The Superman Hoax

The NBA Slam Dunk Contest has been underwhelming for some time despite sporadic flashes of inspiration. It seems that the well of invention which nurtures the competition has, for the most part, dried up. Last night, a quartet of young dunkers took part in this year’s competition, with the Orlando Magic’s freakishly muscular Dwight Howard taking the crown. In my opinion, although Dwight had some nice dunks, there was nothing earth-shattering in his arsenal; nothing like Vince’s elbow nonsense or Jason Richardson’s twisting impossibility of a dunk. Yet, when his time came, Dwight pulled off his jersey and literally revealed a Superman emblem on his chest, while his teammate Jameer Nelson helped him put on a cape. The crowd, which had been ho-humming it up to that, went positively apesh*t. I feel that this had more to do with the need for light-hearted theatrics than an actual appreciation for the mechanics of dunking. Dwight pretty much had the title sown up as soon as he pulled out that cape.

Now, excuse the jarring segue, but this reminded me of a slew of “good” movies I’ve watched recently. I saw “There Will Be Blood” and “No Country for Old Men”, the two Oscar front-runners. Both films featured awe-inspiring performances from Daniel Day-Lewis and Javier Bardem, respectively. Both are well-written and well-directed. And I regretted seeing both, because they left me thoroughly depressed. The bleakness of these two films encapsulated the latest in a long list of unfortunate viewing choices I’ve made. In the past two weeks I’ve watched Charlie Wilson’s War, Rendition and the excellent documentary No End in Sight. All these are fine films. All these made me want to kill myself.

Upon reflection, I guess the first two films’ utter darkness, coupled with the latter triumvirate’s reminders of the stark realities of current events, were just too much for my tender, sensitive (albeit very manly) psyche. Why was I doing this to myself? Wasn’t I just supposed to be entertaining myself? Suddenly my uppity criticism of my dad’s TV and movie choices (Cybill anyone? For real…) seemed like nonsense. I needed some lightheartedness. SuperBad seemed like it was released in the mid-nineties…eons ago. I found myself eagerly awaiting Will Ferrell’s Semi-Pro (If you haven’t seen his Old Spice ads…)

In the midst of this glum state of mind I popped The Hoax into my DVD player. I was never a fan of Richard Gere, and I hesitated…I almost took out the DVD and went back to Cities of Salt (itself not exactly Will Ferrell territory)… But then I watched. And for the first time in a while, I was glad. This film is exactly what I was looking for. Richard Gere should have been nominated for an Oscar. It turned out to be a smart, funny, engrossing true story which involves a violence-free crime. And not a terrorist in sight.

Absurdities from the Borderline

“SHEEEEEEEIT…I’ll take any nigga’s money if he GIVIN’ it away!”

– Senator Clay Davis from season 4 of HBO’s The Wire

I’ve probably mentioned this before, but I’m standing on the border, the vertical equator dividing two very different cultures which don’t even share an alphabet. As such, I have a choice vantage point to observe what oftentimes seems to be the pungent fecality (yes, I just made up that word) of human thought. Allow me to elaborate. Pull up a chair and let me clear my throat.

I don’t know, but perhaps Arabs seem exotic to Western eyes? Edward Said’s Orientalism and all that? To Saudis, Americans are aliens. Not the E.T., Reese’s piecies, fuzzy kind…No, the anal probe, Independence Day type. At least to a certain type of Saudi…the Saudi that knows no English. The Saudi who views America through a haze of cultural and linguistic ambiguity…But I digress…

I have many friends like this. Well-read friends who nevertheless call me to ask me to translate simple sentences they encounter when accessing their e-mails or cell phones. Friends who do not have the linguistic ability to grasp the complexities of the word “crusade”…who only understand “Crusade”. There is a prevalent belief among these friends of mine that American politics, that the American government is explicitly and overtly evangelical. That American foriegn policy is governed by fanatical Christian doctrines.

Now, let me clarify something. I don’t pretend to neglect the importance of the evangelical variable within the American political equation. The flock form a coveted bloc of votes. The entire equation, however, is a capitalist, not a religious, formula.

For example, my friends view the invasion of Iraq in Biblical terms. They believe that Bush and them captured Babylon so that Christ can come home. They think Cheney and Rummy are catchin up on their Psalms and Chapters, payin their tithes, bein good Catholics. Come on, now.

A cursory glance at American foreign policy throughout the twentieth century reveals how deeply reductive these claims are. What about America’s involvement in Central and South America? Towards the end of the nineteenth century, the U.S. commited atrocities in the Phillipines not to fulfill the prophecies foretold in Exodus or some such nonsense…they were simply serving the interests of United Fruit. How dya like them apples?

But, like De Niro said, there’s a flip side to that coin. Gray fecal matter sprays in both directions. Brain farts know no nationality.

I was having an e-convo yesterday with someone on slamonline.com who informed me that Islamic “shia law” dictates, according to some interpretations, that “infidels” should be killed regardless of anything else.

Now, my interlocutor has mixed up “Shar’ia” law (the word “shar’ia” simply means “law” in Arabic, so “Shar’ia law” is kinda redundant, but whatever) and the word “shia”, which is a sect of Islam (a sect I don’t belong to, incidentally. I’m a Sunni). But the point is that a lot of people tend to believe that terrorism is a product of some misguided Muslims misinterpreting religious texts to mean that they should “kill all infidels”, meaning “kill all non-Muslims”. There is a clear flaw in this perception, however. Put yourself in the place of this hypothetical terrorist. Let’s say you are convinced that you must “kill all infidels”. Wouldn’t you target Italians, Frenchmen, Ukrainians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Filipinos and South Africans? All these countries could be termed “infidels” (which is not an Islamic term, by the way). But why do terrorists always seem to target America?

It has nothing to do with “infidels”. It has everything to do with American foriegn policy, which even I, an Americo-phile, find repugnant. Here is a list of qualms people in the Middle East have with American foriegn policy:

1- America supports Israel unconditionally. Israel occupied Palestine in 1948. That’s just a fact. And Israel has since displaced millions of Palestinian refugees, while giving any Jewish person in the world the right to migrate to Israel. So this means that if you’re a Palestinian who was forced to flee your home to a neighboring country like Jordan or Syria, you stay there, because you’re “all Arabs”. Meanwhile, if you’re Jewish and you’re born and bred in Miami or Iceland or Paraguay, then you have the right to become a full-fledged Israeli citizen, no questions asked. This irks a lot of people in these parts. Not to mention the fact that Muslims are barred by Israel from visiting the Temple Mount, one of the three Islamic holy sites. So a Muslim like me cannot visit Jerusalem. But an American or a European can.

Now where does America figure in here? If you go back and look at the literature, you’ll find countless transgressions committed by Israel which caused the United Nations to unanimously condemn Israel. America always vetoes such unanimous condemnations. It also supplies Israel with weapons. The official line is that this is because Israel is the only “democracy” in the region. The real reason is that Israel has one of the most powerful lobbies in the American political structure. So if you want to get elected, you best be supporting Israel.

2- America has military camps in the Middle East, in countries like my native Saudi Arabia. Now, American civilians have always worked in Saudi Arabia in large numbers, and nobody has ever had a problem with that. But people don’t like the idea of a foreign military presence which is here indefinitely. Ironically, this has decreased the number of Americans who come over here to work, something which benefitted everyone. Americans got paid extremely well and in turn Saudi Arabia benefitted from their expertise. But now Americans are scared to come here.

3- The obvious one: Iraq.

So people like Osama bin Laden take these issues and turn them into recruiting tools. He paints himself in the role of someone who is resisting American oppression, and takes verses from the Qur’an out of context to support his position. The fact is, though, that his actions are indefensible from an Islamic viewpoint. Combat in Islam is very explicitly limited to self-defense. Salman al Oadah, one of my favorite scholars, wrote an open letter to Osama bin Laden in which he challenged him to justify his militant actions in Islamic terms. Because al Oadah is familiar with the Qur’an, bin Laden declined the challenge. People who become smitten with bin Laden are usually young men who get caught up with the romanticized version of reality that bin Laden serves up and have limited knowledge of actual texts. It is appealing to play the role of martyr, especially when there seems to be no other way to resist American dominance.

So, I guess I’m trying to say that perception is two-fifths of the law. Wait, isn’t that “possession”, not “perception”? Well, screw you…I perceive it to be “perception”.SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEIT.