One thing to remember about the arrest of seven Miami men involved with the alleged plot to attack the Sears Tower is that they come from one of the most impoverished cities in America. A world away from affluent South Beach and its silky white beaches, the city of Miami has the third-highest poverty rate in the nation, with 28 percent of its population and 41 percent of its children living in poverty, according to 2004 census estimates. (Remember that the official threshold for poverty in this country is quite low: A family of four with a combined income under $18,850 was considered poor in 2004.)

The suspects also come from one of the poorest neighborhoods within Miami, Liberty City, an African American urban island shaped by decades of segregation. Liberty City was the scene of bloody riots in 1980 after an all-white jury acquitted five white police officers for the killing of a black motorist — in spite of an incriminating coroner’s report and testimony by one of the officers. Eighteen people died in the ensuing violence.

All seven of the terrorism suspects are black. Two are from Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere.

The connection between terrorism and poverty is controversial. Poor, unequal, and unstable countries like Afghanistan and Somalia have become havens for terrorism, and yet many terrorists striking across borders — such as the September 11 hijackers — came from privileged backgrounds. This noteworthy Harvard study dismisses any connection and instead points to the degree of political freedom as a crucial factor.

Yet in the Miami case, five of the suspects are American citizens. The threat, if true, was mostly homegrown — grown in a country that has been (well, at least until recently) admired around the world for its devotion to liberty and democracy. Why, then, would Americans commit violence against their own country? Why would they hate us?

The fact that these men hail from one of the most impoverished and segregated neighborhoods in America makes me wonder if poverty and race had anything to do with their alleged embrace of terrorism. Violence against a repressive, authoritarian regime or an invading power may come from all quarters of society, but violence against an open, established democracy seems to have a particular attraction among the most marginalized and alienated discontents — those who, thanks to the perpetual indignities of poverty and racism, have come to see their own nation as the enemy.

This is all the more reason for us to confront the reality of Two Americas: one full of wealth and hope, the other struggling to survive. Some may complain about raising the specter of “class warfare,” but the price of neglecting inequality may be class warfare of a much more brutal kind.

Victor Tan Chen Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen

Here’s an interesting piece in the International Herald Tribune about the “fast-fading luster of the American story” — that is, the weakening power of American ideals and culture abroad thanks to globalization and the recent, divisive projection of American military power overseas.

I think the idea that Hollywood is losing sway over audiences abroad is somewhat overstated. This recent article in The Washington Post, for instance, suggests that the popularity of American movies is growing overseas, along with so-called “local product,” or domestically produced films. (Pop culture remains one of America’s top exports.) Even in France, a country with a storied history of filmmaking as well as state protection of its film industry, the American media juggernaut is all but unstoppable at the box office.

That said, America’s image abroad has clearly deteriorated in many countries in the past six years, as this recent Pew Research Center report makes obvious. This distaste for American foreign policy appears to live comfortably alongside a fascination with American pop culture.

A less parochial and more culturally sensitive Hollywood can play a role in improving America’s relations with the rest of the world, as the IHT op-ed points out. But what is more important is the actual policy of the U.S. government. “To recapture its winning story in this new global politics of culture, to recover its waning soft power,” the op-ed’s authors argue, “America has to once again close the gap between its ideals and their practical realization at home and abroad, starting with changing our policies and getting out of Iraq.”

Victor Tan Chen Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen

After years of unsuccessful suicide attempts, Guantánamo Bay finally has its first bona fide martyrs: Three Arab men hanged themselves on Saturday in their cells at the U.S.-run prison camp. (According to the military, 23 of the 460 prisoners at Guantánamo have attempted suicide a total of 41 times, though news reports have put the number much higher — at one point, says this article, 130 prisoners were on a hunger strike.)

I say “martyrs” because that’s what these men will become in the eyes of many in the Arab and Muslim worlds. The U.S. policy of holding prisoners in Guantánamo without trial or charges is like the gift that keeps on giving. It provides holy warriors with a righteous rallying cry and inspires legions of other recruits (almost certainly more than the 460 holed up at Guantánamo) to take up terrorism. Much of this could have been avoided if the Bush administration had actually followed international law in dealing with these suspected terrorists — a significant number of whom, according to the government’s own data, have never committed hostile acts against the U.S. or its coalition allies.
  
Meanwhile, Guantánamo’s base commander said — I assume with a straight face — that the triple suicide “was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us.” Weldon Berger at BTC News sums up the logic of this sentiment rather nicely: “Pity we can’t execute the three for this heinous assault on all we hold dear, isn’t it? Maybe once rigor sets in we can stand them up against a wall and go through the motions.”

Victor Tan Chen Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen

Valerie Burgher — a contributor to this magazine, a journalism colleague, and a dear friend — passed away last week. She and I had worked together at the same newspaper several years ago, and last fall she became involved with InTheFray. I believe the last article she wrote was published in these pages.

Valerie was an exceptional writer, whose personality shone as brightly in her prose as it did in person: at turns bold or light-hearted, spirited or wry, thoughtful or mischievous. She was a determined reporter who had a passion for social justice and a heartfelt concern for the ordinary people whose lives she put to pen. She also had a brilliant wit, lethal when skewering celebrities at the Oscars or politicians at a legislative session.

She was intelligent and gifted beyond belief, always surprising friends with new talents. Like that time when she got up in front of the newsroom and strummed a guitar. Or her recent decision to embark on a promising new career in filmmaking.

She also suffered, like many people, from bipolar disorder. Yet Valerie managed in spite of this to do great things, and leave so many of us the wiser and happier for having known her.

I remember her laugh — a laugh so full of life you’d have to call it a guffaw. I remember the gleam she’d get in her eye when telling a joke. I remember how, in 34 years of work and play, she succeeded in making a life of her art, and an art of her life.

I’ll remember Valerie for all the ways she blessed us, before she left us too soon.

p.s. Valerie’s memorial service will be held at 1 p.m. on Tuesday, June 6, at Christ Evangelical Lutheran Church, 4714 Glenwood Street, Little Neck, N.Y. 11363. The Burgher family writes:

“Friends who would like to share thoughts about Valerie are warmly invited to do so at the service. I am hoping this will be more of a celebration of Valerie. Burial will be following the service at Pinelawn Cemetery [on Long Island].

“Valerie’s mom, Sonia Burgher, has asked that instead of flowers, contributions be made in Valerie’s name to NAMI, the National Alliance on Mental Illness (nami.org).”

Victor Tan Chen Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen

I am not surprised by what happened in Haditha because Americans are terrorists and killers. And this is the way of life now. I don’t care if they punish the American soldiers because they cannot bring back the lives of the dead.

—Baghdad sandwich vendor Murthada Abdel Rashid, 29, when asked for reaction to the alleged murder of Iraqi civilians by U.S. Marines in the northwestern town of Haditha last fall. According to news reports, U.S. military investigators have found that as many as 24 civilians, including women and children, were shot in retaliation for the death of a Marine lance corporal, and not killed in a roadside bomb blast or crossfire as the military previously said.

Victor Tan Chen Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen

Here’s your occasional dose of inspiring news: Alaa Abdel-Fattah, an Egyptian pro-democracy activist who was arrested in early May, is continuing to blog from prison — somehow getting slips of paper with his scribbled posts past his jailers and into the safe havens of cyberspace. He and his wife Manal Hassan run a popular blog that has become a beacon within Egypt’s political reform movement, and a thorn in the side of President Hosni Mubarak’s authoritarian regime. You can read the blog here (it includes articles in English).

Victor Tan Chen Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen

I just watched Do the Right Thing, Spike Lee’s masterpiece, for the second time (my wife is doing an interview with Rosie Perez, so this was technically “research”). I had first seen it maybe 10 years ago, and I remember being annoyed at the time about how the only Asian characters, the Korean American grocers, speak painfully pidgin English and come across as money-grubbing jerks. This time, however, it didn’t bother me so much. The portrayal is less than flattering, but that goes for all the characters in the film — from Sal the pizzeria owner to Radio Raheem the Public Enemy fan. The truth is, men and women like this exist in real life.

I agree with Roger Ebert, who points out that the brilliant achievement of Lee’s film is that there are no clear-cut heroes or villains. Every one of his characters is depicted sympathetically at some point in the film. Every character is also shown to be capable of vicious hate and racism. For Sonny the grocer, both come at once, at the incendiary climax of the film. Waving his broom violently to keep the crowd from his store, Sonny insists, “Me no white! Me black!” It’s a hopelessly naïve remark that shows how little Sonny knows about his African American customers, but also reminds us (and the crowd, which gives up on burning down his store) that he — a downtrodden immigrant struggling to survive — is also worthy of our empathy.

On this second viewing, it made perfect sense to me that Mookie (Spike Lee’s character) throws the trash can through the window of Sal’s pizzeria at the end of the film. Mookie is the character we most empathize with in the film, and someone we expect to “do the right thing.” His actions show the very human anger he feels at the death of a friend. They also remind us how all of us — even an intelligent, thoughtful man like Mookie — add our portions to this boiling pot of racial rage in America. No one is blameless in Lee’s film, and no one comes out unscathed. Just like in real life.

It’s sad but true that so many years after Lee’s film, the racial incident that inspired Do the Right Thing — the 1986 assault of three African American men by local teenagers in Howard Beach, New York — was replicated last year in the very same neighborhood. (The trial started this week.)

Victor Tan Chen Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen

Once upon a time, women weren’t allowed to wear pants (trousers, for you Brits). In our more enlightened age, women are free to wear pants, or dresses, or even colorful bits of string. Meanwhile, men have taken to trotting around in dresses all the time — very, very manly men included.

Yet, when it comes to the high school prom — that pinnacle of teenage sobriety and good manners, that sanctuary of moral upbringing where no hoochie mama may set foot — a boy wearing a dress is still off-limits. So says the principal of a high school in Gary, Indiana, who prevented a male student from coming to his prom last week in a slinky fuschia dress and heels.

She did let in a female student dressed in a tuxedo, however. And, a few other students who were “half-naked.” But boys in dresses? No way. That would be sacrilege against the prom gods.

“Girls can dress like a boy and they are just seen as tomboys,” pointed out Taleisha Badgett, the female student who wore a tuxedo to the prom. “It’s not a big deal. But if boys wear girls’ clothes, it’s a problem.… That’s not right.”

“I already had approval to go to the prom,” said the de-prommed student, Kevin Logan. “I do have constitutional rights. I asked [the principal], ‘Why are you doing this to me? This is my prom. This is like the most important night of my life.’”

Well, it may not actually turn out to be the most important day of your life, Kevin — think of it instead as the one day in your life you’ll ever see a wrist corsage — but that fuschia dress probably didn’t come cheap. Luckily, the state ACLU chapter is on the case.

Victor Tan Chen Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen

Continuing my post on Wednesday about Lawrence of Arabia and its relevance to today’s conflict in Iraq:

Lawrence recognizes the disunity among the Arabs, and attempts — ultimately vainly — to bring the tribes together. “So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe,” he tells Ali, “so long will they be a little people, a silly people, greedy, barbarous, and cruel.” The division is real, but what right does a condescending foreigner have to voice it? Feisal, the Arabian ruler who seems to inspire the greatest loyalty among the fractious tribes, reminds Lawrence that Arabia was once great. “In the Arab city of Cordoba, there were two miles of public lighting in the streets when London was a village … nine centuries ago.” It is a theme that scholars of the Middle East have dusted off, amid some controversy, to explain the festering anger among today’s population: Once the Arabs were great, so now the poverty and oppression of their people are especially difficult hardships to bear, calling them to arms against the perceived aggressors.

Then as now, the ally is quickly becoming the enemy, because of a perception of ulterior motives. In the film, the British insist that “British and Arab interests are one and the same,” and yet they show with their very actions the clear limits of their concern for Arab welfare. The British will not give the Arabs any artillery, for example, because “you give them artillery and you’ve made them independent,” one British official points out. The royal navy is holed up protecting the Suez Canal in Egypt, instead of joining the Arabian forces in their fight against the Turks, because the canal is an “essential British interest” — albeit of “little consequence” to the Arabs. Finally, there is the betrayal of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, a secret understanding between France and Britain to carve up the former Ottoman lands after the war’s end, which gives the lie to all the glad affirmations of independence for the Arabs. “General, you have lied most bravely, but not convincingly,” Feisal tells the British commander after his protestations that no such agreement exists. With such a history of Western duplicity, it is no wonder that the Iraqis view the U.S. occupation with skepticism, especially since the Bush administration has yet to take the simple, good-faith step of disavowing any permanent military bases in Iraq.

(You may point out that the American government does not have the same interest as the British or French in establishing Middle Eastern colonies, but before you do you may want to read Chalmer Johnson’s insightful book on American foreign policy, The Sorrows of Empire, which focuses on the U.S. military’s peculiar, telling obsession with military bases.)

The revolt that happened in the Arabian desert a century earlier may offer lessons to us today, as America attempts to win the heart of another Middle Eastern land in search of freedom. The mantra today, once again, is for the Iraqis to have the discipline of democracy — to quell their age-old tribal animosities, to come together in the ecumenical spirit of nation-building. But that inevitably clashes with the Arab people’s shrewd understanding of power and politics, as this exchange between Feisal, Lawrence, and another British officer, Colonel Harry Brighton, makes clear:

Brighton: Dreaming won’t get you to Damascus, but discipline will. Look, Great Britain is a small country, much smaller than yours … It’s small, but it’s great. And why?

Feisal: Because it has guns.

Brighton: Because it has discipline.
                  
Lawrence: Because it has a navy. Because of this, the English go where they please … and strike where they please. This makes them great.

The dialogue is fiction, of course. (For a discussion of aspects of the film that are not historically accurate, read this.) But the man Lawrence did exist, and to this day he is revered in the Middle East for supporting Arab independence from both Ottoman and European rule. Lawrence became a hero not just because of his leadership and courage, but also because he believed — when many did not — that the Arab people were worthy of freedom, and had the right to choose their own destiny. In our search for a favorable conclusion to the American intervention in Iraq, we could surely use more leaders like him.

Victor Tan Chen Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen

Jackson Bentley, American journalist: Your Highness, we Americans were once a colonial people, and we naturally feel sympathetic to any people anywhere who are struggling for their freedom.

Prince Feisal, Arabian monarch: Very gratifying.

Bentley: Also, my interests are the same as yours. You want your story told. I badly want a story to tell.

Feisal: Ah, now you are talking turkey, are you not?

I recently watched Lawrence of Arabia, David Lean’s 1962 epic, and kept thinking throughout the film how much it reminded me of another Western power’s involvement in Arab lands. The film focuses on British army officer T.E. Lawrence and his role in uniting the Arab tribes against their Ottoman oppressors during World War I, but it has quite a lot to say, too, about modern-day Iraq under American occupation. (For those who forget, or haven’t seen, the film, here’s a helpful synopsis, and here’s the script.)

In Arabia, the superior military might of the Turkish Ottoman forces weakened under a barrage of guerrilla attacks by Arab Bedouin horsemen, who blew up railroad tracks, disrupted supply lines, and made daring raids when the enemy least expected them. “The desert is an ocean in which no oar is dipped,” Lawrence muses during a discussion with Arabian leaders. “And on this ocean, the Bedouin go where they please and strike where they please.” The failure to appreciate the strength of guerrilla warriors fighting on their own turf has doomed many a mighty army, from the British in America to the Turks in Arabia to the Americans in Vietnam to the Russians in Afghanistan — to, perhaps, the Americans in Iraq.

The Turks could not be accused of half-heartedness in quashing the Arabian insurgency. In fact, they had a practice of viciously torturing captured Arab fighters. “In their eyes, we are not soldiers but rebels,” explains Prince Feisal, who leads the Arab forces. “Rebels, wounded or whole, are not protected by the Geneva Code … and are treated harshly.” So the Arabs would leave no wounded for the Turks: Those they could not carry to safety, they killed. Rather than being intimidated into submission by Ottoman brutality, the Arabs showed all the more determination and defiance. This should give pause to the U.S. politicos who, in the name of victory against terrorists, have opened the door for violations of the Geneva Conventions concerning the torture and indefinite detainment of prisoners. Immoral policies such as these may have the most unintended consequences.

Another of the film’s themes is the violent divisions between the desert-dwelling tribes of Arabia. The Howeitat fight the Harith, who fight the Hazimi — an endless circle of jealousies and vengeances, waged over the desert’s scarce resources. “He was nothing,” says Sherif Ali (played by Omar Sharif), who has just killed an Arab stranger who was drinking from his tribe’s well. “The well is everything.” Water was the desert’s gold in those days, but now it is oil that has become everything — reason enough to kill Sunni or Shia or Kurd in today’s bloody conflict of part-religious, part-tribal origins. In fact, the dispute over sharing oil revenues is one of the central issues tearing apart the country’s new government and threatening civil war.

On Saturday I’ll have more to say about the film and its message for today’s Arabian insurgency.

Victor Tan Chen Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen

This is supposed to be New York, the world capital of diversity, the home to countless cultures and creeds, the one place you can go — whoever you happen to be — to find a sympathetic ear for your beliefs, maybe even a parade in your honor.

But then you turn on the radio and listen to the Big Apple’s favorite shock jocks spouting off about “gooks,” “slant-eyed whores,” and “tinkling” on little girls.

Troi Torain, the Power 105 disc jockey known as DJ Star, was arrested today after going on a racist, sexist, R. Kelly-esque tirade about a radio rival’s wife and daughter. He called the wife, who is part Asian, a “slant-eyed whore,” and then threatened the 4-year-old daughter, calling her a “little half a lo mein eater” and saying he wanted to have sex with her.

Covering all his bases, Torain also called his rival, DJ Envy, a “faggot ass nigga.”

I suppose one racist turn deserves another. You see, DJ Envy was one of the “Miss Jones in the Morning” crew at Hot 97 who got in trouble last year for playing a song that mocked the victims of the Asian tsunami, whom they called “chinks” and “Chinamen.” Without a doubt, this kind of behavior is normal for morning radio personalities, who apparently must caffeinate themselves to the point of foaming-at-the-mouth racism and sexism.

Torain especially. In 2004 he phoned a call center in India and called the customer service representative a “bitch” and “filthy rat eater” on the air.

Here’s some excerpts from the “Star & Buc Wild” show on the day that Torain had his pedophilic meltdown, courtesy of the office of New York Councilmember John Liu:

Star: Somebody holla at me and tell me about his whore wife and his kid. 866-678-8270 …  Somebody get at me about his whore. His whore wife and his kid, this little ugly ass kid, I hear. Where … where does this kid go to school? I got five hundred bucks for that information. Somebody email me or gimme a call. Just tell me where his kid goes to school. Let’s see who’s really gully on the microphone. Five hundred dollars, in my pocket, right now. I need to know the school, this faggot ass nigga, DJ’s kid goes to school.

Star: I’ve got information on DJ Benji, aka … what’s his name again? Envy. I’ve got information on his gook. His baby’s mother.
Buc Wild: A gook?
Star: Hampton University, uh, cats used to run trains on her. Green BMW … I’ll get to all this in a few minutes.

Star: Oh! And, I got the information, the school his kid goes to.
[Woman’s voice] Really?
Star: Yeah, I’m savin’ that one. That’s, that’s … That’s the one I’m gonna pull out if I have to. If I have to. Oh yes, I’ll, I’ll come for your kids. I will come for your kids. I finally got the information on his slant-eyed, whore wife. The information on his slant-eyed, whore wife. Yes. A cat who actually ran a train on her, contacted me. [chuckle] Allegedly ran a train on her once upon a time. Allegedly. Once upon a time. Ejaculated all over her face …

Star: No, let me just touch on this real quick. But there’s a woman out there right now who pushed out a little lo-mein eater by a DJ down by the sloppy station. I got at this alleged slut whore, heh, and this little half a lo-mein eater … Yes, I disrespected your seed. If you didn’t hear me, I said, I would like to do an R. Kelly on your seed, on your little baby girl. I would like to tinkle [urinate] on her.

“Call the cops”? Nigga, please, there’s no bodyguards. I carry the 9 [millimeter gun]. Most of the cats that are with me, have felony convictions, they can’t carry. I’m disrespectin’ your seed. I would like to skeet [ejaculate] on the face of your seed. Now that’s, that’s real talk dawg. You have to come holla at me now. Call me, I’ll meet you somewhere, but don’t act like you were waiting in some parking lot with like 50 niggers. Please.

Now, again, to the woman, who carried that little mongrel for 9 months … I’m coming for your seed. Did you hear me? [“squirt, squirt, squirt” noise] I want to do an R. Kelly in the mouth of your seed fam[ily]? You holla at me now, I’m the easiest man in the world to find. [snickers] And my name is The Hater. You holla back now, DJ Envy.

Star: Let me see now, uh, DJ Benji attention! In case you didn’t hear me, I said, I want to put some mayonnaise in between your baby girl’s ass crack and take a bite.

Now that you’ve read all of that, you might consider taking a long shower and then listening to the soothing sounds of NPR to purify yourself.

Victor Tan Chen Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen

This brings new meaning to the phrase long-distance relationship.

Victor Tan Chen Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen