For a mere $1,800 per night

Finally, a honeymoon suite with a panoramic view from under the ocean. Actually, $1,800 per night seems quite reasonable — particularly relative to the 7-star hotels in the UAE.

Searching for the simple narrative

Another great column from David Brooks in the New York Times about our ideologically self-contained world. He writes:

In this atmosphere, we’re all less conscious of our severe mental shortcomings and less inclined to be skeptical of our own opinions. Occasionally you surf around the Web and find someone who takes mental limitations seriously. For example, Charlie Munger of Berkshire Hathaway once gave a speech called “The Psychology of Human Misjudgment.” He and others list our natural weaknesses: We have confirmation bias; we pick out evidence that supports our views. We are cognitive misers; we try to think as little as possible. We are herd thinkers and conform our perceptions to fit in with the group.

But, in general, the culture places less emphasis on the need to struggle against one’s own mental feebleness. Today’s culture is better in most ways, but in this way it is worse.

The ensuing mental flabbiness is most evident in politics. Many conservatives declare that Barack Obama is a Muslim because it feels so good to say so. Many liberals would never ask themselves why they were so wrong about the surge in Iraq while George Bush was so right. The question is too uncomfortable.

Exactly.

I see this lack of perspective playing out on both sides of the political spectrum. Many conservatives would like to believe the narrative that Muslims are bent on world domination — hence their sinister plan to build a Muslim community center near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks. They can find some evidence to support this narrative — namely the Muslim terrorists who are killing indiscriminately throughout the world. However, they must ignore other evidence — like the 1.5 billion peaceful Muslims on the planet.

At the same time, liberals imagine that any supporters of the Tea Party or of immigration reform must be angry, racists who don’t possess a nuanced understanding of the world. They support this narrative with anecdotal evidence like a YouTube video in which someone demands that the “government keep their hands off my Medicare” or with accusations of racial slurs. However, the narrative doesn’t fit reality — supporters of both issues have a valid point. The U.S. cannot continue to run trillion-dollar deficits or to ignore its illegal immigration problem. These are real issues, not drivel spouted by an uninformed public.

Perhaps the real problem is this innate desire to find a narrative that explains the world. These narratives are comforting, but I don’t think they ever reflect reality.

On the transcendent unity of world religions

Found an interesting op/ed from the Dalai Lama a few days ago. He made the point that the world religions share a common core of beliefs — that they are more similar, perhaps, than different. Here’s a few good bits:

Granted, every religion has a sense of exclusivity as part of its core identity. Even so, I believe there is genuine potential for mutual understanding. While preserving faith toward one’s own tradition, one can respect, admire and appreciate other traditions.

An early eye-opener for me was my meeting with the Trappist monk Thomas Merton in India shortly before his untimely death in 1968. Merton told me he could be perfectly faithful to Christianity, yet learn in depth from other religions like Buddhism. The same is true for me as an ardent Buddhist learning from the world’s other great religions.

A main point in my discussion with Merton was how central compassion was to the message of both Christianity and Buddhism. In my readings of the New Testament, I find myself inspired by Jesus’ acts of compassion. His miracle of the loaves and fishes, his healing and his teaching are all motivated by the desire to relieve suffering.

I’m a firm believer in the power of personal contact to bridge differences, so I’ve long been drawn to dialogues with people of other religious outlooks. The focus on compassion that Merton and I observed in our two religions strikes me as a strong unifying thread among all the major faiths. And these days we need to highlight what unifies us.

The Dalai Lama then goes on to outline other similarities in the world’s faith traditions. He concludes:

Finding common ground among faiths can help us bridge needless divides at a time when unified action is more crucial than ever. As a species, we must embrace the oneness of humanity as we face global issues like pandemics, economic crises and ecological disaster. At that scale, our response must be as one.

Harmony among the major faiths has become an essential ingredient of peaceful coexistence in our world. From this perspective, mutual understanding among these traditions is not merely the business of religious believers — it matters for the welfare of humanity as a whole.

Wonderful words — and a perspective that I share. I think that most of the world’s religions are saying the same thing — we just tend to use different metaphors to describe it.

My good friend, Shannon, saw a link to the column on my facebook page and she wrote a lengthy response. I asked her permission to reprint it here because she offers an interesting perspective:

An interesting read. My personal opinion (though not uninformed) is that the similarities among religions are widely overstated. For instance, consider mystical experiences. Most people are under the impression that a mystical experience consists of an amazing, indescribable feeling of oneness with the universe. However, a close look at various religious traditions suggests that this isn’t the case. Christian mystics tend to see visions of Mary or Jesus… Buddhist and Hindu mystics tend to experience the oneness with the Universe… Sufi mystics tend to see–well, very strange things–complex visions! In other words, mystics within a tradition tend to see the visions and have the experiences that their traditions “train” them to see.

There are folks like Huston Smith and the Dalai Lama who believe that there’s an essential core to every religion consisting of compassion and love, etc. I think that does a disservice to the orthopraxic side of religion (the practices). A wiccan Samhain service I attended bore little resemblance to a Christian All Saint’s Day service, even though the two purport to fill a similar purpose. To a certain extent, form *is* function, and the form one’s devotions take heavily influences their outcome. One reason we participate in religion is to be changed, and the practice side of religion tends to change us more than the belief side does.

I do appreciate the sentiment–finding common ground among multiple religions. I worry when the particularities seem to dissolve and people want to create some kind of generic Deistic “faith.” Genuine pluralism means being cognizant of (as well as respectful of) differences among faiths just as much as similarities.

I don’t think I differ that much with Shannon, but I wanted to extrapolate on my thinking. I can certainly understand the hesitance to adopt an uber-inclusive global “faith.” I’m not calling for that — rather, I just want to stress that a common core transcends the world’s religions, so maybe we shouldn’t be so concerned with who’s following the “right” path.

Here’s a good example: I take an approach to life that emphasizes “going with the flow” — that events throughout the day shouldn’t upset my equilibrium. When something doesn’t go my way, I take a deep breath and ask for acceptance of my current situation. (I’m not always successful!) This probably sounds similar to a Buddhist or Daoist philosophy — the Yin and Yang symbol, for instance, emphasizes the importance of fluidity and malleability. However, this perspective can also be seen in all of the other world’s religions — although the metaphor might appear rather different. For instance, a phrase that I’ve heard a lot since arriving in Abu Dhabi is “inshallah” — which means “God willing.” A colleague recently said he’d meet me at noon, “inshallah.” What he meant was that our plans to meet at noon were contingent on God’s will, or — to use less-loaded metaphor — something not going our way. My perception of this phrase is that Muslims are acknowledging that certain things are simply out of their control — and “inshallah” is a palpable reminder of this fact. In this way, this Muslim philosophy doesn’t differ that much from a Daoist or Buddhist — and similar messages can be found in the other Scriptures as well.

There are many other similarities, of course, too many to list here. I will point out that the second part of the current Muslim month of Ramadan focuses on forgiveness — forgiveness of others and ourselves for past mistakes. (“Sin” carries such emotional baggage for me that I choose not to use it.) The focus on forgiveness aligns with the predominant Christian message that we “forgive those who have trespassed against us” as well as the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, the day of atonement. These core beliefs keep showing up again and again — surely we should pay attention to them.

I don’t think there’s a “right” religion — as Gandhi said, “All religions have truth and all religions have error.” But, I think they all can offer a path toward harmony and good living. (Unfortunately, many can all lead toward intolerance as well.) I appreciate the Dalai Lama’s words because I think it’s important to see that religions hold the same wholesome core of peace, compassion and acceptance. It’s when we start delving deeper into them — explaining why one path is better than the other — that we appear to get into trouble.

I’m not really interested in the devotion part of religion — because it’s the practice part that makes the difference. A religious devotee shouldn’t be judged on how or how often he attends services, but rather how often he’s practicing compassion, forgiveness, and acceptance. And any of the world’s major religions can lead a devotee to these practices.

About that mosque in NYC

Here’s a good editorial from the Khaleej Times, a paper out of Dubai, about the controversy over the proposed mosque near Ground Zero. It mirrors my feelings about the issue:

The true American patriot is Michael Rubens Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, who has supported the idea of a mosque. I use his full name deliberately: he is of the Jewish faith, from a family of Russian émigrés. Bloomberg reflects the idealism of America as well as the anguish and wisdom of his own heritage, of a people who have suffered the trauma of bigotry and threat of extinction for two millennia. He knows prejudice when he sees it; he understands the poison it injects into the human psyche; and he is willing to set aside the prospect of political advantage from hysteria in order stand on the side of justice. Those who gave Barack Obama a Nobel Peace Prize without much reason might want to consider Bloomberg for much better reasons.

Good point. I also appreciate that the author, MJ Akbar, doesn’t ignore the Muslims who give Islam a bad name:

Bigotry is not the exclusive property of any denomination; Muslims offer their share in the long list of self-appointed leaders who spawn the culture that leads to terrorism from pulpits, which desecrate the meaning of a mosque. But it is utterly self-defeating to blame Islam, or the vast majority of peaceful Muslims, for the sins of a few.

I agree.

Exploring the Wikileaks case

Here’s my interview with OurBlook regarding the ethics of the Wikileaks dissemination of classified information. One of the Q&A:

The Times of London reported that the names of hundreds of Afghanis who had cooperated with the U.S. military, plus which villages they lived in, were contained in the WikiLeaks documents, thus targeting them for extermination by the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The New York Times refused to link directly to WikiLeaks mainly for this reason. Despite this precaution, do you think newspaper reporters are qualified to determine or guarantee that revealing military secrets would not endanger soldiers and civilians?

MD: I don’t think newspapers are qualified to guarantee that revealing military secrets won’t endanger soldiers and civilians. At times, however, revealing secrets can be ethically justifiable … particularly if you’re following a utilitarianism model in which the “greater good” of society is considered. In order for democracies to function effectively, the public may need to know about information that the government doesn’t want us to know about. (The Washington Post’s exposure of secret CIA prisons strikes me as an example where the newspaper was ethically justified in its reporting.) However, newspapers should be taking this role in determining the release of information very seriously and should only be disseminating such information in rare, ethically justified situations. (I don’t think the classified WikiLeaks information rises to that level.) Of course, the government is well within its right to prosecute and investigate the people who leak secrets. In this way, the balance between secrecy and dissemination can be maintained in a healthy fashion … creating a happy medium.

Click to read more about the ethics of Wikileaks. Check out some of the other interviewees — I’m certainly in good company.

Ramadan explained

For centuries, the Muslims have broken their Ramadan fast with the traditional brownie and ice cream combo.

‘What global recession?’ asks Abu Dhabi

Here’s the view from my hotel in Abu Dhabi — the UAE city appears unaffected by the global slowdown. We arrived last night to a warm welcome and will be learning our way around for the next few days. My kids start school this Sunday, and I’ll start orientation at Zayed University later this month. I won’t start teaching until mid-September because of Rammadan, the month-long daytime fast for Muslims, which started here yesterday.

Enjoying the experience immensely so far…

On bedbugs

Here’s a charming column from an etymologist on bedbugs. Buried deep inside is this graph:

In fact, precious few aspects of bedbug biology are endearing. They don’t build their own houses or care for their young, and their sexual practices are bizarre even by insect standards: Because the female bedbug has no genital opening, the male inseminates her by using his hardened, sharpened genitalia to punch a hole through her abdomen. With no elaborate courtship ritual, males in a frenzied pursuit of sexual congress often blunder into and puncture the bodies of other males, occasionally inflicting fatal wounds.

That’s just wrong.

I predict you will never forget that fact. You’re welcome.

Regarding constructive criticism

Good Thomas Friedman column in the NY Times today about the Israel-Palestinian debacle. Here’s a good bit:

I’m not here to defend Israel’s bad behavior. Just the opposite. I’ve long argued that Israel’s colonial settlements in the West Bank are suicidal for Israel as a Jewish democracy. I don’t think Israel’s friends can make that point often enough or loud enough.

But there are two kinds of criticism. Constructive criticism starts by making clear: “I know what world you are living in.” I know the Middle East is a place where Sunnis massacre Shiites in Iraq, Iran kills its own voters, Syria allegedly kills the prime minister next door, Turkey hammers the Kurds, and Hamas engages in indiscriminate shelling and refuses to recognize Israel. I know all of that. But Israel’s behavior, at times, only makes matters worse — for Palestinians and Israelis. If you convey to Israelis that you understand the world they’re living in, and then criticize, they’ll listen.

Destructive criticism closes Israeli ears. It says to Israelis: There is no context that could explain your behavior, and your wrongs are so uniquely wrong that they overshadow all others. Destructive critics dismiss Gaza as an Israeli prison, without ever mentioning that had Hamas decided — after Israel unilaterally left Gaza — to turn it into Dubai rather than Tehran, Israel would have behaved differently, too. Destructive criticism only empowers the most destructive elements in Israel to argue that nothing Israel does matters, so why change?

That’s a great point. We must understand that each side has valid perceptions and stop trying to make one side the “good guys” and one side the “bad guys.”

We should follow this advice on some U.S. policy debates as well. Arizonans who support a crackdown on illegal immigration aren’t all racists — and neither are all of the tea partiers. On the other side of the spectrum, President Obama isn’t a closet communist bent on turning the United States into a second incarnation of the Soviet Union. These examples represent extreme caricatures created by opponents. Sometimes it’s easier to stereotype people who don’t agree with us than to take the time to understand why they perceive the world differently than we do.

Regarding Wikileaks

Here’s a good column that analyzes the meandering ethics of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and the dump of U.S. military secrets online. A few graphs of interest:

It’s up to specialists in military affairs and those with a deep understanding of Afghanistan to determine if these documents will ultimately add to our understanding of the war or, as has been frequently argued, if such raw intelligence data simply add detail—some extraneous, some misleading, some valuable—to what we already knew. While it seems implausible that in 91,000 pages of secret documents there is nothing unknown, it is more likely that there is simply nothing explosive here. As New York Times editor Bill Keller told CNN, his reporters dug out plenty of interesting material but the cache wasn’t “full of scandals or revelations.

“Keller, who received the documents from Assange before they were published online, bristles at the suggestion that Assange is a journalist and that Wikileaks was, as the organization has repeatedly claimed, a “media partner” of the Times. Wikileaks, says Keller, was simply a source, no different than the countless other sources the newspaper works with. And unlike the Times, “they are an advocacy organization. They have a point of view, and an ideology…”

If Assange wants to be a journalist—and he consistently identifies himself as one—he would be advised to cease referring to Wikileaks as an “activist organization” attempting to make a “political impact” and “achieve justice.” As Washington Times national security correspondent Eli Lake told me, Assange is “an activist who understands computer code,” not a journalist.

I certainly agree with that. I did another interview with OurBlook about the Wikileaks case and will link to it soon.