Banning the burqa is not the solution, but it's a start

French President Sarkozy recently reignited the debate over the burqa or the veil that some Muslim women wear. He said that the

...burqa is not a religious sign. It is a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic.

I disagree with the French president...but only with the second part of this quote. But first, let me preface my argument with my own thoughts on the the burqa, also spelled as burka and may be referred to as the hijab or the chador as well. (In this post, I am referring only to the complete head to toe burqa, with perhaps a slit or netting for the eyes. In this outfit, the face is not visible. The headscarf is something very different, and is what some women in my family back home in Pakistan wear.)

I believe that the burqa really is a construct of a misogynistic and feudal society. And there is no doubting the fact that Islamic societies have suppressed the rights of women for as long as one can remember. The cause of this evil (and it really is evil...) is not Islam, however, because Islam was meant to be the cure. In its purest form, Islamic teachings do make valiant efforts to raise the status of women, but these teachings have fallen to deaf ears. The real reason in my opinion, is illiteracy, and the fact that Islam spread like wildfire through lands that were already pagan, uneducated, and heavily misogynistic. Islam was meant to heal these ancient feudal lands of this backbreaking curse on women, but has instead become associated with women's rights violations. But that is the past, yet today things have not changed much. Therefore, in this day and age, Islamic leaders and followers deserve the blame for the imbalance of power between the sexes.

Moreover, I don't see how the burqa helps a woman as I believe it disconnects her from society at large, especially Western society. And it is unfortunate that it is mostly Western leadership that is denouncing the veil. Jack Straw, the former British foreign Minister once wrote that, "wearing the full veil was bound to make better, positive relations between the two communities more difficult". This careful statement is completely true, and besides the obvious community aspects, the head to toe covering must be unbearably uncomfortable. I can not fathom how a woman enjoys wearing something completely covering her up and is barely able to walk. It's also a safety issue. I've seen women driving with their faces covered, and its obvious to see that their peripheral vision is limited. That's just as dangerous as driving with your eyes closed.

However, even after all this, I believe it is the right of any woman to decide whether she wants to wear a burqa or not. We must recognize the fact that not all women wear the veil on their own free will. Let's not be naive here. There is immense pressure on women to wear the veil, especially if her community at large wears it. In fact most women don't even have the choice to NOT wear the veil. In these situations, both the Islamic leadership and the country in question, must provide avenues for discussion, and safety for the woman who decides against the burqa. If women choose not to wear the veil, then they should be allowed to do so, with adequate protection from their community and country. I believe the President Sarkozy should communicate with Muslim leadership in his country and convey such a point. Banning the veil outright, and imposing his belief system on another person is just plain wrong, to quote my brother.

Muslims (mostly men) around the world have been incensed with the French president's stance. They all believe that Muslim women must have the right to choose to wear the burqa. That's no problem. But these same Muslims must realize that they must provide their women with the right to NOT choose to wear the burqa as well. And that's really where the problem stems. President Sarkozy recognizes that Muslims societies are not willing to give up this stranglehold on women and what they wear. Wearing the burqa has become such an integral part of Muslim societies that people don't realize that its not an Islamic practice in the first place. And even if some sects believe that it is a integral practice, then they must allow their women the choose to wear it or not. And it is these women that must be protected. The issue isn't Jack Straw or President Sarkozy being racists against Islam, but the problem is that Islamic societies are unwilling to change and unwilling to remove the sexist policies of their uneducated, pagan past.

New 'words' in the English language are stupid

So the Global Language Monitor just announced that the number of words in the English language exceeded 1 million this morning at 10:22am. Since it's 11am right now, most people would incorrectly deduce that I was awaiting this event with bated breath. Well, actually the millionth word was added according to Stratford-on Avon Time so I'm about 5 hours behind and slightly less of a loser.

Anyway, I think some of the new words are ridiculous. The millionth word is actually 'web 2.0' meaning "The next generation of web products and services, coming soon to a browser near you". Firstly, isn't that a word and a number? And secondly do we really need to add such a silly word to our vocabulary.

The stupidity doesn't end here. Some of the words that lost out by not becoming the millionth word are: Jai Ho!, N00b, Slumdog, Cloud Computing, Carbon Neutral, Slow Food, Octomom etc.

You get the idea. Some of these words are slang, some are movie titles, and some are words in an another language. Now of course I understand that many words like veranda, chutney, kama sutra, actually originate in foreign languages, but that process took decades. In fact, a large majority of native English speakers know these words and use them in every day language. I obviously don't agree that the majority should know the word before it is officially incorporated (and by no means is the Global Language Monitor official), but there needs to be a lower limit as well. Where a certain proportion of the population needs to understand the meaning. After all, the only thing "Jai ho!" has going for it, is a Pussycat Dolls remix.

I'm not alone in finding this silly. According to their website, a number of linguists disagree with putting a number on words in a language...

Linguists believe that there is no way to count words, since the nature of what a word is, itself, is in dispute. Hence you cannot count what you cannot define. More so, even attempting to take a measure of the language is to be condemned.

Well, I'm certainly no linguist or expert in the matter, but I'm interested to see what my friends in linguistics think about this...

Sigherz...

Community targeted advertisements - Only in New Jersey...

Check out this flier I got in the mail the other day. I was so amused to read "TASTE KI BAAT HAI!" on top. I was even more surprised to see that it was from McDonald's, who are currently in the midst of promoting their new coffee drinks.

So for those of you who don't speak Urdu, "TASTE KI BAAT HAI!" means something like "It's about the taste".

I guess they probably found me through my name. But the concept of targeted advertising is quite interesting nevertheless. I don't know if community targeted advertisements are supposed to work better than just ones in plain English, but one thing is for certain. This can only happen in New Jersey!

Ever heard of the female shopping cycle?

So a recent study has linked shopping splurges to the menstrual cycle. It claims that...

...In the ten days before their periods begin women are more likely to make extravagant impulse buys, according to researchers. Psychologists believe that shopping sprees could be a way for premenstrual women to deal with the negative emotions created by their hormonal changes.

For the study 443 women were asked about their shopping patterns. The 153 women in the sample who were in the later stages of their menstrual cycle tended to have less control of their spending.

Professor Karen Pine of Hertfordshire University, who led the survey, told the Daily Mail: "Spending was less controlled, more impulsive and more excessive for women in the luteal phase [the days immediately before their period].

"The spending behaviour tends to be a reaction to intense emotions. They are feeling very stressed or depressed and are more likely to go shopping to cheer themselves up and using it to regulate emotions."

She added: "It is also a socially sanctioned way to deal with emotional overload compared to turning to drink or drugs.

"If women are worried about their spending behaviour then they should avoid going shopping at the end of their menstrual cycle."

Hmm. I always wondered why women at the shopping mall seem so perplexed!

Rutgers tuition amongst the highest for public universities - but is it worth it?

The undergraduate tuition at Rutgers University is notoriously high, but a recent report by California's Post secondary Education Commission caught my eye. This report compares fees at California's educational institutions, with those around the country and at the top of list, lies Rutgers, Newark (though a quick check at the Rutgers, New Brunswick website will tell you that the other campuses have around the same cost). This is a sad state of affairs for New Jersey, and its bound to get worse as Gov. Corzine is again reducing the amount of funding for Rutgers.

On the bright side, Rutgers has been prepared for this for a while now, and already has one of the lowest operating costs in the country. According to this news article...

Somehow, Rutgers has managed to survive thus far with its name and its glitter fully intact, even in the face of the sliding state figures. It's a wonder, when school leaders have had to cut hundreds of classes and positions. Or when tuition has soared by more than 10 percent in certain years. Or when one realizes that New Jersey now ranks in the bottom 10 states in tax funds spent for operating expenses of higher education per $1,000 of personal income, with a rate below $5.50; the U.S. median is $7.50.

Moreover, the education is still worth it. A recent study by SmartMoney.com debating the pros and cons of private colleges vs public colleges using a measure called 'payback' indicated that payback at most public universities is a lot higher than private colleges. This payback takes into account the higher cost of education at these private universities. The website just lists the top 5 public universities, but Rutgers admissions has the list of top 10, because its ranked 6 on that list. This is pretty cool and I've posted a picture of the list.

It's all about the numbers - landing an interview by pumping out your resume

A friend of mine recently commented about how she didn't land an interview for some internship that she applied to. It was disappointing, naturally, but what I couldn't figure out was why she applied to just a handful of internships. After all, from the human resources point of view, it really is all about the numbers, regardless of how well the economy is doing (Although obviously, in better economic times, you are more likely to get interviewed).

I think that one needs to apply to tens of hundreds of jobs in order to get your resume even looked at, and this is how I have chosen to explain this:

Let's assume that the probability of you landing an interview for one job application is p. Therefore the probability of you not landing an interview is 1-p. And if you apply to n jobs, then the probability of you not landing any interview is (1-p)^n. And the probability of you landing at least one interview is 1 - (1-p)^n. So if I would want my chances of getting an interview to be more than 50%, the equation I would need to solve is: 1 - (1-p)^n > 0.5.

Simple enough. So let's select some random probabilities of getting an interview for p.

If the probability of getting an interview is = 0.1, then you need to send out 7 resumes in order guarantee yourself at least 1 interview.

Obviously 0.1 is a really high probability, unless you are a genius, so let's work with some more realistic ones.

if p = 0.01, then n needs to be 69 job applications.
if p = 0.001, then n needs to be 693 job applications.

Well, you get the idea. In order to maximize the chance of you landing an interview, you really need to pump out that resume to as many places as possible. Obviously this model is extremely simple, with several non-realistic assumptions, but I feel that, generally speaking, this idea holds true.

Sadly, since its not at all possible these days, we have to wait for 693 jobs to open up. And after that, we still need to ace the interview. And I don't have an probabilistic scenarios or models for that. That's all on you!

Money saving tips from crazy people

In these harsh economic times, saving money is on everyone's mind. Google is now moderating a website called 'Tip Jar' where it gathers tips from users and various websites. Readers can rank these tips and the ones that are ranked highest, obviously pop up first. A lot of them are quite sensible, but some near the bottom of the page are just plain stupid. I'll share the ones I find most amusing.

"Breast feed your children for the health benefits (to mother and child) and take the cost savings of not buying formula and bottles as an added bonus. Even with the costs of a breast pump and storage supplies, you'll still come out way ahead."

Health: "Using a cotton ball, apply vodka to your face as an astringent to cleanse the skin and tighten pores"

Tech: "Use google maps to create a cultural/contextual map of your community"

Misc: "Take the extra time to spell things correctly - it shows you care about who's reading what you've written. Grammar, spelling and punctuation are often overlooked when communicating via the Internet."

Misc: "Do not eat yellow snow."

Lack of unselfish attractive women driving force behind being single

A female friend of mine and I were talking about dating in broad terms and she mused upon the fact that one often sees an 'attractive' girl on the arm of an 'average' looking guy. She says its really rare to see a really good looking guy with an average looking girl. Her reasoning was that women are a lot less picky about a guy's looks. Guy's on the other hand, she claimed, are extremely picky and care more about the girls looks. We may argue as to what the reasons for this are, but one can't argue against this observable trend. Her observations are quite on the spot.

Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and these are subjective terms of description, but one can make a few assumptions, build a simple model and see what the conclusions are. And if I offend anyone along the way...too bad.

Assumptions:

1. Attractive women prefer attractive men and average men equally
2. Assume a global scale of attractiveness, with attractive and average the only two categories
   
3. Random mixing of both sexes
   
4. Complete mixing towards a steady state
5. Maximum likelihood estimates of probabilities at equilibrium
6. Let attractive girls be the driving force behind dating
   

Method and Results:

• Let x be the proportion of attractive girls and y be the proportion of attractive boys
• Upon complete mixing, x/2 attractive girls will be with attractive boys and x/2 with average boys.
  
• y-x/2 attractive boys remain without a partner
• y-x/2 average girls remain without a partner
• If y-x/2 = 0, (i.e. no attractive single boys remain or no single average looking girls remain) x = 2y

Conclusions and discussion:

According to this model, if one wants the entire population to have a partner, then there needs to be twice as many pretty girls as attractive men. It seems that this inherent lack of 'pickiness' in girls is keeping average looking girls from finding a partner. If attractive girls were as selfish as attractive boys, then there wouldn't be any single people left over.

So where do homosexual people fit in to this model? Well, they don't really but one can see where they might be involved. According to this model, the only groups of people not with someone of the opposite sex are average looking girls and good looking men. And you know what they say about gay guys and lesbians. Maybe this model is on one extreme end, but reality is somewhere closer to this model than to a model which includes only dating within your league.

'Happy people' watch less TV than 'unhappy people'

The results of a pretty interesting study took were summarized in a recent NYTimes article this past weekend:

...People who describe themselves as happy enjoy watching television, it turns out to be the single activity they engage in less often than unhappy people, said John Robinson, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland and the author of the study, which appeared in the journal Social Indicators Research.

The surveys of 45,000 Americans, included in this research, were done over the past 35 years. That's a pretty large sample size. The results probably have very low error bars (Type I error) associated with them.

“We looked at 8 to 10 activities that happy people engage in, and for each one, the people who did the activities more — visiting others, going to church, all those things — were more happy,” Dr. Robinson said. “TV was the one activity that showed a negative relationship. Unhappy people did it more, and happy people did it less.”

But the researchers could not tell whether unhappy people watch more television or whether being glued to the set is what makes people unhappy. “I don’t know that turning off the TV will make you more happy,” Dr. Robinson said.

Still, he said, the data show that people who spend the most time watching television are least happy in the long run.

Hmm. I wonder if this is why I've been watching ESPN so often these days?

...

Average sick days, absenteeism, honest Hungarians and cheating Swedes

For some odd reason, a post in 2006 asking the question, "What is the average number of sicks days per person?", is the most popular post on my blog. I look at my visitor stats once in a while, and for the past couple of years, random people are really interested in 'average sick days'. Anyway, my previous post on this topic was pretty useless and I've been wanting to do some research and update it with some real information and facts. So here goes.

• In 1996, according to the US Bureu of labor statistics, average paid sick days for small business employees (>70% of the labor force, I think) range from 8-10.9 days depending on the number of years of service.
  
• Some people skip work without calling in. That's called absenteeism and the average rate of absenteeism has gone up from 1.9 % in 2003, 2.4% in 2004, 2.3% in 2005 to 2.5% in 2006. The source for this point and the next 3 points comes from CCH INCORPORATED.
  
• Absenteeism can cost large companies up to $850,000 a year in lost productivity.
• If you're happy, you're less likely to skip work. "Companies reporting poor/fair morale have a 2.9 percent absence rate compared to a rate of just 2.2 percent at organizations with good/very good morale."
• Why are people absent? 35% are sick, 24% have family issues, 18% take time off for personal needs, and the rest are stress (12%), and something called entitlement mentality (11%)
• A British study shows that smokers take an average of 8 more sick days than non-smokers.
• People from different countries differ in how honest they are asking for sick leave. A study has shown that the most dishonest people are from Sweden (17.33 days calling in sick when they really weren't), India (15.49), USA ( 3.07), Italy (2.2) and Germany(1.83). Note the disparity between 2nd place and 3rd place.
• The most honest workers are from Hungary (0.54 days of faked illness a year), Mexico (0.62), Bulgaria (0.67), Turkey (0.73), Belgium (0.93) and South Korea (1.0)

Everyone's a hypochondriac nowadays

Someone sneezes near me. Uh oh! Does she have a cold? Is it the flu? No...maybe its just the allergies.

Hmm....Maybe it's serious. Did she travel abroad this past month? Let me get away and take a sip of dayquil anyway!

Thoughts like these run through my head whenever someone displays symptoms. I'm a weird chap anyway. My close friends will tell you I'm always thinking up strange scenarios in my head, conjuring up situations, repeating phrases in my head, repeating dialogues and conversations...That's why I murmur so much! But assuming that perhaps someone has some strange ailment, or something contagious around me is something i feel, I'm not alone in thinking.

Diseases are getting harder to tackle, and outbursts are getting more sporadic in random regions of the world. The world itself, is getting smaller. There are businessmen and Paris Hilton types that could be seen on 3 different continents on the same day. Who knows what they are carrying? I believe that we, as humans, are becoming a lot more panic-stricken when it comes to symptoms and health related issues. Even the smallest of symptoms are dealt with in the most therapeutically tough way. We've overloaded our bodies with antibiotics, so much so, that we're born allergic to them. I, for one, was born allergic to penicillin.

A not so recent NYTimes article about the "Epidemic of Diagnoses" caught my eye last year and I've been meaning to highlight it on this blog. The writes bring another angle to this issue by claiming its the fault of the medical community for over-diagnosing us. We have medicines for the oddest of 'illnesses' now. I remember back home, when one couldn't sleep, you'd count sheep or have a glass of milk. Nowadays, you can take a bunch of drugs promising you 8 hours of distraction free sleep. I watch TV late at night sometimes, and I see commercials for the strangest of ailments, restless leg syndrome, unhappiness, poor sex lives...to name a few. Call me insensitive, but my cure for these would be to get better shoes, adopt a puppy and find a girlfriend, respectively. According to the article there are 2 main reasons for this:

Two developments accelerate this process. First, advanced technology allows doctors to look really hard for things to be wrong. We can detect trace molecules in the blood. We can direct fiber-optic devices into every orifice. And CT scans, ultrasounds, M.R.I. and PET scans let doctors define subtle structural defects deep inside the body. These technologies make it possible to give a diagnosis to just about everybody: arthritis in people without joint pain, stomach damage in people without heartburn and prostate cancer in over a million people who, but for testing, would have lived as long without being a cancer patient.

Second, the rules are changing. Expert panels constantly expand what constitutes disease: thresholds for diagnosing diabetes, hypertension, osteoporosis and obesity have all fallen in the last few years. The criterion for normal cholesterol has dropped multiple times. With these changes, disease can now be diagnosed in more than half the population.

I think this needs to change. We are pumping our bodies full of drugs, for which we're not 100% certain what the side effects are or what the future implications could be. The writers of the NYTimes article recommends the following... I know most of my peers are usually put of with scientific and health related subjects that I write about, but I strongly encourage us to think about this:

As more of us are being told we are sick, fewer of us are being told we are well. People need to think hard about the benefits and risks of increased diagnosis: the fundamental question they face is whether or not to become a patient. And doctors need to remember the value of reassuring people that they are not sick. Perhaps someone should start monitoring a new health metric: the proportion of the population not requiring medical care. And the National Institutes of Health could propose a new goal for medical researchers: reduce the need for medical services, not increase it.

Birth order and intelligence

A recent discussion with a close friend regarding birth order inspired me to not only get back to my blog, but also do a bit of research regarding this subject. I find birth order, that is, the order in which one is born amongst siblings, to be fascinating. One's birth order has possibly linked to IQ, social skills, and career interests. It makes sense then, that even the birth order of one's spouse plays a role in how successful a union could be. There may not be enough comprehensive data or research done as yet to convince us completely of the role of birth order, but I'm a firm believer that it does it explain some trends and behavioral tendencies. I'll be following up on one's social skills, career paths, and spousal links at a later date, but I'll start with birth order and intelligence.

A Time article last year initially sparked my interest. This article was based on a Norwegian scientific study conducted on 250,000 male soldiers and their IQ test scores. Amongst its many conclusions, the most powerful of which conceded that IQ decreased from the eldest child to the youngest. Though this might not be a surprise to us, as we've all grown up the stereotypes and assumptions of eldest child being the most responsible and clever, while the youngest is the most doted and perhaps not as bright. Nevertheless, as a man of science, it makes it all the more convincing to back up assumptions with scientific evidence.

The Time article explains the reasons for the disparity in intelligence amongst siblings. Is it because of the lack of resources as another child comes along?

While the eldest in an overpopulated brood has it relatively easy—getting 100% of the food the parents have available—things get stretched thinner when a second-born comes along. Later-borns put even more pressure on resources. Over time, everyone might be getting the same rations, but the firstborn still enjoys a caloric head start that might never be overcome.

Food is not the only resource. There's time and attention too and the emotional nourishment they provide. It's not for nothing that family scrapbooks are usually stuffed with pictures and report cards of the firstborn and successively fewer of the later-borns—and the later-borns notice it. Educational opportunities can be unevenly shared too, particularly in families that can afford the tuition bills of only one child. Catherine Salmon, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Redlands in Redlands, Calif., laments that even today she finds it hard to collect enough subjects for birth-order studies from the student body alone, since the campus population is typically overweighted with eldest sibs. "Families invest a lot in the firstborn," she says.

The trends exist. In fact, tons of websites exist talking about birth order and some very obvious observations. The reasons for the IQ drop amongst siblings are also discussed in the TIME article which is definitely worth reading. If you're the eldest, then you're more likely to struggle through and try and figure out solutions to problems, whether it be Lego, or dealing with parents. The younger children on the other hand, already solutions at hand from observing the elders, and they are more likely to follow the lead. As a result their problem solving skills are weaker. It's not just following the lead, but younger children are constantly challenging elder ones throughout both their developmental years. This is because, apart from the parents, eldest children play important roles in answering their siblings questions and dealing with their curiosities. Since they play these 'teaching' roles, their IQ develops. Whatever, the case may be, birth order is very interesting and its no wonder that people read into birth order as religiously as they read into horoscopes for example.

Oh, and if anyone is wondering, I am the eldest of two siblings...

Valentines Day is for the 'ugly' ones amongst us

Amusing post by my friend that concludes, quite conclusively, what most of us suspected all along....
An excerpt is called for...

If you are good looking and male in love with someone hot and female

Since you think you are really hot, you are probably really stupid. This means you will give hot girl something stupid and unoriginal like flowers and candy. Given that hot girl will probably have many suitors, competition will be high and you will be forced to spend more and more to make an impact. This will make you bankrupt and homeless. You will spend the rest of your life being the weird homeless guy who doesn’t feel the need to wear pants.

Keywords in CNN headlines

My friend read my last post, which talked about how 'sex' is so unusually high up on the NY Times.com searched keywords list, and he referred me to an interesting blog post. This friend of my friend, made a script that captures CNN headline keywords and then outputs a tag cloud. So the text cloud "contains the headlines of the past 30 days and is updated daily" according to the author.

The output over the past 30 days is an interesting follow-up to my post. Strangely enough, 'Food' leads the list. 'Iran', expectantly, also tops the list while 'Iraq' is not far behind. The word 'sex' has a count of 4, which is also interesting, as one would never assume 'sex' to be a biggest news of the day.

This is a cool tool. But what would be cooler, is if it would be possible to compile the same text cloud for BBC, Fox, Reuters, and some other leading Internet news providers. Comparing headline keywords from various sources would be quite indicative of what different companies find newsworthy or not.

The NY Times recently published a piece entitled "Questions Couples Should Ask Before Marrying", that was pointed out to me by a friend. Here are several of their pointers...

Do we have a clear idea of each other’s financial obligations and goals, and do our ideas about spending and saving mesh?

Have we discussed our expectations for how the household will be maintained, and are we in agreement on who will manage the chores?

Is my partner affectionate to the degree that I expect?

Will there be a television in the bedroom?

If one of us were to be offered a career opportunity in a location far from the other’s family, are we prepared to move?

Does each of us feel fully confident in the other’s commitment to the marriage and believe that the bond can survive whatever challenges we may face?

How ridiculous are some of these? Call me old fashioned but marriage is about going through life's obstacles together and dealing with them when the time comes. The 'television in the bedroom debate' is certainly doesn't cause any divorces. Either way, most people live together before marriage. If not, then they understand each other's habits beforehand, and have a general idea of what to expect. Marriage is just the next step in an already established relationship.

No one in the real world asks these fickle questions of their partner. Which is why I find these lists and questionnaires so amusing. Its understood that problems will be dealt with. I'll be honest, though I have no experience on marriage itself, I know one is supposed to compromise in relationships. And this compromise is reached only after endless discussions, arguments, withdrawal, fights and so on. That's part of the game and part of the package. All in all, the article presented amusing, if not practical suggestions.

Pakistani talk show host stretching boundaries

The New York Times recently published an interesting article about Ali Saleem, (a guy) who dresses up as a woman and hosts a TV talk show. The lady he portrays is named Begum Nawazish Ali. (Begum means Madam in Urdu)

The show is a big hit, and though this is the first time I've heard about him, my friends back home say he's quite popular and that his success is well warranted. Why is this so newsworthy you may ask? From the NYTimes.com...

Ali Saleem may have devised the perfect, if improbable, cover for breaking taboos in conservative, Muslim Pakistan. In a country where publicly talking about sex is strictly off limits, Mr. Saleem has managed not only to bring up the subject on his prime-time television talk show — but to do so without stirring a backlash from fundamentalist Islamic clerics.

And he has done so as a woman.

When Mr. Saleem takes to the airwaves, he is Begum Nawazish Ali, a coquettish widow who interviews Pakistan’s glitterati and some of its top politicians.

A real woman could not possibly do what Mr. Saleem does. In the unlikely event a station would broadcast such a show, the hostess would be shunned. And taking on the guise of a married woman — whose virtue is crucial to her whole family — would be equally impossible.

But apparently a cross-dressing man pretending to be a widow is another matter entirely.

Its great that he's popular, and I hope this show continues to gain attention and fanfare within the country. I posted this story because in this day and age, no day goes by without Pakistan not being mentioned in the world media. Its a strategic country and the past few years have really propelled it into the limelight - for reasons both good and bad, mostly the latter. So if Pakistan is truly on the path to secularization and liberalization, as we are being led to believe, then Ali Saleem's shows is a small step towards that goal.

Though a good sign, the show is in fact an indicator, of the chasm in Pakistani society. Even while I lived there, I felt the deep disconnect between the urbanites and the rural communities, which the author mentions. In fact, there is no real way of telling just how many rural communities watch this show. Perhaps its just driven completely by the urbanite viewers and that word hasn't spread to the rest of the country yet.

It is true that Pakistan is, in a sense, two countries. There is urban, and urbane, Pakistan, where Western mores are more accepted, although nudity would never be seen on television or scantily clad women on billboards. And then there is rural Pakistan, where Islam is generally practiced with more fervor.

As far as the show goes, though Mr. Saleem is very confidant of his shows continuity, its quite possible that its popularity will breed opposition. I sincerely hope that may not be the case.

"Little Mosque on the Praire" debuts next week

A new show called "Little Mosque on the Praire" debuts in Canada next week. I've been reading quite a bit about this on entertainment and media websites. Seems like its quite anticipated, and its debut will surely spark some controversy. It's about Muslim immigrants in the middle of nowhere in Canada interacting with their white neighbours. How exciting is that?

From CNN.com...

Zarqa Nawaz, creator and writer of the groundbreaking show, insists she's an equal-opportunity satirist taking dead-aim at both Muslim and Canadian stereotypes in a post-September 11 world. "I expect both groups will be wondering if the other finds the show funny," says Nawaz.

There are predictable jokes about Muslim beliefs clashing with Canadian traditions. In one scene, a father wearing a kufi, or a knitted cap worn by devout Muslims, protests that his Canadian-born daughter wearing a revealing tank top looks "like a Protestant."

"Don't you mean prostitute?" the daughter asks.

"No, I meant a Protestant," the father replies.

In another scene, a young man of Middle Eastern origins with a Canadian accent is heard in an airport check-in line telling his mother via cell phone that his father shouldn't think his choosing to stop being a Toronto lawyer to become an imam in Saskatchewan amounts to career "suicide." "This is Allah's plan for me," the young man says in passing, before an arresting cop appears suddenly and tells the surprised lawyer that he won't be making that appointment in Paradise.

Nawaz, a British-born Muslim and mother of four who settled on the Prairies with her family a decade ago, downplays the idea that the homegrown comedy may spark widespread controversy.

She insists her comedy springs from a relatively uneventful life in multicultural North America, unlike Europe, for example, where relations between Muslims and the wider Christian community are often a powder keg. "North America should be the first place where a comedy like this would come about, where Muslims can be comfortable in their own skin and questions of Canadian identity can produce a sitcom," she says.

To ensure it doesn't cause unforeseen offense with "Little Mosque on the Prairie," the government-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (CBC) has hired an independent Muslim-Canadian consultant to comb through the sitcom's creative elements and suggest possible alterations. Kirstine Layfield, CBC executive director of network programming, says recent preview screenings with select Muslim audiences elicited encouraging results -- laughter.

"Just doing the series is a risk in itself, but one the public broadcaster should take on if we're to help communicate authenticity of living in Canada," Layfield adds. Mary Darling, one of three executive producers shopping the Canadian comedy stateside, says a U.S. airing may help break down barriers between faith communities. "It won't do any harm, and maybe it can do some good," she says.

I certainly hope US audiences get a chance to watch this show. The 2 clips posted on the shows website seem quite promising. This show is a great idea, and I hope it turns out to be successful. Its impressive that Canadian government owned CBC television is airing this pilot series.

Humor transcends boundaries and the world really needs to look at the lighter side of life as a Muslim in North America. The aim of the show is to build bridges between cultures and religions and I hope it stays on track. People may be afraid of a bit of controversy, but Islam shouldn't have been a delicate topic in the first place. Nothing should be immune to criticism and there is plenty of humor and hypocrisy within all religions, including Islam. Most non-Muslims are wary of Islam and view it as being stubborn, violent, and backward. The show will surely focus on these stereotypes. Poking light-hearted fun can only help foster understanding between communities. A show like this can stretch the boundaries of what is allowed to normalcy.

Religion and Science

The never ending debate is in the news again. Both these cover stories are worth checking out. The Nature article discusses the lack of scientific research in the OIC countries. The Time article includes a debate amongst 2 eminent scientists. One, an athiest and the other a devout believer.

Then this week's cover for time talks about The Pope's visit to Turkey. Haven't recieved my copy of Time yet, but its clear to see, Islam is in the news.....

Indian sex survey reveals interesting findings

I suppose anonymous surveys do probably have some truth to them. Reuters

NEW DELHI - Nearly two-thirds of young Indian men expect the woman they marry to be a virgin, but nearly half have had sex with prostitutes, according to a poll.

The survey of more than 2,500 men aged between 16 and 25 conducted by India Today magazine across 11 cities found that 49 percent claimed to have had sex with a sex worker while 37 percent said they had a homosexual experience.

But 63 percent of young men in conservative India said they expected the women they married to be a virgin.

The average age of their first sexual encounter appears to be falling -- to 18 years from 23 in a similar survey two years ago, but condom use is on the rise, the report said. More than half of the men surveyed said they always used a condom.

Fourteen percent of those surveyed said they had sex with a member of their own family.

According to IHT, these sorts of surveys are becoming more regular in Indian magazines....indicating a trend towards sexual liberalization and breaking of taboos.

Great! That's definitely the right road to go towards!

I suppose there will be a margin of error when it comes to these surveys, thought the poll did not mention any.

Fundamentalism in Pakistani Colleges - an update

I recently commented on the IJT's activities at Punjab University when I read a TIME article which described some of the activities of these hooligans. Seems like things are now getting out of hand. Here is the Dawn editorial from the the 16th of October. This is so tragic. All these people should be put behind bars.

THE Lahore police have failed to stop a group of angry Punjab University students from blocking the city’s main arteries, causing commuters and transporters hardship and distress over the past week. Students belonging to Islami Jamiat-i-Tulaba have been demanding the reinstatement of a number of fellow students who were rusticated by the vice-chancellor. The latter was forced to take the extreme step after failing to rein in the IJT hoodlums who caused disruptions in normal academic activities on the campus. Backed by the Jamaat-i-Islami, the student group has a long history of resorting to arm-twisting of teachers and the university administration to get its way in the conduct of institutional and extra-curricular affairs. Groups of the student body routinely go around imposing a self-righteous moral code on the campus, often in violation of all rules and regulations; the latest has been the IJT’s bid to get the university administration to dismantle the newly set-up department of musicology. The self-proclaimed guardians of morality are also accused of forcing the staff to manipulate exam dates, alter result cards and allow non-enrolled students to occupy hostel rooms. Thus far the student group’s highhanded tactics were confined to the university campus. But the latest acts of high-handedness witnessed in the vicinity of the PU’s new campus during the last week seem now to be getting out of hand: public transport was attacked and the roads were blocked, causing massive traffic jams that lasted several hours.

All this is more than conduct unbecoming on the part of the errant student organisation, and calls for appropriate action by the university administration and the law enforcement agencies. This must be done to ensure that normal academic activities on campus are not affected, nor roads blocked in protest over matters that are in breach of the law.