http://prairiezen.org/Sunday_audio.html
Friday, February 5, 2016
Thursday, February 4, 2016
A Funny Bernie Sanders 1999 Video
https://youtu.be/YWl6TLvlFEk?t=15
Here is the story:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/bernie-sanders-once-played-a-rabbi-in-a-90s-film/
Here is the story:
"Sanders fans have uncovered a cameo appearance he made in a 1999 indie film, “My X-Girlfriend’s Wedding Reception.”
He does a persuasive comic turn as a rabbi who
still isn’t over the Dodgers baseball team’s departure from Brooklyn,
and who lets it get in the way of wishing the newlyweds well."
http://www.timesofisrael.com/bernie-sanders-once-played-a-rabbi-in-a-90s-film/
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
To Nurture Non-Harming - President Obama's call for "push back" against violent Islamists - and suggestions how to make it happen
"President Obama on Wednesday will visit a U.S. mosque for the first
time in his presidency. According to the White House, during this visit
he will “celebrate the contributions Muslim Americans make to our nation
and reaffirm the importance of religious freedom to our way of life.”
Over the past two years, in the president’s efforts to counter violent
extremism, he has emphasized the responsibility of Muslim “scholars and
clerics” to help ensure that mosques are not used as a platform to
preach Islamist extremism.
Such extremism isn’t limited to out-of-the-way mosques where radical clerics operate in the shadows. It is occurring in mainstream and leading mosques world-wide, including at one of the most important religious institutions in Islam, the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.
Consider a Jan. 16 sermon at Al Aqsa by Sheikh Abu Taqi Al-Din Al-Dari, a Palestinian cleric who called for jihad against the West and Europe, and for the burgeoning Islamic State to “conquer Rome, Washington and Paris.”
Despite Al Aqsa’s importance to Islam—it is considered the religion’s holiest site outside Saudi Arabia—few Westerners are aware of the content of the sermons, lectures and lessons offered there. Many of these sermons are posted on the mosque’s two official YouTube channels and have been translated from the Arabic by my organization, the Middle East Media Research Institute.
What we have found at Al Aqsa is a steady stream of calls for jihad and martyrdom, venomous attacks on Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims, and praise for al Qaeda, Islamic State, or ISIS, and other jihadist groups...
...A year ago in Washington, D.C., at the opening of the Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, President Obama urged Muslims to “push back” against extremism in mosques. He will have an opportunity to restate that message on Wednesday in Baltimore. Acknowledging the Islamist threat, and those who support it, must be part of any realistic attempt at countering violent extremism. "
For the rest of this article see:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-mosque-as-extremist-megaphone-1454459321
Another pertinent article recently sent to me:
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/02/09/obamas-not-listening-to-the-right-muslims
Such extremism isn’t limited to out-of-the-way mosques where radical clerics operate in the shadows. It is occurring in mainstream and leading mosques world-wide, including at one of the most important religious institutions in Islam, the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.
Consider a Jan. 16 sermon at Al Aqsa by Sheikh Abu Taqi Al-Din Al-Dari, a Palestinian cleric who called for jihad against the West and Europe, and for the burgeoning Islamic State to “conquer Rome, Washington and Paris.”
Despite Al Aqsa’s importance to Islam—it is considered the religion’s holiest site outside Saudi Arabia—few Westerners are aware of the content of the sermons, lectures and lessons offered there. Many of these sermons are posted on the mosque’s two official YouTube channels and have been translated from the Arabic by my organization, the Middle East Media Research Institute.
What we have found at Al Aqsa is a steady stream of calls for jihad and martyrdom, venomous attacks on Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims, and praise for al Qaeda, Islamic State, or ISIS, and other jihadist groups...
...A year ago in Washington, D.C., at the opening of the Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, President Obama urged Muslims to “push back” against extremism in mosques. He will have an opportunity to restate that message on Wednesday in Baltimore. Acknowledging the Islamist threat, and those who support it, must be part of any realistic attempt at countering violent extremism. "
For the rest of this article see:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-mosque-as-extremist-megaphone-1454459321
Another pertinent article recently sent to me:
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/02/09/obamas-not-listening-to-the-right-muslims
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
A PICTURE WORTH MYRIAD WORDS ----- Eagles Vs Drones: Dutch Police Eye Birds To Prey On Drones. Mutability of roles and function - and the many ways that reality does not fit our ideas, and our ideas are not fitting reality. What are the consequences in life, in our life, on a large and/or small scale? Where do we get trapped by our ideas bumping up on changing reality?
"The Hague, Netherlands - It may sound like a flight of fancy, but Dutch police are considering using birds of prey to swoop down and pluck rogue drones out of the sky.
Police are working with a Hague-based company that trains eagles and other birds to catch drones to investigate whether the birds can be used above large events or near airports, where the small flying machines are banned.
Dennis Janus of the national police said Tuesday that trainers exploit the birds’ natural instincts to tackle the high-tech problem of drones flying in restricted areas.
Janus says the birds are trained “to think drones are their prey” and get a reward if they catch one.
Video released by police showed a small white drone with four propellers rising into the air and a bird of prey grabbing it from above with its talons in one fluid motion.
Dutch police will likely make a decision later this year whether to use the birds.
Janus said part of the evaluation includes research by a respected Dutch scientific organization into whether catching drones could harm the birds of prey."
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Speech, Safe and Not-Safe - an alternative position
In response to my previous posting regarding speech and limits on speech, an interesting article with a different approach, by Liel Lebovitz, author of "Broken Hallelujah: Rock and Roll, Redemption, and the Life of Leonard Cohen," was passed on to me.
Below is an excerpt that has his essential points, with a link to the full article following:
"...some of my dearest friends and many others I greatly admire and respect—signed up to join Open Hillel’s academic advisory board, supporting the nascent organization’s commitment to allowing even Israel’s fiercest critics to speak in front of Jewish groups on campus, something that Hillel itself opposes. Too often, this debate between Hillels, open and otherwise, is portrayed as a referendum on free speech and tolerance, with the parent organization accused of blocking out difficult and unpalatable opinions rather than having the courage to listen, reason, and discuss. The truth, however, is grimmer and more difficult to resolve.
Hillel’s refusal to allow BDS activists to address its members isn’t an act of censorship—one, after all, hardly lacks safe spaces for Israeli-hating on college campuses these days—but the rational, even obvious, course of action. Just as you wouldn’t expect a gay student group to invite a practitioner of gay conversion therapy to give a talk, say, or a black student group to welcome a white supremacist arguing for the reversal of Brown v. Board of Education, so you shouldn’t be surprised when a Jewish student group refuses to let in those who ignore all of the world’s evils and all of Israel’s virtues to insist that Palestinian nationalism be lauded while its Jewish counterpart be banned.
Why, then, do so many smart, sensible people solidly support Open Hillel? Maybe because sensible and smart folks have a very hard time dealing in absolutes. To declare that something is irredeemably evil and something else good is a failure not only of the imagination but also of the moral instinct, which, like every good compass, is only worth a damn if it is able to capture the tiniest shifts in direction.
All this is true until, sadly, it is not: There are some moments, rare and arduous, in which our survival depends on our ability to clearly tell black from white. These moments offer little nuance, a dearth of depth, none of the pleasures a well-trained mind expects when it inspects the folds of a complex situation. These moments don’t call for disquisitions; they demand action, a decisive move that defines us against those who wish us real ill. This is why we oughtn’t indulge supporters of the BDS movement in dialogue but fight them with any means at our disposal...."
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/197285/time-to-stop-talking
Below is an excerpt that has his essential points, with a link to the full article following:
"...some of my dearest friends and many others I greatly admire and respect—signed up to join Open Hillel’s academic advisory board, supporting the nascent organization’s commitment to allowing even Israel’s fiercest critics to speak in front of Jewish groups on campus, something that Hillel itself opposes. Too often, this debate between Hillels, open and otherwise, is portrayed as a referendum on free speech and tolerance, with the parent organization accused of blocking out difficult and unpalatable opinions rather than having the courage to listen, reason, and discuss. The truth, however, is grimmer and more difficult to resolve.
Hillel’s refusal to allow BDS activists to address its members isn’t an act of censorship—one, after all, hardly lacks safe spaces for Israeli-hating on college campuses these days—but the rational, even obvious, course of action. Just as you wouldn’t expect a gay student group to invite a practitioner of gay conversion therapy to give a talk, say, or a black student group to welcome a white supremacist arguing for the reversal of Brown v. Board of Education, so you shouldn’t be surprised when a Jewish student group refuses to let in those who ignore all of the world’s evils and all of Israel’s virtues to insist that Palestinian nationalism be lauded while its Jewish counterpart be banned.
Why, then, do so many smart, sensible people solidly support Open Hillel? Maybe because sensible and smart folks have a very hard time dealing in absolutes. To declare that something is irredeemably evil and something else good is a failure not only of the imagination but also of the moral instinct, which, like every good compass, is only worth a damn if it is able to capture the tiniest shifts in direction.
All this is true until, sadly, it is not: There are some moments, rare and arduous, in which our survival depends on our ability to clearly tell black from white. These moments offer little nuance, a dearth of depth, none of the pleasures a well-trained mind expects when it inspects the folds of a complex situation. These moments don’t call for disquisitions; they demand action, a decisive move that defines us against those who wish us real ill. This is why we oughtn’t indulge supporters of the BDS movement in dialogue but fight them with any means at our disposal...."
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/197285/time-to-stop-talking
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Safe and Not-Safe
In relation to my Dharma Talk "Safe Way" (1-16-16) http://prairiezen.org/Sesshin_audio.html
I found the following blog post exploring the notions and consequences of seeking "Safe Spaces" timely. There are several significant points in relation to my earlier Freedom of Thought, Freedom from Thought 5/22/15 and Freedom of Thought, Freedom from Thought Part 2 5/23/15.
Here are a few excerpts and a link to the author's blog:
"The most striking thing about Safe Spaces on campus is how unsafe they are. How hostile and even violent they are towards anyone who has unpopular views, or who simply believes people should have the right to express unpopular views....
As one student union in Britain puts it, they’re spaces in which students must be “free from intimidation or judgement” and should always “feel comfortable”. These spaces are justified in inoffensive, Oprah-like language: it’s all about providing a space in which people can be themselves without fear of ridicule.
But in practice, Safe Spaces are ugly, authoritarian places. They’re propped up by menace. They’re fortified by a simmering threat of force against any transgressors of the new cult of psychic safety and moral conformism....
That Safe Spaces can generate so much unsafety is revealing. It exposes the iron fist of authoritarianism that lurks within the velvet glove of the self-esteem movement. It exposes the dark side to the cult of therapy and the idea that an individual’s feeling of self-worth should override other people’s right to express themselves as they see fit.
The motor of campus censorship is a profound feeling of psychic vulnerability among students. They see everything as a threat to their mental security. Statues of old dead white men, novels that feature sexual violence, pop songs… everything is considered potentially wounding.
This is best summed up in the idea of microaggressions, where even innocent, everyday conversation is reframed as a peril....
Yes, we should mock these little tyrants who fantasise that their feelings should trump other people’s freedom. But we must go further than that. We must remake the case for robust individualism and the virtue of moral autonomy against the fashion for fragility; against the misanthropic view of people as objects shaped and damaged by speech rather than as active subjects who can independently imbibe, judge and make decisions about the speech they hear.
The Safe Space is a terrible trap. It grants you temporary relief from ideas you don’t like, but at the expense of your individuality, your soul even. If you try to silence unpopular ideas, you do an injustice both to those who hold those unpopular views, and also to yourself, through depriving yourself of the right and the joy of arguing back, taking on your opponents, and in the process strengthening your own mental and moral muscles. Liberate yourself — destroy the Safe Space."
http://brendanoneill.co.uk/post/137934715274/the-violence-of-the-safe-space
I found the following blog post exploring the notions and consequences of seeking "Safe Spaces" timely. There are several significant points in relation to my earlier Freedom of Thought, Freedom from Thought 5/22/15 and Freedom of Thought, Freedom from Thought Part 2 5/23/15.
Here are a few excerpts and a link to the author's blog:
"The most striking thing about Safe Spaces on campus is how unsafe they are. How hostile and even violent they are towards anyone who has unpopular views, or who simply believes people should have the right to express unpopular views....
As one student union in Britain puts it, they’re spaces in which students must be “free from intimidation or judgement” and should always “feel comfortable”. These spaces are justified in inoffensive, Oprah-like language: it’s all about providing a space in which people can be themselves without fear of ridicule.
But in practice, Safe Spaces are ugly, authoritarian places. They’re propped up by menace. They’re fortified by a simmering threat of force against any transgressors of the new cult of psychic safety and moral conformism....
That Safe Spaces can generate so much unsafety is revealing. It exposes the iron fist of authoritarianism that lurks within the velvet glove of the self-esteem movement. It exposes the dark side to the cult of therapy and the idea that an individual’s feeling of self-worth should override other people’s right to express themselves as they see fit.
The motor of campus censorship is a profound feeling of psychic vulnerability among students. They see everything as a threat to their mental security. Statues of old dead white men, novels that feature sexual violence, pop songs… everything is considered potentially wounding.
This is best summed up in the idea of microaggressions, where even innocent, everyday conversation is reframed as a peril....
Yes, we should mock these little tyrants who fantasise that their feelings should trump other people’s freedom. But we must go further than that. We must remake the case for robust individualism and the virtue of moral autonomy against the fashion for fragility; against the misanthropic view of people as objects shaped and damaged by speech rather than as active subjects who can independently imbibe, judge and make decisions about the speech they hear.
The Safe Space is a terrible trap. It grants you temporary relief from ideas you don’t like, but at the expense of your individuality, your soul even. If you try to silence unpopular ideas, you do an injustice both to those who hold those unpopular views, and also to yourself, through depriving yourself of the right and the joy of arguing back, taking on your opponents, and in the process strengthening your own mental and moral muscles. Liberate yourself — destroy the Safe Space."
http://brendanoneill.co.uk/post/137934715274/the-violence-of-the-safe-space
Monday, January 25, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)