US VISIT BOOSTS POPE BENEDICT XIV PUBLIC IMAGE

Published Apr. 21, 2008 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Last week, Pope Benedict XVI began his first visit to the United States. The significance of the occasion also was apparent in the group assembled on the tarmac to greet the Holy Father — President George W. Bush himself. This is believed to be the first time an American president has greeted a visiting foreign dignitary directly upon arrival. The White House has pulled out all the stops for the pope’s visit — with a 12,000-person dinner and lawn birthday commemoration, among other things.

Most visiting foreign leaders are not accorded this sort of pomp. In fact, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s concurrent visit to the U.S. has barely been mentioned by either the White House or the media. The papal visit, on the other hand, dominated virtually all news sources during the entirety of his stay.

That widespread coverage has revealed a side of the pope that has heretofore been rarely seen. Benedict XVI became pontiff after the death of his predecessor John Paul.

Paul had a magnetic and extremely charismatic personality. He became famous for his widely televised and often fiery speeches. He was the man who stood up to the mafia in Sicily and railed against Cuba’s state-imposed atheism. His more than 1.1 million miles of travels took him to far reaches of the globe that previously had never been visited by any Pope. Paul also made an effort to reach out to other religions, by hosting the Dalai Lama, and visiting Jerusalem’s Western Wall and the Umayyad Mosque in Turkey. The much-beloved “JP Two” frequently ranked among the most admired figures of his era.

As with any such office, holders of the papacy are often compared to their predecessor. The current pope is not, by most accounts, nearly as effortlessly charming as Paul, nor does he command as much media adulation. He is considered a shy man who is extremely well-studied in Catholic doctrine. He certainly is a traditionalist in most respects. His knowledge of Catholic religious writings and philosophy is reputedly second to none. His academic and eloquent speeches sometimes inadvertently offend other groups — evidenced by Muslims taking offence at his quoting an anti-Muslim emperor from the Middle Ages. To many people, Benedict was an eminently qualified pope who, nevertheless, seemed a little cold and distant.

The U.S. visit partially was an effort to change that, and it seems to have succeeded.

The warm welcome the Holy Father received from the Washington elite was echoed by the tens of thousands of Catholic faithful who came to his mass at a baseball stadium. Leaders from more than a half-dozen different religions met with him in a dialogue aimed at bettering interfaith relations. He also was joyously received in New York, the only other city he visited. There, he became the first pope to visit an American synagogue. He led a large public mass in the Big Apple as well.

Conspicuously absent from his tour agenda was Boston, arguably the most Catholic city in America and also the center of the clergy sex-abuse scandal. Benedict still addressed the issue, however, and said he was “deeply ashamed” by the scandal, and privately met with several victims to apologize. This display of humility and understanding certainly meant a lot, and likely will go a long way to bolster his standing with the victims and the public in general.

In the fourth visit to the United Nations by a pope, Benedict delivered a well-received speech extolling multilateralism and warning against the dangers of consensus being “subordinated by the decisions of the few.” This easily can be interpreted as alluding to the Iraq War, of which he is a vocal critic on humanitarian grounds. In his meeting with Bush, the Holy Father also urged the use of diplomacy rather than war to solve international problems and crises.

Of course, no such visit usually is with universal acclaim. Many have charged that the unusually prominent ceremony surrounding the papal visit is an effort by Bush to court the sizable Catholic vote in favor of Republican candidates, particularly Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in this fall’s election. The timing of the visit was specifically chosen to not coincide with the elections, but the above charge is not entirely implausible.

Another prominent criticism has been Benedict’s choice to not privately meet with American Islamic leaders. Several Islamic leaders, while applauding and attending the joint meetings with leaders of all religions, consider the lack of even a short private meeting somewhat insensitive.

In the aftermath of the widely publicized conversion of an Egyptian Muslim to Catholicism during the Pope’s globally televised Easter mass, such a meeting might not have been a bad idea. Many people also have taken particular note Benedict visited a synagogue on his trip, but not worship places of any other faith — Muslim, Hindu, or otherwise.

Granted, the visit probably was not universally considered perfect or even ideal. But it was notable and significant for a number of reasons — one of which he became only the third pope to visit the U.S. Regardless of the official consequences, the visit was successful from a public relations standpoint. Catholics came out in droves to see and pray with their leader. And people of all faiths finally had a chance to see Benedict as the gentle, pious and scholarly orator he truly is.

Now that we have seen a lot more of the pope as he really is, maybe all those off-color comparisons with Emperor Palpatine finally will be laid to rest.

CONCEALED WEAPONS BILL RELIED ON UNSOUND REASONING

Published Apr. 8, 2008 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Oklahoma House Bill 2513, which would have allowed concealed weapons to be carried on state-funded college campuses, was killed recently by the state Senate Appropriations Committee. The co-chairmen of that committee — one of whom is a former police officer and a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association — thankfully saw the fallacy of the bill and tabled it.

The bill, proposed by Rep. James Murphey, R.-Guthrie, sought to give college students an opportunity for self-defense in the event of a shooter on campus. This is not a bad idea at all, particularly in the light of the tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University.

That idea, though hypothetically appealing, in actuality presents several problems in any potential real-life situation. Those problems are exacerbated by the ambiguities and holes in this particular bill.

The amount of work currently necessary to obtain such a concealed weapon license in Oklahoma is minimal at best. Applicants for these licenses go through eight hours of training, and the only actual shooting training involves a short-range paper target at a closed range. That’s it. The course only makes use of low-powered handguns, but nevertheless grants a license to conceal and carry any type of legal weapon — including high-powered hunting rifles and even civilian versions of military-type weapons. HB 2513 would allow any licensed 21-year-old to legally pack this kind of heat anywhere on a college campus. That is not a good idea; there are just too many associated risks.

Secondly, Murphey believes the students legally armed under his bill would be able to hinder an attacker. Such an attacker, who would be armed, is not likely to wave a white flag in the face of a brandished weapon. No, the only real way to stop or slow down an armed attacker is to shoot, and maim or kill. According to the bill’s author, students with firearms could, would and should do just this.

I cannot agree.

The psychological ramifications of intentionally causing a bullet to rip into a person’s body and severely injuring or even killing him or her are not to be taken lightly. Even highly trained professionals in the military and police forces often need to undergo months of intensive therapy to return to a normal mental state after taking another person’s life. These people very often suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of their experience. A 20-year-old student, even with a concealed carry license, cannot be seriously expected do perform such an action. This is especially true when all the shooting required to get that license involves targeting a piece of paper. In fact, it is extremely doubtful that anyone who shot at a paper target in a shooting range for a few hours would have the mental fortitude to take steely aim at a heavily armed attacker and shoot, particularly in a situation as emotionally intense and terrifying as having a shooter loose in campus buildings.

Students cannot and should not be made into vigilantes and armed responders inside their own classrooms.

Proponents of the bill have argued that the thought of potentially facing armed students would deter a gunman from attacking that particular college campus. Well, this would imply that the gunman was thinking clearly. Anyone who loads a weapon with the intention of killing civilians and then follows through is not thinking clearly. Almost all the infamous school shooters of our time have had significant psychological problems.

They probably would not regard the possibility of armed resistance as much of a deterrent. The vast majority of school shooters end up turning the gun on themselves. Those that have left suicide notes or videos have revealed themselves to have had thoughts of suicide for quite some time, and dreamt of dying in a blaze of glorious gunfire. Thus, somewhat frighteningly, the idea of facing flashing gun barrels might even make a potential shooter more likely to go on a killing spree.

This bill was doomed to fail, in my opinion, from the very beginning. It had noble intentions in its quest to protect college students. The bill’s ideas, however, don’t make sense in the real world, and even seem influenced by television and Hollywood. Students rising up to overcome armed attackers can happen anywhere, but generally only does happen when there are a script and camera involved. Moreover, it places too much of the burden of protection on the students themselves — who probably would be scared out of their minds in the very situations that they are expected to perform in. Students should not have to pack guns and ammo alongside their books and pencils.

Allowing more guns on campus is not the way to fight against college shootings — especially not more guns in student hands.

PROTESTS REVEAL DISCONNECT BETWEEN TIBETAN PROTESTORS

Published Mar. 24, 2008 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Published Mar. 24, 2008 by uwire.com
Viewable Online Here (link operational as of Mar. 30, 2008)

Published Mar. 25, 2008 by BYU NewsNet Online
Viewable Online Here (link operational as of Mar. 30, 2008)

The Chinese government is currently moving truckloads of troop reinforcements into what it calls the Tibet Autonomous Region to combat widespread rioting against Beijing’s rule.

China’s claim to Tibet comes from Tibet being a part of several old Chinese kingdoms as a result of temporary defeats in border conflicts of previous centuries. Most recently, Tibet was invaded and forcibly made a part of modern China by Chairman Mao’s forces in 1951. Tibet’s most definitive claim as a sovereign nation stem from treaties signed with the British in the early 1900’s. It is accepted internationally that a treaty can only be signed between two sovereign nations or peoples.

The Chinese presence was never welcome, evidenced by the 1959 uprising against Chinese rule. That uprising was brutally quashed. The Dalai Lama, spiritual and political leader of Tibet, was forced to flee to India.

During China’s rule, the distinct Tibetan culture has been systematically suppressed. Monasteries, the nerve centers of Tibetan culture, have been destroyed. By law, Tibetan words on signs have to be smaller than the corresponding Chinese, and be located in less prominent positions. Tibetan is banned in schools, and anyone seeking state employment or university admission is required to speak Chinese.

China often points to improved transportation infrastructure as proof of its good works in Tibet. However, these have only resulted in a massive influx of Chinese from other areas. Most businesses and commerce are owned by Chinese, and Tibetans in general remain crushingly poor while much of China is increasingly prosperous.

The primary advocate of the Tibetan cause has been His Holiness The Dalai Lama. As befitting his office and personal beliefs, he has supported non-violent resistance as the means to alleviate Tibet’s sorrow. He has been compared to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi in shunning violence over his fifty-year struggle.

As revered as he is, his methods are not without detractors. These are mainly the younger generation, who never knew life before Chinese occupation. While careful to not insult His Holiness, many voice frustration at the lack of measurable progress of his methods. They support — and engage in — direct confrontation. They are the ones leading and spreading the current protests inside Tibet, which mark the 49th anniversary of the 1959 uprising.

In their actions and philosophy, the younger protesters are more akin to Stokely Carmichael than the MLK-esque Dalai Lama. Much as Dr. King sought peaceful and just coexistence of all Americans, His Holiness seeks an autonomous — not independent — Tibet coexisting with the rest of China. Many believe his long and largely fruitless struggle against the Chinese monolith has caused him to soften his stance and seek instead a more easily achievable goal. Regardless, Tibetans still living within its borders and many expatriates decry this abandonment of what they see as Tibet’s birthright as a nation. The more confrontational protest movement’s genesis can be traced to the Dalai Lama’s initial calls for coexistence.

As events have shown, his Holiness is not in control of the massive protests currently going on within Tibet. This is the first time that the acknowledged leader of the Tibetan rights movement has been powerless to stop or temper such protests. He has admitted so publicly, after the Chinese government accused him of fanning the flames of violence. It seems that the cause of Tibetan independence now has two distinct and somewhat disjointed groups trying to carry its banner.

While this may be uncharted territory for the Tibetans, this has occurred before in other movements — including the Civil Rights Movement in America, which compares rather well with the struggle occurring in the high Himalayas.

Both focus(ed) on bringing equal rights to a highly oppressed people. In each movement, there was initially one dominant philosophy. The peaceful resistance of Dr. King and that of the Dalai Lama share this common mantle. In the later stages of the Civil Rights movement, another philosophy — that of direct action — emerged, championed by figures such as Carmichael and Malcolm X. The same is occurring in Tibet right now.

It is still too early to see if the confrontational protests will work. They have, however, succeeded in refocusing global attention on one of the world’s great injustices. His Holiness’ methods, while never letting us forget about Tibet, never quite grabbed the world’s attention in the same way as the new protests. Without any authorization, aid or allies, the ragtag Tibetans have managed to greatly tie up Chinese resources. They have also handed China a major public-relations nightmare when it can ill afford it, with the Beijing Olympics starting in mere months.

Beijing has acted as expected, and is trying to completely stamp out any semblance of rebellion. It’s increasing its standing pressure on the Dalai Lama to abandon criticism of China, while simultaneously unleashing its military in Tibet.

One of the most crucial aspects of any movement or revolution is unity and communication among its perpetrators. This is absolutely necessary, at least in general terms. This unity and agreement between different figures and ideas was the main reason that the Civil Rights Movement was ultimately successful. All other successful such movements, like Poland’s Solidarity or the African National Congress in South Africa, had these above attributes. Every failed movement, like the 1857 Indian Sepoy Rebellion or the 1936 Arab Revolt, failed largely because unity and communication were lacking.

By choosing to confront the Chinese head-on without the Dalai Lama’s knowledge or direction, the Tibetan protesters tread dangerous ground. His Holiness’ dissociating himself from the violence, while understandable on religious grounds, further highlights this nascent disconnect. Neither he nor the protesters gain anything from this situation.

Instead, it seems China has another weapon to yield in its quest keep Tibet subjugated forever — newfound Tibetan disunity.

24-HOUR NEWSCAST LOSE SIGHT OF TRUE GOALS OF NEWS

Published Mar. 3, 2008 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Cable TV has not been universally beneficial for society. True, one can watch National Geographic Channel, Discovery Channel and other eye-opening programs on cable. Keep in mind, though, that cable also has spawned “My Super Sweet Sixteen,” Lifetime and, of course, “Flavor of Love.” Somewhere between these two extremes of moderately enlightening and highly frightening lies the existence of cable news.

The three-faced juggernaut of CNN, MSNBC and Fox News has taken news from a 30 minute primetime affair to a non-stop, round-the-clock smorgasbord. While network news focuses on mostly local issues, cable news channels were meant to traverse the world in their presentation of topics. This idea of balanced news from all over the world all the time is great — in theory.

In practice, however, all 24-hour cable news outlets have defenestrated the idea of balance in their news coverage. Instead, just a few topics are focused on. Virtually all other topics only are mentioned in passing in the form of a picture or a small headline. The designated hot topic, in contrast, is dissected, analyzed, reassembled and re-examined over and over again.

Perhaps the best example of this is the phenomenon known as the U.S. primary season. If for some extreme reason you were not already aware, that’s right now. If the cable news channels’ coverage is any indication, there absolutely is nothing else newsworthy going on in the world at the moment.

As I’m writing this, CNN is on in the background — for research purposes. For the last 40 minutes, the three leading campaigns have been the exclusive focus. Every single campaign has a dedicated reporting team, and every minute detail is discussed and debated. The candidates themselves are nowhere to be seen, or heard. Instead, we are shown dark stages with manic, sign-waving mosh pits.

Meanwhile, new Israeli operations in Gaza that have killed more than 50 Palestinians in retaliation for rocket attacks are relegated only to a passing ticker at the bottom of the screen, along with coverage of the Russian presidential election. News of who might be the new leader of the largest country of the planet, and that of fresh violence in the world’s most volatile region are made to share space with the weekend weather forecast for Minneapolis and today’s NBA scores.

I wouldn’t feel nearly as disillusioned if the coverage of the campaigns focused on important things — like stances on immigration, social security reform or healthcare. Instead, I’m treated to an in-depth analysis of Sen. Barack Obama’s connection with controversial preacher Louis Farrakhan. There really is no connection. For those of you who care about this, unlike me, Obama is a member of church of a denomination whose national governing body sanctioned publication of a magazine that extolled Farrakhan’s good virtues — like organizing the Million Man March in 1995.

See what I mean about no connection?

This says to me two things. First, the church membership shows Obama is, in fact, not Muslim, as several imaginative (I’m trying not to use “lying”) right-leaning figures have insinuated. Second, it tells me that CNN and I have wildly differing definitions of “news.” Don’t think this is limited only to Wolf Blitzer and company. MSNBC and Fox News are just as bad. I just don’t tune to them as often because I don’t want my television programming to be connected with Microsoft (that’s the MS in MSNBC), and because I don’t want to listen to Bill O’Reilly twist the facts.

There certainly are times when cable news’ attention should be focused on one or a few things. The counting of votes from different primaries, attacks on or by our country, and natural disasters are examples of this. All the cable channels have continued to present informative, up to the minute coverage in situations like Super Tuesday, Sept. 11 and Hurricane Katrina. When most of the country and much of the world was looking to the Big Three cable news channels for updates, they all delivered.

Why can’t they focus on real news all the time? Don’t tell me there aren’t enough newsworthy things going on in the world. Even a cursory glance at the websites of the BBC, and even those of the U.S. cable news channels, shows how much is going on all over the world at any given time and how under-reported truly newsworthy things are. By not covering news from the other 190 countries of the world, and instead rehashing and reanalyzing old news and quasi-news, and these channels are contributing to the appalling global ignorance of most of America.

The promise, and dare I say, the original goal, of cable news at its inception decades ago was to present the news as it happened all over the world. That’s what should be happening. That can easily happen. The cable news channels can easily make themselves into what they should be. The manpower and the technology for the change are both there. Sadly, for those of us who want to know about more news more of the time, the cable news channels seem to be lacking in the most crucial requirement — the desire to change.

'RAMBO' UNLIKELY MEDIUM FOR PROTEST INFORMATION

Published Feb. 18, 2008 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

John James Rambo has gone down in American film and cultural lore as the quintessential no-holds-barred action hero. From the jungles of Vietnam to the deserts of Afghanistan, he was the idealized poster-man (no one can call him a mere poster-boy) of the American way, triumphing over communists of all ilks in years past. With the recent release of the fourth film of the series, simply titled “Rambo,” our hero has turned into a resistance fighter of sorts. More importantly, he has become something of a real-life hero for the present.

This most recent film finds Rambo, played by the seemingly immortal Sylvester Stallone, at a Thailand monastery. As the movie progresses, he journeys into war-torn Myanmar (formerly Burma) to aid Karen tribal resistance fighters. There are the requisite explosions, machine-gun fire and general mayhem. Instead of the Soviets or the Viet Cong receiving Rambo’s ire, this time, it’s the military of Myanmar.

That’s the same military that happens to control basically everything in Myanmar. They have done so for more than 40 years. In the process, Myanmar has become one of the most brutal authoritarian states in history. Anything remotely resembling is discord or democracy immediately squelched. Some of the more brutal examples include the 8888 Uprising in August of 1988 and the protests of a few months ago led by Buddhist monks.

News coverage of such demonstrations is sporadic and extremely limited, even by today’s sound-bite news standards. Part of the reason for this is the total lack of press freedom in Myanmar and extremely tight government controls on Internet and other media outlets. News of much of the brutality that regularly occurs in Myanmar simply does not spread outside its borders.

Many things, however, do make it inside its borders. These include contraband goods, weapons and even bootleg DVDs of “Rambo.” The anti-military junta message of the film has provoked the anger of the ruling authorities. Anyone caught watching or possessing the film can be punished by 20 lashes or 10 years in prison. In a country as oppressed as Myanmar, that threat falls on deaf ears, as many people continue to watch and distribute the film, according to the few journalists allowed to operate in the country.

After the brutal crackdown of all public forms of dissent, the simple act of watching a banned DVD can become an ideal way to defy a heavily-armed government. Banning the DVD in the first place shows the disconnectedness of the wildly unpopular junta that is stubbornly clinging to power solely by the power of bullets. Its idiosyncratic and oppressive policies have once again taken center stage.

While that alone will not do much when it comes to fighting a force such as the junta, it does raise the world’s consciousness of an old and forgotten corner of Southeast Asia. Stallone himself has become an advocate for the people of Myanmar through the filming and promotion of the film. Stallone, though almost ancient by Hollywood terms, still commands attention and wields significant fan clout.

Celebrity power has launched more than one successful protest movement. It also has served to educate adoring masses about the cause the celebrity du jour happens to be endorsing.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t favor mindless celebrity adulation. But as a means to raise consciousness, there are few better vehicles. This is evidenced by a marked increase in the coverage of Myanmar in the media.

At the moment, “Rambo” the film and Rambo the character seem to be the faces of the global Myanmar junta protest movement. While the merits of either in this role are open to debate, such figureheads are sorely needed. The true warrior and deserved face of the struggle for democracy and freedom in Myanmar, the eminent Aung San Suu Kyi, is under strict house arrest by the Myanmar military. Suu Kyi has not been seen in public for years. She is the rightful Prime Minister of Myanmar, according to the last elections held in 1990. However, the results of those elections were summarily invalidated by the military.

Sly Stallone is no Suu Kyi. Not even close. But he and his recent film are continuing the work to which she has dedicated her life. Though both Stallone and “Rambo” seem unlikely vehicles of protest, they seem to be working, at least for the time being. It remains to be seen whether the recent fervor with Myanmar will continue, and more importantly, will have visible results on the global stage. That is what the people of Myanmar, and, free people everywhere, must hope for.
The fall of the Berlin Wall often is connected with former President John F. Kennedy’s long ago uttering of “Ich bin ein Berliner.” The fall of the Myanmar junta, if it happens, may well one day be connected with Rambo’s bullet-ridden triumph over the Myanmar military.

YAHOO! TAKEOVER MAY NOT CURE MICROSOFT'S INTERNET WOES

Published Feb. 5, 2008 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Published Online by PBS' "Washington Week" News Program
Viewable Online Here

Computer giant Microsoft recently put forward an unsolicited bid to buy out Internet pioneer Yahoo!. Bill Gates & Co. is offering $44.6 billion.

Yes, you read that right. Billion.

If Yahoo!’s board of directors accepts the currently unwelcome bid, this will be the largest acquisition ever made by Microsoft, and likely the largest buyout ever in the high-tech sector.
The main reason the wizards of Windows are willing to shell out that kind of money is the sheer dominance of Google in the Internet search business and related areas.

In recent years, Google’s share of the market has grown steadily at the expense of its competitors.

The merger would bring together Yahoo’s still-large Internet foothold and Microsoft’s technical know-how, and seemingly limitless funds.

Microsoft’s huge offer highlights how much it wants — and needs — Yahoo! in its fold. It’s banking on the idea the merged juggernaut would make huge catch-up strides against Google, and eventually supplant it as the number one Internet search company.

It will not be that easy.

While Microsoft is almost a household name, it’s seen as something of a lumbering dinosaur in tech fields, rooted in the past. People are most familiar with its Windows operating systems and Office software suite. The original Windows 3.1 was revolutionary in its time. Subsequent releases, while still popular, have been criticized as not being substantial improvements over their predecessors. Adding to the problem has been the continued existence of random bugs and software problems with almost all new Windows products. True, Microsoft dutifully issues updates and patches, but the problems do their damage to the company’s damage nonetheless.
Microsoft’s own Internet search business, Live Search, formerly Windows Live Search and MSN Search, is in more dire straits. Most people don’t even know it exists, other than its default presence within the new Internet Explorer. And even that has not really resulted in exposure, given Internet Explorer’s own fading popularity in light of the more secure and user-friendly Firefox.

Yahoo! also has been recently seen in a similar light. It was one of the earlier search companies to offer other services such as e-mail. It has since branched out to include streaming and downloadable music, news, videos and more. However, it has been heavily criticized for its high volume of ads and the sometimes disjointed functionality of its services and offerings. It remains widely used, but does not enjoy the high traffic of years past. For an almost-exclusively Internet-based and search-heavy business like Yahoo!, this has resulted in painful shrinking of profits and a steady decline in stock prices. The company certainly is not down and out, but it is a far cry from the untroubled pre-Google days of the previous decade.

Speaking of Google, it currently is a $23 billion company, with a huge pool of resources at its own disposal. Its initial public offering, open sale of stocks, raised over $1.5 billion, a reflection of investor and public confidence in the company. It has conducted a series of successful acquisitions and grown steadily. From a business perspective, you can’t get much better than Google.

More importantly, Google completely dominates when it comes to the image game. This is arguably much more important than the business numbers for a company that depends on people for its revenue. When Google was first launched, it billed itself as the fresh, new alternative to established and ad-heavy search companies like Yahoo!, Compuserve and Netscape. People were immediately drawn to its clean, simple interface and highly accurate and fast search responses. This, combined with the natural support most any underdog enjoys, quickly resulted in Google cultivating a loyal fan base.

When Google began offering new services such as Gmail and the popular drafting program SketchUp, that fan base willingly adopted them. The elegant simplicity that propelled the original Google search to success is found in virtually every Google product and offering. Being the brainchild of two young computer scientists, Google always has been a company with a playful and open vibe. It’s known for being open to user suggestions, and frequently implementing them. It’s engineers are highly encouraged by company brass to pursue whatever project interests them, regardless of whether it’s on the company to-do list or not. Many Google offerings, such as the aforementioned Gmail, have resulted from these personal-pleasure projects.

The fresh, new, alternative mojo Google initially flaunted has continued and increased to this day, even though Google is now the top dog in most every field that it plays in.
This hard-earned mantle of support and popularity for Google is what Microsoft and Yahoo! must overcome. They have failed to do so separately and independently. They’re hoping to do it now do so collaboratively.

Blending two old (by Internet standards) companies with marked image problems and solidly rooted in a relatively old-school business culture to overcome a charismatic newcomer does not seem the best of ideas, however. A Microsoft-Yahoo! juggernaut may be billed as the Google giant-killer, but it must be remembered that Google itself easily and effectively killed those two Internet giants separately, and several more, in its brief time.

If Yahoo! accepts Microsoft’s dowry, both companies will benefit. But a merger of such magnitude definitely will not be without problems. Google certainly will not be standing idly by in the months to come. If the potential merger goes through, and then fails to uproot Google — which seems likely — both Yahoo! and Microsoft will be in very deep trouble.

LIMIT TO CHANGE IN POLITICAL POLITICS

Published Jan. 22, 2008 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

For the first time in quite a few election seasons, would-be presidential candidates from both parties are campaigning on a somewhat universal common platform.

This sort of agreement, though unusual, is good.

Also good is the fact that the key player of this platform is change.

Change is sorely needed in this country and its governmental policies on a number of levels. The potential of change also seen among the candidates themselves, as a woman and an African-American man are the front-runners of their party’s candidates and arguably are in the strongest position to make a bid for the White House.

That in itself is huge. And if one (or perhaps both) made it onto the Democratic ticket, and then won, the biggest change in American politics will have taken place.

Change is good, it keeps things fresh, so they say.

But in politics, particularly presidential politics, only so much can change.

As much as the candidates’ platforms may focus on it and as much as the candidates themselves embody change, not all aspects of this all-important quadrennial election are subject to any sort of transformation.

Not by a long shot.

Dirty politics will always remain a fixture of presidential races.

Take the recent debacle in Nevada regarding the Democratic Caucus. The caucus system requires its voters to meet or “caucus” at a particular time at a particular place in the area or “precinct” where they live. In Nevada, that particular time was during the midday lunch break.

Out of concern for the thousands of casino and hotel workers in Las Vegas who would not have sufficient time off from work to travel home, caucus, and travel back, the Nevada Democratic Party created several “at-large” precincts in casinos on the Strip.

The idea was that any worker with valid employment ID that worked within 2.5 miles of the at-large precinct location who was verifiably scheduled to work during the lunch hour would be able to caucus at these locations and make their voices heard. All relevant procedures and statues were followed in this process.

All was well until the Nevada State Education Association (the teachers’ union) filed a lawsuit on Jan. 11, to block the at-large precincts on the grounds that they violated election laws and would proportion support unfairly.

Suspiciously, this was only two days after the powerful 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union in Nevada endorsed Sen. Barack Obama. The well-organized and heavily Hispanic CWU gave Sen. Obama a huge boost in the Nevada electorate.

Even more suspicious were the somewhat concealed ties between NSEA’s leadership and Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was running slightly ahead of Sen. Obama in Nevada polls prior the CWU endorsement.

Of course, Sen. Clinton’s campaign denies any involvement, and this may be true on an official level. However, the peculiar coincidences of the timing of the NSEA’s challenge so soon after the CWU endorsement leads one to believe that a carefully orchestrated effort to disenfranchise a large group of people (who were likely to not vote Hillary) was under way by people certainly connected with the campaign in question.

On the elephant’s side of the pasture, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee’s faux pas in creating a virulently anti-Mitt Romney television spot and then deciding to not air it, except for a screening for the press corps, has been widely discussed and often ridiculed.

While it’s not exactly a dirty tactic, and is even admirable on some levels, it’s still a little puzzling.

Huckabee’s camp maintains that the ordained Southern Baptist Minister felt that attacking Romney in such a manner would have been wrong.

The withdrawal of the ad also had the, I believe, intended effect of highlighting Huckabee’s human decency, often a rare trait in presidential elections. It also made sure the he and his campaign stayed in the media spotlight for the few crucial days prior to the Iowa Caucus. He of course won Iowa, largely as a result of the Christian right, whose poster child in earlier weeks had been Romney. Thus, the fiasco with the withdrawn ad seems not entirely a candidate’s succumbing to his human sense of compassion, but more a calculated ploy to win over his main opponent’s chief supporters.

Neither of the two examples above deal with anything illegal. No one acted outside the bounds of the law, although many will argue that their actions were questionable at best.

What is certain is that these actions certainly do not convey or conform to the optimistic image of a new America, changed from the cruel years of the past into a new bastion of hope, freedom, and prosperity that is touted by virtually all the candidates at the moment.

No, these actions are decidedly reminiscent of the shady and cutthroat campaigning that have been a fixture in American politics for many decades now, and if these examples are any hint, will remain for many decades to come.

Some change may be forthcoming a year from now, when a new president is sworn in, and we may be closer to a more united, happier, changed America.

Just don’t expect to see much of that change in practice anywhere near the presidential election between now and November.

BUDGET CUTS HINDER OK PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Published Jan. 15, 2008 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Budget cuts. These are not anything new in Oklahoma, especially at Oklahoma City Public Schools. For more that two years we have heard about various arts programs being cut and funding being dropped. But what impact are these cuts having in the art classrooms?

A good place to look for the answer is Classen School of Advanced Studies. Classen, in addition to its renowned IB academic program, is the only school in the state to have the nationally-recognized Visual and Performing Arts (VPA) program. To gain admission into Classen through this program, students must audition in one of seven disciplines. Upon acceptance, VPA students begin a rigorous arts curriculum centered around their discipline or “major”. Unfortunately for Classen students, the budget cuts don’t just affect one area, but the entire program.

Usually, the district supplies each art teacher in the district with $500 each year to cover supplies. As art teacher Karyn Stafford puts it, “I teach about one hundred students every year. That comes out to $5 per student, which is nothing as far as art supplies are concerned. We usually have to rely on donations from individuals and from groups.”

Last year was even worse, as the district could not afford to give the teachers any money.

“You can see first-hand the effects of the budget cuts at art competitions,” Stafford says, “The private schools’ stuff is more, bigger, flashier. We would be a force to contend with if we had that kind of funding. That Classen holds its own at these competitions is testament to the enormous talent of the students.”

Classen’s instrumental music departments have also felt the impact of tightening belts. For example, the orchestra department does not receive nearly the funds necessary for regular maintenance and upkeep of its instruments. Classen is a public school and cannot charge its students anything, therefore fundraising is the only option.

Jordan Morris, a past member of Classen’s Jazz Band, talks about another problem. “Most of the instruments we use are owned by the district, and not by Classen. We borrow them from different schools that aren’t using them at the time. Now that there’s no money to replace or repair worn-out instruments, the other schools want their instruments back. We’ve already lost some instruments.”

This is a shame as Morris considers the Classen jazz band a great opportunity to play with gifted musicians and the aspiring talents of his generation.

The problems aren’t just limited to music. Facilities badly in need of repair are not being worked on for lack of money. “We don’t have money for newer costumes, we have to share our practice space with other groups, and our studio has zero heating,” said Lauren Bond, senior dance major.

Faced with obstacles such as these, one would expect the Classen arts departments to wither. The fact that Classen arts students continue their excellence is testament to not only the enormous talent praised by teachers as being “beyond compare and full of character,” but also to the teachers.

Students receive basic skills from the teachers, but the rest is left for them to master. Yet, without proper funding students at Classen and across the state are forced to make due with what they are given.

CHINESE AUTOMAKERS POISED TO TAKE OVER U.S. MARKET

Published Dec. 4, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

The first Japanese cars on the U.S. market were tiny, ugly and poorly built, and their only redeeming quality was high gas mileage. During the oil crisis of the early 1970s, that feature resulted in an explosion of Japanese car sales that pushed these companies into a position of prominence in the U.S. market.

Thanks to improving cars and competitive pricing, they have never relinquished that position. A few years ago, Korean cars were largely the butt of car jokes — one word synonyms for cheap, ugly and unreliable cars.

The only customers for these rolling disasters were those who couldn’t afford anything better. The Korean automakers competed almost solely on price, offering feature-laden cars for thousands less than their contemporaries.

Since money is the bottom line for many car purchasers, the companies found many customers. Most of them never bought Hyundais or Kias again, but there were enough first-time buyers to keep the companies afloat.

In the late 1990s, the companies revamped manufacturing procedures and vehicle reliability improved tremendously. Public image improved considerably with the introduction of industry-leading warranties.

This past has largely faded away. Prices for these cars, however, while still comparatively low, have crept up far beyond their original attractive points.

This has created an enticing opening for low-priced volume manufacturers to make inroads into the U.S. market. Currently, no such manufacturer sells vehicles in the U.S.

That is about to change, as the Chinese are coming.

The Chinese automobile market is booming. With the increased wealth brought about by a skyrocketing economy, more people in China can afford to buy cars.

The successful buy only European and U.S. luxury vehicles. This has resulted in BMW selling more of its flagship Seven-series sedans in China than any other country except the U.S. Midpriced Japanese and U.S. cars are also popular, with lower-priced indigenous cars catering to the largest part of the market.

China’s massive industrial capacity and its already-established role as parts suppliers to most of the largest auto manufacturers around the world have made its entrance into the global auto market successful from a technical standpoint.

This owes largely to engineering and manufacturing partnerships with several foreign companies, including Honda and General Motors. These partnerships give Chinese makers valuable global-level automotive engineering experience, and foreign makers benefit from an increased presence in the very lucrative Chinese market and from extremely cheap Chinese labor costs.

Cheaper labor means a Chinese-made or manufactured car can be sold at a cheaper price and still turn a profit. This model works well, as Chinese cars are successfully sold all over Asia and in several African countries as well. Several Chinese manufacturers are also on the verge of selling in Europe.

The most profitable target remains the U.S. market, which will continue to be the largest market by volume for at least the next 15 years. High sales figures in the U.S. market has a cachet that is unmatched by any other market in the world. For these reasons, Chinese automakers want to enter the U.S. market, and they will do so in the next two to three years.

To be successful in the U.S. market, the Chinese will most likely rely on the model that has worked for them in other countries: More car for less money. Prices for new cars are creeping steadily upwards with each model year, as cars get bigger, more powerful and more sophisticated.

While this has led to arguably better cars, it has also led to new car prices at a record high — beyond the reach of many lower income consumers. Korean makers, formerly the value champions, are sacrificing price for quality.

This is why Chinese cars can do well in America. They will simply prove too good of a deal to pass up. Granted, the crash-test results and long-term reliability of these cars are a little dubious at the moment.

That likely won’t matter to the target audience of the Chinese makers — those who want a new car for the least amount of money possible.

If given the choice, most of those people will take a new car — however unknown or new its manufacturer — if the cost of ownership is low enough.

Doubters of this would do well to remember that this has actually happened in the U.S. market twice already with Japanese and Korean cars.

The difference this time is industrial might. China is capable of manufacturing far more cars today than 1960s Japan and 1990s Korea could. Therefore, if Chinese makers can get a toehold in the U.S. market, economies of scale will take over.

This will lead to one of two scenarios: Other car manufacturers will try to cut costs by outsourcing more manufacturing to countries with cheap labor — like China. This will lead to lower prices, which is good for consumers.

The more frightening and unlikely (but still possible) scenario is that the low-priced competition will drive other manufacturers from business, at least in the mainstream car market.

If that ever happens, our cars will carry a “Made in China” label, just like most everything else we use.

HYBRIDS OVERVALUED

Published Nov. 20, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Published Nov. 27, 2007 on BYU NewsNet Online
Viewable Online Here (link operational as of Jan. 4, 2008)
Note: Title of column on above website taken out of context of original article below

Linked Nov 28, 2007 by hybrid vehicles forum hybridsmarts.com
Viewable Online Here (link operational as of Apr. 2, 2008)

Discussed Dec 11, 2007 on auto industry blog automotive.com
Viewable Online Here (link operational as of Dec. 19, 2007)

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the hybrid vehicle. In the decade since the first Japan-only Toyota Prius, hybrids have overcome initial skepticism and scorn to become prolific fixtures on American roads.

Hybrids have become popular not because of their lessened impact on the environment, but because of their long-term affordability.

Because of their increased gas mileage — and proven reliability — more people are driving hybrids, and that trend seems set to continue.

When hybrids were first introduced, cost was definitely a deal-breaker for most. For example, the first Prius — and its competitor the Honda Insight — was a compact car that cost as much as most full-size cars.

To make matters worse, it was also relatively slow and underpowered.

Therefore, its buyers were generally only dedicated greenies and a few well-heeled poseurs.

Enough of these early cars were sold, however, to catapult Toyota and Honda into the forefront of automotive and eco-friendly technology.

This led to an explosion in hybrid sales that has continued for third-generation Toyota and Honda hybrids.

More importantly, it convinced technologically-lagging American and European automakers that hybrids could be profitable as an image-booster and a sales-booster.

Thus, Ford and Chevy got into the hybrid game. The technology the American automakers use is slightly different, but the concept is similar.

By augmenting a normal gasoline engine with an electric motor during high-drain driving situations — accelerating, starting-up, etc. — gasoline consumption could be lessened and gas mileage increased.

Somewhat paradoxically, most of the American hybrids are Canyonero-sized trucks.

Even with hybrid technology, their gas mileage does not move past the high teens. What good does that do for the environment and alleviating oil consumption?

When gas is more than $3 a gallon, 21 miles per gallon looks much better than 18 mpg. Even at a $2000 premium, a hybrid car can seem more economical.

In this way, hybrids have become more than a buzzword. By packaging hybrid technology with huge, four-wheel-drive mammoths, car companies can go to the bank.

Consumers pounce on these vehicles, enticed by increased gas mileage.

Hybrids continue to sell well each year, and more models are introduced.

Although it’s admirable that a whole generation used to normal gasoline engines has accepted a new technology, such as hybrid cars, so thoroughly, it has done so for the wrong reasons.

In the long run, three or four more miles per gallon is no better for the environment or the nation’s dependency on foreign oil. Because of public demand for hybrids, however, automakers continue to bring them to market.

PROGRAM DEVOTED TO SOUTH ASIAN STUDIES NEEDED

Published Nov. 6, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

OU’s School of International and Area Studies offers minors and majors focused on Russia and Eastern Europe, Western Europe, East Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.

But one area of the world is missing from this list: South Asia.

There is no South Asian Studies program at OU, not even a minor. Given South Asia’s potentially massive impact on global affairs — largely due to its huge population and skyrocketing economies — this is a shame.

The discipline of international studies analyzes economics, culture and politics on a global level.

Throughout history, its interdisciplinary focus has shifted from one area of the world to another. In the height of the Cold War, Russia and Eastern Europe were the most popular fields of study.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, that focus shifted to the Middle East.

The increasing economic power of China and the other “Asian Tigers” made study of East Asia popular and important.

In coming years, South Asia will become the focus. It’s not a question of if, but when.

South Asia is comprised of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka — nations tied together by similar cultures and shared history that culminated British colonial subjugation.

Following full independence from Britain, these countries have pursued self-determined policies at home and abroad, and several have reached global prominence in a number of areas.

India’s population of more than 1.1 billion is second only to China, and it is the largest democracy in the world.

Bangladesh, one of the most densely populated nations of the world, boasts over 150 million people.

Therefore, excluding South Asia from a program of international study automatically excludes 20 percent of the world’s population.

This alone would make any program of international program incomplete.

The most important reason OU should have a South Asian studies program is the area’s growing economic importance.

South Asia’s huge population boasts a large and well-educated workforce.

This, in addition to low labor costs, has made South Asia a prime location for companies seeking to cheaply expand their global presence.

South Asia’s economic synergy with the rest of the world will only increase in the coming decade. The national economies of South Asia are experiencing massive growth owing to industrialization, large-scale foreign investment and its massive workforce.

The countries of the region are transforming themselves from primarily service-dominated to manufacturing and technology-based economies.

The image of South Asia as a monsoon-battered, malaria-ridden backwater is fading away.

Soon, it will disappear — as it will have been eclipsed by the reality of strong economies closely tied to Western companies and consumers.

This close relationship is not lost on academics.

“There have been several proposals for a South Asian studies program,” according to Dr. Robert Cox, director of the School of International and Area Studies.

“Many of them have been made by students,” Cox said.

SIAS has been around since 2001, and it boasts large enrollment.

It’s logical to think a South Asian studies program will be just as popular as the school’s other programs.

A problem, however, is the lack of faculty qualified in South Asian disciplines. To make matters worse, there are currently no plans to hire such faculty.

This is not the fault of either the SIAS or of OU.

“We can always request more faculty of any type,” Cox said, “but the budget from the state is the determining factor.”

There is not enough money to hire new faculty, especially to form a brand-new program.

This is unfortunate because OU is missing a chance to be on the true cutting edge of international and area studies.

Presently, only a handful of universities nationwide have programs focused on South Asia. By building such a program here, OU would demonstrate that it is conscious of global affairs.

By not awarding money for such a program, the Legislature risks doing great harm to OU’s image as a flagship institute of higher education.

South Asia’s size and economic activity reverberate throughout the world.

How can any institution that completely omits the study of such an integral part of the world claim to be a leading university?

OU is known as an educational innovator and a good place to spend four years getting a solid education.

If a South Asian studies program is not created, however, OU will gradually lose its currently enviable status.

The education offered here will be missing a program crucial to a balanced, globally-relevant education.

Students whose interests or future careers include working in a global arena will not choose a school that does not satisfy the demands of their occupational fields.

Without a South Asian studies program, OU will diminish in stature as a quality educational institution and — more importantly — its global relevance.

U.S.-SYRIA DIALOGUE NEEDED FOR MID-EAST PEACE

Published Oct. 23, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

When a country recalls an ambassador, it’s a sure sign of disagreement between nations and often a precursor for war.

Conspicuously missing from the American embassy in Damascus, Syria is the U.S. ambassador. There hasn’t been one there since 2005.

The U.S. and Syria maintain diplomatic relations, however, with an American charge d’affairs heading the embassy in the Syrian capital.

This is less than ideal and reflects the dysfunctional diplomatic relations between the two countries — a situation adding to an already unstable Middle East.

There have been breaks in formal relations throughout the 20th century.

Fast forward to 2005, when Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated by a car bomb in Beirut.

Hariri was a known critic of the Syrian presence in Lebanon, and this led many to point an accusing finger at Damascus after he was killed.

An independent United Nations investigation is still ongoing, and nothing has been determined.

The U.S. ambassador was recalled to Washington in the days following the assassination and has not been sent back.

The recall of the ambassador was preceded by the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, which sought to punish Syria for its continued presence in Lebanon. President George W. Bush signed the bill.

That presence, was agreed to by then President George H.W. Bush “in return for Syrian support of the United States in the first Gulf War against Saddam Hussein,” according to Joshua Landis, internationally-recognized Syria expert and co-director of the OU Center for Peace Studies.

“Starting in 1987, there were already sanctions in place against Syria for its support of Hezbollah and Palestinian militant groups.”

“So letting Syria maintain its presence in Lebanon didn’t really affect anything overall. But, since Syria didn’t support the 2003 Iraq War, the current administration decided to diplomatically isolate Syria,” Landis said.

That move seemed illogical, as Syria had been aiding the U.S. fight against al-Qaeda by sharing valuable intelligence after 2001. “The Syrian government is very much anti-Qaeda,” Landis said. “They were more than happy to work with the United States on that front.”

Clearly, that cooperation ended after the aforementioned law and the recall of the ambassador.

Currently, the U.S. State Department mandates a ban on official dialogue between its employees and Syrian officials. As with all such wide-ranging directives, this is not always followed but is in place nonetheless.

The vast majority of American diplomatic dialogue with Syria is thusly muzzled. Seeking a statement from the State Department proved fruitless, as its press department duly informed the author that they only work “with major news sources. No college papers.”

The ramifications of maintaining this virtual diplomatic silence with Syria are apparent, given Syria’s potential as a stabilizing force in the three biggest challenges facing America in the Middle East: al-Qaeda-linked terrorism, the Iraq insurgency and a lasting peace.

Syria has actively rooted out al-Qaeda, and Syrian-supplied intelligence greatly aided the American fight against terrorism from 2001 to the 2003 end of intelligence cooperation.

Even the State Department acknowledges Syria “has taken some steps to tighten controls along the Syria-Iraq border.”

The border is still not completely under control, partly because Syria has no reason or incentive to do so. The fighters allegedly crossing the border do not threaten Syria’s interests. Why should Syrian officials take extra steps to aid the U.S. when it is seeking to isolate Syria?

Syria exerts strong influence on Hezbollah, one of the most active militant forces in the Middle East.

Consequently, Syria has the power to curb Hezbollah attacks on Israeli territory, which, in turn, would make Israeli-Arab relations that much closer to a complete peace.

Syria has already shown a willingness to not escalate conflicts by withholding its forces from combat during the most recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

Furthermore, Syria is the only nation that has continued accepting Iraqi refugees, even after more than a million have already entered.

Syria arguably has the most to offer to the U.S. in terms of bettering the overall situation in the Middle East.

It is true Syria is not a democratic country, but countries equally lacking in democracy, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have full diplomatic relations with the U.S.

It has ties with Hezbollah, which is classified as a terrorist group by the U.S. But Syria’s connection with Hezbollah is currently the only sure way to exert some control over that group’s activities.

Given the current situation, not maintaining extensive dialogue is “childish,” according to Imad Moustapha, the Syrian ambassador to the U.S.

In his recent lecture at OU, he reflected, “if you have a problem with what someone is doing, you talk with them more, not less.”

ORU SCANDAL HIGHLIGHTS HYPOCRISY OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS

Published Oct. 9, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Native son Richard Roberts may soon join the list of religious hypocrites. Roberts is the son of prolific evangelist Oral Roberts. He is also president and CEO of Oral Roberts University.

Three dismissed ORU professors have filed a lawsuit, alleging Roberts and his wife misused ministry and university funds.

The alleged abuses include his daughter’s senior trip, in which the university jet was used to fly to Florida and the Bahamas. The trip cost $29,411 and was billed to the ministry.

The professors also accuse Roberts of ordering university and ministry employees to do his daughters’ homework.

Robert’s transgressions are matched by those of his wife, Lindsay.

She is accused of spending $39,000 of university and ministry funds at a Chico’s clothing store.

She is also accused of racking up $800 monthly phone bills using university-owned cell phones
to exchange hundreds of text messages with underage males late at night.

She probably wasn’t trading pot roast recipes.

Furthermore, she is accused of awarding scholarships to her children’s friends and firing long-time university employees and replacing them with male acquaintances.

This is not appropriate behavior for religious leaders.

No God, religion or good-hearted human can condone stealing money, particularly when the funds are meant to further the word of God.

The fact that Roberts is defending himself and his wife by saying — more or less — God has told him the lawsuit is baseless is disheartening.

Unfortunately, this flagrant hypocrisy — exemplified here by Protestant leaders — occurs in virtually every religion.

From the priests of the Inquisition to the mullahs of the Taliban, religious leaders have long exploited their positions of leadership.

In the process, the guilty often perverted the religion until it suited their agendas. This was the basic premise behind the Crusades.

The clergy called for Christian warriors to fight the Muslim invasion of the Holy Land. Priests throughout Europe told their parishioners they would receive salvation if they fought, regardless of their conduct before or after that crusade.

In an eerie reversal, misguided Muslim leaders are calling for war against Christian infidels using much of the same reasoning. They call it a jihad — or holy war — and claim Allah will grant eternal salvation to those who die in his name fighting his enemies.

First, these sheiks have no authority to declare a jihad, especially on innocent people who have done nothing wrong.

Islam views the killing of innocents as a grave offense and — like other faiths — reserves a special place in the afterlife for those guilty of it.

Unfortunately, the way outsiders perceive Islam often overlooks this fact, instead focusing on the rhetoric of hate-mongering clerics.

The reason such hypocrisy finds a lasting place in many religions is that they often shift allegiance and loyalty from God to a person.

That person, whether he or she is a legitimate religious leader, is a barrier to forming a personal relationship with God.

Worse still, the leader gradually convinces his followers the only way to experience religion is through him.

The follower drifts farther from scripture and the “true” religion and closer toward the leader’s agenda.

This holds true for the legions of mega-church attendees and followers of flamboyant televangelists. On a more dangerous level, it also is an accurate portrayal of those who follow radical clerics, such as Moqtada al-Sadr and Mullah Mohammed Omar.

With adherence to a man — rather than to a higher power — comes real trouble. God or Allah or Yahweh never commands the faithful to kill.

Clearly, not all religious leaders are misguided. The majority of them are learned, pious and decent individuals who care about their fellow man.

Nevertheless, virtually all instances of religious conflicts and faith-based militancy come from religions that stress the importance of designated leaders, be they priests, imams or rabbis.

I am not aware of Buddhist crusades or Baha’i suicide bombers.

The designated leader systems of the Abrahamic religions have been in place for thousands of years.

By combating the hypocrisy of some of the theological middlemen — and perhaps even removing them completely — adherents of all Abrahamic faiths can gain greater understanding of their relationship with God.

Unfortunately, I don’t see it happening, at least not for another 1,000 years.

STATE FAIR DRAWS CROSS-SECTION OF OKLAHOMA GROUPS

Published Sep. 25, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Oklahoma has been a state for one hundred years.

For many of those years, one institution has dominated central Oklahoma every September: the State Fair.

This year’s iteration — like all those before it — was visible, audible and even smellable from far beyond the boundaries of the fairgrounds.

Also like the fairs before it, this year’s centennial special edition drew all sorts of people from across the state.

The official attendance hovers around one million annually, according to the Oklahoma State Fair Web site. A pretty decent cross-section of Oklahoma could be gleaned from the attendees, who make up almost one-sixth of Oklahoma’s total population.

Evidence of the first category of fair patron is seen before one enters the spectacle. These folks prefer huge pickups. The vast majority of these real-life Tonkas carry “farm truck” plates.

Equally conspicuous — at least to my urban-dwelling eyes — are the drivers of these vehicles.

They dress to ride horses, bulls, tractors or all three. Their Wranglers are seen in especially great numbers around the livestock and rodeo areas, as one would expect.

They drive Oklahoma’s farming and ranching-dominated economy forward. They are the ones that have outlasted numerous oil booms and busts through countless rounds of sowing and harvesting.

Their mastery of the land and command of its bounty not only ensure a prosperous Oklahoma economy, but also food for people in this state and many others.

In many ways, the agrarian-heavy Oklahoma State Fair is a celebration of their continued work and the integral part they play in Oklahoma.

The second category of fair patron is the opposite of the aforementioned farmer. These sandal-clad, cell-phone-toting people are the ones mouthing curses in their cars while waiting in
line for a parking spot.

They don’t want to deal with vehicular madness on their days off. They get enough of it on their commutes to work.

These occupants of corporate ladders represent the reapers and sowers of the growing business, corporate and service sectors of this state’s economy.

Each year, they contribute to an increasingly robust economy. Their endeavors bring more buying power to Oklahoma and help give the state a more flattering overall image.

That image is underscored by more modern technology, such as concept cars and alternative energy systems, exhibited at the fair every year.

That these two very disparate groups mix freely and enjoy the spectacle of the fair together is a testament to what I see as one of Oklahoma’s greatest assets — its position as a crossroads.

Geographically, Oklahoma can be divided into four quadrants that differ from each other in resources, ecology and climate.

Furthermore, the state is home to scores of different groups.

With the possible exception of wide-ranging political conservatism, the positions and traditions maintained by these groups are quite different.

Regardless, major disagreements are rare.

Although many of us may scoff at our state Department of Tourism’s proclamations of Oklahoma as a friendly place, it is, especially compared to other places in the country.

No matter how friendly it is, Oklahoma has its share of problems, of course.

Oklahomans lead unhealthy lifestyles and many struggle with obesity.

Unfortunately, you can see this at the State Fair as well.

The vast majority of people who go to the fair go for the food.

It’s understandable.

The food is delicious.

It’s also extremely unhealthy.

Probably three-quarters of all food available at the fair is deep-fried.

It has become a contest to see who can sell the most outrageous deep-fried “treat.”

Fried Twinkies and fried Snickers candy bars are just two of the recent cardiology nightmares.

It wouldn’t be so bad if these artery cloggers weren’t so popular.

It seems the unhealthier a food item is, the longer the line is to obtain it. You could argue indulging in batter-encrusted goodness is just something done on festive occasions.

This is sadly not the case.

As evidenced by increasing waistlines and decreasing lifespans, Oklahoma clearly has a chronic problem with obesity, and much of it is due to poor eating habits.

This is definitely one of the problems we must attack in our second century of statehood.

This year’s state fair and the crazy carnival atmosphere is gone.

Also gone is that particular brand of cuisine only available at the fair.

The behemoth farm trucks and hybrid cars jostling for space on crowded grass parking lots are a rare sight. Scores of independent farmers and ranchers will likely not fraternize with corporate soldiers until next September.

When the 2008 State Fair does begin, however, that spirit of community that echoes throughout the state will again be on display.

The friendliness and decency that sets Oklahoma apart from many other places will be embodied once more by the all people of the State Fair, except maybe the carnies.

THOMPSON A FORMIDABLE CANDIDATE IN GOP PRIMARY

Published Sep. 11, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson recently announced his 2008 presidential candidacy on “The Tonight Show,” directing viewers to his Web site for a more comprehensive video message.

Given the positive buzz his potential candidacy has generated, the announcement was not surprising.

The particular arena and method of the declaration was also unsurprising, as Thompson is a silver-screen veteran of over twenty years, with more than a dozen major films to his credit.

Despite entering the race later than any other candidate thus far, Thompson has easily had the most media exposure.

Most people know Thompson from his roles in “Die Hard 2” and “Law and Order” rather than his stint in Washington.

The notion that Thompson was hurt because of his late announcement strikes me as wrong-headed.

If Thompson is not elected, it won’t be because his campaign did not last long enough — it’s been going on for over twenty years.

In the last two decades, the former Senator from Tennessee has racked up a diverse array of movies and television shows that have garnered critical acclaim.

More importantly, they still remain popular with viewing audiences.

Many of the movies and television shows featuring Thompson, such as “Law and Order”, are still shown on T.V.

Those repeat showings guarantee that Thompson will enjoy continued exposure.

That free advertising exposure gives Thompson a formidable advantage over virtually every other candidate. It also makes Thompson very much a wild card in the election.

It is a foregone conclusion that in today’s political climate, media exposure is often the deciding factor in elections.

Being media-savvy can serve as an important catalyst in launching a candidate into the national limelight.

It was his electrifying and much-rebroadcast speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that launched Senator Barack Obama’s transformation from a mere state senator to a national presidential contender.

In addition, Rudy Giuliani earned his often quoted “America’s Mayor” moniker from frequent media appearances during the days following 9/11.

The more media exposure a candidate gets, the more recognition and support he garners. That’s it, plain and simple.

Obama, Giuliani, Senator Hillary Clinton and all the other top-tier candidates understand this and continue to chase down every media outlet they can use.

In Thompson’s case, the media exposure comes with an unusual twist. Much of his media face time has come in the form of popular entertainment rather than news or politically-oriented programs.

This means that he can reach audiences that generally avoid or are not reached by traditional, politically-oriented media.

As a result Thompson has access to a potential support base his opponents have little chance of reaching.

The unique kind and frequency of his media exposure gives Thompson a lethal one-two punch.

Much like Arnold Schwarzenegger did in the California gubernatorial race, the Thompson campaign can leverage non-political popularity and fame to overcome much more established political figures.

Thompson also boasts several other qualities that appeal to both Republican and undecided voters.

He has had no major official position in the government since 2003. While he remains supportive of the Iraq invasion, that detachment distances him from the day-to-day events in Iraq and the surge.

Given the steadily increasing number of Americans dead and with no end in sight, his absence from the government may prove to be an advantage.

Thompson’s other attractive traits include his loyalty to traditionally conservative principles, such as states’ rights.

Deferring to the states’ rights platform will be an effective way for Thompson’s campaign to deflect potentially explosive discussion of hot-button issues.

Thompson has also overcome much adversity in his life. He recently beat cancer.

His self-made image, combined with his familiar, down-home appearance, may do much to woo disaffected voters from across the political spectrum.

Many others may vote for him simply because of name and face recognition, as Thompson’s media exposure over the last two decades stands unsurpassed, even in the company of media darlings such as Giuliani, Obama and Clinton.

Thompson is being touted as the GOP’s savior in 2008. This is hardly surprising given his widespread recognition, his distance from the current administration and his hard core conservative positions.

If they are to take back the White House, Democrats would do well to pay special attention to the former senator from Tennessee whose name seems to resonate on the screens of Hollywood as well as in the corridors of Washington.

NEW SERVICE PREVENTS ABUSE OF ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA

Published Aug. 27, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Published Online Aug. 27, 2007 by newser. com
Viewable Online Here (link operational as of Dec. 19, 2007)

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, has enjoyed tremendous popularity and success. Its success owes to the immense number of articles on virtually every subject in over a dozen different languages found on its servers.

People, particularly college students, use Wikipedia to such an extent that “wiki-ing” has become an accepted verb, much like “googling.” Part of the allure of Wikipedia is that anyone can create new articles and edit virtually any existing article.

Thus, the strength and appeal of this groundbreaking encyclopedia lies in its pool of user-editors, who create new articles about previously unreported subjects and edit existing articles to a higher degree of accuracy.

By preparing and disseminating information to the masses, these users are anonymous, benevolent, tech-savvy Big Brothers for the whole of the Wikipedia community.

Unfortunately, a darker version of the Big Brothers has recently been exposed. In the past, there was no reliable way of knowing just who edited what. A new tool called Wikiscanner lists every edit made to any article, along with the IP address of the computer from which the edit was made.

A computer’s IP address is unique to that computer. Thus, knowing the IP address of a computer reveals its exact physical location and the organization that administers it.

The vast lists of edits and IP addresses are searchable by organization and physical location of the editing computer. This newfound insight had led to some interesting findings.

As reported on “The Colbert Report,” and confirmed by this columnist’s independent findings using Wikiscanner, computers from the Exxon company (now ExxonMobil) edited the article about the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.

An article covering what remains one of worst environmental disasters in history was edited to read “that there has been no long-term severe impact to the Prince William Sound ecosystem.”

This is highly inaccurate.

According to a 2001 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) report, 58 percent of test sites still had significant oil residue, and several species had very low recovery rates in oil-affected areas. Other companies have also been shown to edit articles related to them and their products. Edits to the Wikipedia “Pepsi” article from IP addresses registered to PepsiCo removed an entire section related to the health risks posed by Pepsi.

While both these heinous and misleading edits have since been corrected by other users, they raise important questions regarding corporate responsibility and the accuracy of information presented as factual.

Wikipedia has transcended the mantle and stigma of a mere encyclopedia. Wikipedia received over 46 million visitors in May of this year alone, according to a July 2007 Reuters article.

That makes it the most popular news site on the internet. Even Wikipedia’s harshest critics, who condemn what they see as insufficient regulation of content and a lack of accuracy controls, have to agree that Wikipedia is one of this generation’s most widely-read sources of information.

In the age of internet-based mass communications, Wikipedia is the premier vehicle; it is the new flagship broadsheet.

Given this, it’s lamentable that corporations would resort to underhanded ploys to boost their public images. This kind of deliberate misinformation is more difficult in other forms of mass media, such as newspapers or magazines, because the culprit can be quickly identified.

Exposure would lead to a public relations nightmare, which is exactly the opposite of what corporations intend to happen when they engage in propaganda activities.

The threat of exposure alone serves as an effective deterrent. In internet-based operations, particularly open ones such as Wikipedia, it is a different story.

Companies and other entities can easily conceive of and execute deception with relative impunity. Organizations and corporations can and do publish egregiously incorrect claims within Wikipedia’s framework of trust and openness.

Furthermore, they capitalize on Wikipedia’s popular image to pass those claims off as facts. The relative success of Wikiscanner seems to suggest that these malicious practices will decline significantly.

Since its first appearance, Wikiscanner has received wide-ranging coverage in numerous media outlets, and public awareness of its existence appears on the rise. It has the full support of Wikipedia’s creators, who see it as a very useful tool to make Wikipedia as fair and accurate as possible, particularly for controversial topics.

Given the violations that Wikiscanner has already uncovered in a relatively short time, it would appear that a very powerful deterrent to malicious Wikipedia-editing has finally arrived and is here to stay.

While it is shameful that a relatively benign and helpful site such as Wikipedia would be tainted by a few entities wishing to improve their public images, it is human nature to make oneself look as good as possible to the world.

Many see an unflattering Wikipedia article as something that must be tweaked in order to give a more favorable portrayal.

Into the arena has stepped Wikiscanner as the standard bearer of another unique facet of human nature: to catch offenders red-handed and hang them out to dry for the whole world to see.

GOOD SPEAKERS TRUMP MODERN MEDIA EXPERIENCE

Published Apr. 26, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

The use of the spoken word is diminishing every day.

Don't believe me? Take a look, or rather a listen, around. Radio, once the sole method of electronic entertainment, has been left in the dust by television. It has been reduced to a diversion used by most only when driving.

Mesmerizing speeches by gifted orators that once were the main vehicles of popular knowledge about most anything have been replaced by sound bites barely a few seconds long. And the focus of those bites really is on their accompanying video.

Things taken for granted even just a few years ago have been drastically changed.

Consider the phone call: It was a universal truth just a few years back that a phone conversation required listening and speaking, that the comfort and pleasure of hearing a friend's voice was guaranteed when using the phone to communicate. Even that has been breached by the thumb-happy world of text messaging.

There are benefits of text messages.

They're great for communicating in classes and meetings, they're very inexpensive and they don't use up cell-phone plan minutes. However, for some, they have replaced calls altogether.

This is strange to me. I won't go so far as to call this a bad thing, as those who practice it likely have many valid reasons for doing so.

It has taken root, however, to the extent that many cell phones on the market are designed to be texting machines first and voice machines second. This hyper-texting behavior is on the rise, and is also rewarded. Just recently, a teenage girl from Pennsylvania won $25,000 as America's new text-messaging champion.

In this increasingly speech-free climate, the sheer power of human speech and the spoken word ought to be remembered. A major milestone in any baby's development is his or her first word.

This is because speech is one of the hallmarks of humanity. The spoken word has communicated great discoveries, incited nations to war, brought comfort to the suffering, consoled millions during times of sorrow and passed traditions and knowledge through generation after generation.

Given this, the recent decline in the emphasis and use of the spoken word is definitely a weird phenomenon. It seems that not only should this misguided slide into silly silence be halted, but that it must be reversed.

That is particularly true on college campuses, which are the most vibrant crossroads of ideas and collaborative work.

Because much of those ideas and collaboration occur by voice, campuses seem like the last place that the specter of silence would take hold.

This, combined with the sheer educational prestige of college makes campuses ideal places for the aforementioned reversal to occur.

That reversal, no matter how successful on a particular college campus, must quickly travel out to other facets of community and society for it to truly be effective. This is quite a daunting task, but it can be achieved relatively easily with a series of engaging and accomplished speakers on campus.

When such speakers come to campuses, they bring a particular message.

Their audience is made up not only of college students, but more importantly of people from the surrounding area. While the speaker's message alone is quite valuable to this audience, what is more important is the particular vehicle of delivery.

And what vehicle does a speaker use to deliver his or her message? Why, the spoken word, of course.

That spoken word is presented completely by itself.

There is no accompanying video, no analysis, no background dancers, nothing. Just the spoken word.

These speakers provide disparate, thought-provoking messages, but they do so in a manner that reminds us all of the awesome power of the spoken word and how crucial it is to everyone.

We are lucky enough to attend a college that is very well-frequented by notable and gifted speakers.

In this one school year, speakers have included Vicente Fox, Al Gore, George H.W. Bush, Patch Adams, Paul Rusesabagina and Samantha Power.

Each of these speakers is an amazingly successful person and genuinely gifted orator. Their presence, their message and their delivery has done much to highlight the strength and importance of the spoken word in our world today and the world yet to come.

A LOOK FOWARD: THE FUTURE OF OU’S E-MAIL ARCHITECTURE

Published Apr. 12, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

NOTE: This is a follow-up to the column below

You may remember reading of my less-than-wonderful experiences with and resulting mediocre opinion of the current OU mail system.

Since then, the good folks of OU Information Technology offices have contacted me, discussed the issues facing the current mail system and have presented potential future systems.

My opinion of the current system is still the same as before, but I am optimistic about the improvements that loom on our campus’ digital horizon.

My enthusiasm stems largely from a test-drive of the new system OU IT is hoping to implement for all students. Believe me, it is a vast improvement. At its core is the Microsoft Exchange system, which will replace the current Java-based system.

The Exchange system works on a protocol called IMAP, which essentially provides an “always-on” connection to the OU mail server.

The current POP protocol does not provide this “live e-mail” feature. Exchange uses the latest web version of Microsoft Outlook as its e-mail client. The exact technical aspects require much specialized jargon to properly explain, which will not be done here.

“There are many technical differences,” says OU IT specialist Ashish Pai, “but more important is how those differences translate to improved functionality.” In this arena, the new system blows the current one away.

To begin, the new Outlook system simply looks better than the current one.

The industrial, blocky appearance of the current system pales in comparison to the modern, streamlined and colorful interface of the new system.

Users of newer versions of Outlook or other third-party e-mail software will find the interface familiar.

The new system works a lot better, too. The improvements include being able to see all mail folders at the same time, even when reading messages individually.

Furthermore, messages can be organized and searched for much more efficiently.

There are also an integrated address book and calendar. Both are presented well. An added advantage of the calendar is that it can be made public, should the user decide to do so. This allows everyone else to view said calendar, make appointments and set up meetings, all through the Exchange system. That holds particular promise for student employees, such as teaching assistants.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the junk mail filter is much more effective. Instead of simply having two settings (“on” and “off”), the new Outlook filter can be further fine-tuned to individual users’ requirements. This alone would almost make the new system worth making the switch to.

And when might students be making that switch?

“Our goal is to have the new student e-mail system in place before the 2007 Fall semester starts,” said OU IT administrator Nicholas Key. Actually, starting later this month, student mail users would have a chance to start using the new system.

The only catch to this is that students’ old messages would not transfer over. Their new inboxes would, in effect, be a blank slate.

Transferring the old messages from the current mail system to the new mail system is projected to be the biggest hurdle to fully implementing the switch. It follows that the more messages there are to transfer, the more time this will take. Regardless, the switch to the new system can be done.

And it should be done, particularly when all these improvements will come with absolutely no increase in fees of any kind. The switch to the new system has been in planning stages, and its implementation has been factored into current fee schemes.

There is only one possibility for a fee increase. That is if the decision is made to upgrade the future student mail system from the light version to the full version currently used by faculty and staff. All the improvements described thus far are fully available in the light version; the full version, however, is even more capable.

Right now, IT has only faculty and staff licenses for the full version.

Since every user who would use the full version needs to have a license purchased, implementing the full version for all students means buying about 30,000 licenses. However, since the light version contains virtually everything most students would need, it seems unnecessary to spend so much on buying licenses.

Down the road, after the student mail system has been implemented, IT foresees integrating the student and faculty/staff systems, or at least bringing them closer together. Regardless of whether this happens, implementation of the new student mail system alone will be a great accomplishment that will likely alleviate the concerns and problems faced by so many in using the current system.

As much as many students complain about the current system, it should be noted that OU IT is working actively to solve its problems.

It is, in fact, coming very close to implementing a working solution, and it’s only a matter of time before many of the woes of the current mail system are gone forever.

STUDENTS PAY FEES AND DESERVE A FUNCTIONAL E-MAIL SYSTEM

Published Mar. 15, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

NOTE: Follow-up to this column is above

Think back to your senior year of high school. Bad memories for some of you. Sorry. Specifically, think about the time that you enrolled at OU for the first time.

There was the obligatory adviser meeting, the gallery-worthy Sooner OneCard picture, and your new yourname-1@ou.edu e-mail address. This was likely followed by confusion, since your inbox was probably already home to several university-wide listserv messages. From then on, if you’re like most people on campus, you signed in to OU’s e-mail server in some form at least once day.

You’re more or less forced to. Most professors require, or at least prefer, communicating through OU mail. All university-related correspondence is delivered to your OU e-mail address. This means messages from the bursar’s office, academic services, the athletic ticket office and virtually every other campus office. Even if your mail is forwarded to another account at Yahoo or Gmail, for example, your mail still goes through the OU server.

Generally, that’s not a bad thing. OU mail is usually stable, reliable and quick. It’s simple to use, and gets your mail where it needs to be.

That’s only when it’s working properly.

Periodically, OU mail is reduced to the default “page cannot be found” screen. When this happens, it’s usually out of commission for the better part of a day. A highly nonscientific record seems to indicate that my OU mail has been down much more often lately than say last semester or last school year.

This can have significant consequences for students, particularly those dealing with graduate or medical school admission requirements this time of year. Given the busy life of a graduating senior, and most any student, often one block of time is set aside to answer e-mails and to send out materials before a looming deadline.

If OU mail just happens to be down during that time, you can sense what trouble that might bring to the student.
Even when it is working properly, OU mail has some irritating functionality issues.

Mail “sent” through OU mail sometimes doesn’t get delivered. At times, clicking on the “send” button in the message window produces no response. I have had firsthand knowledge of this on many occasions. The best fix is to save the message as a draft, and try to send it out again later. This isn’t a bad plan for casual e-mail contact, but can be a nightmare for time-sensitive communication.

Then there is the junk-mail filter, which doesn’t work that well.

I have mine turned on, like most students on campus. However, I still get hocked cheap Rolex watches, insider stock tips and Canadian male enhancement drugs via e-mail on an almost daily basis.

Turning off the junk-mail filter does not mean the end of troubles.

Consider the case of Ephraim Jobickson, a graduating senior wading through the pharmacy school admissions process. Many schools send out supplemental applications to those who have already submitted their main applications. One such school sent him an application on Jan. 1. It was never delivered to his OU mail inbox. “I could have interviewed at that school in early January,” he said. “But then because I did not receive the e-mail I had to resubmit a supplemental application in the middle of February.”

Punctuality is certainly of the essence in health-related graduate school admissions processes. An earlier interview often means a higher chance of getting in or better access to scholarship funds.

The university’s e-mail system should not cause problems for hopeful students. This is especially true because students are required to pay several Internet, e-mail and technology-related fees each semester. Much of that money is put to great use, seen by the expansion of wireless Internet all across campus.

But some of that attention should be given to the OU mail system.

Periodic slowdowns and overhauls are necessary. However, those slowdowns and periods of inoperability should come with prior warning. This would allow students time to complete important or time-sensitive communications before or after the period of inoperability.

The OU IT department advises deleting old messages to maintain optimum e-mail service, and cites the sheer amount of mail as a cause for its service hiccups. Couldn’t messages left on the server be automatically deleted by the IT department? If mail left at a post office is disposed of after so many days, why can’t that same practice be adopted for e-mails? This would likely make the mail system more reliable and very few would complain about not being able to find old e-mails from several months ago in their inboxes.

An overload of messages is not the only problem, and fixing that is not a miracle fix for OU mail’s problems. Our mail system is one that is made to use to maintain timely communication with many different entities on campus and off. We pay much in terms of technology-related fees to this university.

That entitles us to a stable, functional e-mail system that works like it’s supposed to.

If you disagree with me, feel free to send your comments to dailyopinion@ou.edu. Given the state of OU mail, they might not arrive.