Tire Killer DeFanged
My husband is willing to bet that too many people ignored the sign and then got mad at the Holiday Inn when their tires shredded! The teeth are gone, but the sign remains:
Hats off to Saudi Women
Last week in the May 10th Kuwait Times, Dr. Sami Alrabaa wrote a fascinating article on Saudi Women, Saudi Arabia and some shifts in press coverage in Saudi Arabia.
This is how the article starts:
Anti-Woman Culture
More and more Saudi women are speaking out against preachers in their country. Fatma Al-Faqih, a columnist at the daily Saudi Al-Watan accuses preachers (April 17) of “denigrating women” and “inciting discrimination against women.” “Day in day out, our preachers flood us with accusations against women and beg men to defend the virtues of society that women corrupt,” Al-Faqih writes. This “anti-woman culture”, Al-Faqih continues, causes women to feel mentally and psychologically inferior, “like a quarrelsome child who must be constantly supervised, intimidated, and punished into performing her duties.”
It is also unprecedented that the Saudi print media are allowing women to air their indignation and frustration. Al-Faqih also writes, “Women are good Muslims as men are. But our preachers insist on producing a distorted picture of women, which has nothing to do with true Islam. The Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) never discriminated against women. He respected them. He valued their opinions and occasionally sought their advice. He treated them as full-fledged human beings. Our preachers however, depict women as spoilt minors who have got to be constantly instructed to behave themselves. They cannot be trusted.”
Al-Faqih also wonders, “Where is it written in the holy Quran and Hadeeth that women are not allowed to drive their own cars? Where is it stated that women are forbidden to travel alone, leave their houses, or travel alone with the family’s chauffeur? Where is it stated that women are forbidden to have a passport without permission from their male closest relatives, forbidden to go to school or university without permission, forbidden to take a job without permission, forbidden to open a bank account without permission, forbidden to name their own children without their men’s approval?”
Further, Al-Faqih complains, “Where is that divine law which does not allow women to sue their husbands for divorce? Where is it written that women’s voice is a sexual organ and hence she is not allowed to speak in public and express her concerns? Where is that sacred law that does not allow women to keep their own children after divorce? Where is it written in Islam that women are not allowed to vote or run for office?”
Al-Faqih concludes, “Are we in Saudi Arabia a special brand of Muslims? In other Muslim countries, women have become presidents (in Bangladesh for example), prime ministers (in Turkey and Pakistan), ministers in Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Kuwait and other Arab countries. In all Muslim countries, women have the right to vote and run for office. No, we are not a special brand of Muslims. It is our preachers who interpret Islam their own way.”
You can read the rest of the article by clicking HERE.
My comment: When I lived in Saudi Arabia, my eyes were opened. My Saudi Arabian women friends were SO smart, and they really knew their Quran. They also knew hadith, and they knew the weight of each hadith, which were strong and which were weak. They didn’t just memorize suura; they thought about them, they discussed them and analyzed them.
Through them, I understoon Islam in a whole new way, and understood the revolutionary thinking of the Prophet, who was kind to women, took council from women, and treated women fairly. In an age when female babies were routinely killed, he stood against the tide of tradition, and forbid the killing of female babies, and insisted on rights of inheiritance for females (and this in the 7th century).
And no one found it more ironic than the Saudi women that Saudi Arabia has become a worldwide symbol for repression of female rights. My Saudi sisters claim that in the birthplace of Islam, Islam has become distorted, a weapon used against women.
My Saudi women friends often told me I was not required to wear a scarf. My embassy told me the same thing, that it was a voluntary sign of submission to Islam. The embassy also told me to carry a scarf, and if accosted by the mutawa,(religious police, the “The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Defense Against Vice” or something like that) to put it on until he was out of view, and then to take it off again, that the scarf was not mandatory. The mutawa felt differently, and would boom out in loud, offended voices: “MADAME, COVER YOUR HAIR!”
I would comply. But the unfairness never failed to rouse my ire. Excuse me? My hair might cause YOU to have a lustful thought? You control YOURSELF and your thoughts, and let ME worry about my morality.
So my scarf – errr hat – is off to these Saudi women who have the bravery to write these well thought out position papers to the Saudi papers.
The interesting thing to me is that the Saudi press is printing the women’s complaints now. . . perhaps, insh’allah, some changes are in the air.
And a muse – So when a Saudi woman comes to Kuwait, for example, or to France – is she allowed to drive? We know it is illegal for her to drive in Saudi Arabia, but is it also immoral for her to drive in Saudi Arabia? Or is it immoral for her to drive anywhere? So like is it immoral for all us women to be driving anywhere?
Twitchy Water
Here is what the Gulf looks like this afternoon:
It is one of those amazing afternoons, where the water is nearly as flat and reflective as glass.
With one anomaly:
In the midst of the glass like waters of the Gulf, there are patches of twitchy water. I can’t help it. I lost two hours of my life today watching the twitchy water. It was the wierdest thing I have seen; it looked like waves with fleas, except that the fleas would sparkle silver now and then. While all the regular waves would be going one way, this “wave” would flutter and go in one direction, then flutter, and turn in another direction.
It has to be fish. From time to time a bird would pass over and the twitchy water would disappear. Sometimes, it didn’t disappear fast enough, and the bird would dive down and grab a snack and fly away. The fish must be tiny – maybe like anchovies or herring or minnows – and their activity gives the water an entirely different character.
I never thought of fish swarming before, but it looked like hive behavior. I wonder if it is because the weather is so suddenly and consistently warm (between 100 – 110F for my non-Kuwaiti readers) or if they are always there and the surf is too active for me to see them?
Twitchy water.
Qatteri Cat’s Paw
The Qatteri Cat has some desert cat in him, or so the vet says. She says this on the basis of his very very hairy ears, the better to keep sand out, and his very hairy paws. His paws crack me up – desert cats have hairy paws so that they can walk on hot sand without burning their feet.
There is another meaning to cat’s paw than the literal meaning. When a person is referred to as a cat’s paw, it means that person is acting, knowingly or unknowingly, to do the will of another person. Here is what answers.com says about the term cat’s paw:
cat’s-paw also cats·paw (kăts’pô’)
n., pl. cat’s-paws also cats·paws.
A person used by another as a dupe or tool.
A light breeze that ruffles small areas of a water surface.
Nautical. A knot made by twisting a section of rope to form two adjacent eyes through which a hook is passed, used in hoisting.
cat’s paw
A dupe or tool for another, a sucker, as in You always try to make a cat’s paw of me, but I refuse to do any more of your work. This term alludes to a very old tale about a monkey that persuades a cat to pull chestnuts out of the fire so as to avoid burning its own paws. The story dates from the 16th century and versions of it (some with a dog) exist in many languages.
I know that some of you out there in etherworld share my love of words and phrases, and of knowing their origin. This is for you! 🙂
Readings for Today
You will notice to the right, in my Blogroll, is an entry for The Lectionary. The Lectionary readings are scheduled so that every three years you read completely through the Bible. Actually, my sect, which is Episcopalian (the American version of Anglican, although the two have been closer at some times than others) shares the same readings with many other Christians, we also have some books/chapters in our Bible that most of the main-line Protestant bibles don’t have.
Today’s gospel reading is one of the hardest ones. You look at it and you read it and it SOUNDS so simple:
Luke 6:27-38
27 ‘But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
28bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
29If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt.
30Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again.
31Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32 ‘If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
33If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
34If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
35But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return.* Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
37 ‘Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven;
38give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back.’
There is nothing easy about loving your enemy. One priest, as I was anguishing through this passage, told me “You don’t have to LIKE them, but you MUST love them.” That helped, but still, loving your enemy is probably the hardest thing on earth to do. And “Do not judge”????? Holy smokes, we judge one another on a daily basis, and usually not to their credit.
Give, even if you think the begger may be lying?
And then, the hardest one of all – “Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” So like, if I don’t forgive . . . I don’t get forgiveness? Like I have to give up my grudges, the chip on my shoulder? I have to forgive the unforgivable, the personal insults, the slights, the jerk who cuts me off on the road? I have to forgive my neighbor? I have to forgive my friend? My husband? George Bush? Osama bin Laden? I have to forgive to receive forgiveness??
But, at the last, the reward – that no matter how hard it is, if you follow these rules, abundant life will be poured in your lap.
You can follow the daily readings by clicking on the Lectionary, in the blogroll, and scrolling down to the current week. Click on the week and it will take you to the daily readings, which include the Psalms, the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Gospel. The reading above, from Luke, is today’s Gospel reading.
When the Experts are WRONG
This started my morning with a big grin. A friend sent it to me, and I hope it delights you as it delighted me.
Below is a nice collection of quotes that turned out to be very wrong. Many of the quotes are from very famous and respectable people. Maybe we should stop underestimating ourselves so much?
* “Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.”
Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
* “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.”
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
* “I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won’t last out the year.”
The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957
* “But what … is it good for?”
Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.
* “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.”
Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
* “This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.”
Western Union internal memo, 1876.
* “The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?”
David Sarnoff’s associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio
in the 1920s.
* “The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a ‘C,’ the idea must be feasible.”
A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith’s paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.
* “Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?”
H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927.
* “I’m just glad it’ll be Clark Gable who’s falling on his face and not Gary Cooper.”
Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in “Gone With The Wind.”
* “A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make.”
Response to Debbi Fields’ idea of starting Mrs. Fields’ Cookies.
* “We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.”
Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.
* “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.”
Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.
* “If I had thought about it, I wouldn’t have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can’t do this.”
Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M “Post-It” Notepads.
* “So we went to Atari and said, ‘Hey, we’ve got this amazing thing, even built with some of your parts, and what do you think about funding us? Or we’ll give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we’ll come work for you.’ And
they said, ‘No.’ So then we went to Hewlett-Packard, and they said, ‘Hey, we don’t need you. You haven’t got through college yet.’”
Apple Computer Inc. founder Steve Jobs on attempts to get Atari and H-P interested in his and Steve Wozniak’s personal computer.
* “Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.”
1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard’s revolutionary rocket work.
* “You want to have consistent and uniform muscle development across all of your muscles? It can’t be done. It’s just a fact of life. You just have to accept inconsistent muscle development as an unalterable condition of weight training.”
Response to Arthur Jones, who solved the “unsolvable” problem by inventing Nautilus.
* “Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You’re crazy.”
Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859.
* “The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives.”
Admiral William Leahy, US Atomic Bomb Project.
* “This fellow Charles Lindbergh will never make it. He’s doomed.”
Harry Guggenheim, millionaire aviation enthusiast.
* “Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.”
Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.
* “Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.”
Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre.
* “Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances.”
Dr. Lee DeForest, inventor of the vacuum tube and father of television.
* “Louis Pastueur’s theory of germs is ridiculous fiction.”
Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872
* “The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon.”
Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria, 1873
A Lot of Bull
Humor interests me – why do we find some things funny? In the US, we have an entire genre of jokes that have to do with big city/educated/city living people who get taken advantage of by the “ole country boy.” I always find them funny. And, I wonder if these jokes are funny in every culture? Here is one from jokes to go.
A big-city lawyer was representing the railroad in a lawsuit filed
by an old rancher. The rancher’s prize bull was missing from
the section through which the railroad passed. The rancher only
wanted to be paid the fair value of the bull.
The case was scheduled to be tried before the justice of the
peace in the back room of the general store. The city-slicker
attorney for the railroad immediately cornered the rancher and
tried to get him to settle out of court.
He did his best selling job, and finally the rancher agreed to
take half of what he was asking.
After the rancher had signed the release and took the check,
the young lawyer couldn’t resist gloating a little over his
success, telling the rancher, “You are really a country hick, old
man, but I put one over on you in there. I couldn’t have won the
case. The engineer was asleep and the fireman was in the
caboose when the train went through your ranch that morning. I
didn’t have one witness to put on the stand. I bluffed you!”
The old rancher replied, “Well, I’ll tell you young feller, I was a
little worried about winning that case myself, because that
durned bull came home this morning.”
Thursday? Friday? Saturday?
Today’s Kuwait Times quotes an “official source” as stating that Kuwait will move to a Friday Saturday weekend as of the 1st of September, and that Kuwait is also looking at daylight savings time starting next Spring. Seems like this trial balloon has floated a time or two before, do you think it will fly this time?
Somehow, it feels in Kuwait like the weekend now is Thursday, Friday and Saturday. The expats seem to be working a six day week (except for the maids, who work 24/7) and everyone seems to take it easier all three days. Wonder if this is really going to happen?
“It’s All YOUR Fault”
The manifesto received by NBC from Virginia Tech killer Cho Seung-Hui says “it’s all your fault” and “You made me do this!”
Has anyone ever said that to you? It is the most chilling experience. People who say things like that are so self-centered and so self-absorbed that they can see the world only in terms of how it effects them, and believe that all things are directed toward them. You can’t argue with them. They see themselves as the center of the universe, and you are only peripheral. Really, I think they have a hard time conceiving that you have any individual existence; you exist only in relation to them.
One of his teachers says Cho was “the loneliest person” she ever met. Uh, yeh. . . I can imagine being so self oriented can make you a little lonely! His former roommates say that at the beginning they tried to make conversation with him, but that he shut them out.
He felt alien. We all feel alien, sometime or another. Most of us don’t go out on a shooting revenge, blaming our alienity on “rich kids” or whatever the enemy flavor-of-the-day is.
I feel sorry for his parents. They must be devastated. They have probably known – but not wanted to see – that their son had serious problems. Their hearts must be breaking, for their son, and they must be wondering where they failed as parents. The damage this kid inflicted against his community resonates on and on.
James Morrow’s The Last Witchfinder
This is one of the strangest books I have ever read. I can’t even claim to have picked it up on any recommendation – I was on my way to grab a cup of coffee when my eye fell on the book. I don’t know why. Anything having to do with witchcraft is repugnant to me. And yet . . . my eye fell on it. I picked it up. I read the back cover – the write-up wasn’t that great. And yet, I bought the book.
It is a very weird book. It is written from the point of view of another book, Sir Isaac Newton’s Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, and starts off in the late 1600’s, as the Newton’s book falls in love with the main character of Morrow’s Witchfinder, Jennet Stearne.
As the book begins, you are reminded of sitting with a friend who talks too much. The book chats on and on, goes on detours, tells you too much about people you don’t even care to know, but somehow . . . you like this friend anyway, and tolorate the annoyance because somehow you come away better for knowing this person/this book.
And I really, really liked the main heroine, who is only 11 when we meet her, living in England, and studying with her aunt Isobel, who does all kinds of cool scientific experiments to demostrate principles from Newton’s books, using prisms and microscopes and calculations, and it all sounds very dull, but somehow – it isn’t. Jennet and Isobel are so irrepressably intelligent! and funny! and down to earth!
But there is a viper in all this merriment, and the viper is Jennet’s father, a witchfinder, who, when his sister-in-law, Isobel, is accused of witchcraft, proves the charges against her.
How do you prove a charge of witchcraft?
The signs, according to Jennet’s father were very clear. A witch caused bad things to happen, like your best rooster dies after you have cheated the witch, or your wife miscarries, or your crop fails. A witch had a “familiar spirit” around, like a cat. (You can see how that might make me very nervous.) A witch had a blemish, a mark of Satan, somewhere on her body, that doesn’t bleed when you stick a needle into it. A witch, when thrown into the water, will sink, not float. They had special equipment for testing for witches. Most people – a very few accused were men – failed the test.
Thousands of people, primarily women, failed the test throughout the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th centuries in Europe. Entire villages near Trier in Germany were killed for the accusation of practicing witchcraft. Women were burned at the stake in France by the hundreds. Women who acted as midwives, or used herbal medicines were particularly vulnerable to the accusation of witchcraft, although men were also, from time to time, accused and convicted. And the accusers were often the jealous, the ignorant, the spiteful and at best – the misguided.
Jennet’s aunt Isobel failed the test. She failed, and she was burned at the stake. As she was lit afire, she shouts out to Jennet to create a “grande arguement”, a proof, using Newton’s Mathmatic Principles, that witchcraft / sorcery does not and cannot exist.
Jennet’s life is bigger than most people’s lives. Her family moves to the Americas – actually, her father is sent there because his profession as witchfinder is becoming an embarrassment in England. She is captured by and lives with American Indians for several years. She returns to “civilization” in time to experience the horrors of the Salem witch trials. She meets Benjamin Franklin, with whom she is shipwrecked on a Caribbean island. And those are just the bare bones!
The book is loaded with great characters, huge ideas, and visionary people, struggling to escape the tangles of the small minded religious fanatics, clinging to old and superstitious ways. And yet, the book is both scientific AND religious, coming to some grandly unifying propositions.
It sounds so dull, but it isn’t. There are lots of big words, but also a lot of humor. It is a book for people who loved Kurt Vonnegut, and who have read and relished John Kennedy Toole’s Confederacy of Dunces. It has a lot of the tongue-in-cheek theology of Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman. The characters are so alive, and so likable, and you will find yourself reading when you have other things to do, because you are eager for Jennet to succeed at her grand endeavor.
Read this book. You won’t be sorry. Available at amazon.com for a mere $10.85 plus shipping. I paid $15.95 plus tax at B&N ;-(
Recent Comments
intlxpatr on Waiting for Snow intlxpatr on Waiting for Snow Abou Tabblouleh on t… on Waiting for Snow Abou Tabbouleh on in… on Waiting for Snow intlxpatr on Waiting for Snow Wikipedia Donate Button
Amazina
Early Voting in Florida
Here There and Everywhere 