And the Oscar for terrible aid idea goes to... 1-million shirts!

So apparently someone thought it was a good idea to ask people to send him their old t-shirts, along with a 1-dollar bill to cover the shipping expenses, so he can send those t-shirts to... 'Africa'.
See, because we humble Africans don't have t-shirts. So we're waiting on America's hand-me-downs.

There is probably one reason this will catch-on: because people are often looking to find a useful way to recycle their old stuff. And that's a kind and decent impulse, really.

But the idea is truly terrible: in its most basic form, because it assumes that some guy somewhere has decided, for the recipients, what they needed. (and that's, his used t-shirts).

Better people have already explained why this is a lousy idea: read their posts.

What makes this whole t-shirt thing more than just a bad aid idea is the reaction of said guy to the intense criticism he's been getting from, eh, people who actually know about aid: asking to take it offline, by insulting people, and then handing his number and requesting to take the discussion offline. Which is quite pathetic.

He's also apparently offering to call off the project if we offer him a better alternative. So here's one:

You know that one-dollar you're asking people to send you, to contribute to the shipping?
JUST SEND THAT. Recycle the t-shirts!
Send this money to one or more organizations already on the ground, providing actually needed services.

Yes, not as glamourous as taking a photo next to a big container full of t-shirts, but oh-so more efficient.
There you go. You're welcome, t-shirt person.

The Pyramids of Sudan

Pyramids in Sudan: yep. The ties between ancient Egypt and Sudan should make it unsurprising when cultural elements are borrowed (or, ehh, imposed) here and there; and yet, walking amongst dozens of 'mini-pyramids' off a highway in the north of the Sudan feels completely off. Especially that you're walking amongst them truly on your own - Sudan isn't exactly a tourist magnet - so it's a bloody impressive experience.

The pyramids stood proud until an Italian dick by the name of Guiseppe Ferlini decided to blow them up to try to find gold in 1834. Yes, yes. All of them. Fucking cultural terrorist. Now the pyramids, to quote the Bradt guidebook, look like a row of broken teeth. Still impressive nevertheless; plus some have been restored.

Smaller and steeper than Egypt's, they're impressive mainly by their number - there used to be about 100 but many are long gone - and by the fact that, well, you don't expect to see them there!

The pyramids are close to the city of Meroe - once the capital of the Kushite kingdom, a Nubian reign which had this love-hate relationship with all things Egyptian. Not unlike us bitching about America as we wear Nike and sip Coca-Cola, the Kushites hated the living bejesus out of Egypt - and tried to, and at one point succeeded in invading its northern neighbour, until it got its ass kicked - all while adopting Egyptian gods and culture, including the pyramids.
Mind you, Kush wasn't always a wimp - at one point in time it conquered North East Africa, all the way to Libya and Palestine. That's badass.


Two comments to conclude:

a) I, like most Egyptians, know next to nothing about our nearest neighbour. It's just embarrassing. Egyptians out there, show of hands, how many of you ever heard of Kush - let alone know that they invaded Egypt at one point?

b) In Israel, "Kushi" is the equivalent of "nigger" - a racial slur vis-a-vis black people. How Kushi became associated to such a negative connotation I fail to understand; but I would love it if black people would reclaim 'Kushi' as something to be proud of. Had I been a descendent of the Kindgom of Kush, I'd have been honoured.

My two complaints to Comedy Central (on the South Park censorship affair)

I have decided to email US television network Comedy Central twice: the first, to complain about the censorship of episode 201 of South Park, withdrawn after threats have been made against the lives of its writers, Trey Parker and Matt Stone. The second email, when the episode will have aired, will be to complain about said episode, for disregarding the religious sensitivities of many viewers, both in the US and around the world.
It’s simple really. Parker and Stone are allowed to mock. And I am allowed to object. Both rights are equally important, and I choose to stand for both.

The entire affair, I must say, is infuriating. Most of all because two idiots in their mothers’ basement - in New York City, apparently - have decided to issue a threat against two cartoonists. While the entire affair was barely noticeable on most Muslims’ radar, it somehow got treated as a mega news story by some B-class news networks, and a flurry of reactions ensued, most anti-Muslim. It is a desolate sight.

The reason: a cartoon episode which pokes fun at Muslims’ sensitivity of visual depictions of Prophet Mohammad - by hiding him inside a bear suit.

Admit it, you are laughing. Even if you’re Muslim.

(it ultimately turns out that it wasn’t Mohammad in the bear suit, but Santa Claus. Sorry for the spoiler, but it’s important for the argument).

‘Intent’ is an important part of this analysis. It is ludicrous to compare Parker and Stone to a Geert Wilder, an Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or as the threat issued by those wankers did, to a Theo Van Gogh; renowned Muslim-haters, deliberately attempting to cause maximum damage, to instigate anti-Muslim sentiments particularly in Western Europe and North America - to make life more difficult for many people of Muslim faith. It is important to pursue every legal recourse to prevent such people from achieving their intent.

Everyone who watches South Park, on the other hand, is familiar with its brand of ultra irreverent humour based on current events - from Mel Gibson to Jesus to Tiger Woods, all were drawn in less than gratifying figures. (And punched in the eye, too).
But South Park is honest and straightshooting. As a good comedian does, it finds humour in our everyday.

And I can understand how Muslims’ sensitivity regarding visual depictions of Prophet Mohammad can be a matter of puzzlement to the writers - and a potentially immense pool of jokes.

Joking is often the best medium of communication. If we, as Muslims, wish to get the message across that this is a matter we care about, then perhaps a South Park joke is the best medium to deliver the message - we will all laugh, get the point, and move on.

But most importantly, what do we have to fear from a harmless joke? Save for the people who seem to think that the foundations of Islam will be shaken by Eric Cartman and his fellows - and those I pity - there is really no serious harm that can come from a South Park joke. And if Christians can handle this, surely we can deal with a bear suit...

And when the episode is finally aired, I will email Comedy Central again - to protest against the depiction of the Prophet in a cartoon. Having defended Parker and Stone’s right, I will also defend my own: the right to stand for my belief, to object on what upsets me and goes against my belief. I am entitled to believe that prophet Mohammad shouldn’t be depicted; and to demand that my preference and choice in that matter be respected. Not imposed, and surely not by cowardly threats; but respected in a spirit of human camaraderie - in which we don’t necessarily need to agree with one another’s beliefs to respect them.

The perverse incentives of per diems

Given that I’m not allowed to write about the electoral observation mission to Sudan that I’m currently on, I’ll stick to random thoughts.. and bitching. I'll post photos soon though - hang in there. :)

Currently travelling the River Nile state (isn’t that a poetic name?) we have a driver and an interpreter, to whom we issue a rather nice daily per diem, especially given that we only eat out once a day - the rest is at our hotel (and that’s paid for). And we’re in a small town so really, it’s not a splurge place.

Yet nearly every evening, our driver hints that he wants to go the cheapest places, food stalls by the road, etc - where dinner will cost him 10% of the per diem. We usually find ourselves compelled to join, despite, well, doubtful hygiene. If we say we’re interested in the slightly more expensive place across the street, we get the look - the you-foreigners-can-afford-to-eat-chicken-while-I-must-save-my-money - look. So we end up eating beans. Again. Or, we eat the chicken but I tell them I’ll invite.
Even though the per diem was fixed precisely so we don’t end up eating beans, but rather an actual meal.

A couple of decades back my country’s embassy in Paris would give a nice housing allowing to its junior diplomats - telling them they should rent a nice place because it reflects on the embassy, especially that they’ll probably have foreign counterparts over for dinner, etc. But the diplomats got crappy and cheap places and pocketed the difference in the allowance.

To solve the problem, the embassy decided to pay for the rent of its diplomats up to a certain (very generous) ceiling; the diplomats then went out and found nice apartments, which is exactly what the embassy was going for. And it saved the difference, too.

The housing allowance, or the per-diem system in this case fails because the Save/Spend decision does not concern that person’s well being but another’s as well (me, or the embassy in the previous example). It’s a classic case of private cost/social benefit (or positive externalities) problem - in this case, the supply will always be below equilibrium. And we'll be eating fucking beans.

Wouldn’t it be easier if, instead of giving him a per diem, I’d just pay for all the meals? That way, the driver would be getting a nicer meal, I’d be getting a nicer meal, and perhaps I’d increase his daily wage marginally with the difference.

موضوع المركز الثقافي الفرنسي: الغاء مهرجان ماحدش بيروحه عشان فيلم ماحدش شافه

الموضوع باختصار: أحمد عاطف كان عضو لجنة تحكيم في مهرجان يحضره كده حوالي 16 شخض. ثار عشان فيلم ماحدش سمع عنه لمخرجة ماحدش سمع عنها بس جنسيتها اسرائيلية (صورة). ماشي. انسحب من لجنة التحكيم. ماشي.

انما طبعا لما حد يعمل مؤتمر صحفي يوضع في اسباب الانسحاب اننا نرفض التطبيع مع الشيطان الأصغر الموضوع لازم يسخن. خاصة اذا صيغ الموضوع على ان دولة ثالثة تريد ان ترغمنا على التطبيع يبقى لازم نستعيد أمجاد موقعة الجزائر 2009 و الله أكبر.

المهم. اسر ياسين و اسمها ايه دي انسحبوا.

المركز الثقافي الفرنسي - و اللي الناس صورته على انه عامل زي السي اي ايه كده بالرغم انه لو تعلمون ردئ و ادارته بتفكرني بادارة مركز شباب الزيتون اترعب و اتنفض و لغى الفيلم و اثر السلامة. و أكيد الموظف اللي اختار الفيلم شدوا ودنه و اخذ درس في الحساسية الثقافية. و يا دار ما دخلك شر.

مين بقا اللي خد باله؟ الناس في فرنسا. و خد عندك شوية نقد في الصحف الفرنسية و ان المصريين دول عنصريين و ولاد ستين في سبعين و انه باسم الفن و الحرية و الملوخية لو فرنسا ما رجعتش الفيلم يبقوا بيتعاونوا مع الشيطان و بيمهدوا لعودة يأجوج و مأجوج.
الخارجية الفرنسية كلمت المركز الثقافي و قالت لهم جرستولنا الله يفضحكم و بقت رقبتنا زي السمسمة قدام العيال في بروكسل. اتصرفوا.

. ما كانوش بيحاولوا يغيظونا ولا نيلة. و لا الموضوع متعلق بأحقاد فرنسية ضدنا عشان استعدنا اثار مش عارف ايه من متحف اللوفر ولا عشان الخديو اسماعيل نام مع الامبراطورة اوجيني لما جت عشان حفل افتتاح قناة السويس.

الموضوع ابسط من كده بكتير: فرنسا كانت بتكسكس. بس كده. فالمركز الثقافي رجع الفيلم.

طبعا ان الخارجية تتدخل كان شيئ متوقع طالما ان الخارجية الفرنسية ادلت بدلوها (حلوة دلوها دي) و أن الأفلام المصرية كلها تنسحب كان رد فعل متوقع برضه. في نهاية الأمر المهرجان لغى المسابقة برمتها و ساب بس عرض الأفلام الفرنسية وورشة عمل عن الأفلام القصيرة عشان ما يبقوش طبعوا بوسترات الدعاية دي عالفاضي، حرام برضك.

في رأيي زوبعة في فنجان (من القيشاني الفرنسي بتاع سيفر). و كل ده عشان فيام 23 دقيقة ما حدش شافه اساسا.

صباح الفل.

Cinderella, revisited

Cinderella lost a shoe in the ball;

She went to the store, bought a new pair and the assorted bag;

Went back to the ball;

And ended up shagging the prince's aide in the ladies' room.

Ashrafiyyeh, Lebanon.