Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Arab League: Syria Suspended - My Take

Syria is in the news. What's different this time is what a televised set of Syrians is protesting:
"Regime backers rally after Arab League suspends Syria"
CNN (November 13, 2011)

"State media showed throngs of demonstrators rallying in support of Syria's president Sunday, a day after the Arab League's decision to suspend the country's membership...."
What's missing from the CNN article is any mention of the usual denunciation of Israel, accusations of America being to blame for the current embarrassment, or riots over a cartoon.

I find this change of pace refreshing, and guardedly hopeful.

I also think that Arab national leaders who kept up with events of the last few decades may be realizing that times are changing. Have changed.

From an old-school point of view, Syria's boss hasn't been doing anything all that unusual. For folks who noticed changes that started somewhere in the 18th century, not so much. Al-Assad's habit of killing subjects he doesn't like is a little extreme these days.

Back to that article:
"...The Arab League's decision Saturday dealt a stinging blow to Syria, and could open the door for broader international sanctions against the al-Assad regime.

"Why did Arab League move on Syria?

"Eighteen of the Arab League's 22 members voted to punish Syria in an emergency session at its headquarters.

"Only two member nations -- Lebanon and Yemen -- voted against the measure. Iraq abstained and Syria was barred from voting....

"...The punitive measures come after al-Assad's failure to abide by an Arab League proposal earlier this month to halt all violence, release detainees, withdraw armed elements from populated areas and allow unfettered access to the nation by journalists and Arab League monitors.

"But none of that has happened, according to daily reports streaming out of Syria...."
(CNN)
There's more:
  • Syrians who aren't thrilled with Assad as boss man say that some of the eager demonstrators were forced to act loyal
  • Assad's enforcers have killed about 3,500 people so far
    • That we know of
  • CNN acknowledges that they can't support Assad's claims
    • He won't let their reporters ask questions
That's pretty much business-as-usual in that part of the world. A news service saying that they can't confirm some boss man's story is a fairly new wrinkle: one that seems to have emerged around the time that folks started getting news from more than The New York Times and its tributaries, and broadcast networks.

But, as I said: The Arab League suspending Syria's membership is an unusual act. I hope it's more than just a publicity stunt.

Related posts:
In the news:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , ,

Monday, May 30, 2011

Egypt's "Virginity Checks" - I am Not Making This Up

I try to be open-minded about the cultural values of folks living in other countries.

That said, "virginity checks" performed on protesters seems a bit over-the-top.

Even though the general said it was okay - and even gave a reason.
"Egyptian general admits 'virginity checks' conducted on protesters"
Shahira Amin, For CNN (May 30, 2011)

"A senior Egyptian general admits that 'virginity checks' were performed on women arrested at a demonstration this spring, the first such admission after previous denials by military authorities.

"The allegations arose in an Amnesty International report, published weeks after the March 9 protest. It claimed female demonstrators were beaten, given electric shocks, strip-searched, threatened with prostitution charges and forced to submit to virginity checks.

"At that time, Maj. Amr Imam said 17 women had been arrested but denied allegations of torture or 'virginity tests.'

"But now a senior general who asked not to be identified said the virginity tests were conducted and defended the practice.

" 'The girls who were detained were not like your daughter or mine,' the general said. 'These were girls who had camped out in tents with male protesters in Tahrir Square, and we found in the tents Molotov cocktails and (drugs).'

"The general said the virginity checks were done so that the women wouldn't later claim they had been raped by Egyptian authorities.

" 'We didn't want them to say we had sexually assaulted or raped them, so we wanted to prove that they weren't virgins in the first place,' the general said. 'None of them were (virgins).'..."
What impressed me was not the way the women were treated - that seems, sadly, to be not all that uncommon in parts of the Middle East. Anybody who won't be properly submissive to the local boss-man seems to be fair game in some areas.

What impressed me was that the general at first denied that the "virginity checks" were done.

That, to me, hints that perhaps at least some aspects of what he and his merry men were up to was a trifle unorthodox: even by local standards.

As for the "torture?" I suppose that depends on how a person defines the term:
"...Salwa Hosseini, a 20-year-old hairdresser and one of the women named in the Amnesty report, described to CNN how uniformed soldiers tied her up on the museum's grounds, forced her to the ground and slapped her, then shocked her with a stun gun while calling her a prostitute.

" 'They wanted to teach us a lesson,' Hosseini said soon after the Amnesty report came out. 'They wanted to make us feel that we do not have dignity.'..."
(CNN)
I'll admit that what Salwa Hosseini went through is a sort of 'he said/she said' situation: although I'm inclined to believe her statement, given what's been going on since Tunisians got fed up with their old-school autocrat.

On the other hand, the hairdresser is still alive, and able to talk. Which isn't always the case after someone is tortured.

Does that make it all better? I don't think so.

Still, it could be worse. In Syria, folks who don't appreciate their leader enough are being killed.

And that's another topic.

Finally, and this is important, note that I wrote "cultural values:" not religious beliefs. I've made the point, fairly often, that quite a bit of what Al Qaeda and the rulers of Sudan insist is "Islam" looks more like anachronistic cultural values and customs to me. (September 24, 2009, September 7, 2009, September 7, 2008)

Somewhat-related posts:
In the news:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , ,

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Bahrain, Libya: My Take on the News

Excerpts from recent coverage of Bahrain and Libya's troubles, and my take.
"Bahrain: British Arms Export Licences Revoked"
Andy Jack, Sky News Online (February 19, 2011)

"More than 40 UK arms export licences for Bahrain have been revoked after a review following fears weapons from Britain may have been used to crackdown on protesters.

"The King of Bahrain ordered a start to 'dialogue' with all parties in the country, after armed troops opened fire on anti-government protesters in Manama.

"Dozens of people were hurt as armed officers fired at protesters around the Pearl roundabout.

"Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt said that 24 individual licences and 20 open licences for Bahrain had been revoked, following advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills...."
Like I've said, word gets around today. Fast.

And quite a few countries don't seem to like being part of what Bahrain's bosses have done. Partly, I hope, due to the ethics involved. More certainly, I think, due to a realization - at least among many Western governments - that killing potential customers is really bad for business.

For similar reasons, I think that killing one's subjects is bad for instilling a sense of loyalty. That may seem obvious, but folks like Bahrain's ruling family keep doing it.
"Libya, Yemen crack down; Bahrain pulls back tanks"
Maggie Michael and Brian Friedman, The Associated Press, via The Washington Post (February 19, 2011)

"Security forces in Libya and Yemen fired on pro-democracy demonstrators Saturday as the two hard-line regimes struck back against the wave of protests that has already toppled autocrats in Egypt and Tunisia. At least 15 died when police shot into crowds of mourners in Libya's second-largest city, a hospital official said.

"Even as Bahrain's king bowed to international pressure and withdrew tanks to allow demonstrators to retake a symbolic square in the capital, Libya's Moammar Gadhafi and Yemen's Ali Abdullah Saleh made clear they plan to stamp out opposition and not be dragged down by the reform movements that have grown in nations from Algeria to Djibouti to Jordan.

"Libyans returned to the street for a fifth straight day of protests against Gadhafi, the most serious uprising in his 42-year reign, despite estimates by human rights groups of 84 deaths in the North African country - with 35 on Friday alone.

"Saturday's deaths, which would push the overall toll to 99, occurred when snipers fired on thousands of mourners in Benghazi, a focal point of unrest, as they attended the funerals of other protesters, a hospital official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal...."
Killing folks who are mourning a victim of their government's enforcers. Like I said: I don't think that's a good way to inspire loyalty. Fear, yes. But it's my opinion that fear only works for so long as a substitute for a social contract. And that's another topic.
"Hague condemns Middle East violence"
The Press Association, via Google News (February 19, 2011)

"Britain has condemned the 'unacceptable and horrifying' use of violence by security forces in Libya, where live fire and snipers have been deployed to break up demonstrations against the 42-year rule of Moammar Gaddafi.

"The death toll during three days of protests in Libya is believed to be at least 84, in the most repressive official response yet to the wave of unrest sweeping across the Arab world.

"Meanwhile, in Bahrain, thousands of cheering and singing demonstrators re-occupied Pearl Square in the centre of the capital Manama as troops and riot police were ordered off the streets by the ruling Khalifa family in an apparent response to Western pressure...."
As I've said before, news travels fast these days.
"Bahrain Tensions Ease as Violence Escalates Through Region"
Business Report, SF Gate/The San Francisco Chronicle (February 18, 2011)

"Anti-government protesters in Bahrain celebrated a victory in their fight for democracy as authorities elsewhere across the region sought to crack down on calls for political change sparked by Egypt and Tunisia.

"Violence rippled across Yemen and Djibouti, both U.S. allies, as demonstrations against Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi entered a fourth day amid opposition warnings of an impending 'bloodbath' at the hands of security forces. Saudi Arabian shares retreated for a fifth day on concern political unrest in neighboring countries may hurt the Arab world's largest economy.

"In Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, thousands of protesters poured into the Pearl Roundabout in the capital, Manama, after tanks, armored personnel carriers and riot police withdrew on the orders of Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa. Unions have called a general strike for tomorrow to protest the government's violent quelling of demonstrations...."
"Bahrain Tensions Ease....?!" I don't know if that's wishful thinking, an effort to make the Bahranian ruling family look good - or a reference to something that's not all that obvious in the news.
"Bahrain royal family orders army to turn on the people"
Adrian Blomfield, The Telegraph (February 18, 2011)

"Bahrain's ruling family has defied mounting international criticism by ordering the army to turn on its people for the first time since pro-reform demonstrations erupted five days ago.

"As protesters attempted to converge on Pearl Roundabout, a landmark in the capital Manama that has become the principal rallying point of the uprising, soldiers stationed in a nearby skyscraper opened fire.

"Since they took to the streets, Bahrain's protesters have come to expect violence and even death at the hands of the kingdom's security forces. At least five people were killed before yesterday's protests.

"But this was on a different scale of magnitude.

"As they drew near, they were met first with tear gas and then with bursts of live ammunition.

"Many fled the first salvoes, scrambling down empty streets as the shots rang out behind them.

"As they ran, terror and disbelief flashed across their faces. One man shouted: 'They are killing our people! They are killing our people.'

"Cowering behind a wall, a woman wept, her body shaking in fear.

"But many refused to run, initially at least, determined to defy the violence being visited upon them. Some held their hands in the air and shouted 'Peaceful! Peaceful!'.

"The shooting resumed. One man crumpled to the ground, blood pouring from his leg; nearby a second was also felled. A scream went up: 'live ammunition!...

"...But even as they fled in headlong panic, a helicopter sprayed gunfire at them and more fell. Paramedics from ambulances that had rushed to the scene darted forward to help the wounded, but they too were shot at. Several were detained and at least one ambulance was impounded.

"Doctors at the nearby Salmaniyah hospital said they had received 32 wounded people, nine of whom were in a critical condition. There were unconfirmed reports of two deaths at Pearl Roundabout, but witnesses said the bodies had been seized by the army.

"Those caught up in the violence were mourners, returning from funerals of three people killed before dawn the previous day when police opened fire on protesters, many of whom were asleep, in a successful bid to regain control of Pearl Roundabout....

"...Most of the protesters are members of Bahrain's long-marginalised Shia majority. "They say they are not demanding the abdication of Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, Bahrain's Sunni king, but they are calling for a constitutional monarchy that would treat the Shia fairly and make them equal subjects in his kingdom...."
Note: Bahrain has been a constitutional monarchy since 2002. ("Bahrain," CIA World Factbook (last updated February 11, 2011)) What the protesters want, apparently, is a change in the constitution. Or maybe a new constitution. Back to the article:
"...But they are demanding the resignation of his uncle Khalifa bin Sulman Al Khalifa, who has served as prime minister for 39 years.

"During his rule, the protesters say, the Shia have been turned into second class citizens, deprived of jobs in the army, police force and government while Sunnis from abroad have been given Bahraini citizenship to alter the kingdom's demographic balance.

"Government officials in Bahrain have warned that the Shia opposition is controlled by Iran, which seeks to use the kingdom to establish a foothold on the Arabian peninsula.

"Protesters insist that they have no love for Iran and are only seeking justice for themselves...." (The Telegraph)
In contrast to the SFGate piece, this was written by someone who almost certainly was not trying to soft-pedal the Bahranian rulers' decision to kill a few commoners and hope for the best.

Related post:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Bahrain and the Information Age

There's an old-fashioned way to deal with unruly subjects: kill them. A more contemporary wrinkle is to 're-educate' folks who don't approve of a country's leadership, or tuck the troublemakers in some cell where they'll be out of sight.

There was a time when communications between countries was a matter of diplomatic pouches, traveler's tales, and the occasional monograph by an aristocrat with a taste for travel.

In those days, killing commoners who made a fuss may have been an effective way of maintaining the status quo.

These days, not so much.

Between video cameras on cell phones and a rapidly-evolving set of online communities, what happens in some remote corner of the world - isn't all that remote. Think Iran's Neda Agha Soltan. (June 23, 2009)

Bahrain's Bosses and an Oppressed Majority

I haven't heard "oppressed minority" all that often lately, but another presidential election is coming up, and it may be run up the flagpole again. Which is another topic.

Sometimes minority groups in a country really are oppressed. That's not, in my view, a good idea. In the short term it's hard on the folks who aren't with the majority. In the long term, I think treating underlings unfairly is really bad for the folks in charge.

Then there are situations where you've got an oppressed majority. Again in my opinion, that's bad in the long run.

From the looks of it, the folks who conquered Bahrain a few centuries back are on a voyage of discovery, in which they'll discover that it isn't the 18th century any more.1 From the looks of things, it won't be an easy lesson.

Bahrain is a few islands off the coast of Saudi Arabia in the Persian Gulf. The biggest one is about 10 miles across by 30 long. ("Bahrain," CIA World Factbook (last updated February 11, 2011)) They've started running out of petroleum, but the king - or somebody with influence - has been smart, and got into petroleum refining and banking. Economically, the place isn't doing too badly.

Or, rather, it looks like the king and his family aren't doing too badly: along with folks who see things the king's way.

America's Involved: No Surprise There

The United States Navy's Fifth Fleet has a major support facility on Bahrain. In some circles, that's 'proof' that capitalist warmonger Yankee oppressors are grinding Bahrain's proletariat - - - and so on.

I see the American presence in Bahrain as no great surprise. Until Bahrain followed Tunisia and Egypt in this year's meltdown, the place was:
  1. In a strategically important part of the world
  2. Moderately stable
Some of Ameirca's more earnest intellectuals notwithstanding, this country isn't in the habit of knocking over governments and trying to set up clones of our government - or warmonger oppressors. America's government has blundered now and again - and I've discussed that before. (February 10, 2011)

Bahrain: "Kick the Bum Out," Not "Yankee Go Home"

Times, as I've said before, change. A few decades back, protests in another country often used 'Yankee go home' as a theme. In today's Bahrain, the protesters apparently think the king can stay - but want the king's uncle fired. The uncle's name is Khalifa bin Salman Al-Khalifa (or Khalifa bin Sulman Al Khalifa). He's been prime minister since 1971 (Factbook, CIA). That's 39 years in the same top job.

Which is a case-in-point for why I think term limits are a good idea - and that's almost another topic.

There may have been epochs when one century was pretty much like another - and someone could lock himself in an executive office for several decades without losing track of what was going on outside.

This isn't one of those epochs.

At all

Today's World: Blink, and You'll Miss Something

I'm not a technological determinist. I don't think that devices we use 'make' us do things. On the other hand, I do think that our technology makes a huge difference in what we can do - once we've made up our minds.

And it's more complicated than that. Things usually are. Yet another topic.
Bahranian Brouhaha: Not Just Tech
I'm about as sure as I can be, that the Bahrainian trouble isn't entirely due to communications and information technology that's popped up since since the king's uncle started being prime minister.

Folks don't, I think, face bullets because some brass hat can't make a phone call without help.

Still, I think Khalifa bin Salman Al-Khalifa and the rest of Bahrain's ruling family may not quite understand what's happened in the last four decades.

Folks who aren't in the upper crust aren't as isolated from each other as we were. The phrase "global village" may have political connotations: but I see it as also being a fairly good way of describing what's happening.

Provided that two people understand the same language, and have access to the Internet, it doesn't matter where each of them is: they can communicate.

Sharing Bad Jokes, Taking Down Autocrats

Most of the communication is trivial, at best: but that's human nature, I think. Most of us don't sit around thinking great thoughts and discussing the existential implication of banana peels.

Once in a while, some of us have something really important to say - or a vital picture to share. Since we're already sharing bad jokes, sports trivia, or what browser is best with our friends, we'll share the important bit of information.

Nothing unusual there. Folks have been doing the same sort of thing for thousands of years.

What's different today is that some of those little communities are spread over several continents. And some folks are involved in more than one community - so if something's really important, the news can travel fast. Very fast.

That's not an original observation - but I think it's an important part of life in the Information Age. I also think it's an important part of what happened in Tunisia, Egypt: and what's happening now in Bahrain and quite a number of other places.

This isn't a good time, in my opinion, for someone in an old-school regime to assume that killing a few commoners will solve a public relations problem. Word gets around faster now: and folks in 'the masses' can get their version of a story out. Maybe just as important: folks dealing with an unyielding, unreasonable regime can learn that they're not alone.

VCR to Twitter: Quite a Ride

I like technology, in general, and don't mind learning new ways of handling information. Which is a good thing for me, considering what I've learned to deal with since 1971. That was the year that the VCR videocassette was invented. Next came word processors and Pong (the first video game), followed by online bulletin boards, the World Wide Web, and Twitter.2
It's been quite a ride.

Somewhat-related posts:
News and views:
I've excerpted material from these sources and opined a bit in another post:
1Background:
"Bahrain "...In 1783, the al-Khalifa family captured Bahrain from the Persians. In order to secure these holdings, it entered into a series of treaties with the UK during the 19th century that made Bahrain a British protectorate. The archipelago attained its independence in 1971. Bahrain's small size and central location among Persian Gulf countries require it to play a delicate balancing act in foreign affairs among its larger neighbors. Facing declining oil reserves, Bahrain has turned to petroleum processing and refining and has transformed itself into an international banking center. King HAMAD bin Isa al-Khalifa, after coming to power in 1999, pushed economic and political reforms to improve relations with the Shia community. Shia political societies participated in 2010 parliamentary and municipal elections. Al Wifaq, the largest Shia political society, won the largest number of seats in the elected chamber of the legislature. However, Shia discontent has resurfaced in recent years with street demonstrations and occasional low-level violence...." ("Bahrain," CIA World Factbook (last updated February 11, 2011))
2 A short list of new communications and information technology:
  • 1971
    • VCR / videocassette)
  • 1972
    • Word processor
    • Pong (first video game)
  • 1973
    • Community Memory
      • Precursor to online bulletin boards
    • Ethernet
  • 1979
    • Cell phones
  • 1981
    • MS-DOS
    • IBM-PC
  • 1984
    • CD-ROM
    • Apple Macintosh
  • 1985
    • Windows GUI
  • 1988
    • Digital cell phones
  • 1989
    • High-definition television
  • 1990
    • World Wide Web
      • Internet protocol (HTTP)
      • WWW language (HTML)
  • 1991
    • Digital answering machine
  • 1996
    • Web TV
  • 2000
    • Solid-state drive (SSD) / Flash drive
  • 2001
    • iPod
  • 2005
    • YouTube
  • 2004
    • Facebook
    • And a webfull of other online communities
    ("20th Century - the technology, science, and inventions," "Modern Inventions," About.com; "Timeline of Historic Inventions," "Facebook," "Bulletin boardsystem," Wikipedia)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Tunisia, Twitter, Change, and Staying Sane

This post isn't about the War on Terror so much as it's about what I think is behind what Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and like-minded folks are trying to do.

It looks like they've seen today's world: and don't like it. (February 6, 2009, October 8, 2007) That's understandable, I think:
"...Ishmael to Internet in One Lifetime

"I've made the point before, that many Muslims have been dragged across several thousand years of history and cultural change in one or two generations. Stable cultures, carrying on traditions which had been ancient when Abraham moved out of Ur, were relatively isolated until Western civilization needed petroleum.

"Then, the world of individual rights, Barbies, beer, bikinis and Mickey Mouse dropped into their quiet world. It must have been like a retirement community suddenly having a frat house near the golf course...."
(September 24, 2009)
I do not think that justifies flying airliners into skyscrapers. Like I've written before, understanding does not mean agreeing. I think it's a good idea to understand why someone is doing something - not to find excuses for inexcusable behavior, but to make reasonable decisions when considering how to act.

Like it or not, there's another election coming up in a couple years - and I intend to be an informed voter. And that's almost another topic.

Osama bin Laden isn't the only person who doesn't seem comfortable with change.

Take the former president of Tunisia, for example. He's out of a job now. In part, it seems, because of some newfangled technology and new social structures that developing as people use it.

Tunisia: Times Change

Tunisia is in the news again. Or, rather, still.1

I've noticed a few developments:
  • Zine el Abidine Ben Ali seems to have arrived safely in Saudi Arabia
    • Some of his family didn't
      • Maybe they didn't notice the changes fast enough
  • The General Tunisian Workers' Union (UGTT) want more change
    • They're not the only ones
  • People were killed during anti-presidential demonstrations
    • 78
    • Or over a hundred
    • Depends on who you ask
  • Tunisia isn't carrying on with business as usual
    • Which, in my opinion, is just as well
My guess is that Tunisia won't be having nice, polite, uncontested elections - ever. That doesn't seem to be the way things work: just look at America's last few election cycles. Then there were those "hanging chads." And that's another topic.

Now that a government that sounds a bit like Chicago's old-style political machines is (most likely) on its way out, though, I'd say that folks in Tunisia have a good chance of improving their country.

Today, Tunisia; Tomorrow, the World?

The idea that Twitter - and other online communities and media - brought down the former permanent president of Tunisia is wending its way through the digestive tract of traditional news media.1

My guess is that this latest apple cart upset by Information Age culture and tech is causing no small degree of indigestion along the way.

That's because I don't think that the powers-that-be in Algeria, Egypt, and Yemen are the only ones threatened by folks with Twitter accounts and blogs.

I think America, and the western world in general, is experiencing changes on a scale we haven't seen since Gutenberg started printing with movable type.

As I've said elsewhere, change hurts. And change happens.

Hello Internet; Goodbye Editorial Control

I think that when folks stopped having to depend on traditional information gatekeepers2 for knowledge of what was going on outside their circle of friends and acquaintances: the established order lost a major tool for controlling 'the masses.'

Not that east coast newspaper editors, American educators, and media executives thought about it that way. I find it quite hard to believe that there's some sort of vast conspiracy 'behind the scenes.' Although I think that sort of thing can make a pretty good story. (January 14, 2009)

Conspiracy? No: Cultural Blind Spots? Maybe

America is, in my opinion, just what the CIA World Factbook says it is: a "constitution-based federal republic; [with a] strong democratic tradition." That's lower-case "democratic," by the way. I don't think the CIA is a tool of the Democratic party; the Republicans; or the space-alien, shape-shifting lizard people.

I also prefer to believe that many senior news editors, studio executives, and college professors mean well. I do, though, get the impression that quite a few of the 'proper sort' feel that they have a profound understanding of the world - and that it is their burden to manage what the 'common' people see and read. Sort of an upgrade of the old "White Man's burden." Only more "tolerant," in a politically-correct way. And since these folks seem convinced that they, and they alone, are "tolerant," they don't see that they're filtering out facts they don't like.

Or they think that it's the right thing to do.

I think it may seem 'obvious' to someone with letters after his name, or who has an executive secretary taking his calls, that he and his good buddies can handle the grim realities of the world: and that the rabble can't. Or, rather, that they might come to the wrong conclusions: conclusions that aren't consistent with what he decided should be so.

Sometimes it's a "she:" that's one change that came out of the '60s that I think made sense. Which isn't another topic.

Change Hurts: Change Happens

I've said this before, quite a bit. Change happens: Deal with it.

I remember the '50s. "Happy Days," it wasn't - except for folks like Mr. Cunningham. And even white, male World War II vets had their troubles. Think The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit. Which I've mentioned before. (November 10, 2010)

I remember the '60s, too. I don't think the Timothy Leary/Jimi Hendrix thing was a good idea - at all. But the social revolution was more than encouraging bright, talented people to scramble their brains.

Back in the 'good old days' that I remember, for example, quite a few folks were convinced that women should know their place: barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. Some still believe that.

But that changed for a great many Americans.

Folks who had grown up thinking that the "Happy Days" lifestyle was the only possible way to live - or at least the only one that decent people should want - were not happy when they stopped being at the apex of society. Or seeming to be, at any rate.

They complained. A lot. But change happened, anyway.

I Don't Want the '50s Again

I've been called a conservative. I can see why. There seem to be three major currently-recognized philosophical positions: Liberal; Moderate; Conservative. Four, if you count apathy. My views are least unlike "conservative" of that triad - or quadrad.

And yet, I don't think that women are entertaining sex machines and household appliances: more useful than a toaster, but less indispensable than high-definition television. Go figure. I'll get back to that.

I certainly do not want a return to the 'good old days' when women were considered odd if they showed an interest in power tools, or men if they were good at graphic design. Partly because my wife is the one with power tools, and I once made a living doing graphic design.

The '60s saw changes in a lot more than just what folks expected men and women to be like.

It's a good thing, in my opinion, that the United States is finally making reparations for a shameful history of treaty violations: but again, that's a family thing for me. I'm related to folks of the Lakota.

It even looks like America may be sorting out how do deal with the idea that people shouldn't be evaluated based on who their ancestors were - even if those ancestors came from northwestern Europe. Which is a good thing. Again, in my opinion.

The changes of the last five decades have been - and are - painful. But I think many were for the better - and anyway, change happens.

New Technology, New Social Structures: Dangerous, Sort of

Maybe I'd be more worried about this here newfangled Internet, and online communities, if I hadn't been through this sort of thing before.

I remember when the telephone was destroying the youth of America. According to some terribly serious folks, anyway. Same with television.

Then, as broadcast television was being supplanted by cable: cable television was feared and reviled as that which would destroy America's cultural unity. In a way, the hand-wringers had that one right. Before cable, just about everybody had either seen the latest "Leave It to Beaver," "Bewitched," or "M*A*S*H" episode: or had heard about it. We had something besides the weather to talk about.

Now, with hundreds of channels, you can't count on someone else having seen the same thing you did the night before. Divisive? Maybe. I prefer having more choices: including skipping television entirely and seeing what's online.

The Internet was, and is, seen as a threat, too. I've mentioned the time when the Christian Coalition and the Feminist Majority tried - together - to get a Federal agency that would manage what Americans were allowed to see. (March 9, 2008)

I think that ideological odd couple shows how frightened at least some folks in the establishment are, of the power that most Americans now have. We no longer depend on a relatively small number of the 'right sort' to decide what we're allowed to see and read. If we're interested, we can go online and do our own research: and draw our own conclusions.

Not everybody comes to the same conclusions I do: But I'd much rather live now, when each of us can learn something besides what the established order thinks we should - than back in the 'good old days.'

Not everybody feels that way, so we're hearing about how Twitter twists the youth - and that's a topic I've posted about before. (see Related posts)

Sex Machines, Toasters, and High-Definition Television

I said I'd get back to philosophical positions, women, and toasters. This is the last section of this post, and is more detailed look at my views of a set of cultural values that I think are still in a state of flux: the position or women, and men, in society.

I am not all that sympathetic with the bra-burning set. I've been called a male chauvinist pig too many times. But weird demands and assertions aside - it's my considered opinion that women and men are people, and should be treated as such.

The two halves of humanity differ from each other, and exhibit a vast range of individual differences - we've got upwards of 6,768,000,000 distinct versions of humanity as of July of last year. (CIA World Factbook (updated on January 13, 2011))

Back in my "good old days," the problem was that women weren't recognized as being 'as good as men.' Or, from the point of view of guys who like things just the way they were, some women didn't 'know their place.'

Now the problem, from some points of view, is that some women don't know their place - behind whatever liberal notion is in fashion at the moment. And, again, that isn't another topic.

As I've tried to show, I think there's a social revolution going on: one that today's establishment likes as little as the establishment of my teens liked what 'those crazy long-haired kids' were doing.

One of a great many aspects of American culture that's changing is, in my opinion, the role or roles that women are expected to fill. Men, too.

Finally, a clarification about my take on "barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen."
  • Barefoot:
    • I wear shoes as little as possible - even during central Minnesota winters
      • Nothing ideological
        • I have a hard time finding ones that fit
        • The things cost a lot
  • Pregnant:
    • I like babies
      • And the process that gets them started
    • I also think life is precious
      • Even life that has to have frequent diaper changes
    • But I don't think women are just for having babies
      • Or that men are just for getting them started
  • In the kitchen
    • I think my wife's job of job of maintaining our household and being a mother is
      • Demanding
      • Complex
      • Vital
      • Arguably more important than any of my 'real' jobs were
    • I think my job as father is more important than my 'real' jobs
    • Which doesn't mean that women shouldn't have 'real' jobs
      • Just that there's more to life than a 'career' for
        • Men
        • Women
Related posts:
News and views:
Background:
  • "Tunisia"
    World Factbook, CIA (last updated January 12, 2011)
1 Excerpt from the news:
"Two allies of Tunisia ousted leader Ben Ali 'detained' "
BBC News Africa (January 23, 2011)

"Tunisian police have detained two politicians close to ousted President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, state media report.

"Mr Ben Ali's former adviser Abdelaziz bin Dhia and former Interior Minister and head of Senate Abdallah Qallal were now under house arrest, they said.

"The news came as a new protest march against the interim government reached the capital Tunis....

"...PM Mohamed Ghannouchi has pledged to quit after elections, which are expected within six months...."

"...The media also said that the police were searching for Abdelwahhab Abdalla - another former adviser to Mr Ben Ali.

"Last week, some 33 members of Mr Ben Ali's family were arrested as they tried to leave the country....

"...On Sunday, a new protest march reached Tunis.

"Some 1,000 demonstrators from Menzel Bouzaiane - the rural area where protests against Tunisia's authoritarian rule began in December - had joined the 'Caravan of Liberation' to the capital.

"The main trade union, the General Tunisian Workers' Union (UGTT), has backed the protest, which set off on Saturday....

"...Mr Ghannouchi has left Mr Ben Ali's ruling Democratic Constitutional Rally (RCD) party and insisted that figures from the previous regime who have remained in positions of power - including the ministers of defence, interior, finance and foreign affairs - have 'clean hands'.

"But this has failed to satisfy many opposition figures and protesters.

"On Saturday, policemen - who had defended the regime of the ousted president - were among those protesting, which the BBC's Magdi Abdelhadi in the Tunisian capital says marked a very dramatic development.

"The official death toll during the unrest leading to Mr Ben Ali's flight was 78, though the UN says more than 100 people died. Authorities have promised to investigate the deaths of protesters.
(BBC)

"Tunisians mourn protest victims as small demonstrations continue"
Edition: International, CNN (January 23, 2011)

"Tunisia on Sunday ended a three-day mourning period for dozens of people killed in protests that ousted the country's long-term president.

"As the mourning period came to a close, small protests broke out in the capital, Tunis.

"Protesters have decried a new government formed in the wake of President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali's ouster.

"They have called it a sham, and demanded that officials with connections to the old guard be fired.

"The nation's interim prime minister said that his country would hold its first free democratic elections since gaining independence and vowed to leave politics after the ballot.

" 'We want to make the next elections the first transparent and legitimate elections since independence,' Tunisian Interim Prime Minister Mohammed Ghannouchi said Friday.

"Ghannouchi said he will retire from politics after the elections are held.

"Tunisia gained independence from France in 1956.

"Ghannouchi said upcoming political reforms would 'scrap all undemocratic laws including laws involving political parties, the elections and the anti-terrorism law that was abused by the former regime.'

" 'I lived like all Tunisians, in pain and fear' under the former president, Ghannouchi said...."
(CNN)
Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Tunisia: 24 Hours, Three Presidents

Tunisia is a little wedge of a country between Libya and Algeria.

It's been quite a stable country, by some standards: the same fellow's been President of Tunisia since 1987. Somehow, Zine el Abidine Ben Ali kept winning elections.

That was then, this is now. The former Tunisian president is believed to be hightailing it for Saudi Arabia, and the country's on its third president so far. Since this morning.
"...Ben Ali's longtime ally, Prime Minister Mohammed Ghannouchi, stepped in briefly with a vague assumption of power that left open the possibility that Ben Ali could return. But on Saturday, the head of the Constitutional Council declared the president's departure permanent and gave Fouad Mebazaa, leader of the lower house of parliament, 60 days to organize new elections...."

"...In his first televised address, the interim president asked the prime minister to form a '"national unity government in the country's best interests' in which all political parties will be consulted 'without exception nor exclusion.'

"The move was one of reconciliation, but it was not clear how far the 77-year-old Mebazaa, who has been part of Tunisia's ruling class for decades, would truly go to work with the opposition. It was also unclear who would emerge as the country's top political leaders, since Ben Ali utterly dominated politics, placing allies in power and sending opponents into jail or exile...."
(Associated Press, via FoxNews.com)
Quite a few people have been killed since the excitement started today. There's been a major fire, and one prison released inmates - a humanitarian gesture, I take it, since that's where the fire was. 42 prisoners had been killed by the time the 1,000-odd others were released.

One lesson of what's happening in Tunisia may be that there are worse things than America's traditional lawsuits to decide who won an election.

Another is, I think, that this isn't the '50s any more. Or the '60s.

An article/op-ed in Wired (January 14, 2011) suggested that we're looking at what happens when Information Age technology and social structures wash over a country that's run by folks whose power depends at least in part of controlling what their subjects know.

I've discussed information gatekeepers before. In America, they've been the editors of east coast newspapers, book and magazine publishers, executives of media companies, professors, and the rest of the folks who run the education establishment.

And that's not quite another topic.

Related posts:News and views:Background:
  • "Tunisia"
    World Factbook, CIA (last updated January 12, 2011)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, May 10, 2009

A Sheik Torturing a Business Associate: As American as Al Capone

I think a few of the underlying ideas behind multiculturalism are valid. Some things are determined by culture, and aren't right or wrong in any universal sense. For example:
  • Driving on the right (or left) side of the road
  • Which fork you use first
    • Or, for that matter, eating fried chicken
      • With a fork
      • Without a fork
      • At all
That's one of the reasons I became a Catholic.

Back to tolerance, torture, and a global society.

Torture a Business Associate? Videotape it?? Let the Videotape Get Loose??!

There's a story in the news, over a month old, about a videotape that appears to show one man torturing another. The (alleged) torturee is an American citizen (decidedly non-WASP), the (alleged) torturer is a member of Abu Dhabi's royal family: Sheikh Issa bin Zayed al Nahyan.

A CNN article on this case is fairly low-key: "A member of the royal family of Abu Dhabi who was captured on videotape torturing an Afghan grain dealer has reportedly been detained, a senior U.S. State Department official told CNN Saturday.

"The official said the government of the United Arab Emirates, which includes Abu Dhabi as one of its seven emirates, told the State Department that Sheikh Issa bin Zayed al Nahyan is under house arrest pending an investigation, but that the United States has not independently confirmed the development.

"The videotape emerged last month in a federal civil lawsuit filed in Houston, Texas, by Bassam Nabulsi, a U.S. citizen, against the sheikh. Former business partners, the men had a falling out, in part over the tape....

"...The tape of the heinous torture session is delaying the ratification of a civil nuclear deal between the United Arab Emirates and the United States, senior U.S. officials familiar with the case have said. The senior U.S. officials said the administration has held off on the ratification process because it believes sensitivities over the story can hurt its passage.

"On Saturday, Human Rights Watch called the sheikh's reported detention 'a significant development' but said the UAE government needs to do more to restore confidence in its judicial system...." (CNN)

Torturing a Business Associate? I'd Say This is Serious

I think that it might be imprudent to let the private affairs of another country's ruling family interfere with an international deal. Of course, the matter of a member of the royal family conducting business by pouring salt into somebody's wounds, and then driving over the chap in a Mercedes SUV does raise some public relations issues, at least.

It's easy for me to say 'ratify,' or 'not ratify:' I'm not facing reelection, a few years down the pike. And, I do believe that intentionally running over someone in an SUV is naughty: Whether it's a Mercedes or not.
Salt in Open Wounds and Assault With an SUV: This I Can Call Torture
Moral relativists will insist that being run over by an SUV is just like having water poured on your face, with a cloth getting in the way.

I don't see it that way, but I'm not very "sophisticated," by the dominant American culture's standards. Not being on the same page with leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Professor Ward Churchill doesn't bother me a bit. (Being counter-cultural isn't what it used to be.)

How Dare Westerners Try Imposing Their Values on Another Culture!?

I've never heard an advocate of American academia's take on multiculturalism defend what this Arab sheik seems to have done. Fervent devotion to moral relativism doesn't seem to extend to activities that the better sort don't like.

I don't think that torturing a business associate is right, either.

This proves Islam is Wicked, Right?

Hardly. It does offer strong evidence that the royal family of the United Arab Emirates are as human as the rest of us, but I don't see religion being involved.

There have been enough Muslims saying "This is Not Us," and mosques working against terrorist recruiters, to convince me that Islam isn't some monolithic death cult, bent on the destruction of Western Civilization, beer, and Mickey Mouse.

I can understand how people get that impression, though. The House of Saud and Saudi Arabia's courts seem determined to show that Islam is a weird sort of sideshow, run by men with very odd psychological issues.

It's not just Saudi Arabia: Leaders of Sudan and Bahrain have done their part in hurting Islam's image. Actually, Bahrain's issue with a college teacher may have had some merit: but Sudan's snit over a teddy bear was, in my opinion, over the top.
Sudan: That's an African Country, Right?
Sudan is in Africa, but a little over a third of the people are Arabic: and they're the ones running the place. Which includes an "Arabization" program, and protecting people from teddy bears.
What About Bahrain?
Bahrain's a smallish island off Saudi Arabia. About 62% of the people there are Bahraini. They probably see that as distinct from "Arab," but I think it's a bit too subtle a distinction for most foreigners to notice.

And, not to be too judgmental, Bahrain doesn't seem the safest place for foreigners: particularly women, and people without a whole lot of wealth.
"...Bahrain is a destination country for men and women trafficked for the purposes of involuntary servitude and commercial sexual exploitation; men and women from Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia migrate voluntarily to Bahrain to work as laborers or domestic servants where some face conditions of involuntary servitude such as unlawful withholding of passports, restrictions on movements, non-payment of wages, threats, and physical or sexual abuse; women from Thailand, Morocco, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia are trafficked to Bahrain for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation...." (CIA World Factbook)

These are Islamic Countries: So Islam is Bad, Right?

They're also countries where the majority of people have dark hair, and speak Arabic. But that doesn't mean that brunettes are bad, or that speaking Arabic makes people do naughty things.

Looking at the Middle East, where Islam is filtered through one cultural filter, and Indonesia, where until very recently Islam was filtered through a very non-Arabic cultural filter, I think there's reason to believe that it isn't Islam that's an issue, but local and regional cultures.

Torturing a Business Associate? That Would Never Happen in America!

Two words: gangland Chicago.

Back in the 'good old days,' when people like Al Capone were running Chicago, the windy city had a colorful reputation. My father grew up near there, and told me a little of what it was like, when the owner of a business might explain, "he made me an offer I couldn't refuse," and it wasn't particularly good news.

On the positive side, a close collaboration between organized crime and city government made it possible to quickly and effectively deal with everyday problems like potholes and defective plumbing. It was in the interests of the bosses to keep their subjects free from reasons to complain - apart from the occasional shakedown.

Chicago of the twenties and thirties might be used as 'proof' that American culture was basically criminal. After all, Chicago is an American city, inhabited mostly by Americans. Never mind that a federal law enforcement agency and the Chicago Crime Commission made it their business to overturn this cherished cultural tradition.

Culture, History, and Awkward Publicity

I think that people in the Middle East - their leaders, at any rate - are in a very awkward position. Their culture was ancient when the Roman Republic became an Empire, and had been isolated for nearly a thousand years when the world of steam engines, streaming video, space ships, and robots arrived.

People in European-based cultures have had dozens of generations to get used to ideas like freedom, representative government, and not killing people you don't approve of.

In the Middle East, I think we're looking at a pre-Abrahamic culture getting used to the idea that our post-industrial global society is:
  • Something they have to deal with
  • Not going to go away quietly
From one point of view, it doesn't help that the global society has very efficient information gathering and disseminating technology: and a culture that isn't afraid to use it.

A century ago, a businessman who was part of an Arabic royal family could probably torture - or kill - a troublesome business associate with relative impunity. And, apart from the traveler's tale now and again, the rest of the world wouldn't know what happened.

Now, particularly since the sheik seems to have not only videotaped his actions, but let the video get out of his control, quite a large percentage of the world's population knows what's happening.

And, doesn't like what it sees.

My guess is that people who follow Islam are going through an uncomfortable time in their religion's history. They're going to have to decide what Islam is. And, like it or not, they're going to have to get used to sharing the glaring light of Information Age technology and institutions shining on them.

I think the same applies to entrenched American cultural enclaves, too: but that's another topic.
After I finished this post, another headline from the wild, weird, world of Saudi Arabia appeared:

"Saudi judge: It's OK to slap spendthrift wives"
CNN (May 10, 2009)

"Husbands are allowed to slap their wives if they spend lavishly, a Saudi judge said recently during a seminar on domestic violence, Saudi media reported Sunday.

"Arab News, a Saudi English-language daily newspaper based in Riyadh, reported that Judge Hamad Al-Razine said that 'if a person gives SR 1,200 [$320] to his wife and she spends 900 riyals [$240] to purchase an abaya [the black cover that women in Saudi Arabia must wear] from a brand shop and if her husband slaps her on the face as a reaction to her action, she deserves that punishment.'..."

On the other hand, Saudi justice is showing some signs of catching up with the 17th century:

"... Another Saudi judge, in the city of Onaiza, was the source of a separate recent controversy: he twice denied a request from the mother of an 8-year-old girl that the girl be granted a divorce from her 47-year-old husband.

"Last month, after human-groups condemned the union, the girl was granted the divorce...."

I am not making this up.

In the news: More-or-less related posts:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Kaffiyeh Craziness at Gateway High

Two Muslim students are, again, for now, allowed to wear their kaffiyehs in Gateway High School, in Pennsylvania.

That's one of the few sensible things to happen there lately.

It Began with T-Shirts

As near as I can make out from the news, the mess started when three students wore T-shirts with "RIP Israel" on them. They were told to remove the shirts.

So far, so good. I'd see it the same way, if the T-shirts had said something like "death to Islam" - threats, real or implied, on T-shirts don't belong in school, IMO.

Then - a Petition

Then, some Jewish students put together a petition, "saying they felt threatened." (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)

Okay. They felt threatened. The article doesn't say, but I suppose they might have felt threatened by the T-shirts, the students who wore them, or something else. Let's, hypothetically, say they felt threatened by the T-shirts.

And Something Very Strange Happened

So, the principal tells two Muslim students to take off their kaffiyehs. That's a distinctive sort of head-scarf, worn by a great many men and boys in the Middle East. It's what Yasser Arafat used to wear on his head, too.

I think I follow the - thinking? - here:

Jewish students feel threatened.
Maybe by T-shirts with something sorta terroristic on them.
Those Ay-rab students got cloth on their heads.
Yasser Arafat had cloth on his head.
Yasser Arafat was Ay-rab, and a terrorist!
OH, NO! AY-RABS WITH CLOTH ON THEIR HEADS ARE TERRORISTS!!

Maybe not. As I said, the news article was pretty vague on some important points.

Here's a Radical Idea: Maybe Gateway Could Educate Students?

Gateway High School is (finally, it seems) having Muslim and Jewish students talk. There's a good chance that they'll all find out that their fellow-students don't have horns and barbed tails.

I think that having students talk is a good idea. But I can't help but wonder if it might not be a good idea to spread the word around about what kaffiyehs are. (It's spelled "kiffiyeh" sometimes - Arabic-to-Latin alphabet transfers are tricky).

Yes, some people see the headgear as a symbol of Palestinian solidarity (against the 'genocidal Jews,' no doubt). It's also been a fashionable accessory - or whatever fashionable people call bits of stuff they put on their clothes. And, my guess is that it's also a quite ancient part of quite a few people's culture.

If Gateway High School is a so full of racial and religious hate, that a few pieces of cloth might set off a bloodbath: maybe the school should be closed, and the students relocated until the mess can be sorted out.

If that's not the case: I see this kaffiyeh kookiness as a missed opportunity.

Let's Consider This

  • Not All Arabs are Muslims
  • Not all Muslims are Terrorists
  • Not all Terrorists are Muslims
  • Not all Muslims are Arabs
Living in a world where the bad guys don't always wear black hats, where some Arabs aren't Muslims, and not all Muslims are Arabs, is complicated. But it sure beats feeling threatened by pieces of cloth.

Related posts: In the news: Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, December 19, 2008

Mediterranean Internet Cables Accident-Prone?

Three Internet cables snapped in the week spanning the end of January and the first of February this year. Two were in the Mediterranean, near Egypt, the other was in the Persian Gulf.

This week, the trouble is about a thousand miles west of Alexandria, where January's first break happened. (8.3 kilometers from Alexandria, to be exact.)

There's been another cable break. Three, actually. Between Sicily and Tunisia. Europe, the Middle East and Asia are having trouble communicating with each other. There's still no word on what severed the cables.

A France Telecom spokesman said that whatever it was, it probably wasn't an attack.

When the January/February accident cluster happened, I wrote: "If a fourth, or fifth, or sixth cable gets cut in the next few days, I'll start re-evaluating my 'cluster of accidents' opinion."

This is way beyond "the next few days," so I don't have to re-evaluate.

Sicily


View Larger Map

Quite a few people have been offline:
  • India lost 65% of traffic
  • Qatar and Djibouti, on the Gulf of Aden lost 70% of traffic
  • Maldives Indian Ocean islands lost 100% of their traffic
Other countries with severe outages:
  • Singapore
  • Malaysia
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Egypt
  • Taiwan
  • Pakistan
    (AFP)
Today's three-way break shows how sensitive - and flexible - the global communications network is. Quite a bit of traffic between Europe and Asia was re-routed through America, reducing the impact.

So, do I think this is some kinda plot? No. Although I'm a little impressed at France Telecom's statement: "The causes of the cut, which is located in the Mediterranean between Sicily and Tunisia, on sections linking Sicily to Egypt, remain unclear," followed closely by the assurance that it wasn't an attack.

I could imagine the scene in a movie: a massive communications blackout happens. The company spokesman comes on camera and says, "we don't know what happened, but we're sure it wasn't an attack." In a movie, that would a clue to the audience that it was an attack.

This is the real world, so it's possible that broken undersea cables in the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf are accidents - the sort of thing that happens where there's a lot of traffic.

I'm getting increasingly interested in the growing number of coincidences, though.

Cut cables, earlier this year:
  • Wednesday, January 30, 2008 -
    Egypt undersea communications cables cut
  • Friday, February 1, 2008 -
    Persian Gulf undersea cable cut
    (International Herald Tribune (February 1, 2008), BBC (February 4, 2008))
Related post: In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, September 19, 2008

Mickey Mouse Must Die! Agent of Satan Targeted by Saudi Cleric

I'm not making this up.

You've probably heard about it by now: Saudi Arabia's Sheikh Muhammad Munajid has identified Mickey Mouse as "one of Satan's soldiers" - and warns that everything Mickey touches is impure.

Sheikh Muhammad Munajid isn't some fringe nut case. At least, not the usual sort. He's a prominent Saudi, and for a while was a Saudi diplomat in Washington, D.C..

The Saudi cleric explains that, under sharia law, mice are unclean. He discussed his flavor of Islam in a religious affairs program on al-Majd TV, an Arab television network.

In the good old days, saying something in a language other than English was a pretty good way of keeping it away from Americans, Englishmen, and Australians. That's all changed. The Middle East Media Research Institute, an American press monitoring service, translated the Muslim cleric's remarks: "The mouse is one of Satan's soldiers and is steered by him.

"If a mouse falls into a pot of food – if the food is solid, you should chuck out the mouse and the food touching it, and if it is liquid – you should chuck out the whole thing, because the mouse is impure.

"According to Islamic law, the mouse is a repulsive, corrupting creature. How do you think children view mice today – after Tom and Jerry?..." (From the Daily Telegraph (September 15, 2008).)

In a way, Sheikh Munajid is right. Mice are not the sort of creature you want falling on your food. Or running through it.

But, "agent of Satan?!" I think that's carrying a dislike of household pests a little far.

In addition to being anti-mouse, Sheikh Muhammad Munajid doesn't approve of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. He called them the "bikini Olympics," because the women weren't wearing as much clothing as he though appropriate. Again, he's got a point. In some cases, I've got a very clear memory of how the female athletes looked, from the chin down: but only a vague notion of what event they were competing in.

The Sheikh turns the volume of his protests up so much, that any reasonable objections get lost in the noise.

Sheikh Muhammed Mnajid didn't stop with 'death to the mouse.' It gets better. Or worse.

In the news:

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Yemen: Terrorists, Tribesmen, and an American Teen

A car bomb went off in a Middle Eastern country. This time it was in Yemen, outside an American embassy in Sanaa. Over a dozen people were killed.

A group calling itself Islamic Jihad in Yemen says they did it.

The Yemeni government rounded up about two dozen suspects: pretty standard procedure over there, after a bombing. Yemen, or rather Yemen's national government, is said to be a strong ally of America in the war on terror. I've read that before. Last year I didn't believe it, following the release of Al Qaeda leader Jamal Badawi, who planned the 2000 Cole attack.

Changing My Mind About Yemen

Since then, I've had to revise my opinion. From what I've read, I think it would be more accurate to say that the Yemeni national government is an ally of America in the war on terror.

The tribesmen of Yemen, who haven't gotten used to the idea of nation-states yet, don't seem to pay much attention to what the national government wants. My guess is that it's more important for them that Osama bin Laden's family came from Yemen. Besides, Al Qaeda says that they're protecting Islam from unbelieving foreigners: and America is just simply crawling with foreigners.

All of which may give Al Qaeda a sort of home-town advantage in those parts of Yemen that haven't quite caught up with the 18th century.

Winning Friends and Influencing People in the Islamic World

One of the people killed in that embassy bombing was Susan El-Baneh, 18, of Lackawanna, New York. She and her husband had married less than a month ago. It must have been quite an event. Her brother said that the whole village turned out.


Susan El-Baneh
(From CNN, used without permission.)

The two of them were in the process of sorting out paperwork so that they could both go to America, where she planned to finish high school, and become a nurse. As her brother, Ahmed El-Baneh, put it, "... she was taking advantage of the times now when a Muslim lady can go to work, doing what they want, not just being housewives. She was going to get her education and be successful."

That's not going to happen now, of course.

Judging from Ahmed El-Baneh's reaction to her death, I'd say that whoever ordered that hit didn't make many friends in Sanaa. As Ahmed put it, "... if you die in the month of Ramadan, you go straight to heaven, and that is where my sister will be," Ahmed El-Baneh said. "But anyone that did this cowardly act, they will go straight to hell."...

"...Muslims are supposed to be peaceful, he said, and those who committed the attack on the embassy in Yemen only smear that view.

"... 'They say they do this for a cause, but there is no cause,' he said. 'A cause is when you sit down and talk, not when you kill millions and millions of people, now including my sister among them. What is the cause for that?' ..."

Law, Marriage, Culture, and Sentiment

Wrapping up this post:
El-Baneh: That Name Sounds Familiar
Jaber El-Baneh, accused of being the seventh member of the Lackawanna Six, is on the FBI's most-wanted list. The other six were convicted of helping Al Qaeda. (The Liberty City Seven are an entirely different bunch.)

The El-Banheh name is no coincidence: He's one of Susan El-Baneh's relatives. Remember, though: the bin Laden family went to rather great lengths to distance themselves "the" Osama bin Laden. Odds are pretty good that not all El-Banehs are on the same page as Jaber.
Arranged Marriage! The Horror! The Shame!
Or, not.

Say "arranged marriage," and many Americans will probably think of some lurid melodrama, a tale of love and intrigue in feudal times, the latest honor killing in the news, or some combination of these. America and, as far as I know, all western countries, let people decide for themselves who they're going to marry.

Not all cultures work that way. People in some parts of the world depend more on reason, tradition, and experience than on endocrine systems for making life-changing decisions. Susan El-Baneh's marriage was arranged.

That, and her age, seems to have impressed some bloggers ("Arranged Death," for example). The part of the world the cited blogger comes from regards 18 as a bit young to get married. In some parts of the world, that 18-year-old would be an old maid, getting seriously long in the tooth.

The point is, not everybody is a Valley Girl, or from a proper Boston family. We'd all better start getting used to that.
Holding Hands: A Touching Detail
When Susan El-Baneh's uncle went to the hospital to see what was left of his niece and her husband, the bodies were still holding hands.

In the news: Previous posts about Yemen:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.