There has to be a place for what to some may seem an unworkable juggling of disparate opinions, namely criticizing Hamas for its premeditated, evil, and animalistic behavior on October 7, and Israel for its scorched earth response. How can this not be a logical take on what’s going on?

It can’t be all or nothing for one side or the other. Well, it can be, but that’s not helpful.

Hamas’ mission is to rid the Middle East of Jews. This is heartless and untenable. Israel’s mission is to rid the region of Hamas, a terrorist organization, which in Israel’s mind is the point of the Gaza invasion but which also, to much of the rest of the world, is looking more and more like indiscriminate, ruthless murder of innocents, of people caught in the middle.

The anti-Semitic rhetoric is predictable. It’s always been here, idling just below the surface. It doesn’t need much of a reason to rear its ugly head. What’s different, perhaps, is that those who are protesting on behalf of the myriad Palestinian civilians whose lives have been upended or just plain ended are not necessarily voicing anti-Semitism. They’re simply reacting to a situation that warrants humanitarian attention, calling for what amounts to a difficult decision by Israel to dial things back, to reassess battle plans and strategy, stop the daily assaults on people who already have very little to cling to in the way of relief and hope.

I don’t know. It’s just difficult at times to listen to Netanyahu and others without wanting to tell them to shut up. It’s frustrating to keep being told that we’re not seeing what we’re seeing, regardless of the perceived righteousness of the Israeli cause, or the suffering of residents of Gaza.

Not every dissenting or pro-Palestinian opinion is evidence of anti-Semitism.

Enough of the tough talk. The tired, “never back down” idiocy.

The world has had enough of aggression, is worn out by leaders who don’t know how to lead, who have visions of theocracy, who misinterpret and conveniently expend only enough energy for a cursory reading of ancient holy books, who only see dollar signs and self-enrichment and consolidation of power, who don’t know how to address challenges and issues with any sense of maturity or patience or real thoughtfulness.

The recurring themes seem to be aggression, violence, threat, machismo, force, then retribution. An endless cycle of “national interests” and “only I am right,” then the attendant unquenchable desire to avenge the inevitable fallout from such hubris and overreach.

Will we, collectively, as the human race, ever just stop and ask if there’s a better way? It seems infuriatingly obvious, at this point, that we shouldn’t hold our breath for such a development.

George Santos is expelled. Some are concerned that he was banished without a trial, before his day in court and a decision on guilt or innocence. But he was a hindrance, an embarrassment, a black eye that had to be dealt with, somehow. And sooner than later.

A farce, as one paper put it.

Finding a new candidate for his district should be a raucous affair. How could governance be treated with such an abandonment of good judgment? What the hell did we just witness? How did he manage to win in the first place? What does this say about the electorate? Because it seems many got duped.

I guess it’s not the first time this dynamic has loomed large, though. It happened in 2016, too, and we’re still paying for that one.

So, municipal water companies are getting hacked. And it may be Iran who’s behind this? What about Russia?

If everything is computerized, if all our critical infrastructure is vulnerable, then of course it’s past time we bolster these systems, focus funds and personnel in their direction, bring people up to speed on the technology, employ hackers of our own for defensive purposes and to stay at least one step ahead, keep the assaults on vital systems at bay.

If this is the world we’re living in, let’s stop acting like it isn’t, and prioritize funding for places that will keep the water flowing and the lights on.

It’s not like we haven’t been able to see this coming!

Does anyone else cringe a bit when the topic of point spreads comes up in reference to a college– or pro– football game? It taints the proceedings, in my mind, opens the door on shady dealings, and the possibility of thrown contests.

There’s too much at stake anymore to think that the cloud of wagering doesn’t hang over just about any sporting event, particularly big NCAAF playoff games. It just leaves a bad taste, and potential asterisks.

It’s easy to take pot shots from the sidelines. And universal acclaim is a pipe dream.

PBS Newshour recently featured a long segment on Henry Kissinger, who died a couple days ago at age 100. As it is known for often trying to do, PBS offered an actual fair and balanced attempt at summarizing Kissinger’s legacy.

On one side was a fellow diplomat, a contemporary who was familiar with Kissinger’s efforts during much of the Nixon administration and beyond, and who offered a predictably positive assessment of Kissinger’s achievements. On the other side was a professor who wrote a book decrying, among other things, Kissinger’s support of the bombing of Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam War.

Starkly differing opinions of the same person. And I have to say that I was a bit annoyed by the professor, who lambasted Kissinger and painted him as something of a pariah, even guilty of war crimes.

No doubt, some horrible things developed in Cambodia after the bombing, namely the rise of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge and the killing fields. Such policy decisions might not be feasible in today’s world. But in the early 1970s, Kissinger’s opinions were influenced by a dogged desire to keep Communism at bay and maintain American democracy, at pretty much any cost.

The reason I find the professor’s badmouthing so grating is not because his opinions aren’t without merit, but more so because he wasn’t there, he wasn’t involved in the day-to-day, down and dirty work of trying to broker deals with bad players and angry leadership in situations where there were no perfect solutions, situations that might have appeared intractable to most everyone else.

Kissinger might have seemed ruthless, and like he enjoyed being in the limelight and rubbing elbows with the powerful, but he also had an almost unrivaled gift of vision and language—intelligence—of being able to create a climate in which progress could be made, deals could be hammered out, and wars and conflicts would cease.

I don’t see international diplomacy as being for the faint of heart. It’s not an exact science. Deals and concessions and seemingly impossible decisions must be made. Henry Kissinger was in the middle of many of these situations not only because he seemed to revel in them, but also because he had the once-in-a-generation skill set to handle them and to help render palatable outcomes, as unpopular as these may yet be to some.

We’ve drifted so far into la la land that, apparently, many in the group considered “potential voters” are more interested in being entertained than expending the effort to think and wrestle with issues.

When it comes to voting for a person running for public office, many, sadly, are easily bored, not impressed by a candidate’s intelligence or experience or familiarity with policy or ability to move legislation. They’d much rather have some manufactured drama, some excitement and stimulation.

You know—Entertainment Tonight or something that comes across as more reality show than reality.

And thus we can start to make sense of Donald Trump’s popularity. It’s less about substance and more about image, persona.

Make believe. Faking it.  

Advertising.

If you have a creative streak, relentless drive, and you can put any sense of morality you might possess on a shelf, you can probably have a nice career in advertising.

Name the product—cars, trucks, prescription drugs, pet food, personal hygiene—if you can weave a story and convince consumers that what you’re selling is the greatest thing since sliced bread, appeal to their sense of eco-awareness, pride and identity, all the while blurring the lines between want and need, then people will definitely consider buying what you’re selling.

One reason I miss big chunks of programming I want to watch is because I close my eyes when the five or seven minutes of commercials start, and I end up falling asleep.

For me, the latest crass commercialism to make me wretch is an ad that starts with a guy asking, “Do you want to win Christmas?!”  And then a woman I assume is his wife or significant other chimes in and asks “Do you really want to win Christmas?!” In my head I long ago started saying, “STFU.” Anymore, we Skip as soon as we’re allowed so we can go back to watching the selected YouTube clip.

Advertising in general is sickeningly loud, slick, contrived sludge, created with much forethought, targeting various audiences using guilt, pride, excessive drama, a tug at the heartstrings, patriotism, and anything else in order to merely sell stuff.

Even PBS can’t avoid obligation to its sponsors, but at least they get everything out of the way up front. Commercial television pretty much amounts to an annoying homage to commercialism, with a bit of programming thrown in.

Data doesn’t lie. Well, it can if it’s manipulated, but that’s a topic for another post.

Data sounds one-dimensional, clinical, dry, unglamorous. But numbers got us to the moon and back. They can take us other places as well, like down the path to enlightenment, to saving our hides—if we pay attention to them and heed them, listen to the people gathering and crunching them.

Numbers tell all sorts of stories. They translate to things that are less boring and more relevant, if we make the effort to tune in. But many won’t make that effort, so the data will most likely continue to be ignored, collect dust. And we will eventually miss the boat.

Because we needed to be entertained. By data.

How freaking sad is that?

Unless there are tireless watchdogs willing to monitor and speak up, the big companies will keep preening and congratulating themselves on how forward-thinking they are in matters of environmental stewardship, i.e. being carbon neutral.

By 2050.

I’m sure someone at Honda has done the math, but in case they haven’t, that’s still a few weeks more than 26 years from now. More than a quarter of a century. From now.

If there’s no sense of urgency being impressed upon these behemoths, they will be only too happy to pick comfortable dates for themselves. And the desired effect will be achieved: they can make it look like they care without really caring.