So You Think That Was Funny?

I enjoy political cartoons very much. Whether I catch one in the Wall Street Journal or the local newspaper, political cartoon have a way of stimulating a smirk – and stirring up conversation with my peers. However, I believe certain political cartoonists have stepped over the line one too many times with personal, insulting satire of former President Bush. Don’t get me wrong, I am not and have not been a big supporter of “W”. In my opinion, his policies were often questionable and demanded more public debate than it generally received. And yes, I frequently chuckled at his endless public gaffs or misspoken phrases. But he was the President of the United States and represented the attitudes of a democratic and free nation. Good or bad, he was a man trying to do his best in an incredibly difficult job.

Where I believe the proverbial line was crossed occurred with publications of personally insulting cartoons depicting his family or his “stupidity” in a way that was not political commentary or even humorous. It was just plain nasty and overtly hateful. If one doesn’t agree with another person, should one openly exhibit pure, unfiltered hatred for that person as a sign of disagreement? I don’t think most of us would do that to another person we have strong disagreement with – would we? I certainly would not. And I would expect a certain civility among fellow Americans when it comes to respecting our leaders. Please note that I didn’t say “agreeing” or “praising” or “blindly following” our leaders, but “respecting” them for what the their position represents to the world.

Let me draw a parallel with current President Obama. I voted for him knowing fully that he has extremely liberal ideals. I wanted a “change” more than the status quo with McCain. However, I am finding myself frequently at odds with many of Obama’s "new deal" style agenda over the last 15 months of his tenure. I would openly debate any of his policies. I might even chuckle at a carton depicting him with egg on his face after the initial healthcare plan fiasco last fall. However, I would never tolerate a personally attacking cartoon of him that mocked his ethnicity or his family. Those things are not intended for humor, I believe, but insult. I honestly don’t see how newspaper publishers can allow such personal attacks to see the light of day – even in the form of a political cartoon.

Let Him Speak

I am a firm believer that universities and colleges should encourage and promote free speech. That includes speech that may offend some. Now imagine for a moment that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran was invited to speak at campuses across California. How would that make you feel? Knowing what we do about the fanatical religious beliefs of Ahmadinejad and Iran’s ruling Mullahs, one can count on his speech to foster very little real dialogue with anyone. And if you are like most Americans who have watched this man spew out one hate-mongering speech after another at the United Nations and other venues, perhaps you might not be so willing to let him parade his hateful beliefs to a college near you at all.

Ironically, I have mixed feelings about such a scenario. On a visceral level, I cannot stand the man or anything he represents. Despite the promises of the Iranian revolution, Iran has remained an oppressive, religiously controlled society. Human rights and basic freedoms are irrelevant in such a society. And yet, I cannot help but be intrigued by what he might say to California’s student bodies. What is his intention? Of course, there would be no better place to “persuade” the next generation of Americans than at the college level as many of Ahmadinejad’s wild antics may be seen more as “cool” than verbal vessels of hate and fear. But on an intellectual level, I would be inclined to grant President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the right to speak on California’s campuses. Although he is not necessarily entitled to protection under the Constitution as an American citizen, I do believe he has the right to speak his mind – even if much of what he says dwells on inflammatory, racist language. After all, how can Americans scorn his country for not allowing freedom or speech while we simultaneously censor him from speaking in public venues here?

At the end of the day, I do believe that most Americans, even young college students, can separate right from wrong when it comes to hateful language and inflammatory speech. For me it’s not what he says that would be the issue, but that we would not allow him to say it. I believe that if he were allowed to speak on campus, a significant portion of the audience will aggressively challenge him in open debate. It is at that moment that everyone in the crowd will see President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for what he truly is. Like most hate-mongers and rabble-rousers, Ahmadinejad will likely cower away from an open, intelligent debate when put to the test. It is for that reason that I believe we MUST allow people like that to speak in public. Our freedom of speech, it would seem, can do more to expose the truth than one might think. I say, let the man talk. And then let him put is big foot in proverbial mouth in the process.

Between Iraq and a Hard Place: On “Reading Lolita in Tehran”

It’s not easy to escape the harsh reality of a modern world where fanatical religious beliefs can get one killed by suicide bombing. The nation of Iran still seems unable to breakaway from the international limelight, remaining there for all the wrong reasons. While most Americans are more preoccupied with how to survive the madness without giving up yet another portable luxury from our carry-on at airport security screenings, one can only imagine what the people of Iran must have been enduring since the early 1980’s. Professor Azar Nafisi’s remarkable book Reading Lolita in Tehran offers a glimpse into the lives of a handful of Iranian souls in a way that is both inspiring and disturbing.

As the title of this article alludes to in a tongue-in-cheek manner, the people of Iran have struggled between a murderous war with their Iraqi neighbors and a pervasive religious oppression from within their own government. Faced with a choice between two unsatisfactory options for existence and no means of affecting either, it’s no surprise that any opportunity for even the smallest “escape” takes on significant meaning. In Nafisi’s book, the only “escape” possible for her and her female students was to meet privately to discuss the parallels between the world of characters from literature, and the young Iranian women seeking intellectual refuge from a male-dominated Islamic state.

To be honest, I was skeptical about the book at first even though I have had some knowledge of the plight of women in under strict Sharia Islamic Law. For women, it spells certain doom to individualism and creative expression. Basic freedoms go out the window. I simply could not imagine how such a premise for a book, especially one based on the memoirs of an Iranian scholar, could be fulfilling to a Westerner who’s life might be turned upside-down by the actions of a state-sponsored terrorist from Iran. At best I expected a self-pitying and depressing read about the brutal oppressiveness of Sharia Law from a women’s perspective. What I got was an entertaining and eye-opening discovery that we are more alike than different.

The book’s narrative is not always an easy or likeable read given it episodic structure. It tends to be non-linear, and I prefer a more linear narrative. But it doesn’t take long to become immersed in Nafisi’s world as she paints such a vivid picture of her transformed post-revolutionary home. As one reads on, one discovers a very personal evocation of a woman's complex, terrifying, and often contradicting experience during a very challenging time in Iranian history. It’s fascinating to witness how Nafisi is only able to survive the intellectually stifling rituals of her society through private studies of banned literally classics with other women. Interestingly, one doesn’t feel as though one has just read a book about Iran, but has actually “met” a very unique and surprisingly Westernized Iranian woman.

Nafisi's book paints a dark but compelling portrait of the most turbulent period for Iran's history by a person from a privileged position. She cleverly reflects on her private lessons to groups of young women about literary classic such as The Great Gatsby and Lolita while sipping cups of tea as though chatting in a New York literature club. Meanwhile, the professor’s lessons also reflect on life in Teheran following Khomeini's religious revolution where a woman must hide her bodies from head to toe - or face severe punishment. She also interjects many key moments in recent Iranian history such as the troubles at Tehran University, the destruction of "dangerous" books, and even the mass funeral of the late Ayatollah Khomeini that Nafisi describes with documentary-like clarity.

Although Reading Lolita in Tehran isn’t quite a masterpiece, in my opinion, it has been one of the most inspiring and heartfelt books I have had the pleasure of reading in a long while. I would highly recommend it to anyone with an open-mind.

JM

On the Flip Side

I like to think of myself as being open-minded about most things. Those who know me well would surely endorse that sentiment. I don’t mind disagreeing with others, and I even encourage a healthy debate on hot topics that traditionally stir up strong emotions from both sides of the argument. Perhaps I simply enjoy the challenge of getting a rise out of people on occasion by stirring the proverbial pot. But there was one occasion where my usual cool, composed demeanor slipped away and brawl nearly ensued with someone who vehemently challenged my faith and personal beliefs. It was a balmy, later summer afternoon, and the subject of that heated debate was evolution vs. creationism.

As I’ve mentioned in several writings here before, I am a trained scientist with many years of research experience. I am quite familiar with the scientific method, careful observation, and the difference between facts, speculation and theory. Most of my adult life has been rooted in science. Nonetheless, I am also a deeply religious person with a strong Catholic upbringing. I have no question about my faith or my religious beliefs. Yet, I am able to separate my religious beliefs from scientific observation about the world around us. The laws of physics and nature apply to all things throughout the known universe. This should not only apply to the earth’s rotation around the sun, but the mechanism of natural selection that has helped shape life on earth. There is enough empirical evidence to unequivocally support most scientific theories from Einstein’s relativity to Darwin’s evolution of species.

For me, there had been no conflict of interest between the two distinctly different disciplines of science and religion. Each has its place and serves its purpose. The way I view it, science covers the how, where and when – religion covers the why. I can accept a scientific theory (such as evolution) as a basic fact, for example, while maintaining my religious understanding of Genesis. For that reason, I can see both sides of the argument while maintaining some sensitivity to each. Initially during that infamous conversation, I felt I had been doing well in maintaining a subjective, but firm position against the unscientific nature of creationism. I did not attempt to challenge the belief system itself, but the validity of some of the “scientific evidence” purported by creationists – and violently argued by my opponent.

My opponent openly confessed that the heart of creationism was the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in some form by a supernatural being or beings. It seemed like a perfectly valid statement to him. The problem was the assumption that the “supernatural” could ever be reliably tested or verified scientifically. It simply could not. His understanding of creationism was more in line with a religious faith than a scientifically provable theory or hypothesis. If the foundation of creationism were not grounded in the scientific method, then all supporting evidence must be carefully scrutinized for similar errors in logic.

Looking back, I may have succeeded in holding my ground, but only exasperated the matter by excessively defending my position. Rather than focusing on countering each of my opponent’s positions, I might have had more success by simply listening to what he had to say and shrugging it off later. My greatest regret was having lost my patience when the individual made personal attacks. By getting angry as a result of his wild attacks on my faith in God and accusations of holding “sinful beliefs” that “men came from monkeys” (of which I never said during the entire conversation), I was lowered to his level of character bashing rather than debate. I should have asserted my position that he was not necessarily wrong, but that creationism, like any other “scientific discipline” should be given the same rigorous scrutiny as the theories of relativity or evolution. If creationism were to be taken serious as a scientific explanation, it must be treated as such. On that argument, he might have actually agreed – albeit, to the demise of his own beliefs in the inherently unscientific nature of creationism. Perhaps from now on I will stick to debates as to whether my beer “tastes great” or does indeed have “less filling”.

Looking Back

Whenever I’m tasked to write about my relationship with my parents, feelings anxiety and apprehension inevitably arise. It’s not that I’ve had a poor relationship with my parents, but that there has always been an intangible gap between us which has kept us from communicating as well as I would have liked. After some thought, I came to the realization that the root cause for that gap may have stemmed from the significant differences in values between my Mother and Father.

My Mother had a strict, traditional Asian upbringing. The role of each member of the family was to contribute his/her share of time, sweat and earnings to the greater good of the family. Higher education, if it could be obtained, is highly prized and always a priority for the children of Asian parents. For my Mother, ensuring her children’s education has always been her number one priority. As I child, it took me a long time to appreciate why she had pushed so hard for me to study so diligently. For outsiders, my relationship with her may have seemed like that of an “oppressed” boy being controlled by his Mother. From my perspective, I had a hard time seeing her as anything but a Mother who was never satisfied by anything that I accomplished because it wasn’t “good enough” for her. She had high academic expectations because she understood how important it would be later in my adult life. She never had the privilege of attending college when she was younger.

My Father’s stance on education was quite the opposite. He had received extensive electronics training in the Marine Corps after high school, and even earned a college degree once his tour of duty had ended. However, the value of hard working and earning a living took priority over education for him. His main focus was getting enough education to be able to enter the work force as quickly as possible. Earning a living was critical for his family to survive during his childhood. Growing up in a small, middle-America town where work was hard to find, someone had to bring home the bacon. That conflict between work and education created a large divide between my parents, and made it especially hard for me to converse with either. I couldn’t relate the significance of my higher education – and its personal enjoyment for me – to my Father because in his eyes I was not being truly productive. And when I struggled to make tuition payments in college, his first suggestion would be that perhaps I should just “find a job” instead of racking up more debt from college. At the time I was very upset by his attitude towards my schooling, but I’ve come to understand that he did mean well given his experiences in life.

Fortunately, the quality of communication between both parents gradually improved well after I had left college and entered the work force. Today I am able to speak more freely about most subjects without hesitation. My old childhood anxiety still comes to the forefront when I think about the communication chasm that still exists about certain topics, though, such as love or marriage or children. It seems that I’ve still got plenty more life experiences to get under my proverbial belt before I can fully relate to them about those other matters.

Multi-Lingualism for the "New" Global Village

Marshall McLuhan said it best when he wrote that modern society has increasingly become a “global village”. With the world connected by instantaneous electronic communication, the perceived distances between people of different cultures and languages seems almost non-existent. Business transactions and long distance learning across multiple countries can now be done with ease in near real-time. It is surprising to me, therefore, that the importance of foreign language study has been neglected for so long in American universities. How can a 21st century American graduate expect to compete in an increasingly competitive international market without understanding the language (and to some extent the culture) of major economic powers such as China or India? It would behoove us to re-examine the academic standards that our colleges and universities have established for the next generation of graduates.

Foreign language study should be a requirement for graduation from all American colleges and universities. Such study should include at least 1 year of elective language courses with an emphasis on learning conversational language rather than purely academic learning. By doing so, graduate will be much more prepared to enter the work force and pack a greater competitive edge because ever increasing foreign collaboration in the global workplace necessitates it. Consider an electrical engineering student, for example. In today’s global village, much of the integrated circuit manufacturing and development process involves multi-disciplinary efforts by engineers across multiple countries. Even simply apparel design and manufacturing often requires the coordination of workers, businessmen and sales people from places such as India, Mexico and China. Only those American workers with the skill to integrate and communicate effectively with their foreign counterparts will have the ability to compete and thrive; those unable or unwilling to adapt to a multi-lingual world will falter, or worse, be left behind.

Mandated foreign language study for college-level students should in no way be confused with efforts to enforce a single-language system in the United States. English is and should remain the primary language that all Americans must be able to read and speak with some level of proficiency. A German student would be expected to speak German proficiently, and so should an American student be able to read, write and speak English. The foreign language study requirement should also not be confused with bilingual efforts currently employed in Spanish-English speaking areas of the United States. The foreign language college graduation requirement only addresses the need to prepare American graduates, whether already bilingual or not, with the essential skills needed to compete. And more importantly, the second language curriculum should be focused on the job markets in which the graduates are expected to compete.

Although English is still the dominant language of science and business, it is by no means the most spoken language. More importantly, as China’s economic power gradually increases, so to will the predominance of business transactions being done in Chinese. Other markets, such as the rapidly growing services markets in India and manufacturing markets in Eastern Europe will all add to the highly competitive marketplace for English-only speaking graduates of American colleges and universities. Establishing a strong foreign language study requirement for all college and university students in American will help to narrow the competitive gap and help keep America’s economy strong.

An Artist, A Tailor, and A Nudist

A funny thing happened to me on the way to the beach this weekend. I was wearing my usual dressy shorts with a conservative, but very comfortable cut. Since I had not planned to swim, I opted to wear a colorful designer polo shirt, as well. The color coordination was adequate, in my opinion, and worked well enough with my shoes and glasses. While walking with my girlfriend to rendezvous with group of friends on the beach, I bumped into a portrait artist, a resident nudist (fortunately, he was at least wearing some covering at the time) and an elderly tailor enjoying the afternoon with his wife. These following are accounts of their initial impressions of me on that day.

The Artist:

He seemed like a real possibility at first. I was sure he would stop to get a hand-painted portrait of his girlfriend. After all, with his preppy outfit and Gucci sunglasses, he screamed “tourist” and surely had the disposable cash to have one of my portraits made. But he was in such a hurry. What was the rush? It was a beautiful day and the air was ripe with aroma of cotton candy and ocean breeze. He was certainly dressed to spend, it seemed to me. But he spent nothing. Did he think he was too good to patronize a lowly struggling street artist? We barely exchanged a few words as he scurried past my portrait stand. He wasn’t worth the effort anyway. His shirt color didn’t compliment his pale skin-tone, and his outfit didn’t even match.

The Tailor:

He seemed like a fine gentleman. Judging by their attire and demeanor, both he and his lady friend were clearly upstanding people. I knew he could be trustworthy to take a photo of my wife and me on our anniversary. With so many poorly dressed youth scurrying about the beach like confused animals, I was certain that we would never find another respectable adult to handle our camera. But this young man was different. I could just tell that he was a successful businessman of some type. He graciously stopped what he was doing to take several memorable photos of my wife and me. Before we parted ways, I overheard his lady friend mentioning something about an upcoming business meeting in town. He had no luck finding a tailor in town willing to alter his suit before the Monday meeting. Luckily for him I had a weekend crew at my tailor shop. We swapped business cards and I arranged to have his suit picked up at his hotel that evening. Like I’ve always told my wife, you can tell a lot about a man by his clothes.

The Nudist:

I wouldn’t trust his kind with a wooden nickel. What respectable person covers up to go to the beach? Judging by the expensive watch and glasses, I’ll bet he thought he was better than me. This town is full of their kind. And like the rest of them, he must be hiding something. Anyone who must cover his body with material wealth has something to hide. He looked like the type to swindled some old lady out of her home for a fast buck. He looked so trapped in his own materialism with that outfit. I don’t need expensive clothing and accessories to prove my worth or status. If it weren’t for the absurd policy of this beach to require swim trunks for men, I would show them BOTH how I really measured up to him. I do hope he enjoyed his day at this beach. It won't be long before his kind will ruin it for the rest of us. And next time, overly dressed stranger, buy a map if you can’t find your way around this beach. I’m not the resident information booth.