What do you do when you are insanely pious, clinically lonely, and romantically smitten with your house cat? Why build a scale model of an 80 person capacity church… out of Lego… and dedicate it to your, wait for it… CAT!
I wish there was more I could say about this, but alas, the pictures will have to suffice. For a link to her site, click here.
For Submissions, Click Here.
In the early hours of January 23, 2008, the doors of Egypt were proverbially thrown open, allowing hundreds of thousands of oppresses and mitigated Palestinians access to the previously restricted markets of their closest neighbor. According to reports by the BBC and Speigel Online, the vast majority of the travelers crossed in attempts to retrieve food and supplies for their families. However, it is the open access and availability of raw material for waging war which one would suspect to be the principle concern of the Israeli government, and their supporters.
Yet, in a show of restraint, uncharacteristic of the present régime, the response has been slow and gentle. The Israeli government claimed it was the responsibility of the Egyptian government to secure the boarder, in much the same way two sovereign nations would patrol their own respective sides (an ironic claim considering the present state of the Palestinian territories). Furthermore, the offices of Jerusalem have gone so far as to claim the responsibility of the Egyptian government extends well beyond the initial crisis of the broken boarder.
“The opening of the border relieves us of our responsibility for Gaza,” a government official said, “and if the international community demands that the Israeli border with Gaza be opened, we will now point to the Egyptian role.”
So what is the rational for such a move? There are the obvious answers of Israel’s new scapegoat (pun intended) in the faulty security of the Egyptians, and a further justification for withholding the legal aid the Palestinian people of the Gaza strip. Likewise, it demonstrates the individual Palestinians plight, which is easily transferable by Western Media as a popular discontent toward the ruling Hamas Party.
Regardless of the justification, incidents such as this continue to display the merciless and grotesque international human rights abuses perpetrated upon the fourth and fifth generation refuges of Palestine. How many more blasted boarders must be crossed by tens of thousands before the world will stand against such abuses?
We live in a perpetual state of heightened tension; terror alerts issued from the White House compliment the warnings of global scientists, while sharing airtime on twenty-four hour news programs with the perceived increase of violence and inhumanity worldwide. However, counter to this tension, general public apathy and inaction appears to continue to dominate modern society. In an increasingly interconnected world, Thomas Homer-Dixon’s work, “The Upside of Down”, clearly reflects the concepts and methods of popular modern literary activism. From the onset of the first chapter, Dixon presents a broad sweeping explanatory framework, which encompasses history, economics, sociology, anthropology, rudimentary physics and climatology. Dixon’s arguments require no prerequisite of the audience, besides a willingness to engage his often-redundant, yet persuasive, conclusions.
According to Dixon, the world, meaning society en mass, is teetering on the precipice of disaster. The cause of this impending failure is neither a new phenomenon, nor is it completely unpredictable. Beginning with a historical backdrop, and continuing through the mounting disequilibrium found throughout society, Dixon uncovers the escalating stresses the “modern” has placed upon our climate and cultures, with a plethora of uncomfortable data. It is this enormous amount of data upon which he squares the reality of the mounting crisis. Dixon challenges the audience with the vast information that supports his claim, while presenting the material in a simple “matter of fact” manner, resulting in an argument, which, superficially at least, appears watertight. Furthermore, Dixon consistently uses simplified models to cement his claims under the validity of science and history.
However, Dixon’s apocalyptic work (i.e., a work revealing an impending environmental or societal disaster) is not fatalistic. As could be gleaned from the title, Dixon remains positive of the possibility for general awareness and positive action. The proactive changes he envisions are not the simplistic explanations often bantered around by pundits. Dixon discredits the popularist solutions such as hydrogen power, economic parity between developed nations and the developing world and the power of the global climate to maintain equilibrium. Instead Dixon hopes for something much more realistic, and subsequently, much more powerful.
Dixon’s aim in publishing this popularist work does not appear to be in the convincing of the unbelievers, although his persuasive arguments may have done just that in several cases. Rather, it would seem his goal was to galvanize the general awareness of the public, and brush off the collective apathy of society. It is the apathy and denial that he finds most distracting, at times noting the glib nature of the counter arguments. Instead, the awareness of the situation is where the solution lies. Combined with the adaptive nature of humanity, general awareness and interest, Dixon would argue, is the lubricant necessary to engage and prepare our society. While many of the coming calamites are beyond our reach for prevention, how we act now, through preparation and global action on micro and macro levels, directly correlates with how society will deal with the situations as they inevitably arise, while simultaneously laying foundation for a better future.
Continue reading ‘Homer-Dixon’s “Upside of Down” Examined’
According to a recent article on Spiegel Online, “Osama bin Laden’s top deputy, former Egyptian doctor Ayman al-Zawahiri, is taking questions from his friends and enemies alike on four al-Qaida-sanctioned jihadist Web sites. Providing a one-off advice column is just one way in which the international terrorist organization has adopted Web 2.0”
Putting the obvious questions aside, it is an interesting public relations move by Al-Qaida. Obviously, neither grand answers nor new insights will be offered by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri. Rather, it is an opportunity to re-assert the profile of Al-Qaida as a global and influential organization. However, as the inheritors of Sayyid Qutb’s doctrines, an open forum embrace of the Internet, the most prolific symbol of Western dominance and hegemony, seems a strangely contradictory method for Al-Qaida to press their agenda.
Or perhaps this is a subtle proclamation of change by a notoriously inflexible organization. Whatever the case, it will be interesting to gain a sliver of insight into the man in charge, as well as a window into the minds of those posing the questions.
Because of the close relationship between Church and State in European Nations, (not to be confused any degree of religiosity within the general populace), and the subsequent connections between funding and state tithing, emerging religious sects have had to present their faiths before national tribunals in order to achieve official sanction and recognition. Understandably, these sects are not traditionally accepted brands of religious expression, such as Lutheranism, Catholicism or even American Baptist. Instead this examination process lends itself to the more controversial movements, movements which often are labeled cultish or entrepreneurial ventures.
Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard’s science fiction inspired “religion”, has faced a long and often bitter struggle with the German government over its’ status as an officially sanctioned faith within German society. Scientology’s spokesmen have cited intolerance, religious persecution and suspicion as the norm, which their members in Germany have experienced. The German government has countered with official documents expressing their position in regards to Scientology. One such document clearly stated:
“The German government considers the Scientology organization a commercial enterprise with a history of taking advantage of vulnerable individuals and an extreme dislike of any criticism. The government is also concerned that the organization’s totalitarian structure and methods may pose a risk to Germany’s democratic society. Several kinds of evidence have influenced this view of Scientology, including the organization’s activities in the United States.”
Apparently, this struggle for religious inclusion has reached new levels, as observed in the International News Magazine, Spiegel Online. Spiegel reported today that the Interior Ministers of Germany officially viewed Scientology as “Unconstitutional”, and that they would seek to ban the religious sect. Spokesmen for Scientology have retorted with more accusations of religious persecution, accusation which carries extreme historical weight in Germany. The response of the German government will be an interesting development in recent German self-perception, as the nation continues to struggle from beneath its monstrous past and onto the world stage as moral leader.
Tonight, at the President Bush Library in Huston Texas, Mitt Romney finally did what he knew he had to do since the first day of the race, and yet has been dragging his heals on continuously. However, once Romney chose to address the white elephant in the room, he approached the question of his faith with direct simplicity. There was no beating around the bush. Rather, it was an acknowledgement that his religious views were deemed by many as unorthodox, but were nonetheless his own beliefs, seen with clarity and conviction. These beliefs, he asserted, would play no role in his presidency.
“Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for President, not a Catholic running for President. Like him, I am an American running for President. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.
“Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.
“As Governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.”
This separation of church and state plays a central role in Romney’s understanding of his religious dispositions. But his faith is neither left behind nor relegated to unimportance. Instead, Romney chooses to highlight the strengths of religiosity within American society.
“The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.
“In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.”
Commentators from Europe have expressed confusion over the nature of the religious question. Commentators from America feel Romney has not addressed the issue enough. In either case, Mormonism has officially become an issue in the Presidential race.
When Mitt Romney entered the Presidential race, we can safely assume he was well aware of the controversy which his Mormon faith would arouse in the hearts of many Americans. However, the recent attacks on his wife and companion, Ann Romney should not have been expected, and, frankly, should not be tolerated. BBC’s correspondent Justin Webb said it best when he said, “I wonder, though, whether she could have imagined some evangelical Christians would be so, well, un-Christian.”
Here is a clip from “Live Prayer Am” televangelist Bill Keller. It must be watched to understand the gross oversimplifications, misinformation, prejudice and intolerance, which is spewed from the lips of a man who closes with the lines “I love you, and I will pray for you.”
What is art? How does art define culture? How does culture define art? Is it an expression of beauty, pain, anger, submission, apathy, chaos or order? Does what the artist intend matter at all to the participants, or is art intrinsically post-modern? Does art influence our emotions, or is it decided by our emotions? Can art be a medium of revolution, reform or change?
While I have no answers to any of these questions, I did manage to come across an interesting web site “Nafas”, which is affiliated with the “Universes in Universe: Worlds of Art” project. Nafas focuses exclusively on art and artists emerging from Islamic influenced countries and regions of the world.
I am not one to pretend to understand art. I hardly can recognize art, let alone describe it. Nevertheless, while pursuing through some of the seemingly endless artists available on Nafas, two in particular grounded me in a sense of reality.
The first, Reem Al Faisal’s work, entitled “El Hajj” demonstrated juxtaposition between the unorganized chaos of the hajj and the beautiful simplicity of singular quiet reflection. The second, Erbossyn Meldibekov’s “Centauromachy” highlighted the horror of the cultural history of Kazakhstan, stretching from the earliest tribal warfare, through British and Soviet invasion, and continuing in the theoretical “collapse of civilizations” as demonstrated in continuing tribal violence in Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan. Each harmonizes the basic yearnings of the individual with a conception of collective humanity.
In fact, perhaps this is what art does.
Understanding of a society does not stem from institutionalized textbooks, or from the elaborations of academics. It is not a product of the news bites, which flash between dueling political pundits and the latest celebrity gossip. Instead, societal understanding is the product of interaction, communication and the exploration of unique point of view. Unique is the best word I have been able to muster in regards to a contemporary art show in Berlin.
Their work highlights struggle between tradition and modernity, between spirit and body, which is present in Iranian society. Perhaps it is best not to beat the drums of war, and, instead, listen to the beat of the heart of Iran.
|
