By Immanuel Shalev

In 2005, the Austen Ballet company put on a ballet depicting the
Holocaust called “Light / The Holocaust & Humanity Project.” Stephen
Mills, artistic director of the Ballet Austin company put this ballet
together at the behest of a survivor, Naomi Warren. According to
Mills, he initially refused to take on such a project: “It’s
hallowed ground,” Mills said. “You can’t wrap your mind around that
much destruction and pain. And to distill it down to a theatrical
experience felt like it would be insulting.” However, Warren
disagreed: “I told Stephen he must make this ballet because he has
the stage, the platform, to do it.”

For Warren, and ultimately, Mills, while art cannot fully capture the
scope of the tragedy, something is better than nothing. Mills had a
platform, and Warren expected him to use it to remember something.
The ballet attempts to focus on human perseverence in the midst of
suffering – but some may say that is not what the Holocaust was. But
no one is interested in suffering for the sake of suffering and so the
ballet is the carrot that lures the viewers in while getting them to
at least appreciate some of the depth of the message of the Holocaust.

However, before one can pass judgment on art and its attempt to
express even a small aspect of a tragedy so big as the Holocaust, one
must attempt to understand what the purpose of art is. A humble
defintion of art is: expression through limitation. A painting,
limited to paints, brush-strokes, and the length of the canvas, cannot
recreate the majesty that is the alps. And yet we so appreciate an
artist who tries. We appreciate an impressionist who dons further
limitations to create a masterpiece. We applaud the ballet that seeks
to tell only a copy of a copy of a story through movement. The
limmerick, the haiku, the sonnet… For some reason, the ability for a
human being to express meaning, emotion, the world of the spirit,
through a limited medium, is impactful. It is not just artistic, but
is the only way we communicate. Language, film, oratory, dance, is
expression through limitation, and therefore art.

There is no way to communicate the horrors of the Holocaust on all
levels. Forcing someone to watch documentaries, to listen to the
accounts of survivors does not transport the spirit and have them
contemplate the emotion as well as a movie, a haunting song or a
meaningful ballet. Even if those forms of art focus on human
perseverence, they cause those who interact with the art to identify.
Without identification, the listener or observer is merely an
audience. But when art causes identification, then the audience
becomes a part of the work.

Artists such as Mills and Spielberg should therefore be applauded for
their work. While one may point to the Hollywood character of
Schindler’s List, or the shortcomings of the audience in a film like
Life is Beautiful, all one is pointing to is the limits of humanity at
processing tragedy. The artist seduces the spirit to identify with the
victims and expresses a taste of the meaning of the tragedy while he
has his audience committed.

By Alvina Lopez

The seemingly endless road to selecting the Republican presidential nominee has been fueled by a number of factors unique to the current political climate. For one, the Republican Party as a whole has been fractured in recent years with the emergence of the Tea Party and the resurgence of social conservatives. The nomination process has all but reflected the confused identity of the present Republican Party, where at times widespread popularity and support gravitated to a Texas governor, a former pizza magnate, and a former Speaker of the House. And the media has been sure to catalogue every moment of this process, which is why you can’t turn on the radio or the television without hearing about the upcoming primary in any state.

But there’s a bigger explanation to why we’ve heard about the primary race for so long, one that may define the future of political campaigning. Contentious political climate in the Republican Party notwithstanding, the primary process has dragged on for so long mainly because so many candidates boast massive funds in their campaign war chests. Even if each candidate’s campaign doesn’t have tons of cash on hand, they can rely on affiliated Super PACs to work in their favor.

So how prominently do Super PACs factor into the race for the Republican nomination?

Depending on who you ask, some sources will say that Super PACs are the only thing keeping some campaigns alive. According to a recent article in USA Today, the majority of Republican super PACs are funded by donors who give more than $500,000 to the candidates they support. That means that, at least for the Republican primary, campaign direction is being driven by wealthy corporations or individuals with deep pockets. The political convictions of a few people can influence the entire landscape of a political race.

For example, the USA Today article reports that Newt Gingrich’s Super PAC, Winning Our Future, received a staggering 96% of its funds from individuals who donated over $500,000, and those funds mostly came from two people. One could argue that Mr. Gingrich’s campaign, which many political analysts have written off as a lost cause, is pressing on the dime of two people. And with these funds, Mr. Gingrich can still have a powerful impact on the direction of the political conversation among Republicans; the supportive Super PAC can use their funds for endless radio and TV attack ads against his opponents in each primary state.

The 2010 Supreme Court decision that allowed for the creation of Super PACs—whereby donors can contribute unlimited funds in support of a candidate—has certainly shaped this year’s presidential race. Who knows which candidate would have enjoyed success among voters without the millions of dollars in Super PAC spending?

Mitt Romney has recently declared a victory in the Illinois Republican primary contest, and yet his opponents vow to press on despite significantly fewer delegates to their names. And why not? They have millions from their Super PACs to press on until the bitter end.

How do you think Super PACs are shaping this year’s presidential race?

Alvina Lopez is a freelance writer and blog junkie, who blogs about accredited online colleges. She welcomes your comments at her email Id: alvina.lopez @gmail.com.

By Philip Kim

The nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula has been a source of headache for US officials since 1993, when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) first accused North Korea of violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, an agreement designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Although North Korea has undergone sharp economic decline during Kim Jong Il’s rule, North Korea’s grasp of nuclear technology grew rapidly. Even during the great famine of the mid-1990s, the Hermit Kingdom continued to invest disproportionate amounts of its limited resources into research and production of nuclear weapons. This was accomplished at the cost of great human injustice. During the famine, an estimated 3.5 million North Koreans starved to death. Despite this tragedy, North Korea has relentlessly pursued its status as a nuclear power. Kim Jong Il understood that nuclear weapons are valuable bargaining chips for negotiation. Indeed, many countries (including China, South Korea, and the United States) are eager to provide aid in exchange for North Korea’s commitment to denuclearization.

On the Leap day of 2012, North Korea reached a preliminary agreement with the United States to stop its nuclear program in exchange for food aid. However, there is reason to be wary because this is not the first time North Korea has agreed to halt its nuclear activity. Under the Clinton Administration, North Korea and the United States signed the Agreed Framework in 1994. Under this deal, North Korea agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program in exchange for US aid in building light water reactors. Within four years, Clinton felt the sting of a broken promise when North Korea unilaterally abandoned the agreement and restarted its nuclear program.

In 2006, North Korea used its first successful nuclear weapons test as a bargaining chip to reach another agreement with the United States under the Bush Administration. Similarly, North Korea agreed to dismantle its nuclear program in exchange for $400 million in aid. This agreement was short-lived. By 2008, however, talks broke down and North Korea never met its deadline to disable its nuclear program. North Korea’s nuclear sites have not been inspected by the IAEA since then.

This week’s new agreement gives the Obama Administration another attempt at denuclearizing the Korean peninsula. North Korea agreed to dismantle its nuclear weapons program, suspend its nuclear testing and long-range missile tests, and allow international inspectors into its nuclear sites. In return, the United States has agreed to provide 240,000 tons of food assistance and a chance to normalize its damaged relationship. Understandably, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed caution and referred to the agreement as a “modest first step.”

Should the US give the new leadership in North Korea a benefit of the doubt? Will Kim Jong Un, the successor to Kim Jong Il, rebuild North Korea’s tarnished reputation, or has past-dealings taught us that North Korea is never to be trusted again? Should the US use this new agreement to press North Korea harder on the issue of human rights atrocities?

By Philip Kim

Apple is on a roll. Apple’s shares reached as high as $546 this week, and Apple’s stock market value recently topped the $500 billion mark. This is a record high for the tech goliath. Only four other companies have been members of this exclusive half-trillion dollar club: Microsoft, ExxonMobil, Cisco, and General Electric. This comfortably places Apple at the top as the world’s most valuable company. Apple’s momentum doesn’t seem to be slowing down either. Strong demands for the new iPhone 4S and iPad2 led Apple’s sales to grow 73% last year. With buzz around rumors of Apple unveiling the iPad3 on March 7^th, Apple is on track this year to become the world’s largest consumer electronics company (measured by revenue), a title currently held by Samsung. It’s hard to imagine how Apple isn’t already. One cannot go a day in the Big Apple without seeing a dozen iPhones and iPads firmly clutched in the hands of New Yorkers.

Just how much is Apple worth? Probably more than you think. While Americans continue to groan at the gas pumps, Apple’s worth could cover 45 days of worldwide oil consumption (assuming 86 million barrels a day at $83 per barrel). Republic of Apple? It may as well be, since Apple’s valuation is higher than the GDP of entire individual countries, such as Poland, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Israel and Taiwan. In other words, Apple’s valuation is five times larger than the revenue of the global coffee industry, ten times larger than the valuation the NFL’s 33 franchises, and two times larger than the cost of an entire Apollo Space Program. To top it off, Apple’s stockpile of $76 billion in cash is more than the US Treasury’s cash balance of $74 billion.

The executives and shareholders of Apple are undoubtedly gleaming as Apple’s valuation continues to soars at a blistering rate, but at what price to humanity? After all, somebody has to make enough iPads and iPhones to keep up with the ever-increasing demand. Apple’s solution: outsource the manufacturing process to Foxconn. However, Foxconn has been subject to controversies relating to poor working condition and other human rights violations. Last year, an explosion at Foxconn’s Chengdu factory, which produces the iPad2, killed three workers. The company is accused of employing teens and forcing its employees to work like drones. Many critics are pointing fingers at Apple for not doing enough to alleviate human rights violations that occur in its supply chain. Strings of employee suicides have added fuel to the controversy. Sun Danyong, a 25 year-old male employee of Foxconn, committed suicide in 2009 after losing an iPhone4 prototype. He was worried about being punished and blacklisted. With pressure mounting, Apple finally caved in early this year, admitting it had a human rights problem. This may be a start, but it remains to be seen how Apple will deal with Foxconn’s relentless pursuit of profit.

By Immanuel Shalev

Currently, Israel is the only country that has a law on the books
requiring the spending of government resources on the commemoration of
the holocaust. Perhaps more impressively,  Austria, Belgium, the Czech
Republic, France, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland,
Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland and, most notably, Germany, have
laws that make the denial of the holocaust illegal. While one might
find it impressive that Germany takes responsibility for its past,
pays reparations and makes it a crime for its citizens to deny their
atrocities, the law to remember the Holocaust in Israel seems
superfluous and unimpressive. Jews get it, they will always remember
the holocaust.

Yet in an op-ed article written last month at a Jewish University in
New York entitled “Why It’s Time for Jews to Get Over the Holocaust,”
the Jewish author, Binyamin Weinreich, demanded that it is high time
to let the holocaust fade as a memory. Weinreich explains that he
believes the Holocaust to be important, but that it is singled out as
more important than any other event in history is unfair. Weinreich
has two grandparents who survived the holocaust. In a radio interview,
he explained that it’s okay for them to hold on to the memories, they
are emotiona and therefore are being irrational. For the rest of us
who can see clearly, we are meant to allow the Holocaust to fade and
take its place in history. It should not be an emotional memory but
merely a factual one. “As more time passes between the Holocaust and
the present, it is only natural for it to fade into the background and
become merely another historical incident. People can’t focus on the
past forever. It’s only natural that they move on, and it’s time for
Jews to accept that.”

Weinreich also takes issue with the laws against Holocaust denial:
“Surely this is an overreaction…One cannot be punished merely for
denying the truth. That is an individual’s prerogative, until it harms
somebody else.” What Weinreich does not consider is the unbearable
spiritual harm that is caused each time someone denies the Holocaust.
Indeed his article has rubbed the entire student body of his
university the wrong way, although many cannot articulate exactly why
they are so bothered by his comments. However, his op-ed brings to
light so much of what is important about history and communal memory.

Weinreich has mentioned in a radio interview that he believes emotion
to be blinding and believes that logic should prevail. Weinreich is
correct that emotions without logic are harmful and dangerous, but he
fails to consider that logic without emotion is meaningless. It seems
that Weinreich and others like him fail to consider the human spirit
in their life philosophies. Discounting spiritual harm and limiting
harm to that which can be seen makes everything more neat and tidy,
but it also amputates pain, meaning, connection and achievement.

Perhaps the most jarring demonstration of his grevious error is when
he demands that the Holocaust take its place in history: forgotten at
the edges of one’s memory. And yet, a person should be embarassed if
he lets a historical event take the edges of his memory. When one
considers the struggles of the Civil War a historical curiosity and
forgets the moral failings that led to that event, one can expect to
succumb to similar moral failings. Try as one might to discount
emotion, humans are spiritual beings.

By B. Shurin

Human Rights Watch has recently released a report citing almost 60
cases of Afghan women jailed for ‘moral’ crimes. Details of the
crimes include running away from an abusive husband, falling in love
and eloping, and turning in a kidnapper to the police. While
Afghanistan law is not overly lenient to women, running away is not a
crime under the Afghan penal code. Rather it is an unofficial crime
under the highest religious authority, the Ulema Council. Although
Afghanistan’s President, Hamid Karzai, enacted the Law on the
Elimination of Violence Against Women in 2009 (E.V.A.W.), the
traditional violence and objectification of women continues with
acquiescence of those who hold the true power in the society; the
religious authority.

What is fascinating here is that legal codes are secondary to implied
laws that are formed by centuries of religious traditions and
behaviors. Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth says,
“The government seems to be defending the ‘running away’ prosecutions
because that’s what’s always been done…”, despite the fact that the
‘running away prosecution’ is illegal under the E.V.A.W. Conversely,
all the offenses against these women by men, such as kidnapping and
physical abuse, are illegal under the E.V.A.W., but that is a mere
technicality in the face of overwhelming prejudice against the women’s
case.  This is due to traditional ideas of ownership and the knowledge
that such men had gone unpenalized for generations. Basically, the
government is making the argument “don’t tell us we can’t do this—this
is how we roll!”

This seems to imply that changing the legal system is useless without
also making considerable attempts to change the social and educational
system in a country. In addition, it seems that even if social
reformers and the government attempt to change the law, the law is
secondary to the power of the religious authority, even when they are
stripped of actual legal power. Their social power creates authority
to act against the law.

Notwithstanding the ability under the law for these women to be locked
up, however, these stories raise the age old question of where are we
to draw the line between a culture’s rituals and human rights
violations. I think most of us would say that these stories are some
of the most extreme cases of human right’s violations that can be
found today. (If you have a minute, read some of them and you will
agree.) However, according to the judges and religious authorities,
these women have committed moral crimes that warrant their being
locked up in keeping with longstanding traditions in the Afghani
culture. This is the question of moral relativism being played out.

The good news is that there are people out there like those of Human
Rights Watch who stand up to these crimes. Director Roth did say when
they released the report that he is optimistic that the organization
might be able to end this particular persecution of female victims.

By B. Shurin

This week during oral arguments in the Supreme Court
regarding the constitutionality of Obama’s Healthcare law, the members
of the press were without their phones and mobile devices for the
entire time they were sitting in and listening to the arguments.
In our times, news is broadcasted almost instantly with the help of
Facebook, Twitter, 4G networks and the like. This restriction,
reinforced by the court, brings the reporters back to a time when they
would have to run to a nearby payphone to call in a scoop after the
big story broke. This week, those reporters wishing to report the
details of the arguments needed to wait until after the two hour court
session had ended or leave the courtroom in middle and risk missing
out on something more newsworthy.

This rule by the court agrees with the general
psychosocial consensus as to how the technological revolution has
influenced us. A recent article in the New York Times recounted a
growing phenomenon of young and successful men and women who are, by
the author’s own account, “smartphone holdouts”. These individuals
cite multiple reasons for hanging on to their ‘dumbphones’, despite
being prime candidates for smartphone ownerships in terms of
demographics. Some people are simply refusing to get sucked into the
game of instantaneous communication, whether with work-contacts or
peripheral acquaintances. Perhaps more importantly, people worry about
the effect constant access to the internet has on their critical
thinking, creativity, and interpersonal relationships. The author
Jonathan Safran Foer relinquished his smartphone after he realized he
was checking his phone while bathing his children. He decided to
choose to live in the present, rather than being preoccupied with
“tossed off emails from people [he] barely know[s]”. He says his
writing has improved tremendously. As stated by Nicholas Carr in his
book, “The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains”, the
pervasiveness of the internet has “diminishe[d] the ability to sustain
focus and think interpretatively”.

This article reminded me about a short video I saw
recently, produced in an effort to get people to “disconnect and enjoy
life”. Although the actors and some of the scenes reflect Orthodox
Judaism, the underlying theme is universal. The video portrays how
people using their smartphones constantly, whether to check their
email, surf the internet, or text others, are missing out on what is
going on around them in real time. One scene depicts a father pushing
an empty swing in the park, as he browsed the web on his smartphone.
When he put his phone away, his daughter reappeared on the swing and
the world around him came back into focus.

When the Supreme Court forbade tweeting and other
instantaneous mobile devices during this crucial case, perhaps it did
so with the hope that people would be forced to do just that: focus on
and think interpretatively about the present, without the pressure to
instantly report fragmented news lacking thoughtful interpretation.

By Marissa Levy

It’s a well-known fact that employers often use the Internet to vet
their applicants, scouring Google and social networking sites such as
Facebook and LinkedIn to aid in their background checks. But as these
social networking sites roll out more stringent privacy protections
that allow users to block access to their profiles, employers have
started taking more drastic steps to get the scoop on their
applicants.

Rather than trying to get around these new privacy protections,
probing employers are cutting straight to the source by asking
candidates to hand over their Facebook login information when applying
for a job. Others employers request candidates to open their Facebook
profiles during the interview itself, allowing their would-be bosses
to scroll through applicants’ private information right in front of
their faces.

Facebook stands by their terms of use, stating this practice violates
their policies against sharing passwords. On Friday, Facebook
executives warned employers not to ask job applicants for their
usernames and passwords to the site to search their applicants’
profiles.

Troubled by reports of the practice, Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of
New York and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said they are calling
on the Department of Justice and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission to launch investigations. The senators are sending letters
to the heads of the agencies.

Sen. Schumer says: “An employer shouldn’t be allowed into that almost
sacred domain of things you just share with your five best friends, or
your spouse or your child. You shouldn’t be required to give up your
private life just to get a job.”

David Gerwitz, renowned technology journalist and U.S. policy adviser,
agrees with Sen. Schumer. “Asking to view your public postings is like
asking for your home address and then taking a drive by your house to
see where you live. Asking for your Facebook password is like
demanding the key to your house, your alarm code, and to be put on
your bank account as a signer. They are very different degrees of
request and it’s quite unfortunate that people are conflating the
two,” Gerwitz said.

ACLU advocates are also crying foul, saying this practice is a clear
violation of personal privacy. Furthermore, opponents believe this
practice just another way of finding out information, such as gender,
race, religion, age and marital status – all details that are
protected by federal employment law. Lawmakers in California, Maryland
and Illinois are considering legislation that would ban this practice.

Out of work candidates may feel pressured to turn over their login
information to get hired in today’s incredibly competitive job market.
But the question is, should you have to turn over your private
information just to keep yourself in the running for a position?

Some candidates have refused point blank, while others have complied
with employers’ requests. Robert Collins handed over his Facebook
login information when applying for a job with the Maryland Department
of Public Safety and Correctional Services. Read more about his
experience in a transcript of his recent interview with NPR.

By David S.

Since March 2011, at least 30 Tibetans, mostly Buddhist monks, have
self-immolated to protest Chinese rule. The number is particularly
staggering considering that self-immolation, while rooted in
centuries-old Buddhist tradition, was virtually unknown in Tibet until
recent years. The upsurge comes as China seeks to further tighten its
grip on Tibet, which it has occupied since the 1950s.

Americans are probably most familiar with self-immolation via Malcolm
Browne’s iconic photograph of Thich Quang Duc, the Vietnamese monk who
in 1963 set himself ablaze before the Cambodian embassy in Saigon.
The act attracted tremendous worldwide media attention (and,
ironically considering current events in Tibet, was used by Chinese
propagandists to illustrate the cruelty of Western imperialism). But
while images of a burning monks inevitably capture our attention to a
degree that more conventional expressions of protest do not, it would
be a mistake to characterize these acts as merely publicity-driven.
Self-immolation is better understood in the context of spiritual
expression — albeit gruesome and tragic spiritual expression — that
comes in defiance of corporal oppression.

As a Vietnamese Buddhist leader wrote to Martin Luther King, Jr. in
1963, the self-immolating monk aims at “the expression of his will and
determination, not death. To express will by burning oneself…is not
to commit an act of destruction but to perform an act of
construction.” In other words, while the brute force of the law
may be imposed on body and property, the spirit cannot be broken. It
is significant that the greatest number of self-immolations have
occurred in the areas where China has most vigorously attempted to
restrict and “re-educate” Tibetans.

Beijing has responded by comparing the Dalai Lama to Hitler. The
comparison, obviously offensive and absurd, is all the more bizarre
because it is an unconscious recognition of the very
body-versus-spirit paradigm the monks are asserting. Nazi Germany’s
program of genocide aimed at more than physical extermination, it
sought to spiritually slaughter its victims, to create what Primo Levi
called “hollow men.” The Tibetan monk, by self-immolating, avows that
he will not be made hollow, that stripped of his traditions and
physical liberty, he retains his identity.

Over the past year, dozens of Long Island high school students have
been accused of cheating on the SAT and ACT college entrance exams.
Twenty students from five different school systems throughout long
island (Nassau County) were arrested last fall. Five of the
twenty accused of taking the tests for the other students while the
other fifteen accused of paying them between $500 and $3,600 for the
service.

The SAT is a standardized test for college admissions in the United
States. The SAT is owned, published, and developed by the College
Board, a nonprofit organization in the United States. It was formerly
developed, published, and scored by the Educational Testing Service,
which still administers the exam. The test is intended to assess a
student’s readiness for college. It was first introduced in 1926, and
its name and scoring have changed several times.

The charges have sparked nationwide reforms in the rules regulating
when students sign up for the exams. Officials will now check images
against the photo I.D. the students present when they arrive to take
the test. Additionally, test takers will have to provide their
gender and list their high school when they sign up. This will
apparently ensure that school administrators receive students’ scores,
as a back-end check against cheating.

I grew up on Long Island and went to Great Neck South High School.
Great Neck North High School was the apparent focal point for the
alleged ring, and the first school to make a bold, aggressive step
towards ousting the cheaters – having initially investigated the
claims based on rumors.

It’s clearly a very positive step in the right direction that schools
are initiating crackdowns against cheating on standardized tests.
Putting individual students at massive disadvantages due to the
availability of ridiculous sums of money and or an intelligent student
willing enough to make such an unintelligent decision, in fraudulently
presenting themselves as another person and taking the test under such
as guise.

Although, it can’t be overstated how disenfranchised the system
already is. Students who have the means available can pay thousands of
dollars on professional test takers (tutors) to teach them how to take
the test. Is it really such a stretch? On the spectrum of an
individual taking the test themselves with no outside help to having
someone take the test for you, on which side would it fall when an
individual is trained for hours a week, weeks on end, on how to
strategically approach and execute their test?

The SAT and ACT may be made up of some of the smartest individuals
College Board can buy, the test is still similar year in and year out.
Therefore enabling those who are willing to put the time in to
ultimately master it. But perhaps those who are willing to put in the
time deserve to do better. Maybe there is something to be said for
work ethic, which can’t be quantified numerically by a score.

Anyway you cut it the fact that so much of a student’s college
placement is placed on one four-hour test sounds like lunacy. However
it very well may be the best attempt we can come up with to stratify
the droves of eighteen year-olds that are trying to go to the same
colleges.