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.

I have to add that, of all the articles that seemed completely innapropriate to be segregated on "Broadsheet," this one is the worst offender. If an article that discusses a female athlete that tests as intersex, which is written by a man, and calls into question the whole issue of sex and gender, isn't appropriate for the Salon audience as a whole then geez, what the hell is?

Well gee, I'm sooooo sorry that I (and many other American Jews) have a nuanced view of not only candidates for high office, but for policy in Israel. I know it disappoints Mr. Podhoretz (senior) that we don't all fall in line behind hart-right Likud policies; bummer for him.

Lots of American Jews base their opinions of candidates on things like health care, national defense, social safety-net issues, and many other things, some of which Republicans lag very far behind in. And many American Jews do not view Palestinians as "the enemy," think that settlement building should be halted, don't want the Knesset to be in thrall to people from the Shas party, feel that splitting Jerusalem is problematic but probably inevitable, and so on.

I have to say that, for me personally, I am heartily sick of the fact that the Jews with the highest profile are neocons, especially given that Jews as a whole vote (according to Mr. Podhoretz) 75% Democratic. I'm very tired of being lumped in with loons like Podhoretz, Kristol, Goldberg, and their ilk. High time we had some left-leaning visibility.

Smart people can do nuance; I guess Norman Podhoretz can't. Tough luck, there, Norm.

Glenn: in either her last or next-to-last book, Molly Ivins posited exactly the same thing. She pointed out that the press gave--indeed, demanded--a lengthy honeymoon for Reagan and Bush I, but began attacking Clinton even before he took office. And she noted this while Bush was still President. So I think you're correct.

I think the intensity of the hatred of Obama in some quarters is worse than it was for Clinton, but you are right in that it is hardly unprecedented.

It's a real woman! Thank friggin' God!

Boobs, hips, butts . . . women have those. Twiggy size zero models don't. Keep the anorexic ones and give me the Monica Belluccis and Crystal Renns of the world any day.

Now if we can just transport this idea to Hollywood . . .

Followers of the Chicago school of economics and supply-siders have been in charge of the economy pretty much continuously for the last 28 years or so. It has been a lengthy--and painful--experiment, and only a reality-blind individual could argue that the theories have been completely and decisively disproved. Supply-side economics doesn't work . . . well, unless your goal is to drive up the deficit, create massive debt, and explode income inequality.

The reason Keynes is back in vogue is because he, and his proponents such as (let us not forget!) Nobel Laureate Krugman, is because the Chicago school has been shown to be so spectacularly wrong.

As such, it is no surprise that members of that school and their supporters--such as that idiot Luskin--have nothing to do but descent to pedantry, quibbling, and personal attacks. It is unconvincing, as well as obnoxious. And no matter how much smoke people like Cochrane throw up, it will not change the fact that they had their innings, and it didn't work.

In a just world, these people would turn beet red in embarrassment and crawl away in defeat. Alas, they are on the right wing, which means we will have to endure many, many years of their tantrums. Sigh.

Thomas, I'm just glad you watch Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs so I don't have to. They give me brain pain.

Thomas, I'm just glad you watch Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs so I don't have to. They give me brain pain.

Let's hope we don't start to hear a lot of crap about Rahm "taking the Lord's name in vain." The typical interpretation of this is that you shouldn't say "God Damn!", but for a Jew it is usually interpreted as meaning you shouldn't use the name of God to justify your position on something (a stricture that would make the vast majority of right-wing Christian congresscritters sinners, but I digress).

However, given how most people behave, I expect we're going to start hearing a lot from the holier-than-thou crowd directed at Rahm for the next little while.