TEDxRainier - Lesley Hazleton

If the 'Mosque' Isn't Built, This Is No Longer America | MichaelMoore.com

If the 'Mosque' Isn't Built, This Is No Longer America | MichaelMoore.com

Keith Olbermann Special Comment: There Is No 'Ground Zero Mosque' - 08/1...

To Wikileak or Not to Wikileak?

It's hot in the news now and has spurred debate on the importance of the website Wikileaks.

Check out this interview with activist Julian Assange:

Julian Assange: Why the world needs WikiLeaks | Video on TED.com

Espresso Romano: shake it up a bit

Espresso with a lemon twist. Can't say I'm a fan. But it's nice to try new things.

War is Peace? The Failure of the Western Way of War

Definitely one of the books that most impacted the way I viewed certain issues was George Orwell's 1984. It might not be the most entertaining read, but it definitely has a lot of ideas that get you thinking. 


An article I read on Huffington Post reminded me of the book, it is actually very well written and challenges certain theories. He makes a good point that war has not alleviated 'threats' and it is unlikely that world peace can be achieved through war. This, of course, is over-simplifying the article and it is best to actually read the whole thing.


Here an excerpt. For the whole article, click on the title. 

The End of (Military) History? The United States, Israel, and the Failure of the Western Way of War

Developments during the 1980s, above all the winding down of the Cold War, had convinced Fukuyama that the “end of history” was at hand.  “The triumph of the West, of the Western idea,” he wrote in 1989, “is evident… in the total exhaustion of viable systematic alternatives to Western liberalism.” 

That was theory.  Reality, above all the two world wars of the last century, told a decidedly different story.  Armed conflict in the industrial age reached new heights of lethality and destructiveness.  Once begun, wars devoured everything, inflicting staggering material, psychological, and moral damage.  Pain vastly exceeded gain.  In that regard, the war of 1914-1918 became emblematic: even the winners ended up losers.  When fighting eventually stopped, the victors were left not to celebrate but to mourn.  As a consequence, well before Fukuyama penned his essay, faith in war’s problem-solving capacity had begun to erode.  As early as 1945, among several great powers -- thanks to war, now great in name only -- that faith disappeared altogether.

Mother - revisited

I recently posted a quotation I like from the book Mother, by Maxim Gorky after reading it.

Although at the beginning I found it a rather slow read, the book eventually picked up its pace and I found it quite intriguing. Mother is a story published over a hundred years ago by one of Russia’s revolutionary writers. Although the book revolves around the events of 1902, it reflects how the Russian proletariat was warming up to revolutionary emotions and dissent.  However, Lenin did not lead the Russian proletariat into the successful October Socialist Revolution until 1917, unease with the Tsar and attempts at revolt began long before that.

Already the people, the intellectuals, were talking of “camaraderie” and a classless society – the ideas of Karl Marx. The feelings of change were brewing before they actually succeeded in taking down the Tsar. It is marveling what drives people and how certain leaders can mobilize a whole nation just on an idea. Of course, it was not only an idea, but the suffering of hundreds and the torturous and unequal work conditions were the helm of what spurred them forward into their revolt.

But when you examine the ideas put forward, the teachings of Marx and Lenin, the idea of a classless, stateless society, the desire for global camaraderie it makes you think – were the people following some Utopian notion that was never meant to be practically implemented? I don’t even think it can even be classified as Utopian; I mean what is Utopian?

But another quotation from the book, this time by Andrei shows how some people viewed the future of the world if a global revolution over ‘evil’ was to be successful:

“I know the time will come when people will wonder at their own beauty, when each will be like a star to all the others. The earth will be peopled with free men, great in their freedom. The hearts of all will be open, and every heart will be innocent of envy and malice. Then life will be transformed into the great service of Man, and Man will have become something fine and exalted, for all things are attainable to those who are free. Then people will live in truth and freedom for the sake of beauty, and the best people will be accounted those whose hearts are most capable of embracing the world and of loving it, those who are the most free, for in them lies the greatest beauty. They will be great people, those of the new life...”And of the sake of that life I am ready to do anything at all.”

It makes me wonder, now that the Tsar is no longer, now that the revolution happened, not only in Russia but in so many countries of the world – have we achieved those goals? Have we reached the greatest beauty and become ‘fine and exalted’? What has the free man done with his freedom?

I wonder if the problem is with the goals that revolutionaries set for themselves. What goes wrong, why don’t we learned?

Maxim Gorky got it right with this other passage, said by the mother herself; it could very well be a premonition:

“The mother loved to listen to his speeches, and they left her with a strange impression: it seemed that the most vicious enemy of the people, those who most often deceived them and were most cruel to them, were fat, redfaced little men, mean, greedy, sly and cruel. When they were themselves hard-pressed by the tsar of their land, they set the common people on him, and when the people had overthrown their ruler, these little men seized the power by fraud, driving the people back to their hovels, or, if resisted, killing hundreds and thousands of them.”

In such a complicated world we live in, it’s intriguing that we are all manipulated by such simplistic views in our distorted perception of “good” vs “evil” and “us” vs “them”. The pure sheep mentality. Cattling along…(no, cattling is not a word).

Shouldn’t it be easier to attain peace?

So many questions prompted by the stupidity of human-kind.

On the other hand, the book provides food for thought because it is based on real events and Gorky himself admits that the novel was based on factual historical events. The novel offers a window into a different world, a different way of living that isn’t too far from present reality in some places on earth. Gorky does have a beautiful style of writing; I personally love his descriptions, depictions and metaphors. He captures the emotions of the mother so well; it’s hard to believe that the mother herself didn't write it. 

Mother

"It's criminal, mother. The vicious murdering of the millions of people. The murdering of human souls. Do you see it? Killers of souls. And do you see the difference between them and us?  When we strike a fellow it is disgusting, shameful, hurtful - mostly, disgusting. But they kill thousands of people calmly and mercilessly, without any qualms and with the greatest satisfaction. And their only reason for crushing people to death is to preserve their silver and gold and securities and all the miserable stuff which enables them to enslave us. Think of it - it isn't their lives they're defending when they murder people and mutilate their souls - not their lives, but their possessions! The things that are outside a man, not what's within him." - Pavel Vlassov from the novel Mother by Maxim Gorky

Be like the birds...3mena Victor Hugo

"Be like the bird that, passing on her flight awhile on boughs too slight, feels them give way beneath her, and yet sings, knowing that she hath wings." 


It's quite romantic picturing us as birds. We hatch in one place, perhaps Eden, and then we either fly off to other destinations in hope of a better life, or we are moved by winds we can't control. 


The winds take us as they may, to greener planes, to deserts...anywhere. Like Confucius astutely noted, "remember no matter where you go, there you are." 


So at the end of the day, there is no good or bad, just different a different place. Experiencing different winds and different climates. Sure, there is bad I suppose - I guess the strong will be tested.


But to wrap up with a third quote, from 3m Shakespeare, "there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so..."

God, give me sunshine

A little sunshine in my soul won't hurt, it'd make nice company for the road. Brighten up some of those days, maybe make me see things in a different light.

Just a sprinkle of sunshine so I can be on my way. 

This is what happens at 2 am in the morning...

This is what I was thinking about 2 am in the morning, I must have been hungry:


I tiptoed into a tiny room, then another, then another. It was a maze; I was excited and moved by instinct with no map, except my womanly intuition, of course.

Every room was different. One dark, one noisy, one crowded. One was peaceful and another doubtful (I could tell from the hunched up figure in the room scratching its head – I think that was curiosity).

I found a grocery list had left its respective room and wandered up to the VIP room. In the VIP room morals, freedom, skepticism, and religion were in a heated debate concerning a matter of importance. Interesting I thought, seems to happen everywhere.

I think they were bothered by grocery list’s presence, although benign enough, since food was not on the agenda for that day.

Skepticism curtly told grocery list to try another room if it was bored and did not want to go back to its own room, and suggested it go into the room of desires.

Morals, almost having a hissy fit, objected and insisted that room would just corrupt grocery list.

Freedom on the other hand, looking at the far corner of the room and musing upon something other than grocery list, such a trivial matter it seemed to Freedom, thought grocery list should be bold and try to go in there with its healthy principles and see if it would come out alive.

Religion believed it should avoid temptation and go and do something useful, like read a book on GI foods.

I sort of thought that it was in my best interest for grocery list to take its wandering tush to the exercise room till I could get it back home.

But then again, this was all just in my head.©

Somehow the inevitability of life, destiny, and death makes it more bearable.  

You’ve been around for 36 months, and this is it?

Sir Ken Robinson: Bring on the learning revolution! | Video on TED.com

This is Sir Ken once again, back on the TED stage for a 2010 sequel. He says some very important and eye-opening points. He's hilarious, too.

If you are not prepared to be wrong, you will never come up with anything original

Ken Robinson says schools kill creativity | Video on TED.com

I am so impressed with the TED talks and how inspiring and unconventional they are...food for thought and action.

Look for early signs...

A stroke. This is a word that could mean something positive, like, a stroke of luck. Or something totally disastrous, like, a clinical stroke.  Anyone who is a care-giver, especially for someone who did not recover well from the stroke can understand how this experience can be so traumatizing.

It usually single-handedly changes your life, your perspective on life and your whole life-style. Sometimes although the stroke survivor has survived, they may become different from the person you knew before.

The thing is, sometimes it comes with guilt from lack of knowledge. I know that many people would’ve wished to know the early warning signals of strokes (especially in developing countries), and how TIAs can predict a future stroke. Most people would’ve liked to be given advice on how to deal with the situation medically and emotionally. Not only that, it is expected that someone (like a physician) should sit down with the survivor’s family and explain exactly what to expect in the future and what it means to be a caregiver. But most of the time that just doesn't happen.

There aren’t support groups available everywhere, for everyone. Sometimes the caregiver is their own support group, sometimes friends don’t understand because truly “seeing is believing.”  

I decided to search for resources online and information on TIAs, the most important warning that a stroke could happen in the future.

I initially was on a mission to track down support groups (and there are none where I live as far as I know) and also to check out the tell-tale red lights indicating an on-coming stroke.

I would like to share this information here; I really hope it helps someone.

I’ll begin with TIAs and add other tidbits in the future, isA.

From strokeassociation.org:

What You Need to Know about TIAsExcerpted from “Why Rush?”, Stroke Connection January/February 2009
While transient ischemic attack (TIA) is often labeled “mini-stroke,” it is more accurately characterized as a “warning stroke,” a warning you should take very seriously.

	click to enlarge

TIA is caused by a clot; the only difference between a stroke and TIA is that with TIA the blockage is transient (temporary). TIA symptoms occur rapidly and last a relatively short time. Most TIAs last less than five minutes; the average is about a minute. Unlike a stroke, when a TIA is over, there’s no permanent injury to the brain. View a detailed animation of TIAThe warning signs of a TIA are exactly the same as for a stroke:

	Sudden numbness or weakness of the face, arm or leg, especially on one side of the body
	Sudden confusion, trouble speaking or understanding
	Sudden trouble seeing in one or both eyes
	Sudden trouble walking, dizziness, loss of balance or coordination
	Sudden, severe headache with no known cause To read the rest of the article go to:

http://www.strokeassociation.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3068856

and 

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4781

Elizabeth Gilbert: A new way to think about creativity

This TED talk by Elizabeth Gilbert is a must see. I love her book Eat, Pray, Love and recommended it to a number of friends. 


I think her talk about creativity and what makes art is very inspiring. And for weeks after I watched the video I sat waiting for a genie to come with the art, or maybe have a cup of tea with me and give me the lowdown on creativity. Or maybe, just maybe, a poem would miss its initial target and come flowing through me instead. Sigh.

Amy Tan: Where does creativity hide?

This TED talk has a lot of very profound points. I loved Amy Tan's The Joyluck Club, and although I haven't read any of her other books, she definitely rocks. I think her talk on creativity is analyzed from a deeper and, arguably, a more practical perspective than Elizabeth Gilbert. Of course, Gilbert is definitely an entertainer. Amy Tan connected it to her personal life more and the her thought process as well as the questions she poses are very interesting. 


I definitely think there are overlapping points with both of them concerning the 'randomness' of the creative process. 


She mentions that she does not believe in absolute truths. I disagree only because I believe in God as an absolute truth. But, I think everyone should ask themselves questions about their existence, because questions help us learn and discover. It just is that all my questions have been answered by religion/spirituality. I do think it would be awful if it was only just this life, that there is no promise of something better that awaits us. I wonder how I would feel if I thought the good would not be rewarded for good, nor the bad for bad. And that life is what it is and you only get what you were alloted in life. That would suck.


But, back to creativity, randomness may explain why not everyone has it, or God's Will, or maybe it is that some people just try harder and work at it...and they eventually are rewarded their efforts. 

To censor or not to censor?

Should we censor ourselves on our own blogs? Considering that you might possibly have a diverse audience, should we strive to be politically correct?

Hmm.

As thousands of blogs prove, the beauty of it is saying exactly what is on your mind without fear of censorship, and without worrying that the funding will be affected if you veer off a politically correct or apologetic editorial policy?

So, if it’s okay with everyone, and even if it isn’t, we’re uncensored.

Know that the life of the world is only play, and idle talk, and pageantry, and boasting among you, and rivalry in respect of wealth and children; as the likeness of vegetation after rain, whereof the growth is pleasing to the husbandman, but afterward it drieth up and thou seest it turning yellow, then it becometh straw. And in the Hereafter there is grievous punishment, and (also) forgiveness from Allah and His good pleasure, whereas the life of the world is but matter of illusion. (20) 
Race one with another for forgiveness from your Lord and a Garden whereof the breadth is as the breadth of the heavens and the earth, which is in store for those who believe in Allah and His messengers. Such is the bounty of Allah, which He bestoweth upon whom He will, and Allah is of Infinite Bounty. (21) 
Naught of disaster befalleth in the earth or in yourselves but it is in a Book before we bring it into being - Lo! that is easy for Allah - (22) 
That ye grieve not for the sake of that which hath escaped you, nor yet exult because of that which hath been given. Allah loveth not all prideful boasters, (23)


- Surat Al Hadid

What is freedom?

Many people I know consider religion an organized structure designed to control and keep people in check.

I thought about that long and hard and decided it was just the opposite.

What is it that religions ask of us exactly? Or even generally? Mostly, God asks us to pray to Him and worship Him, and nothing else and basically not give ‘worldly desires’ precedence. Islam, Christianity, Buddhism etc basically call for letting go of this world to some extent – not totally.

I guess the other side of the coin is someone who finds their passion in something other than God.

The thing is, people (even people who follow religions) often find their desires fulfilled in other ways. It could be work, fun, hobbies, even maybe alcohol, drugs, or sex (whatever). I guess people in their own way, (trying to free themselves from organized ideology or maybe just following their hearts whims); tend to fall for another form of worship.

Some people are addicted to money, power, and life in general. And just as a religious person abstains from everything that would anger God and tries to do what will please Him, others will dedicate their life to their own ‘addictions’ to get what they want or what they feel they deserve. They become entranced, like a pious believer in an ashram, they will wake up early for what they love, and will do what they can to get what they want. I don’t see how that makes them any different from any other worshiper?

The problem is, when people ‘worship’ for example, work, money or women, it doesn’t always end well. When we get too attached to eating, power, work, a certain person, or any completely human desire that doesn’t really benefit anyone except ourselves, this can totally destroy us or at least render us completely obsessed.

But what does religion ask you to do? Sacrifice? What is it exactly that we are sacrificing? Things, not emotions, just things or actions that ultimately won’t hurt us if we don’t have them in our lives.

I think in a way, freedom is freeing ourselves from becoming obsessed with certain worldly conditions. Freeing ourselves from becoming slaves to habits we can’t shake, to desires we follow without warning, and to the world. Maybe freedom is choosing what we worship, because truly, even without religion, everyone holds at least one thing in particular reverence. And really, even people who take religion and spirituality to obsessive levels for themselves and forget the God-factor might actually be compromising themselves.

I guess at the end of the day, I speak as a ‘believer’ and not a bystander.

Popcorn

Have you ever contemplated popcorn? Each one has a unique and marvelous shape. Sounds ridiculous, but I just discovered that popcorn is not only delicious, but beautiful, aesthetically.

Assessing What Arabs Do, Not What They Say: A New Approach to Understanding Arab Anti-Americanism

By Lamya Hamad

The attacks of September 11, 2001 did not only spark the wrath of the Bush administration against various countries of the world, but also Bush's primetime question, "Why do they hate us?" By default, 'they' usually refers to Muslims in general and Arabs in particular.

In an attempt to answer this question, The Washington Institute of Near East Studies issued a study with the title, "Assessing What Arabs Do, Not What They Say: A New Approach to Understanding Arab Anti-Americanism" by Robert Satloff, Eunice Youmans, and Mark Nakhla.

Satloff has been the executive director of The Washington Institute since 1993, and is an expert on Arab and Islamic politics and US Middle East Policy. He has spoken of the "need for bold and innovative public diplomacy to Arabs and Muslims." Satloff has authored nine books and voices his opinions in many prominent newspapers. He is also the only non-Arab to host a program, Dakhil Washington (Inside Washington) on an Arab satellite channel (Al Hurra).

Eunice Youmans served as a Keston fellow in public diplomacy at The Washington Institute in 2005–2006.

Nakhla has been the Arabic open source linguist for the Foreign Terrorist Division within the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. Nakhla also works on public diplomacy issues for Institute executive director Robert Satloff and Ziegler.

Stereotypes

At the very beginning of the report, we find a picture of three Muslim women, all of whom are fully veiled. This immediately gives the reader the impression that when speaking of anti-Americanism it goes without saying that Muslims are involved, although not all Arabs are Muslims and vice versa. This is very stereotypical and purports the idea that Muslims are typically anti-West.

Why Do They Hate Us?

A medley of answers has been given to this one question. The study begins by listing some of the answers, "they hate us for our values. They hate us for our policies. They hate us for who we are. They hate us for what we do. They hate us because they hate themselves, their leaders, and their societies and have no better way to show it. They don't hate us at all."

Although polls have commonly been seen as indicative of certain trends or public opinion, the authors of this research paper disagree to using polling data as a way of assessing Arab 'anti-Americanism'. According to the researchers, they admit to polls having gained momentum after September 11, 2001 being a popular way to gauge feelings and attitudes toward American foreign policy. To the extent that polls have been viewed as a significant source to help U.S. political leaders and American media understand Arab political preferences and 'how they assign value to those preferences."

The authors through this research paper attempt to prove that polling data should not influence U.S. policy initiatives since polls cannot be viewed as an accurate source of information. Currently, however, the Bush administration seems to endorse this data source as a method of measuring Arab or Muslim hostility toward the United States.

According to the report, a more accurate reflection of Arab positions toward the United States can be made by assessing behavior, not attitude. They define the suicide terrorism of 9/11 as being a "manifestation of extremely violent and antisocial behavior" and the reasons behind these attacks cannot be evaluated based on attitudes or what people say via polls, but rather through action. Therefore, the linkage between attitude and behavior is questionable unless it is possible to believe that what people tell pollsters is truthful and accurate and can be used as a definite indicator of "their likely actions toward the United States, U.S. interests, and U.S. citizens".

Behavior Not Attitude

This research paper conducts a behavior-based method to assess the political preferences of Arabs. They believe that responses to poll questions could be influenced by a variety of factors that could affect the accuracy of poll results.

There are many types of behavior, according to the report, which can be used to assess pro- or anti-Americanism such as travel to America, study in America, purchase of American goods, investment in American companies, and the enjoyment of American entertainment among others. However, this research paper focuses on one particular behavior – public protest.

From the perspective of the authors, public protest can be used as an indicator because it "represents direct personal action by individuals" and reflects judgment on the part of the person.  They believe that these will spearhead the creation of a behavior-based model for assessing Arab pro- or anti-Americanism.

Criteria of Choosing Public Protests

An anti-American public protest is usually a demonstration, riot, or any public gathering, official or unofficial, where the participants criticize the United States of America, its government, officials, policy, or the American people.

The report used information from The Arab Anti-American Protest Database on The Washington Institute's website. The database gathered all media-reported protests with anti-American content that happened in Arab countries in the six-year period from 2000 to 2005. To be included in this database the protest had to have been reported by two media outlets, one Western (for example, BBC, Associated Press, Agence France Presse) and one major Arab media (Al-Ahram, Al-Hayat, and Al-Sharq Al-Awsat). The database includes the following information on the protests: site, timing, magnitude and extent of violent content (symbolic, vandalism, injury, death); it also includes the protest triggers, and the "political-social demographic composition of the protestors".

The report categorized the triggers into three types:

1.            Some act of authorized U.S. policy, for example, the invasion of Iraq

2.            Some unauthorized act by U.S. officials or representatives, for example, the torture that took place at Abu Ghraib prison

3.            Some act by Israel or a third party allegedly supported or endorsed by the U.S. for example the targeted killing of Palestinian 'terrorists' (this of course is the term used in the report which is subjective)

The protestors include:

1.            Students

2.            Refugees

3.            Political party activists

4.            Government employees

5.            Islamists

Determining the trigger of a protest is very subjective and news reports may not be able to capture accurately the political-social complexion of a group of protestors. For example, the report may associate a certain group of protestors to a political party whereas their ethnicity or sectarianism is the key factor.

The report attempts to filter and verify the information in order to create an accurate picture of the situation. It based its research on 538 protests that happened in the Middle East that met the criteria of the database. The protests are analyzed from different angles and are sifted into groups.

The groups are: region (the region with the most protests), country, protests per capita, cities, timing, size, violence, trigger, composition, and setting.

Not surprisingly, the region with the most occurrence of protests was the Levant (i.e. Egypt, Israel/West Bank/Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria) raking in 60 % of the total number of protests in the six year period. This is understandable because of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the conflict areas in Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria making it a turbulent region. Whereas the Gulf region (Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen) contribute to 36 % of the total number of protests. North Africa (Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and Morocco) have the lowest occurrence of public protests with only 4 %.

Although the Gulf region has the second largest per cent of protests, right behind the Levant, the country that was the scene of the most demonstrations in all the Arab world, was Iraq (25 % i.e. a quarter of the total number was in Iraq alone). Egypt was in second place with 21 % averaging 1.6 protests a month, even though Egypt has no significant political tensions or areas of conflict with other countries in the region. Thirteen per cent of the protests were in Israel/West Bank/Gaza, it is possible that many of the protest movements are curbed in this area due to imposed restrictions. The countries with the fewest protests were the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Tunisia.

By cities, the results differ slightly, with Cairo being at the top of the list with 17 %, Baghdad 12 %, and Amman 8 %. Cairo is the largest city in the Middle East in terms of population, and the stage for most of its activities. However, in proportion to the population size of each country, the highest number of protests per capita was found in Bahrain, Lebanon, and Jordan respectively.

Cities with the fewest number of protests were Tel Aviv, Dubai, Casablanca, and Tunis. Per capita, Tunisia has the fewest number of protests, along with Saudi Arabia, and Algeria.

Most of these protests occurred in 2003 (43 %) coinciding with the invasion of Iraq, the fewest number of protests was in 2000 (5 %), which witnessed the ninth anniversary of the Gulf war and IDF (Israeli Defense Force) air raids in southern Lebanon among other events.

The sizes of these demonstrations vary from less than 1000 to more than 100,000 people. However, the majority of the protests (45 %) were between 1,000 and 10,000 people, which the report considered 'medium' in size. A little over 10 % of the protests were in the large category, ranging from 10,000 to 100,000 persons, most of which occurred in 2003. Only 3 % were in the extra large category, with 100,000 plus people. The extra large protests occurred randomly throughout the years but increased in 2002 and 2003. Surprisingly, even with such large numbers of protestors, the levels of violence were not high, and only 5 % of the protests lead to death (of protestors, security forces, or bystanders) and 6 % led to injury. Twenty-eight per cent included symbolic violence such as the burning of flags and 29 % had no reference to violence at all in their reports. Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, and Bahrain had the most violent protests. Again, the number of violent protests increased drastically in 2003 and gradually decreased from 2004 onward. 

Seventy-three per cent of the demonstrations with anti-American content were triggered by deliberate, authorized acts of U.S. government policy like the invasion of Iraq; 20 % were triggered by deliberate, authorized acts of Israeli government policy (for which the U.S. government was considered a collaborator). Acts that were not officially endorsed by the Bush administration but the U.S. government was considered responsible, such as the Abu Ghraib prison torture, made up just 2 % of the incidents. Five percent of incidents were triggered by entities, which are supportive of U.S. policies.

Information concerning the composition of the protests is not conclusive because news reports did not mention it in 20 % of the cases. However, in roughly 38 % of the incidents the main protesters were non-governmental organizations and civil society groups (i.e. professional groups or student movements), and 22 % were sparked by Islamist activists. Fourteen per cent of the incidents were by non-Islamist opposition parties, and only 6 % were by members of the ruling party or government employees.

Protests are staged in different areas, 31 % in the Middle East are carried out in public areas – public squares, streets, or stadiums. Fourteen per cent of protests took place near a U.S. governmental institution such as an embassy or consulate and 13 % occurred near mosques or some other religious site. Third government institutions, universities, and international institutions were the stage of protests in 25 % of the cases, and in 18 % of the incidents, information was unavailable. 

According to the authors, the results of the research indicate that anti-American sentiment is not high in the Middle East despite what people think. They based their conclusion on a number of observations. In their opinion, the total number of anti-American incidents was low considering the six-year interval and the population size of the countries in the Middle East. For instance, over the six years there have been 538 reported protests (taken from the database) spanning 18 countries and territories which averages fewer than five protests per country per year. They claim that even in the countries where the frequency of incidents is high, such as Egypt, the total number of protests can only be viewed as low. Considering that Egypt averages 1.6 protests a month whereas it boasts a population of approximately 77 million, 18 metropolitan areas of 1 million people or more, 13 major universities, and a huge number of mosques. The year 2003 witnessed the highest rate of incidents due to the invasion of Iraq, and taking this as an example, the researchers compare the protests staged in Europe and America to those in the Middle East. For example, in France four times as many anti-American protests occurred during the month of the Iraq invasion than in all of French North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, and Tunis) combined. In the same context, although most Americans told pollsters that they would support the war on Iraq (approval ratings were about 60 %) larger anti-American protests were reported in the United States than in any other Middle Eastern country.

"Incidents were driven almost exclusively by the news cycle". This is one of the observations cited at the end of the report, arguing that the number of protests increased drastically with the reporting of international and regional events, sparking swift and intense reactions, which subsided immediately. Examples of this include the U.S. led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 (97 protests were reported that month alone), the face-off between Israeli troops and Palestinian fighters in Jenin in 2002, and the assassination of Hamas leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 2004. The relevance of this point seems quite obscure since most people are not aware of international or local events except through the news, and so naturally, they react to news reports.

The paper shows that in general Arab countries reacted differently to turbulent political events depending on proximity. They based this on the fact that in North Africa, protests were rare. Egypt had the second highest number of incidents, although it was not a direct party in the conflicts, but shares a border with Palestinian territory. The most protests per capita were found in Bahrain and Lebanon. Here, Bahrain is not consistent with the proximity theory. This country witnessed twice the level of protests compared to other countries in the region. The report does not explain this phenomenon but relates it to the fact that Bahrain and Lebanon (as well as Iraq) have the biggest Shiite populations in all of the Arab countries, but they do not clarify how this is significant.

It was observed in the report that the majority of incidents were generally non-violent, and the number of attacks on U.S. property, interests, and persons was low. At the same time, their study shows that there was no increase in the size, frequency, or violence levels of the protests over time indicating that anti-American sentiment was not worsening.

It is also evident from the report that "no correlation exists between frequency of incidents and political alignment of the governments involved" since the countries with the highest occurrence of protests have close diplomatic relations with the United States.

The Aim of the Report

The authors of the report believe that there is no conclusive evidence to indicate rampant anti-American sentiments in the region. According to them, it would be wrong of the U.S. government to restrict their foreign policies or overseas activities due to fear of the public's reaction in the Arab World.

Thus, the poll data reflecting high levels of animosity toward the United States of America contradict the findings of the report. The following factors summarize the conclusion of the report:

1.            Rampant animosity toward the U.S. is not evident

The Arab world has not witnessed any persistent mass demonstrations against the United States. The protests are usually started quickly and dissipate almost as quickly. No persistent demonstrations such as the ones opposing the Danish cartoons or the protest against the French government's proposed youth labor laws were seen in the Middle East.

2.            Protests are generally infrequent and non-violent

The report does mention that one of the factors for infrequent protests could be that Arab governments may be preventing them, restricting the public's right to dissent in fear of offending the United States or the protesters may turn against the regime in place. Another reason for limited protesting could be that the activists view street demonstrations as ineffective because of the restrictions placed on their activities by their governments. The report suggests that even local governments may be responsible for instigating a number of protests to divert their public's attention away from another issue, or to show official discontent toward some U.S. policy.

3.            Poll results need to be re-assessed.

The authors believe that poll results cannot accurately predict behavior. They question the significance of attitudinal anti-Americanism in comparison to behavioral anti-Americanism and pose the question: "Do attitudes matter nearly as much if they do not translate into behaviors?" In addition, what is anti-Americanism exactly? This question should have been posed at the beginning of the report and answered as a part of their research. Especially since the distinction between dissent and anti-Americanism is controversial.

They conclude that polls only predict attitudes, not behaviors, nor do these attitudes necessarily translate into hostile behavior. Also, poll data can be influenced by many factors, decreasing the level of objectivity. The authors believe that anti-Americanism should be gauged by behaviors such as boycotts of American goods, travel to the United States, study at American schools and universities and protests. With these findings, the research has set out to prove that polls should not influence U.S. policy initiatives. The report does not mention which polls need to be re-assessed; they are just referred to in general. This indicates that they believe that all polls need to be re-assessed. However, on The Gallup World Poll website, one of the most famous polling organizations in the U.S., most of their polls point to low anti-American sentiments.

Despite the fact that the authors of the report appear extremely critical of poll results, it cannot be ignored that polling is a documented method of predicting behavior as well as attitude. Polling began in the early nineteenth century and evolved by scientific research into a more credible method of predicting the outcome of U.S. elections in 1935 with the help of George Gallup.[1]  Over the years, polling has gained momentum and through many correct predictions and modifications to its scientifically based sampling procedures, it is now a viable source of information to a certain extent.

Interestingly, this same organization offers poll results that reflect that 'they do not hate us'. This is the same conclusion that the first report leads to as well, but the poll results view it in a different perspective. The report is titled "Muslims and Americans: The Way Forward". This is a special report issued by the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies; the title itself gives a more positive vibe to the report. Where the previous report claims to assess 'Arab anti-Americanism' this report attempts to prove that although relations may be strained between the Arab world and the West, both sides believe in improving this relationship.

This report states that, "Gallup surveys contradict this conventional wisdom [of 'why do they hate us']. The data provide surprising evidence that while Muslims have negative attitudes toward Western foreign policies, their attitudes toward the West are more positive." The report also claims that both Muslims and Americans share common values such as, 'high regard for liberty and equality'.

The report concludes by giving ways to 'bridging the gap' offered by both Muslims and Americans in response to an open-ended question: "What can the Muslim world do to improve relations?" (Of course, the reservation here is that this is not only the responsibility of the Muslim world). The results of this poll show that some Americans believe that there is a "mutual cultural misunderstanding" between Muslims and Americans, and they feel that policy changes toward Muslim countries is unnecessary. At the end of the report, it presents a common opinion voiced by Muslims in many of Gallup's surveys, which is, "their desire for the West to "respect Islam" and stop interfering in the internal affairs of predominantly Muslim states". 

Clear Definitions

In this report, the authors equate any form of dissent with anti-Americanism. But, what is anti-Americanism exactly? To say that anyone who disagrees with American foreign policy is anti-American seems too far-fetched. Yet, the dictionary-definition of anti-Americanism is: opposed or hostile to the people or the government policies of the United States. A more logical explanation of anti-Americanism would be the definition proffered by James W. Ceaser, "Anti-Americanism rests on the singular idea that something associated with the United States, something at the core of American life, is deeply wrong and threatening to the rest of the world".(A Genealogy of Anti-Americanism).

The feeling that the basis of the American society is inherently corrupt could be considered anti-American. The French have pioneered this concept from the 18^th century by scholars such as Simon Linguet who warned that the 'dregs of Europe…would build a dreadful society in America…and destroy civilization" (Understanding Anti-Americanism). Since then anti-Americanism has spread from its European birthplace to all parts of the globe. But disdain for American values should be dissociated from people's right to dissent. The public should be free to oppose policy initiatives and governments without being branded as 'anti-American'.

Noam Chomsky, an American academic and a critic of U.S. policy, believes that the use of the term anti-Americanism resembles the "'anti-Sovietism" culture which labels a dissident as hostile to the state. This, Chomsky claims is irrational. For example, "if an Italian criticized Berlusconi and he was called anti-Italian, the people would crack up with laughter, because there’s some kind of democratic culture [in Italy]".

In the same context, measuring the extent of anti-Americanism in the Middle East through the number and volume of protests is a very subjective process, which has been mentioned in the report. Not enough information is present as to what sparks protests or what factors prevent protests from taking place especially in countries where freedoms are curbed.

The results of the paper might be a correct indicator that no hostile behavior toward America is expected because not all dissidents believe in translating their discontent toward U.S. foreign policy into action or behavior. Nevertheless, it still reflects discontent toward U.S. foreign policy. Yet, to say that the U.S. administration should give a blind eye to the public's opinion overseas while drafting initiatives would be ignoring important indicators that could later help in avoiding international tensions. 

Why Do They Hate Us?

This question was introduced at the beginning of the report and although the conclusion is that 'they don't hate us', it would be interesting to examine some of the other answers proffered. "They hate us for our values" - if this statement held truth, then logically speaking, the Arab world would channel some of that hate toward countries like China or Japan that are rich in values. 

"They hate us for our policies". Again, the disdain for U.S. policies usually comes when direct political intervention occurs.

"They hate us for who we are". That just does not make sense. Arabs should then hate all Western and non-Arab countries for who they are and what "they do".

"They hate us because they hate themselves, their leaders, and their societies and have no better way to show it". Oppressed countries hate their oppressors and countries that occupy them or colonize them whether Arab or non-Arab.

Anti-Americanism at the end resembles anti-Semitism or anti-Sovietism – they must hate us if they do not agree with us. Over the years, America has defined its relationship to other countries based on whether they mesh with their foreign policies or not.

Questions that should be answered are these: Is it logical to assume that anti-American sentiment is synonymous with discontent toward U.S. foreign policy? So does U.S. foreign policy, in the eyes of the authors, reflect the essence of American values and culture? Should Americans be judged based on their foreign policy?

---

[1] http://www.fathom.com/feature/121774/index.html

Source: BiblioIslam.net