Growing up in a Puerto Rican-American family in a tough section of the Bronx, Jason “Hamza” Perez dreamed he would end up in jail and die young. Now he thinks he was right—sort of. When he meets some local Muslim sheikhs at 21, he converts to Islam and his gangbanger self “dies.” A few years later, he finds himself volunteering at a faith-based initiative program in a local prison. A sensitive and perceptive film, New Muslim Cool chronicles Hamza’s halting evolution from thug to Muslim leader and family man.

We meet Hamza in medias res: A single dad raising two kids, he’s about to get married to a woman he met on a Muslim dating website and move to a community of mostly Latino Muslim converts in Pittsburgh. Director Jennifer Maytorena Taylor deftly constructs a portrait of Hamza learning to build cultural bridges: He cooks “boricua halal” food (traditional Puerto Rican fare made according Muslim dietary code), ministers to teenagers with his hip hop group, the Mujahideen Team, and explains to his skeptical but curious mom why her granddaughter has started wearing a hijab to school.

But the film’s real strength is mixing the political with the domestic: Just as Hamza has learned to move among his own worlds, the outside world gets in the way. And that’s where things really start to get interesting: The police raid the new Pittsburgh mosque—the stated reason is a convicted child molester who worships there, but the community suspects the FBI had been watching them for a while. And later, the prison where Hamza volunteers suddenly revokes his security clearance without explanation (he eventually gets it back). New Muslim Cool shows how Bush-era Islamophobia affected one family’s daily life, but the most remarkable part is watching Hamza and his family take the turmoil in stride. “You know you’re not doing anything wrong,” says Hamza’s wife Rafia. “So you just live your life.”


New Muslim Cool debuts on PBS Tuesday, June 23 at 10 PM, and opens in select theaters nationwide this month.

 

Quick hit: an article in the June 19 issue of Science reports that : CO2 in the atmosphere is now at its highest concentration in 2.1 millions years. Also, that more recent ice ages may have been caused by changes in the Earth's tilt toward the sun, not : CO2 levels. So even though carbon dioxide is higher, it doesn't mean it's going to plunge us back into a cooling trend.

Philosophy!

Matt Yglesias translates some questions from Le Bac, France's college admission test/high school leaving exam.  These are from the philosophy test:

— Does objectivity in history presuppose the impartiality of the historian?

— Does language betray thought?

— Explicate an excerpt from Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation

— Are there questions that are un-answerable by science?

Matt says the correct answers are "no, no, I don’t know anything about Schopenhauer, and yes."  That's surely wrong.  The correct answers are no (but it helps); sometimes; I don’t know anything about Schopenhauer; and yes.

That last one is especially strange, isn't it?  The answer is obviously yes in a trivial sort of way: science will never determine whether chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla, for example.  But that's so dumb it makes you wonder if something got lost in translation.  So here's the original: "Y a-t-il des questions auxquelles aucune science ne répond?"  Anyone care to retranslate?

As for the question getting the most mockery — "Is it absurd to desire the impossible?" — I would use the standard dodge of philosophy students everywhere: please first define "absurd."  That should be sufficient to derail the conversation long enough for everyone to get bored of the whole topic.

Relatedly, Dana Goldstein asks, "Could you ever imagine the SAT or ACT asking students to write an essay on such complex, intellectual topics?"  No, I couldn't — though I could imagine questions of similar difficulty showing up on an AP philosophy test.  If there were an AP philosophy test, that is.  Which there isn't.  However, I'd be very careful before using this as evidence of the superiority of French education.  It's different, surely, but not necessarily better.

By now you may have seen the deluge of heckles on Twitter directed at  Michigan Representative Pete Hoekstra since yesterday, when he tweeted, "Iranian twitter activity similar to what we did in House last year when Republicans were shut down in the House." Wha? Anyway, the resulting tweet storm has been fierce (example: "Arjunjaikumar @petehoekstra i spilled some lukewarm coffee on myself just now, which is somewhat analogous to being boiled in oil").

Capitalizing on the 140-word fury, a new website, Pere Hoekstra is a Meme, is now pairing the best twitter retorts to Hoekstra's gaff with photo illustrations:

 

 

 

Here's something weird.  In a recent poll, the New York Times asked people if we should shut down the prison at Guantanamo Bay, but they used slightly different wording for half the sample.  Here's the response:

People were actually more in favor of shutting down Guantanamo when told it was holding "suspected terrorists."  Granted, it was only a six point difference and might just be a statistical artifact, but it sure is the opposite of what you'd suspect.  Question: is this just some kind of strange outlier, or does it suggest that the events of the past eight years have actually made people more jaded about the supposed danger of "suspected terrorists" than they are about mere "detainees"?

The 5% Doctrine

One of the regulatory proposals made by Barack Obama's financial team would prevent loan originators from making crappy loans and then immediately selling them off.  Instead, in an effort to make them pay more attention to the quality of their loans, they'd have to retain at least 5% of the risk of the loans on their own books.

I was skeptical about this when I first heard about it, but that was largely because I thought the 5% requirement applied to the banks who buy and securitize the loans, not the originators themselves.  Via Tim Fernholz, though, I see that that isn't true.  Here's what the administration white paper says:

The federal banking agencies should promulgate regulations that require loan originators or sponsors to retain five percent of the credit risk of securitized exposures. The regulations should prohibit the originator from directly or indirectly hedging or otherwise transferring the risk it is required to retain under these regulations.

....The federal banking agencies should have authority to specify the permissible forms of required risk retention (for example, first loss position or pro rata vertical slice) and the minimum duration of the required risk retention....The agencies should also have authority to apply the requirements to securitization sponsors rather than loan originators in order to achieve the appropriate alignment of incentives contemplated by this proposal.

The devil is in the details (what forms of risk retention will be required?), and I'd still prefer to see a higher number than 5%.  I'm also a little taken aback by the final sentence of the proposal, which explicitly allows regulators to apply the rule to securitizers rather than loan originators.  This is the kind of thing that looks harmless during ordinary times but becomes a gigantic loophole in the hands of pliant regulators when the economic mood swings into bubble mode.

Still, this regulation, along with the proposed new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, could go a long way toward cleaning up the mortgage market if Congress puts some teeth in it.  At the very least, it's a little better than I thought it was.

Well, I think I've solved one mystery related to the Bush administration's White House email scandal. It's a rather small one considering some of the larger questions hanging out there—the suspicious gap in the OVP emails being one of them—but it certainly did seem curious. I'm referring to the fact that, in 2003, contracting related a new White House email archiving system (a project that was abandoned just as it reached completion) was handled by the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service. You may recall that this particular division, which collects (or fails to) oil and gas royalties, was the subject of a series of scathing reports by the agency's inspector general. Beyond run-of-the-mill corruption and graft, the IG reported “a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity.” (One MMS official slept with oil company employees.) 

Babak Rahimi, who left Iran in 1980s but visits frequently, is now a professor of Iranian and Islamic studies at UC San Diego.  Today, he echoes Eric Hooglund's skepticism that rural Iranians voted monolithically for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

During the first couple of weeks after I arrived, I sensed little public interest in the election. But in the weeks before the election, the country underwent a dramatic change of attitude. I watched passionate supporters of Mousavi dance, sing and chant anti-government slogans on the streets of Tehran, despite a ban on most of these activities under Islamic law. From the southern port city of Bushehr to the northern towns of Mazandaran province, an astonishing sense of enthusiasm spread throughout the country. "I have never voted before, but I will vote this time," a resident of Bushehr told me, expressing a sentiment I heard again and again.

One major claim of those in power is that although there is some dissent in the cities, the countryside voted solidly for Ahmadinejad, which accounts for his win. But in my preelection fieldwork in a number of southern provinces, I observed major tensions between provincial officials — especially the local imams — and the Ahmadinejad administration in Tehran. I saw far lower levels of support for the president than I had expected. In fact, I heard some of the most ferocious objections to the administration in the rural regions, where the dwindling economy is hitting the local populations hard. As one young Bushehr shopkeeper put it: "That idiot thinks he can buy our votes. He does not care for us."

Iran Update

The latest from Iran:

Days after it was urged to investigate last week’s disputed presidential election, Iran’s authoritative Guardian Council said on Thursday that it had invited the three candidates challenging the official results to a meeting to discuss their grievances, state media reported.

While the exact motives, timing and conditions for the invitation from the Guardian Council remained unclear, it was the first public indication that the authorities were prepared for some form of dialogue to defuse the outrage over the election results, Iran’s worst political crisis since the 1979 revolution. But the opposition seemed likely to view it warily.

Playing for time?  A genuine offer?  A sign of weakness?  Hard to say.  But the Guardian reports that today's demonstration in Tehran drew upwards of a million people.

This is not a good sign for Obama's big push to rein in wasteful defense spending: the House Armed Services committee has made an early move to restore funding for the F-22 fighter jet. Gates wants to finish production on four more planes and then end the program. (Its flaws are many: here's a useful rundown.) Instead, the committee inserted $369 million into this year's defense authorization bill to pay for parts for another dozen F-22s. This is basically a sneaky way to commit the government to 12 planes while putting off the bill until later: The F-22 officially goes for $143 million each—and the real figure is more like $350 million when you add in things like maintenance and training. So $369 million won't even come close to covering their total cost.

The vote was very close (31-30), and there's still a long way to go—both the House and Senate have to finish marking up the bill, and then negotiators for both chambers will haggle over the details in conference. Still, by coming out so early in defense of the F-22, House lawmakers are sending a pretty blunt signal to the White House that the Gates budget is going to get a bumpy ride. We'll be covering this very closely next week in a special feature on the defense budget—watch this space.

UPDATE: Barney Frank is introducing an amendment to remove the F-22 funding.