the compromising way

Julius Genachowski is Obama's media czar... that would be the guy to decide about the pesky internet. (Story found at Follow the Money.)

What to do...? What to do...?


http://www.forward.com/articles/133806/

How should the United States regulate the Internet?

(Skipping right over why to how.)

The answer to this question — which affects the flow of information and culture, the growth of the economy and the future of communications, education and democracy itself — rests largely in the hands of Julius Genachowski, a 48-year-old Jew from Long Island with knowledge of Talmud and an appointment to one of the most critical policy posts in Washington.

Aah, very nice! What are the odds?

If his December 1 proposal to address Internet regulation is any indication, Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission since June 2009, is seeking a solution in a very Jewish way: He issued a compromise in the pitched debate over the Internet’s openness, a concept often referred to as net neutrality.

Compromise. Right. That is the "Jewish Way." Everyone says so.

The information and communication technology sector comprises about one-sixth of America’s economy. With more business, paperwork and personal connections moving online, the matter of who can access which website, through which service, and how fast, is becoming increasingly important throughout the country, as is the ability to create new Web businesses.
The high stakes of his job — which includes complicated issues relating to the regulation of television and radio, as well as to the Internet — mean that Genachowski (pronounced jen-uh-COW-ski) spends his days threading the needle between the interests of global media concerns and grassroots activists, telecommunications corporations and think tanks, Congress and the White House. 

Wait....he maybe forgot to mention one other interest. That would be the one that asks, "Is it good for the Jews?"

Those are tensions he may be comfortable mediating in part because he once was a Talmud ace.

And since he was once a Talmud ace, we feel pretty certain that he would naturally make his decisions based on what is good for the Jews. Because after all, we have some familiarity with the Talmud also.

“The education I was lucky enough to receive is a very important part of my background,” Genachowski, whose schooling has run the gamut from Orthodox day school to Harvard Law School, told the Forward in an interview at his Washington office. “We’re all the products of our background, and I’m sure it informs what I do in many ways.”

No doubt.


^^^^^^^

What does the Talmud, a "holy book" of Judaism, say? See if you can spot how the Jewish way is compromise.

1. a : settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions b : something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things

2. : a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial compromise of principles>

An excerpt from Talmud Unmasked Part Two:

CHAPTER II


CHRISTIANS MUST BE EXTERMINATED

The followers of "that man," whose name is taken by the Jews to mean "May his name and memory be blotted out," are not otherwise to be regarded than as people whom it would be good to get rid of. They are called Romans and tyrants who hold captive the children of Israel, and by their destruction the Jews would be freed from this Fourth Captivity. Every Jew is therefore bound to do all he can to destroy that impious kingdom of the Edomites (Rome) which rules the whole world. Since, however, it is not always and everywhere possible to effect this extermination of Christians, the Talmud orders that they should be attacked at least indirectly, namely: by injuring them in every possible way, and by thus lessening their power, help towards their ultimate destruction. Wherever it is possible a Jew should kill Christians, and do so without mercy.


Article I. - Harm must be done to Christians

A Jew is commanded to harm Christians wherever he can, both indirectly by not helping them in any way, and also directly by wrecking their plans and projects; neither must he save a Christian who is in danger of death.


I. Good must not be done to Christians

In Zohar (1, 25b) it says:

"Those who do good to the Akum . . . will not rise from the dead."

At times it is permitted to do good to Christians, but only in order to help Israel, namely, for the sake of peace and to hide hatred of them. Maimonides in Hilkhoth Akum (X, 6) says:

"Needy Gentiles may be helped as well as needy Jews, for the sake of peace..."

In Iore Dea (148, 12 Hagah) it says:

"Therefore if you enter a town and find them celebrating a feast, you may pretend to rejoice with them in order to hide your hatred. Those, however, who care about the salvation of their souls should keep away from such celebrations. You should make it known that it is a hateful thing to rejoice with them, if you can do so without incurring enmity." 1. IT IS NOT PERMITTED TO PRAISE A CHRISTIAN
In Abhodah Zarah (20, a, Toseph) it says:
"Do not say anything in praise of them, lest it be said: How good that Goi is!"
In this way they explain the words of Deuteronomy (VII, 2) ... and thou shalt show no mercy unto them [Goim], as cited in the Gemarah. Rabbi S. Iarchi explains this Bible passage as follows:
"Do not pay them any compliments; for it is forbidden to say: how good that Goi is."
In Iore Dea (151, 14) it says:
"No one is allowed to praise them or to say how good an Akum is. How much less to praise what they do or to recount anything about them which would redound to their glory. If, however, while praising them you intend to give glory to God, namely, because he has created comely creatures, then it is allowed to do so."

2. A JEW NOT ALLOWED TO MENTION THE THINGS WHICH CHRISTIANS USE FOR THEIR IDOLATROUS WORSHIP
In Hilkhoth Akum (V, 12) it says:
"It is also forbidden to make mention of the Akum; for it is written (Exodus XXIII, 13):...and make no mention of other gods."

3. THEIR IDOLS MUST BE SPOKEN OF WITH CONTEMPT
In Iore Dea (146, 15) it says:
"Their idols must be destroyed, or called by contemptuous names."
Ibidem, (147, 5):
"It is permitted to deride idols, and it is forbidden to say to a Goi: May your God help you, or I hope you will succeed."
Rabbi Bechai, explaining the text of Deuteronomy about hating idolatry, says:
"The Scripture taught us to hate idols and to call them by ignominious names. Thus, if the name of a church is Bethgalia - "house of magnificence," it should be called Bethkaria - an insignificant house, a pigs' house, a latrine. For this word, karia, denotes a low-down, slum place."
In numerous places ignominious names are given by the Jews to Christian things. It will not be out of place to list a few of these names which they give to things and persons which are held holy and dear by Christians, as follows:
JESUS is ignominiously called Jeschu - which means, May his name and memory be blotted out. His proper name in Hebrew is Jeschua, which means Salvation.
MARY, THE MOTHER OF JESUS, is called Charia - dung, excrement (German Dreck). In Hebrew her proper name is Miriam.
CHRISTIAN SAINTS, the word for which in Hebrew Kedoschim, are called Kededchim (cinaedos) - feminine men (Fairies). Women saints are called Kedeschoth, whores.
SUNDAY is called the day of calamity.
FEAST OF CHRISTMAS is called Nital, denoting extermination.
EASTER is not called by the proper name Pesach (Passover), but Ketsach, meaning a cutting down; or Kesach, a Gallows.
A CHRISTIAN CHURCH is not called Beth Hattefillah, House of Prayer, but Beth Hattiflah, a House of Vanity, a House of Evil.
THE GOSPEL BOOKS are called Aavon Gilaion, Books of Iniquity.
CHRISTIAN SACRIFICES are called Dung Offerings. In the Jerusalem Talmud (fol. 13b) the following occurs:
"He who sees them mezabbelim (excrementing - sacrificing) before their idol, let him say (Exod. XXII, 20): He that sacrificeth unto an idol shall be utterly destroyed."
Rabbi Iarchi (referring to Num. XXV, 3) teaches that the Gentiles actually honor their God by excrementing before him.
A CHRISTIAN GIRL who works for Jews on their sabbath is called a Schaw-wesschicksel, Sabbath Dirt.

4. A JEW IS NOT ALLOWED TO GIVE GIFTS TO CHRISTIANS
In Hilkohoth Akum (X, 5) it says:
"It is forbidden to give gifts to the Goim. But it is permitted to give them to a convert who lives among the Jews; for it is said: To the traveller who stops in your cities, give it to him to eat, or sell it to a Gentile, that is sell it, not give it."
In Iore Dea (151, 11) it says:
"It is forbidden to give free gifts to the Akum with whom a Jew may not treat familiarly."
The Talmud, however, allows a Jew to give gifts to Gentiles who are known to himand from whom he has hope of getting something in return.

5. A JEW IS FORBIDDEN TO SELL HIS FARM TO CHRISTIANS
In Iore Dea (334, 43) it says:
"In 24 cases a Jew must be repudiated, namely ...8. Anyone who sells his farm to the Akum must be sent into exile - unless he undertakes to make up for all the harm that follows as a consequence of having the Akum live near the Jews."

6. IT IS FORBIDDEN TO TEACH A TRADE TO CHRISTIANS
In Iore Dea (154, 2) it says:
"It is not permitted to teach any trade to the Akum."


II. Harm must be done to the Work of Christians

Since the Goim minister to Jews like beasts of burden, belong to a Jew together with his life and all his faculties:

"The life of a Goi and all his physical powers belong to a Jew." (A. Rohl. Die Polem. p.20)

It is an axiom of the Rabbis that a Jew may take anything that belongs to Christians for any reason whatsoever, even by fraud; nor can such be called robbery since it is merely taking what belongs to him. In Babba Bathra (54 b) it says:
"All things pertaining to the Goim are like a desert; the first person to come along and take them can claim them for his own."


1. CHRISTIANS MUST NOT BE TOLD IF THEY PAY TOO MUCH TO A JEW
In Choschen Hammischpat (183, 7) it says:
"If you send a messenger to collect money from an Akum and the Akum pays too much, the messenger may keep the difference. But if the messenger does not know about it, then you may keep it all yourself."

2. LOST PROPERTY OF CHRISTIANS MUST NOT BE RETURNED TO THEM
In Choschen Hamm. (266, 1) it says:
"A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum, for it is written: Return to thy brethren what is lost (Deuter. XXII, 3). For he who returns lost property [to Christians] sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."

3. CHRISTIANS MAY BE DEFRAUDED
In Babba Kama (113b) it says:
"It is permitted to deceive a Goi."
And in Choschen Hamm. (156, 5 Hagah) it says:
"If a Jew is doing good business with an Akum it is not allowed to other Jews, in certain places, to come and do business with the same Akum. In other places, however, it is different, where another Jews is allowed to go to the same Akum, lead him on, do business with him and to deceive him and take his money. For the wealth of the Akum is to be regarded as common property and belongs to the first who can get it. There are some, however, who say that this should not be done."
In Choschen Hamm. (183, 7 Hagah) it says:
"If a Jew is doing business with an Akum and a fellow Israelite comes along and defrauds the Akum, either by false measure, weight or number, he must divide his profit with his fellow Israelite, since both had a part in the deal, and also in order to help him along."

4. A JEW MAY PRETEND HE IS A CHRISTIAN TO DECEIVE CHRISTIANS
In Iore Dea (157, 2 Hagah) it says:
"If a Jew is able to deceive them [idolaters] by pretending he is a worshipper of the stars, he may do so."

5. A JEW IS ALLOWED TO PRACTICE USURY ON CHRISTIANS
In Abhodah Zarah (54a) it says:;
"It is allowed to take usury from Apostates who fall into idolatry."
And in Iore Dea (159, 1) it says:
"It is permitted, according to the Torah, to lend money to an Akum with usury. Some of the Elders, however, deny this except in a case of life and death. Nowadays it is permitted for any reason."


III. Christians may be harmed in Legal Matters

1. A JEW MAY LIE AND PERJURE HIMSELF TO CONDEMN A CHRISTIAN
In Babba Kama (113a) it says:
"Our teaching is as follows: When a Jew and a Goi come into court, absolve the Jew, if you can, according to the laws of Israel. If the Goi wins, tell him that is what our laws require. If however, the Jew can be absolved according to the gentile law, absolve him and say it is due to our laws. If this cannot be done proceed callously against the Goim, as Rabbi Ischmael advises. Rabbi Akibha, however, holds that you cannot act fraudulently lest you profane the Name of God, and have a Jew commited for perjury."
A marginal note, however, explains this qualification of Rabbi Akibha as follows:
"The name of God is not profaned when it is not known by the Goi that the Jew has lied."
And further on, the Babba Kama (113b) says:
"The name of God is not profaned when, for example, a Jew lies to a Goi by saying: 'I gave something to your father, but he is dead; you must return it to me,' as long as the Goi does not know that you are lying."

2. A JEW MAY PERJURE HIMSELF WITH A CLEAR CONSCIENCE
In Kallah (1b, p.18) it says:
"She (the mother of the mamzer) said to him, 'Swear to me.' And Rabbi Akibha swore with his lips, but in his heart he invalidated his oath."
A similar text is found in Schabbuoth Hagahoth of Rabbi Ascher (6d):
"If the magistrate of a city compels Jews to swear that they will not escape from the city nor take anything out of it, they may swear falsely by saying to themselves that they will not escape today, nor take anything out of the city today only."

Now, do people who study the Talmud follow these instructions? If only they didn't.

We can't pick one picture today. We looked.
There are just too many dead children to pick from.
So you get a map.

Just think about it. Without the internet, what would be the chances that you'd ever learn what it really means to be a Talmud scholar?

^^^^^^^

Ronald Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.

"There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn't require that the balance of a station's program lineup be anything like 50/50. ...The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views." The Fairness Doctrine: How we lost it, and why we need it back

Julius says we do not need the Fairness Doctrine. He says he likes the First Amendment. In particular, he may like that stations can broadcast from a single perspective, day after day, year after year.




Oh yes. Thank you, Julius. Thank you in advance.