* Once a gay Asian cashier at Starbucks once visibly panicked when I paid for a $2 coffee with 8 quarters.
* There have been a few times when I have been at a fast food restaurant or supermarket where the cashier has punched in the wrong bill to make change from (say $50 instead of $5) and now has to figure it out herself and they just can’t do it, especially not in their head. They get out a piece of paper and start writing it out and even then they can’t get it. It’s both sad and funny. This has never happened to me with an Asian cashier.
* I read somewhere that there was an Italian food contest somewhere, and a Japanese chef won it – he learned his trade in Italy, but only to move back to Japan to open an Italian restaurant there. I’d bet he can now teach other Japanese cooks on how to cook Italian.
You might argue that cooking Italian (Ghanaian, whatever) is not exactly rocket science (although in the case of haute cuisine it might be closer to that), but even if it was rocket science – well, rocket science itself could be copied by other countries, couldn’t it?
* You could easily cut half the Federal workers and contractors in the greater Washington DC region and no one would notice. Get rid of the 11,000 EPA workers for a start. Get rid of the Federal Department of Education which is really just a glorified jobs program for every affirmative action leech under the sun starting with women, blacks, gays, lesbians…….with (angry) Samoans and Aleutian Islanders bringing up the rear.
Get rid of affirmative action hiring hall—Department of Labor
Get rid of affirmative action hiring hall—Department of Health and Human Services
Get rid of affirmative action hiring hall—Department of Housing and Urban Development
There are 3000+ county governments, 50 State governments and one Federale Gov’t. So you have to be specific about what government and what agencies can be pruned back or eliminated
REPORT: The hunt for the killer of a 19-year-old Mississippi woman who was burned alive last year has resulted in the arrests of 17 suspected gang members, authorities said this week, though none have been directly linked to the woman’s death.
FBI officials announced the arrests Tuesday of suspected members of the Black Gangster Disciples, Vice Lords, and Sipp Mob street gangs, according to The Clarion-Ledger newspaper.
Officials told the paper the investigation, dubbed “Operation Bite Back”, was focused on Panola County, in the northwest of the state, and was a byproduct of the investigation into the death of Jessica Chambers.
On the night of Dec. 6, 2014, Chambers was doused with gasoline and set on fire in her car on a road in Courtland. She was found on the road with burns over most of her body and later died at a hospital in Memphis.
“It’s taken eight or nine months, if not a little longer, to get to this point,” Panola County District Attorney John Champion said. “And this is not over by any stretch of the imagination.”
Posted inBlacks, Crime|Comments Off on 17 Gentle Giants Burn Beautiful Woman To Death
Comment: AP Poll: Islamic State conflict voted top news story of 2015
4: MASS SHOOTINGS: Throughout the year, mass shootings brought grief to communities across the U.S. and deepened frustration over the failure to curtail them. There were 14 victims in San Bernardino. Nine blacks were killed by a white gunman at a Charleston, South Carolina, church; a professor and eight students died at an Oregon community college. In Chattanooga, four Marines and a sailor were killed by a Kuwaiti-born engineer; three people, including a policeman, were shot dead at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado.
Hilarious. It’s like they want us to notice how they operate:
“There were 14 victims in San Bernardino.” Islamic fanatics? What are they?
“Nine blacks were killed by a white gunman.” Wow, specificity makes a stunning comeback in the next sentence!
Posted inDiversity|Comments Off on When Specificity Makes A Comeback
There is a country with a race-neutral, class-based affirmative action policy that is large enough to study: Israel. The evidence there suggests that, far from being complementary, broad diversity and race-neutrality are conflicting goals.
In the mid-2000s, four of Israel’s most selective universities adopted an admissions policy that favored underprivileged applicants. The program is completely race-neutral and need-blind: Applicants are not evaluated on their ethnicity or their particular financial status. Instead, the emphasis is on structural determinants of disadvantage, such as applicants’ neighborhoods or the socioeconomic status of their high school (some individual hardships are also considered). This approach has deep roots in sociological research that shows that social structures, such as neighborhoods and schools, have a great impact on educational outcome.
The Israeli model of affirmative action does achieve widespread diversity because it considers several aspects of disadvantage. In addition to increasing geographic diversity, the program increases the number of students who are new immigrants and who come from poorer families and poorer neighborhoods.
But it achieved these goals at the price of ethnic diversity. Only half of all those students admitted under the program are ethnic minorities, that is, Jews of Asian or African origin and Arabs, the groups at the bottom of Israel’s social stratification system. If a race-based affirmative action policy had been implemented instead of this policy, the level of ethnic diversity would have been twice as high. Such a policy would also expand the level of socioeconomic and geographic diversity at the Israeli bastions of privilege, but not as much as the class-based policy did…
There is no silver bullet for generating broad diversity at elite institutions. On one hand, race-neutral models of preferential treatment cannot match the level of racial and ethnic diversity that race-based affirmative action can achieve. On the other hand, race-based affirmative action does not produce the same level of socioeconomic and geographic diversity at elite campuses.
Posted inAffirmative Action, Israel|Comments Off on What Israel Tells Us About Affirmative Action and Race
The Atlantic: “Because so few adults can remember the pertinent details of their own preschool or kindergarten years, it can be hard to appreciate just how much the early-education landscape has been transformed over the past two decades. The changes are not restricted to the confusing pastiche on classroom walls. Pedagogy and curricula have changed too, most recently in response to the Common Core State Standards Initiative’s kindergarten guidelines. Much greater portions of the day are now spent on what’s called “seat work” (a term that probably doesn’t need any exposition) and a form of tightly scripted teaching known as direct instruction, formerly used mainly in the older grades, in which a teacher carefully controls the content and pacing of what a child is supposed to learn.”
This is horrible for kids. They are meant to move. Sitting in chairs deforms the body. Just look at the difference in grace of movement between those cultures that sit in chairs and those that don’t.
Posted inEducation|Comments Off on The Atlantic: The New Preschool Is Crushing Kids
At the back of a small room at Coogee Beach, Sydney, I sat watching as a psychologist I had never heard of paced the room gesticulating. His voice was loud. Over six feet tall, his presence was imposing. It was Lee Jussim. He had come to the Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology to talk about left-wing bias in social psychology.
Left-wing bias, he said, was undermining his field. Graduate students were entering the field in order to change the world rather than discover truths1. Because of this, he said, the field was riddled with flaky research and questionable theories.
Jussim’s talk began with one of the most egregious examples of bias in recent years. He drew the audience’s attention to the paper: “NASA faked the moon landing – therefore (climate) science is a hoax.” The study was lead by Stephan Lewandowsky, and published in Psychological Science in 2013. The paper argued that those who believed that the moon landing was a hoax also believed that climate science was a fraud. The abstract stated:
We…show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings above and beyond commitment to laissez-faire free markets. This provides confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science.
After describing the study and reading the abstract, Jussim paused. Something big was coming.
“But out of 1145 participants, only ten agreed that the moon landing was a hoax!” he said. “Of the study’s participants, 97.8% who thought that climate science was a hoax, did not think that the moon landing also a hoax.”
His fellow psychologists shifted in their seats. Jussim pointed out that the level of obfuscation the authors went to, in order to disguise their actual data, was intense. Statistical techniques appeared to have been chosen that would hide the study’s true results. And it appeared that no peer reviewers, or journal editors, took the time, or went to the effort of scrutinizing the study in a way that was sufficient to identify the bold misrepresentations.
While the authors’ political motivations for publishing the paper were obvious, it was the lax attitude on behalf of peer reviewers – Jussim suggested – that was at the heart of the problems within social psychology. The field had become a community in which political values and moral aims were shared, leading to an asymmetry in which studies that reinforced left-wing narratives had come to be disproportionately represented in the literature. And this was not, to quote Stephen Colbert, because “reality had a liberal bias”. It was because social psychology had a liberal bias.
Jussim explained that within the field, those on the left outnumbered those on the right by a ratio of about 10:1. So it meant that even if left-leaning and right-leaning scientists were equal in their bias, there would be at least ten times more research biased towards validating left-wing narratives than conservative narratives. Adding in the apparent double standards in the peer review process (where studies validating left-wing narratives seemed to be easier to publish) then the bias within the field could vastly exceed the ratio of 10:1. In other words, research was becoming an exercise in groupthink.
Posted inScience|Comments Off on How a rebellious scientist uncovered the surprising truth about stereotypes
I have right-wing Orthodox friends who now refer to Ann Coulter as a “vile anti-Semite.”
If someone as pro-Israel and pro-Jewish as Ann Coulter can get called a “vile anti-Semite” despite her many years of support for Jews and the Jewish state, then it seems there is no reason for gentiles to seek Jewish approval because it can be snatched away for the smallest of reasons.
I’ve struggled with saying “Merry Christmas.” Until the past week, I have deliberately refrained from saying “Merry Christmas” because all the Orthodox rabbis I consulted concurred with my analysis that to say “Merry Christmas” grants the appearance of giving legitimacy to the claims that Jesus of Nazareth, the historic person, was the Christ (Messiah). I don’t see how an informed and identifying Jew should do that.
On the other hand, I choose to live in the diaspora and it seems rude to me to not say “Merry Christmas” when it is the major holiday of my country.
From a Jewish perspective, Christianity is idolatry. We don’t rule that way in Jewish law because if we did, it would be very difficult to live around Christians. We couldn’t do business with them. We’d have to shun them. So the Ashkenazi consensus is that for purposes of Jewish law, we do not regard Christianity as idolatry, but we Jews know that this is purely tricky legal reasoning for public relations and to make our lives better, but of course — not to say it in front of the goyim — Christianity is idolatry (the consensus of Sephardim).
From the authentic Christian perspective, Jews crucify Jesus anew each day with their unbelief.
From an authentic Muslim perspective, Jews and Christians must be forced to submit to Islam (through during that process Muslims are free to dissemble about their intentions).
Every group wants to rule the world. Muslims are more willing to kill and die in the process than any other group so Islam is the most powerful religion in the world now.
Part of what makes Dennis Prager interesting is the way he balances conflicting values, such as between being Jewish and being an American. There’s nothing in Judaism that endorses “Merry Christmas” but it is — until recently — the American thing to do.
American religions have in general toned down their claims for divine truth in the spirit of tolerance. They’ve given up authenticity for getting along.
The nearly universal change from wishing fellow Americans “Merry Christmas” to wishing them “Happy Holidays” is a very significant development in American life.
Proponents of “Happy Holidays” argue that it’s no big deal at all, and that proponents of “Merry Christmas” are making a mountain out of a molehill, especially when proponents say that the substitution of “Happy Holidays” is part of a “war on Christianity.”
But the “Happy Holidays” advocates want it both ways.
They dismiss opponents as hysterical while, at the same time, relentlessly pushing to rid America of “Merry Christmas.”
So, then, which is it? Is the substitution of “Happy Holidays” for “Merry Christmas” important or not?
The answer is obvious.
It is very important. That’s why the anti “Merry Christmas” crowd has worked so hard to make this greeting a thing of the past.
And they have been extraordinarily successful.
I have been wished “Happy Holidays” by every waiter and waitress in every restaurant I have dined; by every one of the young people who welcome me when I go to the gym; by every flight attendant and pilot on every one of my flights; and by every individual I have dealt with on the phone.
When I respond “Thank you. Merry Christmas,” I sometimes sense that I have actually created some tension. While many of those to whom I wish “Merry Christmas” may actually be happy that someone felt free to utter the C-word, all the sensitivity training that they’ve had to undergo creates cognitive dissonance.
“Christmas” has also been eliminated by many — probably the majority — of our elementary schools, high schools and universities. Thus, for example, they no longer have a “Christmas vacation,” but a “winter vacation.”
The opponents of “Merry Christmas” and other uses of the word “Christmas” know exactly what they are doing. They are disingenuous when they dismiss defenders of “Merry Christmas” as fabricating some “war on Christianity.”
Of course it’s a war on Christianity, or more precisely, a war on the religious nature of America. The left in America, like the left in Europe, wants to create a thoroughly secular society. Unfortunately, most people do not realize that the left believes in secularism just as fervently as religious Christians believe in Christ.
That’s why “Merry Christmas” so bothers the anti-religious left. It is perhaps the single most blatant reminder of just how religious America is — and it must therefore be removed from public discourse. Here’s a safe prediction: The ACLU and other secular activists on the left will eventually move to have Christmas removed as a national holiday.
Dennis Prager goes after the secular left in his essay but he fails to identify the enemy, which is elite Jews. It is elite Jews of the media and academia who are driving the war on Christmas and the war on America’s white Christian core.
Ironically, in his previous column, Dennis Prager went after Republicans for not accurately naming the enemy:
American conservatives are rightfully annoyed with the Obama administration, and Democrats generally, for refusing to name radical Islam or Islamism as the major source of terror.
When Nidal Hasan murdered 13 fellow soldiers at Fort Hood ,the administration refused to label the mass murder — committed by a Muslim in the name of Islam — an act of Islamist terror, or even terror at all. Instead it was officially declared a “workplace shooting.”
And when President Obama convened an international conference on terror, he refused to include the word “terror” or any form of the word “Islamist” in the title. Instead the conference — which took place a month after the Islamists’ massacre of the Charlie Hebdo writers and editors and Jews at a Paris shop — was ridiculously named “The White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism.”
But conservatives and Republicans do the same thing. They, too, almost never identify what they are fighting — namely, leftism and the left. (Note to left-wing websites that monitor conservative writings: This is not a comparison of the left with Islamic terrorists; it is about not naming an ideological foe.)
Republicans — from the highest ranking politicians to rank and file members of the party — fight Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and all other Democrats. But they don’t fight the left and leftism.
The implication is that if only we could defeat this or that Democrat, we would be on our way to a much better America.
But it’s not true. If extraterrestrials came to our planet and absconded with every Democrat holding office from Barack Obama down to every Democratic city councilman in America, nothing would change. Other Democrats with the same left-wing views would take their place.
Leftism is ruining America. But almost no Republican ever — let alone repeatedly — says this.
The universities of this country have become a laughingstock. They have degenerated into anti-intellectual, anti-Western, anti-rational institutions with their ludicrous “safe spaces,” trigger warnings that infantilize students, and all the lies about the racism and a rape culture that allegedly pervade the campuses and American society.
What is responsible for that? Leftism.
Again, Dennis Prager uses euphemism. He really means Jewish elites. Neoconservatism is a Jewish intellectual movement but its campaign to impose democratic values around the world by force is like something from Trotsky and the left. All Jewish intellectual movements seek to build up the fringe against the white Christian core of the West. Prager’s description of universities is simply the logical extension of the tactics of the Anti-Defamation League to make all expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment and white identity pathological.
A Jewish friend told me recently: “I think it is worth observing with all the goings on about trigger warnings, micro-agressions, hate speech and the like, that the first persons to claim the right to shut down discussions they disagreed with were Jews who wanted any questioning of the Holocaust to be banned. In fact Holocaust denial remains a crime in some European countries. The ADL was the first group that decided that it would go on the offense when any ‘anti-semitism’ regardless of how slight comes to light.”
They don’t bother making coherent arguments. They simply seek to destroy her.
Fox News had Ann Coulter on right after the second GOP debate:
I’ve been talking to various Jews about this controversy and this is a summary of what I’m hearing:
It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. It is the typical ADL playbook where the slightest innocuous comment is used to wholly discredit someone.
Does making the comment, even if it were “vile” which I don’t think it is, justify destroying a person’s career? How many books has she written? How many columns has she written? Who among pundits has been as influential in bringing an issue to the fore in American politics as she has with immigration? How many commentators are unwilling to debate persons with whom they disagree because somehow or other that would legitimize them? Ann Coulter will debate anybody on any topic anywhere.
It is interesting that she was dropped for the column she wrote for National Review in the aftermath of 9-11 (when she said invade their countries, kill their religious leaders and Christianize them.) She also survived the kerfuffle when in her interview with Donnie Deutsch she said that Christianity is in effect perfected Judaism. This is of course the correct theological view from the standpoint of Christians, regardless of denomination, but Jews are so used to politicians and columnnists buttering us up that they couldn’t handle this.
Anyway, we shall see how this plays out. The problem is that the people who are condemning her have so much invested in wresting either contrition from her or marginalization of her, that if they fail, it may weaken them and open the door to much more biting criticism that may in fact be anti-Semitic.
It is good that you are sticking up for her by highlighting all of the out of control condemnations of her.
It is important to really figure out what she was saying.
When she asked rhetorically how many fucking Jews are there in this country, that is open to two interpretations: (1) that despite their small number Jews wield too much influence, especially in the Republican party or (2) the Republicans are needlessly pandering to the Jews, Jewish interests, Israel and Evangelicals since there is no need to dwell on the confluence of views of Republican candidates.
Neither is anti-Semitic although the first interpretation does call in question Jewish power and influence, something that organized Jewry has consistently (1) downplayed and (2) pounced upon and punished those who espouse such views by labeling them anti semites and getting them ostracized.
You are a firm believer in free speech and in fearlessly pointing out where there is Jewish influence and power.
What bugs me about Coulter’s critics are:
In the case of “conservatives”, they criticize leftists, liberals and Democrats as being too politically correct and afraid of honest discussion, calling them “pearl clutchers, delicate little flowers” and people who go their “fainting couches” when confronted with micro-aggressions.
What Ann wrote is not especially offensive, especially in the context of her string of tweets during the debate, yet the “conservatives” feel the need to distance herself from them. This leads me to believe that many of the “right wing websites” PJ Media, Hot Air, Powerline, American Thinker, are in fact basically what pretend to be American conservative promoting sites, but in reality are simply pro Israel sites with the American political stuff serving simply as window dressing.
In the case of the Jewish Press and Jewish Rabbis condemning Coulter, I wonder how many of them publish her or read her with any regularity. I do realize she was a featured columnist for IJR) and if they do, if they share any views with her. Jews are traditionally liberal, consistently voting for Democrats and almost all elected national officials are Democrats (Sanders, Boxer, Feinstein, Franken, Blumenthal) and the Obama administration has many Jews in appointed positions, most significantly for financial decisions, Jack Lew and Janet Yellen. So I suspect that many if not most of the criticism of Coulter is coming from persons who don’t share her political views and are using this as an opportunity to either take her down a notch or sideline her permanently (a la Joe Sobran)
In the case of the liberal press, it is also seen as a means to marginalize Coulter and her views.
I realize you are a small voice against this, but you are an Orthodox Jew. She has been supported by others who are not widely read, such as Ilana Mercer, and by Mickey Kaus, but they are hard pressed to influence the conventional wisdom once the juggernaut is under way.
The rabbis don’t bother to argue that this immigration will be good for America. That argument does not come up in their essay. That does not interest them. What does interest them? “Success in dealing with the first wave of immigrants will help build bipartisan support for other refugees from the Middle East to come to America.”
Their rabbinic agenda is to flood America with refugees.
They have no interest in what is good for America.
That they wrap themselves in the mantle of “As rabbis” is obnoxious. Judaism legislates nothing about how gentile countries should handle immigration.
Donald Trump’s proposal for a temporary ban on Islamic immigration is only bizarre if your agenda is to destroy the United States of America. For those who want Americans to be safe, the proposal is common sense.
What is the immigration policy of Orthodox rabbinic groups? This is representative: “Finally, in the area of immigration, Agudath Israel urges that American borders continue to be open to Jewish and other refugees who seek to come to the United States after escaping from oppressive political environments. The United States is a nation of immigrants and has long been distinguished by its generosity toward refugees from all across the globe. It is essential that such generosity continue to be maintained in today’s era of international volatility. Agudath Israel accordingly opposes any efforts to impose caps or quotas on refugees seeking safe haven in the United States. Agudath Israel further supports the provision of welfare benefits to needy non-citizen immigrants.”
They want immigration without limit and welfare without question.
This essay isn’t really about bringing more beleaguered Christians to America. It’s about bringing more Muslims to America, people who will rape, torture and kill us until they eventually succeed in setting off a nuclear weapon and take out American cities.
Why do so many rabbis want to bring more Muslims to America? They have such an addiction to hating white Christian goyim that they don’t care about how many Jews are slaughtered in the process.
Donald Trump’s bizarre proposal to bar all Muslim immigrants from the U.S. has overshadowed a more legitimate concern regarding religion and immigration: Middle East Christians who are desperate to escape the genocidal campaign against them by Islamic State.
Islamist terror attacks like the ones in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., have underlined the need for more and better vetting of refugees from the Middle East who seek safety in the U.S. But with tens of thousands pushing at the gate, who should to get first preference?
In our view, as rabbis, any immediate admissions should focus on providing a haven for the remnants of historic Christian communities of the Middle East. Christians in Iraq and Syria have been suffering longer than other groups, and are fleeing not just for safety but because they have been targeted for extinction. In a region strewn with desperate people, their situation is even more dire. Christians (and Yazidis, ethnic Kurds who follow a pre-Islamic religion) have long been targeted by Muslim groups—not only Islamic State, or ISIS—for ethnic cleansing. Churches have been burned, priests arrested.
In the worst cases, Christians have been tortured, raped and even crucified. Mosul, Iraq, which was home to a Christian population of 35,000 a decade ago, is now empty of Christians after an ISIS ultimatum that they either convert to Islam or be executed. In Syria, Gregorios III Laham, the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch of the Church of Antioch, said in 2013 that “entire villages” have been “cleared of their Christian inhabitants.”
Unlike some others, Middle East Christians have nowhere else to go. As a result of turmoil not of their making and beyond their control, these Christians are the region’s ultimate homeless. Should some sort of peace ever return, the likelihood is that maps will be redrawn, carving up the pie among larger ethnic groups. There will be no place for Christians among hostile Muslim populations.
The animosity toward Christians is illustrated by a horrific incident earlier this year off the Italian coast. In April, Italian police investigating events on a boat that had departed from Libya said 12 Christian refugees who were attempting to cross the sea to Europe were thrown overboard by Muslim migrant passengers, and drowned.
The U.S. can do much good for Christian refugees. Their religious heritage establishes an important basis of commonality in the many Christian communities in our country.
When Secretary of State John Kerry announced in September that the U.S. will accept as many as 100,000 refugees by 2017, many of them Syrian, the State Department provided a list of more than 300 agencies in 190 locations that would assist on the local level. Of those agencies, no less than 215 are Christian. It makes sense to play to the strengths of those agencies.
Success in dealing with the first wave of immigrants will help build bipartisan support for other refugees from the Middle East to come to America.
Tragically, present policy does not take into account the uniquely precarious situation of displaced Christians. Instead of receiving priority treatment, Christians are profoundly disadvantaged. For instance, the State Department has accepted refugees primarily from lists prepared by the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees, which oversees the large camps to which refugees have flocked, and where they are registered. Yet endangered Christians do not dare enter those camps.
Notice that the rabbis say nothing about Israel needing to take in these people, only the gentile countries must feel this moral imperative.
COMMENTS POSTED AT WSJ:
* Refugees – It is hard enough for civilized people who Speak English to immigrate. Seems like the government’s reasons for admitting refugees is more for socio-political reasons than humanitarian reasons.
* Why is there so much reluctance to admit Syrian refugees? Because a large majority are Muslim and jihad is a moral obligation for every Muslim. Jihad almost always translates to some of the most inhumane and barbaric behavior ever – as exemplified by recent events in Paris and San Bernardino – with little or no outrage expressed by so called “moderate” Muslims.
My point is that would not be the case with Mideast Christians who morally, ethically, and ideologically have more in common with our western values than Muslim refugees and are even more violently treated / threatened by their mideast Muslim brothers than fellow Muslims. The deliberate persecution of Christians by Muslims should be something we, as a Christian nation, should respond to and act on.
Of course this line of reasoning would simply fall on deaf ears in Obama’s administration that is much more interested in building the dems future voting base than taking rational steps to ensure our national security or protect mideast Christians from extinction. They’d rather leave that to Slovakia that shows more courage as a nation than we do.
* All you have to do is read this:
“Donald Trump’s bizarre proposal to bar all Muslim immigrants from the U.S. has overshadowed a more legitimate concern regarding religion and immigration: Middle East Christians who are desperate to escape the genocidal campaign against them by Islamic State.”
To know that Abraham Cooper and Yitzchok Adlerstein are liars through omission.
* To be on the fair side. Should the two rabbis present the case to the Israeli government instead of that of the United States?
* “Deserve” is now politically correct newspeak. Everyone on the losing side of most every political/economic/social problem/issue is now “deserving.”
* “Deserve” infers “earn.” How does a Christian “deserve” something by the mere act of living in a location?
* What is bizarre about barring a group of people that contains a real and present threat until we can ascertain how to properly vet them? Isn’t that a) common sense and b) the position of the US government? You undermine the seriousness of your article by gratuitously smearing Trump. Maybe that’s the price of getting in the WSJ. They have had a steady campaign against Trump since he came out against open borders.
* Dear Rabbis, your opening sentence is a head scratcher because the remainder of your column lays out the argument to ban all Mohammedans from entering the U.S. This tolerance of the intolerant is simply baffling.
* Everyone got their panties in a wad over Trump’s proposed moratorium on Muslims entering the US but totally overlooked the US government’s refusal to consider mid-Eastern Christians as targets of Genocide that, among other benefits, gives them some assurance that they can reclaim their property when hostilities are ended.
But now the US government, rather than aiding the mid-Eastern Christians who are being tortured and killed, has joined with its Muslim friends in a total ethnic cleansing of Christians from the region and all we hear from the media and unfortunately, from mainstream pulpits, is silence.
Elections do have consequences.
* “Donald Trump’s bizarre proposal to bar all Muslim immigrants from the U.S.”
Keeping America safe is bizarre? Millions of Americans disagree.
* I find it very frustrating and annoying and confusing to see the same stuff over and over, and then have to change it to Most Recent constantly to find stuff.
* This is from the help pages:-
To see stories on your News Feed in the order they were posted:
Click Home in the top menu
Click next to News Feed in the left menu
Select Most Recent
Note: News Feed will eventually return to the default Top Stories setting.
Take heed of the last line. Does not matter what you do it will eventually default back to Top Stories. Facebook have what I call ‘Don’t give a shit syndrome’.
* My feed switches constantly to Top Stories and I have to turn it back to Most Recent.
I knew in the past anytime I used my smartphone to access FB it would switch over, now wondering if my phone app, since it shows a number on the desktop icon, is doing this every time it polls my page, I bet this is why, do others affected have this on a device other than a PC?
* Frustrating, mine will not even stay on “Most Recent” for an hour. Fine, but why bother to pretend you are giving us an option?!
* I had to get in the habit of checking that every single time I log on or update the newsfeed etc. FB will sneak in & change it back to the latest news if you blink.
Posted inFacebook|Comments Off on Is there a way to keep my Facebook feed on Most Recent?
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
