GOODBYE, PINOCHET

This is it - the senile (open to interpretation, I guess) former dictator of Chile died at 91. I will not join those strange people who are mourning his death. The man was positively mean, and I don't care if Chilean economy works. There are plenty of examples of dictators throughout history who fed their people with one hand while killing them with another. I will not cite those examples here because redundancy is a bore.

Pinochet is managing to divide his people even after his death. Unbelievably, many in Chile are truly sad he has died. Fortunately, many are not. I myself would have difficulty mourning a man who seized power illegally, killed so many and ostracized - politically, socially, economically - many more. And to think that his children are offended that President Bachelet has not agreed to a state funeral...

I read an excellent essay on Pinochet by Pamela Constable of the Washington Post, and also her ensuing Q&A session this afternoon. I recommend both.

THE HOLOCAUST DENIAL CONFERENCE IN TEHRAN

We all know this Iranian president is on the lunatic side. No doubt his perception of history is, well, unique. I used to laugh at him. Now I don't laugh anymore.

This man has made denial of the Holocaust his favorite hobby and this hobby is quickly turning into a mission. He certainly seems to devote an enormous amount of his own and public time refuting evidence it ever happened, and it is no secret he dislikes Israel and Jews with passion. In other words, he hates our guts.

The conference now taking place in Tehran would be ludicrous as a blatant distortion of historical truth if not for the fact that it is impossible to laugh at such things. As Slate very well put it, the conference "is sordid and cynical, but we must take it seriously." And here is why: the last time the world did not take hatred against the Jews seriously, we all know what happened. Yes, I hate to sound like a broken record, but there is no alternative: we must remember, we must never forget.

Especially if this insane man is also a dangerous one with nuclear weapons.

The USA, Israel and most European countries, along with the Vatican, were quick to condemn the conference. But unfortunately most of the 67 people in attendance are well-known in Holocaust denial circles, among them: David Duke (former KKK leader), Robert Faurisson (a French clown who managed to get convicted five times for denying crimes against humanity in France); and the German Fredrick Toeben, convicted for insulting the memory of the dead. Lovely men who seem to be in dire need of some light-hearted entertainment, maybe some cable tv...

Now really - it is baffling that such a conference is happening in this day and age. There have been several gatherings of Holocaust deniers in many places, but this is a state-sponsored one in a Muslim country. Chilling.

Ahmadinejad, as we all know by now, knows no boundaries. His latest gem, during the conference, was his prediction that Israel's days are numbered: "just as the USSR disappeared, soon the Zionist regime will disappear"; according to him, then "humanity will achieve freedom." Prediction might not be that accurate a term - threat is more like it. Also strangely reminiscent of what another clownish (and dangerous) little man, the one with the mustache and the lisp, used to tell his bunch of fanatics in the Third Reich not long ago...

On a parallel note: it is with sadness that I noted the participation of two rabbis and four other Jews in the conference. They are all members of Neturei Karta (Jews United Against Zionism), a religious group which claims that the creation of Israel violates Jewish Law.

This is orthodox Judaism at its worst. It is inexcusable. It is sick.

******

See how the Simon Wiesenthal Center is responding.

BEEN A LONG TIME...

...coming. But I think now I am here.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE WASHINGTON POST

Dear Sir,

I very much hope you will provide an Israeli official with the opportunity to write a melodramatic piece such as the one you published by the Lebanese Prime Minister, Mr. Fouad Siniora. Not that this high official will seize the opportunity, being that he might be busy fighting this war instead of running a public relations side business; still, the courtesy of equal opportunity would do the trick.

I am also a little surprised by your decision to go ahead and publish Mr. Siniora's opinion, but friends of mine here in DC told me the Washington Post has a long-standing tradition of giving Arab leaders a voice - is that true? I certainly hope not, as I am new to the area and I would hate for my newly adopted city's newspaper to have such a record. Neutrality would be nice, if fairness is not a possibility.

More than anything, and leaving aside the factual blunders of Mr. Siniora's op-ed (such as blatant disregard for the underlying responsibility Hezbollah has in the conflict as does his government for operating side by side with a terrorist organization such as Hezbollah), it was an utterly boring read. For the sake of us readers, please do some editing the next time. Or maybe better choices.

Sincerely,
Gisela Schön
www.c2005.blogspot.com

OPEN LETTER TO MR. FOUAD SINIORA, PRIME MINISTER OF LEBANON

Mr. Siniora,

You are the Prime Minister of Lebanon and I know this is a job with many responsibilities and challenges. I also believe that for one to hold such a high office certain characteristics and qualities must be present.

The first one that comes to mind is leadership. One can not lead an entire country if he has a shaky sense of leadership. Mr. Siniora, it is clear to the world that you care deeply about your country and your people, but it is not clear how much leadership you can muster. From where I stand, it seems non-existent.

In the face of the crisis now hovering over your Lebanon, you have concentrated your efforts on blaming Israel as opposed to singling out and blaming the Hezbollah terrorists, who, deny as you will, still are the ones who initiated the whole conflict (coincidentally, there is only one mention of Hezbollah in your Washington Post op-ed, and a feeble one at that). Quite frankly, it is very disappointing to see a grown man incapable of dealing with his own shortcomings, or his own leadership shortcomings. Had you engaged in more serious opposition to Hezbollah in the past, you might have been able to impede such a grotesque series of events. And I am not as naïve as to think you could have defeated Hezbollah on your own, but one needs to know when to be humble and cry for help.

You are indeed shameless when you write an opinion in a newspaper such as the Washington Post with the sole intent to destroy Israel’s reputation and diminish that country’s credibility. Perhaps you ought to reexamine your convictions, Mr. Siniora. If anything, the Israeli leadership is doing for its citizens the one thing you have not been able (or willing) to do for yours - engaging against a terrorist organization who is directly threatening the security of the population. If you are fine with Hezbollah changing the political structure of your country, that is your problem. But don’t expect sovereign nations to stand by while their cities are constantly shelled, their soldiers kidnapped and so forth.

Funny indeed that you mention international law. We should discuss that. After all, this terrorist organization in your country crossed international borders and kidnapped soldiers in a sovereign country. Why is it that you see nothing wrong with that in terms of international law? And should we also discuss the utter disregard Hezbollah has for the Lebanese population? Frankly, Hezbollah isn’t concerned at all about the fate of the Lebanese; why else would it base itself right out of purely residential areas, so now whenever Israel strikes it is sure to hit civilians more than anything else?

Hezbollah is destroying your country, Mr. Siniora. And what’s more, you are not doing anything to stop it.

You demand an inquiry into Israel’s actions - the nerve! Well, I demand an inquiry into yours and the actions of your government. I hold you personally responsible for every single civilian death in Israel and Lebanon, and every Israeli military death.

It is always puzzling to me when people twist reality to suit their own expectations of the world around them. You are a master at doing so (and so is Sheikh Nasrallah, but that is for another letter). With all due respect, Sir, not only to you but to the Lebanese civilians killed so far in the conflict, you are the only one to blame. You gave cover and even political legitimacy to these Hezbollah fanatics; you kept the door open to Iran and Syria, and once again your dear Lebanese find themselves at the mercy of foreigners with their own agendas. What were you thinking? And what are you still thinking now?

Or maybe you are not as innocent as you seem to be. Tears and sobs apart, I thought it was indeed pathetic when you announced to the world that Israel had killed over 40 people in a blast but later on it turned out only one poor soul had died. Prime example of the traditional manipulation of information in the Muslim world, where all the evils of the world are blamed on the “Zionist entity”.

In your opinion published by the Washington Post, you end with the following words: “Lebanon must be allowed to reclaim its position in this troubled region as a beacon of freedom and democracy where justice and the rule of law prevail, and as a refuge for the oppressed where moderation, tolerance and enlightenment triumph.”

Please, take one good look at that: for Lebanon to reclaim anything, it first needs to get rid of the vermin that is Hezbollah. You and your country had plenty of time and opportunity to do so since the Israeli pullout in 2000 and the Syrian troops withdrawal in 2005; however, the complete opposite happened. A refuge for the oppressed? A refuge for criminals is a more accurate description. Your “oppressed” constantly fire to kill Israeli civilians, even though in Israel, unlike in Lebanon, the military does not hide among the civilian population - quite the contrary.

Sir, your legacy (or lack of) is clear and I assure you that many others agree with me. I think you are ill-qualified for your current job. Still, you do sob well and convincingly in front of cameras; you might want to consider a career in acting.

Sincerely,
Gisela Schön

MORE NERVE...

Every bit of news on Israel latey has been extremely painful. I have not been able to read one single article without getting angry at the way the conflict in the Israeli borders is being treated by the media - among other things. Consequently, I have been associating following the news with agony. I have been staying away from newspapers because, frankly, it hurts.

But, it is impossible to completely escape what's happening, and I am just too emotionally connected. Today I was reading the NY Times and I got mad again. This time, the object of my anger was this statement by Hussein Rahal, Hezbollah's chief spokesman (let's face it, it would ineffective to try and apply political correctedness here by referring to him as spokesperson - as if Hezbollah would ever have a woman in that position). See below:

“Declaring a cease-fire is not the concern of the people of Lebanon as long as there is one Israeli soldier on Lebanese soil. It is the right of every Lebanese to fight until liberation.”

What can he possibly mean? First, Hezbollah and Lebanon are not interchangeable terms. It is baffling how Hezbollah is acting as if its goals were representative of those of the Lebanese population. Why can't anyone see what Hezbollah is doing to Lebanon? Secondly, liberation from what? Israelis re-entered Lebanon in response to Hezbollah's latest aggression; other than that, Israelis had left Lebanon in 2000 (a great "victory" in Hezbollah's eyes). I keep forgetting that these are people who believe in their own lies.

The nerve. Really. This conflict is costing me my health. I hold these Hezbollah creeps responsible. Bunch of lunatic hypocritical fanatics.

THE NERVE...

What follows is a statement in rebuttal to a Corriere della Serra article that claimed the Lebanese PM had called for Hezbollah’s disarmament:

“What the prime minister said is that the international community has not given the Lebanese government an opportunity to deal with the problem of Hezbollah`s arms, since the continuing presence of the Israeli occupation of Shebaa Farms is the reason for the weapons' location."

The Lebanese PM has some nerve saying that. For years he was well aware of Hezbollah’s activities in his country. They are part of the government too. Now that the situation is the way it is, he finds a way to twist it around and blame the Israelis for not letting him take care of it. What should Israel do, sit and wait for more soldiers to be abducted, more civilians to be shelled? If Siniora wanted to/could do something about Hezbollah, it would already have happened. So far, he has not even mobilized Lebanese soldiers in order to contain the mess Hezbollah created. Shame on him for blaming others for his own shortcomings. Who told him to bow to terrorists and terrorist-sponsoring governments such as Syria and Iran?

Ever since this situation started, I have been having trouble adjusting to the news that Israel is once again seriously clashing with neighbors. I am sad and enraged at the same time, but I would like to make it clear that I fully support the Israeli incursion.

To those out there who condemn the Israelis, think about it: would the United States ever stand still if Canadians decided to abduct two soldiers from the border area? No. Would the Americans be delicate about it? Absolutely not.

Also, while I do think it is very unfortunate that Lebanese civilians are being killed in the conflict, I must say that this is nothing but a direct consequence of the Hezbollah ‘s disregard for the local civilian population. I say this because it is a well-known fact that Hezbollah bases itself out of residential enclaves, therefore endangering the entire population. The Israelis have the decency to warn the civilians about impending strikes and no one seems to notice that - when has the Hezbollah ever warned Israeli civilians before they shelled them? On the contrary, they bomb civilians, period. And ithey do so with full knowledge: in Israel, all military targets are nowhere near residential areas.

Furthermore, to those out there who think Israel is using excessive force: again, wrong. If that were the case, the Lebanese would be wiped out. Israelis, with their superior arsenal, are being ultra-careful to monitor their targets because they can and they want to do so (hence the leaflets warning of impending attacks).

Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, issued a warning that war crimes may have been committed in the conflict so far. Obviously she means by Israel (the day will come in which a UN official will say anything remotely sympathetic about Israel). Among other things, she said the following:

“The 1949 Geneva Conventions aimed to end attacks purely or mainly against civilians, a tactic used heavily in World War II. Article 51 of the First Protocol to the 1949 agreements states: 'The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack.'

Article 52 adds: 'Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives...' Therefore, there is a war crime if civilians are specifically attacked as civilians. However, it is different if they are killed as a result of a strike against a military or a "dual-use" target.

Precautions to minimise casualties should be taken and one argument is about whether such precautions have been sufficient. Indiscriminate attacks that target a wide area just to hit a few objectives or which hit military and civilian targets "without distinction" are outlawed by Article 51.

Israel however is not a party to the First Protocol though many experts and states say that this should apply in any case. And it remains a standard by which actions can be measured.”

Fine. Now why is it that the Hezbollah attacks solely on civilians are not being mentioned as possible war crimes? And what else does she want Israel to do prior to an attack? Apparently she does not think that going through the trouble (and danger) of dropping leaflets onto the target areas as a warning is enough. She probably would like to see the locals being lifted up to safety by the Israelis themselves before they initiate their offensive, eh?

When will people wake up? This is a war, even if a local one at this point (and let’s hope it remains this way). The Hezbollah apparently has no trouble killing as many Israelis as they can, even Arabs (their bombing of Nazareth, largely Arab, was interesting to say the least; two Arab boys died). I am sickened by the media approach to the conflict, and I am appalled to see some of the comments out there by people of all kinds, from UN officials to regular Joes. It is all pretty depressing, and if one has doubts, check out the BBC’s “Have your Say” website. These people are crazy for the most part.

HEZBOLLAH AGAIN

The situation in Israel only got worse. Not only the Gaza incursion still has not produced the desired effect (that is, the release of Cpl Shalit), but now two other Israeli soldiers were captured by Hezbollah.

Hezbollah had been relatively quiet for the past few years since Israel left Lebanon, and especially after the assassination of Rafik Harari last year. This new move comes at a crucial time of tension between Israel and the Palestinians, and the consequences are and will be manifold.

First, this assault is an undeniable show of support for Hamas and Palestinians militants in general. After all, Hamas always considered Hezbollah a role model. Second, this is an obvious attempt to further destabilize the Israeli government and the area as a whole.

Third, one must not forget that Hezbollah is officially represented in the Lebanese parliament (with one minister) - which means the Lebanese government is held directly responsible and such terrorist actions might very well be considered acts of war against the Israeli state.

Fourth, Hezbollah and Syria are "pals"; their relationship was especially clear when Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah organized a massive demonstration in support of the Syrian government following the murder of Rafik Harari and the subsequent popular demonstrations against the 30-year-old Syrian meddling in Lebanese affairs. This relationship means, ultimately, that the Israeli government (and the American government too) holds Syria accountable in no small part for the situation now developing in Lebanon. The Syrians know it: they are convening with other Arab leaders right now in order to prepare for a possible Israeli invasion of Syria.

Fifth, Hezbollah has Iranian backing. As a matter of fact, Hezbollah was founded with Iran aid with the specific aim to fight Israel. Need I say more?

I understand that Hezbollah might find some comfort in the knowledge that back in 2004, the Israeli government did release some 400 Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners in exchange for a kidnapped Israeli businessman (and reserve colonel) and the remains of three Israeli soldiers. But, that was in 2004, and it took three years to accomplish.

This latest incident accentuates political and social divisiveness, a constant in Lebanon. The Lebanese government has been under international pressure to counter Hezbollah (and therefore Syrian) influence in the south, but so far it has been unable to do so. Given the situation, though, Lebanese Prime Minister Siniora's declaration that he knew nothing of the operation and his ensuing refusal to take responsibility for and/or endorse the soldiers' capture comes as no surprise at all.

Most interesting is the reaction in of the Lebanese people: singing and dancing to celebrate the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers. One young Lebanese man (21 years old) said he was overjoyed. And again I find myself unable to believe my eyes as I read about candy giveaways in Beirut, street carnival etc. What is there to celebrate? How can people rejoice in all this? I think we are talking about two different planets here; maybe even two different universes.

ITALY'S STRANGELY ANTI-SEMITIC CELEBRATION

It turns out some Italians, overly excited by Italy's World Cup victory, decided to paint a few swastikas on the walls of Rome's ancient Jewish cemetery. I have yet to grasp the connection between winning the World Cup and vandalizing old Jewish graves (as if Jews in general represented a major football threat to the Azzurri), but apparently there exists one.

Maybe they think that Jews are behind the French team's prowess on the field - in which case they are wrong at least twice. First, because the French star and captain (Zidane) is Muslim, and Frank Ribéry is a Muslim convert. And second, because France does not have a particularly strong history of support for and tolerance of Jews. If in doubt, one can always remember the following: the Dreyfus Affair, Vichy France, and more recently the kidnapping and murder of Ilan Halimi.

But the Italians went all out: the Roman Jewish cemetery incident happened almost at the same time an Italian former minister decided to announce that the French squad was comprised of "Negroes, communists and Moslems". It seems that we Jews are in good company in Italy...

IN ANOTHER FOUR YEARS MAYBE

The cup is over and Brazil did not win. Heck, Brazil did not even make it to the semifinals, let alone the finals. My countrymen were a sorry sight running around the soccer field without ever kicking the ball to goal - it was indeed embarrassing. And during that game, Zidane shone.

And shine he did again during the final against Italy. That is, until he decided that whatever it is that Materazzi told him justified a headbutt in the other player's chest. Unbelievable.

My friends and I were sitting at the counter of this DC Italian bistro called Tomate (pretty good, actually, except for the manager's semi-rude imposition that we all watch the final on ABC as opposed to Univision) when all of a sudden images started to flutter and in front of our eyes we saw that godlike man Zidane deliberately attack the Italian player. I was in shock. We were all in shock.

And we all cheered when he was shown the door and had to leave the field.

Ok: of course I was rooting for Italy. As much as I am not crazy about the Azzurri, I could not in sane mind root for the French after they kicked us Brazilians out. But independently of that, and independently of anything else, the decision to expel Zidane was absolutely, 100% correct.

I don't care if Materazzi insulted Zidane's mother (which, let's face it, is most likely). Football players are constantly pushing each other's buttons; a considerable amount of physical and emotional abuse is part and parcel of any football match, especially a World Cup final. Zidane showed complete lack of sportsmanship and overall disregard for his teammates, the sport and all of us fans of the game.

Sure I feel sorry for Zidane, for losing his nerve at such a critical moment. But, I wonder if maybe he thought that his relevance and talent would shield him from being given a red card during not only the World Cup final but also his own final football game.

WISE... VERY WISE

"We shouldn't fear a world that is more interacted."

- El Presidente, June 27, 2006.

ISRAEL AND HAMAS

I am reading all those pieces about the latest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and getting irritated by the minute.

At first glance, one might ask - why kidnap a 19-year-old soldier who obviously has no real advantageous knowledge about anything remotely relevant? Is the release of those women and children really what the Palestinian terrorists want?

I say no. This was a carefully planned attack - not only on Israel but also on the Palestinian leadership, who is split between a somewhat peaceful coexistence with Israel and an all-out war. This is about reinforcing the need for jihad more than anything else. It is about not allowing any peace talks to resume and proceed to some tangible conclusion. This is about justifying the use of terror tactics and about leaving Israel no other option but to retaliate. That is key - they want Israel to retaliate.

The inability of the Palestinian people to realize that they are themselves mere puppets when it comes to all this… That is astonishing too. As long as they support actions such as the latest attack and their government's role in it as well, they will remain isolated and hungry and their lives will be in danger. I don’t see exactly what’s in it for them. And even if one might argue that they are so destitute that they don't have much to lose, I still cling to ideals such as dignity and the value of life.

Most annoying though is the arrogance of some of those Palestinian figures. Ali Jarbawi, a professor and dean at Birzeit University, had the nerve to say that this is what happens when Israel enacts unilateral policies under the assumption that there is no “Palestinian partner". Hell yes! That is exactly the case - there isn’t a Palestinian partner willing to engage in rational, reasonable talks with the Israeli government.

There is, however, a Palestinian neighbor who fires Qassam rockets at Israeli towns regularly; there is a Palestinian leadership who won't even recognize the Israeli state; there is a Palestinian population thriving on jihadist propaganda and such propaganda, combined with the lack of food and the corruption of the Palestinian leaders, can do wonders for any Holy War.

So no, I don’t think I can envision a Palestinian partner right now. Not since Hamas won those ill-fated Palestinian elections.

I confess I am pessimistic about the fate of Cpl. Gilad Shalit. The last kidnapped Israeli soldier was Nachson Wachsman, in 1994 - also 19 years old. Wachsman died during the rescue operation. Not to mention the mystery surrounding Ron Arad, the pilot shot down in Lebanon in 1986 and whose whereabouts remain unknown to this day.

Call me naïve, but I still wait for the day when the Palestinians will stop blaming the Israelis (and Jews for that matter) for not seizing what was given to them as a result of the UN Partition Plan. Impossible? Probably.

Still, if one wants to talk about which, among the two Abramamic religions, was in Israel (the land known as Israel today) first, that would actually have been the Jews (or Hebrews). After all, the Hebrews have been Hebrews (or Jews) for longer than the Muslims have been Muslims. And if there is need to go back even further, sure - they were both there at the same time, as they are both offshoots of the same ethnic and linguistic group. Why can't anyone remember that?

UPDATE

So far, things are okay. I am still living out of boxes etc and I am ready to move on to the next stage... Of course moving across the country is not easy, but does it have to be this complicated?!?! Just a thought.

My computer at home sits on top of its own box, on the floor. And if I want to use it, I need to sit on the floor with the keyboard on top of my legs. Now, this is doable for a while. But I am getting sick of it. And it also explains my inability to keep this blog current in the last few weeks (I know, excuses excuses).

I just thought someone, somewhere might like to know.

And GO BRAZIL GO!

CUP SPIRIT

BRASIL... MEU BRASIL BRASILEIRO...

El Presidente, Zarqawi, Iraq, Iran, Israel, gay marriage - all this will have to wait because today the 2006 FIFA World Cup begins! What can I say... I never feel more Brazilian than when the cup is on, and I love every minute of it!

The only thing though - when did it happen, or better yet: how did it happen that the USA got ranked 5th in the world??? Alongside Spain? Where was I, where I was looking while this took place? Anyway, you can see it to believe it at the FIFA website.

I know I'm whining, but I really think Americans should stick to their baseball and their own version of football. Not to mention that, as the joke goes in Brazil, American soccer players are not only too good-looking to play the sport, but there is always the fear that at any given moment they might just decide to pick the ball up and run with it... They are not exactly genetically programmed to kick it the entire time, right?

Jokes aside: soccer is our national treasure, the one thing we Brazilians are really good at. We're good at playing it, loving it and celebrating it - like no one. And I daresay that whatever is driving this change here in the US about soccer, it must have more to do with business opportunity and sheer competitiveness than anything else. Americans are famous for putting their heart in many things and activities, but I don't believe soccer is one of them. At least not yet.

May the best one win (and may it be that I don't have to post a retraction at the end of the games): GO BRAZIL GO!!!!

MARRIAGE ISSUES ROCK AMERICA...

EL PRESIDENTE IN GREAT FORM!

"I was not pleased that Hamas has refused to announce its desire to destroy Israel."—Washington, D.C., May 4, 2006

I am sure I must be reading this wrong - can anyone out there please show me the light??

GREETINGS FROM DC!

Back to life. It has been a while, and I can't say it has been the easiest while. In one breath, I got up and left Southern California (where I was for the past 11 years) for Washington, DC. Sure, it is what I wanted to do. Still, not easy.

So here I am. New job, new town, new everything. I miss my friends and the odd familiarity of LA, a city I never even liked. But at least I knew where the nearest Trader Joe's was (and there were so many anyway!)...

If I had to change one thing about DC so far - I'd have sushi bars sprouting out of every corner. Of all the things I could not stand about LA, sushi bars were not one of them. They were prolific, and for the most part clean and pretty reliable. In LA, one can be a regular at as many as 10 neighborhood spots if he/she chooses to. It is beautiful, and maybe that is aided by the local tradition of strip malls (an architectural and urban planning disaster, I must add).

But on the other hand, DC is bursting with life in ways LA has never been (at least not to me). People walk in the streets and in the metro, and there is so much youth around, and it is so transient! It is truly a cosmopolitan place, more so than anywhere else I have been to. It is exciting!

I am not totally settled yet and apartment search is still the hassle I remember from past years. I guess this is regardless of where one's at. But other than that (and a small tiny heartbreak but I promised myself that this blog will not have too many personal undertones - meaning, somehow somewhere I have to spare those around me the details of my personal life), things are good and I see myself being very happy out here. I have no regrets and I think this change could not have come at a better time.

Not to mention that now that I am in Bush town...

HERE WE GO:

Time to break the news, my friends - I am moving to Washington, DC!! Yes, that is right. Twelve years in California will be left in the past very soon. It will be a fresh start in an exciting place where things happen! Where people walk in the streets, where the community makes regular use of public transportation! Where there is humidity in the air, where the streets are tree-lined!

And just to make things a little spicier, where I will be able to breathe/eat/drink politics day and night. Hehe.

JUDAS THE BEST FRIEND

It is indeed good timing - right before Good Friday, newspapers are brimming with articles on the publication of the Gospel of Judas by the National Geographic Society last week.

The gospel is very interesting because it is yet another evidence of the divisions within the early church. As a Catholic friend put mildly tonight over the phone, history is told by the victors. According to him, the four canonical gospels (Mark's, Luke's, Matthew's and John's) reflect the victorious factions within the church back then, a couple of centuries years after Jesus died on the cross. The Judas gospel belonged to the losers group, and one could argue the same about the Gospel of Thomas (the gospel's emphasis on individual spirituality was most likely the main reason for its exclusion from the New Testament canon).

But to me the most interesting aspect of the Gospel of Judas is that Judas Iscariot emerges as Jesus' best friend and favorite apostle. There are several references to Judas' relevance and singular position among the apostles - and more importantly, the gospel says that it was Judas who enabled Jesus to fulfill his mission by delivering him to the authorities that eventually tortured and crucified him.

This is the revealing phrase in the gospel: "The star that leads the way is your star, Jesus said to Judas... You will exceed all of them for you will have sacrificed the man that clothes me." According to scholars, this passage means that through Judas the soul of Jesus will be liberated from the body that entraps him (Jesus) and then ascend to heaven.

So if I understand it correctly - basically, there was Judas Iscariot, supposedly helping his best friend Jesus die and achieve immortality. A mild case of assisted suicide maybe?

I also cannot help but wonder about the etymology of Judas Iscariot the name. Judas means, to be sure, Jew. All the apostles and Jesus himself were, as we all know, Hebrews; they were all "Judases". But Judas Iscariot is the only one who went down in history simply as the Jew. Which probably was a custom-ordered role for him as early Christianity moved steadily to break with Judaism completely.

And what happens now? Will Easter, the most important religious holiday of the Christian liturgical year, change? Traditionally, Good Friday recounts the events that led to the crucifixion of Jesus at Calvary. It is a very somber day, and growing up in Brazil I witnessed many street processions and reenactments of the betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot...

More than anything, the Gospel of Judas and the questions it raises remind me that religion and spirituality are not the same thing. Sometimes the quest for spiritual meaning is overlooked in the name of dogma and politics, and we forget to first look within ourselves before adhering to absolute truths and constructs that hold organized religion and practice as necessary for our social (and individual) survival.

OH IT IS SO GOOD TO BE BACK!

As I was typing the Bill post, I couldn't help myself - all I thought about was "I am back, I am back"... Crazy how attached I got to this little corner of mine. Wonderfully crazy. Insanely healthy.

My newly found center of gravity.

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

Two nights ago I had the unprecedented privilege of watching Bill mesmerize an entire audience at the Dorothy Chandler Pavillion here in downtown Los Angeles. I think there is no better way to restart my blogging activities than to describe the experience here.

This is a man who is in full control of his faculties and of the impact he has on his surroundings. It is impressive to see how he conducts himself in front of a packed house, even though Angelenos are not that hard to please (let's face it: all you need to do in LaLa Land is to be some sort of celebrity for people to clap at every comment you make etc). And that is yet another discussion anyway - were the people there to hear what he has to say, or to just catch a glimpse of the honorable Bill?

In any case, Bill fulfilled my expectations and more. He truly has all the charisma people say he has. His oratory is impeccable. He never once lost himself in his thoughts, never once stumbled upon his words, and made sure to say nuclear as opposed to "nukelar" - a reminder of better days, I must say.

In terms of audience again, Bill had most of the work cut out for him - they love him unconditionally, cheering, clapping, laughing etc. There was a funny camaraderie among us listeners, as if we were all long lost friends who found the way back home and to each other through Bill. The woman sitting beside me tried very hard to engage in whispering conversation - conversation which could basically be summarized into her nodding in approval to every comment Bill made followed by remarks such as "that's right", "yes", "don't we miss him?".

It is true - as corny as it may sound, we all missed him terribly that night. Bill and El Presidente are certainly as different as two men can ever get, and this is all the more obvious when one hears them speak. Another world, another era, another galaxy.

Bill opened up by asking us to think throughout the night about our personal role in our community, city, state, country. He then went on to establish that one does not need to be a "political actor" (interesting term) in order to contribute in some level to the politics of his area. Because according to him, politics is what determines our lives as individuals who are part of a larger community, e.g. the world. And as examples of people who are not political actors but still find ways in which to contribute, he mentioned Bill and Melinda Gates and Bono.

His topics ranged from global warming to HIV/AIDS to obesity (as in the underlying cause for thousands of deaths in the United States through diabetes and heart disease) to global economy to a nuclear Iran to the war in Iraq to his wife's political campaign (and its impact on himself) and much more.

He carried himself with the utmost elegance and yet he was warm and personable; he was coherent and witty - in sum, delightful. And the mark of a perfect orator - he came across as absolutely sincere and passionate about every single topic he covered. He was extremely comfortable on that stage.

I wonder if his comfort level has to do with the fact that he is not president anymore. But on second thought, I don't think he was any less comfortable while president. Because Bill, unlike El Presidente, is no black-and-white type of man. It is the lack of rigidity that makes him so much more accessible and so much more believable than El Presidente will ever be. Bill's flexibility makes him a man before anything else, and El Presidente's lack of the same makes him the joke he unfortunately is.

Next week, I will be in the audience again, this time listening to what General Colin Powell has to say. You can get more info about the Music Center Speaker Series here.

ON MY SILENCE

Sorry everyone - the few of you who honor me by visiting this blog now and then... The last few weeks have been absolutely hectic for me. I had no time and no heart to put into my little corner here.

I believe things are getting back to normal. More to come soon.

I seriously miss this. Amazing how it gets under one's skin. Or mine, for that matter.

ON ABORTION

With all that's been going on in the abortion realm (the South Dakota Abortion Ban Law, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, and more recently indications that the state of Mississippi is also preparing to ban abortion as well), I decided to do some reading on the topic and familiarize myself further with the issues. So I can argue better - it goes without saying...

I came across some very interesting religious explanations in support of the pro-life movement. The rationale behind these explanations hold special interest for me. In my next posting, I will concern myself with pro-life arguments of a different nature, that is: non-religious.

As we all know, Christians (and in this group I am taking the liberty of including both the Catholic and the evangelical Christian churches) view abortion as murder; this view stems from their belief that life begins at conception, and it is also based on the premise that: 1, it is wrong to kill innocent human beings; 2, fetuses are innocent human beings; 3, hence, it is wrong to kill fetuses. This website has a bit more on the issue.

Buddhists are usually against abortion as well. They argue that the Pali Canon states that life begins at conception. And let's not forget that Buddhism is a religion that places life - any sort of life - above all else. More about this here.

In Islam, it is all about the woman's life. In the event the mother's life is endangered, abortion is permissible (the "lesser of two evils" argument). Also, it is interesting to note that although the Qu'ran condemns the killing of born and unborn children, most Muslim scholars agree that a fetus becomes human only after 120 days since conception. Therefore, most traditional Muslim jurists allow abortions performed during the first 120 days. The basis for this stance can be found in the Hadith (check number 9 at this link).

And finally we get to the Jewish approach to abortion. According to Judaism, the value of the fetus's life is below that of the woman's in cases of danger to the latter. The reasoning flows very much like a self-defense argument, one in which, in the event the mother's life is endangered by the fetus, there is a dispensation for the mother to exercise her right (and duty) to self-defense by aborting the fetus. The woman becomes the victim of a perpetrator, in this case her own fetus. The same applies during labor - if the physicians determine that childbirth would be life-threatening to the mother, the baby is to be aborted/sacrificed.

Still, if it is possible to save the mother's life by maiming the fetus, then abortion is not allowed (and please bear in mind this is orthodox Judaism we are talking about here). The origin of this position can be found in the Mishnah (Ohalot 7:6)

However - and here is the catch - once the baby's head emerges, personhood kicks in. Killing this newly born person then would be murder according to Jewish halacha, and obviously forbidden.

Of course, these views conform to the orthodoxy of the above mentioned religions. Within each of them, there are varying views depending on the degree of religiosity.

Needless to say, most of those who oppose abortion do so on religious grounds. Anti-abortionists also have specific attitudes relative to sexuality, feminism, and teenagers rights. I'll bite my tongue for now, except I must say that one thing I cannot stand in the pro-life movement is the pretense of self-righteousness and moral superiority - especially within the religious communities.

Let's see if the rest of the pro-life movement is any better.

ROBERTSON, OUT OF CONTROL

Pat Robertson is indeed a character. Of late we have had endless supply of mini-scandals and blunders and apologies, all coming from him.

And in his most recent faux pas, he charges that radical Muslims are satanic. Someone needs to put a muzzle on him, and I am dead serious about it.

One cannot help but think the man is a lunatic, and I believe he is. The problem is, he is a very rich and influential one. His popular The 700 Club television talk show has a large audience in the United States and Canada, and it is also broadcast in other countries. And to make matters worse, he is a strong supporter of a "Greater Israel" and has even been awarded the State of Israel Friendship Award from the Zionist Organization of America.

Shame on them all.

STILL ABOUT INDIA, IRAN AND NUCLEAR REALITY

In light of my previous post, I think it is interesting to include here a link to this article by Robert Kagan. Kagan is a monthly columnist with the Washington Post, in addition to being a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a fellow at the German Marshall Fund.

It is a very pragmatic piece, written by someone who obviously knows what he is talking about.

A NEW BED IN THE MAKING

Once again, El Presidente is making a big bed - and we will all have to lie in it long after he is gone from the White House. We could very well name this bed "The Selective Breaking of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) When Suitable".

It is a dangerous bed, even though this is India - a friendly democratic nation - we are talking about. India (together with Pakistan and Israel) has declined to sign the NPT, but the United States is a major signatory. Which means the current administration should be respecting the treaty's definitions and sticking to them.

El Presidente, however, is trying to build a case on the fact that India is a peaceful nation and not an enemy of democracy; that India is an "exception". But if Congress agrees with him, nuclear trade between the United States and India could help further destabilize an already rough corner of the world.

Under this rationale of exception, what should stop a madman like Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from breaking every rule of the treaty as well (Iran is a signatory)? Not to mention that further developing its currently primitive nuclear program will give Iran an edge and definitely the means with which to try and really wipe Israel off the map (let's face it, the man is deranged).

But it is always good to remember that in the past there was plenty of nuclear cooperation between the United States and Iran (one might say that Iran once qualified as the "exception", no? A vicious cycle perhaps?). Some of the documents signed in the seventies under the auspices of then President Gerald Ford, now Vice President Dick Cheney and other equally powerful players can be found at this website.

Of course, this all changed after Iran became a theocracy following the 1979 revolution. But the damage was already done.

So it is 2006, and El Presidente is making concessions about India and bending the rules; Iran, without a doubt, will make the most of it. And although I am by all accounts an optimist, it is hard to believe that Iran truly intends to develop a peaceful nuclear industry. Not under this president and not under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (in 2005, he released an anti-nuclear fatwa, but then recently he also clarified that Iran will not bow to foreign pressure in what concerns its nuclear plans; plus, he is another madman himself).

So, the question remains - why is El Presidente making one more bed? We have many already. And soon enough the beds will outnumber us...

He should stay put, at least this once.

GOD BLESS CARTOONS

Governor Mike Rounds of South Dakota is high up in my list of least favorite American politicians. I am personally offended by his actions and words on this dreadful abortion law.

FIRE

I got some bad news last night: the offices of The Holocaust History Project (THHP) in San Antonio, TX were intentionally set on fire on March 6. Although there are no definitive leads as to who did this, arson investigators will continue to collect evidence.

This is terrible. THHP has been on the forefront of the online fight against Holocaust denial, and they were very supportive last year when I contacted David Irving and as a result got several tasteless emails from his followers.

If anything, it shows that THHP has indeed been doing a good job. These animals need to be caught though. I find it hard to believe anyway that any attack on an organization such as THHP would not be of an anti-semitic nature... And it cannot go unnoticed nor unpunished.

SOUTH DAKOTA STRIKES AGAIN

Is anyone surprised that the South Dakota abortion ban bill became law? I am not. Governot Mike Rounds always made sure we all knew how he felt about abortion and he acted accordingly.

South Dakota has now banned all abortions in its territory, even in cases of rape and/or incest. This is the conclusion of one chapter and the beginning of another: that of a series of battles on the constitutionality of such a law.

Surprise or not, this is a serious blow to all these women in South Dakota - about 800 a year - who seek abortions. They will not be able to do so in their home state.

I am shocked, I am sad, and angry as well. These people, who are they to make decisions about other people's private lives and choices? What is this pretense of self-righteousness? I am at a loss for words, so let me just quote Governor Rounds himself:

"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them."

Enough said.

STUPIDITY

The problems of the world today could be simplistically reduced to one word - stupidity. Only stupidity would drive three Israeli Jews (seemingly, a couple and their daughter) to plant a series of small bombs in a Nazareth church, which obviously led to some rioting. Especially given the current political landscape of the region, meaning: the Hamas victory and fragile leadership in Israel due to Ariel Sharon's massive stroke a few months ago.

If in fact the couple has been treated in the past for psychiatric problems and had their children removed from their care by the government (as reported by the New York Times), then why are they out now, free to wander the country planting bombs? Especially if they threatened to bomb other churches in the past. Which they did. So the stupidity abounds, from every possible side.

Stupidity abounds also in the recent meeting between Hamas and the Russians. Well, from the part of the Russians - it is stupid to invite Hamas over for a number of reasons. To say the least, it is a reminder of the Cold War relationship between the Soviet Union and the PLO. Why on earth would Putin try to revive that sort of glory? Not to mention that the visit is taking place amidst the uproar about the Iran nuclear situation, which is also linked to Russia. As of now, Hamas leaders are not scheduled to meet with Putin; but this could change, and that would be very, very stupid of the Russian president.

The visit turns out to be stupid for Hamas as well - Hamas leadership, soooo happy about being formally invited on a state visit by one of the major players in the world arena, was surprised shortly upon arrival with a chilly request to recognize Israel and dismantle its armed factions.

El Presidente, as we all know, continuously provides us with evidence that stupidity is indeed limitless. I mean, how stupid is the fact that he denied having been briefed on the precarious conditions of the New Orleans levees when the whole thing was caught on tape? Duh. El Presidente on candid camera...

How about David Irving? Without question, he holds first place for complete, indestructible stupidity (together with the Iranian president, another first-rate lunatic). From jail in Austria, he had the nerve and the dishonesty to deny the Holocaust all over again - even though during his swift trial he tried to pass as repentant and mumbled something about having been mistaken all those years... Right. That's really stupid, considering that there are those who are advocating a longer prison term than the three years he already got (as a reminder, I am against his sentencing, even though I despise the man).

Here in LA, a $1 million dollar Ferrari (one of only 400 ever made, and illegally brought into the US) hit a telephone pole in Malibu, mystery driver and all. There is plenty of stupidity here. First, who buys a $1 million dollar car?!?!? Second, who smashes an illegally imported $1 million dollar car into a telephone pole? In Malibu (talk about cliché)? Need I say more?

In my home country of Brazil, one of the recently stolen art pieces from a museum in Rio de Janeiro during the carnival festivities was put up for sale on an internet auction site for $13 million - on a Russian website. Er, um, it is a Matisse painting; it is not like it can go unnoticed. I thought this type of internet activity could be traced - oh well, maybe I am the stupid one. And in any case, who would be stupid enough to purchase a stolen Matisse from a Russian website? And isn't it also stupid to disclose this type of information to the press?

As an analogy (with concessions, of course) - during the Israeli Olympic team massacre in Munich in 1972, a very stupid and costly mistake was to let the police activity inside the Olympic village be televised by the news crews at the scene. The terrorists knew everything that was happening outside (including the German snipers on the rooftops) because they could watch it all on the television...

Now that was stupid. Tough competition here. Let's hope the podium is wide and long enough.

ALITO SHINES

Supreme Court Justice Alito Jr. was a little smarter than failed Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers (apparently not that hard, by the way), at least until a few days ago - he waited until he was comfortably seated at his Supreme Court bench to show his true colors.

And it seems these true colors range from religious conservatism to a troubling lack of political savvy - dangerous combination...

Recently, Alito sent a thank-you letter to Focus on the Family's James Dobson, a very strange and very powerful man who believes that homosexuality can be "cured" (meaning, he thinks homosexuality is a disease); he also manages to find a parallel between stem cell research and the horrific experiments conducted in Nazi Germany under the guise of science; and, he obviously is opposed to abortion and advocates pre-marital sexual abstinence.

The letter expressed Alito's gratitude for Dobson's support during the nomination and confirmation process, and in it Alito vowed: "as long as I serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me".

Now, the letter itself is slightly over the top, no doubt. But it appears that Alito also asked Dobson to convey his appreciation to all those who supported him as well. Which Dobson promptly did by sharing the letter with his audience at a recent broadcast of his daily show.

Aside from the fact that I doubt Alito sent such an enthusiastic letter to every single one of his supporters, the situation is a bit surreal. First, that was not the smartest of moves from Alito's position; and second, Dobson's decision to read the letter on worldwide radio is also a bit puzzling - even if this is all about "thank you" and nothing else, it could very well backfire and raise questions about Alito's loyalties and how those will influence his performance as a Supreme Court Justice.

Or we could just look at Dobson's choice of action as pure arrogance, especially when followed by this statement: "We do not yet know how these men (Alito and Chief Justice Roberts) will vote, but every indication is that they get it, they understand". He also added that their confirmation may be "just in time, because partial-birth abortion is now being considered by the Supreme Court."

I truly hope this is just an old-fashioned blunder. On all counts.

PORTS

About the Dubai ports deal, I have the following comments to make.

It is my understanding that the security of the ports would be still enforced by the US Coast Guard and that said ports would of course still fall under the jurisdiction of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Right? It is not like the ports will be a separate nation with their own laws; they will not be a country within a country.

In that sense, I believe that the focus here should be on making sure that those involved in security and customs are well trained, well equipped, well educated and - as incorruptible as possible.

That’s right. Incorruptible.

Here is a little background for my comment: I arrived in Los Angeles in 1995, and lived for a long time in the midst of the Israeli community in the San Fernando Valley. My friends were mostly Israeli, I spoke Hebrew day in and day out, I shopped at Israeli-owned stores and so forth. As if I had never ever left Tel Aviv.

The Israelis in Los Angeles, like any other immigrant community, are divided into those who are legal and those who are not. And like most immigrants, they know how to work the system to their advantage.

In those days, pre-9/11 and the ensuing hysteria, there was talk among Israelis of Social Security Administration offices where one could go and get a Social Security card – a real one - with no mention of INS restrictions of any kind. There was also talk of DMV offices where one could go and obtain a driver’s license even though his visa would not be enough to provide him with the real thing (only a piece of paper with a very short expiration date). All of this, of course, for a fee – and that fee could go up to $5,000 at the time for the driver’s licenses, if I remember it correctly.

I personally was protected by my student status (which was real, not bogus - I did go to school) and later my work permits, and not only that: I am not an Israeli citizen. My situation was different than that of most of my friends. And of these friends, I myself do not know of any who made use of such kombinot, like we say in Hebrew. But I heard of acquaintances of acquaintances who did. Most Americans are not aware of such things because the immigrant world is like a parallel universe – this is true everywhere, by the way, but maybe more so here in some strange way (well, this is a nation of immigrants, no?).

In the current ports issue, the impression I get is that until very recently most people did not even know that the ports in question were owned by foreign companies. Most of these senators jumping up and down had no clue up until a few days ago that Dubai Ports World had purchased the British company currently operating the ports, even though the deal was not a secret and negotiations had started back in September 2005 (here is a BBC article from November) – and that the purchase did not make an exception for those ports on American soil.

And yes, I do know that some of the 9/11 hijackers had ties with UAE (which, for those who are not familiar with it, is actually a loose federation of seven emirates and Dubai is only one of them), and today I also awoke to the (no) news that the UAE (or more so, Dubai Ports World) paticipates in a boycott of Israeli products.

Er, that is kind of standard in Muslim countries. Again, Americans seem surprised and overwhelmed by the world at large.

I am not saying that the deal should be approved, that is not for me to decide. I just find it all very naïve. Really. Ports (man-made or not) are surely vulnerable points of entry into any country with a coastline (heck, so many Jews got into then-Palestine on little boats), but that is no excuse for not letting Dubai Ports World operate the ports in this age of globalization and considering that this could be seen as a result, indirect or not, of the current administration’s foreign policies (which are obviously brimming with double standards - but then again, what isn’t?).

And let’s not forget that Dubai (and the UAE) is one of the most important allies the Americans have in the Middle East – it is one of the busiest ports of call (if not the busiest) for the United States Navy outside the continental United States. And, to finalize it, there is always the money - and there is a lot of it involved.

OIL AND WATER/TEA AND WINE

I recenly met someone - a man, about my age. He is a lawyer, Ivy-League educated, and like me, a secular/reform Jew.

I make a point of not talking much about my personal endeavors here because, honestly, they would not be of interest to anyone else but me. But this encounter holds special significance because the man in question and I are on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Now, that may mean very little to someone who is not politically minded. But in truth, politics is life. It is the door to someone's worldview. It is also in many ways the tip of the iceberg.

So he is a conservative and I am a liberal. Being American, his conservatism is reflected on his support for El Presidente and the current administration, the death penalty, restrictions on gay marriage, the right to bear arms and so forth. Being Jewish, his conservatism shows in his support for the occupation of Palestinian territories (he actually claims that said occupation is not really an occupation, since according to him this land was Jewish to begin with - in line with the biblical land of Israel argument, which frankly has no place in the mind of a secular/reform Jew), and his complete detachment from the Palestinian reality or at least the fact that they represent the other side of the same story.

Which, in turn, means that I was having a glass of wine (while he, due to some predictable allergy, was sipping on hot tea at the very busy and trendy Ciudad in downtown LA) with an extremely intolerant, black-and-white type of person on a precious Friday evening.

It only got better. Later on he told me that the Muslims are responsible for every problem the world has, and that it has always been the case. I was speechless (which is a very rare phenomena) and really did not know how to counteract such a statement. How do you argue with someone who is so completely disconnected from everything?

And then, it only got worse (and please keep in mind I am taking shortcuts here) - somehow, somewhere, Germany came up. Or Germans. And he told me that he hates Germans/Germany, that he will never set foot in Germany, he will never make an effort to meet any Germans (of any generation) or relate to them in anyway etc etc out of respect for the six million Jews murdered in the Holocaust.

As I asked a few questions to try and understand his logic (I was hoping there was some sort of logic to it all), I told him that I thought this was incomprehensible to me. He wanted me to elaborate and I explained to him that he was so young, and so completely intolerant and insensitive (and probably ignorant too, but I left that one out in fear he would crush my head on the bar counter). That he was so shut off from the rest of the world. That by lumping all Germans and Muslims together as mass murderers and whatnot, he was just like the worst of them. That as a Jew, he has a moral obligation to be the least prejudiced he can possibly be, and that is where he should invest all his energy.

"Oh", he said, "so you are a Nazi apologist."

Anyone who knows me and/or has read this blog (at least the text right underneath my picture) knows that I am the farthest thing from a Nazi apologist. But I refuse to classify all Germans as Nazis - those who lived before, during and after the Holocaust were people, not an amorphous mass. I refuse to pollute my mind with such hatred. And such lies.

Same goes for Muslims.

It was a memorable night. One that lasted too long as well. But in the end, it reinforced my newly acquired theory that there is something really wrong with these offsprings from affluent Jewish families who get their degrees at Ivy League schools. Especially the lawyers and MBA'ers. Something is happening on the way to heaven, that is clear.

Imagine - a young man like this, smart and devoted to his ideals (I assure you he is both), could one day become an influential judge or politician. What are the odds that he would become more liberal with time? Very slim. Most likely he will join some vigilante group by the time he is 50, bandanna and all, and police the borders on weekends. Or go quail hunting. Or just hunting. Who knows what on earth else.

On a positive note: this encounter led me to reread the amazing "The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness" by Simon Wiesenthal (recommended a while ago by Andrew in his blog) and also the very lucid "How to Cure a Fanatic" by Amos Oz. Both should be required reading; and in cases involving Jewish Ivy-League educated, prejudiced and borderline xenophobic tea-drinking lawyers, they should be intravenously fed.

NIGERIA

The New York Times today has an article titled "Nigeria Counts 100 Deaths Over Danish Caricatures."

This post is to voice my frustration at such a headline. It is misleading, not to say simplistic. The violence in Nigeria certainly was ignited in part by the publishing of the cartoons, but the tension between Christians, Muslims and other groups has been building up for years and years (actually, more like centuries). It is no news to anyone remotely familiar with Nigerian history that ethnic and religious differences have only been made worse in recent years by the rocky political scenario of this African nation.

The cartoons were nothing more than an excuse for each group to act upon their long-burning contempt for the others.

In fact, the article does go on to provide some background and explain that conflicts of such nature have happened many times before in Nigeria. After all, this is a country with over a hundred different ehtnic groups - as pretty much all former colonies in the continent of Africa (modern Nigeria as we know today was defined under British rule, which in turn was established in large part through slave trafficking).

So why the headline? Something like "Ethnic, Religious Clashes in Nigeria Claim 100 Lives" would be more accurate. Then, mention the cartoons as the last event in a cycle of violence that has been around for too long.

SOUTH DAKOTA MAKES A MOVE

South Dakota earned yesterday the distinction of beating Utah as my number one choice for the state of the Union where I will never, ever live. And for that matter, probably not even visit at this point.

At least Utah once had Stockton and Malone.

But South Dakota is not only flat (well, a large part of it is) and square but also regressive. After all, they managed to vote for the criminalization of almost all abortions - 23 to 12. If this bill becomes a law (meaning, if Gov. Mike Rounds really decides to make his well-known opposition to abortion more than just a personal opinion by signing this bill), the only way a woman can obtain an abortion in South Dakota is if her life is endangered by her pregnancy.

The message is clear: South Dakota believes that it all begins at conception. And therefore any act to terminate a pregnancy would entail murder. If this becomes law, any doctor caught performing abortions in South Dakota will incur felony charges.

This is considered one of the strictest attacks on abortion rights in the last 14 years; it does not provide for any exception in the case of rape, incest or the health of the mother. It basically strips the pregnant mother of any individual rights in a decision that has long-term repercussions for all involved - including the child.

This is so depressing. Really. In other parts of the world, women are finally gaining a momentum in their fight for abortion rights, meaning - in their fight for control over their lives, their personal decisions and even the well-being of children born out of unwanted pregnancies. In Chile and other South American nations, for instance, things are slowly but surely moving towards a pro-choice society, and one should not forget that even though abortion is illegal in most of these countries, it is still performed regularly (and sometimes these procedures are incredibly dangerous to the woman's life and health, obviously).

Here in the United States, where the literacy rate is high and there is access to information from literally every corner of the country, the focus should go into sex education and family planning in order to deter unwanted/unplanned pregnancies and therefore the need for abortions. But instead, a lot of energy and money goes into fostering these debates which, frankly, should not be carried at the public level other than provide those seeking abortions with the legal frame and medical infrastructure to do so.

South Dakota is the first state to openly try to take advantage of the current Supreme Court composition, also taking into account the fact that Justice Stevens is already 85 years old and his replacing could very well happen under El Presidente still. Imagine the consequences - if this bill becomes law, it will surely be challenged and argued before a Supreme Court that has been reshaped entirely by a president who considers other people's pregancies, lifestyle and will/how-to-die choices his own personal business - among other things.

As a work colleague pointed out today: "basically, we are screwed."

Not to mention that such a law would drive hundreds of South Dakota women (I'd say thousands, but then it occurred to me that there are only about 770,000 people in South Dakota, and annual abortions stay in the 700-800 range) to seek abortion procedures in Minnesota, for instance.

That, of course, is the best case scenario. The worst one involves secretly performed abortions in shady (and duly expensive) clinics or even at home, both of which present great risk and unnecessary distress to the women in question.

514 SIGNED

I can't help it - I still get aggravated about these anti-evolutionists because they still try to discredit Darwin at every possible turn!! It is never ending! It feels like you knock one down and two more spring out of nowhere.

Well, not exactly nowhere. The latest ones came out of a Discovery Institute-sponsored (big surprise) petition that boasts signatures by 514 scientists and engineers. Uuugh.

The major American newspapers are doing a good job at keeping us informed of these ridiculous undertakings by the Discovery Institute and its supporters. I read the articles with a mixture of disbelief and sheer anger, not to mention relief at the fact that I have no children in any school system which could be targeted by these idiots. Yet.

A recent New York Times article lists a few of the most prominent signers - Prof. James Tour (chemistry), Rice University; Rosalind Picard, affective computing research group at MIT; and Philip Skell, a chemistry professor who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Obviously, many fo the signers come from evangelical Christian backgrounds and take their religion very seriously. So not only they see fault with evolution from a scientific standpoint, but for them evolution conflicts with their religious beliefs. One of them, a professor at Clarkson University, even said that the concept of intelligent design is very interesting and promising.

But the following is by far the best statement: "the world is broken and we humans and our science can't fix it." Oh well, I guess we'll just wait for the heavens to take an interest in our humble and earnest daily fight for survival to help us mend the world. Who knows, maybe angels will come down and show us the cure for cancer too at the same time.

And I wonder: where is Horowitz when you need him? But wait: he would never blacklist the good Christian conservatives... Well, maybe in 20 years, when he goes back to being a liberal (and money money money).

JAIL TIME

David Irving's trial was short and straight to the point. The Austrian judge hearing the case did not accept Irving's claim that now he does understand that the gas chambers did exist in Auschwitz and that he had learned a lot in the 17 years since his inflammatory speeches on Austrian soil.

After Irving pleaded guilty to the Holocaust denial charges - which was expected - the judge sentenced him to three years of imprisonment under the current Austrian Holocaust denial laws. The severity of the sentence was surprising; at least I was surprised.

That Irving is rotten and I daresay insane/senile (you have to be one or both to purposedly return to a country where there is an outstanding warrant for your arrest) is no news. And I do not believe for a minute that he really changed his mind and his heart about the existence of the gas chambers. After all, when reporters asked him about the guilty plea, he replied: "I have no choice."

Still, he is being incarcerated for being ignorant, malicious and prejudiced. Is that right?

A prison term is not the right answer, not the right tactics when dealing with Holocaust deniers. Now, Irving will be a larger-than-life hero in the revisionist, anti-semitic and neo-Nazi world. And I think we already have our hands full with other idiots such as Ernst Zündel and Arthur Butz (by the way, how does Northwestern put up with that? Can't they get rid of him or something? I am not sure if free speech of such bigoted nature as Holocaust denial has any place in an institution of the caliber of Northwestern University. And has he been blacklisted by David Horowitz? Just curious). We don't need any more martyrs.

Not to mention that the timing could not be worse. We're still trying to come to terms with the violence that erupted (and is still happening) with the Muhammad cartoons. It is only a matter of time until the president of Iran, who is known for his Holocaust denial views and undisputable lunacy/ignorance, issues some sort of statement accusing the west of double standards when handling free speech.

And how will we be able to argue back? Those Muslims displeased and enraged by the cartoons will say that if Irving can be sentenced to three years in prison for denying the Holocaust, then why can't those behind the publication of the cartoons be decapitated?

Irving, though, will have a comfortable time during this prison term. His business will flourish, he will sell his books like never before, he will receive thousands of donations and letters of support, he will be invited as a guest speaker to countless events and he will, more than ever, speak his hatred and his bias. Sadly, he might have won this one.