Right Wing Islamophobia

I live in New England and have recently spent 3 weeks in South Carolina. Being a Yankee, a somewhat progressive liberal, an immigrant and a Muslim, I have my biases. To try to open my mind, I decided to listen to a Fox News talk show with segments by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck while in the car down south. One of the first shows I listened to featured a guest who was an extreme right wing separatist Member of British Parliament. He spoke about the ills of the influx of immigrants from the Middle East. He gave a reasonable and eloquent speech about the desire for uniculturalism and the issues with multiculturalism and how Britain can accept immigrants but needs to insure it maintains its culture. (I will discuss this in the next blog.) In the segment the MP whose name I don’t recall, discussed the problem Muslim immigrants create in Norway, especially rape. He cited a statistic that indicated that 100% of rapes are perpetrated by Muslim immigrants. ( In fairness I don’t recall if he specified Rape with assault or not), referring to statistics released by the Oslo police. However, listening to the eloquent MP, I got the impression that rape is a large problem and all rapists are Muslim immigrants. I decided to see if I could find more information on the Oslo rapes. I started thinking about the reasonableness of that statistic, considering factors like the Nordic countries tendency to be more progressive on sex and thus there is no need to resort to rape whereas Muslims tend to be more puritanical with sex outside of marriage frowned on. But even with that, 100% seemed very unreasonable. I looked up “Oslo Rape Statistics” on the internet and found and article in Loonwatch.com by Farah Khaled about the claim that all rapes in Oslo were perpetrated by Muslim immigrants. Following quote is the first paragraph from Khaled’s article: Earlier this month, Arutz Sheva, an Israeli website popular with Kahanists, an outlawed movement that is gaining prominence with the rise of the extreme right in Israel published ‘Norwegian Minister Links Norwegian Rape Wave To Israel’ by Gil Ronen. The story purported to shed light upon a conspiracy involving a Norwegian minister who ordered the truth about an Oslo police report detailing rape statistics to be hushed up, otherwise Israel may use the report against Norway because the rapists were Muslims. Ronen offered no evidence for his claims except to cite an Israeli blogger who writes a Hebrew blog, one Yehuda Bello whom he claims understands Norwegian and has contacts in Norway. Ronen wrote: Bello reports that from January to late October, 48 rapes were confirmed to have been carried out in Oslo alone, 45 of them by Muslims. 48 rapes were confirmed to have been carried out in Oslo alone, 45 of them by Muslims The article went on explaining Norway’s reluctance, they being anti-Semitic and in the midst of quarrels with Israel, to openly blame the rapes on Muslims. The following is the result of Khaled’s inquiry: Shortly after Arutz Sheva published the Oslo rapes report in early December, I wrote to The Royal Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the Police asking them to verify Gil Ronen’s claims. I received the following reply from Elisabeth Lund a Senior Adviser to the Ministry: Statistics regarding assault rapists: The Oslo Police District has given a report of rapes in Oslo in 2010. The report shows that for all types of rape, except assault rape, European perpetrators are in the majority, and they are mostly Norwegian. Assault rapes covers only five identified unique person. These have all a foreign origin. The number is however, so low that it does not provide a basis for drawing conclusions with regard to country of origin. Two of them were very young (under 18) and two had severe psychiatric diagnoses and cannot be regarded as representative of their ethnic culture. It is highlighted in the report that generalizations like “Oslo’s rapists are foreigners”, which have been seen in media, are wrong. The report gives no statistics regarding religion of rapists.” Yours Sincerely, Grethe Kleivan Deputy Director General Granted, the article I refer to may also be a fabrication but at least it quotes a signed document (maybe false) with a name. On the internet these days who knows, anyone, including myself, can write anything. Sean Hannity did not question the guest and accepted, as I am sure his million like-minded listeners, this as further evidence of the evils of Islam and its practicioners. I continued listening to the radio station whenever in the car. I realized the right was promoting fear and Islamophobia but did not realize the vitriol and volume. It was a good but painful experience.

If a Tree Falls in the Forest: Schrodinger’s Cat

I recently bought a series of lectures from The Teaching Company entitled Redefining Reality: The Intellectual Implications of Modern Science. The lectures are presented by Professor Steven Gimbel from Gettysburg College who discusses changes in understanding of reality over time mostly in scientific and mathematical terms, though he does touch on philosophy. In one of the lectures he spoke about the Schrodinger Equation and the Schrodinger’s Cat experiment. I think this experiment gives a more elegant explanation than I did in previous posts on the Zen coan which asks: “if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, is there a sound?” Following quotes are from the lecture: “When a quantum system is not observed, it occupies a state of superposition; it is in a combination of every possible state it could occupy. But the instant we observe the system, it collapses into one state, The Schrodinger Equation gives us the odds that we will find it in each of the possibilities, but the best we get is a probability.” The Schrodinger’s Cat is a thought experiment that I will try to condense and hopefully not get wrong in the process. “We can create a pair of electrons that when we do not look at them are in superposed states of clockwise and counterclockwise spin, but as soon as we observe one, both collapse into a single state such that one is always opposite of the other, but we will never know which will be which.” The experiment imagines a box into which is placed this created electron pair, a “spin” detector, a poison capsule and a cat. If the detector senses one direction it does nothing, while the other direction triggers a mechanism which bursts the capsule releasing the poison gas, killing the cat. A button is pushed turning on the detector and the electron collapses from its superposed state. Everything in the box, is a physical thing, all atoms, and while unobserved “all are in a superposed state in a grand entangled system”. As long as we don’t open the box, the cat, also being in a superposed state, existing in every possible position, is both alive and dead. Once the box is opened (there is a listener in the forest), the cat collapses into a single state and is either dead or alive (who hears the sound of the tree falling), depending on which way the detector happened to sense the spin direction. I imagine the same can be said of the forest. Everything there is in a superposed state in an entangled system and until observed, there is not only no tree but no forest.

Sociology-A Two Edged Sword

I just read an article in New Republic entitled “Pulp Propaganda” by Jeet Heer. He writes about a mid-twentieth century cartoon character created by Roy Crane. Buz Sawyer was a hero who fought against all of our foes during the Cold War from Iran to Vietnam, exalting the virtues of free enterprise, condemning the evils of communism and demonstrating the benevolence of the United States. When Roy Crane passed they found documents in his archives, letters he received from the State Department that outlined the story lines in some detail which he followed. A week ago, Fareed Zakaria had a guest on his Sunday GPS show on CNN who was the minister of a new department in the UK known as “Nudge”. The role of the organization was to encourage citizens to behave properly (pay their taxes, obey laws, help their neighbors, etc.) by including phrases like “your neighbors pay their taxes” in information sent out to the public. They found the turn of phrase had a measurable impact on people’s behavior. I suspect this department along with the department under the Secretary of State that directing Buz Sawyer, are staffed by sociologists, who after all are students of human behavior and understand what makes us tick. I have often thought about the use of sociology in commerce and government, recognizing that in both institutions, it can and does serve both a beneficial and nefarious purpose. In the first example above the government was trying to manipulate us and others who read our newspapers around the world into seeing us as benevolent supporters of freedom and wellbeing of people around the world. At the extremes, entire population segments, like the Jews in Germany, the Palestinians in Israel or more and more Muslims here, are pronounced to be evil doers, destroying an economy, occupying promised lands or threatening a culture. The second example is a positive one, where by proper placement of a few words, instead of brutal enforcement, people can be nudged to socially beneficial behavior. In commerce sociology is also a two edged sword. Sociologists, considering their understanding of human behavior, can use this information, through advertising, packaging and product placement get us to enhance a company’s profit sometimes even at the cost of our health and wellbeing (cigarettes, alcohol and sugared foods) or buy stuff of no value to us (pet rocks, many children’s toys and overly expensive golf balls). On the positive side sociologists can contribute ideas for making a workplace more livable. (I had to think hard to come up with a positive for the commercial.) In fact everyone probably uses their understanding of what we humans react to in presenting our outward appearance and selecting and arranging our words and phrases. We get dressed up and answer questions we think will help us get a job. We act sweet or manly and considerate to make us appealing to a potential mate. We all, to varying degrees try to do in an amateurish way, what professional sociologists do expertly. So what is the issue? The internet has allowed almost anyone to reach almost everyone and facilitated the use of the knowledge of human nature for their advantage. Unfortunately sociology, amateur or professional, is used more for selfish commercial purposes and spreading extreme ideologies than to advance society’s well -being. Even ISIS has developed this skill. They have learned the word, from their misinterpretation of the Koran, to entice disenchanted youths to join their cause and commit heinous acts against humanity. The skills used by “URGE” in the UK which are good can easily, in the hands of a different government, be used for evil.

Children – Parent’s or Society’s Responsibility

There are numerous areas that differentiate Republicans from Democrats. One of them is the point of view on individual’s rights versus society’s needs. An area of particular interest to me in this debate is the role and responsibility of parents and society as a whole in raising and educating our children. Five years ago I posted a piece I wrote on education and the following is a quote from that piece. (Pretty arrogant quoting myself, huh?) “Years ago a neighbor made a comment to the affect that since our kids are grown, why should we have to pay to educate children of others. I would like to think that the question does not reflect a common point of view but following are my thoughts on the topic. The question is aimed at public education and may boil down to why should the general population pay for something that is of benefit to an individual or a family and is of no consequence to the community? Jonas Salk, the inventor of the vaccine that eliminated polio was not a relative of the masses that were spared the pain of the dreaded disease. Charles Manson was not the son of the Tate’s whose daughter Sharon he and the gang he led murdered so brutally in the 60s. The society as a whole benefits or suffers from the actions of other people’s children and thus it is to the benefit of everyone that we produce the “best”. In the industrialized world where we do not rely on our children to care for us in old age, the major benefit derived by the family of a well-educated child comes down to “bragging rights”.” A golfing buddy the other day complained about the government (and by extension him) having to pay for defaulted student loans. Just like the neighbor above, he felt he was being asked to pay for “stuff” given to an individual but of no benefit to him. Children have been thought of as belonging to the parents and at the extreme, in medieval Japan, the head of a household had a right to put any member, including a child, to death without repercussions. They were his and he had the right to do with them as he saw fit. We have come a long way since then but the notion that children are truly the responsibility of the society as a whole (“children are our future”, “It takes a village”, and all that), still has limited acceptance. Poor parent’s kids attend poor schools while the children of the rich attend good schools and a parent or the child has to pay for their college education. This goes to demonstrate the lack of our ability to connect the quality of an upbringing with the wellbeing of society and for that matter, individuals within that society. A scholarship granted to a poor but brilliant child for the most part is viewed as a gift or a reward and not an important investment in our future. I was watching an old TED Talk by Yuval Noah Harari entitled “Why Humans Run the World”. His basic theme is that we humans as individuals have no advantage over most other animals. For example: if a man and a chimp were stranded on an island, the chimp would most likely survive and the man not. The advantage we have, even over other social animals like bees and chimpanzees, is that unlike bees and chimps, who function in colonies of limited numbers, we function as a society of unlimited numbers. They live in the current reality. We are able to operate in very large social groups because we create imagined realities through stories we collectively believe. As an example he mentions that a chimp might trade another chimp a banana for a mango but never as we, trading a banana today for the promise of many bananas in some imagined afterlife. Another example is the story that money has a value. We believe a worthless piece of paper with certain printing has sufficient value to be exchanged for a banana or a different printing for thousands of bananas. So if Harari’s thesis has any merit and we humans, as social animals run the world, then the children today will be adults running this world tomorrow and thus maybe a societal responsibility. If children are indeed a society’s asset and responsibility, what then is the role of the parents? Whether by Devine intervention or more likely evolution, we are built with a need to procreate and sustain or increase the population of our village, tribe, nation or the planet. Several decades ago, China tried to slow its population growth with the “one child” policy but since has came to realize that to grow their economy, not only did they need to replace the deceased, they needed to grow the population. Much of northern Europe has declining populations and Denmark, concerned about this drop, even has adds running on TV encouraging the general population to have more babies. A declining population is a threat to the wellbeing of individuals since there will not be enough people to provide necessary resources for the aging. Obviously one key role of parents is to bring into this world the children necessary to maintain or increase the population. Humans, because of their large heads housing their large brains, come into the world prematurely, before the physiology of the brain has been fully developed. Successful development needs to occur in a quiet, stress-less environment. Fortunately we humans are born, as I believe are most animals, with a tender affection for the very young, particularly though not exclusively, if they are of our seed or egg. So the job of nurturing the infant naturally falls to the parent and the role of society should be to enable the setting where parents can properly support the physiological development of the brain. After this physiological development children need to develop psychologically. This development requires much one on one attention and patience. Though this part could theoretically be provided by others, the natural affection of the parent for the child makes the job much more effectively if they do it. As the child grows the role of the parent diminishes and society’s role expands. It is in preparing children to be contributing members of a society where the crossover begins. Education systems were designed to teach children skills necessary to become productive members of their societies. England developed public education because of their vast and dispersed empire needed a cadre of clerks with good hand writing and the ability to add a column of numbers. Each country and community wants children to learn what is necessary for the future well-being of that community. The Soviet Union wanted good communists and the West, good capitalists. Each curriculum was appropriate to their ends. Malcom Gladwell in one of his books, wrote about professional hockey and gave some interesting statistics. If one looks at the birthdates of professional Canadian hockey players one finds that most are born in January, followed by February and a few in March. I don’t believe there are any born in November or December. The reason for this is that in the Canadian junior hockey system, very small children are grouped by birth year at a very early age. So kids born in 2010, whether in January or December are put into one group. At the age of five or six that one year makes a tremendous difference in their physical development. So the kids born in January, having a year more to develop, outperform the kids born in December. Each team chooses the best players who are then put into elite teams which get six times the ice times as the regular teams. So, having been culled at a very early age and with six times more practice and playing time, they have a tremendous advantage over other hokey players. This system, by its nature, does not produce the best possible players in a community. Statistically there are as many good players born at the end of the year. But not given the ice time, they are essentially deprived the opportunity to play professional hockey. In fact, the best player may very well have been born in December. We will never find out. For the benefit of all of society, we need the best talent in our government and to run our businesses and other institutions. Our current system culls our children much as does Canada its hokey players, though the culling is not by age but by wealth. We proclaim that all in our country have an equal chance to succeed (the even playing field). However, the truth is that though the chance exists, it is far from equal and whereas in one case one may have a high probability, in the case of the very poor, the probability against success becomes astronomical. Many look at it as unfairness to the individuals. I look at it as a shortcoming that has a negative impact on all of us and is a detriment to society worldwide. As would a Canadian hockey fan want to see the best of Canada play on the national stage and not only the best of those born in January and February, so do I want t the best of us running our institutions and not only those born to wealthy parents. So a child’s proper development is in everyone’s best interest. Education should be provided to every child and higher education to every child with the ability to benefit from it. But attention to formal education is not enough, from birth, children are being already culled. To ensure that we have the best talent in all positions we must not only provide high quality education to all independent of wealth but also enact policies allowing all parents to provide an environment for the children in their care to develop both physiologically and psychologically.

Innovation and American Exceptionalism

Watching the special on technology on CNN’s GPS with Fareed Zakaria today, where among other things they discussed nuclear fusion (a pet topic of mine, considering it the energy source of the not too distant future), made me think of an important role of government that the Right has been neglecting. The push for reduction in spending and the naïve notion that private enterprise is the answer to everything has put us into a position where within a few years China will be spending more per GDP on research than will the US. Republicans will see no issue with government spending less, the problem is that private enterprise is also spending less. Large corporations like the IBMs and GEs along with their likes in the defense industry that had large research facilities have scaled them back over the last few decades. The current focus on quarterly performance has lead them to reduce spending on research which after all is a very long term investment and for the most part CEOs are not paid to think of the “long term”. Republicans thump their chests about our “exceptionalism” but generally don’t have any ideas as to where we are and where we are not truly exceptional. A number of years ago I saw “Morning Joe”, a political talk show hosted by Joe Scarborough, a former member of congress from Florida and a Republican, where they were discussing the military. A guest on the show mentioned that the military is having to drop its standards to be able to recruit sufficient numbers of soldiers. Joe chimed in that we have the best and brightest in our military and when the guest asked by what standard, Joe went into a chant of USA, USA, USA ending the conversation. In many areas like healthcare (we are 47th in life expectancy), freedom (the Kato Institute, a Libertarian think tank, puts us somewhere in the mid-teens among industrialized nations), and quality of life (The Economist has us at 13th) that the right brags about, we are not “exceptional”. There are other areas where we are leaders, though we might not want to be, are the number of gun deaths and the number of people we have in jails. We are first in the industrialized world. An area where we are truly world leaders is innovation and R&D and our efficient venture capital system facilitates it. Another area where we are leaders also indirectly contributes to our innovation. It is our ability to integrate various cultures into our society (though we have not done a good job of integrating Africans we brought over as slaves). This ability allows us to attract talent from around the globe. It is their creativity and the fact that these immigrants come with a variety of experiences, allowing problems to be viewed from many perspectives, that enhances the ability to innovate. Unfortunately most on the Right do not recognize our true “exceptionalism”. During this election cycle the Republican candidates spout anti-immigrant slogans which I’m sure discourage talent from abroad from coming here and enhancing our ability to innovate. The push for austerity, smaller government and elimination of debt, has resulted in a reduction in spending on research and education which surely will not only reduce our ability to innovate but also our ability to compete globally.

Eloquence

I was watching the Republican primary debate the other night and witnessed varying degrees of eloquence exhibited. (An online dictionary defines eloquence as “the practice of art of using language with fluency and aptness”.) Marco Rubio was quite eloquent while The Donald was not. Ted Cruz, a former debate team champion, was somewhere in the middle. Listening to all the words pouring forth made me reflect back on thoughts I had regarding the ability to communicate and the value of that skill. Granted there is great value in being able to effectively transfer thoughts from one’s mind into someone else’s. In some enterprises there is the added challenge of convincing the listeners that your thoughts have truth attached to them and convert the listener to your way of thinking. There is an old saying that a great salesman can “sell ice to an Eskimo” and debate teams are not judged on the gist of their argument but rather on their ability to argue a point. So here is my dilemma. Let’s say I am an administrator heading an organization where I rely on others for the in depth understanding of key technologies. Within the staff I have engineers and scientists who are great communicators and others who, though they may be brilliant, lack these skills. My contention is that unless the best minds also have the most eloquent tongues, the organization is suboptimal. If I don’t really have an in-depth understanding of the technology (which is often the case in organization headed by marketing or financial people), when presented with options based on two contradictory opinions, the person who argues their point better will most often win their case though the less eloquent person may have a stronger point, it will be pushed to the sideline. The success of the organization is then limited to the technical skills of the most eloquent members of the staff. During a break in the debate I mentioned my argument on eloquence to a niece. She did not agree and added that what I was describing is a shortcoming of a weak organization. I think she is correct but then the question becomes; how do we change the organization to overcome this weakness? A couple of solutions come to mind. 1. If the business is heavily dependent on some technology, ensure that the head of the organization is an expert in the technology. 2. Have a high ranking technical expert on the staff to evaluate all such debates, select the best case and make recommendations to the head. 3. Create teams comprised of both strong technologists and eloquent individuals who will then be counted on to present the team’s case. Surely the solution is not to only hire eloquent experts and not hire experts who cannot adequately argue their case. Getting back to the presidential debates where we observed a range of verbal skills. Unfortunately, for a position as important as President, we have to go with the most undesirable solution above. The person has to have the intellect to understand the complexities of issues they will face and have the skill to not only articulate them, but to convince others of the merits of their interpretation. Yes, we have to listen for the poetry in their words but we must also scrutinize the wisdom of their meaning. In the end it will be our skill in choosing our leaders, judging both style and substance, that will determine the degree to which we as a nation will succeed or fail.

Respect or Fear

I have often seen scenes on TV or in the movies where a gangster or a bully announce that they want someone’s respect and then shoot or beat them up because they didn’t get it. I would like to have the courage, in a circumstance where I am confronted by a tough guy demanding my respect, to say: “You don’t really want my respect, you want my fear. To gain my respect, or for that matter anyone else’s, you need to have demonstrated a level of nobility, either through your actions or lifestyle, which to my knowledge you have not. So yes, I do fear you but have not seen any reason to respect you” Recently I have exchanged a few emails with a friend regarding the Iran Nuclear Deal and a foreign leader working our system to blow it up. In one response my friend mentioned that our president has no respect from the international community. I have also heard and read comments from our brethren on the right bemoaning the fact that we have lost the respect of the world because of our president’s weakness in dealing with our foes. Presidential candidates are proclaiming that if elected, under their leadership we will regain the respect we have lost during this administration. Like in the case above, here also I think they don’t understand the word respect. What they want is not for the world to respect us but to fear us and through this fear allow us to pursue our goals, noble or otherwise. We have by far the strongest military and one of the largest economies and I am sure we are adequately feared. Over the last several decades however, the respect, in the true sense of the word, has dwindled. In the middle of the last century we were setting the standards for governance, labor practices, law, medicine, education and infrastructure. Countries were struggling to rise to our level. Toward the end of last century and into the beginning of this, our infrastructure has crumbled, the health of our population has declined, we have one of the poorer primary education systems among the developed nations, we are allowing ourselves to be dragged down to the least common denominator in our labor practices and our governance is being questioned. (Though I must say our military has remained strong.) Yes, the world may fear us less, though I doubt it. But during Obama’s presidency we have regained some of the respect lost during the last few administrations. For us to get back to being the “gold standard” of the world will take more than just the skills of a president, though that’s crucial, it will take our collective will and the wisdom of our elected officials driving policies that get us back to being the most respected (I didn’t say feared) nation in the world.

Iran Nuclear Deal

I woke up this morning and while reading the news on my iPod, I saw that the President was holding a press conference regarding the Iran Nuclear Agreement. I rushed down stairs before getting dressed to hear what he had to say. I was excited about the possibility of an agreement having been reached and was not disappointed. I have felt for a long time that Iran was the closest of all nations in the Middle East, maybe barring Israel, to becoming a true democracy. It has a political structure already in place, an educated population and natural resources. Though it is currently a theocracy, I feel that with the passing of time and the current Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, an old man, the democracy movement will grow and succeed unlike Egypt’s and Libya’s where there was not a structure in place to take over the reins. The theocracy in Iran, with its philosopher kings (the ayatollahs) and the Guardians (the Revolutionary Guard) is modeled on Plato’s Republic. (The Supreme Leader following the revolution, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, was a professor of philosophy in Paris and the world’s foremost authority on Plato.) With Khomeini gone, in another decade or so it will have outlived its novelty and fade away As to the quest for a nuclear bomb; I believe that none of the major powers, or at least the US really believed Iran was going to develop a nuclear bomb. I recall an interview of Ahmadinejad a few years ago. When asked about their effort to build a bomb, said that it is not Islamic to do so. With him being a politician, I didn’t pay much attention to it. On the other hand, when about a year ago the Ayatollah, in another interview said that an atomic bomb goes against the teachings of the Koran, I listened. The Ayatollah has, within Shia, the same standing as the Pope in Catholicism. Unlike the Sunni, who believe there is no intervening authority between them and god, the Shiites do. The Sunni are responsible for interpreting the teachings of the Koran and the stories about the life of Mohamed themselves. They can, and do, look to learned men for assistance in interpreting but if they don’t like that interpretation they can just go to another scholar. The scholars have no authority, whereas the Shiites believe that the word of the Ayatollah is sacred and inspired by God. Unlike Ahmadinejad, It would be very difficult for the Ayatollah to walk back his statement that the nuclear bomb is against the teachings of the Koran. Iran had nothing to lose since I believe they were not really going to build a bomb. In Iran the agreement was “greeted ecstatically by liberals and reformists, and with sullen resignation by hardliners”. There were celebrations in the streets of Tehran. To many, it represents a relief from everyday hardships brought on by the sanctions while to other this agreement facilitates engagement with the West, opening up commerce and further democratization. What did we gain? I believe it reduces the probability of another war in the Middle East forced on us by either hawks here or in Israel. It opens up Iran, bringing more balance into the region which is currently dominated by Israel and Sunni monarchies and military dictatorships. The opening of Iran expands the market for western goods (as I am writing this Germany is sending a trade mission to Tehran) and services, facilitates the cooperation necessary to fight against ISIS and restores one of our listening post on Russia, a role Iran played before being proclaimed a part of the “Axis of Evil” by President Georg W. Bush. One of the main issues raised by the opponents of the Deal is that the repeal of sanctions will bring a hundred billion dollars into Iran’s treasure chest to be used to fund “terrorist” organizations. First of all, President Obama in his morning address pointed out that our contribution to the sanctions is only about 1/3rd, and even if we did not lift them the other nations would so that Iran would still fatten its treasury. Furthermore, an argument within Iran for the Deal was that the influx of capital would improve the economy which the sanctions have stifled and thus the lives of everyday people. If that was not to happen, the movement toward democratization would be greatly accelerated and I believe there would be riots in the streets. The President acknowledged that the Agreement would not change the relationship between Iran and “terrorists”. I would like to question the assignment of this category to Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas which is the governing body in Gaza has a local agenda which is to liberate the West Bank from an oppressive occupation and to rid itself of an Israeli blockade (by international law, a blockade constitutes an act of war). Given the brutal nature of both, any people in these circumstances would use whatever means to rid themselves of it. Israel, while under British rule, conducted what would today be called acts of terrorism to rid itself of the British yoke and Golda Meyer would be branded a terrorist. Kenya, during the Maumau uprising against British rule, led by Jomo Kenyatta who later became it’s prime minister, committed horrific acts against the British settlers. I suspect that even during our revolution we were thought of by the British as terrorists. Hezbollah also has a local agenda focused on protecting the Shiite minority within Lebanon from both Sunnis and Israelis. I quote from a recent BBC article: “In Lebanon, Western diplomats have for several years made no secret of the fact that they see Iranian-backed Hezbollah as a stabilizing factor, given the more deadly threat they perceive from radical Sunni Islam, especially the self-styled Islamic State.” Governments have historically intervened in internal affairs of countries they consider strategic to their interest, supporting their proxies as did Russia in the Ukraine, Chechnya and Hungary, China in Korea and Vietnam, the Brits all over the world, and we in South and Central America (Iran Contra scandal and the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion. So I am optimistic though I recognize that relationships between nations are very complex and fragile and that there is danger whenever the balance of power shifts. Time will tell.

Unintended Cosequences

There is a saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The other day I googled a person who I had some business encounters with during the telecom heydays. She was a financial executive at a large company, retired young, bought a yacht and sailed around the world. During the Google search I found she decided to return to her roots in Newfoundland and share some of her success with the community where she grew up. One of the first things she did was to set up a scholarship for local students. Community leaders said they really appreciate her wanting to help but with the community’s financial woes, many people are leaving the fishing villages for jobs in the more industrialized parts of Canada and the scholarships would encourage more of the best and brightest to leave. This story made me think of a few other instances I have run across over the years where an obvious good could potentially backfire. About thirty of forty years ago I was watching a debate on PBS between two groups with one advocating banning smoking in public places and the other opposed. During the debate someone from the “ban smoking” side pointed out that if everyone stopped smoking, life expectancy would go up by some number of years. A crusty old guy from the other side very calmly said; can you imagine what would happen if the life expectancy suddenly went up that much. Of course continuing promoting smoking to keep the population growth at a reasonable level is a poor argument but nevertheless, a rapid rise in population would present problems catching society unprepared to feed and care for its suddenly increased number of elders. Around the same time I heard another debate where one side argued that providing food aid was a bad idea and the other side argued, not that it was a good idea but it wasn’t as bad as the others claimed. On the face of it, this seems like a ridiculous debate. Of course feeding the hungry is a good thing. The side arguing against, pointed out a few shortcomings with providing food aid. In most instances truly starving people didn’t have the strength to get to the distribution centers. In cases of droughts the outputs of agriculture were very low and farmers would give up whatever farming they could do to walk for days to get the donated food. In some places the food was used for bribes and even sometimes to enslave people. Wheat products were provided to areas that could not grow wheat and in time people became accustomed to wheat which they then had to buy from the countries that donated them. One country, I believe it was in South America, outlawed foreign assistance because of the havoc it raised in the aftermath of an earthquake. By no means am I proposing that we encourage the early deaths or not feed the hungry and help the needy (although I think Ayn Rand maybe would). Human nature requires us to help, some of us only the deserving others all needy. I am just pointing out the multitude of interactions within societies are very complex and require well thought out solutions. Even then we will sometimes be wrong.

If a Tree Falls in the Forest - Part Three

In an earlier post on the subject I gave my answer to the Zen riddle: “If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it, is there a sound? My answer was that sound needs both an originator (the vibrating air created by a falling tree) and a sensor (our ear) along with the ability to process the sensation (the chemistry of our brain). In the post I expanded the answer saying that without someone there, not only is there no sound, there is no forest nor tree, only empty space with tiny bits of matter and energy swirling around.” Now I need to modify this, The other day I listened to a TED talk by Donald Hoffman on consciousness, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY, where he takes my understanding of reality as a bunch of tiny pieces of matter and energy in a vast area of emptiness, a step further, he proposes that even these are false images created by our senses and brain chemistry. Donald Hoffman is a cognitive scientist with a PhD from MIT in Computational Psychology, and author of 90 scientific papers and three books. In the talk he quotes Galileo: “I think that tastes, odors, colors, and so on…… reside in the consciousness. Hence if the living creature were removed, all these qualities would be…. Annihilated.” Hoffman cites some ancient examples of dogma based on our sensors and ability to reason which, upon better information, were disproven. The world was thought to be flat, now we think it is round. The world is the center of the universe, here again we were wrong and the idea of matter and energy is also most likely wrong. He likens that our perceived reality to an icon on a computer screen. We interacts with the icon unaware of what happens in the hardware and software. His argument supports (at least in my mind) the notion that if there is an “absolute truth”, we don’t have the sensors or brain to understand it. Hoffman disagrees, believing we have the basic ability to get to the truth. I now need to modify my answer to “if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, is there a sound?” Without someone there, not only is there no sound, there is no forest nor tree, NO empty space with tiny bits of matter and energy, only emptiness.

Income Inequality, another Perspective

The other day I was in Walmart and saw a young, deformed worker and it made me think about what would happen to him when Walmart raises its wages. I, along with most people, think that a higher minimum wage is a good thing. Unfortunately good intentions are too often accompanied by unintended consequences. For one thing, higher wages will bring individuals who can get higher wages now into competition with this young man. There will be more people vying for these jobs and employers, having a bigger pool to choose from, may hire fewer handicapped or otherwise less desirable (couldn’t think of a better word) individuals. Jobs currently held by the bottom rung of the work force will be taken by individuals a step further up on the ladder. Whatever the scenario of outcomes from higher minimum wages, unless we have full employment, I think more “less desirable” workers will not be able to find jobs. Though in principle I favor a higher minimum wage, I worry about what it will do to people like this young man. So what can we do about income inequality while minimizing unintended negative consequences? The gap in income is in part driven by the faster growth rate of income at the higher end of the wage scale and stagnation of wages at the lower end. The more rapid growth of wages at the higher end is in part the result of the overabundance (evidenced by very low interest rates) and thus lower value of capital. This, along with the increased value of talent, has given talent an edge over capital in the market place. The glut of capital though, also pushes higher low end wages, but is offset by global competition and technological innovation. Currently wages of whatever size are considered a corporate expense and as such reduce corporate taxes. A mechanism that would set a ceiling on (I imagine some sort of a sliding scale keyed off of the number of employees and maybe the nature of the business.) wages that can be considered an expense may be enough to offset the advantage of talent over capital in the market place. However, in this scenario, the market would still determine both the relative and absolute values of various skills. A way to increase the value of lower end wages is to increase the demand or reduce the supply of it. The increased revenue from the reduction of corporate tax deductions could be used to fund infrastructure projects thus increasing the demand for labor. There are other policy changes that would also contribute to increased demand, such as redefining the standard work day as consisting of say, 35 instead of 40 hours. After all 40 hours is pretty arbitrary. These types of initiatives would then allow for a rise in minimum wages, putting more buying power into people’s hands, would further increase the demand for labor. The increase in demand, by its nature would then reduce the supply. A further reduction of supply could be accomplished by reducing the number of two earner households. Rising costs without commensurate increases in wages has forced many women into the workforce. Policies like tax deductions for a stay at home parent during the early years of a child’s development would not only decrease the supply of labor, raising its value, but solve a number of social ills. The above initiatives, along with somehow allocating more of the economies gained through technological innovation to the lower end of the wage scale may move us toward full employment without increasing the competition for the handicapped man at Walmart. This will obviously need some government intervention though I don’t think an overwhelming amount. Market forces, if unimpeded by either government or special interests, drive for lower costs of inputs, a significant portion of which are wages, and higher prices of outputs and any adjustments to these forces need to somehow come from a source outside of the market. A key part of a government’s responsibility is to provide these adjustments for not only the benefit of the society as a whole, but to keep the market from self distructing.

What Should We Call ISIS

President Obama in recent appearances has tried to downgrade the term Islamic or islamist routinely used when talking about terrorism. I have sympathy with his quest, being of Muslim heritage, I have a “dog in this fight” or a “horse in the race” (depending of what part of the country one is from. However, I would approach it differently. I don’t have a problem with the name Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The fact of the matter is that ISIS, in its very name, by using the term State, announces that it is not a religious group but a geo-political entity and even goes so far as to identify the territory over which it intends to rule. The Islamic part of its name indicates the basic beliefs of its followers (though I would have liked a little more specificity). An approach I would use to separate Islam from terrorism, is to emphasize this fact. This is easier said than done. There are groups interested in the opposite, trying to tie terrorism to the religion practiced by over a billion people across the world. Israel is one such. It feels the decades long unprecedented and unprecedented brutal occupation of the West Bank, which allows it to continue to expand settlements, and drive out Palestinians needs to be perpetuated until they have enough land and there are few enough Arabs to have a truly Jewish State. This position, strongly opposed by most Muslims and only halfheartedly supported by the US, has an interest in having all Muslims painted with the “terrorist “brush. The more evil Muslims appear, the less evil does the occupation. The Republican Party, though for different reasons, has the same interest. In a quest to expand its base, since economic conservatism doesn’t give them enough headcount to gain power, they have a multipronged strategy to expand their electorate to include individuals whose financial interests are not in alignment with Republican economic policies (Lower Middle Class). To that end it uses the so called “Southern Strategy”, values politics, xenophobia and fear. The various conflicts in the middle-east gives them a tool whereby they stoke the fires of fear and xenophobia by painting Muslims as dangerous people. It is not enough to rile people against the actual terrorists. The notion of a bunch of Arabs with guns is in itself not too scary, but a billion Muslims with their Sharia overrunning this country certainly is. So how do you separate terrorism from Islam, or for that matter any religion. As mentioned above, stress the economic and geo-political goals of these groups pointing out that throughout history, kings, emperors and leaders of all stripes have used religion as a means of rallying the masses. Point out that Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda originally known as Uganda Peoples Democratic Christian Army, designated as a terrorist organization, hasn’t turned the World against Christianity. It is recognized as a revolutionary group with an agenda whose leader proclaims them as fighters for their God. The Jewish Defense League, committed to do” whatever” is necessary to defend Jews, also designated a terrorist group, has committed atrocities including burnings and vandalizing Mosques, not only in Israel and Palestine but also here in the US. Certainly Jews here and elsewhere are not expected to explain that the JDL does not represent their views. But then, the two don’t have a media, a country and a political group interested in painting them as representing Christianity or Judaism. Another way is to clarify the difference in terms I discussed in a previous post “Confluence of Terms Adds to Confusion About the Middle East”. Educate people on the differences within Islam, in particular Wahhabism and within it the history of the Salafi movement and its subsequent splintering into groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a political party (Osama Bin Laden’s Al-Qaida was such a splinter). Teach the history of the Middle-east. Maybe then, people will come to look at revolutions and conflicts within Islam through the same lens as the conflict during the Reformation, not as a Christian thing, but speak of a war between Catholics and Lutherans.

“`Detachment from the Self” in the Workplace

About ten years ago I read a Hindu text, the Bagavad Gita, and recently decided to read it again. It tells a story of a young prince, Arjuna, readying to engage in a battle against his relatives and former associates. With the battle soon to begin,, he has reservations about fighting and killing his kith and kin. As he hesitates, his charioteer reveals himself to be the Lord Krishna who lecture him and goes on to argue that he should fight. Krishna tells Arjuna that he is incapable of taking any lives and that only he, Krishna, can create or destroy life. Krishna then goes on to advise that going into this battle, Arjuna should set aside the effect of the outcome, good or bad, on him personally. He further points out that not only in battle but in any enterprise one should be totally committed and focused and not be distracted by the self, concentrating all the energy on the outcome Reading this I thought back to my working days and my experience supported Krishna’s advice. I was fortunate in that the majority of my associates intuitively practiced the personal detachment from results. A few however, were primarily motivated by personal gain. Some were driven by greed or success while others by the need to prove their worth to themselves or others. They made decisions, not for benefit of the outcome, the team or the organization but to further their own agendas and careers. In general, with a few exceptions, I found people who were driven primarily by a quest for personal success, be it career or ego, to be less wise and less successful in the long run (I guess one could debate what constitutes success) than those who naively put the endeavor first. The problem is that whenever one undertakes a task, plays a game or goes into battle and is focused on themselves, they are not giving their full attention on the enterprise and the results will be sub-optimal. I remember playing football as a kid, and whenever instead of charging ahead, totally involved in the play, I worried about myself, invariably I would not make the play and worse, get injured. Having said that, the degree to which one benefits from putting personal ambitions aside, in the workplace it depends on the nature of the organization and the integrity and experience of the leadership. There needs to exist a sense that one will be evaluated fairly and on the results of the actions and not on other factors. Also there needs to be enough skill within the organization to recognize the quality of the outcome. I remember years ago, I along with a half dozen of my colleagues were interviewing a young scientist. He had recently earned his PHD and was working for a small company. He lamented that within the organization there was no one who could recognize his achievements. I assured him that here there would be at least a dozen people who, not only, would recognize his accomplishments but also any blunders. He took the job.

Is it Really Small vs. Large Government?

The recent outbreak of the measles has quickly moved into the political arena with two of the Republican presidential contenders, Chris Christie and Rand Paul, essentially saying that vaccines are very good but people should not be forced to vaccinate their children. Rand Paul goes further to say that vaccination has on occasion brought on severe mental problems. This argument that its good but should not be imposed on all and should be strictly voluntary gets to the heart of one of the differences between the Right and Left, the individual vs. society. Neither politician claimed that the vaccines are not good for society. They stand for minimizing restrictions on an individual’s rights. Or so it seems. Why then at the height of the Ebola outbreak, the right was quite vocal about restricting movement of individuals who potentially contracted Ebola? Governor Christie forced a nurse returning from West Africa to live in a tent in isolation for several weeks. Imposing on an individual’s freedom did not enter the discussion. Both the isolation and the vaccination were taking away freedoms for the benefit of society as a whole. Maybe it’s because in the case of Ebola, a few were disrupted for potentially the benefit of many while the vaccine was all giving something up for potentially a few. Following 9/11, after the deaths of 3,000 innocent civilians, the Right had no difficulty in abrogating some rights of individuals, spending a trillion dollars and sacrificing the lives of thousands of our soldiers and hundreds of thousands of foreign civilians, to prevent a reoccurrence. At the same time refusing to even bend a little, allowing minor firearm controls or spending a fraction of the moneys spent on the “War on Terror” on social improvements to reduce the gang violence in the inner cities saving an even greater number of lives. So again, why the difference? One possibility is that Ebola was scary and fear motivates the Right whereas the Measles not so much; or that gang violence effects the “other” and isn’t a threat to middle class whites. Maybe it’s because in the case of Ebola and terrorism the threat is from the outside and our machismo demands we fight it. Whatever it is I don’t think it’s a big/small government or an individual liberties issue.

Confluence of Terms Adds to Confusion About the Middle East

A number of years ago, on one of the cable networks I watched a series on Islam filmed by a South Korean crew. Among the presentations were programs on Muslim food and Muslim dress. Then they showed programs on Islam in Africa and China. In the Muslim food and dress programs they featured Arab food and dress while in the Islam in Africa they showed Muslim women celebrating regional festivals topless. The contradictions were innumerable. It is very difficult to interpret news reports relating to the Middle East. Religions are mixed with ethnicities, nationalities with religion, ideologies with ethnicities and culture with race. This, though predominant in discussions of the Middle East, is not unique to it. The nation of India is often confused with the Hindu religion and a non-existent Indian ethnicity. In the case of India, confusion stems from ignorance whereas confusion regarding the Middle East often is part of a strategy. All the cultural traditions in the Arabian Peninsula are portrayed as Muslim in the Western press though Arabs represent only a minor part of the billion plus Muslims In the press one often sees and hears about long beards worn by men in robes as Muslim beards. The mutilation of girls through female circumcision, again a tradition in parts of Africa and Asia practiced by both Muslims and non-Muslims is presented as a requirement in Islam as are“ honor killings” and other regional traditions. Not all Muslim women wear hijabs. Teenage girls in Chechnya dress like any European teenagers and as mentioned above in Sub Saharan Africa sometimes tribal women wear no tops. One hears a lot about the head covering of some Muslim women but not Orthodox Jews nor Mennonites (in Medieval Times Christian women wore something that strongly resembles a hijab). And by the Way Amish men and the Duck Dynasty also sport long beards. Islam is a religion with adherents of all ethnicities and cultures whereas there are Christian Arabs in the West Bank and Egypt and a Jew(ethnic and religious) sits in Parliament in Iran. When it comes to discussing Israel it becomes even more convoluted because of the concentration of religion, ethnicity and culture. Criticism of Israel is often condemned as anti-Semitism or an attack on the Jewish religion. Judaism, the basis for both Christianity and later Islam, is an ancient religion predominantly practiced by one ethnic group though there are Ethiopians and a small number of converts from other ethnic groups that practice the religion. There are Jews throughout the world, who for the most part are atheists and do not practice any religion. The term Semite refers to a race and, though it includes Arabs, is most commonly used to refer to Jews especially when used as anti-Semitism. Zionism is an ideology attributed to ethnic Jews but also endorsed by a large number of Fundamentalist Christians. Israel is a nation, though aspiring to be a Jewish theocracy, has within its population, Muslims (about 20%), Christians of various denominations, agnostics and atheists. As a result, a statement made by an Iranian or a member of Hamas saying they want to destroy Israel, though they may mean the elimination of a form of government, in the press it is often interpreted as eliminating a religion, Judaism; an ethnic group, Jews; or a race, Semites. Even in the minds of bigots who rail against “Jews” I suspect it isn’t clear whether their rage is aimed at adherents of a religion, members or an ethnic group, proponents of an ideology or citizens of a nation. Though often it is politically advantageous to lump them all into one, they are not the same and to really understand what is going on in the world, it is necessary to understand the difference. In Israel there is much debate relating to the occupation of Palestinian lands and the quest for a theocracy. There and within the predominantly Muslim countries the difference between the terms is clear and a discussion can be had without confusion. Unfortunately in this country it is almost impossible to have a meaningful debate. A critic of Israel is too often accused of being anti-Semitic or if an ethnic Jew, a self-loathing one and an offense committed by someone proclaiming to be Muslim is an offence by Islam, while a critic of Muslims automatically is tagged an Islamaphobe.

Post Racial?

There is much focus on race in the news lately; the shooting deaths of unarmed black men; the militarization of the Ferguson police in response to racial demonstration; lack of awards to black actors and directors and the Kanye West rant against a white musician winning over a black. Have we indeed progressed? I remember, following the Civil Rights movement there was an attempt in the media to downplay racial differences. Commercials would show blacks and whites in the same scenes pushing the same products. Children were being taught that all people are the same and differences in skin color are no different than the color of one’s hair. But that quickly changed. Advertising changed. Adds targeting a white demographic now no longer included black actors while other adds could be directed at exclusively black audiences. It’s not clear to me why or how, but within a decade political movements (Black Panthers, Black Muslims) emphasizing the racial difference while fighting for black power, gained strength. No more was the focus on “everyone is the same” but now the battle cry became “different but equal”. Of course the racists loved this preaching fostering a further separation of the races. They realized that wherever there is a declared difference, there cannot be equality. The more powerful segment, whether by virtue of numbers or resources, will always have the upper hand. Back in the early sixties I remember walking down a street in Washington DC. Strolling in front of me was a young, interracial couple obviously on a date. Over the course of a few blocks, several cars slowed down, rolled down their windows and yelled racial slurs at the white man. During the same period, fulfilling my military obligation, I was stationed in a small compound in Baltimore. Just outside the front gate was a bar. One night, returning to the base after a night out I stopped at the front desk to check in. Behind the desk was a black sargent who was speaking to a shaken light skinned young man who looked like he might have a bit of African blood. He was explaining to the sargent that he wanted to stop at the corner bar for a drink. The bouncer asked for his ID. He was 21 but the card indicated his race as Negro so he was refused entry. He was a well-educated northerner and was perplexed. He had never faced such overt discrimination and didn’t know how to respond. The sargent told him that this still happens down here and suggested he go to black neighborhood for a night out. So where are we now? Today I can go to an upscale restaurant even further south, in Charleston and as often as not see an interracial couple. In the same area we frequent a more modest restaurant and it is not uncommon to see small gathering of friends that include both black and white. There has been great progress. In part, it is due to our increased mobility, better education and the fading of the slave era propaganda claiming the racial inferiority of Negros to justify their enslavement. So when I hear complaints about the absence of black representation at entertainment awards or in the academies I have mixed emotions. On the one hand I think it is driven by discrimination whereas on the other I think we may have made more progress than I think and the reason there are not more blacks may be just that, on this occasion, there were not as many good performers and we were not pursuing the “different but equal” but the “everyone is the same” philosophy and seeing race no greater a differentiator than the color of hair. Or maybe I’m just blindly optimistic.

Cleanliness is Next to Godliness

There is an old adage that says “cleanliness is next to Godliness”. Of late I am starting to question its veracity. I came to this country from Germany at the age of 10 and arriving in NYC I was struck at how dirty the streets were and just the general messiness. We were refugees in Germany after WWII with our last couple of years in Munich. Even about 6 years after the war there were still many signs of destruction but the streets and people were clean. Before retiring a few years ago I made a number of business trips to Japan and was also struck by the neatness and order. Cab drivers in Tokyo wore white gloves and on the headrests were crocheted white doylies. When I reflect on the combatants in the war, The Germans and Japanese were by far the most barbaric and cruel. I started to wonder if there might be a connection between cleanliness and not Godliness, but cruelty. Today I read an article in the Huffington Post about how many showers one should take. In it the author suggests that frequent cleaning destroys “good” bacteria and one might consider bathing every two or three days. Several months ago I ran into another discussion (I think it may be one of the Ted Talks) where the speaker spoke of the thousands of different kinds of bacteria on the surface of our skin and that some of them may interact with our organs and be critical to proper function of our various systems. Last week I saw commentary on a study that indicated that the “good bacteria” in our digestive system somehow interacts in a positive way with the brain and that probiotics may reduce depression and increase a general sense of happiness. So my question is: does the bacteria destroyed by excessive cleaning of ourselves and our surrounding somehow affect the portion of our brain responsible for kindness and empathy? Maybe the cruelty exhibited by the Germans and Japanese during the war was contributed to by their pursuit of Godliness through their cleanliness.