nfgo3

TheGoq: You seem awfully familiar with a movie that you think you should not watch. And by the way, does anyone know why this movie is so popular among people who participate in toeva marriage? I do not know.

Without accurate numbers from a reliable source, this discussion, like many other shidduch crisis discussions, is too speculative to be meaningful. First of all, as L613 reasonably asked, how old is “older”? And what makes the number of unmarried “older” men “terrible”? That is a strong word for an unknown number.

I think part of the problem, as perceived, is that there is no allowance in the estimates of the “crisis” for persons (of both sexes) who choose to marry later than age 22.

Second, if there is in fact a crisis, I believe that part of the reluctance of young couples to commit to marriage is the untenable economic situation required to support a learning chosson who has not attended college and acquired the skills needed to earn a living. I think that time is running out because the supply of parents willing and able to subsidize married children – which in the post-World War II boom in the US led to unprecedented levels of wealth – is dwindling, especially since the bust of 2008. I expect that this will prompt a rethinking among frum Jews of their “economic model” of life in which a chosson learns and his kallah supports him and raises his children. The subsidies from the prior generation are drying up.

If someone can figure out who are the subjects of the initial post, which was apparently made without the consent of the subjects, this post should be removed promptly. Instead, let this thread be a discussion of the halacha of personal privacy.

For one thing, achosid has usurped the subject parents’ joy of making the announcement – if they want to – themselves.

My real disappointment is that I thought this thread would be about a high-ranking officer in the IDF.

Abe Cohen: satin basketball shorts.

Another Abe Cohen: Duane Reade drug stores.

Real-brisker asks what Webster’s Dictionary is. It is a dictionary, i.e., a compilation of words and how they are used in the the English language. There is an ongoing debate among lexicographers about whether a dictionary should be prescriptive, i.e., an authoritative set of definitions of the correct and permissible meanings of words, or descriptive, i.e., a compilation of how words are actually used, without purporting to distinguish correct from incorrect meanings. Webster’s straddles these two poles.

My household copy of Webster’s is “Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, Based on Webster’s Third New International Dictionary,” copyright 1963. As you may recall, Webster’s Third was considered by many lexicographers as more descriptive than its two predecessors. It defines the noun “tip” as: “a gift or small sum of money tendered for a service performed or anticipated”. There is no mention in my Webster’s of “voluntary”. If you are invited to a wedding or other simcha, I am sure that you would give a “gift,” and I am sure you would not consider withholding the gift because it is not explicitly required. I think the same principle applies to tips for delivery personnel. My point, however, is that dictionaries are not guides to courteous or moral or ethical behavior, they are merely guides to the meanings of words.

One other point in this thread: Mr./Ms. Trying My Best says Reverend Jesse Jackson would spit in his customers’ food when he was a waiter. To my knowledge, Rev. Jackson never worked as a waiter. He did, many years ago, advocate the practice of spitting in food in retaliation for wrongs which I can no longer recall, but I do not believe he ever actually did what he advocated. He did draw a reaction from restauranteurs and black waiters, who complained that his public remarks would discourage people from availing themselves of the services of black waiters and cost them their jobs. It is important to remember that there is a material gap between Rev. Jackson’s words and actions. Another example: he never performed surgery on presidential candidate Barack Obama, contrary to something he unknowingly whispered into a live microphone.

If the boy is learning, start of cheap and work your way down. Or better yet, ask her father to cover the cost of the third and subsequent dates. If he balks, she’s not the girl you’re looking for.

Winny1 – if she’s really lean, you can go to $8.99 a pound.

Real-brisker: You misunderstood the delivery “boy” (referred to in your first comment). You misinterpreted the inquiry of the delivery “boy” when he asked about change – he was actually being courteous to you, he was not asking for a tip. A 15% tip on a bill of $26.25 would be about $3.90, and you were owed (assuming no tip) only $3.75 in change. The delivery “boy” reasonably (and perhaps with chesed) assumed you were like most people and did not expect change, but he had the courtesy to offer you an opportunity to make clear your intention not to tip him. Tips may be optional according to Webster, but Webster is no Rashi. Many, if not most, delivery people work only for tips, and you should recognize that before you avail yourself of their services. Your objection that the restaurant advertised “free” delivery is a phoney excuse for your discourtesy. And if you are going hungry, as you stated, there are many charities that can help you, and I suppose you don’t have to tip them if they bring the meal to your home.

If you habitually do not tip delivery personnel, and if you ever serve delivered food to guests, perhaps you should warn them that their food may have been adulterated by an untipped delivery man or woman.

ZosHaTorah and Yeshivabochur123: If and when Sacrilege sets a place, time and date for a blind test, I hope you will be there to see how wrong you are about the tastes of different whiskeys.

A state prohibition on alcoholic consumption by minors which interferes with a sacramental requirement of the minor’s religion would be unconstitutional under the New York State and US constitutions, regardless of any provisions or lack of exemptions in the statutes. That leads us to the question of what kinds of alcoholic consumption are protected religious activity. Wine at Shabbos kiddush, wine at a Pesach seder, are surely religious. Scotch on Friday night – I don’t think so.

Sacrilege: I didn’t say anything about betting, but … you name the place (in the 5 Boroughs) and I’ll bring the whiskeys.

Doesn’t anyone want to know how I know what nail polish remover tastes like?

Sacrilege: When I said “truly blind taste test,” I did not mean visually impaired. What I meant was: pour 3 or 4 different whiskeys in different glasses, and see whether you can identify which is which by sipping, smelling, looking and tasting each.

Mod-80 makes a good point about different people having different taste and olfactory receptors. But for most people, most whiskeys taste like nail polish remover.

I do not believe that anyone can taste the difference between most whiskeys. Its all pretension and fakery. In a truly blind taste test, no one can distinguish 21-year old single-malt Glen Goniff scotch from 4-year old mass-produced Old Zeyde bourbon. All whiskey tastes like nail polish remover, and the only reason people drink it is to be polite, sociable or intoxicated … not that there’s anything wrong with that.

According to a passage in “The Autobiography of Malcolm X,” Mr. X opined that African Americans prefer scotch, so if you expect them at your simcha, be sure to have some available.

One other thing: Would Oomis 1105 and metrodriver please get together and tell me the correct spelling of “mentchlichkyt”.

Well, Dave Hirsch, I will oblige you:

Obama’s “rock-star status” is a characterization which I have seen only in right-wing attempts to blame the news reports they do not like for Mr. Obama’s popularity, first as a candidate and then as President. It is not worthy of a comment. It is also also an attempt to overstate his talents, for the purpose of bringing him low when he does not walk on water.

I do not know what you are referring to in this statement. I will say that I am not questioning your honesty, only your grasp of the facts. As for my arrogance, I would like to know what I wrote that shows you my arrogance. As for my “liberal way of spinning things … “: Spinning is neither conservative nor liberal, it is a rhetorical device. Which of my statements do you consider to be “spinning.”

DH and I discuss Obama’s drug use: First, I have not read either of Mr. Obama’s books. I haven’t read a book by Palin, or George Bush or Bill Clinton. I don’t read politicians’ books until they are dead, and I do not read them for the truth of the matter stated therein, but only to see how they tried to explain themselves and then compare their claims to what they actually did. Politicians’ books tend to be bunk. Perhaps the books of Messrs./Ms. Palin, Obama, Bush, and/or Clinton are the exception to the rule, but I do not care to waste my time reading their books. If I want to waste my time, I argue with people in the Coffee Room. 😉

DH’s objection to my “megillah” comment: I was not purporting to characterize your post as a violation of the Coffee Room rules, I was simply asking for an opinion from the moderators, and one of them provided comments which indicate that (i) the mere posting of a comment does not mean that the post complies with the rules, and (ii) your particular comment does comply with the rules. That is all I wanted to know. You continue to fail to see the illogical nature of your understanding of my comment.

DH’s comment about my comment about Christine O’Donnell: is, as written, a non-sequitur.

Do you mean to say that I am a “rank” liberal, or a “ranking” liberal. The latter would imply that other liberals hold me in high regard. The former would imply that you hold all liberals in low regard. I don’t know what other liberals think of me, but I am confident that I am not rank.

DH writes, in response to my praise of Mr. Obama’s education and intelligence: “How do you know his intellect and education, have you seen his college transcripts? If all he was able to do was being a lecturer and a ‘quitter’. “

You evidently think that the only way to judge a person’s education and intelligence is to view his college transcripts. No, I have not seen them. I have heard him speak, I even read his speech on race delivered in Philadelphia, and it is excellent – not for its political effectiveness but for the understanding it reveals of American history. As for his being a “quitter”: I don’t think his election as president shows any quitting tendencies. And his other career choices shows that he had an interest in public service. And there are very few unintelligent or uneducated members of the Harvard Law Review. You (and, not incidently, I) might not like their political opinions, or their career choices, but they are, as a group, intelligent and educated. (And I’m not one of them, in case you were thinking of accusing me of that. And please don’t use this statement as a set-up for an insult such as: “Don’t flatter yourself – I don’t think you ever received such an academic honor.”)

DH writes: “Show me a capital business that hires a CEO based on his education.”

Actually, I do know of one business that hired a guy as CEO because he had brassy educational credentials and no executive experience, and he was awful. Yes, I am agreeing with you that brassy education credentials do not necessarily make good chief executives of private companies (which is what I think you mean by “capital business”). You never thought a rank liberal would agree with you about anything. Is this going to get you kicked out of the rank conservatives’ club? I hope so, for your sake.

I’m tired. I think I’ll watch the second half of the Jets game.

One other other thing: The most polarizing president ever is not Barack Obama. That distinction belongs to President Abraham Lincoln – his election and subsequent actions in defense of the authority of the federal government led to The Civil War. Mr. Lincoln is also considered by many as one of the three greatest US presidents. What is striking about this error by Mr. Hirsch is his readiness to attribute horrible qualities to Mr. Obama and his presidency, without considering simple and widely known facts.

A related flaw in Dave Hirsch’s thinking is his calling Mr. Obama a “messiah”. I have never read or heard an Obama supporter call Mr. Obama a “messiah,” but he is regularly called, facetiously, a “messiah” by his extreme right-wing critics, for the porpose or with the effect of insulting Mr. Obama’s supporters by alleging that they overrate his competence. I fully understand President Obama’s limits, but overall, I am satisfied that he is doing as well or better than anyone else could do in the current circumstances.

charliehall: If you are correct that the recently approved tax package ensures President Obama’s re-election, then it’s not irony – it’s very skillful politics. I hope you are right, but I am wary.

One other thing: why do we Jews use “megillah” as slang short-hand for a too-long comment or too-long statement or too-complicated situation. The Five Megillos are holy writings. Shouldn’t we refrain from using “megillah” as a negative term. Perhaps the Coffee Room moderators could lead the way be removing the word from the CR rules.

I don’t know where to start repudiating Dave Hirsh’s refudiation, as it is so wrong in so many ways. So I’ll start with a few points.

First, as for DH’s comments headed “Moderating”: Yes, I know your post was posted, and therefore was either (i) approved or (ii) not disapproved by the moderators. The fact of its posting does not, however, conclusively establish that it is not a “megillah” in violation of the Coffee Room requirement for brevity. The rule you quoted uses the term “megillah” to refer to proposed posts which are unduly long and says they “probably” will be deleted, not that they absolutely will be deleted. In other words, the rule says explicitly that some unduly long posts will get posted notwithstanding the work of the moderators, and so my question about your “megillah,” and my implication that your post is too long under Coffee Room rules, is reasonable, and your refudiation is not only incorrect but illogical. The rule you quoted uses the term “megillah” as short-hand for “too long to post,” much as Americans use the term “separation of church and state” as short-hand for the text of the First Amendment of the US constitution which prohibits Congress from establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. But, of course, a Palin supporter such as former Delaware senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell does not understand the difference between (a) the words and meaning of the US constitution, and (b) a short-hand phrase to refer to a provision of the US constitution. Your misunderstanding of “megillah” represents the same inability.

Second: your discussion of Obama’s youthful drug use. I stand by my explanation, i.e., he was youthful and youths do stupid things. He outgrew it. His explanations are consistent – and more detailed, and more personal – than my explanation, but mine is correct and helpful in evaluating the adult’s fitness to be president. As for your statement that “other legal substances” refers to alcohol: that is dead wrong outside Utah. Maybe you are from Utah, in which case I can forgive the confusion.

Third: Barack Obama’s “anemic experience”. Mr. Obama’s intellectual gifts, education and experience enabled him to win a hard-fought primary and a US election. That does not per se mean he would be a good president (we’ve had bad presidents who won elections, and I’m not even counting W, because he did not win his first election0, but Mr. Obama clearly figured out how to get from no where – i.e., South Side of Chicago, or Hawaii, or Indonesia – to the White House. As for Ms. Palin’s experience, being mayor of a village of 9,000 people, or governor of a state of 600,000 (which state receives substantial federal aide and has oil tax revenue that enables it to pay cash subsidies to its citizens) is hardly adequate preparation for governing a nation of 308,000 000 people, and Ms. Palin’s policy statements (e.g., I can see Russia) hardly indicate that she learned anything on the job.

More importantly: You correctly stated, “The job of the President of the United States is the toughest in the world.” I would add, and I think you would agree, that no job can adequately prepare anyone for the job of president of the US. It takes extraordinary personal gifts of intellect, education, determination, organizational skill and reasoning ability to execute the job well. As between Mr. Obama and Ms. Palin, there is no comparison between their personal qualities as to who is better equipped to fulfill the duties of the office.

One other point: The comparison of Mr. Obama’s vs. Ms. Palin’s fitness and qualifications for the office of president is in some respects meaningless, because no one favoring Mr. Obama would consider a woman (qualfied or not) of Ms. Palin’s political views; and, likewise, no one favoring Ms. Palin’s views would consider Mr. Obama. A more meaningful comparison would be between, say, Ms. Palin vs. Mitt Romney, or Newt Gingrich, or Mitch McConnell, or even Dave Hirsh. Many Republicans have publicly expressed their doubts about Ms. Palin’s fitness for office, so you don’t have to take my word for it. And please note, some of the Republicans who have doubts about Ms. Palin have no intention of running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Mr. Obama’s primary opponents in 2008 had other interests in suggesting that he was not the best person for the job.

a. Lobby your government representatives to end the exemption for charities from the prohibitions of the DO NOT CALL registry (donotcall.gov).

b. Ask the caller to send something to you by mail. When you get the mail, write back asking them to drop you from the call list. You may have to repeat this process before getting results, but it helps.

c. Tell the callers you’ve become a goy.

Torah tells us not to covet, and so those of us “simple people” who object to our neighbor’s having a bigger house should remind ourselves of that. Torah also tells us to be modest, but if Hashem has blessed us with many children and the means to house them comfortably, and we are discreet in our design, there is no Torahic reason not to build a big house anywhere.

I thought there was a Coffee Room rule against posting a “megillah.”

10-Luchos: There are no term limits for New York State Assemblymen, so you will just have to wait until Mr. Silver loses an election. Same is true for most public officials.

I am surprised that no one mentioned Torah or halacha in connection with driving an automobile. A car that is driven improperly – particularly in dense urban areas where many of us YWN readers live – is an instrument of death. The Torah therefore imposes special conditions on driving an automobile. Driving with Chesed is more important than driving with confidence, or getting where you are going on time. Drive as if your life, and the lives of those around your, depends on your driving properly, and you will do fine on your test. And your liability insurance rates will stay low.

Why not Obama? Because he has failed to stand up to the Republican Party of No.

I cannot understand why the growth of the frum population in EY should make the non-frum afraid of their footwear. The frum should be concerned about the relative shrinkage of the working population of the State of Israel – someone has to pay the taxes and serve in the IDF. Hashem put us in this world, in part, to provide for ourselves.

Something puzzles me about all the discussions of the “tuition crisis”: As far as I know, few if any schools publish budgets or financial statements for the general public. How, then, can so many people have so much to say about the “tuition crisis” if there is no reliable information about the subject under discussion, i.e., the financial condition and operating costs of yeshivas and Jewish private schools? If there are budgets or financial statements available to the tuition-payers, can someone tell us where we can get that information?