What I’m Reading
April 6, 2021
It’s been a while since last we met. Not much has changed in the world. And before I bring a special post later in the week, here’s a glance at some reads I find noteworthy. Today’s reads are all a few weeks old. But they are as interesting to read today as they were when I came across them originally.
Below you’ll find an op-ed on the political activities (or lack thereof) surrounding the 2018 murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudia Arabian journalist, who wrote for the Washington Post. It’s a read that stimulates a debate about the value of human rights in global politics.
Also in the political arena, read number two attempts to bridge the political divide in America. A fascinating first-person account of writer Bill Donahue’s experiences in rural New Hampshire.
Finally, a solid Covid piece that brings us the science via an easily digested interview with an expert.
The Value of Human Rights
The New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof responded to the political plays, which followed the U.S. government’s reports that officially identified Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as the man responsible for the killing of Mr. Kashoggi, in his February 26 column “President Biden Lets a Saudi Murderer Walk.”
Journalism can be a dangerous profession — not only if we talk about war reportage. See this UN report or this report from the Committee to Protect Journalists, if you’d like to dig in a little deeper.
Kashoggi, as a quick reminder, had decided to go into exile in 2017. Fearing for his safety at home, he found sanctuary in America and contributed to the Washington Post. In October 2018, he walked into the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, to obtain documents for his upcoming wedding. He never walked out of the building. Instead, he was murdered and dismembered.
Now that the U.S. government officially named bin Salman as the person responsible for the plan to kill Kashoggi, Kristof is critical of President Biden’s response.
Instead of imposing sanctions. Instead of sending a crystal clear message that the killing of a journalist and U.S. resident won’t be tolerated. Instead of showing the Saudi government that sticking to the plan to make someone with bin Salman’s track record the next King, the message seems to be, in Kristof’s words: “Please don’t do it, but we’ll still work with you if we have to.”
Kristof makes two important points that stress the importance of fighting for the value of human rights in global politics.
Not reacting betrays Kashoggi’s memories and that of every journalist who’s faced a similar fate. But it’s also a missed opportunity for the future — of the Arab world, global relations, and the safety of journalists (and anyone else) with a critical look at what governments around the world are up to.
There’s more in the column, so taking a look for yourself is highly recommended. The dilemma of economic relations vs. standing in for human rights and justice is a conversation worth having.
The Value of The Conversation
Also from late February is the second read. Writer Bill Donahue and the Washington Post Magazine bring us a fascinating first-person report called “This Rural Liberal Set Out to Talk to His Pro-Trump Neighbors. It didn’t go well — until it did.”
At its core, this story is a peaceful and quiet attempt to bridge the political divide in America.
Donahue moved to Gilmanton, a town of not even 4,000 in rural New Hampshire, in 2015. It’s a town that’s 96 percent white, where former President Trump received 57 percent of the votes last November.
Donahue leads us into the story with a picturesque description of a town where people usually support one another and care for friends and neighbors.
An attempt to hold a Black Lives Matter rally by the writer begins the controversy. Heated online discussions result in a canceled rally.
And spark an idea: seek face-to-face conversations.
The story is well-written. It brings you the author’s backstory with the town and his role as an outsider.
Donahue powerfully shows how, despite early skepticism and silence, dialogue kicks in slowly. He brings together people from both sides, conservatives and liberals, and tries to understand people who think differently or look at the world differently.
I highly recommend giving this a read. There are fascinating details of his encounters in town. The article shows the value of the conversation, of sitting down and listening to one another to learn about one’s differences, and of learning to live with one another. Great journalism.
The Value of Straight Science
For the final read this week, I’d like to point you to an interview that ran on Vox.com. “The scientist who’s been right about Covid-19 vaccines predicts what’s next” features a conversation with scientist Hilda Bastian.
She’s a scientist who’s followed the global covid vaccine race and has a good track record when it comes to her analyses. She mentioned potential side effects, saw promising signs in the trial data of the Pfizer/BionTech vaccine when it was in the early stages, and warned about the inconsistencies in the data from the AstraZeneca trials.
This interview goes into details about the current situation, vaccines and where they fit in (free from media bias or pharmaceutical marketing speak), the problem of equality/inequality of different vaccines, the issue of global justice/inequality on our path out of this pandemic. And there’s a careful look at the future.
If you’re interested in receiving scientific facts (in an easily digestible format that’s free of angles or headline hype), this is a place to start.
And that’s it for this week’s What I’m Reading post. I’m hoping to have something running related coming your way in a few days. And next week, I’ll have more reading recommendations. So stay tuned, preferably safe, sound, and hungry for life.
