Ali Sarilgan – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com Breaking news from the Farm since 1892 Wed, 11 May 2016 02:35:58 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 https://stanforddaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/cropped-DailyIcon-CardinalRed.png?w=32 Ali Sarilgan – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com 32 32 204779320 The stadiums are no longer silent https://stanforddaily.com/2016/05/10/the-stadiums-are-no-longer-silent/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/05/10/the-stadiums-are-no-longer-silent/#comments Wed, 11 May 2016 06:59:43 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1114871 This passing month, Johan Cruyff, a Dutch man who was many things to many people, died in his house in Barcelona. To soccer fans, he was the “Pythagoras in boots,” but to the Catalans, he was the man who defeated the fascist Francisco Franco. His father passed away when he was 12, and his mother […]

The post The stadiums are no longer silent appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
This passing month, Johan Cruyff, a Dutch man who was many things to many people, died in his house in Barcelona. To soccer fans, he was the “Pythagoras in boots,” but to the Catalans, he was the man who defeated the fascist Francisco Franco.

His father passed away when he was 12, and his mother began cleaning the stadium near their house to earn a living. They could not afford to send Johan to school, so he started fixing cleats and drawing chalk lines for their local team. One day, quite conveniently, the manager of the Dutch soccer club Ajax saw the little boy dribbling his ball and immediately recruited him. It was a classic success story. As expected, the hero of our story became an international success and the first ever superstar of European soccer. He helped Ajax win many Champions League cups and was deemed a national hero. However, his legacy was not yet complete.

In 1973, Cruyff got offers from the two football giants of Spain: Real Madrid and Barcelona. Real Madrid, at the time, was Franco’s baby. He personally oversaw the management of the team, supported it with government funds and saw Real Madrid’s global success as the success of his dictatorship in Madrid.

Meanwhile, Barcelona struggled with relegation and consistently finished near the bottom in the league. It was the hub for the Catalonian independence movement from Spain. So it came as a shock to the world when Cruyff picked Barcelona over Madrid for almost half the annual salary. Although he wasn’t outspoken about it when he made his decision, he later revealed that he felt uncomfortable “playing for a dictator.” After his transfer, Barcelona defeated Real Madrid 5-0 and Cruyff named his own son Jordi after the patron saint of Catalonia, an act that was banned and punishable in Franco’s Spain. From this point on, Cruyff was known as “El Salvador,” the man who saved Barcelona from Franco. Despite these accomplishments, his activism was far from over.

The Argentinian military overthrew the elected President Peron in 1976 and established its junta, a military government, that was supposed to host the 1978 World Cup. The junta had spent a tremendous amount of resources to promote its public image and had hired Burson and Martseller, the New York-based PR company, to highlight the successes of Argentinian organization. However, all this work and energy was overshadowed by Cruyff’s decision to not attend the World Cup. Even in the midst of the finals, popular newspapers were still discussing Cruyff’s absence and that he was protesting against the military coup.

Kruyff was not alone; he stood in a long line of people who understood that sports were not just games.

The writer Thomas Wolfe described Hitler’s opening speech in the 1936 Berlin Olympics games as “almost a religious event, the crowd screaming, swaying in unison and begging for Hitler.” The Nazi government “cleaned up” the host city by gathering all the Gypsies in the Berlin-Marzahn concentration camp and banning all their Jewish athletes from competing. They saw the games as a chance to prove Aryan superiority.

Many athletes of color chose not to participate in the Games, but Jesse Owens, an African-American track runner, traveled to Berlin to compete nonetheless. He encountered blatant racism: Upon his arrival to the Olympic Village, people surrounded his train car and started snipping at him with scissors, forcing him to retreat. In spite of this hostile introduction, he competed, set world records and defeated many Aryan athletes. Hitler was supposed to present all record-setting athletes with their medals as chancellor. But not so surprisingly, he opted to skip Owens. I am certain that Owens carried Hitler’s dislike of him as a badge of honor for the rest of his life.

The recent past is filled with such defiant athletes. Muhammed Ali boldly saying, “I got no quarrel with those Viet Cong” and being sentenced to five years in prison for draft evasion. John Carlos and Tommie Smith gesturing the black power salute in the 1968 Olympics following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy. Billy Jean King defeating Bobby Riggs in tennis as a call for equality for women. At times, athletes didn’t need to be this outspoken. Sometimes just their presence was enough. In 1947, Jackie Robinson made history by becoming the first African American to play major league baseball. In spite of all the racism he faced, he kept playing.

Without a doubt, all of these men and women have greatly contributed to our political evolution; but why did I write about all of this?

Because something peculiar is going on in our stadiums today.

LeBron James tweets a picture of the Miami Heat players wearing hoodies with their heads bowed in support of Trayvon Martin. Fans in Russia and Ukraine are chanting for peace in soccer games. This past Labor Day hosted many protests organized inside stadiums in China for better workers rights. Soccer games throughout Germany, Greece and Turkey are being dominated by fan slogans on the Syrian crisis.

Thinking that sports are just games is an easy mistake to make. But often times, stadiums reflect the very pulse of nations. They are the natural gathering place of discontent and weary people who have nowhere else to seek change in. And guess what? The stadiums are no longer silent.

 

Contact Ali Sarilgan at sarilgan ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post The stadiums are no longer silent appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/05/10/the-stadiums-are-no-longer-silent/feed/ 1 1114871
A boy and his cat https://stanforddaily.com/2016/04/05/a-boy-and-his-cat/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/04/05/a-boy-and-his-cat/#comments Wed, 06 Apr 2016 06:59:36 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1113088   A picture. A boy hugging his cat, a broken smile on his face. The longer I look, the more it seems as though he’s about to break down and cry. He is one of many — 100,000 strong — who escaped from Aleppo. He is miles away from home, surrounded by barbed wires, torn […]

The post A boy and his cat appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
NEW.040616.op-Ed-boyandcat

 

A picture.

A boy hugging his cat, a broken smile on his face.

The longer I look, the more it seems as though he’s about to break down and cry.

He is one of many — 100,000 strong — who escaped from Aleppo.

He is miles away from home, surrounded by barbed wires, torn apart from his family, calling a pair of sheets home.

The more I look, the more I imagine. I imagine the boy and the cat cuddling one another at night for warmth, trying to fall asleep nearly starved, being awoken with each and every sound. Was that a bomb? Gunshots? Soldiers? I imagine a boy desperately searching for hope but only finding his cat to hug.

As this innocent pair lay on cold dirt, a swarm of well-dressed gentlemen, one side covered in blue flags, the other in red, are bargaining in Brussels.

“We want to send all the refugees who fled to Europe back to Turkey.” I hope your government can work with us.

“Turkey is ready to work with the EU.” It just requires a little ‘motivation.’

How much motivation, to be exact?

Does $3.2 billion work?

You’ve got yourself a deal.

Is this the cost of a human being? Is this the price tag we’ve placed on the lives of millions? I can understand that countries want to protect themselves from potential terror attacks and that an influx of immigrants raises threat levels. Just this past year, my very own family and friends came face to face with suicide bombings in Istanbul and Ankara. I get it, and I can see that a government’s primary job is to protect its own citizens. But this is not the way to go.

As more and more information is revealed about the attacks that shook Europe, it grows increasingly clear that the attacking terrorists were not refugees. They were radicalized citizens. Entirely closing our borders to those in need, hating those that are different from us, will only increase this radicalization.

As I write these very words, a Syrian man named Mohammed Faris is living in a two-bedroom house with six other people in a poor district of Istanbul. He felt unsafe and walked across the border in 2012, when armed conflicts intensified. He’s hopping from one job to another, trying to make a living, while also speaking at conferences. Anywhere he speaks, he stresses the same thing: “Syrians are not beggars and thieves. Everyone is a part of this migration: both the professors and the uneducated. We are workers, not beggars.”

This man, who is forced to live in a strange land in desperation, was a hero in Syria. He had “airports and streets named after him, money, a house, security guards.” He was the first and only Syrian astronaut who went to space and ended up spending 7 days, 23 hours and 8 minutes in orbit. He learned to look at the world like “a mother looking at her baby, no discrimination, no borders, no conflict.” He misses his home every day but cannot go back. Ever since he rose in protest against the Assad regime, he’s been declared an enemy by the state and all of the terrorist groups plaguing Syria.

These people are not terrorists. They are honorable individuals who were driven out of their homes, torn from their lives, separated from their friends and families. They don’t want to come to our countries to experience a life of leisure; they want to escape imminent and terrible danger.

Look back at the picture of that brave boy holding his cat. The entire world turned its back on him. We watched him starve, freeze, get blown apart, bought, sold, raped, lapidated, hung, shot, executed, forced to live under the most heinous conditions. And we did nothing. We abandoned him.

But he did not abandon his cat.

He lost his past, his present, his future, his everything. But he still gave his cat more love than what the entire planet could spare for him.

Every time I look at this picture, my eyes tear up. I try to comfort myself by saying the same thing over and over. At least they are still alive.

That picture was taken in early February. Then they were still alive. Now? I don’t know. I can only hope.  

 

Contact Ali Sarilgan at sarali19 ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post A boy and his cat appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/04/05/a-boy-and-his-cat/feed/ 3 1113088
Such is politics, such is life https://stanforddaily.com/2016/02/29/me-ay-such-is-politics-such-is-life/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/02/29/me-ay-such-is-politics-such-is-life/#comments Tue, 01 Mar 2016 07:59:01 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1111809 We, the students of Stanford University, according to our founding principle, promote public welfare in behalf of civilization. We are taught the blessings of liberty and cherish the freedom of speech. Our debates are characterized by their intellectual vitality, thoughtfulness and reliance on mutual respect. When the FLIP challenges our ideas, we publish screenshots of […]

The post Such is politics, such is life appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
We, the students of Stanford University, according to our founding principle, promote public welfare in behalf of civilization. We are taught the blessings of liberty and cherish the freedom of speech. Our debates are characterized by their intellectual vitality, thoughtfulness and reliance on mutual respect. When the FLIP challenges our ideas, we publish screenshots of their GroupMe and call them liars. When The Review challenges our ideas, we just imply that they are racists. When someone disagrees with us, we commandingly end all debate by employing our deadliest, most critical response: “Na-ah, you’re stupid!”

Indeed, we are a well-educated bunch.

We can’t be swayed by populism. We vote for the ASSU Senators who we think best represent our personal beliefs, concerns and opinions. Did you see that guy who posted his face looking down on the Arrillaga urinals saying, “That’s almost as impressive as my election statement?” That dude was funny. Hehe. Hilarious. Yeah — we vote for him!

And we seem to represent a global trend.

Politics, by definition, is debate. It’s all about listening to opposing ideas, learning from them and enriching our own beliefs. But it sure does have its problems. It’s messy, it takes years to get anything done, it seems to value only the loudest voices and it’s just plain frustrating. But is there an alternative?

Evolutionarily speaking, we are insecure creatures. We want to rely on something that is bigger than ourselves. Early humans relied on fire to guard themselves from predators. Neolithic villagers sought refuge in nature. As civilizations grew, people invented governments to protect and guide them. The state rose above the people almost as a supreme being. The Pharaohs, Caliphs and Monarchs of the old world were Gods walking amongst men: the rightful owners of everything and everyone. And today, every time we glorify a democratically elected leader as a hero, a protector, a savior, we are comforting our inner Neanderthal that only wants to seek shelter in a flame. This desire for and worship of a strong leader has left our societies divided. And this problem is more universal than you think.

Over the past decade, we have seen the rise of people that are against politics. People like Tayyip Erdoğan, Narendra Modi and Vladimir Putin, who downplay compromise and advocate strong-will. They are, in a way, so blinded by narcissism that they begin regarding opposition as enemies that must be crushed; all they want is unyielding victory. These people, very much like Donald Trump, only care about winning, winning and winning some more.

Most journalists attribute the popularity of Trump to the people’s frustration with the dreaded Establishment and the slow-footedness of its endless debates. But I think that he represents a deeper frustration, one against politics in general. As Dana Milbank points out, no one wants to hear Cruz say: “The notion of neutrality is based upon the left buying into this moral relativism that is often pitched in the media.” No. They want someone like The Donald to step up, drop the Princeton talk, drop the discussions, and simply say, “I am totally pro-Israel.” They want to be told that everything is going to work out fine, that they are going to win, that it’s going to be great, that it’s going to be huuuuuge. People are simply tired of the messiness of politics; they want a strong and reassuring leader. And as more and more people give up on the notion of discussion and ideas, the innate violence and polarization that is attached to strong leadership (which is a cute word for authoritarianism) comes into play. Just look at Trump’s campaign.

“I could stand in the middle of 5th Ave. and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters,”

“I’d like to punch him in the face.”

“They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

These statements are entirely based on violence and intolerance. And as he gains traction, the US is growing more and more polarized. Although people all around the world have highlighted the potential threats caused by polarization, it seems like a little degree of polarization is just a manageable by-product of democracy. But what happens when it rises to unmanageable levels? A Pew Research Center survey said that 36 percent of Republicans in 2014 “saw the Democratic party as a threat to the nation’s well-being,” while 27 percent of Democrats saw the Republicans as a threat. I’d imagine that this percentage only grew in this past year.

But a threat? Let’s ponder what that word implies. Threat [Noun]: a menace that restricts freedoms, a person to likely cause damage, a possibility of ruin…

This is how civil wars start.

Even worse, this is how international wars start.

The rise of hard-liner leaders and polarized societies everywhere has created an even more polarized world that is dominated by an endless series of conflicts. The U.S. and China are in the brink of fighting in the South China Sea. ISIS is only one of many extremist terror groups that are bound to haunt civilization. Even E.U. siblings Germany and Greece view one another with contempt. What has become of us? When did we give up on ideas to clench our fists? Nicolas Henin was a French journalist who was held hostage by ISIS for 10 months. This was the first thing he wrote after being freed: “They fear our unity more than our airstrikes.”

It is up to us to follow Henin’s advice. We are no longer the helpless cavemen who had to pray to the fire that his chieftain would keep him safe. Electing a strong leader and letting him divide us into smaller factions is no longer the answer. Polarization and authoritarianism can only be avoided if we cease judging events through individuals and ideologies through leaders. When we debate, we must not attack one another over GroupMe messages. When we vote, we must consider the ideas and not the funny face standing on top of the urinals. From the Presidential elections to campus politics, we must realize that we are part of a much bigger world, which can only be saved if we unclench our fists and talk. The talks will be long and often times frustrating. But what other choice do we have? Such is politics. Such is life.

 

Contact Ali Sarilgan at sarali19 ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Such is politics, such is life appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/02/29/me-ay-such-is-politics-such-is-life/feed/ 2 1111809
A rose by any other name: Not as sweet? https://stanforddaily.com/2016/02/07/a-rose-by-any-other-name/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/02/07/a-rose-by-any-other-name/#comments Mon, 08 Feb 2016 07:59:38 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1110395 When I first heard the news that the ASSU had decided to take action to rename property named after Junipero Serra, I said to myself “Hey, here is another superfluous controversy.” In fact, the first draft of this very article was a snarky satire that elaborately criticized Alexander the Great for not being a Democrat, proposed […]

The post A rose by any other name: Not as sweet? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
When I first heard the news that the ASSU had decided to take action to rename property named after Junipero Serra, I said to myself “Hey, here is another superfluous controversy.” In fact, the first draft of this very article was a snarky satire that elaborately criticized Alexander the Great for not being a Democrat, proposed to demolish the University of Virginia because Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and called for the renaming of America, not only the country but also the continent, due to Amerigo Vespucci’s acts toward Native Americans.

I believed, and still do believe, that America’s main advantage over the rest of the world was being able to isolate itself from its past. We are still killing one another in Turkey about an incident that happened in 1915, and the Muslim world still can’t free itself from the conflict that began in 680 following the Battle of Karbala. It seemed to me that the U.S., just like any other nation, had committed crimes throughout its history, but got over them for the greater good. Why try and fail to change history when you can understand it and change the future? After all, Junipero Serra was only doing what he believed was righteous and was serving his God and King within the context of his time.

As I typed in these words, I suddenly stopped, took a step back and read what I had written. Why was I defending a Spanish missionary and his alleged genocide?

To me, Serra had always been just a name. It was the address I sent my SAT scores to and the dorm I passed by every day on my way to class. I was accustomed to it, and, frankly, thought it was some plant like Soto. What was all the fuss about? The Native American community was clearly hurt by this issue, but why did they care so much about Serra, when they could be fighting over Columbus Day or something more important? It was just a name.

Over winter break, my dog and I conducted a little experiment. His name is Haydut, which is the Turkish word for burglar. As a puppy, he would push away all his siblings and drink all his mother’s milk. He weighed about 15 pounds while all the other puppies weighed around eight, so I figured that his name was an appropriate choice. And every time I call out his name he wiggles his tail with excited anticipation. But why? Is the word meaningful to him or does he just recognize the sound? Does he recognize the silly face I make and the pitch of my sound while I holler at him, or is he aware that he actually has a name? So after letting him roam freely in the street until he lost all interest in me, I said in a detached tone: “Haydut.” He didn’t even bother to turn around. Then I loudly said “Pickle!” in the same way I called him. He immediately came back running. His name meant nothing to him. To be fair, my dog is not the brightest apple in the basket; he is eight years old and still hasn’t figured out why he has to raise his leg before he starts peeing. So I don’t want to generalize the entire canine family, but Haydut really got me thinking.

Why are we humans so obsessed with our names? Everything around us is constantly changing. We make new friends, our relatives pass away, we switch schools, we age, we get sick, we marry, we divorce… Intimidated by this constant motion, we hang on to the only stable, unchanged things in our lives: our names.

Every morning we wake up as a different person from the one we were yesterday. Some days we’re sad, some days we’re happy, and some days we stare at a complete stranger that is standing in the mirror. But the second someone calls our name, we are reminded of who we are, or maybe, who everyone else wants us to be. Imagine a boy named Moses by his parents, who hopes that he grows up to represent the ideals of the Prophet, or a little girl named Elizabeth named in wishes that she can become as graceful as the Queen. With one single word, their entire lives are defined for them. Unless you’re a dog, whose only apparent purpose in life is to eat all that is dear to me, your name is the most important thing you have.

So imagine that you are a Native American living in Serra. What would you feel? I personally do not know. I still think that getting stuck in the past and trying to change it is a futile and painful thing to do. Some attempts to rename certain structures seem completely ludicrous to me, like Princeton’s debate over Woodrow Wilson, while I find some to be completely justifiable, like renaming Stalingrad. But where do we draw the line? And, most important, is it our line to draw?

We, Homo sapiens, have established a pretty scary track record over the past few millennia and we must carry the burden together. Renaming certain structures may seem unimportant at first but the words we choose to use, both implicitly and explicitly, determine our view of the world. We must discuss and decide together. Or the next thing we know, eight years will go by and just like Haydut, we’ll still be surprised to find pee on our leg.

Contact Ali Sarilgan at sarali19 ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post A rose by any other name: Not as sweet? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/02/07/a-rose-by-any-other-name/feed/ 1 1110395
The end of Cold War II https://stanforddaily.com/2016/01/26/me-kk-end-of-cold-war-ii/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/01/26/me-kk-end-of-cold-war-ii/#comments Wed, 27 Jan 2016 07:59:23 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1109802 Every year in January, the financial and political elite of the world, along with thousands of private jets, come together at the luxurious Davos ski resort in the World Economic Forum to discuss pressing global issues --like how the income gap between the rich and the mega-rich is getting alarmingly wider.

The post The end of Cold War II appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Every year in January, the financial and political elite of the world, along with thousands of private jets, come together at the luxurious Davos ski resort in the World Economic Forum to discuss pressing global issues — like how the income gap between the rich and the mega-rich is getting alarmingly wider. This year’s theme was Mastering the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” alluding to the new age of technology innovation ushered in by computer science. So basically, what 20 percent of Stanford is majoring in and what the rest of us who have seen iRobot are secretly terrified of.

While heated discussions on the refugee crisis, plummeting world markets, low prices of oil and Britain’s potential exit from the E.U. took all the attention at the summit, a critical statement John Kerry made in Davos fell off the radar. The Secretary of State said he “believed that the sanctions against Russia could be removed within the next few months.” His statement is very timely, considering that just a month ago, the White House admitted to back-channelling with the Assad regime in Syria in an attempt to find “cracks in the regime it could exploit to encourage a military coup.” When this strategy failed, the U.S. administration began negotiating with the Syrian government, a move that in the long run gave Assad much-desired legitimacy. But what do the sanctions against Russia have to with this? Well, it seems that we have reached the end of the Second Cold War. And a clear victor is about to emerge.

In the dawn of 2009, Assad had two potential projects on his desk: the Qatar-Turkey pipeline and the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline, also called the Islamic Pipeline. The first proposal aimed to extend a line from Qatar to Syria and meet with existing natural gas lines that traveled to Europe. The Arab League, Turkey, the U.S. and Europe were all on board. In fact, Turkey had promised to buy all its natural gas needed for the next 10 years from Qatar if the project reached completion. The goal was simple: exporting Qatari gas to Europe and effectively ending Russia’s monopoly over it. Given that 70 percent of Russia’s crude oil and 90 percent of its natural gas exports went to Europe, this pipeline would mean the economic collapse of the Federation.

So Putin stepped in and gave his close ally Assad a call, who in turn, kindly rejected the proposal “to protect the interests of [its] Russian ally” and called for the Islamic Pipeline that aimed to export Iranian gas to Europe by building one from Syria to Greece over Cyprus. If the plan had succeeded, Russia would further its grasp over Europe by utilizing its internationally isolated ally Iran’s natural resources. Upon this proposal, Turkey and Saudi Arabia turned against Assad and began supporting the Syrian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood. In a matter of weeks, Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan, who had regarded Assad as a brother, started calling him a “murderous dictator.” Thus the first match was struck in the bloody conflict that would haunt the world and draw in many international actors.

Back in November, the I.H.S. Conflict Monitor published a map depicting all the Russian and American air strikes over Syria so far. Upon first glance, we immediately notice that the two countries are not targeting the same areas. American airstrikes are concentrated in the northern parts of Iraq and Syria, while Russian airstrikes are concentrated near the Mediterranean Sea. What is the reason? Are the two countries working together in a coalition to end all terrorism in Syria? The cold, hard fact is that they are both guarding their own interests.

Currently, there are two oil pipelines in Syria. The pipeline that starts from the Persian Gulf, travels through Northern Iraq, connects with the Kirkuk oil refineries and ends at Turkey was built by ExxonMobil, so in other words, the U.S. In fact, there is currently a de facto American consulate in Erbil, the capital of the Kurdish territory in Northern Iraq that hosts hundreds of American troops, engineers, accountants, construction employees and truckers who are currently drilling in Erbil under contract. In contrast to its American counterpart, the Lukoil (Russian) pipeline travels from the Persian Gulf to Syria and ends at the Mediterranean Sea.

By this point, it should come as no surprise that U.S. airstrikes only target terrorists around the Exxon oil resources while Russian airstrikes target terrorists around the Lukoil ones. But there is a very peculiar nuance that we miss. The American-backed Kurdish forces are currently attacking territories that hold Russian pipelines near the Mediterranean, while Russian-backed Assad forces attack territories that hold American pipelines in the Northern regions of Syria. This brutal war that has killed thousands and driven millions out of their homes is a mere scramble for energy resources and the reincarnation of the Cold War.

Ever since 2010, when the conflict in Syria began, President Putin has been avoiding the Davos forum in a justified attempt to escape international criticism. But with the world slowly bringing Assad into the discussion on Syria’s future, Iran emerging as a regional player, and the U.S. demeanor against Russia, in line with Secretary Kerry’s remarks, softening, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Mr. Putin in Davos next year. What we are witnessing today is the end of our Cold War. But one thing is different: The wall is collapsing towards the other side.

 

Contact Ali Sarilgan at sarilgan ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post The end of Cold War II appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/01/26/me-kk-end-of-cold-war-ii/feed/ 1 1109802
A government held at gunpoint https://stanforddaily.com/2016/01/12/a-government-held-at-gunpoint/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/01/12/a-government-held-at-gunpoint/#comments Wed, 13 Jan 2016 07:59:52 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1109213 However, the minute I turned in my last column on November 27th, I got news of the attack on the Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado, followed by the tragedy at San Bernardino a week later. In a minacious way, the topic always presented itself before me. So this time, I will write with hopes that this violence never becomes relevant again.

The post A government held at gunpoint appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I have so far written three articles for The Daily. And in all of the three times that I sat in front of my laptop to write, I considered commenting on the same topic: gun violence. On Oct. 22, when my first article was due, three weeks had passed since the deadly attack at Umpqua Community College in Oregon. The topic no longer seemed “relevant to the public,” whatever that means, so I did not write about it. Eleven other smaller-scale shootings happened between my first and second columns, but no one was really talking about it, so I did not write.

However, the minute I turned in my last column on Nov. 27, I got news of the attack on the Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado, followed by the tragedy at San Bernardino a week later. In a minacious way, the topic always presented itself before me. So this time, I will write with hopes that this violence never becomes relevant again.

The deadly economy that revolves around firearms has left the executive branch powerless to establish control. The change we need must be ignited by the U.S. legal system, which must promptly and decisively rule against gun violence. And it must act now. The United States, with around 5 percent of the world’s population, has between 40 and 50 percent of the world’s civilian-owned guns. In 2007, there were 88.8 registered firearms per 100 American citizens, followed by only 31.3 firearms per 100 Norwegians. And these guns were not just used as decorations on living room walls, they were fired quite a lot. In 2013, America led the world with 3.55 firearm homicides per 100,000 people, followed by Canada with 1.04 homicides. In fact, more Americans were killed by guns after 1968 than in all U.S. wars ever combined.

Opposers of weapon regulations argue that people need guns to protect themselves. My dear friends, no one needs a semi-automatic assault rifle that can fire 45 bullets in less than 10 seconds over 300 yards to protect themselves. That is, of course, unless the Terminator is hunting them down. And even Mr. Schwarzenegger, the T-800 himself, expresses support for gun control. In the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, public opinion drastically shifted against gun ownership. Today, 89.9 percent of all Americans are calling for stricter background checks and limitations on both buyers and sellers of firearms.

So why isn’t anything changing? Although the latest executive order issued by the president was a step in the positive direction, it is bound to come to an end, along with Obama’s term, and be overshadowed by the $30 million the NRA spends on elections. In the horrific case of gun violence, politics and the legislature are unfortunately not the answer. Congress will never be powerful enough to regulate such a huge market and culture. The judicial system must take the matter into its own hands. In his speech, the president gave examples of some gun control laws that European countries employ to illustrate the importance and relevance of his executive order. However, he must understand that the American government functions very differently from those in Europe. European governments date their existence to as far back as the Roman Empire and have strong traditions of resilient centralized power. They first established the executive branch of their governments through almighty monarchies, then transitioned into democracies and only then created modern legal systems. The U.S. did the exact opposite. Upon overthrowing colonial British rule, people had such a strong distrust of centralized government that they organized themselves in decentralized communities governed by the judiciary, inspired by British common law. Then they started experimenting with democracy, and they only began empowering the federal government hundreds of years later, along with the New Deal.

As a direct result of its founding, the U.S. executive branch is in no way as capable of enforcing change as its European counterparts. However, its legal system is. As we saw in the case of same-sex marriage, the judiciary branch has the power to enact nationwide change when the executive remains powerless. And on a more negative note, the courts can block any change they deem unlawful. Between 1904 and 1938, 16 different Congresses tried to criminalize child labor by passing federal laws, opening committees and starting national campaigns. However, the Supreme Court shot down all of the attempts declaring them unconstitutional. As a result, Congress tried to amend the Constitution twice but failed on both occasions. Only in 1938, when all of the original judges in the Court were replaced, could child labor be criminalized.

The deadlock we are in today is the 21st-century version of child labor. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The Supreme Court interprets the “people” in the amendment as individual Americans and safeguards their right to own firearms, while supporters of gun control interpret the “people” as the states and claim that the Founding Fathers only wanted to safeguard a state’s right to bear arms. I’m not going to get into this pointless linguistic debate. Even if the Constitution meant to use the “people” to define individual Americans, we must recognize that not even the Founding Fathers were absolutely perfect. The Supreme Court must once again show the courage it did when it legalized same-sex marriage and enforce precise and everlasting measures to decrease gun violence. If it fails to come through, I’m afraid this topic will always stay relevant, and hundreds of thousands of these articles will be written.

 

Contact Ali Sarilgan at sarilgan ‘at’ stanford.edu. 

The post A government held at gunpoint appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/01/12/a-government-held-at-gunpoint/feed/ 4 1109213
Knowing your allies https://stanforddaily.com/2015/11/30/me-kk-knowing-your-allies/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/11/30/me-kk-knowing-your-allies/#comments Tue, 01 Dec 2015 07:59:09 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1108200 I’ve been yelled at by wild-eyed debaters all my life, so my gut instinct tells me to avoid emotional political discussions. Yet, in wake of all the confusion and horror caused by the Paris Attacks I found myself stuck spectating the very type of discussion I dreaded. A Turkish man, who I just met, was proclaiming that the world was hypocritical about Paris to my American friend.

The post Knowing your allies appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I’ve been yelled at by wild-eyed debaters all my life, so my gut instinct tells me to avoid emotional political discussions. Yet, in wake of all the confusion and horror caused by the Paris Attacks I found myself stuck spectating the very type of discussion I dreaded. A Turkish man, who I just met, was proclaiming that the world was hypocritical about Paris to my American friend.

He said that the world did not care enough to learn about the hundreds who died in the bombings in Beirut, Baghdad and Ankara, but rushed to put up a French Flag filter over its profile picture when tragedy hit a Western country. He felt hurt that the world validated France’s pain as it ignored the sorrow of other nations.

He did have a point. Facing the cold truth can be hard, but the mainstream media, and thus the world, will always care more about the most unexpected news; the gut-wrenching horror in Aleppo is no longer “fresh” enough. And the world simply reacts differently to different cultures and cities. Beirut, Baghdad and Ankara are all vertical cities. They all have long histories and traditions that dig down vertically, yet lack the cultural and political impact that a horizontally influential city like New York has. Paris, as a five thousand year old city that is visited more than any other city on earth, is both vertical and horizontal. It will obviously attract more attention and the world will react more strongly towards it.

But no matter how skewed the press coverage was, he shouldn’t have compared Paris’s pain to the pain he felt towards Ankara. Cultures, just like people, grieve in different ways and intensities. And it is never good or fair to criticize an unfair situation by comparing the pains of two cultures to one another. So I intervened and began telling this to the Turkish man. But my words were shoved into my mouth as my American friend interrupted me with a stern face, pointed straight at both him and me (for reasons I cannot understand) and said in what seemed to me the most sinister fashion possible:

“You terrorists will never get it.”

The words were all too familiar.

They ring in my head every time the TSA “randomly” selects me for further inspection and every time the Turkish government showers me with water cannons or imprisons another journalist I follow. I am simply too Muslim for the West because of my background and not Muslim enough for home because of my secular values. And I am at peace with that. But what I’d like my friend to realize is that we, the democrats of Turkey, are his best allies in the quest for a peaceful Middle East and a safer world.

Most cultural change takes decades to occur, but I have already seen a dramatic change in Turkish society in my short life. We were a country with a tremendous amount of social capital. People wouldn’t turn on their TV-sets for three days just out of respect to their neighbor who was mourning a deceased relative, local restaurants would pack dozens of meals for homeless people and a woman in a mini-skirt coming back from a night of drinking would cordially greet a woman in a burka coming back from her morning prayer in the Istanbul subway.

But today, we are so polarized and full of hate that we cannot even mourn the death of the 95 bombing victims of Ankara. After this ISIS attack that targeted a leftist protest, a faction of our society cheered the death of the protesters that “had it coming for working with the Kurds,” the opposing parties accused the government of deliberately killing the protesters to cause chaos for political gain and the government blamed the rest for “being vandals.” Our prime minister didn’t even bother leaving the Turkish-Dutch soccer game early after being notified that 15 of our soldiers had died, probably because he was too accustomed to the news!

Compared to the French people who unified to protect their way of life after the attacks, what right do we have in demanding a Turkish Flag filter on Facebook while we can’t even come together in what should have been a moment of unbearable sorrow?

So believe me, dear friend, we are not happy either and I assure you that we do “get it.” If peace is ever going to come, it will come through a coalition between you and me. And frankly, calling your own ally a terrorist is not helping.

Our world is in turmoil. Perhaps the bloodiest civil war in history is drawing more and more countries in. A Russian warplane was shot down by a NATO member country for the first time since the 1950s and a mad Russian politician demanded that Putin nuke Istanbul in retaliation. Extremism and terrorism claim hundreds of lives annually in world capitals. There is tremendous regional unrest all over the world and the Pope has marked these events as the beginning of World War III.

We need each other now more than ever.

 

Contact sarali19 ‘at’ stanford.edu. 

The post Knowing your allies appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/11/30/me-kk-knowing-your-allies/feed/ 3 1108200
America’s energy policy and how it fuels dictatorships https://stanforddaily.com/2015/11/08/americas-energy-policy-and-how-it-fuels-dictatorships/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/11/08/americas-energy-policy-and-how-it-fuels-dictatorships/#comments Mon, 09 Nov 2015 07:59:17 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1106566 We are thankfully living in a time where the world has identified irresponsible energy usage as a major cause of environmental destruction. Most people acknowledge that something has to be done, but we seldom discuss the political factors and implications surrounding such a controversial issue. We are just too busy watching Senator Inhofe build an igloo and name it ‘Al Gore’s New Home’ as a populist attempt to show how big a hoax climate change is.

The post America’s energy policy and how it fuels dictatorships appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
We are thankfully living in a time where the world has identified irresponsible energy usage as a major cause of environmental destruction. Most people acknowledge that something has to be done, but we seldom discuss the political factors and implications surrounding such a controversial issue. We are just too busy watching Senator Inhofe build an igloo and name it “Al Gore’s New Home as a populist attempt to show how big of a hoax climate change is.

Well, it is not.

So in this column I will try to highlight some of the most ill advised policies I have ever heard in my life (and you know things are bad when a Turkish guy says this) and discuss their potential impact on the world.

The U.S. today converts fossil fuels into electricity at 33 percent efficiency. In simpler words, the U.S. in 2015 throws two thirds of its energy away. Do you know what the efficiency was in 1957? Thirty-three percent. So why hasn’t our efficiency improved? Have we reached our theoretical maximum?

No. It turns out that the potential efficiency of an electricity generation plant is 67 percent. Reaching 67 percent efficiency would be equivalent to burning half the amount of fuel and emitting half the amount of carbon dioxide to get the same amount of energy. So why are we stuck at 33?

First, the U.S. regulatory system allows electric utility companies to pass on any production costs to their customers. So, these companies get to burn twice the amount of fuel and charge twice the amount of money for the same amount of work. Why would they want to change?

Second, in order to improve the efficiency of a generator you need to increase its size. But the U.S. hasn’t significantly expanded or improved its railway infrastructure in the past century. So, even if building bigger and more efficient power generators were economically profitable for utility companies, the massive generators would simply not fit the train tunnels. And which politician, who hopes to be re-elected in a few short years, would want to anger fossil fuel lobbyists and “waste” public funds on such a long-term project of renewing the entire American infrastructure?

Of course, renewable energy is always an option, which is what the federal government tried to use by providing a Production Tax Credit (PTC) to wind energy companies. In 2012, the PTC subsidized the construction of 13,000 wind turbines. But in 2013, Congress voted the PTC down and wind turbine installation dropped a whopping 92 percent, bankrupting many small wind energy companies.

The reason for this instability is partly extensive lobbying carried out by fossil fuel companies who want to get rid of the PTC. But the situation is only worsened by the hidden ambitions of some House Republicans. The Republicans and some of their donors, who want to sell oil internationally, want to lift the ban on oil exports that was placed in the 1970s as a response to the Arab Oil Embargo. But the Democrats are resisting. So the Republicans are using their Congress majority to shut down the PTC as a negotiation tactic against the Democrats by essentially saying, “If you don’t let us export oil, we won’t let you build wind turbines.”

This instability and straight up bad governance not only turns the U.S. energy economy into a highly non-renewable and adamant one, but also forces it to support a global network of authoritarian governments by importing oil from them. The U.S. imports 63 percent of its oil from Mexico and OPEC members like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Iraq. If you look at the global freedom index put forth by Freedom House in the past month, you will see that all of these countries are either listed as not free or partly free. In fact, Professor Larry Diamond of Stanford, in his book “Spirit of Democracy,” states that out of the “twenty-three countries whose economies are mostly dominated by oil today: not a single one of them is a democracy.”

Since exporting oil is such a state-run business, the government has a monopoly over the country’s financial interests. This ends up killing the free market and creating a huge wealth inequality between the ruling class and low-income people. And people who are not financially independent typically don’t demand political freedoms. For instance, Saudi Arabia’s government has become so wealthy due to its oil trade with the U.S. that it collects the absolute minimum amount of taxes from its people and uses this as an argument to support its monarchy in a reverse American way: No representation without taxation.

The American government and people must take swift action. Taking measures to improve energy efficiency and further developing renewable energy will not only stop the detrimental effects of climate change, but will also trigger a global trend of cutting down on fossil fuel production and taking power away from dictators who run on oil. The future of this world is too valuable to be dominated by lobbying and cheap political calculations.

 

Contact Ali Sarilgan at atsarali19 ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post America’s energy policy and how it fuels dictatorships appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/11/08/americas-energy-policy-and-how-it-fuels-dictatorships/feed/ 3 1106566
Politics vs. horseback riding https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/25/politics-vs-horseback-riding/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/25/politics-vs-horseback-riding/#respond Mon, 26 Oct 2015 06:59:04 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1105636 We tend to put too much emphasis on certain words. One single trigger word coming out of a passionate mouth can define someone’s entire ideology and set the tone for any discussion. Capitalist. Socialist. Liberal. Conservative. Oversimplification is a dangerous art, but hey, if politicians can get away with it, so can I.

The post Politics vs. horseback riding appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
We tend to put too much emphasis on certain words. One single trigger word coming out of a passionate mouth can define someone’s entire ideology and set the tone for any discussion.  Capitalist. Socialist. Liberal. Conservative. Oversimplification is a dangerous art, but hey, if politicians can get away with it, so can I.  

So I’m going to be a shameless linguist and state that the entire division between the alleged Eastern and Western worlds springs from one single word, a single word that can define both cultures with extreme accuracy: politics.

The word “politics” comes from the city-states of ancient Greece. In Greek, “Polis” means city, in which the citizens would gather around the agora to practice the earliest form of democracy. And “Politeia” (by Aristotle’s definition) translates to “affairs of a state conducted by citizens.” This word evolved over time and has now become an essential part of our civilization.

But meanwhile in my home, Turkey, and throughout the Middle East, a different word is used to convey the same meaning: “Siyaset.”

The word siyaset is derived from the Arabic root “sys.” A “seyis” is a person who tames, trains and, when necessary, punishes horses. It bears a religious connotation, resembling the Shepherd in Christianity, granting the ruler divine reign over his people, or as the word suggests, his horses.

And how about China, another authoritarian regime of our endlessly polarized world? Their own version of siyaset is the word “政治” (zhengzhi). The character “政” (zheng) is defined as “political affairs,” while the character ‘治’ (zhi) is defined as treatment, government and punishment.

For centuries, eastern thinkers, from Confucius to Omar Bin-Hattab, wrote “Siyasetnames,” guides for easier and swifter “rule for the people.” The West didn’t produce anything of the kind until Machiavelli, and quickly replaced his notions with the Enlightenment ideas of thinkers like Rousseau and Locke, to create guides for easier and swifter “rule by the people.”

The two synonyms “siyaset” and “politics” in reality are antonyms. Politics is free speech, questioning and an endeavor for the common good. Siyaset is obedience, silence and a submission to the ruler’s desires. As politics distributes power, siyaset collects it onto one person. Politics belongs to the people, but siyaset belongs solely to the state. Siyaset may have elections but will only call upon its people once every four years to vote, while politics will create a medium for people to freely express themselves day in and day out.

When you turn on the news and hear about the war in Syria, when you scratch your head wondering why democracy just doesn’t work in the Middle East, when you see desperation in the eyes of 432 orphans as they watch their fathers being dragged out of a collapsed mine in Turkey, when your eyes tear up looking at the pictures of the little refugee washed ashore, when you hysterically call your family from your Stanford dorm to see if they got hurt by a terrorist explosion that claimed 102 lives, think of these two words.

Politics is freedom.

Siyaset is peonage.

For us, the consternated democrats of Turkey, who began using “politics” with our Republican Revolution only to lose it in the last decade to the siyaset built by a sinister government, politics is an obvious yet far away answer.

When we look up to our government all we see is a rider violently lashing onto our reins and when he looks down from his saddle, all he sees is a neighing animal bound to his will.

So what will become of us? Will we hide behind the trivial argument that non-Western culture is incompatible with democracy? Then where will we place all the non-Western democrats who rose up against authoritarian regimes?

The brave students who stood for their rights in 1989 on Tianamen Square. The hundreds of thousands of Filipinos that poured to the streets of EDSA in 1986, demanding democracy. The freedom fighters who tore down the wall in 1991. The people of South Africa who rallied behind Mandela against racism. The secular Muslims who rose up against theocratic dictatorships in the Arab Spring. Where will we place these heroes?

The values of democracy are very much universal. By the very freedom-seeking nature of humanity, we will change oppressive regimes worldwide and build together a future where the leaders will jump off their saddles and meet their people eye-to-eye, a brighter future where all siyasets and all zhengzhis will flourish as politics.

 

Contact Ali Sarilgan at 

The post Politics vs. horseback riding appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/25/politics-vs-horseback-riding/feed/ 0 1105636