akuperma

RebYidd23: Militias are always paid. And they tend to be quite expensive. That’s a feature not a bug. If you don’t pay people, you are limited to rich dudes doing something as a hobby. Very few people would undertake dangerous work without being compensated.

If you feel a need for more police, you are free to vote for a government that hires more police, and taxes the citizens to pay for it. In a democracy, that is for the people to choose. It should be noted that the ethnic group most victimized by crime, and most likely to be victims of crime, are African Americans, who in general do not favor increased spending on police.

“GGWG” – a not widely used abbreviation for “Good guys with guns”

That is already done. It’s called the “police”. Sometimes it is effective and sometimes it isn’t. And there is much dispute over whether the police are the “good guys”.

The impact of a $15 minimum wage will depend on the local economy. If in a given place, a worker can produce $15 or added profit every hour (actually the number is more like $20 due to taxes and benefits), the company will get rid of him. In New York or San Francisco wages and living costs are high, but in much of the country few unskilled workers can produce $20/hour of extra profit, and their livlihood will be in jeapordy.

What is fraudulent about Social Security is claiming it is an investment or insurance scheme, when in fact it is a government welfare/pension program paid out of current revenue. The bookkeeping was designed to get around the fact that the Constitution never authorized a payroll tax, and arguably doesn’t authorize a national welfare or pension scheme. If someone believes it is an investment program or an insurance scheme they are deluded. If you realize it is a government welfare program paid for by taxes (and “borrowing”, i.e. “Printing money”)l, you have nothing to worry about.

Given that Israel is now a “first world” country, there are no economic excuses. One might need to stay in golus to take care of one’s parents, and if you are hard core anti-zionists (enough that the Israelis would arrest you for opposing the state, e.g. refusing army service) that would qualify. Any who is pro-zionist but lives in golus in the 21st century is a hypocrite.

Racism is legal, but discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, race or religion is illegal. Discrimination based on political views is not merely legal, but is a constitutional right. We can expect that under the Democrats should they come to power, anti-semitism will be considered political and protected, but criticizing the Democrats (being the party of color) will be defined as racially discriminatory and be prosecuted. If Trump manages to lose in 2020, we non-assimilated Jews will be in big trouble.

Is there a reason why major papers such as the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post are not reporting on such “sweeps”. It seems like the “sweeps” are FAKE NEWS.

And as a lawyer, the author of the original post should be supporting changing laws rather than ignoring them. Once you ignore laws you open a “Pandora’s box”. Perhaps the next law the government will ignore might be the one protecting Jews from assault (cf Europe).

If a kid isn’t diseased, why give them drugs?

Avi K: If you consider Eretz Yisrael to be Israel, then the Palestinians being non-citizens is similar to how Blacks were non-citizens of the USA prior to 1865, or how Jews were non-citizens of most countries until the 19th or 20th centuries. Israel requires Chareidim who wish to be part of the economy to modify their Torah observance, which is no different than what was the case for thousands of years (if only Jews would give up their religion, they could be rich like goyim). And the truth is that if most Palestinians and Afr-Asian Jews outside the big cities wanted to move into upper class housing in Tel Aviv, they wouldn’t be allowed since the lack the money – the economy is Israel’s “periphery” is very third world, still.

Traduttore, traditore

While Art Scroll (in English) is useful for looking up words in context, the very act of translating Hebrew thoroughly distorts it. ArtScroll’s commentary is very useful, but if you can’t read the original text you are missing a lot. English and Hebrew are about as unrelated as any two languages with radically different grammar. The Hebrew artscroll is an interest commentary, but might be more affordable if published without the gemara.

1. If you define “democracy” as a government based on free elections where the winner of the elections runs the country, Israel is clearly a democracy. There are two caveats. One is that if one considers “Eretz Yisrael” rather than “Medinat Yisrael”, Israel is clearly not a democracy since about 40% of the inhabitants (the Palestinians not holding Israeli citizenship) can’t vote. Second, many Israeli use the word “democratic” to mean “secular” and Israel is not exactly a secular state sine much of its culture and laws reflects Jewish perspectives.

2. Economically, Israel is now considered to be a developed country, though as is the case in many countries, not everyone gets to benefit. The Upper class tend to be secular and westernized, with the result that many Israelis are “left out” of the mainstream economy, and left trapped in the “third world” economy of the frum communities, the peripheral communities and the Palestinian Arab communities. Israel has one of the most unequal distributions of wealth of any of the developed countries (unlike 70 years ago, when Israel was clearly a developing country, but with very little economic inequality).

Yidden have been moving in and out of Yerusalayim ever the the Arabs reconquered the place and let us back in (the Christians had wiped out the previous community). There was a big wave on East Europeans in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, which has set the tone for both the Hasidische and Misnagdid communities.

Gadolhadorah: “The number one topic of conversation at every dinner party I’ve been to lately is which bracha to make ” — WHICH IS WHY Jews traditionally make bread the first course, so you don’t have to worry about brachos after the ha-Motsi

Ears are so 20th century — they went out of style along with eyes and brains. We are in the 21st century – smart devices to all your hearing, seeing and thinking for you. If we don’t adapt, the goyim will think we are quaint and old fashioned.

If you have to ask, you know the answer is “no”.

To CTLawyer: Law schools don’t usually offer Financial aid,

I believe that has changed, particularly for the non-elite law schools who want to fill a class with students likely to bring credit to the school. They might offers significant “scholarships” to a big chunk (perhaps 20% of the class), but require a certain grade point average to keep the scholarship after the first year, with that grade point average being such that at most 10% will qualify (in other contexts this is called “bait and switch”). With non-elite private law schools having trouble filling all seats, they optimize revenue by discounting (offering scholarships) so long as the revenue they still get exceeds marginal costs.

It should be noted that the non-elite law schools are having trouble finding people to fill classes, so if you meet their minimum requirements and don’t require financial aid, it isn’t hard to get it. Only the very top of their class has a chance of getting into “Big Law”, but if what you want is to hang out a shingle it doesn’t really matter where you went to law school. In some states, one can even qualify to take the bar exam by “reading law” (private tutoring and independent study while working as a de facto paralegal). If one’s goal is to be a respectable lawyer in one’s own community (in New York that means serving those with no connection to Wall Street or Midtown or large corporations or large organizations, e.g. serving those who live in Brooklyn outside of downtown Brooklyn), going to an elite law school won’t help as much as being competent and well connected in your comunity.

Of course if the person asking the question is interested in getting rich, then they probably should go to an elite school in which case a BTL is only very helpful if it is in addition to an undergraduate degree in a secular subject from a leading college.

In any area of expertise, intelligent people “refer” to those with specialized expertise. That is not a hiddush. Anyone in any field will over time tend to develop specialized expertise. That’s how the world works. The cooks in the neighborhood will know who is best at pastry, and who makes the best cholent. The gardeners know who can plants the best roses, and who raises the best tomatoes.

The title of “rabbi” has only a single “rank”. It’s a degree that at most is equivalent to a first undergraduate degree (a newly “graduated” rabbi is qualified to teach high school student. There are no “Jewish” equivalents of masters, doctorates, etc. And depending on their interests and career tracts, there are Talmidim Hachamim who never worry about semicha. It’s not a structured system similar to the goyim’ s degrees.

Prices varied but usually the animal fodder was produced locally so they would reflect local problems. When there was a local disruption (such as a crop failure, or a war), one could always eat the animals.

Saying “Eretz Yisrael” shows rejection of the zionist government, either because you hold the establishment of the secular “Medinat Yisrael” violates halacha, or because you reject the position of the zionists that “Israel” consists only of the territory over which the Medinah claims sovereignty, excluding (in particular) the West Bank. Therefore both anti-zionist Hareidim, and “fanatical” Religious Zionists both have good reason to refer to “Eretz Yisrael” rather than the medinah (“Israel”).

5ish – if they post the pictures in a way that states something false, it is defamation. If they take the picture and say this was taken by a antivax event, that is not defamatory and is true. If they post the picture and say the person opposed vaccination and has caused multiple death, that is defamatory, and if the person can disprove the online statement it will be clearly actionable. Knowing the social media, the latter scenario is more likely (remember not all persons photographed on the street outside the building are persons who oppose vaccination, but the social media will say so).

Many things have changed. Most children survive childhood, and almost no women die in childbirth. In pre-modern societies most children didn’t make, and death in childbirth was the leading cause of death of women (remember that serious infections treated with antibiotics were often fatal before the mid-20th century, and caesarean were done only to save the baby after the mother died). One has to be a very old person to remember when the leading cause of death of Jews involved goyim killing them, or when most professions were largely closed to Jews (not just frum Jews). These sorts of things affect personal decision on economic and family matters. The world changed, don’t complain, get used to it. The old ways were horrible.

Fashion is not frumkeit (well, wearing pants are, but since the goyim also wear pants no one realizes the halachic significance of wearing pants). If the goyim went back to wear skullcaps, no one would notice that Yidden wear them as well.

If the US had a parliament system, Obama (or some other Democrat) would have become prime minister in 2006 and would have been replaced in 2010. However one needs to remember that in parliamentary systems there are never “mid-term” elections, and tghe dynamic of choosing a leader impacts more on the election of the legislators.

1. The Democrats screwed up badly. They worked on running up the popular vote totals (in “blue” states) in order to a “mandate” and ignored the “purple states.” The Republicans focused on getting their voters out where it mattered and won the “purple” states. In the American system, a party should ignore states that you are certain to win or lose, and concentrate on the “in between” states. The Democrats must have thought we were using the French system (straight popular vote).

2. Please note that Hilary did not “win” the popular vote, she only had a plurality. The difference was in third party votes, particularly for the Libertarians. If we were using the French system, a runoff would have been required.

3, Also note that one reason for not using popular vote nationally is that states have different systems, e.g. some states let felons vote, others do not. Some states allow activists to collect absentee ballots and turn them in to be counted, and others do not. Also not that many of the big cities (New York and Chicago) are infamous for voter fraud, but in an electoral college system they only affect one state, not the national system.