After re-checking the scores the Patriots did win against the Eagles, freakin 31-28. It was a close game. That makes them 11-0. The Eagles on the other hand are 5-6 as are the Redskins. With the Giants being 7-4 and Dallas 10-1, I think the Cowboys are going to clinch the division and most likely with the Packers get a wild card bye. The Giants are going to play New England in the last game of the season. In more recent news the Steelers beat the Dolphins that is tonight. The final score: 3-0! With less than five minuted in the 4th, Pittsburg kicked a field goal to beat Miami. Dolphins are now 0-11 and the Steelers are 7-3. I guess the latter have "redeemed" themselves after losing to the Jets last week.

So it is almost playoff season for the NFL. Both the Dallas Cowboys and Green Bay Packers are 10-1. The Colts are 9-2 and the Patriots are 10-0 (their game is in session while I write). While I am happy about both NFC teams, I am not sure either of them can top the top ranked AFC ones. Hopefully the Browns will be able to make it to the playoffs and upset everyone. Afterall, they are 7-4. Its gonna be a race between Denver, San Diego, Cleveland, Pittsburg, and Jacksonville. Damn. If any of those teams are able to upset New England or Indy, then I am sure they can handle Dallas and Green Bay. But then again, that is not likely and even if it was, Dallas and Green Bay still have a better chance. But then again...of course...Any Given Sunday...

Two books that I started reading during Thanksgiving break were The Crisis of the Arab Intellectual: Traditionalism or Historicism by Abdallah Laroui and The St. Paul Stories of F. Scott Fitzgerald (a collection of short stories written by the man himself). Of course I didn't finish them. *sigh* I should have used my time better.

Man, I wish Tupac were still alive. He had the music. Songs you could dance to, just chill and vibe with, and one's that made you think. It sure beats a lot of mainstream rap today.

I was recently perusing through a lecture given by the Marxist thinker/theorist Aijaz Ahmad. His "Right-Wing Politics, and the Cultures of Cruelty" is defintely a good read. His methodological underpinnings, I believe at least, give one a solid set of tools for analysis. He is obviously not the first to undertake such endeavors but he has a knack for clarity, coherence (a much needed alternative to "post-modern" obfuscation and density that is found in many academic pieces) and the ability, quite frankly, to get to the point. And so it is with fascism. For him the latter can be used in several ways namely to malign something as reprehensible when one is outraged say at a specific action and the ideaological movement(s) that gained popularity in inter-war Europe. There is however a third appellation, "...in which the word `fascism' is used to negotiate a very complex experience, spanning a whole century and virtually the whole world, in which a wide range of ideologies, movements and regimes have arisen which are not exactly the same, so that it becomes irrelevant to speak of a singular `fascist paradigm' to which all of them correspond, but which are in some fundamental way of the same design and frequently of the same inspiration." Moreover, "...every country gets the fascism that it deserves, by which I simply mean that the specific form that a fascist movement takes shall always depend on the social physiognomy of that country: that is to say, the economic, political, philosophical, aesthetic, religious, cultural and ideological forms that are specific to that country." Much of the talk also deals with anti-colonialism and how and why given states had(have) the priorites they do, contrasting rational and inclusive notions of citizenship with the more idealized and romantic forms. He fill in relevant historical background and discusses the resurgence of communalism in India. The lecture itself was given in 1998 while the BJP was in power. One may then wonder why I have bothered to post up the quotes; well because it is more necessary than ever to be rational, scientific, and libertarian, thus drawing from the best traditions of the enlightenment. A concrete analysis of societal ills can pave the way for a more humane and tolerant understanding among peoples and prevent religious and right-wing demagoguery from taking hold among the masses. Often times, when people do not have a coherent sense of what besets them, combined with economic troubles, then they turn to mythic notions of solidarity. As Ahmad writes, "...the end-of-the-century fascisms of today correspond to the Late Imperial period of full globalisation of the capitalist mode, in which the mode has provisionally triumphed over communist states but faces internal crises of stagnation in the core countries and unmanageable social tensions in the less industrialised countries, brought about in part by that imperialist globalisation and in part by the defeat or decay of the socialist, democratic and secular-nationalist projects within the imperializes countries." And significantly enough those fascisms, "...fashion an anti-materialist conception of revolution, anti-liberal conception of nationalism, anti-rationalist critique of Modernity, anti-humanist assaults on the politics of liberation, in a rhetoric of "blood and belonging", and in the name of a glorious past that never was." These quotes should just serve as a reminder to think critically and look for solutions not in some remote subjective ideal but objective examinations of the, "history of material production." Furthermore, one does not have to be a Marxist to realize civic pluralism and a commitment to people's material well being are fundamental if one wants to promote and build a more humane society. Here in the United States we should be proud of our heritage and traditions of free speech, abolitionism, and philosophical pragmatism. And in an era which has witnessed complete undue privatization, perhaps looking nostalgically back at the New Deal "Coalition", despite all its flaws (and its corporatism), is something worthwhile, or for others, a missed opportunity.

Guernica by Picasso. Enough said.

Perhaps I was too harsh in the last post. To be fair, there are committed and sincere Saudi liberals/reformists, even in the royal family. The problem is they have both hands tied behind there backs. They do not want to provoke the ire of the religious establishment for the legitimacy of the state rests upon it. Already, many hardliners have been criticizing the royal family on a variety of things and the latter does not want to upset the not-so-hardlined, who never the less are quite conservative and adamant on moral issues. In the case of women, many reformers realize that a healthy economy and social life depends on easing restrictions and want to do so. Of course, many of the fatwas, male-female segregation being one of them, were given by state patronized clerics. The contradictions in the relationship are now coming back to haunt many. Can economic change and the imposition of such social norms be balanced? It seems to me, that the growing middle class in Saudi Arabia will and already has begun clamoring for more rights and reforms. Indeed, further integration of women and the autonomy of civic organizations is a sign of a healthy middle class. In the end though, the recent case of the woman being lashed should provoke moral outrage. There is a saying of "blaming the victims", in this case the victim was punished.

I was just reading the news and I came across this: In Saudi Arabia a woman from a Shia background is gang-raped by some Sunni men. So what do the authorities do? They gave the 19 yearl old one hundred lashes and sentenced her to some jail time. When she appealed, they doubled her lashes and sentence. What is the apparent "logic"? She was in an unrelated man's car when the attack happened and that she was attempting to use the media to influence the court's decision. Ah yes, Saudi laws on male-female segregation. This only reinforces my antipathy towards the unecessary politicization of religion, draconian measures, and the clerical drudgery and instiutionalism found in the "Kingdom". Establishment Saudi "Liberals" want to talk about reform. But so far it is all talk.

I almost forgot to introduce myself (to those of you who care anyway). I am just your average college student. I am a student of history, but I do not limit myself and I love reading stuff on philosophy, social theory, "popular science", and even the rantings of political pundits. You would probably find Stephen Jay Gould, St. Augustine, and Pat Buchannan all on my bookshelf (So either I am well read or just plain confused!). On my spare time, I like reading, writing, art, watching good movies, hanging out with friends, and lately I have been trying to get myself up to exercise etc. My music tastes are eclectic. Religiously speaking, I come from a muslim background but I am increasingly becoming more secular and feel more of a cultural attachment then a theological one to my beliefs. I still however believe in God and the Prophet (Peace be Upon Him). I have yet to resolve all the contradictions entailed. Socially I am an independent/progressive and most of my friends consider me to lean towards the poltitical left (not to be confused with the mainstream democratic party here in the U.S.).

Just to jot down some thoughts:

So I recently watched American Gangsta, a film by Ridley Scott. As usual Denzel Washington was above par and it was an overall good flick. More interestingly, I came across a neat book in the library: The Films of Ridley Scott by Richard A. Schwartz. And so far so good. Far from just commentating on cinematic effect and visual imagery, Schwartz exposes Ridley’s political bias. He writes, “His films project a set of values that at once reflect left-wing liberalism and an essentially neoclassical conservatism that insists on tempering passion with reason, choosing wise and intelligent course of action, and acting with honor, virtue, and concern for the good of society at large, as well as for the individual…Like his neoclassical predecessors and the medieval writers before them who invoked the image of the horse (passion) guided by the rider (reason), Scott endorses a golden mean in which passion can be given full rein, but remains under the control of our rational faculties.” Social libertarianism meets our Greco-Roman heritage. Yeah, I thought it was odd as well. To be fair, however, Scott posits unconventional themes with sharp criticisms of corporate greed and avarice.
Take the case of Alien. Schwartz’s discussion revolves around several methods of analysis. Feminist, Marxist, and psychological perspectives are all utilized in uncovering social commentary that is laden within the movie itself. The Marxist approach emphasizes division of labor, control of means of production, and corporate insensitivity. It is no wonder in the movie that the crew is expendable in order for the company to have the Alien reach earth for further study. The movie in fact starts out with two laborers on board demanding more pay for their job, followed by an “order” by "Mother" (the main computer) that they must respond to a signal on a nearby planet. This mission is pressed fervently by Ash, who is later discovered to be a droid and destroyed. Essentially, the message is the expendability of labor for corporate ends. Yet, the crew does manage to pull together and fight the Alien suggesting a dynamic of how people across class and gender may pool themselves together for a common cause.
Further complications arise when one considers the androgynous nature of the Alien and Ripley’s heroism. One scholar suggests that Ripley’s lack of explicit sexual “definition” made her a hero for lesbians only to find out that when Ripley is being watched undressing by the Alien in the end of the movie it “reasserts” patriarchal control and a sense of male voyeurism. Whatever the case, Scott brings forth a unique possibility, a female hero can fight evil just as much as a male one can. And the roles are shifting.
And this plays perfectly into the psychological readings. Males giving “birth” to Aliens, an evil creature lurking in the depths ready to pounce on easy prey, the utter futility in being pawned by a company, are all motifs that test one’s psyche. It is interesting that the Alien itself was designed by the Swiss surrealist painter H.R. Giger, who had experimented with demonic/erotic themes before. As the author says in the end, “…the crew is caught between to forms of evil, one super-rational, the other completely visceral.”
And this is just a taste on how Schwartz proceeds in his criticism. My own sense of the matter is that all of the approaches mentioned above are valid. Human experience can not be contained in box like margins (and no, I did not get that off the back of a Hallmark card). I would, however, bring to light that perhaps the beauty of the film is that the tension between reason and responsibility, structured evil vs. gut reaction, and patriarchy vs. female liberation, is not resolved. If one imagines a movie to be a type of “snapshot” of our world then resolution is not always accessible for we as humans are constantly grappling and struggling with our environment. But by movies (or at least the good ones) teasing our conscience, we can realize alternative possibilities (left-liberalism?) and hopefully that can lead to responsible political choices.


(By the way, I suggest one check out the book his or herself. There is much more detail on Alien and other films of his including Legend, Blade Runner, and Gladiator.)

So I have decided to get a personal blog. I thought it would be a good way to jot down ideas, personal feelings, political commentary, etc. (y'all know the spiel).