to them, it is another religion that seems strange even though islam has been a part of the united states since the beginning. you have a frightened population that is ignorant of a particular religion, culture, accused. we do not know the context for the religious sayings. i can give you all kinds of examples in american culture where a comment in one context as a joke and in another can be a threat. sometimes you have to be african-american.
sometimes you have to be part of a subculture within the african- american community to know what we are really saying. every culture has its codes and its norms. you do not know the dances. if you went to howard university, you would be lost. i am queen of the ball. it is my manner. i know everything. i know the unspoken words. i know in between the lines point i know the tilt of information, when yes means no pattern in your culture, i do not even know when yes means yes -- means note. in your culture, i don't even know when yes means yes. we need an acknowledgement of human limitations. we do not know how to read one another. even in this country where we have been together, these multiple races, we african- americans were created on this continent. this is the only place in the world we could have been created we are as indigenous as the native americans in some
ways. we're still getting to know one another. we're still learning to read one another. i was talking with one of my fbi friends -- yes, i have fbi friends. [laughter] i have been learning the culture. i said to my friend, joe, you cannot even handle your black fbi agents. what are you going to do with muslim americans? and what are you quick to do with somebody from baghdad? you can even handle our minorities. you are still getting the ability to read us. so we have agencies that are supposed to prevent something they cannot see from a people and from a cold -- and from a cult and a subculture that has twisted the their religion.
they use ham handed proxy's. there is good profiling and bad profiling durin. my friend says, connie, we have to stop it. you cannot. you cannot do it without the people who know this part of the world, this part of humanity. this is what you have your burden. do not worry. we have had our burden. we have carried it for 400 years. we have to help you in the job because all you can do it. the very people we need, we are driving away. that is the problem appeared the people that we can speak the language are the people who can -- that is the problem. the people that we cancan speake language for the people who can
be on line and read this. if we drive our partners away, the people who can tell us what is going on in hamas -- i am still figuring out where i can wear shoes. i have to -- you have to tell me how i should behave in your house of worship. this incident really highlighted the deficits on the american culture side. we are still lead coming to terms with what we cannot control and cannot know and coming to terms with the fact we cannot make us safe. we cannot make muslim americans save. we cannot make the united states save -- we can make muslim americans safe. we cannot make the united states safe. we have -- that is until we
have [unintelligible] is inadequate how the united states thinking is on that front. >> the turning point, actually -- moslems should agree on reality, even if we do not accept it. muslims are an essential part of the solution. without muslim americans in that for one, there is no solution. there is no solution and america will not be the america we want. we need this country because it
is the best country in the world, the best human experience that we have. we need to keep before us and for our children. to keep it, we should solve that problem of dangerous, violent extremists. without the muslims fighting, there is no winning. not homeland security, not the military -- muslim troops must be on the front line. >> cynthia, in terms of the media and how these kinds of problems are framed, but i think we can agree that, even though we come from different backgrounds and have different cultures, we do have a common problem in terms of the information that is out there representing mainstream as
opposed to how various pundits and the talk shows frame issues. there was a recognition of lou dobbs, for example, on cnn. but he was very much an immigrant in many ways. tell us a little bit about how mall the fuse to these kinds of shows and pundits in the talk- show circuit. >> i think that loves is probably the poster boy for anti-immigrant sentiment. there are other mainstream media. i consider him outside of the mainstream. but there is other mainstream media reporters to do the same thing, who stereotype in their recordings. the -- in their reporting.
the maldeff has done this is to go on the shows and educate. our mission combines education without region partnership, which is why i'm here today, -- with outreach partnership, which is why i am here today. it is to shift the focus of their reporting. it is both fascinating and a terrible to know that the american public is so afraid and so anxious about undocumented immigrants. if u.s. people how large do think in the undocumented population is, based on all of the reporting and the scare tactics that the media uses,
you'd think it would be a large percentage of the population. actually, it is just under 3% of the entire population. it is a very small segment of the united states. yet, it is a convenient scapegoat for people to blame all of american's problems -- all of america's problems. >> when the economic cliff -- when people feel that the country is going over a cliff, it becomes extraordinarily dangerous. this country has been in the spot before, where you see the irrational sort of aggressive ignorance on steroids. the media needs medical prescription. when i turn on the television, i have to turn it off. it looks ahead of an insanity festival.
the partisanship that you hear in the political debate, it is stoking the fears. this country is at a very interesting point. the white population is feeling very frightened and displaced and disenfranchised. so they're turning on the people they hire to wash their cars. we have folks who put our crops. we have invited them and we turn on them. we then associated entire community with this threat. and is irrational it is irrational in terms of being a threat of all. and it is iirrational in terms of the size. we have an equally irrational reaction -- phobia. there are legitimate fears that we need to address together in
a sane and cogent manner. it has to be based on facts and the way that cultures in iraq and based on what we can know and cannot know. -- and the way that cultures interact and based on what we can know and cannot know. my grandmother used to wait in the night for the night riders conquered the media used to send a signal for when the klan was going to come -- the night riders were going to,. going -- to -- going to come. the scapegoatism is very huge.
and the media it is placing its ratings on it. we need to have television shows sen scripps -- because the american people -- television shows and scripps -- because the american people take their cues from the media. >> we are going to go to questions from our audience. even if it is directed to one person, please go ahead as you wish. the first question -- do american muslims there any responsibilities regarding the extremists among them? >> that is a very loaded
question. in general, i am a preacher of putting the responsibility on us. it is our name. it is our religion. it is people who are claiming our religion they're doing awful things. i mean, you count your blessings. we are really in trouble. [unintelligible] we can dispose the logic of that we are bad, but they are worse. yes, there is responsibility.
are we responsible for the extreme elements in our mix? no, we are not. all we can do is argue our case and put our alternative on the table. this is a theology of death and islam is the theology of life. in a song, i challenge anyone to show me that this is -- in islam, i challenge anyone to show me that this is celebrated. this is a calamity. this is an aberration. we have to put the theology of life to live and humanity and t come closer to god through service. that is juxtaposed to the other. we believe that muslims will gravitate to what i call real
islam. i give myself the celebrity. they would do that rather than gravitate toward something that would give misery. the muslims in the extreme fanatic john younand john royit- in the era of the fiery speakers and the pounding on tables, they take it out of context. they are intimidated and they're taken. it is my responsibility.
if you want to be in islam, read the corona and do not let anyone else will you. -- read the koran and do not let anyone else sway you point. >> how can muslim organizations assure other american organizations that it is ok to monitor most loved suspected of posing a danger? this is the difference between profiling and intervention. how do we constructed in a way that it is done in a healthy way so we do not have to resort to profiling? >> let's talk about profiling. in law enforcement, we have
done racial profiling cases. racial profiling is stupid. it says we are going to pull over everyone who is african american who are driving a car. or they're going to say we are going to pull over every latino driving a truck. in riverside, they did that. they put out a bulletin that said it would pull over every latino in a truck. that is stupid. if there is a threat, this can be done by someone who is fluent enough in the threat, whether you're looking for a white supremacist or someone in the klan. you're not going to go to a black panthers meeting. the problem with what we have right now is that you do not have people fluent enough.
you have people who are afraid and ignorant setting the standards. so what do you do? we end up pulling over everybody with a funny sounding name. the have one friend who was stopped on columbia's campus because the guard thought he looked iraqi. that thing we have to fight. what we do have to do is intelligent intervention. i know, in my community, who the nets are could i know who's about to go off. i know who is off their medication. i can tell who is about to get violent. in domestic violence, we have profiles where men are building themselves up to where it could lead to family annihilation. we need the civil rights community to identify the
legitimate tools of intervention and interception. as i said before, i can do it in my community, but we have got to get -- we have to help law- enforcement come to a more intelligent approach to this. [unintelligible] this is exactly the one community that will help us underground and alienate them. the very people we need to keep us safe, you are using tactics that will alienate them and drive away. it does not get any dumber than that. you also had another dynamic in fort hood. we're talking about doctors could i have two brothers who
are doctors -- were talking much doctors. i have two brothers who are doctors. doctors do not read on one another. they do not challenge one another. you think lawyers are bad? doctors are notorious. you have a medical community and a medical culture -- surgeons who are drug -- a took my brother 10 years to get rid of a drug surgeon because they will not go after one another. there will not prosecute another. they will not raise questions about one another. they may whisper, but they may will not say that this doctor is posing a threat or a danger to the patients. that is what should have happened here. that medical community, that psychiatric community, they knew the problem occurred we know that now from the notes in the file. -- they knew the problem. we kneknow that now from the notes in the file. with people who are dealing with post-traumatic stress,
when you have a doctor with posttraumatic stress, that is your sign. you do not send them. you don't let the pressure buildup. the might be something that impact. we need to get the experts together and we need to help law enforcement get intelligent questions. i see a 5% of the profiling is stuck on steepened -- i see a 85% of the profiling is stuck on stupid. [applause] >> again, this is the media spin on it, the right wing conservative media on it. they said that the military did not follow on this because they were afraid of an eeoc
complaint. that is stupid. this doctor protector phenomenon -- it could've been that the military is so stressed and we're asking them to do so much and we are calling on these psychiatrists to take so much, to hear so much pain and terror and to hold it inside. it could have been that and the lack of psychiatrists and the lack of professional help and the need to keep someone there, even though there were troubling signs, to keep them there because they were stretched so thin and they needed someone to help these soldiers at fort hood. there are a number of reasons why attacks could have happened or why he was not reported or action was not taken against this doctor. the right-wing media
automatically immediately wanted to spin itmt to say that this is why we should not have -- this is why we should have racial profiling and be allowed to racially profile everybody in. it is outrageous for the reasons that mr. rice stated. ]w>> there is a myth that we create and then we are bound by it. let me talk about political correctness. what is politically correct? whether it is politics or otherwise, now comes the notion that, because we're politically correct, i want to know exactly what that means. we should be politically incorrect or what? many are saying, basically, do
not treat them fairly. they do not deserve it. be suspicious of them and speak loud. one the people against them because they're dangerous. this is the sentiment left behind in the last six weeks or so about politically correct. everybody should be correct. i want someone who talks about me to be correct. it is not a maneuver. it is propriety. it is not that they are politically correct. they are as false as the other side saying that he does not want to go fight and kill muslims. where is a psychiatrist in the field going to kill anybody? by that logic, the guy has great
integrity and did not want to kill muslims. you try to help him and if you can not, you cannot. there is no hero here. he doesn't want to go treat patients in a dangerous area. you cannot call him a hero who does not want to go and fight against the enemy. that is nonsense. i want everyone to be corrected me, honestly. i do not want anyone to say that, because you are egyptian and muslim, i am afraid of you. i will not accept that and
behind the sign, in my language, is a place that you do not want to go to. because if you go there, you will not come back. the notions need to be cleared from the discourse if we want to reach concrete results. >> our next question deals with law enforcement. everyone here deals with law enforcement, in terms of engagement, in terms of partnership. but, at the same time, we are progressive thinkers and we are critical of law enforcement policies. how the balance between being critical of certain law enforcement agencies and not disengage from them with the notion that we are reforming our own communities and are working in partnership with these same agencies in dealing with
these potentially criminal problems? >> since i see law enforcement for 20 years and, in the last seven years, have worked very closely with them, when chief bratton left, he gave me chief of police badge. [laughter] my closest to delay partners are unlikely allies, but they are law enforcement. to take the question on -- you cannot disengage. it is extremely dangerous to stay apart from them. i have made it my policy to them that they get sick of me. i do not let them out of my sight. police power is extraordinary.
after 9/11, i was so afraid that we would have a case where concentration camps were ok and that detention camps were ok. we have to help them think clearly. we have to help them solve this problem. we have to help them protect us. and we have to protect them from what they do not know. i say, move into the new police headquarters. i say, assign permanent veto to tagalong with the fbi. keep them engaged. you had a huge fight inside. you had to have a real wrestling match. do we cooperate or do we not? we had to get the lawyers ready. it is still a terrible time, but it was a particularly terrible time. in the middle of that, you
engaged in a discussion with her family and you came up with we are going to engage. now it is going to be like a marriage. there are going to be days when you will kick them out of the house and not talk to them because you're angry with them and there will be days that you come back and come back to the table and work it out. however you need us to help -- i am not going to presume that can help -- bring as and when every need s, the rest of us. but, together, we have to make sure that law enforcement is engaging with the muslim community, the immigrant muslim committee, all the different communities because there are so many of them and i do not know all of them. law enforcement is still just now -- lapd, for the first time in its history, the new chief, charlie beck, is saying, you know what? we, the police, have caused the riots. we, the police, have caused racial risk in this city.
we, the police, it must become partners with the community. if that is coming from them now. it took 100 years of fighting, hand-to-hand combat. you don't have to start there. they are actually wanting your help. they want our help. so the engagement has to happen. but you have to realize that it is a terrible burden, but you will have to educate all of us on how to do that. >> i agree with miss rice. it is critical to forge relationships with law enforcement. the fbi los angeles office has designed a diversity committee. i think that is a good model for law enforcement to follow. it allows all the communities to come together and for all of us to get to know each other better and i think that is a successful model and one that, hopefully, other law enforcement agent people follow.
it is critical for all of us to work with law enforcement and for them to work with us. when it is necessary, sometimes we need to work against law enforcement. for example, there are limited circumstances, such as may 1, a couple of years ago, when the lapd engaged in a melee against immigrants and people who were marching for immigration reform act macarthur park. i am sure a lot of you heard about it on the news. many of our community members were really harmed in that police action. that was one instance where we had to sue the lapd to get not only monetary damages for declines, but also some really important structural reform within the department and to educate them and to bring
information to them, like you should not issue dispersal orders in english only when you are addressing a crowd of mostly spanish speakers because they do not understand what you told them to do. i think it is important, sometimes, to take that approach and to litigate and to advocate on behalf of your community and let them know how to work better with your community and have to be more responsive to the community. >> thank you. back to you. we have vito questions, a double header. -- we have two questions, a double header. you mentioned that death is not celebrated in islam, but martyrdom for a just cause is. this is the argument that
extremists use. how you counter that? then -- hold on. there's more. this is something similar, but different in perspective. although lichen down your -- although i condone your march views -- >> thank you. >> i do not see -- although i condone your moderate views -- a >> thank you. >> osama bin laden-style views are still glorified. why? >> martyrdom was never meant to go guess what, i am going to die and go to heaven.
trying to live through it and achieve victory is life. if, in the process, you die unwillingly, you are a mortar. that is the difference between martyrdom and suicide. suicide means i am fed up with it. i do not care about this life anymore. they are so bad, i am going to blow myself up on them and kill them and myself mortem is i stand up for justice -- myself. martyrdom is i stand up for justice. this is not only in a fighting situation. in life.
a great mortar is one who goes to an impressive ruler and says, you are an oppressor. he was not going to die. he was going to advise the ruler not to be an oppressor. if, in the process, he dies, god bless them. that is different from let me wrap the things around my belt and let me go because tomorrow i will be in heaven. [applause] we have to be aware of these differences and we have a terrible crisis of definitions. i am blaming probably the
intelligentsia in general. but muslim scholars should come with an inventory of definition. what is sacrifice and with his victory? we have to know what we're talking about because, unfortunately, most people who are bigmouthed and healthy and fat and comfortable send young impressionable people to die. why do not go yourself? why not? [applause] you would be even less suspected when you find an older man with a cane and things. they may not search him as they would pay 20-year-old beira's boy. but they don't do that. they send people to die. -- they send young people to die. we should be fed up with this. call their bluff.
the most valuable thing we have is our young people. [applause] do not give them that kind of opium that makes them go and die. [unintelligible] what is more clear than the profit teaching -- do not wish to face the enemy. what is more clear? the idea is not to die. if i can find a peaceful solution or something or a compromise, i did because life is good. life is to be lived. the crimkoran, in chapter 9, the
messenger that calls you will give you live. it never says that it would give you death. another question is why other pitches to not -- and other creatures do not say that? i do not want to volunteer reading their mind because i may read it wrong. but i think you can sense that i have lots of anger about that attitude. i am a preacher and i send other people to die. that is terrible. that is unacceptable. [unintelligible] [applause] >> we really only have time for
one more question although, there are several that we can put on our website and have the panel answer later. how do we teach our children love of countries even though immigrants who do not believe in the u.s. -- i would say that there are people who do not believe in the system and do not feel a part of the system. how do we deal with this issue of raising children in the muslim community? >> i am itching to take a shot at it. you said immigrant. that is with the question says. i will be quiet for the rest of the evening. >> dr. hathout is absolutely
right. what we do not do in this country is that we do not teach why is so great. look at any other great democracy or look at monarchies. look at any country in the world and think about -- and i use my family as an example -- i am a great granddaughter of slaves and slave owners. in for generations, my family is at the pinnacle of choice and freedom. my cousin was the secretary of state. in no other country could descendants of slaves have ascended so quickly. was it easy? no. [applause] do we still fight every day? did we have anger?
yes, but our anchor has never exceeded our love of this country's credos. it is only in this country, no matter for you come from, where there is at least a path and a common ideology that says that everybody can belong. we are not there. we have not achieved it. we're still achieving the american pluralism. but no other democracy does it as well as we do. it takes generations, but we do it. do we have ghettos? yes. we have indian reservations? yes. like i said, i could write myself a reparations check end do a native american treaty obama itself with myself. -- treat all by myself with myself. good to any other country, egypt, you will find equally -- >> [unintelligible]
[laughter] >> there is not a nation on the planet that does not do that. a poor miss unknown -- people nervous-- e pluribus unim. that is how we teach our kids. >> today, on c-span, william eggers talks about what government does and does not do well. then secretary of state hillary clinton on human rights. bruce randall looks at u.s. policy in afghanistan and pakistan. richard burr kaiser remembers the life of the magazine's founder, william s. buckley.
>> we will talk with clark kent irvin, henry farrell, and ken walsh. "washington journal" starts at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. no available is c-span's book "abraham lincoln, great american historians on our 16th president. it is in hardcover at your favorite bookseller and now in digital audio to listen to any time, available where digital audio is sold.
how many times have you heard that phrase. if we can put a man on the moon, why can we not hear homelessness. if we can put a man on the moon, why can we not fixed schools. if we can put a man on the moon, why can we not make killer robot police? >> before this decade is out, landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. no project will be more impressive to mankind or more important for the long-range exploration of space. >> john o'leary, my co-author, does a wicked kennedy
impersonation. it was an impossible challenge, but america pulled together. in july, 1969, neil armstrong spent his flag on the moon. the trip to the moon inspired a generation. climbing mount everest, flying across the atlantic, and reaching the north pole all rolled into one. no one alive at that time could forget that feeling of pride at that moment. do you remember that? most of you probably remember where you were exactly at that time is made up -- at that time. it made an impression on americans, especially the young. like barack obama. he said, "my grandfather explained that we americans can set our minds to do anything we decide to do."
we had won world war ii. we had to rebuild europe through the marshall plan. and we build the national highway system. we were justifiably proud of our accomplishments. but is our government today capable of executing our greatest challenges? iraq, katrina, the brutal economic meltdown, where once again facing questions about our government's ability to execute. the men on the street believes that we have a crisis. people are mad. they are angry angry. they're angry at wall street, but also at our government. those who run our government programs also believe that we have a crisis. 60 percent of their senior
executives said that government today is less capable of executing than it was 30 years ago. most people will then ask who's to blame for this state of affairs? the answer, of course, depends on whose side you're on. george w. bush, barack obama, newt gingrich, nancy pelosi, the republicans, the democrats, if the free contractors, the unions, michael more, rush limbaugh -- who's to blame? it is a natural question asked. but is it to the right question? all you need to do is visit a local bookstore and go into the current events section which is filled with them. -- filled with villains. i wanted us to appear on the cover of our book in short black
many dresses. but my brother dave talk this out of it. there's always the paperback. instead of who is to win, we ask a different question. why do some issues fell and why do some succeed? we look for great successes and monumental failures. we wanted to look for patterns. we wanted to look at the success of the marshall plan to the integration reform and vietnam. we reviewed all of these initiatives. we realized that it would require a small army of individuals who understood the government and were willing to work for free. the answer was clear. we needed cred students. [laughter] with of the help of more than 70
grad student, we -- we needed grad students. [laughter] we were looking for a path to success. my co-author and die each bring a different perspective to this issue. john is an engineer by training, and he developed a process map for making toast in the morning. like any good engineer, he said we need to look at this and break it down into discrete processes. while all of these initiatives were different, they followed a very predictable path, a journey to success. there are lots of ways that an initiative can end in disaster. but you must have a good idea. you must have unemployment
doubled as i entered the design must win approval -- you must have on employman implementable. and it must win approval. [unintelligible] there must be confident implementation and the initiative must generate the desired results. by simply visualizing it as a map, we could see the root causes. i am a consultant. my perspective is different. a consultant is often called in when an initiative is in the ditch and they need to get it out of it. but this map, while technically
correct, it really does not reflect the real world that i see every day of government and government initiative. i tend to look at all the possible problems and look at the systemic barriers to success. the potential for failure looks everywhere. -- the potential for failure loolurks everywhere. to learn about the traps, you have to read the book. that means you're going to have to buy the book, which is available after. i am told that they make fine holiday presents. you take the process map and then you take the trap and you put those together and then you have the map, which we think is the more realistic map. it looks a little bit like that.
there are copies of the map behind you. we will start out by looking at the idea phase. not all ideas are critical. the robocopter was a bad idea. it got a patent even. new coke, bad idea. the is the buttons were designed to whip double-digit inflation. bad idea. how does an idea like this come into place? you can have a successful initiative if you have a bad idea. bad ideas become reality when they are not exposed to external criticism.
this phenomenon is called tolstoy syndrome. it occurs when people in groups shut themselves off from critics, from those who think differently than they do. a few years ago, a professor from the university of georgia said that this is how the brain works. he had ardent republicans and ardent democrats watching debate bbetween george bush and john kerry. he had their heads wired up so that they could monitor their brains. it looked a little bit like that. it is available on ebay for $29.95. he found that republicans thought that the bush had won.
democrats thought that kerry had wondere. both sides ignored it when each side is being inconsistent. it was the emotional part of the brain. those watching the debate were not thinking at all. they were just pulling for their guy. this causes a lot of problems. think of the world we are living in today. so much of the news we get confirms our views rather than informs us. a route of the problems we have today is this that shows up time and time again. the answer is to expose these ideas to new ways of thinking. it is like having an engineer
and consultant look at the same problem. that is the approach that was used to solve one of the biggest environmental problems of the 1980's -- acid rain. in lake michigan, my family was crazy about the beach. throughout most of my childhood, when never actually got to go to the beach. why? it was covered in dead fish. really ugly dead fish. why? because of acid rain. it occurs in coal-bearing plants and cents pollution into the air and then it goes about hundreds of miles and land somewhere else and kills lakes and rivers and the animals and wildlife within it. it was the biggest environmental
issue of the 1980's. you think something would have been done about it could unfortunately, -- about it. unfortunately, the debate fell into two camps. you had one group wanted to eliminate all pollution. they wanted to put plants out of business. each was locked into their world view. they did not disagree. they despise each other. there was an impasse. into this quagmire came to senators. they were a democrat and republican. here is how they broke through the logjam. they brought in economists to look at the problem.