You know what? Nicholas D. Kristof is just, how do I put it nicely, not very bright. I mean, look at this today: "Arabs have often argued that Americans have a double standard in the Middle East: We are more solicitous of casualties in Israel than in Gaza or Lebanon. I think they’re right, for a variety of reasons. (One is that terror attacks are particularly newsworthy; another is that journalists are more likely to live in Jerusalem than Gaza.)" First of all, notice that when he makes the point of "terror attacks are particularly newsworthy" he falls in the same racism that he thinks that he is analyzing, without even noticing. That is how not-very-bright he is. He basically implies that Arabs are not, and can't be, victims of terrorism. That was his point: that Israelis are victims of terrorism but not Arabs, and that is why Israelis get more sympathy. But then he makes the point: "journalists are more likely to live in Jerusalem than Gaza." But then again, Mr. Kristoff that really begs the question. It really does, does it not? Why, WHY, do they prefer to live in Jerusalem, o New York Times columnist. (By the way, today he also returns to his vocation: turning the victims of Darfur into kitsch.)