text:
In the days of Jesus' earthly life the Messianic expectation was at its highest pitch. Christ's public ministry was surrounded by controversy as He claimed to be Messiah Himself. In His debate with the Jewish religious leaders, Christ quoted from Psalm 82 to prove His Messianic credentials. His citation of Psalm 82:6 must be explored within the larger context of John's Gospel.
Recall, in John 9, that our Lord had just healed a man who had been blind since birth, thereby demonstrating that He was the "light of the world" (John 9:5). While the blind man came to faith, the Jewish religious leaders willfully closed their eyes to the identity of Jesus as Israel's Messiah. In the tenth chapter of John's Gospel Jesus claimed to be the "Good Shepherd," the door through whom everyone must enter in order to be saved. As the Good Shepherd He promised to lay down His life for the sheep (John 10:11). This statement caused a division among the Jews (10:19). Some insisted that He had a demon and ought to be ignored, while others found it difficult to believe that a demon-possessed man could give sight to a man born blind (10:20-21).
The Jews gathered about our Lord, urging Him to speak forthrightly. Was He the Messiah or not (10:24)? His answer was clear enough for those who believed. He had previously revealed His identity but the majority did not believe. They did not believe because they were not His sheep. Those who were His sheep heard His voice, but the rest did not. Those whom God gave the Son believed and no one could snatch them from the Father's hand. Climactically, Jesus boldly announced, "I and the Father are one" (10:30).
This seemingly heretical acclamation enraged our Lord's enemies. They took up stones to put Him to death. This statement was blasphemy in their view. To this charge our Lord responded by quoting from Psalm 82:6: "'I said, you are gods'" (John 10:34). If God could call those "gods" to whom the word of God had come, why was it wrong for Jesus to claim to be God? Our Lord's defense did not convince most of His opponents. They attempted to put Him to death, but He eluded their grasp (10:39).
We can hardly be surprised that any argument would fail to convince those so opposed to our Lord. Let me ask you though, my friend, how convincing do you find our Lord's defense? I must admit that I have always been inclined to think of the Lord's use of Psalm 82 as more clever than convincing. Wasn't Jesus just embarrassing His enemies by the use of an ingenious debating technique? At best, wouldn't our Lord's argument have proven Him to be a "god" only in the same sense that all men are "gods"? Isn't this an argument which the cults could use to prove that men can be "gods" in the same way Christ claimed to be? Doesn't our Lord's use of Psalm 82 create more problems than it solves?
It was only when a puzzled Christian asked me what our Lord meant in John 10 that I turned to Psalm 82 to try to understand its message. As I have come to a better understanding of Psalm 82 I have also been able to appreciate how well the text our Lord quoted justified His claim to be God. Psalm 82 not only showed that Jesus was Israel's Messiah, it also had a very pointed message to those who had rejected Him and were attempting to put Him to death. Furthermore, I have come to see that Psalm 82 has a very awesome word to those of us who live in the 20th century. Let us look then to Psalm 82 for a word from God which should challenge our lives as much as it did those who lived so many years ago.
1 A Psalm of Asaph. God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers. (NASB)
This psalm begins on a very solemn note. Asaph, the author of this psalm, describes God as a judge who is convening His court in order to pronounce charges. God is said to "take His stand in His own congregation" (v. 1, NASB). The expression "to take a stand" is indicative of the serious nature of the indictment which God is about to make.127 God has taken His stand for the purpose of pronouncing judgment, which the second line of verse 1 indicates, "He judges in the midst of the rulers" (v. 2, NASB). God has taken His stand "in His own congregation" (v. 1, NASB). Literally this expression would be rendered, "in the congregation of God" (cf. marginal note, NASB). I agree with others128 that this phrase is best understood in terms of the congregation of Israel. God has taken His stand in the assembly or congregation of His people, Israel, to pronounce judgment upon them.
The second line of verse 1 identifies those whom God has determined to judge. God judges in the midst of the "gods" (v. 1, margin, NASB). The Hebrew word elohim, is rendered "rulers" in the NASB. Elohim is a common designation for God in the Old Testament. Its precise meaning here has been the subject of considerable discussion. It is not only crucial to a proper interpretation of this psalm, it is also essential for an understanding of our Lord's use of Psalm 82:6 (where the word elohim once again occurs) in the tenth chapter of John.
There are several explanations of who the "gods" are in verses 1 and 6. The first is the view which understands the "gods" to be the mythical gods of the surrounding nations.129 Another is that the "gods" are the human rulers of the nations which are oppressing Israel.130 Yet another explanation is that the elohim are angels, a view surprisingly held by Kidner.131
The most reasonable explanation is the view most widely held over the centuries.132 The "gods" referred to in Psalm 82:1 and 6 are the rulers of Israel, who have failed to carry out their responsibilities as God's representatives in the ruling of the nation. Several lines of evidence support this interpretation:
(1) The way elohim is used elsewhere in the Old Testament. The term elohim almost always refers to the one and only God, the God of Israel (Deut. 4:35,39). It sometimes refers to the so-called "gods" of the heathen (e.g. Judg. 11:24; 1 Kings 18:24). The term also occasionally identifies "… rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power …"133 Several passages may use elohim in this sense:
"Moreover, he [Aaron] shall speak for you [Moses] to the people; and it shall come about that he shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be as God [elohim] to him" (Exod. 4:16).
Then the Lord said to Moses, "See, I make you as God [elohim] to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet" (Exod. 7:1).
"Then his master shall bring him to God [elohim, or, the judges who acted in God's name, margin, NASB], then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently" (Exod. 21:6).
"If the thief is not caught, then the owner of the house shall appear before the judges [elohim], to determine whether he laid his hands on his neighbor's property. For every breach of trust, whether it is for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for clothing, or for any lost thing about which one says, 'This is it,' the case of both parties shall come before the judges [elohim]; he whom the judges [elohim] condemn shall pay double to his neighbor" (Exod. 22:8,9).
The teaching of the Bible is that man was created in God's image to reign and to rule as a vice regent over the earth (Gen. 1:26,28; cf. also Ps. 8:6; Rom. 8:17-21; 2 Tim. 2:12). Rulers are appointed by God to carry out His purposes of restraining evil and rewarding those who do what is good (cf. Rom. 13:1-4). In this sense rulers not only act for God; they, in a sense, act as God (as "gods"):
And he said to the judges, "Consider what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the Lord who is with you when you render judgment. Now then let the fear of the Lord be upon you; be very careful what you do, for the Lord our God will have no part in unrighteousness, or partiality, or the taking of a bribe" (2 Chron. 19:6-7).
(2) The Scriptures teach that men are responsible for the actions commanded in verses 3-4 and those condemned in verse 2. The Old Testament Law commanded the Israelites to care for the needy, the helpless, and the oppressed:
"You shall not pervert the justice due an alien or an orphan, nor take a widow's garment in pledge. But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and that the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing. When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow, in order that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands" (Deut. 24:17-19; cf. also Exod. 23:2-3, 6-9; Lev. 19:15, 33-34; Deut. 1:17).
This passage suggests that all of the injustices and sufferings of Israel while in Egyptian bondage were intended to make God's people sensitive to the plight of the weak and the oppressed.
What the Law commanded, Proverbs and the prophets reiterated:
"Open your mouth for the dumb, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy" (Prov. 31:8-9).
'Thus says the Lord, "Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place"' (Jer. 22:3).
(3) The condemnation found in Psalm 82 is elsewhere clearly directed against Israel and particularly its leaders, both in the Old and New Testaments:
Do you indeed speak righteousness, O gods?134 Do you judge uprightly, O sons of men? No, in heart you work unrighteousness; on earth you weigh out the violence of your hands (Ps. 58:1-2).
The Lord arises to contend, and stands135 to judge the people. The Lord enters into judgment with the elders and princes of His people, "It is you who have devoured the vineyard; the plunder of the poor is in your houses. What do you mean by crushing My people, and grinding the face of the poor?" declares the Lord God of hosts (Isa. 3:13-15, cf. also Ezek. 34:1-6).
"Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the synagogues, and places of honor at banquets, who devour widows' houses, and for appearance's sake offer long prayers; these will receive greater condemnation" (Luke 20:46-47).
(4) Finally the use of the word shaphat in the Old Testament indicates that elohim refers to Israelite rulers. I am convinced that a key to the interpretation of this psalm is a proper understanding of the Hebrew word shaphat, which occurs four times (NASB: "judges," v. 1; "judge," v. 2; "vindicate," v. 3; "judge," v. 8). Unfortunately the English translation "judge" most often falls short of the much broader nuance of the Hebrew term. In the United States, our government has three branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. At least in theory these three branches are separated to guard against dictatorial rule by a minority. An American thus thinks of "judging" merely as passing judgment in legal disputes, but to the Hebrew mind shaphat would encompass all three functions of governing.136
The verb, "judge," in the Old Testament has a variety of meanings: (1) To act as a ruler, whether as a congregation (Num. 18:22-28), as an individual judge (Deut. 1:16; Judg. 16:31; 1 Sam. 7:16), or as a king (1 Sam. 8:5-6; 2 Chron. 1:10-11, "rule" NASB). Messiah will rule the earth (Ps. 72:12-15; 96:13; Isa. 11:1-5) in the future. (2) To judge in cases of controversy or litigation (Exod. 18:16). (3) To punish (Ezek. 7:3,8; 16:38; 23:24). (4) To defend the rights of men, especially the helpless and the afflicted ("deliver," 1 Sam. 24:15, NASB; "vindicate," Ps. 10:18, NASB; "freed," 2 Sam. 18:19, NASB).
Perhaps the breadth of the meaning of the term shaphat is best illustrated in Psalm 72, a song of Solomon which characterizes the reign of a righteous king. (In verse 4 shaphat occurs and is rendered "vindicate.") The righteous king rules in righteousness (v. 2). He cares for the afflicted (vv. 2,4,12-14). Under him the righteous prosper (vv. 7,16), while the wicked are crushed (v. 4). To judge righteously is to rule as the righteous king described by Solomon in Psalm 72.
God has convened His court in the midst of the congregation of Israel. In particular, His grievance is with the leaders of the nation Israel. The specifics of the indictment are outlined in verse 2.
2 How long will you judge unjustly, And show partiality to the wicked? Selah. (NASB)
Those being rebuked in Psalm 82 are, first and foremost, Israel's rulers, who were responsible to promote justice, to punish evildoers, and to defend the weak and the oppressed. Verse 2 indicates that Israel's leaders had failed in their responsibilities. Injustice was promoted and the wicked were honored and treated with partiality (literally, their face was lifted, almost in the sense that a benediction was pronounced on them). The expression "how long" implies unjust judgment and partiality had been long standing. Unrighteous leadership was not the exception; it was the norm.
The mood of the Psalm suggests that God's patience with the corrupt leadership was exhausted. Verses 2-4 contain the response of the Supreme Judge of the universe, the Righteous Ruler of the earth. Partiality and unjust judgment must come to an end. More than this, righteous rule must be restored. Verses 3 and 4 state positively what those who stand in God's place as rulers must do.
3 Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute. 4 Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked. (NASB)
The weak, fatherless and afflicted must be cared for and protected from wicked men since their vulnerability made them easy prey. Evil rulers not only fail to reward those who do good, and to punish the wicked, they actually prey upon the weak and the defenseless. Through Ezekiel God condemned Israel's leaders, her shepherds, for failing to care for the flock and also for devouring it:
Then the word of the Lord came to me saying, "Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy and say to those shepherds, 'Thus says the Lord God, "Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock? You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat sheep without feeding the flock. Those who are sickly you have not strengthened, the diseased you have not healed, the broken you have not bound up, the scattered you have not brought back, nor have you sought for the lost; but with force and with severity you have dominated them"'" (Ezek. 34:1-4).
Likewise, the Lord sternly condemned the scribes for "devouring widow's houses" (Luke 20:46-47).
The test of a godly leader is what he does on behalf of the poor and the oppressed. Anyone will gladly come to the aid of one who has power and prestige, who is able to return the favor. Our Lord teaches that we are tested in terms of what we do for the "least of our brethren":
"And the King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me'" (Matt. 25:40).
God has a particular concern for those who are powerless, poor, and without adequate human protection. Any ruler who is to reflect God in His administration must have the same concern for the oppressed and the afflicted.
5 They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are shaken. 6 I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High. 7 Nevertheless you will die like men, And fall like any one of the princes." (NASB)
It is difficult to dogmatically determine the antecedent of the pronoun "they" in verse 5. Are "they" the wicked previously spoken of in verses 2-4, or are "they" the weak and the needy who are oppressed by the wicked? Perhaps both are in view, since those who lead often infect others with their own ailments. The sins of the fathers are visited on the sons (Exod. 20:5). In the New Testament Jesus called the wicked religious leaders "blind leaders of the blind" (Matt. 15:14), who fell into the pit, along with their followers. Thus both ungodly leaders and those who follow them lack understanding, so that they grope about as in the darkness. A similar condition is described by Hosea:
So you will stumble by day, and the prophet also will stumble with you by night; and I will destroy your mother. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children (Hos. 4:5-6).
The lack of knowledge and understanding referred to in Psalm 82:5 is explained in the Book of Jeremiah:
"For My people are foolish, they know Me not; they are stupid children, and they have no understanding. They are shrewd to do evil, but to do good they do not know" (Jer. 4:22).
"Did not your father eat and drink, and do justice and righteousness? Then it was well with him. He pled the cause of the afflicted and needy; then it was well. Is not that what it means to know Me?" declares the Lord. "But your eyes and your heart are intent only upon your own dishonest gain, and on shedding innocent blood and on practicing oppression and extortion" (Jer. 22:15b-17).
Israel's leaders, who are brought to the judgment bar of God in Psalm 82, do not know God. Their ignorance and lack of knowledge is evidenced by their injustice and oppression of the afflicted and needy.
Since the nations were to be established on righteousness and justice (Prov. 16:12; 24:3; 25:5; 29:14), when the wicked rule the foundations are shaken (Ps. 82:5). When the Lord reigns the world is firmly settled:
The Lord reigns, He is clothed with majesty; The Lord has clothed and girded Himself with strength; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved (Ps. 93:1).
Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved; He will judge the peoples with equity (Ps. 96:10).
Verse 6 is crucial, both to this psalm and to the argument which our Lord bases upon its citation in John 10. "I said, 'You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High.'" Earthly rulers must be reminded of the fact that they are to act in God's place. They are to exercise power in His name. They are also to act in accord with His character and His commands. As the apostle Paul put it, an earthly ruler is "… a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil" (Rom. 13:4). If we do what is good we will "… have praise from the same" (Rom. 13:3). Earthly rulers are only "god-like" when they rule as God would rule.
Verse 6 also serves to remind human magistrates that they are in a position of authority because God appointed them (cf. Rom. 13:1). Often, when human rulers obtain power and prestige, they forget the source of their authority. Thus Nebuchadnezzar had to be humbled by living as a beast:
"King Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is declared: sovereignty has been removed from you, and you will be driven away from mankind, and your dwelling place will be with the beasts of the field. You will be given grass to eat like cattle, and seven periods of time will pass over you, until you recognize that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and bestows it on whomever He wishes" (Dan. 4:31b-32).
It is possible that the second line of verse 6 is the kind of (synonymous) poetic parallelism which merely restates the thought of the first in different words. I am inclined to think that the second line builds upon the first. While the first line addresses only the rulers, the second broadens the scope of God's warning to include the entire community of Israel ("all of you"). Now, of course, this may mean "all of you rulers." I am inclined to think that the condemnation of the earlier verses is being broadened to include all of the people of Israel. After all, how can men be leaders unless there be followers? Many passages place responsibility for just rulers and just rule on all of Israel, not just on its leadership.
"You shall not bear a false report; do not join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not follow a multitude in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice" (Exod. 23:1-2).
"You shall appoint for yourself judges and officers in all your towns which the Lord your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the word of the righteous. Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, that you may live and possess the land which the Lord your God is giving you" (Deut. 16:18-20).
These passages teach that the responsibility for godly leadership rests upon the community. The people as a whole have an obligation to make sure that godly leaders are appointed. They must resist peer pressure and stand alone, if necessary, in upholding righteousness.
I believe that while God appoints certain men to lead, He expects all of His people to be leaders when it comes to doing what is right. God created man to rule over His creation (Gen. 1:26, 28). Even after the fall of man and the flood, man was still commanded to rule, since he remained a creation in God's image (Gen. 9:1-7). If Israel would but obey, God promised to make His people a "kingdom of priests" (Exod. 19:6). While this did not happen in Israel's day, it is a promise partially fulfilled in the church (1 Pet. 2:5) and will be completely fulfilled in the Kingdom which is to come (cf. Rev. 1:6; 20:6). Not only did Israel as a nation have its rulers, Israel was to rule as a nation, seeking to practice and to promote God's righteousness on the earth. In Hosea 4:6, Israel, as a nation, is rejected by God as His priest among the nations (cf. Exod. 19:6).
The expression "sons of the Most High" is, I believe, virtually equivalent to "son of God". This phrase, while it applies specifically to Messiah, also refers to those who rule. God established a special relationship with David when He appointed him as king of Israel. The relationship between God and David was one of a father and a son:
"I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you" (2 Sam. 7:14-15).
Clearly, the father-son relationship here is between God and David and his sons (all of whom, except Christ, will sin). Sonship, ultimately, is conferred upon the Messiah, who will rule over the earth in righteousness:
I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, 'Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Thine inheritance, and the very ends of the earth as Thy possession' (Ps. 2:7-8).
Ultimately God will reign in the person of His Son, the Messiah. For now, He reigns through His "sons," the "gods" who are appointed to reign in His stead. It must also be said, God is to reign in and through His people collectively. We who belong to Him are all His sons, destined to reign with Him in the future (cf. 2 Tim. 2:12; Rev. 20:6), but also to actively promote righteousness now.
The kings of ancient days were frequently worshipped as "gods" (cf. Acts 12:22-23). Perhaps they viewed themselves as "gods," too, but in a sense different from that conveyed in verse 6. Let such "heady" rulers remember they are only men and they will die like mere mortals.
Interestingly, the word "men" in verse 7 is adam in the Hebrew. He was created in the image of God and destined to rule over God's creation. Had Adam obeyed God and carried out his calling, he would have lived forever. Due to his disobedience he failed to enjoy the high calling that was his. Let the rulers appointed by God learn from this. In spite of the dignity and power bestowed on them, they will be judged like men (and like Adam). They are, after all, mere men. In their pride this can easily be forgotten, just as we see in the case of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:28-37) and Herod (Acts 12:18-23). Like the princes before them who failed to remember their responsibility before God, the ungodly rulers of this Psalm will fall. The word "fall" in the second line of verse 7 may, as A. R. Fausset suggests, signify "God's judgment by a violent death."137 Such warning should serve to humble those who rule arrogantly. A high calling does not necessarily result in a glorious conclusion. Let those who have such a calling carry out their task with humility and diligence.
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth! For it is Thou who dost possess all the nations. (NASB)
Despite all the warnings of the first seven verses, the psalmist realizes that righteous rule will only prevail on the earth when God Himself reigns in the person of His Son, Messiah. Verse 8 concludes this psalm with a petition that the God who possesses the earth might establish righteousness fully and finally: "Arise, O God, judge the earth! For it is Thou who dost possess all the nations." This is the equivalent of what we read in the New Testament: "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt. 7:10; cf. 1 Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20).
The psalmist turns from the general subject of righteous rule to the specific solution: the Righteous Ruler. Only when He comes will there be a rule that is truly righteous. Here is the messianic hope of the Old Testament saint. Even the great kings like David and Solomon fell short of God's ideal. Messiah Himself must come before the ideal government will become a reality.
Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? (John 10:34).
John's purpose in writing his gospel is explicitly stated to be that of convincing his readers of the deity of Christ (20:30-31). In order to do this John recorded a series of signs (cf. 20:30) which led to the inevitable conclusion that Jesus was not only God, but also Israel's Messiah. As the evidence mounts in this gospel, so does the opposition. While the disciples soon began to believe in Jesus (cf. 1:49; 2:11), the scribes and Pharisees quickly rejected Him, especially after the cleansing of the temple (2:14-22). Early on, the Jewish rulers sought to put Jesus to death, and each new confrontation with Him only added to their determination (5:18).
With this growing opposition there was an accompanying polarization among the people. The division became wider and wider: "The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, 'How can this man give us His flesh to eat?'" (6:52) As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew, and were not walking with Him any more (6:66).
And there was much grumbling among the multitudes concerning Him; some were saying, "He is a good man"; others were saying, "No, on the contrary, He leads the multitude astray." Yet no one was speaking openly of Him for fear of the Jews (7:12-13).
Therefore some of the people of Jerusalem were saying, "Is this not the man whom they are seeking to kill? And look, He is speaking publicly, and they are saying nothing to Him. The rulers do not really know that this is the Christ, do they? (7:25-26).
They were seeking therefore to seize Him; and no man laid his hand on Him, because His hour had not yet come. But many of the multitude believed in Him; and they were saying, "When the Christ shall come, He will not perform more signs than those which this man has, will He?" (7:30-31).
Some of the multitude therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, "This certainly is the Prophet." Others were saying, "This is the Christ." Still others were saying, "Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He?" … So there arose a division in the multitude because of Him (7:40-41, 43).
There arose a division again among the Jews because of these words. And many of them were saying, "He has a demon, and is insane. Why do you listen to Him?" Others were saying, "These are not the sayings of one demon-possessed. A demon cannot open the eyes of the blind, can he?" (10:19-21).
While some had come to believe Jesus was the promised Messiah, many had chosen to follow their leaders in rejecting Him. The feeding of the five thousand and giving sight to the man born blind failed to convince the critics of our Lord. While they attributed His miracles to demonic powers (8:48; 10:20), His teaching they considered outright blasphemy. In John 8:58 Jesus claimed to be the "I AM" of the Old Testament, and therefore the Jews attempted to stone Him (8:59). Jesus' claims continued. In chapter nine He taught that He was the "light of the world" (v. 5). In chapter ten He said, "I and the Father are one" (v. 30).
One of the central issues involved in the conflict between our Lord and the religious leadership of the nation was who had the authority to lead. They quickly noted that Jesus was gathering disciples and baptizing them, even more than John the Baptist (John 4:1-2). Jesus claimed His authority to judge came from the Father (5:22,27,30). Jesus accused his opponents of judging "according to appearance" rather than "with righteous judgment" (7:24). The scribes and Pharisees sought to condemn the woman caught in adultery (8:4-5), but Jesus refused to condemn her (8:10-11). He then accused the Jewish leaders of judging "according to the flesh" (8:15), while He judged according to truth (8:16,26). When the blind man was given sight, the judgment controversy again surfaced:
And Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see; and that those who see may become blind." Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things, and said to Him, "We are not blind too, are we?" (9:39-40).
In John 10 our Lord boldly spoke forth, identifying Himself as the Messiah and the Good Shepherd. He also made it clear that the religious leaders who had rejected Him were the evil shepherds, like those depicted centuries earlier by the prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. 34). God promised to come and to judge between the sheep, and to set up one shepherd over His flock:
Therefore, thus says the Lord God to them, "Behold, I, even I, will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. Because you push with side and with shoulder, and thrust at all the weak with your horns, until you have scattered them abroad, therefore, I will deliver My flock, and they will no longer be a prey; and I will judge between one sheep and another. Then I will set over them one shepherd, My servant David, and he will feed them; he will feed them himself and be their shepherd" (Ezek. 34:20-23).
When our Lord announced that He was the Shepherd, the good One, He identified Himself as the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy.138 He also identified His opponents, the religious leaders of the nation Israel, as the shepherds who dominated and abused the flock, rather than caring for the weak and the sickly (Ezek. 34:1-4). No wonder they reacted to Jesus' teaching so violently and wanted to stone Him (John 10:31,39).
When accused of blasphemy, Jesus based His defense on the statement quoted from Psalm 82:6: "I said, you are gods." This was no time for clever tricks or weak arguments. When Jesus referred to this psalm, He did so, I believe, because no passage argued His case more forcefully. It is not just that one verse, but the argument of the entire psalm upon which Jesus rested His defense. Psalm 82 warned the unrighteous judges (leaders) of Israel of God's impending judgment upon them. When Jesus appealed to this psalm He not only identified Himself as the fulfillment of verse 8, He also identified them as the fulfillment of verses 1-7. The warning of the psalm was being fulfilled in their midst. God had finally come to judge the "gods." How much better the name God suited Jesus than the title "gods" suited the scribes and the Pharisees.
To have understood the message of Psalm 82 and our Lord's application of it would have been to bow the knee to Him as the Son of God, the promised Messiah. To reject this message was to reject the Messiah, which, in fact, many did. No one better interpreted or applied Psalm 82 than our Lord. No one better fulfilled it than He.
The relevance of Psalm 82 to the people of our Lord's day is now obvious. The people must ascertain the person and character of the Righteous Judge. Either the religious leaders were correct (and Jesus must be put to death) or Jesus is God's Righteous Ruler (and the Jewish leaders must be rejected). Even today, men must make the same decision. Either we bow the knee now to the Lord Jesus as our Savior, or we will bow the knee to Him as our Judge (Phil. 2:9-11). Let us do so now, so that we will not stand before Him condemned.
There are other applications for us as well. Let me suggest three areas to which Psalm 82 speaks. First, this psalm should serve as a somber warning to all who lead, regardless of the level of leadership. I fear that many seek leadership positions for the power and the prestige they seem to offer. There is, Psalm 82 informs us, power and authority invested in leaders. That is part of the reason why the word elohim is employed in the psalm. However, the authority and power of leadership is not ours; it is God's. To fail to exercise our God-given power consistent with God's character and commands is to fall under His judgment. Let those of us who lead do so with "fear and trembling". Also, let us remember that power has been given, not so much for our benefit, as for the protection of those who are weak and oppressed. The measure of any leader's effectiveness is his protection and care for the weak. In short, leaders are called of God to serve others, not to be served, even as our Lord came to serve at the sacrifice of His life (Mark 10:45).
Second, there is a lesson here for those who are under authority. I have personally gained a new appreciation for the dignity of the office God has given leaders. In Ephesians Paul exhorts wives to submit to their own husbands as "to the Lord" (5:22), and slaves to submit to their masters as "to Christ" (6:5). Peter, in urging wives to submit to their husbands, refers to Sarah, who expressed her submission to Abraham by calling him "lord" (1 Pet. 3:6). All of this causes me to think that submission to God-given authorities involves a deeper reverence or respect than I have been inclined to suppose in the past. We are not to respect or reverence earthly authorities as God, but given the teaching of the Bible we do need to see them in the light of their God-given position and power. For me, this requires more respect than I have heretofore given.
Furthermore, Psalm 82 also warns me about following the right leaders. While God holds leaders accountable for their administration, He also holds me accountable for following them, in particular, when they are wrong and I know it. I understand Jesus to be warning His listeners about following their leaders when He cited Psalm 82:6. The nation Israel had a choice to make. Would they follow their leaders in rejecting Christ and putting Him to death, or would they follow the Good Shepherd? The pattern of the Scriptures, as I understand them, is that we ought not attempt the overthrow of a corrupt government, but that we must refuse to obey it when its commands are contrary to the revealed word of God (cf. Dan. 3:13-18; 6:10; Acts 5:29).
Strange as it may seem, Psalm 82 has something to say to us about church discipline. The church members are "gods" in the same way that Israel's leaders were, because we are assigned the responsibility of acting in God's behalf when church members willfully disregard God's word and the warning of fellow saints. With this is mind, look once more at our Lord's words to His church:
"And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer. Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst" (Matt. 18:15-20).
Are we not taught that we are to act for God in this matter of correction and that God is intimately involved with the decisions of the church in the discipline of willful members of His body, the church? I believe that this is what Paul practiced in 1 Corinthians 5:5-6 when he turned a sinful member over to Satan in "the name of our Lord Jesus." Church discipline is essential because God has instructed us to act in His behalf when fellow Christians fail to heed God's word. To fail to obey God in this unpleasant task is to misrepresent the character of God and to disobey His command to us to reflect His holiness by dealing with sin in the church (cf. 1 Cor. 5:6-8).
Finally, I see a very clear command that we, as Christians (and thus, sons of God), must be concerned about social justice. James puts it this way: "This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world" (James 1:27).
While Christians have often been at the forefront of the cause of the poor and the oppressed throughout history, it is amazing to me that many Christians today are apathetic about social justice. The reasons are various. Some shy away from it because the "liberals" are taking up the banner of social justice. Others seem to be passive because they view the time immediately preceding Christ's return as days of apostasy and social decadence (Paul believed this too, cf. 2 Tim. 3:1-13, and so do I). They therefore seem to stand idly by, as mere spectators, often delighted by what they see, for they feel it must mean that our Lord's return is near.
Let me remind you that the psalmist also believed in the coming of Christ. This was something for which he prayed (v. 8). Nevertheless, this did not deter him from warning unrighteous rulers, nor did he hold back from exhorting leaders to look out for the needs of the weak and the oppressed (vv. 3-4). Indeed, even in the darkest hours of man's history, before the return of our Lord, it is the treatment of the oppressed which serves as the standard for spirituality (Matt. 25:31-46).
I sometimes hear my Christian brothers and sisters bemoaning the fact that our country allows refugees to settle here, away from the ravages of war and political persecution. I do not mean to say that there are no good reasons for excluding some from coming to our country. What I am asking you to seriously consider is whether your reasons for opposing them are biblical, in the light of our study.
My political convictions, quite honestly, are somewhat to the right in the spectrum. I am not opposed to "Reaganomics" as many are. Yet, I want to suggest that some who cite conservative politics as their defense for cutting "social justice" matters out of the budget may be doing so for reasons which Psalm 82 condemns.
I understand that these matters are both sensitive and a matter of deep conviction. I simply urge you, regardless of your political and economic point of view to evaluate your positions in the light of the command to care for the weak and the oppressed. This is what rulers of days gone by failed to do. This is why our Lord came the first time. This is why He will come again as the Righteous Ruler. Even so, come Lord Jesus.
127 "The word nitzabh denotes a deliberate and formal act, connected with a definite purpose. I Sam. 19:20." J. J. Stewart Perowne, The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, l972), II, p. 105.
128 "The word 'edah is frequently applied to the congregation of Israel as such." H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House [reprint], 1969), p. 594. [Israel is called the 'congregation of Jehovah' in Num. 27:17; 31:16; Josh. 22:16-17.]
129 "In more recent years scholars have tended to identify the 'elohim with the national gods of the various peoples of the world, who have been demoted to the position of Yahweh's servants …" A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1981), II, p. 592.
Such "gods" however do not exist, nor are they responsible for administering justice on the earth. How can a non-existent god be summoned to judgment or be threatened with death? How then can our Lord possibly use this psalm, thus interpreted, to prove His deity?
130 Kirkpatrick mentions this as one of the interpretations which should be rejected. A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House [reprint], 1982), p. 495.
131 "… these 'gods' are 'principalities and powers', 'the world rulers of this present darkness' (cf. Eph. 6:12). … On the whole this view seems truer than the former to the language of the psalm (e.g. verse 7) and to the occasional Old Testament use of the term 'gods' or 'sons of God' for angels (see on Ps. 8:5; cf. Jb. 1:6; 38:7)." Derek Kidner, Psalms 73-150 (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1975), p. 297.
While Kidner's argument is based upon a sound effort to define the term "gods" from usage elsewhere in the Old Testament, it hardly gives good sense to the psalm, and it seems inconsistent with the argument which our Lord develops from the psalm in John 10. Kirkpatrick's rebuttal of the view held by Kidner is forceful: "The idea that angels can be punished with death is startling, and foreign to the O. T. view of angelic nature. … There is not the slightest hint that vv. 2-4 refer to anything but the oppression of men by men. The language, as has been pointed out above, closely resembles that of the Law and the Prophets, and there is no reason for taking it in a non-natural sense." Kirkpatrick, p. 495.
132 Leupold says this psalm "… presents a judgment pronounced by the Lord on the judges or rulers of Israel. For in Israel the term judges had practically the same meaning as the term rulers, the Israelite usage being derived from the chief function of rulers. … Up to about seventy years ago there was a practical unanimity in the church as to the interpretation of this psalm, commentators being agreed that it treated the subject just as we have just indicated." Leupold, p. 592.
133 Brown, Francis; Driver, S. R.; and Charles Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966), p. 43.
134 The word here rendered "gods" is elim, not elohim. These two words are related, but not identical. Kirkpatrick remarks, "Elim, however is not so used elsewhere, and may simply mean 'mighty ones.'" Kirkpatrick, p. 327.
135 "Stands" here is a translation of the Hebrew word, 'omed, and is therefore not the same word as in Psalm 82:1. The force of the two is nearly the same, however, a fact which Perowne notes. Cf. Perowne, p. 105.
136 "Shaphat," Robert D. Culver, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), II, p. 947. This is an excellent article (pp. 947-949), which I highly recommend for your reading.
137 Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, A Commentary Critical Experimental and Practical on the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans [photolithoprinted], 1967), III, p. 290.
138 Luke introduced our Lord as the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy: "And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book, and found the place where it was written, 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are downtrodden, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord'" (Luke 4:17-19). Here, Jesus identified Himself as the Messiah, Israel's ideal leader. The thrust of His ministry was to do the very things which the wicked rulers of Israel (as indicated in Psalm 82) had failed to do.


text:
This article is more than 1 year old
Everyone knew NoTW 'rogue reporter' bit was untrue
Including the police, says former tabloid lawyer
James Murdoch was made aware in 2008 that alleged phone-hacking practices at the News of the World went beyond "one rogue reporter", the former legal manager of News Group Newspapers claimed to MPs today.
Tom Crone said that an email with the subject line "For Neville" was "the first piece of evidence we'd seen that showed [illegal voicemail interception] went beyond Clive Goodman".
Goodman was the News of the World's royal editor. He, alongside private investigator Glenn Mulcaire, was jailed for illegal phone hacking in early 2007.
Crone told the Media, Culture and Sports committee that he didn't make a copy of the email, nor did he ever refer to it as the "For Neville" [understood to be NotW reporter Neville Thurlbeck] email. But he insisted that James Murdoch knew about the existence of the document.
Colin Myler, the NotW's final editor, was also present at a 15-minute-long meeting in which it was claimed the email was discussed.
Murdoch signed off a settlement payment of £425,000 – according to a letter (3-page/152KB PDF) to the committee's chairman John Whittingdale from a law firm acting for News Group Newspapers – to Professional Footballers' Association boss Gordon Taylor.
Farrer & Co said Taylor had filed a damages claim against the now-defunct Sunday tabloid. The former FA boss had been seeking up to £1m from NGN, which is a subsidiary of News International.
He eventually accepted the £425,000 offer after batting away smaller proposed settlement figures.
Crone said today that the "For Neville" email "was the reason we had to settle the [Taylor] case".
He claimed that had News International not settled the claim, four other individuals could have then sued the company, bringing on potentially serious commercial damage.
Crone said he had to sign a written undertaking required by the Metropolitan police, who provided him with a copy of the "For Neville" document.
"If you can avoid litigation coming in then you do. If we have to pay way over the odds especially if there's a confidentiality clause then that is a good course of action," he told MPs on the committee.
But Crone denied trying to conceal alleged widespread criminality at NotW, despite his admission that he knew – courtesy of the "For Neville" evidence – that Goodman was not a "rogue reporter" as had previously been claimed by News International.
A transcription by a junior reporter at the tabloid appeared to have originated from voicemail and that was why the company ultimately settled with Taylor, claimed Crone.
"The priority at the time was to contain the situation... get on with our business," he said in response to a question from Labour MP Tom Watson, who asked if Taylor's silence had been bought.
But when Watson grilled Crone further over whether the settlement would also mean the "For Neville" email evidence would be concealed, the erstwhile NGN legal manager retorted:
"The providence of this document was from the Met. How can we be accused of covering up something that has reached us from the police?"
Myler later claimed that James Murdoch understood what was being discussed when the meeting with Crone took place in 2008.
"There was no ambiguity about the significance of that ["For Neville"] document... There was no suggestion then or now that anyone tried to conceal anything," said Myler.
"It was alleged wrongly that we were guilty of covering up or concealing events... that's not factually correct," he added, in reference to comments made by James and Rupert Murdoch who were questioned by MPs on 19 July.
James Murdoch claimed at that hearing that he was unaware of the email in 2008.
He added at the time that "there was every reason to settle the [Taylor] case, given the likelihood of losing the case and given the damages – we had received counsel – that would be levied". ®

subset: commoncrawl


text:
10 Main Street Suite L-1
Andover, MA 01810
At Andover Dental Care we offer a range of treatment options for sleep apnea. If snoring or obstructed breathing is a problem, call Dr. McQuade today to learn how we can help you breathe easier.
Left untreated, sleep apnea can cause serious health problems, so contact us now to schedule an examination.
Dr. Charles McQuade is a popular Andover area children's dentist known for his easy going and friendly approach. Our caring team is dedicated to your child's dental health.
We're happy to answer all of your questions. We want you and your children to feel comfortable, whether we're treating your toddler's baby teeth or your teenager's permanent teeth.
If you're looking for dentures that look great and last, look no further than Andover Dental Care located in the Andover, MA area. Charles McQuade, D.M.D. will assess your needs and fit you with durable, comfortable, natural-looking dentures - at a price you can afford.
Did you know that trusted Andover area TMJ/TMD dentist Charles McQuade, D.M.D. offers treatment for jaw pain relief? If you're experiencing discomfort when you move your jaw, or you hear clicking and popping when you chew, we want to help.
Our friendly team is happy to answer questions. There's no need to continue to live with pain. Relief is just a phone call away.
For patients who need wisdom tooth removal in the Andover area, Dr. Charles McQuade can help. If your wisdom tooth are impacted or need to be extracted, you can trust our highly trained professional team.
Your comfort and long-term oral health are our first concerns. We're committed to providing you with the gentle and skilful care you deserve.


text:
The End Of Zionism?
Jaideep A Prabhu
Dec 16, 2017, 11:57 AM | Updated 11:55 AM IST
Save & read from anywhere!
Bookmark stories for easy access on any device or the Swarajya app.
The Reform Jewish movement's response to United States (US) President Donald Trump's decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to the holy city, may only be the first incontrovertible sign that the ideology of Zionism has come to an end.
To be certain, the diaspora has never been in concurrence with the policies of the Israeli state, but for decades now, the gap between them and the Jews in Israel has been widening. This latest manifestation from J Street, the Union for Reform Judaism and others is an unpleasant yet not wholly unexpected wake-up call for the community as a whole.
An end to Zionism does not imply the politics of post-Zionism, which questions the very foundations of the Jewish state. Rather, it recognises that most of the diaspora who wish to immigrate to Israel have already done so, and the different environments in which the sabra and the diaspora find themselves has, over decades, altered their perspectives on some of the core issues that concern the Jewish community. An end to Zionism, for our purpose, does not question the existence of Israel or even comment on the ethics of central issues of identity and existence such as the drafting of a constitution, Judea and Samaria, the Orthodox Rabbinate, counter-terrorism, or foreign relations within the region.
There are several indications that Zionism may be on its last legs, if not over. One benchmark is Jewish immigration to the Holy Land. It is no secret that the numbers of Jews making aliyah to Israel have been dwindling over the past several years. The first couple of years of the Jewish state understandably saw a high number of olim arrive from Europe and the Middle East, while another spike in numbers occurred after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.
The highest volume of immigration has been from the Soviet Union and its successor states, with approximately 1.3 million immigrants over the years. Less than a tenth of that number made aliyah from the United States in the same period. To be fair, American Jews have historically been opposed to Zionism, initially seeing it as a wrinkle in their efforts to assimilate into mainstream American society. The ideology was only made palatable by Louis Brandeis when he refashioned it as a cultural project of rebuilding Palestine as a Jewish home towards which American Jews need only make financial contributions.
Jewish immigration to Israel last year fell to 27,000 new arrivals, of which 70 per cent were from Russia, Ukraine, and France – whose combined Jewish diaspora population is barely 10 per cent of the total. These numbers are even more depressing when considered in the context of yerida – Israelis leaving the country to settle abroad. Since 1948, the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics estimates that over 720,000 Israelis have emigrated; US Department of Homeland Security figures reveal that some 250,000 of those have settled in America. This means that the net flow of people has been from Israel to the US rather than the other way around. Of course, emigration does not necessitate a rejection of Zionism and may well be in most cases for the usual reasons of employment and education. Nonetheless, the primary call of Zionism seems to have weakened on not only the diaspora but even a small number of Israelis who left in search of material prosperity. As the Jews of the Anglosphere generally indicate, prosperity cools the fervour of Zionism.
The unspoken truth about aliyah is that American emigration has been viewed as the most important. After all, it is not just the most populous Jewish diaspora but also the most prosperous one as well. The American attitude of "buying into" Zionism with their wealth irked several of the early Zionist leaders and many saw the refusal to move to Israel as a deep betrayal. Yet the same attitude was common even among European Jews before the Second World War and the Shoah; nineteenth-century Zionists found it difficult to convince European Jews to move to Palestine or even to financially aid the few pioneers who made the first aliyah at the end of the century.
The tension between aid and ideology can be seen even today. Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Tzipi Hotovely's statement at Princeton deriding American Jewry for not serving in the military was denounced by her own prime minister while everyone else studiously ignored the real meaning of Hotovely's words – service in the Israeli Defence Forces – and loudly proclaimed that US Jews have proudly served in the US armed forces. Regardless of the differences between American Jews and Israelis, it was poor politics to insult the most useful, if irritating, of diaspora.
Besides prosperity, another factor that has spelled the demise of Zionism is the relative safety in which Jews around the world live today. Anti-semitism is indeed still present and at times lurking just below the superficial calm, even in the new Zion of the US, but the dangers are nowhere near as severe or mainstream as a century earlier. The irony of history is that the greatest physical threat to Jews in the world today is exactly where they were supposed to find refuge – Israel. The security in the diaspora has led many of them to come to different conclusions about the internal and external challenges that face Israel.
One area of disagreement has been Israel's Palestine conundrum and the plethora of issues that it contains – the international boundary, civil rights for Palestinians, counter-terrorism. As Israelis, even on the left, are quick to point out, life is substantially different in Morningside as compared to, say, Pisgat Ze'ev, in terms of rocket attacks, shootings, stabbings, vehicular attacks, and suicide bombings. Yet more and more of the diaspora seem to see Israel as the aggressor, whose occupation of Arab lands after the Six-Day War is the immediate cause of violence. The same thinking is evident in how American and Israeli Jews think about the Iranian nuclear threat.
The sabra and the diaspora are also at odds over the soul of Judaism, so to speak. A large and vocal minority of the Jewish diaspora in the US are Reform or Conservative Jews who resent the monopoly the Orthodox have acquired over important rituals of faith such as marriage, divorce, prayer, and the rare conversion. The latest crossing of swords occurred in June 2017 when the Israeli government reneged on an agreement from January 2016 that promised to set up a plaza for egalitarian prayer at the Kotel. However, the sects have long been at war over the refusal of the Rabbinate to recognise non-Orthodox marriages and conversions and in 1997, the chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York even called on American Jews to stop sending money to organisations with Orthodox leanings in Israel. He even called for the dismemberment of the Rabbinate and its network of courts. The theological debate has transformed into a political one largely because of the association of the Israeli state with Orthodox Judaism, a great irony given the strong haskalah influence on Zionism and the beliefs of its early activists.
It is also perhaps not a wise idea for Israelis to emphasise Zionism and a strong Jewish identity, especially as Jews remain a minuscule minority in every country they are present. First, it is clear that these bonds are not as strong as depicted from either side, sabra or diaspora. Second, if the majority communities do begin to believe that their Jewish fellow citizens have a second loyalty, it could create unnecessary fault lines where there are none. It is psychologically understandable that constant additional proofs of loyalty are always required of suspect minorities, be they Catholics in Tudor England or Muslims in the twenty-first century. Professions of Zionism could well hurt assimilation and though that is what Israel wants, immigration has sharply been ruled out by a diaspora that measures almost as much as the population of Israel itself.
What Israel must also understand is that if it keeps claiming a moral authority over the diaspora, it will open itself to diaspora claims on Israeli accountability to them. Jerusalem cannot continue to speak on behalf of all Jews, even implicitly, if it is not willing to listen to half of them, and treats them as a lost cause. The attachment of many Israelis to the diaspora is understandable, not only from a sense of religious community but also a cultural perspective – a full quarter of Israelis today are not sabra and these immigrants retain an emotional bonding with their country of origin. Yet even these immigrants cannot deny that the different kind of "nurture" in Israel plays an important role in shaping opinions.
The disassociation with the diaspora is not its rejection; it is a recognition of the limits of the Israeli state. As Diaspora Minister Naftali Bennett admitted after the neo-Nazi rallies in Charlottesville, Israel cannot protect all Jews at all times. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the sovereign state to defend its citizens; situations like Entebbe are few and far between. This does not mean that Israel ceases to be a place of last refuge for the Jewish people – we do not have to go as far as Ze'ev Jabotinsky when he famously warned in his Tisha B'Av column from Warsaw to eliminate the diaspora before it eliminates you. While not actively seeking immigration, Israel can still allow a priority status for those making aliyah and provide resettlement assistance. The reality is that anti-semitism is still very much prevalent in the world and it would be irresponsible for the only Jewish state in the world to become like all other countries that restrict immigration.
To the pernickety reader – categories are not absolute; the entire diaspora is not locked in a Kulturkampf with the Jewish state. Personal politics also plays a role and there are plenty of people in Israel who support some of the diaspora's positions while there is a sizable portion of the diaspora that does support Israeli policies. Nonetheless, the most common denominator in the divide on security and identity remains domicile.
If this is truly the beginning of the end of Zionism, there is nothing to despair. An ideology that was once useful and has served its purpose has been cast away. In its place, Israelis may feel a better-defined sense of nationalism for their state and its achievements over the past seven decades. In the parlance of contemporary political campaigning, this would be a position of "Israel First". The diaspora are still family, but more like distant cousins... from out of town.
Save & read from anywhere!
Bookmark stories for easy access on any device or the Swarajya app.
Jaideep A. Prabhu is a specialist in foreign and nuclear policy; he also pokes his nose in energy and defence related matters.
An appeal from Swarajya
Dear Reader,
At Swarajya, we rely on our readers' support through subscriptions to sustain our media platform. Unlike larger conglomerates, we are unable to relentlessly chase advertising money — our model is largely built on your patronage.
Your support has never been more crucial. We work tirelessly to deliver 10-15 high-quality articles daily, ensuring you receive insightful content from 7 AM to 10 PM.
If you believe India's story has to be articulated in a way it has never been done before without shrugging it off, become a patron (or) subscribe now for ₹̶2̶4̶0̶0̶ ₹1999 and get 12 print issues, unlimited digital access for 1 year, a special India that is Bharat T-shirt (Offer ends soon).
We are counting on you!


text:
On this date in 1928, William Edward Hickman was hanged at California's San Quentin prison for what the Los Angeles Times was still calling a decade later* "the most horrible crime of the 1920's."
Eighteen- or nineteen-year-old Hickman kidnapped the 12-year-old daughter of a Los Angeles banker, extracted a $1,500 ransom from said banker for her return, then delivered up the girl's horribly mutilated corpse.
A nationwide manhunt immediately ensued, with Hickman soon captured in Oregon.
Pretty white girls abducted have been media catnip for many a livelong year. In this case, the dastardly deed induced the Los Angeles Times to editorially demand (Dec. 21, 1927) an automatic death penalty for murder in a manifesto that reads like it was written yesterday for whatever the outrageous crime du jour might be.
The sickly sentimentality which wars upon capital punishment for murder and insists upon the coddling of convicts will have a hard time to justify itself in the case of the slayer of Marian Parker, who, if police theories are correct, is William Edward Hickman, a criminal on probation. Had Hickman been serving the prison term which he deserved for his forgeries, he could not have committed the series of crimes which culminated in one of the most atrocious murders of which there is any record. He was free through the lenity of the California law to take his revenge in the most horrible fashion, against a man who had done him no injury that could be considered such by anyone with a spark of moral sense.
Not for vengeance, but for its own protection, both through example and through the eradication of a rotten and depraved individual, society should put the Parker case slayer out of life as quickly as the formalities of law permit. His continued existence is a reproach to all humanity.
A clash of conflicting theories of the best methods of dealing with criminals has brought society to a condition of hesitation. This condition is highly favorable to criminal operations of all sorts, while justice and the law seem to stand by, bewildered and helpless. The logical way to meet this situation is to take practical steps which society knows will protect it, and let penologists and psychiatrists conduct their debate over the ideal system, entirely to one side.
There can be no question that men in jail, while in jail, are no particular menace to society, and that men who have been hanged do not commit further murders. Upon these two solid facts let society base its actions, unless and until something better has been devised and proved. The semi-punishment, semi-reformatory scheme at present in force is obviously a failure.
Its greatest error is that it considers the interest of the criminal rather than those of his victim, or rather the interest of the class to which his victim belongs. This class is made up of the honest, the law-abiding, the God-fearing, the hard-working, the solid and substantial; in other words, of all individuals who are resolved to live in peace and harmony with their neighbors,. respecting others' rights as courtesouly as they expect their own to be respected. Against this class, the great majority, another class, a minority, is waging war. It consists of the vicious, the depraved, the degenerate; nonproducers and parasites. At best this class is a drag upon progress, at worst it is a menace to civilization. Yet the law as it stands at present regards the rights of the individuals of the class as paramount. The machinery of the courts is strained at every point to aid them.
It is not necessary to inquire why a rattlesnake strikes, or if it is likely to strike again. His motives may be interesting, but they are not important. It is sufficient to recognize the danger and to deal with it appropriately.
It does not matter whether anti-social individuals are all insane, as some criminologists assert, whether they are economic misfits, as other theorists declare, or whether they are in the main ordinary persons gone wrong, as still another school insists. There has been too much consideration for them and not enough for those they prey upon and injure. It is time the emphasis was shifted.
It is time to face the facts, before the criminal class succeeds entirely in getting the upper hand. It is time to place every proved criminal where he can do no more harm. It is time for society to take the certainty of protection; it is time to stop giving the criminal "another chance."
It is time to hang every murderer.
Lack of firmness in dealing with the criminal problem is due largely to the sob-sister and the sentimentalist. At the other extreme stands the mob spirit and lynch law, equally destructive of the foundations of society. Criminals should be judged without passion, bias or prejudice, and this is possible only in a court of law. No matter how heinous the crime, it is a matter for the courts to deal with. Good citizens will insist that proper punishment be dealt out in accordance with the provisions of law and order. For men to take the law into their own hands is to place themselves on a plane with the criminals, and to give away the immense moral advantage of being right.
Sensational crime + ill-considered policy response = a California tradition. (There wasn't actually a change of the law in 1927-28, though.)
Perhaps recoiling from the self-righteous public baying after Hickman's blood, a young Ayn Rand took such a shine to Hickman as to base upon him a murderous protagonist in a 1928 work, The Little Street. The budding apostle of selfishness decried in her journals
[a]verage, everyday, rather stupid looking citizens. Shabbily dressed, dried, worn looking little men. Fat, overdressed, very average, 'dignified' housewives … How can they decide the fate of that boy? Or anyone's fate?
Though The Little Street never saw print, the hero disdainful of the petty bonds of moral hypocrisy is the go-to trope of Rand's later novels. If you can bear them, you'll find Rand speaking of "nonproducers and parasites" who are "a drag upon progress … a menace to civilization" in much the way the Times speaks of Hickman.
Rand wrote that "other people do not exist for [Hickman], and he does not see why they should … He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'" It's a pretty near definition of sociopathy likewise imputed to the hero of her later novel The Fountainhead: "He was born without the ability to consider others."
"She had a crush on him [Hickman]," says Lisa Duggan, author of a study of Rand's thought, in this podcast.
Indeed, Hickman was a very strange choice for Rand's affection, quite apart from the obvious: other than the derring-do to bluff school administrators into letting him take away a child on his own say-so, he didn't really exhibit the magnificent contempt for his many lessers one would expect from a Howard Roark.
From the Los Angeles Times, Dec. 25, 1927.
Hickman broke down and confessed, not in pride but in panic, and signed a simpering "warning" to young men of the classic gallows-speech variety on Christmas Eve 1927:
Crime in its simplest definition is to have without work and enjoy the same place in society as other people and still show no honest effort or intention to go right.
Young men, when crime has once overcome your will power to be honest and straight you are a menace to society. …
Think it over, see my mistake. Be honest and upright. Respect the law. If you do these things you'll be happier in the end. (Source: Los Angeles Times, Dec. 24, 1927)
Over the ten ensuing months, the teen had the opportunity to recover his wits and play a more manful part, but that didn't happen either. A week before execution, when any hope of reprieve was gone and there was little percentage left in playing the supplicant, Hickman sent the Associated Press this bit of self-flagellation.
I know very well that I have been a most guilty sinner … I am sorry for having offended God and man … Please ask the people in the name of God to pray for us condemned men here at San Quentin prison.
(To top it off, he wilted climbing the scaffold and had to be helped up the last few steps.)
The miscreant unequal to the weight of his crime-slash-sin, thirsting for the redemptive chalice of heaven … as a criminals go, that's more Dostoyevsky than Rand.
* Mar. 27, 1938. The context was a roundup of the gallows highlights of San Quentin's history on the occasion of its switch from hanging to lethal gas.
On this day..
- 1928: Frank Sharp, palm printed - 2020
- 1915: Fernando Buschmann, certified - 2019
- 1976: Michiah Shobek - 2018
- 1662: A shipwrecked Turk in Dutch Pennsylvania - 2017
- 1883: Margaret Harris - 2016
- 1866: Frank Ferris, a Portuguese ax murderer in New York - 2015
- 1660: Francis Hacker and Daniel Axtell, regicides - 2014
- 1998: Twenty-four Sierra Leone rebels - 2013
- 1489: Domenico Gentile and Francesco Maldente, Bull-shitters - 2012
- 1973: 14 during the Caravan of Death - 2011
- 1983: Maurice Bishop, Prime Minister of Grenada - 2010
- 2005: Wang Binyu, desperate migrant laborer - 2008


text:
I was 25 years old the first Thanksgiving I spent alone. It was the latter half of the 90s. I had recently moved to Los Angeles. I was two weeks into a new job (my very first job in the movie business, which was a huge deal to me at the time) so I couldn't get the time off to travel home. And, to be totally honest, I didn't have the cash to spend on an airline ticket … and I was too proud to ask my parents for help.
In retrospect, I think I thought it was something I wanted. I wanted my roommate to disappear for a few days. I was desperate to have our 550 square foot apartment to myself. To be able to read a book without interruption or have to listen to "bad" music coming from the other room. I looked forward to eating whatever food was in the fridge without worry about who paid for the milk. To not have the television on 24 hours a day. I was looking, I thought, for some quiet.
My boss and her fiancé had offered the "new kid" an obligatory invite to dinner at their home. But I turned it down, completely confident it would be awesome to not have any plans. I didn't know many people in Los Angeles at that point, but the thought of spending it with my 30-something boss, her boyfriend and their parents made me cringe with anxiety way more than the thought of spending the day alone.
But waking up in Sunny Southern California on what in my past had always been a chilly November day … on a day that had always been one of my favorite holidays … separated from the people that I love and with no plans on the horizon … It was strange. A noiseless void and a deeper quiet than I had known before. In my apartment. On the streets. In the nearby park where I walked my dog. In my mind's eye, it was an emptiness not unlike a post-Apocalyptic world that is both serene and eery and full of a loneliness I hadn't known possible.
Twenty years later and I'm still surprised by the length of that day and how much I missed my Mom. I missed slicing apples and making pies while my sister chopped celery for the stuffing. (It was always my job to make the pies.) I missed the laughter in the kitchen. I missed my Grandmother's constant wiping up water spots on the coffee table made by sweaty glasses of soda and cider and beer and wine. I even missed the bickering and the flare-ups of old family arguments that seem to only rear their head at holiday gatherings.
At 40-something, with two kids, and having spent more than my share of holidays at home with all our family here in Montana, you'd think I've be over the emotional trauma of that one singular day.
But each year, as we fall into Daylight Savings Time and the Holidays loom large, it always comes rushing back. And while it wasn't clear to me then (or for years after, for that matter), I now realize the Truth of what that day was. That day was, by far, my most utterly grateful Thanksgiving because it made me truly aware of what's important and worth being thankful for.
Wishing you a Thanksgiving filled with love and laughter and gratefulness …
Three of my favorite Thanksgiving Recipes:
*note: reprinted with permission from the Neighbors of South Bozeman Magazine, Nov. 2016 issue


text:
Original URL: https://www.theregister.com/2009/07/13/firefox_and_us_state_department/
US State Dept. workers beg Clinton for Firefox
No IE if you buy less peanut butter
Posted in Legal, 13th July 2009 20:11 GMT
US State Department workers have begged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to let them use Firefox.
"Can you please let the staff use an alternative web browser called Firefox?" worker bee Jim Finkle asked Clinton during Friday's State Department town hall meeting.
"I just moved to the State Department from the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and was surprised that State doesn't use this browser. It was approved for the entire intelligence community, so I don't understand why State can't use it. It's a much safer program."
Presumably, the State Department is using Microsoft's Internet Explorer. And we wouldn't be surprised if it's still mired in the eight-year-old IE6. The only thing that moves slower than Orange is a US government agency. But the State Department has yet to respond to our questions about its Firefox-less browsing mandate.
Finkle's fellow workers responded to his Firefox request with applause. While Clinton responded with bewilderment. "Well, apparently, there's a lot of support for this suggestion. I don't know the answer. Pat, do you know the answer?" she said, turning to under Secretary Pat Kennedy.
"The answer is, at the moment: It's an expense question," Kennedy said. Then someone in the audience pointed out that Firefox is free.
"Nothing is free," Kennedy responded. "It's a question of the resources to manage multiple systems. It is something we're looking at...It has to be administered. The patches have to be loaded. It may seem small, but when you're running a worldwide operation and trying to push, as the Secretary rightly said, out FOBs [for remote log-ins] and other devices, you're caught in the terrible bind of triage of trying to get the most out that you can, but knowing you can't do everything at once."
Clinton then told her staff to have a look through their closets. "The more money we can save on stuff that is not cutting edge, the more resources we'll have to shift to do things that will give us more tools," she said.
"[That reminds] me of what I occasionally sometimes do, which I call shopping in my closet, which means opening doors and seeing what I actually already have, which I really suggest to everybody, because it's quite enlightening. And so when you go to the store and you buy, let's say, peanut butter and you don't realize you've got two jars already at the back of the shelf – I mean, that sounds simplistic, but help us save money on stuff that we shouldn't be wasting money on, and give us the chance to manage our resources to do more things like Firefox, okay?"
If the State Department buys less peanut butter, Clinton may even let them use Facebook. During a state department town hall meeting earlier this year, a bigwig at the US embassy in Mexico City told Clinton that the social networking site is a great way to prevent solipsistic stupid people from entering the country.
"Facebook, MySpace, and other web 2.0 social networking technologies will significantly enhance the Department's diplomacy efforts and business goals," he said. "For example, an astute consular officer in Hermosillo recently used Facebook to determine a visa applicant's ineligibility based on information contained on the applicant's Facebook page, proving its value as an anti-fraud tool."
And Clinton seemed to like the idea. "We've got to figure out how we're going to be smarter about using technology. So I think that's a great example, the Facebook example. And you know, we might want to follow up on that example, checking out Facebook. For everybody who is applying for a visa, you just should know that the State Department is on the watch here for Facebook."
No doubt, the State Department will officially adopt Facebook at about the same time the revenue-challenged site follows Friendster into social networking oblivion. ®
Thanks to James for the tip.


text:
A Jewish Grandmother: Original, unedited daily musings, and host to the monthly Kosher Cooking Carnival. **Copyright(C)BatyaMedad ** For permission to use these in publications of any sort, please contact me directly. Private accredited distribution encouraged. Thank you.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
My Life Has Changed
One thing which is more difficult is my exercise. I haven't been able to get to a pool, not that I went all that much the past winter. But I hope to go when my husband is home with my father now that I won't be working. Even if I just get out and walk a couple of kilometers here in Shiloh during the day, it'll be an improvement. Now, my daytime walking is limited to what my father can handle. He does very well for a man of 89, but I need more exercise. I try to get out most evenings/nights after dinner when my husband is home.
I'm eating too much. I'm still on my modified low carb don't call it diet way of eating, but I've been having much more fruit and even nuts. The nuts are substituting for the regular cow yogurt I had been eating as part of my snacks. I still have cows milk with my morning coffee and goats yogurt as a snack. I had been suffering from a "localized itch" for a couple of years, which stopped when I stopped eating the yogurt. Some of my kids are allergic to cows milk. They feel it in their "kishkes," digestive system. I suspect the industrial powdered milk added to all sorts of foods is the dairy I'm allergic to.
I stopped teaching, but I still have tons of work to catch up on, grading papers and recording the grades and attendence in the internet site the school uses. That's a big part of the reason I couldn't continue teaching. The hours out of the house weren't the big difficulty, but all the teacher homework was. People don't realize how much out of the classroom work teachers are required to do.
I also don't get to "doven in shul," pray in the synagogue on Shabbat, since I have to be home with my father. Going to synagogue was never his routine, and that's the hour he slowly gets ready for breakfast. G-d willing, some day I'll return.
Of course I can't study what I planned for this year.
But I'm getting to know my father. It's the first time in my life that I've actually spent any time with him.
5 comments:
- RivkA with a capital A said...
Enjoy your time together!!
There is nothing more valuable than spending time with family.
Want some real advice: record the stories he tells you!!
I lived with my grandmother for three months before I made Aliyah. While we were living together, she shared all sorts of wonderful stories with me.
She passed away, all of a sudden, just before I made aliyah. Now, I can barely remember the stories and I am so sorry I did not write them down! - 2/11/09 13:40
- Mimi said...
Batya, I have lived with that frustration. But now I cherish the memories of every moment I spent taking care of my frail, elderly Dad and my Mom. You'll be so glad later that you gave up time and freedom to do this.
- 2/11/09 17:26
- Batya said...
RivkA, you must have had quite a grandmother, no doubt. My father was never a great story teller, and now it's harder.
Mimi, thanks for the support. I'm doing my best. - 2/11/09 19:34
- RivkA with a capital A said...
Actually, for most of my life, my grandmother refused to tell me stories about her life.
"Why would you want to know about these things?" She would ask me, honestly perplexed.
During the months I lived with her, she really opened up to me.
In hindsight, I realize she was really telling herself these stories, as a way of summing up her life and affirming that she really did accomplish things along the way.
I think she realized, on some intuitive level, that her health was failing. - 3/11/09 01:25
- Batya said...
RivkA, at least you had that special time. Telling stories wasn't common in most families. I never heard anything from my grandmother, but we almost never had any time together for it. So not long ago I asked my cousin who grew up with her. I wondered why I had no desire to see the place in Europe (Rogotshov, Belarusia White Russia) which was the town where both my grandmothers grew up. My cousin said that her attitude was: "good riddence!"
- 3/11/09 06:14


text:
We Get Gutters Clean Cedar Park
The Best Service At The Right Price. We Are Here To Help Make Your Life Easy.
If you are looking for an easy, affordable solution to your rain gutter cleaning concerns - We Get Gutters Clean Cedar Park is here to take them away. No matter how clogged your gutters may be, our high-quality gutter cleaning and inspection service will get them clean. You will never again have to worry about cleaning them yourself. We Get Gutters Clean offers national gutter and downspout cleaning services.
Cedar Park is a city and a major suburb of Austin in the state of Texas, approximately 16 miles (26 km) to the north-west of the center of Austin. According to the 2020 U.S. Census, the city's population was 77,595. == History == Before the arrival of European settlers in the 19th century, the Cedar Park area was inhabited by Native American tribes including the Tonkawa, the Lipan Apache, and the Comanche. A paleo-American archaeological site (named the Wilson-Leonard site) was discovered in Cedar Park in 1983 that showed evidence of continual habitation of the area since circa 5000 BC. In the mid-19th century the community was known as Running Brushy, named after a spring that formed the headwaters of a creek of the same name. In 1873 George and Harriet Cluck, after having run cattle up the Chisholm Trail for many years, bought 329 acres (1.33 km2) of land that included the Running Brushy spring.
Anderson Mill Village, Anderson Mill Village South, Anderson Mill West, Avery Ranch, Avery Ranch East Parkside, Avery Ranch Far West, Avery Ranch Parkside, Avery South, Balcones Greene, Balcones Oaks, Balcones Woods, Bent Tree, Block House Creek, Breakaway Park, Brushy Bend Park


text:
Vogue Model's Shocking 13-Inch Waist Causes Stir [PICTURE]
There's been a lot of controversy lately over models whose photos are airbrushed to make them appear ridiculously thin, but Vogue Italia can at least say the cover of its September issue didn't involve any digital tricks.
That's Stella Tennant, an actual real-live model. In a corset. That gives her a 13-inch waist.


text:
Cochrane Library Trial till Oct. 31
Try out the Cochrane Library including full text of reviews until October 31!
The Cochrane Library contains systematic reviews of health care interventions in support of evidence based practice. The reviews are prepared by members of the Cochrane Collaboration, "an international network of people helping healthcare providers, policy makers, patients, their advocates and carers, make well-informed decisions about human health care." The database has the following specialty components:
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (also includes Cochrane Methodology Reviews) – the heart of the Cochrane Library
- Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects
- Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials
- Cochrane Methodology Register
- Health Technology Assessment Database
- NHS Economic Evaluation Database
While you're at it, compare the information in Cochrane with that in UpToDate, the evidence-based, peer-reviewed resource for finding the latest in clinical practice, to which Falvey already subscribes.
Click to try the Cochrane Library. Tell Barbara what you think.
0 Comments »
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI


text:
Everything Apple announced at WWDC 2016 and when you can get it
Here's everything you need to know.
iOS 10 includes major upgrades to iMessage, Photos, Siri, Maps, and Apple Music, and a brand-new Home app to control all of your HomeKit devices. Check out all the announcements here.
The iOS 10 developer beta is available now, with a public beta coming in July. Anyone can sign up to test the public beta for free, though beta software can be annoying and bug-ridden. Check out the beta sign-up details here. iOS 10 launches publicly in September.
Goodbye, OS X. Hello, macOS. The next-generation Mac operating system has a new name, macOS Sierra, but most of the same great features, with some extras to boot—everything from Siri and Apple Pay integration to iCloud Drive desktop access and picture-in-picture (an iPad feature we love and can't wait to use on the Mac).
Like iOS 10, macOS Sierra officially rolls out in September, but developers can beta test the software starting now and a public beta launches next month.
The Apple Watch was in desperate need of an upgrade, because everything about it is slooooow. It sounds like watchOS 3 will fix most of those speed issues, with an instant app launcher, background refresh, an app-switching dock, new fitness features like activity-sharing with friends and a meditative app called Breathe, and easier messaging thanks to a handwriting-to-text tool called Scribble. Apple even made the Apple Watch more accessible with fitness features for people who use wheelchairs, recognizing that some Apple Watch owners need settings that go beyond traditional workouts and stand notifications.
Like iOS 10 and macOS Sierra, watchOS 3 is now available for developers to beta test, with a public launch this fall. No public beta will be available.
Apple didn't announce an unbundled live TV streaming service, but the Apple TV is getting a big update with tvOS 10. The biggest feature is single sign-in, so you can enter your cable subscription information one time instead of per app, but there are tons of improvements like live tune-in, dark mode, HomeKit control, and YouTube search.
tvOS 10 is now available in developer beta and will roll out this fall to the public. No public beta will be available.
The WWDC keynote was two hours long, so you may have missed some cool, smaller announcements. Here's what else you need to know: Apple Pay is coming to the web. iCloud Drive will change how you store files on the Mac. There's a new Home app for controlling your HomeKit appliances. Siri is opening up to third-party apps. Apple Music is getting a redesign and a Spotify-esque weekly discover mix. Apple wants to teach kids how to code with the iPad app Swift Playgrounds. In iOS 10, native apps can be deleted. Finally.


text:
Analog Devices Inc. named four strategic advocates to the Analog Devices University Program. Strategic Advocates serve as distinguished advisors who provide insight and guidance to the company's ongoing mission to promote and support hands-on, active learning at engineering universities throughout the world.
Launched in March 2012, the Analog Devices University Program was created with Digilent Inc. and leading educational institutions to enhance engineering students' educational experience with portable analog design kits, course materials and online support to allow students to experiment quickly and easily with advanced technologies. Students can also use these kits to design, build and test real-world, functional analog circuits anytime and anywhere.
As strategic advocates, the following four educators will provide the Analog Devices University Program advice and support to develop online and downloadable software and teaching materials, online support, textbooks, reference designs and lab projects to enrich students' education about analog circuits and their application to core engineering and physical science curricula.
- Robert Bowman, professor of electrical and microelectronic engineering at the Kate Gleason College of Engineering at Rochester Institute of Technology
- Kenneth Connor, professor, Department of Electrical, Computer, and Systems Engineering, education director of the Smart Lighting Engineering Research Center and director of the Mobile Studio Project at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
- Kathleen Meehan, associate professor, Bradley Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Virginia Tech
- John Robertson, professor, Department of Engineering, College of Technology and Innovation, Arizona State University
"Professors Connor, Meehan, Robertson and Bowman are outstanding educators teaching at some of the best engineering schools in the country. They are passionate about preparing the next generation of engineers to succeed in the workforce and possess a keen, first-hand understanding of the needs of today's engineering students," said Samuel Fuller, chief technology officer, Analog Devices. "Through these strategic advocate appointments, Analog Devices is further developing its longstanding partnership with the academic community to help build a real-world, hands-on learning approach that will prepare future engineers for the types of design challenges they will face in their professional careers."
For More Information and Samples:
- Learn about Analog Devices' University Program
- Get online support and educational material
- Order samples
For the price of a textbook, ADI and Digilent provide low-cost analog circuit design kits including hardware and software as well as online course materials. The Digilent Analog Discovery and Explorer analog circuit design kits permit essentially all core circuits and electronics courses in electrical and computing engineering programs and electronics intensive courses to be taught without the need for any lab facilities as long as students have computers. This empowers students to apply serious electronics, controls and communications to any project anywhere and anytime, by equipping them with a portable lab no bigger than a smart phone. Recent studies show that students with unlimited access to design tools and hardware -- like the Digilent Analog Discovery and Explorer design kits -- consistently achieve higher academic performance than their peers.


text:
Print this page | ||
Charlottetown Accord 1992 | ||
Category: | Policy/Strategy | |
Date: | 1 January 1992 | |
Sub Category: | Policy/Strategy | |
Place: | ||
Click this link to search this location with google maps | ||
State/Country: | Canada | |
Click this link to search this location with google maps | ||
Subject Matter: | Cultural Heritage | Economic Development | Education | Employment and Training | Environmental Heritage | Forestry | Health and Community Services | Mining and Minerals | Self Government | |
URL: | http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/article/charlottetown-accord-document/ | |
Summary Information: | ||
The Charlottetown Accord was a package of constitutional amendments proposed by the federal and provincial governments of Canada in 1992. It was submitted to a public referendum on 26 October of that year but was defeated. The Accord attempted to resolve long-term disputes regarding the division of powers between federal and provincial jurisdictions. In 1992, the federal, provincial and territorial governments, as well as representatives from the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Council of Canada, the Inuit Tapirisat and the Metis National Council had come to the agreement known as the Charlottetown Accord. It provided for exclusive provincial jurisdiction over forestry, mining and natural resources, along with cultural policy. It also required the federal and provincial governments to harmonise policy in the areas of telecommunications, labour development and training, regional development and immigration. The Accord also proposed a social charter to promote objectives in the areas of health, welfare, education, environmental protection, collective bargaining and standard of living. It also addressed the matter of Aboriginal self-government. | ||
Detailed Information: | ||
The Charlottetown Accord was agreed upon after extensive public consultation and negotiations with the provinces, territories and Aboriginal peoples of Canada. The proposals ultimately put to referendum were to renew the Constitution and serve as the foundation for 'a renewed federalism that will secure our future together'. The matters addressed by the proposals included: As such the Accord dealt with numerous constitutional issues including the division of legislative powers (see above), and the federal powers of reservation and disallowance. Federal spending was to have been subject to tighter controls. The Accord would have guaranteed federal funding for programs relating to Medicare, social services and the like. Such programs generally fall within provincial jurisdiction, however the federal government had, in the past, frequently attached conditions to any financing arrangements. The Accord proposals would have served to limit the federal government's ability to do so. The Accord also contained the 'Canada Clause' which served to codify the values definitive of the Canadian character. Such values included egalitarianism, diversity and the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society within Canada. The clause would act as an interpretive provision, directing courts to construe the Constitution having regard to such constitutionally entrenched values. Additionally, there was in principle approval of Aboriginal self-government, although the concept was only to be recognised in the courts after a three year period in order for further negotiations to establish the form it would take. The Accord also proposed significant institutional changes such as: The Accord would have formally institutionalised the federal/provincial/territorial consultative process and provided for aboriginal inclusion in certain circumstances. The Accord's ratification process required a national referendum which needed to be approved by a majority of voters in each province. Failure in even one province would prevent its success. First Nation groups endorsed the Accord, along with the Liberal Party, the National Democratic Party, and a broad range of public and business groups. Quebec separatists demonstrated strong opposition however, unconvinced that it gave Quebec adequate powers. The Accord ultimately failed at referendum with 54 percent of voters opposing its ratification. To date, no further attempts to negotiate an agreement have been made. |
| ||||
| ||||
Was this useful? Click here to fill in the ATNS survey