Friday, October 31, 2014

Sorry, Fear Mongers. ISIS And Ebola Aren't Existential Threats To America... But Climate Change Is


When listening to cable news hosts and Republican congressional candidates on the eve of the 2014 Midterm Elections, one would think that America is teetering on the brink of collapse.

Between ISIS and Ebola, the freak-out meter is at record highs not seen since the days of 9/11.

On CNN and Fox News, they flash "BREAKING NEWS" headlines all day even when nothing new is going on. They stalk Ebola victims like Hollywood paparazzi. They speak incessantly about ISIS's every move, making them out to be the most unstoppable, terrifying fighting force in the history or warfare.

Republican congressional candidates are playing up the same anxieties as well.

Scott Brown, the poster boy for Fear and Hysteria, has been running an ad non-stop in New Hampshire in which he states, unequivocally, "Radical Islamic terrorists are threatening to cause the collapse of our country." He goes on to claim that anyone with Ebola can "walk across" our "porous border" and says Americans are not safe because Obama and Jeanne Shaheen, his opponent, are clueless about national security.

But it's not just Brown. Fellow Republican Senate hopefuls like Thom Tillis, Tom Cotton and Cory Gardner have said similarly hysterical things about ISIS and Ebola.

Neither the media nor Republicans running for office are approaching ISIS and Ebola with the calm, level-head is demands. Instead they are fanning the flames of terror and unrest, offering no solutions of their own, whipping the nation up into a frenzy just to improve their ratings and scare up some votes.

Worst of all, while they are shamelessly devoting all of the available oxygen in the room to ISIS and Ebola, they are burying any discussion about a real existential threat that goes largely unmentioned in the media and in politics: Climate Change.



PUTTING IT IN PERSPECTIVE

As scary as ISIS and Ebola may seem, they do not threaten to wipe out our existence. The media and Republican candidates like Scott Brown are wrong to suggest that they do.

While it's true that ISIS and Ebola are serious challenges and America has been slow to respond to both, it doesn't change the fact that we are now 100% all-in on both fronts.

America is at war with ISIS and we have been since September. We are launching dozens of strikes in both Iraq and Syria every single day. We have a coalition of allies at our side helping us in the fight, with more joining each day.

The fight against ISIS has its own official name, Operation Inherent Resolve. And the well-respected John Allen is the special commander overseeing the operation.

Similarly, Ebola is being given the full-court press as well. After a rocky start, Obama has worked to fix and strengthen the protocols and airport screenings for possible patients.

He has also appointed an Ebola Czar, Ron Klain, a testament to how important the issue is and how serious it's being taken by the administration.

In addition, some generous philanthropists like Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Miscrosoft CEO Paul Allen have donated $25 million and $100 million to the Ebola fight, respectively, which is a huge help to the overall effort, not only in America but in Africa as well.

In both cases, ISIS and Ebola are being met head on by real, multifaceted action.

However, the same can't be said for a much more serious threat: Climate Change.



NO TIME TO WASTE

In the fight against Climate Change, there are small victories to report.

In September, over 300,000 people marched in New York City in the largest ever Climate Change demonstration. Solar panels are cropping up on roofs all over America and solar energy is expected to be as cheap as fossil fuel energy by 2016.

President Obama has also proposed EPA rules to cut carbon emissions, becoming the first president ever to do so.

Unfortunately, the climate crisis is so dire that incremental measures are not enough. Whether or not Americans are willing to admit it, we are faced with Climate Armageddon. We must drastically cut our carbon emissions- and fast.

Recently there have been some frightening reminders of how bad the situation is getting, yet the news has gone under the radar with everyone fixating on ISIS and Ebola.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that 2014 is on track to be the hottest year on record. A study by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that melting polar and glacial ice have accelerated sea level rise to the highest rate in at least 6,000 years.


Meanwhile, the amount of carbon in the air is rising at a much faster than we previously expected, with greenhouse gasses in 2013 reaching historic highs.

If that news isn't enough to worry you, consider this: Between 2030-2050 an additional 250,000 people are expected to die each year as a result of Climate Change.

In the media and in Midterm Election debates, all of the attention is centered on ISIS and Ebola. There is barely any mention of Climate Change at all.

On the off chance that Climate Change does get mentioned in a debate, it's usually just a generic question like "Do you believe in it?" The Democrat says yes, the Republican says no. Both answers are given the same respect even though one is factually wrong. There is no follow-up question about how we should address it. Just a shrug of the shoulders. Agree to disagree. Move on.


THE TIME IS NOW

In America, the panic over ISIS and Ebola has reached a fever pitch. We are told all day, everyday by the media and Republican politicians that our entire way of life is being threatened and Doomsday is upon us.

But why are they selling us this bill of goods?


It's simple. Fear sells. Nonstop bad news is good for TV ratings. It's good for Republican politicians seeking office because the electorate tends to vote Republican when they feel scared.

On the surface, it makes sense. When something bad is happening it's easy to stay glued to the "news." And in a state of high anxiety and unease, the heavy-handed Conservative position seems much more comforting than the calm, science-based approach championed by Liberals.

But that doesn't make it right.

No one is arguing that ISIS and Ebola aren't serious challenges to America. They are. And it's true that if we don't stay on top of both issues they could spread and become even bigger problems in the future.

But let's be honest: neither is an existential threat to our country. ISIS is in the Middle East. Ebola is in West Africa. Neither are going to cause the collapse of our nation.

And on top of that, we are making a real, concerted effort to defeat both, with President Obama devoting all of his attention and resources to both fights. Neither issue is being neglected. Both are being met head on.

In the end, fear mongering is a tactic used by those who can't win on the issues and don't have any answers of their own, so they must manipulate the emotions of others to achieve their ends. It may be good for TV ratings and help scare up a few votes, but it does nothing of substance to improve the situation.

In times of high anxiety, it's important to remember what FDR said in his 1933 Inaugural Address.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

If only we could approach Climate Change with the same honest, bold stoicism that FDR applied to the Great Depression.

Friday, October 10, 2014

Bridging The Divide- Bill Maher, Ben Affleck And The Liberal Conundrum That Is Islam


Last week on HBO's Real Time, Bill Maher and Ben Affleck got into a heated debate on Islam that instantly went viral.

Maher, the outspoken left-wing comedian and unabashed atheist, took the controversial stance that Islam itself is a religion of "mafia-style" violence that "has too much in common with ISIS" and demands criticism for its anti-liberal views toward women, gays and "non-believers." 

Affleck, the Boston-bred movie star and fellow liberal, loudly denounced Maher as "gross" and "racist" for stereotyping a religion of 1.5 billion people.

In the week since, op-ed columnists, television hosts and everyone in-between have taken out their proverbial knives and verbally crucified both Maher and Affleck, depending on which side of the argument they support.

Reza Aslan, a well-known Muslim scholar, wrote in The New York Times that Maher "lacks sophistication" and his use of blanket anti-Islam statements amount to nothing more than racist bigotry, a sentiment also shared by Max Fisher of Vox.com

In turn, many others across the ideological spectrum have rushed to Maher's defense. In a bizarre case of strange bedfellows, Fox News host Bill O' Reilly not only agreed with Maher's criticism of Islam but went on to say that ISIS would behead Affleck "in a second" if they had the chance. 

In addition, while taking issue with Maher's oversimplification of Islam, CNN contributor and Washington Post writer Fareed Zakaria agreed that "Islam has a problem today" and within the religion exists a "cancer of extremism."

But while both sides of the argument view the debate in largely black and white terms of one side being wrong and the other right, very few have taken a nuanced approach that journeys into the uninhabited gray area.


THE LIBERAL CONUNDRUM

Two of the most fundamental, guiding principles of Liberalism are tolerance and equality. 

From a very young age, liberals are taught to respect others no matter their religion, skin color, class, race or sexual orientation. We are also raised to believe that everyone is equal and that we must walk a mile in someone else's shoes before passing judgment. 

In addition, we are taught to defend those who are less fortunate and stand up to bigotry, racism, sexism or any other type of "ism" which goes against the well-founded tenets of Liberalism. 

While these principles sound like an easy enough blueprint to follow, they become muddied when contemplating certain issues in today's complex, modern world. 

One of those issues is Islam. 

On the one hand, liberals respect and embrace the Muslim religion because we pride ourselves on being tolerant of others. We may not fully understand the complex history and traditions of Islam, but we are careful not to criticize or stereotype the religion as a whole. 

However, on the other side of the coin, liberals are incredibly uncomfortable with many anti-democratic, anti-liberal aspects of Islam. We can't stand seeing women forced to wear burkas from head to toe, devoid of the freedom Western women enjoy. We cringe at the thought of Muslim women being married off at such a young age and then forced to stay in the house, unable to leave without being accompanied by a man, unable to get an education, hold a job or drive a car. 

We find certain practices like the stoning of women for adultery completely beyond the pale. We condemn the outward repression of gays in the Muslim world. We find it absolutely abhorrent that a majority of Muslims agree that those who leave the religion deserve to die. We shake our heads at the fact that in 2007 a Swedish artist received death threats for drawing an unflattering cartoon of Muhammad.

However, many liberals choose not to project these criticisms outwardly because we are fearful of being branded racist or Islamophobic.

As a result, many liberals (myself included) find themselves at a crossroads when grappling with how to approach Islam.


EMBRACING THE GRAY AREA

Maher and Affleck's debate was so interesting and controversial because it highlighted the liberal divide on Islam, an ideological splintering rarely discussed in public, let alone on a major cable television station.

While the debate has succeeded in breaking through to the mainstream and fostering a larger conversation on Islam, it has also been somewhat destructive because many pundits and columnists have vilified one side or the other without really listening to the conflicting argument.

Personally, I agree and disagree with elements of both sides. 

Affleck is 100% right that it is wrong to stereotype a religion of 1.5 billion people as ISIS-sympathizing extremists. That type of thinking will only inflame tensions and hatreds between the East and the West and does nothing to reconcile the differences of opinion.

However, Maher is also right that there are many tenets of Islam that go against liberal ideals and deserve criticism and scorn, most notably the anti-democratic treatment of and intolerance toward women, gays and non-believers within the Muslim world.

On the one hand, liberals are right to champion Affleck's condemnation of Maher's dangerous oversimplification of Islam. However, we must also not let our desire to be tolerant and politically correct silence us from speaking out against certain aspects of Islam that go against the most fundamental principles of Liberalism.

Yes, it is Islamophobic to say that Islam is a religion of violence and extremism, because it is not. There are 1.5 billion Muslims on planet Earth and the vast majority are peaceful and respectful. Only a small minority are terrorists and jihadists. ISIS and Al-Qaeda do not speak for all of Islam, just as the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church do not speak for all of Christianity.

However, liberals must be reminded that it is not Islamophobic to condemn specific parts of Islam that discriminate against women, gays and non-believers.

In the end, championing one side of the argument while completely dismissing the other is not constructive. It only serves to silence the furthering of a conversation that will lead us to progress between Muslims and non-Muslims, something we desperately need in today's world.

There is a way to stay true to liberal ideals while also remaining respectful to Islam.

And although the formula can't be derived on a 60-minute TV show, at least it's succeeded in starting the conversation.