Clinton – Jewish Independent

Does the truth still matter?

A recently released study from the graduate School of Education at Stanford University engaged 7,800 middle school, high school and college students to evaluate the information they received on the internet. The report said there was a “stunning and dismaying consistency” in the responses from the students, demonstrating an inability to discern information based on whether it originated from activist groups, neutral sources or advertising, and students routinely could not tell the difference between news articles from legitimate sources and unreliable webpages, nor between ostensibly balanced news coverage and opinion pieces.

The aftermath of the recent U.S. presidential election has seen commentators raise alarms over “fake news” – stories planted on social media with the deliberate intent to mislead. Obviously, this is another wrinkle in the whole issue of discerning fact from fiction. Then there is the ability of wholly unchecked assertions to go viral and be taken as fact by hundreds of thousands of people.

The New York Times analyzed one example of how these things can happen. In Austin, Tex., a man with just 40 Twitter followers saw a lineup of buses in downtown Austin on Nov. 9, the day after the election. That evening, crowds gathered in Austin, protesting the election of Donald Trump the night before. The man put two and two together and tweeted that “Anti-Trump protesters in Austin today are not as organic as they seem. Here are the buses they came in. #Fakeprotests #Trump2016 #Austin.”

The due diligence the man performed was a Google search to determine whether there were any major conferences being held in Austin and he found none. It turns out the buses were hired by a software company that was holding a conference for more than 13,000 people. Nevertheless, the tweet, which implies that the anti-Trump protesters were bused into town by some nefarious organizer, was shared 16,000 times on Twitter and 350,000 times on Facebook.

This was an example of a “story” not being adequately researched and proven. It is a slightly different species from the deliberately false “news” stories that popped up during the election with headlines like “Pope Francis shocks world, endorses Donald Trump for president” and “FBI agent suspected in Hillary email leaks found dead in apartment in murder-suicide.” Both of these, and countless more like them, were intentionally false, yet shared by thousands of people who believed – or wished – them to be true.

Comedian Jon Stewart used to refer to his program The Daily Show as “fake news,” but in fact it was parody and satire, taking a grain of truth and riffing humor and social commentary from it. This differs as well from sites like The Onion or Canada’s The Beaverton, which are not intended to be taken seriously, but sometimes are.

Then there is, to bring it full circle, the forms of legitimate journalism – news and analysis – which are generally well-researched, with facts corroborated and sources verified, but are often received by consumers as something else. In other words, people will take falsified news as fact and decry factual reporting as made-up.

On Sunday, Trump himself tweeted, without a shred of evidence, “I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” With vote counting (inexplicably) still underway, Trump has easily won the electoral college and, therefore, the presidency, but Hillary Clinton is currently 2.2 million votes ahead of Trump in the popular vote.

This sort of assertion from a sore winner is typical of the man, who seems to lie even when there is no advantage, as if to keep in practice. Throughout the campaign,

Trump routinely told untruths, which helps explain why the Oxford dictionary chose “post-truth” as its international word of the year for 2016.

Tens of millions voted for Trump despite, or possibly because of, his awkward relationship with the truth, suggesting that truth doesn’t matter like we once assumed it did. Or that people don’t care what the truth is, so long as what is said, published or posted conforms to or supports their preexisting opinions. People are willing to hear (or read, say or write) falsehoods and accept them as true if they wish them to be, rather than question their own beliefs or situation at all.

The unwillingness or inability to differentiate truth from fiction has long been a concern. Purveyors of lies – in advertising, politics, daily life – have been doing their deeds for centuries. Yet the ability in the internet age for people to select “news” that supports their worldview, or to be duped by people with agendas, has opened whole new universes of falsehood. Scarier, by far, is the apparent insouciance with which many people approach the issue. Some of us are satisfied with fiction if it suits our preferred version of fact. In such a case, we are not facing a problem of media literacy. We are facing a more serious affront to the very idea of reality.

What now, America?

Many of our readers survived the predations of fascism or communism; some endured both. It is probably safe to say these people do not take democracy for granted, as some of us who have been fortunate to live our entire lives under democratic governments may.

For many of us, Remembrance Day is one of the few times in the year when we stop and take stock of our good fortune and the sacrifices that made it possible. This year, we should perhaps give even more consideration to the fact, which we have mentioned in this space before, that democracy is a remarkably new and fragile thing. What we recognize as modern democracy is an American invention just 240 years old.

There have been concerning noises in the birthplace of democracy leading up to the close Tuesday of this ugliest of presidential election campaigns. In addition to Donald Trump’s threats to not abide by the democratic decision of the people because of some imaginary “rigging,” much of his rhetoric has seemed deliberately calculated to undermine democracy and its parallel values of pluralism and respect for diversity. Trump’s behavior and language – and the vitriol and violence he inspired and encouraged among his followers – are antithetical to American democracy.

We should not fall into the trap of comparative blame. This was probably the nastiest campaign in American history, but that is not something we can ascribe equally to both leading candidates and their followers.

Hillary Clinton ran a negative campaign, yes, but only within the comparatively gentle parameters of what has become conventional in American politics of the television age. Trump’s campaign, on the other hand, was a blast furnace of hatred, ridicule, dehumanization, lies, racism, sexism and incitement.

One of the most important pillars of democracy is also one of the most ephemeral: the confidence of the populace in the institutions of governance. And polls indicate that Americans currently have extraordinarily low opinions of their officials.

The American people – and the new president (who was declared after the Independent went to press) – have an unenviable task ahead of them in restoring confidence in the system, in their institutions and in their ability to advance as the world’s beacon of democracy.

For the sake of their country – and for the sake of the magnitude of impact it will have on the rest of the world – we should all wish for a period of reflection, healing and reconciliation.

The future of democracy

Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin spoke strong words at the opening of the Knesset’s winter session this week. The very survival of democracy, he suggested, is on the line.

“Against a background of political upheavals occurring in the West, the free world, it is no secret that democracy – or Western liberal democracy – is in a state of confusion,” said Rivlin. “Many citizens across the world feel that the existing democratic system is struggling to function and, moreover, is struggling to offer an answer to their needs in light of the current threat of terrorism, the current wave of migration and refugees, or the ongoing economic and employment crises.”

Rivlin was speaking broadly, apparently referencing the various movements springing up in recent years at the fringes of what was once the political mainstream. These include new nativist and often xenophobic movements in Europe. The vote by Britain to leave the European Union is a symptom of a strain of political ideology that rejects open borders – both for trade and for people. While the Brexit vote was supported by people across the political spectrum, its campaign was led by the United Kingdom Independence Party, a movement pushing its way into the mainstream from the far right.

While Europe struggles with the challenges of and reactions to economic meltdowns and waves of refugees and migrants, the presidential election in the United States has been rocked by events that also threaten foundational understandings of democracy.

Donald Trump, the Republican candidate for president, has suggested he may not abide by the results of the election, an outcome he is alleging to be “rigged.” There is no evidence, according to almost all commentators, of any rigging of the electoral system. Indeed, say most, the patchwork nature of the American electoral system makes comprehensive manipulation of a federal election essentially impossible. However, Trump’s assertions seem based less on the idea that the electoral infrastructure is rigged than on his perception that the media and the political establishment are nearly uniformly against him. As paranoid as this may seem, it is not altogether false. The political establishment, even in his own Republican party, is lukewarm at best toward their outsider nominee. And the media is merely reporting the attitudes of some of the public, many of whom are aghast and appalled at the successive emanations from Trump’s mouth.

However, if the establishment and commentators in the media are lined up against him, this should arguably be viewed as a statement about him, not them – which brings us back to the issue of Trump’s threatened refusal to admit defeat. Absolutely crucial to democracy is the legitimacy – and perception of legitimacy – of the electoral process. In the most contested election in modern history, in 2000, Al Gore accepted defeat even though he received more votes in the state of Florida than the declared victor George W. Bush and, therefore, should have been the winner. In the interest of national unity and the preservation of confidence in the system, Gore acceded to the determination of a Florida court.

Now, Trump suggests he may not accept the results even if he is conclusively defeated. Of course, anything is possible with this candidate, so it may be bluster. But the bigger picture in this scenario is the impact Trump’s words have on his followers. Some are already promising “revolution” if Trump is defeated.

Then, of course, there is the other possibility: Trump wins.

Where American democracy – and the country’s role as a model of responsible government – would go from there is an ominous mystery.

בחירות בארצות הברית בלוטו

מתברר שהתנהלותו של דולנד טראמפ בקמפיין הבחירות שלו גורמת נזק וכאב ראש, למערך יחסי הציבור שנערך לפתיחת מלון הדירות טראמפ, ברחוב ווסט ג’ורג’יה בדאון טאון ונקובר. (צילום: Roni Rachmani)

לפי תושבי בריטיש קולומביה קלינטון תזכה בנשיאות לבחירות בארה”ב: כך לפחות מצביעים ההימורים באתר של הלוטו קורפורשיין

הקנדים היו מאוד רוצים להצביע בבחירות לנשיאות ארצות הברית שיערכו בשמונה בנובמבר. זאת כיוון שהם יודעים שהתוצאות יכולות להשפיע משמעותית על היחסים עם השכנה מדרום. אך למעט אלה שמחזיקים בדרכון כפול (קנדי ואמריקני) ולכן כן ויוכלו להצביע, הרוב הדומם בקנדה יצפה בתוצאות הבחירות מול מסך הטלוויזיה.

אך מתברר שהתושבים המקומיים יכולים לשחק בנדמה לי ולהמר על מי שלדעתם המועמד שיזכה בנשיאות. זה עולה כמובן כסף וזה אף חוקי בקנדה (לגילאי 19+). ההימורים על הבחירות בארה”ב מתבצעים באתר הלוטו קורפורשיין של בריטיש קולומביה. לעומת זאת יצויין אין אפשרות לקנדים להמר על תוצאות הבחירות המקומיות או הפדרליות בקנדה. בלוטו קורפורשיין אומרים כי רבים רבים מהמרים על הבחירות בארה”ב, שעולות כיום על כל ההימורים האחרים של התאגיד. אגב גם במחוזות מניטובה ונובה סקוטיה ניתן להמר על הבחירות בארצות הברית.

לפי מצב ההימורים הנוכחי בבריטיש קולומביה מועמדת המפלגה הדמוקרטית, הילרי קלינטון, תזכה בבחירות מול מועמד המפלגה הרפובליקנית, דולנד טראמפ, ביחס שעומד על 1.18. כך שמי שכמעט הולך על בטוח ומהמר על קלינטון נניח בסכום של מאה דולר יזכה במאה ועשרים דולר, עם אכן היא תזכה בבחירות. ואילו ההימורים לטובת טראמפ עומדים ביחס הרבה יותר גרוע שעומד על 5.20. כך שמי שמסתכן ומהמר על טראמפ נניח בסכום של מאה דולר יקבל לא פחות מחמש מאות ועשרים דולר, אם דווקא הוא ינצח בבחירות.

photo - The hotel was scheduled to open in August this year. Then the opening was postponed for the fall but this did not happen — המלון היה אמור להיפתח בחודש אוגוסט השנה. לאחר מכן הפתיחה נדחתה לסתיו אך גם זה לא קרה. *(צילום: Roni Rachmani)*

לדברי הלוטו קורפורשיין של בריטיש קולומביה לפחות כארבעים אחוז מהמהמרים תומכים בקלינטון ואילו פחות מעשרים וחמישה תומכים בטראמפ. כל ידיעה שמגיעה מטעם מחנות שני המועמדים מורגשת היטב בזירת המהמרים. וכידוע כל הזמן מגיעות חדשות מקלינטון ומטראמפ, שגרמו למערכת בחירות לנשיאות ארה”ב להיות לחסרת תקדים בשערוריות ובלכלוכים שלה.

בינתיים מתברר שהתנהלותו של טראמפ בקמפיין הבחירות שלו גורמת נזק וכאב ראש, למערך יחסי הציבור שנערך לפתיחת מלון הדירות טראמפ, ברחוב ווסט ג’ורג’יה בדאון טאון ונקובר. המלון היה אמור להיפתח בחודש אוגוסט השנה. לאחר מכן הפתיחה נדחתה לסתיו אך גם זה לא קרה. מסיבות לא ידועות הפתיחה של המלון נדחתה שוב והפעם לראשית שנה הבאה. לדעת מומחים בעלי הפרוייקט הולבורן גרופ מעדיפים להמתין עד לסיום הבחירות והקמפיין הנוראי של טראמפ שיורה לכל עבר, ורק אז לקיים מסיבת פתיחה של המלון. הולבורן גרופ מפרסמים באמצעי המדיה מזה זמן תחרות להשתתף באירוע הפתיחה הרשמי של המלון. הזוכה בתחרות יובא ברכב מפואר למלון, יקבל לינת חינם ללילה, ישא אישור וי.איי.פי וכן יפגוש אישית את משפחת טראמפ. לאור התנהלותו השערורייתית של טראמפ, מתברר שלא רבים קופצים על המציאה להשתתף בהליך התחרות.

במקביל לקמפיין הבחירות של טראמפ כמה עשרות תושבים מקומיים השתתפו לאחרונה בהפגנה ליד מלון הדירות, תוך שהם מניפים כרזות בגנותו ומבקשים לעודד את הציבור האמריקני להביס אותו בבחירות.

כזכור ראש עיריית ונקובר, גרגור רוברטסון, ניסה ללא הצלחה להפעיל לחץ על הולבורן גרופ, להוריד השם טראמפ ממלון הדירות. סקר אחרון שנערך בקנדה מצביע על כך שכשישים ושניים אחוז מהאזרחים רוצים שהשם טראמפ יורד מבתי המלון והדירות בטורונטו וונקובר.

הפרמייר של מחוז בריטיש קולומביה, כריסטי קלארק, קוראת לכולם גנות את עמדותיו הסקסיסטיות של טראמפ כלפי נשים. לדברי קלארק יש לדאוג לכך ששיחות מסוג כזה ומחשבות מסוג כזה לא יהפכו לנורמליזציה.

Concerns about the alt-right

There used to be just conservatives. Then there came the neo-conservatives, a largely American variation on the theme that venerates free markets, but marries it with an interventionist foreign policy. Neo-conservativism got a black eye after the interventionism its proponents advocate led to the quagmire in Iraq. In a resurgence of old-fashioned conservatism, stalwarts proudly adopted the self-deprecating paleo-conservative, a blatant rejection of the neo-conservative moniker.

In recent months, a new term has come into common usage in American politics: alt-right. The contraction of “alternative right” is a sort of whitewashing umbrella for a range of ideological streams that were, until recently, considered well outside the mainstream. White nationalism, itself a whitewashed term for white supremacy, is chief among these. While not precisely defined, alt-right has also been said to encompass the anti-immigration and xenophobic nativism that has been articulated by Donald Trump, the Republican candidate for U.S. president. Populism is a term also associated with the alt-right, although Bernie Sanders’ challenge to Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination was also defined as populist.

The banality of the term “alt-right” – it almost sounds like something you do with a computer keyboard – masks the mainstreaming of terrible ideas. Concurrent to, and not the least bit unrelated to, the rise of alt-right as a term is the rise of Trump as a political phenomenon. The Republican standard-bearer has said, on an almost daily basis, things that would eliminate any other candidate in history from contention. Yet his supporters dismiss (or embrace) his hateful, ignorant and, seemingly as often as not, outright false statements. The litany is endless. Last week, he suggested that Clinton’s secret service details should disarm and “see what happens to her.” This unsubtle allusion to violence is not at all uncommon in Trump’s rhetoric. That he remains a contender for the presidency is alarming. That he is rising in the polls, almost tying Clinton in aggregates and leading her in many polls, suggests that Americans are seriously considering taking a dangerous political turn.

Trump idolizes “strongmen.” He has reveled in the admiration of Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader who has undone that country’s nascent steps toward democracy. He is unequivocally a solo act, openly insisting that he will run roughshod over Congress and the judiciary, the institutions that the founders of the United States set up as checks and balances on the presidency. He has stated that the electoral system is rigged against him and predicted rioting in the country should he lose. The image he projects of America is of a third-world economy, and the vision of political violence he purveys is more suited to an unstable dictatorship than to the reality of American government.

It is in the nature of human beings to take for granted what we have the moment we possess it. Readers of a certain age remember The Jetsons, with its incredible futuristic gadgets, a cartoon we can now watch on a device we carry in our pocket that contains all the accumulated knowledge of humankind, and we have the ability to speak face-to-face with almost anyone in the world instantaneously, in real time. And yet, when this gadget alerts us that we have a message or a call, we are as likely to respond with a weary, “Oh, what is it now?”

Likewise, perhaps, with democracy. In its modern incarnation, democracy was born 240 years ago in what is now the United States of America. In the span of human history, this is the blink of an eye. About Trump, many commentators, most recently this week in the Washington Post, have said, “This is how fascism comes to America.”

On numerous occasions over the years, we have used this space to condemn flippant use of such terms as fascism, warning that overuse will dull sensitivity to the seriousness of the language and its threat. We are less reticent to condemn the use in this case. The rise of Trump and the “alt-right” ideologies he empowers are cause for very real concern.

We have our own issues

American politics, these days, attracts global disbelief and revulsion. The contest pits against each other two of the most unpopular candidates since polling began. One of them, the Republican nominee Donald Trump, is endorsed by the country’s leading white supremacists.

There is no question that Trump has tapped into something. Most of his supporters are not now and never have been members or supporters of the Ku Klux Klan or similar fringe groups. They are, in fact, a large and mainstream enough group that he won the nomination of the Republican party and now stands just a couple of points behind Democrat Hillary Clinton in polls, with at least two in five Americans saying they intend to vote for him. Among white Americans, if they alone were the electorate, polls say Trump would win a landslide.

Leaving aside his nonchalance about the fact that David Duke, the former imperial wizard of the KKK, and other of America’s most prominent racists think he would make a top-notch president, Trump has legitimized a host of barely more discrete forms of bigotry, chauvinism and hatred. People who strive for human respect have responded with two approaches. They have condemned the most overt examples of Trump’s racism, while acknowledging that many Americans are experiencing economic and social displacement that could justify their scapegoating of other groups or otherwise find reason to support a candidate whose policy positions are nothing more than accumulated Twitter tantrums.

If Trump wins, there will be more issues to address than this space can accommodate. If he loses, there will still be a divided country where parents have to explain to their children why it is inappropriate for them to express ideas that have been so effortlessly articulated by one of the two leading candidates for the highest office in the country.

Incongruously – or is it? – we are also in a time when the United States is engaged in a deep public reflection on race. The Black Lives Matter movement, which is partly a result of the murder of young African-Americans by police officers but also of broader systemic racism, has opened an overdue public discussion. Decades after legal racism was upended, there remain serious issues that the country needs to confront. Small gestures like that by Colin Kaepernick, a football player who is refusing to stand for the national anthem as a protest against discrimination, have aroused outrage but also raised legitimate awareness. Can you love your country and still condemn aspects of its nature?

Israelis, perhaps foremost among others, have faced this question for decades. And Canada is also engaged in a discussion around race. While we, too, have a history of racism against people of African descent, this history is different from that of the United States in myriad ways, including the absence of slavery in our history. But our past includes racist and antisemitic immigration policies, social and systemic antisemitism, racism and mistreatment of women, degradations of many varieties and, in something we are only beginning to come to terms with, treatment of indigenous Canadians that was intended to erase their cultural identities. And these are not the only areas where our society fails to live up to our ideals.

It is certainly tempting to look at what is happening to our south and feel superior. It would be more productive as a society for us to acknowledge that, while we see fault in others, we will be a better country when we keep our gaze closer to home, and use our stones for repairing, not throwing.

Sanders – both prophet and king?

Bernie Sanders is the first Jew (and first non-Christian) ever to win a presidential primary and be seriously considered as a candidate for the American presidency. Reactions from the Jewish community have been mixed and mostly pretty quiet.

Sanders is very familiar to Ashkenazi Jews like myself: he is basically our socialist uncle. His passionate denunciations, clear-eyed vision of injustice and chutzpah are heimish, almost nostalgic. The progressive Jewish community has seemed hesitant to throw its weight behind him, perhaps because until recently they saw him as unlikely to succeed. Or, maybe, there is a fear of jinxing him: “Shhh, they haven’t really realized he’s Jewish yet.” As Sarah Tuttle-Singer wrote last month in the Times of Israel, one of the great things about Sanders’ ascension is that his Jewishness has been so irrelevant to Americans. Meanwhile, big Jewish financiers, such as George Soros and Donald Sussman, have been backing Hillary Clinton, not Sanders.

So, what is Sanders’ relationship to Judaism? He seems comfortable with his Jewishness and appreciative both of what he finds valuable in the tradition and of Jewish customs. Despite some claims that Sanders has downplayed his Jewishness, J.J. Goldberg recently proved otherwise in a comprehensive analysis published in the Forward Feb. 26. In an article on chabad,org, Dovid Margolin spoke of Sanders’ fight for Chabad’s right to light a public menorah on public property in a key court case, which paved the way for the now-common practice. And Sanders declared the Rebbe’s birthday Education Day in Vermont with words of praise for the Rebbe’s work to universalize education, as well as praising Maimonides (it happened also to be Maimonides’ 850th birthday).

Sanders himself, when asked, has made it clear that he is not a religious Jew. When late-night TV host Jimmy Kimmel asked Sanders last fall whether he believes in God, Sanders responded: “I am what I am … and what I believe in, and what my spirituality is about, is that we’re all in this together.”

“Bernie’s Jewishness is not the Judaism of the shul but of the street,” said Rabbi Dan Moskovitz of Temple Sholom. “It’s not the Judaism of rituals but of the ethical tenets of Judaism: about the holiness code and how you treat others. Bernie is Jewish in his kishkes.”

Sanders is relentless and consistent in his criticisms of the financial elite, his calls for a political system free of legal bribery, and his defence of education and the need for fair wages and medical care. He wants to free Americans from debt and modern slavery, and pull America away from militarism and hatred of the stranger. All of these themes echo in dozens of verses and laws structuring the political vision of the Torah and run deep in Jewish consciousness.

Sanders has called for tougher pressure on Israel to make concessions in peace talks and is known to take J Street seriously. On the other hand, he has defended Israel from attacks from the far left, saying it has a right to defend itself and must be able to establish its own security and long-term viability as a state. He has been among a handful of Senate regulars at the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Recently, a video surfaced of Sanders giving a speech during the Gaza war in August 2014. Asked by an audience member about Israel’s shelling of Gaza, he agreed that too many civilians had died, but said Hamas had instigated the fighting by firing rockets at Israeli civilians and that Israel has a right to defend itself.

In Israel, Michael Oren has expressed concern about Sanders being overly critical of the Israeli government, while others, including Ravi Eitan, Dov Henin and Yoel Cohen Paran, have expressed a resonance with him, citing his social policies.

Clinton’s campaign has criticized Sanders for his pledge to “normalize” relations with Iran in the wake of the Iran nuclear deal. Sanders agrees that Iran is a “bad actor,” that it funds terrorism and human rights abuses and must not get the atomic bomb, and he has voted to condemn the behavior and rhetoric of the Iranian government several times. But, Sanders argues that normalization is likelier to create the conditions that would spur change. As he said in the last Democrat debate: “It is easy to talk to your friends. It is hard to talk to your enemies. I think we should do both.”

There is no question that ethics is central in Sanders’ mind. It is commonplace for him to make a point by citing a statistic about life in America and then ask rhetorically, “Is this right? Is this moral?”

The most common criticism leveled against Sanders is that he is unrealistic. In The Prophetic Imagination, Walter Brueggeman, a leading scholar of the Hebrew Bible, describes the prophets in words that could apply to Sanders: “The prophet does not ask if the vision can be implemented, for questions of implementation are of no consequence until the vision can be imagined…. The same royal consciousness that makes it possible to implement anything and everything is the one that shrinks imagination because imagination is a danger…. It is the vocation of the prophet to keep alive the ministry of imagination, to keep on conjuring and proposing futures alternative to the single one the king wants to urge as the only thinkable one.”

Sanders, of course, is trying to be king, as well. But the charges that he is not practical fail to adequately consider his decades of service as a senator and his time as an effective and popular mayor of Burlington. He was known both for idealistic stances and for taking care of the “nuts and bolts of the job,” as his former campaign manager Jim Schumacher stated. The real question is how Sanders would function in the presidency and with the Republicans in Congress. Time will tell whether we’ll have the chance to find out.

Matthew Gindin is a writer, lecturer and holistic therapist. As well as teaching holistic medicine, Gindin regularly lectures on topics in Jewish and world spirituality, and has a particular passion for making ancient wisdom traditions relevant in the modern world. His work has been featured on Elephant Journal, the Zen Site and Wisdom Pills, and he blogs at Talis in Wonderland (mgindin.wordpress.com) and Voices (hashkata.com).