Thursday, August 20, 2009

Proving Your Sex

There have been a couple of these lately, women who have to prove they are women. From The Guardian:
The world of athletics was hit by controversy tonight after a female South African athlete who won the 800m final at the world championships was asked to take a gender verification test to prove she is a woman.

Caster Semenya, an 18-year-old who had never competed outside of Africa, before this week aroused suspicions when she posted the fastest 800m time in the world this year, winning gold at the African junior championships.

Tonight she won the gold medal in Berlin in 1 minute 55.45 seconds, the best in the world this year, beating Janeth Jepkosgei, the defending champion, by 2.45 seconds. The British runner Jenny Meadows won the bronze medal.

Semanya, from Polokwane, Limpopo province, possesses an unusually developed muscular frame and a deep voice and has clocked times which belie her youth – tonight's winning time is more than three-quarters of a second faster than Kelly Holmes's career best. Gold medal athlete Caster Semenya told to prove she is a woman

Maybe for women's sports it is important to draw the line somewhere (I doubt there would be a problem if a woman wanted to compete in men's sports, or it would be a different kind of problem), but there is no clear variable that distinguishes one sex from the other. It's tricky, but on some level it does seem to matter if men compete in women's athletic events. I have no idea how the officials should decide in the case of an intersex athlete, and I don't know what the actual situation is with this particular athlete, she might just be a muscular woman.

On the other hand, sometimes it doesn't matter:
A Pennsylvania transgender woman has filed suit against her former employer, who she said requested a photograph of her genitalia as a condition of continued employment.

In 2007, Kate Lynn Blatt, was employed by Manpower Inc., a staffing services agency that placed Blatt at an aluminum products manufacturer for $10 per hour as a temporary factory worker. However, she was let go by the plant after a supervisor said she was not healthy enough to complete her job.

Shortly following her dismissal, Blatt returned to the Manpower office to regain employment. It was at this time that Irene Kudziela, a Manpower branch manager, said she needed to turn in a letter from her surgeon that documented her sex-reassignment surgery along with a photograph of her genitalia, which Kudziela said would solve problems related to appropriate use of restrooms and locker rooms. Trans Woman Sues Over Photo Request

Imagine if you applied for a job and they required you to bring in a picture of your genitals!

Some things are just going to have to change. Maybe it matters if a person who competes in an athletic event as a woman is "really" a woman, but I don't know how they should define that. Most people fit into one category or the other, but there are plenty of people who fall in-between. Intersex individuals may have some combination of male and female physical sex characteristics, and transgender people may simply be the opposite gender from what they appear to be based on outward evidence. I don't have the answer for athletics, I can't think of any sport where women outperform men, but women's sports can certainly be exciting, and it would spoil it if there were men on the team. On the other hand, you work in a factory, you get temp work from Manpower, why in the world would it matter?


Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Jim said "I can't think of any sport where women outperform men".

Synchronized swimming.

August 20, 2009 2:57 PM  
Blogger JimK said...


But wait a minute, is there men's synchronized swimming?


August 20, 2009 3:35 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Lol, admittedly, no there isn't. Although I did see a beer commercial with two fat hairy bikers in bathing suits doing it.

August 20, 2009 3:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"WASHINGTON -President Barack Obama guaranteed Thursday that his health care overhaul will win approval and said any bill he signs will have to reduce rapidly rising costs, protect consumers from insurance abuses and provide affordable choices to the uninsured — while not adding to the federal deficit.

Obama listed those four "bullet points" as his basic requirements in response to a question from a caller to a Philadelphia-based talk radio show.

Obama is struggling to regain the momentum on his top domestic priority — a comprehensive bill that would extend health coverage to nearly 50 million Americans who lack it.

Opponents of the overhaul have drowned out supporters at lawmakers' town halls around the country this month, and backing for Obama's effort has slipped in opinion polls.

The president insisted Thursday that there has been no change in the administration's position that a government option for health insurance coverage should be considered as part of legislation to overhaul the system.

Responding to a question from Smerconish, Obama said, "The press got excited and some folks on the left got a little excited" when the administration last weekend made statements indicating that a federally run health insurance option was just one of several alternatives.

"Our position hasn't changed," he said.

While Obama says he's still looking for Republican support for a comprehensive health care bill, Democrats privately are preparing a one-party push, which they feel is all but inevitable.

Polls continued to show slippage in support for the president's approach.

Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Thursday that Obama is struggling to get a health care bill because he has been too deferential to liberals.

Romney said that "if the president wants to get something done, he needs to put aside the extreme liberal wing of his party."

Administration officials and congressional Democrats were deeply discouraged this week when key Republican lawmakers seemed more critical than ever about various Democratic-drafted health care bills pending in Congress."

August 20, 2009 4:32 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

There's men's synchronized diving. I watched it during the Olympics.

August 20, 2009 4:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll bet you did!

August 20, 2009 4:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obama guaranteed Thursday that his health care overhaul will win"

Ah, the Joe Namath of politics.

Wonder when he'll do a commercial for pantyhose..

August 20, 2009 4:40 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Speak when spoken to like you promissed bad anonymous - go away

August 20, 2009 5:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On a sunny Saturday last month, I crashed a fancy brunch on Fire Island at the swank beach home of a wealthy gay couple. The brunch was the 31st to be held in Fire Island's Pines community to raise money for Lambda Legal, the gay litigation arm. At last year's brunch, cheers went up every time Barack Obama's name was uttered. This time, when Lambda's executive director began to review the President's record on gay issues, he was greeted with steely silence.

That silence — because it came from some of the most generous gay political donors in the country — is key to understanding the confusing position the Obama Administration took this week on whether gays and lesbians should enjoy equal marriage rights.

To thread this needle: The President has stated his opposition to gay marriage many times. During his campaign, he pandered to African-American audiences — a group already for him — by inviting a black singer named Donnie McClurkin to perform; McClurkin believes one's sexuality can be changed by praying to Jesus. And yet Obama has also said he opposes the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Bill Clinton. Obama has said several times that he would like that law overturned.

And yet — sorry, the contradictions keep coming — once Obama was elected, his Administration not only defended the law, but defended it in an argument so reactionary it would embarrass Dick Cheney (who is to the left of Obama on gay marriage). In that argument Obama's lawyers noted that "courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with ... public policy." The examples offered: "marriage of uncle to niece," "marriage of 16-year-old," "marriage of first cousins."

That argument — that two consenting adult men marrying isn't unlike a man marrying his niece — led to the silence at that Fire Island brunch.

Obama loves to raise money; he has plainly begun to worry about his standing among the rich homosexuals who used to fawn over him.

And so this week we get a new legal brief from the Obama Administration in the California case and Obama flip-flops again — now back to his campaign position. Now the Administration says it opposes DOMA and wants it overturned — but that tradition dictates that it defend the law.

While the tradition argument is true, but it's yet another Obama dodge. The Administration could easily decline to defend the anti-gay law on discrimination grounds. Clearly, Obama could have refused to defend DOMA if he had really wanted to. There is nothing in the constitution or the law that would have prevented the Department of Justice from sitting on the sidelines in the DOMA case.

Nothing except politics. Obama's triangulation between left and right has become excruciatingly obvious on this issue, and he's not quite as deft a politician as Bill Clinton at keeping his left flank at bay. I wouldn't be surprised if, next summer at the 32nd Fire Island Pines fundraiser for Lambda, I hear booing when the President's name is mentioned.

August 20, 2009 6:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Over the past week, President Obama has held three town-halls for his health-care plan. While he didn't say much that he hasn't said many times before, his remarks did offer another explanation for the public's skepticism of ObamaCare. Namely, the President contradicts himself every other breath. Consider:

He likes to start off explaining our catastrophe of a health system. "What is truly scary—what is truly risky—is if we do nothing," he said in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. We can't "keep the system the way it is right now," he continued, while his critics are "people who want to keep things the way they are."

However, his supporters also want to keep things the way they are. "I keep on saying this but somehow folks aren't listening," Mr. Obama proclaimed in Grand Junction. "If you like your health-care plan, you keep your health-care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health-care plan. If you like your doctor, you keep seeing your doctor. I don't want government bureaucrats meddling in your health care."

Mr. Obama couldn't be more opposed to "some government takeover," as he put it in Belgrade, Montana. In New Hampshire, he added that people were wrong to worry "that somehow some government bureaucrat out there will be saying, well, you can't have this test or you can't have this procedure because some bean-counter decides that this is not a good way to use our health-care dollars."

So no bureaucrats, no bean-counters. Mr. Obama merely wants to create "a panel of experts, health experts, doctors, who can provide guidelines to doctors and patients about what procedures work best in what situations, and find ways to reduce, for example, the number of tests that people take" (New Hampshire, again). Oh, and your health-care plan? You can keep it, as long your insurance company or employer can meet all the new regulations Mr. Obama favors. His choice of verbs, in Montana, provides a clue about what that will mean: "will be prohibited," "will no longer be able," "we'll require" . . .

Maybe you're starting to fret about all those bureaucrats and bean-counters again. You shouldn't, according to Mr. Obama. "The only thing I would point is, is that Medicare is a government program that works really well for our seniors," he noted in Colorado. After all, as he said in New Hampshire, "If we're able to get something right like Medicare, then there should be a little more confidence that maybe the government can have a role—not the dominant role, but a role—in making sure the people are treated fairly when it comes to insurance."

The government didn't get Medicare right, though: Just ask the President. The entitlement is "going broke" (Colorado) and "unsustainable" and "running out of money" (New Hampshire). And it's "in deep trouble if we don't do something, because as you said, money doesn't grow on trees" (Montana).

So the health-care status quo needs top-to-bottom reform, except for the parts that "you" happen to like. Government won't interfere with patients and their physicians, considering that the new panel of experts who will make decisions intended to reduce tests and treatments doesn't count as government. But Medicare shows that government involvement isn't so bad, aside from the fact that spending is out of control—and that program needs top-to-bottom reform too.

Voters aren't stupid. The true reason ObamaCare is in trouble isn't because "folks aren't listening," but because they are.

August 20, 2009 6:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Speak when spoken to like you promissed"

spelling error from an undereducated Canadian

still, a funny comment

August 20, 2009 6:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look who's complaining about spelling, the serial plagiarizer.

August 20, 2009 8:34 PM  
Blogger Hazumu Osaragi said...

(returning to the topic at hand)

As for the SA runner, it's pretty common for repugs who can't compete head-to-head to look for 'disqualifications' so that they can win by default -- hey, winning is winning, whether did so by superior strength/skill/knowledge alone or eliminated your opponent through an invented technicality.

In the case of the Pennsylvania transwoman, they were going to show the picture of her genitals to every other woman who used that locker room. But were they going to be fair and show her pictures of every other woman in that locker room? (the old reducto ad absurdum argument ;-)

August 20, 2009 8:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only two logical answers exist for athletics:

1. Ban all male only or female only athletic competitions; or

2. Ban those with ambiguous gender from competing.

August 21, 2009 12:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Here's the least surprising news of the week: Americans are souring on the Democratic Party. The wonder is that it's taken so long for public opinion to curdle. There's nothing agreeable about watching a determined attempt to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."

A Washington Post poll out today reveals why Obama is likely to lose most of his reform proposals going forward:

The opposition is more passionate than his supporters.

Eugene Robinson, liberal idiot columnist, this morning echoes the thoughts of many a TTFers in this August of their disillusionment:

"Where are the millions who so passionately chanted "Yes, we can!" at Obama's campaign rallies? Where are the legions who cried tears of joy on election night and tears of pride on Inauguration Day? Is Sarah Palin now the only politician capable of inspiring "passionate intensity"?"

The answer to that last question is yes.


August 21, 2009 8:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The last thing you expect to see in August is snowballing.

And, yet, Sir BO has always been a guy who sees an impossibility and says "yes we can!".


"WASHINGTON (Aug. 21) -- A new poll says that Americans, concerned over the future of health care reform and anxious about the growing federal budget deficit, are losing faith in President Barack Obama.

The Washington Post-ABC News survey found that less that half of Americans — 49 percent — say they believe the president will make the right decisions for the country."

August 21, 2009 9:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"NEW YORK (Fortune) -- For health-care reform, 2009 wasn't supposed to be a repeat of 1993-94.

It would be different this time. That's been the conventional wisdom 15 years after the defeat of First Lady Hillary Clinton's ambitious plan, which badly shook her husband's young presidency.

This time, industry players were at the negotiating table from the outset, instead of plotting a blitz of attack ads. This time, the process of constructing a plan would be completed out in the open, in a half dozen congressional committees, instead of behind closed doors at the White House. This time, a large majority of voters were telling pollsters (repeatedly) that they were ready for universal health care. Even corporate America -- groaning under the weight of employee insurance costs -- was on board for change.

So President Obama had reasons to believe he would avoid miscalculations -- but miscalculate he did.

A health-care bill may well pass Congress and land on Obama's desk for signature this year, but it could be at a steep cost to the political fortunes of the President and the Democratic Party, which in next year's mid-term election is counting on the same independent voters that swung its way in 2006 and again in 2008.

August 21, 2009 9:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looking back, this must have been the White House health-care strategy:

Health care as a subject is extraordinarily sticky, messy and confusing. It's inherently complicated, and it's personal. There are land mines all over the place. Don't make the mistake the Clintons made and create a plan that gets picked apart, shot down, and injures the standing of the president. Instead, push it off on Congress. Let them come up with a dozen plans. It will keep them busy. It will convince them yet again of their importance and autonomy. It will allow them to vent, and perhaps even exhaust, their animal spirits. Various items and elements within each bill will get picked off by the public. Fine, that's to be expected. The bills may in fact yield a target-rich environment. Fine again. Maybe health care's foes will get lost in the din and run out of ammo. Maybe they'll exhaust their animal spirits, too.

Summer will pass, the fight confined to the public versus Congress. And at the end, in the fall, the beauty part: The president swoops in and saves the day, forcing together an ultimate and more moderate plan that doesn't contain the more controversial elements but does constitute a successful first step toward universal health care.

That's not what happened.

It all got hotter, quicker than the White House expected. The many plans of Congress congealed in the public mind into one plan, and the one plan became a poison pool. The president is now immersed in it.

August 21, 2009 9:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's another thing that didn't work. (I write as if health-care reform or insurance reform or whatever it's called this week is already a loss, a historic botch, because it is. Even if the White House wins, they lose, because the cost in terms of public trust and faith was too high.)

Every big idea that works is marked by simplicity, by clarity. You can understand it when you hear it, and you can explain it to people. Social Security: Retired workers receive a public pension to help them through old age. Medicare: People over 65 can receive taxpayer-funded health care. Welfare: If you have no money and cannot support yourself, we will help as you get back on your feet.

These things are clear. I understand them. You understand them. The president's health-care plan is not clear, and I mean that not only in the sense of "he hasn't told us his plan." I mean it in terms of the voodoo phrases, this gobbledygook, this secret language of government that no one understands—"single payer," "public option," "insurance marketplace exchange." No one understands what this stuff means, nobody normal.

And when normal people don't know what the words mean, they don't say to themselves, "I may not understand, but my trusty government surely does, and will treat me and mine with respect." They think, "I can't get what these people are talking about. They must be trying to get one past me. So I'll vote no."


August 21, 2009 9:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In a more beautiful world, the whole health-care chapter could become, for the president, that helpful thing, the teachable moment. The president the past month has been taught a lot by the American people. It's all there in the polls. He could still step back, rethink, say it didn't work, promise to return with something better.

When presidents make clear, with modesty and even some chagrin, that they have made a mistake but that they've learned a lesson and won't be making it again, the American people tend to respond with sympathy. It is our tradition and our impulse.

Such admissions are not a sign of weakness. John F. Kennedy knew this after the Bay of Pigs. He didn't blame his Republican predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower, or the agencies that had begun the invasion's tentative planning under Ike. JFK made it clear he'd learned a great deal, which increased confidence in his leadership. His personal popularity rose so high that he later wryly noted that the more mistakes he made, the more popular he became.

I suspect the American people would appreciate seeing Barack Obama learn from this, and keep going. He's their president. He will be for the next few difficult years, which will no doubt contain moments he will have to lead us through. They also probably wouldn't mind seeing a wry, modest, very human and self-critical stance from a new president who doesn't strut and doesn't swagger but does have a level of 1950s cool, Old Vegas cool, of supreme and confident smoothness that one wouldn't mind seeing ruffled a bit by that old ruffler, reality. Critics of George W. Bush will say here, "Did he ever show wry self-criticism?" No, he didn't. And that's why it ended so well for him.

Modern presidents are always afraid to show anything so human as modesty or doubt. They're afraid of the endless cable-news loop of "I think I was wrong, I think I misjudged, I didn't get it right." They're afraid of death by soundbite. Which is understandable. But they should get over it, especially when it comes to a bit of self-criticism, and even a bit of self-doubt. Modesty is one of the prevailing moods of the moment, it's part of where the American people are and have been since at least a year ago when the economy tanked. We all lived through the abundance, made investments, not only financial ones, that turned out good or bad, made mistakes of judgment, and are wondering about the past decade, and its mistakes, and our part in its mistakes.

It shouldn't become a wallow, but there's nothing wrong with self-reflection and trying to learn from everything we did that was wrong, and right. It wouldn't be so bad to see a president echo this.


August 21, 2009 10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A final factor contributed to the mess of the health-care debate, and that the White House might ponder it. Looking back, what a lucky man President Clinton was to have—to help bring about after his own health-care fiasco—a Congress controlled by the opposite party. What a great and historic team Mr. Clinton and Newt Gingrich were, a popular Democratic president and a determined GOP leader with a solid majority. Welfare reform, a balanced budget, and a sense the public could have that not much crazy would happen and some serious progress might be made. If Mr. Clinton pressed too hard, Mr. Gingrich would push back. If Mr. Gingrich pressed too hard Mr. Clinton pushed back. Two gifted, often perplexing and always controversial Boomers who didn't even like each other, and yet you look back now and realize: Good things happened there.

Right now Mr. Obama's gift is his curse, a Congress dominated by his party. While the country worries about the economy and two wars, the Democrats of Congress are preoccupied with the idea that this is their moment, now is their time, health care now, "Never let a good crisis go to waste," the only blazingly memorable phrase to be uttered in the new era.

It's not especially pleasurable to see history held hostage to ideological vanity, but it's not the first time. And if they keep it up, they'll help solve the president's problem. He'll have a Republican congress soon enough.

August 21, 2009 10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

President Obama took to the stump this week to respond to criticisms of his health care plan. But he now confronts an even deeper problem, one that threatens not only the success of Obamacare, but his presidency itself. Since the beginning of his term, Obama's personal popularity has exceeded that of his policies--a gap that was obviously unsustainable. Yet the final resolution remained unclear: Would his personality make his policies more popular, or would his policies drag down his personal likeability?

As the health care debate unfolds, we are seeing something we could not have predicted just weeks ago. President Obama's popularity is eroding--fast.

This week the Rasmussen poll of likely voters found the president's approval rating dipping below 50% for the first time. This is not only due to Obama's unpopular health reform program (although that may explain some of it). It is also because of the process he has used to push his signature initiative--a process that reeks of arrogance, deception and bullying.

This was unexpected: Even those who weren't crazy about the president's policies generally liked and respected the man. He seemed to be even-tempered, honest and somewhat earnest. He came across as reflective and open to debate, listening and persuasion.

This Obama has disappeared in the past few weeks while the health care debate has unfolded. Rather than open, he comes across as a sarcastic and lecturing professor. Rather than honest, he has seemed duplicitous and slick. Rather than careful and measured, his plan appeared rushed and extreme.

August 21, 2009 10:02 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

As Anon has posted at least one unattributed article from, I had to wonder why he didn't also post this one, also from,8599,1917525,00.html

"The GOP Has Become a Party of Nihilists"

My favorite line in it is: “There is no Republican health-care alternative in 2009. The same people who rail against a government takeover of health care tried to enforce a government takeover of Terri Schiavo's end-of-life decisions.”

Have a nice day,


August 21, 2009 10:16 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

The LA Times published an interesting story with some more background about Caster Semenya here.

People have been misjudging her gender for years.


Salon reports "The "death panels" are already here"

...A study by the American Medical Association found the biggest insurance companies in the country denied between 2 and 5 percent of claims put in by doctors last year (though the AMA noted that not all the denials were improper). There is no national database of insurance claim denials, though, because private insurance companies aren't required to disclose such stats. Meanwhile, a House Energy and Commerce Committee report in June found that just three insurance companies kicked at least 20,000 people off their rolls between 2003 and 2007 for such reasons as typos on their application paperwork, a preexisting condition or a family member's medical history. People who buy insurance under individual policies, about 6 percent of adults, may be especially vulnerable, but the 63 percent of adults covered by employer-provided insurance aren't immune to difficulty.

Cygna death panel

Humana Doctor admits denying lifesaving care

BlueCrossBlueShield refused to pay for cancer treatments, causing delay and need for more invasive surgery

Fortis Insurance Company cancels policy during chemotherapy

I guess Sarah can't see these problems from "land [t]here in Alaska."

August 21, 2009 10:17 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

A health-care bill may well pass Congress and land on Obama's desk for signature this year, but it could be at a steep cost to the political fortunes

Amen! It's about time we have a President who does what's best for the country without regard for its effect on his political aspirations. Too bad Tom Ridge's conscience took so long to get him to tell the truth about the attempts of Bush/Cheney Administration members to use the color warning system for political gain.

August 21, 2009 10:17 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Repaired link: Humana Doctor admits denying lifesaving care

August 21, 2009 10:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Amen! It's about time we have a President who does what's best for the country without regard for its effect on his political aspirations."

Actually, the whole country loses when we have a lame duck president so early in the term.

Obama needs to take leadership and develop a simple, coherent healthcare plan that can attain bipartisan support.

That would be best for the country.

Obama's leadership skills are failing.

August 21, 2009 10:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bea -- You're completely missing the point. Of course any system can be abused and will be abused. If enough people are wronged by Humana, then Humana will go out of business because employers will eventually choose another health plan option.

If I own a plumbing business, and my insurance company refuses to care for my plumbers because of red tape or other issues, and I lose work because of that, then, logically, I will choose another health care option.

With a one-payor system, people are absolutely and positively stuck with no other options.

Look at the MVA. People deal with long lines, irritating service, etc., etc. simply because they know there's no other option. If the MVA had competitors, you can bet that things would change.

August 21, 2009 11:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

P.S. I'm the Anon who just wrote that blurb about the healthcare system and plumbers. For the record....I believe that Bush and Cheney did absolutely atrocious things that hurt our country greatly. Had he been up for election, I would not have voted for him.

So I am not a Bush fan. That being said, Obama is a complete disaster. Just because you think that Bush was bad, this does not automatically translate into "Obama is good."

It seems to me that the liberals are desperately clinging to this bad healthcare plan simply because they want to believe that Obama would never lead them down the wrong path.

August 21, 2009 11:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

liberals are starting to turn on Obama too

wealthy gays have stop contributing after Obama compared same gender marriage to incest

only 25% of the public supports Obama's strategy in Afghanistan

Obama thought he could be elected president and just farm out all decisions to Congress and everyone would keep cheering him for doing nothing

summer has been a teachable moment for him

he might have spent too much time in the White House beer garden to notice

August 21, 2009 11:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this is exactly what happened to Carter

he tried to be "moderate to liberal" and the extreme liberals who controlled Congress went ballistic

then he started to get on TV and lecture the public (Obama has already began to go down this path)

the only thing that could save Obama is if the Republicans regain control of Congress in 2010

we'll work for that and if Obama is smart, he won't put up any fierce resistance

August 21, 2009 12:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes, the Clinton model seemed to work best

a liberal face in the White House with no power who can just blame Congress when he doesn't pass the liberal agenda but can take credit for the successful policies of conservatives just because he was President and signing the laws

most people don't remember that Clinton balanced the budget because Gingrich made him do it

it's a win-win

Obama will get the credit and conservative values move America to success

August 21, 2009 12:35 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "most people don't remember that Clinton balanced the budget because Gingrich made him do it".

Yes, just like the republicans forced Bush to balance the budget when he was in power. Oh, wait, that didn't happen either.

Bad anonymous made 14 of the last 17 comments. Clearly his life is empty and devoid of companionship. He spends all his free time here in a vain attempt to make up for the happiness that so obviously eludes him. Fitting, that someone who works to oppress others and deny innocent people health care should be forced to waste his short life in meaningless activity.

August 21, 2009 12:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess you're right Priya

I need to get a life

like you

OK, just one more:

"Yes, just like the republicans forced Bush to balance the budget when he was in power. Oh, wait, that didn't happen either."

if you look at history, budgets aren't balanced during times of war

Clinton was fortunate enough to be President after the Reagan Star Wars program had scared the Soviet Union into surrendering in the Cold War

Bush, alternatively, had to pick up the pieces after Clinton had ineptly mismanaged foreign policy and convinced our enemies that we could be defeated

we were attacked by ruthless Islamic fundamentalists who resent our freedom and we had to respond

it cost money but it had to be done

here's some lyrics to help you remember the times:

"Now this nation that I love
Has fallen under attack
A mighty sucker punch came flying in
From somewhere in the back
Soon as we could see clearly
Through our big black eye
Man, we lit up your world
Like the 4th of July

Justice will be served
And the battle will rage
This big dog will fight
When you rattle his cage
And you'll be sorry that you messed with
The U.S. of A.
'Cause we'll put a boot up your ass
It's the American way

Hey Uncle Sam
Put your name at the top of his list
And the Statue of Liberty
Started shaking her fist
And the eagle will fly
Man, it's gonna be hell
When you hear Mother Freedom
Start ringing her bell
And it feels like the whole wide world is raining down on you
Brought to you Courtesy of the Red White and Blue"

George W, btw, was re-elected.

No one will ever say that about Obama.

August 21, 2009 1:05 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said " guess you're right Priya. I need to get a life, like you."

My life isn't remotely comparable to yours. I'm an infrequent commentor here while this blog dominates your day. My life is busy and full unlike yours. I have a wonderful companion who makes me burst with joy whenever I'm around him. You should wish to have the life I have.

August 21, 2009 1:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm an infrequent commentor"

those were comments?

I thought you were joking

considering the thousands of miles between you and this site, one must wonder how many other sites you frequent

August 21, 2009 2:07 PM  
Anonymous Chris said...

I feel bad for her because she probably has been mocked all her life. At least she can be finally do something that she can be proud of. Besides, why are they questioning her gender now after she won. If there was a problem, they should have checked her out discreetly before the race instead of embarrassing her after she won.

August 21, 2009 3:23 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

If I own a plumbing business, and my insurance company refuses to care for my plumbers because of red tape or other issues, and I lose work because of that, then, logically, I will choose another health care option.

And if you do switch plans, any of your plumbers or their family members covered by your first policy who were being treated for any disease or condition will have to wait for another year to be covered for treatment again because the disease or condition will be considered a "pre-existing condition" by the second insurance company. Hopefully none of them will die awaiting approval of the new private insurer.

most people don't remember that Clinton balanced the budget because Gingrich made him do it

Everybody remembers Gingrich shut down the federal government in 1995 and then in 1996 election, the GOP lost House seats.

Even Tom Delay said:

"He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One...Newt had been careless to say such a thing, and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child. The revolution, I can tell you, was never the same."

Delay's next gig will be wearing "little pump[s], with high heels" on Dancing with the Stars!

That's quite a career trajectory -- from Republican House Majority Leader to Dancing with the Stars -- in four years.

Glub glub glub

August 21, 2009 4:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Everybody remembers Gingrich shut down the federal government in 1995 and then in 1996 election, the GOP lost House seats."


Still doesn't change the fact that Clinton's big achievement was to enact the Republican contract with America and extend the Reagan era.

If Obama wants history to remember him kindly, he'll do the same.

August 21, 2009 10:28 PM  
Blogger Jason D said...

is there no moderator?

Seriously, what's with all the off-topic posts being allowed? Especially considering one anonymous troll keeps thread-jacking so he can pontificate? Blogs are free, ban him/her and encourage them to start his/her own blog instead of constantly hijacking this one.

Freedom of speech is one thing, but you're under no obligation to provide a forum for other people when they can so easily (and freely) provide one for themselves.

August 22, 2009 1:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm glad to see somebody finally echoing what I have been saying here for some time now. Thanks for making your statement.
When one looks at the current predicament in Congress related to Health Care reform, it becomes readily obvious that we liberals are saddled with our usual "be kind to everyone, hear everyone out, encourage debate, see all sides of the debate, look, and hope, for compromise" predicament.
We continue to do this...even when it becomes very apparent what the objectives and tactics of the right-wingers are.

Jim, the moderator, echoes that same philosophy here...but he is the "traffic director". While I understand his position, I do not necessarily agree with him.

There does come a time, however, when we have to stand up for our principles, move on, and press for our beliefs and ideals in the face of the relentless negativism and regressiveness of radical conservative right-wingers and nay-sayers.

Enough of allowing these loosers to dominate and control the dialog...even at this site!

August 22, 2009 10:30 AM  
Anonymous citizen's font of wisdom said...

and why isn't it enough to present the counter-argument, Dio?

is it because, in a fair exchange of ideas, your side always loses?

just asking

August 22, 2009 11:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clearly a distortion of reality on your part, Anonymous. Wah, wah, wah

August 22, 2009 12:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A response to you, "Clear font" (sic.)
"There does come a time, however, when we have to stand up for our principles, move on, and press for our beliefs and ideals in the face of the relentless negativism and regressiveness of radical conservative right-wingers and nay-sayers."
We already know what your positions are on just about any subject you "debate" about...there is nothing new to be learned from you. You are like an endless tape loop! You are a troll and your attempts to pirate this site are sickening. Do your preaching elsewhere.

As good old Barney said: "Arguing with you is like arguing with the dining room table".


August 22, 2009 12:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We already know what your positions are on just about any subject you "debate" about...there is nothing new to be learned from you. You are like an endless tape loop!"

Oh, I think this applies to most comments here, on both sides.

There are, however, subtleties you probably fail to comprehend, Dio.

Not your fault, of course. IQ varies among individuals but try to tolerate the opinions of others some more.

"As good old Barney said: "Arguing with you is like arguing with the dining room table"."

This from a guy who claimed he didn't know his live-in boyfriend was running a gay prostitution ring out of his townhouse and who, not long ago, pressured Fannie Mae into "rolling the dice on subsidized housing.

I'm sure Americans will take him seriously.

August 22, 2009 3:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" Troll:
You don't think we take you seriously here, do you? How delusional of you. Once again you prove yourself to be the carbuncle on the posterior on the honest folks who post here.
I suspect we would all be better off here if you followed your own "sage" advice: "Not your fault, of course. IQ varies among individuals but try to tolerate the opinions of others some more."
Something about a kettle and a pot perhaps?

August 23, 2009 7:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Something about a kettle and a pot perhaps?"

Would this be you talking to yourself?

Think about it.

After you take your meds.

August 23, 2009 11:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeez... "Anonymous" you are pushing drugs along with your other "talents" for pandering?

August 24, 2009 9:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I assume Citizen has a prescription.

August 24, 2009 11:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A personal story from the Northwest:

"I just recently had both lens replaced in my eyes in Vancouver. I went to the Seattle eye clinic and was told that I had the start of cataracts. The recomendation was to get lens implants. They told me that there would be a 3 1/2 month wait for a consultation. I said that was ok. The cost per eye was $17k. I still said OK.

Just out of curiosity, I called my GP in Vancouver. He asked me symptoms and asked me if I could come up the following week. He confirmed the diagnosis and immediately had me see an Ophthalmologist in his building. She scheduled me 11 appointments in the next 48 hrs for measurements, explaining that mistakes are often made not having at least 2 other Drs. measure with different equipment. She also said that there was Bausch and Lomb measure device in one of the offices that was the beast and the only one in Canada. After the myriad of appointments the lenses were ordered and she proceed to do one eye per week for 2 weeks. The results are Incredible. The care even better. The cost was the best: $ 0.00.

The propaganda and slandering is a real shame in more ways than one."

August 24, 2009 11:52 AM  
Anonymous Maryanne Arnow said...

ummmmm.... Actual topic, anyone ?

This is COWARDICE. Plain and true. Hope everyone knows it for what it is.

No reasonable attempt to address the actual topic by anon(s). Their threadjack posts are ohhh, sooo, intelligent, authoritative, and well written, but it is still nothing but complete cowardice disguised as legitimacy in order to derail reasonable dialogue of the topic at hand.

Totally unethical, dishonest, immoral, rude and irrespective of all others on this board or to the topic at hand. What sad and totally disgusting hypocrisy from the morally superior anons.

It was shown that even after this WOMAN had SUCCESSFULLY undergone a complete physical examination, and it was made clear that her physical features mirror exactly the rest of her tribal population (highly athletic, flat chested, ambigously feminine/masculine facial features)that was still not enough and now must be forced to undergo genetic testing.

This is possibly political as she has been setting records, yet has no professional athletic background or resources the same as many other olympians, and is breaking all the records.

Someone must not have liked that (speculative, admittedly), and decided this was the only way to beat her down far enough to remove the socially underprivileged, yet obviously superior competition. Sad. All of it.

Right down to the invasion of her genetic privacy to such an extent.

August 29, 2009 11:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home