Right now there is a proposed law in Afghan parliament that states, according to Shia law, that women would not be allowed to refuse sex with their husbands. God damn it. It‘s one step forward, two steps back.

Afghanistan has been through a diverse and tumultuous history. However, it was not always so conservative. I refuse to allow Afghanistan to succumb to the propaganda claiming it is a backward nation without some clarifications.

In 1919 Amanullah Khan became king and is considered one of the most proactive, and liberal, Afghan leaders of modern Afghanistan. Amanullah implemented social reform, he emphasized education and announced that women were not allowed to be covered up and were expected to go to school.

In the 1950s, Prime Minister Daud Khan, after combating another conservative king‘s law, also allowed women to go to school and said that he wanted women to have a more public presence. He was also openly against veiling women, but allowed the Afghan people to slowly adjust to social change by allowing, but not enforcing, removal of head scarves. Women were allowed and encouraged to go to both work and school. When I think of 1950s America, I think of Susie Homemaker. At one point in history Afghanistan was more women-friendly than the U.S.

So what went so wrong? What happened to that progressive nation and from where did this women-, love- and kite-hating people emerge?

After the Cold War, England built madressas, religious schools, in Pakistan that were also funded by America. These schools were supplied with weapons and were designed to teach its talibans, or students, to fight the Soviet Union.

After the Communist party of Afghanistan killed Daud Khan, who was president at the time, the taliban (remember: Students) along with the mujahedin, guerilla fighters, fought off the Soviets. Then, after a bloody civil war the group known today as the Taliban gained control of the capital.

As my father says (translated from Farsi): “Today in Afghanistan, the ones who are fighting, the war lords, are the same people who were funded and taught by the Americans and British in the 1980s. And why doesn‘t America analyze Saudi Arabia‘s laws, where women are not even allowed to drive cars? Because they‘re friends.“

The U.S. and England were very involved in Afghanistan when it was strategic for fighting the communists and bringing the Soviet Union down, which directly correlated with the U.S. rise as a world hegemony. After their goals were accomplished, Afghanistan was left under the reign of the Islamic extremists. If not for 9/11 we would have never looked back. But now that the United States has entered the country again, the public is expected to believe that we are once more saving another poor Islamic country from itself. In actuality, the United States and Britain are going back to clean up a mess that they created over 30 years ago.

Islamic extremism was used to fight the Soviets and nobody said a word. Today, America has incredibly close ties to Saudi Arabia, arguably the most extreme of religious fundamentalists in the Middle East. Just like how the early talibans were used to fight the Soviets and gain power for the United States, Saudi Arabia has the oil we need, and regardless of their political and social beliefs, we continue to do business with them. So let‘s drop the bullshit about wanting to save people.

Afghanistan has a history of war, but only because its people refuse to settle for what is not right. A law like the “rape law“ is a byproduct of Cold War games that the Allies played among themselves. Still, and I think the Afghan ambassador to Canada, Omar Samad, puts it best: “We are going to fall down, we are going to make mistakes, and we’re going to move forward as a result.“ Represent.

A year ago SARA KOHGADAI would have feared for her life after writing such a column. I hope Barack appreciates this trust and would e-mail me at sbkohgadai@ucdavis.edu. 

A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports, a public opinion polling company, found that 30 percent of American young adults aged 18 to 29 believe satirical news programs such as “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” are taking the place of traditional news outlets.

Although it is unlikely that such programs alone will run mainstream media outlets out of business, their popularity is worth considering.

Let’s face it: Those who get all their information from “The Daily Show” would most likely not watch the news at all, so at least the programs keep these viewers exposure to current events. Also, some may be inspired to do their own reading to follow-up on the satirical segments on the programs.

Although the programs boast “fake news,” they must get their information from traditional media outlets. Professional journalists must still conduct the interviews and contact the sources that eventually become featured on these fake news shows.

Furthermore, it is important to look at someone like Jon Stewart not as a journalist, but instead as a humorous equivalent to a political commentator or columnist. Stewart puts an entertaining spin on the news – he by no means claims to be “balanced” or completely factual. In this role, Stewart is able to hold people accountable in a way reporters cannot, as one of the hallmarks of the field is to remain neutral.

Though Stewart is obviously biased and tells his audience his opinions, he uses his influence as a public figure to change policy and get people thinking about politics in different ways.

Also, it is important to make the distinction between “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report.” While much of the former’s focus is on current events and political commentary, the latter is mostly just for laughs.

We urge you to get your news from legitimate broadcast and print sources. In the end “The Daily Show,” though humorous, is no replacement for a balanced news article. Nonetheless, a funny spin on the news has caught on, and if it keeps more young Americans informed on current events, so be it.

All right folks, Holy Week is upon us, and I think it’s about time we paid the topic of religion another quick visit.

Over the coming days, Christians from across the globe will be engaged in a weeklong process of prayer, fasting and countless hours of self-reflection during what is considered to be the most important week of the liturgical year. Fortunately, when it’s all over, the pious few can join together with secular many and celebrate the death and resurrection of a man who they believed to be the divine incarnation of God on earth with painted eggs, marshmallow chicks and the ever popular chocolate rabbits.

Regardless of the absurd lengths to which our culture has gone to commercialize this presumably sacred holiday, Holy Week remains an intensely spiritual time for thousands within our society. These people will go above and beyond what is usually expected of them, rearranging their busy schedules to attend services on Holy Thursday, Good Friday and maybe even a midnight reading of the Stations of the Cross. Come Sunday morning, these devout individuals will be joined by the millions of Christians who doll themselves up, arrive an hour early for the service, and sit through an entire Easter mass itching to get home and spend another 364 days without giving God a second thought.

In my mind, the latter half of this phenomenon only begs the following question: Are Holy Week and Easter some of the last relics of religion clung to by our increasingly secular society?

The facts are simple, as human civilization has progressed, advances in scientific and technological fields have continued to superseded, if not completely replace the teachings of religion. In previous columns, I’ve cited the Church’s resistance to Galileo’s heliocentric model and the principles of the Enlightenment as examples of the apparent incompatibility between dogmatic teachings and the needs of modern-day society. While I still consider these examples to be relatively strong, I’m often met with the reply that Christianity, specifically the Catholic Church, has evolved a great deal since this time, and is now much more inline with the secular world. Well … unless of course you’re talking about things actually evolving … aside from the Church, that is.

Lucky for me, the religious world’s most visible personification of religion as a relic, Pope Benedict XVI, recently dropped a media bombshell that essentially summed up my argument in one foolish and misguided statement. During last month’s visit to Africa, specifically regions that have experienced some of the greatest number of causalities due to HIV and AIDS, Benedict was quoted as saying, “You can’t resolve [the epidemic] with the distribution of condoms … On the contrary, it increases the problem.“

How’s that for a glaring inconsistency between dogma and truth? Not only does the Bishop of Rome state the traditional view that the use of condoms is immoral, he actually goes as far to imply that those who use them will likely contract AIDS faster and only make the problem worse.

Such remarks from the 86-year-old Papal father are not simply incorrect, but, as many within the media have already asserted, they’re downright dangerous. With a worldwide audience of impressionable Catholics listening, we have the Church’s patriarch completely disregarding the idea that condoms may be the most effective way to curb the spread of HIV in Africa, while simultaneously cramming the anachronistic belief that abstinence is the only moral way of dealing with issues of sexual health down the collective throat of his congregation.

Despite this new evidence regarding the Church’s place in society, even the most fair-weather believers will likely suit up this Sunday and uphold a tradition that they themselves have a hard time justifying.

I’ve said this before, but just to be safe, I will say it again: I don’t care which god, if any, you choose to worship, just as my religious beliefs should be of no concern to you. I only asked that when faced with such traditions, no matter how insignificant or essential they may be to your faith, you stop and ask, “Why exactly do I believe this?”

JAMES NOONAN wishes everyone a happy somber Holy Week. For all those bothered by this article, please send you favorite Catechism passages explaining why he won’t be attending the rapture to jjnoonan@ucdavis.edu.

In high school, my friends and I had this saying – there are only three types of guys: the taken ones, the ones with the problems and the gay ones. All of which, of course, are unavailable to us gals.

Now our school was no small town girl living in a lonely world. We had over 4,000 students roaming about campus and my friends and I ended up dating a staggering zero percent of them. To help us sleep at night, we chanted, “It’ll all be better in college, it’ll all be better in college. It has to be, shit … it’s got to be!”

Well, it’s college now and it ain’t looking up. I’m going to sound like a broken record here and I don’t know if it’s because it’s my last quarter that has made me suddenly realize this, but damnit, Davis really has a piss-ant amount of dateable guys out there.

First of all, there are the ones with the girlfriends. There you are, exchanging witty banter in class for weeks when all of a sudden, he drops some line out of left field like, “Oh yeah, I love New York, my girlfriend and I just went last summer and …”

Wait up, holy shit … your what? Now it’s not like my whole world is crumbling apart, but still, would’ve been nice to get a little heads up! But then again, what could he have done? Introduced himself as, “Hi my name is Ian, I’m a business major and I have a girlfriend so don’t get your hopes up“? That’s quite presumptuous of him.

Suddenly, it all seems like a waste. Any charming repartee you throw at him makes you think, “Well? What’s the point?” All he’s going to do is go home and tell his girlfriend how this classmate said something funny today.

If you could, you’d ditch the guy, really. It sounds a little harsh but in all honesty, if I meet a great guy and I find out he has a girlfriend, the first thing I’m going to do is bail (and I’m sure his girlfriend wouldn’t mind that either).

And I absolutely hate it when a taken guy asks, “Well, can’t we be friends?” Dude, fuck that. It’s fine if you already have female friends, but I’m not here to be your new friend. Coupled people just can’t make new friends who are single.

Frankly, I got enough male friends and I’m sure he’s a great guy (well I know he’s great because I’m attracted to him and someone’s already bagged the ol‘ turd). But I don’t really feel like spending the next few months hanging out, having a good time and laughing it up with a guy I will never have. And I especially don’t want to either (a) pine over a guy I might actually get sad over or (b) keep working at it and just wait for him to break up with her.

Then there are the guys with the “issues.” Your story with him usually goes something like this: you have a crush on this guy who is single and fantastic, and you’re wondering why no one has snagged him yet, and you go on a couple of dates with him, and then he does something completely retarded which makes you think, “Oh yeah, that’s probably why.“

There’s always that magic moment during dating bliss when the first red flag comes up. You could be at the park with him one day, hand-in-hand, and he runs up and kicks a puppy square in the face. That’s probably when the I-think-we-might-have-a-slight-problem-here thought occurs.

Or it could be as subtle as a guy who just doesn’t STFU about his ex, srsly. From the vacations he had with her, to the point in their relationship when he realized what true love was, or when he casually mentions, “I think the girls I’ll date in the future just have to come to grips with the fact that I’ll probably never love anyone as much as I loved her.” Both these guys just sort of makes you want to nod your head, pat them on the back, tell them “Whelp, good luck to ya!” and make a break for it.

Lastly, there are the guys who bat for the other team. They’re funny, gorgeous, attentive and oh yeah, homosexual. My biggest relationship fear (and all my friends can vouch for this) is that I will fall head-over-heels with a man who will come out of the closet while being with me. He will then leave me and I will be alone, languishing over a guy I was genuinely in love with but now cannot be with because we both share the same interests of boinking other men.

LYNN LA wants you to pardon her French for this column. She usually doesn’t curse so much but she just needed to for this one. To ease her frustrations, e-mail her at ldla@ucfuckingdavis.edu.

Last month the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant to arrest Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Although during his presidency at least 300,000 people have died in the Darfur region in western Sudan, the ICC claimed there was “insufficient evidence“ to prosecute him for genocide.

In retaliation for the ICC’s actions, al-Beshir expelled three local and 13 foreign aid organizations representing 40 percent of the relief workers in Darfur. These organizations had provided medical care, distributed food and supplied fresh water for the countless people displaced by the war.

If these aid organizations are not allowed to return or an alternative source for humanitarian aid is not found soon, then thousands, if not tens of thousands, will die in the coming months.

But this is just the latest installment in the sad saga that is the crisis in Darfur.

The ICC’s arrest warrant seems like a step in the right direction, but without the will to act on it, the warrant is just another example of the international community’s indifference toward African affairs.

It’s difficult to say which is worse; the genocide and widespread humanitarian crisis in Darfur or the fact that so many “civilized” nations idly stand by while thousands of innocent people are either slaughtered or are slowly starved to death.

Now, I don’t mean to imply the best course of action would be to storm Sudan, guns blazing, and replace President al-Beshir with a pro-Western puppet. The situation is much more complicated than that; it is not a Manichean battle of good against evil, but a Hobbesian nightmare of everyone against everyone. Overthrowing Beshir would not guarantee peace or stability in the region.

But the world cannot continue to turn a blind eye to Darfur either. Here are a few things the international community should do to properly address and eventually rectify the tragedy.

First, the United Nations should negotiate an agreement with the Sudanese government, short of withdrawing the ICC’s ruling, to allow foreign aid organizations to return to Darfur. Thousands will perish in the upcoming months if foreign aid does not continue to flow into the war-torn Darfur region. President al-Beshir will no doubt require the ICC to reverse its decision before any agreement can be made, but the United Nations must stand behind the ICC’s ruling and pursue other methods of negotiation.

Second, the Obama administration must act on its promise to pursue a multilateral foreign policy and renew the United States commitment to upholding international law by signing the Rome Statute, which would make the United States a party to the ICC, thus binding the superpower to the court’s decisions.

Third, the United Nations should pressure China to break off its economic relationship with Sudan. China currently receives about 10 percent of its oil from Sudan and is also Sudan’s chief weapon’s supplier. The Sudanese government continues to receive most of the weapons it uses to murder Darfur civilians from China. Cut off from Chinese weaponry, the Sudanese government would find it harder to operate.

Fourth, the United States and the European Union should use their advanced resources to empower the United Nations to do more than just talk and actually act. All hostile parties involved in the Darfur crisis would be much more likely to cooperate if they knew the U.N.‘s words could be effectively acted upon.

Fifth, the United Nations needs to develop a comprehensive strategy for resolving the multiple internal conflicts that fuel the Darfur crisis. Even with al-Beshir behind bars, the many autonomous militias and armed tribal and ethnic groups must eventually be disarmed so that a reformed central government can restore order.

With the humanitarian crisis undoubtedly worsening in the coming months, the international community cannot afford to continue do nothing. Too many innocent people have already died and if any nation hopes to call itself a “civilized society“, then it must always act to fight injustice and uphold human dignity.

Edmund Burke said it best: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.“

MIKE HOWER urges you to learn more about the ongoing crisis in Darfur by visiting crisisgroup.org. Tell him what you think needs to be done at mahower@ucdavis.edu.