It will take a long time to process the public scene in Egypt yesterday. Whereas it is true that protests are no longer novel events in Egypt and that the country has been rife with protests for many reasons ranging from political reform to pay rise or even an unfair manager taking over a public hospital, rarely before have hundreds, perhaps thousands of Egyptians decided to publicly grief for the same reason. And it is no trivial reason such as losing World Cup qualifications; to protest brutal murder of Khaled Said at the hands of the police, and torture victims in general.
The Alexandria protests in which public figures such As ElBaradei, Noor and Sabbahi participated (or actually called for, can't tell) were massive. The location of assembly, Sidi Gaber, had been turned into a closed military area. Thousands of riot police were present and even tanks! Now, the Ministry of Interior knows quite well none of the protestors is armed with a knife, let alone machine guns. So the scene of tanks was quite bizarre as well as funny, and some protestors reportedly responded by taking pictures beside tanks and waving the victory sign. A scene from the occupied Palestinian land.
What I want to focus on, however, are the ensuing silent protests which took place in at least eight different cities. The protests have been announced online, particularly on Facebook. It was not one event planned by a certain movement or person. They were multiple events, in multiple places created by a Facebook page for Khaled Said. No one knows the administrator of the page. He or she just asked participants to silently protest in the downtowns of the cities wearing black. The "rules" also included not chanting or holding banners. And so they did, brilliantly organic they were. The young people particpating wanted to protest, but didn't want to get into scuffles or get detained. Not that all people who are unjustly detained are protestors, but so it goes. These revealing protests come after a long time of believing that no matter what we do, no one will listen, nothing will change. But blimey I can see change with my own two eyes seeing yesterday's protests. The Egyptian regime has generated a stubborn generation who swore to stand up against injustice, clearly realising that you do not have to be a political activist to be tortured. And since they didn't know the person calling for the protest, they don't always need a leader. All they need is to witness injustice. The number of Egyptians who are willing to sacrifice their personal safety is increasing, and one reason for this is, again, realising that you are not safe if you "walk next to the wall" as we say. Their act in this context may I say is an act of self-preservation. The regime has been pushing too hard, impoverishing us and slamming us if we as much as utter a moan of pain. They should have seen this coming.
Whereas this public outcry may not necessarily push towards a fair sentence for Khaled's murderers and a change of this system of torture all in all, especially given last Wednesday's phony autopsy report, it signals again a change of public attitude towards regime crimes. You wouldn't hear of a similar reaction 10 or 15 years back, when all our sources of information was government-controlled. But now torture is difficult to hide, and in this incident in particular Khaled's broken skull is screaming at us to stand strong against it.
Showing posts with label Post in English. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Post in English. Show all posts
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The Murder of Khaled Said: Egypt's Waking Nightmare
During the late hours of Sunday the 6th of June, two police informers stormed an internet cafe in the coastal city of Alexandria. The attack left Khaled Said, a 28-year-old man dead.
At that point, the crime could have not made headlines, and could have gone unquestioned like many other police torture crimes in Egypt, but a picture of an innocent-looking, premortem Khaled and another of his body showing a swollen, badly bruised face and mangled jaw, were circulated on the internet, particularly Facebook, like wildfire.
Luckily for systematic torture victims, unluckily for the Egyptian government, the picture sent shockwaves across Egypt, and internationally as well. Amnesty International was quick to urge Egypt to investigate the brutal killing of Khaled. Word was out on AlJazeera too, the Egyptian government's bitter enemy, if you may. On Thursday a group of activists demonstrated in front of the Sidi Gaber police station, the station which sent the informers and where reportedly a police officer oversaw the killing. Puzzling news was spread of an acquittal of the informers and an accusation of protesters of "insulting a government body."
The reasons for the gruesome murder have been questioned, but to date there is no confirmed explanation. The few eye witnesses present first said that the informers asked Khaled roughly for his ID and wanted to search him. When he protested and asked about their search warrant, they tied him up, beat his head against a marble shelf, dragged him out of the cafe and continued beating his head against an adjacent iron door. They then took his lifeless body to the police station for a few minutes, only to return and leave it in the crime scene. Another more popular story was circulated, according to which Khaled had a video dating to late 2009 showing a police officer and a group of informers distributing money and weed after capturing them from a dealer.
The shameless Ministry of Interior issued a phony statement to explain Khaled's death. They said Khaled died of asphyxia after he swallowed a drug joint. Adding insult to injury (in this case brutal murder), they also spread rumours that Khaled, whose name literally translates to "immortal happy", was a drug junkie who escaped mandatory military service. In response, the certificate of the military service was scanned and widely circulated to show that the MOI's side of the story is a badly orchestrated spoof. People on twitter wondered how asphyxia can cause undeniable damage to the skull as shown in the picture. One twitter user, Wael Abd El-Fattah, sarcastically noted that Khaled actually died of Egyptian regime asphyxia. More importantly, even if he is a drug addict, what law or even logic is there which allows beating addicts to death?
The murder became the talk of the country and the virtual community. But activists decided to take it to the streets as well, not in front of the press syndicate, lawyers' syndicate, People's Assembly, Shura Council or Attorney-General's office as has been the norm in the past few years for most protests in Egypt, but in front of the MOI headquarters in Lazoughly. The in-your-face protest of around 200 people was predictably kettled. Downtown Cairo where the MOI is was "occupied by the police" as activists described it. Many activists were verbally harassed, beaten, injured and detained. Mobile phones and cameras were confiscated. They expressed a direct link between the Emergency Law which provides unlimited power to law enforcement authorities and the murder of Khaled. The Ministry has been described as "the ministry of torture", and protesters screamed for the killers to go to trial. Under Emergency Law and the systematic use of torture, any one of us could be Khaled, this was their claim. Apparently, the MOI had expected people to be too horrified by the picture to protest in fear of facing a similar fate, but was surprised by their resilience.
Hopes were hung on a not-very-reliable authority to bring justice to Khaled; the media. Saturday night satellite talk shows showed reports on the murder, but still focused mainly on the MOI statement. On Sunday night, the popular Ashera Masaan showed the video from the police station which allegedly caused Khaled's untimely death. Announcer Mona El-Shazly asserted that the video is authentic, but that it is a celebration of the capture of the dealer, contrary to other views which accused the police of distributing the money and the drugs. Frustratingly enough, El-Shazly did not show the other side of the story and did not report with Khaled's brother. She in other words acquitted the MOI of a corruption case in the eyes of millions of viewers as far as the video is concerned. However, she wondered if informers actually have the authority to arrest people, not to mention beat them up in such a brutal way. Mona's comment poses even more questions on the motives, making it even scarier that Khaled possibly died for no reason at all, not that any reason is acceptable. Instead of dedicating a time slot in her programme to the crime, she interviewed someone about the alleged hacking of AlJazeera world cup satellite transmission.
Newspapers were divided according to their very own allegiances. The government mouthpiece Al-Gumhuriya published yesterday a joke of an article by the editor-in-chief sarcastically describing Sunday protest as a "protest for a junkie." Interestingly, he "accused" the protesters of "gaining strength" from international "authorities." It is an unintentional, subconscious reference to the fact that Egyptian authorities, namely the Ministry of Justice, are often too weak to punish police criminals. Independent Al-Shorouq newsapaper, on the other hand, published balanced timely updates on the crime and the aftermath, as well as the pictures of both life and death, making it impossible for readers to buy the story of the Ministry.
As if it could get any worse, journalist Ahmad Ragab posted on twitter news on yet another death by torture in a police station. The details are all too familiar. Saber Abd El-Semei, 58, protested when informers tried to remove a kiosk for selling sandwiches. He was kidnapped and taken to Nasr City police station. His family found his body five days later in Heliopolis hospital. His daughter was told by the doctors in the morgue that he was beaten with a BB gun on his head until he died.
Ethical concerns were voiced about the spread of the picture of Khaled's lifeless body. Not only because it was probably published prior to his family's consent, but it is also a horrific, shocking picture, unwillingly seen by Facebook users and newspaper readers. The dramatic twist in the story is that, had the picture not been published, Khaled's murder might have received minimum to zero attention, not to mention legal prosecution. Unless families of victims and supporters speak up, this will be the case with Saber for example.
After five tense days of shock, anger and hurt, the first sigh of relief came when blogger and journalist Hossam El-Hamalawy, who was also injured in the Lazoughly portest, tweeted that family lawyers and prosecutors were then investigating the crime scene one day after the Attorney-General ordered the case to be reopened. Thankfully, the few witnesses were present as well to testify.
As expected there are calls for the stepdown of Minister of Interior Habib Al-Adly. Systematic torture in Egypt (as a republic) has been practiced since the fifties. The only development is that whereas in the past it was exclusive to political opponents such as the Muslim Brotherhood, now innocent people are not immune from it. Not even women and children are. It is a cruel regime that can only be cured by being uprooted. We are crushed under the weight of political oppression and poverty and vent out anger among ourselves. Nonetheless, a change of names is not the only answer. Egyptians need to know their self-worth and legal rights. We need to know that save for instances of war and self-defence, no one deserves to be physically assaulted. We now engage in scuffles over everything from a minor threat of a car accident to theft or burglary. Furthermore, even when victims of torture or their families insist on persecuting the police criminals, the sentences are often disproportionate with the harm done. Take the case of Emad El-Kebir, who was sodomised, beaten and humiliated, and in return his bully/policeman Islam Nabih received a fleeting three years in jail sentence and was not suspended from his job. In any case, it is left for the hands of a slow and frail justice system to lessen the brunt of torture in Egypt.
At that point, the crime could have not made headlines, and could have gone unquestioned like many other police torture crimes in Egypt, but a picture of an innocent-looking, premortem Khaled and another of his body showing a swollen, badly bruised face and mangled jaw, were circulated on the internet, particularly Facebook, like wildfire.
Luckily for systematic torture victims, unluckily for the Egyptian government, the picture sent shockwaves across Egypt, and internationally as well. Amnesty International was quick to urge Egypt to investigate the brutal killing of Khaled. Word was out on AlJazeera too, the Egyptian government's bitter enemy, if you may. On Thursday a group of activists demonstrated in front of the Sidi Gaber police station, the station which sent the informers and where reportedly a police officer oversaw the killing. Puzzling news was spread of an acquittal of the informers and an accusation of protesters of "insulting a government body."
The reasons for the gruesome murder have been questioned, but to date there is no confirmed explanation. The few eye witnesses present first said that the informers asked Khaled roughly for his ID and wanted to search him. When he protested and asked about their search warrant, they tied him up, beat his head against a marble shelf, dragged him out of the cafe and continued beating his head against an adjacent iron door. They then took his lifeless body to the police station for a few minutes, only to return and leave it in the crime scene. Another more popular story was circulated, according to which Khaled had a video dating to late 2009 showing a police officer and a group of informers distributing money and weed after capturing them from a dealer.
The shameless Ministry of Interior issued a phony statement to explain Khaled's death. They said Khaled died of asphyxia after he swallowed a drug joint. Adding insult to injury (in this case brutal murder), they also spread rumours that Khaled, whose name literally translates to "immortal happy", was a drug junkie who escaped mandatory military service. In response, the certificate of the military service was scanned and widely circulated to show that the MOI's side of the story is a badly orchestrated spoof. People on twitter wondered how asphyxia can cause undeniable damage to the skull as shown in the picture. One twitter user, Wael Abd El-Fattah, sarcastically noted that Khaled actually died of Egyptian regime asphyxia. More importantly, even if he is a drug addict, what law or even logic is there which allows beating addicts to death?
The murder became the talk of the country and the virtual community. But activists decided to take it to the streets as well, not in front of the press syndicate, lawyers' syndicate, People's Assembly, Shura Council or Attorney-General's office as has been the norm in the past few years for most protests in Egypt, but in front of the MOI headquarters in Lazoughly. The in-your-face protest of around 200 people was predictably kettled. Downtown Cairo where the MOI is was "occupied by the police" as activists described it. Many activists were verbally harassed, beaten, injured and detained. Mobile phones and cameras were confiscated. They expressed a direct link between the Emergency Law which provides unlimited power to law enforcement authorities and the murder of Khaled. The Ministry has been described as "the ministry of torture", and protesters screamed for the killers to go to trial. Under Emergency Law and the systematic use of torture, any one of us could be Khaled, this was their claim. Apparently, the MOI had expected people to be too horrified by the picture to protest in fear of facing a similar fate, but was surprised by their resilience.
Hopes were hung on a not-very-reliable authority to bring justice to Khaled; the media. Saturday night satellite talk shows showed reports on the murder, but still focused mainly on the MOI statement. On Sunday night, the popular Ashera Masaan showed the video from the police station which allegedly caused Khaled's untimely death. Announcer Mona El-Shazly asserted that the video is authentic, but that it is a celebration of the capture of the dealer, contrary to other views which accused the police of distributing the money and the drugs. Frustratingly enough, El-Shazly did not show the other side of the story and did not report with Khaled's brother. She in other words acquitted the MOI of a corruption case in the eyes of millions of viewers as far as the video is concerned. However, she wondered if informers actually have the authority to arrest people, not to mention beat them up in such a brutal way. Mona's comment poses even more questions on the motives, making it even scarier that Khaled possibly died for no reason at all, not that any reason is acceptable. Instead of dedicating a time slot in her programme to the crime, she interviewed someone about the alleged hacking of AlJazeera world cup satellite transmission.
Newspapers were divided according to their very own allegiances. The government mouthpiece Al-Gumhuriya published yesterday a joke of an article by the editor-in-chief sarcastically describing Sunday protest as a "protest for a junkie." Interestingly, he "accused" the protesters of "gaining strength" from international "authorities." It is an unintentional, subconscious reference to the fact that Egyptian authorities, namely the Ministry of Justice, are often too weak to punish police criminals. Independent Al-Shorouq newsapaper, on the other hand, published balanced timely updates on the crime and the aftermath, as well as the pictures of both life and death, making it impossible for readers to buy the story of the Ministry.
As if it could get any worse, journalist Ahmad Ragab posted on twitter news on yet another death by torture in a police station. The details are all too familiar. Saber Abd El-Semei, 58, protested when informers tried to remove a kiosk for selling sandwiches. He was kidnapped and taken to Nasr City police station. His family found his body five days later in Heliopolis hospital. His daughter was told by the doctors in the morgue that he was beaten with a BB gun on his head until he died.
Ethical concerns were voiced about the spread of the picture of Khaled's lifeless body. Not only because it was probably published prior to his family's consent, but it is also a horrific, shocking picture, unwillingly seen by Facebook users and newspaper readers. The dramatic twist in the story is that, had the picture not been published, Khaled's murder might have received minimum to zero attention, not to mention legal prosecution. Unless families of victims and supporters speak up, this will be the case with Saber for example.
After five tense days of shock, anger and hurt, the first sigh of relief came when blogger and journalist Hossam El-Hamalawy, who was also injured in the Lazoughly portest, tweeted that family lawyers and prosecutors were then investigating the crime scene one day after the Attorney-General ordered the case to be reopened. Thankfully, the few witnesses were present as well to testify.
As expected there are calls for the stepdown of Minister of Interior Habib Al-Adly. Systematic torture in Egypt (as a republic) has been practiced since the fifties. The only development is that whereas in the past it was exclusive to political opponents such as the Muslim Brotherhood, now innocent people are not immune from it. Not even women and children are. It is a cruel regime that can only be cured by being uprooted. We are crushed under the weight of political oppression and poverty and vent out anger among ourselves. Nonetheless, a change of names is not the only answer. Egyptians need to know their self-worth and legal rights. We need to know that save for instances of war and self-defence, no one deserves to be physically assaulted. We now engage in scuffles over everything from a minor threat of a car accident to theft or burglary. Furthermore, even when victims of torture or their families insist on persecuting the police criminals, the sentences are often disproportionate with the harm done. Take the case of Emad El-Kebir, who was sodomised, beaten and humiliated, and in return his bully/policeman Islam Nabih received a fleeting three years in jail sentence and was not suspended from his job. In any case, it is left for the hands of a slow and frail justice system to lessen the brunt of torture in Egypt.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
France and Belgium: More Bigotry
I do hope the decision of France and Belgium to ban the face-veil is based on misunderstanding, not on bigotry. However, I will not try to fool myself. It is abrasive bigotry, not to mention state-organised Islamophobia - and I thought the days of the Nazis were over.
Muslim women who wear the face-veil are misunderstood, discriminated against and marginalised even in their hometowns. Nonetheless, it doesn't make the decision of France and Belgium any more acceptable. Somebody please explain why it is not acceptable for Muslim women to wear the face-veil, which they may think is obligatory, whereas other women are free to wear G-strings, monokinis or go bare a few kilometres away on French and Belgian beaches. My point is, if there is freedom of attire in Europe, it should apply to all citizens indiscriminately. Again. Muslim women who wear the face-veil believe they are obliged by God to do so. Whether you agree or not does not make a difference. Isn't it their choice and should be respected? They have not left their countries or decided to spend a vacation in France to uproot the s0-called European culture altogether. They may as well be taking part in enriching it by doing research, a PhD, enlightening Muslim communities, giving their voices for elections, helping boost the economy through tourism etc. In fact, writing these words now, I can't help wondering how the two countries just decided to risk all of this. Instead, they choose to see the face-veil as a threat, a sinister phenomenon. Needless to say, this decision will exasperate moderate Muslims like yours truly, not to mention similarly bigoted Muslims. I am not saying it is in any way acceptable or religiously allowed for Muslims to make riots or any acts of violence in reaction to this decision, but it might incite violence from some Muslim extremists.
When I knew about the decision, I couldn't help remembering the British couple who were caught kissing, or making out, or making in or whatever the hell they were doing on a Dubai beach. Look what the BBC wrote in its news story, with all due respect; the humiliation is complete. So should I understand that it is okay for a British couple to disregard Arab and Muslim traditions, and that they should not be jailed for shacking up out in the open, but that Muslim women must be put in jail just for their harmless beliefs? What logic is that?
I just know that the French and Belgian governments will be sued as well as ridiculed by Muslims and/or sane left-wing or otherwise logical people in these countries. But if the countries claim to be democratic, really, why are they exposing themselves to this needless trouble? Why are they using two-way guns?
Muslim women who wear the face-veil are misunderstood, discriminated against and marginalised even in their hometowns. Nonetheless, it doesn't make the decision of France and Belgium any more acceptable. Somebody please explain why it is not acceptable for Muslim women to wear the face-veil, which they may think is obligatory, whereas other women are free to wear G-strings, monokinis or go bare a few kilometres away on French and Belgian beaches. My point is, if there is freedom of attire in Europe, it should apply to all citizens indiscriminately. Again. Muslim women who wear the face-veil believe they are obliged by God to do so. Whether you agree or not does not make a difference. Isn't it their choice and should be respected? They have not left their countries or decided to spend a vacation in France to uproot the s0-called European culture altogether. They may as well be taking part in enriching it by doing research, a PhD, enlightening Muslim communities, giving their voices for elections, helping boost the economy through tourism etc. In fact, writing these words now, I can't help wondering how the two countries just decided to risk all of this. Instead, they choose to see the face-veil as a threat, a sinister phenomenon. Needless to say, this decision will exasperate moderate Muslims like yours truly, not to mention similarly bigoted Muslims. I am not saying it is in any way acceptable or religiously allowed for Muslims to make riots or any acts of violence in reaction to this decision, but it might incite violence from some Muslim extremists.
When I knew about the decision, I couldn't help remembering the British couple who were caught kissing, or making out, or making in or whatever the hell they were doing on a Dubai beach. Look what the BBC wrote in its news story, with all due respect; the humiliation is complete. So should I understand that it is okay for a British couple to disregard Arab and Muslim traditions, and that they should not be jailed for shacking up out in the open, but that Muslim women must be put in jail just for their harmless beliefs? What logic is that?
I just know that the French and Belgian governments will be sued as well as ridiculed by Muslims and/or sane left-wing or otherwise logical people in these countries. But if the countries claim to be democratic, really, why are they exposing themselves to this needless trouble? Why are they using two-way guns?
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Homebound
I have always been what you can call close to my big sister. We would share everything from the same fashion sense to tears at the death of a family member. She is the typical eldest sister/child; an A student, aspiring, eloquent, self-confident, domineering and mother-like. I dreaded how everything was about to change when she got married a year and a half ago. I was scared that we would not be as close friends anymore. But ever since she travelled, there has been a strange turn of events.
During the year she travelled with her husband to Wahhabism-infested Saudi Arabia and much to my surprise, she started to change. It may as well have been her husband, but both of them were moderate. The first alarming sign was when I described the time-honoured Ahmad Zaky Badr as an animal, a totally acceptable and for that matter understandable swear word. I found an indignant message from her wondering what "people will say about me for saying that word." I assured her that not only does he deserve it, but also my FB privacy settings are edited and students cannot see my stata. She mentioned, to my amazement, that she does not want her "cute and sweet" to call anyone names. I responded rather harshly that I am neither sweet nor cute and do not want to be. Fe3lan ya3ny I do not want to be sweet. I want to be sour, harsh and bitter.
Another time we were marvelling at all the good times we will spend together when she comes in a matter of two weeks and we mentioned meeting some friends including a guy, when she mentioned something along the line of bringing my brother over as a "mahram." For the sake of my sanity, I didn't ask her to repeat what she said. I have another FB account for students, and I joked that it was my "secret account," and again she commented, though jokingly, that she is surprised that her young sister has lost her "innocence". I wonder what she will say if she knows that I have an atheist friend and that I have enjoyed watching Hentai images.
I do not want to fit in any mould anyone makes for me. I want to be spontaneous and independent, that is why I am expecting a clash of civilisations to occur during her short stay here...
During the year she travelled with her husband to Wahhabism-infested Saudi Arabia and much to my surprise, she started to change. It may as well have been her husband, but both of them were moderate. The first alarming sign was when I described the time-honoured Ahmad Zaky Badr as an animal, a totally acceptable and for that matter understandable swear word. I found an indignant message from her wondering what "people will say about me for saying that word." I assured her that not only does he deserve it, but also my FB privacy settings are edited and students cannot see my stata. She mentioned, to my amazement, that she does not want her "cute and sweet" to call anyone names. I responded rather harshly that I am neither sweet nor cute and do not want to be. Fe3lan ya3ny I do not want to be sweet. I want to be sour, harsh and bitter.
Another time we were marvelling at all the good times we will spend together when she comes in a matter of two weeks and we mentioned meeting some friends including a guy, when she mentioned something along the line of bringing my brother over as a "mahram." For the sake of my sanity, I didn't ask her to repeat what she said. I have another FB account for students, and I joked that it was my "secret account," and again she commented, though jokingly, that she is surprised that her young sister has lost her "innocence". I wonder what she will say if she knows that I have an atheist friend and that I have enjoyed watching Hentai images.
I do not want to fit in any mould anyone makes for me. I want to be spontaneous and independent, that is why I am expecting a clash of civilisations to occur during her short stay here...
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
I'm lonely, lonely, lonely
I have been attacked by a mood that has for so long thankfully abandonned me. Generally speaking I am not a people person, and I shy away from people I don't know and always, always feel tense in public. A bit of paranoia added can complete the picture too.
I have struggled throughout my teenage years with loneliness. I would go to school filled up with a hope in a new day only to feel rejected and unwelcome. I made a group of friends during "high school" and at college I made yet another one and we're still like really thick, so feelings of loneliness now baffle me.
I usually have an insatiable appetite for new, interesting people, especially males, which is normal. However, I just feel unloved. I have this particular foreign friend and whereas I am not in, and should not, be in love with him, it just exasperates me feeling he is not as interested in me as I in him. I am used to a certain kind of attention. I just know that men are hopeless in tiny details and sweet gestures, but these would make me feel better. Again why I am expecting him to give me this kind of attention, I don't know.
Another problem is, I literally drool over every single interesting guy I meet. Just please drop me a comment and tell me this is normal. I have like, instant crushes with maybe ten people at the same time. The moment I see or meet anyone new I get all heated up and keep imagining how our "relationship" would go. I know this is typical loneliness. But I also know that even if I fall in love, I am not going to fall in love with a perfect man, and that any detail about other men will keep intriguing me. I might as well make a very bad wife.
I do have a hundred things to do to keep my mind away from all of this. Desperately searching for people I have met on FB or even in blogs won't work. I am aware that someone out there is probably searching for me as well, but until our wires meet, I will have to endure this.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Avatar; blatantly anti-colonialist?
(Spoiler Warning)
It is the eternal discourse and the never-ending contrast between the colonists and the natives. The colonists are advanced, the natives are primitive. The colonists are practical, scientific and materialistic, the natives are spiritual. The colonists are also downright cruel, whereas the natives are loyal and brave.
This sharp contrast not only sums up the blockbuster Avatar but also the discourse on colonialism ever since it started hundreds of years ago. No doubt the movie presents a breathtaking make-believe world of what outer space might hold in the next century, vivid and exquisite scenery, powerful images as well as action and thrill. But you cannot turn a blind eye to the very obvious socio-political message of the film. I don't believe in the ars gratia artis philosophy (art for art's sake). Art always tells us who we are, provides alternate realities, or for that matter, alternate dreams.
The film presents both sides of a colonial discourse, which is fair, and attributes certain features to the natives which is unfair. It is a considerable break away from other silly US films produced in the 90s and early 2000s about the all-American hero who has absolute power of machinery and mind to subdue other territories which are not given voice (Independence Day, Armageddon). The muddle the US is facing now in the two countries it occupies (Afghanistan, Iraq...and Haiti?) clearly disillusioned many filmmakers including James Cameron. It is clear that no communities will get attacked and not resort to resistance, also as clear it is that the attack is never justified, successful or ethical, but blatantly materialistic, destructive and even short-sighted. Hopefully, it is now clear that you cannot crush a community with your machinery no matter how developped and advanced and "go home for dinner" as the commander says in the movie. A people's spiritual attachment to their deity, land, environment and continuity is more enduring than man's desire for earthly matters.
Two issues remain controversial though. The first is regarding the features of the Natives. Throughout colonial discourse, indigenous groups have been described, called and treated as the vilest of creations. The white man (US marine) is expected to "civilise the brutes", and it is "his burden". This racism serves both as a pretext for attack, and for the natives to deem themselves unworthy of living, having failed to rise above primitive. The Na'vi of the film have been called "savages" and "blue monkeys" but it's from the head of the mining operation, which comes as no surprise. However, the natives are really a merge between Africans and animals, or so it seemed to me. Their noses are distinctively flat, their facial bones are distinctive of negros, they live in tribes, they hunt down people or animals using arrows and swords, they are scantily clad....They are totally detached from urbanisation as it hasn't worked with them, as the snooty head of the operation remarks. At the same time, they have unmistakable animal features. They have cat-like ears, tails and they hiss like many animals to intimidate possible attackers. If it were a new form of "creatures" the writer has imagined, it would be understandable, but they have been clearly referred to as "people" by Dr. Grace Augustine. Truly though they are courageous and loyal, but why do people have tails, hiss and live like people in the dark ages?
The second point is, only an avatar having human genes has been able to assemble and mastermind the counterattacks on the US army. Only the hybrid Jake and Dr. Augustine take part in empowering the natives and reshaping their "army". In other words, the natives are still mainly dependent on the "civilised" nation for organising themseleves and desgining an attack, a strategy which any human brain can devise. Frustratingly enough, the "pure" natives are only followers. It is true that they used some machinery made by US troops, but they have been lead by Jake the avatar, the US ex-marine. Though of course in the final scene is compromising in that Jake chooses the Na'vi identity.
A new vision on colonialism the film provides and a vivid foresight of what may become of the US army if they continue exterminating people, destroying their land and taking away all they hold dear. However, the image of the colonised people, or the natives, remains distorted. It has progressed yes, in the sense that they at least have human features, but no filmmaker is obliged to "condescend" to make this move.
It is the eternal discourse and the never-ending contrast between the colonists and the natives. The colonists are advanced, the natives are primitive. The colonists are practical, scientific and materialistic, the natives are spiritual. The colonists are also downright cruel, whereas the natives are loyal and brave.
This sharp contrast not only sums up the blockbuster Avatar but also the discourse on colonialism ever since it started hundreds of years ago. No doubt the movie presents a breathtaking make-believe world of what outer space might hold in the next century, vivid and exquisite scenery, powerful images as well as action and thrill. But you cannot turn a blind eye to the very obvious socio-political message of the film. I don't believe in the ars gratia artis philosophy (art for art's sake). Art always tells us who we are, provides alternate realities, or for that matter, alternate dreams.
The film presents both sides of a colonial discourse, which is fair, and attributes certain features to the natives which is unfair. It is a considerable break away from other silly US films produced in the 90s and early 2000s about the all-American hero who has absolute power of machinery and mind to subdue other territories which are not given voice (Independence Day, Armageddon). The muddle the US is facing now in the two countries it occupies (Afghanistan, Iraq...and Haiti?) clearly disillusioned many filmmakers including James Cameron. It is clear that no communities will get attacked and not resort to resistance, also as clear it is that the attack is never justified, successful or ethical, but blatantly materialistic, destructive and even short-sighted. Hopefully, it is now clear that you cannot crush a community with your machinery no matter how developped and advanced and "go home for dinner" as the commander says in the movie. A people's spiritual attachment to their deity, land, environment and continuity is more enduring than man's desire for earthly matters.
Two issues remain controversial though. The first is regarding the features of the Natives. Throughout colonial discourse, indigenous groups have been described, called and treated as the vilest of creations. The white man (US marine) is expected to "civilise the brutes", and it is "his burden". This racism serves both as a pretext for attack, and for the natives to deem themselves unworthy of living, having failed to rise above primitive. The Na'vi of the film have been called "savages" and "blue monkeys" but it's from the head of the mining operation, which comes as no surprise. However, the natives are really a merge between Africans and animals, or so it seemed to me. Their noses are distinctively flat, their facial bones are distinctive of negros, they live in tribes, they hunt down people or animals using arrows and swords, they are scantily clad....They are totally detached from urbanisation as it hasn't worked with them, as the snooty head of the operation remarks. At the same time, they have unmistakable animal features. They have cat-like ears, tails and they hiss like many animals to intimidate possible attackers. If it were a new form of "creatures" the writer has imagined, it would be understandable, but they have been clearly referred to as "people" by Dr. Grace Augustine. Truly though they are courageous and loyal, but why do people have tails, hiss and live like people in the dark ages?
The second point is, only an avatar having human genes has been able to assemble and mastermind the counterattacks on the US army. Only the hybrid Jake and Dr. Augustine take part in empowering the natives and reshaping their "army". In other words, the natives are still mainly dependent on the "civilised" nation for organising themseleves and desgining an attack, a strategy which any human brain can devise. Frustratingly enough, the "pure" natives are only followers. It is true that they used some machinery made by US troops, but they have been lead by Jake the avatar, the US ex-marine. Though of course in the final scene is compromising in that Jake chooses the Na'vi identity.
A new vision on colonialism the film provides and a vivid foresight of what may become of the US army if they continue exterminating people, destroying their land and taking away all they hold dear. However, the image of the colonised people, or the natives, remains distorted. It has progressed yes, in the sense that they at least have human features, but no filmmaker is obliged to "condescend" to make this move.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Eid Harassment: No Longer Shocking
This year's Eid harassments came as no surprise to me. They were pretty much expected, and I stayed at home or only visited family accompanied by my father and brother, avoided the news like the plague so I wouldn't know what happened, at least not until the Eid is over.
If the photos published in Al Masry AlYoum and Al-Dostour show only boys from poorer social classes committing harassment, a colleague wrote on FB of how she was unsuspectingly harassed by a seemingly decent and well-educated guy in an uptown shopping mall for 4 or 5 minutes. She was too shocked to even yell back at him.
The comments sympathised with her and one ran: "There is nothing we can do".
Are you kidding me?
There is ALWAYS something you can do. I mean, enough is enough. This is not something which happens within average range or even "usually", it's like a thick black maggot that has totally gotten the better of a society. Totally. And against all this madness there is nothing you can do?
Any action has its consequences, unintended consequences for that matter. But no action at all...what does it lead to? Where does it take you too? Pain, shame, fear, disgust, depression. Just why would you let someone do that to you and make him get away with it.
Again, no one action is best. Even if you think calling the police and taking it all the way to courts is the right thing to do, you might not have supporting parents/partner, you might lose the case altogether, especially if there are no witnesses.
If you think yelling back and screaming is the answer, you might find little or no help from others. There might be no one else around in the first place.
But what is the alternative?
Feeling violated, angry, suspicious, having nightmares, getting sick and sad....is this really something you can take and do NOTHING about?
Harassers have got to taste some of their own poison. They have got to know it is NOT acceptable, it is NOT pleasure for a woman to be catcalled or abused. If you do not show him you're angry, how is he ever to know? If he didn't get yelled at in the middle of the street, how will he ever - hopefully - experience even a gram of shame or embarrasment for what he did?
Unfortunately, I do believe part of the reason why this problem is getting uglier by the day is women's reaction, or rather the lack thereof. I understand that it is shocking, I understand that it could be useless to fight back anyway. But then did you ever consider why ppl usually beat up a theif but rarely a harasser?
Ppl who have been stolen yell out loud, and passers-by gather to beat the shit out of him. The crime is known, this is one difference. The victim cries out...this is a difference.
Do it the Sayeda Zeinab style. My father is from Sayeda Zeinab (a modest Cairo neighbourhood) and he told me if a man exceeds the normal of mo3aksa, the girls call him names out loud...using swearwords even he would be embarassed to say. A man rarely continues harassing if he is publicly defamed this way!
I end up with a line from Nawara; if there is a queue of ppl hitting one another on the back of their heads, and suddenly one of them decides to turn around and slap the one who hit him instead of the one in front of him, wouldn't the beating stop?
If the photos published in Al Masry AlYoum and Al-Dostour show only boys from poorer social classes committing harassment, a colleague wrote on FB of how she was unsuspectingly harassed by a seemingly decent and well-educated guy in an uptown shopping mall for 4 or 5 minutes. She was too shocked to even yell back at him.
The comments sympathised with her and one ran: "There is nothing we can do".
Are you kidding me?
There is ALWAYS something you can do. I mean, enough is enough. This is not something which happens within average range or even "usually", it's like a thick black maggot that has totally gotten the better of a society. Totally. And against all this madness there is nothing you can do?
Any action has its consequences, unintended consequences for that matter. But no action at all...what does it lead to? Where does it take you too? Pain, shame, fear, disgust, depression. Just why would you let someone do that to you and make him get away with it.
Again, no one action is best. Even if you think calling the police and taking it all the way to courts is the right thing to do, you might not have supporting parents/partner, you might lose the case altogether, especially if there are no witnesses.
If you think yelling back and screaming is the answer, you might find little or no help from others. There might be no one else around in the first place.
But what is the alternative?
Feeling violated, angry, suspicious, having nightmares, getting sick and sad....is this really something you can take and do NOTHING about?
Harassers have got to taste some of their own poison. They have got to know it is NOT acceptable, it is NOT pleasure for a woman to be catcalled or abused. If you do not show him you're angry, how is he ever to know? If he didn't get yelled at in the middle of the street, how will he ever - hopefully - experience even a gram of shame or embarrasment for what he did?
Unfortunately, I do believe part of the reason why this problem is getting uglier by the day is women's reaction, or rather the lack thereof. I understand that it is shocking, I understand that it could be useless to fight back anyway. But then did you ever consider why ppl usually beat up a theif but rarely a harasser?
Ppl who have been stolen yell out loud, and passers-by gather to beat the shit out of him. The crime is known, this is one difference. The victim cries out...this is a difference.
Do it the Sayeda Zeinab style. My father is from Sayeda Zeinab (a modest Cairo neighbourhood) and he told me if a man exceeds the normal of mo3aksa, the girls call him names out loud...using swearwords even he would be embarassed to say. A man rarely continues harassing if he is publicly defamed this way!
I end up with a line from Nawara; if there is a queue of ppl hitting one another on the back of their heads, and suddenly one of them decides to turn around and slap the one who hit him instead of the one in front of him, wouldn't the beating stop?
Friday, November 13, 2009
In Defence of Football Fans
The average Egyptian does not have business projects to look up to. He does not know whether he will have enough money to provide for himself in case he gets very ill, or worse, if a son or daughter gets ill. The average Egyptian takes up two or three jobs, spends 4 hours daily squeezed in public transportation, does not have a proper social life. The average Egyptian is savagely caught up in the rat race, and the only relief he can look up to is football. Now imagine that this relief gives your country the chance to be internationally prominent, wouldn't you feel proud? We see the Egyptian government failing to defend the hungry, poor and defencless, starting from its own people and ending with Palestinians and Iraqis. As soon as the US invaded Iraq, all Mubarak could utter was "We hope the US operation will end soon". I am not premusing he could do anything else. There was nothing else Egypt could do given the circumstances. When hungry and cold Palestinians stormed through the Egyptian border a year and a half ago all Abul Gheit said was Egypt will break the bones of any Palestinian who would dare get hungry and look for food again. What's the use of a gate if you will keep it shut off most of the time, except if what you're really doing is imprisoning Gaza? Here goes a political failure.
No one knows if Egyptian products are sold abroad, no one knows if there is an international Egyptian market. EVERYONE knows where the revenues of tourism and the Suez Canal really go. The average Egyptian sees only shillings of the billions the government promises to provide as July bonus or social bonuses. Here goes an economic failure.
Doesn't it logically follow a social failure? You bet.
Now, when the only victory, or even facade of victory, looms in the distance, you still want do not want the Egyptians to breathe? So basically Egyptians are asked to be poor, hungry, hopeless and smileless? The overwhelming majority of Egyptians love their country, there is no doubt about this, and they wait for any chance to show their feelings. When they express patriotism through strikes, or protests, or forming virtual youth movements, they are hunt down, beaten, tortured and even killed. Workers who protest low pay do not only want to improve their condition, they want to give their country, they want to work and produce. The Tanta Flax and Oil Company workers' chants gave priority to falx over their own lives. I have never seen patriotism similar to this.
According to Alaa Al-Aswany (arabic), football is the only area where Egyptians are allowed to express their patriotism freely. They are not beaten up by the police. They are given a real chance to participate. This is why you see thousands of Egyptians in stadiums chanting and cheering for hours on end but a few tens or hundreds calling for political and economic reform in demonstrations. Isn't it only logical?
If so, why do we find voices rising before every grand football event like tomorrow's calling Egyptians stupid and naive, just because they prioritise football above almost any other area?
To begin with, this accusation is pure false. We have seen thousands of Egyptians chanting for Palestine and Iraq, risking being arrested and tortured, even school children participated in anti-Israeli protests. So...no. Egyptians defend Palestinians and Iraqis, Egyptians now stand up for their rights and voice their opinions. Egyptians collected money and food and managed to give them to Palestinians whenever the oppressive Egyptian regime allowed. Egyptian doctors have ventured inside the Gaza war zone and performed operations on what was left of Palestinian raid victims.
It is horrendously unfair to say Egyptians only ever care about football. If you have two chances to express patriotism, the first involves sexual and physical assault, passing out, losing your job, getting arrested and/or tortured, the second involves being among masses of people who share your opinion and your passion, you are allowed to express yourself without being called "qilla mundassa" or "wishful thinkers", which would you choose?
Why are you denying Egyptians their only vent, their only way to feel the rush of victory?
No one knows if Egyptian products are sold abroad, no one knows if there is an international Egyptian market. EVERYONE knows where the revenues of tourism and the Suez Canal really go. The average Egyptian sees only shillings of the billions the government promises to provide as July bonus or social bonuses. Here goes an economic failure.
Doesn't it logically follow a social failure? You bet.
Now, when the only victory, or even facade of victory, looms in the distance, you still want do not want the Egyptians to breathe? So basically Egyptians are asked to be poor, hungry, hopeless and smileless? The overwhelming majority of Egyptians love their country, there is no doubt about this, and they wait for any chance to show their feelings. When they express patriotism through strikes, or protests, or forming virtual youth movements, they are hunt down, beaten, tortured and even killed. Workers who protest low pay do not only want to improve their condition, they want to give their country, they want to work and produce. The Tanta Flax and Oil Company workers' chants gave priority to falx over their own lives. I have never seen patriotism similar to this.
According to Alaa Al-Aswany (arabic), football is the only area where Egyptians are allowed to express their patriotism freely. They are not beaten up by the police. They are given a real chance to participate. This is why you see thousands of Egyptians in stadiums chanting and cheering for hours on end but a few tens or hundreds calling for political and economic reform in demonstrations. Isn't it only logical?
If so, why do we find voices rising before every grand football event like tomorrow's calling Egyptians stupid and naive, just because they prioritise football above almost any other area?
To begin with, this accusation is pure false. We have seen thousands of Egyptians chanting for Palestine and Iraq, risking being arrested and tortured, even school children participated in anti-Israeli protests. So...no. Egyptians defend Palestinians and Iraqis, Egyptians now stand up for their rights and voice their opinions. Egyptians collected money and food and managed to give them to Palestinians whenever the oppressive Egyptian regime allowed. Egyptian doctors have ventured inside the Gaza war zone and performed operations on what was left of Palestinian raid victims.
It is horrendously unfair to say Egyptians only ever care about football. If you have two chances to express patriotism, the first involves sexual and physical assault, passing out, losing your job, getting arrested and/or tortured, the second involves being among masses of people who share your opinion and your passion, you are allowed to express yourself without being called "qilla mundassa" or "wishful thinkers", which would you choose?
Why are you denying Egyptians their only vent, their only way to feel the rush of victory?
Friday, November 06, 2009
Where is my mind?
Generally speaking, Fight Club is a movie that will mess up your head big time. Although I love movies I am extremely slow. I have never seen Apocalypse Now nor The Godfather. I only take whatever MBC2 gives me, no matter how shitty.
But I digress. I started following the movie well into its middle, and I had to see it again and read the plot to come to grips with 'everything'. At the same time a FB friend posted the link of the soundtrack, no other than the Pixies' Where is my mind?
Immediately after, I really started to hate my job(s). Although my full-time job is far from tedious - teaching. Yes, teaching isn't boring. You do not stare at a dumb screen all day till your eyes burn, you are not directly monitored and scrutinised by your boss. The students change, they sometimes drop funny lines, they are sometimes so aggravating they push you to new and smart ways to contain your anger and/or come up with ideas to get through to them. In fact, teaching is one of the few jobs in which you can bring about real, and sometimes immediate change. This could also mean that they have been so horrible and psychopatic that you promise yourself upon your father's life that you will never, ever, turn out to be like them. You probably have the freedom to change your material every few months (course), change your attitude, change your method...etc.
However, it sometimes takes me the last 15 minutes before a lecture to 'prepare' it. Correcting assignments kills your soul. Trying to explain, for the hundredth time, that single nouns require an additional s to present simple verbs, is not always fun. It is not always rewarding to find bricks increasing slowly and forming a huge wall between you and your audience. You stare at blank faces and try to tell them, in as realistic terms as you can impossibly find, why education is beneficial for them. Above all, since I am in the academic field, I start to wonder why it is of any use, giving the present circumstances, to waste years writing a thesis, and spending 60% of your salary on this process, only to leave it in the university library to gather dust. I keep telling myself that God gave us the gift of mind to exercise it. If you don't use your mind, you will lose it. And writing theses is not such a bad way of doing so.
And now to my other job, a white-collar job, an office job, a private sector job. I spend all day trying to work out puzzles using technology that has completely got the better of me. You have to be there from 8 to 5, which of course I never do. Why 8? Why not just feel that we're in tandem with the world, and be there from 9 to 5? Because we're allowed a one-hour break for a snack and for praying. Of course the 9 hours are not just the 9 hours. If you take public transportation, they jump to 13. So, in the words of Tyler Durden, you spend more than half of your life working a job you hate to buy shit you don't need. You know, City Stars could have been one of the reasons why I decided to take another job, to be able to buy all of these trendy clothes that some worker in China has been squeezed into making for a meagre wage, for hours on end. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs to hate to buy shit we don't need.
We don't need.
Instead, the anonymous main character decided to create an underground movement. But he has his job, he has long bills to pay. He has social appearances to keep. He can't do that himself, so he created another person to do so, someone to do all of the dirty work, to face trouble and make possible subconscious desires. Someone to hurt him because he would feel guilty about hurting himself - and by this I mean physical damage. The movie goes far beyond the abstract, and reaches the physical. Crazy huh? We always dread 'inconcrete' pain and do our best to avoid it, and we never realise how physical pain is as strong, if not stronger.
In the final moment of awareness, the main character finds a means to bring about the fragments of his mind again. What a selfish act. He shoots himself without fatally wounding himself. He is selfish because he did not give me any other alternative.
Since I saw the movie, I have felt my mind disintegrating. I do not know how serious this is, or whether it is serious at all. This is the only way I can explain it, disintegrating. I briefly reviewed other careers, other lives I could live, but everything, any other alternative, requires taking fatal risks, and I am not exactly a risk taker. Of course the movie is not the main reasons, but it sure did set off these symptoms. My thoughts are racing in wildly different directions. I do not know if I am too good for these jobs, or good enough for these jobs. I am questioning my abilities. I am putting my life on halt in a time when I should be writing a life-or-death proposal for my MA. People talk and I cannot listen to them for more than half a minute. They said it would get better but it didn't.
I am loving one person for something, and eschweing another for the very same reason. I keep sending people wrong signals only to realise this too late. I try to leave my parents' wings and probe into the real world, but never really settling in either places.
Just as if it can get worse, someone who is very dear to me, whom I feel responsible for, started underage smoking. As a former smoker I know what kind of crap that gets you to grab some cigarettes and blow your life away when your parents don't know it. I know the loneliness, the pain, the sheer pressure involved. He promised me he would reduce them until he quits. But if he smokes them where I can't see him, how can I ever be sure?
Where is my mind?
I listened for the song during the past week for I don't know how many zillion times. I keep wondering whether the background voices are screaming.
"You wonder a lot, don't you?"
A family member hasn't died. I was not diagnosed with cancer. I have not ended a thirty-year long marriage. I am not a homeless child getting raped by every pedophile on the move. I am not an Afghan mother of three expecting to be blown up any minute now. Why is this happening to me?
But I digress. I started following the movie well into its middle, and I had to see it again and read the plot to come to grips with 'everything'. At the same time a FB friend posted the link of the soundtrack, no other than the Pixies' Where is my mind?
Immediately after, I really started to hate my job(s). Although my full-time job is far from tedious - teaching. Yes, teaching isn't boring. You do not stare at a dumb screen all day till your eyes burn, you are not directly monitored and scrutinised by your boss. The students change, they sometimes drop funny lines, they are sometimes so aggravating they push you to new and smart ways to contain your anger and/or come up with ideas to get through to them. In fact, teaching is one of the few jobs in which you can bring about real, and sometimes immediate change. This could also mean that they have been so horrible and psychopatic that you promise yourself upon your father's life that you will never, ever, turn out to be like them. You probably have the freedom to change your material every few months (course), change your attitude, change your method...etc.
However, it sometimes takes me the last 15 minutes before a lecture to 'prepare' it. Correcting assignments kills your soul. Trying to explain, for the hundredth time, that single nouns require an additional s to present simple verbs, is not always fun. It is not always rewarding to find bricks increasing slowly and forming a huge wall between you and your audience. You stare at blank faces and try to tell them, in as realistic terms as you can impossibly find, why education is beneficial for them. Above all, since I am in the academic field, I start to wonder why it is of any use, giving the present circumstances, to waste years writing a thesis, and spending 60% of your salary on this process, only to leave it in the university library to gather dust. I keep telling myself that God gave us the gift of mind to exercise it. If you don't use your mind, you will lose it. And writing theses is not such a bad way of doing so.
And now to my other job, a white-collar job, an office job, a private sector job. I spend all day trying to work out puzzles using technology that has completely got the better of me. You have to be there from 8 to 5, which of course I never do. Why 8? Why not just feel that we're in tandem with the world, and be there from 9 to 5? Because we're allowed a one-hour break for a snack and for praying. Of course the 9 hours are not just the 9 hours. If you take public transportation, they jump to 13. So, in the words of Tyler Durden, you spend more than half of your life working a job you hate to buy shit you don't need. You know, City Stars could have been one of the reasons why I decided to take another job, to be able to buy all of these trendy clothes that some worker in China has been squeezed into making for a meagre wage, for hours on end. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs to hate to buy shit we don't need.
We don't need.
Instead, the anonymous main character decided to create an underground movement. But he has his job, he has long bills to pay. He has social appearances to keep. He can't do that himself, so he created another person to do so, someone to do all of the dirty work, to face trouble and make possible subconscious desires. Someone to hurt him because he would feel guilty about hurting himself - and by this I mean physical damage. The movie goes far beyond the abstract, and reaches the physical. Crazy huh? We always dread 'inconcrete' pain and do our best to avoid it, and we never realise how physical pain is as strong, if not stronger.
In the final moment of awareness, the main character finds a means to bring about the fragments of his mind again. What a selfish act. He shoots himself without fatally wounding himself. He is selfish because he did not give me any other alternative.
Since I saw the movie, I have felt my mind disintegrating. I do not know how serious this is, or whether it is serious at all. This is the only way I can explain it, disintegrating. I briefly reviewed other careers, other lives I could live, but everything, any other alternative, requires taking fatal risks, and I am not exactly a risk taker. Of course the movie is not the main reasons, but it sure did set off these symptoms. My thoughts are racing in wildly different directions. I do not know if I am too good for these jobs, or good enough for these jobs. I am questioning my abilities. I am putting my life on halt in a time when I should be writing a life-or-death proposal for my MA. People talk and I cannot listen to them for more than half a minute. They said it would get better but it didn't.
I am loving one person for something, and eschweing another for the very same reason. I keep sending people wrong signals only to realise this too late. I try to leave my parents' wings and probe into the real world, but never really settling in either places.
Just as if it can get worse, someone who is very dear to me, whom I feel responsible for, started underage smoking. As a former smoker I know what kind of crap that gets you to grab some cigarettes and blow your life away when your parents don't know it. I know the loneliness, the pain, the sheer pressure involved. He promised me he would reduce them until he quits. But if he smokes them where I can't see him, how can I ever be sure?
Where is my mind?
I listened for the song during the past week for I don't know how many zillion times. I keep wondering whether the background voices are screaming.
"You wonder a lot, don't you?"
A family member hasn't died. I was not diagnosed with cancer. I have not ended a thirty-year long marriage. I am not a homeless child getting raped by every pedophile on the move. I am not an Afghan mother of three expecting to be blown up any minute now. Why is this happening to me?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
DSPD
It's when you are awake but your mind is sleeping. It's when you can see but not understand, hear but not listen, walk but collapse.
When you try to fool yourself that the four hours you spent rolling and crying yourself to sleep in bed are enough to get you going long enough, just long enough for the workday. When you try to enjoy the morning sun and wish you had been born a morning person, only the will of God could have changed this unalterable passion for night.
When you put plans and schemes to set your biological hour back in motion and think of sleeping in the afternoon but know it will keep you awake for the night, think of sleeping at their decent hour but know you will be surrounded by past failure and misery or a burning desire for him, think of sleeping before the dawn but know you will not be able to wake up for work, and not think about concentrating on anything because you already know it's a waste of time.
When you show up late for work and apologise, when you miss work and apologise again and again, when you beg and plead everyone not to think you're lazy or faking it. When you smell the coffee and listen to Coldplay in a desperate attempt to freshen up only to find the curtains being closed will you, nill you.
When you try to fool yourself that the four hours you spent rolling and crying yourself to sleep in bed are enough to get you going long enough, just long enough for the workday. When you try to enjoy the morning sun and wish you had been born a morning person, only the will of God could have changed this unalterable passion for night.
When you put plans and schemes to set your biological hour back in motion and think of sleeping in the afternoon but know it will keep you awake for the night, think of sleeping at their decent hour but know you will be surrounded by past failure and misery or a burning desire for him, think of sleeping before the dawn but know you will not be able to wake up for work, and not think about concentrating on anything because you already know it's a waste of time.
When you show up late for work and apologise, when you miss work and apologise again and again, when you beg and plead everyone not to think you're lazy or faking it. When you smell the coffee and listen to Coldplay in a desperate attempt to freshen up only to find the curtains being closed will you, nill you.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Translation of Alaa Al-Aswany's article on torture in Egypt
Four videos to entertain Mr. President!
President Hosny Mubarak and Barack Obama met recently in Washington to discuss issues of mutual interest to Egypt and the US. Their discussions were fruitful as they tackled the Iranian nuclear weapons file, the peace process and the situation in Darfur. Both presidents expressed their deep concern about the deterioration of human rights in Iran, the Iranian protestors, forging the elections, torturing innocent Iranian people...and all of the unspeakable crimes committed by the Iranian government. They discussed how the international community and the Egyptian government are doing their best to expose and stop such practices. Finally, Obama felt confident that democratic reform in Egypt is a long and complex process, yet it is ongoing and will not stop, God willing, as Mubarak assured. Obama reiterated his profound appreciation of Mubarak's wisdom, justice and bravery. All of this is anticipated and understood. However, I thought of something else: the journey from Washington to Cairo takes more than ten hours...how is Mubarak going to spend it?
Undoubtedly, Mubarak's airplane is fully equipped. Still. the journey is too long, how is the president going to kill time? Is he going to seize the chance of a comfortable nap, to rest his fatigue-ridden body? Is he going to have a conversation with the editors-in-chief of the local newspapers whom he summons every journey? They will, as usual, compete in praising the president's achievements, momentous decisions and historical leadership. The repeated praises will shure bore him, is he going to enjoy some book on the way? Did he take Mahmoud Samy Al-Baroudy's anthology of poems, since he is his favourite poet? I am not exactly sure what the president prefers to do, so I suggest he watches some good videos. They are not long at all; just short documentaries starring not professional actors, not even amateurs, but ordinary citizens. There is nothing particularly special about them. They are among millions of Egyptians who go through hell just to feed their kids and lead dignified lives. The nominated videos are:
1- The first video...we see a young Egyptian man from Port Said being brutally tortured in a police station. In the first scene, the young man appears to have sustained severe cuts and injuries on his back and torso as a result of beating. He has been hung by the hands. He is pleading the police officer for mercy: "Enough...please...Mr. Mohammad...for the sake of the Prophet...enough...I'm dying...Mr. Mohammad."
In the second scene, he is blindfolded and totally devastated. He is crying and begging for sympathy in half-broken sentences: Mr. Mohammad, please have mercy on me, we are human, not animals.
We do not see officer Mohammad, but we can clearly hear him angrily telling the young man to stop and calling him names. Why does Mr. Mohammad sound angry? It's because the young man is screaming while being tortured...which is of course and offense to Mr. Mohammad. It is inappropriate, so the officer believes, that anyone raises their voice to a police officer, even if he is beating and torturing him.
2- The second video...stars an Egyptian woman in her thrities. She is unveiled and dressed in blue jeans and a black t-shirt. An officer beats her severely everywhere with all his might: on her feet, her arms, her head. She screams until her voice fades. In the following scene, we see her hanging horizontally by her hands and feet on an iron bar. Viewers have stated that this position is used in police stations and state security headquarters and called the 'chicken position'. It causes severe pain and tears the muscles apart. It could also lead to breaking body bones and even snapping the spine. The officer continued beating her using a thick stick until she screams: "Please "Pasha" enough...I'm the one who killed him...I'm the one who killed him..."
We can thus infer that the officer is investigating murder and that using this effective method, he caught the murderer and so justice has been done.
3- The third video...we see a man in his fourties trembling as a police officer is hurling abuse at him, raising his hand and beating the man severely. In the moment the man closes his eyes to brace the slap, the officer stops and gives him the finger. He then breaks into a fit of laughter and roams the room proudly. The officer then gets down to business, approaching the man while smoking a cigarette and using his hands to slap the man repeatedly. When the man reacts by covering his face, the officer calls his mother names, tells him to keep his hands down and continues slapping him.
4- The fourth video...the officer sits behind the camera, so we only see an old thin man over sixty years of age. He appears to be poor and ill-nourished. He is held by a muscular detective and we can hear the officer telling the detective: "Beat him, Abdul Rasoul!"
Abdul Rasoul obeys and starts beating the old man harshly, but the officer, who sounds to be in an elated mood, comments: "Too faint, too faint, Abdul Rasoul! Beat him severely!"
Abdul Rasoul beats the old man with more force, whereas the officer directs him to where he should strike the blows: "Beat the back of his neck, now beat him on the head."
Abdul Rasoul betas the old man to satisfy the officer, still the officer muses: "Too faint, too faint Abdul Rasoul."
Another detective joins in and both detectives start beating the old man savagely, proving to the officer how efficient they are. The old man is extremely weakened that he can no longer raise his hand or scream. He wears an empty look and seems completely lifeless.
Mr. President...
I have selected these videos among many available on Wael Abbas' blog Misr Digital and on many other blogs. All the videos are real, showing horrible acts of torture inflicted upon Egyptians on a daily basis...In many cases te names of the officers and the places where they work are shown in the video. Their faces are also clearly visible and can easily be identified. All of the videos have been recorded via mobile phones and have somehow found their ways to the blogs. They have been recorded by people who happen to witness the massacre. Sometimes the police officer videotapes himself while torturing people, then ciculates the tape among his colleagues, or uses it to humiliate and extort the victim. People usually record videos of happy occasions, such as wedding and graduation ceremonies. But videotaping themselves while torturing people is a bizarre behaviour which psychiatrists might help us understand.
Mr. President...
I am not asking you to intervene to stop the humiliation faced by many Egyptians daily in police stations and state security headquarters...I am not imploring you to investigate in the torture suffered by innocent people at the hands of brutal criminals who represent your regime...no...I am, just like all Egyptians, well-aware of the extent of actions that can be taken in Egypt...I just wanted to suggest some videos to entertain you on your long journey back home...welcome home, Mr. President!
N.B. I was not aware of the translation published in The Independent newspaper, so any similarities in style or choice of words are purely coincidental!
Undoubtedly, Mubarak's airplane is fully equipped. Still. the journey is too long, how is the president going to kill time? Is he going to seize the chance of a comfortable nap, to rest his fatigue-ridden body? Is he going to have a conversation with the editors-in-chief of the local newspapers whom he summons every journey? They will, as usual, compete in praising the president's achievements, momentous decisions and historical leadership. The repeated praises will shure bore him, is he going to enjoy some book on the way? Did he take Mahmoud Samy Al-Baroudy's anthology of poems, since he is his favourite poet? I am not exactly sure what the president prefers to do, so I suggest he watches some good videos. They are not long at all; just short documentaries starring not professional actors, not even amateurs, but ordinary citizens. There is nothing particularly special about them. They are among millions of Egyptians who go through hell just to feed their kids and lead dignified lives. The nominated videos are:
1- The first video...we see a young Egyptian man from Port Said being brutally tortured in a police station. In the first scene, the young man appears to have sustained severe cuts and injuries on his back and torso as a result of beating. He has been hung by the hands. He is pleading the police officer for mercy: "Enough...please...Mr. Mohammad...for the sake of the Prophet...enough...I'm dying...Mr. Mohammad."
In the second scene, he is blindfolded and totally devastated. He is crying and begging for sympathy in half-broken sentences: Mr. Mohammad, please have mercy on me, we are human, not animals.
We do not see officer Mohammad, but we can clearly hear him angrily telling the young man to stop and calling him names. Why does Mr. Mohammad sound angry? It's because the young man is screaming while being tortured...which is of course and offense to Mr. Mohammad. It is inappropriate, so the officer believes, that anyone raises their voice to a police officer, even if he is beating and torturing him.
2- The second video...stars an Egyptian woman in her thrities. She is unveiled and dressed in blue jeans and a black t-shirt. An officer beats her severely everywhere with all his might: on her feet, her arms, her head. She screams until her voice fades. In the following scene, we see her hanging horizontally by her hands and feet on an iron bar. Viewers have stated that this position is used in police stations and state security headquarters and called the 'chicken position'. It causes severe pain and tears the muscles apart. It could also lead to breaking body bones and even snapping the spine. The officer continued beating her using a thick stick until she screams: "Please "Pasha" enough...I'm the one who killed him...I'm the one who killed him..."
We can thus infer that the officer is investigating murder and that using this effective method, he caught the murderer and so justice has been done.
3- The third video...we see a man in his fourties trembling as a police officer is hurling abuse at him, raising his hand and beating the man severely. In the moment the man closes his eyes to brace the slap, the officer stops and gives him the finger. He then breaks into a fit of laughter and roams the room proudly. The officer then gets down to business, approaching the man while smoking a cigarette and using his hands to slap the man repeatedly. When the man reacts by covering his face, the officer calls his mother names, tells him to keep his hands down and continues slapping him.
4- The fourth video...the officer sits behind the camera, so we only see an old thin man over sixty years of age. He appears to be poor and ill-nourished. He is held by a muscular detective and we can hear the officer telling the detective: "Beat him, Abdul Rasoul!"
Abdul Rasoul obeys and starts beating the old man harshly, but the officer, who sounds to be in an elated mood, comments: "Too faint, too faint, Abdul Rasoul! Beat him severely!"
Abdul Rasoul beats the old man with more force, whereas the officer directs him to where he should strike the blows: "Beat the back of his neck, now beat him on the head."
Abdul Rasoul betas the old man to satisfy the officer, still the officer muses: "Too faint, too faint Abdul Rasoul."
Another detective joins in and both detectives start beating the old man savagely, proving to the officer how efficient they are. The old man is extremely weakened that he can no longer raise his hand or scream. He wears an empty look and seems completely lifeless.
Mr. President...
I have selected these videos among many available on Wael Abbas' blog Misr Digital and on many other blogs. All the videos are real, showing horrible acts of torture inflicted upon Egyptians on a daily basis...In many cases te names of the officers and the places where they work are shown in the video. Their faces are also clearly visible and can easily be identified. All of the videos have been recorded via mobile phones and have somehow found their ways to the blogs. They have been recorded by people who happen to witness the massacre. Sometimes the police officer videotapes himself while torturing people, then ciculates the tape among his colleagues, or uses it to humiliate and extort the victim. People usually record videos of happy occasions, such as wedding and graduation ceremonies. But videotaping themselves while torturing people is a bizarre behaviour which psychiatrists might help us understand.
Mr. President...
I am not asking you to intervene to stop the humiliation faced by many Egyptians daily in police stations and state security headquarters...I am not imploring you to investigate in the torture suffered by innocent people at the hands of brutal criminals who represent your regime...no...I am, just like all Egyptians, well-aware of the extent of actions that can be taken in Egypt...I just wanted to suggest some videos to entertain you on your long journey back home...welcome home, Mr. President!
N.B. I was not aware of the translation published in The Independent newspaper, so any similarities in style or choice of words are purely coincidental!
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Sorrow
The sweet smell of a great sorrow lies over the land
Plumes of smoke rise and merge into the leaden sky:
A man lies and dreams of green fields and rivers,
But awakes to a morning with no reason for waking
Pink Floyd
Plumes of smoke rise and merge into the leaden sky:
A man lies and dreams of green fields and rivers,
But awakes to a morning with no reason for waking
Pink Floyd
Friday, July 10, 2009
When Women Are Scapegoats
It's amazing how the first group sacrificed at the altar of either fanaticism or secularism is women. No matter the issue, no matter where you are, women are always used as a card to win the argument, any argument, no matter what they actually think. They are used without even being given the choice to say yes or no.
But this is not a silent blog. Ever since the Niqab or face-veil started to spread in the early eighties of the past century, vicious arguments have spread among both fanatics and secularists. Fanatics argue that women are obliged by word of God to wear the Niqab, to not even show their eyes, of course stay at home and just be faithful and obedient to their husbands and folks.
Secularists believe the Niqab is the ultimate expression of opression of women and mental retardation (of course they had them mentally examined, mind you). This similarly silly argument has even somehow found its way to the president of France, instead of issuing a statement on the spiral of a Global Financial Crisis threatening many French people, he stated that Niqab is not welcome in France.
Some journalists linked between Sarkozy's comment and the murder of Marwa El-Sherbiny not much later in a German court by an Islamophobic German. They said it somehow compelled the murderer to act upon his feelings of disgust towards anything Arab and Muslim. Whereas this proposition could be true, the journalists attacked Sarkozy's comments, saying that Niqab is not the only form of mental retardation, but that frenchwomen in bikinis are also somehow oppressed.
How a person's choice of dress could actually affect, or be a result of his/her mental capabilities is just beyond me. Any example I give would be relative, so I really can't think of one. For example, if I say that a woman running around naked is stupid, it will be totally normal in a nude beach. If I say the bikini is the norm, it will be unthinkable in a devoutly Muslim middle-class Egyptian family. If I say a pair of Jeans is comfy and trendy, it will be frowned upon and probably verbally harassed in Al-Aziz Billah Street, the hub of Munaqqabat in Zeitoun, Cairo. The Hijab turns heads in Paris, and the Niqab is now a state business that Sarkozy has to abandon all that is critical on his political agenda to condemn it. Yet again, the Hijab turns heads in Saudi Arabia for totally different reasons, and you will be heavily critcised if you don't completely cover up. So really, there are no absolutes when it comes to dress, and it should be left up to everyone to decide what to freaking wear, so long as they abide by the law, even stupid Saudi Arabian laws for that matter.
Again, how can a dress be a measure of cleverness or stupidity? On what basis are they judging women in that way? So now I'm a normal person, but if I decide to wear the Niqab tomorrow, my IQ will drop by 50? Does this mean that Paris Hilton, the joke of our time, is more sensible, more clever, more logical, just because her head and arms are always bare? Some Egyptian bloggers even went so far as to call Munaqqabat '3ara3eer'. I have no idea what that means, but it makes me wanna puke.
On the other hand, what gives anyone the right to tell women what to wear, and judge them accordingly? What gives some Sheikhs the right to blame women for the calamities of our time because they're not covered up as much as they think is right? Isn't this a strictly personal issue that all you can do about is give advice if you may, but certainly not condemn? Why are many fanatics holding a cover-up or die knife for women, blaming them if someone harasses them, rapes them, kills them, because they're not covered? Why does a woman's attire always, always, has to be the first issue that arises when a Shiekh mentions women? The Hijab and then marriage, to be precise. Let me stick my dagger in your heart and ask: what about women's rights? How come I never hear Sheikhs condemning families who refuse to give orphaned women their inheritance? How come they do not condemn harassers but rather feel pity for the poor Muslim men who have to bear all of this hair on all these heads and not have their pricks harden? How come I never hear Sheikhs asking women to be more prompt about their prayers and alms for Heaven's sake, for I take a Hijab without a prayer means nothing?
I hope a voice of reason arises among these extreme voices and says: why don't you let women decide for themselves? Why do they always have to be pushed to a corner and squeezed to be able to fit into your vision of what a woman should wear?
But this is not a silent blog. Ever since the Niqab or face-veil started to spread in the early eighties of the past century, vicious arguments have spread among both fanatics and secularists. Fanatics argue that women are obliged by word of God to wear the Niqab, to not even show their eyes, of course stay at home and just be faithful and obedient to their husbands and folks.
Secularists believe the Niqab is the ultimate expression of opression of women and mental retardation (of course they had them mentally examined, mind you). This similarly silly argument has even somehow found its way to the president of France, instead of issuing a statement on the spiral of a Global Financial Crisis threatening many French people, he stated that Niqab is not welcome in France.
Some journalists linked between Sarkozy's comment and the murder of Marwa El-Sherbiny not much later in a German court by an Islamophobic German. They said it somehow compelled the murderer to act upon his feelings of disgust towards anything Arab and Muslim. Whereas this proposition could be true, the journalists attacked Sarkozy's comments, saying that Niqab is not the only form of mental retardation, but that frenchwomen in bikinis are also somehow oppressed.
How a person's choice of dress could actually affect, or be a result of his/her mental capabilities is just beyond me. Any example I give would be relative, so I really can't think of one. For example, if I say that a woman running around naked is stupid, it will be totally normal in a nude beach. If I say the bikini is the norm, it will be unthinkable in a devoutly Muslim middle-class Egyptian family. If I say a pair of Jeans is comfy and trendy, it will be frowned upon and probably verbally harassed in Al-Aziz Billah Street, the hub of Munaqqabat in Zeitoun, Cairo. The Hijab turns heads in Paris, and the Niqab is now a state business that Sarkozy has to abandon all that is critical on his political agenda to condemn it. Yet again, the Hijab turns heads in Saudi Arabia for totally different reasons, and you will be heavily critcised if you don't completely cover up. So really, there are no absolutes when it comes to dress, and it should be left up to everyone to decide what to freaking wear, so long as they abide by the law, even stupid Saudi Arabian laws for that matter.
Again, how can a dress be a measure of cleverness or stupidity? On what basis are they judging women in that way? So now I'm a normal person, but if I decide to wear the Niqab tomorrow, my IQ will drop by 50? Does this mean that Paris Hilton, the joke of our time, is more sensible, more clever, more logical, just because her head and arms are always bare? Some Egyptian bloggers even went so far as to call Munaqqabat '3ara3eer'. I have no idea what that means, but it makes me wanna puke.
On the other hand, what gives anyone the right to tell women what to wear, and judge them accordingly? What gives some Sheikhs the right to blame women for the calamities of our time because they're not covered up as much as they think is right? Isn't this a strictly personal issue that all you can do about is give advice if you may, but certainly not condemn? Why are many fanatics holding a cover-up or die knife for women, blaming them if someone harasses them, rapes them, kills them, because they're not covered? Why does a woman's attire always, always, has to be the first issue that arises when a Shiekh mentions women? The Hijab and then marriage, to be precise. Let me stick my dagger in your heart and ask: what about women's rights? How come I never hear Sheikhs condemning families who refuse to give orphaned women their inheritance? How come they do not condemn harassers but rather feel pity for the poor Muslim men who have to bear all of this hair on all these heads and not have their pricks harden? How come I never hear Sheikhs asking women to be more prompt about their prayers and alms for Heaven's sake, for I take a Hijab without a prayer means nothing?
I hope a voice of reason arises among these extreme voices and says: why don't you let women decide for themselves? Why do they always have to be pushed to a corner and squeezed to be able to fit into your vision of what a woman should wear?
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Obama contradicting himself
Perhaps the only difference between Obama and Bush is the first's eloquence and intelligence; intelligence, however, but not fairness or justice in any way.
I believe any discussion of a conflict should begin and end when it comes to human life. Obama has been so kind-hearted as to bring to light the torture and genocide that Jews have faced in the Holocaust and, to reduce us to tears, he spoke in numbers: We have been bereaved by losing 6 million innocent Jews who had been persecuted for many years...three thousand American men women and children who did nothing, nothing, were killed in 9/11.
What about our numbers? Has no one told you that your troops in this war you did not choose (!!) killed more than a million and a half Iraqis? No mention of them? No mention of the children killed in the Haditha killings? No mention of forcing running water into people's mouths and then ruling it out as torture? Has no one told Obama of the young boy whose brain has been dashed out under US rockets and dead body shown on the 20th of March 2003 on AlJazeera? No equality for him? So as I get it, the equality he spoke of for much of the speech applies to Muslims and other minorities in the US and for Copts in Egypt, but not to our children.
No one expects him to be the saviour, and the poeple incessantly cheering and clapping during his speech are basically dumb to think that just because his middle name is Hussein, he will be fair and just. He wants Palestinians to recognise Israel, though he also said that Palestinians have long suffered from occupation! So, according him, Palestine is occupied by a most bloody state, but who cares, the bond between the US and Israel is unbreakable, so you have to be squeezed in between.
Never in his speech did he mention anything about Muslims being victims of unholy wars and monstrous submission on the part of the rest of the world. Only Bosnians and Sudanese people have suffered, but Palestinians are muderers who fire rockets at the poor Israeli people. Palestinians who are killed, tortured, imprisoned, denied a home, denied clean water and food if any at all, should abandon violence. So when Israel fires rockets and bombs at the densely populated Gaza, when one out of four victims of this war is a child, Palestinians are simply expected to abandon violence, fill their mouths with dust, their hands with soil from their children's graves and their bellies with White Phosphorous, just be quite and take it like a man!
Pictures of the lastest Gaza holocaust are available here:
www.tahyyes.org
www.justicenownetwork.blogspot.com
Saturday, March 14, 2009
How not to get a Man
I would encourage anyone who wants to find a soul mate to follow these three steps:
1. Know thyself. Women who are willing to hide or detach from their real selves in order to bag a man often seem to believe that the right guy will give them a sense of identity and self-confidence. This is backward. Looking for love before developing a strong sense of self is like trying to find the mate of a shoe you've never seen. Next time you're feeling fretfully single, try exploring your own nature: Write down your favorite foods or colors or songs or books or sports. Visit a therapist. Embark on a voyage of self-discovery for its own sake and because it is on that journey that you are likely to bump into the perfect traveling companion.
2. Value thyself. The single women I know are frequently advised, "Stop being so picky," "Have a better attitude," and "Lower your standards," perhaps to the point where they'll date anyone with a penis and a pulse. I believe this is precisely the wrong approach. Why? Consider our statistical friend, the bell curve. The great bulge in the middle represents areas where you are, well, average. This is also the part of you that could easily be mixed and matched with the largest number of potential mates. The skinnier upper end represents your greatest gifts, the areas where you are most talented and extraordinary. The few people who share your most exceptional characteristics are your tribe, the population that is most likely to contain your heart's partner. I suggest that you should be pickier, less accepting and more committed to the "bad attitude" that will make you seek people who are extraordinary in the same way you are. Be courteous to men who don't appeal to you, but for God's sake, don't waste your evenings — let alone your nights — with them. "Oh," conventional rule-keepers might exclaim, "you'll have to spend some nights alone!" Yes, indeed. Your pool of candidates is much smaller at the high-quality end of the bell curve, your chances of having no date on Saturday much larger if you refuse to go out with men who bore or repulse you. But if memory serves, the boredom and/or repulsion of bad dating is much worse than spending a few hours on your own.
3. Engage thyself. The authors of The Rules: Time-Tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right emphasize that in order to get a guy, a woman should always act busy — for instance, when a desirable man calls, it's wise to set a timer to go off a few minutes later, then recite a memorized exit line, such as "Sorry, gotta go. I have a million things to do." Here's my crazy idea: How about actually having a million things to do? How about actually filling your life with interesting activities? If you want to attract a partner, identify what you love to do, and do it—a lot. Involved, busy people really are more attractive, so if you want to get engaged to your soul mate, start by being engaged in activities that fascinate you — especially those that have nothing to do with dating and that make you forget to go love hunting.
From an article by Martha Beck from "O Magazine"
1. Know thyself. Women who are willing to hide or detach from their real selves in order to bag a man often seem to believe that the right guy will give them a sense of identity and self-confidence. This is backward. Looking for love before developing a strong sense of self is like trying to find the mate of a shoe you've never seen. Next time you're feeling fretfully single, try exploring your own nature: Write down your favorite foods or colors or songs or books or sports. Visit a therapist. Embark on a voyage of self-discovery for its own sake and because it is on that journey that you are likely to bump into the perfect traveling companion.
2. Value thyself. The single women I know are frequently advised, "Stop being so picky," "Have a better attitude," and "Lower your standards," perhaps to the point where they'll date anyone with a penis and a pulse. I believe this is precisely the wrong approach. Why? Consider our statistical friend, the bell curve. The great bulge in the middle represents areas where you are, well, average. This is also the part of you that could easily be mixed and matched with the largest number of potential mates. The skinnier upper end represents your greatest gifts, the areas where you are most talented and extraordinary. The few people who share your most exceptional characteristics are your tribe, the population that is most likely to contain your heart's partner. I suggest that you should be pickier, less accepting and more committed to the "bad attitude" that will make you seek people who are extraordinary in the same way you are. Be courteous to men who don't appeal to you, but for God's sake, don't waste your evenings — let alone your nights — with them. "Oh," conventional rule-keepers might exclaim, "you'll have to spend some nights alone!" Yes, indeed. Your pool of candidates is much smaller at the high-quality end of the bell curve, your chances of having no date on Saturday much larger if you refuse to go out with men who bore or repulse you. But if memory serves, the boredom and/or repulsion of bad dating is much worse than spending a few hours on your own.
3. Engage thyself. The authors of The Rules: Time-Tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right emphasize that in order to get a guy, a woman should always act busy — for instance, when a desirable man calls, it's wise to set a timer to go off a few minutes later, then recite a memorized exit line, such as "Sorry, gotta go. I have a million things to do." Here's my crazy idea: How about actually having a million things to do? How about actually filling your life with interesting activities? If you want to attract a partner, identify what you love to do, and do it—a lot. Involved, busy people really are more attractive, so if you want to get engaged to your soul mate, start by being engaged in activities that fascinate you — especially those that have nothing to do with dating and that make you forget to go love hunting.
From an article by Martha Beck from "O Magazine"
Monday, December 15, 2008
Hail Thine Shoes
Why is hurling shoes at Bush 'uncivilized'?
And forming naked, human pyramids not? 
Why is throwing shoes at Bush 'unprofessional'?
And killing/causing the death of an estimated 1,033,000 Iraqis a 'cause'?
And forming naked, human pyramids not?
Why is throwing shoes at Bush 'unprofessional'?
And killing/causing the death of an estimated 1,033,000 Iraqis a 'cause'?
Why is humiliating Bush a 'misconduct'?
And killing a dying, unarmed Iraqi not?
Is Bush any more human by any means?
This is the very least this well-described 'dog' deserves!
Monday, March 31, 2008
American Idiot
And so a US navy-chartered boat killed a hapless Egyptian in Suez. The victim, a simple 'boatman' approached the ship along with two other boatmen in order to sell goods to large boats sailing through the port; the only source of income they know of in an increasingly corrupted country.
The 27-year-old died and left a poor widow and two children.
Needless to say, after the incident, the ship passed without being apprehended, without the shooter being taken in custody or anything. The just president of the US expressed some sort of sorrow for the incident, and stated that an investigation will be opened.
I did not expect the Egyptian Government to do anything about the MURDER. I just knew it would let it pass. Egyptians now are of absolutely no value or dignity, either in or out of their home. You can just beat an Egyptian up, set him on fire or hang him from his feet-all actions that should be punishable by the Egyptian Government, but Egyptian blood is priceless...meaning without a price!
Human life is priceless...and anyone who takes it away should be punished- this is the a b c of justice. So if the US has absolute brutish right to punish Afghans or Iraqis or those phantoms of the opera they are fighting in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks, if the US the upholder of freedom and human rights...why did it let its ship pass? Why are the lives of hundreds more valuable than the life of one humble person? It's the same misery, the same grief on both sides. The life of one nameless human being is not like stepping on grass then feeling bad about it. Justice should be done. Or else, accept that more terrorist attacks will be carried out and shut the fuck up.
Links (In Arabic)
http://nilewise.blogspot.com/2008/03/2008.html
http://tahyyes.blogspot.com/2008/03/blog-post_25.html
The 27-year-old died and left a poor widow and two children.
Needless to say, after the incident, the ship passed without being apprehended, without the shooter being taken in custody or anything. The just president of the US expressed some sort of sorrow for the incident, and stated that an investigation will be opened.
I did not expect the Egyptian Government to do anything about the MURDER. I just knew it would let it pass. Egyptians now are of absolutely no value or dignity, either in or out of their home. You can just beat an Egyptian up, set him on fire or hang him from his feet-all actions that should be punishable by the Egyptian Government, but Egyptian blood is priceless...meaning without a price!
Human life is priceless...and anyone who takes it away should be punished- this is the a b c of justice. So if the US has absolute brutish right to punish Afghans or Iraqis or those phantoms of the opera they are fighting in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks, if the US the upholder of freedom and human rights...why did it let its ship pass? Why are the lives of hundreds more valuable than the life of one humble person? It's the same misery, the same grief on both sides. The life of one nameless human being is not like stepping on grass then feeling bad about it. Justice should be done. Or else, accept that more terrorist attacks will be carried out and shut the fuck up.
Links (In Arabic)
http://nilewise.blogspot.com/2008/03/2008.html
http://tahyyes.blogspot.com/2008/03/blog-post_25.html
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Generation Gasp
You can't tell me what to do! I'm not a child anymore!
A generation gap is supposed to be that lack of understanding and communication between people coming from different generations. (Yeah, as if there was no punk subculture in the 70s) Ever since I started teaching, my entire perspective changed. I feel I've grown ten or twenty years, when in fact my students are of my same age, sometimes older.
I insist on having order, and forcing order to unruly teenagers in my book means getting angry, or punitive actions; kicking them out of class, yelling...etc. Frankly, I never liked being yelled at and never respected a teacher who does so. Whenever I imagined myself teaching I would promise myself to control my anger if someone is rude. Afterall, no one appreciates authority, and you are a symbol of authority. Change your attitude to fit a calm and strict image of a teacher,but lo, instincts prevail. Always.
Students, and people in general, have the ability to drive you off the edge. Yes, you actually fly off the handle, lose grip, choose whatever idiom in the Webster English-English Dictionary there is. They do. I once had a student who, although smart, was offensive, aggressive, cowardly and even had a stinking breath. It was the worst kind of person you could deal with and I had to deal with him every single day of my life. I had to hear all of the delicious names he used to call his classmates - in my presence. I would advise him, listen to him, warn him, yell at him. Nothing worked. All I got in return was a heart attack.
But I've loved them, every single student I taught. It was like an insinctive passion that drifts beyond my control, like a mother to her newborn. There are, of course, some whom I would not like to see again, but it has never been so bitter to the extent of hate or wishing anyone to be pulled apart under a train or anything. Afterall, teachers should be impartial. If it is love you should give, give it to all. And...hell all the same.
Today, I was proctoring an exam, and amid the hustle I found a student attempting a conversation with the one behind her. I was aggravated, and wanted to let her know that I'm watching over, but just asked her calmly,"Do you have a question?" She blushed and shook her head.
A moment later, the girl behind her started moving her lips. I was livid. I motioned to her firmly,'The girl at the back...move to the middle of the bench.'
I was flabberghasted to even be a witness of the coming scene, let alone be part of it. She looked at me, banged at her desk and shrieked 'DON'T YOU CALL ME "GIRL AT THE BACK"! YOU SHOULD TELL ME,"PLEASE MOVE..." '
Happily, I didn't have a mental block, I didn't faint or burst into tears. I immediately yelled back, 'What should I be telling you? And in any case don't tell me what to say and what not to say!'
She kept protesting for a moment and the elderly professor present intervened.
I could see that she was shaking and for some ten minutes she didn't write anything. Call me a demon, but I couldn't care less. I was quite at ease when the professor whispered to me, 'I know this girl from last year. She's a cheater. You did the right thing.'
In fact, I felt horrible. Not because I yelled at her, believe me I would have had no pride left if I hadn't, but because I suddenly found myself a stigmatised figure. On the other side. A person on the other shore who does not feel for the students and who was yelling at one while she was having her exam. I knew quite well that this was what the other students thought, and every now and then I would look at them and feel guilty. There was no way I would have allowed her to cheat. And no way I wouldn't have told her that she shouldn't be talking in this disrespectful manner, to say the least. But I know that they would have none of it. Now I am part of their built-in horrid image of a teacher. I did my best to clear it by being unnecassarily nice to a couple of them, anyway.
This girl was in fourth year, probably for the second time, so as I get it she was my age or one year younger at most. Then, how come we are so different? I mean...how come we couldn't manage getting this thing done without clashing and irritating one another? I felt like there was a huge generation gap between us!
When I was a teenager (assuming I have actually left this status behind), I didn't always feel that I fit in. Or maybe this really is the way of the world for teenagers. Other girls wore flashy clothes and I didn't. Other girls were loud, talkative and popular, and I wasn't. Others were lonely and alienated, I still wasn't. Teenagers smoked hash and had partners, and I didn't.
And now where do I fit? If I am the same generation as they are and still feel a world away...where do I go?
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
I can't get no sex education
We unmarried (and married?) Egyptian youth are wretched ugly ducklings. Under the pretence of religion and customs and traditions and 3eb ( unacceptable) and haram (religiously condemned) nobody gives us any piece of information, let alone right or wrong, on sexual intercourse. Nobody actually teaches us how to have sex...they're afraid we do it before marriage!
And who is supposed to teach us anyway? School and/or our parents. Right? Well...the only part on sexual education is taught in 3rd prep (when we're like 14) and frankly, the only thing I learned was that I have a reproductive system and that guys have penises. Oh and that we grow hair and our hips widen when we hit puberty. Part of the problem was that I was absent in one of the two or three classes it took to teach 'sexual intercourse and the reproductive system' and the teacher refused -rudely- to repeat what I didn't understand. And in the other class I fainted at the end of the classroom and no one noticed. LOL.
But as for the rest of the students...it wasn't just bad luck. This lesson was like any other lesson we had to study at school-it was to be MEMORISED! Just memorise every single word and there...you're done. You passed. You got you fair share of sex education. Congratulations!
Usually,or often, or rarely(I don't know, I began doubting that) Egyptian mothers have a once-in-a-lifetime conversation with their daughters before they get married (a week before the Dokhla? Dokhla is the night of the wedding) . They teach them what to do...what whom the Prohet's name is guarding and preserving aka her future husband would do...etc
Alas, even THAT doesn't always happen! "Al Naama wal Tawoos" or "The Ostrich and the Peacock", an Egyptian movie produced a few years ago, tackled the issue of 'sexual ignorance' openly. When the girl asks her mom about sex before she gets married, her mother is just too ashamed and tells her, "He knows". The thing is, it turned out later that he didn't know.
I realised the weight of the crisis just yesterday. My friends and I gathered in a cafe and we noticed that two of us, let's call them Mona and Sally, were whispering and somehow abandonned the rest of us. We kept teasing them coz we kinda guessed what they were talking about; Mona's getting married by winter and Sally in 11 days' time. Remember the 11 days' time. Ok?
I asked Sally if there was anything she wanted to know...and she answered..."I don't know anything". We were puzzled and asked her hadn't her mother talked with her yet? She hadn't. I just tried to comfort her and told her that sure her mother was intending to talk to her the next couple of days...and that maybe she's shy...so why not start the conversation with her..."Mummy I needed to know a few stuff" kind of lines. All the poor girl knew was licking and sucking-from her work mates.
To avoid disasters, I started explaining to them the four stages of the human sexual response cycle in a rather scientific way. Sally started to nod so I knew she read some book...but Mona kept her eyes wide open and her face was pale. Anything I said about orgasm, erection or the vagina was totally knew to her! I realised I've been speaking in English, so I translated some terms, but language wasn't the problem. It was the first time EVER Mona knew about sex. Those girls didn't know that we've got three holes, and I guess they still don't know which one is used for sex. A hideous thought ripped through my head: what if their husbands didn't know either? Talk about high divorce rates!
I kept thinking...didn't they even get curious some day and logged on to the internet, read some book or asked their mothers? I knew what their mothers would have told them anyway..."mesh wa2toh delwa2ty ya 7abebty...7ab2a a2ollek lamma teegy tetgawezy" "It's not time now dear...I will tell you when you get married" Hopefully before the Dokhla!
After some discussion,debates and laughs in which the rest of our group joined and listened to me intently...Sally dropped the bombshell.
"So what brings about the babies? My water or his?"
"His," I answered quickly, trying not to embarrass or laugh at her whereas in fact I was truly mad at them. Really, really mad at them. And at their mothers. And at mine (but I'm not getting married any time soon so I shouldn't worry now right?) At least I had my share of independent reading on the topic,but Mona and Sally aren't readers...how could they know?! I didn't lash out at them because I realised they are victims of negligence and ignorance.
I hereby declare from this blog that we Egyptian youth can't get no sex education whatsoever and we don't know what to do! The only sex we're getting anywhere in the air is some supposedly hot scenes and innuendos in Egyptian movies, 'medical' magazines and books with eye-catching titles and awfully-drawn pictures.
For God's sake, people, sex education is not innate. It is to be TAUGHT!
And who is supposed to teach us anyway? School and/or our parents. Right? Well...the only part on sexual education is taught in 3rd prep (when we're like 14) and frankly, the only thing I learned was that I have a reproductive system and that guys have penises. Oh and that we grow hair and our hips widen when we hit puberty. Part of the problem was that I was absent in one of the two or three classes it took to teach 'sexual intercourse and the reproductive system' and the teacher refused -rudely- to repeat what I didn't understand. And in the other class I fainted at the end of the classroom and no one noticed. LOL.
But as for the rest of the students...it wasn't just bad luck. This lesson was like any other lesson we had to study at school-it was to be MEMORISED! Just memorise every single word and there...you're done. You passed. You got you fair share of sex education. Congratulations!
Usually,or often, or rarely(I don't know, I began doubting that) Egyptian mothers have a once-in-a-lifetime conversation with their daughters before they get married (a week before the Dokhla? Dokhla is the night of the wedding) . They teach them what to do...what whom the Prohet's name is guarding and preserving aka her future husband would do...etc
Alas, even THAT doesn't always happen! "Al Naama wal Tawoos" or "The Ostrich and the Peacock", an Egyptian movie produced a few years ago, tackled the issue of 'sexual ignorance' openly. When the girl asks her mom about sex before she gets married, her mother is just too ashamed and tells her, "He knows". The thing is, it turned out later that he didn't know.
I realised the weight of the crisis just yesterday. My friends and I gathered in a cafe and we noticed that two of us, let's call them Mona and Sally, were whispering and somehow abandonned the rest of us. We kept teasing them coz we kinda guessed what they were talking about; Mona's getting married by winter and Sally in 11 days' time. Remember the 11 days' time. Ok?
I asked Sally if there was anything she wanted to know...and she answered..."I don't know anything". We were puzzled and asked her hadn't her mother talked with her yet? She hadn't. I just tried to comfort her and told her that sure her mother was intending to talk to her the next couple of days...and that maybe she's shy...so why not start the conversation with her..."Mummy I needed to know a few stuff" kind of lines. All the poor girl knew was licking and sucking-from her work mates.
To avoid disasters, I started explaining to them the four stages of the human sexual response cycle in a rather scientific way. Sally started to nod so I knew she read some book...but Mona kept her eyes wide open and her face was pale. Anything I said about orgasm, erection or the vagina was totally knew to her! I realised I've been speaking in English, so I translated some terms, but language wasn't the problem. It was the first time EVER Mona knew about sex. Those girls didn't know that we've got three holes, and I guess they still don't know which one is used for sex. A hideous thought ripped through my head: what if their husbands didn't know either? Talk about high divorce rates!
I kept thinking...didn't they even get curious some day and logged on to the internet, read some book or asked their mothers? I knew what their mothers would have told them anyway..."mesh wa2toh delwa2ty ya 7abebty...7ab2a a2ollek lamma teegy tetgawezy" "It's not time now dear...I will tell you when you get married" Hopefully before the Dokhla!
After some discussion,debates and laughs in which the rest of our group joined and listened to me intently...Sally dropped the bombshell.
"So what brings about the babies? My water or his?"
"His," I answered quickly, trying not to embarrass or laugh at her whereas in fact I was truly mad at them. Really, really mad at them. And at their mothers. And at mine (but I'm not getting married any time soon so I shouldn't worry now right?) At least I had my share of independent reading on the topic,but Mona and Sally aren't readers...how could they know?! I didn't lash out at them because I realised they are victims of negligence and ignorance.
I hereby declare from this blog that we Egyptian youth can't get no sex education whatsoever and we don't know what to do! The only sex we're getting anywhere in the air is some supposedly hot scenes and innuendos in Egyptian movies, 'medical' magazines and books with eye-catching titles and awfully-drawn pictures.
For God's sake, people, sex education is not innate. It is to be TAUGHT!
Thursday, May 10, 2007
To Kill With Kindness
A short scene
(Curtain. It is a cold winter in an uptown Cairo district. The streets are buzzing with cars and flashes of light. Many people are moving about the famous restaurant. I am warming myself with a good laugh with my friends in a Picanto when a dark shadow that rises beside me startles me. A homeless child with an expression of innocence and extreme misery appears and starts to wipe the side window. I smile warmly at him and start looking for some change)
I: Have you got any change for this sweet kid?
Friend: Sure.
(Child is still wiping. I continue to look sweetly at him)
I: (Giving him a one-pound note) Thank you.
(Child takes the money and looks at me steadily, the same despairing look on his face)
I: (Shivering) Excuse me, honey. I'll close the window because I'm feeling really cold.
(Child smiles with an air of blame around him, then vanishes as I slowly close the window)
Curtain Falls
(Curtain. It is a cold winter in an uptown Cairo district. The streets are buzzing with cars and flashes of light. Many people are moving about the famous restaurant. I am warming myself with a good laugh with my friends in a Picanto when a dark shadow that rises beside me startles me. A homeless child with an expression of innocence and extreme misery appears and starts to wipe the side window. I smile warmly at him and start looking for some change)
I: Have you got any change for this sweet kid?
Friend: Sure.
(Child is still wiping. I continue to look sweetly at him)
I: (Giving him a one-pound note) Thank you.
(Child takes the money and looks at me steadily, the same despairing look on his face)
I: (Shivering) Excuse me, honey. I'll close the window because I'm feeling really cold.
(Child smiles with an air of blame around him, then vanishes as I slowly close the window)
Curtain Falls
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)