The (Not-So-Amusing) Drama on Obama's Faith Background

Once again, speculation about the President's faith and background has surfaced to the foreground of punditry and public life here in America.  Once again, the echoes of this "issue" has sounded increasingly audible at a critical time and a tense political and social environment (i.e. right before the upcoming 2010 gubernatorial and midterm Congressional elections).    

A point that may be lost here is that perhaps it is not so much about whether Mr. Obama is a Muslim or a Christian.  Rather, upon closer inspection and reflection, the real dilemma may indeed be over the implications of commencing and continuously hammering on this speculation.  The same goes for the significance of responses to such speculation.  

About two years ago, in the midst of electoral frenzy,  Collin Powell correctly summarized the seeming pandemonium and nonsensical undertones when speculation about Obama's faith ran rampant: "[Obama] is a Christian — he's always been a Christian... But the really right answer is, what if he is [a Muslim]? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America."  The point that Mr. Powell made hinted at the notion that the environment surrounding the speculation over Obama's background not only could hurt Obama, but could also ultimately have the effect of marginalizing Muslims (and Arabs) in the United States.  This is the same conclusion reached by CNN anchor Campbell Brown when she wrote in an op-ed "Whenever this gets raised, the implication is that there is something wrong with being an Arab-American or a Muslim. And the media is complicit here, too.  We've all been too quick to accept the idea that calling someone Muslim is a slur ..."  

Contrast these statements with the reply of then-Republican candidate Senator John McCain of "no, he's a decent family man" to statement from campaign rally attendant about the then-Democratic opponent being an Arab.  The presented juxtaposition (even if unintended)---between a scrutinized minority constantly under less-than-flattering spotlight, and a regular mainstream American celebrated by his peers---could not have been invoked any clearer.  Even though McCain's comment was a lot tamer than other characterizations (by TV and radio pundits on the extreme political right), it was 'weak' at best and 'complicit' at worst towards Muslim/Arab smearing at the time.      

Four decades ago, America faced a similar wave of socio-political hysteria.  When then-Senator John F. Kennedy was running for president in 1960, he encountered intense speculation and suspicion, owing to him being a Catholic candidate.  Kennedy recognized those (misplaced) fears and missed no opportunity to declare and affirm his independence from a suspected tie to a dominating hold of the Catholic Church.  One could concede that the particular circumstances surrounding the speculation over the president's faith background and affiliation differ between Kennedy's time and Obama's predicament.  But the underlying environment of hype almost essentially remain the same.  The fact that Kennedy was Catholic was viewed as a point of distrust and non-confidence; in just about the same way so are Obama's feeble connections to a Muslim background.  And there is similarity between Kennedy's and Obama's approaches in responding to this hype: Kennedy sought to assuage misplaced and erroneous fears of a 'Catholic takeover' of America by consistantly reasserting his individuality; Obama may perhaps be seeking to deflate misplaced and erroneous fears of an 'Islamic takeover' by repeatedly reasserting how his Christianity informs his policy decisions and presidential conduct.  

In the Kennedy and Obama cases, those particular choices over how to handle the presidential public persona in both cases may have be deemed as a politically pragmatic necessity to demonstrate leadership and proximity to the American people (and their persona may have truly reflected the presidents' personal convictions about themselves).  But another important angle to the creation of, and reception towards, the presidential persona in these contexts must be examined.  And through this angle we are likely to confront harder questions and answers.  What could the constant pressure (upon candidates and office-holders) to create specific personas say about us as Americans and our stances regarding the values of tolerance and openness we espouse?  What do these instances say about our embrace of the value that we judge a person---not by the color of his/her skin, but---by the content and conduct of his/her character and person?  

I wasn't alive when Dr. King's eloquent "I Have a Dream" speech passionate urged a terribly divided nation to get past the color/race barrier.  But today's phenomenon of hype feeding into ethnic/religious minority issues could reach a point of comparability in worrisomeness to the outrageous hype on American Blacks that ultimately killed the short-lived Reconstruction (and that later reinforced segregation).  Compare the "threat of an Islamization of America" and other sensationalist and pejorative ideas touted by the contemporary extreme right-wing to the treatment of Afro-Americans in the movie Birth of a Nation.  Perhaps King's words may just as well as apply now.  We have undeniably come a long way since King's address in front of the Lincoln Memorial.  Nonetheless, we still haven't resolved isolationist tensions born out of "us and the Other."  It is also reasonable to acknowledge that it will take time, persistence, and measured action to work through these---even after so many years following King's time.  However why does it feel like we have to return to King's words as if they were uttered only yesterday?  In other words, why does it feel like we keep forgetting and/or remain complicit or indifferent?  


[ABC News conducted a series of experiments to test Americans' responses to negative prejudicial treatment of minorities. In most instances responses were indifference and/or inaction, while some responses supported the treatment.  While the treatment exhibited were conducted by actors, the responses recorded by hidden cameras were eye-opening in light of statistics on responses. Some examples: 1, 2.  Variously throughout America, prejudicial treatment is actual not hypothetical.]               

So when a prominent figure in the American religious and social landscape says recently, "I think the President's problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim, his father gave him an Islamic name.  The Islamic world considers him one of their own ... they see him as a Muslim ..." in commenting on increasing Americans' speculation and confusion over the Obama's religious background, such statements can indeed have a malicious effect.  Even if they were not intended to be a negative hint at Obama, Reverend Franklin Graham's remarks could play into condoning unfounded suspicion towards Obama---and by extension, towards Muslims.  They could further strengthen anti-Muslim and anti-Arab hysteria.  After all, his record on making statements on Muslims and Islam are less-than-bright [see also here].  


Statements like (and even more inflammatory than) these certainly can be amplified and can spread like wildfire and can incite to harassment and violence, in an already still-tense environment or in times of economic hardship.  Recent polls  have shown that negative sentiment and action towards Muslims have been on the rise (here, here, here, here).  News reports (not always highlighted) have also cited the concern over rising harassment and violence towards Muslims.  Notably, Anchor Keith Olbermann of NBC commented: "Muslim and interfaith leaders today are expressing concern that the question of religious freedom is not contained to Lower Manhattan, calling for the protection of community centers, of mosques, of other houses of worship, of Muslim Americans, and of other worshippers around the country, their fears not unfounded. Recent weeks and months witnessing an alarming rise in incidents."  Olbermann went on to describe construction zoning challenges  and "unmasked hatred and violence"---physical and verbal assaults (slurs and exclusionary statements)---on Muslims and their institutions across the country. [Stories about such incidents have also been covered by local, and to seemingly lesser extent national, newspapers.]        

As if having a Muslim-sounding name, or being remotely connected to or associated with Islam or Muslims, or even merely reaching out to Muslims/Islam, is the crux of Obama's image/public persona problem.  What about the other side of the coin?  What about all the hyped talk?  All the implied and direct associations?  All the misinformation and distortion?  All the misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of Muslims/Islam?  All the condensed sound-bite verbiage?  All the political footballing, and the smears?  The discriminatory employment practices justified as 'maintaining company image?' Time and time again it is not only Obama who has been targeted, but also  Muslims/Islam as well.  [Examples include: here, here, here, here, here, here.]

In the end, it is more reasonable to ask why is it necessary to repetitively have this discussion over President Obama's faith and background to begin with?  Yes, substantive discussion over Obama's policies and presidential conduct, and even debate, needs to be encouraged.  But the minute we open up the discussion to include (and fervently question) Obama's faith background, the hype this opening invites can so easily allow substance to fall out.  Rather than being of any benefit, it could so easily fail to serve the public interest.                                                  

Some Thoughts on the "Ground Zero Mosque" Issue

As the mosque issue is still simmering, I thought it well to lay down thoughts on some of its dimensions.  I will try to be as brief as I can. 

(1) Perhaps it wasn't the wisest decision to have the proposed center near Ground Zero.  The location has a lot of sensitivity to it.  Out of concern and respect for the feelings of all who fell that day (and their families), it is a valid point that Muslims should take note of and weigh it in heavily with other considerations before pushing through with the proposed center.  There is still legitimate concern that the proposed center's location can be offensive particularly to the survivors and families of victims of 9/11. There is a possibility that Americans who generally and normally have no ill-will towards Muslims/Arabs can be hurt by the location of the proposed center.  Yet, it remains to be seen whether a calm undertones can endure throughout the discussion, or whether they will give way to deceitful sensationalism and exploiting hype will prevail at the end.  And that is a question whose answer does not seeming comforting at the moment.   

(2) LAW AND CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS: this issue has the potential to be a test of sorts for the values that we deeply cherish.

In terms of the law, it has developed into a First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment issue.  The main question here will involve the endurance of the Bill of Rights in the face of controversy, as pointed out above.  Our country has faced similar situations (dilemmas?) before, and I am confident that the endurance of the law and the principles of civil rights, at least from a technical legal and jurisprudential standpoint, will be once again reasserted. 

As for discussions over the cultural sphere, we often talk about how diverse our country is, how we pride of this diversity, and how much we find strength in it.  All of the pride and feelings we have about the blessings of our diversity, I believe and see, are genuine sentiments and realities that we truly embrace and act upon. 

Yet, here too exists the potential for a test being brought by the center issue.  The test (and implications) here could be a lot trickier and more difficult.  I am hesitant to think of this aspect, because some of the questions that comes to my mind is this: whether the proposed center--- in the proposed location, and with the existing climate in which it is being received and discussed---will be a test on how well Muslims have integrated and been accepted into the American fabric (socially, culturally, etc).  Because similar incidents (of anti-mosque opposition) have sprung up before and alongside the one in New York City, there is a possibility that the debate over the "Ground Zero mosque" is much more deeply than just being about the sensitivity of Ground Zero location.  Noting the virulence of these developments, a Washington Post article observed, "the intense feelings driving that [NYC center] debate have surfaced in communities from California to Florida in recent months, raising questions about whether public attitudes toward Muslims have shifted."  These developments have included anti-Muslim protests, by groups such as Operation Save America, across the country.        

There is still some lingering and growing mis-perception, mis-information/ predominantly selective media coverage, opportunistic smearing, and unfavorable views (prejudice)---in addition to rising discrimination practices and doubt---on part of some in the American public regarding Muslims/Islam (see here, here, and here).  Though not frighteningly rampant, these trends---including physical attacks against property---do not appear to be backing down in occurrences or strength.  In such a polarized (and polarizing) environment (for example: see this, this, this, this, and this), there would be concern (for example: see here, here) that the dynamics of exchange on the mosque/community center issue could mesh in (examples see here , here, here, here) with much broader behaviors and attitudes bearing hostility towards Muslims and Islam in America.    

On the other hand, it may turn out that however this issue is resolved (i.e. whether the center will be built in the proposed location) may strongly reinforce the diversity we have come to cherish about our country.  From a broader perspective, it is possible any lingering concerns about the full integration of American Muslims will be put to rest as unfounded.  In light of this and other similar road bumps the nation has faced, this broader perspective notion however is still very far from ascertainable.  

We can learn from controversies and difficult and sensitive issues (even those that involving diversity as an aspect/dimension).  And it is possible for us to gain deeper insights about ourselves as a society from probing such questions and dimensions, and to work on being more constructive.  But, of course, in dealing with this and similar areas we would need to be completely honest, civil and fair with ourselves and with others---whether we are Muslim or Non-Muslim.  Greater mutual measured communication and outreach, not re-entrenchment and receding, is needed.  

(3) THE POLITICAL FOOTBALL/ HOT POTATO: Finally, it is deeply alarming that the discussion over the issue has been hyped up into some political football or hot potato right before upcoming midterm elections.  Prominent politicians---including former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich comparing the center to a Nazi sign at a holocaust museum or a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor---as well as Republican candidates in gubernatorial and Congressional races have weighed in on the center/mosque debate.  [Even some 'embattled' Democrats have sought to distance themselves from the hype, as for example how Senator Reid's public break with President Obama's stance on the issue is reported to have played out.]  


We have seen this kind of distorted and dirty politicking that scapegoated Muslims and Arabs and that used them as impersonified pawns before in recent memory.  Remember the past presidential election, when Obama was branded a Muslim, Arab, or whatnot, and from there he was linked to being sympathetic to extremists---suggesting by implication that he couldn't be a loyal American?  Remember how the fact that his middle name happened to be Hussein was exploited in a similar manner?  Remember how McCain fell into the trap when he responded with something along the lines of "no, he's a good family man," in reply to a question fielded from a rally about whether Obama was Muslim or Arab? (In a tight and heated election season, a few courageous Republican voices spoke up against that nonsense, most notably Colin Powell.)

It is also disturbing that some sectors of the media and of the lobbying world have taken it upon themselves to exploit, conflate, and distort the issue.  These segments have apparently been at the forefront of the  anti-NYC center opposition and opposition to smaller mosque/Islamic center projects; have been working to influence politicians, lawmakers, government agencies, and the general public towards their views of Islam in America and of Muslim extremists; and have contributing to political campaigns.  It is also astonishing to see the phrases being thrown around by these bloggers and pundits---echoes of which have long predated the major thrusting of the Ground Zero episode into the spotlight.  Phrases and suggestions include an accusation against the proposed NYC center of being a victory mosque to celebrate murder, and more general exhortations such as the need to "stop Islamization of America" or to fight "creeping Sharia" in the country, or to "keep America safe."  [Much nastier comments about Islam, Prophet Mohamed, Muslims, and the like have been made by these bloggers and pundits---some as vile as the claims that "Hitler was inspired by Islam," that there are no moderates among Muslims---by extension, implicating all Muslims and Islam itself as immortal enemies of the free world, and a denial that American Muslims can be loyal citizens.]  


Sometimes I can't help but wonder if they are trying to exploit feelings and legitimate concerns, and couple it with a selective framing of this issue (and of others), in a manner as if to turn the issue(s) and their opinions into a referendum on the presence of Muslims/ Islam in the U.S.  Whenever a controversy or difficult issue brews, we can count on these people (examples: here, here) to make it even more fuzzy and unresolvable ...

'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...