One thing that might start a person along the path to doing philosophy is just paying attention to the words of politicians, or perhaps one is already on that path when one assesses the relation of these words to the realities. Thus the Hamas spokesperson tells us that this war against the Palestinians is actually against the whole umma itself; thus George Bush says that Hamas is to blame for the current crisis; thus the Israeli spokespersons insist that Israel has a right to defend itself, and tell us that they are making hundreds of thousands of phone calls to request people to get away from the bombs and rockets. There are truths and falsehoods here, but in both cases there is evasion and a refusal to acknowledge the full dreadful reality. Thus it is true that Hamas should be condemned for embedding themselves and their weapons within the city and in the midst of the civilian population, and it is right that it should be condemned by Israeli spokespersons. But these same spokespersons then claim that their smashing of these human shields is just what any nation would do in defense of its own citizens, whereas what they thus do is itself quite wicked. It is the reality of rhetoric that leads to the necessity for dialectic. What is shameful is that the politicians still think that they can get away with it: that is to say, they still have cause to think that their populations are credulous. There is also much anger and much suppressed moral discomfort under the anger, disguised by the raised and indignant voice. There is a certain comfort in anger, it is a familar garment worn easily but not so easily discarded.