I'm following you on "diet". I used to love cooking and not cutting myself while in the bag. Now I can fit in old pants, too

Expand full comment

I don't read what you write as a 'rant'. Indeed, I find insight, courage in straight-forward language and engagement with issues that are significant, highly significant, for us all - whether we are aware of it or not.

I'm fairly sure that I won't always agree with all you have to say but that's not an issue for me because as you suggest, difference is opportunity and a chance to discover and learn.

As for 50/50, despite agreeing with you summary of Trump's character and having no regard for him, I do consider all people to have both positive and negative within them. Even Hitler, perhaps the most infamous person of all time and almost certainly of modern history, I believe loved Eva Braun and his dogs, both named Blonda.

For me, the 50/50 discussion relates to what I see as a common mistake made today. That mistake is the confusion of *equal* with *equitable*. The Constitution even sets the scene for this error for it is outstandingly clear that all men, indeed all people, are *not* created people. It is also questionable as to whether there is a 'God', let alone that *we* trust in *him*. If there is such an entity and this assumed 'we' does trust in him then that's somewhat disturbing, given the state of humanity, what it has done to the planet and that in virtually every conflict, 'God' is on *our* side, i.e. all sides. However, I digress a little.

My main point is that what we need is *not equality*, which in any case is impossible, but *equity*. A fair share, a fair chance, a fair choice and etc. for all. Yet so many who are clear thinking, sound minded and compassionate people, argue for an equality that can never be. Of course, I understand that there are aspects of our situations where some sense of equality can exist, such as in our aims for outcomes or setting of tax rates or age restrictions for engaging in something. However, even where there is an apparently legitimate qualitative marker of equality, the reality is that when one takes into account the diverse nature of humanity and individual uniqueness, such markers also show themselves *not to apply* equally.

In regard to Israel and Hamas or, as I'd prefer to speak of it, Israel and Palestine, I can't agree that this is a case for 50/50 in regards to responsibility for what is happening - though I do agree that it ought to be a case for 50/50 in terms of how we assess the relative involvement, causation, perfidy and crimes involved. For example, even ignoring all but the actions on and since 7th October, it is indisputable that the Israeli response represents a massively excessive use of force and an indiscriminate one, at that. If we do examine other factors, particularly historical ones, then an even greater imbalance appears and even illuminates the appallingly one-sided approach of many nations and their governments and media outlets in the fallacious notion that: 'Israel is simply defending itself and has a right to do so'. In no way is such reporting or actual funding and provision of arms to Israel an example of a 50/50 or balanced approach to the rights and wrongs of what is happening. No way at all.

Anyway, perhaps I have 'ranted' for too long. What I've read of your writing has always offered interest, insight and an opportunity to test my own views. In writing now, I do so simply to offer a little of those, not to demean, give unfounded or negative criticism or disrespect your thoughts and words. I sincerely hope that I have not done so.

Take care. Stay safe. ☮️

Expand full comment