patrick.net

simchaland says

If you never have to experience anti-semitism yourself I can guarantee you that won’t always be able to see it when it is happening. It’s not happening to you, so why would you see it?

Maybe my being a nonjew who is circumcised and who understands the degree to which in this country circumcision is not particularly a jewish phenomenon, enables me to see how totally silly your point of view is.

If circumcision was highly correleated to being jewish then you might be on to something. In my age group, in this country, knowing that a man is circumcised tells you absolutely nothing about his religion.

You have it backwards. Only by not being jewish can I tell how ridiculous you sound on this one.

simchaland says

Marcus, you just don’t understand. It’s not happening to you. This law does outlaw Brit Milah.

How can they outlaw what is done in a private residence. There are probably a few states that outlaw certain sexual practices. Have you heard of these being enforced?

Remember, I agree the law is insane, I just don't buy that it's antisemetic.

elliemae says

It’s only an issue with the Jewish faith.

Wrong. Everyone used to be circumcised in this country. Many doctors and hospital still do it by default. When many doctors started asking, I guess this led to a decrease, but this was standard, and most non jewish fathers are circumcised. I can't believe I'm in this conversation, just letting you know how silly you sound Simcha.

Marcus, there is a big difference for Non-Jews. It's not part of your religion so why would you care if it's outlawed? Non-Jews really shouldn't need to circumcise. It's a choice for you as it is now.

Brit Milah, which this ballot measure seeks to make a crime, is a central Jewish Tradition and a Commandment. It's a sign of our Covenant with God. It's not just a simple chosen medical procedure like it is for a non-Jew. It has profoundly deep meaning for Jews.

To claim that this ballot measure is only about anti-cruelty is dishonest. It specifically makes it a crime for Jewish San Franciscans to practice their religion. It is that serious.

That you can't undestand this is natural because your circumcision was a medical procedure and has no meaning beyond that. In an allegedly culturally sensitive place like San Francisco, this ballot measure is openly and brazenly culturally blind at the very least.

But outlawing the practice feels like the jewish faith is targeted. Sure, many others do it. But they wouldn't if it were outlawed... it's crazy that the govt would want to outlaw it.

There are crazy laws out there.

The fact that you believe I sound silly shows just how culturally insensitive you are in this case, Marcus.

simchaland says

Posting that shows your ignorance of the importance of this ritual to Jews.

I was kidding. But I would be somewhat surprised if some kind of payment weren't customary. Priests don't marry or baptize people for money either, but that doesn't stop the practice of giving a gift or donation or whatever you want to call it.

simchaland says

The fact that you believe I sound silly shows just how culturally insensitive you are in this case, Marcus.

I get it. You can't consider that you might be wrong.

marcus says

simchaland says

Posting that shows your ignorance of the importance of this ritual to Jews.

I was kidding. But I would be somewhat surprised if some kind of payment weren’t customary. Priests don’t marry or baptize people for money either, but that doesn’t stop the practice of giving a gift or donation or whatever you want to call it.

Your comment wasn't even close to humor. It was highly insensitive.

Of course there is a donation involved. Almost every religion has a custom of compensating providers of religious services. Receiving a compensation isn't the reason most religious providers choose to follow a calling to service in most religions.

Marcus, sure - he might be wrong. But having been on the receiving end of anti-semitism, I can tell you that it didn't make me feel warm & squishy inside.

It's the kind of thing you don't forget - it's too personal not to feel the burn.

simchaland says

To claim that this ballot measure is only about anti-cruelty is dishonest. It specifically makes it a crime for Jewish San Franciscans to practice their religion. It is that serious.

I understand that from a jewish perspective it's more offensive and more crazy (by the way it will never pass), and yes I guess beyond insensitive, ignorant or intolerant. But I just can't see that it targets jews. Is it not possible that some think it is just really unnatural and wrong ?

As you even said, they must know that the practice would not change for jews. The one difference I can think of is that maybe some barely practicing jews, who previously just had the hospital do it, will now have to do the true religious procedure if they want it done.

Marcus, you claim that I can't consider that I might be wrong. To paraphrase a famous Jew who Non-Jews follow, you may want to look at the plank in your own eye.

marcus says

simchaland says

To claim that this ballot measure is only about anti-cruelty is dishonest. It specifically makes it a crime for Jewish San Franciscans to practice their religion. It is that serious.

As you even said, they must know that the practice would not change for jews. The one difference I can think of is that maybe some barely practicing jews, who previously just had the hospital do it, will now have to do the true religious procedure if they want it done.

I've had conversations with some of these people. They included outlawing Brit Milah in this ballot measure on purpose. They believe that Jews who observe this ritual are barbaric. Did you see the comic in the op? That is typical of the people who have worked to get this measure on the ballot.

They expect Mohelim to be fined and jailed if this measure becomes law. It is intentional.

As a final comment - as silly as the antisemetic claim sounds to me, the idea of the law is far more ridiculous. The reason why it will never pass is a majority of adult men are circumcised, and don't mind it and can't remember the pain. So why would they agree to the law ? It's not like they are going to think, well I don't mind or maybe I even like that I'm circumcised, but those damn jews, if preventing all future males from having this thing done that I'm totally fine with for myself is a way that we can really burn those jews, then yeah, let's outlaw it. But wait, can I just have my son circumcised first, because I want him to have it...

Marcus has a valid point. In the US, circumcision has been common and fashionable among all kinds of religious faiths, not just Jews.

Let's not all get so wrapped up in faith-based rationalization that we think banning circumcision is intended to be a snub of Jews. The way I see it, it is ban of genital mutilation of infant males who are much too young to have any idea at all what is going on.

Why can't we at least wait until a boy is 12 or 13 or even 16 and let them decide for themselves?

Hardly anyone in the US condones genital mutilation of females, no matter how much someone invokes a religious reason to do so. I think it is high time that the same standard is applied for male children.

And not just that: The foreskin exists for a reason. Just because a man can live without it doesn't mean it is ok or good to chop it off.

Thunderclips... Thanks for the supporting evidence. I'm not one to concoct anti-semitism out of nowhere.

I have never faced as much direct anti-semitism as I have since moving to the Bay Area. I wear a Star of David. I have been repeatedly harassed. The most egregious example is what happened to me in Berkeley while walking down Telegraph Avenue leaving Rasputin Records. Some jerk selling anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian paraphernalia pointed at me and yelled, "Colonizer! Murderer!" You'd think that passers by would be as horrified as I was. No, several of them joined him and some clapped.

Never mind that they didn't know me personally. Never mind that I've been to Jordan and Egypt but have never set foot in Israel. Never mind that I see both sides have blood on their hands and that I support an independent Arab Palestinian state. These people made an assumption based on my jewelry and possibly because I "look Jewish." My Jewish mother has blond hair. I got the nappy Jewfro instead.

I grew up in the Chicago Area and never faced such direct open hate based on my culture or religion as a Jew. I'm also Italian and have an Italian last name and in Chicago that was more of a problem than being Jewish or looking like a Jew. However, when I was a new hire in a Chicago Suburb a blond woman came up to me in my first week and whispered, "Just so you know, we don't observe Jewish Holidays." At that time I had never mentioned that I was Jewish or even asked about Jewish Holidays and wasn't even practicing Judaism at the time and I didn't wear any jewelry then. At the time, I just thought she was weird.

I was waiting in line recently at Oakland Kaiser Pharmacy and a Jewish woman pointed to my Star of David complimented it and added, "You are very brave to wear that."

So, while Non-Jews rarely see anti-semitism, we Jews have direct experience of direct obvious anti-semitism. It's rarely subtle to anyone but a Non-Jew, it would seem.

I don't go looking for anti-semitsm. Somehow it looks for me. My mother rarely gets harassed because she looks "less Jewish" and wears no obvious jewelry, I would guess, but it has happened to her too.

I'm not one who has the need to exaggerate claims of anti-semitism. I get no thrill out of it when it happens to me. I get no thrill out of seeing it happen to other Jews. I don't feel like a victim or "special" because I have experienced anti-semitism.

I do recognize anti-semitism when I see it. And it never feels good when I see it.

This ballot measure is anti-semitism thinly disguised as "anti-mutilation, anti-cuelty, pro-human rights" legislation pure and simple. Throughout history governments of countries with a Jewish presence have outlawed circumcision claiming to be protecting male infants and to be preventing barbarism. Sweden and the Soviet Union are some modern examples of this. These excuses mascarading as "principals" are nothing more than a thin set of costumes for the real intent of such laws.

Taxpayer says

That is what I was referring to. None of MY INCOME is capital gains. So I am forced to pay 10x into medicare than someone making 50k. Why should that be when we both will be given the same benefit? Instead, first of all, medicare should be made into a voluntary program. Secondly, if everyone is getting the same medicare benefits, then everyone should pay a flat amount, say $2500 per year (irrespective of income); and not a discriminatory percentage based premium.

What part of cutoff don't you get? Are you sure you know what you're talking about? You don't pay fica above 106k so at 500k you don't pay 10x what someone making 50k does, you pay 2x. Someone earning 50k does pay 10x what someone making 5k but gets the same benefit. In using something called logic everyone earning less than 106k is actually subsidizing the benefits of everyone earning over 106k.

Taxpayer says

47% of the people in this country pay NO INCOME taxes. A majority of that 47% are the non-wealthy. I agree that there are a few wealthy tax dodgers in that 47%; but the majority of that is non-wealthy people. And those are the people benefiting from medicaid and all the welfare programs.

Your original post said that majority of taxes were from the wealthy and were used for the majority of government spending which was medicare and ss. As I pointed out the wealthy simply do not pay the majority of FICA which funds medicare and ss. Now you are changing that to INCOME TAXES and medicaid/welfare? Which is it? Tell me when you make up your mind. Medicaid and welfare aren't the majority of the government spending, they aren't even the majority of the general budget (that's the part of the budget that is not Medicare/ss and not funded by FICA) or anywhere close.

You are apparently one of the people who believes the definition of wasteful government spending is anything not spent on you.

I think most government programs are wasteful and dated. At least out here in CA, there is insane amount of fraud and abuse.

And to add insult to injury, when economy tanks politicians ask for more taxes from the private sector employees to pay for the bloated benefits and salaries of public sector.

Taxpayer says

None of MY INCOME is capital gains

Short term capital gains do get hit by SS taxes. Last year I paid 42% in taxes since some income was short term capital gains (not counting sales taxes, etc... realistically closer to 50%). But it is not fair that most capital gains are not taxed for this.

And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if you flip houses you don't pay FICA taxes, but if you are a working man you are taxed. Seems hardly fair.

This isn't just Jewish, it's a very common practice in Mexico as well.

pkennedy says

But the habits, new cars and better driving style won’t go away. People will continue to burn less gas, and the gas will cost less, meaning they earn even less than before.

Not in this post-peak world.

As a point of fact, the yuan has about a 3X appreciation left in it, if the history of the Japanes yen is any pattern.

1.3 billion Chinese with 3X the buying power is a scary thing for oil prices.

Yes, our oil consumption will be driven down by $10/gas. As will our outdoor economy.

"How about all the shareholders of say, Haliburton? No way they would have made all that money. Either it would have come right back out in high taxes to finance those lucrative DoD Contracts, or if there was no SS trust fund theft, all those contracts would have never happened."

Agreed. Ultimately we (the US) have spent too much on the military budget anyway you cut it. Spending which at best has a low multiplier effect compared to other areas.

Tenouncetrout says

Calling him an “Employee” is no less ridiculous than calling everyone that posts on Patrick.net an Employee of Patrick.

Was he paid by Fox? I think that's a pretty key distinction, don't you?

American in Japan says

Agreed. Ultimately we (the US) have spent too much on the military budget anyway you cut it. Spending which at best has a low multiplier effect compared to other areas.

The funniest thing to me is all the people here that bemoan our foreign aid when in reality it is just military spending in disguise. Much of the "aid" has strings attached stating that it must be used to purchase US military equipment.

Anyone who wants to cut government spending has to start and finish with military spending. Period.

and Bill Clinton does book tours LET GET HIM!!!!

You guys forget, you're the only ones with a problem with Rick on Fox, the other 50% calls their wife in... "Hey Hon! Get in here, Rick Santorum is on Fox News again!"

Tenouncetrout says

and Bill Clinton does book tours LET GET HIM!!!!
You guys forget, you’re the only ones with a problem with Rick on Fox, the other 50% calls their wife in… “Hey Hon! Get in here, Rick Santorum is on Fox News again!”

Huh? I was just pointing out that if Fox is paying him, he is a Fox employee. Patrick doesn't pay any of his posters, so it's a really crappy analogy.

Well what does Rick getting paid to go on FOX and getting paid to say "the Democrats are out to Screw us", that hardly makes him an employee. Is Bill Clinton a Motivational Speaker, or a Politician?

state says

Are you completely missing nomos point on purpose, or are you just an idiot?

Nomograph says

Conservative pool is a current or past employee of Fox News, including Sarah Palin, Santorum, and Newt Gingrich.

No I got his point but a Lie a point does not make.

state says

or are you just an idiot?

Now Chir'yn don't go calling me Names, I might say something back that will make you tell Patrick on me, then he'll send me another email telling "ME" to be nice.

what does stuck to an area mean? were you forced to live there? why would anyone take a job that means driving 100 miles every day?

We have a similar monthly gas bill too. Some people are "stuck" to an area for several reasons - like kids going to a particular school, being near family or being near a spouse's job. In our case, my job is closer to my home and the kids school. So, my spouse does almost 45 miles of commuting each way in traffic - a compromise we like because that leaves me 100% responsible for kids that my spouse just loves! We also have extra commuting for kids activities like art, sports etc, weekend shopping trips for grocery and essentials, visiting family or friends etc.
Sometimes, $750 for gas looks normal for our family. And we still try to combine a few chores into each trip, walk to the convenience store round the corner etc.
I saw an analyst on TV saying low end retailers will take a hit in 2011 and that the high end retailers are the only ones that will do well because they can pass on the costs to their well heeled customers.

Has anybody ever Googled Rick Santorum?

Yeah the first hit is a Liberal smear spot, you gotta pay to rank like that.
Followed by Stewart hit then a Colbert hit.

Now I'm curios, Santorum is a "Republican" right?

You know I find it Ironic, Liberals have to invent words "Santorum" and create definitions for it too, to stick it to the Republicans.

Well you know what word is also in the News the Republicans didn't invent?

Weiner! A big Fat lying Weiner, can't keep his dick in his pants Weiner.

Say it, "Weiner" it just flows like "Liberal". Liberal Weiner...

Even by Pennsy's (I loathe to admit it but I lived in Scranton for 2 years and did some volunteer work for the county repub party so I am very conversant with political "standards" in PA) pretty damn low sleaze standards Santorum was considered by most to be a exceptionally sleazebag politico working the system for self enrichment.

Of course our district had Don Sherwood mr super republican family values man who claimed it was ok that he had a mistress since he didn't beat her. Anyone know why is it all the family values repubs end up sleeping around, usually without much regard to gender?

John Edwards anyone?
But he didn't know he was breaking the Law.

Had a woman at home with Cancer, and he's out plowing the help.
Talk about sleaze.

Sex and politicians to me is a non issue, but I wont have black kettles pissing the pot.

ToT, did I miss something? Is Bill Clinton running for president again? If he's not then any analogy you make here using him only works in Wackedout Bizzarroland.

The point of this entire discussion is that almost all current Republican presidential hopefuls either are or have been employees of Fox. The key point here is that almost all of the conservatives are or have been employed by GOP TeeVee.

Find a CURRENT liberal presidential hopeful who is employed by a "news" network that is exclusively run by liberals that serves as a liberal campaign propaganda network. Go ahead, I dare you.

(First you have to find a liberal Fox equivelant. Yeah, good luck with that.)

state says

Tenouncetrout says

Well what does Rick getting paid to go on FOX and getting paid to say “the Democrats are out to Screw us”, that hardly makes him an employee.

umm, yes it does, it literally means that he was an employee. I mean, its hard to take you seriously when you cannot figure out these very simple things.

Well maybe he's a contractor, if that's the case, Marge over in HR doesn't view him the same as an Employee. Think he's getting Fox News Bennies? And if so, do you think he is "Entitled" to them?

simchaland says

ToT, did I miss something? Is Bill Clinton running for president again? If he’s not then any analogy you make here using him only works in Wackedout Bizzarroland.

Oh I see, you guys are just here to spout Bullshit about Presidential candidates. Obama is Great don't sweat it, he's doing fine...
No really, stick around He's got the Lindbergh baby in the Green room.

@Tenounce

You sure seem to be "tuned in" to the goings on at FOX "news", and repeat the same diatribe for someone who professes to not have "drank the Kool-aid".

From your posts you seem to be so full of Kool-aid that those within ear shot of you would risk having holes smashed in their walls if they were to yell, “HEY KOOL-AID!”

Tenouncetrout says

Weiner! A big Fat lying Weiner, can’t keep his dick in his pants Weiner.

Of course he can, he just can't help tweeting pics of his dick.

Is this a high-tech version of a guy in the park naked under a trench coat?

But, come on Tenounce, you must admit that even if you are not a fan of anal-sex the Santorum definition is pretty funny.

Santorum (the guy, not the frothy mixture) is one of those "doth protest too much" people. I would not be surprised in the least if a gay sex scandal were to break.

Tenouncetrout says

Well maybe he’s a contractor, if that’s the case, Marge over in HR doesn’t view him the same as an Employee. Think he’s getting Fox News Bennies? And if so, do you think he is “Entitled” to them?

Really??? Are you going to break this down to a issue of semantics? Or do you really not understand the overriding point being made?

I get that you guys want me to think Santorum is some desk jockey over at FoxNews, and there's some sinister plot going on against the Democrats. Fox News is going to blast his picture and doctrine at all of the Nascar events, Teahouses, and Tent Revivals.
And its just terrible, because Political candidates being a Network Asset is a dangerous thing. Let alone when a Network is a Candidates bully pulpit.

And I'm jumping up and down pissed off with you and saying "Yes! Yes! Yes!". How ever!
It's you guys, that don't get it, it only bothers you when it's somebody else doing it. It scares me when any Mother Fugger has that arrangement.

Do you think other politicians don't get paid for their Contributions to the News outlets they support? Right or Left.

That does not make them "Employees" they aren't hired and fired, the only way these guys could lose these gigs, is be to irrelevant to the Networks paying them.

Politics is theatrics and showmanship, who works for free?

I bet Weiner is going to make more money "Contributing" to news going forward I guarantee that.

This is the first thing that comes up when I google Santorum. That's gross. I just now learned about this

http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/

To understand where this definition (or meme) came from (I'm sure it will be a definition in english for eternity amongst the deviants that deal with such.)

I can here it now, "ewww I rolled over onto the Santorum." To understand the genesis of the definition:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/rick-santorum-google-problem-dan-savage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_(neologism)

That wikipedia is the second one to come up (at least on my machine).

Technology can be very amusing.

xenogear3 says

Many companies hire people pretend to be union thugs.

Yup, they did it in Fremont at the NUMMI plant. They are very creative. They recruited fellow workers who were right-wingers and used them to direct criticism towards the union. They staged a riot at the UAW union hall with several agent provocateurs and filmed it with 2 cameras and then sent it out to the news media and union busting websites and posted it up on You Tube to prove that we were "union thugs".

I'm REALLY hoping Santorum gets the nomination. It will be epic.

thunderlips11 says

Why is circumcision singled out for “Concern”?

Circumcision is not "singled out". The difference between male circumcision and nose piercings is that the former is done to infants and the latter is decided by the person who is getting the piercing, and they must generally have permission to do it if they are not of legal age. There is a huge difference here.

>justme says

>And not just that: The foreskin exists for a reason. Just because a >man can live without it doesn’t mean it is ok or good to chop it off.

>>What reason is that?

Every body part exists for a reason. I'm not sure we know what half of our body parts are really for, or what unknown functions they might have.

Look, I understand that there exists people who will USE circumcision as a platform for anti-judaism. But that does not mean that wanting to protect infants and give them a choice later in life constitutes anti-judaism.

Thunderlips11, you write plenty of sensible stuff, but we are not going to agree on this one.