akuperma

One needs to remember that in 1791 when the 2nd amendment was adopted, the situation was that the militia has during the past 150 years mobilized itself and overthrown (and in one case, murdered) three kings (Charles I, James II and George III). In England the response was to get rid of the “right to bear arms”. In America, the response was to include it in the Bill of Rights. The militia, under the common law, consisted of all free adult males (but being modern, it is no longer restricted to men, and the concept of unfree people was abolished in by the 13th and 14th amendments). One should note, that unlike the people running the government today, the founding fathers of the USA were actually a bunch of radicals with a strong libertarian streak.

If you want peace, peace has to be made with the Palestinians. It doesn’t matter if you make a deal with the dictators in Jordan or Iran or Syria, to end the war the Palestinians Arabs have to approve it. Their minimum will be full citizenship in a country where they feel they belong, and compensation for lost property. You can argue there were no such things as Palestinians 100 years ago when both the early zionists (though Weizmann) and the Haredim (through Jacob Israel De Haan) negotiated with the Arabs, but by partitioning the Middle East, the British and French created Palestinians and they are there now.

The market prefers smartphones, and in a capitalist system what the consumers want usually determines what is produced, unlike some places (e.g. North Korea) where the government decides what you want, and you aren’t allowed to complain. One can still find an old fashioned “dumb” phone. One can also purchase a phone plan with no internet access other than the ability to do voice conversation and texting.

There are some genes that apparently are only found among certain groups, so if one has American (i.e. Indian, indigenous) ancestry it would be obvious. The trick is to be from a very isolated group (the Americans were almost totally cut off from the rest of humanity before the 16th century, the Australians before the 19th, and most Africans until the late 19th century). However in the bulk of Eurasia people moved around a great deal whether as conquerors or merchants, so genes are more mixed up, e.g. the “Middle Eastern” gene found in England could have come from a Jew, or perhaps a Cartheginian slave owned by a Roman, or from a Roman soldier recruited in the Middle East who stayed in England when discharged.

Traditionally men were expected not to fight with women, and to simply cooperate. Policewomen weren’t supposed to need to use force on men. Needless to say, few men today qualify as “gentlemen” any more.

“Ashkenazi Egyptian Jew a Sephardi German Jew.” – is very common. People always moved back and forth, and routinely intermarried (as they continue to do so). While Jews only intermarried with other types of Jews (or with converts, whose genealogies we had to fake since converting to Judaism was a capital offense), goyim routinely travelled and mixed up genes. A test that says what percentage of ancestry is Ashkenazi is really saying that unlike other Europeans you are Middle Eastern, and that is probably an indicator of Jewish-ness (though remember the Romans recruited Middle Eastern troops for service in northern Europe and left them there when they were discharged.

When some asks me about ancestry, I prefer to reply that I’m descended from Adam ha-Rishon, and ask what they are descended from?

1. All Rishonim and Achronim are dead, by definition, so you need a time machine to argue with them.

2. We discuss Rishonim and Achronim only in the context of matters that were debated at the time. No one cares what the achronim thought about matters that were already settled by the rishonim, since by the time of the achronim it wasn’t debated.

I would respect the Constitution which assigns the exclusive authority to change and make laws to the CONGRESS. Many of our nation’s problems are due to presidents (over the last century) usurping the power of the Congress and trying to rule by decree (very European, and very un-American). I would also follow the Constitution and respect the anything not specifically assigned to the Federal government is “reserved” to the states; many of our problems are due to the Federal government trying to impose national solutions in matters that are best dealt with by state and local governments.

The negative income tax concept has been proposed in the USA (in the mid-20th century) as a replacement for public assistance. It would replace a variety of welfare programs such as general assistance, SSI, WIC, Section 8 housing, Food stamps (SNAP), and perhaps medicaid. The flaw is that any level of aid that is enough to survive on will mean that many people will choose to live off the “entitlement” and not seek employment. This is easily observed among frum Jews, many of whom lose interest in increased parnassah once they have enough to survive and spend their time on Torah and Mitsvos (unfortunately, many non-Jews when reaching that same level of income are more likely to devote their time to less constructive activities).

If the goal is to make employment more lucrative for the poor, it would be better to eliminate the payroll tax (however the payroll tax is largely dedicated to paying social security, so that’s a problem) and to increase the zero bracket amount of the income tax (something Trump did).

For individuals for whom being unemployed is not an option (e.g. disabled), a negative income tax is a much more humane way of supporting them. For many individuals who could work, a negative income wold create a strong disincentive to seeking paying jobs. While some individuals would chose to do something constructive knowing they could do so without starvation (the proverbial “starving” artist, the kollel person, etc.), many people would choose to goof off and engage in activities such as consuming abusable substances or watching videos, etc.

One should also note that the United States today has a serious labor shortage (especially if the USA tries to restrict Hispanic and other migration and expel illegal aliens), and a negative income tax discourage people from joining the work force.

The problem is both cost, and a the “backwards bending supply curve” issue. The later is is based on observations that increased wages bring out more workers, but at a certain point many people start preferring the same income and more leisure time. Observe that among certain groups (our’s in particular), once an individual has a minimal level of income, they decide to work less and do something else (in our case learning in Torah, in the case of the goyim, things such as sports or watching videos). If the standard was that of what was the poverty line a few centuries ago (enough low quality food to avoid starvation, minimal medical care, a warm dry place to sleep but with no privacy, enough clothes to be non-naked, etc., it might work, but what would that accomplish. Thus we have “welfare” (and tsadakkah) focused on individual needs rather than a blanket grant.

If the goyim started going around with shirts, those who ask “when did frummies start wearing yarmulkes” would then ask “when did frummies start wearing shirts”.

Until relatively recently, many people wore skullcaps. It was declasse to go around bare headed. As long as that was the situation, no one noticed that Jews were wearing them as well. So really the “yarmulke” as we call it was invented (okay, “noticed” as something Jewish) around the end of the 18th century when most goyim stopped wearing them.

If you question is really when did Jewish start covering their heads, the real question is when secular Jews starting uncovering there heads as a sign of lack of piety, and the answer is late 18th century (before that, going bare headed might so their rejection of social conventions, but not their rejection of Jewishness).

One can trace the specifics of various nusachs from older siddurim and machzorim. While they are continually changing as people move around a new shul ends up blending the nusach of various members, it appears that if you time travelled back a millenium you would not find it horribly different, and that probably holds true even if you went back to the period immediately after the destruction of the Second Beit ha-Mikdash. Things get added (e.g. Lecha Dodi) and things get rearranged (e.g. the Hasidic nusach which borrowed some things from the Sefardim via the Ari’zel), but you would get used to it. If you don’t get flustered switiching between yeshivish/Litvish, Hasidic and German (or even various non-Ashkenazi nusachs), you wouldn’t get flustered by the nusachs you would have encountered during the early middle ages.

Melodies probably evolve faster, since they are not written down, but that also means there is no way to trace their development.

It is not so much the “Israel is in galus” as that Eretz Yisrael is occupied by some sometimes-nasty, and often annoying occupiers. While in some ways the zionists are better than the Brits or the Turks (and in some ways, not), it is still occupied.

The Germanic tribes (more a linguistic group, than a “blood type”, includes such diverse groups as the Danes, Icelandics, English and Franks – and probably a good many others that assimilated into other populations.

BTW, do we have a tradition of “good” Amalekites working to undermine the bad “Amalekites”? If not, the hpothesis that the Amelekites are the Germanic tribes, fails.

Ha-Shem designed little kids. They are supposed to be that way. They event turn into grown-ups. As you did.

Probably makes no difference. Most women marry men with whom they agree on politics, and most children end up reflecting their parents views, so overall the result will be the same. Some had the theory that women would be less warlike, but in all fairness during the last century women have had the vote in almost all major countries, and more people have been killed in war than in the rest of human history combined.

My impression is that at this point in time there is no longer a problem of discrimination against Jews other than a prejdice against Orthodox Jews, and that only against ones who “look frum” (not affecting women with bare heads, men with bare heads and no beard, going out of the way to aviod being “too frum” in public, etc.), and even there some who is “too frum” could still get into a law school (though with a BTL and no other credential probably would not work at an elite school).

The point that needs to be made is that if someone’s “dream” is to open a law office in a frum neighborhood, representing local people and businesses, and not expecting a road to riches – the “elite” law schools are largely worthless as their focus is on preparing students for the elilte lawfirms and academic life but not working in middle class communities.

Scaif09: To get into Harvard Law School (or any of the top law schools) with no more than a BTL and good LSAT is probably hopeless. If you really want to be a lawyer, and realize that it doesn’t involve getting big bucks in Manhattan, but probably grubbing for a living in the outer boros or the suburbs, a respectable LSAT, a BTL and $150K (assume you can commute from home and don’t have a family to support) can get you into the legal profession. After that, what you make of it is a function of your own industry and competence.

1. You aren’t talking about “genetic modification” but rather a total rearrangement and redesign of its internal organs and digestive tract. At that point, it would not be a pig. It goes beyond, even from a science fiction perspective, genetic modification (cf: quotation above showing this can not be done by science but only by a Ha-Shem).

2. It would have no messorah.

3. A more reasonable question would be modification of the hoofs of camels and llamas.

It is certainly the standard by which we should judge the goyim, but realistically, if we wanted to avoid dealing with a government (or the goyim in general) unless they refrained from perverting justice, spilling innocent blood, stealing and doing the sorts of things we don’t mention on YWN – we would end up having to be total hermits.

Why would the Democrats need one? They have defined Trump as evil incarnate, the great “satan” (as some would say), etc. By definition anything Trump does is wrong, evil and worthy of any and all opposition. Since they have accepted this “definition” as “fact”, it is obvious that anything else is a fiction (e.g. low unemployment, a growing economy, etc.).

Shouldn’t we asking what happens if the computer can solve the puzzle? Would that means it can convert?

Unless you predicted Trump in 2010, or Obama in 2002, or Bill Clinton in 1986, or George Bush in 1994 — GIVE UP. You probably aren’t in the ball park. Stick to Purim. The only person who seems to have been predictable well in advance was Hillary, who had the nomination wrapped up in 2002, and the presidential election wrapped up in 2010.