11 Things You Should Never Say to a Jewish Girl

11 Things You Should Never Say

1.You’re Jewish?!

What I hear: “But you don’t look like the super-offensive Jewish physical stereotype!” Do you expect me to be flattered or something? I’m not.

2.Duh, you totally look Jewish.

I get this a lot. A lot. Not only are there about a million and one ways that Jewish people can look (see above), but when non-Jewish people say this, what we hear is: “You look like the super-offensive Jewish physical stereotype.” Would you go around telling people they look Episcopalian? No.

3. But you’re so pretty!

Um, thank you! Just like fellow Jewish women Winona Ryder, Natalie Portman, Dianna Agron, Scarlett Johansson, Idina Menzel, Lea Michele, Mila Kunis, Bar Rafaeli, Kat Dennings, Evan Rachel Wood, Rachel Weisz, Lizzy Caplan, Ashley Tisdale… the list goes on and on.

And furthermore: 

4. So you only date Jewish guys, right?

This might be the #1 most frequent thing people blurt out when they find out I’m Jewish. And, yes, some Jews only date within the tribe. But personally, limiting my already-tiny New York dating pool to an even smaller demographic of people based on certain religious restrictions that I don’t even believe in so that I can fulfill my singular purpose in life — 100 percent Jewish children — is not an idea that appeals to me. So assuming that all Jewish girls do this truly makes an ass out of you and me.

(Besides, since Judaism is passed down along maternal lines, my kids technically will be Jewish regardless of who I marry.)

5. So you only date rich guys, right? (Related: You must be a Jewish American Princess.)

Granted, I don’t get this as often as other Jewish women do, probably because I live in Brooklyn and write about jizz for a living and am generally a weird example. But, for interested parties, here are my dating requirements: I date anyone I can have sex with and not want to hit with a claw hammer the next morning. And they are surprisingly difficult to fill even without looking at someone’s W4 to determine whether they’re wealthy enough to be with me. (So, short answer: No.)

The percentage of us who will only date rich guys is the same percentage of all women — or men — who will only date rich people. Any Jewish girl (or any girl, or any human being) worth a damn won’t care how much money you make.

6.So you hate Palestinians?

Nope. Just because you have positive feelings about something doesn’t mean you automatically have to have negative feelings about something else.

7. Do you like Israel more than America?

The beaches are pretty, but nope!

8. Did you hook up with a soldier on Birthright?

Nope! Some of them are admittedly pretty hot, though.

9. But are you one of those fake Jews who has a Christmas tree?

Are you one of those fake redheads who always brags about what a sassy redhead you are?

10. Did you two meet on JDate?

Derp. Unless I have previously mentioned that I am on JDate, do not assume that I met a guy I’m going out with on JDate.

11. Oh, that’s why your hair is like that.

Entrepreneur Ideas: Best Business for the Future (reblogged)


Entrepreneur Ideas: Best Business for the Future (reblogged)

English: World Heritage Grave at Al Ayn / Oman...

English: World Heritage Grave at Al Ayn / Oman Deutsch: Weltkulturerbe Grab bei Al Ayn / Oman (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: World Heritage Grave at Al Ayn / Oman Deutsch: Weltkulturerbe Grab bei Al Ayn / Oman (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Entrepreneur Ideas: Best Business for the Future

Posted In Entrepreneurs

Conservation of the environment is becoming more evident than ever before. Fear of old age and ugly figure have been the concerns of many people especially women. And security of the future has fastly overtaken the present needs. Business that would answer the things above would reap ten fold in the years to come since many would be more than willing to spend extra bucks on keeping their environment clean, keeping their face young, and saving for their retirement.

Here are the particular businesses that would work in the future:

Perpetual diet

According to The National Eating Disorders Association, 45% of women and 25% of men are on a diet each day! And this is not the end of story. Eighty percent of women admit that they are dissatisfied with their figure. That’s almost ½ of the entire population. What does this mean? Many are seeking for products that would improve their figure. Entering in this type of business can be a good gamble.

Alternative health products

The growing number of heath conscious equates to the growing number of market for products that will keep human body healthy. This means that the alternative health product business can be a good place to be in the future. Tea, ginseng, and Acai berries are some of the products in good circulation today. These products are also marketed as an alternative medicine.

Organic food

You surely have heard about genetically modified organism or the GMO. You surely have heard about the possible effects it may do to the body. And with this concern, there is an exponential increase of the number of people who are becoming more and more careful on the type of food they eat.

Since organic foods are 100% safe and clean, the market for this business is fastly growing.

Water Products

Not so long ago, you can still see many people filling their bottles with tap water and drink from it. Well, this practice has long been forgotten and will remain to be forgotten… even forbidden. Gone are the days when people can drink clear and clean water from any source. Now, it is common to see water dispensers at offices and even houses. And it is very common to see fridge with reserved bottled drinking water.

Capitalizing on this business will draw in cash for sure. You can either be a distributor of drinking water on you neighborhood or establish your own bottling plant.

Ecological products

People have the tendency to look for something that is not usual on their surroundings. So if you are waking up, living, and sleeping in urban areas, you will tend to look for something different, something natural. And if you cannot go out of town, the best way to set some changes is purchasing ecological products. Furniture, home decors, flooring, and other products that encapsulate nature would be a choice to you.

On the other hand, if you are an entrepreneur and have seen this, you will surely be one of the firsts who would venture on this business.

High tech security system or biometrics

If you were a homeowner or a businessman with lots of high tech devises inside your home or offices, you surely would want to protect them. A simple door lock would not do, right? What you need is high tech security system that will limit the access of your facilities to those you have granted the access. Retina scan, finger print identification, and other biometric identification are the ways to do it.

A business that caters this need will certainly be a good business.

Retirement Planners/Financial Advisors

Growing old is a part of life and aging people are part of the population. These people want to carefully plan the remaining years of their life with professional advisers. Retirement Planners or financial advisers would be the right person they need. If you have the keen on this type of business, then, you have a lot of work to do for many aging people need you.

Of course, entering the mentioned businesses would not automatically mean that you will earn too much. You still have to work for it and study carefully how the business works.

 at: http://linkedinsuccess.org is a perfect training course for Business Owners, Marketers, Job seeker and Recruiters to master LinkedIn as Professional. I strongly recommend this course to Business Owners, Marketers, Job seeker and Recruiters to build a profitable audience. It would be your lifetime asset.

If you have any question or suggestion about this discussion then please post in comment section………….

108 commentsSocial RankingChronologicalReverse Chronological

Related articles
About these ads

Occasionally, some of your visitors may see an advertisement here.

Tell me more | Dismiss this message

Like this:

Post navigation

Who Is the Best Scientist of All Time? ( Reblogged)

Karl Marx 1882 (edited)

Karl Marx 1882 (edited) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Who Is the Best Scientist of All Time?

An online ranking that compares the performance of academics across all fields found that Karl Marx is the most influential scholar and Edward Witten is the most influential scientist

By Richard Van Noorden and Nature magazine


a Image of Karl Marx

Karl Marx is the most influential scholar ever, according to a discipline-corrected ranking system.Image: Wikimedia Commons/Marxists.org

Is theoretical physicist Ed Witten more influential in his field than the biologist Solomon Snyder is among life scientists? And how do their records of scholarly impact measure up against those of past greats such as Karl Marx among historians and economists, or Sigmund Freud among psychologists?

Performance metrics based on values such as citation rates are heavily biased by field, so most measurement experts shy away from interdisciplinary comparisons. The average biochemist, for example, will always score more highly than the average mathematician, because biochemistry attracts more citations.

But researchers at Indiana University Bloomington think that they have worked out the best way of correcting this disciplinary bias. And they are publishing their scores online, for the first time letting academics compare rankings across all fields.

Their provisional (and constantly updated) ranking of nearly 35,000 researchers relies on queries made through Google Scholar to normalize the popular metric known as the h-index (a scientist with an h-index of 20 has published at least 20 papers with at least 20 citations each, so the measure takes into account quantity and popularity of research). It found that as of 5 November, the most influential scholar was Karl Marx in history, ahead of Sigmund Freud in psychology. Number three was Edward Witten, a physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. The ranking appears on the website Scholarometer, developed by Filippo Menczer, an informatician at Indiana University Bloomington, and his colleagues Jasleen Kaur and Filippo Radicchi.

Universal metrics
“We think there is a hunger for this. Our colleagues use Google Scholar all the time, and yet it only shows the h-index,” says Menczer. “We are constantly asking ‘how do we evaluate people in a discipline we don’t understand?’”

In October, Menczer’s team published a paper arguing that the best statistical way to remove disciplinary bias is to divide a researcher’s h-index by the average of their scholarly field.

Using this correction, Marx scores more than 22 times the average h-index of other scholars in history (but 11 times that of the average economist). Witten has more than 13 times the average physicist, and so on. The effect is to ensure that those in, say, the top 5% of their discipline also appear in the top 5% of all scholars.

The idea is not new. Metrics experts have invented numerous methods to solve bias, often using averages based on age, journal and scholarly field. Normalized measures are available from commercial information firms such as Thomson Reuters.

First time for everything
But Scholarometer pushes boundaries in two ways. Most importantly, its normalized scores are freely accessible, unlike those of most sites. Thomson Reuters analyses are based on proprietary databases and cannot be made public. Another site, Publish or Perish, does return a variety of age and field-normalized metrics from public queries to Google Scholar — but only to one individual at a time. The problem is that Google Scholar blocks automated computer programs that hit it with multiple queries, making it impossible to collate scores.

The Indiana team’s solution is to create an automated program that does not query Google Scholar itself, but rather scrapes the results of individual Google Scholar queries placed through a Scholarometer browser extension. Over years, they have built up a dynamic public database, with h-indices constantly revised as new Google Scholar queries come in. Menczer says that an age-corrected h-index that allows comparison of scholars at different career stages may follow.


Add Comment

Show All | Jump To: 1-10 | 11-20 | 21-30 | 31-40 | Next
View  Oldest to Newest Newest to Oldest
  1. 1. Scarlett15605:23 PM 11/6/13
    Completely pathetic, anti-science, anti-reason drivel. It is 100% propaganda.Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. DaleNapier05:38 PM 11/6/13
    This study is so flawed statistically, in so many ways, that it is little better than a middle-school science fair project.Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  3. 3. josephcarri07:11 PM 11/6/13
    I find it odd that people like Archimedes, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Pythagoras, Dalton, Lavoisier, Darwin, Pasteur and hundreds of others whose work influences each of us every second of every day are bypassed in favour of Marx. Would love to see the criteria, the data, and the reasoning behind the selection.JECCReply | Report Abuse | Link to this

  4. 4. metamorphmuses08:22 PM 11/6/13
    Of course everyone will freak out about Marx being named most influential scholar, but then again, it’s not actually that hard to understand. In this study, ‘scholar’ is not ‘scientist’ and in that analysis, there are few non-scientist scholars who have made a social impact as potent as Marx has, like it or not. Now, as to most influential scientist, I don’t really get Edward Witten, as compared to any number of other scientists.Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  5. 5. rloldershaw10:26 PM 11/6/13
    Hmmm, 0 for 2. Time to check your evaluation model.Einstein makes both of them look like much overrated short-hitters.Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

  6. 6. Owl90510:33 PM 11/6/13
    Second the emotion from josephcarri. Isaac Newton is unparalleled for being the most influential in his own time AND ever since. If it’s influence of scholarship, Marx had his 15 minutes and died the death of actually trying to get it to work. If it’s lasting influence from his own written work, no one comes close to Mohammed. And if the but-but says it’s not economic ‘science’, go with Adam Smith or Keynes … someone from the economic world that reshaped the world.
    This one comes across like it’s from the same group that did the big poll in early 90s and concluded that Oasis was more popular than the Beatles.Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  7. 7. Dr. Strangelove03:59 AM 11/7/13
    Marx and Witten. Ridiculous! Communism has failed. China is communist only by name. M-theory is mathematics. Untested and untestable, not science.Archimedes and Newton are more like it. The ancient Greek genius invented the scientific method, integral calculus, astronomical computer, water pump, solar concentrator, statics and hydraulics. All of engineering and celestial mechanics is based on Newtonian mechanics.Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

  8. 8. Finematerial07:15 AM 11/7/13
    Science is NOT a popularity contest. Advancing knowledge is the measure. Any ranking that has Karl Marx, a man 100% wrong in everything he ever said and led to the death of 100s of millions of people, is not to be taken seriously.Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  9. 9. vapur07:45 AM 11/7/13
    Some people might see Margaret Sanger as the best scientist. It all depends on your perspective and ulterior motive what qualifies the definition of absolutes: best and worst. Articles like this are most certainly a popularity contest, just like Nobel Prizes get awarded to people who also happen to cause the most harm.Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  10. 10. Siskoin reply to Dr. Strangelove09:52 AM 11/7/13
    I have to disagree about m-theory. Untestable today does not mean it is untestable. It is likely to change the human perception of the larger universe and and life in general as it is developed. I would guess that humans a few hundred years from now will look back on how we thought the “universe was” pre-m-theory and giggle.Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
| Jump To: 1-10 | 11-20 | 21-30 | 31-40 |

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

Yair Lapid and Normless Democracy (Reblogged)

Portrait of Socrates. Marble, Roman artwork (1...

Portrait of Socrates. Marble, Roman artwork (1st century), perhaps a copy of a lost bronze statue made by Lysippos. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: JNF collection box (pushke)

English: JNF collection box (pushke) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Yair Lapid and Normless Democracy

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Finance Minister Yair Lapid’s has stated that a Jewish and democratic state is contradictory. He is correct so far as he goes, but he does not go far enough. For democracy is not only inconsistent with Judaism; it is also inconsistent with Justice, as I shall now explain by distinguishing between “normless” democracy–the only democracy Lapid knows–and “normative” democracy, whose primary virtue is Justice.

Justice is the central theme of Plato’s greatest dialogue, the Republic. The key figure of the Republic is of course Socrates. Socrates was a poor man. Poor men tend to be partisans of democracy. Why? Because democracies usually equate justice with equality. Democracies therefore give the poor the same rights as the rich. Not that Socrates was a partisan of oligarchy. But he saw that democratic equality benefits ignoramuses and villains—and there is no shortage of such people in Israel, even though this besieged country is far superior to any other nation on planet earth! But we were speaking of Socrates.

Socrates was a philosopher, a seeker of truth. Hence he was skeptical about democracy, whose egalitarianism made no distinction between the wise and the unwise, the virtuous and the vicious. Even disloyal individuals may vote in a democracy, as they do in Israel. Can this be truly just?

The answer to this question is so obvious that it is not discussed in the Republic. Even though Athens was a democracy, none of the various definitions of justice discussed in that most subtle and profound dialogue entails the indiscriminate egalitarianism found in contemporary democratic societies, where individuals of hostile beliefs and values enjoy equal political rights—suffice to mention Arab citizens of Israel’s who hate this country and openly support its enemies with impunity. This is “justice,” Israeli style, and we look in vain for a politician or an academic or even a journalist who dares question the injustice of this “Jewish” state of affairs.

Although members of the Athenian assembly were chosen by lot—the most democratic of all systems—still, to be eligible for the lot certain qualifications were required. First, one had to be an Athenian, meaning a person more or less identified with Athenian culture. Second, one had to have performed military service and/or be a tax-payer. In short, one had to be a patriotic or law-abiding citizen and not a mere consumer of “entitlements” so typical of contemporary democracies.

Now, of the various definitions of justice discussed in the Republic, only one conforms to these rational qualifications, namely, that justice means “giving to each his due.” This is a matter of proportionate equality, not of arithmetic (or indiscriminate) equality. The latter yields the democratic principle of one adult/one vote, which renders a person’s intellectual and moral character irrelevant. This is why democracies are ruled not by the wise and the virtuous but by mediocrities, if not worse. Which means that democracy is not the best regime; indeed, it may not even be a truly just regime.

Socrates led Athenian youth to this subversive conclusion. He willingly paid the penalty for undermining their loyalty to Athens in the process of liberating them from their Athenian, i.e. democratic, prejudices. Democratic Athens sentenced him to death.

Well, we don’t give hemlock to philosophers anymore; we ignore them. And no wonder: Philosophy, understood as a passionate love of truth, is dead. Still, what would the “gadfly” of Athens do were he in Israel today? He would surely inquire about justice. Sooner or later some Israeli would say justice is “giving to each his due.” Socrates would probably lead him to a more refined definition, perhaps something like the following:

Justice is giving equal things (such as rights and honors) to equals, and unequal things to unequals in proportion to their inequality, i.e., in proportion to their merit (as is done in classrooms), or in proportion to their contribution to the common good.

Any sensible Israeli—let’s leave Yair Lapid aside—would then see that to give Arabs, who strive for Israel’s demise, the equal political rights of Jews, who struggle for Israel’s welfare, is not consistent with justice—though famously democratic. He would then conclude that if justice is to prevail in Israel, its Arab inhabitants must either be disenfranchised or undergo a profound political and religious metamorphosis.

If Socrates led Israelis to this conclusion he would probably be condemned by Israel’s political and intellectual elites and indicted for “racism” or “incitement.” True, he might point out during his trial that Israeli Arabs are exempt form military service; that they engage in massive tax evasion; that they aid terrorists and commit terrorist acts; hence that it is unjust to endow such disloyal Arabs with the equal rights of Jews.

All this would probably be of no avail at Socrates’ trial. He would almost certainly be convicted and imprisoned, and any appeal to Israel’s egalitarian Supreme Court would be futile. This is quite a commentary on Israel’s political and judicial elites, from whose lips the honeyed word “Democracy” is ever dripping but hardly a word about Justice. There is not a single public figure in Israel that has the courage as well as the wit to tell the truth about the manifest injustice of giving the vote to this country’s hostile Arab inhabitants.

Now we are prepared to go to the root of things. What needs to be said, and what no one dares say in Israel, is that this country was founded injn 1948 on a monumental injustice: giving to Jews and Arabs–to loyal and disloyal inhabitants of Israel–the equal right to vote in this supposed to be Jewish State.

Not Peace but Justice is the true and most fundamental issue in Israel today. In Israel, however, justice has been reduced to a leveling equality, which is why the sense of justice has been murdered in this country. This is why the killers of so many Jews in this country go unpunished. This is why Arabs who have murdered Jews have been released by Israeli governments. This is why various Israeli politicians have clasped the bloodstained hands of Yasser Arafat or of his successor, Mahmoud Abbas.

You will not go to the root of things by explaining their behavior in terms of their desire for “peace.” You will not truly explain their surrender of land for which Jews have so long yearned for, fought for, and bled for, in terms of “American pressure.” No, the suffering and humiliation of Israel today is the inevitable result of the monstrous injustice prescribed in the very Proclamation of the Establishment of the State, that all inhabitants of this State—Jews and Arabs alike—would receive equal political rights. This is not justice but the negation of justice and even of common sense.

This negation has made children of Israel’s rulers. It has made fools of Israel’s intellectuals. It has driven this country to suicidal madness—the prey of Arabs armed by mindless Israelis posing as adults—really adolescents whose bodies have been stretched and molded. All this is described in Isaiah 3:4; 5:20; 28:7, 15-18; 29:9, 14; 44:25. Stupidity aside, it was injustice that led to the Oslo “peace process” and its 15,000 Jewish casualties!

Until Israel’s Government pursues Justice—for starters, by declaring Jewish sovereignty over Judea and Samaria—neither politics nor political analysis will save Israel from recurring disasters resulting from the IDOL of Normless Democracy to which Yair Lapid burns incense.