Revolutions occur infrequently, which is why the second Iranian revolution that followed the first by a mere thirty years has stirred so much emotions around the world. In 1979 the Shah was toppled and the fiery Ayatollah Khomeini gained power. But his legacy has been a rigid theocracy that has gradually choked off the aspirations of Iranians. Why is it that people in power never learn from history? Why must they always oscillate between two extremes, between "anything goes" and "nothing goes" views, particularly in Muslim countries?
The current revolution is being waged by the children of the first. A flawed election may have started it but now it has turned into an existential battle between those who seek freedom and those determined to deny it. Iranians are sick of the status quo, of theocrats and their lackeys with no experience in statecraft, abusing religion to keep the masses under control. Young Iranians and old have concluded that with the current regime, there’s not to reason why, there’s but to do and die. The Revolutionary Guard may seize power and install a military government but that will not last. The people have risen and they will be satisfied with nothing less than a complete transformation of government. Their twitters are being heard round the world. They have learned from Barack Obama that change is not only possible but inevitable. The grim reality, however, is that this change will come only after a river of blood has flown through the streets of Tehran.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
What Hate Begets
Who can predict when and where a racist will strike? James von Brunn, 88, a bona fide supremacist, opened fire in the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington today, killing the 39 years old security guard Stephen Tyrone Johns. Most racists nurse their hate in silence or meet with fellow-haters to vent but are careful to keep a lid on their prejudice in public. But that isn't the case with people like Brunn. The scary thing is that the number of Brunns is on the rise in the world. More and more racists are coming out of the closet, it seems.
Equally disturbing is the increasing number of people who are desensitized toward violence, racist or otherwise. For them, such incidents are mere blips on the 24-hour news cycle, no more cause for alarm than, say, the drop in the stock market or the rise in unemployment.
It is also clear that right-wing radicals have gone off the deep end since Barack Obama became the first African-American president of the United States. Rush Limbaugh claims that Obama is more dangerous to the security of the United States than al-Qaida. Frank Gaffney compares the president to Hitler: “The man now happy to have his Islamic-rooted middle name featured prominently has engaged in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich.”
Such talk resonates with extremists burning with hatred for Jews, Blacks, Muslims and other minority groups. It is not far-fetched to draw a causal relationship between demonization and destruction.
For the record, though, only last week Barack Obama condemned anti-Semitism in the strongest terms to the entire Arab world from Cairo University.
When tragedies such as the one in the Holocaust Museum occur, we try to come to grips with what really goes on inside the minds of terrorists. For me, the most frightening insight comes from a short story by Eudora Welty called "Where Is the Voice Coming From?"
Written in response to the June 12, 1963, assassination of Mississippi NAACP leader Medgar Evers by white supremacist Byron De la Beckwith only a few miles from where Welty lived, the author explored the mindset of a bigot who would commit such a murder. The clipped sentences send a chill down my spine every time I read it:
“As soon as I heard wheels, I knowed who was coming. That was him and bound to be him. It was the right nigger heading in a new white car up his driveway towards his garage with the light shining, but stopping before he got there, maybe not to wake 'em. That was him. I knowed it when he cut off the car lights and put his foot out and I knowed him standing dark against the light. I knowed him then like I know me now. I knowed him even by his still, listening back.
Never seen him before, never seen him since, never seen anything of his black face but his picture, never seen his face alive, any time at all, or anywheres, and didn't want to, need to, never hope to see that face and never will. As long as there was no question in my mind.
He had to be the one. He stood right still and waited against the light, his back was fixed, fixed on me like a preacher's eyeballs when he's yelling "Are you saved?" He's the one.I'd already brought up my rifle, I'd already taken my sights. And I'd already got him, because it was too late then for him or me to turn by one hair.
Something darker than him, like the wings of a bird, spread on his back and pulled him down. He climbed up once, like a man under bad claws, and like just blood could weigh a ton he walked with it on his back to better light. Didn't get no further than his door. And fell to stay.”
We are morally complicit in the evil of racism if we are insensitive to its manifestations. Consumed by a blind hatred for Jews and Blacks, an octogenarian fascist attacked the symbol of Jewish suffering and killed a black man in the nation's capital today. The Brunns of the world always find someone to blame and take the easy way out by cutting down as many lives as they can to avenge their irrational anger, hate and frustration. But they will have achieved nothing if, at the very least, we repudiate their acts in our hearts.
Equally disturbing is the increasing number of people who are desensitized toward violence, racist or otherwise. For them, such incidents are mere blips on the 24-hour news cycle, no more cause for alarm than, say, the drop in the stock market or the rise in unemployment.
It is also clear that right-wing radicals have gone off the deep end since Barack Obama became the first African-American president of the United States. Rush Limbaugh claims that Obama is more dangerous to the security of the United States than al-Qaida. Frank Gaffney compares the president to Hitler: “The man now happy to have his Islamic-rooted middle name featured prominently has engaged in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich.”
Such talk resonates with extremists burning with hatred for Jews, Blacks, Muslims and other minority groups. It is not far-fetched to draw a causal relationship between demonization and destruction.
For the record, though, only last week Barack Obama condemned anti-Semitism in the strongest terms to the entire Arab world from Cairo University.
When tragedies such as the one in the Holocaust Museum occur, we try to come to grips with what really goes on inside the minds of terrorists. For me, the most frightening insight comes from a short story by Eudora Welty called "Where Is the Voice Coming From?"
Written in response to the June 12, 1963, assassination of Mississippi NAACP leader Medgar Evers by white supremacist Byron De la Beckwith only a few miles from where Welty lived, the author explored the mindset of a bigot who would commit such a murder. The clipped sentences send a chill down my spine every time I read it:
“As soon as I heard wheels, I knowed who was coming. That was him and bound to be him. It was the right nigger heading in a new white car up his driveway towards his garage with the light shining, but stopping before he got there, maybe not to wake 'em. That was him. I knowed it when he cut off the car lights and put his foot out and I knowed him standing dark against the light. I knowed him then like I know me now. I knowed him even by his still, listening back.
Never seen him before, never seen him since, never seen anything of his black face but his picture, never seen his face alive, any time at all, or anywheres, and didn't want to, need to, never hope to see that face and never will. As long as there was no question in my mind.
He had to be the one. He stood right still and waited against the light, his back was fixed, fixed on me like a preacher's eyeballs when he's yelling "Are you saved?" He's the one.I'd already brought up my rifle, I'd already taken my sights. And I'd already got him, because it was too late then for him or me to turn by one hair.
Something darker than him, like the wings of a bird, spread on his back and pulled him down. He climbed up once, like a man under bad claws, and like just blood could weigh a ton he walked with it on his back to better light. Didn't get no further than his door. And fell to stay.”
We are morally complicit in the evil of racism if we are insensitive to its manifestations. Consumed by a blind hatred for Jews and Blacks, an octogenarian fascist attacked the symbol of Jewish suffering and killed a black man in the nation's capital today. The Brunns of the world always find someone to blame and take the easy way out by cutting down as many lives as they can to avenge their irrational anger, hate and frustration. But they will have achieved nothing if, at the very least, we repudiate their acts in our hearts.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Bing, Another Verb, Takes On Google
Taking on Google on its own turf is something only a foolhardy company would do. But that’s what Microsoft has done with Bing (www.bing.com), its latest attempt to compete with Google in the search arena. Live Search and other past attempts had badly failed but while “agility” is not normally associated with Microsoft, “persistence” is.
And that persistence seems to have paid off. Bing is a more user-friendly search engine and leaves Google in the dust in the visual department. A new image everyday invites you to explore the world in five broad categories - Images, Videos, Shopping, News, Maps and Travel. Having become used to the austere look-and-feel of Google for so long, Microsoft’s search screen may take a while to adjust to but it seems to draw users in once they make that tentative first click.
Of course, style can go only so far. Ultimately, it’s substance that wins. Here too, Microsoft shines. I typed in Thoreau. When my cursor hovered on the right edge of a link, it displayed a summary of that Web page. The first entry on the Bard of Walden was from Wikipedia. I did not need to go to Wikipedia immediately since “Hover” gave me a synopsis. The advantage is obvious. Now I can filter out spurious results, the bane of all search engines, by scanning the summary.
Since I am planning to travel in a few weeks, I searched for Malaria videos and was presented with an array of thumbnail still pictures. Simply by placing the cursor on one of these pictures started the associated video. This removes the annoyance of having to click “play” or go to a new page. When I moved the cursor to a different image, the previous one stopped and the new one began. Again, a built-in, intuitive filtering process that makes the search experience a pleasant and productive one.
Similar features abound. I am sufficiently impressed by the service to at least alternate between Google and Microsoft for now. Google has ignored all attempts by Microsoft to usurp its territory, and for good reason, since all such attempts had led to more embarrassment for Steve Ballmer. But now Google has to respond. And therein lies the dilemma. If Google introduces same or similar features in its search interface, the company will come across as a follower rather than a leader, a position it is unaccustomed to. There are many products that Google has launched over the years that fizzled. (Who uses its social networking service other than diehard loyalists?) But search is different. If Microsoft begins to gain mindshare through Bing and Google’s dominance dissipates, shock waves will pass through the technological landscape. In the end, though, more competition in search can only be a boon for innovation and user experience.
And that persistence seems to have paid off. Bing is a more user-friendly search engine and leaves Google in the dust in the visual department. A new image everyday invites you to explore the world in five broad categories - Images, Videos, Shopping, News, Maps and Travel. Having become used to the austere look-and-feel of Google for so long, Microsoft’s search screen may take a while to adjust to but it seems to draw users in once they make that tentative first click.
Of course, style can go only so far. Ultimately, it’s substance that wins. Here too, Microsoft shines. I typed in Thoreau. When my cursor hovered on the right edge of a link, it displayed a summary of that Web page. The first entry on the Bard of Walden was from Wikipedia. I did not need to go to Wikipedia immediately since “Hover” gave me a synopsis. The advantage is obvious. Now I can filter out spurious results, the bane of all search engines, by scanning the summary.
Since I am planning to travel in a few weeks, I searched for Malaria videos and was presented with an array of thumbnail still pictures. Simply by placing the cursor on one of these pictures started the associated video. This removes the annoyance of having to click “play” or go to a new page. When I moved the cursor to a different image, the previous one stopped and the new one began. Again, a built-in, intuitive filtering process that makes the search experience a pleasant and productive one.
Similar features abound. I am sufficiently impressed by the service to at least alternate between Google and Microsoft for now. Google has ignored all attempts by Microsoft to usurp its territory, and for good reason, since all such attempts had led to more embarrassment for Steve Ballmer. But now Google has to respond. And therein lies the dilemma. If Google introduces same or similar features in its search interface, the company will come across as a follower rather than a leader, a position it is unaccustomed to. There are many products that Google has launched over the years that fizzled. (Who uses its social networking service other than diehard loyalists?) But search is different. If Microsoft begins to gain mindshare through Bing and Google’s dominance dissipates, shock waves will pass through the technological landscape. In the end, though, more competition in search can only be a boon for innovation and user experience.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Two to Tango
The motto of the school I attended in the 1960s was: “Deeds, Not Words.” Our principal, a no-nonsense New Zealander, had the annoying habit of drilling this message into us at every opportunity. We bitterly resented him for it but with time and experience came to recognize that this was a tough but good tenet to live by.
I thought of this while listening to President Barack Hussein Obama’s address to Muslims from Cairo. It was a stirring speech, delivered with poise and flair, but that was expected from this wordsmith and orator. The pressing question is: Can Obama match his words with deeds?
The president anticipated this challenge: “Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people,” he said. “These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead, and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.”
With that as context, let’s try to understand the specific issues the president identified in his speech. The issues are meaningful not only in and of themselves but also in the order in which they were presented.
One would have thought that at the top of the list would be the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That the president chose, instead, to begin with the issue of “violent extremism in all its forms” is significant. By doing so he is challenging Muslims to reject and defeat the minority of extremists among us. He is also subtly suggesting that these extremists pose a greater danger to world peace, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or elsewhere, than the Israeli oppression of Palestinians.
Having framed his worldview thus, the president then takes up the “situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.” While reiterating America’s strong bonds with Israel and the fundamental right of that nation to live in peace and security, the president gave equal credence to Palestinian aspirations for a homeland. But how does an independent nation of Palestine come about? “Palestinians must abandon violence … Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build.”
These are tough words. The president is saying that it is easy to destroy, to be trapped in the past, to be driven solely by revenge. Why not learn from history and try the non-violent and the moral high ground approaches to achieving your goals? The president is saying that for far too long, Palestinian leadership and the Arab world have used Palestinians as pawns for power and self-aggrandizement.
“At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. By using the word “Palestine,” Obama is saying that an independent nation for Palestinians will be a cornerstone of American foreign policy. “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”
But the real issue here is not Palestinian but Israeli leadership. Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to even utter the words “two-state solution” during his recent meeting with Obama in the White House. Can the Israeli leader, obsessed with trumped-up threats from Iran, be forced to deal with the issue of Palestinians who “endure daily humiliations, large and small, that come with occupation?”
The last U.S. president who spoke forcefully for Palestinian rights during office was Jimmy Carter. He was also a one-term president. Things have changed since Carter’s time, however. There is more awareness about the plight of the Palestinians in America now than there was three decades ago. Obama also has a more powerful mandate than Carter to bring lasting changes to the Middle East and probably more clout with Israel, with Hillary Clinton firmly by his side.
The irony is that all U.S. presidents become ardent supporters of Palestinians when they become ex-presidents. Jimmy Carter found out the hard way what happens when this trend is broken. And yet, if any president can be a catalyst for change in the Middle East, it is Barack Obama. In the wake of the speech, the world will keenly observe how the president plays his hand in helping to create a separate homeland for Palestinians. There is only one criterion here: Deeds, Not Words.
On nuclear weapons, Obama was mostly addressing Iran. He repeated his offer to negotiate with Iran without preconditions. But what about the fact that Israel has one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world? The president referred to it subtly and suggested this somewhat Utopian solution: “I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons and others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.”
Obama also touched on democracy, religious freedom, women’s rights, and economic development and opportunity, in each case hinting at the lack of these values in many Muslim-majority countries, while admitting that the United States was also deficient in them.
The president broke new ground by quoting from the Quran three times:
“Be conscious of God and always speak the truth.” (33:70)
“Whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.” (5:32), and
"O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another." (49:13)
I chuckled when Obama mispronounced “hijab” as “hajib.” A distraction was his mix of pronunciations: “Izlam” as well as “Islam” and “Mozlem” as well as “Muslim.” A request from a citizen: Please, Mr. President, talk about “Islam” and “Muslim” when you need to, not “Izlam” and “Mozlem.”
In lauding the achievement of American Muslims, he talked about those who excelled in our sports arenas (Obama did not name names but it is easy to guess: Muhammad Ali, Kareem Abdul-Jababr, Ahmad Rashad, and many more), won Nobel Prize (reference to Ahmed Zewail, an Egyptian-American who won the 1999 Nobel Prize in chemistry), built our tallest building (Fazlur Rahman Khan, Bangladeshi-American structural engineer, considered "the greatest structural engineer of the second half of the 20th century" for his constructions of the Sears Tower and John Hancock Center), and lit the Olympic Torch (again, Muhammad Ali).
The president inspired hope in most of his listeners that a better and more peaceful world is a distinct possibility, now that he is at the helm of the most powerful nation on earth. It is no longer "either you're with us or you're against us" but "mutual respect and mutual interests."
It is by no means certain that Obama can deliver on the promises he has made in his Cairo speech. But by the vision he has articulated and the challenges he has undertaken, surely he deserves the gratitude not just of Muslims but of all those who have the “courage to make a new beginning,” and thus strengthened, “to make the world we seek.”
I thought of this while listening to President Barack Hussein Obama’s address to Muslims from Cairo. It was a stirring speech, delivered with poise and flair, but that was expected from this wordsmith and orator. The pressing question is: Can Obama match his words with deeds?
The president anticipated this challenge: “Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people,” he said. “These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead, and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.”
With that as context, let’s try to understand the specific issues the president identified in his speech. The issues are meaningful not only in and of themselves but also in the order in which they were presented.
One would have thought that at the top of the list would be the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That the president chose, instead, to begin with the issue of “violent extremism in all its forms” is significant. By doing so he is challenging Muslims to reject and defeat the minority of extremists among us. He is also subtly suggesting that these extremists pose a greater danger to world peace, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or elsewhere, than the Israeli oppression of Palestinians.
Having framed his worldview thus, the president then takes up the “situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.” While reiterating America’s strong bonds with Israel and the fundamental right of that nation to live in peace and security, the president gave equal credence to Palestinian aspirations for a homeland. But how does an independent nation of Palestine come about? “Palestinians must abandon violence … Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build.”
These are tough words. The president is saying that it is easy to destroy, to be trapped in the past, to be driven solely by revenge. Why not learn from history and try the non-violent and the moral high ground approaches to achieving your goals? The president is saying that for far too long, Palestinian leadership and the Arab world have used Palestinians as pawns for power and self-aggrandizement.
“At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. By using the word “Palestine,” Obama is saying that an independent nation for Palestinians will be a cornerstone of American foreign policy. “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”
But the real issue here is not Palestinian but Israeli leadership. Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to even utter the words “two-state solution” during his recent meeting with Obama in the White House. Can the Israeli leader, obsessed with trumped-up threats from Iran, be forced to deal with the issue of Palestinians who “endure daily humiliations, large and small, that come with occupation?”
The last U.S. president who spoke forcefully for Palestinian rights during office was Jimmy Carter. He was also a one-term president. Things have changed since Carter’s time, however. There is more awareness about the plight of the Palestinians in America now than there was three decades ago. Obama also has a more powerful mandate than Carter to bring lasting changes to the Middle East and probably more clout with Israel, with Hillary Clinton firmly by his side.
The irony is that all U.S. presidents become ardent supporters of Palestinians when they become ex-presidents. Jimmy Carter found out the hard way what happens when this trend is broken. And yet, if any president can be a catalyst for change in the Middle East, it is Barack Obama. In the wake of the speech, the world will keenly observe how the president plays his hand in helping to create a separate homeland for Palestinians. There is only one criterion here: Deeds, Not Words.
On nuclear weapons, Obama was mostly addressing Iran. He repeated his offer to negotiate with Iran without preconditions. But what about the fact that Israel has one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world? The president referred to it subtly and suggested this somewhat Utopian solution: “I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons and others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.”
Obama also touched on democracy, religious freedom, women’s rights, and economic development and opportunity, in each case hinting at the lack of these values in many Muslim-majority countries, while admitting that the United States was also deficient in them.
The president broke new ground by quoting from the Quran three times:
“Be conscious of God and always speak the truth.” (33:70)
“Whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.” (5:32), and
"O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another." (49:13)
I chuckled when Obama mispronounced “hijab” as “hajib.” A distraction was his mix of pronunciations: “Izlam” as well as “Islam” and “Mozlem” as well as “Muslim.” A request from a citizen: Please, Mr. President, talk about “Islam” and “Muslim” when you need to, not “Izlam” and “Mozlem.”
In lauding the achievement of American Muslims, he talked about those who excelled in our sports arenas (Obama did not name names but it is easy to guess: Muhammad Ali, Kareem Abdul-Jababr, Ahmad Rashad, and many more), won Nobel Prize (reference to Ahmed Zewail, an Egyptian-American who won the 1999 Nobel Prize in chemistry), built our tallest building (Fazlur Rahman Khan, Bangladeshi-American structural engineer, considered "the greatest structural engineer of the second half of the 20th century" for his constructions of the Sears Tower and John Hancock Center), and lit the Olympic Torch (again, Muhammad Ali).
The president inspired hope in most of his listeners that a better and more peaceful world is a distinct possibility, now that he is at the helm of the most powerful nation on earth. It is no longer "either you're with us or you're against us" but "mutual respect and mutual interests."
It is by no means certain that Obama can deliver on the promises he has made in his Cairo speech. But by the vision he has articulated and the challenges he has undertaken, surely he deserves the gratitude not just of Muslims but of all those who have the “courage to make a new beginning,” and thus strengthened, “to make the world we seek.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)