Saturday, September 15, 2012

Bacteria, Part of Us? Its Ubiquitous, Symbiotic & Competing Relationship With The Human Body

This article--the proposition it offers, the images it creates--may not be what you were seeking or expecting today. In fact, you might find it all unwelcome, and more than a little unsettling--maybe even repulsive. But from a physiological point of view, it is likely correct. And from a health and medical possibilities point of view, it offers real hope to many sufferers of disease or physiological dysfunction for whom medical science has had no answers. From the always informative Science and Technology section of The Economist:
 
People are not just people. They are an awful lot of microbes, too.
 
[I]n the nooks and crannies of every human being, and especially in his or her guts, dwells the microbiome: 100 trillion bacteria of several hundred species bearing 3 million non-human genes. [B]iological [revolutionaries] believe these should count, too; that humans are not single organisms, but superorganisms made up of lots of smaller organisms working together.
 
It might sound perverse to claim bacterial cells and genes as part of the body, but the revolutionary case is a good one. They are, rather, fully paid-up members of a community of which the human “host” is but a single (if dominating) member. This view is increasingly popular: the world’s leading scientific journals, Nature and Science, have both reviewed it extensively in recent months. It is also important: it will help the science and practice of medicine (see the more detailed Economist article linked below).
 
All in this together
 
The microbiome does many jobs in exchange for the raw materials and shelter its host provides. One is to feed people more than 10% of their daily calories. These are derived from plant carbohydrates that human enzymes are unable to break down. And not just plant carbohydrates. Mother’s milk contains carbohydrates called glycans which human enzymes cannot digest, but bacterial ones can. This alone shows how closely host and microbiome have co-evolved over the years. But digestion is not the only nutritional service provided. The microbiome also makes vitamins, notably B2, B12 and folic acid. It is, moreover, capable of adjusting its output to its host’s needs and diet. The microbiomes of babies make more folic acid than do those of adults. And microbiomes in vitamin-hungry places like Malawi and rural Venezuela turn out more of these chemicals than do those in the guts of North Americans.
 
The microbiome also maintains the host’s health by keeping hostile interlopers at bay. An alien bug that causes diarrhea, for instance, is as much an enemy of the microbiome as of the host. Both have an interest in zapping it. And both contribute to the task. Host and microbiome, then, are allies. But there is more to it than that. For the latest research shows their physiologies are linked in ways which make the idea of a human superorganism more than just a rhetorical flourish.
 
These links are most visible when they go wrong. A disrupted microbiome has been associated with a lengthening list of problems: obesity and its opposite, malnutrition; diabetes (both type-1 and type-2); atherosclerosis and heart disease; multiple sclerosis; asthma and eczema; liver disease; numerous diseases of the intestines, including bowel cancer; and autism. The details are often obscure, but in some cases it looks as if bugs are making molecules that help regulate the activities of human cells. If these signals go wrong, disease is the consequence. This matters because it suggests doctors have been looking in the wrong place for explanations of these diseases. It also suggests a whole new avenue for treatment. If an upset microbiome causes illness, settling it down might effect a cure.
 
[…]Two other areas look promising. One is more sophisticated deployment of the humble antibiotic, arguably the pharma industry’s most effective invention. At the moment antibiotics are used mainly to kill infections. In the future they might have a more subtle use—to manipulate the mix of bugs within a human, so that good bugs spread at the expense of bad ones.
 
The other field that may be changed is genetics. Many of the diseases in which the microbiome is implicated seem to run in families. In some, such as heart disease, that is partly explained by known human genes. In a lot, though, most notably autism, the genetic link is obscure. This may be because geneticists have been looking at the wrong set of genes—the 23,000 rather than the 3m. For those 3m are still inherited. They are largely picked up from your mother during the messy process of birth. Though no clear example is yet known, it is possible that particular disease-inducing strains are being passed down the generations in this way.
 
As with all such upheavals, it is unclear where the microbiome revolution will end up. Doctors and biologists may truly come to think of people as superorganisms. Then again, they may not. What is clear, though, is that turning thinking inside out in this way is yielding new insights into seemingly intractable medical problems, and there is a good chance cures will follow.
 
---“Microbes maketh man,” The Economist, Leaders section (8.18.2012)
 
In the same edition of The Economist is broader, more detailed article on the same topic: “The Human Microbiome: Me, Myself, Us.” It is worth the read.
 
 
Back-up links:
 

Monday, September 10, 2012

Embracing the Implications of Increasing Latino Populations and Voters

I did not grow up in a community that exposed me to many Latinos (or Latin-Americans, a term I would more likely have used). I was raised in Rhode Island, where my relatives and  ancestors had evolved a rather disciplined, Yankee-white-bread identity of understated but respectable life and accomplishment. And while mine was also the experience of growing up with the children and grandchildren of the great European migrations to America--"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free..."—not many Latinos who shared that same description and aspiration had found their way to Coventry, Rhode Island.
 
But since I left high school for the Marine Corps in the '60's, my experience there, and later in Boston at college, graduate school, and ever since and wherever I was, the issues and challenges of growing Latino populations, assimilation, education, and immigration have moved with increasing speed toward the front of America's important domestic issues. I can still remember in the early '70s, in Boston, struggling to understand it all. There were the discussions about the need for bi-lingual education with old friend and bi-lingual Spanish teacher, Mary Furman--and with her good friend, Jorge Quiroga, a reporter for a TV station for whom being a Latino and advocating for strong and self-respecting Latino identity in America seemed a very personal cause.
 
It's been a long road for Latinos since then, and in that time my understandings have expanded, perhaps sharpened, too. And with them the understanding that Latinos and all the issues surrounding them are now of such importance and materiality that they are changing both the face and future of American life. And we need to embrace that fact and the implications.
 
Foreign Affairs asked Ray Suarez, Senior Correspondent for PBS NewsHour, to review an important new book, Latinos in the New Millennium: An Almanac of Opinion, Behavior, and Policy Preferences. It appears to be packed with research data and informed analysis. Ray Suarez brings his personal and journalistic experience and balance to the review. Mr. Suarez:
 
[…] Latinos in the New Millennium represents a potential antidote to this vapid [politically-driven] discourse and a data-rich corrective to the stereotypes that too often define Hispanics in the United States. Aptly describing the book as an almanac, its authors, a group of academic experts, have collected and synthesized a massive quantity of data on the political and personal sentiments of Latinos across all lines of national origin, citizenship and immigration status, and income and educational levels. Their findings simultaneously clarify and complicate the reductive portrait of Latinos that frames discussions of their social and political relevance.
 
Strategists and theorists from both major political parties take heed: making [Latinos] yours in the years to come might be much harder than you think. Doing so will require contending with a set of contradictory qualities: progressive politics mixed with conservative values, assimilationist ideals in conflict with hardening ethnic identities, and meritocratic aspirations bumping up against the reality of academic underachievement.
 
---“Latin Lessons: Who Are Hispanic Americans, and How Will They Vote?” by Ray Suarez, Foreign Affairs (September-October 2012)
 
Doesn’t it always come back to education, sooner or later? And the productivity of our society is just an extension of how well we fulfill the education potential of every American—and the most compelling areas of focus must include those areas and groups for whom academic underachievement has too often been the reality. That includes many Latin-Americans. And Mr. Suarez chooses that point to stress in closing:
[...] Whatever the reasons for it, academic underachievement among Latinos is a challenge far more important than any effort to understand Latinos for short-term political gain. That is because of the degree to which the United States’ success in the coming half century will depend on Latino success. In a few decades, the US economy will increasingly rest on a largely nonwhite, heavily Latino work force providing services and care to millions of mostly white retirees. As Latinos become a larger part of the American whole, quietly consigning them to failure and isolation is hardly a recipe for national prosperity and stability, Whether they realize it or not, all Americans are now deeply invested in the successful integration of Latinos. Their own future affluence and well-being might well depend on it.
 
Latinos in the New Millennium appears a book well worth reading and understanding—especially if we really do want to better understand the social, political and economic implications of this large and growing Latino population.
 
 
Link (may provide only limited access):
 

Sunday, September 2, 2012

The Economist: So, Mitt, what do you really believe?

The Economist--that figurative fortress on the high ground of market economics, that most respected voice in defense of the free marketplace--they like a lot about Mitt Romney's history of leadership success, both as CEO of Bain and as Governor of Massachusetts. But they are trying to figure out what happened to that Mitt Romney, and who he really is today. They'd like to be able to endorse him, but...
 
But we’re getting out ahead of ourselves, aren’t we? Let’s start with their opening statement of reasons for concern about who Mitt Romney really is today, but also the reasons they liked who he was, and for their early enthusiasm about his candidacy. The Economist:
 
WHEN Mitt Romney was governor of liberal Massachusetts, he supported abortion, gun control, tackling climate change and a requirement that everyone should buy health insurance, backed up with generous subsidies for those who could not afford it. Now, as he prepares to fly to Tampa to accept the Republican Party’s nomination for president on August 30th, he opposes all those things. A year ago he favoured keeping income taxes at their current levels; now he wants to slash them for everybody, with the rate falling from 35% to 28% for the richest Americans.
 
All politicians flip-flop from time to time; but Mr Romney could win an Olympic medal in it (see [Briefing] article). And that is a pity, because this newspaper finds much to like in the history of this uncharismatic but dogged man, from his obvious business acumen to the way he worked across the political aisle as governor to get health reform passed and the state budget deficit down. We share many of his views about the excessive growth of regulation and of the state in general in America, and the effect that this has on investment, productivity and growth. After four years of soaring oratory and intermittent reforms, why not bring in a more businesslike figure who might start fixing the problems with America’s finances?
 
---“So, Mitt, what do you really believe?” The Economist, Leaders section (8.25.2012)
 
And by the way, in that early going, there were many of we independents giving him a fair hearing, as well. I, too, liked the same things about Governor Romney. But then, sooner or later, we all saw and heard the same things the good folks at The Economist did, didn’t we? But let’s hear it from them:
 
But competence is worthless without direction and, frankly, character. Would that Candidate Romney had indeed presented himself as a solid chief executive who got things done. Instead he has appeared as a fawning PR man, apparently willing to do or say just about anything to get elected. In some areas, notably social policy and foreign affairs, the result is that he is now committed to needlessly extreme or dangerous courses that he may not actually believe in but will find hard to drop; in others, especially to do with the economy, the lack of details means that some attractive-sounding headline policies prove meaningless (and possibly dangerous) on closer inspection. Behind all this sits the worrying idea of a man who does not really know his own mind. America won’t vote for that man; nor would this newspaper. The convention offers Mr Romney his best chance to say what he really believes.
 
You can judge for yourself whether Mr. Romney’s speech at the GOP convention cleared everything up for you. Suffice it to say, it left me with only more questions about him, and less confidence in him. But it’s also true that I support Barack Obama’s re-election. I thought he did as effective and honorable a job as could be done having inherited two questionable wars, a growing budget deficit, the worst financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression, and an obstructionist Republican Congress intent on denying him every initiative whether it was good for the country or not. Yes, there were things I was unhappy with him about, but on the whole, a good job. (And as we are discussing, I’ve not yet seen or heard anything that would make me consider throwing him over for Mitt Romney.)
 
This article in The Economist goes on to provide more detail about their particular policy concerns, but I’ll leave you to click on the link to read more about that, and you may read more still in the larger, related “Briefing” article later in this same edition. But allow me to end with the articles final comments, and then a few of my own:
Playing dumb is not an option 
Mr Romney may calculate that it is best to keep quiet: the faltering economy will drive voters towards him. It is more likely, however, that his evasiveness will erode his main competitive advantage. A businessman without a credible plan to fix a problem stops being a credible businessman. So does a businessman who tells you one thing at breakfast and the opposite at supper. Indeed, all this underlines the main doubt: nobody knows who this strange man really is. It is half a decade since he ran something. Why won’t he talk about his business career openly? Why has he been so reluctant to disclose his tax returns? How can a leader change tack so often? Where does he really want to take the world’s most powerful country? 
It is not too late for Mr Romney to show America’s voters that he is a man who can lead his party rather than be led by it. But he has a lot of questions to answer in Tampa.
And so, I can only repeat the question I posed above: Did Mr. Romney’s speech in Tampa clarify things for you? Are your concerns now allayed? Are you feeling more confident about Mitt Romney as our Presidential leader?
 
Of course, depending on your political orientation, and your notion of honorable and effective government, you might be greatly relieved, or despondent, or even terrified to remember Grover Norquist’s comments during the 2012 GOP primaries. The influential Mr. Norquest—many would say, powerful—author, Congressional recruiter and enforcer of the so-called “No-Tax Pledge,” remarked that it didn’t matter who won the primary, so long as he won the general election. Because with the GOP majorities in the House also expected in the Senate, it would be the GOP Congress that would control legislative initiative and passage. “ We just need a President to sign this stuff,” he said—and also suggested that a President Romney would do what he is told. Yes, Mr. Norquist was and is that arrogant, that full of himself, that he actually said that with a complete sense of authority and impunity. (For more details about all that just Google “Grover Norquist, We just need a president…”)
 
I don’t know if that makes you feel better or worse about a Romney presidency. For me, it’s clearly more a feeling of surrealistic foreboding.
 
But hey, let’s think a little crazy here. No, really crazy. Let’s just assume that no one could be so bereft of personal integrity as to flip-flop so often on such material matters of principle and policy—and especially not a religious man who had previously conducted himself quite honorably, at least within the context and expectations of his vocations and roles. Since I’ve now openly crossed into the realm of the surreal, why not contemplate a Mitt Romney authoring a quiet, self-effacing strategy--a conspiracy, really-- to undermine or frustrate the greatest hopes and aspirations of the ascendant Right Wing of the GOP. Let’s imagine him insinuating himself into the playbook of Mr. Norquist and the Right Wing leadership, casting himself as the pliable, witless stooge of a president that they seek.
 
Of course, we would have to assume a failed re-election bid by Barack Obama—which, right now, would appear to require the President’s purposeful effort to craft the worst possible campaign directions and strategies, and then make them worse still. I’m just saying. Then, President Romney, seeing it as his patriotic duty to restore a more balanced, responsible Republican Party, makes common cause with Congressional Democrats and the remaining few moderate Republicans to frustrate the purposes and legislative success of the GOP’s Right Wing majority. He restores his previously unerring bearings, and his former mantle of leadership and success. He restores broad respect for more centrist thinking, politics and collaboration. The country’s electorate now sees clearly its waywardness, and in the future votes more responsibly for statesmen and deal makers, more moderate progress builders of both parties.
 
Ah, down the rabbit hole with Alice. But I ask you, which is more surrealistic, my sojourn in restoration reverie, or the unnerving realities of today’s extreme political characters—caricatures, really—and the dysfunctional political environment of their creation? It’s a close call, isn’t it?
 
 
Link:
 

Saturday, September 1, 2012

Grand Visionary or Myopic Ideologue? Joe Klein on Paul Ryan; FOXNEWS.com on His Speech

Does Paul Ryan offer a fresh, grand vision for America--or merely reflect the myopia and limitations of recycled Ayn Rand Objectivism? Let's join the discussion with Time's Joe Klein, then look at an utterly unexpected review of Paul Ryan’s GOP convention speech by Sally Kohn for FOXNEWS.com. First, Joe Klein:
 
Paul Ryan, 42, is the perfect picture of a traditional Republican Vice President.
 
But there is something radically different about the Ryan pick, something I've never seen before. This presidential campaign is now, substantively, all about him. The maddeningly vague Mitt Romney has effectively outsourced his job as intellectual leader of the ticket to his occasionally specific junior partner. Romney seems to have mixed feelings about that, flipping another flop on the Ryan budget, which he once called "marvelous" and now has walked away from, saying he's going to come up with a budget of his own one of these days. Romney also had a fair amount of trouble describing his view of Ryan's plan to voucherize Medicare. The Ryan pick may have energized the Republican base, but Romney remains the same old awkward, evasive Romney.
 
And so we seem to be headed for a campaign of ideas--Ryan's ideas--and that may or may not be a good thing. Yes, it's important to have a ground-zero discussion about the sort and size of government we want to have. The trouble with Ryan's deep thinking on so many of these issues, though, is that it's not very deep at all. He lives in a libertarian Disneyland where freedom is never abused, where the government is an alien entity whose only function is to flummox the creative intelligence of übermensches like Ayn Rand's hero, the architect Howard Roark. It is remarkable and, frankly, a bit terrifying that this puerile vision has become the operating philosophy of the Republican Party.
 
---“Paul Ryan's Grand Vision,” by Joe Klein, Time (8.23.2012)
 
As a young man, I felt it important to expose myself to the range of political philosophies and ideological perspectives that, in part, also informed the more broadly embraced, more practicable, political paths in the middle. One of those was a purist form of libertarianism and laissez faire capitalism: “Objectivism,” so-called by its principle author and advocate, Ayn Rand. She was a Russian émigré with some understandably strong views and apparent scars formed by her years in the workers’ paradise.
 
She advocated a "full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism,” and viewed it as the only moral social system. And her Objectivism held that the proper functions of a government are "the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objectively defined laws," the executive, and legislature.  Furthermore, in protecting individual rights, the government is acting as an agent of its citizens and "has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens." And that’s about it: uncontrolled, unregulated capitalism, and a minimalist government with the simple charter to maintain and support the police, army, and court functions for the protection of people’s property, their person, and their individual rights. [Quotes from Wikipedia: Objectivism (Ayn Rand)]
 
She was best known for her several novels with that same clear and consistent Objectivist message. Although I've not read The Fountainhead, with its celebrated hero Howard Roark. I did read her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged, pursuing the answers to her opening question, Who is John Galt? And I was provoked by the title to also read The Virtue of Selfishness, which continued to beat the same drum one too many times for me. I later added a reference copy of Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, a compilation of essays based on Objectivist thinking written by Rand and her two protégés, Nathaniel Branden and Alan Greenspan (yes, that Alan Greenspan). Forty-some years later, that is the only volume of hers I retain; but I remain familiar enough with Ayn Rand and Objectivism.
 
I mention all this because Time’s Joe Klein draws the parallel between the more pure libertarian and capitalist views of Mr. Ryan and the Fountainhead hero, Howard Roark--and because the parallel appears so apt. As we mature with the experience, realities and responsibilities of a greater sense of community and state, we become more socially accountable as participants in political and economic life. And it becomes clear how lacking in dimensions and answers—how impractical and inadequate, really—Objectivism, or other strains of pure libertarianism and unregulated capitalism, are to satisfying the conditions for a vibrant, yet resilient economy. And then there are the social needs of a citizenry that must be well educated, kept healthy, and supported when unable to do so themselves. These too are essentials for a strong, resilient economy and and stable polity—but also for an advanced, accountable society.

It seems to me easy to see the parallels between the thinking and policy positions of Ayn Rand and Paul Ryan; for both, it is all more about minimalist government structures and roles, the ideal of a more pure laissez faire capitalist system, and the incentives for the intellectual elite that drive it. The rest of the people may succeed, fail or suffer under it; but that is not their focus.
 
So, there are reasons that most libertarian candidates find themselves marginalized at the end of the day, just as Ron Paul did. While they have some very valid, even important, points to make, some worthy issues to raise, and some attractive ideas to voice and share, they also ignore or disavow so many other important points, issues and ideas that are important to a modern, socially-accountable economy and society. And sooner or later, most people come to recognize this—and they will with Mr. Ryan, as well. More from Joe Klein:
 
Worse, some of Ryan's most important ideas have been tried and proved failures. Ryan has produced various plans, proposals and two actual federal budgets, and they all have one thing in common: they cut taxes drastically. In his 2011 budget, which he sent to the Congressional Budget Office for scoring, he estimated that despite the drastic cut in rates, the revenue would remain the same as a percentage of gross domestic product. This is supply-side economics, the utterly uncorroborated theory that the less people pay in taxes, the more they'll produce. Ryan's mentor Jack Kemp sold Ronald Reagan on it in 1980. The result was such a huge hole in the federal deficit that in 1982, Reagan was forced to come back with one of the largest proportional tax increases in American history. Supply-side tax cuts didn't work for George W. Bush either. By contrast, Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed. Who knew?
 
In Ryan's 2010 budget, all taxes on capital gains were lifted. By this standard, according to the Atlantic, Romney would have paid a tax rate of less than 1% in 2010, the only year for which we have his returns. In some of his proposals, Ryan has replaced the capital gains tax with a sales tax, or VAT, which would have the perverse effect of raising taxes on the middle class and poor while lowering them for the rich. In Ryan's world--in Rand's fantasy--average folks are taxed because they haven't had the good sense to become wealthy.
 
Because of the hilariously inappropriate tax cuts, Ryan's budget doesn't reduce the deficit very quickly, but it is imbalanced on the backs of the poor and elderly. I believe that poverty is often the result of inappropriate behavior--out-of-wedlock births, dropping out of school, crime and drugs--which should not be rewarded. But often it isn't, and common decency requires that we take care of the least of these. Ryan's Medicare proposal is Exhibit A when it comes to his casual inhumanity: he would force the elderly, many of whom are addled and decrepit, to make market choices in one of the most complicated, opaque markets around. Ryan's Medicaid proposal would eviscerate long-term care for the elderly poor. Republicans whine about class warfare, but what is this? It is a reversion to a more brutal, less humane state of nature. It is an "idea" whose time has gone.
 
Joe Klein is usually more tempered in his tone and views than in this piece—at least that’s my personal take on his writing style. But I am a fan. I think he’s just so concerned that Mr. Ryan is trying to fly under the radar and avoid being outed for his more extreme views regarding social issues, especially those affecting the retired, elderly and unable. And there’s more to be concerned about, much more, but I will allow this most surprising FOXNEWS.com review of Paul Ryan’s GOP convention speech on Wednesday night to speak for itself--and for me. From Sally Kohn, a writer and contributor to FOXNEWS.com:
Aug. 29, 2012: Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan addresses the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla.  
1. Dazzling 
At least a quarter of Americans still don’t know who Paul Ryan is, and only about half who know and have an opinion of him view him favorably. So, Ryan’s primary job tonight was to introduce himself and make himself seem likeable, and he did that well. 
[…] To anyone watching Ryan’s speech who hasn’t been paying much attention to the ins and outs and accusations of the campaign, I suspect Ryan came across as a smart, passionate and all-around nice guy — the sort of guy you can imagine having a friendly chat with while watching your kids play soccer together. And for a lot of voters, what matters isn’t what candidates have done or what they promise to do —it’s personality. On this measure, Mitt Romney has been catastrophically struggling and with his speech, Ryan humanized himself and presumably by extension, the top of the ticket. 
2. Deceiving 
On the other hand, to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold. 
[…] Fact: While Ryan tried to pin the downgrade of the United States’ credit rating on spending under President Obama, the credit rating was actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling
Fact: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shutdown of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush. Ryan actually asked for federal spending to save the plant, while Romney has criticized the auto industry bailout that President Obama ultimately enacted to prevent other plants from closing. 
Fact: Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit for private sector success to government, that isn't what the president said. Period. 
Fact: Though Paul Ryan accused President Obama of taking $716 billion out of Medicare, the fact is that that amount was savings in Medicare reimbursement rates (which, incidentally, save Medicare recipients out-of-pocket costs, too) and Ryan himself embraced these savings in his budget plan
Elections should be about competing based on your record in the past and your vision for the future, not competing to see who can get away with the most lies and distortions without voters noticing or bother to care. Both parties should hold themselves to that standard. Republicans should be ashamed that there was even one misrepresentation in Ryan’s speech but sadly, there were many. 
3. Distracting 
And then there’s what Ryan didn’t talk about.  
Ryan didn’t mention his extremist stance on banning all abortions with no exception for rape or incest, a stance that is out of touch with 75% of American voters. Ryan didn’t mention his previous plan to hand over Social Security to Wall Street. Ryan didn’t mention his numerous votes to raise spending and balloon the deficit when George W. Bush was president 
Ryan didn’t mention how his budget would eviscerate programs that help the poor and raise taxes on 95% of Americans in order to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires even further and increase — yes, increase —the deficit 
These aspects of Ryan’s resume and ideology are sticky to say the least. He would have been wise to tackle them head on and try and explain them away in his first real introduction to voters. But instead of Ryan airing his own dirty laundry, Democrats will get the chance. 
Ryan may have helped solve some of the likeability problems facing Romney, but ultimately by trying to deceive voters about basic facts and trying to distract voters from his own record, Ryan’s speech caused a much larger problem for himself and his running mate. 
---“Paul Ryan’s Speech in Three Words,” by Sally Kohn, FOXNEWS.com (8.30.2012)

I must confess my surprise at a review so openly and unreservedly critical of Paul Ryan and his speech allowed space on FOXNEWS.com. And the last two subtopics were written with a tone of genuine disapproval and conviction. Is FOX NEWS actually seeking more openly opposing views? Or has Ms. Kohn written her last piece for them?
 
Regardless, it appears to me both accurate and fair enough, even if the tone of it is honed to a fine if intemperate edge. I tip my hat to FOX NEWS for publishing a review and point of view clearly at odds with the general bent and positions of the FOX network.


Links: