Marc Chagall: The Falling Angel
This dramatic painting, "The Falling Angel" is regarded as Chagall's personal response to the suffering of Europe and the Jews during World War II: The red angel falling alarmingly to earth.
Designer Babies?
Building Baby From the Genes Up
By Ronald M. Green
Sunday, April 13, 2008
The two British couples no doubt thought that their appeal for medical help in conceiving a child was entirely reasonable. Over several generations, many female members of their families had died of breast cancer. One or both spouses in each couple had probably inherited the genetic mutations for the disease, and they wanted to use in-vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to select only the healthy embryos for implantation. Their goal was to eradicate breast cancer from their family lines once and for all.
In the United States, this combination of reproductive and genetic medicine -- what one scientist has dubbed "reprogenetics" -- remains largely unregulated, but Britain has a formal agency, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA), that must approve all requests for PGD. In July 2007, after considerable deliberation, the HFEA approved the procedure for both families. The concern was not about the use of PGD to avoid genetic disease, since embryo screening for serious disorders is commonplace now on both sides of the Atlantic. What troubled the HFEA was the fact that an embryo carrying the cancer mutation could go on to live for 40 or 50 years before ever developing cancer, and there was a chance it might never develop. Did this warrant selecting and discarding embryos? To its critics, the HFEA, in approving this request, crossed a bright line separating legitimate medical genetics from the quest for "the perfect baby."
Like it or not, that decision is a sign of things to come -- and not necessarily a bad sign. Since the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003, our understanding of the genetic bases of human disease and non-disease traits has been growing almost exponentially. The National Institutes of Health has initiated a quest for the "$1,000 genome," a 10-year program to develop machines that could identify all the genetic letters in anyone's genome at low cost (it took more than $3 billion to sequence the first human genome). With this technology, which some believe may be just four or five years away, we could not only scan an individual's -- or embryo's -- genome, we could also rapidly compare thousands of people and pinpoint those DNA sequences or combinations that underlie the variations that contribute to our biological differences.
With knowledge comes power. If we understand the genetic causes of obesity, for example, we can intervene by means of embryo selection to produce a child with a reduced genetic likelihood of getting fat. Eventually, without discarding embryos at all, we could use gene-targeting techniques to tweak fetal DNA sequences. No child would have to face a lifetime of dieting or experience the health and cosmetic problems associated with obesity. The same is true for cognitive problems such as dyslexia. Geneticists have already identified some of the mutations that contribute to this disorder. Why should a child struggle with reading difficulties when we could alter the genes responsible for the problem?
Many people are horrified at the thought of such uses of genetics, seeing echoes of the 1997 science-fiction film "Gattaca," which depicted a world where parents choose their children's traits. Human weakness has been eliminated through genetic engineering, and the few parents who opt for a "natural" conception run the risk of producing offspring -- "invalids" or "degenerates" -- who become members of a despised underclass. Gattaca's world is clean and efficient, but its eugenic obsessions have all but extinguished human love and compassion.
These fears aren't limited to fiction. Over the past few years, many bioethicists have spoken out against genetic manipulations. The critics tend to voice at least four major concerns. First, they worry about the effect of genetic selection on parenting. Will our ability to choose our children's biological inheritance lead parents to replace unconditional love with a consumerist mentality that seeks perfection?
Second, they ask whether gene manipulations will diminish our freedom by making us creatures of our genes or our parents' whims. In his book "Enough," the techno-critic Bill McKibben asks: If I am a world-class runner, but my parents inserted the "Sweatworks2010 GenePack" in my genome, can I really feel pride in my accomplishments? Worse, if I refuse to use my costly genetic endowments, will I face relentless pressure to live up to my parents' expectations?
Third, many critics fear that reproductive genetics will widen our social divisions as the affluent "buy" more competitive abilities for their offspring. Will we eventually see "speciation," the emergence of two or more human populations so different that they no longer even breed with one another? Will we re-create the horrors of eugenics that led, in Europe, Asia and the United States, to the sterilization of tens of thousands of people declared to be "unfit" and that in Nazi Germany paved the way for the Holocaust?
Finally, some worry about the religious implications of this technology. Does it amount to a forbidden and prideful "playing God"?
To many, the answers to these questions are clear. Not long ago, when I asked a large class at Dartmouth Medical School whether they thought that we should move in the direction of human genetic engineering, more than 80 percent said no. This squares with public opinion polls that show a similar degree of opposition. Nevertheless, "babies by design" are probably in our future -- but I think that the critics' concerns may be less troublesome than they first appear.
Will critical scrutiny replace parental love? Not likely. Even today, parents who hope for a healthy child but have one born with disabilities tend to love that child ferociously. The very intensity of parental love is the best protection against its erosion by genetic technologies. Will a child somehow feel less free because parents have helped select his or her traits? The fact is that a child is already remarkably influenced by the genes she inherits. The difference is that we haven't taken control of the process. Yet.
Knowing more about our genes may actually increase our freedom by helping us understand the biological obstacles -- and opportunities -- we have to work with. Take the case of Tiger Woods. His father, Earl, is said to have handed him a golf club when he was still in the playpen. Earl probably also gave Tiger the genes for some of the traits that help make him a champion golfer. Genes and upbringing worked together to inspire excellence. Does Tiger feel less free because of his inherited abilities? Did he feel pressured by his parents? I doubt it. Of course, his story could have gone the other way, with overbearing parents forcing a child into their mold. But the problem in that case wouldn't be genetics, but bad parenting.
Granted, the social effects of reproductive genetics are worrisome. The risks of producing a "genobility," genetic overlords ruling a vast genetic underclass, are real. But genetics could also become a tool for reducing the class divide. Will we see the day when perhaps all youngsters are genetically vaccinated against dyslexia? And how might this contribute to everyone's social betterment?
As for the question of intruding on God's domain, the answer is less clear than the critics believe. The use of genetic medicine to cure or prevent disease is widely accepted by religious traditions, even those that oppose discarding embryos. Speaking in 1982 at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II observed that modern biological research "can ameliorate the condition of those who are affected by chromosomic diseases," and he lauded this as helping to cure "the smallest and weakest of human beings . . . during their intrauterine life or in the period immediately after birth." For Catholicism and some other traditions, it is one thing to cure disease, but another to create children who are faster runners, longer-lived or smarter.
But why should we think that the human genome is a once-and-for-all-finished, untamperable product? All of the biblically derived faiths permit human beings to improve on nature using technology, from agriculture to aviation. Why not improve our genome? I have no doubt that most people considering these questions for the first time are certain that human genetic improvement is a bad idea, but I'd like to shake up that certainty.
Genomic science is racing toward a future in which foreseeable improvements include reduced susceptibility to a host of diseases, increased life span, better cognitive functioning and maybe even cosmetic enhancements such as whiter, straighter teeth. Yes, genetic orthodontics may be in our future. The challenge is to see that we don't also unleash the demons of discrimination and oppression. Although I acknowledge the risks, I believe that we can and will incorporate gene technology into the ongoing human adventure.
Ronald M. Green is a professor of ethics at Dartmouth College. His most recent book is "Babies by Design: The Ethics of Genetic Choice."
Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks.
By Richard Hayes
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
In an essay in Sunday's Outlook section, Dartmouth ethics professor Ronald Green asks us to consider a neo-eugenic future of "designer babies," with parents assembling their children quite literally from genes selected from a catalogue. Distancing himself from the compulsory, state-sponsored eugenics that darkened the first half of the last century, Green instead celebrates the advent of a libertarian, consumer-driven eugenics motivated by the free play of human desire, technology and markets. He argues that this vision of the human future is desirable and very likely inevitable.
To put it mildly: I disagree. Granted, new human genetic technologies have real potential to help prevent or cure many terrible diseases, and I support research directed towards that end. But these same technologies also have the potential for real harm. If misapplied, they would exacerbate existing inequalities and reinforce existing modes of discrimination. If more widely abused, they could undermine the foundations of civil and human rights. In the worst case, they could undermine our experience of being part of a single human community with a common human future.
Once we begin genetically modifying our children, where do we stop? If it's acceptable to modify one gene, why not two, or 20 or 200? At what point do children become artifacts designed to someone's specifications rather than members of a family to be nurtured?
Given what we know about human nature, the development and commercial marketing of human genetic modification would likely spark a techno-eugenic rat-race. Even parents opposed to manipulating their children's genes would feel compelled to participate in this race, lest their offspring be left behind.
Green proposes that eugenic technologies could be used to reduce "the class divide." But nowhere in his essay does he suggest how such a proposal might ever be made practicable in the real world.
The danger of genetic misuse is equally threatening at the international level. What happens when some rogue country announces an ambitious program to "improve the genetic stock" of its citizens? In a world still barely able to contain the forces of nationalism, ethnocentrism and militarism, the last thing we need to worry about is a high-tech eugenic arms race.
In his essay, Green doesn't distinguish clearly between different uses of genetic technology -- and the distinctions are critical. It's one thing to enable a couple to avoid passing on a devastating genetic condition, such as Tay-Sachs. But it's a different thing altogether to create children with a host of "enhanced" athletic, cosmetic and cognitive traits that could be passed to their own children, who in turn could further genetically modify their children, who in turn... you get the picture. It's this second use of gene technology (the technical term is "heritable genetic enhancement") that Green most fervently wants us to embrace.
In this position, Green is well outside the growing national and international consensus on the proper use of human genetic science and technology. To his credit, he acknowledges that 80 percent of the medical school students he surveyed said they were against such forms of human genetic engineering, and that public opinion polls show equally dramatic opposition. He could have noted, as well, that nearly 40 countries -- including Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Japan, and South Africa -- have adopted socially responsible policies regulating the new human genetic technologies. They allow genetic research (including stem cell research) for medical applications, but prohibit its use for heritable genetic modification and reproductive human cloning.
In the face of this consensus, Green blithely announces his confidence that humanity "can and will" incorporate heritable genetic enhancement into the "ongoing human adventure."
Well, it's certainly possible. Our desires for good looks, good brains, wealth and long lives, for ourselves and for our children, are strong and enduring. If the gene-tech entrepreneurs are able to convince us that we can satisfy these desires by buying into genetic modification, perhaps we'll bite. Green certainly seems eager to encourage us to do so.
But he would be wise to listen to what medical students, the great majority of Americans and the international community appear to be saying: We want all these things, yes, and genetic technology might help us attain them, but we don't want to run the huge risks to the human community and the human future that would come with altering the genetic basis of our common human nature.
Richard Hayes is executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society.
I don't object to the creation of better garage doors and toothpastes. But I do keep on distinguishing human beings, and especially babies, from wares one can cataloguize. Must I really explain that?
What is a "better" human?
What do the genetic engineers as the creators of a "better" human and the orderers of ameliorated babies à la catalogue think is a "better" human?
Will there be a warranty of quality of the catalogue babies? (Of course!) Will there be a right to return unsatisfactory products? (Of course! That's the rule of the marketplace's play.)
Will the fact of being a "better" human (being created eugenically) be certified (answer: of course!), and will holding such a certificate ground social privileges? Will a new class system develop then (in addition to the fact that the spending power one must have to order babies à la catalogue is of course a class-specific attribute)?
I can't imagine anybody would think that the politics would keep its nose out of this "play". Ring any bells? Heinrich Himmler would have seized the new eugenic means enthusiastically. Nothing else would have met the National Socialist "plan to breed an Aryan master race of blonde-haired, blue-eyed babies for the 1,000-year Reich" better:
The SS race and settlement main office handles through its offices the racial selection of the SS coming generation, directs the choosing of mates of the SS men, and promotes the creation of child-rich families, valuable from a hereditary and biological point of view.
Der Soldatenfreund, 1943
The topic of Hayes's review on Green's essay is the latter's promotion of a "consumer-driven eugenics motivated by the free play of human desire, technology and markets". The essential passages are:
neo-eugenic future of "designer babies,"
parents assembling their children quite literally from genes selected from a catalogue
It's about this heritable genetic enhancement, not about the medical aspects of gene technology to which my comment relates. I expressly underline that Green's enthusiasm for designer babies, catalogue-gene-wise assembled by a consumer-driven eugenics, equates to the National Socialist enthusiasm for designer babies, breeded by copulations in Lebensborn facilities under official eugenic control.
Some say, "the lesson should be learned"; that appears to me to be a euphemistic, naive, pious hope in a world where smart bombs kill children under the shabby justifications of criminal governments of states the citizens of which want nothing more than to be amused to death.
Nota bene: The hightech homo sapiens is stuck for a proof of being more sapiens than his Stone Age ancestry.
See also this discussion.
♫ Tintinnabulation
"That is my goal: time and timelessness are connected. This instant and eternity are struggling within us. And this is the cause of all our contradictions...."
- Arvo Pärt
Cantus in memoriam Benjamin Britten
Arvo Pärt was born in Paide, Estonia on September 11, 1935 and grew up in Tallinn.
Pärt refers to this new style as "tintinnabuli." This can be defined as the application of various inversions of a certain chord. Also, it is a word "which evokes the pealing of bells, the bells' complex but rich sonorous mass of overtones, the gradual unfolding of patterns implicit in the sound itself, and the idea of a sound that is simultaneously static and in flux." Pärt explains the term this way:
"Tintinnabulation is an area I sometimes wander into when I am searching for answers - in my life, my music, my work. In my dark hours, I have the certain feeling that everything outside this one thing has no meaning. The complex and many-faceted only confuses me, and I must search for unity. What is it, this one thing, and how do I find myway to it? Traces of this perfect thing appear in many guises - and everything that is unimportant falls away. Tintinnabulation is like this. . . . The three notes of a triad are like bells. And that is why I call it tintinnabulation."Source
Arvo Pärt and the New Simplicity
In music there are only three intervals which are called "perfect." We have the prime and its octave, the perfect fourth and the perfect fifth. Pärt's music, like that of the medieval composers he sometime reminds us of, is built around these perfect intervals. Acoustically, these intervals are based upon very simple ratios: 2-1 for the octave, 3-2 for the fifth. When we hear these intervals sung in a large resonant space, like a cathedral, they have a miraculous effect. The two notes a fifth apart, C and G, for example, start to generate other sounds. They fill in the chord. We glance around the cathedral, wondering, looking for an angel choir.
Well. The physicists can explain all of this in terms of mathematics: we're hearing overtones, they tell us. Angels or overtones? It doesn't matter. Arvo Pärt's simplicity touches us deeply."
Source
Listing of Arvo Pärt's works: Internet Edition compiled by Onno van Rijen
♫ Arvo Pärt:
Silouans Song / Vienna Philharmonic Women's Orchestra
Video
"Silouans Song (My soul yearns after the Lord)" for mixed chorus and chamberorchestra (1991), here the version for string orchestra.
Silouan the Athonite
The Vienna Philharmonic Women's Orchestra
Die Wiener "Frauen-Philharmonie" ist [...] so etwas wie eine Antwort auf die Wiener Philharmoniker, die bis vor kurzem [1997] keine Frauen aufnahmen. Dirigentin Izabella Shareyko und ihr Mann Klaus Peter Schneider gründeten das Ensemble 1999 und geben seither Konzerte von Kammermusik über Barock und Strawinski bis zu Bartok und zeitgenössischen Werken. "Derzeit haben wir rund 20 Mitglieder aus über 12 Nationen, mit verschiedenem Hintergrund und aus verschiedenen Kulturen, aber alle von ihnen mit Wien-Bezug", schildert Shareyko.
Alle von ihnen sind professionelle Musikerinnen, haben langjährige Erfahrung im Ensemblespiel - eine Grundvoraussetzung, um aufgenommen zu werden [...].
Source
Jürgen Heumann, Universität Oldenburg:
"Islamisches Glaubensfach an Schulen nicht akzeptierbar"
"Ein islamischer Religionsunterricht muss sich als schulfähig erweisen. Damit ist gemeint, dass er weder nur religionskundliche Inhalte über den Islam (also Wissensbestände) vermitteln sollte noch ein 'Gebetsunterricht' sein darf, sondern ein Religionsunterricht im Sinne eines Bildungsfaches sein muss.
Für alle Unterrichtsfächer in der deutschen Schule gilt das Überwältigungsverbot, d. h., dass kein Schüler in Situationen gebracht werden darf, in denen er sich psychisch überwältigt fühlt bzw. aus solchem Gefühl heraus zu Handlungen, etwa Gebetshandlungen, gedrängt wird. Der evangelische Religionsunterricht verzichtet demzufolge auch weithin auf ein 'Beten lernen' in der Schule. Eines der Probleme des islamischen Religionsunterrichts ist, dass es bei allen Diskussionen um dieses Fach hier eben keine deutliche Aussage gibt, auf eine Überwältigung während des Unterrichts zu verzichten. Ein Fach, das hier nicht klar Position bezieht, ist nicht 'schulfähig'.
Ein weiterer Einwand: Alle Unterrichtsfächer in der öffentlichen Schule stehen in der Tradition der Aufklärung und sind an wissenschaftlicher Theoriebildung und Systematisierung orientiert. Das gilt auch für die kirchlich mitveranworteten Religionsfächer (ev. und kath.). Religion wird in diesen Fächern nicht nur affirmativ vermittelt, sondern ebenso kritisch in ihren historischen bzw. gegenwärtigen problematischen bis gewaltsamen und terroristischen Versionen gewichtet. Diese grundsätzlich (auch) kritische Grundhaltung der eigenen wie anderen Religionen gegenüber bezieht sich auch auf das Gottesverständnis, d.h., mit der unterrichtlichen Behandlung der Theodizeeproblematik (wenn es Gott gibt, warum lässt er das Böse zu?) wird Gott selbst als 'fragwürdig' thematisiert und eben nicht als unhinterfragbar vermittelt.
Kein Entwurf für einen islamischen Religionsunterricht hat bisher gezeigt, dass er die Theodizeefrage so ernst nimmt, dass er potentiell die Sekpsis von Schülern gegenüber Allah akzeptieren würde bis dahin, die Existenz Allahs zu bestreiten. Gleiches gilt für die Entstehung des Koran bzw. seiner göttlichen Legitimierung.
Ein Religionsunterricht, der die eigene Religion lediglich affirmativ und überzeugend vermitteln will, ohne eine Kritik der eigenen Tradition und des eigenen Gottesbildes leisten zu wollen, ist deshalb m. E. nicht schulfähig.
Deshalb: Wenn der Staat einen islamischen Religionsunterricht in der öffentlichen Schule fordert und ihn einrichten will, muss er auch die hohen inhaltlichen Hürden benennen, die ein Unterrichtsfach im Spektrum der anderen geisteswissenschaftlichen Fächer einzuhalten hat. Um diese zu erreichen, ist eine wissenschaftliche Lehrerausbildung mit theoriegeleiteter und -reflektierter Fachdidaktik auf dem Niveau deutscher Lehrerausbildung unabdingbar. Ein islamisches Glaubensfach ist an der Schule nicht akzeptierbar.
Alternativ, gegenüber den anachronistischen bekenntnisgebundenen Religionsfächern, denen jetzt noch ein weiteres islamisches hinzugefügt werden soll, wäre ein sowohl affirmativer als auch kritischer Integrationsunterricht Religion zu fordern, an dem christliche, muslimische und Schüler anderer Religionen teilnehmen, um dann nicht nur in einen Diskurs, sondern in einen Dialog über Religion eintreten zu können; dies unter Beteiligung und Förderung durch die Kirchen und andere Religionsgemeinschaften, also unter dem Dach von Art.7, 3 GG. Hier ist eine politische Initiative seit langem überfällig."
Prof. Dr. Jürgen Heumann, Universität Oldenburg
Quelle: http://idw-online.de/pages/de/news251935
Udo Lindenberg: Wozu sind Kriege da?
Keiner will sterben, das ist doch klar.
Wozu sind denn dann Kriege da?
Herr Präsident, du bist doch einer von diesen Herrn,
du musst das doch wissen,
kannst mir das mal erklärn.
Keine Mutter will ihre Kinder verliern
und keine Frau ihren Mann,
also warum müssen Soldaten losmarschiern,
um Menschen zu ermorden? Mach mir das mal klar!
Wozu sind Kriege da?
Herr Präsident, ich bin jetzt zehn Jahre alt,
und ich fürchte mich in diesem Atomraketenwald.
Sag mir die Wahrheit, sag mir das jetzt:
Wofür wird mein Leben aufs Spiel gesetzt
und das Leben all der andern? Sag mir mal warum!
Sie laden die Gewehre und bring'n sich gegenseitig um.
Sie stehn sich gegenüber und könnten Freunde sein,
doch bevor sie sich kennenlernen, schießen sie sich tot.
Ich find das so bekloppt! Warum muss das so sein?
Habt ihr alle Milliarden Menschen überall auf der Welt
gefragt, ob sie das so wollen?
Oder geht's da auch um Geld,
viel Geld für die wenigen Bonzen,
die die Panzer und Raketen baun
und dann Gold und Brillanten kaufen
für ihre eleganten Frau'n?
Oder geht's da nebenbei auch um so religiösen Zwist*,
dass man sich nicht einig wird,
welcher Gott nun der wahre ist?
Oder was gibt's da noch für Gründe,
die ich genauso bescheuert find'?
Na ja, vielleicht kann ich's noch nicht verstehen,
wozu Kriege nötig sind.
Ich bin wohl noch zu klein.
Ich bin ja noch ein Kind.
[* In der Erstfassung: Mist]
Dieses Lied entstand 1981 zu Udos Tournee "Udopia".
English translation:
Nobody wants to die, that's for sure -
so what are wars good for?
Mr President, you are one of those gentlemen,
you should know the answer.
Can you explain it to me?
No mother wants to lose her children,
and no woman her husband.
So why have soldiers to march off
to kill people? Point that out to me!
What are wars good for?
Mr President, I'm now 10 years old,
and I'm scared in this forest of nuclear weapons.
Tell me the truth, do it now:
What is my life being jeopardized for,
and the life of all the others? Tell me why!
They load the rifles and kill each other.
They are pitted against each other and could be friends,
but before they have a chance to know each other
they shoot each other dead.
I find that so nutty! Why is that so?
And all the billions of people everywhere around the world
have you asked them whether they want it?
Or is money another reason,
much money for the few fat cats,
who build the tanks and rockets
and then purchase gold and diamonds
for their elegant wives?
Or is it casually a matter of religious discord*,
that people don't manage to come to an agreement
about the question, which god is the true one?
Or are there other reasons,
which I find as naff as the others?
Well, perhaps I can't understand yet
why there is a need for wars.
I may be still too small.
I am only just a child.
[* The first version said: crap]
♫ Roger Waters: Leaving Beirut
Roger Waters Live, Argentina, 2007
Graham Broad, Dave Kilminster, Snowy White, Ian Ritchie, Andy Fairweather-Low, Katie Kissoon, PP Arnold, Carol Kenyon, Jon Carin, Harry Waters
Reconstruction of the visuals during the song Leaving Beirut by Roger Waters during his current Dark Side of the Moon tour. Based upon the original sketches by Bill Sienkiewicz.
So we left Beirut Willa and I
He headed East to Baghdad and the rest of it
I set out North
I walked the five or six miles to the last of the street lamps
And hunkered in the curb side dusk
Holding out my thumb
In no great hope at the ramshackle procession of home bound traffic
Success!
An ancient Mercedes 'dolmus '
The ubiquitous, Arab, shared taxi drew up
I turned out my pockets and shrugged at the driver
"J'ai pas de l'argent"
"Venez!" A soft voice from the back seat
The driver lent wearily across and pushed open the back door
I stooped to look inside at the two men there
One besuited, bespectacled, moustached, irritated, distant, late
The other, the one who had spoken,
Frail, fifty five-ish, bald, sallow, in a short sleeved pale blue cotton shirt
With one biro in the breast pocket
A clerk maybe, slightly sunken in the seat
"Venez!" He said again, and smiled
"Mais j'ai pas de l'argent"
"Oui, Oui, d'accord, Venez!"
Are these the people that we should bomb
Are we so sure they mean us harm
Is this our pleasure, punishment or crime
Is this a mountain that we really want to climb
The road is hard, hard and long
Put down that two by four
This man would never turn you from his door
Oh George! Oh George!
That Texas education must have fucked you up
when you were very small
He beckoned with a small arthritic motion of his hand
Fingers together like a child waving goodbye
The driver put my old Hofner guitar in the boot with my rucksack
And off we went
"Vous etes Francais, monsieur?"
"Non, Anglais"
"Ah! Anglais"
"Est-ce que vous parlais Anglais, Monsieur?"
"Non, je regrette"
And so on
In small talk between strangers, his French alien but correct
Mine halting but eager to please
A lift, after all, is a lift
Late moustache left us brusquely
And some miles later the dolmus
slowed at a crossroads lit by a single lightbulb
Swung through a U-turn and stopped in a cloud of dust
I opened the door and got out
But my benefactor made no move to follow
The driver dumped my guitar and rucksack at my feet
And waving away my thanks returned to the boot
Only to reappear with a pair of alloy crutches
Which he leaned against the rear wing of the Mercedes.
He reached into the car and lifted my companion out
Only one leg, the second trouser leg neatly pinned beneath a vacant hip
"Monsieur, si vous voulez, ca sera un honneur pour nous
Si vous venez avec moi a la maison pour manger avec ma
femme"
When I was 17 my mother, bless her heart, fulfilled my summer dream
She handed me the keys to the car
We motored down to Paris, fuelled with Dexedrine and booze
Got bust in Antibes by the cops
And fleeced in Naples by the wops
But everyone was kind to us, we were the English dudes
Our dads had helped them win the war
When we all knew what we were fighting for
But now an Englishman abroad is just a US stooge
The bulldog is a poodle snapping round the scoundrel's last refuge
"Ma femme", thank God! Monopod but not queer
The taxi drove off leaving us in the dim light of the swinging bulb
No building in sight
What the hell
"Merci monsieur"
"Bon, Venez!"
His faced creased in pleasure, he set off in front of me
Swinging his leg between the crutches with agonising care
Up the dusty side road into the darkness
After half an hour we'd gone maybe half a mile
When on the right I made out the low profile of a building
He called out in Arabic to announce our arrival
And after some scuffling inside a lamp was lit
And the changing angle of light in the wide crack under the door
Signalled the approach of someone within
The door creaked open and there, holding a biblical looking oil lamp
Stood a squat, moustached woman, stooped smiling up at us
She stood aside to let us in and as she turned
I saw the reason for her stoop
She carried on her back a shocking hump
I nodded and smiled back at her in greeting, fighting for control
The gentleness between the one-legged man and his monstrous wife
Almost too much for me
Is gentleness too much for us
Should gentleness be filed along with empathy
We feel for someone else's child
Every time a smart bomb does its sums and gets it wrong
Someone else's child dies and equities in defence rise
America, America, please hear us when we call
You got hip-hop, be-bop, hustle and bustle
You got Atticus Finch
You got Jane Russell
You got freedom of speech
You got great beaches, wildernesses and malls
Don't let the might, the Christian right, fuck it all up
For you and the rest of the world
They talked excitedly
She went to take his crutches in routine of care
He chiding, gestured
We have a guest
She embarrassed by her faux pas
Took my things and laid them gently in the corner
"Du the?"
We sat on meagre cushions in one corner of the single room
The floor was earth packed hard and by one wall a raised platform
Some six foot by four covered by a simple sheet, the bed
The hunchback busied herself with small copper pots
over an open hearth
And brought us tea, hot and sweet
And so to dinner
Flat, unleavened bread, + thin
Cooked in an iron skillet over the open hearth
Then folded and dipped into the soft insides of female sea urchins
My hostess did not eat, I ate her dinner
She would hear of nothing else, I was their guest
And then she retired behind a curtain
And left the men to sit drinking thimbles full of Arak
Carefully poured from a small bottle with a faded label
Soon she reappeared, radiant
Carrying in her arms their pride and joy, their child.
I'd never seen a squint like that
So severe that as one eye looked out the
other disappeared behind its nose
Not in my name, Tony, you great war leader you
Terror is still terror, whosoever gets to frame the rules
History's not written by the vanquished or the damned
Now we are Genghis Khan, Lucretia Borghia, Son of Sam
In 1961 they took this child into their home
I wonder what became of them
In the cauldron that was Lebanon
If I could find them now, could I make amends?
How does the story end?
And so to bed, me that is, not them
Of course they slept on the floor behind a curtain
Whilst I lay awake all night on their earthen bed
Then came the dawn and then their quiet stirrings
Careful not to wake the guest
I yawned in great pretence
And took the proffered bowl of water heated up and washed
And sipped my coffee in its tiny cup
And then with much "merci-ing" and bowing and shaking of hands
We left the woman to her chores
And we men made our way back to the crossroads
The painful slowness of our progress accentuated
by the brilliant morning light
The dolmus duly reappeared
My host gave me one crutch and leaning on the other
Shook my hand and smiled
"Merci, monsieur," I said
"De rien"
"And merci a votre femme, elle est tres gentille"
Giving up his other crutch
He allowed himself to be folded into the back seat again
"Bon voyage, monsieur," he said
And half bowed as the taxi headed south towards the city
I turned North, my guitar over my shoulder
And the first hot gust of wind
Quickly dried the salt tears from my young cheeks.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)
JoHammonia's NoteBook
Johannas Web-Journal
Licht ins Dunkel (Google Sites)
JoHammonias Video-Tube
