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.

 

Walking for the Children of Syria

Today, Saturday, September 8, 2012, concerned Americans throughout the United States will be walking for the children of Syria. Cities where the organized walks will take place include Atlanta, Boston, Brooklyn, Chicago, Charleston, Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis, Little Rock, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, Sacramento, San Diego, Tempe, Washington, DC and Wichita.

Syrian children have borne the brunt of dictator Bashar Assad’s brutality more than any other segment of the population since the genocidal crackdown began 16 months ago. Close to 2,000 children have already perished. The Free Syrian Army (FSA) is steadily gaining ground against government troops but the cost continues to be high. France, more than any other Western powers, is helping FSA with funds and supplies. Although Zero Hour is approaching for Bashar Assad, Syrians, particularly Syrian children, are in dire need of help from conscientious people everywhere.

The Walk for Children of Syria organization is raising funds for the most vulnerable victims of Bashar Assad. Locally, in Northern California today, we will be walking across the fabled Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, from 11 am – 2 pm.

All proceeds will go to UNICEF for immediate distribution within Syria.

The life-and-death question is: "When will the carnage in Syria end?" While Syrians flee in thousands to neighboring countries like Turkey and Jordan, orphans have become the most heart-breaking symbol of the genocide wrought by Assad. The least we Americans can do is to join the walk for the children of Syria if it is taking place in or near our respective cities.

Khan Academy Benefits Students

Hundreds of thousands of students from around the world have found a reliable and competent teacher in the 35-year-old Salman Khan, the creator of over 3,300 digital lectures from math and science to economics and humanities. The online videos run anywhere from 10-20 minutes each, focused on a single topic (solve for variables x and y in a system of linear equations, for example) that students can follow and practice repeatedly until they get it.

Though not a professionally-trained teacher, Khan is a born teacher. But his success hasn’t gone down well with professional teachers, particularly math teachers, who are complaining that Khan’s videos do more harm than good. Call it a case of sour grapes.

These “purist” math teachers seem unable to accept the fact that Salman Khan has attracted a world-wide following for the simplicity and elegance of his math and other online lectures. They are nervous because Khan is attempting to reverse traditional teaching: Instead of learning new ideas in the classroom and practicing at home, often without any help, students get ideas by using his videos at home and practice their content in the class, with teachers working as one-on-one tutor.

Pilot projects testing Khan’s idea are sprouting all over, spanning continents. Results are positive. Students learn at their own paces and get personalized help from teachers when stuck, leading to a greater mastery of their subjects than in the traditional one-size-fits-all classrooms. His lesson pages have tallied close to 200 million views worldwide. Surely that says something.

Professional teachers and educators are quibbling over subtle “gaps” in Khan’s logic as he tries to explain, for instance, the mathematics of multiplying two negative numbers that gives a positive result. They are aghast that he uses the term “associative” instead of “commutative” to describe a property of multiplication. They take him to task for mixing up terms like “minus” and “subtract.”

What they overlook is that Khan’s videos are serving their purpose: teaching students what they need to learn, from the slums of Ghana to the resource-starved schools of America, in a fun, focused and interactive way. This is the case with Jennifer, for instance, a precocious 6^th-grader from San Jose, California. “I don’t have to listen to my math teacher going on and on about ratios. These videos tell me what ratio is and how I can use it to solve real problems. Once I get the idea, I am on my way.”

Salman Khan’s videos are without any glitz or gimmicks. In fact, they are almost primitive in their simplicity, in contrast to other educational videos in the market that seem more like some Hollywood production, using the best graphics and animation tools that money can buy. They dazzle but rarely teach. They are all sound and fury, signifying practically nothing.

Instead of lamenting the lack of depth or formal structure in Khan’s videos, professional teachers and educators can help raise the standard of K-12 education in America and elsewhere by incorporating the videos in their classrooms and coming up with suggestions that can genuinely improve the quality of the lessons. They should be guided by the interest of the students and not by any feeling of encroachment on their “territory” by an “outsider.”

Community Peace Rally for American Sikhs

San Joseans from all walks of life attended a community peace rally for Sikhs on August 9 at the Santa Clara County Government Center in downtown San Jose. It came in the wake of the death of six Sikhs in a Gurdwara (a place of learning and worship) in Wisconsin by a deranged supremacist. The hundreds of participating Sikhs were moved by the support and sympathy of Americans of all faiths and color. Although the occasion was somber, the evidence of common humanity lifted the spirits of local Sikhs and strengthened their faith in an inclusive America.

Leaders from Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist , Hindu and other religious and humanitarian organizations - NAACP, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Punjabi  - spoke at the rally. Posters reading “I Pledge Against Violence” and “When ONE American is hurt, we ALL hurt” underscored the message of the rally.

Speaker after speaker emphasized zero tolerance policy in America for hate, bigotry and prejudice. They bemoaned the culture of violence that seems to have gripped America. “Sikhs are peace-loving, law-abiding Americans,” said one speaker. “It is a terrible tragedy that a bigot chose to attack these gentle people in their place of worship. We must be united against such acts of violence anywhere. “

Another speaker, a lawyer and an activist, reminded the audience that the attack in Wisconsin was far from being an isolated incident.  “Just a few days ago, a gun freak opened fire in a theatre in Colorado, killing several movie goers. Columbine, Arizona, Virginia, the list goes on and on. Only a few psychopaths are breeding domestic terrorism. We have become hostages in our own country. Violent people are using the Second Amendment to kill. With violence so pervasive in the U.S. today, the idea that anyone has the right to bear arms has become outdated. As a nation, we must have the courage to amend the Second Amendment.” Otherwise, she said, bigots and supremacists will continue to target Americans who do not fit their narrow definition of who an American is.

Within hours of the Wisconsin shooting, domestic terrorists burned down a mosque in tornado-ravaged Joplin, MO. Fueled by hate and irrational fear and by irresponsible, conspiracy-theory-prone politicians, violence is rising dramatically throughout the United States. Collectively, Americans own 300 million guns, more than cars and more than there are adults in the country. Without effective gun control, as several speakers emphasized at the rally, violence of the type at the Sikh temple will become a daily occurrence in America.

Sikh children sang devotional songs and songs of peace at the rally. Sikh leaders spoke of resilience, love and unity, tempering their thoughts with practical ways to halt the cycle of violence in America, their beloved homeland.

U.S. Women's Soccer Team Will Win Gold in London Olympics

In the July 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup in Frankfurt, Germany, Japan beat the U.S. 3-1 on penalty-kick shootout. The match was drawn 1-1 after regulation, then 2-2 after overtime. To lose the world cup on a shootout was heartbreaking for the Americans but a glorious affirmation for the Japanese, especially since the land of the rising sun was still reeling from the disasters of the tsunami and Fukushima nuclear meltdown.

A year later, at the London Olympics, the U.S. women’s soccer team escaped with a near-miraculous 4-3 victory over Canada in Manchester. Judging from the way the two teams played, the Canadians had as much right to expect a victory as the Americans. For the duration of the regulation time, Abby Wambach, Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe and friends found themselves playing catch-up to their northern neighbors, led by the brilliant Christine Sinclair of Canada who scored a hat trick. U.S. players had to rally three times to tie the score.

Then came overtime and until the 122^nd minute, the score was tied at 3-3. In the 123^rd minute, Morgan converted a perfect cross from Heather O’Reilly with a midair header that found the sweet spot in the net. It is no exaggeration to say that it was a header heard round America, if not the world.

So a repeat of the world cup showdown from a year ago awaits soccer lovers. The U.S. will meet Japan in the gold-medal match on August 9 at London’s fabled Wembley stadium.

Here’s my prediction: United States will beat Japan. The thrilling victory over Canada has given the mental edge to Wambach and company who will be riding it to a hard-fought victory against their nemesis. Also significant will be the “avenger” role that will animate every U.S. player to help them redeem the haunting defeat at the world cup a year ago. (It is possible that LeBron James and friends may, just may, face the Russians for the gold in basketball in this Olympics, and avenge the infamous loss at the Munich Olympics 40 years ago). The force seems to be with the U.S. Women’s soccer team in the London Olympics.  There is no other way to explain the victory against the Canadians.

A Star is Born in Gabby Douglas

Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in Major League Baseball at the age of 28 in 1947. It was a monumental milestone for a sport that had been segregated for over 50 years.

Sometimes we do not realize the progress we make as a society because we take things for granted. Can anyone imagine MLB without African-American players now? Yet 1947 isn’t that far back into the past, if you think about it. It is a year later than the initial age bracket of baby boomers.

There have been a few African-American women gymnasts here and there but until the magnificent Gabby Douglas came along, they were merely place holders, limited more by their mindset than by their talent. African-American girls were just not expected to excel in a sport dominated by fair-skinned Europeans, Russians, Asians, and yes, Americans.

The status quo has been turned upside down by a 16-year-old “flying squirrel” whose poise, grace and sheer ability earned her the crown jewel of the Olympics gymnastics program, the women’s all-around. Gabby is the little engine that could, the ballerina who refused not only to be shackled by history but soar above it.

And how she soared! A bird, a gazelle, a wunderkind with gravity-defying moves who left you gasping for superlatives. The favored Russians paled next to her. “What planet did this alien come from,” their stunned expression seemed to be saying when the four-routine program was over.

Gabby brought along a stirring and quintessentially American story to the London Olympics. It broke her tender heart when her parents divorced. She wasn’t sure she could overcome this emotional abyss. Then she moved from her home state of Virginia to Iowa to train with famed trainer Lian Chow when all attention was focused on Michigan’s Jordyn Wieber, the reigning all-around world champion. Although impressed with Gabby’s ability, even Chow didn’t think Gabby had what it took to reach the pinnacle of Olympics gymnastics.

But what tested Gabby the most was the whisperings of her own mind. No African-American had ever worn gymnastic’s crown jewel. Add to that the intimidating fact that a billion pairs of eyes would be watching.

If there were any doubts in the beginning, however, Gabby soon overcame them. When the barriers of the mind fell, only the sky, almost literally for this “flying squirrel,” was the limit. The result? A star was born, a dazzling and disarming star in whose light we were privileged to bask, from continent to continent.

Track and Field is yet to start. Undoubtedly there will be more athletes who will capture our imagination. Perhaps Usain Bolt will recover his brilliant Beijing form. Or maybe he will have to pass the torch to fellow Jamaican sprinter Yohan Blake. Famed Kenyan and Ethiopian runners are waiting for their moment in the sun. Michael Phelps has already become the most decorated Olympian ever.

But if a single athlete becomes the face of the London Olympics, it is Gabby Douglas. With her transcendent victory, she has opened the doors for girls for whom race will no longer be a barrier but a catalyst for success and glory, not just in the Olympics but in the wider arena of life.