text:
Hobby Lobby wins, narrowly.
As you've no doubt seen, in a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court decided in favor of Hobby Lobby, which means that the company--along with other similarly structured businesses--will not have to provide its employees with coverage of contraceptives it objects to. Hobby Lobby, joined in its suit by Consetoga Wood Specialties, argued that the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. According to RFRA, in order for the government to impose a potential religious burden on a person, it must be advancing a "compelling governmental interest" and it must use "the least restrictive means" possible. The Court ruled that while providing contraception coverage to employees is a compelling interest, the mandate fails to pass the "least rectrictive means" test.
Instead, the Court held, the government could pay for contraceptives directly. Or--and this pertains to lawsuits brought by religious employeers--it "could extend the accommodation that HHS has already established for religious nonprofit organizations to non-profit employers with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate." The majority continued: "That accommodation does not impinge on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion and it still serves HHS's stated interests." Perhaps a version of that accommodation will be reworked for businesses like Hobby Lobby.
Justice Ginsburg wrote the main dissent (there were three), and she was joined by Justices Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan (in all but one part). Ginsburg criticized the majority for the "startling breadth" of its decision. The ruling means that any business "can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs," she wrote. "The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would override significant interests of the corporations' employees and covered dependents."
The ruling itself is quite narrow. First, it applies only to businesses defined by by the IRS as "closely held." Such companies have more than half the value of "outstanding stock owned...by five or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year." Second, the ruling pertains only to the contraception mandate. Employers claiming religious objections to covering, say, blood transfusions, cannot exclude such procedures from their employee health plans. Neither will racial discrimination be permitted: "The government has a compelling interest in providing equal opportunity to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on racial discrimination are precisely tailored to acheive that critical goal." As noted by SCOTUSblog, "this leaves open the question of whether the government has a similarly compelling interest in preventing discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation."
SCOTUSblog also raised two key questions not settled by the ruling: Can the Department of Health and Human Services offer closely held for-profit businesses the "accommodation" it devised for religiously affiliated employers who object to the contraception mandate? That accommodation, you'll recall, allows such organizations to exclude contraception coverage from their employee health plans, while requiring third parties to provide the coverage to employees who want it. All they need to do is self-certify that they object to covering contraception on religious grounds, and they're accommodated.
That leads to the second question: Some religious organizations (like Notre Dame) have objected that the self-certification process itself creates a substantial burden on their religious freedom--and therefore violates RFRA--because it forces them to participate in a process that leads to employees receiving contraception. Will the Supreme Court agree? Those cases haven't yet made it there. But it won't be too long now.
Update: Have a look at Mark Silk's take. The majority's suggestion that the accommodation balances the government's compelling interest with RFRA's "least restrictive" test means that "Hobby Lobby will prove to be a significant setback for the Catholic bishops and other free exercise maximalists, a good omen for contraception coverage advocates, and a fine result for those interested in a reasonable balance of the interests at hand."
About the Author
72 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
Cover contraception under medicare for anybody not eligible through insurance plans. Easy fix.
So much irony here. Most protestant churches approve of contraception. The RCC may do it. It has allowed it in the "internal forum." However hyocritically the wording is.
As Ginsburg wrote relgious organizations might opt our of a lot of laws. The For Profit companies have to pay taxes. No exemption there.
Will the principals of Hobby Lobby now certify that the reason their families do not have umpteen children is because they practice NFP.
If the governmnt wants to give people free contraceptives, the governmet should pay for it. The government doesn't have to coerce private entities into providing contraception.
I read the opinion and I think Alito handled all the objectons well and balanced the competing issues appropriately.
Under RFRA, a Government action that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise must serve a compelling government interest, and we assume that the HHS regulations satisfy this requirement. But in order for the HHS mandate to be sustained, it must also constitute the least restrictive means of serving that interest, and the mandate plainly fails that test. There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, to all FDA-approved contraceptives.
In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage. The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance coveragewithout cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage.
Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes analternative that achieves all of the Government's aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objectingparties in these cases is unlawful.
So bottom line, all the HHS has to do is make the same system that they make for non-proftis available to for profits and the situation is resolved.
I agree with Thorin. And, I think the government should pay for all medical care for people, not just for contracpetion.
PS: Cam across this interesting fact. Hobby Lobby already covers 16 of 20 contraceptives. It is only 4 that they found objetionable.
Instead, the Court held, the government could pay for contraceptives directly. Or--and this pertains to lawsuits brought by religious employeers--it "could extend the accommodation that HHS has already established for religious nonprofit organizations to non-profit employers with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate."
I believe both remedies have been floated, more than once, in various discussions we've had here at dotCom. is Justice Alito a Commonweal Catholic? :-)
Cover contraception under medicare for anybody not eligible through insurance plans. Easy fix
Hi, George, I'd think that would require a pretty substantial change to Medicare, and would also require a massive new Medicare enrollment, so I'm not sure if that's the best way to pursue it. But presumably there are a variety of ways it could be done. And I'd think that pursuing government-subsidized contraception would be a wedge issue that Democrats could use to discomfit Republicans, who would be put in the position of being pressured by part of their base to vote against it.
A friend of mine who is legally much sharper than me noted that the Court didn't particularly break any new Constitutional ground in this decision; it simply interpreted existing legislation (RFRA). His view is that, if RFRA went away somehow, the employer contraception mandate could be resurrected.
I read somewhere fairly recently that RFRA, which is not new legislation (it dates to President Clinton's first term in office), is not considered "settled legislation" by various progressive causes, and that there are court cases working their way through the various appellate processes to try to overturn it. Is anyone familiar with those cases and have a view as to what the prospects are of RFRA being overturned? I assume that, with the current Congressional configuration, legislation that would supersede RFRA isn't a realistic possibility.
Sorry, I didn't phrase that previous comment very aptly. I recognize that today's decision didn't invalidate the employer contraception mandate in its entirety, but only for a relatively narrow band of "closely held" corporations with religious objections to the mandate.
GG: "The Court ruled that while providing contraception coverage to employees is a compelling interest, the mandate fails to pass the 'least restrictive means' test."
Not so! The Court assumed but did not rule re any compelling interest for contraceptive coverage. Because the administration did not even try to show that it pursued the least restrictive means there was no need to argue whether there is a genuine compelling interest.
It's an important distinction. It's not easy to find any reasoning used by the Court when it "ruled" that providing contraceptive coverage is a compelling government interest.
Alito ... the dispute is about "the rights of women versus the rights of people." ... sigh :(
Single payer or universal medicare would obviate this problem. Amazing all the gymnastics necessary to preserve the private insurance companies and their games.
is Justice Alito a Commonweal Catholic? :-)
I don't think there are varieties of Catholics. Reading a magazine like Commonweal or belonging to a club like Opus Dei does not mark the soul.
If I were in a group making a decision about women's access to a certain type of medical care, and if every woman in that group were against me, I'd be rethinking my position.
Crystal: silly little girl, you. What makes you think that women are people?
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Alito's "theology" gets curiouser and curiouser with statements like these.
Hi Jim :) I remember worrying when Roberts was chosen by Bush, given he was a conservative Catholic and with his wife a member of the "Feminists for Life" ... it's been mostly downhill court-wise seince then.
Alito ... the dispute is about "the rights of women versus the rights of people."
Crystal, That statement is your interpretation of Alito's opinion. Your quoted statement is nowhere to be found in the actual text of the opinion he authored. In fact, when he speaks about 'rights' he is exclusively speaking about the 'rights' of the owners of Hobby Lobby as small the group of individuals which they constitute. Whereas, the 'rights of women' you quote are found only in this sentence: women (and men) have a constitutional right to obtain contraceptives, see Griswold v. Connecticut.
But, of course, this case was never about the rights of women (and men) to obtain contraception, rather it was just about who would pay for it: the user or some coerced third-party.
Here's the article in the New Yorker ... "Supreme Court Majority Calls Case A Dispute Between Women And People" ... http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/06/supreme-cou... ...
By a 5–4 vote on Monday, the United States Supreme Court settled a dispute that Justice Samuel Alito said was "at its core about the rights of women versus the rights of people." Writing for the majority, Justice Alito wrote, "It is the duty of this Court, whenever it sees that the rights of people are being threatened, to do our best to safeguard those rights. In this case, it is clear that people's rights were being threatened by women." .....
Constitutional question: I presume Marsha Coyle (hope I have her name right) will be on "The News Hour" tonight to explain it all to me in some way I can understand. I'm still not clear on why a company can decline to pay for contraception and not a blood transfusion (vaccinations, or any other medical procedures) on religious grounds. What if a closely held company had religious beliefs against having more than one child and viewed overpopulation as a sin? Could it refuse to pay maternity costs for second and subsequent pregnancies?
Religous question: I'm always stymied by suggestions here that the federal government should use taxes (which Hobby Lobby and some posting here presumably pay) to provide contraception. I know we can play theological games about degrees of collusion and culpability, but if God is going to hold feet to the fire for anyone using or providing contraception, is this ploy really going to fool him? Is there some Scriptural rule about how many degrees of separation your money has to be from the sin it effects before you can be held unaccountable? Or maybe you get to keep a certain distance between you and the flames of Perdition based on how directly culpable you were?
Crystal, what you're quoting from is satire, a la The Onion.
Andy Borowitz's self-published (eeuuuwww) e-book, "An Unexpected Twist," is #1 in Humor, etc., at Amazon (eeuuuwww).
Wasting Time ... thanks ;)
Currently, my primary concern about the ruling is that the contraception mandate is considered a burden. If having one's money pay for things that one finds objectionable an illegal burden on one's religious freedom, does all government spending have to serve a compelling interest via the least restrictive means if someone claims a religious objection?
I am not a lawyer but read the entire ruling (91 pages). I have to agree overall with the Alito side. The decision does not really impact other services like transfusions because different compelling interests could be articulated by the HHS.
Alito said that if this (contraception mandate) was so compelling then why does it not apply to employers with 25 or less employees all of whom are required to pay copays.
Plus, as mentioned before this applies to only 4 of the 20 contraceptives. Employees of both those places will still be able to receive oral contraception, iud's, etc, etc. There were just 4 that were problematic. As for a remedy, as Alito writes:
The most straightforward way of doing this would be for the Government to assume the cost of providing the fourcontraceptives at issue to any women who are unable toobtain them under their health-insurance policies due totheir employers' religious objections. This would certainlybe less restrictive of the plaintiffs' religious liberty, and HHS has not shown, see §2000bb–1(b)(2), that this is not aviable alternative. HHS has not provided any estimate of the average cost per employee of providing access to these contraceptives, two of which, according to the FDA,are designed primarily for emergency use.
So do that then!
I was perplexed that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that closely-held private corporations (those with less than 5 stakeholders) do not have to offer contraceptive coverage based on the religious beliefs of the owners. This raises questions.
With respect to the religious beliefs of small companies, why would companies with 6-10 stakeholders be treated differently than companies with 5 stakeholders? Does 100% of stakeholders have to agree? Is a majority vote sufficient criteria to determine the religious belief of the company?
Why would a closely-held corporation (with less than 5 stakeholders) have a right to opt-out of contraceptve coverage for religious reasons, and not publically-traded larger organizations? Is it because it is easier to determine the religious beliefs of a corporation with less than 5 stakeholders, than a publically traded company with millions of stockholders with mulitple religous beliefs? By proxy, large for-profit companies often seek the approval of stockholders for various changes in the company's by-laws.
George D - don't want to re-comment about the 4 contraceptives but this ruling completely ignores medical recommendations and best practices. Fact - the most effective and safest forms of contraceptives fall within that group of 4; some women are not able to use just any form of contraceptive and their only effective choice is on of the 4; these choices are not cheap....can run $1200 which is as much as some women make in a month if they are working a minimum wage job. It is really a disservice by SCOTUS to think that, just because some contraceptives are covered, then women have choices and this ruling does not penalize them.
But, granted, this ruling has nothing to do with medical science, etc.
Yes, that issue is not in dispute. At issue is who should have to assume costs for these four. And there are competing interests between religious objections and the efficacy of the medication for its intended purpose.
As I read it, under the law the HHS is supposed to find the "least restrictive means of furthering the governmetn interest". (assuming it is a compelling government interest and it is a bit difficult for the government to argue it is because it (the contraceptive mandate) is exlcuded from the subset that requries grandfathered policies to include the very provisions under consideration). So, as I understand it, the government is trying to argue that Hobby Lobby should be mandated to provide something that grandfathered plans don't have to!
The objecting parties contend that HHS has not shown that the mandate serves a compelling government interest, and it is arguable that there are features of ACA that support that view. As we have noted, many employees— those covered by grandfathered plans and those who workfor employers with fewer than 50 employees—may have nocontraceptive coverage without cost sharing at all.
HHS responds that many legal requirements haveexceptions and the existence of exceptions does not initself indicate that the principal interest served by a law is not compelling. Even a compelling interest may be outweighed in some circumstances by another even weightier consideration. In these cases, however, the interest served by one of the biggest exceptions, the exception for grandfathered plans, is simply the interest of employers in avoiding the inconvenience of amending an existing plan. Grandfathered plans are required "to comply with a subset of the Affordable Care Act's health reform provisions" that provide what HHS has described as "particularly significant protections." 75 Fed. Reg. 34540 (2010). But the contraceptive mandate is expressly excluded from this subset. Ibid.
But that aside, the least restrictive means is for the government to cover it themselves. I don't see how this is a problem. Everybody goes away with what they need.
But I don't understand the American healthcare system. It seems far more simple to have one government run insurance company paid through by taxation that provides the full range of medical care for people. If people don't want to have abortions or use certain drugs, then don't but they should be offered.
Geez - so, now the administration has to somehow pass a requirement that the government will pay for these 4 contraceptives........and does anyone really think that Congress would pass that sort of accomodation?
Congress that has to have the Hyde Amendment reinforced and redone every time this issue comes up; the least active Congress in the history of US Congresses.
Finally, it really is amusing - SCOTS says...let the government pay for it. Easy to say; difficult to make it happen.
Tremble, o ye aging men, lest some religious group discovers that Viagra conflicts with their religious freedom.
Well one thing is certain looking at the language of this ruling, the Little Sisters are facing an uphill battle in their suit and I would not be surprised if they lose 9-0. If I recall correctly, another remedy from Alito was precisely the one the government gave to non-proft religious groups. So presumably, there is not constitutional issue with that arrangement.
Services still covered by Hobby Lobby insurance:
- Male condoms
- Female condoms
- Diaphragms with spermicide
- Sponges with spermicide
- Cervical caps with spermicide
- Spermicide alone
Not provided
- Plan B ("The Morning After Pill")
- Ella (a similar type of "emergency contraception")
Both of these can be provided at emergency rooms for free or walk in clinics I would think. That leaves these two:
- Copper Intra-Uterine Device
- IUD with progestin
Opps...and these as well:
- Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin ("Combined Pill)
- Birth-control pills with progestin alone ("The Mini Pill)
- Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
- Contraceptive patches
- Contraceptive rings
- Progestin injections
- Implantable rods
- Vasectomies
- Female sterilization surgeriesFemale sterilization implants
The comparison to Viagra is telling. It is only for men.
The issue with Viagra is that it is not preventative and that was the criteria used to decide which drugs would be covered (btw Viagra is not covered under most provincial plans in Canada and so is either out of pocket or private reimbrsement). I just googled it.....not personal experience...yet...
Those who advocate that the government take over all of health care ought to take a look at the Veterans Administration hospitals. Remember, if the government runs all of health care, there will be very little recourse for problems we are reading about at the VA facilities. Sounds like a nightmare to me.
I believe the following excerpt from Justice Alito's summary of the particulars of the opinion
being discussed points to to what can reasonably be described as a near farcical lack of
common sense.
The principal argument advanced by HHS and the principal dissent regarding RFRA protection
for Hobby Lobby,Conestoga, and Mardel focuses not on the statutory term "person," but on
the phrase "exercise of religion". According to HHS and the dissent, these corporations are
not protected by RFRA because they cannot exercise religion. Neither HHS nor the dissent,
however, provides any persuasive explanation for this conclusion. Is it because of the
corporate form? The corporate form alone cannot provide the explanation because, as we
have pointed out, HHS concedes that nonprofit corporations can be protected by RFRA.
It was in point of fact Alito and friends who recently utterly redefined the term "person"
to an extent to which it no longer has reasonable ties to reality. Words are not merely toys
for debaters, particularly ones utterly disconnected from day to day reality, they are one
of the more significant and useful tools with which we move ourselves forward.
Any confusion by HHS over "for profit" vs "non-profit" organization has nothing whatever to do
with religion. The confusion exist primarily if not exclusively due to the blatantly
obvious fact most "non-profits" exist solely to serve the financial goals of "for profits"
institutions, a reality recently made likely to endure thanks to these same "Justices".
The Greens are fabulously wealthy and doing what they damn well please. And that's really
how this all came about. Is it possible to be fabulously wealthy and Christian? Now
there's a question!
I am concerned about the intimate relationship between CORPORATION and RELIGION. In the USA this is further complicated by the relationship between Corporation and State (almost synonomous these days).
I think that the common denominator is POWER.
When I was in Rome last spring a free exhibit in the Braccio di Carlo Magno museum was being advertised in St. Peter's Square. Entitled "Verbum Domini II" God's Word Goes Out to the Nations: the exhibit brings together over 200 artifacts to tell the history of the Bible across the globe.
It was a beautifully displayed depiction of the spread of Scripture (both the Old and New Testament) around the world. I loved seeing a replica of the Rosetta stone, fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the old books. What was lacking, for me, was any sense of what the heart of this message of Scripture is. Only the mission of spreading the Word, whether it be through books or digital media. NO idea of what this message is or how it is to be LIVED. As if one can read a book and "get it".
When I got home I found out that this Vatican exhibit is the private collection of the Green family, founders of Hobby Lobby. The Green Collection is the world's largest private collection of rare biblical texts and artifacts. The corporation also sponsors the Creation Museum in KY, which argues against evolution.
the most effective and safest forms of contraceptives fall within that group of 4
Actually, the only 100% effective contraceptive is not to have sex. Every other method is less effective. Its also guaranteed to prevent STDs. So that seems like the "best practice"
It was in point of fact Alito and friends who recently utterly redefined the term "person"
to an extent to which it no longer has reasonable ties to reality.
You are factually mistaken. It is actually the Dictionary Act, which is a law passed by Congress years ago, that defines person to include corporations. And this quote from Alito explains why Congress acted the way it did.
Congress provided protection for people like the Hahns and Greens by employing a familiar legal fiction: It included corporations within RFRA's definition of "persons." But it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this fiction is to provide protection for human beings. A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people (including shareholders, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people.
And he summarizes your point that corporations arent 'persons' like this:
General business corporations do not, separate and apart from the actions or belief systems of their indi vidual owners or employees, exercise religion.
To which he responds:
All of this is true—but quite beside the point. Corporations, "separate and apart from" the human beings who own, run, and are employed by them, cannot do anything at all.
Both of these can be provided at emergency rooms for free
Respectfully, are you high? You don't walk into any ER in the U.S. and get anything for free, even if you have health care insurance, and you're going to pay a walk-in fee, a doctor's fee, and the cost of the med, which will be jacked up because somebody from the pharmacy has to bring it to you, assuming they even carry it, which they might not. My guess is that this visit would cost you about $300.
You can buy a Plan B or Morning After at the pharmacy for about $50. If you have access to Planned Parenthood, you may be able to get the pill there.
Those who advocate that the government take over all of health care ought to take a look at the Veterans Administration hospitals.
That is a scary thought ... if universal health care program were modelled on VA lines, where the VA hires doctors, owns and runs hospitals and out-patient treatment centers, etc. etc. Universal health care, like Medicare, could simply pay all or part of the health care costs a patient chooses.
On persons, corporations and the RFRA, each diocese is, under that definition, a corporation. And as a corporate entity, the Vatican argues, to get away from law suits and criminal prosecutions, that they are distinct corporate entities and not subsidiaries of Vatican Inc. Talk about fictions!
The point is, the Catholic church, has for at least 1700 years saw itself as a corporate entity which is why it adopted "basilicas". Gradually civil society transferred governance of the churches to Bishops. Hence discussions around who "governs" the Church. To the extent the church is a corporate body, the contours and scope of it needs to be transparent and clear.
As for the private collection of the Green's, I do not necessarily have a huge problem with it. Artifacts and findings are frequently sold and placed under copyright infringment and protections. As long as there is access to these artificacts for research or even edification. Speaking of which, the Vatican, has not allowed public access of its library surrounding certain ecclesiastical leaders like Pius XII. Are lay Catholics not shareholders, in that sense, of the Vatican. Who owns it? Who is it accountable to? It is a distinct state but is not democratic.
Gene - Bruce's two comments can easily be fact checked (as you did) and you will arrive at the reality that nothing he said has any resemblance to factual information. (like many men, they have an opinion that they cry loudly but they don't know anything about reproduction, contraception, etc.)
His snide and sarcastic reply about the effectivenss of certain contraceptives says it all.
It really is a waste of time to comment when you are merely shooting from the hip to hear yourself talk.
Walk me through this then. An 18 year old unemployed girl parties one night following her graduation and does some things that she regrets and fears for possible pregnancy. Stressed out, she goes to emerg and explains to the er folks what happens and that she is worried about pregnancy. She DOES not want her parents to know because here will be serious repercussions. So, please, she pleads, don't run this through their insurance (under which she might be covered). They don't give her an exam, a pill, and send her on her way?? Or what if her parents are on Social Security and do not have insurance.
I seems to be that this would fall under approprate e.r. procedures for which they would just bill medicare just like they do when anybody who lacks insurance comes through the door. They are legally mandated to provide emergency services...period....Any follow up woud be different.
You ARE high!
LOL...Seriously.....Tell me this does not happen. I know for a fact that e.r. has the morning after pill that they dispense. The only question is, would this or would this not fall under what is deemed an emergency use or does she have to claim rape or coercion or something like that?
George, for the love of Pete, that is not a policy solution!
Geroge D,
The dispute is not who will pay for it but whether requiring employer-provided insurance to cover them is an illegal burden on the employer's religious freedom.
I am not saying that it is a policy solution, I have already said the policy solution was a single payer insurance system.
The policy solution can also be the arrangement the government made for non-profits to private entitites.
The policy solution can also be for HHS to cover any and all drugs that peoople who have religious reasons for objecting to under their coverage.
The LEGAL issue is that HHS did not try to find the least intrusive means. In this case, not intruding on the religious liberty of another entitity.
Bottom line, political and not legal problem.
Besides, another policy solution in the funding by tthe HHS of women health clinics to provide confidential, services to women. Funding would incude access to drugs and abortion for those who use that service. I believe these exist.
No, Ryan. The dispute is over who is going to pay for the 4 out 20 contraceptives that the insurance company provides. The Hobby Lobby said it would not pay for those 4 as they considered them abortificients and violated their conscience. Nobody said that women should not have access to them. It was who is going to have to pay. I suppose, using Catholic moral reasoning, the Green's felt that they would be materially cooperating in a sin and the Catholic church agrees so they are not out in left field. They did not see contraception quite the same way which is an interesting aside.
Walk me through this then. An 18 year old unemployed girl parties one night following her graduation and does some things that she regrets and fears for possible pregnancy. Stressed out, she goes to emerg and explains to the er folks what happens and that she is worried about pregnancy. She DOES not want her parents to know because here will be serious repercussions. So, please, she pleads, don't run this through their insurance (under which she might be covered). They don't give her an exam, a pill, and send her on her way?? Or what if her parents are on Social Security and do not have insurance.
I seems to be that this would fall under approprate e.r. procedures for which they would just bill medicare just like they do when anybody who lacks insurance comes through the door. They are legally mandated to provide emergency services...period....Any follow up woud be different.
George, sorry you seem to be getting beseiged here.
The scenario you offer is not likely to happen. In the first place, morning after pills are over-the-counter drugs in Michigan. If the condom fails during a "party" (most of these kids do NOT have unprotected sex; the dangers of STDs and pregnancy have been drilled into their heads since age 10 by parents and schools, and they can buy condoms in the local gas station restrooms for a buck), she is most likely to make her boyfriend chip in to help her buy the pill herself OTC (which she can do legally in Michigan if she is 17 or older).
If she is under 16, she is likely to tell her mom (most kids seem fairly willing to disclose this type of info to their parents) or older sister/friend, who will buy the pill for her, assuming there are no religious scruples about it. (Catholic moms, take note: Here's an area where you may want to discuss church teaching with your daughters ...)
The morning after pill is more effective the sooner after intercourse it is taken. So most girls are not going to bother trying to get in to see a doctor in the ER or to see their regular physician to get the pill. They're going to head to the nearest late-night pharmacy, or hit the pharmacy that opens soonest in the morning.
I don't know anyone who has used a morning after pill who didn't buy it OTC.
Another alternate scenario, which is more frightening and possibly involves criminal behavior, is when a lot of drinking has occurred and a girl does not remember if she has had sex or not. In this case, she may get friends to help her obtain a morning-after pill, but she may not seek medical attention to ensure that she has not contracted a disease or been injured. And the perps get off scot free.
Apologies for going off topic here.
George D,
If you go to an emergency room in the United States without insurance, you will get treated, but that treatment is not free. You will receive the bill which will only go away if you pay it or file bankruptcy.
Wow. As Johnny Carson would say, I did not know that. I came across this interesting bit from the er physicians of America:
- The most pressing economic issue in emergency medicine is uncompensated care: the lack of adequate reimbursement for emergency medical care has led to the closure of hundreds of emergency departments.
So, somewhow they are not being reimbursed adequately from medicaid or whoever. The payer system is actually contribuing to poorer health outcomes and increasing costs.
Emergency physicians continue to be concerned that payer policy jeopardizes the health of their patients. When insurance plans discourage patients from going to the emergency department, they are sending a dangerous message that patients – instead of doctors – should be diagnosing themselves. Delayed medical care often leads to much more complicated and costly medical conditions.
George D,
Who was supposed to pay for the contraceptives was clear according to the law. The dispute was over whether requiring the insurance provided by the employer was a burden to the employer's religious freedom that was illegal under the RFRA or unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Because the Court ruled against the mandate, Hobby Lobby is now able to purchase insurance that does not cover these contraceptives. Its employees may be able to obtain coverage in a manner similar to religious nonprofits, but the Court didn't require this.
I object to considering the requirement to purchase insurance that covers these contraceptives to be an illegal burden. The requirement isn't fundamentally different from paying taxes that go to fund activities that a person finds immoral, and the Court has a long precedent of finding that this isn't an infringement on one's religious liberty. If people think that buying the insurance would be immoral, their options are the same as the one's pacifists have had: structure their lives in a way that minimizes their participation in what they see as immoral and lobby the government to change its policy. This is how abortion was handled with the ACA. Many wanted to require insurance to cover abortion while many objected to government subsidies being used to buy insurance that covers abortion. Those who objected won the political fight, and exchange subsidies cannot be used to purchase a policy that covers abortion.
George D,
Medicaid only pays for people covered by Medicaid. There were programs to compensate hospitals for when the uninsured don't pay their bill, but I believe these programs were cut in the ACA because the number of uninsured would be going down. In any case, before a hospital could seek compensation from these programs, it would have to bill the patient and try collect. Only when the patient didn't pay could the hospital get compensation from the government.
I agree somewhat Ryan. But it goes to the issue of whether the insurance mandate is considered a "tax". Obama said politically it wasn't but in court argued that it was. Roberts supported the ACA on the premise that the penalty is considered a tax. I just have a hard time seeing it that way. I don't think that the government should be in the business of requiring people to buy a product that they feel they don't need. I hear the entire argument and Alito asked a good question to the government lawyer. Since we know everyone is going to die. And since we know that there are burial costs. Those burial costs might constitute an undue burden on the states so why not require everyone to purchase burial insurance. We are afterall in the funeral market as soon as we are born just like we are in the health market as soon as being born.
But govenrment should be in the business of tending to the common good and I have no problem with tax dollars being used for this purpose as opposed to ridiculous foreign entanglements where soliders are paid and the military maintains golf courses for soliders in the middle of the Afghan desert (yep relative in the military and that is what they did in spare time). Built a golf course. Great engineering feat but not sure that is the best use of tax dollars. Not anti-military just saying spending out of control.
The whole government money for abortion is a bit of a straw man anyway. Doesn't medicare cover abortion? I would be surprised if it didn't for early term anyway.
At any rate, it was poorly thought out legislation and opened up too many problems. At the end of the day, the government is going to provide health care to people one way or the other. It is like that in every single other Western democracy.
The requirement isn't fundamentally different from paying taxes that go to fund activities that a person finds immoral
I disagree. There is no moral objection to paying someone wages which they then turn around and use to buy contraceptives or for any other immoral use (buy a gun and shoot someone). That is akin to paying taxes. The moral objection comes about because the employers money is being directly used to purchase contraceptives, even though the decision is made by the employee. There is a fundamental difference between those situations. In the first, the employer completely severes control over the funds so they can be used for anything and everything; in the second he defines how the funds can be used, strictly limiting their use.
It really is a waste of time to comment when you are merely shooting from the hip to hear yourself talk.
Hey Bill,
I agree. I happy to correct any error I made. I hope you enjoy the hunt.
Bruce - you continue your dribble as you state: "The moral objection comes about because the employers money is being directly used to purchase contraceptives, even though the decision is made by the employee."
Really - let's see; I work for a Fortune 1000 corporation that pays me a salary that also includes medical coverage. That coverage is paid for by both the employer's contribution and by my premium payments every pay day.
Medical coverage is just that - medical coverage. That coverage may or may not be used to pay for prescirptions, check ups, illness, pain, cancer, kidney stones, contraceptives. If it is used to pay for any of the aforementioned procedures to address these potential conditions, the employer has nothing to say about it and it is not an employer decision. The employer merely provides medical plans that an employee can opt for - usually the employer pays a portion of the plan expense as does the employee.
But, decisions such as purchasing contraceptives, visiting the ER, etc. are NOT employer decisions NOR is the employer money being used DIRECTLY to purchase these medical services. The employer's money is used to purchase a plan only - what the plan is used for, etc. is an employee choice (it is NOT a direct use of employer's money).
Any good catholic moral theologian can easily explain to you, Bruce, that this is not immediate or formal participation in evil by an employer (if you think that contraception is evil). This, in fact, is another argument against the whole Becket Fund and certain USCCB bishops who conflate the use of medical insurance plans and what a covered individual may or may not decide to do with the insurance plan.
Bruce - your earlier citation/comment is actually borrowed from this column (which you did not give any attribution to, of course):
This is a legal interpretation - that is all; it is an opinion that may or may not be correct. It is not FACT (which is what I stated above).
To argue that this SCOTUS decision is merely an application of Congress's Dictionary Act is really a stretch.......this decision (once SCOTUS gave specific family owned businesses religious freedom rights) hinged on the clause concerning whether the government could impose this burden or if there were less burdensome methods - thus, SCOTUS ruled that there are less burdensome methods (we will see if this is workable - doubt that insurars will agree to the solution that the administration used to cover contraception for religious charities, social agencies, etc. and really doubt that Congress would agree to pass a law that has the government pay for these contraceptives (geez, that would be like a single payer system for contraceptives).
George D,
The question of whether something is a good policy is different from the question something is a constitutional policy. For the most part, courts are supposed to be concerned about the latter. If Congress does something stupid, it is the responsibility of Congress to fix it.
The federal government is prohibited from covering abortion. State governments are allowed to cover abortion under Medicaid, but the cost of that coverage must be paid entirely by them.
This is better than anything Bruce comes up with:
Says it all. Guess SCOTUS going forward will decide whose *biblical principles* are legal and accepted; and which ones aren't. Should get interesting.
Regarding the decision itself: I've seen one or two news reports that note that the implications of the decision could be more far-ranging than the topic of contraception. But I haven't seen any examples of what those implications could be. Does anybody know what else this decision might enable?
Aren't we getting sidetracked by saying that Holly Body covers contraception but just objects to the coverage for four items? Isn't the real issue that an employer does not have to right to decide what is covered in their employess packages. Or is this too simple. Alito sounds good. But why do people or the govt. have to provide by other means.
It seems like really bad law and the beginning of a lot of useless suits.
Bruce - you continue your dribble as you state...
Hey Bill, my favorite sport actually was Basketball.
Bruce - your earlier citation/comment is actually borrowed from this column (which you did not give any attribution to, of course):
But I actually didnt borrow from that article. Haven't been to the Forbes website in years. All of my quotes were from the actual Supreme Court Opinion which is located here.
Sorry that I confused you.
Jim Pauwels,
It's hard to say. Alito insists that it doesn't apply anything an employer cares to object to, but he doesn't provide any standard that would allow lower courts to make such a distinction.
In the final analysis this is a partisan decision. The legal niceties are contrived. It has nothing to do with religion. It shows that too many religious advocate use laws rather than persuasion to influence people. If the democrats get this across they may have a spectacular victory at the polls. I believe this will be spearheaded by women.
Hobby Lobby wins narrowly.
Their female employees lose broadly.
George D: if her parents are on Social Security, they will automatically have Medicare A (for which there is no charge) and most likely, Medicare B (for which they have to pay). However, their children are not covered by it, only the individual SS recipient. The only exception would be if the child is permanently disabled and eligible in her/his own right, irrespective of age. I had a mentally handicapped sister whose medical coverage for virtually all of her life was provided by disability SS.
It's amazing that vasectomies have escaped the scrutiny of the Theocratic Police. The result of that little pinking shears activity is a permanent prevention of pregnancy (unless the guy's wife/etc. is playing around ... of course, that wouldn't happen) and most certainly as egregious as abortion. Or is it just OK because, wink, wink, it is a male thing?
Us intrinsically disordered types sure can learn a lot from the proponents of Traditional Marriage. Yes, indeedy!
"Hobby Lobby is Only the Beginning"
Bruce stated: " … in the second he defines how the funds can be used, strictly limiting their use."
I was a Benefits Manager for many years in a variety of different companies, and we ALWAYS, as did virtually all companies that I ever heard about, sold the cost of providing benefits as part of the employee's total compensation package.
No company can tell employees where they can and cannot go on company-paid vacations, or on paid national holidays.
No company can tell employees how and where they can retire on their company-paid pension benefits, just when.
No company can tell employees into which of the employer-enumerated 401k investment options that the employee could invest their monies in order to enjoy the company matching contributions. (I know of no 401k plan that has investment options that are not eligible for company-matching contributions, but things may have changed in the last 10 years.)
Why, then, should companies get away with telling employees how to spend health care benefits dollars, the cost of which is usually (but not always, i.e., many unionized situations) shared albeit unequally between employer and employee?
The Supreme Court said that Bush v. Gore is not to be cited as precedent in any later cases.
Roberts found the Affordable Care Act constitutional because a mandate is the same as a tax.
Alito said that the Hobby Lobby ruling applies only to these particular plaintiffs.
Translation: Don't ask us how we arrived at our decisions, because we're making things up as we go along and we CAN'T explain them.
For the record, my husband and I once had to declare bankruptcy because of medical bills our insurance company refused to pay; we're now on Medicare; and we think Obamacare is fine as far as it goes, but we favor Medicare for all.
"It's amazing that vasectomies have escaped the scrutiny of the Theocratic Police. The result of that little pinking shears activity is a permanent prevention of pregnancy (unless the guy's wife/etc. is playing around...of course that wouldn't happen) and most certainly as egregious as abortion. Or is it just OK because, wink, wink, it is a male thing?"
My understanding of this ruling is that the contraceptive methods which won't be covered were objected to because of their possible abortifacient effects (whether all of them actually are abortifacient is a question for another day). There is no way that vasectomy could be abortifacient by any definition. Same thing with tubal ligation. I have not heard that tubal ligation was excluded from coverage, either. As far as vasectomy/ tubal ligation being as egregious as abortion, I'm prettty sure even the Church doesn't go that far; they still consider it a sin, but not killing. Just a little quibble of mine, because so- called sterilization is frequently lumped in with abortion as far as degree of wickedness. Actually both vasectomy and tubal ligation are permanent barrier methods which are objected to by the Church because they are contraceptive rather than abortifacient.


text:
We appreciate you taking the time to help us.
Get ready for the day ahead with a quick stopover in our London Heathrow Terminal 5 Arrivals lounge. Freshen up with a shower or help yourself to a snack or refreshments before continuing with your day.
The Arrivals lounge is exclusive to you if you have travelled in First or Club World, or are a Gold Executive Club Member, arriving on a British Airways longhaul flight. Capacity restrictions apply so we cannot allow you to bring guests into these lounges.
Customers arriving at Terminal 3 can reach the lounge by following signs for the Heathrow Express. Trains are free for travel between Heathrow Central station (Terminals 2 and 3) and Terminal 5 with trains running every 15 minutes.
We apologise for any inconvenience while the American Airlines Arrivals lounge at Terminal 3 is closed for refurbishment.
Want to treat yourself after a long flight? Visit our Elemis Travel Spa in the Arrivals lounge at Heathrow Terminal 5. Choose from a range of treatments including a First Class Power Shave for men or a Sky High Brow Shape.
Use of all facilities is subject to availability.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Event date
Full Address
9136 E. 31 St., Briar Village Shopping Center, Tulsa, OK 74145
Tulsa Genealogical Society
Free Donations Appreciated
Contact Email
Contact Phone Number
"Life Between the Dashes and Find A Grave" Speaker: Carolyn B. Leonard, author and former rural newspaper editor. Her latest non-fiction book, "Who's Your Daddy?" will be available for purchase. Hospitality: 6:30pm. Meetings are free and open to the public. TGS is a non profit organization. Donations appreciated. Visit TGS web site www.tulsaglenealogy.org.


text:
Filed Under (Toyota) by admin on 31-01-2011
hinges at the top of the mirror. Carefully pull at the bottom of the mirror until it unsnaps from the mirror mount. Tilt and lift the mirror out of the mirror housing. of the mirror. The heater wires are interchangeable. the bottom of the mirror sail. Separate the mirror housing from the mirror sail. 5 Unwrap the tape at the end of the mirror wire harness (seals it to the rubber sail gasket). This is required because the Signal® mirror wire will run through the rubber sail gasket in the same location. Pull away the rubber gasket from around the mirror sail. Remove the white plastic strain relief tab. Using the shorter of the two wire harnesses from the kit and starting from the inside of the mirror housing, route the wire through the mirror housing. You may need to use gopher wire to route the wire. Mirror Replacement Continued 8 9 Following along the existing factory wire, route the new wire through the mirror sail. Leave about 4 inches of wire in the mirror housing. Assemble the mirror housing and mirror. Replace the rubber gasket on the mirror sail. Remove any slack in the wire. Replace the strain relief tab. Connect the Signal® mirror mating connector to the Signal® mirror wire harness. If heated, connect the factory heater wires to the heater terminals on the Signal® mirror. NOTE: There is no polarity so the wires may be interchanged. 10 11 Tuck the wire harness behind the Signal® mirror. Align the hinges in the top of the mirror mount. Tilt the Signal® mirror down on the mirror mount. Press down on the bottom of the Signal® mirror until it snaps into position. Press down on all sides of the Signal® mirror to ensure proper operation.


text:
What are some words commonly mispronounced? (Not by elision/reduction (like ה׳→אדְני) or assimilation (like תזכרו→תשׂכרו), but rather words that are pronounced wrong simply because that's how people think they should be pronounced.) I'm excluding from this request errors in stress (emphasis), as those are, alas, too numerous to list. I'm including, however, words mispronounced in a person's own dialect (הברה), though others would consider them correctly pronounced. And I mean any "Jewish" word: a word relevant to, and mispronounced in, Jewish life, be it Hebrew, Yiddish, Aramaic, or other.
Sign up
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
closed as not a real question by msh210♦ Feb 5 '12 at 16:38
It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
A real big one: אלוה (with a patach under the hei) - many people pronounce it: elohah, while the correct pronounciation is eloah (like noach, and not nocha).
Many, many kids when singing birkat hamazon out loud:
G-d feeds us so He can then eat us up?
Instead of:
The problem is the standard "benching tune" tends to push this one.
Often the problem is we see a familiar-looking word and our brains assume it's the word we know, rather than sounding it out carefully as it may be slightly different. E.g. a word that looks just like "edosav" but is actually "edvosav."
The best example that I know of, though, is when the Chazzan takes the Torah back on shabbos; the congregation chimes in with "Hodo al eretz v'shamayim"; "His glory is on the earth and heavens ...". Unfortunately the word "hodo" is less common in our prayers than the word "hodu", give thanks; I usually hear about half the shul saying that. (Maybe it's just my hearing?)
Then there's the fellow who would do Psukei D'Zimra every day and say "v'yimalei ch'vodEE es kol haaretz, amen v'amen." ("may His glory fill the Earth" -- just with my instead of His.) Heh.
"zecher lemaase bereshit" in the "magen avot" of shabbos, should be "zecher lemaase vereshit"
ספר ישׁעיה פרק מ פסוּק לא וְקוֹיֵ ד' יַחֲלִיפוּ כֹחַ is often mispronounced as וְקוֹוֵי ד' יַחֲלִיפוּ כֹחַ
One that I notice a lot is v'taher libeinu l'avd'cha (to your servant) instead of l'ovd'cha (to serve you).
There's also a bunch in "yeshivish dialect" that are to numerous to count (lichora, b'dieved, machmas, etc.)
"Rebbe" (or "Rebbi") is one. Depending on who you ask, the proper form is either רַבִּי (Ashkenazic), רִבִּי (Sephardic), or רְבִי (R' Yaakov Emden).
Has anybody else noticed that many people attempting to sound "Israeli" or "Sephardi" often pronounce a Kametz as a Pata*h even when it is supposed to be pronounced as a Kametz Katon?
Worst examples are: "Kal" instead of "Kol" - I mean, come on, couldn't they at least pronounce it like Ashkenazim and say "Kawl"?
"Karban" instead of "Korban" - I have not heard many people make this mistake, but I have heard it a handful of times. It makes me cringe.
"Le'Avdecha" instead of "Le'Ovdecha". :(
"Kadshecha" instead of "Kodshecha". This one actually makes me want to cry.
I'll start off with two:
In the Shabbos Davening there is often the word Shabbas which is mispronounced as Shabbos. For example באהבה וברצון שבת קדשך
Not sure if I should add another answer for this (or append to above ^^^)
Yontiff - as opposed to Yom Tov
Yeshivish types are trending from a-doinoi to a-dunoi to a-deenoi.
I always cringe when someone replaces the "Ve" ("and"/flip to future) before a verb with the "Va" ("and"/flip to past) they're expecting.
One example of something similar: In Havdala (words are from Esther, but ba'alei keriya are less likely to make this mistake), saying "... vesasson vayekar" instead of "... vesasson vikar."
Perhaps it's my imagination, but I seem to hear people singing v'nahapoch hu (instead of v'nahafoch hu).
The names of some letters of the alef-beis are commonly mispronounced, at least by Ashkenazim:
ב - with final /z/ rather than /s/
The second pasuk in Sh'ma: ואהבת את ה' אל-היך... V'a-hav-ta should be pronounced mil'ra, not the almost universal "V'a-hav-ta". This is serious, because it actually changes the meaning - it should mean "and you shall love Hashem your G-d", whereas the mispronunciation renders it "and you loved Hashem your G-d". Reference: Rabbi Phil Chernofsky of Torah Tidbits.
In Kaddish,
יהא שמה רבא מברך (Y'he sh'meh rabba m'varach)
is frequently mispronounced
יהא שמה רבא מבורך (Y'he sh'meh rabba m'vorach)
switching the kamatz for a cholam in "m'varach."
(In Ashkenazi pronunciation, I also hear "m'voirach" instead of "m'vorach." Drives me crazy!)
There is a phrase in the haftarah rani v' simchi [Zech. 3:7] וְנָתַתִּי לְךָ מַהְלְכִים, בֵּין הָעֹמְדִים הָאֵלֶּה (MAHL'CHIM) that for a couple of years in a row I have heard MEHALCHIM. Though I daven where they lein from klaf, so I don't know if that counts.
Also words with an prefixed bes, kaf, or lamed with a patach (meaning "in the" or the like) pronounced with a sh'va (meaning "in" or the like), like nogea b'davar.
Also l'y'rushalayim (instead of lirushalayim) and similar: prefixed vav, kaf, lamed, or bes followed by a yod with a sh'va pronounced as two sh'vas rather than as a chirik.
"דּוֹר לְדוֹר יְשַׁתַּבַּח מַעֲשֶֽׂיךָ" instead of "דּוֹר לְדוֹר יְשַׁבַּח מַעֲשֶֽׂיךָ" in אַשְׁרֵי "
כִּי גָז חִישׁ וְנָּעֻֽפָה instead of "כִּי גָז חִישׁ וַנָּעֻֽפָה" in תְּפִלָּה לְמֹשֶׁה in psukei dzimra of Shabbos.
"נְרַנְּנָה בִּישׁוּעָתֶֽךָ, וּבְשֵׁם אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ נִגְדֹּל" instead of נְרַנְּנָה בִּישׁוּעָתֶֽךָ, וּבְשֵׁם אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ נִדְגֹּל in לַמְנַצֵּֽחַ at the end of shaharis weekday.
"וְאוֹמְרִים פְּעָמִים בְּכָל יוֹם" as opposed to וְאוֹמְרִים פַּעֲמַֽיִם בְּכָל יוֹם before korbanos everyday.
וָאֲהַלְלָה instead of וַאֲהַלְלָה in אַשְׁרֵי
חַלָּמִישׁ לְמַיְינוֹ מָֽיִם instead of חַלָּמִישׁ לְמַעְיְנוֹ מָֽיִם in הלל
וָאַשַׁלֵשׁ instead of וַאַשַׁלֵשׁ in רבוֹן כל העלמים said Friday night before אשׁת חיל.
Instead of כִּי כָּל אֱלֹהֵי הָעַמִּים אֱלִילִים I hear some people constantly say כִּי כָּל אֱלֹהֵי הָעַמִּים אֱלֹהִים in hodu of psukei dzimrah!
Even worse... וַיִרְאוּ הָעָם אֶת ד instead of וַיִּירְאוּ הָעָם אֶת ד!
and for now last but certainly not least one of my all-time favorites...
Instead of וּבָרֵךְ שְׁנָתֵֽנוּ כַּשָּׁנִים הַטּוֹבוֹת one guy I hear all the time says וּבָרֵךְ שְׁנָתֵֽנוּ כַּנָּשִׁים הַטּוֹבוֹת!
I have many more and can go on and on and on...
bruchta, when people should say baruch ata H'
Often adopted by kids, or others who sing birkas hamazon emphatically. . .
as the last line, instead of
עֲרָכִין (the מסכת's name).
Bitya Bat Par'o instead of the common mistake of Batya.
Da-ni-yel instead of da-ni-el
ברוך הוא אלוהינו שבראנו לכבודו should be pronounce sheb'ra'anu (that He created us) and not she'baranu (that we created)
and a biggie. people say Ha'shem (with segol) instead of Ha'sheim (with a tzerei) causing a subtle but fundamental difference in connotation between it sounding like a personification of a person's name (Hashem said this and Hashem did that) versus the way it should be taken, a non-physical third-person entity: THE NAME.
It drives me crazy when feminine nouns ending in a "saf" are pluralized into male form e.g. "tallis" => "talleisim" (should be "tallisos"), "shabbos" => "shabbosim" (shabbasos), "machlokes" => "machlokesim" (machlokos), and of course the most ironic "ta'us" = "ta'usim" (ta'uyos)!
Jastrow notes that מחמת is actually מֵחַמַּת (mechamas) and widely mispronounced. (Thanks to R' Micha Berger for finding this confirmation of my suspicion.)
What about Shkoiach versus Yiyashar kochacho


text: I can't comment on the "why's", but I used John Millard's swish-cgi.pl program that I got from the download site, with great success for a "simple" program, and it uses POST. Rich > I am using both Swish-e and Swish++, and both are up and running great. But > I am > just curious that the perl programs distributed with them used Method="GET." > When I run the scripts, all I get is the actual text of the perl script > rather than the search results. Does this ring a bell with anyone? I'm > using Method=Post instead, but would like to know why Method="GET" gets the > perl text instead of the results.Received on Wed Aug 11 07:48:15 1999


text:
I´m trying to follow one of the very detailed RSA Proofs given by di-mgt: "RSA theory", but unfortunately I stuck at the beginning of solution (chapter 3).
I don´t understand where the second part of (8) is coming from:
$RsaPrivate(RsaPublic(m))\ =\ (m^e\ mod\ n)^d\ mod\ n\ =\ m^{ed}\ mod\ n$
How is it reduced? Where can I find this rule?


text:
I have an old amp which is beginning to show wear and scratches on its RCA ports. However, alcohol, water, and a simple cloth dont work and cannot remove the grime on the ports. What is the best substance to use to clean the ports without damaging the amp?
migrated from video.stackexchange.com Feb 13 '14 at 14:18
This question came from our site for engineers, producers, editors, and enthusiasts spanning the fields of video, and media creation.
I've always found a contact cleaner, such as plastic-safe DeoxIT, works wonders for these types of connections. I normally spritz some on the plug itself, then work the plug in and out of the port a few times, spritz again, remove excess, plug in and go.


text:
This item has been in the "check back soon" category for a long while now, and personally, I am very eager to get it. Handholding the pole against even a light wind made this "test" HDR pano very difficult (as seen by the stitching errors). The original intention was to extend the pole even higher, and I think a solid tripod and adapter would help here! :001_smile:
Anyone else eager for this adapter?


text:
The Federal Government's Real – but Very Dangerous and Limited – Role in Confronting Bullying and Harassment
The federal government does have, and should use, authority to enforce equal protection under the law against violence and harassment, testifies Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, but has in recent years interpreted this authority so broadly it has begun to infringe upon equal protection by favoring specific groups and types of speech. The government should eliminate laws that offer protection based on group identity and give all individuals routes to seek relief against unequal protection by school authorities, he writes. Ultimately, the best solution will be eliminating government schools in favor of a system where parents control education funds and have freedom to attend or leave schools that do not suit them.


text:
I have a db-driven application that needs to communicate with another server via ssh. The web app can generate a keypair and give the user the pubkey, or it can accept the unencrypted private key in a field on a web form. It then encrypts the key with reversible encryption and stores it in its database.
When the web app goes to communicate with the ssh server, I need to unencrypt the private key and provide it to ssh some way or another. I could create a secure temporary file with
mktemp, point ssh at it, and then destroy the file, but that's extra work that exposes the key in a new way that seems like it shouldn't be necessary. I've looked at
man ssh,
man ssh-agent and
man ssh-add, but there doesn't seem to be any way to use the key without adding it to a file first. What am I missing?


text:
Carol Tapp took this photo of a butterfly east of Bartlesville recently. If you have a photograph you'd like to see in print, send it to firstname.lastname@example.com. Please include photographer's name and city of residence. The Examiner-Enterprise will publish reader-submitted feature-type photos such as landscapes, wildlife, pets, kids or local events.
Your shot
Rules for posting comments
Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Stephens Media LLC or this newspaper. This is a public forum.
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content but the newspaper is under no obligation to do so. Comment posters are solely responsible under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted on this Web site. Stephens Media LLC is not liable for messages from third parties.
IP and email addresses of persons who post are not treated as confidential records and will be disclosed in response to valid legal process.
Do not post:
- Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
- Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
- Copyrighted materials of any sort without the express permission of the copyright holder.
- Personal attacks, insults or threats.
- The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
- Comments unrelated to the story.
If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon below the comment.


text:
24 Jan 2012 8:44 AM #1
sencha io messages
I am playing around with the idea of adding an anonymous chat to my sencha touch app.
my requirements are very simple:
-single chat room for everyone
-user publishes message to everyone (pub/sub only)
-no need for user authentication - users are anonymous
I just want to know if sencha io is a good place for such an implementation. as its an anonymous chat, I only need a single user that probably everyone will use, only one queue, etc...
am I right here?
also, I ado I even need a user/user group/app/app version etc? i only need a queue for my app that everyone can connect to. I definetly don't want users to log in with credentials to use this feature (cause they'll simply not use it)
thanks in advance.
24 Jan 2012 9:01 AM #2
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Gainesville, FL
- Posts
- 39,174
- Vote Rating
- 1258
The issue I see with only having one user is how do you know what message belongs to what client user?Mitchell Simoens @LikelyMitch
Sencha Inc, Senior Software Engineer
Check out my GitHub, lots of nice things for Ext JS 4 and Sencha Touch 2
Think my support is good? Get more personalized support via a support subscription. https://www.sencha.com/store/
Need more help with your app? Hire Sencha Services email@example.com
Want to learn Sencha Touch 2? Check out Sencha Touch in Action that is in print!
When posting code, please use BBCode's CODE tags.
24 Jan 2012 10:46 AM #3
valid point
I am not sure cause i dont really now the api yet...
Assuming i dont care where the message came from i guess it can work?
Also, assuming i already manage users in a db for my non sencha desktop website, what is the best practice here? Can i map user auth to my db? Or do i need to port all my users to sencha login?
24 Jan 2012 4:41 PM #4
Yes, SIO does support anonymous messaging.
You can create a named queue and pass all your messages through that.
No need for any user authentication.
The message you send would be:
{from:'john',message:'yes anon msg wks!'}
Then you can use the from as the label in your chat widget.
John: yes anon msg wks!
You can send whatever you want through. It's a simple JS object that's turned into a JSON for transmission.


text:
| Romanow, Stephany, Hydrocarbon Processing Staff, Houston, TX
[clean fuels]
[low sulfur fuels]
[fuels specificals]
[chemical grade]
[refinery grade]
The quality of transportation fuels has evolved. Earlier,
the fuel quality was based on octane to power larger engines
for automobiles and cetane for commercial trucks. As lead was
phased out of gasoline, new compounds, such as oxygenates, were
added to retain the power needed for gasoline engines.
To continue reading please, log in to hydrocarbonprocessing.com.
Subscribe now for premium access and unlimited access to the site, including archived articles and the process handbooks. Start a free trial to gain access to articles from the current issue of Hydrocarbon Processing.
Subscribe today and gain unlimited and immediate access to the site. Plus, you'll receive the next 12 issues of the magazine in your choice of print or digital format. Start your subscription today.
Start a free trial and gain immediate access to the current issue of the magazine plus additional, select content.
30 Day Trial
Sign-up for the Free Daily HP Enewsletter!
A searchable database of project activity in the global hydrocarbon processing industry
Engineers and designers are highly skilled individuals. Forcing them to enter design changes using tables, forms and spreadsheets is unproductive and uneconomical, and it increases the likelihood of human error—this is the way that most instrumentation software systems currently work. For too long, software vendors have denied engineers and designers the simple practicality of a graphical visual engineering interface with "drag and drop" capability and inbuilt intelligence, ensuring changes are automatically replicated into all the associated data and databases.
Is 2016 the peak for US gasoline demand?
Too soon to tell
July 2016


text:
Knit Rabbit Hat
Product Actions
Oeuf has partnered with indigenous women in self-managed communities to create this unique handcrafted collection. In line with Fair Trade principles, these artisans are paid a living wage which enables them to afford healthcare and education for their children.
Super-soft, hypoallergenic baby alpaca wool pull-over hat. Floppy bunny ears add to the 'aww'.
Need Help? Have Questions? Contact Us.
Please call 1.888.222.7639 to speak with a Customer Service Representative.
We're here to help you:
Monday - Friday, 9 AM - 9 PM (ET)
Saturday - Sunday, 10:30 AM - 7 PM (ET)
If you prefer email, we can be reached anytime at email@example.com.
Free Shipping & Returns on all U.S. Orders. See Details.


text:
Down, Soft, Stomach Sleeper, Supreme Pillows
Overview & Details
- Soft down pillow perfect for stomach sleepers.
- The soft support pillow cushions the head and neck at a comfortable angle and prevents an unnatural turning to either side.
- Pillow filled with our 600 fill power white goose down.
- Pillow features soft and smooth 300-thread count cotton sateen cover.
- Also available: firm down pillow for side sleepers and the medium down pillow for back sleepers.
- Made in La Crosse, Wisconsin of fine imported materials.
- All pillows are available in standard, queen, and king size.
- Extend the life of your pillows with our pillow protectors.
Stomach sleepers rejoice! Our luxurious soft down pillow features sumptuously soft and perfectly plump 600 fill power white goose down for an incredible night's sleep. An ideal pillow for stomach sleepers, this soft down pillow cushions the head and neck at a comfortable angle and prevents an unnatural turning to either side. Say goodbye to morning aches and restless nights with this down pillow favorite. Our soft down pillows will meet the needs of even the pickiest stomach sleeper—you'll wake up feeling rested, refreshed and ready to start your day. Update every bed in your home with this soft down pillow favorite.
Covered in a soft and smooth 300-thread count cotton sateen cover, our essential soft down pillows keep softness right at the surface. Exclusively ours, you'll only find this 600 fill power white goose down pillow at The Company Store®. Extend the life of your soft down pillow by pairing it with a pillow protector, sold separately.
Lifetime Guarantee
All products manufactured in our La Crosse, WI factory are covered by our Lifetime Guarantee, and may be returned at any time. We will gladly offer you an exchange, merchandise credit towards a new product, or gift card (excluding delivery fees).
Look for this symbol throughout the catalog and website, which indicates the product carries a Lifetime Guarantee.


text:
Detail Images
Current Color
Free 2-Day shipping on orders over $50*
Select your style & size:Select options
1 Review
For extreme conditions.
Princeton Tec designed its Apex Extreme Headlamp to survive in cold temperatures so you can climb, backpack, hike, or explore in extreme conditions with a dependable light source. One Maxbright LED and four Ultrabright LEDs give this headlamp 260 lumens that can shine your way as far as 393 feet, and for up to 200 hours (depending on the modes you use). These five lights offer five different modes (high and low with the Maxbright, and high, low, and flash with the Ultrabrights) to give you an ideal amount of light. You can stash eight AA batteries (included) in the separate storage compartment and drop it in your jacket to keep them warm when the temps really start to drop. An over-the-top headband keeps the lamp in place when you cycle over rocky terrain or take a whipper on your night climb.
- 1 Maxbright LED
- 4 Ultrabright LEDs
- 393 ft. distance
- 5 modes
- 8 AA batteries (included) in remote compartment
- Over the top headband
- Item #PRT000E
Tech Specs
Tech Specs
- Reviews
What do you think about this product?
Have questions about this product?
Light up the night!
- Familiarity: I've put it through the wringer
Super bright, and long lasting!
I have this light rigged to mount on the front of my mountain/touring bikes. The 275 lumens are excellent at lighting up the trails and revealing everything in my path.
It's also got a great water resistant casing so you don't have to put away the light just because of inclement weather.
And it's large buttons make it easy to use when sporting large gloves or mitts.


text:
Goal.com cartoonist Omar Momani gives us his unique take on the football news of the dayThe race for Pep Guardiola's signature has well and truly begun. The former Barcelona manager revealed he will return to management this summer after a year's sabbatical, prompting Europe's biggest clubs into a scramble for his services.
While reports that Guardiola has agreed to manage Bayern Munich are wide of the mark, meetings have taken place between both parties, with 'FC Hollywood' ready to move mountains to land the man they think will take them back to the top of Europe.
The 41-year-old could perhaps link up with old Camp Nou colleagues Ferran Soriano and Txiki Begiristain at Manchester City after revealing his wish to manage in the Premier League.
Or he could be the man to finally take over the reins at Manchester United, with Sir Alex Ferguson himself hinting the Spaniard could be the man to fill his shoes.
|Guardiola tries London, Manchester & Munich on for size


text:
Is it a high time that we need to impart the young Christians (children) a comprehensive knowledge of all the doctrines of Christianity, or do we tend to raise them as unconvinced Christians susceptible to falter in their faith?
When a child with an analyzing mind is made to follow a Christian religion but is not made aware of the profound facts about the various beliefs/doctrines of the religion during the catechism classes, he tends to become an unconvinced Christian. When he starts seeking answers to these unconvinced claims from whichever source he finds, he is faced with answers, which sometimes are diametrically opposite to each other, answers that are in confirmation of his belief as well as against it. In absence of right guidance at the time of his growth, some of these young Christians end up in accepting those answers are against the Christian teachings.
Does the Church in general need to revisit and revise its strategy of adapting to the changed world and change the techniques, to ensure the maintenance of the faith in economically advanced countries?
Sign up
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
Does the Church in general need to revisit and revise its strategy in maintaining the faith? [closed]
Is it a high time that we need to impart the young Christians (children) a comprehensive knowledge of all the doctrines of Christianity, or do we tend to raise them as unconvinced Christians susceptible to falter in their faith?
closed as not constructive by warren, Caleb♦ Aug 4 '12 at 9:29
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
In considering the causes of the lack of in-depth doctrinal and apologetic instruction provided to Christian youth, we might do well to consider the extent to which many, if not the majority of adults who self-identify as Christian are equally untaught.
Some of us are called to in-depth study of the bible; some of us are naturally drawn to a comprehensive study of world religions; some of us are fascinated by human nature, and see the study of religion as providing key historical insights into how the human mind and personality work.
I suspect, however, that the majority of people around the world see the pursuit of entertainment as a more effective use of their spare time, as a way to relax from the stress of life. Add the fact that religious study is -- as with study of most topics -- necessarily academic, and regarded by many as "dry," "stuffy," and even "boring," and one can see how religious study can only be "exciting" to those with a particular way of looking at the world.
This is not to provide an excuse for lack of religious ferver, but simply to acknowledge what, to one way of thinking, is the actual state of things for many.
With reference specifically to Christianity, many would agree heartily with criticism of the instructional methods, or lack thereof, used in many denominations. For example, critical analysis of what is often called the "emergent/emerging church movement" will sometimes describe lack of effective religious instruction as a causal factor in the formation of many of the beliefs espoused by some within the "movement."
All of that being said, I know of no effective ways of resolving the situation. The lack of effective religious instruction of youth can be traced to the lack of effective religious understand in many adults, and is the lack of effective religious understanding in many adults a symptom of anything other than tepid faith -- that is, one that does not present an overwhelming desire to know God, and to love God with all of one's heart, soul, strength, and mind? Exhortation to a more consuming faith, as an attempt to counter lack of religious ferver, is, after all, among the central topics addressed in scripture.


text:
You are visiting our UK site. Click here to view our US site
Il Hwa Korean Ginseng Capsules 500mg x 100 (HWA021)
Each capsule contains 500mg of fine ginseng powder. Each box contains 100 capsules.
Directions of use:
Take two or more capsules with water when desired.
Weight (including packaging): 250g
6 in stock
Now: £21.99 (zero tax)
Was: £25.54
Save: £3.55
Saved: 13.90%!
Save: £3.55
Saved: 13.90%!
Customer Reviews
There are currently no reviews for this product. Be the first!Review this product...
Subscribe To CMT
Shopping Basket
Your basket is empty!
Change Language
Change Currency
Events Calendar
Qigong for Self-Healing with Daverick Leggett (Saturday 15th October)
The focus of the day will be self healing through the practice of Qigong. [more]
Working with Excess- TCM Nutrition with Daverick Leggett (Friday 14th October)
Many,or perhaps all, chronic conditions have an underlying deficiency at their root [more]


text:
7 Popular 'Chick Flicks' That Secretly Hate Women
#3. The Women
A very lionish Meg Ryan discovers her husband is having an affair with a very hot Eva Mendes. She kicks him out and embarks on an inward journey of self discovery. One where she literally creates a dream board with the words "WHO ARE YOU?" emblazoned on it. Written by, produced by and starring only women, this movie should have been a two-hour Tampax commercial filled with empowered, complex ladies horseback riding and shit.
And How Does This Hate Women?
Name five cliches Hollywood gives its female characters. Got them? Now look at the picture below:
They're all there, aren't they? We've got your sassy black girlfriend; ditzy but lovable earth mother; childless career lady; hot ethnic stereotype. And in the middle of it all is the muddle-headed former America's sweetheart who should've known better than to put her trust in a script that caricatured women so bluntly. And don't think for one second that the cliches were subtle.
In spite of an all female cast, the women in this movie are essentially playthings in the hands of their invisible male controllers. Suit Lady is at the mercy of her male boss who thinks all her crappy ideas are crap; Baby Lady is pregnant with her fifth child in the hopes that this time she'll get that boy she's always hoped for; and Lion Lady is not only employed by her dad but dependent on her successful, millionaire husband for her maid and au pair allowance. The jaded black sassy friend escapes this alternate reality of Lady Puppets, but that's because she's a lesbian.
The one character who seems to be in control of her world is the gold-digging, lower-class mistress who works behind the perfume counter at Saks, and is also called "The SPRITZER Girl" by Le Lioness and her sneering rich friends.
Meg Ryan's character seems more offended that her husband is sleeping with someone from a different caste than by the fact that he's screwing around at all. Moral of The Women: Don't trust the help. Stay classy, Hollywood.
#2. How To Lose a Guy in Ten Days
Trapped in romantic comedy purgatory for crimes against humanity, Kate Hudson creates a Cosmo-ish article project with the sole purpose of destroying a man's faith in romantic relationships. COINCIDENTALLY, Matthew McConaughey, in a role that requires Holocaust-denying levels of suspension of disbelief, is an advertising executive who bets he can get any woman to fall in love with him. His co-workers select Kate Hudson.
Horrific tragedies Hilarity ensues when Irate Hudson tries to drive the poor, dedicated bastard away in 10 god-awfully long days. So this time Hollywood presents a smart, confident, single woman who is so control of her own love life that she thinks she can best Matthew "alright alright alright" McConaughey. Good luck with that, babydoll.
You can't best this.
And How Does This Hate Women?
By presenting us with a heroine who has the emotional empathy of Josef Mengele, that's how. This is a character who tortures her fake lover with the subtlety of a sadistic Freddy Krueger/Leatherface/Edward Cullen hybrid; only instead of finger-knifing him in his dreams, chainsawing his face off or psychologically torturing him with her dazzlety, this playa full-on acts like a girl for ten whole days. And in this movie, here's how a girl acts: she talks during a movie, leaves tampons in his apartment, sings Carly Simon songs, spontaneously becomes a vegetarian, makes her man miss the big game and publicly accuses him of being the source of her eating disorder. Hudson has to learn and fake all of this normal female behavior, since she's much more special and deeper than the average woman. And we know this because she cares about politics and basketball, not like most women who only care about boys and shoes.
Hollywood's average woman.
This is also a character who is too stupid to understand why her Cosmo-ish magazine won't let her write about Tajikistan, which would be like a Cracked columnist getting pissed over not being able to write about... well, Tajikistan.
This is also a character who must estimate that the intellect of her audience is somewhere in the mid-to-upper-retard range if she thinks they'd actually be enlightened by her punk behavior. We'd love to get that Pulitzer for "Top Six Ways to Be a Raging Jackwad (That You Already Knew About)," but we're not betting the farm on it.
#1. Pretty Woman
Julia Roberts is Vivian, the harlot with a cardiac muscle of bullion who is picked up by Richard Gere's Edward, the millionaire businessman with a heart of regular heart. Charmed by her big-ass grin and goofy persona, he asks her to stay with him at his HO-tel for a week. Which is just enough time for Vivian to get some new clothes, pass as his non-hooker girlfriend, get not-quite-raped by his business rival and metaphorically steal the heart of reformed gigolo Richard Gere.
Roberts shines as a beacon of kooky but lovable sunshine next to a dead-inside-and-out Edward, and everyone from Roger Ebert to the Oscar Monkeys screamed orgasmically when she got her fairy tale happy ending. Be you whore or non-whore, ladies, it's never too late to stop believing in yourself. NEVER!
And How Does This Hate Women?
By tying 100 percent of a woman's self-worth to her clothes. Not the love of a man, not a renewed sense of dignity, not even the ability to pass as a member of the upper class. Expensive, designer clothes are all it takes to pull a hooker out of the gutter and into the opera house.
During a 45 minute makeover scene Vivian walks into a Rodeo Drive boutique all pouty-mouthed and gangly--a big-lipped, shamefaced fallen woman who knows she doesn't belong in the same room as regular folk. Give her some expensive clothes, some flattery and overt groveling from the service caste, and she walks out of there like the honest-to-God Queen of Sheba. Her posture is straightened, her gait is elegant... just look at the joy on her face:
Thanks to her millionaire john's line of credit, Vivian can enjoy the respect and admiration that she's always deserved, since she was a good person and all, but didn't have access to, since she dressed like a cracked-out tranny. She wasn't the first to think a new wardrobe was all it would take to fool the masses. And she wouldn't be the last.
Do you have something funny to say about a random topic? You could be on the front page of Cracked.com tomorrow. Go here and find out how to create a Topic Page.
For strike two in the female representation arena, check out Hollywood's 5 Saddest Attempts at Feminism. Or find out about some how Hollywood can't even get computers right, in 5 Things Hollywood Thinks Computers Can Do.
And stop by our Top Picks to see how Cracked.com loves
boobies women.
And don't forget to follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get dick jokes sent straight to your news feed.


text:
6 Real World Da Vinci Codes That Aren't Full of Crap.
Thanks to Dan Brown, everyone has one of two responses to the idea that there are hidden codes in ancient works: Either you immediately believe them, because of that mind-blowing Da Vinci Code book, or you immediately mock them, because of that bullshit Da Vinci Code book.
The truth is somewhere in the middle. There are, after all, some fairly weird encoded messages that actual academic types have identified. And some of them are even about Freemasons.
#6. The Michelangelo Code
Encoded Messages About: Jewish mysticism.
Cracked has mentioned before that Michelangelo appears to have cleverly painted God to look like a giant brain in his Sistine Chapel fresco...
... but according to a prominent professor at Yeshiva University, the rabbit hole goes much, much deeper than that: Michelangelo's work is packed full of symbols of Jewish mysticism. You may also know this as kabbalah, aka the religion Madonna made popular in Hollywood a few years ago.
T-shirt evangelism is famously effective.
What we know is that for a while Michelangelo was living with a politician in Florence named Lorenzo de' Medici, who was apparently part of the whole kabbalah scene at the time. Also, we know Michelangelo never tired of painting subtle screw-yous to the Catholic church into his work.
So, in kabbalah, the Hebrew letter gimel symbolizes g'vurah, or justice and punishment. Here it is next to the Sistine Chapel's depiction of David, laying the holy smack down on Goliath:
In a scene depicting Judith and her handmaiden carrying the head of the Assyrian general Holofernes, they are forming the shape of the Hebrew letter chet, which represents chesed, or the characteristics of "loving kindness."
Above: Sarcasm.
Bringing up those brains again, in the Sistine Chapel God appears to be inhabiting the right side of the brain (the left having been cut away to reveal it), which represents kabbalah chokhma, or wisdom.
By the way, according to another professor and art historian, that chick under God's arm is Shekhinah, a sacred figure in kabbalah.
Some think Michelangelo was subversively urging the church to embrace the Jewish community. And there are signs of that -- for instance, nearly every Christian depiction of the Garden of Eden has shown the forbidden fruit as an apple, which has stuck around even today. But in Jewish texts, it's described as a fig, and sure enough Michelangelo painted a fig tree:
Of course, there is the ever-present theory that Michelangelo could have just been playing a huge joke on everyone involved, because sometimes people back then just got bored.
Kept Secret Because:
It makes sense that Michelangelo would choose to keep on the down-low about his criticisms of the church (and some think the whole thing was Michelangelo showing his contempt for Pope Julius). Being excommunicated had a tendency to burn a few bridges for an artist who can't afford to lose those holy commissions. And, as you can sort of tell, Bible scenes were about the only thing that paid back then.
#5. The Amadeus Code
Encoded Messages About: Freemasonry.
We know, we know. Any time you hear "Freemasons" you immediately think "nutjob." We just recently made fun of a popular conspiracy theory claiming Stanley Kubrick hid Masonic/Illuminati symbolism in his films. But Freemasons are a real thing -- it's a real organization and there have been real members for centuries. They just don't secretly run the world.
Not pictured: world domination.
And, all Dan Brown bullshit aside, Freemasons do have a history of sticking symbols in their work as a nod and wink to fellow members. For instance, academics who study Mozart's life and works fairly unanimously conclude that a lot of his music, especially his final opera, The Magic Flute, is a pretty blunt analogy about Freemasonry.
Even if you're not exactly the opera type, chances are you've heard bits of The Magic Flute at some point. This part tends to pop up in a lot of movie scenes depicting snooty upper-class socialites doing sophisticated-type things:
It's about a woman calling herself Queen of the Night, who sends a prince, armed with a magic flute, on a quest to save her daughter from her enemy, Sarastro. It's later revealed that Sarastro is the good guy, and he challenges the prince to three trials of enlightenment. So basically, it's The Legend of Zelda.
An Ocarina is basically a flute, right?
Now, Mozart is well known to have been a Freemason, but he was also part of another faction known today as the Illuminati. No, not that bullshit "New World Order" Illuminati that conspiracy theorists think we at Cracked are a part of now. Mozart's Illuminati was a movement that embraced principals of Enlightenment philosophy -- simply put, a belief that mankind should pursue wisdom and be governed by reason. Pretty much what The Magic Flute was all about, just in case you skimmed that whole synopsis.
The number three happens to be the Freemasons' favorite number, and in The Magic Flute's overture, a three-note phrase represents the Mason's initiation ceremony, which began when a new member knocked three times on the door to be let into their stupid secret club.
See? There it is, right there.
Kept Secret Because:
Mozart was still a loyal member of the Catholic church, and his city of Vienna was controlled by the Holy Roman Empire. The Pope just got finished telling everyone that Catholics were banned from joining the Masons, and those who did faced excommunication. Mozart must have been pretty good at keeping secrets; even today, the clergy have trouble believing Mozart was a Freemason.
This isn't the last time the Masons are going to come up in this article.
#4. The Plato Code
Encoded Messages About: His weird belief in a mathematical cult.
You almost certainly know that Plato is one of the most revered philosophers of all time, having invented pretty much all of Western thought while eating breakfast. Now a new theory suggests he was secretly part of a crazy religious cult founded by the earlier thinker Pythagoras.
We had math teachers like that, but they all ended up getting arrested.
You should know from high school that Pythagoras was an absolute beast at figuring out the length of the slanty side of a right triangle. You may not know that he was also a creepy cult leader. The Pythagoreans were a psuedo-religious band of his followers who studied astronomy, first suggested the Earth was round, believed numbers were divine and thought the universe made music. They were also probably into hacky sack.
"Wicked bass-line."
The Plato conspiracy theory kicked off when an expert from Manchester University discovered that Plato's manuscripts seem to follow the 12-note Pythagorean chromatic scale, otherwise known as the foundation of all Western music that has ever been made. The Pythagoreans made a science out of music theory, and one of their ideas was that different bits of the chromatic scale elicited different emotional responses.
Knowing this, when scholars divided the works of Plato into 12 equal parts, they noticed that Plato used the chromatic scale as an outline. The Symposium, for example, has 2,400 lines that were divided into 12 sections of 200 lines each. The harmonic sections yammered on about love, beauty, healing, ascension and Apollo, the god of music. The dissonant sections talked about faulty logic, discourse, beauty without truth, debauchery and shame.
All classic elements for a great party.
Supposedly, the underlying meaning of this structure is that science, divinity, mathematics and nature are all wrapped in the same burrito, and that the laws of nature are defined mathematically, and that the scientific discovery of these laws, brings one closer to the Divine, the way Pythagoras believed. Far out, man.
Kept Secret Because:
Of course, preaching these Pythagorean beliefs was a huge no-no in Athens at the time of Plato. Part of the reason religious leaders fed Socrates a hemlock cocktail was that they believed he was preaching false gods. And since Socrates was Plato's sidekick, it's understandable that he would harbor some resentment about that.
He took the whole "poison" thing pretty well, though.
Also the whole thing kind of makes him sound like a weirdo.


text:
sharpening honing my cutting knives with a (honing) steel. I'm sure I read/saw somewhere that you should wipe your knives after sharpening honing to remove any shards of metal. Is this correct or necessary? Am I getting confused with something else? It doesn't seem plausible to me that this would create metal shards, but obviously it being a safety issue I wanted to check. Thanks.
Depending on the type of honing rod and the technique you use for honing, you will remove more or less metal from the blade. You can confirm whether your rod removes metal by wiping the blade on a white tea cloth after honing. If you see a grey residue on the cloth then metal has been removed and you can decide yourself whether you want that in your food.
Types of Honing Rod
What technique you use for honing depends on what you are trying to achieve. If you only need to realign the edge of a well maintained knife, then two or three swipes on both sides of the blade, maintaining light pressure should be sufficient.
If you do this with a polished steel, then I would be surprised if you need to wipe the blade afterwards. If you use one of the other types of rod, then you are also removing metal from your knife and you may want to strop the knife and give it a quick wipe after.
No, after honing, it's not necessary.
By sharpening, you take some metal off the edge of the knife to create an edge.
By honing, you realign the edge of the knife.
See this answer for more details.
For the sake of a few seconds running the knife under the tap, or wiping it with a damp cloth, why would you not do this? Regardless of whether you remove large pieces of metal or just tiny particles - is it worth the risk of getting any of this in the food you prepare? I always give my knives a rinse and then dry them with a clean cloth.


text:
Frobenius manifolds arise in the study of quantum cohomology and mirror symmetry -- roughly they are manifolds (or varieties or whatever) such that the tangent spaces are Frobenius algebras (there are more conditions to be satisfied -- flat metric, flat identity, etc). A basic reference is Manin's book "Frobenius manifolds, quantum cohomology, and moduli spaces".
I have studied Frobenius manifolds for a while now, and I have so far never seen any definitions nor any examples of morphisms (other than, perhaps, isomorphisms).
Are there any reasonable definitions of morphism of Frobenius manifolds? Are there any interesting examples?