Erstwhile Urban Wanderer

April 13, 2009 – What if you woke up in a world in which everything was turned on its head? Welcome to today!

By Dave Eriqat

Wow! I feel like I woke up in Wonderland, where everything is upside down and backward: good is evil, wise is extremist, facts are but figments of our overwrought imaginations. I read a breathtaking nine-page document published by the Department of Homeland Security on April 7, 2009 and apparently leaked into the “public” realm. Even though this document has the words “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY” emblazoned all over it, on the last page of the document, which is ostensibly intended solely for law enforcement personnel, a paragraph reads,

DHS encourages recipients of this document to report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity to DHS and the FBI. The DHS National Operations Center (NOC) can be reached by telephone at 202-282-9685 or by e-mail at NOC.Fusion@dhs.gov. For information affecting the private sector and critical infrastructure, contact the National Infrastructure Coordinating Center (NICC), a sub-element of the NOC. The NICC can be reached by telephone at 202-282-9201 or by e-mail at NICC@dhs.gov. The FBI regional phone numbers can be found online at http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/fo.htm.

Uh, wouldn’t professional law enforcement personnel already know to do this? Wouldn’t they already have all these telephone numbers and e-mail addresses? The inclusion of this little paragraph, addressed to “recipients” makes me suspect that this document was intentionally leaked to the public, perhaps as some kind of psychological tool aimed at making us doubt our own powers of observation.

After all, the document employs the words perceive and perception twelve times (in just nine pages), as in, all the facts that we can plainly see with our own eyes are merely misperceptions, figments of our imaginations. It then cites fact after fact as potential rallying points for “domestic rightwing extremists,” while attempting to dismiss those same facts as misperceptions. (The phrase, “rightwing extremist,” appears 34 times in the document, by the way, the definition of a “rightwing extremist” apparently being anyone who thinks for himself, trusts their own eyesight or even mildly disagrees with government policy.)

One of us, either the government or me, has gone insane. I think even George Orwell would be astonished by the extent of our depravity today, although to me it’s symptomatic of a rapidly escalating breakdown of civilization itself, at least of “western” civilization.

What I cannot figure out is whether this document is another overt declaration of war against the citizenry or if the authors really believe their refutation of reality. I can certainly understand how people working for the insular government could be utterly clueless about matters involving the economy, trade, jobs, the Constitution and personal liberty.

Paragraph By Paragraph Critique

(Page 3) Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” These “accusatory” tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.

The perceived loss of jobs? I suppose the government’s own Bureau of Labor Statistics is in on the vast right wing conspiracy theory, what with it’s reporting – that is, underreporting – of 600,000+ job losses per month! What, “financial elites” do not exist? Man, I’ve been on the wrong track all this time! I wonder, would the loss of one’s job cause them to perceive that the economy is worsening? After all, it has been said that it’s a recession when your neighbor loses their job, but a depression when you lose your own job. So I guess perception does play a role. Quick, what do you call a newly unemployed person? Answer: a potential “rightwing extremist” with a perception problem.

(Page 3) Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.

It’s funny how this document mentions the “new presidential administration’s” perceived stance on citizenship, but fails to mention the growing controversy over the president’s own citizenship status, which ironically could become one of the very rallying points for “rightwing extremists” that this document purports to disclose! The president’s citizenship status is crucial according to the Constitution, which states that only a natural born person may be the president. So far, the acting president hasn’t demonstrated the slightest inclination to prove where he was born. Quite the contrary, he’s demonstrated considerable inclination to keep all of his personal details a secret from we the people. The government often assures us that we shouldn’t be concerned about all of its snooping into our personal lives, that is, if we have nothing to hide. My retort to our “new presidential administration” is that it shouldn’t be concerned about revealing the details about the president’s place of birth, that is, if it has nothing to hide. “Firearms ownership and use” is protected by the Constitution, so it’s not unreasonable for people to be concerned about restrictions on ownership of firearms or their use. Issues of immigration, citizenship, the president’s own citizenship status, “expansion of social programs” and firearms are legitimate concerns for any attentive and engaged citizen. One does not have to be a “rightwing extremist” to wish to abide by our supposedly most sacred of documents, the Constitution.

(Page 4) Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage. During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.

Criticism of “free trade” agreements, you mean like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)? The role played by NAFTA in helping to destroy both the American and Mexican economies is clearly evident now. Our manufacturing base has shrunk since the passage of NAFTA and many of Mexico’s family farmers have been driven out of business by NAFTA. On top of that, some of the maquiladoras in Mexico that were the initial beneficiaries of NAFTA are now being closed and their work sent to China. A perceived government infringement on civil liberties? How about the explosive rise in the use of tasers to electrocute the populace into groveling submission? How about the epidemic of wiretapping and surveillance of the population, the domestic population? How about the piling of manufactured charges onto defendants in order to elicit plea bargains in over 90% of criminal cases? How about “free speech zones,” cordoned off well out of sight of political venues? How about people being arrested or harassed for having a bumper sticker on their car or a t-shirt on their torso? How about the recently introduced thought crime bill, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, otherwise known as H.R. 1955, which passed the House by an overwhelming majority? Are these not a bit more than perceived government infringements on civil liberties?

(Page 4) Historically, domestic rightwing extremists have feared, predicted, and anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States. Prominent antigovernment conspiracy theorists have incorporated aspects of an impending economic collapse to intensify fear and paranoia among like-minded individuals and to attract recruits during times of economic uncertainty. Conspiracy theories involving declarations of martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps often incorporate aspects of a failed economy. Antigovernment conspiracy theories and “end times” prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement.

“Domestic rightwing extremists have feared, predicted, and anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States.” A great many people have been predicting such an obviously predictable event, which is now clearly in progress. They are all “rightwing extremists” now? Martial law? Who was it who threatened Congress with the imposition of martial law if it failed to approve the first huge bailout bill? None other than the government’s own Treasury secretary. What about all those presidential directives, such as NPSD-51, that have been enacted that essentially give the president the power to impose martial law and commandeer the economy? Those presidential directives are fantasies? Citizen detention camps are fantasies too? What about the well-known KBR contract to build such detention camps, ostensibly to house an influx of illegal immigrants, as well as for “other programs”? So stockpiling food is now an extremist activity? What about growing one’s own food in a backyard garden? Is that an extremist activity? Oh, yeah, it soon will be thanks again to the House, which is sponsoring H.R. 875, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, which may eventually make it illegal for people to grow their own food. Personally, I think that’s precisely one of the objectives, as power for government and profits for corporations are the twin goals of most legislation anymore. (There I go again with my wacky conspiracy theories.)

(Page 5) Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico.

And all those concerns from the 1990s have been borne out! Illegal immigrants and foreign workers have been taking jobs from American citizens. In fact, “domestic” law firms exist for the express purpose of helping companies not find a qualified American job applicant, so that the company can hire a foreign applicant on an H1-B visa instead! Fear not, fellow citizens, these job losses aren’t real, they are merely your misperception.

(Page 5) Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence.

Is not the whole point of “gun control legislation” to reduce access to firearms? I believe the “threat to their right to bear arms” that people perceive is merited. It’s interesting that this document uses the phrase, “bear arms,” since that’s the same archaic phrase used in the Constitution, the relevant portion of the Second Amendment reading, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

(Page 6) Rightwing extremist paranoia of foreign regimes could escalate or be magnified in the event of an economic crisis or military confrontation, harkening back to the “New World Order” conspiracy theories of the 1990s. The dissolution of Communist countries in Eastern Europe and the end of the Soviet Union in the 1990s led some rightwing extremists to believe that a “New World Order” would bring about a world government that would usurp the sovereignty of the United States and its Constitution, thus infringing upon their liberty. The dynamics in 2009 are somewhat similar, as other countries, including China, India, and Russia, as well as some smaller, oil-producing states, are experiencing a rise in economic power and influence.

“‘New World Order’ conspiracy theories”? Was it merely in my conspiracy theorist imagination that President Bush first uttered that famous phrase in the early 1990s? Has the phrase “New World Order” not been prevalent as a newspaper headline lately? Is not world government and a world currency being openly discussed today? Is not the North American Union (Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America) a step in the direction of world government and a loss of sovereignty for the U.S.?

Notice that the URL for the SPP has a .gov top level domain, indicating that it’s a government web site? Also notice its pretty logo, which merges the U.S., Canadian and Mexican flags? Perhaps the image above is just part of the “conspiracy theory” rattling around in my head, a misperception on my part.

(Page 7) Rightwing extremist views bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and have recently focused on themes such as the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India, Russia’s control of energy resources and use of these to pressure other countries, and China’s investment in U.S. real estate and corporations as a part of subversion strategy.

I, too, bemoan the loss of U.S. manufacturing for the simple reason that it’s one of the principal sources of wealth creation, the other being agriculture. Without a means to create wealth a country can no more subsist than can a bum without a job. It is factually evident that the U.S. manufacturing base has been systematically transferred to both China and India, among other countries. Russia does control quite a lot of energy resources, notably oil, while the U.S. production of oil, in particular, has dropped by about half since 1970. Sensible people are prudent to be concerned about these trends.

Maybe I can no longer perceive this world correctly. Maybe the chemtrails I see in the sky aren’t chemtrails at all, but lingering contrails (in contrast to other contrails that evaporate within seconds). Maybe two plus two really does equal five.

Update – 12 August 2009

According to this article, the DHS “extremist” report is based not on sound data, but on various postings on the internet, mostly on web sites known to spew disinformation. To quote the article, “A tenth grader could have complied a more compelling source list.”

April 2, 2009 – A cross-cultural effort to promote understanding between the people of Iran and the United States.

By Kourosh Ziabari and Dave Eriqat

I owe to Dave Eriqat unendingly. He was among the first Americans who had paid a cordial homage to my call for the establishment of a coalition for resisting ignorance and unawareness. I wrote an article about the friendship of Iranian and American people a few months ago, and Dave emailed me to set up this friendship in practice. He is a veteran computer programmer and freelance journalist, with whom I built the construction of a mutual, cross-cultural endeavor to promote bilateral understanding between our nations.

Our governments have been at odds with together over the past 30 years; the longstanding affability of Iran and U.S. soon turned into a staunch hostility following the victory of Islamic Revolution in 1979 which toppled the unpopular, U.S.-backed Shah of Iran. Since then, Iran and U.S. became Tome and Jerry!

Nevertheless, the communal relationship of people on the both sides, particularly in the terms of cultural exchanges has never been flawed. Academicians, athletes, journalists, artists and common tourists have been commuting over the two sides perpetually to unveil the concealed realities of "Great Satan" and "The Axis of Evil" impartially.

The new U.S. President won the hearts of Americans with his brilliant, gleaming motto of change and has chanted his eagerness to sit face-to-face by the Iranian president and break the hoarfrost of 30-years animosity several times.

Given the gradual preparation of grounds for a stable reconciliation between Iran and the U.S., we, I and Dave, decided to explore our countries profoundly and disclose the obscured realities of them for the other side.

In the first part of our common effort, Dave interviewed me to figure out about Iran from various angles: culture, lifestyle, politics, economy, tourism, arts etc. What follows is the second part of the same project, in which I interviewed Dave to introduce a real America to Iranians from his viewpoint. I categorized my questions into 9 categories and each category comprises some relevant questions.

By reading this interview, you will catch an almost clear and tangible view of life in the U.S. from different dimensions and understand the details of what happens in the 4th largest countries of the world through the questions of a so-called journalist from the 18th largest country of the world.

Interview

a) American Lifestyle

Kourosh Ziabari: In most Hollywood movies which the Iranian TV channels screen, we encounter single-parent homes; families in which either the father or mother is missing due to divorce, death, struggle etc. What’s the reality of American family? How much are the parents committed to the basis of family? Can you give us a proportion of single-parent families?

DE: Single-parent families are quite common in America, primarily due to divorce. Americans readily divorce, remarry, divorce again, not taking the “until death do us part” portion of the marriage vow very seriously. I believe that today something around half of marriages end in divorce, and perhaps half of families are single-parent ones, a much higher rate than when I was a child. Back then, two-parent households were the norm where I grew up. In those days, the mother stayed home and took care of the house and children and the father went to work, from which his income alone could support the family.

—

KZ: Is divorce and remarriage something ordinary in American culture? Do the parents separate as soon as they encounter struggles, misunderstandings and inconvenience with each other?

DE: I partially answered this question above. Yes, it’s easier for people to simply separate when they encounter problems than try to work them out, especially since there’s no stigma against divorce like there used to be. Fifty years ago a divorced woman, for example, was highly stigmatized and shunned. Not today.

A major cause of divorce is financial difficulty. For example, if one wage-earner loses a job and the couple starts to fall behind on their mortgage payments, and the bills start to pile up, their relationship suffers immensely, often resulting in divorce. The overriding factor, however, is that for the last few decades the standard of living in this country has been quietly declining, leading to more frequent financial difficulty. Again, when I was a kid, divorce due to financial problems was rare because families enjoyed a robust standard of living. One of the perversities of American culture is that people are expected to be “independent.” So if a couple experiences problems, especially financial problems, they are expected to work them out themselves. To ask for assistance from family is humiliating and an admission of failure, even if they had family members who were in a position to help out, which is not necessarily the case. So this feeling of isolation adds to the stress associated with such problems.

Another cause of divorce, oddly enough, is government policy. Forty years ago divorce was stigmatized. Even being single, especially for women, was viewed with slight suspicion. But a woman having a child out of wedlock was downright scandalous. In fact, there was a song by Diana Ross and The Supremes from the 1960s, title “Love Child,” about the stigma associated with out of wedlock births. Between then and now the government greatly expanded the welfare system, especially with regard to single mothers. In effect, the government gives single mothers on welfare a sum of money that’s based on how many children they have! So the government is effectively encouraging these welfare mothers to have more children. In fact, if there’s a father around to help support the children, the mother will receive less from the government, so the government’s policy is encouraging single motherhood as well. The fact that single mothers can be supported by the government, whereas before they required a husband to support them, has helped erase the stigma associated with divorce, single motherhood or even out of wedlock births.

One final contributing factor to divorce is women entering the workforce. Again, forty years ago not many women worked. They were generally supported by a husband. Beginning in the 1970s there was a huge surge of women entering the workforce, which liberated them in a sense and enabled them to support themselves without a husband. So single women today have two ways to support themselves that were largely unavailable forty years ago: by working or going on welfare.

—

KZ: What components are considered the moral and ethical fundamentals of American society? Which elements do the American people reckon as morale? Are the dressing codes and norms included in American ethics?

DE: This is a difficult question to answer because the moral values in this country have changed markedly over the last few decades and are in flux even now. Let me answer the question by describing the moral values “then” and “today.”

When I was a kid, forty years ago, values like integrity, honesty, bravery, piety, compassion, loyalty were highly valued. The television shows of that era reflected those values. Today, most of these values are “relative,” devotion to them varying depending on the circumstances. People claim to be religious but don’t seem to exhibit the behaviors dictated by their religion, such as compassion and love. People claim to be honest, but don’t see anything wrong with telling “white lies” or pilfering office supplies from their employer. People say they have integrity, but look at all the people hired by our new president who can’t seem to abide by the very laws they are hired to enforce! People are loyal only so long as they can profit. Companies lay off employees as soon as their profits decline and employees leave their employer as soon as they get a better offer. People are “brave” only when shielded by armor and armed with overwhelming weaponry. Today, agreements must be put in writing or they are unenforceable, whereas in the past you could trust someone’s word and handshake. For example, I did consulting work for a company for over fifteen years and never had anything but a verbal agreement with the people running that company. They never had any doubts about my loyalty or integrity, and I never had any doubts about theirs. Then a few years ago the company was purchased by a conglomerate run by lawyers and accountants. Today, after over fifteen years of loyal service, they insist I sign a fifteen page contract! I have not changed; the company has not changed; the only thing that has changed is the culture.

—

KZ: How is the quality of relationship between children and parents in the American family? Is it much important for the parents to be respected by the children in all terms of verbal and non-verbal demeanor? Do the American parents reprimand their children if they use aggressive or impolite language?

DE: Here is another area that has changed markedly over the last few decades. When I was a kid, children respected their parents. Any disrespect or foul language was met with strict punishment. Not only that, children were expected to behave in public, under threat of punishment, even in public if need be. Today, parents are exceedingly permissive, tolerating not only abuse and disrespect from their children, but tolerating their children misbehaving in public.

Why the change? To some extent it’s a cyclical cultural phenomenon in which values swing between strict and permissive. But there’s also been a politically-motivated trend to remove control from parents and give it to the state. Parents have been systematically disempowered. For example, today it borders on child abuse for parents to spank their children, but it was common when I was a kid. Children are also encouraged by the state to tattle on their parents if they do anything illegal or even merely peculiar. In other words, the state is trying to encourage in children a fealty to it rather than the children’s own parents. The increasing use of foul language in video games, television, movies and music has made it “acceptable” for children to use today and is largely tolerated by parents unless carried to extremes. Even then, however, the child will likely receive only a mild reprimand. Finally, school teachers have little recourse anymore. Again, when I was a kid, any teacher could punish a student as they would their own child and the student’s parents would probably have thanked the teacher! Today, teachers dare not punish misbehaving students out of fear of legal reprisals or job loss. So children have little in the way of strict boundaries anymore and are free to behave as they wish.

—

KZ: Is it much important for the family to meet the daily meals on a single table? Does it indicate rudeness or insolence if all of the family members do not sit at a same table for eating?

DE: The family meal is largely a thing of the past. At breakfast time one or sometimes both parents often grab a granola bar and a cup of coffee and head to work. That’s partly because they have long commutes to drive so they have to leave home early and spend considerable time sitting in heavy traffic. So the family doesn’t usually eat breakfast together. Lunch is almost never eaten together since the children eat at school and the parents eat at work. Dinner is often eaten as a family, but it’s not uncommon for a family member to be absent. A parent might have to work late, a child might be eating with a friend or engaged in some school activity. It’s not considered the least bit rude for someone to be absent from a family meal. Today, a lot of families don’t cook much at home either, preferring to go out as a family and have fast food or order a pizza to be delivered at home. Another thing that’s changed the eating habits of Americans is the microwave oven. Even kids can “cook” a meal for themselves today by pulling something frozen from the freezer and putting it in the microwave oven. That “self-reliance” takes the pressure off the parents to stay at home and cook for the family, which was the case when I was a kid, before microwave ovens were invented.

—

KZ: What materials and appliances are ubiquitous in American homes visibly; a hallmark presence of a special item which the American families are bound to preserve, like carpets in Persian homes?

DE: The preeminent appliance in American homes is the television, which has nearly assumed the status of a religious altar. Nearly every home has at least one television and some homes have a television in nearly every room! I believe some people even have televisions in their bathrooms. The second most favored appliance is probably the microwave oven. Interestingly, the two go together, as people vegetating in front of the television can run to the kitchen and microwave some kind of snack food during a commercial break!

A lot of homes have clothes washers and dryers, although drying clothes on an outdoor clothesline is not uncommon, especially in the rural area in which I live. Interestingly, some modern housing developments, wishing to maintain their aesthetic appearance, actually prohibit the use of clotheslines as unsightly. That attitude unveils the energy-centric attitude of American culture: it’s better to consume some energy than despoil the pristine appearance of the community. A lot of homes also have automatic dishwashers.

As to heirlooms, they are rare anymore. Decades ago families passed down heirlooms: rugs, quilts, furniture, paintings, photographs, and so forth, although what constituted an heirloom differed from one family to the next. One family might treasure an old photograph of the family; another a quilt made by a distant relative; another a piece of furniture passed down through the generations; another an old wedding dress worn by many a maiden.

In today’s shiny new, transitory culture, those things have little value. Another commentary on our closing era of “affluence” is that we value new things more than used. We discard anything old and used and replace it with something brand new. I’m somewhat of a Luddite (one who rejects modernity), because I prefer to surround myself with old things and actually fix and refurbish things if possible, rather than buy new things.

b) Religion and ethics

KZ: According to stats, as of 2008 there are 6 to 7 million Muslims in the U.S.. How is the quality of their co-existence with other Americans? What’s the feeling and perception of American people when seeing Muslims going to mosques, or doing ritual customs publicly?

DE: Muslims here enjoy complete freedom to practice their religion and culture. I have many Muslim family members who associate with others of their kind, attend mosques freely, have no trouble finding ethnic foods, and so forth. Of course, they live in cities. In the countryside, it would be much more difficult for them. Not only would they face a greater likelihood of discrimination, but there are no mosques, ethnic food stores or venues in which to associate with others of their kind. Many own small businesses. In fact, it’s a popular joke in American cities that convenience stores are often owned by Arabs, Indians or Pakistanis. There are lots of restaurants serving Arab and Persian cuisine. They are typically owned by Muslims and popular with ordinary Americans.

It wasn’t always so easy, though, even in the cities. As recently as twenty years ago, Muslims were a rare sight and were openly discriminated against while simply being in public, if wearing identifiable clothing. Today people think nothing of it, at least, in the cities. If a Muslim woman were to walk around the town where I live with her head covered in a scarf, she’d raise a few eyebrows, but that’s about all. Were a mosque to open up around here, it might cause some consternation among the largely Christian people, but they probably wouldn’t oppose it.

The only time Muslims face difficulty is when there’s some kind of “incident” in which Muslims are implicated. Then Americans are quick to look for appropriate scapegoats and Muslims face a spike of discrimination, although it usually abates after a while.

—

KZ: How much time and investment do the American media outlets dedicate to the propagation of religion? Is there any major TV program or newspaper section which introduces religious customs, traditional beliefs etc?

DE: No, the business world here is pretty secular. Part of it is financially motivated. There are several popular religions, so showing favor to any one will alienate practitioners of the others. In addition, the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from favoring any religion, so that mentality pervades American culture. Religion is generally deemed a private matter, although certain religions, notably Christianity, keep trying to influence public policy, and, in fact, many public laws have their roots in the Christian religion. For example, it’s illegal to sell alcohol in my county on Sundays, which almost certainly stems from the Christian religion.

It’s generally accepted that people here are religious and believe in god. It’s just not talked about in the media. Actually, Americans are among the most religious people on the planet if polls can be trusted.

—

KZ: How is the contribution of Muslims to the official body of US government and its affiliated organizations? Are there any prominent Muslim figures in US who hold important offices or titles?

DE: Muslims don’t have a lot of influence or visibility here. It has been reputed that our new president is or was a Muslim, but I believe he has denied it. I believe there was recently a cabinet-level official or prominent member of Congress who was a Muslim, but no name comes to mind. The fact that I cannot name anyone offhand reveals how underrepresented Muslims are in American politics. America seems to harbor a certain amount of antipathy toward most of the Muslim world. If our president was at one time a Muslim, I’m sure he felt compelled to deny it on those grounds alone. It does sound kind of strange that Muslim Americans would be tolerated, yet we would harbor antipathy and suspicion toward Muslims outside our country, but that seems to be the case.

—

KZ: The conversion of Americans to Islam and other monotheistic religions have surged dramatically in the past years. What’s the main reason in your view?

DE: I sense a great dissatisfaction among Americans with the established political, religious and economic systems. That alone might account for them wanting to try something new. After all, we in America love to try new things. The conversion to Islam may turn out to be little more than experimentation for most, a fad. I don’t sense that there’s a huge groundswell of interest in abandoning Christianity in favor of Islam. This country will probably remain staunchly Christian, unless the Muslim population grows disproportionately.

One thing that might be driving Americans from Christianity to Islam is their sense that their religion has become a fraud. As I mentioned earlier, many people are religious in name but not in deed. The same is even more true for some churches here, some of which are little more than businesses operating behind an evangelical facade. I could see sincere people becoming disillusioned by that fraud and searching for something more honest and meaningful.

—

KZ: Violence and immorality in the American media, especially the movies and among the extensive cartel of celebrities, has been a major icon and symbol for the lack of ethical principles in the society of U.S., though it might be incorrect and many American people cling to certain moral notions. How do you interpret that?

DE: I’m not quite sure how to respond to this question because I’m not sure if violence and immorality is a reflection of American mores or a cause of their decline. It’s probably a little of both, as these relationships often develop a feedback loop in which one feeds the other. In any case, these negative qualities did not arise in isolation, but are related to the other factors I mentioned above, including absentee, permissive parents; a domineering government, which is inherently violent; a pervasive corporate presence, which is inherently immoral; a defunct school system; weakened religious institutions; a decreasing standard of living and job security; and a weakened, fragmented family structure. As you might imagine, the combination of all these factors would tend to dissolve the moral foundation of any society. Moreover, these factors didn’t exist forty or fifty years ago, but arose only in the last few decades. I can tell you that depictions of senseless violence and immorality were not common in the media forty years ago, quite the opposite. Television programs and movies depicted noble qualities which seem quaint and embarrassingly naive by today’s cynical standards.

—

KZ: Unlike the Islamic nations and some European countries, there is no gender separation in US for any field and purpose. Have this perpetual mixture had any negative impact on the base of family, ethics and morality in US? Did the American society suffer from its borderless freedom and openness of relations at all?

DE: The impact of women entering the workforce was very significant. Among other things, it almost doubled the pool of available workers, which I believe has played a role in the decline of wages ever since. Now, I don’t want to sound like some chauvinist. I see nothing wrong with women in the workforce. But let’s face it: if you double the number of workers, they are going to command lower salaries. What’s more, with both parents working, as is often the case today, the children do not have the supervision I had as a kid. I personally think that has played a large and under-acknowledged role in the decline of our moral fabric. Again, it’s simply intuitive: if nobody is supervising the children, how are they going to learn good values? Personally, I think what we should have done is for every woman entering the workforce and man should have left it. That would have kept the proportion of workers the same, maintained higher wages and left somebody at home to take care of the children. I also have long believed that it’s almost counterproductive for both parents to work. Doing so, they need two cars, they have to pay for child care, they have to pay somebody to clean the house or take care of the yard, they will probably end up in a higher income tax bracket, they spend more money eating out, plus the children grow up without supervision. All in all, it doesn’t seem as if two parents working actually accomplish much. Personally, I’d love to be a househusband, supported by my wife! I would happily cook and clean and take care of the yard and the kids.

One correction I would make to your assertion, however, is that there is a distinction between men and women in the workforce. Women typically earn about three-quarters as much money as men for the same work. In addition, women aren’t always welcome in every profession, especially those traditionally regarded as “men’s” work, such as construction. Women may enjoy grudging tolerance in such occupations, but will often leave because they don’t feel welcome. There is also the proverbial glass ceiling which prevents women from rising high in the executive ranks of companies. And some companies, such as a huge, well-known retail chain, are notoriously discriminatory against women as store managers.

c) Culture and arts

KZ: The U.S., I believe, is the most inter-cultural and international community of the world. How many nationalities can one American citizen find around him/herself at the same moment? How many colleagues do you yourself, for example, have in your workplace?

DE: Now this is another difficult question because there is more than one answer, depending on where you look. Where I live, for instance, the only nationality other than American is Latin American. There are a surprising number of Mexican or Latin American people here. There are also a few Chinese people. That’s about it. In cities, it’s a different story, although it varies from city to city. San Francisco, California, for instance, where I once lived, has a vibrant mixture of people from probably every continent. You can probably find several dozen different nationalities in San Francisco. But in a city like Memphis, Tennessee, which is only a little less populous than San Francisco, you may find only half a dozen significant nationalities. In addition, the different cultures do not necessarily mingle. It’s natural for people to self-segregate and congregate with others of their own kind. That’s definitely true in America as well, and one frequently finds areas that are dominated by a particular ethnicity. For example, in San Diego, California, there are Arab areas of town, Korean areas, Chinese areas, Japanese areas, Vietnamese areas, Latin areas and perhaps a few others. The people of each ethnicity tend to stick to their area of town, although there’s no difficulty involved in their going to other parts of town or other people coming to their part of town. In fact, if one is looking for ethnic food, it’s best to go to the part of town devoted to that ethnicity. The same pattern exists in most American cities, although there are different degrees of ethnic blending.

I have worked with Indians, Chinese and Indonesians in my work as a computer programmer, though not all at once. Different professions offer different degrees of ethnic mixing. A hospital, for example, might employ people of ten different ethnicities, whereas a construction company might have workers from just two.

—

KZ: For you personally, how is the experience of dealing and relating with people from a number of diverse cultural backgrounds who come from every part of the world perceived? For example, as I know, there are a number of 2 million Iranians merely residing in LA. Does it convey any special sense to you to communicate with "foreigners" regularly?

DE: For me it’s totally natural because I grew up living in large cities and traveled extensively to other parts of the world. We had an Indian family on our street in the suburbs when I was a kid. One of my friends in middle school was Persian. And my family on my father’s side is Arabic, so I had to learn to appreciate different cultures from an early age. This is not the case for many Americans, however, especially those who have lived their lives outside of major cities. Many of these people seldom encounter different cultures.

—

KZ: I assume cinema is the most popular field of art in US, alongside music. Which kind of movies and films do the American people like the most? What is the most well-liked music type in your country? Here in Iran, the prevalent conception is that American people are fond of scratchy, abrasive heavy-metal and things like that. Is it correct?

DE: It’s hard to say what kind of movies other people like, but judging from the box office receipts, big, colorful action movies, like the recent “Batman” movie, are immensely popular. In part, that’s because mostly kids and young adults go to the movies. Older people go less frequently because they are often too busy.

Among young and even middle aged people I suppose good old rock and roll music is the most popular. Heavy metal has a large following, but it’s definitely not the most popular type of music. A lot of people cannot stand that type of music. Much the same is true of rap. In places like where I live a lot of people love country western music, some of the modern forms of which sound a bit like rock and roll. There is also a small but growing audience for Christian rock music which has religious lyrics and a rock and roll sound.

—

KZ: How many hours do the American people study a day? Are the American people the regular fans of newspaper and books? Are there any incentives or spurs by the state to encourage and expand the reading trends country-wide?

DE: I’m not sure I’d say Americans actually “study,” except for students, who may study for several hours a day. I personally spend several hours a day reading, and other people like me do the same, but the vast majority of Americans don’t spend that much time reading. I have read that Americans spend an average of eight hours a day watching television. That sounds a bit high to me, but it’s possible. Some people turn the television on as soon as they get up in the morning and it stays on until bedtime, whether they watch it all the time or not. I think it’s safe to say Americans spend a few hours a day watching television, probably more time than they spend reading.

Many Americans subscribe to a daily newspaper, although the number of such customers is shrinking rapidly, thanks to the internet. In addition, the quality of newspapers has declined markedly. Speaking for myself, there’s nothing in the newspaper I cannot read about in greater depth on the internet. The newspapers in America are mainly giant advertising forums with “news” articles sprinkled about. The same is true of most magazines and television news programs, which are following newspapers into obsolescence.

Books are popular, but the most popular of them are fictional novels or biographies of people. Weighty philosophical or literary works, nonfiction and books of a technical nature aren’t terribly popular.

The government does nothing to encourage reading or literacy. Local governments do fund the public libraries, but don’t do much to promote their use. And since the government has seized upon library reading records as a new means of surveillance, it creates a disincentive for people to use the libraries.

The sad reality is that in some parts of America, particularly certain urban ghettos, as many as one-third of the people are functionally illiterate. What makes this figure startling is that all these people attended government-run schools. Obviously, these schools have been a major failure for these illiterate people.

—

KZ: Do the American citizens spend their leisure, weekend times in museums, libraries or cultural complexes?

DE: Once again, this varies from city to city and between city and country. In the cities, people spend their leisure time shopping, dining in upscale restaurants, going to bars and nightclubs, attending sporting events, going to parks and beaches, bicycling or walking, seeing movies, live theater and symphonies, and visiting museums. Museums are often more popular with tourists than local residents, however. Libraries are primarily utilitarian in nature, as places to borrow books as opposed to places to visit for their cultural value, and only a small percentage of people actually use libraries. Increasingly, people use libraries for the free internet access they offer, especially people who don’t have their own computers.

The list of attractions varies from city to city. Cities like New York or Chicago have rich heritages and a huge assortment of museums, theaters and musical venues, and the local people in these cities tend to use them quite a lot. Other cities, such as San Diego, have paltry cultural attractions, but nice animal zoos, which are popular with both the local residents and tourists.

There is no government direction in regards to what sorts of cultural attractions are available in each city. Almost all of them are more or less operated as businesses, so their availability is largely dictated by market demand. Some venues, such as museums, might receive some government subsidies, but the government is as likely to subsidize a sports stadium as a museum. And when local governments need to save money, public libraries are often one of the first things to feel the impact of budget cuts, which underscores their lack of importance.

In the countryside, where I live, the leisure activities are quite different from those in the cities. Here people go boating, fishing, hunting, offroading, see movies, go shopping, dine in pedestrian restaurants and attend high school sporting events.

—

KZ: Can you provide us with some relative figures regarding the number of museums, cultural centers, libraries, cinemas and theaters in the U.S.? I think the number exceeds a hundred thousand! However, can you give us some classified numbers?

DE: You know, I absolutely could not say. A hundred thousand sounds a bit high. i recently read that there were 1.1 million retail stores in this country, but that as many as 25% of them are expected to close as a result of the severe economic downturn we’re going through. I would say that the number of retail stores outnumbers the venues you mentioned by at least 10 to 1, so it’s remotely conceivable that there are one hundred thousand such cultural venues. Certainly movie theaters are by far the most abundant, then libraries, and then far behind would be museums. I suppose that breakdown gives some indication of the relative popularity of each venue.

d) Fiscals and monetary

KZ: How much is the average income of an American family per month? To which factors is the amount of family’s salary connected; the number of working members in a family, the quality of job or things like that?

DE: I believe the median household income is about $45,000 per year, which works out to a little less than $4,000 per month. Housing is the largest expense for middle class families, which spend between 25% and 50% of their gross income on housing. Income taxes are the next biggest expense for many, costing anywhere from about 10% to 35% of income for a middle class taxpayer. It’s difficult to estimate how much income tax wealthy people pay because they have so many ways to avoid paying income tax. Automobile expense is considerable, especially if both parents are working. Two car payments, insurance and gasoline for them could easily cost $1,500 per month. Utilities, especially heating, are expensive too. The total monthly utility cost for most households is probably between $200 and $800. Food is also pretty expensive, with a total household food budget about equal to the utility budget.

As you might surmise from my figures above, it’s exceedingly difficult for most households in America to actually pay all their expenses and have any money left over. In fact, for years American families have been spending more than they earn, making up the difference with their credit cards or by borrowing against their houses. That’s a manifestation of the decline in wages I mentioned earlier and the explosion of debt is the primary cause of our current economic downturn.

—

KZ: I heard that the financial situations, the average income, poverty and wealth vary from one state to another, depending on which state you study. Is it correct? If so, then what states are wealthier and why?

DE: Oh, yes, there’s a huge difference from region to region. And again, everything is in flux at the moment because of the economic crisis. States that were once wealthy, such as California, are quickly becoming impoverished. States that were once poor but are rich in natural resources, particularly energy resources, are seeing their fortunes improve rapidly.

Traditionally, the east coast and west coast have been the wealthiest areas. The east coast is the oldest, most established part of the country and benefits from trade with Europe. The west coast is the youngest area, but highly desirable for its scenic beauty and pleasant climate. It was also the focus of the gold rush in the mid-nineteenth century. And it benefits from trade with Asia. Both the east and west coasts are densely populated with universities, cultural venues, entertainment and financial companies, government, and have tended to attract the brightest and most talented workers.

The middle areas of the country have traditionally been devoted to mining and agriculture, which have not traditionally paid very high wages. They are also beset with less pleasant weather than one finds along the ocean: hot summers, cold winters, abundant rain, snow and wind.

The south, along the Gulf of Mexico has perhaps the lowest wages generally, reflecting both the middle country syndrome and the legacy of slavery.

Now, I grew up in an affluent area on the west coast. One interesting observation I’ve made since moving to the middle part of the country is that while it often appears poor, there seems to be a lot of hidden wealth. People here save their money and have less debt than people on the coasts. They are also not ostentatious about showing off their wealth, preferring to live in modest houses, drive pickup trucks and wear work clothes. Nevertheless, someone fitting that description may well be a millionaire. In California, by contrast, one might see someone living in a small mansion, driving a flashy, expensive car, wearing expensive clothes and jewelery, earning $200,000 per year, but having so much debt that they have a net worth of zero.

—

KZ: Which occupations and jobs are the most moneymaking and remunerative careers in the U.S.?

DE: In this country the manager of a financial fund can earn a salary of as much as $1 billion per year (until recently, that is), while a migrant laborer on a farm might earn a few thousand dollars. More generally, the middle class earns about $45,000 and the wealthy class earns upwards of $1 million per year.

Corporate executives typically earn a few million dollars in salary, plus bonuses and stock options worth several million more. In extreme cases, executives might earn several hundred million dollars per year. Investment bankers, before all the investment banks disappeared, would receive annual bonuses in the millions of dollars. Movie and television stars can earn into the hundreds of millions per year. Sports superstars can earn in the tens of millions per year. Famous authors can earn millions, as can high profile former politicians, who receive hundreds of thousands of dollars per speech, or millions for a “book deal” after leaving office. That’s the primary reason they want to go into politics, for the money. Any politician who claims they want to serve the public is lying.

—

KZ: Which point is defined as the poverty threshold in US? How many Americans do live under the poverty line? Is the term "poor" referred to a person who does not own a personal home, could not afford his daily expenses, lives in absolute poverty and destitution in US?

DE: I believe the government’s threshold of poverty is a household income of about $20,000 or less for a family of four. I would estimate that at least 20% of the population falls below that threshold. After all, the median household income is only about $45,000, meaning that half the population earns less than that.

“Poor” generally refers to one’s income, including retirement income if one is retired. For instance, elderly people living on Social Security might be considered poor if their “income” from Social Security places them below the threshold I cited. There are other vague measures of “poor” as well, including struggling to pay one’s expenses, not owning much property or an inability to adequately feed one’s self or family. Actually, many “poor” people do own their homes. Roughly 65% of people in this country own their homes, although two-thirds of those homes have mortgages on them, so in reality the bank owns them.

Most people would consider me to be poor since I have no income anymore and a small amount of cash in the bank. Yet I’m wealthier than most Americans because I own my house, my car and everything else and have no debts. Many Americans who are not viewed as poor are actually poorer than me once they subtract their debts from their assets. Deciding who is poor and who is not is kind of confusing since it depends on what factors are examined.

—

KZ: Is an average American family, with the medium monthly incomes, capable of renewing home appliances, buying a new car and refurbishing the house view once it decides? Aside from the daily expenses of transportation, buying comestibles, paying for the children and also the taxes, what are the major expenses of an American family in a month?

DE: Most Americans pay for major purchases, such as cars, appliances and home improvements with credit. So the deciding factor is whether they have any credit available and whether they can afford to make the additional debt payments. Until recently, new purchases like those above were easy to finance with credit. Now, however, with credit being tightened, such purchases have all but ceased and few Americans have cash savings that they can turn to in lieu of credit. So right now, no, they cannot actually purchase those things easily.

Of course, housing is the largest cost. There is usually a mortgage, property taxes, insurance (which is required by the lender), and for many people, homeowner’s association fees, which are not inconsequential. Another major expense is health care. Many people have health insurance. Some have part of their insurance paid for by their employers, but still have to pay a significant portion of their health care costs out of their own pocket. Others pay their entire health insurance cost out of their own pocket and it can easily exceed $1,000 per month for a family. On top of that, we have become a drug-crazy culture, and it’s not uncommon for people to take ten different drugs a day, costing them thousands of dollars per year! Some of that cost is paid for by health insurance or government programs, but some is paid for by the people themselves. Health care in this country is so expensive it defies belief. For example, if one fall’s and breaks their arm and seeks medical attention, the ultimate bill could be $25,000. A more serious medical problem requiring surgery could easily exceed $100,000. Without insurance, a person could be financially ruined by such costs.

—

KZ: Does the American government purvey any kind of special aid to the families? For example, does it shell a regular amount of subside out to the bank accounts of American families who have registered for a special program or initiative?

DE: There are actually many government programs to help people, but they are often difficult to qualify for and often provide inadequate assistance.

I mentioned earlier the welfare system which in effect pays dependent mothers to have more children. The catch is that welfare dependents have to be abjectly poor and own almost no assets to qualify. In effect, they have to agree to become almost totally dependent on the government.

There are also housing assistance programs that are similar, providing government housing to people who essentially become totally dependent on the government. Of course, there are far more people who would like to take advantage of these programs than can be accommodated.

There are also food stamps, which are more widely available to people and don’t require total dependency on the government. However, in order to qualify for food stamps one has to be far below the poverty threshold I cited above, and the amount of assistance is not sufficient to pay for all of one’s food. I know this because I investigated applying for food stamps myself and did not qualify!

There is the retirement system, known as Social Security, which provides a “pension” to people in their old age. In theory, this pension system is funded by the participants, but in reality the participants do not adequately fund it, so the payments represent a government expense (or will within a few years when the taxes collected no longer exceed the payments).

There is also a health care system for old people, called Medicare. Again, one must be quite old to participate in this system and still must pay for a portion of their care themselves, and it doesn’t cover all medical needs or cover them fully. It’s not at all comprehensive. And like the Social Security system, Medicare will soon become fiscally unsupportable.

Bank accounts receive no special benefits but are effectively “subsidized” by government insurance. In other words, the government guarantees that people won’t lose any money they put in the bank.

In addition to all the above, there are state and municipal forms of assistance, although, with the exception of pensions, these generally provide even fewer benefits than the federal government programs. State and municipal pensions for retired employees, on the other hand, are quite generous, but are totally unsustainable. So it won’t be long before these programs are sharply curtailed.

e) Social and public affairs

KZ: Gun ownership seems to be the most crucial challenge of American government. Is it permissible for every citizen to own a personal handgun or firearm on the condition that he can just afford it?

DE: Increasingly, the federal, state and municipal governments are trying to remove guns from the citizens’ hands, either by passing laws banning them, denying them to felons, requiring citizens to comply with onerous rules to acquire them or by organizing gun collection drives. Governments, for instance, will pay people to “turn in” guns, or they will trade food for guns. Just the other day a state was offering to trade roses for guns. The U.S. Constitution permits citizens to own guns, so it’s difficult for governments to ban them outright, although some cities have successfully done so. It’s easier, however, for governments to find roundabout ways to take away peoples’ guns.

The issue of guns in the hands of citizens is an important philosophical one. Countries that seek to keep guns out of the hands of citizens are usually less free than those that permit citizens to own guns. The U.S. has a lengthy legacy of private gun ownership, but now as the country faces the twilight of its liberty, the government is seeking to deprive the citizens of their guns.

—

KZ: Is unemployment a major issue in US? How many Americans are jobless? Are the university graduates employed by the state once they have finished their academic studies?

DE: Chronically, for the last thirty years, and during times of acute crisis before that, unemployment has been a huge political issue here. The last three decades have been particularly problematic because Americans are fighting a losing battle against macroeconomic factors, namely globalization. Globalization has sent their jobs to other countries and facilitated the importation of foreign workers.

At the present time, the government’s “official” statistics indicate that only about 7% of Americans are unemployed. However, the government statistics have been notoriously corrupted over the last few decades in order to paint a more positive picture of the economic conditions. As the economy has steadily deteriorated these past few decades, the government has resorted to ever more artful manipulations of the official statistics to compensate for the disturbing facts. So the true unemployment is probably at least double the government’s figure, or 15%, and possibly as high as 18% according to some estimates.

Most university graduates hope to work in the private sector. However, since there are few jobs available in the private sector, many are forced to seek jobs with the government, which has shown an interest of late in hiring many more employees. The government believes it can simply keep printing money to hire as many people as it wants. That may be true for a while longer, but it cannot last forever.

—

KZ: Aside from the maintenance of streets, public properties, flower-planting and refurbishing the urban environment, constructing public places and such projects, what are the main responsibilities of municipalities in the American cities? How broad and extensive is the authorities and jurisdiction of American mayors?

DE: Law enforcement and enforcement of regulations are the primary functions of municipal governments, both of which are aimed at generating revenue. Law enforcement efforts, for instance, are directed primarily at enforcing the “drug war,” in part because the police can confiscate property from accused drug offenders and sell it to help fund their departments. Police departments also like to target motorists who break traffic rules because it’s an easy means to collect increasingly large fines. Then there are the regulations. Businesses must comply with a huge list of picayune regulations, many of which involve buying costly permits. Failure to comply with the regulations will merit a large fine. It is not an exaggeration to assert that all governments in the U.S. – federal, state, municipal – now view maintenance of their own existence as their primary reason to exist, and the collection of taxes and fees funds their existence. The “benefits” they grudgingly deliver to the people are merely incidental necessities to keep the fraud going and keep the people from revolting.

Mayors don’t have any special authority, but they generally control the police departments which have wide and growing latitude in how they go about enforcing the laws. And, of course, mayors can make or break businesses operating within their cities. They can control whether businesses obtain necessary permits or whether they are subjected to frequent “inspections” aimed at looking for violations of the regulations. If anything, the authority of mayors, and all politicians in America, is not so much statutory but hidden below the surface.

—

KZ: Is there any kind of social or public restriction which the American people should conform themselves to? e.g. limitations for smoking in the public which is subject to fine and sentence in some countries, the forbiddance of drinking to the exposure of passers-by in the streets or things like that?

DE: There are many such regulations. (Attached is a list of “No –” signs I have seen. I intended to use these to create a work of art.) Increasingly, smokers are being demonized. Many cities prohibit smoking within business establishments, including workplaces, bars and restaurants. In addition, smoking is prohibited in many public places, such as parks, beaches and even public sidewalks. In addition, there are movements to prohibit smoking in peoples’ own homes if they are condominiums or apartments that share walls with other units. And finally, there are movements to prohibit smoking in private automobiles, especially if there are children in the car. I’m not a smoker, but I feel sorry for smokers. They must feel like they’re under attack. There are fewer restrictions on drinking alcohol, but it’s generally prohibited on beaches, in parks or on public sidewalks. There are also restrictions on where and when alcohol can be sold. For example, alcohol may not be sold on Sundays where I live. And a county adjacent to mine is a so-called “dry” county, in which alcohol may not be sold at all. So the residents of that county come to mine to buy alcohol, which is legal to consume in their county, but not legal to buy in their county. It’s kind of silly really. In most places bars that serve alcohol are required to obscure their windows so that passersby on the sidewalk cannot see inside.

Violations of these rules usually result in a fine. Repeated violations escalate the fine and could ultimately result in imprisonment.

—

KZ: How much prevalent is the "cronyism" in the occupational system of America? Which one governs; Relation or Regulation? Can people merely rely on their own skills and dexterities to qualify for economic, academic, industrial or state jobs?

DE: Cronyism thrives here, especially at the upper echelons of business and politics. At the lower levels of business, merit plays a larger role, although most workplaces are known to harbor a certain amount of “office politics” that affects even the lowest level workers. At the highest levels, however, it’s who one knows that matters most; competence or merit plays almost no role, which is how a seemingly incompetent person can rise even to this country’s presidency.

—

KZ: How much the American citizens are bound to the regulations of traffic and transpiration? Do they pass the red light if the police officer is not present at the square?

DE: Like many other things, this attitude has changed over the decades. Several decades ago Americans obediently “followed the rules,” but there were fewer rules then as well. Today, the number of rules one must comply with is almost overwhelming. It’s been estimated that there are over one million laws in this country at all levels of government. In addition, as Americans have watched their political and business leaders break the laws and get away with it, they have followed suit and become opportunistic as well. In many realms, the attitude of Americans is that whatever one can get away with is OK, especially with regard to traffic rules. The lack of respect for rules is compounded by the government itself, which applies its own rules capriciously. For instance, I’ve been pulled over by the police on many occasions for specious reasons, yet never issued a ticket. How can the public respect the rules when they are not followed even by the people charged with enforcing them and are applied so capriciously?

f) American Hallmarks

KZ: Hollywood is now an international identification of the American culture. With thousands of productions which Hollywood releases one after another unyieldingly, do the American citizens bother themselves at all to watch the movies and films from other countries?

DE: Foreign films have a small niche following in this country, although most “foreign” films are from Europe. A smaller assortment of foreign films from other places, such as the Middle East and Africa, find an audience here.

The primary reason for the limited exposure of foreign films in America is profits. Film distributors and movie theaters must show films that will garner an audience. Foreign films are likely to be better received along the coasts, where more worldly people reside, than in the vast middle parts of the country, although major cities in the heartland do successfully host foreign films. The lack of a profit potential stems from America’s cloistered nature. The country is so vast and is bordered by only two distant countries, that America is a world in itself. To put the size in perspective for Persian readers, according to the CIA World Factbook, the geographical area of the United States is about six times that of present day Iran, itself a large country. And unlike other countries, there are no subcultures here. For instance, even the tiny country of Switzerland has four distinct subcultures, each with their own language.

The vast majority of Americans – I’ve seen estimates as high as 90% – do not have a passport, meaning they cannot travel outside the country. Thus, they have little interest in foreign lands, and little need to learn foreign languages other than for academic interest. What’s more, one of the two countries bordering the U.S., Canada, is so similar in language and culture as to hardly qualify as a foreign country. That leaves but one neighboring country, Mexico, as an authentic foreign country.

—

KZ: Modern architecture and urban construction stands in its highest level in the U.S., I believe. Having a fortunate trait like the Bridge of San Francisco can simply turn a downtrodden Middle Eastern country into a reborn superpower. How is it possible for such impressive and universal buildings, like Sears Tower or Manchaca Swamp Bridge to be built in 3 or 4 years, while the same projects take at least two decades to finish in Iran, for example?

DE: That’s a difficult question to answer because I don’t know the circumstances of construction projects in other countries, such as Iran. In America, projects, especially public infrastructure projects, are not usually undertaken until the financing is fully secured to finish the project. Once a project is undertaken, “time is money,” so there is pressure to finish it swiftly.

There are some commercial projects at this very moment that have halted in their tracks, notably in Las Vegas, Nevada. Commercial projects are sometimes only partially funded, with additional funding arranged as the project progresses. However, should economic conditions change abruptly after a project is initiated, it may be a wiser business decision to abandon the project than pour additional money into it to finish it. Business considerations like this do not usually enter into infrastructure projects, which are driven more by need than profit, and which are financed by governments that have access to more dependable funding.

It’s interesting that you mention the Sears Tower because in my opinion it’s an important symbolic landmark, representing the peak of the American economy. It was the tallest building ever built in America, completed in 1973 at the peak of American economic prowess. It was also the home of the largest retailer in the world at the time, Sears Roebuck, which I believe occupied nearly half of the immense building. While the Sears Tower and the World Trade Center before it were designed and constructed within a matter of a few years, a replacement for the World Trade Center hasn’t even gotten out of the design phase after nearly eight years, which I see as both a reflection of America’s economic decline and also the lack of a need for a replacement building except for purely symbolic reasons. The Sears Tower, by comparison, was built to serve as the headquarters for a thriving company.

There is a theory that suggests that countries build their tallest buildings at the height of their economic prowess, which concurs with my own observations. It’s therefore not surprising that Dubai began building the Burj Dubai, a building nearly twice the height of the Sears Tower, at the peak of its oil-funded prosperity. Now that oil prices have crashed, I understand that construction in Dubai is grinding to a halt, although I do hope they complete the Burj Dubai. And oil prices will definitely recover, presumably allowing construction activity in Dubai to resume.

—

KZ: Hyper-international media play one of the greatest roles in the hegemony of U.S. government over the developing countries and Third World. What’s your estimation about the corporate media of U.S. which are supposedly "independent" and non-governmental? Can we imagine the superpower U.S without its media?

DE: To be honest, I’m not aware of the extent of the role the U.S. media plays in promoting U.S. hegemony around the world. I’ve always assumed that its movies and television shows helped spread American culture and business around the world, but little more.

However, the media plays a hugely important propaganda role within the U.S., effectively denying Americans truthful information and supplanting it with government-inspired propaganda. That’s a problem that has grown worse in recent years as the government has sought to shape public opinion and the media companies have conceded to serve as the government’s handmaiden, so as to not lose favor with, and access to the government. The government has even taken to producing “news” stories that it distributes to media companies to present as their own news stories. And the media companies, only too happy to save money on staff, publish these government stories unquestioningly. Any American that relies solely on the major media companies, which are commonly referred to as the “mainstream” media, are getting a highly warped and incomplete slice of information.

The irony is that information has never been more abundant or accessible than today, thanks to the internet, yet people do not seem to have either the interest or drive to access it. They would seemingly prefer to plunk down in their comfortable chairs and be mesmerized by the television. Of course, that’s partly because of the need to work so much – they have little energy left to spend hours online reading news from around the world.

—

KZ: Who are the individuals which the American people pay the most respect and tribute to? Actually I mean those who have recorded their name in the annals of U.S. history by some historical and unforgettable breakthroughs.

DE: The people most respected by Americans are, sadly, celebrities in the entertainment industry and sports, as if there is any distinction. If one goes to the supermarket, they will find beside the checkout stand a dozen magazines plastered with the faces of celebrities, filled with stories about what they had for breakfast and their latest heartaches.

Americans claim to revere historical figures such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King and so forth, but these very same Americans probably could not even cite any reasons why they revere these people. Take our current president. Many fondly supported him, but knew nothing about him, his position on issues or even who would be serving in office with him.

g) Minorities in the U.S.

KZ: I’ve heard that it’s complicated for the black citizens in the U.S. to benefit from the equal social, economic and communal opportunities like those of whites’. However, the custom may be going to change under President Obama. How was the situation in the past decades?

DE: As you may know, blacks were slaves here in America from the time of its founding until Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862. It was a stroke of marketing genius for the half-black Mr. Obama to associate himself with Abraham Lincoln, even going so far as to be sworn into office on Mr. Lincoln’s own bible. Ironically, Abraham Lincoln is widely acknowledged to have been a tyrant, which raises the question of whether that will be Mr. Obama’s destiny as well.

After the abolition of slavery, conditions didn’t much improve for blacks until about the 1950s, when significant civil rights improvements began to be made on behalf of blacks. By the 1970s institutionalized discrimination against blacks was a thing of the past, but they have since struggled against individual discrimination and the legacy of their past mistreatment.

Today there are no institutional barriers to blacks. In fact, they thrive in sports, when not so long ago that they weren’t permitted to participate in sports with whites. There are also a lot of blacks in the entertainment business, especially music. The barriers for blacks are no longer insurmountable, but discrimination still exists. Ironically, blacks suffer the most discrimination from the police and the justice system, government institutions.

Short of pardoning blacks now in prison or making a heroic effort to hire blacks in the federal government, I don’t think there’s much Mr. Obama can do to help blacks. The fact is that there are already all kinds of protections and assistance for blacks. The biggest problems they face are their legacy of victimhood and persistent discrimination by individuals, and there’s not much the president can do about those things.

—

KZ: Is the governmental attitude toward the Indians of US fair and sustainable enough in compare with the approaches token toward the other tribal or ethnic minorities? There are always some news regarding the broad crackdowns on American Indians and their social movements.

DE: In theory, all of the civil rights initiatives and protections established for blacks over the decades apply to Native Americans as well. And as with blacks, there is no institutional discrimination against Native Americans. However, they are unique in the sense that treaties with the U.S. Government have granted Native Americans a certain amount of autonomy on reservations. So they are both Americans and Native Americans, giving them a unique status. Until the advent of the Native American casino business, they were abjectly poor as a people. Since the advent of casinos, some tribes have become rather wealthy, although the wealth is not necessarily evenly distributed, just as in American culture as a whole.

Of course, Native Americans have suffered as much or worse abuse and mistreatment as blacks. On top of that, they’ve suffered from countless broken treaties with the U.S. Government, broken by the U.S. The plight of Native Americans is a dark stain on the history of this country.

As for blacks, there are no insurmountable barriers for Native Americans in the rest of American society. The main problems for them are endemic poverty and a tendency to remain on their reservations, which affords them limited opportunities, unless they happen to be connected to a casino business.

h) Education in the U.S.

KZ: How is the formation of education system in the U.S.? From which age do the children officially go to school? How many grades and stages should a pupil get ahead in order to receive the diploma and become eligible for the university?

DE: The U.S. was one of the first countries to establish universal education for all children. Children typically attend school from about age 5 until age 18. The school system is divided into elementary school for grades kindergarten through sixth; middle school for grades seventh through ninth; and high school for grades tenth through twelfth. At least that’s how it was organized when I was in school. I think today some of the divisions have shifted by one grade.

After primary education is complete, children are no longer required to attend school and are free to attend a university if they choose. However, there are some hurdles to attending a university. There is intense competition to attend the choicest universities, and only those students with exemplary academic records (or good social connections) can get into the best schools. Even for lesser state universities the competition is fierce. As a last resort, there are community colleges which usually offer only two-year degrees and which are not highly respected, but are good places to study nevertheless. There are also vocational schools which theoretically teach a trade. Unfortunately, these are largely a fraud anymore and there often are not jobs available to the graduates of these schools.

The second major hurdle is financing one’s education. The best schools are extremely expensive, costing $50,000 or more per year to attend. Even the state universities can cost $10,000 or more per year. Community colleges probably cost about $1,000-$2,000 per year. Students attending the more expensive schools have their tuition paid for by their parents if they are wealthy, by scholarships given to them by the school or by means of student loans.

Even if one earns a university degree, however, there’s no guaranteed that they will get a decent job. There are many university graduates in possession of bachelors, masters and ever doctoral degrees who are working as restaurant waiters for lack of a job. It’s a shuddering prospect to face if one has borrowed tens of thousands of dollars to attend a university and obtain a degree.

One interesting phenomenon in the U.S. is what I call credential inflation. When I was young, a person with merely a high school diploma could get a decent job, sufficient to support a family. Of course, such people were also literate and competent with arithmetic. As the quality of the primary educational system has deteriorated over the years, employers have demanded increasingly higher credentials from job applicants. So many jobs today that used to require a mere high school diploma now require a college degree, even though in some cases the people possessing the college degree are less educated than their ancestors who possessed only high school diplomas! I have encountered many college graduates who couldn’t form grammatically correct sentences, spell correctly or perform simple arithmetic computations in their heads, let alone discuss history, geography or many other realms of knowledge. Americans are a sadly uneducated lot.

—

KZ: Is everybody eligible to enter the state universities in the U.S. once he finishes a college school and receives a diploma only provided that he could afford the expenses? Isn’t any other credential needed for qualification to university?

DE: In theory, anyone can attend any university. They merely have to be accepted by the school and have a means to pay the tuition. Of course, satisfying those two requirements is easier said than done. The only credential usually required is a high school diploma. Most schools also require prospective students to achieve a minimum score on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and/or achieve a minimum grade point average in high school. But the lower one goes on the totem pole of higher education, the lower the admission standards become.

—

KZ: How many private/state universities and students are there in the U.S.? I think the number of universities exceeds some one or two thousands. What about the students?

DE: I can’t answer this with much confidence. There are only a few dozen premiere universities of the caliber of Harvard. Then there are hundreds of state university campuses, such as those of the University of California, which has more than ten large campuses distributed around the state. There are probably also hundreds of community college campuses. At some of the largest universities, the student population can be 50,000 or more. Even at the smaller state universities the student population frequently exceeds 10,000. I suppose there must be millions of students in colleges and universities at any given time.

—

KZ: Once I was talking to a German professor, and he had told that U.S. benefits from its international community immensely. Many of the renowned professors and scholars in the American universities are non-American and a bunch of students from all over the world are enrolled in the academia of US. What’s your idea about that?

DE: It’s absolutely true that there are a lot of foreigners in American universities, both as students and professors. And it should be intuitive that a greater diversity of ideas and perspectives would be beneficial. I agree that foreigners in American universities enhance them immensely. Ironically, it often seems to be the foreign students who are the hardest workers in American universities. That was my experience over twenty years ago and it seems just as true today.

—

KZ: I read somewhere that the national budget of MIT University Press is something around $500 million! If the figure is correct, then it would be equivalent to 50 percent of total annual budget of largest university in Iran! Is the U.S. government so indulgent and opulent in spending for the universities?

DE: The government gives some funding to universities, mostly in the form of research grants, for which the government expects to receive the fruits of the research, possibly sharing it with the university. Much of the money American universities have at their disposal comes from endowments and investments. Harvard, for example, has billions of dollars at its disposal. The University of California, on the other hand, owns some of the most valuable real estate in California. It’s best to view universities in America as big businesses, operated for profit, as opposed to public institutions of higher learning. The teaching and learning part is incidental to their business orientation.

i) Heart to Heart

KZ: I want you to give us a clarified viewpoint of the Iranian community in the U.S. There are lots of Iranian restaurants, cultural centers, institutions, galleries and permanent shows all over the United States. However, we would like to know about their geographical distribution, their fame and popularity and the appetite of Americans toward them.

DE: To be honest, I don’t have a lot of insight into this. I would surmise that the vast majority of ethnic amenities, including Iranian ones, are concentrated in the cities. However, even medium sized cities often have a surprising quantity of ethnic amenities, if one searches for them. Speaking from personal experience, ethnic restaurants are very popular with Americans, who enjoy variety. What is peculiar is that Americans can harbor a negative attitude toward Muslims, Arabs or Iranians outside the U.S., but then happily go to an Iranian or Arabic restaurant in their own town to eat. As far as other ethnic cultural and artistic venues are concerned, I would say they are less popular than restaurants, but are visited by Americans. A lot of such ethnic cultural venues serve more as rendezvous places for ethnic people. For example, in San Diego I know of a card club where Arabic men go to play cards and socialize, and while non-Arab Americans would be welcome in this club, there are no non-Arab Americans to be seen.

—

KZ: Do the American citizens believe what the mainstream media portray of Iran? Do they equate the nation of Iran with the Arab countries and their lifestyle?

DE: Unfortunately, I fear that Americans in general do believe the propaganda about the supposed threat posed by Iran toward America, especially if they rely exclusively on the mainstream media for their information. Few Americans understand, for example, that Iran is entitled under the terms of the NPT to develop atomic energy for electricity production. Instead, Americans accept the Israeli-American assertion that Iran is somehow illegally pursuing nuclear research and poses some unarticulated threat.

Americans probably also confuse Iranians with Arabs. The sad reality is that most Americans couldn’t even locate Iran on a map, anymore than they could locate Iraq. All they know is that both countries are somewhere in the Middle East, are covered in desert sand and pose an existential threat to America and Israel. To be honest, I’m not even sure if Americans realize that the Persian restaurant they’re eating in bears any connection to the “Iran” they hear about in the news.

Americans do not receive education in school about other cultures, except perhaps European culture and history. So most of what they know of the Middle East comes from the television, which as you might imagine, is not the best source of knowledge.

—

KZ: I know that the couplets (Rubbaiyat) of Khayyam, the medieval Persian poet are very popular in the U.S. thanks to the everlasting translations of Edward Fitzgerald. What do you think about that? Do the American people consider the nationality of Khayyam or other Iranian poets and literary giants while enjoying their masterpieces?

DE: I’m embarrassed to admit this, but I have not read the works of this poet. I don’t know if other Americans have read him or not, but in general, Americans do not read much literature of foreign writers. As I stated previously, fictional novels are among the most popular works that Americans read, and most of those are written by American or European authors, but in most cases I don’t think Americans know or care which. Such novels are viewed more as a product to entertain than a literary work to be contemplated.

—

KZ: How the American media mainly depict Iranians? Do they pretend that Iranians are Arabs, terrorists or an oppressed nation? Do they broadcast anything about the culture, literature, anthropology or archaeology of Iran?

DE: Unfortunately, the media doesn’t make any effort to distinguish between Arabs and Iranians, who are often depicted in the same kinds of brief scenes flashing by on the television: protesting against America, burning its flag, brandishing weapons. There are niche programs on the television about history and art and archeology that delve into different cultures and probably draw a distinction between different people and cultures. However, these programs are not highly popular with the vast majority of Americans, but with a smaller group of more open minded, inquisitive people. The programming oriented toward the majority of television viewers does not emphasize any such distinction. Nor do any other forms of popular media, such as newspapers and magazines. And unfortunately, as I said above, the mainstream media is a major propaganda tool of the government, so the images shown on the television are often intended to shape public opinion. At the moment it’s exceedingly useful to the government to portray Iran in a negative light, and the media is more than willing to cooperate.

It is incumbent upon Americans to actively seek out information if they want to be truly educated about the world around them, but often they are too lazy to do so.

—

KZ: What the American people generally think of Iran? Do they believe in the notion of "the axis of evil" proposed by their ex-president? Do they believe that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons?

DE: I’m afraid the answer to both questions is yes. Most Americans probably do consider Iran to be party to some mythical axis of evil and pursuing nuclear weapons. (Personally, the only “axis of evil” I see is the one comprised of the U.S., Britain and Israel.) Of course, they don’t dwell on these thoughts, as they’re more consumed with getting through each day and paying their bills. Nevertheless, they are bombarded with a steady stream of anti-Iran propaganda and have little time to indulge in their own research or even critical thinking to counter the propaganda, so little by little it seeps into their subconscious. Besides North Koreans, Americans are probably subjected to more propaganda than any other people on earth.

Prohibited activities signs observed by DE

No Admittance No Alcohol No Bare Feet No Bicycles No Cameras No Campfires No Camping No Crossing No Diving No Dogs No Drink No Drinking No Dumping No Eating No Entry No Exit No Feeding

No Fishing No Food No Glass No Golfing No Hunting No Left Turn No Open Containers No Outside Food No Panhandling No Parking No Passing No Pets No Photographs No Radios No Right Turn No Roller Blades No Roller Skates

No Running No Sitting No Skateboards No Skating No Skiing No Sleeping No Smoking No Soliciting No Standing No Stopping No Surfing No Swimming No Talking No Trespassing No Turns No U-Turn No Waiting

References

Kourosh Ziabari, a MWC NEWS contributor, is an Iranian young journalist, media correspondent and blogger. Kourosh is a member of SEJ (Society of Environmental Journalists), a former member of Stony Brook University Publications editorial team and a current member of editorial team in both Venezuela’s Media Left and Finland’s award-winning Ovi Magazine.

Other articles by this author: http://mwcnews.net/KouroshZiabari

See Also

Promoting Understanding – Part I