...who knows what he's talking about, responding to this.
I recently gave a talk about the Arab Spring at a college in the Pacific Northwest and met a young female journalism student who said she was envious that I've been to Cairo. She considers herself something of an Egyptologist and can't wait to go there herself.
She was blissfully unaware of how badly women are treated in Egypt, including foreign women like herself. I've heard one extreme sexual harassment horror story after another from women I know who have visited Cairo. I don't personally know anyone who has been sexually assaulted in Egypt, but from my informal survey of female travelers there it appears the likelihood of a foreign woman experiencing extreme harassment approaches 100 percent.
I have no idea why this is such a huge problem in Egypt. It's not because Egypt is Arab or Muslim or Middle Eastern. Lebanon isn't like this. I understand Syria isn't either, though I'm less certain. My wife has been to Morocco, Lebanon, Tunisia, and Libya. She experienced minor sexual harassment in Tunisia and Libya, but it was the sort that was annoying rather than horrifying. She wants to revisit both countries despite it.
The stories I've heard from women in Egypt, however, involve harassment that is aggressive, physical, and sometimes terrifying. I will never take my wife to Egypt. Never.
Perhaps I should have visited Mr. Wife when he was doing that factory start-up in Egypt back in 1987, when such things were not supposed to happen. But then the company would have seriously pressured him to take the assignment in Saudi Arabia, and I was not nearly tactful enough to survive that experience -- and I'm pretty sure being presented with a headless wife would have upset my sensitive mate, impacting his work efficiency.
Perhaps I should have visited Mr. Wife when he was doing that factory start-up in Egypt back in 1987, when such things were not supposed to happen.
Maybe, maybe not. I have a buddy who went there in 95 and got offered three camels for his underage daughter (who I understand thought it would be good to wear shorts that day). To his daughter's horror, he countered with ten. They took him seriously and walked away.
Knowing what a pain she usually is, I'd have countered with no more than five.
"...blissfully unaware of how badly women are treated..."
so many, many others like her are blissfully unaware of Islamic reality
Posted by: lord garth ||
Back in 74, I was in Spain with one of my tall long legged lady friends. We took the ferry from Barcelona to Algeciras. On the way, we met a couple that talked us into staying on the ferry and going across the straits to Tangier.
We got to Tangier and in the course of the first two hours we were there, I was offered $3,000 for my US Passport and $10,000 for the tall long legged lady friend, who like the teenaged daughter, had worn short shorts and a tank top.
I think we set a world record getting back to the dock and there I found a couple of kilos of Hashish taped to the underside of my Porsche.
Needless to say, Tangier is NOT on my list of places to visit EVER.
An American going anywhere in North Africa needs to watch their ass, even in the more civilized environs, it is dangerous.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
I'd have countered with no more than five.
Five camels is a good price if she is appropriately plump and comely.
[Dawn] SAFE havens are back. For a while it seemed as if the Pakistain-US relationship was being defined by decidedly small-bore issues: apologies, transit fees and the release of monies. However, some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them... as the relationship between the nominal allies has gone from awkward to virtually dysfunctional, US officials have turned once again to that perennial thorn in the American side -- safe havens along Pakistain's border with Afghanistan which allow the Afghan Taliban to regroup, avoid American fire and plan attacks inside Afghanistan. The North Wazoo Agency in particular is the source of much anger on the American side, there seemingly being a consensus that the Haqqani network is behind some of the most damaging attacks in Afghanistan. There appears, then, more than meets the eye in the latest stand-off between Pakistain and the US: are the interminable negotiations over the normalisation of ties really about the mechanics of an apology, transit fees and the like or is there a behind-the-scenes showdown over to what extent Pakistain should turn on the Afghan Taliban/ Haqqani network even as the international war effort in Afghanistan heads to a close?
Two points need to be made. One, American frustration with Pakistain on the issue of safe havens is more likely to be counterproductive than not. The more US officials go public with their anger and concerns, the more the security establishment here may have to dig in its heels. With anti-Americanism in the public and the army rank and file at a historic high, military action inside Pakistain at the behest of the US will be difficult to sell. The outgoing US ambassador to Pakistain Cameron Munter had the right approach: don't expect miracles; keep expectations and demands firmly in check; and work with Pakistain to find the spaces in which incremental progress can be made. Unfortunately, the Pakistain hawks in American policy circles appear to be winning the argument at the moment -- though they too are unlikely to win the argument with Pakistain through their approach.
Two, Pakistain needs to take a hard look at North Waziristan Agency for its own sake. Left to their own devices -- some in return for not attacking Pakistain proper; others because the state doesn't have the capacity or will to take them on -- the dozens of beturbanned goon groups and offshoots gathered in North Waziristan are a long-term threat to Pakistain. A policy of zero tolerance towards militancy -- something yet to become evident -- is the only way to Pakistain's long-term stabilisation and security. Moreover, tackling the North Waziristan threat would diminish the Americans' case for the much-maligned drone strikes.
The outgoing US ambassador to Pakistain Cameron Munter had the right approach: don't expect miracles; keep expectations and demands firmly in check; and work with Pakistain to find the spaces in which incremental progress can be made
Such an approach is great for the striped-pants set or the Commerce Department.
Not such a good thing when one is trying to not lose a war.
What makes you think Bambi's administration is trying not to lose, Pappy?
Posted by: Barbara ||
There is a difference between trying to win and trying not to lose. The latter is generally a political maneuver where one disengages, while hopefully, or lately, supposedly leaving the political entity one had been supporting in a position to take care of itself.
It almost worked in Vietnam. It's a toss-up leaning toward failure in Iraq. It looks akin to failure in Afghanistan.
Another thing about trying not to lose: the fallout is generally years down the road; the culprits are politically safe by then.
How a Pfizer CEO and Big Pharma colluded with the White House at the public's expense.
On Friday House Republicans released more documents that expose the collusion between the health-care industry and the White House that produced ObamaCare, and what a story of crony capitalism it is. If the trove of emails proves anything, it's that the Tea Party isn't angry enough.
Over the last year, the Energy and Commerce Committee has taken Nancy Pelosi's advice to see what's in the Affordable Care Act and how it passed. The White House refused to cooperate beyond printing out old press releases, but a dozen trade groups turned over thousands of emails and other files. A particular focus is the drug lobby, President Obama's most loyal corporate ally in 2009 and 2010.
The business refrain in those days was that if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. But it turns out Big Pharma was also serving as head chef, maître d'hotel and dishwasher. Though some parts of the story have been reported before, the emails make clear that ObamaCare might never have passed without the drug companies. Thank you, Pfizer.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.