TO BURN A BOOK ALL IT TAKES IS A KINDLE

Steve Jobs, the man behind Apple’s innovation train has yet again revealed to the rest of us a glimpse of the future. This month Jobs introduced Apple’s latest product the iPad. Putting the iPad’s ton of technology in a nutshell, it is basically a touch screen tablet computer crammed into a device the size and thickness of a notepad. Being a technology enthusiast myself this piece of plastic had me highly excited, I mean anytime Jobs is set to reveal a product it is big news. Like it or not he has changed the way we listen to music after all.

The reveal was impressive and the features of the iPad superb, but is it just me or did anyone else feel a slight pang of concern when the eBook reader application was presented?

The eBook, the digital book, the book of the future made up of compressed and digitalised words reduced to bits and bytes of memory. A technology allowing us to carry thousands of books in one device. Not a fairly new technology, in the sense that eBook readers have been around for a couple of years now but haven’t proved to be very popular until Amazon introduced its Kindle.

Kindle is an eBook reader that is equipped with an Internet connection allowing you to access the book selling Goliath’s website and download any book you desire in mere seconds.

Following in Amazon’s footsteps Jobs has created his own version, fit it snuggly in the iPad and sprinkled some Apple magic on it (the magic being his wondrous marketing and advertising techniques).

This is all and well, I mean we have all heard the list of benefits. It starts with the space factor and ends with saving the planet yet after going through them I still feel anxious. What happens to the book? Should we give it a new name? The ‘original book’ or the ‘paper book’ maybe? If Jobs is to do to the book what he did to the CD then my anxiety is justified.

Sometimes technology makes us believe that we cannot live without the features it provides. That we absolutely need it. Amazon’s data suggest that Kindle users buy more books than they did before owning the device, but does that necessarily mean they are reading more? It is true we can carry thousands of books in one device but while we can listen to hundreds of songs in an hour we cannot do the same with reading, so why the need to carry them all? Efficient yes, but a complete replacement? I find that hard to imagine.

The image of reading in bed does not conjure up myself curled up with a Kindle or an iPad. And although the sound of pages being turned is an option on your device it remains a simulation. And what of the smell of paper that wafts as you feel the texture of the pages being turned in anticipation of reaching the end? I am sure Jobs will soon think of something to shut me up. Yet the fact remains the way we read, the act of reading will be changed forever.

I am a collector of rare books but in the near future I will be a collector of books for all of them will at one point become rare. As for Kindle and iPad helping save the planet, buying used books could too, there is no shame in that.

Yes I dread living in a paperless world. I do not harbour the fear of a publisher that spurs from profit and copywriting concerns. My fear is that of a reader that has held a book in her hands throughout her life and cannot fathom ever saying goodbye.


This article was published in The Gulf Today on 14th Feb, 2010.

I HATE YOU, NOW GET IN LINE

“100 per cent of the Islamic terrorists are Muslims, and that is our main enemy today. So why we should not be profiling people because of their religion?”

“You could say that 80-85 per cent of mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists”

“We’re just living in a politically correct world to say we should be screening a Scandinavian grandmother the same as we do a middle-eastern male”

These hateful, outrageous and highly insulting generalisations are but a few of the hundreds that Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican, who is currently serving his ninth term in the US House of Representatives, is spitting out to the media at every given opportunity.

As a member of the Homeland Security Committee King has used the terrorism angle to spread his obvious and unwitheld hatred for Islam. He went as far as criticising the Obama administration for not using the word ‘terrorism’ enough.

In 2008 he protested against an Islam awareness ad campaign aimed at educating people and demanded it be rejected. The ads were simple black and white panels with words such as “Head Scarf?” or “Prophet Mohammad?” and the words “You deserve to know” along with a Web site address.

His latest endeavour is to promote what he describes as a “half truth and half fiction” novel, “Vale of Tears,” which tells a story about future terrorist attacks by so-called Muslim extremists in Nassau County, N.Y.

After the recent foiled bomb attack on a trans-Atlantic airliner, bound for Detroit, King has opted for higher security measures in US airports. This is a predictable reaction considering he is a veteran of the Bush administration. Although if this strategy was ever successful in more than inconveniencing the general public this recent incident would have never been possible.

King’s proposed form of higher security measure is not only shocking but also demeaning to every Muslim and to the Americans themselves. He blatantly proposed on a radio show a Muslims-only screening protocol, which involves a full-body-see-through screening for any person carrying a middle-eastern name (basically full X-ray images recorded on film). His other suggestion is to have Muslims-only checkpoint lines at US airports.

This makes me wonder have they not learned anything from their past? Is this King’s way of going back to the segregated schools and water fountains when it was white versus black?

The mere suggestion of such an absurd broad-based ethnic profiling scheme is clearly nothing but a modern day witch-hunt.

Although this suggestion will not be adopted anytime soon, the sheer thought of it churns my insides. How is it in this day and age, after all that has been done by the Americans themselves to fight bigotry and prejudices, that a man like King and his followers are able to blurt out statements such as “It’s time to have a Muslim checkpoint line in America’s airports and have Muslims be scrutinised. You better believe it, it’s time.”

I wonder if the word Muslim was replaced by the word black or Jew would America have reacted differently to Peter King? This has gone beyond political correctness. This is what Americans must view as illegal, unethical and unconstitutional. The first amendment to the US constitution professes the freedom of religion and the fourth, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

King has many followers urging him to run for the 2012 presidential nomination. If King has his way it would be shameful for any Muslim, let alone middle-eastern, to accept this insult. To willingly stand in Muslims-only queues, herded from the rest and happily be frisked and screened for no reason than our religion, that would be the end of Arab pride, and Islamic dignity.

How long are we going to remain silent and bow down to the barrage of insults that come in the form of France banning the Hijab (Islamic head dress) in schools, Denmark releasing shameful caricatures about Prophet Mohammed, Switzerland approving a constitutional ban on mosque minarets, Jewish soldiers invading Al-Aqsa mosque during Friday prayers and now Peter King. Our political strength lies in our solidarity. Muslim nations should find one united voice in which to speak with. Stand up to this tyranny, injustice and ongoing condemnation. Demand that we are given our rights and respected for we are no less deserving than any other nation or religion.

At last I wish to address my final words to Mr King:

Mr King, bigotry and prejudice are a contagious infliction that spread faster than the swine flu our world was so rattled by. Therefore, for your sake, and the sake of the American people, I wish you a full and speedy recovery.

Published in The Gulf Today on Jan 24th, 2010

EVERYDAY SAVAGES

Have you ever looked at certain people and couldn’t help think that they reminded you of a certain animal, a bird maybe? You could see the resemblance not only in their features but in their behaviour too. Fret not, that doesn’t make you a horrible person it just solidifies the fact that on this planet we are all connected.

Our relationship with animals is one that dates back to the beginning of time. For as long as humans roamed this earth they have walked side by side, or most probably ran in the opposite direction of animals, and therefore, we have a certain kinship to them. We have photographed them in amazement, studied them in wonder, we continue to raise them as pets. And some of us even worship them.

This bond humans have with animals has infiltrated art, and so we witnessed the likes of Leonardo Davinci incorporating them in his paintings, and devising contraptions in their likeness. Writers have made lead characters of them in works such as Aesop’s Fables and Kalīlah wa Dimnah. Religious texts are full of them, each animal representing a human flaw, a strength, a weakness. Each is portrayed as the image of good and evil personified. Why does it seem easier for us to accept reality when it is within the confinement of the animal kingdom yet so hard for us to face it in ours?

In children’s literature animals were used as a moral compass to direct them to the rights and steer them away from the wrongs of the world. One wonders if books such as Beatrix Potter’s The Tale of Peter Rabbit and Lewis Caroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland would have been as influential if all their characters were humans. Children can easily relate to animals and understand human characteristics through them, as can adults. I guess it is easier to cast aside discriminatory and judgmental feelings when we are talking about Peter Rabbit and the Cheshire Cat.

George Orwell used animal characters in his portrayal of the evils of totalitarianism in the classic novel Animal Farm. Through the pigs, cows and horses that lived within the borders of a farm fence we learned of political manipulation and twisted agendas better than watching the real thing unfold on the news. There must be a connection between the world of politics and that of animals (no pun intended) because to this day the United States’ two major political parties are represented by animal images. The Democratic Party the donkey and the Republican the elephant.

In language animals make an appearance more often than not. We hear terms such as “crocodile tears” when speaking of hypocrisy in human emotions. But why use an image of a weeping crocodile to portray a characteristic reserved purely for humans? It makes you wonder why the slyness of a fox and the wisdom of an owl? Why not the slyness of politicians and the wisdom of monks?

In our so-called civilised world we pride ourselves on being so different from animals. We are not savages we say. Only animals hunt for survival and we hunt for sport. Animals kill because they have no choice yet humans kill because the choice is all theirs. If only people lifted their heads up once in a while, if they gazed at the faces passing them by or glanced over towards a nearby table in a restaurant they would see. They would see the fox in the face of a passer-by and glimpse the owl in another person’s eyes, only then will they realise that there is something beastly in every human and another thing humane in every beast.

This article was published in The Gulf Today on 17th Jan, 2010.

UAE'S SLICE OF THE PIE CHART

The new generation of the UAE nationals has to not only know but be proud of who they are or else they will be lost among the crowds.

Last week His Highness Sheikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice-President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, approved a resolution for establishing the Federal Demographic Council of the United Arab Emirates.

The council strives to develop national demographic strategies all the while gathering information, conducting studies and establishing an official demographic database.

This is indeed a great step forward towards tackling and reducing the ever-growing difference in numbers between the UAE nationals and expatriates residing in the Emirates. The UAE nationals make up less than 20 per cent of the total demographic pie chart, while the remaining 80 per cent or so is made up of expatriates from all over the world, many of whom have never interacted with a UAE national. Although the figures are not completely accurate still they are staggering and when put on paper beckon for action.

With nationals being a minority in their own homeland a call must be made to address national identity. The new generation of the UAE nationals has to not only know but be proud of who they are or else they will be lost among the crowds. But what is our national identity?

Our national identity spurs first and foremost from our religion. Islam is the UAE’s religion and the law governing this land. Without solid knowledge of what it means to be a true Muslim the country loses its soul. The Arabic language is our mother tongue and our core identifier yet most of us rarely use it.

In France, Germany and Switzerland you can barely get by using the English language. These countries refuse to use it not out of arrogance but out of fear of losing their identities and yet in the UAE, English has virtually become our first language.

Our history as a country is one of great accomplishments. Ones that we should be proud of and never forget. Unfortunately many of our kids today do not know how the UAE came into being.

All schools must teach the history of the UAE, public as well as private, for if we are happily inviting foreigners to make the UAE their home it is only fair that they know how their chosen home was envisioned and resurrected.

The future generations of the Emiratis should know that the UAE is not just a flag. They must understand that this flag is one born out of seven separate flags. Emirati children should know that what has become easily accessible to them today would not have been possible without the struggles of their founding fathers.

It is true, our country is of a tender age but its years are undoubtedly filled with accomplishments that overwhelm us with pride. It is true, our numbers are small but our love for this land defies any demographical imbalance and tips the scales in our favour every time. The United Arab Emirates is a living and thriving proof that true Arab unity is alive, and well may it forever live united under this flag, the flag born out of seven separate flags.

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 15th November, 2009.

OPRAH AIRED, PITCHFORKS SHARPENED

"The Emirates prides itself on being a country, which advocates freedom of expression and speech, and that is exactly what Dr. Lamees displayed."

On Saturday night, and as per its daily schedule, the Oprah Winfrey Show aired on the locally broadcast television channel MBC4. This episode in particular was enthusiastically awaited by the UAE nationals since it was to feature our beloved city Dubai. Dubai was presented as one of the happiest cities in the world along with the likes of Copenhagen, Rio de Janeiro and Istanbul.

Copenhagen was visited by the Queen of talk shows herself where she met two ladies at their homes highlighting the differences in their minimalistic, yet happy lifestyles as opposed to the United States in true Oprah fashion.

Next in line was our pride and joy, Dubai. After a brief, and what seemed to me a pretty weak introduction when compared to the feats that Dubai has achieved, Oprah connected via webcam with a Dubai national and a general practitioner Dr. Lamees Hamdan. Dr. Lamees came across as well-versed and confident, speaking freely about her life, family and her home, Dubai.

Dr. Lamees invited Oprah’s cameras into her home and candidly introduced her family to the world. She seemed very proud of her heritage and closeness to her extended family. Oprah then proceeded to ask her questions, while Dr. Lamees spoke of free healthcare in the UAE and pointed out that ironically it is the United States which is facing challenges. She added that no taxes are paid in the UAE, which understandably thrilled Oprah.

Oprah then asked the doctor about her outfit. Dr. Lamees explained that she was wearing a Jalabiya, a traditional dress, and that she chooses not to wear the Sheila, the national headdress and Abaya, while her sisters choose to do so. She explained that the Sheila and Abaya are an extension of the UAE culture yet it is left as a choice for women to sport them or not.

All in all a smooth and candid interview. Yet no sooner had the show ended than our mobile phones began receiving a barrage of messages attacking Dr. Lamees Hamdan claiming that she had misrepresented both, Dubai and Islam. They are, of course, referring to the comment made about the Abaya.

I frankly do not think that Dr. Lamees misrepresented Dubai in any way by stating that the Abaya is a cultural aspect and a ‘national dress,’ one that the UAE women have a choice with. The Emirates prides itself on being a country, which advocates freedom of expression and speech, and that is exactly what Dr. Lamees displayed. I also think that the misrepresentation of Islam accusation is highly dramatised since she did not speak of the Hijab, which is the Islamic headdress for women. All throughout the Islamic world women are seen wearing the Hijab yet the Abaya is reserved mostly for people of the Gulf region, and particularly the UAE.

What strikes me as unreasonable is the fact that people thoughtlessly let loose a barrage of criticisim, instead of understanding that Dr. Lamees spoke of her own life and did not generalize her representation. We as nationals in general, and as local women in particular, should do away with the sharpened pitchforks and appreciate that overall Dr. Lamees carried herself well with her representation of the educated working mothers of the UAE.

Therefore, after reading the many unnecessarily misleading messages that seemed to have spurred from no more than shallow jealousy. Do permit me to call upon the people of the UAE to be as understanding and accepting as the country that we represent. Instead of attacking one of our own, we should take example and draw heart from our liberal governments who have always been there to support us and help us forward.

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on November 9, 2009.

WORDS FOR THE FIRE

LUXURY HAS LOST ITS LUSTRE

Gone are the days when luxury was reserved for and accessible only to the select groups perched high up on society’s top branches. Hefty price tags no longer pose a threat to the average consumer. Even with the world’s economy being the quicksand pit that it is at the moment people are still scrambling to possess the latest luxury items and the pricier they are the better.

Not long ago people were taking out loans to fund a dream project or get a proper education. Today, people are using these loans to pay for diamond studded cell phones and designer handbags. Now I do understand the existence of 100,000AED handbags and I also understand that for people who can comfortably afford them it must be a great sport hunting them down like some kind of rare species. It is beyond me though how people who break their backs working day in and day out finding it logical to put their life’s blood into such items. Such people do not even know why they are buying this product or the reasons behind the ridiculous price tag and they don’t care to as long as it is rare. They have not even stopped to ask themselves if they like them or not, if they suite them or not because it really does not matter. And then it struck me, we are living in an age where luxury has become a necessity.

We are not judged by the words we utter or the thoughts circulating in our head but by the clothes we wear and the accessories we sport. Many people have said to me that when they walk into a function carrying a so and so handbag or wearing so and so shoes they gain respect. Yes my friends respect can be bought and off the rack, might I add. Has the void in one’s life become so huge that people are now chucking designer labels in to fill it up? If so, I wonder if this quick fix is actually working? Where does this race to own the most expensive product end and once you get to the finish line what is it that you win?

Intelligence, manners and class have become the luxuries while Hermes and Chanel are the absolute requirements. And so after this disease-like infestation has spread, slapping our priorities senseless and flooding the streets with these once rare items, it seems to have had an adverse effect on me and rendered this whole phenomenon obsolete in my eyes. To me luxury has somewhat lost its luster and I don’t know if it will ever get it back.

This article was published in The Gulf Today Newspaper on 17th October, 2009.