Kid's got a future in the banking system.

Life sucks for making me feel so much like Hank Hill.

I think life is great for feeling so much like Hank Hill. I get the feeling this guy is a closet Dauterive.

Oh, and obviously, that boy ain't right.

I was going to post this. Like it says in the excerpt the kid didn't even try to get it. Nor was the kid holding a grudge for two hours. A couple of minutes later it simply looks like the kid doesn't even remember why he has his arms crossed.


If I ever catch a ball at the game I am not going to give it to some kid I don't know. I don't care if he asks for it either. I've already got my excuse lined up. If some kid is greedy enough to ask for the ball I'm going to tell them that I promised it to my little cousin back home.

1. The kid
2. The dad
3. The Giants

a. Republicans
b. Democrats
c. Obama

Match the numbers to the letters.

If I ever catch a ball at the game I am not going to give it to some kid I don't know. I don't care if he asks for it either. I've already got my excuse lined up. If some kid is greedy enough to ask for the ball I'm going to tell them that I promised it to my little cousin back home.

Agreed. I never understood why I should be obligated to give it to some kid I don't know. I have never gotten a ball either!

I once caught a foul ball off the bat of Rod Carew. Caught it with one hand, and didn't spill a drop of the beer I held in the other. True story. Sorry if that sounds boastful. And you can bet your ass I didn't give it to some ####### pouty-ass punk kid. Let him get his own damn beer.

IF THIS WAS THE BIBLE HE WOULD LEARN HIS LESSON.

If this was the Bible, he pretty obviously wouldn't be in San Francisco. Didn't the City Council ban that too while they were banning circumcision, owning a goldfish, Happy Meals, and Arizona?

If *I* had been that dad...well, I would have been seen on national TV being an ass and berating my kid for pouting...because I'm just not the most patient guy at times.

OOH can we have the circumcision debate? I'll start. I'm for the ban.

Im with #9. Doctor brings a knife near my boys junk? I bring a gun.

Im with #9. Doctor brings a knife near my boys junk? I bring a gun.

Then I'll bring 2 guns when I come for your mandatory circumcision.

Isn't this a get off my lawn argument?

Im with #9. Doctor brings a knife near my boys junk? I bring a gun.

So honest question (I have no kids)...if you request that your kid not be circumcised are there places that do not honor that or something?

ah, come on. it's just a little bit of skin cut off your weenie and you don't even remember it. there's no lasting damage, anybody who says you suffer from some sublimated psychosis is full of ####, you ####### fuck faced american league ############ ass ###### ########## #############.

1. The kid
2. The dad
3. The Giants

a. Republicans
b. Democrats
c. Obama

Match the numbers to the letters.

The kid is the American public. The Giants are the Republicans, Democrats, and Obama.

I got a ball in 1966, and have been lying to everyone ever since that it was the home run ball Willie McCovey hit that day.

I got nothing on the morality of circumcision, but the people trying to ban it don't seem to realize that gravity acts on foreskin like everyone else. What looked like a cuddly shar pei dog at thirty now bears a strong resemblence to Treebeard.

it's just a little bit of skin cut off your weenie and you don't even remember it.

So it's ok if I slap your baby, right? I mean...he won't remember it.

(Waiting for the 'lessens chance of certain types of cancer argument', so I can pull out the 'so does mascectomy card')


...as for 'Are there places that won't honor your request?', not that I know of.

More than one woman has told me that circumcised men last considerably longer.

Your mother and grandma were always quite the experts.

So it's ok if I slap your baby, right? I mean...he won't remember it.

I have no problem with you slapping his baby.

So it's ok if I slap your baby, right? I mean...he won't remember it.

Only if you post a hilarious video of it on the internet.

I got a ball in 1966, and have been lying to everyone ever since that it was the home run ball Willie McCovey hit that day.

I've been to about 200 games, and the only ball I ever got was a pregame fungo by Pedro Ramos that took one hop into the beer garden at Griffith Stadium and rolled right into my hands. I am SO envious of these box seat kids who get handed foul balls and final outs at the rate of about 5 an inning, as if it were some kind of a birthright. Back when ballpark grass was patchy brown by July and the Atlantic Ocean was really something, those ball boys were armed and you didn't want to mess with them. It would have been easier to pitch a perfect game in the World Series.

OTOH with a little quickness you could also dart into the dugout after a game and make off with a few cracked bats---excuse me, "game used" bats---an act which today might get you a crack on the head and 30 days. So you won some and you lost some.

I caught a ball at a White Sox game off the bat of Gary Sheffield. Or more precisely, off the bat of Gary Sheffield, then off the hands of one of our interns. I gave it to my boss' kid. Probably the only reason I'm still employed. I know what a baseball looks like, and I don't need to look at the ball to remember the moment.

#13: Not sure but I imagine it varies...I imagine if I didn't want my son cut and they did it, I'd have a nice lawsuit on my hands. From what I've read, circumcision isn't covered by Medicaid in many states so poorer families will opt not to pay the $200 for the procedure.

My argument is this: If a person wants to get circumcised they can...when they are old enough to consent to do so. I just don't think it's right for a child to not have a say in what happens to their body. Some people counter with "oh well we let parents vaccinate their children, why shouldn't they be allowed to circumcise their kids". That's completely unrelated. Vaccination has broader beneficial externalities on society, while circumcision does not.

There's something horribly wrong about pushing the thread in this direction. I'm not sure what yet, exactly, but when I figure it out, I'm calling the Feds.

More than one woman has told me that circumcised men last considerably longer.

Another downside. :D

My only foul ball was pitched by John Rocker and hit by Adrian Brown. My girlfriend at the time said "eww, a racist touched your ball."

And no one is touching Little Seabiscuit, I am whole and if I ever have kids they will be whole too thank you very much. If they want to chop off a piece of their wee wee when they are old enough to do so, let them get some gardening shears and a bottle of whiskey and have at it.

#24 is exactly right. How is circumcision different from clitoral mutilation? It really isn't. It can be done at 18 if the kid wants it done. Make it a right of passage for the faith. I fought hard to be sure my now 6-year old triplet boys were not circumcised. All the grandparents were surprised at first, but in the end, agreed that it isn't necessary.

Good for SF.

I'm all for circumcising that pouting kid

from SNL ca 1976, Elliot Gould and Bill Murray performing "The Castration Walk"

"..well I went to the rabbi
and he sent me to the mohel
but the mohel was clumsy
and I turned into a goil"

turns out Belushi was in it, too

More than one woman has told me that circumcised men last considerably longer.

That's what happens when they cut off all those happy parts.

More than one woman has told me that circumcised men last considerably longer.

More than one woman has told me that uncut guys feel better. To the women, I mean.

I like the idea of making it a rite of manhood as a teenager or something, instead of something done to an infant: let the kid decide.
Of all the justifications I've ever heard, "I want him to look like his father" is easily the weirdest.

My dad's view on circumcision: "Life is tough-- learn early".

Seems reasonable.

How is circumcision different from clitoral mutilation? It really isn't.

It really is. The foreskin covers the most sensitive part of the male genitals. The clitoris is the most sensitive part of the female genitals. There are arguments against circumcision that are reasonable, but this is one of those exceptionally stupid ones.

I am neutral on circumcision. There is some evidence of marginal health benefit, and there is really no way to evaluate loss of sensation from infant circumcision by looking at adult circumcision. Adult males who were circumcised as infants generally do not complain about lack of sensation.

Circumcision as an adult, however, is very unpleasant and often does lead to loss of sensation. It may not be something that happens very often, but add that to the marginal health benefit and consider the low-risk, and I don't have a problem with it. It is pretty much a borderline medical procedure and there's no reason to get outraged about it (unlike female genital mutilation, which is monstrous).

I have some stories about my kids getting balls at games. The oldest, now in college, used to get them all the time before her brother and sister came along -- from the minors on up, usually in batting practice. Once in Oakland (April 2000), Jaret Wright singled her out among a group of kids and gave her a ball during BP because (I assume) she was wearing Indians gear. The next night, during BP, she had him sign it. The next day, Wright was scheduled to start, and our seats were by the Indians' dugout. As he was trotting from the pen to start the game, he looked up, saw her, and winked. He then pitched a complete game shutout. Not long after that, his arm fell off.

When she was five, the middle child once spent about three innings at a minor league game in San Bernardino begging the bullpen to give her a ball -- to no avail. Near the end of the game, a Dominican pitcher started warming up in the eighth. After some prompting from her uncle, she started putting a curse on the pitcher in Spanish (all my kids are bilingual), using wild gesticulations. The poor pitcher, who wasn't that good, saw this little white girl with wild, curly hair going all voodoo on him and kind of freaked, causing his mates in the pen to laugh. He entered the game and mowed down the side. After the inning, the guys left in the pen tossed her a ball.

Later in the same game, my son, who was three at the time, decided he wanted a ball because his sister had been given one. His luck was no good, so he took matters i his own hands. While we were packing up to leave, he slipped through the gate from the stands to the pen and went for a ball in the ball bag. About a 1000 people were lined up in the concourse for a post game promotion (women had been given a small shovel to dig in the infield for a buried diamond ring) and let out a roar when they saw him. I turned and saw my son with a ball in the hand and a look on his face that he knew he was busted. I scrambled to get him as a couple of laughing security guards moved towards him. He darted onto the field and tried to bowl over one of the security guards and bounced to the ground, which brought laughter from the fans and earned me a stern glare from my wife. I got him, and we walked out with no ball in his hands. However, in the parking lot, he reached down his pants and pulled out his prize. "Ball Daddy!" he shouted.

Well, that's enough circumcision talk I think...

I got a ball in 1966, and have been lying to everyone ever since that it was the home run ball Willie McCovey hit that day.

Let's talk about things that we've lied about and said took place at ballgames but didn't! Unless of course they are circumcision related.

It really is. The foreskin covers the most sensitive part of the male genitals. The clitoris is the most sensitive part of the female genitals. There are arguments against circumcision that are reasonable, but this is one of those exceptionally stupid ones.

I am neutral on circumcision. There is some evidence of marginal health benefit, and there is really no way to evaluate loss of sensation from infant circumcision by looking at adult circumcision. Adult males who were circumcised as infants generally do not complain about lack of sensation.

Circumcision as an adult, however, is very unpleasant and often does lead to loss of sensation. It may not be something that happens very often, but add that to the marginal health benefit and consider the low-risk, and I don't have a problem with it. It is pretty much a borderline medical procedure and there's no reason to get outraged about it (unlike female genital mutilation, which is monstrous).

This.

I will add that there are lots of things that are considered normal that are far more damaging than circumcision. Smoking around kids is the first thing that comes to mind.

I took my girlfriend to a baseball game. I kissed her on the strikes, and... well, you can probably take it from here.

IF THIS WAS THE BIBLE HE WOULD LEARN HIS LESSON.

Well, it depends. If the kid had the misfortune of being born a character in the Hebrew Bible, he'd be eaten by she-bears.

Isn't this a get off my lawn argument?

Seems to be a keep away from my foreskin argument.

Adult males who were circumcised as infants generally do not complain about lack of sensation.

Well, they don't have anything to compare it to, so this is fairly useless information. You are cutting off a bunch of pleasure-sensing nerve endings; there is obviously a loss of sensation.

First of all, San Francisco has not banned circumcision. There's a referendum on the ballot in November, but it's not at all clear that it will pass.

Secondly, if it does pass, there are lawsuits already drawn up that would put it into the courts, where it will almost certainly be thrown out on first amendment grounds. There is no medical or ethical basis for banning a long-standing religious practice like that.

If you look at the people behind the proposed ban, there's a lot of thinly-veiled anti-Semitism there. It makes me a little sick that San Francisco is willing to make themselves a part of it and allow it on their ballot. I hope the voters there make the right choice.

Good for SF.

How the #### did we get to the point that we think we have the prerogative to tell other people that they can't do things simply because we prefer not to? Jesus Christ, you make your decisions and I'll make mine. How important do you self-righteous pricks think you are?

If you look at the people behind the proposed ban, there's a lot of thinly-veiled anti-Semitism there. It makes me a little sick that San Francisco is willing to make themselves a part of it and allow it on their ballot. I hope the voters there make the right choice.

Just because bigots support something doesn't mean that you shouldn't vote for it.

But there is a lot of thinly veiled anti-semitism. Or in the case of Foreskin Man, some open anti-semitism.

Just because bigots support something doesn't mean that you shouldn't vote for it.

It does when the only justification the bigots can come up with for it is whackjob nonsense.

There are good reasons to not circumsize your son. There are no good reasons to ban infant circumcisions.

There are good reasons to not circumsize your son. There are no good reasons to ban infant circumcisions.

I agree. I was just responding to what was a general point.

How the #### did we get to the point that we think we have the prerogative to tell other people that they can't do things simply because we prefer not to?

We have been doing this for the whole of recorded history. Some of them are easy ones (don't kill people, don't take what isn't yours) and some of them are not so easy but to say we haven't been telling people what to do for eternity is incorrect.

We have been doing this for the whole of recorded history. Some of them are easy ones (don't kill people, don't take what isn't yours) and some of them are not so easy but to say we haven't been telling people what to do for eternity is incorrect.

While we tell other people what to do all the time, in this day and age we try to come up with better reasons than "I don't like it", if only for form's sake.

While we tell other people what to do all the time, in this day and age we try to come up with better reasons than "I don't like it", if only for form's sake.

Explain arguments in opposition to Gay Marriage.

While we tell other people what to do all the time, in this day and age we try to come up with better reasons than "I don't like it", if only for form's sake.

I suspect the people who are opposed to circumcison would argue genital mutilation or physical harm to children or some other such thing. I wouldn't agree with it but the arguments on all sorts of issues are often silly and nonsensical. I'd be surprised if the supporters of this referendum question are mounting a massive campaign around "I don't like it."