“Let us be honest with ourselves: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are. Those are facts. They cannot be denied.”
President Obama, the UN General Assembly on September 21, 2011
A lot of thoughts go through my mind, hearing these words. Amazement at the truth being spoken. Amazement that Obama would be the one who said them.
At this point in time, I think it’s important to take a moment, and reread these words. Let us be honest with ourselves.
This year has not been an easy year. It’s so depressing to be confronted with lies in all directions. And lies repeated over and over, until some people think it’s the truth.
The Fogel family massacred in their beds. Two parents and their three children. Their tiny baby, murdered because she was crying. And CNN called it “an alleged terror attack”. Maybe it was an accident. Maybe the two palestinians who broke into their home with knifes, were just lost. Maybe they murdered the children because they couldn’t locate their GPS. Let us be honest with ourselves.
Israeli soldiers attacked on the Marmara, and Turkey demanding an apology. The Marmara was a threat to the security of Israel. Israel has the right to defend itself. What sovereign nation would apologize for its coast guard protecting its borders? Would Russia allow a ship to invade its territorial water? Would China? Would the US? Let us be honest with ourselves.
There are too many lies in the world around us, and not enough honesty. Obama’s speech gave me hope that honesty might one day prevail.
I start the new year with this wish: Let us be honest with ourselves.
****************************************************************************
A longer excerpt of the speech that drew my attention is below:
“Now, I know, particularly this week, that for many in this hall, there’s one issue that stands as a test for these principles and a test for American foreign policy, and that is the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
One year ago, I stood at this podium and I called for an independent Palestine. I believed then, and I believe now, that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that a genuine peace can only be realized between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and others, the parties have not bridged their differences. Faced with this stalemate, I put forward a new basis for negotiations in May of this year. That basis is clear. It’s well known to all of us here. Israelis must know that any agreement provides assurances for their security. Palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis of their state.
Now, I know that many are frustrated by the lack of progress. I assure you, so am I. But the question isn’t the goal that we seek — the question is how do we reach that goal. And I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations — if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians — not us –- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem.
Ultimately, peace depends upon compromise among people who must live together long after our speeches are over, long after our votes have been tallied. That’s the lesson of Northern Ireland, where ancient antagonists bridged their differences. That’s the lesson of Sudan, where a negotiated settlement led to an independent state. And that is and will be the path to a Palestinian state — negotiations between the parties.
We seek a future where Palestinians live in a sovereign state of their own, with no limit to what they can achieve. There’s no question that the Palestinians have seen that vision delayed for too long. It is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspirations of the Palestinian people that America has invested so much time and so much effort in the building of a Palestinian state, and the negotiations that can deliver a Palestinian state.
But understand this as well: America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. Our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring. And so we believe that any lasting peace must acknowledge the very real security concerns that Israel faces every single day.
Let us be honest with ourselves: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are. Those are facts. They cannot be denied.
The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors. And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two-state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine.
That is the truth — each side has legitimate aspirations — and that’s part of what makes peace so hard. And the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in the other’s shoes; each side can see the world through the other’s eyes. That’s what we should be encouraging. That’s what we should be promoting.
This body — founded, as it was, out of the ashes of war and genocide, dedicated, as it is, to the dignity of every single person — must recognize the reality that is lived by both the Palestinians and the Israelis. The measure of our actions must always be whether they advance the right of Israeli and Palestinian children to live lives of peace and security and dignity and opportunity. And we will only succeed in that effort if we can encourage the parties to sit down, to listen to each other, and to understand each other’s hopes and each other’s fears. That is the project to which America is committed. There are no shortcuts. And that is what the United Nations should be focused on in the weeks and months to come.”
For the full transcript see:
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/obamas-address-un-general-assembly-2011/p25984
Oct 3, 2011
Apr 28, 2010
Diamonds
What makes a great programmer? As the saying goes, It's hard to define, but I know it when I see it.
Clarity. Easy to read code. Classes that seem so trivial, but do something really complicated. The kind where you smack your forehead and say "Of course, why didn't I think of that..."
Code that is self evident. You know how it is: when a great programmer leaves, it's really easy for someone else to take ownership of their code. When a terrible programmer leaves, the code left behind is such a nightmare, everyone wishes the programmer was still there, so they didn't have to maintain their code.
Bad programmers get lots of inquiries to explain their code. Good programmers don't even know someone is using their code, cause no questions are asked... The flip side of that is that bad programmers get to feel really important - they're needed when people use their code...
Minimal documentation. Documentation that does exist, explains why something is done, and not what is being done. If you need documentation to explain what is being done, the code needs fixing.
Meaningful method names and parameter names. Short classes and methods.
Good programmers are great communicators, as code is a type of communication.
Great code is elegant.
And then comes Joel and provides a wider view on Spagetti code, with his post: "Things You Should Never Do, Part I":
"Back to that two page function. Yes, I know, it's just a simple function to display a window, but it has grown little hairs and stuff on it and nobody knows why. Well, I'll tell you why: those are bug fixes. One of them fixes that bug that Nancy had when she tried to install the thing on a computer that didn't have Internet Explorer. Another one fixes that bug that occurs in low memory conditions. Another one fixes that bug that occurred when the file is on a floppy disk and the user yanks out the disk in the middle. That LoadLibrary call is ugly but it makes the code work on old versions of Windows 95."
So let me qualify and say that great new code is elegant. Bad code isn't elegant even when it's new.
Code that is self evident. You know how it is: when a great programmer leaves, it's really easy for someone else to take ownership of their code. When a terrible programmer leaves, the code left behind is such a nightmare, everyone wishes the programmer was still there, so they didn't have to maintain their code.
Bad programmers get lots of inquiries to explain their code. Good programmers don't even know someone is using their code, cause no questions are asked... The flip side of that is that bad programmers get to feel really important - they're needed when people use their code...
Minimal documentation. Documentation that does exist, explains why something is done, and not what is being done. If you need documentation to explain what is being done, the code needs fixing.
Meaningful method names and parameter names. Short classes and methods.
Good programmers are great communicators, as code is a type of communication.
Great code is elegant.
And then comes Joel and provides a wider view on Spagetti code, with his post: "Things You Should Never Do, Part I":
"Back to that two page function. Yes, I know, it's just a simple function to display a window, but it has grown little hairs and stuff on it and nobody knows why. Well, I'll tell you why: those are bug fixes. One of them fixes that bug that Nancy had when she tried to install the thing on a computer that didn't have Internet Explorer. Another one fixes that bug that occurs in low memory conditions. Another one fixes that bug that occurred when the file is on a floppy disk and the user yanks out the disk in the middle. That LoadLibrary call is ugly but it makes the code work on old versions of Windows 95."
So let me qualify and say that great new code is elegant. Bad code isn't elegant even when it's new.
Feb 9, 2010
A Symphony in Color
The first time I saw a painting by Whistler, I was quite amazed.
There's something about his paintings that grows on you. At first glance, they're just a wash of color. Only at further contemplation, do the details come out. The bodies are strangely long. Most of the painting taken up by the clothing, the length of the dresses, or the cape. But the details... Just wow. The folds of the material, the draping of the cloth, the walls behind the model.
And the strange names. "Arrangement in Black", "Symphony in Flesh Colour and Pink", "Rose et or: La Tulipe" ("Pink and Gold: The Tulip"), "Arrangement in Black and Brown: The Fur Jacket", "Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket", "Arrangement in Grey and Black, No. 1: Portrait of the Artist's Mother". I couldn't understand why the color was the most important part of the name, or the music reference. It made me stop and reconsider how to view the painting. The color became the main emphasis. And from the color, a deeper understanding of the feeling of the paintings, of the music that they play. The portraits grew alive. I could almost see real live people standing in front of me.
What Genius!
Oct 27, 2009
Favorite Museums
I like museums, but sometimes find them overwhelming. The sheer size of them. Wanting to see everything, which of course isn't possible. It's the reason huge museums are so overwhelming, like the Louvre or the British Museum.
One way to get around that, is to give up the idea of seeing it all.
I greatly enjoyed a highlights tour at the NY Met. The tour guide chose just four pictures, and we got to spend time discussing each. It's a way to make huge museums more approachable.
I much prefer smaller museums. Three of my favorites are: Musee d'Orsay, the Frick Collection, and Rodin's house.
The Musee d'Orsay is an old underground station in Paris. It was converted into a museum, and houses 19th and 20th century art. The amazing impressionist paintings... It's not too big, and you can visit it all in a few hours. My favorite part was climbing stairs to a vantage point where you can look down and view the space of the whole museum.
The Frick Collection is in NY, next to Central Park. It was the private house of a collector named Frick, displaying his personal art collection. Wandering around the house, provides a small glance into someone's home. Easy to imagine people living there, parties held there... And the artwork is amazing. It's where I first saw a painting by Whistler, but that's for another post.
And Rodin's house. Also in Paris. The private home of Auguste Rodin. And to think I had never heard of him, until we wandered into his home. Who doesn't know "The Thinker"? Although it's his sculptures of hands which truly moved me. His house is full of his work, as well as the garden. It's a small intimate museum, displaying a great range of Rodin's work.
Enjoying small intimate museums as a metaphor for life.
One way to get around that, is to give up the idea of seeing it all.
I greatly enjoyed a highlights tour at the NY Met. The tour guide chose just four pictures, and we got to spend time discussing each. It's a way to make huge museums more approachable.
I much prefer smaller museums. Three of my favorites are: Musee d'Orsay, the Frick Collection, and Rodin's house.
The Musee d'Orsay is an old underground station in Paris. It was converted into a museum, and houses 19th and 20th century art. The amazing impressionist paintings... It's not too big, and you can visit it all in a few hours. My favorite part was climbing stairs to a vantage point where you can look down and view the space of the whole museum.
The Frick Collection is in NY, next to Central Park. It was the private house of a collector named Frick, displaying his personal art collection. Wandering around the house, provides a small glance into someone's home. Easy to imagine people living there, parties held there... And the artwork is amazing. It's where I first saw a painting by Whistler, but that's for another post.
And Rodin's house. Also in Paris. The private home of Auguste Rodin. And to think I had never heard of him, until we wandered into his home. Who doesn't know "The Thinker"? Although it's his sculptures of hands which truly moved me. His house is full of his work, as well as the garden. It's a small intimate museum, displaying a great range of Rodin's work.
Enjoying small intimate museums as a metaphor for life.
Sep 24, 2009
Madame X
I first saw the picture titled "Madame X", at the Met in NY in 1997.
There's something about it, that I find fascinating.
It's a tale of society and morals. Originally Sargent painted the shoulder strap on the left, falling down her arm. Society was so scandalized by this, that he redid the photo, changing the position of the strap. Which explains the difference in the detailing between them. Today we wouldn't even notice it. He also changed the title to "Madame X" to try to hide the name of the subject, although of course everyone recognized her.
Later in her life, additional portraits of Gautreau were painted.
Which do you prefer?
There's something about it, that I find fascinating.
It's a tale of society and morals. Originally Sargent painted the shoulder strap on the left, falling down her arm. Society was so scandalized by this, that he redid the photo, changing the position of the strap. Which explains the difference in the detailing between them. Today we wouldn't even notice it. He also changed the title to "Madame X" to try to hide the name of the subject, although of course everyone recognized her.
Later in her life, additional portraits of Gautreau were painted.
Which do you prefer?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)