Spring isn’t spring for me until I have planted my vegetables. As the earth stirs and robins and jays jostle in the backyard and orange and cherry blossoms attract honeybees and hummingbirds, my thoughts turn to my vegetable patch. It is a 20x30 feet of earth along the northern boundary of my home that I try to renew every year with compost and hope and some serious supplications.
My only success after years of trying to raise a variety of vegetables has been with tomatoes. The others – corn, chili, cucumber, corn, eggplant - succumbed either to snails or simply refused to sprout. No one has ever accused me of having a green thumb but I am not daunted. One day I know I will catch a break (isn’t that the promise of spring?) and my patch will become the envy of my neighbors and the living symbol of possibilities.
Rain hasn’t been plentiful this year but I am grateful for what fell at the end of February and the beginning of March. Few days ago I cleared the patch and raked and manured it to prepare for planting.
On a warm Saturday, a week after the calendar announced the first day of spring, the vernal equinox (Friday, May 20, although it was on Monday, March 16, that the sun rose at 7:16 AM and set at 7:16 PM, with exactly twelve hours of daylight), I plant squash, chili, radish, carrot, potato and, of course, the Old Faithful, grape and cherry tomatoes. I use seeds for radish and carrot and bury pieces of red potatoes here and there, hoping that random distribution will somehow increase my harvest in June. That there may no potato at all does not cloud my mind in the least.
Interest in home gardening has increased not only because of the current economic crisis but also because it has dawned on many Americans that growing one’s own organic food is a commitment toward healthy living. What has also sparked enthusiasm is Michelle Obama’s decision to convert a 1,100 square feet patch on the south lawn of the White House into a kitchen garden. The first lady, with help from local fifth-graders and a few sturdier hands, has planted 55 varieties of vegetables, including lettuce, chard, spinach, basil, cilantro, hot peppers, arugula and kale. Way to go, Michelle!
The sprinkling, burying and planting takes about four hours. I could do it in half the time or less but I am spellbound by the orange, painted lady butterflies streaming across the backyard. For the sheer pleasure of it, I count seventy in about ten minutes. They alight on the cherry and orange blossoms and gorge on the nectar.
Hatched from eggs laid in the deserts of southern California and northern Mexico, these small wonders are migrating north toward Oregon and Washington. I am not the only witness to their ancient journey; Sofia, the cat, watches transfixed too. What a marvel and mystery migration is! In August, a new generation of painted ladies, sprung from the ones I am now watching, will retrace the flight south toward their ancestral winter abode in the desert of Southern California. And the cycle will repeat, generation after generation.
I water the seeds and the plants and issue silent, stern warnings to any lurking snail that will dare defile my garden. A breeze begins to blow. The stream of painted ladies has thinned. A profound satisfaction floods my heart: in this backyard, some of the winged ones found food as they traveled across Santa Clara County and, thus fortified, continued their flight along the Pacific coast toward their destiny.
All in all, a sublime day to plant vegetables.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Glimpses of Hidden Reality
“To honor a living person who has made an exceptional contribution affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works,” the Templeton foundation awarded its 2009 prize to a French physicist.
Bernard d’Espagnat, 87, is a theoretical physicist and philosopher of science at the University of Paris-Orsay. He was recognized for his pioneering contributions to the nature of physical reality and making the daring suggestion that matter everywhere is caught in a web of “veiled reality” that lies beneath time, space and energy.
What has “veiled reality” got to do with spirituality? In simple terms, it means that there are limits to what science can explain. Once we acknowledge this, it opens the door to the mysterious and the transcendent.
There is an abundance of good writing on spirituality and faith. What sets apart the work of scientists like D’Espagnat is that they use science to show the limits of science, thus allowing for the possibility that there is more to life than the acceptance of only that which can be seen or measured and rejection of that which cannot.
D’Espagnat’s quest was driven by a single, profound question: “What insight does science reveal about the nature of reality?” His research tool consisted of quantum physics, a subject he learned from one of its founders, another Frenchman named Louis de Broglie, winner of the 1929 Nobel Prize in physics. De Broglie showed that matter had wave-like properties and waves had properties that classical physics attributed only to matter. What this meant was that reality was different and more subtle than what it appeared to be. D’Espagnat devoted seven decades of his creative life trying to figure out the deepest aspects of this reality.
His research showed that “veiled reality” could be glimpsed through quantum mechanics. (An analogy from art: Pablo Picasso used cubism to paint his view of reality). In a series of famous experiments performed in 1981-82 on the polarization of photons (a massless particle associated with light waves), it was found that a change in the polarization of a photon (think of it as the direction in which it oscillates) miles removed from another photon could be detected in both. In other words, both photons were connected, or "entangled." What’s more, the change in their states traveled faster than light, a violation of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity.
The experiments tested “Bell’s Theorem,” named after the Irish physicist John Bell, which states that nature is composed of objects whose behavior can be understood “locally,” that is, influenced directly only by their immediate surroundings. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, predicts that nature is non-local, that is, the behavior of an object is influenced by objects far removed from it. D’Espagnat predicted that quantum mechanics was right, and the experiments proved him right. Physical reality turns out to be non-local, leaving open the possibility of invisible realms, the “veiled reality.”
Understanding the implications of these rigorous experiments can be daunting for the non-scientist but as D’Espagnat explained: “It’s not that science will explain the ultimate reality of certain objects or events. Rather, it is that the concepts we use, such as space, time, causality and so on … are not applicable to ultimate reality.” In other words, it is arrogance to suggest that science can have the final word on the true nature of reality. The best that science can do is to describe reality as it appears to us, taking into account limitations of our own mind and our own sensibilities.
This leads to a humbler understanding of our place in the universe. We are not its master, and its “veiled reality” can point to something larger than ourselves. To some, this may come as a disappointment; to scientists like D’Espagnat, it is a source of awe and inspiration. Matter is not the only reality. According to D’Espagnat, “the possibility that the things we observe may be tentatively interpreted as signs providing us with some perhaps not entirely misleading glimpses of a higher reality and, therefore, that higher forms of spirituality are fully compatible with what seems to emerge from contemporary physics … Mystery is not something negative that has to be eliminated. On the contrary, it is one of the constitutive elements of being.”
One scientist influenced by D’Espagnat’s work is Bruno Guiderdoni, a Muslim convert who is the director of research at France’s National Center for Scientific Research and co-founder and director of the Islamic Institute for Advanced Studies in Paris. Attending one of D’Espagnat’s lectures as a graduate student in 1980, he wrote: “I was deeply impressed by the philosophical implications of what he was addressing. One has to understand that these issues were completely absent from the usual courses in quantum physics … he helped me understand that there were actually a very deep question in this issue of the nature of reality.” Guiderdoni is widely recognized as an expert on galaxy formation and evolution as well as a prominent interpreter of Islam. He has written numerous papers on both topics and has emphasized his own work in astrophysics as a fulfillment of God’s command to seek knowledge and understand His creation.
It is a pity that the media always portrays religion and science as a battle between inflexible creationists and atheists. But the vast majority of us occupy the space between these two extremes and find no conflict between faith and reason.
That D’Espagnat's work is valued by today's leading scientists is evident from the homage they have paid him. William D. Phillips, winner of the 1997 Nobel Prize in physics said: “Entanglement is one of the key features of quantum mechanics, one that most sets it apart from classical physics. Bernard was a key figure in providing a mature understanding of both the scientific and philosophical implications of entanglement, a phenomenon so counterintuitive that it continues to intrigue 21st century physicists. D’Espagnat appreciated that entanglement not only changed our view of how physics works, but also our concept of the very nature of reality.”
D’Espagnat’s insight and discovery suggest not just that science cannot fully describe reality but that scientific research can encourage spirituality. Those who believe in the unseen and whose lives are animated by faith are not irrational; they are only acknowledging the presence of the mysterious and the ineffable in their lives. As Charles Townes, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics in 1964 and the Templeton Prize in 2005 said of the convergence of science and religion: “I believe this confluence is inevitable. For they both represent man’s efforts to understand his universe and must ultimately be dealing with the same substance.”
Bernard d’Espagnat, 87, is a theoretical physicist and philosopher of science at the University of Paris-Orsay. He was recognized for his pioneering contributions to the nature of physical reality and making the daring suggestion that matter everywhere is caught in a web of “veiled reality” that lies beneath time, space and energy.
What has “veiled reality” got to do with spirituality? In simple terms, it means that there are limits to what science can explain. Once we acknowledge this, it opens the door to the mysterious and the transcendent.
There is an abundance of good writing on spirituality and faith. What sets apart the work of scientists like D’Espagnat is that they use science to show the limits of science, thus allowing for the possibility that there is more to life than the acceptance of only that which can be seen or measured and rejection of that which cannot.
D’Espagnat’s quest was driven by a single, profound question: “What insight does science reveal about the nature of reality?” His research tool consisted of quantum physics, a subject he learned from one of its founders, another Frenchman named Louis de Broglie, winner of the 1929 Nobel Prize in physics. De Broglie showed that matter had wave-like properties and waves had properties that classical physics attributed only to matter. What this meant was that reality was different and more subtle than what it appeared to be. D’Espagnat devoted seven decades of his creative life trying to figure out the deepest aspects of this reality.
His research showed that “veiled reality” could be glimpsed through quantum mechanics. (An analogy from art: Pablo Picasso used cubism to paint his view of reality). In a series of famous experiments performed in 1981-82 on the polarization of photons (a massless particle associated with light waves), it was found that a change in the polarization of a photon (think of it as the direction in which it oscillates) miles removed from another photon could be detected in both. In other words, both photons were connected, or "entangled." What’s more, the change in their states traveled faster than light, a violation of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity.
The experiments tested “Bell’s Theorem,” named after the Irish physicist John Bell, which states that nature is composed of objects whose behavior can be understood “locally,” that is, influenced directly only by their immediate surroundings. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, predicts that nature is non-local, that is, the behavior of an object is influenced by objects far removed from it. D’Espagnat predicted that quantum mechanics was right, and the experiments proved him right. Physical reality turns out to be non-local, leaving open the possibility of invisible realms, the “veiled reality.”
Understanding the implications of these rigorous experiments can be daunting for the non-scientist but as D’Espagnat explained: “It’s not that science will explain the ultimate reality of certain objects or events. Rather, it is that the concepts we use, such as space, time, causality and so on … are not applicable to ultimate reality.” In other words, it is arrogance to suggest that science can have the final word on the true nature of reality. The best that science can do is to describe reality as it appears to us, taking into account limitations of our own mind and our own sensibilities.
This leads to a humbler understanding of our place in the universe. We are not its master, and its “veiled reality” can point to something larger than ourselves. To some, this may come as a disappointment; to scientists like D’Espagnat, it is a source of awe and inspiration. Matter is not the only reality. According to D’Espagnat, “the possibility that the things we observe may be tentatively interpreted as signs providing us with some perhaps not entirely misleading glimpses of a higher reality and, therefore, that higher forms of spirituality are fully compatible with what seems to emerge from contemporary physics … Mystery is not something negative that has to be eliminated. On the contrary, it is one of the constitutive elements of being.”
One scientist influenced by D’Espagnat’s work is Bruno Guiderdoni, a Muslim convert who is the director of research at France’s National Center for Scientific Research and co-founder and director of the Islamic Institute for Advanced Studies in Paris. Attending one of D’Espagnat’s lectures as a graduate student in 1980, he wrote: “I was deeply impressed by the philosophical implications of what he was addressing. One has to understand that these issues were completely absent from the usual courses in quantum physics … he helped me understand that there were actually a very deep question in this issue of the nature of reality.” Guiderdoni is widely recognized as an expert on galaxy formation and evolution as well as a prominent interpreter of Islam. He has written numerous papers on both topics and has emphasized his own work in astrophysics as a fulfillment of God’s command to seek knowledge and understand His creation.
It is a pity that the media always portrays religion and science as a battle between inflexible creationists and atheists. But the vast majority of us occupy the space between these two extremes and find no conflict between faith and reason.
That D’Espagnat's work is valued by today's leading scientists is evident from the homage they have paid him. William D. Phillips, winner of the 1997 Nobel Prize in physics said: “Entanglement is one of the key features of quantum mechanics, one that most sets it apart from classical physics. Bernard was a key figure in providing a mature understanding of both the scientific and philosophical implications of entanglement, a phenomenon so counterintuitive that it continues to intrigue 21st century physicists. D’Espagnat appreciated that entanglement not only changed our view of how physics works, but also our concept of the very nature of reality.”
D’Espagnat’s insight and discovery suggest not just that science cannot fully describe reality but that scientific research can encourage spirituality. Those who believe in the unseen and whose lives are animated by faith are not irrational; they are only acknowledging the presence of the mysterious and the ineffable in their lives. As Charles Townes, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics in 1964 and the Templeton Prize in 2005 said of the convergence of science and religion: “I believe this confluence is inevitable. For they both represent man’s efforts to understand his universe and must ultimately be dealing with the same substance.”
Friday, March 13, 2009
Bernie Madoff and the Slippery Slope
“When I began the Ponzi scheme I believed it would end shortly and I would be able to extricate myself and my clients from the scheme.”
So declared Bernie Madoff, 70, in a New York court yesterday when the judge ordered him to “tell me what you did.”
But it is not easy to climb back up once you have slid down the slippery slope. After the lies, the deceits and the denials have snared you, you succumb to their seductions and then there is no turning back.
Inmate No. 61727-054 – Madoff’s new identity – swindled investors out of a staggering $65 billion over a period of at least two decades. His victims range from the barely-making-it to the fabulously wealthy. However you may characterize Madoff as - thief, felon, psychopath - you have to concede that he was democratic in his scheming.
There are many lessons in this, of course, and in time they will no doubt become part of business school text books that also attempt to teach ethics and morality. But we must recognize that we are not exempt from the lure of the slippery slope. It may not lead to the kind of widespread damage and heartbreak that Madoff wrought, but giving in to it even in a small way can destroy lives and relationships. That is why, instead of schadenfreude, a more proper reaction for those of us lucky enough to be untouched by Madoff’s tentacles would be look inward and resolve to resist the slippery slope's seductions.
Particularly in tough financial times as we are experiencing now, resorting to an infidelity here and a swindle there may ease hurt and offer a quick solution but there is often a high price to pay. ("Just this one time and then I will make amends and I will never do it again"). It destroys not only the perpetrators but often their families as well.
Truth is stranger than fiction, as the gigantic scale of Madoff’s swindle proves. Still, literature can instruct. As Patricia Cohen pointed out in a New York Times article in December of last year when the story first broke, Madoff has plenty of literary predecessors: Mr. Voysey in Harley Granville-Barker’s 1905 play “The Voysey Inheritance,” Augustus Melmotte in Anthony Trollope’s 1857 novel “The Way We Live Now,” Mr. Merdle in Charles Dickens’s 1873 novel “Little Dorrit” and Joe Keller in Arthur Miller’s 1947 play “All My Sons.”
But ultimately we must look into our own hearts and remind ourselves that nothing beats the dignity of an honest living and of living within our means. Reaching for the mythical “American Dream” can only make sense if we fulfill these twin requirements. If we do, there is the possibility that a better dream will come true and that we will be happy as well.
So declared Bernie Madoff, 70, in a New York court yesterday when the judge ordered him to “tell me what you did.”
But it is not easy to climb back up once you have slid down the slippery slope. After the lies, the deceits and the denials have snared you, you succumb to their seductions and then there is no turning back.
Inmate No. 61727-054 – Madoff’s new identity – swindled investors out of a staggering $65 billion over a period of at least two decades. His victims range from the barely-making-it to the fabulously wealthy. However you may characterize Madoff as - thief, felon, psychopath - you have to concede that he was democratic in his scheming.
There are many lessons in this, of course, and in time they will no doubt become part of business school text books that also attempt to teach ethics and morality. But we must recognize that we are not exempt from the lure of the slippery slope. It may not lead to the kind of widespread damage and heartbreak that Madoff wrought, but giving in to it even in a small way can destroy lives and relationships. That is why, instead of schadenfreude, a more proper reaction for those of us lucky enough to be untouched by Madoff’s tentacles would be look inward and resolve to resist the slippery slope's seductions.
Particularly in tough financial times as we are experiencing now, resorting to an infidelity here and a swindle there may ease hurt and offer a quick solution but there is often a high price to pay. ("Just this one time and then I will make amends and I will never do it again"). It destroys not only the perpetrators but often their families as well.
Truth is stranger than fiction, as the gigantic scale of Madoff’s swindle proves. Still, literature can instruct. As Patricia Cohen pointed out in a New York Times article in December of last year when the story first broke, Madoff has plenty of literary predecessors: Mr. Voysey in Harley Granville-Barker’s 1905 play “The Voysey Inheritance,” Augustus Melmotte in Anthony Trollope’s 1857 novel “The Way We Live Now,” Mr. Merdle in Charles Dickens’s 1873 novel “Little Dorrit” and Joe Keller in Arthur Miller’s 1947 play “All My Sons.”
But ultimately we must look into our own hearts and remind ourselves that nothing beats the dignity of an honest living and of living within our means. Reaching for the mythical “American Dream” can only make sense if we fulfill these twin requirements. If we do, there is the possibility that a better dream will come true and that we will be happy as well.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Students Missing From Education Reform
Education has attained the status of weather: Everyone talks about it but no one does anything about it.
Well, not exactly. President Obama made education a centerpiece of his campaign. He talked about the central role of education in his life to get to where he was. He promised to follow up on his educational vision if he became the president.
In an address to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce today, the president fleshed out his vision. He called for more charter schools ("laboratories of innovations"), merit-based pay for teachers while holding them more accountable, emphasis on early education, tougher curriculum standards, and renewing commitment to learning from cradle to adulthood. “It is time to give all Americans a complete and competitive education from the cradle up through a career,” said Obama. “We have accepted failure for too long. America’s entire education system must once more be the envy of the world.”
The president had done his homework on teachers. He is determined to push the same methods used in Finland and Singapore, two countries with the finest public education systems in the world today, to treat “teachers like the professionals they are .... New teachers will be mentored by experienced ones. Good teachers will be rewarded with more money for improved student achievement, and asked to accept more responsibilities for lifting up their schools.”
The president made a compelling case for raising the quality of education in America. Where it fell short was in his lack of emphasis on the responsibility of the students themselves. “It is time to expect more from our students,” the president declared. We have known that for years, but how? We talk about teachers, teachers' unions, administrators, parents, communities and school districts but leave out the most important element in the ecology of education: students.
Teachers and schools can never take over the job of educating a child completely. And they are not meant to! It may take a village to raise a child, an awfully nice-sounding idea, but it is a partial remedy at best. The critical question to ask is, why do so many of our kids suffer from lack of motivation? It’s a phenomenon that cuts across race, gender, income and social standings. You can blame lack of parental guidance, high-tech distractions, a noxious culture, whatever, but ultimately the mystery remains. If you are the parent of a school student whose only aim in life seems to be entertainment and hanging out with friends, how do you instill in him or her discipline, motivation, hunger for knowledge?
All across America, parents and teachers who dutifully offer everything asked of them to educate their wards are asking: “What are we doing that’s not right?” Who will tell them that they are doing the best they can, that it is most often the kids who have to shape up, who have to shun the path of ignorance and get on the road to knowledge?
I hope President Obama focuses exclusively on students next time he talks about education. He is an inspiration to kids. His life story evokes wonder. He can be more persuasive on our children than perhaps any parent or teacher at this particular juncture of history. He can use his talent, eloquence and his own story to energize and motivate them to acquire knowledge. If he can pull off this feat, there is a chance that our educational system will once again become the envy of the world.
Well, not exactly. President Obama made education a centerpiece of his campaign. He talked about the central role of education in his life to get to where he was. He promised to follow up on his educational vision if he became the president.
In an address to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce today, the president fleshed out his vision. He called for more charter schools ("laboratories of innovations"), merit-based pay for teachers while holding them more accountable, emphasis on early education, tougher curriculum standards, and renewing commitment to learning from cradle to adulthood. “It is time to give all Americans a complete and competitive education from the cradle up through a career,” said Obama. “We have accepted failure for too long. America’s entire education system must once more be the envy of the world.”
The president had done his homework on teachers. He is determined to push the same methods used in Finland and Singapore, two countries with the finest public education systems in the world today, to treat “teachers like the professionals they are .... New teachers will be mentored by experienced ones. Good teachers will be rewarded with more money for improved student achievement, and asked to accept more responsibilities for lifting up their schools.”
The president made a compelling case for raising the quality of education in America. Where it fell short was in his lack of emphasis on the responsibility of the students themselves. “It is time to expect more from our students,” the president declared. We have known that for years, but how? We talk about teachers, teachers' unions, administrators, parents, communities and school districts but leave out the most important element in the ecology of education: students.
Teachers and schools can never take over the job of educating a child completely. And they are not meant to! It may take a village to raise a child, an awfully nice-sounding idea, but it is a partial remedy at best. The critical question to ask is, why do so many of our kids suffer from lack of motivation? It’s a phenomenon that cuts across race, gender, income and social standings. You can blame lack of parental guidance, high-tech distractions, a noxious culture, whatever, but ultimately the mystery remains. If you are the parent of a school student whose only aim in life seems to be entertainment and hanging out with friends, how do you instill in him or her discipline, motivation, hunger for knowledge?
All across America, parents and teachers who dutifully offer everything asked of them to educate their wards are asking: “What are we doing that’s not right?” Who will tell them that they are doing the best they can, that it is most often the kids who have to shape up, who have to shun the path of ignorance and get on the road to knowledge?
I hope President Obama focuses exclusively on students next time he talks about education. He is an inspiration to kids. His life story evokes wonder. He can be more persuasive on our children than perhaps any parent or teacher at this particular juncture of history. He can use his talent, eloquence and his own story to energize and motivate them to acquire knowledge. If he can pull off this feat, there is a chance that our educational system will once again become the envy of the world.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Bollywood Conquers Hollywood, and More
Watching the 81st Annual Academy Awards, I had the surreal feeling that I was actually watching a Bollywood production. Forty-three-year old Musical prodigy and composer Alla Rakha (A. R.) Rahman took two Oscars for best original score and best original song - Jai Ho - in Slumdog Millionaire. When the Kodak Theater resonated to Rahman’s song and the fluid movement of Indian dancers, you knew that Bollywood had taken Hollywood by storm. Yes, yes, I know that the director and producer of Slumdog are Englishmen, but it’s a quintessential Indian tale of hope and love and redemption, and it is Rahman’s score and song that propels the story.
This modest man of enormous talent also stole the show when he said in his acceptance speech: "All my life I've had a choice of hate and love. I chose love and I'm here. God bless." What a stirring message to a troubled world!
Rahman was born in 1966 to a Hindu family but at the age of 21 converted to Sufism, a mystical form of Islam. He described his conversion as "a long process. I was really intrigued by the Sufi thing and had gone very deeply into it, putting aside three hours every day to learn Arabic. I was drawn to Sufism because they have no regulation, no rules, no distinction between Hindu and Muslim."
Before Rahman, only two other Indians had won Oscars: costume designer Bhanu Athaiya for Gandhi in 1982 and master filmmaker Satyajit Ray for lifetime achievement in 1992.
I saw Slumdog when it opened in theatres in San Jose, California, on November 26 last year. On that very day, Mumbai was attacked by Muslim terrorists and the bustling metropolis was gripped by fear and despair. But as the dust settled, the city reasserted itself with quiet resolve and dignity. Most heart-warming was the response by the Muslims of Mumbai. Thousands of them - men, women and children – took to the streets to denounce the terrorists. "We disown and denounce all those who kill in the name of jihad. Terrorists are fascists and enemies of Muslims as Islam doesn't preach killing of innocents," said poet-lyricist Javed Akhtar.
As of today, bodies of nine Pakistani Muslim terrorists lie in a Mumbai hospital morgue because the Indian Muslim community has refused to bury them in its cemetery.
I welcomed Slumdog’s eight Oscars with gratitude to its creators. That its Muslim music director won two Oscars signified for me, in some undefinable way, the victory of moderates over extremists, of sanity over insanity.
Tonight, when parties are being held all over Oscar’s host city, the city being toasted around the world for its moxie is not Los Angeles but Mumbai.
P.S. A day after A.R. Rahman won Oscars for his song and score, Interscope's A&M Records released a pop version of his winning song "Jai Ho (You Are My Destiny)" in English, sung by Nicole Scherzinger of the Pussycat Dolls. It was produced by Ron Fair, chairman of Interscope's Records division. Fair will fly to Chennai (Rahman's hometown) this summer to collaborate with the composer. "He is one of the world's great living composers in any medium," said Fair. "If I could have a little bit of time with A.R. Rahman, it would be like a master class."
This modest man of enormous talent also stole the show when he said in his acceptance speech: "All my life I've had a choice of hate and love. I chose love and I'm here. God bless." What a stirring message to a troubled world!
Rahman was born in 1966 to a Hindu family but at the age of 21 converted to Sufism, a mystical form of Islam. He described his conversion as "a long process. I was really intrigued by the Sufi thing and had gone very deeply into it, putting aside three hours every day to learn Arabic. I was drawn to Sufism because they have no regulation, no rules, no distinction between Hindu and Muslim."
Before Rahman, only two other Indians had won Oscars: costume designer Bhanu Athaiya for Gandhi in 1982 and master filmmaker Satyajit Ray for lifetime achievement in 1992.
I saw Slumdog when it opened in theatres in San Jose, California, on November 26 last year. On that very day, Mumbai was attacked by Muslim terrorists and the bustling metropolis was gripped by fear and despair. But as the dust settled, the city reasserted itself with quiet resolve and dignity. Most heart-warming was the response by the Muslims of Mumbai. Thousands of them - men, women and children – took to the streets to denounce the terrorists. "We disown and denounce all those who kill in the name of jihad. Terrorists are fascists and enemies of Muslims as Islam doesn't preach killing of innocents," said poet-lyricist Javed Akhtar.
As of today, bodies of nine Pakistani Muslim terrorists lie in a Mumbai hospital morgue because the Indian Muslim community has refused to bury them in its cemetery.
I welcomed Slumdog’s eight Oscars with gratitude to its creators. That its Muslim music director won two Oscars signified for me, in some undefinable way, the victory of moderates over extremists, of sanity over insanity.
Tonight, when parties are being held all over Oscar’s host city, the city being toasted around the world for its moxie is not Los Angeles but Mumbai.
P.S. A day after A.R. Rahman won Oscars for his song and score, Interscope's A&M Records released a pop version of his winning song "Jai Ho (You Are My Destiny)" in English, sung by Nicole Scherzinger of the Pussycat Dolls. It was produced by Ron Fair, chairman of Interscope's Records division. Fair will fly to Chennai (Rahman's hometown) this summer to collaborate with the composer. "He is one of the world's great living composers in any medium," said Fair. "If I could have a little bit of time with A.R. Rahman, it would be like a master class."
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Brad Pitt Deserves the Best Actor Oscar
Brad Pitt is the most underrated actor in the world, and he has only his looks to blame. After all, how can someone known to millions of movie fans for his, well, face, excel in acting? But that’s what he does, in movies after movies (Babel, to name just one), and yet the Academy of Motion Pictures looks the other way when Pitt delivers. It’s the same reason why Tom Cruise was denied the “Best Actor in a Supporting Role” Oscar in 2000 for for his performance in Magnolia. Cruise displayed skills far more subtle and poignant than Michael Caine in The Cider House Rules, yet it was the veteran actor who won. Caine was honest about his award: "I'm a survivor, that's what they gave it to me for."
But this year, Pitt has been nominated for the Best Actor award for his role in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. (In 1995, he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for Twelve Monkeys but the Oscar went rightly to Kevin Spacey for his performance in The Usual Suspects). And the odds are against him this year too for getting the nod from the high priests of the Academy. The favorite to win is Mickey Rourke for his gritty performance in The Wrestler.
The case for Rourke is compelling. First, his acting in Wrestler was brilliant, no question about it. Second, the story also reflects Rourke’s personal odyssey, a gifted actor with self-destructive tendencies who almost lost it but managed to stage a stirring comeback. Who cannot identify with that? Who can resist such redemption?
Yet, if we separate the personal from the public, we have to conclude that Pitt’s performance in Button is superior to Rourke’s in Wrestler. Pitt’s material, based on the short story by Scott Fitzgerald about a man who ages backwards, is more difficult. Very few actors could have pulled it off without reducing the role to a caricature. Whether it is feeling the first pangs of love, fidelity or loss, or roaming Siddharta-like in India to find himself, or staring kismet in the face, or coming to terms with life's cruelty and grace, Pitt transcends acting and transports us to a wondrous realm. For the first time, I realized in my guts what “willing suspension of disbelief” meant watching Pitt portray his magic on the screen.
I hope Brad Pitt wins the Best Actor Oscar this year. If that happens, years from now, we will fondly remember the 81st Annual Academy Awards for its own rare performance of justice.
But this year, Pitt has been nominated for the Best Actor award for his role in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. (In 1995, he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for Twelve Monkeys but the Oscar went rightly to Kevin Spacey for his performance in The Usual Suspects). And the odds are against him this year too for getting the nod from the high priests of the Academy. The favorite to win is Mickey Rourke for his gritty performance in The Wrestler.
The case for Rourke is compelling. First, his acting in Wrestler was brilliant, no question about it. Second, the story also reflects Rourke’s personal odyssey, a gifted actor with self-destructive tendencies who almost lost it but managed to stage a stirring comeback. Who cannot identify with that? Who can resist such redemption?
Yet, if we separate the personal from the public, we have to conclude that Pitt’s performance in Button is superior to Rourke’s in Wrestler. Pitt’s material, based on the short story by Scott Fitzgerald about a man who ages backwards, is more difficult. Very few actors could have pulled it off without reducing the role to a caricature. Whether it is feeling the first pangs of love, fidelity or loss, or roaming Siddharta-like in India to find himself, or staring kismet in the face, or coming to terms with life's cruelty and grace, Pitt transcends acting and transports us to a wondrous realm. For the first time, I realized in my guts what “willing suspension of disbelief” meant watching Pitt portray his magic on the screen.
I hope Brad Pitt wins the Best Actor Oscar this year. If that happens, years from now, we will fondly remember the 81st Annual Academy Awards for its own rare performance of justice.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Good Food
Food has become the ultimate fashion statement. We are now more concerned about what we eat than what we wear.
One of the sanest voices in food matters belongs to Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." That’s his succinct advice to those who want to enjoy their food and be healthy as well.
Pollan distinguishes between food and food products. Food represents health and wholesomeness, food products don't. How to tell one from the other, given that 17,000 new food products are introduced in the West every year, gets more difficult every day. "Don't eat anything your great-great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food," advises Pollan. "Mom knows best" will not work because moms are as confused as the rest of us. That's why "we have to go back a couple of generations, to a time before the advent of the modern food products." Carrots and spinach and apples and bread and cucumber are food but Breakfast-Cereal Bars and Go-Gurt are not. Pollan alerts us to the insidious power of the modern food industry. Walking down supermarket aisles, the average shopper is tempted by food products with fancy names, shiny wrappings and outrageous health claims. If health is the goal, we have to resist those temptations.
The goal of the American food industry for a century has been to increase quantity and reduce prices, not to improve quality, observes Pollan. Better food costs more, so the wise alternative is to pay more and eat less. "Not everyone can afford to eat well in America, which is shameful," acknowledges Pollan, "but most of us can." At less than 10 percent of their income (the current economic meltdown has increased this percentage for families throughout America), Americans spend less on food than citizens of any other nation. Paying more for food grown in good soils will not only contribute to the health of the eater by reducing exposure to pesticides but also to the health of those growing the food and those "who live downstream, and downwind, of the farms where it is grown." There is also strong evidence that "Calorie restriction" improves health and prevents a host of diseases.
A plant-based diet is rich in antioxidants, fiber and Omega-3s and contains fewer Calories than a meat-based diet. A plant-based diet is clearly a healthier choice. "Thomas Jefferson was on to something when he advised treating meat more as a flavoring than a food."
The larger point Pollan makes is that we have taken the joy out of eating. Reductionist science, the rise of "nutritionism" and the culture of fast food have made us forget that food is not only fuel but also communion. Food is pleasure and family and friends. It is memory and hope and continuity of traditions. Food is our connection to the web of life around us. Is there a way to bring back these sensibilities into our frenzied lives? "Cook," recommends Pollan. "And if you can, plant a garden."
I try to follow the advice of people like Pollan and, to some extent, succeed. My problem occurs during the weekends, particularly on Saturdays. That’s when my weekday regimen falls apart as I indulge in korma, biryani, kabab, tandoori and assorted sweet dishes in the endless cycle of invitations among the Bangladeshi Diaspora in California’s Silicon Valley. I feel guilty and vow never to repeat until, of course, the following weekend. Making up for dietary lapses with vigorous exercise five days a week does little to remove the pangs of my conscience. One of these days, though, I intend to come clean and it will only be good, tasty, wholesome food all week long, week after week.
One of the sanest voices in food matters belongs to Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." That’s his succinct advice to those who want to enjoy their food and be healthy as well.
Pollan distinguishes between food and food products. Food represents health and wholesomeness, food products don't. How to tell one from the other, given that 17,000 new food products are introduced in the West every year, gets more difficult every day. "Don't eat anything your great-great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food," advises Pollan. "Mom knows best" will not work because moms are as confused as the rest of us. That's why "we have to go back a couple of generations, to a time before the advent of the modern food products." Carrots and spinach and apples and bread and cucumber are food but Breakfast-Cereal Bars and Go-Gurt are not. Pollan alerts us to the insidious power of the modern food industry. Walking down supermarket aisles, the average shopper is tempted by food products with fancy names, shiny wrappings and outrageous health claims. If health is the goal, we have to resist those temptations.
The goal of the American food industry for a century has been to increase quantity and reduce prices, not to improve quality, observes Pollan. Better food costs more, so the wise alternative is to pay more and eat less. "Not everyone can afford to eat well in America, which is shameful," acknowledges Pollan, "but most of us can." At less than 10 percent of their income (the current economic meltdown has increased this percentage for families throughout America), Americans spend less on food than citizens of any other nation. Paying more for food grown in good soils will not only contribute to the health of the eater by reducing exposure to pesticides but also to the health of those growing the food and those "who live downstream, and downwind, of the farms where it is grown." There is also strong evidence that "Calorie restriction" improves health and prevents a host of diseases.
A plant-based diet is rich in antioxidants, fiber and Omega-3s and contains fewer Calories than a meat-based diet. A plant-based diet is clearly a healthier choice. "Thomas Jefferson was on to something when he advised treating meat more as a flavoring than a food."
The larger point Pollan makes is that we have taken the joy out of eating. Reductionist science, the rise of "nutritionism" and the culture of fast food have made us forget that food is not only fuel but also communion. Food is pleasure and family and friends. It is memory and hope and continuity of traditions. Food is our connection to the web of life around us. Is there a way to bring back these sensibilities into our frenzied lives? "Cook," recommends Pollan. "And if you can, plant a garden."
I try to follow the advice of people like Pollan and, to some extent, succeed. My problem occurs during the weekends, particularly on Saturdays. That’s when my weekday regimen falls apart as I indulge in korma, biryani, kabab, tandoori and assorted sweet dishes in the endless cycle of invitations among the Bangladeshi Diaspora in California’s Silicon Valley. I feel guilty and vow never to repeat until, of course, the following weekend. Making up for dietary lapses with vigorous exercise five days a week does little to remove the pangs of my conscience. One of these days, though, I intend to come clean and it will only be good, tasty, wholesome food all week long, week after week.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Respecting Darwin
Charles Darwin was born 200 years ago today in Shrewsbury, England. At the age of 22, the budding naturalist sailed on the HMS Beagle to collect, observe and study the flora and the fauna of South America and the Galapagos Islands of Ecuador. (The home page of Google today shows an artist's rendition of the Islands). Returning home after 5 years, he pored over his notes and specimens with a scientist’s obsession. Twenty years of research, experiment and synthesis later, accompanied by prolonged periods of doubt and moral dilemma, Darwin published “On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation for Favoured Races in the struggle for Life” in 1859. (Consider this curious coincidence: Newton, the preeminent scientist of the eighteenth century, waited for twenty years before publishing Principia. Darwin, the preeminent scientist of the nineteenth century, waited for twenty years before publishing his seminal findings. Another coincidence: Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were both born on 12 February, 1809).
"Origin of Species" revolutionized our understanding of life on earth, its astonishing diversity and our place in it. Evolution by natural selection is the unifying theory of the life sciences. Advances in genetics and DNA, of which Darwin had no knowledge, continues to confirm his theory by revealing the physical basis of evolution. That all living beings, including humans, have evolved from a common ancestor, with natural selection as the driving force, is an idea whose scientific truth becomes more evident with each new discovery in the field.
But an artificial war has raged since Darwin proposed his theory 150 years ago. It’s the war between science and religion, reason and faith. Many scientists and secularists use Darwin’s theory to assert that there is no God since, as they see it, “everything” is a product of chance. Many people of faith reject Darwin because his theory runs counter to a literal reading of sacred texts and because, as they see it, it deprives life of meaning and purpose. Reductionists insist that life and its mysteries can be explained by the laws of physics, while literalists insist that the earth is a few thousand years old and everything was created as is.
Both sides are wrong, of course. On the question of heaven and hell and eternal life after death, Darwin had this to say: "The safest conclusion seems to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect … Every man must judge for himself, between conflicting vague probabilities." Darwin was humble enough to recognize that his theory of evolution was silent on the question of meaning and purpose and the existence of a Divine Being. He did not reach this conclusion to pacify his devout wife Emma, the clergy or his religious-minded friends. He reached his conclusion as a scientist would, that those questions were simply beyond the scope of his theory.
There are renowned scientists (Nobel Laureate Charles Townes, to name one) who are ardent believers. They regard the confluence of science and religion as being inevitable. Likewise, there are many theologians who find undeniable truth in the theory of evolution. They agree with Galileo who said: “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect, has intended us to forgo their use.”
Most of us are neither scientists nor theologians. Those who believe that the theory of evolution is proof that the universe is devoid of divine content, well, that’s their belief, their "leap of unfaith." For those (I think a majority) who believe, on the other hand, that the theory of evolution is not the whole story, that there is a transcendent power that guides our destiny, they should be perfectly comfortable in saying so. We owe at least that much to Darwin.
"Origin of Species" revolutionized our understanding of life on earth, its astonishing diversity and our place in it. Evolution by natural selection is the unifying theory of the life sciences. Advances in genetics and DNA, of which Darwin had no knowledge, continues to confirm his theory by revealing the physical basis of evolution. That all living beings, including humans, have evolved from a common ancestor, with natural selection as the driving force, is an idea whose scientific truth becomes more evident with each new discovery in the field.
But an artificial war has raged since Darwin proposed his theory 150 years ago. It’s the war between science and religion, reason and faith. Many scientists and secularists use Darwin’s theory to assert that there is no God since, as they see it, “everything” is a product of chance. Many people of faith reject Darwin because his theory runs counter to a literal reading of sacred texts and because, as they see it, it deprives life of meaning and purpose. Reductionists insist that life and its mysteries can be explained by the laws of physics, while literalists insist that the earth is a few thousand years old and everything was created as is.
Both sides are wrong, of course. On the question of heaven and hell and eternal life after death, Darwin had this to say: "The safest conclusion seems to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect … Every man must judge for himself, between conflicting vague probabilities." Darwin was humble enough to recognize that his theory of evolution was silent on the question of meaning and purpose and the existence of a Divine Being. He did not reach this conclusion to pacify his devout wife Emma, the clergy or his religious-minded friends. He reached his conclusion as a scientist would, that those questions were simply beyond the scope of his theory.
There are renowned scientists (Nobel Laureate Charles Townes, to name one) who are ardent believers. They regard the confluence of science and religion as being inevitable. Likewise, there are many theologians who find undeniable truth in the theory of evolution. They agree with Galileo who said: “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect, has intended us to forgo their use.”
Most of us are neither scientists nor theologians. Those who believe that the theory of evolution is proof that the universe is devoid of divine content, well, that’s their belief, their "leap of unfaith." For those (I think a majority) who believe, on the other hand, that the theory of evolution is not the whole story, that there is a transcendent power that guides our destiny, they should be perfectly comfortable in saying so. We owe at least that much to Darwin.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Stretching the Earth's Resilience
Day temperatures reached the 70s in San Jose, California, in mid-January. This is supposed to be winter, with the parched land needing copious amount of rain, and although the balmy weather feels wonderful, the third consecutive drought looms for the state. We have had about 50% of the rain normal for this time of the year. (4.06 inches so far; normal is 7.89 inches). Sierra Nevada, the 400-mile-long mountain range made famous by John Muir’s “Range of Light” reverential musings, has a snowpack only 60% deep compared to what it should be. California’s January sunshine may be redolent of paradise but I cannot shake off thoughts of snakes lurking in the garden.
Today it is in the high 60s as I write. City officials are warning of water rationing. The hills and valleys of the San Francisco Bay Area are green but already brown patches are showing. They suggest the sorrow of teenage brides withering under harsh reality without ever blooming. Patches of yellow mustard show up here and there but where have the orange poppies gone?
Is the unusually high January temperatures a sign of global warming? The Midwest is reeling under record snowfall. It’s bitterly cold in the east coast. Rain is incessant in the Pacific Northwest. What can explain this anomaly, this wild fluctuations in weather conditions that get more pronounced every year? Something is happening to our planet. We are probably stretching its resilience to the breaking point.
I wake up about an hour before dawn. Until last year, I used to hear the cooing of a dove in the ash tree in my front yard toward the end of February. That was my sweetest reminder that spring had arrived before vernal equinox in March. But this year I heard the dove on January 29. I began hearing its mournful music regularly every morning thereafter. Spring isn’t silent as Rachel Carson feared it would be, but certainly it arrives early, early, early!
The night sky removes the sadness I feel at the increasingly ephemeral nature of winter and spring. On the same day that the dove began to coo for the first time this season, I saw in the evening a most stirring sight: Venus shining gloriously above a three-day old moon. The following night the two celestial bodies traded their positions. The night after, the moon separated even further from the evening star as it gained weight and steadily climbed the sky. The sight of stars blooming in the garden of the sky all night long is profoundly moving. The anxiety of mortgage payments, unfulfilled dreams, even intimations of a fragile earth, fade away, replaced by a joy that comes from knowing that I am not alone but is woven into the fabric of this vast, mysterious universe.
Today it is in the high 60s as I write. City officials are warning of water rationing. The hills and valleys of the San Francisco Bay Area are green but already brown patches are showing. They suggest the sorrow of teenage brides withering under harsh reality without ever blooming. Patches of yellow mustard show up here and there but where have the orange poppies gone?
Is the unusually high January temperatures a sign of global warming? The Midwest is reeling under record snowfall. It’s bitterly cold in the east coast. Rain is incessant in the Pacific Northwest. What can explain this anomaly, this wild fluctuations in weather conditions that get more pronounced every year? Something is happening to our planet. We are probably stretching its resilience to the breaking point.
I wake up about an hour before dawn. Until last year, I used to hear the cooing of a dove in the ash tree in my front yard toward the end of February. That was my sweetest reminder that spring had arrived before vernal equinox in March. But this year I heard the dove on January 29. I began hearing its mournful music regularly every morning thereafter. Spring isn’t silent as Rachel Carson feared it would be, but certainly it arrives early, early, early!
The night sky removes the sadness I feel at the increasingly ephemeral nature of winter and spring. On the same day that the dove began to coo for the first time this season, I saw in the evening a most stirring sight: Venus shining gloriously above a three-day old moon. The following night the two celestial bodies traded their positions. The night after, the moon separated even further from the evening star as it gained weight and steadily climbed the sky. The sight of stars blooming in the garden of the sky all night long is profoundly moving. The anxiety of mortgage payments, unfulfilled dreams, even intimations of a fragile earth, fade away, replaced by a joy that comes from knowing that I am not alone but is woven into the fabric of this vast, mysterious universe.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Reaching Out to the Muslim World
President Barack Obama followed up the promise he made in his inaugural address - “To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect” - with an interview with Al Arabiya, an Arabic-language channel based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates on January 26. The interview is significant not just for its content but also for the fact that it is the first interview he granted since taking office.
In the interview, the president said, “… my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record … America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task.”
In case anyone has any illusion about the enormity of the task, the president also said, “But ultimately, people are going to judge me not by my words but by my actions and my administration's actions. And I think that what you will see over the next several years is that I'm not going to agree with everything that some Muslim leader may say, or what's on a television station in the Arab world - but I think that what you'll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity. I want to make sure that I'm speaking to them, as well.”
Since 9/11, we have become acutely aware of the critical role language plays in inflaming passions. Recognizing that, Obama said, “… the language we use matters. What we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations - whether Muslim or any other faith in the past - that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name. And so you will I think see our administration be very clear in distinguishing between organizations like al Qaeda - that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it - and people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop. We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down. But to the broader Muslim world what we are going to be offering is a hand of friendship.”
On Iran: “I said during the campaign that it is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran. Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that's not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past - none of these things have been helpful. But I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress. And we will over the next several months be laying out our general framework and approach. And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.”
This radical departure from the policies of the Bush administration - with-us-or-against-us Manichean view replaced with respect and inclusiveness - fills many of us with hope. Perhaps someday peace will reign between Palestinians and Israel and the world will rejoice in a two-state solution. Can hope triumph over history? Only a few weeks ago, such a possibility could not be imagined. Now the words have been spoken and who can say that they will not take wings on their own?
Not that everyone is thrilled. Many right-wingers are aghast that the president has a) given his first interview to an Arab news channel and b) he is reaching out to Muslims so early and so decisively in his presidency. Not continuing Bush’s belligerent attitude toward Iran has outraged them. Others think he is being naïve, that he is undermining the security of America by essentially declaring that the "war on terror" is over.
The predictable Fouad Ajami, writing in The Wall Street Journal, summed up his analysis of the president’s message to Muslims with these words: “Obama Tells Arabia’s Despots they’re safe.” This is a man who never fails to see a dark lining in a silver cloud.
In the president’s inaugural address are words that describe these people perfectly: “What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.”
Meanwhile, our hope has soared on the wings of the president’s promise to Muslims: America will respect those who may hold different views or who are disappointed by past American actions. Only those who use terror and violence to achieve their goals will be targeted by America. What a difference a cosmopolitan president can make!
President Barack Obama followed up the promise he made in his inaugural address - “To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect” - with an interview with Al Arabiya, an Arabic-language channel based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates on January 26. The interview is significant not just for its content but also for the fact that it is the first interview he granted since taking office.
In the interview, the president said, “… my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record … America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task.”
In case anyone has any illusion about the enormity of the task, the president also said, “But ultimately, people are going to judge me not by my words but by my actions and my administration's actions. And I think that what you will see over the next several years is that I'm not going to agree with everything that some Muslim leader may say, or what's on a television station in the Arab world - but I think that what you'll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity. I want to make sure that I'm speaking to them, as well.”
Since 9/11, we have become acutely aware of the critical role language plays in inflaming passions. Recognizing that, Obama said, “… the language we use matters. What we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations - whether Muslim or any other faith in the past - that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name. And so you will I think see our administration be very clear in distinguishing between organizations like al Qaeda - that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it - and people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop. We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down. But to the broader Muslim world what we are going to be offering is a hand of friendship.”
On Iran: “I said during the campaign that it is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran. Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that's not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past - none of these things have been helpful. But I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress. And we will over the next several months be laying out our general framework and approach. And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.”
This radical departure from the policies of the Bush administration - with-us-or-against-us Manichean view replaced with respect and inclusiveness - fills many of us with hope. Perhaps someday peace will reign between Palestinians and Israel and the world will rejoice in a two-state solution. Can hope triumph over history? Only a few weeks ago, such a possibility could not be imagined. Now the words have been spoken and who can say that they will not take wings on their own?
Not that everyone is thrilled. Many right-wingers are aghast that the president has a) given his first interview to an Arab news channel and b) he is reaching out to Muslims so early and so decisively in his presidency. Not continuing Bush’s belligerent attitude toward Iran has outraged them. Others think he is being naïve, that he is undermining the security of America by essentially declaring that the "war on terror" is over.
The predictable Fouad Ajami, writing in The Wall Street Journal, summed up his analysis of the president’s message to Muslims with these words: “Obama Tells Arabia’s Despots they’re safe.” This is a man who never fails to see a dark lining in a silver cloud.
In the president’s inaugural address are words that describe these people perfectly: “What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.”
Meanwhile, our hope has soared on the wings of the president’s promise to Muslims: America will respect those who may hold different views or who are disappointed by past American actions. Only those who use terror and violence to achieve their goals will be targeted by America. What a difference a cosmopolitan president can make!
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The Inaugural Address
It was a somber speech. Barack Hussein Obama kept his feet firmly grounded on reality but also gazed boldly heavenward when he needed to. But as the inaugural address progressed, I began to get tense. Along with the passionate throng that had gathered at the Mall, we were all waiting for an excuse to burst into wild applause. But the easy applause lines didn’t come. The address was more for the head than the heart, and that took many of us by surprise.
Ah, surprise. We know that the 44th president is a skillful writer but who would have guessed that he also has a keen sense of suspense? While we were expecting Lincoln, he gave us Washington. Perhaps Barack Obama will one day surprise us with a thriller.
And yet, and yet … as the words began to sink in, not during their masterful delivery but afterwards, they gained in stature. Obama was wise not to attempt an address for the ages. We wanted to soar on the wings of his rhetoric but he reminded us that before we could soar, we had to let go of petty grievances and childish things. We wanted poetry but he gave us tough prose that, on reflection, appeared both sturdy and lyrical.
“We have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.” Not exactly Kennedy but the austere words point to the new direction we must travel to thrive as a nation. “Greatness is never a given. It must be earned.” Again, not much originality there but in these tough times, brought about by runaway greed and unabashed narcissism, we needed the reminder just the same. "Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame."
“We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost … we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Let's hope that he can pull it off, for without overhauling our current educational system and making science and technology the centerpieces of the new system, America's future is likely to be bleak.
The most emotional moment in the speech came for me when Obama said, “This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed – why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.” Echoes of Martin Luther King and a sense that his “Dream” may come true at last.
Obama identified the values on which our success depends – honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism. One gets an earful of these values at any political gathering; what made Obama’s list stand out was the inclusion of one that we rarely hear: curiosity. Obama’s predecessor was know for his lack of it, which probably contributed most to his disastrous eight years, and so its inclusion was bracing as well as instructive.
The inaugural address scored a significant first: the use of the word Muslim. “For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers … To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect …” Muslims are no longer strangers in America or to America. They are as much a contributor to the nation's patchwork heritage as any other. And certainly a genuine reaching out to the Muslim world will be good for America, Muslims and the world.
If there is one snippet from Obama's address that may be quoted years from now (as "With malice toward none ..." for Lincoln, "The only thing we have to fear ..." for Roosevelt, "Ask not ..." for Kennedy), it will probably be this: "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals."
Tomorrow the inaugural address will recede into the background. Tomorrow we will begin focusing on how Obama goes about changing America, and the world, for the better. The 44th president gave us a speech of substance to prepare us for the difficult choices ahead, without diminishing the goodwill we have for him. A wise president indeed.
It was a somber speech. Barack Hussein Obama kept his feet firmly grounded on reality but also gazed boldly heavenward when he needed to. But as the inaugural address progressed, I began to get tense. Along with the passionate throng that had gathered at the Mall, we were all waiting for an excuse to burst into wild applause. But the easy applause lines didn’t come. The address was more for the head than the heart, and that took many of us by surprise.
Ah, surprise. We know that the 44th president is a skillful writer but who would have guessed that he also has a keen sense of suspense? While we were expecting Lincoln, he gave us Washington. Perhaps Barack Obama will one day surprise us with a thriller.
And yet, and yet … as the words began to sink in, not during their masterful delivery but afterwards, they gained in stature. Obama was wise not to attempt an address for the ages. We wanted to soar on the wings of his rhetoric but he reminded us that before we could soar, we had to let go of petty grievances and childish things. We wanted poetry but he gave us tough prose that, on reflection, appeared both sturdy and lyrical.
“We have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.” Not exactly Kennedy but the austere words point to the new direction we must travel to thrive as a nation. “Greatness is never a given. It must be earned.” Again, not much originality there but in these tough times, brought about by runaway greed and unabashed narcissism, we needed the reminder just the same. "Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame."
“We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost … we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Let's hope that he can pull it off, for without overhauling our current educational system and making science and technology the centerpieces of the new system, America's future is likely to be bleak.
The most emotional moment in the speech came for me when Obama said, “This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed – why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.” Echoes of Martin Luther King and a sense that his “Dream” may come true at last.
Obama identified the values on which our success depends – honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism. One gets an earful of these values at any political gathering; what made Obama’s list stand out was the inclusion of one that we rarely hear: curiosity. Obama’s predecessor was know for his lack of it, which probably contributed most to his disastrous eight years, and so its inclusion was bracing as well as instructive.
The inaugural address scored a significant first: the use of the word Muslim. “For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers … To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect …” Muslims are no longer strangers in America or to America. They are as much a contributor to the nation's patchwork heritage as any other. And certainly a genuine reaching out to the Muslim world will be good for America, Muslims and the world.
If there is one snippet from Obama's address that may be quoted years from now (as "With malice toward none ..." for Lincoln, "The only thing we have to fear ..." for Roosevelt, "Ask not ..." for Kennedy), it will probably be this: "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals."
Tomorrow the inaugural address will recede into the background. Tomorrow we will begin focusing on how Obama goes about changing America, and the world, for the better. The 44th president gave us a speech of substance to prepare us for the difficult choices ahead, without diminishing the goodwill we have for him. A wise president indeed.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Obama, Thoreau and the Inaugural Address
Anticipation for Barack Obama’s inaugural address mounts.
The nation is in the grip of a terrifying recession. Americans are losing their jobs right and left. There is no clear exit strategy for the disastrous war in Iraq. The government is bailing out non-performing industries that may cost future generations their future. Layoffs, bankruptcies and Ponzi schemes dominate the news. The winter of despair stalks the land.
Against this backdrop, can mere words perform miracles?
History teaches that they can. Think Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy. Uniting a nation torn by a brutal civil war, putting America back to work by conquering fear, passing the torch to a new generation of Americans – the words of these presidents nourished the soul and renewed the American spirit.
Barack Obama must deliver the goods when he addresses the nation on January 20. We are looking for hope and inspiration, not numbers and statistics. Facts and plans can come later; what we want now is to see the light beyond the darkness that surround us.
While Obama will probably evoke Lincoln in his speech, another American he should consult is Thoreau. The Bard of Walden was no Utopian. He made allowances for life’s idiosyncrasies and yet taught us how to lead lives of dignity and fulfillment.
Hard, honest and meaningful work (unlike, say, the work of speculators and money managers) was central to Thoreau’s vision of life. “I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by conscious endeavor.” With millions of people losing their life-savings to Wall Street greed and cruelty, we need to be reminded that “goodness is the only investment that never fails.” Obama has promised dramatic changes in the status quo but he should also tell us that ultimately “things do not change: we change,” that “what lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are tiny matters compared to what lives within us.”
Thoreau spoke uncomfortable truths with clarity and grace. His words were tough, true, lyrical and soaring, a synthesis impossible save for a few. While telling us unflinchingly of what lay beneath our feet, Thoreau also made us look up at the stars. His is a supremely difficult act to emulate but that’s what the 44th president of the United States must do in his inaugural address if we are to rise above our current crises and become a beacon to the world.
Anticipation for Barack Obama’s inaugural address mounts.
The nation is in the grip of a terrifying recession. Americans are losing their jobs right and left. There is no clear exit strategy for the disastrous war in Iraq. The government is bailing out non-performing industries that may cost future generations their future. Layoffs, bankruptcies and Ponzi schemes dominate the news. The winter of despair stalks the land.
Against this backdrop, can mere words perform miracles?
History teaches that they can. Think Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy. Uniting a nation torn by a brutal civil war, putting America back to work by conquering fear, passing the torch to a new generation of Americans – the words of these presidents nourished the soul and renewed the American spirit.
Barack Obama must deliver the goods when he addresses the nation on January 20. We are looking for hope and inspiration, not numbers and statistics. Facts and plans can come later; what we want now is to see the light beyond the darkness that surround us.
While Obama will probably evoke Lincoln in his speech, another American he should consult is Thoreau. The Bard of Walden was no Utopian. He made allowances for life’s idiosyncrasies and yet taught us how to lead lives of dignity and fulfillment.
Hard, honest and meaningful work (unlike, say, the work of speculators and money managers) was central to Thoreau’s vision of life. “I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by conscious endeavor.” With millions of people losing their life-savings to Wall Street greed and cruelty, we need to be reminded that “goodness is the only investment that never fails.” Obama has promised dramatic changes in the status quo but he should also tell us that ultimately “things do not change: we change,” that “what lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are tiny matters compared to what lives within us.”
Thoreau spoke uncomfortable truths with clarity and grace. His words were tough, true, lyrical and soaring, a synthesis impossible save for a few. While telling us unflinchingly of what lay beneath our feet, Thoreau also made us look up at the stars. His is a supremely difficult act to emulate but that’s what the 44th president of the United States must do in his inaugural address if we are to rise above our current crises and become a beacon to the world.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
“As President, I am giving up smoking for good!”
(I hope Barack Obama will deliver a speech like this after taking office as the 44th president of the United States. He will inspire millions of smokers around the world to give up nicotine addiction).
My fellow Americans,
As you know, I have inherited a long and daunting list of crisis that will severely test me and my cabinet in the days to come.
But there is one personal challenge I have decided to confront that I expect will give my presidency a head start.
Those who have read my memoir, Dreams from My Father, may recall my fondness for smoking. I begin several sentences with “I lit a cigarette,” whether describing my experience as a community organizer in Chicago or visiting relatives in Kenya.
In photographs taken in 1980 by a fellow student when I was a freshman at Occidental College in Los Angeles, you can see me, a 20-year-old, with a cigarette in my hand. In another, I am puffing dreamily on it.
It is a fact. I have been lighting up since my teenage years and have continued to do so for years. I found cigarettes soothing in stressful times, even though I was aware of the damage it was doing to my lungs. Nicotine is intoxicating. It is, as my young friends may say, cool, a mark of social sophistication.
But now I am the president of the United States of America. I have a moral responsibility to set an example for you and for people around the world, particularly the young.
I am giving up smoking for good. No occasional falling off the wagon, no puffing in private. No more smoking, period.
I am not a superman. I do not underestimate the difficulty involved. Giving up smoking requires formidable will power. But as thousands of you in America and around the world prove everyday, it can be done. Smoking is behavior and we know that behavior can be changed for personal and common good.
Today, as in every day of the year, 4,000 of our kids between the ages of 12 and 17 will start smoking. Worldwide, about 100,000 people start smoking everyday, most of them kids.
Smoking kills over 1,200 Americans everyday, about 450,000 a year. Around the world, the toll exceeds 5.5 million a year.
Beyond lives cut short, there are other prices we pay as a society. The annual direct healthcare expense and productivity loss traced to smoking are estimated at about $100 billion each in America.
As president, I will take measures to reduce the power of Big Tobacco. Because it is a lethal product, I will subject cigarettes to more taxes than ordinary products. I will use the power of my office to exclude it from the guidelines of Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trades and from all future US bilateral and regional trade agreements. I will support the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). The previous administration did not ratify FCTC but I will send it to the Congress and the Senate to swiftly ratify it.
Increasing public awareness of the harmful effects of smoking in America and Europe has forced tobacco companies to shift their attention to Africa, Latin America and Asia, where weak governments and corrupt officials often succumb to their enticements. My administration will hold American tobacco companies responsible if they dump their products through bribery and false advertisement anywhere in the world.
We cannot flood weak markets with tobacco while demanding that hard drugs do not flow into the United States. My administration will never tolerate such hypocrisy.
Youngsters say one of the biggest influences on them is seeing people they know or admire light up. I am making a personal appeal to Hollywood and to actors, athletes and other celebrities to stop glamorizing smoking. If even a single person looks up to you, and you smoke, renounce the habit and you will have performed a charity whose fruits others will reap for years.
A few pundits, probably well-meaning, have suggested that I should indulge in an occasional puff or two to relieve tension, now that the weight of the world is upon me. They worry that if I give up smoking, I will not only lose my svelte figure but also my steely calm, the very quality that made you vote for me in the first place. They predict that I will become irritable, nervous, forget social niceties and embarrass the nation if I stop puffing for good.
They are wrong. I am happily sacrificing the pleasures of smoking for the benefits its shunning will bring to me and to anyone inspired by my example.
I also assure you, I will not lose my calm or control because of the absence of cigarettes from my life. I am made of sterner stuff than that.
So, my fellow smokers, old and young: can we lick this lethal habit together once and for all?
Yes, we can.
(I hope Barack Obama will deliver a speech like this after taking office as the 44th president of the United States. He will inspire millions of smokers around the world to give up nicotine addiction).
My fellow Americans,
As you know, I have inherited a long and daunting list of crisis that will severely test me and my cabinet in the days to come.
But there is one personal challenge I have decided to confront that I expect will give my presidency a head start.
Those who have read my memoir, Dreams from My Father, may recall my fondness for smoking. I begin several sentences with “I lit a cigarette,” whether describing my experience as a community organizer in Chicago or visiting relatives in Kenya.
In photographs taken in 1980 by a fellow student when I was a freshman at Occidental College in Los Angeles, you can see me, a 20-year-old, with a cigarette in my hand. In another, I am puffing dreamily on it.
It is a fact. I have been lighting up since my teenage years and have continued to do so for years. I found cigarettes soothing in stressful times, even though I was aware of the damage it was doing to my lungs. Nicotine is intoxicating. It is, as my young friends may say, cool, a mark of social sophistication.
But now I am the president of the United States of America. I have a moral responsibility to set an example for you and for people around the world, particularly the young.
I am giving up smoking for good. No occasional falling off the wagon, no puffing in private. No more smoking, period.
I am not a superman. I do not underestimate the difficulty involved. Giving up smoking requires formidable will power. But as thousands of you in America and around the world prove everyday, it can be done. Smoking is behavior and we know that behavior can be changed for personal and common good.
Today, as in every day of the year, 4,000 of our kids between the ages of 12 and 17 will start smoking. Worldwide, about 100,000 people start smoking everyday, most of them kids.
Smoking kills over 1,200 Americans everyday, about 450,000 a year. Around the world, the toll exceeds 5.5 million a year.
Beyond lives cut short, there are other prices we pay as a society. The annual direct healthcare expense and productivity loss traced to smoking are estimated at about $100 billion each in America.
As president, I will take measures to reduce the power of Big Tobacco. Because it is a lethal product, I will subject cigarettes to more taxes than ordinary products. I will use the power of my office to exclude it from the guidelines of Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trades and from all future US bilateral and regional trade agreements. I will support the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). The previous administration did not ratify FCTC but I will send it to the Congress and the Senate to swiftly ratify it.
Increasing public awareness of the harmful effects of smoking in America and Europe has forced tobacco companies to shift their attention to Africa, Latin America and Asia, where weak governments and corrupt officials often succumb to their enticements. My administration will hold American tobacco companies responsible if they dump their products through bribery and false advertisement anywhere in the world.
We cannot flood weak markets with tobacco while demanding that hard drugs do not flow into the United States. My administration will never tolerate such hypocrisy.
Youngsters say one of the biggest influences on them is seeing people they know or admire light up. I am making a personal appeal to Hollywood and to actors, athletes and other celebrities to stop glamorizing smoking. If even a single person looks up to you, and you smoke, renounce the habit and you will have performed a charity whose fruits others will reap for years.
A few pundits, probably well-meaning, have suggested that I should indulge in an occasional puff or two to relieve tension, now that the weight of the world is upon me. They worry that if I give up smoking, I will not only lose my svelte figure but also my steely calm, the very quality that made you vote for me in the first place. They predict that I will become irritable, nervous, forget social niceties and embarrass the nation if I stop puffing for good.
They are wrong. I am happily sacrificing the pleasures of smoking for the benefits its shunning will bring to me and to anyone inspired by my example.
I also assure you, I will not lose my calm or control because of the absence of cigarettes from my life. I am made of sterner stuff than that.
So, my fellow smokers, old and young: can we lick this lethal habit together once and for all?
Yes, we can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)