On doom

This week we read "The Bridge of Khazad-dûm," in which the Fellowship realizes Moria is indeed a place of great danger, and they escape but not unscathed.  Near the beginning, while still at Balin's tomb, Gandalf finds a book of records.  The italicized are in the original.

‘It is grim reading,’ he said. ‘I fear their end was cruel. Listen!...´We cannot get out.
The end comes, and then drums, drums in the deep. I wonder what that means.
The last thing written is in a trailing scrawl of elf-letters:
they are coming. There is nothing more.’ Gandalf paused and stood in silent thought...
Then there came an echoing blast: a great horn was blown in the hall,
and answering horns and harsh cries were heard further off.
There was a hurrying sound of many feet.

‘They are coming!’ cried Legolas. ‘We cannot get out,’ said Gimli.
‘Trapped!’ cried Gandalf. ‘Why did I delay? Here we are, caught,
just as they were before. But I was not here then.'

"Which is worse, that they are coming, or that they cannot get out?"
"A train hurtling towards you, or the ropes tying you down?"
"Put it that way: The train.  The train is what's going to kill you.  Without it you could enjoy an afternoon tied down."
"But if you are tied down the train can come at any time.  You are a victim of the wait - even if the train never comes.  Especially if the train never comes."
"So you would rather be confronted with evil than not?"
"If I know it lurks, I should confront it.  If I wait, it may grow stronger."
"The dwarves were trapped.  The drums increased their dread.  By the time the battle came to them their hope had already been defeated."
"What if what's coming is death.  We are alive.  Death is coming and we cannot get out.  Facing down death, always lurking, is impossible.  In any case, it is not evil."
"Dying early is not preferrable.  It is better, since we cannot get out, to decorate where we are doomed to wait."
"So sometimes we must confront, and sometimes we must enjoy the wait?"
"Evil we should confront.  But not everything inevitable need be dreaded or rushed."
"Why is the phrase flipped later?  Legolas says they are coming, and Gimli say they cannot get out."
"The realization is different.  The dwarves of Balin were sieged.  They were trapped long before their demise.  Here, the orcs attack before anyone realizes they are trapped.  Though it's worth pointing out they were not trapped."
"They had Gandalf, and Balin did not."
"Gandalf can hold off the enemy, but he does not undo a trap.  The orcs come from the West door, but the East door is available throughout the attack."
"So why does Gimli say they cannot get out?"
"He is so surprised by the turn of events he misses what is obvious."
"And he has heard the script.  They are coming, we cannot get out.  His mind fills in the rest, even though it is out of order.  Balin's dwarves say it because it is true.  But it is flipped after because it is false."
"When do we fail to see the script has been flipped, or at least does not fit?"
"Gimli would embrace a death in Moria, by Balin's tomb.  He does not dread death, but he does rush it, if it can give him glory."
"We fail to see the script has flipped when the outcome is one we desire.  So eager we are to have a predicted future we fail to see when the prediction is false."
"Or work to make it so.  Gimli is not trapped, but if he died then it is true that he cannot get out."
"If we seek truth and make it so, is that not laudable?  To make the world what we want?"
"Depends on what we want.  Gimli, we know, survives the whole War of the Ring.  It would not have been preferable for him to die in Moria."
"I find it interesting Legolas and Gandalf cry their responses, but Gimli merely says it.  What does this mean to you?"
"That Legolas and Gandalf are in a panic, and they are not sure what to do, or even what yet is happening, other than it is bad.  But Gimli, in this place of great death, has an agenda set.  He will die here."
"This would suggest we should worry about those who, in moments of panic, remain calm.  But should we embrace those who panic, who are likely to lead us astray?"
"Better to panic with the masses, who will soon see reason when it calms, than listen to the one who resists the panic; whose plans are helped along by a panicking event.  Gandalf's worries are soon put aside in favor of determination, and Legolas also does not remain panicked.  But Gimli shows no fear whatsoever.  We should fear the one who never hesitates.  The one who calmly proclaims doom, or who relishes it."

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed 0% to this post's final version.

On responding

This week we read "A Journey In The Dark."  Having failed to cross the Caradhras mountains Gandalf says the Fellowship has only one choice: to enter the caverns of Moria under the mountains.  It is possible they will find friendly hosts to welcome them - dwarves mine these mountains.  But it's also possible they are deserted, or overrun by orcs.  They also might simply get lost.  Gandalf says that while he has passed through Moria before, that was a long time ago and he did so coming from the other direction.  Hearing all this bad news,  Pippin and Sam say they don't want to go.

‘Of course not!’ said Gandalf. ‘Who would? But the question is:
who will follow me, if I lead you there?’
‘I will,’ said Gimli eagerly.
‘I will,’ said Aragorn heavily....
‘I will not go,’ said Boromir; ‘not unless the vote of the
whole Company is against me. What do Legolas and the little folk say?
The Ring-bearer’s voice surely should be heard?’
‘I do not wish to go to Moria,’ said Legolas.
The hobbits said nothing. Sam looked at Frodo. At last Frodo spoke.
‘I do not wish to go,’ he said; ‘but neither do I wish to refuse the advice of Gandalf.

"Here we have five kinds of responses.  The eager one, the somber one, the one that will not obstruct, the one that does not answer, and the one that accepts complexity."
"Which one is best?"
"None.  All of have their place.  Of the eager, it is easy to find:  To respond eagerly makes one the best kind of companion, if one is also eager.  Gimli likes the underground, and wants to share it with the others."
"And when is eager not preferred?"
"When we are somber, we will also want a somber response.  At those times eagerness may irritate, not delight, us."
"The soldiers who go to war for glory will clash with their companions who have gone for duty, even if they all agree on the enemy."
"Motivations matter."
"The one that will not obstruct is what most of us use most of the time, hopefully.  Pursuing not ideology, but camaraderie.  They do not prioritze their own preferences."
"Is such a response not compromising their principles?"
"Not if their principle is teamwork and inclusion.  Boromir also solicits Legolas and the hobbits for their answer.  He wants more voices, not quick agreement."
"Why did you describe Legolas' response as 'the one that does not answer'?  He clearly doesn't want to go.
"But the actual question was who will follow Gandalf into Moria.  Legolas doesn't want to go to Moria.  By his evasion, however, we understand that he will if Gandalf leads.  His is like Aragorn's in this way.  However, his is an evasive answer.  He doesn't embrace his fate, but merely accepts it."
"And Frodo's?  The 'one that accepts complexity'?"
"Frodo takes both Aragorn and Legolas' response and forces them together, though there is a contradiction within.  He does not want to go to Moria, but he will if Gandalf leads."
"Since he said "I will take the Ring, though I do not know the way," he must do this.  He must go where he is led."
"He could abandon the Quest, as we know he does at the end.  But the responsibility has grown on him.  Or perhaps he has risen to meet it."
"Frodo has grown a lot since we first met him.  He seems to be beginning to understand that not only is walking into danger inevitable for his Quest it is in fact the only path.  Frodo will have to learn to not recoil from danger - danger is the very thing which will help him reach his ultimate goal, to be rid of the Ring.  The safer his path, the further from success he is."
"So we have our responses, which we may give and recieve at different times.  Eagerness, when we are excited to share; Somber, when we know we must share; Inclusive, when we involve others before us; Evasive, when absence indicates truth; and complex, when holding values or feelings which are in tension with each other."
"Complex is clearly the highest form of response."
"But not always suitable.  If your friend is eager, and you are also eager, why bring in complication?"
"We should push our friends."
"But we don't always have to."
"I thought ethics was doing the harder thing."
"Huh - good point.  But clearly there's ethical value in sharing enthusiasm with your friend."
"But that is easy."
"But that doesn't mean its right.  Ethics is choosing the harder thing, but just because something is harder doesn't mean it's ethical.  The way to be ethical with a child is different than with an adult and that's different if that adult is a stranger or a close family friend."
"So which is best?"
"As I said, all have their place."
"How can we know when to use each?"
"That is beyond for us to say.  Human life is too complex.  It is enough for us to draw these distinctions out, such that others can take this conversation into their own lives."
"We've overlooked a response type.  There are really six."
"Which did we miss?"
"The easiest one to skip, though it is very important to listen to: Silence.  'The hobbits said nothing.'  They can't even voice a decision."
"Oh, and I now see a seventh response!"
"Seven?"
"'Sam looked at Frodo.'  We can appeal to others for leadership, or some other support."
"The seven responses.  Let us list them:

• The eager one
• the somber one
• the one that will not obstruct
• the evasive one
• the silent one
• the one that looks to others
• The one that embraces complexity."

"I cannot see more.  It would be fitting to have nine, for our nine companions."
"It is fitting nonetheless.  Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone.  This is where the Fellowship goes next."
"A journey in the dark, indeed!"

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 15% to this post's final version.  However it also defined 'intricate' like this: "Intricacy" refers to the quality or state of being intricate, complex, or detailed with many interconnected and elaborate parts. It implies a high degree of complexity or intricateness, often involving a web of finely detailed elements that together contribute to the overall complexity of a system, design, or concept.

On pushing

This week we read "The Ring goes South."  The Fellowship heads out and immediately runs into a (snow)heap of trouble.  But the quote we're going to highlight happens before all that.  As they leave Rivendell Boromir takes his horn out:

Putting it to his lips he blew a blast, and the echoes leapt from rock to rock,
and all that heard that voice in Rivendell sprang to their feet.
"Slow should you be to wind that horn again, Boromir," said Elrond,
"Until you stand once more on the borders of your land, and dire need is on you."
"Maybe," said Boromir, "But always I have let my horn cry at setting forth, and though
thereafter we may walk in the shadows, I will not go forth as a thief in the night."

"Now here is a man of principle! He will not let the enemy change his routine."
"But we know, in the end, that is exactly what happens."
"Our tradition generally holds Boromir in high esteem, though. How, if he falls?"
"Many of us would fall to the temptation of the Ring, as we fall regularly to lesser temptations."
"Do we hold Frodo, or Aragorn, on a pedastal then?"
"No more than they deserve. We strive to be like them, but it is the likes of Boromir and Sam who we can hope to mirror."
"But should we not always strive for more?"
"Yes, but tempered with reality. Our moral reach should always exceed grasp, but that does not mean we should spite what we can achieve. A perfect world would be best - but a better world is still worth the effort."
"Does Boromir here make Middle Earth better?"
"Boromir is a man who believes Mordor is evil and that it must be held back by force. In most cases, he is right. Sauron's negotiations are to stall and misdirect. Those who deal with the Dark Lord are decieved. Sauron must be fought. However, fighting will never defeat him. To destroy The One Ring, secrecy is required."
"Such as a thief."
"Ever does the Ring inspire thievery."
So Boromir blasts his horn so he will not be as a thief, whom he seems lesser. He will not let the Enemy reduce him so - or injure his principles."
"But he will also not let the Enemy injure his pride, or reduce himself in the pursuit of succees."
"Self-conception can become a prison."
"It would be easier for Boromir to begin his journey without his horn, because that's safer. We must commend him for blowing it. But it is also easier for Boromir to blow his horn because it's what he's always done. We must not commend people simply for their habits"
"How do we know we hold to our principles because they are right and how do we know we hold to them only out of habit?"
"This brings us back to rooted wisdom. Here, Boromir's horn is that wisdom. Is it wise, or rooted?"
"This is the same question only asked differently!"
"Answers are less important than good questions. Boromir refuses to be seen as a thief. When he seeks to take the Ring from Frodo he continues to insist he is not one."
"And yet he 'seeks to take' the Ring."
"But Boromir is no thief, or at least will always refuse to believe the charge. Bilbo was comfortable embracing the title - his ego was less. For Boromir, thieves are bad, thieves take things, and he is good. If he is taking something, he thinks his goodness outweighs the deed, and the taking becomes good, rather than he becomes bad."
"We must judge people by their actions."
"But Frodo and Sam are like 'thieves in the night.' It is because of their secrecy and deception they reach Mount Doom. Betrayal, even, is what destroys the Ring."
"There is a time and a place for thievery, then?"
"Perhaps it is not enough to judge people by their actions, but by their options."
"Why by their options and not by their motivations?  Do they hold to their principles because they are right, or because they are tradition?"
"Why not by their outcomes?"
"No.  It should be motivations.  Giving a gift may be kindness or it may be bribery.  The breadth of one's options may be beyond their control.  And outcomes allow us to justify the success of a fluke, or ignore whatever terrible cost has been paid.  But motivations let us know what is in the heart."
"But we cannot mind read.  Umm, or heart read."
"Yes.  That is the trouble.  But we can read our own.  At least in our own life, and in those with whom we can converse honestly, we can determine motivations.  And if we learn it was for tradition instead of righteousness we can take the opportunity to re-examine."
"But hold on.  We say doing ethics is doing the harder thing."
"Yes."
"But if someone is so developed they do the harder thing out of habit, is that not something to strive for?  Is it less ethical because it has become automatic?"
"It is no less good - however it does become less worthy.  That person should acknowledge their success and then push themselves to find the next thing which is hard for them.  Do you donate regularly to causes?  Then volunteer your time, next.  Our grasp should always exceed our reach, and our reach should continue to extend."
"We should strive not to grasp, but to reach."
"The ethical life is not measured by who we help, or on what we achieve, but on what we push ourselves to do that we did not do yesterday."

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 0% to this post's final version.  I tried to ask it to help me come up with a title and it was no use at all.

On not using

This week we read "The Council of Elrond," wherein the doom of Middle Earth is decided.  How will the Ring be dealt with?  Boromir suggests using it to defeat Sauron, but Elrond corrects him.

"Alas, no," said Elrond.  "We cannot use the Ruling Ring...
The very desire of it corrupts the heart.  Consider Saruman.
If any of the Wise should with this Ring overthrow the Lord
of Mordor, using his own arts, he would then set himself
on Sauron's throne, and yet another Dark Lord would appear...
As long as it is in the world it will be a danger even to the Wise."

"Why does Elrond specifically point out the Wise?"
"Wise has a specific definition, as we have discussed.  To know how to use.  Elrond is saying even those who could know how to use it cannot use it safely."
"So the Ring cannot be used safely, even by those whose life work is defined by knowing how to do things."
"Not only that, but its pursuit is danger.  Even the Ring as an idea leads to corruption."
"But how can we pursue knowledge, if some ideas lead to corruption?"
"You could learn an idea without necessarily implementing it."
"Then why learn it?"
"To know is an inherent good.  But also, to be able to recognize it in the future.  You may not use it, but others may.  Further, one should learn boundaries calmly before one presses against them in action.  Especially in the field of knowledge.  Punishing another for a bad idea makes the punisher an ideologue - for better or for worse.  Punishing yourself for a bad idea is self-restraint.  You may determine routes that are open to you, and then choose not to use them."
"What is the benefit of not using?"
"Some tools are corrupting, of the cause and the self.  Rape, intimidation, indiscriminate violence, shame, the violation of rights, censorship, unfounded accusations, etc.  All of these may get you closer to your goal, but it also diminishes the righteousness of your goal."
"But what if the alternative is your enemies use these things?"
"Our text makes clear this is still not allowable.  Sauron would use the Ring, but the free peoples may not.  If they do, they will be no different than Sauron"
"Not quite.  It does not say they would become him.  It says if they should sit on his throne another Dark Lord would appear.  It need not be them.  Any rule gained by dark arts will be doomed.  Perhaps the Wise, so desparate to hold onto their own power, will indeed become the Dark Lord.  But as likely another would say 'Who is this Wise one, who uses tools they forbid to others?' and start a revolution.  We must not set up our own destruction so easily."
"Rape and violation of rights are obviously evil.  What else may we be tempted to do that we should not?"
"They are not some secret weapon we will accidentally use.  What is evil is usually evidently so."
"Then why even write an ethical blog, if it is so easy?"
"What is acceptable and what is good and what is best are harder questions to answer.  These we interest ourselves in, for there is sometimes room for disagreement.  But what is bad?  And certainly what is evil?  These things are not difficult to know."
"Then why do so many pursue them?"
"Many people do not.  In fact, many people just don't care enough to stop it.  But those who do evil will justify it by the greater good.  Or claim that the accused evils didn't actually happen.  Few revel in the evil."
"Why does anyone do it?"
"Power is the easiest answer.  A need for justice  If you have power you can bend the world to your will - to enforce whatever justice you believe the world is lacking.  If you look around and see evil deeds, is it so unreasonable to think 'If I need to commit some evil deeds to stop other evil deeds, so be it.'  Transacationally, 5 evil deeds to stop future evil deeds makes sense.  But ethics cannot be balanced on a scale so easily.  Some prices cannot be paid, no matter the outcome.  The means poison the ends."
"We've learned before that power is the problem."
"We obviously should be wary when others try to amass power.  Even if they promise to use it for good, eventually they will do something with which we will disagree.  It is simply inevitable two minds will not be identical.  But we should also be wary when we are amassing power."
"But what if we are right?"
"By needing to amass power to enact our ways, we prove the lie.  When you need to compel obediance you instead have submission, and submission necessarily creates resentment.  This resentment weakens the foundation of whatever you are building.  Whether it is a new world, a new workplace culture, a new friendship, or a new home, you must resisit the quick poison.  Some tools are never worth using."
"So then how can we enact our ways?"
"There are two ways to create justice in this world - to force it or inspire it.  We can inspire through persuasion and compromise.  By finding allies to aid us.  That's the strength of the Free Peoples - the whole idea of the Fellowship.  We cannot do it alone and we cannot do it by force.  If we do, even our success will be a failure."

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 5% to this post's final version.

On stupidity

This week we read "Many Meetings," in which Frodo has arrived safely in Rivendell and, well, meets a broadening cast of characters. Elrond, Arwen, Glóin from Bilbo's adventure - oh and Bilbo, himself, is there, too.

So is Gandalf, with whom Frodo speaks first.  Frodo mentions surprise Strider has been as helpful as he has, given what he traditionally thought of what the Shire generally call "Big People."

"I thought, well, that they were just big,
and rather stupid: kind and stupid like Butterbur;
or stupid and wicked like Bill Ferny."

"Is it for people to be kind and stupid or wicked and stupid?"
"Surely kind and stupid - if you must be stupid, at least be kind."
"Kindness requires sense.  As in all things which are worth pursuing, it requires one to avoid the easy path.  Is it even possible to be kind and yet also stupid?"
"Kindness can simply mean staying out of the way.  Let those around you do what they want.  It takes no effort to just let people be."
"But what if those people are doing ill?  You must know how to respond."
"Is it so hard to stand up to evil-doers?"
"There are many of them, so we must say yes.  Few people, if they have the means, go hungry."
"But what of those without?"
"No, I mean hunger is something which we can say "it takes no effort" to be fed, because that is easy.  If you don't have the means, your hunger is not related to your physical inability to feed yourself."
"And yet some cannot feed themselves."
"And those we would call dependent - children or the sick or the elderly.  It's not a common problem for common people, as evil is."
"Perhaps we should define our terms.  What is stupid, first?"
"The term "stupidity" generally refers to a lack of intelligence, understanding, or the ability to learn and apply knowledge. It is often used to describe actions, behaviors, or decisions that appear unwise, irrational, or lacking in common sense"
"The inability to learn is particularly damning.  Frodo is not just saying they lack intelligence or understanding, but that even their capacity for growth is doubted."
"It is standard in the Shire to call those who do foolish things cracked - as if they are somehow broken, and not merely lacking."
"So Frodo's damnation is a cultural understanding of stupidity, not just his own, so we shouldn't hold him solely responsible for its harshness"
"Then let us move on.  What is kindness?"
"Kindness refers to the quality of being friendly, generous, considerate, and compassionate towards others. It involves treating people with warmth, empathy, and respect, often without expecting anything in return." "So the focus is on the other." "One can also be friendly and compassionate and respectful to oneself." "But without expecting anything in return?" "Why not?" "If someone does something for me, I will want to return the favor." "I would also." "But if I do something to myself, I know I will want to return the favor." "But you've already done yourself a favor." "So I cannot expect nothing in return, as I've already recieved something." "What is the essence of kindness, the action or the tone?" "I think the answer is on the word 'expecting'. We may wish or hope for reciprocation, but a kind person is not generous on the condition of recieving something. So I can be kind to myself, given the primary goal is not a future reciept." "Even if it is tertiary, such a goal collides with kindness. It is without expecting anything in return, not without expecting much in return." "And there is the word often. So one can sometimes expect something in return." "Kindness conditionally given is not such." "Metaphysically, yes. But actually, who cares? A kind word is a kind word, despite the motivation." "I am unconvinced." "Then, kindly, I will not push you. We are not the same people, some disagreement is expected." "Fair enough. These conversations would be worth less if we did agree all the time. OK, what is wickedness?" "In a moral sense, "wicked" describes something or someone characterized by evil or malevolence. It implies a deliberate intention to harm, deceive, or act in a morally wrong way." "Well that's not helpful, for we need to define evil and malevolence." "Do we?" "Sort of, otherwise anyone who grabs those terms can say such and such is wicked. Generosity to others is more self-evident."* "OK, so let's settle for the second sentence. Deliberate intent to harm and deceive." "In a morally wrong way!! We are not saying violence is necessarily wicked." "Indeed, not. Though we'll want to be very careful in saying when violence is justified - or necessary. Surely violence is never kindness." "Was ending the Nazi regime not kind?" "Not to them! And kind doesn't seem like the right word anyway. The First Gulf War protected Kuwaiti independence. I don't think anyone, including them, would define that conflict as kind. Kind is an opposite of wicked, but it is not the tool with which to oppose it." "Back to our source. Using our definitions we have Frodo saying "I thought some were generous and compassionate and giving to others without expecting much in return and have a lack of understanding and intellignece and some were intentionally harmful when it was not justified and have a lack of understanding and intelligence." "Boy, that's a mouthful!" "Well, we are no Creative Wizards here." "So which is better?" "Kind and stupid, as we had said." "Oh, I was going to say the opposite, having seen it laid out like that." "But kindness trumps wickedness - obviously, yes?' "But we are assuming the kindness works. If one is kind but stupid they may be kind in what that are unhelpful. They may donate to organizations that are not in need. They may be unable to understand certain kinds of suffering and harm. Their kindness may be only for those who are like them. This is not the kindness I wish to see in the world." "But rather one who is wicked and stupid?" "One who deliberately does harm without understanding is more easily addressed. The above is a fool - whom we should pity. A wicked and stupid person is more obviously a problem. A world full of stupid and wicked people will spur that world to action." "If we are to have wicked people in the world let us hope they are stupid. Stupid and kind may fill us with pity and may not do much help in the world, but we can also ignore them, not pushing them to grow. We can grow complacent, confusing their harmlessness for virtue. And while it would be better for you or me to be kind and stupid for the sake of the world, stupid and wicked is better because it minimizes wicked results. If I must choose to make all stupid people kind or all wicked people stupid, then the latter!" "There is another angle we have yet to discuss." "We've gone on long enough already!" "This will be quick. Frodo describes Butterbur as kind and stupid, but Bill Ferny as stupid and wicked. Why have the order of the adjectives change?" "Because kindness is seen first, before one's stupidity is seen." "And we do not notice wickedness so much?" "We do, but we will excuse it. We will instead assume stupidity - that this person doesn't understand or has made a mistake or that it is we are who the ignorant ones. Calling someone wicked is a morally heavy burden, one that we will avoid whenever possible. When we call someone wicked, it should be because all other explanations have been tried and found lacking. Similarly, we should be wary of those who claim to know evil quickly and often. It isn't only that they are likely wrong, but a sign that they lack empathy - that rather than attempt to understand another's point of view, or accept that some people are indeed stupid. Stupidity is more easily addressed than wickedness, though less heroic. Instead, these would rather simply announce them as evil, evil must be confronted and destroyed. It is for that very reason we must be extremely careful about who and what we call evil, and only after great pains to avoid it. We must be hesitant to be righteous and eager to be understanding. We should not prioritize our own desire for heroism over quieter solutions."

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 20% to this post's final version.

*As someone who is Pro-Israel, I am both concerned how easily it was for me to find a link calling Zionism evil and also grateful how difficult it was for me to find a link calling Palestinians evil.  I am glad to see my side is being more careful in the deployment of that sort of language.