Forced socialization for nerds

Is this really necessary?

Nolan K. Bushnell, the creator of the Pong video game and founder of the Chuck E. Cheese restaurant chain, is innovating again.

Mr. Bushnell calls the concept the Media Bistro, and he plans to open the first one in West Los Angeles this fall. The point, he said, is to get gamers out of the house.

Video games today "are about social isolation," Mr. Bushnell said. "There needs to be a place that brings a little more balance and brings people together."

In an interview last week, he described how the 300-seat restaurant and bar would combine food and drink with ubiquitous interactive media. Touch-screen monitors, installed at every table, booth and barstool, will allow diners to place food orders, play some 70 different video and trivia games, and even take instant pop culture polls.

So now instead of being isolated at home, I can just get in my car and go isolate myself somewhere else... and pay money for it. Brilliance.

All eyes on the French

The kings of retreating may be about to add another notch to their record.

The smooth functioning of the EU is important to Europe, however, it's hard to say whether or not the French understand this.

The last surveys put the "No" camp clearly ahead, with up to 56 percent expected to vote down the treaty at the end of a heated campaign that divided France and became a debate on the government's economic record as well as the future of Europe.

Judging from what I have read in The Economist lately (yes, I do pick it up from time to time), I don't think France or any other industrialized country in Western Europe (namely Germany and Italy) can afford not to throw their full support behind the EU. There is simply too much competition coming from China and the rest of Asia that is doing murder to their economies, causing unemployment rates to become a serious issue.

"I voted 'No' in all conscience, having read the text, due to the lack of will to solve Europe's number one problem today, which is unemployment," said Armel Bompart, 52, a civil servant in Strasbourg, home to the European parliament.

Well, I suppose "lack of will" is an entirely different issue (that seems to be a current trend in Europe anyway). I guess no one on the outside can really help them there.

In any case, like I was saying, this is really what it all comes down to:

If it [the constitution] were thrown out, the EU would continue to operate under current rules widely seen as unworkable for a Union intent on enlarging further, and voting could soon become paralyzed.

Supporters say the treaty will help make Europe and France stronger in the face of economic threats from other countries such as China. They say a French "No" would kill the treaty.

Indeed.

Oh and if anyone cares, I found the full text of the proposed Constitution for Europe. I don't really feel qualified to comment on it considering I lack a PhD in government or economics, but from what I can tell, it looks pretty good to me. Of course, you should take that with a grain of salt (UN charters look pretty darn good as well, but whoever really upholds them?), however, based on principle it appears to be sound.

Newsweek round two

The LA Times claims that Newsweek might not have been so out of line after all.

An examination of hearing transcripts, court records and government documents, as well as interviews with former detainees, their lawyers, civil liberties groups and U.S. military personnel, reveals dozens of accusations involving the Koran, not only at Guantanamo, but also at American-run detention facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"They tore it and threw it on the floor," former detainee Mohammed Mazouz said of guards at Guantanamo Bay. "They urinated on it. They walked on top of the Koran. They used the Koran like a carpet."

"We told them not to do it. We begged. And then they did it some more," said Mazouz, a Moroccan who was seized in Pakistan soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Recently released, he described the alleged incidents in a telephone interview from his home in Marrakech.

Sure, I'd like to take their word for it, but I can't. A terrorist's word is simply not his bond. In this situation, I think I'm going to have to side with the chaplain.

"There were scuffles, there were problems, the prisoners were not happy," recalled Army Lt. Col. Raymond A. Tetreault, a Catholic priest and chaplain at Guantanamo Bay during 2002.

Understandably so. No one enjoys being locked up.

Acknowledging that detainees continue to raise allegations of Koran mistreatment, the chaplain said, "Well, it's human nature to embellish a little bit."

Terrorists are trained con artists, and I think it's important that we understand that. They are probably smart enough to know that if word got out about mistreatment, the Islamic world would go up in flames. And that can only mean sympathy for their cause. Call me naive, but I find it very hard to believe that U.S. soldiers would be stupid enough to pull off stunts like flushing a Koran down the toilet. But I suppose after the Abu Ghraib scandal, anything is possible. Although you'd think that someone in the military hierarchy would have learned from that incident.

"We never took the Koran into an interrogation or used it in any way against them," said Paul Holton, a chief warrant officer with the Army National Guard in Utah who questioned high-level Iraqi military officers after the U.S.-led invasion.

"It was just understood that that was off-limits." It was also considered counterproductive, he said.

Always trust a Mormon.

But in all seriousness: Has our military judicial system gone mad, or have the inmates? Both good questions indeed.

Hamas will remain calm...for now

Hamas will not attack Israeli forces evacuating the Gaza Strip later this summer, instead maintaining a "state of calm," Hamas leaders in the West Bank and Gaza have told The Jerusalem Post.

Does anyone really believe this?

Israeli military sources, however, said they were highly skeptical of such assertions, adding that they doubted Hamas could resist the propaganda value of firing on departing Israelis to underline the claim that their "resistance" pushed Israel out of Gaza.

Exactly. That's the way a propaganda machine works, and I don't consider Hamas to be anything more than that (of course, not all propaganda machines kill innocent people).

Nevertheless, we shouldn't be getting our hopes up.

"What is the point of fighting [Israel] if it wants to leave?" asked [Hassan] Yousef [Hamas leader], adding, "There is no need for us to clash with them, although this does not mean the resistance has ended."

No, of course not. It doesn't end until the Jews are expelled from the Holy Land in droves, right?

New podcast has a home

Status Quo, my new podcast radio show with Robert Taylor of the Taylor Incipient, now has a blog of its own. This is where you can go to keep track of upcoming material and such. We're still in the process of taping our first couple of episodes and editing them and so far I think we have some good material. We've created an email account for comments (statusquoradio@gmail.com) and Rob tells me that there will also be a Skype voicemail set up for recorded comments that we could air on the show. Stay tuned.

New immigrants facing obstacles

This feature in The New York Times caught my eye. It's about Latino immigrants struggling to make it in America in comparison to what it was like 50 years ago for other newcomers, such as Mr. Zannikos, the Greek owner of the restaurant in which Mr. Peralta works at.

At first glance, it is difficult to understand why Mr. Zannikos is currently able to make over $130,000 a year, while Mr. Peralta has been in the United States for 15 years and still finds himself at the poverty level. The circumstances in which both men immigrated here are similar: both had very little money or education when they arrived. Yet I think certain details that are contained in the following passages help shed a little light on why things are the way they are for America's newest immigrants.

When Mr. Zannikos jumped ship, he left Greece behind for good. Though he himself had no documents, the compatriots he encountered on his first days were here legally, like most other Greek immigrants, and could help him. Greeks had never come to the United States in large numbers - the 2000 census counted only 29,805 New Yorkers born in Greece - but they tended to settle in just a few areas, like the Astoria section of Queens, which became cohesive communities ready to help new arrivals.

Mr. Peralta, like many other Mexicans, is trying to make it on his own and has never severed his emotional or financial ties to home. After five years in New York's Latino community, he spoke little English and owned little more than the clothes on his back.

Perhaps on a psychological level, the fact that Mr. Zannikos was determined to adopt America as his new home (as opposed to temporary residence) helped him in the long run. Also, the relatively low influx of Greek immigrants served to create tighter communities comprised of legal residents with connections, as opposed to huge numbers of illegal immigrants crammed into one area.

For Mr. Peralta, five years of living in America without decent English skills is troubling to say the least. The self-reinforcing system of the Latino community may in fact be ruining the chances of immigrants to make it on their own. They become isolated in their own Spanish-speaking environment, constantly trying to maintain close ties to home and convinced that they will return there as soon as they are able to make enough money.

A recipe for continued failure?

Thoughts on Idol

So Carrie Underwood, a simple country girl from Oklahoma, is our new American Idol (not that I watch the show or anything). Judging from her singing abilities, I'd say America probably made the right choice. She was, after all, the stereotypical choice for the title (cute-faced, Southern belle with a strong voice, much like Kelly Clarkson), but I almost expected that the runner-up rocker, Bo Bice, may have been able to snare the position based on his uniqueness. I guess America thought it should play it safe once again and pick the person with simply the most vocal talent over stage presence.

But is winning American Idol really a good gauge of future success? Let's just put it this way: has anyone heard jack about Ruben Studdard or Fantasia whatsername lately? Didn't think so. At least that guy Clay Aiken got some recognition, and he was a runner-up.

Hmm...I hate to pull out the race card, but anyone remember this from last year?

British Rock star Elton John, a guest judge this month on the U.S. talent hunt TV series "American Idol," said on Tuesday that he found the voting by the national viewing audience "incredibly racist."

John, who heard the wannabe pop stars perform his songs during an appearance on the FOX TV show, added his voice to a chorus of dissent that followed last week's shock exit of black vocalist Jennifer Hudson, considered one of the top talents among those vying for a recording contract.

"The three people I was really impressed with, and they just happened to be black, young female singers, and they all seem to be landing in the bottom three," said John, commenting on the tally in which the lowest vote-getter is eliminated.

Now, I'm definitely not one of those ultra-PC people that will immediately point to racism whenever there is an injustice (or seemingly so) that is wrought. However, I still think it's interesting that neither Ruben or Fantasia ever seemed to get much time in the spotlight despite their "Idol" status. Does America still have a race issue? The debate rages on...

New podcast!

Hey just wanted to let you all know that the Pokorny Pundit is going to be teaming up with the Taylor Incipient for the ultimate internet podcast! The radio show is going to be called Status Quo, with perspectives on politics, culture, religion, and anything else we feel like talking about. More details to come.

Arabs in the US

I had heard this a while ago from somewhere, but never ran across a reliable source that actually confirmed it.

People of Arab descent living in the United States are doing far better than the average American. That is the surprising conclusion drawn from data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2000 and released last March. The census found that U.S. residents who report having Arab ancestors are better educated and wealthier than average Americans.

Whereas 24 percent of Americans hold college degrees, 41 percent of Arab Americans are college graduates. The median income for an Arab family living in the United States is $52,300—4.6 percent higher than other American families—and more than half of all Arab Americans own their home. Forty-two percent of people of Arab descent in the United States work as managers or professionals, while the same is true for only 34 percent of the general U.S. population. For many, this success has come on quickly: Although about 50 percent of Arab Americans were born in the United States, nearly half of those born abroad did not arrive until the 1990s.

That immigrants do better than their compatriots back home is of course no surprise. What is far less common is for immigrants to perform that much better than the average population of their adopted home. This fact should prompt important debates that transcend how Arab immigrants are faring in the United States.

If this is indeed the case, it's almost scary to think how well they would do at home if democracy was given a chance to take hold. Good food for thought.

Of all the possible witnesses

Jay Leno was scheduled to take the stand today on behalf of Jackson's defense. After hearing this bit of news on the morning radio, of course, the first thing that came to mind was, "Wow, have you seen his show?!" And what do you know?

Noting he has often poked fun at Jackson's expense, Leno quipped: "I was called by the defense. Apparently they've never seen this program."

I'm dying to know what kind of exchanges were made inside the courtroom. Hopefully there will be some transcripts made available at some point.

Is the Arab world really Bush Country?

Fouad Ajami of the Wall Street Journal argues that Arabs have warmer feelings towards the US than many seem to believe.

I'll try to give you some highlights, but I suggest you read the whole thing. It's worth it.

Unmistakably, there is in the air of the Arab world a new contest about the possibility and the meaning of freedom. This world had been given over to a dark nationalism, and to the atavisms of a terrible history. For decades, it was divided between rulers who monopolized political power and intellectual classes shut out of genuine power, forever prey to the temptations of radicalism. Americans may not have cared for those rulers, but we judged them as better than the alternative. We feared the "Shia bogeyman" in Iraq and the Islamists in Algeria, Egypt and Tunisia; we bought the legend that Syria's dominion in Lebanon kept the lid on anarchy. We feared tinkering with the Saudi realm; it was terra incognita to us, and the House of Saud seemed a surer bet than the "wrath and virtue" of the zealots. Even Yasser Arafat, a retailer of terror, made it into our good graces as a man who would tame the furies of the masked men of Hamas. That bargain with authoritarianism did not work, and begot us the terrors of 9/11.

All frighteningly true.

The children of Islam, and of the Arabs in particular, had taken to the road, and to terror. There were many liberal, secular Arabs now clamoring for American intervention. The claims of sovereignty were no longer adequate; a malignant political culture had to be "rehabilitated and placed in receivership," a wise Jordanian observer conceded. Mr. Bush may not be given to excessive philosophical sophistication, but his break with "the soft bigotry of low expectations" in the Arab-Islamic world has found eager converts among Muslims and Arabs keen to repair their world, to wean it from a culture of scapegoating and self-pity. Pick up the Arabic papers today: They are curiously, and suddenly, readable. They describe the objective world; they give voice to recognition that the world has bypassed the Arabs. The doors have been thrown wide open, and the truth of that world laid bare. Grant Mr. Bush his due: The revolutionary message he brought forth was the simple belief that there was no Arab and Muslim "exceptionalism" to the appeal of liberty. For a people mired in historical pessimism, the message of this outsider was a powerful antidote to the culture of tyranny. Hitherto, no one had bothered to tell the Palestinians that they can't have terror and statehood at the same time, that the patronage of the world is contingent on a renunciation of old ways. This was the condition Mr. Bush attached to his support for the Palestinians. It is too early to tell whether the new restraint in the Palestinian world will hold. But it was proper that Mr. Bush put Arafat beyond the pale.

Hopefully, those who say (and have said for a while) that democracy and Islamic culture are incompatible feel absurd when they read some of this stuff. "Soft bigotry" is, indeed, a good phrase to apply to this situation. By refusing to acknowledge that a certain group of people possess the level of education, sense of individualism, or sophistication that is required to appreciate freedom, we are, in a twisted sort of way, doing a favor to the enemy.

The UN gets some spine

About time peacekeepers started shooting back.

...The Security Council has adopted the notion of "robust peacekeeping" and rejected the idea that the mere presence of blue-helmeted soldiers on the ground helps quell combat.

It is most obvious in Congo, which commands by far the largest deployment of United Nations troops in the world. Peacekeepers in armored personnel carriers, facing enemy sniper attacks as they lumber through rugged dirt paths in the eastern Ituri region, are returning fire. Attack helicopters swoop down over the trees in search of tribal fighters. And peacekeepers are surrounding villages in militia strongholds and searching hut by hut for guns.

Too bad Rwanda was not afforded this luxury, but better late than never.

Good heavens

London is host to some scary demonstrations...

Dark gray clouds poured heavy rain on London's Trafalgar Square, as a crowd waving Palestine flags and anti-Israel banners filled the square to hear speakers shout vitriolic anti-Israel speeches. Demonstrators chanted Islamic slogans and flags calling for "victory to the intifada" were waved. Leading figures in Britain's anti-Israel coalition also lined up to attack Israel.

Andrew Birgin, of the Stop the War Coalition, urged the destruction of the State of Israel. "Israel is a racist state! It is an apartheid state! With its Apache helicopters and its F-16 fighter jets! The South African apartheid state never inflicted the sort of repression that Israel is inflicting on the Palestinians," he said to loud applause. "When there is real democracy, there will be no more Israel!" concluded Birgin. "Allahu Akbar!" yelled several men repeatedly in response.

Silly radicals.

Evangelicals go to work on Ivy League campuses

The Christian Union is trying to make its presence known in the top tier of America's universities. Considering that college campuses are probably the most liberal and skeptical places on the planet, I say good luck with that.

...A few affluent evangelicals are directing their attention and money at some of the tallest citadels of the secular elite: Ivy League universities. Three years ago a group of evangelical Ivy League alumni formed the Christian Union, an organization intended to "reclaim the Ivy League for Christ," according to its fund-raising materials, and to "shape the hearts and minds of many thousands who graduate from these schools and who become the elites in other American cultural institutions."

The Christian Union is the brainchild of Matt Bennett, 40, who earned bachelor's and master's degrees at Cornell and later directed the Campus Crusade for Christ at Princeton. Mr. Bennett, tall and soft-spoken, with a Texas drawl that waxes and wanes depending on the company he is in, said he got the idea during a 40-day water-and-juice fast, when he heard God speaking to him one night in a dream.

"He was speaking to me very strongly that he wanted to see an increasing and dramatic spiritual revival in a place like Princeton," Mr. Bennett said.

Whoa, a guy that talks to God?! I'm sure they'll be lining up in droves on club day.

Fairweather consumerism

Did I ever mention that I hate SUV's? Not only are many of them unsafe (both for the drivers and others around you), but you can't see around the darn things on the road and in parking lots. Oh yeah, and they use a ton of gas.

It seems that the rest of America is finally starting to agree with me. Although it's more likely because of the third reason than any of the others.

With higher prices at the pump sinking in as something more than a blip on the radar, and with several new passenger car models winning back customers, America's love affair with S.U.V.'s is taking a breather.

For the first time in 14 years, the passenger car is actually taking sales back at the expense of S.U.V.'s and other trucks, according to an analysis of auto sales data. The renewed interest in cars over the first four months of the year, while modest, is a pause in what has been the trend in auto sales for the last decade and a half: the soaring growth of the sport utility vehicle as America's preferred family vehicle.

The popularity of SUV's never made sense to me from a practical standpoint. You're hardly ever going to make use of their off-road capabilities (many of them pretty much suck off-road anyway for that very reason) and they've never been as safe as everyone used to think they were. All they seem to do is kill other people on the road, rob your wallet of gas money, and rob the world of its gas all at the same time. Of course, Americans and their "we're-the-world's-superpower-hence-it's-okay-to-drain-the-rest-of-the
-world-of-its-resources" mindset would make the SUV the logical choice for a popular automobile.

What bothers me the most, though, is that this trend is based solely on a spike in gas prices and not a reformed consciousness on the part of American consumers. It is very clear to me that many would still choose to buy an SUV and expend all of that gas if it was convenient and affordable.

"I just bought a Ford pickup truck and I wish I wouldn't have bought the darn thing," said Mark House, 45, who was shopping Friday at a Toyota dealership in the Toledo, Ohio, area with his daughter, Monika, 19, who said she wanted a car so she could keep the cost of fill-ups down.

"If gas prices were cheaper, then I'd look into an S.U.V.," she said. "It's the gas."

Yeah, damn straight, to hell with the environment and all that!

Shame.

The Force is shaky with this one

While it's still fresh in my mind, I've decided to crank out a thorough examination of George Lucas's latest (and final) Star Wars project.

Episode III is hard to describe in terms of "good" or "bad." I was certainly entertained by the barrage of outstanding special effects (not to mention a plethora of fancy lightsaber duels) that are constant throughout the film, however, it is hard for me to say that it fully lived up to my expectations. While it was definitely darker and more emotional than its two predecessors, I found that I was having a hard time believing Anakin's turn to the dark side was truly genuine. We all grew up with Darth Vader having that "all-time worst villain" status, but something about the way it was played out in Episode III really bothered me, which is sad because this is supposed to be the real focal point of the movie. Palpatine's seduction of Anakin starts off well, with actor Ian McDiarmid actually doing an exceptional job with the dialogue provided. Yet there are a number of pivotal scenes (one in particular but I don't want to spoil anything) where Anakin fails to convince us that he has fulfilled the role of the classic Greek tragedy, in which the hero falls from grace, never to return to the good side.

It was moments like that that, for me at least, really holds me back from saying that the movie was everything I had hoped for. Anakin acts more as if he is a child having an immature fit than a truly corrupted man, rebelling against the Jedi Council for such selfish reasons as they refuse to give him the title Master. "They don't trust you, Anakin," as Palpatine exclaims to him. Anakin is also frustrated that he does not have the power to save Padme from "certain" death during childbirth (oh yeah, the whole pregnancy thing is revealed to Anakin in the beginning of the movie and then somehow by the end, Padme is already nine months pregnant and ready to deliver Luke and Leia...sloppy?), so of course, the logical move would be to submit one's life to the Sith Order. Talk about hasty decision making.

Overall, the movie held its own, but often times only by a thread. The acting was a mix between dreadful and hardly believable (the confrontation between Anakin and Obi-Wan towards the end is a tad gutwrenching, but that is really one of the only moments that stood out). Despite all that, it was good to hear that breathing mask come alive again while the voice of James Earl Jones echoed through the theater.

To try and end on a positive note, did I mention that the special effects were good? Yeah, they were pretty darn amazing. Although in some ways, I do have an issue with all the insane lightsaber dueling. Sure, most of the time frequency and duration of lightsaber duels equals a more exciting movie, but in many cases I think the producers went a little overboard. I mean, come on, General Grievous with four lightsabers spinning around at Mach 3? I have to say I felt the "art" of the lightsaber duel was a bit degraded with instances like that. Even with the final duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan, which was supposed to be the mother of them all, something about the lack of emotion just didn't do it for me. In other words, mere hacking away at each other is mostly what it seemed like they were doing. I didn't feel myself being sucked into it the same way I did when Darth Vader told Luke in Return of the Jedi that perhaps he could turn Leia to the dark side, which was immediately followed by a torrent of fury and anger combined with a stirring score by John Williams. Or who can forget the confrontation on Cloud City in Empire Strikes Back, in which Vader proclaims, "No, I am your father." Brilliance.

So after all of this reminiscing, really, what have we learned? The prequel trilogy, all and all, doesn't quite cut it. Try as Lucas might have to bring it all home at the end (which I'll give him a little credit and say he accomplished it to a certain extent), Episodes IV through VI is where the real magic lies. Maybe it's the actors or the screenplays or even the lack of over-the-top special effects. Maybe it was the mystery surrounding the fall of Anakin Skywalker that kept it interesting (and now that we know how it all happened, it's hard not to think of whiny Hayden Christensen under that damn suit). In any case, we can truthfully say now that there is closure to that conflict in a galaxy far far away, which continues to captivate audiences since its inception almost three decades ago.

May the Force be with you, Mr. Lucas, as you continue to double and re-double your retirement fund.

Compliance lawyers a hit on Wall Street

Some rising stars in New York's financial district...

They [are] the new face of Wall Street, the newly empowered - and often newly rich - compliance lawyer. They are often the only people standing between their investment firms and a lethal blow from the government, and their status is assured and growing.

Many can now command salaries ranging from $300,000 a year, for a midlevel associate position, to seven figures, for heading compliance at a major firm, according to securities and compliance lawyers and those who recruit them. And staff lawyers doing routine work at the Securities and Exchange Commission are in greater demand at big firms, as are former prosecutors who once specialized in corporate fraud cases.

You hear that, Martha Stewart?

Star Wars goes political

Of course, I could have guessed that George Lucas was a liberal like any other Hollywood hotshot, but this is just amusing.

Conservative Web logs were lacerating Mr. Lucas over the film's perceived jabs at President Bush - as when Anakin Skywalker, on his way to becoming the evil Darth Vader, warns, "If you're not with me, you're my enemy," in an echo of Mr. Bush's post-9/11 ultimatum, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Come on now, guys, don't be picking on Vader. You'll be out of breath very soon...

Latinos: now a force to be reckoned with

L.A. has a new mayor, and he's a Latino.

"I'm an American of Mexican descent and I'm proud of that," Mr. Villaraigosa, 52, said at an auto repair training center sponsored by the Urban League. "But I intend to be mayor of all of Los Angeles. As the mayor of the most diverse city in the world, that's the only way it can work."

I think this is definitely cool in a lot of ways. I'm all for people of ethnic or racial minorities reaching positions of prominence in American politics because they should feel like their voice really counts in this country. Also, they can serve as examples for others that long to improve the quality of their lives.

Mr. Villaraigosa...was raised on the Latino east side by a single immigrant mother. He dropped out of high school for a time, then worked his way through the University of California, Los Angeles, and became a union organizer, then speaker of the State Assembly. He has been a member of the Los Angeles City Council since 2003.

Bravo. Indeed, it just goes to show that hard work still pays off in the good old US of A.

Jerusalem Post salutes Baha'i gardens in Haifa

I happened to stumble upon this little story as I was wrapping up my daily sweep of the news.

There are three significant reasons for going to Haifa.

One is the bay. A second reason is coexistence. No other place in the country has as good a record of coexistence as Haifa, where Jews and Arabs and other nationalities mingle and interact not only at work and in places of community services, but on a social level as well.

The third reason is the Baha'i gardens, commonly referred to as the Eighth Wonder of the World.

In case one doesn't know, ever since their inauguration in 2001, the terraces have served as a major tourist attraction for Israel, at a time when the country has not, understandably, been a focal point of international travel. Too bad the Western media focuses so much on the violence in the region that it fails to remind people of the hope that is embodied in little slices of heaven such as the Baha'i gardens. Haifa is more or less an embodiment of what mutual co-existence can look like for the Middle East (any connection here?). What better place to experience these gardens than a beautiful port city on the Mediterranean in which Jews and Arabs actually get along?

Aside from their breathtaking beauty, the gardens attract group visits by families, schoolchildren, members of the Israel Defense Forces, etc., because people are curious about Baha'i history - and because there is no entry fee. For a large family seeking an activity of mutual interest, this is a real boon.

Indeed.

Can't wait to see them up close next year on pilgrimage. Perhaps only then will I truly realize the magnificent potential for a better future that is latent within that troubled region.

Newsweek's little blunder

Ah, the power of the mainstream media: they can royally screw up and still manage to take the rest of the world along with them. Newsweek has fallen victim to a continuing trend among "respected" media outlets (ala The New York Times and CBS) of getting things wrong and still hesitating to fully apologize and/or retract their mistakes.

Violent protests broke out in Afghanistan last week after the magazine cited sources saying investigators looking into abuses at the military prison found interrogators "had placed Qurans on toilets, and in at least one case flushed a holy book down the toilet."

You'd think someone in the Newsweek hierarchy might have wanted to look into that a little before publishing it, considering that in many Islamic countries, such as Pakistan and Afghanistan, actions like this warrant the death penalty.

Afghani government spokesman Jawed Ludin said his government expresses "in the strongest terms our disapproval of Newsweek's approach to reporting which allowed them to run this story without proper examination beforehand."

And how does Newsweek respond?

Newsweek's Washington bureau chief, Dan Klaidman, said the apparent error was "terribly unfortunate," and he offered the magazine's sympathies to the victims.

Oh wait, it doesn't end there... this is one of Newsweek's many explanations for why the Muslim protests were carried out in the manner that they were:

"There are a lot of people who think that our war on terror and our war in Iraq is a much wider war against Islam," [Klaidman] said.

Thanks, Captain Obvious, I'll log that one away. If this hotshot of a journalist is so sharp as to be able to make that conclusion, you'd think maybe some other genius over at Newsweek (because clearly Newsweek only hires the best and the brightest) would hesitate to write such things that would only serve to fuel that sentiment.

Revenge of the Sith gets kudos

The release of the final installment of the Star Wars saga, the making of which has stretched out over three long decades, is now less than a week away. And according to reviews (already being posted on the Internet by a few lucky fans fortunate enough to get an early glimpse at the film), George Lucas has finally outdone himself with this one. Perhaps Redemption of the Lucas is a more fitting title than Revenge of the Sith.

James Berardinelli gives the movie a 3 1/2 out of 4 stars, citing a noted improvement in dialogue, character interaction, and overall "edge-of-your-seat-blazing-lightsabers-action."

When it comes to technical wizardry, no one - not Peter Jackson, James Cameron, or Steven Spielberg - can top Lucas, who has been on the special effects cutting edge since he pioneered various techniques in Star Wars. From a purely visual standpoint, no movie to-date can equal Revenge of the Sith. Even the inconsequential background shots are eye-poppingly spectacular. As for the space battles… "incredible" doesn't begin to do them justice. They astound with their vividness and complexity.

Just as I had hoped.

Joshua Tyler of cinemablend.com also praises the movie for standing out among its more sub-par prequel companions.

Revenge of the Sith isn’t just a great Star Wars movie, it’s a flat out great film. Yes it’s technically proficient and yes it’s visually beautiful. Those things are a given. What hasn’t been is how solidly the film is constructed. Revenge of the Sith is a powerful, big budget experience. Yet it is the way that it fits so wonderfully into the existing Star Wars mythos that best sells it, the way it nestles so nicely into 1977’s Episode IV: A New Hope that makes it special. The real beauty is that you could easily toss out the previous two awkward attempts, watch only this in sequence with the original films, and come out completely satisfied. Attack of the Clones and The Phantom Menace are best forgotten. Lucas’s real miscalculation was in not making this movie right from the start. He tried to stretch the story when all we needed was Vader’s rise in its purest form. Star Wars fans have finally been rewarded for their patience. George has made another masterpiece.

All too true. Ever since the ROTS project was announced, I had feared that it would only serve to disappoint us for the same reasons as Episodes I and II. These reviews seem to put most of the fears to rest, as they insist that the "wooden acting" we had witnessed before is a lot less prevalent in this movie and that the actors have "grown into their roles."

Heck, it seems even the Brits liked it:

The relentless tedium of The Phantom Menace and appalling acting of Attack Of The Clones can be forgotten. Revenge Of The Sith strings a complex plot onto a framework of practically non-stop action. The first 20 minutes - a breathtaking rollercoaster of space battles, lightsaber duels, explosions and acrobatics - rivals anything we've seen in the series. There's an impressive new villain, the Dickensian cyborg General Grievous, a galactic holiday brochure of new locations and, as Anakin succumbs to the dark side, a bleak, bloody atmosphere that's shocking and occasionally even moving.

"WHAT WE WANTED ALL ALONG"

Even those perennial failures of the series, dialogue and performances, have improved. Christensen, who pouted through Clones as Kevin the Teenage Sith Lord, has matured into a convincing lead, and Ewan McGregor as Anakin's mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi finally seems to be enjoying himself. The script has its share of moronic howlers, and the gloss of CGI in every shot becomes wearying after a while. But, lapses aside, Revenge Of The Sith is what we wanted all along: a chunky, funky space opera spectacular.

Bloody good, chaps. And now for the kicker... the official website has published the "crawl."

Episode III

REVENGE OF THE SITH

War! The Republic is crumbling under attacks by the ruthless Sith Lord, Count Dooku. There are heroes on both sides. Evil is everywhere.

In a stunning move, the fiendish droid leader, General Grievous, has swept into the Republic capital and kidnapped Chancellor Palpatine, leader of the Galactic Senate.

As the Seperatist Droid Army attempts to flee the besieged captial with their valuable hostage, two Jedi Knights lead a desperate mission to rescue the captive Chancellor...

Oh snap! Sure gets me pumped, except for the part in the first paragraph that says "there are heroes on both sides. Evil is everywhere." Kinda cheesy, but I'll let this one slide. After all, this is the rise of Nazi-helmet-totin' Darth Vader we're talking about...

There goes the neighborhood

As if America doesn't have enough crazy cults running around building secretive compounds and practicing sketchy stuff like polygamy. NPR ran a story today about a new FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) compound that was built in the "quiet and friendly" town of Eldorado in western Texas. From what I gather, the main difference between the FLDS and the mainstream Mormon church is that, well, the men still choose to remember three or four anniversaries instead of one.

Last March, FLDS leaders arrived in Eldorado to purchase 2,000 acres just outside of town. When the FLDS men first came, they pretended to be businessmen and said they were building a hunting retreat for corporate clients. FLDS leaders have since admitted that they are building a new settlement for their religious sect. The sprawling ranch is complete with an imposing white temple that dominates the horizon around Eldorado.

The fact that the ranch was built under the guise of a "corporate retreat" is kind of creepy. That right there tells me that these people didn't want to draw attention to themselves from the beginning, most likely because they knew that if they were frank about their intentions, they would have been driven off the land by an angry mob (most likely armed to the teeth...this is Texas after all). If they were willing to lie about the purpose of the compound in order to build it, I think that should be enough to set off some serious alarms with the authorities.

Eldorado locals were already distrustful of the group after its initial lie about its intentions in settling there. Many are disturbed by the group's secretiveness and disgusted by its practice of polygamy and sexual involvement with young teenage girls. There is also a concern that someday, the FLDS might try to get involved in Eldorado politics, running its own candidates for sheriff and mayor.

Can you imagine a polygamist mayor or sheriff? "I hereby declare that all male citizens of this town will not take any less than two more wives before this date or they will be evicted from their homes and escorted to the city limits." Yeah, that'll fly real well.

But others in Eldorado are conflicted, caught between their morals and powerful West Texas beliefs about civil liberties. Some believe that as long as FLDS members aren't breaking the law, the group should be left alone -- that what they do on their land is their business.

God bless America. Land of the free, home of the weirdos.

The Trouble with Islam Today

I was browsing Barnes and Noble the other day and a particular book on Islam caught my eye at the forefront of the store. The Trouble with Islam Today, written by Irshad Manji, is a self-described "wake-up call for honesty and change on everybody's part," according to her website. She clearly has been the subject of controversy among her fellow Muslims, both here in the West and abroad. Just from reading some of the emails she receives, which she conveniently posts on the front page of her site, it is a sure bet that she is making a lot of Muslims unhappy with her criticisms. One self-proclaimed "Uberstrong Muslim" from New York City even had the nerve to open the letter to Irshad with "Dearest Lesbian."

I must admit, the topic of this book interests me greatly, and I wish I had more time on my hands to read and consider it. Islam and Middle Eastern issues has no doubt become a hot subject in the post-9/11 world, and many in the West seem to be struggling with what Irshad calls "mainstream Islamic literalism." The section of her website titled "The book" gives a very good synopsis of what, in essence, she is trying to argue.

The themes I'm exploring with the utmost honesty include:

• the inferior treatment of women in Islam;
• the Jew-bashing that so many Muslims persistently engage in; and
• the continuing scourge of slavery in countries ruled by Islamic regimes.

I appreciate that every faith has its share of literalists. Christians have their Evangelicals. Jews have the ultra-Orthodox. For God's sake, even Buddhists have fundamentalists.

But what this book hammers home is that only in Islam is literalism mainstream. Which means that when abuse happens under the banner of Islam, most Muslims have no clue how to dissent, debate, revise or reform.

I have to say, a lot of this really hits home with me. My experience on an interfaith council has shown that mainstream Muslims, even those seemingly willing to engage in dialogue with other faiths, are still very literalist relative to their Jewish, Baha'i, or Christian counterparts (again, that's not to say that fundamentalists don't exist within those respective faiths, quite the contrary actually). Passages in the Qur'an are very often read without considering any alternative meanings, allegories, or metaphors. Every meaning has already been spelled out in its most literal form by Islamic mullahs and to take certain imagery-filled verses with a grain of salt is more or less unheard of.

In any case, even though some religious observers may say that Islam has just yet to hit its "Second Vatican" if you will, I still don't think it should really excuse the issues that Irshad is trying to address, considering this is the 21st century. The inferior treatment of women, while allowed in many Qur'anic verses (the Islamic judicial system, for example, lists two female witnesses as being equivalent to one male witness), certainly does not extend to the nature of violence against them that we are seeing in Muslim countries. The inferiority of women, as sanctioned by the Islamic faith, is to me a product of the conditions under which the religion was born. To make two women witnesses equal to a man in a court of law was extremely revolutionary for Arabian tribes during the Middle Ages. Any more rights given to women would undoubtedly have resulted in an outrage, leading to a full rejection of the Prophet's message. And then where would that have left them? But circumstances today suggest that many are going too far, with violence against women in many Islamic countries becoming the norm. It's time to stop.

On the subject of Jew-bashing, the Muslim community's problem in this area stems from the establishment of a false link between the Prophet Muhammed's defense of Islam from those who would see it destroyed to the present-day political situation in the Middle East. Islam's own Sacred Text reveals that the station of Christians and Jews is that of the "People of the Book." Unbelievers or not, these people are held in high regard by the Qur'an. That is not to say that there wasn't plenty of harm done against them throughout Islam's violent history, however, those campaigns were fought (at least from my own perspective) only with the intention of defending an infant faith from being annihilated by its enemies. Yet, from this, the idea of holy war against non-Muslims remains even today. The present situation in the Middle East, with Israel struggling to contain the militant threat both inside and outside its borders, has continued to fuel this anti-Jewish sentiment. A complicated issue, I know, but still worth examining.

And finally, the subject of slavery/human rights abuses in countries ruled by Islamic regimes. What can really be said? Enough is enough. There is no excuse, period. This problem has its roots more in politics than religion I think. The world has no doubt seen its share of so-called Christian states falling under the dredges of tyranny and oppression. This really has more to do with the flawed state of the human condition and the perversion of religion than the nature of religion itself. Hopefully, in due course, the face of the Middle East will slowly shift from its current state of despotism to a more modern, democratically- driven society.

But until that hope on the horizon manifests itself, I think Irshad's got a point. There is definitely some trouble with Islam today.

I'm asking Muslims in the West a very basic question: Will we remain spiritually infantile, caving to cultural pressures to clam up and conform, or will we mature into full-fledged citizens, defending the very pluralism that allows us to be in this part of the world in the first place?

My question for non-Muslims is equally basic: Will you succumb to the intimidation of being called "racists," or will you finally challenge us Muslims to take responsibility for our role in what ails Islam?

Indeed.