Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Media Fail Chelsea Manning Transition

Last week the American media collapsed under the awesome burden of reporting on a person who had changed their name from Bradley to Chelsea, and publicly transitioned from a male to female gender identity. And one of the worst of them was that paragon of liberalism, NPR.

It's like when a woman marries, and Nancy Smith becomes Nancy Jones -- you don't insist on continuing to use her maiden name. You might slip, and you might even always think of her as a Smith, but if you are talking about her you say "Nancy Jones." Nothing political, it's just that that's her name now.

Tell me, what sense does this make: "Bradley Manning said today that he has changed his name to Chelsea and will now be addressed as female." That is exactly what the media were doing. Try this: "The Army private formerly known as Bradley Manning has changed her name to Chelsea and announced that she will now be addressed as a female." Because that's her name now. It used to be Bradley, now it's not. Now she's Chelsea.

Here's Bitch Magazine talking about it -- good article.
In light of Chelsea Manning—formerly known as Bradley Manning—announcing her name change and preferred gender last week, news outlets were stumbling over themselves in stories reporting on the convicted Army private's transition. Only a handful, including NPR, have revised their policies to refer to Manning as a woman.

Although almost all of the news stories on the name change have included Manning's words, "I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun," most decided to interpret the statement in their own, unique way. Some outlets, like the initial interview with The Today Show, alternated awkwardly between masculine and feminine pronouns.  Many media outlets decided to completely ignore the statement they quoted and just stick to "Bradley," "he," "him," and "his" as if nothing had ever happened.

The worst policy of all came from National Public Radio. On Friday, after major outcry from listeners, cultural critics, and activists, NPR announced "we have evolved" and NPR's Managing Editor for Standards and Practice Stu Seidel issued new guidance on referring to Manning. Apparently, NPR will rethink how its stations refer to transgender people in the future:
On the pronoun front, the best solution is the simplest: If we're going to use a new name for a transgender person, we should change pronouns as appropriate. In this case, we should refer to Manning as a "she." This is a matter of clarity and consistency. We just can't tie ourselves in knots trying to avoid pronouns every time we tell the Manning story.

While we need to have clarity, we also have a responsibility to tell full and complete stories, whether we're reporting on an artist using a stage name or a prominent transgender person making a public request for a name change. If the person's earlier identity is relevant to a story, we have a responsibility to make that clear for our audience.

This policy makes a lot more sense than their previous system, which was explained thusly in The New York Times:
National Public Radio will continue for now to refer to Private Manning as "he," according to a spokeswoman, Anna Bross. "Until Bradley Manning's desire to have his gender changed actually physically happens, we will be using male-related pronouns to identify him."
What does this statement even mean? How exactly would NPR want Manning to validate the worthiness of her preferred prounouns? Would NPR want periodic photographic evidence tracking Manning's physical transition from male to female? Would they be requesting exclusive access to her medical records so they can determine when she undergoes gender reassignment surgery?  At what point will Manning's body be traditionally feminine enough to merit a feminine pronoun? NPR Changed its Horrible Policy Misgendering Chelsea Manning
I think the bottom line is this: gender identity is real. Chelsea Manning is not a guy dressed like a girl. The person who was known as Bradley Manning was misnamed and mislabeled, and has corrected that.

You will sometimes hear it described as a person "having the wrong body" or "being the opposite of their biological gender," but I think it is easier to think of it as the doctor making a mistake. The baby comes out, they hold it up and take a look, the doctor checks a box on the birth certificate and there you go, paint the nursery pink or blue and pick a name that fits. Gender is most often correlated with observable genitalia, but sometimes it isn't. The doctor just got it wrong.

This article goes into some depth, I will skip down a little.
It's fantastic that NPR has "evolved" so quickly and come to recognize the error of its reporting on Manning.

But now it's strange that NPR is among only a handful of news organizations to change their policies and admit that they should improve their language. Will it be years before NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN come around? CNN's policy is just as unfair as the one NPR scrapped: "CNN's policy is to reference Manning with masculine pronouns since he has not yet taken any steps toward gender transition through surgery or hormone replacement therapy."

It's understandable that media is scrambling over this issue. Manning's public change of gender identity is the first transition that has received this much attention. Therefore it makes sense that news organizations might have some trouble figuring out how to report this kind of story. But that's why GLAAD and the National Lesbian Gay Journalists Association have policies to help inform coverage of trans* folks.

Both GLAAD and the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association issued statements instructing journalists on how to report on transgender individuals. Sources like MSNBC and Salon who previously misgendered Manning have admitted their mistake and tried to make amends by not only updating their stories but instructing fellow reporters on how to follow suit.
It's not that it's politically incorrect, it's just incorrect.

236 Comments:

Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I think if Chelsea Manning had been just an ordinary person in the news for some innocuous reason the various media outlets would have had no problem using female pronouns and the name "Chelsea".

I think its because of the notoriety of Manning that media outlets felt some sort of politically correct necessity to avoid showing any respect or consideration to her and insisted on using her old name and male pronouns.

August 27, 2013 2:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

An Open Letter: How I Failed Chelsea Manning
Aura Bogado on August 22, 2013 - 5:35 PM ET

Dear Chelsea,

I lost count of how many times I read your brilliant statement yesterday, a statement that illustrates your conviction for justice, and one that now places you with some of the most radical thinkers in history. I can read any single sentence from it and examine it with awe—and as a fellow writer, I can attest to how hard that is to do. Yet perhaps I’m writing accolades to you in order to distract myself from what is much harder for me to write, and to admit: I failed you, Chelsea Manning.

I should have paid much better attention to you and your trial. I could lie and tell you that I didn’t have time, but it’s simply not true. I failed you because I couldn’t quite wrap my head around the many charges levied against you. I failed you because of the way the unbelievable power of the US government was used against you. I failed you because it was easy to ignore you, and leave you in the backseat of my mind. I chose to read about you only from time to time, at my own convenience. I chose to talk about you with friends and colleagues only occasionally, but would stop talking about you when they quickly lost interest. And for all of that, and more, I’m sorry.

In your statement yesterday, you referenced the Declaration of Independence—only to improve upon it, by letting us know that you are “gladly” paying the price of imprisonment “if it means we could have a country that is truly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all women and men are created equal.” By closing with that line, you’ve made clear that you recognize your duty to be one that advances the limits that keep the United States from achieving a full democracy. By expanding on the document that declared this nation into being, you’ve broadened the conversation to include the still-revolutionary idea that all human beings are equal, regardless of their gender.

You also made clear that you rooted your actions in the long struggle for racial justice. Few white women ever draw attention to the forced removal of Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee and Seminole people during the Trail of Tears. Few white women recognize the sad significance of the Dred Scott decision, which failed to confer citizenship on free or enslaved blacks. Few white women—especially white women who are preparing to serve a prison sentence—recall that more than 100,000 Japanese Americans were interned during World War II. Most white women do not have to think about these injustices, and their silence secures their comfort in a stolen land that became wealthy on stolen labor. Yet you not only risked your comfort—you risked your very life.

Your statement hardly comes as a surprise. You had already made perfectly clear that you believed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan dehumanized people, and that that dehumanization made it easier to kill innocent people with impunity. And yet, I didn’t really listen. I skimmed articles, skimmed analysis, but never made the decision to support you like I should have. I’m sorry, Chelsea. I’m sorry, at the very least, that I wasn’t a better listener.

I understand now that you wanted to make the world better for women of color like me. Now it’s up to me to make the world a better place for women like you.

With love,

Aura

August 27, 2013 4:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Associated Press Stylebook provides guidelines for journalists reporting on transgender people and issues. According to the AP Stylebook, reporters should "use the pronoun preferred by the individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex or present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth. If that preference is not expressed, use the pronoun consistent with the way the individuals live publicly" (see AP, New York Times & Washington Post Style).

August 27, 2013 5:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bradley Manning hasn't legally changed his name, nor has he had surgery to reassign his gender.

He's a guy, in a lot of trouble and looking to develop some sympathy and support.

The media has it right.

August 28, 2013 8:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"looking to develop some sympathy and support"

Oh yeah. The FBI reports nothing but "sympathy" for trans individuals.

< eye roll >

August 28, 2013 10:04 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "Bradley Manning hasn't legally changed his name, nor has he had surgery to reassign his gender.".

And once she does those things you'll be referring to her as Chelsea and using female pronouns.

August 28, 2013 12:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Live feed of today's celebration on the National Mall

August 28, 2013 1:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Webster on the definition of character:

"a : one of the attributes or features that make up and distinguish an individual

b : the complex of mental and ethical traits marking and often individualizing a person

c : main or essential nature especially as strongly marked and serving to distinguish"

sounds like sexual preference would be an element of character

here's MLK fifty years ago today:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

thank you, Martin

August 28, 2013 2:31 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 28, 2013 4:07 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 28, 2013 4:08 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "Webster on the definition of character:

"a : one of the attributes or features that make up and distinguish an individual

sounds like sexual preference would be an element of character".

According to your definition skin colour is an element of character. What Martin Luther King was saying is:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they are not judged by harmless atributes but by whether they are good or bad people".

You can try to pervert the memory of Martin Luther King all you want, but gayness which harms no one can never be honestly described as a wrongdoing or failing.

And the person who knew Martin Luther King best, his wife, has said on multiple occaisions he'd agree with that.





August 28, 2013 4:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

she didn't know him that well

he was having affairs on her

his daughter Bernice says he wouldn't have advocated the gay agenda

"gayness which harms no one can never be honestly described as a wrongdoing or failing"

you're wrong

it could be opposed to God's plan for humanity and, thus, wrongdoing

morality is more complicated than simply keeping to yourself

August 28, 2013 4:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"According to your definition skin colour is an element of character."

it was Webster's definition

skin color is not a mental or ethical trait

maybe if you could delete a few more posts, you might hit on something that makes sense

even a broken clock is right twice a day

August 28, 2013 4:23 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Alleged affairs aside, Coretta King certainly knew Martin Luther King far better than anyone and thousands of times better than you. Its laughable that you should bring up Bernice King who was only five when he died, she obviously is in no position to know what he thought about gayness or ethics for that matter.

Bad anonymous said "[gayness] could be opposed to God's plan for humanity and, thus, wrongdoing morality is more complicated than simply keeping to yourself".

False. It is harm and harm alone that determines wrongdoing, not the subjective primitive biases of bronze age goat herders who pretended to be a god - it IS that simple. The concept of morality being based on harm is the view of morality every child naturally achieves on their own and it is only after brainwashing by adults damaged by religion that they try to set aside what they know is right in favour of a subjective religious morality which has no rational underlying principles. Religion is entirely based on "because someone said so", there is no logic behind it and that is why there are hundreds of thousands of different religious sects fighting with each other. Even then people can never really set aside their natural understanding that morality is determined by harm and that is why if you ask a christian "If god told you to rape and set fire to the next innocent baby you encounter would it be moral if he said it was?" they don't want to answer the question. Despite their religious indoctrination they know it would be immoral for them to do that even if their god told them to and said it was moral.

I said "According to your definition skin colour is an element of character."


Bad anonymous said "it was Webster's definition".

No, it was your definition. You chose to leave out the key defintion of Webster's that applied to King's quote:

"5. Moral quality; the principles and motives that control the life; as, a man of character; his character saves him from suspicion.".

Based on the truncated definition you gay skin colour is a character trait - case closed.


Bad anonymous said "skin color is not a mental or ethical trait".

A trait being mental doesn't make it a character trait in the context King used. According to your truncated definition of character as a mental attribute whether or not a person likes hot dogs is part of their character. You hinged your assertion that sexual orientation is an aspect of character on the incomplete definition of character as being a mental trait - obviously that is not at all what King was saying so you were lying when you implied he'd judge people based on their sexual orientation.

Sexual orientaiton is not an ethical trait. Only those traits that relate to harming or not harming others are ethical traits. There is no rational or logical basis for morality based on the alleged preferences of an imaginary god - morality based on religion is morality with no rational foundation, in other words religious based morality isn't morality at all.

Give it up bad anonymous, you can never win these debates with me. Not because I'm smarter (although I am), not because I don't fight fair (I do) but because I am right and you are wrong - you can never overcome that.

August 28, 2013 5:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow.
a lib asserting right and wrong as opposed to shades of gray.
amazing.

does employment increase up the intelligence scale ?

Hmmm....

I would bet it probably does.

August 28, 2013 10:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Alleged affairs aside, Coretta King certainly knew Martin Luther King far better than anyone"

there was no alleged about it

and if CK had been asked at the time if it was true, she would have said no with certainty

and while I wouldn't want to insult her, 45 years as the widow of a hyped legend can warp your perspective: you can imagine the pressure she's under to be politically correct

MLK was a black clergyman

to this day, this is a group that has steadfastly avoided the moral gangrene of the gay agenda

"and thousands of times better than you."

as opposed to you?

"Its laughable"

sure is

"that you should bring up Bernice King who was only five when he died, she obviously is in no position to know what he thought about gayness or ethics for that matter"

don't underestimate the information families have

"It is harm and harm alone that determines wrongdoing,"

in the context you have used this concept, you mean direct harm and it can be easily shown to be untrue

"not the subjective primitive biases of bronze age goat herders who pretended to be a god - it IS that simple"

do you know any historians who don't agree that Jesus is the most significant individual in history?

"No, it was your definition."

no, I pasted it from Webster's

they had other definitions but my point remained valid

"5. Moral quality; the principles and motives that control the life; as, a man of character; his character saves him from suspicion."

still applies

Sexual preference is a motive and an element of character

"Based on the truncated definition you gay skin colour is a character trait - case closed."

my definition was expansive, not truncated

and sexuality is, yes, an element of character

"You hinged your assertion that sexual orientation is an aspect of character"

I didn't discuss sexual "orientation", which is a propagandistic term of fiction

I cited sexual preference

"Sexual orientaiton is not an ethical trait."

even misspelled, it's an element of character

"Give it up bad anonymous, you can never win these debates with me. Not because I'm smarter (although I am),"

you have conned others into supporting you your whole life so that must have taken some doin'

you're like another Bradley Manning

August 28, 2013 11:33 PM  
Anonymous Dreamer said...

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

August 29, 2013 8:04 AM  
Anonymous Dreamer said...

But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead.

We cannot turn back.

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."¹

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest -- quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

August 29, 2013 8:04 AM  
Anonymous Dreamer said...

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

August 29, 2013 8:04 AM  
Anonymous Dreamer said...

And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,

From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

August 29, 2013 8:04 AM  
Anonymous Dreamer said...

But not only that:

Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

August 29, 2013 8:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does TTF owe Coretta a royalty payment now?

MLK's dream was realized in 2008, when blacks and whites stood together to oppose the gay agenda in California and won!

The color of one's skin was irrelevant and the content of character among pro-family forces was high-caliber.

Thank you, Martin, for dreaming!!

August 29, 2013 10:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

King himself obtained rights to his “I Have a Dream” speech a month after he gave it in 1963 when he sued two companies that were selling unauthorized copies. His family has since then received an income from exercising its intellectual property rights, and has gone to court to protect its copyright, including against CBS and USA Today ( though apparently not against educators who have used the speech in violation of the copyright).

Under the law anyone who wants to hear or use the complete “I Have a Dream” speech is supposed to buy a copy sanctioned by the King family, which receives the proceeds. You can buy a DVD for $20 here, on the King Center Web site.

August 29, 2013 10:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sounds like TTF either needs to delete those posts or contact the King family and find out how much TTF owes them

I'm sickened by this attempt at intellectual property theft

what kind of warped mind would try to steal from the Kings?

August 29, 2013 10:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey, steal a little and they throw you in jail

steal a lot and they make you King!

August 29, 2013 10:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."...

Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children...

No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."...

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."...

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Yes, thank you Dr. King, for reminding us that all of God's children deserve freedom and justice and that all men are created equal and are guaranteed in America to the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

August 29, 2013 11:08 AM  
Anonymous Once again, time to teach some facts said...

"his daughter Bernice says he wouldn't have advocated the gay agenda"

You have no idea what you are talking about, Anon, because you are blinded by your hatred for God's LGBT creations.

From CNN's Moving out of the dreamer's shadow: A King daughter's long journey
Sun August 25, 2013

"... The 'mistake' march

Her father made history with marches, but one of Bernice King's most controversial public episodes came when she helped lead a march herself.

It was 2004, and she and Bishop Eddie Long -- senior pastor of an Atlanta megachurch -- were leading a march against same-sex marriage. Long, who once said that blacks have to "forget" racism because they have already reached the Promised Land, carried a torch during the march. It had been lit at an eternal flame at Martin Luther King Jr.'s grave.

The march was widely criticized by followers of her father. They pointed out that King's marches were about inclusion -- not excluding a group of people. They noted that one of his closest aides was Bayard Rustin, a gay man who was instrumental in planning the March on Washington.

Bernice King, who was an elder in Long's church at the time, later left the congregation after Long settled out of court with four young men who had accused him of coercing them into sexual relationships.

King sighed loudly when asked about the march.
"If I had to make the choice today," she says, "it would be different."

She says she participated because the march revolved around several issues -- strengthening the black family; black youth trapped in the justice system -- that were not highlighted by the media.

When asked how she feels about same-sex marriage, she says, "I wouldn't say I'm against same-sex marriage. I believe in freedom and equality for all people. I believe that when it comes to gay marriage, that's a political and legal issue that has to be dealt with in that arena. I have privately held beliefs, but when it comes to that, it's properly placed in the political and legal arena."..."

August 29, 2013 12:48 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous, your assertion that allegations of King's affairs are true do not make them true, there is no evidence to support the accusation and in any event those allegations are irrelevant.

Its ironic that you at once attempt to hold King up as a moral authority who would judge people based on their sexual orientation and at the same time insist he was an immoral slut but that's typical of your argumentation style, you don't care if your arguments are logically consistent with each other as long as they are all anti-gay.

And of course your attempt to rely on Bernice King's assertions of what King believed are a joke. She doesn't know the man any better than you or Chelsea Manning do. At five years old she didn't know King at all. As virtually every married person will tell you, their spouse knows them far better than anyone else. Corretta King is the only one who really knew Martin Luther and she knows he never would have condemned gays for a harmless trait. But of course you wouldn't know anything about marriage or even an intense romantic relationship because you've been single all your life and hiding your gayness by avoiding any long term relationships with other men, prefering instead to have anonymous sexual encounters with them in order to maintain your anonymity.

I said "It is harm and harm alone that determines wrongdoing,"

Bad anonymous said "in the context you have used this concept, you mean direct harm and it can be easily shown to be untrue".

But of course you elect not to attempt to do so - because you can't. I mean direct OR indirect harm. You attempt to conflate gayness with promiscuity in order to condemn all gays whether monogamous or not because ultimately morality doesn't matter to you, your goal is to condemn all gays and that requires dishonesty on your part. Your other lame excuse for condemning all gays is that two men or two women can't create a child but creating children is not automatically a good thing and people who are childless produce goods and services which help society and in any event up to 1/3 of gay couples are raising children so your condemnation based on them not creating children is moot. You have never been able to show gayness itself causes harm because it doesn't. It makes people happier, brings them together to care for and help each other, makes them more productive and thus benefits all of society.

August 29, 2013 1:04 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "do you know any historians who don't agree that Jesus is the most significant individual in history?


Yes, lots of them. The vast majority of modern day historians and the few atheists and secularists who say Jesus existed simply accept the traditional view without question . All the accounts of Jesus are based on hearsay (which is not acceptable in a court of law), there is no direct evidence to support his existence. Other than the account of Josephesus which has been shown to be a later insertion into his original text by a christian who advocated lying to promote christianity and the account of Tacitus who was just repeating what early christians had told him there are no early historians who make any mention of the "most significant individual in history". Of the hundreds of historians from around the time he allegedly existed who recorded all manner of mundane details of history none mentioned this supposed incredible figure - its too much to ask that they wouldn't have noticed what was supposed to have been one of the most famous people at that time.

If a person accepts hearsay and accounts from believers as historical evidence for Jesus, then it necessarily folows that Hercules of greek mythology existed as well. Examine the evidence for Hercules and you will find it parallels the "historicity" of Jesus to such an amazing degree that for Christian apologists to deny Hercules as a historical person belies and contradicts the very same methodology used for a historical Jesus.

Note that Herculean myth resembles Jesus in many areas. The mortal and chaste Alcmene, the mother of Hercules, gave birth to him from a union with God (Zeus). Similar to Herod who wanted to kill Jesus, Hera wanted to kill Hercules. Like Jesus, Hercules traveled the earth as a mortal helping mankind and performed miraculous deeds. Similar to Jesus who died and rose to heaven, Hercules died, rose to Mt. Olympus and became a god. Hercules gives example of perhaps the most popular hero in Ancient Greece and Rome. They believed that he actually lived, told stories about him, worshiped him, and dedicated temples to him.

You only posted a portion of the definition Webster's gave for character therefore it is your definition not theirs and by the definition you originally posted skin colour or liking hotdogs was part of a person's character. When King was referring to character he was referrring to moral character, not harmless attributes of an individual, he was not referring to sexual orientation. Religious based "morality" is subjective and arbitrary and is not morality at all. The only thing that determines morality is harm and culpability and gayness in a monogamous relationship harms no one and so is by definition moral. You can never get around that.

August 29, 2013 1:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Racist : A conservative winning an argument with a liberal"

Thomas Sowell

Especially for you, Priya

August 29, 2013 10:37 PM  
Anonymous I see a lazy creep said...

lazy Priya tries to prove Jesus doesn't exist by linking to an article full of holes

take, for example, the article's complaint that only four gospels are considered real even though many more existed

and we're supposed to believe there were these myriad accounts of a person that didn't exist a couple of decades after he died?

any other fictional characters like that?

oh, did you know that Jesus has appeared on the cover of Time Magazine more than any other individual?

because, unlike Hercules, he's real and relevant, affecting the world we live in every day

you can continue to deny the extramarital activities of King, under the theory that wishing will make it go away, kind of like gender, but facts are facts

Coretta is part of today's liberal establishment and knows what to say to stay there

King had ample opportunity to extend his campaign against racial bias to character-related bias but never corrupted himself that way

King was a black Christian clergyman and there is absolutely no evidence that he supported the gay agenda

he dreamed of a day when blacks and whites could stand together and support families against the gay agenda

August 29, 2013 10:56 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

I listened to Bernice King's presentation with great interest, given her past statements about gay people. I was heartened by her inclusion of "sexual orientation" in her list of categories of people who need to be protected against discrimination.

So, along with so much of the rest of the country, she has learned and grown.

As for Dr. King's views, I have two words: Bayard Rustin. Rustin was (dangerously for the times) openly gay, and was one of King's key advisors and mentors, going back to the Montgomery bus boycott. And when efforts were made to keep him from leading the actual organizational effort for the 1963 March, Dr. King was one of his successful supporters. Check out "Brother Outsider" on the net.

August 30, 2013 7:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thirty years ago President Ronald Reagan hosted a luncheon at the White House to commemorate the centennial of the birth of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was surely lost on no one in attendance that Reagan and FDR were modern antitheses, at least in American political terms. Reagan’s project and his movement existed to roll back FDR’s most lasting accomplishments.

And yet that day, and at several other times during his presidency, Reagan found occasion to praise FDR for his gifts and uncontested good deeds.

Now fast-forward to today, the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. Conservatives don’t control the White House, and don’t have Ronald Reagan, or any other bona fide leader, to set the tone for such an occasion. Maybe if they did, we wouldn’t have been treated to the flailing spectacle we’ve all witnessed this week.

There’s something — cough — about Martin Luther King that drives the right to distraction. Unlike Reagan to Roosevelt, Republicans today can’t bring themselves, for instance, to applaud King’s fight to end segregation, even if they know they aren’t his philosophical heirs in all respects.

But it’s not just that Republicans sent zero emissaries to commemorate King’s famous speech. It’s that 50 years later the entire movement, from Boehner to #tcot, seemed to have no idea whether the American right should conscript, ignore or lampoon King’s legacy. And if you look at its reaction, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that Republicans heard the din and decided it would be best not to attend.

Not a single Republican politician attended or spoke. All those invited — “to a man and woman,” according to civil rights activist Julian Bond, declined. But it’s actually worse than that.

A March on Washington event spokesperson provided CQ/Roll Call the most damning testimony: “All members of congress were invited to attend and the Republican leadership was invited to speak. Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s office was very helpful in trying to find someone to speak at the event. Making this commemoration bi-partisan was especially important to members of the King family, too.”

So it’s not just that Republicans didn’t show up — it’s that none could be compelled to attend by their own leaders, and in particular the member of their leadership with the most consistent appreciation for the civil rights movement (who was meeting with oil lobbyists at the time).

That leaves you wondering whether elected Republicans felt they had nothing to say at the commemoration, or simply determined that seizing a historic minority outreach opportunity for the party wasn’t worth the backlash they’d face for sanctioning a celebration of minority rights and other progressive success stories. And the sad truth is that evidence points to the latter. If they were taking their cues from conservative activists and media celebrities they witnessed a schizophrenic reaction, but one where all voices implored, “please avoid.”

August 30, 2013 10:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

nope the nations only black senator (a Republican) was on Greta last night and indicated he was not invited...

you think someone from the King event would have called his office directly, wouldn't you ?

August 30, 2013 10:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2013/08/28/report-that-nations-only-african-american-senator-republican-tim-scott-was-not-invited-to-participate-in-the-martin-luther-king-event-today/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnewsinsider%2Fgretawire+(Gretawire)

Tim Scott.
who indicated he would have attended and spoke and invited. He was on the show, not a representative.

So why didn't the march organizers reach out to him ? you would think he would have been the next person they called after Obama.

and I would have include Ben Carson as well.

August 30, 2013 10:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Martin Luther King was a Republican
By Karin McQuillan

"It is time for a new Civil Rights Movement to continue the work of Dr. King, which has been betrayed by the Democratic Party. The new Civil Rights Movement will be just like the old one: fighting for a colorblind society. Martin Luther King was a Republican. The original March on Washington was organized mostly by black Republicans. The Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965 were passed mostly by Republicans. And it is Republicans who have remained true through the years to Dr. King's call to judge men by the content of their character.

Democrats treat blacks like they can't finish high school, get a job, start a family after marriage, and support themselves like capable adults. Instead they have to be taken care of their entire life. No wonder black conservatives talk of the "Democrat Plantation." Once you've destroyed a person's character, as permanent welfare does, you have left nothing.

Personal initiative, responsibility, and hard work are the only paths to success. Dr. King lived these truths. They are G-d given gifts. They are liberated by our free-enterprise system. Government cannot give those gifts but it can destroy them. It's time to stop the collateral damage of millions of wasted lives from the War on Poverty. The liberal Nanny State is depriving our entire country of a future. Republicans have a better way, and we should be joining with black conservatives to show that way to the black community.

....."

August 30, 2013 11:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama is the most prominent black in the Executive branch

the most prominent blacks in the other two branches of government are Tim Scott and Clarence Thomas

neither was invited

it wasn't because their views, since Boehner and Cantor and George Bush were all invited

it was because of the color of their skin

sad that those who organized this claim to have a legacy from the man who said no one should be judged by the color of their skin

August 30, 2013 12:47 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Theresa said "Racist : A conservative winning an argument with a liberal" Especially for you, Priya".

I didn't call anyone a racist. But of course even if I had its a conservative fever dream that that would mean they were winning the argument. Your desperate whistling in the dark while I trounce bad anonymous yet again is hilarious! I've been handing bad anonymous his ass for several years now. That's why he's afraid to engage the substance of what I write and instead makes non-specific accusations that its "wrong" or lamely trys to attack one of dozens of points I've made in the vain hope that if he fakes refuting one that'll be good enough.

Bad anonymous said "lazy Priya tries to prove Jesus doesn't exist by linking to an article full of holes take, for example, the article's complaint that only four gospels are considered real even though many more existed"

The article didn't say only those four are considered real, it said all your gospels are hearsay which isn't even admissible in court, much less evidence that your fictional character existed.

Bad anonymous said "and we're supposed to believe there were these myriad accounts of a person that didn't exist a couple of decades after he died? any other fictional characters like that?".

Of course, Hercules and virtually every other god you accept is not real. There's been far more written about Harry Potter than Jesus, that doesn't make Harry Potter real and fantasy fiction about Jesus doesn't make him real either. And even of the four canonical gospels the later three are essentially rewritings of the first one so there certainly aren't "myriad" accounts and all those that there are are from the church, there are no historical accounts of Jesus outside of church writings and none of those writings were from the time the alleged Jesus existed. Once again, here's a list of 42 prominient historians from around the time the alleged Jesus existed and their silence on his supposed existence is devistating to the myth of this person you laughably claim was exceptionally prominent. Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ." Nor, we may add, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles - increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity.

August 30, 2013 1:04 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "oh, did you know that Jesus has appeared on the cover of Time Magazine more than any other individual?".

LOL, utterly irrelevant. That a christian culture should make frequent reference to its fantasy god 2000 years after his alleged existence proves nothing other than that you are so desperate to support your myth you'll grasp at any straw. If you go to India you'll find their panopoly of gods have been on their magazines just as often as Jesus has been on Time but of course if I told you that was proof Gonesh was real you'd know that was stupid and so is your reference to Jesus on Time. There are all manner of gods similar to Jesus that predate the Jesus myth. Its obvious that the Jesus myth is just yet another retelling of a popular story type from more ancient times.



Bad anonymous said "because, unlike Hercules, he's real and relevant, affecting the world we live in every day".

And yet there is nothing in the world that one can point to and say the world wouldn't be this way if there were no god. There is no difference between the world in which you say your god exists and a world in which no god exists. Despite millenia of desperate searching there's never been any more evidence that Jesus exists than that Unicorns exist (which are mentioned in the bible along with rabbits that chew their cud).


Bad anonymous said "you can continue to deny the extramarital activities of King, under the theory that wishing will make it go away, kind of like gender, but facts are facts".

I don't need to deny it, there's no evidence to prove it. If you understood logic you'd know the onus is on you to prove your claim, not me to disprove it. And in any event its irrelevant whether or not he had affairs, Corretta King knew him far better than anyone else and she knew he supported gay equality just like he supported black equality because "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". Bayard Rustin was an openly gay men who was central to King's efforts and his closest advisor. Obviously that wouldn't have been the case if King thought gayness was a wrongdoing.


I see you've completely abandoned your attempt to come up with a non-religious argument for condemning gayness. No surprise there, you've been failing miserably for 10 years in trying to do that and have nothing but repitition of the same tired old bumper sticker slogans I demolish each time you bring them up. Ultimately that's all you've got - religious objections because there is no rational basis on which to condemn innocent LGBT people and religious "morality" has no rational basis at all.

August 30, 2013 1:06 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous's argument that Jesus existed consists entirely of the appeal to popularity logical fallacy - lots of people believe it therefore that proves its true.

At one time everyone believed the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth, bad anonymous.

August 30, 2013 1:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh, I make get time to discuss some of your rantings this weekend

at some point, however, the sheer volume of them make addressing something of a time waster

meanwhile, here's a rather humorous remark by lazy Priya:

"The vast majority of modern day historians and the few atheists and secularists who say Jesus existed simply accept the traditional view without question"

interesting you would say this because you always are referring to what scientists "believe" about homosexuality and global warming and the truth is that most of them accept the conventional view without question

August 30, 2013 1:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So why didn't the march organizers reach out to him [Tim Scott]

Tim Scott is NOT a leader of the GOP, he hasn't even won election for his Senate seat. See: GOP elevates reactionary Tim Scott to South Carolina Senate seat

Apparently the GOP leadership thinks it can win elections without showing one inkling of interest in minorities or their right to vote.

What's clear is that GOP led state governments have only one interest in minority voting -- how t put up roadblocks to prevent it -- in spite of the Supreme Court's recent ruling that AZ's proof-of-citizenship law was unconstitutional.

August 30, 2013 2:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill O'Reilly Apologizes For 'Mistake' About March On Washington Celebration

"Bill O'Reilly apologized Thursday night for his erroneous comments about the 50th anniversary celebrations of the March on Washington the previous day.

O'Reilly had complained that no Republicans had been invited to the event. In fact, many, including both living Republican presidents, John McCain, Jeb Bush and John Boehner had been asked to attend. All declined for various reasons.

O'Reilly admitted that he had been wrong.

"The mistake? Entirely on me," he said. "I simply assumed ... Republicans were excluded."

He advised viewers to "always check out the facts when you make a definitive statement, and added that he was "sorry I made that mistake.""

August 30, 2013 2:19 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "The vast majority of modern day historians and the few atheists and secularists who say Jesus existed simply accept the traditional view without question"

Bad anonymous said "interesting you would say this because you always are referring to what scientists "believe" about homosexuality and global warming and the truth is that most of them accept the conventional view without question".

Nonsense. There is overwhelming concensus about global warming and the normality and healthiness of gayness because scientists have studied the facts in great detail, performed experiments, made detailed statistical analysises and drawn conclusions based on the evidence, which is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what modern day Jesus accepting historians and a few atheists and secularists have done. Those making their living out of studying the "history" of Jesus aren't about to admit the truth that he didn't exist and put themselves out of a job whereas climatologists and psychologists have a job regardless of whether or not global warming is happening or gayness is a bad thing (which the former is and the latter isn't).

August 30, 2013 2:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ms McQuillan is an idiot for saying "Democrats treat blacks like they can't finish high school, get a job, start a family after marriage, and support themselves like capable adults."

The fact is Democrats elected a black man, Barack Obama, to be President of the United States of America, twice.

She seems to forget the GOP's Southern Strategy as described by Lee Atwater himself.

Here's how the GOP shows it's love of black people these days:

Illinois GOP Official Calls Black Republican Candidate A ‘Street Walker,’ ‘Love Child Of The DNC’

GOP’s insults won’t easily be forgotten

Republican National Convention: Where are the African Americans?

Shameful! Virginia GOP Affiliate Post Insulting Photos Of Obama As Caveman, Witch Doctor, Thug

August 30, 2013 2:37 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God? - Epicurus

August 30, 2013 2:39 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. - Voltaire

August 30, 2013 2:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy
The forty-two-minute recording, acquired by James Carter IV, confirms Atwater’s incendiary remarks and places them in context.


Facing death has a way of making a man see the errors of his ways.

Gravely Ill, Atwater Offers Apology

August 30, 2013 2:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JESUS HAD TWO DADS AND HE TURNED OUT FINE

August 30, 2013 2:53 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

An analysis of nearly 12,000 scientific research papers done by climate scientists concludes that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are to blame for climate change, with a dissenting view held by less than two percent of scientists.

Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation from the American Psychological Association.

Both based on facts, evidence, and research - not based on the appeal to popularity logical fallacy like all of bad anonymous's arguments that Jesus existed.

August 30, 2013 2:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"An analysis of nearly 12,000 scientific research papers done by climate scientists concludes that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are to blame for climate change, with a dissenting view held by less than two percent of scientists."

so, you're appealing to a popularity contest

imagine- 12,000 tries to prove a prejudged conclusion and not one provides any evidence that human activity has caused global warming

"Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation from the American Psychological Association."

the fact is when the APA dropped homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses, it did so because of political pressure

most mental health professionals at the time disagreed

now, the political pressure is so intense that any professional that disagrees will be forced out of the profession

the term "sexual orientation" itself is a political propaganda device

there is no proof, none, that sexual preference is fixed and pre-wired part of one's identity

"Both based on facts, evidence, and research - not based on the appeal to popularity logical fallacy like all of bad anonymous's arguments that Jesus existed."

I never said Jesus' popularity proves that he exists. As usual, you're extrapolating wildly.

It's a lazy habit of bitter people.

August 30, 2013 5:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What's clear is that GOP led state governments have only one interest in minority voting -- how t put up roadblocks to prevent it -- in spite of the Supreme Court's recent ruling that AZ's proof-of-citizenship law was unconstitutional."

You know what I find fascinating about all this ? The govt announced it was not going to prosecute marijuana use in states they have passed laws legalizing it (in direct conflict), while prosecuting AZ for passing immigration laws that mirrored the federal statues.

And now they are prosecuting Louisiana for their voucher program trying to get kids out of the failing public schools (scholarship money which was allocated out of a discretionary fund, not the public schools fund)... which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the federal govt or the federal govt jurisdiction....

the hypocrisy is breathtaking.

August 30, 2013 6:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/26/justice-department-radicals-sue-to-force-poor-black-kids-to-attend-crappy-schools/

Unreal. and these are black families trying to get their kids into better schools.

The voucher program in DC that Obama cancelled was the same way.

Which again, was allowing black children to attend predominately white schools (Holy Redeemer in my case)

August 30, 2013 6:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if the executive branch is going to pick and choose which laws it wants to enforce (ie, executive orders on immigration, welfare to work requirements, marijuana) and then prosecute states who pass laws they don't like...

what is the point of having a legislative branch at all ?

If laws mean NOTHING ?

August 30, 2013 6:38 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "An analysis of nearly 12,000 scientific research papers done by climate scientists concludes that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are to blame for climate change, with a dissenting view held by less than two percent of scientists."

Bad anonymous said "so, you're appealing to a popularity contest"

You're willfully stupid. 12000 research papers isn't a popularity contest, its scientific evidence. Its all the scientific evidence that means global warming is real, not simply that a lot of people believe its real with nothing to back it up - like Jesus.

The APA did not drop gayness from DSM because of political pressure, they did it because there had never been any scientific evidence to support categorizing it as a mental illness. It had been categorized as a mental illness because that was the popular belief at the time but the APA recognized that wasn't scientifically valid and a volume of research on gayness starting with Evelyn Hooker in the 1950's showed gays were indistinguishable from heteorsexuals on common measures of mental health. From a scientific perspective the APA had to remove gayness from the DSM.

The idea that the APA caved to peer pressure in 1973 and in all the time since has not tried to set the record straight is preposterous, its not even remotely believable.

Bad anonymous said "there is no proof, none, that sexual preference is fixed and pre-wired part of one's identity".

The overwhelming failure of the "exgay" industry has proven to the satisfaction of virtually every licensed mental health and physical health professional that sexual orientation cannot be changed and that is why they all recommend against it.

Bad anonymous said "I never said Jesus' popularity proves that he exists. As usual, you're extrapolating wildly.".

LOL, your own recorded words prove you wrong:

"oh, did you know that Jesus has appeared on the cover of Time Magazine more than any other individual?"
"do you know any historians who don't agree that Jesus is the most significant individual in history?"
" we're supposed to believe there were these myriad accounts of a person that didn't exist a couple of decades after he died?".


Those are all appeals to popularity. The historians that believe Jesus existed have nothing to back up that claim but the hearsay writings of christians who wrote four decades to 200 years after the alleged life of Jesus. There are no extra-biblical accounts of this figure you claim was astronomically prominent when the pagan and jewish historians of the time wrote about all manner of events big and small such that their writings would fill a library. No one knows who the writers of the gospels were except Luke. He was not an eyewitness. The gospels themselves contradict each other. Constantly. There are so many contradictions we can put them in a huge poster.

August 30, 2013 6:42 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospel story cannot be found in Christian writings earlier than the Gospels, the first of which (Mark) was composed only toward the end of the first century CE. There is no non-Christian reference to Jesus earlier than the second century. All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from one source: the Gospel of Mark, the first one composed. Subsequent evangelists reworked Mark in their own interests and added new material. None of the evangelists show any concern for creating genuine history. The Acts of the Apostles as an account of the beginnings of the Christian apostolic movement is historically unreliable, a second century piece of legend-making.


The initial variety of sects and beliefs about a spiritual heavenly Christ and Son of God, some with a revealer role, others with a sacrificial one, shows that this broad movement began in many different places, a multiplicity of largely independent and spontaneous developments based on the Jewish scriptures and other religious expressions of the time, not as a response to a single individual or point of origin.
Well into the second century, many Christian documents lack or reject the notion of a past human man as an element of their faith. The type of Christ belief which became later orthodoxy developed only through the course of the second century, to eventually gain dominance toward its end. Only gradually did the Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the Gospels come to be accepted as historical and his 'life story' real.

August 30, 2013 6:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Patrick is Christian.

Are you going to weigh in, Patrick ?

this is a misguided individual who can clearly use some help.

I really don't get why you are so vehemently trying to disprove the existence of Jesus or God, Priya.

Why do you care ?

August 30, 2013 6:56 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

You're the one that brought it up as an excuse to condemn gays bad anonymous. I'm just responding to you.

Why are you so vehemently trying to use your religion to justify oppressing gays?

August 30, 2013 7:05 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous thinks its fair for him to bring up his god as an excuse to call gayness a wrongdoing but I don't have a right to dispute that.

What an a-hole.

August 30, 2013 7:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you're extrapolating again, lazy Priya

you need some help learning how to think logically and listen closely

you have time to sign up for a course in logic at Saskatchewan Community College, don't you?

remember: those who extrapolate wildly decided what they wanted to hear before they heard it

August 30, 2013 7:14 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous does a great impression of the black night

August 30, 2013 8:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will become the first Supreme Court member to conduct a same-sex marriage ceremony Saturday when she officiates at the Washington wedding of Kennedy Center President Michael M. Kaiser.

The gala wedding of Kaiser and economist John Roberts at the performing arts center brings together the nation’s highest court and the capital’s high society and will mark a new milepost in the recognition of same-sex unions.

Such marriages were virtually unheard of a little more than a decade ago but now are legal in the nation’s capital, 13 states and in all or part of 17 other countries. After victories at the Supreme Court earlier this summer, a wave of litigation is challenging bans on same-sex marriages in states where they remain prohibited.

During a recent interview, Ginsburg seemed excited about being the first member of the court to conduct such a ceremony and said it was only a logical next step.

“I think it will be one more statement that people who love each other and want to live together should be able to enjoy the blessings and the strife in the marriage relationship,” Ginsburg said.

She added: “It won’t be long before there will be another” performed by a justice. Indeed, she has another planned for September.

Ginsburg and Kaiser are close friends. She is perhaps the Supreme Court’s most ardent supporter of the fine arts, especially opera. Kaiser, 59, has been at the helm of the Kennedy Center since 2001 and is an internationally recognized expert in arts management and one of Washington’s most influential civic leaders.

“I can’t imagine someone I’d rather be married by” than Ginsburg, Kaiser said in an interview....


Continues at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ginsburg-to-officiate-same-sex-wedding/2013/08/30/4bc09d86-0ff4-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html

August 31, 2013 11:26 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Republicans love to claim that Martin Luther King was a Republican. They’ve even taken out billboards around the country saying so. Not only is there no evidence for this, there’s considerable evidence against it. By the end of his life, he was a loud and persistent critic of the Republican party.

There may well have been times earlier in his life when he supported the Republican party, but by 1964, when the Dixiecrats abandoned the Democratic party in response to the passage of the Civil Rights Act and became Republicans, he recognized that the GOP had become the party that gave racists like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms their home. Here’s what he wrote in his autobiography about the 1964 Republican candidate and platform:

"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

It was both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater as its candidate for President of the United States. In foreign policy Mr. Goldwater advocated a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation. On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented."

And what he had to say about Ronald Reagan, then just beginning his political career:

"Now what are some of the domestic consequences of the war in Vietnam? It has made the Great Society a myth and replaced it with a troubled and confused society. The war has strengthened domestic reaction. It has given the extreme right, the anti-labor, anti-Negro, and anti-humanistic forces a weapon of spurious patriotism to galvanize its supporters into reaching for power, right up to the White House. It hopes to use national frustration to take control and restore the America of social insecurity and power for the privileged. When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor can become a leading war hawk candidate for the Presidency, only the irrationalities induced by a war psychosis can explain such a melancholy turn of events."

August 31, 2013 12:04 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

These efforts to turn King into a Republican, or worse a conservative, are appallingly dishonest — all the more so coming from the same people who savaged him as a communist during his lifetime. King was a pacifist, a democratic socialist, a staunch advocate for labor rights and a strong welfare system, an advocate for expanded family planning, and pretty much every other position that is anathema to the Republican party.

August 31, 2013 12:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the truth is, lazy Priya, the man has been dead for 45 years

America has been on quite a journey since so there's no telling what his views would be on our contemporary issues

if there was some Republican effort to claim him, why wouldn't Cantor and Boehner have been there on Wednesday?

myself, I don't think he'd be supporting the current mindset of equating sexual preference, a character issue, with physical attributes, like skin color

it is so funny that lazy Priya tries to prove that MLK didn't like Goldwater, as if Goldwater is some universally agreed upon villain, when Goldwater was a defender of gay rights

August 31, 2013 2:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If humans are to blame for the alleged global warming, then what to do? Kill the humans! We should have a explosion of plant life! Are we seeing this?

August 31, 2013 2:07 PM  
Anonymous Facts about the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program said...

Evaluation of the Impact of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Final Report

The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) is the first federally funded voucher program in the United States, providing scholarships of up to $7,500 for low-income residents of the District of Columbia to send their children to local participating private schools.

The congressionally mandated evaluation of the Program compared the outcomes of about 2,300 eligible applicants randomly assigned to receive or not receive an OSP scholarship through a series of lotteries in 2004 and 2005. This final report finds that the Program had mixed longer-term effects on participating students and their parents, including:

--No conclusive evidence that the OSP affected student achievement overall, or for the high-priority group of students who applied from "schools in need of improvement."
--The Program significantly improved students' chances of graduating from high school, according to parent reports. Overall, 82 percent of students offered scholarships received a high school diploma, compared to 70 percent of those who applied but were not offered scholarships. This graduation rate improvement also held for the subgroup of OSP students who came from "schools in need of improvement."
--Although parents had higher satisfaction and rated schools as safer if their child was offered or used an OSP scholarship, students reported similar ratings for satisfaction and safety regardless of whether they were offered or used a scholarship.

The evaluation also found that the cumulative loss of students between 2004 and 2009 from DC Public Schools (DCPS) to the Program was about 3 percent. In contrast, an estimated 20 percent of students annually change schools or leave DCPS. Thus, OSP-related transfers to private schools may not have been distinguishable from the larger share of other student departures.

Of course the GOP wants to keep the rate high on student loans (See Republicans Screw Over 37 Million by Blocking Bill Lowering Student Loan Interest Rates) and to decrease funding for food stamps (See House Republicans to push $40 billion cut to food stamp program.

Hungry kids generally don't do well not matter what school they are in, and if Theresa is bitching about college costs at her income level, how can anyone expect these poor kids to afford college?

This whole set up reminds me of the Bush program that helped poor folks afford down payments to purchase houses, but no help or even concern if these buyers would be able to afford the monthly payments to avoid foreclosure. See Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble

August 31, 2013 3:40 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous, we all know that any time you start a comment with "the truth is" what's about to follow is anything but the truth. You are a pathological liar.

The patient obviously suffers sex-related insecurities so severe that his waking energy is devoted to overcompensating for them.

August 31, 2013 4:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Starbucks' CEO acknowledged that Obamacare might increase insurance costs, but said the company's benefits are non-negotiable.

While other U.S. companies have cut staff or benefits in anticipation of next year's health care overhaul, Howard Schultz said Starbucks (SBUX, Fortune 500)' insurance plans will stay in place -- for everyone.

"It's not about the law. It's about responsibility we have to the people who do work and who represent us," Schultz told CNN on Tuesday.

The coffee chain is unique in its policy: Even part-time workers are eligible for insurance. In 2010, benefits cost the company $300 million, more than it paid for coffee.

But Schultz said the benefits will remain a cornerstone of the company's compensation for its 160,000 employees, even though it could be more expensive next year due to Obamacare's "unintended consequences."

"It may end up costing us more... but I don't think that is the primary issue," Schultz said. "Starbucks does not want to leave people behind."

His comments put him in stark contrast with other business owners, who have taken drastic measures to reduce costs next year.

Last week, UPS (UPS, Fortune 500) said it will cut insurance to 15,000 workers' spouses. Last year, pizza franchise Papa John's (PZZA) announced plans to cut workers' hours in order to dodge the employer mandate.

"I don't believe that...the health care law should be a reason or a motivation to cut benefits for either the employee or spouses," Schultz said. "An investment in your people is an investment in shareholder value."

Over the years, Schultz's commitment to employee benefits has been unwavering. Even when Starbucks took cost-cutting measures like shutting down stores and laying off employees, health care benefits -- which also include dental and vision -- have remained intact.

August 31, 2013 4:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lazy Priya had the temerity to make this post:

"anonymous, we all know that any time you start a comment with "the truth is" what's about to follow is anything but the truth. You are a pathological liar."

well, here's the comment the Lazy One referred to:


"the truth is, lazy Priya, the man has been dead for 45 years

America has been on quite a journey since so there's no telling what his views would be on our contemporary issues

if there was some Republican effort to claim him, why wouldn't Cantor and Boehner have been there on Wednesday?

myself, I don't think he'd be supporting the current mindset of equating sexual preference, a character issue, with physical attributes, like skin color

it is so funny that lazy Priya tries to prove that MLK didn't like Goldwater, as if Goldwater is some universally agreed upon villain, when Goldwater was a defender of gay rights"

please point out the lie, lazy Priya

after the drugs wear off

August 31, 2013 6:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

still waiting for lazy Priya's drugs to wear off so the "lies" can be disclosed

ha-ha!

going out some great food, perhaps I'll check this evening

August 31, 2013 6:54 PM  
Anonymous ya gotta laugh said...

well, that settles it

no lies

just a lazy couch potato in Saskatchewan drooling on the floor

September 01, 2013 3:21 AM  
Anonymous obama uses civil rights laws to hurt black kids said...

NINE OF 10 Louisiana children who receive vouchers to attend private schools are black. All are poor and, if not for the state assistance, would be consigned to low-performing or failing schools with little chance of learning the skills they will need to succeed as adults. So it’s bewildering, if not downright perverse, for the Obama administration to use the banner of civil rights to bring a misguided suit that would block these disadvantaged students from getting the better educational opportunities they are due.

The Justice Department has petitioned a U.S. District Courtto bar Louisiana from awarding vouchers for the 2014-15 school year to students in public school systems that are under federal desegregation orders, unless the vouchers are first approved by a federal judge. The government argues that allowing students to leave their public schools for vouchered private schools threatens to disrupt the desegregation of school systems. A hearing is tentatively set for Sept. 19.

There’s no denying the state’s racist history of school segregation or its efforts in the late 1960s to undermine desegregation orders by helping white children to evade racially integrated schools. But the situation today bears no resemblance to then. Since most of the students using vouchers are black, it is, as State Education Superintendent John White pointed out to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, “a little ridiculous” to argue that the departure of mostly black students to voucher schools would make their home school systems less white.

The government’s argument that “the loss of students through the voucher program reversed much of the progress made toward integration” becomes even more absurd upon examination of the cases it cited in its petition. Consider the analysis from University of Arkansas professor of education reform Jay P. Greene of a school that lost five white students through vouchers and saw a shift in racial composition from 29.6 percent white to 28.9 percent white. Another school that lost six black students and saw a change in racial composition from 30.1 percent black to 29.2 percent black. “Though the students . . . almost certainly would not have noticed a difference, the racial bean counters at the DOJ see worsening segregation,” Mr. Greene wrote on his blog.

The number that should matter to federal officials is this: Roughly 86 percent of students in the voucher program came from schools that were rated D or F. Mr. White called ironic using rules to fight racism to keep students in failing schools; we think it appalling.

Unfortunately, though, it is not a surprise from an administration that, despite its generally progressive views on school reform, has proven to be hostile — as witnessed by its petty machinations against D.C.’s voucher program — to the school choice afforded by private-school vouchers. Mr. White told us that from Day One, the five-year-old voucher program has been subject to unrelenting scrutiny and questions from federal officials. Louisiana parents are clamoring for the choice afforded by this program; the state is insisting on accountability; poor students are benefiting. The federal government should get out of the way

September 02, 2013 8:04 AM  
Anonymous Happy Labor Day! said...

--Legislation creating Labor Day did not pass the Congress in response to Americans’ demand for yet one more reason to sleep in, fire up the grill, drink beer and watch football. It passed the Congress as an outraged response to the U.S. government helping a rapacious corporation violently crush striking unionists who dared to fight for their economic rights.

--Labor Day was not designed to give you a day off to commemorate the end of your summer nor to give parents a special day to hit the chain stores for back-to-school sales. It was designed to give us all a chance to honor and commemorate the American labor movement and all of its achievements for millions of workers — union and non-union alike. These achievements include (among other things) higher wages, healthcare benefits, child labor laws, the eight-hour workday and the weekend.

--Labor Day was not created to give you one last day to work on your tan or to get drunk in the park at an annual picnic. Labor Day was created to give you a day to attend or participate in some sort of public event showing your solidarity with the American labor movement. As AFL leader Samuel Gompers said in the years after the holiday was created, it is a day when workers’ “rights and their wrongs would be discussed … (when they) may not only lay down their tools of labor for a holiday, but upon which they may touch shoulders in marching phalanx and feel the stronger for it.”

--Labor Day was not designed to be cast as an apolitical holiday that everyone should pretend they honor because they simply support the apolitical notion of work. The “labor” in Labor Day refers not to generic “work” but to organized labor — as in unions. That makes it a deeply political occasion celebrating the ideas of worker solidarity against corporate power and organizing for collective economic rights. It is a day, in other words, to honor what even President Ronald Reagan recognized: namely, that “the right to belong to a free trade union” is “one of the most elemental human rights” and that “where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”

--Labor Day is not designed to be a day for anti-union politicians and corporations to say “Happy Labor Day” and momentarily pretend they support the rights of American workers. It is a day for Americans to speak out against union-busting activity and vitriolic anti-union rhetoric, whether that abhorrent activity and ugly rhetoric pops up in big box stores, in state legislatures in plutocrats’ campaign ads or in schoolhouses. It is also a day for us to consider new and simple ways to better protect the rights of workers to form unions.

September 02, 2013 12:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

we don't actually do St Patrick's Day as originally intended either

union whining is from a bygone era

move on, or we'll change the name to Entrepreneurs Day

September 02, 2013 2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Such delusions of grandeur!

September 02, 2013 4:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you mean those unions?

I know... right?

September 02, 2013 6:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

right!

September 02, 2013 6:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no opinion on Syria, Jim ?

theresa

September 02, 2013 9:38 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Of course I have an opinion. We don't even know whose gas that was, and it is stupidly, stereotypically American for us to rush in with weapons and start blowing things up. esp when it just came out that we used chemical weapons in Iraq.

On the other hand, it might be one of Obama's 11-dimensional chess moves to see if he can force the Republicans in Congress to move left in order to disagree with him.

JimK

September 02, 2013 10:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Jim that we should stay out of this.

I was so relieved when Obama reconsidered going unilateral.

If we learn nothing else in Iraq, it should be that you "punish" regimes with limited strikes and expect to walk away.

Either finish Assad off or back off.

And, there is really no case for us taking Assad out. The opposition is likely as bad. We have nothing in common with either side. And, honestly, unless someone is making credible threats against us, we can't afford to run around the globe solving everyone else's problems.

As for Jim's thought that this is a chess game by Obama: thanks for the laugh.

September 02, 2013 10:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

all in agreement. we have no business getting involved in it.

who wants to be Obama will do it anyway ?

I don't think it is a chess move Jim, I don't think that arrogant SOB gives a %%&^& what the American people think, not one little bit.

September 02, 2013 10:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If we did used chemical weapons in Fallujah, we did so under the leadership of President Bush, the warmonger.

The military has already shown under President Obama's leadership its ability to have a successful limited intervention in Libya.

Since when does the US turn its back on its bipartisan approval of an international chemical weapons ban?

September 04, 2013 11:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you must not have seen Jon Stewart last night (he's back by the way from his entire summer break).

He says it better than I could, the segment was hysterical. I always find him funny, even though I frequently disagree with him.

Also Obama watches him, so I think perhaps he may have just singly handedly prevented a war.....

September 04, 2013 12:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-3-2013/uncle-jonny-stew-s-good-time-syria-jamboree

quite good.

September 04, 2013 12:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The military has already shown under President Obama's leadership its ability to have a successful limited intervention in Libya."

except that Obama has already said regime change is not going to be the goal

the problem is when you attack someone and leave them alive and well, they'll never stop formulating revenge

we should have learned that when we left Saddam around after Gulf War I

not that we should ever have become involved in Gulf War I

in the Mideast, change always creates a vacuum where something worse moves in

we should have learned that in Egypt

Obama said today he never drew a red line

he's a lying a-hole, but, in this case, I hope he gets away with it

September 04, 2013 12:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't say a thing about regime change -- that's what the GOP decided to do in Iraq -- and neither did President Obama, except to rule out that is what this limited action will NOT do. This action is NOT to change the Assad Regime, but rather to punish Assad for using chemical weapons on his own people.

We should punish President Bush for using chemical weapons in Fallujah too.

September 04, 2013 3:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you brought up Libya, you idiot

Obama changed the regime

if we were going to waste time and money, it would be better spent taking out the nuclear threat from Iran

September 04, 2013 7:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim.

Where is the subject topic on Syria ?


Couple of things.
I was listening to Greta tonight, she had Rumsfeld on...I know you dislike him. Anyway, he was talking about how a shot across the bow is generally a warning shot, and followed with the threat of additional action if the warning shot is not heeded... so to announce a warning shot and then withdraw, well it is kind of crazy.

and then, how anyone in Syria who might want to oppose Assad would be really confused and not given hope by this strategy, since we have announced that we are not trying to take out Assad. If we are not trying to take out Assad, what is the point anyway ?

and I have one other final comment... where is the blog post subject matter on Syria Jim ? It seems like it is one area we are ALL in violent agreement on... calls apparently are flooding the Congressional offices at 500-1 ratios (that's unheard of). But they will still take us to war anyway.....because our congress could care less what we the people think, and they are not a representative govt anymore because we don't have term limits (thus special interests rule) and because Senators are not elected by the state legislatures anymore.

so they make rules for the rest of us, and they, the political ruling class exempt themselves (aka OBAMAcare).

September 05, 2013 1:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

finally, Rush had a segment this afternoon that I was listening to while doing expense reports ...

anyway, he was pointing out that if is FAR more racist to refuse to criticize someone BECAUSE of the color of their skin then it is to criticize them more because of the color of their skin.

If you refuse to criticize them, there is an underlying belief that you think they can't take it... and it is MORE racist than someone that is harder on them because of the color of their skin.

If you excuse incompetence because you don't think they can handle criticism, well you are the worst racist of all.

So WHERE IS THE SYRIA TOPIC JIM ?

Theresa

September 05, 2013 1:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Post whatever YOU WANT on YOUR OWN BLOG, Theresa!

September 05, 2013 8:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Putin basically told Obama this morning that if we struck Syria, Russia would provide a missile shield.

and we don't have a missile shield for Europe because Obama backed off.... because of pressure from Russia.

I ask again.
why are you guys still defending this guy ? the incompetence is staggering.

He has clearly NEVER PLAYED CHESS, forget about 11 dimensional Jim, he has never RUN ANYTHING before you idiots decided to put him in charge of the US.
-----------------------------------

US scraps final phase of European missile shieldAdvertisementChuck Hagel: "The American people should be assured our interceptors are effective"
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
US to boost Alaska missile defence
Nato's missile shield 'up and running'
Russia tests secret new missile

US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel has scrapped the final phase of its European missile defence shield, citing development problems and funding cuts.

Upgraded interceptors were to have been deployed in Poland to counter medium- and intermediate-range missiles, and potential threats from the Middle East.

Mr Hagel said the threat had "matured" and that the US commitment to Nato missile defence remained "ironclad".

The interceptors had been strongly opposed by the Russian government.

It complained that they would be able to stop Russia's intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and undermine its nuclear deterrent.

The US has always insisted that the missile shield was intended to protect against attacks by Iran and North Korea.

Analysts said Friday's announcement could open the door to another round of talks between the US and Russia on nuclear arms reductions


September 05, 2013 11:02 AM  
Anonymous It's the economy, stupid! said...

WSJ reports:

"Chrysler said it had its best August in six years, while Ford said its 20% gain with retail buyers was its best monthly performance since 2006. GM touted its best month since September 2008, when the global financial crisis descended on the auto market….

GM’s auto-sales rise of 15% in August outpaced rivals Ford and Chrysler, which both posted not-too-shabby 12% growth. Overall, GM sold 275,847 vehicles in August, with retail sales climbing 22% to 220,958…

For Ford, both car and truck sales grew 18% in August. Utility-vehicle sales were roughly flat with a year earlier. The Ford brand sold 213,078 vehicles in the U.S. in August, up 13% from a year earlier and above July’s total of 193,715. The Lincoln brand’s sales inched up 0.6% from a year earlier to 8,192."

September 05, 2013 2:47 PM  
Anonymous Another Obama success! said...

Kaiser Family Foundation reports: An Early Look at Premiums and Insurer Participation in Health Insurance Marketplaces, 2014

"...As open enrollment in the exchanges begins October 1, 2013 for coverage starting in 2014, premium information for all states will soon become available. Exchange websites are expected to present unsubsidized premiums for each plan, and are also required to have a subsidy calculator so that low and middle income enrollees can determine how tax credits will affect what they will actually pay for coverage.

This report – based on 17 states and the District of Columbia that have made data publicly available – provides a preview of how premiums will vary across the country, and how much consumers in different circumstances will actually pay after taking into account the tax credits available under the ACA.

While premiums will vary significantly across the country, they are generally lower than expected. For example, we estimate that the latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office imply that the premium for a 40-year-old in the second lowest cost silver plan would average $320 per month nationally.10 Fifteen of the eighteen rating areas we examined have premiums below this level, suggesting that the cost of coverage for consumers and the federal budgetary cost for tax credits will be lower than anticipated."


Meanwhile, idiotic Dittoheads who listen to Rush should be well aware that

"Organizations that received the latest round of health law navigator grants say last week’s letter from House Republicans could have a chilling effect on efforts to hire and train outreach workers to sign up Americans for health insurance by Oct. 1, the opening day for new online insurance marketplaces.

The letters were signed by 15 Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and requested that the organizations provide extensive new documents about their participation in the program and schedule a congressional briefing by Sept. 13. The letters went out to 51 organizations — including hospitals, universities, Indian tribes, patient advocacy groups and food banks—out of 104 that shared $67 million in grants."


Of course, invasive questions from the government to Tea Party groups, among others, had Republicans comparing the IRS to the KGB earlier this year.

But all of a sudden, GOP idiots are requiring answers to invasive questions and Congressional briefings by next week in their flat out effort to sabotage the life and money saving Affordable Care Act.

September 05, 2013 3:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if we start WW III, the economy won't matter one bit.

September 05, 2013 4:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's see who remembers what WWII did for this nation's economy after the last time the GOP led us into the abyss of the Great Depression.

Oh, what's this latest news from Prime Minister David Cameron?

UK Scientists Found Sarin Nerve Gas On Syrian Victims' Clothing, Prime Minister David Cameron Says

September 05, 2013 4:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

right now, it looks like Obama only has about 45 House votes in favor of an attack on Syria

September 05, 2013 5:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank goodness the entire house is up for election every two years the calls are coming in 100 against to every one for...

September 05, 2013 8:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

President Obama's request for a Congressional vote on punishing Syria's President Assad for using chemical weapons against his own people has turned the GOP into a party of pro-Putin peaceniks!

September 05, 2013 10:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

GOP bottom line:

If Obama is for it, the GOP is against it, no matter what it is!

September 05, 2013 10:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If Obama is for it, the GOP is against it, no matter what it is!"

conversely, when Saddam gassed the Kurds, liberals thought that was jolly fun and Bush was a war criminal!!

the big difference: Saddam fired on American troops and Assad hasn't

September 05, 2013 11:01 PM  
Anonymous Bye-bye, Boys! said...

"Thank goodness the entire house is up for election every two years the calls are coming in 100 against to every one for..."

"WASHINGTON — House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says he will back President Barack Obama's call to use military force against Syria for alleged chemical weapons use.

Following a meeting with the president on Tuesday, the Virginia Republican said the U.S. has a compelling national security interest to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.

Cantor joined House Speaker John Boehner in supporting Obama, providing the president with key support among House Republican leaders.

Obama has said he will seek support from Congress before launching a military strike against Syria. Cantor said it is up to Obama to make the case to Congress and the American people that force is necessary.

Cantor says he hopes the president is successful."

September 05, 2013 11:03 PM  
Anonymous Si se puede! said...

Thomas Perez officially sworn in as Secretary of Labor – “I’ve lived the American Dream”

"Thomas Perez, the son of Dominican immigrants who worked as a garbage collector as he attended some of the nation’s most prestigious colleges, was formally sworn in as Secretary of Labor by Vice President Joe Biden on Wednesday.

“We have gone from sweeping floors to Sotomayor,” said Perez, referring to Latina Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, “but there’s still too many people for whom the rungs of the ladder feel farther and farther apart,” he said.

Perez, the only Latino cabinet member in Obama’s second-term administration, said he would make it his top priority to reduce the skills gap among workers in the new economy and to work for gender equity as well as for workers and veterans with disabilities.

“The Department of Labor is the Department of Opportunity,” said Perez.

Perez was flanked by his wife of 25 years and his three children as he was sworn in by Biden.

“That’s been the hallmark of his life, giving people a shot,” said Vice President Biden about Perez, citing his work in bringing about the nation’s largest fair lending case and his tenure as Maryland Secretary of Labor. “It’s about equipping people,” Biden said.

The ceremony was attended by various Latino leaders who have worked and known Perez through his career.

“Many of us have waited a long time for this day – what an honor,” said Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR). “He fought for our right to vote and against voter suppression and battled anti-immigration laws – and took on Sheriff Joe Arpaio,” added Murguia, referring to some of the actions Perez took as Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. Recently LULAC (the League of United Latin American Citizens) awarded Perez with an Outstanding Achievement Award “in recognition of his commitment to civil rights of all Americans.”

“Tom knows what it’s like to climb the ladder of opportunity” said President Obama of Perez at the time of his nomination. “His story reminds us of this country’s promise,” Obama had said.

Thomas Perez’ nomination was initially opposed by Republicans who thought he had been too partisan and combative during some of his positions. But Perez also had the support of GOP leaders who stressed his ability to work with in a bipartisan fashion...."

September 06, 2013 8:44 AM  
Anonymous as low as Jimmy Carter is preeety low!! said...

WASHINGTON -- U.S. job growth was less than expected in August and the unemployment rate dropped to a 4½ year low as workers gave up the search for work, which could delay the Federal Reserve scaling back its massive monetary stimulus later this month.

Nonfarm payrolls increased 169,000 last month, the Labor Department said Friday, adding to signs that third-quarter economic growth may have slowed down.

Economists polled by Reuters had expected job gains of 180,000 last month and for the unemployment rate to hold steady at 7.4 percent. Not only was hiring less than expected last month, the job count for June and July was revised to show 74,000 fewer positions added that previously reported.

In addition, the participation rate - the share of working-age Americans who either have a job or are looking for one - dropped to its lowest level since August 1978.

September 06, 2013 9:07 AM  
Anonymous impeachment smoothie said...

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) insisted there will be no "boots on the ground" in Syria because if there were, "there would be an impeachment of the president."

McCain made the following statement to KFYI's Mike Broomhead on Thursday:

The fact is Bashar Assad has massacred 100,000 people. The conflict is spreading. The king of Jordan cannot stand. Lebanon is evolving. Iraq is now become a haven for al-Qaeda and violence is greater than since 2008. The Russians are all in, the Iranians are all in, and it’s an unfair fight. And no one wants American boots on the ground. Nor will there be American boots on the ground because there would be an impeachment of the president if they did that.

McCain sat down with Broomhead after a town hall in Phoenix on Thursday, where the senator encountered a tough crowd largely opposed to military action in Syria. McCain said at that event he is "unalterably opposed to having a single American boot on the ground in Syria."

"The American people wouldn't stand for it," McCain said. "Second of all, it would not be anything but counterproductive to do that. American blood and treasure is too precious to do that."

September 06, 2013 12:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Map: All The Countries John McCain Has Wanted to Attack

"Battlefield Earth: Countries where McCain has called for US military intervention

SYRIA -- Airstrikes, culminating in regime change

IRAQ (Part II) -- Ground war culminating in regime change

AFGHANISTAN -- Ground war culminating in regime change (ongoing)

LIBYA -- Regime change

KOSOVO -- Ground war culminating in regime change

IRAQ (Part I) -- Ground war in Kuwait

BOSNIA -- Air strikes and military assistance

NORTH KOREA -- Either regime change by aiding local opposition, or an outright military confrontation

IRAN -- Unspecified air strikes ("It's that old Beach Boys song, Bomb bomb Iran."

GEORGIA -- Unspecified agression toward Russia after invasion of Georgia

RUSSIA -- A new cold war

SUDAN -- UN Troops

MALI -- Military assistance

CHINA -- "The Arab Spring is coming to China"


John McCain has been a Senator for a quarter of a century and served in the House before that. In that time he hasn’t been consistent on much, but one thing he’s always been steadfastly in favor of is war. He’s never heard of a proposed military intervention he didn’t immediately support, or not support mainly because it wasn’t a big enough military intervention.

Based on the most recent whip counts, we may soon see one of the first instances in modern American history in which popular opposition to a war caused our elected officials to decline to fight it in the first place. Or it could still happen, because the lesson of John McCain (who has already voted yes on Syria) is, you can be taken seriously forever in Washington if you always want more war.

September 06, 2013 4:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you, John McCain.

September 06, 2013 5:57 PM  
Anonymous impeachment and resignation: it's not just for Nixon anymore said...

right now, of publicly committed legislators:

Senate 41-38 against bombing Syria

House 227-40 against bombing Syria

so what does Sir Barry say about all this?

"thanks for your opinion"

much like the Obamacare mandate and drug laws, Obama considers all laws passed by Congress to be suggestions for his consideration

"WASHINGTON -- Even as he beseeches former colleagues in Congress to vote for President Barack Obama’s plan to bomb Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry made it clear in an interview with The Huffington Post that he thinks the president has the right to order air strikes in the face of congressional disapproval.

If that scenario were to materialize -- a bombing campaign after a "no" vote -- the result would almost certainly be an impeachment drive in the House of Representatives.

Firing cruise missiles and/or dropping bombs on the military infrastructure of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime would be an “act of war,” according to Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- especially since the United States would not be enforcing a United Nations-sanctioned enforcement mission, as it was in Iraq.

At first, as evidence mounted that Assad had used chemical weapons on his own people, Obama decided to take action on his own, without seeking support in a congressional vote. Then last week the president surprised his own aides (including Kerry) and changed his mind, apparently because he lacked much international support and because he wanted to spread the domestic political risk.

But even though Obama is now seeking Congress’ support, Kerry insisted that the president is not bound by law to stand down should his plan be rejected.

Hadn’t the president in essence ceded that leeway by coming to Congress? I asked the secretary of state.

The answer, he said, was no."

September 07, 2013 6:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

btw, I was reading an article about transgender pronouns this week

apparently, several politically correct alternatives have been developed for those don't feel it's appropriate to call a guy a "her" based on the guy's fantasy that he's really a girl

"ze" and "hir" are fine when there is some dispute over gender

in the word of leon Russell, "it's such a strange time that we are livin' in!"

September 07, 2013 7:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Hands of Angels
-- Leon Russell

Well I could have been sick
I could have died
I could have given up
And not tried
To make it to tomorrow
Like a broken hearted lover

But there was a brand new start
And suddenly I was taken
New and Far away places
And the music I was shaken

It was a whole new race
When I woke on that first day
There was nothing I could say
I was in the hands of angels

Johnny and the governor
Came and brought me to my senses
They make me feel just like a king
Made me lose all my bad defenses

And they knew all the places
I needed to go
All of the poeple
I needed to know
They knew who I needed
And who needed me
And who would come help me

And who would just let me be

I was in the hands of angels
Until this very day
Inside the hands of angels
What more can I say
When you're in the hands of angels
Life is oh so seet
And you feel the love
Down deep inside
Even out there on the street

In the hands of angels

September 07, 2013 9:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hopefully someday you'll be as lucky as Leon Russell was and some gay angel will come rescue you from all your bad defenses too.

September 07, 2013 9:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

personally, I like both Elton John and Leon Russell

and, personally, I couldn't care less if Elton is gay

what you people consistently misunderstand about me is you think I'm anti-gay

I'm just not in favor of government regulation favoring homosexuality at the expense of families

back to the song, I hadn't heard their album yet but I like the tune you posted

just saw Leon this summer at the Hamilton

he was doing great

I remember when Elton tried to be an ex-gay in the eighties

he repented of it and even got married to a girl on Valentine's Day

the gay cult crowd harassed him and he finally went back to the gay cult

September 07, 2013 1:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BBC News released a video this week that documents the actions of a vigilante group forcing a gay man to drink urine. The video also features a Russian woman who is "on safari hunting pedophiles and gays" with an assault rifle.

Yekaterina, the aforementioned woman, heads up her local branch of the organization "Occupy Paedophilia."

"Our priority is uncovering cases of pedophilia. But we are also against the promotion of homosexuality and if, along the way, we encounter people of non-traditional sexual orientation, we can kill two birds with one stone."

If the name "Occupy Paedophilia" seems familiar, it's because the group has made headlines all summer with their brutal and violent tactics directed at lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth.

Gay activist Larry Poltavtsev stated, "They are like al-Qaida, a very loose structure formed by independent cells not controlled and loosely connected to each other. That's why they are successful... I've counted that each group posted at least 10-15 videos [featuring] torture. But you don't see all the videos. Some groups are shy, they write about their actions but they don't put that out on film. It depends on the severity of the situation."

Weeks after government officials passed Russia's anti-gay "propaganda" law, videos surfaced that documented members of this group luring LGBT teens through online dating sites, then subjecting them to brutal humiliation and torture.

Other Russian citizens not necessarily affiliated with "Occupy Paedophilia" have also attacked openly LGBT individuals in public spaces, with onlookers doing nothing to prevent the violence from happening. Government officials have denounced and degraded LGBT people both on television and in the media, fostering international speculation about the impact of continuing to hold the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, Russia.

And now, Russian legislators are pushing for a bill that would deny same-sex parents from having custody of their children.

In a BBC video, reporters also visited a local gay bar in Sochi, Russia to gain perspective on how it feels to be an LGBT individual currently living in Russia. "Many gay people have changed how they dress, they've removed earrings, changed their hairstyles, to avoid having problems," said Russian gay club co-owner Andrei Tanichev. "Even back in the USSR, where homosexuality was a criminal offence, gays were treated better than they are now in Russia. Ordinary people see us as criminals. They hate us."

September 07, 2013 1:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And like most ex-gays, Elton John is now an ex-ex-gay.

'No one asked me': Elton John on why he waited so long to come out...as he cills out in St. Tropez
July 17, 2012

"When Sir Elton John 'came out' in 1976, many wondered why he had wait until his late 20s to make such a declaration.

But the veteran singer, now 65, admitted he never actively hid his sexuality - insisting no one had ever asked him if he was gay.

In a new U.S. TV interview, the father-of-one said he assumed it was 'common knowledge' that everyone knew he was homosexual.

Sir Elton came out as bisexual in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine in 1976, before going to marry German woman Renate Blauel in Australia in 1984.

However, following their divorce, he told the same magazine he felt 'comfortable' being gay in 1988.

Speaking today to Today present Matt Lauer, Elton said: 'Nobody asked me. When (journalist) Cliff Jahr asked me in Rolling Stone, "I'm gonna ask you a question, but if you don't want to answer it, I'm gonna turn the tape recorder off."

'And I said, "You're gonna ask me if I'm gay or not." And he said, "How did you know that?"

'I said, "I've been waiting for people to ask me this. It's not exactly a secret. I live with my manager. I'm openly gay outside. I don't have a girlfriend. And nobody's ever actually out -- I just thought it was common knowledge."'

The Crocodile Rock star's revelations with came as he spent the day in St Tropez with his entourage following his performance on Monday night in Sardinia.

Wearing white shorts, blue trainers and a colourful shirt, the singer travelled via speedboat to the beach club.

Notably absent was his civil partner David Furnish, who is presumably at home with their son Zachary.

Elton, who is currently promoting his new book Love is the Cure: On life, loss and the end of AIDS, spoke about his friendship with Indiana boy Ryan White, who contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion and tragically died in 1990.

Remembering Ryan, Elton said: 'I just felt for him, this kid who was -- you know, just because he had the HIV virus, his family were being discriminated, he was forced to move to another town, bullets fired through their windows, firebombs through their letterbox. Wasn't allowed to go to school.'


Elton John doesn't call anyone deviants or idiots. You could learn a lot from a gay angel like him.

September 07, 2013 1:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually Anon, Elton married the woman when his record sales declined after coming out back in 1976, you know, when it was still legal to discriminate against certain minorities.

It didn't take long for him to realize that he was more comfortable as a gay man than as a man pretending to be straight to protect his music from people like you, that is people who actually think discriminating against gays is the right thing to do.

And the older he gets, the more sure of himself and what he's fighting against -- people just like you.

"Sir Elton John is “fed up” with being a treated like a “second-class citizen” in the U.S.

...The outspoken British piano man, who became a parent to a baby boy on Christmas Day with partner David Furnish, added that “as I get older, I get more angry about it.”

“In this country, we need more dialogue,” he said during an interview Friday. “We don’t need any more stone throwing. We don’t need any more vitriol. We need people to say, ‘OK. I’m straight. You’re gay. Let’s get along. I’m Republican. You’re Democratic. Let’s work together.’ I’m sick and tired of people being hateful to each other in this country.”

...The couple’s son, Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John, was born in California through a surrogate mother. John said he was disappointed that members of the Church of England questioned his parenthood in the days following his son’s birth. He insisted that he’s not against religion and that “Jesus was a wonderful, compassionate man, who forgave on the cross.”

“Everyone is entitled to have their own beliefs and their own spirituality,” said John. “The big difference is that the dogma of the church can be so hateful and divisive. It’s stuck in the stone age. We don’t live in the stone age anymore. The church is losing people left, right and center because people are fed up with the rhetoric that they’re giving them.”"


"I'm just not in favor of government regulation favoring homosexuality at the expense of families"

Try to tell us exactly what "expense" you imagine Elton John's marriage and adoption of a child has and continues to cost your family.

Be specific. Let's hear one thing your family has to do without because of Elton John has both a husband and child.

September 07, 2013 2:14 PM  
Anonymous "we are all children of God"... said...

Pope Francis 'Phones Gay Catholic To Reassure Him About Sexuality'

"Pope Francis has reportedly called a young gay Catholic man in France to reassure him about his sexuality.

Christophe Trutino had written to the Pope to emotionally explain his inner turmoil in reconciling his sexuality with his faith, explaining how he was terrified he was going to hell for being gay, local media reported.

The 25-year-old sales assistant from Toulouse said that due to the ongoing row over France’s battle over same-sex marriage, he was struggling to stay a believer in the Catholic faith.

Trutino said he was left stunned when he then received a phone call from the head of the Catholic Church himself.

“Your homosexuality. It doesn't matter”, the Pope reportedly told him, according to the local newspaper La Dépêche du Midi.

"It was he who started the conversation," Trutino said, according to a translation on The Local.

"He said 'Christopher? It's Pope Francis'. I was unsettled, of course. I asked, " Really? " He replied : "Yes."

“I received the letter that you sent me. You need to remain courageous and continue to believe and pray and stay good,” the Pope told him during the nine-minute conversation in Spanish.

“Your homosexuality. It doesn’t matter. One way or another , we are all children of God. This is why we must continue to be good," the Pope told him.

There has been a rise in French homophobia following a spike in anti-gay marriage protestors.

Trutino said the phone call ended with the Pope asking him to pray for him and that he would do the same in return.

“When I hung up the phone, I was completely filled with emotion," he told local paper Midi Libre.

"I was shaking. At the same time, the conversation was very relaxed. It was like a call from a friend, nice, very human.”

The Vatican has not confirmed yet whether the phone call took place.

While Francis' predecessor Benedict XVI was an extreme opponent of gay rights – once describing homosexuality as a "defection of human nature" – the most recent Pope has expressed his tolerance towards homosexuality.

During his recent visit to Brazil he said: "If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?"

September 07, 2013 4:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

folks.
did I hear this right ?
Elton John fathered a child, recently, and he is 61 ?

that is the epitome of selfishness.

Period.
gay or straight.

You want a child. You could care less how traumatized the child will be when you die while they are still young.

my children are so caring towards their 87 year old - still walking, talking, driving, very Republican and very outspoken grandma.... my son even cancelled his lifeguarding on the weekend to drive her back to the beach because he was worried about her driving back from Williamsburg with my 88 year old step-father (they were both widowers previously) and I had to work as did my husband.

they walk on pins and needles around her and are so sweet - and I think a lot of it is because they have so many friends that have recently lost their grandparents that they rightly fear losing their grandparents.

so how is it okay, and not even discussed or mentioned, that Elton john decided to have a son at what - 61 or 62 ?

I have thought several times that I wanted just one more... so many times.

my husband kept pointing out that we really can't launch another one - financially or emotionally - they are a lot of work. so we didn't.

so Elton john has at 60+ decided he missed out on something (and yes he did) and just now decides to have a kid ? there is more than just financial support involved.....

September 07, 2013 10:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the idea that Elton John is the second coming of Mother Theresa

he has been a selfish and abusive partner to all the men and women he has ben involved

he now admits this and says he has turned the page

it's worth noting, however, that he has not visited or spoken to his 87-year-old mother, living in a nursing home, for three years

September 08, 2013 8:52 AM  
Anonymous Duck! Incoming facts ahead! said...

"Sir Elton John's mother has denied she sold off her son's memorabilia because she was upset after a row with the singer.

...In an interview with the Sun newspaper, she refused to disclose the details of the incident that sparked off the argument.

However, she described John's partner David Furnish as "going ballistic" ***because of something she had said.***

...In September, Ms Farebrother notoriously sold off 40 platinum and gold discs from throughout the singer's career.

Fans could have potentially bought the disc awarded for Your Song or Candle in the Wind, the star's tribute to Diana, Princess of Wales.

His mother also gave up more personal items for auction including presents and backstage passes especially allocated for her.

When asked by the Sun whether she was being vengeful, she said that she simply had to move the belongings from her home.

Mrs Farebrother sold the collection at Gorringes Auctioneers in Lewes, East Sussex, because ***she has downsized to a new home on the south coast [of England].***

However, it is not thought it is for monetary reasons as ***Ms Farebrother continues to be financially supported by her son.***

...When asked whether she was keen to meet the baby, she said: "***I have no particular interest really.*** You will have to ask them about that."

With Ms Farebrother on her way to becoming a nonagenerian, time could be running out for her to make up with her son."


How about it T, Anon? Are you "financially supporing" your mother so she can afford to move into a new home on the south coast of England in her 80s?

More incoming facts:

Ten Oldest Celebrities To Become Fathers

You'll be sorry to learn Elton John was too young to make this list.

September 08, 2013 3:11 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I thought Candle in the Wind was a tribute to Marilyn Monroe.

I agree with you, Theresa; I think it's unfair to a child to become a parent to an infant at 60.

Is it reasonable to become President at 60?

September 10, 2013 5:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

unfortunately, "duck, incoming facts" had no facts

Elton John, while no monster, is no candidate for sainthood

he hasn't spoken to his mother in years, and he is free to visit whenever he wants

while Leon Russell may consider him an angel for recording an album with him, after he'd been largely forgotten, it was also a good career move for Elton

nothing wrong with that but his personal life isn't anything to boast about

September 10, 2013 5:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I thought Candle in the Wind was a tribute to Marilyn Monroe.'

that was originally true, Robert, but he sang it at Diana's funeral and released that performance as a single, I think giving the proceeds to her foundation

September 10, 2013 5:29 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Thank you.

September 10, 2013 6:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

haven't updated on BO's approval rating lately

currently, only 36% of Americans approve of how he's handling foreign policy

yikes!!!

September 10, 2013 9:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm just not in favor of government regulation favoring homosexuality at the expense of families"

Try to tell us exactly what "expense" you imagine Elton John's marriage and adoption of a child has and continues to cost your family.

Be specific. Let's hear one thing your family has to do without because of Elton John has both a husband and child.

September 07, 2013 2:14 PM


< crickets chirping >

September 10, 2013 9:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Elton John had become a parent before 2005, his partner could have been denied his parental rights because it was not until 2005 that a New Adoption Law Gives Gay Couples Joint Rights became the law in the UK.

Waiting for the law to survive various attacks -- by people like DeviantAnon and the CRW who like doing nothing more than seeking to recall laws ending discrimination against LGBT people -- was exactly the right thing for Elton John to do.

Had the law not been against his partner having equal parental rights when they were younger, Elton John probably would have preferred to become a father at a much younger age, but because of the law favored by homophobes, it was not safe for him to create a family until the laws changed.

September 10, 2013 9:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

your postulating that Elton John, who has been horrible to all his partners, waited to have kids because he was concerned about the partner's rights to the kids ?
really ?

Presidency is a 4 year commitment, not an 18 year commitment, so yes being President at 60 is hopefully not a big deal. Probably preferred given the immaturity our 50 year old President has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate. Of course, that might also be due to the fact that he never had a real job.

September 10, 2013 10:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

like

September 10, 2013 10:28 AM  
Anonymous Reap what you sew... said...

A Russian journalist and gay rights activist has vowed to publicly out any closeted lawmakers who vote for a proposed bill to strip LGBTQ parents of their child custody rights.

Elena Kostyuchenko announced her campaign on Twitter, asking her followers for “information, correspondence, photographs … about the deputies of the State Duma concerning LGBT” activities, according to a translation from David Badash at the New Civil Rights Movement.

Kostyuchenko said she will publish her report outing closeted parliamentarians when the bill to deny LGBTQ parents child custody rights gets its first reading in the State Duma.

She acknowledged that forced outing is an extreme tactic, but said she believes the current anti-gay climate in Russia has grown increasingly dire and now calls for such drastic measure. “Now, it seems such a time has come,” she said.

“This is a warning. They want to destroy our lives, and we will destroy them,” Kostyuchenko added.

September 10, 2013 10:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sow is not spelled sew

in order to out these guys, you have to have a media outlet

hasn't Putin eliminated free press/

btw, say what you will about Putin, Obama is making him look like a responsible global citizen

September 10, 2013 11:00 AM  
Anonymous Syria and Russia are suddenly ready to negotiate over chemical stockpiles said...

"President Obama said Monday it was "possible" for Syria to avert a military strike if it agrees to turn over its chemical weapons.

"It's possible if it's real," Obama told CNN in one of six network interviews he taped on Monday.

"And, you know, I think it's certainly a positive development when, uh, the Russians and the Syrians both make gestures toward dealing with these chemical weapons. This is what we've been asking for not just over the last week or the last month, but for the last couple of years."

The president added that it was his "preference" to "accomplish this limited goal without taking military action."

On PBS, he added that he had discussed the possibility of Suyria's weaons being placed under international control with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"This is a continuation of conversations I've had with President Putin for some time," he said.

All of Obama's interviews were dominated by questions about Syria's offer on Monday to turn over its chemical weapons to international control."


Meanwhile

"Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) voiced skepticism Tuesday about a Russian-brokered deal to prevent a U.S. military strike on Syria.

And

"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Tuesday he is trying to amend a resolution authorizing the use of force in Syria to include a plan to dispatch international monitors to the country to secure its chemical weapons stockpiles.
McCain, who has long led the charge to increase U.S. military presence in Syria and arm the Syrian rebels, said he remains skeptical of any commitment by Russia to pressure Syria to give up its chemical weapons. But he said it is an avenue that needs to be pursued."

September 10, 2013 11:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh thanks for proofreading!

We know we can count on you for some topic changing moronic comment, especially when you can't come up with a single "expense" marriage equality laws have cost you or your family.

September 10, 2013 11:14 AM  
Anonymous We see your true colors shining through... said...

You think Putin "looks like a responsible global citizen!"

September 10, 2013 11:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Oh thanks for proofreading!"

no reason to thank me

showing everyone what a moron you are helps everyone put your other comments in context

it's win-win for everyone

"We know we can count on you for some topic changing moronic comment, especially when you can't come up with a single "expense" marriage equality laws have cost you or your family."

dude, I'm not discussing anything about my personal life on this blog of lunatics

in general terms, however, everyone will be paying higher taxes to support preferences for homosexuals who pick out a steady partner for deviant behavior

suddenly, in addition to funding Jerome's health benefits, employers will now have to fund whatever guy Jerome sodomizes on a regular basis

additionally, many employers will not be able and willing to provide programs to help families now that the universe of beneficiaries have expanded

it's actually now very common when an employer lets an employee off for a family event for a homosexual to march and demand the same time off, or it's litigation time

makes the employer think twice about making accommodations for families

do you understand how that hurts families?

September 10, 2013 1:16 PM  
Blogger Patrick Fitzgerald said...

"which harms no one"

"morality is more complicated … it could be opposed to God's plan for humanity and, thus, wrongdoing"

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I take that to be you thinking that it’s a good thing that you are here to remind us all that harming others can be a good thing.
--
"and sexuality is, yes, an element of character"

No, you’re equating being with behavior. There’s a big difference.
--
"And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:"

And don’t for get ‘dem injuns we damn near wiped out!
--
Too perfect.

"JESUS HAD TWO DADS AND HE TURNED OUT FINE"

Two dads and a mom, and the one dad, via the Holy Spirit, cheated on the other, AND HE STILL TURNED OUT FINE (according to the Bible, anyway).
--
"myself, I don't think he'd [MLK] be supporting the current mindset of equating sexual preference, a character issue, with physical attributes, like skin color"

Perhaps I consider this assertion absurd because I am unfamiliar with it. By redefining orientation as a “preference” and therefore a choice or “character issue” as you put it, could you please explain to the rest of the class how upon recognition of your own personal human sexuality, you learned -- directly and specifically -- how to divine the meaning of right and wrong in your own mind?
--
"he has never RUN ANYTHING before you idiots decided to put him in charge of the US."

George W. Bush was governor of Texas, we spent trillions to do 9/11 to Iraq, hundreds of times over, to cement our reputation in the world as “The Great Satan.”

What more do you want?!

It just occurred to me upon a few seconds more of rereading, I realize now you were talking about the guy who DIDN’T do that.
--
"what you people consistently misunderstand about me is you think I'm anti-gay … I'm just not in favor of government regulation favoring homosexuality at the expense of families"

What about same-sex families? Have you ever considered the cost of your message on those children?

Has your family been directly affected by government recognition of these families? Do you know of friends or family or coworkers who’ve been negatively affected by government recognition of same-sex households?

September 10, 2013 2:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm just not in favor of government regulation favoring homosexuality at the expense of families"

"you can't come up with a single "expense" marriage equality laws have cost you or your family."

"everyone will be paying higher taxes to support preferences for homosexuals who pick out a steady partner for deviant behavior"

What higher taxes, moron? Where is the law enacting higher taxes for straight but not gay married couples as a result of marriage equality? And then specifically tell us which of your family's taxes will go up as a result of marriage equality. Show us the law that puts a higher tax burden on you and your family.

" in addition to funding Jerome's health benefits, employers will now have to fund whatever guy Jerome sodomizes on a regular basis"

Name a single employer who "funds whatever guy Jerome sodomizes" and tell us the mechanism that employer will use for this funding, you idiot. Then tell us how this funding is a cost or expense to you or your family.

"many employers will not be able and willing to provide programs to help families now that the universe of beneficiaries have expanded"

Name an employer and a program for families that will be cut as a result of marriage equality. Then tell us which of your family members will be effected by this program being cut.

"it's actually now very common when an employer lets an employee off for a family event for a homosexual to march and demand the same time off, or it's litigation time"

WTF are you talking about, DeviantAnon? Look at the BS you just spun right there! Get serious and name a single employer who has let an employee off for a family event and been sued by a homosexual marcher.

Your attempts to come up with a single specific "expense" or cost you imagine Elton John's marriage and children have cost your family shows how uninformed and and what a homophobe you truly are.

And you still can't come up with a single "expense" marriage equality laws have cost you or your family.

September 10, 2013 4:44 PM  
Blogger Patrick Fitzgerald said...

"…everyone will be paying higher taxes to support preferences for homosexuals who pick out a steady partner [LTR] for deviant behavior

suddenly, in addition to funding Jerome's health benefits, employers will now have to fund whatever guy Jerome sodomizes on a regular basis [LTR]"

-
Pentagon to extend benefits to same-sex military couples

"The Pentagon plans to extend to legally married same-sex couples the same privileges and programs that are provided to legally married heterosexual couples, including benefits tied to health care and housing, the official said."
-
Do you hate the troops in general, America’s safety, or just heroes like Jerome who volunteer to die to protect your right to express your hatred of them and their families?

September 10, 2013 7:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And you still can't come up with a single "expense" marriage equality laws have cost you or your family"

can't?

not trying and don't intend to

however, I did point out several ways that preferences for homosexuals hurt families in general

and you did nothing to explain why the points I made aren't valid

marriage is between two people of different genders

it is beneficial to society and should be encouraged

sexual relationships between people of the same gender are not marriages, don't benefit society, and shouldn't be encouraged with preferential treatment

September 10, 2013 10:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Like

September 11, 2013 1:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marriages are a lot more than "sexual relationships." They are commitments to love, honor, cherish, and take care of each other for a lifetime.

You say same sex couples have only "sexual relationships" and can't even imagine them making loving lifetime commitments to one another in marriage simply because they don't meet your physical requirements.

You apparently don't see LGBT folks as human beings, but merely as "sexual" beings, which says a lot more about you than it says about LGBT folk.

We all agree that marriage is good for society because we know it's good for society to have people living in family units supporting and caring, and looking out for one another.

But your unyielding support for shunning a substantial part of society and keeping them from having full equal civil marriage rights shows just how full of hate you are.

September 11, 2013 8:06 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Can we stop calling names? It's distracting.

September 11, 2013 10:21 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 11, 2013 4:22 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"what you people consistently misunderstand about me is you think I'm anti-gay … I'm just not in favor of government regulation favoring homosexuality at the expense of families"

We understand you perfectly, it is you who chooses to lie about being anti-gay. People who aren't anti-gay don't constantly demonize gays, advocate prison terms for gay sex, talk about how in America people are executed for nothing while in Iran you have to committ a serious crime to be executed like being gay, and constantly harangue gays to go through the motions of pretending they are heterosexuals, so, no it is most certainly not just a case of "I'm just not in favor of government regulation favoring homosexuality at the expense of families".

Gays pay the same taxes as heterosexuals so deserve the same benefits. Bad anonymous screams about how unfair it is to use taxes to redistribute wealth but here he argues for gays getting less in return for the taxes they pay than heterosexuals - his hypocrisy knows know bounds.

Bad anonymous likes to promote the idea that gays and lesbians are such a tiny minority that they deserve no consideration but suddenly when it comes to them getting the same benefits for their taxes that heterosexuals get he wants us to believe this insignificant minority has a huge impact on heterosexuals - he's a total bullsh*tter.

It is not just to have gays pay the same taxes as heterosexuals and yet receive fewer benefits. Heterosexuals don't have a right to have gays subsidize heterosexual families at the expense of their own families.

That's bad anonymous, loudmouthed and pompous about "wealth redistribution" unless its redistributing wealth from gays to hetersexuals, because in his evil mind gays should be deprived of things to give undeserved bonuses to heterosexuals. He'll lie and say its about the children but lots of gays and lesbians have children and are just as deserving of support as the children of heterosexuals so we all know its only about irrational anti-gay hatred.

September 11, 2013 4:24 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

bad anonymous said "sexual relationships between people of the same gender are not marriages, don't benefit society, and shouldn't be encouraged with preferential treatment".

Wrong. We've been through this many times before and corrected you each time, its time you stopped trying to pass off that pathetic lie.

Same sex relationships encourage people to care for and look after each other, they make both partners happier and more productive, living together conserves the environment, and that in turn benefits all of society.

September 11, 2013 4:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

does that answer your question about calling names, Robert?

September 11, 2013 5:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

here's some interesting thoughts on homosexuality from one of lazy Priya's heroes:

""CANTERBURY, England (RNS) Richard Dawkins, one of the world's best-known and outspoken atheists, has provoked outrage among child protection agencies and experts after suggesting that recent child abuse scandals have been overblown.

In an interview in The Times magazine on Saturday (Sept. 7), Dawkins, 72, he said he was unable to condemn what he called "the mild pedophilia" he experienced at an English school when he was a child in the 1950s.

Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters "pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts."

He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded: "I don't think he did any of us lasting harm.""


September 11, 2013 6:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow. I have had kids at UMD for the past 4 years, and this charge USED to be 600-800.00 bucks or so. we never paid it, because even before obamacare you COULD keep your kid on your insurance if they were a full time college student.... but the spike is pretty darn amazing. It was DEFINITELY less than a 1000 last year, I could go pull out the receipts. So much for "affordable care".

"If your student was billed $1363.00 for Fall 2013 Health Insurance (Student Bursar bill description “Fall 2013 FAL HLTH INS”) and he/she has medical insurance and does not want the Student Health Insurance Plan, the student must complete an online waiver at www.firststudent.com to remove the charge. The student must take action now! The waiver must be completed by September 15, 2013. There are no refunds after September 15, 2013. For full details about the policy and fees, visit the University Health Center web page: www.health.umd.edu For questions call 301.314.8165."

September 11, 2013 6:17 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Pedophilia has nothing to do with gayness and what Dawkins said in no way says recent child abuse scandals have been overblown. Once again you've made a fool of yourself.

September 11, 2013 6:18 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous posted after me and said "does that answer your question about calling names, Robert?" and then followed it up with by referring to me as "lazy priya".

Typical hypocritical bad anonymous, assert my post shows the name calling won't stop and then engage in name calling himself.

September 11, 2013 6:21 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And when Robert made that request I hadn't been commenting, he was referring to bad anonymous.

September 11, 2013 6:27 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And bad anonymous knows he can't compete with me intellectually (because I'm right and he's wrong) so instead of responding to the first comment I made today he tries to change the subject.

September 11, 2013 6:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow!

can dish it out but can't take it

I'd be happy to stop referring to you as lazy Priya if you want to stop calling names

let me know when you want to start

Dawkins has an atheist perspective on morality

he was talking about homosexual activity, male adult teachers molesting male students

about as homo as you can get

only four consecutive posts from the lazy one?

must not be feeling well tonight

but then, who in Saskatchewan could?

September 11, 2013 7:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

priya.
If the partners are married and each makes more than 65K or so, they will pay MORE taxes NOT less for the privilege of being married.
at least in MD.

Positive about this. tax code is QUITE progressive.
Theresa

September 11, 2013 8:04 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And if one makes 65K and the other 35K they'll pay less taxes if married so I don't give a damn about your whining over your $140,000 take home to your million dollar house not being enough.

September 11, 2013 8:13 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "Dawkins has an atheist perspective on morality".

The only correct perspective on morality is the atheist perspective: If no one else is hurt whatever you do is perfectly moral. The christian perspective on morality is subjective and arbitrary, its "If god says it, its moral" - that's not morality at all.

Bad anonymous said "he was talking about homosexual activity, male adult teachers molesting male students".

Common misconception, he was talking about pedophelia, not gayness. Gays are attracted to maleness, to men. Pedophiles are attracted to the lack of secondary sexual characteristics such as smooth skin, softness, and immaturity of children's bodies, they often mention the femininity of a male child's body as being what attracted them. It doesn't matter to them if the child is male or female, its the immaturity that turns them on. Male pedophiles aren't attracted to men so they are not gay. They abuse boys largely because of their accessibility - men are often given private access to little boys but rarely to little girls.

Virtually every pedophile is a male in a heterosexual relationship with an adult female. An openly gay male is about the safest person a male child can be with.

Bad anonymous said "only four consecutive posts from the lazy one?".

Your incredible lack of self awareness is hilarious. You imply that me making more than one comment somehow reflects badly on me but you made 70 of the first 151 comments compared to my 26. You're the unchallenged blowhard on this blog.

And you're still trying to change the subject from the first post I made today because you can't compete with me intellectually (because I'm right and you're wrong) - Gays pay the same taxes as heterosexuals and deserve the same benfits, they should not be subsidizing heterosexual families at the expense of their own - you promote injustice. Gayness brings people together to care for and help each other this makes them happier and more productive which helps the environment and benefits all of society so you're lying when you say gay marriages don't benefit society and shouldn't be encouraged. But of course you knew that (but the truth doesn't matter to you).

September 11, 2013 8:32 PM  
Anonymous flagrancy said...

lazy, lazy Priya

your comments only get a response if there's anything worth mentioning

everyone, for example, knows that most people don't get a benefit commensurate with the taxes they pay

and, yet, that's your argument for homosexual marriage

after all your ranting that Theresa should be taxed more than the benefit she gets

and you make that argument?

talk about lacking self-awareness

or any awareness at all

and how about this:

"The only correct perspective on morality is the atheist perspective:"

so you agree with Dawkins that a little child molestation never hurt anyone?

"If no one else is hurt whatever you do is perfectly moral."

you clearly don't believe this since you are always talking about how the wealthy have an obligation to the poor

obviously, you think they owe them more than just not "hurting" them

I tend to agree, I just don't think government should supervise the activity

"The christian perspective on morality is subjective and arbitrary, its "If god says it, its moral" - that's not morality at all."

you're misinformed

Christians worship God because he is good

oh, then there's this little hilarity:

"Gayness brings people together to care for and help each other this makes them happier"

truth is, most gay relationships are self-centered and focus on sado-masochism

remember when you said that was the "ultimate pleasure"?


September 12, 2013 12:31 AM  
Blogger Patrick Fitzgerald said...

"everyone will be paying higher taxes to support [marriage equality]"

Including gay spouses who file jointly and qualify for credits and benefits?

But I digress. I can see how no longer receiving preferential tax-exempt status to discriminate against your fellow Americans in the name of Jesus might seem like “paying higher taxes,” presuming you’re an imbecile.

Look at it from reality’s point of view, you simply won’t be able to use our own tax money to oppress us with. Not that I’m arguing with the fact that everyone should continue to feel sorry for you (independent of tax filing status), just that you need a more effective way of conveying your message.

Perhaps at one of your next hetero-supremacist rallies you could make up some signs that say things like; "Faith based discrimination should be subsidized … It’s in the Constitution!"

Or "Government hands on my faith based hatred"
Or "Treating gay Americans as Americans infringes on my feelings of superiority"

Or you could run with the whole "what you people consistently misunderstand about me is you think I'm anti-gay"
woe-is-me schtick; "I fully support the IRS to equally recognize the joint-filings of all legally married gay couples as tax evasion." Use your imagination.

Sans sleepytime, I do believe that the organ responsible for that tapestry of inspiration and creativity is one that God intended for us to play with 'til it hurts.

I play with mine all the time, right out in the open in public -- like in line at the grocery store; making decisions, solving the world’s/BranJelina’s problems, determining more effective ways of moving the line along with pop-into-my-head golden spinners like “I see that you have only four items, where as I have an entire shopping cart full, it would be my pleasure to let you go aheadst ofeth me.” You should see some of the looks I get, they’re so grateful they don’t know what to say.

Or at the pharmacy; “Patience, Patrick, the several minutes it took for her to look for the exact change she needed to pay for her heart medication do not warrant your third-eye death rays now that you know she’s come up short and is going home empty handed with a ticker that probably won’t get her back to her car in the lot let alone to the bank and back to the store again.”

It’s almost a form of worship when you think about it.
--
"here's some interesting thoughts on homosexuality [sic]…"

Richard Dawkins: "Just as we don't look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can't find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today," he said."
--
The moral math of it: Richard Dawkins has a moral compass powered entirely by whatever the social standards of the day happen to be + Richard Dawkins is an atheist = All atheists are moral relativists.

Lesson: When smearing the likes of those you despise, it is moral, good and Christ-like to define them by the rantings of the least moral amongst anyone anywhere ever.

Way to raise the criteria for lowering the bar.

September 12, 2013 3:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

just to clear up some confusion:

when I said we'd all higher taxes to support homosexual marriage, I wasn't referring to tax breaks

I was talking about the benefits to be given to gay spouses of public servants

btw, Patrick, your last point was actually on target

not all atheists would share Dawkins view that a little "mild" molestation of minors is harmless

I was just rattling lazy Priya's cage because of lazy P's past exaltation of Dawkins

September 12, 2013 4:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I have had kids at UMD for the past 4 years, and this charge USED to be 600-800.00 bucks or so. we never paid it, because even before obamacare you COULD keep your kid on your insurance if they were a full time college student"

And WITH Obamacare, all of your children who have been on your health insurance policy can continue to be covered by your health insurance policy until they are 26 years old, regardless of being a student, or married, or living with you or not.

If you are stupid enough to buy your kid insurance from that s/he doesn't need rather than filling out the form saying they are covered on you plan, well, that's your problem.

Quit listening to the scare tactics of your fellow Republicans. Obamacare is signed, sealed, and delivering for all of us who know how to read and use its benefits and coverage.

You might want to start here:

https://www.healthcare.gov/can-i-keep-my-child-on-my-insurance-until-age-26/

September 12, 2013 9:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

obviously we have been keeping them on our insurance, as we could before Obamacare as long as you could prove to the insurance company that they were a full time student.

If they are NOT a full time student, then they should have to provide their own insurance because they should be WORKING.

and there used to be lots of cheap policies available for young adults.

I was just commenting on the drastic increase for kids who don't have parents working...this literally used to be about 600-800 bucks as recently as a couple years ago. So it has MORE than doubled for kids who are probably the least likely to be able to pay for it... and it's mandatory.

You all are hurting the folks most that you claim to want to help.

What about that don't you get ?

and priya. I am pretty sure that as long as your combined income if over about 60K, it costs you more not less to file MFJ. the only place it is really a benefit is if one spouse doesn't work.

September 12, 2013 12:36 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "I was just rattling lazy Priya's cage because of lazy P's past exaltation of Dawkins".


I don't recall ever exalting Dawkins, only referring to some of his arguments on occaision. Once again you're pretending your imagination is reality.


Bad anonymous said "everyone, for example, knows that most people don't get a benefit commensurate with the taxes they pay and, yet, that's your argument for homosexual marriage".

Wrong. My argument is that gays deserve the same rights as everyone else. If people aren't going to get the same benefits for the taxes they pay there has to be a good reason for it and there isn't a good reason to treat gay couples unfairly. The fact that most people don't get a benefit comensurate with the taxes they pay is not in itself a justification for giving some more benefits than others as you absurdly imply.


Bad anonymous said "so you agree with Dawkins that a little child molestation never hurt anyone?".

I never said any such thing. He may feel that way about himself but that's the only person he speaks for.


Bad anonymous said "you clearly don't believe [If no one else is hurt whatever you do is perfectly moral] since you are always talking about how the wealthy have an obligation to the poor obviously, you think they owe them more than just not "hurting" them".

I believe in reciprocity. If society hasn't helped you, you have no obligation to help society but if you have benefitted from society and especially if you've benefitted disproportionately as in the case of the rich you owe something back to the society that made it possible for you to be where you are. If an action had to help others to be moral it would be immoral to enjoy a cup of coffee in the morning, sing a song, or take pleasure out of looking at nature. So the fact remains: If you aren't hurting others whatever you do is moral. But gayness does benefit one's partner and the rich are harming the poor by using their wealth and power to tilt the playing field to their advantage and by taking disproportionate benefits from society and depriving the poor. Under Paul Ryan's 2012 tax plan Mitt Romney would have paid a tax rate of less than 1% on the $20 million or so he has each year in taxable income. The rich have gamed the system and made it so those with money have hugely disproportionate say in how society works so they have an unfair advantage. Rich people are four times more likely to lie, cheat, or steal than poor people. If the government doesn't make them pay their fair share they won't do it voluntarily.

September 12, 2013 1:44 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...


I said "The christian perspective on morality is subjective and arbitrary, its "If god says it, its moral" - that's not morality at all."


Bad anonymous said "you're misinformed Christians worship God because he is good".

Wrong. Christians worship an imaginary being, a biblically described moral monster because they were indoctrinated into doing so when they were too young to think critically and see how absurd christianity is. Even christians inately understand that morality is determined by harm, not even the most intensive of indoctrination can completely wipe that out of their minds. That's why when you ask a christian "If your god told you to rape and set fire to an innocent baby and told you it was moral would you do so?" they either refuse to answer or say "God wouldn't do that because god is good". Well, you have no reason to believe your god wouldn't do that unless you have a standard of morality that isn't based on your imaginary god being the source of morality, you only believe your god wouldn't do that because ultimately even your own morality is independent from your imaginary god and based on the bedrock of harm and culpability.

Bad anonymous said "when I said we'd all higher taxes to support homosexual marriage, I wasn't referring to tax breaks I was talking about the benefits to be given to gay spouses of public servants.".

Gay couples in the public service deserve the same benefits that heterosexual couples in the public service get. It is not just for gays to be subsidizing heterosexual familes at the expense of their own. If we put some numbers to bad anonymous's argument based on typical anti-gay assertions we can see how absurd his claim is that "we'd all pay higher taxes to support gay marriages". Antigays often say gays make up no more than 2% of the population at most and very few gays will marry so, let's assume that 1% of the married couples in the civil service are gay. Let's assume that each heterosexual married couple gets an additional $10,000 in benefits for being married. Allowing gays to marry will increase those costs by 1% but that is spread out over perhaps 100 million taxepayers and the total costs for those benefits is likely in the range of .000001% of the federal government's budget so the average increase to each taxpayer to give each married gay couple in the civil service the same benefits a heterosexual couple gets would be probably in the range of 1/1000 of a penny. That's what bad anonymous thinks is fair - gay couples should be denied $10000 they'd get if they are heterosexual because it will cost each taxpayer 1/1000 of a penny to give them equality. Not a persuasive arguement to treat one couple grossly unfairly compared to the next. But then that's bad anonymous's logic: If cutting off a gay person's arm saves a heterosexual a broken fingernail that's a fair trade-off.


September 12, 2013 1:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the hilarity never ends:

"A new study shows that climate change and global warming might actually work to protect the Eastern seaboard of the United States from intense hurricane storms."

not to mention, the flowers now growing in Greenland

keep on truckin"!!

September 12, 2013 1:46 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Theresa said "and priya. I am pretty sure that as long as your combined income if over about 60K, it costs you more not less to file MFJ. the only place it is really a benefit is if one spouse doesn't work."

That could be. However you have the option of filing your taxes seperately so I don't understand all this constant whining about how you have to pay more when you file jointly than you would if you filed seperately.

Theresa's argument also basically says bad anonymous is a liar when he says "what you people consistently misunderstand about me is you think I'm anti-gay … I'm just not in favor of government regulation favoring homosexuality at the expense of families".

Firstly, the government giving gay married couples the same benefits it gives heterosexual married couples is NOT "favouring" gay marriages over straight marriages, its treating them EQUALLY. Secondly according to Theresa those gay couples will pay more taxes by being married than they otherwise would so it financially BENEFITS heterosexual marriages to have gay couples marry.

September 12, 2013 1:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Gay couples in the public service deserve the same benefits that heterosexual couples in the public service get."

why? why not just give any couple of people health benefits? a couple of bridge partners, a couple of bar room buddies, a couple shacking up?

it is in the best interest of society to encourage marriage, which is a committed relationship with both genders represented and contributing the attributes of their genders, designed by the good Lord to be complementary

if one of the genders is left out of a relationship, it doesn't qualify for preferential treatment

September 12, 2013 1:57 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 12, 2013 1:57 PM  
Anonymous Da said...

that's right

it doesn't qualify!!!

September 12, 2013 1:59 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "A new study shows that climate change and global warming might actually work to protect the Eastern seaboard of the United States from intense hurricane storms."

Typical right wing deception through cherry-picking. Global warming might improve things in some areas but it will make things in other areas far, far worse than they are now. If all the sea ice melts ocean levels will rise by 200 feet and much of the Eastern seaboard, all of Florida and much of California will all be underwater. A large percentage of the human population lives near the cost and unchecked global warming will put huge portions of populated areas well under water.

Don't let that deter you from making fatuous comments though.



September 12, 2013 2:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Global warming might improve things in some areas but it will make things far, far worse than they are now."

lazy Priya, you are so full of crap

you've said yourself that global warming has been going on since the Industrial Revolution

but during that time, the quality of life has increased dramatically, life expectancy has increased dramatically, suffering and hunger and disease are increasingly on the run while the globe keeps warming

who wants to go back?

September 12, 2013 2:03 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "Gay couples in the public service deserve the same benefits that heterosexual couples in the public service get."

Bad anonymous said "why? why not just give any couple of people health benefits? a couple of bridge partners, a couple of bar room buddies, a couple shacking up?".

The vast majority of people will tell you that their romantic/sexual relationship is the most important relationship in their life and that is the person they want to make the primary decider in the event of illness or death. Marriage is needed to establish this primacy of relationship and to encourage the ongoing mutual commmittment and support of the partners. Obviously bridge partners or barroom buddies don't share that level of committement to each other and neither they nor cohabitating couples want to establish such tight binds to each other.

Bad anonymous said "it is in the best interest of society to encourage marriage, which is a committed relationship with both genders represented and contributing the attributes of their genders, designed by the good Lord to be complementary".

Your good lord is imaginay, marriage is a human construct and its up to humans to structure it in whatever way is most beneficial to society and what is most beneficial is to include gay couples as this brings them together to care for and support each other, helps conserve environmental resources, makes them happier and more productive which benefits all of society.

Once again, you have nothing to support your bigotry other than religion. There are no rational arguments for denying same sex couples the right to marry.

September 12, 2013 2:08 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "you've said yourself that global warming has been going on since the Industrial Revolution

but during that time, the quality of life has increased dramatically, life expectancy has increased dramatically, suffering and hunger and disease are increasingly on the run while the globe keeps warming".

That's like saying "It's january and I've been burning parts of my house in the fireplace for two months and its warmer than it was since I decided to stop paying the gas bill. I have more money, I'm warmer, I'm happier, who wants to go back and stop burning pieces of my house bit by bit in the fireplace?"

Things are great while you've got lots of unrenewable resources and before you've reached the load carrying capacity of the environment but a crash is unavoidable when you keep pursuing unsustainable activities.

If there's a forest fire approaching your house in a few days you might make things better up until the time it gets there, but the fact that things are temporarily improving doesn't ensure they won't get worse after that.

And by the way, quality of life and life expectancies in North America stopped improving around the 1980's and have actually declined slightly since then.

September 12, 2013 2:16 PM  
Anonymous gettin' a chill said...

"Obviously bridge partners or barroom buddies don't share that level of committement (SPELLING ERROR!!) to each other and neither they nor cohabitating couples want to establish such tight binds to each other."

in your addled opinion, which should not be a basis for denying them equal treatment

"Your good lord is imaginay, (SPELLING ERROR!!) marriage is a human construct and its up to humans to structure it in whatever way is most beneficial to society"

well, if you want to think that way, most humans haven't favored homosexual "marriage" over the years, it's not legal in most states

"and what is most beneficial is to include gay couples as this brings them together to care for and support each other, helps conserve environmental resources, makes them happier and more productive which benefits all of society."

c'mon, most gays have sick and temporary relationships

"Once again, you have nothing to support your bigotry other than religion. There are no rational arguments for denying same sex couples the right to marry."

if there aren't two genders, it isn't a marriage

"Things are great while you've got lots of unrenewable resources and before you've reached the load carrying capacity of the environment but a crash is unavoidable when you keep pursuing unsustainable activities."

you idiot, when the resources aren't renewed, there are plenty of alternatives

there is no magic spot established where the planet is overloaded

"And by the way, quality of life and life expectancies in North America stopped improving around the 1980's and have actually declined slightly since then."

looks like better gas mileage has had a bad effect

"WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) didn't appreciate the advice offered in a New York Times op-ed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"I was insulted," Boehner told reporters Thursday when asked for his "blunt" reaction to the commentary, in which the Russian leader argued that Obama and Americans generally should stop calling their country "exceptional."

"It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation," Putin wrote, apparently in response to Obama's use of that description during his Tuesday appeal to the public to support a strike on Syria.

"There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too," Putin continued. "We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."

September 12, 2013 2:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

maybe we should ask Coretta what Martin thought about global warming

September 12, 2013 2:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"why not just give any couple of people health benefits? a couple of bridge partners, a couple of bar room buddies, a couple shacking up?

it is in the best interest of society to encourage marriage, which is a committed relationship with both genders represented and contributing the attributes of their genders, designed by the good Lord to be complementary

if one of the genders is left out of a relationship, it doesn't qualify for preferential treatment"


Equal treatment is not preferential treatment.

Bridge partners, barroom buddies, and cohabitants have not taken vows to love, honor, and support each other until "death do us part" but any couples who do so pledge, will now be treated equally under the law.

You're the one who wants "preferential" treatment and you want it only for opposite sex marriages that mirror your own lifestyle and religious choices.

You should listen to the Pope and give up your evil ways and go back to being good.

“Your homosexuality. It doesn’t matter. One way or another , we are all children of God. This is why we must continue to be good," the Pope told him."

September 12, 2013 2:37 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Lazy bad anonymous, you've wasted most of your work day f'n the dog on the internet, don't you think its time you got off and did a fraction of the work you're paid to do?

Your heart is obviously not in this, all you're posting is knee-jerk irrational and childish responses. But then we don't expect anything else when I all you've got is the same tired old specious responses I keep tearing apart and making you look like a fool.

September 12, 2013 2:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

keep your bestiality fantasies to yourself, lazy

yes, as I've said repeatedly, marriage between a man and a woman deserves preferential treatment

global warming doesn't seem to be causing any problems

if it does, we can blow up a deserted island in the Pacific every couple of years to moderate temperatures

here on the East Coast of the greatest country in the world, we're lovin' it

September 12, 2013 3:01 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

LOL, Bad anonymous thinks if he puts down the same thrice-refuted argument last he wins.

September 12, 2013 3:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you never refuted your laziness, or anything else

marriages deserve preferential treatment, they are between two people and both genders are necessary to make then function properly

global warming is just change and mankind adopt to slow change just fine

September 12, 2013 3:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""A new study shows that climate change and global warming might actually work to protect the Eastern seaboard of the United States from intense hurricane storms.""

You should ponder the placement of the word "might" in that sentence.

Over at National Geographic, they discuss this study. They report:

"...Meteorologist Jeff Masters, director of the private weather forecasting website Weather Underground, said there are indications that hurricane seasons are lasting longer in recent decades. Hurricanes are most likely to occur between June 1 and November 30, but warmer sea water could extend the season, he said.

"A longer season gives the opportunity for more strong hurricanes to penetrate to the Northeast U.S. in late fall," Masters said. "This would potentially offset any decrease in Sandy-like impacts due to fewer blocking highs forming in a future climate."

CSU's Barnes, the lead author of the study, acknowledged that the possible lengthening of the hurricane season is a factor in the tracks of future storms and that the computer programs used in the study are "imperfect."

"We comment on that in this paper," she said. "The point one should take from our paper is just that these are the best climate models we have, and they do not support the notion that the kind of steering flow that occurred in Sandy will become more frequent in a warming climate."

Kerry Emanuel, a professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology who edited the PNAS paper, said that "changing steering patterns are only a part of the whole problem of how and whether hurricane risk may change in a particular place."

"One must also account for changing locations and times of storm formation, and changing storm frequency and intensity," Emanuel said. "These can very much change the landscape of hurricane risk, so one should be careful in drawing overall conclusions about such risk from just one piece of this problem.""


And while you're pondering such inconvenient facts, here's a study you and Theresa should be aware of.

Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior

"Abstract
Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals. In studies 1 and 2, upper-class individuals were more likely to break the law while driving, relative to lower-class individuals. In follow-up laboratory studies, upper-class individuals were more likely to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies (study 3), take valued goods from others (study 4), lie in a negotiation (study 5), cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize (study 6), and endorse unethical behavior at work (study 7) than were lower-class individuals. Mediator and moderator data demonstrated that upper-class individuals’ unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed."


We *might* add name-calling to this list.

September 12, 2013 4:34 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "you never refuted your laziness, or anything else".

You hid like a coward from the substance of what I said because I did refute you, you knew it and you were afraid to address it because you knew you couldn't respond intelligently. Now all you're left with is hiding from the utter destruction I reeked upon your arguments and lamely making the absurd assertion that I haven't refuted you when you haven't responded to the vast majority of the iron-clad points I made.

Any rational person who reads this blog is well aware I have refuted you repeatedly, thoroughly, and unassailably.

Marriage is a human construct, we are obligated to structure it for the greatest benefits to society. Gay marrige brings people together to care for and support each other, this conserves the environment, makes them happier and more productive and thus benefits all of society. Marriage functions just fine between same sex couples. You consider my husband and me a same sex couple and we are both happier then we've ever been. Your nonsensical assertion that most gay relationships are unstable and based on S&M is just childish and petty. Grow up little boy.

Bad anonymous said "you idiot, when the resources aren't renewed, there are plenty of alternatives".


If we don't start developing and switching to renewable alternatives now there will be a disasterous economic crunch when we run out of unrenewable resources and there aren't readily available renewables in enough quantity to meet the demand of a population that has exploded. Billions will starve before a renewable infrastructure can be built up to replace the easy unrenewable energies we rely on now.

Bad anonymous said "global warming is just change and mankind adopt to slow change just fine".

There's good change and bad change. When 40% of the populated land the world now lives on is under water, and there's a fraction of the fresh water we now have for an overpopulated planet that won't be good change and there will be huge strife because of it. Huge portions of the planet will become too hot to live in and mass re-settlement of hoards of people will be a severely disruptive and entirely avoidable burden on humans taking resources away from making people's lives better and instead spending them on desperately trying (and largely failling) to re-establish what people had on one place in a more remote location.

September 12, 2013 4:40 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymmous said "there is no magic spot established where the planet is overloaded".


That you think there's is no problem as long as there is physical space for more people shows how incredibly uninformed you are about the environment and people's role in it. It takes huge quantities of undisturbed natural land to support each human, provide them with food, oxygen, housing, material goods, absorb their waste products and provide them with adequate clean water. There are many spots all over the world where its obvious the planet is overloaded because millions die from a lack of clean water and polution of existing clean water supplies. That began 100 years ago and has gotten chronically worse ever since. Many areas in the states are suffering from a shortage of fresh water and now you scumbag Americans are trying to buy up Canadian freshwater supplies in bulk to pipe it into the States because you've failed to manage your own resources. Now Natural gas fracking is polluting ground water in epidemic proportions not to mention all the carcinogens its putting into the air.

The business lobby (which includes Obama) is trying to sell natural gas development to Americans as a "clean" alternative to oil and coal because it creates less carbon dioxide to burn but its production releases large volumes of methane gas into the atmosphere which is 10 times as bad a green house gas as is carbon dioxide such that production and use of natural gas actually creates more global warming per energy unit produced than either oil or coal. In addition it takes several million gallons of fresh water to drill each fracked well and that water is treated with a toxic soup of chemicals that can't be treated or released into the water cycle again. It is pumped deep underground thus removing it permanently from the fresh water cycle. There are hundreds of thousands of these fracking wells throughout the U.S. and with the drilling of each one taking millions of gallons of water (a lake about few miles in diameter) this is a growing disaster. Obama has been as bad as the Republicans on this, exempting the fracking industry from the clean water regulations so there is no accountability at all in that industry.

Conservatives sh*t all over alternative renewable energy alternatives every chance they get because they've been bought off by big oil and the want to make sure alternatives never replace dirty fossel fuels in substantial amounts. A good example of conservative ill intentions is their recent efforts to stop the development of wind energy by pointing to the 20,000 bird deaths per year attributed to wind turbines. Being cherry pickers of data like bad anonymous they don't point out that nuclear power plants in the same time kill 330,000 birds and fossil fueled power plants kill 14 million birds per year. Fossil-fueled facilities are about 17 times more dangerous per gigawatt hour of electricity produced to birds than wind and nuclear power stations. Not to mention that domestic cats and birds flying into buildings kill up to 1 billion birds per year each in the U.S. There are carbon neutral ways to produce bio-fuel from plants and algae, but Republican lawmakers have done everything they can to take research money away from that alternative and to instead subsidize every increasing use of fossil fuels. Republican law makers and to a lesser degree democrat law makers are needlessly destroying the future of the planet because they've been bought off by the fossil fuel industry which really calls the shots in the U.S.

September 12, 2013 4:41 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bird deaths and wind turbines.

Now do some of the work you're paid to for a change you lazy bum.

September 12, 2013 4:43 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "global warming is just change and mankind adopt to slow change just fine".

In the long run it'll be hundreds of times more difficult and expensive to "adapt" to global warming than it would be to control carbon emmissions now. Bad anonymous's excuse is just a fool's economy.

September 12, 2013 4:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You hid like a coward from the substance of what I said because I did refute you, you knew it and you were afraid to address it because you knew you couldn't respond intelligently."

how bizarre

cowardice is thought by lazy Priya as not immediately responding to every lazy comment Priya makes

much like the apoplectic idiot last week who instructed to answer their questions very "specifically"

"Now all you're left with is hiding from the utter destruction I reeked upon your arguments and lamely making the absurd assertion that I haven't refuted you when you haven't responded to the vast majority of the iron-clad points I made.

Any rational person who reads this blog is well aware I have refuted you repeatedly, thoroughly, and unassailably."

well, if that were true, you wouldn't feel the need to keep shouting it

sounds like you're trying to convince yourself

"Marriage is a human construct,"

in that case, humans have pretty much concluded that it is a two-gender institution

"we are obligated to structure it for the greatest benefits to society."

there you go again

I thought you said the only obligation anyone has is to not "hurt" anyone else

"Gay marriage(SPELLING ERROR) brings people together to care for and support each other, this conserves the environment, makes them happier and more productive and thus benefits all of society. Marriage functions just fine between same sex couples."

nah, they try to mock their idea of heterosexuality

all types of mental illness are more prevalent among homosexuals

"You consider my husband and me a same sex couple and we are both happier then we've ever been."

believe it or not, I've never stopped to consider how to characterize you and your sexual partner

hard to believe, I know

"Your nonsensical assertion that most gay relationships are unstable and based on S&M is just childish and petty."

it's that what you mean by refuting?

ha-ha!!

the rest of this is lazy Priya repeating stuff and not knowing what lazy Priya is talking about

it's kind of like Leonard Dicapricio in "Catch Me If You Can"

did you know that the IPCC, the U.N. agency that has repeatedly made false and inaccurate statements, is about to release a report confirming that global warming has not appreciably increased in eight years, and admitting they don't know why?

September 12, 2013 9:00 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Yawn.

All your lies have been refuted thoroughly with unassailable logic several times. I can see you're desperate to post them last in the vain hope that then you'll have one the argument but that won't change your dismal performance or the intellectual bitch slapping I've given you.

The last decade has been the hottest on record. If you look at a statistically proper 10 year rolling average of temperatures we see a consistent rise in average global temperatures. Once again, only the dismally ignorant (such as yourself) would think a single year or similar short period of time can show a trend.

A study of nearly 12,000 scientific research papers done by climate scientists concludes that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are to blame for climate change, with a dissenting view held by less than two percent of scientists. The scientific community is virtually unanimous in agreeing that global warming is real and is caused by human activity.

September 12, 2013 11:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The baby comes out, they hold it up and take a look, the doctor checks a box on the birth certificate and there you go, paint the nursery pink or blue and pick a name that fits. Gender is most often correlated with observable genitalia, but sometimes it isn't. The doctor just got it wrong."

It happens a lot, especially to intersex children like this one:

"A South Carolina couple has filed a groundbreaking lawsuit against their home state over a gender reassignment operation performed on their adopted son when he was just a year old.

WYFF 4 reports that the child, who is now 8 years old and identified by the network only as "M.C.," received the surgery after being born with both male and female reproductive organs and identified as intersex. Doctors removed M.C.'s male genitals in April 2006 and he was raised as a girl by his adoptive parents Mark and Pam Crawford, but he now identifies as a boy.

"We don't think that [the doctors who performed the surgery] are evil people," Mark Crawford, who adopted M.C. a few months after the surgery, noted. The Crawfords' lawsuit alleges that the decision to turn M.C. into a girl never went before a judge, nor did the doctors involved ever go before an ethical consultation.

"It's not like he turned into a boy -- he's the same exact child as he has always been," Pam noted.

"We just think that what they did was ill-considered," Mark added. "It was careless."

M.C.'s case is particularly unique because it involves a child in foster care, whereas similar gender-altering surgeries have been under the jurisdiction of parents of intersex children, the report pointed out. Both the hospitals and the doctors named in the lawsuit filed a motion to dismiss the case, which has since been denied.

Meanwhile, the Crawfords say that regardless of the court's decision, they hope the case will serve as a wake-up call to those in charge of children in state care, according to SheKnows."

September 13, 2013 7:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yawn.

All your lies have been refuted thoroughly with unassailable logic several times. I can see you're desperate to post them last in the vain hope that then you'll have one the argument but that won't change your dismal performance or the intellectual bitch slapping I've given you.

The last decade has been the hottest on record. If you look at a statistically proper 10 year rolling average of temperatures we see a consistent rise in average global temperatures. Once again, only the dismally ignorant (such as yourself) would think a single year or similar short period of time can show a trend.

A study of nearly 12,000 scientific research papers done by climate scientists concludes that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are to blame for climate change, with a dissenting view held by less than two percent of scientists. The scientific community is virtually unanimous in agreeing that global warming is real and is caused by human activity."

pretty funny

lazy Priya pretends to be bored but then has enough enthusiasm for another spasm of attempting to self-convince

I take it from the above that lazy is referring to global warming when saying I've been "refuted"

truth is, a head count among scientists is not empirical proof of anything, true science is not a democracy

for example, at the time the APA changed its classification of homosexuality out its mental illness directory, polls show most practitioners in psychiatry believed homosexuality was a mental illness

further, the IPCC and other leading climate scientists have been outed as exaggerating and falsifying data in recent years

alarmist projections rely on a steady progression which has halted for the last eight years and has halted for significant stretches of the last century

none of the "12,000" studies prove the anthropogenic theory of climate change has happened, only that it is possible

solar activity has also correlated with changing temperatures

the depletion of non-renewable resources will eventually necessitate the development of alternative energy sources without governmental intervention

indeed, all sorts of change will likely take place that make extrapolation of current trends dubious

by, 2100, for example, most people may work at home, virtually eliminating the daily commute responsible for much of the carbon in the atmosphere

things have certainly changed for the better since the industrial revolution

and if someone back then had been able to hold back progress because of fear of global warming, as lazy Priya is now suggesting, where would we be now?

OK, well, I won't be on anymore until next week

to avoid confusion, it won't be because some lazy sofa spud in Saskatchewan has "unassailably refuted" me but because I'm heading to the hills of Virginia for a long weekend visiting wineries, staying at inns and eating in five-star restaurants

stay straight and warm everybody!!

September 13, 2013 9:43 AM  
Anonymous Man of the cloth rapes to cure!! said...

'Rape Away The Gay' Pastor Brent Girouex Gets Sentence Reduced

"“Rape away the gay” pastor Brent Girouex, a 31-year-old Iowa man, will not serve jail time for confessing to police that he had sex with at least four youths, according to a recent report from KRMG.

Since that confession, eight additional young men have admitted to being violated by the now-former pastor of Victory Fellowship Church in Council Bluffs, Iowa.

If you don’t want to be appalled, fair warning: you may want to skip over this next section.

Apparently, Girouex thought he could rape away the gay by “praying while he had sexual contact” with his victims in an effort to keep them “sexually pure” for God.

He then allegedly told police that “when they would ejaculate, they would be getting rid of the evil thoughts in their mind.”

Girouex is a married father of four. Since the disturbing revelations have hit the Internet, his wife Erin has spoken out against him and the reduced sentence that he received after initially getting 17 years in prison.

Instead of upholding to that initial ruling, a judge decided to sentence Girouex to five years probation and mandatory sexual offender treatment.

Provided he doesn’t violate the terms of his probation — in other words, victimize someone else — he will not serve a day in jail.

In comments to KCCI, Erin Girouex had this to say about the idea of sending her husband to prison: “If that’s what it takes to get him away from people, then yes … I don’t want (my children) anywhere near him.”

She added that what she wants is for other victims of sexual misconduct to speak out before it’s too late.

Erin plans to file for divorce, but according to KCCI “the hang-up is that her husband wants to see their children.”

Currently, Brent Girouex has a court-ordered, twice-per-month visitation schedule, where he must be supervised by his own mother.

The sentence in this case has many Americans understandably perplexed at the lax attitudes toward sexual violence.

Following on the heels of a Montana judge, who only sentenced a convicted rapist to 30 days in jail after his 14-year-old victim committed suicide, it definitely establishes a horrible precedent."

September 13, 2013 10:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/rules-of-engagement-obama-knows-how-to-kill-our-brave-soldiers-in-12-year-war-73-of-us/question-3921297/?page=1&postId=115623565#post_115623565&link=ibaf&q=&esrc=s

nowhere in the news.
77% of folks killed in Afghanistan were killed under obama

September 13, 2013 10:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well thanks for reminding us of another mess Bush left for Obama to clean up!

And while we're reminding people of dead Americans, let's not forget that all the deaths on 9/11/01 happened when Bush was our President and too busy playing at the ranch to read his PDB.

Oh yeah, and let's not forget who finally made sure bin Laden will not kill any more innocents.

The stock markets up, unemployment is down, and the American automobile industry has been reorganized and is humming along, turning profit.

Thank you President Obama, for cleaning up many of the messes the Bushies left behind.

September 14, 2013 8:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"OK, well, I won't be on anymore until next week"

OK, well, enjoy the weather and thank goodness you are not vacationing here:

"LYONS, Colo. (AP) - By air and by land, the rescue of hundreds of Coloradoans stranded by epic mountain flooding was accelerating as food and water supplies ran low, while thousands more were driven from their homes on the plains as debris-filled rivers became muddy seas inundating towns and farms miles from the Rockies.

For the first time since the harrowing mountain floods began Wednesday, Colorado got its first broad view of the devastation - and the reality of what is becoming a long-term disaster is setting in. The flooding has affected parts of a 4,500-square-mile area, almost the size of Connecticut.

National Guard choppers were evacuating 295 people - plus pets - from the mountain hamlet of Jamestown, which was isolated by flooding that scoured the canyon the town sits in...."

September 14, 2013 8:37 AM  
Blogger Patrick Fitzgerald said...

"when I said we'd all higher taxes to support homosexual marriage, I wasn't referring to tax breaks … I was talking about the benefits to be given to gay spouses of public servants"

Out, damned spouse! out, I say!
---
"I did point out several ways that preferences for homosexuals hurt families in general"

"everyone will be paying higher taxes to support preferences for homosexuals who pick out a steady partner for deviant behavior

employers will now have to fund whatever guy Jerome sodomizes on a regular basis"


Take Home: Marriage increases the Spread of AIDS because marriage equality encourages promiscuity.

Is this the argument you wish to make?

September 14, 2013 8:35 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "truth is, a head count among scientists is not empirical proof of anything, true science is not a democracy".

I never said a head count was proof of anything. What I said is that 12000 research papers showing global warming is happening and caused by humans is a mountain of evidence and it is evidence that proves anthropogenic global warming is true.


Bad anonymous said "for example, at the time the APA changed its classification of homosexuality out its mental illness directory, polls show most practitioners in psychiatry believed homosexuality was a mental illness".

Once again, that classification wasn't removed due to popularity, it was placed in the DSM for popularity, there was no evidence to support the belief that gayness was an illness and subsequent research starting with Evelyn Hooker in the 1950's showed gays were indistinguishable from heterosexuals on common measures of mental health


Bad anonymous said "further, the IPCC and other leading climate scientists have been outed as exaggerating and falsifying data in recent years".

False. The supposed case of falsifying data was hugely overblown, the data that was removed from research was redundant information that is commonly removed from research and had no effect on the statistical analysis that show global warming is real.


Bad anonymous said "alarmist projections rely on a steady progression which has halted for the last eight years and has halted for significant stretches of the last century".

False. There is a lot of fluctuation in global temperatures from year to year and it takes an average of at least 15 years of data to establish whether or not there is a trend. If one does a linear regression of the data from the 1900 on the best fit line shows a steady increase in average temperatures throughout the decade, same thing if one does a rolling average each year by averaging the previous 10 or 15 years of data to smooth out the data set to establish whether or not there is a trend. The past decade has been the hottest on record, there is no halting in the warming over the past century.


Bad anonymous "none of the "12,000" studies prove the anthropogenic theory of climate change has happened, only that it is possible".

False. 97% of those 12000 studies conclude that global warming is happening, not merely that it is possible. All of those climatologists disagree with you.


Bad anonymous said "solar activity has also correlated with changing temperatures".

And all those climate studies provide overwhelming evidence that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are increasing global temperatures.

September 16, 2013 2:32 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "the depletion of non-renewable resources will eventually necessitate the development of alternative energy sources without governmental intervention".

There will be tremendous strife, suffering, and death associated with waiting until fossil fuels give out before getting alternatives in place. Far better to prepare for the future and mitigate the problems than to wait until disaster happens to decide to do something. The response required to mitigate disaster will be far far greater if we wait until it happens than it will if we take action proactively. Its just like saving for retirement, its a lot easier if you start putting away a little money each year when you're young than it is to wait until you're 64 and then try to come up with all you need for retirement.


Bad anonymous said "indeed, all sorts of change will likely take place that make extrapolation of current trends dubious".

The old "Science will save us somehow but I just don't know how." fantasy. That's no different than saying "I don't need to start saving for retirement when I'm young, all sorts of change will likely take place as I get old that will make my lack of saving young unimportant - I could win the lottery!".

The fact is that global warming is happening, its going to have increasingly destructive effects the longer we do nothing about it, and waiting longer will require an exponentially larger effort to overcome the problems compared to acting early. Climatolgy research indicates there will likely be a tipping point in global warming, a time where it will be too late for the actions we can take to get it back under control, like a car going down a mountain and one fails to brake early and then the speed of the car gets so high its impossible for the brakes to overcome the momentum.

Bad anonymous said "I'm heading to the hills of Virginia for a long weekend visiting wineries, staying at inns and eating in five-star restaurants"


That's interesting, when you were making excuses for why you refused to admit you were single you claimed you never talk about your personal life online. No man who's in a heterosexal relationship feels the need to hide that and if you were with a woman you'd be talking about "We" instead of "I". That's okay, its obvious you're a middle-aged single man whose never been in a long term relationship with a woman because you're really a self-loathing gay whose attempting to exorcise his inner demons by attacking the self-accepting gay men he so envies.

September 16, 2013 2:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Transgender Community Steps Closer to Employment Equality

A South Dakota woman’s settlement is the latest in a string of cases that say transgender discrimination is applicable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act


"A transgender woman has reached a $50,000 settlement with her former employer in a discrimination case in South Dakota, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced Monday, accelerating a trend toward equal opportunity for transgender workers.

Cori McCreery, 29, was fired in 2010 after telling her employer at Don’s Valley Market in Rapid City, S.D. that she would be transitioning on the job. Lambda Legal, a legal organization for lesbian, gay, and transgender people as well as those living with HIV, filed a complaint on McCreery’s behalf in 2012 in partnership with the EEOC, saying her employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

McCreery will receive $50,000 according to a statement on the EEOC website and there will be a public notice on the bulletin board of her former employer, Lambda says. The employer will also be responsible for issuing an apology and letter of recommendation to McCreery.

“This comprehensive settlement makes a strong statement about the EEOC’s commitment that discrimination against transgender workers will not be tolerated,” said Dru Levasseur, Transgender Rights Project Director for Lambda Legal said in a statement. “The days of firing people on the basis of their gender identity or gender expression have passed. “

A comment was not immediately available from a representative of the employer in the case.

In April 2012, the EEOC issued a landmark decision for a transgender discrimination case, Macy v. Holder, which classified discrimination based on gender identity as a violation of Title VII, which prohibits work place discrimination. In July, Lambda Legal helped a transgender woman in Maryland reach a settlement after she faced verbal and physical harassment on the job over two years.

Brian Moulton, the legal director for the Human Rights campaign, says while this settlement and those that have come before it represent a positive movement in regard to LGBT rights, Title VII can only do so much.

“The application of Title VII for transgender people is an encouraging trend, but it’s just that—a trend,” Moulton told TIME. “We’re still a ways from being clear to employers across the country on the basis of discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.”

Though Title VII provides protection, there is no federal law prohibiting discrimination against either transgender or lesbian, gay and bisexual people.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, currently 16 states and D.C., along with 150 cities and counties, have laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. Twenty-one states and D.C. have laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would provide that federal protection, was introduced in both houses of the 113th Congress this year. In July, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee approved the bill."

September 17, 2013 12:44 PM  
Anonymous IPCC says ocean is freezing up!! said...

"It seems like it has been 10 years, but in reality it has been less than 10 months since the president’s second inauguration. And as President Obama tries to put Syria behind him, nothing on the domestic agenda looks promising. I don’t know what the opposite of the Midas Touch is, but that’s what Obama has.

To try and regain some momentum and credibility domestically, the president is attempting to pivot back to the economy (yet again.) But his remarks yesterday, on the five-year anniversary of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, seemed tone-deaf, as he lashed out at Republicans on economic issues while the tragic events of the Navy Yard shooting were still unfolding.

‎And while the president loves to surround himself onstage with middle class families while he waxes poetic about how much he’s helping them, the truth is that Obama’s economic policies are only helping the rich get richer. In fact, the Associated Press reported last week that, “in 2012, the incomes of the top 1 percent rose nearly 20 percent compared with a 1 percent increase for the remaining 99 percent.” ‎

This income equality gap — now the largest since the 1920s — shows that Obama’s policies are failing miserably, with the middle class bearing the brunt of his no-growth economy. No president has been better for the 1 percent than Obama.

Obama was also dealt an embarrassing blow this week as Larry Summers withdrew his name from consideration for Federal Reserve Chairman. I wasn’t even for Summers getting the job, but this was another telling sign that the president lacks any political capital on the Hill — among members of either party. If he wasn’t so weak, he might have gotten his pick for the Fed, but as it is, he must defer to the loud voices making demands. The president does not have any influence with members of Congress now, and he isn’t going to have any going forward. I think it’s safe to say he cannot take a leadership role in the looming debt ceiling and budget battles. ‎

And while Obamacare might be taking a back seat in the media to the other pressing issues of the day, the president’s signature legislation is still proving to be more of a headache than a help for his presidency. A recent Wall Street Journal poll shows that only 32 percent of the uninsured said they were “fairly” or “very” likely to go on the Obamacare exchanges. As the October 1 deadline for the exchanges creeps up, the law remains deeply unpopular with Americans. The latest USA Today/Pew Research poll shows that 53 percent of Americans disapprove of Obamacare, “the highest level since it was signed.”

Good grief, even the weather won’t cooperate with the president. A leaked copy of the Fifth Assessment Report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that, ”there has been a 60 percent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice” in the past year, with some scientists now even predicting an upcoming phase of global cooling. The melting ice cap was supposed to be the final canary in the coal mine. Well, the canary is bigger and stronger than ever."

September 18, 2013 3:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

O'Malley doesn't seem to be capturing the imagination of America:

http://towson.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/omalley-places-last-in-national-poll

Democrats are insane. The person who has the most success applying the traditional Democrat argument is Jerry Brown. He has basically performed a miracle in California.

The most successful Republican is Scott Walker.

If America could have these two to choose from in the 2016 general election, we would be discussing the principles and not the performance, which is high for both.

Will America get that lucky?

We'll see.

September 19, 2013 10:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

as the IPCC report nears release, pressure is increasing from governments and advocates of the anthropogenic global warming theory to delete portions of the report that now the slowing of global warming over the last 15 years

this is typical of the new politicization of science in the last couple of decades

September 20, 2013 9:01 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

As one can see from these graphs of average global temperatures there has been no slowing of global warming. Bad anonymous is simply a liar. The only politicization of science has been by Republicans trying to deny what science shows and to muffle the scientists pointing it out, even to the point of rewriting scientific reports to say the exact opposite of what the scientists originally concluded.

A study of nearly 12,000 scientific research papers done by climate scientists concludes that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that humans are to blame for climate change, with a dissenting view held by less than two percent of scientists. The scientific community is virtually unanimous in agreeing that global warming is real and is caused by human activity.

As is the case with evolution, there is no controversy whatsoever in the scientific community about global warming being real. The only people who disagree are ignorant civilians and paid spokespeople for the fossil fuel industry.

Bad anonymous can and will childishly continue to repeat his pathetic lies but that will never refute the obvious truth.

September 20, 2013 2:33 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And as far as the U.S. economy goes: The unemployment rate continues to drop, average hourly pay has increased and housing starts have increased 7%. despite ongoing Republican efforts to block economic stimulus and harm the economy as much as possible. The gap between the rich and poor has continued to increase thanks to Republican class warfare.

September 20, 2013 2:47 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home