That is the most unaffectionate kiss I've ever seen in my life. Their lips are not even touching. Go with the air kiss at least--you could give your sibling that kiss. Sheesh--Al Gore/Tipper these two are not.
Here's a nice read for the morning:
http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2011/09/22/ex...
149 of 512 precincts in
Turner 9885 (52%)
Weprin 9138 (48%)
Hoeppner 58 (<1%)
Brooklyn: 14/170 precincts in with Turner up 75/25
Queens: 135/342 precincts in with a 50/50 split
And now, I'm a person who probably shares views with the majority of American voters, yet is not accepted by either the true pro-choice or the true pro-life political wings. Polls consistently show that about 20-22% of voters believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances with no restrictions, and about the same number believe it should be illegal in all circumstances with no exceptions. Well, that leaves 57% of America that lies somewhere in the middle, like me, but we have no catchy title, organization, or lobbying group.
I have super-hardcore left and right within my own family, and I know that you can't tell the left that any restriction on abortion whatsoever, even a conscience clause for doctors, is OK without being labeled anti-woman, and you can't tell the hardcore right that contraception or exceptions for rape or life of the mother are OK without being labeled a murderer. Unfortunately, our politics is a tug-of-war between the two extremes, which is pretty frustrating because a large majority of the country, like me, falls squarely in the middle.
When I was younger, I was pro-choice and couldn't understand how anyone could want the government or another person's moral/religious beliefs to be forced upon a woman's choices about her own body. Then I talked with a dear friend who was pro-life, and she made me realize that it really wasn't about the government vs. the woman, but about whether or not the baby should be taken into consideration or deserved a voice.
I also realized what a very lazy voter I'd become. If I was firmly pro-choice, I didn't really have to think about any other issue. I knew automatically who I was voting for. I began to realize how the party used me in that way, and it really ticked me off. Right about the same time, I was pregnant for the first time, and discovered how very much NOT a "ball of cells" was the growing life inside me. And I began to understand the reason that little person deserves to have its interests at least considered. Not necessarily to overrule the mother's interests in all situations, but also not to be completely denied. I believe the baby deserves to have a voice and to have its interests considered alongside the mother's.
There should be room within the conservative tent to voice those kinds of legitimate criticisms of our foreign policy. Rather than writing him off as insane and focusing solely on Iran, I would honestly like to hear some of our more hawkish, interventionist Republicans' responses. What is a reasonable foreign policy that protects our safety and interests, stands firmly shoulder-to-shoulder with our allies (particularly Israel), but doesn't stick our nose in where it doesn't belong and try to take on the authority (and the EXPENSE) of being the global police force?
Let's talk more about Obama circumventing the U.S. Congress (and thereby the PEOPLE he leads) altogether and submitting the U.S.'s authority to decisions of the U.N. and NATO! Where do our candidates stand with respect to the sovereignty of the U.S. vis a vis global security organizations? U.N. Arms Treaty? IMO, these are areas for conservatives to stake out strong positions that contrast sharply with Obama.
Still, I think Ron Paul is valuable in this conversation. He consistently points out how overstretched we are internationally; how we set up post-war bases all over the world and then never leave; how time and time again we stray from our clearly-defined goals and exit strategies, and end up mired in drawn-out dreams of nation-building that ultimately breed local resentment toward our presence; how we are spending too much building other nations' infrastructure and social programs and too little on our own; how it's B.S. that we take on the role of the world's police for nations that depend on us and criticize us in the same breath; that we throw around money with a VERY short-term view, buying allegiance by funding and arming people who then end up turning their newfound strength and weapons on us; and that we aren't really justified in using a "humanitarian" argument for intervention (like we're doing in Libya) because we're full of crap and don't apply the standard consistently.
I keep hearing that Ron Paul is extreme and "insane" on foreign policy. Although I totally disagree with him about Iran, I don't think he's insane. I think he vastly underestimates the value of "walking softly but carrying a big stick," and tends to operate from a position that naively believes that if you treat others with respect and fairness, they will do the same to you. Not all cultures operate from that kind of mindset. He also has a frustrating tendency to talk in ways that don't fit well into the soundbite format of debates and not really explaining himself. Rand does a LOT better job spelling it out in terms people can understand, and I predict that Ron Paul's loyal following, grassroots organization, C4L group, and youth popularity will one day put some wind in the sails of a Rand presidential bid.
Perry's not strictly a Lone Star--he also headed up the Republican Governor's Association, which, I think, had some of the most hardcore & devastating campaign commercials in 2010. Our group of Republican governors right now are where all the action's at. In terms of helping with groundwork and organization, I imagine that those relationships would be a big benefit to Perry. And Perry plays ball with both Big Oil and Big Pharma, so from the Establishment perspective, he's probably not all bad.
So very sorry to hear of her loss. Will keep her family in my prayers.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
capechik 
Branch