Selene

"libertarian enclaves like Canada." That the first time I've seen these words strung together in that order! Bob Libertarian and socialist Canada is an oxymoron.

Precisely Barbara. I have clients, family and friends that are in law enforcement. The non sequitur that is being advanced here is basically not valid. Incidently, when I attended NBI in the Empire State Building, I always admired the way you carried yourself, happy to see you well and still being rational.

No problem. I just got aggressively edgy [hmm what else would you expect from a Dominant] with Ba'al irrationality.

Smegma (ugh!) Yes, please move on he is hopeless.

The medical evidence is clear. Circumcision (properly done) is long term beneficial to the circumcised male. Circs have a lower rate of cancer of the glans penis and less infection from STD. That is clear as can be. There is virtually no down side to the procedure (properly done in infancy) and great potential benefits. It is as beneficial (at least) and no more dangerous than the removal of warts, polyps or the surgical separation of webbed fingers and toes. And yes, I do find smegma (ugh!) ugly, disgusting and repulsive and even if I were brought up as an atheist or a heathen I would have my sons circumcised. Smegma (ugh!) is an Abomination. Fortunately for the uncircumcised, there exist females who have a taste for cottage cheese. There is simply no way to account for taste in a rational manner. Ba'al Chatzaf It's amazing how you allegedly argue. "The evidence is clear." No source, date, study just your mere assertion. I would not have accepted this from my rhetoric students. Read this and be still http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/.../full/118/1/385 There are dozens more like this. Use Google to find them. Circumcision, properly done, has long term benefits and virtually no short term deficits. And it saves the male children from the Curse of Smegma (ugh!). Ba'al Chatzaf a) "an increased recognition of the potential medical benefits of circumcision" by the general public.10(p978). B) "The explanation for this difference is that the published results of national statistical surveys represent only coded diagnoses obtained from birth centers; the reported figures do not include males who are circumcised at a later date for religious, medical, or personal reasons or who received newborn circumcision that was not coded.5,7" c) "With this appearance of more benefits and less risks,..." d) "Most recently, an international study from 5 different countries found that chlamydia infection is 3 times more common in female partners of uncircumcised men than in female partners of circumcised men.34" e) "In addition, particularly in the past 3 to 4 years, objective studies comparing sensitivity and sexual pleasure in circumcised versus uncircumcised men and evaluating measures of sexual pleasure before and after adult circumcision35–38 have concluded that no clinically significant difference exists between the circumcised and uncircumcised states. This result should come as no surprise in view of the complex psychological, neurologic, chemical, hormonal, and circulatory cascade involved in sexual activity." f) "According to both the current position of the AAP and the reference list provided in the task force report, the last relevant reference on the health benefits of circumcision occurred in 19981; all the many convincing studies published during the past 7 years have been ignored. It is time for the AAP to acknowledge the evidence and to catch up to the American public." This constitutes proof to you? Seems like lies, damned lies and statistics! Each of these are extremely weak and subject to a plethora of different interpretations. Why don't you just admit that your "defense" of circumcision is purely emotional and personal and stop beating a rapidly dying horse.

The medical evidence is clear. Circumcision (properly done) is long term beneficial to the circumcised male. Circs have a lower rate of cancer of the glans penis and less infection from STD. That is clear as can be. There is virtually no down side to the procedure (properly done in infancy) and great potential benefits. It is as beneficial (at least) and no more dangerous than the removal of warts, polyps or the surgical separation of webbed fingers and toes. And yes, I do find smegma (ugh!) ugly, disgusting and repulsive and even if I were brought up as an atheist or a heathen I would have my sons circumcised. Smegma (ugh!) is an Abomination. Fortunately for the uncircumcised, there exist females who have a taste for cottage cheese. There is simply no way to account for taste in a rational manner. Ba'al Chatzaf It's amazing how you allegedly argue. "The evidence is clear." No source, date, study just your mere assertion. I would not have accepted this from my rhetoric students.

Sorry to hear of your friends plight. I cannot give you legal advice, however, as a mediator I can offer you insight and guidance. Methods that have been used in the past, would be a Writ of Mandamus in the Federal District Court to compel the production of the individual before a Federal Magistrate in order to present the facts of his "detainment". It is a step down from a Writ of Habeaus Corpus, the sacred writ as it is referred to, which would argue that he is being illegally detained. However, the states defense would be that he is being legally detained pursuant to the Patriot Act or another Federal Act. Unfortunately, you have an uphill fight. Out of curiosity, did the NZ embassy tell you that they cannot provide him with counsel to represent him? Also, it would be important for you to get a limited power of attorney from him so that you can push the system. The "social worker" should be able to have the document notarized. Wish I could be more helpful.

Forgive my pushy curiosity here, but I'm still in the dark. By "barnyard animal", do you mean that he smelled like old rubber tires? If not, is there anything to which you can compare it? Judith I hate to be the egalitarian in this thread, but does not hygiene apply equally to women. I am sure some of us have testimony as to the "smell test" referred to above. However, on a lighter note, does anyone remember the great Saturday Night Live spoof of the Mohel [moiel] performing a circumcision in the back seat of a luxury car bouncing over a potholed road? Pam, let me introduce you to the concept of satire. My point was you ladies jumping on the penis...oops there goes that satire again. It reminds me of the old joke of the blind man walking by the Fulton fish market in NY City in the early morning. He stops and tips his hat and says "Good morning ladies."

That was a spoof on the diamond cutter add. The "real" add shows a diamond cutter in the back seat of a luxury car riding over a rough road. If the car jiggles too much the diamond cutter may end up shattering the diamond into a lot of small relatively worthless pieces. The interesting thing to note is that the diamond cutter may also be a mohel. Diamond cutting is perceived as a "Jewish" trade. There are a disproportionate number of Jews in the diamond business including cutting the stones. Ba'al Chatzaf Realizing that facts have no effect on your judgments, there was a second spoof with a baby, a moiel and the mom which capitalized on the first.

Forgive my pushy curiosity here, but I'm still in the dark. By "barnyard animal", do you mean that he smelled like old rubber tires? If not, is there anything to which you can compare it? Judith I hate to be the egalitarian in this thread, but does not hygiene apply equally to women. I am sure some of us have testimony as to the "smell test" referred to above. However, on a lighter note, does anyone remember the great Saturday Night Live spoof of the Mohel [moiel] performing a circumcision in the back seat of a luxury car bouncing over a potholed road?

Well put. I am Italian and my parents elected to have me circumcised. Thankfully, I had none of the medical nightmares that I have heard about and that you referred to. However, it did help quite a bit with the father's of the Jewish ladies that I dated, since I had to change my name to Kaplan just to get in the door, but I always told my dates that they did not have to worry, I could pass for Jewish at the country club shower if I was playing golf with daddy dearest. My lady friends that have had known who have been with uncircumcised men also had good and bad stories and they all revolved around either good or bad basic hygiene. Therefore, based on their testimony nothing significant could be concluded. However, your point is well taken that it is the predominantly male doctors that suggest circucision. It is one of the reasons why hysterectomys led the list for the most unnecessary surgeries conducted in the USA. Apparently, this has begun to drop with the increase in female gynecologists in the profession. Good points throughout your post though.

Bob, You are being so passionate about defending this that it is getting amusing. Sorry, but it is. What you just wrote here, in light of at least 2.5 billion males who are not circumcised (and that is a VERY conservative estimate) makes your forecasts of doom appear as nothing more than a personal quirk. Let's try this. If you don't walk on city streets, it is 100% certain that you will not have a safe fall on your head from a tall building. So keep your kids away from cities or anywhere there are tall buildings. Anyone can die from a safe falling on their head. This is called being pro-active. Michael Ahh. The old common law concept of contributory negligence.

You are quite observant. Now, being a male, what would be the color for male health?

Here is a bit of a history lesson. King Antiochus Epiphanes forbade circumcision in the Holy Land (that is when the Greek Syrians ruled the place). The result was the famous Hasmonian Revolt 166 - 161 b.c.e. (look up Judah Macabee and Hasmonian on Google for the details). The "foreskin war" lead to a civil war. Anyone who is considering outlawing male circumcision should consult the First Amendment before trying it. Something like that could turn lukewarm non-observant Jews into Warriors and Zealots. It happened before and it could happen again. The reason why Jews light the Channaka Candles is because Antiochus Epiphanes forbade circumcision and cooked pork chops in the Temple. Ba'al Chatzaf Sir. You need, immediately, to open your mind and stop living in some historical/religious/cultural gestalt.

There is no difference in cancer prevention with people who use normal hygiene. HIV can also be prevented by choosing the right life style and taking precautions. That some people don't do that is their own responsibility and is no excuse to mutilate children. The standard removal of tonsils has also been shown to be completely useless; today it's (at least in the Netherlands) only done if there is a medical indication. Perhaps they are a bit behind the times in the US? Circumcising the male foreskin from an infant male is NOT mutilation. It is disease prevention and a beneficial modification. It has no medical downside whatsoever and has only beneficial medical effects. It is improvement, not mutilation. It is the removal of a source of filth and infection and most of all smegma (ugh!). The fact that this procedure is wrapped with religious nonsense does not change the benefits. It is good for the male to be circumcised. If the appendix could be removed so simply, safely and non invasively it would be a definite plus. Unfortunately this is not possible since the appendix is in the viscera. Circumcision is so beneficial that millions of gentile parents have their male infant children circumcised. And for the right reasons too, the medical benefits. Jews and Muslims do it mostly for religious reasons, which is irrational but the benefits are real. Certainly circumcision of males is more beneficial then having the ear lobes of children drilled so they can wear ear jewelery. I don't hear you complaining about that. How come? Would you have parents arrested for boring holes in the ear lobes of their children? Ba'al Chatzaf Sieg Hiel! Ze state vill make da decisions that you are too uninformed to make. Today the foreskin, tomorrow da Vorld! I am so morally offended by this philosophical pap amply decorated by interim science and logical listlessness. I would commend Hannah Arendt's, 1963 book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.

LOL. Excellent. The whole internal concept of "dirty" is a relative term and heavily laden with Ba'al's apparent psyco-sexual dysfunctions. I do not think he wishes to have a direct and open discussion of sensual/sexual/erotic reality issues of "dirty". One word: smegma (ugh!). Ba'al Chatzaf Is that from personal experience, scientific data or women that you have heard it from? Seen it with my own eyes. When old Skin Back Hyims ordered short arm drill at pool side (the male class swam in the skin) I saw the results of less than optimal cleansing. Some of the gentile lads didn't clean the knob very well. Smegma (ugh!). Strictly for the Goyim! Ba'al Chatzaf And who is the bigot here? Remember I have been "taken for Jewish" and have sat dumbfounded by some of the hateful and bigoted statements that came out of the mouth of Rabbis who preach humanism and understand on the Sabbath. No wonder Martin [ מָרְדֳּכַי, Mordechai] Buber communicated with trees! That type of bigotry was not permitted at my "Goyim" table. I guess us Northern Italians are not as "chosen" as you seem to believe in some delusionary reality that you prefer to believe in. A is A. A bigoted statement is a bigoted statement.

LOL. Excellent. The whole internal concept of "dirty" is a relative term and heavily laden with Ba'al's apparent psyco-sexual dysfunctions. I do not think he wishes to have a direct and open discussion of sensual/sexual/erotic reality issues of "dirty". One word: smegma (ugh!). Ba'al Chatzaf Is that from personal experience, scientific data or women that you have heard it from?

LOL. Excellent. The whole internal concept of "dirty" is a relative term and heavily laden with Ba'al's apparent psyco-sexual dysfunctions. I do not think he wishes to have a direct and open discussion of sensual/sexual/erotic reality issues of "dirty".

aJust got in and practicing my other "religion" baseball. Alfonso, you understand my point perfectly. I often asked my students about the "current love" that they had accepted and posed a simple question: Would you love that person less if they were disfigured in an accident? If so, do you understand love. "I love you." is a declarative statement, hopefully of fact. You cannot logically get to the "you" until you define the "I".

I can only speak from a male perspective, but the feedback that I have had from submissives of their view of the circumsized penis is aesthetic. Mimi at the conference made reference to what she would have liked to "see" in the Reardon scene from Atlas.

Now that is really funny!!!!!

I must respectfully disagree with this to some extent; I think it is over-rated. I think that Rand, like a lot of people, may have been prone to assuming that a physically good-looking person was also a good person inside. I've seen some good-looking women get away with a lot of bad behavior (especially if they were tiny and good at playing stupid or helpless); and I'm pretty damned sure that had they been more ordinary-looking, they'd have been called on their bad behavior a LOT sooner. That is not how I interpret the quote. Frankly, and being a heretic that went through the movement debacle at NBI, basically set us back by twenty years, I understand it, through my personal choice to mean - see the values of the person. Anyone who chooses to "go to bed" [what a PC phrase] with a person purely on looks deserves what they get. There are no "ugly" women or men, some are more beautiful than others.

-- that's an intriguing statement. Have you read Steven Pinker's new book, "The Stuff of Thought"? It has some equally intriguing ideas, and comes close to supporting your intuition about analogy. At several points, but especially in the chapter 'The Metaphor Metaphor,' Pinker suggests that the power of analogy for science and reasoning in general is not from 'mere similarity of parts' in the two instances being compared. Rather, it is relations between the parts -- a disciplined tracing of the concept implicated in one domain can open a window to understanding in the other. Some concepts are so fresh or unfamiliar that the insight of a frame-shift/Gestalt is very useful. Because of the power of analogy to help our conceptual understanding 'snap to,' fallacious examples can be just as mentally satisfying as more appropriate ones. I twit Michael now and again for inapt analogies. As he suggests, it is my touchy elbow. The 'eureka' snap of concepts falling into place is great fun, but always needs checking. One of my favourite dumb analogies (this spouted out in the context of visionaries/crackpots/pseudoscientists like Velikovsky): "You may laugh at his theories -- they laughed at Galileo!" -- to which many wits have retailed the only proper answer: "They also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Well put. "Some concepts are so fresh or unfamiliar that the insight of a frame-shift/Gestalt is very useful. Because of the power of analogy to help our conceptual understanding 'snap to,' fallacious examples can be just as mentally satisfying as more appropriate ones." Your description aproximates my "western" mind frame attending my first Tai Chi class. The instructor was exceptional and made statements that made my thoughts "snap to" and consider many new "windows" or perceptual facets. Niels Bohr is an interesting phycisist and is know for his response to Einstein's comments about not believing that God would play dice with the Universe by saying that Einstein ought stop telling God what to do.

Excellent. I taped last weekends C-Span broadcast.

I am surely not a stickler for typos, but are you certain it is the 14th not the 12th Imam.