Displaying posts published in

March 2017

UNFRIENDLY SKIES: AIRLINES OMIT ISRAEL FROM THEIR MAPS

Academic Study: Middle Eastern Airlines That Omit Israel From Route Maps Appear to Be Playing to Antisemitic Prejudices of Customer Bases by Barney Breen-Portnoy

Airlines that omit Israel from their route maps — as well as those that don’t offer kosher meal options — appear to do so to play to the prejudices of their customer bases, a new academic research paper reported on by The Economistthis week found.

According to the study, authored by Joel Waldfogel and Paul Vaaler of the University of Minnesota, carriers that leave solely Israel off their maps — making clear it was an intentional move — include Flydubai, Kuwait Airways, Middle East Airlines, Qatar Airways and Saudia.

Israel is also not found on the maps of Emirates and Ethiad Airways, but they also do not include several other countries they do not serve, making these carriers what the authors called “plausible deniers.”

“Israel map denial is more likely for airlines with likely customers from countries exhibiting greater anti-Semitism,” the paper’s opening abstract says. “Likely owner tastes also matter: denial is more likely for state-owned airlines in countries that do not recognize Israel. Kosher meal options on online menus follow similar patterns, suggesting anti-Semitic rather than anti-Zionist motivations.”

Furthermore, according to the study, such discrimination by these companies does not deter other major international carriers from entering into codesharing alliances with them. This is because, the paper said, there are “few airline alternatives to choose from in the Middle East.”

In 2015, Kuwait Airways shut down its New York-London route following a US Transportation Department demand that the airline stop illegally discriminating against Israelis through its policy of refusing to sell them tickets.

Crying Wolf: The Attempt to Delegitimize the President Alex Grobman, PhD

Attempts to delegitimize President Donald Trump by characterizing him as an antisemite are fatuous, repulsive and demonstrates little or no understanding of what constitutes antisemitism. The failure of the administration to recognize Jews in the Statement by the President on International Holocaust Remembrance Day produced a torrent of criticism.

The administration’s slow condemnation of the desecration of the Chesed Shel Emeth Cemetery in St. Louis, Missouri as soon as the vandalism occurred, caused additional angst. It should be noted, Vice President Mike Pence strongly denounced the wave of antisemitic acts, and visited the cemetery to assist in repairing the damage.

By not immediately condemning the bomb threats against Jewish Community Centers and offering reassurance that steps would be taken to protect the Jewish community were viewed by a number of Jews as a dangerous sign.

To a reasonable observer, it appeared that the president’s response to Jake Turx, a haredi reporter for Ami Magazine, who asked how his administration will handle the increase in antisemitic acts in the US, was defensive and rushed. Rather than allowing the journalist to finish his question, the president attempted to disarm what must have seemed to him to be another hostile reporter. While clearly coming to the wrong conclusion, this degree of insensitivity, and the corresponding initial reluctance to speak out against antisemitism caused concern. Yet none of these examples indicate whatsoever that the president is antisemitic or supports antisemitism. The idea is so ludicrous that it defies all logic.

Before accusing someone of being antisemitic, one should have an actual basis for making such a serious allegation. Indiscriminate labeling an individual an antisemite distorts the gravity of the accusation and becomes the equivalent of crying wolf.

Defining Antisemitism

How then do we define antisemitism? Efforts to define what historian Robert S. Wistrich called “The Longest Hatred,” have been attempted since the German journalist Wilhelm Marr first coined the term in 1870. On January 28, 2005, the European Union Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), arrived at a definition, which remains the accepted standard for evaluating expressions of antisemitism.

Could You Prevent Big Brother Watching? By Rachel Ehrenfeld and Stephen Bryen

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell described the protagonist, Winston Smith’s efforts to find a way to prevent Big Brother from watching his expressions:

“The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live — did live, from habit that became instinct — in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.”

Winston kept his back turned to the telescreen. It was safer, though, as he well knew, even a back can be revealing.”

In 1949, when Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four was first published, one could have evaded Big Brother’s watchful camera under the cover of darkness. Today, however, “Night Vision” technologies can penetrate darkness.

Today, according to Wikileaks latest stolen documents release, the United States Intelligence Agency (CIA) together with the British domestic Intelligence agency- MI5, joined in developing televisions (especially Samsung’s Smart TV), smartphones, cars, and other computerized devices into spying machines.

So, what do you do to stop any Big Brother from invading your privacy, spying on all your activities everywhere? Watching you and listing to your conversations? Even to your snoring?

Stephen Bryen offers the following:

What do you do if all your devices are open to hacking? –Android and iPhone phones and watches, Bluetooth, WiFi, “Smart” TVs, laptops, tablets, GPS, car stereo, computers, Alexa and Google Home, home alarm systems –in other words, everything?

Leave Steve Bannon Out of Your Shpiel Purim is an occasion for humor—but choose your targets with some care. By Tevi Troy *****

As Jews celebrate Purim this Saturday night, a surprising figure could be making an appearance in some synagogues: Steve Bannon. What might the controversial presidential adviser have to do with the Jewish holiday?

Purim celebrates the deliverance of the Jews of ancient Persia from death at the hands of an evil government official named Haman. The story, told in the Book of Esther, shows how the beautiful Esther, with her cousin Mordechai’s guidance, became queen and helped turn the tables on Haman. Esther opened King Ahasuerus’ eyes to Haman’s designs and thus saved the Jews. Purim is a classic Jewish holiday. As the old joke goes, “They tried to kill us. We won. Let’s eat.”

But there’s more to Purim than eating. Jews are required to hear the tale read from the Book of Esther, to give gifts of food to at least two other Jews, and to participate in a festive meal that includes certain holiday-specific blessings. Many Jews also dress in costume and attend a humorous play at their synagogue.

This performance, known as Purim Shpiel, has a long history. In Europe it often parodied bits of rabbinical literature. Today the Shpiel mocks current events, celebrities or well-known community members. One can order prewritten Shpiel scripts and songs, with titles like “Oyklahoma” and “Middle East Side Story.”

The Shpiel often includes a playful recreation of the Purim story, with new individuals filling in as some of the main characters. Haman has evolved as the ultimate evil, a villain driven by hatred to destroy the Jewish people. According to Holocaust survivor Solly Ganor, a 1945 Purim Shpiel in the Dachau concentration camp alluded to Adolf Hitler as Haman. In the 1990s, Saddam Hussein earned the Haman designation during the Gulf War, when he was firing missiles at Israel.

Some Shpiels last year featured then-candidate Donald Trump as Haman. New York Jewish Week’s Gary Rosenblatt predicts even more such comparisons this year, albeit with the roles tweaked. As president, Mr. Trump will likely stand in as King Ahasuerus. Mr. Bannon, a close adviser, would take the role of Haman. Anyone considering these designations should reconsider.

EPA Chief Questions Agency’s Right to Regulate Carbon Emissions Scott Pruitt also says in speech that agency to take more cues from states By Christopher M. Matthews and Erin Ailworth

The new head of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency called into question that agency’s legal right to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, a signature effort by the Obama administration.

In a speech Thursday to a room full of energy executives in Houston for CERAweek by IHS Markit, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said there is a “fundamental question” about whether Congress gave the agency the authority to “deal with the Co2 issue.”

“It’s a question that needs to be asked and answered,” Mr. Pruitt said.
In an interview earlier Thursday, Mr. Pruitt said carbon dioxide emissions weren’t the primary cause of global warming.“I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” Mr. Pruitt told CNBC’s “Squawk Box.
In an interview earlier Thursday, Mr. Pruitt said carbon dioxide emissions weren’t the primary cause of global warming.

There is consensus in the scientific community that carbon dioxide, a bi-product of burning fossil fuels, and other greenhouse gases are a significant driver of climate change. Mr. Pruitt said further analysis and debate on the subject are needed.

Mr. Pruitt’s statements mark a dramatic shift from Obama administration policies, which sought to use agencies like the EPA to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Environmental activists quickly condemned his comments.

“This is like hearing the head of NASA saying the Earth is flat,” said Vera Pardee of the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s absolutely terrifying that the man in charge of the EPA denies fundamental facts about climate change.” CONTINUE AT SITE

GOP Health Plan Advances After Clearing Two House Committees Republican-led panels approve measures to alter the Affordable Care Act, but opposition remains strong By Siobhan Hughes, Stephanie Armour and Kristina Peterson

WASHINGTON—Republicans advanced legislation through two House committees on Thursday as part of their goal to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, but signs of discord spread around the capital as conservative lawmakers warned this version of the health-law overhaul won’t pass.

On party-line votes, the committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means approved measures repealing major parts of the 2010 health law, known as Obamacare, with the goal of holding a floor vote later this month.

Conservatives fired warning shots at Republican leaders in an open challenge to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), who said Republicans could either line up behind the House bill or renege on their promise to repeal the law.

“It really comes down to a binary choice,” Mr. Ryan said. “This is the chance, and the best and only chance we’re gonna get.”

Conservatives disputed that assessment, going public with concerns that their leaders’ approach would create a new entitlement program centered on refundable tax credits and saying the bill should instead aim at reducing premiums and other costs. The first warning flare of the day was sent up Thursday morning by Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.), who wrote on Twitter that the current House bill wouldn’t pass the Senate.

“To my friends in House: pause, start over. Get it right, don’t get it fast,” Mr. Cotton tweeted. “What matters in long run is better, more affordable health care for Americans, NOT House leaders’ arbitrary legislative calendar.” CONTINUE AT SITE