Speaking of right wing idiocy, I’ve gotten really worked up lately about the “ground zero mosque”. I keep getting the most vile email forwards from people (unfortunately family) with hateful jingles against Muslims and dumb-ass conspiracy theories by crack-pots posting on youtube.

Like a lot of people when I first heard about the downtown Islamic center I thought “that doesn’t sound like such a good idea”. And then I learned more about it. I learned that there are already two mosques in that area that are so busy that people need an additional place to pray. I learned that this isn’t a mosque per se but an Islamic cultural center–with a pool and recreational center–and a prayer room. Though it’s two blocks away from the site of the trade center attacks you can’t see the site from there; there will be no minarets over the pit of the towers. The Islamic center is also led by the most pro-American, pro-Western imam I’ve heard of, Feisal Abdul Rauf, a pretty amazing man actually. I recommend reading this article about him, but if you don’t have time you can note that he has actually been sponsored by the State Department to travel to Muslim countries and speak about how the US respects Muslims and that they can worship as they want in America; he has also said he accepts Israel’s legitimacy.  We really want to estrange this guy?

But really for me the bottom line is that this is America and the country was founded on religious liberty. I don’t care for religion at all, but I feel strongly that we all have a right to worship as we see fit. You can criticize Islam, and there is a lot to criticize: Islamic countries are overwhelmingly run by dictators, and the development indicators that the UN charts are abysmal in those countries; and there is no denying, of course, that Islam has a terrible problem with extremists and that its moderate wing has not done enough to stand up to that fringe element. Isn’t that all the more reason to empower someone like Feisal Abdul Rauf? It baffles me that morons like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin can puff their chests out about the Founding Fathers and then disrespect their vision of religious tolerance. Actually it doesn’t baffle me, those two and their ilk are so full of it they have no real conviction and are only out for themselves.

Other Israeli leaders believe that the mere threat of a nuclear attack by Iran—combined with the chronic menacing of Israel’s cities by the rocket forces of Hamas and Hezbollah—will progressively undermine the country’s ability to retain its most creative and productive citizens. Ehud Barak, the defense minister, told me that this is his great fear for Israel’s future.

“The real threat to Zionism is the dilution of quality,” he said. “Jews know that they can land on their feet in any corner of the world. The real test for us is to make Israel such an attractive place, such a cutting-edge place in human society, education, culture, science, quality of life, that even American Jewish young people want to come here.” This vision is threatened by Iran and its proxies, Barak said. “Our young people can consciously decide to go other places,” if they dislike living under the threat of nuclear attack. “Our best youngsters could stay out of here by choice.”

I hadn’t considered this and makes the idea of “containing” a nuclear Iran troublesome if you care about Israel. I know Rindy doesn’t like Goldberg and he pointed out to me how he was refuted in Salon, but I don’t think he is war-mongering and I think he raises important points about the potential for conflict that I hadn’t thought about before.

I also just read the New Yorker’s latest Letter from Tehran and encourage anyone interested in following the Iran debate (which we covered at the Junta a few months ago) to read. I, like many, have been hoping that some kind of Velvet Revolution would happen in Iran and would sweep away the mullah’s bent on acquiring a bomb for a more liberal government, but that seems depressingly a long way off. The story makes the interesting point that the Green Movement over-played its hand in thinking that the rest of the country shared its views–it is really a collection of urban and middle/upper-class citizens, and while they number in the millions, there are many more millions who don’t share their views. The Green Movement is also hopelessly splintered. I came away from reading this pretty disillusioned that any internal change in Iran could happen in time to forestall a potential military strike to set back Iran’s nuclear program. And I found the comments by Hossein Shariatmadari, an editor and former political advisor to Iran’s more liberal recent regimes also depressing and belligerent and I feel like the possibility of conflict with Iran is truly growing.

I’m been skeptical about those who are quick to attack the way a city is changing. I remember first visiting Prague in the mid-90s and then moving there a few years later and hearing from the beginning “oh, you should have been here X number of years ago, it used to be so much better”. When we are fond of a place we automatically want it to stay exactly the same. For those in Prague it was that special moment after Communism fell, when there was a decrepit, gray aspect to the city that hid a decadent and at times beautiful soul. The dated and decaying aspect of the city was something that was so refreshing for expats coming over from their version of the US, dominated by slick malls, not rife with coal smoke, not infested with spider-like prostitutes hovering on so many street corners. It felt different, exciting, edgy. Over time many of the gritty corner markets, where bent-backed babickas would hunt for a tiny savings on crusty onions or hairy carrots, became big international banks. We came to feel that the Prague that was ours was threatened and people were offended by the city changing. So while I understood why some of my friends lamented those changes, I felt that asking the city to not change, to not evolve, was unfair. And I actually found the changes exciting, watching business grow, checking out the better restaurants that took root—it felt better to me to celebrate, or at least dispassionately observe, these changes then just complain about them and parrot the line “you should have been here back when, it was way cooler.” Maybe it was in some ways, but what’re you gonna do?

I hate wading through the tourists on Times Square and would consider declining a free meal at some of the chain restaurants in the area because they are so annoying. But was NY better off with Times Square as a seedy, dangerous area? I can buy into the beatnik memories of Times Square being edgy and full of character, but I think it’s just a rose-tinted memory, not a way for a city to grow and thrive.

Similarly, I’m living in Williamsburg in a new construction building—am I somehow causing the demise of what makes that area special? In the same way I didn’t begrudge the bank replacing nasty market, I don’t think it’s a bad a thing for a new luxury building to replace a derelict warehouse. I was at a new beer garden by the BQE the other night, until recently a dilapidated gas station and now a thriving venue—is this a sign that Williamsburg isn’t what it used to be? Or that it’s becoming all that it can be? Sure, some artists are being priced out of Williamsburg, but they’re moving to Bushwick and other places nearby and I think those places will now thrive in a new and exciting way, in fact they already are.

I don’t think that we should accept any new development or a Starbucks/Duane Reade/Chase bank on every corner of our neighborhoods. I’m aware that there are sad results of neighborhoods changing. Whites moving up to Harlem are displacing black families that have lived in the area for generations—that’s not necessarily a good thing. I like the blog that Rindy posted about, Jeremiah’s Vanishing New York, and the faceless cafés that he mentioned, I love those kind of places, the anonymity they provide, and don’t want to see all of them vanish and become Starbucks. We shouldn’t shrug our shoulders and accept everything. But I feel often that it goes too far in the other way and we are automatically skeptical of changes.

When Rindy and I have discussed this particular Junta we have talked about how gentrification, urban change, could be seen as an analogy for changes and challenges to our own identities. How many times have we said “oh, so-and-so has changed so much?” Many times that change is for the worse—whether they’ve gotten rich and are now affected, or whether they had kids and are now boring—but the way I see it we should welcome change, not fear or attack it automatically, the question is in how we manage it, and the really interesting aspect of all of this is the gray area where change, growth, and development meet our desire to capture our lives and put them in a frame.

“The Vanishing City” is an upcoming documentary about New York’s real estate market leading up to the Great Recession of Our Time, which “exposes the real politic behind the alarming disappearance of New York’s beloved neighborhoods, the truth about its finance-dominated economy, and the myth of ‘inevitable change.’” It argues that the change over the last 30 years has not been natural but has been driven by policies favoring commercial and luxury development at the expense of affordable housing. In the process of driving out the middle and working classes, New York has lost some of the dynamism and grit that defined its identity.

“Jeremiah’s Vanishing New York” is a blog with much the same theme (it’s not clear if the blogger is involved in the film, although the film links to the blog). The writer worries that things ain’t what they used to be, that the city loses its character as the rents go higher, that art and love are trampled by the pursuit of money and things. This was where we read about Patti Smith’s comments about New York, that young artists should try Detroit instead… or Poughkeepsie.

I wonder if the city is vanishing, or if we are just allowing other people to determine what changes will happen. How can we empower ourselves to control the future of our city?

A principle issue is gentrification and the expanding of the luxury-condo style of living. Think of the changes that Bloomberg has been behind, like cookie-cutter newsstand structures that allow for standardized advertising spaces. Is it crazy to think that something so seemingly minor represents the suburbanization of the city, “turning Manhattan into one vast gated community for the rich”?

Back at the end of 2008, Josh Cohen lead us through a history of the Downtown Scene and its removal from SoHo and the Lower East Side through city policies that favored cracking down on petty crime and making neighborhoods safe for tourists and Starbucks stores. The makeover of Times Square into Disneyland is a perfect example. We want to revisit this theme and discuss how it will affect New York’s standing as a premier global city in the decades to come, as well as lessons that can be applied to any city worldwide. For example, is it wise that Beijing and Shanghai relentlessly tear down slums and replace them with luxury condos that few can afford?

Jeremy is going to follow up on this and spearhead the topic. We’re looking to write a series of posts outlining the discussion, and everyone’s input is appreciated.

Click to view this on Google Maps

As they point out on their site, drone attacks of Pakistan have increased dramatically under Obama. From 2004-2007 there were a total of nine attacks inside Pakistan. In Bush’s last year in office, there were 34. In Obama’s first year, there were 53, and this year we’ve already had 50. And this says nothing about the attacks inside Afghanistan, where at least we’re officially at war. In Pakistan, we’re bombing a supposed ally whose government denies it is allowing this.

I encourage you to check out the map on the Satellite mode, which shows real imagery of the earth. It has a surprisingly close level of detail, and you can see just how isolated the area is: a spindly maze of ridges and crevices, sparsely dotted with small villages. It must be similar to the view the remote-control pilots have on their video screens while they fly these deadly robots. And with the push of a button… boom…

This map was assembled using public information, but this week’s big story (or not – have you heard it mentioned in conversation once this week?) showed another example of information technology exposing the reality of war. Wikileaks published a trove of classified documents which it acquired through its super-encrypted international network. The infrastructure is set up in such a way as to be impervious to simultaneous shutdown in multiple countries, and takes full advantage of the world’s strongest free-speech laws, which are often found in northern Europe. Check out the New Yorker’s profile of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to read more about his background and the network itself, or watch his interview with the TED folks here, where he sort of comes off as the web geek version of 007:

Apple argued in this jailbreaking case that copyright law prevents people from installing unapproved programs on iPhones. But the EFF successfully argued that making a phone interoperable amounts to fair use. Copyright law says that if you pay for something, you have the right to use it as you wish as long it is not for some kind of commercial benefit.

The ruling also applied to video remixing, so is it possible we’ll see the return of all those great Hitler parodies spun out of Downfall?