Perhaps the only way to resolve this dilemma is to simply bite the bullet and let men and women compete against each other in all sports. In some sports only men would win at the elite levels (although I think that in shooting, archery, equestrian, fencing, and some others would see more equality); in some, only women (I wouldn't expect to see too many men winning uneven parallel bar competitions). This would be inherently unfair in many ways, but it would certainly address the issue. And it could be argued that it wouldn't be any more discriminatory than basketball is against short people, or football against the normal-sized. It would also allow the intersex such as Semenya to compete, answering Yokohama'bama objections above moot.

Perhaps the way to "segregate" sports is to include "weight classes" or "size classes" as they do in sports such as wrestling and boxing. I don't know.

I'm not being facetious here. As a guy who competed against a female sabre fencer for a spot on the squad (they didn't have women's sabre back in the day), and who had a women as the varsity soccer coach in college, maybe I'm an outlier. But it does seem fairly binary to me: either we all compete together and accept the fact that very few women will be able to compete against men in, e.g., running or football, or we define what is meant by "man" and "woman" in the area of sports, and leave out folks like Semenya, further isolating them as Yokohama'bama notes.

Nothing like well-reasoned, cogently stated debates, is there gentlemen?

Joan, my quibble is that Obama said that the "driving force" behind reforming health care has been to make sure everyone has access to "coverage." I think that is very, very wrong, and a terrible concession to the insurance industry. (An industry that I, unlike Obama, wouldn't mind seeing dry up and blow away, as I truly believe that they are simply parasitic, and provide no service to the public at large.)

No, I think what we want is to ensure everyone has access to health care, and coverage be damned. By providing this node to the insurance industry, he has automatically linked health care reform to the continuance of that industry, and I (and a lot of other progressives, I'm sure) think that is a horrible, horrible mistake.

Republicans are right in one way: I do view the "public option" as a stalking horse for what we really want, which is single-payer. But when Obama talks to progressives about "compromise," I feel he is forgetting something: his "progressive friends" have already compromised by swallowing hard and allowing single-payer to be taken off the table from the beginning of the debate. Asking for further concessions is like telling a guy who just amputated his own leg, "Okay, that's a start, but if you really want to show bi-partisan spirit, you need to amputate the other leg before we start talking about me trimming my toenails."

Okay, so maybe this isn't a quibble. Sorry 'bout that.

This guy is the textbook definition of "shifty-eyed." How anyone with an ounce of sense could vote for a jerk-weed like this is, quite frankly, baffling to me.

No; the driving idea behind reform has been to make health care affordable, not health coverage. And the way to do that is to take the profit motive out of it. Like with single-payer, or a public option.

On this one, Obama is simply wrong. I could give a rip if the insurance companies' health divisions go bankrupt and cease to exist; I care very much to make health care in this country affordable for all.

The surprise at the White House (and in Congressional offices) at the rage of the left over the (seeming) death of the public option is, well, a surprise. It's so simple. The left wants single-payer. The lawmakers took that off the table right from the start. So from our perspective, we've already made a huge compromise. Now it's time for the spineless, compromising, accommodating, appeasing lawmakers to make theirs. We're done. Simple.

When you start the operation by chopping off someone's leg, and then say, "Well, now let's compromise by you chopping off your other leg before we talk about me trimming my toenails," don't expect the one-legged man to be pleased.

Well, I think that the answer to the question depends on how the study's authors define "liberal" and "conservative." If we go by classic definitions, rather than the dreck that's peddled by Democrats and Republicans these days, that would imply that (as you said) liberal means "more government", while "conservative" means less government, lower taxes, and so on.

Under this rubric, it's easy to say the way in which Dads would become "conservative;" if they're the ones working and paying the bills, they want less of their takehome pay deleted for tax purposes, and they're the ones having to deal with the incredibly arcane and stupid tax policies. So it's easy to fall into a mindset where you think, "We need a flat tax, because it's simpler and fairer; government is taking too much of my money--I need it for my family; government is spending my money on stupid shit like rockets to the moon and midnight basketball--I need it to pay my medical bills;" and on and on.

Just a guess. Most people don't think very creatively, and so it's easier to say, "Stop taking my money!" than it is to think, "Gee, if they took a tiny bit of money from people making over $250,000, then maybe my health care expenses would go down."

I can only imagine what would happen to Ms. Goldman had she been forced to endure a men's locker room in high school. She's worried about toenail clippings? Honey, you go into a men's locker room, and it's foot fungus and hepatitis and God knows what else; an overweight naked guy stretching out would be the least of my worries.

Good Lord.