Where We Are This Week

The New York Times gets it wrong, good news in football, and gas stations: an American oasis.

Offering shelter and reprieve from every American highway is the gas station. You will find them at every major intersection, every backcountry crossroads, and every interstate offramp you happen upon. Most of them look similar and will have similar products or services, but, my friends, not all gas stations are made equal.

The gas station, as it presents itself here in the United States, is a uniquely American phenomenon. Part necessity, part indulgence. Part casino, part restaurant, part restroom. American independence couldn’t better be represented by any facet of American life than by our driving culture.

Vacations, work, and trips to the city are all merely facilitated by the highway and vehicle, but the monotony of 70 mph is made endurable by the promise of a gas station. The promise of searching desperately for a Perrier and healthfood snack - and often settling for bottled water and a bag of pretzels - is enough to make me fill up my tank before I’m running on fumes.

The best shops are the ones that include local fare; the ones with a kitchen or baked items provided by a neighbor. I’ve learned that almost no matter the state of that type of station, you’re guaranteed a better meal than what you’d begrudgingly consume at McDonald’s or Taco Bell.

Don’t slander the good name of the gas station by asking if I’ve ever been to a Buc-ee’s. For starters, its name is incomprehensible when spelled, but more importantly, its sheer monstrosity renders its redeeming qualities of roadside service moot. The magic of the gas station is the convenience it provides in such limited square footage and the little surprises you might find while perusing its two aisles. Is it Mexican sweet bread you want or a shirt with a bible verse made to look like a Los Angeles Lakers jersey?

My absolute favorite was the shop next to my old job that was lovingly dubbed by the community ‘the Chicken Shack’. Here, you could buy a single potato wedge, a single chicken tender, and a loosie (a single cigarette). Also known as the best five-minute break a bike shop employee could ask for. They didn’t sell gas, and they didn’t sell beer, and it closed on Fridays midday so that its employees could observe the call to prayer.

You could however buy tobacco paraphanelia that may or not have been intended to be used with different substances. When my boss pointed out the contradiction, the manager replied in accented English, “Sometimes there’s good money in bad things.”

Gas stations are idiosyncratic. At their best, they represent the communities that they serve in their staff and the items that line their shelves, and at their worst, they still perform their basic function - refueling. Though, we all arrive there separately, the gas station is a great unifier. We all need to eat, we all need to use the restroom, and we all need gas.

So, if you need me, I’ll be in the parking lot of a Twice Daily with my radio off, eating my adobo chicken burrito, drinking whatever soda water that was available, and reading a chapter of a novel, taking a break from it all.

the American oasis.

---

The Gang Bombs a Hospital

I don’t know what the conversations have been in your household the past couple of weeks, but almost every discussion of politics or world affairs - breakfast and dinner topics in my home - has been dominated by Israel / Palestine in one way or the other.

Judging by the Wall Street Journal and New York Times headlines and my Twitter feed, it’s probably a safe guess that we’re not unique in that regard.

In one of those conversations, we noted how remarkable it is that a conflict between two small populations can consume the world’s dialogue. It’s understandable that the abhorrent events of October 7th would dominate the discourse, but what has taken predominance in the aftermath is the litigation of borders, policies of war, and human rights.

It’s not that this issue isn’t deserving of our attention - it is - it just makes you wonder how many people have a historically informed leg to stand on before they toss their hat in the ring. Nearly everyone has an opinion on the matter but somehow I doubt they’ve taken the time to read through the multi-thousand-year history of the Jewish people or the vast complexities of the land formerly known as Judea, Palestine, and now, Israel.

This is why, now, more than ever our news sources have to be reliable, and it is exactly this test that they’re currently failing. There is no simple answer to the conflict and no easy, succinct way to sum up the dispute and relationship between the two parties. Despite this, I’ve consistently heard arguments made and facts reported without nuance and necessary context. If legacy media can’t be trusted to deliver thorough reporting on such a hotly contested issue as this, then they’re not worth the respect they’ve previously earned.

The worst example of this I’ve seen so far is how the New York Times handled the explosion at the al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City. On Tuesday, the 17th, an email went out to Times subscribers with this headline:

“My God,” I thought - this is the type of atrocity I feared was inevitable as Israel attempts to eradicate Hamas from the civilian areas in which it has embedded itself. The article was posted shortly after 3:00 PM Eastern time. The blast is reported to have happened around 7:00 local time in Gaza, about an hour after sunset.

So, in a matter of three hours, the New York Times - the paper of record - felt comfortable with their sources and assessment of the situation to run a headline claiming at least 500 people were killed by an Israeli airstrike. As an afterthought, at the tail end of the headline, they list the Palestinian Health Ministry as their source. Note that they don’t use the word claim, they use the word said.

Also, it’s worth pointing out that the Palestinian Health Ministry is a pleasant euphemism for Hamas. Hamas is the governing body of the health ministry in Gaza, and almost any information about any attack would have the terrorist organization as its provenance.

Faced with the decision of relying on Hamas as their first-hand source - who had incredibly tallied the death toll in record time - or waiting until they could verify the story, they chose the former.

After the smoke cleared, and the sun rose the next day, it became clear that not only did an Israeli airstrike not hit the hospital - the parking lot next to the medical center was struck - all signs point to a failed rocket launched by Islamic Jihad - a similarly aligned terror group to Hamas - that struck the area where several hundred Palestinians were taking shelter.

As the majority of the world - or at least the ones who are willing to amend their beliefs when new facts are presented - started to accept that those deaths of innocent lives were not at the hands of the Israeli Defense Forces, the New York Times scrambled to rewrite its original headline. Though, even as countless experts have weighed in - including the IDF, President Biden, and panels of NGOs and think tanks - the NYT couldn’t bring themselves to offer the type of mea culpa that was warranted.

Ah yes, mutual blame was levied upon each belligerent. If only there was live Al Jazeera footage showing the failed ordinance - that was part of a barrage intended for Israel - plummeting toward Gaza City. Oh, wait.

This isn’t meant to just pick on the New York Times; the Washington Post, the BBC, and countless others all ran with the story that Hamas hoped they would. Subsequently, American and Israeli embassies were protested and attacked all throughout the Middle East, and massive anti-Israel demonstrations took place all across the West.

Several members of the Squad, obviously the most venerable representatives we have in the Democratic caucus, condemned the egregious Israeli attack on the hospital before not issuing retractions. Don’t you love when political ideology overruns the desire to get things right?

This isn’t new, however. Retractions are at the back of the paper or at the bottom of an article. The original headline will likely remain the story to 90% of the people who immediately became Israel / Palestine experts the moment they saw the hashtag was trending or the ones who buy a Palestinian flag so that they, too, can be part of the resistance when the protests come to their Western, American suburbs.

Wars have always been fought via public opinion. Just now, with the advent of social media, virtually costless communication, and virality, the war can be swung with only a few strokes of the keyboard.

It may be true that the first casualty of war is the truth, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be trying our hardest to save it. The reality is that we’ve all been propagandized whether we like it or not; it’s our job as citizens to take everything we hear or read with a grain of salt, and to resist kneejerk reactions, but we can’t do it alone.

Our legacy media have a responsibility to which they’re either unwilling or incapable of fulfilling. I’ll let you be the judge.

---

You Can’t Always Get What You Want

But if you try sometimes…someone doesn’t get what they want.

Okay, so this has nothing to do with any effort I personally undertook. But, as there is little to cheer about outside of my personal life and the lives of my friends and family - pregnancies and marriages abound! - I take the small victories where I can find them.

In a saga that almost none of you will care about, Manchester United’s ownership has been in question for the past couple of years. Owned by the Glazers, the same American family that owns the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, the club has stagnated, underperformed, and thoroughly immiserated its fanbase over the last decade.

The Glazers, giving American owners bad names since 2005, have been both the object and subject of dissent and protest by United supporters for the last several years. The ownership group has only sought to extract maximal profit from the club and has been reluctant to take the steps necessary to return the Red Devils to the winning ways to which Mancunians had become accustomed.

Alas, United supporters’ suffering looked as if it would be offered respite as rumors spread that the Glazers might be willing to consider selling the club. Over the last 16 months or so, every time a figure was mentioned, it seemed to rise by the billion. Despite the heavily inflated value of the club, two qualified buyers emerged.

One was Jim Ratcliffe, a Manchester-born billionaire and founder of Ineos, a multinational chemicals company. The other was Sheikh Jassim of the Qatari royal family.

It seemed likely that the latter would surely come out on top of any bidding war that should arise since he had the wealth of an entire country at his disposal. Additionally, it would continue the trend of global football. Manchester City was purchased by the Abu Dhabi royal family in 2008 and has dominated the game ever since. A consortium representing the Saudi Royal Fund bought Newcastle United two seasons ago, and the Qatari Sovereign Investment Fund already owns Paris-Saint Germain, the largest club in France.

Qatar just hosted the 2022 World Cup - and continues to host the leadership of Hamas as we discussed last week - so it seemed likely the Glazers would sell to Jassim.

However, in a surprise turn of events, Sheikh Jassim withdrew his bid for the club this week. Perhaps, the terms of his purchase no longer suited him - Ratcliffe is now negotiating for just a minority stake in the club - or maybe he didn’t want to endure the scrutiny his potential ownership would face given the unsavory relationship the Qatari Emir has with Hamas.

Either way, it’s just nice to see that one of the best things won’t be going to some of the worst people. I’ll gladly take another decade of aimless, floundering football if it means not handing the keys to the car over to terrorist sympathizers. Little victories, my friends.

To a better next week.

Cheers,

~FDA