patrick.net

Too bad about Paul Ryan. Young, nice hair. Could have been the "New GOP!".

But the geriatrics will hound him about Medicare, it'll be decades before they die off and he has a shot again.

elliemae says

But this country was created by protestants and there’s only been one Catholic president so far, all others fall into the protestant category.

Yes, and as a catholic JFK had to convince the public that the Pope was not pulling his strings.

Aside from what has already been mentioned about mormons, there are some fundamental differences between mormons and catholics that I feel will make Romney winning the presidency very improbable.
• You can be considered a faithful catholic, but not be that into church
- Not so with mormonism it is a much more active faith that dictates ones lifestyle to a much greater degree

• JFK was not clergy
- All momon men (even blacks after 1978) are “priests” beholden to the prophet
- Could JFK been elected if he was an active bishop or cardinal?

• Catholisim has a rich history of trying to influence heads of state, and loosing members in mass as a result, having learned from that they currently don’t seem to try and use that influence, and are more lenient about how a catholic gets to heaven
- Mormonism, not so
- Mormonism is a very centralized religion, and going against the prophet or refusing “callings” brings ones salvation and/or ability to become a god in jeopardy (yes mormons believe that a select few of them will become gods, beats 72 virgins in my book)
- If put in that position what would Romney do?

In spite of that I would vote for Romney over some of the other candidates, but then again I don’t think that mormons are servants of the devil.

Many people consider Mormonism to be a cult. It's too wierd for them - and I can see their point. But living in Utah as I do, it's normal to me to see their traditions and rituals.

Honestly, they are very family oriented. On the other hand, their indoctrination of the children is unbelievable. They push the church, hard, throughout school. They even let kids out of high school to take religious classes that are in a building across the street from the school and, at least when I attended oodles of years ago, awarded school credit for the institute classes. The mormon church has a huge presence on the campuses of the colleges as well.

None of this has anything to do with Mitt - he's a talking head and I can't get past the dog abuse thing. He'll always be an asshole in my book - we all make mistakes but that's no mistake, it's abuse.

Bap33 says

to suggest anyone who sees the liberal/progressive/leftist position as being bad for a healthy - free - society only does so out of anger or boogie men seems to lack some basic depth.

Just like the "conservative" position the "liberal" has value and some valid points. An absolutist positions like "the liberal position is bad for a heality society" lack depth, are nonsense, and do come from an irrational position of fear and anger.

Bap33 says

But, a healthy FREE group (family/clan/tribe/neighborhood/town/city/county/region/state/nation/country/planet) MUST hold the actions of the individual to a standard higher than the base human condition of morality. THe standard MUST be set high enough to ensure a healthy society and to protect the just from the unjust. Otherwise we revert to “survival of the fittest” and “biggest bully wins” rules. People go hungry, and splinter into smaller survival groups, and soon women become livestock, just a little more important than a cow.

I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here, but it seems to me that you are saying we need a divine morality to uplift the "base human condition of morality".

Yes, because women have done so well under the judeo-christian-islamic "moral" systems.

The logic that humans need divine moral guidance in order to be good is unfounded, complicated, and a huge topic unto itself. But, if that is not what you were trying to say never mind.

Bap33 says

As we sit in the safety and freedom of America, our view of things gets twisted. Mine and yours. We take everything for granted.

Yes, this is generally true, but who says everyone here has not stepped outside America and "seen the world". Getting that perspective is one reason why I think that travel to developing countries is important.

Bubble Bobble says

The poorer you are, the harder they fuck you.

Ain't that the truth?

All of these fees are a way of fleecing those with the least amount of money. That's all they are.

Sarah's Emails just came out, thousands of 'em, from her time as Alaska gov.

The Guardian UK needs your help to sift through all the "Sheeshes" and ":-)" in about 250,000 pages of emails.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/sarah-palin-emails

See how she communicated as Governor of Alaska, why dontcha.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/jun/10/sarah-palin-emails-released

It looks like Russell Crowe briefly took an intactivist stand before rapidly retracting his statements.
I know the teacher of the infant care class we took at Alta Bates (several years ago) had a strong anti-circ bias that made me somewhat uncomfortable (although she did allow for religious exceptions). I would like to think there is a middle ground that can be staked out here. In my (very limited) understanding of the the topic, there are those who believe circumcision was more ritualistic in 'ye olden' times. It was only after the Second Temple fell that cutting more, rather than less, was the rule as a way of preserving identity in the face of the Diaspora. Perhaps it's time to reconsider what the mark means. Comments? Insights? I'm willing to learn.

Is there a religion where, when you die, you get 72 sluts? At least this would make some kind of sense.

debit card fees aren't wrong. What is wrong is that merchants are penalized if they offer incentives to pay with cash over credit. Now that is wrong. That is monopolistic. And credit card companies need to be disciplined from their anti competitive behavior.

leoj707 says

An absolutist positions like “the liberal position is bad for a heality society” lack depth, are nonsense, and do come from an irrational position of fear and anger.

no, it does not. you are wrong.

leoj707 says

Yes, because women have done so well under the judeo-christian-islamic “moral” systems.

First, remove islamic from that list, it does not equate. Secondly, only compaired to everything else there is have women done better in societies that try to be based on the teachings of Christ or the Hebrews. And not just women, but humanity in general.

leoj707 says

Getting that perspective is one reason why I think that travel to developing countries is important.

It is fine for you to have the feeling. Even though America is hurting very much due to the effects of liberal/progressive/leftist activisim, it is still the big brother that every "developing country" relys on. So, your expanded perspective should keep that portion of reality factored in. In my opinion.

leoj707 says

but it seems to me that you are saying we need a divine morality to uplift the “base human condition of morality”.

hmmmm .. I just re-read my post. I did not mention God on purpose. Your response indicates that you know fully well that the basic human condition does not result in moralistic behavior ... and you also know that ALL human BEHAVIOR that is not BASIC is passed on through teaching. Feel free to share where you "feel" moralistic behavior came from. I happen to feel it is learned. You are born knowing nothing about behavior, rules, morals, or whatever.

leoj707 says

The logic that humans need divine moral guidance in order to be good is unfounded, complicated, and a huge topic unto itself.

Morals came from someplace .... basic understanding for what is right and what is wrong are also learned, and came from someplace. Where? Careful now, I may get lucky.

elliemae says

Many people consider Mormonism to be a cult.

That's because it is a cult.

Christianity is a cult, too; but it is a different cult. As that goes, the Catholic branch of Christianity is also a cult.

EBGuy says

In my (very limited) understanding of the the topic, there are those who believe circumcision was more ritualistic in ‘ye olden’ times. It was only after the Second Temple fell that cutting more, rather than less, was the rule as a way of preserving identity in the face of the Diaspora. Perhaps it’s time to reconsider what the mark means. Comments? Insights? I’m willing to learn.

See here for a good explanation of what Brit Milah and other birth and first month of life Jewish traditions mean to Jews. Please keep in mind that not all Jews agree on everything about Judaism. We have many different perspectives within our own people/religion. It also addresses some of the modern controversy around circumcision. An Orthodox interpretation of the modern controversy is here. It is in line with the Jewish majority opinion. A Jewish minority opinion about circumcision can be found here.

We have a saying, "Two Jews, three opinions..."

Minority positions about every Jewish practice and belief can be found in the Talmud and other Jewish writings. We preserve all opinions just in case there was wisdom in the minority opinion that might serve future or current generations. Therefore Judaism is extremely non-dogmatic. That being said, the majority opinion is the one that almost all Jews follow because the majority opinion is seen to have the weight and the wisdom of the majority.

I've not been able to bring up a source for whether or not Brit Milah was practiced more often after the destruction of the Second Temple. As far as I know, and I've done a lot of studying, Brit Milah has always been practiced by Jews since Abraham about 3700 years ago. It's a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (our oldest Covenant) with God.

Brit Milah has been so important that Zipporah circumcised her son so that God wouldn't kill Moses or Moses's first born son. That link also talks about questions of whether or not the Israelites in Egypt had maintained Brit Milah. Also it points out that Joshua had all uncircumcised males circumcised upon setting foot in the Promised Land.

Also it notes an interesting concept from Jewish Feminists that this passage of the Torah validates a Brit Milah performed by a woman or the mother. The vast majority of Jews only recognize a Brit Milah performed by a male with the proper training in Torah and surgical technique as Kosher (valid). The Ethiopian Jews have a tradition that the mother circumcises her sons that they claim pre-dates their first exile before the destruction of the First Temple.

Personally, I find it reprehensible that people outside of the Jewish People/Religion would attempt to interfere with our own Traditions and our own process of evolving our own Traditions.

Our internal process concerning our Traditions should be respected. We don't attempt to interfere with other peoples' central religious traditions. Modern Judaism frowns upon evangelization in the strongest way.

In this country, we have the first part of the First Amendment to our Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It mentions Congress. In Constitutional Law the States and Municipalities can regulate that which the Federal Government doesn't regulate. The Federal Government's Constitution regulates the treatment of religion in this country not States and Municipalities. If this ballot measure passes, it will be struck down as unconstitutional at a Federal level. There is no question about that. The anti-circ activists want the attention and the fight to gain publicity for their cause. They know that Jews will not allow them to make a central practice of our religion illegal without a fight. They want to use Jews to generate publicity for their cause. Yet all of them want to claim they aren't anti-semitic in any way, shape, or form.

simchaland said: I’ve not been able to bring up a source for whether or not Brit Milah was practiced more often after the destruction of the Second Temple.
Sorry, I did not mean to imply that; my language should have been clearer. When I said cutting more, I meant actually removing more of the foreskin versus trimming off a little. This is the middle ground I'm trying to stake out. I don't think this question should be an all or nothing proposition for those who want to honor their faith tradition.

Bap33 says

no, it does not. you are wrong.

No you are wrong.

Bap33 says

First, remove islamic from that list, it does not equate.

Why?

Bap33 says

Secondly, only compaired to everything else there is have women done better in societies that try to be based on the teachings of Christ or the Hebrews.

Islam is based on the teaching of christ and the hebrews, just as christianity is based on the teachings of the hebrews.

Bap33 says

hmmmm .. I just re-read my post. I did not mention God on purpose.

Yeah, that is what I figured. I can read thinly veiled propaganda between the lines.

Bap33 says

Your response indicates that you know fully well that the basic human condition does not result in moralistic behavior

Apparently, you can not read between the lines. Or even perhaps the lines themselves.
leoj707 says

The logic that humans need divine moral guidance in order to be good is unfounded

Let me try and be more clear on my feelings.
Deities, christian or otherwise, do not insure a moral society

Bap33 says

Feel free to share where you “feel” moralistic behavior came from. I happen to feel it is learned.

This is waaaay... to far of the topic of this thread, and would require length explanations (developmental science, biology, and neuroscience have the answers you are looking for), and then you would ignore it anyway.

If you feel you get your morals from god(s), and that is what prevents you from becoming a serial killing rapist then please keep believing. There is just no factual data to support your view that christ = increased morals. Would you trade Japan's crime rate for ours, are they less moral because their society is not judeo-christian based?

It is interesting to me how so many christians, when discussing this topic, seem to be teetering on the edge of committing horrible crimes with only their belief in god holding them back.

thunderlips11 says

but it will be perfectly legal for fashionista parents to forcibly give their child an ear-piercing, whether they want it or not.

What a wild world we live in.

Depending on the child's religion, that might be protected too.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/16/national/main6872106.shtml

Simcha's legal analysis may be a little off, but his conclusion is right. The law will be struck down in the courts.

thunderlips11 says

but it will be perfectly legal for fashionista parents to forcibly give their child an ear-piercing, whether they want it or not.
What a wild world we live in.

Yeah, I cringe a little when I see a baby with pierced ears, and I am certainly going to wait until my girl is old enough to make that choice on here own (and perhaps a little longer).

I don't know the complication rate of ear piercing, but the circumcision is more of an invasive procedure with the risk of losing your little boy's penis. I just don't think that they are analogous.

simchaland says

We have a saying, “Two Jews, three opinions…”

Haha, that actually sums up one of my favorite things about judaism. There seems to be a lot more tolerance to differing opinions (even the opinion that god may not exist) than other faiths.

ch_tah says

Simcha’s legal analysis may be a little off, but his conclusion is right. The law will be struck down in the courts.

Yeah, if it gets passed it will most likely be struck down.

While religious expression does not make it legal for parents to abuse their children, and I don't think that circumcision is a good choice. The evidence is not there to make the claim that is abuse.

thunderlips11 says

I’m really going to start a circumcision advocacy group. I think I’ll shop around for a good name.
Circumcision USA?
Circumcision is Health, Inc.
Stop HPV USA, Inc.
Make Penile Cancer History Coalition

I think that you should punch it up a little bit, how about:

Circumcision FUCK YEAH!

*or*

Grassroots Coalition for Patriotic Births

*or*

The People for Parent's Choice

Basically anything that has the words or phrases: choice, the people, grassroots, patriotic, fuck yeah!, freedom, save the babies, coalition, etc...

EBGuy says

This is the middle ground I’m trying to stake out. I don’t think this question should be an all or nothing proposition for those who want to honor their faith tradition.

I'm not sure. I guess we could survey Jewish men who have had circumcisions performed by Mohelim to find out if they were cut "low and loose" or "high and tight."

Mine was low and loose. But then again, mine was performed in the hospital by a surgeon, even though I am Jewish. Mom is Jewish too. She was a practicing Catholic at the time. She had it done "Just in case." Our family's religious and cultural history is complicated. It's testimony to how anti-semitism can destroy families and create complications for generations.

When I decided to be not just culturally and ontologically Jewish but also religiously Jewish I had a "Hatafat Dam Brit" done. As noted in the article this is done for male converts to Judaism who have been circumcised. Also it talks about how different movements in Judaism approach an uncircumcised male convert either requiring a Brit Milah, or not requiring a Brit Milah. It also discusses how different circumcision is for an adult male as opposed to an 8 day old baby boy.

In my case, I wasn't considered a "convert" per se. I had changed my religious practice but in the eyes of most Jews, I was still a Jew even when I was being raised a Roman Catholic. However I had never had a proper Brit Milah even though I was surgically circumcised.

I had "Hatafat Dam Brit" done in order to have a Kosher Brit Milah. When my circumcision was done it was done as a surgical procedure, the doctor wasn't Jewish most likely, and not trained in Torah most likely, and he most certainly didn't say the blessing. The Mohel I hired, who was also a Urologist, was able to confirm that my circumcision was Kosher and when he was done with the blessing and pin prick (drawing blood) I had a Kosher Brit Milah. I am confident that even though my circumcision is "low and loose" it was Kosher. So, it isn't necessary to do a "high and tight" circumcision. The Mohel told me that Mohelim are trained to do circumcisions "low and loose."

He had to do the pin prick twice. The first time drew no blood. Blood must be drawn. On the second pin prick he drew blood, collected it on a gauze pad, then showed the blood on the gauze pad to three witnesses. And no, it wasn't painless. But the pain wasn't as bad as you may think and the pain was over in a second.

This may sound barbaric to those who aren't Jewish (or to some Jews) but to me it had intense meaning. It was a sign that I was completely committed to claiming my Jewish heritage, identity, and responsibilities.

Here is a discussion about using "Hatafat Dam Brit" as a "compromise." The conclusion of the article is that it is not Kosher to perform this ritual while leaving the foreskin intact.

EBGuy says

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that; my language should have been clearer.

I didn't think you were trying to be offensive. The question is a valid one. Many Jewish Traditions have gained and lost adherence throughout the millenia. There is a question about whether or not Brit Milah has ever fallen out of favor in Jewish history. It seems that there may be a question about the Israelites' adherence to Brit Milah while they were in Egypt. But there's nothing conclusive to suggest that Brit Milah wasn't observed at any time throughout Jewish history since Abraham that I can find.

leoj707 says

I think that you should punch it up a little bit, how about:
Circumcision FUCK YEAH!
*or*
Grassroots Coalition for Patriotic Births
*or*
The People for Parent’s Choice
Basically anything that has the words or phrases: choice, the people, grassroots, patriotic, fuck yeah!, freedom, save the babies, coalition, etc…

How about these for anti-circ activist organizations?:

The Anti-Circ Brigade

No Bris For Me Campaign

Activist Intactivists International

Smegma Lovers Unite!

It's Not A Choice, It's A Birthright! Campaign

Save The Sausage! Campaign

Anything mentioning save, intact, anti-circ, no choice, say no to Brit Milah, or smegma loving would do.

leoj707 says

Islam is based on the teaching of christ and the hebrews, just as christianity is based on the teachings of the hebrews.

nope. you are wrong again. but, your lack of truth in advertizing may be more the issue, more so than a lack of knowledge.

good day

leoj707 says

Bap33 says
Feel free to share where you “feel” moralistic behavior came from. I happen to feel it is learned.
This is waaaay… to far of the topic of this thread, and would require length explanations (developmental science, biology, and neuroscience have the answers you are looking for), and then you would ignore it anyway.

bwaaaa haaa ha ... a punt??!! No biggie, have a good weekend.

simchaland says

Smegma

what is that sim?

simchaland says

Also it notes an interesting concept from Jewish Feminists that this passage of the Torah validates a Brit Milah performed by a woman or the mother.

Interesting, in general thanks for sharing about jewish circumcision tradition.

simchaland says

Personally, I find it reprehensible that people outside of the Jewish People/Religion would attempt to interfere with our own Traditions and our own process of evolving our own Traditions.

This type of attitude concerns me. I don't think that there are any current jewish traditions/practices that anyone should care about, and certainly nothing that should be banned...

...but...

...I think that there are times when others should and need to interfere with religious traditions. It should not be a carte blanche to do anything a group of people want.

When the christian scientist wants to deny life saving medicine to a child. Should that be stopped?

If the mormons wanted a return of the blood atonement. Should that be allowed?

If muslims want to kill their girls because she dishonored the family by being raped. Should this be protected religious freedom?

Sorry, I don't know enough about jewish traditions to come up with an abhorrent example. Except the one about them eating babies (or is that just the atheists), but I suspect that one is false.

simchaland says

Yet all of them want to claim they aren’t anti-semitic in any way, shape, or form.

I think that there are people out there that genuinely think circumcision is child abuse, and I don't think they are doing it for anti-semitic reasons (without question some are though).

Just like pro-circumcision movement starting in this thread they have studies and data to backup their claims, but I don't think that either side has enough "proof" either way.

Bap33 says

simchaland says

Smegma

what is that sim?

Smegma: –noun, a thick, cheeselike, sebaceous secretion that collects beneath the foreskin or around the clitoris.

Origin: 1810–20;

@sim,
cool story. thanks for sharing.

eeeew

simchaland says

Anything mentioning save, intact, anti-circ, no choice, say no to Brit Milah, or smegma loving would do.

Nice, how about:

Intact Sausage Loving Smegma Brigade FUCK YEAH!

the "cool story" part was for the cool story ... the "eeeew" is for the cheese ... lol

Bap33 says

leoj707 says

Islam is based on the teaching of christ and the hebrews, just as christianity is based on the teachings of the hebrews.

nope. you are wrong again. but, your lack of truth in advertizing may be more the issue, more so than a lack of knowledge.
good day

Wha??? look into the origins of islam.

Bap33 says

leoj707 says

Bap33 says

Feel free to share where you “feel” moralistic behavior came from. I happen to feel it is learned.

This is waaaay… to far of the topic of this thread, and would require length explanations (developmental science, biology, and neuroscience have the answers you are looking for), and then you would ignore it anyway.

bwaaaa haaa ha … a punt??!! No biggie, have a good weekend.

Hey, start up a thread on the origins of moral behavior and I am sure you will generate lots of conversation.

Yeah, enjoy your weekend, and don't forget to read up on the origins of islam!

mikey says

Is there a religion where, when you die, you get 72 sluts? At least this would make some kind of sense.

And make them bi-sexual, but who said religion has to make sense.

Bap, I probably shouldn't have used the word "hate" because you totally missed my bigger point later.

Bap33 says

but to suggest anyone who sees the liberal/progressive/leftist position as being bad for a healthy - free - society only does so out of anger or boogie men seems to lack some basic depth.

I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting that if one has a fictitious and exaggerated idea of the progressive position, then that might be born by their desire to see that position in a way that justifies their anger.

For example:

Bap33 says

Those on the left/progressive/liberal side of things will want him in prison for life if he kills a person of color breaking into his house, but will demand he be kept alive if he murders an average white male. The same group will demand that the boy be told that tabacco use is evil and that there is no god while in school, but smoking dope, snorting crank, doing acid, performing unnatural sexual acts, being socially disruptive, are all ok.

Really ?

The part of my previous post, that I most wanted you to ponder was this.

marcus says

The religious right values, gun rights, attributing moral decay to the left, these are all just ploys by the corporatocracy and the plutocrats to get your vote.

None of these things are even addressed by their policies (its just about winning elections). Their policies are all about protecting the rich, and fucking over the middle class.

What does this (open link) have to do with gays, drugs, Guns or God ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-truth-about-the-ameri_b_869033.html

Most people who are politically to the left of what's going on now, that is the ones mostly concerned with policies dealing with taxes, health care and so on, are well educated people with family values, and are just as good people as you are.

Furthermore, they can be quite a bit right of what I consider a center, and they are still way left of where we are headed. I could run down the list of people you hear arguing progressive positions on this forum, I guarantee that most are upstanding good people.

TOT Ranted, "Even in ‘06 the Evil Bastards were over at Berkly with their iBooks and thier Mocha Lattes..."

Damn all you smart liberals in Berkeley with your iBooks and Mocha Lattes!

ROTFLMAO! :-D

TOT, you're a funny guy!

Why is it that I picture you as an old white dude in his bath robe on his front porch yelling at "those damn kids" while shaking your cane in the air at them?

Taxpayer says

So ceo tax rate = (0.5Y) / (0.5X) = Y/X.

Okay, so you are arguing that the corporation should pay the taxes on the roads. Fine. If the ceo were the owner, this would hit him. Ceo pay has gone up more because they are all in the club that decides what ceos should be paid. It's not a normal market.

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/

If you make this as simple as possible, the tax question boils down to the fact that the huge income people can afford to pay more. He or she does pay more, even if the rates are flat. The question is how much more should they pay ? Even with fairly progressive taxes, the ceo who makes 10 million a year will still be able to live with as much luxury as possible and as much invested as he and his heirs will need.

Why isn't that sufficient incentive ?

Meanwhile the same progessive rates will cost the high end doctor with the 450K income just 10K more than now, or maybe 20K more, if the top rate is 45%.

This is not the same as saying that all incentives go away and we are communists !

Tp: I understood your point.

Taxpayer says

BASED ON THE NUMBERS

It's not based on numbers, its based on what you define y and x to be
and what you think that quotient represents.

The ratio of (cost of roads)/(profits), doesn't quite make sense (because others use the roads) but lets pretend it makes sense. Then what I think you are saying is the corporation pays the taxes, or nearly equivalently, the ceo and the worker pay the same percentage of their taxes towrads it. Okay. I changed the subject a little.
Taxpayer says

This question is like asking what name they should give their children.

You say that if I think that the government should raise their tax burden (imperceptibly - really - to him - based on his cost of living) that that would be like naming their kids ?

This one goes a little beyond logic I will admit. It goes to philosophy about what's in the common good versus justfying absurd levels of self interest..

Two great quotes from a favorite commie pinko economist.

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
John Kenneth Galbraith

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith

I think he acknowledged the ceo paying 100 times as much if the ceo pays the same tax rates. But I would argue the ceo should pay even more, since his taxes come totally out of discretionary income (they should have a term super-discretionary, for income that is above the highest living expenses possible)

Taxpayer says

I am saying that you have no RIGHT to ask demand that the high income people pay more

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Let me guess. This is a popular email that gets sent around republican circles.

" I agree" (actually I do agree)

"And I'm tired of the fricking liberals who think that everyone has all of these rights"

(I know it's bullshit to imply that liberals believe this - but if we get more votes for our side - no harm no foul, right ?)