Laura Mansfield American Arabic Translator

[Beauty for Ashes 257]

I would definitely agree with you on this point. What attracts a person is not always in line with their cultural belief system. I personally have seen this as well and some of the things that they say " trash etc " are more for the benefit of their friends than how they really feel. I have seen some Mena men marry for papers, leave the Americans,hook up with someone from back home and find out they totally don't have the back home mindset anymore, and then go with an American again. Sometimes they even have huge regrets about leaving the American but were so pressured by family and friends to do it and then cannot go back to the old relationship because they did so much damage to the first woman. One friend in particular now ONLY DATES AMERICANS because of the comfort level he feels with them. He always says if an American woman loves you , she loves you for you. I thought that was pretty sweet

[Ban Hammer 13,669]

If people dedicate their lives looking for evil they will find it, in every culture.

This kind of reminds me of a large group of men that I know. They spew and spout that all american women are whores and trash. But you find them every weekend at the clubs hitting on drunken women. Do I see any of these men at any areas that family gather? Parks, museums, or the like? No wonder they think this about american women, they find what they look for.

Do you see any correlation here?

then why didn't i find that young rich supermodel that owned a pizza hut, a chevrolet dealership and large bass boat?

[mybackpages 0]

well surely by now everyone realizes there is no such thing as UNbiased media coverage. EVERYONE has an angle and an axe to grind. I find the best approach is to try to get info from a variety of sources and use my own filter.

Absolutely. And to make sure you are reading critically, even when reading someone you agree with. Be aware of how they gathered facts, which they chose to highlight, when they present opinion as fact. Look at the logic (or lack thereof) of how conclusions are drawn from presented facts.

I think we live in a political culture where we think a valid argument consists of picking the facts that back our opinion and then shouting over the others. I see this in students' papers all the time--line up a list of facts and other peoples' opinions that supports your opinion so the "evidence" is overwhelming. This is NOT analysis. Analysis is looking at all the facts you can find, weighing possible explanations and arguing why one explanation is better than the others. It also acknowledges the limits of the explanation.

Were Laura Mansfield to stick to the honest gathering of fact, I would say she is one piece to the puzzle. But, she has very selective facts. It is in her analysis of these facts that she becomes absurd. Leave aside her conclusions, look at her translations, take the valid ones as PART of a larger picture. That is the best way I can think to deal with any slanted analysis.

We can all go out and search for tidbits that support our prejudices, our fears, our hates, our loves, our suspicions, our heart-felt convictions. But, this is not looking at things in totality.

Incidentally, one of the hard things, and one of the more beautiful things, about being in a bi-cultural marriage, is that you are forced to consider things from another perspective all the time. I think we have all had this experience personally and are thus a pretty good group to be able to do it analytically as well.

jaula,

thank you for taking the time to articulate this so nicely.

[Beauty for Ashes 257]

well surely by now everyone realizes there is no such thing as UNbiased media coverage. EVERYONE has an angle and an axe to grind. I find the best approach is to try to get info from a variety of sources and use my own filter.

Absolutely. And to make sure you are reading critically, even when reading someone you agree with. Be aware of how they gathered facts, which they chose to highlight, when they present opinion as fact. Look at the logic (or lack thereof) of how conclusions are drawn from presented facts.

I think we live in a political culture where we think a valid argument consists of picking the facts that back our opinion and then shouting over the others. I see this in students' papers all the time--line up a list of facts and other peoples' opinions that supports your opinion so the "evidence" is overwhelming. This is NOT analysis. Analysis is looking at all the facts you can find, weighing possible explanations and arguing why one explanation is better than the others. It also acknowledges the limits of the explanation.

Were Laura Mansfield to stick to the honest gathering of fact, I would say she is one piece to the puzzle. But, she has very selective facts. It is in her analysis of these facts that she becomes absurd. Leave aside her conclusions, look at her translations, take the valid ones as PART of a larger picture. That is the best way I can think to deal with any slanted analysis.

We can all go out and search for tidbits that support our prejudices, our fears, our hates, our loves, our suspicions, our heart-felt convictions. But, this is not looking at things in totality.

Incidentally, one of the hard things, and one of the more beautiful things, about being in a bi-cultural marriage, is that you are forced to consider things from another perspective all the time. I think we have all had this experience personally and are thus a pretty good group to be able to do it analytically as well.

jaula,

thank you for taking the time to articulate this so nicely.

interesting article

Editorial: attempt to export terror to Algeria

on Friday, September 28 @ 20:55:08 CDT

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki's statement concerning the decision of Al-Qaeda in Iraq to transfer a part of its acts to Algeria makes Algerian officials responsible for lightening public opinion and make things clear about these "extraordinary" statements.

Al-Maliki said he submitted a "whole file" about this issue to Algeria; did he really do that? Or it's just a manoeuvre and an attempt to export terror that our Iraqi brothers have been living in for the last years to other Arab nations especially Algeria?

Is Al-Maliki eligible to talk about Algeria's domestic affairs and foresee dangerous acts that would be perpetrated by Al-Qaeda?

At the same time, the Iraqi Prime Minister has failed to end bloodshed in Iraq and actually was a part of conflict between Iraqis when he ordered to execute former President Hussein Saddam on Muslims' sacred day.

No ways to draw lessons from Al-Maliki as sectarian conflicts have increased since he was prime minister.

He was also accused by his allies of being part of conflict between Sunni and Shia and his occupation as a prime minister in an occupied government does not make him eligible to be a source of reliable information.

Algerians know better risks they face and they know better that talking about Al-Qaeda in Algeria in an excessive way is a beginning for foreign interference.

Whatever terrorist groups are currently strong, they are not as powerful as they used to be during Algeria's black decade.

On the other hand, Algeria was able to cope with its crisis thanks to the National Reconciliation alternative that still insists on it in spite of all attempts to foil it.