Learning from Experience or Egyptian Entrepreneurship

1. A well-dressed and friendly man approached J and me as we were walking towards the entrance of Cairo’s Egyptian Museum. He introduced himself as a director of the museum, Dr. A, and we chatted for a few minutes. Unfortunately, he said, during prayer time, some tills were unmanned and the museum was now and for another 45 minutes open to groups only. We could walk about in the surrounding streets, he suggested. There was much to see, he said. He recommended a visit to the “government bazaar” that was right opposite the museum. Both his wife and his mother, he added, liked to shop there.

I knew that there was no way out once J heard the word bazaar. The friendly Egyptian showed us where we should cross the very busy road. I actually enjoy negotiating the crazy Cairo traffic but our friend insisted on crossing the road with us. We were, by now, accustomed to the friendliness of the Egyptians although I became somewhat suspicious as he continued to the point of handing us over to the man at the entrance of the shop. The “government bazaar” turned out to be an ordinary souvenir shop that like all such shops in Egypt has a government license.

An hour later, as we made our way to the museum, I suggested to J that not only had this been a ploy to divert us to the store but that there was actually no break in the opening hours of the museum. I was right; J was full of admiration for Egyptian entrepreneurship.

2. A couple of days later, as we were walking towards the Sultan Hassan and Refa’i mosques, another man approached us. The mosques, he said, were closed to non-prayers in the coming hour. He suggested that we might want to visit another mosque just around the corner. He was a music teacher, he said and was neither a tourist guide nor did he expect us to tip him. He simply enjoyed practicing his English and would gladly accompany us to “his” mosque.

We thanked him for the information but decided not to accompany him. Instead, we continued on our way to the “closed” mosques. The mosques were open to visitors and – not to our surprise - had no prayer breaks at all.

Sins of the Fathers

It has recently been revealed that Bettina, Hermann Goering’s great-niece had herself sterilised so as 'not to pass on the blood of a monster'. This, I believe, is unusual. Many descendants of senior Nazis did not seem to feel uncomfortable enough about their heritage to prevent them from procreating.

Should they have?

Moreover, genetically untainted spouses were found who were not worried about this genetic input. They may even have gotten a kick out of marrying the son or daughter of a Nazi perpetrator.

Are all judges "honourable"?

A man from Gaza who needs surgery that is not available in Gaza has applied to enter Israel in order to be operated in a hospital in East Jerusalem. An Israeli expert has confirmed that surgery is crucial and that the man might suffer irreversible damage unless operated on. Israel denied the man’s request. Israel is worried that the man might use this as an opportunity to join his wife and four children who live in the West Bank.

A senior Israeli judge, Mrs Rachel Barkai, first took time to address the court, the world and posterity and call their attention to Israel’s medical aid effort in Haiti, pointing out that Israel was one of the few countries in the world to grant medical aid to foreign citizens.

The judge then explained "In balancing the values on both sides of the scales - on one hand, the need for medical treatment, and on the other hand, the concern that he will take advantage of his entry permit in order to relocate, the respondents' refusal to permit the petitioner's entry to the territory of the State of Israel does not justify judicial intervention."

Judges have this wonderful arrangement that demands we all refer to them as “honourable”. Has the law allowed for a situation in which a judge is not so honourable? Or is it enough to deny Mrs Rachel Barakai medical assistance should she need it some day?

Holy Alliances

Two stories that have recently appeared in the press:

Theophilos III, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, has intervened with Israeli President Peres to grant amnesty to an Israeli in jail. Curiously, the Israeli in question is not a member of his own Church but a Jew: ultra-orthodox Shlomo Benizri, a former Israeli cabinet member, is serving a four-year jail sentence for taking bribes and for breach of trust.

Is Theophilus just a particularly nice man or is this somehow connected to the fact that the Greek Orthodox Church owns very much land in Israel (including the land on which the Knesset, Israel’s parliament is built) and that Shas, Benizri’s party, is a very potent power broker in the country?

The Catholic Church has condemned the French government for attempting to prohibit the wearing of Burqas in public. The Church explained that retaliation on Christians in Muslim countries might follow.

File note for future reference: in dealings with the Vatican - blackmail works.

Berlusconi and Israel

I have just received the following email:

Hi David,
Why does Israel, why do Israeli politicians get on with a major crook like Berlusca so well? “He’s our best friend”… Huh???

I remember a similar situation when in June 1974, less than two months before he was forced to resign, President Nixon - a pariah in his own country - visited Israel. It was the first time ever that an American President had made a visit to Israel.

Beggars can’t be choosers.

However, if there is a chance that Israel might listen to Iran-condemning, Jewish-People-hugging Berlusconi then I don’t care about the rest: Berlusconi has suggested to Israel that she ought to give up the Golan and go for peace with Syria and that Israel’s Settlements in the Occupied Territories are an impediment to peace.

Sadly, Israeli politicians are more likely to take Berlusconi’s advice on media control, the joys of power and wealth and perhaps even the advantages of dying one’s hair than give up land for peace.

Avatar vs. Double Cross

The Vatican newspaper and radio station have called the film Avatar simplistic, and criticized it for flirting with modern doctrines that promote the worship of nature as a substitute for religion. L'Osservatore Romano said the movie's plot is unoriginal and its message not new. It faulted Cameron for taking a "bland approach." A few years ago Vatican officials spoke out against The Da Vinci Code.

I am still waiting for my mention in dispatches. Pope Benedict has up to now refrained from attacking Double Cross: The Code of the Catholic Church. Has he secretly been convinced or is my book still in the pile of books waiting to be read by the Holy Father?

The Pope and Mrs. Robinson

The Pope has just come out with a statement linking the Catholic Church’s opposition to gay marriage to global warming. Both, according to Benedict, are a threat to creation. The Pope has clearly not yet finished reading his copy of Double Cross: The Code of the Catholic Church.

About a year ago, Protestant Iris Robinson, wife of Northern Ireland’s First Minister and a Member of the UK Parliament, branded homosexuality “an abomination” and urged homosexuals to seek psychiatric help. Robinson, it appears, had it directly from God: “Homosexuality is not natural. My Christian beliefs tell me that it is an abomination and that is very clear. It is an offence to God, an offensive act and something God abhors… I have a lovely psychiatrist who works with me in my office trying to turn homosexuals away from what they are engaged in. I’m happy to put any homosexuals in touch with this gentleman.”

Loathing of homosexuals seems to unite Protestants and Catholics. There must be hope for Ireland, after all.

It now turns out that devout Mrs. Robinson did not read the rest of her Bible. Did she miss class when they taught about adultery? Perhaps she was getting laid at the time. Not only did a 59-year-old Robinson have an affair with a 19-year-old boy, she appears to have paid him for it. The MP and wife of Northern Ireland’s First Minister arranged for two property developers to fund a business for her lover to the tune of £50,000. Greedy on top of it all, Robinson demanded a 10% cut. Lover boy had to give her £5000 in cash-back in return for the money she had organised for him.

As a good Christian she must believe in hell. I wish her all the fires she believes in. She is already getting a taster and is hiding behind a “nervous breakdown”.

Switzerland and the Muslims

Last Sunday, in their referendum, the Swiss voted to ban the construction of minarets. They did not ban mosques or Muslims, just their minarets.

The United Nations called Switzerland's ban on new minarets "clearly discriminatory" and deeply divisive. The French Foreign Minister said, "It is an expression of intolerance and I detest intolerance. I hope the Swiss will reverse this decision quickly." The Vatican condemned and Amnesty International said the vote violated freedom of religion and would probably be overturned by the Swiss Supreme Court or the European Court of Human Rights.

And yet, is it not possible that the Muslims have only their brothers to blame for this vote?

Last year, Libya’s dictator, Gaddafi, effectively waged war against Switzerland. He announced a halt to all oil exports to Switzerland and a withdrawal of moneys out of Swiss banks. Libya suspended the issuing of visas for Swiss nationals and forced Libyan branches of Swiss companies to close. In August this year, Libya submitted a proposal for discussion by the General Assembly of the United Nations to abolish Switzerland and dismember it.

What caused Libya’s anger? The audacity of the Swiss police: Gaddafi’s son, a man with a track record of trouble in various other countries, including France, Italy and Denmark, was arrested in Geneva and held in custody for two days for maltreating his domestic staff. His sister, Aisha, vowed "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" and Switzerland immediately surrendered; they even sent their President to Libya to apologize.

Could Sunday’s referendum be the Swiss popular response? The campaign against the minarets will have exacerbated xenophobia and racial intolerance in Switzerland. That is unattractive. Is it also understandable?

The US Catholic Church blackmails Obama

Catholic Bishop Thomas J Tobin of Rhode Island has barred US Congressman Patrick J Kennedy from communion. Indeed, the Bishop went even further: he accused Kennedy of “false advertising” for describing himself as a Catholic. Tobin added, “If you freely choose to be a Catholic, it means you believe certain things, you do certain things. …If you cannot do all that in conscience, then you should perhaps feel free to go somewhere else.” Is this Tobin’s private initiative or does he have the Pope’s approval to send people away from the Catholic Church?

I take it, that in Bishop Tobin’s book, his colleagues who have systematically lied, cheated and covered up sexual abuse by their priests are not false Catholics and do not have to go seek another Church.

Kennedy’s sin is his political stance against the legal prohibition of abortion. The issue has resurfaced in recent days, as the machinery of the US Catholic Church has lobbied with all its might to exclude abortion from the new health care bill. To that end, the Catholic Bishops were willing to let the very poor Americans, who do not have medical cover, continue to suffer.

Just in case you did not know on whose side the Catholic Church is.

American Justice Stinks

A Florida court has just awarded 300 million dollars to a 61-year-old woman who has been a smoker for many years and now suffers from severe emphysema. Philip Morris, the manufacturer of the cigarettes, has been instructed by the court to pay this woman 56 million dollars in damages and 244 million dollars in punitive damages.

This judgment raise moral as well as practical issues:

On the practical side, even if tobacco companies would be dissolved and all their assets used to pay out compensation to smokers – at this rate of awards, very few of the world’s smokers would get compensation. What is this? First in line takes all? Does not sound very fair to me. Secondly, I fail to understand how a Florida jury, consisting of people whose average annual income is most probably less than $50,000, reaches 56 million dollars in damages for a life of a 61-year-old damaged by emphysema.

On the moral side: the most obvious question is what about the woman’s own responsibility for her life. In the USA, cigarette packages included legal warnings about health damage since 1966! This woman continued to smoke to 1993!

What is even worse is the US notion of punitive damages. If society believes – as very often is the case – that a certain manufacturer ought to be punished for negligence or for criminal behaviour – why should the beneficiary of the penalty be an individual? Let the injured get damages awarded to take care of their injuries and let the state penalize those which the court decides to penalize.

Why is it that, especially in the USA, whenever something goes wrong: a) it is always someone else’s fault, and b) one is always prompted to make money by suing someone? Who are the only ones to really gain? The lawyers. American lawyers drive this system. They have a direct interest in the height of the damages as they get a high percentage of the damages awarded. And since the tobacco company will, in all likelihood, appeal, there is more work and more income for the lawyers. They have created a system that stinks.