New Era for Bangladesh?

Landslide victories are becoming rarer in our times as distinctions between contesting parties blur and political objectives merge. It was thus all the more stunning when, in the Bangladesh parliamentary election held on December 29, the Awami League (AL) trounced Bangladesh National Party (BNP) 230 to 29 out of a total of 299 seats. In previous elections, the two parties eked out victories over each by the thinnest of margins.

The AL victory was so crushing that even its leaders found it hard to explain. That AL leader Sheikh Hasina appealed to the optimism and aspirations of Bangladeshis, as opposed to the campaign of fear and opportunism that BNP leader Khaleda Zia ran (anyone remember Barack Obama and John McCain?), had much to do with the outcome. While Hasina promoted the idea of a digital Bangladesh and specific goals for economic development, Khaleda tried to rally the people by promising them that she will “save Islam." Bangladeshis are sick and tired of politicians abusing religion to secure power. Not only did they reject BNP’s premise, they dealt all the religious parties a crushing defeat as well.

In the 2001 elections, for instance, the Jamaat-e-Islami party grabbed 17 seats and its leaders, in alliance with BNP, took control of two powerful ministries. Their fanaticism and misogyny brought untold misery to the people. This time, again as BNP's key ally in a four-party alliance, Jamaat's total haul was … 2. All of their leaders were soundly defeated at the polls. Another religious party did not win a single seat. It is a telling sign that two leftist parties – never popular in Bangladesh - won 5 seats, outperforming the Islamist organizations. The message is clear: Bangladeshis do not want to mix religion with politics.

What now? Both AL and BNP governed Bangladesh alternately since its independence, and under the watch of both, the country earned the dubious distinction of “most corrupt nation on earth.” Is it possible that this time it will be different, that Sheikh Hasina and her party will put the nation’s interest above political vendetta, nepotism and personal accumulation of wealth? Will this be the dawn of a prosperous and progressive Bangladesh?

It is a daunting challenge but miracles occasionally occur and sometimes events make the (wo)man. Sheikh Hasina will have a free hand in charting a new course and defining a new era for Bangladesh. There’s hope in that as well as danger. (Let's not forget that Richard Nixon, to cite an example, also won a landslide victory in 1972). If she surrounds herself with sycophants and incompetents as she did in her previous stint as the prime minister, Bangladesh may very well go under. But if she seizes this historic opportunity to help Bangladesh achieve its true potential, she will not only redeem herself and her father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founder of the nation, she will have made a lasting contribution to world peace and stability. And how can Sheikh Hasina help Bangladesh achieve its potential? By running a government of civility, law, accountability and non-partisanship, by curbing inflation and creating jobs, by building the infrastructure to harness the power of the Internet, by empowering the honest and the competent, and by enabling the native entrepreneurship of Bangladeshis to flower.

Align America's K-12 Students with International Standards

The sorry state of America’s K-12 public education system is highlighted by how its students fare on the international stage. In math and science, we rank 18th out of 24 industrialized nations. Occasional spikes in PISA test scores only underscore how far we have fallen behind nations like Singapore, Finland and Japan. Our high school dropout rate is a national catastrophe. The symptoms are endless. Even allowing for the tendency to be more pessimistic than what the situation warrants, it is clear that more than financial institutions, what needs urgent overhauling is our public school system. It is perhaps themost critical challenge for the Obama administration.

Recommendations about how to raise the standards of our schools to meet the demands of the 21st century continue to pour forth from various organizations and foundations. Bill Gates, speaking on behalf of the Gates Foundation, acknowledges that small classrooms and breaking up big schools into smaller units didn’t work because a key factor was missing: rigorous accountability. That includes elected school boards, teachers and IT departments. At the center of this is the teachers unions whose main function seem to be to protect teachers at any cost, particularly the incompetent. Gates is a fervent believer in weeding out bad teachers and paying the good ones substantially more than whatthey take home now. He is wary of increased federal intervention in education, which he thinks is fundamentally a state and local matter.

A new report from the National Governors Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and Achieve Inc., offers several recommendations for rebuilding America’s public education system. Called “Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World-Class Education,” it lists five steps toward building a globally competitive education system in America.

1. Upgrade state standards by adopting a common core of internationally benchmarked standards in math and language arts for grades K-12.
2. Leverage states’ collective influence to ensure that textbooks, digital media, curricula, and assessments are aligned to internationally benchmarked standards.
3. Revise state policies for recruiting, preparing, developing, and supporting teachers and school leaders to reflect the human capital practices of top-performing nations and states around the world.
4. Hold schools and systems accountable through monitoring, interventions, and support to ensure consistently high performance, drawing upon international best practices.
5. Measure state-level education performance globally by examining student achievement and attainment in an international context to ensure that students are receiving the education they need to compete in the 21st century economy.

This is the most detailed report I have seen where performance of American students have been tied to the performance of international students. It is a recognition that we must have the humility to borrow from countries like Finland and Singapore whose educational practices continue to pay enormous educational, economic and social dividends for them. We know what these practices are: Attract the best and the brightest to the teaching profession by training them extensively and rewarding them with high pay, track teacher and student performances rigorously and ruthlessly and take proactive actions where necessary, and never let politics trump accountability and high standards. Not really secrets, are they?

Achieving a common academic standard is a most daunting challenge. As Lou Gerstner, an educator and former chairman of IBM, has pointed out, there are over 15,000 school districts in America, each with its own standards, curriculum, teacher selection, classroom rules and so on.

Can the recommendations of the governors be implemented? The question is: Who can take on the bruising battle with conflicting interest groups and entrenched mindsets that cannot see beyond the next curve in the road? The federal government can go just so far. “No Child Left Behind” has been manipulated beyond recognition in many states. The bar for academic performance has been shamelessly lowered to allow school administrators to claim that their woefully unprepared wards are moving forward and not being left behind. States are in the grips of boards and unions and any call for changes get mired in endless debates and deliberations. (Hence the success of charter schools).

It really is up to the American people. Where there is a will, there is a way. This spirit has guided Americans for more than two centuries, particularly during difficult times. The critical mass is there. Can the Obama administration be the catalyst for bringing about fundamental changes in our K-12 public education system? Unless something goes terribly awry, I believe it can.

Cutting the Gordian Knot of America's Public Education System

In a recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal (12/1/08), Lou Gerstner, the former CEO of IBM and chairman of the Teaching Commission from 2003-2006, summarized his ideas for rescuing the nation’s failing public school system. They are forceful and provocative and merit attention from Obama and his education secretary.

Gerstner disarms his critics by putting America’s school reformation movement in context. “Despite decade after decade of reform efforts, our public K-12 schools have not improved.” That surely includes the efforts of the Teaching Commission that he led for 4 years. “Why,” he asks, “after millions of pages, in thousands of reports, from hundreds of commissions and task forces, financed by billions of dollars, have we failed to achieve any significant progress?”

As Gerstner notes, the problem isn't "what to do," nor is it a failure of commitment. Instead, he believes that “the problem lies with the structure and corporate governance of our public schools. We have over 15,000 school districts in America; each of them, in its own way, is involved in standards, curriculum, teacher selection, classroom rules and so on. This unbelievably unwieldy structure is incapable of executing a program of fundamental change. While we have islands of excellence as a result of great reform programs, we continually fail to scale up systemic change.”

To transform the school system, he identifies four key elements: 1) Set high academic standards for all of our kids, supported by a rigorous curriculum. 2) Greatly improve the quality of teaching in our classrooms, supported by substantially higher compensation for our best teachers. 3) Measure student and teacher performance on a systematic basis, supported by tests and assessments. 4) Increase "time on task" for all students; this means more time in school each day, and a longer school year.

(Italics are mine to indicate the enormous political challenge these requirements will pose for the Obama administration, even if only a subset is considered).

Who can quarrel with these suggestions? In one form or another, they have been proposed several times over the years, only to die on the vine, as Gerstner himself concedes.

So what can Barack Obama and Arne Duncan do to ensure that it's different this time? As Gerstner sees it, the particular solution he proposes is challenging but doable: a) Abolish all local school districts, saving only 70 from the 20 largest cities in 50 states. b) Establish a set of national standards for a core curriculum comprising, for a start, reading, math, science and social studies. c) Establish a National Skills Day to test every third, sixth, ninth and 12th-grader against the national standards and publish the result. d) Establish national standards for teacher certification and require regular re-evaluations of teacher skills. Teacher skills are to be judged against one criterion only: advances in student learning. Those who succeed must be able to earn well in excess of $100,000 per year while underperforming teachers must be purged. e) Extend the school day and the school year to effectively add 20 more days of schooling for all K-12 students.

Can such a solution, or variations thereof, be implemented? Local school districts will undoubtedly put up bitter fights. There will certainly be the inevitable, debilitating clash between Teachers’ Union and the “progressives.”

But the students themselves are hungry for change and parents and concerned citizens are supportive of overhauling the nation’s public school system. They have given Obama the mandate to do so. The 44th president must make it a priority of his administration to cut the Gordian Knot of America’s public education system and transform it into a source of creativity. America's future depends on it.

A Journalist's Despicable Behavior

Muntadar al-Zeidi may have found his five minutes of fame but what he did was despicable. By hurling shoes at George Bush, visiting Iraq for the last time as president, he shamed a culture known for extending hospitality even toward the despised.

Bush will probably go down as the worst president in U.S. history, displacing perennial bottom-dweller James Buchanan (1857-1861). His manufactured war has caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis in the 5 1/2-year war. His Manichean worldview has brought untold sufferings to a vast section of humanity. And his fiscal ignorance and irresponsibility has contributed to the economic meltdown now sweeping the world. He is a disgraced person that the world cannot wait to see retire.

Still, to throw shoes at a visitor is an insult that speaks volumes for the thrower rather than the thrown. There are those who feel gleeful but there are also those who are shamed and outraged by al-Zeidi’s behavior. Iraqis need authentic leaders who can summon their best instincts to rebuild their tattered nation. This will not be accomplished by people succumbing to their basest instincts for personal revenge. George Bush can salvage some goodwill and dignity for himself by asking the Iraqi giovernment to pardon the misguided and stupid journalist.

Indian Muslims Take a Stand

In an unprecedented move, Indian Muslims have refused to bury in their graveyards the nine terrorists who killed almost 200 people and injured many more in India's financial hub last week. The Muslim Jama Masjid Trust, which runs a 7.5-acre graveyard in the heart of Mumbai, said it would not bury the gunmen because they were not true followers of Islam. Declared a spokesman for the trust: “People who committed this heinous crime cannot be called Muslim. Islam does not permit this sort of barbaric crime.” Other Muslim organizations throughout India have voiced support for the decision by the Trust.

The president of the Indian Muslim Council, Ibrahim Tai, said that the terrorists had defamed Islam. "They are not Muslims as they have not followed our religion which teaches us to live in peace. If the government does not respect our demands we will take up extreme steps. We do not want the bodies of people who have committed an act of terrorism to be buried in our cemeteries." Many Muslim groups have vowed to take to the streets in protest if the authorities force the militants to be buried in Muslim graveyards.

Against the backdrop of the terrible tragedy that befell Mumbai last week, this stand by Indian Muslims offers some solace. The terrorists and their masterminds who claim Islam as their religion must know that they have been exposed for what they are: cold-blooded killers with no respect for life. They will find no place on earth because their abode is hell.

P.S. On December 8, thousands of Muslim men, women and children came out on the streets of Mumbai to denounce the terrorists. "We disown and denounce all those who kill in the name of jihad. Terrorists are fascists and enemies of Muslims as Islam doesn't preach killing of innocents," said poet-lyricist Javed Akhtar.

For the first time, liberal Muslims were joined by clerics from organizations such as the Jamiat-ul-Ulema in expressing anger at terrorists who have hijacked Islam. Actor Javed Jaffrey said Muslims had to speak out because "it was Islam that was being maligned. There is nothing called Islamic terrorism. Islam is being misinterpreted by some groups. They kill people in the name of jihad. A religion that asks its members to greet each other with `Assalamu Alaikum (peace be with you)' could never

Actor Farooq Sheikh said: "Terrorists are Muslims' number one enemy.” Activist Alyque Padamsee explained that there were two types of Muslims - real and fake. "Terrorists are fake Muslims while peace-loving tolerant Muslims are the real Muslims," he said. "... The killing of innocents is wrong. Those who don't believe it are fake Muslims. Committing suicide is a sin in Islam, so how can a suicide bomber believe he will go to paradise?”

From Here to Infinity

One Two Three . . . Infinity by George Gamow is a classic that has introduced generations of readers, laymen and professionals alike, to the pleasures of mathematics and science. The experience of Sheldon Glashow, who shared the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics with Abdus Salam and Steven Weinberg, is typical: "One book, which I found in 1947 when I was 15 was the book by George Gamow called One, Two, Three - Infinity, which I still re-read from time to time. It's just a book describing the wonders of nature and, to the extent that a high school kid could understand, how we understand things about nature. That was one book I really appreciated."

First published in 1947 and revised in 1961, Gamow uses far-ranging knowledge, humor, imagination and his delightful and idiosyncratic pen-and-ink illustrations to explain the challenges and discoveries of science. His conversational writing style draws the reader in, and even thought parts of it have become dated, his book succeeds in achieving that most elusive of goals: kindle our sense of wonder at nature's mysteries.

Gamow begins with the strange yet familiar number infinity. How does one count it? Are there different types of infinities? Can two infinities be compared? Gamow calls Georg Cantor (1845-1918) the founder of the "arithmetics of infinity" and explains how his idea of Sets gave us a new way of grasping infinity's significance.

(Random associations appear unbidden. Gamow calculates that the number of sand grains necessary to fill up the visible universe would be over 10100, that is, 1 followed by 100 zeros. The mathematical term for 10100 is Googol. That is what Larry Page and Sergey Brin wanted to call their start-up but through a misspelling, the company they co-founded became known as Google.)

Gamow devotes several chapters exploring the properties of space and time using nothing more than middle/high school arithmetic, and gives a good overview of the ideas that led to Einstein's Special and General Theory of Relativity. He "uncovers" atomic and nuclear physics by tracing their historical roots from the Greeks, progressing all the way to the "modern alchemy" of radioactivity, fission, fusion and elementary particles. The discovery and implications of nuclear chain reactions are particularly well-told.

The value of Gamow's narrative on the foundation of modern physics lies not in its completeness (it is obviously not) but in its capacity to inspire readers to explore the subject in greater detail on their own.

Perhaps the most masterful chapter is "The Law of Disorder." This physical law is also known as "The Law of Statistical Behavior" and Gamow goes through various examples, including the "Drunkard's Walk," to show how scientists can draw profound conclusions about nature by looking at seemingly ordinary problems "a little more attentively" than the average person. Two examples he cites are Brownian motion and diffusion. There is also a discussion of probability and the Law of Entropy that is instructive and entertaining.

"The Riddle of Life" chapter reflects Gamow's interest in biology, a field that he took on as a physicist and to which he ended up making fundamental contributions. The last chapters deal with the study of planets, stars, galaxies and beyond.

One would not know by reading One Two Three . . . Infinity that Gamow made seminal contributions to nuclear and quantum physics, and that he was one of the chief architects of the Big Bang Theory, the idea that the universe began in a terrifyingly hot explosion that flung the stars and galaxies in all directions in an expanding universe. As far back as 1948, Gamow predicted that the radiation from the Big Bang must be filling the universe. Many physicists believe that he deserved a Nobel Prize for his daring theory and prediction. However, it was not to be. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson won the physics Nobel Prize in 1978 "for their discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation." In 2006, John Mather and George Smoot won the physics Nobel Prize for "increased support for the Big Bang scenario for the origin of the universe."

Be that as it may, Gamow's reputation as a scientist is secure, not only because of his original contributions in many areas (an anomaly in our era of narrow specializations), but also because of the way he popularized science and inspired generations of readers to tune in to the wonders of the "microcosmos" and the "macrocosmos." One, Two, Three - Infinity reflects the spirit of this brilliant scientist and master storyteller.

Madness in Mumbai

I saw a movie called “Slumdog Millionaire” that opened yesterday. Set in Mumbai (formerly Bombay), this Bollywood production is about the stirring story of Jamal Malik, an orphan who has witnessed and experienced unspeakable horrors but who goes on to win 2 crores of rupees in the wildly popular Indian TV show called “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?”

Jamal was born in the teeming slums of Mumbai. When he was about 5, his mother was killed by a Hindu mob in a burst of communal violence. He and his older sibling Salim are “rescued” by criminals whose “business” consists of turning helpless slum orphans into lifelong beggars and prostitutes, and a constant source of income, by disfiguring and brutalizing them.

The two brothers manage to escape and a harrowing sequence of events and escapades follow, with Jamal finally, and improbably, facing the arrogant game-show host. Each question is the source of flashbacks about how he came to acquire its answer through the hard knocks of life that he had to endure. While the older Salim becomes the goon of a godfather and loses his soul (eventually he redeems himself), Jamal retains his integrity in adversity while nurturing a keen aptitude for factoids. Not only does he win a gigantic pile of cash, in the end he even gets the girl. Bollywood melodrama notwithstanding, all of us came out of the theatre smiling.

The smile did not last. With life imitating art but in reverse, on the very same day, Muslim terrorists attacked luxury hotels, train stations, a synagogue and even hospitals in Mumbai, killing over a hundred people and injuring many more. These nihilists fired at random, apparently with “serene smiles” on their faces, as bodies fell around them.

No definitive details have emerged about them yet, but it is difficult to even imagine how human beings can become so brainwashed and turn into such cold-blooded murderers.

The murderous rampage by a few Muslim terrorists have made Muslims everywhere, particularly Indian Muslims, angry, frustrated and vulnerable. The last thing India, and the world, needs is Hindu-Muslim violence. Terrorism threatens us all. It is against all the values that we hold dear. It is against everything that gives life its meaning, irrespective of religion and culture. Terrorists have their own "religion," no matter what they may call themselves, and the essence of that "religion" is to hate and kill. We must unite against it. That is the only way we can defeat it. There is no other way.

Sink the Somali Pirates!

In the gloom of market collapse and foreclosures and layoffs, there was a rare burst of sunshine last week. An Indian frigate destroyed a Somali “mother” pirate ship in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Africa. Three speedboats packed with pirates unfortunately escaped.

These ruthless Somali brigands are causing havoc on maritime trade and costing the global economy millions. There have been 90 attacks this year alone, leading to the hijacking of 14 ships and 250 crew members, the latest being a tanker with $100 million worth of Saudi crude. The pirates’ goal: astronomical ransom in exchange for release of ship and crew.

Is the international community so helpless that these high-sea assaults cannot be stopped? The Indian Navy has proven otherwise by confronting the Somali warlords-turned pirates with decisive force.

I have some Somali friends in San Jose who are so outraged by the shame and horror these pirates have inflicted on the reputation of their country that they struggle for words. As they see it, there are only two rules of engagement with the pirates:

• Shoot first, ask questions later
• Capture as many as possible and put them on trial for a world-wide audience

Who will take the responsibility? Actually, any country’s navy can send the rogue ship and speedboats to the bottom of the ocean. Just ask the Indians. What is required is resolve and action. In spite of its disastrous involvement in 1993, my Somali friends feel that the United States should still play a leading role in putting an end to these attacks. Ordinary Somalis are trapped between the lawless and violent ways of rival warlords and are forced to suffer in silence in their failed state. Pirates have always been, and will always be, enemies of the human race. Their fervent wish is for the scourge of the pirates to end before the year is over.

Rabindranath Tagore: Poet, Activist and Educator

When he won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1913, the great Indian poet Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) was virtually unknown in the West.

His Gitanjali (“Song Offerings”), a collection of poems championed by William Butler Yeats, secured for him the highest prize in literature over contenders like Thomas Hardy and Anatole France. Tagore went on to create a body of work greater in scope and power than Gitanjali. His true genius bloomed after the Nobel Prize, a fact unique in the history of literature.

A significant amount of Tagore’s work is infused with a vision of the greatness he saw possible in his native land, a confluence of civilizations due to Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Christians, Moguls, Dravidians, and Aryans. India, as he saw it, was greater than the sum of its parts. Through poems and plays, speeches and songs, he strove for this possibility to the end of his day.

Britain in Tagore’s time ruled India with an iron hand. But the rulers were becoming nervous. A young activist named Mohandas Gandhi had returned from South Africa in 1915 to lead the nationalist movement, becoming a proponent of Satyagraha (literally, “eagerness for truth” but more commonly interpreted as passive or non-violent resistance) to British rule. Although Tagore and Gandhi differed on ways to achieve independence, both believed in regenerating their people through the curbing of communal instincts. The challenge of this possibility continues to this day.

Politics did not interest Tagore but that did not keep him from boldly opposing British tyranny. When government troops led by English officers opened fire on a political gathering in Amritsar in 1919, killing 379 Indians and wounding scores of others, Tagore renounced the knighthood that England had bestowed on him four years earlier. As a poet, he felt it was the strongest statement he could make to draw world attention to the crime.

It cost him friendship and popularity in the literary circles of Europe and even in America, but he considered this act one of the high points of his life. It was also during this time that he composed some of his most powerful poems against oppression and injustice. When Gandhi was imprisoned without trial in 1932, he condemned it. In a letter to England’s Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald, he warned that the British were closing the door on peaceful negotiations with Indian leaders.

Tagore was self-taught. Attempts by his parents to educate him in schools had failed. Young Rabindranath found conventional classrooms suffocating. In 1901, he founded an experimental school at Shantiniketan (“Abode of Peace”) near Calcutta, free from traditional restrictions. Classes were held in open air and joy in learning was given the highest importance.

By 1921, the school had evolved into Vishwa-Bharati University (World University) where students from all over India came to study. It is a testimony to Tagore’s ideal that funding for the University came from both Hindus and Muslims.

Tagore did not live long enough to see the end of the British Raj and the partition of the sub-continent along religious lines in 1947. He died six years earlier, still nurturing a harmonious vision of India, as riots were flaring.

In “The Religion of Men,” a set of lectures delivered at Oxford in 1930, Tagore said: “Freedom in the mere sense of independence has no content, and therefore no meaning. Perfect freedom lies in a harmony of relationship.” In an earlier poem, he had written of the perfect union of knowledge and freedom that he came to embody in his own supremely creative and protean life:

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by
narrow domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arm toward perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the
dreary desert of dead habit;
Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening
thought and action;
Into that heaven of freedom, my father, let my country awake.

Sense in the Time of Hardship

As economic misery mounts for the average American, pundits are busy pointing fingers. You can almost hear them coo: “I told you so!” Yet the same pundits told us before the bubble broke that we were in the era of limitless prosperity, that only the sky was the limit for hedge funds and stocks. The laissez faire market stretched to its extreme has gone bust. Bankers don’t regulate banks any more than inmates regulate asylums. (Coming to think of it, that’s what has been going on in these institutions of higher capitalism!) Ascribing altruism to Wall Street executives makes as much sense as asking a tyrant to punish himself for his crimes.

With the onset of the credit crunch and the scaling down of various forms of want, I have noticed a rather funny reaction among my fellow Muslims. It is a variation of “I told you so,” only more arrogant. If only people were not as greedy or selfish or unjust, this would not have happened, they say, conveniently forgetting that on average, Muslims are as guilty of unchecked materialism as anyone else. All scriptures advise believers not to live beyond their means, not to consume recklessly, not to engage in usurious transactions. But, of course, belief is easy and action difficult.

We need to change our habits and attitudes. Looking back, I see how much “stuff” I bought over the years that I had no use for. My overfilled garage bears testimony to my expensive foolishness. I had to have these things because … well, it was cool to have them. It satisfied a primal hunger for possessions that I felt helpless to resist until economic reality set in. Now the latest in digital cameras and smart phones and smarter toasters leave me looking the other way, in disgust or indifference.

I doubt that we will ever return to the “less is more” trend of the ‘60s and ‘70s but at least we are beginning to reflect on what is important and what is not, what is "need" and what is "want." We knew all along that as the newness of a gadget or a tool or a car or a house wears off, it loses its grip on our psyche and on our sense of happiness. But it made no difference to our desire to acquire, relentlessly and indiscriminately. Tough adjustment, however, has revealed the stark emptiness of toys, gilded or plain, and we are the better for it. If only this sense lasts even if the “good times” were to return!

Crossing the Race Rubicon

The improbable candidate achieved the unimaginable and overnight, the world became a better place.

Four years ago, the president-elect said at the Democratic National Convention, “I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that, in no other country on earth, is my story even possible.”

Last night, it all came together for Barack ("blessing" in Swahili) Hussein Obama in a way that even he could not have dreamed in 2004.

Obama stirred hope in the hearts of people, not just in America but around the globe, but let us not forget that he matched his hope with hard work, undaunted by setbacks and by those who said, “No you can’t.”

“Yes we can” is now a part of the American vocabulary.

By electing an African-American as the 44th president of the United States, America has finally crossed the race Rubicon.

Martin Luther King’s dream that we should be judged not by the color of our skins but by the content of our character is now a reality, even if tempered by memories of hidden wounds too painful for some to forget.

African-Americans voted overwhelmingly for Obama but he could not have been elected president if whites did not vote for him in such unprecedented numbers also, from idealistic students and blue collar workers to liberal intellectuals and Hollywood moguls. Consider this stark fact: North Dakota, Utah, Montana, Vermont, Nebraska and New Mexico went for Obama although there isn't much of an African-American presence in those six states. The biggest shocker of all: Obama won North Carolina and Indiana, two of the reddest states in America. Until now.

America has become colorblind.

While this holds profound lessons for all, it is particularly meaningful for European nations where immigrants are often treated as second-class citizens even after decades of invaluable contributions to their respective societies. Perhaps Obama’s victory will convince France, England, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Spain and other countries to also become colorblind and inclusive. There really is no other way.

Until now, when the world looked up to America, it was because of its science and technology and medicine. But now the world will also look at America with awe and wonder because of its socially enlightened citizenry. Who could have ever imagined that?

Reversing the “either you are with us or against us” threat that defined George Bush’s belligerent foreign policy is a priority for Barack Obama. He has promised to meet unconditionally with any world leader to discuss and negotiate peace. The international temperature seems to have already cooled by a few degrees, and even though securing agreements with nations alienated by American arrogance may take time, the prospects are promising, given the spontanaeous outpouring of global goodwill for the president-elect.

The danger posed by global warming is another priority. Throughout his campaign, Obama spoke passionately about the earth’s dwindling resources, its relentless exploitation by all but Western countries in particular, the urgency of clean energy sources, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint, and legislating sane policies based on scientific evidences to protect us and our children from rising seas and diminishing landmass.

But the sheer wonder of an African-American making the White House his home for at least the next four years is so astonishing that it blocks out other thoughts.

It was on New Year’s Day in 1863 that Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. A hundred years later, in 1963, Martin Luther King informed Americans and the world that he had a dream. A year later, Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, outlawing racial segregation in schools, public places, and employment. Johnson followed it up with the National Voting Rights Act in 1965 to empower African-Americans to cast ballots without fear.

But the laws were only theories and it took many more years before they became reality for those they were meant to protect. A movie currently playing in theatres –The Secret Life of Bees – based on the best-selling novel of the same title by Sue Monk Kidd – gives viewers an idea of how many lives were lost and shattered before African-Americans could actually vote.

While many commentators have reflected on these historic milestones in the wake of Obama’s victory, one name has gone unmentioned. It is that of Muhammad Ali. Obama inspired us with the audacity of hope but in the ‘60s, Ali lifted our spirits with his raw audacity alone. From “I have seen the light and I am crowing” to “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Viet Cong,” Ali spoke truth to power, opening raw wounds in the psyche of America that provoked anger and revulsion but in the end proved cathartic for the nation. The change that he brought about through his audacity and moral courage surely played a role in the election that transfixed us on November 4th and transformed the world.

P.S. Toni Morrison, the last American to win the Nobel Prize in literature in 1993, gave an interview to The Wall Street Journal on 11/7/2008. The relevant excerpt follows:

Q. What do you think Mr. Obama's win says about American conception of race?

A. We're still a very active, volcanic country which is part of its excitement - the reinvention of ourselves and the constant search for what democracy means. I'm keenly aware of this peculiarity for this country. You couldn't imagine a win like this in Europe, because they're more static in how they run things. I can't imagine a Senegalese man in Paris running France - but now maybe.

Q. It's interesting that very little of the public discourse about Mr. Obama deals with his mixed-race status.

A. The other part of his race and his cultural experience was swept under the rug. That was deliberate so he could be the quintessential American even though the country was built on diversity. They had to tiptoe around that, but I think that nuanced discussion will happen. I kept saying that this is not an African-America but it's this specific man. This man. I can think of a lot of African-American that I would not vote for.

“A Rendezvous with Destiny”

In Abraham Lincoln’s time in the 1860s, it was the question of Union and Disunion, of slavery and freedom. In Franklin Roosevelt’s time in the 1930s, it was the Great Depression with its unending bread lines, and recovery through the New Deal.

During George Bush’s eight years of presidency, described by the late author David Foster Wallace as “an unmitigated horror show of rapacity, hubris, incompetence, mendacity, corruption, cynicism and contempt for the electorate,” history repeated itself. An unspoken civil war now exists between the haves and the have-nots, subtler but no less lethal for the Union. In Northern California where I live, I see more and more people – white and black - standing by the roadside and in front of grocery stores, holding up signs that read: “Hungry. Please help.”

In their time, Americans chose Lincoln and Roosevelt to save the country. Who will they choose on November 4th this year? Lincoln speaks to us across the century and a half that separate his time from ours: “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds …” Roosevelt’s words also resonate across the years: “Only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

One candidate has articulated these ideals in his campaign, convincing a vast number of voters that he can bind the nation’s wounds, reverse the economic meltdown and bring the old America back, the America that the world used to look up to, a strong and prosperous nation that put its power in the service of justice and peace at home and abroad.

That candidate is Barack Obama, the senator from Illinois, land of Lincoln.

Born in Hawaii of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas, this cosmopolitan, contemplative man has gained the confidence of Americans across party lines. He has called us to a higher purpose, in which liberty and equality are not enemies but symbiotically related, and we have responded. His steady resolve, inclusive worldview, common sense and sound judgment, combined with his grace and eloquence, has so energized Americans that this election may see the highest voter turnout in U.S. history.

If one were to summarize the reasons for Obama’s astonishing rise, it would be that he engaged in the politics of hope while McCain engaged in the politics of fear.

Particularly for young Americans, this hope over fear has fired their imagination even more than what John Kennedy, the architect of the New Frontier, was able to accomplish in 1960. Obama defined his message of hope in his keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004: “Hope in the face of difficulty, hope in the face of uncertainty, the audacity of hope … that is God's greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation, a belief in things not seen, a belief that there are better days ahead.”
An upset can still occur on November 4th. That is why Obama has appealed to his supporters not to become complacent even for a minute and to make sure that they all vote on Election Day.

McCain and Palin launched unethical, unfounded attacks against Obama by questioning his patriotism, dropping innuendos about his middle name, calling him a “socialist redistributionist” (whatever that means) and accusing him of consorting with terrorists. Americans are fed up with these negative and fear-mongering tactics. They see McCain as an extension of Bush's failed policies, and recognize that an intelligent, intellectually curious and visionary African-American, “a transformational candidate” in the words of Colin Powell, can guide the nation toward a new and humane direction as Lincoln and Roosevelt did during their times.

What about the rest of the world? Gallup Polls recently conducted in 70 countries representing nearly half the world’s population reveal that 3 out of 4 favor Obama over McCain in the U.S. presidential election.

Can Barack Hussein Obama rise to the post-election challenges if elected? Can he meet the post-election expectations? Talking heads are already raising these questions, and certainly the challenges and expectations will be exceptionally difficult to face and fulfill, but in these final hours, Americans are animated by only one hope, that after almost eight years of unrelenting national darkness, they will awake to a fresh and promising dawn on November 5th.

In 1936, Franklin Roosevelt said: “This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny.” Seventy-two years later, so do we, so do we.

Nobel Scientists for Obama

Science took a severe beating from George Bush and his administration. Funding for cutting-edge research dried up in physics, chemistry, biology and medicine. Where once the U.S. dominated, from high-energy physics to medical research, the scientific frontier has slowly moved to Europe. That’s where most of the exciting work in science is done these days. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the world’s most powerful particle accelerator at the Swiss-France border, is only one example.

In an open letter to the American people, 76 American Nobel Prize-winning scientists (including the three chemisty and physics laureates this year) endorsed Barack Obama for president. (Martin Chalfie, the chemistry winner, has even recorded a video of his endorsement). They are the Who’s Who of American science. Their passionate support for Obama and disdain for Bush, and by extension of McCain and Palin, should be a wake-up call for Americans struggling to understand why we as a nation have fallen behind other countries in basic scientific research. Only the other day, the clueless Sarah Palin mocked fruit fly research as a waste of taxpayers’ money. Christopher Hitchens’ devastating deconstruction of Palin’s ignorance and the importance of fruit fly research that led to a Nobel Prize for Thomas Hunt Morgan in 1933 makes for fascinating reading.

P.S. 11/1/08 - Here is another response to Palin's "scientific" observations on the fruit fly by a scientist.

Beyond Hypocrisy

Just when you think you have seen, read and heard it all, comes disclosure that Sarah Palin’s stylist was paid $22,800 for the first two weeks of October alone by the Republican National Committee, while her traveling hair stylist was paid $10,000 for “communications consulting” in the same period. This is after revelation that the RNC spent $150,000 for Palin’s wardrobe, dressing her up with the latest in fashion from such upscale stores as Saks and Neiman Marcus. Is there anything wrong in making the VP candidate look her best? One may cry sexism here but the real issue is not whether Palin should be transformed into a knockout to improve GOP’s chance to win the election; no, it is more the case of whether the Wasilla mom can claim with a straight face that she represents Joe six-pack and wall-mart shoppers struggling to make ends meet. She cannot but the Republican Party has decided that Palin, not McCain, is their last, best hope to win the election and so why not let the mendacity and the crocodile tears flow from one made easy on the eye with the best makeup and clothes money can buy? Alas, it will not work, for while Republican operatives believe that you can judge a book by its cover, American voters know better.

An intriguing opinion piece in the Washington Post today by Kathleen Parker may explain the attention lavished on Sarah Palin by the Republican National Committee. John McCain may have something to do with it.

More on mendacity: Ashley Todd, the young white McCain staffer in Pittsburgh who claimed she was assaulted by a 6-foot-4-inch black Obama supporter and who carved the letter "B" (backwards) on her face ... well, it was a pathetic hoax involving self-mutilation. Todd was reading from a script that predates the civil war. She was also unknowingly invoking literature. Remember Atticus Finch defending a black man falsely accused of rape in "To Kill a Mockingbird?" As soon as the story broke, McCain and Palin called Todd to express their sympathies. Drudge Report carried a screaming banner on its home page. Right-wing outlets like the New York Post could hardly contain their glee at the obvious symbolism of the story: "How dare a black man, given his race's violent past and present, aspire to the highest office in the land?" To their credit, Pittsburgh police didn't fall for this ancient race-baiting and Todd's story soon fell apart under scrutiny. My guess is that quite a few undecided white voters across the nation will now vote for Obama because of this incident.

The Irresistible Lure of the Blog

The desire to express one's uninhibited, passionate opinion to a world-wide audience through writing may have been enabled by the Internet but the instinct is ancient. The power of now, which may serve as a definition of blog, is impossible to deny once you have taken the bait. In a perceptive essay in the Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan traces his discovery of the medium and explains how its intoxicating immediacy made an enormous impact on him. I read the essay for a personal reason. I wanted to find out what a blogger has to do to attract readers. Whatever Sullivan blogs, it instantly draws comments from four corners of the country, if not the globe. The same is true of other established media personalities. But for the vast majority of bloggers, we toil in obscurity. We seem to make waves on a part of the blog ocean where no ship, no boat, not even a dinghy ventures forth. Sullivan received invaluable advice from Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report when he was starting out. The master informed him in 2001 that "the key to understanding a blog is to realize that it's a broadcast, not a publication. If it stops moving, it dies. If it stops paddling, it sinks."

Excellent advice but how to capture those initial eyeballs with a zillion blogs vying for attention? A growing network of friends in Facebook and Myspace will not hurt. Maybe languishing bloggers can form their own network and take on the big guns and suddenly we become equal, relishing brutal comments from outraged readers. We do not blog for money, although that would be nice, but only ask that you read our stuff and let us have it. Keep moving and paddling and suddenly one day ... well, a core group of discerning readers will do, at least for starters.

My Name as an Albatross

In the more than two decades that I have been working at various high-tech companies in Silicon Valley, I have never encountered any prejudice at the workplace because of my race or religion. But lately a thought has been steadily creeping into my mind: If I were to run for public office even, say, at the local school board level, would my name become an albatross around my neck?

I have been thinking about this since John McCain and Sarah Palin began encouraging the use of Barack Obama’s middle name – Hussein – in their rallies to suggest that he was the Other, and therefore is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” I find attempts by them to associate Obama with terrorists and America-haters a smokescreen for the real accusation: Obama carries a Muslim middle name and that is reason enough to bar him from contesting for the highest office in the land.

This is the mindset that says: American Muslims can rise in their profession and shine in their fields, but if they to aspire to high public offices, they must be prevented by any means necessary since they pose a threat of one kind or another to America.

You can count on your fingers the number of Muslims holding high public offices in America. One of the most notable is Keith Ellison, a converted Muslim Congressman from Minnesota, who is known not for the legislation that he helps frame and pass but that he is a Muslim who took the oath of office holding a Quran that belonged to Thomas Jefferson.

I find the desperate tactics of John McCain in the last days of the 2008 presidential election particularly disappointing. In his book “Character is Destiny,” McCain wrote that “It is your character, and your character alone, that will make your life happy or unhappy. That is all that really passes for destiny.” He gives us glimpses into the lives of Gandhi, Lincoln, Mandela, Joan of Arc, Leonardo da Vinci and many others from the past and the present to teach us what constitutes character: qualities like honor, purpose, understanding, forgiveness and love.

As the harsh and ugly rhetoric of McCain and Palin show, however, occupying the Oval Office trumps the “Character is Destiny” stuff. When the presidency of the United States is at stake, winning at any cost, including encouraging your supporters to call your opponent a “traitor,” a “terrorist,” a “liar,” even approving with silence the threat by some in the crowd to “kill him,” is fair game. This is hypocrisy.

Barack Obama is a more practicing Christian than John McCain is but that does not prevent millions of Americans into believing that he is a Muslim, not just because of the fake stories circulating on the Web but because that's what they want to believe. The implication is that being a Muslim is somehow un-American, a real show-stopper to running for the presidency. It's a reincarnation of McCarthyism in the 21st century. Does it say anywhere in the U.S. Constitution that even if you are born in America, you cannot run for the presidency if you happen to be a Muslim?

Still, I am thankful that Obama’s candidacy has forced this issue on the conscience of Americans. I am optimistic that we will come to grips with it in a way consistent with the vision of the founding fathers. Many Americans forget that the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965), giving full citizenship powers to African-Americans, passed less than fifty years ago. (It is also worth noting that the hero of the Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, opposed both these Acts). While racism still persists in subtler forms in America today, African-Americans are not fighting for a seat at the table but are focused on reducing the achievement gap with whites. The goal is loftier because the majority of Americans made the difficult sacrifices in the past to banish our baser social and political institutions.

So I am hopeful that whether it is Ashoka or Ahmed or Aparna or Almaraz or Ming or Nguyen who may be contesting the presidential election, a time will soon come when race, religion or name will matter as much to the voters as the brand of toothpaste that the candidate uses. I may be reluctant to contest in any election now but my children may not think twice about running for public offices if they choose to when that time comes. When that happens, we Americans will learn to appreciate the wisdom of one of our greatest poets, Walt Whitman, who said in his “Poem of Salutation” in the timeless “Leaves of Grass” (1856): "I hear the Arab muezzin calling from the top of the mosque, . . . / I hear the Christian priests at the altars of their churches, / I hear the Hebrew reading his records and psalms, . . . / I hear the Hindu teaching his favorite pupil."

P.S. (10/19/08) - This morning Gen. Colin Powell, a Republican, forcefully endorsed Barack Obama as president of the United States. His endorsement included these words: "I'm also troubled by, not what Sen. McCain says, but what members of the party say, and it is permitted to be said such things as: "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is: he is not a Muslim. He's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is: What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is: No, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim-American kid believing he or she can be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion: he's (Obama) a Muslim, and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America."

Gen. Powell also cited the death of a 20-year-old Muslim soldier named Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan of Manahawkin, N.J., who was killed in Iraq on Aug. 6, 2007, who was awarded a Purple Heart and Bronze Star, and who was buried in Arlington National cemetery. “He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he could go serve his country, and he gave his life,” Gen. Powell said. “Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourselves in this way.” He was moved to comment on Sultan Khan after seeing a picture of the young soldier's mother pressing her head against her fallen son's gravestone at Arlington.

The larger implications of Powell's endorsement can also be read in this excellent review.

Blog Network:

Name:
American Literature Second-Rate, says Swedish Noble Judge

Topics:
Nobel Prize Literature, Swedish Academy, Wendell Berry

Join my network

Blog Networks

American Literature is Second-Rate, Says Swedish Nobel Judge

The 2008 Nobel Prize in literature has just been announced and – surprise! - an American did not win it. The prize went to Frenchman Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio for his “new departures, poetic adventure and sensual ecstasy, explorer of a humanity beyond and below the reigning civilization.”

What has provoked strong reaction on both sides of the Pacific and the Atlantic is the comment last week by Horace Engdahl, permanent secretary of the Swedish Academy that awards the Nobel Prize for Literature. "Of course there is powerful literature in all big cultures,” said Engdahl, “but you can't get away from the fact that Europe still is the center of the literary world ... not the United States.” He asserted that American writers are "too sensitive to trends in their own mass culture," which drags down their quality. Any other shortcomings? "The U.S. is too isolated, too insular. They don't translate enough and don't really participate in the big dialogue of literature," said the honorable judge. "That ignorance is restraining."

In a news conference in Stockholm after the announcement today, Mr. Engdahl described the new Nobel Laureate as a cosmopolitan author, “a traveler, a citizen of the world, a nomad.” No American writer shared these qualities, you could almost hear the secretary as saying.

Unlike physics, chemistry, economics, and physiology or medicine in which they dominate, the literature prize has proved elusive for Americans. The last American to win the prize was Toni Morrison in 1993. Before her, the list comprises Sinclair Lewis (1930), Eugene O'Neill (1936), Pearl Buck (1938), William Faulkner (1949), Ernest Hemingway (1954), John Steinbeck (1962), Saul bellow (1976) and Isaac Bashevis Singer (1978). That’s it, a total of 9 out of 107 since the awards began in 1901.

So is there anything to Mr. Engdahl's observations? Are American writers, in fact, provincial, as the Swede said in so many words? The notion is laughable. The great American writers have been great precisely because they were universal in their outlook, and also because they not only resisted the trends in their own mass culture but showed us how to turn away from its toxic elements through the power of their imagination. While names like Philip Roth, John Updike, Joyce Carol Oates and a few others come up every year around this time as possible recipients of the prize, no American, in my opinion, is more deserving of the Nobel than Wendell Berry.

In weaving magical, redemptive and engrossing tales around the fictitious town of Port Williams in Kentucky, Berry has shown how literature can not only take us beyond ourselves but also restore sanity in an increasingly insane world. Whether you are basking in the warm glow of the Coulter clan or remembering with Andy Catlett or rediscovering the true meaning of fidelity or crying with Jaybar Crow in his heartbreaking loss (more poignant, again, in my opinion, than Henry's in Hemingway’s “A Farewell to Arms”), Berry’s voice is unique and unforgettable. His work reminds us why we need and read literature in the first place. But how likely is it that Wendell Berry will win the literature prize? About as likely as Sweden asking Finland to take over the responsibility of deciding who gets the award and who does not.

Fact is, the Nobel Prize in literature has often been driven by politics than by the recognition of genuine talent. In physics, chemistry, economics and physiology or medicine, the charge could be made that some worthy recipients have been ignored but it is also undeniable that all recipients have been worthy winners. You cannot fake your contributions in these fields or cater to some ideological imperatives of the day to win. You have to make contributions that your peers recognize as fundamental and trailblazing. Not so in literature. Other than some of their countrymen and perhaps some ideologically-persuaded fans, who really has read the novels of Dario Fo (1997), Gao Xingjian (2000) or Elfriede Jelinek (2004), to name only three in a long list?

The literature prize has acquired a bad reputation for its dubious awards and, to reuse Mr. Engdahl's words in this context, its isolated and insular criteria. It is time the Swedish Nobel Academy reviews its record and bring the same credibility to the literature prize that it brings year after year to physics, chemistry, economics and physiology or medicine.

P.S. In a recent interview, John Updike was asked about Horace Engdahl's comment that the U.S. was too insular to produce great writers. Updike's response: "I thought there was something in what he said. This is a non-European country. We're a cultural island and our canon, our masterpieces, are unlike the European masterpieces. "Moby Dick" and "Huckleberry Finn" are the two great 19th-century American novels, and they're about marginal characters drifting around. We're fascinated by heading west, there is a Puritan religiosity that haunts us. European novels want to show you society as it exists or existed, whereas American novels would rather get away and dwell on the inner life of the character, which is another way of being insular. I thought it was interesting that he said we weren't up on things, that there is an accumulation of knowledge about how to create art. I don't think that is true. I don't think European clubbiness helps their art. There has been a falling off of American winners of the Nobel. There was a spate after the Second World War that reflected the importance of the U.S. in the global picture. Now we don't project quite that magnetic image."

Obama Needs to Step it Up

Americans are looking for passion, not cool. They are currently more concerned with where the next month's mortgage payment will be coming from than with the global implications of a distant war. To be unflappable maybe a virtue but when you are taking on a war veteran in front of a national audience, you better rid yourself of timidity and start using words that are bold and a vision that is clear. In the debate last night at the Ole Miss, Obama did neither and that was disappointing.

Watching the lackluster give-and-take, I found the images morphing into this exchange:

Sen. McCain: Sen. Obama does not understand ...
Sen. Obama: Sen. McCain is absolutely right ...

What's this with McCain being right, no less "absolutely," in a debate where so much hangs in the balance? It looks like Obama is determined to win the congeniality contest that McCain vows not to.

The best that can be said about this debate is that two more remain in which the senator from Illinois can learn from his mistakes and become more sharp and incisive. He has to be far more convincing in projecting a presidential image, in not straining to prove that he can be magnanimous (he will get plenty of chance for that later) and in decisively proving to Americans that McCain is nothing more than an extension of Bush and his failed policies. One more thing: Please avoid the Kenyan narrative. Plenty of ink has been spilled on the topic. You are not going to persuade swing voters with that. In fact, you might just turn them off.

Come out swinging, Barack! Show some more passion!

P.S. (2 weeks later) Looks like "cool" in the face of provocations goes a long way. Obama's cool has been a huge plus for him. Now I understand what Hemingway meant when he defined courage as "grace under pressure."

Two Brilliant Opinion Pieces

Read two brilliant opinion pieces over the weekend. The first was by Randall Kennedy, a professor of law at Harvard University, who speculated on the possibility of Barack Obama losing to John McCain in the November election. “If that happens,” wonders Kennedy, “then what? How will I feel? How will other black Americans feel? How should people like me feel?”

The writer plumbs his soul to answer these questions, having fled the Jim Crow South of the ‘60s with his parents to escape racial abuses. The answers are poignant but also uplifting. Kennedy finds in Obama a potential president who could do wonders for the United States both at home and abroad. But his hope is tempered by reality. What is that reality? Race, which continues to plays a significant role in 21st century America, “not the hateful, snarling open bigotry that terrorized my parents in their youth, but rather a vague, sophisticated, low-key prejudice that is chameleonlike in its ability to adapt to new surroundings and to hide even from those firmly in its grip.” If Obama were to lose, “I’ll conclude that a fabulous opportunity has been lost. I’ll believe that American voters have made a huge mistake.” Kennedy speaks for many Americans across the racial divide. They yearn for a new dawn after the perpetual darkness of the Bush administration but if the republicans return, then after the initial heartbreak and anger, “I will find solace and encouragement in contemplating this … a major political party nominated a black man for the highest office in the land … he (Obama) will have bequeathed to all America something that should bring comfort and pride to even the most disappointed of his followers. He has reached the edge of the pinnacle. And shown that we can stand atop it.”

The other piece was by Paul Theroux, the renowned travel writer. What has really “electrified” republicans about Sarah Palin is not the quality of her Alaskan governorship (non-existent) but her image as a fearless hunter of … moose. The big bad moose has made Palin big too, at least in the minds of diehard republicans grasping at anything to excite their flagging spirit. Theroux puts all this in perspective: “It is as though, because of the animal’s enormous size and imposing antlers, bringing one down is a heroic feat of marksmanship. Nothing could be further from the truth.” This is where Henry David Thoreau steps in. Thoreau (1817-1862) observed the moose closely in Maine. Killing these myopic creatures was more “like going out by night to some woodside pasture and shooting your neighbor’s horses.” He found these gentle creatures to be like “great frightened rabbits.” Felling them, he felt, was no less than a tragedy.

Thoreau was a subversive fellow, intolerant of pretensions and hypocrisy and “business as usual.” (It is “business as usual” that is at the root of the current Wall Street meltdown). Theroux writes a telling sentence: “American politicians seldom take notice of American writers, especially the boldest one, such as Thoreau, whose every word is at odds with their groveling and grandstanding and their sanctimonious cant.” This is as incisive a summary of the majority of our politicians as you will ever read. Theroux points out that in Thoreau’s mind, the moose and the pine tree were linked. “Every creature is better alive than dead, men and moose and pine trees, and he who understands it aright will rather preserve life than destroy it.” Sarah Palin notwithstanding, can a majority of Americans take Thoreau’s message to heart and vote with their conscience in November?

Unveiling Nature's Deepest Secrets

Man must understand his universe in order to understand his destiny," said Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon.

Mankind took a significant step toward understanding the universe this week. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) that began its first tentative operation on September 10 at CERN is our most ambitious (and most expensive) effort yet to understand how the universe came into being and why nature is the way it is.

The origin of the universe is echoed in the smallest of particles and the fiery fragments they create when colliding at or near the speed of light. In late fall of 2008 or early spring of 2009, when the LHC is fully operational, protons will be slamming into protons at 99.999999 percent of the speed of light, and scientists and interested laymen alike will hold their collective breath for what ensues.

Whereas in nuclear fission or fusion, mass is converted into energy according to Einstein’s famous formula, E = mc2, at the LHC energy is expected to be transformed into mass (m = E/c2), creating particles that will test the most successful particle physics theory called the standard model. At the heart of the standard model, formulated in the 1970s, is Higgs boson, a particle that has never been detected, but without which this theory remains just that, a theory.

Some scientists, including English physicist Peter Higgs who came up with the idea of the particle that is meant to account for an object’s mass, worry that the LHC may not be able to detect the Higgs boson. That can very well mean, of course, that there is no Higgs boson to begin with, and you cannot detect something that doesn’t exist. Would that mean that for 40 years scientists have been chasing a red herring?

I think that is the wrong way to look at it. If the LHC confirms the existence of Higgs boson, wonderful! If it doesn’t, that’s wonderful too! Why? Because while the complex intellectual edifice called the standard model may come down like a house of cards, it will most likely open the door to a yet deeper theory whose beauty and predictive power will surpass the standard model. Nature gives up her secrets only under torture, it would seem, but when she does, we can only marvel at the fact that her imagination always proves richer than ours.

The LHC experiment is also expected to shed light on the validity of string theory. According to its detractors, it's a vast wasteland where bright young physicists have gone to seed for almost four decades. For now, though, string theory is the leading candidate to unite the four fundamental forces of nature - gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and nuclear. Can it prove to be the fabled "Unified Theory" that eluded Einstein? Can the LHC discover "sparticles," the supersymmetric particles predicted by the theory and represented by higher vibrations of strings, the visible universe being the manifestation of only the lowest vibrations? It is not to a scientist that we turn to but to a poet - Tennyson - for insight into the elusive nature of truth: "I am a part of all that I have met; Yet all experience is an arch wherethro' Gleams that untravell'd world whose margin fades For ever and forever when I move."

Be that as it may, the success of the LHC is assured one way or the other. Even if most of us cannot follow the enormously complicated calculations and interpretations that will occupy LHC scientists for years to come, we can still rejoice when nature reveals her mysteries. Scientists toil for decades to clear dense undergrowths that stretch into forever and suddenly a vista of breathtaking beauty opens and we look at each other "with a wild surmise - Silent, upon a peak in Darien."

The silly talk of tiny black holes that may be created at the LHC that can gobble up the earth (Switzerland first, France second ...) has brought rebukes from reputed scientists but I find such fears humanizing. An $8 billion dollar experiment designed by thousands of scientists working for 14 years that has not some scare built into it isn't worth its name.

The micro black holes are expected to disintegrate far too quickly to do any damage, as predicted by Stephen Hawking's theory, but let's say that something utterly unimaginable and unexpected happens and the black holes begin to act on their voracious appetite.

What then? Well, can anyone imagine a more honorable way to exit the earth than in our quest to understand our destiny?

You can also read this blog here.

Falling off the "Bridge to Nowhere"

Concerned Americans are worried that John McCain's V.P. choice, Sarah Palin, may snare enough women voters, particularly from among Hillary Clinton supporters, to deliver the White House to the Republican Party in the November election. While the possibility exists, it is remote and likely to get remoter as Election Day approaches.

To suggest that women will vote for Palin because she is a woman is an insult to all women. Gender issues may make headlines but is never the deciding factor in any election. "McCain must think we are idiots," was a refrain heard from Clinton camp around the country.

With soaring prices of essentials and lack of affordable healthcare for millions of Americans, suggesting that voters will line up for Palin because she "electrified" a partisan crowd with a prepared speech is condescension at its worst.

Critics and commentators invariably underestimate the sturdy commonsense and the fundamental fairness of ordinary Americans. The average American can distinguish between style and substance with a clarity he or she is rarely given credit for. Palin's speech did not sway voters whose elemental concerns - food, housing, job, healthcare - the governor of Alaska found too lowbrow to mention in her speech. Her mocking, sarcastic remarks on Barack Obama may have drawn laughs at the convention laugh but outside, it angered and alienated many Americans.

Right-wing outlets like The Wall Street Journal and Fox News would have us believe that a single speech written for her by Republican operatives has magically transformed Sister Sarah into a combination of Margaret Thatcher, Joan of Arc and Laura Ingalls. This is laughable. Americans are not only not falling for it, they are finding it breathtakingly arrogant and offensive.

McCain's choice of Sarah Palin ("a bridge to nowhere", in the words of columnist Ellen Goodman) was a cynical and ruthless attempt to grab women voters. The ploy has failed even if the polls show a temporary surge for McCain-Palin. There will be a new dawn in America on November 5 and Democrats will be cheering.

Barack Obama and the Promise of America

Expectation was high, the symbolism heavy.

Forty-five years ago, on August 28, 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his profoundly stirring “I Have a Dream” speech on the Mall in Washington that changed America. Surely Barack Obama, a champion of change himself, would seize the moment with soaring rhetoric of his own to connect with King and inherit his mantle during his nomination acceptance speech.

In one of his wisest decisions, Obama chose not to compete in the rhetoric department with King, an impossible task anyway. Instead of soaring, he was down-to-earth. He had judged the mood of the American people perfectly and that sensibility turned his good speech into a great one.

America is hurting. Millions are out of work. Bankruptcies are multiplying. Families are selling off their possessions on eBay to put food on the table. Meanwhile, George Bush’s failed presidency continues to pour $54 billion dollars every six months on the Iraq war.

Against that backdrop, Obama made his case. He defined the American promise as one “that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have obligations to treat each other with dignity and respect. It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, to look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road …”

Obama attacked McCain for being out-of-touch with ordinary Americans and with the crisis the country is facing. “I just think he doesn’t know.” “… John McCain doesn’t get it.” Tough, uncompromising talk. It will be interesting to see what verbal calisthenics McCain performs to respond to Obama.

Even before he was done with his speech, the conservative chattering class was attacking Obama. Leading the pack was columnist Charles Krauthammer who has been recycling his obsessive notion that Obama is a narcissist “devoted to crafting, and chronicling, his own life.” The junior senator from Illinois has apparently nothing to show in terms of ideas and experience. What Mr. Krauthammer conveniently forgets is that the worst presidents in U.S. history came with hefty resumes (James Buchanan (1857-1861), Richard Nixon (1969, 1974), to name only two). Barack Obama has not walked the corridors of power in Washington long enough to merit the appreciation of neocons. How dare this black pretender to the throne rise to the highest office in the land, whines Krauthammer.

However, in this defining moment, America needs a president who maybe poor in Washington experience but rich in life-shaping experiences. From Hawaii to Jakarta to Los Angeles to New York to Nairobi to Chicago, Obama acquired a sense of purpose in life that sets him apart from politicians the pundits revere. He is uniquely qualified to bring about the change the country desperately needs. Voters are finally beginning to get it, even as John McCain and the conservatives and the chattering class don’t. Call it destiny, call it cycle of history, call it what you want, but after eight disastrous years, America is ready to move from the darkness of despir into the bright sunshine of hope, with president Obama leading the way. November cannot come soon enough.

London Calling

Wow!

If one word were to sum up the Beijing Olympics, this is it. China put its history, culture, modernity and athletic prowess on display and a dazzled world, for the most part, willingly forgot about politics and basked in the extravagant glow of the host nation’s Olympian dreams and ambitions.

A thought came to mind as the curtain fell on the 29th olympiad: England must not try to duplicate China when it hosts the 2012 Olympics in London. No other country, especially among democracies, can afford to spend $45 billion dollars to host a 2-week sporting event, however prestigious.

Instead of Beijing, a good model for London would be the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. Peter Ueberroth, its architect, gave us the first privately financed Olympic Games. He raised $500 million from corporate America and through wise planning, (securing, for instance, the donation of Southern California's playing fields and dormitories and saving the cost of constructing an Olympics village), produced a surplus of nearly $250 million that was later used to promote youth and sports activities throughout the United States. In contrast, the former Soviet Union spent $9 billion for the 1980 Moscow Olympics.

Imitation, Emerson said, is suicide. London will do well simply by being itself. If it can provide the color, food, music, and all the heartaches, improvisations and exhilarations of a messy democracy, and avoid going into debt, the 30th olympiad should be a resounding success. The newly-built venues and stadiums must be converted into usable space - housing, office, hospital - within a month after the Olympics is over, with hopefully green technology leading the way. London must show the world that the host city doesn't have to be saddled with white elephants when the athletes and the visitors leave.

A final observation: Many sportswriters and journalists sent dispatches from Beijing not just of the games and the athletes but also of ordinary people and cuisine and landmarks and the land, but no one captured the spirit of the Olympics more eloquently, and with more pathos and humor, than Anthony Lane of The New Yorker magazine. His “Letter from Beijing” deserves a gold medal of its own.

A Cheetah Unleashed

Usain Bolt reminds me of the young and brash Muhammad Ali who could electrify a crowd with his mere presence. Track & Field needed a shot in the arm; it got more, a lightning bolt. Three gold medals, three world records (100-meter, 9.69s, 200-meter, 19.30s, 4x100-meter relay, 37.10s). What an accomplishment! If anyone had suggested last week that Michael Phelps could be eclipsed in "mindshare" among Olympics viewers around the globe, he would have been laughed off. Yet that is what has happened. The Bolt phenomenon is real and here to stay. He is a cheetah unleashed. Against his grim and "purpose-driven" competitors, Bolt's breezy supremacy is a joy to behold.

Back in Jamaica, Bolt's father attributed his son's success to the nutritional (some say magical) value of the lowly yam, a staple in northwestern Jamaica where the speedster was born. Aspring sprinters here will probably ensure that in grocery stores throughout America there will be no more "silence of the yams."

Phelps and Destiny

If there was any doubt that Michael Phelps would fulfill his Olympic destiny, it was dispelled by his margin of victory in the 100-meter butterfly. One one-hundredth of a second. Try to divide the blink of an eye into one hundred parts and then try to visualize one part. Impossible, you say? Precisely. Nine times out of ten, Serbian Milorad Cavic would probably have beaten Phelps in the 100-meter butterfly but this particular Olympics was meant to be the venue for that one time out of ten. Destiny.

It is strange how destiny can be different for two great swimmers. 41-year-old Dana Torres lost her 50-meter swim by one one-hundredth of a second. And she and her team missed out on the gold in the 4x100m medley relay by the slimmest of margins. It could have happened to Phelps but it did not. Destiny.

Phelps has won eight gold medals, surpassing Spitz's record of 7 in the '72 Munich Olympics. Phelps stands alone, breaking a record many thought could never be touched. What about Phelps's? It seems impossible but maybe 36 years from now in the 2044 Olympics ... Well, perhaps another generation will marvel at how the unreachable was reached and surpassed by a new Phelps.

If Phelps competes in the London Olympics in 2012, as he is expected to, he should break Soviet gymnast Larissa Latynina's haul of 18 medals (9G, 5S, 4B) from three Olympics ('56, '60, '64). He has 16 (14G, 2B) from Athens and Beijing (2004, 2008). But that is a story for another day. At this moment, let us simply recognize that from now onwards and in any language, "Phelpsian feat" will mean the epitome of superhuman excellence.

Fastest Man on Earth

In just a few hours, we will know who can claim the title of “fastest man on earth.” The men’s 100 meters final in the Beijing Olympics pits three of the greatest speedsters in history: Usain Bolt and Asafa Powell of Jamaica and Tyson Gay of the United States. Between them they hold the 8 fastest times in the race, under 9.8 seconds.

This is not to say that others cannot pull an upset. Any number of factors could propel an unknown or unheralded sprinter into gold medal and history. But if we go with the record, it is most likely that the winner will be from among Bolt, Powell and Gay.

Men’s 100 meters is the most glamorous track and field event in the Olympics. It is over in a blink but its hold on the imagination lasts for years. Who has not dreamed of running as fast as the wind, outrunning foes real or imagined, outrunning inner demons, outrunning adversity, into a realm of bliss? At some point in our lives, we all have.

My sentimental favorite is Tyson Gay, if only because I cannot shake off his image of collapsing on the track and writhing in pain during the U.S. Olympics trials in Eugene last July. What can be more stirring than coming back from an injury and wearing the crown jewel of the Olympics? In reality, though, Usain Bolt appears unbeatable.

Stars Aligning for Phelps

I still think it will be a monumental challenge for Michael Phelps to win eight gold medals in the Beijing Olympics but I also think the stars are beginning to align for him in his quest to break Mark Spitz’s record.

If Jason Lezak didn’t pull off the impossible, anchoring the 4x100-meter freestyle relay to a win over the favored French team, Phelps could only hope for equaling Spitz’s record.

But now it looks as if fate is lending Phelps a hand. The toughest obstacles are behind him and maybe, just maybe, he will pull it off.

I do not recall cheering as lustily for a sporting event as I did at what I was seeing on TV last night. Was it comparable to the 1980 “Miracle on Ice” in the Lake Placid Winter Olympics game when a ragtag bunch of American hockey amateurs beat the mighty Soviet Union 4-3? Who can say but the ancient and powerful joy one feels in seeing the impossible occur in front of one's very own eyes is unforgettable.

Everyone is buzzing about Lezak, and rightly so, but we should not forget the performance of Cullen Jones who swam the third leg of the relay. This African-American swimmer not only helped smash a world record and keep Phelps’s dream alive, he also smashed stereotypes.

About those eight potential golds by Phelps, we hold our breath and hope for the best but I will make a fearless prediction: By the time he is done with the Beijing Olympics, Phelps will have won more Olympic gold medals than anyone in history. His haul will exceed nine, currently held by the quartet of Paavo Nurmi (Finland – Track & Field), Larissa Latynina (Ukraine - Gymnastics), Mark Spitz (U.S. - Swimming) and Carl Lewis (U.S. - Track & Field).

N.B. The funniest and most intelligent ad I have seen so far during NBC’s Olympics telecast shows LeBron James as a defense attorney. The story line is hilarious. Too many ads are pretentious, pompous or just plain silly. The LeBron ad should open eyes.

The Olympic Spirit and Us

Olympics for me began with the summer games in Rome, 1960. I was in 7th grade then and I remember my dad excitedly telling me that Pakistan had beaten India in hockey 1-0 after six successive Olympic failures. We were in Bangladesh (East Pakistan then) and it seemed a big deal, particularly because I played in my school hockey team and knew the rules of the game. I wasn’t aware of Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay) and Rafer Johnson at the time but I do recall seeing photographs of Wilma Rudolph, winner of god medals in 100 and 200 meters and the 400 meters relay, and telling myself: she has to be the most graceful female sprinter ever. My opinion hasn’t changed in 48 years. Another athlete who captured my imagination was the Ethiopian Abebe Bikila who ran barefoot in the streets of Rome to win the Marathon gold.

I was keenly interested in the 1964 Tokyo Olympics because of the inevitable clash between India and Pakistan in the field hockey final. India regained its supremacy by defeating Pakistan. But I was also expanding my horizon and began to follow other sports with equal passion.

Pakistan beat Australia in the final in the 1968 Mexico City Olympics to win the field hockey gold but that was more or less the beginning of the end for both Pakistan and India. Other countries were rapidly catching up. Although the two nations enjoyed some success afterwards, they would now be lucky to win a bronze medal.

But my interest was already shifting and what I remember reading about the Mexico City Olympics was the long jump record set by America’s Bob Beamon. The guy almost jumped out of sight, setting an astonishing record of 29’2½”, one that stood for 23 years until another American, Mike Powell, broke it with a record of 29’4½” in the World Championship game in Tokyo in 1991. But the dominant story of that Olympics, the Black Power salute by Tommie Smith and John Carlos, passed me by.

On my way from the newly-independent nation of Bangladesh to Halifax, Canada, in 1972 for higher studies, I stopped by in Munich at the invitation of a friend from Dhaka University. The Munich Olympics was the first that I attended in person and I was awed by its sights and sounds. It felt unreal, to be at the center of the sports world where the fastest and the strongest were competing for glory. I had never seen such affluence and even the big moon that hung low at night seemed to be acknowledging the spectacle on the earth below. I was able to catch only one event, a soccer game between West Germany and United States on a warm night. U.S. lost the game 7-0 and my vocal rooting for the underdog brought curious glances from the Germans around me. But I was in sports heaven and was convinced the magic would last forever. I heard about the impossible performance of an American swimmer named Mark Spitz but could not register what it was all about

I left before the Munich massacre. When I landed in Canada, the closing ceremonies were taking place and the shock and horror signaled that Olympics and politics and tragedy would become inseparable in the years to follow.

By the time I came to the United States in 1974, I was a bona fide sports fanatic. I was studying at Temple University in Philadelphia. In August of 1976, I took a train from New York to Montreal – the Adirondack – passing through Hudson Valley and the lush countryside. I was at Montreal from beginning to end and saw several track and field events and, of course, field hockey. The world awoke to a Romanian wunderkind named Nadia Comaneci who scored seven unheard of perfect 10s in gymnastics on her way to three gold medals. I would get up at dawn and take the subway to the main Olympic stadium and start taking photographs right and left, trying to capture as many faces and events as I could. I saw decathlon champion Bruce Jenner in action. But after two weeks of nonstop Olympic excitement, I was happy to return to my apartment at Temple.

After moving to San Jose, California in 1979, my sports fever continued unabated but I was content to watch successive Olympics on TV. Sure, that feeling of being there was irreplaceable but it was also physically demanding, and I was happy to trade immediacy for comfort. Besides, I could see more, even if it meant late-night vigils.

And here we are now, on the eve of the Beijing Olympics. The Web and the papers are full of pundits lamenting the commercialization of Olympics, the doping scandals, the mercenary attitude of some nations to win at the expense of dehumanizing their athletes, and so on. But they are missing the point. For two weeks, the Olympic spirit, however flawed and frayed, will reign supreme and the world will applaud the winners and lend the losers a shoulder to cry on. There is honor in trying to do one’s best, and a Bangladeshi athlete can rejoice equally in having taken part as an American athlete standing on the podium moist-eyed as the Star-Spangled Banner plays. China is expected to dominate the medal count and showcase its emergence as a superpower but that is nothing compared to the ties that will unite the athletes and the fans for a few days and make us believe in our common humanity.

I will be rooting for Michael Phelps to break Mark Spitz’s record of seven gold medals but it will be tough. He will have to be as perfect as Nadia Comaneci was in Montreal. Actually he will have to do her one better. If that’s not asking for the impossible, I don’t know what is. But it is in the Olympics that the impossible happens. And therein rests its magic. The Olympics reminds us that the impossible is only a limitation of the imagination, that we have it in us to overcome this limitation and discover the hidden gold within. Long live the Olympics spirit!