A way for both Romney and Obama to give millions to a Hurricane Sandy charity

The Ohio Democratic Party Chairman, knowing that Mitt Romney is a wealthy man, who might have some extra millions lying around, has suggested that Romney give those dollars to a charity that helps Hurricane Sandy victims:

Mitt Romney should have donated $10 million to the Red Cross instead of ‘taking advantage of a tragedy’, the Ohio Democratic Party chairman has said.

‘I think Governor Romney ought to be focused on things he could do and say on behalf of the victims, rather than going to Dayton Ohio – the most important swing state in the country – and taking advantage of a tragedy,’ said Chris Redfern according to the Washington Post.

‘Look, I’m a partisan. I’ll let others judge this. But I think someone of Governor Romney’s wealth could have just written a check for $10 million to the American Red Cross and then spent today with his family. He chose to do something much different. He chose to politicise this.’

That’s almost a good idea.  Here’s the really good idea:

Obama has waiting for him a $5 million check made out to the charity of his choice.  With that money out there, Mitt should make Obama a deal. Obama’s obligation under the deal is to produce his academic records and passport application, by Friday afternoon.  He can do this easily enough by authorizing Occidental, Columbia, Harvard and the State Department to release the records on an expedited basis. For something this big, those organizations should be able to act quickly.  If Obama gets the records released by Friday afternoon, Mitt will donate another $5 million to that same charity.

I think that’s fair, don’t you?

A public service announcement guest poster John O’Connor: Medication and hearing loss

(Bookworm note:  This guest-blogger post deviates from other guest posts that have focused on political or social issues.  John O’Connor’s post is about hearing loss from medication, which is not something I usually talk about at my blog.  However, I’ve spent about 30 hours (including driving time) over the last few weeks taking my mom to the audiologist to get fitted for a hearing aid.  It’s a very time consuming process, since they first tested her hearing, then they took a mold of her ear canal, and then they spent a very generous amount of time tweaking the hearing aid to optimize her hearing experience.  The hearing aids are very good, but they do not “cure” her hearing loss; they just amplify sounds in an impressively sophisticated way.  It would be nicer if she had more hearing.  One way to protect your hearing is to avoid loud noises.  Another way, it turns out, is to minimize your use of certain widely available medicines.)

Guest post by John O’Connor

How Medications Can Affect Hearing Health

Since hearing loss affects over 25 million people, experts are constantly searching for answers to the problem. Medications, such as pain killers and antibiotics, have been a culprit in hearing loss. When people get sick, they may need antibiotics and other pain killers to alleviate the symptoms. Since most people only need medications for illnesses, it is more important to remain healthy in than in the past to avoid undesirable side effects. Many factors affect health, and a healthy immune system can help to combat most ailments that may occur.

Women, Pain Killers and Hearing Loss

Pain killers, such as ibuprofen and paracetamol, may be linked to increased risk of hearing loss according to Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH). Women who ingested over-the-counter painkillers on two or more days per week were at risk for hearing loss. The risk is even higher for people over the age of 50 who consume six or more ibuprofen weekly. According to this study, there was not link found between aspirin use and hearing loss.

Studies have also shown that anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen may deplete nutrients from the cochlea. The depleted nutrients may be essential in protecting the ear from damage. Anti-inflammatory drugs actually decrease blood flow to the ear. Decreased blood flow may result in too little oxygen or other nutrients reaching the ear to keep it healthy. This is why there should be a balance between too little blood flow and too much blood flow to the ear to avoid premature hearing loss.

In one 14-year study, over 62,000 women who were frequent ibuprofen users between the ages of 31 and 48 were examined. At the end of the study in 2009, over 10,000 women had reported some form of hearing loss. This was astounding and led to more studies of its kind.

Hearing Loss and Aspirin

In general, researchers at the University of Michigan, which is one of the top ranked hospitals in the United States, found that aspirin could reduce the risk of hearing loss if taken in conjunction with other medications such as antibiotics. People in the placebo group had a higher incidence of hearing loss when taking antibiotics without aspirin than people who took aspirin with antibiotics. This is great news for doctors who frequently prescribe antibiotics and want to reduce the patient’s risk for hearing loss. An aspirin can be taken in conjunction with the antibiotics now to alleviate the problem.

Men, Aspirin and Hearing Loss

Other studies show aspirin affects men differently than women. Men who consumed aspirin were more likely to develop hearing loss. This seems contradictory to the findings for women and the general population. More information must be gathered to prove either finding conclusively. Additionally, this study may have only held true for a particular age group. Aspirin appears to affect men and women differently.

Remain Healthy to Avoid Harmful Side Effects

Hearing aids are available to improve the quality of life for individuals who suffer hearing loss due to pain medications. A healthy lifestyle is recommended rather than suffering hearing loss due to over-medicating or self-medicating. Consider healthy living alternatives to maintain good health.

Didn’t find it on Facebook: the Navy SEALS’ poster attacking Obama on Benghazi

Usually, I post about what I’ve found on Facebook — the anger, the silliness, and the misinformation from my Liberal friends.  Today, I’m doing something different.  I’m posting about what I didn’t find on Facebook.

You see, Facebook was apparently unwilling to tolerate a poster that suggested that Obama had been less than courageous when it came to protecting the people under his command.  (And although Woods and Doherty were no longer with the SEALS when they died, they worked for the CIA, making the President their CEO on the chain of command.)

We here at Bookworm Room do not share Facebook’s bias, and are happy to make this poster available to you:

Yes, Facebook is a corporation and we agree to abide by its terms of service when we choose to use it. I’m not planning on boycotting Facebook, because I find it useful and interesting. However, those two facts don’t mean that I’m willing to let Facebook get away with censoring appropriate political content. (And by “appropriate” I mean that this poster makes a genuine political point, it is not racist or antisemitic or in any other way hate-filled, it’s not X-rated, etc.) If Facebook won’t allow its users to distribute this image, it’s up to the rest of us to do so.

For more information about the Special Operations community’s unhappiness with the Obama administration (he uses them and abuses them, so to speak), go here.

A very good idea for recognizing Woods’ and Doherty’s bravery and sacrifice

The Mellow Jihadi suggests official recognition for the unusual bravery Lance Woods and Glen Doherty showed in their final hours.  I realize that such recognition will not bring these men back, but acknowledging their sacrifice is something we do for the good of the country.  If we cannot honor those who died in our service, and if we cannot give exceptional honors to those who died in exceptional ways, we are not deserving of their sacrifice.  I would also extend some official recognition to Sean Smith and Christopher Stevens, both of whom died in the service of their country — and abandoned by their country.

Of course, this being Obama’s Benghazi, Bruce Kesler points out a few teeny-weeny problems with giving these men the posthumous credit they so valiantly earned.

An email I received talks about subjects of interest to America’s veterans and active duty troops

I cannot vouch for the facts in this email I received, so please take that into consideration as you read it:

From my personal experience at Bagram last year, when the “Commander-in-Thief” came over, the troops were handpicked, screened, and disarmed, including the Marines. All base roads, sidewalks, and access to flight lines, mess halls, etc. were restricted and totally blocked with heavily armored vehicles. No vehicle movement of any kind was allowed – including flight crews! He is truly an enemy sympathizing coward and worthless POS! You may quote me. “Hostile”

Additionally……

More than 1,000 American soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan in the last 27 months. This is more than the combined total of the nine years before!

Thirty have died in August. During the last month, over 50 additional NATO and US servicemen have been murdered, “inside jobs” by those who are hired to be a force for good in Afghanistan.

The “Commander in Chief” is AWOL! Not a peep, although he ordered the White House flag flown at half staff for the Sikhs that were killed.

There is a deep disgust, a fury, growing within the ranks of the military against the indifferent incompetence of this president.

It has taken on a dangerous tone. No one knows what to do about him, but the anger runs deep as the deaths continue with no strategic end in sight to the idiocy of this war.

Obama has had 4 years to end this futile insanity, during which time he has vacationed, golfed, campaigned, and generally ignored the plight of our men and women in uniform.

But, there is now a movement afoot in the armed services to launch a massive get out the vote drive against this president.

Not just current active duty types, but the National Guard, Reserves, the retired, and all other prior service members. This is no small special interest group, but many millions of veterans who can have an enormous impact on the outcome of the November election if they all respond.

The million military retirees just in Florida alone could mean an overwhelming victory in that state if they all show up at the polls. It might not keep another one hundred U.S. troops from dying between now and November, but a turn out to vote by the military against this heart breaking lack of leadership can make a powerful statement that hastens a change to the indifference of this shallow little man who just lets our soldiers die.

Veterans: Please forward to your lists. High Priority!

Lingering fall-out from our trip to Japan

Our family has traveled a great deal, but I think few trips have affected us as much as the Japan trip we took this summer.  Two things account for that:  First, we took a comprehensive tour, so we saw more than we usually see on a trip.  Second, Japan is so very different from America.  Our European and even our Mexican trip have been to familiar cultures.  Japan, however, even though it has a Western gloss, was a radically different culture from any we’d previously experienced.  It’s therefore not surprising that the trip lingers on in our memories.

One of the downsides of the trip is that the kids are currently refusing to eat any Japanese food.  They’ve always been fairly adventurous eaters, and they liked a lot of the food we had in Japan, but it got to be too much for them.  In the months since our return, every suggestion that we enjoy some Japanese food for dinner (sushi, for example, as I have a gift card to this nice place) has been met with a resounding “No.”  I got one of those loud “Nos” just yesterday, when I was trying to avoid cooking dinner, so the subject is on my mind right now.  I assume that one of these days the children’s overloaded circuits will reset, but until then, it seems that Japanese restaurants are no longer part of our dining-out repertoire.

Another thing the has stuck with all of us is how immaculately clean Japan was.  Just yesterday, my son kept asking me to explain again why the Japanese have no garbage cans in public places (answer:  to limit the risk of hidden bombs or toxins) and why, if they have no garbage cans, Japanese streets, train stations and subway stations are entirely free of litter (answer:  the Japanese responded to the absent litter bins by carrying their own trash away).  Both kids came way with a heightened sense of social responsibility after having seen Japanese civic honesty and cleanliness in action.

We are also contemplating bringing a little bit of Japan home.  Our Japanese trip offered us some of the worst and some of the best toilet experiences we’ve ever had when traveling.  The worst were the squat toilets in public places outside of Tokyo.  We mastered them, but not happily.  Moreover, I kept wondering how in the world arthritic people manage to deal with them.  The best toilets, though, were the ones with the bidet seats (like these, at Bidetsplus.com).  They’re such a marvelous hybrid of cleanliness and efficiency.  Instead of trying to squeeze a stand-alone bidet into a small bathroom (and Lord knows, all the bathrooms were small), the Japanese turned every toilet into a bidet.  I won’t gross you out with details of their wonder (but you can see product videos here, which are cool), but suffice to say that they are wonderful — and affordable, and easy to install.  We’re thinking of giving these bidets as a gift to ourselves this holiday season.  They’re affordable decadence.

 

Tuesday morning flotsam and jetsam Open Thread

My brain hasn’t yet synthesized all the fascinating data out there, including the wrenching stories of Sandy’s devastation.  For the time being, I’ll just pass interesting links on to you.  Please feel free to do the same.

***

The former Commander of the United States Pacific Fleet has written a white-hot article excoriating Obama and his administration, based upon what we know to date about events in Benghazi.  Because the White House is withholding information, and because the lap dog media is refusing to seek information (or even to talk about Benghazi), I have no problem with convicting Obama et al on the information currently available.  If that crew wants a full and fair trial in the court of public opinion, it had better start releasing reliable information.

***

There’s a fascinating story in my local paper today about a grocery store chain called Mi Pueblo.  It was founded as a Mom-and-Pop store by a pair of illegal immigrants.  It’s now a large, legal chain serving the Hispanic community throughout California.  It’s also a law-abiding chain, in that it uses e-verify to make sure that it’s employees aren’t illegal immigrants.  Here’s the interesting part:  by abiding with federal law, the store has incurred the wrath, not only of the illegal immigration ground, but of SEIU.  Yup, the unions are furious that as store refuses to employ illegals.  Think about that:  unions used to fight illegals, because they were seen as taking jobs away from legal American workers.  Now, unions see the effort to stop illegal immigrants from working as a nefarious plot to weaken the unions. Legal American workers — those who are native-born or have green cards — should think long and hard about what the unions what to do for them.  At the moment, it looks to me as if the unions aren’t out to protect workers, they’re out to protect unions.

***

Victor Davis Hanson nails the fantasy-based “reality” that keeps affluent Californian’s voting for Democrats.  I live surrounded by this mentality:

Did California’s redistributive elite really believe that they could all but shut down new gas and oil production, strangle the timber industry, idle irrigated farmland, divert water to the delta smelt, have 37 million people use a highway system designed for 15 million, allow millions of illegal aliens to enter the state without audit, extend free medical programs to 8 million of the most recent 11 million added to the population, up taxes to among the highest in the nation, and host one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients — and not have the present chaos?

The California schools — flooded with students whose first language is not English, staffed by unionized teachers not subject to the consequences of subpar teaching, and plagued with politicized curricula that do not emphasize math, science, and reading and writing comprehension — scarcely rate above those in Mississippi and Alabama. Did liberals, who wanted unions, a new curriculum, and open borders, believe it was good for the state to have a future generation — that will build our power plants, fly our airliners, teach our children, and take out our tumors — that is at the near-bottom in national test scores?

Do Bay Area greens really believe that they that will have sufficient water if they blow up the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir? Did Barack Obama think that the Keystone pipeline or new gas and oil leases in the Gulf were superfluous, or that we do not need oil to make gasoline, wheat to make flour, or to cut timber to produce wood?

Did liberals (and their hand-in-glove employer supporters who wished for cheap labor) think that letting in millions from Central Mexico, most without legality, English, or a high school education (and in some sense at the expense of thousands waiting in line for legal admission with capital, advanced degrees, and technological expertise), was not problematic and that soaring costs in law enforcement, the criminal justice system, the schools, and the health care industries were irrelevant?

***

Reagan famously said “Trust, but verify.”  In an internet age, one has to say “verify before you trust anything.”  Case in point?  A Halloween costume a young Boston Democrat put together to mock Tea Partiers.  It features her grimacing, while holding a misspelled birther sign.  Well, it went viral on the internet, not as a spoof, but as a “genuine” picture of a deranged young Alabama Tea Partier.  The young woman involved (who did not intend to prank anyone), has learned a valuable lesson about her own political party.  Maybe in a few years, she’ll be a true Tea Partier — and a nicer person for it too.

***

Jonah Goldberg scolds the mainstream media for its incredible lack of curiosity about Benghazi.  Goldberg doesn’t see a conspiracy.  He sees liberal group-think that is so all-encompassing that the media people think candidate George Bush’s alleged conduct in 1974 is more important than President Barack Obama’s conduct in September 2012.

***

While Jonah Goldberg is willing to damn the media with faint praise (stupid, not evil), Thomas Sowell is not so kind about the administration.  He thinks that, when it comes to Benghazi, there’s a giant con going on.  I think he’s right.  (Is it redundant to say that one thinks that Thomas Sowell has made an intelligent, accurate argument?  Doesn’t the name Sowell already encompass that description?)

***

Keith Koffler does a great job summing up the way in which Obama has demeaned the presidency.  We thought the Clinton presidency already did that but, looking back, that’s not quite accurate, Clinton demeaned himself with a variety of scandals, but he managed to stay presidential when he was in the business of politics (rather than the business of shtupping the help).  Obama, however, has demeaned the presidency itself, by using sex, obscenities, and insults within the context of politics.

***

Of course, when it comes to demeaning the office of the presidency, Obama is getting a lot of help.  Witness this obscenity-laden video that purports to show members of the “Greatest Generation” engaging in vulgar trash-talk against Romney.  Those elderly people who honor dignity should be offended by this, even if they’re Democrats.

***

This is a lovely article that uses a faux debate to draw a devastating contrast between Barack Obama and Winston Churchill.

***

And here is another devastating contrast:  the vast cultural divide between Lena Dunham, who coos that voting for Obama is like losing ones virginity, and Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, who fought to the death to save others.  Sadly, their Commander in Chief came from the Dunham side of the cultural divide, and left them to die alone in a Libyan hellhole.  (Incidentally, Tyrone Woods left behind an infant son.  If you would like to donate to a fund for that little boy, Power Line recommends this legitimate organization.  It’s an easy way to donate.  I was able to use PayPal, so I put some of the money you guys have so generously sent me towards Baby Boy Woods’ education.)

Cross-posted at Brutally Honest

Has Obama lost the inner city?

I suspect this is a bump, not a groundswell, but it’s amazing nevertheless:  inner city blacks say that overwhelming government interference in the economy stifles the kind of economic growth their communities need:

(I removed the video, because the embed code is one of those annoying ones that makes the video play automatically.  Please check it out here, though, because it’s well worth seeing.)

It is worth keeping in mind that, at the end of the day, the only color that ever really matters is green — and that’s not environmental green, it’s dollar bill green.  Once people understand how to make the important green grow, they will follow the money.

Is Benghazi the most complete cover-up ever?

The Anchoress has noticed something interesting:  The Benghazi cover-up is so huge that the drive-by media isn’t doing it’s usual lying, puffing, and obfuscation.  Instead, it’s fallen completely silent.  It is pretending that Benghazi never happened.

Sherlock Holmes certainly understood that, when wrongdoing is at issue, silence is as significant as noise:

Silver Blaze“, one of the 56 Sherlock Holmes short stories written by British author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, is one of 12 in the cycle collected as The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes. Doyle ranked “Silver Blaze” 13th in a list of his 19 favourite Sherlock Holmes stories.[1]

One of the most popular Sherlock Holmes short stories, “Silver Blaze” focuses on the disappearance of the titular race horse (a famous winner) on the eve of an important race and on the apparent murder of its trainer. The tale is distinguished by its atmospheric Dartmoor setting and late-Victorian sporting milieu. It also features some of Conan Doyle’s most effective plotting, hinging on the “curious incident of the dog in the night-time:”

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”

When are we going to admit that there is a war going on between us and radical Islam?

I’m guessing that a majority of Americans (a slim majority, but still a majority) know that America entered WWII because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.  What few stop to consider is why we ended up fighting, not only the Japanese who had just bombed us, but the Germans as well, since they, after all, had not yet done anything to us.  The answer to that unasked question is that, for reasons known only to a megalomaniac, a few days after the Pearl Harbor attack, Hitler declared war on the United States.  The United States took up the challenge with gusto.  Within months, America had become a war machine, cranking out ships, tanks, guns, airplanes, and trained troops.  If Hitler hadn’t acted, Germany might have won the war.  England, after all, was on the ropes by the time America came in to help out.

It’s a little chilling to think that, were we to replay December 1941 with Obama in the White House, America would simply have ignored Germany’s declaration of war.  We would have heard that we have no quarrel with the Germans, who are a peaceful people, except of course for a handful of madmen.  We would have been told that, if these madmen killed our citizens, we would bring the actual killers to justice, but that we had no quarrel with the nations or ideology that gave birth to those killers and that are hard at work to raise an army of madmen.

As our administration and media talked, Hitler would have tightened his grip on Europe; fought a single front war against the Soviet Union; killed all the Jews, Gypsies, mentally disabled, and homosexuals in Europe; and then enslaved all Slavs and Communists (never mind that Naziism was a variation of socialism itself).   At the end of the day, our government would have said that we’re scarcely in a position to criticize the Nazis, since America was once a slave country itself.  Congress would then have announced economic sanctions, but the Executive office would have failed to enforce them.

But we don’t need a hyp0thetical December 1941 to imagine what our current administration would do.  We can watch it in real-time today.  There is a saying that “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt” — and it’s funny that you should mention Egypt right now.  As if 9/11/01 and 9/11/02 weren’t strong enough declarations of war, Islamist clerics are actively calling all Egyptians to wage war against the west, starting with kidnapping:

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has urged Egyptians to restart their revolution to press for Islamic law and called on Muslims to kidnap Westerners, the SITE Intelligence Group said Friday.

In a video released on jihadist forums and translated by the US monitoring service, Zawahiri also lashed out at President Barack Obama, calling him a liar and demanding he admit defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan and North Africa.

Criticizing the new Egyptian government — led by a president drawn from the Muslim Brotherhood — as corrupt, he said a battle is being waged in Egypt between a secular minority and Muslims seeking implementation of Shariah law.

I’ll admit that this is a challenging war because we are fighting, not a single nation, but a geographically diffuse ideology, but it is still war.  After all, what do you call it when a vast and recognizable group of individuals announces that it intends to kill and enslave your people, and then uses arms to carry out that promise?

We should be addressing this war on all fronts:  militarily, economically, and ideologically.  Instead, we are pretending it’s not happening.  To give credit where it’s due, George W. Bush figured out the military part and, with Iran, the economic part.  His problem, though, was that, as leader of a pluralist country, but he couldn’t bring himself to break through political correctness to admit that we are at war with a huge ideological foe.  After all, many Americans who are good, decent people share the same label (i.e., “Muslim”) as that foe. We confuse linguistic nuances with substance.

A problem of nomenclature, though, should not be allowed to obscure the fact that we have an active, resolute, powerful, and devious enemy.  We therefore do not fight that foe by excusing it.  Instead, we fight it by using every breath of free speech to challenge it in every way possible — debate, media, leaflets dropped from airplanes, and whatever else could work.

Obama has been the ultimate Islamist apologist.  He has only half-heartedly imposed sanctions against Iran, given a blank check to the Palestinians (who are a front in this Islamist jihad), weakened Israel (which is an ally in this existential battle), demoralized troops and energized enemies in Afghanistan by setting a certain pull-out date, and undermined a nascent democracy in Iraq by pulling out all troops without leaving a provisional force.  As for what just happened in Benghazi, that’s a chapter in itself, one that includes institutional cowardice and politicizing, lying, cover-ups and, with the imprisonment of a video maker, the destruction of our First Amendment.

Not only is Obama not much of a leader, he’s totally unsuited to military leadership.  You have to love your country to lead your military.  Obama doesn’t.  You have to believe in your country’s values to lead your military.  Obama doesn’t.  You have to courage to lead your military.  Obama doesn’t.  At every level, in every way, Obama fails as a military leader.  Let’s fire him from the job before it’s too late and we find ourselves defeated in the war we continue to pretend doesn’t exist.

Whatever happened to the effort to get around the electoral college?

A few years ago the Democrats launched an effort to pass laws in various states under which, regardless of how their state voted, their electoral college votes must be cast for the winner of the popular vote in the nationwide general election.  While I didn’t follow these efforts closely, I seem to remember that such laws were passed in a number of states.  Does anyone know if this is right and how this could impact the current election?  Let’s say that Romney wins the popular vote.  Are there any states that will be required to vote their electoral votes for him even if Obama wins the election in those states?  Or vice versa.  What ever came of this effort?

A letter to those tempted to sit this one out

I’m not sure I buy the “Mitt was sent by God” part, but otherwise I think this letter, forwarded to me by my Dad, is worth sharing:

 

This article is for those who are just simply not enthused about voting for Mitt Romney. You may not be thrilled with the idea of voting for Barack Obama, and in fact, you may be repulsed by it. However, for any number of reasons, you feel uncomfortable with a vote for Romney, and are considering sitting this one out or voting for a third-party candidate. It could be the Mormonism of Gov. Romney you do not like, or it could be his various position changes over the years (most notably on abortion). Particularly in states like Nevada, Ohio, Colorado, and Wisconsin, your non-vote for Romney could very well put Obama back in the White House for an additional four years!!! You are the target audience of this article.

I am not going to defend every single piece of Mitt Romney’s record. I have spent a little time with the Governor over the last few years, and I have found him to be an extremely bright and knowledgeable man, but I would not say that ideological conservatism runs through his veins. I doubt he grew up reading Hayek, Kirk, and Buckley. For those of you who are devout evangelicals or Roman Catholics, you are well aware of the differences in his religious viewpoint from yours. He has some stinker votes out there, and he has changed his position on a couple key issues over the years. It is not possible for me to claim he is a perfect man, or a perfect candidate. But I will suggest to you that the negativity some feel towards him is perhaps misguided …

The most common objection lodged against him is his reputation as a “moderate” when he governed the state of Massachusetts. When a Republican Governor is elected head of Ted Kennedy’s state, and asked to serve over an 82% Democratic legislature, I would suggest to you that a little grace and understanding are in order. If you evaluate each and every action he took as the Governor of that state, you will find (as I did) that he was constantly moving his state to the right, even if it never went as far right as you and I may prefer. He is a true incrementalist, and he moved the ball in the right direction, which I believe is what we elect leaders to do.

I would spend more time on the abortion flip-flop except for the fact that I have no doubt that his “pretend position” was when he was pro-choice, not when he became pro-life again. It is inconceivable that he and his devout Roman Catholic pro-life Vice-Presidential selection, Paul Ryan, would select judges who set the pro-life cause back. I have been wrong on issues in the past, and so have you. I encourage you not to hold it against a candidate that before he was right on an issue, he once was wrong. That is backwards thinking, is it not?

I have written in the past of the very limited things a President can actually do. He cannot restore the size of government to the “right size” many of us wish it to be. He can, though, work diligently and intelligently to get the right things done. I would suggest that some of those crying needs of the hour are exactly what Romney will do, and do phenomenally well. He will work with Congress to reform (but not perfect) the tax code. He will reverse the direction of the budget deficit, even if he will not solve it entirely.

The direction he will take the fiscal state of our country vs. Obama is the most important issue in this election. He will flatten the tax rates, which undeniably spurs economic growth, all the while cleaning up many of the silly and price-distorting deductions that have to be reformed (I learned this from Obama’s former economic czar, Christina Romer, by the way). He will assemble a team of competent cabinet members, as he has done his entire career (do any of Romney’s critics want to criticize his eye for talent at Bain Capital, or in Salt Lake City, or in the Governor’s mansion?). Obama has filled his cabinet with cronies, fools, and extremists. This distinction alone is enough to show up and vote.

I do not believe we will run a budget surplus in four years, and I do not believe abortion will be criminalized at the end of Romney’s first term. What I do believe is this: At this time, at this point in history, in this present set of circumstances, God has seen fit to give us a clear and simple choice between a radical, unqualified, dishonest wretch of a President named Barack Obama, and a competent, managerial, efficient, intelligent, decent man named Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney will be a tool God uses to move the ball down the field.

Romney did not have to choose the extraordinary Paul Ryan as his running mate, and in fact took great political risk in doing so. Gov. Romney is a problem-solver in a country filled with problems. He is not a quintessential conservative Libertarian kind of guy, but he is the antidote we have to the Ivy League radicalism of Barack Obama. He is the alternative to four more years of $1 trillion+ deficits and an utter blindness to the train wreck our entitlement system represents. He has the proven ability to work with other people to accomplish something, as opposed to the community organizer we have in office now who has never so much as led a school sports team, let alone a business, a state, or an organization.

I am not writing because Mitt Romney is perfect. I am writing because he is good enough. And I am writing because Barack Obama is the biggest disaster our country has faced as a mature country. If you worry about the direction of the Supreme Court, and you worry about the size of our government relative to GDP, and you worry about confidence in the business community coming back so as to spur economic growth, then you have a man to vote for who will advance your cause(s) – Mitt Romney. You also have a man to vote against who represents the worst of all possible worlds – Barack Obama.

Please, do not sit this one out. Our country – the last, best hope on earth – needs your vote. I have every confidence in the world that we will be pleased we voted for Mitt Romney – every confidence in the world. Share as you wish. And I will see you at the polls.

David L. Bahnsen, CFP®, works as a Senior Vice President in the private client group of one of the premier Wall Street firms in the country where he provides financial planning and investment management services to individuals and families.

The Obama Curse strikes again: Detroit Tigers lose the world series

Not only did the Detroit Tigers lose the world series, they lost spectacularly, with the Giants winning in a solid four game streak.  I predicted this outcome a few days ago, not because I know anything about baseball (I don’t), but because I am familiar with the Obama curse.  As Rush Limbaugh has been pointing out for years, if Obama backs something (a business, a climate summit, an Olympic games venue), it goes down in flames.

On Wednesday night, Obama appeared on Jay Leno’s Tonight Show.  There, in response to Jay’s question about the World Series, Obama turned his back on the Golden State that has filled his campaign coffers and told America that he was rooting for Detroit’s team (keeping in mind that Michigan’s electoral votes are up for grabs):

I will say, I’ve spent a lot of time in Detroit lately, and I didn’t want to let Detroit go bankrupt. So in this particular World Series, I might be a little partial.

Once Obama voiced his support for the Tigers, their defeat was assured.  The Giants played marvelously, that’s true, but they should also send a word of thanks to the President.  Without the benefit of the curse he laid upon the Tigers, they might not have won.

Those Obama voters who are Detroit Tigers fans might want to rethink their support for the President.  It’s really not nice what he did to their team.

Obama abdicated his constitutional responsibility as Commander in Chief

When last I wrote, the CIA denied giving a stand down order and denial of aid to Glen Doherty and Lance Woods.  Since then, the White House has issued a carefully worded statement to the effect that “Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi.”  That leaves only the Pentagon and, just as Hillary threw herself into the breach a couple of weeks ago, yesterday Defense Secretary Leon Panetta fell on the sword for Obama:

“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

Panetta’s statement is ludicrous on its face because we know that, both because of satellites and phone calls from Doherty and Woods, everyone in Washington knew exactly what was going on — and they watched in real time, for seven hours.  Yes, that’s too little time to start a war, but it’s more than enough time to deploy special forces.  Doherty and Woods knew that special forces could help because they once served in the same force that would have been deployed.  I can only imagine how these two men felt knowing that their country had the capability to save them, but then realizing as they fought alone on that rooftop that the current government was abandoning them.  Just the thought makes me feel simultaneously tearful and nauseous.

So, we know Panetta is lying about the facts.  We’re also unaware of any legitimate reason for this lie.  Absent a legitimate reason, we can only conclude something very ugly:  Way up on the chain of command, someone made a decision that was the product either of gross military malpractice or cold-hearted political calculation.  The latter, of course, would be the administration deciding that, if it could just focus public attention on the video, the Obama campaign could avoid a “Black Hawk down” scenario that would reflect badly on the president.  In other words, Obama or Axelrod or Jarrett decided that, for campaign reasons, discretion was the better part of valor and decency.  That might have worked in a pre-internet age, but nowadays, there’s no way to keep the lid on that type of lie.

As for the latter consideration — gross military malpractice — even if (and it’s a big if) the order to leave people to die emanated from the Pentagon, the responsibility still rests on Obama’s shoulders.  As Commander in Chief (it says so right there in the Constitution), he is and was the ultimate military authority America.  Ordinarily, of course, the President is not involved in every decision the military makes.  However, this was an emergency and the White House has stated that Obama was briefed and aware of the situation.  That means that he was the man in charge.  If risk aversion, campaign calculations, or any other algorithm unrelated to saving American lives factored into the decision to watch but not act in Benghazi, it’s Obama’s fault.  As Harry Truman understood, but Obama hates to admit, when it comes to the presidency, the buck stops there.

I’ll close with Mark Steyn, who beautifully sums up events in Washington, D.C., and Benghazi:

You’ll recall that a near-month-long attempt to blame an obscure YouTube video for the murder of four Americans and the destruction of U.S. sovereign territory climaxed in the vice-presidential debate with Joe Biden’s bald assertion that the administration had been going on the best intelligence it had at the time. By then, it had been confirmed that there never had been any protest against the video, and that the Obama line that Benghazi had been a spontaneous movie review that just got a little out of hand was utterly false. The only remaining question was whether the administration had knowingly lied or was merely innocently stupid. The innocent-stupidity line became harder to maintain this week after Fox News obtained State Department e-mails revealing that shortly after 4 p.m. Eastern, less than a half hour after the assault in Benghazi began, the White House situation room knew the exact nature of it.

We also learned that, in those first moments of the attack, a request for military back-up was made by U.S. staff on the ground but was denied by Washington. It had planes and special forces less than 500 miles away in southern Italy — or about the same distance as Washington to Boston. They could have been there in less than two hours. Yet the commander-in-chief declined to give the order. So Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods fought all night against overwhelming odds, and died on a rooftop in a benighted jihadist hellhole while Obama retired early to rest up before his big Vegas campaign stop. “Within minutes of the first bullet being fired the White House knew these heroes would be slaughtered if immediate air support was denied,” said Ty Woods’s father, Charles. “In less than an hour, the perimeters could have been secured and American lives could have been saved. After seven hours fighting numerically superior forces, my son’s life was sacrificed because of the White House’s decision.”

It would be shocking and disgusting if the American people gave this calculating coward another four years, not just to lead this nation, but to serve as Commander in Chief of the finest military in the world.

Obamanation cracking!

The inimitable Michael Ledeen notes that Obama’s coarsening language bespeaks a character crack-up as his narcissist ego is forced to confront the possibility that, not only may he not prevail, but he faces sound rejection.

http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2012/10/28/why-is-obama-so-nasty-and-vulgar/

Well, high fives all around: we Bookworm aficionados predicted these eruptions months ago. However, things are likely to get much, much worse! I am looking fo something dramatic, possibly extra-legal, bursting out over the next ten days as the party of mobs and demagogues anticipates it’s demise. Certainly, their continued descent into vulgarity, crudity, childishness, violence and vile antipathy toward their fellow citizens will expose these people for whom they truly are. We can hope, anyway.

Question: if Obama loses, will he show up for the inauguration?

The Council has spoken — October 26, 2012

With the election looming, and world events boiling, the Watcher’s Council has had amazing material to work with.  Last week’s vote was almost impossibly difficult, but it all shook out nicely:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

 

Michelle Obama — one unhappy vacation after the other

In her speech, Michelle makes it clear that, if we’re not enjoying the finer things in life, she can’t be happy when she enjoys the finer things in life.  Nevertheless, she did manage 16 luxury vacations at taxpayer’s expense over the course of just three years:

Marie Antoinette apparently never said “Let them eat cake.” Michelle Obama pretty much just did.

Hat tip: The Political Commentator

A Harvard psychology professor might want to rethink his claim that conservatives are more fearful

Sometimes, timing is everything.  Steven Pinker, who is a Harvard psychology professor just published a long opinion piece in the New York Times explaining why there is a Red State/Blue State divide.  As a predicate to his discussion, he began by dividing the mindsets that characterize conservatives and their Progressive counterparts:

Conservative thinkers like the economist Thomas Sowell and the Times columnist David Brooks have noted that the political right has a Tragic Vision of human nature, in which people are permanently limited in morality, knowledge and reason. Human beings are perennially tempted by aggression, which can be prevented only by the deterrence of a strong military, of citizens resolved to defend themselves and of the prospect of harsh criminal punishment. No central planner is wise or knowledgeable enough to manage an entire economy, which is better left to the invisible hand of the market, in which intelligence is distributed across a network of hundreds of millions of individuals implicitly transmitting information about scarcity and abundance through the prices they negotiate. Humanity is always in danger of backsliding into barbarism, so we should respect customs in sexuality, religion and public propriety, even if no one can articulate their rationale, because they are time-tested workarounds for our innate shortcomings. The left, in contrast, has a Utopian Vision, which emphasizes the malleability of human nature, puts customs under the microscope, articulates rational plans for a better society and seeks to implement them through public institutions.

(First, a quibble:  David Brooks is not a conservative.  He is, instead, a lukewarm liberal who has a good sinecure at the New York Times by pretending to be conservative.  Aside from that, he’s not very bright.  He can talk the talk, but anyone who is overwhelmed by the crease in a presidential candidate’s pants is not a serious thinker, or even a very serious human being. Quibble over. )

Pinker is correct that Sowell, who is a God amongst conservative thinkers, does talk about the conservative “tragic vision.”  I’m not sure I agree with Sowell’s terminology, though.  He’s not describing tragedy, so much as he is describing a realistic understanding of humankind, unpolluted by Utopianism.

In the tragic vision, individual sufferings and social evils are inherent in the innate deficiencies of all human beings, whether these deficiencies are in knowledge, wisdom, morality, or courage. Moreover, the available resources are always inadequate to fulfill all the desires of all the people. Thus there are no “solutions” in the tragic vision, but only trade-offs that still leave many unfulfilled and much unhappiness in the world.

Here’s where the timing bit comes in:  In the above quoted paragraph, Pinker contends that the Left has a Utopian vision.  While it’s true that the Left believes that the State can coerce people into a utilitarian conformism, the Utopianism seems to have leaked away recently.  How else to explain the latest Obama campaign effort (h/t Newsbusters)?

Imagine an America
Where strip mines are fun and free
Where gays can be fixed
And sick people just die
And oil fills the sea

We don’t have to pay for freeways!
Our schools are good enough
Give us endless wars
On foreign shores
And lots of Chinese stuff

We’re the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And we’re kinda blaming you

We haven’t killed all the polar bears
But it’s not for lack of trying
Big Bird is sacked
The Earth is cracked
And the atmosphere is frying

Congress went home early
They did their best we know
You can’t cut spending
With elections pending
Unless it’s welfare dough

We’re the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And we’re kinda blaming you

Find a park that is still open
And take a breath of poison air
They foreclosed your place
To build a weapon in space
But you can write off your au pair

It’s a little awkward to tell you
But you left us holding the bag
When we look around
The place is all dumbed down
And the long term’s kind of a drag

We’re the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And yeah, we’re blaming you

You did your best
You failed the test

Mom and Dad
We’re blaming you!

If that isn’t dystopianism, I honestly don’t know what is.  The Obama campaign has no faith whatsoever in human kind.  If it had faith, it wouldn’t believe that the only answer is Big Government.  The campaign would believe in the people and ease off of the constant coercion that is modern Progressivism.

I cannot think of a more repugnant, off-putting advertisement than this dark, twisted vision of the future, one that insults at least half of the American people and that is, quite frankly, stupid and hysterical.  I really thought the campaign had plumbed the depths with its Lena Dunham ad (voting for Obama is like sex) but it’s never wise to underestimate the ugliness behind the Obama campaign.  One can only wonder what the coming week’s ad cycle will bring from a campaign that must work with a pathetic executive record and an increasingly unlikable candidate.

(By the way, to the extent that this video is only one in a series of disturbing Obama campaign videos, you can vote for the one you think is worst here, at the Gay Patriot.)

The Giants won again, and I just have to say “I told you so.”

I had no doubt whatsoever that the Giants would win game 3 of the World Series tonight, just as I am very confident that they will win the World Series.  Indeed, there’s a decent chance they’ll win the 4th game, bringing the Series to a speedy conclusion.

Why am I so certain?  I’ll just reprint here (with some updates) my post from October 25:

Living in Giants’ country, I’m happy that the Giants are doing so well. They’ve won the first two three games of the World Series, and done so by a comfortable margin. I’m sure that the Detroit Tigers are sad. Very sad. I can imagine some ugly recriminations in the locker room and back at headquarters. I doubt, though, that they’re placing blame where it actually belongs: squarely on Barack Obama’s head.

It was Rush Limbaugh (of course) who first noted the Obama curse: When Obama praises something, it quickly dies. Obama has only to speak at a factory for it to close its doors. He tries to get the Olympics for Chicago — so the Olympics go to Brazil. He attends a climate-fest . . . and nothing happens. He touts and loans our money to a business and it goes bankrupt. Which gets us to the Detroit Tigers. . . .

On Wednesday night, Obama appeared on Jay Leno’s Tonight Show. (This follows appearances on The View, The Jon Stewart Show, and The Letterman Show. News shows — not so much. Obama did speak to the Des Moines Register, but then refused to let the Register publish the interview, relenting only when the Register made its displeasure known. After that, the Register got nasty.) But back to Leno.

On the The Tonight Show, Obama turned his back on the Golden State that has filled his campaign coffers and told America that he was rooting for Detroit’s team (keeping in mind that Michigan seems to be up for grabs):

I will say, I’ve spent a lot of time in Detroit lately, and I didn’t want to let Detroit go bankrupt. So in this particular World Series, I might be a little partial.

With an Obama endorsement hanging over them like a sword of Damocles, is it any surprise that the Tigers have lost the first two three World Series games?

The Fallen Not Forgetten education fund — a worthy charity you can help

A military friend pointed me to Fallen Not Forgotten, a veteran-created and owned apparel business that donates a portion of its proceeds to military charities.  The guys at FNF have now set up a page that seeks straight out donations that they will put towards a scholarship fund for the sons and daughters of those who have died or been wounding fighting for this country:

The College Board Advocacy & Policy Center states that the average estimated undergraduate budget for public four-year in-state on-campus students is $21,447, including tuition and fees, room and board, books and supplies, transportation, and other expenses as of 2011-2012.  If we were able to get EVERY active/reserve member to donate $1 (the price of a Cup of Joe from McDonald’s) we could send 139 wounded or fallen service members children to college at no out-of-pocket expense to them at today’s cost.  Imagine how amazing that would be!  As an organization, we are realists and have set the goal low initially to manage expectations – we welcome our expectations being surpassed and challenge everyone that visits this site to help us in doing so!

As you can see, these guys aren’t greedy.  Their minimum donation request is just the price of one McDonald’s cup of coffee.  That’s do-able.  It gets even better if you’re a Starbucks junkie.  If you skip just one coffee fix, you can send $4 or $5 towards a very good cause.  I’m a tea drinker myself, but for purposes of calculating my donation, I imagined myself turning my back on Starbucks for a few days.

Found it on Facebook: Jon Stewart and the problem with modern political discourse *UPDATED*

Matthew Continetti garnered some much deserved praise for his article about the way that sarcasm and insult took over the Democrat party, replacing anything of substance.  It all started with the attacks against Bush:

The criticism of Bush, of Bush Republicans, and of the war took on a specific character. The spokesmen of movement progressivism—Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert—spoke in tones of irony, sarcasm, knowing disbelief, glibness, and snark. Liberal bloggers and op-ed writers used the same voice. A television clip of a conservative would be played, a quotation cited, and the liberal would mug for his audience, whether on screen or on the page. Their basic attitude was: Can you believe this? These people don’t even believe in science! The fools! Derisive and smug laughter would ensue. The war was not going well, America seemed in decline, and it was obvious to liberals that conservatives and Republicans were to blame. The punch lines were a signal. If you laughed, you differentiated yourself from the fundamentalist prigs running the country. You established your superiority.

Obama brought precisely that attitude to the third debate, with his sarcastic, condescending, and remarkably ignorant statements about the American Navy:

You mention the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets. We have these things called aircraft carriers and planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. It’s not a game of battleship where we’re counting ships, it’s ‘What are our capabilities?’

Others have debunked the President’s ignorance about the armed forces he commands, so I won’t do it here. Suffice to say that, while Americans appreciate gentle zingers (“There you go again”), the level of disrespect that Obama showed only makes the Jon Stewart acolytes happy. Others (including thoughtful liberals) wonder what happened to the dignity of the presidency.

The problem with snark is that, although it can be amusing, it displaces serious political discussion.  Nowhere is this more obvious than with the way in which abortion has come roaring to the fore at the same time the President is struggling to keep the Benghazi cover-up under wraps.  Even as thoughtful people who pay attention to national security and facts are grappling with the immensity of al Qaeda’s resurgence and the President’s lies, the snark shows are keeping liberals in a state of perpetual outrage about abortion.

I wrote last week that abortion is a defining issue for many people on the Left.  Some of you (very intelligently and politely, of course) disagreed with me.  Politely (and, I hope, intelligently) I have to disagree right back.  The proof of abortion’s centrality is the way in which the snark Left is using the abortion dog whistle to terrify wavering liberals into voting for Obama, regardless of the fact that Obama has put our national security and our economy at serious risk.  The dog whistle is so powerful to liberal ears that they’d rather focus on a woman’s right to abortion than on the fact that al Qaeda would like to commit post-birth abortions against all Americans.

Part of the reason the dog whistle works is because the Left so assiduously avoids any serious discussion about life’s beginnings.  A case in point is a Jon Stewart shtick that made the rounds amongst my liberal friends, all of whom posted it on Facebook along with myriad warnings that Romney will turn back the female clock to 1950 (see the cartoon, above).  Here’s the Jon Stewart shtick, one that is high on hysteria and word play, but low on analysis:

Ooooh! Mourdock is evil because he thinks rape is a gift from God, and Romney is more evil because he supports Mourdock. Never mind that what Mourdock said is thoughtful and logically consistent, even if one doesn’t agree with the premise. The premise is that life begins at conception. The logical corollary is that, once a life begins, and most certainly when that life is helpless, civilized people owe it protection.  It is not the fetus’s fault that it was conceived out of violence, pain, and shame. Mourdock quite obviously doesn’t lack compassion for the rape victim.  It’s just that he recognizes that the life that the act of violence created is an innocent one.  Now, one may not agree with Mourdock, but it is, if you will, an honorable position that starts with a humanistic premise.

While Jon Stewart fears to delve deeply into what Mourdock is saying, and who simply rolls with superficial conclusions, sarcasm and insult, Andrew Klavan, has a very thoughtful take on Mourdock’s words, and one that allows for disagreement:

Let’s do a mind experiment. Pretend you are yourself. Now pretend your mother comes to you and tells you that, even though she and your father raised you as if you were the product of their union, in fact she was horribly, brutally raped and it was in that rape that you were conceived. Painful as it was for her — and only she and God know how painful it was — she decided to go through with the pregnancy and give you life.

Have you now lost your right to live? Can you be legally exterminated because of the way you were conceived?

My point here is not — not — that there should be laws against abortion in cases of rape. My point is only that the question of abortion is essentially the question of whether a fetus is human. If an unborn child is a human being, the fact that it resides within its mother is no more relevant than the fact of where you reside. If (and a person of good will can honorably make this argument) there is some point at which a fetus is not yet a human being, then it seems to me you can morally abort it because it’s sick or annoying or female or has failed to have blond hair and blue eyes.

Now anyone with a mind and heart can see that there are vexed moral questions here, filled with grey areas. No feminist blather and no ruling from the pope in Rome can turn those areas to black and white. For a rape victim to bring a baby to term would be, to my mind, an act of moral heroism equivalent to running into a burning building to save a child. I’m not convinced that laws should be passed requiring that sort of elevated action from people. And yet I do believe the child conceived in that horror story is a child indeed and that a minister, say, could, in good conscience, counsel the mother to strive toward the heroic, if the minister felt she might be able.

As everyone knows (since the media has covered it more often than Fast and Furious and Benghazi-gate put together), Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock recently answered a debate question about abortion and rape: “I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” Mourdock later clarified the comment and apologized for his poor phrasing — as was proper — but come on, we all know what he was trying to say. He doesn’t think rape is intended by God. He thinks a baby conceived by rape remains a baby with a right to life.

Please read the rest here.

Klavan’s approach, of course, is the way we should be discussing a fraught issue such as abortion.  It is the embodiment of Dennis Prager’s wise statement that we should prefer clarity to agreement.  Clarity enables us to have meaningful discussions about vexing issues and, quite possibly, to work towards solutions.  Stewart’s piecemeal, shallow, insulting analysis makes intelligent discussion impossible.  If you disagree with Stewart, you support rapists.  End of story.  (Incidentally, the Jon Stewart segment embodies the state of mind Jonah Goldberg describes in The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas.)

I feel very strongly that, in my little corner of the world, there are thousands of people who are yearning for Romney’s strength on national security and the economy, but who are being scared away from voting for him because they buy completely into the imaginary War on Women that the Stewarts, Maddows, Colberts, and Obama’s of this world sell as intelligent political discourse.  This is too bad, not just because it bodes poorly for the elections, but also because it bespeaks an America whose educated class can no longer grapple with serious ideas.

UPDATE:  And right on time, Tom Friedman blows hard on the abortion dog whistle.  Here’s the key paragraph:

But judging from the unscientific — borderline crazy — statements opposing abortion that we’re hearing lately, there is reason to believe that this delicate balance could be threatened if Mitt Romney and Representative Paul Ryan, and their even more extreme allies, get elected. So to those who want to protect a woman’s right to control what happens with her own body, let me offer just one piece of advice: to name something is to own it. If you can name an issue, you can own the issue. And we must stop letting Republicans name themselves “pro-life” and Democrats as “pro-choice.” It is a huge distortion.

Get it?  If Romney and Ryan win, women will be dying in back alleys with coat hangers between their legs.

It’s time to acknowledge that we’re not in the 50s anymore:  Single motherhood, though economically foolish, is culturally cool; birth control is freely, and cheaply, available; and pregnancy is relatively risk free.  There are still credible arguments for abortions, but pretending it’s still the 1950s isn’t one of those arguments.