Why, thank you… [blushes]
I’ve seen men cover their heads with their hands, if their kippah falls of, and they can’t immediately retrieve it for some reason. I’ve also seen both men and married women lose a head covering, and just cover with anything handy.
I was once in a truck stop that had a Subway, or something attached, and there was an obviously (to me) Orthodox family there, and the wife’s scarf fell off, and into something that soiled it, so she grabbed a paper napkin from a dispenser, and put it over her head. I’m assuming she had another headscarf or something in the car.
I’ve never been in places where kippot were not allowed because head-covering in general were. Maybe if you know that you will be going to the bank, you should wear your smallest, closest-fitting kippah, and not the Buchari one (you could actually hide something under one of those), but as long as you are (wearing the tiny one, that is), you’d think you’d get to honor your religious practice. I mean, I understand that the “no hats” is a security measure, both because things can be concealed under one, and because it can obscure you face for the security camera, but a small, close-fitting kippah does neither.
Also, a kippah expressly isn’t a hat. There’s a different word for “hat” in both Hebrew and Yiddish (and I assume Aramaic, in which a lot of commentary is written), and there’s discussion that refers to “kippot and hats,” or “kippot or hats.”
Whatever. There’s also a verse of Talmud that says that no mitzvah, other than the one of not denying the deity, should cost you your livelihood, and force you onto the community’s weal (ie, make you the object of charity) when you don’t have to be-- leave it for someone who has no choice.
This is why men can shave, or women wear pants when their work requires it.
Please don’t link to things behind a paywall. Extremely irritating.
You do realize that it’s not behind a paywall for everyone, right? Other people exist, you know, and might appreciate the link.
Susan Collins is profoundly concerned.
Whoever’s presiding over the trial (Sen. Leahy?) needs to call them out, if not by name then at least stopping the evidence momentarily and reminding the senators to pay attention. And do it again if they do it again.
Ostensibly, the senators are sitting as jurors trying a case under the Constitution. While they aren’t really jurors, no judge would let jurors avert their attention from the evidence like that. We know the GOP senators are going to vote to acquit, but they should be made to at least go through the trappings of a proper trial. We know they have contempt for this process, as shown by 44 GOP senators voting for the preposterous proposition that this trial is unconstitutional, but they should be made (as much as possible) to conceal it outside their votes. They made this bed with Trump, and they must be made to lie in it.
But Donny’s gonna learn his lesson this time, really and truly.
I do realize that, but when linking to a site behind a paywall, it is still best to quote a paragraph giving the gist of the article. Or at least summarize it.
I agree with you about quoting (and I usually also add “possibly paywalled” when I link to NY Times, for example), but he did, in fact, summarize the article. And you didn’t ask him to do these things, you asked him not to post the link at all, which is over the line, IMO.
I vote for neck braces to keep their head up and facing the speaker/screen and toothpicks to prop their eyelids open.
I vote for full Ludivinco technique. Serum 114 and all.
I’m trying to watch the impeachment hearing live, but every time they show a clip of the orange nitwit spewing bullshit in the past, I have to tune away. I forgot how painful it was to see him on television so frequently in the past. Gah.
Michael Schmidt from NY Times:
Swalwell said something I had not appreciated or realized: Trump spent $50 million in political funds to spread the specious claim that the election was stolen.
$50 million. Let that sink in for a second.
Sometimes I can’t believe that we looked at and listened to his bullshit nonstop for four years. And during the last year we had the pandemic on top of it. Incomprehensible.
I’m confused as to what you think this proves. Of course Trump and his campaign were behind the rally that led up to the attack at the Capitol, he spoke at the darned thing. The question is the extent to which Trump expected that the protest would turn into a full scale invasion/coup attempt, the funding doesn’t inform the answer to that, unless there is something I’m missing.
What the fuck do you think the rally was FOR? Trump urged them to storm the Capitol Building, where Congress was in the process of counting the Electoral Votes for God’s sake!
Why that day? Why that location? Just mere coincidence? The entire point of the rally was to get the crowd to disrupt the work of Congress on that day.
My question is, what connection between Trump and the rally does this funding show, that wasn’t already completely obvious by the fact that Trump was the key note speaker at the thing?
As for the purpose of the rally, taking a purely devils advocate position (ignoring a lot of other evidence that an attack was imminent and Trump took steps to make it happen), it could theoretically be argued that Trump just wanted a general peaceful protest outside the barricades and was shocked, shocked that they got violent.
If so, he would have immediately said something to get the mob to stop.
I agree, hence the devils advocate caveat. But that has nothing to do with the funding of the rally.
It shows he intended for violence to take place.