I’m not quite of the “certain age” referred to here(http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/12/on-paper-they-look-awful-lot-like.html), but I certainly identify with the women that Ann is referring to.  One thing that bothers me about Hillary even more than that she has ridden her husband’s coattails, though, is how badly she has let him treat her for the privilege of doing so. 

If I were to gain power and fame as the result of my (fantastic, loving, faithful) husband, well, that wouldn’t be particularly admirable, but I don’t think that I would feel too bad about it, either.  But no reasonable person could suggest that Bill is anything but a horrible husband, and it is very, very hard to believe that she would still be married to him if it weren’t for the gain she can get from it. 

http://www.newstarget.com/022330.html

this article is a little more, well, emotional then I usually look for, and I’m not sure about the nutritional angle, but it’s points are well worth considering.  My original career choice in life was psychiatry/psychology, but it was the victimization and focus on drugs that really made me decide not to go back, a choice that I am grateful for everyday. 

Most people don’t realize that these drugs, at best, only treat symptoms, akin to taking pain medications for a serious injury.  I wouldn’t say that there is absolutely no place for them, but you can’t consider a broken leg treated just because the pain is gone.

The overprescription of these meds on children and teens is, I think, nearing criminal negligence.  They may cover up the symptoms for a while, but we find ourselves more and more clueless about their real effects everyday.  I’m not the sort to encourage lawsuits, and I hate that this may appear to take blame off of the shooter, but I wonder how long it will be before we see victims of these sort shootings filing actions against the pharmaceutical companies and the prescribers for their role in making these people sick.  I suspect, and somewhat hope, that it will be sooner than later. 

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/29/digging-out-the-cnnyoutube-plants-abortion-questioner-is-edwards-supporter/

OK, this is getting ridiculous.  Was there any person who asked a question at last night’s debate that was actually considering any of the republican candidates? 

I’ve been a big fan of French President Sarkosky so far, but I think that these riots will really tell us how serious he really is about getting that country under control.  http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/27/lawlessness-in-paris-youths-now-shooting-at-police-%e2%80%9cthis-is-war-there-is-no-mercy-we-want-at-least-two-policemen-dead%e2%80%9d/

Although I enjoyed watching the debate last night, looking back, I’m really quite disappointed.  Very few of the questions seemed to be asked by people who actually wanted to know the candidates opinions on issues so as to better judge who to support.  If CNN is going to fly a fellow in to sit in the audience and ask a question, they should at least be able to Google his name first (YouTube being owned by Google and all) to find out that he is running a pro-Hillary group.  Ridiculous

Two questions, other than the Clinton plant, in particular really bugged me.  First, the man asking if the candidates believed everything in the Bible.  He was creepy, overbearing, and obviously chosen as a caricature of what CNN must believe is a Christian conservative. I’m not saying that people like him don’t exist, I do live in the South, after all, and I have known them.  That said, how on earth was whether the candidates believe in the literal truth of every word of the bible relevant to whether I would vote for them?  Even if it is, I’m absolutely sure that CNN got questions like that by people with far more credibility which could have been taken more seriously. 

The second, and more irritating, was the young woman who asked who would they punish if abortion were made illegal, the woman or the doctor.  This was, quite simply, a very stupid and ignorant question.  I find it very frustrating that most people do not have enough knowledge of or respect for our federalist system to know that the federal government does not, and should not, have control over abortion.  I’ll bet that this questioner believed, and had always been taught, that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortion would become illegal (and if she didn’t, I’m sure that she is not correcting anyone who does believe that).  However, CNN knows that abortion will not and cannot have a nationwide ban, and how it should be punished within states is not something that the president of the US should have any concern with.  They surely received questions that were more relevant to the abortion debate, but chose not to air them in order to allow this misleading scare tactic.

Shame, CNN, shame!

the over-thinking in the article, and the comments that follow, is just more support that liberals despise normal americans (such as those that do manual labor) and think that they are better than you. http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/clean_conscience.php

Juan Williams speaks out about the race baiters that deliberately take something that Bill O’Reilly said out of context to further a notion that he is a racist.  This is where they get their power.  

“The critics want to shut up Cosby, O’Reilly, me and anyone else who points out the crisis in black America. They want anyone who dares to speak publicly about problems in black America to fear being called a racist, if they are white, or a “Happy Negro” if they are black. They want silence so they can continue to make money by distorting black life and allowing black on black murder rates to climb along with the black dropout rate and the black poverty rate.

The critics want to paralyze efforts to help those locked in poverty and too often in a criminal culture where acceptance of drug use and violence becomes acceptable. They don’t want black people to be known as Americans with a long distinguished history of patriotism, reverence for education and a willingness to fight for America’s ideals — justice for all — despite the harsh facts of slavery and legal segregation.”

Read the whole thing: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1666573,00.html

Interesting article on Mitt Romney’s Mormonism.  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21049285/site/newsweek/  I would note that the writer characterizes his reluctance to talk much about his faith as a personal discomfort, but I think it may be more than that. Based on some conversations with friends that are (or more so, were) Mormons, the LDS have an emphasis on secrecy that most of us would find odd. There are certain tenets that just aren’t to be discussed with outsiders.  (the holy underwear, for one) This would, I imagine, make a public person who was asked about it somewhat uncomfortable. 

Proposal: taxpayer, oh, I mean gov’t pays you just for being born.  http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/3212  Cradle to grave, all on the government, that what they want. 

 Update: this is not polling well.  http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/10/01/baby-boomerang/

http://jaycurrie.info-syn.com/and-what-about-my-culture/