who said "[Hamilton] was a vain, ambitious man aspiring to govern when it was his duty to submit". Hamilton received much criticism despite being so important in the foundation of this country. Hamilton's life was ended in 1804 by Aaron Burr, who received no punishment.

That's about all the evidence I could find. I imagine some people are convinced that Hamilton was black. Others may think I've offered little or no evidence at all. Remember, there's no proof that Hamilton was white. Nobody knows what race Hamilton, his political critics probably didn't and it's possible that Hamilton himself was never sure. Certainty could only be determined by a genetic test. Some people might argue that Hamilton's race doesn't matter. Clearly, race meant something during Hamilton's time. But even today people of try to accumulate long lists of great individuals of their own race so they can feel proud of their race, or sometimes so they can feel superior to other races. So Hamilton's race remains an uncertainty that is important for people.

What is certain is that Hamilton's achievements were important and affect us today. That he was born a soon to be orphaned bastard on a tiny island makes his life more incredible. So does the fact that he was brutally criticized, perhaps simply for being an outsider (all the important founding fathers were born in America) or perhaps because of his race. He was an important military, political and economic figure, he was one of the few who advocated treating an unfavorably viewed group as the equals. His struggle and achievements are similar and important to millions of African-Americans, regardless of whether he was of African descent. If anybody is looking for a person of African descent who was accepted among whites before abolition, I'd recommend investigating Benjamin Scott Moncrieffe who served as the treasurer of a colonial church union.

All of this begs the questions, why do we need African-American heroes to be African, and why do we need a Black History Month at all? Certainly blacks have faced terrible discrimination, but so have plenty of other groups. There wouldn't be enough months in the calendar to accommodate every group. How about we use the month of February to confront and eliminate our own prejudices so we can honestly say things like the race of Alexander Hamilton, or any other individual, doesn't mean anything.

Why we mourn for Michael Jackson

It's been about a week since Michael Jackson died, the media frenzy has calmed down some, but he's still in the news. My usual attitude is that the world (and especially America's) obsession with celebrities is a detrimental and that our attention should be fixed on more important issues. For example, I really didn't care about when Heath Ledger died and I don't care about what is happening to Britney Spears. I'd much rather that the attention we give those celebrities be focused on something else, like the economy. But Michael was different.

It's hard for me to comprehend how prodigious Michael was. This is partly because his career was on a major decline for over a decade. His popularity started long before I was born and peaked when I was very young. I remember waiting in anticipation for his videos and listening to Thriller over and over on my mom's old record player. I remember talking about Black or White at school in the first grade. I remember when Dangerous came out and waiting for another set of videos. And I remember being confused about the child molestation accusations, that had a lot to do with the loss of my infatuation with Jackson, but I think it hurt Jackson a lot more than me, I think it made it harder for him to make music.

I've done a bit of research on both child molestation cases, and I don't think Jackson is guilty. I won't go into all the details but here are a few points:

First Trial
The case was brought by a dentist who was $68,400 behind in child support payments. He was jealous of the relationship that Michael Jackson had with his 13 year old son and extracted a confession by using a controversial drug. His ex-wife told police she did not believe her son was molested. Other children who were friends of Jackson were questioned and none of them reported inappropriate behavior. After the trial, several people who worked for Jackson sold false stories to media tabloids. Jackson eventually settled out of court because he was under a tremendous amount of stress.

Second Case
The accuser went to the same lawyer who served in the previous case before going to the police. The DA opened a website encouraging anyone who had been abused by Jackson to come forward, nobody did. In 1998 the accuser had stolen clothes from JC Penny, claimed that she had been beaten by the security officers and tried to sue for three million. Two years after that she claimed her breasts had been fondled and settled out of court for 137,000 (and never was punished for stealing clothes).

This is by no means conclusive proof that Jackson is innocent, but there really isn't much proof he is guilty either, just the words of two kids (though many more say Jackson never did anything inappropriate).

However, there is one person we know was abused as a child, Michael Jackson. He was poor and beaten and never given a chance to lead a normal childhood, if he did abuse the children, it was only abuse begetting abuse.

Aside from being a phenomenal singer and dancer, Michael Jackson pioneered the music video away from simple shots of the band playing or shots about the song's subject matter into actual stories. His music videos grabbed your attention for the full 8-20 minutes, they weren't just some random strung together images tangentially related to the song, they were the song. Nobody has come close to making videos like Jackson has. Along with the artistic merit Jackson added actual meaningful messages to his songs, especially towards the end of his career. Songs like Smooth Criminal, Bad and Beat it deal with crime and gang violence. Songs like Man In The Mirror, You Are Not Alone and They Don't Really Care About Us deal with introspection and societal problems. Michael Jackson gave millions of dollars to charities and was personal friends with many children (besides the ones who sued him).

What did he get for all of this? He was treated like a freak, the constant target of jokes by people like Jay Leno, the subject of negative media inquiry. A lonely man who was too busy mastering music and dealing with legal and medical problems to grow up, and now only after his death are we appreciating him. It's sad that somebody who was doing so much in his 20s and 30s faded so far from glory and died at a relatively young age. I always wished he would make some sort of a comeback, even though I didn't know how...

Read more >> Options >>