Who do we call Shiite, Sunni?

So far as I can tell, the world is going crazy. Inspired by a blind, ignorant (or perhaps knowingly biased) media we are labelling, tagging, and assuming things. We are also judging, and doing so perhaps in a way that supercede's God's final judgement.

So if you can't guess, my societal religious question for today deals with what we label or tag people in the media. My point of reference is actually the relatively fair and well covered "International Herald Tribune" put out by its own staff and the NY times, distributed around the world.

A recent article compared death tolls in growingly sectarian Iraq. It has named many horrifying deaths Shiite revenge kills in response to the Sunni bombing of a sacred Shiite shrine in Samarra.

It has named the politicians, leaders, and random citizens by their religious sect of Islam. For example, a seemingly harmless quote...

"Many Sunni politicians, including secular ones like Methal al-Alusi, accuse the Shiite-led government of backing a campaign to wipe out Sunnis. Many Shiite leaders, "including Jaafari, blame "foreign terrorists," without being more specific.?"

Now take a look at the entire article, it is stunning and detailed, more interesting than most I have read about sectarian violence in that it takes ambitious stabs at naming people based on their religious sect, and shows some very personal details about some of the victims.

So why am I complaining so much about the media and how it is contolling our life if I am putting the article on some sort of pedestal? Well, for one I am being honest about it, not positive. I sincerely do find the article stunning and detailed, and more interesting than most because it tries to name people by sect. That makes it more marketable, and readable/enjoyable. Now instead of playing the impartial game and not saying anything certain about religious sects and violence, we have a good idea who is doing the worse killings. We are now told which sect, Sunni or Shi'a is assumed to be the worse one.

The problem is, the newspaper is assuming too much. By naming one terrorist Shiite, or another Sunni, they are ignoring one fact. We can't as humans properly judge whether these people are in fact even Muslims or not. Their actions clearly are not Muslim, let alone from one sect or the other. Because one was brought up Shiite or Sunni, has a Sunni or Shiite accent or name, and is from a predominantly Sunni or Shiite city, does not mean their actions are in accordance with either. I know many people who are quick to say Wahabists are Sunni, or like this article implicitly says, Shiites are corps deforming revenge seekers. I am fairly certain if you ask a Sunni whether Wahabists are Muslim or not, they would most probably say many of their actions are not in alignment with Islam. If you ask a Shiite whether or not Al Sadrs men are Shiite, they will probably give a similar answer.

In the end, the media, and our responses about other people when perhaps we cannot judge, are assuming too much. This assumption is leading whole lands of people to think certain sects condone or preach terrorism. Would you agree that the IRA has been acting in good Christian faith over the past few decades? What about other terrorist groups claiming religion to be behind thier struggle?

In fact, the truth is, all religious violence is not religious at all, but usually based on ignorant people acting against the accordance of their religion's own beliefs.

If you would like to read the entire article, it can be found here.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/26/news/bodies.php

Adapting to cultures

How I like to do things personally, and what AIESEC preaches, is to adapt to new cultures rather than impose or partake only in Western cultures. Living in Arab Bahrain, I interact daily with many Indians as they are an integral part of the culture and history (as are other nationalities).


There is this little restaurant that I have, until now, regretfully ignored because of its very lame name, "Top Most Restaurant." To me, it had all the makings of a typical Indian eatery, with my choice of Dal, Paneer, Tikka, Masala, etc.


As you can see from the picture, it is anything but. The food, hefty grained white rice with lentils, pickles, sauces, and some dried fish...served sans fork and spoon, with some warmed colored water and you are all set for a filling lunch. Ask for the price (the local price that is), and you will only be short about $1.35.


Add in the experience of all the other Indians in the restaurant who looked impressed, and shocked, to see two white people in their favorite local hang out (and for the owner and a customer to take out their cameras and ask for permission to get shots of us), and it was probably worth the buck and change.


My lovely colleague, and sister in situation Marianne is also featured prominently in the picture. You can say hello to her here..http://macronin.nomadlife.org/


I am loving more and more this little island they call the "two seas" (Al "Bahr-ain).

Who is the richest woman in the world???

According to the most recent Forbes magazine ranking, two women currently share the title, and they're related. Alice Walton (56), daughter of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton, is worth roughly 18 billion bucks. Alice lives in Texas, where she raises horses.

Helen Walton (85), the widow of Sam, is also good for lunch, with an estimated net worth of $18 billion. She currently resides in Bentonville, Arkansas, where she sponsors a preschool.

Liliane Bettencourt (82), the daughter of L'Oréal founder Eugene Schueller, is the next lady on the list, with approximately 17.2 billion. She lives in France, where she awards a science prize every year.

Nine of the world's fifty richest people are women. The richest self-made woman in the world is Rosalia Mera (61) of Spain, who is worth approximately $2 billion. She started off making gowns and lingerie in her home. Her business eventually grew into the apparel manufacturer Inditex, which sold $6 billion worth of clothes last year.

And what about Oprah? According to Forbes, the media mogul is worth around $1.3 billion. Not too shabby, but still a ways behind the Walton women.

http://ask.yahoo.com/20050819.html


So for all you Oprah fans, you can see that she is still ways behind other prominent women. Also of interesting note is that there are only 9/50 of the richest people in the world who are women, and most of them are heiresses.

Putting Dubai on the map, one takeover at a time...

So finally, after so much hard work, Dubai is on the map for most Americans. Unfortunately it is of course due to a controversy. I guess the optimist in me can say, "Any media exposure is good exposure," but there does come a time in the world today when certain media will almost certainly continue to bring this part of the world (the Arab states) down even further.

For those of you unaware, living in a bubble, or just sick enough of the media's coverage that you don't care and don't know what is going on, here is a small back-story...
Dubai Ports Authority, under their partnership Dubai Ports World, a very large government owned entity that operates one of the world's best, fastest, and ideal ports recently won a bidding war with PSA (Singapore). They were bidding on ports owned by Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., or P & O, a British owned ports conglomerate. These ports are spread all over the world, from East to West and this bid was to make Dubai Ports World the world's 3rd largest ports operator (behind a Chinese one, and PSA).

The ports in question in the US are six major ones spread all over the nation. Of interesting note is that there are over 350 ports in the US, nearly 100 of which are owned by a foreign entity. Of them, many have been operated this way without any major complaints or drawing any major scrutiny for decades. There are currently ports in the US owned by China, Japan, Singapore, and Denmark (in addition to the P & O run ports, which were British owned and run, but soon to be Emirati).

Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. also owns and operates ports in Canada, Buenos Aires, France, a number of Asian countries (including China), and of course the UK.

It is an economical reality that US companies are finding it more difficult to make a profit or find any other reason to keep running these ports. It is a global reality that foreign companies are able to take over the ownership and security of world ports. While it is true that some do find a little profit primarily it seems to be the case that dominating the world's ports (or certain strategic ports) offer other opportunities for companies (and countries), such as cost saving, ease of entry, and of course world dominance (aka power).

So as you can see, this takeover seems to be pretty routine. A company with money buys out another that is running ports in a third country. For instance, neither France, nor the UK (nor China nor Canada) seems to be saying much about Dubai taking over their ports. They all see it as normal, and bound to happen.

So I ask why all the fuss in the US about this? The answer is quite simple. This isn't about a port being taken over by a foreign entity at all. The world isn't that convenient today. In short, we aren't that impartial in order for something so simple to work itself out.

What this is all really about is very evident in the way the media is spinning this takeover in the majority of its headlines. "Arab Ports Takeover." Keep in mind the source, these are some of the most liberally tagged media in the US, I haven't even bothered to cite the more conservative sources...
CNN.com - Lawmakers urges White House to review Arab port takeover ...
Lawmakers Deride Assurances on Arab Port Firm (Washington Post)
Suit filed to block port takeover by Arab firm - US Security ... (MSNBC)

Was there ever a suit or any media frenzy saying "Asian ports takeover" or "European Ports Takeover" or even worse when China took over the ports, "Communist US Ports Takeover"? Well, maybe there was some 20-30 years ago somewhere on page 6 a mention of this. Perhaps I am young and my internet resources won't come up with a comprehensive search to find the information needed from so long ago. However, I have consulted some elder members of my family and they are yet to mention anything of the sorts. I challenge everyone to find such a case, showing that this has always been such a big deal. If so, I would shut my mouth except for the fact that the media is still spinning this in a very terrible way.

What am I getting at here? Well people in the US don't know that much about Dubai Ports Authority, or Dubai Ports World, or Dubai. If you doubt this, go to the US and ask 100 people where Dubai is...you will probably get a response of India, Massachusetts, or "I don't know" before you will get the United Arab Emirates. If the firm in question were called "UAE Ports Authority," it would be simple and non decimator in spin in the media, "United ARAB Emirates PA takeover" and the point would be highlighted simply and honestly for all news agencies. Instead, the media had to simplify the tagline to keep people interested...from Dubai to Arab, and wham...people are entertained and enraged. It is no wonder why now, all of a sudden, workers at ports are seen on TV protesting foreign takeovers of US ports (especially with Arab slandering picket signs). If you want Americans and the media upset about something, simply show the Arabness of it.

As cliché as it is to talk about the media and its spin, after having left the US for quite some time, and lived among people who tend to sway away from the mainstream opinion of the US government and media, and after having to defend and stick up for my country hundreds and hundreds (if not thousands) of times, I have come to realize how to challenge the points that are done incorrectly, while accept and appreciate what is done right.

While at this juncture, especially with my close ties to the UAE, I can offer my honest opinion. The question at hand here, "Is the Dubai government taking over US ports security a good idea?" is a very good one. If we were to listen to people who can be considered two of the biggest enemies of many people in the Arab world (Bush and Israel), the answer would be a surprising YES!
CNN.com - Israeli shipper endorses DP World - Mar 2, 2006
Bush faces rebellion on ports deal - US Security - MSNBC.com

In my personal response, the security of US ports, and other ports abroad (not just in France, Canada, China and the UK), should be managed by their own governments. It is a risk at all times to have another firm run your security, especially when that firm has only economic interests in your port. So no, I don't think Dubai should have control over the world's security at this point in time. Neither should China, nor the US. No country has the other country's safety or interest correctly in mind, at least not to the extent that their own country does.

Honestly though, this isn't the main point of this whole ports fiasco...it is the perception of all things Arab in many of the US people's mind, and the spin of the media in reaching this end. It just doesn't make any sense, and there is no source of congruity between this dealing and the hundreds of thousands of other dealings that put foreign firms or governments in control of US interests. The US Government never stopped anything like this before (as congress is trying to do now), even as Communist China, or for that matter, pre-911 Saudi foreign investment in the US.

Lastly, why aren't there any articles like what I am writing right now being published or promoted (especially in the US)?