Davodd.com

Dr Laura Schlesinger

In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, written by a US man, and posted on the Internet. It’s funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can.

When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination … End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

(Author unknown)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Dr. Laura Is Out to Lunch (thedailybeast.com)
• About That Laura Schlesinger N-Word Rant (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Dr. Laura is still alive and still conservative (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Olbermann Blasts Dr. Laura: ‘Genuine, Blind Ignorant Racism’ (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• Dr. Laura ‘N’ Word Tirade Reminiscent of her Anti-Gay Ways (lezgetreal.com)

They had the nerve to come here – unwanted immigrants who moved in without asking permission or applying for visas

from the local American government; they spread diseases; squatted illegally on other people’s land; hurt the local economy; ignored local laws and traditions; stole crops; increased the murder, rape and crime rates wherever they went; and refused to learn the language of our country.
I call them my great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents who came here from the British Isles and other European countries from the 1600s to the 1800s.

As the great grandchildren of truly illegal immigrants, people like me do not have the moral authority (and should not have the legal authority) to judge or exclude others who seek a better life for themselves and their families in this land that was stolen by our European ancestors – at gunpoint – from the original owners – the Native Americans.

The difference between a “native American” and a “Mexican” is which European country slaughtered your ancestors, depending on what side of the river (or mountain range) you were born on.

But when you come right down to it…

We’re all African. Basically, we’re an out-of-control invasive species that wreaks havoc on local ecosystems and crowds out native fauna.

It used to be journalism was the fourth estate holding up our fragile democracy while digging the rot out of the other three all while beating the stuffing out of the crooked side corporate America.

Newspapers and many TV station groups were held by families or family trusts with independent wealth and who, out of a sense of duty, ran their news operations as a pubic trust… until their bratty descendants decided to cash in after the original owners’ deaths in the 1990s and 2000s.

Once local cross-ownership started to fall, and national ownership caps became but token gestures, the new national corporate owners cared more about quarterly profits than actual local journalism. It gets worse every day.

Under Rupert Murdoch’s clarion call, the final and decisive blows are landing as more and more news outlets dump American-style public-trust journalism and dump it for Australio-British biased blunt advocacy and tabloitainment formats that are loathe to do investigative reporting that could piss off advertisers and lower short-term profits.

But “news” needs controversy for its sense of immediacy. So the solution is finding a way to mine an endless vein of controversy that is guaranteed *not* to piss off advertisers attracted to your audience. FNC is brilliant in how it solved this dilemma: the controversy is in demonizing the people who AREN’T and never will be your audience. That way – you only alienate he folks your advertises don’t care about anyway – the folks who will remain non-watchers. Added benefit: your core audience grows because you cater to it and make it feel special.

MSNBC followed suit in 2009, growing an anti-FNC audience and – crippling CNN in the process by stealing much of its younger, advertiser-sought audience.

Of course programming executives who have their noses up in everything, anyway, sniffed that shift in fortune and are marching in lock-step to Murdoch’s pied piper tune; in doing so, they are dismantling the Fourth Estate and building the Fifth Column from its debris.

I fear the only American-style journalism that will exist after the dust settles will be one or two publications still controlled by benefactors instead of public corporations – and public broadcasting.

The New York Times has been teetering on bankruptcy for the past few years and, quite frankly, I don’t think it will survive the decade. Online sources like HuffPo are just going keep taking market share and continue to eat away at that newspaper’s audience.

Case in point: Generation X was the last U.S. generation that grew up with newspaper as a primary source of  information. I’m a member of that group – but these days we’ve pretty much ditched newspaper for the Internet. I’m a news junkie, but I do not think I’ve bought a “paper” newspaper in more than 3 years.

Baby Boomers are the last generation that still reads newsprint in any significant number. But the youngest Baby Boomer is … 47? 50? It depends on where Boomers stop and X begins. Anyway, the fat lady is warming up for her song; the time is coming – probably before 2020 – when there just will not be a viable audience for newsprint news in most cities.

But face it, as illustrated above by your post – it’s much worse as far as TV is concerned. Gen X is SOOO yesterday. There hasnt’ been a 20-something Gen Xer in years – but we’re used to being ignored having lived in the trough between the Boomers and their kids.

The big awakening in my opinion will be, once again, caused by Boomers. The last of you guys are about to age out of the 25-54 age demographic within the next couple years. Unlike Gen X, which is accustomed to being ignored and adapting behind the scenes… Boomers are not known for being quiet or taking a back seat to anybody – I wonder what will happen when the last Boomer turns 55 and the last advertiser not selling adult diapers, age-disease medication or erection treatments turns its back on America’s trouble-making generation. A revolution, I hope.

But until that happens the bloodbath now is just going to get worse.

This is why I became disheartened and finally gave up on my 20-year career in news in 2006, went to law school and graduated in June with a J.D. at age 42.

If I’m gonna sell my soul, anyway – I’d rather be upfront about it and make money while doing it.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Wall Street Journal takes on N.Y. Times (sfgate.com)
• Financial Times chief sees paywalls as ‘morally’ necessary to protect journalism (boingboing.net)
• Critical choice for media sites: Closed garden or open platform? (betatales.com)
• Stories for my kid’s generation (timesunion.com)

This was awarded to me by the law school for Best Written Brief  for the 2008 Moot Court. Supposedly, it is the only academic award aside from valedictorian that is noted on a diploma at graduation.

This was awarded to me by the law school for having the highest grade in Personal Property class.

Proof that I voted on Nov. 4, 2008.

As we are just days away from our seventh anniversary, I thought it was time to see what the “stars” had to say about my relationship compatibility with Rich.

David: Aquarius (with Venus in Capricorn)
Rich: Leo (with Venus in Leo)

Source: http://cafeastrology.com

How David approaches romantic relationships:

David is generally steadfast and deliberate in love, finding safety and comfort in all that is tried and true. David can be on the cautious side about sharing his heart, but his reliability as a partner is hard to resist for many people.

David acts respectfully in love, and takes extra care not to hurt a partner. For that matter, he takes extra care not to get hurt himself! This self-protective quality can sometimes frustrate Rich, simply because David is not very comfortable with letting himself go on a romantic level. Once David’s defenses are down (at least some of them), he is a warm, tender, and even vulnerable lover.

Things are at their best in relationships with David when his partner understands that David shows his emotions and care through actions rather than words. What appears to be a certain coolness, aloofness, or even snobbishness actually hides a fair amount of vulnerability and warmth. When David feels safe and comfortable with someone, he is far more demonstrative.

David’s is a strong sensuality. He attracts others with a quiet charm that fairly reeks with competence. There is a controlled manner about him when it comes to love, and potential partners can sense it. It can drive them wild if they are so inclined! David is are attracted to a partner who is responsible and respectable. Someone who is passionate may at once scare him and appeal to him, and these conflicting emotions and reactions can lead to quite a powerful attraction. Perhaps a passionate person is exactly what David needs to loosen up a little. David has much to offer others, and his dependability is sure to be appreciated in the long haul. For those who are up to the challenge, discovering the earthy sensuality and vulnerability inside David will be a tremendous reward. They will have to win his trust, and a little persistence will certainly help.

How Rich approaches romantic relationships:

Rich can be “stuck” in the first stage of romance, when passions run high and they can’t seem to get each other out of their minds. Rich never wants this stage to end! When Rich is in love, the relationship consumes him. Rich radiates the love that he receives from David, and reverberates with the energy of love. Rich is ardent and affectionate with David. The adoration Rich gives may not be (and probably won’t be) matched, and this is when you falter. Truth is, David may have a different style of expressing his love. It may be just as ardent as Rich’s love, but Rich tends to equate adoring expressions of love with love itself.

Rich tends to hold on to love, sometimes longer than he perhaps should, and he may work hard on forcing a partner into the script Rich has unconsciously written for him! When Rich is happy with David (which often coincides with Rich’s perception that David is right there with you in an emotional sense), Rich is generous to a fault, with little thought of the future. Rich takes the ups and downs of his romantic relationships to heart, more so than most people, simply because Rich invests so much of his ego and identity into love! Rich’s warmth is extremely dependent upon the amount of attention and affection he receives. Although Rich may begin relationships with considerable ardency, if he is not showered with attention and made to feel special over the course of time, he will surely lose passion for the relationship. Rich’s need for appreciation from David is paramount, yet all too often he comes on strong in love and a partner misinterprets Rich’s ardor as brazen confidence. This can be a vicious circle, because what David may not know is that, in fact, Rich is not as sure of himself as he seems, and David’s reassurances are vital! It is easy for Rich to jump into relationships without too much thought. However, Rich’s expectations are high, and David needs to understand that for a relationship with Rich to survive over the long haul, it needs to be stoked constantly. Rich will hang on to a relationship longer than most, but his expectations are so high that disappointment is almost inevitable. More than most signs, Rich would benefit from waiting to marry when he is older and more sure of himself. When Rich is happy in his relationship, his warmth and eagerness are admirable!

How David and Rich Blend:

Rich is insatiably expressive in love relationships, often impulsive, and very demonstrative. David possess a more steady, practical view of relationships. Dramatizing feelings is as natural as breathing to Rich (he doesn’t just like something, he adores it; he isn’t simply hurt by what you say, he is devastated, etc.). David, on the other hand, is more reserved about his feelings and desires, as he is cautious about letting another person into his heart. In fact, David may at times find gushy emotions uncomfortable and downright impractical. David may question the sincerity behind Rich’s demonstrations. Both of them value loyalty and security in partnerships, but their styles of expressing love are radically different. Rich needs to be reminded that the constancy of David’s feelings are very valuable. David is certainly more concerned about where the relationship is headed. Rich, on the other hand, is living for the moment where love is concerned. If they share finances, similar conflicts can arise between them! Both in love and with money, David believes in moderation, and Rich is inclined to go overboard in both areas. David should remember that Rich’s ego is tied up in how David treats him, and there is the risk that Rich’s apparent over-confidence will prompt David to want to curb it by limiting compliments! If this is the case, Rich is likely to lose interest fast. David needs to understand that Rich is far more insecure in love than he lets on. David values solitude from time to time, and his occasional withdrawal is sure to fire Rich up. Rich’s head is often in the clouds when it comes to love, and his vision of the future is generally positive, while David is largely realistic. Sounds like an unlikely couple? It does, but if both of are willing, they can certainly learn a lot from each other. David might enjoy Rich’s ability to brighten up his day, and Rich will love David’s extraordinary sense of humor and commitment to making things work between them.

A wry sense of humor.

Born Feb. 4, 1968 in Fort Wayne, Indiana at approximately 12:30 a.m.

SIGNS

: gives extraordinary love for the beauty and big emotional activity. You look for your security needs in a relationship, contacting others by flirting. With gifts and properties others can attract you, and probably you achive material security in a partnership.

On Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2008, my state’s constitution broke and some discrimination got in.

That’s not the way it is supposed to happen. And that is why the U.S. is founded on the principles of a democratic republic – and not as a pure democracy.

In a pure democracy the majority always rules at the cost of minorities. But, in a democratic republic, minorities are guaranteed the same rights as the majority.

In Prop 8, in its pure form democracy “won.” The majority claimed rights – but carved out one specific minority group to not share those same rights.

That is a classic example of a majority using the tools of democracy to discriminate against a minority. Normally, this is something banned in democratic republics like America.

But not on Nov. 4. The majority in four states on that Tuesday decided that gay people are less than human in that they apparently do not deserve full human rights.

Putting the basic civil rights of a minority group up to a popular vote is just plain wrong and against everything this country believes in – honoring majority rule as long as the fundamental rights of minorities are protected.