IRVING, TRUE TO FORM

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

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

JESUS, IRS, PAT ROBERTSON

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

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

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

IGNORANCE MUST BE BLISS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See what I mean when I say dark times?

SARAMAGO UNDONE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READING THE PAPERS LATELY...

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

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

A PRESIDENT'S JUSTICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

YAHRZEIT FOR RABIN

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

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

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

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

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

SPECIAL ELECTIONS

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

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

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

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

FRIENDS OR FOES?

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

CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS

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

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

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

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

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

OKAY: TWO MORE

And....

GET SMARTER, PEOPLE!

THIS CARTOONIST SAW MY RECURRING NIGHTMARE....

.... And that's the result!

QUITE A LEGACY

PROM BAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

A RESUMÉ OF THE TIMES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YOU KNOW WHO THIS IS...

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

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

QADDAFI'S LAW (OR LACK OF)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEGALLY BLONDE REALLY GOES TO WASHINGTON!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BETTER DELAYED THAN NEVER

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

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

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

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

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