Category Archives: Transhuman News

Remember that story when the sun and wind entered into a bet to see who would be able to take off a mans jacket first? The wind blew with all its might, but the man would only fasten his jacket even more to hold it in place. When it was its turn, the sun simply radiated heat until the man felt so hot he took off the jacket himself. And the sun won.

If the story rings a bell, it is because you are old enough to have read it many times over in the popular school textbook Id-Denfil.

Id-Denfil has since been taken off the school syllabus but cartoonists are bringing it back in a short, animated series on television.

The creators, Turi Animation Studio, say the series is a tribute to the much-beloved books, but more importantly, it aims to create Maltese content for young children, who spend a lot of time consuming similar videos in English but have almost no such videos in Maltese at all.

The cartoons are all produced in a 2D, hand-drawn animation style, the creators said.

Our animators create one drawing after another to create motion. The style and technique are quite similar to some of the most beloved cartoons available.

First published in 1976, Id-Denfil accompanied entire generations through primary school.

Its simple orange cover featuring a blueish-grey breaching dolphin became a nationwide recognisable symbol of childhood, leading modern souvenir makers to feature it alongside other iconic images like the old Benna milk carton, the old Maltese bus and the yellow Cisk beer bottle.

Id-Denfil was eventually abandoned in schools, not least because some of its narratives and language style began to sound out of date and politically incorrect in modern times.

Written for different generations in an entirely different time, the six books fundamentally featured stories about traditional, heterosexual, catholic families in which the father was the breadwinner, the mother was a housewife, everyone was white and went to church religiously and people smoked cigarettes.

The creators of the new cartoon series said they are well aware of these contexts, and while keeping the spirit of Id-Denfil as people know it, the characters, narratives and story details have been tweaked and adapted for todays societal realities.

Independent journalism costs money. Support Times of Malta for the price of a coffee.

Read the original here:
Id-Denfil to return as an animated cartoon series on TV - Times of Malta

BILLINGS A judge will hear arguments Thursday in the latest legal wrangling between the state of Montana and the ACLU over efforts to prevent people from changing their sex designation on their birth certificate.

The ACLU of Montana is asking District Court Judge Michael Moses to clarify his April ruling temporarily blocking a 2021 law that required transgender people to undergo surgery and obtain a court order before changing their birth certificate.

The laws requirement for a surgical procedure was unconstitutionally vague because it did not say what kind of surgery was required,Moses said in his April ruling. He told the state to go back to using a previous rule stating that people wanting to change their birth certificate in Montana needed only to provide an affidavit to the state health department.

Since that ruling, however, the state health department issued a new rule banning anyone from changing their sex on their birth certificate unless it was incorrect due to a clerical error. The ACLU argues that new rule violates the previous court order.

The legal dispute comes as conservative lawmakers in numerous states have sought to restrict transgender rights, including with bans on transgender girls competing in girls school sports.

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen led a group of 17 state attorneys general who pushed back on Monday against a Biden administration proposal that would solidify protections for transgender and gay students. The attorneys general claimed the proposal would coerce schools to indoctrinate children with what they called politically driven gender identity theories.

The Biden administration move would reverse a Trump-era policy and declare that discrimination based on gender identity will be treated as a violation of federal law. In announcing the change, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said it was needed so gay, lesbian and transgender students could learn in schools free from discrimination.

In Montana, the issue of changing a persons sex designation on their birth certificate has led to a flurry of lawmaking and legal challenges.

A 2017 rule issued by the state health department under former Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock eased the process of changing ones birth certificate.

But in early 2021, with a Republican in the governors office, lawmakers passed Senate Bill 280, which called for repealing the 2017 rule and adding the requirement for a surgical procedure.

That was challenged by transgender plaintiffs represented by the ACLU of Montana, who have said a birth certificate that doesnt match their gender identity puts them at risk of embarrassment, discrimination, harassment or violence if they are asked to provide their birth certificate.

Moses temporary injunction in April said the state should go back to the status quo, which he defined as the rule that existed before Senate Bill 280 passed.

A month after Moses handed down the temporary injunction, thehealth department enacted a new temporary ruleeffectively banning birth certificate changes.

The ACLU thenasked Moses to clarify his April rulingand to declare the temporary rule invalid.

In the meantime, thetemporary rule was adopted permanentlylast week.

State officials have denied that the new rule preventing changes to birth certificates was adopted in bad faith following the courts injunction.

Assistant Attorney General Kathleen Smithgall said in court documents that state officials last year had canceled the 2017 rule that allowed birth certificate changes. So when the injunction was put in place, Smithgall wrote, the state had to fill a regulatory gap and did so with the emergency rule.

Thursdays hearing will allow the ACLU and the state to make additional arguments.

Continue reading here:
Judge to Hear Arguments on Transgender Birth Certificate Law - Flathead Beacon

There is a good chance that both MK Bezalel Smotrich and MK Itamar Ben Gvir will be part of the next Netanyahu government (if MK Benjamin Netanyahu forms the next government). Anyone who follows the news here knows that all sorts of accusations have been made against both Smotrich and Ben Gvir: Racists, homophobes, transfer supporters, and most of all fans of (Jewish) terrorists. Chances are that I would agree with these accusations, at least in part.

Think of Baruch Goldsteins picture of in Ben Gvirs living room (I dont know if he still has the picture but for the sake of argument lets say that he does) and then say the words Itamar Ben Gvir, Minister of X. The very idea of Itamar Ben Gvir being a minister in the government, being able to speak at cabinet meetings, being an official representative of the State of Israel in a way which is significantly different that being a mere MK, is infuriating, correct?

The Times of Israel made these points very clearly.

(Of course some cabinet positions would be more significant than others, but that isnt the issue.)

The conclusion from all these accusations is that both of them (along with MK Avi Maoz), but Ben Gvir especially, cannot be part of the coalition and even more so, cannot serve as a minister.

What is strange about all the noise being made about Ben Gvir being so treif is that the same people making this noise have no problem with other MKs who are just as bad or as I will argue much worse than Ben Gvir, from a moral point of view. Who are these MKs? The vast majority of the Arab MKs. MKs from the Islamic Party Raam along with their coparliamentarians from the Joint List are at least just as guilty as Ben Gvir of all these various crimes.

Much of what will be brought up here has received little if any mention in the English press. Even in the Hebrew media these subjects arent discussed that much. Only a few journalists, like Kalman Liebskind or Ishay Fridman have tried to make these issues part of the general discussion, largely to no avail. The topic is politically incorrect in the extreme and even raising these issues can bring a fearsome backlash. But it is what it is and these MKs support what they support.

This is a long read but background information must be given before getting to the heart of the matter. One last note: I am NOT writing here in support of the Religious Zionist party or any of its members.

The number one accusation against Itamar Ben Gvir is his support or admiration for Baruch Goldstein, perpetrator of the Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre. OK, sounds bad. But what about Mansour Abbas, head of Raam? A few factoids will shed some light on his position about terrorism and terrorists.

In 2013, when Abbas served as deputy chairman of the Islamic Movement, Abbas went to visit families of various Palestinian prisoners in commemoration of Palestinian Prisoner Day (think about that, a day to honor terrorists). Abbas started by visiting the family of Fawzi Nimer. Nimer, an Israeli citizen, headed a cell that carried out 22 terrorist attacks. Rachel Bresler, Haim Manikovitz, and Victor Guetta were murdered by Nimers people.

Abbas (and other members of the Islamic Movement) then went to visit the Bachri family. Two of their sons aided the terrorist who carried out the Meron Junction Suicide Bombing (nine people killed).

In addition, the delegation visited the families of terrorists who threw grenades into a crowd in Haifa and the family of someone who tried to join Hezbollah.

How does visiting these families in their homes, speaking about the prisoners and their deeds, showing them respect, compare to hanging a picture of someone on the wall? More importantly, does this sound like support for terror? Frankly, I cant imagine the push-back if an MK dared to visit any of Baruch Goldsteins relatives in this way.

By the way, Fawzi Nimer was sentenced to life in prison but was released as part of the Jibril Agreement. Nimer died in Gaza in 2013 and was eulogized by MKs from Balad and Chadash.

To be clear, it was not just Mansour Abbas who participated in these types of ceremonies. Other Raam MKs such as Mazen Ganaim and former MK Abdulmalik Dehamshe also participated in similar ceremonies. Does this sound like support for terror?

At this point, maybe people are thinking this is all ancient history. Raam has changed. Mansour Abbas condemned the destruction of Lod synagogues. Lets test that assumption. Jump back to a little over a year ago, during the last flareup between Gaza and Israel (Shomer Chomot) when Arabs rioted throughout the country. In one of these incidents, rioters set the Effendi Hotel on fire. In the ensuing fire, 84 year old Avi Har Even was killed. Har Even, a brilliant, award-winning engineer who made significant contributions to Israels defense, was staying at the hotel when the riots started. Raam MK Said Alharumi participated in a demonstration demanding that Arab rioters who killed Har Even be released from jail (along with other rioters). At that time, Alharumi was dying of cancer (he died a few days after the demonstration) but made the effort to help free these people. Does this sound like support for terror?

Yes, Mansour Abbas condemned the burning of synagogues in Lod. Did other Raam MKs (not as far as I know)? How about this test: Baruch Kra, one of Israels most important reporters, wrote that if Itamar Ben Gvir really wants to repudiate his past he needs to voice his shame about hanging Goldsteins picture and for supporting certain racist policies (see this tweet). Has Abbas or his MKs done anything similar? Has anyone like Kra demanded that they do anything similar? Those are rhetorical questions.

Yet with all this, Raam was welcomed with open arms into the coalition.

Maybe one could argue What do you want, Raam is a Muslim fundamentalist party, but secular Arab parties dont support terrorists. Good argument, but wrong. A few highlights:

This is a sampling of the Arab MKs actions and statements. I could go on but the point is clear: Many Arab MKs fully support terrorists and terrorism and go out of their way to show their support. How does that compare to having a picture on the wall?

Note: Labor MK Ibtisam Maraana and Meretz MK Issawi Frej have consistently condemned terrorism. Maraana has apologized for controversial statements that she made in the past

Lets be clear: You need a microscope, an extremely high-powered microscope, to find differences in Raam and the Religious Zionists approach towards homosexuals (see this article where MK Walid Yusuf Taha labeled gay people as perverts). Yet this opposition to homosexual rights didnt stop Meretz from sitting in the same coalition with Raam. As part of the last governments coalition agreement, each party had a veto on any legislation which ensured that no reforms would be made in these issues. While Health Minister Nitzan Horowitz made a few changes within his ministry, no government reforms were advanced.

I have heard interviews with coalition MKs in which they were asked about Raams position and the standard answer was I disagree with them on this point.

Again, the issue isnt simply Raam. Tibi has been open that he will oppose any legislation that advances the needs of the gay community. Meretz MK Ghaida Rinawie Zoabi had an (infamous) incident in which she stated that she would abstain from any vote banning conversion therapy out of respect for her communitys conservative stand on the issue. She later backed down but the damage was done.

So explain: How is it that MK Avi Maoz can be derided endlessly for his opinions but Raam is kosher? How is it that Zahava Galon attacks certain rabbis over this issue but has nothing to say about Muslim MKs?

When Russia invaded Ukraine a few ago, Chadash put out a statement. Yes, they called for the war to stop immediately and stated that they opposed the invasion. That was one sentence. The rest of their long statement was a condemnation of the West for forcing the war to happen, imperialism, and all sorts of other crimes. Putin couldnt have been happier with that statement. That was the first and last statement that the Israeli Communist Party has made about the war. About the Russian war crimes, bombardments of civilian populations, mass executions, displacement of millions, they have nothing to say.

Regarding Syria, Ayman Odeh (again, the moderate) vetoed a statement by the Joint List condemning Assad. He repeated his refusal to condemn the Syria leader in 2018. Search the web for any mention of a condemnation of Assad or any human rights issue within the Arab world; it will be hard to find.

Think that the Orthodox parties can be rough on womens rights? Raam had an MK, Talab Abu Arar, who has two wives.

All the above show very clearly there is little if any moral difference between Ben Gvir and Arab MKs in Raam or the Joint List. If anything their support for these horrible people and policies is leaps and bounds greater than anything that Ben Gvir or Smotrich have stated in the past. The previous coalition included Raam and there is every indication that the next (possible) Lapid government will also include the Joint List. Why do the people (this includes Meretz, Labor, much of Yesh Atid and Gantz party not to mention much of the press and public) who are disgusted and infuriated at the thought of a Netanyahu coalition that includes Ben Gvir give these MKs a pass? What possible moral difference is there justifies this split approach?

Often this question is answered in silence. Sometimes people will be straight forward and state that the difference is that Ben Gvir is Jewish (or more to the point, a religious Jew) and the Arabs arent. Therefore we hold the latter to a lower standard. Does that make any sense whatsoever? We are not talking about the criteria that one applies when voting for someone but who is morally fit to be a cabinet minister. Moral criteria must be applied universally or they become simple preferences, comfort zones if you want, and nothing more than that. No better than anyone elses comfort zone.

It is true that Israel is (correctly) held to higher moral standards than countries like Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and any other Arab country. That is because by definition these countries are non-democracies, dysfunctional in all sorts of ways, and many of them are regular violators of basic human rights (including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and even genocide). No one in their right mind would want to be held to the same standard. But you cannot argue that Israel should be held to a higher standard and at the same time, accept that some ministers will be held to a lower moral standard. That destroys the states very moral fiber from the inside.

A second idea is that the Arab MKs wont be able to make significant changes so therefore they represent much less of a threat to Israeli democracy. First of all, this point is a distraction. If people want to start discussing Ben Gvirs and Balads policies, please do so. Anyone looking a Balads manifest will find plenty of stuff which is objectionable (at best). However the question about Ben Gvir is his picture on the wall; i.e. he is defined as being morally unfit to serve. In addition, given that the last government fell (at least in part) because two Arab MKs werent given everything that they wanted, it is a very dangerous gamble to expect that Benny Gantz or Yair Lapid will restrain Ahmad Tibi.

A third idea raised is that bringing these parties into a coalition will lead to greater integration of the Arab population. This type of thinking is better known as exitus cta probat (the ends justify the means): these MKs may be treif but having them in the coalition serves a greater good. No doubt people in the Likud can also construct a greater good that including Ben Gvir serves. In addition, I would ask these people if having the Chareidi parties in coalitions led to greater or less integration of that sector.

Probably the real justification is that Lapid and Gantz will do anything possible to keep Benjamin Netanyahu from returning to power. If that means forming a coalition with terrorist supporters, homophobes, and fascist supporters, so be it. Another variation of the the ends justify the means thinking and frankly, an indication of moral bankruptcy. (Dont take this as support for Netanyhau.)

If the imagery of Goldsteins picture in Ben Gvirs salon still bothers you, think about this image: In 2023 PM Lapid agrees to release thousands of Palestinian terrorists in exchange for the return of Israelis being held in Gaza. Health Minister Tibi or Welfare and Social Affairs Minister Aida Touma-Sliman or Housing Minister Abbas travel to Um El Fahm in their government-issued car, protected by Israeli government security people, to greet some of the released prisoners. They go to their homes, dance with them, hug them, and join in the festive meal. Out of respect for the feelings of Israeli Jews, the ministers refrain from having any knafeh.

Anyone willing to have this scenario become reality has absolutely no right complain about Minister of Environment Itamar Ben Gvir.

Go here to see the original:
Ben Gvir is treif, but Abbas is OK? Why? - The Times of Israel

A majority of Americans52 percentnow believe the nation is experiencing an invasion on the southern border, and 49 percent say that migrants are responsible for an uptick in U.S. drug overdoses because they are transporting fentanyl and other drugs. Those are among the findings of an NPR/Ipsos poll released in August that suggests support for immigrants is diminishing.

These shifting perceptionsoften based on political rhetoric and a misunderstanding of the facts on the groundmay help explain why there has been little, if any, movement on immigration reform in Congress.

The American Dream and Promise Act, for example, passed by the House last year, would create a pathway to citizenship for Dreamersadults who as children were brought into the country without documentationand other individuals who now have temporary legal status. Despite broad bipartisan support, the measure is not expected to be brought before the Senate before the midterm elections.

The Farm Workforce Modernization Act likewise passed the House, but it is not expected to be approved by the Senate despite bipartisan support. Supporters argue the measure, which creates new opportunities for legal migration, would alleviate shortages of agricultural workers and lower the cost of food.

While the impasse on immigration reform continues in Washington, efforts to reduce opportunities for asylum claims are pushing some migrants into life-and-death decisions at the U.S.-Mexico border.

At least two Trump administration policies have prevented asylum seekers from pleading their cases in the United States: the Migration Protection Protocols and Title 42.

The Migration Protection Protocols, commonly known as the Remain in Mexico policy, required asylum seekers at the border to be returned to Mexico to await their day in court. The Biden administration attempted to end M.P.P. repeatedly, but those efforts have been blocked in court. This summer, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration could end the program, and M.P.P. was finally shut down in August.

Immigration advocates considered the court ruling a victory, if one limited in scope. Joanna Williams, executive director of the Kino Border Initiative, said her organization has helped around a dozen migrants from Nicaragua enter the United States since M.P.P. ended.

But two single mothers who fled persecution in El Salvador were disappointed to learn that the programs official end would not allow them to move on from the border camp in Nogales, Mexico, where they have been living since January. Ms. Williams had to explain that the end of M.P.P. did not affect the status of migrants from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras or Mexico.

For Dylan Corbett, executive director of the Hope Border Institute, the end of M.P.P. called to mind those who were turned away because of the program in the past. Many gave up and returned to precarious conditions in their home countries. Others decided to make dangerous crossings outside the asylum process. And we know that some people did lose their lives, he said.

In June, 53 migrants died in a tractor-trailer in San Antonio, Tex., a tragedy Mr. Corbett sees as demonstrating the index of desperation that governs the risk-taking among migrant people. In August, a 5-year-old girl and a 3-year-old boy drowned days apart in the Rio Grande. In fact, a record 609 migrants have died crossing the border through July this year.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection reports nearly two million encounters with unauthorized migrants this year. While the crossing numbers have unquestionably been on the rise, Mr. Corbett noted that individual migrants often make multiple attempts to enter but are repeatedly turned back by Border Patrol agents.

I understand that the border becomes politicized, but people [in the United States] need to understand that [migrant] people are coming in need, Mr. Corbett said. Its not something we dont have the capacity to respond to. Its a moral call to solidarity. And as a country, well be better off if we accept people with compassion and dignity.

Under Mr. Trump, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention invoked Title 42, a health ordinance used to summarily expel immigrants since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. While M.P.P. affected more than 70,000 people, Title 42 has led to the expulsion of two million people since it began to be invoked in March 2020.

Title 42, in many ways, is a lot worse than M.P.P., Mr. Corbett said. But the intention of both programs was to essentially make life as painful as possible for people who are approaching the border seeking protection. Both administrations are guilty of using those programs in tandem to expel as many people as they could.

For the first 15 months of his administration, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. left Title 42 in place. When he did attempt to end the program in April, he was blocked in court.

The Biden administration has not done enough to end Title 42, according to Luis Guerra, a legal advocate with the Catholic Legal Immigration Network. Were now stuck in this limbo through the legal process that could have been avoided if they would have moved quicker and more decisively, he said.

Mr. Guerra, who regularly works in Tijuana, just south of San Diego, said there are two ways that migrants and asylum seekers attempt to enter the United States. The first is through a port of entry.

Right now they would just flat out be denied entry, he said. He has seen immigration officials at the international line walking among cars seeking to identify presumptive asylum seekers and using Title 42 to turn them back before they can reach U.S. soil, where they can make a legal claim.

When migrants are denied legal routes, many make the second choice, a dangerous entry into the United States across desert terrain or border waterways. Border Patrol agents who intercept them often use Title 42 to return them quickly to Mexico, Mr. Guerra said.

The biggest challenge for organizations on the ground is that there is no rhyme or reason many times on who makes it through and who doesnt, he said, an inconsistency that has encouraged some migrants to take greater risks.

Prospects are grim for those returned to Mexico.

Now theyre living on the streets, and guess whos ready to pick them up? Organized crime, Mr. Guerra said. We see a lot of cases of kidnapping for ransom because a majority of the folks have ties in the U.S., and organized crime takes advantage of that relationship.

Mr. Guerra argued that the asylum process effectively does not exist at ports of entry along the southern border. Asylum only exists for people of means who can arrive through an airport. Title 42 would have to go away for things to return to the status quo, as they were before the pandemic.

A number of public health experts, including within the Biden administration, said the implementation of Title 42 was not based on strong scientific evidence that it would succeed in hindering the spread of Covid-19, according to David Spicer, senior policy advisor with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Weve actually seen that Title 42 caused further spread of Covid-19, he said. You have migrants being expelled back to Mexico on buses and planes. And theyre not being offered vaccinations from our countrys surplus.

Ending Title 42 is important for building a more compassionate and realistic border policy, but it is only the first step, according to Ms. Williams. We need to look at this in a more long-term way and in a more complex way, she said.

Advocates at the border are seeing a greater diversity of nationalities among migrant people at the border, Ms. Williams said, reflecting trends in global displacement. She noted, for example, Muslim Indians arriving at the border who had been persecuted by the Hindu Nationalist Party. There are also migrants from Venezuela, often enduring a second displacement after seeking safety from that nations political turmoil in Colombia.

The Kino Border Initiative serves meals to 200 to 300 people a day, she said, and the shelter has been at capacity each day over the last month.

The effort is stretching staff capacity, but were going to be O.K., she said, adding that when they run out of the prepared meal, the cooks just make quesadillas. No one is going to go away hungry. She described it as a daily miracle of the loaves and the fishes.

Kinos adaptability to changing border conditions is a stark contrast to the lack of progress at the congressional level. According to Don Kerwin, the executive director of the Center for Migration Studies in New York, it has been 33 years since Congress passed a major immigration reform legislationthe Immigration Act of 1990and the last general legalization legislation passed in 1986.

Theres just been a lot of political dysfunction and bad faith about the immigration debate, period, Mr. Kerwin said. Migrants have been transformed into political instruments.

With some small exceptions, immigration policy does not seem to be a priority to congressional leaders or to voters, according to Mr. Kerwin.

People dont vote primarily on immigration, said J. Kevin Appleby, a longtime immigration advocate. People dont perceive or perhaps dont immediately feel the impact of immigration on them like they do inflation, or the absence of health care, or housing costs.

If anything, he said, congressional leaders who are pro-immigrant tend to get hurt politically because of that stance. Candidates who focus on border security often do better in elections, Mr. Appleby said.

Mr. Guerra agreed. Those who create policies that are humane and dignified start worrying about being classified as open borders or too liberal, he said.

The NPR/Ipsos survey suggests anti-immigrant rhetoric is working. Fewer Americans today56 percentsaid immigrants reflect an important aspect of national identity than in 2018, when 75 percent believed that. Slightly more46 percent, up from 42 percent in 2018now support building a wall along the southern border. Ms. Williams found the poll striking, almost shocking, suggesting that many of the positions supported by the people surveyed were just factually incorrect.

She supports stronger efforts to evangelize those Americans through authentic encounters. I dont think that we often allow enough space for transformation in our society, she said. We can wax poetic about politicization, but what are we really doing to give people the opportunity to meet Christ and be transformed by Christ?

The Kino Border Initiative wants to be a place of that kind of encounter, she said. No matter what someones political beliefs are, we have the capacity to be good people, Ms. Williams said. We have the capacity to be good neighbors. And we can really work miracles that way.

Over the long term, walls and border enforcement are not going to solve the problem, Mr. Corbett said. We need to imagine a system that is completely different. We need to put policies in place that are welcoming, that are humane and that break through this logjam of politics.

In the meantime, he said, we have to fight for the dignity of the undocumented and the restoration of asylum.

Find out more about changing public attitudes about immigration.

See original here:
The majority of Americans think migrants are 'invading' the U.S. Meanwhile, suffering at the border continues. - America Magazine