Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Everybody Has a Gender Identity

We recently saw a review of surveys that concluded that approximately 0.3 percent of Americans identify themselves as transgender. That means that 99.7 percent of people do not identify themselves as transgender, and the great majority of those have never really given the matter much thought. At the same time, as we saw recently with the videotaped beating of Chrissy Lee Polis in a Rosedale McDonald's, transgender people are very often the targets of abuse, discrimination, and violence, simply because of who they are. In that case, some McDonald's customers decided that Ms. Polis was a man and beat her up for using the women's restroom.

This group needs protection, perhaps more than any other. Yet the fact that they are such a tiny minority, and that the majority of cisgender individuals have no insights or empathy for them, makes it very difficult to drum up a campaign to motivate legislators to pass a bill to protect transgender people from discrimination.

A blogger named Arizona Abby published a pretty good discussion of this topic recently. I will pick and choose from her text here:
If you look at federal or state anti-discrimination laws, you’ll see something very interesting. Although the primary purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (including, Title VII, the federal ban on sex, race and other discrimination in employment) was to end discrimination against African-Americans, if you read it, you will see that nowhere does it say that it is illegal to discriminate against African-Americans. Instead, it says that it’s illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race. Why the “Transsexual” vs. “Transgender” Debate is Irrelevant to the Fight for Equal Rights

It would in fact be impossible to list every race, ethnic group, every religion -- can you imagine a law that made it illegal to discriminate against, say, Baptists and Mormons but not Presbyterians? Instead, the law just says you can't discriminate against a person because of their religion. Much neater, much easier to enforce -- and it affords protection to everyone.

Skipping down...
In addition, there is another constitutional problem with using terms like African-American in anti-discrimination laws. If a statute protects only people who fall into one racial category, but not another, what you have done is enshrine in the law the very racial discrimination that you are trying to eliminate.

For these reasons, even though we say that Montgomery County has a "transgender antidiscrimination law," it doesn't. It has a law that says you cannot discriminate on the basis of gender identity. It protects me just as much as it protects you, though of course one of us may be much more likely to need the protection.

This year our Maryland state legislature failed -- and the word is applicable with all its connotations here -- to pass two bills important to LGBT citizens. One had to do with same-sex marriage, and received a lot of press. The legislature's collapse on this issue revealed the weakness of our leaders as well as the ineffectiveness of the activists who had the bill in the bag, had a clear majority in favor of it, and let the victory evaporate. This was a big topic -- for instance, Maryland Politics Watch wheezed back to life yesterday after a month without breathing to compare the performance of our governor with the governor of New York, who was able to get a marriage equality bill passed in both houses of the legislature. You will not see in that article a single occurrence of the word "gender." The Maryland gender identity nondiscrimination bill also failed in the legislature, same thing, a majority would have supported it, but our pusillanimous courageous leaders in Annapolis let it die in committee. They cowered when the radical right threatened to say bad things about them, and let the gender identity bill die rather than face the noise machine that would surely have reverberated if they had passed it.

Now Arizona Abby makes a point that I think is probably central to winning the debate.
Under this approach, everyone is protected against discrimination based on their gender identity (i.e., the gender they identify as internally), regardless of whether or how that identity is expressed outwardly, and against discrimination based on their appearance, mannerisms and other behavior that are interpreted by others as an expression of gender, regardless of the person’s gender identity. In other words, everyone has a gender identity and a gender expression; therefore, everyone is protected against discrimination on that basis. Thus, the housewife who is too harried with housework and delivering kids to and from school to put on makeup or a dress can’t be kicked out of the grocery store for wearing her husband’s flannel shirt and buzz cutting her hair because she doesn’t have time to care for it (or simply likes it that way.) Similarly, the straight man who, for whatever reason, talks with a lisp or has what others see as effeminate gestures, and the straight woman who has a square jaw, large hands and feet and facial hair, are protected from discrimination simply because someone decides they’re not masculine or feminine enough to qualify as a man or a woman. Those people, too, suffer the effects of prejudice deriving from our society’s gender norms and deserve protection against discrimination just as much as trans people.

(One of the most famous cases relevant to protecting trans people against discrimination involved a cisgender woman, not a trans woman. In that case – Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, Ann Hopkins was a CPA working for the accounting firm who was eligible to become a partner. She was denied partnership, however, because some of the existing partners thought she was too aggressive for a woman, and needed to dress and act more femininely. When she got to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court held that Price Waterhouse had violated the ban on sex discrimination under Title VII by discriminating against her because she failed to comply with the “sex stereotypes” held by the existing partners for how women should look and act. This is the legal theory that has since been applied to protect trans people against discrimination under state and federal statutes that ban sex discrimination, even though they don’t explicitly bar discrimination based on gender identity or expression. The best and most recent example of this is Diane Schroer’s decisive victory over the Library of Congress.)

Politicians respond to votes, and when 99.7 percent of people identify with the gender they were assigned at birth it is going to be difficult to get any politician to go out on a limb to protect the other 0.3 percent. But the fact is, a gender-identity nondiscrimination bill doesn't only protect the tiny minority, it protects everybody.

34 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"transgender people are very often the targets of abuse, discrimination, and violence, simply because of who they are"

how does anyone know they're not the gender they're presenting?

if some guy is so sure he's actually a girl, why does he have such a hard time making it convincing?

"They cowered when the radical right threatened to say bad things about them,"

and well they should

we could end their political career like a giant squashing a bug

"the housewife who is too harried with housework and delivering kids to and from school to put on makeup or a dress can’t be kicked out of the grocery store for wearing her husband’s flannel shirt and buzz cutting her hair because she doesn’t have time to care for it (or simply likes it that way.) Similarly, the straight man who, for whatever reason, talks with a lisp or has what others see as effeminate gestures, and the straight woman who has a square jaw, large hands and feet and facial hair, are protected from discrimination simply because someone decides they’re not masculine or feminine enough to qualify as a man or a woman."

none of these people are necessarily transgendered

they are all common and none of these individuals would suffer any form of discrimination that calls for intervention

"But the fact is, a gender-identity nondiscrimination bill doesn't only protect the tiny minority, it protects everybody"

Jim, Jim, Jim....

"everybody" was already protected

nondiscrimination bills based on difficulties had by a small minority, who don't suffer any unreasonable and insurmountable harm, do more harm than good

"WASHINGTON (AP) - In a blunt challenge to Republicans in Congress, President Barack Obama insisted Wednesday that elimination of selected tax breaks for oil companies and the super-wealthy must be included in any deficit reduction plan."

these "breaks" are used to control these companies

they aren't because we like them so much

"Obama also called on Congress to renew a payroll tax cut that took effect on Jan 1, one of several steps he said lawmakers can take quickly to help reduce 9.1 percent unemployment"

oh yeah, Barry

that did a lot of good before

how many strikes does this guy get before being called out?

"Although he declined to announce support for legalizing gay marriage, he defended his record on rights for homosexual Americans,"

well, pro-family groups appreciate your support, BO

"he said any agreement must include increased government revenue"

I, for one, am thrilled to death that Obama will make raising taxes a theme of his campaign

we couldn't ask for a nicer gift

"Obama's last previous full-fledged news conference was in March. In the intervening months, the economic recovery has slowed.

The president stepped to the podium not long after the International Monetary Fund publicly urged lawmakers to raise the U.S. debt limit.

The budget deficit is projected to reach a record $1.4 trillion for the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Obama "said as recently as six months ago that keeping taxes where they are enables businesses to hire more workers. In other words, that raising taxes leads to fewer jobs. So he can call for tax hikes. But he can't call for tax hikes and job creation. It's one or the other. "

Defending his record on gays, he pointed to eliminating the ban on openly gay men and women serving in the military, a policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."

June 29, 2011 5:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"how does anyone know they're not the gender they're presenting?"

If they passed puberty without hormone treatment, their body size and shape will probably not conform to their gender. A transwoman may have a beard, broad shoulers, a deep voice, receeding hairline, for example.

June 29, 2011 6:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We recently saw a review of surveys that concluded that approximately 0.3 percent of Americans identify themselves as transgender. That means that 99.7 percent of people do not identify themselves as transgender,

WHERE DID YOU GET THOSE NUMBERS?
American Psychological Association says:
http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/transgender.aspx
How prevalent are transgender people?
It is difficult to accurately estimate the prevalence of transgender people in Western countries. As many as 2-3% of biological males engage in cross-dressing, at least occasionally. Current estimates of the prevalence of transsexualism are about 1 in 10,000 for biological males and 1 in 30,000 for biological females. The number of people in other transgender categories is unknown.
Then what does transgender mean?
According to the APA, Cross-dressers or transvestites comprise the most numerous transgender group. Transgender people can live part-time or full-time as members of the other gender.
How do you quantify people that are part-time? What is meant by part-time?

June 29, 2011 10:28 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

If you'd scrolled down you'd know where the numbers came from: HERE

JimK

June 29, 2011 10:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In other words, that raising taxes leads to fewer jobs."

You think cutting taxes leads to more jobs.

So show us after 10 years of Bush tax cuts, where are all the jobs that have been created?

June 29, 2011 10:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"where are all the jobs that have been created?"

during the early Bush years, we experienced several calamities from 9/11 to Katrina that should have impacted the economy severely and yet economists were amazed how unemployment stayed low

until 2007, when the Dems grabbed control of Congress

so, the jobs created are everywhere

the counter postion to socialism right now, however, is that tax revenue should stay about where it is but that marginal rates should go down

there is little doubt, however, that raising taxes would stifle employment

even keynes would agree

June 30, 2011 5:21 AM  
Anonymous guess who's retiring in 2013? said...

"With a little over a year until the presidential election, Barack Obama's hopes for a second term increasingly depend on how Americans view his handing of the unemployment crisis -- and that view is only getting worse.

In fact, a substantial majority of Americans now view President Obama's ability to deal with the jobs crisis negatively, a recent poll by Harris Interactive finds. Surveying 2,163 adults between June 13-20, Harris Interactive reports that 74 percent of Americans view President Obama's work on jobs to be "poor" or "only fair."

A United States President has not been reelected with an unemployment rate above 7.2 percent since World War II."

June 30, 2011 7:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

he will, of course, keep blaming Bush

but, even among those who buy that bill of goods, the problem is not who's to blame but, instead, who can do something about it

after four years, if Obama can't make any progress on jobs and the deficit, we need to find someone who can

Romney, Bachman, Perry, Palin...even a drip like Pawlenty

anyone would be preferable

June 30, 2011 7:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From 2007 through today, Bush's tax cuts are still in effect. Katrina happened in 2005.

The left leg of the bikini graph http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_05/023691.php shows employment dropping in freefall starting in December, 2007 and Bush signed TARP in October. 2008. Obama signed a stimulus spending bill and employment numbers turned around and we finally gained some jobs in November, 2009.

The most of the current deficit was created by Republicans. Our current deficit is about $13.5 trillion dollars. Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II are responsible for nearly 70% of that debt - an amount more than twice as much as all previous presidents combined.

Conservative attempts to blame a Democratic Congress don't hold water -- for the most part, Congress passed budgets slightly lower than those requested by Bush and Reagan. During the time this massive debt was being run up, did Republicans express even an iota of concern? Nope. In fact, Dick Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

Fact: The Ryan budget - which Republicans voted for and support with an almost religious fervor - doesn't achieve a balanced budget until 2063.

Why does it take so long? Because balancing the budget isn't really the point. In fact, Ryan's budget adds at least $62 trillion to the debt between now and 2063 - so much for their faux emergency.

In reality, the Ryan budget is a stealth vehicle designed to pass a nightmarish wish list of very unpopular Republican giveaways to the rich and powerful, while repealing popular social programs.

The US is a debtor nation, and as such, we are desperately dependent upon good credit. So far, we have been able borrow and borrow at favorable rates because "the full faith and credit of the USgovernment" stands behind every bond, every borrowed dollar.

But that could change if Republicans continue their cynical game of economic chicken.

What Republicans risk, even if they eventually capitulate and raise the debt ceiling, is the loss of this faith, and the unprecedented catastrophe that loss would bring on.

If the international community even suspects the US will routinely consider not honoring its debts, the cost of money for US industry, consumers and government would skyrocket almost overnight, bringing on the mother of all depressions, possibly with simultaneous inflation.

Republicans claim they're doing this because they're genuinely alarmed by the deficit, and that it poses a clear and present danger to us.

Republicans couldn't care less about the deficit. Their years of deficit spending, tax cutting and revenue slashing, along with their support for the Ryan budget, which extends the debt through 2063 proves it.

June 30, 2011 10:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"From 2007 through today, Bush's tax cuts are still in effect."

not the only economic factor

right now, economic activity is supressed because business believe major burdens of taxes, regulations and health care are coming

raising the rates will drag us down

btw, rates in place for ten years are the tax rates

not extending them IS raising taxes

"Obama signed a stimulus spending bill and employment numbers turned around and we finally gained some jobs in November, 2009"

right now, we have payroll tax cut, historically low interest rates and Federal deficits of 1,5 trillion

how much more stimulus could we do?

something's wrong and it's happening on Obama's watch

"The most of the current deficit was created by Republicans."

cumulatively?

Obama will double it in his term if something isn't done

"If the international community even suspects the US will routinely consider not honoring its debts, the cost of money for US industry, consumers and government would skyrocket almost overnight, bringing on the mother of all depressions, possibly with simultaneous inflation."

which is why the Obama administration needs to publicly announce that paying our debts is a priority, second only to national security

we raise plenty of money for both

the other stuff can wait until Dems agree to compromise

Obama is causing a loss of faith in our credit, by suggesting otherwise

isn't Obama watching over this government?:

"WASHINGTON -- The FBI said Wednesday that members of an anti-gay fundamentalist group participated in the bureau's training of police officers and FBI agents – a move the bureau says it will take steps to remedy in the future.

The bureau extended the invitations to Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., for training this spring at two bureau facilities in Virginia: Quantico and Manassas.

At FBI headquarters in Washington, bureau spokesman Paul Bresson acknowledged that Westboro was invited to the training sessions.

An official said that bureau personnel organizing training courses were trying to bring in a variety of views they thought would be helpful.

Bresson, the bureau spokesman, said that the invitation to Westboro "was done in an effort to establish open dialogue in an academic setting to train law enforcement on how to more effectively engage with the activist community."

The training, Bresson said, was not only for FBI agents but for police executives from around the country."

OK....

I think Obama is even making the media mad now:

"Mark Halperin has been suspended indefinitely by MSNBC for calling President Obama a "dick" live on air."

June 30, 2011 11:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The most of the current deficit was created by Republicans. Our current deficit is about $13.5 trillion dollars. Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II are responsible for nearly 70% of that debt"

I have a little surprise for you

70% is exactly the proportion of time during the last forty years that Republicans held the White House

Americans REEEALLLY like Republicans

so the deficit appears proportional to the amount of time in office

generally, Republicans have to clean up the Dems' messes

after Jimmy Carter damaged our prestige, major spending was necessary to overcome it

Reagan won the Cold War by using our capacity to borrow and overwhelmed the Soviets

Bill Clinton slashed Defense spending, tempting our enemies to probe our vulnerabilities

George W sustained us through the aftermath

and Obama?

he will double our debts

to build a bunch of useless road projects that do nothing but annoy people with traffic delays

and free health insurance for everyone!!

paid for courtesy of the businesses that would otherwise grow our economy

June 30, 2011 12:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Last week, the New York State Assembly voted to legalize same-sex marriage, something the Maryland legislature tried and failed to do.

So, what does New York's law mean for Maryland? We asked Del. Jeff Waldstreicher, a Kensington Democrat who supported Maryland's last marriage equality bill.

Waldstreicher said the success for marriage equality in New York is a victory, but it does not make gay marriage around the country a forgone conclusion.

"Progress is not inevitable," he said.

June 30, 2011 4:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Last week, the New York State Assembly voted to legalize same-sex marriage, something the Maryland legislature tried and failed to do in its last session.

So, what does New York's law mean for Maryland? We asked Del. Jeff Waldstreicher and Sen. Rich Madaleno, two Kensington Democrats who supported Maryland's last marriage equality bill and have said they will try again in the next session.

Madaleno said in an e-mail that the New York bill will help build momentum for states like Maryland seeking to legalize same-sex marriages.

"Maryland legislators and advocates, as well as the governor's office, will be able to use the New York victory as a model for moving marriage equality forward next session," he said.

Waldstreicher said the success for marriage equality in New York is a landmark victory, but it does not make gay marriage around the country a forgone conclusion.

"Progress is not inevitable," he said. "Passing this bill (in Maryland) will be the product of hard work, creativity and boots on the ground."

In New York, Gov. Mario Cuomo did much of the legwork to get that bill passed, rallying senators from both parties around the cause, and Madaleno said Maryland could benefit from a similar model.

"Gov. (Martin) O'Malley did important behind-the-scenes work in helping us get marriage equality further than we ever have before in Maryland last session," he said. "I believe the marriage equality bill should be an administration bill to show that this issue has the full support and backing of the governor. I have personally asked Gov. O'Malley to sponsor marriage equality on several occasions over the past few months."

Waldstreicher said adopting New York's approach could be the key to legalizing same-sex marriage in Maryland.

"Anyone who looks at New York sees that the governor's advocacy played a role in getting it passed," he said. "We've got to take a new approach, and the New York model provides an outline for what that approach might look like."

http://kensington.patch.com/articles/how-will-new-yorks-gay-marriage-bill-affect-maryland

June 30, 2011 5:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Waldstreicher" is scrawny little twerp who stopped Dana's first attempt at public office by smooching the butt of the teacher's union

if you ever want to talk to him, he goes to the 7-11 on Metropolitan Ave in Kensington around 7:30 every morning and buys a couple of slim jims and a yoo-hoo for breakfast before jumping into his car with the special delegate plates

if this guy says gay marriage is not a "foregone conclusion", he knows what he's talking about

even the loser liberal who is president of the U.S. can't bring himself to support gay marriage

look for Andrew Cuomo's political downfall in the next election

O'Malley won't chance going that far

June 30, 2011 6:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

he wouldn't daaarre!!

June 30, 2011 7:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""Waldstreicher" is scrawny little twerp who stopped Dana's first attempt at public office by smooching the butt of the teacher's union"

So why did you post a butcher job of an article, making Waldstreicher appear to be on your side of the same-sex marriage debate

talk about a twerp

June 30, 2011 11:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On the heels of New York’s passage of same-sex marriage, seven lesbian and gay couples in New Jersey have decided to file a lawsuit against the state, arguing its current civil unions and domestic partnership laws aren’t enough.

The couples, with the help of Garden State Equality and Lambda Legal, say in the complaint the state’s civil union and domestic protection law — created to grant gay and lesbian couples the same legal protections as marriage — have fallen short.

The lawsuit, filed with New Jersey’s Superior Court, also comes days after Gov. Chris Christie told the press that he would veto any same-sex marriage bill that crossed his desk.

“I made my position really clear during the election, that I believe marriage is between one man and one woman and should remain so,” Christie said. “But I am also in favor of strengthening civil unions and working with groups like Garden State Equality and others,” Christie said during a radio interview.

“What they’re saying is that civil unions don’t give them the same recognition as the word ‘marriage’ does,” said Len Deo, president of New Jersey Family Council. “Garden State Equality and Lambda Legal Defense Fund have a very high threshold to prove factually that civil unions are not working.”

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst, agrees that gay activists will have a tough time proving their case.

June 30, 2011 11:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst with CitizenLink, a Focus on the Family Affiliate agrees that gay activists will have a tough time proving their case, but family advocates shouldn’t count this a victory yet.

“We are talking about a liberal, activist court,” he said. “Last time a similar lawsuit came before the court, the seven justices felt that New Jersey should grant either marriage or civil unions to the gay and lesbian groups.”

November 2008, Focus On The Family Faces Massive Layoffs After Prop 8 Push

June 30, 2011 11:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So why did you post a butcher job of an article, making Waldstreicher appear to be on your side of the same-sex marriage debate"

I didn't do that

I posted the part of the article that I thought was of interest, which is that the scrawny sycophant to the Apple ballot believes gay marriage is not inevitable just because it passed in NY

from what I posted it was clear that Wallstretcher considered the NY vote a "victory"

so, when you said:

"So why did you post a butcher job of an article, making Waldstreicher appear to be on your side of the same-sex marriage debate"

you were lying

that's common among TTF sympathizers

July 01, 2011 3:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gov. Chris Christie told the press that he would veto any same-sex marriage bill that crossed his desk.

July 01, 2011 3:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TTFers may think Obama is doing a great job on the economy

but his Treasury Secretary knows better

he's resigning as soon as the debt ceiling is raised

July 01, 2011 9:05 AM  
Anonymous the President appeals to fear said...

the end of the world is coming for the Obama presidency:

"The 2012 presidential marathon is on, and one mainstream pollster (Rasmussen) says a Republican apparition is opening up a lead on President Obama. (Any Republican 46 percent, Barack Obama 42 percent.)

Snapshots of Mr. Obama’s landscape, taken on the eve of the Fourth of July weekend, aren’t something he wants to post in the family scrapbook.

If the president is not yet in full panic mode, he’s right to be running scared. Class warfare is the Democratic default mode, and Mr. Obama is looking for the panic button earlier than incumbents usually do. He warns darkly of many bad things — “significant and unpredictable consequences” — unless Republicans agree to raise the debt limit and stand by to raise taxes.

Mr. Obama has dropped his trademark professorial approach to the bully pulpit, his long and convoluted sentences that loop, twist and turn in search of something to say. He’s serving up plainer speech. His aides explain that he has been studying Ronald Reagan for tips on how to better communicate, forgetting that the good-natured Great Communicator actually had something cheerful to communicate.

This week, chiding Congress for taking too much time off, he employed his two daughters as stage props, saying their approach to getting their homework done on time could be a model for lazy congressmen working on the budget. He sounded less like the Gipper and more like Jimmy Carter turning to little Amy for advice on how to deal with the threat of “nukular” war. (We thought the president had a gentleman’s agreement with the press to keep presidential children - cute, feisty and able to set an example for their elders as they may be - out of the harsh politics of Washington.)

The president resorted to the politics of City Hall in his Wednesday news conference, railing six times against tax breaks for owners of corporate jets, and warning of gloom and doom for “a bunch of kids out there who are not getting college scholarships” if tax loopholes are not closed on corporate riders and oil companies “making money hand over fist.”

The president’s acolytes are howling calamity even louder than he is. Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York hops first on one foot and then the other in the manner of a little boy resisting the urge to dash to the bathroom. He boasts that the Democrats have the upper hand in the budget negotiations, but hops across the line into hysteria country to accuse Republicans of deliberately sabotaging the economy just to win the 2012 elections. “It is becoming clear that insisting on a slash-and-burn approach may be part of this plan … which they think only helps them in 2012,” he told the Economic Policy Institute in Washington.

Bill Clinton, who is no longer president except in his own mind, suggests that the solution to the budget dilemma is to agree to both cut spending and raise taxes, but not actually do either one. “What I’d like to see them do is agree on the outlines of a 10-year plan and agree not to start either [raising taxes] or the spending cuts until we’ve got this recovery under way,” Bubba told ABC News in Chicago, where he is holding forth at something called the “Clinton Global Initiative.” Finally, a plan — promising something and then not delivering — any politician could master.

And here comes the apparition, slowly becoming flesh. The Republican field is sorting itself out, as presidential fields always do. Only a month ago, anyone would have imagined there might not be an audience this season because everyone was a player on stage. Now Mitt Romney, steady as she goes but a little shopworn; Michelle Bachmann, improving with experience; and Rick Perry, maybe a Texas messiah, are all the buzz. Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, like vaudevillians who couldn’t quite play Peoria, seem to have been jerked back to obscurity by the man with the hook. Of course, there’s always tomorrow."

July 01, 2011 9:17 AM  
Anonymous dithering, inconsistent, unstable said...

has Obama considered how his inconsistency is affecting world markets?

is he screwing up the world economy the same way he's screwing up the U.S. economy?

this guy has got to go

Dems should start calling for his resignation

even Biden would be better:

"Timothy Geithner has set August 2 as the date at which the U.S. would begin defaulting on its debt if a deal is not reached, but according to the Wall Street Journal the Obama administration is now saying the actual deadline is even sooner:

The Obama administration believes congressional leaders must agree to a deficit-reduction deal by July 22 in order to raise the government's borrowing limit in time to avoid a default in early August, according to Democratic officials with knowledge of the negotiations."

remember how they were saying May until it came?

the guy's a secular Harold Camping

July 01, 2011 9:57 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I love the use of "cis" and "trans" in this discussion. They're Latin prefixes meaning "on this side of" and "on the other side of", respectively, as in "transalpine Gaul (France)" and "cisalpine Gaul (Northern Italy)", both inhabited in ancient times by Gauls (Celts).

July 01, 2011 7:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it's delightful, isn't it, Robert?

July 01, 2011 8:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bachmann Husband's Clinic Accepts: $137K from Medicaid Annually
Congresswoman accused of hypocrisy in health care

Presidential candidate and recent lightning rod for controversy Rep. Michele Bachmann has been highly critical of the Medicaid program's alleged swelling of "welfare rolls," but recently circulating figures show the mental health clinic founded and operated by her husband has received annual Medicaid payments topping $137,000 for the better part of six years for patient care.

Bachmann has been very vocal about getting government out of health care. In fact, during her announcement, she said, "Government tihnks they know better -- how to make a better life for us. They even think they can make us healthier."

Also, when Gov. Mark Datyon signed an executive order in January to extend Medicaid coverage to 100,000 low-income Minnesotans, Bachmann was among the first to criticize.

Yet, while the congresswoman may want to oust the government from the health care industry, it hasn't stopped her husband from cashing Uncle Sam's checks. That has some critics calling the presidential hopeful a hypocrite.

Marcus Bachmann's Bachmann & Associates clinic -- a Christian counseling service with offices in Lake Elmo and Burnsville -- collected six-figure annual sums, and state records show Marcus Bachmann, a clinical psychologist, also applied for and received $24,000 in federal and state grants to provide mental health and chemical dependency treatment with the provision that the money not be used for religious activities.

The figures were provided by a Freedom of Information request from NBC News.

Bachmann defended the payments on FOX News, saying, "It actually took away from the clinic, because those were training hours where employees were not able to bring more income in."

Still, the money was accepted, which has some wondering why now that she claims the net value was a loss.

On Wednesday, the Bachmann campaign issued a statement saying:

"Medicaid is a valuable form of insurance for many Americans and it would be discriminatory not to accept Medicaid as a form of payment. As a state-sponsored counseling service, Bachmann & Associates has a responsibility to provide Medicaid and medical assistance, regardless of a patient's financial situation."

July 01, 2011 10:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In a sense, that's almost right. It's not just a responsibility in the ethical sense, but it's also the law. If they accept any form of state insurance, the clinic would need to accept Medicaid clients as well.

The $161,000 in payments from the Minnesota Department of Human Services to the clinic also fell in the face of Michele's statements days ago after media inquired about her family's benefits from government aid after auestions arose regarding a family farm that had received almost $260,000 in federal farm subsidies.

Fox News Sunday queried her about the clinic aid also getting government money through the farm. Bachmann insisted it was a "one-time training money that came from the federal government. And it certainly didn't help our clinic. My husband and I did not get the money, (it was) mental health training money that went to the employees."

Department of Human Services reports the state's Medicaid program is funded nearly half-and-half by state and federal funds. The funds to the clinic for the treatment of low-income, mentally ill patients are performed on a "fee for service" basis -- paid through reimbursements.

The clinic also reportedly participates in managed-care plans that are reimbursed under a separate state-funded health care program. The state does not hold record of payment information to clinics that participate, however.

The issue of her receipt of government aid has gotten attention because she is an opponent of federal spending programs and favors major cutbacks -- especially on health care, including the expansions of Medicaid mentioned in recent legislation.

"Right now, Governor Dayton is wanting to commit Minnesota taxpayers to add even more welfare recipients on the welfare rolls at a very great cost," Bachmann said in January.

The Lake Elmo clinic offers "quality Christian counseling" for myriad health problems, as stated on it's website, and the controversy surrounding it may go beyond Medicaid payments and the congresswoman's stance.

A few years ago, articles were published that suggested Marcus Bachmann was involved in so-called "restorative therapy," a controversial Christian counseling approach that seeks to turn gays straight.

FOX 9 News asked Marcus Bachmann about whether his clinic offers the therapy, and he responded, "It's more complicated than that."

He declined to elaborate further; however, his views have been shared through lectures about the homosexual agenda and discussions about why sexual orientation should not be taught in schools.

"Barbarians need to be educated," Marcus Bachmann said. "They need to be disciplined, and just because some thinks it or feels it doesn't mean someone has to go down that road."

In an interview a few years ago, Bachmann said he has no problem counseling people who want to remain gay.

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/politics/congress/Bachmann-Clinic:-$137K-Gov't-Funds-Annually-jun-29-2011#ixzz1QuWTBzqx

July 01, 2011 10:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

talk about a phony controversy

the guy accepts Medicaid patients when his wife would like to make changes to Medicaid?

if she favors making changes to the law that might cost her husband, that's not hypocrisy, that's putting the public interest above your own

July 02, 2011 3:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bachmann, a Tea Party favorite insists that her family has not directly received government aid.

"My husband and I did not get the money," Michele told "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace.

She said the funding was solely for employee training purposes.

"[It was] one-time training money that came from the federal government," Michele said. "And it certainly didn't help our clinic."

But Wallace did not ask her about the $137,000 in Medicaid payments -- and Bachmann did not acknowledge them either.

Further, the $137,000 paid to the clinic over the last seven years isn't all it received because the amount only reflects costs billed directly to the state. Some patients in public programs who used the clinic are in separately operated managed care health plans, but the state doesn't routinely compile those costs.

Michele has been an outspoken critic of Medicaid and federal spending programs during her time in office.

In 2009, Bachmann told Fox News host Bill O'Reilly that she does not need federal financial support.

"I don't need government to be successful," she said.

The Bachmanns, however, are no strangers to federal aid.

They received more than $260,000 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2008 for a family farm in Wisconsin, in which Michele is a partner.

Bachmann has also sought to keep federal money flowing to her constituents. After publicly criticizing the Obama administration's stimulus program, Bachmann requested stimulus funds to support projects in her district. Although she has been a fierce critic of earmarks — calling them "part of the root problem with Washington's spending addiction" — the congresswoman nonetheless argued recently that transportation projects should not be considered congressional pork.

All week, Bachmann has been forced to explain how her fervent talk of bloated government squares with a family that sometimes benefits from it.

Asked Monday about commodity subsidies for the Wisconsin family farm, she insisted to The Associated Press that "none of the income goes to my husband and I. All of the income goes to the farm."

Campaigning in South Carolina on Wednesday, neither Michele nor Marcus Bachmann would discuss the money his clinic draws from the Medicaid program, which Minnesota officials administer using a mix of state and federal money.

July 02, 2011 9:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"All week, Bachmann has been forced to explain how her fervent talk of bloated government squares with a family that sometimes benefits from it."

I have a little trouble seeing what the issue is here

it seems to me that what you are saying is the equivalent of saying Democrats who are in favor of raising taxes are hypocrites if they don't figure their taxes on the higher rate and send it in voluntarily

obviously, each individual should utilize the system to their own highest benefit

that shouldn't hinder them from advocating changes

we it even be legal for her husband to turn down Medicare patients?

the lunatic fringe is really outdoing themselves this time

happily, this is exactly the kind of thing that will either be ignored by the average voter or make the messenger look bad

it's hard for any objective observer to comprehend what problem you're noting

being a little more serious and focused, I don't think you'll have as easy a time mischaracterizing Bachmann as you did Palin

July 02, 2011 10:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one is mischaracterizing Bachmann.

She's a brazen hypocrite who loudly complains about government spending while she tries to hide how she and her husband personally benefit from it.

July 02, 2011 11:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

like most Americans, she's pays more than she gets

you're way off base

I almost forgot this guy. Another in our stable of unstoppable candidates.

Be afraid for your job, Mr Obama:

"ATLANTA -- Bolstered by support from his loyal radio talk-show audience and tea party backers, businessman Herman Cain has revved up mainstream conservatives, rising recently to third place in a poll of voters in Iowa, the leadoff caucus state.

In his pursuit of the Republican presidential nomination, Cain's views on the economy and his fiery delivery have resonated with some in the GOP.

Cain, the lone African-American GOP candidate, is trying to win over a party that hasn't had a black nominee. Sidestepping race as an issue in his campaign may have helped him gain momentum in recent weeks."

July 02, 2011 1:08 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon claimed:

“being a little more serious and focused, I don't think you'll have as easy a time mischaracterizing Bachmann as you did Palin”

Why in the WORLD would anyone bother to “mischaracterize” Michele “I’ve got the sprit of John Wayne (Gacy)” Bachmann?

Somebody needs to test her to see if she’s been infected with the same strain of Foot in Mouth disease as Newt “I don’t like right-wing social engineering” Gingrich.

It doesn’t seem to be terminal, but it apparently isn’t curable either.

Have a Flash Gordon Savior of the Universe Day!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfmrHTdXgK4

Cynthia

July 02, 2011 1:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It doesn’t seem to be terminal, but it apparently isn’t curable either."

yes, Joe Biden is proof positive of that

Michelle Bachmann hasn't really said anything deserving of demonization

the American are on to this tactic of the fringe element

won't work on Bachmann

"Have a Flash Gordon Savior of the Universe Day!"

this is actually an improvement

way to make progress, synco

July 02, 2011 3:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home