The Internet: Hypocrisy 2.0 vs Revolution 2.0

Wikileaks frontman and founder, Julian Assange, is still fighting extradition to Sweden on sexual assault charges that coincidentally arose shortly after the unprecedented leak of hundreds of thousands of US military documents. 

As the fallout from the Leak spread across the world claiming victim after victim, World Governments, and the US in particular, cowered in fear of the most powerful weapon of all: knowledge. People began to taste what true freedom of information was and the kind of power the collective force of whistleblowers, tech geeks and a listening public could wield. But the euphoria surrounding the power of the Internet to facilitate knowledge and freedom of speech was short lived - at least in the case of the US and its Allies. 

The fall of Mubarak has been hailed as a great victory for the power of the Internet, along with social media like Twitter and Facebook. The role of Google exec, Wael Ghonim, has been highlighted by the media and the group Ghonim allegedly formed, along with other tech savvy young Egyptians, became known as Revolution 2.0 - not unlike the spontaneously formed Anonymous born out of frustration with the vilification of Wikileaks and its enigmatic founder. But why is Revolution 2.0 heroic while Wikileaks irresponsible and even terrorist?

It depends on who the target is, and this shows who really controls the media and the Internet itself. Mubarak attempted to shut down cyber portals and was condemned for it. The same was done to Wikileaks with seemingly no sustained public or State response to speak of. Some Republican senators even demanded that Wikileaks even be named a terrorist group. The current lull, and even silence of Wikileaks, as well as the virtual neutralization of Assange, seem to suggest that it has indeed been deemed a threat though not officially (or legally) so.

Western hypocrisy knows no bounds and the Internet has made it possible for that hypocrisy to spread far, wide and fast. To the credit of the relevant US authorities, it was acknowledged that no laws were broken by Wikileaks. Freedom of Speech was the only 'crime'. But it turns out that Freedom is a commodity which the US seems to have purchased, patented and copyrighted. And they seem to have cornered the market and restricted supply, and only the currency of those who say what is in accord with the American agenda is any good.  

If Multiculturalism Is Dead In Europe, Then It Must Be Dead Everywhere Else Too

Recently British Prime Minister, David Cameron, followed his German counterpart's example and declared multiculturalism a failure. Angela Merkel did the same in October last year, stating, "...of course, the approach [to build] a multicultural [society] and to live side-by-side and to enjoy each other... has failed, utterly failed." (see previous link).  French integration has led to the banning of Muslim face coverings, and not surprisingly, Sarkozy also joined the chorus against multiculturalism saying, 'We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him.'

Cameron argued that there needed to be a more robust 'national identity' in order to combat 'all kinds of extremism' in Britain. With the previous rationales in mind, one doesn't have to delve too deeply to see that the 'multiculturalism' referred to is really Islam and Muslim communities and culture that spring thereof. 

As such the burning question is: Does integration apply to expats and immigrant communities in the Muslim world as well? And by 'immigrant' and 'expat' we mean White and Western (but not limited to).

The United Arab Emirates, arguably the most liberal Muslim nation, has opened its arms to the West, at risk of its cultural and religious mores, and this has led to an increasingly Westernized society evidenced through Western media content, the growing workforce made up of many from the West and former colonies thereof, and the changing mode of dress and social interaction (primarily in flouting religious and cultural standards of modest dress and public abuse of alcohol).

Local authorities in the UAE concerned about the growing marginalization of their own people,  embarked on Emiratisation programmes to increase the presence of locals in the workforce. But the problem is also social. Some incidents of expats 'breaking the rules' have received international media attention, usually with sympathy for the perpetrators, and some amount of disdain for the standards of the host country. Some expats intentionally and openly defy the standards of dress and propriety in the name of their brand of Western freedom. 

Suffice it to say, Muslim nations are oft criticised by the West (and not without reason) for their strict moral standards and application of related justice, from putting their women 'under sheets' to insisting on the prohibition of pre-marital sex, and the harsh sentences for adultery or public indecency. But if multiculturalism has failed, and one is to be true to the aforementioned conclusions, then integration should take place wherever the context. 


The simple conclusion is - to all non-Muslims in the Muslim world - follow the lead of Western integration and don your burqas, dishdashas and abayas. It's only fair. If a Muslim cannot wear a burqa in the West, then a Westerner must wear it in the East.  Anything less would be hypocritical. But how would these standards be greeted by expats in the UAE should they be enforced? What would be the response if the UAE were to declare the failure of alien populations to learn Arabic, and the consequent repatriation of those who do not learn it? Your opinion is welcome.

Another 365 Resolutions

Since I am a blogger I suppose I should acknowledge the New Year, or it might feel neglected and get jealous of last year - which got lots more attention from me than the newbie...so far.

365 days or a day 365 times?

I'm not big on New Year's resolutions - unless we're talking about an HD TV or flashy new camera. Resolutions have a way of working against people of the human persuasion. Determining some new direction or goal is a very good thing - determining that for 365 days you will bat 100% on your goal is setting yourself up for a quick and discouraging fall. 

A resolution - any resolution - is like a good haircut: it must be oft repeated and maintained. We can make the mistake of thinking a resolution is once-for-all and any deviation thereof is failure. Negatory good buddy, negatory. While a New Year is a good starting point, what with the Gregorian calendar and the fireworks 'n such, you can only live one day at a time, and even then you have to do the morning, afternoon and evening thing for it to qualify as a complete 'day'. 

My recommendation? Set your goals, but keep in mind that you have to renew your resolve every once in a while. Confucius suggested that we fall along the way because we decide beforehand just how far we will go - a year can fool us into thinking 'time is running out' and that we must accomplish certain things by a certain 'time' (and hence the mid-life crisis). But as long as we have life - we have time. So this year, if you resolve to do anything, resolve to live. 

The Unbelievable Implications of Cologne Ads

I always found cologne ads a bit pretentious. The spartan but sensual voiceover whispering in come-hither, husky tones, for men, and in an alluring breathless French accent for women. Abstract scenes with incongruous elements, like a pensive white guy standing in the middle of the desert wearing his cologne contemplating an apple, as you do. But most annoying are the understated, and not so understated, implications of wearing the designer scents, now more often endorsed by big name celebs. Colognes ads usually feature White men with sex, or more accurately, promiscuity, as the primary selling point.  

Hugo Boss' Night ad features Ryan Reynolds, recently voted People Magazine's Sexiest Man Alive 2010 (also a reserve for White men), as he stalks into his high tech, sophisticated apartment after a hard day of being incredibly sexy, unbuttons a single button of his perfectly tailored shirt, removes a cufflink dashingly and most amazingly, a white woman magically appears in his apartment with a 'you're gonna get lucky tonight' sashay. All, we must assume, based on his application of Hugo Boss Night. The ad ends with Reynolds recognising that coitus is imminent and stares directly into the camera as if to say, 'My cologne has made me successful and now, it has brought me sex...which I will now have', and cut. See for yourself.

Ryan Reynolds proves Hugo Boss 'Night' will make you a white, sexually active male

The real doozy for me though is Paco Rabanne's 1 Million ad. This features another European fellow, slim, toned with all the requisite caucasian good looks. He has the power to snap his fingers and win at the craps table and the roulette wheel, summon fur coat clad women, make their clothes fall off and conjure up bags full of cash.

This time you become a white male magician without a job - or a pimp

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being white, male, promiscuous and sexy - well something's wrong with promiscuity. But it's just the totally ridiculous premises that somehow convince some of us to buy these products. We know this is done with a myriad of products (including people who are products - celebrities) but if you are say, a 350 pound Chinese accountant who loves suspenders and puppies, do you really stand a chance of passing for Ryan Reynolds once splashing on a little Night? Will you even acquire a high rise city apartment shortly thereafter? Can the act of snapping ones fingers when doused with 1 Million somehow spontaneously generate a remarkably large sum of cash in neatly stacked, small bills?

I think that's why the Old Spice ad worked so well. It made it clear that the hot guy is the one selling the Cologne. The best we can do is smell like a hot guy - the rest is up to you or your plastic surgeon. Fortunately for me I look slightly better than the Old Spice guy. Braap! Only problem is it might encourage ladies to change their man rather than his cologne. 

                                        

Less Than Nobel Intentions and the Growing Boycott

China has boycotted this year's Nobel Peace Prize Award ceremony on the basis that one of its political dissidents, Liu Xiaobo, was the recipient. According to Reuters, China wasn't alone and reported that the Nobel committee,

...said in addition to China, countries declining invitations for the gala were: Russia, Kazakhstan, Colombia, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Serbia, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Venezuela, the Philippines, Egypt, Sudan, Ukraine, Cuba and Morocco.

But not all seemed to boycott for the same reason as China. However, with a little thought one can understand why some nations would be suspect of the mechanism behind the Award and the Award itself. Certainly the spirit of the Nobel Peace Prize is without question, but if Obama's reception of the award is anything to go by, it may have a purpose other than just promoting Peace, and may in fact be a tool for the Western political agenda.

Last year Obama was awarded the Peace Prize for making nothing more than a speech. The irony is that one of the central reasons cited for Obama's worthiness was his, '...efforts to support international bodies and promote nuclear disarmament' (BBC 2009). This becomes laughable with France and England only recently forming treaties on defence and testing of nuclear weaponry. 

The implication of Obama's speech and subsequent award, is that the US - and by extension the West -  were taking a new approach to nuclear proliferation, with the award underlining the credibility and gravity of the 'effort'. In light of the UK/France defence treaty, it was nothing more than lip service. It really was only a speech. 

With the WikiLeaks info running amok and US opponents coming out holding the short end of the stick, suspicion grows in direct proportion with the hypocrisy of Western Governments who seem to think only they should posses nuclear weaponry. 

Liu Xiaobo may very well deserve the Peace Prize and China does have a spotty human rights record to answer for, however, a news forum participant insightfully noted that the West is quick to condemn WikiLeaks for exposing its violations and secrets, but quick to reward those who expose the violations and secrets of its enemies. Very good point.