Hina P. Ansari2013-05-23T01:11:37-04:00Hina P. Ansarihttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=hina-p-ansariCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Hina P. AnsariGood old fashioned elbow grease.The Fundamentalists No One Talks Abouttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32634352013-05-13T16:33:27-04:002013-05-13T17:12:56-04:00Hina P. Ansarihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hina-p-ansari/
For decades they have managed to become very politically savvy, currently courted by leading politicians looking to get them in their corner as they are seen as king makers. Their own population and influence continues to grow, with their religious laws making their way into the rulings of the land.
They live their life according to the literal text of their holy book. Unquestioned practices are expected from the number of times to pray a day, to dietary restrictions, religious holidays, and men and women's specific roles in their way of life. All dictated by God.
Women are viewed upon as unsanitary and therefore, unholy during their menstrual cycle. Men and women are to be segregated in public places. On the city bus, for instance, men are usually at the front and the women are at the back. At social gatherings such as a wedding, the seating plan usually ensures that men and women are seated separately and at opposite ends of the hall. Contact between men and women who aren't married are strictly forbidden.
Wardrobe restrictions are clear and concise for both sexes. Minimal skin exposure demanded from both sexes, in addition to headscarves for women. The parent's want to ensure their children are given proper religious education so religious schools enrolment for their kids is top priority.
And yes through the years, they have been known to take out their aggression, most recently vandalizing offensive artwork and posters (in most instances blacking out any female faces) and have resorted to violent measures including bombing local establishments to prove their point.
After reading this, if you automatically assumed that I was describing the day in the life of a "fundamental" Muslim, you've proved my point.
This is the Haredim community of Israel. An ultra-orthodox Jewish community whose religious way of life has been a point of controversy between their traditional (and what some progressive thinking Jews have called "backwards") ideologies from those of their more modern, liberal and secular Jewish neighbours.
On Friday, thousands of them tried to forbid a liberal women's group from accessing The Western Wall. A chain of uniformed police officers holding back throngs of black-hatted Ultra-Orthodox Jewish men as they cat-called, whistled and even threw plastic chairs at the women who were seeking closer access for them to pray.
Days before the recent Israeli election I came across a fascinating in-depth piece in The Toronto Star which shed some light in the years-long tug of war that has been playing out throughout Israel but more specifically in bigger cities like Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
It's a burden on the country's economy as the Haredim community receives generous stipends, amounting to more than Israel's military defense budget. Due to these funds it lends itself to them having one of the highest unemployment rates. It puts societal strains smack-dab in the intersection of the neighbourhood streets, at times violent confrontations have taken place with respect to certain images being published in mainstream newspapers.
Haredi Jews firmly believe that it is God's will to have them be exempt from the country's military draft, and they are to contribute to the nation's security in the form of prayer (they pray three times a day).
Now let's take out "Ultra-Orthodox" and "Jews" and swap it with "Fundamentalist" and "Muslim" and while we are at it, change the praying schedule from "three times a day" to "five times a day" -- it automatically paints a drastically different picture. Now when you read about their various (what can be seen as male chauvinistic) religious observances, it becomes an issue of human rights, children's rights, (Haredim believe in marrying in their teens); women's rights, and the threat of their hardline religious doctrine infiltrating the mainstream constitutional world. It's now a group that is bent on conquering the political arena to spread their fear-mongering beliefs. Pretty much a world in which US Representative Louis Gohmert lives in. He's the peach who believes that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated Obama's administration.
For the record I am not a fan of any ultra-conservative, fundamentalist wing of any religious community. I'm not talking about the run-of-the-mill devout practitioner. I'm talking about those who take it to the next level of holiness with their own drastic interpretations of their respective holy book. They take the religion and predictably bends it to suit their own purpose (which usually turns violent) as their religious obligation. This applies to Christians, Muslims and Jews across the board.
Back to Israel. The Haredi Jews caught the social media glare in 2011, when a version of the official photo of President Obama huddled in the War Room during the Osama Bin Laden take down had Hilary Clinton photoshopped out when it was republished in the Ultra Conservatives newspapers. In concert with their belief that images of women (and nudity for that matter) are not be published as per God's teachings.
Well that caught some attention. Snickers ensued and sure, a few jaws dropped. And that was it.
Now, if this was a someone from the Taliban-infused community from the outskirts of Swat Valley, who, hunkered over his laptop, cropped out the same image, there would be an outrage worthy of above-the-fold, front page news, instead of just a curious footnote. Protests would be quickly organized and the value of women's rights would re-energize the global debate on morality and human rights. "How can they crop out the Secretary of State's photo?" and "If that's how they view someone that high profile, imagine their view of the common woman" would be the talking points which would lead every news station and political chat show and status updates and tweets. Oh and Iran must definitely be behind this move as well.
But that didn't happen. Because the term "Ultra Orthodox" holds a revered connotation than say, "Fundamentalist" does. That latter one is more sinister.
So usually the Jews get "Ultra-Orthodox" and "Conservative"; Christian's get "Evangelical" or "Born Again" or "Religious-Right"; while Muslims get all sorts of colourful ones including. "Fundamental" "Radical" "Extremist" and my personal favorite: "Islamist."
Sure one can argue that out of the three religions, the most violence as of late have been perpetrated by those follow Islam -- or rather their demented version of it. Recently Bill Maher on his show "Real Time" made a brilliant point about the unmatched violent nature of the radical Islamic community and how violence is always the first move when they are at the receiving end of anything they disagree with or found insulting.
And I myself pleaded with my Muslim brothers and sisters to basically cool off and take it down notch and stop falling for every little insult. So yes, I get it. However, it was the Christian Evangelicals that lead the way during the abortion clinic bombings of the 80s and 90s. Around the same time, the Haredim in Israel were bombing local newspaper outlets that sold secular (thus sinful) newspapers.
It's the same Christian Right with their Rapture-esque mission, which guides the Israeli hand when it comes to the two-state solution and geographic and capital status of Jerusalem.Last year Haredi men grabbed the mainstream media's spotlight (even if it was for 10.5 seconds) when they were caught jeering and calling a petrified American 8 year-old school girl a "whore" as she tried to make her way to school just west of Jerusalem. Haredi men are often seen throwing stones at vehicles driven by women if she accidentally drives through one of their insular neighbourhoods. Have you heard outrage on the streets about that?
I'm not saying that one should be relegated to a softer and less menacing class than the others. But I am curious at the same philosophy and ideology gets different labels and treatments.
Here's a thought. You hate what the "fundamentalist" Muslim is doing with respect to their twisted way of treating women, then you should also be equally furious with the Haredim community because, guess what? They are doing the exact same thing.
When Evangelical Christians spew out their hatred (which they most notably did, during both the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections as they infiltrated the Tea Party movement and various anti-Mosque demonstrations in the US and they still do) for what is seen in their eyes, as Sharia-hugging, West-hating Muslims, well they should be held accountable as well and not just seen as isolated cases.
I'm sure some (maybe a lot) of those Evangelical sermons that fill the churches of the Bible-thumping South every Sunday, could easily be along those same lines as those preached from the pulpit of the radial mosques that we have been hearing so much about? Case in point: Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson both with major pulpit and a heavy loyal television following.
It is what it is. Regardless of where it takes place -- whether it's here at home, across the border or halfway across the world, there needs to be consistency in messaging. Especially when the world is so connected as it is today. If you loathe one, you loathe them all. You give reverence to two; well then the third (whether you agree or disagree) deserves that as well.]]>Shadows of Liberty Peels Back The Corporate Layers of Mainstream Mediatag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27030122013-02-19T14:36:11-05:002013-04-21T05:12:02-04:00Hina P. Ansarihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hina-p-ansari/
What we may not realize (or refuse to admit it) is that most often than not, it's all orchestrated chaos brought to you by your friendly neighbourhood multi-national corporation.
This is exactly what director Jean-Philippe Tremblay revealed in his debut documentary Shadows of Liberty. After having done the global film festival circuit Shadows of Liberty finally landed in Toronto as part of the acclaimedHot Docs Film Festival.
And it's quite the debut.
Hailing from Quebec, Tremblay hones in on the mammoth American sound bite-driven mainstream media world. A world that's now a bullhorn for blue-chip corporations, government policies and hold high regard for the dollar. A world where five companies (yes you read that right -- five!) own 90 per cent of American media.
Shadows of Liberty tells this story by skillfully threading together media's game-changing moments from the Founding Fathers' declaration of its freedom in the 1st Amendment, all the way through the decades, as media morphed from one ideology (dictated by government deregulations and the profit margins of global conglomerates) to the next. The "Knowledge is Power" idiom is endlessly redefined to ensure that it holds the best interest of the corporate backers and their political power players at heart.
Mainstream media is today's propaganda maven.
Shadows of Liberty is one part history lesson and two parts, true, uncensored investigative journalism of an irretrievably broken media system of these United States.
The film includes actual footage from unseen reports, candid recollections by journalists who battled for the truth with their bosses and corporate entities and valuable insights from leading notables from the "independent" media world as well as activists, including news icon Dan Rather, Editor-In-Chief of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange and Democracy Now's Amy Goodman.
A meaty presentation, which shows that today's round-the-clock news coverage aren't as random as it may seem.
The Sign
When Tremblay started working with DOCFACTORY, a UK-based production company, he wanted to keep with the company's mission of making "movies that matter". While searching for the perfect project for his first film, he chanced upon a book, The New Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian, which detailed the complicated courtship between the global conglomerates and American media. He knew he was on to something when at the exact same time, in 2007, the FCC announced a series of cross-country town-hall type public hearings to listen to local citizens' concerns about the state of media ownership. It was media manna from heaven. Tremblay and his team filmed all of the FCC hearings, which spanned for over a year and a half. They were witnessing first-hand testimonials from irate consumers who expressed their frustration at being fed news, which were thickly coated with corporate, and government spin. "That was really was what set us off," Tremblay noted. "We were able to hear people talk about the media and see the conflict as well."
This set the foundation and for the next five years, Tremblay and his team worked towards building it. Shot by shot. Stat by stat. Story by story. Shadows of Liberty finally hit the international film circuit in February 2012.
The Truth-Tellers
The true grit of this film is Tremblay's ability to zoom in on six American journalists who candidly recollect battles with bosses over specific news angles that flew in the face of corporate interests of the media outlet. Often leaving their story on the cutting room floor and them without a job.
Each tale would reveal the sordid details on what would happen once the story hit a wall of resistance from the upper echelons of the outlet's management. These aren't small town-buried-in-the-back-of-the paper type of articles. They were major revelations with national and often global impact. In the mid 90s, CBS's handling of the NIKE child labor controversy in Vietnam, and their coverage (and government aided cover-up) of the downed TWA plane, which crashed mid-flight en route to Paris from New York, set the tone. Then there was the remarkable journey of The San Jose Mercury News' reporter whose own investigation revealed ties between the crack-cocaine epidemic in the US and the American-backed Contras during the Nicaraguan war in the 80s. The latter two instances were even more astounding as not only was media in the pockets of corporations (literally) but they were glaring examples of the American government's hand in using the media as an instrument where their version of "the truth" were to be conveyed. The grand-daddy of all examples of media playing the part of the government's echo-chamber was during the hard sell to go after Saddam Hussein and his WMD. Remember? Exactly.
Prime time propaganda perfected.
The Power Of Silence
Tremblay recounted instances, when word got out that the media monopoly by Corporate America was the focus that he was honing in on, the reaction was also worthy of it's own screenplay.
Tremblay recounted the journalists' initial reaction when invited to talk on camera, often prompting them to ask, 'Do you really want to do this because you will put yourself on our side of the line?'. They lauded his intention but still wanted to make sure Tremblay knew what he was in for. Not everyone was eager to go there however. "We talked to a lot of journalists but they abstained from talking to us because they were scared of losing their jobs, putting their jobs at risk or putting anyone else around them at risk."
And when it came to gathering footage and research, well the hurdles just kept popping up everywhere. Tremblay understood that the innate part of being a filmmaker was the ability to problem-solve, however nothing prepared him for the roadblocks he would encounter when doing a film directly aimed at America's corporate powerhouses, who pretty much ran the show. Even a simple run-of-the-mill request for footage proved to be not as "black and white".
"They know the footage exists. It's a run-around scenario 'I'm sick' or 'I'm not in today.' Then you ask yourself 'What's going on here?'."
The most deafening noise was the silence. "They have the power to ignore." Tremblay puts it. When the film was ready to be submitted to various global film festivals the noticeable silence by the American festivals was hard to ignore. "We weren't invited by any main or even medium sized film festival in the US." Tremblay explains. "Then you ask, 'Why were we invited by some of the biggest film festivals in the world, Hot Docs here in Toronto, IDFA in Amsterdam, Sheffield in the UK and other festivals on every continent in the world? No one comes out and says that 'Your film is too political' but you start asking yourself this question. There is this strange vibe in America and you start asking yourself 'Are we living the story -- or the nightmare -- that we are putting up on the screen?' Probably -- yes."
The 'Freedom Of The Press' Façade
The peculiar downplaying of the 1st Amendment (Freedom of the Press) as compared to the current off-the-wall passionate pleas for the 2nd Amendment (Right to Keep and Bear Arms) has not been lost on Tremblay. The "Freedom" reference in the American constitution is specifically aimed at the government, banning it from interference or censorship. However since the 80s, the American government has been very strategic in using media for their message, deliberately ensuring that the public doesn't know too much. "The less we know about what corporations do and the less we know about what the government does, the more they are able to maneuver for their political goals and profitable goals." Notes Tremblay. As the film reveals, the statistics speak for themselves. In 1996 when The Telecom Act was signed into law by then President Clinton, it cleared the way for media conglomerates to go on a shopping spree, snapping up any media outlet (be it print, television or radio), forever changing the media landscape. That year, Disney and ABC merged, valued at $19 billion USD. Three years later, Viacom and CBS merged at $80 Billion USD and just a year later, in 2000, AOL and Time Warner merged at $182 billion USD making it the largest merger in history.
And in a slick Quid Pro Quo move, the film also noted, that between 1998 and 2005, $400 million USD was doled out by media giants, on lobbying and political contributions.
So it's safe to say that the once revered 1st Amendment was sold to the highest global bidder.
The Fate Of 'True' Journalism
The frontier of real truth and real journalism lies in the hands of the growing world of independent journalists. The internet is the new safe haven for real news devoid of any corporate spinning, damage control or government pruning. Social media plays a heavy hand as the world now has access to different media viewpoints, most notably Al Jazeera's skyrocketing global popularity during their live stream coverage of Arab Spring is an obvious example. And the public backlash which erupted when this past summer Time Warner dropped Current TV from its roster just hours after it was sold to Al Jazeera is another example on the citizen's awakening of their thirst for varying global perspectives.
The recognition of this 'independent' journalistic community and that real news does exist is what Tremblay hopes people will recognize and support when watching his film. "That's why we did this film, so people can become aware and start gravitating towards [those] who actually practice journalism and aren't putting a political or financial agenda ahead of the truth. It does exist. But other challenges are there. These corporations spend a lot of money to make sure that their laws benefit them and give them a lot more control. We can either sit back and be passive or actually participate in some way and spend our money on independent media as opposed to mainstream media."
Shadows of Liberty is being screened at Toronto's Hot Docs Film Festival with plans to screen in Ottawa and Montreal.]]>Could Mobile Technology Combat Sexual Harassment?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.26543882013-02-11T11:18:10-05:002013-04-13T05:12:01-04:00Hina P. Ansarihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hina-p-ansari/New Delhi gang rape atrocity.
After the shock subsided, "Why?" was often the conversation starter as we desperately tried to process it all. What was the cause? Cultural differences? Economic disparity? Was it her fault? When it comes to countries such as India, Egypt and now South Africa (currently shaken up by their own gang rape incident of a high school girl) the respective society's balancing act is tough: torn between their engrained cultural direction, often backed by ignorant perspectives, all the while, openly courting the allure of modernity with today's democratic protest-driven world.
Then came the proactive hash tags, fan pages of support, and a myriad of online petitions -- most of which can be questionable -- providing a false sense of action just by the click of the mouse. Last but not least is the now obligatory (and quite silly in my opinion) "We Are All [enter the victim's name here]" verbal movement that keeps popping up from one status update to the next.
It's armchair activism in full effect.
And this is precisely what Cairo-based NGO worker Rebecca Chiao did NOT want to happen when she initiated a team of volunteers to fight the problem of sexual harassment on the streets of their city. Having lived in Egypt since 2004, Rebecca includes herself and her co-workers among those who have been followed and subject to public harassment. Often happening en route to work, originating from the metro and leading up to the office complex where ironically enough, housed their place of employment, the Egyptian Centre For Women's Rights (ECFW).
"Some would come in crying and traumatized," Rebecca reflected. The harassment wasn't reserved for a certain "type." It was open season for everybody. "[The women were] veiled, unveiled, [they were] Egyptian and foreigners. It even happened throughout the month of Ramadan."
She understood the importance of delivering the message directly to the doors of the local residents. Beyond the TV ads, PSAs, and government advocacy actions. Beyond the hash tags and the Facebook updates.
There needed to be more. So her team outlined a plan to not only spread awareness of what sexual harassment really is, but also to provide educational tools for locals to start fostering a community of intolerance and protection.
Setting The Record Straight
When Rebecca was part of the Safe Streets For All (SSFA) campaign, she realized that she had to actually explain to the locals the proper definition of "sexual harassment." Whether it was an English-to-Arabic lost-in-translation moment, or a result of a cultural connotation, the actual term was commonly used to specifically label child rapists.
With that definition, Egyptians were quick to point out that "sexual harassment" did not happen on their streets. Eventually the SSFA campaign gained the backing of NGOs while government-sponsored television ads and literature where doled out all in a combined effort to educate the general public on the accurate meaning of sexual harassment and ways of stopping it. The media jumped on board and it buzzed and buzzed. Then it stopped.
The message hit its peak and plateaued. "It was the same messages over and over again. People weren't engaged," Rebecca explained.
Eureka! In Egypt
In 2009, she was introduced to the concept of social mapping by a fellow concerned citizen. With that fresh information at hand, combined with recently unearthed stats that 97 per cent of Egyptians use cell phones and half of that number were women, Rebecca knew exactly what to do.
Fast-forward to December of 2010: HarassMap was born.
HarassMap is social mapping program, with a built-in reporting system. A forum where people can "speak out and report incidents anonymously," Rebecca explains. "We linked the platforms together to a frontline SMS service."
She, in fact, created a virtual "safe space." A place where one can visit the website , or text in via their SMS short code (strategically marketed by social media blasts and the plastering of eye-catching stickers all over town) one can anonymously report details of an incident which either happened to them or they've witnessed, including specifics such as address, street name and public points of interest. The SMS number has an automatic response system, which is sent back to the reporter, listing contact numbers for various essential services including self defence classes, psychological counseling and legal aid.
Due to its anonymous nature, people were able to be as specific as they wanted when reporting back. The HarassMap team were taken aback at how much the people wanted to talk, because of the lack of information that already existed. "There was no safe space to speak out," Rebecca explained. "[There was] no documentation. [Services] existed but not publicized." And when they started collecting the harassment reports, the level of openness shocked the team. "We were shocked at what we were reading because if the [women] said this in front of their husband, or father, they would have been punished."
Once the report passes the team's validity test it's then reflected in the form of a red dot which is placed on a map of Egypt, giving the problem a clear visual picture. Easily accessible on their website, the public can click on the dot and see the transcript of the actual SMS report. This is where Rebecca and her team do their most important work.
Taking It to the Streets
"We spend 95 per cent of our time organizing community outreach data," Rebecca explains.
Through their own network, or by strangers who are eager to get involved, groups of volunteers are trained to go back to their own neighbourhood and conduct informational meetings in order to educate the locals about the concept of sexual harassment and how to stop it.
"We needed to change the social acceptability of sexual harassment," Rebecca emphasized. She knew that they first needed to clear a path straight to the heart of the matter, by brushing away interfering cobwebs of cultural misconceptions.
She quickly notes the common stereotypes swirling around neighbourhood blocks which prevent the locals from taking action i.e. "it's the girl's fault"; "she likes it"; "it's what she's wearing" (which falls flat in the face of a survey conducted by ECFWR that 72 per cent of women who are harassed are veiled); "it's flirting" or because the harasser is poor and can't get married, is sexually frustrated and "can't help himself."
They work closely with local shops, restaurants and other public venues to declare them as "safe zones" -- and distinguished by another visible sticker by HarassMap. Rebecca emphasizes that the magic bullet is being able to share the actual SMS report. "We show the texts of the reports, which are very dramatic. They [then] see how bad it is. It's really compelling -- you can see the change in their face as you read the reports [to them]."
Crowd-Sourcing
Six months ago, Ottawa's International Development Research Centre (IDRC) entered the picture. By offering a grant, HarassMap's operational costs are now covered and a core staff is in place. Allowing Rebecca and her team to hone in on crowd sourcing techniques to gather data as well as to see how social media has a hand in the overall campaign.
The results were revealing. Not so surprising was the debunking of misguided beliefs that sexual harassment is only relegated to big cities, at night and in dark alleys. They now have statistical evidence showing sexual harassment happening in rural areas during the day and in wide-open spaces.
It also gave the HarassMap team a jolt when their data collection showed (as well as hearing from their male volunteers first-hand) that women weren't the only victims of sexual harassment, but men were as well, often harassed by other men and by women. "We just had this blind spot. So based on that, we can now improve our programs by reaching out to schools and talk about this issue in a different way," Rebecca notes.
HarassMap's success hasn't gone unnoticed. Over 19 different countries (including India) have reached out to Rebecca and her team for guidance on setting up a similar system in their own backyard. She hopes that Egyptian society can go back to the way it once was, where statistically sexual harassment cases were lower when public interference was high. "We are hoping that it will become similar to the 'Thief' concept: When you shout 'Thief!' everyone comes. No excuses. This is what I want to see in harassment incidents."
]]>The Art Of the TV Confessionaltag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.24981262013-01-17T17:16:42-05:002013-03-19T05:12:01-04:00Hina P. Ansarihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hina-p-ansari/Oprah interview with Lance Armstrong a chance for the disgraced cyclist to publicly recognize his numerous wrongs, and seek forgiveness from his fans, associates and sponsors or is it just another narcissistic attempt from someone who is backed in a corner trying to shift gears in the hopes rebooting his career?
It all depends on who you ask.
The alluring spotlight of a televised confessional isn't new. A whole generation of viewers (myself included) sat through the afternoon ritual of the hour-long chat show with salacious details skillfully needled out by those at the pulpit of popular television including Phil Donohue, Sally Jesse Raphael and Jenny Jones. We watched their guests, most often, everyday folk airing out their personal (and often dirty) laundry in front of a packed audience and everyone else beyond the studio lights. There would be public declarations of infidelity, broken hearts, love, hate, and stories of survival and tales of destruction. Mysteries were solved (buoyed by Maury Povich's inimitable talent of unearthing baby daddies across America) and muscles were flexed (Hello, flying chair from Jerry Springer, meet Geraldo's nose) -- cue the commercials from our sponsors.
All this before dinner.
At dusk the prime-time world wakes up. Rows of chairs, screaming matches and insults are replaced with hushed voices, a comfy sofa and softer lighting. There's no audience. Now it's just two people: the A-Lister and the interviewer. The softer, gentler confessional. All part of the natural order of celebrity-dom. Pay your penance via the public airwaves.
BLOG CONTINUES AFTER SLIDESHOW
The whole idea of putting yourself out there and peeling back your layers for the world to see has always fascinated me. Sure in today's noise of reality shows and the immediate PR spin in social media, these sorts of heart-to-heart chats may have lost their allure to some extent, but nothing replaces the focused uncluttered conversation that takes between two people in person. Not behind twitter handles or Facebook fan pages. This is true face time. It can be in front of a camera, at a coffee shop or on an airplane. And this is where this particular story begins...
In The Comfort of Strangers
Life Story Project is a Canadian documentary-style program, on OWN (Oprah Winfrey Network) Canada where men's expert and psychotherapist Dale Curd and relationship coach and expert, Andrea Syrtash invite people on the street to share with them their own personal stories ranging from love, heartbreak, forgiveness and gratitude. Complete strangers take their seat on a purple couch, which is set not in a studio but in public, either in the middle of a park, along a bustling boardwalk or in a prime spot in a public square. There aren't any studio lights, an "applause sign" or an audience. It's just two people talking. Strangers confiding in strangers. And it's absolutely riveting.
They are often just passers-by whose curiosities are piqued by the site of a friendly face and a place to sit. They know they are being filmed but the camera is often over 40 feet away so that's quickly brushed aside allowing the subject to relax and slowly let themselves as Andrea calls it, "expose their truth." Their chats, which often stretches out to an hour, has the subject leaving with new revelations, a sense of calm and affirmations of their own truths. It's not surprising. We all know it's easier to confide in strangers than in friends, as there isn't that emotional bond, the personal connection and the risk of being judged. "The people closest to us, has the greatest potential to wound us. Talking to a stranger is easier that way because it's like a cleansing." Dale explains, "A 'confession' has emotional energy attached to it. Every human being gets to their own threshold and when they pass that threshold, they don't want to hold on to this information any longer and need to talk to somebody about it."
And that's exactly why such personal stories are gently and organically shared by these everyday people who literally stumble upon the purple couch while running an errand, on their way to pick up their kids from soccer practice or on a lunch break from their office. It's a welcome, unexpected chance for them to unload.
The 'Project' and The 'Process'
As the name declares, this isn't a reality show but is indeed a project. Because more often than not, the process often continues after the cameras turn off. "We don't see it as a destination," Andrea notes. "People have gone through a great process to get to the point where they can expose their truth. They still go on that journey when they leave the couch." Both Dale and Andrea continue to keep in touch with all of those that they have met, often noting that the sofa serves as some sort of unique catalyst to a much deeper realization for the subject.
The documentary feel is by no means an accident. Life Story Project is helmed by a master class team who all come from a documentary background and therefore adds that element of realness to it. Just as you would hear a conversation at a coffee shop, in this setting, you see human interaction at personal level that usually is shut off to the world, and usually in a reserved space behind the doors of a private therapy session. The public platform that this project provides is a forum of service that is warmly welcomed by the subject. "Even when people take off their mics, they always said 'I hope it helps someone'. It wasn't about 'me me me,'" says Andrea.
And people want to share. Dale and Andrea often end up chatting with between 13 to 18 people a day (each) with some conversations lasting an hour. Stories are being told. Burdens are being lifted and hearts being lightened.
Can You Handle The Truth?
In their latest episode "Secrets, Lies & Confessions" Dale and Andrea talk to people about lying, the risk of disclosure and the art of the half-truth also lovingly known as the (little) white lie.
And if you have told a white (or black) lie or two, you aren't alone. The half-hour episode was filled with uninterrupted glances into human nature, with people talking about lies and truths that they have heard, told or (in some cases recently) discovered. A wide spectrum of revelations including a wife telling her husband of a forgotten kiss by a co-worker at a business convention years ago, to a woman's journey of being misdiagnosed leading to years of living under the false cloud of a debilitating disease. It was shocking and soul-stirring.
So is there such a thing as a white lie? A lie that doesn't hurt the other? Andrea notes that when it comes to telling one vs. disclosing the truth, you have to think about it in terms of its cost vs. benefit. What's the cost vs. benefit if you tell the truth?
Dale notes sometimes a lie can be a way of protecting our psyche. Using the "denial" phase of the grieving process as an example, Dale explains that phase is a way of you protecting your psyche as "it's not yet ready to handle the emotional impact."
So as I watch Lance (and I know you'll be watching too, don't deny it), I'll continue to remember my conversation with Dale and Andrea as well as measure the sharp contrast between this high profile loudly trumpeted televised two-part tell-all vs. the quiet revelations that took place between two people on that purple couch in the middle of the park.
The story-telling technique is clear to me: one is undoubtedly American while the other is truly Canadian.]]>We've All Met Men Like David Petraeustag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21149682012-11-12T16:45:35-05:002013-01-12T05:12:01-05:00Hina P. Ansarihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hina-p-ansari/David Petraeus' philandering ways, one of the first concerns was, of course, national security.
Something that can be ripped from a classic paperback page-turner or spy film, you could easily substitute Kevin Costner for the lead and Sean Young for the mistress. Sound familiar? I'm sure I'm not the only one who all of a sudden had a craving to revisit the classic 80s Cold War flick No Way Out.
Sure Petraeus may have a passing resemblance to Costner, but from what we are gathering, the lady in question -- biographer Paula Broadwell who wrote All In: The Education of General David Petraeus (I know, I know), which came out in January of this year, not only looks like, but is acting more and more like Sean Young.
For those of you who may not be familiar, actress Sean Young's erratic off-screen notorious-ness is the stuff of legends that basically drifted through the entire 80s and 90s before she pretty much fell off the celebrity star map.
Broadwell, in this case, sent her attack dog-type emails to another "close" female associate of Petraeus who turned out to only be a family friend. They were so threatening that it prompted the recipient to call in the Feds to investigate. Sure enough, it lead the FBI directly to Broadwell's own account where a chain (of thousands) of seductive exchanges (on Gmail no less) with the four-star General led to the affair being exposed. See? Isn't that just so Sean?
But I digress....
With P4 (the nickname bestowed upon him by his colleagues) dalliances exposed (his first that we know of), the Friday night lights of the cable news studios jolted back up again as this delightful sexual nugget was placed right before their teleprompters and filled up the airwaves.
It's the much-needed, best post-election hangover cure one could possibly ask for. Of course then came the numerous talking heads and security experts who were willing and ready to analyze, dissect and have their way with whatever facts were discovered by the early evening's airtime. At that point, the mistress' identity hadn't been disclosed so of course experts were having a hay day about this mysterious Bond Girl with a PhD. One such expert's concerns stuck out to me: Fran Townsend.
CNN's national security commentator, who also serves on the board of the CIA's External Advisory Committee immediately noted that there needed to be a full examination on who this mysterious woman was. She could easily be a "foreign agent," a nefarious Natasha who could have trapped the helpless CIA Director into endless nights of pillow talk where classified information could easily have been extracted under her seductive gaze.
Really Fran? To paraphrase Obama's now classic Romney retort, "that is so 20 years ago."
As retro as that explanation was, I immediately noted how Townsend immediately wanted to question the validity and motive of the mistress, basically hinting at the fact that the General could not have been a willing participant in this post-Cold War bedroom romp. He can't be capable of doing this, so let's blame the woman.
But what doesn't surprise me is that here we have another powerful man who succumbed to the needs of his other P. It's not unheard of. But here's the head-scratcher: Broadwell knew of his marriage as she worked on his biography, so she can't claim ignorance.
Could it be that he fed her lines about his marriage falling apart, another example of a mid-life crisis and the usual song and dance that a man who is entertaining the thought of having someone on the side usually delivers? Or maybe she just didn't care and wanted to have her cake and eat it too.
Maybe it's our age but myself and many of my similarly aged single friends -- for one reason or another -- seem to attract more married men than single ones. And they all have their tweaked well-rehearsed stories, which they dole out, in the hopes of finding someone who believes them. And if you still think you can spot a married man simply by looking for their wedding ring, snap out of it.
In our case, all of these wanderers are from the same boomer age category, so we usually slot them in our own binders full of Man with Mid-Life Crisis. It's the proverbial convertible. But of course here in Canada having another expensive car that is drivable for only six months out of the year is impractical. So what better way to accomplish said goal than by sticking to the "we live separate lives" scenario. That's for all seasons.
But as we all know by now, it takes two to tango. So as much as there are women who can see right through the mesh of these tangled stories and make a run for it, there are those who recognize what the deal is and still proceed ahead. Broadwell is the perfect example.
She's also married and has two children. And yet she still found a way to become "embedded" (pun totally intended) with P4 (or by his other nickname, "Peaches" which she willfully disclosed during her book tour), again I ask...why?
Could it be that she was just bored of her own life? Was she also going through her own mid-life crisis and needed a welcome distraction? Did the four-star General, the director of the CIA and all-round powerful man, prove to be the perfect aphrodisiac?
Well it happened before. Remember Bill & Monica?
Once Broadwell decides to come out of hiding only then can the questions be answered. And while doing so also explain to inquiring minds (like me!) why she went all Fatal Attraction with her threatening emails to the other woman?
This latest sex scandal proved to be a hit with her book. When the news of the scandal broke Friday evening her Petraeus biography was listed as #76,792 on Amazon. By mid-Saturday it reached spot #111. Which obviously incites the question, "who did she have to sleep with to get such a fantastic spike in ratings?" ...Oh, wait ... never mind.
At the end of the day, these two characters in this plot worthy of any present-day spy film (which I'm sure a screenplay is being penned as I pen this), decided to put their own married lives and respective families on the line with their affair -- all clearly documented in their thousands of emails. Sure if fidelity isn't your cup of tea, sure whatever rocks your boat, but doing it all over the hackable Gmail ... well that's just all sorts of stupid.
]]>Stay Classy, Donald Trump (and Other Election Highlights)tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20860422012-11-07T01:50:24-05:002013-01-06T05:12:01-05:00Hina P. Ansarihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hina-p-ansari/
The stores on 5th Avenue glittered with "Vote"-themed window displays and every street corner boasted carts filled to the rim with McCain/Palin/Obama/Biden buttons, T-shirts, and gag gifts, all primed to be pinned and donned by enthusiastic voters and tourists.
The prospect of electing the first African-American person to the highest office in the land was the electric buzz, which carried itself through every single New York minute from dawn to dusk.
Fast-forward four years and and now we are watching the end result of the 2012 Presidential campaign. A campaign which seems to go on for years. And years. And years. So with such buildup what's to be expected? Can Obama make history again by being two-term President?
Four years ago, social media was in it's infancy. Twitter was practically a newborn with just two years in existence and Facebook wasn't too far behind. MySpace (remember them?) was the grandaddy of the social media world. Obama's 2008 campaign's grassroots movement relied heavily on text messages to rally the base which eventually carried him straight to The White House.
This time around, the global conversation took precedence with real-time exchanges actively prompted by rapid-fire Tweets, immediate Facebook status updates and various live stream capabilities, collectively playing the leading role in this particular election. All through the various debates, conventions and now Election Night.
Blog continues after slideshow...
We'll always have Nate
I'll be the first to admit that I had my doubts when I started reading about whom I call the "poll whisperer," fivethirtyeight.com's Nate Silver who presented his aggregate of polls and predicted his own set of percentages, likelihoods and outcomes. He was right for the most part. Pretty much all of the part. In short was a picture perfect Revenge of the Nerds scenario.
Pretty props
CNN made its mark in the 2008 election with their gimmicky and technologically-driven ways of covering the election. Big screens, graphics, colours, numbers, booming sound and "special guest" holograms. Remember Will.i.am? This time around, the folks at CNN seemed to have streamlined it a bit (just a bit) still having their huge graphics, jumbo screens, dazzling numbers, complex equations and of course John King's Magic Wall. And no holograms. Thankfully.
The Empire State Building partnered with CNN, awashing itself in the colour of the party that was in the lead at the time. Throughout the night, courtesy of Florida's white knuckle-inducing dead heat (in the most literal sense) red and blue were equal parts on the building. If it wasn't for the political prop-vibe, the skyscraper sure looked pretty.
Al Jazeera English's Intelligent Coverage
This is where live stream completely ruled. Not only was I able to tweet and watch CNN on TV, but I also was able to live stream Al Jazeera's special Election Day coverage which, to be honest, knocked it out of the park. Noted for its intelligent, educational analysis (I got hooked on to Al Jazeera since their noted coverage of The Arab Spring), I was thoroughly impressed with how they covered Election Night. It was so much more than throwing it to correspondents stuck in a yet-to-be-filled-up ballroom (sorry CNN).
God Declares Legitimate Losers
Indiana Senator Richard E. Mourdock (endorsed by Romney) and who infamously declared that a baby conceived by rape was the "something that God intended to happen." lost to Democratic Representative John Donnelly.
And cue the endless "God's intended" for him to lose tweets.
As much as we all wanted to have an early night, the "too close to call" talking points which were on high rotation leading up to this night, gave us all pause for thought. And when is say "all" I mean those of who weren't exactly sold on Nate Silver's predictions (me included). Then it happened. CNN's Wolf Blitzer was absolutely giddy when he reported that with 76 per cent of the votes in from Florida, it literally was a dead heat. The dead heat continued, at one point with Romney leading by just over 600 votes. Everyone was reaching for the Pepto.
Polling Station Waiting Game
There is one thing I can never understand. Whether it's the 2000 elections with the hanging chads, or today's electronic system, there seems to always be an issue with voting lines, times and schedules and results. This year, in true incompetence, Florida continues to create controversy thanks to Governor, Rick Scott's move to limit the voting times ending in lineups lasting for four hours in some instances.
Other lineups due to poorly staffed voting stations were reported all across the country including New York (mainly due to makeshift voting areas created amidst Sandy devastation) but also in areas where there was confusion on what ID was supposed to be shown/accepted and in Colorado where they were reportedly running out of provisional ballots and photocopying more. Say what you will about Elections Canada, I'm just thankful that I'm not standing in line for hours to cast my vote, something that seems to be the norm in "modern" America.
And Then There's The Donald
Always a source of amusement, Donald Trump was beside himself with the news that Obama won the Electoral Vote expressing his utmost anger and disbelief with a series of tweets each one more priceless than the one before:
As soon as he heard the news:
"Well, back to the drawing board!"
10 minutes later:
"We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!"
One minute later:
"Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us."
Two minutes later:
"This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!"
Seven minutes later:
"Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble...like never before."
Three minutes later:
Our nation is a once great nation divided!
Stay classy Donald.
So now that the Republicans have kept the house, the Democrats kept the Senate, and Obama is now entering his second term as the President, it's safe to say that with an estimated $6 billion dollars spent in what is seen as the priciest Presidential Election in history, really nothing has changed.
Another election is in the books. And personally I'm glad Obama is back in. He's the right guy for this time. But hey, if you disagree with the results, feel free to join Donald on his march for democracy. I'm sure he'll enjoy your company.
]]>Having Coffee with Kofi Annantag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20137642012-10-25T12:21:40-04:002012-12-25T05:12:01-05:00Hina P. Ansarihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hina-p-ansari/Bon Mot Book Club a Vancouver-based ideas forum headed by Leah Costello. After other speaking stops Vancouver and Calgary, she brought Annan to Toronto.
Before the sold-out larger speaking event which was held at the Windsor Arms Hotel, Annan answered our questions which covered various hot button topics including the ways towards a successful society, Iran, Romney and China.
Secret to a successful society
"There are three pillars: Stability and security (creating a stable environment), Development, Rule of Law and Human Rights.
You need stability and you need development. You cannot have stability without development and you cannot have development without stability. When people are deprived, unemployed and helpless it leads to social tension.
All this is rooted in my judgment in rule of law and respect for human rights. It's when you have that solid basis that is when societies flourish. You look around the world; the societies that have flourished that have these three pillars.
If we have been asked including myself two years ago what you have thought of Tunisia, one would have said great tourist destination, stable, economic growth is at 5-6 per cent and doing well. But none of us would have raised the issue of human rights and rule of law. We sometimes tend to confuse stability with rule of law and respect for human rights. And yet that third pillar for me is most important. And if you ignore it you are building on sand."
Embracing the winds of change
"There's an African proverb, which says, 'You cannot bend the wind, so bend the sail.'
And with my discussions with the leaders of the region, I try to encourage them to understand that the strong transformational winds, which are blowing today, cannot be resisted for long. One needs to stay ahead of the curve and embrace change and reform.
For those who think they can block it, they are wasting their time and need to embrace reform. It's not something limited to the third world. We see it in Europe today on the economic front with the EU. If right from the beginning they had accepted on what was happening in Greece and everybody knew was likely to happen in Spain and Portugal was a common problem, the approach would have been different and they probably would have been over the hump now. To try to get them to understand that the collective interest is a national interest. I use the example of the cruise ship, you may have the best suite in the ship and somebody else may be in another corner. But if there is a hole in one corner of the ship we are all at risk, regardless of the suite."
Optimism for today
"I'm by nature optimistic but I can also be coldly realistic when I'm looking at a problem. There has to be hope. One has to offer hope. People ask me why do you take on the question of envoy of Syria; it was a hopeless case -- a Mission: Impossible. I said 'I agree but somebody had to do it'. And not only try to see if we can get them to stop killing each other, but to give hope to the people that efforts are being made.
My own background is from the Gold Coast, which is now Ghana. I grew up at a time of independence and seeing all the changes that the country went through. I walked away as young man convinced that change is possible, even radical revolutionary change. That has helped me a lot in my life because when people tell me that it can't be done I say 'let's test it, let's try it because unless you try it you won't even know if it's possible or not.'"
Iran
"Iran has been with us for quite a while and will be with us for a while yet. The diplomatic efforts, discussions and negotiations should continue. It's tricky because the Iranians maintain that they don't want to have a nuclear weapon but nobody believes them. It's this lack of trust that leads to this point. I was talking to them this summer and they said that the main purpose is to expand their scientific knowledge of enrichment. The rest of the world, that is suspicious, the West in particular feels that once you have mastered the art of enrichment it's a short jump to go nuclear.
My advice to the Iranians is that if you have nothing to hide, open it up, let the atomic agencies go everywhere and they will discover that you are genuine. When you look at the geopolitical volatility of that region, a region that has seen so many wars, between Iran and Iraq, Iraq and the rest of the world, and Lebanon and Israel, and today with Syria tensions, do we really want to start another war? I think the U.S. has been quite correct in exercising restraint. I think that Netanyahu and the Israeli government, even if they were to go that way, would make a big mistake. My advice is to continue discussion and I think most of the world would want to. A military venture would be very very costly.
One argument that the Iranian bomb may get into the wrong hands i.e. Jihadists and extremists. Than if that is the case, than Pakistan is even more dangerous than Iran and one is not hearing anything about that."
Israel/Palestine Issue
"It's been very dormant in the last couple of years. What is worrying is that I noticed my friend Jimmy Carter three days ago saying he is getting worried about the viability of the two-state solution and heading towards a one-state solution, which he believes would be a disaster for Israel. But I had Amr Moussa who was the former Secretary General of The Arab League tell me three weeks ago, that he believes that one should focus on a one-state solution. There is no process. I don't know what will happen after the elections but without a process you cannot expect to make progress.
The Palestinian issue has an impact way beyond their borders, way beyond the theatre of conflict. It's also sometimes exploited by politicians and people to do what they want to do. And the same people, when they have a chance to do something for the Palestinian issue, they don't do it. So you have this hypocrisy. It is a problem and it cannot be solved without a real push from the U.S.
I was a member of The Quartet. When it was created, I genuinely thought at the time, if we have a roundtable with the Russian Federation, The UN, U.S. and EU working together and coming up with a roadmap that will lead to a two-state solution, the parties would engage and we would put collective pressure on the side that failed to do it. The road map was never implemented and was conditioned to death. The U.S. was not always ready to put its weight [behind it]. Yes there are four in The Quartet but the U.S. is the most influential.
It's the only country that Israelis really listen to. I teased Putin that 'You should have influence, lots of your citizens have emigrated to Israel', he said 'Yes my friend, but for some strange reason once they get to Israel their politics tend to go the right.'"
A Romney win
"There will be a period of adjustment for the Americans and for the world. I don't know which Romney will emerge. When we look back at the days of George Bush and Iraq there was tension between the U.S. and the rest of the world. That dissipated when Obama came. If you have a change, depending on the policies of Romney, you would either see those tensions rising or continue to thaw. My own view is that despite what he says on the campaign trail, if he does win, the responsibility will sober him up.
You don't know responsibility until you have tasted it. With the American public that is just coming through two wars, they're not going to be in a hurry to get into another one. The American public has learned to not give a president a free hand, declaring wars without even putting a budget on it. The congress didn't do their work. The President [George W. Bush] didn't do his work. Everybody was cheerleading and woke up much later. The American people won't sit back and let it happen [again]."
The world of instant information
"With the Libyan situation, in the old days we would have had six months of back and forth to decide how to handle it and what to share with the public. Now the public knows immediately and you get a cable. There is this impatience and wanting instant results, making it extremely difficult for leaders. In the [U.S. Presidential] debate the question of horses and bayonets came up. There were days where everything came by boat and you had time to reflect and think."
Media coverage of conflicts
"When media poses an issue and stays on the story, often the politicians [will then] act and it moves up the political agenda. I think media has been positive in certain situations where they have focused so much attention on an issue. One example is Somalia 20 years ago, when Senior President Bush sent in thousands of U.S. troops to help feed the people. The problem that was that food has been flown in by UN World Food Program but the rebels kept it in the warehouses and sometimes stole and sold it to neighbouring countries.
With the press' attention [Bush] agreed to send in the forces and it made a difference. Also to a certain extent, the press has been very effective in Bosnia and Kosovo. [And] we have seen how press has been effective in natural disasters with the Tsunami."
China -- Business & Human Rights
"Chinese are a big player in Africa today. They are focusing a lot on infrastructure and getting into other areas, having invested $5 billion in a bank in South Africa. I tell Africa that it has to be mutually beneficial. I tell the Chinese this also, I go beyond that, if they make agreements which are unfair then it will not stand the test of time. The point about human rights and good governance is something the Africans themselves have to do.
I have leaders tell me that 'I like doing business with the Chinese because they come, they discuss, they give you the cheque and they don't lecture you on governance and human rights.' I say 'You should do it in a way so nobody will lecture you and you get it right.' I think the pressure of building a civil society will keep these leaders on their toes. We need to have rule of law, governance and respect human rights but we need to set the frame for it. The Chinese won't do it for us."
Special thanks to Leah Costello and Rev. Bill Dost. ]]>The Not-So-Foreign Policy Debatetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20041562012-10-23T07:11:23-04:002012-12-23T05:12:01-05:00Hina P. Ansarihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hina-p-ansari/
Oh, and it was supposed to be about Foreign Policy. Right? Well it kind of was. Kind of.
With two weeks to go to Election Day, and in case you were wondering if there are still undecided voters out there (yes, there are...really people?) both candidates knew that their endgame greatly hinged on this final debate. It's the final primetime showdown before the ballot is cast. And thanks largely to Obama's cardboard cutout performance at the first debate, the race is now in a dead heat.
First I was curious how quickly certain points would be brought up -- key vote-getting words.
So this is how it all started, all within the first 30 minutes of the 90 minute performance, I mean, debate:
9:01: Libya introduced as first question.
9:07: Obama's mention of Osama bin Laden.
9:15: Obama delivers "Israel is our true friend and our greatest ally of the region" line.
9:16: Question about Syria enters debate.
9:20: Gaddafi mentioned by Obama
9:24: Israel mentioned by Obama
9:31 Israel mentioned again by Obama. *Israel was mentioned a total of 34 times that night.*
There were various forms of Mitt who showed up last night as well. His contradictory notes from just last night's debate, at least it kept the next hour of the debate pretty interesting snapping me out of the snooze-fest haze of the first 30 minutes.
Mitt On Osama bin Laden:
"I congratulate [Obama] on taking out Osama bin Laden and taking on the leadership of al-Qaeda. But we can't kill our way out of this mess... We must have a comprehensive strategy."
Mitt On Battling Extremists:
"Well, my strategy is pretty straightforward, which is to go after the bad guys, to make sure we do our very best to interrupt them, to -- to kill them, to take them out of the picture."
Be Nice To Your Teacher, It's a Matter of National Security:
The strangest thing happened. Just as Obama was listing his laundry list of foreign policy achievements, challenges and his systematic familiarity with that facet of the presidency, Romney basically redefined foreign policy by veering into his talking points about strengthening small businesses, professing his love for teachers and Obamacare. Yes that's right.
According to Romney, American grade school teachers are part of American foreign policy. Confused? Wait, there's more: Ohio voters were clearly courted as well, taking Romney's lead (one of the very few as Romney basically agreed with most of Obama's points that night) the President followed suit to ensure his points/rebuttals also got airtime and voters' ears, turning that portion into Debate #1 Redux with endless regurgitation of success/failures in employment rates, love of teachers, job prospects for veterans and the such.
Schieffer kept trying to bring the debate back to the theme of the evening (foreign policy, remember?) even noting that everything that was being said in front of him, was all said before (score 1 to Bob).
Zingers
Then there were the hilarious zingers. And lots of them. Mostly from Obama and a few failed hits from Romney. But I have to give serious props to the President's crack debate team because it was -- as they say -- "Gold, Jerry! Gold!"
First there was the mention of horses and bayonets by Obama (and you thought Romney's mention of Big Bird in the first debate was random), when he responded to Romney's concern about the current state of the nation's military. Snarkiness ensued and a peppier Commander-in-Chief delivered this gem: "I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the Navy, for example, that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military has changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them."
Whoa. Snap.
Obama wasn't done. He then went all WWE on Romney with respect to his foreign policy plans (yes it FINALLY went back to whole point of the debate) with this gem: "The 1980s called, they want their foreign policy back. The Cold War's been over for 20 years." (You can hear Obama dropping the mic a la Chris Rock.)
Dictators? Not In Mitt's America:
Apparently to Mitt, America hasn't really had a history of propping up or courting dictators. So The Shah of Iran, Mubarak, Gaddafi don't count I guess.
Mitt's Counterfeit Education:
I'm glad I watch these debates because it's an educational tool for me. Did you know that China makes counterfeit stuff? Have to thank Mitt for that 411.
And my favorite Mitt:
Mahatma Mitt:
The most obvious move to the centre was Mitt's insistence that he was about peace and not a war hawk for his nation, which he noted, was the "Hope of the Earth." But wait a second, he also views in this order: Russia, Iran, Libya, Syria and Pakistan as troubling terrorist infused hotspots. I'll leave this for you to figure out.
Oh and Benghazi? India? Guantanamo Bay? Not mentioned once. Maybe they were forgotten in a binder backstage.
]]>Lorraine, was it? Highlights from The Presidential Town Hall Debatetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19724962012-10-17T07:59:44-04:002012-12-17T05:12:02-05:00Hina P. Ansarihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hina-p-ansari/perform) was on the minds, lips and fingertips of everyone who cared. And that included me.
Just like the last debate the lead-in to the main event is a slick buildup when it comes to television productions. Dazzling graphics, side-by-side analytics, instant "scientific" polls of every possible breakdown among other mind-numbing talking points.
Of course now we know that in the first debate Obama famously fizzled. The follow-up was the Vice Presidential debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan where Biden basically stepped in and stepped up hitting home run after home run, all strategically designed to rally the base and tell them to still believe.
Last night Obama needed to win. There really was no other option. The second debate as part of American Presidential debate tradition, is usually in the format of a Town Hall, where the auditorium, this time at Long Island's Hoftra University, is filled with a select number of undecided voters from New York as well as your regular debate enthusiasts.
Keeping in mind how polarizing these two candidates already are in terms of ideology, what they can offer, their ratio of promises to delivery, all among the backdrop of the economy it is (well it is to me) kind of hard to figure out that there are people who still don't know who to vote for with just three weeks to go.
POST CONTINUES BELOW PHOTOS
SNL brilliantly tackles that election season phenomenon with a mock commercial featuring a group of undecided voters with less than admired intelligence pleading with the candidates that they still have unanswered questions (hard hitting ones like "When is the election?" and "Who is running...and be specific"), such game changing issues that they feel still needed to be addressed.
This debate did come across as a prizefight, with CNN's Candy Crowley doing double duty moderating/refereeing (interestingly it's the first time in 20 years that a woman has moderated a presidential debate) and fielding questions from the pool of The Undecided.
Obama was so on (and then some) that you could feel Bill Maher's elation when he tweeted about the return of the "Black Ninja." Then it got seriously real when the issue of energy and drilling companies motivated both to pretty much get into each other's grills creating one of many unexpected and unforgettable moments.
Moments such as...
Lorraine, is it?
You know who I'm talking about. An uncommitted voter, who on cue had her prepared question about illegal immigration poised for Romney. He, as any gentleman would and should, wanted to ensure that he pronounced her name right so he did, signalling her to correct him. Then it was Obama's turn. He also wanted to make sure that he called her by the right name. The catch is that her name was Lorraine. Not some terribly hard silent letter dwelling moniker. The fact that both men kept questioning her to make sure they have her name right sparked 109,560 tweets. I mean really. It's Lorraine. Not that hard.
Yours is bigger than mine.
One of many Romney's failed opportunities, which basically imploded right there in front of Candy and the crowd was the talk about China vs. the U.S. Economy. Obama made note of the fact that some of Romney's investments were in companies in China leading Romney to attempt to spike the ball by asking Obama repeatedly if he has in fact checked his own pension. The spike was volleyed by Obama instead. This is how it pretty much went down:
Romney: "Mr. President, have you looked at your pension? Your pension? Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?"
Obama: "It's not as big as yours, so it doesn't take as long."
Classic.
Canada makes (another) cameo.
During one of his caucus victory speeches earlier this year, among the many action items that Romney listed, one was getting the Keystone Pipeline back on the table to get the oil that they "are entitled to." Nice, huh? Well the Keystone Pipeline once again makes a comeback as well as reference to our tax plan and of course the universal healthcare spirited Obamacare. Naturally I want to do the traditional Canadian "Hey! We Get A Mention" cheer, but please stop. No seriously. Stop.
There's a binder full of women .
Among the less than enlightening questions asked that night, one of the best (and by 'best' I mean smartest by a longshot) was by a young woman who wanted to find out more about getting equal pay for women in the workforce. Yeah that's right. I can't believe that this is still an issue in 2013 and that I'm happy that someone actually brought it up.
Obama goes right into it with the mention of his Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that he passed where women can challenge pay discrimination. Romney not sure what question he heard confidently provided heartfelt examples during his various posts where he wanted to hire women in his various executive roles.
During this particular search "binders full of women" were presented to him. Well guess what? "Binders Full of Women" is now a tumblr page. And sparked a mini-meme in the twitterverse.
Obama was not having any of it.
It was clear from the minute he left his corner and entered the ring, Obama was set to undo the litany of wrongs he did from his first performance. He came out swinging, cutting down each point that he could when presented with the opportunity. Sure, it could easily be seen as him overcompensating for what he should have done the first time around, but whatever, it made for great television. And it can't be ignored that him coming across as an 'angry black man' could have caused him to be restrained in the past. But now the gloves are off.
Case in point: Libya. Leading up to it, Obama enthusiastically interjected, where needed, to set various records straight. He was jovial to a certain extent, but mainly cordial and composed. Then Romney made a Superbowl-sized blunder, with his insinuation that Obama has been politicizing the Libya attack in Benghazi where it lead to the death of the U.S. Ambassador. That's where I swear I thought I saw red lasers coming out of his Obama's eyes as he pretty much schooled Romney six ways from Sunday. All this while I swear I heard the resounding thud from foreheads being slapped at the Romney/Ryan Campaign Headquarters at the sight of such a lost opportunity by their candidate.
Time Check.
What one may forget is that both candidates and their parties agree to the rules of the debate prior to signing on. Sometimes it's an arduous process: a tug of war to ensure that it's a level playing field but also filled with ulterior motives to see if it may bring their candidate an unseen advantage. So when Romney kept and kept and kept on trying to sneak in an answer that may be past his allotted talking time scheduled for that particular segment, it comes across as quite stubborn, disrespectful and arrogant. And judging by my twitter feed it didn't go unnoticed.
The Questions.
One of the most glaring trends was the quality of questions. The best one was the last one where it went all Phil Donohue/Oprah-esque asking both candidates misconceptions they may want to clear up about themselves. Yes. Exactly. I don't know but I don't think I've ever seen a presidential election be so touchy-feely. If it's another poorly concealed ploy to attract the female voter, it's a pretty sappy one at that. Man up please. The Metrosexual trend is so 2006.
Pink Ladies.
Finally, I can't end this observation without the biggest observation of the night (according to my fellow fashionistas and image managers), the obvious twinsies situation that occurred tenfold. The better halves were dressed in the exact same shade of Pepto-Bismol hue of pink which, when you take into the account how carefully structured and managed each person's image is during this particular Presidental race, you can't help but be dumbfounded by this unforgettable fashion blunder. It's the same hue, same intensity of shade and a very similar silhouette to boot. I'm sure that Ann and Michelle probably had a few choice words for their staff (as would I).]]>The Triple Negative Breast Cancer Struggletag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19530422012-10-11T08:48:22-04:002012-12-11T05:12:01-05:00Hina P. Ansarihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hina-p-ansari/
I remember David from when I interviewed him last year about The Scar Project, his critically-acclaimed series of stunning photographs all intended to raise awareness about breast cancer affecting young women.
This latest collection of photographs document the journey of four women from Birmingham, Alabama -- both their struggles with breast cancer and the related plights that often accompany such a diagnosis: daunting healthcare concerns with limited or no insurance coverage, ballooning medical costs, and treatments that challenge a woman's physical and emotional well-being.
An added key factor is that the women pictured in these photos have received a diagnosis of "triple negative," a strain of breast cancer which African American women are two times more likely to get.
I wasn't familiar with the plight of breast cancer among African American women. Doing a quick search of the facts frightened me. According to the Centre of Disease Control (CDC), in 2010 breast cancer was the leading cause of cancer death for African American women between the ages of 45 and 64.
Breast cancer mortality is 60 per cent higher for African American women ages 45-64 than for white women, even though African American women are less likely than white women to be diagnosed with the disease.
Breast cancer often appears in African American women at a younger age and at more advanced stages. The higher incidence of triple negative breast cancer among the population is also problematic, since it is a lesser understood form of the disease which is believed to grow more aggressively than other forms of breast cancer and can be more complicated to treat.
Fortunately all of these women benefited from early cancer detection, thereby putting them on the necessary path towards appropriate treatment. Throughout their journeys, however, each encountered unique challenges of her own. For some the greatest hurdle was health care costs, insurance coverage complications, strain on family relationships, and mounting debt, while others who were covered by their own insurance when diagnosed or able to take advantage of Obamacare while undergoing treatment faced other battles along the way.
Enter Cynthia Ryan: a spirited journalist and breast cancer survivor living in Alabama who David introduced me to. She was also doing her part to collectively raise the awareness of these women's stories by conducting a series of extensive interviews with each subject. I instantly jumped on board to work with Cynthia and David to ensure that their voices would be told in this platform.
During this heated presidential campaign, when numbers, graphs and double talk muddle the air, it's more important than ever to peel back the thick layers of jargon, political spin and heightened promises, and reveal heartfelt stories directly from those affected.
So here we present to you the experiences of four African American women, all of whom are suffering from triple negative breast cancer. These are real photographs. These are real struggles.
Regardless of their political standings, it's painfully clear that these four women of Birmingham have a much bigger fight on their hands.
Please hear the stories from Brittney, Raquel, Whitni and Melanie, who bravely tell their stories to Cynthia, with photographs by David Jay. These photos capturing glimpses of breast cancer survivors' lives in Birmingham are part of Jay's The Scar Project: www.thescarproject.org
BRITTNEY BASS
Background Info
Age: 25
Age at Diagnosis: 24
Relationship Status: Married to Brandon Gray on April 18, 2012
Place of Residence: Birmingham, AL
Originally from Ensley, AL (parents still live there)
Career: Braids hair as a hair dresser
Diagnosis: Stage I Triple Negative Breast Cancer
During her diagnosis and treatment, Brittney was enrolled at Birmingham Southern College and then at the University of Alabama Birmingham (UAB), majoring in psychology and minoring in math. Obamacare enabled Brittney to receive the best possible care. She was struggling to stay in college to maintain her student health insurance since she was prepared to be kicked off her dad's health insurance plan at the age of 24. Fortunately, Obamacare extended coverage on her dad's policy until she turns 26.
Her Story
"I remember that whole day. I was doing hair for this lady's two daughters ages 5 and 7. It was their first time getting braids and it was taking a long time. I'm getting them to sing and making sure they have snacks so they won't cry," Brittney says, thinking back to the day she learned the results of a needle biopsy of a breast lump conducted just 48 hours earlier. "In the middle of all this, my phone rings and it's the doctor," she continues. "When you get a phone call from the doctor and it's after 5:00, you know it's something serious."
The doctor didn't mince words: Brittney's biopsy had come back positive for breast cancer, a rare and aggressive form called triple negative.
Somehow, Brittney held it together, just as she had during other trying times in her life: in 2005 in New Orleans as a student at Loyola University when Hurricane Katrina hit, and in April 2011 when her apartment in Fultondale, Alabama was condemned after tornados hit the state.
This time around, the challenge was to get the treatment she needed. Brittney found herself working to pay bills and worrying about what would happen if she couldn't stay in school and lost her student health insurance. At 24, she was past the age to be covered on her parents' health insurance policy. Fortunately, Brittney's dad, retired from the military, was able to add Brittney back on his health insurance plan thanks to The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, allowing children to remain on their parents' policies until age 26.
RAQUEL SMITH
Background Info
Age: 29
Age at Diagnosis: 27
Parental Status: Mother of two children: Daughter, Rose, age 3; son, Robert, born Jan. 30, 2012
Place of Residence: Birmingham, AL
Career: Prior to diagnosis, Raquel worked at Enterprise Car Rental; currently unemployed and still undergoing physical therapy for a frozen shoulder
Diagnosis: Stage IIB Triple Negative Breast Cancer
Raquel was covered by health insurance off and on during her treatment for breast cancer. The biggest issue for her was complications from a pregnancy following her extensive cancer treatments and being forced to take a more difficult medical route since insurance wouldn't cover the more expensive, less painful alternative.
Her Story
From the moment she discovered she had breast cancer, Raquel Smith focused on doing anything she had to do to live a long life.
"I told the doctor, 'I have a little girl, and I need to be here for her,'" Raquel says.
While caring for her then one-year-old daughter, Rose, Raquel consented to the most aggressive treatment available for triple negative breast cancer: a double mastectomy, maximum chemotherapy, maximum radiation.
An unexpected pregnancy interrupted Raquel's treatment, and she struggled with blood clots and low platelets throughout. "By then," she says, "I'd lost my insurance -- I'd been kicked off and wasn't able to get it back because of a pre-existing condition. I ended up having to give myself six shots a day of a lower-cost drug instead of another option with fewer shots administered by the doctor because Medicaid wouldn't pay for it."
"I wasn't working by then, either, and my work insurance had dropped me," Raquel adds.
Her children, Rose, now 3, and Rob, 8 and 1/2 months, keep Raquel moving forward. They reveal "a generation of my life," she says.
WHITNI COLLINS
Background Info
Age: 26
Age of Diagnosis: 24
Relationship Status: Single
Place of Residence: Birmingham, AL
Career: Works as a Respiratory Therapist at Trinity Medical Center. She received her Bachelor of Science degree from UAB in 2010 and was enrolled in a nursing certificate program at Jefferson State University when diagnosed, but she's had to halt her studies there since her cancer diagnosis.
Diagnosis: Stage II Triple Negative Breast Cancer
Whitni hasn't been able to maintain a full-time schedule at work, due to the combination of illness/medical appointments as well as budget cuts at the hospital. Her having to deal with breast cancer without health insurance combined with her inability to work has resulted in her getting far behind on rent, etc. Cynthia has connected her to a representative from a local women's shelter as well as a lawyer who offered to help her stay in her apartment. Whitni has moved in with a friend for the time being.
Her Story
Whitni Collins has experienced turbulence on many fronts.
Whereas many young women diagnosed with breast cancer prioritize aggressive medical treatment in as timely a manner as possible, Whitni struggled with contradictory advice offered by her oncologist, a specialist in triple negative disease, and her mother, whose Seventh Day Adventist beliefs oppose current medical guidelines. The disagreements resulted in delays between diagnosis and chemotherapy, a decision not to complete all scheduled treatments, and less aggressive surgery than recommended for Whitni's diagnosis. "It's been hard," Whitni admits. "The back and forth really strained my relationship with my mom, and it's still not like it was."
Intensifying the conflicts is Whitni's belief that both her medical team and her mom have her best interests at heart. "My mom spent so much time with me that she ended up losing her job," Whitni says.
And Whitni's own financial stability was also challenged throughout the experience. Medical appointments and side effects from treatments alongside budget cuts at the medical center where she works as a Respiratory Therapist meant a cut in hours. Eventually, she fell behind on health insurance payments and was dropped from her policy. "When I tried to get my policy reinstated," Whitni says, "they had jacked up the price of my premium and told me they wouldn't cover anything related to breast cancer since it was a pre-existing condition."
Recently, Whitni was forced out of her apartment after falling behind on several months' rent.
MELANIE HOSKINS
Background Info
Age: 30
Age of Diagnosis: 29
Relationship Status: Married to Darrius Hoskins for four years
Place of Residence: Birmingham, AL
Career: Works in MRI/Radiology at UAB
Diagnosis: Stage II Triple Negative Breast Cancer
Melanie's work insurance covered her many of her treatment costs for breast cancer. In anticipation of potentially losing her fertility as a result of chemotherapy, Melanie sought help from a fertility specialist, but costs were extreme even with financial assistance from the organization "Fertile Hope."
Her Story
Melanie Hoskins had the health care insurance coverage she needed to undergo treatment for the triple negative breast cancer she was diagnosed with at age 30. Even with insurance, though, she had to cover some steep co-pays throughout, especially for the Neupogen injections she needed to help increase her white blood count during chemo.
She was also unprepared to handle the cost of fertility treatments that she underwent in anticipation of chemotherapy and the possibility of infertility that is a common side effect. "The infertility specialist told us [Melanie and her husband, Darrius] that we could get assistance from an organization called Fertile Hope," Melanie says, "but we would still have to come up with $5,000-6,000. Plus, we had to act fast since I needed to start treating the cancer. We're thinking, 'How are we gonna do this?'"
Though family members and friends offered to pitch in to help pay for medical expenses, Melanie and Darrius took a more creative route to raising the money. "We designed bracelets and started selling them," Melanie explains. "Then, we designed some t-shirts for our Race for the Cure team, and other people started wanting to buy them."
"We were lucky that we found a way to afford everything," Melanie says. "We're ready to move forward and start a family in the next year or so."
(Thank you Cynthia and David for sharing this story. Thank you Brittney, Raquel, Whitni and Melanie for sharing your struggles.)
Cynthia Ryan blogs at http://cancerhitsthestreets.wordpress.com/.]]>Twitter Was the Best Part of this Debatetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19379352012-10-04T10:53:52-04:002012-12-04T05:12:01-05:00Hina P. Ansarihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hina-p-ansari/the first debate is in the books. And I'm using the term "debate" rather loosely here.
What the hell happened? This evening sorely needed...
1. A classic "Imma let you finish" interruption a la Kanye West.
Election season brings forth probably the best reality television there is for me. The two conventions, followed by months of talking heads and politicos strategically downplaying their respective candidates upcoming performance at the all important pace-setting first debate.
That was the battle scar test. Which guy will suck more when the camera's red lights come on and the stage is set. Lower the expectations so when they are exceeded it can be seen as a major win.
Sure, I'd buy that if a debate actually happened. But it didn't. Right from the start each one was over talking past their allotted time, one was avoiding eye contact (not cool, Obama), and the other was well, throwing out his well-memorized zingers (not bad, Mitt) all the while the moderator looked like he decided to throw in the towel and go on strike.
But thankfully, Twitter kept it highly entertaining because if it weren't for Twitter I, along with Jim, would have nodded off 10 minutes in. Here are my favourites:
On Obama's late play of his Abraham Lincoln card:
David Mathieson @mathiematician
Abraham Lincoln was a socialist? How have history books missed this? #debates
Rudy Aguirre @Roddy2009
When things get tough u bring up a dead president #debates #presidentialdebates
On Big Bird:
Big Bird @FiredBigBird
Mitt Romney will end Burt and Ernie's right to a civil union
Big Bird @FiredBigBird
We made the @HuffingtonPost AWESOME!
No mention of women's issues:
Melissa Campbell @pluralisms
Obama wishing Michelle happy anniversary was real cute but I wish it wasn't the only time a woman was mentioned in this debate.
The moderating...or lack thereof:
Catherine Gunnells @cathmiriam
Jim? Jim Lehrer? Bueller? Buellerrrrr? #debates
Matt Kretman @mattkretman
Jim Lehrer is to this debate as replacement refs were to the NFL #debates
Scott ® Crawford @scottRcrawford
Next debate, let's get @rickygervais as moderator. #debates
Bring back Clint and the empty chair:
#WISEN Watch @WISENWatch
Clint Eastwood's empty chair doesn't seem so silly now, does it? #debates
Obama's lack of...well, being there:
Bill Maher @billmaher
i can't believe i'm saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter
Bill Maher @billmaher
i must say, of all the Romneys i've seen, this Debate Romney is my favorite
So basically the evening wasn't a debate but an evening filled with a series of short speeches. Obama looked like he didn't want to be there. Romney looked like he really wanted the job. No mention of the 47 per cent. No mention of women's rights. No mention of immigration. No Baine Capital. No Cayman Islands. No nothing. But one thing is clear: The President is a pretty bad explainer.
But there was Big Bird and Obama's airplane. So all is not lost. Right?]]>If People View Muslims As Intolerant, That's Our Faulttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18827482012-09-14T12:33:57-04:002012-11-14T05:12:01-05:00Hina P. Ansarihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hina-p-ansari/
Yes I'm talking to you fellow Muslim activists and protesters. And yes I'm talking to you too, Muslim rioters and thugs.
The film, Innocence of Muslims, has recently been thrust into the spotlight clearly without any merit whatsoever, has played the willing role of firestarter to what can be seen as a tinderbox which harbours the sensitive feelings of my Muslim brothers and sisters.
I shake my head because this is exactly what the filmmaker Nakoula/Bacile (who, as recently reported, has a total of 17 different aliases) wanted.
So I am pleading with you to please stop taking the bait!
Innocence of Muslims, formerly known as Innocence of Bin Laden and once again formerly know as Desert Warrior clearly is a flimsily filmed hate propaganda packaged as a D-level film. The creator's intensity of hate is evidenced by the obvious strategic dubbing of Islamic references in his pitiful post production work, to really drive his anti-Islamic point home. The production value doesn't even amount to $100 worth, let alone the whopping $5-million tag which was initially stated by the filmmaker.
The same filmmaker, who is now discovered to be a convicted fraudster, financial scammer and a meth maker is probably laughing at all of us from his hiding place.
I saw the trailer and yes it's horrible. It's absolutely gut wrenching and 100 per cent offensive. But you don't see me running to the nearest embassy with a Molotov cocktail and tearing up a flag now do you?
Why you ask? Because a) I have more important things to do and b) I believe in not giving any weight or volume to something that is that overtly offensive. It's one thing to find offense in an obscure matter where it lends itself to an enlightening and adult discussion to explain why we are offended. But it's another thing entirely when the offensive material is so blatant and so poorly executed, that even a five-year-old will understand that it's just not worthy of any thought or discussion because it's just, well, so childish.
Sure, that's my version of turning the other cheek. When something really idiotic or offensive enters my space, I just ignore it and move on. I try to be the bigger person. Pick my battles. And honestly I just don't have the time nor the energy to dedicate to such nonsense.
So my fellow Muslims, I beg of you to get a grip. In this day and age where pretty much any one who can grab a camera, paint a wall green (the home made version of a Green Screen which was done for this vulgarity) and dole out cash for starving actors, can make a movie.
Then they upload it on YouTube and collect a few endorsements by like-minded people. If the blocks are put in the right place, it goes viral, hopefully catching the attention of key media outlets who then talk about it some more, which then gets them more press, more hits, more tweets, more forwards and they become a media sensation. Whether you or anyone else like it or not.
So here we have this Bacile character, this low rent Cecil B. DeMille wannabe (apologies to Mr. DeMille for this reference), who hopes that the aim of his film is to really show the world how crazy us Muslims are.
And cue the riots.
You, my dear Muslim brothers and sisters fell for it. Now, as I breathlessly try to explain to others that this group of rioters in the far away lands aren't like "us," I can't help but feel that the same people who had our backs in the past are now starting to view us with a little bit more skepticism. Sure I may be paranoid but you know what? At this point I have no idea what to think.
You have played right into the hands of this hate-monger and into the hands of his bigoted friends who view Muslims as "crazy," "intolerant," "violent" all in the same breath. And thanks to you we have handed them another high profile example. On a big fat shiny platter.
Bacile is probably sitting back in his armchair, twirling his evil madman mustache (assuming he has one) and roaring his evil mastermind laugh.
And he should, because his plan worked perfectly.
One last thing:
When The Book of Mormon became an award-winning Broadway musical you didn't see throngs of armed and offended Mormons flooding the Great White Way in protest, tearing up theatre programs and setting the billboards on fire. When South Park skewers their laundry list of religions including Christianity, Judaism and, yes, even Scientology, you don't see effigies of Trey Parker burning now do you?
My point exactly.
So can we all just stop being wusses now? It's time to toughen up, thicken the skin and most importantly stop taking the bait. Enough already.]]>Doug Saunders on His New Book, George Bush and Multiculturalismtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18587132012-09-06T12:11:06-04:002012-11-06T05:12:01-05:00Hina P. Ansarihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hina-p-ansari/The Myth of the Muslim Tide: Do Immigrants Threaten The West? (Random House Canada) tackles (and pretty much straightens out) the laundry-list of misconceptions and falsehoods that has made its way from the fringe to the forefront of the public domain about Muslim immigration and the West. During this in-depth conversation, Saunders shares with me surprising stats, the international scope of the Muslim Tide rhetoric and how George W. Bush was key in stifling the growing anti-Muslim & anti-immigration rhetoric within his own party.
The beginning of The Muslim Tide:
Doug Saunders: As the bureau chief for The Globe and Mail from 2004 onwards, I was thrown into the centre of a very heated situation involving immigrant neighbourhoods populated with Turks and Moroccans in Europe. [These communities] had become the centre of many controversies after September 11.
My first book Arrival City was an analysis at how integration either worked or failed based on functioning of neighbourhoods. I noticed what was happening and what was being said as these neighbourhoods were being turned into examples for a whole host of best-selling books in Germany and in The Netherlands, U.K., U.S. and Canada.
Neighbourhoods in Belgium, The Netherlands, in Norway and in Berlin were described as threats to our civilization, to our values of tolerance and equality and so on. And you can find people in those neighbourhoods who held values that were contradictory to what I call "Universal Western Values."
That became a bit of an investigation to see what was happening. The first thing I started looking at was population trends as one of the more alarming things that were being said was that Muslims, unlike other religious minorities, were reproducing at a greater rate and were poised to become a majority in some European country or some European city.
That was one of the easier things to find the truth on because there has been a great understanding in population growth rates in recent years.
The Concept of 'The Muslim':
DS: I redefine the concept "The Muslim," in this book. I say 'lets put aside the fact that we are talking about 20 different cultures and 50 different languages and several different races and also a dozen different practices and traditions of Islam' which are quite varied in practices and interpretations as Christians and Judaism are.
Around last summer around the time of Anders Breivik's massacre [in Norway] I realized that in those columns I've written, some of these facts needed bolstering. Breivik had killed 77 people based on a set of ideas that were floating out there in the popular imagination that were the subject of all sorts of things in the media and books and so on.
I knew that several of those ideas were demonstrably false, beside the point or needed to be seen in the context of religious minorities coming into the west. I approached the publisher saying that there should be a book listing all the facts but also telling the tale of what happens when religious minorities from different cultures who are often seen as different civilizations immigrate to the west.
Fear of Islam vs. Fear of 'The Muslim':
DS: It was a book I wanted to write in less than a year, between August and February. And I also wanted to have it be very solid and irrefutable. It was very important to me not to make it a debunking book in the usual sense. I wanted to include information that contradicts the main hypothesis of the book. I did not want to pretend and say that Muslims are integrating with beautiful efficiency. I did not want to claim that Islam is a religion of peace. I didn't use the word Islamophobia anywhere in this book. I don't have a problem with someone being afraid of Islam or of any other religion. If you believe in it, it's peaceful, if you don't believe in it, it's a threat. I know too many secular Muslims from Iran, who regard Islam as a threat.
The fear of Muslims is a whole different matter. That is where we need to separate that. A lot of literature, which is supposed to be about Islamic extremism, segue very quickly into suggesting that your every day Muslim is party to these things. You get authors such as Mark Steyn and Bruce Bawer who say there is no such thing as a moderate or secular Muslim, that even a moderate [Muslim} is part of a chain of belief that is connected to extremism.
There are two ways you can go about examining that claim. One way is theologically by looking at the Quran, [noting] what the Imams are saying and examining what the teachings are. I don't think that's a useful way of doing it. Religion's manifestation in the world is not by a set of scriptures or teachings but by a set of actions in the world. If you take Catholic doctrines literally as a description of what Catholics are they would all have nine children as birth control is illegal and they would be a very conservative group. If you look at the average at what Catholics do, they have the lowest birth rates in the world if you take a look at the numbers in Poland, Italy and other Catholic countries, and they pick and choose various beliefs. "Catholic" is more a badge of identity, and of pride and mutual connection to a common home of beliefs.
Deja Vu: Catholic Tide of the 50s:
DS: Phrases [to describe Catholic immigrants] were used like "this is not so much a religious faith but an ideology of conquest." It was denounced by The New York Times and by congressional leaders. As much as it's said about Muslims [today], there is a solid block of people who could say it and not really get questioned too much.
One thing people always throw back is that Muslims are coming from a different civilization. Catholic and Eastern European Jews are coming from Europe and Muslims are coming from the "East." And if you look at the history behind this, you'll find that Ashkenazi Jews from Poland or the Catholics from Italy were coming from a much more alien civilization than somebody from Tehran or Karachi or Cairo is today. Because at that time what I call the values of enlightenment and values of secularism and equality hadn't really penetrated the fringes of Europe. They were living life and were very conservative and guided by a total religious faith. When things happened, God did them.
Most Muslims from those countries have much more in common with North America and Europe now than the fringes of Europe did a hundred years ago. Generally speaking, your average person from Iran or Pakistan is going to subscribe to the notion of the state being somewhat a separate entity from religious life. One of the speed bumps is an acceptance in those values for sure.
Multiculturalism vs. 'The Muslim':
DS: I started off this book without questioning the concept of multiculturalism. I, frankly, as a native born Canadian, didn't find it problematic at all. It was more about different food being available on the street. But that's not multiculturalism that's pluralism.
Multiculturalism is a concept that we have not questioned properly.
When I started talking to people from immigrant families, a surprising number of people whose parents are from the Indian subcontinent or from the Middle East didn't like the idea of multiculturalism. I noticed in England that there is an ethnic anti-multiculturalism [movement] from the Left. There are people from immigrant backgrounds who aren't conservative who think multiculturalism is a bad idea because that often meant that their community was organized by the government giving money to the Mosque to organize their neighbourhood. Therefore their community got defined by that Mosque. I think there are well-intentioned -- although not well thought out multiculturalism policies in the west that help promote this idea of "The Muslim."
A lot of second-generation young people embraced "The Muslim" because it was a badge of identity that worked for them. I was going to York University in the late '80s and early '90s and my friends were daughters of liberal people who came from places like Lebanon and Pakistan and their mothers would not have worn a hijab. But they did. It became the thing to do. Oddly a lot of them at the same time were embracing feminism and these two things didn't seem contradictory. In England, Bangladeshi Muslim women in London, were more independent and educated and embraced feminism and adopted the hijab. So it's a lot more complicated than just a group of people grasping for an identity.
I don't think we can say that a rise in people calling themselves Muslim than calling themselves "Pakistani-Canadians" means that religious extremism is taking over. I don't think that people praying five times a day are necessary a threat.
Devotion vs. Extremism:
DS: I was surprised to find how little connection there was between religious devotion and extremism. I'll confess that it confronted some of my own prejudices. I used to think that very religious people as being extreme. I'm not religious and I know that very religious people tend to be conservative. It seemed natural that therefore people committing violence in the name of religion were religious.
I was doing a story on the Finsbury Park Mosque, which was near my house in London and one of the ways they got the Al Qaeda supporters -- Abu Hamza and the gang -- out of the Mosque was by the police working with the Salafists in the neighbourhood. The Salafists were the most aggressive in getting the Al Qaeda supporters out. They didn't like the association. It was controversial. Even though it succeeded, Prime Minister David Cameron shut down that police operation because it involved having Salafists and Islamists work for the police force. But whatever the merits of that operation was, it made me realize that there is a disconnect there. There is a huge body of police work that kept coming to the same conclusion that the most religious people aren't extremists and extremists are often very unreligious.
I've been to various trials of sleeper cells even before September 11. I was at the trial in Los Angeles for the Y2K bomber from Montreal, Ahmed Rassam who is not a religious guy at all. Every terrorist cell trial I've been to, it was these are guys that liked prostitutes and booze. Not at all religious.
It's their personal/political beliefs, their alienation in society, their desire to be a big man or a belief that western troops in the Land of Islam was an insult to them. They would adopt the religious ideas after that. It was never people who were from a tight knit community either; it was always the loners who lived on the outside.
U.S. Conservative Lobby vs. George W. Bush:
DS: The average Muslim in the United States is completely different than the group of Muslims in Europe. Muslims in Europe are Moroccans from the Reef regions of the North, which is very poor and isolated. Or they are Turks from the Anatolian plains or South East Turkey, or Pakistanis from Mirapur or the very remote parts of Pakistan/Kashmir. In Europe it's the very poor and rural Muslims that are coming to Europe and a lot of the tensions have to do with their rural to urban transition.
Muslims coming to the U.S. and to lesser extent, to Canada, are highly educated secular elites. So it's a bit absurd that there is this hysterical notion with Newt Gingrich going on about this "stealth Sharia Law." It's partly because it's the way conservative lobbyism works. That a handful of really extreme bloggers like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer who always were on the extreme fringe for about 15 years with their support of the Serbian side of the Bosnian war etc, suddenly get this huge wack of money from Conservative organizations. Part of it is due to the real power vacuum in the Republican Party that happened when George W. Bush left office.
As absurd as it sounds now, George W. Bush was a moderate particularly on matters of immigration. We forget that he ran his 2000 campaign on the platform of giving amnesty and citizenship to Central American and Mexican immigrants.
He made many unwise decisions to put it mildly in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but one of his wiser decisions was not to implicate Muslims in the west in any of this stuff. There were obvious orders going throughout the party because everyone shut up. The Republicans in Congress didn't go on about it. Maybe because [George W. Bush] was religious or maybe he knew that it would cause a lot of problems, but whatever the case, it was taboo.
Then all of a sudden all the Bush people were gone and [Muslim Tide rhetoric] became acceptable. Not with everyone but with a surprising number of people. The first thing was the controversy over what they called The Ground Zero Mosque. It was apparent the noise was coming not from a broad base but from a few people who were getting a lot funding all of a sudden. That controversy lasted as long as the funding lasted. Nobody talks about that anymore. But the [Muslim Tide] view spread into the Republican leadership campaign to a surprising degree. Mitt Romney, to his credit, never embraced this idea perhaps because he comes from a somewhat persecuted religious minority himself. Even his Vice Presidential candidate [Paul Ryan] doesn't embrace this idea as far as I can tell.
But at least four to five leading Republican candidates were making speeches in which they were saying that there was a secret threat to impose Sharia Law on the American people. The implication in that statement was that the average Muslim in the U.S. was supporting the imposition of religious law and were also disloyal to the values of the U.S.
It's a very serious accusation with historical resonances. It went on without questioning. It became a common set of assumptions. Usually it's a single survey or a set of anecdotes that would be mentioned over and over again. Everybody always say that there's this survey with something like 7 per cent of Muslims in the U.S. supports the idea of violence again civilians if the cause is right, which is true but it's also true that 12 times as many non-Muslim Americans support this idea. The question shouldn't be why are Muslim Americans supporting the idea of violence against civilians for a just cause but it should be why are so many fewer Muslim Americans than regular Americans supporting this idea. The answer is probably because Muslim American families tend to be the main victims of this violence.
Timing of Muslim Tide:
The book is published in the U.S., Canada and soon in Germany. I wanted this to be a pamphlet type of book people buy to give to their uncle who keeps railing on about Muslim immigration (laughs). Everyone has an uncle like that. Part of the reason why [now] it's because of the elections coming up in the U.S. and in Germany where these things are in the air.
You can never completely clear the air with a book, but I wanted something out there to calm people down a bit.
Final Thoughts:
DS: The main message is to pay attention to change. If you are looking at the people in your midst don't look at them as fixed entities or points in time. Look at them as people going through a process just like most immigrant Canadians did before them. Some of us entered the country as somewhat poor and somewhat religious and somewhat as an outsider.
If we see people who are very different we should realize they are adjusting and changing. That does not necessarily mean that it's all going right. We shouldn't turn a blind eye to excesses, pretend that violent extremism, religious politics or honour killings are normal.
Broadly speaking, immigrants themselves very much embrace what I would call the "Core Values of Western Society" which is to say, respect for secular institutions of law and government, acceptance of broadly speaking social equality and tolerance for your neighbour's different beliefs.
The divergence from those core values among Muslims is similar among other religious minorities in Canada and is quickly converging. It's taking a lot of families two to three generations, what my family took 10 generations to do.
Not to regard western society as being such a fragile weak thing that it can be toppled by a fairly small group of struggling immigrants. I mean that's absurd. If it's that weak then why bother with it?]]>Hide Your Broomsticks, Michelle Bachmann's on a Witchhunttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16908712012-07-24T16:28:48-04:002012-09-23T05:12:09-04:00Hina P. Ansarihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hina-p-ansari/
Turn the other cheek. Hold your anger. Be patient.
Well, Michelle Bachmann and her posse are testing me. Big time.
By now you are well aware of her nonsensical concern about Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin. And Bachmann's real patriotic concern about Abedin being privy to all sorts of national security stuff via clearance. Why? That's because Bachmann and her Bourne-esque crack team are busy linking her deceased father to Muslim Brotherhood. How you ask? Well it's easy, he knew a guy, who knew a guy who, also knew a guy. Thirty years ago. Yes I'm serious. That's the chain of association that this former presidential candidate and her four fellow Representatives are having sleepless nights about.
Then I thought about what was happening last summer during this time. What oddball controversies were shoring up about Islam then? Let me remind you. We were in the throws of the Republican race. And Tennessee's Murfreesboro Mosque was in the eye of the storm. Protests, delayed permits, hold ups, court injunctions were almost daily occurrences that pretty much filled up the calendars of the mosque developers and those hoping to be parishioners. The place still isn't finished yet.
Last July, Herman Cain all part of his feeding into his base political game-playing, indicated during his campaign stump his concern about this place of worship not being an "innocent mosque." Proof? Who needs it. Just say it let it be tweeted and retweeted, shared and linked. And once you have other blogs picking up on your story and sound bites you are good as gold.
What about the year before? Date: June 6, 2010. Location: New York City. Scene: The first of what was to become an entire summer, fall, winter and following spring full of Anti-Ground Zero Mosque protests.
That fall was the 10th Anniversary of 9/11 and Pastor Terry Jones (who can miraculously spot a photo opportunity in between his Bible readings) was generous enough to offer to burn Qurans to commemorate this tragic anniversary. Well of course, that led to protests across America with 20 related deaths in the Middle East and Asia. Throwing a big fat wrench, PR nightmare for U.S. foreign policy initiatives, existing international relationships and putting the stationed U.S. troops at risk in these hot zones.
Oh, "what about the President's birther issue?" you ask? Don't fret! Well that has been the steady theme since the man basically stepped into the Presidential arena. So I'm slotting this one in the "2008 to present" category. Don't forget the most recent Gallup poll show that one out every six Americans still believe that he is Muslim. That's 11 per cent. A pretty high number if you ask me.
Now back to the present concern at hand. The latest witchhunt courtesy of Michelle Bachmann.
She as a dutiful American is bravely taking charge and leading her band of brothers -- namely fellow Republican Representatives, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Thomas Rooney and Lynn Westmoreland -- in this dangerous game of Six Degrees. The fact that she is pointedly marking her attack specifically on one person, that person's family including a deceased parent, makes this all the more frightening.
Jon Stewart brilliantly played her idiotic game with an even tighter association chart. Three degrees. Her, HSBC's $1,000 USD Campaign donation and now the just revealed status of that bank being the go-to place for terrorist cells. Bam!
Democratic Representative, Keith Ellison, also a Muslim, was one of the first to speak out against this charge when he spoke to Anderson Cooper on CNN's AC360. Ellison pointing out obvious similarities between Bachmann's hunt and McCarthyism was not lost on Bachmann. What did she do? Well, she promptly added his name to her list of Muslim Brotherhood wannabees who should also be looked at. So basically anyone who goes against Bachmann or questions her accusation's validity, motives -- or gasp! Patriotism -- are automatically slotted under the Brotherhood category. Makes sense? Sure, why not? It's not like we haven't seen this one coming.
Gill, was part of George W. Bush's administration. In 2004, after being appointed to policy director for the Department of Homeland Security by the President, Frank Gaffney who heads a right wing think tank, (and I'm using "think" rather loosely here) called Centre for Conservative Policy (CSP) immediately raised concerns about Gill's alleged ties to "jihadists" during Gill's tenure as director of the American Muslim Council. Of course Gill was exonerated after an investigation, but that charge and association still sticks in the wonderful world of the interwebs.
Before Gill, Grover Norquist was the focus of Gaffney. Norquist whose wife is Muslim, was accused in 2002 of "helping the Muslim Brotherhood spread its influence in the nation's capital" during the first Bush Administration.
Why am I mentioning Gaffney here? Well, it's important. Yes he's obviously far in the fringe territory to be taken seriously however it is his word that Michelle Bachmann is taking when it comes to Abedin. No proof, just his word. And that's dangerous.
And for the record he was also going around the media circles shouting out his concerns about the Ground Zero Mosque and was touting himself as the Sharia "expert" during the protests against the mosque in Murfreesboro.
Now, these allegations about Abedin are now being spread like wildfire, endlessly picked up from one blog to the next internationally. So much so, now, that the Arab media outlets have repeated such false accusations in Egypt. The Result? Shoes and tomatoes being thrown at Clinton's car with her and her Deputy Chief Of Staff inside. Were they after Hillary? Or Huma? Sure Morsi isn't a popular president-elect, but just like conspiracies that floated around during the Arab Spring, such tall tales get read, filtered, manipulated, spread and believed if you hear about it long enough, or better yet, see it being posted everywhere you surf.
And herein lies the problem. It's not that we are thin-skinned and we have to buck up and deal with it. Sure we have to deal with it. We have been "dealing" with this sort of nonsense for over a decade. However, unlike 10 years ago, social media is now bigger, faster and stronger and can easily be converted into a dangerous weapon just by pressing "send." Ask Rick Santorum. Or if you have the stomach, then Google him.
Once that label comes out and gets picked up by one loosely researched and barely fact-checked blog after another, the disastrous false accusations stick. It doesn't matter how many retractions you put out there. It's there. Forever and ever and ever.
Ellison brilliantly drove that point home. On CNN he expressed his concern about this happening to someone else, someone who isn't as well connected and highly placed and coveted as Abedin. What if there was some mid-level employee who doesn't have the protective shield that affords Huma? Who doesn't have Boehner and McCain among others, standing up for them? How is he/she going to wade through something like this?
Exactly.
In today's ballooning and increasingly influential social media and online blogging landscape, sure sticks and stones can break bones, but a correctly phrased Google search can be even more devastating.]]>Being Childless: Why Don't Our Opinions Count?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.13940502012-04-01T15:12:54-04:002012-06-01T05:12:01-04:00Hina P. Ansarihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/hina-p-ansari/tweet about Wildrose leader Danielle Smith's lack of children.
Yup that's right -- Wilkie went there.
This was on the heels of Wildrose's Family Pack Pledge, including announcements with respect to child-tax credits. Apparently Wilkie questioned Smith's sincerity (and credibility) for that matter, as Smith didn't have children.
I was understandably incensed by Wilkie's comments and clearly so were her superiors, as she immediately resigned shortly after her ill-fated tweet. A tweet which was admonished by PC Party official Josh Traptow, who also turned to Twitter to make it clear that "family and personal choices are OFF LIMITS."
Smith, who didn't go directly after Wilkie, revealed her and her husband's unsuccessful efforts to conceive through fertility treatments. She didn't have to explain at all, but clearly she felt that she needed to.
I was fuming. Because this reckless twittering and questioning someone's motives in this area was obviously uncalled for. This hit home for me, because just like Smith, I am 41 years old, I also don't have children, and have had my "credibility" questioned countless times when it came to discussing matters relating to children.
All sorts of past conversations started flooding back. Instances, where my not having kids somehow made me null and void for any kind of opinion on any child-related matters.
It seems that those of us who don't have children, regardless of the reason, seem to be shoved into a "not knowing of what they speak" category. And that has got to stop.
Sure I don't have kids, but that doesn't mean that I'm living on some unknown planet in a yet-to-be-discovered galaxy and therefore not exposed to the young'uns of today. Truth be told, I am a loving auntie to my two nephews and three nieces all ranging in ages of 12 years to two months. And I absolutely adore sharing with them my love for music, fashion, film, and pop culture. I taught my nephew, who was probably a year at the time, the "rock on" hand sign, which he gladly flashed to whomever would give him the time of day at the grocery store. My other nephew, when he was four, loved listening to Madonna on my iPod. My nieces enlightened me on the ways of Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber and yes, I got a crash course on the whole Diary of a Wimpy Kid phenomenon at the cottage last summer. See? It's all cool.
So here's the deal: I'm childless and I love children.
A combination, which funnily enough, confuses a helluva lot of people.
This is what I don't understand with my lack of a mommy-brain: Why is it so shocking for people to see that one does not need to have children to appreciate and love them?
So before I start getting crazy comments, let me say upfront: I know that I will never understand nor fully appreciate the incredible focus of all the working and stay-at-home moms out there. Their end-of-day exhaustion I will never understand and won't ever underestimate. I wholeheartedly admire the mothers of the world, my mother, the moms in my family, and my mommy friends. However, just because I am not in that club doesn't mean that it's a free-for-all to willy-nilly negate my opinions on matters such as discipline, tolerance and, of course, praise.
Oh and one more thing, I too can have an exhausting day. Believe it or not.
Just because I don't have kids, it doesn't mean that I can't tell when a child is misbehaving or being too loud or is just out-and-out spoiled. Just as I know when a child is being a complete angel, super cute, or showering me with their endless questions about life, which I adore answering. Because another thing that I love to do is talk to kids.
We were all kids once. Including me. And I remember the discipline extolled to all of us in our family. Yes, we got the "eye" -- the look that our mom would give us when she knew that we were out of bounds. That was a quick problem-solver. We didn't even dare to back-talk, go past our curfew (earlier than our friends' curfews) or even interrupt a conversation between adults. And no, it wasn't a strict no-fun-zone home. We were all being taught the basics lessons on how to be a polite and well-mannered child.
So for the sake of all of us kid-less folk, we humbly ask you for one small favour: Please stop treating us like we are martians. Because if you take your blinders off, we may have actually have something to say that may be worth your while.