Holiday Giving

Mark Zuckerberg’s recent $500 million donation in Facebook stocks to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation created a stir in the world of philanthropy. The Facebook co-founder was following up on his pledge to donate half his wealth to charity as part of the “Giving Pledge” campaign inspired and promoted by billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

Reading about mega-donations by billionaires can cause the average American to suffer from some kind of an inferiority complex. After all, in these difficult times, many Americans will be hard-pressed to come up with a $500-dollar donation to worthy causes.

A perspective comes from Ted Turner. Fifteen years ago, in September of 1997, the billionaire Cable News Network founder made a “spur of the moment” gift of $1 billion to the United Nations for programs to help refugees and children, clear land mines and fight disease. It was the gift that launched not a thousand gifts but several high-profile multi-million and billion-dollar gifts from entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and now, Mark Zuckerberg.

Talking recently to the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, Turner said that people should not be overwhelmed or intimidated by the dollar amount donated by the rich. “You don’t have to have any money to make a difference; you can pick up trash walking down the street, and I do that all the time,” he said. “You can volunteer your time. You can be a big brother or a big sister.”

This is a deeply moving and practical dvice. The key words are “making a difference.” After all, anytime we donate even a dollar, we fervently hope that it will have the maximum impact for good in the recipient. The most common mistake we make is to think that unless our charity is a hefty amount quantifiable in dollars or pounds or euros, it will not make a difference, even though, intellectually at least, we know better. This is the unfortunate byproduct of minds brought up in a capitalistic environment. But hearing a capitalist like Ted Turner extolling charitable acts rather than dollars offers a much-needed reminder. Notice also the example Turner gives about doing something while walking down the street. Most often we think that removing thorns (or nails or sharp objects) from the path of pedestrians is the only worthwhile act of charity we can do. Not so. Pick up any trash. Sweep or gather fallen leaves in bags. Clear a neighbor’s driveway of snow. Smile at strangers. There are hundreds of acts of charity you and I can do simply by walking a few blocks in our neighborhoods. By being alert and observing what others are doing can also open up creative ideas for charity.

A few months ago, while stopping by to pick up some toiletries from my local pharmacy, located in a mini shopping center packed with restaurants, a bank, a fitness center, a dentist’s office and the quintessential Starbucks, I noticed an old man poking into the various garbage bins with a stick. As I watched, I realized he was looking for recyclable cans and bottles. Every time he located one, his face broke into a triumphant smile. His bag was about half-full with the collection.

When I came home, I collected all the bottles and cans I was going to dump in the neighborhood recycle center. Like everyone else, I have been doing this for years but I had no way of knowing where all these “capitalistic wastes” were going and exactly how they were being recycled. But now I had found a greater purpose for them.

Two nights later, around 8 PM, I waited for the old man at the same spot. I had almost given up when, about 45 minutes later, I saw him begin his round at the dumpster behind the bank. He walked slowly and patiently. I had time to read the sign nailed into the outer wall of the pharmacy: “No skateboarding. No Trespassing. Violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

When he came around, I offered him my collection. He seemed stunned for a moment and then thanked me profusely. “Not at all,” was all I could mumble as I quickly left. I was already feeling guilty in thinking that I was engaging in an act of charity.

I now see the old man once a week. We don’t talk much although I want to tell him the privilege is entirely mine when he looks me in the eye and says simply, “thank you.”

I am sure you have all seen someone at a gas station or a shopping center intent on making something out of the bottles and cans we carelessly toss away. We are talking at most a few dollars here but just the act of gathering your recyclable stuff and handing them over to a particular person isn’t something that can be quantified. Thank God for that. Do it and see how it transforms you and spills over into other areas of charitable and holiday giving.

A Marine's Take on Gun Control

In the aftermath of the horrific shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the issue of gun control has enraged, and engaged, Americans from all walks of life. Emotions are running high. It is clear that America’s gun culture has to change, and change soon, for the killings to stop.

As a former active duty Marine (and Marine for life), David Mauk, 23, has seen both sides of the issue. He was deployed in Afghanistan from late 2010 to early 2011. By maintaining a high moral ground, he and his unit were able to earn the trust of the local Afghans. “We did it by removing the improvised explosive devices (IEDs) from the path of villagers, even though we risked our lives to do it.”

David had witnessed an Afghan child who had struck an IED that shattered his legs. He had seen firsthand the work of cruel men and knew that, whatever the politics and issues, his job was to try to make the village safe for the teeming children. He and his unit did it with honor, integrity and respect for the local culture and customs.

The experience in Afghanistan taught him that saving the lives of children was among the noblest of callings. That’s why he was so traumatized by the killing of twenty children in Newtown. At the same time, “guns are an important part of my life and culture. They have many good uses, such as hunting, as in my home state of Missouri. Hunting keeps the deer population from overbreeding and destroying valuable farmland.”

Unfortunately, not everyone has the character, training, and responsibility to use a gun in its proper context. David has seen far too many instances where criminals and mentally-disturbed individuals use them for evil purposes.

His proposal to fix the violent gun culture in America consists of the following:

-          Completely ban military style or rapid fire weapons and magazines. No one outside law enforcement or military needs such power. Assault weapons are NOT effective hunting weapons. They are meant only to kill people. We don't need them.

-          Require stricter screening before allowing the purchase of firearms.

-          Require regular training and evaluation administered by qualified law enforcement personnel.

-          Require a more accurate system of licensing gun ownership, much the same way that a concealed carry license works.

-          Require ammunition to be regulated at least as closely as, say, alcohol. Ammunition is the real key. Different types of ammunition and quantities of it would indicate what it would be used for.

-          Finally, require gun owners affiliate with the militia, as the Second amendment intended, and then rein in the militias to fulfill the intended purpose of arming and educating citizens for the good of society. As it stands now, militias are breeding grounds for conspiracy theorists, anti-government extremists, and other threats to the free and secure society we seek to create in America.

David has just begun his college career. He is a student at San Jose City College. In his first semester, he is taking courses in English, Chemistry and Math. He wants to be a park ranger for the U.S. Forest Service or the National Parks Service because “I love the outdoors and want to educate people about the world they live in. People invested their time in me to develop a love for the outdoors. I want to pass it on.”

David never went hunting in Missouri because he couldn’t afford all the equipment. He did, however, work with a conservation department at an animal rehabilitation center, where he learned that much of a conservationist’s job was to keep the animal population in check. “It is a fact of nature that animals hunt and kill each other. Sadly, because we hunted the predators to near extinction, the job now falls upon us. I have never been comfortable with this cruel fact, but at least I understand it. What I cannot accept is how easily high-powered guns can be bought in America. In particular, close-range assault rifles - preferred by criminals and mentally-ill people because they are so obscenely easy to use - are meant only to kill people. Why we allow people to buy them is beyond me.”

“I fought for this country so that we could have peace and freedom, not so I could come home to see people killing each other. In Afghanistan, my mission was to protect the civilians and neutralize violent radicals so that the Afghans might have a safe place to bring up their children. My mission is turned into a mockery when I come home to find disturbed individuals murdering children with military weapons.”

 

Rage, Sorrow and Gun Control

“A Robin Redbreast in a Cage/Puts all Heaven in a Rage,” wrote William Blake. But there is something even more heinous that can put heaven, and all of us, in a greater rage.

It is the murder of children.

A gunman shot 26 people to death in an elementary school in rural Connecticut this morning. Twenty of them were children between the ages of 5 and 10. As gruesome details emerge, we ask: Where and how can we vent our rage against this unimaginable atrocity? What did these twenty children do to deserve this? One more week of school and, like millions of other schoolchildren, they would have been off for the holidays.

Instead, for these families, and for us, the coming holidays have been touched by evil. The little ones have left a vacuum that nothing on this earth is large enough to fill. At least that’s how it appears at this traumatic moment.

America has always been a gun society and is becoming more so every passing year. The tragic thing is that gun sales spike after the kind of violence that occurred this morning in Connecticut. Stores can barely meet demand for lethal firearms. Since government is not doing anything about gun control, many Americans feel that they are on their own against the psychopaths. A besieged mentality feeds on itself and gun sales rise exponentially.

It is impossible to detect human time bombs. Only two days ago, Jacob Tyler Roberts, 22, armed with a stolen AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, went on a rampage in a shopping mall in Oregon that left two people dead. "Jake was never the violent type," Roberts' ex-girlfriend, told the media. "His main goal was to make you laugh, smile, make you feel comfortable.” "Of everyone in my entire life, if I could put them on a list of how crazy they are, how likely they are to snap, I'd put him at the very bottom," said Jaime Eheler, 26, the gunman's close friend and roommate. "He'd be the very last person." Eheler added that her friend had a "weird look on his face" when he left their house.

But what alarm can a mere “weird look” set off?  After all, it is common for “unexpected” killers to mask their murderous rage with preternatural calm. Trying to stop human time bombs before they explode is, therefore, not a practical option.

But there is something we can and must do as a nation: Enforce gun control, damn the Second Amendment distortionists. This fruitless debate about rights has run its pathetic course. The government has got to step in and set things right, and make it difficult for anyone to purchase firearms. The NRA needs to be given the boot and right now, there is enough consensus in the country to make it happen. “We’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics,” said President Obama after the shooting. “Meaningful action?” What does this mean? This type of euphemism will not wash any longer. The time for “meaningful action” is long past. What is needed is drastic action to put the leash on NRA and the gun lobby and ban firearms.

It is tempting to conclude that our schools, colleges and malls have turned into killing fields. They have not, but neither are they remotely as safe as we have the right to expect and demand. Without drastic gun control, they will attain that fatal distinction sooner than we may think. Can we afford that as a nation?

'Life of Pi' Defies Categorization

‘Life of Pi’ is a fable, a parable, an allegory. No, it’s not. It is the strange and improbable story of a boy trapped in a lifeboat with a ferocious Bengal tiger in the endless Pacific waters. It’s a story of survival through wit and cunning. No, it is not. It is a quest for God and meaning, love and redemption.

Take your pick because ‘Life of Pi’ has the flexibility to be whatever you want it to be. That’s its strength and its weakness, its peak and its valley. Yann Martel’s 2001 international bestseller (and the 2002 Man Booker Prize winner for fiction) was recognized at once for it ‘unfilmable’ characteristics. The bad news is that the difficulty has not diminished a bit over a decade. The good news is that the Chinese-American director Ang Lee has pulled it off, presenting us with a movie true to the book’s difficult theme and breathtaking for its 3-D images.

Piscine Molitor Patel, forced to condense his name to Pi to avoid ridicule by his schoolmates, is a restless young boy searching for a God who can infuse his life with meaning. There is more to life than “fractions and French,” he realizes. Growing up in Pondicherry in Southern India in a Hindu family, he also explores Christianity, Judaism and Islam to expand his spiritual horizon. “Faith has many rooms,” the grownup Pi (Irfan Khan) explains to a skeptical Canadian writer when recounting his remarkable story years later. “Is there a room for doubt in it as well?” asks the writer. “Of course,” replies Pi. “Faith does not become strong unless it is tested.”

Pi’s father (Adil Hussain) is the owner of a zoo stocked with exotic animals. During Indira Gandhi’s emergency rule when constitutional rights are suspended and prospects are bleak for ordinary Indians, he decides to immigrate to Canada with his family and his animals.

The Japanese cargo ship on which Pi’s father, mother and sibling are traveling sinks during a monstrous storm in the Pacific Ocean. Pi (played brilliantly by newcomer Suraj Sharma) lands on a 27-foot lifeboat but his family vanishes in the cruel and roiling waters. The animals go down as well, save for a wounded zebra, an orangutan, a vicious hyena and a rat, all ending up on the same lifeboat.

At daybreak, Pi discovers that there is yet another survivor on board (hidden temporarily from sight under a tarp), a ferocious 440-pound Bengal tiger named Richard Parker, into whose wild eyes he had stared with morbid fascination when making the rounds in his father’s zoo in Pondicherry.

Thus begins a 227-day odyssey that pits a boy against a cat whose growls and snarls fill up space and sky. To survive, Pi builds a makeshift raft for himself, taking care to tie it to the boat so as not to drift away. He spends several days and nights on it, not daring to cross paths with Richard Parker who has dispatched the other animals according to the law of the jungle.

Ultimately, Pi decides to board the boat. Hunger and thirst has removed his fear. If death is the end, he might as well go down fighting. The symbolism is compelling, however: When Pi cuts the raft loose, is he also casting away the doubts that troubled his sensitive mind?

Pi and Parker mark their territory on the boat. Slowly, they begin to make a connection that defies reason and logic, realizing that each is doomed without the other.

Although a digital creation, Parker is a marvel of beauty and power and evokes William Blake’s haunting poem: Tyger! Tyger! burning bright/In the forests of the night,/What immortal hand or eye/Could frame thy fearful symmetry?/In what distant deeps or skies Burnt the fire of thine eyes?/On what wings dare he aspire?/What the hand dare seize the fire?

Nothing tests Pi’s faith more than raw hunger. Spirituality takes a backseat to procuring food and collecting clean water from rain. Yet it is the wild tiger that keeps the wilds of his heart at bay. The elements take on a mystical and floating translucence. Bit by bit, man and beast not only make peace but grow compassion for one another. When the boat bumps against a lush island in the middle of nowhere, Pi discovers that it is overrun with thousands of meerkats. Richard Parker need not be hungry again. Making landfall gives Pi the feeling that his ordeal is over. But it is not so. He discovers that the island is carnivorous. It is only the silent insistence of the tiger that saves him from its fatal attractions.

Eventually the boat reaches Mexico. An emaciated Pi is rescued by shore-dwellers. But Richard Parker? Without even a glance at his companion, he vanishes into the nearby jungle.

When Japanese investigators interview Pi to figure out how and why their ship went down, Pi tells them his story. They reject outright what they consider to be an absurdly fanciful tale. Besides, there is no trace of any carnivorous island anywhere in the Pacific! So Pi tells them another story, giving human shape to the animals in the boat. Perhaps the hyena was none other than the psychopathic cook who terrorized travelers on the ship before it sank. But who were the others? Was Richard Parker a stand-in for nature? The questions linger and what really happened on that boat remains an enigma.

In The Old Man and the Sea, Hemingway’s protagonist battles unseen adversaries gnawing away at the mighty marlin he has caught far into the sea. “Man can be destroyed but not defeated,” is how Hemingway describes his old man. The same can be said of the young Pi but here man and tiger are in such proximity and so visible that all rules are overturned. “My story will make you believe in God,” Pi tells his Canadian interlocutor but even he has to add a twist at the end to confound us with the unfathomable mystery of the seeking heart.

In other words, in almost all respects, ‘Life of Pi’ is a winner.

 

The Charm and Humanity of "English Vinglish"

“English Vinglish” is an Indian movie that is as good as, if not better than, Mira Nair’s 2001 hit “Monsoon Wedding.” But while Monsoon enthralled Americans, English Vinglish has not created much of a ripple among moviegoers. That’s a pity because this is an unforgettable story conveyed through convincing performances.

Shashi is the ideal homemaker. She loves her husband (Adil Hussain) and adores her daughter and son. Her home in the Western city of Pune is an ode to taste. By the side, she runs a catering business selling golden, sweet snack balls called “Laddoos” that her clients are willing to die for. It brings her a nice income of her own. She seems to have everything, everything but respect from her husband and daughter. Her fault? She is pathetically deficient in English.

When she mispronounces a word (“Jaaz” becomes “Jhazz”), she faces the withering scorn of her husband and contemptuous daughter. No matter how hard she tries to shower her family with  love, she cannot save herself from her fatal flaw. “My wife was born to make Laddoos,” the husband tells anyone within earshot, barely hiding his contempt.

She begins to hate herself.

One day, her sister in New York invites the family to attend her niece’s wedding. Shashi has to travel alone because her husband is in the middle of a business deal and the kids are in school. They will join her later.

At the U.S. embassy, the immigration officer senses her difficulty with the language and mocks her. “How can you go to my country when you don’t even know English?” An Indian worker at the embassy supplies the perfect retort on her behalf: “You have been in India for years and still you don’t know how to speak Hindi!”

After suffering more insults and humilations, she finally lands in New York. The custom officer asks the inevitable question: “What is the purpose of your visit?” She flubs her line and says “I am here to attend my wedding.” The disgusted interlocutor waves her through.

Shashi (played with sublime pathos by Sridevi who has returned to the screen after a fifteen-year hiatus) tries to get used to the hectic New York life. One day, she notices an ad on a bus that promises to teach English to novices in a 4-week crash course. She has had enough of contempt and disrespect. Somehow, she manages to enroll herself in the language school.

The real story unfolds in the English class. There is a Mexican, a Pakistani, two Indians, a Korean, a Frenchman, a mysterious African and an irrepressible teacher. The Frenchman (Mehdi Nabbou) falls for Shashi ("her coffee-bean eyes float in a cloud of milk") as she stumbles her way through the minefield of basic English.

Shashi is the quintessential Indian wife. Adultery is not in her vocabulary. But the Frenchman awakens a certain feeling in her. In a cruel and mocking world, he extols her beauty and her rapid progress with the language. When Shashi’s younger niece, who had seen the duo walking animatedly down Manhattan Avenue, encourages her to respond to new love, Shashi replies: “I am not looking for love, only respect.”

The husband and the children arrive in New York. It’s the fourth and final week of her class. There is to be a final test before a certificate of course completion can be issued. But it interferes with her niece’s wedding. What to do? What to do? She cannot be in two places at once. On one side is the reason why she had traveled to New York; on the other, an once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to infuse her life with meaning.

The loose ends get tied but not after some heartbreaking scenes of loss, longing and love. “Thank you for making me love myself,” she tells the Frenchman, the ultimate expression of her gratitude. For in loving herself, she realized that she had found the self-respect she had been craving all her married life.

She is now the confident citizen of a world whose redeeming values are diversity and acceptance.

Written and directed by the gifted Gauri Shinde, “English Vinglish” should be seen by Americans of all hues and backgrounds. It is a touching story that lifts you up and enlarges your humanity. Can anyone ask more from a movie?

Obama Needs to be a Different President This Time

Barack Obama will be our President for the next four years. You could hear the collective sigh of relief from Americans who dreaded a Romney victory. For many of us, however, an Obama victory was a sure thing, simply because he was the better candidate for the country.

But this victory comes with a price. Obama has no George Bush to blame this time. He will have to deliver on the economy and heal a nation that has probably never been this polarized. He has indicated that he is not interested in leaving a legacy, that his only goal is to do what's best for America and then exit the stage. But it is far easier said than one. The next four years will test Obama like he has never been tested before. If "Great things are done when men and mountains meet," Obama will have to be meet and conquer the many mountains that await him.

Something is terribly wrong with America now. The gap between the affluent 1% and the remaining 99% is deeper  and wider than the Grand Canyon. Education is on the ropes. Those who contribute most to keep our nation humane are rewarded the least for their efforts. Our values are awry. We fritter our creative energies away pursuing the trivial and the insignificant. Even Silicon Valley's innovations empower the affluent and the powerful far more than they empower those who need it most. Equality has become an empty word and justice a dream.

President Obama has to work to set things right. He should reduce his oratory and direct his energy to making fundamental changes in the way we distribute wealth among the citizenry. He has to curb the bottomless greed of the bankers and the Wall Street executives. He has to make education a priority by putting in place metrics that measure authentic learning and creativity in our classrooms. He needs to reach out to the Republicans but not at the expense of his vision or agenda. If the Republicans reject his overtures, he has to take his case directly to the American people and move on.

Mitt Romney has a role to play as well. By conceding graciously and uniting with the president to focus on common goals for the country, he can redeem himself and his party. At the very least, he can contribute by not engaging in negative attacks on the president. He can become a better person by accepting the tough lessons of the campaign and by helping to temper the extremist elements of the his party.

Tomorrow will indeed be another day for the 44th President of the United States. And, we hope, a better one for the majority, since it will be impossible to satisfy all.

Obama Will Win a Second Term as President

There is tension in the air, a kind of charged foreboding. It arises from a single question: What if Obama loses to Mitt Romney in the Nov. 6^th election?

Between anxious Americans and chattering pundits, the consensus seems to be that if Obama wins at all, it will be by the slimmest of margins. That also means that he may lose by the slimmest of margins. It may even come down to a tie. An electoral nightmare will then descend on America, paralyzing government and letting loose the vicious dogs of partisan warfare.

Relax, my fellow Americans. Nothing of the sort will happen.

Obama will win a second term as President of the United States of America. And he will win by a comfortable margin, with at least 300 electoral votes, 30 more than what is required.

Why will Obama win? It’s simple, really. Obama will win because he is the better candidate, and in their guts, a majority of Americans know it, including those who will vote for Romney. Obama is not slick. He does not bend in the direction of the current political wind. He is more humane, bringing healthcare to millions of Americans who would otherwise be left twisting in the wind if Romney were to be elected. The wealthy, most of whom amassed their riches on the backs of vulnerable Americans and government subsidy, will have to pay more tax, as simple justice demands. Renewable energy will have a better chance of flourishing, with potential breakthroughs in technology. Brakes will be applied on brazen thievery by bankers and Wall Street honchos who have destroyed a significant percentage of middle-income American families. And global warming will be dealt with from the perspective of scientists, not blowhards.

Obama has not exactly been a profile in courage. The word that perhaps best describes him is “prudence.” But we have seen what “bold” can do. George Bush tried to remake the Middle-East in his own image by inventing weapons of mass destruction. The cost of that arrogance has been incalculable.

The charge has been made that in his inaugural address in 2009, Obama promised to think, dream and perform big. It didn’t pan out. Most of his successes have been incremental, prose rather than poetry. But that’s what America needed in the last four years: avoid catastrophes at home and abroad by pursuing the middle path.

In his second term, the President can deliver on the promise of his first inaugural address and go for at least one or two bold moves that fire the imagination. Unburdened by expectations, he can set in motion policies that can generate good jobs at home and stability and peace abroad.

Mitt Romney is beholden to the extremist elements of the Republican Party. No matter how hard he may try to bring democrats and republicans together, his agenda will be driven by the Tea Party manifesto. This will be a nightmare for America.

Obama put Romney in the race with his inexcusable performance in the first debate. Romney’s dominance in that debate gave him the surge he needed to make this election a contest. But Obama also helped himself by the way he picked up the pieces in the two debates afterwards. Americans can identify with a candidate who suffers a decisive defeat at first and then goes on to stage a stirring comeback.

Along with “prudence,” another word that defines Obama is “lucky.” The man embodies luck. He got Osama bin Laden. Just when the economy is about to sink further, job prospects look up. When home sales hit the bottom, statistics indicate that prices are beginning to rebound. Romney can fight Obama on any front but when it comes to luck, the challenger is defenseless.

Obama's winning a second term is an even more impressive achievement than his first win. In 2008, Obama was riding on the wings of hope and change. After eight dark years under George Bush, Americans yearned for a change. There was the novelty of an African-America residing in the White House. John McCain didn’t help his case by choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate. The country, and the world, held its breath for history to be made. And history was made.

But now there is no history to be made. The novelty has worn off. With his cautious and hesitant approach, ‘no drama’ Obama has brought us down to earth. His eloquence worked against him when his deeds fell short of his soaring words.

The honeymoon has definitely been over. That is why, to still elect him for a second term after seeing his flaws exposed under the harsh glare of reality, is so significant. Obama is not the embodiment of the impossible hopes we invested in him. He is neither the savior of the oppressed nor the statesman who can see farther than anyone else. He is just who he is, and that is good enough for us to choose him over Mitt Romney.

Congratulations, President Obama, for winning the toughest fight of your life. Now, please deliver on your promise by aiming higher than you have so far

How Important is Algebra?

A professor of political science named Andrew Hacker of Queens College, New York, published a provocative op-ed piece in the New York Times titled, “Is Algebra Necessary?”

It elicited strong rebuttals, most of them, as expected, from math professors around the country. Hacker’s thesis is that there is no evidence that mastering polynomial functions or parametric equations will be of any benefit to students fearful of algebra or to those aspiring to excel in subjects that have no connection with algebra or mathematics in general. He cites statistics in which most educators blame algebra as the reason for the high drop-out rate from our schools and colleges.

The professor gives California’s two university systems as proof of the harm that algebra does to students. The universities consider “applications only from students who have taken three years of mathematics and in that way exclude many applicants who might excel in fields like art or history. Community college students face an equally prohibitive mathematics wall. A study of two-year schools found that fewer than a quarter of their entrants passed the algebra classes they were required to take.”

The article generated strong reaction among students of California’s community colleges. Is algebra an impediment to their goals, or is it a difficult subject they must master anyway to acquire analytical skills and learn the value of hard work, traits required in any profession?

David, who is taking intermediate algebra this Fall, disagrees with Hacker’s contention that the emphasis should be on applied math and algebra for specific, everyday problems. As he sees it, learning only the math we need for specific situations ignores the underlying thought process that governs how the formulas work. “If we tailor math only for certain situations, we will raise a generation of people that can quote memorized steps without any understanding of WHY they work.” As to Hacker’s contention that algebra should be cut because it is ‘too hard’ implies that chemistry, physics, Art, English should also be cut because some students find these subjects hard as well. “Many people go into college without a solid base from high school and need a refresher to prepare them for the very rigorous course of study required to graduate from college. The rigor of higher education needs to be maintained for all these degrees to mean anything, and thus the requirements must be high, and to meet those requirements students need a good general education, and to have a good general education students absolutely must have a good understanding of algebra and the logical thinking required to work out the problems even without close instruction.”

“There is also the sad fact that without being prodded, most people don't care to challenge themselves to a higher understanding of algebra and mathematics. People must be forced to do it before they realize that they like it. The people who discover a love for algebra become the future of the field. If we do not require it, we will lose these people and soon afterwards, we will decline in our ability to understand it.”

Henry struggles with algebra but still feels that it should continue to be a core subject. “Whether you are a doctor measuring medication to inject into a patient or construction worker mixing cement, it all involves math.  Algebra isn’t easy but neither is life. So struggle is good for us to prepare for life.”

Kendal knows how hard algebra is. She had to take the course three times before she was able to get a passing grade. “If you don’t understand chapter 4, you will not understand chapter 5. Algebra builds on itself. I always thought I was bad in math until I realized that I was bad because I wasn’t paying attention and not putting in the hard work. Prof. Hacker says that students who are unable to pass algebra drop out or are denied admission to colleges of their choice and are unable to get decent jobs with good pay. To that I say, who would want to hire someone who quit when the going got tough? While the formulas used in algebra are not used in everyday life, the lesson of working hard to achieve a goal will be with the student for life. I wouldn’t walk into the Google campus and expect to be hired as a lawyer and then be pissed that they didn’t hire me because I haven’t passed the bar. Algebra weeds out those who aren’t dedicated or motivated to succeed.”

Frank agrees with Hacker and believes that any math beyond pre-algebra should not be a requirement. “Once we have learned how to do simple math for everyday life, it should be enough. It just causes stress when so many other things are going on in a student’s life. I know a lot of successful people who don’t even know pre-algebra. If you want to be a rocket scientist or a chemist, go for high-level math. But math beyond pre-algebra is a waste of time for most students.”

Intesar feels that removing algebra will be detrimental to the learning process. ”If algebra is removed, what next? English? Geometry? The U.S. ranks 14^th among developed countries in Math! This is not good for a country that wields enormous power and influence in the world. We are now importing scientists from other countries instead of creating our own scientists. When I am reaching for a goal, I must struggle. Otherwise, accomplishments are worthless. We must not avoid algebra because it is hard.”

Lisa can relate to the difficulty of algebra and feels that the course should not be a requirement but an option. Algebra causes many students to drop out of school. She has taken algebra multiple times. Just when she thinks she understands a concept, there comes another that messes up her understanding of the first. She knows many students who face the same problem.

Aubrea feels strongly that algebra is important for everyone to learn. “Algebra not only has to do with everyday math, it also helps students think logically, to think outside of the box. And it is always good to know algebra especially when our kids need help doing their algebra homework in the future.”

Christina often stresses the importance of algebra to her children but wonders how necessary algebra really is. “During my twenty five year career in the dental field and a couple of years in sales, I have applied my mathematical skills that I (barely) learned in high school, but I have never had an issue come up that a calculator or Google could not solve. I know others who dropped out of high school due to their inability to grasp algebra but they have gone on to make good careers without algebraic knowledge.”

Jonathan relates a personal story. “Back when I sold women’s shoes at Nordstrom, we had a power outage that brought down our fancy registers. But even with the power out, the show must go on. So with no light and no registers, we continued to write receipts, only we did it freehand. There was a problem, however. No one in my department knew how to calculate the sales tax. Luckily for them (and me), that was one of the few things from Algebra I remembered how to do. So for the next hour, while the power was still off, I was the go-to receipt scribbler!  When I was younger, before my Nordstrom days, I used to loathe Algebra. I thought that school should play to their student’s strengths and future interests, which for me certainly wasn’t anything math-related. Many years later, however, I’ve taken a more moderate stance. I believe a class called Practical Algebra would be really beneficial in not only opening people’s eyes to the benefits of Algebra but teaching them vital mathematical skills, as well.”

For Obama, All's Well that Ends Well

President Obama won the third and final debate against challenger Mitt Romney on both style and substance. The pundits were full of wild speculations about how Libya was going to dominate the debate but nothing of the sort happened. Romney has consistently excelled as the nation's armchair-general-in-chief but the wind went out of his sail when Obama exposed his "wrong and reckless" policies on Libya, Iran and Syria.

Obama invoked John Kennedy's stand on the Cuban missile crisis 50 years ago (today is the 50th anniversary of the crisis) to remind Romney and American voters that he will keep America's military supremacy intact.

While Romney talked in general terms, Obama spoke in specifics. (Romney: During Arab Spring, people took to the streets of Egypt. Obama: Egyptians gathered in Tahrir Square.) 

It was supposed to be a debate about foreign policy but reverted to domestic policy again and again. Like a robot, Romney kept repeating his mantra about his 5-point formula to turn America into Utopia, in spite of its evisceration by economists and policy-makers. When Obama asked Romney to provide some specifics, Romney suggested that the president visit his website where apparently his plan is laid out in full. "We visited your website and it still doesn't add up," replied the President. The audience roared with laughter.

Obama spoke with ease and confidence and you could see hope draining away from Romney's face. There was none of the bravado and arrogance we saw in the first debate. "This guy has found my number," Romney's expression suggested, "and there is nothing I can do about it!"

Romney didn't endear himself to the teachers of America when he said he loved teachers as well but "you cannot solve America's problem by hiring more teachers and reducing class size." Obama responded that these steps make a fundamental difference and go a long way toward solving America's problems. While Romney tried to make the case (again) that under his leadership, Massachusetts had the best educational records in Math and English for 4th and 8th graders, Obama reminded him that the record was already in place before he became the governor.

Obama made the difference between him and Romney stark by stating that his challenger's policies will take America back to the "cold war of 1980s, social policies of the 1920s and the economic policies of the 1950s." All Romney could offer in response was ... stunned silence.

As I was watching the debate, another "momentous" event was taking place in San Francisco. The SF Giants were playing in the second round of the 2012 National League playoff series, facing the Saint Louis Cardinals in the seventh and decisive game, after being down 3 games to 1. In the first round, they were down 2-0 against the Cincinnati Reds but took the next 3 games away from home, a record comeback in a 5-game series. From being down 3-1 against the Cardinals, they took the next 2 games and were 3-3 going into the 7th game. So what happened in that final game? Giants beat the Cardinals 9-0! SF Giants have proven to be the ultimate comeback kid. Whether or not they win the World Series against the Detroit Tigers, their back-to-back stirring comebacks will inspire baseball fans and players for years to come.

Barack Obama, too, made a stirring comeback after his first defeat, so his parallel with the SF Giants is impossible to overlook. But the President needs to beat Mitt Romney on November 6. We cannot return to another George Bush presidency. While I will be rooting for SF Giants to win the 2012 World Series, the world will not fall apart if the team doesn't. I will be rooting  for President Obama to get elected for a second term because I know the world will indeed fall apart if Mitt Romney becomes the next president of the United States.

I am confident of Obama's victory on November 6, even if by the narrowest of margins. I am confident that American voters will choose restraint over brinkmanship, reason over recklessness, coherence over crass pandering, and Obama over Romney.

"Argo": A Thriller with a Perspective

“Argo” is a thriller worthy of the best of John le Carre. The only difference is that this movie is based not on fiction but on facts, with some liberties taken here and there to keep the story taut.

On November 4, 1979, six Americans escaped from the U.S. embassy in Tehran through a back door when loyalists of Ayatollah Khomeini overran it. Iranians were angry at the American government for refusing to hand over the Shah, who had been allowed into the country by the Carter administration for medical treatment.

The Americans found shelter in the residence of Ken Taylor, Canada’s Ambassador to Iran. While the U.S. and world attention was focused on the 52 hostages from the embassy, the CIA and the State Department began working on a plan to fly the six diplomats out of Iran. The plan they hatched was as improbable as any Hollywood production.

In fact, the plan, proposed by CIA’s disguise and exfiltration expert Tony Mendes, did involve a fake movie-production company in Hollywood called “Studio Six Productions.”
Mendez came up with a cover story for the six Americans: They were actors scouting locations in the Middle East for filming a science-fiction flick called “Argo,” (a Middle-Eastern “Star Wars” in which the fearless and flying locals try to free their homeland from foreign tyrants), with Iran as one of the potential sites.

When Mendez explained his plan to the top brass at the State Department and the CIA, they weren’t sure whether to laugh or cry at its utter absurdity. But Mendez, played superbly and with understated sensibility by actor-director Ben Affleck, convinced them that “this is the best bad idea we have.”

The Operation was a go.

Once “producer” Mendez lands at the Mehrabad International Airport in Tehran, things become unpredictable even by Hollywood standards. One of the six Americans rejects his plan outright. Revolutionary guards track his every move. In an ancient bazaar the day before the escape, he and his group of six almost get beaten up.

But the real zinger comes when, at the last moment, the CIA informs Mendez that he must abort his plan. A military operation to rescue all the 58 hostages is in the works by the Carter administration. The Hollywood caper must cease immediately.

I will not spoil the movie by telling you what ensues, other than to say that the truth turns out to be not only stranger than fiction but a good deal more exciting. The movie draws you in as it alternates between street scenes in Tehran where young revolutionaries denounce the United States and kill Iranians suspected of treachery, the claustrophobic confinement of the Americans and the tension at the State Department and the CIA. The final chase scene sets the pulse racing and the heart pounding. Two aging Hollywood honchos, played brilliantly by Alan Arkin and John Goodman, oversee the logistics from the Hollywood end and provide comic relief. (Lamenting the seeming futility of American efforts, one remarks to the other, “John Wayne has been in the ground six months and this is what’s left of America!”)

“Argo” impresses because of the way Affleck handles the explosive hostage issue in the context of history. In 1950, Iranians democratically elected Mohammed Mosaddeq as their Prime Minister. One of the first things Mosaddeq did was to nationalize Iran’s oil companies to benefit ordinary Iranians. In 1953, however, he was overthrown in a CIA-engineered coup, followed by the installation of the Reza Shah Pahlavi as Iran’s absolute monarch.

Until his fall in 1979, the Shah ruled Iran with an iron hand. Savak, the secret organization he built to enforce his will, became synonymous with murderous savagery. In 23 years, SAVAK summarily executed thousands of Iranian men and women to keep any insurgency under control. Meanwhile, the Shah continued to enjoy unconditional support from successive U.S. governments.

When Ayatollah Khomeini assumed supreme power in 1979, he unleashed his own brand of terror. Vengeance, in the form of beheadings, hanging and torture, became the order of the day. A severe austerity descended on the nation and Iranians were left wondering if a middle path would ever be in their destiny.

Director Affleck does not ignore the historical context for the intense animosity Iranians felt toward America. As Argo’s screenwriter Chris Terrio aptly put it, “What I hope people come away with is the complexity of what happened, the fact that there is no antagonist here. On all sides of this, there were people trying to do the right thing.”

Iran is again in the news now, 33 years after the hostage crisis. As the saying goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Citing the “mortal danger” posed by a nuclear-armed Iran, Israel under Bibi Netanyahu has been hell-bent on launching a unilateral, preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Only the stern opposition by the Obama administration and top U.S. military leaders have kept the intransigent Israeli leader under control.

The middle path for Iran and its leaders seem as elusive as ever, in spite of what history has taught the nation in the past three decades. The Republican Party, particularly in light of the bellicose statements from Mitt Romney vis-à-vis Iran, appears equally impervious to history’s lessons.

President Obama has said that “the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” But what he has also said is that sanctions are already taking a terrible toll on Iran and that its leaders cannot ignore its effects for long. Nuclear experts have confirmed that Iran is nowhere near building a nuclear arsenal, despite the bluster of its leaders, and that diplomacy, backed by sanctions, remains the best option for containing Iran’s nuclear ambition.

America cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of its past in Iran, no matter how much goading it has to withstand from Israel. If “Argo” can communicate this message, however subliminally, it will have served a far more ambitious goal than keeping viewers entertained and enthralled.

Obama Finds His Stride

The turning point in the second debate tonight came when Mitt Romney suggested that President Obama did not characterize the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi as a terror attack until 14 days after the extremists had infiltrated the compound and killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

This was after Obama had asserted that he had gone to the Rose Garden the day after attack to say “this was an act of terror.”

“Get the transcript,” the President said. In fact, moderator Candy Crowley of CNN had to interject, “He did in fact, sir,” addressing Romney.

“Can you say that a little louder, Candy?” requested the President.

(Here's what the President said in the Rose Garden on September 12: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.")

As the Nassau audience applaued, the wind went out of Romney’s sail. A stern Obama also scored huge points when he came down hard on Romney’s insinuations that the President had used the Benghazi attack for political advantage.  “The suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive.  That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president, that’s not what I do as commander-in-chief.”

Finally we got to see the Obama we wanted to see in the first debate. He was assertive without being overbearing. He looked directly at his challenger and dissected Romney's arguments with the precision of a surgeon. While Romney tried to distance himself from former president Bush, Obama also scored points by portraying a humane and competent Bush.

President Obama regained his stride after his inexplicably poor performance in the first debate. If all’s well that ends well, then a similar feisty and passionate performance in the third and final debate this coming Monday should boost Obama’s chances.

In California’s liberal Silicon Valley today, I saw two cars sporting the same bumper sticker: “I was anti-Obama before it was cool.”

The anti-Obama crowd will never be placated but the main question is: Was Obama able to  regain some of the undecided voters who were beginning to lean toward Romney after the President's debacle in Denver? Most certainly.

If the Benghazi moment was the highlight of the debate, a close second was Obama's closing statement in which he was able to nail Romney's cruel "47%" comment. The President said: "I believe Governor Romney is a good man. Loves his family, cares about his faith. But I also believe that when he said behind closed doors that 47 percent of the country considered themselves victims who refuse personal responsibility, think about who he was talking about. Folks on Social Security who’ve worked all their lives. Veterans who’ve sacrificed for this country. Students who are out there trying to hopefully advance their own dreams, but also this country’s dreams. Soldiers who are overseas fighting for us right now. People who are working hard every day, paying payroll tax, gas taxes, but don’t make enough income.And I want to fight for them. That’s what I’ve been doing for the last four years. Because if they succeed, I believe the country succeeds."
 

An intriguing Presidential election is coming our way on November 6. It will be a fight to the finish and it will be close. But good sense will ultimately prevail and it is likely that Americans will reward President Obama with a second term. Only one request, Mr. President: Make the third and final debate with Mitt Romney as interesting and feisty and passionate as this one!

Biden Nails Ryan and Republicans with One Word: Malarkey

Joe Biden regained the momentum for his boss and the Democrats with his energetic performance against Paul Ryan tonight. The one word that can now be used to describe Republicans is "malarkey." These R guys are full of hot air; worse, their talk is foolish. In other words, every time a Republican opens his or her mouth, all you can expect is malarkey.

Besides expanding the vocabulary of Americans, Biden scored on all fronts against the smooth-talking, empty-vessel Ryan. The bluster on Syria, Libya and Iran, the shameless spin on taxes and medicare, the disdain for the 47%, the vagueness about pulling out of Afghanistan - the more Ryan tried to make his "points", the more desperate he looked.

It has become common for Romney and Ryan to try to "humanize" their views with touching personal stories. Biden would not fall for it. To be compassionate at a personal level does not mean its author is compassionate when it comes to defining policies that affect millions of Americans. Biden took the wind out of Ryan's sails when the Congressman tried to elicit sympathy from viewers with his personal stories. "Stop talking about how you care about people," Biden said. "Show me something. Show me a policy. Show me a policy where you take responsibility."

As I have observed before, these debates are not about substance but style. He who radiates more confidence, more wit and more authority wins. Ryan started out strong but halfway through the debate was reduced to a schoolboy being reprimanded by the school principal for, well, malarkey. When he suggested that American troops should not be withdrawn from the most dangerous regions of Afghanistan, an incredulous Biden asked (I am paraphrasing here): "So you would want to put American troops in danger so directly?" A single query unmasked the bluster of the armchair-general from Wisconsin.

When Ryan tried to ridicule Obama's stimulus plan, Biden revealed that the Congressman had personally written two letters asking for stimulus money for his district, available for viewing on the government's website. Talk about the height of hypocrisy!

The million-dollar question is: Can president Obama run with this? Can he emulate Biden's performance tonight and rejuvenate Democrats and his supporters with solid performances in the remaining two debates after his demoralizing and inexplicable meltdown in the first?

He better, if he wants to be reelected.

My guess is that he can and he will.

Romney Wins First Round

President Obama let Mitt Romney run away with the trophy in the first debate tonight. The challenger was fluent and forceful. He looked directly at the president as he made his points. He came across as the one who cared more about America. For most of the debate, Obama looked down as the split screen showed Romney in a posture that suggested he was talking down to a timid student. At one point when Obama was speaking, Romney interrupted and amazingly, Obama conceded the floor to him. Instead of looking at Romney, Obama (when he looked up at all) seemed to plead with moderator Jim Lehrer to bring the debate to an end. Romney, in contrast, controlled Lehrer, directing the flow of questions.

Forget the facts. Fact checkers will tell you that Romney was wrong on this and that, as was the President. In these debates, style trumps substance. When Obama was running for president four years ago, he electrified the electorate with his newness, his near-mythical striving for the highest position in the land. That he was running against a party led by the reviled George Bush no doubt helped his candidacy.

But as incumbent, the magic seems to have left Obama. He was hesitant  and tentative with Romney. He seemed ill at ease. There was hardly any passion behind his words. He combined his sentences with a drawn out “a..and” that became a distracting mannerism as the debate progressed. His rebuttals (again, we are not talking facts here but style) were weaker compared to Romney’s. In summing up the debate with his perspective on leadership, Romney said, “America is hurting today!” and then said that he would set America right. A visitor from Mars would have believed Romney. Obama, in contrast, asked us to simply believe that what he did in the last four years should convince us to vote for him. Unconvincing, to say the least.

Only toward the end did the President briefly come alive when he said that part of being a leader was to have a plan and that a leader had to sometimes say “no” to the extreme fringes of his party. He exposed Romney’s shortcomings in two sentences but that was about it. Obama’s relief was almost palpable when the debate finally ended.

As an Obama supporter, I am hoping that we have seen the best of Romney and the worst of Obama tonight. Certainly with his performance, Romney has repaired the damage of his “47%” remark. He has accomplished his mission for now and put the President on the defensive. Obama needs to practice an hour everyday looking directly at someone while locking horns with him on contentious issues. (Joe Biden, perhaps?) It’s okay to be polite, laid back and cool in private but in a debate that can change voter perceptions instantly, passion and conviction have to radiate from the candiate's whole being.

The verdict: Obama did not hurt himself but Romney elevated himself and was the clear winner. Please, Mr. President, shed your complacency, if that's what it is. Replace ice with fire. In the next two debates, don’t let the Governor take charge. You must. Four years ago, an "outsider" seized the momentum in his debates with a Republican challenger. We want that candidate back.

Being Kind to Animals

Businesses often send their representatives to college campuses at the beginning of semesters to sign up students for their products and services. It may be a gym or a spa offering annual membership at discount prices, a beauty parlor promising to “remake your looks and how you feel about yourself,” or a local deli extolling the manifold delights of its sandwiches.

Sometimes, though, volunteers show up to sell not a thing but an idea. Such was the case recently at a community college campus in Northern California. Mike Sage, a 65-year-old software engineer at a high-tech company in Silicon Valley, was handing out brochures to persuade students to become vegetarians.  “It’s good for you and it’s good for the earth,” he was saying. The brochure was prepared by an organization committed to stopping cruelty to animals. Mike is associated with the Santa Clara County Activists for Animals (SCCAA), “an all-volunteer organization dedicated to reducing and eliminating the suffering of animals and to raising community awareness of animal issues.” SCCAA is driven by compassion to prevent cruelty to animals, “especially those used for food, clothing, and entertainment.”

With the increasing awareness of animal cruelty, surely the number of vegetarians in the United States is increasing?

“Not really,” says Mike. “As some people become vegetarians, some vegetarians go back to a meat-based diet. Lapsed vegetarians keep the overall conversion rate down.”

According to Vegetarian Times, 3.2 percent of U.S. adults - 7.3 million people - follow a vegetarian-based diet. Approximately 0.5 percent - 1 million - of those are vegans, who consume no animal products at all. In addition, 10 percent of U.S. adults - 22.8 million people - say they largely follow a vegetarian-inclined diet.

Mike has taken time off from his vacation hours to stand under a hot sun to talk with students. Many are receptive and politely accept the brochures. A few wave him off. He is undaunted.

“You must feel passionately about this, to use up your vacation time like this!”

“I cannot think of a better way to use my vacation time,” he says.

Most Americans are unaware of the torture and cruelty the food-industrial complex inflict on animals to keep the grocery stores stocked with meat, although the 2008-documentary “Food, Inc.” was a gruesome eye-opener for many. This year alone, for instance, Governor Jerry Brown of California signed into law about a dozen animal welfare bills.

But progress is slow and consumer craving for red meat continues to grow. Mike, a vegan since 2007, and others like him, know it is an uphill battle to persuade people to give up meat from their diets. “But we have a network of dedicated people all over the country. We will never give up. Humane treatment of animals makes us better human beings. As a popular poster says, be kind to animals by not eating them. It’s really as simple as that.”

Killers in Libya Must be Served Justice

The death of J. Christopher Stevens, U.S. ambassador to Libya, at the hands of extremists has shocked civilized people everywhere. Libyan Prime Minister Abdurrahim Keib declared: "This is a criminal act that will not go unpunished. This is part of a series of cowardice acts by supporters of the former regime who want to undermine Libya's revolution.” Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf vowed to bring the perpetrators to justice. "We refuse that our nation's lands be used for cowardice and revengeful acts. It is not a victory for God's Sharia or His prophet for such disgusting acts to take place," he said. "We apologize to the United States, the people of America, and the entire world. We and the American government are standing on the same side. We stand on the same side against outlaws."

The deaths of embassy officials in Libya and Egypt came about because of a crude video posted on the Internet that depicted Islam and Prophet Muhammad (saw) in a negative light. There are fringe groups in Muslim countries waiting to exploit things like this for political gain, always in the name of Islam. Because they have no political legitimacy, they resort to murder and mayhem to convince Muslims that they are acting to protect the honor and dignity of Islam. The majority of Muslims have rejected them again and again and stand united today in unequivocally condemning them. 

Mitt Romney, Republican nominee for the President of the United States, is already politicizing the crisis. “I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi,” he said. “It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Fact is, the Obama administration did no such thing. As soon as the news of the deaths came to light, both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the attacks on the embassies in unambiguous terms. This will not stop the Republicans, however, from escalating their baseless attacks on President Obama in the coming days.  Party stalwarts are already calling Obama a coward for not standing up to the threats posed by “Muslims” against America. Whatever it takes – lies, distortions – to win the election is game for the Republicans.

President Obama must not allow the exigencies of the election to define his response to the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Libya and Egypt. So far, he has not and it is unlikely that he will in the future. But politics is a strange profession and the pull of power can distort anyone’s perspective. It remains to be seen how the President walks this minefield as the November election draws near.

But the bigger question is how to contain and defeat extremists who claim to act in the name of Islam but whose only aim is to seize power so that they can practice their savage ideologies. Almost always, their first victims are women. They want women to be confined to homes, remain illiterate, serve their desires and receive rigorous punishment and even death for what they alone define to be moral infractions. These self-styled custodians of “virtues” are corrupt to the core. They are nihilists whose only signature mark is destruction.

As the New York Times reported, President Obama said of the Americans murdered in Libya: “These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. Make no mistake: we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.” He praised the Libyan government, noting that Libyan security forces fought back against the mob, helped protect American diplomats and took Mr. Stevens’s body to the hospital. “This attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya,” he said.

Ambassador Stevens taught English as a Peace Corps volunteers in Morocco from 1983 to 1985. He worked tirelessly with Libyan rebels in overthrowing the regime of Dictator Muammar Gadhafi last year. He had nothing to do with the hate video posted by an American Islam-hater. Yet he and three of his staff paid the ultimate price at the hands of a band of fanatics. We must do whatever we can - even if it is as minimal as protesting - to thwart the extremists.