Life in the Googleplex is a Time magazine photo essay. I like that the Time photo stories have a title page and keep the title and subtitle, or headline and subhead if you will, throughout the story. This gallery provides information on just one topic; it uses a reasonable number of pictures and keeps the photo captions short and precise. The bold at the start of each caption serves as a picture title which works great textually as well as visually. I also like the size of the pictures (which can be e-mailed). Also, the gallery provides quick links to other sections of Time magazine; the red navigation bar at the top (which includes a search field) and the red bar at the bottom provide a great frame for the photo and its caption.

Finally, I chose the Maverick’s 2006 gallery by the San Francisco Chronicle simply for its amazing pictures. Those waves and those colors … wow! … I’m glad that the rest is kept simple. This gallery really shows how important the quality of the pictures is. Great photos, simple but informative captions, photo credit … done. I also love the thumbnails to the right and find myself using them a lot (instead of the previous and next at the top of the picture).

“Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere.”
- G.K. Chesterton

On February 24, various online news sources published the following articles on Christian-Muslim riots in Nigeria:

Sectarian Attacks Spreading in Nigeria  (Washington Post)
By DULUE MBACHU
The Associated Press

Christian-Muslim Bloodbath. More than 100 Nigerians Killed in a Week of Religious Clashes. (Time magazine photo essay)

Nigeria Counts 100 Deaths Over Danish Caricatures (New York Times)
By LYDIA POLGREEN

And again, people were killed, as the Time magazine article puts it, “in the wake of protests over Danish cartoons caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad.” Since the beginning of February, newspapers have been covering the riots caused by the Muhammad cartoons. They reported on the outrage in the Muslim world, the number of people killed during violent protests and the alleged ban of images depicting the prophet that caused the whole uproar. From a journalistic point of view, articles answered the who?, what?, where? and when?, they cited the how many? in the case of people that protested and those that were killed, and several timelines (BBC news, CBC news, Wikipedia) detailed the how? did we get, as one report called it, From Cartoons to Chaos. I took in all this information but still find myself having a heck of a lot of questions, first of all …

Where’s the Why? Many an article attributes the Muslim agitation to a ban on depictions of the Prophet Muhammad although this is a controversial issue. A BBC news report explains that “[t]here is no specific, or explicit ban in the Koran on images of Allah or the Prophet Muhammad – be they carved, painted or drawn.” Furthermore, Reza Aslan writes in Slate magazine: “Since the publication of a series of cartoons depicting Mohammed in Denmark’s largest daily, Jyllands-Posten, much has been written about Islam’s prohibition against physical representations of the prophet of Islam. In fact, the Muslim world abounds with magnificent images of Mohammed.” Confused … anyone? Then, on top of that information, the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr publishes one of the cartoons on its October 17, 2005 cover, prints six of them in the edition, along with a critical article denouncing the images, and receives neither criticism nor protest. Why not?

The reasons, in my humble opinion, are two: different publisher, different presentation. Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the Danish Jyllands-Posten, “decided to do it [the news story] by adopting the well-known journalistic principle: Show, don’t tell,” as he explained under the headline Why I Published Those Cartoons. Well, he has a lot of telling to do now. Take the cartoon that depicts Muhammad with a bomb in his turban; Flemming picks it as an example in his statement, makes an educated reference to a fairy tale about Aladdin, and finishes his lengthy explanation stating that “[t]his suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent characteristic of the prophet.” – Dear Mr. Rose, cartoons are a very abstract thing, a visual metaphor if you will, that is supposed to get a certain message across. To decode this message, it does not only need a certain portion of education and basic literacy but something called visual literacy; I guess one could call this process interpretation, right? Depending on the reader’s (cultural) background the interpretation might be different from that intended by the author … but you know that by now. Sincerely … But what am I telling you, you know that. - To me, Rose appears like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice who cannot control the spirits he cited. Anyway, I think the cartoons are not even what this is about, they’re just the spark that flamed it.

Apart from the fact that a delegation of Imams from the Islamic Society in Denmark brought the Danish cartoons to attention in the Muslim world, the continuing tensions (not only after 9/11) and the cultural differences between the West and the Middle East play an important role in the course of events. For some reason one of those major differences has never been mentioned (at least not in any of the articles I read about the topic) in the ongoing discussion about the conflicting cartoons. The main points however, were self-censorship, the right of free speech, and the discussion of religious topics. And that, I believe, is exactly the point at which we should stop and ask Why? 

Why, when it comes to the point of critizising religion, or parts of religious groups, do Cultures Collide? I found part of the answer – I dare not say the answer since we’re talking about a very complex and complicated topic here – in an Atlantic Monthly article … dating from September 1990 (so much has changed) titled The Roots of Muslim Rage. Bernard Lewis, the author, points out that a major difference between Christianity and Islam is the seperation between Church and State, that is religion and politics. The right of free speech established in western cultures as a political principle, or civil right, allows us to reflect upon religious issues due to the separation of these spheres. As Lewis puts it, “[t]his formulation of the problems posed by the relations between religion and politics, and the possible solutions to those problems, arise from Christian, not universal, principles and experience. There are other religious traditions in which religion and politics are differently perceived, and in which, therefore, the problems and the possible solutions are radically different from those we know in the West.” Unfortunately, one must say, religions tend to see their beliefs as original and universal truths; without tolerance and the necessary sensibilities, a clash of religions, or cultures, cannot be avoided.

Nevertheless, I keep wondering how ever so often political conflicts come along under the cloak of religion like in the Christian-Muslim conflict in Nigeria. According to the New York Times article by Lydia Polgreen I mentioned at the beginning, ”[t]he violence in Nigeria began with attacks on Christians in the northern part of the country last week by Muslims infuriated over the cartoons.” In my opinion, what is happening in Nigeria between the Muslims of the north and Christians in the south mirrors, within national boundaries, what is going on between the West and the Middle East on a global scale. According to Polgreen’s report, the Danish cartoons “were simply a pretext to act on very old grievances rubbed raw by political tensions” and I believe that this does not only hold true for the Nigerian conflict. As Kayode Fayemi, a political scientist, is quoted in the same article, “[a]t the end of the day it is all politics, [e]verything else is just pretext.” What struck me the most though, was a statement made by Rev. Joseph Ezeugo (also from Polgreen’s story), or rather his question at the end: “This cannot be Nigeria today. We have been living side by side with our Muslim brothers for so long,” said Ezeugo, then he asked “Why should a cartoon in Denmark bring us to civil war?”

Why, I ask, do people have to die because of a cartoon? And, do they have to die because of this? I mean, in the end, it’s not the cartoons that kill people - ”Killer cartoons” would indeed make a headline that pointed out the absurdity of the matter – but it’s people that kill people and it is intolerance, ignorance and fanaticism that kill people. In the end, conflicts like these are a give and take, there are always two sides involved. One can argue that the cartoons should not have been published, and at the same time one can say that the conflict could have been handled differently. Many Muslims see the Muhammad cartoons as an insult to Islam and its prophet, and at the same time, many people see the violent reactions as an insult to Islam (and yes, there are also cartoons on that). There are always two sides to the story; the problem is that either side rarely takes a peek across the fence and both insist on their point of view.

What disappointed me in Flemming Rose’s statement was exactly this tone of insistence. He states his point of view very well but fails to take a look at the other side and ask why? Instead, with his constant use of the first person, he even fails to answer the self-raised question “Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam?” by stating “It certainly didn’t intend to.” (I see the question as asking for yes or no!) At the same time, I was disappointed by the violent reactions to the cartoons. In the end, I’m wondering if we shouldn’t stop pointing the finger and ask ourselves: if we insist on our freedom, shouldn’t we question its limits more often? If we wish freedom to be granted to everyone, shouldn’t we realize that freedom has its limits. Freedom is a great ideal to have as well as truth is a great ideal to have. But the reality, I think, is that there is no absolute truth, and there is no absolute freedom. And when hundreds of people are dying in riots triggered by cartoons, shouldn’t we refrain from categorizing, labeling, stereotyping, and ask why?

In an apartment near Washington Park three hungry and unsuspecting people order in from Ichiban, a Japanese and Chinese Restaurant on Western and Central Avenue. Sushitime! But instead of the usual 45 minutes the lady on the phone predicts 1 hour and 30 minutes for delivery!

Well, suffice it to say that I was one of the three people and on February 14, 2006 I had to wait for my sushi … for about 2 hours!

How could I not have known? Red and pink heart-shaped boxes and advertisement had announced Valentine’s Day weeks ago in malls and online stores and of course it would hit the restaurants. But where was that nice TV lady who had warned people 10 days ago that if they’d like to order in for the Super Bowl on February 5 they should do so early? She could have told us that Valentine’s Day may have the same effect and to order in might indeed be a bad idea since Albany’s couples were going out for dinner. Anyway, we learned it the hard way and I started asking myself Is Valentine’s Day Love’s Super Bowl? -or as reporter Asad Yawar put it Is Valentine’s Day the New Christmas?

Of course, this is my very personal opinion but in the following I want to show why a blog entry on Valentine’s Day belongs under the business category.

The top three indicators for the commercialization of Valentine’s Day are (in ascending order):

3. BusinessWeek online publishes an article under the headline Valentine’s Day Gifts with a Twist and adds a slide show called A Year of Valentine’s Days suggesting to sign up for a gift-of-the-month-club.

2. Entrepreneur magazine announces Better of Red. Market to sweethearts and see green this February.

1. The leading paragraph of a Forbes article titled Most Romantic Hotels 2006 reads: “Valentine’s Day may ostensibly be about love, but we all know it’s really about commerce. It’s a time when retailers and restaurants look for a little midwinter lift from lovers of all ages and sexes–and too many of us are too in love, cautious or guilty to have the sense to keep our credit cards in our pockets.”

Finally, numbers confirm the suspicion: Businesses loving Valentine’s Day ever more. U.S. consumers’ tokens of affection seen adding up to $13.7 billion this year.

Case closed.

Odd news are mostly a tiny piece of a puzzle, the one that sticks out because it’s more colorful than the others … but as soon as you add more pieces to it the focus shifts to the whole story which might not be that odd after all.

Puzzle Piece 1: The Yahoo Piece – or: The Odd News Piece

Germany’s gay zoo penguins still fending off female advances
Feb 8, 2006

the facts: 

• 6 male Humboldt penguins are refusing to mate with female penguins of their species flown in from a Swedish zoo
• “The females were flown in last year in a bid to bring the males to mate and help save the Humboldt species from extinction.”
• the Swedish female penguins are too shy and unable to break up the male couples though last year one female penguin was able to cause a male couple to “seperate”
• the zoo’s attempts to “turn” the male penguins and make them mate caused a furious response of gay rights groups
• Bremerhaven Zoo posted the following statements on its website: “We will be delighted if the penguins form even one heterosexual couple and manage to produce first an egg, and then a little one.” “But of course we accept the male couples that have formed and we are not trying to enforce heterosexuality, as we were accused of doing last year.”

Puzzle Piece 2: The Expatica Piece – or: Adding Information

German zoo fails to make gay penguins straight
8 February 2006

more facts: 

• the zoo in Bremerhaven has too many male Humboldt penguins while Kolmarden Zoo has too many females
• last year the female penguis arrived too late for pairing, this year they are too shy
• the species is in danger of dying out
• penguins find new mates every year
• male Bremerhaven Zoo penguins “form all-male pairs and adopt pebbles as if they were eggs”
• Bremerhaven Zoo director Kueck: “the project was not a gag, but part of a European species conservation project”
• it’s hard to tell the difference betwenn a male and a female penguin which makes “penguin family planning difficult”
• Kueck on penguin behaviour: “[It] has nothing to do with personality but is a behavioural oddity of the species whenever females are in short supply.”

Puzzle Piece 3: The Zoo’s Press Release – or: “The Gay Science”

Pressemitteilung Zoo am Meer Bremerhaven vom 08.02.2006
(Press Release by Bremerhaven Zoo on February 08, 2006)

the scientific facts:

• the zoo holds ten male and four female Humboldt penguins
• zoologists observed that males who were not in male-female pairs grouped in male-male pairs
• earlier observations showed that when additional females joined the group, the penguins formed new pairs, thus the lack of female penguins caused the male penguins to form male-male pairs
• it’s normal that penguin pairs break up after the brooding and molt period and are standing side by side in one large group until they find new partners in the next year/pairing season
• penguins usually favor last year’s partner but if that partner is too late or another penguin seems more attractive they tend to change partners
• this year’s brooding season: last year’s male-male pairs found back together but the females of the two female-male couples changed partners and caves
• every chick that can be raised is important for the preservation of the species

Lessons learned:

1. Often, odd news are not just odd news but can turn out to have scientific explanations, nevertheless it is the unusual that helps the story become news.
2. Also, information that is not included in the story (for whatever reason) can turn out to be important in order to get the whole picture.
3. ABC News Online got that confused over the male-female, male-male, female ??? issue that they refer to the female director of Bremerhaven Zoo as he.

PS: For more penguin info go to nationalgeographic.com, watch the March of the Penguins trailer, or play Save the Egg.  
 

“Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror.”
– President George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address

Sheehan Tossed From Capitol Over T-Shirt
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, February 1, 2006

Southwest boots woman for a shirt
October 7, 2005: 3:00 PM EDT

What, I ask, is it about cotton and words that poses a threat?  While President Bush emphasized the important role of freedom in the world, two women were ejected from the House gallery for wearing T-shirts with political slogans. The wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young (Florida) was asked to leave because her shirt read “Support the Troops — Defending our Freedom” and anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was removed from the gallery because the slogan on her T-shirt said “2245 Dead. How many more?” Actually, Sheehan was not only ejected but also taken into custody.

How ridiculous is the arrest of two women making use of their constitutional right of free speech during a presidential address that uses the word freedom 17 times? Even more so since President Bush addressed the issue himself, thanking the troops and honoring those who gave their lives while serving their country. But while Bush welcomed the family of the fallen Marine Staff Sergeant Dan Clay, Cindy Sheehan, who had also lost a son in Iraq, was kicked out for printing the number of soldiers killed in Iraq on a shirt. That said about the state of freedom on planet earth …

… the sky, obviously, has its limits too as another “offensive shirt” bearer (Lorrie Heasley, Woodland, Wash.) had to leave the sinking ship … ah, a politically correct airplane in October 2005 … due to a shirt revealing her opinion about part of the present US government. This series of incidents involving T-shirt terrorists makes me kind of wonder: Are there not more pressing problems than censoring prints on cotton? (high gas prices for example) … What’s the first amendment for? and What exactly did President George W. Bush mean by “democracies … respect the rights of their citzens” … ?