Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Determining Sex in the Olympics

I think everyone recognizes that it would be unfair for men to compete in women's athletic events. But everyone might not appreciate the difficulty of defining male and female, even with the most sophisticated medical tests.

The LA Times:
Of all the obstacles athletes have had to overcome to compete in the Olympics, perhaps the most controversial has been the gender test.

Originally designed to prevent men from competing in women's events, it is based on the premise that competitors can be sorted into two categories via established scientific rules. But the biological boundaries of gender aren't always clear.

Consider the Spanish hurdler Maria Jose Martinez-Patiño. A gender test revealed that she had a Y chromosome, which normally makes a person male. She also had complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, or CAIS, which prevented her body from responding properly to testosterone and caused her to develop as a woman.

The Spanish Athletic Federation got her test results in 1986, just before a major competition that would have set her up for an Olympic run. Though she won the 60-meter hurdles, the federation declared her ineligible for the 1988 Summer Games in Seoul.

The International Olympic Committee has struggled with cases like these, variously using hair patterns, chromosomes, individual genes and other factors in their long-running attempts to distinguish men from women. All of these tests have been discarded.

For the London Games, officials are going by a new set of rules that shifts the focus from DNA to testosterone, a hormone that aids muscle development, endurance and speed. Olympic Games and the tricky science of telling men from women
Normally we talk about sex as being defined by the physical characteristics of the body, and gender being a sense of who you are. This article is talking about determining the physical sex of people who identify themselves as women. The problem is that there is no clear defining quality that separates the sexes.
"There is no single metric for sex or athletic potential," said Eric Vilain, director of the Center for Gender-Based Biology at UCLA. But he called the new testosterone-based test a pragmatic solution to a real problem. "I have talked to many elite female athletes, and I haven't found one who is comfortable with the idea of having no testing," he said.

Once it's agreed that men and women should compete separately, how should officials divide them up?

It's not a rhetorical question. Though most people fall neatly into "male" and "female" categories, some do not. The fact that there are people with physical or genetic traits of both sexes prompted the IOC to rethink its gender test.

The new rules, announced last month, disqualify athletes from women's events if they have testosterone levels in the normal male range, which is 7 to 30 nanomoles per liter of blood. Because the top range for women is slightly below 3 nanomoles per liter, such levels could give athletes an unfair advantage that officials have a duty to root out, said Dr. Arne Ljungqvist, chairman of IOC's Medical Commission and a former Olympic high jumper. Athletes with complete androgen insensitivity will be allowed to compete.
Olympic officials are trying to focus on factors that affect athletic performance, namely the metabolism of testosterone. But the problem is further complicated when individuals produce testosterone but can't use it. Skipping down ...
But if testosterone were essential to athletic success, [Spanish hurdler Maria Jose] Martinez-Patiño would have been doomed to fail because her body can't use the hormone. Many women with androgen insensitivity have competed in the Olympics, and "the idea that testosterone is a necessary ingredient for elite athletic performance is really undermined by these cases," Van Anders said.

In fact, androgen insensitivity is overrepresented among female athletes, Vilain added: The general population has an incidence of 1 in 20,000, but for Olympic athletes it is about 1 in 400. No one knows why.
This article is fairly lengthy, and goes into the history of the controversy.
"If we could just have a social answer and let everyone declare their own sex, that would be great," he said. But "if we say, 'Anyone who says they're a woman is a woman,' I worry that people will always take advantage of that."

Accusations of men masquerading as women in the Olympics go back at least as far as 1936, the year questions were raised about American sprinter Helen Stephens after her upset win at the Berlin Summer Games. Stephens passed some sort of gender test — the details are lost to history — and was awarded a gold medal.
In the end of this article it is suggested that any test will eventually fail.


Anonymous Chik-fil-A rocks!! said...

Richard Tisei could become the first openly gay Republican elected to serve in Congress, but he’s more interested in framing himself as part of the centrist wing of the party than as a trailblazer.

“Overall, I consider myself a ‘live and let live Republican’ — the government should get out of your bedroom, off your back and out of your wallet,” he told The Hill when asked about the historic nature of his campaign. “That’s a pretty traditional Northeastern Republican philosophy. We’ve always had a pretty strong libertarian flavor in our politics up here.”

Tisei said that in his home district, being gay is a “non-issue,” but noted his profile could help him knock off eight-term Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.), whose campaign has been tarnished by his in-laws’ legal troubles.

The 6th congressional district, just north of Boston, gave President Obama 57 percent of its vote in 2008 but broke for Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) in 2010. If elected, Tisei would be the first Republican House member to represent the state since 1997.

July 31, 2012 10:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what a dull post!

July 31, 2012 11:20 AM  
Anonymous Chik-fil-A rocks!! said...

"Normally we talk about sex as being defined by the physical characteristics of the body, and gender being a sense of who you are"


you and the gay agenda gang do this

normal people consider gender a physical characteristic so that's how it's normally defined

"The new rules, announced last month, disqualify athletes from women's events if they have testosterone levels in the normal male range, which is 7 to 30 nanomoles per liter of blood. Because the top range for women is slightly below 3 nanomoles per liter, such levels could give athletes an unfair advantage that officials have a duty to root out"


is that any different than the advantage of a basketball player who is taller than normal

unless, there is evidence of artificial, non-natural manipulation, it's fine

your gender is the anatomical one you displays at birth

anything else is non-empirical and we know how fond you guys are of empiricism

July 31, 2012 11:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

your gender is the anatomical one you displays [sic] at birth

Your ignorance is showing. Not everyone displays unambiguous physical features of one gender or the other at birth.

Warning, there are facts about anatomical displays at birth ahead:


"Intersex, in humans and other animals, is the presence of intermediate or atypical combinations of physical features that usually distinguish female from male. This is usually understood to be congenital, involving chromosomal, morphologic, genital and/or gonadal anomalies, such as diversion from typical XX-female or XY-male presentations, e.g., sex reversal (XY-female, XX-male), genital ambiguity, or sex developmental differences. An intersex individual may have biological characteristics of both the male and the female sexes. Intersexuality as a term was adopted by medicine during the 20th century, and applied to human beings whose biological sex cannot be classified as clearly male or female."...

...Ambiguous genitalia appear as a large clitoris or small penis and may or may not require surgery.

Because there is variation in all of the processes of the development of the sex organs, a child can be born with a sexual anatomy that is typically female, or feminine in appearance with a larger-than-average clitoris (clitoral hypertrophy), or typically male, masculine in appearance with a smaller-than-average penis that is open along the underside. The appearance may be quite ambiguous, describable as female genitals with a very large clitoris and partially fused labia, or as male genitals with a very small penis, completely open along the midline ("hypospadic"), and empty scrotum.

July 31, 2012 3:03 PM  
Anonymous Empirical evidence shows Chik-fil-A approval rating tanks!! said...

Chick-Fil-A's Brand Approval Rating Plummets After Anti-Gay Controversy: REPORT

"Chick-fil-A's anti-gay marriage stance has gotten some high-profile support by way of Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin and other conservative lawmakers. But among their longtime customers, it's a much different story.

Polling organization YouGov found that the Atlanta-based chain's brand approval ratings have plummeted in the wake of Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy's controversial remarks earlier this month. YouGov also reports that the company's overall consumer brand health among fast food eaters has dropped to its lowest levels since mid-August 2010 in the wake of the media firestorm.

Just before Cathy's interview was published, Chick-fil-A's Index score was 65, well above the Top National Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) Sector average score of 46. Just four days later, however, Chick-fil-A's score had fallen to 47, while last week, the chain had a score of 39, compared to the Top National QSR Sector average score of 43.

Scroll down to the YouGOV Brand Index Table

Among the other brands ranked in the Top National QSR sector are Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, KFC, Burger King and McDonald's, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) noted.

Among those not surprised by the plunge was Aaron McQuade, Director of News and Field Media at GLAAD, who called the results "reflective of an America that values and respects its LGBT neighbors and rejects rhetoric like Dan Cathy's that seeks to demean and dehumanize the LGBT community."

"The business world has seen what happens when an organization supports the LGBT community -- which is that the LGBT community and its allies will support it," McQuade noted in a statement. "Now we have empirical proof of what happens when a company rejects the LGBT community. The LGBT community and its allies will reject it."..."

July 31, 2012 4:24 PM  
Anonymous gig's up, fellas said...

Supporters of California's gay marriage ban, blocked by two federal courts, filed a petition to the Supreme Court on Tuesday urging the justices to take up the case.

In their request for the Court to uphold the ban, the Proposition 8 backers questioned "[w]hether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman."

August 01, 2012 3:53 AM  
Anonymous that's hollywood said...

The director of "The Matrix" and the highly-anticipated film "Cloud Atlas" has become the first major Hollywood director to publicly come out as transgender.

Lana Wachowski revealed she has transitioned while promoting her new film, the New York Post reported.

Lana has been transitioning for years now, the Post also reported. This new clip for "Cloud Atlas," starring Tom Hanks and Halle Berry, appears to be her first public appearance since transitioning.

In the trailer, Lana introduces the film with her brother, Andy Wachowski, and director Tom Tykwer.

"Hi, I'm Lana," she says with her hair styled in pink dreadlocks.

August 01, 2012 3:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lambda Legal announces:

With marriage equality cases pending in Nevada, Illinois and New Jersey, and the recent announcement by the U.S. Department of Justice asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear our case challenging DOMA, it’s clear that Lambda Legal is “hungry for marriage equality.” We are thrilled to be included in “Donate (the cost of) a Chicken Dinner to Marriage Equality Day”.

The swift reaction to Chick-fil-A’s anti-gay stance has highlighted something we have been saying for some time now: the winds of change are not coming…they’re already here.

Click here to donate to to Lambda Legal if you are Hungry for Equality.

August 01, 2012 8:12 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Interesting post, Jim.

August 01, 2012 9:22 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

If I were the Californians, I wouldn't put my eggs in a basket depending on the support of the current Supreme Court.

August 01, 2012 9:30 AM  
Anonymous chik-fil-a rocks!!! said...

where do you think they should put 'em, Robo?

voters in California made their intent clear

a gay judge in San Francisco distorted the constitution and threw out the voters verdict

the Supreme Court is the place to go

August 01, 2012 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I'd put it up to a vote again in a few years; the electorate is changing.

August 01, 2012 10:09 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

The problem being, of course, is that elections and ballot measures are just so expensive (even more so than chicken).

August 01, 2012 10:10 AM  
Anonymous eatmorchiken said...

the bigger problem is that the judges have misabused the constitution

if an electorate approves it, that's fine

here's how gays have corrupted the military already:

"Congressional Republicans are challenging the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to explain a recent decision to let military personnel to march in uniform in a San Diego gay pride parade.

Earlier this week, the DoD said it granted service members in San Diego a “one-time waiver” from the policy that prohibits all military personnel from wearing their uniforms in political events because parade organizers were encouraging troops to participate, and because the event was generating national attention.

Col. Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, said he believes there’s more to it than that.

“The Department of Defense continues to use our armed forces to promote a social agenda,” he said. “Our armed forces were not created to promote agendas. They were created to protect and defend this nation, which they have done so well since our founding.”

In a letter sent to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta Tuesday, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) quoted the 2005 DoD directive that states service members “‘shall not march or ride in a partisan parade.’“

Inhofe, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also requested a detailed explanation of Panetta’s rationale. He also asked for the names of those who requested the waiver, an explanation of why it was considered justified over other requests, and whether Panetta is considering further exceptions to current policy.

Crews said this one-time waiver is a not just an “exception,” it’s a “violation” of policy. The DoD’s decision, he added, leads him to wonder what else the department may do in the future.

“The DoD has already been promoting this agenda by allowing same-sex couples to have commitment ceremonies and marriage-like ceremonies on military installations, even in a state like Louisiana where there is a clear definition of marriage — one man, one woman,” he said. “What’s the next step?”

In the letter, Inhofe points out that the DoD has previously used its current policy to punish troops who have participated in political events in uniform.

“If the Navy can punish a chaplain for participating in a pro-life event or a Marine participating in a political rally, it stands to reason that DoD should maintain the same standard and preclude service members in uniform from marching in a gay pride parade,” he wrote."

August 01, 2012 11:00 AM  
Anonymous chik-fil-a rocks!!! said...

WASHINGTON -- House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) signaled Wednesday that despite recent setbacks, House Republican leaders will keep spending taxpayer dollars to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

McCarthy, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have been defending the federal ban on same-sex marriage since March 2011, when Attorney General Eric Holder deemed it unconstitutional and stopped defending it. They hired outside counsel to defend the law on behalf of the House of Representatives and, so far, have spent at least $742,000 doing so. But as of Tuesday, they marked their fifth consecutive loss in federal court when a Connecticut judge threw out the law as unconstitutional.

Despite the setbacks, McCarthy said he and other House Republican leaders have a duty to uphold current law.

"What transpired for the House to be engaged, it's not the subject itself, but the idea that the government ... can decide, even though something's law, what to uphold and what not to," McCarthy said at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast with reporters.

Notably, throughout his argument, McCarthy emphasized again the importance of upholding laws that are in place.

"The rule of law keeps America strong. When you break down the rule of law, you break down society. So the idea that the House defends what becomes law is ... very responsible," he said. There can't be a system where "somebody decides, 'Well, that's law, but I just don't like it.' It doesn't matter what the issue is. We have a court system. We have a rule of law we go through. And I think you have to go through the system."

Pressed on whether that means Republican leaders are prepared to keep getting involved in more court cases concerning DOMA, McCarthy signaled yes.

"I think there's a responsibility on behalf of Americans to defend the rule of law," he said. "We have to go through it. We have a check and balance. We have a system ... Otherwise, if that's the case, what law is really law? It goes to every other subject."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Republicans should stop defending the law.

"It is time to relegate DOMA to the dustbin of history," Pelosi said in a statement. "The congressional Republicans' single-minded effort to uphold DOMA comes at great expense to the American people and rejects our nation’s heritage of equality for all."

August 01, 2012 1:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A new poll finds President Obama leading GOP candidate Mitt Romney in three key swing states, but with continuing voter doubts that either candidate can right the struggling economy.

Obama tops Romney in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, according to a new Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News survey.

In Pennsylvania, Obama has the support of 53 percent of likely voters to Romney’s 42. In Ohio the president tops Romney 50 percent to 44 and holds a similar 6-point edge in Florida, leading 51 percent to 45.

Voters overwhelmingly rate the economy as the most important issue in determining their vote for president, and the poll holds troubling signs for both campaigns. Fifty-four percent say the economy is the top issue in Pennsylvania, along with 48 percent in Ohio and 52 percent in Florida.

On the economy, Obama holds a slight edge over Romney in two states, with voters in Pennsylvania saying he would do a better job by 48 percent to 44 and in Ohio by 46-45. In Florida, though, voters opt for Romney by 47-45.

The poll also finds the Obama campaign’s attacks on Romney’s record as CEO of private equity giant Bain Capital resonating with voters. Voters say Romney’s record was more “focused on making profits” as opposed to providing him with the “right kind of experience” to manage an economic turnaround by 51 to 42 percent in Pennsylvania, 50 to 41 in Ohio and 48 to 42 in Florida.

A majority of voters agree that Romney should release additional tax returns, a key point in Obama attack ads asking the GOP candidate to disclose more about his offshore holdings. Fifty-four percent in Pennsylvania, 51 in Ohio and 53 in Florida say presidential candidates should publicly release “several years” of tax records.

The polls continue to find Obama with more personal appeal than his GOP rival. The president holds a net positive rating in all three states, with a majority of voters saying they have a favorable view of the incumbent.

Romney, though, is under water in all three states. Forty-seven percent of Pennsylvania voters hold an unfavorable opinion of the presumptive GOP nominee, to 39 percent favorable. Ohio's likely voters rate Romney 43 percent unfavorable to 40 percent favorable, and in Florida Romney is at 42 percent unfavorable to 41 favorable.

A majority of voters in all three states say Obama is concerned about the issues that matter to them. Fifty-eight percent in Pennsylvania and 55 in Ohio and Florida say Obama “cares about the needs and problems of people.” For Romney, 39 percent in Pennsylvania, 38 in Ohio and 42 in Florida agree with that sentiment.

Obama scores a net positive job approval figure in Pennsylvania, with 49 percent approving of his performance as president to 46 percent disapproving. In both Ohio and Florida, however, Obama’s approval rating is split with 48 percent approval and 48 disapproval.

Republicans have made opposition to the president’s signature healthcare reform law a centerpiece of their 2012 messaging, but that issue ranks a distant second, with 20 percent of voters in Pennsylvania, 20 in Ohio and 22 in Florida saying it is the most important issue."

August 01, 2012 2:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chick-Fil-A and Proverbs 25:21

For the video-phobic among us, here's all you need to know.

info for Dan Cathy.

The Biblical definition of marriage includes:

One man, many wives, and as many concubines as he wants to hire.

Biblical rapists are required to marry the woman they rape.

Women who cannot prove they are virgins on their wedding night must be stoned to death.

If your brother dies without leaving children, you must marry his widow.

Nowhere in the Bible is a woman's consent required for marriage.

Great suggestion to test Chik-fil-A's support of Biblical principals. Go to Chik-fil-A any day tell then you support same-sex marriage and ask for free food or a large water. If they deny you, quote Proverbs 25:21, "If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink."

August 01, 2012 3:14 PM  
Anonymous eatmorchiken said...

what you see is that Republicans shouldn't have nominated a "safe" moderate like Romney

a pure conservative would be mopping up the floor with Obama

still, Obama's anti-business tirades will come back to bite him

by arguing that Romney has been too big business and not paid enough in taxes, he is inadvertently advancing the idea that Romney is shrewd with money, which may be plenty good enough by November since it's clear that Obama is not

Romney can't win without at least two of those three states mentioned but Obama has wasted a great deal of his money already and Romney will have a great advantage in spreading his message in the fall

"Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) touted his support for fast-food chain Chick-Fil-A Wednesday on his Facebook page. "As a long time Chick-fil-A fanatic, I stand with Chick-Fil-A," he wrote. "We had it for breakfast today, but my usual order is the #1 combo with slaw and a Coke Zero. Can’t beat it."

Supporters of the chain, organized by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), are holding "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" to rally around the fast food chain, which has been under fire from homosexual advocates after its president said that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

August 01, 2012 3:18 PM  
Anonymous eatmorchiken said...

"Great suggestion to test Chik-fil-A's support of Biblical principals. Go to Chik-fil-A any day tell then you support same-sex marriage and ask for free food or a large water. If they deny you, quote Proverbs 25:21, "If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.""

actually, you need to read the whole Bible to understand it, which you apparently don't

the game being played right now is that they have found a straw man to prop up and pretend that he holds reprehensible views outside the mainstream, hoping, with the willing participation of the liberal media, that the idea will catch on

but the reality is that we live in a country where voters have had a crack at this issue 37 times and have every time sided with the Chik-fil-A founder

if you have any biblical questions, let us know

we can discuss

August 01, 2012 3:26 PM  
Anonymous Look who else some churches won't marry said...

Black wedding banned by Baptist church

CRYSTAL SPRINGS, MS - It was to be their big day, but a Jackson couple says the church where they were planning to wed turned them away because of their race.

Now, the couple wants answers, and the church's pastor is questioning the mindset of some of members of his congregation who caused the problem in the first place.

They had set the date and printed and mailed out all the invitations, but the day before wedding bells were to ring for Charles and Te'Andrea Wilson, they say they got some bad news from the pastor.

"The church congregation had decided no black could be married at that church, and that if he went on to marry her, then they would vote him out the church," said Charles Wilson.

The Wilsons were trying to get married at the predominantly white First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs -- a church they attend regularly, but are not members of.

"He had people in the sanctuary that were pitching a fit about us being a black couple," said Te'Andrea Wilson. "I didn't like it at all, because I wasn't brought up to be racist. I was brought up to love and care for everybody."

The church's pastor, Dr. Stan Weatherford, says he was taken by surprise by what he calls a small minority against the black marriage at the church.

"This had never been done before here, so it was setting a new precedent, and there are those who reacted to that because of that," said Weatherford.

Weatherford went on and performed the wedding at a nearby church.

"I didn't want to have a controversy within the church, and I didn't want a controversy to affect the wedding of Charles and Te' Andrea. I wanted to make sure their wedding day was a special day," said Weatherford.

After months of planning, the newlyweds say they had no choice but to go through with the wedding at the new location, but they still can't understand why a church would ban their wedding because of race.

"I blame the First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs, I blame those members who knew and call themselves Christians and didn't stand up," said Charles Wilson.

Church officials say they welcome any race into their congregation. They now plan to hold internal meetings on how to move forward, should this situation occur again.

"I was prepared to go ahead and do the wedding here just like it was planned, and just like we agreed to," said Weatherford. "I was just looking for an opportunity to be able to address a need within our congregation and at the same time minister to them."

August 01, 2012 3:33 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Pride parades are non-partisan.

There appears to be no violation of the policy as quoted by anonymous.

August 01, 2012 4:51 PM  
Anonymous eatmorchikin said...

the DoD disagrees Robo

they think they needed an exemption

actually, you may be right though

I oppose it not because of partisanship but because these sleazy parades are beneath the dignity of the American military

they shouldn't be associated with something like thta

August 01, 2012 10:06 PM  
Anonymous eatmorchikin said...

The chicken sandwich became a political statement for a day as supporters of the Chick-fil-A president's stance against gay marriage caused traffic jams at the fast-food chain's restaurants nationwide.

Baking in the Southern California summer heat, lines of Chick-fil-A fans snaked around the eateries and down streets Wednesday as patrons ignored gay rights advocates armed with "Cluck Off" signs and vuvuzelas urging them to eat elsewhere.

Crammed drive-throughs caused traffic jams on nearby streets, often requiring attendants to direct cars. At several locations in Orange County and Long Beach, lunchtime crowds swelled to more than 100 people.

Similar crowds converged across the country at Chick-fil-A, which has more than 1,600 branches. In Madison, Ala., police were called to maintain order. Some customers waited outside Chick-fil-A restaurants carrying 8-foot crosses or dressed as Superman, according to users on micro-blogging site Twitter.

Former presidential candidate Rick Santorum tweeted about his Chick-fil-A lunch. "OK leftists go crazy," he wrote.

August 01, 2012 10:12 PM  
Anonymous eatmorchikin said...

particularly amusing, amid the reports of hordes descending on Chik-fil-A's today, is the accounts of long-time gay workers at the restaurants who say they have never noticed any "homophobia" there

August 02, 2012 12:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The company donates heavily to hate groups. Local establishments probably reflect the local attitudes, but their profits go to corporate, who does not care that a majority of their customers believe people should have the freedom to marry the one they love.

August 02, 2012 6:53 AM  
Anonymous eatmorchikin said...

with "hate group" defined as any group that believes marriage is between a man and woman

a position upheld by thirty-seven state electorates

and not ever voted down by any state electorates

I guess all thirty-seven of these states qualify as "hate groups" too

the hyperbole of lunatic fringe homosexual advocates has always been their downfall

btw, I wonder if it will be necessary to call in the cops to coordinate traffic when hordes of homosexuals descend on Chik-fil-A's on Friday to kiss each other

I'm guessing not

August 02, 2012 7:24 AM  
Anonymous eatmorchikin said...

A major Wendy's franchise owner wants Chick-fil-A, the fast-food chicken chain embroiled in an blowup over its CEO's anti-gay comments, to know it's not alone.

Signs at a number of Wendy's franchises in the Carolinas read, 'WE STAND WITH CHICK FIL A' on Wednesday, according to photos submitted to Reddit.

Jim Furman, CEO of Wendy's franchise Tar Heel Capital in the Carolinas, one of the largest Wendy's franchises worldwide, told WBTV that the company decided to post the message. He said the signs were later taken down because Wendy's "felt it was time to go back to their marketing message."

August 02, 2012 8:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Equality Matters obtained Chick-fil-A's 2011 tax form that showed the chicken chain donating nearly $2 million to the WinShape Foundation, an anti-gay organizations in 2010, among other donations throughout the years.

A Chick-fil-A manager in New Hampshire has made the effort to ease sentiments against Cathy's company by donating sandwiches to an upcoming gay rights festival.

The manager, Anthony Piccola, told Boston.com that the food service has a tradition "to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect -- regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.""

August 02, 2012 8:54 AM  
Anonymous eatmorchikin said...

Chik-fil-A hires, patronizes and sells to gays without reservation

homosexual activists went ballistic because he dared to hold a religious belief that marriage is as described in scripture

they badly overplayed their hand

August 02, 2012 11:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have no idea how "to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect -- regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender," but it's good Chick-fil-A is learning to do so. Otherwise Chick-fil-A [would get] Sued for Gender Discrimination, [for telling] Women Fry Chicken at Home

August 02, 2012 11:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

an allegation

fortunately, we have a court system rather than a GLAAD wish list

most companies as big as Chik-fil-A face regular lawsuits

angling for a settlement is a good way to make a cheap buck

August 02, 2012 11:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter how any particular outlet treats its employees or customers. Their money is going to the corporate office, which donates millions to anti-gay groups.

August 02, 2012 12:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Give me a break. Doesn't Home Depot donate money to anti-exgay hate groups?
This is a free country.

August 02, 2012 1:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes it is a free country, and so people are free to choose not to eat at a place that supports bigotry, whether directly or indirectly. This is a good reason for entrepreneurs to choose to invest in moral companies. I'm sorry for the nice local guy who just wants to make a buck, he should have looked at the company closer before he bought into the franchise.

August 02, 2012 1:58 PM  
Anonymous eatmorchikin said...

actually, the boycott is fine

doesn't seem to be working anyway

Chik-fil-A business is up

the problem is the local government officials who have vowed to block Chik-fil-A from doing business in their region because of its owner's religious views

if that's not an unconstitutional infringement of government on religion, it's hard to see what would be

August 02, 2012 2:18 PM  
Anonymous peach shakes galore said...

"a place that supports bigotry"

the definition of marriage doesn't include gay relationships and that is not bigotry anymore than any other aspect of marriage represents bigotry

August 02, 2012 2:22 PM  
Anonymous gays only have 11,000 said...

Chick-fil-A posted "record-setting" sales on Wednesday as thousands of people swarmed the chicken chain for Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day after the chain's chief made pro-family comments.

"While we don't release exact sales numbers, we can confirm reports that it was a record-setting day," Steve Robinson, Chick-fil-A's executive vice president of marketing, said in a statement.

At least one location had to close early after nearly selling out of chicken. At others, lines snaked around buildings and patrons waited upwards of two hours to snag their chicken sandwiches and show their support for Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy's comments supporting marriage.

"We are very grateful and humbled by the incredible turnout of loyal Chick-fil-A customers on August 1 at Chick-fil-A restaurants around the country," Robinson said. "We congratulate local Chick-fil-A Owner/Operators and their team members for striving to serve each and every customer with genuine hospitality."

At the Chick-fil-A in Augusta, Georgia, about 150 miles from the franchise's Atlanta headquarters, the lunch line wait was hours long. And after a day of lines that snaked around the building, the restaurant had to turn away part of the dinner crowd, closing two hours early due to low supplies.

With no Chick-fil-A locations in Maine, Maine resident Arthur Langley organized a caravan to cart supporters to the nearest location two hours away. Langley said he and 14 friends and supporters drove the two hours and "happily" waited a "very very long time" to "demonstrate their support for what they believe was very important values in our society."

Langley said the Chick-fil-A in a food court in Peabody, Massachusetts was "swamped with people" and felt like a family reunion.

"It was people you really don't know but you know they're family so you treat them politely and nicely," he said.

Mike Huckabee, who created the Appreciation Day movement on Facebook, said on his radio show yesterday that he was "giddy" about outcome.

"People are voting with their feet today," Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, said. "I guess you could also say they are voting with their faces, they are stuffing them with chicken sandwiches, those lovely Chicken sandwiches from Chick-fil-A."

In Fayettville, Ga., CEO Cathy greeted customers waiting in line at the drive-thru and thanked them for their support.

The CEO has not spoken publically or agreed to any more interviews following the attacks by gays over comments he made to the Baptist Press supporting "the biblical definition of the family unit."

"We are very much supportive of the family," Cathy said. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives."

After an outpouring of support for Cathy and his company during Wednesday's Appreciation Day, gay activists are taking to the streets, or rather the Chick-fil-A parking lots, around the country for National Same Sex Kiss Day at Chick-fil-A on Friday to protest the chicken chain's opposition to the LGBTQ community.

Same-sex couples are being urged to take photos and videos of themselves kissing outside of Chick-fil-A restaurants nationwide.

About 11,000 have said on Facebook that they will attend the event.

August 02, 2012 3:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If those same people will come back every day to make up for the very many who will never eat there again because of the company's investment in hatred, Chick Fil A might do all right.

How'd they do today? Another record? I didn't think so.

August 02, 2012 3:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ald. Proco "Joe" Moreno announced that he will block Chick-fil-A's effort to build its second Chicago store, which would be in the Logan Square neighborhood, following company President Dan Cathy's remarks last week that he was "guilty as charged" for supporting the biblical definition of marriage as between a man and woman.

"If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don't want you in the 1st Ward," Moreno told the Tribune on Tuesday.

Moreno stated his position in strong terms, referring to Cathy's "bigoted, homophobic comments" in a proposed opinion page piece that an aide also sent to Tribune reporters. "Because of this man's ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A's permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward."

Moreno is relying on a rarely violated Chicago tradition known as aldermanic privilege, which dictates that City Council members defer to the opinion of the ward alderman on local issues. Last year Moreno wielded that weapon to block plans for a Wal-Mart in his ward, saying he had issues with the property owner and that Wal-Mart was not "a perfect fit for the area."

Chick-fil-A already has obtained zoning for a restaurant in the 2500 block of North Elston Avenue, but it must seek council approval to divide the land so it can purchase an out lot near Home Depot, Moreno said.

The alderman, serving his first full term, dismissed any First Amendment concerns.

"You have the right to say what you want to say, but zoning is not a right," he said, adding that he also had concerns about traffic in the area.

Moreno said he has been working on traffic issues for nine months with Chick-fil-A executives. During that period, Moreno also discussed the issue of gay rights, in light of reports that the Cathy family's WinShape Foundation had supported anti-gay organizations, the alderman said.

Company executives assured him they would take no stance on the issue of gay rights and would not discriminate in any fashion at the restaurant, Moreno said.

On Tuesday, Chick-fil-A public relations executives asked for questions to be emailed, then did not respond to them. Attempts to reach the company's local attorney were not successful.

Cathy was quoted July 16 in the Baptist Press saying he was "guilty as charged" for supporting "the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

Cathy is the son of the founder of Chick-fil-A, which opened its first store in suburban Atlanta in 1967. The family is known for espousing its Christian values. It closes on Sundays and Christian holidays.

Rick Garcia, a longtime Illinois gay rights activist who is a policy adviser to The Civil Rights Agenda group that was working with Moreno and Chick-fil-A on LGBT issues, lauded Moreno's decision.

"I think it's important that the city sends a message that we want business here ... but what we can't have and don't want are businesses that have discriminatory roles," Garcia said, adding that he's a defender of free speech.

Moreno, meanwhile, said it will take "more than words" to get him to reverse course.

"They'd have to do a complete 180," the alderman said. "They'd have to work with LGBT groups in terms of hiring, and there would have to be a public apology from (Cathy)."

August 02, 2012 4:12 PM  
Anonymous we'll have waffle fries said...

few are going to stop going to their restaurants over this and, quite honestly, it looks like yet another examples of faulty, or manipulated, data by gay advocacy groups to create the impression that they are mainstream

remember how California was considered a slam dunk four years ago?

must have been an innocent mistake among the pollsters, or should we say fraudsters

let us know when any electorate approves redefining marriage to include homosexual sex partners

August 02, 2012 4:13 PM  
Anonymous waffle said...

how to succeed in business without really trying:

dis gay marriage

August 02, 2012 5:00 PM  
Anonymous glad all over said...

I'm so glad the homosexuals overplayed their hand

everywhere you go, people are saying: who do they think they are?

August 02, 2012 9:48 PM  
Anonymous eatmorwafflefris said...

There has been lots of drama recently about Chick-Fil-A, its president Dan Cathy, and the fast-food chain's documented financial backing of anti-gay Christian organizations.

First, the Muppets pulled their support from the company, triggering a toy recall. Then, Boston Mayor Tom Menino vowed to block the chicken sandwich maker from setting up shop in his city, and Chicago politicians made similar promises.

Despite these gestures, however, Chick-Fil-A seems to be unmoved, not backing down from its stance no matter the PR costs.

So when customers began showing up for an August 1st event that former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee had earlier hailed as "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day," one man decided to take matters into his own hands and give the company a piece of his mind.

In a video posted to YouTube earlier today, a man named Adam Smith goes to the Chick-Fil-A drive-through, orders water and proceeds to bully the young female employee who serves him.

a transcript of the encounter:

Smith: "You know why I'm getting my free water, right?"

Worker: "No."

S: "Because Chick-Fil-A is a hateful corporation."

W: "I disagree. We don't treat any of our customers differently.."

S: "I know, but the corporation gives money to hate groups. Hate groups. Just because people want to kiss another guy."

W: "I'm staying neutral on this subject... my personal beliefs don't belong in the workplace."

S: "Yeah I believe that too, I don't believe corporations should be giving money to hateful groups.. I'll take my water"

W: "I'm really uncomfortable that you're videotaping this.."

W: "It's my pleasure to serve you, always."

S: "Oh of course, I'm glad that I can take a little bit of money from Chick-Fil-A, and maybe less money to hate groups."

W: "Well we're always happy to serve all our guests."

S: "I don't know how you live with yourself and work here. I don't understand it. This is a horrible corporation with horrible values. You deserve better."

W: "I hope you have a really nice day, and.."

S: "I will, I just did something really good, I feel purposeful, thank you so much."

S: "Have a good day... I'm a nice guy by the way, and I'm totally heterosexual.. not a gay [unintelligible] in me, I just can't stand the hate, you know? It's gotta stop, guys. Stand up."

August 02, 2012 11:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chick-Fil-A will be sorry that they donate money to hate groups. They had a good day when all their supporters showed up at once, but they have undermined their daily business. You watch.

August 03, 2012 6:41 AM  
Anonymous eatmorchikin said...

Chik-fil-A didn't give any money to hate groups

under your definition, the Catholic Church and the State of California are also hate groups

America doesn't hate homosexuals, they feel sorry for them

regardless, marriage is not a relationship that can exclude one of the genders

not fulfilling your fairy tale fantasies is not hateful

the American people have no moral obligation to buy a pot of gold to place at the end of your rainbow

Chik-fil-A won't notice the slightest decrease in business

you watch

August 03, 2012 7:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In 2010, WinShape donated $1,974,380 to a number of anti-gay groups:

Marriage & Family Foundation: $1,188,380
Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
National Christian Foundation: $247,500
New Mexico Christian Foundation: $54,000
Exodus International: $1,000
Family Research Council: $1,000
Georgia Family Council: $2,500

See WinShape's 2010 Form 990 posted on-line here.

In 2009 alone, WinShape donated $1,733,699 to multiple anti-gay groups:

Marriage & Family Legacy Fund: $994,199
Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
National Christian Foundation: $240,000
Focus On The Family: $12,500
Eagle Forum: $5,000
Exodus International: $1,000
Family Research Council: $1,000

See WinShape's 2009 Form 990 posted on-linehere

From 2003-2008, WinShape donated $1.1M ($1,142,450) to anti-gay groups.

National Christian Foundation: $631,600
Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
Serving Marriages, Inc.: $15,000
Alliance Defense Fund: $5,000
Christian Camp And Conference Association: $5,000
Campus Crusade for Christ: $2,850
Georgia Family Council: $2,000
Family Research Council: $1,000

Links to WinShare's Forms 990 posted on-line 2003-2008:

Form 990, 2008

Form 990, 2007

Form 990, 2006

Form 990, 2005

Form 990, 2004

Form 990, 2003

August 03, 2012 8:29 AM  
Anonymous waffle fries and peach shakes said...

technically, that was a 990-PF, not a 990

you must define anti-gay as any faith-based group

Fellowship of Christian Athletes, for example, or Campus Christ for Christ, for another, would tend to hold to the scriptural view but, in practical terms, really aren't involved with the issue

and since DOMA is currently the law of the land, the United States Government should join the Catholic Church, the State of California and the Boy Scouts as anti-gay groups

one would wonder how much of America would be left after we finish rearranging it to protect the image of guys who enjoy rubbing their private parts on other guys

August 03, 2012 9:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some religious hospitals enjoy rubbing their judgement on people they are supposed to help.

When on July 17 Paul Zilber went to visit his fiance at Saint Barnabas Behavioral Health Center, in Toms River, New Jersey, his focus was of course on his boyfriend’s well-being. What Paul says he experienced however, was unlawful anti-gay discrimination at the hands of the center’s nursing staff.

Paul’s partner was receiving treatment at Saint Barnabas for mental health issues. Paul, 20, who was visiting at the same time as his partner’s grandparents, said that everything was fine on the day in question until a conversation with one of the nursing staff turned sour.

“Everything went okay, until a nurse who knew I was [name redacted]‘s boyfriend referred to me as his ‘friend.’ He corrected her and said that I was his partner. She replied with, ‘Oh your partner in crime?’ I said, ‘No, I’m his boyfriend, thank you.’ She then sighed and said ‘Oh… .’ She rolled her eyes, and gave me a thumbs up and walked away.”

Feeling this was inappropriate behavior from the nurse in question, Paul reported the nurse to the relevant staff, whereby he was told that it was “just a joke.” However, when Paul and his partner’s grandparents were preparing to leave for the evening, Paul alleges things turned from bad to worse.

After his partner’s grandparents both hugged and kissed his partner goodbye, Paul went to do the same. He says he was then “cornered” by two nurses who ran across the room to yell at him, “No contact, that is inappropriate.”

Paul maintains that the affection he had shown his partner was entirely appropriate for the setting. He therefore wanted to know why he was being singled out in this way.

“I then asked the nurse why it was okay for everyone else to give hugs and kisses but it was not okay for me?” Paul told Care2 he then gave his partner another kiss goodbye because the first kiss had been interrupted. “She then told another nurse to take me off his list of allowed visitors.” Not knowing how long his partner would be hospitalized for, this was obviously very distressing for Paul. ”I was very upset, and every time I would call a nurse would say, ‘I’m sorry, we have an order that we cannot speak to you, and that he cannot speak to you.’”

Paul says he was told some days later that he would be allowed to visit his partner, but the olive branch was conditional: ”I was then told, ‘He can come back if he promises to be appropriate.’ At that point, I walked out of the hospital,” he said.

Paul told me his partner’s grandparent, who witnessed the incident, also found it distressing, reportedly challenging the nursing staff, “Why are you harassing these two young men?”

Sadly, this was not the only incident of homophobia Paul says had occurred during his partner’s stay at Saint Barnabas. Paul’s partner had previously told him that when it became obvious they were in a gay relationship together, staff had made him feel uneasy as they went about their duties caring for him. Paul also claims that some of the nurses started wearing their wedding bands on different fingers after seeing his partner’s engagement ring. Paul also told Care2 that following his complaint over the alleged harassing behavior, a nurse came up to him and said, “I hope you’re happy, because my job is on the line.”

Paul’s partner, under a reported threat of legal action from his grandparents, was released the day after this incident.

“[He] felt like he had to get out, or he would lose his mind,” Paul said. “He came into the hospital for mental help, and they only made it worse for him. He felt as if he was being judged.”

August 03, 2012 10:04 AM  
Anonymous good job, batrac said...

"Paul’s partner was receiving treatment at Saint Barnabas for mental health issues"

not surprising

the hospital's actions were fine, gays should stop walking around with a chip on their shoulders

"The Labor Department said Friday that the unemployment rate rose to 8.3 percent in July from 8.2 percent in June.

The economy has added an average of 151,000 jobs a month this year – enough to keep up with population growth but not enough to drive down the unemployment rate.

In July, more people were unemployed, while the size of the labor force shrank even more.

The unemployment rate has been above 8 percent since Obama's first month in office – the longest stretch on record. No president since World War II has been re-elected with unemployment over 8 percent.

The economy remains weak more than three years after economists declared the recession had ended in June 2009. Growth slowed to an annual rate of 1.5 percent in the April-June quarter, down from 2 percent in the first quarter and 4.1 percent in the final three months of 2011.

Manufacturing activity shrank for the second straight month in July. Consumer confidence improved slightly last month but remains weak.

Rising pessimism about the future is taking a toll on businesses and consumers, many economists say. Europe's financial crisis has weakened that region's economy, hurting U.S. exports. Worries have also intensified that the U.S. economy will fall off a "fiscal cliff" at the end of the year. That's when tax increases and deep spending cuts will take effect unless Congress reaches a budget deal. A recession could follow, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has warned.

Americans are responding by spending less and saving more. A big reason growth slowed in the second quarter was that consumer spending, which accounts for roughly 70 percent of economic activity, slowed to an annual growth rate of 1.5 percent. That was down from 2.4 percent in the first quarter."

August 03, 2012 10:17 AM  
Anonymous that hopey changey thang said...

"Paul’s partner was receiving treatment at Saint Barnabas for mental health issues"

not surprising

the hospital's actions were fine, gays should stop walking around with a chip on their shoulders

"The Labor Department said Friday that the unemployment rate rose to 8.3 percent in July from 8.2 percent in June.

The economy has added an average of 151,000 jobs a month this year – enough to keep up with population growth but not enough to drive down the unemployment rate.

In July, more people were unemployed, while the size of the labor force shrank even more.

The unemployment rate has been above 8 percent since Obama's first month in office – the longest stretch on record. No president since World War II has been re-elected with unemployment over 8 percent.

The economy remains weak more than three years after economists declared the recession had ended in June 2009. Growth slowed to an annual rate of 1.5 percent in the April-June quarter, down from 2 percent in the first quarter and 4.1 percent in the final three months of 2011.

Manufacturing activity shrank for the second straight month in July. Consumer confidence improved slightly last month but remains weak.

Rising pessimism about the future is taking a toll on businesses and consumers, many economists say. Europe's financial crisis has weakened that region's economy, hurting U.S. exports. Worries have also intensified that the U.S. economy will fall off a "fiscal cliff" at the end of the year. That's when tax increases and deep spending cuts will take effect unless Congress reaches a budget deal. A recession could follow, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has warned.

Americans are responding by spending less and saving more. A big reason growth slowed in the second quarter was that consumer spending, which accounts for roughly 70 percent of economic activity, slowed to an annual growth rate of 1.5 percent. That was down from 2.4 percent in the first quarter."

August 03, 2012 10:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is Mitt Romney Chicken?

"Do you hear that sound? It’s the sound of a thousands stomachs still digesting fried chicken eaten out of spite.

Wednesday was Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day. Former presidential candidate and one-time supporter of healthy eating Mike Huckabee declared a day in Chik’s honor after a huge uproar over Chick-fil-A’s President Dan Cathy’s comments in which he declared that he was against same-sex marriage and for “biblical definition of family.”

Notably, Cathy points out that he is still with his first wife, one of the New Testament’s requirements for marriage that right wing politicians often forget. Cathy also supports groups that believe gayness can be “cured” and have even tacitly supported Uganda’s controversial “Kill the Gays” law. This isn’t just about marriage.

Facing a boycott and some politicians questioning whether Chick-fil-A is right for their communities, Huckabee decided that conservatives should show their support for the kind of speech that seeks to deprive others of their basic human rights.

The result? The fast food chain claimed record sales. Far right-wing radio hot Bryan J. Fischer predicted, “Chick-fil-A just gave the election to the GOP. Pro-family folks realizing just how many of us there are.” I still think this may be a conspiracy by sly gay and lesbian activists determined to get their most vocal supporters to overeat and contract Diabetes Type Chick-fil-A.

Huckabee isn’t the only conservative endorsing Chick-fil-A’s “speech.” Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum have all shown up at Chick-fil-A and tweeted evidence to their followers. Michele Bachmann joined conservatives in dining at Chick-fil-A on Wednesday, confident that the Muslim Brotherhood hadn’t infiltrated her meal.

Notably absent from the thongs of conservative supporters is their standard bearer—Mitt Romney. Doesn’t the man who once said he would be better for gay voters than Ted Kennedy want to show how “severely conservative” he is now?

As of Thursday afternoon, Mitt hasn’t shown up at a Chick-fil-A. Not even retroactively, despite being practically begged to do so by Bill Kristol. Will he? Probably. It will be the perfect distraction for some bad news day.

And when Mitt does show up, remember that the far right dragged him there. Let this be a reminder of what his presidency would be like: Mitt being dragged to the right, again and again, to take a stand that he probably doesn’t believe in. Because that’s the only way he can keep his base from turning their intolerance on him."

August 03, 2012 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait

Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right

August 03, 2012 10:40 AM  
Anonymous eatmor said...

"Do you hear that sound? It’s the sound of a thousands stomachs still digesting fried chicken eaten out of spite"

actually, Americans by the throngs showed up at Chik-fil-A to support the constitutional rights of a business owners whose business was being threatened with legal sanction by liberal politicians, catering to homosexual advocates, because of his stated religious beliefs

the threatened actions of these politicians would never fly at the Supreme Court but the show of support lessens the chances it will come to that

"But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait"

Cathy hasn't expressed any hatred for anybody

and he's not asking for contributions

if you like his food and don't go there because he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, it's your loss

his business centers on the South and Midwest rather than the liberal East Coast megapolis so his customers will tend to be encouraged by his stand, just like his stand to not open on Sundays

I guess you think that is hatred of people who don't follow the sabbath, huh?

August 03, 2012 11:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Employment outside the farm sector grew by 163,000 workers in the month, the Labor Department said. This is the fastest pace of job growth since February.

Wall Street had expected a fairly moderate 100,000 increase in nonfarm payrolls for the month, according to a MarketWatch survey.

Wall Street greeted warmly the size of the monthly increase, with U.S. stock futures rising after the report was released.

The gain in July was concentrated in the service sector. Factory employment also increased. Read full government report.

Government employment slipped. Private-sector payrolls rose by 172,000 in the month.

August 03, 2012 4:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it's no great thing to not add enough jobs to reduce unemployment

when it is at a level that has never allowed a president to be re-elected before

and it has been at least this high since Obama got into office and began spending trillions to "stimulate" the economy

it's nothing to have a pride parade over

August 03, 2012 7:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As jobs picture improves, so do Obama reelection chances

"President Obama’s reelection got a boost Friday from the best monthly jobs report on the U.S. economy since February, something that gave his campaign team more fuel in making their argument that the economy is making steady progress.

While the good news was coupled with an uptick in the unemployment rate to 8.3 percent, analysts predicted that if the job numbers—however murky—are maintained over the next several months, Obama is likely to win reelection in November against his opponent Mitt Romney.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday the economy added 163,000 jobs in July, more than expected and more than the economy added in May and June combined.

To be sure, no sitting president since Franklin Roosevelt has won reelection with a jobless rate above 8 percent, which poses a significant problem for Obama. A recent poll for The Hill shows that 53 percent believe that Obama has "taken the wrong actions and slowed the recovery down."

After a series of bad jobs reports for Team Obama, A New York Times/CBS poll last month also showed that two out three registered voters believes the president's policies contributed in some way to the economic downturn.

That said, Friday’s numbers are “definitely helpful” to the Obama campaign, said Joel Prakken, a senior managing director of Macroeconomic Advisers.

“Numbers like this for the next three months, will definitely be an encouraging sign,” Prakken said.

Political observers agreed with that assessment. While the reviews of the jobs numbers were mixed on Friday, giving a modest advantage to Obama, they point to the market’s reaction on Friday: stocks surged on the news, adding to the sense that the jobs report for once has given Obama’s campaign momentum.

“The markets certainly thought the jobs numbers were good,” said Cal Jillson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University, adding that the jobs numbers “signal the slowdown is not worsening and that the economy may be picking up a little.

“If these kinds of jobs numbers continue, it’s good but not great for Obama… but it’s still positive news for him,” Jillson said.

Discussing the jobs numbers on Friday, Obama took the same cautious approach he has used with both positive and negative reports in recent months, emphasizing that more work needs to be done.

“Let’s acknowledge we’ve still got too many folks out there who are looking for work,” the president said at the White House. “We’ve got more work to do on their behalf, not only to reclaim the kind of financial security that too many Americans have felt was slipping away from them for too long.”

At the same time, Obama heralded the numbers, which he said were part of the 4.5 million new jobs created over the last 29 months and 1.1 million new jobs this year."...

August 04, 2012 3:58 PM  
Anonymous shake shake shake said...

can anyone find an example, in the last 50 years, when the unemployment rate went up and the media treated it like a victory for the government in power?

the promotion of Obama by the media is breathtakingly shameless

August 05, 2012 1:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Romney had better ideas, he'd get better press. Romney's tax plan for example, when put on the table, causes the table to collapse under debt.

"I can describe Mitt Romney’s tax policy promises in two words: mathematically impossible.

Those aren’t my words. They’re the words of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which has conducted the most comprehensive analysis to date of Romney’s tax plan and which bent over backward to make his promises add up. They’re perhaps the two most important words that have been written during this U.S. presidential election.

If you were to distill the presumptive Republican nominee’s campaign to a few sentences, you could hardly do better than this statement of purpose from the speech Romney delivered in Detroit, outlining his plan for the economy: “I believe the American people are ready for real leadership. I believe they deserve a bold, conservative plan for reform and economic growth. Unlike President Obama, I actually have one — and I’m not afraid to put it on the table.”

The truth is that Romney is afraid to put his plan on the table. He has promised to reduce the deficit, but refused to identify the spending he would cut. He has promised to reform the tax code, but refused to identify the deductions and loopholes he would eliminate. The only thing he has put on the table is dessert: a promise to cut marginal tax rates by 20 percent across the board and to do so without raising the deficit or reducing the taxes paid by the top 1 percent.

The Tax Policy Center took Romney at his word. They also did what he hasn’t done: They put his plan on the table.

To help Romney, the center did so under the most favorable conditions, which also happen to be wildly unrealistic. The analysts assumed that any cuts to deductions or loopholes would begin with top earners, and that no one earning less than $200,000 would have their deductions reduced until all those earning more than $200,000 had lost all of their deductions and tax preferences first. They assumed, as Romney has promised, that the reforms would spare the portions of the tax code that privilege saving and investment. They even ran a simulation in which they used a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that posits “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts.

The numbers never worked out. No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center labored to make Romney’s promises add up, every simulation ended the same way: with a tax increase on the middle class. The tax cuts Romney is offering to the rich are simply larger than the size of the (non-investment) deductions and loopholes that exist for the rich. That’s why it’s “mathematically impossible” for Romney’s plan to produce anything but a tax increase on the middle class."...

August 05, 2012 9:18 AM  
Anonymous chknsgd said...

well, it's still opinion

we don't need a study to determine if Obama's plan will work

we tried it

it doesn't work

the one-year trllion-dollar deficit stimulus has become perpetual and we're still at 8.3% unemployment and much, much worse if you factor in those who gave up

the idea of balancing the budget by taxing the rich was tried here in Maryland and, not having worked, we're now taxing the middle class

next up, sales tax and more casinos

oh, Obama has submitted budgets but always makes them mathematically impossible so no one votes for them

the US government hasn't had a budget in years

the one Obama submitted this year?

Repubs forced a vote on it, which Dems called it a "trick", and not one legislator, not one, Dem or Repub, voted in favor of it

Obama's a joke

the two most important words that have been written during this U.S. presidential election?

"flexible" and "built"

as in, yes Vladimir, I'll be more "flexible" after I've fooled Americans into voting for me again


the Federal government "built" all the businesses in America

you think we'll forget those words?

Obama has now wasted most of his media budget and Romney will have plenty of money to be able to make sure everyone is reminded of Obama's words in October

and Obama's campaign, like our government under him, will be broke

August 06, 2012 1:37 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home