'Creativity' and 'Abnormality': A Blessing Through Symbiotic Coexistence?

A flash of "genius," "insanity," or "deviation?" Or a combination? We would be well-advised to remind ourselves of, and heed, the oft-quoted phrase "things are not always what they seem." I admit I am not a psychologist or a psychiatrist by any stretch. But I have personally experienced enough to realize that behavior and attitudes that may be considered "disturbing" or "abnormal" may also be part-and-parcel of something much larger than our present scale of comprehension. Therein is the potential to discover a universe that may have as much power to create or enhance as it does to destroy or reduce: a universe whose positive ingenuity may possibly be extracted and transformed from--or may exist due to--negativity.

In the BBC article, Creative minds 'mimic schizophrenia' , researchers explain that a correlation between creativity and mental illness apparently exists because neurological functions in both creative and mentally ill persons have been found to similarly and strikingly allow for greater information access and processing. This greater leeway in cognitive ability is attributed to less filtering---that is less restrictions imposed on their brains---as a result of a lack of certain receptors (called dopamine, or D2) discovered in these two groups. These findings contrasted deeply with other (read non-creative and non-ill) human beings who retain larger amounts of the receptors in question.

While it's too early to make a definitive judgment on (or verification of) these connections they represent, at the very least, one more step towards appreciating how humans see the world around them ---and one that could offer more insight into the seemingly not-so-distinct lines between "reality" and "personal world-view." Furthermore (and perhaps just as, if not more, importantly), it is also one more step that could help us demystify the behavioral and cognitive traits and effects of mental illness in addition to those found in creative persons.

Regarding mental illness, I am a firm believer that demystification will help us move away from shunning, looking down upon, and simplifying those with mental illnesses. Despite the progress that modern society has attained in educating the public on these disorders---and in spite of the anti-discrimination laws passed to protect the disabled---I would still be hard-pressed to say with certainty that we have fully disavowed inclinations to view them through a blind reductionist lens that at best seemingly generalizes them (and their circumstances) as if they were merely statistics. If a connection with creativity solidly and meaningfully exists, exploring such a connection can then help us to develop better ways of coping with mental illnesses. I am hopeful that with more research we can explore methods and ways of channeling energy, away from the debilitations and limitations of illness, towards productive ends. Perhaps we will be able to see a silver lining in mental illnesses and other disabilities, rather than primarily defaulting to case studies on the negative coupled with medication prescriptions to control or limit them. Perhaps proactive measures can be created and implemented to supplement the current convention of responsive (reactive) treatment and management.

Similarly efforts towards a deeper understanding on the sources and effects of creativity would serve us very well because we know that what lies in creativity is one of the crucial keys to problem solving, adaptation, productivity and efficiency, critical thinking and reasoning, and development of all forms. In short, we can expand our paths to improvement in the quality of life and of environment ... be it social, political, spiritual, biological, economic, natural, chemical, personal, ecological, and so on.

Maybe I am putting too much faith and optimism in research towards these ends, and I am certainly not deluded into overlooking the possibilities of backfiring and of exacerbation (of negativities) such efforts can invite. But it is still worthy and essential to consider whether our own understandings and concepts of creativity and mental illness---as advanced as they have become---are counter-productive and restricting in their own right. We would do well to consider if there is more room to positively push the envelope. Whether there is ample space to foster greater human nurturing and better management of both talent/innovation and limitation, beyond conventions and norms that were established for equally good reason and for the same noble purposes. In studying creativity and mental illness, we may have an opportunity and an incentive to do just that.

The Internet and the (Relative) Opening of Communication channels in Arab World

I came across a BBC news article whose news was not surprising but nonetheless a snapshot of a very interesting development currently ongoing in the Arab World: relative liberalization (opening) of communication channels to share news and information, expand personal contacts, and for entertainment purposes.

I have chosen to regard the opening as relative for the obvious, and maybe not-so-obvious, reasons. Of course, the obvious reasons include whether the promise of opening can resist any challenges by the state and its authorities, such as the technical (e.g. the blocking of IP addresses of websites) and non-technical (e.g. arrests and harassments of bloggers). But, the second-to-last paragraph in the BBC article struck me as significant as its headline, perhaps implicitly raising a question into what seem as less obvious dynamics associated with the online expansion:

"But the survey does not provide a detailed breakdown of how it is used in Arab countries - for example how much of it is for chatting and making friends and how much is for political and social campaigning."

I took this question and extended it into further pondering: whether, and what to extent, non-political challenges exist from within non-state elements.

One should champion the extension and expansion of freedom in the press and other communication media, but would hope that such freedom would be accompanied by meaningful pursuits/usage---to balance out any time misspent frivolously and merely as a tool for entertainment where it could have been put to better use. So I view the liberalization of communication provided by internet applications to young Arabs with guarded optimism. It is too early to decisively and definitively tell whether, and to what extent, the opportunities found in the expansion of non-traditional communication technology will be meaningfully exploited. [Nonetheless, we should champion the expansion of such technology as a matter of principle---as a *potential* (if not yet fully realized) vehicle for fostering and preserving vibrant interaction.]

In the Arab World, there is evidence of efforts towards using technologies such as Facebook as vehicles for change, sharing of meaningful information, etc. But, for now, such efforts appear to have little appeal or reach beyond small core groups. I doubt that more broader segments of their societies--the people they most need to engage--have access to activities and interactions of the small groups. Maybe this disconnect is related to the state and political restrictions on communication, but maybe it is also related to socio-economic, sub-cultural and/or other differences and factors that could influence uncertainty in the willingness and ability of various societal segments to engage with one another and that could influence prioritizing over how cyberspace social networking and similar applications will be effectively used.

Some Words on the (Imbalanced) Social Construct of Beauty & Appearance

I hope my comments don't offend anyone, or lead to any misunderstandings. I find myself easily tempted to be deeply intellectual ...

I am warmed up by positive sentiments expressed a person makes on another person's physique/figure, and oftentimes I have no reasons to doubt the sincerity behind such praises. But I hope I can meticulously expand the conversation on beauty and physical appearance, without stepping unnecessarily on anyone's toes. Let me begin by suggesting that the conversation's focus should not be on whether one "looks great." Perhaps more attention and urgency should be devoting to the attainment of a delicate, but not much understood or recognized balance that factors the process to reach physical health and end result of reaching it (for example, if one focuses more on the end result, at the expense of process, one can hurt him/herself both physically and mentally/emotionally). One should look 'great' because one now feels healthier, and has attained a weight and BMI that are within the ideal range for specific age and height. In other words, the process itself of striving to reach and maintain physical health, should be the main source of satisfaction and self-fulfillment and it is the one that should be deemed the most "beautiful" and "attractive." Equally, a similar high regard should be given to the balancing efforts exerted in maintaining both physical health and mental/emotional health.

The end results of the process (the "appearance" and "attractiveness" aspects/affects /impressions /personas) is normally the more obvious for anyone to realize; but, it perhaps should not be the more, or the most, cherished. To the self and to others, it may or may not fully reflect those balance that characterize being healthy, because "appearance" and "attractiveness" can be inadequate and subjective markers and measures of an individual, a group, or even of a society. In popular culture the world over, when a comment on beauty is made it has been often been taken deliberately or subconsciously to reflect physical connotations---full lips, rosy cheeks, prominent cheekbones, round soft and/or narrow eyes, thin eyebrows, thick eyelashes, full thick hair.

Rarely have we seen "beautiful" and "attractive" used in a prominent manner to describe character or mind, examples of non-physical attributes and phenomena. Some notable exceptions exist, such as the movie title A Beautiful Mind (this is a positive exception, even though the 'beautiful' mind of Dr. Nash which was brilliant academically and intellectually was also troubled with unpleasant conditions/traits). Furthermore, subjectivity in the physical criterion of beauty have been fantasized and popularized, in addition to having contributed to stereotypes regarding non-physical traits. I have often been struck by the notion that, in Western children’s' fairy tales for example, blonde characters with lighter skin colors have come to symbolize purity and innocence of character, while brunettes and darker-clothed characters were stereotyped as conniving, mysterious and mischievous. Characters that possessed bad personality traits were also created with grotesque physical features---such as witches having warts or blemishes. I could not help wondering that the child audience of these tales could escape with the feeling that the inside of a human being reflects his/her outside---a dangerously and unjustly simplistic explanation of good and bad, virtuous and evil.

What about situations where that balance involving the many forms of beauty is not attained---where the process to reach and maintain it is for some reason incomplete, or where the process is completed but doesn't produce the "results" expected? Does that mean that such a person is less than 'beautiful?' Of course not! For there are many meanings, shades, dimensions, prisms, and etc of beauty. These others include: eloquence in speech, elegance in behavior and how one presents him/herself, charm, wit, the ability to connect with others, the ability to be calm and diplomatic in pressing circumstances/environments, persuasive charisma, problem solving & conflict resolution skills, the intelligence associated with critical/analytic thinking skills, and so on. Nor do the various forms of beauty exist in mutually exclusives paradigms and universes. Looking for the easy way out in trying to process the complexities of ourselves and our lives, we can fail to be cognizant of the existence and cohabitation of these other traits. We can find ourselves willing and/or able to surrender patience and capacity to receive only 'the bottom line'---the physicality, the exterior, which is so often reduced to that 'reality' which is non-elusive and quickly perceivable (and is this thus taken as most comprehensible).

Even expressions that are intended to distract attention away from the exclusivity of the focus on physical beauty can be worded in a way that ironically contributes to the opposite effect. Consider, for example, the idiom "Beauty is skin deep." This idiom comes to mind many a time when one wants to express the notion that beauty is a subjective phenomena and criterion. It also comes to mind when one wants to make the point that beauty is a reality that is much deeper that what appears to be on the surface. Therefore, one's attention is expected to be directed to something more abstract, away from a concrete representation of what he/she may consider or assume as beauty; one is directed to think in more abstract terms, and perhaps by extension, to more deeply ponder non-physical forms and examples of beauty.

Abstractions of phenomena in everyday life and in other settings are often hard to grasp and digest. Maybe this is main reason why that solidly established concepts in the sciences and in mathematics are still referred to as "theories." That category and designation is applied despite the successes of rigorous efforts by scholars, investigators, and researchers in their fields in offering and validating proofs towards their existence as 'axioms' and 'universal truths.' The successes should firmly place the axiomatic concepts in a category and designation above the level of 'theory.' For, the fact that theories are potentially verifiable should bring their underlying concepts closer to concrete themes and terms.

So what should we make of idioms, expressions, and figures of speech which---although devoid of anything near the recognized intellectual rigor or prestige of theories---nonetheless share with theories (both those that are proven and those are merely suggested) the difficulties of attempting to explain ideas regarding highly abstract matters? Returning our attention to the above expression about beauty could give us some clue as how to approach the question. I speculate and postulate that there is a logical fallacy in the way this idiom is constructed. In using the adjective clause "skin deep," I opine that the idiom conjures up the physical imagery of skin (and its layers). This imagery may be viewed through the listeners' experiences with the contour and health of their skin---we know that skin can get chapped and dried, peel away, become pale and lose its "glow." We also know that skin be revived through an array of cosmetics (like moisturizing creams) and skin color and tone can be modified (through lighting and tanning creams).

In other words, using a physical construct (the skin) as a medium to attempt an encouragement towards, or an explanation of, non-physical constructs (like perception of beauty and non-physical forms/traits/prisms of beauty) could subconsciously reinforce physical beauty, at the expense of other beauty. This approach thus has the potential to further narrow down the meanings and connotations of "beauty"---an unintended, but self-defeating consequence.

Perhaps a similarly non-constructive approach is used in the promotion of many weight-loss and diet programs and strategies. Why does the emphasis so often seem to be on "looking great," or on "removing frustrating cellulose," or on "cutting dress sizes or waist sizes," or on "getting sexy abs and buns," or on "getting ripped?" Why can't the focus be primarily on being more healthy and improving the quality of one's life? Why can't looks/ appearance/ attractiveness be a complimentary side benefit? Why does it always seemingly have to be "look great and feel great," instead of "feel great and look great?" We know that many females can take dangerously drastic measures in attempts to alter their figures, which can be connected to the pressure from public perception mixed in with plummeting self-confidence and self-esteem and which can be a sign of eating disorders (such pressures and disorders can affect males, too). We are also familiar with the great temptations that males face (even high school) to build bulky muscles to look 'attractive,' enhance performance (especially if they are athletes), and so on. The danger is when the pressures and temptations are so punctuated that they feel they must resort to dangerously drastic measures such as doping steroids. Just as with the suggestions and pressures (whether real or imaginary, coming from the self and from others) underlying eating disorders and the promotions of programs billed as health-maintenance, the dynamics that lead to doping ignore the delicate balances elaborated upon above.

In conclusion, it is commendable to be results-oriented and it is natural to be attracted to and to praise physical beauty. After all, a focus on results helps to ingrain an purpose in the activities we choose to embark on; it assists in the development of measurable goals through which we track progress gradually and methodically, as well as in ensuring that scarce resources are used wisely and efficiently. Physical beauty is one of many qualities that define existence, helping to shape the reality we and the entire universe experience every day. Physical attraction also help in the continuation of life in both humans and non-human organisms. But like many other issues, if the pendulum swings too far and too long (in the directions of results over process and of the physical over the non-physical), it is likely to produce an imbalance that may not be positively sustainable and positively sustaining. For the imbalance can lead us along greatly narrow worldviews, distorting established priorities or introducing new inflated ones while reaffirming destructive biases that block any sense of moderation and/or calm reasoning and meticulous thought.

RANDOM COINCIDENCE OR DELIBERATE CARICATURE?

The picture on the right contains two images that bear an uncanny resemblance. Contained in the left upper inset is a promotional image used in advertising the latest update of episodes to "Mafia Wars: Moscow," an online Facebook game. Within the bottom right half of the photo is a profile headshot of Vladimir Putin, the former Russian president. Now, we know that Putin served in the KGB (Russian intelligence) prior to being elected president in 1999.

But, to suggest the resemblance is deliberate is a bit of a stretch---not least because what he exactly did while in the KGB remains up for debate (and speculation). Still it does provide some food for thought....

[Note: the Mafia Wars promotional image was retrieved from the following link: http://mwfb.static.zynga.com/mwfb/graphics/mw_promo_moscow_final_228x110_01.gif and the photo of Vladamir Putin was retrieved from this link: http://werichanel.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/vladimir_putin_15_time.jpg.]

Even Words Need Life Support (A Poem)

Where are the nightingales

That will sing their melodies?

Where is the air

That will carry its echoes

Loud and clear?

Where is the compassion

That will penetrate

The coldest of stoned hearts?

Where is the humanity

That will raise the banner

Of empathy and understanding?

-----------------------Even Words Need Life Support...

The nightingales have fled

To a warmer place,

Far beyond any horizon

Or spec in space

That the telescope can reach

With its piercing eyes.

The air is merely

A container

For disturbing unintelligible clutters

Of noise;

It might as well be a vacuum

Where nothing lives or moves.

Even the word "empathy" could struggle

Many a time,

To find an "a" and an "h"

To complete its spelling.

---------------------Yes, Even Words Need Life Support...

Hearts, like all other organs,

Are stored long periods

In a vaulted--secluded--fridge

With the near-certain assumption

They will be inevitably kept alive

Longer;

'Preservation' is what they call it;

Yet in excessive periods,

Those pieces of 'human meat' risk

Getting petrified and freezer-burnt.

And then what of 'humanity?'

Do many of us even stop to ponder,

Let alone capture,

The roots 'human' and 'humane' found in it?

Are we so distracted,

By humanity's standard--normal--"routine"

Of biological functions

That we have avoided cognizance

Of its broader connotation?

With little forethought,

--And premature haste

Of a dismissive zeal--,

Some may say

It has been lost

In translation.

They thumb through

Dictionaries and foreign language guides.

"No entry,"

They jeeringly grin.

Contracts, laws, procedures, policies, insults

Speeches, depositions, declarations, affidavits, condemnations,

Punishments, and battle cries

Easily find the pens and lips

Of multiple tongues.

But that particular word

Remains alien, unciteable, difficult to pronounce, unintentioned

To us.

-------------------------It is there, and every other meaningful word, [idle ... NEGLECTED by] without Life Support...

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.