Putting out a controversial or confrontational position can be done to provoke for the sake of annoyance (a pitfall for me for sure) or to spark dialog.

Thing is, doing the “blast” or whatever destructive term you want to use (as applies to too much news commentary) is mostly just rant if it’s not followed up with an attempt to engage in some form of “Here’s what I mean, what do you mean?”

It’s the follow up, an actual interest in what the other thinks is right or wants to see done that makes the difference. Dialog, as you likely know all too well, is not easily achieved or in some instances even possible if one viewpoint insists on some form of ultimate authority that makes it and only it correct.

You know people who can barely be talked with. The exact reasons why will vary, but in general the set way is judgmental. Thinking this is good and that bad works OK, but good and bad are unreliable and untrustworthy companions.

Like this I mean. “The worst thing that happened to me turned out to be the best; the awful and hard lesson I (knowing me) could learn no other way. Thinking we know good from bad is probably society’s greatest common flaw.

I’ll ask you. Is it a good thing to help one another? Quite likely you’ll say yes. But in saying yes do we who are able to help are also saying “I am capable and you are not”?

How helpful is it to be insulted in that way or to mix helping with insulting condescension?
As important in this tricky distinction is the difference between help and helpful. They are not the same things.

In the context I see being helpful suggests more exchange and involvement between the parties.

In other words helpful suggests mutuality of effort. How we might make use of the distinction will depend on a specific situation, but I think it’s safe to say that helping or being helpful are ways we might engage with others. If an engagement proves good or bad in the long run is outside our hands, so maybe, I mean it may be that willingness to help is more important than committing an act over which we do not have full control.

But because it’s the new year and we have so many fresh old things to bounce around why not have an enjoyable posh while we’re in early days. So here go I a bouncing.

I have stricken the expression “blood on your/their hands” from acceptance.

Which expression is the more accurate “carnivorous plant food” or “food for carnivorous plants”?
Who do I thank for coming up with the most helpful size and style of COVID vaccine record? I really wish to thank them properly, but to whom?

For decades past on TV and in movies one name in particular was synonymous with mockery and derision. OK, an annoying person makes a sensible target. But even so it is noteworthy that person rose to high office, but was it despite or because of the characteristics that made them so very target worthy?

The problem with a beginning that starts with its conclusion is that all the work and evidence gets skewed to fit the conclusion.

If, as example, you believe human life stems from an alien female landing on earth and creating intelligent (don’t laugh) beings that led to us you will scout the planet and come up with many things that fit what you’re searching for.

It’s uncanny how very much President Biden reminds me of my father. Similar appearance is part of it, but it’s mostly attitude and the fatherly voice. Gives me shivers.

If a Haitian black comes to the U.S. should any right they might assert for reparation be directed at the U.S. or to France?

Wouldn’t it be interesting to link voter registry with proof of vaccine status? Health screenings and voting could be done at hospitals, which are certainly large enough to accommodate this medicinal need.

Between them, Spain and Portugal account for the vast majority (estimated at three out of four) slaves from Africa brought to the New World.

Does this mean speaking Spanish or Portuguese is three times more racist than using languages from other contributors (Dutch, English, German, Danish, French, English) to slavery?

If the above buyers of African slaves have some explaining to do, what then of the Arab and African catchers and sellers?

If it were me I’d point the long finger of retribution at Arabia with its oil wealth and a known fondness for charitable kindness toward others.

I did warn that things would be mixed up.

Do you dislike or have you simply come to tolerantly accept useless exaggeration?

On my side I grit when highly paid commentators refer to blasting, bashing, destroying and etc. when they are referring to a response that does not of the things they say. I guess they want to sound forceful in their comment.

But, trivial nitpicking remains just that even if called a demolition.

I’ve slowly been brought around to seeing gender as a meaningless term of convenience. Bodies that can/do produce ova and bodies that can/do make sperm are interchangeable as conceptual beings.

In this outside-the-norm thinking we humans lead the way for all of nature to follow. I embrace the day we’ll see unicorns emerge from the long suppressed biomass of uni-versal-sex-duality.

In new year times I recommend the joy found in agreeing with notions instead of arguing them.

If I’m asked to accept the EU stance on universal human rights, then if migration is one of those (which it seems to be) then then occupying other lands (China of Tiber perhaps) is perfectly in line (China seems to think so).

If occupation of land is acceptable then (in theory) conflict is erased and we just answered the Middle East problem. Better yet, colonization can be argued as a form of migration, as is its much bigger sibling known as globalism.

How much good we accomplish with so little effort.