Expanding Talent

I have been considering for some time on whether I should create an online gallery to display my artwork. Though I have been drawing (or doodling, some would say) for quite some time, I never really had enough confidence until now to step out into the world and showcase my artistry. The kind of the art I do is more abstract--shapes, patterns, figures, and colors arranged in seemingly unintelligible manner.

It is not that I disdain other forms of art; on the contrary, other artforms serve as only one type of insipiration as I think about what to draw in a given space or how to color a given segment. It is just that I have a "knack" for the 'non-conventional' or 'non-usual' subjects. Admittedly, I have received few visitors, and even fewer comments. Yet I suppose this is normal, given that I am new in this kind of world. I welcome you to visit my gallery, which I will periodically update with further pieces and drop in a line or two, by clicking on the link above. You may also post comments on this blog.

Artfully yours. <3>

Be Careful What You Pay For....It may not be the "real" thing.

I was browsing the internet, after a long respite, and I happened upon this Yahoo! article. It interested me because it featured a complaint about IMAX presentations. For just about anyone who has gone to an IMAX movie--with it's building-high screen and three-dimensional imagery--the experience is magical and puts him/her in a different world. So when I came upon this article, I first thought this may be some parody of IMAX and that any negativity suggested by the article's headlines should not be taken that seriously. This is especially given the fact that the reported complaint was given by a commedian. But as I looked further into the article, I got really interested and started to wonder if the complaints made were more than just sarcasm in passing. May be this commedian does have a point: that we, as consumers, have become too passive in our dealings with producers and sellers. Whatever the full truth behind this IMAX incident--whatever it may imply for other IMAX showings---the whole gist of the article seemed to re-pronounce an old-age wisdom: be careful what you pay for. The reported response of IMAX's CEO towards the commedian's complaint is no less reassuring in this regard.

Hope for a Saner World--A Poem

http://salad-bowl.blogspot.com/

I pray for the ability to find within myself and within whatever surrounds me:

Hope where others see only despair;
Wisdom where darkness is only experienced;
Knowledge to combat ignorance;
Clarity, Understanding, and Appreciation in the face of vagueness and complexity;
Abundance and Gratitude in the face of scarcity;
Urgency when others are consumed by apathy;
Pragmatism where others are deluded by false promises or excessive euphoria;
Idealism where there is a lack in hope and in the imagination of forward thinking;
Inspiration where others see only emptiness.

Compassion where others perceive and use cruelty for 'protection';
Concern when others are pushed to indifference;
Gentleness and Mercy when and where roughness becomes the order of the day;
Consideration for the plight of the weak while others become convinced or motivated only via greed.


Strength where others find only weakness;
Capability where they only see disability;
Confidence when and where unnecessary doubt prevails.


Acceptability where there is exclusivity;
Equality when others lay claim to privilege;
Love and Appreciation in the midst of hate and disregard.


Honesty when others feel they must lie;
Modesty where arrogance and ostentation are claimed as traits and examples of leadership;
Integrity when others feel they can only cheat their way out of things, or cheat up to things;
Meticulousness when short-cuts are preferred;
Responsibility where obligation is lacking;
Loyalty and Sincerity in face of betrayal.


Diplomacy to counteract tactlessness and offensive behavior.


Calmness in the depths of chaos;
Liberation out of despotism and abuse;
Patience, Productive Resolve, and Measured Action in the face of injustice;
Steadfastness when commitment is shunned or questioned;
Determination in the face of lacking resolve;
Courage and Rationality when and where there is only fear.


A Sense of Security amidst paralyzing uncertainty;
Sensibility to challenge a rush upon judgment;
Restraint where others are so easily motivated by blinding anger;
Skepticism where others are victimized by gullibility;
Trust when and where others are weighted down with suspicion.


Most of all, I pray that I am able to keep my humanity;
So that I can continue to improve;
Continue to be human and humane towards others and towards myself;
Resolved to realize that neither me nor anyone else is, or can be, picture-perfect;
Resolved to realize that I and others can only strive to become better wholes,
Of Our True Selves.

On 'Radicals' and 'Moderates' : An Exploration of the Meaning of Malcolm X (May 19, 1925- February 21, 1965)

[Originally published Saturday, February 21, 2009 at 7:29am ]

INTRODUCTION: RADICALS AND MODERATES (PARTIALLY) DECONSTRUCTED

Here's some food for thought. What is more likely to be the greatest threat to a society--radicals or moderates?

I know what you may be thinking as you read that line: "You know better than to ask silly questions. The answer should be obvious." But then I would fire back: dear reader, are you so sure it is a worthless and absurd inquiry? Are you sure that the answer is as so obvious?

Let me add a few disclaimers here. This essay is written in honor of Black History Month and of a man who showed the depths of the low-times and high points of the Civil Rights Movement. To some noteworthy extent this person's complexity is a snapshot (or perhaps a microcosm) of the complexities of a series of struggles--the noble and the questionable--which, in their sum, were undertaken to achieve that basic, natural right of recognition of dignity, respect, and (ultimately) of humanity, from fellow humans.

Thus this piece is neither an invitation to, nor a lesson in, conspiracy theorizing. It is a call for reflection on the past with an understanding for both positive anticipation of, and hopeful pragmatism for, the present and the future. It is (I hope) also a reminder to all (including myself) that we must resist the temptation to rush to judgment upon others; like many other things the story of this person, as well as the general points in the broader essay, will show that a better understanding the world and our lives cannot be approached through a black-white lens. The world is full of gray spots and gray planes---and the sooner we realize this fact and act upon it, the quicker (I hope) we will devise better solutions to our baffling problems. Finally it is a reminder that where the gray spots and gray planes are becoming clearer or at least less gray, it is incumbent upon us to affirm and assert this clarity. Both the reservation to a rush in judgment and the defense of the clearer should help us to become wiser and more just.

We normally wouldn't consider moderates as a threat to social order and prosperity. After all, they do nothing out of the usual. They eat, sleep, work, relieve themselves, and have pleasure like the rest of us. But one thing that sets the active among them apart from the rest of the society is this--their ability to affect change. Through patient, wise, and compassionate effort, they are able to effect change that is more profound, more wide-ranging, more enduring. Even moderates, or those under moderating influences, make mistakes. But when they do, and especially if they are of the self-reflective and honest type, they admit to their mistakes and strive in the long process to rectify them. And this honestly is likely to bolster their efforts further.

Yes radicals, too, affect change and that change is likely to carry a punching impact. But it is more likely to be an impact of reactionary effect. That reactionary effect forces the status-quo, the convention, to be more forcefully defended. Or to create a new status-quo that more forcefully props the establishment. Their actions do not challenge people to think or reason, but merely to react in a way that could be guided (some would say "exploited") by an establishment of rulers, opinion makers/pundits, or others of prominent positions or hold on influence or credibility. To such an establishment, therefore, a radical is likely to be a "convenient enemy"--that which one in power or influence would "love to hate"--because the anti-entity's excesses (whether real or imaginary) would serve to justify the entity's increased power or influence/credibility.

The moderate seeking to affect change more peacefully and in "less controversial" terms, on the other hand, would be more threatening--yes, (you read my words correctly) more threatening. Because it would be harder to argue against the moderate--in effect, delegitimize him or her--the moderate would in essence serve as an "inconvenient friend" that the establishment or status-quo would "hate to love." Besides, a radical is discredited more quickly than a moderate, eventually having been seen as merely a counter-productive, reactionary element among his or her own most core supporters. Furthermore the radical faces the inevitable prospect of being declared as undesirable by the establishment and the rest of the society.

MALCOLM X: THE SHINING BLACK PRINCE

Having laid out my general ideas, I think we are now in a position to approach the story I was so anxious to tell at the beginning of this essay. I will discuss a bit on Malcolm X, because he was such a controversial character in his initial positions of opposition to non-violence and of racial separatism. Perhaps, he is equally "controversial" for his deep transformation in the last 1 to 1 1/2 years of his life. And this eclectic mix fits nicely in my search to answer the question posed in the title of this essay.

I am surprised by how much people have focused on Malcolm X's role in the Nation of Islam (NOI) as opposed to taking a broader view of the entirety of his life. To be certain, Malcolm's involvement in the NOI was a crucial part of his person. But such a short-sighted focus ignores two other critical phases of his development into an African-American leader: the tumultuous pre-NOI years and roughly the last two years of his life. In the interests of brevity, I will focus on the latter. Focusing on his NOI days neglects the fact that Malcolm's doubts with the NOI leadership and his trips to the Hajj and Africa and North Africa had profoundly affected his worldviews about the African-American struggle towards equality and dignity. This change was perhaps as deep as, if not deeper than, his initial contact with the NOI.

To claim that Malcolm X was a Black separatist and that he still harbored venomous hatred towards Whites near the time of his death is an estimation that sharply contrasts with Malcolm's own statements laid down in his posthumously-published autobiography and with the numerous statements that he has made in the press during that critical time period. After all, it does not seem plausible that a man who declares that "I have eaten from the same plate, drunk from the same glass and slept in the same bed (or on the same rug)-while praying to the same God with fellow Muslims, whose eyes were the bluest of the blue, whose hair was the blondest of blond, and whose skin was the whitest of white. ...I felt the same sincerity. ... We are truly all the same-brothers" would have us think that he still believed that Whites are devils or were created inferior to blacks for instance.

Malcolm's "By Any Means Necessary" speech late in his life suggests that had not yet learned to fully trust the White majority/ establishment. But we must not forget that that time was the chaotic 1960's whose mixture of high points and deep frustrations produced enormous uncertainty about the Civil Rights Movement. These uncertainty put pressures not only Malcolm but many other prominent Black and non-Black civil rights advocates as well. [We may for instance mention Stokley Carmichel, a promising activist who went from being a president of SNCC (Student Non-Violence Coordinating Committee) to a "prime minister" of the Black Panthers to exile. Carmichel story is too complicated to go to any detail in here. Perhaps, someone else will write an exploratory essay on him.]

Two days before his death, Malcolm was reported to state in an interview:

"Brother, remember the time that white college girl came into the restaurant—the one who wanted to help the Muslims and the whites get together—and I told her there wasn't a ghost of a chance and she went away crying? Well, I've lived to regret that incident. In many parts of the African continent I saw white students helping black people. Something like this kills a lot of argument. I did many things as a [Black] Muslim that I'm sorry for now. I was a zombie then—like all [Black] Muslims—I was hypnotized, pointed in a certain direction and told to march. Well, I guess a man's entitled to make a fool of himself if he's ready to pay the cost. It cost me 12 years. That was a bad scene, brother. The sickness and madness of those days—I'm glad to be free of them." [Malcolm X: The Minutes of Our Last Meeting. Gordon Parks. Malcolm X: The Man and His Times. Ed. John Henrik Clarke, p. 122.]

Some have painted Malcolm's assassination merely as the result of a power struggle between him and Elijah Muhammad, the leader most accredited with building up the NOI to the potent organization it became in the 1950s and 1960s. Some have also believed that his death was the summation of all of his years of being consumed by blind hatred. Both of these ideas apparently prevailed in The New York Times and the LA Times, for example.

I think these reporters were hasty at best, and malicious at worst, because they failed to see and recognize Malcolm's evolution. I am coming to the realization that they failed to see just how profoundly Malcolm had come since his "New York Red" and "Detroit Red" days of bootlegging, prostitution, and hustling. It seems to me that they failed to see that Malcolm had positive potential deeply hidden down beneath his terrible experiences suffered in childhood: he witnessed his family being harassed by the likes of groups such as the Klan and believed his father was killed through foul means. They failed to see how his academic and intellectual gift (he earned straight A's and became class-president of the eight grade in a school based in a community predominated by whites) was soured by the reported lack of faith and confidence from a teacher; it turns that this teacher discouraged from pursuing his goal to go to law school. Apparently they failed to realize how deeply Malcolm had changed within prison by, almost in a single stroke, relinquishing his past criminal vices. With identical energy, he helped develop a sense of purpose and integrity to many socially and economically disenfranchised African-Americans in Harlem.

And yet again they had overlooked, through simple ignorance or deliberately convenient negligence, Malcolm's change of heart away from the NOI. In all of this, the man who met a gruesome and tragic fate was a complex person at a level farther than perhaps most who had estimated--one who had demonstrated the ability to be eloquent, conflicted by a history of troubled experiences, and one who above all demonstrated the ability and courage to be self-reflective and self-conscious as much as he was aware of the suffering of others. Even in his NOI days, so it seems, he was more complex of a figure than one who appeared to simply adovcated retaliatory violence. Adam Pachter notes a couple of significant traits that marked a reassuring consistency and restraint in Malcolm's personality. For example, Pachter explains that despite Malcolm's fiery speeches, he was polite to all who approached him in person. Pachter continues: "And the violence he claimed as a right was defensive -- self-defensive, to be precise. Malcolm X never advocated the initiating of violence, and several times he defused situations when a crowd threatened to get out of control."

I am inspired by Ossie Davis' famous (and no less eloquent) >February 27, 1965 eulogy of Malcolm X. Certain lines are powerfully revealing:

There are those who will consider it their duty, as friends of the Negro people, to tell us to revile him, to flee even, from the presence of his memory, to save ourselves by writing him out of the history of our turbulent times. Many will ask what Harlem finds to honor in this stormy, controversial and bold young captain. And we will smile. Many will say turn away, away from this man, for he is not a man but a demon, a monster, a subverter and an enemy of the black man. And we will smile. They will say that he is of hate, a fanatic, a racist who can only bring evil to the cause for which you struggle! And we will answer and say to them: Did you ever talk to Brother Malcolm? Did you ever touch him, or have him smile at you? Did you ever really listen to him? Did he ever do a mean thing? Was he ever himself associated with violence or any public disturbance? For if you did you would know him. And if you knew him you would know why we must honor him. ... And we will know him then for what he was and is. A prince. Our own black shining prince who didn't hesitate to die because he loved us so.

But none of this must have passed in the minds of the reporters who were so seemingly easy to rush into judgment on Malcolm X, the meaning and legacy of his struggles and of many others. In fact repetitive references were made in the mainstream press to "[internal] feud" and to descriptions of Malcolm as "black militant" or "black extremist" or addressing a "black supremacist" rally, in some form or another. These simplistic portrayals or associations persisted despite that fact a deeper side to him was revealed through his statements quoted in other articles in the very same newspapers (which instead showed a more embracing and thoughtful Malcolm). For example, check the collection of newspaper clippings published under the section, February 21, 1965: The Assassination and Aftermath, as part of the The Malcolm X Project at Columbia University. 'Never mind he was claiming a change of heart', they were probably thinking, 'he's dead just because another jealous Black man put a bullet to his head.'

CONCLUSION: ON RADICALS, MODERATES, AND THE MEANING OF MALCOLM

These kinds of arguments and insinuations are the main reason why I am incorporating Malcolm's story into the general purview of my question that I originally set upon answering. I submit that Malcolm X may have been killed not because he was a radical or even a "repented" radical. From far that. Perhaps, instead, he was killed because he had demonstrated an openness, a courage, an ability to change for the better; perhaps his met his tragic end because he began to moderate his attitudes and beliefs.

Pachter's PBS article concludes:

Towards the end of his life, Malcolm was changing...Malcolm began to seek common cause with the civil rights movement, to declare himself for objectives -- like voting rights -- that as a separatist Muslim he had previously thought irrelevant. He was "not for wanton violence," Malcolm X insisted, "I'm for justice." And although his commitment to use any means necessary to reach that justice never wavered, it may be that towards the end Malcolm no longer thought that violence would be one of those necessary means." [Adam Pachter, Any Means Necessary.].

In light of all of the above, Malcolm may have been more of a "threat" to the anti-civil rights and anti-black improvement establishments after his break with the extremes of the NOI than when he was a rising proponent of them. If Malcolm had been allowed to live longer, it is possible that he could have eventually ended up working with Dr. King in non-violence and integration methods. If both had been allowed to live longer, perhaps much more could have been achieved in the Civil Rights Movement and in healing America's race (and minority) problems then. Unfortunately, both Malcolm's and King's deaths immediately provoked widespread violent race riots; their deaths were the flash of spark to a powder keg of tensions that had been brewing for a long time.

I do not pretend that radicals are not dangerous. But it may be time to start probing whether moderates are deemed more dangerous, not least because of their ability to affect more substantial and more enduring and productively transformative changes. We owe to ourselves, to the past, to the present and the future, and to rest of the world that we become more thoughtful towards our surroundings--that we appreciate any notion that a better, more appreciative understanding of ourselves and others can no longer be considered a luxury.

The Crazy Game

A slowly growing number of people is screaming "foul play" but the bullied side is too weak to fend back and it can't attack the referee or create a new match. The rules of the game are lopsided, and spectators are observing the contentious duel between the two sides. Some spectators are rooting for the bully (and for the referee) consciously and eagerly; while others are silent ever hoping not to be seen as spoiling the match. Some in the audience are mystified by how much the odds are stacked against the bullied side, while others watch and comprehend nothing about the commotion of the match.

Many players are injured, and as the toll of casualties intensifies so too does the excitement of the crowd in the stands, or those tuned into the radio or the television set. Sooner or later, the mixed crowd begins to show hostility towards one another in the stands, while many others are clueless or apathetic. The cameras, pens, and keyboards are all too happy to capture these moments, conveniently overlooking the reason why such ruckus was created and how it spread in the first place.

When the wise among the observers collect themselves, they plan to establish some fact-finding body. But they lead themselves farther from the truth and any measured appreciation and response when they find in the bullied side an easy target. Who knows what kind of pressure this body is exposed to in the supposed "safety" of closed doors. Money, intimidation, promises?

But how much can the bullied offer to counter its relatively negligible status and position? The bullied players has found it hard to get along with one another anyway. Some of them begin to take on the demeanor of their stronger opponents, but they fail to create as much impact in denting their opponents. And enough members of the weak team---including the managers, coaches, and other administrators----have been so enthusiastic towards particular interests that their maneuvers have awaken the suspicion (and even animosity and ill will) of colleagues. Perhaps better contracts are in the works? More enticing salaries, a greater control over the affairs of the organization, a greater say in writing and executing the penned markings in the strategic playbooks? Or even prospects of a lucrative merger?

As for the bullying side and it supporters, they keep pushing their way. They do this with a narrow-minded, short-term assumption that they will remain indefinitely invincible, indefinitely unbeatable, indefinitely untouchable. While the entirety of the playing field where everyone else is a dispensable "fixture" and the space itself is exclusively their domain. They cannot so much visualize that their methods, mannerisms, and conduct are fostering a slow alienation for them. They don't want to understand they risk being transformed from strong, admirable competitor to simple ogres that can do little more than to flex muscles. By then, however, it may be too late to act: if the ogres become too much of burden to bear by the others, the ogres face suspension from the field.

The game, as it exists, reasonably cannot continue like this forever. No one wins in this scenario. The weakest and softest certainly don't. Not the bullying side, not the referee, nor the spectators. But, perhaps, the game itself will be the biggest loser of all---relinquishing its magic appeal, its sportsmanship and legitimacy, its received reverence.

Some Tough Questions on Balance

I often find myself torn between the extremes of full government intervention and absolute private individual activity when thinking about issues related to distributive justice and the allocation of resources. Like many others, I have come to understand the major mistakes and faultiness of Communist systems. It seems to me that these systems collapsed primarily because they (1) tried to over-regulate human economic (and other) behavior that is often too hard to predict and constrain, and (2) didn’t offer the right incentives towards individual progress and development, namely, failing to reward ingenuity and creativity and failing to instill a sense of personal responsibility in contributions to society. But I often find myself questioning the merits of a global capitalism that has seemingly gone haywire and which has in many instances failed to produce the foreseen or aspired promises.

There is no doubt in my mind that capitalism is one of the most logical systems of organizing human behavior towards efficiency and prosperity. But what if capitalistic attitudes and conducts generates externalities that grossly outweigh any foreseeable benefits? What if private individual activity, while assuming that it is undertaken to promote self-interest, instead leads one to get lost in, or confused by, self-interest so much that perspectives and observations on where we stand and where we want (or need) to go are no longer reached with the clarity required to move towards progress, development, prosperity, or even sustainability and survival? What if, as a result, multiple market failures converge to the point where what once seemed to be balance and level-headedness vanish? What if personal and social responsibility are forsaken for profits while the whole gamut of political, social, and economic systems have been so heavily titled towards free-market philosophy end of the spectrum that checks and balances set up in these very same systems fail to reasonably protect the average individual and the society as a whole? What if short-term thinking has so heavily predominated over more longer-term considerations that we have actively made so many mistakes and failed to take so many crucial actions that we have set ourselves on a terrible course that may not be reversible and we have realized it only too late?

I guess what I am pondering here is: what is the right mix of political and socio-economic philosophy and activity, and how can we reach it? With the world seemingly in a state of increased polarizations of wealth, access to opportunities, influence, power, ideas/positions, and so on, these questions take on more significance. These questions may also be significant in light of the recent financial meltdowns and the propelling of other calamities, quagmires, and conflicts facing us. Their answers and resolutions will certainly have far-reaching implications whether these implications become visible or not.

Newsflash: Obama Cracks 3 Southern Strongholds

The final results are in. Nearly after a full day of tallying, North Carolina reports that Obama has beaten McCain in a razor-tight race, according to National Public Radio's main website. The popular vote in the Tarheel State delivered a slim, but nonetheless significant, victory to the Democratic candidate, for a state that has traditionally voted predominately Republican and Conservative at the Federal level. In terms of percentages of the popular vote, NPR reports a dead-split even (50-50) between the two major presidential contenders. In actual estimated figures, these numbers run around 2,123,334 to 2,109,281 for Obama and McCain respectively, a difference of slightly more than 14,000 votes. Similar outcomes hold for two other traditionally Republican and Conservative Southern strongholds that are electorally significant in their own right: Virginia (52-47) and Florida (51-48)

'Smearcasting'--A New Report by FAIR

A part and byproduct of the election year has been political rhetoric--from statements and vows to characterizations and assertions--thrown around by and among various persons and bodies. While political rhetoric is only natural exercise integral to the civil discourse process, it seems that unfortunately some dubious rhetoric has crept into the scene. This rhetoric is not controversial and disturbing merely as tactics aiming to fulfill the political/electoral passions and aspirations of some, but more frighteningly it may have amplifications and ripple-effects on a more long-term basis after the conclusion of the election year and inauguration of a new Administration regardless of whomever takes the helm and whichever form that Administration takes. It is reasonable to expect that attitudes, opinions, and mannerisms of public discourse themselves, to outlast public office terms and to have the ability to influence the selection of future leaders.

One of the most disturbing trends evidenced in reoccurring bits throughout this election year has been attention on Muslims and Islam (directed to by some) in inflated, exaggerated, and inflamed tones and manners. This attention has been constructed both in blunt and implied terms. And of the one most prominent and clear examples of such misleading to have surfaced has the been the attempt to link presidential candidate Barack Obama to his cultural heritage and past in a conspicuous effort to raise doubt--and even suspicion--to his legitimacy and trustworthiness as he vies for the highest elected office in the land. What many may not realize is that, when a major candidate is being accused of being of "closeted" member of a particular ethnic or religious group, ultimately the main victims of the fallout and aftermath of such rhetoric will not be the targeted candidate or his/her campaign. In the larger scheme of things, public office-seekers enter through, and exit out of, their office's doors, serving either limited terms, being eventually challenged and defeated by rivalling candidates, or leaving the post in retirement or resignation.

And yes, many discussions continue about the impacts that candidates and officials have had or continue to have long after they leave office. But what may often be more enduring is the discourse and tone within which all of this occurs, and so I come back to the main premise--the implicit and explicit characterizations of, and allusions to, Muslims and Islam that has found its way throughout the current election environment. With the effect of self-righteously conjuring up emotions of uncertainty, fear, and even those bordering or crossing into paranoia that are likely to be exercised without, or in spite of, calm measured and rational discussion and reflection, the culpable tone is aptly called "islamophobia." Below is a link to a newly released report on this trend. It is important to note that the prejudices (and stereotypes) that are behind or that are likely to cause "islamophobia" are not new, as such simplistically distorted views have existed for quite some time (for example, one can extend Professor Jack Shaheen's arguments in his pioneering study Reel Bad Arabs). Similarly, concerns from Arabs and Muslims regarding the growth of a prejudiced or uneasy atmosphere towards them have been aired from time to time over the past several years, as hate crimes have spiked. What is significant is that non-Muslims and non-Arabs are beginning to accept that such challenges exist, as evidenced by the release of this aforementioned report by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting). Though much remains to be done, the release of these report is a welcome and refreshing development, a milestone in the right direction.

FAIR has created a website specifically devoted for the report at:
http://www.smearcasting.com/

Hot Topic: proposed upcoming US-hosted mideast peace summit?

Past 'gaps' between stated policy and actual action, as well as past 'patterns' of policy and actions, has forced many in the Mideast (directly involved, or even remotely affected by, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict) to question the effectiveness, and even the sincerity and seriousness, of proposed/announced peace initiatives. A huge chunk, if not most, of this skepticism has tended to come from the Arabs and Muslims mostly towards the United States----to the extent that latter has sadly "earned" a notorious reputation as a 'Dishonest Broker' and a (global) 'bully.'

The most important peace/negotiation initiative--known widely as the Oslo Process--has been declared as a "failure" even by the Arab League collectively in an unprecedentedly somber statement by Secretary-General Amr Moussa. It is in the tumultuous--and highly uneven--path to Mideast peace, as well as in the unevenness in both policies and actions (current and past), that many in the region interpreted with great reservation any renewed hope offered major actors like the US. These levels of concern and skepticism are perhaps no less for the very assertive statement that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleesa Rice made recently affirming that "Frankly it's time for the establishment of Palestinian state... That's really a message that I think only I can deliver."

It is questionable, however, on how effectively such stated assertiveness and confidence can realistically produce results that are substantial and substantive, long-lasting, just, wise, and final for the long-conflicting and warring sides. After all, the Camp David process and the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty of the mid to late 1970's hardly mentioned or did anything for the broader Arab-Israeli conflict (including the Palestinian-Israeli segment); in fact both were strictly bi-lateral between the major conflicting/warring sides of the time period (Egypt and Israel). The Oslo Process, which took off in 1993, began to show serious signs of strain and exhaustion after the initially great levels of euphoria and hope. Skepticism in the public and among commentators, may lead to conclusion that various summits---Wye River Memorandum in the late 1990s, and "Camp David II," along with the various Sharm el Sheikh and Taba conferences earlier in this decade---were all to reduced to little more than mere formalities that accomplished no new ground in resolving the conflict and which had actually failed to prevent its exacerbation, to say the least.

Finally, one can also cite the largely-ignored Arab League peace offer that was first introduced in 2002. The offer----which unprecedently affirmed multilateral Arab recognition of Israel [in return for substantial Israeli acceptance and implimentation of internationally-established principles/ interpretations/ instruments under the two-state formula]----seemed to again fade into oblivion upon its rejuvenation/reintroduction in early 2007. This second apparent refusal seemingly followed Israeli concerns on "some [prohibitive] preconditions" claimed as being placed for negotiations. Yet, other commentators have opined that the 2007 resurrection of Arab Initiative was little more than an affirmation of its already existing flexible 2002-based origins.

In all, the sea of pessimism (produced by the frustrations/strains thrusted upon the long years of the 1991 Madrid Conference and the subsequent Oslo Process) was capped by, and crowned with, both a general trend of increasing intensity of violence and tension between the Palestinians and the Israelis and the above-mentioned declaration of Oslo's failure by the Arab League (but there seems to be at least some optimism regarding current US moves according to a headline in a recent Arab League press statement reporting Moussa as commenting on having "sensed American desire towards serious peace conference" during a meeting with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice).

To make matters worse, intra-Palestinian relations have been marred and exacerbated in the past few years by cycles in the outbreaks and continuation of violence followed by cycles of uncertain and fragile cease-fires and power-arrangement settlements between the two main rival factions, the Fatah-led Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and Hamas, the "Islamist" opposition group which had formed the major portion of the Palestinian government up until as recently as late last year. Recently, there have new reported moves toward rapprochement between these two factions, but I think it is still reasonable to assume that both factions are far from reaching a serious reduction in tensions.

With the long history of setbacks outweighing successes, and with little time left for the duration of the Bush Administration before the next presidential elections, the Bush Administration is bound to realize that it is competing against time, against developments in the conflict and region, and the domestic environment of interest-group politics, constraints of and related to US foreign policy considerations, as well as against developments in the broader international community that are even remotely related to the region. If it hopes to make any substantial, and unprecedented, American ground (in even merely beginning) to end one of the world's most troubling and long-lasting conflicts, it needs to act decisively, quickly--and above all--with vision, wisdom, confidence-building, the courage for its implimentation, and with an avoidance of haste and any temptations to fall for band-aid remedies.

Some have realized that a successful resolution of conflict has also been prevented by attempts to heavily restrict public debate and discussion in Western societies, and especially in the United States and Britain--essentially in what apparently amounts to a broader "McCarthyism" in academia and public discourse over Islam/Muslim-Western relations, the Arab World, the threat of terrorism and the 'appropriate national security' response, and the Middle East, in general. [Some high-profile cases have involved the controversy pitting allegations of some students against professors from the well-known MEALAC department at Columbia University; the refusal of tenure for noted professor Dr. Norman Finklestein at DePaul University; the controversy surrounding Dr. Daniel Pipes, his "Middle East Forum" organization and the "dossiers"--charged by many to be academic blacklists--created, among other projects, by the Forum's affiliated arm called "Campus Watch"; and the movement towards restricting, or even eliminating, federal funding towards Middle Eastern Studies and Arab Studies Programs pushed forth by many of the same individuals and groups seen by the mentioned observers as restricting public discourse over critical and sensitive issue areas dealing with the Arab World, Middle East, Islam, US foreign policy, etc.] These observers claim that such restrictions---traced ultimately to lobbying by a relatively small but increasingly influential array of interested groups and persons, and especially by what is being seen by them as 'pseudo-think tanks'---have led to very nasty circumstances and controversies, as well as to maintaining a general status-quo of a number of particularly biased and dangerously faulty US foreign (and domestic) policies.

Having said all that, I am brought to ask some really tough questions: Can the United States, the conflicting parties, and third-party negotiators succeed this time around in resolving the conflict? What can the various sides bring to the negotiating table, what would be required of them? Can reasonable proposals and obligatons be realistically achieved in the current "chaotic" environment? Even just as important, can "reasonable" be "just"? Given polarizations and the fallouts from unrelated conflicts in the region, can the international community (with its very lopsided distribution of influence, national interests, etc) ever reach a "fair" and "final" resolution for conflict and suffering that has lasted for more than 5o years, transcending generations?

Certainly, there are many groups and individuals (including among them Israelis, Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, Jews, and others) that are well-intentioned and are truly striving to find a workable way out of the complexities, rigidiness, and injustices inflicted by these conflicts. But a great obstacle they face is what they see as a considerable lack of attention and awareness from the mainstreams of media, political and decision-making circles, and other "centers" of event-makers and news-shakers. If attention is paid to these peace and human rights activists, many times it is not serious. Nor has such attention seemingly granted them the benefit of the doubt, leading some to sometimes feel ostracized by their own communities.

There are a whole lot of dimensions--whether they relate to policymaking, imbalances in the projections of power between the conflicting sides, major or dramatic developments in the conflict---that can help influence the range of potential solutions, actions, and attitudes carried out or missed, as well as their resulting outcomes. Other developments and conflicts within and outside the region not related specifically to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, or even to broader Arab-Israeli tensions, can have positive and negative spillovers. But for now, at least, there will be a lot of speculation and alertness (if not anxiety) towards any "last-minute" US-led peace-promoting, or tension-reducing, manueveurs. The combination of all these factors and circumstances raises the stakes even higher for everyone.

Barbie has a new "sister"?: Geography, MNCs/TNCs, and Local Alternatives

It is logical to assume that multinational corporations [MNCs] (or transnational corporations [TNCs] as they are also called)--tend to cater to local populations by adding "localized" variations of their products to supplement their 'standard' menus/product lines, when they establish themselves in new foreign markets. When consumers in those markets still feel they cannot derive what they need or desire from the newly established or expanded presence of such MNCs/TNCs and their product lines, it isn't before long that some entrepreneur finds a way to produce an alternative that is both similar in form to an MNC's/TNC's product line and that possesses distinctive attributes corresponding to particular cultural, social, and/or economic needs and wants. Alternatives can also be sought by such entrepreneurs to satsify demand that created in reaction to, or in the midst of, unforeseen political circumstances.

Reuters reports Barbie has a new colleague, named Salma. Created independently of Mattel, Salma is dressed to satisfy non-Western (specifically, Indonesian and then particularly, "Islamic") notions/ conceptions of modesty. According to local consumers and producers, these notions and conceptions are apparently lacking in Salma's more-established and more well-known counterpart. It is likely that demand for, and supply of, Salma, in Indonesia will increase as Islamic holy month of Ramadan ends and the holiday of Eid el-Fitr approaches.

[Searching through the official websites, Mattel's Barbie website and the affilated BarbieCollector, I did come across one "Morocan Barbie" version--discontinued since 1999 release year--which was the about the closest I could find to be oriented around an Arab-Muslim theme. But, even here, it was categorized geographically by continent as part of the limited-scale "Dolls of the World-Africa" product line, and not in any particularized religious or ethnic sense disregarding country-specific labels of course. Other religious-oriented dolls are listed generally as a sort of a Western-based 'happy holidays' themed category with a number of Barbie versions specifically themed in, and geared towards, common holidays there, like Christmas. Given Mattel's varied focus on different target markets, the disparities in the scales of product lines are logical. Whether Salma will be able to take advantage of such disparities, and thus perhaps cause a restrategizing of Mattel's production lines, is the ultimate question.]

But questions still remain as to the competitiveness and attractiveness of Salma vis-a-vis the "glamor" of Barbie and Mattel worldwide and in the Arab-Muslim world, not just during the Eid but in the longer run as well. Another vital question: even if we were put to aside any considerations in which we were to compare Salma with Barbie and Mattel, will Salma (on its own) be successful in Indonesia and in the broader Arab-Muslim world?

For now, we can just resolve ourselves to more short-term questions....how will Mattel react to this new development? Certainly, a company with an internationally-recognized brand name (Barbie) like Mattel will not have lost sight of the fact that Ramadan/Eid period arguably represents one of the largest of holiday/shopping seasons in a rapidly-growing slew of regional markets (i.e. the Arab-Muslim world)? [The other major season is, perhaps, the Eid el Adha towards the end of the Islamic lunar year.] Will Mattel, too, introduce a "Muslim Barbie" as part of its product line specifically sent to the region? Or will they seek to buy the manufacturing rights of "Salma" from its Indonesian entrepreneur? Or will they ignore Barbie's 'sister'-doll as a short-lived seasonal fad whose lure they might anticipate will die away shortly after this holiday/shopping season ends?

The answers to these questions and more are very likely to be found in more than just extra pieces of cloth.......

Concepts and Controversies in the Meaning of Terrorism

A trying and tragic day-and its troublesome aftermath......

The sixth anniversary of the September 11 attacks are just around the corner. On the US public/social and personal/private scenes, many Americans will be preoccupied with commemerating the lives lost of their beloved and their friends, colleagues, and of the rescue and aid workers who horrifically perished that day. Public officials and politicians will send out condolences and/or eulogies in some or another. The media will reciprocate with airing special news segments and programs, perhaps to analyze some aspect of, or simply bring memory to, the largest event of terrorism on US soil to occur in contemporary American history. The media is even likely to air reportages purported to analyzing new trends and developments in international terrorism and similar threats facing America's security. 

Though it will be understandably a week of intense emotional drama caused by the twin pains of mourning and insecurity, it will also be a very jittery week with the strong and formidable potential to attract and illicit an upsurge of ethnic hate crimes to add on to what rights monitors have warned as the already existant trend of yearly increase. Undoubtedly, questions over how to how with the aftermath of 9/11 are crucial not only for healing processes, but also for determining/establishing patterns and regimes for societal, political, legal, and even economic/trade, interactions. If anything, the up-and-down battles over the Patriot Act, the domestic phone wiretapping scandal, the moral and legal challenges regarding the operation of Guantanamo Bay camps, the processing, interrogation, and trial of suspects /detainees in secret or special holding centers abroad, the detention and interrogation of non-documented immigrants through constitutionally questionable methods(Latinos, Arabs, and South Asians), the failure of police/public safety units to effectively clamp down or reduce hate crimes increasing in frequency and intensity, the yearly increasing allegations and complaints of discrimination and profiling at the workplace, and the allegedly intense profiling practices against specific minorities by law enforcement, among others [a good introductory source for more information about such backlash is the annual civil rights reports issued by the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) ], should serve as a deeply troubling wake-up call warning all Americans and others about the erosion of America's generally multipluralistic fabric.



All of these various sets of interaction and public policy decisions modeling, be they organized or sponttaneous, are in turn partly influenced by what Americans and others conceive of terrorism violence and other perceived or real threats they face. Likewise what they conceive of these threats are partly shaped by the debates and controversies raging over how to identify, conceptualize, and classify them as well as how to best respond to them.

Origins of the term "Terrorism" and Early Usages

Despite the fact that different academic and theoretical disciplines have more or less established methods to study acts of terrorism, in modern times, what is professionally refered to “terrorism” is essentially a type of “political violence,” or violence conducted to statisfy political motivations. In turn, then, “terrorism” refers to a category of human expression studied by a methodoligical approch with primary (though not exclusive) roots in the dicipline of Political Science.

Some scholars have noted that, historically, one of the earliest references to terrorism violence dealt with groups that operated in the Middle East during various intervals in the medival period. Specifically, the reference was to a very notorious political-religious sect that challenged not only the authority of public adminstrators but also purposefully created widespread uncertainty and panic. Then known as the Hashshahsheen, the secret society arose in the last decade of the Tenth Century AD, and for the following three centuries, they posioned or struck by dagger any person civilian and government official who was marked for death as a threat to the secret society. The Arabic name of the sect, hashshasheen ("druggies") was itself a reference to the sect's use of hasheesh (a type of narcotic) that was used as a tool both for initiating new members and for prepping up members selected for a murder mission. Europeans (mainly Crusaders) who came into contact with the Hashshasheen anglicized and romanized the latter's Arabic nickname into various form spellings--Heissessini, Assessini, and Assassini--all of which later evolved to the English variant, "assassin." (Mazhar-ul-Haqq, Outlines of Islamic History, Bookland, 4th ed. 1992, 332-5).

[Today, in the field of Political Science, assassinations are classified as one type of terrorism violence.]

Yet throughout history, neither the use of terrorism violence nor even the use of a specific term to describe that violence was restricted to events only in, or connected to, the Middle East. Europe also had tremendous share of chaos during the Middle Ages and throughout the Enlightenment subsequently after. For example, the French Revoltion of 1789 was a period of much bloodshed in which revolutionaries clashed with the Ancien Regime to depose the monarchy, the nobility and the clergy and to create a republican (not related to the Republican Party) system of governance. The Revolution's utopian ideals quickly transformed into nightmares as conflicts between the revolutionaries emerged. These conflicts heightened and turned deadly in large part as the result of a popular revolutionary leader, Maximilien de Robespierre, who soon engaged in firebrand politics. Robespierre purged the l'Assemblie Nationale, the legislative institution set up by the Revolution, of its moderate faction and cracked down on anyone he suspected as being a threat or a traitor to the Revolution. Countless people faced imprisonment or execution by the guillotine (invented in this time period) en masse. (J. Suzanne Ravise, Tableaux Culturels de la France, National Textbook Company, 3rd ed. 1994, 65-9). It is no coincidence, therefore, that the French use the term "la Terreur" ("The Terror")---perhaps a variant of the word "terrorism"---to refer Robespierre's regime and reign (Ibid).

Modern/Contempoary Applications of the Term and Conceptual Considerations

For social scientists, and especially political scientists, It is especially important to distinguish between political violence and other forms of violence (such as more ‘ordinary’ crimes like fraud, murder, etc).

In studying terrorism, Political Scientists have realized that signficant ambiguity exists as to what exactly constitutes “terrorism” at any given point of time or environment. This is not a deliberate result of political science, but reflects a response to the international environment. Since, terrorism (and actors) are politically motivated, there has been no strong international consensus on a specific statement defining this phenomenon, whether among governments/nation-states or non-governemental actors. [A glimpse through the UN Treaties webpage depicting the various treaties, conventions, and agreements on terrorism can help us to understand how diverse interpretations of terrorism are regionally, internationally, and on the level of the individual nation-state.] In the search for an objective study of terrorism, Political Scientists themselves have worked to create a set of descriptions for terrorism that takes into consideration the reality that nation-states will act on behalf of their own interests, while attempting to avoid making value judgments over the national interests of nation-states. How nation-states define terrorism is as a much a product of their adherence to their own national interests at a given time as other factors, and so Political Scientists try to avoid getting caught in the subjectivity net national interests create. This task is no less crucial for media as purveyors of news.

There are, however, some basic general characteristics that Political Scientists have identified for terrorism (For example, see Cindy Combs, Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, Prentice Hall, 3rd ed. 2003). These basic guidelines help not only to distinguish between political violence and other forms of violence, but also to distinguish between terrorism and other forms of political violence (such as riots, coups, and to some extent guerrilla warfare). If my memory serves me well, the general characteristics of terrorism violence are:

(1). the act of violence must be politically motivated (examples include: destablize a government, eliminate a government’s monopoly over the use of violence, or to extract concessions from a government);

(2) the act of violence must be performed for an audience/media–--hence the increasing dramatism and intensity of terrorist acts over time;

(3) the act of violence must be at least intended to provoke widespread fear, confusion, disorientation among the population—-hence the increasing dramatism and intensity of terrorist acts over time;

(4)the act of violence must be a deliberate effort to target innocent civilians to result in #(3). (Combs, 10-7)

[Government structures do not necessarily have to be included in the mix of targets in a given attack or plan of attack, as recent trends involving greater frequencies of non-government (i.e. civilian & non-combatant) targets have emerged. The main point here is satisfying the intention to target civilian/non-combatants either directly or indirectly as mentioned above. But attacks against government structures that are intended to provoke concerns about security and public safety could also potentially be considered as a terrorism if a political motivation to it is attached/associated.]

Terrorist acts can be:

a) conducted by governments,

b) sponsored nation-states/governments,

c) can be conducted and/or sponsored by non-state private actors, whether they operate internationally, regionally, or within a country.

Conclusion

As you can see, defining “terrorism” can entail an enormously complex set of tasks and analyses. While treading this complexity carefully can lead to charges of “not being resolute,” moving away from a careful and thoughtful approach to analysis and reporting can lead to serious inaccuracies. It is important that one remains resolute in opposing terrorism. It is equally and sigificantly important that a high level of objectivity and accuracy be maintained during identification and analysis as well. In all, this balance is very tricky and much easier said than done.

Exploring the reality of terrorism and attempting to understand it more deeply doesn't lessen from the value or significance that events like those that occurred on Septermber 11 have or should have. Despite the possible barriers presented by an intensity of emotional, physical, social, and other scars that have yet unfortunately to be fully healed, a more thoughtul inquiry and discussion of terrorism, extremism anywhere should not threaten to remove the "face identity" of anyone who is involved September 11 and elsewhere. The participants, whether victim or perpetrator, should not be reduced to "just another statistic" in an inquiry that is balanced and analytically thoughful as possible. In order for such an inquiry to succeed, however, we can not afford to let emotion or personal interest drag us into continuing the long-held stereotypical views and ignorance towards the Middle East/Arabs/Muslims that have existed in mainstream attitudes, and that have been promoted or replayed by some form of popular culture (particularly many Hollywood/cinematic productions and tv dramas and sitcoms, for instance) or news media ,for at least a century now, or by some politicians and policymakers more recently.

A very illustrative recent example of the potential for continuing and expanding ignorance, stereotypes, blacklashes that come out of careless thinking can be found in Representative Peter King's (R-NY) statements that "too many mosques [exist] in America" as a threat of "radical Islam" to American society. The most worrisome aspect of King's arguments is that they fail to make a crucial distinction between institutions themselves that help many Muslims practice their faith on the one hand, and varying levels of extremism among Muslims worldwide, on the other. Whether there are some or any number of extremists in a mosque/Islamic center and the extent to which they may or may not influence the centers in the US or abroad is one question. Appearing to simplistically associate the mere concept of a mosque/Islamic center with radicalism/extremism/terrorism is a different consideration altogether. The former attitude may possibly help to enagage Muslims, depending on the circumstances (such as outreach from both sides). While the latter attitude places absolute suspicion on a Muslim minority's ability to not just to integrate into, but also to coexist with, the broader society (or of the ability of Muslims abroad to deal responsibly with the international community). The suspicion is placed simply by virtue of their background, faith, practices, personal devotions and so forth. 


Without bothering to ask any deeper questions, the absolute suspicion is, then, an assumption that any Muslim presence in itself represents a danger to society. I personally don't think that would be a wise, reasonable or fair suggestion to make. This is not to say that dangerous extremists don't exist, or that they don't have some type of influence in some Muslim institutions. But simplistic associative assumptions on the totality of both minorities and their 'sister' populations abroad (and on the activities of both) never help to solve problems relating to their integration (if they are minorities) or dealings with the international community (if they are 'sister' populations). Rather such assumptions can and do in fact exacerbate the problems they face. Equally important, such assumptions also greatly more complicate the tasks and problems the host society (if within a single country) or the international community (if we're talking about Muslims worldwide) undertakes/confronts in its relationships with them.


Yes, events like September 11 have triggered knee-jerk reactions the kinds of which that both reinforce, and are reinforced by, ignorance and stereotypes. The pain and anguish reflected in the knee-jerk reactions is understandable. But the reactions themselves are not. It is precisely because of grusome events like September 11 and their backlash---which have in turn begun to trigger much-needed discussions over the two so-called "twin problems" of Islamophobia and Anti-Americanism/Anti-Westernism---that a seriously more careful, calm, and fair look is urgently and desperately required not only at terrorism and extremism but also at Islam, Muslims, Arabs, the Middle East, South Asia, Southwest Asia, and the Arab world. Equally important is to place a similar emphasis on serious analysis of foreign policies carried out by major state actors including primarily, but not limited to, the United States. If not, we may then have to brace for an ever-continuing and more-intensifying cycle of misunderstanding, missteps, violence and repression.

A British Study, European and American Social Attitudes, and the Media

I came across an article the other day regarding a British study that apparently measured the continuation of new trends affecting old public attitudes linking appearance and behavior. Let me first start off by saying that I’m not going to focus on gender differences, or on evaluations thereof. Nor will I touch upon any evaluations or value judgments on the sources of influence on evaluating gender differences. I’ll leave these kinds of considerations to you, the readers. So that there are no misunderstandings, let me clarify that I’m writing this piece simply to try to understand (by triggering discussion on) whether different trends have emerged between the United States and Europe regarding this specific topic (represented by Britain) as stated in the British study and its journalistic coverage, and if these differences are informed by diverging cultural, societal, and value foundations/makeup across the Atlantic.

It’s reasonable to assume that the results of any appearance-behavior correlation are informed/ affected by cultural and social ideals for what constitutes the “ideal” (i.e. the ‘mainstream’) male or female. Likewise, the “ideal” male or female has often been defined in the corridors of the communications area and of the specialized/ targeted media: fictional television and film drama, in magazines like Cosmopolitan, Men’s Health, Women’s Health, in photographic magazines/websites like FHM, Maxim, and Askmen.com, and finally in talk shows like Tyra and Oprah. These kinds of social (if we include gossip/rumors and everyday person-to-person interaction) and cultural influences—commercial and non-commercial—and the penetrative impacts they have had on appearance-behavior judgments are nothing new. So are the relationships and gaps between public and private perceptions linking appearance and behavior (as defined by the above-mentioned norms, ideals, influences) on the one hand, and the public and personal realities of appearance and behavior, on the other. So, what is new, and very frankly surprising to me, is what the recent study claims as new trends affecting male-female relationships.

For example, the article mentioned that “Women see masculine-looking men as more unsuitable long-term partners but men with more feminine features are seen as more committed and less likely to stray, researchers said Wednesday.” These feminine features—cited as “finer facial features, fuller lips, wide eyes and thinner, more curved eyebrows”—were more desirable to women than masculine features (cited as “square jaws, larger noses and smaller eyes“) because the former demonstrated a “better bet for long-term relationships.” The masculine features, however, were reported as demonstrating “significantly more dominant, less faithful, worse parents and as having less warm personalities” among men.

If we take these results as representative of Westerners, this is a significant jump or even reversal, in attitude from nearly seven years ago. Then, prominently in high school (secondary school) and somewhat later and lesser so in college, I distinctly remember how much emphasis for males/by males was placed on bodybuilding and rugged sports activity (especially American Football)—considered “masculine” characteristics---as indicators for success in both social and professional relationships. In such an environment, the high school male jock, the high school football quarterback, these were the people that mattered, that got the most attention from the general public, media, fictional drama, and from members of the opposite sex. Judging by the lesser attention from this environment, the public and personal attitudes were significantly different for a larger chunk on the other side of the high school environment aisle. Here, the studious and academically bright, the ‘serious’ individual, the family-oriented male, the non-athlete, the smart Chess player, or anyone else who didn’t qualify as having what was seen as a glitzy background, were considered not to have the personal and social skills needed for bright, glitzy success. To put mildly, they were “average.” And some segments among them were labeled what I would, with relative euphemism, substitute as “below-average” for the much more commonly labels of “loser,” “nerd,” or “geek.”

Which is why I am surprised when I now read that there is “ ‘high amount of agreement’ between women about what they see in terms of personality when seeing a man's face and they may well use their impression to decide whether or not to engage with him.” That women, according to the study and the article, find men with “older faces” more favorably than their counterparts with “younger ones.” Just as the promoted contrast between muscular/atheleticism and non-muscular/non-athelete is taken as a metaphor to contrast general “masculine” and “feminine” charactersitics, so too can the apparent level of seriousness and maturity be taken as a metaphor for the contrast between the same two groups of gender characteristics. If seriousness and maturity were/are not associated with masculinity then/now, then the reported preference of “older faces” over “younger ones” is a significant jump in female attitudes, assuming of course that older appearance = greater seriousness and younger appearance = less seriousness.

But wait a minute, the study was conducted in Great Britain on British females, not in the United States on American females. Now, among most educated Caucasian Americans and perhaps among a significant number of Brits as well, Great Britain has been historically and traditionally viewed as the closest of European countries to the United States in terms of culture, societal values, and political alliances and interests. Absent current rifts or differences on pivotal/ sensitive issues between leading American and British policymakers (such as on the Iraq War?), the claims of Anglo-American proximity and affinity are even stronger. Yet, despite the political, legal, and societal differences between Great Britain and the rest of the European Union, and despite these special and complicated Anglo-American commonalities, a strong claim could also be made that Great Britain is still very much a part of the EU with a still very strong European cultural, social, and political orientation. And as British policymakers see their position and status wane in the European Union, undoubtedly they will battle to restore them by demonstrating greater affinity for European values and political interests. These demonstrations not so much in the form of “anti-American” stance. But they could materialize in a stance that displays a tougher “pro-European” tone politically, culturally, and socially.

So while, for instance, public hug greetings and/or cheek kisses between males has been ‘traditionally’ seen as more of a sign of friendship or brotherhood in say, France, Italy, Greece, Eastern Europe, and even more so in the Middle East (at least in the Arab- and Muslim-majority countries here) and in the East (at least the Muslim-majority countries here, like Malaysia, Indonesia) in contrast to a different Anglo-American understanding over such an intimacy (which is more towards homosexuality), maybe the recent British study shows significant differences having been developed between Americans and British with the Atlantic Ocean continuing to serve as a dividing fault line between aggregations of American and European cultures overall. This fault line may continue to exist just as much for affecting Greater Europe’s influence on the British as claims between Anglo-American cultural commonness and solidarity continue to cement that solidarity.

Another crucial point to consider here relates to the age range and time range of the participants in the recent British survey. The main point is that both the time range and the age range of respondents in the British survey have to match the time range and age range of a similar study on American females’ attitudes. If studies concerning similar topics feature respondents having time and age ranges that are different in Great Britain and the United States, not much of a reasonably accurate comparison and contrast could be made. What I saw in high schools seven years ago in the States could be different now. What is prevalent among American female teenagers may not be prevalent among older American women both years ago and more recently (in other words, if they are any significant vertical or generational changes/gaps). Time and age ranges can also significantly impact what American females (both teenagers and older females) view as “long-term” or “short-term” prospects (in other words, like any significant longitudinal changes within generations or comparative extent/rate of changes among different generations then and now). The same kinds of considerations will have to be factored into any reasonably accurate appreciation of British and other European females. Otherwise, to use an old American saying, it would be like un-standardized “apples and oranges” comparison, which wouldn’t be “fruitful” at all.

Finally, we would have to fully look at the British study itself. While the article quotes the most significant findings, it gave only scant reference to its source (listing only the journal title, and excluding the report’s title and number pages). The article also left out important details such as those on when the study was conducted, when the results came out and was analyzed, and on whether the study was a follow-up to a preceding one. I checked the journal’s official website and found what strongly appears to be the article here. To be more thorough and accurate, we’d have to do the same for a similar American study.

So, what can an article headline and its coverage on a published study tell us about trans-Atlantic values and trends? Hmmm, I’ve probably left you and myself more confused by the time you have reached reading, and I have reached writing, this sentence. Just as important is another question: what about the Euro-American divide or similarity on this topic? We can come closer to understanding these questions through discussion. Any suggestions or thoughts?