Sunday, October 02, 2011

MC Prof Speaks Up About Chaz

Chaz Bono has really done the world a service, appearing on Dancing With the Stars and forcing a kind of conversation about gender that is long overdue (or maybe just making people the realize that there isn't all that much to say on the topic). Chaz puts a face on the word "transgender," it's good to see a regular person having fun after a gender transition. At birth he was given the name Chastity and raised as a girl by parents Sonny and Cher Bono, and last year successfully changed his name and identity to Chaz, having begun the transition in 2008.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote here about a pair of articles online addressing Chaz's appearance on Dancing With the Stars. ABC had an article that basically said that kids won't have as much trouble understanding this as their parents will, and Fox had a bizarre lecture by a psychiatrist telling people they should not let their children watch the show, suggesting that seeing Chaz on TV could cause a child to … want to change their gender. It was creepy and weird.

This week the President of Tufts University released a statement about the Fox psychiatrist, Keith Ablow, making it clear that he is not associated with Tufts in any way. Quoting from it …
LGBT individuals have historically faced oppression and stigmatization within the broader society. While public attitudes and scientific understanding are both evolving, people whose sexuality and gender identity are seen as non-conforming still face very real challenges to full participation in civic life. These challenges are particularly great for transgender individuals. We are committed to an academic, co-curricular, and residential experience that gives trans people the opportunity to thrive at Tufts.

We will not permit discrimination or harassment within the university. This is not just a question of policy, or the law. We are personally and institutionally committed to a diverse and inclusive community. We sponsor a wide array of programs to support the personal growth of our LGBT students in particular, and we are proud that Tufts is regularly recognized as a safe and welcoming environment for LGBT students, faculty, and staff.

Dr. Keith Ablow, whose comments in the media have sparked concern, is not an employee of either Tufts University or Tufts University School of Medicine, nor is he on the staff of Tufts Medical Center. He is one of more than 4,000 individuals who hold voluntary, unpaid appointments at the medical school. Over the years, Dr. Ablow has given occasional lectures in forensic psychiatry to residents, who have already received the M.D. degree, and has helped to organize a memorial forensic psychiatry lecture honoring a deceased resident colleague. He did not discuss gender identity or sexual expression in those lectures and he has not given any lectures for the past five years. He does not teach medical students. Supporting the Transgender Members of the Tufts Community

You get the distinct feeling the Fox shrink will not be invited back to Tufts after this.

There was also a great article this week by a professor at Montgomery College, right here in our little suburban county, in Psychology Today. Azi Aalai, a Psychology professor at MC, wrote:
To the Ablow's out there in the world: gender identity is not so impressionable that one depiction of an unconventional version of it would suddenly disrupt one's own development. Becoming transgendered is no more contagious than is becoming homosexual. Have we really progressed so little as a culture that commentators are condemning a network that is featuring a contestant who just happens to have had gender reassignment surgery as posing a dangerous threat to our innocent kids' fragile sense of respective masculinity or femininity? Doesn't this sound ominously close to outdated notions of isolating same-sex oriented adults from kids, lest they contaminate their sexual identities and (gasp!) turn them gay?

Let's say for the sake of argument, though, that being exposed to an unconventional depiction of gender identity--such as a boy who wears a dress, or the case of Chaz Bono who was born female but has chosen to become male--were enough to alter a child's burgeoning gender identity. My response is: So what?

What makes our traditional notions of masculinity and femininity so sacred that any depiction to the contrary would be a threat that we would not be able to withstand as a culture? Gender is in fact a social construct, not a biological one. One is born male or female, but becomes a man or woman in large part by abiding by the often arbitrary standards of what constitutes masculinity or femininity within his or her respective culture. Why should I be restricted from playing football with the boys just because I am a girl, or in contrast, from wearing the color pink, just because I am a boy? Maybe, in fact, our traditional notions of gender are outdated and even damaging. Indeed, research on gender reveals:

The dominant Western definition of sex delineates two normal categories: male and female. Notions of gender follow suit, typically contrasting masculine and feminine behaviors. Is this dichotomy universal? Anthropologists have uncovered compelling evidence that dichotomous definitions of sex are not universal, arguing instead that many cultures have multiple genders…

Maybe instead of condemning Chaz we should be thanking him. He serves as a great example that gender need not be fixed, that our dualistic thought regarding sex and gender is restrictive and largely illusory. Androgynous individuals, meaning those who do not strongly internalize the confines of their own gender but borrow generously from each, oftentimes exhibit greater social adjustment than those who very narrowly internalize their respective gender identity. For instance, as I researched for my textbook on the psychology of aggression, males who internalize a very narrow construction of masculinity are often more prone to both aggression and violence.

So to Chaz, I say, dance on. And to those threatened by an alternative view of gender identity, make all the noise that you want; but ultimately, a more inclusive notion of gender is emerging in our culture. And I, for one, applaud that. For as one of my students wrote last semester on his essay critiquing traditional notions of gender: Our world would be a much better place if girls could masturbate, and boys could cry. If Johnny Wore Pink

This is great stuff, and I am proud to see faculty from our community college addressing the topic directly. A concept like gender may often have a certain heuristic usefulness, but it is absurd to treat gender stereotypes as a law or rule that must be obeyed. It is obvious to any serious observer that all of us have at least a little bit of male and female in us, some more than others, and sometimes the balance does not tip in the direction that the reproductive organs indicate. And as this professor writes: So what?

74 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

copule of things:

1. the fact that Chastity Bono has been all over the talk shows and featured on a top-rated TV show without any problem is an indication that there is no need for any type of governmental intervention without regard to trans

they're doing fine without it


2. widespread visibility of trans doesn't soften gender sterotypes, it hardens them

now, if you have to watch out how you dress and act; what you eat, listen to, watch, read

people will assume you're gay or worse if you don't live up to stereotype

they'll take away your man card

before, people had certain quirks but it was assumed everyone was straight

somehow, now everyone must be evaluated along the gender continuum

October 03, 2011 9:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure, just ignore the fact that trans people are denied jobs, housing, even use of the bathroom so you can pretend "they're doing fine without [government intervention]"

Do you have any idea where your bottom is when your head is buried so deeply in the sand?

Maybe you should read the fine print on the back of that "man card" you carry.

October 03, 2011 10:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

virtually everyone, at one time or another, has been "denied jobs, housing, even use of the bathroom"

the question before you take the extraordinary step of infringing on people's freedoms is can these supposed victims survive without governmental help

from the evidence, it looks like they can both survive and thrive

no more porcelain doll treatment for trans

October 03, 2011 10:25 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

It’s really no surprise that Tuft’s came out and tried to distance themselves from a guy whose anti-trans rants border on the paranoid delusional. They have a well respected professional reputation to maintain.

What was really a surprise was Fox News correspondent Megyn Kelly calling BS on all his crap (story and video below):

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/megyn-kelly-lays-into-dr-keith-ablow-over-chaz-bonos-dwts-participation/

One has to wonder where Fox’s ideological minders were when she went on the air arguing from a basis grounded in reality. If she keeps this up they’re likely to fire her and she’ll show up next on PBS.

Fox’s other talking heads towed the line the way one would expect; which of course, made them fair game for Jon Stewart to point out their blatant hypocrisy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/28/jon-stewart-nancy-grace-nip-slip-dwts-fox-news_n_984938.html


Anon2 asked:

“Do you have any idea where your bottom is when your head is buried so deeply in the sand?”

Actually, I believe the best working hypothesis we have for Anon1 right now is a cranio-rectal inclusion.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

October 03, 2011 11:00 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "the fact that Chastity Bono has been all over the talk shows and featured on a top-rated TV show without any problem is an indication that there is no need for any type of governmental intervention without regard to trans".

That was incredibly stupid, even for you. The idea that if one person is treated fairly then they all are is obviously fallacious - at least to anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass.

Bad anonymous said " widespread visibility of trans doesn't soften gender sterotypes, it hardens them".

Research has shown the exact opposite. The more people personally know LGBTs they more accepting and supportive they are of us.

Bad anonymous said "virtually everyone, at one time or another, has been "denied jobs, housing, even use of the bathroom".

The problem is that trans people are denied those at infinitely higher rates than non trans people. Anytime a minority is disproportionately singled out for oppression society is morally obligated to take stepst to ameliorate the situation. And LOL, give us an example of a non trans person being denied the use of a bathroom because they conform to gender norms (even you can't believe your own B.S.).

Bad anonymous said "the question before you take the extraordinary step of infringing on people's freedoms is can these supposed victims survive without governmental help.

When mere survival is your standard for when anyone needs assistance; you've set the bar incredibly low. Slaves survived, innocent people in prison for live survive. Mere survival is certainly not a sufficient basis on which to claim society should offer no assistance to someone.

Giving trans people the right to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with and preventing them from being evicted from their homes or fired from their jobs based on anything other than their ability to be good tenants and employees doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. Your right to swing your fist ends when it contacts my nose.

October 03, 2011 12:49 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Further to bad anonymous's comment "the question before you take the extraordinary step of infringing on people's freedoms is can these supposed victims survive without governmental help.".

Trans people are 14 times more likely to be assaulted or murdered for who they are than the next most abused minority. Obviously such victims cannot survive without governmental help so even based on bad anonymous's incredbily low bar trans people need governement aid.

October 03, 2011 12:53 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Further to bad anonymous's comment "the question before you take the extraordinary step of infringing on people's freedoms is can these supposed victims survive without governmental help.".

By bad anonymous's logic when a lesbian is gang raped, has all her money stolen and her house burned down she doesn't need governmental help because she's survived with out it - she's a "supposed victim".

LOL, and bad anonymous wonders why I eat his lunch every time we argue - he doesn't put the slightest bit of thought into his responses before he spouts off.

October 03, 2011 1:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Trans people are 14 times more likely to be assaulted or murdered for who they are than the next most abused minority. Obviously such victims cannot survive without governmental help so even based on bad anonymous's incredbily low bar trans people need governement aid."

you know as well as I do, nasty priya, that I meant help that is not available to other citizens

trans deserve the same police protection afforded everyone else

what they don't deserve is to have laws passed making crimes against them more penalized than those of others

people who live and frequent certain ghettoes are 100 times more likely to be a victim of crime than a resident of, say, Chevy Chase

should we give extra penalties for crime committted in Anacostia?

"By bad anonymous's logic when a lesbian is gang raped, has all her money stolen and her house burned down she doesn't need governmental help because she's survived with out it"

law enforcement will seek out the perpetrator

once the perp is caught, the lesbian can sue for damages

other than that, the government isn't responsible

none of this, however, justifies discrimination laws or hate crimes laws

"wonders why I eat his lunch every time we argue"

don't recall one time you have "eaten my lunch"

please detail your fantasy so we can all have a laugh

not fair for you to chuckle alone in the corner of your padded room and not share with the rest of us

"he doesn't put the slightest bit of thought into his responses before he spouts off"

oh, I put in a slight bit

not much is really needed, though, to counter your arguments

I mean, no one's head is going to explode debating you

October 03, 2011 1:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The targeted killing of Yemeni-based al-Qaeda "cleric" Anwar Al-Awlaki was guaranteed to be a flashpoint for controversy because it was essentially a White House-sanctioned assassination of an American citizen.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) quickly moved to stake out what will no doubt become the minority position on the GOP side. In the wake of the news of Al-Awlaki's death, Paul made his case to New Hampshire voters:

“That’s not a good way to deal with our problems,” he said of the drone strike in Yemen that killed Awlaki.

“He was born here,” said Paul. “He is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged with any crime. Nobody knows if he killed anyone.”

And Paul said the precedent of striking against Americans, even those suspected of being terrorist masterminds, is not a good one.

“If the American people accept this blindly and casually -- have a precedent of an American president assasinating people who he thinks are bad. I think it that’s sad,” he said.

Paul has now escalated the matter somewhat by suggesting that the specter of impeachment could be raised over this issue:

Asked at a Manchester, N.H., town hall meeting about last week’s killing of the American-born Al Qaeda leader, the Texas congressman said impeachment would be “possible,” but that he wants to know more about how the administration “flouted the law.”
Paul called the killing a movement toward “tyranny.”

“I put responsibility on the president because this is obviously a step in the wrong direction,” Paul said. “We have just totally disrespected the Constitution.”

October 03, 2011 7:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A majority of Americans expect Barack Obama to be a one-term president, an assessment on which, in past elections, the public more often has been right than wrong.

Just 37 percent in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll say they expect Obama to win re-election in November 2012; 55 percent instead expect the eventual Republican nominee to win.

It’s a challenging finding for the president because expectations fuel voter enthusiasm – precisely the ingredient that led the GOP to its broad success in the 2010 midterms, when charged-up conservatives turned out while dispirited Democrats stayed home.

This poll, produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, finds that the divisions among ideological groups tell a similar story. Conservatives are far more confident about the Republican nominee than are liberals about Obama, and moderates are more likely to expect the challenger to win.

October 03, 2011 9:28 PM  
Anonymous Another Mom speak up said...

"On August 16 I learned what viral meant.

I wrote an essay about my oldest son and his love of a popular gay television character, Glee's Blaine, and how this crush led to him telling me he wanted to kiss boys, not girls. I naively posted it to a blog, thinking some fans of the show might think it was cute.

Within 24 hours it had been reposted and "liked" over 30,000 times on the blog's website. It wasn't long before messages started flooding in, other websites began posting it and people were commenting. The response was overwhelming positive. What I thought was a simple story about my kid and our family had clearly stuck a chord with a lot of people.

It also made some people uncomfortable. Of the criticisms, the most common is that my son is six years old and doesn't know anything about sex. While I fully acknowledge this may not be the end-all-and-be-all to my son's sexual orientation, I object to the idea that being gay is only about sexual acts. Our emotions and feelings, our attractions and compulsions, all contribute, not just our body parts. If my son had a crush on the star of iCarly, I doubt people would be saying he was too young to have those sexual feelings towards a girl. I think they would think it was an innocent schoolboy crush, which is exactly what it is.

Plus, for every comment I've read saying my son is too young, I have received multiple messages from adults saying "I knew when I was little, too."

It got me thinking and after awhile I started to feel like I knew this big secret that shouldn't be a secret at all: Every gay adult used to be a gay kid. It's not as if all children start off as straight until some time later when someone flips the gay switch. We are who we are from the very moment we are born.

The horrible and hate filled words of the Michele Bachmann's of the world take on a whole new level of disgusting when picturing them being screamed at a group of kindergartners and first graders. They are unnatural. They are sinners. They are going to hell. They are dirty, wrong and sick.

These people would tell my innocent little boy (who currently wants to be a fireman-ninja when he grows up) he is the biggest threat the American family... because he wants to kiss boys and not girls.

The reality is they are pounding these words of ignorance and hate into the ears and minds of gay children every day. And those children are hearing them. I know because many of those kids are now writing to me. Kids as young as 14 have sent me messages. So many are scared children, who sure as hell did not choose this for themselves, living in fear of their family finding out because they know full well what their mom and dad will say. And they tell me they wish I was their mom.

I want to keep all this talk, all these lies, all this hate, away from these kids. Of course, there is an inherent problem with that. We can't pick out the gay kids simply by looking, and behavior isn't a clear indicator (some little straight girls are tomboys, and some little gay boys love their monster trucks). The only way we can truly know someone's orientation is if they tell us, which for some doesn't happen until well into adulthood.

So the solution is obvious to me. Keep it away from all our kids. It's my responsibility as a mother, as a human being, to stand up and say "No more." No, you are not allowed to say those things in front of my children, not unless you want to deal with me. Because I will not allow any of my sons to be viciously attacked without seeing me defend them. They will never have to doubt for a second exactly where their parents stand, and never have to live in fear of who they are.

Because since August 16, I have learned that hate is the virus we all need to be worried about."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/Amelia/gay-children_b_954350.html

October 04, 2011 8:56 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

“the question before you take the extraordinary step of infringing on people's freedoms is can these supposed victims survive without governmental help
from the evidence, it looks like they can both survive and thrive
no more porcelain doll treatment for trans”

You’re showing your age again Anon… how many people even have first-hand experience with porcelain dolls these days? Except for a small market for collectors’ items, they’ve all been plastic, fabric, or paper for decades.

And since when have you seen a Trans doll?

If Mattel were to make some Trans dolls using recently famous Trans people, besides the Dancing Chaz doll, this is what they’d have:

Baltimore Bathroom Victim Vicki: Modeled after Chrissy Polis, if you hit her hard enough in the head 8 times in a row, she will start going into convulsions.

Latina Maria: This teenager doll is not obviously trans, but she comes with her own iron skillet and fire extinguisher, so when you finally figure out that she’s trans, you can bash her brains in with the skillet like Gwen Araujo, or the fire extinguisher, ala Angie Zapata.

Baby Bobby and Daddy Davie: Modeled after Ronnie Paris Jr. and his son, Baby Bobby cries and wets himself like any other 3 year old. Daddy Davie slaps him around to “toughen him up” and make sure he doesn’t grow up to be a “sissy” or “gay.” Be careful though! If you slap Baby Bobbie too hard, he’ll die! Sold separately is Daddy Davie’s friend and Bible Study companion, Sheldon Bostic.

If Mattel decides to open up their search to less famous Trans folks, they might be inspired by my friend…

Evading Eva: This doll is of an adult transwoman, and is a very accomplished sprinter. Drive any toy car or truck near her and she will quickly run away to keep from getting run over. She also has her own car (sold separately) in which she will also evade cars chasing after her.

“the question before you take the extraordinary step of infringing on people's freedoms is can these supposed victims survive without governmental help”

I guess we should ask that same question as it applies to those who get “special protections” for their religion.

After all, when was the last time you heard of Catholics being assaulted outside of a Catholic bar just for being Catholic.

Or an Evangelical having the crap beat out of him and then tied to a fence post to freeze to death overnight just for being an Evangelical.

And really, when was the last time you heard of anyone firing someone because they found out they were a Protestant?

Maybe it’s time for “no more porcelain doll treatment for [religion]”

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

October 04, 2011 11:01 AM  
Blogger Nicole H said...

Thank God for an educated and tolerant response to the Religious Right hysteria regarding Trans issues. People fear what they do not understand. Issues of sexuality and gender are so personal and culturally ingrained that any variance to the status quo is looked upon as a threat. Education and exposure to Trans folks are the best remedy to dispell the fear and ignorance that feuls prejudice.
Secondly, Chaz Bono is a celebrity or at least the child of 2 celebrities. He has a supportive family structure , money, a supportive significant other. This is not the case for many, if not most, Trans people. While his experience may be helpful to understand Gender Variance, he is by no means typical. The recent survey by the Gay and Lesbian Task Force and National Center for Transgender Equality entitled "Injustice At Every Turn" highlights the rampant discrimination of a more broad spectrum of the Trans population.
It is clear that we as a society have a long way to go.

October 04, 2011 11:27 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "Trans people are 14 times more likely to be assaulted or murdered for who they are than the next most abused minority. Obviously such victims cannot survive without governmental help so even based on bad anonymous's incredbily low bar trans people need governement aid."

Bad anonymous said "you know as well as I do, nasty priya, that I meant help that is not available to other citizens".
No, that's not what you meant, you're just too dishonest to admit it. What you said was that if trans people can merely survive that is good enough for you, it doesn't matter how they are assaulted, oppressed, or attacked.

Bad anonymous said "trans deserve the same police protection afforded everyone else what they don't deserve is to have laws passed making crimes against them more penalized than those of others".
No one is asking for any such laws. Adding sexual orientation to hate crimes laws penalizes hate crimes against heterosexuals in exactly the same way as it penalizes hate crimes against gays.

Bad anonymous said "people who live and frequent certain ghettoes are 100 times more likely to be a victim of crime than a resident of, say, Chevy Chase should we give extra penalties for crime committted in Anacostia?".
The hate crime statistics I mentioned exclude random acts of violence against gays. If a gay is merely in the wrong place at the wrong time that is not recorded as a hate crime. Only when a gay is attacked for who they are is it a hate crime so its irrelevant if "certain ghettoes" are 100 times more likely to be a victim of a crime. In any event you haven't proven gays disproportionately live in or frequent such places or that the crime rate is measurably higher than it is in other areas - you're just making up cheap excuses to allow LGBTs to be targetted for violence.

I said "By bad anonymous's logic when a lesbian is gang raped, has all her money stolen and her house burned down she doesn't need governmental help because she's survived with out it"

Bad anonymous said "law enforcement will seek out the perpetrator once the perp is caught, the lesbian can sue for damages other than that, the government isn't responsible".
Irrelevant. You said if an LGBT person survives they don't need any government assistance. You said you'd deny even what there is to LGBTs just because they survived an attack - you are a monster
Bad anonymous said "none of this, however, justifies discrimination laws or hate crimes laws

I said "Bad anonymous wonders why I eat his lunch every time we argue"

Bad anonymous said "don't recall one time you have "eaten my lunch" please detail your fantasy so we can all have a laugh".
Once again, you're in denial of reality. Just go back to our last exchange, I've eaten your lunch every time we've argued. Its no surprise though, you have several major disadvantages in a debate:
1) You're more concerned with insulting and changing the subject than you are with making logical sense
2) You post the first idiotic thing that comes into your mind, you give little thought to what is a rational response and so frequently your responses are irrelevant, absurd, and simply lies or fabrications of reality.
3) You're arguing from a position that is inherently wrong - you have no hope of making a convincing argument against LGBT equality and protection.

October 04, 2011 11:45 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Another mom said "my son had a crush on the star of iCarly, I doubt people would be saying he was too young to have those sexual feelings towards a girl.".

Exactly, mom - the bigots are incredibly hypocritical and amazingly are somehow blind to it.

You're a wonderful mom and I really appreciated your story and your thoughts on this issue.

October 04, 2011 11:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You’re showing your age again Anon… how many people even have first-hand experience with porcelain dolls these days?"

actually, I'm a jerk for all seasons

can't help it, guys

I was born that way

"Except for a small market for collectors’ items, they’ve all been plastic, fabric, or paper for decades"

I'm never been a big doll guy, I've just heard of these porcelain things and they sound very fragile

makes a great metaphor for the victimization aspirations of the GLBT agenda

I do like American Girl dolls, however. As I recall, they have a really educationally fun board game that focused on how people lived in certain periods in American history

Let me guess: that must make me gender-confused in this hardened sterotype world of trans ams

"And since when have you seen a Trans doll?"

never

let's keep it that way

I wouldn't be surprised, however, if there were once MASH dolls with a Klinger action figure

how could corporate America pass up an opportunity like that?

"If Mattel were to make some Trans dolls using recently famous Trans people, besides the Dancing Chaz doll, this is what they’d have"

maybe your ilk found what followed this amusing

whatever, de gustibus...

"I guess we should ask that same question as it applies to those who get “special protections” for their religion"

personally, I don't see the need for that either

religion, however, does need protection from governmental coercion, based on our constitution

it's a two-way street though

religion is disadvantaged because of the need to avoid entanglement with government

what would be great is if homosexuality could get the status of a religion and then we could keep the public schools from advancing it

then, to get classes telling kids that homosexuality is normal, you'd have to send them to a private liberal school

"After all, when was the last time you heard of Catholics being assaulted outside of a Catholic bar just for being Catholic.

Or an Evangelical having the crap beat out of him and then tied to a fence post to freeze to death overnight just for being an Evangelical.

And really, when was the last time you heard of anyone firing someone because they found out they were a Protestant?"

it may suprise you but people who are considered excessively religious are often persecuted

it may, at times, escalate to job discrimination and other negative consequences

probably wouldn't get beat up at bars though since they tend to avoid them

Matthew Shephard, btw, is not a random victim

he knew his attackers and there is some testimony that he engaged in drug transactions with them and even one witness who says he engaged in sexual activity with them

"Maybe it’s time for “no more porcelain doll treatment for [religion]”"

long past time, cinco

I don't know about other religions, but here's the attitude of Christians to that type of thing:

"Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

that's what Jesus said, from Matthew 5:11,12

didn't sound like he was pushing for hate crimes and discrimination legislation from the Roman authorities

"Have a nice day"

make sure to avoid contact sports

porcelain breaks when tipped over

there oughta be a law, uh?

no tackling the dolls!!

October 04, 2011 12:10 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

A gay couple at church was recently victims of a hate crime.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/10/04/37595#comment-107661

We all know churches are high crime areas, but once again this couple was clearly assaulted because they are gay, not because they were the victims of a random crime that could have happened to anyone.

October 04, 2011 12:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh dear

thanks for warning everyone, nasty

I had no idea how dangerous it is to hang around churches

good to know

October 04, 2011 12:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

those church ladies are kind of frail but they can still smash porcelain dolls

October 04, 2011 12:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've started to realize in the past week that if I limit responses to nasty Priya's rants, she'll still rant on, making the pro-family side look...preeeeety good

I'm gonna go grab lunch now before she eats it (wink-wink)

October 04, 2011 12:27 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Cynthia said "I guess we should ask that same question as it applies to those who get “special protections” for their religion"

Bad anonymous said "personally, I don't see the need for that either".
And yet somehow you never find the time to call for the repeal of hate crimes laws based on religion. Fact is you were perfectly happy with hate crime laws based on religion and race, it was only when sexual orientation was proposed as an addition you suddenly develeoped a dislike of "all" hate crime laws.

Bad anonymous said "religion, however, does need protection from governmental coercion, based on our constitution".
LOL, as the 75% of Americans who are christian and control government say "Help, we're being persecuted!".

Bad anonymous said "religion is disadvantaged because of the need to avoid entanglement with government"
LOL, as the 75% of Americans who are christian and control government say "Help, we're being persecuted!".

Bad anonymous said "what would be great is if homosexuality could get the status of a religion and then we could keep the public schools from advancing it.".
No one is "advancing" gayness in public schools or suggesting such a thing be done. Merely teaching that such a neutral characteristic exists and people are abused for it isn't a promotion of gayness.

Cynthia said "After all, when was the last time you heard of Catholics being assaulted outside of a Catholic bar just for being Catholic. Or an Evangelical having the crap beat out of him and then tied to a fence post to freeze to death overnight just for being an Evangelical. And really, when was the last time you heard of anyone firing someone because they found out they were a Protestant?"

Bad anonymous said "it may suprise you but people who are considered excessively religious are often persecuted".
That's an example of you making things up as I pointed out. Religious people are rarely persecuted, religion is the group with the fewest hate crimes committed against it. LGBTs are a great deal more likely to be persecuted than a religious person.

Bad anonymous said "Matthew Shephard, btw, is not a random victim".
Right, he was targetted because he was gay, it wasn't simply a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time or that a heterosexual in his shoes would have gotten the same treatment.

Bad anonymous said "he knew his attackers and there is some testimony that he engaged in drug transactions with them and even one witness who says he engaged in sexual activity with them".
He met his attackers at a bar, the idea that he had sex with them is preposterous. They killed him because he was gay and that was their attention. If he'd have been heterosexual this wouldn't have happened.

Bad anonymous said "I don't know about other religions, but here's the attitude of Christians to that type of thing:

"Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

that's what Jesus said, from Matthew 5:11,12 didn't sound like he was pushing for hate crimes and discrimination legislation from the Roman authorities".

That's why christianity is a joke, its philosopy is "Don't worry about or do anything about the terrible things that happen to people in this life, it will all be made better after they are dead" - there's a sucker born every minute. Fortuantely even the most religous of people ignore the vast majority of what the bible says. If everyone followed it we'd all be living in caves and smearing blood on the entrances to prevent disease.

October 04, 2011 12:31 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "I've started to realize in the past week that if I limit responses to nasty Priya's rants, she'll still rant on, making the pro-family side look...preeeeety good".

Naturally, I'm right, your wrong and your anti-family attacks are doomed to fail. You've rightfully recognized that you can't make any rational arguments against the pro-family side and have accepted your defeat - way to go, Bad anonymous!

October 04, 2011 12:33 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Hey, bad anonymous, are you by any chance having some pangs of conscience and feeling badly about stealing from your employer?

Is that part of the reason why you're afraid to respond, you think your employer is going to discover your theft and fire your sorry ass?

October 04, 2011 12:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think my observation about how to provoke nasty Priya looks preeeety good about now

a field day for the pro-family forces

here's the most humorous parts of her multi-rant:

develeoped

targetted

and that was their attention

its philosopy

Fortuantely

religous

btw, nasty, according to the witness, Shephard had met the attackers prior to that day and one of them, in a drug-induced state, had sex with him

it's a small town

I think 20/20 had the story a few years back

google, nasty

use it

October 04, 2011 2:47 PM  
Anonymous I forsee a primary challenge said...

the latest polls today have Romney beating Obama by 2, Perry losing to Obama by 3, and Christie in a dead heat with Obama

meanwhile, this:

"President Obama’s relations with Senate Democratic leaders are deteriorating along with his poll numbers.

With Obama’s approval ratings at record lows and the 2012 electoral map favoring Senate Republicans, the president and Senate Democrats are, in many ways, on divergent paths. Vulnerable Democrats from red states see Obama as impeding their chances of winning reelection, while the president often seems aloof to their concerns.

Obama, focused on winning a second term, has distanced himself from Congress altogether, at times not making the distinction between Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill.

There have been recent flare-ups between the White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and his deputies. This comes 13 months before the 2012 elections, when control of the Senate is up for grabs.

The proximate causes of friction can seem slight, such as a recent breach of protocol, which left Senate Democratic leaders grumbling.

Obama left his party’s top senators, who had assembled for a conference call, hanging on the phone for nearly 20 minutes before National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling came on the line with a seemingly vague notion of what the call was supposed to be about, Democratic sources said."

October 04, 2011 2:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

as someone old and cold, I consider this a hate crime:

"WASHINGTON -- If older job seekers have had a particularly rough time finding work during the economic downturn, they apparently haven't found any refuge at Texas Roadhouse restaurants. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced Monday that it's suing the Kentucky-based chain of more than 350 eateries for allegedly turning away older job applicants because of their age, sometimes in brutal fashion.

Among the lines that managers have delivered to job seekers, according to the lawsuit:

•"We think you are a little too old to work here. ... We like younger people."

•"We're hiring for greeters, but we need the young, hot ones."

•"You seem older to be applying for this job."

In its suit, the EEOC alleges that Texas Roadhouse has discriminated against people over 40 years of age who've applied for front-of-the-house jobs such as waiter or host, stating that a mere 1.9 percent of the employees holding such positions fall into that age group. The agency describes that rate as "well below" the percentage of such workers at other restaurant chains. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act protects workers over 40."

October 04, 2011 3:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"House Republicans have asked the White House to appoint a special counsel to determine whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied during his testimony about a botched gun-trafficking operation.

Documents obtained by CBS News show that Holder knew about the operation, dubbed "Operation Fast And Furious," as early as July 2010, which would contradict his testimony in May of this year, during which he said, "I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks."

A Justice Department official told The Huffington Post that the attorney general "has consistently said he became aware of the questionable tactics in early 2011 when ATF agents first raised them publicly, and then promptly asked the IG to investigate the matter.""

October 04, 2011 4:04 PM  
Anonymous oh no, not again !! said...

(Reuters) - West Virginians voted on Tuesday in a close governor's race that has become as much about a Democrat not on the ballot -- U.S. President Barack Obama -- as about the two men who are running.

An upset Republican victory would be the third special election loss for Democrats within three weeks, just as the president's 2012 re-election campaign gets under way.

Polls show a razor-thin margin between West Virginia's Democratic acting governor, Earl Ray Tomblin, 59, and Republican businessman Bill Maloney, 53, who has never held elected office and has sought to make the fight a referendum on Obama and a rejection of Tomblin as a career politician.

Tomblin's campaign has fought efforts to tie the acting governor, who is also president of the West Virginia Senate, to the White House.

October 04, 2011 8:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

man, it sure is a good time to be a not Democrat in America !!

October 04, 2011 9:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this story illustrates something nasty Priya was confused about the other day

this is not discrimination

it's a violation of constitutional rights

I'm telling you, homosexuality should just start it's own religion

let's hope the local gangs don't start a bible study:

"FREMONT, Neb. -- A Nebraska school district has banned a necklace that looks like a rosary after police told officials it's also being worn by gang members.

Omaha Catholic Archdiocese Chancellor Rev. Joseph Taphorn says Christians shouldn't have to give up a symbol of their faith because others misuse it.

The American Civil Liberties Union opposes the policy, saying it violates the rights of free speech and religion.

Twelve-year-old Elizabeth Carey says she was told by her principal she couldn't wear her necklace. Her parents say they are upset that their daughter is not being allowed to express her religious beliefs."

btw, who knew there were gangs in Nebraska?

October 05, 2011 8:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Democrat Earl Ray Tomblin beat back a torrent of late Republican attacks to win the West Virginia governorship Tuesday night.

Tomblin, a 36-year politician who had served as acting governor since Joe Manchin left the governorship for the Senate last fall, defeated Republican drilling executive Bill Maloney in a contest that became nationalized in its closing days.

Tomblin beat Maloney 49.6 percent to 47 percent.
===========

"btw, who knew there were gangs in Nebraska?"

According to the report you posted, local Nebraska police department officials knew and warned school officials there were gang members in Nebraska who wore necklaces that looked similar to a rosary.

Just because you haven't heard about gangs in Nebraska doesn't mean they don't exist.

Gang shooting in Omaha, Nebraska caught on film
http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D1TO8eY77pZM

Gang Activity In the City of Lincoln
http://lincoln.ne.gov/city/police/pdf/gangstrategy.pdf

Gangs of Omaha???
http://www.city-data.com/forum/omaha/266701-gangs-omaha-7.html

California Gangs Now Nebraska Cornhusker Fans
http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2011/09/12/california-gangs-now-fans-of-nebraska-cornhuskers/

October 05, 2011 9:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Tomblin, a 36-year politician who had served as acting governor since Joe Manchin left the governorship for the Senate last fall, defeated Republican drilling executive Bill Maloney in a contest that became nationalized in its closing days.

Tomblin beat Maloney 49.6 percent to 47 percent."

whew!

that's a relief

a guy with 36 years experience in elected office beats a guy with absolutely no experience by 2.6 points

I guess Barry can stop worrying

as long as Herman Cain wins the Repub nomination, he shoould be able to squeak out a win

and be able to give some more high-risk loans to solar companies that contribute to his campaign

of course, he'll probably have to raise taxes on rich guys in order to afford to pay off his campaign contributors like that

let the sun shine in !!

"btw, who knew there were gangs in Nebraska?"

this was an obviously facetious remark

the cut and paste treatment was really not called for

beat it !!

October 05, 2011 10:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

here's what the future holds for atheists who believe in socialism:

"Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has become the ultimate object of veneration for an all-female religious sect whose members believe the premier is the reincarnation of St. Paul the Apostle.

As the Moscow Times is reporting, the sect was founded by a woman calling herself Mother Fotina in the village of Bolshaya Yelnia. Mother Fotina, whose real name is reportedly Svetlana Frolova, teaches her followers that Putin was St. Paul in his past life and that his political career follows in the early Christian missionary's footsteps.

The charismatic politician's spokesman has expressed surprise at news of the group. "It is impressive that they think so highly of the prime minister's work," Dmitry Peskov told the Russian weekly Sobesednik.

Religious officials were perhaps less amused. "Her so-called teachings are a nonsensical mixture of Orthodoxy, Catholicism, the occult, Buddhism and political information," said local priest Father Alexei."

October 05, 2011 11:25 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous the 20/20 story is widely acknowledged to be a sham. Neither of Shepards attackers had sex with him, that's preposterous. He was attacked and killed because he was gay - case closed.

October 05, 2011 11:58 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I see from all of bad anonymous's off-topic posts he's trying to prove he isn't afraid to be fired for using work-time to push his political agenda. Clearly its just me he's afraid of debating and rightly so, he can't win when he's both wrong and stupid.

October 05, 2011 12:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the 20/20 story is widely acknowledged to be a sham"

sure, if you call all the lunatic fringe gay advocacy groups "wide"

"Neither of Shepards attackers had sex with him, that's preposterous"

what's preposterous about it?

at least one of the attackers has been said by several acquaintances to be bi and his girlfriend at the time thinks that's what happened

"He was attacked and killed because he was gay - case closed"

that case can't be closed because it was not made

Wyoming had no hate crimes statute so it couldn't be prosecuted as such

the prosecutor in the case said he thinks the drug motive was plausible and several have said it was simply a robbery

the reason it's assumed to be a gay motive is because the perps thought they could get off by using the "gay rage" defense, saying they were temporarily driven out of their minds by a gay guy making a pass at them

several of their friends acknowledged this was a strategy

face it, with sick degenerates that would do something like that to any human being, homophobia is the least of the problems

"I see from all of bad anonymous's off-topic posts he's trying to prove he isn't afraid to be fired for using work-time to push his political agenda. Clearly its just me he's afraid of debating and rightly so, he can't win when he's both wrong and stupid"

well, I'll never comment on any aspect of my personal life on a blog but there have been many commenters from your side over the years and some were, unlike you, very intelligent

I've never hesitated to engage them

I have discovered lately, however, that we can get the benefits of you ranting like a lunatic with a few brief well-chosen phrases rather than a line-by-line descent into dignifying your repetitve droning

so, why go to the trouble?

October 05, 2011 2:53 PM  
Anonymous the view from across the Pond said...

"Last week Gallup released a series of surveys that underscored the scale of the challenge faced by Barack Obama as he seeks re-election in November 2012, including a poll showing a rejection of his big-government agenda. As I noted in an earlier piece, Obama could well end up becoming America’s last big-government president. For the White House, the Gallup figures are the stuff of nightmares: reading through them in their entirety it is hard not to draw the conclusion that Obama is heading towards a one-term presidency on the back of a record of failure. He will need a miracle to avoid a heavy defeat and remain in the Oval office.

Gallup’s findings reveal a disillusioned nation that has lost faith in the president’s leadership, or lack of it, with historic levels of public dissatisfaction. According to Gallup,

Americans' low level of satisfaction, coupled with their historically high levels of negativity about the U.S. government at this point, a little more than a year before the November 2012 presidential election, do not bode well for President Obama's current re-election chances and perhaps for the fate of incumbent congressmen and congresswomen in Washington. Republicans are particularly upset about the state of the nation, which may drive them to the polls in November 2012.

While the election remains a long way off, economic conditions (which are related to satisfaction) including the unemployment situation would need to make a significant turnaround for Americans' attitudes to improve. On that front, Americans are not hopeful that the economy will be any better a year from now.

The White House will be especially concerned about the dramatic erosion of enthusiasm among the president’s strongest supporters. Gallup finds that Democrats are strikingly dispirited about voting in 2012, compared to their Republican opponents, with the lowest levels of relative enthusiasm among Democrats in a decade.

Gallup's initial – and early – reading on Republicans' and Democrats' enthusiasm for 2012 indicates the emotional climate surrounding that election could be quite different from the climate in 2008, when Democrat Barack Obama won, partly owing to supermajority support from several groups. Democrats' current enthusiasm about voting is not only lower than it was in 2008, but lower than in 2004, when Republican George W. Bush won re-election.

Nothing short of a dramatic turnaround in the fortunes of the US economy is likely to save Obama next year. But there are no signs of an economic miracle on the horizon, and most Americans still feel as though the country is mired in a recession, with 14 million out of work, poor consumer confidence, falling house prices, and tumbling stock markets.

Gallup’s polling in recent months has consistently demonstrated a pervasive gloom when it comes to voter perceptions of the US economy, and there is little confidence among the public that the administration’s big-government approach is going to succeed in creating jobs and getting the economy back on its feet. And the presidential race will undoubtedly be decided by the economy.

For the hope and change presidency the omens certainly don’t look good. Obama himself referred to his party's 2010 midterm defeat as a “shellacking.” 2012 however will probably be even worse for the White House, for this is a presidency in crisis, lacking leadership, wedded to the wrong policies, and presently heading for defeat in 2012. Barack Obama is facing the same fate as Jimmy Carter."

October 05, 2011 3:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RIP Steve Jobs.

Thanks for all your innovations.

October 05, 2011 7:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gallup September 2011 Key Findings:

82% of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job.

69% say they have little or no confidence in the legislative branch of government, an all-time high and up from 63% in 2010.

57% have little or no confidence in the federal government to solve domestic problems, exceeding the previous high of 53% recorded in 2010 and well exceeding the 43% who have little or no confidence in the government to solve international problems.

October 05, 2011 7:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

interesting that Obama supporters always gloss over his bad approval ratings by saying Congress' is worse

problem is that Obama has consistently deferred all initiative to Congress

from the first stimulus package to "Obamacare" to the debt standoff, Obama simply let Congress do all the heavy lifting while he redecorated the Oval Office, wrote children's books, insulted a ordinary cop in Cambridge and planned his tourist-in-chief itinerary

Americans have given up on him

October 05, 2011 9:21 PM  
Anonymous The Revolution Will Be YouTubed said...

Killed by Fox News

Reborn by YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6yrT-0Xbrn4

Transcript included

"Fox: Jesse, so Ray, your partner here, your ..

Ray: comrade.

Fox: Your colleague, she’d seen the protests in Greece and Europe and elsewhere. Did you guys take your cue from that? Are you hoping to incite certainly what was a lot of the tension, if not police activity. I know over the weekend there were over 100 arrests and you guys got things fired up. Are you taking your cues from the international movement and how do you want to see this end? If you could have it in a perfect way, how would it be?

Jesse: Well I don’t know, its really difficult to answer questions leading to those conclusions. I’d say that we didn’t take our cue leading off of anybody really. It became a more spontaneous movement. As far as seeing this end, I wouldn’t like to see this end. I would like to see the conversation continue. This is what we should have been talking about in 2008 when the economy collapsed. We basically patched a hole on the tire and said let the car keep rolling. Unfortunately it’s fun to talk to the propaganda machine and the media especially conservative media networks such as yourself, because we find that we can't get conversations for the department of Justice’s ongoing investigation of News Corporation, for which you are an employee. But we can certainly ask questions like you know, why are the poor engaging in class warfare? After 30 years of having our living standards decrease while the wealthiest 1% have had it better than ever, I think it’s time for some maybe, I don’t know, participation in our democracy that isn’t funded by news cameras and gentlemen such as yourself.

Fox: But, uh, yeah well, let me give you this challenge Jesse.

Jesse: Sure.

Fox: We’re here giving you an opportunity on the record […] to put any message you want out there, to give you fair coverage and I’m not going to influence it in any way or....

Jesse: That’s awesome!

Fox:…give you advice about it. So, there is an exception in the case, because you wouldn’t be able to get your message out there without us.

Jesse: No, surely, I mean, take for instance when Glenn Beck was doing his protest and he called the President, uh, a person who hates white people and white culture. That was a low moment in Americans’ history and you guys kinda had a big part in it. So, I’m glad to see you coming around and kind of paying attention to what the other 99 percent of Americans are paying attention to, as opposed to the far-right fringe, who who would just love to destroy the middle class entirely.

Fox: Alright, fair enough. You have a voice, an important reason to criticize myself, my company and anyone else. But, let me ask you that, in fairness, does this administration, President Obama, have any criticism as to the the financial situation the country’s in…?

Jesse: I think, myself, as well as many other people, would like to see a little bit more economic justice or social justice—Jesus stuff—as far as feeding the poor, healthcare for the sick. You know, I find it really entertaining that people like to hold the Bill of Rights up while they’re screaming at gay soldiers, but they just can’t wrap their heads around the idea that a for-profit healthcare system doesn’t work. So, let’s just look at it like this, if we want the President to do more, let’s talk to him on a level that actually reaches people, instead of asking for his birth certificate and wasting time with total nonsense like Solyndra."

October 06, 2011 8:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"President Barack Obama has a lot of support for his proposal to raise taxes on the wealthy, even among the financially well-off, new polls show.

Two new polls show similar levels of support for a millionaire tax among those earning more than $100,000, and among Americans more broadly.

Among those earning at least $100,000, nearly two-thirds - 65 percent - would support income tax increases on households earning $1 million or more annually, says a poll commissioned by American Express.

The concept of raising taxes on millionaires drew similar support in a survey gauging support among all Americans, conducted by CBS. Sixty-four percent of respondents said that they would support a tax on millionaires "in order to lower the deficit," while only 30 percent would oppose it.

However, support for tax increases falls dramatically among those earning at least $100,000 annually when the tax increase threshold is dropped. Among those earning more than $100,000 a year, only 23 percent said they supported tax increases for households earning $250,000 a year or more.

In the CBS poll, Democrats and Independents were the most likely to support an increase on the taxes that millionaires face - 83 percent of Democrats were for it, while 65 percent of Independents approved of the notion. On the other hand, only 40 percent of Republicans agreed with the proposal - 54 percent of GOP voters were against the idea.

Respondents to the CBS poll also said that the move would not impact job creation - only 18 percent of Americans thought that tax increases would hurt job growth, while 76 percent of respondents said that tax increases would actually help job creation (25 percent) or have no impact on jobs (51 percent).

The CBS poll was conducted Sept 28 to Oct. 2, 2011, with a sample of 1,012 adults nationwide. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points. The American Express poll, conducted by the Harrison Group, surveyed 769 respondents with a minimum discretionary income of $100,000 and was first reported by Reuters."
http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_19038492?source=rss

October 06, 2011 8:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

unfortunately, people at this point are not well-informed about out tax structure

several taxes are already going up on people who make more than a million, starting in 2013

and Reid wants to add another 5%?

this will start a flight of capital from our country

any rational analysis shows that the average person making a million is charged tax at higher rates than those making less, that they additionally have their income taxed twice on most invested income, that the receipts from such individuals pay for most of our governmental expenditures, that these individuals also are the key funders of vast charitable, arts and civic organizations, and that half of our citizens pay no tax at all, many of whom receive a tax refund on money they never paid

it seems government already does quite enough income redistribution

btw, who doesn't support taxes on someone else?

I'm in favor of reducing my taxes to zero and doubling taxes on all TTFers

I think they can afford to "pay a little more"

October 06, 2011 10:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

did you know that the entire transgender notion is completely sexist?

some girl says she always has known she's a guy

how?

by applying sexist stereotypes to themselves

so Chaz liked cars and wrestling and heavy metal and Bud

must be a guy

for this, these people mutilate themselves?

unbelievable

the psychiatric profession is right on this one

it's a mental disorder

of the highest order

October 06, 2011 12:24 PM  
Anonymous ex-TTFer said...

that makes a lot of sense

why can't guys wear pink, eat quiche and listen to musicals?

doesn't mean they're girls

the idea that they should cut themselves over it is, you must admit, preeeety sick...

October 06, 2011 12:31 PM  
Anonymous yikes !!! said...

President Obama has proposed a stimulus jobs bill and plans to pay for it a couple of years later with a tax on rich guys, when the economy is back on its feet (yeah, like when Obama Leaves office)

not a great plan but at least it might stimulate the economy in the short-run

what, then, to make of Harry Reid's plan to tax millionaires starting in three months, on January 2012?

how could it stimulate the economy by spending exactly the same amount it takes out of the economy, at the same time?

even Keynes himself would laugh

taxing the rich has become the new Dem answer to every problem

tax the rich, give it to the poor

President

til there are no rich no more

"President Obama not only has a political problem with the economy, but with voters' confidence in his ability to handle it.

By a margin of 44%-11%, voters say the economy is getting worse, not better, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll -- and only 29% say the economy will get better if Obama is re-elected.

The Quinnipiac poll also says that voters believe Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney would do a better job on the economy than Obama, by a margin of 49%-39%; Rick Perry gets the nod over Obama by a margin of 45%-42%.

Overall, voters disapprove of the job President Obama is doing, by a margin of 55%-41%.

"The trend isn't good for President Barack Obama," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "His disapproval has gone up 9% since the summer, from 46% in July to 52% in September to 55% today.""

October 06, 2011 1:48 PM  
Anonymous NIMBY, pal !! said...

"A new poll indicates that Maryland voters are evenly divided on same-sex "marriage".

"The poll is consistent with what we've seen in the past," said Del. Heather Mizeur, D-Montgomery, a strong supporter of same-sex marriage.

A January Gonzales poll also showed an even split among Marylanders on the issue.

But Del. Emmett C. Burns, Jr., D-Baltimore County, a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage, laughed and said he disagreed with the results. "I am surprised that the Gonzales poll is incorrect," Burns said, adding that he believes the percentage of people opposed to same-sex marriage is most likely between 60 and 75 percent, based on the informal responses he has received on the issue.

"I have no faith in the poll," he said.

In the poll conducted by Gonzales Research and Marketing Strategies, 805 registered, likely voters were surveyed by telephone over an eight-day period in September. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Del. Anthony O'Donnell, the House minority leader, said this dead heat could have ramifications beyond the scope of immediate policy-making because next year's candidates will have to clearly identify where they stand on this issue.

"It could make for a very interesting election," O'Donnell said.

Despite the divided electorate, advocates believe there is still time to influence voters.

Gov. Martin O'Malley announced this summer that he will make same-sex "marriage" an administration priority, which is music to the ears of advocates.

"We expect an additional boost of momentum because there's no bigger megaphone in Annapolis than the second floor," said Mizeur, referring to the governor's office.

But opponents are also organizing efforts to combat proposed same-sex marriage legislation in the 2012 legislative session. Burns recently announced the creation of a political action committee to fight same-sex marriage, strengthening a previously loose confederation of opponents.

The poll also found the "economy and jobs" was the top issue for the majority of Marylanders, transcending party lines.

At 49 percent, President Obama's approval rating in Maryland has slipped 5 percentage points since the beginning of the year.

O'Malley's standing has slipped since he announced he would push for same sex "marriage", according to the poll, with a 51 percent approval rating, down from 59 percent at the beginning of the summer."

October 06, 2011 4:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

... Burns said, adding that he believes the percentage of people opposed to same-sex marriage is most likely between 60 and 75 percent, based on the informal responses he has received on the issue ...

This is why we have surveys, so we can learn how the public actually feels rather than relying on what our friends tell us.

October 06, 2011 5:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This is why we have surveys, so we can learn how the public actually feels"

really?

why do the surveys so often turn out to be wrong when the real voting happens?

October 06, 2011 7:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes, there are always polls that say Americans slightly favor deviant gay "marriage" and then the vote happens and every time, I mean EVERY time, this abomination is rejected by voters

the best example was a couple of years ago when polls assured gay advocates that California would go down the dark road of accepting this twisted redefinition of marriage

then, the voters got their chance to be heard

on another topic, the current polls for the Republican nomination are a source of great amusement for conservatives who enjoy seeeing liberals embarassed

liberals groups and blogs have been assuring us for a while that the Tea Party consists of a bunch of racists

what, then, to make of the fact that Herman Cain is currently tied nationally with Mitt Romney in the polls?

even more embarassing for the people who falsely claim the Tea Party is racist:

among people who describe themsleves as adherents of Tea Party, Cain is securely ahead of second place finisher, Rick Perry by 24 to 17 percent, respectively

October 06, 2011 7:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a bit early to call "Blacks are Brainwashed" Cain the GOP nominee. Half-Governor Palin herself called him a flavor of the week.

His flash in the pan will not last. If Christie had said yes, Cain's poll numbers would look like Gary Johnsons's Concord High School town hall last night.

October 06, 2011 8:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" 'even more embarassing for the people who falsely claim the Tea Party is racist: '

among people who describe themsleves as adherents of Tea Party, Cain is securely ahead of second place finisher, Rick Perry by 24 to 17 percent, respectively"

"why do the surveys so often turn out to be wrong when the real voting happens?"

Who is gullible enough to believe tea baggers will actually vote for Cain?

October 06, 2011 8:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's a bit early to call "Blacks are Brainwashed" Cain the GOP nominee."

nobody did that

I doubt he will be

TTFers are like pyromaniacs in a field of straw men

the point is why, if they are so racist, when anonymous pollsters call them at home to ask them who they are voting for, do so many of them think first of some black guy?

of course, glad you brought up the "blacks are brainwashed" comment

while a rhetorical excess, it could start a very useful national conversation, much like Sarah Palin's "death panel" remark did

that conversation, long overdue, is has the black population of America been well-served by the strategy their leadership has led them to or would they be better off advocating Tea Party type values like low unemployment, pro-business, pro-school choice, pro-life, et al?

that conversation is coming and it will decimate the Democratic Party

"Half-Governor Palin herself called him a flavor of the week."

no one disagrees

truth is, by next year, it will be common wisdom that America made an enormous mistake electing an inexperienced individual as President

Obama has probably ruined the chances of inexperienced dark horses for a generation

it would be intriguing and more, though, to have two blacks running against each other in the general Presidential election

it would change our political system forever

"His flash in the pan will not last."

I'm sure you're right

"If Christie had said yes, Cain's poll numbers"

I'm sure Christie realized his moment wouldn't last longer than a flash either

but, obviously, in every game of musical chairs, the music eventually stops

whoever gets the last seat will have pretty easy task in the general election

"Who is gullible enough to believe tea baggers will actually vote for Cain?"

who is gullible enough to believe that people who favor gay "marriage" will show up at the polls?

"tea baggers" voted for him already in the Florida straw poll

they have a sense of mission and actually show up to vote

Cain is exactly their type of guy

of course, you won't catch me voting for Cain, and few non-Tea Partiers will either

Social Security may not really be the third rail of American politics but elimination of the mortgage deduction and a national sales tax certainly is

bottom line, however:

the liberals have been found out

their claim that the Tea Party is racist was a LIE

October 06, 2011 11:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama has now flip-flopped out of control

early in his administration, he said he would stop wasting Federal resources on fighting harmless marijuana providers and users in states that have legalized

now, he must be trying to impress someone

if we're looking for places to cut the budget, whatever public employees are involved in this are prime candidates for job elimination:

"SAN FRANCISCO — Federal prosecutors have launched a crackdown on pot dispensaries in California, warning the stores that they must shut down in 45 days or face criminal charges and confiscation of their property even if they are operating legally under the state's 15-year-old medical marijuana law.

In an escalation of the ongoing conflict between the U.S. government and the nation's burgeoning medical marijuana industry, at least 16 pot shops or their landlords received letters this week stating they are violating federal drug laws, even though medical marijuana is legal in California. The state's four U.S. attorneys were scheduled Friday to announce a broader coordinated crackdown.

Their offices refused Thursday to confirm the closure orders. The Associated Press obtained copies of the letters that a prosecutor sent to at least 12 San Diego dispensaries. They state that federal law "takes precedence over state law and applies regardless of the particular uses for which a dispensary is selling and distributing marijuana."

"Under United States law, a dispensary's operations involving sales and distribution of marijuana are illegal and subject to criminal prosecution and civil enforcement actions," according to the letters signed by U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy in San Diego. "Real and personal property involved in such operations are subject to seizure by and forfeiture to the United States ... regardless of the purported purpose of the dispensary."

The move comes a little more than two months after the Obama administration toughened its stand on medical marijuana. For two years before that, federal officials had indicated they would not move aggressively against dispensaries in compliance with laws in the 16 states where pot is legal for people with doctors' recommendations."

October 07, 2011 7:53 AM  
Anonymous Harry Reid and the Deathly Hallows said...

you remember the Keystone Cops

they ran around bumping into each other and falling on the ground while the bad guys got away, demonstrating their incompetency by getting in each others' way

now, we have a modern day version:

the dumb Democrats who run Washington

first, Obama spends the last week getting tough by demanding his jobs bill be passed and yesterday goes ballistic on the topic at a press conference:

"WASHINGTON — He deployed hand chops, finger wags, furrowed brows. He was sarcastic, demanding, partisan.

"I'm not going to cave to the competition," President Barack Obama declared midway through Thursday's news conference.

Obama, so often partial to a measured, professorial mien, opened his hour-plus news conference by throwing down a marker to the Republicans who have dared to dis his jobs plan.

"Why would you be opposed?" he demanded of those who are against his jobs proposal.

"Any senator out there who's thinking about voting against this jobs bill when it comes up for a vote needs to explain exactly why.""

uh, Barry, are you there?

Earth to Barry...

you have already pushed through two massive stimulus bills that didn't create jobs and only put us deeper in debt

why is this one any different, other than the fact that it's smaller?

anyway, back to the Keystone Cops

after Obama whines that his unfeasible bill hasn't passed, the Republicans in the Senate push for a vote on it

and guess who blocks the vote:

Harry Reid:

"WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) led Democrats in a precedent-setting move on Thursday evening, shutting down an effort by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to force a vote on President Obama's American Jobs Act.

The move raises a significant question: Why would the Republicans, rather than the Democrats, be insisting on having the vote that the president has been demanding for weeks?"

obviously, Obama's bill doesn't have enough support from Dems to pass

maybe, he should talk about that in his press conferences

October 07, 2011 8:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

new unemployment figures out this morning:

holding steady at a rate typical for socialist countries: 9.1%

a clock keeps relentlessly ticking toward November 2011

October 07, 2011 9:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the president’s press conference today, there were several things that stood out. Obama continued his compulsive need to blame others for his problems. He continued to make transparently untrue claims (such as implying that “every independent economist” agrees with his second stimulus package and insisting that the Solyndra decision was “made on the merits”). He continued to portray himself as a man of incomparable political virtues and his opponents as selfish, uncooperative partisans.

None of this is new; in fact, the act is all getting a bit tiresome. But what particularly amused me is the president’s imperiousness.

When demanding approval of so-called jobs bill, Obama essentially threatened Republicans: If they vote against the legislation, the president said, then they’ll have to “explain to me” why they voted against it. On several occasions the president returned to this theme: voting against Stimulus III will require Republicans to answer not only to their constituents but to The Great and Mighty Obama. Every senator who even dares to entertain the thought of voting against what the president wants had better think “long and hard” about doing so. If not, after all, Obama may use their vote against them in 2012.

To which Republicans might respond: Is that a promise? Because the best route for a Republican sweep in 2012 is to have the president attack you for opposing him.

It’s all very odd. Obama is acting as if his approval ratings are in the mid-60s instead of the low 40s. He’s acting as if Republicans fear him instead of Democrats like Senator Claire McCaskill, who no longer want to be seen with him. The president is acting like his agenda is popular rather than radioactive. He’s acting as if the public still cares what he thinks rather than having tuned him out long ago. And he’s acting as if Republicans will feel compelled to justify their opposition to this singularly inept chief executive and his failing presidency.

Obama is once again trying to weave a narrative that is utterly detached from the real world. From time to time my son does the same thing.

He’s seven years old.

October 07, 2011 10:15 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Here’s an interesting article on gays at Evangelical colleges… enjoy.

From “Wheaton's (Unofficial) Homecoming for Gay Evangelicals” at Time.com:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2096426,00.html

“There are also signs at other Evangelical schools that students and faculty are paying closer attention to LGBT students. In February, students at Seattle Pacific University fought to get a meeting space where they could discuss being gay; after an outpouring of student support and a faculty letter backing the group, the administration approved the request even though it would not grant the club official status. Last winter 30 Westmont College alumni wrote an open letter to the California school's newspaper describing the trauma of being gay in a straight environment. More than half of the college's faculty signed a response asking for forgiveness. And in August students at Eastern University, a Christian school near Philadelphia, formed a group similar to Vilanova's, called OneEastern.”

Peace to those evangelizing their gayness.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

October 07, 2011 10:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

thanks for the link, cinco

sounds like the administration at Wheaton has got it about right

be welcoming without capitulating

btw, I didn't know Jennifer Knapp has come out as a lesbian

I used to have her first album about a decade ago and thought she was pretty good

you guys should check her out

"Peace to those evangelizing their gayness"

aha! you admit that gays are trying to push homosexuality on others

"Have a nice day"

yeah, spend some time where the sun don't shine!!

October 07, 2011 11:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Stupid Anonymous"

You ARE the place where the sun don't shine"!

In an earlier rant of yours, you said: "actually, I'm a jerk for all seasons...can't help it, guys...I was born that way."

Have you given any thought to entering a reparative therapy program aimed at jerks like you, or do you believe you really were born that way and you cannot change?

Dr. Vomitus

October 07, 2011 3:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Vom

jerkdom is in the eye of the beholder

besides, studies have shown jerkery is incurable

me and cinco have a little word game we play with trite 70's phrases

you wouldn't get it

now, go regurgitate in private and stop making stupid comments

October 07, 2011 4:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Barack Obama's approval has hit a new low today with only 38% approving

it's become pretty clear that he is the single worst President of all time

why did America think an inexperienced socialist would be just the thing in 2008?

an historic misjudgment:

"For years, the ritual response from the White House to the nation’s economic problems was to blame the Bush administration — President Barack Obama inherited this mess. With that excuse wearing thin after nearly three years of his administration and a persistently weak economic pulse, Obama has found a new reason for the country’s woes: Americans grew soft.

“This is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft, and we didn’t have the same competitive edge that we needed,” Obama told Orlando, Fla., TV station WESH this week. That’s, well, an interesting explanation for the housing collapse caused in large measure by government-promoted lax mortgage loan standards and low interest policies.

Obama’s comment was the latest manifestation of the administration’s proclivity to blame someone else — anyone else — for the failure of its policies to restore the economic vitality of the country.

Lately, Obama and other Democratic leaders have taken to complaining that Republicans are putting party ahead of country by opposing his economic legislation. In other words, the GOP is unpatriotic. That’s a dramatic turnaround for Democrats who angrily bristled whenever someone suggested a lack of patriotism in their criticism of the Bush administration policies.

We should never be surprised by hypocrisy in politics. Still, Obama would do the country and the cause of a more civil discourse a great favor if all insinuations of insufficient patriotism were banned from his public statements.

Obama is trying to set the table for the 2012 election to portray himself as running against a do-nothing Congress. The problem is that half of Congress, the Senate, is controlled by his party. Obama has been on the campaign trail demanding that Congress vote on his latest stimulus package. So Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) proposed a vote on the measure Tuesday, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wouldn’t allow it because he knew it didn’t have enough Democratic votes to pass.

The problem with Obama’s jobs bill spiel is that voters see it for what it is, politicking. Polls show a lack of faith in his stimulus measure to create jobs.

What’s more, he was disingenuous in arguing his case for the bill during his news conference Thursday. He said it has tax cuts and credits Republicans should like. The problem is that those are temporary measures, which have been shown to be inadequate in inspiring business confidence for the very reason that they are not permanent measures to give job creators and investors certainty about the future tax environment.

Combine a poorly conceived, politically motivated jobs bill with White House excuses, unprecedented spending, an avalanche of new regulations, wasteful commitment of tax dollars to green energy illusions like Solyndra, hostility to domestic fossil fuels and anti-business rhetoric, and it’s no wonder that investors and business executives are sitting on trillions in capital instead of making job-creating investments."

Things have gone so badly for the economy under this president that Obama admitted in an ABC News interview that Americans are not better off than they were four years ago. That, he said, has made him the “underdog” in the 2012 election. If that’s true, Obama has no one to blame but himself and his wrong-headed policies.

October 08, 2011 7:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think I have it figured out

the new strategy to re-elect Obama is for Harry Reid to do stupid things, making Obama look good by contrast

what else could explain the latest?:

"WHAT PROBLEM, if any, would Senate Democrats’ proposed surtax on annual income over $1 million solve? We can only think of one, and it’s purely political: divisions within the Senate Democratic caucus over how to pay for President Obama’s $447 billion jobs bill, which have heretofore prevented the majority-Democratic chamber from acting on the measure “right away,” as the president wants.

Mr. Obama suggested 10 years’ worth of revenue increases from three sources: a cap on itemized deductions for those earning $200,000 per year ($250,000 for couples); the elimination of oil and gas tax breaks; and the closure of the “carried-interest” loophole for Wall Street honchos. But oil-state Democrats such as Mary Landrieu of Louisiana protect the oil industry breaks, and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) defends the carried-interest break. Mr. Schumer also objected to the deductions cap on the grounds that, in some parts of the country (Manhattan comes to mind), six-figure earners are “firmly in the middle class.”

So the Democrats, unable to close ranks behind Mr. Obama, chose taxing millionaires instead. But as far as solving any real problem — such as the inequities in the tax code epitomized, according to Mr. Obama, by Warren Buffett’s paying a lower marginal rate than his secretary — the 5.6 percent surtax is a decidedly suboptimal approach. In fact, as a pure matter of tax policy, it is less efficient than the president’s original plan.

Mr. Obama’s cap on itemized deductions would reduce some of the biggest tax expenditures in the code — especially the mortgage interest deduction — by reducing the benefits they confer on the upper reaches of the income distribution scale.

Yes, obliging the big winners in our economy to pay an extra $5.60 in tax on every $100 they earn above $1 million a year would raise revenue and make the tax code a tiny bit more progressive overall. And, since the Senate Democrats’ proposed surtax would apply to capital gains as well as ordinary income, it would mute the “carried interest” break and others like it. But it would do nothing to correct the fundamental flaw — which is the 20-percentage-point differential between the maximum marginal tax rates on capital gains and ordinary income. That differential should be eliminated for everyone, not just for hedge fund managers.

In short, this proposal purports to soak the rich but leaves both the oil and gas industry and Wall Street in possession of most of the tax benefits they currently enjoy. Strange."

October 08, 2011 11:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Friday "afternoon CBO released a cost estimate for S. 1549, the American Jobs Act of 2011, as introduced by Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid on September 13, 2011. That legislation corresponds to the plan put forth by President Obama. We also released a cost estimate for S. 1660, the American Jobs Act of 2011, as introduced by Senator Reid on October 5, 2011. Senator Reid’s alternative bill, S. 1660, includes the same tax cuts and spending increases as S. 1549, but it offsets the budgetary impact of those provisions in a different way, as described below. Those estimates represent joint work by CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT).

CBO anticipates that enacting either bill could have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years. Following long-standing Congressional budget procedures, however, the estimates released today do not address the potential budgetary effects of such changes in the economic outlook.

What Is The Impact of the Bills on the Federal Deficit?

CBO estimates that enacting the President’s plan would increase the budget deficit by $288 billion in 2012 and decrease deficits by $3 billion over the 2012-2021 period. That estimated deficit reduction of $3 billion over the coming decade is the net effect of $447 billion in additional spending and tax cuts and $450 billion in additional tax revenue from the offsets specified in the bill.

CBO estimates that enacting Senator Reid’s alternative bill would increase the budget deficit by $285 billion in 2012 and decrease deficits by $6 billion over the 2012-2021 period. That estimated deficit reduction of $6 billion over the coming decade is the net effect of $447 billion in additional spending and tax cuts and $453 billion in additional tax revenue from the offset specified in the bill..."
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=2875

October 09, 2011 2:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"John Joe Baxter is a 72-year-old troubadour from Rockaway Beach in Queens. He's been coming to Occupy Wall Street every day since it started. "I think this is the beginning of something that has never happened in our lifetimes in America," he told me yesterday. "I think this is going to turn into the biggest movement ever in this country. Because all these people here feel exactly the way we feel."

Here he is singing an as-yet-unnamed song that he wrote for the movement, as cops try to keep his audience from blocking the sidewalk:"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGuXC2-oHNA&feature=player_embedded

October 09, 2011 4:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous":
("now, go regurgitate in private and stop making stupid comments"

Great advice from one who is well-know for the volume of his/her stupid, vacuous, banal, and snide comments!

October 09, 2011 11:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"CBO estimates"

yeah, think of all the rosie things the CBO said about Obamacare

health insurance is way up again this year

today's Post has a graph prepared by Obama's economic staff in early 2009

it said if Obama's stimulus passed, unemployment would be a tad under 6% right about now

it said if the stimulus package didn't pass, unemployment would be a tad over 7% right about now

unemployment, of course, is a tad over 9% right about now

leat's face it, the economists in official Washington won't be winning any Nobel prizes anytome soon

""I think this is the beginning of something that has never happened in our lifetimes in America," he told me yesterday. "I think this is going to turn into the biggest movement ever in this country.""

it might be the biggest flop in history when they finally decide what they're protesting

"Great advice from one who is well-know for the volume of his/her stupid, vacuous, banal, and snide comments!"

the rage expressed by TTFers leads me to believe the comments have been right on

move on, Mr Bulemic

October 09, 2011 11:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't forget all the rosy things the CBO said about the Ryan plan!

October 10, 2011 11:06 AM  
Anonymous Forgetful is as forgetful does said...

"Even as the nation was debating whether to overhaul the health insurance market, people who were buying coverage on their own were experiencing sharp increases in the cost of their policies, according to a survey released Monday.

Those surveyed said they were faced with premium increases averaging 20 percent when they last sought to renew their coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit health policy research group, which conducted the survey in March and early April.

While some people switched to less expensive plans that offered less generous coverage, and others negotiated lower prices than their insurers initially requested, the people surveyed still reported an average increase of 13 percent on their health insurance costs.

Just how steep the increases have been in the market for individual insurance has been an open question since earlier this year, when Anthem Blue Cross tried to raise its rates by as much as 39 percent in California. The proposed increases were met with outrage from federal and state officials, but there was little information about how widespread such increases were in other parts of the country. Anthem, which is owned by WellPoint, one of the nation’s largest insurers, later withdrew its request to raise rates.

“The survey shows that the steep increases we have been reading about over the last several months are not just extreme cases,” said Drew Altman, the Kaiser foundation’s president and chief executive. He said the increases far outpaced those in the market for large employers buying coverage for their workers.

The findings also underscore the challenges that will continue to be faced by people in the individual market until changes under the new health care law go into effect in 2014, Mr. Altman said. About 14 million people under the age of 65 purchase their coverage in the individual market, according to Kaiser.

Health insurers say any rate increases reflect the rapid growth in the underlying cost of medical care. “The data show premiums track the underlying cost of health care,” said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade association in Washington.

But the survey also provided a glimpse of what kind of coverage individuals are purchasing on their own. While people reported paying lower premiums than they would in a typical employer-provided plan, they also reported being in plans with much higher deductibles. While individuals reported paying average annual premiums of $3,606, according to the survey, they also reported an average deductible of nearly $2,500. One in four people report being in plans with an annual deductible of $5,000 or more.

Despite some of the well-publicized disputes between health insurers and state regulators over premium increases, there is little comprehensive information about the kinds of increases in rates individuals face when they buy insurance on their own. “We don’t have data on average premium increases,” said Mr. Zirkelbach, the industry spokesman, who noted the difficulty of tracking such information.

The survey was based on a random sample of 1,038 people who bought health insurance for themselves or for their families on their own. The survey’s margin of error was plus or minus four percentage points."

October 10, 2011 11:27 AM  
Anonymous Barry comes around said...

If you thought President Obama's pretense of sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street movement meant he was suddenly going to stand up for "the 99%," think again. Obama has just submitted to Congress the Chamber of Commerce-backed Colombia, Panama, and Korea Free Trade Agreements. And now, thanks to maneuvering by Obama and his business-friendly Chief of Staff William Daley and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, they're on an accelerated schedule in Congress. According to a report in The Hill, they will be voted on Wednesday, where they're expected to pass.

Obama's move is a brazen display of contempt for the Occupy Wall Street movement's calls for jobs, economic, and environmental justice as well as human rights. These trade agreements achieve a rare trifecta of progressive punching: it's hard to imagine a single initiative that at one time could so infuriate anti-corporate activists, labor unions, and environmentalists at the very moment that these disparate movements are finally finding solidarity and support in the streets.

October 10, 2011 11:25 PM  
Anonymous will they ever shut up said...

no matter how tolerant society of homosexuals, they're never happy

the legislative needs are basically endless

will gays ever just shut up and move on?

in California, of all places, the government is making new special laws for them:

"California Governor Jerry Brown signed two transgender rights bills into law yesterday.

The first, Assembly Bill 433, the Vital Statistics Modernization Act, makes the process for Californians to obtain and update birth certificates easier.

The bill was authored by Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) and sponsored by the Transgender Law Center and Equality California, according to a press release from the Transgender Law Center.

The Vital Statistics Modernization Act streamlines the current process for trans people to receive a new birth certificate (or other identifying documentation) that reflects their current gender. Trans people must only provide medical documentation from an attending physician to prove that they have undergone "clinically apropriate treatment."

“The Vital Statistics Modernization Act eliminates outdated and onerous barriers that transgender people face when trying to update their IDs,” said Masen Davis, Executive Director of the Transgender Law Center. “Having identity documents that match who we truly are is critical to our ability to work, travel, and thrive. We applaud Governor Brown and our lawmakers for prioritizing the health and safety of transgender Californians."

The other bill, Assembly Bill 887, also known as the Gender Nondiscrimination Act, bulks up employment, housing and other civil rights protections for trans people. The bill was authored by Assemblymember Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and sponsored by Equality California, Transgender Law Center and Gay-Straight Alliance Network.

The Transgender Law Center notes:

While California anti-discrimination laws already define “gender” to include a person’s gender identity and gender expression, the Gender Nondiscrimination Act provides clarity to those who are victims of unlawful discrimination as well as for business owners, employers and other entities required to comply with the anti-discrimination protections by explicitly enumerating gender identity and expression as protected categories in a number of state codes.

Brown also signed Seth's Law, which according to Equality California, “will tighten anti-bullying policies in California schools by ensuring that all schools have clear and consistent policies, instituting better training and clearer guidelines for teachers and administrators, and establishing shorter timelines for investigating claims of bullying.”"

October 10, 2011 11:33 PM  
Anonymous good morning, North America !! said...

a chance to teach some facts:

"PRESIDENT Barack Obama gave quite a performance at his news conference last week. He thumped the podium with his fist. He pointed his finger every now and again. He used an occasional hand chop. Mostly he vented against those danged Republicans.

The Associated Press took at look at some of the things Obama said during Thursday's campaign stop, er, news conference, and tried to set the record straight.

Obama: “If it turns out that there are Republicans who are opposed to this (jobs) bill, they need to explain to me, but more importantly to their constituencies and the American people, why they're opposed and what they would do.”

AP: Republicans have “hardly kept their objections a secret.” GOP leaders have said they can find common ground in some areas, but part company when talk turns to such things as spending on public works programs, payroll tax cuts for workers and small businesses, and additional spending to prevent layoffs to teachers and other public employees.

Obama: “Every idea that we've put forward are ones that traditionally have been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike.”

AP: “Obama proposes to pay for his jobs bill by raising taxes, something traditionally opposed by Republicans and, in the form Obama proposed it, even some Democrats.”

Obama: “The answer we're getting now is: Well, we're going to roll back all these Obama regulations ... Does anybody really think that is going to create jobs right now and meet the challenges of a global economy?”

AP: “Well, yes, some think it will.” First in line with a different idea is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which wants to ease regulations on business.

Obama: “We can either keep taxes exactly as they are for millionaires and billionaires, with loopholes that lead them to have lower taxes, in some cases, than plumbers and teachers, or we can put teachers and construction workers and veterans back on the job.”

AP said that indeed, the wealthy can — in some cases — exploit loopholes to pay a low federal tax rate. But “on average, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes; those making $100,00 to $125,000 paid 9.9 percent; those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid 6.3 percent.”

At one point, talking about foreign economic rivals, Obama said, “I'm not going to cave to the competition.”

Apparently he isn't going to let the facts get in the way of a good partisan smackdown, either."

October 11, 2011 9:10 AM  
Anonymous no "marriage", no civil unions said...

HOPKINTON, N.H. -- At his second town hall event during a swing through New Hampshire on Monday, Mitt Romney was peppered with questions about same-sex "marriage" and funding for AIDS research and prevention efforts. The topics aren't exactly typical of the Granite State, and as the former Massachusetts Governor was challenged, again and again, as to whether he would continue current funding levels or support marriage redefinition, it became all too clear that he wanted to move on to something else.

At one point, a student in the crowd chimed in to note that she was raised by her mother and grandmother and found the arrangement quite fine, even if it wasn't Romney's preferred setting for raising a child -- a two-parent household made up of a mother and a father.

"I can say look, there are a lot of folks who are raised by one parent, through divorce through death or through having a child out of wedlock," Romney replied. "But my view is a society recognizes that the ideal setting for raising a child is when you have the benefit of two people working together and where one is male and one is female. I happen to believe that and that's the reason that I think as a society we say, 'You know what? We are going to call marriage what it has been called for 6,000 years.'"

So why not support civil unions? "What I would support is letting people who are of the same gender form, if you will, partnership agreements," he replied. "If they want to have a partnership with someone else and have, as a result of that, such things as hospital visitation rights and similar benefits of that nature."

The distinction between "partnership agreements" and civil unions is vague, in part because they resemble one another, in some ways, on the surface. But there are legal differences -- and certainly rhetorical ones. When Romney was governor of Massachusetts he used terms like "partnership agreements" to appear as sympathetic and sensitive to gay couples, even as he fought efforts to legalize civil unions in the state.

Some may have grown more accepting of same-sex "marriage" since then, but many conservatives haven't. And as Romney kept beating back attempts to pin him down, there were audible groans from the audience at the Hopkinton Town Hall.

"I was seething," Caitlynn Field said of Romney's answer.

"His answer was a little odd because I grew up with two women as parents," she continued. "I didn't grow up with gay parents. But it was still two women."

Field is not from New Hampshire. She was bussed in, along with roughly 50 to 60 other students, from neighboring St. Michael's College in Vermont, where she is a freshman.

October 11, 2011 11:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Cantor shifts tone on Wall Street protesters, calls frustration 'justified'
By Russell Berman - 10/11/11 01:46 PM ET

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) made an abrupt shift in rhetoric toward the Wall Street protesters on Tuesday, saying they were “justifiably frustrated,” just days after describing the people in the streets as “growing mobs.”

“People are upset, and they are justifiably frustrated,” Cantor told reporters at his weekly Capitol Hill briefing. “They are out of work. The economy is not moving. Their sense of security for the future is not clear at all. People are afraid, and I get it.”

The majority leader blamed Obama administration policies for creating the weak economy that has spurred the demonstrations, along with public anger at so-called “crony capitalism” in Washington. On Friday, Cantor appeared to condemn the movement and chastised Democrats who had voiced support for the demonstrators in New York and other cities.

“I, for one, am increasingly concerned about the growing mobs occupying Wall Street and the other cities across the country,” Cantor said in a speech to the conservative Values Voter conference in Washington. “Believe it or not, some in this town have actually condoned the pitting of Americans against Americans.”

Cantor drew criticism for his remarks, with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) noting that the Republican leader did not condemn excesses in the Tea Party movement in 2009 and 2010.

“I didn’t hear him say anything when the Tea Party was out demonstrating, actually spitting on members of Congress right here in the Capitol, and he and his colleagues were putting signs in the windows encouraging them,” Pelosi said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

Cantor made his comments Tuesday during an unprompted monologue on the protests at the outset of his press conference, in what appeared to be an attempt on his part to revise his initial denunciation of the activist movement.

Asked on Tuesday whether he regretted his earlier characterization of the protesters as “growing mobs,” Cantor said his criticism was aimed at elected leaders and others who sought to pit Americans against Americans.

“What I was attempting to say is that the action and statements of elected leaders in this town condoning the pitting of Americans against Americans is not very helpful right now,” Cantor said. “What we need to do is come together as one, all Americans. To sit here and vilify one sector of the economy, industries, et cetera, is not helpful. People are lacking confidence right now, and we have elected leaders stirring the pot, if you will. That’s not good.”

The Occupy Wall Street protests have grown in number and expanded to other cities, including the District of Columbia, where Capitol Police arrested six protesters at the Hart Senate Office Building on Tuesday. Nearly 700 demonstrators were arrested by the New York Police Department on the Brooklyn Bridge earlier this month.

Some Democrats have called the nascent movement the Tea Party of the left, but the activists have been reluctant to embrace support from establishment members of either party."

October 11, 2011 8:33 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home