Content Warning: Contentious World Affairs
“…if Israel is going to be accused of genocide
(which is a misuse/misunderstanding of the term, as the writer explains in the article)
regardless of its actions, it has that much less incentive to show restraint in its effort to defeat an enemy that is *avowedly* genocidal. [1]
Indeed, it’s worth noting that those loudly calling for a cease-fire to stop Israel’s genocide typically fail to call for Hamas to surrender.
That would stop the bloodshed, by any name, immediately.
( excerpts (*my comment);* my emphases, from:
“This is what’s wrong with the rush to accuse Israel of committing genocide in Gaza”
The LA Times 3-5-24 )
Department Of Why I Am Not Hopeful For Peace In The Mideast,
Even If Hamas Surrenders And Israel Stops Being A Butthead About The West Bank And Pursues A Palestinian Homeland/Two State Solution
Because: religion and regional history (which are one and the same). Remove both sides’ adherence to their primitive scriptures which enshrine their “you are special/I gave this land to you” xenophobic deities’ proclamations, and there might be a chance…. As the late great Christopher Hitchens put it, “people will kill each other’s children for ancient caves and relics.”
* * *
Department Of “It’s Mine! No, it’s Mine!”
Oh Crap, Do Y’all Have To So Brazenly Prove My Point?
“Carrying planks of plywood, a group of Israeli settlers pushed past soldiers guarding the barrier surrounding the Gaza strip and quickly got to work. Within minutes, the young men had erected two small buildings – outposts, they said, of a future Jewish settlement in the war-torn Palestinian enclave.
Their movement had hungered for this moment for years, but now, after Oct. 7, they felt is was just a matter of time before Jews would be living in Gaza again. ‘It is ours,’ said David Remer, 18. ‘[God] said it is ours.’ “
(from “Israel’s religious right has a clear plan for Gaza:
‘We are occupying, deporting and settling.’ ”
Los Angeles Times, 3-13-24 )
“…This manifestly shows that the true heirs [of Palestine] will always be Muslims, and if it goes into the hands of some else at some point, such a possession would be similar to a scenario in which the mortgagor gives temporary control of their property to the mortgagee. This is the glory of Divine revelation, [and it shall surely come to pass]….”
(“What does the Quaran say about Israel and Palestine?”
The Weekly Al Hakam )
* * *
Dateline Tuesday morning 7:50 AM, morning walk, listening to a No Stupid Questions podcast. At the end of each NSQ episode, the hosts play two to four comments that listeners have recorded and sent in regarding previous NSQ episodes, then give the names of those who sent in their comments. That episode had two comments, from (1) “a person who prefers to remain anonymous,” and (2) “Julia Roberts.”
My first thought upon hearing the commentor’s last name was, no – that’s incomplete. That was her full name at some point in her life, perhaps when she was a wee lass. But now, when answering the what is your name question, her full answer is likely, “Julia Roberts, yeah/no.” [2]
* * *
Department Of…You Know….
* * *
Department Of More Fun With Podcasts: The Question I’m Not Asking
At the end of each episode of Alan Alda’s Clear + Vivid blog, Alda asks his guests seven quick questions, all of which have some relation to the idea of communication. The questions have varied slightly over the years; the current crop:
* What do you wish you really understood?
* How do you tell someone that they have their facts wrong?
* What’s the strangest question anyone has ever asked you?
* How do you stop a compulsive talker? [3]
* What gives you confidence?
* What book changed your life?
* How do you strike up a real, genuine conversation?
My favorite is the last question, which Alda often prefaces with a scenario: “Let’s say you’re seated at a dinner party next to someone you don’t know. How do you strike up a real, genuine conversation?”
Moiself was pleased to recall that, in my years of listening to the C+V podcast, I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone say that they ask the other person, “What do you do?” That is a question I propose we eliminate from our introductory conversations.
I’ve had a lifelong distaste for that question, but first gave serious thought as to why over two decades ago, when a friend told me about his recent business trip to Europe, during which he had some interesting conversations with “the natives.” He shared the story of how, when he’d gotten to know a few of his foreign colleagues well enough, they felt comfortable enough (over a meal, comfort abetted by multiple glasses of the local red wine) to ask him some version of two “Why do Americans do this?” questions. The first, which I heard later on during several of my own European adventures, was,
“Why do Americans use the question, ‘How are you?,’ as a greeting. Why don’t they just say, Hello; Good morning; Good afternoon; Nice to meet you; etc.? Because when I answer their question, it turns out they don’t really want to know how I am….”
That cracked me up – it’s something I’ve noticed for years (and I strongly agree with the Why Do Americans… questioners’ befuddlement on this issue).
The other question was why do Americans, within seconds of being introduced to or meeting you, ask what most Europeans considered to be a personal, even rude question:
“What do you do?”
My friend’s European colleagues said that the answer to the what-do-you-do query – “do” meaning, your career/occupation – is seen as intrusive, and as a way of determining status. And if you are temporarily/currently unemployed – as was the case for many at that time (when my friend was there, most countries in Europe were going through an economic downturn) then you are ranked lower on the totem pole. Or, if their job is one they think Americans won’t respect or understand, they don’t know what to say to you.
I agree with those observations, have experienced them moiself…but mostly I think that what do you do is just not an interesting question, conversation-enhancing-wise.
Since the pandemic times I have mostly, but not exclusively, been around people I’ve known for years; thus, moiself can’t remember the last time someone asked me what I do. I do know that if asked What do you do? I probably probably responded with one of my two stock answers:
(1) When?
(2) I call 911, then put out the fire as best I can.
Depending on how well I know the person asking the question, I usually hedge about revealing that moiself is a writer. This is due to years of experience; read: because of the responses that the I-am-a-writer answer usually produces – responses I’ve seen my artist friends endure receive as well.
That is so wonderful – you’re a creative!?!
Uh…yeah? The first time my writer-admission was met with that response, [4] moiself kept waiting for the subject which usually follows the adjective. Nope; it seems that creative has been noun-i-fied. And yeah, I realize that that response is (usually) meant to be a compliment. The thing is, I loathe that word being applied only to the artistic fields, and it usually is. Some of the most creative people I’ve met/known/read about have been scientists, engineers, teachers, health care providers….
Then there is the ick/uncomfortable factor: many if not most people, immediately after finding out you are a writer/artist, heap praise upon you and ask you questions whose answers you have no way of knowing:
That is so great – I wish I could be that talented!
Have I read anything you’ve written/seen any of your paintings?
Without seeing or reading any of your work, the non-writers/non-artists make false assumptions, including that you must be some kind of celebrity and that you and your work are worthy of adoration and somehow “above” what they do…which indicates how very little they know about your profession. This might seem petty, to complain about how revealing what you do gives many people an immediate positive, “You are so special/what you do is more interesting than what I do,” assessment of you, but it has always made me feel uncomfortable.
If your work/career is a passion and you chose it for interesting reasons, that will come out eventually. The more interesting conversations are, IMO, initiated by something that gets you to know a person on a more personal level without being too personal. Does that make sense?
Finding out what people think is usually more interesting than finding out what they do for a living (unless the “do” answer is something really esoteric, like, “I repair the no-gravity toilets on the International Space Station.”). Try variations on these questions:
* What are you thinking about lately/ What occupies your thoughts these days?
* What are you surprised by?
* Tell me about the last time you were surprised/scared/overjoyed/disgusted? [5]
Or, simply start out by finding a commonality, as with the dinner table scenario (“So, what’s your connection to _____ [the host] – how did you meet?” )
Moiself delights in hearing peoples’ stories, and over the years I’ve found the most efficient way to do that – to elicit stories from people, especially those who, by their temperaments might not initiate telling them – is to tell a story of your own.
In particular, try either sharing a story that doesn’t exactly put you in the best light or sharing a vulnerable moment – both kinds of stories preferably bracketed with self-effacing humor. So, moiself’s secret is out: my ulterior motive for posting family stories and personal experiences on Facebook (the only social media I am involved with), or relating them at dinner, parties, or other social engagements, is to be able to hear the stories I inevitably get in return.
* * *
Department Of Technology Is Groovy, But There Are Things It Stifles…
And Some Of Those Things I Miss
Dateline: last week, returning from morning walk, noticing a new (to moiself) security camera affixed to a neighbor’s garage door. For some reason my first thought was,
Dang! Nnow their kids’ friends can’t toilet paper the house
without everyone knowing who did it.
I think of the (harmless, I swear) pranks of old (e.g., TP-ing a friend’s house; playing ding-dong ditch), as well as acts of intrigue and kindness (leaving May flowers and notes on the doorstep), that depended on anonymity. I still think of/get inspired to pull such fun pranks, but am deterred by the fact that everyone has a camera everywhere (whether on their doorsteps or in their ever-present cellphones), and I don’t want to end up on someone’s youtube video.
* * *
Department Of Cogent Warnings…
…found in my offspring’s alumni magazine. As far as I know, my kids don’t read their college’s alumni publication, but I do. Moiself found a profound statement in the Ask the Expert feature in the latest issue of Arches, the quarterly magazine of UPS. The expert being asked was Ariela Tubert, a philosophy professor studying the ethics of AI. In the interview Tubert was asked to explain the pros and cons, or the promise and pitfalls, of artificial intelligence and machine learning. Her comment and cautions were sorted into five categories:
- Bots are not people;
- Separate the serious stuff;
- A force for good;
- Tools to try;
And the one which contained, IMO, the most crucial warning/reminder,
- Beware of biases: “A system created and trained on human data can amplify biases…Historical data is not ethically perfect.”
( graphic from These robots were trained on AI. They became racist and sexist.
The Washington Post, 7-16-22 )
* * *
Freethinkers’ Thought Of The Week [6]
“I never believed in God. No, I didn’t even as a little kid. I used to think even if he exists, he’s done such a terrible job.
It’s a wonder people don’t get together and file a class action suit against him.”
( Bob Dandridge, played by Alan Alda, in the movie Everyone Says I love You. )
* * *
Parting Shot: I love it when/I hate it when…
I hate it when people think I’m Julia Roberts, even when they hear my correct name. Happens all the time.
* * *
May you not have to explain, when stating your name, that you are not a famous person;
May you strive to ask what someone thinks rather than what they do;
May you dare to, just once more, TP a friend’s house;
…and may the hijinks ensue.
Thanks for stopping by. Au Vendredi!
* * *
[1] The introduction to Hamas founding covenant: “This Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), clarifies its picture, reveals its identity, outlines its stand, explains its aims, speaks about its hopes, and calls for its support, adoption and joining its ranks. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious … It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps.” After some general explanatory language about Hamas’s religious foundation and noble intentions, the covenant comes to the Islamic Resistance Movement’s raison d’être: the slaughter of Jews. “The Day of Judgement will not come about,” it proclaims, “until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” (from “Understanding Hamas’s Genocidal Ideology: A close read of Hamas’s founding documents clearly shows its intentions,” The Atlantic, 10-10-23, by Bruce Hoffman, Georgetown University professor, Senior Fellow for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security at the Council on Foreign Relations and Senior Fellow at the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center.
[2] As in, “Julia Roberts; yeah, like the actor; no, I’m not her.”
[3] One of the best answers to this question – and probably one of the most effective strategies – came from writer/actor/comedian Sarah Silverman, who said she excuses herself, explaining that she has diarrhea.
[4] It’s happened more than once.
[5] Yes, moiself has posed these questions, to “total” strangers.
[6] “free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists. No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.” Definition courtesy of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, ffrf.org