HAL9000

Euro FX reactions to elections:-

In proportion to the US, England probably convicts as many, if not more, innocents, in my experience. The arcane ?sausage machine? that is the English Criminal Justice System is still rife with dishonesty and corruption. We no longer hear about the scandals because since 1997 the CCRC has been blocking the referral of serious miscarriages of justice and wrongful convictions from being heard by the Court of Appeal in order to protect the sausage machine from being brought into disrepute and/or undermining public confidence in law and order. The CCRC strikes again: Family killer Jeremy Bamber fails in appeal bid The CCCR?s block has kept the fresh evidence away from public scrutiny and ensured that it can never again be raised as grounds for an Appeal. What is the point of having a fresh evidence rule when the reviewing body can override it? What is the point of having a Court of Appeal when the reviewing body can pre-empt its decision?

Extradited Briton Christopher Tappin granted bail in US Bail has been set at $1m (?620,000), of which $50,000 (?31,000) must be posted up front. On March 5, Judge Robert Castaneda ruled that Tappin must remain in custody after prosecutors asked that he be detained for the duration of the proceedings because he "posed a flight risk". Assistant US attorney Greg McDonald told the court that "the risk is not that he'll punch somebody in the face, but through the use of a computer and the knowledge he has, he might pose a danger to the community." On March 8, Karen Todner (Tappin's solicitor in the UK) urged the British government to intervene over the bail refusal. Eventually, on April 25 2012, Tappin was granted bail on condition that he wore an electronic tracking tag at all times. Additionally, his ability to travel was restricted to within two Texas counties as well as the border city of El Paso for court appearances. (Emphasis added.) -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Tappin

Prepare a signed, note headed (i.e. headed with your made up name and real address) letter of authority to collect the parcel on behalf of the addressee citing an item of your real ID, which you take with you to the collection point. Dear Sirs, I, 'made up name,' hereby authorise 'real name' with ID No. xxx to collect on my behalf parcel force item No. yyy (or date) as per enclosed delivery card. Signed 'made up name'

Why is the airplane loo always out of toilet paper?

A Quantum Theory of Mitt Romney

Terrific! Get well soon.

The King's Torah is hardly ancient; it was published in 2010 and has been endorsed by prominent rabbis throughout the Jewish community. It represents the worst of modern Jewish extremism. My post merely redresses the balance.

How bizarre: the Jewish author condemns, "his hugging embrace of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the scholar who supports female genital mutilation, the murder of homosexual people, and suicide bombing so long as the victims are Israeli civilians, deeming even the unborn child inside an Israeli mother's womb a legitimate target, because that child will one day grow up to wear his country's uniform" yet ignores his own religion's genital mutilation of male babies or The King's Torah wherein, "it is permissable to kill the Righteous among Nations even if they are not responsible for the threatening situation," and "If we kill a Gentile who has sinned or has violated one of the seven commandments - because we care about the commandments - there is nothing wrong with the murder" and 'that even babies and children can be killed if they pose a threat to the nation'. Pot, Kettle, Black!

Just to add insight to the argument, a Jewish writer explains how interpretations of the Judaeo-Islamic Torah affect non-believers. Source: A List of Some Problematic Issues Concerning Orthodox Jewish Belief By Naftali Zeligman 95. The status of non-Jews. The above statements by Chazal do not necessarily have practical Halachic implications. But the situation is much worse: many practical Halachic rulings harshly discriminate between different categories of people. Let us consider, for example, the status of a non-Jew according to Halacha: Though one must violate the Sabbath to save the life of a Jew, it is forbidden to violate the Sabbath to save the life of a non-Jew (Yoma, chapter 8, mishnahs 6-7; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 330:2; Mishnah Berurah, 330, subsection 8). The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 26a) tried to explain this law: Jews who observe the Sabbath one is permitted to violate the Sabbath to save, but gentiles who do not observe the Sabbath one is forbidden to save by violating the Sabbath. However, this "explanation" is not worth much: how can one hold it against gentiles that they do not observe the Sabbath if they are not commanded to? Only Jews are so commanded ? and can it be a reason to forbid saving people from death? Moreover, this is the fate of a non-Jew who wants to observe the Sabbath, according to Halacha: "A gentile who observed the Sabbath, even if he did it on a weekday [and all the more so if it was actually on Sabbath], if he behaved on this day like a Jew behaves on the Sabbath, he ought to die." (Maimonides, Laws of Kings 10:9) Actually, this law is set by the Talmud in Tractate Sanhedrin 58b, and Rashi there explains: "They [the non-Jews] are forbidden to rest not only on Sabbath, which is a day of rest for the Jews... but any rest is forbidden to them, so that they must not relax from their work even on a day that is not a day of rest." So people who happen not to have been born to a Jewish mother are treated by Halacha worse than animals ? a Jew's animal, as we know, must have a rest on the Sabbath. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 154:2) goes even further in ruling on how to treat non-Jewish women and children: "A Jewish woman may not breast-feed a gentile child, even for pay (except if she has too much milk, which makes her suffer ? then she is permitted to breast-feed him). And she also may not help a gentile woman give birth, except if she is known as a midwife ? then she is permitted, but only for pay and not on Sabbath and holidays." Here one does not deal even with desecration of Sabbath: it is simply forbidden to breast-feed non-Jewish children ? it is all right to let them die unless breast-feeding them will bring some physical relief to a Jewish woman! Nor are we permitted to help a gentile woman give birth at all ? except for a renowned midwife, for if she refuses to help a gentile woman the gentiles would be hostile to the Jews and would not help Jewish women to give birth (Shach on Yoreh Deah 154:2). And even a renowned midwife may help a gentile woman give birth for pay only ? that is, the common human virtue of charity may not be applied to non-Jews. However, nowadays one can see observant Jewish doctors healing non-Jewish patients, on weekdays as well as on Sabbath and holidays. Why? Here is the answer: "In our times, when there is fear of more than just animosity if Jewish doctors forbore from treating non-Jews on the Sabbath and left them to die, even this issue is one of saving Jewish lives, for if non-Jewish doctors heard this they would stop treating Jewish patients." (Rabbi Ovadiah Yossef, "Yabiah Omer," part 8, Orach Chayim, paragraph 38) That is, the only reason to save gentiles from death is that if we abstain from doing so, it may harm the Jews. No human values, no decency and no compassion.

Megachange: The world in 2050

Or a toss up between Frankenstein complex and automatonophobia? :)

If only God and His Son could have foreseen the consequences of their Scriptural revelations on the enlightened generations of the future ? they might have been more believable.

Michael Palaeologus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >My own generative organ is really quite tiny ... You are Howard Stern and I claim my five dollars!

If one accepts the modern scientific view that homosexuality occurs naturally in humans and many other animal species, doesn?t that undermine the idea that Judaeo-religious scriptures are divinely inspired? By what logic would God create subjects in His own image then discriminate against naturally occurring minorities? It seems to me that Christian prejudice against homosexuality undermines its credibility as a genuine religion, in the same way that biologically false claims about the hare and the hyrax 'bringing up the cud' undermine the authenticity of Mosaic Law. I cannot understand why anyone would want to join that circus.