text:
by Martin Odoni

Template for people to e-mail complaints to the Labour Party, via

To whom it may concern,

Jess Phillips MP has made anti-Semitic remarks on social media. Please see below.

Jess Phillips anti-semitic statement against Israel

If a Jeremy Corbyn supporter had said “Isreali [sic] government are racist”, we know what would happen to him/her.

By referring to the Israeli Government as ‘racist’, Ms Phillips has used a term that applies equally to Nazi Germany, and therefore stands as a comparison with Nazi Germany. Under the terms of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, that makes her remarks anti-Semitic.

The party is presently clamping down ruthlessly on any statement made by members that can be presented as ‘anti-Semitic’, no matter how absurd the leap-of-logic required. Ms Phillips cannot expect to be treated differently from other members simply because she happens to be in the Parliamentary Party.

Therefore, I demand her membership of the Labour Party be suspended with immediate effect, while carrying out a full and exhaustive investigation into her conduct, past and present.

Polite regards

by Martin Odoni

No, seriously, how stupid are they?

David Collier is a racist and smear-merchandising Zionist blogger of precisely the kind that currently dominate the ‘Anti-Semitism-in-the-Labour-Party’ contrived hysteria. Yesterday, somebody added me to a Facebook group called ‘Palestine Live‘, and Collier noticed (obsessive, stalking weirdos these Zionists, are they not?), and decided to condemn me for linking to the blogpost I wrote over the weekend. But not having the courage to take me to task in person, he instead took a screenshot and then posted it onto his Twitter feed.

David Collier smear

David Collier attacks me without daring to confront me.

Collier also made some pretty huge assumptions about me in the process. He says Jews who reject Zionism, like myself, are; –

so lost that they comfortably swim with white supremacists, Holocaust deniers and antisemites.

All I can say to that is that I have not knowingly ‘swum with white supremacists, Holocaust deniers or anti-Semites’ in my entire life. That mention of white supremacists is perhaps a little two-faced, given the British Zionist movement’s undeniable links to the English Defence League. And it is also two-faced of Collier to have a cover picture on his feed reading, “Beyond the great divide the truth matters“, given how little priority he gives to accuracy when attempting to describe Jewish anti-Zionists. But I digress.

My point is this; how stupid do these people have to be? All Collier has done is given me a hint that I am starting to get under Zionist skins. Does he imagine that, by “screenshotting” me like this, he will ‘intimidate me into shamed silence’, or something? Does he imagine that by using an image of the link, rather than linking to the blogpost itself, it will be particularly difficult for me to provide counter-links that will allow people to view what I actually said, rather than his crude caricature of it?

But above all, does he not realise that, by trying to do a ‘public lynching’ job on me like this, Collier is demonstrating precisely the sort of toxic, bullying behaviour that is rife among Zionist fanatics, and to which I was referring in the very blogpost linked-to in the image in the first place? Talk about providing an object lesson in the very act of denying it.

Add to this, I probably would not even have noticed the attack, had it not been for our old comic ‘toothless attack-dog’, Jonathan Hoffman (another disturbingly-obsessive social media stalker) – perhaps also imagining that I would be intimidated – actually putting an image of Collier’s tweet on my Facebook timeline!

Do Collier and Hoffman really not grasp that the best indicator I can get that what I write is effective is that it bothers hate-preaching Zionist bigots like themselves? If Zionists were just ignoring what I write, I would take it as a sign that I am not accomplishing very much, and might question whether it is worth the bother of continuing. Moreover, Collier has a lot more followers on Twitter than I have as well, and many of them, who had probably never heard of me until this morning, now know of me and what my position is on Israel. So as things stand, I regard this as a nice, free promo for my blog.

So… thanks for the thumbs-up, Collier and Hoffman. You pair of cretins!

by Martin Odoni

Jews 4 Jez

I’m one of these. But this is not an easy position to adopt.

A ‘Theobald-Jew’

As I mentioned on a previous post, Jonathan Hoffman, the man who is to Zionist tolerance what the shark from Jaws was to convincing visual-effects work, told me the following recently; –

You are a disgrace. A Jew In Name Only. JINO According to the Benedictine monk Thomas of Monmouth in his The Life and Miracles of St. William of Norwich (1173), it was an apostate Jew, a certain Theobald, who swore that Jews had killed twelve-year old William, a tanner’s apprentice, to fulfill their “Passover blood ritual” in the fateful year of 1144—the first recorded such episode in a long line of murderous defamations. The world is teeming with Theobald-Jews who are ready to betray their own people to serve what they regard as their advantage.

An expression like ‘Theobald-Jews‘ is just an obsolete way of saying, “The Wrong Kind Of Jews” of course. But what Hoffman, and other aggressive Zionist smear-merchants are not very good at is developing their accusations beyond the label. They throw the name, and they sometimes offer a reason why the action has provoked the comparison, but they do not really establish why they believe the motive matches up.

What does Hoffman mean precisely when he implies that I am “ready to betray [my] own people to serve what [I] regard as [my] advantage”? For one thing, why is the Israeli Government supposed to be ‘my people’? For another, how can I have ‘betrayed’ them, when I have never professed any particular loyalty to them? How can it be ‘betrayal’ if I have not done anything underhand against them against their knowledge? But above all, what ‘advantage’ does he imagine I gain on a personal level from opposing Israel’s persecution of the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip?

A frequent pattern

This is a frequent pattern I encounter when I cross swords with Israel supporters. A few years ago, an Israeli castigated me over social media in the following terms; –

such a “jew” martin, like yourself, cannot speak in the name of the jewish people. you see as “completely unnecessary” the existence and continuation of the jewish people, not simply of the state of israel!

i see completely unnecessary the existence of assimilated jews who are hostile towards jews/israel. Such jews should decide: either they’re completing the process of assimilation (and maybe becoming antisemitic – better antisemitic non-jew than a jewish anti-semite) or leave alone the jewish people. you can’t ride two bikes simultaneously and cynically use your “jewishness”: either one or the second.

NB: Please note that I did not change anything in the above passage. The poor grammar and appalling punctuation are not my doing.

Just to make clear, I had not said that I see the existence or continuation of the Jewish people as unnecessary. I had said that I did not believe that it had been necessary to found modern Israel, or to continue its particular status as a ‘Jewish state’. (My reasons why can be read here.) By the same measure, I had not claimed to speak ‘in the name of the Jewish people’. I had been speaking in my own name as a Jew. (“Two Jews, three opinions,” as they say.) Meanwhile, the Israeli’s insistence that my condemnation of Israel is me being “hostile to Jews” or a “Jewish anti-Semite” is not only yet another benighted conflation of Jews with Israel, it is also a variant on the same ‘Theobald-Jew’ accusation I got from Hoffman. When the Israeli accuses me of “cynically using [my] Jewishness”, he implies that I have an ulterior motive of some kind, but like Hoffman, offers no clear thoughts on what that motive is. The rest of his little rant basically amounts to saying that I have to be nice to Israel or I must keep my mouth shut, and ‘choose’ not to be Jewish anymore (which is not even possible, whether I like it or not – even if Gilad Atzmon thinks it is). His argument that the ongoing existence of myself and other Jewish anti-Zionists is ‘unnecessary’ seems like the real hostility, by any standards.

This demonstrates the oppressive attitude Zionist hardliners – gentile or otherwise – hold towards Jews. As far as the Zionists are concerned, Jews must ‘fall into line’. It is not gentiles, or Arabs, or even Palestinian Arabs more narrowly, that Zionist fanatics hate the most. The people Zionist fanatics hate the most are Jews who are not Zionists. Jews who will not fight to suppress the right of Arab people to have the self-determination that Zionists imagine they are fighting to bestow upon Jews themselves, Any Jew who steps out of that line is told he is no longer a Jew, which rather seems to run completely contrary to the idea of Jews having self-determination. That is why Zionism is not about granting self-determination to Jews, but about imposing a collective-determination upon Jews. Anyone, anywhere on Earth who questions it is attacked, but most especially if they are themselves Jewish, as they are not obeying the will of the ‘Hive-mind’ of Zionist imagination.

Meanwhile, anti-Semites think that all Jews already are in line, and that all Jews are somehow ‘secretly working behind the scenes to take over the world’, and other such would-be-hilarious-in-any-other-context tropes.

Anti-Semites and Zionists are flip sides of the same coin, especially to Jewish dissenters. One group hates us for trying to run the world when we are not, and the other group hates us for not trying to.

In short, we get it in stereo.

Anti-Semites & Zionists both hate Jewish dissenters

Now here is the detail I need to get across; an anti-Zionist Jew (or just a Jewish opponent of Israel) gets the worst of both worlds. We know, and anticipate, that anti-Semites are not going to stop hating us simply because we oppose Israel, because they will assume our motives are ingratiation, and will still assume all the other stereotype-Jewish characteristics are true. While Zionists accuse us of being ‘traitors’, and ‘Jews In Name Only’.

With this in mind, it should be as clear as the midsummers day sky that I, and other non-Zionist Jews, have no ulterior motive to adopt the position we do. It is not in our private interests to support Palestinian rights. All it does on a personal level is double the number of opponents we have. Our lives would be infinitely easier if we just shrugged our shoulders and supported Israel without question. The temptation to cave in and get back into line can be strong, especially when we become ostracised by Jewish communities that are stubbornly Zionist.

It is also an immensely frustrating position to be in in wider society, due to our voices being drowned out to the extent that few people realise we are here. Jewish anti-Zionists are routinely ignored by a media near-conspiracy that is determined to present a black-and-white “British-Jews-feel-they-are-under-siege!!!” narrative that is a useful weapon with which to attack the Left. Certainly, no one prominent in the media will ever speak up for Jewish anti-Zionists, and no one is eager to give us a platform to speak for ourselves. This is probably because a Jew who opposes Israel and Zionism is a confusing, water-muddying anomaly in many minds.

As an example, James O’Brien, the Thinking Liberal’s Idiot of LBC Radio, is always bending over backwards to sound sympathetic and sensitive to what he thinks are ‘Jewish concerns’ about the threat of the ‘next Pogrom’. But in doing so, he joins in with the right wing media insistence that ‘British Jews’ are a homogeneous mass with that same aforementioned ‘Hive-mind’. He therefore assumes that if one Jewish Briton expresses wild paranoia about ‘surging anti-Semitism’, and the need for Israel to do absolutely anything it sees fit to prevent it, all Jewish Britons are feeling the same panic, and believe in the same remedy. A Jew who opposes Israel is therefore a cause of confusion, and no likelier to get a platform from O’Brien, or others of his ilk, than a Blackshirt. Indeed, I see no evidence of the existence of Jewish anti-Zionists even being recognised in wide stretches of the western media. O’Brien, if he truly wants Jews to believe he cares and sympathises, needs to get it into his head that by projecting the views of some Jews onto all, he is being profoundly offensive.

Before anyone suggests it, Jewish anti-Zionists certainly do not get paid expressly for speaking out against Israel – or certainly I never have been. This blog is entirely free to read, and I have never been paid a penny for any of the articles written on here, even from adverts that sometimes appear in headers and footers. During my stint writing for The Canary, I did get paid a (very) small amount for my work, but only three of the forty-odd articles I wrote there were about Israel/Palestine. I do not have the precise figures, but I reckon the pay I got for all three articles would have been around £6. Not really worth all the bad feeling just for that, is it?

I have also lost friends within Jewish communities, several of whom were quite close to me, over my position on Israel, and I know I am far from the only Jewish anti-Zionist to experience that. Moreover, I frequently have very bitter arguments with members of my extended family who live in Israel, and who believe I am brainwashed by ‘politically correct’ propaganda.

All of that grief for the sake of £6? Seriously?

If you believe I would go through these miseries for an amount of money that piddling, you must believe every stereotype you ever heard about ‘Jewish money-grabbing’.

Any friend of Netanyahu is a friend of anti-Semites

No, I have no ulterior motive for supporting the Palestinians. I do it because it is right. It is right, because I recognise that Palestinians are as entitled to the same human rights as any other people. It is right because I recognise that Israeli policy encourages and creates a pretext for anti-Semitic feeling, potentially endangering Jews worldwide. It is right because I recognise that creating Israel at the outset was an act of anti-Semitism, as it created a geographical schism between many Jews and the rest of the human race. And it is right because, when Binyamin Netanyahu, without asking, tries to carry out his crimes in the name of the Jews of the whole world, my silence would make me complicit. That gives me a responsibility to say no, and to make damned clear why I am saying no. Especially when Netanyahu

  • tries to condemn a Labour Party leader, who has fought against anti-Semitism his whole life, as an anti-Semite,
  • tries to acquit Adolf Hitler of much of the blame for the Nazi Holocaust, and transfer it to Palestinians,
  • invites to Israel a Filipino elected-dictator, who boasts of being like Hitler, to open a memorial to the Shoah,
  • publicly expresses sentiments that resonate loudly with echoes of Nazi Germany’s ‘Survival Of The Strongest’ narratives.

When discussing ‘Bibi’, we are talking about a self-proclaimed ‘leader of the Jewish people’ who says Jeremy Corbyn is a racist, that Adolf Hitler was not, and that Rodrigo Duterte is a sensitive choice for unveiling a memorial to victims of a genocide. If the price of opposing a country led by a doublethinking megalomaniac like Netanyahu is for me to be labelled a ‘Jewish anti-Semite’, then so be it. It hurts and demeans me, but I am used to it, and I will simply shrug it off.  However, that will not always be easy, especially this week; –

I should know this week whether I am to be expelled

As regular readers should know, the latest aggravation I am experiencing in my capacity as a Jewish opponent of Israel is that I have been suspended by the Labour Party. From what I hear on the grapevine, my suspension is one among a number of cases that are expected to be assessed this coming Tuesday.

I genuinely do not know how it will pan out. It will truly anger and frustrate me if my case is assessed, as appears likely, by a gentile who knows little about the subject, and she judges me – a Jew who has experienced the sharp end of this prejudice – to be an anti-Semite. All because of a hopelessly-flawed definition of anti-Semitism being treated as Holy Writ. Anyone who understands and accepts that definition will not only imagine they know what anti-Semitism is better than I do, but will even be judging me under those terms. That is not only absurdly back-to-front, it is also a painful, powerless feeling.

As I say, my life would have been a lot easier had I just toed the line. But it would still have been wrong of me to do so.

by Martin Odoni

Why the IHRA definition is flawed

The definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ offered by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, it has been stated frequently, is given excessive credence.  Its own creator, Kenneth Stern, has stated that it should not be seen as the be-all-and-end-all, that its intent was not to be legally-binding but more a guideline for research into possible manifestations of anti-Semitism, and that it is being cynically exploited to silence critics of Israel. These notes of caution are made quite explicitly by the IHRA themselves even where they have published their definition; –

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations… Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity… Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

(Emphases added.)

In other words, the notorious ‘examples’ in the IHRA definition, over which the Labour Party is getting into so much trouble, are not meant to be seen as cast-iron proof of anti-Semitic attitudes. They are merely meant to be seen as clues for ‘where to look’, as it were. Where these behaviours are seen, the person or people demonstrating them might be anti-Semitic in their intentions, and so it is advisable to investigate. That is quite different from how Zionists and mainstream media foam-at-the-mouths wish people to interpret it. They want everyone to believe that the examples are defined as inherently anti-Semitic, and that anyone demonstrating such behaviours must therefore be slapped down.

Even if that were what the IHRA definition had said – and it was not – it further needs reiterating that there is no particular imperative that such an ‘edict’ should have to be followed. The IHRA has no authority in this regard, and to be fair to its membership, they have never claimed such authority, to the best of my knowledge. That the definition is not meant to be legally-binding should end all claims to its ‘absolute’ status.

The only remaining argument that I can see people offering for why the Labour Party should be compelled to accept the definition lock-stock-and-barrel therefore appears to be, “Well, so many Governments and groups around the world accept the IHRA definition, so why shouldn’t the Labour Party?” This is one of the laziest, most childish examples of an argumentum ad populum (‘bandwagon fallacy‘) I have ever seen outside of one of Christopher Whittle’s attempted shoutdowns over Margaret Thatcher and the Hillsborough Disaster.

Distinguishing the definition from the examples

The examples are not, strictly speaking, part of the definition itself. They are guidelines – sadly flawed ones – for helping identify behaviours described within it.  The actual definition itself is a lot shorter; –

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

Even this is flawed, given that it is vague and too broadly grounded – especially where it even extends to behaviours directed towards non-Jewish individuals, which lends it a potential for instances of outright absurdity. Without very rigidly-stipulated provisos as to exactly how a non-Jewish individual could possibly be seen as a victim of anti-Semitism, the term as currently described in the definition can, without any real stretch, be extended to literally any act of persecution against any member of the human race. I am not exaggerating. Because of the poor wording, there is nothing within the definition to guarantee that the behaviour must be Jewish-related. Now, yes, there are circumstances where a gentile might be a victim of anti-Semitic behaviour e.g. they are mistaken by an anti-Semite for a Jew, they are close friends of a Jew and they become ‘implicated-by-association’ in the eyes of the anti-Semite etc, but there is nothing in either the definition itself or even in the examples that really narrows it down in this way, and in any event, it would be fair to define it as behaviour related to anti-Semitism, more than anti-Semitism directly.

So ridiculous is the definition as it currently stands that, under its terms, it would be just about feasible to argue that, say, Oliver Cromwell’s conquest of Ireland, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Soviet Union’s Siege of Berlin were all ‘acts of anti-Semitism’. That last one in particular, for reasons too obvious to need pointing out, would be a mind-twisting reversal of reality.

This flaw in the definition is no minor, quibbling loophole, it is a gaping, fundamental rip in its logic.

My own definition of anti-Semitism, by the way, is simpler, and more precise.

Anti-Semitism is a hatred or fear of Jews, held for no reason other than that they are Jews.

I think that covers it rather well, and is really all that anyone needs. It needs to be remembered that anti-Semitism is not so much an action as an attitude – a motivation for a behaviour more than a behaviour itself. That is why the examples should not be seen as concrete guarantees of anti-Semitism. All of the examples offered can be anti-Semitic in intent, but at least some of the behaviours described therein are often done for honest, non-malicious reasons. I have taken part in some of them myself, as regular readers will be well aware, and as I am a Jew by birth, that should be a most telling note of caution.

Why getting the definition right is so critical

The importance of getting this definition right is enormous in the present climate of near-crazed hysteria, and not only for the sake of the Palestinians, who continue to be ground under the heel of Zionist Israeli expansion, and whose voices are seldom heard in the West and therefore need their global supporters to have the freedom to speak up on their behalf. It is also for the betterment of the Jewish people themselves.

As Robert Cohen pointed out in a social media post yesterday, some of the idiotic, hyperbolic and paranoid remarks coming from Anglo-Jewish leaders (usually unelected ones, please note) are not doing Zionist credibility any favours. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks made an utter hyena of himself this week by comparing Jeremy Corbyn’s very mild dig at Zionists from five years ago to Enoch Powell’s dog-whistling ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech in 1968.

By any standards, Sacks’ remarks are infantile and wildly over-the-top, much in keeping with Margaret Hodge’s recent gobbledegook. But also, they, if anything, tend towards what Corbyn was saying in the first place; that Zionists seem to have a very insecure humour-shortfall on matters connected to Israel, and cannot allow even the slightest of jokes at their own expense.

The latest row is the clearest attempt yet to conflate Jews with Zionists, but I am speaking of Sacks very much in his capacity as a Zionist rather than as a Jew, or even as a Rabbi, here. He has written quite explicitly, and quite preposterously, that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are the same thing. (As I have argued more than once, Zionism is anti-Semitic in its very application, but let us leave that on one side.) Sure, anti-Zionism can be motivated by anti-Semitism, as the IHRA definition’s examples suggest. But certainly not always. Some more sophisticated opponents of Zionism or Israeli policy – dare I include myself among them? – oppose it partly out of concern for the well-being of, not just Palestinians, but Jews themselves. It is precisely because of those who use Israeli brutality as a pretext for letting out anti-Semitic feeling that anti-Zionism (or at least opposition to Israel) is good for Jewish people as a kind of ‘moral anchor’; if enough pressure is applied to Israel that it stops its land-grabs from the Palestinians, and allows the Palestinian exiles sealed in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank to return to their real homes, that pretext for anti-Semitic behaviour will be taken away.

But more even than that, the conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism may have a very undesired effect on popular discourse that would harm Jewish communities. Quite simply, the definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ has been stretched so much over the last few years in particular that, should society ultimately be crowbarred into going along with it, we are in danger of accepting the idea that the term does not necessarily imply something especially bad anymore.

The intent behind this conflation on the part of the likes of Hodge and Sacks is quite blatantly to use cries of ‘anti-Semitism!‘ to make criticism of Israel and Zionism look bad. That is a possible end result, should we be weak-willed enough to give in to it. And it is clear that some people are taken in by it.

But just as likely an outcome would be for matters to be dragged the opposite way; real acts of Jew-hate could stop being seen as an inherently evil phenomenon instead, because the term ‘anti-Semitism’ will include all sorts of behaviours that really are not hateful and do no harm. At that point, people really may stop taking it seriously when real cases of anti-Jewish behaviour are found.

“Anti-Semitism” now sounds like an inconvenience only

If you doubt that that can happen, consider the exasperated noises some of Israel’s ‘useful idiots’ in the media, such as James O’Brien, keep making when Labour supporters insist that a giant volcanic mountain is being made out of a wart on the face of the runt of a litter of baby woodlice. The truth is, all indicators suggest that the Labour supporters are right. And that skepticism is now visibly growing across the country, which is healthy up to a point.

But beyond that point, the danger is that when real anti-Semitic behaviour is uncovered, an awful lot of people are going to roll their eyes and dismiss it, as much as Labour supporters dismiss anti-Semitism in the party right now. “Anti-Semitism now just means something Jews don’t like!” appears to be the unsettling refrain echoing towards us from over the horizon, and I already see signs of it developing on social media.

Because the term anti-Semitism has already been stretched far beyond its realistic limits, and because, however inadvertently, the IHRA have tried to set such ridiculous terms in stone – with the British contingent of the Alliance even doubling-down on them in the last few weeks – wider reactions appear to be getting skeptical. Some are even starting to assume that the word just means something Jews – or to put that far more accurately Zionists – would rather were kept quiet. Because in a manner of speaking, that is precisely what Zionists and Israel apologists have been trying to make it mean.

There is probably even less anti-Semitism in the Labour Party than I thought

Now, one might argue that I am wrong about anti-Semitism in the party, and that it really is widespread. However, for reasons I have given repeatedly over the last eighteen months, many of the accusations are trumped up, and what numbers we can find when investigating proportion suggest there are so few people involved that they total a small fraction of one per cent of the Labour membership. This is underlined by a conversation I had only yesterday with a party member who always has her ‘ear-to-the-ground’ (I have withheld her name for privacy reasons). She said; –

Most of those suspended in the purge are now back in the party, with no action against them, proving IMO it was a set up. It’s a myth that there have been hundreds expelled by NCC. They hear one case a month

(Emphasis added.)

Now, I have no way of verifying how accurate this is, but the individual in question has a good track record, and it certainly tallies with all the other indicators I have found since the present hysteria started up. If the numbers involved were really so gigantic as the media want us to believe, and if they were mostly genuine cases of anti-Semitism, why would the party’s National Constitutional Committee be processing cases at such a slow rate, and why would so few of the accused be expelled?

Going back to the definition and its examples, there is another matter to which I wish to draw attention.

Ugh, Jonathan Hoffman again?!

I and one of my allies at the Wear Red blog have been having yet another contretemps with our dear old chum and comrade-in-nausea-induction, Jonathan Hoffman. Yes, he of the vulpine demeanour and the Nazi entourage.  Yes, he of such self-unaware stupidity that he does not recognise what an own goal it is to put the word ‘RACIST‘ in big capital letters on his Twitter display pic directly above his own name; –

Hoffman and his Twitter display pic

Jonathan Hoffman genuinely doesn’t realise what this display pic appears to declare about himself.

(NB: I have no doubt that the Hufflepuff-man will soon realise what a stupid blunder the above is, change the display pic, and then insist that I ‘photoshopped’ this picture. He has a history of making such laughable denials when caught red-handed.)

Indeed, he of such awesomely bad taste in victim cards, he thinks that adding Je Suis Margaret Hodge to his profile name will make him sound like a formidable man of principle, and not like a brainless drama queen.

Yes, him again.

I shall not go into much detail about the exchanges we had with Hoffman on social media, as they were lengthy, with endless, very catty back-and-forth. But I wish to draw attention to his conduct when I challenged him to condemn Binyamin Netanyahu for his history of taking part in celebrations of the King David Hotel Bombing of 1946, and Israel for selling arms to Leopoldo Galtieri’s Military Junta in Argentina during the Falklands War.

As I pointed out a couple of weeks back, Bibi’s foolish public attack on Jeremy Corbyn over the wreath he placed in Tunisia in 2014 has put British Zionists in an unhappy position. And this latest showdown with Hoffman has proven my point. Despite repeatedly being challenged to condemn Israel, past and present, Hoffman repeatedly sidestepped the matter, sometimes quibbling over terminology, before eventually lapsing into guilty silence. (You can read the exchanges here, although be warned, it is a disjointed, rather fractious comment thread.)

Hoffman disproves the IHRA definition he depends on

Hoffman has spent almost every day over the last three years condemning Jeremy Corbyn for being “anti-Semitic”, just because Corbyn is a tireless critic of Israel, and a supporter of Palestinian rights. But Hoffman refuses to criticise any proven connection between Israel and British deaths that happened in the name of Zionism, be they in 1946 or 1982. Corbyn commemorates Palestinians murdered by Israeli planes – Hoffman offers castigation. Bibi commemorates Zionist militants blowing up a hotel and ending British lives and Israel sells arms to a nation with which Britain was at war – Hoffman offers pedantic quibbles and stony silence.

We can only conclude from that therefore that Hoffman is more loyal to Israel than he is to Britain. But he is British – a former vice-President of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain & Ireland.

Now, by one of the examples given in the IHRA definition, the above highlighted paragraph is anti-Semitic.

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

But how can that paragraph be anti-Semitic? Judging Hoffman’s priorities as being Israeli is simply the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts. He will not condemn Israel or Zionists for undoubted misdeeds against the British, but will condemn a Briton for a (dubiously-perceived) misdeed against Israel. An objective assessment of the facts cannot be anti-Semitic, because anti-Semitism is a prejudice. By definition, an objective assessment is the antithesis of prejudice.

So, to say it again, the examples appended to the IHRA definition are only guidelines, and should not be seen as absolute. When these examples manifest in the real world, they indicate places to be on the look-out for anti-Semitism, but should not be seen as concrete evidence of anti-Semitism. Once investigations have been carried out, there is every chance of discovering that there is nothing untoward going on.

Now, one of the most deranged, bullying Zionist fanatics in the country has kindly helped me to demonstrate why.

I must remember to thank him some time.

by Martin Odoni

I mentioned a couple of months back that I was expecting some kind of suspension to my membership of the Labour Party. Well, it took them a long time, but there is predictable news, and unexpected news on that front. The predictable bit (a friend and fellow Labour ‘suspendee’ even said, “Unsurprisingly” when I informed him of my suspension) is that I have indeed received my suspension notice. Not a promising reflection on the party’s competence that they got my address wrong some seven months after I informed them that I had moved to a new home, but I shall not dwell on that.

Wrong address

The Labour Party suspends me while getting my home address wrong.

The unexpected detail is what I have been accused over. I was expecting the suspension to be connected to past entanglements with the malevolently vulpine Zionist, Jonathan Hoffman, who claims to have lodged a complaint against me. In fact, the accusation does not appear to have anything to do with arguments with him. Instead, it was over the cover picture I put together for an article I wrote back in February. Here it is; –

star of david swastika

I am told that the image may “meet the definition of antisemitism [their spelling, right or wrong, not mine] adopted by the Labour Party, and thus be in breach of the Labour Party’s rule 2.I.8.”

It is entirely possible that I am guilty, given the well-recorded problems with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of anti-Semitism, which the Labour Party has largely adopted. The dangerous flaw in the definition – that comparing the policy of The State of Israel to that of Nazi Germany is inherently anti-Semitic –  would probably apply here.

I am quite pleased that I have been suspended over this though, because it may force Labour to have a close look at the absurdity of this clause in the definition. What is likely to force the matter is the obvious, big drawback in the allegation against me; it is directed at someone who is ethnically Jewish. As I have said more than once in the past, it is quite possible to be prejudiced against one’s own race, but it is very counter-intuitive and rare, so when the suggestion is made, it needs a very strong supporting case. In other words, if anyone wishes to accuse me of being a Jewish anti-Semite, they had better come up with some ultra-solid reasons why.

My history of criticism of Israel is not an ultra-solid reason, or even a half-solid reason. Anti-Semitic feeling will never be the only possible motivation for condemning Israel’s treatment of Palestinian Arabs. Nor is it the only possible reason why people might see resemblance between the deeds of modern Israel and the deeds of Nazi Germany.

Even if one could argue that there is no such resemblance at present – a very shaky assertion but let us humour it for now – there is no reason for certainty that there never will be one in the future. But the IHRA working definition insists that we must assume that, and that if we do not, we are anti-Semites. And worse, this further means that, even if Israel actually went as far as to set up extermination camps complete with gas chambers and incinerators, and started ‘processing’ Palestinians through them in their thousands (no, I am not suggesting that Israel really is doing that, or that it is likely to in the future, this is purely hypothetical), the IHRA definition would still class it as anti-Semitic to suggest a resemblance to Nazi policy. Even though, in such a scenario, Israel’s policy would not only resemble but exactly match that of the Nazis.

Policy criticisms of Israel are not necessarily even anti-Zionist, let alone anti-Semitic, as it is quite possible to support Israel’s existence as a Jewish state without supporting its policies. (I support neither, just in case anyone was somehow in any doubt.)

That clause in the definition is clearly horribly, dangerously flawed, that is the clause I appear to be falling foul of, and it is a part of the definition I reject. Being an ethnic Jew, I believe I have an intimate right to dispute it.

by Martin Odoni

The founding idea behind Zionism is that Jews cannot safely co-exist with ‘gentiles’, and therefore require a homeland of their own. This concept led, for better or worse, to the existence of modern Israel, and is intermittently invoked by the Israeli Government, especially when Jews in other countries are the victims of atrocities or hate-crimes.

As I have commented before, I do not accept that Zionism was a ‘necessary’ ideology, and there is an absurdity in that many Jews living outside Israel are Zionists. But nonetheless, Israel sometimes encourages more and more Jews to move there. This may sound perfectly natural, but the real reasons for doing this may not be the ones you might imagine. They are less to do with the survival of the Jewish people, and more to do with the survival of Israel itself.

When Israel was formed in the 1940s, it was a bit of a patchwork of land that had previously been part of the British Mandate For Palestine. The division of land drawn up by the United Nations was rather bizarre and not very efficient, from the perspectives of both Jewish and Arab populations; –

1947 partition israel palestine

The lay-out of Israel in particular was quite puzzling, and strategically quite weak. The new country was a long, thin, curling ‘zig-zag’ of land, which had very long, complicated borders with few natural defences. There was no ‘territorial depth’ i.e. in many places, the border was close to the sea, meaning a defending army had nowhere to retreat to, and settlements were within easy reach of any invading force. There was also not a great deal of habitable space. Bits of Israel were cut off from other bits by narrow stretches of Palestinian territory, and vice versa.

Neighbouring Arab countries were furious that Israel had been founded on lands that they felt belonged to their own people, and had been ‘stolen’ from them. The arrangement was seen as a ‘sell-out’ to Zionist terrorists, who had caused a lot of chaos in the former Mandated territory over the previous few years. Therefore, just one day after Israel formally came into being, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt all invaded the fledgling country.

Under the circumstances, it is perhaps surprising how easily Israeli troops fought off their neighbours. But in the process, they also occupied much of the rest of the land of the former British Mandate. This land was useful for creating ‘buffer-zones’ against further invasions, but also gave Israel extra space into which more Jewish settlers could be accommodated – land that was taken from the Palestinians. Arab communities chased off this land refer to this displacement as ‘the Nakba‘ or ‘the catastrophe’.

Given the enormous strategic difficulties of a return to land-divisions even remotely resembling the lay-out of the UN partition, Israel is understandably very unhappy about the idea of a ‘two-state solution’ to the Palestinian crisis. It is unlikely under those terms that either Israel or Palestine would be anywhere near safe from invasion by neighbours.

Since that First Arab-Israeli War, the desire for more land has become a repeated feature of Israel’s existence. Part of the reason is that one of the sworn ideals of the state is that it will give a home to anybody of Jewish maternal descent, and some Jews abroad have chosen to make use of that of their own volition. As the Israeli population has grown accordingly, inevitably the Israeli Government has needed more land to accommodate them.

But there is another issue at play that Israel does not like to discuss, but which complicates its pursuit of land – relative population sizes. In a world in which (supposed) democratic practice is seen as a mark of humane Government, Israel wants to be viewed as a nation ruled by the majority. But it is also, in a manner of speaking, an ethnocracy i.e. a nation ruled by and for one ethnic group at the expense of any others. Israel is a land where the Jewish population has to be the priority – ‘primus inter pares‘ (“first-among-equals”) almost – in order to serve the country’s founding purpose of preserving the Jewish people. Israel cannot logically be a ‘Jewish state’ without treating the needs of its Jewish population as its most important duty. Unfortunately, such an approach runs contrary to the democratic principle of ‘one-man-one-vote’, and would probably be undermined by a Government elected on most other terms.

But the combined Arab population inside Israel and in territories under dispute is almost exactly as large as the Jewish population. Projections suggest that it will also grow faster than the Jewish population in the years ahead.

Hence Israel’s dilemma, and its reluctance to pursue a one-state solution any more than a two-state solution; the only way it can square the circle of managing to be both a democracy and an ethnocracy is to pursue (obviously undemocractic and unjust) policies aimed at keeping the Jewish population within its borders larger than the Arab population, so that should a one-state democracy come about, Israeli Jews will still be able to out-vote Israeli Arabs. Anything else, and the Jewish state will almost certainly be voted out of existence, when its continuation is so obviously against the interests of most Arabs. While a significant minority of Palestinians are actually quite happy to accept the Israeli way of life as their own, a great many others, especially those sealed in Gaza, and cut off from their real homes for generations, feel very differently.

This is the real reason why Israel makes little more than a token effort to discipline the soldiers of the Israeli Defence Force when they massacre Palestinians. Horrible as it sounds, every time a Palestinian dies, that is one fewer Arab voter to worry about whenever a completely free election is held. Massacres may not be good politics for Israel, but they are quietly in the interests of the Zionist ideal. Zionism, indeed any ethnocratic ideal, is simply incompatible with democracy, and sooner or later, the choice will always have to be made between them. While Israel appears to be putting off that choice for the time being, it is leaning in the ethnocratic direction.

This also, however, adds to Israel’s motives to play up the classic Zionist paranoia-chorus about how Jews cannot live safely among gentiles, and how any period without anti-Semitic persecution in other lands is just the pause-for-breath before ‘the next Pogrom‘. This is not only about justifying Israel’s original creation. No, the intermittent appeals for more Jews to come and settle in Israel are even more about increasing the Jewish population there, so that it can keep its numbers ahead of those of the Arab population.

But in order to make that increase feasible, more land will continue to be needed to make space for the new arrivals. And that land will, of course, continue to be taken from Arabs, be it more territory confiscated from Palestinians, or more land taken from neighbouring countries. When land is taken from neighbouring countries, there is the danger that more Arabs may be brought into the fold with them, rather defeating the object of the exercise, and upping the territorial need still further.

Israel, in short, has rather trapped itself in an upward spiral of increasing the land to accommodate a population that it has deliberately increased. It does it only so that it does not have to become truly democratic, and can remain, at least in large part, ethnocratic. Every time it succeeds, its success is only temporary, kicking the proverbial can further down the road, as the Palestinian population continues to grow, even in spite of all the forces pushing against it. And with each passing effort to apply downward pressure on that Arab population, Israel creates more opposition internationally, opposition that cannot be shouted down for much longer with the usual cynical cries of “anti-Semitism!!!

Zionism, an ethnocratic ideal, may be Israel’s founding principle, but eventually, the country will be forced to ask itself, “Is being an ethnocracy really worth all this trouble?”

by Martin Odoni

The notorious outgoing President of the British Board of Jewish Deputies this week made perhaps the most ridiculous public statement of his entire, lamentable career. The eternally right-wing Jonathan Arkush, speaking to the eternally right-wing Daily Telegraph, claimed,

“Delegitimising the state of Israel is antisemitic. [Jeremy Corbyn] was a chairman of Stop the War, which is responsible for some of the worst anti-Israel discourse. If he shares the prevalent discourse about Israel, then that view is unquestionably antisemitic… [The BDI] will not accept a discourse which denies the existence of their own land to the Jewish people. I think we are all entitled to some clarity on his real views about Israel.”

This remark is either a cynical smear, or a call from the heights of deranged paranoia. Arkush and his allies in the Zionist (important; not Jewish) community keep levelling charges like this at the Labour leader, among many others on the left of the party. But each time, they put precious little meat on the bones of their accusations. There is never a coherent explanation from Arkush as to what Corbyn has really said that is so objectionable, examples are few-and-far-between, and what quotations are offered are usually taken out-of-context.

Arkush also said that Corbyn’s Labour has British Jews wondering: “Do we have a future here?” Not for the first time, and probably not the last, I find myself wanting to ask the Board, “When were you going to ask me before speaking for me?” Because I am one Jew who has never wondered whether I have a future here at all, and no one has ever asked me if I have.

Arkush also stated quite concretely that Corbyn holds ‘anti-Semitic views’, but again offers no specific examples to that effect, just more generalised grumbles about Corbyn’s history of criticisng Israeli policies.

More particularly, Arkush’s leading attempt to imply that Corbyn has a history of ‘delegitimising the state of Israel’ is an outrageous lie. Corbyn’s associations with the Stop The War coalition reveal not a shred of evidence of that; Stop The War are frequent critics of Israel, beyond doubt, but they have never argued particularly for its destruction. (And no, before anyone comments with the familiar urban myth, Stop The War did not publish an article four years ago literally demanding a war with Israel. The often-cited article by Professor Richard Falk was arguing for non-military action against Israel.) Stop The War question the decision to create Israel, and the process by which it happened – especially the much-under-discussed role of Zionist militancy in the mid-1940s – but that is quite different from wanting the country to be destroyed. The coalition, like most critics of Israel, want to see the country reformed with full rights for all Palestinians on an equal footing with all Jews, be it by a one-state or two-state solution. Condemnation of policy is quite different from condemnation of existence.

So on examination, Arkush’s protestations are not against the way anyone in the Labour Party or Stop The War treats Jews at all. He objects instead to the way that the left will not endorse Israel’s treatment of Arabs. The refusal to approve the repeated slaughters of Arabs is anti-Semitic, according to Arkush.

The only conclusion we can draw from Arkush’s rant – probably his last before rightly stepping down as the Board’s President – is that he sees Israel/Palestine in the most childish of binary terms. He thinks that people can be anti-Semitic, or they can be anti-Arab. (They can also, perhaps, be both.) But as far as Arkush is concerned, it is not possible to be neither. So if you are not anti-Arab, you have to be an anti-Semite. That is how dimensionless Arkush’s reasoning skills are.

I have written numerous times before about the subconscious anti-Semitic mindset required to weaponise anti-Semitism allegations, reducing Jews from human beings to mere tools of disputational convenience – even when the weaponiser is Jewish. So if the Board as a whole endorses Arkush’s remarks, then the Board of Jewish Deputies is now an anti-Semitic organisation.


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: text/html

WARC-Type: response

text:
Wiskful Thinking

Homemade cherry tarts for breakfast, including one topped with Cool Whip.

I’m not a baker, nor a breakfast eater.

I know it’s not ideal, but I like my biggest meal at the end of the day. I like dinner food. If I have a huge lunch, I’m a little disappointed for the rest of the day because I can’t look forward to dinner.

Perhaps this is a function of growing up in a large Italian family, where our world revolved around food, and Sunday dinner wasn’t complete with macaroni with homemade tomato sauce, a huge tossed salad and a main dish like roast beef or chicken cutlets. Breakfast and lunch were generally caught on the fly, but dinner? That’s when we sat down and broke bread, discussing current events and skirting topics like report cards.

I’ve never been wild about breakfast food because, well, how exciting are eggs or toast? I can’t eat cereal or pancakes because they screw up my blood sugar, sending me scouring for something to eat 90 minutes later. I’m a little limited: a power bar or two scrambled eggs is about as good as it gets.

But as I learned during my stay at a Vermont bed and breakfast, there’s something soothing and comforting about waking up to a homemade breakfast. The aroma of freshly baked raspberry scones, or the intoxicating scent of bacon sizzling on a grill, are calming and grounding, inviting one to embrace the day instead of grabbing it by the throat.

What I enjoyed most was the sound of our innkeeper Sandra going about her business in the kitchen. Separated from the dining room by a frosted glass partition, we could hear Sandra whisking freshly sourced eggs in her mixing bowl, an incredibly gratifying sound when you’re not the one whisking.

I’ve always enjoyed the sounds of people working – the click of a keyboard, the buttons of an adding machine, the beep of a cash register, the chopping of a chef’s knife, the cutting of a bolt of cloth at JoAnn’s Fabrics. I could stand there all day and listen to fabric being measured and cut, but that’s probably another blog.

I have what might be called sensitive ears. Though they are at times a curse (corn on the cob!), they’re often a blessing: rain on the roof; a robin chirping in a tree; a dog’s deep sigh, or one of my favorites, the sound (and sight) of a present being professionally wrapped at a department store with the paper and ribbon cutting and curling, and everything about the tape.

Don’t ask me to explain something so irrational. But I suspect it’s the sound of someone doing something that I deplore, or maybe a bit like someone running their fingers through your hair. It’s just so much better when someone else does it.

What I found listening to Sandra’s whisking – and her very low classical music – is that waking up to a freshly made anything is lovely, so much better than the grab-and-go that is my household.

I decided to do an experiment, taking out some filo dough and frozen cherries to whip up some cherry tarts. I wondered what effect, if any, a homemade breakfast would have on my family. Would they notice, stop and take a tart, or just walk by? I had to find out.

I followed a simple recipe from the blog The Worktop (https://www.theworktop.com/breakfast-brunch-recipes/cherry-filo-pastry-tart/) and constructed my tarts in a muffin pan. I chose cherry because it’s one of my favorites, throwing in some frozen blueberries to give the mixture a little more texture. Within a half hour, they were cooling on the counter awaiting a powdering with confectioner’s sugar.

I’m happy to report that everyone was a little more chipper after the seeing and eating their tarts. I may be on to one of the secrets of family harmony: a hot breakfast. And while I’m certainly not going to win any nutrition awards for my tarts, I think a homemade breakfast sets the right tone, telling people to sit down and stay awhile rather than rushing out the door.

My usually surly daughter strolled downstairs, said “Hi,” and then exclaimed, “Oh, I see you made your pastries. How much longer do they need to bake?” So she actually does speak in the morning, and can be pleasant.

After she ate one, she thanked me, and said she would be down later for seconds. Score!

My son stumbled into the kitchen en route to the bathroom, and did a double-take at the counter, leaning in to sniff the pastries like a curious dog.

“Can we eat the pastries?” he asked after he was showered and dressed.

When I told him he could, he took one, topped it with some Cool Whip and sat down at the kitchen table to eat it. A minute later, he got up and repeated the process. This was something of a miracle for a kid who slugs down a smoothie or a couple of power bars en route to work.

“Those were good,” he said. “I bet Mrs. Carlson would make those all the time.”

Ah Mrs. Carlson. Years ago, she confided that her three children bought school lunches, but she made them a homemade hot breakfast before school every day. I was very impressed and inspired for a week before returning to cereal, yogurt and frozen breakfast burritos. As moms, we must pick our battles, and know our limitations. I opted to make homemade lunches on request, sparing my kids the agony of ground beef in gravy over mashed potatoes, or worse, corned beef hash.

The Curmudgeon ate one, and then a second. On his way out the door, he paused and apologized for being so cranky lately. He said he’s really bombarded with work. He’s not the type to apologize so I’m going to credit the cherry tarts. They’re the only thing that was different, the only change in our morning routine.

I tried to explain my findings to my friend and former editor John over lunch overlooking New Haven Harbor, but I think I lost him when I began talking about pleasurable sounds, particularly whisking. As he looked blankly at me, I thought I heard a waiter whisking salad dressing at a nearby table.

“Shhhhh,” I said. “Somebody’s whisking.” By the time I got his attention, the whisking had ceased. And on second thought, it was probably cutlery clanking. But it wouldn’t have mattered anyway. All he wanted to talk about were sounds that annoy him, like Interstate 95 traffic, and his new sound machine.

Good sounds – shall we call them joyful noise? – transfix me, sending a chill down my spine and making me want it to last forever. Of course, it never does. How long does it take to whisk eggs for an omelet? But you get my point.

What I’m realizing is that if there are sounds that annoy us, there are also sounds that give us enormous pleasure, and we should tune into them as much as possible: a flag flapping in the breeze; gravel crunching under your soles; crickets (as long as they’re outside); crinkling leaves; a croaking frog; tinkling piano keys; waves lapping the shore; Judy Collins; Silence.

I’m also realizing the power of a hot breakfast and its transformative effect on my family. A hot breakfast starts the day off right, giving people the best possible start. I’m thinking of it as my tiny contribution to society. It’s not much, but it’s something.

7 thoughts on “Wiskful Thinking

    • Really? I love it. Maybe it’s from all those years working in newsrooms. The sound of a clicking keyboard was very stimulating. It meant people were working, productive and had something to say. Of course, it must be smooth. Hunt and peck typing drives me nuts.

  1. I know you’ll be shocked to hear that I love a hot breakfast, and usually cook a hot breakfast every day. I was more creative when my daughter was younger, but it still works…

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

warcinfo:
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2018-39
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2018
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-37-160-190.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 0.11-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/


text:
Brilliant resource – The Eat Happy Project!

The other day when I was doing my shopping in Tesco, I came across a group of primary children being encouraged to taste herbs. They were then moved along to bananas and later I could hear the assistant talking about potatoes!

I was intrigued and noticed ‘Farm to Fork Trail’ on the back of one of the high-vis tops the children were wearing so when I got home I did a bit of research. It turns out that Tesco have been quietly (well I’ve not heard about it!) running The Eat Happy Project. It’s aims are to make sure the next generation has a ‘healthier, happier relationship’ with food based experiencing where it comes from, how to cook it and how to make good decisions about eating.

Now that the school summer holidays are here they are running:

  • Cooking classes for 5-13 (split into 3 groups) see HERE for availability
  • Parent and Child Farm to Fork Trails – just ask in your local store

Once schools go back (I know you don’t want to think about it!) they can sign up for:

  • Farm to Fork Trails – in local stores
  • Farm to Fork Trails that visit local farms. Help can be provided towards transport costs
  • Online Field Trips – broadcast live from farms and factories across the globe, children can see behind the scenes to discover where the food on their food comes from, and chat to real growers and producers using Google+ Hangouts

I am told that there are lots of ideas and events in the pipeline for this project so do get involved. This is not a sponsored post. I just think it is a fabulous idea that needs lots of exposure to get as many families and children involved as possible!

Please share with a click
Follow by Email

One comment

  • Thanks very much for posting about this, Julia. Some of the work that this project does will fit in perfectly with some of my project work my Y2s will be doing in the Spring term. Looking forward to chatting to my year partner about it tomorrow!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


text:
Murano Systems

Bespoke investor vis-à-vis manager matchmaking

The Venetian island of Murano is home to furnaces that have, for more than a millennium, forged hand-crafted glassware that graces many of the world’s most esteemed tables. The glass theme continues with information provider Murano’s latest innovation, Chromic. This term describes a process for turning translucent glass opaque, which hints at the business model. Tinted windows allow the driver of a car to see outside but prevent onlookers from seeing inside; similarly, the managers riding in Murano’s limousine can view investors who express potential interest in funds with appropriate characteristics – but investors will not have sight of funds unless managers choose to contact them.

Murano has always operated with this type of model, and never discloses the names of the many managers it works with to its 30,000-strong network of investors. Murano has always asserted the merits of allowing managers to keep complete control of information and communication flows. Now the advent of AIFMD may also create a regulatory incentive for this modus operandi. Murano is in the midst of releasing the “Chromic Reverse Solicitation Process” (Chromic RSP) which is intended to come under the aegis of individual countries’ reverse solicitation regimes.

The idea behind Chromic is very simple and can work in two ways: in the first instance, an investor may ask a service provider (that are non-agents) if they know of any funds that fit a certain criteria. The service provider will then send an email to the investor with a link to click if they desire to be ‘solicited.’ If the link is clicked by that investor, an email is then drafted on the investor’s behalf and sent to the fund manager. It is up to the fund manager to then respond to the enquiry.

The second instance is where an investor would like to know all or certain categories of funds that match the criteria. The service provider can then instruct the investor to use Chromic to send enquiries to a multitude of funds.

The key to Chromic is the definition of ‘reverse solicitation.’ Murano has defined reverse solicitation as a physical act on behalf of the investor to enquire about a product. This can be via email, fax, phone, requesting more info via a database, etc. Chromic is very similar to requesting info via a database. The key differentiator is that the request becomes well documented and adds a level of compliance for both parties, while also facilitating relationships.

If Chromic, Murano’s US-patent-pending email process, is deemed to qualify as “reverse solicitation,” then it could be a crucial advantage for managers who wish to continue accessing the world’s second largest asset management market – the European Union – potentially without having to comply withAIFMD, or navigate individual countries’ National Private Placement Regimes (NPPRs), which are often getting “gold-plated” according to studies including the AIMA/EY survey of AIFMD readiness.

Bespoke matchmaking
Murano founder Ole Rollag is the first to point out that there is a lot of uncertainty regarding NPPRs and hopes that this potential solution will become an accepted and credible method. Even where countries have transposed AIFMD into local laws, the rules on reverse solicitation may not be clearly – if at all – defined. And several countries have not yet transposed AIFMD. However, Murano is in the process of asking an opinion from a large, well known law firm for each member state. Once this is done, then Murano will be able to gain comfort in using this solution more widely.

Every Murano client is treated differently and each client can opt for a contactable universe of investors. Or, the client can request Murano to refrain from contacting particular types of investors. Managers’ exclusion lists can include specific named investors, generic categories of investors, or even entire countries.

The bespoke nature of Murano’s service attracts both the fund managers and the end investors. With an estimated 13,000 hedge funds, 16,000 private equity funds and 75,000 long-only funds worldwide, Murano finds that allocators and managers alike benefit from its thorough approach to filtering. “Investors are inundated with around 300 emails and 10-20 phone calls from funds that don’t necessarily know what the investor’s criteria is. We are trying to reduce that volume and allow funds and investors alike to have worthwhile, meaningful conversations,” says Rollag. He views Murano as moving the marketing business model from something analogous to “door-to-door sales” to a tailored dating service akin to the dating site. Murano analysts are constantly calling investors to ask how, where and why they invest, mapping their requirements across myriad axes.

“We like to work out all of the deal-breakers ahead of time,” says Rollag, whose staff will enumerate each investor’s red flags – and also manager preferences for investor types. Murano lets investors request contact from only a small set of managers that most closely match their requirements; meanwhile managers get investor reports as and when they are relevant. Murano takes pride in providing “high-touch” service with abundant personal attention devoted to each client – and each investor.

Rollag argues that Murano’s nuanced filtering approach marks an advance on applying quant screens to databases. Murano believes that “each and every investor is different,” and aims to discern various qualitative preferences that cannot be codified into a quant screen. A general concern about databases is the degree of under-lap amongst them. Yet even those investors who do have 10 different databases at their disposal are often frustrated to find that many funds do not report to any of them. So Murano has always sought to give investors access to funds outside the databases’ radar screens, and now Murano also aims to give European investors one route into funds outside the scope of AIFMD, UCITS and NPPRs.

Not third-party marketing
Murano is exempt from regulation because it is not naming or representing any manager, nor raising assets for them. Murano recognises that some excellent third-party marketers (3PMs) do exist, but one of Rollag’s regular blog postings identifies challenges to the 3PM business model. Today’s typical due diligence time frame of six or nine months is too long for many 3PMs to cover their costs whilst awaiting commissions. Hence many of them seek retainers, but they can then become incentivised to simply maximise the numberof fund clients rather than raising assets.

Similarly, some 3PMs may be “throwing mud at the wall” and spreading their efforts too thinly across too many mandates, Rollag thinks. In contrast, Murano thinks that their capacity is limited to 125 clients. Additionally Murano does not want to cannibalise its own client base by enabling investors to contact two competing funds.

Another worry is the reputational risk entailed in being represented by 3PMs that have any skeletons in their cupboards. The over-riding obstacle for some investors is simply that, in the wake of the New York State Common Fund and CalPERs “pay to play” scandals over introductions, some investors are effectively prohibited from dealing with 3PMs. The over-riding issue for managers can be that variable remuneration is far lower for in-house marketers. People on the payroll do not need to get paid anywhere near the 20% of fees in perpetuity that 3PMs traditionally demand. Murano does not charge fees based on assets raised, but reckons most funds only need to raise $2 million or $3 million per year to cover Murano’s fees. Rollag thinks that Murano’s service can be cost-effective and claims that between 40% and 60% of leads supplied by Murano result in meetings between investors and managers, with between one in 10 and one in 15 of these meetings in turn begetting due diligence if the service is used effectively. Testimonials emphasising both Murano’s empathetic ears, and the quality of leads supplied, appear on Murano’s website.

Murano’s investor database encompasses family offices, pension funds, banks and prime brokers, consultants, investment managers, funds of hedge funds, and others that can invest at least $1 million into a fund. Murano endeavours, on a best-efforts basis, to ensure that investor leads are all accredited investors. Ultimately, though, the KYC (Know Your Customer) and compliance responsibility remains with managers.

Patent and licensing potential
Being close to obtaining one US patent, for a port between its own customer relationship management (CRM) with an independent CRM, Murano is seeking a second US patent for the Chromic process. This would pave the way for licensing Chromic to any other service providers who have regular contact with end investors, including custodians, administrators and others.

Murano founder and CEO Ole Rollag cut his teeth trading fixed income options before becoming a fund manager for SocGen, and then eventually managing director of Nordea’s alternative investments platform. By 2008 Rollag wanted to do his own thing. His failure to get traction for an event-driven long volatility fund – which would have been a great strategy during the crisis – has given him first-hand experience of just how difficult it is for smaller and early-stage funds to raise assets. Rollag subsequently set up a boutique, Perfecta Partners, to help asset managers and family offices with evaluating and building businesss. Perfecta spun out Murano in 2011 and since then Rollag has not looked back. Now Murano is seeking to on-board new fund clients, servicing predominately hedge funds, but also other types of fund such as private equity and long-only funds.


WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: application/xhtml+xml

text:
Screen Shot 2016-01-04 at 7.32.23 AM

While driving around LA the other day, I saw this Facebook post from Lana. I literally had just driven past the Getty. After commenting on having just passed her on the 405, Rob and I invited ourselves were asked to have dinner with the Utzingers on Sunday. What a treat! We love Rob and Lana and their family. Lana made a yummy dinner centered on my Rob’s request for Kauai Krunch Cake. Rob has a habit of making dessert requests of our hosts. It’s a good thing they like him…We also got to tour their cute home in the desert. It really is nice. Lana has created a library out of one of the rooms. It is the perfect room.

While we were visiting, Lana mentioned that Jenna and Clayton had incorporated regular family councils into their lives as a result of the family life education I had conducted with her. Jenna kindly agreed to be a participant in my student teaching requirements for my degree. I was so happy to hear that they had found family/couple councils to be helpful! I have had 2 or 3 classes that have taught the benefits of conducting family councils based on the council method employed by the Council of the Twelve Apostles. One of my classes suggested it as a means of conflict management. Another suggested it as a method to help families deal with stress. This is a Prezi presentation created by a BYU-I instructor that explains the use of councils to reach consensus as opposed to compromise. It includes a YouTube of Henry B. Eyring’s and Cleon Skousen’s first experiences with council deliberations. It is incredibly eye-opening. The guiding principles of council deliberations are love and selflessness. The Twelve open their meetings not with prayer first, but with expressions of love for one another. (Consider the instructions we are given before beginning a prayer circle in the temple.) During council discussions, all members speak frankly regarding the business at hand. One apostle described his first meeting with the Twelve this way:

…an apostle once shar[ed] with the faculty at BYU Idaho that when he attended his first meeting with the Twelve he was surprised at the forcefulness of the discussion. After he sat quietly for some time, another apostle passed him a note that read,

“Welcome to the Quorum of the Twelve. Here we play hardball.”

No one takes offense because all members are seeking to know the Lord’s will in the matter, and are not trying to persuade members to adopt their own position. That is key. When our council discussions become about asserting our will instead of ascertaining the Lord’s will, we have lost the influence of the Spirit and our deliberations become contentious rather than collaborative. David Pulsipher gave a really good talk about the difference between disagreement and contention that elaborates on learning to see disagreement as positive, provided it does not become contentious.

I wish I had learned of these methods when Rob and I were young and Rob and first married. I have heard of family councils for a long time now, but how to make them useful and meaningful was lost to me until this last semester. This is the agenda that the Twelve follow:

Before opening the meeting, express love, appreciation, and admiration for one another. Be genuine, but also be generous.

  1. Open with prayer, inviting the Spirit to assist in the decision process.
  2. Discuss the topic, making sure that each person has obvious opportunities to share her/his perspectives without interruption or dispute.
    • This will likely be unusual the first time, so it may need to be discussed in advance. It might be useful to explain what Elder Eyring and Cleon Skousen related (refer to the YouTube video embedded in the Presentation: Counseling with Our Councils). You may also show them the statements from Elder Ballard’s book, Counseling with Our Councils, beginning on page 47.
    • Don’t be surprised if participants get off track. Model the best behavior possible, and try to keep the meeting on task, not letting it deviate into complaining.
    • Seek to reach a consensus regarding how to respond to the need, challenge, or opportunity—even if the consensus is only to try a particular solution for two weeks and then revisit the issue again.
  1. Close with prayer, asking for Heavenly Father’s assistance in fulfilling what you have felt impressed to do (2 Nephi 32:8).
  2. End with some form of snack or refreshment.

And these are some “rules” to consider:

  • A meeting agenda distributed in advance of the meeting
  • Regular time and place to meet (the Twelve meet in the temple each Thursday morning)
  • A member invited to initiate discussion of the item by defining the problem and current status of decisions, etc.
  • Opening for orderly discussion (one at a time, “additive” rather than corrective comments from each member in turn, etc.)
  • On-going, focused discussion until consensus is reached, under the clear influence of the Spirit (as opposed to compromise)
  • Moving forward with unity in accordance with the decision reached
  • Follow-up discussions of results and progress toward determined outcome
  • Do not make the council a time for airing grievances – this is a spirit killer

I thought that ending with a refreshment was really interesting. They say the Twelve often end their meetings with pie or cookies. Picturing the Twelve eating in the temple is a little humorous. I know that Mormons are big on refreshments, but it seemed a little out-of-place for what is otherwise a business meeting. Then I had an experience. I am a Cubmaster and every month we have a pack committee meeting. A recent committee meeting focused on some boys in a den with severe behavior problems. It was a long and difficult discussion. One of our committee members, without being asked, made some monkey bread and brought it for us to share after our meeting. It was the perfect thing. After having such a hard and exhausting discussion, we were able to decompress and visit with one another while eating something yummy and comforting. It gave me an added appreciation for all the benefits of breaking bread with others.

Eating Chinese food at the Far East Cafe was our family tradition. If there was a birthday to celebrate, a visitor to welcome, a moment to commemorate,  it was done at the Far East. Our version of a family reunion was meeting at the Far East and communing over plates, served family style, of pork chow mein, pork hash, char siu, tofu, bok choy, sweet and sour pork, and egg rolls. If we were lucky and the adults were feeling flush, we got fried shrimp. It was served with little condiment dishes of cocktail sauce that we mixed with hot Chinese mustard.

The Far East Cafe was on 1st St. in downtown Los Angeles. It was actually located in Little Tokyo. The neighborhood, like most of the city proper back then, was old, run down, and a little grimy. The restaurant opened in 1935. My mom, the oldest of her siblings, was born in 1933, so she and her brothers literally grew up eating the food here. My grandparents, both Hawaiian Island natives who grew up eating Chinese and Japanese food, naturally gravitated to this little home away from home.

Inside, the dining tables were divided by wood partitions, so families could take over the space without feeling like they were disturbing other diners. If you followed the walkways to the back of the building, you entered the kitchen. Today, I’m sure, the kitchen would violate every health code on the books. It was not separated behind walls and doors or even counters from the rest of the restaurant, and you had to walk through it to reach the bathroom – a single toilet affair with one of those old, cloth hand-towel machines that rotated the same used, wet towel over and over.

Can you imagine the germs?

Upon being seated, the  waiters brought  big pots of hot tea. It was served unsweetened in little cups. The adults ordered the same food every time. You don’t mess with tradition or perfection. The meat was always pork. The cooking oil was peanut. The noodles were pan-fried and you hoped for the crunchy, browned parts on your plate. Big bowls of sticky white rice anchored the food on the table. We never order fried rice. That wasn’t “real” Chinese. No one made sweet and sour pork like Far East Cafe. When I was older and experienced “other people’s” Chinese food, I was shocked by the overly sweet, pink food-colored impostors. I felt sorry for these people that only knew neon-hued sweet and sour.

The food at Far East was Cantonese, which has fallen out of favor these days. The style today is Szechuan which packs a lot of heat. The kick in Cantonese food came from the dipping sauce we created from Chinese mustard and soy. My uncles’ mixtures would be thick, more yellow than black, and so hot it made your eyes water and nose tingle and  run. We dunked the egg rolls, pork hash and char siu in the mustard-soy before eating.

There were no desserts at Far East Cafe, but they did sell Chinese preserved plums at the cash register.

If the weather was warm, and we were lucky, the shave ice counter at the back of the candy store across the street was open and we could have Hawaiian-style shave ice for dessert. Heaven. We pitied the poor kids who only knew rainbow-colored crushed-ice snow cones that came out of the side of a musical truck. My mother almost always bought some Botan rice candy for us as well.

We then walked up and down the street eating our shave ice. We liked to look at the food displays in the windows of the Japanese restaurants.

Why do the Japanese do this?

We also watched the ladies at the Japanese bakery make little bean-filled pastries.

A couple of the stores sold mochi.

Mochi is expensive, so we didn’t get it very often, but rejoiced when we did.

With our  shave ice finished, it was time to head back to our cars and drive home. The last time I went to the Far East Cafe was the summer of 1993. We were visiting Los Angeles and took the kids to share in the custom of family and food. A few months later an earthquake centered in Northridge so damaged the 60-year-old building that it was condemned. The restaurant never re-opened and we still mourn. Truly!

The earth is torn asunder and our chow mein is no more

The other sweet and sours, they are false

Gone is our Cantonese

The Panda and P.F. do not measure

Weep, weep and wail

Dave Ramsey says his wife has something called a “security gland”.  He claims that all women have it.  This is what he says about the security gland:

Somewhere down inside the typical lady is a “security gland,” and when financial stress enters the scene, that gland will spasm. This spasmodic gland will affect your wife in ways you can’t always predict. A spasmodic “security gland” will affect her emotions, her concentration and even her love life. Apparently the security gland is attached to her face.

I think I have a huge security gland. Ginormous. My theory is that people who live through unusually trying financial difficulties have really large security glands. It causes them to do odd things. My grandmother lived through the Great Depression. She never threw anything away. Not so good. It was a little excessive. She also was extremely thrifty and good at saving. Very good! Her experience did not create in her a love of money for money’s sake. She did not become an Ebenezer Scrooge who was miserly and uncharitable. She was actually really generous.

My hyperactive security gland came from the financial disorder that surrounded me during my childhood. My parents divorced when I was young. One of my mother’s major complaints was my dad’s utter lack of fiscal responsibility. I think my grandmother’s experience during the Depression, and the fact that my dad was an only child, caused her to be indulgent with my dad. Consequently he was reckless in many ways, personal and financial. My mom, on the other hand, is horribly disorganized and finds it abhorrent to buy anything but the most “quality” items. She refused to eat margarine when she was a kid and her parents were being frugal. She made her own money and bought butter. Funny story  and showed real independence as a child, but that quality also made life for her difficult as the wife and mother of a young family on a limited income. What a recipe for financial disaster they both were.

So my parents divorced, and ironically, the finances got worse for both. My mom, already an organizational nightmare, had to handle work, children, a house and pets on her own. My dad let his anger at my mom get the better of him and quit a good job with a future and stumbled around from job to job the rest of his life. It was rather pathetic and he died utterly broke. My mother has been saved a pauper’s end by marrying a man who was educated, always employed or self-employed and good at investing. He came from a family of entrepreneurs who also invested wisely.

Before my mom married Bob she made a whole host of poor life choices, which, when added to her lack of fiscal aptitude, my dad’s irresponsibility, and periods of serious illness, left us rather in the lurch as kids. There just was never enough to get by. Bills were always late getting paid. The car went without needed repairs. I went through a period where it seemed like I never had a pair of shoes without holes, or enough clothing, or a warm coat. Usually at some point, one of my grandmothers would swoop in with a pair of shoes or clothes. This went on for years. Then I started to get work. When I got into high school I signed up with the student employment service and got work babysitting and cleaning house. When I turned 16 I added food service jobs as well, and in my senior year I also worked at the local intermediate school. I had a lot of jobs! Those jobs paid for my clothing and at least half of my food. At one point, my mom applied for us to get “free” school lunches. I was mortified. I would not take charity. I either bought my own food with babysitting and cleaning money or went hungry. The adults at home were furious with me, but I wasn’t about to go get a handout when I could work for my own food.

Because of this upbringing, personal finances can leave me feeling anxious and sick. It’s that security gland. It’s super sensitive.

On roles and responsibilities:

1. If you have a two income household, all household chores and child care are shared equally between husband and wife. Period.

2. If you have a one income household, you are employing a division of labor with specialization of tasks. He works (hard) to support the family. You work (equally hard) to keep the house clean and children cared for.

3. School is the same as work and is treated as such. It better enables one to fulfill one’s duties whether at home or at work.

On the importance of a clean and tidy home:

1. Your home can be a place where the spirit dwells, not just makes occasional appearances.

2. It’s healthy.

3. It shows you are a good steward and are grateful for the blessings that Heavenly Father has given you. Conversely, if you do not show respect for the material goods with which He has blessed you, He will take note and stop giving you stuff you cannot manage or appreciate. You will get what you deserve: junk.

On cleaning your home:

1. When you have children, you must sweep after every meal.

2. You must sweep your kitchen every day. Leaving dirt and crumbs on the floor to get tracked around the house is slovenly and spreads the mess.

3. You must mop and vacuum several times a week. Your family tracks more dirt into your home than you realize. It gets ground into carpets and furniture. Clean it up before it can permanently damage your floors and upholstery. Also sweep doorsteps. That’s where the dirt gets tracked in.

4. Wipe off your kitchen counters habitually throughout the day. Do not leave spills and crumbs sitting there.

5. Look at your cabinets, walls, door jams and window sills. If there is something there other than paint or stain, it doesn’t belong. Clean it off. Every day.

6. If you spill something on the stove, clean it. Don’t let it sit. It will get harder to remove with heat and time.

7. Run the dishwasher every night and empty it before going to bed or first thing in the morning so you have a place to put breakfast dishes.

8. Don’t let dishes build up in the sink all day.

9. There is nothing more gross than a dirty bathroom. If that means you must clean daily, so be it.

10. Your car is your home on wheels.

11. Everything takes longer with kids. You must plan sufficient time to clean and tidy up before moving on to a new activity or going out so you don’t leave messes behind.

On kids and stuff:

1. Only get and keep quality toys. Some of the best toys are simple, like blocks and balls. Don’t load up on cheap crap that breaks easily.

2. If something breaks, remove it from sight and fix it or throw it out. Keeping around broken stuff encourages mistreatment of remaining belongings. (See number 3 of On the importance of a clean and tidy home.)

3. Don’t let your kids have too many clothes while they are young. It makes it tempting to put off doing the laundry.

4. A place for everything, and everything in its place. Do not bring things into your house for which you do not or can not make a “home”. You will only create clutter. (See number 1 of On the importance of a clean and tidy home.)

5. If you bring something home for which you do not have room, you must get rid of something to make room.

6. When organizing stuff, group like things together.

7. Containerize everything.

8. Do not let flat surfaces (floors, tables, counters, pianos, dressers, chairs) become dumping grounds. (See number 4 above.)

Keeping a home and caring for children is hard physical labor. Rewards seem to be fleeting when your children are young, but are ultimately enduring.

Organize yourselves; prepare every needful thing; and establish a house, even a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God…

~D & C 88: 119

Holly and Gretchen

I’ve always loved this photo of Holly and Gretchen. If Holly hadn’t been early, they could have shared a birthday.

Holly was born on the morning of June 8 in a little military hospital at Laughlin AFB in Del Rio, Texas. Hers was a pretty quick and simple birth. I think it was assisted by the fact that the labor and delivery nurses didn’t want to waste the labor room space on someone who was progressing as well as I was, so they used curtained room dividers to create a quiet, dark corner for me to labor in the hallway, of all places. Every once-in-a-while a nurse would poke her head through the curtains, observe conditions, and leave Rob and me to ourselves.

Other than the morning sickness the first three or so months, my pregnancy with Holly was pretty nice. I stayed relatively slim (I was back in my clothes the NEXT DAY!). I shared Holly’s acute sense of smell for nine months, which was a curiosity for me.

When Holly was six months old, I was called to be the Relief Society president. I felt so sad for myself. It seemed like I was always handing her off to someone so I could do my calling. Holly seemed to handle it well. She learned to roll with the punches at an early age.

Holly was extraordinarily observant as a baby. When she discovered her hands, she would stare at them for the longest time, turning them and looking at them from every angle. I think that is reflected in her artistic abilities. Her art has been very detailed from the time she was very little.

Holly was such a sweet, easy baby. But she had her stubborn side too. She just was very quiet about her stubbornness. Holly was always very earnest as well. She is very patient and has a great deal of self-discipline. I think all of those qualities combined to make her a very good missionary. And a very good person.

Gretchen was Rob’s mother. She was a complicated person, but I loved her and wanted to have a close relationship with her and for her to have a good relationship with her grandchildren. She and I went through a bit of a rough patch at one point, but after our difficulties were resolved, she understood my boundaries, and I can honestly say, our relationship was loving and respectful. Working things out was painful, but I have been spared the greater pain of unresolved issues.

Gretchen had a mother that was hard to live up to, so I think she underrated her own talent and gifts. She had a great eye and created a beautiful home. She had lovely prose and wrote beautiful letters to family and friends. She made truly outstanding reproduction cross-stitch samplers. Each of her children and grandchildren were the lucky recipients of her handiwork. She introduced me to British choral music and it changed my life. Literally.

Gretchen died too young. Despite having quit cigarette smoking years before, she developed lung cancer and passed away before her family was prepared to see her go. The progression of her illness left her childlike and pain-free. That was a blessing. My last days with her were a gift. I cooked for her and joked with her and helped her to bed at night. The day we took her to hospice was a warm and sunny early fall day. Rob drove the car and opened the windows and sunroof. He joked with her about it “messing her hair” (there wasn’t much) and she laughed. A genuine and guileless laugh.

I look forward to hearing that laugh again one day.


text:
Glow scrub

L’Oréal Sugar scrubs in Glow

The new Sugar scrubs by L’Oréal really intrigued me, so I went out to get one. Reading what was on the boxes, I decided to go for this one; Smooth and Glow with Grapeseed. And I’m loving it so far. When you put it on your face, it feels like this will never wash off properly. And even while rinsing, you’re like: I still feel a layer of something on my skin. But after patting your skin dry, you feel like your skin is new, fresh, yes, maybe even actually glowing. Love it so much, I will probably go and try the other two. Have you tried those yet?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


text:
0 reads
Leave a comment

Houston Congressman Al Green felt the brunt of racist backlash after calling for President Donald Trumps impeachment, reports the Houston Chronicle.

From the Houston Chronicle:

During a town hall meeting on Saturday, Congressman Al Green played recordings of threatening voicemail messages left for him after he demanded the impeachment of President Donald Trump on the House floor earlier this week. “You’ll be hanging from a tree,” one caller said.

The calls use graphic racial slurs, some calling Green the n-word. “You ain’t going to impeach anybody. Try it and we will lynch all of you,” said a caller.

Rep. Green was the first congressional member to call for Donald Trump’s impeachment on the House floor, reports the newspaper. According to the outlet, he says the threats do not intimidate him, and he will continue to fight to have Trump impeached.

SOURCE: Houston Chronicle

NAACP Removes President, Vows To Fight Harder Against Trump

Maxine Waters Predicts Trump Will Lose GOP Support Amid Mounting Scandal

Rep. Al Green Receives Racist Threats After Trump Impeachment Remarks was originally published on

comments – add yours


text:
Facebook re-licenses React under MIT license after developer backlash

Facebook re-licenses React under MIT license after developer backlash

A major barrier to the adoption of Facebook’s React front-end library has been its license. Facebook chose to use a BSD-derived license that contained some troubling terms surrounding patent litigation.

But this is no longer an issue, as Facebook has announced it intends to re-license React – and several other Facebook-owned open source projects, including Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js – under the popular MIT license.

Explaining the decision, Facebook engineering director Adam Wolff wrote that “React is the foundation of a broad ecosystem of open source software for the web, and we don’t want to hold back forward progress for nontechnical reasons.”

Facebook has vigorously defended the former React license – known as the BSD + Patents license – in the past.

In an August blog post, Wolff explained that Facebook needed to reconcile its open-source contributions with the risk of patent litigation. This resulted in the controversial clauses which state users can lose the patent grant associated with the software, should they sue Facebook for patent infringement.

Wolff also noted Facebook believes that “if this license were widely adopted, it could actually reduce meritless litigation for all adopters.”

This time around, Wolff said that although Facebook still believes in the BSD + Patents license benefits users of the social giant’s open source code, it has “failed to decisively convince this community.”

Earlier this month, Automattic announced that it would cease using React in its Gutenberg editor project, and would excise it from the company’s ground-up re-write of WordPress.com, codenamed Calypso.

React’s licensing terms also earned the ire of the Apache Foundation, which took the drastic step of banning the library, and all BSD + Patents-licened code, from its projects.

The new React license will take effect later this week with the launch of React 16, which is a full-rewrite of the library designed to improve its performance at scale.

Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js on Facebook

Read next: How to support the accelerating growth of the used smartphone market


text:
Big Joe from Colorado

Discussion in 'Introduce Yourself' started by Big Joe, Sep 3, 2017.

  1. Big Joe

    Big Joe New Member

    Sep 3, 2017

    Just want to say hey to the community and I am looking forward to an amazing season. If there are any Phans in the "Just north of Denver" hit me up. I would like to get a group going. maybe even take over a local sports bar, host a game night, tailgate at mile high(once every 8ish years). Just really want to represent here in Colorado. Talk to you all soon and Phins up!!!!!!!!

    Big Joe
    Dol-Fan Dupree and Boik14 like this.
  2. Ohiophinphan

    Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box

    I am from a lot further east, NW Ohio to be exact, but welcome to this board!

  3. Boik14

    Boik14 Admin Staff Member Club Member

    Nov 28, 2007
    New York
    Welcome Joe. :ffic:

Share This Page


text:
Tag Archives: Gillian Anderson

The X-Files Updated Trailer

Well boys and girls we finally get a longer and more in depth trailer for the up coming X-Files series. Yes I know it is only 6 episodes but if you we lived in England that is a season.

I have to say it is fun and exciting to see Gillian Anderson and David Dochovny back together again. In a world that now is some more connected then it was when the original series aired. The trailer lets us know that all is taken into the series and that Mulder fears that is more dangerous than ever because of it. It is also nice to see some old face come back including a certain smoking guy.

The X-Files will be returning in January.

Source: Blastr, YouTube, Fox