New Year's, Resolutions, and a Disney Classic

We are within a few hours of resetting our calendars to a clean slate of 12 months.  Many of us will have the urge and desire to be able to turn back the hands of our clocks---perhaps out of nostalgia for fond experiences whose only relics are comforting memories that we may not always recompose clearly as from first sight. Or perhaps out of wanting for re-trials and re-dos. Or perhaps out of anxiety towards the new year.  And many of us will be prematurely eager to move those very same hands forward, seeking to race past an enduring haunting of a memory.  Or seeking to rush to and embrace new opportunities.  Or maybe out of an innocent childlike shrill excitement begotten by the seductive temptress we know as the Unknown.  But whatever the minute particularities, we ALL have at least one reason to consider and ponder each and every January that comes our way in whatever manner we prefer and specify.  All of this finds itself lent to---and contained in---subtly, even opaquely, the tradition of the New Year's Resolution.  A promise, a resolve, encompassing a reflective mood, and deep thought in turn being created by the chance or prospect for forward thinking.  

So what about a New Year's Resolution to end the practice in the future?  Understandably, for many who frustrated year by year by overbearing circumstances this might be an attractive option to exercise.  For those still searching for a meaning and some clarity, there are still numerous other things that could provide that opportunity.  

One such opportunity I have found is in the celebrated song, Circle of Life, in both the abridged Lion King and the extended Elton John versions.  It cannot escape my mind that this song, in particular, contains a comforting and consoling wisdom (indeed, it brilliantly sums up several major themes of the animated film).  I know many songs provide a theme of consolation or a message of warmth and/or hopefulness. Some that immediately come to mind are Celine Dion's heartfelt Because You Loved Me and A New Day, or Mariah Carey's solemn There for Me.  And, of course, Louis "Satchmo" Armstrong's simple yet elegant What a Wonderful Day (which was first memorably performed in front of troops during the Vietnam War, as an indirect call to end hostilities, if I am not mistaken).  

These are all I songs I've held close, but there's something about those African-themed lyrics that surpasses the aforementioned: 

[I]  "It's the Circle of Life. 

       And it moves us all,

       Through Despair and Hope, 

       Through Faith and Love.

       Till we find our place on the path unwinding, 

       In the Circle of Life." 

Words that often inspire me to seek direction. 

[II]  "Some say Eat OR Be Eaten.

          Some say Live AND Let Live.

          But All are agreed,

          As they join the Stampede. 

          You should NEVER take more than you give."

 Words that often inspire me to seek modesty and thoughtfulness.

[III]  "Some of us fall by the wayside, 

            And some of us soar to the stars. 

           And some of us sail through our troubles, 

          And some have to live with the scars." 

          

It is the 'Nature' of Life to deal us many mixtures of outcomes and circumstances, varying by person, time, and place.  Yet ...

[IV]  "It's the Wheel of Fortune.

           It's the Leap of Hope. 

          It's the Band of Faith."

We may (hopefully) realize that there's an innate, little-understood order and depth of growth to these mixtures through perseverance because ... 

[V]  "There's far too much to take in here, 

          More to find than can ever be found. 

          But the sun rolling high,

          Through the sapphire sky,

          Keeps great and small on the Endless Round ... "

There is a Circle, a cycle, which both requires and maintains some sort of balance and encompassing perspective.  We may not fully detect or appreciate this balance and this perspective, and that is understandable.  But this Circle affects everyone, and just as it does we also play a role in helping to determine or at least push it to how it will affect us by our interaction(s) with it consciously and unconsciously.  And there could be a profound sense of renewal coming out of these dynamics.  How to reach that renewal would be a pivotal question.  As humans, we are complex social beings endowed with the blessings of much intelligence, ingenuity, adaptability, as well as with the capacities to seek wisdom, to seek improvement, to practice compassion and to incline towards fairness and justice. But will we summon and sustain the forward-thinking, the patience, the moderation, and the strength needed to utilize and combine the above-mentioned qualities?  

So yes, this mental gymnastics with a few musical stanzas, can be indeed a form of New Year's Resolution.  Not so much a promise or a vow, but nonetheless a promising engagement of sorts.  I'll leave with you with this much for now, and I wish you all a fruitful and enriching New Year.     

                

Economics, and an Online Game on Recycling

How much can we learn about economics, indeed about our own selves, from recycling, and about the choices we have to make on a daily basis individually and collectively? Let's start answering this question by exploring some of the most basic ideas involved in the academic discipline we call economics.

The science of economics tells us that, at any given point in time, a given resource or factor of production will be scarce. Even in times of 'abundance,' resources and factors of production could be said to be more scarce or less scarce depending upon its supply and upon the availability of technology to extract or modify them for use. This concept of scarcity is central to a fundamental imposition of constraints that we, as societies and individuals, face in how to best manage the resources we are endowed with as well as to how best seek new sources of resources and factors of production. And among the most important of such constraint is what economists have called opportunity cost. 

Due to scarcity, our decisions over how we use, or don't use, a given resource or production factor will impact other decisions over other resources. For example, time is an important resource, and depending upon our preferences, values, and other subjective and non-subjective constraints and circumstances, we may have (at any given instance) the choice to employ this resource in one activity or other. So let's say we have an hour of free non-sleep time left after a busy day: we may choose to spend that hour in leisure (such as watching a TV comedy show), or we may opt to take care of unfinished house chores. Given constraints and circumstances, such as health and physical fatigue, we now have to make the choice on how to spend that specific hour. If we undertake chores, then leisure must be given up, and if leisure is preferred then the opportunity for house chores will be not taken advantage of. Thus the opportunity cost of leisure is not doing chores, the opportunity cost of chores is forsaking leisure.

Because economics is a social, behavioral, and management science, such concepts apply to almost everything in our professional lives in addition to many day-to-day tasks. Recycling programs seek to conserve and maintain the level of resources at a rate that could keep production of goods and services physically sustainable. They also may prove beneficial to businesses and producers in helping to minimize costs (especially in the long run). But, as societies and economies evolve, expand, and become more sophisticated---and as their production possibilities curves (the total combinations of goods/services that can be produced with available production factors, resources, and technology) expand outward (which would imply the development and implementation of greater technology, efficiency, as well as an expansion of resource bases)---constraints, preferences, and circumstances will still be faced; the dilemmas posed by scarcity will not magically go away. This applies even to businesses that have specialized to serve the recycling industry--from garbage collectors to materials reprocessing--as production factors like labor and capital (i.e. vehicles for transporting waste to disposal sites and recyclables to reprocessing sites, procuring machinery used at sites, etc) and their prices will necessarily need to be constantly considered against scarcity, opportunity costs, and other conditions.

To get an idea of some of the decisions that are involved and are measured and employed against these conditions faced by recycling specialists, I would suggest to take a crack at this game . Published as a part of webpage for a documentary on the recycling industry in Egypt (one of the densest nations in Africa and the developing world), the object of the game is to run a typically modest recycling firm in Cairo and to match their industry's efficiency rate of 80% recycling. Of course, you will face constraints like upkeep costs, figuring out how to expand to optimum recycling facilities and capabilities, as well as the opportunity costs of choosing to whether expand operations to another district in the city (when available). Given all the challenges of matching that efficiency rate in a very dense urban environment, with relatively more modest technology than those found and used in the West, I can say that this strategy simulation has been a humbling and enlightening experience for me.

Short Comment on 'Are Distractible People More Creative?'

An article published in Wired blog talks a bit about the possible relationship between creativity and latent inhibition, an exercise that article defines as the "capacity to ignore stimuli that seem irrelevant."  The article makes the case that this inhibition works best when it is targeted.  It is not simply enough to have low latent inhibition. One must channel the low levels of latent inhibition so as to reach productivity in being creative (and not, in the article's words, face an environment or condition where he/she is "drifting off to the far corners of the stage").          

Problems with latent inhibition are commonly found with disorders like OCD (which stands for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder--a mild to severe disorder characterized by, among other things: burdensome repetition of thoughts including doubts; a burdensome inability to focus that goes beyond distraction normally attributed to stress stimuli; and the sense of being compelled to repeat tasks).  It is important to note that these problems of "struggling to filter the world and [the result of] letting everything in," or of the ability to "close their mind," attributed with OCD and related disorders, does not mean that these individuals are divorced from their surroundings or the world.  They maybe zoned-out or unfocused in the sense that it is very hard for them to think "with a clear mind."  But that does not mean they don't live in a 'different world' per se.

As for the reported blessing-in-disguise regarding creativity---I think that is very much a great possibility here. The "junk" that OCD patients cannot filter out is part of the creativity process, but its burdensomeness and its repetition can also be a counter-productive exercise to which they are subjected to.  Part of the filtering of OCD-caused mental "junk" involves medication that boost and otherwise regulate brain chemicals such as seratonin. [Insufficient seratonin levels are intimately related to these problems--lack of concentration, repetitive thoughts, repetitive doubts, sense of feeling repetitively compelled to repeat a task, etc.] 

I am somewhat disappointed at the tone of the article in which a solution to the difficulty of matching low latent inhibition with productive channeling is apparently phrased.  The author indirectly puts the solution in a 'this-is-what-we have-to-do-and-just-do-it' way without considering the diversity of experiences that are associated with distractibility.  As described above, this is a diversity that includes disorders like OCD.  He does mention another disorder, schizophrenia.  Yet he does so almost only briefly in passing. In essence he seems to present his mentioning of schizophrenia in a shorthand way as an example for when low latent inhibition is not helpful towards the implementation of creativity.  This is significant because, in the absence of discussion over other disorders (and in the absence of a fuller discussion over schizophrenia itself),  we are left in the article with a decidedly less-than-favorable impression for a disorder of the type that relates or could be related to latent inhibition (and with little context or explanation). 

A similar problem surfaces in his discussion over remedies, where the author lists a few things to help us combine latent inhibition with productive channeling.  He states we must nurture within us a "willingness to analyze our excess of thoughts" and that we must be "ruthless" when differentiating between what to consider and hold onto and what to discard mentally.  But he apparently stops here.  Again, there is nothing wrong with encouraging productive behavioral traits, habits, and exercises: these are to be encouraged, and I agree with this emphasis.  But it is helpful to merely make such declarations if "all other things remain equal."  With problems like disorders, that situation constraint has less value.  A closer look needs to be made, and it is here where the tone seems to be somewhat in lacking of appreciation for people with such disorders.  For people who have disorders like OCD, it is fair to say that they already are pushed (and they work) harder than usual to fulfill the advised points, and thus they must have the "willingness" the author speaks of.  The fact that they are already  struggling to function as (even normally) productive people should already  say much about their "ruthless" attitude to "throw out useless stuff."  More encouragement of a positive, rather than a dismissive, kind would be more fitting.  The article's topic is very interesting and it has certainly aroused my attention and curiosity.  It would also benefit from more thoughtfulness.

UPDATE: More Theatrics and Drama?

Story links: link, link, link, link, link

Pastor Jones of Gainsville-based Dove Center has announced to call off the Quran-burning demonstration. News agencies have reported that the new stance comes after agreement between Florida Imam Musri (based outside of Gainsville) and Jones to meet with leaders of Park51 Muslim community center project (the so-called "Ground-Zero Mosque").  It was reported that Park51 leaders would meet with Jones if he cancelled his event.  

Jones claimed to have obtained assurances from non-specified Muslim leaders (and when pressed to identify, he pointed to Musri) to move the center away from the current proposed location.  This claim is his justification for the initial cancellation of his event. 

Muslim leaders including Musri deny this, saying that there was an agreement only to bring the two sides together for handling the impasse calmly.  They say there was no prior finalized agreement or understanding regarding relocation. 

While the calling-off is commendable, I am puzzled by the Pastor's assertions after he concluded his meeting with Musri.

I am more surprised (or rather taken aback) by newer developments (within perhaps only hours of the Pastor's announcement) that he would "reconsider" the calling-off, triggered by what he claims are lies given to him by Musri.  Furthermore, even more awing was his response (in the same press interview) to a question fielded about his attitude to a hypothetical situation of deaths resulting from implementation of the Quran-burning.  After saying that he would feel "very bad" about the deaths, he continues: "We think [what] we would have done ... does reveal the real violence of Islam, the fear that is related with Islam that is actually much much deeper than what we had in the United States imagined."  So, in other words, if I understand him correctly: an unfortunate event is apparently 'needed' to 'expose the horrible truth that is Islam' [obviously, I'm paraphrasing him in this last sentence].    

So we have to witness more rhetoric of hype, reductionism, stereotyping, (and even hate,) etc, [coupled again with statements that he will make a 'prayerful decision' over the impasse] from the Pastor ...

Meanwhile, news reports already have surfaced of animated reaction on part of some Muslims---like flag burnings and inflamed chants.  I repeat my urging again that it would be most wise and productive for Muslims not to repeat the mistakes that some have done earlier in response to Prophet Mohammed cartoons and other provocations.  It is understandable that emotions are likely to run high.  But it is essential to highlight that overreactions to provocations may not measure up with Islamic behavioral ethics.  It runs counter to a rich tradition of calm, measured response and conduct that includes challenging ignorance with knowledge and challenging hateful behavior/expression with beautiful speech.  Overreactions also may reinforce stereotypical and reductionist images of Muslims and Islam, thereby helping to further polarize a poisoned atmosphere.

Quran-Burning: Freedom of Speech/Expression, Unnecessary Rhetoric

Here's a thought, or a few, to consider.  Undoubtedly, the Dove World Outreach Center's plan has by now reached the four corners of the media world and has been thrown in discussions, protests, and in other private and social gathering spaces.  I will keep my comments brief because, in spite of short-term upsurge in coverage, the proposed protest (marked by the Quran-burning) is but a footnote in the rashness of human actions.  Yet with similar dilemmas and problems, a still-sluggish economy, and a fevered election cycle confronting Americans, this footnote could jump onto the main paragraphs.   

The State Department, the White House, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and U.S. religious leaders have all weighed in on this issue with increased pressure on the Center to avoid the dangerous rabble-rousing.  In spite of these warnings, the defiant pastor apparently vowed not to "back down" to "radical Islam."  The pastor conveniently forgot--or ignored--to take sight of the fact many more Muslims will be hurt by this action---much more than those he claims to be standing up against.  And in light of reported stances on Islam itself being evil, his action will be interpreted as being directed--not towards extremist Muslims---to Muslims en masse.  


Deliberate intimate provocation by some Non-Muslims could be met by equally unnecessary overreaction from some inflamed Muslims.  Then there is the question of opportunism and the space or the extent within which that could take place.  Will extremist Muslims be just as prone to exploit the emotions of Muslims abroad----upset at seeing unnecessary dramatic imagery (like the Quran burning)----as Non-Muslim provocateurs have been doing here?  If this provocation is made, Muslims would be wise to keep their cool and confront hatred with level-headed speech and confront ignorance with knowledge.  Muslims would be wise not to repeat the mistakes of some earlier in the Muhammad cartoon and other controversies.      

As for the pastor's conduct I think he's way in over his head, to put it diplomatically.  According to news reports, the pastor says he will 'pray' about his decision (regarding the Quran-burning).  What in the world is there to "pray about" regarding a decision the pastor has himself stated he has made and that he reportedly won't back down on.  How do you "pray" (or seek spiritual consolation)  about a decision---already made---to take highly inflammatory action that in a sensitive time like this could have the effect of inciting further inflammatory action (and even violence)?  And what "prayer" or spiritual comfort could be derived while planning to commit behavior (which is reckless and irresponsible at best, and maliciously incendiary at worst) such as this?  If he really prayed, he would realize that it is not about "backing down," but about behaving responsibly and reasonably in leading his congregation away from needless inciting and provocation and inflamed rhetoric.   If he really cherished his freedom of speech/expression, he would think several times before cheapening his freedom for a few moments in the national spotlight.

We All Need Mirrors: A Response to the "Two Americas."

In the discussion over the "two Americas," one of the basic premises of Ross Douthat's op-ed article is that the relationship between a minority/immigrant group and the American society overall are based upon give-and-take/compromise/exchanges of contributions, etc.  In inter-group relationships in society, this is a very natural demand and dynamic, without which the society may not function properly.

Now, the question is not whether this dynamic should exist.  To pretend or believe that it should not exist would cause a disservice not only to the Non-Muslim majority but also to the Muslim minority/immigrant group.  But, as with many other minority/immigrant issues,  this one needs to be handled prudently and delicately.  Of course, there is merit in the concern that tones expressed regarding this dynamic could reveal an unease or an outright xenophobia.  Even so, perhaps there is a logical reasoning to at least be willing to consider multiple angles and present them for a fuller evaluation.

The question [---and this is part where the author perhaps should have been more thoughtful, and one in which I find the tone troubling---] should be over the PARAMETERS of the dynamic of give-and-take/ compromise/ exchange of contributions/etc.  In a similar note, I am puzzled by why the author chose to use the word "assimilation" instead of "integration."  For "assimilation" lies closer to a "blending in" to form a more cohesive whole [consider how a soup is made, with all the individual elements being almost rendered variously indistinguishable].  While "integration" moves more towards a coming together of diversified parts to form a more cohesive whole [consider how a salad is made; all its separate elements form a unit, but they are individually distinguishable even in the same bowl].  Both integration and assimilation have just about the same objective/end result in mind, with markedly different paths (and the different paths/methods can have different implications for both minorities/immigrants and the overall society).

I am struck by the Douthat's apparent negligence (or willful omission, at worst) of the [mostly] tragic history of Native American Indians in what became the Continental U.S.  I am struck also by the inconsistency in reasoning and tone this attitude could invite.  The potential exists for an inconsistency of standards that invite one of set of parameters in the analysis over the relationship between the majority Native Indians and predominantly Anglo-Saxon settlers in one (historical) case, and standards that invite another set of diametrically opposite parameters in the current context of Muslims in a predominantly Anglo-Saxon America.  

By almost every measure, the true indigenous inhabitants of the Americas (both South and North) were tribal groups like the Cheyenne, Sioux, Shawnee, Cherokee, etc.  Even by the time of the American Revolution (1775), the European settlers (mostly Anglo-Saxon) and their descendants were still much "relatively new" in comparison to the Natives.  Indeed, the first permanent major English settlement in the Continental U.S., Jamestown, Virginia, was established in 1607.  Much of the same could be said about the American settlers who migrated westward of the Mississippi River, and the Indians who suffered later on.

Had the author lived during the those critical historical periods, what ideas would he have penned then for Native-Settler relations concerning the basic premise(s) upon which he insists for contemporary American society's relationship with Muslims now?  Certainly, as a writer looking back in time, he would've noticed that the analysis requires a different perspective into demographic compositions and dynamics from which to work.  Almost by parallel, he would have characterized that past society as being a narrative of "the two Native Indian Americas."  

In such case, "the first Native America" would be reserved for the unconditionally accepting Native America which opened its arms wide to Plymouth and Jamestown colonists.  As newcomers in a distant and strange land the early colonists likely would not (and could not) have survived, owing to devastating epidemics of foreign illnesses (to which they were not immune) and to famine.  Indeed, mortality rates were relatively high during those first years.  Indigenous tribes' support and goodwill thus were crucial to those colonists' well-being, and by extension to the enduring establishment of the thirteen remaining majority-Anglo-Saxon colonies (the earliest foundation of what the U.S. as it is today).  The "second Native America" would have consisted of tribes that began to distrust and resist the settler colonists.  Under such context, would he have been sympathetic to his characterizations of "the second America" to which he sympathetically exhibits in this article?  What would have been his attitude to other crucial turning points in U.S. history which also had a profound impact upon Native Americans, such as "Manifest Destiny?"  

  

A thoroughly thoughtful appreciation of this history still casts a long and deep shadow and stain on our national consciousness.  A shadow and stains from which we still have to apparently fully learn.   Seeking to be fully aware of seemingly callous "adoption" of Native American property should cause us to stop for a moment and think deeply.  The standards of tolerance and mutual respect as defined by "the first America" would contrast sharply with prominently-negative historical treatment of Native Americans.  It may perhaps even contrast with some contemporary considerations of them.     

For example, apparently among the most prominent and enduring conscious imagery of Native Americans widespread throughout the U.S. today are those used in professional sports teams and logos.  At face value, these images hardly say anything about the legacy and history of Native American cultures, societies, rituals, beliefs, customs, or contributions to the North American landscape.  I am not suggesting that anyone who has even so much attended or watched a major sport like American football or baseball game is complicit in this regard.  Nor do I hold anything against professional sports.   

But I do think it is worthy to pause and ask a few questions.  How did names---like the Cleveland Indians, Washington Redskins, and Atlanta Braves---come to be used (in name and physical image) in professional sports industries?  Do/did Native Americans object to commercial uses of their likenesses and to the commercial uses of variations thereof?  Were they to object would we stop engaging in such use?  Would we develop ways to compensate them for the use of these likenesses, and if so how?  And even if they do not/did not object, how might many of us feel if the situation was put in reverse?  With scores of Native Americans mimicking non-Native Indian likenesses in sports uniforms, trademark/logos, and so on, made to look like Anglo-American settlers?  [Of course, such behavior pales in comparison to other treatments of the Native American narratives such as portrayals in Old Western movies and inexpensive Old Western novels popular in the time period.  I point this one out as a relative measurement and because of its ongoing use.]  

          

Perhaps Douthat does not believe or think that allusions to historical realities (and residual issues) dealing with Native Americans apply in the case of America's treatment of Muslims in the United States.  Regardless, this is an argument that has been made in other minority and immigrant cases.  People from across the southern border will 'change' the America as we know it (assumed for the worse)---politically, cultural, economically, and socially.  And so they must be fiercely and aggressively resisted.  Or, they must 'assimilate'--that is, extending Douthat's tone and definitions---abide by the rules of the "Second America" so that they are, by the grace of the "First America," accepted among Americans' ranks.  But there was also a time when Anglo-American settlers and European explorers were different and alien to the American continents all together.  Undoubtedly American Indians faced many of the same questions we do today, and the collectivity of their responses are a diversity of resistances mixed in with accommodations.  

But the America as we currently know it has been different from a few centuries ago when Native tribes dominated its landscape; it was the non-Natives, not the indigenous tribes, who have "prevailed" in shaping most of the "character" of present-day United States.  And on the whole it was mostly the non-Natives, not the indigenous tribes, who insisted on others following their lead and example.  Today's "Natives" include a mix that, collectively, are vastly different from pre-colonization's tribes.  I realize that a discussion of immigration is far too complex to be covered in any summarized points here.  But there are (worrying) undertones I find in some immigration arguments that are strikingly similar to the characterizations presented in Douthat's "two Americas" lenses.        

If anything, all of us are in need of mirrors.  The author's article started off promising.  He has a right to point out that sensitivity on the part of Muslims should be part-and-parcel of decisions over the Park51 community center.  Yet the article's preachy mood carried a seeming lack of internal mirror that, in espousing and cheering all the qualities of "the two Americas," rendered it instead more disappointing than enlightening.

The (Not-So-Amusing) Drama on Obama's Faith Background

Once again, speculation about the President's faith and background has surfaced to the foreground of punditry and public life here in America.  Once again, the echoes of this "issue" has sounded increasingly audible at a critical time and a tense political and social environment (i.e. right before the upcoming 2010 gubernatorial and midterm Congressional elections).    

A point that may be lost here is that perhaps it is not so much about whether Mr. Obama is a Muslim or a Christian.  Rather, upon closer inspection and reflection, the real dilemma may indeed be over the implications of commencing and continuously hammering on this speculation.  The same goes for the significance of responses to such speculation.  

About two years ago, in the midst of electoral frenzy,  Collin Powell correctly summarized the seeming pandemonium and nonsensical undertones when speculation about Obama's faith ran rampant: "[Obama] is a Christian — he's always been a Christian... But the really right answer is, what if he is [a Muslim]? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America."  The point that Mr. Powell made hinted at the notion that the environment surrounding the speculation over Obama's background not only could hurt Obama, but could also ultimately have the effect of marginalizing Muslims (and Arabs) in the United States.  This is the same conclusion reached by CNN anchor Campbell Brown when she wrote in an op-ed "Whenever this gets raised, the implication is that there is something wrong with being an Arab-American or a Muslim. And the media is complicit here, too.  We've all been too quick to accept the idea that calling someone Muslim is a slur ..."  

Contrast these statements with the reply of then-Republican candidate Senator John McCain of "no, he's a decent family man" to statement from campaign rally attendant about the then-Democratic opponent being an Arab.  The presented juxtaposition (even if unintended)---between a scrutinized minority constantly under less-than-flattering spotlight, and a regular mainstream American celebrated by his peers---could not have been invoked any clearer.  Even though McCain's comment was a lot tamer than other characterizations (by TV and radio pundits on the extreme political right), it was 'weak' at best and 'complicit' at worst towards Muslim/Arab smearing at the time.      

Four decades ago, America faced a similar wave of socio-political hysteria.  When then-Senator John F. Kennedy was running for president in 1960, he encountered intense speculation and suspicion, owing to him being a Catholic candidate.  Kennedy recognized those (misplaced) fears and missed no opportunity to declare and affirm his independence from a suspected tie to a dominating hold of the Catholic Church.  One could concede that the particular circumstances surrounding the speculation over the president's faith background and affiliation differ between Kennedy's time and Obama's predicament.  But the underlying environment of hype almost essentially remain the same.  The fact that Kennedy was Catholic was viewed as a point of distrust and non-confidence; in just about the same way so are Obama's feeble connections to a Muslim background.  And there is similarity between Kennedy's and Obama's approaches in responding to this hype: Kennedy sought to assuage misplaced and erroneous fears of a 'Catholic takeover' of America by consistantly reasserting his individuality; Obama may perhaps be seeking to deflate misplaced and erroneous fears of an 'Islamic takeover' by repeatedly reasserting how his Christianity informs his policy decisions and presidential conduct.  

In the Kennedy and Obama cases, those particular choices over how to handle the presidential public persona in both cases may have be deemed as a politically pragmatic necessity to demonstrate leadership and proximity to the American people (and their persona may have truly reflected the presidents' personal convictions about themselves).  But another important angle to the creation of, and reception towards, the presidential persona in these contexts must be examined.  And through this angle we are likely to confront harder questions and answers.  What could the constant pressure (upon candidates and office-holders) to create specific personas say about us as Americans and our stances regarding the values of tolerance and openness we espouse?  What do these instances say about our embrace of the value that we judge a person---not by the color of his/her skin, but---by the content and conduct of his/her character and person?  

I wasn't alive when Dr. King's eloquent "I Have a Dream" speech passionate urged a terribly divided nation to get past the color/race barrier.  But today's phenomenon of hype feeding into ethnic/religious minority issues could reach a point of comparability in worrisomeness to the outrageous hype on American Blacks that ultimately killed the short-lived Reconstruction (and that later reinforced segregation).  Compare the "threat of an Islamization of America" and other sensationalist and pejorative ideas touted by the contemporary extreme right-wing to the treatment of Afro-Americans in the movie Birth of a Nation.  Perhaps King's words may just as well as apply now.  We have undeniably come a long way since King's address in front of the Lincoln Memorial.  Nonetheless, we still haven't resolved isolationist tensions born out of "us and the Other."  It is also reasonable to acknowledge that it will take time, persistence, and measured action to work through these---even after so many years following King's time.  However why does it feel like we have to return to King's words as if they were uttered only yesterday?  In other words, why does it feel like we keep forgetting and/or remain complicit or indifferent?  


[ABC News conducted a series of experiments to test Americans' responses to negative prejudicial treatment of minorities. In most instances responses were indifference and/or inaction, while some responses supported the treatment.  While the treatment exhibited were conducted by actors, the responses recorded by hidden cameras were eye-opening in light of statistics on responses. Some examples: 1, 2.  Variously throughout America, prejudicial treatment is actual not hypothetical.]               

So when a prominent figure in the American religious and social landscape says recently, "I think the President's problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim, his father gave him an Islamic name.  The Islamic world considers him one of their own ... they see him as a Muslim ..." in commenting on increasing Americans' speculation and confusion over the Obama's religious background, such statements can indeed have a malicious effect.  Even if they were not intended to be a negative hint at Obama, Reverend Franklin Graham's remarks could play into condoning unfounded suspicion towards Obama---and by extension, towards Muslims.  They could further strengthen anti-Muslim and anti-Arab hysteria.  After all, his record on making statements on Muslims and Islam are less-than-bright [see also here].  


Statements like (and even more inflammatory than) these certainly can be amplified and can spread like wildfire and can incite to harassment and violence, in an already still-tense environment or in times of economic hardship.  Recent polls  have shown that negative sentiment and action towards Muslims have been on the rise (here, here, here, here).  News reports (not always highlighted) have also cited the concern over rising harassment and violence towards Muslims.  Notably, Anchor Keith Olbermann of NBC commented: "Muslim and interfaith leaders today are expressing concern that the question of religious freedom is not contained to Lower Manhattan, calling for the protection of community centers, of mosques, of other houses of worship, of Muslim Americans, and of other worshippers around the country, their fears not unfounded. Recent weeks and months witnessing an alarming rise in incidents."  Olbermann went on to describe construction zoning challenges  and "unmasked hatred and violence"---physical and verbal assaults (slurs and exclusionary statements)---on Muslims and their institutions across the country. [Stories about such incidents have also been covered by local, and to seemingly lesser extent national, newspapers.]        

As if having a Muslim-sounding name, or being remotely connected to or associated with Islam or Muslims, or even merely reaching out to Muslims/Islam, is the crux of Obama's image/public persona problem.  What about the other side of the coin?  What about all the hyped talk?  All the implied and direct associations?  All the misinformation and distortion?  All the misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of Muslims/Islam?  All the condensed sound-bite verbiage?  All the political footballing, and the smears?  The discriminatory employment practices justified as 'maintaining company image?' Time and time again it is not only Obama who has been targeted, but also  Muslims/Islam as well.  [Examples include: here, here, here, here, here, here.]

In the end, it is more reasonable to ask why is it necessary to repetitively have this discussion over President Obama's faith and background to begin with?  Yes, substantive discussion over Obama's policies and presidential conduct, and even debate, needs to be encouraged.  But the minute we open up the discussion to include (and fervently question) Obama's faith background, the hype this opening invites can so easily allow substance to fall out.  Rather than being of any benefit, it could so easily fail to serve the public interest.                                                  

Some Thoughts on the "Ground Zero Mosque" Issue

As the mosque issue is still simmering, I thought it well to lay down thoughts on some of its dimensions.  I will try to be as brief as I can. 

(1) Perhaps it wasn't the wisest decision to have the proposed center near Ground Zero.  The location has a lot of sensitivity to it.  Out of concern and respect for the feelings of all who fell that day (and their families), it is a valid point that Muslims should take note of and weigh it in heavily with other considerations before pushing through with the proposed center.  There is still legitimate concern that the proposed center's location can be offensive particularly to the survivors and families of victims of 9/11. There is a possibility that Americans who generally and normally have no ill-will towards Muslims/Arabs can be hurt by the location of the proposed center.  Yet, it remains to be seen whether a calm undertones can endure throughout the discussion, or whether they will give way to deceitful sensationalism and exploiting hype will prevail at the end.  And that is a question whose answer does not seeming comforting at the moment.   

(2) LAW AND CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS: this issue has the potential to be a test of sorts for the values that we deeply cherish.

In terms of the law, it has developed into a First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment issue.  The main question here will involve the endurance of the Bill of Rights in the face of controversy, as pointed out above.  Our country has faced similar situations (dilemmas?) before, and I am confident that the endurance of the law and the principles of civil rights, at least from a technical legal and jurisprudential standpoint, will be once again reasserted. 

As for discussions over the cultural sphere, we often talk about how diverse our country is, how we pride of this diversity, and how much we find strength in it.  All of the pride and feelings we have about the blessings of our diversity, I believe and see, are genuine sentiments and realities that we truly embrace and act upon. 

Yet, here too exists the potential for a test being brought by the center issue.  The test (and implications) here could be a lot trickier and more difficult.  I am hesitant to think of this aspect, because some of the questions that comes to my mind is this: whether the proposed center--- in the proposed location, and with the existing climate in which it is being received and discussed---will be a test on how well Muslims have integrated and been accepted into the American fabric (socially, culturally, etc).  Because similar incidents (of anti-mosque opposition) have sprung up before and alongside the one in New York City, there is a possibility that the debate over the "Ground Zero mosque" is much more deeply than just being about the sensitivity of Ground Zero location.  Noting the virulence of these developments, a Washington Post article observed, "the intense feelings driving that [NYC center] debate have surfaced in communities from California to Florida in recent months, raising questions about whether public attitudes toward Muslims have shifted."  These developments have included anti-Muslim protests, by groups such as Operation Save America, across the country.        

There is still some lingering and growing mis-perception, mis-information/ predominantly selective media coverage, opportunistic smearing, and unfavorable views (prejudice)---in addition to rising discrimination practices and doubt---on part of some in the American public regarding Muslims/Islam (see here, here, and here).  Though not frighteningly rampant, these trends---including physical attacks against property---do not appear to be backing down in occurrences or strength.  In such a polarized (and polarizing) environment (for example: see this, this, this, this, and this), there would be concern (for example: see here, here) that the dynamics of exchange on the mosque/community center issue could mesh in (examples see here , here, here, here) with much broader behaviors and attitudes bearing hostility towards Muslims and Islam in America.    

On the other hand, it may turn out that however this issue is resolved (i.e. whether the center will be built in the proposed location) may strongly reinforce the diversity we have come to cherish about our country.  From a broader perspective, it is possible any lingering concerns about the full integration of American Muslims will be put to rest as unfounded.  In light of this and other similar road bumps the nation has faced, this broader perspective notion however is still very far from ascertainable.  

We can learn from controversies and difficult and sensitive issues (even those that involving diversity as an aspect/dimension).  And it is possible for us to gain deeper insights about ourselves as a society from probing such questions and dimensions, and to work on being more constructive.  But, of course, in dealing with this and similar areas we would need to be completely honest, civil and fair with ourselves and with others---whether we are Muslim or Non-Muslim.  Greater mutual measured communication and outreach, not re-entrenchment and receding, is needed.  

(3) THE POLITICAL FOOTBALL/ HOT POTATO: Finally, it is deeply alarming that the discussion over the issue has been hyped up into some political football or hot potato right before upcoming midterm elections.  Prominent politicians---including former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich comparing the center to a Nazi sign at a holocaust museum or a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor---as well as Republican candidates in gubernatorial and Congressional races have weighed in on the center/mosque debate.  [Even some 'embattled' Democrats have sought to distance themselves from the hype, as for example how Senator Reid's public break with President Obama's stance on the issue is reported to have played out.]  


We have seen this kind of distorted and dirty politicking that scapegoated Muslims and Arabs and that used them as impersonified pawns before in recent memory.  Remember the past presidential election, when Obama was branded a Muslim, Arab, or whatnot, and from there he was linked to being sympathetic to extremists---suggesting by implication that he couldn't be a loyal American?  Remember how the fact that his middle name happened to be Hussein was exploited in a similar manner?  Remember how McCain fell into the trap when he responded with something along the lines of "no, he's a good family man," in reply to a question fielded from a rally about whether Obama was Muslim or Arab? (In a tight and heated election season, a few courageous Republican voices spoke up against that nonsense, most notably Colin Powell.)

It is also disturbing that some sectors of the media and of the lobbying world have taken it upon themselves to exploit, conflate, and distort the issue.  These segments have apparently been at the forefront of the  anti-NYC center opposition and opposition to smaller mosque/Islamic center projects; have been working to influence politicians, lawmakers, government agencies, and the general public towards their views of Islam in America and of Muslim extremists; and have contributing to political campaigns.  It is also astonishing to see the phrases being thrown around by these bloggers and pundits---echoes of which have long predated the major thrusting of the Ground Zero episode into the spotlight.  Phrases and suggestions include an accusation against the proposed NYC center of being a victory mosque to celebrate murder, and more general exhortations such as the need to "stop Islamization of America" or to fight "creeping Sharia" in the country, or to "keep America safe."  [Much nastier comments about Islam, Prophet Mohamed, Muslims, and the like have been made by these bloggers and pundits---some as vile as the claims that "Hitler was inspired by Islam," that there are no moderates among Muslims---by extension, implicating all Muslims and Islam itself as immortal enemies of the free world, and a denial that American Muslims can be loyal citizens.]  


Sometimes I can't help but wonder if they are trying to exploit feelings and legitimate concerns, and couple it with a selective framing of this issue (and of others), in a manner as if to turn the issue(s) and their opinions into a referendum on the presence of Muslims/ Islam in the U.S.  Whenever a controversy or difficult issue brews, we can count on these people (examples: here, here) to make it even more fuzzy and unresolvable ...