I don't think I have ever come across something as wonderfully sad as this. Don't misunderstand, I'm not happy about this situation, hardly. These kids are being set up for failure by a group of individuals that has but one purpose, control.

No matter how you slice it, teenagers are going to have sex, it's a simple fact of life. Point of fact, some of the most sexually active kids I knew as a teenager, were also the most religious. Some of the stories I heard about the goings on between counselors at Bible Camps would have made most people blush. Does this make them any different than counselors at non-religious camps (if there are even any of those left), probably not, and that is my point.

Kids will be kids, they will obey their impulses more often than not, and if they are convinced that their act is shameful, and do not have the information necessary to make the right decision, they will, far too often, make the absolute wrong one.

It is purely anecdotal, but of all the women I've known that have had abortions, the vast majority were Evangelical or Catholic, some of which were left with the option to have an abortion, or be disowned by their wonderfully religious parents.

You may have noticed that Republicans have been struggling to come up with a credible alternative to the Affordable Care Act once they repeal it. Why is it so hard? Because Obamacare WAS the Republican alternative. It was the conservative-designed mandate and subsidy approach. Matt Miller: GOP to the uninsured: You're on your own - The Washington Post:

Normally, I'd say that this is little more than leftist hand-wringing over GOP rhetoric. That, unfortunately, is not the case.

I present you with Making A Case for Employer-Enforced Individual Mandates  by Mark V. Pauly (currently of the American Enterprise Institute), published in 1994 that was the basis for the Healthcare reform proposals of George H.W. Bush.

Now, the Democrats are not without blame, as they scuttled the Bush proposal, assuming that they could do better once Bill Clinton was President. I think we know how that all ended.

Pauly, more recently, published a short book entitled Health Reform without Side Effects that levels, from what I've read, a fairly astute criticism of the failures of both parties proposals (including Obamacare) at reforming the Healthcare industry, and is certainly worth reading, if only to increase your own understanding of the markets.

I can't say as I agree with either of Mr. Pauly's papers (having not read them both with the kind of attention necessary to form a full opinion), but what I can say is that, as with most things coming out of D.C. these days, this is further proof that the current stalemate isn't about ideology, or policy disagreements, it's pure gamesmanship.

President Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate | The White House:

 After all, if President Obama truly is the player in a Manchurian Candidate style conspiracy, couldn't this long form birth certificate be a fake as well? What exactly does the release of this photocopy of his "birth certificate" prove? I mean, it's a type-written form with some signatures, which could very easily be faked, right?

I wonder if the Donald knew that this release was coming, might explain why he's changed his tack and started attacking the President's educational record, because apparently graduating Magna Cum Laude from Harvard doesn't count for anything anymore.

So, do you think this will satisfy the Donald and the rest of the Birther crowd?

Opinion: Bring U.S. closer to a real democracy - Thomas C. Goldstein and Amy Howe - POLITICO.com:

Yet election rules now make it possible that the loser will win the presidency, because almost every state awards all its electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote there. And given how electors are allocated, a candidate can collect a majority of electors, without a majority of the votes nationally.

 While I applaud Mr. Goldstein's good intentions, as well as the noble intentions of those who support this bill, I honestly don't really see how this is anything but the elimination of the electoral college. I would agree that electoral reform is needed, but I don't agree that we should put an end to the electoral college.

So, what should we do instead to help guarantee that the popular vote and the electoral vote are less likely to be different? Well, in my humble opinion, it's pretty simple and wouldn't require much of a change. We eliminate the "first past the post" awarding of all of a state's electoral votes and instead apportion them by congressional district with the two votes provided for the senate going to the winner of the state's popular vote.

Here's how it would work in Iowa (my home state and the recent loser of an electoral vote after the 2010 census).

Iowa has 4 congressional districts, thus a winner would be determined in each of those districts, more directly apportioning the actual results of the votes in those regions. The two remaining electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate that wins the states overall popular vote. A candidate could theoretically win all of the states electoral votes, but the odds are that the votes would be attributed far more evenly, thus making the overall electoral vote more directly proportional to the popular vote.

Obviously this would be far more complex in the big states like NY, CA, TX, etc... But the system is essentially already in place and would go much farther toward insuring that every vote truly does count.

What do you think, should we move to a system where the popular vote is the only vote that matters?

During the rejoinders, Ryan responded by saying that our nation has gone from assuming our rights were derived from God to assuming our rights come from government. "And so, I do believe that the idea of the role of government has changed," he said.

I would contend that "limited government" is an oxymoron. The government is supposed to derive it's powers from the consent of the governed, therefore intrinsically limiting it to what the citizens want it to be.

Putting some sort of arbitrary limit on the powers of government is, in my opinion, antithetical to the nature of our democratic system. The government should not be allowed to create it's own power, but that is not the same as summarily limiting what the government has the power to do. Those decisions are made by the citizens through our representatives in Congress.

Now, whether or not Congress (i.e. Politicians) is bastardizing their role in the governmental process is an entirely different discussion. But I think that for the purposes of this venue, Brooks is right and Ryan is a little too caught up in the semantic argument about the role of government as opposed to it's overall function.

GOP: There'll be no compromise on tax cuts | McClatchy:

Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., who's expected to become the majority leader in the House when the new Congress is sworn in next year, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Sunday news programs that they'd insist on an extension of the tax cuts for wealthy. McConnell said that higher taxes on upper income earners would harm small businesses.

 The GOP overtook the House because it was the will of the people, apparently the will of the people means that it's the GOP way or the highway.

So, with all the talk about change in Washington, on this point at least, we are going to see no change, which most likely means that everyone's taxes will be going up, including the precious "small businesses" that the GOP is apparently sworn to defend at all costs. Why would they do that? Even Boehner admitted that he would vote for a compromise if it was all that was presented, well, at least until he said it out loud and had to immediately retract.

This is a political move. The GOP appears to be standing firm on their principals here, but in reality, they're just trying to build up the case against President Obama for 2012. Problem is, if they refuse to compromise on the tax cuts, they'll actually be more to blame for a tax increase than the Dems. If they won't even consider a compromise that maintains the Bush cuts for 99% of the country, what does that say about them? What does that tell the average voter? Does it say "We don't believe in raising taxes and we'll stick by our guns," or does it say "we'll do anything we can to make sure that the wealthiest 1% of Americans get the benefits of these cuts." 

To me it says, we are going to do everything we can to make sure that nothing happens over the next two years, and I can't say as I appreciate the GOP's newfound dedication to obstinacy. If the GOP wants to prove to Americans (and no just the Tea Party) that they are dedicated to change, then they need to prove it by actually changing something, as opposed to allowing change to happen through attrition.