Reporter and WSJ Editor, Dorothy Rabinowitz, took author and spiritualist Deepak Chopra to task in her piece, Deepak Blames America, in the Wall Street Journal this past week. Her reasoning for the condemnation was that she simply disagreed with his views – and his offered solutions – on the terrorist problem gripping the Middle East and, in particular, the Mumbai terror assault.
In Rabinowitz’s mind, Deepak wasn’t contributing peaceful ideas on ending terrorism, but – rather – attacking America. True though Mr. Chopra’s statements may be, any negativity expressed concerning America is seen, by the conservative right, as an "attack" on the country itself. Perhaps Dorothy Rabinowitz would do well to keep in mind that this great nation was built on the spirit of debate and opposing viewpoints; in fact, it is the heart and soul behind the creation of the First Amendment. As is often said, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism".
One of the most unfounded and discreditable parts of the article – in my opinion – was this:
How the ebullient Dr. Chopra had come to be chosen as an authority on terror remains something of a mystery…
I fail to see how Mrs. Rabinowitz can so easily question Deepak Chopra’s "authority" on terrorism. It takes little fact-checking to learn that Mr. Chopra has had quite personal experience with terrorism and knows, firsthand, the regions in which these conflicts are going on. Let us not forget that he was, also, born in Pakistan to parents escaping the area now known as Islamabad.
He may not be an "authority", but he certainly has more personal experience with what he is talking about than she does. Mr. Chopra’s family grew up surrounded by this very terrorism, and he has lost family members and loved ones to its horrors. He knows the areas in question, the groups responsible, and the people it is affecting. Obviously, we owe some respect to Mr. Chopra’s ideology with his being privy to such.
Personally, I would be more inclined to listen to Mr. Chopra’s ideas on creating peace out of the hell and havoc that is there now than from someone like Mrs. Rabinowitz, whose only answer to ending the reign of terror is to attack someone who offers an intimately composed solution. Whether she agrees with Mr. Chopra’s ideals or not, it is no reason to personally attack him in a public forum with a libelous and ostentatious headline.
For more reading on this, I urge you to read Deepak Chopra’s response over at Huffington Post, and the beautifully astute and decorous rebuttal Deepak’s son, Gotham Chopra, offered on Intent.com. A more detailed rejoinder is A Fuller and More Detailed Response to Dorothy Rabinowit’z Attack on Me in the Wall Street Journal; a must-read where Mr. Chopra shares his painful and very personal lifetime experiences with terrorism and being born in Pakistan to refugee parents.
Crossposted from Digitopus
Shanna Mamale, Dorothy Rabinowitz is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist. There is a reason for that.
Deepak and his offspring can't hold a smoldering incense stick to her.
Best,
Rafi
That may be, Rafi. She is obviously a good journalist, and an honored one. I'm certainly not ignoring her skills or downplaying her importance.
That said, I fail to see why such an accredited journalist needs to resort to such unfounded attention-mongering as a personal attack. I respect her opinions; I just wish she had shown the same respect to Mr. Chopra for his. I would be much more apt to listen to what she had to say had it not been in the form of an attack on a party whose only intent is to spread good and world healing.
Again, much of her post was filled with egotistic talk that really fell into the category of ignorance. She has her opinions but they are not based on the personal and lifetime experiences that Mr. Chopra's are. That, mainly, was the point of my post.
Thank you for commenting; I look forward to further discussion if you are willing.