Whenever we try to understand complex situations, we try to find a reason that justifies how someone acts, or why something happens a certain way. Lately, even experts in politics, particularly international politics, are completely baffled as to the reasons behind this particular figure: any reasonable prediction based on the rules we previously knew has been shattered. Some, even with immense effort, have lined up all the facts, like an Excel spreadsheet, and tried to find a common thread. In Trump's case, at this point, we have to accept that everyone who has tried has failed.

It is very strange that Santos Cerdán, to defend himself and avoid his resignation, has not used the wildcard of the so-called deepfake, which is already common in courts and will unfortunately become more common. The reason may be that the interested party is unaware of this line of defense, or that the audio is not a deepfake and that the corruption under investigation is real, and that he opted for the most intelligent option in these cases: to resign from politics and defend himself like any other citizen. It's also possible that he didn't want to further damage his party politically, whether the conversation is true or false, which Santos Cerdán himself probably doesn't remember, because the alleged conversation dates back six years. Be that as it may, courts are often mistaken when they believe, as almost everyone does, that human memory is like an audio and video recording. In reality, it is very precarious and, under minimally acceptable conditions, lasts no more than 48 hours. After that time, witness psychology has scientifically confirmed that memory is reconstructed and filled with false memories to fill in its gaps, producing unreal memories that the subject firmly believes correspond to the truth. A disaster that makes interrogations in court proceedings, despite their sometimes spectacular theatricality, actually serve little more than to waste time or to appeal to the judge's social prejudices so that he decides the case not in favor of the truth, but in favor of the interests of a lawyer or prosecutor.

On certain issues, it's impossible to be equidistant. The women's veil, if compulsory, is unquestionably a sexist garment in any of its forms. Evidently, the more parts of the body it covers, the more serious this is, because that's precisely what they're trying to do: to prevent women from showing their bodies, as if anyone's physique were something to be ashamed of. The veil is comparable to the systematic display of a sexist banner, and for that reason alone, its use can be considered a form of violence against women, just one of the many that some religions, in fact, publicly defend.