Trying to get published again, this time in response to a rather terrible editorial in the ISU Daily entitled "Racial Profiling" which attempts to justify racial profiling on a mathematic basis using flawed underlying assumptions.
What follows is my response:
by Ian J Barker
The greatest fault of the Age of Enlightenment that led to Democracy in the 18th century is that it demonstrated how knowledge could be applied to strip emotion and empathy from human action. The calculated inhumanity that produced many atrocities over the past two centuries may have possessed mathematical reason, but it lacked the respect for our fellow man that cannot be sacrificed. Racial profiling reasoned or not, possesses this grim characteristic.
For this piece, I address the editorial “Profiling proof”, published on Monday January 25th.
To begin with, the assertion is made that terrorist organizations are created within the Muslim faith. One can logically infer from this assertion that it is believed that Islam, by its teachings or practices, fosters terrorist organizations. However, this could not be further from the truth.
While some terrorist organizations arise from corrupt interpretations of the Qur’an, the Muslim community at large does not promote terrorism. On the contrary, the teachings of Islam confer a message of peace, compassion, and humility. Of the five pillars of Islam (Shahadah, Ṣalāt, Zakāt, Siyam, and Hajj meaning accepting Muhammad as prophet, prayer, charitable giving, ritual fasting, and pilgrimage respectively) not one points to some kind of institutionalized radical or violent behavior.
The fact is that terrorism does not grow out of the Islamic faith, but instead out of extreme oppression, poverty, and suffering. For example, one of the three perpetrators involved in the July 7th, 2005 London Underground bombings was of Jamaican descent; a country ravaged by economic and political monopolies and rife with poverty and inequality. The leader of the 2002 bombing in Bali was an Indonesian who received training in Malaysia and Singapore after being exiled from his country for political dissent.
Furthermore, we cannot accept these attacks as a demonstration of Islam’s hatred for Christianity, an argument that may somehow attempt to bear out institutionalized aggression within Islam. It is well documented that terrorist organizations feel animosity towards the United States and the United Kingdom because each represents capitalism’s success at the expense of smaller nations.
For the sake of argument, however, let us accept the first proposition as fact (which it is not). To then jump to the assertion that phenotypic profiling (profiling based on physical appearance) is an effective method of divining one’s religion is egregious. This is not only because it is unethical, but also because it fails in practice.
The assertion that most Muslims hail from the same region of the world and can therefore be identified due to possession of Middle Eastern physical characteristics is invalidated by fact: the largest concentrations of Muslims inhabit Indonesia, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, encompassing a vast array of differing physical characteristics from skin tone to eye shape. Indonesia alone possesses 15.6% of the world’s Muslim population.
All told, only 20% of the world’s population of Muslims inhabits the Middle East. According to a Pew Research Center study in October 2009, there are more Muslims in Germany than Lebanon and more in China than in Syria, thoroughly dismantling the concept that phenotypic classification is a reliable indicator of religious background, even if we allow the first assertion to stand, which it cannot.
Finally, even if we allow the first two propositions to stand, there is the issue of recruitment. It is proposed that terrorist groups utilize more cost effective means of recruitment that result in ethnically homogenous perpetrators. I’ll begin with the second component.
The examples given for airline terrorist attacks themselves disprove the concept that terrorist groups recruit within their immediate proximity: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day bomber was Nigerian, and Richard Colvin Reid, the shoe bomber, was an English born British citizen whose parents were English and Jamaican.
I do not suppose that Al Qaeda made special arrangements to recruit these two, though according to the theory presented in “Profiling proof”, they would not do so based on financial constraints. This brings me to the first component of the argument.
Terrorist recruitment is not constrained to geographic proximity based on financial constraints due to the nature of terrorist causes and motives. As mentioned earlier, terrorism has grown from the seeds of oppression and extreme poverty in countries all over the world. Some of the most notable terrorists, including the 2002 Bali bombing ringleader, arose out of political exile and anger in countries far from Middle Eastern influence.
The fact is: the passionate and romantic nature of the radical terrorist message resonates with any member of any country whose political system is in extreme upheaval or whose living conditions include mass poverty and hardship. Terrorism does not require or utilize phone calls or television commercials to recruit new members, thus rendering a financial or economic argument unreasonable.
While it is simpler to argue that discrimination, targeted or organic, is wrong, morally and ethically, no matter what the circumstances, it is more revealing to undo the fundamental profiling present in constructing the policy to begin with. Applying racism of any kind, whether backed by mathematics or not, is as inhumane as it is ignorant and doing so only oppresses those whose oppression may bring them to perform evil deeds in the first place.
Edit: added link to the original article. Sorry folks!
Monday, January 25, 2010
Money Talks, People Apparently Don't
I'm pleased to report that, despite the contrary nature of my response to the ISU Daily editorial, I have been published. Glad to see that this one made it through.
In the face of that infinitesimal victory, other challenges loom over the horizon. As many of you know, the Supreme Court released an official ruling that allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in political elections, effectively pushing corporate opinion on the largely uneducated masses.
I began reading Al Gore's the Assault on Reason last night and he certainly articulates the state of affairs more eloquently than I can when he says that, quoting a young political consultant in a conversation with a senior senator: "If it's not on television, it doesn't exist."
With these two things in mind, how does Democracy continue? When Capitalism favors profit before morality, thus permitting haves to grow more have-y and then take their power into the public sector where an uneducated masses consumes media without questioning the source or intent, how do Democracy and the "marketplace of ideas" survive? Is the system too far gone? If not, how do we fix it?
I'm deeply troubled my friends. Deeply troubled.
In the face of that infinitesimal victory, other challenges loom over the horizon. As many of you know, the Supreme Court released an official ruling that allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in political elections, effectively pushing corporate opinion on the largely uneducated masses.
I began reading Al Gore's the Assault on Reason last night and he certainly articulates the state of affairs more eloquently than I can when he says that, quoting a young political consultant in a conversation with a senior senator: "If it's not on television, it doesn't exist."
With these two things in mind, how does Democracy continue? When Capitalism favors profit before morality, thus permitting haves to grow more have-y and then take their power into the public sector where an uneducated masses consumes media without questioning the source or intent, how do Democracy and the "marketplace of ideas" survive? Is the system too far gone? If not, how do we fix it?
I'm deeply troubled my friends. Deeply troubled.
Friday, January 22, 2010
In Response to a January 22nd ISU Daily Editorial
What follows is my response to an ISU Daily editorial featured in the paper on January 22nd.
Before anyone says it, I understand that people are entitled to their opinions. However, when someone blatantly or accidentally misrepresents the truth, someone needs to do something about it.
By Ian Barker
During the course of President Obama’s campaign, many interpreted that the effects of his presidency would include the end of partisanship and disagreement in favor of a move toward a benevolent government of and for the people. The problem with this conception is that Mr. Obama never actually promised an end to partisanship or disagreement. In fact, of the five-hundred and three promises that he did make, none of them even mention or allude to an America devoid of partisanship.
Why? Because in order for a president to put an end to political discourse, he would either have to homogenize public opinion through propaganda or militarize the state until the public feared for their lives lest they agree with the governing party.
As far as I know, neither of these are on the agenda.
Many would use the media’s hyperbole as an attempt to see Mr. Obama’s presidency as a failure, but this effectively amounts to moving the goal posts. Certainly, his presidency has not been the utopian romp that some expected, but the withdrawal from Iraq, effort to reduce proliferation of nuclear weapons, development of infrastructure, prevention of an economic disaster, and overwhelming legislative success rate (96.7% according to Congressional Quarterly) are not tempered by the fact that he (admittedly) did not cure cancer in the process.
All told, voters did not expect a New America under Obama. They voted for him because he was charismatic, disagreed with the occupation of Iraq, made bold promises to respect and create social programs that had taken massive hits over the past decade, and, through promised transparency, gave Americans hope that they could, for once, see where and why their country was headed in a certain direction.
He has fulfilled all these promises. Check Politifact.com for the full record.
The one place that disgruntled voters find much agreement is that Obama’s programs are compiling a national debt the likes of which has never been seen. This is fair, however it is also important to understand that Americans’ opinions tend to blow with the wind of here-and-now media coverage, which shortsightedly ignores CBO and economists’ projections that the programs that currently deepen are debt will pay for themselves in the coming years and then begin to pay off the national debt if maintained.
Admittedly, Mr. Obama’s legislative measures (or at least, those that receive the most media attention) have met with resistance in the chambers of Congress. This, however, requires further scrutiny.
If we are to compare the success of one president to another based on Congressional approval of proposed legislation, then George W. Bush’s record far exceeds that of Barack Obama’s given the comparison of No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act to the Stimulus and Healthcare Reform. The flaw in this comparison, of course, is that it fails to put the measures into context.
After the September 11th attacks, President Bush rode a wave of faith that catapulted many of his initiatives into the forefront of popular political discourse. The public approval of NCLB and the Patriot Act stemmed from widespread fear of the unnamed enemy to the point that even Democratic senators could not afford to vote against their constituent’s perceived fears. These programs turned out to be masked derailing of social programs and civil liberties but more on that another day.
Mr. Obama, on the other hand, faces a political landscape deeply partisan and littered with the bruised careers of angry incumbent holdovers from the previous administration. The Republicans, having received a beating they are sure to avenge in the 2008 election, now know that, backed into a corner, their only fighting chance is obstructionism. Filibusters, traditionally a procedural tool, are now being threatened much more frequently than usual as a standard defense against measures that they simply disagree with. They need not feel that Democratic legislation threaten the country in some grave way, they need only disagree with the intentions of the bill, regardless of the beliefs of their own constituents one way or the other.
It is easy to see that, in the face of this, it would be difficult to coerce the same overwhelming support made possible by mass fear in the face of ambiguity.
In short, the post-partisan America standard that some pundits had set for Mr. Obama was only a mirage to those who created it. It is certainly not a mirage to educated voters who never expected such a ridiculous transformation of government. All this considered, acknowledging the “mirage” of post-partisanship in practice need not lead one to blame Mr. Obama himself while incumbent conservative holdovers from an era of economic, foreign policy, and political disaster tie up progressive legislation through bullying and inciting public fear.
Therefore, forgive Mr. Obama for being a Democrat, apparently he never got the memo.
Before anyone says it, I understand that people are entitled to their opinions. However, when someone blatantly or accidentally misrepresents the truth, someone needs to do something about it.
By Ian Barker
During the course of President Obama’s campaign, many interpreted that the effects of his presidency would include the end of partisanship and disagreement in favor of a move toward a benevolent government of and for the people. The problem with this conception is that Mr. Obama never actually promised an end to partisanship or disagreement. In fact, of the five-hundred and three promises that he did make, none of them even mention or allude to an America devoid of partisanship.
Why? Because in order for a president to put an end to political discourse, he would either have to homogenize public opinion through propaganda or militarize the state until the public feared for their lives lest they agree with the governing party.
As far as I know, neither of these are on the agenda.
Many would use the media’s hyperbole as an attempt to see Mr. Obama’s presidency as a failure, but this effectively amounts to moving the goal posts. Certainly, his presidency has not been the utopian romp that some expected, but the withdrawal from Iraq, effort to reduce proliferation of nuclear weapons, development of infrastructure, prevention of an economic disaster, and overwhelming legislative success rate (96.7% according to Congressional Quarterly) are not tempered by the fact that he (admittedly) did not cure cancer in the process.
All told, voters did not expect a New America under Obama. They voted for him because he was charismatic, disagreed with the occupation of Iraq, made bold promises to respect and create social programs that had taken massive hits over the past decade, and, through promised transparency, gave Americans hope that they could, for once, see where and why their country was headed in a certain direction.
He has fulfilled all these promises. Check Politifact.com for the full record.
The one place that disgruntled voters find much agreement is that Obama’s programs are compiling a national debt the likes of which has never been seen. This is fair, however it is also important to understand that Americans’ opinions tend to blow with the wind of here-and-now media coverage, which shortsightedly ignores CBO and economists’ projections that the programs that currently deepen are debt will pay for themselves in the coming years and then begin to pay off the national debt if maintained.
Admittedly, Mr. Obama’s legislative measures (or at least, those that receive the most media attention) have met with resistance in the chambers of Congress. This, however, requires further scrutiny.
If we are to compare the success of one president to another based on Congressional approval of proposed legislation, then George W. Bush’s record far exceeds that of Barack Obama’s given the comparison of No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act to the Stimulus and Healthcare Reform. The flaw in this comparison, of course, is that it fails to put the measures into context.
After the September 11th attacks, President Bush rode a wave of faith that catapulted many of his initiatives into the forefront of popular political discourse. The public approval of NCLB and the Patriot Act stemmed from widespread fear of the unnamed enemy to the point that even Democratic senators could not afford to vote against their constituent’s perceived fears. These programs turned out to be masked derailing of social programs and civil liberties but more on that another day.
Mr. Obama, on the other hand, faces a political landscape deeply partisan and littered with the bruised careers of angry incumbent holdovers from the previous administration. The Republicans, having received a beating they are sure to avenge in the 2008 election, now know that, backed into a corner, their only fighting chance is obstructionism. Filibusters, traditionally a procedural tool, are now being threatened much more frequently than usual as a standard defense against measures that they simply disagree with. They need not feel that Democratic legislation threaten the country in some grave way, they need only disagree with the intentions of the bill, regardless of the beliefs of their own constituents one way or the other.
It is easy to see that, in the face of this, it would be difficult to coerce the same overwhelming support made possible by mass fear in the face of ambiguity.
In short, the post-partisan America standard that some pundits had set for Mr. Obama was only a mirage to those who created it. It is certainly not a mirage to educated voters who never expected such a ridiculous transformation of government. All this considered, acknowledging the “mirage” of post-partisanship in practice need not lead one to blame Mr. Obama himself while incumbent conservative holdovers from an era of economic, foreign policy, and political disaster tie up progressive legislation through bullying and inciting public fear.
Therefore, forgive Mr. Obama for being a Democrat, apparently he never got the memo.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
From Soulpancake.com
Rainn Wilson (Dwight from The Office) came up with this great website called Soulpancake where people could discuss some of life's great questions. This comes from that website.
Fifty People, One Question: New Orleans from Benjamin Reece on Vimeo.
Enjoy and let me know what your response would be. If you could wish for one thing to happen by the end of the day, what would it be?
Fifty People, One Question: New Orleans from Benjamin Reece on Vimeo.
Enjoy and let me know what your response would be. If you could wish for one thing to happen by the end of the day, what would it be?
Thought of the Day (Coakley v. Tragedy)
One thought has gripped my mind the entire day, and that is: what if Martha Coakley fails today and Scott P. Brown breaks the Democrats' filibuster-proof majority before HCR can pass? Would the failure of one person to fill a traditionally Democratic seat on the heels of a weak campaign and observation of national holidays (she took Thanksgiving off instead of campaigning) lead to the failure of one of the most ambitious pieces of legislation in recent memory?
I hope not, otherwise there's a cottage in the middle of French wine-country in our future.
To bring (probably) a lot of you up to date, today's special election to fill the vacant Senate seat left by the late Ted Kennedy has gone to the wire with Republican Scott P. Brown pulling ahead of heavy Democratic favorite Martha Coakley in the fading hours before the vote. Scott P. Brown not only falls largely lockstep with his Republican comrades in both obstructionism and social injustice, but his larger potential legacy is as being the deciding vote that provides Republicans with an unperturbed filibuster in the Healthcare Reform debate. This could effectively kill the legislation that most have poured their heart and soul into for the past year.
I've been reading Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival", the historical record of why the Iraq war was an example of American imperialism, documented before even history could unveil that fact. Besides Chomsky's story of American greed, he also highlights the (proven) Republican tradition of rewarding the economic and political elite for their me-first atrocities against man.
My thought of the day is this: knowing that the general's involved in the Iraqi liberation front were given such lofty posts because of their involvement in numerous crimes-against-humanity (such as the dismantling of Nicaragua, the forging of alliances with Saddam Husein, and the Iran-contra affair), it is unfortunate that everyday voters cannot see that the current Republican line is built on such a legacy of economic elitism and violent disdain toward the free exercise of basic human and civil rights.
Read the book, it's a page turner. That'll be $20.00 Mr. Chomsky.
What are your thoughts? What does Coakley's (potential) defeat mean to our conception of progress?
I hope not, otherwise there's a cottage in the middle of French wine-country in our future.
To bring (probably) a lot of you up to date, today's special election to fill the vacant Senate seat left by the late Ted Kennedy has gone to the wire with Republican Scott P. Brown pulling ahead of heavy Democratic favorite Martha Coakley in the fading hours before the vote. Scott P. Brown not only falls largely lockstep with his Republican comrades in both obstructionism and social injustice, but his larger potential legacy is as being the deciding vote that provides Republicans with an unperturbed filibuster in the Healthcare Reform debate. This could effectively kill the legislation that most have poured their heart and soul into for the past year.
I've been reading Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival", the historical record of why the Iraq war was an example of American imperialism, documented before even history could unveil that fact. Besides Chomsky's story of American greed, he also highlights the (proven) Republican tradition of rewarding the economic and political elite for their me-first atrocities against man.
My thought of the day is this: knowing that the general's involved in the Iraqi liberation front were given such lofty posts because of their involvement in numerous crimes-against-humanity (such as the dismantling of Nicaragua, the forging of alliances with Saddam Husein, and the Iran-contra affair), it is unfortunate that everyday voters cannot see that the current Republican line is built on such a legacy of economic elitism and violent disdain toward the free exercise of basic human and civil rights.
Read the book, it's a page turner. That'll be $20.00 Mr. Chomsky.
What are your thoughts? What does Coakley's (potential) defeat mean to our conception of progress?
Friday, January 15, 2010
How Long Have I Been Asleep? (The Crazies Don't Know About Too Soon Apparently)
Like Rip VanWinkel, I've arisen from my bed after a month of coma-ic rest and relaxation. My sincerest apologies to all who rely on this blog for their news, not only because I've disappointed you with no posts, but because if you really get all your news info from me, then you need to read a paper. Seriously, have you seen my articles?
Speaking of Republicans, Pat Robertson, the nations beacon of virtue and truth, claims that the Haiti earthquake befell those good people because they made a pact with the devil in Napoleonic times. Thanks to John B for the article.
Two things: First, Mr. Robertson, well-known televangelist and host of the 700 club, has proven himself a welcome addition to Howard Stern's radio program with his record of attention mongering and blatantly disrespectful comments. Second, kicking a country that's been brought to its knees is not only not-Christian, it's in human. The plight faced by millions of people in that country is not a victory for any member of humankind, though some would like to spin it as a demonstration of God's divine and compassionate vengeance. Well done Pat.
For information about how you can help with the relief effort, see the button in the right column under "Help in Haiti." Please, keep these people in your thoughts and remember for at least one day how good it is to live in a home with loved ones and food in the pantry.
Speaking of Republicans, Pat Robertson, the nations beacon of virtue and truth, claims that the Haiti earthquake befell those good people because they made a pact with the devil in Napoleonic times. Thanks to John B for the article.
Two things: First, Mr. Robertson, well-known televangelist and host of the 700 club, has proven himself a welcome addition to Howard Stern's radio program with his record of attention mongering and blatantly disrespectful comments. Second, kicking a country that's been brought to its knees is not only not-Christian, it's in human. The plight faced by millions of people in that country is not a victory for any member of humankind, though some would like to spin it as a demonstration of God's divine and compassionate vengeance. Well done Pat.
For information about how you can help with the relief effort, see the button in the right column under "Help in Haiti." Please, keep these people in your thoughts and remember for at least one day how good it is to live in a home with loved ones and food in the pantry.