January 31, 2006

HAMAS IN POWER

Well, it took me a few days to digest the fact that Hamas is now the official and democratically chosen representative of the guys next door. I, like most people, believed that Hamas would win a good many seats, but not the majority.

It is hard to fathom Israel engaging in peace talks with a government that doesn't even recognize its (Israel) existence; Hamas will be forever tainted by suicide bombings and the like for most Israelis. In fact, for me too.

Not that Fatah is so much better. Really. The rampant corruption under the current Palestinian Authority was definitely a huge factor in the outcome of the elections. Hamas was smart enough to pursue the exact opposite image among its own people through the creation of an extensive and very efficient social programs network to assist the impoverished population.

Simply put, Palestinians chose to vote for the people who they think will take better care of them - Hamas. Hamas will feed them, Hamas will clothe them, Hamas will educate them, Hamas will give them medicines and so forth. The peace process surely comes second when compared to the harsh reality of Palestinian daily life.

But this is also the same Hamas whose charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state and the creation of a Muslim theocracy in Palestine and the lands now belonging to Israel, cites the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as evidence of Jewish evil, and has the following to say about women:

"She has to be of sufficient knowledge and understanding where the performance of housekeeping matters are concerned, because economy and avoidance of waste of the family budget, is one of the requirements for the ability to continue moving forward in the difficult conditions surrounding us. She should put before her eyes the fact that the money available to her is just like blood which should never flow except through the veins so that both children and grown-ups could continue to live."

One cannot deny that Israel is partly accountable for Hamas victory. Without exploring what/who came first, it is no wonder that the major theme in this election was the basic need for survival; after all, Palestinians have been oppressed one way or another for many decades. For the sake of fairness, one must never forget one of the absolute truths of the world - cause and consequence. For better and for worse.

I am dumbfounded and very concerned about the results of this election. I have serious doubts as to whether Hamas leadership will be able to congeal itself into one homogeneous block aiming for peace. For instance: how will the Ezzedeen-al-qassam, the armed faction of the Hamas, fit into this new scheme of things? Are they going to be upgraded from suicide bombing planners to army in command?

Think about it - from now on, any terrorist attack on Israeli lives would most likely result in full blown war. A very delicate situation in a very complex corner of the world.

Also, a very dear corner of the world for me and for many more people. Let us all hope and pray for peace, patience and fairness.

January 25, 2006

GREAT PICTURE


Couldn't resist, this is a beautiful picture, and it is right by my house - it was on the LA Times website today... I think the photographer was Allen Schaben.



January 21, 2006

SMOKE-FREE CALABASAS?

The city of Calabasas, CA has approved one of the strictest bans on public smoking in the country. According to the new ordinance, smoking is not allowed even outdoors if other people are in the area. The rationale behind the ban is to safekeep locals from the health hazards associated with secondhand smoking.

I am 100% opposed to this ordinance. Actually, make that 200%. As a non-smoker, I find this ban invasive, patronizing, and even unconstitutional. This is ridiculous.

When businesses were made to ban smoking (pubs, restaurants etc), I thought: "ok, I don't really agree with it, but at least I can understand it". This one is beyond my comprehension, though. We are talking about sidewalks, parks, public benches in open air. And I suppose in such locales the health hazards of secondhand smoking would have a lot to do with the direction of the wind, right?

Personally, I am of the opinion that if people do not want to stand near a smoker, they don't have to; they can walk away. I'd think the beach is big enough, no? It is really stressful to see that more and more people are releasing themselves from responsibility over their own lives and placing it on someone else and/or other outside agents. My
previous post - the one about the Kellogg's and Nickelodeon lawsuit - is another example of that.

It is comforting to know that quite a few Calabasas residents who are non-smokers disagree with the ordinance. I do hope that is a sign for the people behind it that this time they just went too far.

January 20, 2006

KELLOGG'S AND NICKELODEON IN COURT

So a couple of parents, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood decided to sue Kellogg's and Nickelodeon for what they perceive as irresponsibility when placing food ads aimed at children. Their lawsuit comes in the heels of a recent study that determined that companies' usage of TV ads was in turn causing children to eat unhealthily.

Really, as much as I share their concern for the well-being for children all around the world, the ads are not exactly to blame here. I mean, they certainly prey on the youngsters with their images of sugary foods etc, but still - it is up to the parents to educate their children well and also feed them in a healthy manner.

Growing up, I was allowed only a small amount of TV. And snacks consisted of small homemade sandwiches, fruit, juice and toast, etc. Soda was reserved for weekends. No chips, for instance. Pringles was something I first saw when I was 16, and was traveling abroad.

This is not to say that other families in Brazil raised their children the same way. Many of my friends did consume a fair amount of junk food, and later on, microwaveable foods (when those became popular). My parents, while by no means overly concerned with healthy eating, just ate well. There's always some sort of salad on our table, and some other vegetable dish as a side. Sweets (as in candy, chocolate) were rare, but we always had dessert (which could be one of the wonderful fruits we have back home or a homemade flan, for instance). And this is the way I grew up.

Nowadays, I still do not buy nor eat chips. It is very rare that I even accept one when offered. Again, not because I am a healthy eater, but because I do not even like the taste so much. And as far as eating out in junk food places, rarely as well. Occasionally, I will crave a cheeseburger - but then as soon as I bite into one of them I know something is missing. I try and make my own burgers at home, they tend to taste better anyway.

What I am getting at here is that these people don't seem to realize that whatever kids do, they get their cues from us, adults. So if we raise our children on a diet of TV-and-Big Mac more than once a week (heck, more than once every 6 months for me is already a crime!), then what can we expect?

I know it is hard to see what came first by now, the chicken or the egg. But another thing to take into account is that Americans have an interesting relationship with food: the portions are always huge, for instance, along the lines of quantity and not exactly quality... After all, this is the land of "supersize me", right?

I believe that if parents cut the time their children spent in front of the TV by half and encouraged them to participate in more productive activities (whatever happened to playing anyway?), that alone would change their eating habits. And home-cooked meals, everyone seating around the table, eating peacefully, no TV to gawk at during mealtime - all that would have a positive effect.

Kellogg's is in the food business; Nickelodeon is in the TV and advertising business. I don't know, but this lawsuit sounds like a stretch to me. Plus, this Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood - it doesn't sound right. It sounds quite absurd actually.

EVEN HAMAS NEEDS GOOD PR...

I came across this piece of news today - Hamas has hired some public relations man for a little under $200,000 to rescue the organization's image.

Not to be condescending here, but what exactly will this person do? Mr. Nashat Aqtash - who says he is not a member of Hamas and does not know where the funds for his paycheck come from - was brought in because of the impending Palestinian elections, to be held next week on January 25, 2006. According to the polls, Hamas will be a force to reckon with in the Palestinian Legislative Council. So here comes Mr. Aqtash.

With a media background (that is what he teaches at
Birzeit University in Ramallah), this man has the indisputably very difficult task of convincing the rest of the world that Hamas is not made up of several disgruntled, pathologically-unfit-for-society individuals whose only goal in life is to destroy Israel and Jews in general.

So what will Mr. Aqtash say? That Hamas was once a peaceful organization, but later forced to fight? That Hamas does not believe in terrorism and actually recognizes the right of Israel to exist (up until this minute, it has not)? Or will he try to ignore the fact that the Hamas Covenant calls for the destruction of the Jewish state and the imposition of an Islamic one instead?

Well, so far he has been capitalizing on Palestinian suffering and advising those affiliated with Hamas in any capacity to avoid making anti-semitic remarks of any kind. There is even some rumour that he has been trying to persuade Sheikh Mohammed Abu Tir, second on the Hamas national list for the Palestinian parliamentary election, to get rid of his infamous red beard, which he dyes with henna...




It will be hard for most people (nearly impossible for many) to let go of the image of Hamas terrorists responsible for, let's say, the
Passover Massacre of 2002, the Jerusalem bus 20 bombing, and more. As an insight into the psyche of Hamas: more recently, in September 2005, a transport carrying Hamas rockets exploded during one of their parades (seriously - they parade! With rockets! Among their own people!) through Gaza, killing civilian spectators. Immediately, Hamas attempted to blame the Israelis for the explosion, and responded by firing rockets at Israel. The Palestinian Authority and Israel both denounced Hamas's claim as false.

My humble opinion, from my Angeleno outspost here: maybe if they stop cheering everytime they kill people; maybe if they stop the bombings; maybe if they cut back on the "death to Israel" talk - well, all this could have a somewhat positive effect. I am still an optimist, after all. But man... It does seem nearly impossible.

Good luck, Mr. Aqtash.

UNDERSEAS...

"You took an oath to defend our flag and our freedom, and you kept that oath underseas and under fire."El Presidente addressing war veterans, Washington, D.C., Jan. 10, 2006

January 19, 2006

SOME LEVITY

Well, I really did have a few laughs while reading this letter. Even though I only received it today from a co-worker, a quick online search revealed that this text has been around for about 2 years now, and it sports a few variations. Also, it seems that John Cleese is not the author, but I admit it is way more fun to believe that he did indeed pen this concoction!!!

From John Cleese:

To the citizens of the United States of America:

In light of your failure to elect a competent President and thus to effectively govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah (some versions say Kansas), which she does not fancy.

Your new prime minister (The Right Honourable Tony Blair, MP) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections.

Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary.

2. Then look up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.

3. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour', skipping the letter 'U' is nothing more than laziness on your part. Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters. You will end your love affair with the letter 'Z' (pronounced 'zed', not 'zee') and the suffix "ize" will be replaced by the suffix "ise".

4. You will learn that the suffix 'burgh' is pronounced 'burra' e.g. Edinburgh.You are welcome to respell Pittsburgh as 'Pittsberg' if you can't cope with correct pronunciation.

5. Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels (look up "vocabulary"). Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication (look up "interspersed").

6. There will be no more 'bleeps' in the Jerry Springer Show. If you're not old enough to cope with bad language then you shouldn't have chat shows. When you learn to develop your vocabulary then you won't have to use bad language as often.

7. There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of "-ize".

8. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. British sit-coms such as "Men Behaving Badly" or "Red Dwarf" will not be re-cast and watered down for a wishy-washy American audience who can't cope with the humour of occasional political incorrectness.

9. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen", but only after fully carrying out tasks 1 through 5. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through.

10. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game. Instead, you shall play proper football - what you call soccer. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies).

11. Further, you should stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the 'World Series' for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.15% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. Instead of baseball, you will be allowed to play a girls' game called "rounders" which is baseball without fancy team strip, oversized gloves, collector cards or hotdogs.

12. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists.The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous in public than a vegetable peeler. Because we don't believe you are sensible enough to handle potentially dangerous items, you will require a permit if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

13. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 2nd will be a new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive Day".

14. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this ban is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.

15. All road intersections will be replaced with roundabouts. You will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

16. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips. Fries aren't even French, they are Belgian (though 97.82% of you - including the guy who discovered fries while in Europe - are notaware of a country called Belgium). Those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called "crisps". Real chips are thick cut and fried in animal fat.

17. The traditional accompaniment to chips is beer, which should be served warm and flat. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. The substances formerly known as "American Beer" will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine; this will allow true Budweiser (as manufactured for the last 1000 years in Pilsen, Czech Republic) to be sold without risk of confusion.

18. From November 10th on the UK will harmonise petrol (or "Gasoline" as you will be permitted to keep calling it until April 1st, 2005) prices with the former USA. The former USA will, in return, adopt UK petrol prices (roughly $6/US gallon - get used to it).


19. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy.

20. Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).

21. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 pm with proper cups (never mugs), high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes, strawberries in season.

22. Last but not least, and for heaven's sake.....it's nuclear as in "clear" - NOT nucular.

QUICK UPDATE ON PARADISE

I find it strangely eerie that right after my previous posting I learn of the latest suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. It injured between 15 to 20 people (it varies according to the source), and I am glad to hear that there are no casualties. Let us hope it remains that way.

The bomber - he was just 21 years old.

January 16, 2006

PARADISE NOW - OR MAYBE NOT

Last Friday, a good friend took me to this showing of the Palestinian movie Paradise Now, the winner (back then the favorite contender) for Best Foreign Movie category at this year's Golden Globe Awards. I confess I had second thoughts about watching that movie - I made the mistake of reading all kinds of blogs and forums about it, and was afraid for a moment that it would all be too much for me.

In general, I am as liberal as they come. I am against the occupation, although at the same time I understand the rationale behind it. Obviously, I am strongly opposed to suicide bombings, just as I am opposed to IDF violence and the building of more and more settlements on occupied territories.

Anyhow: there I was, watching the movie in Santa Monica last Friday. Interesting, touching movie. As with Spielberg's
Munich, the subject-matter is so powerful that it outweighs mostly anything else. Of course, one does notice acting, screenplay etc. But the story is alive, and it stands alone.

At the end of the screening, we were graced with the presence of the director, Hany Abu-Assad, and the two actors in the central roles, Kais Nashef and Ali Suliman. We had a Q&A session, and I must say that even though the three of them were for the most part very personable and likeable (especially Abu-Assad), that was the most difficult portion of the evening for me.

For many reasons - one, the stupidity of some of the questions... Amazing! "Did you know you would end up in Hollywood, at the Golden Globes, in a tux?" Please.

Another reason - the prevailing attitude in the room. Sooo Hollywood, you know. So... just so much attitude. Very unnerving, or maybe I am just not used to it. Some people were practically licking the cast & crew feet, while others were almost crucifying them.

But most unsettling was to see that even though there was a genuine attempt from the director and actors' part to portray the movie as a work of art and not as a political statement, a political statement it is nevertheless. It is on its own, and also through their words and the way they responded to some of the questions. And honestly, it could not be any different.

It came in waves, though. For instance, when asked where he was born, Abu-Assad answered Nazareth, Palestine. That in itself is a very revealing reply, since Nazareth has been an Israeli city ever since the
UN Partition Plan (which happened before Abu-Assad was born, obviously) and thus never part of the occupied territories. Meaning: Abu-Assad was born in Israel proper; he is an Israeli Arab citizen.

At a later instance, he was asked by one of these very eager audience members about what in his opinion was behind the phenomenon of suicide bombers. His reply came with no hesitation - the Israeli occupation and the toll it has taken on the Palestinian people; according to him, the Palestinians have nothing to live with and nothing to live for.


I confess this brought tears to my eyes. Tears of sorrow and of rage - an educated man, who tried for about an hour prior to that to build the case that his movie is not a political statement but a work of art, coming up with such an answer to such a question.

On the other hand, it must be easier to see things this way. Blame it on the Israelis. Sure. Let's not even examine the fact that other nations with ongoing conflicts and secession movements and whatnot, even those with terrorist organizations in constant confrontation with the established government (such as the IRA and ETA), do not sport such a plethora of suicide bombing incidents. They bomb, that's for sure. But some even call ahead in order to prevent unnecessary loss of life.

And really, the Israeli occupation and its treatment of the Palestinian population, while arguable in many ways and definitely not peaceful (I know, a peaceful occupation would be a paradox), can hardly be branded as the most violent and inhumane of all, especially when compared to the character of the Turkish/Armenian and the Iraqi/Kurds conflicts. Suicide bombings in those, by the way, were not common.

This is something I have tremendous difficulty with, no matter if this is Israelis or Palestinians we are talking about. How can people completely disregard accuracy, fairness, history, consciousness - just like that? Then, on the other hand, this must be how wars start. How people kill each other. How genocides are carried out. When people can't see beyond themselves, beyond their world.

The Israeli occupation is unfortunate, but to say that it is directly responsible for the suicide bombings - that is simplistic to say the very least. Sure, I see how much cheaper suicide bombings are than just any bombing; how much less time-consuming, how less revealing they are since there is less work involved, less human interaction, and all with the added intensity of people who are willing to blow themselves up supposedly for their beliefs (there is some debate about this, with some people saying that sometimes the suicide bombers are actually not entirely aware of what their mission entails).


Also, I disagree with the common assumption that suicide bombers are motivated by despair, and probably hailed from a poor, neglected segment of society (as a sidenote, some of them - actually many of them - are not even Palestinian to begin with). Both El Presidente and the Dalai Lama have made this claim. However, there is much evidence to the contrary and anthropologist Scott Atran, among others, found that this is not a justifiable conclusion (see one of his articles here).

In fact, most bombers are educated, many with college or university experience, and come from middle class homes. Also, most do not show any signs of psychopathology. Indeed, leaders of the groups who perpetrate these attacks search for individuals who can be trusted to carry out their missions; those with mental illnesses are obviously not ideal candidates due their unreliability.

All in all, suicide bombings denote a complete lack of respect for human life. Which is puzzling, given the fact that the vast majority of Muslims believe their holy texts forbid suicide. Accordingly, there is only one verse in the Qur'an that contains a phrase related to suicide (
verse 4:29). And in Islamic tradition, the hadith (I guess one could loosely compare it to the Jewish Talmud) expressly disallows it.

Paradise Now's Abu-Assad did say at some point that Friday night that he is against suicide bombings. However, he also said he doesn't blame the suicide bombers and that he does not hold them accountable (the echoes of propaganda come to mind right now). Well, I do. I blame them, and the people who recruit them, and the people who forgive them while holding the Israeli government solely responsible, or poor life prospects etc. And in the end, I'd say suicide bombings fail anyway because they only ignite more hatred while undermining the belief in the humanity of those who perpetrate them. Frankly, I never came upon anyone who felt sorry for a suicide bomber. If anything, it only makes most people feel sorry for the victims of such attacks.

Plus, Israel always retaliates. Which is an entirely different discussion.


January 5, 2006

THE CEDAR WARS VET

"As you can possibly see, I have an injury myself—not here at the hospital, but in combat with a cedar. I eventually won. The cedar gave me a little scratch."El Presidente's words after visiting with wounded veterans from the Amputee Care Center of Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas, Jan. 1, 2006

DÉJÀ VU

It is a déjà vu because it involves Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu. After all, if Sharon doesn't make it (and the prospects are not good), then we might be seeing a great deal of Bibi again.

It is painful. And it will mean that whatever Sharon has accomplished (regardless of intentions and actual long term results) will be lost.

New walls will be built, new settlements will be planned, new conflicts will arise. Nothing good has ever come from Bibi. It is hard to imagine that he would be capable of really progressive leadership all of a sudden.

Maybe he needs to pass his seventieth birthday in order to become a little more palatable. Like Sharon. But then again, maybe this is a matter of character. And most likely, it is.

January 4, 2006

AND STILL THINKING ABOUT 2006

Continuing on the LA Times editorial mentioned in the previous post - another wish the editors have is:

"The US to make the semifinals at next Summer's soccer World Cup in Germany."

Ok, I beg to disagree. And call it patriotism, but hey: can we Brazilians just keep this bit of glory to ourselves? I mean, nothing wrong with the United States developing a taste for the wonderful game of soccer (it's about time!!)... After all, this is a real sport - no tights, no shoulder pads, no carrying an oval-shaped ball with your hands, no make-up, no helmets... Hehe. I know I am probably losing points here with my views on American football, but I can't help it. I apologize.

And I won't even go and remark on baseball's shortcomings... Suffice it to say that in my opinion the best thing about a baseball game is the hot dog-and-beer combo.

In any case, my point is that the United States pretty much holds a monopoly in most other sports. And this is a very rich country, with a population that is well educated and exposed to all kinds of possibilities. There is no need to conquer soccer as well, right? That's all.

Making to the semifinals this coming World Cup means that the US team would make it to the finals the cup after that. So I am against this particular wish.

SOME THOUGHTS ON 2006

The Los Angeles Times published an editorial effort this past weekend - wishes for 2006. It was a nice, light-hearted piece; I had a few laughs, agreed with most and disagreed with some.

One particular interesting one - they wish for more newspaper readership among 18-year-olds. Funny that we have to wish for that; after all, newspaper reading should be a natural thing, and this has nothing to do with the fact that I went to Journalism school myself and therefore can hardly be unbiased on the matter.

Newspaper readership should be a common thing. It should be something that people do routinely, much like eating, drinking, sleeping.

I remember when I was a kid, elementary school. Much of our homework revolved around newspapers, such as research, finding interesting articles, new words, current events etc. I am not a teacher, so I can't really comment on this. I also have not been raised in the United States, so I don't know what the elementary school approach is in terms of newspaper reading.

But just the mere fact that this is a wish of the editorial board at the Los Angeles Times... I find that amusing. And a bit sad too. And I do hope their wish comes true - for them, for the youth of this country, for all of us.