Monday Morning Open Thread

Passover starts tonight.

Here's a funny thing from a recommended dkos diary:

I just found out that in 1798, the fifth congress passed and President John Adams signed into law "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen" authorizing the creation of a marine hospital service, and mandating privately employed sailors to purchase healthcare insurance. I guess now President John Adams was a tyrant who took away Americans' freedom [. . .]

(Emphasis supplied.) While the argument (the individual mandate is constitutional) supposedly being supported by this historical artifact is unopposable given current jurisprudence, it just so happens that John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which did indeed, take away our freedoms. It was a pretty big deal. Maybe rephrase the "took away our freedoms" line? Just a thought.

Speaking for me only

< The Emergence Of The Dem Blogosphere: The Celebration Of Triangulation | Regulatory Capture >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Coverage of children with pre-existing conditions (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:44:37 AM EST
    William G. Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include employers and insurance companies, said: "The fine print differs from the larger political message. If a company sells insurance, it will have to cover pre-existing conditions for children covered by the policy. But it does not have to sell to somebody with a pre-existing condition. And the insurer could increase premiums to cover the additional cost."
    But, insurers say, until 2014, the law does not require them to write insurance at all for the child or the family. In the language of insurance, the law does not include a "guaranteed issue" requirement before then.

    Consumer advocates worry that instead of refusing to cover treatment for a specific pre-existing condition, an insurer might simply deny coverage for the child or the family. NYT

    Sen. Rockefeller is shocked. I say, shocked that the insurance industry would use the loopholes that the Senate gave them.

    "The ink has not yet dried on the health care reform bill, and already some deplorable health insurance companies are trying to duck away from covering children with pre-existing conditions. This is outrageous."

    Outrageous! (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:14:34 AM EST
    Jay, perhaps a sternly worded letter is in order.

    They will never outsmart the industry, which is why we need another option. I think it will all become clear rather quickly.


    Isn't it clear now? (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Spamlet on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:32:21 PM EST
    It is to me (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:46:09 PM EST
    but I'm not in charge

    We reserve the right to refuse anyone service. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Salo on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:53:29 AM EST
    So there.

    This is (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:14:57 AM EST
    only the beginning of the loopholes that will get insurance out of just about any regulation imposed on them.  Wait until 2014 when the real fun begins.  I'm sure they're already getting ready for it.

    But we'll still have the mandate and the 2.5% tax increase if we don't comply. The Democrats have completely screwed us.

    Ezra said that if individuals don't pay the non-insurance tax, no lien and no jail-time has been stipulated in the law, so I guess that's our workaround.


    Does the IRS need to have specific (none / 0) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 11:05:51 AM EST
    language in the HCR law to collect taxes?

    Hattip to a commenter at Alegre's corner: (none / 0) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 11:15:09 AM EST
    From page 33 of the report from the Joint Cmte on Taxation concerning the Reconciliation bill ...

    The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is assessed through the Code and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner.

    Interesting. Even assuming the IRS (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 11:40:30 AM EST
    has the capacity to track whether each taxpayer/filer maintains minimum insurance each month, sounds like those who do not do so are pretty much immune from penalty.

    In Massachusetts (none / 0) (#31)
    by itscookin on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:38:20 PM EST
    there is a form that you get from your health insurer that stipulates when you were covered by that insurer. You must submit it with your state income tax return. If you don't file taxes, I'm not sure how they track you down. They do collect the fines by attaching income tax refunds, bank accounts, and paychecks, though.

    Re CA compulsory minimum auto insurance, (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:56:38 PM EST
    the insurer verifies directly with DMV via computer.  

    Current and Future Refunds (none / 0) (#57)
    by coast on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:28:38 PM EST
    Can be reduced, but other than that the IRS can take no action against those who do not pay the tax associated with not maintaining coverage.

    This is the case for the PO of course. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Salo on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:17:33 AM EST
    Well go on pretending it isn't til we have President JEB in 2016.  

    I'm unsure (none / 0) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 11:25:18 AM EST
    if my Seattle Times article is sourced the same as yours (AP or whatever), but this quote hit home for me:

    "If you have a sick kid, the individual insurance market will continue to be a scary place," said Karen Pollitz, a research professor at the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute.

    Even if Sebelius et al. can write regulations around their own loophole, the individual market will continue to be a scary place for the rest of us!

    It's certainly a scary place for me, and they've done nothing --loophole-free -- to alleviate that --even in 2014.  


    David Mamet on drama (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:50:06 AM EST
    via Ken Levine, the wonderful MASH and Frasier writer, a memo David Mamet wrote on writing drama for the screen.

    Read it and you'll understand why maybe you can't quite get into 'Breaking Bad' or other shows. I use 'Breaking Bad' as an example because some of you mentioned it the open thread last night. I watched it for the first time last week and it seems like just a series of scenes designed to let Brian Cranston emote (or not) in close-up.

    Anyway, check out the Mamet piece if you are interested in this sort of thing.

    Interesting article (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by sj on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:47:23 PM EST
    Reading the comments, I agree with the "The West Wing" exception.  For example, I loved the Josh/Donna conversations about a third person.

    Me too (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:07:10 PM EST
    Actually, they did advance the Josh/Donna relationship, which was a major plot point.

    As a viewer I think I can give an exception anytime the conversation about the third person is entertaining in itself and not just a data dump.


    agreed (none / 0) (#29)
    by sj on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:18:31 PM EST
    Lawrence O'Donnell was a writer (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:41:15 PM EST
    for West Wing, no?  I have actually liked him as a substitute for Olbermann....but you can tell the producers/directors have told him to shout when he does his intro....Roger Ailes gave the same directive to the FOX group.

    O'Donnell is a very interesting fellow.....Put him in the category of a someone that having lunch with would be fascinating....


    O'Donnell was great against the (none / 0) (#76)
    by suzieg on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:07:36 AM EST
    swift boat guys against Kerry. Screamed at the guys that they were liars, which got him off MNSBC for the rest of the election coverage.

    Mamet's memo explains a lot about why the (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 11:08:19 AM EST
    Indian movie I saw at a screening yesterday seemed too long and tedious.

    Very cool (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:31:37 PM EST
    Mamet's movies are very taught and suspense filled....

    Someone should wash (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:17:35 PM EST
    that c*cksucker's mouth out with soap..according to my mother.

    Yes, Mamet is great..just watched The Verdict again the other night:

    "You know whose representing the archdiocese? Ed Concannon"
    "A good man"
    "A good man?! He's the f*cking Prince of Darkness..He'll have people testifying they saw her waterskiing in Marblehead last summer.."


    A Spanish Prisoner was good too (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:33:04 PM EST
    The knock is that he is not all that friendly to women.....

    Did he write House of Games? (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:01:28 PM EST
    a bit of a sleeper with a pretty strong female lead character, I thought.

    Yes, he wrote and directed it (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:12:17 PM EST
    His ex-wife, Lindsay Crouse starred as the shrink.

    Not all that friendly to men either (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:23:27 PM EST
    when you think about it.

    Mamet: The Modern Misanthrope? (none / 0) (#56)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:24:53 PM EST
    A justified "knock," (none / 0) (#50)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:08:06 PM EST
    from things I've heard about him. And really, a lot of his work is so unevolved, macho-male. Add to that his awakening as a gung-ho warmongerer in the Bush years, and you don't find many women who flock to his stuff.

    But gossip aside, the Spanish Prisoner is one of his works I really liked. Campbell Scott's and Steve Martin's performances were standouts. I recently saw a stage production of "Glengarry, Glenross," here in Seattle and it was excellent. It's different from the movie, and I think it works better as a stage play. But the dialogue style did start to sound awfully gimmicky.

    "Are we really talking about this??"
    "No, no. Relax. We're just speaking about it. See?"


    US Opium War? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:23:02 PM EST
    Russia: US aiding Afghan drug trade

    Russia has accused the United States of "conniving" with Afghan drug producers by not destroying opium crops as U.S. troops advance in Helmand Province, one of the major opium growing regions.

    The allegation, which came in a statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry, was the second time this week that Moscow has criticized the West over the opium issue. NATO rejected the charge and said Russia could help by providing more troops to combat the insurgency.

    Well considering that the US spent $37mil building a bridge from Afghanistan to Tajikistan which functions soley to deliver Opium to Tajikistan where it is refined into heroin and sent to Russia, the Russians may have a point here

    Much of the ballooning supply of drugs shipped across Afghanistan's northern border, up to one-fifth of the country's output, has traveled to and through Tajikistan. The opium and heroin funded rampant corruption in Tajikistan and turned the country, still hobbled by five years of civil war in the 1990s, into what at times seems like one big drug-trafficking organization.

    Every day last year -- extrapolating from United Nations estimates -- an average of more than 4 metric tons of opium, which can be made into some 1,320 pounds of heroin, moved on the northern route. Put another way, the equivalent of nearly 6 million doses of pure heroin -- at 100 milligrams each -- is carried across the northern Afghan border each day.

    After it's cut with other substances and sold on the street corners and in the apartment stairwells of Russia and Western Europe, the main retail markets for Central Asian heroin, that could produce at least 12 million doses.


    All The Money (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:34:14 PM EST
    Something tells me that the drug money is seeping into US hands, somehow.

    The fact that zero of the Opium carted into Tajikistan makes it into the US, must be how the US is able to rationalize this Opium War.

    The situation in Russia is reaching epidemic proportions, with no end in sight.

    CHELYABINSK, Russia -- Young men with sores on their arms shuffled up the stairs of a dark, underground shopping arcade and into the daylight to plop dingy wads of rubles into the drug dealers' hands. The dealers casually reached into their pockets or plastic shopping bags and handed over tablets of synthetic morphine, a type also used as a horse tranquilizer, and paper packets that appeared to contain heroin.

    Across the street in this gray, post-Soviet industrial town, two Russian policemen sat in a faded wooden booth, and a couple more sat in a police truck outside. They didn't seem the least bit interested.,,,

    Drugs have become yet another scourge of post-communist Russia, with millions addicted to heroin and an annual death toll reportedly in the tens of thousands from overdoses and other drug-related causes...

    Russian officials publicly blame America for the plague because almost all the heroin comes from U.S.-dominated Afghanistan, but they won't discuss in detail how drugs move through their country.


    One of the cities near where I live (none / 0) (#1)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:43:48 AM EST
    is considering hiring Kris Kobach to help protect it against "illegal aliens.' the city has some major chicken processing plants, and the mayor must feel threatened by brown people who don't speak English all the time.

    I was speaking Spanish to some guests from Miami at a reception last week, and was told to'stop showing off...' what a place.

    Real 'merican don't speak more (none / 0) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 11:07:54 AM EST
    than one language. Don't you know.

    Don't those chicken processing plants (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 11:41:35 AM EST
    help with the public fisc?

    What freedom? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Salo on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:16:54 AM EST
    For whom?

    I would just LOVE it for the individual (none / 0) (#5)
    by masslib on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:56:54 AM EST
    mandate to fail the constitutional test.  It won't of course, because what they passed was a tax you can avoid by purchasing insurance.  But if it did?  Then the Democrats would have but one course toward fully universal health care.

    The mandate can only work fairly if (none / 0) (#9)
    by Salo on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:19:44 AM EST
    And only if there is a  PO.

    Which takes us back to 2007... And all the first arguments surrounding healthcare in Iowa.  


    In reality, (5.00 / 8) (#20)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 11:42:21 AM EST
    the mandate only makes sense in a single-payer system.  The reason you make participation compulsory is to adequately spread the risk.  Pouring dollars into any number of private entities still doesn't sufficiently spread the risk and won't do anything to bring down premiums.

    "Fair" doesn't apply in the realm of illness and injury.  The whole getting sick or injured thing is pretty much unfair in most cases. It is never fair that someone is born with some genetic dysfunction that may impede their health and earning ability.  It isn't fair that some healthy people can afford a by-pass while others who need one can't.

    The only pragmatic and sensible solution to the problem is one premium price (adjusted for income) for everyone; and one risk pool.  But never mind.

    I'll take the really complicated answer for a thousand, Alex - and I'll lose when I bet that the question is "What is healthcare reform?"


    Spot on! (none / 0) (#39)
    by masslib on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:09:48 PM EST
    "the mandate only makes sense in a single-payer system."

    Frankly, I am beyond the PO. (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by masslib on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:31:01 PM EST
    I think basic health coverage should be covered by the feds, people can buy supplemental insurance on top of that if they want.  I'm for what the French have.  Let me put it this way, no private insurance plan could compete with an improved Medicare, everybody knows that, so if the Democrats are serious about health care as a winning issue then universal Medicare not a public option is what they will propose.  The next batch obviously.  This current crop isn't serious.  

    The 1798 Act (none / 0) (#10)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:28:51 AM EST
    can be found here; it's Chapter LXXVII, the Act of July 16, 1798.  Pages 605-606 of volume one of the Statutes at Large.  

    What happened to it? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Salo on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:51:04 AM EST
    Obvious question. Did it expire or something?

    Interesting question (none / 0) (#33)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:22:35 PM EST
    ... but too difficult to research in the time (none) and with the energy (very little) available to me at this moment.

    It expired and something (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:18:14 PM EST
    Actually, there were four acts.  Some expired and were not renewed under Jefferson -- who denounced them, part of his campaign platform -- and at least one act/part was repealed under Jefferson.

    Of course, some such acts have come back under other names, other presidents, in other times in which we-the-people have regressed.


    An interesting point (none / 0) (#25)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:55:00 PM EST
    from the quoted paragraph:

    and mandating privately employed sailors to purchase healthcare insurance

    This law did not take away freedoms, except the freedome to be in a niche called "privately employed sailor". The escape here is to find another profession. It may be impractical, but it's possible.  

    The difference between Adams' law and our new law is that there is no escape from our new law (unless we want to see if the notion of non-penalty for failure to comply with the mandate and fee is really unenforceable).  

    Interview of John Yoo: (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:58:02 PM EST

    He certainly doesn't like DFHs.  West Berlin, indeed.

    You're Surprised? (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:16:20 PM EST
    "My parents were immigrants. I could have been a convenience store manager," the South Korean-born professor says of the opportunities afforded by his adopted country. "I feel very fortunate to have a job like this one."

    Damn straight, he is lucky, and he yet may be working in a convenience store.  Tenure can be revoked from criminals. Gonzalez finally found a job:

    Gonzales will work to recruit minority students for the Lubbock-based college's diversity office and teach a junior-level political science seminar on "Contemporary Issues in the Executive Branch," according to a statement from Texas Tech.

    Not surprised at all. Just interested. (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:19:14 PM EST
    Change You Can't Believe In (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:34:33 PM EST
    Now that BushCo is out the poodle becomes a rottweiler:
    Special relationship between UK and US is over, MPs say

    There has been much speculation about the "special" bond
    The UK government needs to be "less deferential" towards the US and more willing to say no to Washington, a group of MPs have said.

    The Commons Foreign Affairs committee also said it was wrong to speak of "the special relationship" with the US, as it was fostering other alliances.


    Mamet (none / 0) (#40)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:13:44 PM EST

    Mamet plays can be tough for actors because he insists that his dialogue be read really, really, really fast. It's amusing that he made this the director's job in this memo.

    The central concept he talks about (striving for a goal and being thwarted) is also at the core of method acting. The method has several elements but one of the key ones is identifying the character's goal/motivation for the entire play, for each scene, and for each line. (Recall Marlon Brando asking "What is my motivation here?" and being told "Your paycheck!")

    Sometimes I miss my thespian days.

    Segue: Passover. Would be interested (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:28:10 PM EST
    to hear opinions of Jews as to non-Jews sitting Seder.  

    There are Jews, and then there are (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:23:39 PM EST
    Jews.  Per my Jewish spouse and many friends with whom we do Seder, this Gentile is welcome -- but they are Reform.

    Not so with our many other friends and neighbors (with their synagogue just two doors down from us) who are very Orthodox.

    And then there are others.

    It may be like asking me, as a Presbyterian, whether gays are welcome in my congregation.  Sure, yeh, but then I'm Northern Presbyterian, as we used to say before merging again.  Turns out that waiting 150 years to merge again may have been two soon.  Southern Presbyterians -- officially, per their synods, not necessarily individuals -- are finding new ground to reopen the War Between the States.  Or synods, as it were.

    And we won't even get into all the sorts of Catholics there can be -- nor Lutherans, yikes!


    Always Welcome, IMO (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:45:10 PM EST
    It is the telling of the story of the exodus..  The story is geared to those who are outsiders, imo.

    The Jewish faith teaches love, tolerance, and a healthy thirst for knowlege. Do not forget that this is the holiday where questions are not just accepted, but encouraged. Ma nishtana halilah hazeh...Why is this night different?

    From a lively discussion, also I agree with this commenter:

    The Seder is NOT the korban Pesach -the Paschal Sacrifice- (which cannot be eaten in a time when there is no TEMPLE ttbba). The Talmud clearly states (Pesachim 96a and Yevamot 71a) that an uncircumcised cannot consume the Korban but it precisely states that he can eat matza and maror (what we call the Seder). Although the Talmud refers there to an uncircumcised Jew (vid. Rashi), this proves that the prohibitions concerning the Korban Pesach DO NOT ALSO apply to Matza and Maror, which are the only halakhically required elements needed in a Seder (plus two tavshilin -dishes-). So, from that point of view, it is perfectly OK to invite Non-Jews to your seder.[emphasis mine]

    This goyim loves the horseradish (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:08:43 PM EST
    Seders are so wonderfully festive.  Not too common among religious rituals.....None of the Protestant seriousness or Catholic emphasis on making you feel personally insignificant.....

    I rarely have seder with anyone but family (none / 0) (#52)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:22:00 PM EST
    or a friend's family if I'm not in my hometown. But some Jewish friends of mine go to a multi-faith service and like it. (And on occasion, my sister has gone to the Zen Center for the Yom Kippur, which she has enjoyed, but she has seder with the family.) For me, the Jewish holidays are about being with family, but to each their own.

    What I was really interested in finding out (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:24:30 PM EST
    is whether Jews have an opinion about non-Jews having a Seder w/no Jews present.  I have attended such a Seder in the home of a Protestant minister.  Book of Exodus is accepted by both Jews and Christians.  I'm just curious.

    I've never heard of a group of all (none / 0) (#58)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:32:59 PM EST
    non-Jews having a seder. It doesn't bother me. As long as they're doing it to gain understanding, and not as some sort of a put-on.

    I do admit, it is sort of comical to hear non-Jews trying to speak Hebrew. No offense intended, oculous, but... it's kind of like hearing classical players try to play straight-ahead jazz!


    I don't recall anyone attempting to speak (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:35:27 PM EST
    Hebrew!  I did go to a community Seder years ago at a local synagogue.  Was surprised one of the songs on the songsheet was to be sung to the tune of "Darlin' Clementine."

    Now, that's funny! (none / 0) (#60)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:38:35 PM EST
    Oy, my dahlink
    Oy, my dahlink
    Oy, my dahhhh-link oculous

    See "Ballad of the Four Sons": (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:41:27 PM EST
    [The others are worse though.]

    Modern Songs for Your Seder


    Those are hilarious (none / 0) (#67)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:52:17 PM EST
    I'm printing them out!

    I especially like Our Passover Things (sung to the tune of My Favorite Things) and Moses Island (sing to the tune of Gilligan's Island.)

    I can just see the stage musical now...


    For a non jewish (none / 0) (#63)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:41:53 PM EST
    Seder, I would assume the native language of the participants would suffice. It would obviously not be an orthodox gathering ;)

    For the private home non-Jewish Seder, (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:43:34 PM EST
    I was in charge of music.  So I brought the autoharp and printed out song sheets of my own devising.

    Non-Jews and Hebrew (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:40:23 PM EST
    I have heard Hebrew spoken by Jews, with a heavy, NJ, MA, LI, Bronx, and Brooklyn accent. Really disturbing... I cannot imagine that non jews speaking hebrew would be any worse.

    And hate to break it to you but there are plenty of non-jews who speak perfect Hebrew in Israel.


    Not talking Israel though, are we? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:43:29 PM EST
    "I hate to break to to you" but I was talking about my own experience here in the ol' U.S. of A.

    Gawd, you've become predictable.


    You Did Not Specify (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:50:56 PM EST
    And hate to break it to you but non-Jews who live in Israel are allowed to travel to the US. Also there are non-jews who live in the US and speak hebrew.

    I bring this up in order to break down a oft repeated meme, hebrew is a language, not a religion, and Israel is a country not a religion.

    IOW neither Hebrew or Israel represents the Jews.


    What a ridiculous non-sequitor (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 04:54:32 PM EST
    It must be hell, all those arguments you imagine going on inside your head.

    Non-Sequitur? (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 05:04:28 PM EST
    Perhaps you need to review the term.

    You made a comment that implied that only jews speak hebrew. That is an incorrect assumption.  


    Thanks. A thoughtful response. (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:02:45 PM EST
    They also disbute the meme that (none / 0) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:59:13 PM EST
    "rich folks" pay their fair share of taxes.

    The Dodgers' former first couple pocketed income totaling $108 million from 2004 through 2009 without paying any federal or state taxes, according to documents Jamie McCourt filed in the couple's divorce case. link