Defenders of a Racist President Use Jews as Human Shields Trump’s bigoted attack on four congresswomen of color has nothing to do with fighting anti-Semitism. Michelle Goldberg By Michelle Goldberg

Trump’s bigoted attack on four congresswomen of color has nothing to do with fighting anti-Semitism.

Sebastian Gorka, a onetime adviser to Donald Trump, wore a medal from the Vitezi Rend, a Hungarian group historically aligned with Nazism, to one of Trump’s inaugural balls. Gorka was reportedly a member of the group, whose founder, the Hungarian autocrat Miklos Horthy, once said, “For all my life, I have been an anti-Semite.”

Max Berger is a Jewish social justice activist who has long been deeply involved in Jewish communal life. He’s the co-founder of IfNotNow, a group of American Jews devoted to ending Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory, and recently joined Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign.

In a tweet this month, one of these men tarred the other as an anti-Semite. If you’ve been following the increasingly bizarre turn that American discussion of anti-Semitism has taken, you can probably guess which one.

That’s right, it was Gorka who called Berger an anti-Semite, for having once joined in an internet in-joke about a nonexistent group called “Friends of Hamas.” (Gorka’s tweet appears to have since been deleted.) It wasn’t the only time this month that Gorka accused a Jew of Jew-hating; he’s also charged the anti-Trump conservative writer Anne Applebaum with “standing with the anti-Semites,” demanding that she explain “how you justify this to the community.”

If this were just Gorka, you could dismiss it as trolling. But his tweets were only a particularly brazen example of how right-wing gentiles are wrapping themselves in a smarmy philo-Semitism to attack the left, even when that means attacking either individual Jews or the political interests of most Jewish Americans.

Such Christian appropriation of the fight against anti-Semitism reached its grim nadir this week. As Trump’s racist invective against Ilhan Omar and three other freshman Democratic congresswomen has dominated the news, the president’s defenders have used Jews as human shields, pretending that hatred of the quartet is rooted in abhorrence of anti-Semitism. On Tuesday, an evangelical outfit called Proclaiming Justice to the Nations accused the Anti-Defamation League — the Anti-Defamation League! — of siding with anti-Semites after the ADL called out Trump’s racism. The group even had the audacity to hurl a Hebrew denunciation — “lashon hara,” or “evil tongue” — at the Jewish civil rights organization.

Republicans are only a short step away from such shamelessness when they try to deflect from the president’s racism by accusing his foes of anti-Semitism. “Montanans are sick and tired of listening to anti-American, anti-Semite, radical Democrats trash our country and our ideals,” Senator Steve Daines of Montana tweeted on Monday, proclaiming his solidarity with Trump.

It’s true that Omar has said things that were freighted with anti-Semitism, for which she has expressed regret. But it is grotesque to argue that that excuses racism against her, or that Trump’s taunts have anything to do with protecting Jews. This is a president who regularly deploys anti-Semitic tropes and whose ex-wife said that he slept with a volume of Hitler’s speeches by his bed. When speaking to American Jews, he’s called Israel “your country” and Benjamin Netanyahu “your prime minister,” suggesting that in his mind, we don’t fully belong here any more than Omar does.

Millions of Americans like me and Ilhan Omar are right where we belong-Padma Lakshmi

July 19 at 4:49 PM

Padma Lakshmi is an ACLU Artist Ambassador for immigrants’ and women’s rights, and a host and executive producer of “Top Chef.”

Wednesday night at a rally in Greenville, N.C., a sea of white faces in red hats bellowed “Send her back! Send her back!,” referring to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), a Somali refugee who disagreed with the president on policy.

It was a sickening escalation from Sunday, when the president tweetedat Omar and three other congresswomen of color who were born in the United States: “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” It was a longer version of the classic racist taunt “Go back to your country!” During the chanting on Wednesday, Trump watched over the crowd, seemingly satisfied. What followed, too, is now classic Trump — saying briefly that “he didn’t like it,” only to say later those very same chanters were “incredible patriots.” It’s Charlottesville 2.0. He has long been dog-whistling to white nationalists, and as he ramps up for 2020, that whistle has become a battle cry.

Those words, those hurtful, xenophobic, entitled words that I’ve heard all throughout my childhood, stabbed me right in the heart. They echoed the unshakable feeling that most brown immigrants feel. Regardless of what we do, regardless of how much we assimilate and contribute, we are never truly American enough because our names sound funny, our skin isn’t white, or our grandmothers live in a different country.

It’s hard for many white Americans to understand how hurtful the language the president used this week is to many of us.

In elementary school, we used to sing, “This land is your land, this land is my land.” But out in the playground and at the arcade, we heard another tune: that no matter how hard we worked, and even if we kept our heads down, many in our nation were never going to accept us as equally American as our white fellow citizens. They snarled and smirked as they reminded us that they could yank away our identity at will.

Full article

f.sheikh

Why Epicurean ideas suit the challenges of modern secular life-By Temma Emmerfield

Nowadays, educated English-speaking urbanites might call you an epicure if you complain to a waiter about over-salted soup, and stoical if you don’t. In the popular mind, an epicure fine-tunes pleasure, consuming beautifully, while a stoic lives a life of virtue, pleasure sublimated for good. But this doesn’t do justice to Epicurus, who came closest of all the ancient philosophers to understanding the challenges of modern secular life.

Epicureanism competed with Stoicism to dominate Greek and Roman culture. Born in 341 BCE, only six years after Plato’s death, Epicurus came of age at a good time to achieve influence. He was 18 when Alexander the Great died at the tail end of classical Greece – identified through its collection of independent city-states – and the emergence of the dynastic rule that spread across the Persian Empire. Zeno, who founded Stoicism in Cyprus and later taught it in Athens, lived during the same period. Later, the Roman Stoic Seneca both critiqued Epicurus and quoted him favourably.

Today, these two great contesting philosophies of ancient times have been reduced to attitudes about comfort and pleasure – will you send back the soup or not? That very misunderstanding tells me that Epicurean ideas won, hands down, though bowdlerised, without the full logic of the philosophy. Epicureans were concerned with how people felt. The Stoics focused on a hierarchy of value. If the Stoics had won, stoical would now mean noble and an epicure would be trivial.

Epicureans did focus on seeking pleasure – but they did so much more. They talked as much about reducing pain – and even more about being rational. They were interested in intelligent living, an idea that has evolved in our day to mean knowledgeable consumption. But equating knowing what will make you happiest with knowing the best wine means Epicurus is misunderstood.

The rationality he wedded to democracy relied on science. We now know Epicurus mainly through a poem, De rerum natura, or ‘On the Nature of Things’, a 7,400 line exposition by the Roman philosopher Lucretius, who lived c250 years after Epicurus. The poem was circulated only among a small number of people of letters until it was said to be rediscovered in the 15th century, when it radically challenged Christianity.

Its principles read as astonishingly modern, down to the physics. In six books, Lucretius states that everything is made of invisible particles, space and time are infinite, nature is an endless experiment, human society began as a battle to survive, there is no afterlife, religions are cruel delusions, and the universe has no clear purpose. The world is material – with a smidgen of free will. How should we live? Rationally, by dropping illusion. False ideas largely make us unhappy. If we minimise the pain they cause, we maximise our pleasure.

Secular moderns are so Epicurean that we might not hear this thunderclap. He didn’t stress perfectionism or fine discriminations in pleasure – sending back the soup. He understood what the Buddhists call samsara, the suffering of endless craving. Pleasures are poisoned when we require that they do not end. So, for example, it is natural to enjoy sex, but sex will make you unhappy if you hope to possess your lover for all time.

Epicurus also seems uncannily modern in his attitude to parenting. Children are likely to bring at least as much pain as pleasure, he noted, so you might want to skip it. Modern couples who choose to be ‘child-free’ fit within the largely Epicurean culture we have today. Does it make sense to tell people to pursue their happiness and then expect them to take on decades of responsibility for other humans? Well, maybe, if you seek meaning. Our idea of meaning is something like the virtue embraced by the Stoics, who claimed it would bring you happiness.

Both the Stoics and the Epicureans understood that some good things are better than others. Thus you necessarily run into choices, and the need to forgo one good to protect or gain another. When you make those choices wisely, you’ll be happier. But the Stoics think you’ll be acting in line with a grand plan by a just grand designer, and the Epicureans don’t.

Full article

posted by f.sheikh

Ilhan responding to racism

On Thursday, July 18, 2019, 2:29 PM, Ilhan <info@ilhanomar.com> wrote:

You may shoot me with your words,

You may cut me with your eyes,

You may kill me with your hatefulness,

But still, like air, I’ll rise. -Maya Angelou

Last night Donald Trump’s racism and xenophobia was on full display at a campaign rally in North Carolina. His lies and hateful remarks were fueled by white nationalism and bigotry, but coming from a man who ran a campaign for president based on vitriol, we shouldn’t be shocked by his latest display of hatred.

Donald Trump is lashing out at me to serve as a distraction and to rile up his base in an attempt to move the focus away from how his administration is failing our economy and our country.

I will not allow Trump to distract me and I don’t want him to distract you either. I am going to keep fighting each and every day for progressive policies and legislation that will benefit the American people and create a brighter future for everyone. We are building an inclusive movement that is centered on racial, social, economic, and environmental justice for all.

Today I voted ‘yes’ on a bill that passed the House to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour; because every worker should earn a living wage in our country. I recently introduced a bill with Senator Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal to eliminate the $1.6 trillion student debt that is shackling 45 million Americans.

I am fighting for Medicare for All so that we finally recognize health care as a human right, not a privilege for the few. And I am calling attention to the human rights crisis on our southern border, working to hold CBP and ICE accountable for their actions.

Those who want to halt our progress are doing everything they can to ban me from Congress; but I am exactly where I belong. I am in the people’s house and those who want me gone will just have to deal with it.

I am able to keep fighting for the issues that impact the American people because of your support. Together we are building a movement and a campaign that is focused on improving the lives of Americans across our country.

shared by Nasik and posted by f.sheikh