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.

PRIVATE LIFE, NOT SO PRIVATE ANYMORE

In the United States today you can be fired for being a smoker. Yes, it turns out some companies are firing people - or not hiring them - because of their smoking habit, even though they smoke outside of the workplace and in their own private time.

And the reason for that? Healthcare costs.

I read about this at the LA Times this past weekend and I am a bit confused. This is what people do in the realm of their private lives, after hours. This is the same as having a drink after work. This is the same as eating cholesterol foods which could, down the road, be prejudicial to one's health.

Consider the following analogies: a person who eats only saturated fats could, in the future, be very well causing his/her employer to incur extremely high healthcare costs because of his diet - coronary disease, heart ailments, obesity and so forth. What are the big corporations going to do, prohibit employees from eating at McDonald's?

Same could be said of someone who lives a homossexual/bissexual lifestyle, which could mean that he or she is possibly more exposed to sexually transmitted diseases.

Come to think of it - anyone who is not sexually and emotionally abstinent could be a liability to any employer in several ways: pregnancy costs, sexually transmitted diseases, and even the occasional heartbreak (which in turn could lead to healthcare costs and decline in overall productivity).

More - anyone who actually steps out of the house to go to work is automatically at risk: car crashes, pollution, name it. If you have stairs in your home, imagine the possibilities: you could fall and break your neck, or your spine (probably worse, since you could be in for extensive long-term medical care)...

Dark humor aside, this is the reality of the United States working place nowadays. Because the public sector does not share the private sector's medical costs (as in other countries), the latter is looking to reduce their bills through the greatest incentive ever: unemployment.

While I understand (understand, by the way, does in no way mean I agree with) the rationale of these companies, there is a difference between protecting the interests of a private business and demanding complete allegiance from its employees in order to meet financial goals. We're not joining the ranks here, and I will absolutely not give up on my sushi just because some corporate big shot is fearful of mercury poisoning.

My friends, let's all stop doing what we are doing, that is: living. Let's just freeze in time and space, let the robots take over while we slowly fade away and become... nothing. Or let's just all work for the public sector: there, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution would at least provide us with grounds on which to take a case of dismissal for off-duty activity to court.

STILL ABOUT CHENEY

Well, I'd just like to add this thought.

It seems the media is in furor mainly because of the lapsed time between the shooting accident and the release of pertinent information, and also because of Cheney's choice to use Fox News to make his personal statement on the situation.

While I agree with the comments on those two points, the problem for me begins and ends with the hunting itself.

Why is it that people are not talking about that so much? Why is it acceptable for a United States Vice President to go hunting in the first place, in 2006? And while he is at it, he is flying on Air Force 2, he has a complete entourage (luckily for Mr. Wittington, one that includes doctors/medics), and we, my friends, are paying for all that.

Why hunt? Who hunts in the United States today, and I don't mean the United States of Barrow, Alaska, but the one of Washington, D.C.? Cheney does. This is what he said during the Fox interview:

"Like many of you, I grew up close to the land, learned from my dad how to handle a gun, and still look forward to every chance to join up with friends to go hunting. I take my hunting seriously, in part because I think Lynne still expects me to bring dinner home once in a while."

First off, growing up close to the land does not necessarily lead one to become such an avid hunter.

Secondly: well, Mr. Cheney, ever heard of take-out? And isn't what we are paying you enough to cover this kind of living expenses without you having to go out there in full gear and incur the risk of annihilating - oops, accidentally shooting - one of your acquaintances?

Thirdly: to look forward to go hunting with friends? Nice bunch you have there, mister.

I equate hunting as a sport to plucking a fly's wings - something a 10-year-old might do before someone tells him how cruel and unnecessary it is (or he realizes on his own). I suppose no one ever told Cheney to stop plucking that darn fly's wings; or he is still 10 years old.

Oh and sidenote: one of Cheney's old hunting partners is Justice Scalia...

HOROWITZ THE ENTERTAINER

Got this email last week, and my comments are in red:

"An Urgent MessageFrom the Desk of David Horowitz: (the last one was urgent too - see here)

Dear CSPC Supporter (er, not a supporter, but that's called oblivion),

We have been given an opportunity to expose the radical left in our universities right now like we've never been able to before. (That's because you have the conservatives' money to play with, under the auspices of an administration headed by the likes of El Presidente.)

Over the past 48 hours a consortium of radical professors, students and like-minded leftist organizations have launched an unprecedented attack aimed at discrediting my just-released book, The Professors, as well as our powerful National Campaign for Academic Freedom.

Over the years you and I have witnessed precisely this type of concerted effort used by America's left when it wants to silence anyone who threatens to expose its Hate America Agenda. (Yes, indeed - you were part of some of these concerted efforts in the past, but I guess you realized the right is more economically lucrative these days.)

At the end of this email, a trusted supporter of CSPC, there is a link to my formal answer to the charges being made by a coalition of some of the left's most powerful groups including the ACLU, the teacher unions, George Soros's university recruitment program (Campus Progress) the rabidly pro-Castro United Students Association and, of course, People for the America Way. (This is just badly written English, truly appalling.)

But right now I'm asking you to immediately help me counter their malicious attempts to smear me, the book, our research and our powerful and growing National Campaign for Academic Freedom. (money money money - this man is right on the money.)

We're already preparing space ads to run in every campus newspaper that features one of the professors in my book, and in such magazines as Editor & Publisher that will call this coalition on the carpet and expose their smear campaign and their ugly McCarthyite tactics! (Oh my - please tell me he is not referring to that McCarthy/McCarthyism - that is a complete historical distortion, and if anything he is the one blacklisting people and resorting to McCarthy's witch-hunt strategies while doing so; unless he is referring to the McCarthyite Party in Canada in the 1800s, which I doubt).

But I need your help. We know that we need to raise at least $25,500 immediately to get our ads produced and published. This will allow us to place ads in 250 campus newspapers. Can you help me today with a special emergency Expose the Censors contribution of $300, $100, or at least $35 right now? (And we're back to money.)

You know that extremist factions like People for the American Way, the ACLU and the far left United Students Association don't truly want genuine academic freedom to gain a foothold on our campuses. If they did they wouldn't accuse me of attacking faculty members for their political associations. (But isn't he attacking faculty members for their political associations? Here is one of these attacks, sent to me on a previous email: "What we’ve exposed will astound and anger you: 1. At Cal State-Long Beach: Ron Karenga is a Professor and Chairman of the Black Studies Department. He’s also a convicted torturer and inventor of Kwanzaa..." - and it goes on.)

The introduction of The Professors addressed that criticism point-blank and states clearly that the purpose of the book isn't to condemn faculty members for their political views. It's to expose the intellectual corruption of the university and the transformation of classrooms into political soap boxes. (right - as his "powerful National Campaign for Academic Freedom" proposes to transform campuses into political soap boxes as well, but with a conveniently conservative outlook.)

Along with the falsehood about attacking professors for their associations, the coalition claims that the book is my attempt to "silence my critics." As you know, that's utter nonsense. And while the professors discussed in my book don't agree with you and me or our call for real academic freedom.... (no, by all means, go on and make a fool out of yourself, Mr. Horowitz. You provide us all with excellent entertainment).

...their criticisms of our campaign or my work don't amount to a hill of beans! The people these professors truly hurt day-in, day-out are the students they ridicule and browbeat and the talented, bright professors they work hard to keep out of their institutions expressly because of their political or religious associations. (Who is writing this stuff for him?!? It is composed for illiterate, ignorant, uneducated people. It is brimming with the worst blend of populism and ideologue nonsense; and on top of that, bad grammar and syntax. Even conservatives deserve better than that.)

As a longtime supporter of our National Campaign for Academic Freedom you know a major goal of our campaign is to get administrations and professors to quit doing precisely that -- attacking other professors or students for their political views... (No comments.)

...it's just that those who suffer the indignity and abuse from these attacks are more often than not conservatives or Christians. Far too many professors -- and my book names names -- feel their classrooms are forums to forward their political agenda! (Let me see if I get this right: it is not okay for professors to express their views on whatever they choose to in the classroom, but it is okay for the Christian conservatives to push intelligent design in science curriculum, school prayer and more. I guess that does not constitute forwarding a political agenda of any kind, right?)

What you and I must repeat and repeat to the American people is that this campaign of slurs and smears that this coalition of leftists has launched is precisely the type of attempts to suppress dissenting views that exists on our campuses today...

...precisely what my book exposes!

Please help me counter these attacks with the truth. You know well that these radical leftists have gotten away with these types of slash-and-burn campaigns for far too long -- we cannot let this stand! (Oh well, I suppose that is spoken from experience...)

As always, I speak for our entire CSPC staff when I thank you for your longstanding courageous support. I look forward to your immediate help again. (Don't hold your breath, you crazy pathetic pseudo-intellectual self-aggrandizing clown.)

Sincerely,

David Horowitz President & Founder

P.S. Below is a link that details the scurrilous attack on The Professors, our National Campaign for Academic Freedom, and on me. You'll also find my exact response to their charges. But please, take any of the blue links provided throughout this letter and make a contribution of $300, $100 or at least $35 to our emergency Expose the Censors ad campaign. Thank you so much." (At least he says please...)

HAPPY SHRUB DAY

Yes, dear friends, that is the latest. A Texan acquaintance of mine told me this little anecdote: flying home to his family, he sat right by this lady who just talked and complained all flight long about the White House, the administration etc etc. All the while, though, he heard the word shrub interposed in each and every sentence. Finally, he turned to her and asked - "what does a shrub have to do with anything though?" To which she replied - "you know, a shrub, as in a small bush..."'

Well, well. Happy Shrub Day then. What does a shrub do on its happy day?

One thing is for sure: as a federal employee, El Presidente is off today. He is off, while I am working. Ok, I confess to being a little bitter about the whole thing: I just realized that I and everybody else in my office (and outside too) are paying for Shrub Day right now... We pay for our days off, and for Shrub Days as well. And also for the days Cheney accidentally shoots rich and influential hunting partners... Oh, we're paying for the hospital costs too.

Shrubs, in all their shapes and forms and grades, are pretty costly.

IRVING BACK IN COURT

The BBC News website today has an article about David Irving's impending trial in Austria (where he has been incarcerated since November of last year on charges of Holocaust denial). Although this blog is in part a result of my previous "encounters" with David Irving and his despicable revisionist views, I have not really paid much attention to him ever since (well, let's face it - there is only so much to be said about idiocy).

But the new developments in Europe and the Middle East (i.e. the cartoon crisis, Hamas electoral victory and the "weapon of democracy") add a new dimension to his situation because it entails a discussion on the nature of free speech. In Irving's case, a stupid speech - but should it be curbed?

As previously discussed in the blog, several countries have Holocaust denial laws, the strictest of which can be found in Germany and Austria. It is no news that what took place under Nazism shaped much of these countries' 20th century identity and worldview.

David Irving is accustomed to the stage; the man loves the limelight, thriving on the controversy he surrounds himself with. Personally, I have no doubts he is a racist, and an angry one at that. Not only that - he has been officially declared an anti-Semite at the conclusion of the trial he initiated against Prof. Deborah Lipstadt (he sued her for libel when she referred to him as a Holocaust denier and racist in her book about new forms of anti-semitism).

Apparently Irving, in the two weeks right after his arrest, stated that he now does believe in the existence of gas chambers (er, stop the presses...). Quite a change of heart, considering that in the past he focused much attention on compiling evidence that would show the chambers never existed. For that, he borrowed from ludicrous reports such as the one authored by that other self-styled "historian/scientist" (if that is what he is, I then choose to be Margot Fonteyn), Fred Leuchter...

The discussion now is: should anyone be tried, at the risk of being found guilty and consequently incarcerated for 10 years, because he is a Holocaust denier?

On one hand, I understand Austrian and German preoccupation with crushing anti-semitism (after all, these laws stem from the premise that a Holocaust denier is a priori an anti-Semite, which is my view as well). However, I believe that a trial like this provides Irving with some clout of credibility, not to mention that to his acolytes he is a martyr.

I'd rather see Irving continuously fade into nothingness. Slowly but surely forgotten. I'd rather see him cultivate his poise of rebellious semi-senile, self-important, anti-semitic and racist pseudo-intellectual than to see him have a second shot at publicity and try to recreate himself into a man of reason.

The best way to handle the Irvings of the world is to ignore them. Completely. Especially when their ridicule has already been corroborated extensively.

OHIO'S GOOD DECISION

Thanks to the recent Ohio Board of Education decision, the Discovery Institute, probably my least favorite think-thank in the United States (and unfortunately based in my favorite city, Seattle), must be scrambling now for a new platform to use in their defense of intelligent design.

In the past, the Discovery Institute made ample use of that board's 2002 requirement that 10th-graders learn how "scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." Whenever the opportunity presented itself, the institute cited the Ohio standards as a model the rest of the nation should be following.

It all changed with the outcome of the Dover, PA case. Not only the Ohio Board of Education is not interested in being sued as the Dover board was, but even Ohio Governor Taft expressed concern over the possibility that the 2002 standards might have paved the way for intelligent design to be taught in science classes.

Characteristically, the Discovery Institute's reaction was one of arrogance and oblivion. Casey Luskin, an attorney for the institute, claimed that the reversal of the 2002 standards is "based on false fears" and that it will keep relevant information from students.

Interesting - see, that is exactly my position on the issue. Intelligent design and similar theories of creationist character are, to me, based on fear. Fear that the world and we as human beings might really have sprung out of nothing, or at least out of nothing immediately recognizable and identifiable to most people. Fear of the natural world, of the complex, of the premise that we as self-determining agents are both personally and collectively accountable for what surrounds us to an extent. Which in turn could mean that redemption as a life goal is an obsolete concept.

It is very comforting to see the Ohio Board of Education coming to terms with the fact that the so-called "critical analysis" imposed in their 2002 curriculum standards was biased from the onset. Under the creationist banner, critical analysis consisted of a group of questions carefully and intelligently designed by the Christian conservatives populating organizations such as the Discovery Institute to undermine the credibility of evolutionary theory, while pushing for a religious agenda in public education (and public life, for that matter).

The tactics might have worked on 10th graders, since they are obviously more easily swayed. Growing up in such a framework, said 10th graders might have led the country to a progressively more conservative stance. This is why it is so important to pay close attention to what happens across the United States on a school district level.

By reversing their own 2002 decision, the Ohio Board of Education is taking an invaluable stand against the predatory politics of the Discovery Insitute, and an even more invaluable stand for the celebration of science and the separation of private and public spheres, i.e, religion and state.

CHENEY AND MURPHY or IT GETS WORSE

This is not exactly laughing material - but it did make me think of the ages old Murphy's Law... Here is one I find appropriate for the situation:

"If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong."

This is because it turns out that the fellow hunter accidentally shot by Cheney suffered complications today and was taken to the ICU following a heart attack (reported to be minor by some newspapers). Poor man (but stay away from hunting, I still say).

As for Cheney, I think someone better constrain the man for a while and keep him under close surveillance. Murphy says: "Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse"...

CHENEY MAKES NEWS

Impossible to ignore Vice President Cheney's little shooting blunder...

A few things stand out - quail hunting; orange vests; and then this: "Cheney is an avid sportsman, frequently leaving the capital for hunting and fishing excursions."

I can't really equate hunting with sport. It does not fit. Sport for me entails running, playing volleyball, swimming... Pointing a 28-gauge shotgun at a quail and killing it just for the sake of the kill hardly fits my definition of what sport is.

I do understand that hunting in North America predates the United States; I also know that hunting is part of a long-stanfing cultural tradition among Native Americans. And there is also the federally protected hunting rights for those communities in places such as Alaska, where locals in the more remote areas obtain a high percentage of their daily protein intake through their hunting activities. That, obviously, makes sense.

Such is not the case with Vice President Cheney's hunting. It does not make any sense. I say that with a couple of things in mind, and the main two are the unnecessary suffering inflicted on the animals, and - in my view the worst aspect - the fact that hunters actually enjoy the killing. For the life of me, I cannot understand how someone would enjoy killing any creature, destroying anything, just for pleasure. It has to be wrong.

I know that hunters may reply that if that is the case, then meat-eating is also wrong. I disagree. While I may enjoy the taste of meat, I would never enjoy killing the animal itself - the killing happens to be the unfortunate prelude to the meal. Hunters, however, do exactly that: they enjoy the killing. And if they don't enjoy it, they are at least indifferent to it.

I hate spiders. More to the point, I am irrationally afraid of them (the eight legs and all). I would not say I am a true arachnophobic, but the bigger and uglier ones do stop me on my tracks and cause me to ponder (sometimes for lenghty periods of time) on how to tackle the issue. And when I don't find a compassionate soul who would be kind enough to make the spider in question disappear from my field of vision (meaning, I am the one responsible for my destiny and the spider's too), I take a deep breath and just do it - all the while reminding myself that I am a million times bigger than the poor/evil thing.

When I am done, there is no sense of accomplishment. No pride, no pleasure, definitely no indifference. Relief? Certainly, since I feel threatened so long as it is alive walking around my house...

But I must be missing out on something. There must be a truly enthralling aspect to hunting that I am oblivious to. Because while I am fighting the occasional spider, Cheney is roaming around South Texas ranches shooting quails and who knows what else. A friend, an acquaintance maybe? Oh I see - that was an accident. I guess accidents like these are prone to happen when people play with guns.

RANCHING

El Presidente's state of disconnect is crystal clear upon reading the following lines - he can't possibly believe that Brokeback Mountain is about ranching... Actually, this is El Presidente we are talking about; he probably does believe it is about ranching:

"I'll be glad to talk about ranching, but I haven't seen the movie. I've heard about it. I hope you go—you know—I hope you go back to the ranch and the farm is what I'm about to say." —Explaining that he hasn't yet seen Brokeback Mountain, Manhattan, Kan., Jan. 23, 2006

GOD BLESS WEST TEXAS

"I like my buddies from west Texas. I liked them when I was young, I liked them then I was middle-age, I liked them before I was president, and I like them during president, and I like them after president." — El Presidente, Nashville, Tenn., Feb. 1, 2006

CARTOON RIDE...

ANNAN'S WORDS

I know, we are all getting tired of the cartoon crisis. But hey, it is still happening...

I have never been a fan of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. I don't know, I have never had any real reason to be a fan of his. So I can't say I am surprised or disappointed about his opinion on newspapers that insist on printing the infamous Muhammad cartoons.

According to Annan, publishing those cartoons is insensitive, offensive and provocative and "they (the newspapers) should see what has happened around the world". He goes on to say that he is not against freedom of speech or of the press (well, is not being against something automatically the same as being for something? I have my doubts), and adds that free speech carries responsibility and judgment (whatever that means).

The worst part though was when he decided to condemn the violent protests - "they should not attack innocent civilians. They should not attack people who are not responsible for the publication of the cartoons."

Er, excuse me, Mr. Secretary-General, do you mean to say that it would be okay for the demonstrators to attack military facilities and/or personnel (as they did in Afghanistan a couple of days ago)? And do you mean to say that it would also be okay to attack those who are responsible for the cartoons and their publication?

Seriously, it is absurd that a man in his position would utter words of such idiotic nature. Talk about responsibility and judgment - Mr. Annan could definitely exercise some of that. As a public figure at the helm of one of the world's most important organizations, he should understand that his words have considerable impact (unfortunately) and will be heard and read by millions and millions of people.

Mr. Annan might as well have said to the protesters - "go ahead; since the newspapers who published the cartoons are at fault, you are more than justified in your ire. Just please direct all your violence toward military personnel and those who are responsible for creating and publishing the cartoons and you will be beyond reproach."

His message should have been quite different. It should have been a call for tolerance and multiculturalism, of acceptance of diversity in religion, law, customs and the like. A call for reality, that is.

AND OF COURSE THE SHOW GOES ON

Editors are still resiging over the cartoon crisis - this time in New York, of all places. It seems that the management of the alternative newspaper The New York Press decided to bar the reprinting of the cartoons, and in return the editors just decided to quit...

Sad. In NYC, of all places.

Still in the New York Times, another article dealt with the death of three protesters in Afghanistan - again over these cartoons. This is an excerpt:

"Protesters, many of them Pakistani immigrant workers from a construction site on the edge of town, threw stones at vehicles, fired on an Afghan Army truck, burned a police car and several oil tankers and tried to storm the police station."

Much has been said and written about this crisis, in the sense that it is more than anything an extension of Muslims' refusal to assimilate when living in Western societies, i.e., immigrants in France, Denmark, Germany and the like.

I can see that side of the story, and it explains a lot of their behavior. But on the other hand, they are marching and burning and firing in other Muslim states too. Why? Is that now an extension of the problems between Pakistanis and Afghanis?

Can we just talk about the cartoons, please? They are only cartoons, nothing else.

And now, for a decisive "best for last", see below the position of the United States military in Afghanistan:

"The United States military in Afghanistan on Wednesday joined the Afghan government and the Council of Clerics in condemning the cartoons. Lt. Col. Jim Yonts, chief spokesman for the United States military in Afghanistan, called them 'definitely offensive' and said, 'we condemn that."

Nice...

CARTOON CRISIS, DOUBLE STANDARDS ETC

In an attempt to be sensitive, I have waited somewhat patiently for this cartoon crisis to die down before I felt compelled to write a few words about it. But it seems they (and forgive me for this "they", this is me at a loss here) are not willing to put the matter to rest, and in the process are also making complete fools of themselves (ok, my apologies again).

Sure, the prophet is the prophet and according to Islam he cannot be depicted, ridicularized etc etc. Sure. But hey, how about other people's traditions and religions? Also - the restriction against depicting Muhammad, doesn't that apply to Muslims alone? How can they impose that on the rest of the world?

Since the crisis broke out a couple of weeks ago (a little late in the game, I must add, since these cartoons have been circulating ever since last September), flags have been burned and embassies have been set on fire; death threats were made, theatrically serious warnings and 10-hour-apology deadlines were issued by masked gunmen surrounding the UN mission in Gaza and so forth. Will it ever end? Not so soon, that's for sure.

It is time to analyze the issue as it is. For instance - these cartoons were originally created and printed in highly democratic Denmark. Then they were reprinted in highly democratic France. Then once again in highly democratic Germany. And so forth. My point being, who are these people to issue threats to newspapers and cartoonists in foreign lands to begin with? Plus, Denmark, France and Germany are not theocratic states. They are not Muslim states either. They do not boast a Muslim majority (yet) and they separate church and state. Do the Muslims calling for the beheading of the cartoonists realize that?

Answer: no, they do not. See, they do not because they conform to the school of thought according to which 'if you're not with us, you're against us' (oops, that sounds eerily familiar, I'd better strike that one out, who knows with all the surveillance going on, David Horowitz - our dear Horrorwits - and the like...) - more like 'if you're not a Muslim, you're an infidel'. And infidels deserve to be beheaded, I suppose.

So this is about those Muslims living and raising their families in France, Italy, Brazil, United States and wherever else they move to without acknowledging that these countries are not their private playground. Come to think of it, and from a lay person's perspective, there must be a parallel in psychology on an individual level - I will definitely look into it. Something along the lines of collective psychotic break (does that exist?)... After all, these people seem to be totally disconnected from their surroundings (again, eerily familiar - it is the bubble all over again!).

Sure, I myself cling to my roots. Both my Brazilian and Jewish ones. I cling to them with all my might. After 11 years, I feel less americanized than during my first 6 years here. But I understand that this country was only kind enough to let me be here, granting me visas, allowing me to pursue an education, and finally a green card. I am thankful, and I do my part - meaning, I respect the laws and the customs. At least I'd like to think I do my best.

Why is such a concept lost on some Muslims? Certainly an innate cultural predisposition to be less receptive to change in general and, as we know, some xenophobia from the part of the host countries don't help ease the situation (as we saw in the recent French riots, hints of which can be felt in this cartoon crisis as well). But the fact remains that they obviously feel no obligation whatsoever to acknowledge local customs if the same conflict with their own beliefs.

Now the response to the crisis from the non-Muslim world: the Danish newspaper issued apologies, and the editor of the France Soir was fired for reprinting the cartoons; his replacement then resigned; and from our dear El Presidente's compound came the following: the cartoons are indeed offensive (but hey, not even that helped to placate their fury...). Fun, right?

This is terrible. Why should anyone apologize here? This is freedom of speech at its best. It is not even inflammatory speech per se - if anything, it is a reading of current events. Perhaps a biased one - but then again, cartoons are by their very nature biased.

Furthermore, it is never too late to remember that in Saudi Arabia churches and synagogues are against the law; Pakistan has different electorates for Muslims and non-Muslims, and limits the public positions a non-Muslim can hold; Iran, although it formally tolerates Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians, subjects the three groups to discrimination in practice. All this while in France, Denmark, Germany, United States and other countries, Muslim families can choose to send their daughters to school wearing traditional head covering without any substantial threat to their lives.

So no, I don't think anyone should be apologizing for anything. I don't see any Jews jumping to their feet and demanding apologies for the perennial, and what's worse, state-sponsored publication and distribution of the Protocols of the Elder of Zion. And let's face it - communication is null when the other party is so completely uncompromising and exclusionist about its own worldview.

Last but not least - in the wake of this all, the latest news is the rather infantile contest put together by the Iranian best-selling newspaper for the best cartoon on the Holocaust... I say let them have their contest. And to be honest, it is not like they have not ridicularized us Jews before.

Which reminds me - there was considerable furor over that Dutch spoof that circulated on the internet about a macabre rave taking place in Auschwitz (Housewitz). We all remember that, and it certainly was in very bad taste. Protests ensued. But I don't recall any death threats, loss of life, calls for beheading, incendiary acts of destruction against the Dutch embassy in Israel and so forth. Not to mention that it would be hard to compare the two: the prophet cartoons depict the state of political Islam today, consumed with holy wars led by fanatics of the worst caliber. The Holocaust was about the genocide of innocent victims, singled out because they were Jews. There is no correlation here, unless it is a reversed one.

EL PRESIDENTE'S STATE OF DISCONNECT

This past Tuesday I too watched El Presidente do his thing on TV. Although I must say I am a bit surprised he did not mess up the words too much, the content of the speech was boring. Really, really boring. Who knows - maybe he wrote it himself...

In any case, we all knew he would talk about the war, oil, energy, immigration etc. He did go over these issues, with a flowery rhetoric that used and abused of terms such as evil, freedom, security, hopeful society, research and the like.

As usual, I was interested in what he had to say to Americans about American life. And here is some of it:

"Yet many Americans, especially parents, still have deep concerns about the direction of our culture and the health of our most basic institutions. They are concerned about unethical conduct by public officials and discouraged by activist courts that try to redefine marriage. (..) As we look at these challenges, we must never give in to the belief that America is in decline or that our culture is doomed to unravel. The American people know better than that. We have proven the pessimists wrong before, and we will do it again."

This part of the speech reminds me of a few cartoons I came across recently about El Presidente and his bubble - here is one of them:




The way he spoke, it sounds as if the American society were borderline in danger of extinction. Imagine, to dare and redefine marriage... The funny thing is that the premise behind same-sex marriage is all about marriage as we know it. Meaning, these are people who are in love, who are willing to compromise and commit, and who would like to have their relationship recognized by law and society. It is not like same-sex relationships will stop happening anytime soon... So we might as well recognize them. Furthermore, how exactly is that going to doom American society?

In my view, American culture is evidently "doomed to unravel" when Americans manage to elect a president like El Presidente twice. I mean, if my memory serves me right, he barely won the first time (unless one counts the Supreme Court 5-4 vote on the Florida ballot recount controversy as one's own)... And then surprise! He wins again! But wait, who put him in the White House the second time around?

So as I see it, that bit about the state of American society and marriage is very revealing of El Presidente's current state of disconnect. Maybe he is oblivious to the fact that while he is talking, the Commonwealth of Massachussetts recognizes same-sex marriages, 7 other states have already granted some sort of rights to same-sex civil unions, and 9 more are considering the possibility.

And still while he is talking, the controversial movie Brokeback Mountain stands to win at least a few of the 8 Academy Awards nominations it received, after having already won other influential prizes such as Golden Globes, the Golden Lion (Venice) and so forth. If anything, it is quite obvious that this "deeply concerned" American society is at least ready for a discussion on the issue. Oh and the discussion should happen on the other side of the bubble, that is, out here.

QUICK TAKES

And...

WHY DAVID HOROWITZ IS A PIECE OF WORK

Because he just is. This is a man who was once one of the leading voices of the American New Left movement and later transitioned to rather controversial conservative views. Never a politician in his own right (he is a commentator, an author), he nevertheless has been playing in the political arena through his multiple "projects", for lack of a better word.

To be honest, I think the man is a fraud. And a bigot.

So a while ago he came to the conclusion that the poor students of this great nation are being wrongfully indoctrinated by evil left-wing professors in campuses all across America. Without further ado, he has since then been proposing something horrific called the Academic Bill of Rights (er, not alone - obviously with some Republican backing). He claims the bill should work against political bias in the hiring and dismissing of professors, which in turn should bring more diversity into the majority of faculty in America (which is certainly mostly liberal).

This bill is a bizarre proposition for many reasons. One, because applicants would be labeled as liberal or conservative during the interviewing process, either due to their political affiliations or to how their political inclinations are perceived by their evaluator. Two, because that would amount to a discriminatory practice per se. Three, because it assumes that the "poor students" of this great nation are absolutely incapable of arriving at their own conclusions, of forming their own opinions, of making educated political decisions - all without the help of their professors (and I could be wrong, but to be influenced by professors is in my opinion a relevant, quasi intrinsic part of upper-level education and experience).

And four - if David Horowitz himself was once a Marxist and is now a phantasmagoric mix of DeLay and John Ashcroft (and who knows what else) and congregates with and approves of the likes of people such as white supremacist Jared Taylor (Horowitz said Taylor is a highly intelligent and principled man), then who is he to preach to anyone else? If a student is too liberal today, he might become the next Horowitz tomorrow, no (let's hope not)? Just using a bit of logic here.

As usual, before I posted this little comment here, I decided to try and contact Mr. Horowitz and see if he could assist me in understanding the purpose of his academic crusade and how a man like him would actually praise a white supremacist (oh there is more: according to him, slavery was our gift to African Americans, seeing that "American blacks on average enjoy per capita incomes in the range of twenty to fifty times that of blacks living in any of the African nations from which they were kidnapped") such as Taylor and then on the same token say that if Taylor is in fact racist, so is the NAACP.

So I went on his website, and I noticed that there is contact information for everyone on it - except for his own. Interesting, right? I immediately sent them an email asking how I could contact Horowitz and as a reply received a welcome message on my inbox - thanks for your support blah blah. Right. A few days went by, and today I received another email (actually, the sender of this last one was Horowitz himself). It said:

"Dear Gisela,

Because I know that you are as concerned as I am the radical left’s stranglehold on our colleges and universities, I have set aside for you a copy of my new book, The Professors -- The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.

The title speaks for itself. This book, a product of the research we are able to do thanks to your financial support CSPC’s National Campaign for Academic Freedom, exposes the tip of the iceberg, and then some, of the worst "hate America" voices in academia today. What we’ve exposed will astound and anger you:

1. At Cal State-Long Beach: Ron Karenga is a Professor and Chairman of the Black Studies Department. He’s also a convicted torturer and inventor of Kwanzaa.
2. At the University of Texas-Arlington: Jose Angel Gutierrez is a Political Science Professor. He’s also the founder of La Raza Unida, a racist Hispanic organization that calls on Hispanics and Mexican immigrants to seize U.S. land.(..)
3. At City University of New York: Leonard Jeffries is Professor and one-time Chairman of that schools Black Studies Department.
4. At Brandeis University: Robert Reich is a Professor of Social and Economic Policy. He was Bill Clinton’s Labor Secretary and is a multi-millionaire. That doesn’t keep from telling his students that the U.S. has "fallen under the sway of radical conservatives who, by the malicious application of intolerant moral precepts, intended to secure the "reign of the rich" at the expense of most Americans." (..)

These are just a few of the most notorious radicals indoctrinating our young people today. Sadly, they’re not the exception at our schools -- they’re the mainstream! They’re just a sample of the 101 professors we’ve researched and exposed in The Professors... and they’re just the tip of the iceberg.

Imagine just for a moment being a conservative student and having to sit in a class taught by any one of the professors I’ve mentioned. Difficult? Stressful? All of that and more, and that’s simply not what a college education is about.

Yet the 101 professors highlighted in my book are representative of thousands of radical leftists who spew a violent anti-Americanism, preach anti-Semitism, and cheer on the killing of American soldiers and civilians! And they’re living off taxpayer dollars and tuition fees as they indoctrinate our future leaders.

Our job -- yours and mine -- is to spread the word far and wide. We must expose the men and women like Jose Angel Gutierrez, Ron Karenga, and Bernadine Dorhn to the American people. And I believe part of my mission is to ensure that the members of CSPC are fully aware of the types of individuals we’re up against.

That’s why I’m writing you today with this special offer. I’m holding a copy of The Professors on reserve for you for the special CSPC member price of $20! But that’s not all. If you will make a contribution of $50 right now to the Center, I’ll send you a signed copy of the book. If you’re able to help our National Campaign for Academic Freedom with a gift of $100 or more today, I’ll sign your book and write a personal note to you.

In fact, right now, thanks to the generous support of one of our long-time supporters, every dollar you are able to contribute today will be matched! A special friend of CSPC has offered to match contributions up to $1 Million. That means that your contribution today is, in essence, doubled. This is a tremendous opportunity!

With your support I’ve spent the past two-plus years fighting an entrenched radical left that has virtually taken over our nation’s colleges and universities. What you and I want is an academic environment in America that is once again "dedicated to the disinterested pursuit of knowledge," as our universities once defined their roles.

We can accomplish this by fighting for the goals of our National Campaign for Academic Freedom. That’s why I’m asking you to stand with me again and make a generous contribution of $20, $50, $100 or more to the Center today. When you do, I’ll rush you your copy of The Professors -- The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.

And remember, whatever amount you can afford today will be doubled thanks our special matching grant! I look forward to the year ahead. I think The Professors is going to really open your friends and neighbors’ eyes to the reality of what is being taught on our college campuses today... and who is teaching it! Thank you and may God bless you and our great nation.
Sincerely,

David Horowitz
President & Founder

P.S. My friend, I’ve set aside a copy of The Professors for you at the special price of $20 for CSPC supporters. Of course, I’ll gladly send you a signed copy if you’re able to make a contribution of $50 to the Center today. And for a $100 gift, I’ll add a personal note to your book and rush it to you hot of the presses. But whatever amount you’re able to send, know that it will be matched -- doubled in essence -- and go to help CSPC’s National Campaign for Academic Freedom! Thanks again."

Given the evidence presented in here, I will from now on refer to him as Mr. Horrorwits. Please bear with me; plus, he deserves no less.

-----
See update about Mr. Horrorwits here.