GOOD NEWS:

My dear Americans, it seems El Presidente is an "avid reader". How wonderful. What a relief. Not only that, but it seems he is also a history buff (just read the article, will you?)...

Does any of his reading include a world atlas (a little difficult to be a history buff without some basic geography knowledge, no?), or a dictionary, or just plain good old literature though? He could certainly use it. Or a good grammar/syntax book to help him with verbs and pronouns agreement...? You know, something substantial. Something with lots of words, hopefully. Not only illustrations and colorful charts.

Sorry - couldn't resist.

AND IT GOES ON!!

After all my verbosity on the technological reality of our world and iPods etc, I came across this article on the New York Times about the man who won a long battle against Sony over the patent of the Walkman, iPod's grandpa. The man, Andreas Pavel, is my compatriot...

How incredible. As I read the article, I was stunned by the naïveté of it all. Basically, he likes music, and he simply wanted to have a device that would allow him to take it with him wherever he went.

And the rest is history, I suppose.

iPod WORLD

‘Tis the season. I feel lyrical. So the following text is a direct result of this feeling.

Today on the bus it suddenly caught my eye. We are all brought together, rolled into one, thanks to the advent of the… iPod.

I kid you not. Nowadays, everybody has one. They have it in their pockets, purses, armbands, belts, connected to their computers, to their stereos, in their cars – everywhere. The iPod is all-pervasive, and it works its magic across creed, age, color, nationality, even socio-economic boundaries. Unbelievable. Who would have thought that a tiny little device, androgynous almost in shape and color, and costly, would be all that it is? It symbolizes so many things, it allows for inferences and assumptions and parallels – the beauty of uniformity.

Before any of you out there start thinking that I lost my mind (for real this time) and that this is, purely and simply, an ode to the iPod, let me establish a few things.

Firstly, I am the proud owner of an iPod. Yes, that’s right. After years of living in denial and refusing to succumb to Apple’s magnificent marketing campaign, I finally gave in and got myself a Nano. My love of music, coupled with the increasingly bothersome aspects of international flights (in my case, about 15, 16 hours including layover), recently did the trick. And it worked. I had an excellent time when I flew to Brazil to see my parents this last Thanksgiving, and suddenly the $200+ I paid for the little gadget seemed… nothing (that’s when you know you’ve lost it, by the way).

Secondly, that being said – it is an absurd proposition. Same as with cell phones, by the way. The fact that iPods (and cell phones) are becoming part of our lives in such intrinsic ways denotes maybe a lack of culture, I should say. At the very least, a corruption of culture.

See, this is more than passing fashion, more than a trend. This is serious. At work, those few who have opted for mp3 players other than the Apple progeny have a list of explanations for their decision. We laugh (they as well), because no matter how hard they try, they always sound as if they were defending some radical premise (think Copernicus' heliocentric theory back in the day etc) that no one else can even begin to understand.

The truth is, slowly but surely iPods became the norm. And then, exactly as with cell phones, once they became the norm new ways were created so that they could be personalized. So there you go – first stage, homogenize. Second stage, individualize. Colorful covers, clips, special headphones etc – it is a whole parallel universe that only those who belong to the seemingly exclusive iPod club (but in fact, one which only admittance requirement is the price of the device itself) can experience… Isn’t it interesting? I find it fascinating.

And then the sense of togetherness – that happens when you see a 15-year-old with his iPod on his skateboard on one side of the street, while a 55-year-old is taking his morning walk on the other side. Just think – the 15-year-old grew up in a world of PCs and knows his way around them. The same can hardly be said about the majority of the older population. It is truly remarkable.

This is the world now: a world where language, family roots, tradition, education, religion and ethnicity are increasingly less determinant, increasingly less effective in bringing people together (or apart, depending on the perspective). Access to technology, however, is key. It creates insiders and outsiders (democracy for some, exclusion for others), and is quickly becoming the main shaping factor in our lives.

Well, this is me being lyrical during the holiday season...

NO SURPRISE HERE

I believe this one by El Presidente is a fair complement to the literacy topic:

"I mean, I read the newspaper. I mean, I can tell you what the headlines are. I must confess, if I think the story is, like, not a fair appraisal, I'll move on. But I know what the story's about." —Philadelphia, Dec. 12, 2005

Gotta love the man!!

THE BEST GIFT THIS HOLIDAY SEASON...

...Was, by far, the ruling of the Dover, PA judge against the inclusion of intelligent design in high school biology courses. In his words - intelligent design is unconstitutional because it advances a "particular version of Christianity."

Those who have seen me lose my temper countless times over this insanity of a debate - as I see it, a complete "non-debate" - know that I am extremely happy with the outcome. This decision discredits intelligent design advocates at the same time it promotes the merits of science education which is independent of religious beliefs.

Judge John E. Jones III (coincidentally, a Republican appointed by El Presidente) went straight to the point: by tracing intelligent design's roots to Christian fundamentalism, he made it clear that he was not convinced by the movement's efforts to dissociate itself from creationism - its, how shall we put it, less marketable predecessor...

As a side note: back in Brazil this last time, I had the opportunity to have a very interesting, long conversation with someone I admire very much - a much respected journalist, a senior editor at the biggest Brazilian newspaper. A friend of the family; a man of great intellect, and even greater heart. And, as I've always known, deeply religious - Roman Catholic - as well.

I told him about the intelligent design debate and my disgust with the notion that the Christian fundamentalists are targeting children and teenagers in their desire to reshape the country's culture and politics. He was appalled. Although he himself believes in the existence of a designer (he cited St. Thomas Aquinas, who back in the 1200s was probably the first advocate of intelligent design when he concluded that because nature was too complex, it must be the work of a designer), he also believes that religion is a personal and private thing, with no place in science classes of any kind.

I wish the teachers, professors and scientists behind intelligent design displayed the same sense and wisdom as this friend of mine. It would save them the unnecessary shame of this defeat and preserve their careers. It would save me a lot of angst too...

LITERALLY ILLITERATE??

The New York Times today published an article about the significant decline of literacy among college graduates over the past 10 years. How depressing is that?

First thing that comes to mind is, how is that at all possible - college graduates, illiterate? And what exactly does that mean? Well, the report - put together by the Department of Education based on the outcome of their National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) - gauges the ability of those graduates to read "lengthy, complex English texts and draw complicated inferences".

For the sake of fairness, I decided to check this test on my own. Who knows, maybe they are using something out of James Joyce for text analysis and that could explain why the average college graduate could not really excel at reading comprehension (although I would love them to, in my obvious naïveté). So here is what I found: a sample question from the 1992 NAAL test which basically asked those tested to identify three food sources, named in the text below, that contain vitamin E:

"Vitamin E (tocopherol): helps protect red blood cells. May aid the circulatory system and counteract the aging process. Best sources: wheat germ, whole grains, eggs, peanuts, organ meats, margarine, vegetable oils, green leafy vegetables..."

Very sad indeed that a fairly high percentage of college graduates in this country were not be able to get that one right...

But can't say that I am surprised - everyday at work and elsewhere I am confronted with the sheer inability of people to spell, form accurate sentences, talk, comprehend text and follow conversation of any variety. And I wonder if the problem goes deeper than literacy itself: it seems to me that what's lacking here is some basic grasp of logical reasoning and interest in learning and knowledge in general. After all, it is a tough competition - between TV reality shows, video games and MTV, young Americans have little time for reading. And reading is the basis for literacy.

And yet another scary thought: college graduates with poor-to-average literacy becoming teachers one day, leading more young people into the vicious cycle of mediocrity.

The article also points out that a very harsh decline was observed for Hispanics, which could be attributed to the shift in immigration patterns during the last decade. It appears that these immigrants are arriving at a later age than the group previously tested, and since their numbers grew so much over the years, they also remain enclosed in Spanish-speaking areas and speak English only when absolutely necessary.

In contrast, the black population seems to be emerging from its underdog status in educational terms, and Asians also showed significant improvement in their literacy levels. However, Hispanics face different obstacles - for starters, language and cultural barrier, and legality issues. And unless the Hispanic community, the Deparment of Education and the American government work together to address these issues and more, chances are literacy among college graduates in another 10 years will be even lower than it is right now.

I AM BACK

Yes - the vacation was soooo good. Now I need to update this blog, otherwise I will lose the few visitors I have...

More to come - it's a promise.

NOT ALL IS LOST IN KANSAS

Yes, thankfully. It seems we shouldn´t give in to stereotypes just yet - the University of Kansas has decided to include intelligent design in a course that explores religious mythologies. After all, says department chair Paul Mirecki, both intelligent design and creationism are mythologies - not science.

Ah the relief. This is great news. And I sincerely believe that until these creationists can come up with a scientific basis for their claims (if that is at all possible), this is as legit as they should ever be able to get in terms of academia.

Coming from Kansas, this means a lot; one does not need to look too far back to see the bad choices that state´s school board has made in terms of science education and its approach to intelligent design. It is a wonderful thing to see that not all is lost in Kansas.

Not surprisingly, the director of the Intelligent Design Network (John Calvert) in the area has already proclaimed that Mirecki will, because of his decision, go down in history as a "laughingstock". In a completely incoherent statement, Calvert said that this is just one more example of how proponents of intelligent design are constantly being labeled as religious nuts.

Uh, excuse me - are they not? And someone should give Calvert and his acolytes a mirror, since they apparently lack the insight to realize that they have already become the laughingstock of much of the nation (the good part of the nation, that is).

I applaud the University of Kansas for tackling the subject as it is: an oddity, a ludicrous and religiously tainted attempt at defining the world - our world. This way, the absurdity of intelligent design - a consequence of the blandness and cultural void currenly plaguing America - will not go unnoticed. Hopefully change will come through awareness; hopefully these students, after being exposed to an intelligent discussion over the not-so-intelligent intelligent design and such, will realize that these religious mythologies embody all that is wrong and backwards in this country. Hopefully.

IRVING, TRUE TO FORM

So David Irving was arrested once again - this time in Austria, a country he is actually not even allowed to visit. This man is beyond help - doesn't he see that he is on the wrong track? Can't say I am surprised. I saw the news a couple of days ago but haven't really found the time to dive into it. No doubt this deserves at least a mention in the blog, no?

More on that and other things later.... After I finish packing for my trip to Brazil, that is!!!

JESUS, IRS, PAT ROBERTSON

Here in LA, the All Saints Church of Pasadena, known for its liberal views and effective community involvement, is under threat of losing its nonprofit status due to a sermon by its former rector of 28 years, Rev. Dr. George Regas.

In the sermon, titled “If Jesus Debated Sen. Kerry and President Bush”, the reverend portrayed an imaginary meeting between the then presidential candidates and Jesus. The latter was critical of the war on Iraq and tax cuts that in his opinion benefited only the wealthy. Based on that sermon, the IRS is claiming the church is political and therefore can not be considered tax exempt.

It begs the question – what about those religious institutions that do back the war on Iraq and the Bush administration? Someone should look into that. For instance, how about examining Pat Robertson’s call for dissolution of the separation between Church and State – and using his religious organization’s influence and funds to advance it?

IGNORANCE MUST BE BLISS

In my view, the mere existence of a debate on intelligent design and evolution is indicative that these are cultural and social dark times for the United States.

A few nights ago, a friend and I were having dinner in Koreatown here in Los Angeles and the conversation drifted to the intelligent design controversy. This friend is not as – how shall I put it – frustrated as I am about the Pennsylvania trial now unfolding in Dover. In other words, I am more passionate about it than nearly everyone else in my circle of friends. Invariably, they give me these sweetly amused looks as I launch into these discussions; I confess I get considerably agitated when I mull over the lunacy of the argument. The whole thing is idiotic.

But what came up that dinner is that another acquaintance of ours, a beautiful, bright, kind young woman, does not believe in evolution. Shocked by the realization that I actually know someone who plainly denies evolution, I immediately asked: “what do you mean she doesn’t believe in evolution?” She doesn’t, as simple as that. As if evolution were something to be believed in, as if we were talking here about the afterlife, ghosts or different forms of life in other planets. That is, conjectures, or even fantasies - even though some of us would love them to be real, to be factual. Evolution, on the other hand, is reaffirmed almost everyday through scientific proofs of all kinds, big and small.

In any case, this beautiful, bright and kind acquaintance got a major boost this week: the Kansas School Board approved a curriculum that includes concepts other than natural explanations on the origin of life. In science classes. Not philosophy, not religion, not politics – science. The board voted 6-4; and those who supported the decision are fairly open about their religious beliefs, saying that evolution is actually offensive to Christianity.

Sadly, Kansas is not alone – states like Ohio and West Virginia have also adopted the teaching of intelligent design in science classes.

The Pennsylvania trial is of special interest because the Dover board was the first in the United States to order the teaching of intelligent design. Pennsylvania is also Michael Behe’s backyard. Behe, a biochemist and Lehigh University professor, was one of the trial’s main witnesses for intelligent design. It is interesting to note that he once supported evolution to the core; according to him, over time he came across evidence that there are biochemical systems that are “irreducibly complex” and therefore must have been created by an intelligent designer.

Let’s examine this last part – an irreducibly complex system? I see; whenever we don’t really understand something, we should just pin it down on the Lord. Must be nice. I mean, how comforting. And please note the verb choice - to create. Out of nothing.

Behe and other pro-intelligent design scientists are sponsored in big part by the Discovery Institute (he is a senior fellow with the institute, of course). No news here, I suppose. I have already made my distaste for the Discovery Institute known here in the blog. So now I am doing it again.

The good news for us "heretics" is that all the members currently on the Dover, PA board were defeated by opponents who are evolutionists. That is really wonderful news, and it gives me hope that the intelligent design movement will eventually lose its force. It also shows that even though only 11 parents are suing the Dover board for its inclusion of intelligent design in the science curriculum, there are many more supporting them outside the courtroom.

All this, however, means absolutely nothing to clowns such as Pat Robertson. The man, who back in the late nineties issued a similar warning to Florida residents when they allowed homosexual organizations to display the rainbow flag, redirected his wrath against Dover this time. Accusing them of voting god out by not reelecting the pro-intelligent design school board, he added: “if there’s a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God.”

See what I mean when I say dark times?

SARAMAGO UNDONE

The other day, Andrew showed me this article (I couldn't find a complete copy online, but I will) by Jose Saramago from a few years past (2002). Originally published in the reputable Spanish daily El Pais, it was reprinted in this book he has been reading and he shared it with me because I have always been a huge fan of Saramago’s work. He is, in my opinion, one of the best Portuguese writers ever. I love his books.

But this article… It has taken me a while to react because the words angered me so much. And even though I had heard about Saramago's polemic opinions on Israel and the Palestinian conflict, I went on revering him and his work because art is art. That is what I told myself.

But back to the article - basically, he draws a parallel between the biblical confrontation of David and Goliath and the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. Mocking the traditional depiction of David as a young but clever man and Goliath as an incompetent giant, he instead claims that David was able to beat Goliath only because he had the technology to do so, the weaponry – a sling.

He characterizes David as blonde and evil and Goliath as non-blonde and oppressed - and then promptly correlates blonde to Israelis and non-blonde to Palestinians. In other words, Saramago aryanizes and nazifies David (the Jews) and judaizes Goliath (the Palestinians) – isn’t it perverse? Not to mention that to my knowledge, David was red-haired at best. After all, David was the son of Ruth, a Moabite convert, and Moabites were hardly blonde. Goliath, however, was a Philistine, and Philistines were of Greek descent – maybe he was the blonde one…

Another interesting point is the fact that David is one of the prophets of Islam - Dawud, to whom the Psalms were revealed by Allah. As in Judaism, he is said to have killed Goliath with a slingshot; Muslims reject the notion that David was fallible at all. Christianity also has a special place for David; in a way, his plight is compared with that of Jesus, and he symbolizes dependence upon God, the ability to praise and the need to repent. Come to think of it, Judaism is way more critical and much less forgiving of David than any other religion: he's seen as a tragic man who committed several mistakes throughout his life, even though he is one of the greatest heroes of the Old Testament.

It seems Saramago should have done better religious research in order to support his assertions.

On and on, he denounces Israel as a racist state and the whole notion of Jews as the "Chosen People" as absurd. He goes from anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism and back, and he doesn’t seem to ponder much on neither.

I am disappointed; while I was never a supporter of the Israeli occupation, I’ve always been able to see the other side of the story – national security being a big part of it. Saramago bypasses Israeli need for security; quite on the contrary, he perceives Israelis (read Jews) as greedy invaders who are arrogant and cruel simply because they are the Chosen People. In short, he simplified Israeli and Jewish history (and Palestinian), twisted it a few notches and pronto: a whole new analysis for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a whole new interpretation of Jewish history.

It is obvious that not only Saramago has a problem with Israeli sovereignty, politics and what not, but he also has contempt for Judaism in general. This is a Nobel Prize winner here; a lyrical writer, one of the best. One of my favorites.

He refers to Judaism as a religion of monstrous and racist doctrines. Interestingly enough: in the name of Catholicism and Christianity, atrocious and horrendous crimes were committed throughout the history of the world. The Crusades, the Inquisition, who needs more? And yet, these two religions preach brotherly love and redemption for all mankind. On the concept of Chosen People – yes, this is of course questionable in every way. But given the fact that Jesus called himself the son of God and Catholics and Christians are all the children of God, then this is all relative; one could even say, this is all literature... In fact, it makes as little sense for Jews to perceive themselves as the Chosen People as it does for Catholics and Christians to perceive themselves as the children of God.

I feel personally betrayed by Saramago. I have “preached” about him and his work to virtually everyone I know; The Tale of the Unknown Island still stands by my bed, that precious little book.

The truth is, I’ll have to rethink his work from now on. Sadly, it will most likely never be the same for me. I don't really see how I can rationalize his hatred and, therefore, forgive him - let alone respect him.

READING THE PAPERS LATELY...

...I got this strange feeling that the world we live in is surreal. It's all a collection of completely unlikely, disconnected episodes; a patchwork of sorts.

Examples? Antiwar sermons prompting IRS warnings; the riots in France; the thousands of immigrants living in California who are now nationless, as in former USSR citizens (and therefore can't go/be deported back to wherever they came from); the JDL activist Earl Krugel, slain in prison by a white supremacist; President Chavez and his demonization of the United States; Michael Behe, his 7 kids (who are home-schooled by his wife) and intelligent design; anti-Bush sentiments across South America; and the list goes on and on.

A PRESIDENT'S JUSTICE

I’ve been wanting to write about Judge Alito. I’ve been waiting for the dust to settle, for the articles to start trickling in. And they have slowed down a little. It seems the press has dug out all the relevant points about this nominee.

For me, things are pretty clear. Judge Alito is undeniably experienced; he’s got the right academic credentials; he is a man, and he doesn’t come across as a Bush loyalist. He is intelligent, hard-working, well-educated, impersonal, formal and unsympathetic. His is a conservative nature, and to the reports that he appears to be no ideologue, I ask: what does it matter? Ideology, nature? The end result is the same. I say Alito would very likely let his conservative nature/ideology be his guide while in the Supreme Court.

He has opposed abortion in several occasions. There’s a remarkably extensive paper trail indicating that this nominee is not pro-choice - quite the contrary. Even his mother has said that of course he is against abortion.

If confirmed, Alito will be one more Catholic in the Supreme Court - a potentially tremendous boost to Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy (the latter though was part of the 5-4 majority that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade in 1992). It is interesting to note that although Catholics only make about 24% of the United States population, the confirmation of Alito would bring the percentage of Catholic justices in this Supreme Court to 56%.

Since El Presidente’s second term is more and more fragile with each passing day, Alito’s nomination saved some face for him. Instead of tacking the real issues behind his copious failures, El Presidente hid once again behind the conservatives who put him in the White House. El Presidente’s legacy? Intelligent design, Iraq, the ascension of Christian conservatives, the handling of Katrina’s aftermath, the Plame Affair…

With a president like this, who needs enemies? With justices like these... ?

YAHRZEIT FOR RABIN

Itzhak Rabin was murdered exactly 10 years ago today in Tel Aviv. I still remember waking up to the news back in the San Fernando Valley, where I used to live. The shock, the tears, the sense of loss. Hard to describe.

Israel is a country of cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces... Everyone is related somehow, and even if not, there is a sense of real connection. Or better yet, there was. The Israel of my early 20s is no more. It vanished, it evolved, it recoiled; it's changed, and a lot. Something happened to it. Rabin's peace politics - albeit hesitant and elusive at times - and his brutal murder during that fateful peace rally are no doubt big factors in the change.

Under Rabin, Israelis dared to hope. Hope for peace, for closure, for life. The fact that Rabin was killed by one of their own is all the more upsetting, and it revealed a rift in Israeli society that many outsiders thought impossible.

The years since then have been very difficult for Israel and for the Middle East in general. But still, Rabin's killer didn't succeed in turning back time. Israelis want peace; they need it, they understand peace is the only long-term solution. They also understand, for the most part, that peace will not be achieved without a series of concessions. All the same, Palestinians have themselves began a new chapter after Arafat died.

It is unfortunate Rabin is not among us today. However, a portion of his legacy still lives on - in the most unlikely of heirs, Ariel Sharon. Given the fact that before that Sharon spent the most part of his political career virulently opposing land concessions of any kind, his current commitment - and here in the tradition of his mentor, also elusive - to the peace process signals that Israelis are, in truth, exhausted.

SPECIAL ELECTIONS

Californians are getting ready to cast their vote in the upcoming special elections next week. Even though I am not a born-and-raised Californian, I too was hoping to be able to participate. That is, until I read the fine print which separates me from first-class residents - those Californians holding U.S. citizenships.

See, I have a green card. When I got it, I was directed to this website that explains, among other things, rights and responsibilities of permanent residents. One of my rights is the right to vote. According to the text, I can vote in state and local elections. Except that the elections have to be open to non-U.S. citizens.

Well, the elections next week are for U.S. citizens alone. And pretty much any relevant election here in California is for U.S. citizens alone. Never mind that California could still be dubbed the Promised Land by some and is still brimming with immigrants from every corner of the world. Never mind that a person who has a green card is in most cases seeking naturalization as well - and therefore paying taxes dutifully - taxes which in turn fund these propositions and more. Never mind.

I was really looking forward to showing my distaste for Proposition 73 on November 8. I guess that will have to wait. I just hope that the nice people of California - the American ones, that is - will have the good sense of voting against this proposition. And others as well.

FRIENDS OR FOES?

... and if El Presidente did not learn the lesson, his friends certainly did!

CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS

These past few days I have been closely watching the news - it's been fun! There's so much happening, and it is all so interesting... Even if the outcome of the Miers affair is hardly surprising.

I mean, after Charles Krauthammer wrote that piece suggesting the easy way out, it became clear that no one - absolutely no one - took El Presidente's sorry choice of a Supreme Court nominee seriously. Krauthammer nailed it, his piece is brilliant in its simplicity and sincerity.

In any case, El Presidente managed to get something right - although I seriously doubt he personally chose Bernanke. That would require a lot of concentration, homework, savvy etc. Bernanke is, without a doubt, perfectly qualified for the job (which paradoxically does not mean he will necessarily do a good job); I guess El Presidente is not so reckless when it comes to the economy - now that's an area where we might be relatively free of the dangers of cronyism!

So the question now is, inevitably, what/who is next on the Supreme Court novella. The major newspapers of the nation compiled/published, as expected, lists of likely candidates and their qualifications - just as they did before Miers's and Roberts's nominations. However, nowhere in the lists does one read about how religion is an important part of the candidate's life, or how friendly a candidate is with El Presidente.

Here is a suggestion - can anyone send a copy of one such list to the White House? That might help. We could also burn El Presidente's little address book and all birthday cards sent to him over the past two - no, make it three decades; that way, he won't get any ideas as to which overly zealous friend he should pick this time.

OKAY: TWO MORE

And....

GET SMARTER, PEOPLE!

THIS CARTOONIST SAW MY RECURRING NIGHTMARE....

.... And that's the result!

QUITE A LEGACY

PROM BAN

I read earlier in the week about a Catholic high school principal and his ban of the prom festivities for this year’s seniors. I thought the argument used was especially interesting – in the principal’s words, the main problem is the “flaunting of affluence”. Needless to say, the drugs, sex and alcohol are also of concern. But he gave priority to the financial side of it, citing the now-common practice of renting houses for after-prom parties that could go around $20,000 a night.

I went to high school in Brazil, so the prom (which we only called graduation party, if anything) was not such a big deal. I wasn’t even planning on going, but my parents and a few friends convinced me last minute – seriously, I remember I had to track someone down two hours before the party for tickets to the catering hall and such.

It was an okay event, with dancing, and I don’t particularly remember the drinking – but then again, in my home country we have a different approach to alcohol; I daresay it never occupied our thoughts that much. At the end of the night, some of us got in cabs and went home, others were picked up by parents and so forth. There was no drama. We were 17, 18 for the most part.

When I came to the US in my early twenties, I was introduced to a whole new world of “dances” and “dates”; things like homecoming, limos, frat houses and keg parties… I remember being surprised at how much people my age, or younger than me, drank. Or better yet, how drunk they could and would get, given the opportunity. Everything seemed to revolve around alcohol, even more than sex. It took me a while to grasp it all. This wasn’t common in Brazil (where legal drinking age is 18), and same for Israel, where I also lived (despite the fact that every culture probably has its own “drug” of choice).

I am not a parent, but I can’t say I completely disagree with the refusal of Kellenberg Memorial High School to condone the prom – or what it involves. But on the other hand, it seems futile, given the fact that the students’ parents are coming together to plan private prom parties as I am writing this here.

It seems to me that younger people (ok, I thought that young people would make me sound too old, I’m only 33!) in the United States believe that they can only have fun when they are stupidly inebriated, and that all excesses are allowed during prom night, Halloween, St. Patrick’s etc. Maybe it is not a cliché – maybe they are truly repressed, and/or bored. And as American culture goes (unfortunately), maybe they think that money can do away with both their boredom and repression by financing a little fun.

A RESUMÉ OF THE TIMES

Let’s just group together the recent developments in the Miers nomination, shall we?

1. She is opposed to abortion (I guess that’s pretty clear: I don't really buy the argument that even if she once was, she might not be anymore);

2. She only tried about 8 cases to a verdict in a courtroom (so much for experience);

3. According to El Presidente, "part of Harriet Mier's life is her religion" and that's one of the reasons he nominated her (gee, thanks – we're relieved);

4. Another reason for her nomination is her devotion to El Presidente (no comment, no need);

5. She has demonstrated a considerable talent in being…vague (as her explanation on her tenure as White House counsel shows);

6. She has also demonstrated considerable talent in being inconsistent (that was clear when she apparently said one thing to Sen. Specter, then later claimed to have said something else; Specter, gentleman that he is, decided to accept her version of events in order to be fair);

7. And she is not very good in keeping track of paperwork (as in falling behind on her bar dues and therefore having her license to practice law in DC suspended).

I’d say this is an admirable resumé. All that's needed is a header, a footer and a few bullet points. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner. And sure, let’s give her a nice, fluffy, big (and pink?) prize – but not a Supreme Court seat.

YOU KNOW WHO THIS IS...

"I think it's important to bring somebody from outside the system, the judicial system, somebody that hasn't been on the bench and, therefore, there's not a lot of opinions for people to look at." — On the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, Washington, D.C., October 4, 2005

He he he... Can't live with him, can't live without him.

QADDAFI'S LAW (OR LACK OF)

I came across the most appalling news yesterday – a group of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor who have received the death sentence in Libya (for allegedly contaminating several hundred babies with the AIDS virus at a Benghazi hospital) will have their final appeal on November 15, 2005.

The situation has been dragging over a few years. Apparently, the Libyan government believes that the middle-aged ladies are Mossad (and CIA) spies and that they deliberately set out to infect all these children with the objective of undermining national security... During the first trial in 2002, the Bulgarian government wasn’t even notified. In addition to that, the Libyan officers working on the case admitted to using torture to extract confessions from the accused.

Even though this initial trial ended up in the medics’ favor, later ones did not. At a subsequent trial, renowned French AIDS researcher Luc Montagnier was brought in to testify about his findings on the situation; he declared that the children’s contamination was due to poor medical care and facilities. Still, the group was sentenced to death by firing squad. The case now is pending judgment by the Libyan Supreme Court.

The story is borderline ludicrous – the nurses come from different places in Bulgaria, some of them quite rural; it is hard to imagine that the Mossad would be interested in recruiting them. Not only that – are the Libyan authorities implying that the Palestinian doctor, who has lived in Libya with his family since 1967, is a Mossad agent as well?

Given Montagnier’s report on the poor sanitary conditions of the hospital, the Libyan government seems to be engaging in a bogus argument. Something reminiscent of the European tales of Jews sucking the blood out of infants, or being responsible for the Black Plague and so forth.

Another bizarre twist in the case – the Libyans suggested that the Bulgarian government pay $10 million to each of the 420 children infected; the basis for the suggestion would be the reparations the Libyan government had to pay to the families to the victims of the more than 200 people killed in Lockerbie by terrorists sponsored by Libya…

While all this goes on, the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor are being held in conditions that are most surely terrible; and children continue to be infected with the AIDS virus in the Benghazi hospital where the group worked (even though they are not there anymore), just as they were infected prior to the group’s arrival.

If the death sentence is really carried out in this case, it will be yet another testament to Qaddafi’s legendary blatant disregard for human life. I guess that even though the dictator dramatically renounced terrorism and nuclear weaponry in 2003, he forgot to renounce human rights abuses and violations, bigotry and hatred. Or maybe he just chose not to.

LEGALLY BLONDE REALLY GOES TO WASHINGTON!!

I have been fighting my especially nasty brand of flu with the usual medications and a lot of idle time. Now I am reemerging back into the world and the newspapers seem alive – with Harriet Miers & Co., there’s never a dull moment. It is good to be back.

I had a dream – I did, really – I dreamt Miers was wearing a super pink suit and holding a thick, glittery pink pen, smiling a pink smile as well… Those of you who believe I've lost it this time, the New York Times today revealed that I am not that disturbed yet – apparently, this walking Texan version of Legally Blonde called El Presidente “the best governor ever”, “cool” and also said that the presidential couple is “great”…

Okay – maybe she likes pink. But this whole nomination is absolutely surreal. We have all been bombarded with so many articles, such as the ones letting us know that she is given to lunching with her girlfriends and that she loves hot bubble baths (inevitably prompting the question, who cares?). And now even El Presidente’s consort has taken to supporting her hubby’s choice – I mean, it took me five seconds to register that someone actually is married to El Presidente… And that she has an opinion! Can anyone tell me when was it that Mrs. Bush had an opinion about anything directly related to anything?

But back to Legally Blonde, I am always confused when I read things like “she has been an opponent of abortion for 25 years but would decide cases based on legal merits, not personal views.” Is that really possible? I say it is impossible to separate a person from his/her views. To assume that someone would be capable to make decisions and form judgments of any kind independently of personal viewpoints is naïve, to say the least. It is what accounts for our individuality, for our morality, for everything that makes us who we are.

So the argument then is that even though Legally Blonde has personally opposed abortion for so long (she is apparently a born-again evangelical Christian since the late 70s), this personal opposition would not influence her if and when presented with a revision of Roe v. Wade or a restriction on abortion rights… Right.

I know many say that Roe v. Wade is safe and so on, but I still worry over it. Recent developments under El Presidente have been consistent in showing that this administration (or a large portion of it) is on a Christian conservative crusade, and yes, I am aware that I may sound like your average neighborhood conspiracy theorist…

For once, I would like to see a nominee who is openly pro-choice and for individual rights; a nominee whose judgment is not thwarted by religious views; a nominee who is not chosen due to a mixture of cronyism and mutual devotion so blatantly displayed on silly sentimental birthday cards; a nominee who has a better word choice than “cool” and a better companion choice than Hecht; and heck - when a nominee spurs the creation of a blog such as Harriet Miers’s Blog, that can't be a good sign...

...Even though the blog is so incredibly funny!

BETTER DELAYED THAN NEVER

Hehe... DeLay has been indicted on two new, more serious charges of involvement in money laundering during the 2002 Texas election.

His response? Let's see: he still claims this is nothing but a partisan attempt to smear his reputation; according to him, the charges are manufactured, illegitimate and an "abomination of justice."

While he's busy blaming everyone else instead of realizing that he alone is responsible for the embarrassing situation he's in now, hopefully more indictments will come his way. The quicker the better, since he vowed to continue exercising influence over the House even though he was forced to resign as majority leader.

That he is a megalomaniac, we all know. But last week, on occasion of the first indictment, the White House chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, said that El Presidente still saw DeLay as a "good ally" and as "a leader we have worked closely with to get things done for the American people."

What is El Presidente going to say about DeLay now? Or better yet, what is he going to do about this now? If he's got any brains - wait, if his aides have got any brains - he will distance himself from DeLay but willl reach across party lines to show that he stands for the right thing. I wouldn't put my money on it though...

THE EXCELLENT NICK ANDERSON

From Slate.

ROBERTS'S ICE BREAKER

We have ourselves a new chief justice and his name is John Roberts. And one of the first cases John Roberts, in the capacity of Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, will hear is Gonzalez v. Oregon (October 5). That’s what I call an ice breaker.

Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act, which legalizes physician-assisted suicide with certain restrictions, was established with the approval of Measure 16 in November of 1994. And this approval was reiterated once again in 1997, when Measure 51, designed to eliminate Measure 16, was repealed.

Meaning – twice the good people of Oregon cast their vote for the law, not against it. And even those in Congress who tried to block its implementation failed as well.

Now, the case is up for Supreme Court review – courtesy of former US Attorney General John Ashcroft (yes, the same one who use to anoint himself whenever he was sworn into public office, with cooking oil if necessary). Ashcroft is, by all accounts, a religious conservative who tried unsuccessfully to get rid of Roe v. Wade while in office.

Perhaps he thought that the Death With Dignity Act was an easier target, given that it is recent, pioneering, controversial, and limited to Oregon alone. In any case, one fine day he challenged Oregon’s courageous, history-making initiative by claiming that assisted suicide is not a legitimate medical practice arising from a legitimate medical need; and that it entails improper use of medication – therefore illegal under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Talk about agenda…

Regardless of my feelings on the issue (by the way, I do support the law because it seems only logical to me that terminally ill people should have their choice on how and if to endure their own suffering), what is at stake here is the old clash between the states’ rights and authority and the power of federal government.

To be sure, the CSA was never intended to supersede the states as primary regulators of physicians; that regulation is to be the state’s prerogative. Also, the 1997 “Funding Act” determined that no federal funds could be used for assisted suicide, and Ashcroft, back then a senator and cosponsor of the Senate version of the bill, said –

[The bill] does not in any way forbid a State to legalize assisted suicide or even to provide its own funds for assisted suicide. It simply says Federal resources are not to be used to promote or conduct assisted suicides. After passage of this bill, States might choose to legalize or fund assisted suicide, but they would not be able to draw on Federal resources normally drawn upon in joint efforts between the State and the Federal Government for the provision of health services.

Does it get any clearer than that? Even without Ashcroft’s words, it is evident that the mere approval of the Funding Act means that the federal government recognized the states’ right to legalize assisted suicide on their own.

Can anyone explain to me how this case made it so far?

NO MORE DeLAY

In the United States now, the House majority leader Tom DeLay is no more. House majority leader, that is. Apparently, this “upstanding” citizen and religious conservative family man (that is, if you discount the fact that he is estranged from most of his family) is behind a major breach of campaign laws. We, however, are not surprised because DeLay is, well… DeLay.

DeLay has always been a storm - better yet, a catastrophe in the making. I can’t think of one constructive thing he has done/said ever since I first heard of him; he just goes around applying his blind and extremely right-wing worldview to everything he does and every place he visits (to quote former Mossad chief Danny Yatom on occasion of DeLay’s trip to Israel in 2003, "The Likud is nothing compared to this guy").

And finally, I don’t trust him in the least. Call it a woman’s folly, but the man is positively mean.

DIAMOND IN THE ROUGH

Someone sent me this one today - a recent gem from El Presidente:

"We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you."

When we think he's shown us everything, he outdoes himself.... Which means it is no over yet. We're doomed.

EDUCATION CRISIS

Donald Rumsfeld is giving El Presidente his daily briefing. He concludes by saying, "And yesterday, three Brazilian soldiers were killed."

"OH NO!" Mr. Bush exclaims. "That's terrible!"

His staff sits stunned at this sudden outward display of emotion, nervously watching as El Presidente sits, head in hands, almost sobbing.

Finally, he looks up and asks, "Just how many is a brazillion, anyway?"

DIGESTING CRITICISM, OR PLATO - ROUND 2

My parents returned from a vacation recently and made special time to read what was happening here at the blog. And even though they are the supportive parents and all, my father at least did have a criticism or two.

According to him, I need to be less caustic in my replies to comments posted; I need to remember this is about promoting debate on a medium that is the closest thing to optimal. To my argument that some of the debate is insane, or unjustifiable waste of time, he said - "So what? Learn how to deal with that too." He is right. I hate to be acknowledging this here, but hey - let's be honest, I can be exceedingly harsh sometimes, which doesn't necessarily help to get my point across. And while that might have been cute back in my teens, now I guess I am running out of excuses...

My mother came to the phone after my father; unaware of his criticism a few minutes before (she was not by him as he spoke to me), she gently suggested I should reread Plato - in her opinion, I might have come across the Socratic dialogues when I was a little too young. She says that now, in my thirties, I'd be able to really benefit from rereading some of it.

The meaning of justice, in the sense of what it means to be just, to be fair - for as long as I remember, I have been a prisoner of this concept. I don't like it when people are oblivious to unfairness (their own included) in their daily treatment of life. I like it even less when I am one of these people.

So here I am, holding Plato's Republic in my hand... Round 2.

AND HERE ON EARTH...

…we Homo sapiens are busy fighting over what came first, a protozoa or the Lord. Today a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania federal court began proceedings which will determine if intelligent design is none other than creationism dressed in new clothes. In which case it can't be part of Dover Area School District science curriculum.

As if we needed a trial for that.

It’s the yin and yang of free speech: under its beautiful, far-reaching wings, atrocities such as Holocaust denial (and revisionism) and creationism (and intelligent design) linger on.

Here is the article. And here is an opinion by a University of Washington professor.

PENGUINS RULE!

On a quiet Sunday afternoon in July, I watched the sweet March of the Penguins. The movie is indeed very charming; no wonder it has had so much success.

Recently, I noticed a few commentaries, shamelessly anthropomorphic in nature, praising the penguin's monogamous behavior. According to people like Michael Medved and others, the penguins are a symbol of conservative family values! Others go further and declare that the penguins' life is a clear evidence of intelligent design... These people - for them, even a nice little movie about cute penguins is political fodder.

In any case, I have a few basic questions:

1. What is so conservative about penguins changing partners every year? In other words, Emperor Penguins are not really monogamous - they are serially monogamous. Once the chick is up and running and their job as a parenting couple is done, they bid their goodbyes and off they go, in search of this year's mate. And if I recall, the male penguin is the first to take off. By the way: if something happens to the egg during the male's watch and the chick dies, the male can just leave - and he does.

2. Do these conservatives know that Emperor Penguins have shown plenty of evidence of homosexual and bisexual behavior? Now that is very interesting.

3. Did the intelligent designer really intend for the poor penguins to breed and tend to their eggs and feed their chicks in Antartica, probably one of the harshest environments on the planet? This intelligent designer doesn't seem very nice, let alone intelligent.

It is amazing that this French movie about birds - beautiful, incredibly interesting birds - is being turned into a new testament for the conservative right. Meanwhile, the issues that really could be taken out of the movie, such as global warming and the deterioration of their natural habitat, do not make the news.

Another thing the zealots seem to be ignoring is the fact that the penguins' marital bliss involves shared responsibilities in a not-so-conventional way: the father stays "home" with the egg; he waits, and is on the verge of starvation when the mother returns with food for the chick at the end of a little over two months. As soon as she approaches, he leaves - hey, a man needs to eat! In all, the penguin couple spends very time little together, maybe two months. It is the ultimate commuter family!!

THE VATICAN TODAY

Major newspapers reported today that the Vatican is very close to issuing instructions that could stop homosexuals from joining the priesthood.

The Vatican's concern is understandable, especially in light of the painfully public disclosure of sexual abuse in the Church in recent years. So at first sight, keeping gay men out of the priest ranks seems to make sense, since there are statistics claiming that homosexuals are three times as likely to be pedophiles as heterosexuals.

The problem of the Church and pedophilia – besides the obvious fact that celibacy does not seem to be working, even though married people can be pedophiles as well – is not a direct result of the presence of priests who before they took their celibacy vows had homosexual inclinations. After all, pedophilia refers to prepubescent children, not only to boys. Those abused by priests were boys and girls.

In addition, there is evidence that most perpetrators of child sexual abuse are not primarily interested in children, and they are sometimes referred to as pseudo-pedophiles or situational offenders (committing crimes only when in an environment which permits or encourages those acts), whereas pedophiles primarily attracted toward children are called structured pedophiles or fixated pedophiles.

The problem seems to be of another nature – the screening process, the psychological evaluations that those seeking ordination have to undertake. Although these evaluations are required everywhere, they vary in form and content. After a brief internet research, I found a diocese that requires two meetings with a psychologist of the diocese's choice, a written evaluation and a psychiatric test. Yet another diocese says: “Candidates must show mental stability either through psychological examination or obvious stability and accomplishments in life. If there is any doubt regarding the mental stability of any Candidate he shall, at his own expense, submit to a thorough psychological evaluation by an individual licensed or registered to do psychological testing and evaluation within his or her legal psychological jurisdiction.”

Given the different approaches, I believe the Church should invest in addressing the screening process. Pedophilia is a compulsive sexual disorder, not sexual orientation, pure and simple. To deny admission into the Church to those with manifested or suspected homosexual inclinations implies the Church equals pedophilia with homosexuality, when in fact homosexuality, strictly speaking, is:

1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

(Merrian-Webster online dictionary)

The Church, however, is not known for addressing any issue remotely related to sex with the utmost transparency and determination. Because of that, some are complaining that the Vatican is making use of the pedophilia incidents to finally and officially refuse admission to homosexuals.

Furthermore – isn’t celibacy crucial to this situation? Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike take the vow of celibacy upon making their choice to live their lives in the service of the Church. Many do not respect that commitment, for whatever reasons, and not all those who don’t respect it are homosexuals. And even though, as I said before, I don’t think married clergy would necessary be a deterrent in pedophilia (just as I don’t think that eliminating homosexuals from the clergy would be the solution), maybe it is time for the Vatican to reconsider the virtues and the viability of celibacy in our world.

HOLOCAUST DENIAL = ANTI-SEMITISM?!?

On recent discussion with two blog visitors, an interesting comment was made - are all Holocaust deniers a priori anti-Semites? My instinctive reply was to say, "sure." But this is a topic that warrants more than a gut reaction, so I decided to do some thinking and research.

And here is what I think - Holocaust denial is a form of anti-semitism. There is no way around it. It is a nice and convenient substitute/disguise for anti-semitism; but the message remains the same. In a clever twist, moderate Holocaust denial/revisionism (and this blog has encountered some of that, to be sure) generally takes the form of "wanting to hear both sides of the story," of upholding the values of free speech or questioning the extent of the Holocaust, in the spirit of not wanting to believe something on the scale of the Holocaust could happen.

Americans have a fascination with conspiracy theories and are often willing to entertain even the most absurd ones in the belief that everyone deserves a fair hearing and equal time on the podium. They are often also inclined to believe "authorities" who claim to be experts on one thing or another and to take what they say as the certified truth. Such behaviors work, obviously, in the revisionists' favor. It is not surprising that Holocaust deniers are taking full advantage of most Americans' tolerance for eccentrics.

Holocaust denial also plays on conscious and unconscious anti-semitic belief structures. Anti-Jewish sentiment and social prejudice has been a consistent presence in the US and other parts of the world, fostered by negative images of Jews in popular culture. In that sense, then, Holocaust denial is a contemporary form of the classic anti-semitic doctrine of the evil, manipulative and threatening world Jewish conspiracy, placing Jews behind an international movement to promote the Holocaust deceit for monetary gain.

Besides the random manner in which deniers have chosen to lump all Jews together, regardless of religious or political orientation, as perpetrators of the "Holohoax" (as they call it), they also engage in pseudoscience to try and prove their theories (as an example, one can always resort to the absurd - but somewhat comical - Leuchter report). These efforts, however, have not made any real impression on Holocaust historiography and reputable scholarship.

I maintain my position - the reality of the Holocaust is not up for debate. To question its occurrence is not only futile (frankly, even Germany has a Jewish museum with a large Holocaust section) but morally wrong.

KADISH TIME

Simon Wiesenthal died. Many say with him died the conscience of the Holocaust.

He was an amazing man. One might not agree with his life choice; it doesn’t change the fact that he was one of a kind. Anyone who survived the horror of the concentration camps needs to be admired, if nothing else for his sheer determination to live.

He not only survived his ordeal - he found purpose, dignity and honor in the aftermath of his own suffering. And he decided he would not sit quietly by the sidelines of history while the perpetrators of such horrible, unspeakable crimes slowly slipped away into oblivion, taking with them the truth about their deeds.

A life such as Wiesenthal’s is not easy to grasp. But I don’t need to fully understand him. I don’t. I do see clearly that someone needed to do what he did. And only some, very few, actually could have done what he did. I am grateful to him for his work. I am proud of him. I hope he can now rest.

LIPSTADT/IRVING TALK

Luca, a Brazilian visitor to the blog, has made some comments on Irving, Lipstadt and Holocaust in general. This is my latest, and it is about his comments on Irving and Lipstadt in reply to my own previous comments:

"Gisela, no I didn't know about her acknowledgement and I haven't read Prof. Lipstadt's book. To be perfectly honest with you I would not waste my time or my money on her stuff. I have read books by far more competent people, like Hillberg and Browning."

Of course you did not know about her acknowledgment on page 72 and of course you did not read her book. The time, money and energy you saved by not reading her work goes straight into your proselitist activities… Also, that is not very original, Luca. I have never encountered a denier and/or revisionist who has actually read her books and the trial transcripts.

Great, Luca, you read Hilberg and Browning. So? And out of respect for your infatuation with labels (most Brazilian pseudo-intellectuals are this way), they are both functionalist Holocaust historians. Let's assume you know what that means. Have you read anyone else? Let’s say Davidowicz, Bauer, Goldhagen, Kershaw? It must be easy to form opinions if you only resort to the same source... In any case, they would not be of any help to you - as a denier, what difference does it make to you, functionalist vs. intentionalist vs. synthesis of both? Just stick to denying the gas chambers and you'll be fine. And whatever number of victims is proposed to you, extract the square root and you’ll have your "real" number… for a "real" history... Isn't that what you guys call it?

And by the way - Hilberg has only one “L”.

"David Irving is not a revisionist. He never wrote anything especifically about the Holocaust. "

Ok - have you read his work? What do you know about him?

His Hitler’s War, for one, underwent significant changes between the first edition in 1977 and subsequent ones. His conversion to Holocaust denial is clear when he omits references to Treblinka and Auschwitz as extermination camps. Did you know he did that? He did write about the Holocaust - he denied it, just like you do.

"Before becoming 'persona non grata' Irving was highly praised as you can easily check out for yourself."

He was indeed fairly well known and published until his little "debacle". He was not always the dog he is today. But after he came into contact with Ernst Zündel in 1988, his conversion was complete. Sure, he had achieved a certain recognition, but most fellow historians (and I am being respectful to Irving here by using the word “fellow” so do not abuse it) have always kept a fair distance from him. I mean, it’s always been obvious the man loves the sound of his own voice…

"In regards to the Irving X Lipstadt trial I think he handled the situation poorly. He should have left Prof. Lipstadt alone to her idiocies of free-speech, rather than allow her to playthe victim. He could have just sued his publisher for breech-of-contract... "

Of course he handled the situation poorly. He was idiotic to sue her for her assertion that he is a Holocaust denier and an anti-Semite - he is a denier indeed and therefore she did not falsely claim he is. Luca, are you denying he is a denier?

She did not play the victim either - she got sued by that lunatic, and she managed to put together a first-rate defense team through several donations from foundations and people all over the world. Jewish and non-Jewish alike. Tough luck, Luca.

He could have sued his publisher, you say? With what money? With what credibility? Too late, Luca.

"He could have easily shown that Lipstadt did not check any soures when she called him a fellow-traveller with terrorists and Hamas in her book..."

At least she admits when she is wrong, dear. It is much more mature, much smarter anyway.

As to your claim he is not a revisionist - what do you get that from? The man’s website is full of IHR references and visitors, and he has spoken in numerous of their gatherings and so forth. True - Irving is not a complete idiot, and he has tried to keep a low profile since the disastrous outcome of his stupid lawsuit. But to say he is not a revisionist - what are you referring to? Unless you mean he does not pay a yearly membership to the IHR and is not a proud card-carrying member…

"They played Irving like a fiddle though..."

Irving got played like a fiddle, as you said, because he is a racist, anti-semitic, fascist madman. I daresay he is moving into senility already, and if not, he will do so shortly. And who cares if he cost Prof. Lipstadt and her team a considerable amount of money? What matters is, the man is ridiculed around the world, he is constantly denied entry into several countries, he has been condemned of denigration of the dead in Germany, his publishing contracts have been revoked and he is penniless. Do you really think he has had any sort of victory?

Being a Brazilian, I am certain you’ll recognize this one - voce fez a cama, agora deita. Pathetic.

TREBLINKA TALK - TAKE 2

Luca did reply (see the previous post's comment section for Treblinka, and the comment section for the post on Israeli bill against Holocaust denial) - one of the replies was in Portuguese, and I will translate it here for you unfortunate readers who cannot follow my beautiful native language…

He says he is Brazilian, 50% Italian and 50% German - cool: what generation German exactly? How long has your German family been in Brazil? Boy, I should ask the same about your Italian side, even though Italians were for the most part bogus anti-Semites… Their drug of choice was truly fascism.

He finds my intolerance “peculiar” and claims my reply to his comment was aggressive - Luca, I understand you might have thought so; I don’t really feel the need to apologize to people like you, so let me just say that I actually classify that response to you as cynical, borderline aggressive. Flat-out aggressive will be the one I am writing now, by the way.

Then he says he is not anti-semitic, not a fascist sympathizer, not right-wing. He claims to have voted several times for leftist candidates, including Lula (why am I not surprised? What can one expect of the Lucas of this world?). He adds that Lula has been a disappointment (now why are you surprised, Luca? What can one expect of the Lulas of this world?). He says he is not an old Brazilian, full of prejudices - he says he is a little older than me and then in brackets he writes 24 years old and question mark.

Well, Luca - are you 24? Because I am 33.

He says it is silly I am appalled by deniers from my own country and claims that anyone anywhere and of any race could come to doubt the official version of the Holocaust after being exposed to revisionist arguments. (Yeah, but there is a certain degree of prejudice and lack of general knowledge, combined with a tad of inferiority feelings, that goes with becoming someone like you, Luca). He then says he could be black or “redskin” - that would be the closest translation to pardo, which by the way is a really bad choice here since it is full of racist connotations - and he would still not believe the Holocaust.

He always had reservations towards the official Holocaust version, it always seemed to him as exaggeration. He did believe the gas chambers though (Luca, are you trying to be original? Not working). But then he stopped believing about a year ago (unfortunately, he does not offer details of his final conversion, though I believe it would be most interesting in this context, no?).

He goes to say that not everyone in the revisionist movement is anti-semitic, the majority is not (that’s because there’s now a variety of branches within anti-Semitism with which people can associate themselves without being anti-semitic in form… It is all about form with this people anyway, since they are so devoid of real consistency).

He is sad that mainstream historians don’t have the courage to investigate the Holocaust using different approaches (angles, that is the word he used). He claims that if they did, there would be less neo-nazis and anti-Semites involved (and I think he meant involved in revisionism). Luca - that is because mainstream historians are not influenced by their prejudices as revisionist ones are. You actually got it wrong - the ultimate requirement for being a revisionist historian is to be prejudiced. How about some logical reasoning here?

Then he declares - the national socialists committed a great crime and a terrible injustice against the Jewish people by stripping them of their civil rights and by deporting them (so where is the argument, dear?). But he does not believe there was a real plan to exterminate them (I see) - he says there was criminal negligence at most.

Then he says that my words on the liquidation of the camp in regards to exhumed bodies etc are wrong, that I should use more reason and more emotion (if he refers to his type of reason, I stick with my emotion, thank you very much). He says that BURNING the bodies and CRUSHING the bones and mixing them with the ashes and RE-BURYING them would not completely destroy the evidence, that there would still be bones and ashes around, and also the pyres (what, they would not be able to destroy the pyres?! I guess we must have all overestimated the Nazis) etc. Luca - you missed the capitalized words in my original text, so I took the liberty of emphasizing them slightly here for you as a courtesy. Plus, there is plenty of bone splinters and ashes all around the camp perimeter…

I guess all the historians and all the scientists who since the war have been investigating Treblinka are completely wrong; or maybe they are lying. But Luca and the revisionist community would be right, I suppose.

About my request for specifics on the information of the 300 bodies found by the soviets, he says it comes from the records of the 65th Red Army. Ok - Luca, would you please be more specific as to this source? Can you tell me - did you read the translation or the original? Is it a report, a book, a transcript, a movie?

As for my description of how the villagers who came to loot what was left of the camp came across evidence of bodies etc in their search for gold, he then delivered some weird harangue about the correlation between their digging and the size and shape of mass graves - Luca, this one is a little hard to comprehend even in Portuguese. And wow - the size and shape of graves as a determinant evidence for mass murder. Or as a disavowing factor. I grant you this - revisionists/deniers have really fertile imagination.

He then says that the Poles found even less bodies than the Soviets (what difference does it make in their conclusion on the nature of Treblinka as a death camp? How many grotesque corpses, body parts, how many gold teeth, how many tons of ashes need to be found for people like you to acknowledge the Holocaust?). Whatever, Luca.

He moves on to Auschwitz: something about more than 100,000 registered prisoners died in the camp - as this is an open statement, let me finish it for you. Yeah, more than 100,000, up to about 1.1 million (and I am using here the figure accepted by renowned Jewish historian Raul Hilberg, who is known for his conservative death toll estimates) people were killed at Auschwitz-Birkenau. No one died there, by the way - they were brutally killed, all of them (that is in reference to your word choice in Portuguese - “morreram”, which is “died” in the third person plural, is not the same as “foram mortos”, which is “were killed/murdered”.)

And Luca - I advise you to stay away from Auschwitz-Birkenau as a topic for your revisionist endeavors, since the body of evidence on it is so abundant and so detail-oriented, even more than on Treblinka. You don’t stand a chance. And also, are you referring to Auschwitz I? II (Birkenau)? III (Monowitz)?

You then say they were not gassed, these poor souls in Auschwitz. Well, some of them were beaten to death, others were hanged, others summarily shot, others starved to death, others contracted typhus or some other horrible disease, others were “operated” on by Dr. Mengele and his team…

And all this, of course, depends on which camp they were in (I, II, or III). The large majority of people arriving on the transports were gassed, though - at Birkenau. I am sure you heard that before, but as with the mass graves shape and size, you probably have another ridiculously unsound explanation for why this is a false statement from my part (and “mainstreams” like me). Then you present your conclusion - in the next sentence, right after “they were not gassed“ (the ones in Auschwitz), you say: at any rate, 300 or even more than 1000 dead in Treblinka is completely incompatible with the official version.”

Luca - what official version? Yours, the IHR, the Nazis, what? This is unbelievably poor logic anyway, Luca. You did better at the beginning of your letter.

As for being able to continue your dialogue with me in a civilized manner, why not? You can write, and I can reply. That being said, I reserve myself the right to be as cynical and as unforgiving as I choose to be. This is the only way to deal with people like you - mix of incredulity, disgust, scorn, pity… If you’re offended, you can always go somewhere else to spread your love and your gospel; you don’t specifically need to come to my blog. If you decide not to come back though, I’d appreciate it if you answered those questions I posed to you.

Now I will reply to your other comment. The one about Irving.

TREBLINKA TALK

OK - I thought I'd never see the day... Here is what a certain Luca wrote in response to a comment by Sergey on my post "On Comments by Gwen and Sergey (Israel's Bill on Holocaust Denial)" in August :

"...I must say however, the biggest problem for exterminationists is not even the engine type. It is the lack of material evidence.

Only loonies will believe 800.000 to 1 million people can be destroyed in a especif area without leaving evidence aplenty. The soviets investigated Treblinka I and II in August of 44. They found few more than 300 bodies and if I remember correctly, these had not even been burned. At the end of 45 the poles did another investigation. They too, didn't find much.Of course it didn't stop the soviets and poles to "conclude" that mass murder had been commited.There many other logistical problems I'm not even mentioning here."

Luca - is that your name? - where do you come from, I mean, besides another planet? Are you from Brazil by any chance? I am asking because I noticed an unusual number of hits coming from Brasilia, the capital, right around when you left your comments...

Well - I am Brazilian. And whenever I come across deniers from my own country, I am doubly appalled. Silly, I know, but what can one do?

Now about Treblinka:

"Only loonies will believe 800.000 to 1 million people can be destroyed in a especif area without leaving evidence aplenty."

Really? Maybe because those killed were first buried in mass graves, then exhumed, then burned in huge pyres (the “roasts”), then their bones crushed and mixed with the ashes and all that then re-buried in the mass graves. I’d say that would probably take care of all that aplenty evidence...

There is ample evidence everywhere to support the claim that Treblinka was one of the camps used to carry out Operation Reinhard. And except for the usual revisionist mumbo-jumbo, all reputable sources on Treblinka will tell you that the number of Jews who were killed at this small camp was around at least 800,000.

"The soviets investigated Treblinka I and II in August of 44."

So? That was long after Himmler - who after the debacle of Stalingrad in the winter of 1942-43 became increasingly concerned about secrecy and with eliminating the evidence of the Nazi atrocities - ordered the dismantling of the camp and the destruction of physical evidence of the mass murders already in early 1943.

On top of the that, there was the revolt of inmates in August 2, 1943, and as a result many of the camp’s structures were ruined. The few buildings left did not survive for long - after liquidating as many prisoners as possible in reprisal for the uprising, those still alive were ordered to finalize the destruction of the camp. The remaining Sonderkommandos were forced to level the area, clear it of its mass graves, and plant pines around it. Hence, there was no immediately visible trace of mass murders at the time of liberation/investigation by the Soviets.

The last gassing in Treblinka was on August 21, 1943 (the Bialystok transport). After that, any remaining prisoners were transferred to Sobibor in late October 1943.

"They found few more than 300 bodies and if I remember correctly, these had not even been burned."

Where did you find that specific information? In any case - the villagers, after the Nazis left, decided to sack the area of the camp in search of valuables. As they were digging, searching for gold, they did come across corpses/human remains. I believe you might be referring to that. I suppose not even the Nazis were completely, perfectly efficient and they too made mistakes…. Maybe they thought no one would care about evidence of a few hundred dead Jews anyway.

"At the end of 45 the poles did another investigation. They too, didn't find much."

Please see my reply to your previous two assertions above.

"Of course it didn't stop the soviets and poles to "conclude" that mass murder had been commited."

Well, if you as a villager came across 300 corpses/human remains disposed of in that fashion, what would you think? Not to mention the incredible pestilential smell that filled the air day and night, a horrible stench mentioned in several reports by military personnel stationed 20 kilometers from Treblinka.

Perhaps you don’t know that one of the most important confirmations of Treblinka as an Exterminatinon Camp comes from a Nazi - Jürgen Stroop, author of the Stroop Report. The report, which is an account of the Warsaw Ghetto uprisal and the Nazi response to it, includes telegrams on four different days which specifically identify Treblinka II as the destination for liquidation and destruction of the captured Warsaw Ghetto Jews. Any idea of what I am talking about? In any case, it hardly sounds as if the Jews of Warsaw Ghetto were being sent to a summer camp, or even resettlement. I’d say the word destruction leaves little room for doubt.

Also: do you just summarily dismiss the eyewitness accounts by any of the Treblinka survivors as irrelevant and/or unreliable? How about the accounts of SS guards, or any other guards? Or even Poles who lived nearby?

I am eagerly awaiting your logistical comments. Whenever you're ready. We "exterminationists" are continuously puzzled by you - negationists, is that it?

Oh well, I hope deniers will do the trick.