If Netanyahu Wins, The Peace Process Loses

Imagine for a moment that you have been living under a rock the past few years. You wake from your slumber to see a foreign leader bashing your president on the floor of congress. This charismatic leader warns of an impending disaster and says your president is responsible. He asks you, as well as your elected leaders, to join him in sabotaging your president's deal.

His rhetoric is lofty. It sounds incredibly convincing. Every ten seconds the crowd erupts with applause. But soon you realize that, despite his powerful words, this foreign leader offers no plan of his own to avert the upcoming "disaster."

Then you realize that this leader is speaking to congress just two weeks ahead of his re-election bid. His speech isn't designed to solve the "disaster" he warns against. It's only intended to win him a few more votes by elevating his reputation as a distinguished "statesman" on the world stage.

Now imagine that the country the foreign leader comes from has been your closest, most cherished ally for decades. And oh, by the way, the foreign leader who is speaking to your congress secretly arranged the visit without the knowledge or approval of your president.

This is exactly what happened on Tuesday when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to the US Congress about the need to reject President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.

MISSING THE FOREST AMONGST THE TREES

After watching Netanyahu's speech, one would assume that the biggest, most pivotal issue facing Israel is a nuclear Iran.

Problem is, it isn't.

Israel knows that America will not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. Even if a "bad deal" includes the 10-year sunset clause, which Netanyahu rails against, it's not like America will sit back and allow Iran to build a bomb in 2025. We will go to war with Iran and blow up their facilities if we get even the slightest inkling that they are close to going nuclear.

In the mean time, Obama's deal would make Israel more safe in the short term because it forces Iran to bring their nuclear program out of the shadows and be closely monitored and kept in check for the years to come.

As a result, the biggest issue facing Israel isn't a nuclear Iran, as much as Netanyahu would love for you to believe. Instead, it's an issue that the Israeli Prime Minister devotes almost zero attention to: making peace with the Palestinians.

Simply put, if Netanyahu wins re-election on March 17th, the peace process loses.

A staunch opponent of a two-state solution, Netanyahu has no interest in reaching a peace settlement with the Palestinians. He will continue to build settlements on occupied land, inflaming tensions and stoking hatreds. The people of Gaza will continue to live in squalor, their homes destroyed, their movements restricted and their economic prospects limited.

If Netanyahu wins, the next half-decade will be just like the last. Gaza Wars will become annual events, a new one launched every summer. 

Meanwhile, Israel will move closer to becoming an apartheid state. 

But unfortunately, none of this even gets mentioned; not on the nightly news and especially not in a televised speech to congress.

ROOTING AGAINST BIBI

Netanyahu's decision to address congress was a partisan move that adds nothing constructive to the Iran conversation. It only serves to dishonor the historic, bipartisan partnership between the United States and Israel.

But that's not the only reason why it's so destructive. 

It's so destructive because it consumes all the oxygen in the room. It serves as a shiny object that everyone can stare at, which excuses them from addressing the elephant in the room: making peace with the Palestinians. 

I must admit, on a purely visceral level, I loved Netanyahu's speech. It made me proud to be half-Jewish. It made me proud that the Jewish people have their own country and can now defend themselves against people who vow to wipe them off the map.

But Bibi's speech does not come in a vacuum. It does not change the fact that it was a deeply cynical and destructive partisan move.

As an American, I won't be voting in the Israeli election. But I'll be rooting against Bibi. 

Not because his speech disrespected my president or dishonored the historic partnership between the US and Israel- but because if Bibi wins, the peace process loses.

Calling Things What They Are: If ISIS Is Islamic, Then Giuliani Is A Racist

As ISIS rampages across the Middle East- beheading, raping, killing and burning alive their enemies- America engages in a never-ending debate over what to call them.

Republicans explode with rage every time President Obama refuses to refer to ISIS as "Islamic" or "Muslim." They argue that Obama must call ISIS, and groups like them, what they are. His refusal to call a spade a spade, they say, is the fundamental reason why Obama's strategy (or lack thereof) to defeat ISIS will fail.

In turn, Obama argues, smartly, that labeling ISIS as "Islamic" or "Muslim" is a terrible idea because it undermines the US's standing with Muslims worldwide and hands a propaganda gift directly to ISIS.

Labeling noxious beliefs and mass murder as "Islamic" would play right into the hands of terrorists who claim that the United States is as war with Islam itself. The last thing the president should do... is imply that the United States lumps the world's 1.5 billion Muslims with vicious terrorist groups.

It seems unlikely that both viewpoints will be reconciled. Obama appears dug in on his decision not to call ISIS "Islamic." Meanwhile, Republicans continue to skewer him for refusing to do so.

The back and forth debate is important because it brings to light two competing perspectives: the one that sees everything in black and white, and the other that sees the complexity of things, the nuance, the uninhabited gray area.

Republicans embrace the black and white. ISIS is Islamic. They are Muslim extremists waging a war against the West. The United States is at war with Radical Islam. There is no nuance. No cost-benefit analysis of how calling them "Islamic" could backfire and play into ISIS's hands.

Obama, and most Democrats, see the complexity of the situation. Calling ISIS "Islamic" doesn't solve anything. It just perpetuates the dangerous narrative that the US is at war with Islam. It frays relations with moderate Muslims by making them seem guilty by association.

But, for the sake of argument, let's humor the Republicans. Let's ignore Obama's sound logic and start referring to ISIS as "Islamic terrorists."

But while we're at it, let's start calling other things for what they are, also.


RUDY'S RAGE

Rudy Giuliani, the famous former Major of New York City who was in office during 9/11, caused an uproar earlier this week when he made bizarre, disparaging comments about President Obama.

I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the President loves America. He doesn't love you. He doesn't love me. He wasn't brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.

First off, setting aside the racist innuendo about Obama being the "other," Giuliani's statement is laughable because, just on a base level, how can he possibly claim to know what's going through Barack Obama's head? He has no idea what Obama really thinks or believes.

The image Giuliani paints of Obama- as an un-American foreigner- didn't just fall out of the sky. It has been finely crafted by Fox News and birthers like Donald Trump, over years and years.

It ignores the fact that Obama is a legal American citizen, born in Hawaii. It ignores the fact that Obama epitomizes the American dream- a biracial son of a single mom, raised by his grandparents, who went on to become the first black to lead the Harvard Law Review, then the first African American ever elected President of the United States.

Instead, he is the other. He is a radical tyrant hell-bent on destroying America. He wasn't born here. He isn't like us. He's a Kenyan socialist. Where is his birth certificate?

Giuliani's comments are just the latest chapter in the same Obama-hating book, written by Republicans since 2009.

But Rudy didn't stop there. In defending his initial comments, Giuliani dug himself an even deeper hole.

Some people thought it was racist - I thought that was a joke, since he was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools, and most of this he learned from white people... This isn't racism. This is socialism or possibly anti-colonialism.

In what bigoted, alternate reality does having a white mother disqualify racism? Somehow if you make racist comments toward someone, if that person has a white mother it magically exonerates the racism? Like white mothers are racist kryptonite?

Giuliani's bizarre logic proves just how bigoted and out of touch he really is.


CALLING THINGS FOR WHAT THEY ARE

If Republicans are right, and things must be called for what they are, then the same logic that requires ISIS to be labeled "Islamic" must also be extended to other things.

Surely, calling a spade a spade isn't only applied to terrorists. It a guiding philosophy that must be applied everywhere, to everything. It cannot be subjective.

ISIS calls themselves the Islamic State. They are deeply devout, religious fanatics that pray 5 times a day and know every verse of the Koran. They shout Allahu Akbar when they kill someone. They worship the Prophet Muhammad and kill those who disrespect him.

Forget that ISIS perverts Islam. Or that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and denounce ISIS. Or that by calling ISIS "Islamic terrorists" we feed the narrative that the West is engaged in a war of civilizations, that the West hates Islam.

To Republicans, it's simple. Forget all that nuance and complexity. ISIS is Islamic. And America is at war with Islam.

But by that same token, if we are now in the business of calling things what they truly are, then it must apply to everything across the board.

Giuliani accuses Obama of not loving America even though he has no idea or proof of what Obama really thinks or believes. He paints him as the other, an un-American foreigner, even though Obama was born in America and is just as American as you or me.

Then, when he is called out for being racist, Giuliani claims innocence because, duh, Obama's mom was white! As if that is some sort of trump card. Everything is seen through the prism of race and color, even Giuliani's explanation for why he's not a racist.

So, sure, let's follow the Republican lead and start calling things by their real name.

But If ISIS is "Islamic," then Giuliani is a racist.

It's only fair.

Everyone Keeps Asking "When Will Muslims Stand Up To ISIS?" Well, Guess What? In Jordan, They Just Did

In late August of last year, the gruesome execution of American journalist James Foley by ISIS shocked the world. It wasn't just that Foley was beheaded, it was the fact that it was on camera, finely produced, thrown in our faces in spectacular fashion. It terrorized us in a way we never thought possible, instilling a sense of visceral, gut-wrenching fear not felt since 9/11.

At the time, it was hard to imagine that ISIS could exceed the level of evil and barbarity displayed in the Foley video. But nearly six months later, they have.

This time, the victim was not a journalist or an American. It was a 27-year-old Jordanian fighter pilot named Moath al-Kasasbeh, who was captured by ISIS in late December when his plane crashed in Syria.

ISIS didn't behead him. Instead, they drenched him in gasoline and burned him alive in a cage.

The reaction to al-Kasabeh's murder in Jordan has been severe. King Abdullah has vowed a "earth-shaking" response. There are demonstrations all across the country. Jordanians are marching in the streets, burning pictures of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. They are demanding justice and revenge.

For all those who have been calling on Muslims to denounce radical Islam and stand up to ISIS, guess what? Jordan just did.


A MOVE THAT WILL BACKFIRE

The decision to execute al-Kasasbeh in such brutal fashion was a calculated one by ISIS.

First off, it terrorizes civilians under its control into obeying its rules, a twisted Machiavellian-type move intended to consolidate power through fear. It also serves as compelling propaganda to recruit thousands of new, inspired jihadists into its ranks.

However, aside from the immediate, short-term victories that the execution provides ISIS, it's looking more and more like it will backfire on them long term.

For years, a growing narrative has emerged that there is a civil war going on in the Muslim world, with a vast majority of peaceful moderates battling a sadistic few that pervert the religion of Islam.

Political pundits and cable news hosts have demanded time and time again that moderate Muslims stand up to the extremists and reclaim their religion.

In many ways, the request is absurd because it places an undo burden on the vast majority of Muslims who do nothing wrong. After all, no one asks Christians to denounce the KKK or neo-Nazis.

Nevertheless, there is a kernel of truth to the argument.

But now that argument is over.

The death of al-Kasasbeh has awoken Jordan. There is no more standing on the sidelines.

Before, it was Western hostages being executed by ISIS, drawing them into the fight. But now ISIS has executed a fellow Muslim, one of their own: a revered lieutenant from a predominant Jordan tribe who prayed 5 times a day and carried a Quran in his pocket.

In the streets, the people of Jordan are standing up to ISIS. They are denouncing them left and right, performing a joint, public excommunication of ISIS from Islam.

The Jordanian Air Force is literally writing "you are not Muslim" in chalk on bombs bound for ISIS targets.

A Jordanian pilot hammered the point home with a sign that read "Do not think Allah is unaware of what the wrongdoers do."

WINNING THE WAR OVER IDEOLOGY

In recent weeks and months, the mainstream Western media has claimed that ISIS is on the run and getting desperate. They are being pounded by coalition airstrikes, losing thousands of fighters and pieces of military equipment each month. In addition, ISIS just lost the the battle of Kobane, a city they spent nearly five months trying to topple.

However, despite more than 1000 airstrikes, ISIS is actually gaining territory in Syria. And while it's true they are losing thousands of fighters in battle, they are recruiting thousands of new foreign fighters each month to replace them.

Which makes Jordan's decision to take on ISIS so important.

It's the first loud, proud, unabashed example of a powerful Muslim country standing up to ISIS and denouncing them in 100% unison as "un-Islamic."

It's the first clear, dramatic example of a Muslim country taking on ISIS to re-claim Islam.

It may not change the calculus on the ground. But it's a ray of hope in an otherwise dark sea of despair.

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.