The term "legitimate" was in reference to a victim's claim, not the act itself. No one would characterize any rape as "legitimate". He should have said "in true cases of rape..." or something to that effect. Any discussion about whether Rep. Akin believes rape could ever be legitimate is a deliberate attempt to twist his words for political gain. One would think this is obvious.

On the other hand, he then alluded to the affect acute stress can have on ovulation and possibly implantation. We can all agree that he was way out of line by implying that pregnancy as a result of alleged rape is a reason to question the veracity of the victim, or to rely on physiology alone to prevent pregnancy in rape. This was not a poor choice of words; it was a serious error in judgment, a misapplication of science in matters of law, and something he knows almost nothing about.

To argue that Rep. Akin implied that rape could ever be legitimate looks like an attempt to slander a candidate with the stakes as high as they are in this election cycle. Rather, I would question his ability to organize his thoughts and distinguish issues more than I would any position he takes.

By looking at this story objectively I know I give myself away polotically. I believe life begins at conception, as is taught in every medical school in the world, but also that in some cases hard choices have to be made where a life may have to be taken intentionally due to grave errors on the part of others (national defense, self-defense, crimes of passion, etc.)

I defend Rep. Akin on his intention to differentiate legitimate cases of rape from feigned accusations, but I cannot defend his misuse of science to infer what should be done in tragic cases of rape pregnancy. It's much too serious a topic to make weak stretches like that to defend his position, apology or not.

Why do you say I missed it? That's presumptive. Then I may presume you don't miss Reid's reactions to the House's budget proposals. I recall he declared the very first House budget in 2011 would be DOA when it reached the Senate. Hundreds of elected officials pass a budget and he talks like that. Since you mention Boehner, shall we dare pin Polosi's comments on Obama? How about Rangel's, Clyburn's, Reid's, or even Biden's? That would not be fair. I was referring earlier to the demeanor and language of our highest executive and one reason politics appears so ugly to some. Maybe I am too old to overlook what he meant by the back of the bus remark. It was ugly because it was racially tinged and smacked of vengence. Telling entrepreneurs they didn't build their businesses was not pretty either. The ugliness lies in the personal nature of the remarks, independently of whether they were poorly chosen words or that he had a slightly different meaning behind them than what thousands or millions of business owners heard. The ugliness lies in the perception of personal attack from a sitting president. Anyway, all this is too ugly for me. I'll leave the forum for now and visit again in November after the elections. (No, I am not feeling beaten--I love learning from those who differ. I just feel out of place with just some old film cameras and a Fuji F10 as my only digital.) Thanks for letting me share the space and for the interesting exhanges. Peace.

We will also outlast the current trend toward socialism. The next general election will be followed by a rapid economic recovery.

To answer the quesiton about why politics has become so ugly, it really has been that way from the beginning--it just changes shades and themes. What we call the current ugliness is the divisive nature of current leftist politics. The hope of some is that with enough numbers on their side, there is no need to unite the country. To them, it's not about what's right or best for the future of our nation as a whole, but about taking over. I use their language, not mine. Recall Obama, after winning the White House and the Dems retaining Congressional majorities, telling us that Republicans can go along for the ride, but they will have to sit in the back of the bus this time? How's that for a one-liner invitation to work together? Can you even imagine the prior president talking that way?

You bring up cancer and layoffs. I did (and may still) have cancer and was also laid off in my 50's with no retirement other than what I saved in my years at a non-union, family owned factory. I then moved my family for an out-of-state for a job, then took a second pay cut for my third job in as many years. I'm not complaining, just saying that crap happens to conservatives, too.

I believe very much in public assistance where needed, but not for those who don't know the meaning of a dollar or who refuse to work or when families don't care for their own. My point about what I call the Dependent Class is that Obama et al seem to be encouraging dependency, even to the point of brainwashing traditionally conservative hard-working immigrants into seeing America as a land of hand-outs and unenforced immigration laws. (This is sad, like the destruction of a culture, or do I romantacize?) I believe this is part of a planned strategy to create a permanent dependent class to either 1) keep the Left in power indefinitely, or 2) destroy America's strength and independence. It borders on sinister. This is not Rush-talk. I thought of it on my own from what I observe and from my limited experience with calculus and physics. It's all about votes, nothing more. It's very simple, but very scary. Once we hit the level of where the economy continues to slide and the majority of voters need the government to get by, we're screwed. By the way, any assumption or stereotype you might make of me would be way off on just about any topic. Sure, I understand the principles of federal insurance programs, and I don't criticize those who truly need them. We just seem to be evolving the definition of need for political gain, in a way we cannot sustain and survive as the nation we know. Can't you hear Obama say "Ask not what you can do for..."? You know the rest. Really, it's not a stretch, is it? It just seems to be more about power than compassion with him and those who got him here. I also think that true conservatives care more about the survival of our nation than ruling anything, and more about opportunities for work rather than equal outcomes. Is it so wrong?

We clearly need balance and fairness and some reference what what represents need and opportunity. It's not so easy given the shrinking world and the prevalence of forces which hate religous freedom and/or capitalism to the core.

I partially agree. Bush was indeed on the bandwagon that home ownership would help people's financial standing regardless of their credit-worthiness, even though this was not his program. It made sense at the time with ever increasing real-estate values. There are precious few in government who saw trouble coming, but they were silenced in a bipartisan way.

Recall that the nation debated for months whether we were actually in a recession in 2009. However, when Bush took office there was no doubt about the 2001 recession which began in 2000. The difference between the two presidents is that Bush accepted this as a part of the normal business cycle. On the other hand, the Dems would have us believe that downturn in 2008 would be permanent without Obama's actions. (This was Obama's theme and still is.)Obama re-writes the fundamentals of macro-economics and the people buy it. Another falicy is that Clinton, not a Republican Congress, balanced the budget. Clinton did have a role as not only a compromiser, but someone seeing an opportunity to take the credit. Likewise, Clinton incorrectly credited for Welfare Reform, though this was not his doing--he personally credited Reagan for this as well. Congress does the bulk of the budget work, just as Reid and Polosi are to be thanked for the latest deficits. To blame the president is too easy and requires no understanding of how things work. I really don't care what you or any other liberal thinks of my comments. Anyone who would support Obama again is hopelessly lost. I even admit feeling a tinge of hope for unity after the last election. I was actually fooled into thinking he just might help unite our country. Like Bush and his support of sub-prime lending, I was wrong. I, too, was fooled for a moment by the president's charm. Trouble is, it's all he has. The only permanent downturn we may see is if we do not turn things around, as painful as it will be. We cannot keep on borrowing to buy votes from the dependent class.

My fear is that blame has crept into the all political speech permanently. I challenge readers here to reference two speeches where President Bush blamed his predecessor for the recession that was in place when he started his first term. I also challenge anyone to find a single speech by our current president where he does not categorically blame Bush or his party for everything he does not like or understand. I hope Romney overcomes the temptation to use blame. Funny, Obama doesn't even know how to give credit where it belongs. "You didn't build that!" "Ask not what you can do for your Country, but what your country can do for You." If we re-elect him and leave the Senate in Dem hands, we deserve problems that will follow. But that's alright, we can blame it all forever on Bush. Obama even takes credit for the GM re-org as well as the repayments GM made after the initial Bush bail-out, and the public falls for it. Incredible.

Leftists just don't see the problem with our mounting national debt. They act as though others should always pick up the tab. Ryan, though obviously not as mature and well-spoken as Biden, at least understands what a budget is.

help - if he is allowed to debate on a major network
hurt - if the press airs only the Dem spin

Romney

If you like boogie-woodie or stride, you HAVE to check out Hiromi and her tribute to the Tom and Jerry show. The stuff out there from age 16 is incredible.

I was not aware of that Kentucky festival. Thanks for posting it.

The problem with this view is the government, by definition, does dictate the definition of marriage because marriage is a matter of law, a strictly legal entity. This is not a question about forcing others: we do that already, and very explicitly, using laws. You exercise the same when you vote. The question is about what the laws should contain. Wanting to influence the law is not the same as mistreating people of another opinion. One is a legal question, the others is about civility. Some believe that people who disagree with them should have no right to try to influence the legislature, or are otherwise judged as intolerant. We ALL have a right to see whatever laws we wish to see get passed! True intolerance, and the danger to society, is when some would tell others to keep their opinions to themselves. By all means, if you think homosexuals should have a right to marry accordingly, vote Left. If you think you have no right to force your opinion on others, don't vote. But, don't call the Right intolerant because they wish to exercise their constitutional rights by wanting to pass laws with which you disagree. In doing so would be more wrong than they on the issue of tolerance. I welcome all sorts of opinions and the people who hold them, but unlike what I understand in what was written above, I want them to try to force their opinion on me by their vote (legally and just once, hopefully). This is real tolerance. It's a basic Constitutional concept, not a matter of narrow-mindedness vs liberality.

Excuse me for this aside, but I see there are a number of thinking people here who also have opinions. I pose a question to libs, cons, and anyone in between: I am yet to hear a rational defense of why marriage should be restricted to two adults once gender is ignored. Can anyone tell me why marriage among three men or three women should be illegal? I can think of many benefits, but I want to hear a logical defense of why two should be the magic number once since marriage no longer means one from column A and one from column B. Dare we say tradition?

I meant RC in lieu of radiation--I should have mentioned that.

Do you need the microwave for speed? It's not everyone's favorite but I had some decent luck with resin coated paper for clean and quick drying. It was nice to see the D2 in the darkroom. I also had a D2V and regrettably sold it. I have the smaller med. format version now. It has the same solid construction and ease of use. I also see you spend so much time in the darkroom that you installed all the plumbing necessities for those marathon print sessions. Great idea!