BACK FOR MORE

It is time to come back. I know I have said it before, but it truly is time now.

Here in DC it is all business as usual. The presidential elections right now dominate my life, and in typical Gisela fashion I am already dreading the end of this fantastic, super-alive period in my life. I mean, what else can one ask for? Except, perhaps, for the Fifa World Cup this summer instead of the Olympic games? That would certainly account for a fabulous year, all around.

Other than politics, I recently came across www.librarything.com and it was love at first sight. That website is the answer to my pleas. I have spent an obscene amount of time playing with it and just plainly staring at it (I know, it doesn't sound good), and I see no signs that this infatuation will fade anytime soon.

Well, it is good to be back. Time to make time for me in my life again.

THE ITCH

So many things to write about and so little time. Wait, that's more an excuse than anything else. Fact is, I missed out on writing about so many relevant (to me, at least) topics because I was just not organized enough in the last few months. A shame.

Lately I have felt the itch. And today the itch became unbearable, and it even has a name: Monica Goodling. And this is regardless of her participation (or not) in the controversial dismissal of U.S. Attorneys back in December 2006.

Let me just say that I dislike and distrust quite a few public officials. Others I find to be, well, dumb. But Monica Goodling - that is a different story. This is someone who really did it for me. She managed to combine all the negative attributes a public official could have and make use of. I am actually horrified.

Not only did she make the wrong decisions, but she had the wrong motivation to begin with. If anyone had any doubts about the negative impact of the Christian conservative takeover of the political arena via the Bush administration, I am hoping Monica Goodling has effectively put those doubts to rest.

A Regent University Law School (think Pat Robertson) graduate (she switched to Regent after a short stint at American University, which I am guessing might have been a bit too secular for her, but might also have saved her from herself had she stayed the course), the young and inexperienced Goodling held too much power in the Attorney General’s office (especially her executive authority over personnel matters) and that was undeniably due to her political affiliation. I am convinced that many others would qualify (and better qualify, mind you) for the position she held; however, I am equally convinced these other apt individuals did not demonstrate the same level of religious fanaticism (sorry, I really cannot think of another word here) and partisanship.

Some nice (and in denial) people claim that Goodling was well-intentioned but inexperienced, and that “she might have somehow figured that she was doing the right thing”. Okay: I think I might be hallucinating here. Could it be that Regent University teaches a different set of laws than that of the United States of America? Is it possible that somewhere in that institution of higher learning students are taught that it is okay to ask those applying for jobs with the Justice Department if they have ever cheated on their spouses? Or who is their favorite president and why? Or favorite Supreme Court Justice? In other words, if they are religious conservatives and Republican?

So a case must be made here - either Goodling intentionally violated federal law by filtering and selecting candidates according to their religious views and political affiliations and/or sympathies, or she is really ignorant of the law. Or both. Either way, she is bad news. And whoever hired her for the job is bad news too (right, we all know who that is). This is partisanship at its worst, but certainly not a surprise given the current administration's track record.

HEHE

NEW READS

I have been awfully quiet on the blogging front, but in the meantime I have encountered some terrific new books. Or at least very interesting ones.

I just finished the very entertaining Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", and at the same time I am working my way through the incredibly well-written "The Wise Men" (Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas). Fantastic book. And yesterday I found this little gem of a book called "Yiddish Civilisation" by Paul Kriwaczek. So I am keeping busy. Hopefully.

AH!!! NOW IT ALL MAKES SENSE...

"And truth of the matter is, a lot of reports in Washington are never read by anybody. To show you how important this one is, I read it, and our guest read it." — El Presidente speaking along with Prime Minister Tony Blair about the Baker-Hamilton Report, Washington, D.C., Dec. 7, 2006

GOODBYE, PINOCHET

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

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

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

THE HOLOCAUST DENIAL CONFERENCE IN TEHRAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

******

See how the Simon Wiesenthal Center is responding.

BEEN A LONG TIME...

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

LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE WASHINGTON POST

Dear Sir,

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Gisela Schön
www.c2005.blogspot.com

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

Mr. Siniora,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Gisela Schön

MORE NERVE...

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

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

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

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

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

THE NERVE...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HEZBOLLAH AGAIN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ITALY'S STRANGELY ANTI-SEMITIC CELEBRATION

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

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

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

IN ANOTHER FOUR YEARS MAYBE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WISE... VERY WISE

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

- El Presidente, June 27, 2006.

ISRAEL AND HAMAS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE

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

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

I just thought someone, somewhere might like to know.

And GO BRAZIL GO!

CUP SPIRIT

BRASIL... MEU BRASIL BRASILEIRO...

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

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

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

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

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