Now and again, when I read the news, I experience momentary gripes and groans. Here’s what got me going this morning.

Blinken’s latest plea to the Israeli government.

As I type, Israel has just ended the truce with Hamas and resumed its bombing campaign on Gaza. In the runup to the deadline, US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, is reported to have said that ‘he’d told the Israeli government that it must avoid further mass displacement of Palestinians and damage to critical infrastructure, like hospitals, power stations and water facilities.’ Noble sentiments to which nobody could disagree, but the two missing words were, ‘or else?’ What will the USA do if the resumption of bombing causes yet more civilian deaths, particularly in southern Gaza, where thousands of displaced Gazans are now massed? Can Israel command its bombs only to destroy militants but not civilians? Will Israel designate Gazan bomb-free safe areas and advise all Gazans to move to these areas before firing the rockets? Will the location of the safe areas include hospitals, power stations and water facilities? Will there be a guarantee that humanitarian-aid routes to these safe areas will not be targeted? Will Hamas state that they will not embed their militants among the civilians in these safe areas?

Given that the bombing has restarted, I suspect the answer to all these questions is either no or don’t know, in which case Blinken’s words are as hollow as the Hollow Tree in Stanley Park in Vancouver.

Omid Scobie’s bombshell revelations.

Oprah Winfrey’s reaction when Meghan revealed that there were ‘concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be.’ March 7, 2021 interview

I’m not a fan of the British Royal family but I watch with amusement and incredulity as the continuing saga of privileged-at-birth people unfolds in the media. This week, someone called Omid Scobie has published a book titled Endgame and some of the British newspapers are falling over themselves to search out and publish the juicy bits. Top of the lurid headlines is the naming in the Dutch edition of the book of the two Royals who queried the skin colour of Harry and Meghan’s unborn baby while it was still encased in the warm, cosy environment of Meghan’s womb. According to Meghan, while talking to American chat show host Oprah Winfrey in 2021, two Royals are said to have questioned the skin colour of her unborn baby and – gasp, shock, horror – up went the this-is-a-racist-question accusation. My question is, why? If two people of different skin colours have sex and create a baby, why is it racist to wonder about the skin colour of the unborn baby? In these days of diversity, multiculturalism, and acceptance of what used to be called ‘mixed’ marriages, I would have thought that the question is as natural as any other concerning an unborn baby. Will it be a boy or a girl? Does the ultrasound image show any abnormalities? When can I expect the first kick? I wonder if it will have your skin colour or mine?

There’s nowt racist about that. It’s just natural curiosity.

X, we get it.

In July 2023, over four months ago from the date of today’s posting, Elon Musk rebranded the social media platform Twitter to X. According to NBC News, Musk said the idea of changing the logo to X was to ‘embody the imperfections in us all that make us unique.’ Hmm, I’ve gotta think about that statement. But that’s not what interests me today. Since the name change, I’ve noticed that news outlets such as the BBC and our national newspapers, when reporting something someone has posted on the platform, always write … according to a recent posting on X, formerly known as Twitter… Formerly known as Twitter? It’s driving me up the wall. We get it. We have digested the fact that X was formerly known as Twitter. There is no need to continue the now redundant information that X was formerly known as Twitter. I am prepared to write out that last sentence in bold capitals one hundred times and send the original to Elon. Enough is enough. There is no further need to add the formerly known as Twitter clarification. Please, please, please; stop.

COP28 attendance

I read this morning that over 70,000 people are attending the latest climate change conference, COP28, in Expo City, Dubai. 70,000 people! What on earth (literally) are they all doing? Climate change is an important topic, possibly the most crucial topic for global discussion right now, but 70,000 people is the population size of a small town. Gosport, a town not too far from where I live, has a population of 70,000. I cannot conceive of gathering all the inhabitants of Gosport and conducting a series of meetings aimed at saving the world. It beggars belief.

By the way, do you know what COP stands for? Conference Of the Parties. I hope that Parties means participants and not a group of people gathered together to have a jolly good time.

(^_^)