I’ve been thinking of the hijab issue lately and how some people have major problems with it and others do not. I finally got to a conclusion that I think sums up my opinion on the whole thing. Are you comfortable in your seat? Good.

Here’s what I think: People who have a problem with other people who wear a head garment are shallow. The word “hijabi” itself does not appeal to me as it sounds too much like “jihadi” and we all know the negative connotations that word holds. The two words do not even exist in the Arabic language to which their creators think they belong. How stupid is that?

I find it absurd and offensive to the human race that some people would stop at the level of what another person is wearing and go no further. It is even more offensive when these people hold hostile or dismissive attitudes towards people who wear a specific thing, in this case the hijab.

I am not defending people who wear the hijab and I am not saying that some of them do not represent an embarrassing lot. I am not even defending the hijab itself. This isn’t about religion or social norms, it is about human interaction and understanding. My opinion is that if we stop at the level of clothes, clothes people!, and judge each other and dismiss each other because we cannot see someone’s hair and cleavage — then we are a miserable race and we deserve the wars and conflicts that we live in today.

How can we have a decent conversation with one another if we have already judged and belittled one another in our minds? How can we expect everyone to believe we’re progressive, educated, and intelligent human beings when we lower our standards of human interaction to mere clothes and hair? Why do some of us still live in the Middle Ages when it comes to openness and understanding, when they claim to be liberal all the time?

By the same token, I do not defend people who go around half naked. Hijabi or not, clothes are either a choice or an obligation. Either way, you just cannot make up scenarios in your head about what other people think and who they are or what they believe in based on what they’re wearing. Who do you think you are, anyway?

The issue of the veil never ceases to fascinate people from other cultures, nor does it stop claiming centre stage in any talk show or social gathering that aim to be tagged controversial. You may want to think of it in this context: it’s an instant attention grabber.

Whenever I meet new people, I am instantly asked some questions about religion or the veil. I understand why this happens, of course: people see a veiled woman and they instantly believe that she is religious or quite literate in religion. But isn’t this assumption fallacious in many cases?

Many times a woman wears the veil due to social or cultural pressure. In some families, wearing the veil is the normal consequence of puberty or bodily maturity. In some geographical locations, wearing a veil is simply the way women dress. In others, it is considered improper not to wear a veil. The reasons are many and diverse, and only a portion of them has to do with religious beliefs.

I am usually annoyed when people ask me religious questions. It feels as though I have this preacher duty to do, and I simply hate preaching. Asking me about religion also puts me under a lot of pressure to give out the “correct answer” which, more often than not, I do not have. To avoid any misunderstandings, I always start my answer (if I decide to answer) with announcing that “I am not an authority on religion” and then I proceed to explaining my personal beliefs about the question asked. I always urge people to ask an expert if they are really interested in investigating things, or to do their own research.

Even if I meet the investigative type of people, like journalists or writers, who are interested in one activity I have, I still get the usual questions on religion and the veil. I am usually asked why I wear the veil, and why other Muslims don’t, and if it is wrong not to wear it, etc.

I resent these questions because they stereotype me as being a religious person and I am not really religious. Why I wear the veil is a question worthy of asking, of course, but it is also private. If it’s the charm of my contradictions that people are interested in, well then, why don’t they ask about that?

Questions on religion and the veil also take away from the “point” I am being met or interviewed for. It’s almost like meeting someone who wears socks and who’s also a distinguished artist. Instead of paying attention to the art, many people would focus on the socks and forget that their main interest in this person is de fact, the art. Not the socks.

Hi5 left a bitter taste in my mouth but Facebook miraculously outdid it in less than five days. The simple truth is, I just do not trust “social networking” sites. Don’t get me wrong; I am all for cyber friendships, just not this type. Read on to learn why.

A few years back, I had a cyber stalker who played cheap mind games that were not frightening per se. Yet this person obtained access to some of my private documents (things nobody will buy, don’t reach out for your wallets) and this disturbed me profoundly. I even lost some sleep over it.

Ever since then, I became somewhat big time paranoid when it came to my online privacy and security, and I never again used p2p programs to get songs and the like. I also developed an obsessive compulsive disorder that had me “clean my traces” — or whatever I could clean — after every session online. On top of all that, I never saved anything of value on my laptop or any computer I used. Up to this day, I live those habits and many more — me officially paranoid.

When the Facebook buzz hit town, almost everyone I know urged me to join. I did not comply, up until five days ago. My thoughts were along the lines of “what could possibly happen?,” and I discovered exactly what. Two of my friends, one in Canada and the other in Egypt, complained to me about a Jordanian person who has tagged them both and asked to add them to his network. These two friends do not know each other, and they both asked me if I know this stranger since I am Jordanian.

When I realized that this person has tagged both my friends, and that I was the person they had in common, I flipped out. What are the odds of having a total stranger tag both your friends who have nothing in common but you? Seriously? Add to that, he previously harassed them both on Hi5! I don’t know about you but to me the whole affair sounds fishy and it smells too much like fear.

This already weighing heavily on my mind, I came across a presentation that basically strips Facebook of its alleged “security supreme.” Here is a link to the presentation called “Does what happen in the Facebook stay in the Facebook?” Now the content of the presentation may sound a little outlandish, especially towards the end, but to my ears it was a warning I could not shrug away.

I deactivated my Facebook tonight, and now I feel slightly better. I can never feel “at ease” with Facebook until they completely wipe out all the information I foolishly gave them about myself. The site now says that I can “reactivate” my account simply by entering my registered email address and password — and that is very alarming to me. I want my account to be entirely deleted.

Ironically, when I consulted Facebook’s help issues to know how to deactivate my account, the site said something like: “Oh, you really want to deactivate your Facebook account? Well, what are you going to do with your time?” To that I mentally said: “I would live normally in my secure-illusion-paranoia-paradise, thank you.”

The effect of this information on me is probably very different from its effect on you. The difference between me and you, in this case, is that I know what happens when you get stalked (and it is not pretty). So my advice to you is to check if “social networking” is worth the potential risk, and do not imagine it only happens to other people. You are always better safe than sorry.

I may be paranoid, but only the paranoid survive.

Egypt blogger jailed for ‘insult’

An Egyptian court has sentenced an internet blogger to four years’ prison for insulting Islam and the president.
Abdel Kareem Nabil’s trial was the first time that a blogger had been prosecuted in Egypt.

He had used his weblog to criticise the country’s top Islamic institution, the al-Azhar university and President Hosni Mubarak, whom he called a dictator.

A human rights group called the verdict “very tough” and a “strong message” to Egypt’s many thousands of bloggers.

Most disturbing news, but they are to be expected. I believe news of the sort, “crackdowns on bloggers,” will grow in number during the next two years. I joke sometimes to Yoda, before posting something even remotely daring, that he should pray I do not go to prison for it.

Judging by the look of things, I just might. One day.

Sitting in the office, I hear reporters talking live about clashes in Lebanon. These reporters inform and entertain through a TV screen dangling from the wall in this fittingly dim hall. Are we on the verge of yet another war in the region?

People wonder why I am usually morbid in my moods and opinions. How can I not be? There is occupation and civil war in Iraq, occupation and apartheid in Palestine, internal turmoil in Egypt, war in Somalia, multiple problems in Jordan, backwardness in Saudi Arabia, armed division in Sudan, separatism in Algeria, estrangement in Morocco and Tunisia, painful neutrality in the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf states, and now — what seems to be a hideous incarnation of civil war in Lebanon.

The situation in Lebanon needn’t be assessed by an amateur such as me. I am far removed from politics, or so I am inclined to believe. Yet the basic sense behind this split is illusive – it’s a power game. Seduce one part with money and political support, two things very much needed after the Israeli Aggression War last summer, and listen to the popular eloquence of the other, enveloped in religious-political aims.

Rest assured: worse things will happen. People will not be burning tires a week from now, and there won’t be only five or six dead. Those in power should stop this mockery and rise above their differences. Have they ever heard of the term “mob behavior?”

Some things, when unleashed, are impossible to contain. Listen to this Hariri and Nasrallah and stop toying with people’s lives.

You all know I live in Jordan. Well, last week it snowed a lot in the Southern parts of the country. What was very interesting about the snow storm was that nobody was prepared for it - not the government, not the people, and not even cars. Many people were literally trapped in the snow in the South, and it was comic how the almighty tax-fat government with all its faculties could not save them.

This entry is not about the government, as entertaining as that subject is, but it is about the Jordanian Meteorological Department. The department failed miserably last week when it did not produce accurate weather forecasts, and did not inform the people of what is coming.

That was only the beginning, however. The meteorological department denied that there will be snow on Sunday earlier this week. People checked online weather websites and learned about the anticipated change of weather. But when confronted about this during an interview, the president of the department strongly dismissed any “rumours” of a change in weather and he vehemently attacked the presenter when the latter told him that news about an upcoming change are all online, contrary to his predictions.

The really amusing part was yet to come. On Sunday, the South of Jordan saw more snow and Mr.Weatherman’s predictions were proven wrong. Not only that, his attitude in that interview was replayed during the 8 PM news. I thought Jordan TV did a brilliant job when they replayed the piece and contrasted it with, well, reality.

Mr.Weatherman was evidently scandalized by this and he must have taken it quite personally, because the next day JTV said that they cannot air a weather forecast because the Jordanian Meteorological Department did not supply them with any. How very game-like, won’t you say? Walaw ya3ni!

JTV people now rely on the internet to get their weather forecast for the 8 PM news, and a whole country does not use the facilities at the Jordanian Meteorological Department anymore because that person has a chip on his shoulder. I wonder how can a public servant rebel in such a silly way and deprive a nation of news that is paid for. Why doesn’t someone do something about this?

Since it is all a power game, I suggest we settle this dispute the good old Jordanian way - over a finjan* of Arabic coffee. I should change the title of this entry to The Dilemma of Weather and Wasta** in a Small Country Called Jordan.

*Finjan: small traditional cup of coffee
**Wasta: a local phenomena that involves the use of connections, through family or acquaintances, to benefit unlawfully

Not only is the man several light years away from what a diplomat should be, he has also proven to most sane Americans that he is indeed on a “crusade” - to ruin their reputation abroad. I received the following interesting bit of information in an e-mail from my friend Yoda. This was taken from Time.com, published under “The Five Key Mistakes of Bush’s Middle East Policy”. I do not know the exact date of it:

1. Bush ignored the Palestinians.

Up until the week that Bill Clinton left office in January 2001,
Israeli and Palestinian negotiators were still trying to work out an
ambitious end-of-conflict agreement. True, Palestinian leader Yasser
Arafat had unleashed an intifadeh, and the Israelis were on the verge
of electing Ariel Sharon — an avowed enemy of the Oslo peace process —
as prime minister, but the two sides were still talking. When Bush
became president, he ended crucial American mediation, repudiated
Arafat and backed Sharon, who proceeded to expand Israeli settlements
in the occupied West Bank. With the conflict becoming bloodier than
ever, Arafat died, and Hamas, the fundamentalist party that adamantly
refuses to even recognize Israel, much less negotiate with it, ousted
the late Palestinian leader’s party from power. Besides angering Arab
opinion, the lack of an Arab-Israeli peace process that would also
address Israel’s occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights has encouraged
mischief-making by Damascus, which is suspected of aiding anti-U.S.
insurgents in Iraq and committing political assassinations in Lebanon.

2. Bush invaded Iraq.

After 9/11, Bush became convinced that Saddam Hussein was seeking
nuclear weapons and represented a mortal threat to the West. He also
came to believe that ousting Saddam would turn Iraq into a democracy
that would become the model for the rest of the Arab world. Saddam
turned out not to have nuclear weapons, and Iraq turned out to be more
prone to civil war than democracy. It runs the risk of becoming a
failed state from which terrorists run global operations, and/or
breaking into ethnic mini-states that inspire secessionist trouble
throughout the region.

3. Bush misjudged Iran.

Just after Bush became president, Iranians reelected moderate
President Mohammed Khatami, who had reached out to the U.S. and called
for a “dialogue of civilizations.” Bush not only refused to extend the
olive branch cautiously offered by the Clinton Administration, he
declared Iran part of an “axis of evil.” Khatami left office under
fire for the failure of his conciliatory approach, to be replaced by
hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who proceeded to promote
Iran’s nuclear ambitions and call for Israel to be wiped off the map.
Despite Bush’s tough talk against Iran, the Iraq war has dramatically
expanded Iran’s influence in the country. To make matters worse,
Iran’s Lebanese ally, Hizballah, withstood Israel’s month-long
onslaught last summer and is poised to topple the U.S.-backed Lebanese
government.

4. Bush hurt Israel.

If protecting Israel had been a key goal of the Administration’s
policies, it is hard to see how they have helped make the Jewish State
better off today. Having gotten rid of Arafat, they have instead to
face Hamas. And continuous rocket attacks from Gaza have highlighted
the limits of what Israel can achieve through its plans to
unilaterally redraw its borders. The confrontation in Lebanon over the
summer and the messy engagement in Gaza also highlight the limits on
the deterrent capacity of Israel’s military advantages. Spreading
instability in the region is not in Israel’s long-term interests; nor
is a nuclear Iran.

5. Bush alienated Muslims.

It was an honest misstep, but the problem began when Bush promised to
wage a “crusade” against al-Qaeda after September 11, effectively
equating his war on terrorism with an earlier Christian invasion of
the Middle East that remains etched in the collective memory of
Muslims. Since then, the Bush Administration’s involvement in or
perceived support of military campaigns against Iraqis, Palestinians
and Lebanese heightened Muslim anger at the U.S. and undermined the
political position of moderate, pro-American Arabs, including old U.S.
allies like Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah of
Saudi Arabia — and, of course, King Abdullah II of Jordan, the host of
Bush’s Middle East visit this week.

I am much less than thrilled to receive Bush Jr. in Amman. Some argue that this step is an admission of some sort that his administration’s policies in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East have not been successful and that, as such, this trip should be celebrated. Well think again, “I say not unto thee, ‘Until seven times; but until seventy times seven.’ ”

Since he’s in the vicinity, why doesn’t he pop up in Abu Ghraib and see how the torture dogs are doing?

What I dislike the most about this visit are the heightened security measures. Scaring people out of their wits by stationing police and helmet-wearing, machine-gun-bearing army people all over Amman is not a healthy sign. Maybe Jordanians and the American Embassy alike could learn something from James Bond and work undercover for once and not make all this uncalled-for fuss. It’s irritating and it certainly is not stylish anymore.

Honestly though, who would be bothered to check if the person in that 74′ Toyota at the traffic light is George W. Bush?

I had intended for this post to have more “weight” but because I am a good girl I will take my parents’ advice and not post anything too “out there”. I will keep the explosives for my research papers, where I know who my audience is.

P.S: The other day I was browsing bumper sticker designs and one read: “Clinton screwed an intern. Bush screwed us all.”

In a book I have, I read:

The following “Rules for Female Teachers” were posted by the school board of one town in Massachusetts:

1. Do not get married.
2. Do not leave town at any time without permission of the school board.
3. Do not keep company with men.
4. Bet home between the hours of 8 P.M and 6 A.M.
5. Do not loiter downtown in ice cream stores.
6. Do not smoke.
7. Do not get into a carriage with any man except your father or brother.
8. Do not dress in bright colors.
9. Do not dye your hair.
10. Do not wear any dress more than two inches above the ankle.

Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States: 1492 to present. New York: HarperPerennial, 1995

It seems there happen to be some similarities between these rules, dating back to the early 20th century, and some still active today. I make no guesses as to how proper these rules are, I follow some but break most myself, but what I find most interesting is that American women actually lived by these rules at some point in time. Fascinating!

Have you ever noticed that action movie stars rarely (if ever) bleed when severely hit in a face-off? If Charlie’s Angels counts for an action movie, and it better not, then I honestly have issues with this bleeding “effect”. It does not exist! What sort of fools do they take us for, not making people bleed when hit? The “Angels” were not even bruised, not a scratch, niente! I bet the director thought damage applied to the face of a vixen of the sort cannot be promoted, it does not sell. Luscious lips, long hair and longer legs do sell, on the other hand.

I really have an issue with this. If you are going to feature a female as a leading action figure then it is not the assets that you should sell (that’s what the porn industry is all about; assets and fantasies, no?), and you should at least let your ninja lady get bruised every once in a while. There is a term used for this: Truth to Life. It is genuinely offensive to my taste that action stars, especially the females, seldom bleed or, say, break a nose (or a nail) in a fist fight.

But here’s an interesting bit about action movies starring females, and I always enjoy this bit: they almost always have a female rival. The catfights are usually, what’s the word? Too civil. There is somehow a part where the two girls grab each other by the hair (classic, I resent it), then if it’s a post-Matrix production you have the floating-in-the-air moments, and the a-girl-knows-how-to-kick-a-girl’s-ass line (rephrased), not to forget the mention of jealousy and the sadistic nature of the female villain.

Am I the only one who thinks that is getting just a tad old?