"Since 9/11, U.S. policy enforces Islamophobia" by Nathan Lean, CNN

Since 9/11, U.S. policy enforces Islamophobia is an opinion article written by Nathan Lean on CNN's religion blog that centers on the government enforced Islamophobia in the United States after the 9/11 attacks and its negative effects on Muslim-American relations. Lean is very straightforward about his opinions and gives little background information about the issue before inserting his view on it. After four short paragraphs about the 9/11 attacks and its effect on the US, he makes his assertion by claiming that after these incidents the US authorities have enforced unjust treatment of "law abiding citizens". By reading this sentence only, the reader can already assume the author's viewpoint on the issue. The author also supports his claim about the negative effects of these prejudices by showing operations with Islamophobic intentions done by government agencies and law enforcers. For instance, an incident involving the FBI where  the agency paid an informant to initiate young Muslims in Southern California into talking about terrorism was personally the most shocking and persuading evidence provided by the author. I simply could not believe that such unlawful and unjust activities can be acted on by government officials. The worst part of the story was that the young Muslims who were being targeted were the ones that actually reported the informant to the authorities. This broke my heart showed how wrong it is for someone to turn their backs on loyal and patriotic citizens when blinded with prejudice.

The key reason why this piece is so convincing is because there's just so much bias flowing out of Lean's writing that it can, in my opinion, persuade someone who has the beliefs exact the opposite of Lean's. Not only does he bombard the reader with so many examples of Islamophobic actions taken by US officials, such as the FBI incident or the NYPD's "Operation Flex" involving observations of Muslim prayer-goers for signs of terrorist tendencies, he also ends his piece with a simple yet powerful message: "[abandoning national values] doesn't make us stronger; it makes us weaker, and more vulnerable." This is a powerful tactic used by persuasive writers to lead the reader into the direction they want to implicate.

My opinion on the growth of Islamophobic tendencies of US officials after the events of 9/11 was the same as Lean's even before reading this powerful article, but now it has given me a clearer picture of the rather messy situation that is not too hard for me to understand nor the opposite. Now that I'm informed about the specific cases in which the US officials are showing Islamophobic tendencies I could relate to the sensitivity and the stigma surrounding the issue. Reading this piece has also brought forward some new questions I have about this problem. How are these unjust "operations" legal? If supposedly trusted government authorities like the FBI and the NYPD act on unreliable, biased opinions and prejudices, are they to be trusted? I guess I'll find out by doing some more research on the topic.

Is Justice Served in "A Girl With a Pearl Earring"?

There are many "injustices" in the novel A Girl With a Pearl Earring by Tracy Chevalier. Some are small and seem trivial, like Griet having to deal with Cornelia's ruthless plans to cause her harm, and big ones that are a part of the conflict of the novel, such as Griet becoming a maid to provide for her family at the age of sixteen. All of these injustices, however, form the main conflict of the novel. In this story, the biggest injustice is perhaps Griet's limitation of freedom caused by the social class differences in the 1600s Europe. During that time period, a maid could not have been in a relationship with a famous painter, and teenage girls couldn't refuse working as a servant to provide for their families. Though Griet and Vermeer are attracted to each other, they cannot be in a real relationship, even if Vermeer didn't have a family. This is because of their socioeconomic differences.

*S P O I L E R* In the end of the novel, Griet finally leaves the Vermeer household, quitting her job as a maid, and later on we learn that Vermeer passes away. Griet visits the house after ten years, having heard his death, and Catharina unwillingly hands her her pearl earrings that Griet had worn during the painting of the now famous portrait. She glumly states that Vermeer had expressed this desire, for Catharina to give the earrings to Griet, in a letter days before his death. Griet takes the earrings, unsure of what to do with them, and unexpectedly decides to sell them, though not simply for the money. She pays for her family's debts with the money given in exchange of the earrings, but keeps the change, claiming that she would never spend it. This is to keep it as a reminder of him.

The ending is a form of justice because Griet finally breaks away from Vermeer's "world" she had been living in, even after his death, and becomes free. Towards the end she wonders whether she had stayed herself after all that has happened, referring back to the time van Leeuwenhoek had told her to do. Judging from the unexpected ending of the novel, I've decided that she has.