Thursday evening roundup and ramble

Don't get fear-mongered into worrying China's stealth jet.

I'm relieved that the image the Times chose for this post on the perils of sitting makes Gracie looks svelte.

***
This is a ramble about why I agree with Al Sharpton and the other public figures who are urging us to quit trying to get the last word. It is *not* because I equate the rhetoric of Arianna Huffington with that of Glenn Beck; it's because the difference isn't important.

I've had the occasion to study, in varying levels of detail (and enthusiasm), almost every major region in the world. I never particularly wanted to learn about the Arab-Israeli conflict, but it's so central to so many things that you have to. Very few people want to learn about it, because it's intractable, not to mention insanely complex and very depressing. I'm by no means an expert, but I've heard a lot about it from some of the foremost experts in the world and the people on both sides who come to heckle them. And the latter people bicker at each other like rabid squirrels. Actually, they make rabid squirrels look like elder statesmen.

The issue is not that they disagree; it's that when the adults offer something like,

-"I don't care who started it; let's figure out what we can do to end it so you can both have better lives."

-"We all have a lot to answer for. We can all do better."

-"Yes, your grievance is legitimate; yes, your situation sucks. Yes, you have a right to water, you have a right to security, and it's your holy city too. Let's look past that..."

--these concepts that have served well (or at least served) in the Balkans, in South Africa, etc.--the hecklers will have none of it. They say,

"But they started it! It does matter who started it!"

"You can't compare the two situations! They have more to answer for! We're not equally to blame."

"You can't say we both have grievances! Our grievances our worse!"

Rinse. Repeat. For decades.

Not that it matters for the point I'm making here--but I understand it's easier for someone without a direct stake in the outcome to tell people to get over it, but (1) many people who do have a direct stake are the most vocal about their respective fringes getting over it; and (2) those without a stake--the diaspora, for example, that have a symbolic attachment but rarely have to live with the consequences--are often the guiltiest in terms of fanning the flames of a conflict. But I digress.

The point is, I don't want to see the same pattern here. It's disheartening to see pundits on either side continue to insist, upon being asked to tone it down, that their argument is exceptional and different. If it's sensationalist, bitter, and divisive, drop it. Go ahead: report on the facts. Report on your editorial angle. Just lose the acrimony, because, like lots of people have been saying, "we're better than this."