Gold Dust

Initially going into the reading of this story, I thought I had nothing to loose since I didn't have to pay for the book and that was a good feeling.  However that did not help me enjoy it that much more.  I couldn't believe the relationship that main character formed with his camel.  At first I figured it was kind of cute (mainly because I imagined him being between the ages of 7 and 14) and his pridefulness was just a side effect of never having actually had something else to boast about.  But the kid was not a seven year old, and things only got worse from there.  I had a hard time focusing on themes like religion, or the setting in general because every paragraph I kept asking myself "Good Lord, is he really talking about his camel"?  The camel has a love interest and then contracts what made me think of a modern day STD (I know this is a far stretch of the actual plot but I had to find some way of entertaining myself).  I also couldn't get my mind off of PETA and how proud they would be of this man to be placing the well being of an animal over that of his family.  

Call me specie-ist but animals are animals and humans are humans.  Please don't try to relate this to my family pet, because I've had a few of them die or run away and I got over it.  However if my mother brother or sister were to pass away I would be unable to get over it.  

Field Trip!

The first thing about the trip to the Mosque that surprised me what its sheer size.  It was huge!  You look at that front entrance, and you think you're going to walk into a tiny bakery shop and then BAM!  Huge Mosque!

Anyways...  This was not my first time in a Mosque or Islamic Center.  I've actually been to prayers a few times at the one back in my town.  And I think its great that the Islamic community has a place to go to in which they can indulge in their culture and be around others who wish to do so as well. 

One of the things brought up on our visit was the incorrect belief that Islam preachers violence to all of this followers. 

When I was a senior in high school, I was taking Humanities, and a large focus in the class (for the literature section) was "the Bible as literature", (It was a public school so it would not have been allowed to be taught if it was to be considered anything other than just literature, and so that was the public schools stand point...it doesn't have to be yours).  We read through sections of the bible and dissected it and discussed it.  

During this same section, the Humanities history teacher did a lecture in which he took passages out of the Quran, typed them onto paper, and discussed how they invoked fear into populations due to their violent nature.   This lecture was beyond biased, and very academically unprofessional, since the teacher had never read the Quran and didn't seem to know much about Islam in general.  The one thing that I did take away from that lecture  was how simple it is to misconstrue texts.  

Now if we read, discuss and grossly misconstrue the meaning behind  "Of Mice and Men" in a class, most likely we have only caused John Steinbeck to gently turn in his grave (though more than likely he wouldn't have cared).  On the other hand, when in my senior humanities class, my professor chose to present to a class of 200 seniors (of which maybe 30 were of Arab descent), that the Quran preached violence, he managed to offend those 30 students (though once again...maybe they didn't care) and criticize a religious text that had influenced and shaped almost of fifth of the worlds population.  This is not to say that religious texts can not be criticized, because I believe discussions on them are one of the best ways to further understand and promote not only tolerance, but encourage support, but when doing so, having all of the facts will help you to appear as a well informed and curious spectator, rather than a self righteous jack ass.  Another point he forgot to mention, is that the Bible has plenty of violence to go around as well.  The history of christianity in itself if very well known for its violence.

To connect this into our visit to the Mosque I would now like to discuss the idea of "Radical Islam."  I understand the point in class that Professor Webb was making, in that Islam, though the media believes is the sole cause of terrorist actions, is not in fact the sole reason for these groups actions and I think that is a fabulous point.  The problem arrises in the fact that in SOME cases these groups use Islamic religious texts to justify their actions, and I am NOT saying that the text in themselves are the thing to blame.  I do NOT believe that Islam is any more violent than any other religion.  But once again we have a case of misconstrued texts.  The point of this is that people interpret and see what they want to see out of situations.  

There is a problem in the fact that the news reports to you that violence is preached by Islam and this is known because of the radical Islamic groups who want to kill all of you god fearing christians.  Yes it is a problem that we hear this day in and day out.  And how should we solve this....

THINK!  Yes thats it!  Think for yourself!

The Road to Love

My personal thoughts on the film "The Road to Love," were broken up between my different takes on the movie.  On one hand I wanted to consider it to be some form of a documentary (since this was the film style that the movie seemed to be going for).  The problem with that though is that the film itself was not a documentary.  When I thought of the movie as being just a screen play, and having fictitious characters I had a totally different opinion.

As far as the subject matter of the film, I think it is a much looked over political conflict.  What was even more interesting to me (and what I wish would have been covered in the movie...or maybe just more blatantly covered in the movie), was the differences and similarities of the struggles for the homosexual community of individuals of Arab descent, and those of the American homosexual community.  I wish that the film would have covered more in depth the internal struggle of the main characters to embrace their sexual orientation and still embrace their religion and culture as well.  I think it would be a great connector also if they had discussed more in depths the conflict between homosexuality and Islam.  This would have been a great comparison for American opinion and public policy of Gay rights.  Basically to sum it up, I would have enjoyed more of a historical and factual background....so maybe if it had just actually been a real documentary I would have liked it more.

As far as it being a cinematic work of fiction....well actually I still didn't enjoy it that much.  I believe someone already mentioned this is class, but it bothered me that in the film, that every single male character, the main character interviewed was sexually attracted to him.  Just because someone is gay or lesbian does not mean that they pursue every single same sex person they come in contact with.  It also bothered me how the interviewees' constantly pursued the main character even though he was straight (at least at the point of the interview he was portrayed to be).  I've never had a gay friend whose ever tried to sway a straight friend into changing his or her sexual orientation.  

Over all I would say I was distracted by the films strange misinterpretations of homosexual individuals.  I would have liked a lot more history as well.

"Does not ONLY Relate to Oil"

Although the film "Blood and Oil" succeeded in presenting a large collection of one sided information, and presenting it as fact, I would say the film was only one step above Michel Moore's rants and raves about his personal opinions (he too enjoys presenting his opinion as fact).  That being said, what I am about to say is my personal opinion and should be taken as such.  I am not presenting it as fact, because were it fact I would present resources much more concrete than the wonderful reporting provided from choice networks like CNN and ABC.

The film was right in the fact that we are a very oil dependent nation.  However, it failed to address more than just our own economic approach to our oil treaties with the the middle east.  For instance, we do have agreements with Saudi Arabia, but it is also said in the movie that we were the ones who helped develop their oil fields.  If the US puts money into a single oil industry don't you think it would be only logical to protect that investment?  The film made it appear that the US just goes over to third world countries and steals their oil.  We dont!  We pay for it.  The exact price I don't know.  Do we get it at a cheaper rate because we helped develop it and remain present to protect it?  Maybe.  But is that really not just a form of a mutualistic economic partnership? 

And so what of our blind eye to the Saudi's form of government.  The United States has no place to say what form of government is the best (even though we believe it's democracy).  And now you all say "what about Iraq"?  Whether we invaded Iraq for oil or to prevent genocide (that was going on, and still is) is indifferent to the fact that our invasion caused a collapse of government.  In class people were talking about "Charlie Wilson's War," and I love that movie. My favorite part?  At the end when he makes the statement (and its an actual charlie wilson quote) "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the end game."

What a great point Charlie!  The US people called for war after 9/11 and war is what we got.  Did it happen as quickly and as painlessly as the US people had hoped for?  No.  And did we get mad? Yes, because we live in a world were we experience instant gratification on a daily basis.  War is not like the drive through at McDonalds.  There is no fast lane, it is long and it is gruesome.  We screwed things up there and our presence remains because were we to pull out, then we would have a whole set of Humanitarian hippies with a new batch of complaints.  And what would happen?  We would just end up there again. The main point?  Maybe we are there in an attempt to NOT fuck up our end game (if you disagree of need clarification feel free to come talk to me).

Moving on...

George W. Bush, following 9/11 stated that the United States was going to take on a policy of preemptive action, and we did!  And that is good.  Does anyone stop and think that maybe protecting the oil that the US military, and that US society relies on, may not be such a bad thing?  And if it is a bad thing (and I do believe we can argue both ways) how come everyone in the United States drives a fuel driven car?  And they could definitely call our class hypocrites because almost 100% of the class drives fuel driven cars.  Some people will argue that there is no other choice since an alternative fuel source has not been discovered.  Wellllll maybe we should go and discover it?  Sitting in a classroom arguing about how selfish America is does not change the fact that without oil, our society wont run.  

In the movie they constantly show clips of politicians stating that the reason we are at war "does not relate to oil," and yes that is probably a bit of a lie.  But really what they could have said and remained truthful was that our reasons for going to war "does not ONLY relate to oil."  Because it doesn't.  The oil politics that the US and other nations find themselves in are not solely about the oil.  Its what it enables.  There is no short term solution, and our nation as well as the world relies on oil.  

I was going to write more about the economics behind it for other countries as well as our own, but this has turned into a full fledge paper and I will bore you no longer.

Final Thought

"I am not frightened by what lies ahead" -Ronald Regan

As he shouldn't have been.  It is always public opinion of past occurrences that leads to us believing we ensnared ourselves in a full fledge disaster.  Well American public, Hind sight is 20/20, and complaining about things is very easy when you are not the decision maker, and you only reek the benefits from policies and point fingers for the down sides.