K-9

Your point seems to be that rescue workers only become rescue workers simply because they can't keep themselves from rescuing people. Maybe if more of these rescuers died while rescuing people, fewer people would be apt to become a rescuers who simply like to spoil all the fun for all the thrill seekers out there. And if we're REALLY lucky someone with a video recording device can capture a thrill seeker killing themselves in the process. Personally, I can't think of greater fun than live footage of a drowning surfer floundering in the waves and frantically waving his arms as he takes his last breath and disappears beneath the waves, never to be seen again. Or at least not until a few days later when his bloated corpse washes up on the beach. And I insist that only that person's immediate family should have the responsibility to recover the body as well. This might serve to dissuade other idiots from spawning additional thrill seeking idiots.

Was talking to someone up in Mass. and I asked him what people thought up there and he said Obama will carry the state with no problem. Of course, this is nothing new. In a tracking average of 36 different polls, Obama is up 56 to 40 in Massachusetts. But I got to thinking how other former state governors who became President did in their respective home states. According to my cursory research there have been 7 former governors since 1900 who went on to win the Presidential election, four in my own lifetime. Every single one of them carried their home states. Is there any electorate better able to gauge the ability of a candidate to govern than an electorate that actually was governed by that candidate? EDIT: Have to add an 8th to the list. Teddy Roosevelt carried N.Y. state in 1904. That makes 8 former governors elected president that carried their states since 1900.

I've never met a rescue professional or volunteer with that mindset. Seems there is always some thrill seeker that puts himself in harm's way only to end up in need of a rescue. Makes sense to curtail that activity when you can if it means not subjecting rescuers to the same peril.

If Christie had said that he wasn't impressed with the federal response, would that have been considered political? ^This.

Because if he gets in trouble out there he will put rescue personnel in harm's way? Because others perhaps not experienced may be tempted to do the same? A combination of these factors perhaps?

Does Romney need to request to go into NJ to do photoshoots? Why can't he just go into NJ if he feels like it? I don't think it would be wise politically, though.

That is some seriously sad commentary on us as a species.

Let the looting begin!

While I agree with all of this, a president needs to be careful that his rhetoric doesn't contradict the images people are bombarded with during these events. Before, during, or after the event itself. If Obama utters a "heckuva job, Brownie" quote against images of stranded people waiting for rescue or tens of thousands of people crammed into an inadequate shelter like the Superdome or, God forbid, corpses left on streets like in the aftermath of Katrina, there will be a heavy political price to pay. And just like the zealots on the left seized upon that opportunity and clobbered Bush with it, the same will happen to Obama.

That's an old Irish prayer, isn't it?

I think this is true. The Republican machine will turn the slightest hint of indifference by the administration into their "heckuva job, Brownie" moment. However, it also represents an opportunity for the President to be seen as "presidential" during a crisis and that tends to rally people historically. I think state governments have done a great job in getting ahead of the storm in terms of evacuations, bringing in crews from out of state, closings, etc., and generally getting information out to people. I would hope that the Obama administration would heap praise on state and local governments for their efforts.

What about the huge Democratic voting block in Philly? If Sandy impacts that turnout is that enough to turn PA back to the Republicans?

When Romney ran for governor of Mass. he danced to the middle of the issue like he is now. He flatly told Mike Huckabee that he would have supported a Mass. state constitutional amendment to define life as beginning at conception. He's playing with words and just parsing the language: life vs "personhood." And when he chose a running mate that he KNEW had co-sponsored a bill that defined personhood as starting at conception he made his position clear once again. We'll just have to agree to disagree that Romney is a moderate on the issue. He might convince me if he condemned his party's adoption of their plank regarding the issue and if he flat out objected to Ryan's stance as well. And that will never happen.

I agree. So if power is out at your polling place you can't vote?

Well, that's reassuring. Interesting how the Prime Minister was willing to forego his born again Christian principals for political expediency.

My question remains though. For his ENTIRE political career, Romney has opposed the right of women to choose. It was only after his phony shift to the center on this and other issues that he modified his tone.

Let's say those senate races end up with Mourdock, Akin, and others who have the same belief about abortion winning and the senate gains a Republican majority. Let's also say that the House stays as is. Bear in mind that Ryan and Akin have already co-sponsored a bill that would decree life begins at conception and that all rights shall be confirmed upon the zygote. Not to mention that for the first time in history their party has officially adopted the outlawing of abortions, except in the case of the life of the mother, as a plank in their platform. Do you honestly think that if that Congress sent a bill to the White House that overturns Roe v Wade that Romney WOULDN'T sign it? I don't believe that flip-flopping liar one bit.

This is becoming quite the exercise but I'll play one more round. I get the impression you're just messing around to see what I can come up with for you to refute. Not that you're necessarily interested, but here's a link to an article by a professor from Ithaca University on the question of the abortion/adoption issue. It's a bit dated and the number of abortions has decreased since, but still relevant. http://www.ithaca.ed...30/adoption.htm Here's a study analyzing racial and gender bias in the process. Not that you care to read it but maybe your wife would find it interesting given her line of work. wexler-100304-1.pdf I don't know if there are enough adoptive homes available. There are any number of combinations of households seeking to adopt, foster homes, and other institutions. I'll close by saying I respect your apparent stance against abortion. But I can't respect the position of anyone who seeks to make that decision for someone else. It simply cannot be legislated. EDIT: schit. my google link to the Professor Duncan's article didn't work. I'll try again.

I last researched the subject for an article in 2001. I'll see what I can find relative to sick children today. I can say this without any stats at the moment: Americans have ALWAYS been willing to adopt children from around the globe and I'd say we lead the pack when it comes to adopting kids with special needs. I don't think that's changed. But as a percentage adopted it will be much lower still. I'll see what I can find. Additionally there have been laws passed since then that have made it illegal to deny an adopting family a child based on that child's race. I'm betting I'll find that the percentages have gone up for minorities overall but still not as high as white kids under 10. Like I said earlier, I hope I'm convinced otherwise.

My answer is no. You'd be better off asking your wife. Does the agency she works for have a high success rate in placing minority children? Sick kids with high medical needs? Children 10 or older? Do the people that use your wife's agency seek these kinds of children in numbers equal to healthy white kids? If you have real data I'd be happy to look at it and hope to be convinced otherwise.

I'm positive. Speak to parents that have adopted. Research the adoption agencies. It's nothing new. The sad fact is that the overwhelming number of children adopted are healthy infant and Caucasian. Even as these children grow older their chances of being adopted grow slimmer. It's a harsh reality, but the highest demand is for healthy white babies. Minority and/or unhealthy children simply aren't has highly desired.

Regarding you first paragraph the key word you use is "sometimes." In the case of minority children and those with health issues, it's "rarely." Your second paragraph is indeed the crux. An unwanted child is an unwanted child for many reasons that have nothing to do with the passage of time. That will never change regardless of any legal questions surrounding it.

You're a lucky uncle. God bless your brother and sister-in-law for having the love and understanding required. And God bless your niece for being an inspiration to us all. As to the discussion, let's say doctors inform the mother of a malformed fetus that full viability can be expected but with a lifetime of special medical attention required. She doesn't have medical insurance to cover these expenses or is denied insurance because it's determined that it's a preexisting condition. Should she have the right to decide to carry to term or not?

You guys raise some very interesting medical and ethical questions. Let's say a fetus forms with some external organs or an external spine (this does in fact happen on occasion). Should the mother have the right to decide not to carry that fetus to term if she chooses? On another extreme, if zygotes are deemed human and are conferred full legal status thereof as has been proposed by the very bill that Paul Ryan co-sponsored with Todd Akin, can they be claimed as dependents on our tax returns? Or can mothers be made potential defendants in legal proceedings if it's determined that she didn't do enough to protect the zygote in the event that it naturally aborts and is expelled by the mom? That would be a headache considering it's estimated that up to 80% of all zygotes and blastocysts end up this way. I submit that morality can never be legislated. Speaking of adoption, unwanted children, and kids all over the world needing a better life, I would certainly find Ryan, Mourdock, et al far more credible if they gave one half a damn as much about children outside of the womb as they do about fetuses inside of it.

But the repercussions of laws passed defining it as such can have far reaching impact across a wide spectrum of legal issues. I know, I know it's just a red herring issue that anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognize is NOT something the Republican party REALLY wants to do. Except that it's in their platform, their presidential candidate is in favor of overturning Roe v Wade, and their VP candidate has already CO SPONSORED the very kind of law that seeks to LEGALLY declare a zygote a human being. Not to mention his co-author was Todd Akin and their party has several other candidates for election, like Mourdock, who believe the very same thing.