The Nomad and the Olive Branch

Reza Aslan is one of those intellectuals notorious for their uncompromising stance, bluntness, and, to a certain degree, political incorrectness. It comes to no surprise, then, that his latest publication, God: A Human History , reflects his headstrong approach in the sphere of all things religion and spirituality. However, despite Aslan's misgivings, this book is a thoroughly enjoyable read and indeed a most enlightening one. While his previous book, Beyond Fundamentalism , explored the notion of a "cosmic war" of ideologies against a backdrop of globalization, God: A Human History instead looks at how religion came to be from a more scientific standpoint, coming to a conclusion based on his own personal experiences with faith and belief. The book starts with Aslan's recounting of his conversion to Christianity and subsequent reversion to Islam, followed by a revelation of his newly adopted pantheistic approach to which he returns to near the end of the book...

  1984. Brave New World. These two literary works have re-defined the term "dystopia" at the turn of the 20th Century. However, another book, just as known and reputable, Fahrenheit 451, authored by one of the most creative writers America let alone the world has ever seen, has breathed life into this otherwise dank and dreary conception. The book is titled after "the temperature at which book paper catches fire and burns." Unlike its older counterparts, it is shorter in length (about 160 pages) and is set in a world where intellectual thought is actively (and violently) suppressed and entertainment in all its forms is encouraged. The story follows Guy Montag, a "fireman" (I'll leave the word at that) who lives in this dark and gloomy future. Without spoiling too much, he gets caught in a series of events that unravel the flaws of his era. Having read 1984 and excerpts of Brave New World, I am pleased to say that Bradbury's work, despite i...

Ever since man invented the wheel, technology as a whole has advanced farther than any of us can ever fathom. The wheel became the cart and the cart became the chariot and the chariot became the carriage and the carriage became the car. The glider got an engine which took it to space. The brick oven started to run on electricity and not on gas. Not long after, it also got the power to emit microwave radiation and the chance to blow up bowls of spaghetti. The pen gave way to the typewriter, and ENIAC gave way to the laptop computer. Writing on stone was later inscribed on leaves, papyrus, paper, and the Word document. Indeed, it would seem that technology has become almost synonymous with human progress. As much as some tried to use that technology to benefit the working man's daily life, much of it has been done for the sole purpose of ruining it altogether, and I'm not just talking about taxes and the mail delivery system. I'm talking about the other thing in life that...

Benjamin Franklin once said that there is no such thing as a good war or a bad peace. The concept of "just war" seems to be too idealistic: given the variety of historical accounts that cover any particular war in known history, there will always be an opposing narrative calling out injustices on part of the "other". The fallible nature of man and the subjectivity of human perception have guaranteed the perpetuation of such a pattern of injustice against those who are wronged... wrongfully. After all, war is political. It's a means to an end for those seeking resources, land, wealth, influence, and power. Yet oftentimes we are led to believe that armies around the 1st Century B.C. onwards have started to adopt more restrictive measures in dealing with enemy positions. Is it possible that the people of these times became aware of the monstrosity of warfare, and the barbarity of killing needlessly and endlessly? It may seem that way, especially considering the e...

It is not new to see on the television screen a man or a woman in a tight suit speak "on behalf" of the "people", stating promises and chanting slogans to rile the masses before them to support their transitions to power. The world, however, changes for them once they get comfortable in the leather chairs of their presidential offices. They are swamped with the demands of lobbyists and the common people, and are held ambivalent over what pacifies the rage of the common man and what betters the common man's socioeconomic status in light of an improving nation (both of them mutually exclusive concepts). Consider, however, that voters for a particular politician who aligns himself/herself with a particular political affiliation tend to support the campaigned ideology. Yet, politicians are still stuck in the aforementioned quagmire, even in the light of scenarios which can not be solved at the time being by promoting a certain economic or social system or belief. Fo...

One of the most widely hailed "best game" of all time is the action/adventure/stealth/strategy/RPG known as Deus Ex (it's designer, Warren Spector - who produced the hardcore sci-fi/horror System Shock and the legendary steampunk Thief series - did not categorize Deus Ex into a specific genre, coming to show that it has reached a level of appreciation beyond any mere classification), a VG that I had the pleasure of going through once. The sequel itself, Deus Ex: Invisible War, was quite good as well (and it also came with a quality soundtrack). They both had all the elements of a great game: open-ended situations, pivotal dilemmas to decide on, well-rounded characters that you actually could develop (un)sympathetic emotions towards, occasional side-stories and numerous humor-reliefs, aesthetic sci-fi visuals (so I admit I am a big fan of the sci-fi genre), and - most importantly - a solid storyline that anyone can relate to... well, almost anyone. But what struck me most ...

It is not uncommon that one changes one's views in light of what one encounters in life, and how one's world is suddenly shaken, but not completely stirred, in the face of an iminent groundbreaking notion... Well, maybe not that groundbreaking, but one's foundations in thought are altered nonetheless in ways that manifest themselves in action and words. Most importantly, one's attitudes shift in their entirety, and all issues related to that particular topic change. But what, pray tell, could that particular subject be in this meager post? The title's the giveaway here, so it shouldn't be that much of a surprise. Allow me, then, to explain what you may perceive as my change of heart. In my early years into my awakening towards socio-political situations on the global scale, I was a nationalist of sorts. I had my mind set on the nation that is the Palestinian people, a "righteous" nation "oppressed" by Israel. One day, I had thought to myself...

Just when I got my laptop, I decided to try on the wireless feature at my neighborhood. I was surprised that many people, who had wireless routers and networks, were detected by my laptop. I was even more surprised at the fact that a good number of them were unprotected. Connecting to one gave me a faster connection than the one I had at home. I was tempted to stay connected, but I felt I was doing something that I shouldn't be (call it guilt). I mean, it's not my fault that I was able to tap into my neighbor's internet, even though a door wide open that leads to something wrong doesn't necessarily mean you have to or can go into it. So, I disconnected. I mean, sure: it's not like I killed someone, but it's still as bad as stealing someone's wallet. What if the guy paid for bandwidth? What if his bills are already outrageously high? What if he was doing some serious work that required a consistently hi-speed connection? That would certainly make me a bad nei...

The World is full of interesting people, of many shapes, sizes, cultures, religions, races, and personalities. The many possibilities within each and more categories that define us as human beings multiplied together only allude to the many combinations that spring out of this, thus giving us an impression of how different people tend to be, and how we as people try to be ourselves in society. However, this is not the case today. While variation tends to be more pronounced within societies than among societies when it comes to genetics and appearance, among many other genotypic traits ( 1 ), there also seems to be a control beyond the grasp of genetic factors that limits the variation of such personas. In English, this means that your genes really don't have any control over who you are more than other things. The majority of such factors tend to be social, or, for lack of a more sensical term, sociological, meaning that they are controlled not by one's genetic disposition or i...