ללא מחבר No Author

ח”כ אייכלר מנסה להכריח את המדינה לבחור רק *אחת* מבין אופציות הדיכוי

בגלל האומיקרון יש להקפיא את המס על כלים חד פעמיים

לאור קריאת ראש הממשלה בנט המזהיר את אזרחי ישראל לשמור על ריחוק וכללי הבריאות, הגיש ח”כ ישראל אייכלר הצעה דחופה לסדר היום להקפיא את המס על הכלים החד פעמיים כדי לצמצם הדבקה ולהגביר היגיינה.

יהודה וייס

20/12/2021, 16:03

לאור קריאת ראש הממשלה בנט המזהיר את אזרחי ישראל לשמור על ריחוק וכללי הבריאות, הגיש ח”כ ישראל אייכלר הצעה דחופה לסדר היום להקפיא את המס על הכלים החד פעמיים כדי לצמצם הדבקה ולהגביר היגיינה.

בהצעה לסדר כתב ח”כ אייכלר: “בעקבות דברי ראש הממשלה, בבניין הכנסת סגרו את הישיבה במזנונים וחייבו את המפעילים להשתמש אך ורק בכלים חד-פעמיים. אין דמם של השליטים אדום מן הנשלטים. לא יעלה על הדעת שלבריאותם של השליטים נדרשים כלים חד פעמיים, ואילו לילדים בגנים, בבתי הספר ובבית יגזרו מיסים גבוהים נגד שימוש בחד פעמי”.

ח”כ אייכלר כתב: “הגל החמישי של הקורונה כבר כאן לצערנו. אפידמיולוגים מזהירים כי הזן החדש, האומיקרון מדבק יותר מהזנים הקודמים. כבר כעת הוא חצה את רף ה-1.22 והערכות מדברות על חציית שיא הנדבקים ליום. לכן חשוב לעודד את כלל אזרחי ישראל להשתמש בכלים חד פעמים, כדי לצמצם עוד יותר את אפשרויות ההדבקה ולהגביר את ההיגיינה.

“לפיכך” דורש ח”כ אייכלר, “להקפיא מידית את הצו להגדלת המס על הכלים החד-פעמיים, עד יעבור זעם”.

מאתר אקטואליק, כאן.

A ‘Defense’ of Heter Iska…

Loan Interest in the Modern World

Friday, 12 October 2018

Introduction

The Torah’s prohibition on taking interest is well known. Seen by Chazal as a stealthy form of robbery,[1] one may question whether seeking ways to circumvent the issue is similar to finding ways to give a hechsher to pork.

Nevertheless, not only are leniencies found and implemented widely, but there is very little opposition to them. I have yet to see any recognised poskim who have rejected ‘Heter Iska’ (the mechanism used to evade the prohibition of interest) outright, although some impose certain limitations.

The reason for this is clear. World business revolves around interest. New discoveries and technology often need substantial funds, which could not be raised by generosity alone. The same is true on a smaller scale for private businesses.

Perhaps more critically in some eyes, most individuals in Eretz Yisrael also need to make use of heter iska when they take a mortgage on a home (if the loan is from a ‘Jewish’ bank). Even for those who don’t, avoiding heter iska entirely is almost impossible. Almost every contract signed with a bank or other service provider contains clauses that involve the possibility of paying interest, halachically problematic even if it never ends up being paid.

The most fundamental question that needs to be addressed is whether ideally we would like to change all of this, and abolish interest payments entirely. Secondary issues are the validity of heter iska itself, and whether better alternatives could be found for those interested in the world as it is today.

Continue reading…

From Torah Clarity, here.

A History of Countless World Conflicts – In a NUTSHELL

Hundreds Killed In Brutal Pro-Something–Anti-Something Clash

SOMEWHERE—Sources confirmed yesterday that a series of riots, bombings, and urban firefights has left hundreds dead and many more wounded in the latest flare-up in the long-standing conflict between the pro-something group and the anti-something group.

The latest round of bloodletting, which comes after weeks of public demonstrations and counter-demonstrations, was reportedly sparked by renewed vows from pro-something leaders to get the thing they want, a thing that anti-something leaders have long insisted their opponents cannot rightfully claim.

“We must and will respond when provoked,” said a spokesman for the pro-somethings in a statement released to the media. “We cannot sit idly by while our supporters are killed by an enemy determined to [do what we oppose].”

According to sources, what began earlier in the day as crowds of pro-something and anti-something protesters chanting pro-something and anti-something slogans quickly devolved into rocks being thrown from both sides. Witnesses confirmed that the Anti-Something Militia and Pro-Something Guard soon joined in with live ammunition, fanning the flames as they each carried out larger-scale operations well into the night.

In response, members of the diplomatic community have condemned the latest escalation of violence, calling for the anti-somethings and the pro-somethings to lay down their weapons and resume talks.

“These acts of aggression are unacceptable,” said a U.N. official in a statement carefully worded so as not to suggest any strong allegiance either in support of or in opposition to the pro-something faction. “Therefore, we ask that both sides cease their assaults and initiate an open dialogue. Only then can there be any hope for a solution.”

This week’s fighting reportedly marks the first incident since the groups signed last year’s widely publicized accords, which stated that while neither side may do the thing they want, they are prohibited from stopping the other group from doing the thing that they want—an agreement leaders from both sides hailed as a significant step toward peace.

However, citing the attacks as a possible retaliation for last year’s pro-something incursion—which was itself retribution for the anti-something offensive from the year before—experts say that the recent bloodshed is merely the newest chapter of an intractable conflict that has spanned several centuries.

“It’s important to recognize that these people have been raised their entire lives to demonize each other,” said a renowned scholar who recently returned from a trip to the region. “The two sides in this conflict have been fighting over [a thing that one group wants and the other group does not want] for generations. It’s simply part of their identity.”

Academics noted that to truly understand the Anti-Pro conflict, one must consider the conflict’s historical background, including the social issues, governmental structures, geopolitical alliances, education, access to health care, sanitation, economics, role of women, flow of illegal arms, ethnicity, and religion.

Additionally, sources said, it is important to note the internal strife being faced by other players in the region, who are currently working to maintain their own tenuous peace between their pro-something and anti-something groups.

“Unfortunately, despite pressure from [anti-somethings and pro-somethings living abroad], a full-scale intervention from the international community remains unlikely,” said an expert who is well acquainted with the agendas of both those who want a thing to happen and those who don’t want a thing to happen. “Given the great complexity of the situation, we may be looking at a long and violent stalemate.”

From The Onion, here.

Redefining Anti-Vaxxer (Merriam-Webster Aside)

Led by Jeremy Corbyn, the British Left Opposes Vaccine Mandates as Anti-Worker and Repressive

The term “anti-vax” has expanded so widely that even vaccine advocates, such as Corbyn and trade unions, are now included by virtue of defending bodily autonomy.

885

The shorthand label “anti-vax” once had a clear and concise meaning: namely, those who reject the prevailing western scientific orthodoxy that vaccines are a safe and effective means of protecting humans against infectious diseases by training the immune system to combat a pathogen in advance. As vaccines become more prevalent against an increasingly wide range of diseases — measles, mumps, polio, chickenpox — a dissenting political and scientific movement has emerged which rejects the scientific premises of vaccines and attempts to persuade others not to vaccinate themselves or their children on the ground that they are ineffective, dangerous and/or motivated by corporate profit rather than legitimate concerns about public health.

But exactly as we have seen with so many other political labels — terrorist, racist, fascist, white nationalist, anti-Semite — this once-descriptive, precise and useful phrase has metamorphized far beyond its original meaning into something barely recognizable or cogent. That transformation has been deliberate, with a clear motive: to weaponize the term into a potent political insult designed to compel submission to decrees from institutions of authority and stigmatize dissenters, threatening them with reputation destruction. The rapid expansion of the term “anti-vax” into a coercive political weapon has been years in the making, but the COVID pandemic was the steroid it needed to blossom into one of the most reputation-crippling labels one can affix to a political target.

Just as is true of accusing people of being terrorists, white nationalists, fascists or anti-Semites not because one espouses views traditionally designated by those terms but as punishment for any sort of dissent, the destructive power of the COVID iteration of “anti-vax” resides precisely in its vagueness, its lack of precise contours, its emptiness and meaninglessness. A term that means nothing can, by definition and by design, encompass anyone and everyone depending solely on the needs of the moment.

The utter obliteration of any coherent definition is evidenced by the fact that one can now be labelled “anti-vax” even though one a) believes in the foundational science of vaccines, b) is themselves vaccinated for COVID and makes the decision that one’s children will be as well, and c) states publicly that they have chosen to be vaccinated.

How is it possible to pull off such a seemingly inane and internally contradictory attack: namely, malign people who have taken the vaccine and publicized their choice to do so as “anti-vax”? This is accomplished by twisting and distorting the term “anti-vax” away from its scientific meaning (“one who rejects the efficacy of vaccines”) into a term of political disobedience. Thus, the operational definition of the term has become: one who questions any of the decrees of public health authorities on any matters or who believes that adult citizens should retain the choice to decide for themselves whether to be vaccinated. In other words, the term “anti-vax” now means nothing other than: one who questions any policies adopted by state officials in the name of fighting COVID.

Unfortunately for the liberal-left which has constructed this manipulative and coercive framework, this now requires that the term “anti-vax” be applied to one of the international left’s most beloved political figures: former Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn. They must also now apply this term of shame to the most admired left-wing members of the British Parliament along with leading trade unions in the UK. That is because the British Left — not just Corbyn and leftist MPs but also leading labor unions — have united to emphatically oppose vaccine mandates and vaccines passports on the ground that 1) it is immoral and profoundly anti-worker to fire health care front-line workers and other workers for refusing a vaccine they have not been convinced is safe and effective, and 2) persuasion is a far more effective and ethical means of administering public health policy than coercion, dictate and punishment.

Continue reading…

From Glenn Greenwald, here.