WORLD V ISRAEL – A STANDOFF
NEWS COMPILATION AND OPINIONS
BY LUCY M. WARNER
DECEMBER 31, 2016


The fact is that the war between the Palestinians and the Israelis, despite the events of the 1967 War and Israeli claims of victor’s rights, is an ancient feud beyond human ken, and yet as recent as today, and as full of virtuous sounding group passion as a split in a Primitive Baptist church, and as dirty on each side as the interactions of the US Republican/Democrat relations. This furor in the Conservative and traditional elements especially, is a continuance of their hatred and rivalry more than an intellectual discussion of proper Middle Eastern politics. The book of Genesis gives a version of the split of the desert dwellers from the Hebrews which may not be believed as history today, but it is clear to me from the evidence of my eyes that those who are now mostly Islamic in the Holy Land are very close relatives genetically to the Jews, so it’s really like cousins fighting each other. That’s a real shame.

Having said that, in order for that rancorous land ownership/occupancy issue to continue on forever and ever as it has, despite numerous attempts by the UN and others to mediate and achieve an agreement which is sufficiently beneficial enough to both to succeed, is to a great measure due to Israeli bullying in my view. On the other hand, the equally stubborn Palestinian refusal to move over and give them a seat at the family table, while backing that up by guerilla style fighting is also despicable. They’re like the South in the Civil War. They just haven’t stopped fighting at all, really, with the result that our most recent emergence of White Nationalism is approaching a physical crisis, I’m afraid. Nobody is in a position of Right in my opinion, and I’m personally sick and tired of all of them. A young man I worked with, a few years ago, went over to his Middle Eastern country to get married to his parentally chosen bride. When he came back he said, “Somebody ought to pave over the whole place and turn it into a parking lot.”

Their problem is traditional and tribal thinking instead of individually melding themselves into a society of differences which are respected by all and cemented with equal rights. There’s nothing like a good constitutional democracy, which I concede isn’t followed perfectly here by any means, but when it is, it really improves the situation. It’s too bad that such a thing is so difficult to maintain once it is achieved at all. It requires a philosophy of producing “law and order,” without the use of fear and suppression of groups or individuals. Russia and China’s communism isn’t the worst thing about them. It’s their unwillingness to allow human variance within their ranks, or so I have been taught. Our society in its’ beginning was based on cultivating a will to do good rather than merely the will to become ever more rich and powerful.

I believe that is true, of course, because that’s what we were taught when I was in school, but obviously “the poor” have “by the sweat of their brow” and more importantly perhaps, by the stubborn and, yes, sometimes violent group activity to exert some power, such as the way labor unions have managed to dig out a place in which a real middle class could grow. They literally turned their lowly labor jobs into a power house to finance home building and college tuition by refusing to work for the low pay scales. In the 1950s when I was young that Middle Class was powerful; but their place in society is being eroded now to a frightening degree. That’s a shame, because the Middle Class rather than the wealthiest people was the true stabilizing force in America. Bernie Sanders wants, by a modified form of socialism, to reestablish that strength which we had then.

If those White Supremacists we have today had kept their good factory and construction jobs – no treaties like those that have recently turned the Wealthy away from being a producer of jobs for local workers into nothing but an oligarchy – I believe strongly that more of them would be willing to be good citizens and true believers in honor, empathy and fairness under the law rather than a band of vicious criminals. The conflict of JEALOUSY between rich and poor, White and Brown, would be there, but it wouldn’t be the tinderbox of hatred that it has become today. To get a very good picture of life when I was growing up, see the movie “The Help.”

There was malice, human greed and injustice, but not open warfare in the city neighborhoods as we have now. It wasn’t good, but it was BETTER. I can only hope that the emergence of groups like Black Lives Matter will bolster the work of the ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center, etc. with their demonstration of potential power, will continue to chip away at the wall of disrespect for Blacks, Browns, and Asians of all types. The human heart cannot be made clean, but perhaps it can be made reasonable. The kinds of relationship problems that are built into human society simply can’t really be cured by physical force, but if no Alt-Right group gains ultimate power here, I think we can continue to work for justice, but and even a kind of LOVE between groups based on our membership in the human species. I have been forming personal relationships with people of other races for most of my life, and it broadens my perspective, fulfills my desire for companionship, and cheers me up about the possibilities of our country. I don’t want perfection, but we must have some progress in this country. Life in a good society should go forward and not backward. It’s like rowing a boat with a hole in it.

We claim to have done those things here in the US, but we still have much too much internal cultural conflict that the Civil War and the Civil Rights laws didn’t solve, and all because individual humans in their little groups continue to hate and behave despicably toward each other. The tit for tat behavior that we tend to follow with each other keeps the hatred new and active. In our ancient past when a group of people would be composed of perhaps a few extended families in number, the fear of the stranger made real sense -- giving a unified fighting unit or, later in the Neolithic, a cooperative group to do something like build Stonehenge in thanks for the harvest -- was clearly a good thing. Now what we need is well educated and trained individuals to fit each into his/her cell in the colony hive, go out for nectar and pollen, etc. – each doing his simple but necessary work so the whole will survive. One difference between us and bees, however, is that bees have no individual will or even a sense of identity, and their miraculous cooperation is totally hard wired in their instincts. The ability to make an individual choice gives us a chance to innovate, but also a responsibility to do what is fair and good. Bees don’t make choices. Unfortunately, I for one do hate that absolute requirement to cooperate, and I yearn often times for my beehive hut in the forest to perform my daily scriptural studies and meditate on the beauties of nature. (For the origin of that obscure reference, go to this website: http://prayerfoundation.org/irish_monk_beehive_shaped_stone_huts.htm.)

Our group instincts, however, are not suited to massive cities where nearly everyone is a stranger to most others whom we meet and therefore an unknown quantity to be feared; but without birth control we will tend to bring forth 12 or more children per couple and the population continues to grow. Religion is the excuse usually given to prevent birth control and particularly abortion, no matter how practical a solution it might be. If a woman can stop a pregnancy at a time of particular financial or psychiatric need, perhaps she can avoid becoming driven almost crazy by her many children, so that she beats them in anger rather than loving them in a useful physical way with warm hugs and patient teaching. It would be better for them to be less perfectly behaved than stripped of their ability to deal with life, unable to find joy, unproductive as an individual.

We need sane, intelligent, self-confident and strongly “individuated” people in a democracy. The Christianity that I was taught in our community church fostered those things. We didn’t have that intense emphasis on “emotional” religious experiences and total obedience. We were taught “do unto others,” and LOVE thy neighbor as thyself. Nobody ever totally succeeds in those things, but that is a better DIRECTION for religious belief to follow in my not too humble opinion, than “attack thy neighbor and take his lands and possessions,” as we are approaching again today. The teachings of Jesus have faded into the background as the “Prosperity Gospel” has gained strength. For some fascinating reading, go to Wikipedia at “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology.” To me it borders uncomfortably closely with the “love of money” which Jesus spoke so forcefully against, and it is the only really philosophical backing for our total belief in Capitalism unmodified by a required contribution to the society as a whole and our environment. We can say, “we tithe,” but I doubt that very many Christians actually give 1/10 of their income. I personally wouldn’t be able to do that, but it is clear that severe poverty is overtaking us as we move forward and a rebalancing of the relative wealth between our groups is really needed. Don’t look behind you – you might see the dangerous enemy which our too often self-satisfied Middle/Upper Middle Classes failed to notice until it was too late. Yes, I do mean this 2016 election.

It is my opinion that for the most part, wherever human gentleness and communication are really needed, we tend to substitute some dogma or behavioral rule, rather than the true warm feeling of healthy human love that we say we have for others, and, of course, especially for our children. That’s a large part of the reason why so many people in very poor communities end up in jail by the time they are twenty (plus innate racism in the legal system these days.) A kid who grows up without love has a very poor chance of survival, or at any rate, success in life. They are too often emotionally warped and literally trained to be violent by their environment. If the only source of love for a young kid is a street gang, society has a major problem.

Before focusing entirely on the poor, however, we should remember that in wealthy families both parents are often absent and unavailable to the children, which also produces emotional disturbance in the kids. Check out the extraordinary motion picture, “Ordinary People,” from the ‘80s. All of the actors were excellent, but to me the standout was the young Timothy Hutton. He may have gotten Oscar for his performance, it seems to me. This is the basis of the disgustingly termed “affluenza” defense that has been used by lawyers in at least one case that made news of a wealthy teen committing a crime that would have put a darker skinned kid into prison or worse. Disgustingly, the judge gave the kid a lighter sentence, I suspect, because his family had influence in the community. That’s the social thinking pattern of the human creature, unfortunately. “To the victor go the spoils.” For some great information on that, perhaps too often quoted phrase, go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system. It isn’t taken from the Greek classics, but rather from something much closer to us today – American party politics.

If we would always remember that “saying” we love our kids is no substitute for “showing” our love, we could have a healthier society. Most studies of societal disorders like these speak of poverty and lack of education, which are certainly problems, but a loving and attentive mother and father can produce a lovely flower in any weed patch; and in my opinion, all or most human progress is created by those strong “individuals” – usually that occurs within a society, yes, but the characteristics of the individual are primary. It takes more than a privileged background. “Individuation,” is what it is called. Any person who joins a group to hurt or intimidate a victim lacks proper and healthy “individuation,” and those who stand by and watch are equally as guilty. It isn’t just ordinary timidity which causes that phenomenon, but a true participation in the crime.

Our White Nationalists today want to see an all-white US, as though that would solve the problem of our too frequently vicious conflicts here in the US, and that frigid withholding of empathy for others. People talk of love, but to me that is a philosophical concept, while “empathy” is a highly motivating emotion. That is what makes a “harmless” citizen into a hero. Ireland is composed of mostly white people, but they have fought for other reasons these last 500 years or so, as rancorously as the citizens of Palestine and Israel do today. Groupism, territorialism, general viciousness laced with insanity and ignorance – those are the causes, and it is built into us genetically as a species. Jesus, Buddha, Mahatma Gandhi have taught ways to extricate ourselves mentally from the unhealthy entanglement in societal groups which produces pogroms rather than another Stonehenge. Of course, that I’m sure it’s here to stay as a philosophy, but it just doesn’t touch all citizens. A widespread inability to read, for instance, really blocks the path to a civilized citizenry. Tribal rules are all those people have to hang onto. We must have our diplomatic corps nation by nation, just to keep the lid on it all and prevent, for perhaps as long as 100 years if we’re lucky, an ever-new outbreak of violent warfare. This really is a damned depressing subject for those of us who would like to see some real progress.

I personally believe we need relief from the ongoing poverty that drives most of our social anger, and then we need a much better level of education, especially in the field of human relations and psychology. Our country has produced a tuition free public school system, an economic social safety net of sorts, but too often the conservatives in places of power withhold the money from those legitimate public needs in order to give it to those who are already doing fine and just don’t need another million dollars. This is such a foolish path for us to follow, not to mention deeply unjust and lacking in empathy or cooperation. Unfortunately, of the wealthy around the world “just don’t give a damn,” as Rhett said to Scarlet.

So, whatever Obama and the peace seeking people in this country – the diplomats and the Progressives -- try to do, it will be scorned by some, feared by others, but praised by those whom I consider to be “enlightened.” I hope to be in that number, but it is my experience and observation that it takes work. I want to be serene enough to really be productive, but I just can’t quite get to the point that Slim Pickens reached in that wonderfully humorous and gripping satirical movie, “Dr. Strangelove, Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.” I still worry.


SEE MORE ON ISRAEL BELOW, AND THE ONLY HOPE FOR TRUE PEACE, IN MY VIEW – THE TWO STATE SOLUTION

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israeli-officials-slam-john-kerry-upcoming-pathetic-ignorant-speech-settlements/

Israeli officials slam Sec. John Kerry's upcoming "pathetic," "ignorant" speech
CBS/AP December 28, 2016, 7:42 AM

Photograph -- U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry attends a meeting with several Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) foreign ministers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia December 18, 2016. REUTERS/FAISAL AL NASSER


JERUSALEM – Several Israeli officials are lashing out at U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry ahead of his planned policy speech about peace prospects with the Palestinians.

The Israeli government is angry the U.S. allowed a resolution to pass in the U.N. Security Council calling settlements in east Jerusalem and the West Bank a “flagrant violation” of international law.

How U.N. resolution against Israel will impact U.S. relations
Play VIDEO
How U.N. resolution against Israel will impact U.S. relations

With the U.S. expected to participate in an international peace conference in France next month, Kerry is planning a final policy speech Wednesday to address the issue.

Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan said Kerry’s planned speech Wednesday on the Israeli-Palestinian issue is a “pathetic move” and “anti-democratic.”

Erdan told Israel Army Radio that if Kerry lays out principles for a peace deal, as he is expected to do in his speech, it will limit President-elect Donald Trump’s ability to set his own policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Erdan said Obama administration officials are “pro-Palestinian” and “don’t understand what’s happening in the Middle East.”

He said the Obama administration’s refusal to veto a recent U.N. Security Council resolution, which calls settlements a flagrant violation of international law, “threatens the security of Israel.”

Play VIDEO -- Israel points finger at U.S. over U.N. resolution

Oded Revivi, chief foreign envoy of the Yesha Council, which covers Jewish settlements, called Kerry “a stain on American foreign policy” and “ignorant of the issues.”

Revivi made the remarks ahead of Kerry’s speech.

Revivi said Kerry is “the worst secretary of state in history” who “chose to stab his closest ally in the back” and knows little about the realities of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Although the U.S. has long opposed Jerusalem settlements, it has generally used its Security Council veto to protect its ally from censure. On Friday, it abstained from a resolution calling settlements a “flagrant violation” of international law, allowing it to pass by a 14-0 margin.

While the Palestinians hope to capitalize on the momentum of the U.N. vote, it appears Israel’s nationalist government is allowing its relationship with the Obama administration to sour and banking on the incoming Trump administration to undo the damage with redoubled support.

Mr. Trump appears to support the notion that he will be friendlier to the Netanyahu administrations policies, and as recently as Wednesday morning expressed disdain for the Obama administration’s handling of Israel.

Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but.......
9:19 AM - 28 Dec 2016
2,926 2,926 Retweets 8,779 8,779 likes

Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!
9:25 AM - 28 Dec 2016
2,646 2,646 Retweets 7,657 7,657 likes

In Washington, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Kerry would lay out his vision for Israeli-Palestinian peace in the speech Wednesday. “He feels it’s his duty in his waning weeks and days as secretary of state to lay out what he believes is a way to a peaceful two-state solution in the Middle East,” Toner said.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-are-people-so-upset-over-the-latest-united-nations-resolution-about-israel/

Why are people so upset over the latest U.N. resolution about Israel?
CBS News/ December 28, 2016, 6:00 AM

Photograph -- U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power at the U.N. Security Council meeting on Dec. 23, 2016.
Play Video -- U.S. refuses to veto UN vote on Israeli settlements
Play Video -- U.S., Israel at odds after U.N. vote condemning settlements


The Obama administration’s decision to not veto [sic] a United Nations resolution sharply critical of Israeli settlements continues to stir debate. But was it really all that different than prior U.N. resolutions that criticized Israel that the U.S. let pass?

The U.N. resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity passed the Security Council last week after the U.S. declined to use its veto power to stop it. Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., instead cast the sole abstaining vote. All other nations on the Security Council voted in favor.

The resolution called for Israel to “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.”

East Jerusalem, which contains some of the holiest sites in Judaism, was seized by Israel in the Six-Day War of 1967. In a speech before the chamber, Power insisted that her vote did “not in any way diminish the United States’ steadfast and unparalleled commitment to the security of Israel.”

Conservatives and pro-Israel advocates say the resolution signals a major and damaging reversal of U.S. policy in the region. “The White House has abandoned any pretense that the actual parties to the conflict must resolve their differences,” John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Monday.

But Democrats have argued that conservative criticisms of the White House are unwarranted. As political consultant Mark Mellman pointed out on Twitter, for example, previous administrations have declined to exercise veto powers when it comes to resolutions critical of the Israelis.

“Acting like this is some brand new policy or action just isn’t consistent with reality,” Mellman told CBS News. “Right or wrong, good or bad, since 1967 American policy has been that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza are occupied territories whose final status must be determined by the parties. And the U.S. has consistently opposed Israel’s settlement policy.”

Critics of the resolution argue that it’s been decades since the U.S. allowed a U.N. resolution to pass that says East Jerusalem and other lands taken in the 1967 war are occupied Palestinian territory. Previous resolutions the U.S. allowed to pass have instead tended to condemn specific actions of Israelis or the Israeli government, such as the bombing of an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.

In another example, a U.N. resolution condemning the 1994 massacre of Muslim worshipers by a Jewish terrorist was passed only when Madeleine Albright, then the U.S. ambassador, demanded a paragraph-by-paragraph vote on it to strip out language implying that Jerusalem was occupied territory.

“[W]e oppose the specific reference to Jerusalem in this resolution and will continue to oppose its insertion in future resolutions,” Albright said at the time.

“We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 war as ‘occupied Palestinian territory,’” Albright said.

Albright’s comments run counter to a 1980 U.N. resolution – supported by the U.S. – that did refer to Jerusalem and other lands taken by Israel in 1967 as occupied territory. But that position was in a sense reversed by Albright’s comments in 1994.

“It’s true the U.S. has not allowed a U.N. Security Council resolution to that effect to pass since 1980, but U.S. policy has been consistent under every Democratic and Republican administration to date. Moreover, the U.S. has allowed other anti-Israel resolutions to pass on a number of occasions before and after 1980. President Obama was the first president to adopt a policy of vetoing all anti-Israel U.N.S.C. resolutions – until now,” Mellman said.

“So not vetoing this resolution is a bit of a punch in the gut, but not a very hard one. It is in no way a change in U.S. policy about the conflict.”



THIS PROBLEM BETWEEN JEWS AND ISLAMIC GROUPS WILL NEVER BE FULLY SOLVED, JUST AS THAT OF THE WHITES VERSUS "BROWN" PEOPLE WON'T, BUT IN A BETTER SOCIAL BALANCE THAN WE HAVE HAD SINCE PRESIDENT OBAMA "OFFENDED" CERTAIN WHITES BY SUCCEEDING IN THE 2008 ELECTION I HAVE HOPE. IN THE 1980S I HAD A LUNCH BUDDY WHO WAS BLACK, AND NOBODY SEEMED TO BE ANNOYED WITH US FOR IT. BUT OF COURSE,THAT WAS CHAPEL HILL, NC. ON RACE RELATIONS, I DO TWO THINGS. I READ, WRITE, LISTEN TO PEOPLE OF NATIONAL INFLUENCE AND SOMETIMES (CAREFULLY) DISCUSS THE ISSUES WITH ACQUAINTANCES THE RACIAL ISSUES WE FACE. THAT IS A KIND OF SELF-EDUCATION FOR ME AND AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF SOCIETAL ATTITUDES, NOT SO MUCH TO ARGUE ABOUT IT BUT TO EXPLORE IT. I AM FIRMLY CONVINCED THAT THOSE WHO ARE "DIFFERENT" FROM EACH OTHER WOULD BLEND REASONABLY WELL TOGETHER IF IT WEREN'T FOR OUR CLASS CONSCIOUS ATTITUDES HERE, AND THAT NOT KNOWING ANYONE OUTSIDE OUR LITTLE CIRCLE PERSONALLY IS THE DEEPEST CAUSE OF THE TERRIBLE RELATIONSHIPS THAT ARE HAPPENING HERE FROM POLICE/NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS TO BLACK PEOPLE BEING FOLLOWED AROUND IN STORES BY SUSPICIOUS WORKERS. WE ALL NEED TO "LOOSEN UP AND LIGHTEN UP" AND START FROM THERE.

I WISH BLACKS AND WHITES WOULD GO TO CHURCH TOGETHER. THAT SHOULD BE A "NEUTRAL TERRITORY," AFTER ALL. ALSO, JUST BECAUSE THERE IS CRIME IS NOT A GOOD REASON TO BE FRIGID TO EVERY STRANGER WE MEET RATHER THAN GIVING THEM A SMILE, AT LEAST. THE MORE "CONSERVATIVE" WE ARE, THE MORE UNFRIENDLY WE TEND TO BE, AND THAT CREATES EVEN DEEPER ILL WHICH WILL START TO GROW. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME AND LOTS OF WHITES IS THAT I AM NOT USUALLY "AFRAID" OF STRANGERS UNLESS THEY DO BEHAVE IN A DANGEROUS OR THREATENING WAY, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT JUST "BEING BLACK" IS "DANGEROUS." THERE WAS A REALLY GREAT PSYCHOLOGICAL ARTICLE ON THE NET THIS YEAR ABOUT THE PERSONALITY TRENDS AMONG CONSERVATIVES AS COMPARED TO LIBERALS. CONSERVATIVES TEND TO BE CLASS CONSCIOUS, SUSPICIOUS, AND JUST GENERALLY CLOSED. THEY FIND NEW IDEAS THREATENING OR DOWNRIGHT HOSTILE. IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT THEY WANT TO SET UP A WHITES ONLY COUNTRY HERE IN SOME CASES. YES, THAT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN IN THE NEWS RECENTLY. THAT GROUP WAS DESCRIBED AS "WHITE NATIONALISTS" INSTEAD OF "WHITE SUPREMACISTS." THEY SAY THAT THEY THINK BLACK PEOPLE MAY NOT BE "INFERIOR," BUT THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEM ONE TO ONE. TOO MANY OF TRUMP'S FOLLOWERS SEEM TO BE OF THAT STAMP.

I ALSO CONTINUE TO INCLUDE PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS OF A DEEPER LEVEL THAN COCKTAIL PARTY CONVERSATION WITH BLACKS IN MY LIFE. I DO TRULY BELIEVE THAT IF MOST, NOT JUST A FEW INDIVIDUALS WOULD INTERRELATE WITH THEM MORE, THERE WOULD BE A MUCH BETTER ATMOSPHERE IN WHICH WE LIVE. ONE THING NORTHERNERS TEND NOT TO DO IS SPEAK TO STRANGERS, BUT SOUTHERNERS MORE OFTEN DO. BY THAT I MEAN MEET THEIR EYE AND SAY HELLO AND GOOD MORNING. IN THE GROCERY STORE IF I CAN'T FIND AN ITEM I HAVE OFTEN ASKED ANOTHER SHOPPER IF THEY HAVE SEEN IT, AND OF COURSE I USE A PLEASANT VOICE AND SMILE. THAT'S A SMALL MATTER, BUT IT DOES CREATE A LITTLE WARMTH BETWEEN US. DEALING PERSONALLY WITH BLACK PEOPLE IS SOMETHING I ENJOY, AND I AM CONVINCED THAT IF THE GENERAL POPULATION HERE WOULD FEEL THAT WAY ABOUT THE MATTER WE WOULD HAVE PROBLEMS ONLY WITH THOSE WHO ACTUALLY DO STEAL FROM US, MAKE AN UNWANTED SEXUAL PASS, OR ANY OTHER DELIBERATE RUDENESS OR ASSAULT. THAT TO ME IS LEGITIMATE REASON FOR ME TO BE LESS THAN FRIENDLY WITH THEM.

FIRST, I DO TEND TO LIKE BLACKS PERSONALLY, AS THEY ARE NOT "CLASSIST" IN THEIR VIEWS OF SOCIETY AND TEND TO BE MORE OPEN THAN SOME WHITES ARE. TOO OFTEN WHITES ARE,TO USE AN OLD WORD, "SNOOTY," WHICH IS WHAT TURNS ME OFF MOST WHEN I FIND IT IN PEOPLE. WE AREN'T PLEDGING OUR LIFE TO THEM IF WE ARE FRIENDLY AND PLEASANT TO SOMEONE. THE BLACKS WHOM I HAVE KNOWN, ONCE THEY ARE AT EASE WITH ME, OFTEN HAVE OPINIONS MUCH LIKE MINE, LOOK ATTRACTIVE, HAVE LOTS OF "GOOD SENSE" IF NOT ALWAYS AS MUCH FORMAL EDUCATION OR THE PREFERRED ACCENT, AND SEEM TO CARE ABOUT ME IN RETURN AS A HUMAN BEING. THAT'S WHAT I NEED IN ORDER TO FORM FRIENDSHIPS WITH PEOPLE. WITH FRIENDS -- A TERM THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE ALL ACQUAINTANCES -- I DO OPEN UP AND SPEAK MY MIND. I DON'T WANT AN UP CLOSE RELATIONSHIP OF ANY KIND IN WHICH THAT JUST ISN'T SAFE FOR ME TO DO. I REALLY MUST BE ABLE TO TRUST AN INDIVIDUAL IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN MUCH IN THE WAY OF A RELATIONSHIP. THAT IS BECAUSE I'M AN "INTROVERT." IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T "LIKE PEOPLE." IT'S THAT I DON'T LIKE UNTRUSTWORTHY PEOPLE. I DO MAINTAIN CORDIAL BUT MORE DISTANT SPEAKING RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHERS, AS WELL, AND I'M NOT "ANTISOCIAL." LET'S FACE IT, WE AREN'T REALLY GOING TO PERSONALLY "LOVE" EVERYONE, BUT WE CAN HAVE PEACEFUL RELATIONS WITH MOST, AND THE DIFFERENCES SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON "SEXUAL PREFERENCES, EDUCATION AND WEALTH, RACE, CREED OR COLOR."

WHAT HUMAN BEINGS REALLY NEED FROM EACH OTHER IS WARMTH, INTEREST AND A BASIC RESPECT. BY THAT I AM NOT REFERRING TO WHAT MY OPINION OF THE PERSON IS, BUT MY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF HIM AS A MEMBER OF THE HUMAN RACE AND THEREFORE DESERVING OF DECENT TREATMENT BETWEEN US. THAT'S "RESPECT," NOT WHETHER I WANT TO INVITE HIM TO MY NEXT DINNER PARTY. WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THAT, BECAUSE IT IS A VERY BASIC THING, WITH MEMBERS OF OTHER GROUPS AS WELL AS OUR OWN. HAVING A BLACK PRESIDENT OR BOSS OR CLASSMATE SHOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM TO ME AND VICE VERSA. THERE ARE CHARACTERISTICS I WON'T CONDONE OR SUPPORT, AND BULLYING OR OTHER MALTREATMENT I BELIEVE STRONGLY IN DEMOCRACY, SOCIALLY AND FINANCIALLY. THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO CONTINUE TO SEE HERE IN THE USA AS OUR SOCIETAL GOAL, AND NOT A NATION THAT EXCLUDES OUTSIDERS MERELY ON THAT BASIS. I GREW UP WITH ALL THOSE PROBLEMS IN THE SOUTH AND HAVE HAD TO BECOME CONSCIOUS OF WHAT THE TERM "WHITE PRIVILEGE" REFERS TO. IT'S THE THING THAT KEEPS ME FROM BEING ARRESTED FOR A BROKEN TAILLIGHT.

I TRY NOT TO DISRESPECT ANYONE ELSE'S RIGHTS, BUT I DON'T LET THEM DO IT TO ME WITHOUT SPEAKING OUT, EITHER. THIS CURRENT VIEW THAT WE SHOULDN'T DEFEND OURSELVES OR OTHERS IS TO ME SIMPLY UNWISE, AS IT OPENS UP THE DOOR TO BULLYING. IT'S "BAD PSYCHOLOGY." I WILL ALSO STAND UP FOR OTHERS MORE OFTEN THAN MANY IN THIS COUNTRY WILL. MOST OF US IN THIS COUNTRY BELIEVE IN NON-INTERFERENCE TO A NEGATIVE DEGREE, IN MY OPINION. AN ADULT SHOUTING AT OR HITTING A CHILD, OR A MAN ABUSING A WOMAN IN PUBLIC SHOULD BE OPPOSED IN SOME EFFECTIVE WAY, OFTEN BY CALLING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. EVEN A STRONG, STERN VOICE WILL BREAK UP THAT KIND OF THING, HOWEVER, IN MANY CASES. IT WON'T CHANGE A BULLY'S INNER HEART AND MIND, BUT IT CAN MAKE HIM STOP THE ASSAULT. MY GOAL IS TO MAINTAIN AS MUCH ASSERTIVENESS AND INDIVIDUALITY IN THIS COUNTRY AS I CAN WITHOUT BEING AN AGGRESSOR, AND IN GIVING COMFORT TO THE UNDERDOG UNLESS THEY REALLY ARE DANGEROUS PEOPLE. IF MY SOCIETY WILL CALL ME A "NIGGER LOVER" OVER THAT, OR A "RACE TRAITOR," WHICH IS THE POPULAR TERM ON THE INTERNET THESE DAYS, I AM NOT ASHAMED OR ABASHED, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THOSE PEOPLE WHO DO THAT ARE IN THE WRONG RATHER THAN JUSTIFIED.

BUT I BELIEVE IN BOTH FIGHTING AGAINST THE ABUSE OF PEOPLE, AND WORKING IN OTHER WAYS TO ELIMINATE IT. GROUP MARCHES OVER ISSUES ACTUALLY ARE USEFUL AND NOT USUALLY VIOLENT. THAT'S HOW WE CAN LIVE UP TO THE HIGH PRAISE OUR MORE "PATRIOTIC" CITIZENS GIVE THIS COUNTRY. ACTUALLY I'M QUITE PATRIOTIC, BUT ABOUT THE COUNTRY WE ARE WORKING TOWARD AND SHOULD BE, RATHER THAN THE CLASS-RIDDEN PAST, THE TENDRILS OF WHICH WE JUST CAN'T SEEM TO DISENTANGLE FROM AROUND OUR NATIONAL THROAT. NONETHELESS, I CONTINUE TO HOPE AND BELIEVE IN INCREMENTAL CHANGE AS A NATURAL PROCESS. IT'S HAPPENING, HERE, IN EUROPE AND IN THE MIDDLE EAST BY CONSCIENTIOUS INDIVIDUALS, LAWYERS, GOOD HONEST PROGRESSIVE POLITICIANS. THERE WILL NEVER BE PERFECTION, AS I SAID EARLIER, BUT NOT DOING THE GOOD THINGS THAT REQUIRE PERSONAL COURAGE IS THE INVITATION TO THE END OF THIS SOCIETY AS A SAFE PLACE FOR THE INNOCENT TO LIVE. THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT AND SALUTE BLACK LIVES MATTER, THE ACLU, GOOD AND HONEST POLICE OFFICERS, THE RELIGIOUS WHO ARE NOT FOCUSED ON WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE IS GAY, BUT WHAT THEIR GOALS AND ACTIONS TOWARD SOMETHING POSITIVE ARE. I JUST HAVE TO SEE TO IT THAT I AM ON THE SIDE OF GOOD IN MY HEART AND AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, IN MY ACTIONS. I DON'T MIND BEING A SOLDIER IN A WAR OF MINDS, I JUST WANT TO SEE THE GOAL AS BEING USEFUL AND HONEST. THIS TALK ABOUT "THE RACE WAR" WHICH HAS POPPED UP ON THE INTERNET IS REALLY HORRIFYING TO ME. PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO SEE SUCH A SITUATION REALLY ARE, OF COURSE, IN THE MINORITY RIGHT NOW, BUT THE VERY MENTION OF IT DISTURBS ME AND I'M SEEING MORE AND MORE OF IT. IT'S LIKE AN EPIDEMIC OF ILL WILL. EVIL IS CATCHING! HUMANS BEING WHAT WE ARE, I FEAR THAT SUCH A THING AS HAPPENED IN GERMANY COULD OCCUR HERE. I WISH I THOUGHT THAT "TOO MUCH FOCUS" ON THESE PROBLEMS MAKES THEM WORSE. IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT PAYING NO ATTENTION TO THEM HAS ALLOWED THE BAD GUYS TO TAKE OVER, AND THAT IS BECAUSE WE "COMFORTABLE" MIDDLE CLASS WHITES DIDN'T LOOK AT IT ALL, MUCH LESS LOOK AT IT AS "MY PROBLEM." TIME TO READ JOHN DONNE'S "FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS" AGAIN.