Lex Anteinternet: A question for writers of fiction.

Lex Anteinternet: A question for writers of fiction.: If you are a fiction writer, by which I mean novels, how many significant, or central, characters do you feel is the limit for a novel, assu...

Lex Anteinternet: Assumptions

Lex Anteinternet: Assumptions: 

Assumptions

Advertisement for Smirnoff vodka that played effectively on assumptions.  Part of a series of such advertisements, another of which is shown before, illustrating our  assumptions about a profession and "shattering" it.  In reality, vodka wouldn't have this effect, of course.

At some point in life, the assumptions really set in.  It's interesting.

Not your own assumptions.  At least if you are like me, your world outlook at age 57 isn't very much different than it was at 17.  

Well, I guess that's not really true, at least in a complete fashion. But it is in a core fashion.  There are some experiences you have/enjoy/endure that there's no getting back from, no matter how much you might wish to.  I know that in my own case, that's definitely the case, including some I wish I hadn't have had and could take back.  I know I can't, but that doesn't keep me from wishing I could.

And there are some experiences that probably impact your world outlook no doubt, but in my own case not that much really.  I look at most things the same way, and in the same way, that I did back then.  Indeed, in spite of 30 years as a lawyer (well, 31) I don't think being a lawyer has changed my mental process whatsoever.

No, what I mean is the way other people look at you.

That really changes.

And not just for people who know you in one setting, but people who know you otherwise.

And why wouldn't they?  You spend five days out of seven, or if you are like me more often than not six days out of seven, assuming you don't violate the Commandment and make it seven out of seven, doing your occupation. That is what you are to most people, your vocation.  And even if you occupy a secondary occupation, it'll be regarded as a hobby.

Your secondary occupation could be working in Executive Outcomes and fighting in desperate struggles in far off lands, but if work a day job as an accountant, even if that job is to support  your armed inclinations, you're an accountant.

"Oh?  Going to Crapistan to fight in the insurrection?  Well, hope you find it relaxing and it helps get you back to accounting with a renewed focus."

Sigh. . . 

Well, you might take up drinking Smirnoff out of desperation (and in my view, if you are drinking vodka, you must be desperate), but truth be told, you'll still be an accountant and you'll still be taking the caravan to Southend.

And you'll still dress like an accountant, or a lawyer, or whatever and sooner or later, that's what you will be to most people.  Even people who know you at least somewhat well.

The only exceptions really are those people who knew you when you were young.  Back when you were, whoever you were, and who you may still dimply be.

Those are the folks who want to know if you want to go gold panning, or fishing on the high streams, or look at mules.

Everyone else?  Forget it.  Even if they looked at mules with you once, they want you to look at their mortgage now.

Lex Anteinternet: "We all do things we said we never would"

Lex Anteinternet: "We all do things we said we never would": 

"We all do things we said we never would"

So said a sticker that was on a car that belonged to somebody who parked in the same parking lot I've been parking in for 30 years.  The quote was attributed to "Soccer Mom".

For some of that 30, I've parked a real car there.  The cars were, in order of ownership, a 1954 Chevrolet sedan I once owned, a 1973 Mercury Comet, and a 90s vintage Mercury Cougar.  The Chevy I bought when I was still a college student.  I loved it, but owning it turned you into a part time mechanic and I didn't have the time. Additionally, at the time I sold it, I also had the Comet, which I had inherited, which was a nicer and more modern car.

I regret selling the Comet, but I did just that when we had our first child as I was able to buy a 1995 Ford F250 diesel for a good price, part of which was trading the Comet and a F150 to the person who sold it to me.  I  had too many vehicles anyway, I thought, and it was a good deal. The Cougar came along later when we picked it up from a friend of my wife's.  It had a lot of miles on it but it was in good condition and I drove the stuffing out of it, even though the heater didn't work.  

Otherwise, I've driven 4x4s to work.

Often they've been pretty heavy duty ones that could do ranch work as well as sporting transportation.  More recently I've added an old Jeep.  The Jeep is my current daily driver, but my Dodge D3500 4x4 takes me to work a fair amount and to out of town work when I go out of town.  None of these vehicles is new by a longshot.

Most of them look like I'm ready to go pull a trailer full of bulls or go into the hills. But there they are, in the parking lot.

The point of the quote above?

Today is the opening day of turkey season.

I won't be going today. The weather is awful anyway, cold and lots of snow on the ground, but that's not the reason why.  

I'll be heavily engaged in work.

When I was first practicing law, I cancelled an elk hunting trip here in the state (a Wyoming type of trip, not a guided something) as a partner in the firm assigned me something that conflicted with it.  Another partner later apologized and noted that one of the advantages of being a lawyer was "the illusion that you could take time off when you wanted to."  I've found it to be just that, an illusion.

I've been introspective a lot recently.

An old friend. . . my oldest friend, reminded me the other day that when we were in high school I maintained I'd never have a job in which I'd wear a tie.  The conversation came up as we were at a funeral, his son's funeral, and he wasn't wearing a tie as his son always tied it for him.  He doesn't wear them often.  I was wearing one, and I know how to tie one, as I wear them so often.

My youthful declaration about ties was because I didn't want an indoor job.  At that time I was going to be a game warden.  I've written about that before, so I'll forgo doing so again, but I didn't take that path.  Instead I pursued geology, but the bottom fell out of that.  Then I went into law.  I didn't know much about the practice of law and I didn't know any lawyers.

A different friend of mine, who is a lawyer and who is married to a lawyer maintains that law was the only occupation, other than the clergy, that would suit me, and as I'm Catholic, and married, obviously the clergy wouldn't be for me (unless, of course, I was Easter Rite, but that's another story).  Religious are called in any event, and I lack that calling.  Anyhow, that fellow is a German and has a more ordered sense of the world, I think, than I do.  Maybe he's right.  I hope so, and that would give an element of necessity to the otherwise complicated way we govern or our lives.

At any rate, as a lawyer, I've been a litigator.  It's not that I pursued that, but fell into it.  Lots of lawyers used to say that "the law is a jealous mistress", meaning it would take all your time, and whether or not that's true of all branches of the law, its certainly true of litigation.

Or perhaps my personality just works towards devotion to duty and work over anything else.  But after two weeks with two untimely deaths, thinking back on the younger me, I've found that the sticker has been true to my personality more than I would have ever have guessed.

Lex Anteinternet: Mid Week At Work: Realities of the marketplace. Discrimination, the Old Law, Circumstances and Nature

Lex Anteinternet: Mid Week At Work: Realities of the marketplace. ...: 

Mid Week At Work: Realities of the marketplace. Discrimination, the Old Law, Circumstances and Nature

I had one item here I was going to cautiously blog about, and then a second came up by surprise.  I'll start with the second and take it first.

I ought to note that these are both items that figure into the "fools rush in" category of things.

Dissing the Guard

National Guard M88, South Korea, 1987.

A friend of mine called me up mad.

He and I had been National Guardsmen together at about the same time.

"Yeoman, you and I both took basic and advanced training at the same time and you know that we were at Ft. Sill so long that we received discharges from the Regular Army".

"Um, yeah. . .?"

"Then why aren't we veterans?"

"Um, well Phil, we are. . . "

Phil went on. What he meant was that while we are both veterans, with honorable discharges from the U.S. Army, we don't qualify as veterans for Federal employment consideration.

Phil is correct. According to an online Guard publication that's supposed to be in the nature of good news for former Guard members:

ARLINGTON, Va. – A recently signed law gives official veteran status to National Guard members who served 20 years or more. Previously, Guard members were considered veterans only if they served 180 days or more in a federal status outside of training.

Twenty years or more. . . 

Phil lost his job in the oil slide that's been going on over the past year and he's been looking for a new one.  He's not out of work actually, he's a handy guy and one of those people who seems to pick up employment even with things are in the dumps.  Having worked at the same place for now 30+ years I'm not a handy guy, that way, and even though I can do a lot of things, I know that if the same thing happened to me, I'd be doomed.

"Thirty years as a lawyer?  Go apply at the U.S. Attorney's office. . ."

"But sir, I'm the only living person who knows how to plow a field with a California Plow and a mule named Sparky and. . ."

"U.S. Attorney's office. . . "

You get the picture.

California plow.

Or so I suppose.  I haven't seen any job openings for plowmen and for that matter, while I know what a California Plow is, I don't actually know how to plow with one with any sort of equine, let alone a mule named Sparky.

Which raises another point, one touched on below, but I'll get back to that.

I loved being in the National Guard and was in it for six years.  So was Phil.  That is, he was in for six years.  I don't know if he loved the Guard but he didn't complain about it.  Anyhow, we were in during the Cold War, which is significant here as it means that during our six years of service we were trained in, and told to expect, fighting the Red Menace.

It wasn't really obvious at the time that the Red Menace was having serious problems.  Reddit Marxists would claim that's because "real" Socialism has never been tried, but the experiment wasn't working well and Poland left the orbit, followed by the collapse of the USSR.  China was still a menace at the time, of course, but it wasn't acting like Wilhelmian Germany yet and was mostly a menace in its own neighborhood.  Of course there was North Korea, like now, which makes a theme out of menacing.

Anyhow, during the Cold War era reservists didn't see much activation for small wars as, for one reason, there weren't very many small wars that the U.S. directly got into, as once it did, they turned into big wars.  So, while the US messed around in central Africa and in Central America, it mostly did it in the late Cold War stage through proxies or clandestinely.  

Once the USSR collapsed, that changed.  In 1980 going into a war in Iraq would have been dicey with the USSR so near.  In 1990, with the Soviet Union folding up, not so much.

So we drilled and trained and went to war games.  But we never shot at Ivan, or Lee, or Chan.  

Which is just fine.

But apparently that's not good enough for the Federal Government if you are seeking employment.

Cold War reservists can't claim veterans status of Federal employment forms.

My supposition is that post Cold War ones called into active service for various wars we've fought since 1990 can, because they were activated and therefore qualify.

Which is odd as Phil and I are veterans for other things.  Indeed, it was once suggested to me that for some sort of vaccination I ought to go to the VA, which wouldn't have occurred to me otherwise.

Is Phil right that this is unfair?

Well, my instinct is that he's right.  We served for six years in a climate which actually was dangerous to some degree.  If there'd been the war we were training for, we would have had to go, and there's a good chance a lot of us wouldn't have come back.  Our combat rating was as high as the Regular Armies, and just because we were also training from home doesn't really make an intrinsic difference in that.  Sgt. Smith serving in the RA at Ft. Sill and Sgt. Smith working at Haliburton in Wyoming both would have seen the same combat experience.  But only one of them is eligible to claim veterans status for Federal employment.

Without knowing for sure, I suspect that some of this is a legacy of really long prejudice in the active military against the Guard, and some of it is lingering prejudice from the Vietnam War.  Thanks to Robert Strange McNamara and his bad of deluded technocrats combined with the bumbling of Lyndon Johnson the Guard was not deployed to the Vietnam War until late.  The irony is that the US used the Guard in every major war of the 20th Century and couldn't have fought any of them, save for Vietnam, without the Guard.

The mishandling of the Army, including its reserve components, during the Vietnam War nearly destroyed the entire Army during the war and didn't lasting damage to the Guard's reputation.  Often missed in the story is that by end of the Vietnam War the U.S. Army was in such bad shape that it was rapidly reaching the point of combat ineffectiveness in the war and it was in a very sorry situation everywhere else.  The Guard had declined during the war as well as it became a haven for those trying to evade active service, although following the war it rapidly became a haven for combat vets that weren't able to adjust back to civilian life, meaning that it had an inordinate number of combat veterans.  By the late 1970s both forces were rebounding and today they're both excellent.

Be that as it may, the intentional decision not to deploy the Guard during the Vietnam War in order to avoid community discontent by removing a large number of men from any one town lead to some prejudice against it that lingered really until the Gulf War.  Never mind that those soldiers who served in it during the Cold War would have been just as likely to die in any major conflict as a soldier of the Regular Army, and also never mind that by and large the US avoided the small wars that its fought since the collapse of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, out of a fear that they'd turn into big wars.  And, as noted, the Regular military has had a prejudice against the Guard that runs back to the 19th Century, even though time and time again its proven unmerited.

So, while I don't know this for certain, I suspect that Guardsmen and Reservists whose Regular service was for training, no matter how long, are dissed in Federal employment due to a legacy of this prejudice.

Or maybe because I was a Guardsmen who holds an Honorable Discharge from the Regular Army, I just think its unfair as Phil does.  A personal connection with things will do that.

I'll note by the way that for some of us, that six years meant a lot more than "drills on weekends and two weeks in the summer".  For one thing, some summer ATs actually run three, not two, weeks in length.  Be that as it may if I include time in which I was simply employed at the armory by the unit in the summer, it's add about eight months of service to my original RA three, which would give me element months.  Add to that actual drill times and training periods outside of the summer, I'm up over that.  I figured once that I had about two years of time, cumulative, serving.

No matter, it wasn't twenty reserve time.  So you can't claim the status for Federal employment purposes.  It doesn't matter if your job was combat arms and the guy you are competing against manned the soft serve ice-cream machine in San Diego. . .he's getting the status and you are not.

Oorah.

The Old Rules on Male/Female Employment remain more than people imagine.

It's really common for articles to appear once per year decrying, and legitimately so, the inequality between the pay of men and women.

It's not that easy of a story, however, as often men's pay is due to their being in occupations that men gravitate towards and women do not, and often they're hard, physical and dangerous jobs.  In Wyoming, where the income inequality is huge, lots of men have in recent decades worked as oilfield roughnecks.

Very few women have.

But it's a well paying job.

Statistics report that women still make less in truly equal positions, such as, supposedly, female lawyers making less then men, but I somewhat doubt those figures and if that was true, it's rapidly ceasing to be true.

The point may be that, in spite of the efforts of the Woke to compel people to believe that all occupations are gender neutral, in reality they aren't, and men and women tend to gravitate towards certain types of employment.

And one of those areas is the home, for women.

I don't mean to suggest that this is a poor choice in any fashion whatsoever, but rather note that this is a reality.

The reason that this came to mind, although I've thought about posting on it before, is also due to a discussion with a friend. The friend just turned 50 years of age and is now really focused on retirement.

It's an odd focus in his case as he has five children and none of them are out of school yet.  None. That means that he has years and years to go in which they'll be in school, and then in university.  I don't know the ages of his younger kids so I don't really know how that plays out, but it would mean that he'd be at least 60.

I'd also note that his wife opted to stay home to raise the five.

In our conversation, he mentioned age 55, but that's not realistic in his case at all  Be that as it may, it turns out to be the case that at age 55, or maybe 55.5, a person can start drawing on their 401K in some fashion.

Now, this isn't retirement advice as I haven't studied this and I don't know what the parameters are, but I hit 55.5 over two years ago and that therefore was an interesting fact.  It was an interesting fact right up until it dawned on me, which was pretty quickly, that my long suffering spouse is a little over ten years younger than I am.

That's significant as when people look at retirement they ought to be looking at the burn rate of their retirement savings.  Will you have enough, that is, to last until you die? 

Nobody really knows when they're going to die, of course, but a person retiring at age 55 probably ought to expect to live at least to their point of life expectancy, if not longer, even though they very will might not.  It'd be the pits to burn through retirement by 65 and then be waiting for the Social Security check to arrive to buy groceries.  Of course, that may well mean that a person in that position may die by 57 and never have retired.  That may sound extreme but my father died at age 62 and he never retired.  For that matter, his father was in his 40s when he died, and my long lived mother's father was 58 when he died.  He was medically retired, however, at the time, not a pleasant situation either.

Anyhow, if you are happily figuring "hey, I'll have enough to retire at 55 if I plan on living until 80, when the last drop of my savings runs out", but your wife is 45. . . . , well perhaps you better rethink that.

And here's where the basic nature of the sexes comes back in.

At least in my generational cohort, a lot of women aren't as well educated as men, and their employment choices are therefore much more limited. They aren't absent, but they're limited.  My wife's a good example.  She has some post high school education, but not at the same level that I do.  

Now, lots of professional men I know have a wife that's also a member of the same profession. They probably met at school or work.  But here's where the difference comes back in again.  I've known a fare number of women who have dropped out of their professional employment in order to stay home with children.  I've known exactly one man, and only one, who has done the same.

Why is that?

Well, that's because its a feature of The Old Law.  It may be the case that society holds that men and women should each have equal employment, but in reality, biology makes this a different matter.  Men can father children, but they can't give birth to them, they aren't physically equipped to feed them when they are infants, and they aren't really emotionally equipped to nurture them when they are young.  They just aren't.  Women are.

Which is an application of biological reality and therefore, fine.

It also means, however that the iron law of male employment is always at work.  

Men have fewer options on employment than women, in existential terms.  Sure, by nature men can be roughnecks and by biology and temperament they're suited to be soldiers, which women are not, in my view.  But they can't just drop out of the work force and stay at home like their wives can.  They cannot.

They also at some point are not only pulling the freight, but for a lot of them are pulling it after they probably shouldn't be, as they have no choice.

Is that unfair?  Well, probably some people reading this, if anyone does, are assuming I'm endorsing unfairness.  Rather, what I'm doing is noting the way of the world.  We may deem it personally unfair in all sorts of ways, but that's the way of the world.  The fact that I have to wear glasses may strike me as unfair, or that the prior two generations of my male ancestors died young and diverted the agricultural directions of our family into the office, twice, may strike me as unfair. But universal fairness isn't part of the deal.

Basic biological reality, i.e., the difference between the sexes, isn't unfair, however.  It just is.  The fact that we ignore this to the extent that we do is because; 1) in an a period of unprecedented societal wealth we can get away with ignoring that to some extent, and 2) in the advance stage of the industrial revolution we live in, we've forced, for a bunch of reasons (many just societal) women into the work force full scale the way we did with men in the late 20th Century and 3) with really advanced technology and outsized industrial might, we haven't had to fight and evenly matched wars or quasi evenly matched wars since the end of the Vietnam War (which was evenly matched in part due to the competence of the NVA, and in part due to the fact that we also had to worry about full scale wars in Europe and South Korea, and elsewhere, the entire time).

So what of that?  Well, not much.  Just that the old existential laws are never far from the surface, no matter how much we might imagine that we're exempt from them.

Lex Anteinternet: Easter 2021. Next Year In Jerusalem.

Lex Anteinternet: Easter 2021. Next Year In Jerusalem.: 

Easter 2021. Next Year In Jerusalem.

This is Easter on the Latin Rite liturgical calendar for 2021, thereby being the date that almost everyone who observes it will observe it on.  Orthodox Easter this year is nearly a month away, on May 2.

It's a second sad Easter in a row.

For the second time we're facing an Easter in which the gloom of the Coronavirus Pandemic lingers overhead.  Perhaps, in that way, we're looking at an Easter that actually fits historical times, i.e., most of human history, more than our own times, and therefore should give us more to look forward to with the oncoming advance of Spring.

Still, it probably doesn't, and in no small part due to the really odd and unsettled times we're generally in.  

For those in the Diocese of  Cheyenne, such as myself, we still have a dispensation in place if we feel we should use it.  I've noted myself earlier in this blog that I wasn't really happy about Mass's being suspended in the first place, although I'd perhaps now reluctantly concede that it was necessary. As also earlier noted, when they opened back up I resumed going, but when infections started to climb and the vaccine was on the horizon, I dropped back out and made use of the dispensation.

Throughout this entire pandemic, my wife has really been the one who managed our approach to it, being diligent and careful and making me the same.  I take the pandemic very seriously and frankly I'm at the point where those who casually deny its anything anger me.  It truly is.  I've known, as we all do by now, a host of people who have had it and a couple of them are dead.  People who give the flippant "it's no worth than the flu" don't seem to realize that the flu isn't a cold either and that its a real killer.  The reason we tolerate the flu like we do is that we have no choice.  Here we do, but we're rapidly losing out on that choice in part because people who want to believe that it amounts to nothing or wild theories about its original or the vaccine are being slow to get vaccinated.  And in our modern society, in which we've elevated the individual and his rights and beliefs to a near religion we aren't willing to use any form of compulsion in order to make sure the appropriate number of vaccinations are accomplished.

That day may never have been possible in any event. We may have lost out on that opportunity from the very first instance, in which case SARS-CoV-2 will be an endemic disease and go on killing.  

At least one person I know who takes the disease very seriously, but who is younger and therefore able to bear more risks, has just become numb to it.  That is, it's real, they got vaccinated, but they're otherwise too fatigued to observe much in the way of any other precaution.  As noted, some people never took any as they refused to believe it was real.  Others, and I find this approach the oddest, accepted it was real and took some precautions, unless they were personally inconvenient.  

The level of precautions a person took and wear tends to reflect a person's beliefs. The Catholic Church in Wyoming obviously took it very seriously in shutting things down, but I frankly think the Church really dropped the ball in regard to outreach to parishioners.  Even on my end, as a former lector and a former council member, I received very little contact during the pandemic from my diocese.  If I've received this litter, and have been a faithful and loyal Catholic my entire life, I have to think that marginal Catholics are in no better position than I am.  One thing the Church is really going to have to answer for, and I mean in this realm and the next, is the complete and utter failure, it seems to me, to try to reach out during the pandemic.  A parish priest is actually responsible for all of the souls in his diocese.  If the Catholic souls aren't getting any contact. . . well. . . there's going to be questions that will have to be answered.

Anyhow, at Mass I noticed that almost everyone was very observant about wearing masks, which were required, although there's always the few who will pull them down below their nose at which point they're pointless.  Sometimes that's ignorance and in others its a form of protest.  Be that as it may, they were there.

I'm told, but don't know, that in some Protestant churches following the COVID guidelines were simply suspended completely.

In a civil context, in some places I've been too that's very much the case.  One local sporting goods store had signs about wearing masks but few on the staff did. A few men who work in the store do and have, but the huge army of 20 something girls that loiters near the cash registers grossly overmanning them never did.  Sporting goods stores here are almost a center of civil protest/COVID denial.

Circling back around, during the pandemic my wife has lead the charge and we've both been very good about doing what we should. We haven't been to a restaurant in a year, with one noon meal that was a work invitation, and two for out of town depositions, being the exception.  I've been invited to "go get a beer" after work, but I declined, something made easy by the fact I decline that invitation usually anyway.  

Anyhow, I've now had both of my COVID 19 vaccinations.  My wife has had her first.  My kids have both had theirs.  Only my son and my wife are in the window of non protection, as they're either waiting for their second shot or have just had theirs.

I was going to resume Mass attendance last week, but my daughter pointed out that my wife had been so good about her observation of the rules and just had her shot, so we should probably abstain.  She didn't come home for Easter due to school and work and will make Mass where she is.  Here we debated it last night and ultimately decided, for the same reason, to wait one more week.

Locally it turns out that of the three parishes two were requiring reservations, but once again due to the phenomenally bad outreach the Church's have, that wasn't apparent at the one we were going to go to until this morning when I happened to find that was on their video feed.  For goodness sakes, is there any excuse for not getting this out in some other fashion?  So we likely would have been turned away.  That would have lead us to the parish across town which is not requiring reservations, but which was anticipating putting overflow in the poorly ventilated basement so that those there could watch it on television.

Next year, for those of us still in the temporal realm, Mass in the normal fashion will have resumed as life in the normal fashion will have had to.  The country can't keep being shut down forever and the entire population, save for those who really have the resources to do nothing at all, has to get moving again and patience has worn thing.  My guess is that we will not reach the "herd immunity" threshold as there will be those who steadfastly refuse to believe that the disease is serious or who will continue to believe myths about vaccines which are allowed to circulate in the post Cold War scientific age.  Those who are vaccinated will get yearly boosters which will be more or less effective. Some will get sick and some of them will die and for some people that will come as a surprise.  But life will return to normal, with normal in this instance begin an unfortunate blend of the 1970s inflationary era, brought on by profligate government spending, and 2010/20s moral sinkage.

On that latter item, there were those who hoped that the pandemic might refocus society and cause some reflection on where we were going and what we were doing.  Perhaps some of that did occur, but there does not seem to be much evidence of it now. And to the extent it did, a lot of that was swept away by political forces that refused to acknowledge defeat and countervailing ones that accordingly came into power seeking to bring in every "progressive" item on that laundry list that's been thought of since the late 1890s.  Things are really not looking that good, and in a lot of ways.

But next year, at least there will be Mass.

Jews traditionally end the Passover Sedar with "Next Year in Jerusalem", signaling an obvious deep religious hope.

Next year in Jerusalem. ^[1].

__________________________________________________________________________________

Footnotes:

1.  I don't think this is incapable of being misunderstood, but just in case, and because I'm occasionally asked, this is meant symbolically here.  I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in visiting Jerusalem.  I.e., none.  This isn't mean to be rude, but I know it baffles people, and as I have a friend whose been once and who is planning to return again, I know I'll be asked that along these lines; "I'm going on the church trip to Jerusalem. .  . wouldn't you like to go?" followed by all the things that a person could see in Jerusalem.

That's great for people who want to see it, but I don't.  I don't have any interest in going anywhere in the Holy Land, which may be odd for a Christian, but I don't.  None.  Indeed, if I were to go to anywhere in the Middle East the locations would be limited to certain big desert areas as I like big deserts.  I'm not keen on cities in general, and particularly not large crowded ones.

FWIW, I often give the same reaction to other venues that feature lots of people.  "Wouldn't you like to go to China?".  No, I would not.  "London?".  M'eh.