And Now The CIA

Two days ago, I was angry at the Pope. Now it is the turn of the CIA...

It has been revealed that the CIA has been using other methods than "just torture" to gain intelligence information in Afghanistan. So far so good: if torture is "let go" in favor of more humane means of obtaining information in the fight against terrorism, I am all for it... However, should I really be all for it when I learn that the new "will-make-them-talk" weapon/method is the little blue pill? That is to say, Viagra!

The CIA has been distributing the miracle "virility" pill to elderly Afghan tribe leaders whose manhood (and therefore authority) was at stake, in an effort to win them to their side. The effects of the blue pill have been thoroughly described and the side effects (heart attack amongst others) explained. It is said that the elders' health was even examined before the pill was actually prescribed (Prescribed by who? The CIA has doctors on call in Kabul?). The elders came back a few days later, happy and smiling, asked for more pills and gave information in exchange.
Now obviously they will not give inaccurate information because there could happen a sudden "shortage" of the miraculous pill...

So why am I appalled?

As a woman, I feel that once again the true victims are other women. Women were victims of the Taliban, deprived of the right to an education, to work for those who were educated at the time the Taliban took over Afghanistan. Under the Taliban, women truly became invisible. They were forced to wear the burqa from head to toe. It even had a threaded "barbed wire" in front of their face. Women were reduced to being the sexual slaves of one man, 4 to a man to be precise. Some were "sold out" by their parents, especially the young ones to the older men. They were exposed to the ire of jealous older women in the harem and to constant "legal rape" -at best if they were of age and not consenting- or "legal pedophilia" -at worst if they were under the age of 18... Notwithstanding that the Taliban's definition of "legal age" was probably 12: if you have seen the movie "Osama" (no relation to the terrorist), you know what I mean. If you have not, then it's time to rent it and do not forget the box of Kleenex.

The current "new" Afghan constitution defines the legal age to marry (and have sex) as 18. But is the new constitution retroactive? Are all the little girls sacrificed to the Taliban's dogmas now free to go back to their parental abode or to live on their own if they so desire? Or are they still metaphorically and in truth jailed, forever married to Viagra-sex crazed old Afghan tribe leaders?

As a woman, my heart weeps for all these other women who have endured enough wars (since 1979 with the Soviet invasioon, remember?), enough wounds, enough losses and who now have to endure endless nights of erectile fixation by aging, loveless, and imposed upon husbands?

Of course the CIA does not seem to care that women will be, -once again, once more-, the first victims of the eternal fight against terrorism... Must be a "male" thing!

The Pope: Homosexuality and Selfishness

Could someone tell the Pope to wake up and smell the coffee???

Is it because he is "The" Pope that he is uttering such garbage as he did on Monday December 22 about homosexuality?

Saying homosexuality is as much a threat to the human race as climate change is one more proof of the lack of compassion of conservative Roman Catholics. Jesus Christ surrounded himself with whores, tax collectors, and many other sinners and said "Love the sinner not the sin". Jesus Christ, in the New Testament, came to transcend the Law edicted in the Old Testament. In as much as homosexuality is condemned in the Old Testament with all the ferocity one can expect from Yahve, the God of Abraham, Izaak and Yaacov, not a word is mentioned against (or for) it in the New Testament, a book whose strongest tenet is "forgiveness".

Maybe the Pope has another secret version in those very deep Vatican caves ?

What is a threat to human race is the position of the Catholic Church on sexuality, to the point that the previous Pope even forbid the use of condoms in countries plagued by Aids, poverty and a rabbit-like population expansion. "Go forth and multiply" indeed! Or rather make sure you multiply and pay your due to the Roman Catholic Church: while you will be living in the slums of Rio or Mexico, or starving in Africa, or dying in the streets, our hierarchy will be living in the gilded rooms of Vatican, pray in the Sixtine Chapel (whose ceiling was decorated by this guy, you know, Michelangelo, the gay artist...but hush! no one should mention he was gay), and gorge on scrumptious food.

The Pope and his guard of eunuchs should stop looking at other people's mistakes and contemplate their own selfishness, their own lies, their own crimes: how many centuries of pedophilia does it take a pope to officially acknowledge the Roman Catholic Church HAS a problem with sexuality?

I strongly suggest the reading of Ute Ranke-Heineman's book: Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven to learn more about the subject. An eye-opener, to say the least.

A Genocide Still Waiting For Its Name

The title looked promising... but heck no! It was just an eye-catcher...

It was a lukewarm, timid apology by Turkish intellectuals whose conscience might be tormented but whose guts are still not up to articulate and pronounce the word "genocide". Does it mean that Turkish intellectuals have joined the Western intellectual world at large, those for whom comfort is too priceless to lose their privileges? Or is it just one more proof that there is really not yet democracy / freedom of speech and opinion in Turkey and that calling a spade by its name, or as is the case here, a genocide a genocide, too risky?

I guess Solzhenitsyn is having a blast and laughing at us and them even more than when he fustigated us in his famous speech.Anyone still wants Turkey in the EU?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/world/europe/16briefs-APOLOGYFORAR_BRF.html?_r=1&ref=world

The Europeans...

It is after all the title of one of Henry James' novels (one of my favorite books by this author). They also made a rather intimate movie out of the book. But tonight I wonder what would James do (or think or even more write) if he had had access to the same piece of news I read over the last couple of days.

What, indeed, can we think when politicians (European technocrats) spend their time, the taxpayers' money (who finances their comfortable tax-free salaries), and their credibility squabbling over the right diameter of a tomato, the perfect shape of a cucumber or the curbature of a banana? Don't they have more important subjects to discuss? Isn't there a global economical meltdown out there? Aren't there countries in which people are starving, lacking water, dying of AIDS, of war? What, in the name of SANITY, makes it THAT IMPORTANT and RELEVANT to the average fruit and vegetable buyer what shape is a cherry, what size is a peach, what diameter is a cauliflower?Are they bowing to the pressure of an agro-industrial complex? Are these the demands of a new agricultural lobby?

I can hear sentences such as "My tomato is better than your tomato" ring in my ears and brain. I do not know whether I should laugh because the absurdity of such a sentence sounds very much like Mr. and Mrs. Martin's dialogue in Ionesco's La Cantatrice Chauve at the best, or like a Louis de Funes' retort, or straight out of a foreign language method (as in "My tailor is rich" kind of sentence) at the worst; or if I should cry that highly educated gentlemen and women, most of them (if not all of them) elected to their highly remunerated positions, can within one decade dictate the shape, weight and general appearance of fruits and vegetables and then change it.

Why are they even allowed to regulate Nature?

Thoughts Since I Cannot Speak

In bed for 4 days now with fever, strep throat and penicillin, the only thing left for me to do is to read and think.

The first thought that hit me while reading the accumulated Washington Post: why should the federal government bail out the auto industry? Apart from the humanistic reasons of trying to keep workers their jobs, that is. I say, let the oil industry bail them out: oil and car industries have gone hand in hand over the last few decades and especially in the last 8 years to ensure that no so much money was dedicated to "greening" the U.S. car industry: if a car becomes fuel efficient, then the oil industry loses money, right?

If the car industry bail out is a must to save the economy, then let's accompany it with a few pre-requisites. Not only with quotas of fuel-efficient cars to be built from now on till forever, but also with money for research on global warming consequences and moreover, on green solutions that would guarantee US independence from foreign oil, and from oil altogether. And not only that, but the Federal Government should become part owner of the bailed-out industry. This is not socialism, this is ensuring that the money used for the bail out does not fall into the wrong pockets: for who is truly bailing out anyone here, but the tax payer? You, me, and millions of others not so lucky pilgrims, whose lost-job packages will not include millions if our jobs do disappear.

Add a special tax on any car that run less than 20 miles a gallon in town... These are the cars that should be more expensive to buy (remember a few years back when anyone seemed to buy Hummers: the aid for farmers ended up benefiting the local yuppies who "needed" one for the day when their very long driveway would be under 3 feet of snow... The last time it happened in DC was in 2003!).

Add a special tax on homes over a certain number of square feet: McMansions are not only symbols of bad taste, they are also a waste of energy and can never be made fuel efficient.

The second thought that hit me (and hit me hard too!) was the potential "Return of the Clintons". Why would Hilary (and her inescapable husband) be a better Secretary of State than, say, John Kerry? Apart from the fact that the deal reeks of conflict of interest (Bill Clinton's job since his presidency involves dealing with many countries, some of them have their hands very dirty when it comes to human rights), why bring to the White House cabinet personalities who certainly do not incarnate "Change" or "Hope"?

Come on, Obama: do not shoot yourself in the foot before the inauguration!

Le Figaro

I am not the only one concerned by Rahm Emanuel 's position as Obama's Chief of Staff. This article forwarded to me by a friend, was published in the Figaro today and goes along the lines of my blog.

Rahm Emanuel apologized for the very anti-Arab comments made by his dad (who remains an Israeli citizen). The paternal comments were made on November 6: hopefully his apology is sincere and Rahm Emanuel will be able to cut the "symbolic umbilical cord" linking him to his dad. Lacan would say that he needs to get rid of the "Nom du père".

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2008/11/14/01011-20081114FILWWW00520-rahm-emanuel-s-excuse-pour-son-pere.php

Happy But Concerned

Of course I am happy that Barack Obama is our new President. Of course I am proud too. But I am also concerned.

Of course choosing Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff is a smart move in as much as he is a dedicated Democrat and has a long resume to prove it. If Sarah Palin is a pitbull with lipstick, Rahm Emanuel can be as much a bully, and angry, and ferocious, a true warrior.

And that is where I am concerned.

To the risk of offending many, I cannot help asking myself whether he will truly and genuinely serve his country, -the United States-, to the best of his ability and God knows he is able!. What if he lets his extreme positions against the Arab countries, Irak, Iran and the Middle East in general take over his loyalty? Should he let himself be dominated by his family's connections to Israel and therefore oppose and influence negatively Barack Obama? Should not one so close to the Presidency have one's heart only set towards one goal?

The question can be asked differently: did Eisenhower let his feelings for his German family rule his heart over World War 2?

The question therefore becomes a philosophical one: can one share one's loyalty between two countries?

I guess that only John Lennon had the answer. Listen to 'Imagine No country, nothing to die for"