Bibi's Dangerous Game

Over the course of our short, 239-year history, America has had many allies in the world.

Our oldest ally is France. They fought alongside us in the Revolutionary War. They also share many of the same values we do, such as freedom of speech and freedom of expression, a common bond we were reminded of during the tragic Charlie Hebdo attack.

Another great American ally is the United Kingdom. Sure, they used to be our overlords but that is water under the bridge. They gave us Winston Churchill and we gave them FDR. Together we won WWII. They also gave us the Beatles and the Stones, which we are eternally grateful for.

Recently, the media has focused like a laser on America's complicated alliance with Saudia Arabia. While many Americans find their treatment of women, whipping of bloggers and beheading of criminals abhorrent, Saudia Arabia remains the #1 Arab-ally of America, both economically and militarily. President Obama hammered this point home by visiting Saudi Arabia to honor the death of King Abdullah.

But although France, England and Saudi Arabia all share a close partnership with America, when it comes to strategic importance, no ally comes close to Israel.

Israel is the only Western democracy in the Middle East. Without Israel, America would have no sphere of influence in the Arab world. In turn, without America's financial, political and military support, Israel would be dangerously isolated, surrounded in all directions by volatile nations that want to see Israel wiped off the map. The partnership is symbiotic, which is why it's so important.

But the US-Israel alliance isn't just some cold-blooded geo-political agreement made out of necessity, America and Israel genuinely like each other. America supports the Jewish people. We are home to the biggest population of Jews outside of Israel. We helped them secure their independence. We helped liberate them from the concentration camps.

More broadly, we share a similar philosophy and outlook on life. We are both progressive thinkers. We are both a nation of immigrants. Both of our countries gained their independence through war. We both believe in science, capitalism, free speech and gender equality.

America will always stand by Israel. However, after Netanyahu's latest attempt at undermining Obama in front of Congress, it seems that Israel is pushing the limits.


GOING TOO FAR

In order to make sense of the latest feud between Obama and Netanyahu, it's important to take a step back and see how we got to this place.

Obama is seeking a historic nuclear agreement with Iran. The talks are ongoing and have been for some time. Netanyahu's fear is that Obama agrees to a bad deal that allows Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb, a legitimate concern seeing as though Iran is vehemently anti-semitic and has on more than one occasion boasted about wanting to wipe Israel off the map.

Netanyahu, who is up for re-election in March, has made a calculated decision to do whatever it takes to derail the US-Iran nuke talks.

Which brings us to the controversy at hand: Netanyahu accepting an invitation from House Speaker John Boehner to address the US Congress about the need to ratchet up the Iran sanctions, which would effectively sabotage the deal.

Netanyahu's decision to speak to the US Congress is irresponsible and antagonistic on several fronts.

First, and most egregious, is that he will be speaking to Congress just weeks before the Israeli Elections. As a result, it's clear that Netanyahu is playing politics with his country's most important ally for personal gain. He is trying to elevate his status and increase his chances at winning re-election by appearing as a grand statesman on the world stage. He is trying to win votes by interfering in and engaging in partisan American politics.

Second is the disrespectful manner in which the speech was secured. Netanyahu broke protocol by not informing Obama of the invitation from Boehner. Even worse, days earlier the Israeli Ambassador, Ron Dermer, met with John Kerry for over two hours and never even mentioned the upcoming speech to congress.

Is that any way to treat your number one ally?


REASON AND LOGIC WIN OUT

Fortunately, the backlash against Netanyahu's move to undermine Obama and inflame US-Israeli tensions is fierce.

He has been hammered on all sides.

Michael Oren, the former Israeli Ambassador to the US, has called on Netanyahu to cancel his speech to Congress, which "created the impression of a cynical political move."

Amos Yadlin, a former Israeli military intelligence chief, went a step further, saying Netanyahu was being "irresponsible."

"When we manage our relationship with the US, we have to manage it simultaneously with the president and Congress. [Netanyahu] has made it into a partisan issue in the US, and we cannot let Israel become a problem for one party or another."

Even Fox News (!!!) denounced Netanyahu's move and came to Obama's defense. When do they agree with Obama on anything??

In the end, the backlash against Netanyahu shouldn't be seen as an attack on Israel. It shouldn't be held up as evidence of anti-semitism.

Instead, it should be seen as a justified response to reckless, cynical behavior; a condemnation of risky political gamesmanship that dishonors the historic partnership between the US and Israel.

After all, the US and Israel are sacred allies. We must do everything we can to strengthen our partnership, not strain it.

We can't afford to let petty partisanship undermine our alliance, especially at a time when the Mideast is in flames.

Now, more than ever, the US and Israel need to be united, not divided.

Go Away, Romney... And Take Your Fake Poverty Concerns With You

With the 2016 Presidential Election less than two years away, the race for the White House is beginning to heat up.

In the span of just one short month, we've seen Hillary Clinton hire John Podesta to lead her emerging campaign and Jeb Bush resign from all his foundations and boards, a well-known precursor to running for president.

But while much of the media fixates on another potential Clinton-Bush matchup, a third candidate has thrown his hat in the proverbial ring: Willard Mitt Romney.

That's right, the same Mitt Romney who has crashed and burned in the last two Presidential Elections thinks he's still the best man for the job.

Someone should tell him that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. 

THE KING OF FLIP FLOPS

While Romney hasn't officially announced that he's running for President in 2016, all signs point to him doing so. 

In a recent speech to the Republican National Committee from aboard the USS Midway in San Diego, Romney admitted that he is giving a third run for president "some serious consideration," which is as close a politician will get to saying they're in without actually saying they're in.

Of course, his RNC speech was littered with criticisms of Obama and Hillary, which surprises no one. But Mitt also spent time discussing a subject he's been loathed to address, let alone mention, in the past: poverty.

"It's a tragedy, a human tragedy, that the middle class in this country by and large doesn't believe that the future will be be better than the past. We haven't seen rising incomes over decades."

"The rich have gotten richer, income inequality has gotten worse and there are more people in poverty than ever before under this president."

Are you kidding me, Mitt?

While the statement is factually accurate, it is laughably disingenuous.

Suddenly Mr. 47%, who spent his entire career preying on the middle class by outsourcing jobs and bankrupting companies for personal profit, cares about the plight of those struggling to get by?

Even for Romney, the king of flip flops, such a statement defies logic. It's like hearing the CEO of McDonalds decry the rise of obesity.

After all, the same people Mitt now pretends to care about he skewered in private just a few short years ago, calling them lazy moochers who need to "take personal responsibility for their lives."

"My job is not to worry about those people."

But now he does?

How stupid does Mitt think the American people are?

SAME OLD MITT

While Hillary remains the odds on favorite to win the Democratic nomination (and the White House), the Republican side is much more muddied. As the field stands now, it looks like a two candidate race: Jeb versus Mitt, at least until Rand Paul or Ted Cruz officially jump into the ring.

And while I'd rather gouge my eyes out Oedipus-style than see another Bush in the White House, at least Jeb is consistent and, on the surface, real.

He's married to a Hispanic wife. He genuinely cares about Immigration Reform and Common Core educational standards. In many ways he's Mitt without the personal baggage. Sure, the Bush name hangs over Jeb like a infinite dark cloud, but Jeb himself is a successful businessman devoid of flip flops, free from disparaging secret video that disqualifies him from the national stage. 

Disagree with Jeb's politics all you want (and believe me, I do) but when you compare him to Mitt, it's no contest. I don't like Jeb but I respect him, something I, and many others, can't say for Mitt.

The problem with Mitt is that he has no backbone. He has no guiding principles or fundamental beliefs. He is the ultimate political opportunist: he says what the crowd wants to hear. He changes his tune to whatever the most popular music is at the time.

In 2012, Mitt was "severely" conservative. 

Now that populism is on the rise and income inequality is at the forefront, he is a born again Anti-Poverty Warrior.

How convenient. 

Sorry, Mitt, but the American people aren't buying it. To us, you will always be Mr. 47%, a rich guy who refuses to show his tax returns and only says what he really believes when he thinks the cameras are off.

So please, spare us your fake poverty concerns. Leave the problem of income inequality to the people who genuinely care about addressing it.

Enjoy your millions and your car elevator, Mitt, and go away.

The Pen Is Always Mightier Than The Sword

I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-Voltaire


The horrific attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris, France shocks the conscience of the world. Anytime 12 innocent people are murdered in cold blood it is a tragedy beyond words. But the fact that these people were artists and journalists makes it even worse. They didn't sign up to fight on a battlefield. They signed up to write articles and draw pictures.

The massacre wasn't random. It was a carefully orchestrated act of retribution against a satirical magazine because they published cartoons criticizing and mocking Islam. We know this because as the masked murderers fled the scene they told witnesses "We have avenged the Prophet Muhammad."

On the surface, the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo is seen as an attack on free speech, free press and the freedom of expression- and it is. But more broadly, it is an attack on the West. It is a violent condemnation of Western values, Western culture and the Western way of life.

The terrorists' goal wasn't just to avenge Muhammad, it was to scare the West into censoring its views, silencing its freedom of expression. It sent a very terrifying, straight-forward message: we, the terrorists, will decide what you can write and what you can draw, and when you go too far we will kill you for it.

The last thing the West should do is capitulate to extremists. Instead, it must do the opposite: speak out louder and more forcefully than ever before.


TO ARMS, COMPANIONS

One of the biggest points of contention among the media in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack rests on whether or not to re-publish the magazine's most offensive cartoons. Many news networks like CNN, NBC & Fox have chosen not to, arguing that they are too "insensitive" for viewers to see.

This is a colossal mistake.

We must publish them all because the failure to do so amounts to nothing more than a raising of the white flag. It represents a surrender to extremism. It hands the terrorists a major literal and figurative victory that they so desperately desire: not only did they terrorize us but they achieved their goal in silencing our free speech as well. A double-win. This is sure to motivate future terrorists to do the same thing because they know it works.

Instead, we must unite. We must stand up to terrorism by making our voices heard, by expressing ourselves freely, more loudly and courageously than ever before. In doing so, we will send the strongest possible rebuke to the terrorists: you may strike some of us down, but we remain unafraid, our values undeterred.


THE PEN IS ALWAYS MIGHTIER

In 1839, English author Edward Bulwer-Lytton coined the phrase "the pen is mightier than the sword." But the idea itself has been around much longer, with some variations of the phrase dating back all the way to 500 BC.

It's a simple message: communication trumps violence.

Sure, swords and guns reign supreme in the present. But the ability to communicate through speech, written word and artistic expression is forever. You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

In this case, the idea is Western philosophy: the universal rights of man, openness, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, equality, the rule of law.

The Charlie Hebdo journalists and cartoonists upheld this idea. We must honor their legacy by proudly exercising our right to speak freely: a right they celebrated, defended and died for.

It's often said that every US drone strike creates 100 new terrorists.

It's my hope that the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo creates 100 million new progressive-thinking people that choose the pen over the sword.

Making Sense Of Serial- The Case For Adnan Syed's Innocence

DISCLAIMER: If you haven't listened to the Serial podcast none of this will make any sense. If you are planning to listen to it at some point in the future or just started and want to keep an open mind until the very end, don't read this. I've taken a side in the "Did Adnan Do It?" debate. I might be right, I might be wrong. But it's the conclusion that makes the most sense to me after weighing all the possibilities.


Over Christmas break, my sister and I spent a lot of time together in the car driving back and forth from our ancestral home in Western Massachusetts to our Grandmother's house in South Windsor, Connecticut, where we celebrate the Holidays. As always, we argued over what we should listen to during the trip. She wanted Christmas music. I wanted Wilco or The Beatles.

My sister, five years my elder, lives in New York City and loves podcasts. She suggested that we listen to Serial. I had heard a lot about it on social media and was intrigued. I figured I might as well find out what all the fuss is about.

After listening to the first ten minutes or so, I quickly realized that the hype was warranted. It was brilliantly produced and thought-provoking, a verbal roller-coaster ride that seemed to get more interesting with every passing second. Each curve had you on the edge of your seat, wanting to hear more.

The best way I can describe it is an audio hybrid between Breaking Bad and True Detective. It was like Breaking Bad in the sense that it's wildly addictive. You can't just listen to one episode and call it a day. You must immediately flip to the next one.

It was like True Detective in the sense that you, the viewer, (or in this case, the listener) aren't just taking in mindless entertainment. There's work involved. But it's not the tedious, when-does-it-end kind of work. It's the sort of work that doesn't really feel like work at all. It's too exciting to be. You are so enthralled by the mystery you're presented with that you become your own detective, stacking up clues, looking for patterns, trying to solve the case before it's solved for you.

Since the final Serial episode aired, I've heard many perspectives from both sides of the "Did Adnan Do It?" debate. I've been surprised to learn that the breakdown seems to be roughly 50/50, with half of the people thinking Adnan is innocent while the other half think he's guilty.

While the show's narrator, Sarah Koenig, who spent over a year working the case, openly admits that both possibilities exist, I find one argument much more compelling than the other.

If you ask me, Adnan Syed is innocent.


PROBLEMS WITH THE CASE

From the very first episode, I've tried to reserve judgment and just sit back and let the clues of the case take me wherever they may go.

I've tried to view the series through the prism of Adnan being guilty and then Adnan being innocent, seeing if one perspective makes more sense than the other. Along the way, I've had moments where I've felt Adnan is 100% guilty and others where I feel he is 100% innocent. But when you stop focusing on one seemingly conclusive piece of evidence that supports one side or the other and you start focusing on the case in a general, grand-scheme-of-things sense, to me the answer is clear.

Adnan didn't do it.

From the very beginning, Adnan has always maintained his innocence. This cannot be overlooked. He has been consistent about it since Day 1. This may seem unimportant, as killers lie all the time about claiming to be innocent when in fact they are 100% guilty. But to me, if someone serving a life sentence still maintains their innocence after more than 15 years in prison, you can't rule out the possibility that they're actually telling the truth.

Secondly, the state's case against Adnan just doesn't add up. They have no concrete evidence linking Adnan to Hae's murder, no photographs of him with her at the time of her death, no DNA evidence linking him to the crime. All they have is Jay's testimony, which is ridden with lies and inconsistencies. The state's time frame of the events also doesn't make sense, as Koenig points out several times. And how about the fact that Jay spoke to the police for over an hour before taping his testimony. What was said between the two before he went on record? What agreement was made? Also, how in the world can the prosecution secure Jay a lawyer, a red-flag type move that is absolutely unheard among attorneys?

Another aspect of the case I keep coming back to is racial bias. Baltimore is predominantly African American. The majority of the jurors were African American. Jay, whom the jury ended up believing, is African American. Adnan, whom they ended up convicting in less than 2 hours of deliberation, is of Middle Eastern, Pakistani descent. Is it that much of a stretch to say that the jurors were predisposed to believing Jay over Adnan on racial grounds?

In addition, one must also question the competency of the representation Adnan received. Ms. Gutierrez, his lawyer, was on a downward spiral. She missed meetings, she lied about the progress of the case, a lot of her court-room rants were incoherent or jumbled, she demanded lots of money from Adnan's family, one time in all cash. She was obviously unstable when she was defending Adnan. It's not hard to imagine that things might have turned out differently for Adnan had she been on the top of her game during the trial.


SEARCHING FOR ANSWERS

In the end, I keep coming back to Jay. He is the star witness, the only witness. Without his testimony, there is no case against Adnan.

To me, it's clear that Jay isn't telling the whole story. He's reversed himself several times, he's been caught in multiple lies. There is obviously something fishy going on with Jay and the cops, who personally secured him a lawyer. I can't help but think that he's hiding something. After all, he led the police to Hae's car, so that means he has intimate knowledge of the crime scene.

So what exactly happened?

Here's what I think: Ronald Lee Moore, the convicted rapist and felon mentioned in the final episode, killed Hae. The time frame fits perfectly: Moore was released from prison just 10 days before Hae was murdered. He also previously strangled an Asian woman in the Baltimore area. Recently, the University of Virginia Innocence Project officially named his as a suspect in Hae's murder.

After all, what's more believable: that a serial rapist and felon killed Hae? Or that her 17-year-old ex-boyfriend killed her, a kid who everyone claimed was bright, friendly and genuinely good hearted? A kid who has maintained his innocence since Day 1?

I also think the story told by Jay's co-worker, Chris, in the final episode can't be overlooked. He said that Jay admitted to him that he helped bury Hae. And one night while they were working together, Chris saw Jay freak out about a van parked across the street, terrified that it might be someone coming after him, presumably whoever the killer was.

Does it make more sense that Jay would be terrified of Adnan? A friend who he went to school with, partied with and smoked pot with? Or does it make more sense that Jay was terrified of Moore, a rapist/felon on the loose?

My guess is that there is some connection between Moore and Jay. Either they did it together, or Jay saw Moore do it and was blackmailed into blaming it on someone else for fear that Moore would hunt him down if he told the truth. Adnan, the spurned ex-boyfriend, the Pakistani minority in a predominantly black city, was the perfect scapegoat.


THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

Thanks to the Innocence Project, Moore's DNA will finally be tested to see if it links him to Hae's murder. One way or another, we will know a lot more about the case once the results are in.

Until then, we are left with the ultimate Postmodern conundrum. Is Adnan innocent? Is Adnan guilty? There is no definitive answer either way. It's up to the audience to come to their own conclusions.

In my eyes, Adnan is innocent.

If he did do it, he is the world's greatest, most convincing liar. He would have duped everyone into believing that he is a good, genuine kid, when in reality he was a monster on the inside the entire time, a kind of split-personality psychopath, devoid of empathy for others.

After listening to the entire Serial podcast, this is an argument that I just can't buy.