patrick.net

shrekgrinch says

That’s what happens when the country is run on a national policy of pissing on the value of the dollar

This country desperately needs a weaker dollar so we can get some exports going again.

Problem is we can't afford the more expensive oil that comes with a weaker dollar.

Gold *should* be at least $2000 -- that would give our wage labor a 30% comparative boost vs the ROW.

Failing that, we should just start erecting trade barriers against countries with large surpluses against us, relative to the size of the surplus.

Or we could go with a stronger dollar and see productive goods-producing employment continue to crater, and our capacity either going unused or exported to the cheap labor countries.

But these trade deficits are unsustainable. Something's going to have to give here.

Apocolypsefuck, will you please delete the article except for the first paragraph and put a link to the site where you found it?

There's a company called Righthaven that's suing for, and winning, thousands of dollars in damages. We like being here, and would hate to have to help Patrick raise $20k or more to defend a lawsuit.

Thanks.PasadenaNative says

® Easy on the Mac…®!

Michinaga says

¡Viva Mac!

Rub it in! I can take it! But next time I'm buying a Mac. ;)

Troy says

we can’t afford the more expensive oil that comes with a weaker dollar

Baloney. Bubba can just park the SUV in the driveway more often and drive his smaller car instead more often.

And Bubba can carpool. Besides spending less on gasoline, he'll be spending less on wear and tear.

Bubba can lose a little weight so that higher temps will be more tolerable, so he can turn down the AC. Or maybe even turn it off and get some fresh air for a change.

Problem solved.

Hey shrek,

how many voters are you minting?

sybrib says

Problem solved.

except for cross-country airfares.

Maybe airlines should charge by the pound, say $500 plus $2 per pound of stuff you're putting on the plane, including yourself.

I don't think the quality of life in North America was worse when only the elite could afford air travel.

Some people would argue those were halcyon days when a working class family could live comfortably on one income.

Except for medical flights, and an unfortunate sudden need to travel to a funeral, airline transport is discretionary. That'd include business travel, too. Why else do businesses "clamp down" on travel as the first cost reduction measure? Corporations with global reach did very well, thank you very much, in the days of yore when only the very top management traveled by air. And that was before video conferencing.

We could have well over 90% of commercial aviation operations cease and be no worse off for it. Except for the airline employees and leisure travel destinations like Hawaii.

shrekgrinch says

I am not minting any

Ceratinly not enough for the demographics to sustain your politics in the future.

Same for Europe.

We're not too many generations away from knowing it as "The Islamic Republic of Europe".

shrekgrinch says

This entire posting is ridiculous. And who cares what the morons in SF do to themselves? This is only dangerous if enacted at the state level, INMO. The people of SF get what they deserve for being as wacked-up as their politicians.

We all know that legislation at the local level never finds its way to state and federal politics. And that each person in SF supports every piece of legislation there, just as every person who lives in Fremont supports every piece of legislation that emanates from there.

Just curious, shrek. Is it because you aren't directly affected by the proposed legislation that you deemed it to be "ridiculous," or is it because you can't make this a political issue?

The forum is Miscellaneous, and not "What Shrek believes is important."

shrekgrinch says

And last time I checked, many circumcisions don’t have to be performed right after the brat is popped out.

Kudos on your compassion, shrek.

Great find !

Excellent.

Thank you for the change, and for the warning. Perhaps a visual of a maggot gagging would be appropriate here. (kidding!)

Evil fucking Righthaven has set a precedent, altho it's getting it's comeuppance in court I do believe.

That warmed the cockles of my heart.

More, please!

Anybody wanna bet this cash-paid home is probably listed as a piece of some MBS somewhere?

Fight Schmegla Circumcise.

That's gotta be an urban legend.

not according to the interwebs:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/05/homeowners-foreclose-on-bank-of-america_n_871540.html

Guess they shoulda paid up like the courts said to

RightHaven and others can only sue if Patrick were to ignore a DCMA letter or other communication. However, it's best to just paraphrase.

@patrick @thunderlips11 and others

I'm late to this party, and this is off topic, but I need to clear something up with regards to the often misunderstood topic of intellectual property (IP) that was brought up early in the thread.

"In fact, all this IP enforcement is costing the taxpayers untold sums, not to mention the unseen costs of products not coming to market that would make their lives easier/more efficient, due to legal battles."

The government does not spend any money on enforcing IP because the government does NOT enforce any kind of IP rights. That enforcement is the responsibility of the holder of the patent, copyright, etc. The government issues patents (which have a term of only 20 years), but that does not cost taxpayers anything either. The Patent Office is 100% funded by the fees those seeking patent protection pay in the process of obtaining a patent.

Yes, patents give a limited monopoly to an owner. But the public receives in return a disclosure of the technology. The disclosure is valuable, as it can provide a basis for further research and innovation. Without disclosure, the public would not benefit from secret knowledge. A monopoly sounds bad, but it promotes innovation. Without some sort of guarantee that an idea will be protected, what would drive people to invent new things? China has weak IP protection, and while they are good at stealing ours, they do not do much to create new technology.

Anyway, sorry for the off-topic post.

Actually, Righthaven is skipping the letter and going right for the suits. It's rather interesting - they've shut down several blogs and received thousands of dollars in payments. The history of Righthaven, which is an arm of the LV RJ newspaper, is chronicled in the Sun (competing newspaper).

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/feb/12/righthaven-files-first-judgment-motion-demands-cas/

Common practices are to send a letter demanding the offending content is removed, but they skip that part. It's sleezy. And the Denver Post is using them too.

shrekgrinch says

the brat

"ewww picky poo! Children!"

You might like living in SF with all those ChildLess Hipsters who dote on their dogs but "aren't into the kid thing".

This is just the latest in anti-semitic legislation. Sweden outlawed circumcision years ago. Basically in Sweden, the main group of people circumcising their infant male children were and are Jews. Some Muslims practice this tradition too. So the legislation was against all semites, Arab and Jew alike. Swedes would deny this against all evidence to the contrary, chiefly that the practice there is done almost exclusively amongst Jews and Muslims.

I participated in another forum where there was a strong anti-circumcision contingent. They claim that the practice is cruel. They also claim that the health benefits haven't been proven in unbiased research. They claim that male circumcision is equivalent to female circumcision. They choose to ignore obvious differences in anatomy. Also they claim that there is a huge reduction in sensitivity for the boy who will miss it when the "victim" becomes a sexually active man. They claim that the glans which isn't meant to be exposed 100% of the time becomes progressively less sensitive as it scars from exposure over time. Many men who were in that group claim to be victims and that they remember the terrible pain they experienced as an infant and they attribute their emotional and mental problems to having been circumcised against their will as infants. Very few have legitimate anger over having had a botched circumcision and wish to outlaw the practice to prevent anyone else from being disfigured even though there is such a tiny miniscule percentage that are disfigured and that it's always due to medical malpractice. In short, I've heard it all.

Also there are self-hating Jews who are anti-circumcision activists. They claim that it's an unnecessary, outdated, and cruel tradition and they point to the many laws and customs that we Jews no longer observe like stoning adulterers as an equivalent example.

They interviewed a few San Franciscan Rabbis and Mohelim (Jewish ritual circumcisers) who pointed out the fact that many ancient authorities like the Greeks and Romans and Medieval Europeans banned the practice as a way to oppress their Jews into non-existence. Jews have maintained this commandment as a central defining sign of male Jewishness and Covenant for milennia. Do San Franciscans really think that Jews will abandon the practice in the face of a fine or prison time when Jews have faced death for performing their traditions in other cultures?

The anti-circumcision folks want to claim that they are anti-cruelty and not anti-semitic. It's just an attempt to dress up their anti-semitism in modern disguise. Frankly I'm disgusted that this has made it to the ballot but I'm not surprised. San Francisco is a major center for the anti-circ movement. Last time I checked, freedom of religion is protected in the US Constitution.

simchaland says

This is just the latest in anti-semitic legislation

I don't buy that. I think that in this particular case you are playing the classic jewish role of seeing antisemitism beyond that which exists.

In my day in the area where I grew up, there was a fairly small jewish population, but everyone (males) in my age group I mean everyone (at least 95%) were circumcised.

In the 1950s it was considered standard procedure. Slowly it has decreased because some thought it doesn't serve a purpose in modern times or for whatever reason. OR even because of theories about it affecting sexual experience of adults. I guess now recent science suggests that it does have health benefits, even in modern times.

I don't have an opinion on which is better and I'm circumcised, and I certainly think the idea of making it illegal is absurd, but Antisemitism ? Give me a break.

By the way, even if it was illegal - that is no longer done in hospitals as a default procedure, and even if there were a city law, it surely wouldn't stop jews from having their Brit milah. So if you think about it, what you are saying is that non jews no longer being allowed to be circumsised for non religious reasons is antisemetic.

Marcus, let's agree to disagree. Liberals are just as anti-semitic as conservatives. Non Jews always claim that Jews believe that anti-semitism is more wide spread than it actually is. 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?

And this ballot measure makes Brit Milah illegal. It makes no distinction between hospital/medical circumcision and Brit Milah.

It does appear to me (as an outsider - of calif) that this is targeted toward a population that specifically circumcises their young. Why else would it be outlawed? It's only an issue with the Jewish faith.

Maybe the real source of the law is rabbis who feel that they are missing out on what used to be a decent little source of income.

Marcus, you just don't understand. It's not happening to you. This law does outlaw Brit Milah. Brit Milah is not done to get income. Posting that shows your ignorance of the importance of this ritual to Jews.

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.