22 July 2006


(From Middle East Online.

American complicity in war crimes....
WASHINGTON, July 21 — The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, American officials said Friday.

The decision to quickly ship the weapons to Israel was made with relatively little debate within the Bush administration, the officials said. Its disclosure threatens to anger Arab governments and others because of the appearance that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign in a way that could be compared to Iran’s efforts to arm and resupply Hezbollah.
The "appearance" that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign?

Say again?! The US is aiding the Israeli bombing campaign. Always has aided Israel in its wars against the Palestinians. And, I'm tempted to say based on the steadily rightward shift of US politics, always will. With weapons, tactical support, vetoes in the UN Security Council, diplomatic relations, PR, and billions of dollars in aid.

So, when the next strike occurs on American soil, will Bush and his supporters claim it's because the terrorists "hate freedom and democracy"?

I marched again today through Dublin's city centre in a demonstration organised by the Socialist Youth to "Stop the Bombing Now!" Our numbers were small but we were there, a sign that not everyone believes in going about with business as usual while innocent civilians are blown apart with American-made bombs and missiles, brutally losing their lives, limbs, livelihoods, homes, livestock, pets, books, EVERYTHING!

I am appalled that so many are standing by doing nothing as this travesty is carried out.

According to the rest of the pathetic story, Secretary of State Condie Rice is going to jet over to the region soon. She can't make unseemly haste, you see, as the Israelis need time to complete their slaughter.

I've lived in Israel. I believe in Israel's right to exist. But the horrific death and destruction the Jewish state is perpetrating in Lebanon and Gaza are nauseating in their utter lack of morality.

20 July 2006


Must read....

If only for the powerful analogy at the beginning:
The other day, a woman came up to me at a party and slapped me in the face simply because I had lied about her behavior in public, and maybe stole a little money from her dresser late one night. I had also started up with her best friend, and told her other friends that she was a lesbian.

Oh yeah, I kind of took her apartment in Malibu away from her and didn't give it back.

Anyway, I immediately pulled out my 38 and shot her on the spot.
Complete post at one of my favorite blogs, here.

(ISNA/Photo:MASHHAD)

Sad anniversary....

Yesterday marked the one-year anniversary of the brutal executions of two gay Iranian teenagers, Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni (above).

Their deaths are the predictable and tragic outcome of “Vice and Virtues” nonsense like that reported in my post yesterday. The two boys—and they were boys: while their reported ages varied, with them being allegedly as young as 14 and 16 at their arrests, no one disputes that they had not yet turned 20 by the time they were killed. The two boys were incarcerated and tortured for 14 months, then hanged, for allegedly raping a 13-year-old boy. This accusation has been universally disputed by all but the most hardened homophobes.

Their real crime was engaging in a long-term consensual sexual relationship with each other in a country governed by Sharia. One speaker at a rally to honour the boys that I attended in Dublin’s city centre yesterday evening, Irish Senator David Norris, said a family member likely turned the boys in to the “religious” police.

So much for “family values.”

As religious fundamentalism strengthens its hold in countries as diverse as the US, Russia, Poland, Nigeria, and throughout the Middle East, LGBT folks are increasingly coming under both metaphorical and all-too-real fire. Calls for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the US, with the ensuing bashings and deaths such homophobic rhetoric fosters. Beheadings of gays in Saudi Arabia. Abductions, torture and murders of suspected gays in Iraq. Executions of gays by stoning in Nigeria. Police sanctioned beatings of demonstrators at a Gay Pride parade in Russia.

And this brutal hanging a year ago in Iran.

As speakers emphasised yesterday, this is not an LGBT issue, it’s a human rights issue.

Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni will be remembered.

19 July 2006


(Photo here.)


Vice and virtue in the Middle East....

Afghanistan has announced plans to re-establish its "Vice and Virtues Ministry," the infamous government body which under the Taliban was charged with enforcing bans on morally questionable activities like girls' schools, television, card-playing, kite-flying and women's public baths.

But don't worry! Despite the identical name, girls who'd like to read, women who'd prefer to bathe, fans of Tolo TV, poker enthusiasts, kite-lovers and others, such as gays who'd rather leave the closet behind and artists who believe in freedom of expression, all have nothing to fear.
Karim Rahimi, Karzai's spokesman, said Afghans should not be worried.

"The people were scared of the Vice and Virtues Ministry under the Taliban, but this new ministry won't be like the Taliban's," Rahimi said. "It will take into consideration moral and religious activities to help improve Afghan society."
Oh, that's reassuring. The ministry will help improve Afghan society.

Lord knows it could use some improving. Afghanistan under American occupation is a country where, in May of 2005, a popular but controversial female TV presenter, Shaima Rezayee, 24, was shot dead in her home, execution style, one bullet to the head.

Victim of a family “honour killing"? Or of a religious zealot who believed no woman should appear on TV, especially in semi-western style clothing? Is there even a distinction between those two, other than that the latter could be a stranger? Her killing left a fellow male television presenter cowering in the studio, afraid to go home and desperately seeking asylum outside the country.

So, presumably with this new ministry in operation, Rezayee would never have had the opportunity of appearing on TV. Instead, shut away in the backroom of some Kabul home, unbathed, illiterate, and married to a man 30 years her senior, she may have still been "alive."

Salon story (requires subscription or ad-viewing) here.

18 July 2006


(Thor Swift for The New York Times)

FTM scientist speaks out...!

Dr. Ben A. Barres, who has a degree in biology from M.I.T., a medical degree from Dartmouth, a doctorate in neurobiology from Harvard and teaches at Stanford (!) explodes some sexist myths in a courageous commentary in the journal, Nature, and in this short interview in the NYT.
...Q.What about the idea that men and women differ in ways that give men an advantage in science?

A. People are still arguing over whether there are cognitive differences between men and women. If they exist, it’s not clear they are innate, and if they are innate, it’s not clear they are relevant. They are subtle, and they may even benefit women.

But when you tell people about the studies documenting bias, if they are prejudiced, they just discount the evidence.

Q. How does this bias manifest itself?

A. It is very much harder for women to be successful, to get jobs, to get grants, especially big grants. And then, and this is a huge part of the problem, they don’t get the resources they need to be successful. Right now, what’s fundamentally missing and absolutely vital is that women get better child care support. This is such an obvious no-brainer. If you just do this with a small amount of resources, you could explode the number of women scientists.

[snip]

Q. Why didn’t you see these episodes as sexism?

A. Women who are really highly successful, they are just as bad as the men. They think if they can do it, anyone can do it. They don’t see that for every woman who makes it to the top there are 10 more who are passed over. And I am not making this up, that’s what the data show.

And it may be that some women — and African-Americans, too — identify less strongly with their particular group. From the time I was a child, from the littlest, littlest age, I did not identify as a girl. It never occurred to me that I could not be a scientist because I was a woman. It just rolled off my back.

Now I wonder, maybe I just didn’t take these stereotypes so seriously because I did not identify myself as a woman.
I am so impressed with Dr. Barres' courage.

For one thing, he is outing himself (with photo!) in one of the most public forums possible: the pages of the New York Times.

When I was shortly out of journalism school, I went for advice to one of my former professors. A letter I'd submitted to the editor of the NYT in which I'd identified myself as FTM had been accepted for publication, but their editorial policy reasonably demanded I use my name. My professor, a former NYT reporter herself, advised that I assume everyone I knew would read the letter. If I wasn't prepared to out myself to everyone, then best not go forward.

I wasn't. My teenaged daughter lived with me at the time and attended a local high school and I worried about the possible consequences to her. So I pulled the letter.

Dr. Barres, on the other hand, is bravely going forward.

I am sure he knows better than anyone just how conservative--and sexist--the scientific and academic worlds are. From this point on, he will be widely known as the "transsexual scientist." His opinions and work will be taken less seriously by many. Future grant applications could be affected. And I sincerely hope he already has tenure at Stanford, for notoriety like this could hurt his chances.

I so admire that he felt strongly enough about women and feminism to take this brave stand.

Nature editor's summary is here. (The commentary itself must be purchased.)

And the NYT's interview here.

[Typo corrected 15:47 18/7/06.]

16 July 2006


Next target: Iran...?

On Irish radio this morning comes the alarming news that at least eight Israelis have been killed in Haifa (Israel's third largest city) by a Hezbollah missile strike. In response Israel is accusing Syria and Iran of culpability and threatening further vengeance. Meanwhile, the US government and Tony Blair keep reiterating "Israel's right to defend itself." President Bush was on Irish radio this morning from St. Petersburg, accusing Iran and Syria of supporting terrorism.

This disturbing rhetoric is truly frightening, especially in light of the assertion here that the current hostilities between Israel and Lebanon started with a deliberate provocation by Israel. [Hat tip to Shakespeare's Sister.]

If Israel really did entice Hezbollah to kidnap Israeli soldiers by deliberately placing them in harm's way, it's hard not to conclude that Israel's goal all along has been to create an incident to provide an excuse to invade Lebanon. The massive scope, rapidity and coordination of Israel's operation certainly lends credence to this theory. As does their destruction of the Beirut airport, bridges, roadways, a lighthouse, apartment complexes and other civilian targets.

So, if this is true, what to make of the escalating Israeli rhetoric?

Go back in time several months. When President Bush recently began (again) characterising Iran as an imminent threat to US security, using almost the exact rhetoric his regime employed in the lead up to the Iraq invasion, I began bracing myself for a US air invasion of Iran. (The US does not currently possess the ground troops to invade Iran by land.) Worse, given Seymour Hersh's reporting in The New Yorker, I’ve been terrified of a nuclear air war.

Facing mid-term Congressional elections in November in which they might lose control of at least one branch of the legislature, along with widespread and growing American opposition to the war in Iraq, it’s highly unlikely that Republicans would invade Iran without “serious provocation.” For this reason, among others, I’ve been bracing myself for “another 9/11.”

A second scenario, however, has always been that Israel would take the lead on an Iranian invasion by bombing selected targets in Iran, using the excuse that their own security was threatened, provoking an Iranian military response against Israel which would then “cause” America (and Great Britain) to jump in to defend their ally.

The second scenario may be unfolding before our eyes in this very moment.

I am seriously freaking out at this prospect.

The potential loss of life in the hundreds of thousands and the human suffering is horrific to contemplate.

As a friend of mine says, the human capacity for destruction and cruelty is heartbreaking, especially in light of the potential for beauty and love.