Animal welfare is usually regarded as a noble concept and a milestone of human civilization. Those living in the insulated reality of the Western world may sincerely believe this. However, my experience as a Bulgarian, i.e. resident of one of the poorest countries in Europe, points otherwise. Animal welfare is a bizarre idea with disastrous consequences, especially for poor people. It is destroying decades of progress concerning human rights and well-being.

Now, as Europeans are preparing for Easter, some are angry at the scarcity and high prices of eggs as a result of the European Union's Welfare of Laying Hens Directive. In Bulgaria, the directive banning sale of eggs that have been laid by "unhappy hens" means more than interference with a beloved traditional spring festival. It means that many thousands of Bulgarians will be forced to restrict their egg consumption, which has so far been their main source of animal protein. Possibly the champions of animal happiness in the rich countries of "Old Europe" are blissfully unaware that tens of thousands of EU citizens still suffer from protein malnutrition. Someone must inform them of that fact. And if they know it and still think that the welfare of laying hens is more important than welfare (and health) of human beings, let them please explain this to us, because we fail to understand it.

Another, much more sinister result of animal welfare legislation is the problem with stray dogs. According to current Bulgarian laws, stray dogs must be castrated by a municipality agency and returned to the place they were taken from. Only sick and aggressive animals are to be euthanased. And because nobody can know whether an animal is aggressive or not before it has actually attacked a human, Bulgarian taxpayers and their children find themselves in the position of bio-indicators of dog aggressiveness.

This outrage is excused by EU animal welfare directives allegedly banning large-scale euthanasia and also by some World Health Organization documents recommending "neuter and release" policy towards stray dogs in poor countries.
The result of this humaneness to stray dogs is predictably disastrous. Bulgarian cities and villages are plagued by ever-growing population of stray dogs. Humans have to tip-toe around packs and still suffer regular attacks. The latest victim is Botyo Tachkov, an octogenarian professor who after decades of successful career in the USA returned to spend his last years in his homeland. Two days ago, he was severely attacked by a pack of 30 stray dogs. He is now in hospital in critical condition. His left foot was eaten away, together with 60% of the muscles of his legs and arms. His ears were bitten off and his eyes hemorhaged so badly that he is unlikely to retain any vision.

Both EU and WHO are governed by rich, privileged, spoiled people enjoying smooth lives from cradle to grave. The EU animal welfare directives and the WHO "neuter and release" policy have been invented by people who have never been forced to navigate between packs of stray dogs while going to work, returning home or picking their children from kindergarten. Someone must explain to these policymakers that it is unacceptable to let dogs eat humans alive. The people must drag this arrogant European elite out of its ivory tower. This is a major change and we, the poorest Europeans, need the support of more prominant European nations. Please help us!

Tweet

Although I am a Bulgarian, this post has nothing to do with my country - it is US-centric. "Caylee's law" is a draft that would make it a felony not to report to authorities the death or disappearence of a pre-teenage child within a short time. It is named after Caylee Marie Anthony (2005 - 2008) from Florida who disappeared shortly before her third birthday. Her skeleton, with duct tape on the facial skull, was found six months later in a swamp. Caylee's mother, Casey Anthony, did not report her daughter's disappearance, enjoyed endless parties, then lied to investigators that the child had been kidnapped by a nonexistent nanny. At her trial, the defense claimed that Caylee had drowned accidentally. The jurors acquitted Casey of murder, manslaughter and child abuse - of everything they could, so she will be released within days. The purpose of Caylee's law is to prevent similar cases to be solved this way in the future.

Opponents to the proposed bill argue that laws voted emotionally in the aftermath of high-profile cases are known to have undesired consequences and that such a law, if enforced, will harm innocent people. Of course it will; most laws do it all the time. The real question to me is whether the pros outweigh the cons or, to put it more emotionally, whether America can afford not having such a law after Casey’s “not guilty” verdict. I admit I am biased, because I am myself closely related to a murder victim.

Last year, my brother – a naturalized US citizen – was shot dead as he was sitting in his backyard. This is the first and most likely the only time I am writing about this publicly. His obituary notices and my blog posts devoted to him do not specify the cause of his death. Some family members prefer it that way, wishing to avoid the morbid interest and the stigma associated with murder; because, when the victim is adult, people tend to think that he must have been involved in suspicious affairs. There was nothing suspicious in my brother’s life, but it is difficult to convince people that the victim was not guilty – more difficult, it seems, than to convince jurors that the perpetrator was not guilty. The police finally came to an idea who killed him but could not collect solid evidence, so nobody was charged. I do not blame them. It is easy to be wise in hindsight, but in the decisive first hours when the trace was hot, they could not know what they knew later. And it is useless to bring a suspect to court just to see him acquitted and leaving triumphantly on a white horse. Of course I am very unhappy that my brother received no justice and that his killer is free to harm other innocent people, but that’s life, and I know what “beyond reasonable doubt” means.

However, I fail to understand the meaning of reasonable doubt in Casey Anthony’s case. My head just whorls when I read the opinions of jurors and legal experts that the burden of proof was on prosecution and the prosecution did not produce enough evidence that Casey had killed her daughter. It seems that the jurors demanded the same amount of evidence as if the defendant had been a stranger to the victim. My opinion, however, is that there are some situations when the burden of proof is on you to prove that you are innocent, and this is when you have accepted certain responsibility beforehand. If you are appointed to guard some property or person and you fail to protect the guarded object, you will be expected to prove that you have done your best. And if you become a parent and accept your parental responsibility by bringing your child home, instead of giving her for adoption, you are to prove your innocence if something bad happens to her. Even if she suffers an accident, you still have to answer questions, because young children cannot protect themselves from accidents – this is the duty of their caregivers.

I think that any doubt in Casey Anthony’s guilt was unreasonable because I cannot imagine any reasonable hypothesis (except insanity) under which she could be not guilty. Let’s believe the defense that Caylee drowned accidentally and her panicked grandfather put duct tape on her face to make the accident look like murder (?!) and threw the body into the swamp. Well, wasn’t Casey obliged to protect her 2-year-old daughter from accidental drowning? Recently, a 1-year-old boy named Joseph drowned in the bath while his mother Shannon Johnson was facebooking. Although his death was undisputed accident, the mother was sentenced to 10 years. The judge told her, “(Joseph) was a human being that had a right to life. And you, as his mother, had a responsibility to make sure he got that chance. That was your responsibility.” I think this judge was right. I also think there are deep flaws in a system severely punishing a negligent mother who generally acts as a good citizen while allowing a negligent or (more likely) murderous mother to be rewarded with freedom for her lies.

Let me repeat – I agree with the opponents of Caylee’s law that it will be costly and will harm innocent parents. However, I fear that its absence may spell death for many young children, viewed by their parents as unwanted burden rather than joy. Seeing Casey Anthony acquitted and commentators praising the verdict as a victory for the US justice system, other people may be tempted to emulate her. Things are bad enough as they are. Opponents say Caylee’s murder is a single, isolated case. This not only makes me ask how many cases must happen before something is done – it is simply untrue. Unfortunately, when a child is murdered, parents are the first suspects, and in two-thirds of cases there is no need to look elsewhere.

If you disagree with me, I can only apologize for wasting your time. But if you agree with me and live in the USA, you can consider signing a petition for Caylee’s law. I cannot sign it myself because I am not an American. It is difficult even to explain why I still have so much interest in a country which is no longer home to my dearest people. Perhaps because I believe that in a world where nothing can undo the evils of the past, our only hope can be for a better future, and our deeds are the only way to make it come true.

As the mentally ill Libyan dictator takes over one by one the rebellious cities and massacres their freedom-loving residents, I wonder, will the world let him finish his job and reinstate his reign by large-scale terror? Why not impose what the opposition is asking for - a no-fly zone?

Of course, the rebels also made a mistake. They waited for too long before making their plea. Now, they are learning the hard way that having the moral superiority does not guarantee military success, while having an air force does. Anyway. Now, what is the so-called free world intending to do?

I am disgusted by the hypocrisy of politicians of different countries who keep talking about how UN Security Council must approve the no-fly zone, knowing very well that Russia and China would impose their veto. I am saddened by the Americans' abdication from their (purely moral) duty as the world's sole democratic superpower. And I am outraged by the Europeans' inclination just to watch as a genocide is carried out next door, as they did in Srebrenica years ago.

Why don't we, citizens of democratic countries, press our governments towards military action to save the Libyans?

I know Arevik's story from other Bulgarian bloggers. Briefly, Arevik Shmavonyan is a young Armenian woman. 5 years ago, she met on Skype David Arutyunyan, a young man of Armenian origin living in the city of Montana, Bulgaria. They fell in love and about 3 months ago Arevik came to Bulgaria to unite with her beloved. They could not marry because Bulgarian bureaucracy refused to clear their paperwork, but started living together. After Arevik's 1-month visa expired, she obtained a permission to remain for additional 14 days. However, despite this permission she was sent to the infamous detention facility in the Sofia district of Busmanci, where refugees and candidate immigrants are kept indefinitely without clear reasons (I have blogged about this facility in my earlier post Prison by any other name).
In Busmanci, Arevik found out that she was pregnant. Her pregnancy is problematic, causing cyclic vomiting and severe eating and sleeping problems. Arevik has been in Busmanci already for one month, and for this time has been taken twice to hospital unconscious. Nevertheless, she is still kept there, in a room with about 10 other women and without adequate care. Although Arevik has done nothing wrong, her release is not in sight, and her life is in peril as well as the life of her unborn child.
I appeal to you to try to help Arevik. Svetla Encheva in her April 18 post gives a beautiful model letter citing appropriate quotes from Bulgarian and European legislature, as well as the addresses of the Montana Police Department whose orders have led to Arevik's imprisonment. I shall not translate the letter - knowing the English proficiency of our average law enforcer, I think a short note comprised of simple words would do a better job. In fact, I think that the police will be more impressed by the mere obtaining of messages from abroad written in English than by their text.
Here are two e-mail addresses of the Montana Police Department: rdvrmon@net-surf.net, police@net-surf.net. You can also fill this form. At the top line, you must select "MBP - област Монтана" (Montana Police Department). The lines below are, respectively, for your first name, family name, e-mail, postal address, subject of your message and then comes the field for the text of your message. You are also advised to send a paper letter at the following address:

Comissar Valeri Dimitrov
Police Department - Montana
2 Aleksander Stamboliiski Blvd
BG-3400 Montana
Bulgaria

I also advise you to turn to the Ministry of Interior in the capital Sofia. Its contact form is here. The lines are (from top) for your first name, family name, address, telephone, e-mail and below is the field for the text of the message. The postal address is as follows:

Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov
Ministry of Interior
29, 6th of September Street
BG-1000 Sofia
Bulgaria

In the parts of the world that pretend to be civilized, strict laws are imposed to define who is locked in prison and for how long. Unfortunately, even these countries often practice arbitrary and indefinitely long detention, as long as the building where detainees are kept is not called prison. This includes orphanages, psychiatric wards, "care homes" for the disabled and - this will be my subject now - facilities for "temporary accommodation" of refugees and illegal immigrants. I recently described one such facility in Bulgaria in my blog post "Prison by any other name":
http://mayas-corner.blogspot.com/
2010/02/prison-by-any-other-name.html
I advise you, if you have time and are interested in human rights issues, to follow the link. There, you can watch the videos presenting the documentary "Bulgarian Guantanamo" and read the script. Made by Bulgarian journalist Ivan Kulekov, the documentary presents the so-called Home for temporary accommodation of foreigners in the Busmanci district of Sofia, Bulgaria. My thoughts were echoed by a former inmate who said, "They say it is not a prison, but unfortunately it IS a prison." Of course he is right - prison is every institution that imprisons people, that is, keeps them inside against their will; but calling the prison some other name allows you to lock people for years without the bother to hold a due process.
In fact, some of the prisoners at Busmanci would not qualify for any process. Because, while most inmates are adult men, some are women, and some of these women are mothers imprisoned together with their children. If you watch the first video, you will hear a headscarved woman with a bitter smile say, "No, I don't know how much I will stay here. Why we are here... We have children here. They want to help us, I see. They make a room for the children, they ask "What do you want?", they give clothes now. But I don't know. May be (to) live here (is) nice, the best for our (children?), I don't know." Unlike some of the male prisoners who openly express their anger, this mother does not dare to say much - with her children by her side, she has too much to lose.
Because all kids shown in the videos are toddlers and preschoolers, we do not know whether there are school-age children at Busmanci and, if so, whether any education is provided to them. Also, nobody says whether the little inmates are given the vaccines and well-child pediatrician visits required by law.
I first learned about the Busmanci detention center in 2006 from a newspaper article. However, I naively thought that the problem would be quickly solved after Bulgaria's joining EU in 2007. How wrong I was. It soon became clear that the European Union has no mechanism, and little will, to ensure even the most elementary human rights standards within its borders. It seems to be more concerned with talking about violation of human rights of suspected terrorists in far-away countries. The obsession with Guantanamo, to my opinion, distracts us from cleaning our own backyard and makes the illusionary impression that everything is OK in our backyard. Hence, it creates a smokescreen behind which xenophobic, careless or corrupt buraucrats in a EU member state can lock innocent mothers for years together with their babies.
For those who do not know me, I am also fairly xenophobic, with far-right views on immigration. So if treatment of foreigners makes a person like me outraged, then it really must be outrageous. Where are all the human rights watchdogs of Europe now, as prisoners at Busmanci are on hunger strike?

Posts written mainly to vent one's emotions rarely enjoy warm reception from other people, so self-help books advise to send such posts directly to the Recycle Bin. But this deprives the post of desired effect; so I prefer to publish such texts, and come what may.

I have just read a third - yes, third - post here at the WIP site bashing the torture used by US at Guantanamo. I do not intend to cite the three authors, for I strongly suspect it could be almost anybody. Yes, torture is a bad thing, but I admit that the concern whether Khalid Sheikh Mohammed & Co. have been tortured isn't anywhere among my top 70,000 priorities. My God, I wish to have some people's problems!

If it were a human rights site, then well, it should defend the rights of anybody who nominally belongs to the human species. But why at WIP? The torture victims in question share an ideology including, among other things, a cart blanche for married men to beat their wives, criminalization of female sexuality, depriving divorced mothers of parental rights and blaming rape on victims. So I find proponents of this ideology the finest collection of misogynists currently alive on Earth. Why don't we women leave their advocacy to someone else?

Here, I expect readers to challenge me to state my attitude to torture without any ifs, buts ans waffle talk. In reply, I would ask them to do the same first. Dear opponents, are you really against torture from purely moral and principle viewpoint? Or do you care only when suspected Islamists are tortured by people working for the US government?

Since Bulgaria became EU member in early 2007, it has become impossible to attract outside attention to violations of human and civil rights in this country. In January, two pretrial detainees died at the hands of police within a week, and nobody gave a damn. Apparently people think that EU membership magically guarantees human rights, so torture in an EU member country, even when lethal, should be considered nonexistant for any practical purpose.

Well, forget Bulgaria. How much do you care about torture in other countries such as China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Russia, Tunisia or Zimbabwe, to name just a few? Here my opponents, if they are honest, should say that they are mainly interested in torture done by Americans. Well, be as you like. What about the Judge Rotenberg Center, "a school for special needs students that operates in Canton, Massachusetts... charging $220,000 a year for each student... (which) administers 2-second electric skin shocks to residents using a Graduated Electronic Decelerator (GED), which was invented to administer the skin-shocks by remote control through electrodes worn against the skin" (quote from Wikipedia)? Where is the public outcry demanding this hellhole to be closed? Or perhaps disabled children aren't human enough and torturing them is OK?

One of the reason to reject inhumane treatment is that, if violation of human rights is once allowed for somebody we find exceptionally disgusting, it could then relatively easily be extended to other people. However, defending the human rights of bad people doesn't always have the effect of raising the general standard. The reason is that media time and public attention are limited resources. Allocating them to a specific problem means removing them for other problems. Now, all media and public attention that could be devoted to the torture subject is occupied by the Guantanamo detainees. Respectively, all other victims remain in the dark for indefinite time. So, Pres. Obama, please pardon all people tortured at Guantanamo, release them and give them fine compensations. Hopefully then somebody could find a minute to think of the Judge Rotenberg Center.

I have just read Jessica Mosby's review Over the hills and far away: a family treks across Mongolia to help their autistic son, which is a part of this month's focus on disability issues. It is about a documentary showing "journalist father and professor mother take their young autistic son on a summer vacation to Mongolia... all in an attempt to help cure their son after Western medicine has failed". It prompted me to write this post, going as public with personal issues as I have never done before.

My elder son, after initial 18 months of typical development, lost his first words and became withdrawn and obsessed with symbols. Some experts said he had autism; I read what I could find about the condition, and it was all doom and gloom. As my child after regressing reached a plateau and spent a year without acquiring any visible skill, I was depressed and even considered trying gluten-free-casein-free diet, which other autism parents swear has done wonders with their children.

Happily, one day, as I was searching the Web on autism issues, I found an essay by an autistic man titled "Autism, genius and greatness". Unfortunately, the author has since removed his site, but some of his works survive on other sites, so you can read the essay here. He was arguing that autistic people can make unique and important contribution to society, so it is in the interest of society to stop harassing them and let them be who they are. I read all published works by the author and realized that he considered his autism part of his personality and despite the tremendous difficulties resulting from his condition wouldn't want to be cured even if this was possible, because the cured person would no longer be him. This was a view on autism totally different from everything I had met before. In fact, to my shame, I hadn't specifically looked for opinions by autistic people but only for experts' opinions about autism. I realized that parents, coming across autism (or, in a broader sense, disability) in their child, shouldn't think first and foremost about "cure"; this is in most cases nonexistent and only sends the child a message that he is not acceptable to society and even to his family as he is (and besides, obsession with curing disability serves as excellent excuse for those in power to deny much needed accommodations, implying that the problem is in the disability itself and not in the arrogant discrimination by the non-disabled majority).

I contacted autistic adults and parents of autistic children who were more concerned with helping their children than with curing them. This was of much help to me and brought me out of the depression, which was good for everybody. To other people in this position, I would recommend the blogs of the Autism Hub and also the Yahoo! group AutAdvo (the latter requires registration for access because personal matters are discussed).

Meanwhile, my son after his 3rd birthday slowly started to reconnect to the world and resume speech. I brought him to another expert, an old experienced pediatrician. He said, "Autism is a fashionable diagnosis now. 30 years ago, children like your son were not diagnosed, now they often are. So what if we call autism what your son has? First, it is incurable; second, it is a part of his personality, of who he is. I advise you not to label him at age 3 and not to start "therapies". The problem with most experts is that they have an idea of what is normal. Confronting a marked, unusual personality like your son's, they'll attempt to mold him after their perception of the norm, with the most likely result of crushing him. Be patient and understanding and prepared that your son will always be excentric and not teachers' favorite. Engage areas where he is strong and give him time to catch up in areas where he is weak. After he is interested in letters and numbers, surround him with them. Don't insist on reading tales to him after he isn't interested." Professional experience had made this doctor come to the same ideas as autistic people, although he didn't seem to be on the spectrum himself.

From what I know now, I think my son has hyperlexia - a condition characterized by late talking, early reading, early signs of autism (often with regression) and more typical later development, though the people affected remain "different" inside for life, as I am in fact myself.

My son is now 5, attends a typical kindergarten with an art club which I think is a good substitute of occupational therapy. Sometimes I bring him to a speech therapist.

Though looking after him (and his younger brother) and my work leave me little time and forces for anything else, I am trying to advocate for other autistic and disabled people, for those whose development will never come close to the so-called "norm" and will need accommodations and services for life. With some remorse, I remember a classmate to whom we and the teachers were mean and who (as I think now) must have had attention deficit - hyperactivity disorder.

My advice to other parents of autistic children:

First, don't succumb to depression. This will only make things worse. Many experts and other people will paint things black and try to crush your spirit so that to show their power over you. Run away from such people.

Evaluate your child's sensory issues as precisely as possible. Sometimes, children with hearing and even vision problems are misdiagnosed as autistic.

Don't be obsessed with cure and even treatments. The development of a child depends most on his genetic/biological hardware. Accept him for who he is.

Don't try on your child any alternative treatments. Whatever other parents may say, such treatments are useless at best, harmful and dangerous at worst. They have literally costed the lives of some autistic children. Be careful also with mainstream treatments if they are aimed just at forcing normality down your child's throat. Speech, occupational and physical therapy are good, but if your child resists them, immediately change the therapist.

Build your child's self-esteem. Do not try to dissuade him from his "precocious" or "unusual" special interests. Help him to develop them into possible means of occupation. Unfortunately, society often accepts those who are different only if they are exceptionally good at something useful.

If your child is still non-verbal at age 3 - 3.5, consider teaching him an alternative method of communication, such as spelling, sign language or picture-exchange communication (depending on the child's inclinatons). Never try to neglect his generic communication (pointing, screaming etc.) with the hope that this will "make him speak".

Be very understanding. Your child has tantrums because he cannot communicate his desires to you or because he is in a sensory overload. He has difficulties in self-care skills and toilet training because sensory issues make it difficult for him to perceive his own body. Your anger (though sometimes inevitable) is not expected to help.

Care for the financial status of your family. Try to keep your job, if possible. Run away from every "expert" promising to rescue your child from the abyss of autism by separating you from your money. Even decent therapies sometimes aren't as good as toys and vacations that can be bought with the same money.

Contact other parents in your situation, autistic adults, other disabled people. While your child's interests are of course your first priority, try to be engaged with the rights of all disabled people and all others who are victims of discrimination.

If you like, you may contact me at mayamarkov at gmail dot com.

(Copied from my blog: http://mayas-corner.blogspot.com/2009/01/police-brutally-disperse-peaceful.html)

On Jan. 14, between 2000 and 3000 people attended an anti-government protest in front of the National Assembly (the Bulgarian Parliament) in Sofia. Protesters were students demanding order and safety in the campus, conservationists objecting against a proposed change in the Forest Act allowing easy destruction of forests, farmers demanding the subsidies they are entitled to under EU legislation, and many other people united by their strong disapproval of current Bulgarian government. Among the thousands of peaceful protesters, a group of fewer than 50 young men attacked police and broke some windows, including one of the Parliament building. Police didn't make a serious try to control them.

However, anyone who thought that police wouldn't be active was soon to be proven wrong. Let me quote the BBC report "Protesters fight police in Sofia" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7828709.stm): "When an anonymous bomb threat was received, the Deputy Mayor of Sofia, Yulya Nenkova, issued an order to break up the rally, local media reported. The police then used force to disperse the protesters, who were demanding the resignation of the Socialist-led government."

So much about the brutal and indiscriminate use of police force against a peaceful, allowed protest in a EU member state. The two other foreign media reports about the rally that I managed to find, by AFP (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gybrdsLUh379OpZb9WpSAJlhrkHA) and Reuters (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LE473019.htm), don't mention that turn of the events at all. Among non-government activists, only French conservationist David Morrand expressed support for the protesters.

Bulgaria media, despite giving undue weight to the mild and isolated acts of vandalism that accompanied the rally, did their job better. E.g. Dnevnik paper published a report titled "Provocations and police force destroyed the protest". I am translating its initial part:

"Only an hour after its beginning, the united protest of students, conservationists and farmers was banned by the Municipality of Sofia after a demand by the police. Another hour later police dispersed by force the 2000 or more demonstrators gathered in front of the Parliament and started chasing them over the streets of Sofia."

Participants and eye-witnesses say that protesters were given absolutely no order or warning, that they were beaten indiscriminately, including children, women, elderly people and people already lying on the ground, that police chased people to closed streets and alleys, presumably to prevent them from escaping unhurt. (This description fits the well-known pattern of behaviour that has been shown by Bulgarian police on many earlier occasions.) Questions are asked how can a rally be first allowed and then banned while taking place and why, if there had been indeed a call so conviniently delivering a bomb threat, police dispersed only the protesters and didn't evacuate the Parliament building. Opposition leader Martin Dimitrov claimed that his colleague Borislav Borislavov was injured while trying to protect old ladies.

It isn't quite clear how the arrested protesters were dealt with. The next day (Jan. 15), opposition MP Ivan Kostov announced in the Parliament that police had arrested minors and forced them to sign forms that they didn't want attorneys. The same day, BTV channel reported that detained people were tried using the short procedure and quoted a mother claiming that her son had been arrested in the street without having attended the protest at all.

After this rather impersonal description where I am trying to pose as an amateur reporter, because professional reporters don't seem to be doing their job, let me share my own thoughts.

The Jan. 14 events don't surprise me at all and so don't trouble me too much, because this is the Bulgarian reality as I know it. What is worrying me is the silence in foreign media and the indifference of international (esp. European) public opinion. In small, weak countries like Bulgaria, foreign criticism is a very important regulator of domestic policy. While I am staying aside of the current protests, I have taken part in many similar ones in the past. Generally, these rallies were better reported and the presence of cameras not only helped the achievement of good things in some cases but also served to guarantee, to some extent, the rights and safety of citizens in a country where police is regarded by the authorities mainly as a tool to quash dissent.

The situation has worsened much since Bulgaria joined EU in early 2007. Indeed, some media have done an excellent job to report the outrageous plight of our institutionalized disabled children. However, what Westerners don't seem to realize is that non-disabled, non-institutionalized adults in a formally democratic EU member state also can have very little control over their fate and be stripped of most basic rights. The only aspect of the situation in Bulgaria that is properly reported in European media is the rampant corruption. This makes sense, because this aspect of the Bulgarian situation directly empties the pockets of European taxpayers. However, people who love democracy should also think of the nascent civil society in Bulgaria which is struggling to survive. It needs help and after this help costs so little (just to spread the word), I don't see why it isn't being given.

In conclusion, while I had doubts about the wisdom of the Jan. 14 protest (for reasons that I don't wish to discuss here), it achieved something very important: it proved beyond any reasonable doubt that in Bulgaria the right to public protest, similarly to freedom of speech, exists only until somebody tries to use it.

I had promised to write a post about the situation with water in my country, Bulgaria, in this month. Because today is Dec. 31, I must make an effort to meet my deadline :-).
Because Bulgaria has sufficient water resources and good chlorination system, the population has success to safe drinkwater. Indeed, water companies as "natural monopolies" backed by government try their best to deteriorate people's lives. Even when European investors come to our water companies, they very soon learn the good Bulgarian traditions of corruption and making profits by robbing and harassing poor people. A good example is "Sofiiska voda", the company with British participation that supplies my city Sofia with water. It made its contract with the Municipality of Sofia in a way allowing it to break the contract with impunity while the Municipality owes absurd, astronimic-size payments if it ever decides to terminate the contract. So now the monopolist "Sofiiska voda" makes whatever it wants, e.g. not investing in water pipes and instead forcing the population to pay for the entire quantity of water lost from perforations in the old pipes. Also, I have a friend living in an apartment block with many Gypsies. Because the latter consume much water and don't pay their bills, "Sofiiska voda" chooses the easiest way out and tries to force the correct Bulgarian tenants such as my friend to pay also the huge bills of the Gypsies. As reports the Dnevnik site, in November "Sofiiska voda" was fined by the anti-monopoly authority for stopping the water supply to some apartment buildings where many bills were unpaid (http://www.dnevnik.bg/show/?storyid=584535).
However, there is worse. In many villages and some towns, water supply is characterized by an outrageous phenomenon I call water regime. In 2006, in a blog post titled "Water regime, or how to create and perpetuate misery", I wrote, "A number of cities and many towns and villages in Bulgaria suffer regular stopping of water for hours and days. This is called rezhim na vodata (water regime); I don't know whether the word regime has such a meaning in English, because I have never read about a similar phenomenon in another country! I don't know how many Bulgarians live under water regime - tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions? My city Sofia is spared from it..." (http://mayas-corner.blogspot.com/2006/08/water-regime-or-how-to-create-and.html)
The situation is slowly improving and some towns that used to be under water regime now have constant water supply, e.g. the ancient Danube town of Nikopol. I visited it in a summer more than 10 years ago; the water was stopped for hours every day and the only source of running water during these dry hours was one built by the Romans. Now, I know from a friend that the water supply in Nikopol is constant.
For the purpose of the present post, I searched the Web for information about the current situation with water regime in Bulgaria - how many villages and towns and how many people still suffer from it. I failed to find such information because in Bulgaria water regime isn't considered news but rather the way things are. What I found were articles like one titled "Water regime is threatening half of Bulgaria" from May 14, 2007, the Dnevnik site (http://www.dnevnik.bg/show/?storyid=339743). Let me translate the beginning: "Almost half of Bulgaria is threatened by water regime if the population in these regions doesn't spare the drinkwater and continues to use it for watering the gardens, warned on Monday water experts from the Ministry of Environment." Do you see? Our government officials, instead of blushing and providing apologies for their failure to provide a vital service to their taxpayers and voters, are instead arrogantly blaming the population and threatening! (The same article mentions that "Spain, France and Italy have already introduced water regime". I'll be very thankful to any reader from these countries who provides information about the water regime in her country.)
In the beginning of my 2006 blog post, I described the situation in the village of Rasnik, where my family spends most weekends. This autumn, my husband called men with a water probe and they worked until reaching water at some 25 meters depth. This costed us about EUR 1500; I wonder how the villagers, who are much poorer than us, have managed to dig their water wells. But at least now we'll enjoy constant water supply and don't depend on the mercy of government-backed monopolists.

"Two young, attractive blonde women are duscussing the latest discoveries in quantum physics and molecular biology. Suddenly one of them suggests changing the subject to haircuts, because a man is approaching." This joke underscores a stereotype prevailing in society - that women have lower affinity for science than men.
I don't intend to discuss this stereotype here, so let me assume for simplicity that it corresponds to the truth. Most stereotypes do, and this is why people stick to them. It is quite possible for women to be more suited for the subconscious, emotional reasoning known as intuition than for the more specific type of thinking needed to do or even understand science. When Oprah Winfrey pointed out to anti-science crusader Jenny McCarthy that the latter's opinion about her son's condition contradicted the current scientific consensus, McCarthy pointed to the boy and replied, "He is my science". I have recently engaged in a similar discussion somewhere else in the WIP site, which inspired me to write this post.
It is far from obvious, however, whether we really have a choice about our attitude to science - for the simple reason that if a necessary job must be done and the most suitable people don't agree to do it, then it goes to whoever else is here to take the burden. As mothers and grandmothers, we are the first people to whom children turn with science questions. Later children go to schools and universities that are slowly but steadily evolving into women-only institutions. Laura Clark says it all in the title of her MailOnline article "Goodbye, Mr Chips: Two out of three teachers are women as men shun the classroom". The reason is clear - the chronic underpayment of teachers, who are regarded by society as low-rank servants and cheap babysitters. And once the payment and social status of a particular profession have fallen to the point where massive feminization occurs, the downfall continues in a vicious positive-feedback circle. As said my female friend who is secondary school teacher, "Once a profession is feminized, society will believe every libel against its members - that they are stupid, that they do no useful job, that they don't deserve even the pennies they get; because society, including women, has very low opinion about women and so is keen to believe every evil nonsense, as long as it is said against women."
So, girls, if we value the science and technology and don't want to return back to basics (i.e. to the superstitions and epidemics of the Dark Ages), let's roll up our sleeves - the job of teaching science is ours. And I think that responsibility belongs not only to professional teachers but also to the numerous women with community-related jobs - nurses, aides, journalists, social workers etc., and also to all those who have children and youths in their families. So I think that every woman with such duties (i.e. every woman) should keep the ABC of science in her head and be able to answer immediately the most basic science-related questions, such as, Why sky is blue?
After all, women are disadvantaged also in spatial orientation skills yet they drive their cars in the entire Western world; and I am sure women would even make the bulk of professional drivers if driving was as underpaid as teaching is. So believe in yourself, take the driver seat and don't be afraid!
(The author is university teacher of biology.)

There is an old saying that Russia feels secure only when expanding. After 1990, what was going around came around and the states forcibly included in the Soviet Union gained or regained independence. However, Russian government never lost the desire to mess with their affairs and, when possible, to swallow parts of them. The Russian invasion in Georgia after the attempt of Georgian authorities to regain control over the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is just the latest example.

For the record, I believe in self-determination and think that if people (people, not the mafia) of the regions in question truly want to separate from Georgia and join Russia, this insane wish must be granted. I don't think sending Georgian troops there was a good idea. Pointing guns at people is unlikely to convince them that they are better off under your rule.

However, while agreeing with Russian President Medvedev that "Georgia must allow the provinces to decide whether they want to remain part of Georgia", I'd ask him, what about Chechnya? Why are other states oblived to give their breakaway regions self-determination but Russia may wage genocide until the last person wishing independence is dead?

And don't the above described developments remind anybody of Nazi Germany that went on a "peacekeeping" mission to defend the allegedly mistreated ethnic Germans in Sudetenland and quickly ended up occupying the entire Chechoslovakia?
I first wrote the above text on my blog in mid-August. I am afraid that nobody is thinking of Georgia anymore.