Wednesday, February 3, 2016

What Kind of Jew Is Bernie Sanders?

ZAYDE BERNIE

01.30.16 9:15 PM ET

What Kind of Jew Is Bernie Sanders?

Bernie Sanders’s religious views may seem quixotic, but they’re actually part of a longstanding American Jewish tradition.
Around The Daily Beast office, I’m known for my spot-on Bernie Sanders impersonation. To my colleagues, it seems studied, but to me, it’s just familiar. I’ve known Bernies all my life.
The same is true for Bernie’s atheism. A recent profile in the The Washington Postheadlined “Why Bernie Sanders doesn’t participate in organized religion,” depicted the senator as possessing a quixotic blend of cultural Judaism, kinda-sorta belief in God, and political idealism.
To many Jews, however, this mix is hardly unusual. It’s familiar as chicken soup and matzo: the basically secular, basically atheist Jewish Democratic Socialist, part of the erstwhile 20th-century American Jewish Left populated by the likes of Irving Howe, Woody Guthrie (not Jewish, but married Jewish, raised kids Jewish, sang Jewish songs), Irving Howe, Alfred Kazin, Hannah Arendt, and, later, Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug, and Yippies like Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman.  
The Jewish Left included Socialists, Communists, labor unionists, Zionists, and even future neo-conservatives Saul Bellow, Sidney Hook, Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol, who began their biological and political lives in the same social milieu as Bernie Sanders before they turned to the right in the 1960s-’70s.  (Their story has been told many times, most recently in Daniel Oppenheimer’s new book Exit Right).  
Although culturally Jewish, religiously-nonbelieving Socialism may seem like a quirky blend today, it’s part of Jewish history, complete with red-diaper babies, Socialist Jewish summer camps, and bitter persecution during the McCarthy era before reemerging in the New Left of the 1960s.
Even the Forward, the Jewish newspaper where I also write a column, began its life as a Yiddish Socialist daily, Forverts, edited by Abraham Cahan. (Like everyone on the Left, it was attacked by redder Socialists for being not Left enough.) For many recent Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, progressive politics was the new religion, and the only real question was which sect—liberalism, socialism, communism—one liked best.  
As the Yiddish joke goes, these Jews knew three worlds: the alte velt, the Old World of Europe; the neue velt, the New World; and Roosevelt.
What kind of Judaism is this? Certainly, as the Post said of Sanders, it is a cultural affiliation. It’s not a coincidence that Larry David does an even better Sanders impression than I do; they’re culturally the same person. In an earlier decade, I suspect Sid Caesar, Mel Brooks, George Burns (a distant cousin of mine!), and even Henny Youngman might have acquitted themselves equally well.
But secular, progressive Judaism is, itself, a kind of religion. While dispensing with the God of the alte velt—if the Enlightenment didn’t kill him, the Holocaust certainly did—leftist Jews of the 20th century maintained a prophetic, religious zeal for justice.
ADVERTISEMENT
Some of this came from within the Jewish tradition, both as a matter of Biblical injunction (“Do not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger as you were slaves in Egypt,” a commandment today’s Jewish Trump-supporters might ponder) and of national character. European Jews were oppressed for thousands of years: burned, exiled, forbidden from owning property, banned by polite society. And even when, in the 18th and 19th centuries, “civilized” Jews from France and Germany were granted the benefits of citizenship, the “backward” Jews from Eastern Europe were still subjected to pogroms.
When the descendants of these Jews came to the United States, the intellectuals among them brought their history of marginalization and their firm belief that progressive change—whether revolutionary or gradual—was absolutely necessary as a matter of simple morality. America was the goldene medina, the Golden Country, where finally everyone could be equal, regardless of birth or race. Yet there was obviously a gap between that ideal and reality, and into that breach rushed a generation of Jewish progressives. Some championed the New Deal, others joined the New Left, some were hunted down as communists and provocateurs. But all participated in a Jewish version of “civil religion”: a basically secular moral order that agitated for progressive social change.
Sanders’s political idealism is obviously cut from this cloth.  Part of his appeal to progressives is that he calls Wall Street “immoral and wrong,” countering the religious rhetoric of conservatives not with namby-pamby liberalism but with a moral, prophetic call, however unrealistic it may be. “I think it is important that a sense of morality be part of our politics,” Sanders told the Post. And one gets the sense that he believes it.
Now, is this really “religion”?
It depends what you mean. By Christian standards, not quite. Sanders did his best when asked, point-blank, if he believes in God. “I think everyone believes in God in their own ways,” he said. “To me, it means that all of us are connected, all of life is connected, and that we are all tied together.”
Well, that’s great, but in that case, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris believe in God. If this is theism, then what is atheism?
GET THE BEAST IN YOUR INBOX!
By clicking "Subscribe," you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
No, Bernie was being political. He knows that atheists are widely despised in America—it’s one of the few permissible prejudices—and that many of them are arrogant, obnoxious jerks. He also knows that his own quasi-atheism is yet another reason he is unelectable in a country that still identifies as over 80% religious. (Still another reason may be the kibbutz at which he volunteered, but now refuses to name—perhaps it was more Communist than Socialist.)
So he’s couched his secularism in a religious-seeming garb. Generously, we could call this “skillful communication.” But it’s not religion as that term is usually understood in Christian contexts.
On the other hand, Judaism has long had a different understanding. The old saw that “Judaism is a religion of deed, not creed” is, of course, a simplification. But it’s more true than false. To be a good Jew, in Orthodox religious terms, is to obey the ritual and ethical commandments. A handful of those require belief, but the vast majority do not. In college, I remember a teacher of mine, an Orthodox rabbi, telling me that “To be a good Jew, you need to believe in one God, or fewer.”
Likewise among non-Orthodox religious Jews, for whom religion is more about practice than faith, more about action than intention. Even if belief retains some role, it often sits on the epistemological back burner. It’s there, but it’s not a big deal.  
Nor—especially for Reform Jews but certainly for secular ones—is the Bible and its legal norms. Secular Jewish morality, and most of Reform Jewish morality, is based on conscience, reason, compassion, and reflection, not Scripture. The Bible may be edifying, but ethical reasoning is primary.
To repeat, this is not true of everyone. Some Hasidic Jews are almost evangelical in their emphasis on personal relationships to God. Many Renewal and Reconstructionist Jews have non-traditional theologies—a bit like Sanders’s—but still emphasize the importance of spiritual experience, ecstasy, or contemplation.
But if we are asking whether Sanders is “religious” in Jewish terms, the reply must be that he is. The question isn’t whether he went to a Passover Seder or stood outside the doors on Rosh Hashanah, and it certainly isn’t whether he believes in a creator deity. Sanders is secular, he is atheist or close to it, and he defines morality in ethical, not ritual or traditional or authority-based, terms.  
But if Sanders wants to call that religious, he’s got a long progressive-Jewish lineage to back him up.  When he says he “believes in God in [his] own ways,” he’s not speaking as a quirky, uncombed Socialist from Vermont. However unelectable it may make him, he’s speaking as part of a century-plus tradition of progressive secular Jews who changed the face of America.

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

The ultimate drone killer...

Drones near airports. Near firefighters. Near the Super Bowl. They're illegal in these settings, sure, but how do you take them out safely? A Dutch firm claims it has the answer. Guard From is working with the Dutch National Police using trained raptors to target consumer-sized drones and knock them out of the sky. Yes, raptors, as in "birds of prey." Like a goddamn majestic eagle.

Background: The Dutch National Police say that they're concerned about drones used for criminal purposes and have been working on ways to prevent unwanted drone use. In a release, Mark Wiebe, innovation manager of the National Police, cites incidents with ambulatory helicopters and interference from drones. "There are situations in which drones are not allowed to fly. This is almost always to do with security," says Wiehe. But he adds that finding the drone operator can be next to impossible. Enter the drone-fighting bird that swoops in and yanks the drone down, dropping it somewhere safely away from human beings.

In the US, however, it's questionable whether using raptors to take down drones would be legal, even by local law enforcement. Technically the skies are the jurisdiction of the FAA, and the FAA alone; some inventions we've seen — such as the Drone Defender, which overwhelms a drone's flight systems with electronic jamming — could be seen as interfering with the flight of an aircraft. Which is a federal crime, even if it's cops doing the deed.

Using a raptor to take down a drone could run into similar legal hurdles. And there's another challenge: Training the birds to avoid being injured by whirring blades. For now, Dutch police say they're just evaluating the Guards from Above option and that no decision has been made yet on deployment.
But, for now, just watch this video. Then show everyone you know. Because drone-killing eagle.

Mugabe succession battle begins, Bloodshed soon to follow.



Zimbabwe chief prosecutor charged over Mugabe bomb plot case

  • 9 hours ago
  •  
  • From the section Africa
Attorney General Johannes Tomana walking to court
Image captionThe press gathered as Johannes Tomana arrived at court
Zimbabwe's chief prosecutor has been charged with obstructing the course of justice after allegedly dropping charges against people accused of plotting to bomb the president's dairy.
Four army officers also appeared at the magistrates court in the capital Harare charged with treason.
Attorney General Johannes Tomana denies the charges. He was brought to court in the back of a police pick-up truck.
The milk production plant is run by President Robert Mugabe's wife, Grace.
The prosecutor told the court that the four army officers were allegedly caught with firearms and sought to get bombs designed to blow up the dairy, reports the BBC's Brian Hungwe from the capital, Harare.
Our correspondent adds that the court was told the four had formed a political party called Zimbabwe People Front and had set up a military training camp.
Mr Tomana is accused of dropping charges against two of the four army officers.
Two suspects walk into Harare Magistrates court 02.02.2016Image copyrightGetty Images
Image captionTwo suspects in the alleged bomb plot were taken to court in prison uniform and their hands chained
Mr Mugabe has been in power since 1980.
The ruling Zanu-PF party has been hit by factionalism as rivals disagree on who will succeed 91-year-old Mr Mugabe.
One faction of the ruling party is backing Grace Mugabe to take over from her husband while another camp is backing Deputy President Emmerson Mnangagwa.

Top German Journalist Admits Live On Air National News Agenda Set By Government. What tyranny is made of...

Top German Journalist Admits Live On Air National News Agenda Set By Government




A retired media boss at a major German state broadcaster has admitted his network and others take orders from the government on what — and what not — to report.

National public service broadcaster Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF), which was recently forced into a humiliating apology for their silence on migrant violence and sex assault is being drawn into a fresh scandal after one of their former bureau chiefs admitted the company takes orders from the government on what it reports. He said journalists received instructions to write news that would be “to Ms. Merkel’s liking”.
Former head of ZDF Bonn Dr. Wolfgang Herles make the remarks during a radio event (from minute 27) in Berlin where journalists discussed the media landscape. Moving on to the freedom of the press, the panel chair asked Dr. Herles whether things in Germany had got “seriously out of whack”. With an honesty perhaps unusual in Germany, Dr. Herles replied that ordinary Germans were totally losing faith in the media, something he called a “scandal”. He said:
“We have the problem that – now I’m mainly talking about the public [state] media – we have a closeness to the government. Not only because commentary is mainly in line with the grand coalition (CSU, CDU, and SPD), with the spectrum of opinion, but also because we are completely taken in by the agenda laid down by the political class”.
Worse than the mainstream, government controlled and poll-tax funded media in Germany just agreeing with the ruling coalition, the stations actually took orders on what was and was not to be reported on. He said:
“…the topics about which are reported are laid down by the government.
“There are many topics that would be more important than what the government wants. But they, of course, want to deflect attention away from what doesn’t happen. Yet what doesn’t happen is often more important than what does happen – more important than gesture politics”.
While these orders are sent to media companies from unspecified places in the government, they are communicated to individual journalists by news executives using a new-speak jargon. Dr. Herles explains that while “there are, in fact, instructions from above”, when the editor in chief of ZDF communicated these instructions to his juniors he would merely say reporting should be framed in a way that “serves Europe and the public good”.
There would be no need to add in brackets that this actually means it should be reported “to Ms. Merkel’s liking”, as they would be understood as the true meaning.
“Today, one is not allowed to say anything negative about the refugees” said Dr. Herles, concluding: “This is government journalism and that leads to a situation in which people no longer trust us. This is a scandal.”
There has been very little reporting of the comments in the German media, and what there was has been critical of the remarks. Focus reported the comments of one centre-left media figure, Der Freitag newspaper editor Jakob Augstein who when asked whether there had ever been such “instructions from above”, said: “No, I deny vehemently there has ever been commands from the top”.
That the German mainstream media is not free and routinely obscures or bends the truth has been a key criticism by the Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of Europe (PEGIDA) movement, which has coined phrases like Lügenpresse — the liar press — to express their frustration.

More dishonesty discovered in the NYTimes newsroom. If it fits the narrative then it's true, even when it's not.

The news website The Intercept said on Tuesday that a former reporter had fabricated quotations in some of his articles and impersonated other people by using email accounts in their names.
Betsy Reed, the news organization’s editor in chief, said that the first evidence appeared in late December and that the reporter, Juan Thompson, was fired on Jan. 4. In an online note to readers, she listed four articles that had been corrected and one that had been retracted.
Ms. Reed wrote that an internal investigation turned up instances in which Mr. Thompson quoted people who later said he had never interviewed them, could not remember speaking with him or whose identities could not be confirmed. She added that he had also quoted unnamed people he claimed to have met at public events whose words could not be verified and that he had used an email account in someone else’s name to impersonate a source.
The note also said he had created an account in her name.
“We apologize to the subjects of these stories; to the people who were falsely quoted; and to you, our readers,” Ms. Reed wrote. “We are contacting news outlets that picked up the corrected stories to alert them to our problems.”
The retracted article was based on an interview with someone presented as Scott Roof, the cousin of Dylann Roof, who murdered nine people in a racially motivated attack in a church in Charleston, S.C., last June. In the article, Scott Roof is quoted saying that Dylann Roof’s hatred may have stemmed from a girl who chose to date a black man rather than him.
“After speaking with two members of Dylann Roof’s family, The Intercept can no longer stand by the premise of this story,” the retraction on top of the article says. “Both individuals said they do not know of a cousin named Scott Roof.”
The Intercept was founded in 2014 with the financial backing of Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire founder of eBay. Its best-known writer is the Pulitzer Prize winner Glenn Greenwald, who most prominently covers national security issues.
Ms. Reed said in the note that Mr. Thompson “wrote mostly short articles on news events and criminal justice.”
Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Thompson sent The New York Times an email addressed to Ms. Reed. In it he said he was undergoing radiation treatment for testicular cancer and had not had the time or energy to review his notes. He attributed the errors in his articles to poor reporting and the unwillingness of some of his subjects to go on the record, rather than to intentional prevarication.
“If I couldn’t obtain a quote from the person I wanted, I went somewhere else, and must’ve forgot to change the names — clearly,” Mr. Thompson wrote. “Also, yes, I encouraged some of my interviewees to use another name; they’re poor black people who didn’t want their names in the public given the situations” and that was the only way, he said, “of convincing them otherwise.”
In an email on Tuesday, Ms. Reed wrote that she had received an email from Mr. Thompson but that it was not identical to other versions that were being circulated online.
“This is a case of a troubled individual,” Ms. Reed wrote. “We have corrected the problems we found in his journalism in a transparent manner, and will continue to strive for the highest standards in our reporting.”

Negative interest rates coming here? Obama' economy. Yesterday the US achieved the dubious record debt of $19 Trillion

The Fed Wants to Test How Banks Would Handle Negative Rates

As interest rates turn negative around the world, the Federal Reserve is asking banks to consider the possibility of the same happening in the U.S.
In its annual stress test for 2016, the Fed said it will assess the resilience of big banks to a number of possible situations, including one where the rate on the three-month U.S. Treasury bill stays below zero for a prolonged period.
"The severely adverse scenario is characterized by a severe global recession, accompanied by a period of heightened corporate financial stress and negative yields for short-term U.S. Treasury securities," the central bank said in announcing the stress tests last week.
In that particular simulation, the unemployment rate doubles to 10 percent, the same level it reached in the aftermath of the last financial crisis. 
Three-month bill rates have slipped slightly below zero several times in recent years, including in September after the Fed delayed rate liftoff amid global financial market turmoil, touching a low of minus 0.05 percent on Oct. 2.
But in the stress test, banks would have to handle three-month bill rates entering negative territory in the second quarter of 2016, and then falling to negative 0.5 percent and holding there through the first quarter of 2019.

Not a Forecast

"This scenario does not represent a forecast of the Federal Reserve," the central bank said. It also assumes "that the adjustment to negative short-term rates proceeds with no additional financial market disruptions."
Fed officials have made clear that they are a long way from contemplating a reduction in rates below zero in their benchmark overnight policy rate. Some, though, have suggested they’d be more open to such a move than in the past should the economy deteriorate significantly.
The central bank left its target range for the federal funds rate unchanged at 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent last week after raising it in December for the first time since 2006.
U.S. policy makers decided against pushing rates below zero during the financial crisis partly because of concern it could lead to dangerous dislocations in the money markets.

European Experience

Since then, the European Central Bank and the central banks of Switzerland, Sweden and Denmark have nudged some official lending rates negative without such repercussions, and Fed officials have publicly taken note.
The Bank of Japan became the latest monetary authority push rates into negative territory last week in an effort to spur lagging growth and increase too-low inflation.
Former Fed official Roberto Perli cautioned against drawing conclusions about future Fed actions from the inclusion of negative U.S. rates in the stress test scenario.
"It doesn’t signal anything" about future monetary policy, said Perli, a partner at Cornerstone Macro LLC in Washington.
Nevertheless, it is "another sign that the Fed would not be entirely adverse" to reducing its target rate below zero should economic conditions warrant, he said.

Bill Dudley

New York Fed President William Dudley said last month that policy makers were "not thinking at all seriously of moving to negative interest rates.
"But I suppose if the economy were to unexpectedly weaken dramatically, and we decided that we needed to use a full array of monetary policy tools to provide stimulus, it’s something that we would contemplate as a potential action," he said on Jan. 15.
Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer said Monday that foreign central banks that had resorted to negative interest rates to stimulate their economies had been more successful than he anticipated.
“It’s working more than I can say I expected in 2012,” he told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "Everybody is looking at how this works," he added.

CNN exposes the ignorance of Bernie supporters. All they really want is free stuff and utopia.

CNN Host Asks Bernie Sanders Supporters to Define ‘Socialism’ — Take a Look at Their Answers

Supporters of Bernie Sanders seem to have a difficult time defining the political ideology their candidate subscribes to.
CNN host Brooke Baldwin visited a rally for the self-described Democratic socialist and asked several attendees a simple question: “Can you define socialism?”
“Socialism?” one Sanders supporter asked before growing silent.
“Can I define socialism? Probably not, if I’m being totally honest” another answered.
“Socialism, oh boy. I don’t think I can,” echoed one more.


When the Trojan Horse gets inside the gates you have the makings of a Clockwork Orange.

Shock Video What Happens When an Elderly Man Tries to Stop Supposed Migrants From Allegedly Harassing Woman on Subway

According to witnesses, one man within the group put his hand on the back of a female passenger, a gesture that she reportedly rejected. The Daily Mail reported that the man then smashed his hand against one of the windows in the train, leading other passengers to react — including one elderly man.
As translated by the Daily Mail, a passenger who took a video of the incident said:
One of these men, in the four seats beside me, was then touched on the head by one of the asylum seekers wearing a brown jacket. He stroked his bald head, to mock him. It was such disrespectful behaviour, the likes of which I have rarely seen before.
The gentleman stood up right away. The asylum seeker then turned, approached the man and grabbed him by the neck. Everyone immediately became involved, with many trying to get in between the pair.
In the video, which has amassed more than 60,000 views on YouTube, one man can be seen holding another from behind. More passengers eventually become involved, with some holding up their hands and pointing at others.
According to the Daily Mail, police are investigating the incident but have not confirmed the identities of the men on board, including whether or not they are, in fact, migrants. 
“Based on the video and the witness account we have decided to open a criminal investigation,” a spokesperson for the Munich police confirmed to the Daily Mail. “We are in contact with a witness, but still need to identify the other people in the video.”
The spokesperson added, “It would appear from the video that the aggressors have Arab backgrounds, but whether they are asylum seekers or not, we can’t say at the moment.”
“It’s mere speculation. We are working to identify them,” the spokesperson said.
Many in Germany have been on edge following reports of multiple sexual assaults on New Year’s Eve — most notably in Cologne, Germany.