Needs and Such

I began to read a review of Jimmy Carter's latest book, in the New York Times Book Review, but stopped abruptly when I came across a reference to Hamas as the 'Islamist terrorist organization'. They may well be such, but its such a fluid description -- what's clearly a terrorist organization to you is just as obviously a freedom-fighting organization to me -- that I immediately thought 'Aha, the person writing this is a supporter of Israel'. Well, I don't know that -- but I do know that the review's author's name is Greenberg, and he's a writer at the New Yorker -- so, probably. Which leads me to wonder, just a bit: is it possible that there are organizations and concepts so notably entrenched in the public mind that it's impossible to think of them without thinking of their accompanying adjectives? Could, for example, the author of the review think 'Hamas' without thinking 'terrorist'? I'm not asking if they are a terrorist organization -- though I tend to think that any group of people who exist to enforce the will of their political masters by blowing things up likely are, I admit that this also applies to, say, the US Air Force, at least until more qualifiers are applied to the phrase. I'm simply asking if its possible to think and speak of organizations neutrally -- judging them by their actions, not their history. Could the author have referred to Hamas simply as 'the Islamist organization'?

We thought it'd be nice to sit quietly and have some time together, a few moments ago, and to that end my wife made tea -- hazelnut for her, peppermint for me -- and a snack -- toast for her, English muffin for me. Just as we sat down, the phone rang. She muttered Please let it be not work, please let it not be work. It was her sister, wanting to talk about Christmas plans. Just as they started to talk, my wife's pager went off. Apparently, the gods have a sense of humour.

Speaking of humour: Guy Soup.