WOMEN IN SWING STATES SHIFT TO ROMNEY:  A new USA/Gallup poll shows that women are shifting to Romney in 12 critical swing states, putting the Republican ticket in the lead overall, 50 to 46 percent.

GOODNIGHT, DEAR:  A study of 2,000 couples by the hotel chain Travelodge found that 90 percent of couples don’t say “I love you” before sleeping, 80 percent don’t kiss each other goodnight, 54 percent  sleep with their backs toward each other, and a quarter don’t like their partner touching them while sleeping.

MITT’S COATTAILS GROWING?:  Rep. Todd Akin (R) has now pulled ahead of incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill (D) in Missouri, 49 to 45 percent.  Likely attributable to Romney’s surging popularity.

THE TEA PARTY WILL WIN IN THE END:  It’s official:  Frank Rich at New York Magazine admits it. “This is a nation that loathes government and always has. Liberals should not be deluded: The Goldwater revolution will ultimately triumph, regardless of what happens in November.”  Let’s hope Americans do remember their constitutional roots and why big government is to be feared and loathed.  The tea party is alive and well.

A CULTURE OF DEPENDENCY=MODERN DAY SLAVERY:  The Tea Party Victory Fund has a compelling ad making the point that the progressive/liberal idea of government dependency is today’s version of slavery.  Their chief weapon?  The Obamaphone lady.    Oh, and before any liberals/progressives can scream “racism!,” the Tea Party Victory Fund is headed by Ken Blackwell, a former Cincinnati Mayor and Ohio Secretary of State, who is black (not that this will stop the “r” word accusation).

THE DOCTOR MADE ME DO IT (AND THAT’S OKAY):  A woman who had a consensual, extramarital affair with her family doctor–while under treatment for anxiety and depression–sued him for medical malpractice.  Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court (rightly, in my opinion) ruled in favor of the doctor, refusing to find that voluntary sexual relations with a patient under mental health treatment is per se negligent. 

CONSCIOUSNESS SCANNER OFFERS HOPE TO VEGETATIVE PATIENTS:  A special scanner developed in Canada is helping doctors more accurately diagnose patients believed to be completely vegetative (and thus, lacking in all consciousness).  The machine is able to show that some such patients are, in fact, conscious, but unable to respond in any way.  This is similar to functional MRI imaging used by Dr. Adrian Owen at Cambridge University, which has shown similar amazing results.

Bottom line?  What we know about the brain is presently very limited.  Some percentage patients believed to be “vegetative” are, in fact, conscious.  Evolving scientific understanding of brain injury should lead to greater recognition of disability rights and reticence to “pull the plug” too quickly.

SNAKES, SNAILS & SEX TOYS:  Apparently hotel guests are leaving behind a bizarre and growing array of items.

HOW PUBLIC SCHOOLS DEFINE “LIBERAL” & “CONSERVATIVE” (I KID YOU NOT):  My middle school-aged daughter was studying for a civics test on the American political system.  Two of her vocabulary words were “liberal” and “conservative.”  Here are the definitions she was supposed to memorize:

“Liberal:  favorable to progress or reform, as in political, social or religious affairs.“

“Conservative:  Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones and limit change.“

So let me get this straight:  Liberals are “favorable to progress” while conservatives are “disposed to . . . limit change.”   Ugh.

I had to write my daughter’s teacher a note to politely point out that while these might be decent generic definitions of the words, they are not accurate in the specific context of a civics class or study of the American political system.  In that context, the relevant distinction between liberals and conservatives has nothing to do with being favorable or unfavorable toward “progress” or “change,” but a difference in view about the proper size and scope of governmental power, with liberals believing generally in bigger government, conservatives believing generally in smaller government.

If this is how our children are learning to define “liberals” and “conservatives,” we are in BIG trouble, folks. Anyone with kids out there needs to monitor their child’s civics materials carefully.

GOT WRINKLES? TRY SNAIL SLIME:  Primarily marketed as an acne solution, the shelled slug’s mucus is also believed to reduce pigmentation and scarring, as well as beat wrinkles.  Ick– I think I will just learn to live with my laugh lines!

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION & THE PROBLEM OF “MISMATCH”:  Excellent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor about the problems caused by academic “mismatch” that results from race-based affirmative action in university admissions. The bottom line according to Sander and Taylor (both of whom confess to formerly supporting affirmative action):

There is now increasing evidence that students who receive large preferences of any kind—whether based on race, athletic ability, alumni connections or other considerations—experience some clear negative effects: Students end up with poor grades (usually in the bottom fifth of their class), lower graduation rates, extremely high attrition rates from science and engineering majors, substantial self-segregation on campus, lower self-esteem and far greater difficulty passing licensing tests (such as bar exams for lawyers).

THE SCARLET MANIFESTO?:  Dr. Peggy Drexler argues that the increasing social and economic parity of men and women is a proximate cause of equalizing rates of adultery across genders.  Unsurprising conclusion: “Women have more choices, and they are acting on them.”

BLACKLISTED:  John Fund at National Review Online discusses “The New Blacklist.”  On it?  Anyone who disagrees with progressive/liberal causes, particularly gay marriage.  Whatever one thinks about such issues, the aggressive intimidation tactics– outings, firings, etc.–are this generation’s McCarthyism.

LIBERAL BIAS IN LAW SCHOOL HIRING– A TEST CASE:  A first-of-its-kind trial begins Monday in Iowa, claiming that the University of Iowa law school violated the First Amendment rights of Teresa Wagner, a conservative woman turned down for a faculty position there.  Like most law schools, Iowa’s faculty was overwhelmingly Democrat, with 46 of 50 faculty members registered as such.  As an earlier study published in The Georgetown Law Journal in 2005 analyzed 11 years of federal campaign contributions by professors at the top 21 law schools as ranked by U.S. News & World Report.  Of those who gave $200 or more, the study found, 81 percent gave wholly or mostly to Democrats, while 15 percent gave wholly or mostly to Republicans. The percentage contributing to Democrats were shockingly lopsided at the most prestigious law schools: 91 percent at Harvard, 92 at Yale, 94 at Stanford.

The left-leaning nature of law faculties is undeniable (as with the rest of the academy).  In addition to a possible (probable) bias in hiring, one has to wonder:  What effect does this unbalanced, one-sided view of things have on lawyers’ learning of the law, particularly the Constitution?

THE INTOLERANCE OF INTOLERANCE:  Jonathan Turley has a great piece at the Washington Post about the decline of free speech in the western world over the last few decades.  He correctly observes, “It appears that the one thing modern society can no longer tolerate is intolerance.”

THE GENDER GAP NARROWS:  In this interesting piece from Melinda Henneburger at the Washington Post, she observes that the post-debate gender gap is narrowing, with more women breaking for Romney.  In part, this is because the Obama Administration’s primary selling point to women has always been abortion and contraceptives. Yet women are–like the country as a whole–deeply divided on abortion, with 49 percent self-identifying as pro-choice, 45 percent pro-life.   It’s the economy, stupid.

CONSTITUTIONAL DEFICIT DISORDER:  Seems our current President suffers from a bad case of CDD.  Primary symptoms:  disdain for constitutional limitations on power, disgust over the text’s original meaning, constipation, and dry mouth.  George Will explains one recent CDD attack suffered by President Obama and his Article II power to “fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.”

FREAKY FLIER:  A naturalized US citizen of Chinese descent was discovered by LAX authorities to have some rather odd items in his suitcase, including a smoke grenade as well as “three leather-coated billy clubs, a collapsible baton, a full-face respirator, various knives, a hatchet, body bags, a biohazard suit, handcuffs, leg irons, and a device to repel dogs.”

Oh, and he was also wearing a bullet proof vest and flame retardant pants under his trench coat.

Wouldn’t want to sit next to that guy.

Oh, and in a wonderful example of 21st century technology, I am presently at 39,000 feet, en route from Miami to D.C., blogging via WiFi on a 737.  Awesometown.

TONIGHT’S DEBATE MODERATOR RADDATZ HAS A HISTORY OF COMPLAINTS:  According to Joel Pollack at Breitbart, the VP debate moderator, ABC News’ Martha Raddatz, was widely criticized for her performance as the moderator of a 1990 Massachusetts gubernatorial race.  Reports Pollack:

In the days that followed, Raddatz–then known as Martha Bradlee, after her first marriage to fellow reporter Ben Bradlee, Jr.–came under intense criticism from the League of Women Voters for what they called “irrelevant,” personal questions.

During the debate, candidates Francis X. Bellotti and John R. Silber were asked, among other things, what they do when they see a homeless person, asked to describe their personal driving records, to comment on their prior knowledge of Kitty Dukakis’ problems with drugs and alcohol and to itemize the value of their real estate holdings,” reported Renee Loth of the Boston Globe at the time [1].

The League of Women Voters complained that Raddatz’s questions produced “no insight into the programs or policies of the candidates.”

A Democratic consultant agreed: “I don’t mind saying on the record that this was a crop of absolutely ridiculous, frivolous questions that were designed to call attention to the questioner,” i.e. to Raddatz.

Should be entertaining!

LIAR, LIAR, CAMPAIGN ON FIRE:  Dan Henninger has a great column in the Wall Street Journal today exposing the ubiquity of the Obama campaigns hurling of the “L” word— and we ain’t talking love here–at Mitt Romney.  Observes Henninger:

The L-word’s strength is directly proportional to the rarity and appropriateness of its use. Today in our politics it is as skuzzily routine as the F-bomb has become among 15-year-old girls on the New York City subways. This is not progress.

It will be interesting which variation of “lie”—if any—comes out of Joe Biden’s mouth in his debate with Paul Ryan. Mr. Biden comes from a political generation that could play rough, but it knew the limits of going too low at the presidential level. Or used to.

Can you say “Commander in Sleaze”?

HEY, TEA PARTY:  YOU KNOW YOU’RE ON TOP WHEN EVERYONE IS TRYING TO TAKE YOUR PLACE:   The tea party has been so successful in getting members of Congress elected that those members are now attracting specific, intensified opposition by labor and other progressive groups afraid of growing tea party prominence and power.  Says Greg Sargent over at the Washington Post Plum Line:

Despite a surge of optimism a few weeks back, Democrats appear likely to fall short of winning back the House. But progressives are hoping that by knocking off a few prize Tea Partyers, they will help fuel the narrative that the Tea Party is on the wane.

Yeah, good luck with that narrative!

JOE BIDEN DEBATE PREP:  This pic pretty much sums it up:

OBAMACARE FUN FACT #3:  Under section 4203 of the Affordable Care Act, all medical diagnostic equipment used by physicians, hospitals and other health care providers–e.g., ex-rays, exam tables, exam chairs, mammography equipment, MRIs, etc.– must be equipment that is “accessible to, and usable by, individuals with accessibility needs, and shall allow independent entry to, use of, and exit from the equipment by such individuals to the maximum extent possible.”

While I think we can all agree that this is a nice goal, is it really appropriate to mandate this, in this economy, regardless of its cost?  Price tag:  Unknown.

A LIBERAL CRITIQUE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:   Richard Kahlenberg has an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal, evaluating the insanity of today’s affirmative action efforts by universities and colleges.  Kahlenberg writes:

Given the evidence for the success of race-neutral alternatives, it’s difficult not to suspect that university officials who defend racial preferences are really after what Stephen Carter has called “racial justice on the cheap.” Racial preferences mostly benefit fairly privileged students of color; 86% of African-Americans at selective colleges were middle or upper class, according to Derek Bok and William Bowen in their book “The Shape of the River.”

There’s more. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s amicus brief in the Fisher case conceded that if it adopted a top 10% plan in North Carolina, racial diversity would increase somewhat. But the university complained that by admitting the top 10% of students from low-income high schools, the average combined SAT score would fall from 1317 to 1262. Is avoiding a possible slip in the annual US News & World Report rankings a strong enough reason to resort to racial preference in admissions?

Bottom line:  Race conscious policies consciously discriminate against non-minorities based on their race (regardless of their income), disproportionately help out upper income minorities, and do little/nothing to help lower income minorities– all in the name of achieving “diversity” while simultaneously keeping SAT scores up.   “Equal” protection of the laws?  Give me a break.

IN THE NAME OF “DIVERSITY? :  The Supreme Court today hears oral arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas, another affirmative action case.  At issue: Whether a public university can supplement a race-neutral admissions program (taking the top 10% of high school graduates) with a race-conscious one, when the race-neutral program already yields minority enrollment of over  50 percent?  In other words, is it consonant with the concept of “equal protection” to have a race-conscious policy in the name of achieving “diversity,” when diversity is already clearly achieved?  As the editors of the Wall Street Journal put it,

By 2010, more than half of all UT students were one ethnic minority or another—yet the school continues to claim that it must discriminate on the basis of race to achieve diversity and “critical mass.” How can a minority feel “isolated,” according to the Grutter standard, if half of the student body is minority?

Good question.