נעכטען איז געווען א מיטונג פון גדולי עסקנים מיט די רופאבליקאנער קאנדידאט פאר מעיאר Joe Lhota אין די שטוב פון הנגיד ר' משה שמואל זופניק הי''ו (נישט אין סוכה...) ווי ער האט געזאגט בפירוש (אן קיין פאליטישע קונצען) אז די רעגירונג זאל זיך נישט מישן אין מציצה בפה, און אז ס'גוט צו וויסען א דיבלזייא האט צורוק געצויגען א טאג נאך די זכור פורים(ברית) ראלי,
אויך האט ער ארומגערעדט פון האוזינג אז ער וועט אויפקומען מיט א פלאן פאר וויליאמסבורג (ווי ער האט שוין אסאך געטון 20 יאר צירוק ביי די דזשוליאני אדמינסטרעשען,
אזוי אויך האלט ער פון TAX CREDIT SCHOOLאון אז מ'זאל קענען נוצען PUBLIC SCHOOLS פאר אידישע זאכן (ווי למשל טישן, דאווענען, פלעי'ס אא''ו) וואס די ר. בלומבורג האט דאס פארבאטען. אזוי אויך זאל די שטאט באצאלען פאר די סעקוריטי פון די ישיבות און בתי מדרשים וואס דאס קען אסאך העלפען פאר שומרים און הצלה.
אוי בענקט מען זיך צירוק צי די דזשוליאני צייטען
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MvtwXVofP4[/youtube]
Joe Lhota : רעגירונג זאל זיך נישט מישן אין מציצה בפה
-
outspoken
- וְאֶת־הָאֶ֜לֶף
- הודעות: 1227
- זיך רעגיסטרירט: דאנערשטאג יוני 21, 2012 10:43 am
- האט שוין געלייקט: 269 מאל
- האט שוין באקומען לייקס: 802 מאל
Joe Lhota : רעגירונג זאל זיך נישט מישן אין מציצה בפה
פאקט, אז מ'זאל נעמען אלע נסיונות פונם דור אריינגערעכענט אינטערנעט און ארונים אויף איין זייט און ציונות אויף די אנדערע וועט דאס לעצטע איבערוועגן SO LETS BE FOCUSED NOT STUPID
-
נאר,,פרייליך
- וְאֶת־הָאֶ֜לֶף
- הודעות: 1615
- זיך רעגיסטרירט: מאנטאג יולי 08, 2013 10:52 pm
- האט שוין געלייקט: 109 מאל
- האט שוין באקומען לייקס: 217 מאל
-
פרישער
- היימישער באניצער
- הודעות: 586
- זיך רעגיסטרירט: פרייטאג מאי 03, 2013 11:40 am
- האט שוין געלייקט: 247 מאל
- האט שוין באקומען לייקס: 1015 מאל
מיר האבן א ביטערע גזירה מיר מיזען עס אפשרייען, וואס האבן מיר פין האזינג ווען מיר קענען נישט מאכן מציצה בפה, ווער ברויך פירן טיש ווען דער עולם איניש מציצה בפה'ט, מיר זענען געווארן א איין אישו קאמיוניטי, יעדער וואס שווערט ביים דיכט אז ער גייט מבטל מאכן דעי גזירה איז אין אוטאמאטיקלי א מאסט ווין, נא פערדער פראגען, נישט קיין חילוק אויב ער גייט אנגעטיען ווי דו קא קלאקס קלען, אדער דו רענט איז טו דעם חיי, ווי לאנג ער איז קעיגן מצצ"בפ איז ער א אוהב ישראל, און מיר מאסענען ארויס אינזער בלאק וואט לכבודו.
רעדאגירט געווארן צום לעצט דורך 1 אום פרישער, רעדאגירט געווארן איין מאל בסך הכל.
אַבִּי מְ'לֵייקט
פארוואס זאג איך עס אייך ?
ווייל איך וויל איר זאלט וויסן.
פארוואס זאג איך עס אייך ?
ווייל איך וויל איר זאלט וויסן.
-
outspoken
- וְאֶת־הָאֶ֜לֶף
- הודעות: 1227
- זיך רעגיסטרירט: דאנערשטאג יוני 21, 2012 10:43 am
- האט שוין געלייקט: 269 מאל
- האט שוין באקומען לייקס: 802 מאל
רמ''ד נידערמאן האט געזאגט אז מ'האט אינדארסט טאמסען ווייל ער איז אקעגן מציצה בפה אפילו ער איז א לוזער, לאמיר זען צו ער וועט אינדארסען Joe Lhota וואס איז מער שארפער.
פאקט, אז מ'זאל נעמען אלע נסיונות פונם דור אריינגערעכענט אינטערנעט און ארונים אויף איין זייט און ציונות אויף די אנדערע וועט דאס לעצטע איבערוועגן SO LETS BE FOCUSED NOT STUPID
-
outspoken
- וְאֶת־הָאֶ֜לֶף
- הודעות: 1227
- זיך רעגיסטרירט: דאנערשטאג יוני 21, 2012 10:43 am
- האט שוין געלייקט: 269 מאל
- האט שוין באקומען לייקס: 802 מאל
[left]Mayoral Rivals Entangled in Debate on City’s Rules for a Circumcision Rite
By KATE TAYLOR
September 26, 2013
There are the predictable issues facing the candidates running for mayor of New York: jobs, education, crime.
And then there is circumcision.
In a classic of the “only in New York” genre, both major candidates have found themselves tripped up by an arcane debate pitting public health against religious freedom, prompted by the city’s efforts to regulate what it views as a dangerous variation on the traditional ritual in some corners of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community.
The Democratic candidate, Bill de Blasio, and the Republican candidate, Joseph J. Lhota, have both pledged to revisit the issue if elected as mayor. But their stances have raised questions because, in Mr. de Blasio’s case, he stood silently as Jewish leaders described his position in different language than he has used, and, in Mr. Lhota’s case, he has changed his position over the course of the campaign.
At issue is a practice called, in Hebrew, metzitzah b’peh, in which the officiant performing the circumcision, who is called a mohel, uses his mouth to remove blood from an infant’s circumcision wound.
City public health officials, saying that direct oral suction can spread the herpes simplex virus, attribute 13 infections and 2 infant deaths to the procedure since 2000, and now require that officiants obtain signed consent forms from parents before the procedure is performed. But ultra-Orthodox groups say that the procedure is ancient and safe, and that regulating it is an improper infringement on their religious practices.
In April, Mr. Lhota, speaking at an event at Fordham Law School that was captured on video and posted online, expressed support for the policy on consent forms, calling it “a reasonable approach” to inform parents of the health risks.
“If you understand the risks, and you sign it that you understand the risks, then the burden is on you,” Mr. Lhota said. “It’s a good thing to do. That’s what government should do.”
Then last month, at a Republican mayoral forum in Borough Park sponsored by The Jewish Press, he expressed a different view, saying he believed the administration’s policy was “absolutely wrong.”
“I don’t believe that you need to be given a piece of paper and you must sign it on the dotted line,” Mr. Lhota said. He added that he would support allowing the city to hand parents information about risks when they leave the hospital after childbirth, but not requiring the person who performs a circumcision to obtain a signed consent form from parents.
This week, after he was recorded on video again condemning the policy in a meeting with an ultra-Orthodox leader in Brooklyn whose support he was seeking, he was asked about his change of position.
“My position hasn’t changed,” he told reporters on Tuesday after an appearance at New York University.
But his spokeswoman, Jessica Proud, offered a more nuanced defense, saying in an e-mail: “Mr. Lhota has been consistent in his position that the role of government is to educate, not mandate. After speaking with Jewish leaders early on in his campaign, he gained a better understanding of their concerns and slightly evolved his position so that new parents would receive the information, but not have to sign anything.”
The case with Mr. de Blasio is more complicated. At a forum in the spring, before a Jewish audience in Brooklyn, he answered a question about the policy citing “legitimate concerns” about public health, but criticizing Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who pressed for the regulation, for trying “to impose his will” without sensitivity to religious beliefs. He said he wanted to meet with community leaders and “change the policy to find a way to protect all of our children but also respect religious tradition.”
But earlier this month, two days before the Democratic primary, he stood silently at a rally of Hasidic Jews in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, while two speakers described his policy in much less ambiguous terms. One of them said Mr. de Blasio had promised to get rid of the Bloomberg policy “right away.”
A de Blasio spokesman, Dan Levitan, later said that those comments did not accurately reflect Mr. de Blasio’s position, and that the candidate would keep the consent form policy in place until a better solution was found.
Both Mr. de Blasio and Mr. Lhota have found themselves on the defensive about the issue. Reporters questioned Mr. Lhota about a report on NY1 that described his change of position, while a prominent blogger about ultra-Orthodox Judaism accused Mr. de Blasio of having promised to end the policy in exchange for votes.
Samuel Heilman, a professor of sociology and Jewish studies at the City University of New York, said ultra-Orthodox Jews had other concerns besides the circumcision ritual, including housing subsidies and poverty programs. But he said it was easier for politicians to express concern about the circumcision policy than it was to pledge to give more economic aid.
“If you can say something that seems like, ‘I’m supportive of your point of view on this,’ it’s a really cheap promise,” Dr. Heilman said. “It doesn’t require a great deal from you.”
How much difference it would make if the next mayor were to drop the policy is not clear, as the city does not regularly monitor whether officiants actually collect the consent forms. A spokeswoman for the mayor’s office, Samantha Levine, said that if a parent complained to the city, or if the city received a report of an infant with herpes who might have been infected through oral suction, it would try to determine if a consent form had been obtained.[/left]
By KATE TAYLOR
September 26, 2013
There are the predictable issues facing the candidates running for mayor of New York: jobs, education, crime.
And then there is circumcision.
In a classic of the “only in New York” genre, both major candidates have found themselves tripped up by an arcane debate pitting public health against religious freedom, prompted by the city’s efforts to regulate what it views as a dangerous variation on the traditional ritual in some corners of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community.
The Democratic candidate, Bill de Blasio, and the Republican candidate, Joseph J. Lhota, have both pledged to revisit the issue if elected as mayor. But their stances have raised questions because, in Mr. de Blasio’s case, he stood silently as Jewish leaders described his position in different language than he has used, and, in Mr. Lhota’s case, he has changed his position over the course of the campaign.
At issue is a practice called, in Hebrew, metzitzah b’peh, in which the officiant performing the circumcision, who is called a mohel, uses his mouth to remove blood from an infant’s circumcision wound.
City public health officials, saying that direct oral suction can spread the herpes simplex virus, attribute 13 infections and 2 infant deaths to the procedure since 2000, and now require that officiants obtain signed consent forms from parents before the procedure is performed. But ultra-Orthodox groups say that the procedure is ancient and safe, and that regulating it is an improper infringement on their religious practices.
In April, Mr. Lhota, speaking at an event at Fordham Law School that was captured on video and posted online, expressed support for the policy on consent forms, calling it “a reasonable approach” to inform parents of the health risks.
“If you understand the risks, and you sign it that you understand the risks, then the burden is on you,” Mr. Lhota said. “It’s a good thing to do. That’s what government should do.”
Then last month, at a Republican mayoral forum in Borough Park sponsored by The Jewish Press, he expressed a different view, saying he believed the administration’s policy was “absolutely wrong.”
“I don’t believe that you need to be given a piece of paper and you must sign it on the dotted line,” Mr. Lhota said. He added that he would support allowing the city to hand parents information about risks when they leave the hospital after childbirth, but not requiring the person who performs a circumcision to obtain a signed consent form from parents.
This week, after he was recorded on video again condemning the policy in a meeting with an ultra-Orthodox leader in Brooklyn whose support he was seeking, he was asked about his change of position.
“My position hasn’t changed,” he told reporters on Tuesday after an appearance at New York University.
But his spokeswoman, Jessica Proud, offered a more nuanced defense, saying in an e-mail: “Mr. Lhota has been consistent in his position that the role of government is to educate, not mandate. After speaking with Jewish leaders early on in his campaign, he gained a better understanding of their concerns and slightly evolved his position so that new parents would receive the information, but not have to sign anything.”
The case with Mr. de Blasio is more complicated. At a forum in the spring, before a Jewish audience in Brooklyn, he answered a question about the policy citing “legitimate concerns” about public health, but criticizing Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who pressed for the regulation, for trying “to impose his will” without sensitivity to religious beliefs. He said he wanted to meet with community leaders and “change the policy to find a way to protect all of our children but also respect religious tradition.”
But earlier this month, two days before the Democratic primary, he stood silently at a rally of Hasidic Jews in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, while two speakers described his policy in much less ambiguous terms. One of them said Mr. de Blasio had promised to get rid of the Bloomberg policy “right away.”
A de Blasio spokesman, Dan Levitan, later said that those comments did not accurately reflect Mr. de Blasio’s position, and that the candidate would keep the consent form policy in place until a better solution was found.
Both Mr. de Blasio and Mr. Lhota have found themselves on the defensive about the issue. Reporters questioned Mr. Lhota about a report on NY1 that described his change of position, while a prominent blogger about ultra-Orthodox Judaism accused Mr. de Blasio of having promised to end the policy in exchange for votes.
Samuel Heilman, a professor of sociology and Jewish studies at the City University of New York, said ultra-Orthodox Jews had other concerns besides the circumcision ritual, including housing subsidies and poverty programs. But he said it was easier for politicians to express concern about the circumcision policy than it was to pledge to give more economic aid.
“If you can say something that seems like, ‘I’m supportive of your point of view on this,’ it’s a really cheap promise,” Dr. Heilman said. “It doesn’t require a great deal from you.”
How much difference it would make if the next mayor were to drop the policy is not clear, as the city does not regularly monitor whether officiants actually collect the consent forms. A spokeswoman for the mayor’s office, Samantha Levine, said that if a parent complained to the city, or if the city received a report of an infant with herpes who might have been infected through oral suction, it would try to determine if a consent form had been obtained.[/left]
פאקט, אז מ'זאל נעמען אלע נסיונות פונם דור אריינגערעכענט אינטערנעט און ארונים אויף איין זייט און ציונות אויף די אנדערע וועט דאס לעצטע איבערוועגן SO LETS BE FOCUSED NOT STUPID
-
outspoken
- וְאֶת־הָאֶ֜לֶף
- הודעות: 1227
- זיך רעגיסטרירט: דאנערשטאג יוני 21, 2012 10:43 am
- האט שוין געלייקט: 269 מאל
- האט שוין באקומען לייקס: 802 מאל
קוקט אויס די מלחמה וועט מען געווינען מיט PR נישט אין קארט, (קוקט אויס אז מהר''א איז די געווינער ביי די מערכה.)
[left]New York - NY Post Editorial Says Bloomberg's "Nannyism" Has Made MBP An Unnecessary Campaign Issue
Published on: September 30th, 2013 at 09:14 AM
New York, NY - A NEW YORK POST ( http://bit.ly/1bW1Cm5) editorial blames "aggressive nannyism" by Mayor Bloomberg for making the Orthodox Jewish circumcision ritual metzitzah b'peh, or, MBP, a hot-button issue in the New York City mayor's race.
THE POST says that legitimate, critical issues of importance, like "schools, taxes, spending and crime" are all on the table as issues that mayoral candidates Bill de Blasio and Joe Lhota should be discussing---"So what are our two main candidates for mayor talking about?" asks THE POST.
"Jewish circumcision," the editorial answers rhetorically.
In addressing Bloomberg's concerns over "health risks" associated with the centuries-old ritual of MBP, THE POST says, "We don’t deny there are health risks to children in this city. In 2012, 10 children were killed while riding bicyles. Are we going to demand consent forms for that, too?"
"The basic answer is that parents make these decisions," the editors write, "not an unelected and unaccountable city bureaucracy. That’s especially true when the bureaucracy is treading on something as sensitive as a religious practice that has gone on for centuries."
You can view this article online at VosIzNeias.com/142331[/left]
[left]New York - NY Post Editorial Says Bloomberg's "Nannyism" Has Made MBP An Unnecessary Campaign Issue
Published on: September 30th, 2013 at 09:14 AM
New York, NY - A NEW YORK POST ( http://bit.ly/1bW1Cm5) editorial blames "aggressive nannyism" by Mayor Bloomberg for making the Orthodox Jewish circumcision ritual metzitzah b'peh, or, MBP, a hot-button issue in the New York City mayor's race.
THE POST says that legitimate, critical issues of importance, like "schools, taxes, spending and crime" are all on the table as issues that mayoral candidates Bill de Blasio and Joe Lhota should be discussing---"So what are our two main candidates for mayor talking about?" asks THE POST.
"Jewish circumcision," the editorial answers rhetorically.
In addressing Bloomberg's concerns over "health risks" associated with the centuries-old ritual of MBP, THE POST says, "We don’t deny there are health risks to children in this city. In 2012, 10 children were killed while riding bicyles. Are we going to demand consent forms for that, too?"
"The basic answer is that parents make these decisions," the editors write, "not an unelected and unaccountable city bureaucracy. That’s especially true when the bureaucracy is treading on something as sensitive as a religious practice that has gone on for centuries."
You can view this article online at VosIzNeias.com/142331[/left]
פאקט, אז מ'זאל נעמען אלע נסיונות פונם דור אריינגערעכענט אינטערנעט און ארונים אויף איין זייט און ציונות אויף די אנדערע וועט דאס לעצטע איבערוועגן SO LETS BE FOCUSED NOT STUPID
-
outspoken
- וְאֶת־הָאֶ֜לֶף
- הודעות: 1227
- זיך רעגיסטרירט: דאנערשטאג יוני 21, 2012 10:43 am
- האט שוין געלייקט: 269 מאל
- האט שוין באקומען לייקס: 802 מאל
קוקט אויס די מלחמה וועט מען אויך געווינען מיט PR נישט אין קארט
[left]if fancy restaurants can have dress codes, why not Satmar shops?
The city’s Human Rights Commission has overreached badly in reading discriminatory intent into the straightforward language of signs that lay out a dress code for a few stores in one shopping strip in Brooklyn.
The signs, since removed, on seven storefronts on Lee Ave., the main shopping stretch of the Satmar Hasidic enclave of Williamsburg, stated — in English and Spanish — that shoes, shirts and long sleeves are required, and shorts and low-cut necklines are not allowed. That’s it.
Yet, the Commission sees the notices violating Section 8-107(4)(1) of the Administrative Code of New York, which prohibits a store from “directly or indirectly” denying service based upon a person’s “actual or perceived race, creed, color, national origin, age, gender, disability, marital status, partnership status, sexual orientation or alienage or citizenship status.”
In a city where businesses — from Hooters to the Harvard Club, Webster Hall to the Four Seasons — can require dress codes for customers (as well as employees), there’s simply nothing untoward about the Lee Ave. stores’ standard.
Nor is a generalized request for modesty somehow “a public accommodation trying to impose its religious beliefs on other people,” as commission Deputy Commissioner and General Counsel Clifford Mulqueen has inexplicably claimed.
He offered an entirely different rationale to Gothamist, that the signs made “one protected group of individuals [women] uncomfortable.” But the code applies to both men and women.
Notably, Mulqueen told the news site Vos Iz Neias he didn’t “actually remember” who leveled the complaint that prompted his agency to act.
In other matters — including refusals to cooperate with law enforcement and opposing a sensible effort to regulate a controversial circumcision practice — some ultra-Orthodox Jews have seriously tested the church-state divide.
But here, it’s the secular state that’s overstepping its bounds. Back off.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/mode ... z2gUXgn9FO[/left]
[left]if fancy restaurants can have dress codes, why not Satmar shops?
The city’s Human Rights Commission has overreached badly in reading discriminatory intent into the straightforward language of signs that lay out a dress code for a few stores in one shopping strip in Brooklyn.
The signs, since removed, on seven storefronts on Lee Ave., the main shopping stretch of the Satmar Hasidic enclave of Williamsburg, stated — in English and Spanish — that shoes, shirts and long sleeves are required, and shorts and low-cut necklines are not allowed. That’s it.
Yet, the Commission sees the notices violating Section 8-107(4)(1) of the Administrative Code of New York, which prohibits a store from “directly or indirectly” denying service based upon a person’s “actual or perceived race, creed, color, national origin, age, gender, disability, marital status, partnership status, sexual orientation or alienage or citizenship status.”
In a city where businesses — from Hooters to the Harvard Club, Webster Hall to the Four Seasons — can require dress codes for customers (as well as employees), there’s simply nothing untoward about the Lee Ave. stores’ standard.
Nor is a generalized request for modesty somehow “a public accommodation trying to impose its religious beliefs on other people,” as commission Deputy Commissioner and General Counsel Clifford Mulqueen has inexplicably claimed.
He offered an entirely different rationale to Gothamist, that the signs made “one protected group of individuals [women] uncomfortable.” But the code applies to both men and women.
Notably, Mulqueen told the news site Vos Iz Neias he didn’t “actually remember” who leveled the complaint that prompted his agency to act.
In other matters — including refusals to cooperate with law enforcement and opposing a sensible effort to regulate a controversial circumcision practice — some ultra-Orthodox Jews have seriously tested the church-state divide.
But here, it’s the secular state that’s overstepping its bounds. Back off.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/mode ... z2gUXgn9FO[/left]
פאקט, אז מ'זאל נעמען אלע נסיונות פונם דור אריינגערעכענט אינטערנעט און ארונים אויף איין זייט און ציונות אויף די אנדערע וועט דאס לעצטע איבערוועגן SO LETS BE FOCUSED NOT STUPID
-
נאר,,פרייליך
- וְאֶת־הָאֶ֜לֶף
- הודעות: 1615
- זיך רעגיסטרירט: מאנטאג יולי 08, 2013 10:52 pm
- האט שוין געלייקט: 109 מאל
- האט שוין באקומען לייקס: 217 מאל
די ערוויילטער מאיאר דעבלאזיא לאזט זיך הערן איבער מציצה
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5700
באריכט איבער'ן היינטיגער ענאונסמענט
http://t.co/ZGNXtMONQq
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5700
Dr. Bassett also addressed Metzitzah B’Peh, saying the current policy of consent forms in place do not ban the practice of Bris Milah. “The intention is to keep that in place, but we need to do a better job in listening to the communities’ concerns,” she said.
Mayor de Blasio agreed with the mew commissioner. “We will keep them in place while searching for a solution that would make it more effective,” Mr. de Blasio announced.
But he added that while his main concern is the health of the children, the new administration will look for a better and more effective policy that will take in count the concerns of the Orthodox Jewish community.
The mayor said that the administration’s fundamental approach is the safety of children’s lives. “When it comes to this issue, I see it with the same prism – out job is to protect children,” he said. The current approach can be better. That is what we are going to figure out with the community.”
“In the mean time, the forms will stay in place while we seek a better path,” the mayor stated.
באריכט איבער'ן היינטיגער ענאונסמענט
http://t.co/ZGNXtMONQq