Following the Rules

A post today on The New York Times' Baghdad Bureau blog caught my attention. An Iraqi reporter, Suadad al-Salhy was invited to visit America and wrote about her observations. If her attempt at journalism had been mirrored by a similarly illogical American going to Iraq for the first time, the political correctness police would be all over the New York Times.

In America everybody obeys the law, they do not consider doing anything else. They stand in line when they need to buy something. They obey road instructions, cross the street in the determined area, pay their taxes, and so on, much more than in my country.

By comparison many American soldiers in Iraq have no idea about our laws. Often it seems that they do whatever they want, the same minute. When I ask Americans about this, they say that American soldiers will submit to the rules when they go back to their country. But when they deal with Iraqi people they don’t seem to think about anything. They don’t seem to realize what will happen when they shoot Iraqis or put their sons in jail. Many American soldiers in Iraq don’t seem to stop and ask themselves the rules they needs to know to control their actions. ...

First, arrogance and disregard for laws by American troops is not something that Suadad made up. There are numerous reports and stories about U.S. troops breaking laws and generally acting poorly. So it is real. Yet, shooting Iraqis and putting their sons in jail is often required because those Iraqis aren't following Suadad's rules and laws themselves. I know this is simplistic, but if Iraqis would follow their own rules, laws, and religious teachings, the American soldiers would be at home following their own laws by now. And Americans seem to "do whatever they want, the same minute" but Arabs don't? That's a bit of a stretch for me.

I can’t understand how Americans are so nice over there, and many of their soldiers are bullies and aggressive.

Hmm. Maybe they are bullies and aggressive because people all around them want to kill them, but no one is wearing uniforms so they never know who the enemy is. What about the Mahdi Army? The Badr Organization? The various Sunni insurgent groups? They are not bullies and aggressive?

I am veiled. To get from Iraq to America I had to fly from Baghdad to Jordan to Britain to Washington. There were difficulties at Heathrow and Dulles airports. I faced problems everywhere with security. Every time they asked me to take off my jacket. I refused, and I told the rest of my group that if they insisted I would rather go back to Iraq. So the security guards would send me off to do more searches, X-rays or be searched by women.

Again, I cannot understand this mentality. I respect her right to be veiled, but she needs to respect other people's right to get on an aircraft on which every passenger has been thoroughly security screened. I have to take my jacket, belt, and shoes off every time I go through security at U.S. airports. Why shouldn't she? Why is this an affront to her? She did not "face problems" everywhere she went, she caused them by her own behavior. I would be willing to bet that if a white woman of the same age repeatedly refused to take off her jacket, the screeners would be inclined to call the police to have her arrested for non-compliance.

Near the end, she discusses how she was again scrutinized at the UN building in New York. I have some empathy with her situation there, because she reports that other women went through without taking their jacket off, but she was subject to a more thorough search. I am sure that this would be extremely frustrating and humiliating. On the other hand, the image of Muslims in the West, as biased and over-generalizing as it may be, was not created out of thin air. When was the last time an American walked into a public building and blew him or herself up? When was the last time an Iraqi did so? So, I empathize with this woman being treated like a potential terrorist when she is not, but at the same time, until the Muslim community completely and clearly exorcizes the violent extremists from their midst, they can expect to face a level of suspicion and hostility. It is human nature.

The Saudi Minister of Labor as a Waiter

I had to repost this picture from the Saudi Jeans blog because it speaks to some of my recent posts on labor. The Saudi Minister of Labor had a photo op at a new Fuddruckers in Jeddah and extolled the virtues of working. Saudi, much more than the other Gulf states, needs to convince its people to take jobs like these because it has a much higher population to take care of than, say, Qatar or the Emirates.

According to Saudi Jeans, "The minister criticized those who look down on some jobs saying they do not understand the spirit of Quran." The minister's bio is here.

I especially liked one of the comments to the post:

Having a terrible job while you’re young is a rite of passage. My parents insisted that I work in a pharmacy or a restaurant or the like so that I would learn to treat everyone politely and not to get upset when someone was unreasonably harsh with me. With that being said, do you think the minister has ever held such a job himself? =P

A Crack of Light in the Press

Abu Dhabi's new daily, The National, seems to be a refreshing new idea. A paper with actual journalism. I found a recent article by Fawaz Gerges to be a refreshing read coming out of the region, even in an English paper. In it, he discusses the traditionally interpreted meanings and bases of jihad and how al-Qaeda's project to radically reinterpret these tenets has failed, producing a backlash in the Arab world against their senseless violence. Even so, his comments require some adjustment, especially for those in the West who would think he is wholly accurate about opportunities at hand.

Al Qa'eda has lost Muslim minds because it has failed in its attempt to radically redefine jihad and gain acceptance of indiscriminate violence in the name of Islam. A number of recent opinion surveys confirm that an overwhelming majority of Muslims are not merely unsympathetic to the ideology of bin Laden and his followers - they place direct blame at his feet for the harm he has caused to the image of Islam and the damage his movement has wrought within Muslim societies.

Another comment is interesting, but I think needs a little nuance. I don't have time to look up the Gallup poll right now, but I will either post a comment or a second post with the info. I think that, while very few people think the attacks of 9/11 were completely justified, there are a lot of people who were happy to see America's nose bloodied, maybe just not in such a horrific way. I think there is a middle answer between Gerges' assertion that the attacks have very little support and the common Western notion that a vast majority supported it.

Gallup conducted tens of thousands of hourlong, face-to-face interviews with residents of more than 35 predominantly Muslim nations between 2001 and 2007, and found that only 7 per cent of respondents believed the September 11 attacks were "completely" justified. Contrary to the perception in the West that the actions of al Qa'eda enjoy wide support in the Muslim world, 90 per cent of respondents condemned the killings on religious and humanitarian grounds.
Despite the real and potent challenges to al Qa'eda and its ideology evident in these debates, they have not received the attention they deserve. The West has failed, by and large, to understand the critical distinctions in Muslim opinion on these matters, and to forge policies to address the legitimate grievances of many Muslims - foremost among them the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the war in Iraq.

Gerges goes on to talk about the distinction between AQ and resistance to occupation. Yes, there is a distinction. Some of the resisters are fighting occupation. Americans would do the same. Just look at the movie (I know it's a movie) Red Dawn. Charlie Sheen and Patrick Swayze were insurgents and they were heroes. But there's a difference between guys like that, and the guys who are doing the same thing in Iraq, etc, and the thugs who man sectarian death squads, bomb civilians, and so on. And furthermore, people try to argue against the American definition of Hamas and Hizbollah as terrorist groups, saying that they're political parties. Well, if they were really just political parties, then why did their militias mount what were basically armed coups, albeit stopping short of toppling the government, in Gaza and Lebanon? They did not increase their power by political means, they maneuvered into political power through terror. Yes, they had some electoral successes before that, but the bottom line is that they are armed groups, seeking political power through any means available.

Here's Gerges on the subject:

While al Qa'eda's "jihad" is clearly regarded by most Arabs and Muslims as terrorism, Palestinian, Lebanese, and Iraqi groups that employ violence in the service of what is seen as resistance to foreign occupation are considered legitimate. Muslims still regard the defence of besieged or occupied territories as honourable examples of jihad. It is not the violence per se that is the issue. Rather, the question is, What is the justification for taking up arms?

Gerges, calling for the U.S. to moderate its policies to take advantages of changes in support for AQ and their like, says: "In most of the Muslim world, the US is admired for its democracy and freedoms."

I'm not so sure. I hear a lot of people throwing freedom and democracy back in the U.S.'s face. America's democracy and freedom at home is questioned, and its attempts to promote the same in the region are thoroughly discredited among many. So, I don't know that his statement is true here.

In closing, Gerges says:

There is more than a glimmer of hope: the fact that al Qa'eda has been marginalised and discredited, not by military force but by exegetes using sound theological arguments is encouraging. It should make us appreciate that it is the articulation of ideas - not military force - that will defeat those who would engage in terrorism.

I agree that ideas are important, but at the same time, I think that refutation of AQ does not equal an opening for rapprochement between the U.S. and the Muslim world. I think that the issues and wounds go much beyond AQ and support for AQ. See this Brookings Institution poll for an idea of the depth of the problem. AQ is, and always has been a marginal phenomenon. There needs to be a much deeper change in public opinions for the U.S. to have an opening. Much of this needs to come from changes in U.S. policy, but it also needs time for views in the Muslim world to change.

It is great to see this discussion in a regional paper. Unfortunately, I do not know of any plans to launch an Arabic language twin of this ambitious new project. It is sorely needed.

More Press Idiocy

I got a pointer to another glowing example of Gulf media shortly after I wrote my last post. I don't know what to call this genre. In my last post, I typed Arab press, but I really was talking about the English papers in the Arab world. English Arab press? Arab English press? The English press that is sometimes poorly translated from Arabic and at other times is terrified of biting the hand that feeds it? The doormat? What do you call it? Incidentally, for those of you who want something translated into any language, my odds are on a native speaker of the translated-into language. I can understand English mi'a bil-mi'a as it is my native language. If you ask me to translate an English article into Arabic, I can do it, but it won't be spotless. Now, with Arabic, I cannot understand it mi'a bil-mi'a, but if you give me just a dictionary in most cases, or a dictionary and an Arab in a few cases like literature or especially flowery or idiomatic wording, I can translate any Arabic piece into an English piece that will never be second guessed as to whether it was originally written in English by a native. It makes sense. Native speaker should do the writing. Even if you have an Arab translate it into English, then a native English speaker check it, or vice versa, this should be the standard for journalism. Also, many Western press sources are good at translating Arab quotes, but others translate it word for word, accidentally or purposely making the interviewed person sound like an illiterate. Not good.

In any case, after my ramble, here is the article in question: "So a drunk guy in a bar says to another drunk guy." Start of a joke? Maybe. The Gulf News reports that the recent UK terror alert for UAE was caused by two Arab drunks at a hotel bar.

One drunk man told the other in jest: "If someone wants to scare all these
people and make them run away, just say there is a bomb. A belt bomb will kill
hundreds of them."

I'm not sure which is more surprising: the lack of creativity in this story or the fact that they admit that there were two drunk Arabs in Abu Dhabi. Perhaps the "drunk Arabs" causing the terror alert is true, but I'd be willing to bet a year's pay that it isn't. Other stories I've read recently said that there is "no threat" of a terrorist attack in the UAE. NO threat? None? Please. Like I said in my last post, COMPLETE denial is COMPLETELY unbelievable. It only worked for Stalin because he backed it up with killing everyone.

I can't think of another adjective, so I'll say that the regional press must get beyond this CHILDISHNESS before it expects to have a real voice in changing anyone's perspective.

Human Trafficking in the Press

A good bit of debate has been going around Oman's blogging community (here and here) regarding the recent U.S. State Department Human Trafficking Report, which labeled Oman as Tier 3 (the worst of 3 tiers) for the second year running. The validity of this rating, or lack thereof, has been batted back and forth as can be seen at the two posts linked above. What I want to address here is the reaction by public officials and the press, which was actually the original issue in Undercover Dragon's post.

If Oman (press, politicians, people) wants to criticize the legitimacy of the rating, fine. If they want to question the U.S.'s right to level such a charge, whether in terms of national sovereignty or in terms of moral standing, fine. But the sad thing is that the Omani press and public officials could have gained credibility by saying, "Yes, there are SOME problems in Oman, but they are very slight in comparison to other Tier 3 countries and we are working very hard to fix them. Therefore, we feel that the U.S. report is innacurate and misleading." Take that theme and run with it. You can even play on a variation, and admit that there is a slight problem, but that the U.S. was purposely misleading to attain political goal X. I assure you, though, that high-level political operators have much more important machinations to occupy themselves with than this report that made little impact anywhere but Oman.

Instead, the latest gem from the Omani press in the Times of Oman, goes to quote an American, an Indian, a Dutch, and a Fillipino, all of whom deny the validity of the report out of hand. Several go on about how Oman is a free, fair, and tolerant place. Who cares? Is the report about freedom and tolerance or about the few people who traffick humans and the fact that Oman has not made sufficient attempts to stop them? So, the writer needs to tailor her questions and steer her interviewees more to the point.

Then there is this whopper:

“Human trafficking? There is nothing like that over here. The report is
extremely biased and unjustified, to say the least,” says Josie, a Dutch
national who has been living in Muscat for the last 10 years. “The rules are
very strict here and no one is allowed to come and go without proper
documentation. That being the case, I can confidently say there is absolutely no
trafficking of any sort happening here.”

Really? I've been here a bit less than 10 years, but I know that "Josie" is either lying, or she spends all day at the Left Bank or some other high end place sozzling and never gets beyond some high-end expat circles. Alternatively, perhaps she is one of those expats who has some sort of Stockholm syndrome where they want to be more Omani than the Omanis (or whatever other country they happen to be in). For those who have followed the debates at MuscatConfidential and Blue-Chi, Balqis falls into this category.

To someone who already believes that Oman is squeaky clean, of course this is very soothing, but to the many who believe that there is a problem and think that Oman deserved Tier 3, this does nothing to change their minds. Now, if you told me "yes, there is a problem" then went on to explain why it is not as bad as the U.S. says and then gave me examples of how Oman is fighting it and how the U.S. report is overstated, I'd have to moderate my position. But if you say, "There is no problem whatsoever," I know you are lying.

Now, for those who question the U.S.'s right to do this, I have a few comments. First, the U.S. needs to realize that many of its policies, especially with regard to the War on Terror, impeach its credibility in cases like this. I recognize that. But, why does the U.S. make reports like this? Part of the reason is because people in the U.S. truly feel that the country is an "exceptional" beacon of freedom and want to spread that freedom. Question the politicians and policies all you want, but I am telling you that Americans truly want to spread freedom. The other part is because activists and victims from all over the world lobby the U.S., as the world's greatest power, to use that power to good. The U.S. didn't come with these reports to humiliate people. Someone who either was a victim of human trafficking, or saw it first-hand started spreading the word, then some activist group got involved and pressured Congress members, etc. until a law was passed requiring this report, in the hopes that it would force nations to take steps to stop these practices. So, you have to understand this wasn't some report Bush dreamed up to humiliate Oman.

Finally, here are a few links to reports or articles from the U.S. about human trafficking in our own country. While we don't give ourselves a rating, we do criticize and evaluate and try to improve. Americans never trust answers like the Times of Oman gives, so American journalists try to give both sides of the story, those who say there is no problem, and those who say there is. Then, with the weight of quotes and facts, the reader is left to decide what the truth is. If the reader is given only one side, he or she is left to think that the writer is covering something up.

Look at the below links from the U.S. government and press about trafficking in the U.S. The U.S. has a big problem with human trafficking too. Probably a lot bigger than Oman's in some ways. Yet, the U.S. admits the problem and has stern measures in place to deal with it, and actively investigates and prosecutes it.

After reading the below links, consider whether the Arab press will ever get beyond catering to those who are already convinced by striking a middle tone that may win the unconvinced over to their side. As it is, they are verbally mastrubating each other in a closed circle. Evidently they don't want anyone else to join in.

U.S. Department of Education factsheet that states that human trafficking has been reported in all 50 U.S. states and Washington DC.

A newspaper article about Louisiana kids being sold for sex. (Americans trafficking Americans)

Newspaper article about a (Hispanic) American couple who lured Hispanics from Latin America with promises of good pay then forcing them into work.

Department of Health and Human Services factsheet that states that around 15,000 persons are trafficked across U.S. borders annually.

Bias, Asabiyah, and Oman's Three Monkeys

The recent Human Trafficking Report labeling Oman as an unchanged Tier-3 country has caused some back-and-forth on Oman's blogs. There are links to the right under "Interesting Posts." Interestingly, an unrelated blogger, EmiratesEconomist recently posted a quote from the Overcoming Bias blog (which I can't get to open for some reason): "being more aware of biases makes us more willing to assume that others' biases, and not ours, are responsible for our disagreement."

So, while highly educated people should be more aware of biases, they could just as easily turn that knowledge about biases around to assume that the other person's bias is the root of disagreement. I think this works both ways in the recent debate. And how would Ibn Khaldun's concept of "asabiyah" or in-group solidarity play into this quote about biases?

Roman History

"Before the destruction of Carthage, the people and the Senate of Rome together governed the Republic peacefully and with moderation. But when the minds of the people were relieved of that dread, wantonness and arrogance naturally arose, vices which are fostered by prosperity."

Gaius Sallustus Crispus - 1st century BC

Quoted after David Levering Lewis, God's Crucible: Islam and the Making of Europe, 570-1215 (He quoted it after another, obscure book).

Militias: A Problem Beyond Iraq and Lebanon

Militias are a major problem in Iraq and Lebanon, where the state is too weak to police many areas. Therefore, militias become the "guardians" of neighborhoods, providing everything from security to social services. These services come at a price, as the militias often take their cut in the way of protection payments and organized crime. In Iraq, forces like the Mahdi Army and Sunni insurgent groups, beyond their attacks on U.S. troops and other groups in Iraq, provided local militia "services." With the rise of the Awakening groups, local forces recruited to provide security across Iraq, it would seem that the scourge of the militias should be over. Yet, in a similar story in Brazil, local militias that organized to chase out drug gangs have become as much of a scourge as the drug gangs, even torturing a group of undercover investigative reporters.

The phenomenon goes beyond Brazil. I'm sure I could find a host of other developing countries where militias offer protection in turn for payments and criminal enterprises, but one need only look to the U.S. to find that many street gangs organize themselves as neighborhood protectors. The excellent book "Islands in the Street" by Martin Jankowski, a sociologist who lived with gangs as his field research, details how many gangs are organized as local defense forces in areas where policing is light or non-existent. These gangs are tied into social organizations of the older generation, many of whom were gang members when younger. Beyond keeping other criminals off their turf, many gangs help around the neighborhood and even do what could be considered as social services, dispute negotiation, etc. Jankowski's findings stemmed from observation of a cross-section of gangs, including Latino, Puerto Rican, African-American, and Irish gangs on the East and West Coast.

Wush az-zubda? What is the point? Local defense militias are increasingly common across the world in areas where policing is light. Even when citizens organize to keep the likes of drug dealers or insurgents out of their area, the potential for criminal abuses is high. Perhaps increased interest in community policing by security officials and analysts is in order.

Oman in a Recent Study of Public Good Attitudes

Emirates Economist posted commentary and quotes regarding a Wall Street Journal article about cooperation and free-loading in a public good simulation game. Economists and sociologists set up experiments like this to test how people cooperate or defect in situations regarding public goods. I.E. do people contribute to the public good in these scenarios or free-load?

In the study, researchers found that basic responses were fairly similar across 16 countries surveyed, but differences appeared when subjects were allowed to punish free-loaders.

Among students in the U.S., Switzerland, China and the U.K., those identified as freeloaders most often took their punishment as a spur to contribute more generously. But in Oman, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Greece and Russia, the freeloaders more often struck back, retaliating against those who punished them, even against those who had given most to everyone's benefit. It was akin to rapping the knuckles of the helping hand.

In cases where policymakers are seeking cooperation, such as improving road safety, protecting the environment, etc., do such attitudes cripple their efforts? And what about the guy who drives like a psycho, but gets even more psycho when people confront him?

MEMRI Fodder

In a recent post, Abbas Hawazin, an Iraqi living in Amman commented on the material available at MEMRI.

You won't see this on MEMRI, Amidst all the gay-bashing, hypocritical, sex-obsessed, honor-killing, helplessly fanatic, anti-semitic, horribly depressing 7th century Middle East where children shows diligently instruct children to decimate people of the Jewish religion, and unfortuantely for Mister Ghost and his ilk, people do act like normal funloving human beings sometimes. [GASP!] This innocent, nonsensical Egyptian song a la Lewis Carrol had a major effect on the weirder parts of my feeble young boy's brain. I realized today that it means absolutely nothing, and its rhythms are probably the worst ever made, that's why it's so fun...

I in no way think, like some, that this is representative of all Arabs and I appreciate Abbas posting the innocent side of things that come out of the Arab world. Yet, the MEMRI fodder is what I was talking about in a recent debate below. The Arab media provides an outlet for the lowest of the low and this does immeasurable damage to the Arab image in the world and significantly weakens public sympathy for Arab desires and policies in the West. This directly impacts Arab states' ability to achieve their foreign policy goals.

NYT Story Too Bizarre to Pass Up

The New York Times ran a story today about the growing number of Muslim women in Europe that are having hymenoplasty, a cosmetic surgery procedure to restore the illusion of virginity. Unfortunately, the web article does not show what page it was printed on, but it was prominent enough to make their daily email newsletter.

A woman interviewed for the story attributed the rupture of her membrane to a horse riding accident. She decided to have the hymenoplasty procedure when she was unable to obtain a certificate of virginity for her upcoming wedding, after hearing about a recent French court case in which a divorce was granted because the bride was not a virgin as was promised. This has reportedly pushed many Muslim women to have the procedure.

In one passage, an Italian director of a film that makes light of the subject comments about how these women can integrate into European society well, but cannot resist their culture on this matter. In one case in the article, a couple decided to share the costs of the surgery in order to placate conservative parents. I can only hope that people who had to go to these lengths will be a liberalizing influence for their children and for people around them in the future.

Second, for the cases that are not cooperation between partners, I can't help but wonder what such deception does to a marriage psychologically. Of course, there is plenty of deception going into many marriages around the world, but this deception usually doesn't come with certificated physical evidence to back it up.

Finally, while Westerners might want to smugly look down at this practice, we should take a look at one sentence of the article and take a second to think:

"The issue has been particularly charged in France, where a renewed and fierce debate has occurred about a prejudice that was supposed to have been buried with the country’s sexual revolution 40 years ago: the importance of a woman’s virginity."

Similar ideas about virginity and marriage are not that far gone from the West. While many in the West encourage chastity until marriage, the issue is no longer the subject of certificates or other proof. My understanding is that many cultures had similar practices (such as the showing of the sheet) until recently. I don't have time to research it, so if someone has knowledge of such practices in Europe, please comment. In any case, norms and values that are seen as archaic to many in the West were common in their own families only a generation or two back.

I'll give the last word to the vice president of the Islamic Center in Lille, France where the wedding was held for couple whose marriage was annulled over her non-virgin status:
“The man is the biggest of all the donkeys. Even if the woman was no longer a virgin, he had no right to expose her honor. This is not what Islam teaches. It teaches forgiveness.”

Youth Bulge and Unemployment

The Financial Times published a report about the youth bulge and unemployment in the Arab world. One part was particularly troubling to me:

The higher rates of annual growth – more than 5 per cent region-wide but nearly double digits in some Gulf states – have started to generate jobs, with regional unemployment estimated to have dropped to about 12.7 per cent. Yet anxiety over youth unemployment remains the most nagging concern as experts find that new jobs are going to foreign workers in the thriving construction industry or tend to be in the informal sector, leading to seasonal rather than sustainable employment.
“There is a boom in the region and youth unemployment is benefiting but the kinds of jobs created, especially in non-Gulf countries, are not necessarily the kind of jobs we need,” says Tarik Yousef, dean of the Dubai School of Government and an expert on youth employment. “They are low-paying jobs, without long-term contract, without social mobility, for people in the non-formal private sector, and in sectors not high on technology.” This job creation, he says, does not fit into the aspirations of typical youth in the region, whose idea of economic security is a well-paid overnment job with tenure and social mobility.

I cannot understand, when unemployment rates are well over 10 percent, why construction and other sectors are unacceptable. I look at the poor construction workers and understand why no one would really want to do it especially in this heat, but the South Asians are breaking their backs to make a better live for someone, whether themselves or families back home. But when I go to restaurants, stores, etc. and see that expats are brought in even to man the window at the McDonald's drive through, I cannot understand the logic. This is a taboo that must be broken (and it is, little by little in some areas) if the Gulf is ever to prepare itself for life after oil and gas.

There is a place for Gulf tradesmen in the construction industry. Gulf waiters at classy restaurants. Gulf managers at fast food places. This will not only help to ease the youth unemployment problems, but will also prepare young workers for better jobs down the road. I'm not a laborer now, but I worked as a laborer during college, as well as in the service industry. I learned just how hard "hard work" can be, and I also learned what it is like to be treated poorly by arrogant customers. Both lessons served me well and the overall experiences prepared me to do well when I started a career later.

Will there be a day when the glistening new industrial cities being put together in Saudi by S. Asian labor will be manned by Saudi factory workers? There must be if the state is to survive the end of oil.

I'll close with a quote from one of Bahrain's ministers (I can't remember if it was Min. of Labor or another portfolio). He was quoted in Sharq al-Awsat and some of the local Bahraini press a few months ago (as I remember it):
"A lord in England washes his own car on Saturday, but Gulf Arab calls for a foreign worker to bring him a glass of water sitting ten feet away."

How can this taboo be broken? Or must another solution be found for employment? Please comment.

SUV Parking Update

I returned to City Center recently. It seems that the small white car drivers of Oman, driven mad with jealousy over the special treatment afforded to SUV drivers by mall authorities, have conspired to block the SUV parking spot (and half of the aisle) with their Carrefour trollies.

Oman's Ministry of Sports

I noticed this sign recently at Markaz al-Bahja, a local shopping mall. There is a similar version in Arabic on the other side of the rotunda. The sign announces a summer sports program run by Oman's Ministry of Sports. I've read a number of analyses about places like Saudi Arabia, where young men are extremely frustrated because they have nothing to do and no outlets like sports. Youth often turn to other activities, such as chasing girls around in cars trying to flash their mobile number or "drifting" in which they skid and slide around the roads in small, tuned import cars.

Oman is quite different. Single, young men can go to malls with no problem (Saudi single young males are often prohibited from entering the mall), there are movie theaters, and a host of other activities. Still, I found the offering of sports programs as an incentive to "stay off the roads" (according to the sign) to be an excellent initiative.

Can the Recent Increases in Food Prices Actually be a Good Thing?

The Financial Times recently reported about Abu Dhabi's plan to invest in agriculture in the developing world. There are other stories out there of a similar nature. So, could the rise in food prices actually be a good thing?

The food system seems to be broken. American policies with regard to using corn to produce ethanol most likely have a distorting effect, but there are more general problems. Populations continue to grow, but critically they are also growing wealthier. In some developing countries, people are eating significant quantities of meat for the first time. Because meat takes a significant amount of grain to grow and grain is already expensive, the price effect is magnified in meat products. The increasing consumption of meat also puts additional pressures on grain supplies.

Moreover, inefficient farming practices hurt productivity that could help the market to bear increasing demands and help to staunch rising prices to a degree. There are other inflationary pressures and transport costs are a factor as well, but there's no denying that the world could benefit from improved farming practices, both from a monetary aspect and an environmental aspect. For instance, poor irrigation methods waste water.

Take Morocco as an example. It has the same percentage of arable land as the United States and grows significant quantities of wheat and other products, but farms are often small holdings and archaic techniques are used. These techniques cannot be improved without modern equipment and infrastructure. So, the rise in food prices is encouraging investment in the sector. This investment may help to improve farming efficiency, thereby helping to improve harvests and reduce waste. The investment may force a move to larger, more industrial farms. This will undoubtedly cause some dislocation, as it has elsewhere in the world, but ultimately it may help to improve the country's economy overall and allow some people to move to more productive sectors if economic policies are integrated intelligently.

Tagged by Dragon

I've been tagged by Undercover Dragon to post three sentences starting with sentence 5 of page 123 of the nearest book.

Here are my three sentences:

"It is laziness, our language is very lazy; we do not search for the names of things, we name them haphazardly and it is up to the listener to understand. The other has to know what you want to say in order to comprehend you; otherwise we are misunderstood.

This is the word I was searching for."

From "Bab al-Shams" by Elias Khoury. The speaker is talking about the Arabic language (the translation from the original Arabic is mine, but there's an English translation available from Humphrey Davies).

Deep Thoughts by Shantaram

"When we act, even with the best of intentions, when we interfere with the world, we always risk a new disaster that mightn't be of our making, but that wouldn't occur without our action."

Suicide Bombing in Pakistan

The Danish Embassy was attacked yesterday by a suicide bomber, killing eight and wounding twenty-four according to initial reports. There has not been a statement of responsiblity yet, but it is a relatively safe bet that the Embassy was targeted due to the decision by Danish newspapers to reprint offensive cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH).

The sad thing, beyond the loss of life, is the logic that has led some people to perpetrate acts like this: "Some Westerners say that Islam is a backward and violent religion and have assaulted the character of our Prophet. In retaliation for this vile behavior of saying that we have a violent religion, I will blow up the Danish Embassy, myself, and a host of innocent bystanders, many of whom may be Muslim." Of course, this is a sick and twisted minority that in no way represents the vast community of Muslims and their interpretation of Islam. Yet, when such things happen, i.e. these senseless acts of violence, people do not pour into the streets in condemnation in the way that they condemned the original cartoons, or the movie "Fitna," or the teacher in Sudan who named a teddy bear "Mohammed." The Muslim community (the Ummah) must realize that the people who are doing the most damage to their religion are not the crack-pot Westerners like Geert Wilders, but the extremist Muslims who provide these critics with so much fuel. If there were no suicide bombers like the one in Pakistan, there would be much less criticism of Islam in the West. I know that the religion and how people choose to interpret it and use it politically are two very different things, but Muslims must rise up to defend their religion against the people within their community who corrupt it and tarnish its image as vocally, if not more vocally than they defend the religion against outside critics.

In my travels, I have talked to a large number of people from a variety of countries and backgrounds. Most have been kind and helpful. Many have engaged me in conversation about their religion, regional politics, and my country's foreign policy. All too often, when I have attempted to face this criticism by finding a middle ground where we can admit that both sides have faults and can do much, much more to improve relations, this middle ground is refused. One of my Arab Muslim friends told me that, even from within the community, when he advocates coming to this middle ground and condemning evils in the the Arab and Islamic world as vocally as the evils found in the West, he has often been shouted down and labeled as a traitor.

The rhetorical extremes taken by clerics and editorial commentators, the hate-filled and scholarship-light books and articles available, the spitting-angry demonstrations, and the violence that a minority perpetrate in the name of Islam are all far more damaging to the Ummah than any Western cartoon, or movie, or book could ever be. Why doesn't the Ummah condemn these things inside their community as loudly they do the silly outside influences that really do them no harm? Why do people play into the hands of critics by providing them with more hatred, vitriol, and violence?