Martin Jahnke acquitted

Pro-democracy Chinese expatriots rallying in support of Martin Jahnke - photo copied from Shao Jiang's blog.

Martin Jahnke, about whom I have written in my previous post and earlier, is "a postdoctorate student who threw a shoe at Wen Jiabao, the Chinese prime minister, during a lecture at Cambridge University... (He) has been cleared of any offence. The District Judge said there was insufficient evidence to prove that Jahnke behaved in a way likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
The judge found Mr Jahnke not guilty following a two-day trial at Cambridge Magistrates' Court" (quote is from June 2 Telegraph report).

Bravo to the judge, apparently there is still justice in Europe.

Today, June 4 2009, is the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre. May the victims rest in peace and may freedom soon come to China.

The hidden cost of dictatorships

When the trial of Martin Jahnke who threw his shoe at the Chinese prime minister was scheduled for three days in June, "presiding magistrate Julie Ferguson said she had concerns about the proposed length of the trial and the cost to the taxpayer."There is a huge implication for the public purse here," Mrs Ferguson told the court. "We very much hope it (the trial) will not last as long as that (three days)."" The quote is from a Cambridge News report which was commented by two readers, both defending Jahnke and lamenting the "waste of time and money" for his trial. It was initially set for June 2-4 but, because June 4 is the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre and apparently some magistrates feel uneasy to side with the Chinese regime exactly on this day, the trial was moved to June 1-3; a report about its first day can be found at the BBC site. So I am reminding my readers to keep an eye on Cambridge to see what will happen. Meanwhile, I wish to write a short post about the cost of dictator regimes in general.
The impact of dictatorship on its victims is fairly evident - the lost lives, the lives crippled by repression, the lost happiness because some buraucrat orders you what to work and where to live, the lost peace of mind because you have always to look behind your shoulder, the lost prosperity because dictatorships invariably create and perpetuate poverty. All these effects are fairly evident, though most victims of dictators tend to whitewash the regime in order to justify their obedience without admitting the fear underlying it. I with to write about the cost leveled by dictators on people who are, or initially have been, outside their scope. This cost is less evident, so I am calling it "hidden", although it can easily be seen by anyone of the meanest understanding.
Like magistrate Ferguson, I am wondering why Jahnke's trial is scheduled to last 3 days, as if it is a complicated money laundering affair or a murder case with unusually messy forensic evidence. But whatever the length of the trial, it would cost time and money. We could also keep in mind the lost productivity of Jahnke himself and presumably of his co-workers. So part of the cost of a dictatorship is based on the suppression by democratic states of people protesting against this dictatorship on their territory. I wish to remind also that, according to Chinese dissident expatriot Shao Jiang, "some European governments abused police powers, out of shameful deference to the CCP, and violated the rights of peaceful demonstrators during Wen’s visit to the EU". So EU authorities had banned or quashed legal protests against the Chinese regime and this may have contributed to Jahnke's decision to resort to object-throwing.
One could argue that all these costs would have been spared if protesters hadn't tried to hold rallies and Jahnke hadn't thrown the shoe. This is another aspect of dictatorships' cost: creating abroad an accepting and "tolerant" mindset that has the same ultimate result - reduction of freedom even in democratic countries.
Dictator states have three major ways to subdue democratic states. The first is by open and plain force. Although current dictator states tend to lag in technology, they develop, buy or steal enough of it to develop devastating weapons (up to nuclear bombs). Democratic powers, or their alliances, could still defeat the dictators but usually prefer to appease them because of eagerness to avoid war at all costs. As a result, we witness pariah states like North Korea and Iran successfully bullying and blackmailing the so-called free world.
The second method is by economic pressure. We saw it e.g. during the cartoon crisis when Islamic countries pressed Denmark to renounce freedom of speech by boycotting its products. We could also remember how different companies doing business with Saddam Hussein strongly supported him and opposed any action against him. For that reason, I think democratic countries should minimize their economic ties with non-democratic ones. I know that many serious people would disagree here. They will say that any pressure by (democratic) governments not to do trade with this or that country is undue regulation of economy and so violates democracy by itself; and also that minimizing international trade would hurt the population living under the dictator's rule, which is hardly what we want. For that reason, many Americans who are not pro-communist at all want the embargo on Cuba to be lifted. However, my impression is that, when trade with a dictatorships occurs, we do not observe prosperity and democratization brought by the free market; rather, we see corruption of the free market by the dictator's regime. I realize that it is impossible and undesirable to cut all economic ties with undemocratic regimes, especially if we take into account how many countries deserve the label. (E.g. Turkey is often considered democratic, but it is still denying the genocide against the Armenians and so cannot be considered more democratic than Germany would have been if it were denying the Holocaust.) However, I think that at least we must keep a red light on when trading with a dictatorship.
The third method of dictatorships to influence the free world is by emigrants. As far as I know, this is a new problem. Dictatorships of past such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union didn't enjoy much support by the people leaving (escaping) them. On the contrary, these expatriots were among the fiercest opponents of the regime. However, today's most important dictatorships - the Muslim states and China, manage to convince their people that the regime and its toxic ideology are the same as motherland and identity. Unfortunately, at the same time democratic contries brought down to zero their integration potential and opened their gates to anybody who would wish to walk in. Small wonder that we saw Danish Muslims fall over themselves to harm their country and appeal for help to their countries of origin (which they presumably had left screaming not so long ago). The reaction of Chinese expatriots to Jahnke's act also was telltale - little support and much condemnation. Apparently the majority of Chinese identified themselves with Prime Minister Wen and the Chines totalitarian regime.
The dictatorships' hidden cost also has another aspect which may seem negligible but in fact isn't. It is the impact on individuals who have had the luck to be born in the free world but have fallen in the scope of some dictator and have suffered the logical consequences. The first example coming to mind of course are those women who marry somebody from undemocratic country and then let their lord and master lure them to the hellhole he calls homeland, or kidnap their children and bring them there. Another example are the guest workers who carelessly accept a job in a dictatorship and then get into trouble, e.g. our medics who were convicted for infecting Libyan children with HIV. In all these cases, the democratic country has the lose-lose choice either to let its citizen in hell or try to negotiate his release by paying ransom and/or making all sorts of concessions. The negotiations in too many cases are not successful; and even when they are, the cost is extremely high, because the dictator quickly realizes the benefits of holding a hostage. In the case of the Bulgarian medics, Libya sucked tens of millions from Bulgaria and its Western allies. I guess that for some smaller dictatorships taking Westerners hostage in one way or another may be an important source of revenue and other goodies.
If you are asking what I am proposing to be done - well, unfortunately, nothing. Dictatorships are by definition almost impossible to reform or overthrow from inside (especially when they have oil or other resources and so have no problems with subsistence). As for democratization by external (military) force, it becomes increasingly more problematic. The average citizen of a democracy tends to like and support the dictators more than he would ever support democracy. On the other hand, the average citizen of a dictatorship, even when claiming to disapprove the (fallen) dictator, tends to oppose democracy fiercely. Both phenomena are excellently illustrated by the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and their aftermath. So for the moment I have no solution in mind; I hope that, when a solution appears, some bright mind will recognize and realize it. Of course this cannot happen until the White House is occupied by Mr. Obama whose idea of his duty is to apologize, embrace and go to bed with every single dictator he can find. However, his term will not last forever, so let's be optimistic and hope for a better choice next time.

No worker can ever be underpaid

One of the doctrines dominating the economic "thought" in Bulgaria can be summarized as "Prosperity by starvation wages". Its proponents claim that, because of the lack of natural resources in Bulgaria, the only way we can have a competitive economy is by paying super low wages, far below their market value. Of course, the real result of this policy is bringing labour productivity down to the level of wages, because productive people tend either to become less productive or to emigrate. So Bulgarian economy is anything you like but NOT competitive.
However, our brave employers, both government and private ones, never let facts deter them from logic. And their logic is really impenetrable. If an employee never asks for pay rise, he is apparently happy with his wage and it doesn't need to be increased. If he asks for pay rise, he is arrogant and insolent and so doesn't deserve even a penny more.
Here, I expect some people considering themselves economic experts to ask me how I can determine the market value of a wage. No problem, darlings - like the market value of any other product: by the law of demand and supply. If you want to buy a pair of shoes for (say) EUR 10 and cannot find any shoes costing as little, or if the few shoes you find at that price are of too low quality to be used by any person alive, this means that current market value of shoes is definitely above EUR 10. By analogy, if nobody agrees to work for the wage you are offering, or if the only people who agree are those who cannot really do the job, this is a sure sign that the position is underpaid. I have already mentioned this a year ago in my post University teachers vote with their feet.
In the private sector, I have heard of numerous cases when the employer refuses to increase somebody's salary from (say) 500 to 600 leva, then the worker leaves and the employer has to replace him with two people receiving 700 leva each and combined doing less work than the lost employee. However, the situation in the government sector isn't significantly better, and I strongly suspect that private employers are just following the example of government. The immediate trigger for me to write this post were the obstacles put to my colleagues Victor and Eva (not their real names) to prevent them from receiving higher wages.

Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" in Bulgarian

It is pleasant to brag and I think there is nothing wrong with a little bragging after having done a good job.
Some time ago I wrote how nice it would be to make Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson known to the Bulgarian reader. Recently, the book was published in Bulgarian in my translation. The price is 10 leva; more details at the sites of the publishers MaK and Iztok-Zapad.
Economics in One Lesson defends the free market with simple and logical arguments understandable for a broad circle of readers (i.e. no special expertise in economics is needed). I am glad that the book is published in Bulgaria right now, in the midst of the global economic crisis. Unfortunately, market disturbancies mess with people's heads and we are seeing more and more economists who are expected to be in their right mind to insist on stronger government intervention in economy and even for total government control. Here in Bulgaria, we have been there and done this. Let's prefer experience, logic and common sense.

The above text is a literal translation of my May 9 post on the subject on my Bulgarian blog. After that post, I had a discussion with a Bulgarian-American commenter. She expressed disagreement with me and said that every single sane economist is now demanding more government intervention. She also cited a Nobel Prize-winning economist who seriously stated that free market must be abandoned and replaced with another economic system. I didn't quite understand what exactly this new system was supposed to be; it seemed that only the mighty intellect of a Nobel Prize winner could do such a feat. Because my rule is to avoid advertising the enemy for free, I won't give the name of the guy here. I am writing about him just to show that the problem turned out to be much more serious than I was anticipating. Where are the sane and honest economists? Please speak out and try to bring people back to their senses! We lay folks cannot and should not fight your battle. I am too often bashing arrogant ignorant people to risk presenting myself as one of them, a lay person criticizing experts. Anyway, with my translation of Hazlitt's book I have already done my best.
Instant update: I decided, however, to reveal the identity of my renowned in-absentia opponent - Paul Krugman.

Kinship

This post is essentially composed of a quote from the preface of Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin (Pantheon Books, New York, 2008), a book I can recommend to everybody with interest in biology. By posting this text, I am greeting a colleague and friend who is right now struggling with comparative anatomy. I am also celebrating the year of Darwin, which had not yet been marked on this blog.

"This book grew out of an extraordinary circumstance in my life. On account of faculty departures, I ended up directing the human anatomy course at the medical school of the University of Chicago. Anatomy is the course during which nervous first-year medical students dissect human cadavers... This is their grand entrance to the world of medicine, a formative experience on their path to becoming physicians. At first glance, you couldn't have imagined a worse candidate for the job of training the next generation of doctors: I'm a paleontologist who has spent most of his career working on fish.
It turns out that being a paleontologist is a huge advantage in teaching human anatomy. Why? The best road maps to human bodies lie in the bodies of other animals. The simplest way to teach students the nerves in the human head is to show them the state of affairs in sharks. The easiest road maps to their limbs lies in fish. Reptiles are a real help with the structure of the brain. The reason is that the bodies of these creatures are often simpler versions of ours.
During the summer of my second year leading the course... my colleagues and I discovered fossil fish that gave us powerful new insights... That discovery and my foray into teaching human anatomy led me to explore a profound connection. That exploration became this book."

Harsh sentence for Nicky Reilly

Nicky Reilly (photo copied from the Guardian, original source PA.)

I first blogged about Nicky Reilly on June 26, 2008. These days, I googled his name to check for any news on him and saw that he was tried and convicted in January. Below, I am quoting most of a Jan. 31 report from the Times:

"Nicky Reilly, Muslim convert, jailed for 18 years for Exeter bomb attack
Adam Fresco, Crime Correspondent
A vulnerable Muslim convert who was persuaded by extremists to attempt a suicide bomb attack was jailed for a minimum of 18 years yesterday.
Nicky Reilly, 22, who has Asperger’s syndrome and a mental age of 10, was described by his lawyer as the “least cunning” person ever to have been charged with terrorism...
At his trial in October last year Reilly, from Plymouth, Devon, who appeared in court as Mohamad Abdulaziz Rashid Saeed, pleaded guilty to attempted murder and preparing an act of terrorism.
Sentencing him to life imprisonment at the Old Bailey yesterday, Mr Justice Calvert-Smith said that although the attack was “an unsophisticated attempt”, Reilly was a “significant risk” to the public.
After his conviction, counter-terrorism officials said that extremists had taken advantage of his low IQ to groom him.
Reilly, who has an IQ of 83, had first been taken to see a pyschiatrist when he was 9 and tried to take an overdose at 16. Kerim Faud, representing him, said: “He may comfortably be deemed to be the least cunning person ever to have come before this court for this type of offence.”
He is thought to have met British-based Muslim radicals in internet cafés near his council home, which he shared with his mother.
Security sources said that radicals encouraged him to visit internet chat rooms and other websites, where he encountered men based in Pakistan who helped to mould a violent hatred of the West. He discussed with the men what his targets should be and they directed him to bomb-making websites.
In a suicide note left in his home he paid tribute to “Sheikh Osama” (bin Laden) and called on the British and US governments to leave Muslim countries. He said that Western states must withdraw their support of Israel, and that violence would continue until “the wrongs have been righted”.
On May 22 Reilly put his plan into action... When he arrived at the Giraffe restaurant he ordered a drink and sat for ten minutes before heading to the lavatory to make the bombs.
Fortunately for the 24 customers and 11 staff in the restaurant and the 20 more people lunching outside, the bombs exploded in the cubicle.
Mr Justice Calvert-Smith said yesterday: “I am quite satisfied that these offences are so serious that only a life sentence is appropriate. This defendant currently represents a significant risk of serious harm to the public.
“The offence of attempted murder is aggravated by the fact that it was long planned, that it had multiple intended victims and was intended to terrorise the population of this country. It was sheer luck or chance that it did not succeed.”
He accepted that the attack was unsophisticated but added: “Those who attempt to commit suicide and in doing so murder other people are almost invariably unsophisticated in many aspects. That lack of sophistication saved many Londoners on July 21, 2005.” "

Those who know me will confirm that I am definitely not a fan of Islamic extremism - or, for that matter, of any thing Islamic.
However, the harshness of the sentence raises my outrage. 18 years! I know of many Palestinian failed suicide bombers who were non-disabled and nevertheless were treated much more leniently by Israeli courts. Justice must be driven by more serious considerations than the knee-jerk feelings of people concerned for their own safety. Reilly has mental disabilities, which in any civilized country should mean not to hold him responsible the way a typical person would be held after doing the same thing.
I also think that some disability advocacy and self-advocacy movements may be doing a disservice in such cases. In recent times, they often make efforts to portray people with mental disabilities as identical to non-disabled people in all respects except in the need of some extra services. As the Self-Advocates Becoming Empowered stated, "Our mission is to ensure that people with disabilities (a) are treated as equals, (b) are given the same decisions, choices, rights, responsibilities and chances to speak up to empower themselves, and (c) are given opportunities to learn from mistakes, as everyone else". However, in real life there are too many mistakes that can be made only once. I understand that nobody wishes to be stereotyped as a person with decreased ability to tell right from wrong, but I fear that the demand "Give us all the rights and responsibilities of the non-disabled" is leaving people like Nicky Reilly behind.

To end this post (in fact, as an instant update to it), I am quoting a comment to Fresco's report in the Times:
"Prison? Secure hospital accommodation surely, and all since the support he needed earlier in life was absent or inadequate. I fear the real terrorists were the first people to accept him and warmly (but falsely) welcome him in. Tempting, for a depressed outsider.
(adult with Asperger's) Chris , Launceston, UK"

Together or apart?

It is still discussed whether disabled children should be educated separately from non-disabled or together with them, but nowadays most people accept the latter opinion - even for disabilities that affect the very process of learning, as well as interacting with other people.
On Feb. 25, S. Ravishankar published on the WIP site the article From Marginalized to Mainstream: A Call for Inclusive Education in India. It reflects the author's personal experience as mother of a special needs girl who moved from India to America to seek better education for her daughter. Here are some quotes: "Through our own experiences, I’ve come to believe that the kind of change India needs will only come when society fosters sensitivity to the concerns of special-needs individuals by mainstreaming them with typically-learning children of their own age... In our search for a private tutor, we chanced upon two highly-trained and experienced teachers specializing in special education. Our child did quite well under their tutelage, but being a gregarious individual, needed to interact and socialize with typically-learning kids. Richard Riser, director of the London-based educational organization was quoted in India Together saying, “Special schools are dead-ends for special-needs children. They promote isolation, alienation and social exclusion"... India has a long journey ahead. A change in attitude towards people with disabilities will only come when more disabled people are included in regular schools and the workforce; they must be given the opportunity to participate in society as individuals of equal standing. Educating them alongside other children is the first step towards a more tolerant and well-adjusted society." Another interesting observation is that the quality of education was directly proportional to teachers' wages.

I discussed the article with some autistic friends and one of them replied, "One thing the author said bothered me:"Our child did quite well under their tutelage, but being a gregarious individual, needed to interact and socialize with typically-learning kids." What, other disabled kids aren't good enough?"
I said, "I think this is a very important question and it has come to my head, too... The current school system is set so that the education of each student heavily depends on the level of the other students in the classroom. As a result, each parent wishes his child to be among better performing children. If the child is above average, then classmates at the same level are acceptable, but if the child is below average (for any reason - disability, poor language skills, poor socio-economic background), then the parent doesn't want his child to be among children in a similar situation because they would allegedly "keep him behind". My opinion is that some way must be found for the education system not to depend on young children as co-teachers and rely on them - teaching should be responsibility of the adult professionals. Then parents will stop regarding other children as mere tools in the education of their children (or,alternatively, as obstacles to good education)."
Another mother added, "One thing that bothers me about this especially with autism in mind is that many parents assume that children learn social skills simply from being around other children. I can attest to the fact that that is simply not the case. Children on the (autism) spectrum do not pick up social skills by osmosis... Other children can be very unpredictable to an autistic child and that is the reason they may not enjoy being around other children... I seriously doubt that self absorbed children would even try to figure out a way to engage an autistic child. I was either ignored or made fun of in school by all but a few and I see the same thing with my son when he is in an environment with typical children. I would prefer my son to be in a class with peers who may take an interest in him. Right now he is in an autism unit at school and actually has friends because they share interests... He is very limited in speech but he writes their names and smiles and points to their picture excitedly as if to say this is my friend."

It is indeed strange how adults think that involuntary coexistence, which they wouldn't wish for themselves, would do wonders for children. This discussion reminded me of Estranged's March 11 post Kindergarten, part 2: Silvia, most of which I am translating below:
"One of the first things I saw at kindergarten was a child swallowing the ENTIRE soap in the bathroom. The teacher got angry and shouted that he would soon vomit. After a short silent waiting, her words came true and the child really vomited the soap. It was a disgusting sight. I was seeing such a thing for first time in my life, but I did not show my surprise to the others. That place was the hell for me and I was preparing to consider all sort of shocking things as normal.
The sight of the vomited soap did not prevent me from eating my lunch because I was already taught that I had to eat 100% of the meal in all cases, no matter how I was feeling.
However, I first checked my lunch for hidden surprises. In that place, paranoia was the only way to survive. As I was checking my milk, a drop from the spoon fell on my pants. I dried it quickly. At that moment, I heard the teacher telling all children, "See, he stained himself because he is Zhilov."
The only purpose of these words was to offend me publicly, this was quite evident. Something else, however, bothered me. I asked myself, Why did she say "Zhilov" (his family name - M.M.) and not "Vesko" (his first name)? What had my Zhilov family name to do with dropping milk on my pants? Since when does the name given to you determine your spoon-holding skills? Would I use the spoon better if I had been born with another child's name?
I was trying to discover in her words some hidden sense but it evidently didn't exist. It was just a stupid and illogical attempt to insult. For umpteenth time, adults were making fools of themselves by talking nonsense. This worried me because it meant I couldn't rely on adults at all.
Finally, I figured out the true meaning of those words. It came after a little while: "You boast that at the age of five you play the piano and can read... (I had never boasted, my grandmother was bragging about me and doing me much harm.) And at the same time you cannot drink a cup of milk. You are like Silvia."
Meanwhile, Silvia was sitting under the table and rolling a boiled egg in the dirt and dust. This statement also failed to offend me. I was really like Silvia and not ashamed of this.
Silvia was the first girl I befriended. We were both five years old. However, she behaved like a baby. She couldn't talk, and her drawings were meaningless scribbles.
Silvia and I weren't Real Children. One of the first things I learned was that I was required to play with a ball. Every Real Child in the world should be able to do this. However, I was seeing a ball for first time and had no idea what I was expected to do. Silvia and I were staying in the yard, and after some trials I learned how it was done. (Silvi, to my regret, couldn't, though I tried to teach her.) At the third day, I already had a good personal ball-playing record. I was glad but, interestingly, I had no illusions. I didn't expect my success to lead to my recognition as a Real Child - I already knew that there was nothing fair about the entire business, so it wouldn't matter even if I had managed to stand on my nose.
I protected Silvia from the real children. They said I was her boyfriend...
Later, I left the kindergarten. I was hearing stories about how Silvia's classmates at school humiliated her. They forced her to drink water from pools and to eat mud. Then Silvia went to a special school and - oh wonder! - after several years became a relatively normal person. A feat I never managed to do.
Silvia surely does not remember me, but I do remember her. I have changed the name of course."

The term "Real child" is interesting. Independently from Estranged, the Chaotic Idealist last year wrote in a post titled Real People:
"I started a conversation with a random stranger.
Me: "I've got Asperger's. It's like mild autism. I guess nowadays I'd have been a special ed kid."
Her: "That's OK. I like special people just as much as real people."...
I wonder if that's common? Do people really think we're not as "real" as other people? And what does "real" mean?... "Real" is probably an unofficial synonym for "normal"."

Be careful with dates

In a follow-up to my March 12 post, I am copy-pasting a yesterday report from the Cambridge News site without any modification or comment.

"Trial moved due to anniversary
A STUDENT accused of throwing a shoe at the Chinese prime minister has had the date of his trial moved because it clashed with the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
Martin Jahnke, a 27-year-old Cambridge University student, was due to stand trial between June 2 and June 4, on charges of causing harassment, alarm, or distress to Wen Jiabao.
But magistrates in Cambridge today agreed to change the date of the trial after hearing that June 4 is the anniversary of the massacre, when Chinese soldiers killed hundreds of pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing.
The trial will be held from June 1-3."

The cow that wanted no subsidies

I have already mentioned on this blog Vassil, who lives in the village of Rasnik next to the summer house of my mother in-law. Of all villagers whom I know, he is the best and the one with whom I really can talk, however different our lives have been.
During his most active years, Vassil has been a miner and a steel worker. He has told me how in the Socialist era he had to get up at 4 am to reach his workplace in time, because he hadn't zhitelstvo (permission to live in a particular city) that would allow him to rent an accomodation closer to his work. Democracy gave him the right to live wherever he wished and he prefered to return to his village after retirement. He couldn't step on the rails of a typical Bulgarian retiree, staying idle in some overcrowded urban flat and complaining that his pension doesn't suffice for anything. He chose instead to become a subsistence farmer in a village without regular water and electricity supply, sewage, pavement and - possibly worst of all - doctor.
Vassil is living with his wife and his sister, whose husband died many year ago. Both he and his sister have sons who live elsewhere. Vassil is the main worker in the household. With the help of the women (and of his son on weekends), he manages a cow, a dozen of sheep, about 20 chickens, two dogs of the Karakachan breed and, in most years, a pig. These animals produce much of the food consumed by the three subsistence farmers and even something remains to be sold. We occasionally buy from them fresh eggs and milk. Last year, they even found time for volunteer work on the construction of a new Evangelical church in the village. It is small, resembling an ordinary modest house and located just beneath our house.
At age 70, Vassil is hopelessly behind the modern fashions in farming. He can work without rest and pasture his cow in any weather, but he could never fill and submit forms to the EU buraucrats in order to receive taxpayers' money for nothing. I regularly argue with my husband about European farm subsidies. I am against them, he says that they must be sound after they are universally accepted in the EU. He said once, "Without subsidies, our farmers will be driven out of business - from where will you buy milk then?". I answered, "From Vassil's cow - she wants no subsidies".
On Sunday, we saw Vassil's wife coming back from church. She told us that Vassil had suffered a brain stroke 20 days earlier and was still in coma in a hospital. His loved ones could only pray for him to come back alive. The two women knew, however, that even in this case he would never be the pillar of the family again. He would depend on their care, and they were prepared for it. They started to dispose of the animals they couldn't look after. The cow had been sold the previous day (Saturday). Talks were under way with some relations to take over the sheep. Even the chickens were to be reduced in half. How easily our deeds go away.
Update: Vassil died on May 29.

NATO countries bullied by their "ally" Turkey

Image: a cartoon of Prophet Mohamed, by Kurt Westergaard, downloaded from the Mohammed Image Archive, originally published in the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten in 2005. It is inserted in this post as blog action against Islamism. I intended to abstain from publishing Mohamed cartoons out of respect to Anglo-Libyan, but an event of these days became the straw breaking the camel's back.

First, let me quote a report from Independent:

"Danish Prime Minister elected secretary-general
By Brian Brady, Sunday, 5 April 2009

One of the most troubling disagreements of the two-day summit was finally resolved towards the end of the gathering, when the Danish Prime Minister overcame Turkish opposition to become Nato's new secretary-general. Anders Fogh Rasmussen (pictured) was heavily backed by the biggest European powers, but his campaign to succeed Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was threatened when Turkey objected over his failure to ban Denmark-based Roj-TV, seen as the mouthpiece of the Kurdistan Workers' Party. The Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, also complained that Mr Rasmussen had failed to sanction those responsible for a Danish newspaper's publication of caricatures of the Prophet Mohamed in 2005 (emphasis mine - M.M.). However, Turkish officials said Ankara dropped its objection after the US President Barack Obama answered Mr Erdogan's "objections" during a private meeting. Mr Erdogan told Turkish television that he had received "guarantees" from Mr Obama that one of Mr Rasmussen's deputies would be a Turk – and that Turkish commanders would be present at the alliance's command."

Daniel Pipes is more open about the concessions: "The Dane won the job only after engaging in intensive negotiations with Turkish president Abdullah Gül hosted by Barack Obama. Fogh Rasmussen promised to appoint at least two Turks and publicly to address Muslim concerns about his response to the cartoons. More broadly, Erdogan announced. Obama "gave us guarantees" concerning Turkish reservations about Fogh Rasmussen. The hoops that Fogh Rasmussen had to jump through to win Ankara's support can be inferred from his cringe-inducing, dhimmi-like remarks on winning the appointment: "As secretary general of NATO, I will make a very clear outreach to the Muslim world to ensure cooperation and intensify dialogue with the Muslim world. I consider Turkey a very important ally and strategic partner and I will cooperate with them in our endeavors to ensure the best cooperation with Muslim world." "

So much about the "secular", "civilized", "model", "democratic", "Westernized" etc. Turkey - as soon as you get down to real business, you find yourself confronting the ugly face of Islamism.

Nizo once commented on my blog that what is important is not the type of the dominating religion but the separation of religious institutions from the state, which has been achieved in the West but not yet in most Muslim countries. This is a serious opinion, but I think recent events prove it wrong and show that as long as you have Islamic background, you can separate as much as you wish and still, when the moment of truth comes, it will be to no avail.

When I ask what the hell is the benefit of having Turkey in NATO, people keep telling me that "it has the 2nd largest army in the alliance (after USA)". In my humble opinion, this is nonsense. What is the use of an army, big or small, if you aren't sure whether it is with you or with the enemy?

Now, what to do with NATO? Change its decision-making process from consensus to majority? Good idea, but it is exactly Turkey that would oppose and prevent it from happening. Dismantle it altogether? Maybe we'll have to, who knows... My sympathy to the people of Denmark, and also to the decent people of Turkey.

Opinion about headscarves-in-school controversy

In recent years, there has been a trend among Bulgarian ethnic Turkish and Muslim women and girls to wear headscarves (I've mentioned this in one of my earliest posts, Headscarves in the lecture room). Media report that Islamic foundations support in different ways headscarved women and their families and organize summer schools to teach girls why a good Muslima must wear a headscarf; and the local people, unaware or unwilling to believe that the only free lunch in this world is the cheese in the mousetrap, happily bite the bait. Right now, emotions are surging because of the elections scheduled for June.
While headscarves definitely aren't my favourite sight, my personal opinion is that they must be allowed in mainstream secondary schools. The reason is that it is most likely the parents who insist on the headscarves, not the girls themselves. And if we forbid a schoolkid to attend public school with her head wrapped, we are likely to infuriate the pious Muslim dad and, as the Bulgarian proverb says, to pick out eyes instead of putting makeup on eyebrows (i.e. to cause harm instead of good). It is quite likely that the father will force his daughter to drop out of school as soon as this is allowed (under Bulgarian law, this means at age 16) or even earlier. Hence, the efforts of government to give students counterweight to their fundamentalist families are likely to have the opposite effect, making the young women even more powerless by depriving them of high school diploma. It is also possible that the father will transfer his daughter to a Muslim school where headscarves are allowed. There, we expect less science and math and more Islam to be taught. Is this what we want?
On March 30, Lyd (who tries her best to see Islam as good) wrote a post titled Religious symbols at school. Her thesis is that banning these symbols is pointless because religion is so deeply ingrained in culture and history that many schools are even named after saints. Commenter Klei then wrote something that I find worth being translated and posted here, though it differs from my own opinion:

"Suppose that headscarves are banned not because they are a religious symbol but because they are a type of hat. Here, we are touching a thing called "discipline" which, to my opinion, is among the most useful forgotten inventions of ancient people.
The school has the task to prepare children for life outside school, and not only by giving them knowledge but also by training social interaction types "equal to equal" and "small unimportant student to big important teacher". The ability to protect ourselves from bigger boys who mock us is much more important for later life than, say, the information in which regions of Bulgaria apricots are grown.
Hats are not allowed at school, period. Children must learn that RULES exist. In this case, it doesn't matter how important the rules are, how useful they are and whether there is some deep reasoning underlying them. This is _school_. It has two functions - forcing you to use your brain and at the same time putting you into the socially acceptable frames.
If somebody insists on wearing a headscarf despite the ban on wearing hats, he shows that for him the artificial pointless limits imposed by religion are more important than the artificial pointless limits imposed by his society. THIS is dangerous, and not only for the individual in question.
I value freedom much, but it must be deserved. And it is deserved by accepting the values of the society you are forced to live in - or by moving to another society which has values closer to your heart. If somebody insists on keeping his wife at home, hiding her from the world and stoning her, and if she doesn't mind it - let them go to a suitable country. THIS one here is a secular one. If you are religious, be religious only within the norms allowed by society. And stop crying and demanding these norms to be expanded."

Prostituting with dictators and prosecuting people of science: Reflections on Martin Jahnke's case

On Feb. 3, I wrote a post about the personality cult that formed around Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi after the latter threw his shoes at then-US Pres. Bush. At the end of the post, I mentioned that the previous day, "as Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao was delivering a lecture at the Cambridge University, an unidentified 27-year-old man called him a "dictator" and threw at him a shoe, which landed a meter away."
The protester was soon identified as German postgraduate life sciences student Martin Jahnke. He is listed on the Cambridge Department of Pathology page as a member of Prof. John Trowsdale's group researching genetic and functional relationships between immune receptors. He is a co-author of a very recent article on HLA-DR polyubiquitination published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry. The quote below is from the Feb. 7 Telegraph report Cambridge shoe protester is German pathology research student, by Richard Edwards:
"Martin Jahnke.. has been at the university for several years, tutoring undergraduates and presenting lunchtime seminars... The "out of character" stunt has left the quiet and diligent student in deep trouble – facing the prospect of a criminal record and possible suspension or rustication from the university... Gordon Brown expressed his personal regret to Mr Wen in a letter. Cambridge's vice chancellor, Professor Alison Richard, also "sincerely apologised" for the episode. The university attracts more than 600 Chinese students a year and are currently engaged in a recruitment drive from Hong Kong. Officials said that they are taking the matter "very, very seriously". A formal, internal complaint is expected will be heard by the Cambridge University Advocate, Professor Christopher Forsyth, who is a crown court judge, barrister and chair of Public Law and Private International Law at Cambridge. Sanctions include a fine, suspension or rustication from Cambridge. As part of a study group of graduates under Professor John Trowsdale, which includes two Chinese students, Mr Jahnke carries out important genetic research into debilitating diseases such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis and arthritis. He has had his work published in the Journal of Biochemistry (the author seems to mean the Journal of Biological Chemistry - M.M.) and has delivered lunchtime seminars to other graduate students. The 27-year-old is also a leading member of the university caving club and takes part in regular expeditions in Wales, the south west and north of England... The (Chinese) prime minister had spoken for 40 minutes and was five minutes from finishing his speech when the protester stood and shouted: "How can the University prostitute itself with this dictator here?" and "How can you listen to the lies he's telling?" He threw the shoe as he was bundled out of the lecture hall and missed the prime minister by ten feet."
Of course Jahnke's act did not trigger a massive wave of sympathy as we saw earlier in al-Zaidi's case. The only statement of support I found is on the Countdown for China blog by dissident Chinese expatriot Shao Jiang. In his Open Letter to European Parliament on the Case of Martin Jahnke, Jiang writes, "Jahnke did nothing but criticize a dictator, using no violence whatsoever. How can he be accused of any crime? We are appalled to see that an EU country is on its way to carrying out a political trial against an EU citizen... We admire his courage and owe him a debt of gratitude for speaking out for those in China who have never had the chance to express their despair. His action has greatly inspired an oppressed people to continue their fight for freedom, democracy and human rights.We urge an independent body to investigate the University of Cambridge for its breach of academic freedom and suppression of dissident opinions during Wen Jiabao’s visit. We would urge the same body to investigate some European governments for their abuse of police powers, out of shameful deference to the CCP, and for violating the rights of peaceful demonstrators during Wen’s visit to the EU.China is still a totalitarian state... We wish to draw the attention of the Committee on Human Rights to the fact that in this period of economic crisis, some European governments are abandoning the sanctity of human rights for the sake of doing business with the Chinese Communist regime. In so doing, they have not only given up on human rights in China, but also betrayed human rights in the EU..." A number of people, among whom Chinese prevail, have signed the letter.
I must state in the beginning that I, personally, do not find throwing objects at people an acceptable way of expressing one's opinion. I suggest leaving acts of this sort to members of the enemy camp, such as the above mentioned al-Zaidi or the terrorism supporters who on Feb. 4 threw a shoe and other objects at Israeli ambassador to Sweden Benny Dagan. And if some "Western hotheads" (as Highlander would call them) are still tempted to follow Jahnke's example, I wish to point to them that the damn bastard (I mean Wen of course) seems to have benefited from the incident. Indeed, immediately after it he showed his true colours and no sense of humour, calling the protester's behaviour "despicable". However, after receiving a letter of apology from Jahnke (and possibly also after consulting some PR experts), Wen called for leniency , appealing to the University of Cambridge to let the young man continue his study. So now, to the unsophisticated observer, the Chinese dictator came out of this affair victorious on a white horse.
Disclaimer in place, now I can proceed. I wish to share my thoughts about Jahnke's case and try to defend him, because I sympathize with him very much. We both share the belief that all people are important and should live in freedom, democracy and prosperity. Also, we both belong to the community of university students, teachers and researchers that I'll call "people of science". We have even shared a research topic - my Master thesis was about immune phenomena in diabetes, on which Jahnke is working now (with incomparably higher quality of work, of course).
While I agree that the shoe-throwing was a mistake, I don't think Jahnke alone should be blamed for this mistake. If I go to visit a synagogue with a swastica attached to my coat, my behaviour would be characterized as provocation and I would receive most of the blame for any unfortunate turn that might follow. I think inviting a dictator to deliver a speech at a university is a similar provocation. Most university students and employees are expected to be freedom-loving people with utter dislike to dictators; and all university students and employees are expected to value the realm of human thought, which is another reason for them not to give an ear to dictators. After all, the quest for knowledge is based on free discussion and comparing the merits of different opinions. If somebody insists on installing his opinion by force and suppressing all other opinions, as dictators do, this automatically brings to zero the intellectual value of whatever this person has to say. Hence, dictators have nothing to do in university lecture halls. What is this modern fashion of inviting dictators to universities of free countries? What on Earth was Iran's president Ahmadinejad doing at Columbia University, and what was Wen doing at Cambridge? Inviting a dictator to speak at a university adds undue authority to the dictator and, respectively, diminishes the authority of the university. Why was Putin made honorary doctor of the University of Veliko Tarnovo in Bulgaria, reportedly after a plan of his friend Schroeder to make him honorary doctor of the Hamburg University failed? I think that university officials who flirt with dictators for dubious purposes (or, as Jahnke put it more bluntly, prostitute themselves with dictators), are largely responsible for resulting unpleasant incidents. I hope that the Cambridge shoe-throwing will lead to reconsidering the policy of prostituting with dictators by some universities, even if nobody admits this in public.
By the way, let me quote again a sentence from the Telegraph report: "The university attracts more than 600 Chinese students a year and are currently engaged in a recruitment drive from Hong Kong." Frankly, I thought that university officials trote the globe to lure students for the sake of their precious tuition fees only in backward countries like Bulgaria, where public moral is completely eroded by chronic poverty and absence of hope for a brighter future. Besides, doesn't anybody figure out that, while some young Chinese may adore their dictatorship in a sheep-like fashion, others may dislike it, and the latter ones are likely to make better Cambridge students?
Unfortunately, Jahnke is not in a position to invite kindly as co-defendants the Cambridge University officials who brought Wen to desacrate the campus land. On the contrary, they seem eager to use/abuse all the power they have in order to portray Jahnke guilty of all mortal sins, and themselves free of any wrongdoing. More often than not, universities and research institutes are headed by unscrupulous people with negative moral virtues and mediocre (at best) intellect - a fact that can surprise only those infamiliar with the rigid hierarchy of science and university education. For a very mild illustration how little respect officials have toward those below them in the hierarchy, see my previous post How scientists are viewed today (BTW the institute described in this post has some, although indirect, relation to Cambridge). I fear that only massive pressure by the academic community in Cambridge and elsewhere (which isn't visible for the moment) can prevent the university authorities from acting as miniature versions of Chinese dictators.
Let's return to the legal aspect of the case. I hope that nobody will interpret my text as implying that people of science must be granted immunity when they break the law. However, the reality as we know it is that people of science, when they break the law, are punished more severely than almost anybody else. Under Bulgarian laws, people convicted for intentional crimes lose the right to study at a university or, if they have already graduated, to work as university teachers and researchers. (The term "intentional crime" here is quite interesting; it apparently covers Jahnke's shoe-throwing but will leave off the hook any dean who kills a person by drunken driving.) I admit that, when I have taken part in half-allowed or banned street protests, I have always feared that I might end up with some sentence that, however small, would be for an "intentional" crime and so would make me uneligible for my university. (To those thinking that one could avoid this risk by keeping his offences strictly in the misdemeanor range, I'll say that nothing is easier for police than lying that you have attacked them, as once happened to my online friend Jane Meyerding. Also, the demise of free speech by criminalizing more and more topics of criticism as "hate speech" makes it fairly easy for anybody to acquire a criminal record.) I don't know whether British laws are similar, but even if they aren't, Cambridge University authorities could expel Jahnke by their own decision.
I wish to add that expelling a science student or firing a researcher or university teacher means much more than the loss of money and work invested over years. Restarting a carrier can be very difficult for young people of science. One must keep in mind that public universities and research institutes in every country form interconnected networks where people are careful not to anger other people on which they may depend some day. Therefore, if a graduate student or employee has quarreled with his superior and has left his institution (or has been expelled from it), then the absence of proper recommendations by the boss will make it almost impossible for the victim to find another suitable position in the same country. My friend once was systematically abused by her mentally ill PhD advisor and managed to find another advisor only after intervention by a professor who knew her personally. Another young researcher known to me emigrated to escape emotional abuse by her PhD advisor. I also knew a PhD student who was harassed after her colleague and boyfriend accused a superior in incompetence - a careless though perfectly true statement. I later lost touch with that couple and don't know what happened to him and whether she ever finished her PhD thesis. I also don't know what happened to my fellow student fired from his research position because of criticizing the institute; he intended to struggle for his rights in court, though he hardly had the resources for this. I'd wish to give more examples with people from my own extended family living in the USA, but I fear that they might disapprove this, even if I keep their anonymity.
I hope that you already understand that even in democratic countries people of science can find themselves in the situation described by Nadezhda Mandelstam as "government monopolizing all jobs and keeping inconvenient people unemployed". The private sector has very few positions suitable for people trained in science and often can give them only the last refuge of unskilled labour. In my country's Neofit Rilski Southwestern University, an assistant named Petar Doshkov was fired and put to trial after exposing corruption practices in a TV interview. He was eventually acquitted and restored to his position by court, but the process took more than 3 years. During this time, finding himself unemployed in a region with sky high unemployment rate, he had to work on his father's small subsistence farm.
The worst aspect of the situation actually isn't the material one - after all, wages of people of science are often comparable to those of unskilled workers. The worst aspect, to my opinion, is losing the occupation one likes and in fact needs. Most people cannot understand this because they don't care much what work they will do, as long as it isn't too hard or unpleasant or poorly paid. However, people of science (even mediocre ones) express themselves in their work. Their craft is integrated in their personality and without doing it they cannot have not only happiness but even a reasonably normal life. To ban a person of science from doing his work, or to abuse him until he quits "voluntarily", can have severe and unpredictable consequences for the victim. During my undergraduate study, I twice feared that I'd be expelled because of serious disagreements with teachers; and I admit I was totally freaked out in both cases, because they dragged for monghs before eventually coming to a quasi-happy ending. I prefer not to mention here how I felt during the later troubles with my PhD thesis - I still don't feel strong enough for this. Unfortunately, people of science have to rely only on themselves when in trouble, because there is little solidarity between them and no support by the rest of the society. The only exception are courts restoring illegally fired teachers and researchers to their positions, as mentioned above; in most Western countries, this chance is taken away by keeping people of science on temporary contracts, so that no specific reasons need to be given for not renewing the employee's contract.
I am afraid this post spontaneously grew into a too ambitious attempt to explain why we are having "hard days on the endless frontier". Let me return to Jahnke's case. If he by chance is reading this, I'd advise him not to quit Cambridge voluntarily (as my colleagues and friends have always told me when I have considered this step, "the enemy will be very happy if you leave - don't give them such a pleasure"). And also not to sign without consulting a lawyer any papers tossed in his direction by the bosses (a doctor I know lost her job this way). He is welcome to e-mail me (mayamarkov at gmail dot com) - and also any person connected to him who wishes. One need not necessarily be himself subjected to prosecution, disciplinary proceesings, forced apology and gag orders for calling a dictator a dictator - just being around when such things happen may make a person need emotional support.
I hope that Jahnke's advisor Prof. Trowsdale, who looks like a nice person on photos, will support his student and help Jahnke's PhD thesis to be live-born. The scientific community in Cambridge and elsewhere also can help. We know our craft and its rules, so I need not give tips about citations and peer-reviewing and other things, need I :-) ? What a pity that my own research topics are so many miles away.

How scientists are viewed today

Back in the 1930s, in his Revolt of the Masses, Ortega y Gasset lamented that scientists had become pariahs of the modern world. I think today this is exactly as true, if not even more. Let me first quote an e-mail received a month ago by employees at a respectful research institute in Britain:

"Subject: Institute Closure
Due to the obvious adverse weather conditions I have decided to close the Institute for today.
Staff should finish up what they are doing as soon as possible, leaving their work safe and in a position to minimise loss, particularly of experimental material. Before leaving you should consult with your line manager or next available senior manager so they are fully aware of how you have left things.
If you decide to stay at work then you should follow working procedures as they are at weekends, i.e. contacting Security to tell them that you are lone working, and not undertaking any work that is not risk assessed as suitable for a lone worker.
Staff leaving now are expected, where possible, to take some form of work home with them, especially if the worsening conditions mean it might be impossible to come into work tomorrow. This could involve catching up on paperwork, reading guidance notes or scientific literature, or catching up on those things that you don’t usually have time for. Similarly, staff already at home are also expected to do some work, even if they have nothing with them. For example, they could take this opportunity to think about PPDRs and forward job plans...
Safe journey home!"

Below I am giving the comment of the institute employee who re-sent me the e-mail, violating the rules of the institute:

"Maya, see what e-mails we receive at the archistupid (the name of the institute). I am not going now to comment the fact that the entire country is paralyzed by several centimeters of snow. I am writing because I am afraid that if I die suddenly, there will be nobody to tell future generations why the archistupid (the name of the institute) deserves this adjective! Here is an illustration of the attitude of the "high" administration to ordinary scientists. The administration takes for granted that at the first opportunity we all will abandon our experiments and leave the laboratories with satanic smiles on our faces, and only fear from punishment prevents this from happening. Moreover, we must seek permission from our superiors before abandoning our test tubes because, goodness knows, we may be too ignorant in the experimental procedures and, being cunning too, we cannot be trusted when the institute is in the danger of suffering Losses! Also, they are giving us valuable help by supplying a list of tasks on which we can work at home. It must be kept in mind that we have started our jobs with a single purpose - to cheat and enrich ourselves at the expense of the institute. So we must be prevented by any means from using the disaster in order to live a whole day at the expense of the institute. I wonder why they didn't promise to quiz us about the work done at home, after the snow melts..."

Xenophobia

On Friday, I read in Trud daily about a Moroccan soccer player currently engaged in one of the leading Bulgarian teams. The report wasn't about his performance on the field but about his driving with 0.12% alcohol in blood, crashing the car into a fence (happily, nobody was injured) and spending several hours in police custody. That wasn't his first offence of this sort. Bulgarians can read about the incident e.g. here.
Upon his release, the player was "greeted" by a pack of reporters, as any celebrity in his situation could expect. Some of their questions to him and his answers (when any) are published here. However, the Trud report listed also another question, which in various forms is repeated by various Web commenters:
"Why do you drink, after your religion bans alcohol?"
Eh well, I also hate drunken driving (though some of my best friends have been punished for it), I particularly dislike sport star drunken drivers after figure skater Maxim Staviski killed a man and left a girl in coma, I don't see any use of professional sport, I am outraged by the giant salaries of sport stars compared to the offendingly low salaries of people like me, and I don't wish in my country any guest workers from North Africa (for my new readers, I am an Islamophobe).
BUT. You may not, you just cannot look a survivor of Islam in the face and tell him that because he has had the poor luck to be born exactly in this religion, he is obliged to live by the rules of Sharia whenever this suits you.
I think this petty xenophobia reveals the spiritual vacuum of today's Europe that may eventually be the true reason for its demise.

The fateful line for the West

In recent time, I have been blogging exclusively about Bulgarian and personal matters, neglecting international affairs (except the most vital ones such as shoe-throwing). Let me now just translate a small section of the article Ukraine - the fateful line for the West, by Vadim Belotserkovsky. It was published in last week's issue of Pro & Anti and is available online here. The author is a former Russian dissident, now human rights activist.
"What is most important here, and what I think must be said in a loud voice, is that Europe - and, in a broader sense, the West - is now standing at the fateful line. It is marked by the wars between Russia and Georgia, between Israel and Hamas and between Russia and Ukraine (the latter one is just a gas war, yet). In front of this line, the West must decide: How far are democratic countries allowed to go in appeasing the destroyers of the world? For how long may democracies apply double standards in their approach to big and small countries, to aggressors and their victims? What more is needed for Western politicians and nations to realize with whom they are dealing?"

Short overview of journalists criticizing presidents

Cartoon of a shoe with George Bush's face on it, apparently shown at a rally in support of al-Zaidi. Authors of the cartoon and the photo are unknown to me.

On Dec. 14, 2008, during his visit to South Ossetia, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev held a press conference. A local journalist, angered by the Russian occupation and de facto annex of his country, threw both of his shoes at him. President Medvedev ducked twice, avoiding being hit by the shoes. The journalist was arrested and is now awaiting trial. He may be charged with insulting a foreign leader of with assault, which carries a maximum sentence of 3 and 15 years, respectively. However, he found support from his employer, thousands of protesters in South Ossetia and some Ossetian politicians, as well as outside the country.

Of course the above described incident never happened. It hardly could, and even if it did, I don't think we would ever again hear of the shoe-thrower. The event actually took place in Baghdad, the journalist was Muntadhar al-Zaidi (29) and his target was then-US President George Bush. I copied some of the above phrases from al-Zaidi's Widipedia article, changing the names of people and locations.

Al-Zaidi became a hero not only in Iraq but also in the entire Arab and much of the Western world. I have shown above a cartoon held by his supporters, because it is really a good one and I can only regret that such excellent Arab cartoonists waste their talent on dubious causes, leaving all the important work to their Danish colleagues. In the city of Tikrit (where Saddam Hussein was born) a sculpture in the shape of a shoe was created, stayed for three days and then was removed following an order by local authorities.

Let me now frankly state that I have only contempt for al-Zaidi and his personality cult. According to Wikipedia, his journalism record prior to the incident shows him being strongly "anti-occupation", i.e. standing at the enemy side. While throwing the second shoe, he shouted, "This is for the widows and orphans...". Because civilian war victims are presumed to include at least as many women and children as men, and because only several thousands of regular Iraqi soldiers died during the 2003 invasion, al-Zaidi's mentioning of killed Iraqi men with surviving wives and children is (at least to me) a clear reference to the "insurgents", as the politically correct media prefer to call the terrorists. I think that German journalist blogger R.A. Clermont was quite right to note similarity between al-Zaidi and suicide bombers (her post is actually quite sympathetic to him, describing him as "thinking, civilized, with real understanding"). And while there is much talk about al-Zaidi's courage, this courage apparently never passed the threshold required for opposing Saddam Hussein's regime in any way. Many people independently asked the same question as commenter Jack on Sandmonkey's blog: "I wonder when Arabs will start throwing shoes at their own leaders? Or do they know, somehow, that the consequences might be substantially different?...I know exactly what would happen if people started to throw shoes at Arab leaders, aside from what seems to be the consensus so far: death after an indeterminate period of pain. The Arab leaders would make wearing shoes illegal."

After his arrest, al-Zaidi was beaten and this raised much indignation and protests (quite different from the silence observed when police are beating innocent citizens and killing detainees here in Europe). While I agree that no prisoner should be mistreated, I am amused by the double standards of al-Zaidi's supporters who claim that he is entitled to full corporal integrity and at the same time has the right to express his opinions by throwing heavy objects at other people's heads. Al-Baghdadia TV, which is al-Zaidi's employer, went as far to demand that "the Iraqi authorities immediately release their stringer Muntadhir al-Zaidi, in line with the democracy and freedom of expression that the American authorities promised the Iraqi people on the ousting of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. ... Any measures against Muntadhir will be considered the acts of a dictatorial regime" (source: Wikipedia).

What angers me most, and is the reason for me to write such a long post, is the worldwide attention given to al-Zaidi's act. It undoubtedly deserved to be included in the news, but I think this should have been in the People section, between reports of celebrity marriages, divorces, drunken drivings, clashes with paparazzi and attempts to guess paternity without using DNA tests. Inclusion of such news in the political section only diverts attention from real problems and leaves darkness where the spotlight of public attention is desperately needed. To illustrate, let me briefly mention what happened to two journalists criticizing other presidents.

"The terrifying ordeal of Jestina Mukoko, a television news anchor turned human rights activist, began at 5am on December 3 when seven men and one woman forced their way into her house at gunpoint... Certainly Mukoko has been a thorn in Mugabe’s flesh. She resigned from state television to become director of the Zimbabwe Peace Project, a human rights monitoring network, and has been one of the regime’s most intelligent, influential and informed critics. She has collected evidence of tens of thousands of abuses in the past decade. Her monthly reports have detailed the routine tyranny of violence, the shortage of food and the denial of free speech that characterise Zimbabwean life today..." The quote is from the Sunday Times Dec. 14, 2008 article Silenced - the sharpest voice against Mugabe, by Sophie Shaw. I came across this report via the WIP site, which means that I would never hear about this case if Mukoko were male. According to a later report by Independent, Mukoko was tortured and is now being tried.

Let's now come home to Bulgaria, which is expected to have a better human rights record and more freedom of speech. On Sept. 23, 2008 journalist Ognyan Stefanov (54), editor in-chief of Frog News, was severely beaten in the street as he was leaving a restaurant. The attackers were several men who first asked for Stefanov's name to be sure about his identity and then started beating him with hammers and metal rods. Stefanov suffered fractures of all four extremities, backbone and head injuries, lost over two liters of blood and spent days on artificial respiration. Doctors were not sure for a long time whether he would survive; fortunately, he did. I have no information about his present condition.

I wanted very much to blog about Stefanov immediately after the attack, but I had no opportunity back then. However, today isn't late at all because the key questions remain unanswered. Stefanov's attackers haven't been caught and their motivation remains uncertain. However, most commentators reminded that Stefanov had been "highly critical of the President Parvanov" and that shortly before the assault he had been subpoenated and interrogated by the State Agency for National Security. A month before the beating, on Aug. 28, Stefanov himself wrote a text titled Free speech between fear from those with power and power over fear; in it, he claimed that unidentified powerful people demanded him to stop criticizing the President and threatened him that if he doesn't, "they knew how to cause harm". So Bulgarian journalists strongly suspect that either security agents or "businessmen" sponsors of the President, not content with the legal options to shut up criticism, arranged a beating. But even if DANS people didn't participate in the attack per se, by calling Stefanov they clearly gave a sign to the mafia (against which he also wrote) that he was considered by the authorities as an enemy and wouldn't be protected. This aspect was best expressed by TV journalist Velizar Enchev, who knows well the secret services. If the reader thinks that I am too biased against our security forces and unwilling to let them off the hook, I would ask, why are then the attackers still unidentified and walking free? Or are our police good only in intimidating journalists and other citizens?

As far as I know, the attack against Stefanov was largely neglected by international public opinion. An exception is the Netherlands, where Daniela Gorcheva, a journalist from Bulgaria, alerted her colleagues about the case. Five leading Dutch cartoonists created works in solidarity with Stefanov (you can see the cartoons at Gorcheva's blog).

Let's now return to the shoe-throwing subject. While this post was in the pipeline, another incident took place in Britain. On Feb. 2, as Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao was delivering a lecture at the Cambridge University, an unidentified 27-year-old man called him a "dictator" and threw at him a shoe, which landed a meter away. While agreeing with a university official that "Cambridge is a place where ideas are put into play, not shoes," I have much more sympathy for this protester than I have for Mr. al-Zaidi.

Chinese media initially kept silence over the incident, but when information leaked in via satellite channels and the Web, they just had to report it. According to one commenter, "the uncompromising Iraqi people threw a shoe at Bush which is a brave act by a suppressed nation, but the ugly Englishman threw a shoe at Wen, which was only a barbaric trick". Isn't this brilliant? I love China!

I prefer "cyclosome" to "anaphase-promoting complex"

I have spent much of the recent weeks updating and preparing for publication my texts about the cell division cycle.
The original version was written in January and early February 1997, so I had the gloomy feeling of having done too little for too long time that is natural for anyone resuming a 12 year old project. It was made only stronger by another similarity: early 1997 was also marked by anti-government protests. Every afternoon I was leaving work to join the rally beginning at 4 PM in front of the Palace of Culture, conveniently close to my workplace. After the end of the demonstration, by about 6 PM, I was returning to resume work. I was single, so my evenings were free from other duties. The current protests against the government led by the Socialists (like the one 12 years ago) make me feel like trapped in a circle, though this time I have left the struggle to others.
Nevertheless, the work is now finished and uploaded. The original text is now divided in two chapters devoted, respectively, to the cell cycle in purely descriptive terms and to its control. And here I want to touch a question regarding the terminology used to describe the cell cycle, though I am no expert in this field.
One of the key components of cell cycle engine is a multisubunit enzyme called anaphase-promoting complex or cyclosome. The former name is used far more often and is usually abbreviated to APC. However, I prefer the name "cyclosome" and would appeal to colleagues to use it more often, if possible.
As Orwell noted, modern language is plagued by abbreviations. They are especially popular in science, possibly because preoccupation of scientists with their objects often leads to neglecting the language used to describe these objects. Still, some linguistic sense can be traced because most of the abbreviations are composed of three letters. It is clear that we shall never get rid of the basic ones such as DNA, RNA, ATP and so on. But why not make an effort towards their non-proliferation? I was glad to see such good new-coined terms as "condensin", "cohesin", "securin", "separase", "geminin". All of them came across as I was refreshing my cell cycle knowledge, and the first two (to my delight) will partially replace the abbreviation SMC (structural maintenance of chromosomes) which I admit I always confuse with MCM (mini-chromosome maintenance), another group of proteins needed for cell cycle progression. Isn't it enough that in this subject we already are forever stuck with CDC (cell division cycle) and CDK (cyclin-dependent kinase), both abbreviations relating to multiple proteins? Not to mention that an important Cdk is, for historical reasons, known as MPF (maturation-, mitosis- or M-phase-promoting factor).
Besides, there is a finite number of three-letter abbreviations, so the problem of disambiguation soon appears. Years ago, searching PubMed for the enzyme nitric oxide synthase (abbr. NOS), I obtained also many entries about Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) carcinomas. And, coming back to the cyclosome/anaphase-promoting complex, there already is one important abbreviation APC in life sciences - Antigen-Presenting Cell, a term too fundamental for any freshman to go without.

Our local school is closed

My elder son is now 5 years old, so 1st grade is within seeing distance and I am already collecting information about schools. In Bulgaria, parents are allowed to choose which public school their child will attend (as long as there are vacant places in the chosen school).
My friends with schoolchildren enrolled them in schools with high requirements. However, their children were not only with above-average intelligence but also very disciplined. The situation with my son is different because of his hyperlexia. He was a late talker and still is more than a year behind his peers in speech. Worse, he rejects the very concept of discipline. As said his classmate, "he doesn't obey at all, never follows orders". So a school with high requirements would hardly be suitable for him. On the contrary, we need a tolerant school where difficult children are not regarded as things to get rid of.
I first thought of our local school, Primary School No. 110. Indeed, our district of Zaharna Fabrika (Sugar Factory) is mixed, so we could expect some Gypsy students. Most of my friends would never consider educating their children together with Gypsy ones, because this automatically lowers the quality of teaching (and if some opponent here objects and starts talking about racism, I would kindly ask him to bring his head out of the sand). However, I would not be bothered if my son has Gypsy classmates, as long as they don't bully him. This is not because I am less racist than my friends but because my son anyway learns what he is willing and ready to learn, rather than what he is taught, so the classroom environment isn't as important for him as it is for other children.
However, as soon as I found the school building (a rather nice one, with noble dark-red colour), I heard that it has been closed, most likely forever. My city of Sofia has so few schools that all of them work in two shifts, so the news of closing a school sounded insane. My mother in-law, who (unlike me) has lived for decades in Zaharna Fabrika and knows all local gossip, told me how it happened.
"The school was closed because it had too few students; as you know, schools with a number of students below the reglament are closed. When the downward trend first appeared, teachers and municipality officials tried to recruit additional students from the Gypsy ghetto. There were many school-age children there, but their parents didn't want to let them attend school. The officials offered the parents benefit money and they agreed. However, when those Gypsy children started going to the school, Bulgarian parents moved their children to other schools. Very soon there were fewer students than before enrolling the Gypsies, so the school had to be closed. I don't think it will ever be opened again. The building will most likely be sold and used for other purposes."
If you ask what happened to the Gypsy schoolchildren - I cannot be sure, but I guess they have returned to their so-called parents and now don't go to any school.
My husband, who had attended School No. 110, was saddened when he heard about its demise. His mother laughed and said that he may now pretend to be sad, but does he remember how after the big earthquake in 1977 he expressed hope that the school building has collapsed?
To end the post - I don't intend for the moment to discuss the big question of educating all children and inclusion vs. segregation. Let me just mention here that if regarding disadvantaged children as mere obstacles to other children's education is troubling, I find at least as troubling the attitude of regarding "privileged" children as little civil servants who are obliged to go to school in order to educate and integrate, rather than to learn. I'll be thankful to readers who share their own experience in these matters.

Deaths in custody

On Jan. 14, after an anti-government protest in my city of Sofia was banned postfactum (see my Jan. 15 post), Police Department No. 4 was crowded with arrested people. Among them was Metodi Marinov (60) from the village of Banitsa.
It is still unclear why Marinov was arrested. The official version of the police (presented by Trud here and here) is that he had previous convictions and was detained as a suspected participant in a car theft ring. Some protesters detained at the same time claim that Marinov had on his jacket a sticker "Sergo go home" (referring to the Prime Minister Sergei Stanishev), which indicated that he had also been arrested as a protester. I wouldn't try a judgement here, because our police are habitual liers but my experience shows that witnesses in such cases also can say things very far from the truth. I find it more likely, however, that the official version here is accurate - I suppose that they at least don't (yet) fabricate criminal records.
Anyway, even according to the official version, the old man was kept for many hours in uncomfortable conditions - on a chair and then on a bench in the corridor, because the cells were packed with detained protesters. He declared that he had heart problems but declined (?!) medical examination and help. According to the official version, Marinov never complained, but some of the protesters later testified (here and here) that he several times said he didn't feel well and asked for medical help, but was neglected and even mocked.
Shortly after 1 AM at Jan. 15, the heavy breathing of Marinov finally alerted the policemen and they called the paramedics - to no avail. His death was said to be caused by myocardial infarction (details here and here). To me, it is noteworthy that nobody cites Marinov's attorney, which clearly shows that he had none.
A week later, on Jan. 22, another man died at the hands of police in Sofia. Plamen Kutsarov (29) was arrested as a suspected member of a kidnapping gang. Police claimed that he failed the lie detector test. Then, only hours after his arrest, he died of suffocation while being transported in a car, handcuffed and with a hood on his head. Kutsarov's relations and lawyer deny that he had any connections with the criminal world.
The official reaction was slightly different this time. In Marinov's case, the authorities fiercely denied any wrongdoing because he was (correctly or not) linked to the Jan. 14 rally, so government was eager to defend its right to use any degree of force against protesting citizens. However, Kutsarov's death resulted from ordinary police work, so the General Secretary of the police had to admit that his institution was partially (?) at fault. One or two police officers were removed from their positions but there are no reports that any have been charged. On Jan. 23, the Interior Minister Mikov said in the Parliament that "it is (just a) suggestion (vnushenie) that many people have died at the hands of police in recent time".
Meanwhile, 168 chasa weekly reported that a third pre-trial detainee, a suspected thief, hanged himself in his cell because of physical and sexual abuse but police managed to hide his case from the public. I cannot find in the Web any source confirming this information.

In the 1990s, arrested people were regularly beaten by police and some of them died. Fortunately, as Bulgaria was (at least de jure) moving to the civilized world, this trend slowly but steadily declining. Now, we seem to observe a chilling turn of the tide.
What particularly worries me is the unadequate reaction of the society. First, too much attention is directed to the personalities of the victims. Indeed, if Mr. Marinov has really been a protester, his death would mark a very sad precedent, because in the nearly 20 years of emerging democracy no one protester had been killed by Bulgarian police (or vice versa). However, ordinary Bulgarians seem to overlook the postulate that every person, not only the good and law-abiding but everyone, has a right to due treatment by police and fair trial; and that if these rights are today denied to suspected thieves and murderers, tomorrow every citizen can find himself in the same situation.
Second, the increasing brutality of police, when perceived by ignorant and murky heads, serves to obscure even further their understanding of the function and obligations of state and, hence, the ability of citizens to shape the state as it should be. I mean, when somebody blames the state for the current crime wave because of the impunity of criminals and the absence of police from hot zones, many people reply, "Don't talk nonsense, X wasn't killed by government (forces) so don't blame his murder on government." In other words, seeing the state kill people, ordinary Bulgarians forget its basic function to provide law and order and want it just to leave them alone. With this mindset, it is difficult for me to hope that things may improve in the near future.

Petition demanding justice for Martin Borilski

Martin Borilski was a Bulgarian student in France who in 2000, at age 24, was cruelly murdered in his home. French police gathered and provided to Bulgarian authorities compelling forensic evidence incriminating two young Bulgarian men. However, the Bulgarian judiciary first tried not to prosecute the suspects at all and then staged a parody of a trial only to acquit them. The reason: they are sons of high-ranking people, the sort of people who in Bulgaria are allowed to do whatever they wish, up to murder, while the victim was coming from an ordinary family.
You can read more about the case in English here, here and here.
A Web petition has been started demanding just sentences for the culprits and punishments for prosecutors and judges responsible for the outrageous acquittal. The photos on the petition page show, from top, the victim Martin Borilski, the alleged murderers and the judge who acquitted them.