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...